reddogblitz Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 18 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: He had a good drive, down 40 something, against a team playing vanilla defense. Otherwise known as "garbage time" unless it's somebody we like. Fitz was good in garbage time.
BurpleBull Posted May 31, 2018 Author Posted May 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: He had a good drive, down 40 something, against a team playing vanilla defense. He was 5-10 for 50 yards in a score vs. the Colts. I realize that the conditions were tough but that’s no better than acceptable. In the playoffs he played like 4 snaps. He threw an INT, fumbled and got called for intentional grounding. That was “making it happen?” We must have been watching different games. Are people so desperate for a “franchise QB” that they were impressed by that?!? I saw more than enough. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I wasn’t wrong about Tuel, Levi Brown or Brohm though. I don't know if you've taken "make things happen" out of its original context. Trying to make things happen, as in he was doing his best to get the offense going (ex., entering the game and picking up the first down on 4th down to extend the drive). He pressed the issue, and paid for it in instances during those games. We already have a QB in that franchise mold, in Josh Allen, so I can't be desperate for one. We were watching the same game I promise you, but of course you'd see a rookie going 5-10 and a completing a nice back shoulder throw for a TD as not very impressive if that rookie is named Nathan Peterman. You were right about Tuel, Brohm, and Brown. I was right about the hire of Sean McDermott during the coaching search. I also spoke about drafting Peterman and it happened. I think Peterman has a shot at starting week one. We'll see how it plays out.
JohnC Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 2 hours ago, reddogblitz said: That's about what Brian Brohm and Cardale Jones got. Bills fans are already calling for Allen to start, so we win The next stage is which HC inserts the rookie into the starting lineup. ? 4 hours ago, HappyDays said: That reasoning doesn't really work though. Benching the starter doesn't do anyone any good if the replacement isn't better. That goes for all positions. The Bills gained nothing by starting Peterman. You can't excuse their decision by saying Tyrod was playing bad. Replacing bad with historically bad is not something that can be excused. It was a poor decision and deserves to be criticized as such. I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you. When your starting qb struggled for multiple consecutive games and is incapable of running a pro offense I have no problem with trying the next option. It didn't work out. So what? At least you tried something to alter the unacceptable level of play. The prior regime wanted TT gone and the next regime not traded him. Last year is over with. It's time to move on from that issue. Peterman will be competing for a backup job. If he doesn't show enough he will be moved out. 1
Kirby Jackson Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 1 hour ago, BurpleBull said: I don't know if you've taken "make things happen" out of its original context. Trying to make things happen, as in he was doing his best to get the offense going (ex., entering the game and picking up the first down on 4th down to extend the drive). He pressed the issue, and paid for it in instances during those games. We already have a QB in that franchise mold, in Josh Allen, so I can't be desperate for one. We were watching the same game I promise you, but of course you'd see a rookie going 5-10 and a completing a nice back shoulder throw for a TD as not very impressive if that rookie is named Nathan Peterman. You were right about Tuel, Brohm, and Brown. I was right about the hire of Sean McDermott during the coaching search. I also spoke about drafting Peterman and it happened. I think Peterman has a shot at starting week one. We'll see how it plays out. I don’t think I’d ever say 5-10 for 50 yards and a TD was a great half. I’d call it acceptable. That was his best performance. That was the only time he had any sort of success in real game action. If you wanted Peterman drafted I get why you are sticking by him. I was fine with the pick and thought he had a chance to be a number 2 in this league. By all accounts (except Gunner and Blokes) he was smart and accurate. It turns out he wasn’t accurate, lacks the arm strength to fit balls into tight windows and crumbles under pressure. I guess we will watch it play out but I’m really glad that I got even money on Allen vs. Peterman opening day.
Kirby Jackson Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 32 minutes ago, ScottLaw said: It won't be Peterman or Allen, IMO. McCarron will start most of the season barring injury. Agreed (it’s a no bet if it’s McCarron)
HappyDays Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 2 hours ago, JohnC said: I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you. When your starting qb struggled for multiple consecutive games and is incapable of running a pro offense I have no problem with trying the next option. It didn't work out. So what? At least you tried something to alter the unacceptable level of play That's where we disagree. Trying means nothing to me. I look for results, not effort. It is not enough to merely try something different if it totally fails. I've gotten into a similar debate about picking EJ Manuel. Some people still think that was a good pick because "at least the Bills went for a 1st round QB." But it was a terrible pick! And starting Peterman over Tyrod in those circumstances was a terrible choice. I don't subscribe to the addition by subtraction mantra. Replacing someone only works if their replacement is better, or at least promising. It's different when you're out of the playoff race because then the results don't matter, but as long as the results do matter I'm going to judge any decision by how it turns out. Decisions made in desperation are usually bad. Being desperate for better QB play was not an excuse. And I'm guessing McDermott agrees with me because he fired Dennison when the season was over.
