Peterman pros and cons...

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

14 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

How does anyone know?  How has he proven otherwise--that he can handle an aggressive pass rush? 

 

 

 

Youre right. But we are going to know shortly.

 

Ravens must be planning on to sending the house at him to see if he panics and throws up punt lobs again... 

 

the real question in my mind is if he bombs out, now what? If Allen isn’t ready today it’s not changing in a week. 

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

Youre right. But we are going to know shortly.

 

Ravens must be planning on to sending the house at him to see if he panics and throws up punt lobs again... 

 

the real question in my mind is if he bombs out, now what? If Allen isn’t ready today it’s not changing in a week. 

We don't know if Allen is ready, we don't know how close the guys that matter, McD and Daboll think Allen is ready. They may think Nate has a long leash. They may think he has a short leash (which is my opinion). 

[Mr. WEO]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You may be fixated on the fiasco in San Diego but I won't be. I'll be watching the games in present time this year. WEO, let it go and free yourself from the burdens of the past. You will feel liberated. 

If you want me to argue that Peterman doesn't have limitations regarding his arm strength then you have been missing my central point in this discussion. With the exception of his sideline throws he did make some quality passes. It's understood by everyone who has eyes that he can't make those wide out throws. Every time he attempts that type of pass it is a disaster in waiting.  I understand that and acknowledge it. What you see is the same thing that the HC and staff sees. Yet for the short term they decided to start Peterman over Allen. I agree with that judgment. 

 

 

If the ghost of Peterman Past does not visit us Sunday, than I will let it go.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said:

We don't know if Allen is ready, we don't know how close the guys that matter, McD and Daboll think Allen is ready. They may think Nate has a long leash. They may think he has a short leash (which is my opinion). 

 

We don’t know how close he is, that’s True.

 

If he we’re ready though, he would be the starter.

 

So there’s that. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

If the ghost of Peterman Past does not visit us Sunday, than I will let it go.

Pinky swear? 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

If the ghost of Peterman Past does not visit us Sunday, than I will let it go.

That's a deal! Can you get some of your dwelling cohorts take take the same pledge? 

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

We don’t know how close he is, that’s True.

 

If he we’re ready though, he would be the starter.

 

So there’s that. 

Not necessarily. He may be Dolphins at home ready not Ravens on the road ready. He maybe ready is Nate stinks ready but not ready if Nate is great ready. There are levels and variables to that term. There is no such thing as "knowing" any rookie QB in the NFL is ready. 

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

That's a deal! Can you get some of your dwelling cohorts take take the same pledge? 

If he doesn't throw any picks but we cannot run and he cannot throw the ball downfield and we cannot score that is a disaster without being like last year, and worthy of benching, and just as likely as being like last year. 

 

The biggest reason to play Allen is the run game not the passing game. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

That's a deal! Can you get some of your dwelling cohorts take take the same pledge? 

what you smoking Willis?  

 

 

LOL    

[BillsfaninSB]

As a qualifier, I tend to be optimist.   NP has a regular season under his belt and went into the PS knowing he could fight for starting job.  He will be better prepared.  So will his teammates.   I don’t expect the Charger game all over again.   He will be fine.   I won’t like an interception or a loss for that matter but if the offense actually throws the ball down field, I will be content.

 

I am more worried about the defense not getting off the field which puts a lot of pressure on Nate. 

[reddogblitz]

2 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Not if you looked at it a different way, which is an equally important way. 

 

Peterman did not show any real ability to get the ball downfield. Or to back defenses away. Allen showed a clear ability to involve the entire field, to throw left, middle and right, short, medium and deep, rolling left or right. He showed a better ability to run. He didn't throw an INT or fumble. He didn't have two pick sixes dropped.  

 

nOT SO SURE about this.  On the 2nd and 13 play he hit the DB right in the bread basket.  If he had caught it would have been up to Josh to tackle him or it may very well have been.

 

But you're right, he didn't have 2.  Maybe 1 though.

