Nathan Peterman to Start this Week.

[Bookie Man]

14 minutes ago, BobChalmers said:

 

LOL - it's a 3-6 team (1-3 at home) with no fan support and quite possibly w/o their starting QB.

 

Best possible situation for NP except possibly home vs. Indy

 

+1

 

 

Chargers could very easily be 8-1 / 7-2. Avg. Margin of defeat is 5 points. Defense is legit. They haven't allowed more that 26 points in a game this year. #4 scoring defense and #2 in sacks. That includes playing against the likes of New England, KC, Oakland, Philly. They have a pretty sneaky good defense. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Rise Up Lights

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

6 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Which are all valid.

 

Those excuses, if necessary, will also be the arguments against McD's decision making.  Why start a rookie QB with few reps and no experience when you're 5-4 and still looking at a chance for post season play. 

 

why not? obviously the starter wasn't getting the job done. would it of been better to have kept taylor in there and lose the next three?

 

as it is now, they still could but I think everyone for the most part has seen enough of taylor, including the coach. 

 

 

[HansLanda]

1 minute ago, Big C said:

Wow. Just seeing this. I wonder if players asked for a change?

 

McD said decision was all him and he told the coaches after he talked with Beane. 

[KW95 - JA17]

2 hours ago, Lex Lyon said:

Deer Lord...

 

Starting a 5th round rookie QB.

 

That ought to fix everything

 

Mr. Brady wants a word with you

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

I'm really surprised about this news and glad to see a coach who isn't afraid to shake it up if things aren't working correctly, ego is a killer of a HC, good to see McDermott check his at the door. I'm all for the move and we'll see if Peterman starts a bunch of games whether he's someone we can build around for the future or just a decent backup type of QB, were going to find out at least, kudos to the coaching staff.

[southtampacane]

2 hours ago, blacklabel said:

Not fibs. Wow. I'm surprised. Didn't think McD would be the kind of coach to make that type of change while they're still in the playoff race.

 

I can't imagine they'd make this decision based on his garbage time performance last week. That was against a soft defense, mainly backups, most QBs will look good against that. He must be making strides in practice. I also think they feel like he can execute the short passing game better to neutralize the rush.

It seems clear to me that Beane made this decision for him.  Pure speculation, but all the wording tells me his tough talk is to save face.   Why else would he scoff two days ago about Nate's garbage time stats while insisting Tyrod being the guy.   I'm not disagreeing with the decision, but it smacks of either Beane or god forbid Pegula telling them what to do.

[ctk232]

2 minutes ago, Rise Up Lights said:

Chargers could very easily be 8-1 / 7-2. Avg. Margin of defeat is 5 points. Defensive is legit. They haven't allowed more that 26 points in a game this year. #4 scoring defense and #2 in sacks. That includes playing against the likes of New England, KC, Oakland, Philly. They have a pretty sneaky good defense. 

Sunday's going to be sack city with more INT's - QB change doesn't fix our OL or protection. Just hope his quick throws are on target a lot...

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, southtampacane said:

It seems clear to me that Beane made this decision for him.  Pure speculation, but all the wording tells me his tough talk is to save face.   Why else would he scoff two days ago about Nate's garbage time stats while insisting Tyrod being the guy.   I'm not disagreeing with the decision, but it smacks of either Beane or god forbid Pegula telling them what to do.

 

This is McDermott's call as the HC. 

[Thurman Kelly]

20 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Really?!? You wanted him to say “I agree with the coaches and think that Nate gives us a better chance to win than I do.” Come on man

 

No, I wanted him to say nothing at all about whether he thought the coaches were right.  What players usually say is that it's a coaching decision, and that they are going to continue to work hard, help the guy coming in as much as they can, and be ready to go back in.

 

Saying he disagrees with the coaches makes him look like he and the coaches aren't on the same page.  There's no upside to that message.  He should have left it out.

