Did the opening day QB (Peterman) influence WR Corps makeup?

[ChicagoRic]

In short, did Peterman's weaker arm prompt the coaching staff to stick with big, possession-type receivers heading into the season?

 

My theory (really flimsy, but there you go) is that McDermott and Daboll thought that Peterman would be an effective game-manager type QB using short and intermediate routes and gave him the big, tall, receivers to fit that game plan.  

 

Clearly, it did not work out that way, but you gotta wonder....

 

 

[Alphadawg7]

Just now, ChicagoRic said:

In short, did Peterman's weaker arm prompt the coaching staff to stick with big, possession-type receivers heading into the season?

 

My theory (really flimsy, but there you go) is that McDermott and Daboll thought that Peterman would be an effective game-manager type QB using short and intermediate routes and gave him the big, tall, receivers to fit that game plan.  

 

Clearly, it did not work out that way, but you gotta wonder....

 

 

 

No.  They already said they intended for Allen to start week 1 but tried to delay a little longer after he struggled in the third preseason game.  

[26CornerBlitz]

5 minutes ago, ChicagoRic said:

In short, did Peterman's weaker arm prompt the coaching staff to stick with big, possession-type receivers heading into the season?

 

My theory (really flimsy, but there you go) is that McDermott and Daboll thought that Peterman would be an effective game-manager type QB using short and intermediate routes and gave him the big, tall, receivers to fit that game plan.  

 

Clearly, it did not work out that way, but you gotta wonder....

 

No.  

[NoHuddleKelly12]

I doubt this year’s roster construction for WR’s had anything to do with NP; that would not make any sense for any kind of rebuilding plan where you are trying to work with your long term pieces—however, regardless of which QB was starting, it’s safe to say the WR’s as a whole became a definite fail, and they have been working to address this in-season the last couple weeks to their credit. Single greatest reason for the fail would be every pass play targeting KB. May as well spike the ball at the line and work with one less down, same net effect. 

[PittsforDave]

It’s apparent both McD and Beane have issues evaluating talent. I think it was another mistake and not a strategic move. 

 

I can’t believe this staff believed Peterman was the best out of the 3. Just crazy. 

Edited November 22, 2018 by PittsforDave

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

No.  They already said they intended for Allen to start week 1 but tried to delay a little longer after he struggled in the third preseason game.  

 

 

...don't recall where that was ever stipulated....debates were about McDermott coming from two distinctly different schools of thought....Andy in Philly with McNabb sitting for a year vs Cam in Carolina starting from day one...where was the OBD decision ever published?..........

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, ChicagoRic said:

In short, did Peterman's weaker arm prompt the coaching staff to stick with big, possession-type receivers heading into the season?

 

My theory (really flimsy, but there you go) is that McDermott and Daboll thought that Peterman would be an effective game-manager type QB using short and intermediate routes and gave him the big, tall, receivers to fit that game plan.  

 

Clearly, it did not work out that way, but you gotta wonder....

 

 

I’d hope they didn’t plan our offseason around propping up peterman but... maybe just me

[HomeskillitMoorman]

1 hour ago, ChicagoRic said:

In short, did Peterman's weaker arm prompt the coaching staff to stick with big, possession-type receivers heading into the season?

 

My theory (really flimsy, but there you go) is that McDermott and Daboll thought that Peterman would be an effective game-manager type QB using short and intermediate routes and gave him the big, tall, receivers to fit that game plan.  

 

Clearly, it did not work out that way, but you gotta wonder....

 

 

 

Probably not. And it would've been incredibly bad organizational planning if they constructed an offense based on the "strengths" of Nathan Peterman.

 

But I"m not sure which would have been worse, terrible planning or the terrible evaluation abilities we've seen on that side of the ball. 

20 minutes ago, PittsforDave said:

It’s apparent both McD and Beane have issues evaluating talent. I think it was another mistake and not a strategic move. 

 

I can’t believe this staff believed Peterman was the best out of the 3. Just crazy. 

 

They're the same guys who just figured out very recently that speed can help your offense. I mean, it kind of makes sense. 