Edited September 4, 2018 by reddogblitz

[Kelly the Dog]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

nOT SO SURE about this.  On the 2nd and 13 play he hit the DB right in the bread basket.  If he had caught it would have been up to Josh to tackle him or it may very well have been.

 

But you're right, he didn't have 2.  Maybe 1 though.

Josh's throws are like catching a fly for a DB. Nate's are like catching an intentional walk in a slow pitch softball league. 

[Buffaloflash]

9 hours ago, Tenhigh said:

I guess it takes one to know one.  

 

Personally, I hope the kid comes out and lights it up, like every other Bills fan.  And if he doesn't pan out, we go with the rookie.  

And it's as Simple as that!

[reddogblitz]

Just now, Kelly the Dog said:

Josh's throws are like catching a fly for a DB. Nate's are like catching an intentional walk in a slow pitch softball league. 

 

It hit him softly right in the break basket.  A starter (unless it's Gilmore) would have surely caught it.

[Warcodered]

5 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

nOT SO SURE about this.  On the 2nd and 13 play he hit the DB right in the bread basket.  If he had caught it would have been up to Josh to tackle him or it may very well have been.

 

But you're right, he didn't have 2.  Maybe 1 though.

To be fair Josh Allen does have  several tackles and a forced fumble in his college career.

[ColoradoBills]

40 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

If the ghost of Peterman Past does not visit us Sunday, than I will let it go.

 

37 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Pinky swear? 

 

36 minutes ago, JohnC said:

That's a deal! Can you get some of your dwelling cohorts take take the same pledge? 

 

There is hope for America!

Well done.

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

It hit him softly right in the break basket.  A starter (unless it's Gilmore) would have surely caught it.

One rarely calls balls towards the middle of the field like that, unless I am mistaking the play you are referring to, as dropped pick sixes unless the guy is on the dead run going the other way and it is glaringly obvious. Sideline passes that are jumped are. 

[Dr.Sack]

Pros he’s somewhat mobile, and has a quick release.

 

Cons weaker arm, injury prone.

 

The question becomes how improved is he from 2017? If he’s only marginally better expect Allen by game 5.

[reddogblitz]

29 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

One rarely calls balls towards the middle of the field like that, unless I am mistaking the play you are referring to, as dropped pick sixes unless the guy is on the dead run going the other way and it is glaringly obvious. Sideline passes that are jumped are. 

 

I'm talkin 30 seconds in.

 

can someone explain why he jumps when he throws it aside from piss poor.fundamentals? This should have been an 87 yard TD.  Russell Wilson makes a living on plays like this.

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I'm talkin 30 seconds in.

 

can someone explain why he jumps when he throws it aside from piss poor.fundamentals? This should have been an 87 yard TD.  Russell Wilson makes a living on plays like this.

It's at about 2:30 in the video.

[Kelly the Dog]

6 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I'm talkin 30 seconds in.

 

can someone explain why he jumps when he throws it aside from piss poor.fundamentals? This should have been an 87 yard TD.  Russell Wilson makes a living on plays like this.

He doesn’t throw a near easy int let alone a pick six type 30 seconds in. Anywhere around there. 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Kelly the Dog

[reddogblitz]

7 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

He doesn’t throw a near easy int let alone a pick six type 30 seconds in. Anywhere around there. 

 

the 2nd and 13 play. Clay is wide open  and Josh throws it way short and it hits number 27 on the numbers.  At least that's the way I see it. What do you see on that play?

 

might have been a pick six.if Prime had caught it ?

Edited September 4, 2018 by reddogblitz

[Kelly the Dog]

16 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

the 2nd and 13 play. Clay is wide open  and Josh throws it way short and it hits number 27 on the numbers.  At least that's the way I see it. What do you see on that play?

 

might have been a pick six.if Prime had caught it ?

Terrible throw 40 yards downfield  and surely should have been an Int but nowhere near a automatic pick six play. 10 of 11 Bills were between him and the goal line from the 40 yard line. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Not necessarily. He may be Dolphins at home ready not Ravens on the road ready. He maybe ready is Nate stinks ready but not ready if Nate is great ready. There are levels and variables to that term. There is no such thing as "knowing" any rookie QB in the NFL is ready.

