To everyone who was so adamant that the Bills start Peterman

[dulles]

On 11/19/2017 at 7:47 PM, paulbills said:

It's hard to not support the decision to bench your starter after he went 9/18 for 56 yards in a must win game at home vs the Saints, the decision backfired, what it shows is that the Bills do not have a QB for the future. 

I think this is where the discussion should end.  It won't, but it is a fair and accurate description.

[T-Bomb]

Peterman will likely be starting in 2 weeks...

 

That's really all the explaining needed.

[26CornerBlitz]

4 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

Peterman will likely be starting in 2 weeks...

 

That's really all the explaining needed.

 

What happens in two weeks has nothing to do with the disaster of a decision to name him starter in week 11. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[T-Bomb]

6 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

What happens in two weeks has nothing to do with the disaster of a decision to name him starter in week 11. 

 

Sure it does, it means Tryod isn't good enough either way. I believe we all know that already, McBeane sure as hell knows it, its just the whinnage of the media and NFL players on twitter makes it much harder these days for a coach to make and stick with decisions.  Especially when you have black players insinuating that it was a racially motivated decision...

 

To me it was simply the Bills trying moving on from Tryod.  If Peterman had only thrown two picks, he'd be starting today.

Edited November 26, 2017 by T-Bomb

[ALF]

6 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

Peterman will likely be starting in 2 weeks...

 

That's really all the explaining needed.

 

If they are out of the hunt and if the OL can pass protect by then. Taylor is durable if you let him scramble and run. 

 

A pocket passer behind the present OL scheme does not have a chance 

[T-Bomb]

The bottom line here is Tryod could have nipped this in the bud with excellent play, problem is he's too mentally slow to play QB, it's that simple.  He just can't process the game fast enough, sorry.  The vast majority of the QB's that try to play the position in the NFL fail in the same way, so he's not alone.

Edited November 26, 2017 by T-Bomb

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, T-Bomb said:

 

Sure it does, it means Tryod isn't good enough either way. I believe we all know that already, McBeane sure as hell knows it, its just the whinnage of the media and NFL players on twitter makes it much harder these days for a coach to make and stick with decisions.  Especially when you have black players insinuating that it was a racially motivated decision...

 

You can claim that all day long, but it doesn't because the move was presented as giving the team the best chance to win and that was clearly nonsense.   It was a stupid decision and any ancillary issues being discussed outside of OBD should not have entered into McDermott's thinking or he's the wrong man for the job.  Another terrible take by you.  

[Scott7975]

15 hours ago, Southtown Tommy said:

it.was.his.first.start.

Jeff Tuel had a better first start than Peterman. 

[T-Bomb]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

You can claim that all day long, but it doesn't because the move was presented as giving the team the best chance to win and that was clearly nonsense.   It was a stupid decision and any ancillary issues being discussed outside of OBD should not have entered into McDermott's thinking or he's the wrong man for the job.  Another terrible take by you.  

 

McDermott is done with Taylor.  Whine about it all you want really.  He showed his cards. 

 

I'm sorry you were drinking so much Kool Aid and feel burned, but you should have known better IMO...

[26CornerBlitz]

8 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

McDermott is done with Taylor.  Whine about it all you want really.  He showed his cards. 

 

I'm sorry you were drinking so much Kool Aid and feel burned, but you should have known better IMO...

 

You don't know what you're talking about as ususal.  I've been saying all along that the Bills need to draft a QB in '18.  Last week has more to to with McDermott thinking Peterman was ready than anything with Taylor who is who he is.  It's the Petermaniacs who were shocked into the reality of him being a marginal developmental QB prospect who simply is not ready for NFL starting duty.  

Edited November 26, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

You can claim that all day long, but it doesn't because the move was presented as giving the team the best chance to win and that was clearly nonsense.   It was a stupid decision and any ancillary issues being discussed outside of OBD should not have entered into McDermott's thinking or he's the wrong man for the job.  Another terrible take by you.  

T-Bomb's point that this regime doesn't believe that TT is the answer at the qb position is the central point. That's not surprising because Whaley came to the same conclusion. Does resorting to a rookie qb give the team a better chance to win?  It was a risk that this staff was willing to take because it got tired of the seven year veteran qb not doing what it wanted him to do. If they didn't believe he is capable of running an offense that they wanted to run then going to the rookie was not as crazy of an idea that many people are making it out to be. One positive coming out of the first half benching is that when he played in the second half he played more like the staff wanted him to play. 

 

I believe the Bills are going to use a high draft pick on a qb in this draft. If they do it won't be because they have much confidence that either of their qbs are franchise qbs. If I were a betting man I would bet that Peterman is more likely to be on the roster next year than the more mobile qb who is now taking the snaps. 

