Here we go again - McDermott's choice of Peterman defines his coaching tenure

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, vorpma said:

Here we go again with the same old temper tantrum and tired post!

 

I think "tired" is the right word here. It's almost like every post here is about firing someone, gutting the entire staff, starting all over from the top down, and finding new owners.

 

1 hour ago, PearlHowardman said:

It has everything to do with the incompetent owners Terry & Kim Pegula.

 

Yep. Tired is the right word.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

15 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

And the majority knew last year......

 

 

Nah, the majority had that opinion. With the very incomplete info we fans get compared to coaches.

 

And it was a reasonable opinion then and now but not a fact.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

6 minutes ago, nucci said:

Tired of hearing this excuse....if it was never about winning then they are in the wrong business.....

 

Lol.  That attitude got us years of 7 - 9 football, no franchise QB, and a 17 year playoff drought.  Sure, man.  You got it.  Wrong business. 

[Billsfan1972]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Oh, yeah, who can believe he isn't playing Terrelle Pryor at QB instead.

 

Yeah, yeah, he defines his legacy with that choice and his choice of Bojorquez. And his choice of Humber as his original ILB. Oh, yeah, all of these totally define a tenure that is in all likelihood very very far from completion.

 

Totally.

 

 

 

 

Missing the point......  Peterman vs. LAC 2017, no mentor/veteran with NFL experience and some success to help JA, a offense torn apart under his tenure, OC's that are so behind in how offenses are played and having Peterman compete again a rookie and a no one for the starting job is all on McDermott....

 

You have to be incompetent not to know that your QB is the most important player.

 

Let's look at Jax.  They have Bortles a high first round pick, not fifth who is terrible, but at least he has these games where he appears to be a great QB.  I won't say I feel bad for Marrone, but very hard to to assess the QB possition when your QB is schizophrenic..... 

[Thurman#1]

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

I think "tired" is the right word here. It's almost like every post here is about firing someone, gutting the entire staff, starting all over from the top down, and finding new owners.

 

 

Yep. Tired is the right word.

 

 

 

 

Good post.

[nucci]

3 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Lol.  That attitude got us years of 7 - 9 football, no franchise QB, and a 17 year playoff drought.  Sure, man.  You got it.  Wrong business. 

well, would have been nice if they told us there were no plans for winning. we could have taken the season off like they have. We were 9-7  and in the playoffs last season. Most teams build off that.

[Mark80]

Wait, wait, wait, wait. 

 

So, you say the staff lost you in 2017 pre-season.  That is BEFORE they even played a single real game.  You didn't even give them 1 game before they lost you.  Give me a break, man.

 

Then, you say that a backup QB who they drafted in the 5th round with absolutely no intention of him ever becoming more than a backup QB is what defines McDermott's coaching tenure.  My lord, you are off the rails my friend.

 

The start against the Chargers in 2017 for Peterman was the right move, but a bad result.  Taylor had 56 yards passing the week before.  Fifty-freaking-six!!!  It was so obvious that the team was not going to do anything substantial with him as QB.  Sure, he didn't throw a ton of picks, but he didn't get points either.  Punts are pretty close to the same thing as picks and we punted all the time.  As soon as team consistently spied Tyrod, he was ineffective.  Period.  Peterman looked good in practice (as he always does, same with pre-season) so they figured they would see what he could do.  He failed miserably, they went back to Tyrod and we still made the playoffs.  How did playing Peterman for that 1 half have any impact on our season at all?  It didn't.  Not one bit.

 

Then this season he was the clear winner in the QB battle from all accounts.  He deserved to start week 1.  Again, he failed.  Then we brought in our 7th overall pick to take over pretty much immediately.  Peterman would never have started again barring injury.

 

You say keep Watkins.  For what?  One season of having no QB to throw him the ball and have any significant impact.  Were we going to the SB if we kept Watkins?  Hell no.  Maybe we still made the playoffs, maybe not.  I think we would have had the same season and then lost him in FA.  No way in hell we were paying him $16M a year.  No f'n way.

 

And finally, McDermott doesn't make the personnel decisions.  Beane does.  That's what GMs jobs are, not HCs.  Sure, the HC has input, the Beane makes the calls.  Such a clueless post and take.  Sorry man.  But it is.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Mark80

[nucci]

9 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I get that you're tired of it. But it's still true.

