Peterman Works w/ Tom House, Adds Velocity

[The Red King]

5 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

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. 

 

Buffalo wasn't winning that game with TT under center.  Hell, given how badly the D got carved up I don't think Buffalo wins that game with Brady under center.

[first_and_ten]

 

Peterman going over the playbook

Edited April 20, 2018 by first_and_ten

[reddogblitz]

1 hour ago, The Red King said:

 

Buffalo wasn't winning that game with TT under center.  Hell, given how badly the D got carved up I don't think Buffalo wins that game with Brady under center.

 

We'll never know.

 

Did you think we would beat Atlanta or KC with Hotrod under center?  It was a winnable game.

Edited April 20, 2018 by reddogblitz

[The Red King]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

We'll never know.

 

Did you think we would beat Atlanta or KC with Hotrod under center?  It was a winnable game.

 

Honestly?  Yes, on both counts.  I wasn't sold on Atlanta and KC was in a tailspin as bad as we were at the time.  The Bolts shredded our D, same as the two weeks prior.  Nothing on the other side of the ball was going to overcome that.  It was winnable, but only if the D showed up, which they didn't.  Starting QB had no bearing on that.

[reddogblitz]

30 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Nothing on the other side of the ball was going to overcome that.

 

not throwing interceptions certainly would have given us a better chance to stop them. They were getting The football frequently in plum field position.  The run game was was working well til we had to abandon it.  It was a winnable game if the whole team played  like we did the rest of the season after that.

 

on to Baltimore.

Edited April 20, 2018 by reddogblitz

[GunnerBill]

4 hours ago, 4thandGoal said:

 

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

 

I don't have a green card. 

[Prickly Pete]

3 hours ago, first_and_ten said:

 

Peterman going over the playbook

 

 

Post of the Year (Decade?)

Certainly the best post in this thread.

This whole "Peterman!, Peterman!!, Peterman!!!" thing is ridiculous. 

In the grand scheme, Peterman is a punchline. He ain't even Gary Marangi!

 

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by OJABBA

[Shaw66]

Just to stir things up, I think these Peterman discussions really miss the point.   

 

The real point is that starting Peterman was a huge mistake that called into question McDermott's judgment as a coach.   Let's hope he learned his lesson.  

 

I thought it was a bad decision at the time, but I thought that McDermott must have seen Peterman consistently lighting it up in practice, demonstrating that he was an NFL starter just waiting for his opportunity.   Taylor had been playing poorly enough that he created the opportunity.

 

However, Peterman made it clear that that wasn't what was going.  McDermott simply panicked.   The team was floundering and McDermott made a desperation move.   He abandoned his own process and made a change for the sake of change, instead of staying with the guy who had earned the starting position, despite the ugly streak the Bills were on.   If Peterman really had been lighting it up in practice (1) he wouldn't have been so God-awful when he did a get a start, and (2) McDermott would have kept him on the field for that game and the rest of the season.  

 

To McDermott's credit, he maintained his credibility with the team despite his awful judgment in making the change.   He went on to lead his team to the playoffs.   It was a coaching triumph following the blunder.   Unfortunately, the decision sealed Taylor's fate.   Maybe the Bills already had decided to move on from Taylor, but after benching him and then bringing him to relieve the rookie after only one half, there was no turning back.  Taylor was toast.  

 

You don't see many coaching decisions that bad.

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

The real point is that starting Peterman was a huge mistake that called into question McDermott's judgment as a coach.   Let's hope he learned his lesson.  

 

I thought it was a bad decision at the time, but I thought that McDermott must have seen Peterman consistently lighting it up in practice, demonstrating that he was an NFL starter just waiting for his opportunity.   Taylor had been playing poorly enough that he created the opportunity.

 

Another perspective on this - a few insiders on this board confirmed that Peterman's start was all Dennison. He's the one that asked to make the change. Under that perspective McDermott didn't do anything wrong. Part of his process is trusting his coordinators. He gave Dennison what he wanted, it failed, and he fired him when the season was over. Like you said I hope he learned something from it.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, The Red King said:

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.

