Steptide Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 Let me start by saying that I don't necessarily believe what I'm about to write, but that I could definitely see their being some truth to it. Let's go back a few weeks to before/after the Chargers game. McDermott gets killed by local and national media for benching Tyrod and starting Peterman. Then Peterman starts and has about the worst possible game a qb could have. No way he can start Peterman again the next week, but makes sure to say Tyrod is our guy "this week". Won't commit to Tyrod past the game that week. I believe McDermott is dying to get Peterman back out there, but has to do it in a way that won't get him killed by media, and also won't have his players questioning his coaching ability and leadership. Let's be honest, we see taylor every week and how bad he's been, I can only imagine it has to be that much more frustrating for the coaching staff. That brings us to this past week against the Patriots. I believe McDermott knew we didn't stand a chance against the Patriots, and only by some miracle would we win that game. Had Tyrod pulled off the win somehow, then yes he absolutely has the right to remain the starting qb. As McDermott suspected though, Tyrod was pretty awful (granted could be due to the early injury in the game) and now has an excuse to go back to Peterman with tyrods injury being an easy out. Tyrods play the past week warrants a change, but the injury is an even easier way out of starting Taylor Which brings me to my next point. We haven't seen Joe Webb all season long. While he didn't do anything spectacular in the Patriots game, he did get some good rushing yards, and had that pass been caught by cadet, some may even be clamoring for him to start. So what took the bills staff so long to bring in this wildcat/more creative offense? Could we have not used this against the saints and Chargers or even chiefs? This is the staff preparing to pad Peterman. What I mean is, they don't want another disaster game like the Chargers. They can't risk another 5 interception game. I am 100% confident that Peterman starts this week and we will see alot of Joe Webb with the wildcat and maybe a few pass plays to help take a little pressure off Peterman. If I'm wrong about Peterman starting, you can bump this thread and I will absolutely eat crow. Again, I don't necessarily believe everything I wrote. I do however believe that McDermott is dying to get Peterman back as starting qb and barring another disaster, he will remain there the next 4 weeks
26CornerBlitz Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 (edited) The active imagination is activated. Edited December 7, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz 1
atlbillsfan1975 Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 Ummmm, Peterman isn’t ready. He has looked good going against 2nd and 3rd stringers when games are out of reach. When it counted Peterman looked like a 5th round rookie. He needs time.
Happy Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 What if it was Dennison that wanted to start Peterman in SD, and he talked McDermott into it? Tyrod is still better than Peterman at this point, but Tyrod has been really struggling as of late.
26CornerBlitz Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, Happy Gilmore said: What if it was Dennison that wanted to start Peterman in SD, and he talked McDermott into it? Tyrod is still better than Peterman at this point, but Tyrod has been really struggling as of late. South Dakota? He would have a better chance by showing up there.
Happy Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, 26CornerBlitz said: South Dakota? He would have a better chance by showing up there. Oops...LA. Habit.
uticaclub Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Steptide said: Let me start by saying that I don't necessarily believe what I'm about to write, but that I could definitely see their being some truth to it. Let's go back a few weeks to before/after the Chargers game. McDermott gets killed by local and national media for benching Tyrod and starting Peterman. Then Peterman starts and has about the worst possible game a qb could have. No way he can start Peterman again the next week, but makes sure to say Tyrod is our guy "this week". Won't commit to Tyrod past the game that week. I believe McDermott is dying to get Peterman back out there, but has to do it in a way that won't get him killed by media, and also won't have his players questioning his coaching ability and leadership. Let's be honest, we see taylor every week and how bad he's been, I can only imagine it has to be that much more frustrating for the coaching staff. That brings us to this past week against the Patriots. I believe McDermott knew we didn't stand a chance against the Patriots, and only by some miracle would we win that game. Had Tyrod pulled off the win somehow, then yes he absolutely has the right to remain the starting qb. As McDermott suspected though, Tyrod was pretty awful (granted could be due to the early injury in the game) and now has an excuse to go back to Peterman with tyrods injury being an easy out. Tyrods play the past week warrants a change, but the injury is an even easier way out of starting Taylor Which brings me to my next point. We haven't seen Joe Webb all season long. While he didn't do anything spectacular in the Patriots game, he did get some good rushing yards, and had that pass been caught by cadet, some may even be clamoring for him to start. So what took the bills staff so long to bring in this wildcat/more creative offense? Could we have not used this against the saints and Chargers or even chiefs? This is the staff preparing to pad Peterman. What I mean is, they don't want another disaster game like the Chargers. They can't risk another 5 interception game. I am 100% confident that Peterman starts this week and we will see alot of Joe Webb with the wildcat and maybe a few pass plays to help take a little pressure off Peterman. If I'm wrong about Peterman starting, you can bump this thread and I will absolutely eat crow. Again, I don't necessarily believe everything I wrote. I do however believe that McDermott is dying to get Peterman back as starting qb and barring another disaster, he will remain there the next 4 weeks I remember the local media being pretty understanding with the move, since they actually watch Bills games. The national media were the ones that couldn't understand the move, since they don't watch the games and just see the stat sheet. 1
Mike in Horseheads Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 59 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said: Oops...LA. Habit. Always be San Diego to me. LAC in a sports line means the Clippers 1
26CornerBlitz Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, Mike in Horseheads said: Always be San Diego to me. LAC in a sports line means the Clippers Ha Ha. They were the LA Chargers 1st and the Clippers were in San Diego before moving to LA.