 

You edited the quote. He said, "this year was never about winning." Not that winning isn't the most important thing.

 

It doesn't show you're in the wrong business to value long-term consistent winning over the short-term, one season's worth of winning.

I get that but I feel they tore it down too much and it will take longer to fix then maybe they think.  

[uticaclub]

Tanking breeds losing. How many coaches started a tank and got to enjoy the championship?

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, nucci said:

well, would have been nice if they told us there were no plans for winning. we could have taken the season off like they have. We were 9-7  and in the playoffs last season. Most teams build off that.

 

Do playoff teams that think they can build off of that get rid of their starting QB and then draft a rookie that needs a redshirt year?  

[Thurman#1]

3 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Lol.  That attitude got us years of 7 - 9 football, no franchise QB, and a 17 year playoff drought.  Sure, man.  You got it.  Wrong business. 

 

 

Nah. The last 17 years were a series of GMs and coaches refusing to rebuild. "Sure, we were 7-9 last year but that was only bad luck. Next year we'll definitely do it. We don't need a rebuild. We'll just reload and reload and reload and reload." That's what's made the last 17 years so awful.

 

Consciously choosing the hell of a rebuild is pretty much the opposite of what was done for nearly all of the last 17 years.

[Mark80]

34 minutes ago, nucci said:

most teams build off of the playoffs...we tore it down and back to the bottom of the league

 

Smart management understands when making the playoffs was a fluke, when we really didn't have the foundation to be consistently good or competitive for a SB title and takes action to get to that point.  Smart management does not overreact and overplay their hand when they know they don't have anything.  They stick to the much needed plan.

[Thurman#1]

4 minutes ago, nucci said:

I get that but I feel they tore it down too much and it will take longer to fix then maybe they think.  

 

 

You may be right. In a couple of years we'll know. Depends mostly on Josh Allen and how he develops, IMHO.

[Billsfan1972]

1 minute ago, Mark80 said:

Wait, wait, wait, wait. 

 

So, you say the staff lost you in 2017 pre-season.  That is BEFORE they even played a single real game.  You didn't even give them 1 game before they lost you.  Give me a break, man.

 

Then, you say that a backup QB who they drafted in the 5th round with absolutely no intention of him ever becoming more than a backup QB is what defines McDermott's coaching tenure.  My lord, you are off the rails my friend.

 

The start against the Chargers in 2017 for Peterman was the right move, but a bad result.  Taylor had 56 yards passing the week before.  Fifty-freaking-six!!!  It was so obvious that the team was not going to do anything substantial with him as QB.  Sure, he didn't throw a ton of picks, but he didn't get points either.  Punts are pretty close to the same thing as picks and we punted all the time.  As soon as team consistently spied Tyrod, he was ineffective.  Period.  Peterman looked good in practice (as he always does, same with pre-season) so they figured they would see what he could do.  He failed miserably, they went back to Tyrod and we still made the playoffs.  How did playing Peterman for that 1 half have any impact on our season at all?  It didn't.  Not one bit.

 

Then this season he was the clear winner in the QB battle from all accounts.  He deserved to start week 1.  Again, he failed.  Then we brought in our 7th overall pick to take over pretty much immediately.  Peterman would never have started again barring injury.

 

You say keep Watkins.  For what?  One season of having no QB to throw him the ball and have any significant impact.  Were we going to the SB if we kept Watkins?  Hell no.  Maybe we still made the playoffs, maybe not.  I think we would have had the same season and then lost him in FA.  No way in hell we were paying him $16M a year.  No f'n way.

 

Such a clueless post and take.  Sorry man.  But it is.

Yes the decisions on the offensive side of the ball were terrible.  Not going to argue every point, but Peterman starting vs. LAC was wrong and no amount of you explaining it was right makes it so.....  The results speaks for itself (as does Balt & Houston).

 

Oh the 2017 pre-season was so bad after the Watkins trade that Boldin just left camp......  Didn't that say anything about the team on that side of the ball?  

 

Watkins being traded for Nothing showed me that the coaching staff had no respect for the Offense and this has been borne out.   

