Peterman 50-yard run! ?

[MJS]

How incredible that in this day and age they are still playing on partly dirt fields.

[Lfod]

At the time Peterman was around he  offered me something as a Bills fan. He was entertaining, sadly it had to be in a train wreck sort of way. 

 

I was bored with Tyrod. It was like watching paint dry. I told myself I would rather see some one throw a ton of interceptions if my only other option was to not see the ball thrown at all. 

 

True to my word I backed Peterman up until he was gone because it was more entertaining for me. It's good to see him being a preseason hero again. 

 

I think most people who hated Peterman liked Tyrod and we're not bored like I was. At the end of the day they both moved on out of buffalo, so it's the Josh Allen show for now. 

 

It definitely is tiring to put your beliefs into people who let you down. Until someone steps up it's the only option I have. 

Edited August 12, 2019 by Lfod

[Rocky Landing]

5 hours ago, Lfod said:

At the time Peterman was around he  offered me something as a Bills fan. He was entertaining, sadly it had to be in a train wreck sort of way. 

 

I was bored with Tyrod. It was like watching paint dry. I told myself I would rather see some one throw a ton of interceptions if my only other option was to not see the ball thrown at all. 

 

True to my word I backed Peterman up until he was gone because it was more entertaining for me. It's good to see him being a preseason hero again. 

 

I think most people who hated Peterman liked Tyrod and we're not bored like I was. At the end of the day they both moved on out of buffalo, so it's the Josh Allen show for now. 

 

It definitely is tiring to put your beliefs into people who let you down. Until someone steps up it's the only option I have. 

I think we would all do ourselves, and discussions such as these, a favor if we would draw the distinction between hating the person, and hating the player. I don't think anyone here hates Peterman the person. I'm sure he's a fine dude. Whatever. Lots of people on here do hate the player, though. 

 

Personally, once he was out of here, the hatred was gone. Lousy players on other teams don't bother me at all. But, I sure didn't like him when he was here, because I thought he was a fraud, and I don't like frauds, especially when they're wearing a Bills uni.

 

As far as being bored goes, I guess I was getting a little bored with Tyrod, but there are worse things than boredom. I was at that Chargers game when Peterman crapped the bed so spectacularly, it set records. It made me sick to my stomach. Hard not to hold that against a player.

[Element115]

On 8/11/2019 at 3:01 AM, Rocky Landing said:

Peterman is an ex-Bill who played historically bad football while he was here. I've read the above posts, and don't see anything worthy of clutching your pearls. Bad players get discussed on these boards all the time, and Peterman literally set records for bad football. Why on Earth should he be off limits?

 

Probably because he's religious.  I can't think of another reason.

[Bevis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5X3fYIbGQA

 

 

[Thurman#1]

Good for him. Nice play.

 

I'm rooting for him.

[RoyBatty is alive]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Good for him. Nice play.

 

I'm rooting for him.

 

Actually I am as well, I dont get all the hate for the guy, time for some to let it go.

[Thurman#1]

On 8/12/2019 at 12:45 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

Matt Barkley is 174-291, 59.8% completion, 7.4 YPA, 10 TDs & 18 INTs, with a 68.3 rating in his career. 

 

Nate is 68-130, 52.3% completion, 4.2 YPA, 3 TDs & 12 INTs, with a 32.5 rating in his career.

 

Nate ISN’T a “Matt Barkley type.” That’s an insult to Barkley (who hasn’t exactly been Joe Montana). Barkley has been more than twice as effective as Nate. 

 

I promise that I'm done in this thread. Just want to provide FACTS to show just how bad Nate has been. Anyone can pick the worst QB that they can think of with at least 130 attempts and put them side-by-side. He will be worse. He was literally that bad. The worst that has ever played.

 

 

"Worst" is an opinion, not a fact.

 

In Peyton Manning's first four games (146 throws) he threw 11 INTs and 3 TDs. That's right in the same neighborhood. And in that fourth game he threw 2 INTs before the first TD. When he actually hit Nate's level of 130 passes he may well have been at 2 TDs and 10 INTs, an even lower TD:INT ratio.

 

And as has been pointed out many times, of those INTs by Nate, four were good passes deflected up in the air by Bills receivers and air-mailed to defenders. I don't know if or how many of Peyton's early INTs were also caused by his receivers. But it's no fact that he's the worst in his first 130. That's an opinion. If it really were as simple as worst ever, he wouldn't still be in the league.

