Here we go again - The Start Peterman faction is emboldened

[Gordio]

44 minutes ago, billieve420 said:

I think the right decision was to start Peterman even this past week against the Colts. It will give Beane/McDermott no excuses to keep him on the roster next year if he flames out. There is no benefit to starting Anderson as we are probably going to lose regardless. Hopefully Allen heals up quick and the Peterman experiment ends if he can't turn things around.

 

 

His 9 ints in 79 pass attempts isn't enough to get him cut next year.  MCD needs to see more?  Only in Buffalo man.  That is priceless.

[Another Fan]

Technically Anderson maybe a little better.  Only 3 INTs in his first start versus 5 in one half in Peterman first...

 

So what’s Kevin Kolb up to these days?

Edited October 22, 2018 by Another Fan

[frostbitmic]

Voting in this poll is akin to voting whether you'd rather have Salmonella or food poisoning.

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, Another Fan said:

So what’s Kevin Kolb up to these days?

I saw him on Shark Tank the other day. He's been working on a proprietary material that makes wet mats less slippery. Really groundbreaking stuff!

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

Did you watch yesterday's game?

 

It absolutely should be a debate.

 

 

You mean Anderson didn't get enough INTs?  Or he got enough to enter into a debate over whether he is worse already than Peterman.?

[Kirby Jackson]

27 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

when has that ever been the case with McD( the earning playing time) ..outside of the Peterman in preseason? Has he ever sat a player? Milano a bit I guess...no one on the OL or Dline..

 

All I am saying is dude talk a big game when it comes to "earning"..means nothing when it comes to actually reps.

Miller last year. Dareus early in the year. Groy was yanked. Milano was forced to “earn” it. Shaq Lawson is another example. Everyone is asked to earn there spot and Peterman is handed his. That’s why I am anti-Nate. 

[LSHMEAB]

I wouldn't be surprised if the league tried to force our hand into starting the PeterMAN on MNF for the sheer entertainment value.

 

All of a sudden, a meaningless games turns into a pick parade.

 

 

[Rico]

53 minutes ago, TheBrownBear said:

Call me a glutton for punishment, but since we are going to lose anyway, it's kind of fun to watch the worst quarterback in NFL history do his thing.  It's not like watching your regular boring bad quarterback do his thing.  The mere fact that every single snap brings the distinct possibility of a pick six adds some excitement.   

I hear what you’re saying. Peterman’s pick-6’s are horrible, but they aren’t spectacularly bad. If you want this kind of ‘entertainment’, bring EJ back and go full clown show.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Rico

[Wsam4031]

1 hour ago, Kevin1778 said:

He should start. For the good of the team. Let Anderson learn the playbook and get in shape and after the bye go with Allen and Anderson as his backup. We are looking at Pats, Bears, Jets on road. Anderson will not survive that. He isn't ready to play yet.

There is no way he should start. Anderson threw for more yards than all the games Perterman had combined. Peterman needs to be cut asap. Anderson looked terrible also but we are just offensively terrible. Not sure if Brady could help this bunch

 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

So...the 'Being Him In!' crowd is being supplanted by the 'Bring Him Back!' crowd.  Might as well activate Foster off the practice squad to give NPeterman another target...?

[CodeMonkey]

47 minutes ago, NewEra said:

People think Anderson played terrible?  I thought he played a decent 1st half.  If it wasn’t for clay being useless and fumbling and Mike Mitchell playing lights out, I thought he played ok. 2nd half, things were different obviously, but that’s vs a defense that knew we had to throw.  I don’t think Anderson played great, but to those that thought he was terrible, I just didn’t see terrible.  He looked better than allen imo

 

I agree, particularly given the fact the 2 weeks ago he was at disney world with his family.  He should not have even been playing Sunday. Anyone, and this includes the Bills coaching staff and front office,  that expected any better, they need to put down the crack pipe immediately.

Edited October 22, 2018 by CodeMonkey

[Gugny]

26 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You mean Anderson didn't get enough INTs?  Or he got enough to enter into a debate over whether he is worse already than Peterman.?

 

When we're dealing with Anderson and Peterman, does it really matter who's worse?  It doesn't. 

 

Anderson getting hurt and leaving just Peterman and Allen is the worst-case scenario.  We're losing to the Patriots regardless.  I'd feel a lot better with Anderson and Allen as our two QBs than I would with Peterman and Allen.