[Alphadawg7]

26 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...don't recall where that was ever stipulated....debates were about McDermott coming from two distinctly different schools of thought....Andy in Philly with McNabb sitting for a year vs Cam in Carolina starting from day one...where was the OBD decision ever published?..........

 

Yeah, McD himself said earlier this year in a press conference or interview and so did Beane

[H2o]

I think it was just geared after the Panthers model. They realized it wasn't working and are now going a different route. 

[wppete]

I like that we are playing younge guys with speed. Let’s see Allen launch some bombs aginst the Jags. 

[Buddo]

21 minutes ago, H2o said:

I think it was just geared after the Panthers model. They realized it wasn't working and are now going a different route. 

 

QFT.

At least part of that though, entails using the lesser parts of the model smh.

I suppose we should be thankful that they are amending their approach.

The major concerns really, are that it’s taken them so long to come up with better solutions, both at QB (backups) and WRs (speed).

 

Al Davis wasn’t ever called wrong for saying ‘Speed Kills’, he was merely mocked regularly for his obsession with it. ?

[Cripple Creek]

4 hours ago, ChicagoRic said:

In short, did Peterman's weaker arm prompt the coaching staff to stick with big, possession-type receivers heading into the season?

 

My theory (really flimsy, but there you go) is that McDermott and Daboll thought that Peterman would be an effective game-manager type QB using short and intermediate routes and gave him the big, tall, receivers to fit that game plan.  

 

Clearly, it did not work out that way, but you gotta wonder....

 

 

One million times "No." It was a failure by the HC, nothing more, nothing less.

[Augie]

2 hours ago, wppete said:

I like that we are playing younge guys with speed. Let’s see Allen launch some bombs aginst the Jags. 

 

I’d prefer old slow guys. 

 

 

 

I need a good paying job. Fully willing to take on some occupational hazards.   ?

[Dafan]

1 hour ago, Buddo said:

 

QFT.

At least part of that though, entails using the lesser parts of the model smh.

I suppose we should be thankful that they are amending their approach.

The major concerns really, are that it’s taken them so long to come up with better solutions, both at QB (backups) and WRs (speed).

 

Al Davis wasn’t ever called wrong for saying ‘Speed Kills’, he was merely mocked regularly for his obsession with it. ?

Problem with Al Davis is he would draft a wr rated lower, for speed, over another wr that was graded a lot higher but slower.

[NewEra]

5 hours ago, PittsforDave said:

It’s apparent both McD and Beane have issues evaluating talent. I think it was another mistake and not a strategic move. 

 

I can’t believe this staff believed Peterman was the best out of the 3. Just crazy. 

Clearly they have issues evaluating talent.  Our last two drafts had been brutal.  ?

[Ramza86]

Well at least they have adjusted their strategy.

 

They are going quicker. 

 

Lot of successful offenses are working like that. At least they are smart enough to go with the trend.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

No

[gobills1212]

Did anyone use 'Sal's sauce ' on their turkey today as per his reccomendation? Seems like a better question...

[transplantbillsfan]

10 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

No.  They already said they intended for Allen to start week 1 but tried to delay a little longer after he struggled in the third preseason game.  

 

When and where did they say that?

 

Do you actually have a link?

 

If that's true, I lost a little more respect for McDermott for not manning up early in training camp like he should have.

[BillsFan1988]

13 hours ago, PittsforDave said:

It’s apparent both McD and Beane have issues evaluating talent. I think it was another mistake and not a strategic move. 

 

I can’t believe this staff believed Peterman was the best out of the 3. Just crazy. 

Exactly i mean it took them nearly 2 yrs to discuss speed on offense. Wth are these guys doing for 16hrs a day at one Bills drive. Not addressing or discussing speed on offense is like opening a pizzeria with no toppings. This is insane. 

[fansince88]

4 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

When and where did they say that?

 

Do you actually have a link?

 

If that's true, I lost a little more respect for McDermott for not manning up early in training camp like he should have.

First I read it was 4 minutes ago.

[transplantbillsfan]

7 hours ago, fansince88 said:

First I read it was 4 minutes ago.

 

Me too.

 

Fascinating if true, but I think that was pure speculation.

 

Waiting for @Alphadawg7 to provide a link.