 

I think you're mixing two very different things:

1) Fan opinion, even escalating fan opinion clamoring loudly from the Press and on Fan Boards

2) Professional football talent evaluation and roster building skills

 

If I understand, you're saying the Bills are better off for having started Peterman because if they didn't, fans would have clamored for Peterman to start instead of drafting a QB.

 

I believe that Buddy Nix was wrong about many things, but Spot On when he said "if you start listening to fans, next thing you know you're sitting with them".

 

Now there may be QB who seem to be ready, and when they play it is seen they are not as ready as thought.  But if it's true (as some who claim knowledge have said) that the assistant coaches and players knew from watching Peterman with the scout team that Peterman had not adjusted to the speed of the pro game and was NOT ready, but Dennison insisted on playing him because of Peterman's classroom understanding and Dennison's frustration with tyrod Taylor, no useful professional football talent evaluation purpose was actually served by playing Peterman in that game.  The need to acquire a better QB in draft and FA was unchanged before and after. 

 

And some fans are still clamoring for the Bills to "stand pat" at QB with McCarron and Peterman and maybe a later round draft choice.

 

9 hours 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.

 

No, that point does not remain.  Your belief remains, but it's just that, your belief.

 

Let's hypothesize for a second that the whole Bills organization is high as a kite convention on 5th round pick Peterman's abilities at QB and they're thinking of altering their off-season priorities based on Peterman's potentials.  There's just one snag: he hasn't actually shown his chops in an NFL start (that's what has to be true for your point to be valid).

So they decide, we MUST start Peterman.

 

What would make the most sense and add the most value in that case?

1) Choose the best possible circumstance: home game.  Design a simplified game plan that doesn't ask the rookie to do too much.  Start him.  If he does well, start him again and gradually add to what you expect

2) Start the rookie on the road against one of the best Ds in the NFL, using the full playbook (which is what Dennison said he would do, and appears to have done)

 

I submit that the logical answer is 1, and starting Peterman in the Chargers game as they did did not in any way work out better for either the Bills or Peterman, even if you accept the refuted hypothesis that Peterman, in practice, was showing enough that all the coaches saw him as changing the team's draft and FA priorities.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[grb]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Just to stir things up, I think these Peterman discussions really miss the point.   

 

The real point is that starting Peterman was a huge mistake that called into question McDermott's judgment as a coach.   Let's hope he learned his lesson.  

 

I thought it was a bad decision at the time, but I thought that McDermott must have seen Peterman consistently lighting it up in practice, demonstrating that he was an NFL starter just waiting for his opportunity.   Taylor had been playing poorly enough that he created the opportunity.

 

However, Peterman made it clear that that wasn't what was going.  McDermott simply panicked.   The team was floundering and McDermott made a desperation move.   He abandoned his own process and made a change for the sake of change, instead of staying with the guy who had earned the starting position, despite the ugly streak the Bills were on.   If Peterman really had been lighting it up in practice (1) he wouldn't have been so God-awful when he did a get a start, and (2) McDermott would have kept him on the field for that game and the rest of the season.  

 

To McDermott's credit, he maintained his credibility with the team despite his awful judgment in making the change.   He went on to lead his team to the playoffs.   It was a coaching triumph following the blunder.   Unfortunately, the decision sealed Taylor's fate.   Maybe the Bills already had decided to move on from Taylor, but after benching him and then bringing him to relieve the rookie after only one half, there was no turning back.  Taylor was toast.  

 

You don't see many coaching decisions that bad.

 

Lord above, isn't this a tired old debate? Still one point, starting with a quote : "Taylor had been playing poorly enough that he created the opportunity."

 

Yes, he played poorly against New Orleans, but in the three games before - New York, Oakland & Tampa Bay - Taylor played well. That's not what you see in many a comment above, where it's gospel that McDermott had to make the choice "given how Tyrod played vs. NO and the NYJs the weeks prior", but that opinion is based on :

• People who don't remember watching the Jets game
• The Bills lost the game, ergo Taylor played poorly
• The fact that Taylor played well in three games, had a bad game, and then was benched makes no sense. Therefore he must have have played bad against the Jets too.

