BurpleBull Posted June 12, 2018 Author Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said: As soon as he is ready isn't that complicated. The Bills traded up in the 1st round to get him. He isn’t a part of some mythical QB competition. He will be the starter as soon as the Bills think he’s ready regardless of who is in front of him now. Alex Smith played at an MVP level for much of last year and was jettisoned. Allen is their guy. He’s the guy that they are betting their careers on. If they are right, we move. If they are wrong, they are looking for work in 2 years. That’s the nature of the NFL. We disagree on their plan. Their plan isn’t “let’s see which guy gives us the best chance to win?” Their plan is “as soon as Josh is ready, he plays.” It may not be week 1 or even 8. It may be 2019. There isn’t anyone though that will be keeping him on the bench when they deem him “ready.” That’s part of the reason that the Bills didn’t chase Keemun, Cousins or even keep Tyrod. They wanted a clear path for their guy, Allen. Yep Oh it becomes complicated, very difficult to understand when your stance seems to defy logic...I actually need clarity. So if the scenario I laid out plays out, you believe the Bills pull Peterman in favor of Allen because Allen's now 'ready'? I just need a 'yes' on that if that's your stand. Peterman had yet another solid day of workouts from all accounts.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 The problem is Nate Peterman is a second rate Trent Edwards, who was third rate. The bigger problem is that even OCs and HCs can get enamored with players like Trent and Nate because they can excel in practice and preseason when players are going at half to three quarters speed. So they make good decisions with the ball and make good crisp accurate short passes. But they cannot do that in the regular season with any consistency because they don't have the arm or the ability to handle a pass rush when it is at full speed. We saw that with two head coaches in Edwards career and the. We saw it with one head coach last year. Hopefully McD won't fall for that again.
mikemac2001 Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: The problem is Nate Peterman is a second rate Trent Edwards, who was third rate. The bigger problem is that even OCs and HCs can get enamored with players like Trent and Nate because they can excel in practice and preseason when players are going at half to three quarters speed. So they make good decisions with the ball and make good crisp accurate short passes. But they cannot do that in the regular season with any consistency because they don't have the arm or the ability to handle a pass rush when it is at full speed. We saw that with two head coaches in Edwards career and the. We saw it with one head coach last year. Hopefully McD won't fall for that again. I think the 2 games Nate played are not enough to make a statement like that but I do see where your coming from a blizzard game and a game that looked like our oline gave up just won’t allow me to throw Nate in he trash 2
BurpleBull Posted June 12, 2018 Author Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Luxy312 said: Your drunk with man-love for Peterman. You could say you're in love with Petermans peter man. Peterman's experience is GARBAGE. Hot piles of garbage. 6 picks in 52 pass attempts is terrible and doesn't constitute anything meaningful. At least McCarron looked like an NFL quarterback. Cutting McCarron would result in $2m ADDITIONAL cap hit, not savings. Cutting Peterman would save $400K. Oh so were taking it there? Very report-worthy stuff, but I'll pass. Not my style. Wouldn't want to make TSW's 'Top 5 Rats List' the way it was discovered you did two weeks ago. On a another note: Peterman with another strong performance.
BuffaloBaumer Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 2 games, like anyone freaking knows anything about Peterman after 2 games. It's a joke to even try to figure out if the guy is any good after such little time. 1
RocCityRoller Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Bray Wyatt said: I agree Allen plays whenever ready regardless of who is in front of them. I just dont think McCarron is default the guy to play if they deem Allen isnt ready. McD did draft Peterman and put him in to start over TT last year, there is obviously something they like about him they put Peterman in because TT absolutely sucked the two games prior, and the bench was empty after him. It worked and lit enough of a fire in TT to do enough to limp into the playoffs. 1
Kirby Jackson Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 41 minutes ago, BurpleBull said: Oh it becomes complicated, very difficult to understand when your stance seems to defy logic...I actually need clarity. So if the scenario I laid out plays out, you believe the Bills pull Peterman in favor of Allen because Allen's now 'ready'? I just need a 'yes' on that if that's your stand. Peterman had yet another solid day of workouts from all accounts. Yes, if Peterman has 15 TDs and 4 INTs and is 10-0 but the Bills think Allen is ready he will play. Which scenario do you think is more likely: A) Bills think Allen is ready Week 1 B) Peterman is 10-0 with wins at Baltimore, home to the Chargers, at the Vikings, at the Packers, home to the Titans, at the Texans, at the Colts, home to the Pats, home to the Bears and at the Jets with a 3:1 TD:INT ratio That is your hypotethical. Nate Peterman’s mom would laugh at that. 31 of the 33 QBs drafted in the top 10 over the last 20 years started during year 1 at some point. I don’t know why you expect Allen to not be a part of that group because of Nathan Peterman?!? That’s beyond crazy talk.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, mikemac2001 said: I think the 2 games Nate played are not enough to make a statement like that but I do see where your coming from a blizzard game and a game that looked like our oline gave up just won’t allow me to throw Nate in he trash The Blizzard game was played at one thousandth speed. There is zero anyone can take away from that game from any player as far as speed of the game goes. It wasnt only two games. It was his college career and last year's preseason, too. He was not good against the rush in preseason last year at all. He didn't display sufficient arm strength in preseason last year at all. 1
Wily Dog Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 If Peterman outplays McCarron during the lead up to the season you can bet your bibby that McDermott is going to start him until Allen is ready.. Don't even waste your time telling us that it will never happen because it may and you anti Peterman "fans " are becoming obsessive in your rants about the kid.