[MJS]

The world does not revolve around Nathan Peterman (nor does this team).

8 hours ago, BillsFan1988 said:

Exactly i mean it took them nearly 2 yrs to discuss speed on offense. Wth are these guys doing for 16hrs a day at one Bills drive. Not addressing or discussing speed on offense is like opening a pizzeria with no toppings. This is insane. 

 

You assume that because they recently mentioned speed in a press conference? So that means that the coaches and GM have NEVER discussed speed before? Really?

 

What strong deduction skills you have.

13 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

When and where did they say that?

 

Do you actually have a link?

 

If that's true, I lost a little more respect for McDermott for not manning up early in training camp like he should have.

 

Why does McDermott need to "man up" in that situation? What's the logic? Allen struggled so they didn't think he was ready, which means he needs to "man up" and do what exactly? Start Allen anyway? Is that what a true man would do?

[without a drought]

14 hours ago, gobills1212 said:

Did anyone use 'Sal's sauce ' on their turkey today as per his reccomendation? Seems like a better question...

No I didn't, but it goes with everything, I just poured some in my coffee.

[LTF]

I can assure you the Bills did not make decisions based on Nathan Peterman. He was supposed to be the third string quarterback. They signed AJ McCarron to a $10 million dollar deal with $6.5 million in additional incentives for playing time. He was supposed to be the starter until Allen was ready. McCarron was injured in week two preseason game against the Browns. It was originally thought to be a broken collar bone. Peterman was a victim of bad luck, a bad line, bad receivers, and the talent of a 3rd string quarterback.

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, MJS said:

Why does McDermott need to "man up" in that situation? What's the logic? Allen struggled so they didn't think he was ready, which means he needs to "man up" and do what exactly? Start Allen anyway? Is that what a true man would do?

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

McCarron sucked.

 

Peterman was all smoke and mirrors.

 

Unfortunately, McDermott got played a fool by all the smoke and mirrors.

 

The smartest move would have been to cut Peterman in the offseason and bring in 2 vet QBs who have had legitimate NFL starting experience--more than just the 5 games of NfL experience. 

 

Actual, legitimate NFL QB competition would have been the best move. That never happened because McCarron and Peterman were NEVER it.

 

That's why at the very latest, Allen should have been named the starter after the 1st preseason game.

 

Ideally even earlier.

 

That's not hindsight on my part. I said Allen would likely be the starter against Baltimore back during OTAs in May.

 

I was obviously wrong, mainly because I didn't think our HC was a total idiot when it came to QB decisions... or at least I thought he wad the type of guy to learn from mistakes.

 

Allen was physically superior, smart, a great leader, a hard worker, and even Beane kept refuting the national narrative that Allen was "too raw." And we traded up to #7 to get him so it's obvious McBeane thought very, very highly of him.

 

Allen struggles in one game after progressively getting better throughout the whole offseason and--I would argue--being the best QB on the roster through those first 2 preseason games from an evaluative standpoint of the types of throws he was making, often under duress.

 

I'm still pissed McDermott basically threw this season away because of blind, stupid faith in a player who he should have realized by the end of last season could NEVER be a starting NFL QB rather than making the obvious and inevitable choice--given the competition--early on in Training Camp to help Allen get more comfortable with the WRs and OL he would quickly be playing with.

 

 

The answer is yes, Man the ***** up because you watched him play and develop throughout the whole Summer and first 2 preseason games. Relying on a single half of play in the 3rd preseason game to be THE determining factor in the QB decision in this case was absolutely stupid and cowardly.

Edited November 23, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[fansince88]

4 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Me too.

 

Fascinating if true, but I think that was pure speculation.

 

Waiting for @Alphadawg7 to provide a link.

Dont wait too long. 

[LTF]

15 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

McCarron sucked.

 

Peterman was all smoke and mirrors.

 

Unfortunately, McDermott got played a fool by all the smoke and mirrors.

 

The smartest move would have been to cut Peterman in the offseason and bring in 2 vet QBs who have had legitimate NFL starting experience--more than just the 5 games of NfL experience. 

