Should we throw Peterman on the trash heap for 1 bad outing?

[yungmack]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If a new coach is going to strengthen his arm and improve his accuracy I’m all for it. His limitations are physical, not mental.

I don't disagree with this, just suggesting that some of the walk-the-plank types around here ought to wait a teensy bit - like until Daboll looks him over - before jettisoning him, which would presumably be followed by getting tid of Tyrod, leaving Webb as the only QB.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Hi, I just thought I would mention that on the last throw, I think that was a miscommunication rather than just a terrible throw. I watched that play a bunch of times and to me it looks like Peterman lets the ball go, just as the receiver stops and turns. So to me it looks like Peterman didn't know the guy was going to stop and turn around.

 

I thought that as well.  The first one was off DiMarco's hands and the 2nd and 4th were him getting hit.  The third one he had pressure but threw off his back foot, which is a no-no. 

 

Bottom line is you don't go into the season counting on him to be your starter.  But again, you don't just toss him aside before final cutdowns. 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, yungmack said:

I don't disagree with this, just suggesting that some of the walk-the-plank types around here ought to wait a teensy bit - like until Daboll looks him over - before jettisoning him, which would presumably be followed by getting tid of Tyrod, leaving Webb as the only QB.

I don’t disagree with this. I’d defer to Daboll for sure when it comes to the QB.  I think that he’s a good coach.

[Steptide]

3 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

 

Line actually held up well on that play

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Steptide said:

Line actually held up well on that play

 

Totally clean pocket with all day to throw.  Fail. This play demonstrates why teams don't respect his deep throwing which means CBs can squat on his weak armed short to intermediate routes that can and has resulted in INTs. 

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

45 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

This may sound ridiculous but the presence of Joe Webb (if back) doesn’t help Peterman either. It is like the Bills have 2 and a half QBs. 

 

I brought it up with some other Petermaniacs (when they brought up the Colts game as a positive indicator) that the QB I wanted to see more of was Joe Webb. Not that I think that he has a shot of being a quality starter, but the trick play gimmick ability made him more valuable than Peterman.

[BadLandsMeanie]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I thought that as well.  The first one was off DiMarco's hands and the 2nd and 4th were him getting hit.  The third one he had pressure but threw off his back foot, which is a no-no. 

 

Bottom line is you don't go into the season counting on him to be your starter.  But again, you don't just toss him aside before final cutdowns. 

I agree fully.

I think for sure, for certain, some and probably most of those picks were on Peterman. 

What he needed to do was recognize that the situation was nearly hopeless and to tuck the ball away and go down or throw it away if he had time.

He did not do that. Like every worthwhile rookie QB in his first game that I ever saw, he thought he could do it and he tried.

I want the rookie QB who makes the rash decision to go for it. So long as he learns, that is the kind of guy I want out there.

Peterman also took a heck of a beating out there. A good sound tooth rattling beating getting pounded several times.

It didn't phase him one bit and he didn't flinch one bit.

 

Obviously he has to do better and to recognize when hope is gone and do the right thing as he moves ahead in his career.

 

But the gonads, the toughness and the will to win I saw when I reviewed that game film are why I say I liked him better after I watched it, than I did before.

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

I brought it up with some other Petermaniacs (when they brought up the Colts game as a positive indicator) that the QB I wanted to see more of was Joe Webb. Not that I think that he has a shot of being a quality starter, but the trick play gimmick ability made him more valuable than Peterman.

He buys the Bills some flexibility. More than half of the teams in the league only keep 2 QBs. Webb gives whatever team he is on the option to only carry 2 guys because he play in a pinch. Logan Thomas too!! The Bills have 2 position plays on their roster that have started NFL game so at QB. 

 

I’m not saying that those guys are world class QBs. I’m just saying that they can get you through a game like Webb did this year. If you need to sign a guy during the week you can. There is no reason though to keep a 3rd QB that will never be active if you have Webb or Thomas.

[Doc]

1 minute ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I agree fully.

I think for sure, for certain, some and probably most of those picks were on Peterman. 

What he needed to do was recognize that the situation was nearly hopeless and to tuck the ball away and go down or throw it away if he had time.

He did not do that. Like every worthwhile rookie QB in his first game that I ever saw, he thought he could do it and he tried.

I want the rookie QB who makes the rash decision to go for it. So long as he learns, that is the kind of guy I want out there.

Peterman also took a heck of a beating out there. A good sound tooth rattling beating getting pounded several times.

It didn't phase him one bit and he didn't flinch one bit.

 

Obviously he has to do better and to recognize when hope is gone and do the right thing as he moves ahead in his career.

 

But the gonads, the toughness and the will to win I saw when I reviewed that game film are why I say I liked him better after I watched it, than I did before.

 

I think there's something there worth developing.  And I hope he got hooked-up with Tommy Boy's HGH supplier.

[ndirish1978]

He had a performance that was so historically bad that players who have played near as close to garbage as he did in their first outing all turned out to be garbage as well. Yes, throw him in the compost heap. Or were you expecting this fifth round pick to be the future?  

 

People have too much patience for QBs, hoping that they will develop into something other than a tomato can. If a 5th rd rookie Db got burned for 5 TDs in his debut he'd be cut by morning. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by ndirish1978

[Livinginthepast]

Have we not seen enough of this guy? 5 INT in 30 minutes performance not enough to convince you that he's not NFL material? There are so many better options out there as a backup let alone a starter yet people want to keep Peterman around because he's a nice guy?? Sorry but what could possibly make people think he can be a QB in this league? what makes people think he will recover mentally recover from such a disastrous debut?

