Jump to content

Who Starts At QB For Week 2? (Poll)


Paulus

Who starts?  

328 members have voted

  1. 1. Who should and who will start week 2?

    • Nate should start and will.
    • Nate should start but won't.
    • Josh should start and will.
    • Josh should start but wont.


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Paulus said:

I'm personally amazed there are still Petermaniacs out there. I was just curious to see if they are just loud, or if there really are that many.

Maybe but I think there was mainly a few hard core Peterman fans/Never Allens.

 

What I think happened is that a lot of people in middle shifted around through the preseason. Right before the Cincinnati there was movement towards Allen winning it. After that was mostly gone and Peterman still being preseason Peterman people shifted that way. Also it was compounded with people worried that with as awful as the line was in that game that Allen would get ruined playing behind them.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way McDermott can trot Peterman out there unless he wants to lose this team. It's one thing to play well in training camp and the preseason but this team has watched Peterman go into REAL NFL games and play as bad as you possible can play twice now in games that didn't have a whiteout.  When a player plays his worst when the games count the most there is no way his teammates can have confidence in him and Peterman simply looks scared and like he never has played football in his life before in real games...completely the opposite of what he did in the preseason.  It's obvious Peterman cannot handle playing under the bright lights. When the chips are down, Peterman folds like a cheap tent.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Warcodered said:

Maybe but I think there was mainly a few hard core Peterman fans/Never Allens.

 

What I think happened is that a lot of people in middle shifted around through the preseason. Right before the Cincinnati there was movement towards Allen winning it. After that was mostly gone and Peterman still being preseason Peterman people shifted that way. Also it was compounded with people worried that with as awful as the line was in that game that Allen would get ruined playing behind them.

Yeah, I was really just curious.

 

I see only one legit argument to start Nate again, and that is to protect Allen from our OL.

 

I also see one legit reason why McBeane starts Nate, and that is hubris.

 

I was amazed to even see any Petermaniacs after that first half. I felt sorry for Nate. He was like a tiny, beaten, retarded child. The Ravens were not even proud they won. That is how bad the Bills and Nate were. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

Yeah, I was really just curious.

 

I see only one legit argument to start Nate again, and that is to protect Allen from our OL.

 

I also see one legit reason why McBeane starts Nate, and that is hubris.

 

I was amazed to even see any Petermaniacs after that first half. I felt sorry for Nate. He was like a tiny, beaten, retarded child. The Ravens were not even proud they won. That is how bad the Bills and Nate were. 

Something I thought was interesting was I didn't see any of them how up until after he was pulled. Nobody was there defending him while he was actively being terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

Yeah, I was really just curious.

 

I see only one legit argument to start Nate again, and that is to protect Allen from our OL.

 

I also see one legit reason why McBeane starts Nate, and that is hubris.

 

I was amazed to even see any Petermaniacs after that first half. I felt sorry for Nate. He was like a tiny, beaten, retarded child. The Ravens were not even proud they won. That is how bad the Bills and Nate were. 

Did you hear McD in his post-game PC?   He clearly indicated, twice, that he thinks this game got off to a bad start with some unfortunate, dumb luck type stuff happening against us.

 

Or words to that effect.

 

I.E., re-play the first 10 minutes of this game a few more times and Peterman emerges looking much better, according to McD.

 

At least that is my interpretation of his comments.


You watch!  That idiot will start NATE even though he should not.

 

I think it fits more their plan to do so and they will go back to Nate until they simply can't and retain credibility.

 

I.E., if Nate repeats the same performance next week, that might be it for him, but I think he gets 1 more chance.

 

I personally want Allen to start all games, BTW.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I voted that Josh should start but won't. I don't see any reason whatsoever that McD should start NP, but then again I didn't think there was any good reason McD would start him against the Chargers or the Ravens. 

Maybe but I think there might be a good chance. McDermot wouldn't throw Peterman under the bus but he didn't shoot down the idea of Allen taking over week 2. So he did leave the question out there which is something you usually don't do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Maybe but I think there might be a good chance. McDermot wouldn't throw Peterman under the bus but he didn't shoot down the idea of Allen taking over week 2. So he did leave the question out there which is something you usually don't do.

Unfortunately, I genuinely believe that right now McDermott doesn't know himself who he is going to choose, which is frightening. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kelly the Dog said:

Unfortunately, I genuinely believe that right now McDermott doesn't know himself who he is going to choose, which is frightening. 

I'd say that right there should be a good answer for him. If your starter plays one game and you're already wondering if he should still be the starter then probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I'd say that right there should be a good answer for him. If your starter plays one game and you're already wondering if he should still be the starter then probably not.