 

Just my dos pesos.

 

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

When we're dealing with Anderson and Peterman, does it really matter who's worse?  It doesn't. 

 

Anderson getting hurt and leaving just Peterman and Allen is the worst-case scenario.  We're losing to the Patriots regardless.  I'd feel a lot better with Anderson and Allen as our two QBs than I would with Peterman and Allen.

 

Just my dos pesos.

 

 

It's like 3 card monty out there...

[keepthefaith]

43 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Miller last year. Dareus early in the year. Groy was yanked. Milano was forced to “earn” it. Shaq Lawson is another example. Everyone is asked to earn there spot and Peterman is handed his. That’s why I am anti-Nate. 

 

Peterman has earned his spot. It's hard to argue that he didn't earn the starting spot coming out of training camp and pre-season.  He was the best of the 3 QB's.  He also earned his spot on the bench during the opener and the team signed a veteran player to replace him as the backup.  Seems to me like the coach has him right where he deserves to be and if Allen were healthy and Anderson was playing well enough to hold down the backup role, Nate would probably be cut or at least inactive. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by keepthefaith

[K-9]

I don’t think MNF agains the Pats*** would be too big for him as he strikes me as that type of player who thrives on those big time moments on the national stage. 

[starrymessenger]

Whoever starts Monday night the end result will almost certainly be ugly. B&B are probably salivating at the chance of setting a record for points by one team in a game and of creative and never before seen ways ways to run up the score. And its probably likely that it will develop into a NE pickfest regardless of who is serving them up.

I think signing Anderson was a good move. They needed to bring in a vet and they did. But I don't think he should be playing. To me his role should be mentoring Allen full time. He's probably the best QB coach the Bills have right now. He should be doing what McCown is doing for the Jets. 

So I would start NP. If I thought, like most people, he was for sure the worst excuse for a QB to ever walk on a football field I probably wouldn't do that. But I'm not there yet. Allen wound up in a situation that is very much less than ideal. Many feel it could derail his career. But so did Peterman. He might never be any good but I think he would look a lot better in an O organized and play called/designed by Andy Reid or Sean Payton. As far as the arm strength narrative is concerned, I don't think it accounts for his failure entirely. To me his problems have more to do with processing and adjusting to the speed of the game, same as for almost all raw college QBs.

Many knowledgeable posters strongly disagree so I know I might be wrong. In any event I doubt that Coach has the stones to trot out NP as his starter any time soon or perhaps ever again.

Edited October 22, 2018 by starrymessenger

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I’m not going to let it go. It’s so hypocritical of this regime to run him out there. He belongs at home. That’s what he has earned!! Practice what you preach Sean.

The wrestling coach did practice what he preached. Do you need to be reminded that Peterman was benched for the unprepared rookie and then for the pedestrian vagabond qb who left his vacation to make some extra coin?

2 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I will let it go as soon as the Bills let him go, and not a moment sooner.

If the player who is not playing bothers you so much then you are the culprit who is creating your own self-induced misery. In other words that is a problem of your own making,

[BuffaloHokie13]

10 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If the player who is not playing bothers you so much then you are the culprit who is creating your own self-induced misery. In other words that is a problem of your own making,

No, it isn't the player that bothers me. It's the staff, and their incompetence, that still has him on the roster. It's an indicator of continued failure and a lack of ability to evaluate the most important position in football. It would be a problem of my own making if I had control of the roster, but alas, I do not.

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

No, it isn't the player that bothers me. It's the staff, and their incompetence, that still has him on the roster. It's an indicator of continued failure and a lack of ability to evaluate the most important position in football. It would be a problem of my own making if I had control of the roster, but alas, I do not.

There are bigger problems than a player who is not playing. How about channeling more of your energy toward the deficient players who are actually playing on the OL and the receiving corps?

 

Your angst is of your own creation. You are like the emergency room doctor who when examining the patient who just had a massive heart attack focuses his attention on the wart of his left hand instead of dealing with the real problem that the dying patient is confronting. Let's get real here. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, JohnC said:

There are bigger problems than a player who is not playing. How about channeling more of your energy toward the deficient players who are actually playing on the OL and the receiving corps?