 

I think it's fair to say that Peyton proved himself a better QB than Peterman ever will. But in early days, sometimes things get distorted. Peterman's story isn't over yet. It might be soon, but not yet.  Too early to call.

 

And in Barkley's first year he was also pretty awful, and lucky enough to only be called on to throw one pass his second year. Barkley's certainly shown a ton more than Nate has. Part of that is he's had more opportunity and he improved with time. Peterman may be starting an office job in the next six months. But ... maybe not. We'll have to wait and see.

 

 

37 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

Actually I am as well, I dont get all the hate for the guy, time for some to let it go.

 

 

Yup.

Edited August 13, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

"Worst" is an opinion, not a fact.

 

In Peyton Manning's first four games (146 throws) he threw 11 INTs and 3 TDs. That's right in the same neighborhood. And in that fourth game he threw 2 INTs before the first TD. When he actually hit Nate's level of 130 passes he may well have been at 2 TDs and 10 INTs, an even lower TD:INT ratio.

 

And as has been pointed out many times, of those INTs by Nate, four were good passes deflected up in the air by Bills receivers and air-mailed to defenders. I don't know if or how many of Peyton's early INTs were also caused by his receivers. But it's no fact that he's the worst in his first 130. That's an opinion. If it really were as simple as worst ever, he wouldn't still be in the league.

 

I think it's fair to say that Peyton proved himself a better QB than Peterman ever will. But in early days, sometimes things get distorted. Peterman's story isn't over yet. It might be soon, but not yet.  Too early to call.

 

And in Barkley's first year he was also pretty awful, and lucky enough to only be called on to throw one pass his second year. Barkley's certainly shown a ton more than Nate has. Part of that is he's had more opportunity and he improved with time. Peterman may be starting an office job in the next six months. But ... maybe not. We'll have to wait and see.

 

 

 

 

Yup.

I gave the numbers earlier in the thread that support “worst.” 

Using the most highly touted QB prospect of all-time as a comparison is craziness. Peyton started slowly but was never going to fail. He was the safest pick at QB EVER. We do agree on one thing, “I think it's fair to say that Peyton proved himself a better QB than Peterman ever will.”

[Rocky Landing]

1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

Actually I am as well, I dont get all the hate for the guy, time for some to let it go.

I don't hate the guy, I hate the player. At least, I did when he was wearing a Bills uni. I think the situation is just amusing, now, and I'm glad he's on the Raiders, because I'm watching Hard Knocks, and I think it'll be good entertainment. I can't really root for him, though. At least to some degree, I think he's a fraud. And, I don't like frauds.

 

I'd much rather see Mike Glennon get their backup job. He's had a decent pro career. In the two games he played in AZ last year (behind truly the worst O-line in the league), he held his own, and did pretty well. I think he deserves it more.

[RoyBatty is alive]

3 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

I don't hate the guy, I hate the player. At least, I did when he was wearing a Bills uni. I think the situation is just amusing, now, and I'm glad he's on the Raiders, because I'm watching Hard Knocks, and I think it'll be good entertainment. I can't really root for him, though. At least to some degree, I think he's a fraud. And, I don't like frauds.

 

I'd much rather see Mike Glennon get their backup job. He's had a decent pro career. In the two games he played in AZ last year (behind truly the worst O-line in the league), he held his own, and did pretty well. I think he deserves it more.

 

How can he be a "fraud"?  Did he purposely "trick" scouting departments and coaches?  Every player that wants to play in the NFL has to show his best.

[Rocky Landing]

4 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

How can he be a "fraud"?  Did he purposely "trick" scouting departments and coaches?  Every player that wants to play in the NFL has to show his best.

One of the definitions of fraud is "someone who is not what they seem, or is represented to be." I'm sure Late Nate wants to be a competent NFL-level QB. He's not. Does he know he's not? I think somewhere in his brain, he must. That is why I said "... to some degree..." Do I hold it against him? Only if he's wearing a Bills uni. But, the bottom line is: Nate Peterman is not a competent NFL quarterback.

