Prediction: Nathan Peterman Bills Starting QB Wk. 1 vs. Ravens

[Augie]

49 minutes ago, Norcalbillsfan said:

I don't think it's far fetched, obviously mcD saw something he really liked in Peterman and knows putting him in against one of the best D lines in the NFL on the road was a massive mistake and made Peterman the laughing stock of the NFL for a week and maybe damaged his future. McD might feel like he did him wrong and a hard working kid with a great attitude deserves a better shot.

 

I think McD gave in to Dennison, and one half of football proved McD was right. It was also the end of Dennison. I’m guessing based on what I’ve seen and read (mostly here) of course....but I’d LOVE to know the full story some day. If there’s any good news, we got rid of Dennison. Let’s hope we have a serious upgrade at OC. 

[Bing Bong]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I should be ashamed of myself to contribute to this, but I'm not.  I have an agenda: I will link highlights featuring Dire Straights every chance I get.

But anyone who thinks AJ McCarron won't win you a game, sure looks like he's got some "clutch" factor here.

 

I love a highlight reel that surprises you with great music. 80% of highlight reels have Drake.

[Lfod]

14 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I think McD gave in to Dennison, and one half of football proved McD was right. It was also the end of Dennison. I’m guessing based on what I’ve seen and read (mostly here) of course....but I’d LOVE to know the full story some day. If there’s any good news, we got rid of Dennison. Let’s hope we have a serious upgrade at OC. 

If that's true then why isn't Tyrod still with the Bills? Why is Peterman getting reps? I mean things were going downhill before Peterman started. Not that I disagree that Dennison was in on it. Just not to the degree that McDermott was blind and didn't see the stuff on film. It wasn't like the guy being foolishly persuaded in my opinion. 

 

I think McDermott was a guy that was going off more then just Dennisons word when it came to benching Tyrod. I think we all seen the offence was kinda terrible. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Lfod

[Norcalbillsfan]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

I think McD gave in to Dennison, and one half of football proved McD was right. It was also the end of Dennison. I’m guessing based on what I’ve seen and read (mostly here) of course....but I’d LOVE to know the full story some day. If there’s any good news, we got rid of Dennison. Let’s hope we have a serious upgrade at OC. 

I like your point, I didn't think of it from a Dennison angle. But I feel like McD didn't want tyrod in there at all, from the offense he's building now McD wanted a pocket passer. I think he wanted to give Peterman a shot, he just gave him a shot at a terrible time.

[Bing Bong]

7 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

God forbid a player works hard and improves

Sorry to double reply, didn't quite phrase myself well. 

 

We all want Peterman to improve. To his credit he did even throughout the season. But this thread.. somewhere on some dolphins thread OP said "prediction, David Fales will start week 1" and don't tell me you're not salivating at the thought of sweeping the David Fales led Dolphins. Do Dolphins fans want him to improve? Absolutely, they see the potential. As do we with Pete.

[Lfod]

I'll ask this question. What changes if Tyrod wasn't benched and Peterman never started? I don't think much. I think the team still would of made all the moves it did up until now. Dennison would still be fired. Tyrod still would of been traded. We still all would have witnessed a 3 point playoff game. 

 

So anytime some one wants to make a big deal over it consider it effected very little but peoples pride. The chargers HC had Tyrods ticket. You don't think he could game plan for Tyrod having worked with him before? He knew the weaknesses. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Lfod

[Pasaluki]

I dont think its a totally crazy prediction. Peterman has looked much improved so far at minicamps but he will have to completely outplay AJ McCarron in TC and preseason to win the job. Obviously Allen is a wildcard too, but an argument can easily be made that he won't start the season. 

 

Petermans issue is that he is going to have high pressure to play really well immediately because obviously us fans can't gloss over the debacle at san diego. 

[Bing Bong]

7 minutes ago, Norcalbillsfan said:

I like your point, I didn't think of it from a Dennison angle. But I feel like McD didn't want tyrod in there at all, from the offense he's building now McD wanted a pocket passer. I think he wanted to give Peterman a shot, he just gave him a shot at a terrible time.

McD did a great job of sticking with tyrod even if he "didn't want Tyrod there at all". It's year one.. you can only make so many personell changes (and he gutted the roster.. made a ton) 

 

I always harp on coaches swimming upstream, refusing to play with the cards they are dealt. McD didn't do that come week 1 and beyond. We made the playoffs because our secondary carried the team with a quarterback that didn't hamper that game plan (turning over, losing field position, throwing 5 picks)

 

We're speculating that Dennison pushed McD to start Pete. He could have sacked up and vetoed the idea to give us a remote chance of winning that game. 

