Why the Peterman hate

[starrymessenger]

7 hours ago, NoSaint said:

I don’t mind peterman but peterman fans can at times be really hard to put up with

 

Yeah. Almost as much as his detractors 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

7 hours ago, NoSaint said:

I don’t mind peterman but peterman fans can at times be really hard to put up with

 

As mentioned ...  Ignore those 2 or 3 people.  It's easy to do.   

[twoandfourteen]

18 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

How has it been twisted?

 

 

 

That somehow Peterman's appearances this season 'prove' that you can "win with" Tyrod and that McD was an idiot for making a change. The reality is that Tyrod is responsible for that decision being made. His inability to play at even a barely functional level forced Peterman into the discussion. 

 

Taylor, as a 7 year veteran and 3 year starter has been just as detrimental to the offense as Peterman had been. Punting all day long and only scoring 1 FG isn't that much of an improvement over a couple of INTs from your rookie. At least the rookie is trying to make something happen while your veteran is fixated on protecting the only statistic keeping him relevant.

 

37 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

This why people laugh at Peterman it's nothing personal. It's that people want to usher Tyrod out the door for not being good enough but then want this kid to be involved in a competition for the job.

 

He can be in a competition for a back up, he's shown nothing that he's a capable starter.

 

You could say that about the rookie seasons of lots of legitimately good starting QBs over the years. 

 

You're also wrong. Peterman's game against the Colts actually happened and was encouraging. I'll hold off on dismissing the guy until next year. He had some really bad moments, but also had a couple of good ones. All in all, he played like you would expect a late-round rookie QB to play. 

[Dorkington]

He could still develop, but he's clearly a year or two away before he'll have any chance of being a viable QB. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Saying its too early to make any call on Nate does not make one a Peterman lover. 

 

Criticizing Taylor for his obvious flaws does not make one a Taylor hater.

 

 

[twoandfourteen]

1 minute ago, Dorkington said:

He could still develop, but he's clearly a year or two away before he'll have any chance of being a viable QB. 

 

I agree with this -- probably the only really fair assessment of 2 after this circus season. 

[Woodman19]

I think the "Peterman hate" boils down to a few camps.

 

First you have the "not my QB" camp.  They are the people who wanted Watson, Mahomes and Kizer types. They take exception that he's not the guy they wanted and nothing is going to change that until Peterman shows he is a good QB.

 

Secondly you have the "Threat to Tyrod" fans.  These are the ones who no matter who we drafted would be at that QB because they are threats to steal his job and kick him off the team, it's less pronounced now then before (largely because of his own undoing) but that was a very vocal anti Peterman camp especially early.

 

Thirdly you have the "instant gratification" crowd. The you are only as good as your last drive types. To them it doesn't matter that you are a project, rookie or game situation.  If you aren't lighting it up then it's because you are awful.

 

Outside of those three groups you are going to have a few minor ones mixed in with the Boxscore scouts, Style, Tools and draft location people.  These are the ones where no matter what he does (even if he becomes Brady 2.0) will always hate him no matter what because of what he's not or where he was drafted.

 

[Ol Dirty B]

1 minute ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

That somehow Peterman's appearances this season 'prove' that you can "win with" Tyrod and that McD was an idiot for making a change. The reality is that Tyrod is responsible for that decision being made. His inability to play at even a barely functional level forced Peterman into the discussion. 

 

Taylor, as a 7 year veteran and 3 year starter has been just as detrimental to the offense as Peterman had been. Punting all day long and only scoring 1 FG isn't that much of an improvement over a couple of INTs from your rookie. At least the rookie is trying to make something happen while your veteran is fixated on protecting the only statistic keeping him relevant.

 

 

You could say that about the rookie seasons of lots of legitimately good starting QBs over the years. 

 

You're also wrong. Peterman's game against the Colts actually happened and was encouraging. I'll hold off on dismissing the guy until next year. He had some really bad moments, but also had a couple of good ones. All in all, he played like you would expect a late-round rookie QB to play. 

 

If you're evaluating anyone of the Colts game I take your judgment for a grain of salt. That was a throw away game, you couldn't evaluate any players based off that game. If we played in that every week maybe it would be meaningful, but that was useless.

 

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Whether Tyrod deserved to be benched has nothing to do with an evaluation of Peterman. That's more of a question for how you evaluate McDermott. 