As for McDermott's decision, here's what happened :

• Over a four game stretch a defense-oriented coach watched his team give up the most yards in the NFL
• He didn't have any answers
• The OC said his scheme was perfect - pure genius - except for that Taylor guy.
• So put the other guy in and pure genius will shine. 

I'll grant that's a bit exaggerated - but not by much. As for the Jets game, Taylor was one of the few Bills' players who actually showed up to play.

 

Think otherwise? No problem. But this guy wants to fight you :

 

https://www.buffalorumblingbut s.com/2017/11/3/16602430/analysis-tyrod-taylor-was-not-the-problem-in-thursdays-buffalo-bills-loss-to-new-york-jets

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by grb

[The Red King]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think you're mixing two very different things:

1) Fan opinion, even escalating fan opinion clamoring loudly from the Press and on Fan Boards

2) Professional football talent evaluation and roster building skills

 

If I understand, you're saying the Bills are better off for having started Peterman because if they didn't, fans would have clamored for Peterman to start instead of drafting a QB.

 

I believe that Buddy Nix was wrong about many things, but Spot On when he said "if you start listening to fans, next thing you know you're sitting with them".

 

Now there may be QB who seem to be ready, and when they play it is seen they are not as ready as thought.  But if it's true (as some who claim knowledge have said) that the assistant coaches and players knew from watching Peterman with the scout team that Peterman had not adjusted to the speed of the pro game and was NOT ready, but Dennison insisted on playing him because of Peterman's classroom understanding and Dennison's frustration with tyrod Taylor, no useful professional football talent evaluation purpose was actually served by playing Peterman in that game.  The need to acquire a better QB in draft and FA was unchanged before and after. 

 

And some fans are still clamoring for the Bills to "stand pat" at QB with McCarron and Peterman and maybe a later round draft choice.

 

 

No, that point does not remain.  Your belief remains, but it's just that, your belief.

 

Let's hypothesize for a second that the whole Bills organization is high as a kite convention on 5th round pick Peterman's abilities at QB and they're thinking of altering their off-season priorities based on Peterman's potentials.  There's just one snag: he hasn't actually shown his chops in an NFL start (that's what has to be true for your point to be valid).

So they decide, we MUST start Peterman.

 

What would make the most sense and add the most value in that case?

1) Choose the best possible circumstance: home game.  Design a simplified game plan that doesn't ask the rookie to do too much.  Start him.  If he does well, start him again and gradually add to what you expect

2) Start the rookie on the road against one of the best Ds in the NFL, using the full playbook (which is what Dennison said he would do, and appears to have done)

 

I submit that the logical answer is 1, and starting Peterman in the Chargers game as they did did not in any way work out better for either the Bills or Peterman, even if you accept the refuted hypothesis that Peterman, in practice, was showing enough that all the coaches saw him as changing the team's draft and FA priorities.

 

The problem is, we're arguing apples and oranges.  You are arguing whether or not it was a good decision to make.  My last several replies have not argued that point at all.  I have simply said that regardless of whether or not it was a good decision, it ended up working out in the Bills' favor.  That doesn't reflect on whether or not it was a good decision.  It is possible to have good things come from bad decisions.  If I'm up to my eyeballs in debt, spending what little money I have left in the casino is a terrible idea, but if I hit the jackpot and win a million, that bad decision still worked out for the best.  You are discussing the decision.  At this point, all I've been discussing is the outcome, and I've not been using it to justify anything.

[Shaw66]

40 minutes ago, grb said:

 

Lord above, isn't this a tired old debate? Still one point, starting with a quote : "Taylor had been playing poorly enough that he created the opportunity."

 

Yes, he played poorly against New Orleans, but in the three games before - New York, Oakland & Tampa Bay - Taylor played well. That's not what you see in many a comment above, where it's gospel that McDermott had to make the choice "given how Tyrod played vs. NO and the NYJs the weeks prior", but that opinion is based on :

• People who don't remember watching the Jets game
• The Bills lost the game, ergo Taylor played poorly
• The fact that Taylor played well in three games, had a bad game, and then was benched makes no sense. Therefore he must have have played bad against the Jets too.

