Peterman Works w/ Tom House, Adds Velocity

[26CornerBlitz]

10 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:

Read the entire exchange. I just said your buddy Red Dog would have cut anybody who had a bad rookie season. Even some of the greats start out shaky. So why can't NP improve to be a competent quarterback? I say let it play out,  red dog says kill him. If you want to get hung up on the Peyton reference go ahead.

 

Peterman is still here with a chance to prove everyone wrong but the clock is obviously ticking with AJM already aboard and a prized rookie on the way.  I'm not hung up on it, but the reference and comparison doesn't apply. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[reddogblitz]

2 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:

Read the entire exchange. I just said your buddy Red Dog would have cut anybody who had a bad rookie season. Even some of the greats start out shaky. So why can't NP improve to be a competent quarterback? I say let it play out,  red dog says kill him. If you want to get hung up on the Peyton reference go ahead.

 

No QB has ever started out worse than him and come back to do anything.  Of course, no QB has ever started as bad in the history of football, but hope springs eternal.

[Green Lightning]

7 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

No QB has ever started out worse than him and come back to do anything.  Of course, no QB has ever started as bad in the history of football, but hope springs eternal.

I don't think the coaches or his line did him any favors that game. But when you start that low there is nowhere to go but up.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Green Lightning said:

I don't think the coaches or his line did him any favors that game. But when you start that low there is nowhere to go but up.

 

Or out as in out of the league. 

[reddogblitz]

Just now, Green Lightning said:

I don't think the coaches or his line did him any favors that game. But when you start that low there is nowhere to go but up.

 

Not necessarily.

[Green Lightning]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Not necessarily.

Statistically true, but I like the odds eod it going the other way.

8 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Or out as in out of the league. 

 

Also a possibility but I am nowhere near as sour on him as you are. We'll see.

[26CornerBlitz]

4 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:

Statistically true, but I like the odds eod it going the other way.

 

Also a possibility but I am nowhere near as sour on him as you are. We'll see.

 

Indeed. 

[CNYfan]

I saw a video on Peterman in college.  He started at Tennessee  and only had one season at Pitt.

 

While at Tennessee he had a horrendous multi turnover, multi sack game against Florida State and was benched.

 

I was thinking about how history had repeated itself with that San Diego fiasco.   

 

Anyway he looks ok throwing between the hashes, but he has been very poor (weak) on outs.  So if the velocity is on those terrible out patterns he was lolllypopping, then it could be a worthwhile improvement.

[3rdand12]

non issue . stop

 move on .  stop

till otherwise notified

full stop

[The Red King]

Faster ball means less time for defenders to close on it.  If he can keep his accuracy a faster ball might cut down on his INTs.  Just look at that pick in the JAX game that had to go to video review.  Had that ball been any faster, it wouldn't have been picked.  Not saying this will automatically transform Peterman into our next starter or such, just pointing out that if he can indeed speed up delivery without sacrificing accuracy he will be a better QB then last year, with a chance to cut down on the INTs.

Edited April 20, 2018 by The Red King

[4thandGoal]

On 4/18/2018 at 7:32 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

He started 2.  I predicted his future before he started a single NFL game though...... in fact before he was drafted.  Everyone will know where to find me if I end up being wrong.  I won't be.  Peterman sucks.  

you cant even count the snow game as that would not have been a good day for anyone...

 

and you never did answer the question of when did you get hired by the NFL and think that you know so much??

[Ol Dirty B]

I agree, it is probably important for him to add velocity. Hopefully he can avoid some ints by throwing it too hard for DBs to handle.

4 hours ago, PeterGriffin said:

Funny that when Tyrod stunk up the joint blame was pointed at Dennison and everything else for that matter, yet when Nate stunk it up, it's totally on Nate and he will never be anything. 

 

When did Tyrod throw 5 ints in a half? It was completely different levels of ineptitude. They knew what Tyrods limitation were yet forced him to try to do those things. It's not giving Tyrod a pass, but one can easily make the argument they botched it with how they wanted him to play. With Peterman it appears the mishandled him by playing him over a healthy Tyrod vs that LA defense.