 

 

What games would they have won if Peterman and Anderson were replaced by someone else? Maybe one game. Those teams all destroyed the Bills except the Texans, and the Texans were actually beating the Bills when Peterman entered the game. Sorry, but the Bills problem was their offensive line. It could not protect anyone.

 

Ravens. BLOWN OUT
Chargers. BLOWN OUT

Texans. LOSING WHEN PETERMAN ENTERED.

Colts. BLOWN OUT
Bears. BLOWN OUT.

 

When you combine the hardest schedule in the NFL with the worse offensive line in the NFL you get a 2-7 team. It would not have mattered who the quarterback was. The line looked a little better against the Jets, and they were just playing the Jets, who may have given up on the season.  With the line possibly improving combined with the easiest schedule in the NFL now, the Bills could go 5-1 to finish the season. If the line improvement was a mirage, due to the Jets, the Bills will struggle to win games unless their defense gets turnovers.

Edited November 23, 2018 by LTF

[MJS]

2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

McCarron sucked.

 

Peterman was all smoke and mirrors.

 

Unfortunately, McDermott got played a fool by all the smoke and mirrors.

 

The smartest move would have been to cut Peterman in the offseason and bring in 2 vet QBs who have had legitimate NFL starting experience--more than just the 5 games of NfL experience. 

 

Actual, legitimate NFL QB competition would have been the best move. McCarron and Peterman were NEVER it.

 

That's not hindsight on my part. I said Allen would likely be the starter against Baltimore back during OTAs in May.

 

Allen was physically superior, smart, a great leader, a hard worker, and even Beane kept refuting the national narrative that Allen was "too raw." 

 

And we traded up to #7 to get him so it's obvious McBeane thought very, very highly of him.

 

Allen struggles in one game after progressively getting better throughout the whole offseason and--I would argue--being the best QB on the roster through those first 2 preseason games from an evaluative standpoint of the types of throws he was making, often under duress.

 

I'm still pissed McDermott basically threw this season away because of blind, stupid faith in a player who he should have realized by the end of last season could NEVER be a starting NFL QB rather than making the obvious and inevitable choice--given the competition--early on in Training Camp to help Allen get more comfortable with the WRs and OL he would quickly be playing with.

 

The answer is yes, Man the ***** up because you watched him play and develop throughout the whole Summer and first 2 preseason games. Relying on a single half of play in the 3rd preseason game to be THE determining factor in the QB decision in this case was absolutely stupid and cowardly.

 

Those are all opinions, assumptions, and hindsight. Peterman outplayed the other two in the preseason games, and the coaches saw them play far more than you did during practice, training camp, OTA's, etc.

 

The general consensus was that McCarron would start, until he got injured and never played very well. The plan, as far as I can tell, was NEVER to throw Allen in game one unless he performed above and beyond what they expected (which he never did).

 

Your comments about McDermott needing to "man up" make no sense whatsoever. His job is to try to make smart decisions and win football games. It appeared to the general population that Peterman was the choice for at least a couple games while Allen got his feet under him. Call it smoke and mirrors or whatever you want, but he had steller preseason stats and seemed to have the best grasp of the schemes and timing of the offense.

 

And then he sucked and we were forced to put Allen in. That's all. There's nothing deeper or more complicated than that. Things didn't work out so the coaches had to adjust.

 

It is very common to NOT start your top 10 draft pick QB right away, even if you trade up for them. I'd give you a list of QB's who didn't start game 1 of their rookie year, but I assume you are smart enough to know there are a lot of them. Many of those WB's didn't have solid QB's ahead of them, but they sat anyway.

[LTF]

22 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

 

I'm still pissed McDermott basically threw this season away because of blind, stupid faith in a player who he should have realized by the end of last season could NEVER be a starting NFL QB rather than making the obvious and inevitable choice--given the competition--early on in Training Camp to help Allen get more comfortable with the WRs and OL he would quickly be playing with.

 

 

McDermott didn't throw any season away because of blind, stupid faith in a player. The Bills started him 1 game before injuries forced them to go back to him.  The Bills were going to be 2-7 no matter who they played. Anderson, Barkley, or anyone else available. The couldn't protect the quarterback. The Ravens, Chargers, Colts, Texans, and Bears all manhandled the Bills offensive line. Why are people obsessed with this Peterman guy. He wasn't responsible for their awful offense. It looked terrible under Allen and Anderson too. If Barkley had started they just would have lost those games by fewer points.