As for McDermott's decision, here's what happened :

• Over a four game stretch a defense-oriented coach watched his team give up the most yards in the NFL
• He didn't have any answers
• The OC said his scheme was perfect - pure genius - except for that Taylor guy.
• So put the other guy in and pure genius will shine. 

I'll grant that's a bit exaggerated - but not by much. As for the Jets game, Taylor was one of the few Bills' players who actually showed up to play.

 

Think otherwise? No problem. But this guy wants to fight you :

 

https://www.buffalorumblingbut s.com/2017/11/3/16602430/analysis-tyrod-taylor-was-not-the-problem-in-thursdays-buffalo-bills-loss-to-new-york-jets

 

 

 

You're right.  It was the defense.   Taylor was pretty bad against New Orleans, but he was really good against the Jets.   Still, I'll put it on McD.  Why change your QB when he's playing well and your defense is imploding?    That's on McD.  

 

And whoever said it may have been Denison's call is right, too.   May have been.   And maybe it was just McDermott trusting his coordinators, and after the debacle he knew Denison was gone.   But I can't buy that completely.   McDermott was seeing the practices.   He must have seen that Peterman wasn't playing like Aaron Rodgers.  

[The Red King]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

You're right.  It was the defense.   Taylor was pretty bad against New Orleans, but he was really good against the Jets.   Still, I'll put it on McD.  Why change your QB when he's playing well and your defense is imploding?    That's on McD.  

 

And whoever said it may have been Denison's call is right, too.   May have been.   And maybe it was just McDermott trusting his coordinators, and after the debacle he knew Denison was gone.   But I can't buy that completely.   McDermott was seeing the practices.   He must have seen that Peterman wasn't playing like Aaron Rodgers.  

 

Come on now, I remember that Jets' game and it was a slaughter until the Jets almost choked yet another game away giving us a good number of garbage points (and yards) well after the game was out of hand.  That's far from "really good".  Anyone can put up good stats on a Prevent defense if they try.

[Shaw66]

3 minutes ago, The Red King said:

 

Come on now, I remember that Jets' game and it was a slaughter until the Jets almost choked yet another game away giving us a good number of garbage points (and yards) well after the game was out of hand.  That's far from "really good".  Anyone can put up good stats on a Prevent defense if they try.

Wrong.    Here's what I wrote after the game:

 

At the risk of starting a firestorm, what I really liked in the Jets game was Tyrod Taylor.   We’ll see what the second half of the season, but I’m pretty much sold on him.  

 

Another night of excellent numbers.   He was 29 for 40, 7.1 yards per attempt, 2 TDs.  109 passer rating.   And before someone complains that he fattened his numbers in garbage time, he didn’t.   Through three quarters, he was 15-21 for a 7.8 average per attempt, with one touchdown.  110 passer rating.   In the fourth quarter he just continued what he’d been doing all game.

 

And he made a bundle of excellent throws.   Both TDs were delivered beautifully, one with zip to Jones and one with touch, deep, to Thompson.   He had several excellent throws to receivers over the middle, including a couple to Jones, the fumble plays by Matthews and O’Leary.  

 

Plus, he’s in complete control.  Never seems to be excited, runs the huddle efficiently.  

 

[reddogblitz]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

Wrong.    Here's what I wrote after the game:

 

At the risk of starting a firestorm, what I really liked in the Jets game was Tyrod Taylor.   We’ll see what the second half of the season, but I’m pretty much sold on him.  

 

Another night of excellent numbers.   He was 29 for 40, 7.1 yards per attempt, 2 TDs.  109 passer rating.   And before someone complains that he fattened his numbers in garbage time, he didn’t.   Through three quarters, he was 15-21 for a 7.8 average per attempt, with one touchdown.  110 passer rating.   In the fourth quarter he just continued what he’d been doing all game.