 

Your angst is of your own creation. You are like the emergency room doctor who when examining the patient who just had a massive heart attack focuses his attention on the wart of his left hand instead of dealing with the real problem that the dying patient is confronting. Let's get real here. 

It'd be easier to address those positions if there was an open roster spot!

[Fadingpain]

3 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Please no.......  He should have been on the practice squad at best this year.  The Bills drafted their QB of the future, no ifs, and or buts.  There is no room & never was for Peterman.  The fact McDermott kept him, named him the starter and did not bring in a viable veteran presence along with an OC who has shown success was imperative.

 

Thankfully next Monday night I have plenty else that will keep me busy. 

 

  

So wait a minute; you live on a Bills message board but you won't be watching one of their 16 games this season?

I can't fathom that, but to each his own.

 

 

[DC Tom]

I still stand by starting Peterman, for the same reason: he's the most expendable QB on the roster.

[GoBills808]

2 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

There is not a good choice on the roster at QB for this upcoming game.

This...this is valid.

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Peterman has earned his spot. It's hard to argue that he didn't earn the starting spot coming out of training camp and pre-season.  He was the best of the 3 QB's.  He also earned his spot on the bench during the opener and the team signed a veteran player to replace him as the backup.  Seems to me like the coach has him right where he deserves to be and if Allen were healthy and Anderson was playing well enough to hold down the backup role, Nate would probably be cut or at least inactive. 

He hasn’t earned a roster spot. You earn that in games. Your performance in practice, preseason and meeting rooms is irrelevant if it doesn’t translate to actual games. 10 INTs in 82 pass attempts doesn’t scream, “we need to see more.” That’s the worst start a QB has ever had. He hasn’t earned a spot on an NFL roster. 

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

It'd be easier to address those positions if there was an open roster spot!

When the organization makes a decision to rebuild you are going to be subjected to plenty of tribulations. This regime decided on a strategy to mostly clear the roster and change the cap structure and replace them with their own players and contracts. I understand why many  people can disagree with that approach. But that won't alter the fact that the turbulence was not only foreseen but was an unavoidable part of the process. The backup qb who isn't playing is one of the least important issues that needs addressing. My modest recommendation is not to be be sidetracked on diversionary issues that have little to do with resolutions. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

5 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

He hasn’t earned a roster spot. You earn that in games. Your performance in practice, preseason and meeting rooms is irrelevant if it doesn’t translate to actual games. 10 INTs in 82 pass attempts doesn’t scream, “we need to see more.” That’s the worst start a QB has ever had. He hasn’t earned a spot on an NFL roster. 

So you have said time and again.  And yet another week has passed and he's still on the team. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

When the organization makes a decision to rebuild you are going to be subjected to plenty of tribulations. This regime decided on a strategy to mostly clear the roster and change the cap structure and replace them with their own players and contracts. I understand why many  people can disagree with that approach. But that won't alter the fact that the turbulence was not only foreseen but was an unavoidable part of the process. The backup qb who isn't playing is one of the least important issues that needs addressing. My modest recommendation is not to be be sidetracked on diversionary issues that have little to do with resolutions. 

Bingo.   

 

Ergo the Poll.  Straightforward and precise.   What choice do we have?   Little to none. 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

So you have said time and again.  And yet another week has passed and he's still on the team. 

 

 

Bingo.   

 

Ergo the Poll.  Straightforward and precise.   What choice do we have?   Little to none. 

 

And I am more and more right with each snap that he takes. I bought the “Peterman sucks” stock low and now it is sky high. He is the Titanic and McDermott is the band. Just keep playing as that ship sinks...

[JohnC]

9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

And I am more and more right with each snap that he takes. I bought the “Peterman sucks” stock low and now it is sky high. He is the Titanic and McDermott is the band. Just keep playing as that ship sinks...

Kirby, A substitute player who doesn't play has little to do with the sinking Titanic. It's an inconsequential issue for a team with a surplus of inconsequential issues to deal with. It's like a ship is sinking and your worried about the dance band that is playing out of tune. You need to focus your attention on the major wound and not worry about the insect sting. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

33 minutes ago, JohnC said:

When the organization makes a decision to rebuild you are going to be subjected to plenty of tribulations. This regime decided on a strategy to mostly clear the roster and change the cap structure and replace them with their own players and contracts. I understand why many  people can disagree with that approach. But that won't alter the fact that the turbulence was not only foreseen but was an unavoidable part of the process. The backup qb who isn't playing is one of the least important issues that needs addressing. My modest recommendation is not to be be sidetracked on diversionary issues that have little to do with resolutions. 