[keepthefaith]

2 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

One of the definitions of fraud is "someone who is not what they seem, or is represented to be." I'm sure Late Nate wants to be a competent NFL-level QB. He's not. Does he know he's not? I think somewhere in his brain, he must. That is why I said "... to some degree..." Do I hold it against him? Only if he's wearing a Bills uni. But, the bottom line is: Nate Peterman is not a competent NFL quarterback yet.

 

FIFY.

 

He hasn't been good.  He's been very bad.  He's 25 years old with little NFL experience.  He may never be good or even a good backup and may be out of the league soon but he's at an age and level of experience where he still has time and a lot of room to get better and people that work hard at something can get better.   He had to leave Buffalo for the good of both him and the team but to declare him not competent or to say that he will never be competent (even if that turns out to be true) is premature. 

[Thurman#1]

On 8/14/2019 at 4:59 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

I gave the numbers earlier in the thread that support “worst.” 

Using the most highly touted QB prospect of all-time as a comparison is craziness. Peyton started slowly but was never going to fail. He was the safest pick at QB EVER. We do agree on one thing, “I think it's fair to say that Peyton proved himself a better QB than Peterman ever will.”

 

 

 

And you proved a few things conclusively there. What you didn't prove is that he's the worst ever. Nor will you ever prove that, as it's an opinion, not a fact.

 

In fact, if you think you did prove that, it says more about you than about him. It would say you don't get the difference between opinions and facts. And it says that your feelings about Peterman are leading you towards irrationality on the subject.

 

What you proved:

 

1) that Peterman has the lowest passer rating of any QB with 130 passes or more.

 

That's it.

 

That's all. That's only fact you've listed here. That you think that fact proves the opinion that he's the worst ever only shows your confusion on the nature of facts vs. opinions.

 

"He's literally the worst player that's ever played the position," is an opinion, and not one that makes especially much sense. You know who's worse? Most of the guys who threw less than 130 throws and probably a bunch of those who threw 130 or more but were in better situations or had more experience or had better luck in their extremely small sample of passes. Again, four of his INTs were good passes deflected by his receivers up in the air for gifts. Take out those 4 and his passer rating goes up a ton. I'd do that for every other QB, but the work involved would be great. But there can't be very many players in league history who had 1/3 of their INTs come as a result of receiver airmails to the defense. Peterman got very lucky.

 

Worth noting, though, that Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw in his first season threw far more footballs than Peterman has in his career, and Terry managed a lower rating ... 30.4. Guys sometimes improve. Peterman might be one of those who does. Or not. But again, we'll have to wait and see.

 

And that Gary Marangi was worse in his first 130. I'm sure I could find more.

 

Not to say that Peterman's been good. Or anywhere near it. But the idea that you can prove him the worst of all times by a few stats is ridiculous. Again, if he were the worst of all time, he wouldn't still be in the league.

[BruceVilanch]

HEY PETER MAN!

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

And you proved a few things conclusively there. What you didn't prove is that he's the worst ever. Nor will you ever prove that, as it's an opinion, not a fact.

 

In fact, if you think you did prove that, it says more about you than about him. It would say you don't get the difference between opinions and facts. And it says that your feelings about Peterman are leading you towards irrationality on the subject.

 

What you proved:

 

1) that Peterman has the lowest passer rating of any QB with 130 passes or more.

 

That's it.

 

That's all. That's only fact you've listed here. That you think that fact proves the opinion that he's the worst ever only shows your confusion on the nature of facts vs. opinions.

 

"He's literally the worst player that's ever played the position," is an opinion, and not one that makes especially much sense. You know who's worse? Most of the guys who threw less than 130 throws and probably a bunch of those who threw 130 or more but were in better situations or had more experience or had better luck in their extremely small sample of passes. Again, four of his INTs were good passes deflected by his receivers up in the air for gifts. Take out those 4 and his passer rating goes up a ton. I'd do that for every other QB, but the work involved would be great. But there can't be very many players in league history who had 1/3 of their INTs come as a result of receiver airmails to the defense. Peterman got very lucky.

 

Worth noting, though, that Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw in his first season threw far more footballs than Peterman has in his career, and Terry managed a lower rating ... 30.4. Guys sometimes improve. Peterman might be one of those who does. Or not. But again, we'll have to wait and see.

 

And that Gary Marangi was worse in his first 130. I'm sure I could find more.

 

Not to say that Peterman's been good. Or anywhere near it. But the idea that you can prove him the worst of all times by a few stats is ridiculous. Again, if he were the worst of all time, he wouldn't still be in the league.