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nah. The last 17 years were a series of GMs and coaches refusing to rebuild. "Sure, we were 7-9 last year but that was only bad luck. Next year we'll definitely do it. We don't need a rebuild. We'll just reload and reload and reload and reload." That's what's made the last 17 years so awful.

 

Consciously choosing the hell of a rebuild is pretty much the opposite of what was done for nearly all of the last 17 years.

 

Yeah, I was being sarcastic.  I was a total "lets build off last year" guy.  I've realized that is wrong or at least crazy hard to do .  or at least it is without a franchise QB.  I'm all in on the rebuild now.  Lets do it the right way. 

 

McDermott got us to the playoffs.  I am super comfortable with him doing the rebuild.  

[Billsfan1972]

3 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nah. The last 17 years were a series of GMs and coaches refusing to rebuild. "Sure, we were 7-9 last year but that was only bad luck. Next year we'll definitely do it. We don't need a rebuild. We'll just reload and reload and reload and reload." That's what's made the last 17 years so awful.

 

Consciously choosing the hell of a rebuild is pretty much the opposite of what was done for nearly all of the last 17 years.

Name me a team that has rebuilt successfully under these circumstances and decisions?  I only look at the dumpster fire that is Cleveland and wonder how long we should patiently wait.......

[Thurman#1]

13 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Missing the point......  Peterman vs. LAC 2017, no mentor/veteran with NFL experience and some success to help JA, a offense torn apart under his tenure, OC's that are so behind in how offenses are played and having Peterman compete again a rookie and a no one for the starting job is all on McDermott....

 

You have to be incompetent not to know that your QB is the most important player.

 

Let's look at Jax.  They have Bortles a high first round pick, not fifth who is terrible, but at least he has these games where he appears to be a great QB.  I won't say I feel bad for Marrone, but very hard to to assess the QB possition when your QB is schizophrenic..... 

 

 

I think it's you who's missing the point.

 

How could choosing Peterman define McDermott when he has no other choice. It's a dumb statement.

 

If the statement had been different, something about bringing in a different QB at some point, my answer would have been different. It's simply a dumb headline. And your post here is wacky and non-responsive.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Mark80]

1 minute ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Yes the decisions on the offensive side of the ball were terrible.  Not going to argue every point, but Peterman starting vs. LAC was wrong and no amount of you explaining it was right makes it so.....  The results speaks for itself (as does Balt & Houston).

 

Oh the 2017 pre-season was so bad after the Watkins trade that Boldin just left camp......  Didn't that say anything about the team on that side of the ball?  

 

Watkins being traded for Nothing showed me that the coaching staff had no respect for the Offense and this has been borne out.   

 

Where did Boldin play again last year?  Oh yeah, no where.  He retired.  He was 37 and was done.  Had nothing to do with our team.  He could have gone anywhere and played.  He didn't, he retired.  Our FO has shown they are willing to cut guys or trade them for basically nothing if they want (Vontae, and Richie as examples). 

[Billsfan1972]

8 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I think it's you who's missing the point.

 

How could choosing Peterman define McDermott when he has no other choice. It's a dumb statement.

 

If the statement had been different, something about bringing in a different QB at some point, my answer would have been different. It's simply a dumb headline. And your post here is wacky and non-responsive.

Geez!!!!!  That's what I said.  They bring in McCoy & Bridgewater like the Jets did and it is a completely different debate (notwithstanding LAC & Watkins)......  McDermott has talked up Peterman as his boy since drafting him.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

"So yes it all comes back to Peterman and McDermott's (who drafted him as Beane wasn't there) dogged defense of him and wanting him to succeed that has this team in such disarray."  

 

No, the continuing disarray with this team is due to the Bills' inability to keep anyone designated as QB so far this year, upright. Whether that is a schematic issue, talent issue, dumb luck, or all of the above, the fact is that you wouldn't have seen NP start again for the Bills if either of the 2 starters since the Ravens game weren't knocked silly into next week. We all feared that would happen at some point behind this O-line. JA's injury was a freak occurrence, DA's was not, immobile statue that he is.  If either of the QB's in front of him were healthy enough to play, or if Barkley were up to speed on the playbook, NP would not be starting this week. How does that qualify as a "dogged defense" where there are no more bodies available on short notice to run out there?