 

I also do not care when Peterman starts. Sure he was horrible against a constant pass rush. Mind you that was happening Jets, Saints, and Chargers. So why are we creating the narrative poor Peterman had an unlucky timing in his first start.

 

It's the NFL. Any given Sunday the pass rush can be a bad day. Guarantee any coach with a peanut brain would have blitzed the living hell out of rook version Pete. THE CHARGERS DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE DAMN PLAYOFFS. don't tell me that pass rush ruined every quarterback they played. Pete lost the game. I know some rooks that don't lose the game by 1st quarter. they are aware they aren't running the show, have a unit that can carry the team and don't impede that. It was honestly the worst football IQ I've ever seen. Peterman is more talented than Tuel by miles, no situation awareness at all. Some coach had to tell him "you're going to have a rough pass rush, take the sack and don't force it."

 

Was the Chargers a bad game for Peterman to start? Crocodile tears here. It's one game. Peterman improved. But i can't stand the narrative that poor Peterman had to start against the Chargers. So we can pick and choose easy games for Peterman to play the easy games and let Tyrod handle the good teams? Good lord why not start Tyrod.. you know our designated quarterback for good defenses.. for every game. The argument is silly someone please debate me on this with serious points other than telling me "oh so you don't want Peterman to be a good QB?" No.. I just didn't want him to see the field last year short of a backup role.

[Bing Bong]

2 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

So am I.  

 

Like I said it really sucked that we had to see Nate start that game.  

 

 

There’s nothing worse that throwing a rookie who was clearly not ready  to the wolves.  

 

Preach. Wanted to make sure you caught my rant above #retriggered

[Bing Bong]

58 minutes ago, Lfod said:

I'll ask this question. What changes if Tyrod wasn't benched and Peterman never started? I don't think much. I think the team still would of made all the moves it did up until now. Dennison would still be fired. Tyrod still would of been traded. We still all would have witnessed a 3 point playoff game. 

 

So anytime some one wants to make a big deal over it consider it effected very little but peoples pride. The chargers HC had Tyrods ticket. You don't think he could game plan for Tyrod having worked with him before? He knew the weaknesses. 

Okay.. but mid season it was dumb and jeapordized our playoff chances. Playoffs were out of our control. It's a Machiavellian train of thought. The ends justified the means. We got to watch Peterman **** the bed. Cool. That was a really fun fan experience.

 

So imagine the Giants bench a struggling Eli Manning 2007 8-8 season. Take a loss with a hypothetical rookie quarterback starting. "Well at least we won the Superbowl! Heck if we knew we'd go 8-8 we could have just started every loss with our bad quarterback. What's the point in being competitive if we know we're going to lose the Superbowl.

 

Idk about you but I had a bad Sunday the Chargers week. We're fans remember? By your logic competitive losses aren't fun to watch because we have a crystal ball knowing the game doesn't matter. 

 

Please debate these points with me. I'm begging.

 

 And uh.. you actually said this? "The chargers HC had Tyrods ticket. You don't think he could game plan for Tyrod having worked with him before? He knew the weaknesses" um.. their intern could have game planned for PETERMAN.

Edited June 16, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[oldmanfan]

6 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Sorry to double reply, didn't quite phrase myself well. 

 

We all want Peterman to improve. To his credit he did even throughout the season. But this thread.. somewhere on some dolphins thread OP said "prediction, David Fales will start week 1" and don't tell me you're not salivating at the thought of sweeping the David Fales led Dolphins. Do Dolphins fans want him to improve? Absolutely, they see the potential. As do we with Pete.

I doubt Peterman starts.  But if he continues to improve, and he earns the job, he should start.

 

My bet is it's McCarron.

[BigDingus]

Hey, the thread title is back to its original form! Yippeeeeee

[BurpleBull]

6 hours ago, Lfod said:

I'll ask this question. What changes if Tyrod wasn't benched and Peterman never started? I don't think much. I think the team still would of made all the moves it did up until now. Dennison would still be fired. Tyrod still would of been traded. We still all would have witnessed a 3 point playoff game. 

 

So anytime some one wants to make a big deal over it consider it effected very little but peoples pride. The chargers HC had Tyrods ticket. You don't think he could game plan for Tyrod having worked with him before? He knew the weaknesses. 

 

You'd be asking one to speculate by asking that question.

 

No one knows if things play out the exact same way in that Chargers game if Tyrod Taylor plays the whole way through, so it's really not that fair a question to ask.

 

All that can be spoken on is what actually happened, what seemingly changed due to Taylor being benched.

 

We all gotta remember why Taylor was benched in the first place and for the record I was very much in favor of the benching for Nathan Peterman as starter.

 

Do you remember the game against Oakland?