 

 there is absolutely such a thing as knowing he’s not ready though, which is my read. 

[reddogblitz]

Just now, Kelly the Dog said:

Terrible throw 40 yards downfield  and surely should have been an Int but nowhere near a automatic pick six play. 10 of 11 Bills were between him and the goal line from the 40 yard line. 

 

True.  That's why I added my comment that it may have been a TD if Prime had gotten it. 

 

but truly a horrid pass on what is allegedly his strength, completing long passes (of which he is yet to do). 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

57 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said:

Pros he’s somewhat mobile, and has a quick release.

 

Cons weaker arm, injury prone.

 

The question becomes how improved is he from 2017? If he’s only marginally better expect Allen by game 5.

 

..injury prone?...if he's smart and slides while chasing the extra yard, he'll be fine......feet first lad like Lou Brock.......he didn't do too bad slidin'.....

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, reddogblitz said:

 

True.  That's why I added my comment that it may have been a TD if Prime had gotten it. 

 

but truly a horrid pass on what is allegedly his strength, completing long passes (of which he is yet to do). 

Yep. Clay was wide open. He was throwing on the run, to a tight end who is not fast, but it was ten yards too short. 

 

Two of his three bombs to Foster in game one were perfect throws. 

 

One pretty long one to KB in Cinci game was dropped. 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

 

If he doesn't throw any picks but we cannot run and he cannot throw the ball downfield and we cannot score that is a disaster without being like last year, and worthy of benching, and just as likely as being like last year. 

 

The biggest reason to play Allen is the run game not the passing game. 

Explain to me why you think McDermott and staff decided to start Peterman over Allen? 

[Bing Bong]

5 hours ago, TheBrownBear said:

 

I actually feel a little better after looking at those stats.  Outside of that terrible half against the Chargers, he wasn't too bad.  IMO, he's looked great this preseason.  I like Allen too, but it would be great if Nate continued his strong play in the regular season to buy Josh a season of preparation.  And then you've got a really strong trade chip in Peterman (or Allen if Peterman somehow ends up elite) to acquire future draft picks.

Peterman looks bradyesque with his quick timing throws. Obviously the knock is he doesn't have nearly the mind for decison making and NOT throwing that quick pass if it's read like a book and taking a sack if necessary.

 

Or the arm. Or the looks. Or the rings and MVPs.

 

But yeah he does make that o line look better at least against second stringers. Even in the 3rd game he played well with the 1st guys when Allen went out.

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, JohnC said:

Explain to me why you think McDermott and staff decided to start Peterman over Allen? 

1. Same reason McDermott allowed himself to be talked into starting Nate against the Chargers. He looks good in practice and preseason. Same reason Gailey started Trent Edwards for three games and then cut him. He looks good in practice and preseason. They bet he can do it when they should know they can’t. 

 

2. McD loves Peterman as a guy and worker and example to his teammates. Loved how he came back from last year and played well in preseason. And preaches to his team about anyone that does all the right things can win the job. 

 

3. If the line stinks and our QBs are getting killed it’s much much easier to go from Nate to Josh then Josh to Nate. 

 

4. We won last year by playing good defense and controlling the ball in close scoring games. He’s gambling (hope against hope) that Nate is going to be smart enough to complete these short passes and not be a turnover machine, as opposed to wild eyed big armed rook throwing it all over the field. 

 

5. He’s just not that smart on offense. Pretty much everyone regressed last year. He hired a terrible OC and OL coach. Didn’t get new players this year to fill glaring holes. 

[reddogblitz]

5 hours ago, TheBrownBear said:

 

I actually feel a little better after looking at those stats.  Outside of that terrible half against the Chargers, he wasn't too bad.  IMO, he's looked great this preseason.  I like Allen too, but it would be great if Nate continued his strong play in the regular season to buy Josh a season of preparation.  And then you've got a really strong trade chip in Peterman (or Allen if Peterman somehow ends up elite) to acquire future draft picks.