 

Everything you said is just non sense. So not throwing interceptions has now became a bad thing? I mean what kind of convoluted logic do you use when it comes to thinking about this. Peterman is Peterman. Tyrod is Tyrod. They are two separate entities to analyze, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

I judge Peterman for Peterman. And it's simple, he's not good. You say plenty of QBs have had bad first years then turned out good. That's fine, but we're talking about a fifth round pick or whatever who has put up one of the worst games statistically since the merger. We're not talking about hanging in there with a number 1 overall pick like a John Elway. It's not even the same prospect. It's ridiculous 

1 minute ago, Woodman19 said:

I think the "Peterman hate" boils down to a few camps.

 

First you have the "not my QB" camp.  They are the people who wanted Watson, Mahomes and Kizer types. They take exception that he's not the guy they wanted and nothing is going to change that until Peterman shows he is a good QB.

 

Secondly you have the "Threat to Tyrod" fans.  These are the ones who no matter who we drafted would be at that QB because they are threats to steal his job and kick him off the team, it's less pronounced now then before (largely because of his own undoing) but that was a very vocal anti Peterman camp especially early.

 

Thirdly you have the "instant gratification" crowd. The you are only as good as your last drive types. To them it doesn't matter that you are a project, rookie or game situation.  If you aren't lighting it up then it's because you are awful.

 

Outside of those three groups you are going to have a few minor ones mixed in with the Boxscore scouts, Style, Tools and draft location people.  These are the ones where no matter what he does (even if he becomes Brady 2.0) will always hate him no matter what because of what he's not or where he was drafted.

 

 

So you're basically saying no one can disagree with you and have a legitimate point.

 

Guys this guy got it, no one has any rational basis for saying Peterman is not good.

[Woodman19]

4 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

If you're evaluating anyone of the Colts game I take your judgment for a grain of salt. That was a throw away game, you couldn't evaluate any players based off that game. If we played in that every week maybe it would be meaningful, but that was useless.

 

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Whether Tyrod deserved to be benched has nothing to do with an evaluation of Peterman. That's more of a question for how you evaluate McDermott. 

 

Everything you said is just non sense. So not throwing interceptions has now became a bad thing? I mean what kind of convoluted logic do you use when it comes to thinking about this. Peterman is Peterman. Tyrod is Tyrod. They are two separate entities to analyze, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

I judge Peterman for Peterman. And it's simple, he's not good. You say plenty of QBs have had bad first years then turned out good. That's fine, but we're talking about a fifth round pick or whatever who has put up one of the worst games statistically since the merger. We're not talking about hanging in there with a number 1 overall pick like a John Elway. It's not even the same prospect. It's ridiculous 

 

So you're basically saying no one can disagree with you and have a legitimate point.

 

Guys this guy got it, no one has any rational basis for saying Peterman is not good.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm categorizing the camps.

[Ol Dirty B]

2 minutes ago, Woodman19 said:

That's not what I'm saying, I'm categorizing the camps.

 

Ok I hear ya. I'm not a fan of throwing people into groups like that, but I do agree their is some truth to what you said.

 

It just seemed as though you were taking legitimacy out of anyone who doesn't like Peterman as a prospect. 

[Woodman19]

Just now, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Ok I hear ya. I'm not a fan of throwing people into groups like that, but I do agree their is some truth to what you said.

 

It just seemed as though you were taking legitimacy out of anyone who doesn't like Peterman as a prospect. 

I could categorize the anti Tyrod people too but I suspect 3 years and lack of development as a passer in those 3 years is more self explanatory.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

4 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Ok I hear ya. I'm not a fan of throwing people into groups like that, but I do agree their is some truth to what you said.

 

It just seemed as though you were taking legitimacy out of anyone who doesn't like Peterman as a prospect. 

 

unfortunately there are divisions.  and all to often people are lumped into groups.  

 

The size of the keep Taylor group is dwindling very fast and there can't be many left.  

 

imo the vast majority are fed up with Taylor's play and know we need to move on

 

there is a group that will say that we can't evaluate a player on such a small margin of games and plays.   this is in reference to both Nate and Zay.  

 

the hate words needs to go away.  One "side" uses it and the other "side" tosses it back.  whats good for the goose is good for the gander mentality. 

 

[Gugny]

Whatever the opposite of "it," is .... that's what Nate Peterman has.  Kid's got no business being on a roster, IMO.

[twoandfourteen]

29 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

If you're evaluating anyone of the Colts game I take your judgment for a grain of salt. That was a throw away game, you couldn't evaluate any players based off that game. If we played in that every week maybe it would be meaningful, but that was useless.

 

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Whether Tyrod deserved to be benched has nothing to do with an evaluation of Peterman. That's more of a question for how you evaluate McDermott. 