[The Red King]

8 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

I agree, it is probably important for him to add velocity. Hopefully he can avoid some ints by throwing it too hard for DBs to handle.

 

When did Tyrod throw 5 ints in a half? It was completely different levels of ineptitude. They knew what Tyrods limitation were yet forced him to try to do those things. It's not giving Tyrod a pass, but one can easily make the argument they botched it with how they wanted him to play. With Peterman it appears the mishandled him by playing him over a healthy Tyrod vs that LA defense.

 

Given how Tyrod played vs. NO and the NYJs the weeks prior, do you honestly think he would have played any better vs. the Chargers?  As for the INTs, the first actually bounced off the receiver, the second he was falling backwards.  Following three were on Peterman, but let's not make it sound like he just threw five picks in a vacuum.

[Ol Dirty B]

Just now, The Red King said:

 

Given how Tyrod played vs. NO and the NYJs the weeks prior, do you honestly think he would have played any better vs. the Chargers?  As for the INTs, the first actually bounced off the receiver, the second he was falling backwards.  Following three were on Peterman, but let's not make it sound like he just threw five picks in a vacuum.

 

Him throwing while falling backward and throwing up a punt is his fault. 4 were on him. 

 

Tyrod played the same defense for a half and played much better. Not saying he would have won the game, but he would have been better than Peterman. How anyone can even justify the LA decision with the advantage of hindsight is beyond me.

[The Red King]

6 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Him throwing while falling backward and throwing up a punt is his fault. 4 were on him. 

 

Tyrod played the same defense for a half and played much better. Not saying he would have won the game, but he would have been better than Peterman. How anyone can even justify the LA decision with the advantage of hindsight is beyond me.

 

They knew TT wasn't going to win a playoff game.  They knew what they had in TT, they didn't in Peterman and so gave him a start.  Thanks to that decision we have absolutely zero "Give Peterman the start and don't draft a QB" threads on the board right now.  Let's say for arguement's sake TT started that game, and the rest.  We'd still have gone 9-7, still lost to JAX, and Peterman would have been an unknown quality going into this draft.  Hell, if TT didn't play well, there may have been more calls for Peterman to start against KC, a move that could have cost us that game and our playoff birth.  How anyone could say starting TT that game would have made things better for the Bills with the advantage of hindsight is beyond me.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

15 minutes ago, The Red King said:

 

They knew TT wasn't going to win a playoff game.  They knew what they had in TT, they didn't in Peterman and so gave him a start.  Thanks to that decision we have absolutely zero "Give Peterman the start and don't draft a QB" threads on the board right now.  Let's say for arguement's sake TT started that game, and the rest.  We'd still have gone 9-7, still lost to JAX, and Peterman would have been an unknown quality going into this draft.  Hell, if TT didn't play well, there may have been more calls for Peterman to start against KC, a move that could have cost us that game and our playoff birth.  How anyone could say starting TT that game would have made things better for the Bills with the advantage of hindsight is beyond me.

 

Y'know, I understand the logic of what you're saying, but I just can't buy off on the "they didn't know what they had in Peterman" without giving him a start and the "Peterman would have been an unknown quality going into the draft"

 

You got Micah Hyde going around calling him "Nate Favre" that's a clue maybe he's giving Favre-like INT opportunities to the DB during practice.  Word from some here is that the players and at least some of the coaches know he wasn't ready, but somehow the OC didn't, or mistook classroom readiness for game readiness. 

 

It was a CF all around.  Incredibly bad judgement on Dennison's part if it's true he was the one pushing it, and bad judgement on McDermott's part to sign off on it.

 

And why does it matter if "Peterman would have been an unknown quality going into the draft?"  He was a 5th round pick.  You don't expect starting QB play from your Day 3 Draft Pick until/unless he starts lighting the place on fire during TC and preseason.

 

I don't want to pick on Peterman (see what I did there?).  I hope he's improved with the off-season.  I hope he continues to improve.  But Please folks - stop exculpating him, and stop exculpating the coaches for the decision to play him on the road without making game plan adjustments for a rookie in his first start.