Well of course it’s an opinion. There are numbers that make a strong case for it. It’s a TOTALLY reasonable opinion based on the supporting evidence. At this point it’s a much more reasonable opinion that he’s the worst ever than that he is a functioning backup. 

 

I feel like his INT percentage of 9.2% as the lowest of any of the 356 QBs is also a fact. Only one other guy being above 7% is also a fact. Maybe I’m not the one struggling to determine what’s a fact? 

 

We agree though, Peterman’s incompetence on the football field is someone else’s fault. His interceptions are the receivers fault. The talent around him was Beane’s fault. Why do we make excuses for him?!? That’s why I constantly defend this position!!! Let’s call it what it is. At this juncture he has played as poorly at the position as any player ever. You might think it’s 3rd worst, or 5th worst but there is no argument to be made that he’s anywhere but near the bottom. 

 

He absolutely could be the worst ever and still in the league. In order to be the worst ever at something you will have had to have done it. Peterman likely is in the league this year. His performance in actual NFL games has been worse than any player with a similar opportunity. Those things can both be true. 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

On 8/13/2019 at 4:18 PM, Rocky Landing said:

One of the definitions of fraud is "someone who is not what they seem, or is represented to be." I'm sure Late Nate wants to be a competent NFL-level QB. He's not. Does he know he's not? I think somewhere in his brain, he must. That is why I said "... to some degree..." Do I hold it against him? Only if he's wearing a Bills uni. But, the bottom line is: Nate Peterman is not a competent NFL quarterback.

Legally the definition of "fraud" includes saying something that you know or should have known was false at the time you made the statement, which causes someone to act or not act based on the fraudulent conduct--how can it be said that Peterman is perpetrating a fraud on anyone at this point? There's plenty of tape on him. Gruden has watched the tape, and had also continued to evaluate him "live," and Peterman remains employed accordingly. Therefore, there must be something that Peterman has shown, or skills that he displays, that would give the Raiders a reason to stay optimistic that he can be salvaged. Or, it's as simple as a Gruden ego trip. Who knows? Interesting read on the topic here:
https://www.theringer.com/2019/8/2/20751186/nathan-peterman-jon-gruden-oakland-raiders 

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Well of course it’s an opinion. There are numbers that make a strong case for it. It’s a TOTALLY reasonable opinion based on the supporting evidence. At this point it’s a much more reasonable opinion that he’s the worst ever than that he is a functioning backup. 

 

I feel like his INT percentage of 9.2% as the lowest of any of the 356 QBs is also a fact. Only one other guy being above 7% is also a fact. Maybe I’m not the one struggling to determine what’s a fact? 

 

We agree though, Peterman’s incompetence on the football field is someone else’s fault. His interceptions are the receivers fault. The talent around him was Beane’s fault. Why do we make excuses for him?!? That’s why I constantly defend this position!!! Let’s call it what it is. At this juncture he has played as poorly at the position as any player ever. You might think it’s 3rd worst, or 5th worst but there is no argument to be made that he’s anywhere but near the bottom. 

 

He absolutely could be the worst ever and still in the league. In order to be the worst ever at something you will have had to have done it. Peterman likely is in the league this year. His performance in actual NFL games has been worse than any player with a similar opportunity. Those things can both be true. 

 

 

Glad you understand it's an opinion. I wonder why, then, you stated it as a fact.

 

And no, it's not an especially reasonable opinion. Just to quickly pick out a few who were likely worse, I picked the year 2010 randomly and checked the 2010 NFL draft and looked at the last four guys drafted. Tony Pike spent one year with the Panthers, was put in in Week 9 after the first and second-stringers were injured. He was then benched after twelve throws. He was benched that game and never saw the field again and didn't make it through the next camp. Nobody picked him up. Levi Brown was the second. NFL stats, 2/3, zero touchdowns and one INT. A 33% interception rate. Sean Canfield was the third. All you'll find on his NFL stats page are his combine measurements and drill times. Never saw the field even in mop-up time. Zac Robinson was the fourth and he also never threw an official pass. Must've been smart, as he's an assistant QB coach for the Rams now. But saying Peterman is worse than all four of these guys simply doesn't make much sense.