Mike in Horseheads Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 1 minute ago, uticaclub said: I remember the local media being pretty understanding with the move, since they actually watch Bills games. The national media were the ones that couldn't understand the move, since they don't watch the games and just see the stat sheet. They still don't get it. I think Romo does now after that **** show by TT 1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Ha Ha. They were the LA Chargers 1st and the Clippers were in San Diego before moving to LA. If ya want to get picky, they were in Anaheim b4 LA 1
26CornerBlitz Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said: They still don't get it. I think Romo does now after that **** show by TT If ya want to get picky, they were in Anaheim b4 LA Who was in Anaheim?
Mike in Horseheads Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, 26CornerBlitz said: Who was in Anaheim? The Clippers
26CornerBlitz Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said: The Clippers They were in San Diego and played at the San Diego Sports Arena. That's after they left Buffalo as the Braves.
Mr. WEO Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, uticaclub said: I remember the local media being pretty understanding with the move, since they actually watch Bills games. The national media were the ones that couldn't understand the move, since they don't watch the games and just see the stat sheet. You mean 5 ints on 14 pass attempts? Edited December 7, 2017 by Mr. WEO 1
Mike in Horseheads Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: They were in San Diego and played at the San Diego Sports Arena. That's after they left Buffalo as the Braves. That I knew, I thought they called Anaheim home in between LA, but played games in Anaheim as LA Clips. According to Wiki they almost moved there permanent in 96 but Sterling turned them down. Oh well, can't win them all
26CornerBlitz Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 Just now, Mike in Horseheads said: That I knew, I thought they called Anaheim home in between LA, but played games in Anaheim as LA Clips. According to Wiki they almost moved there permanent in 96 but Sterling turned them down. Oh well, can't win them all I was wondering where you got that from.
Bing Bong Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 (edited) honestly I believe you. They friggin' love Peterman. Like I'm worried they don't even draft a quarterback. I will absolutely cherish this screen name if he ends up a successful starter. Edited December 7, 2017 by PetermanThrew5Picks
Mike in Horseheads Posted December 7, 2017 Posted December 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: I was wondering where you got that from. The Clippers, however, nearly moved to Anaheim permanently in time for the 1996–97 season, but according to a Los Angeles Times article published in June 1996,[17] owner Donald Sterling turned down a deal that would have paid the team $95 million over 12 years. Odgen Corporation, who at the time managed the Pond, and the city of Anaheim offered the Clippers a multi-tiered deal that would have included upwards of $33 million paid to the team over the first six years of their Pond agreement, plus other monies allocated towards new locker rooms, team offices, and a practice facility. In another related Times article,[18] Odgen and Sterling were in talks to have the management company take care of the Clippers' day-to-day operations for a $4 million a year fee. Also at the time, the Walt Disney Company, owners of the Ducks and Anaheim Angels baseball team during that period, were pursuing at least a partial ownership of the Clippers, with the key element being that its game telecasts would be part of a planned ESPN regional network for Southern California. However, as the planned ESPN West network never came to reality, all three teams had continued to maintain broadcast partnerships with Fox Sports West and Prime Ticket.
Recommended Posts