[The Red King]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Y'know, I understand the logic of what you're saying, but I just can't buy off on the "they didn't know what they had in Peterman" without giving him a start and the "Peterman would have been an unknown quality going into the draft"

 

You got Micah Hyde going around calling him "Nate Favre" that's a clue maybe he's giving Favre-like INT opportunities to the DB during practice.  Word from some here is that the players and at least some of the coaches know he wasn't ready, but somehow the OC didn't, or mistook classroom readiness for game readiness. 

 

It was a CF all around.  Incredibly bad judgement on Dennison's part if it's true he was the one pushing it, and bad judgement on McDermott's part to sign off on it.

 

And why does it matter if "Peterman would have been an unknown quality going into the draft?"  He was a 5th round pick.  You don't expect starting QB play from your Day 3 Draft Pick until/unless he starts lighting the place on fire during TC and preseason.

 

I don't want to pick on Peterman (see what I did there?).  I hope he's improved with the off-season.  I hope he continues to improve.  But Please folks - stop exculpating him, and stop exculpating the coaches for the decision to play him on the road without making game plan adjustments for a rookie in his first start.

 

If Peterman hadn't started that game (or any others), the calls for him to start would have escalated as TT's performance continued on par and this board would currently have a good number of "We should be giving Peterman a chance!  Don't draft a QB, draft a team around him!" threads.  Whether or not it was ill-advised at the time (we share differing opinions on that), you cannot say the Bills would have and would be better off had they not started Peterman when they did.

[Ol Dirty B]

1 hour ago, The Red King said:

 

They knew TT wasn't going to win a playoff game.  They knew what they had in TT, they didn't in Peterman and so gave him a start.  Thanks to that decision we have absolutely zero "Give Peterman the start and don't draft a QB" threads on the board right now.  Let's say for arguement's sake TT started that game, and the rest.  We'd still have gone 9-7, still lost to JAX, and Peterman would have been an unknown quality going into this draft.  Hell, if TT didn't play well, there may have been more calls for Peterman to start against KC, a move that could have cost us that game and our playoff birth.  How anyone could say starting TT that game would have made things better for the Bills with the advantage of hindsight is beyond me.

 

I don't even want to have this debate again. I'm tired of it. What you're saying is nonsense in my opinion, but if you want to find a way to give them credit for making a bad decision... by then all means

 

The whole debate is so played out and stupid, you just keep twisting it. 

 

Don't at me. I'm done. I don't care, starting Peterman was the best and only decision they could make. 

 

Your football knowledge is superior.

 

I was wrong, I will now find a hill somewhere and go out samurai style for I have shamed bills fandom.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[The Red King]

12 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

I don't even want to have this debate again. I'm tired of it. What you're saying is nonsense in my opinion, but if you want to find a way to give them credit for making a bad decision... by then all means

 

I have no desire to go into whether or not it was a good decision.  People have their opinions and are pretty much locked into them at this point.  Point remains that for good or for ill, starting Peterman that game worked out better (in the long run) for the Bills then starting Tyrod would have, unless you think the Bills would have actually outright won that game with TT under center, and precious few people here think that.

 

Edit: Since the above post was edited after I posted...

 

My opinion is just that.  My opinion.  I am as entitled to mine, and as entitled to post it as you are yours.  I believe the staff made the right move, but I respect those fans who believe they got it wrong.  I can see their (your) points and can see merit in them.  I just happen to disagree with them.  No need to go overdramatic.

Edited April 20, 2018 by The Red King

[reddogblitz]

5 minutes ago, The Red King said:

 

I have no desire to go into whether or not it was a good decision.  People have their opinions and are pretty much locked into them at this point.  Point remains that for good or for ill, starting Peterman that game worked out better (in the long run) for the Bills then starting Tyrod would have, unless you think the Bills would have actually outright won that game with TT under center, and precious few people here think that.

 

We'll never know. But if we had won it we would have gone 10-6 and played KC who we already beat once.  Like the other 6, it was a huge loss. 

Edited April 20, 2018 by reddogblitz