Edited November 23, 2018 by LTF

[transplantbillsfan]

2 minutes ago, LTF said:

 

What games would they have won if Peterman and Anderson were replaced by someone else? Maybe one game. Those teams all destroyed the Bills except the Texans, and the Texans were actually beating the Bills when Peterman entered the game. Sorry, but the Bills problem was their offensive line. It could not protect anyone.

 

Ravens. BLOWN OUT
Chargers. BLOWN OUT

Texans. LOSING WHEN PETERMAN ENTERED.

Colts. BLOWN OUT
Bears. BLOWN OUT.

Are you kidding?

 

Have you watched the QB play of Anderson and Peterman.

 

Baltimore Peterman couldn't get a SINGLE FIRST DOWN!!! Plus... turnovers.

 

Texans our D was unbelievable and when Allen got hurt we were already in scoring position in a one score game. Instead, pick-Six-Peterman loses us the game.

 

Colts our D was great to start the game for all the 1st quarter and most of the 2nd. Then a sluggish offense and plenty of turnovers.

 

Bears game our D held their offense to less than 200 yards but... ya know, turnovers and defensive TDs.

 

Plus, you forgot the Patriots game, where Buffalo held the Patriots offense to 13 points, but our offense couldn't move and also... ya know, turnovers and defensive TD.

 

 

All of that is aside from the fact that if Allen or another capable QB were in there from the get go, we would have anywhere between 1-3 more wins and be right in the thick of the playoff race. 

[LSHMEAB]

I don't really care if Alpha has a link or if it was explicitly stated by McDermott.

 

There's a reason Allen got the start against Cincy in the 3RD PRESEASON game. The reason was that he was going to be the starter. Cincy manhandled our OL and JA looked like a deer in headlights. They were then forced to decide between Peterman and McCaron. Some choice.

 

It's pretty obvious that's what went down.

Edited November 23, 2018 by LSHMEAB

[transplantbillsfan]

7 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

Those are all opinions, assumptions, and hindsight. Peterman outplayed the other two in the preseason games, and the coaches saw them play far more than you did during practice, training camp, OTA's, etc.

 

The general consensus was that McCarron would start, until he got injured and never played very well. The plan, as far as I can tell, was NEVER to throw Allen in game one unless he performed above and beyond what they expected (which he never did).

 

Your comments about McDermott needing to "man up" make no sense whatsoever. His job is to try to make smart decisions and win football games. It appeared to the general population that Peterman was the choice for at least a couple games while Allen got his feet under him. Call it smoke and mirrors or whatever you want, but he had steller preseason stats and seemed to have the best grasp of the schemes and timing of the offense.

 

And then he sucked and we were forced to put Allen in. That's all. There's nothing deeper or more complicated than that. Things didn't work out so the coaches had to adjust.

 

It is very common to NOT start your top 10 draft pick QB right away, even if you trade up for them. I'd give you a list of QB's who didn't start game 1 of their rookie year, but I assume you are smart enough to know there are a lot of them. Many of those WB's didn't have solid QB's ahead of them, but they sat anyway.

 

Oh boy, so much of this is misguided, shortsighted, or just plain wrong.

 

I responded to some of these points already, but what I said was not hindsight. If McDermott were truly evaluating Peterman during the preseason properly, he would have understood all those easy reads against those vanilla defenses and noticed SEVERAL dropped INTs by defenses on exactly the types of throws that demonstrate he should NEVER have been considered for the starting QB.

 

Not hindsight because I (and many others) were saying that before TC even started.

 

McCarron was the wrong guy to bring in if you wanted Allen on the bench.

 

Also not hindsight. Also something I said back in OTAs.

 

Allen sucked for one half in the preseason. Peterman looked good.

 

Taylor sucked last year in preseason pretty much the whole time. Peterman looked a lot better.

 

It was a bad move. It was the wrong move.

