starrymessenger

Certainly Peterman was not ready to start, and should not have started, on this team against that team. In retrospect it was a mistake. Trying to force a throw when you are better off taking the sack is very typical of a raw rookie. Doesn't mean he can't or will never learn. Only time will tell imo.

And the O is not a real issue? In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

How do you think he would have done if his first game had been last Sunday behind our O-line with our TEs and WRs? If Peterman had started with that Boys team instead I think he would have looked a lot better. He might even have looked very good. You know Fitz tore it up his first game action. Passed for more than 300 yrds if I remember correctly. But if Peterman had been successful behind a good line and with superior weapons we actually wouldn't be that much further ahead in evaluating him than we are now. That would in either case take more time. Some posters say the kid has already been ruined by his bad start. I think he probably has more character than that. Actually because it was so rough I think what happened Sunday will be an excellent learning experience. For sure he now has a better idea of just how big the gap can be between Syracuse and the NFL. I don't think it will kill him. I think it will help make him stronger. Will such experiences teach him to be strong enuf? Too early to say imo.

The same offensive (with the emphasis on "offensive") line that allowed a Jets team not good at getting after the QB (unlike the Bolts) to sack Tyrod, an acknowledged escape artist, how many times exactly? Care to remind me?

How did EJ and JaMarcus compare with Dak? Physically I mean.

No weapons in the passing game, no O-line, questionable playcalls, a D that will soon have you playing from behind, and I mean far behind, and an opposing D that can get after the passer. Pretty much set up to fail from the get go. We will see more of Peterman before the year is out, either in KC or after we are eliminated from the playoffs, which may be soon but in any case seems inevitable. Some think we have already seen enuf of Peterman. Maybe I'm a sucker for punishment but I need to see more before forming a view. I think Johnny U once threw 4 picks in a game. True. If you asked DiMarco somehow I don't think he'd say "well whadya expect. He threw a laser at my head" lol. Manos di pietras.

Good players make aweful players look bad. Its what they do.

Yeah, I thought that was a very weird playcall. Not sure why they were in dime tho. Is that a normal defensive alignment in that situation?

Playoffs??? Playoffs??? Maybe I'm speaking heresy but outside of breaking the drought, which would at least get rid of an embarrassing situation, I can't really get excited about the playoffs. They are not first and foremost in my thinking. We would be a laughably bad team lucking into them not because we deserve to be there but because of a historically mediocre AFC and the whims of the ever fickle football gods. We would also get blown out in the first round. You go to the playoffs with the intention of progressing, whether you do or not. We can't credibly have that intention. To me job one is not making the playoffs but trying to figure out what to do to improve what might be the worst tire fire in the NFL which furthermore looks like it may burn on into the forseeable future.

From a production standpoint, neither playing Peterman nor Tyrod (assuming Dennison's undiluted WCO) is a good option going forward. And with the D performing at the level that it has recently (and I don't see it improving, this is what they are) what either guy is able to accomplish isn't going to make a difference as to the result. Playing Peterman gives you a better idea of whether he can develop (I know many have already made up their minds). Playing Tyrod is better for Coach's standing in the lockerroom and is an effective hedge against the possibility of further embarassment via total implosion. Flip a coin. I think I would stick with the vet. McD is a rookie himself who has to earn the respect of the players before he gets a bad rep that could haunt him for some time to come. It takes a man to admit his mistake. People can respond favourably to that. There will come a more convenient time to further evaluate Peterman.

I agree. After the Jets/Saints debacles I was in favour of making the change. I was wrong. More importantly of course Coach was wrong. Its not just that the Bolts are good at getting after the QB its that our pass pro is porous and susceptible to disaster. Not having your starting LT made a bad situation worse, as you point out. Although it could not have been forseen, losing your main weapon in the passing game immediately was the kiss of death. In retrospect it probably would have made sense to stick with Tyrod until we were eliminated from playoff contention, if such was the case, and then given Peterman playing time. I give Coach credit for having the courage to shake things up but it was an ill advised move. Now probably the best thing for him to do is show the lockerroom some humility by implicitly acknowledging his mistake by starting Tyrod. In the long run that will buy him more respect where he needs to have it. As for Nate, if he has been ruined by this experience then it really never was meant to be. I think he is smart enuf and has enuf character to treat this as a hard lesson. Unlike many posters I'm by no means writing him off as a prospect. Not yet anyway. Forcing throws when he should have taken sacks is a classic rookie mistake and is all part of acclimating to the speed of the NFL game. The out was a poor throw and the same DB had a chance to pick another poor toss. Can NP make the necessary adjustment/improvement to his game? Idk.

We would have gotten blown out. It would not have been quite as bad but ugly nevertheless. Bolts would pretty much have scored at will on almost every possession anyway. Dennison's scheme is the worst possible fit for TT and we have purged talent on both sides of the ball. Things are not getting better in the short run.

Behind this line CK would be a disaster. He is pretty much the same guy he has always been. He is playing behind a good line with a run game and good weapons. He would have gotten killed today if a Bill.

Well no not exactly imo. He knew where he wanted to go with it but was hit as he released the ball. Because they were on him like a pack of ravenous dogs on a hamburger.

I agree. My recollection was that when he looked bad under pressure in the preseason he really had no protection at all. Just snap the ball and get after him was all. But that O-line was made up of guys certain to be soon pursuing other employment. Even with Bosa and Ingram I thought Peterman would have more help than that. These guys aren't great but they are supposed to be veteran NFL O linemen. But he didn't have better protection than the scrubs afforded him in preseason. I don't think any pocket passer would have fared any better today. Add to that the absence of Benjamin and Matthews and the kid could only fail.

The colour guys said that the pick on the Thompson looked like a miscommunication. WR cut to the outside. Ball was to the inside.

Hardly the same "average team". How did your guy look last week with THIS team?

They would in that case probably both look better imo. As for the bet, to me its a 50/50 proposition at this point. Taylor has the assets we know about and he is experienced, but he really isn't very good at throwing a football. You clearly win the bet if you are of a mind to write Peterman off as a prospect. Speaking for myself I'm not there already, although I gather many are.

Watched the Rams and Vikes earlier today. Case Keenum, a scheme dependant journeyman QB continued his excellent play. Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure Peterman would have looked a lot better, and maybe even good, behind that line and with the Vikes weapons at his disposal. Last year Keenum was pretty aweful behind a bad line and with fewer weapons. I don't think coach was wrong to start Peterman because he is a fifth round raw rookie. It appears to me that he miscalculated by not taking into consideration just how bad the O-line was in pass pro especially going against a team that can get after the QB. Losing Benjamin and Matthews only made a bad situation much worse, in fact downright impossible to overcome. When Ben and Brady came in as rooks/raw QBs they were surrounded with and supported by much better players than we have on our roster. The nightmare that is this defence probably on its own was enuf to seal our fate as far as competing for the win was concerned. I don't know who coach will or even should start in KC. There really are no good options and I'm not sure which of the two is worse.

not even HoFmers imo

The team was not ready to be starting the rook either.

Disagree. Its a challenge but if he was ever meant to amount to anything he will put it out of his mind. If he cant do that it was never meant to be.

Well at least we know that Johnson and Gove are the result of generations of Conservative party inbreeding. Whats the Bills excuse?

You may be right. You might not. Hard to imagine a worse debut for Peterman for sure. Not sure how much is on him. But we've seen a lot more of Tyrod and imo he is not the answer.

ok ive seen enuf