 

And yeah, your numbers are factual. If I'd questioned your numbers, you'd have a point. Thing is, I didn't. And more, you didn't even put those particular numbers in your post for me to see, so I couldn't have questioned them if I'd wanted. So that's one weakass argument there.

 

As is the pretense that I said it was all someone else's fault. Nice little straw man there. If nothing I said is illogical ... yeah, make up a straw man, pretend I said it and then attack the argument you just made up out of whole cloth. Pretty pitiful.

 

And no, "His performance in actual NFL games has been worse than any player with a similar opportunity" is yet another opinion masquerading as a fact. Obviously Gruden doesn't think so, for instance. And while I think Gruden's a nut, he's an extremely knowledgeable football man as well.

 

And no, it really doesn't make sense that Peterman's the worst ever and still in the league. There are plenty of QBs who never made it out of training camp. Thousands? They're worse. And if he were worse than every single one of them, he wouldn't be getting yet another opportunity.

 

"Near the bottom"? Ah, finally, something we can agree on ... but the bottom is probably 1700 QBs. And again, Peterman is still around. As I've pointed out there are guys who've put up stats just about as poor over their first season or first 130 passes and yet become reasonably to very successful down the road, including Peyton Manning's first 130, Matt Barkley's first two years, and even Terry Bradshaw's first year. Nobody would argue that Peterman's regular season performances have been successful. It wouldn't make sense to do so. But he's still in the league (as of today, anyway), for a reason.

 

 

 

Well, the juice has been squeezed out of this one and there's nothing but rind left. I believe I'm done on this subject.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Kirby Jackson]

17 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Glad you understand it's an opinion. I wonder why, then, you stated it as a fact.

 

And no, it's not an especially reasonable opinion. Just to quickly pick out a few who were likely worse, I picked the year 2010 randomly and checked the 2010 NFL draft and looked at the last four guys drafted. Tony Pike spent one year with the Panthers, was put in in Week 9 after the first and second-stringers were injured. He was then benched after twelve throws. He was benched that game and never saw the field again and didn't make it through the next camp. Nobody picked him up. Levi Brown was the second. NFL stats, 2/3, zero touchdowns and one INT. A 33% interception rate. Sean Canfield was the third. All you'll find on his NFL stats page are his combine measurements and drill times. Never saw the field even in mop-up time. Zac Robinson was the fourth and he also never threw an official pass. Must've been smart, as he's an assistant QB coach for the Rams now. But saying Peterman is worse than all four of these guys simply doesn't make much sense.

 

And yeah, your numbers are factual. If I'd questioned your numbers, you'd have a point. Thing is, I didn't. And more, you didn't even put those particular numbers in your post for me to see, so I couldn't have questioned them if I'd wanted. So that's one weakass argument there.

 

As is the pretense that I said it was all someone else's fault. Nice little straw man there. If nothing I said is illogical ... yeah, make up a straw man, pretend I said it and then attack the argument you just made up out of whole cloth. Pretty pitiful.

 

And no, "His performance in actual NFL games has been worse than any player with a similar opportunity" is yet another opinion masquerading as a fact. Obviously Gruden doesn't think so, for instance. And while I think Gruden's a nut, he's an extremely knowledgeable football man as well.

 

And no, it really doesn't make sense that Peterman's the worst ever and still in the league. There are plenty of QBs who never made it out of training camp. Thousands? They're worse. And if he were worse than every single one of them, he wouldn't be getting yet another opportunity.

 

"Near the bottom"? Ah, finally, something we can agree on ... but the bottom is probably 1700 QBs. And again, Peterman is still around. As I've pointed out there are guys who've put up stats just about as poor over their first season or first 130 passes and yet become reasonably to very successful down the road, including Peyton Manning's first 130, Matt Barkley's first two years, and even Terry Bradshaw's first year. Nobody would argue that Peterman's regular season performances have been successful. It wouldn't make sense to do so. But he's still in the league (as of today, anyway), for a reason.

 

 

 

Well, the juice has been squeezed out of this one and there's nothing but rind left. I believe I'm done on this subject.