I think you're downplaying his role. Because of Peterman's incompetence, along with our staff's incompetence for keeping him on the roster instead of finding a replacement, we were forced to start a QB that had been on the roster for 10 days and hadn't played meaningful football in years. That absolutely has something to do with the current state of the team.

[JohnC]

10 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I think you're downplaying his role. Because of Peterman's incompetence, along with our staff's incompetence for keeping him on the roster instead of finding a replacement, we were forced to start a QB that had been on the roster for 10 days and hadn't played meaningful football in years. That absolutely has something to do with the current state of the team.

The mistake that McBeane made was that they brought in McCarron instead of maybe inducing Derek or another qb as a more suitable mentor to Allen. You may think that the qb situation is disastrous but there is a blessing in disguise because Allen got some playing time earlier than expected. Although he is being battered and befuddled on the field, hopefully, it will accelerate his development for next year. 

 

Trust me, I'm not downplaying or overstating Peterson's role because I consider it to be inconsequential in the grand scheme of things that is facing this troubled franchise. For me hyperbolic responses to a player who isn't even playing for a team facing a number of major deficits makes little sense to me. I rather deal with important issues than deal with what should be a minuscule distraction. 

[Lfod]

I understand that Peterman is prone to throw interceptions. I can admit that he can be a liability but his detractors can't admit he looked good in preseason and leading a touchdown drive when Allen got hurt.

 

I respect you don't like Peterman but don't expect me to take anybody serious if they think Anderson is anything better. The guy crapped all over himself at the end of the game. At least Peterman has a TD drive. Don't tell me Anderson is anything better that's a joke, he is as just as much a liability to the team. His interceptions look a lot different? Don't tell me Peterman never had drives. 

 

The same guys so adamant that Peterman is hot garbage also thought that the Browns would be tearing it up with Tyrod because he will have all these weapons and now he's riding the bench. 

 

Most likely Anderson will start and crap the bed and some of us fans have more belief in Peterman than Anderson and I guess that's to bad for the people that don't like him. 

 

I like McDermott but I lost a little respect for him when instead of supporting Peterman he pulled out to early and at the end of the day no choice has been made to address the situation. 

 

How about they actually install a QB that doesn't actually make us consider Peterman again? Anderson isn't that guy....

 

At the end of the day we blame the QB but the running game isn't going to carry the team while a QB finds his rythm and that is a serious problem. The fact I dont sweat a Mcoy injury because the run game is weak anyway. This offense sucks and your scared Peterman will make it look bad. It's to late for that. 

 

Doesn't matter who plays QB for the Bill because they will be handicapped by the team around them. Keep yucking it up about Peterman sucking while your man of the street gets bent over and face planted by the Patriots. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Lfod

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, Lfod said:

I understand that Peterman is prone to throw interceptions. I can admit that he can be a liability but his detractors can't admit he looked good in preseason and leading a touchdown drive when Allen got hurt.

I said before the starter was announced that Peterman's preseason performance was nothing more than fool's gold because none of it would translate to meaningful games. You can love his preseason stats, but preseason (and practice) are situations where his skillset excels. Reads and scenarios are already set up and determined, defenses aren't planning for how to shut the QB and offense down, the pass rush is minimal and generally vanilla, and teams are not disguising their coverages.

5 minutes ago, Lfod said:

I respect you don't like Peterman but don't expect me to take anybody serious if they think Anderson is anything better. The guy crapped all over himself at the end of the game. At least Peterman has a TD drive. Don't tell me Anderson is anything better that's a joke, he is as just as much a liability to the team. His interceptions look a lot different? Don't tell me Peterman never had drives. 

Peterman's overall body of NFL work is bad. You want to pull out a drive here or there, that's fine. He's had 82 pass attempts in meaningful football games and he's completed less than 45% of them, while also managing to complete over 12% of them to the opposing team. He has 3 TD passes for the Bills and 2 TD passes for Bills opponents.