 

And he made a bundle of excellent throws.   Both TDs were delivered beautifully, one with zip to Jones and one with touch, deep, to Thompson.   He had several excellent throws to receivers over the middle, including a couple to Jones, the fumble plays by Matthews and O’Leary.  

 

Plus, he’s in complete control.  Never seems to be excited, runs the huddle efficiently.  

 

 

Come on Shaw, stop trying to confuse us with facts.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

32 minutes ago, The Red King said:

The problem is, we're arguing apples and oranges.  You are arguing whether or not it was a good decision to make.  My last several replies have not argued that point at all.  I have simply said that regardless of whether or not it was a good decision, it ended up working out in the Bills' favor.  That doesn't reflect on whether or not it was a good decision.  It is possible to have good things come from bad decisions.  If I'm up to my eyeballs in debt, spending what little money I have left in the casino is a terrible idea, but if I hit the jackpot and win a million, that bad decision still worked out for the best.  You are discussing the decision.  At this point, all I've been discussing is the outcome, and I've not been using it to justify anything.

 

Perhaps you need to walk me through exactly how it worked out in the Bills favor?  Because I don't see "in the Bills favor" outcome from the "start Peterman, show that he's woefully unprepared, lose the game" result.

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Wrong.    Here's what I wrote after the game:

 

At the risk of starting a firestorm, what I really liked in the Jets game was Tyrod Taylor.   We’ll see what the second half of the season, but I’m pretty much sold on him.  

 

Another night of excellent numbers.   He was 29 for 40, 7.1 yards per attempt, 2 TDs.  109 passer rating.   And before someone complains that he fattened his numbers in garbage time, he didn’t.   Through three quarters, he was 15-21 for a 7.8 average per attempt, with one touchdown.  110 passer rating.   In the fourth quarter he just continued what he’d been doing all game.

 

And he made a bundle of excellent throws.   Both TDs were delivered beautifully, one with zip to Jones and one with touch, deep, to Thompson.   He had several excellent throws to receivers over the middle, including a couple to Jones, the fumble plays by Matthews and O’Leary.  

 

Plus, he’s in complete control.  Never seems to be excited, runs the huddle efficiently.  

 

 

I am going to respectfully disagree with your assessment of that game.  The entire Bills team was pure crap for that game.  Tyrod was HORRIBLE and his stats were absolutely garbage time stats.  The Bills got their asses handed to them beginning at the end of the national anthem and ending when the final whistle blew.

 

We scored 3 points in 3 quarters of football and 10 points, overall.

 

That doesn't happen with decent QB play.

 

He sucked that night, the defense REALLY sucked that night and the Jets pounded us for 60 minutes.

[Estelle Getty]

2 of the INT should have been called back for roughing the passer in his defense. And Tyrod would not have won us that game by a long shot.  The Chargers were the hottest team in football at that time and are offense was anemic with Tyrod.  Let's stop kidding ourselves.   

Edited April 20, 2018 by Estelle Getty

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, HappyDays said:

Another perspective on this - a few insiders on this board confirmed that Peterman's start was all Dennison. He's the one that asked to make the change. Under that perspective McDermott didn't do anything wrong. Part of his process is trusting his coordinators. He gave Dennison what he wanted, it failed, and he fired him when the season was over. Like you said I hope he learned something from it.

 

I can see the argument that it's a fine line.  Being a successful leader does mean delegating, and trusting your subordinates. 

But it also means being astute enough and plugged in to the organization enough to tell (before the fact) when you're being given the "mushroom treatment"  (consciously or through incompetence) by a subordinate, on an issue.

 

Now, maybe in his previous coaching life, he never had to worry about that because he was in a lower position, able to naturally keep in touch with the "potting mix".  So maybe he learned.  We can hope so.

 

Bottom line though, if you're the head honcho, you got to have that "buck stops here" sign in your mind, if not on your desk.  You don't get to sign off on a stunningly bad decision, and then get a pass as "he didn't do anything wrong".  Sometimes a HC does need to rein in or override his coordinators.