 

Actually, Paxton LYnch's rookie stats were quite a bit better.

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/2977881/paxton-lynch

 

Outside of the last play of Super Bowl XXV, Scott Norwood was a good kicker.

Edited September 4, 2018 by reddogblitz

[fansince88]

On 9/3/2018 at 11:29 AM, Gugny said:

Pro:  He's not Tyrod Taylor.

 

Upgrade.

Amen Brother!

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Actually, Paxton LYnch's rookie stats were quite a bit better.

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/2977881/paxton-lynch

 

Outside of the last play of Super Bowl XXV, Scott Norwood was a good kicker.

 

...and these stats earned him the ax............now what?.....uh oh...........

 

Denver-Offense vs Cards: Pre Season game #4

 

 

Passing

CP/ATT

YDS

TD

INT

FPTS

P. Lynch

14/15

128

2

0

19

[wppete]

 

[reddogblitz]

Couple of good ones. Hotrod and Flutie.

 

Remember the year we thought Tuel Time was gonna start?

Edited September 4, 2018 by reddogblitz

[JohnC]

11 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

1. Same reason McDermott allowed himself to be talked into starting Nate against the Chargers. He looks good in practice and preseason. Same reason Gailey started Trent Edwards for three games and then cut him. He looks good in practice and preseason. They bet he can do it when they should know they can’t. 

 

2. McD loves Peterman as a guy and worker and example to his teammates. Loved how he came back from last year and played well in preseason. And preaches to his team about anyone that does all the right things can win the job. 

 

3. If the line stinks and our QBs are getting killed it’s much much easier to go from Nate to Josh then Josh to Nate. 

 

4. We won last year by playing good defense and controlling the ball in close scoring games. He’s gambling (hope against hope) that Nate is going to be smart enough to complete these short passes and not be a turnover machine, as opposed to wild eyed big armed rook throwing it all over the field. 

 

5. He’s just not that smart on offense. Pretty much everyone regressed last year. He hired a terrible OC and OL coach. Didn’t get new players this year to fill glaring holes. 

Your pessimistic view might come to pass. That is not going to change who is going to start the season. The decision has been made. 

 

My view is that when McDermott took over he was going to not only rebuild the roster but also the organization. This was going to be a four year endeavor. Last year, everything worked out better than expected. I consider that season an aberration. Good luck is not to be questioned; it is to be pocketed. There was never going to be a quick fix. It was part of the plan to dramatically alter the roster, the organization and the cap structure/mix. 

 

The process is still in the early stage. I'm more than satisfied how the rebuilding plan has been executed. The investments are not about now so much as they are about the next couple of years. Keeping that in mind I differentiate between the short term decisions being made now as opposed to the next couple to few years. Within the broader context I have no problems with the decisions that have been made. 

 

If you want magic go to the magic show. Instant gratification is not realistic. It takes time. 

[Kelly the Dog]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Your pessimistic view might come to pass. That is not going to change who is going to start the season. The decision has been made. 

 

My view is that when McDermott took over he was going to not only rebuild the roster but also the organization. This was going to be a four year endeavor. Last year, everything worked out better than expected. I consider that season an aberration. Good luck is not to be questioned; it is to be pocketed. There was never going to be a quick fix. It was part of the plan to dramatically alter the roster, the organization and the cap structure/mix. 

 

The process is still in the early stage. I'm more than satisfied how the rebuilding plan has been executed. The investments are not about now so much as they are about the next couple of years. Keeping that in mind I differentiate between the short term decisions being made now as opposed to the next couple to few years. Within the broader context I have no problems with the decisions that have been made. 

 

If you want magic go to the magic show. Instant gratification is not realistic. It takes time. 

I agree with all of that. I think last year they overachieved which is great. And next year is the first year I expect them to win. And I like both McD and Beane.  

 

But that doesn’t negate any of the five points I made. Nor does it prove they know anything about offense yet (I’m saying they haven’t shown it not that I’m convinced they can’t). 