It’s absolutely reasonable and there is evidence to support it. You can’t say a guy is worse that didn’t play because we don’t know!! You can only compare QBs to other QBs. We don’t know if Gibran Hamdan is a worse QB than Nate Peterman because he didn’t get a chance. Kurt Warner went from grocery bagger to HOFer. I guess he was worse because he wasn’t in the league? You can’t compare him to guys that didn’t play!! When you stack up NP against guys with similar experience, he ranks last in QB rating and last in INT %. He ranks 356 of 356 (ie worst). Keep in mind, he is doing this in an era where every single passing record is being SHATTERED. The rules favor the passing game more than any time in the game’s history. So while he has every possible advantage he has still performed worse than those that had more challenges. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Kirby Jackson

[Rocky Landing]

2 hours ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

Legally the definition of "fraud" includes saying something that you know or should have known was false at the time you made the statement, which causes someone to act or not act based on the fraudulent conduct--how can it be said that Peterman is perpetrating a fraud on anyone at this point? There's plenty of tape on him. Gruden has watched the tape, and had also continued to evaluate him "live," and Peterman remains employed accordingly. Therefore, there must be something that Peterman has shown, or skills that he displays, that would give the Raiders a reason to stay optimistic that he can be salvaged. Or, it's as simple as a Gruden ego trip. Who knows? Interesting read on the topic here:
https://www.theringer.com/2019/8/2/20751186/nathan-peterman-jon-gruden-oakland-raiders 

I'm not talking about suing him! Jesus, everyone needs to calm down...

[MR8]

On 8/11/2019 at 2:51 AM, SydneyBillsFan said:

I wish this whole laughing at Peterman thing would stop. He is a thoroughly decent kid who tries his best but is simply not cut out for the NFL. Doesn't mean that he deserves to be ridiculed.

 

 

[BigDingus]

On 8/11/2019 at 3:07 AM, Dafan said:

Wish the best for the kid....but he looked pretty good for us last preseason to.  Even remember some NFL analysts saying he should have been starting for the Bills.  Then came along regular season!

 

Even with the regular season, it's not like he was given much of a chance.

We had coaches that thoroughly jerked him around...giving him all of one half before pulling him again. The guy may have sucked, but it's not like anyone showed more than surface-level confidence in him, and he knew any failures would get him sent back to the bench in an instant. 

Again, not saying he would've been great, but I've rarely seen another QB get treated the way he did. 

[MR8]

1 minute ago, BigDingus said:

 

Even with the regular season, it's not like he was given much of a chance.

We had coaches that thoroughly jerked him around...giving him all of one half before pulling him again. The guy may have sucked, but it's not like anyone showed more than surface-level confidence in him, and he knew any failures would get him sent back to the bench in an instant. 

Again, not saying he would've been great, but I've rarely seen another QB get treated the way he did. 

 

Probably because no one has ever seen another QB play as HISTORICALLY badly as he did in his limited time.

 

Pretty sure all the well wishes and faith in him wouldn't have taken away the interceptions the kid kept throwing. 

 

Sometimes guys just suck.  

[Kelly the Dog]

The funny thing is, it’s takes Peterman’s legs the same amount of time to get a football 50 yards as it does his arm to do it. 

[Lfod]

23 minutes ago, MR8 said:

 

Probably because no one has ever seen another QB play as HISTORICALLY badly as he did in his limited time.

 

Pretty sure all the well wishes and faith in him wouldn't have taken away the interceptions the kid kept throwing. 

 

Sometimes guys just suck.  

 The Bills hadn't made the playoffs in a long time. The team was undergoing management changes. McDermott had the defense on fire but the offense straight sucked. 

 

Sometimes situations just suck to be in. Peterman didn't start because he was amazing. That was wishful thinking. He started because nothing else was going on.

 

Peterman blew his opportunity in Buffalo for sure, but it wasn't that great of an opportunity if you are being honest. 

Edited August 15, 2019 by Lfod

[NoHuddleKelly12]

1 hour ago, Rocky Landing said:

I'm not talking about suing him! Jesus, everyone needs to calm down...

I’m plenty calm . Just pointing out that no one employing NP now, could ever be naive as to what he’s done so far in the NFL, that’s all.

[Rocky Landing]

I keep catching myself making up little rhymes in the style of the old Burma Shave signs. Like:

          I'm a big time quarterback

                      In the NFL

                                  Here comes my pass

                                             TOUCH D - Oh hell..

                                                              PETERMAN

 

[Dafan]

2 hours ago, BigDingus said:

 

Even with the regular season, it's not like he was given much of a chance.

We had coaches that thoroughly jerked him around...giving him all of one half before pulling him again. The guy may have sucked, but it's not like anyone showed more than surface-level confidence in him, and he knew any failures would get him sent back to the bench in an instant. 