 

Not all rookie 1st rounders start right away, but almost all of them do very early on in the 1st year because, much like McDermott, their Head Coaches realize they made a huge mistake not starting them.

[LTF]

5 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I don't really care if Alpha has a link or if it was explicitly stated by McDermott.

 

There's a reason Allen got the start against Cincy in the 3RD PRESEASON game. The reason was that he was going to be the starter. Cincy manhandled our OL and JA looked like a deer in headlights. They were then forced to decide between Peterman and McCaron. Some choice.

 

It's pretty obvious that's what went down.

 

This is 100 percent correct assessment of the Bills quarterback dilemma. They wanted to start the rookie but after that Cincy game they realized he would just get killed in Baltimore. The line could not protect anyone, especially against a fierce defense like the Ravens.

2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Not all rookie 1st rounders start right away, but almost all of them do very early on in the 1st year because, much like McDermott, their Head Coaches realize they made a huge mistake not starting them.

 

They started him in game 2. What difference does it make starting a guy in game 1 or game 2. They weren't beating the Ravens no matter who they put out there. And they weren't beating the Chargers either.  One team destroyed the Bills Offensive Line and the other laughed at the Bills defense. They were not winning games 1 or 2 no matter who they started.

[transplantbillsfan]

10 minutes ago, LTF said:

They started him in game 2. What difference does it make starting a guy in game 1 or game 2. They weren't beating the Ravens no matter who they put out there. And they weren't beating the Chargers either.  One team destroyed the Bills Offensive Line and the other laughed at the Bills defense. They were not winning games 1 or 2 no matter who they started.

 

1st team reps over the Summer with the WRs and OL he would be playing with in order to gain chemistry, obviously.

 

And there's no telling what would've happened in that Baltimore game if Allen got the whole Summer. We were seriously behind and getting blown out largely because of Peterman. If Allen starts after getting most of the Summer reps, who knows? He came in and moved it well in the 2nd half of that game.

 

As for the rest of the games, maybe Allen doesn't get hurt or we at least have a more capable QB behind him who won't actively lose us games the way Peterman and Anderson did.

[LTF]

11 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

And there's no telling what would've happened in that Baltimore game if Allen got the whole Summer. We were seriously behind and getting blown out largely because of Peterman. If Allen starts after getting most of the Summer reps, who knows? He came in and moved it well in the 2nd half of that game.

 

 

You are joking right? They could have had Mahomes in there and they were not going to score. The line could not block anyone. The receivers could not get any separation. That is why they made the changes to add speed to the receiver position and made changes to the line in the last few weeks.  Peterman got an F. The line got an F. The receivers got an F.  The offense was terrible with all three quarterbacks. Blaming a bad offense on a guy who started 2 games is rather ridiculous. They were historically bad all season. Not just 2 or 3 games that Peterman played.

[Punching Bag]

13 hours ago, BillsFan1988 said:

Exactly i mean it took them nearly 2 yrs to discuss speed on offense. Wth are these guys doing for 16hrs a day at one Bills drive. Not addressing or discussing speed on offense is like opening a pizzeria with no toppings. This is insane. 

 

My daughter prefers cheese pizza and it is not insane.   

 

I am just they are frustrated that their plans failed.  Coleman was biggest mistake since they needed to absorb contract and they were trying to burn dead salary cap and generated new.

4 hours ago, MJS said:

The world does not revolve around Nathan Peterman (nor does this team).

 

You assume that because they recently mentioned speed in a press conference? So that means that the coaches and GM have NEVER discussed speed before? Really?

 

What strong deduction skills you have.

 

Why does McDermott need to "man up" in that situation? What's the logic? Allen struggled so they didn't think he was ready, which means he needs to "man up" and do what exactly? Start Allen anyway? Is that what a true man would do?

 

Do not confuse him.  Irrational ranters do not need facts.

[Domdab99]

I must've had too much liquor: I just read this headline as "Did openly gay QB (Peterman) influence WR Corps makeup?"

 

Made me do a double take. 

[Big Gun]

On 11/22/2018 at 2:02 PM, ChicagoRic said:

 

 

Clearly, it did not work out that way, but you gotta wonder....

 

 

Could care less, no wondering at all.