[thunderingsquid]

http://www.nfl.com/m/share?p=%2Fvideos%2Fnfl-game-highlights%2F0ap3000000877693%2FAll-of-Nathan-Peterman-s-throws-from-Week-10

Edited November 15, 2017 by thunderingsquid

[Jerry Jabber]

Good move. With Dennison's system better suited for a pocket passer, it makes sense to make the switch. Dennison did not design the offense around Taylor's strengths, he built the scheme and left Taylor to either sink or swim in it. It looks like Peterman will have seven games to show what he has, this will go a long way in determining if the Bills need to draft a QB early on in the draft. If the Bills don't have to pony up a ton of picks to move up in the draft because Peterman has shown he has what it takes to be a franchise QB, then it's a huge win. If not, then at least the team knows what they have in Peterman (whether he's starting material or a backup).

 

This week's game should favor the Bills as there is very limited film on Peterman (preseason and two drives from last week). I'm not saying the Bills are going to win for sure, but there's a good amount of the unknown on Peterman and how he is able to run the Bills offense.

 

I'm curious to see a few things from Peterman this season, how he looks in these first few games, how he looks when teams have a few weeks of film on him and try to take away what he does best as well as how Peterman handles those defensive adjustments and adjusts himself.

[Big C]

2 minutes ago, HansLanda said:

 

McD said decision was all him and he told the coaches after he talked with Beane. 

 

I mean, he can just say that...

[Dorkington]

43 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

It will be this year and next that show why that trade was not worth it

Considering how important he's been for our offense, I actually think it was worth it. We need to get him better holes to run through, and then he makes things happen. Also we need a better running threat than Tolbert behind him. 

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Rise Up Lights said:

 

 

Chargers could very easily be 8-1 / 7-2. Avg. Margin of defeat is 5 points. Defensive is legit. They haven't allowed more that 26 points in a game this year. #4 scoring defense and #2 in sacks. That includes playing against the likes of New England, KC, Oakland, Philly. They have a pretty sneaky good defense. 

Yep. But I don't think their defense is sneaky good at all; they are straight up a good defense and it's apparent when you watch them. Helluva D for Peterman to cut his teeth on. I see Dennison going ultra conservative as a result. 

 

I'm more concerned about our defense though, believe it or not. 

[Kelly the Dog]

7 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Why people continue to refuse factoring in what Taylor did for the run game in the Roman scheme (I mean, it's patently obvious) is beyond me.  Having said this, he's not built to succeed in this scheme.

It's ridiculous.

 

Why Dennison and McD thought it was a good idea to cut out what he does well and force this system on him is beyond me as well. In fact, in games 3-4 (I cant recall right now) they started doing what a lot of us were begging for, the rollouts and naked boots and designed runs and the team was moving the ball. Then they scrapped that.

 

They tried a naked boot on the first play of the Jet game and it got blown up because the Jets just happened to call the right D and no one blocked a guy and then since that play they seemed to have just abandoned that idea, even though the pass blocking for straight dropbacks has been appalling.

[Bookie Man]

Just now, ctk232 said:

Sunday's going to be sack city with more INT's - QB change doesn't fix our OL or protection. Just hope his quick throws are on target a lot...

NP may throw a pick or 2. He has a more gun slinger mentality. But he processes information very quickly as well, don't think he'll hang onto the ball and take sacks ala Tyrod. I expect more points and yards, but possibly a turnover or 2. He did decent last week coming in cold off the bench.

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, ScottLaw said:

You haven't been paying attention.

 

That was Tyrods fault too.

The defense sucked and the offense sucked.  Accept it Scott.

[boyst]

Just now, Dorkington said:

Considering how important he's been for our offense, I actually think it was worth it. We need to get him better holes to run through, and then he makes things happen. Also we need a better running threat than Tolbert behind him. 

We could have kept Alonso, traded him for someone else, done a bunch of things besides trade for a guy under contract. Give him a boat load of money more because his #feelings and then give him even more because why not?

 

 

It's even dumber we gave Eric deadWood more money. I've loathed him 3 years. He's a joke. 

[thenorthremembers]

Just now, ScottLaw said:

You haven't been paying attention.

 

That was Tyrods fault too.

 

Not being a good defense, run game, blocking scheme was not Tyrod's fault.  I concede to you there.  However, if you expect everything to fall into place for the perfect season then you'll be waiting a long long time for a good team.   The fact that we have a awful quarterback was however Tyrod's fault, and having a good quarterback takes care of every other issue you have.

 

 

[Jasovon]

1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

The defense sucked and the offense sucked.  Accept it Scott.

I think we can all see that, not sure a QB change fixes either.