Again, not saying he would've been great, but I've rarely seen another QB get treated the way he did. 

You've never seen a QB treated that way because no other QB has ever started as poorly as he did.

[Nextmanup]

Who's watching Hard Knocks?

 

Peterman is doing the same old Peterman stuff out in California too.

 

Gruden was actually giving it to him a little in the second episode.

 

The kid just has no business being anywhere near an NFL football field.  

[SCBills]

4 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

Who's watching Hard Knocks?

 

Peterman is doing the same old Peterman stuff out in California too.

 

Gruden was actually giving it to him a little in the second episode.

 

The kid just has no business being anywhere near an NFL football field.  

 

He actually does... just only during the preseason.   Dude will light you up when the games don’t matter. 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by SCBills

[mramefa]

Today's game:

Nathan Peterman 8/8, 41 yards

Kyler Murray 3/8, 12 yards

 

[Gugny]

9 hours ago, Dafan said:

You've never seen a QB treated that way because no other QB has ever started as poorly as he did.

 

No QB ever had his line purposely not block like he did, either (Chargers game).  That's a hell of a way to begin one's career.

 

I hope Peterman secures a job and I hope he has a successful career.

[That's No Moon]

A whopping 5 yard average tonight.

[Bevis]

5 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

No QB ever had his line purposely not block like he did, either (Chargers game).  That's a hell of a way to begin one's career.

 

I hope Peterman secures a job and I hope he has a successful career.

 

Yeah, that was a display of racism in the NFL.  Black QB being replaced by white QB and the black guys on the line deciding not to block for the white QB. I wonder what Jay-Z will do about stuff like that...

[Chandler#81]

6 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

No QB ever had his line purposely not block like he did, either (Chargers game).  That's a hell of a way to begin one's career.

 

I hope Peterman secures a job and I hope he has a successful career.

 

Ask Dennis Shaw. NFL ROY to out of football in 5 years. ?

[PetermansRedemption]

I feel Peterman took a solid 3rd place on the Raider’s QB Depth Chart after tonight. Glennon was on fire. Around 11/14 with 150 yards and 2 TDS. Oh well, Glennon throwing the ball to Antonio Brown if Derek Carr gets hurt is still good. 

[BritBill]

9 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

Who's watching Hard Knocks?

 

Peterman is doing the same old Peterman stuff out in California too.

 

Gruden was actually giving it to him a little in the second episode.

 

The kid just has no business being anywhere near an NFL football field.  

 

I watched episode 2 last night. I was surprised by how little personality and enthusiasm Glennon and Peterman have. Seen more charm in a mass grave. You can see why Gruden had a pop at them. 

 

I get the same impression when I see Josh Rosen. Although admittedly not seen him as close up he always seems to have a face like someone came into his house and pi$$ed on his kids at Christmas.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by BritBill

[Thurman#1]

21 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It’s absolutely reasonable and there is evidence to support it. You can’t say a guy is worse that didn’t play because we don’t know!! You can only compare QBs to other QBs. We don’t know if Gibran Hamdan is a worse QB than Nate Peterman because he didn’t get a chance. Kurt Warner went from grocery bagger to HOFer. I guess he was worse because he wasn’t in the league? You can’t compare him to guys that didn’t play!! When you stack up NP against guys with similar experience, he ranks last in QB rating and last in INT %. He ranks 356 of 356 (ie worst). Keep in mind, he is doing this in an era where every single passing record is being SHATTERED. The rules favor the passing game more than any time in the game’s history. So while he has every possible advantage he has still performed worse than those that had more challenges. 

 

 

Yup. Absolutely reasonable. To say it about Peterman and around 1700 other QBs who accomplished even less..

 

And you're right that we don't know if a guy is worse when he didn't even play. Thing is ... give those guys the benefit of the doubt and intellectual honesty demands you give Peterman the same benefit.