[26CornerBlitz]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

T-Bomb's point that this regime doesn't believe that TT is the answer at the qb position is the central point. That's not surprising because Whaley came to the same conclusion. Does resorting to a rookie qb give the team a better chance to win?  It was a risk that this staff was willing to take because it got tired of the seven year veteran qb not doing what it wanted him to do. If they didn't believe he is capable of running an offense that they wanted to run then going to the rookie was not as crazy of an idea that many people are making it out to be. One positive coming out of the first half benching is that when he played in the second half he played more like the staff wanted him to play. 

 

I believe the Bills are going to use a high draft pick on a qb in this draft. If they do it won't be because they have much confidence that either of their qbs are franchise qbs. If I were a betting man I would bet that Peterman is more likely to be on the roster next year than the more mobile qb who is now taking the snaps. 

 

Not a new revelation. That does not turn the McDermott decision into a good one because it wasn't.

[JohnC]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Not a new revelation. That does not turn the McDermott decision into a good one because it wasn't.

So he made a bad decision. Big deal! It wasn't a catastrophic decision because it will have little lasting impact. As it turned out the decision that you considered ill-conceived at least had the positive effect of forcing the reluctant qb to be more aggressive. When a player, at any position, is not playing the way the coaches want him to play then at the minimum it is an understandable decision. You don't have to agree with it. But it was far from being a zany decision.  

 

I'm not designating Taylor as the source of all the team's deficiencies. He's playing with a lot of deficient players on his unit. But when a coach gambles to jolt a flaccid offense, even if it is a long-shot effort, I'm not going to make it out  to be an outlandish act. It didn't work out for the rookie but it did result in the veteran to play better. The irony is that the HC is criticized for being too conservative and in the same breath is being criticized for being too radical. As far as I'm concerned I'm not bothered that he started the rookie.  On the other hand I would have been harshly critical if he wouldn't have started the veteran in the second half and in the following game.  

[26CornerBlitz]

8 hours ago, JohnC said:

So he made a bad decision. Big deal! It wasn't a catastrophic decision because it will have little lasting impact. As it turned out the decision that you considered ill-conceived at least had the positive effect of forcing the reluctant qb to be more aggressive. When a player, at any position, is not playing the way the coaches want him to play then at the minimum it is an understandable decision. You don't have to agree with it. But it was far from being a zany decision.  

 

I'm not designating Taylor as the source of all the team's deficiencies. He's playing with a lot of deficient players on his unit. But when a coach gambles to jolt a flaccid offense, even if it is a long-shot effort, I'm not going to make it out  to be an outlandish act. It didn't work out for the rookie but it did result in the veteran to play better. The irony is that the HC is criticized for being too conservative and in the same breath is being criticized for being too radical. As far as I'm concerned I'm not bothered that he started the rookie.  On the other hand I would have been harshly critical if he wouldn't have started the veteran in the second half and in the following game.  

 

Zany, ill-conceived, miscalculated, or bone headed.  Take your pick, but I can't agree with your attempt to spin this into some effort to turn Taylor into a different player.  He read the situation wrong with his belief that Peterman was "ready".  He simply was not and it wasn't a shock.  It was an egregious decision by the supposedly methodical McDermott in a critical game. 

Edited November 27, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[Bangarang]

52 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

Jeff Tuel had a better first start than Peterman. 

 

And?

[Scott7975]

5 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

And?

And nobody was up in arms wanting him to start again

[Bangarang]

3 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

And nobody was up in arms wanting him to start again

 

So what? 

[T-Bomb]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

You don't know what you're talking about as ususal.  I've been saying all along that the Bills need to draft a QB in '18.  Last week has more to to with McDermott thinking Peterman was ready than anything with Taylor who is who he is.  It's the Petermaniacs who were shocked into the reality of him being a marginal developmental QB prospect who simply is not ready for NFL starting duty.  

 

Last week was about McBeane being done with Taylor.  Sorry you're too blind to see that.

 

They want intel, intel on Peterman before the draft.

 

The whole "win now" thing is for the benefit of the fans, not the team. Wise up!

Edited November 26, 2017 by T-Bomb

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

Last week was about McBeane being done with Taylor.  Sorry you're too blind to see that.

 

They want intel, intel on Peterman before the draft.

 

The whole "win now" thing is for the benefit of the fans, not the team. Wise up!

 

Wrong again. They don't need it. They'll draft a QB irrespective of a marginal NFL prospect. 

[Mat68]

Taylors performance was the worst possible conservative football.  The game kept falling further and further away and his demenor stayed the same uninterested way.  Obviously, Peterman was terrible in worst possible aggresive way.  Taylors performance was worth sitting, thinking Peterman was better was the mistake. 

 

Now its game day.  Kc went from class of the AFC to a middling team.  For Buffalo to win Taylor needs to play great.  Like the Miami and Seattle game last year.  Those were both loses so who knows.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Mat68