grb Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, JohnC said: The next stage is which HC inserts the rookie into the starting lineup. ? I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you. When your starting qb struggled for multiple consecutive games and is incapable of running a pro offense I have no problem with trying the next option. It didn't work out. So what? At least you tried something to alter the unacceptable level of play. The prior regime wanted TT gone and the next regime not traded him. Last year is over with. It's time to move on from that issue. Peterman will be competing for a backup job. If he doesn't show enough he will be moved out. Bills fans understandably like and appreciate McDermott. You see that in their flimsy excuses for the Peterman Debacle like above. McDermott didn't bench Taylor because of "multiple consecutive games ..... incapable of running a pro offense"; he did so because of four straight games in which his defense (SM is a defense-minded coach) gave up the most yards in the NFL. You'll say that's irrational and you'll be right, but it's a fact. McDermott had no fix for the team's defense, so decided to throw dice on the offense instead. Taylor was benched after one bad game which was preceded by three good performances. Again, that sounds crazy (particularly given who was waiting in the wings), but that's what happened. The three games which preceded the Taylor's poor showing vs the Saints : Jets : 29/40 72.5% 285 yds 7.1 ypa 2 tds 0 ints 108.9 rating Raiders : 20/27 74.0% 165 yds 6.1 ypa 1 tds 0 ints 101.6 rating Bucs : 20/33 60.6% 268 yds 8.1 ypa 1 tds 0 ints 96.5 rating To forestall the inevitable bad arguments : Somebody will claim TT's Jets number were all "garbage time", which is garbage. His first half numbers were 15/11 76.6% 115 yds 7.7 ypa 1 td. Mind you, this was while being hammered by a pass rush in his face as he set to throw Someone will point out the Bills lost the Jets game. This isn't surprising as barely any Bill showed up to play. Taylor did, and he played well. Someone will still excuse the imbecilic decision to start Peterman by saying Taylor just had too many bad games. Really? Let's look at another player Panthers : 12 att 09 yds 0.75 ypa Broncos : 14 att 21 yds 1.50 ypa Jets : 12 att 25 yds 2.08 ypa Chiefs : 22 att 49 yds 2.23 ypa Dolphins : 20 att 50 yds 2.50 ypa Dolphins : 11 att 10 yds 0.91 ypa The last game McCoy was injured, so that's not fair. But since you can't run without holes to run thru, the same is true for the rest of the stats as well. Of course you can say likewise about throwing to cripples, cast-offs, and a rookie like a deer in the headlights, couldn't you? Two things are certain : Tolbert wasn't going to run for more yards than McCoy behind that line, and Peterman wasn't going to throw for more yards that Taylor in that offense. Kinda of makes the decision to start him pretty stupid, doesn't it? Edited May 31, 2018 by grb
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 Does Tyrod count as a guy unchallenged? His challengers were EJ and Meh Cassel. 1
JohnC Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 1 minute ago, grb said: Bills fans understandably like and appreciate McDermott. You see that in flimsy excuses for the Peterman Blunder like above. McDermott didn't bench Taylor because of "multiple consecutive games ..... incapable of running a pro offense"; he did so because of four straight games in which his defense (SM is a defense-minded coach) gave up the most yards in the NFL. You will say that's irrational and you'll be right, but that's what happened. McDermott had no fix for the teams defense, so decided to throw the dice on the offense instead. Taylor was benched after one bad game which was preceded by three good performances. Again, that seems crazy (particularly given who was waiting in the wings) but that's the facts. The three games which preceded the Taylor's poor showing vs the Saints : Jets : 29/40 72.5% 285 yds 7.1 ypa 2 tds 0 ints 108.9 rating Raiders : 20/27 74.0% 165 yds 6.1 ypa 1 tds 0 ints 101.6 rating Bucs : 20/33 60.6% 268 yds 8.1 ypa 1 tds 0 ints 96.5 rating To forestall the inevitable bad arguments : Somebody will claim TT's Jets number were all "garbage time", which is garbage. His first half numbers were 15/11 76.6% 115 yds 7.7 ypa 1 td. Mind you, this was while he was being hammered by a pass rush in his face as he set to throw Someone will point out the Bills lost the Jets game. This isn't surprising as barely any Bill showed up to play. Taylor did, and he played well. Someone will still excuse the imbecilic decision to start Peterman by saying Taylor just had too many bad games. Really? Let's look at another player Panthers : 12 att 09 yds 0.75 ypa Broncos : 14 att 21 yds 1.50 ypa Jets : 12 att 25 yds 2.08 ypa Chiefs : 22 att 49 yds 2.23 ypa Dolphins : 20 att 50 yds 2.50 ypa Dolphins : 11 att 10 yds 0.91 ypa The last game McCoy was injured so that's not fair. But since you can't run without holes to run thru, the same is true for the rest of the stats as well. Of course you could say the same thing about throwing to cripples, cast-offs, and a rookie like a deer in the headlights, couldn't you? Two things are certain : Tolbert wasn't going to run for more yards than McCoy behind that line, and Peterman wasn't going to throw for more yards that Taylor in that offense. Kinda of makes the decision to start him pretty stupid, doesn't it? You can embrace any stats you want. I don't give a dam. The reality was that Taylor struggled for a string a games, and more importantly he couldn't run a pro offense. Go back and watch the Jacksonville game. That was a display of qb futility at an exponentially atrocious level. The fact is that the running qb was dealt and the young qb was kept. You may be satisfied with Pop Warner quarterbacking but I wasn't. I wish Taylor the best. He is a fine fellow and deserves to be placed in a better situation. On the other hand I'm ecstatic that I don't have to watch that type of unpalatable football any longer. If you are so enamored with him you can watch the Cleveland games. If that is the case then you better watch the early season games because in the not too distant future Mayfield will replace him as the starter.
