Jump to content
The Bills Blog

Peterman 50-yard run! 😂

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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 by SCBills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 😳

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by BritBill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Thurman#1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 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 is a great debating point, doubt we wil ever know f it is true.   If it is true, doesnt speak very highly of the respect McDermott team had for him as a HC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

Yeah that is a great debating point, doubt we wil ever know f it is true.   If it is true, doesnt speak very highly of the respect McDermott team had for him as a HC.

 

I think it speaks more to the team division.  Very reminiscent of the Futile days.  But let's not talk about Tyrod anymore, shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

Yeah that is a great debating point, doubt we wil ever know f it is true.   If it is true, doesnt speak very highly of the respect McDermott team had for him as a HC.

Its not true and this conspiracy theory garbage needs to be stopped.

 

It is the opposite of a "great debating point". Nobody has any proof on either side and the only possibility is that it leads to arguing about race and eventually politics.

Edited by jletha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any case to be made about any raiders player last night. The Cardinals are so incredibly bad. I predict they have 1 win this season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jletha said:

Its not true and this conspiracy theory garbage needs to be stopped.

 

It is the opposite of a "great debating point". Nobody has any proof on either side and the only possibility is that it leads to arguing about race and eventually politics.

 

There's a quote out there (you can find it if you want to see it) from a SD defensive player saying something like, "they didn't even try to block me,"

 

It's an excellent debating point.

 

And if it goes to race, then those people are idiots.  It's not a debate about race or politics.  It's a debate about team division and an O line abandoning their QB.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jletha said:

Its not true and this conspiracy theory garbage needs to be stopped.

 

It is the opposite of a "great debating point". Nobody has any proof on either side and the only possibility is that it leads to arguing about race and eventually politics.

Football, race, politics, sounds like a Sunday afternoon in the deep south to me!

The question is , which track

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

There's a quote out there (you can find it if you want to see it) from a SD defensive player saying something like, "they didn't even try to block me,"

 

It's an excellent debating point.

 

And if it goes to race, then those people are idiots.  It's not a debate about race or politics.  It's a debate about team division and an O line abandoning their QB.

 

Oh, I don't know. I think arguing that the entire O-line would be willing to risk their own careers based on a defender's comment taken out of context is at least as idiotic as some racial/political connection. Hey, maybe Peterman's a Trump supporter?

  • Haha (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rocky Landing said:

Oh, I don't know. I think arguing that the entire O-line would be willing to risk their own careers based on a defender's comment taken out of context is at least as idiotic as some racial/political connection. Hey, maybe Peterman's a Trump supporter?

 

How can that comment be taken out of context?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

How can that comment be taken out of context?  

Because Jordan Mills is so bad some times that it appears as if he didn’t try to block him. There have been all kinds of jailbreak plays in the last several years like in the Chargers game. And it’s clearly obvious the way to fluster NP is to rush him hard because he panics. 

  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

How can that comment be taken out of context?  

You literally took it out of context...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jletha said:

You literally took it out of context...

 

I literally did not.  I literally watched the game.  Then I literally formed my opinion based upon what I literally saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I literally did not.  I literally watched the game.  Then I literally formed my opinion based upon what I literally saw.

Im not denying that. Im saying that by taking a snippet of a quote from a random SD player that is not verbatim and not providing the question that was asked of the SD player or any other part of the quote, before or after, you quite literally took the quote out of context.

Edited by jletha
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

How can that comment be taken out of context?  

The context of the quote was a SD player talking about how bad the O-line was playing, not how they were "abandoning their QB."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...