 

Everything you said is just non sense. So not throwing interceptions has now became a bad thing? I mean what kind of convoluted logic do you use when it comes to thinking about this. Peterman is Peterman. Tyrod is Tyrod. They are two separate entities to analyze, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

I judge Peterman for Peterman. And it's simple, he's not good. You say plenty of QBs have had bad first years then turned out good. That's fine, but we're talking about a fifth round pick or whatever who has put up one of the worst games statistically since the merger. We're not talking about hanging in there with a number 1 overall pick like a John Elway. It's not even the same prospect. It's ridiculous 

 

So you're basically saying no one can disagree with you and have a legitimate point.

 

Guys this guy got it, no one has any rational basis for saying Peterman is not good.

 

I'm saying the guy played well under extremely difficult circumstances in the Colts game. That's it. 

 

I'm not breaking down film, here. I couldn't care less. Did he go in and get the job done? The answer is yes. 

 

Talking about the big picture. 

Just now, twoandfourteen said:

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Ben Roethlisberger threw 5 picks in a game this year, too. By your rationale, Pittsburgh probably should have cut him after that one then. 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

24 minutes ago, Woodman19 said:

I think the "Peterman hate" boils down to a few camps.

 

First you have the "not my QB" camp.  They are the people who wanted Watson, Mahomes and Kizer types. They take exception that he's not the guy they wanted and nothing is going to change that until Peterman shows he is a good QB.

 

Secondly you have the "Threat to Tyrod" fans.  These are the ones who no matter who we drafted would be at that QB because they are threats to steal his job and kick him off the team, it's less pronounced now then before (largely because of his own undoing) but that was a very vocal anti Peterman camp especially early.

 

Thirdly you have the "instant gratification" crowd. The you are only as good as your last drive types. To them it doesn't matter that you are a project, rookie or game situation.  If you aren't lighting it up then it's because you are awful.

 

Outside of those three groups you are going to have a few minor ones mixed in with the Boxscore scouts, Style, Tools and draft location people.  These are the ones where no matter what he does (even if he becomes Brady 2.0) will always hate him no matter what because of what he's not or where he was drafted.

 

 

Good Grief.  Delusional much?

 

This is a pretty knowledgeable board.  I would expect the overwhelmingly major group to be able to read a boxscore and to be hard-headedly realistic that expectations arise from draft position + performance.  It has absolutely nothing to do with "hate", or liking for a different QB, or "instant gratification", and everything to do with when you have a guy in preseason who completes an average of 54.4% of his passes against backups in preseason (5.7 ypa) and worse, has two games where it's 50% or less for 4 or 4.5 ypa, you aren't impressed with him or filled with the thought that he's anything other than the typical late-round-pick trajectory - a clipboard holder for several years who, if he comes up to speed on the pro game and fights off other late round picks for the chance, may be a backup for several years and eventually develop into a serviceable QB. 

If and when he does, we'll be delighted that we have a serviceable backup.  Until that point, nothing he's shown in the regular season has changed him from "not ready nate", including the "Indy" game where he completed....50% of his passes for 5.7 ypa.

 

On a sane team, these are numbers that don't inspire fans to want to keep a guy around much less have him start.  They are Jeff Tuel-like.  Thad Lewis was better.

 

[twoandfourteen]

47 minutes ago, Woodman19 said:

I think the "Peterman hate" boils down to a few camps.

 

First you have the "not my QB" camp.  They are the people who wanted Watson, Mahomes and Kizer types. They take exception that he's not the guy they wanted and nothing is going to change that until Peterman shows he is a good QB.

 

Secondly you have the "Threat to Tyrod" fans.  These are the ones who no matter who we drafted would be at that QB because they are threats to steal his job and kick him off the team, it's less pronounced now then before (largely because of his own undoing) but that was a very vocal anti Peterman camp especially early.

 

Thirdly you have the "instant gratification" crowd. The you are only as good as your last drive types. To them it doesn't matter that you are a project, rookie or game situation.  If you aren't lighting it up then it's because you are awful.

 

Outside of those three groups you are going to have a few minor ones mixed in with the Boxscore scouts, Style, Tools and draft location people.  These are the ones where no matter what he does (even if he becomes Brady 2.0) will always hate him no matter what because of what he's not or where he was drafted.

 

 

 

[prissythecat]

17 minutes ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

I'm saying the guy played well under extremely difficult circumstances in the Colts game. That's it. 

 

I'm not breaking down film, here. I couldn't care less. Did he go in and get the job done? The answer is yes. 

 

Talking about the big picture. 

 

Ben Roethlisberger threw 5 picks in a game this year, too. By your rationale, Pittsburgh probably should have cut him after that one then. 