grb Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, JohnC said: You can embrace any stats you want. I don't give a dam. The reality was that Taylor struggled for a string a games, and more importantly he couldn't run a pro offense. Go back and watch the Jacksonville game. That was a display of qb futility at an exponentially atrocious level. The fact is that the running qb was dealt and the young qb was kept. You may be satisfied with Pop Warner quarterbacking but I wasn't. I wish Taylor the best. He is a fine fellow and deserves to be placed in a better situation. On the other hand I'm ecstatic that I don't have to watch that type of unpalatable football any longer. If you are so enamored with him you can watch the Cleveland games. If that is the case then you better watch the early season games because in the not too distant future Mayfield will replace him as the starter. Yes, you don't give a damn about the facts "Couldn't run a pro offense" is just something you made up Taylor didn't "struggle for a string of games". You made that up too. Like they could deal Peterman to anybody for anything?!?! We'll be back here after the season begins, endlessly debating the same subject - perhaps even weekly. I look forward to it. Edited May 31, 2018 by grb
JohnC Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 33 minutes ago, HappyDays said: That's where we disagree. Trying means nothing to me. I look for results, not effort. It is not enough to merely try something different if it totally fails. I've gotten into a similar debate about picking EJ Manuel. Some people still think that was a good pick because "at least the Bills went for a 1st round QB." But it was a terrible pick! And starting Peterman over Tyrod in those circumstances was a terrible choice. I don't subscribe to the addition by subtraction mantra. Replacing someone only works if their replacement is better, or at least promising. It's different when you're out of the playoff race because then the results don't matter, but as long as the results do matter I'm going to judge any decision by how it turns out. Decisions made in desperation are usually bad. Being desperate for better QB play was not an excuse. And I'm guessing McDermott agrees with me because he fired Dennison when the season was over. The truth of the matter is that this Taylor vs Peterman debate is irrelevant to the Bills of today. Last year was last year. This regime demonstrated seriousness when they got rid of their floundering former starter and invested heavily in getting Josh Allen. That's the substantive issue here. Peterman at best is a backup. Whether he should have replaced Taylor or not is an issue that has lost its shelf life. I admired and liked Taylor as a person. However, he is a functional qb at best. He as a starter represented the same wretched mediocrity that had kept this franchise mired in irrelevance for a generation. While others criticized McDermott for starting Peterman in the Charger game, I have no criticism for that decision. In hindsight making that change for that one game made no difference on how the season played. 7 minutes ago, grb said: Yes, you don't give a damn about the facts "Couldn't run a pro offense" is just something you made up Taylor didn't "struggle for a string of games". You made that up too. Like they could deal Peterman to anybody for anything?!?! We'll be back here after the season begins, endlessly debating the same subject - perhaps even weekly. I look forward to it. We won't be debating the Taylor issue any longer because he is another team's temporary starter.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 8 minutes ago, JohnC said: The truth of the matter is that this Taylor vs Peterman debate is irrelevant to the Bills of today. Last year was last year. This regime demonstrated seriousness when they got rid of their floundering former starter and invested heavily in getting Josh Allen. That's the substantive issue here. Peterman at best is a backup. Whether he should have replaced Taylor or not is an issue that has lost its shelf life. I admired and liked Taylor as a person. However, he is a functional qb at best. He as a starter represented the same wretched mediocrity that had kept this franchise mired in irrelevance for a generation. While others criticized McDermott for starting Peterman in the Charger game, I have no criticism for that decision. In hindsight making that change for that one game made no difference on how the season played. We won't be debating the Taylor issue any longer because he is another team's temporary starter. You won’t but the ever faithful will. Which is why I have the ever faithful on ignore
mileena Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 On 5/21/2018 at 3:16 PM, BurpleBull said: Nathan Peterman will win the starting QB position barring injury. He'll be much improved from last season. Excited about Josh Allen as the starting QB, but Peterman is the guy people aren't talking about right now who will have everyone talking by the end of training camp. He's worked on his mechanics, is said to have added velocity to his throws, has a lot to prove and is no stranger to struggling early in his career and picking himself up. A little talked about fact concerning Peterman is that he's right up there with Allen as Bills QB's who've scored high on the Wonderlic test for those who equate the test to mental sharpness. I still hold to the belief that Peterman was at the very least a third round prospect in his draft class. Peterman will be the guy. So this is how I have it panning out... 1. Peterman 2. McCarron 3. Allen With Allen at three for his protection as he starts out his young career. Peterman is a BUST. You don't recover from throwing 5 interceptions in your first start.