 

Listen, 'cause this is the truth. We ... don't ... know ... how ... Peterman ... will ... be ... thought of. Nor will we till the end of his career. Again, it's not over. It may be soon, but it's not. And if you don't give Peterman the benefit of the doubt ... and you clearly don't ... then a neutral observer who doesn't hate Peterman doesn't give any of those others the benefit of the doubt either. Most of them didn't play  ... because they sucked too much to get on the field. Fair enough that out of those 1700 (I'm choosing that number because there are just over 2000 QBs with passer ratings, but there are probably another couple of thousand who weren't even good enough to see the field and get a passer rating) there might indeed be 20 or 30 who might have been good if given a chance. Maybe Hamdan was better, who knows, though I doubt it. But the vast majority of them simply sucked, and were never even good enough to get that chance,

 

And again, you keep avoiding my point that several QBs who turned out to be very good, including two Hall of Famers (I assume Peyton will make it), started with comparable or even worse early work with Peterman. Can we say that maybe Peterman would be just as good if he'd been given the chance? Use that logic on thousands of other QBs, as you do, and in intellectual fairness, you actually have to say that.

 

Peterman's near the bottom, yes, along with thousands of others.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Kirby Jackson]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yup. Absolutely reasonable. To say it about Peterman and around 1700 other QBs who accomplished even less..

 

And you're right that we don't know if a guy is worse when he didn't even play. Thing is ... give those guys the benefit of the doubt and intellectual honesty demands you give Peterman the same benefit.

 

Listen, 'cause this is the truth. We ... don't ... know ... how ... Peterman ... will ... be ... thought of. Nor will we till the end of his career. Again, it's not over. It may be soon, but it's not. And if you don't give Peterman the benefit of the doubt ... and you clearly don't ... then a neutral observer who doesn't hate Peterman doesn't give any of those others the benefit of the doubt either. Most of them didn't play  ... because they sucked too much to get on the field. Fair enough that out of those 1700 (I'm choosing that number because there are just over 2000 QBs with passer ratings, but there are probably another couple of thousand who weren't even good enough to see the field and get a passer rating) there might indeed be 20 or 30 who might have been good if given a chance. Maybe Hamdan was better, who knows, though I doubt it. But the vast majority of them simply sucked, and were never even good enough to get that chance,

 

And again, you keep avoiding my point that several QBs who turned out to be very good, including two Hall of Famers (I assume Peyton will make it), started with comparable or even worse early work with Peterman. Can we say that maybe Peterman would be just as good if he'd been given the chance? Use that logic on thousands of other QBs, as you do, and in intellectual fairness, you actually have to say that.

 

Peterman's near the bottom, yes, along with thousands of others.

My point, is, and has been, at this point it’s reasonable to consider him the worst that’s ever played. There are numbers that support that. Can this change? Of course it can!! If he gets out there and plays really well things can change. The last chapter isn’t written (although it may be soon). 

 

The “guys couldn’t get on the field” argument is BS. We can’t compare a resume to someone that never got the chance. 1 year ago today, even after the nightmare against the Chargers, you would have said, “he’s still better than Nick Mullins.” Now, that opinion isn’t a reasonable one. Now could Peterman play well and Mullins poorly and that switch? Sure, but we can only judge on what HAS happened not what we THINK MIGHT happen. 

[Thurman#1]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

My point, is, and has been, at this point it’s reasonable to consider him the worst that’s ever played. There are numbers that support that. Can this change? Of course it can!! If he gets out there and plays really well things can change. The last chapter isn’t written (although it may be soon). 

 

The “guys couldn’t get on the field” argument is BS. We can’t compare a resume to someone that never got the chance. 1 year ago today, even after the nightmare against the Chargers, you would have said, “he’s still better than Nick Mullins.” Now, that opinion isn’t a reasonable one. Now could Peterman play well and Mullins poorly and that switch? Sure, but we can only judge on what HAS happened not what we THINK MIGHT happen. 

 

 

 

The only thing BS about that "guys couldn't get on the field" argument is that it debunks your argument.

 

If your point "is, and has been, at this point it’s reasonable to consider him the worst that’s ever played," then for the third time, that is correct.

 

It's correct to say so about Peterman and probably 1700 other guys who saw the field at least for a moment, and probably 2000 more who didn't get a chance ... because they sucked. It's certainly reasonable to guess that maybe ... maybe ... there were a quarter of a percentile or whatever who might have made something of themselves. But to pretend that anything but the overwhelming majority of them would have been any good at all is the worst kind of sad reach to pretend your argument makes sense.

 

Say there were 1000 guys who never threw a pass. You'd have to be on LSD to deny that 750 or more of them didn't make it because they simply didn't have what it takes.