[Kelly the Dog]

We should have thrown him out before the bad outing.

[GaryPinC]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I like him too. He has “it.” That guy leads, steps up in big games and competes!! I’d be thrilled with Baker.

In the game films I saw, he was fantastic at recognizing the blitz and getting the ball out quickly to the proper receiver.  Big plus IMO.

[prissythecat]

20 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I agree fully.

I think for sure, for certain, some and probably most of those picks were on Peterman. 

What he needed to do was recognize that the situation was nearly hopeless and to tuck the ball away and go down or throw it away if he had time.

He did not do that. Like every worthwhile rookie QB in his first game that I ever saw, he thought he could do it and he tried.

I want the rookie QB who makes the rash decision to go for it. So long as he learns, that is the kind of guy I want out there.

Peterman also took a heck of a beating out there. A good sound tooth rattling beating getting pounded several times.

It didn't phase him one bit and he didn't flinch one bit.

 

Obviously he has to do better and to recognize when hope is gone and do the right thing as he moves ahead in his career.

 

But the gonads, the toughness and the will to win I saw when I reviewed that game film are why I say I liked him better after I watched it, than I did before.

 

A lot of people have the will to win.  They just don't have the talent to make winning in the NFL a regular reality.   

[JohnC]

47 minutes ago, billykay said:

I agree with you but you must be kidding about Siemian. He was demoted to 3rd string on a QB starved team last year.

Sieman is at best a backup qb. I would still prefer him as a temporary starter over Taylor. I want the running qb out! If you can't run a pro offense you shouldn't be taking starter snaps. The era of a Pop Warner passing offense needs to immediately end.  

[Kelly the Dog]

4 minutes ago, prissythecat said:

 

A lot of people have the will to win.  They just don't have the talent to make winning in the NFL a regular reality.   

Very true. But more true is the relatively few that have both in prodigious amounts.

[GG]

29 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

I brought it up with some other Petermaniacs (when they brought up the Colts game as a positive indicator) that the QB I wanted to see more of was Joe Webb. Not that I think that he has a shot of being a quality starter, but the trick play gimmick ability made him more valuable than Peterman.

 

I don't know why Webb has a horrible rep.  He's a far better backup than Peterman.

[SoFFacet]

3 hours ago, Sky Diver said:

First off, I don't think that starting him at an away game was the best decision, Plus, he got no help from the offensive line. On at least a couple of the interceptions he was hit as he was releasing the ball.

 

Peterman was clearly brought in because Taylor wasn't throwing the ball downfield. Consequently he overcompensated and should have the eaten the ball in a couple of cases where he tried to make plays.

 

I'll reserve judgment on Peterman until the Bills strengthen the offensive line.

 

 

Peterman was "brought in" because he was the next highest player on their draft board when that pick came up. As with any 5th round pick he had positive and negative qualities. They are not committed to him in any way. He's a low risk, moderate reward investment. 

 

At the time he was drafted, they most likely viewed him as having a 25% chance to develop into a competent backup. 5% chance to develop into a competent starter. 70% chance to completely bust. Bad odds but whatever, it's the 5th round.

 

The concept that I think a lot of people are struggling to comprehend is that those odds haven't changed very much even after what we saw this season. He struggled in extremely brief appearances as a rookie on a poorly schemed offense, which was expected. So it doesn't move the needle. They'll keep him around but they won't gift him anything. If he develops into something useful, great. If not, doesn't matter. 

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

Sieman is at best a backup qb. I would still prefer him as a temporary starter over Taylor. I want the running qb out! If you can't run a pro offense you shouldn't be taking starter snaps. The era of a Pop Warner passing offense needs to immediately end.  

You have a call waiting from Steve Young, one of the best quarterbacks ever, simply because he could do everything from the pocket, AND run. Which made him better than all of the players who were equally great from the pocket.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, Sky Diver said:

First off, I don't think that starting him at an away game was the best decision, Plus, he got no help from the offensive line. On at least a couple of the interceptions he was hit as he was releasing the ball.

 

Peterman was clearly brought in because Taylor wasn't throwing the ball downfield. Consequently he overcompensated and should have the eaten the ball in a couple of cases where he tried to make plays.

 

I'll reserve judgment on Peterman until the Bills strengthen the offensive line.

 

No, we should not throw him on the trash heap for one bad game.  However, neither should we elevate him from what he was before the season to "annointed starter-in-waiting" based upon a single (regretted) decision to let him start.

 

Someone recently posted decades of draft history of QB from the 5th round.  The best of the lot are AJ McCarron and Craig Nall.  That's it.  When you draft a guy after the 3rd round, the odds of getting a good QB are <10%.  You expect a guy who might learn the game and become a decent backup someday.  If he shows something in preseason, you smile and feel better about him possibly starting a game in which you tailor the game plan to not ask too much of him.  (If he lights everyone's hair on fire in preseason and when he starts, you smile even more broadly and call him Dak Prescott).

It mystifies me why people think Peterman is more, or should be positioned to be more, based upon his college scouting, preseason performance, and the totality of his in-game performance.  It seems to me the only reason he's given props is relative to how inept Taylor was at running Dennison's offense.  The same people who trash on Taylor for ineptitude want to use Peterman > Taylor as a rationale for elevating Peterman.  That doesn't make sense.