17 minutes ago, Lfod said:

The same guys so adamant that Peterman is hot garbage also thought that the Browns would be tearing it up with Tyrod because he will have all these weapons and now he's riding the bench. 

I said that I expected the Browns to have a better record than the Bills this year based on the talent on the roster. I still expect that to be true, despite their departures at WR & RB.

18 minutes ago, Lfod said:

Most likely Anderson will start and crap the bed and some of us fans have more belief in Peterman than Anderson and I guess that's to bad for the people that don't like him. 

Why, exactly, is that most likely? Derek Anderson, and my evaluation of him has absolutely nothing to do with Peterman. I have no idea why anyone believes in Peterman based on his body of work, but the fact that people do has no bearing on me personally.

[Kirby Jackson]

59 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Kirby, A substitute player who doesn't play has little to do with the sinking Titanic. It's an inconsequential issue for a team with a surplus of inconsequential issues to deal with. It's like a ship is sinking and your worried about the dance band that is playing out of tune. You need to focus your attention on the major wound and not worry about the insect sting. 

He was asked to start at QB day 1!! They expected him to play well. They are idiots to think that was a possibility. Nate isn’t consequential but it is hypocritical of this regime to give him the opportunities that he has been given. If accountability is our thing then I want accountability. He shouldn’t have been on the plane to Houston, forget about the plane home. They are in danger of losing this locker room with their rhetoric. 

[billieve420]

4 hours ago, Gordio said:

 

 

His 9 ints in 79 pass attempts isn't enough to get him cut next year.  MCD needs to see more?  Only in Buffalo man.  That is priceless.

 

2nd year QB with limited experience they can always say he is developing.

[Lfod]

5 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I said before the starter was announced that Peterman's preseason performance was nothing more than fool's gold because none of it would translate to meaningful games. You can love his preseason stats, but preseason (and practice) are situations where his skillset excels. Reads and scenarios are already set up and determined, defenses aren't planning for how to shut the QB and offense down, the pass rush is minimal and generally vanilla, and teams are not disguising their coverages.

Peterman's overall body of NFL work is bad. You want to pull out a drive here or there, that's fine. He's had 82 pass attempts in meaningful football games and he's completed less than 45% of them, while also managing to complete over 12% of them to the opposing team. He has 3 TD passes for the Bills and 2 TD passes for Bills opponents.

I said that I expected the Browns to have a better record than the Bills this year based on the talent on the roster. I still expect that to be true, despite their departures at WR & RB.

Why, exactly, is that most likely? Derek Anderson, and my evaluation of him has absolutely nothing to do with Peterman. I have no idea why anyone believes in Peterman based on his body of work, but the fact that people do has no bearing on me personally.

What you say is fair and I don't disagree. This discussion about Peterman or Anderson will dissapear when Allen is back. 

 

I think the reason Peterman is even in the discussion is because Anderson didn't get the job done. I honestly don't believe in either of them and I'm not sure Tom Brady can make this offense run. I'd have to see it to believe it. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

And I am more and more right with each snap that he takes. I bought the “Peterman sucks” stock low and now it is sky high. He is the Titanic and McDermott is the band. Just keep playing as that ship sinks...

It doesn’t matter how right or wrong you are.  

 

The coaches and possibly the owner make the calls.  

 

Let Peterman play and McDermott will be gone sooner than later and the building continues. 

 

Play Anderson and lose same thing 

 

the only buffer he gets is Josh Allen 

 

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, Lfod said:

What you say is fair and I don't disagree. This discussion about Peterman or Anderson will dissapear when Allen is back. 

 

I think the reason Peterman is even in the discussion is because Anderson didn't get the job done. I honestly don't believe in either of them and I'm not sure Tom Brady can make this offense run. I'd have to see it to believe it. 

Our offensive personnel is bad, without question. Anderson was with the team for ~10 days and had 3 practices with the starters and he looked like it. If he came in during Spring instead of McCarron I think it would've been different, but there's no way to know for sure.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

CASE CLOSED

 

[row_33]

1 minute ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

CASE CLOSED

 

 

That makes it all better now

 

 

[Lfod]

7 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

CASE CLOSED

 

I didn't ever think Peterman gets another shot. I understand the motivation to stay with Anderson. I don't fully agree but the show must go on. Get well soon Josh.