Kirby Jackson Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, mileena said: Peterman is a BUST. You don't recover from throwing 5 interceptions in your first start. You can’t be a “bust” if 190 guys were picked before you. Longshots cant bust; they can just be “not good.” Cary Harris wasn’t a bust. He was a bad football player.
BurpleBull Posted May 31, 2018 Author Posted May 31, 2018 1 minute ago, mileena said: Peterman is a BUST. You don't recover from throwing 5 interceptions in your first start. I don't think that's the case at all. I was checking to see how he would respond after that. I thought he played pretty well against the Patriots. Division rivals, I believe on the road, a rookie showcasing himself against a "Tom Terrific" led ball club and he played within himself. Didn't dazzle but also didn't show signs of a player overwhelmed by the stage or show signs of a player consumed by thoughts of the LAC game. Overlooked by others I'm sure, but that says something to me. He stated that he had put the horrific game behind him and learned from it and it proved to be true words and not just lipservice. His last regular game he threw for a TD. No Ints that game or in the one prior. I detected no lingering effects of the Chargers game. 1
JohnC Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said: You won’t but the ever faithful will. Which is why I have the ever faithful on ignore There is a mythology about this player that I don't understand. I trust my eyes. What I see is far different from what many others are seeing. This fictitious nostalgia is baffling to me.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, JohnC said: There is a mythology about this player that I don't understand. I trust my eyes. What I see is far different from what many others are seeing. This fictitious nostalgia is baffling to me. WRT stats..... keep thinking of that song We won’t get fooled again!
grb Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, BurpleBull said: I don't think that's the case at all. I was checking to see how he would respond after that. I thought he played pretty well against the Patriots. Division rivals, I believe on the road, a rookie showcasing himself against a "Tom Terrific" led ball club and he played within himself. Didn't dazzle but also didn't show signs of a player overwhelmed by the stage or show signs of a player consumed by thoughts of the LAC game. Overlooked by others I'm sure, but that says something to me. He stated that he had put the horrific game behind him and learned from it and it proved to be true words and not just lipservice. His last regular game he threw for a TD. No Ints that game or in the one prior. I detected no lingering effects of the Chargers game. Peterman, post-Chargers : Patriots : 6/15 40% 50 yds 3.3 ypa 0 tds 0 int Colts : 5/10 50% 57 yds 5.7 ypa 1 td 0 int 1 fumble Jags : 1/3 33% 14 yds 4.7 ypa 0 td 1 int 1 fumble 1 intentional grounding (in four plays, no less) Sir, you are an inspiration to glass-half-full people everywhere !!!
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted May 31, 2018 Posted May 31, 2018 I just figured this post out.... Nate Peterman actually could week 1 against the ravens.... the South Carolina ravens... it implies there is a good hunch which arena team he will land on AND the schedule for next season
BurpleBull Posted May 31, 2018 Author Posted May 31, 2018 30 minutes ago, grb said: Peterman, post-Chargers : Patriots : 6/15 40% 50 yds 3.3 ypa 0 tds 0 int Colts : 5/10 50% 57 yds 5.7 ypa 1 td 0 int 1 fumble Jags : 1/3 33% 14 yds 4.7 ypa 0 td 1 int 1 fumble 1 intentional grounding (in four plays, no less) Sir, you are an inspiration to glass-half-full people everywhere !!! What's the meaning of it? Those are rookie numbers. Nothing there that leads me to believe that the LAC game had a lasting negative impact on him. 1
Recommended Posts