There is no doubt that at halftime he was considering it. He had to be. If he wasn't we are in trouble. He then made the decision to start Nate in the third. That wasn't a crazy decision. I personally wouldn't have but I could understand why he made that choice. If he benched Nate then it would be really hard to go back and start him. If he waited until the game was out of hand, which he did, he could then go either way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

I'm personally amazed there are still Petermaniacs out there. I was just curious to see if they are just loud, or if there really are that many.

 

I think the Petermaniacs are in hiding and likely to wait a while to come back.

 

One of them is rummaging around today as troll, though. Pretty hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What freakin difference will it make ? 

This is not your 2014 Bills , the QB change will NOT solve a f@€*in thing  , how can we throw a rookie QB in to this dumpster fire ? of an ( offense??? ) who only had a week of practice with the 1st unit ( UNTIL now )  

Allen will probably do better then the preseason pro bowl Peterman but that means nothing, the ONLY thing should matter now is Allen’s development and not W -L  , 

 

21 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I think the Petermaniacs are in hiding and likely to wait a while to come back.

 

One of them is rummaging around today as troll, though. Pretty hilarious.

Dude please I remember you from BBMB and if it was up to you we’d all be still waiting for EJ’s light switch to come on !! 

Pretty hilarious would be to revisit your 120 posts ( of EJ ) on daily basis !! 

People who live in glass houses I’m sure know the rest !!! 

I used to disagree with you but I respected your opinion, now I see your true colors !!  

 

 

Edited by Putin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Putin said:

Just like you were After every preseason game Peterman played ?? 

Let me know when EJ’s switch will come on I’m still waiting 

 

 

Just like I was what?

 

Hiding?

 

I never hid.

 

Trolling? Like about Peterman because I wasn't high on his preseason play the way some of you were... perhaps blinded by the cloud of smoke as you exhaled?

 

I wasn't trolling. I was telling it like it is. Surely today's results should assure you of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Putin said:

What freakin difference will it make ? 

This is not your 2014 Bills , the QB change will NOT solve a f@€*in thing  , how can we throw a rookie QB in to this dumpster fire ? of an ( offense??? ) who only had a week of practice with the 1st unit ( UNTIL now )  

Allen will probably do better then the preseason pro bowl Peterman but that means nothing, the ONLY thing should matter now is Allen’s development and not W -L  , 

 

Just like you were After every preseason game Peterman played ?? 

Let me know when EJ’s switch will come on I’m still waiting 

 

So what they're just going to get some bubble wrap and store him in the attic till next year? If Peterman somehow hangs on to the start and has a Peterman against the Chargers the call to bring Allen in is going to  be deafening. You can't just not play your good players because the team isn't good right now. The biggest thing Allen needs is reps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

There is no doubt that at halftime he was considering it. He had to be. If he wasn't we are in trouble. He then made the decision to start Nate in the third. That wasn't a crazy decision. I personally wouldn't have but I could understand why he made that choice. If he benched Nate then it would be really hard to go back and start him. If he waited until the game was out of hand, which he did, he could then go either way. 

 

Conventional NFL HC philosophy would be once you make a QB change, you can't go back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Conventional NFL HC philosophy would be once you make a QB change, you can't go back.

That was my point. That would have been true if he did it at halftime. But the game was basically over when he put Josh in. This came across as the outcome isn't in doubt, let's get the rook some reps more than we talked it over at half and we're benching Nate like we did last year. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a promising pre-season, I had hoped NP had turned the corner and would put in a solid performance this week, but it was another historic epic fail. I wasn't 100% against him starting week one, knowing Allen could use some time to get acclimated to the speed of the game and didn't want to see him lose his head behind the abysmal line.  But after today, I know we can no longer even count on NP for a spot start. It's Allen's team now. Time to find us a capable vet backup who can hold the fort down and help Allen. I think Derek Anderson would be a nice choice. Kind of like McCown for Darnold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I supported them starting Peterman after the preseason but forget that. The one game has shown that it is not going to work. Allen may not be ready, but they have to start him to have any chance of winning any games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, matter2003 said:

No way McDermott can trot Peterman out there unless he wants to lose this team. It's one thing to play well in training camp and the preseason but this team has watched Peterman go into REAL NFL games and play as bad as you possible can play twice now in games that didn't have a whiteout.  When a player plays his worst when the games count the most there is no way his teammates can have confidence in him and Peterman simply looks scared and like he never has played football in his life before in real games...completely the opposite of what he did in the preseason.  It's obvious Peterman cannot handle playing under the bright lights. When the chips are down, Peterman folds like a cheap tent.

i agree with this. also, if you start peterman in the home opener and the game goes south like it did in baltamore, it is going to get really ugly at the Ralph. embarrassingly ugly. ugliness of biblical proportions. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Process said:

Peterman is only good when there is a good pocket that doesn't collapse....and WRs are open. On replays it seemed there were several opportunities to step into the pocket....then again I'm not on the field so....

...and there's a blizzard going on...

and the other team sucks...

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...