Kirby Jackson Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 1 minute ago, BuffaloBaumer said: 2 games, like anyone freaking knows anything about Peterman after 2 games. It's a joke to even try to figure out if the guy is any good after such little time. Did you need more starts from Jeff Tuel or Brian Brohm? They were WAY better when given the chance than Peterman. Just now, Wily Dog said: If Peterman outplays McCarron during the lead up to the season you can bet your bibby that McDermott is going to start him until Allen is ready.. Don't even waste your time telling us that it will never happen because it may and you anti Peterman "fans " are becoming obsessive in your rants about the kid. It’s not obsessive but I believe that you earn you opportunity. To date, Peterman has been given the opportunity that hundreds of better QBs haven’t and failed miserably. I’m not sure why he deserves more chances but Tuel, Brohm, and Levi Brown didn’t? If a guy stinks, he stinks. That’s one thing that all of those guys showed when given the chance. To Peterman’s credit it sounds like he is improving. The question though was never, can this guy look decent in shorts? They didn’t call him “Nervous Nate” at Pitt because of the way that he looked in mini-camp. What does he do when the pressure comes? That we won’t see again for a while. From what we have seen though he is awful under those circumstances.
Wily Dog Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: Did you need more starts from Jeff Tuel or Brian Brohm? They were WAY better when given the chance than Peterman. Says Who ?
Kelly the Dog Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Wily Dog said: Says Who ? Seven billion people on earth and 90% of aliens interviewed, except you and a couple others here.
RocCityRoller Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 So I mocked the OP pretty hard when he shared this, but Peterman did get the majority of 1st team reps today. McBeane is having a legit QB competition. I'd say Peterman now has gone from a 1% chance to start to 2%.
Kirby Jackson Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Wily Dog said: Says Who ? Tuel’s first (and only)start: 18-39, 229 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT, 0 sacks, 17 rushing yards against a 9-0 chiefs team Peterman’s 1st start: 6-14, 66 yards, 5 INTs, 0 sacks, 4 yards rushing against a 4-6 Chargers team Which of those performances was better? Which of those 2 guys is more deserving of another chance? That was my initial question. Why does Peterman deserve more chances than Tuel?
Augie Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 15 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: Yes, if Peterman has 15 TDs and 4 INTs and is 10-0 but the Bills think Allen is ready he will play. Which scenario do you think is more likely: A) Bills think Allen is ready Week 1 B) Peterman is 10-0 with wins at Baltimore, home to the Chargers, at the Vikings, at the Packers, home to the Titans, at the Texans, at the Colts, home to the Pats, home to the Bears and at the Jets with a 3:1 TD:INT ratio That is your hypotethical. Nate Peterman’s mom would laugh at that. 31 of the 33 QBs drafted in the top 10 over the last 20 years started during year 1 at some point. I don’t know why you expect Allen to not be a part of that group because of Nathan Peterman?!? That’s beyond crazy talk. I am NOT Mrs Peterman, but I also got a chuckle seeing it in writing like that.
Wily Dog Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said: Seven billion people on earth and 90% of aliens interviewed, except you and a couple others here. I will defer to the coaches who know something about football players , rather than the Peterman detractors, .
BuffaloHokie13 Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Wily Dog said: I will defer to the coaches who know something about football players , rather than the Peterman detractors, . The ones who benched him after 30 mins and admitted to the team it was an error to start him? 1
Wily Dog Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: Tuel’s first (and only)start: 18-39, 229 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT, 0 sacks, 17 rushing yards against a 9-0 chiefs team Peterman’s 1st start: 6-14, 66 yards, 5 INTs, 0 sacks, 4 yards rushing against a 4-6 Chargers team Which of those performances was better? Which of those 2 guys is more deserving of another chance? That was my initial question. Why does Peterman deserve more chances than Tuel?
Augie Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Wily Dog said: I will defer to the coaches who know something about football players , rather than the Peterman detractors, . I’m not a detractor. I think I like him more than a lot of people (and maybe more than I should), but this season is all about getting the #7 pick in the draft up to speed and into NFL football games for the Buffalo Bills.
buffalobloodfloridahome Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: Did you need more starts from Jeff Tuel or Brian Brohm? They were WAY better when given the chance than Peterman. I actually liked Tuel. Went to the training camp where he was making all of our other Qb's look bad especially Manuel.
Recommended Posts