 

 

 

Nate Peterman hasn't done anything in a game to indicate he deserves the type of slack one would give to Big Ben,   As others have correctly pointed out, Peterman's gametime stats (e.g., completion percentage , YPA)   are less than stellar.   I think folks are putting too much stock in a QB drafted in later rounds.   

[Hapless Bills Fan]

39 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

If you're evaluating anyone of the Colts game I take your judgment for a grain of salt. That was a throw away game, you couldn't evaluate any players based off that game. If we played in that every week maybe it would be meaningful, but that was useless.

 

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Whether Tyrod deserved to be benched has nothing to do with an evaluation of Peterman. That's more of a question for how you evaluate McDermott. 

 

Everything you said is just non sense. So not throwing interceptions has now became a bad thing? I mean what kind of convoluted logic do you use when it comes to thinking about this. Peterman is Peterman. Tyrod is Tyrod. They are two separate entities to analyze, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

I judge Peterman for Peterman. And it's simple, he's not good. You say plenty of QBs have had bad first years then turned out good. That's fine, but we're talking about a fifth round pick or whatever who has put up one of the worst games statistically since the merger. We're not talking about hanging in there with a number 1 overall pick like a John Elway. It's not even the same prospect. It's ridiculous

 

Precisely so: benching Taylor in favor of Peterman for a road game against a fierce D has to do with evaluating McDermott/Dennison.  And that does concern me. 

Mark Bullock on Cover1 ran a piece about Taylor and the Saints game that I've linked before and is still worth reading.  Bullock points out that for most of the game, we were not running patterns appropriate for the Saint's Tampa 2 coverage, and WR were not getting open.  He also points out the times Taylor *did* leave passes on the field.  We were slow to adjust, but late in the game, we did introduce some better routes to beat Tampa 2 and Peterman succeeded with them - but they were being called for the first time.

Read that piece, and the benching of Taylor looks more like the classic "deflection of blame" some leaders use ("we sucked, but it's not my fault, no one could win with this QB, even our 5th round rookie is better") instead of the sort of honest self-evaluation and critique that the top coaches need to be willing to face unflinchingly. 

 

I expect when the all-22 assessments come out, there will be similar to be said about the Jags game yesterday to the N'Orleans game:  for much of the game, receivers not open, Taylor harried and under pressure; WR not making plays when they did get a catchable pass thrown to them,; stupid mistakes like OPI and holding and yes, Taylor left a handful of plays on the field that he really needs to make.  There are three areas for concern there (play design/calling; wr performance; Taylor's performance).

But the evaluation of Dennison/McDermott's decision making is the real cause for concern.  Don't confuse this for excusing Taylor or saying he's "good enough" to move forward with.  He's clearly limited, and not progressing.  But to progress, not regress, requires hard-eyed self-criticism as well as sound player evaluation.

 

9 minutes ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

 

 

Because cool internet memes top logic and common sense.  Got it. 

[Happy]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Precisely so: benching Taylor in favor of Peterman for a road game against a fierce D has to do with evaluating McDermott/Dennison.  And that does concern me. 

Mark Bullock on Cover1 ran a piece about Taylor and the Saints game that I've linked before and is still worth reading.  Bullock points out that for most of the game, we were not running patterns appropriate for the Saint's Tampa 2 coverage, and WR were not getting open.  He also points out the times Taylor *did* leave passes on the field.  We were slow to adjust, but late in the game, we did introduce some better routes to beat Tampa 2 and Peterman succeeded with them - but they were being called for the first time.

Read that piece, and the benching of Taylor looks more like the classic "deflection of blame" some leaders use ("we sucked, but it's not my fault, no one could win with this QB, even our 5th round rookie is better") instead of the sort of honest self-evaluation and critique that the top coaches need to be willing to face unflinchingly. 

 

I expect when the all-22 assessments come out, there will be similar to be said about the Jags game yesterday to the N'Orleans game:  for much of the game, receivers not open, Taylor harried and under pressure; WR not making plays when they did get a catchable pass thrown to them,; stupid mistakes like OPI and holding and yes, Taylor left a handful of plays on the field that he really needs to make.  There are three areas for concern there (play design/calling; wr performance; Taylor's performance).

But the evaluation of Dennison/McDermott's decision making is the real cause for concern.  Don't confuse this for excusing Taylor or saying he's "good enough" to move forward with.  He's clearly limited, and not progressing.  But to progress, not regress, requires hard-eyed self-criticism as well as sound player evaluation.

 

 

Excellent post and good summary of the issues plaguing the offense this year.  What it boils down to is that Dennison and Tyrod cannot co-exist; two different styles that mix like oil and water.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Kid needs to work on his arm strength. People have developed it before, but the majority of his picks are because the ball didn't have the proper zip for a deep out.