 

Nor does it really say anything about Nate. You asked a question about him and why I thought they would start him, and I gave you a detailed answer to it. 

[reddogblitz]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Your pessimistic view might come to pass. That is not going to change who is going to start the season. The decision has been made. 

 

My view is that when McDermott took over he was going to not only rebuild the roster but also the organization. This was going to be a four year endeavor. Last year, everything worked out better than expected. I consider that season an aberration. Good luck is not to be questioned; it is to be pocketed. There was never going to be a quick fix. It was part of the plan to dramatically alter the roster, the organization and the cap structure/mix. 

 

The process is still in the early stage. I'm more than satisfied how the rebuilding plan has been executed. The investments are not about now so much as they are about the next couple of years. Keeping that in mind I differentiate between the short term decisions being made now as opposed to the next couple to few years. Within the broader context I have no problems with the decisions that have been made. 

 

If you want magic go to the magic show. Instant gratification is not realistic. It takes time. 

 

How is this different from Donahoe's plan or Gailey's plan or Coach Moron's plan?

 

If I had any confidence at all that the Bills could get worse and then actually get better in a short period of time once all the pieces are in place I might be for it.  But we've gotten worse several times over the last 20 years with promises of getting better only not to happen.  It finally happened when a smart coach decided to do what is best to win now.  We should have just stuck to that plan IMHO.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

40 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

1. Same reason McDermott allowed himself to be talked into starting Nate against the Chargers. He looks good in practice and preseason. Same reason Gailey started Trent Edwards for three games and then cut him. He looks good in practice and preseason. They bet he can do it when they should know they can’t. 

 

2. McD loves Peterman as a guy and worker and example to his teammates. Loved how he came back from last year and played well in preseason. And preaches to his team about anyone that does all the right things can win the job. 

 

3. If the line stinks and our QBs are getting killed it’s much much easier to go from Nate to Josh then Josh to Nate. 

 

4. We won last year by playing good defense and controlling the ball in close scoring games. He’s gambling (hope against hope) that Nate is going to be smart enough to complete these short passes and not be a turnover machine, as opposed to wild eyed big armed rook throwing it all over the field. 

 

5. He’s just not that smart on offense. Pretty much everyone regressed last year. He hired a terrible OC and OL coach. Didn’t get new players this year to fill glaring holes. 

 

 

...Jesus, sounds to me like those "Peterman flea bites" got the best of "Kelly Dawg".....hell, I'd bet if the kid sported a Hartz Mountain 90 day collar, he STILL ain't makin' YOUR Christmas list.....

[Dr. Who]

9 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I agree with all of that. I think last year they overachieved which is great. And next year is the first year I expect them to win. And I like both McD and Beane.  

 

But that doesn’t negate any of the five points I made. Nor does it prove they know anything about offense yet (I’m saying they haven’t shown it not that I’m convinced they can’t). 

 

Nor does it really say anything about Nate. You asked a question about him and why I thought they would start him, and I gave you a detailed answer to it. 

I'm a cat person myself, but you're pretty smart for a dog.

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I agree with all of that. I think last year they overachieved which is great. And next year is the first year I expect them to win. And I like both McD and Beane.  

 

But that doesn’t negate any of the five points I made. Nor does it prove they know anything about offense yet (I’m saying they haven’t shown it not that I’m convinced they can’t). 

 

Nor does it really say anything about Nate. You asked a question about him and why I thought they would start him, and I gave you a detailed answer to it. 

Our thinking is more aligned than it appears.

 

It's not too challenging to come up with a list of deficiencies in the first stage of a rebuild. Next year the Bills will have over $50M of cap space and a young franchise qb on the team. They will also have a full complement of draft picks. Sweeping out much of the old for the new takes time. 

 

I'm not bothered by the Peterman decision. Why expend so much energy on a short term player (as a starter)? He has a role on this team as a backup. His role now will not be as significant as it will be in the not too distant future. Whether the HC decided to start Peterman or go with the rookie there was some merit and logic to whatever he decided. As it stands I more than comfortable with the decision.