 

I don't think many people thought the Bills would roll into Oakland and totally shut them down despite what the records showed, but the Bills did.

 

Fast forward to the next week's game vs. NYJ, a team stumbling around trying to fight its footing, no one expected the Bills to lose that game to a 3-5 team, division rival or not, based on what they did to the Raiders the previous week, but they did.

 

Instead of improving to 6-2 and moving up the standings against a 3-5 division rival, they dropped the ball, and a highly indecisive Taylor was sacked a season-high 7 times.

 

Hence the decision to give Peterman the nod at QB the following week.

 

I really never understood why so many seemed baffled by the move, unless those confused by the move were outsiders who didn't actually follow the Bills, since the coaches and fans had grown tired of the passive, passing attack led by Taylor.

 

Things didn't work out for Peterman in his first start against a scary Chargers pass-rush as hoped for obviously, but still enough good seemed to come out that very bad game.

 

1. Bills' fans found out that they had a young, decisive QB in Peterman, willing to put the ball in the air to make a play for the offense.

 

2. The defense buckled down to shut down a high-powered Kansas City Chiefs offense on the road for a win, after the 54-point romping and never allowed twenty points in 4 of the final 6 games after allowing 88 points in the span of two weeks, 34 coming by way of the hapless, Jets offense. 

 

I don't know if anything changes if Tyrod Taylor is never benched and Nathan Peterman never starts, but I know things didn't remain the same after he was.

 

Zay Jones even messed around and caught his first NFL TD.

 

How about that.

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, BurpleBull said:

 

You'd be asking one to speculate by asking that question.

 

No one knows if things play out the exact same way in that Chargers game if Tyrod Taylor plays the whole way through, so it's really not that fair a question to ask.

 

All that can be spoken on is what actually happened, what seemingly changed due to Taylor being benched.

 

We all gotta remember why Taylor was benched in the first place and for the record I was very much in favor of the benching for Nathan Peterman as starter.

 

Do you remember the game against Oakland?

 

I don't think many people thought the Bills would roll into Oakland and totally shut them down despite what the records showed, but the Bills did.

 

Fast forward to the next week's game vs. NYJ, a team stumbling around trying to fight its footing, no one expected the Bills to lose that game to a 3-5 team, division rival or not, based on what they did to the Raiders the previous week, but they did.

 

Instead of improving to 6-2 and moving up the standings against a 3-5 division rival, they dropped the ball, and a highly indecisive Taylor was sacked a season-high 7 times.

 

Hence the decision to give Peterman the nod at QB the following week.

 

I really never understood why so many seemed baffled by the move, unless those confused by the move were outsiders who didn't actually follow the Bills, since the coaches and fans had grown tired of the passive, passing attack led by Taylor.

 

Things didn't work out for Peterman in his first start against a scary Chargers pass-rush as hoped for obviously, but still enough good seemed to come out that very bad game.

 

1. Bills' fans found out that they had a young, decisive QB in Peterman, willing to put the ball in the air to make a play for the offense.

 

2. The defense buckled down to shut down a high-powered Kansas City Chiefs offense on the road for a win, after the 54-point romping and never allowed twenty points in 4 of the final 6 games after allowing 88 points in the span of two weeks, 34 coming by way of the hapless, Jets offense. 

 

I don't know if anything changes if Tyrod Taylor is never benched and Nathan Peterman never starts, but I know things didn't remain the same after he was.

 

Zay Jones even messed around and caught his first NFL TD.

 

How about that.

So far in this thread you’ve suggested 2 hypotheticals:

1. What if Peterman starts 10-0 with a 3:1 TD:INT?

2. What if the qb with the lowest int percentage ever, threw 5 INTs in the 1st half against the Chargers? 

 

Why not, “what if LeSean McCoy runs for 14,000 yards this season?” 

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[Stank_Nasty]

1 hour ago, BurpleBull said:

 

You'd be asking one to speculate by asking that question.

 

No one knows if things play out the exact same way in that Chargers game if Tyrod Taylor plays the whole way through, so it's really not that fair a question to ask.

 

All that can be spoken on is what actually happened, what seemingly changed due to Taylor being benched.

 

We all gotta remember why Taylor was benched in the first place and for the record I was very much in favor of the benching for Nathan Peterman as starter.

 

Do you remember the game against Oakland?

 

I don't think many people thought the Bills would roll into Oakland and totally shut them down despite what the records showed, but the Bills did.

 

Fast forward to the next week's game vs. NYJ, a team stumbling around trying to fight its footing, no one expected the Bills to lose that game to a 3-5 team, division rival or not, based on what they did to the Raiders the previous week, but they did.

 

Instead of improving to 6-2 and moving up the standings against a 3-5 division rival, they dropped the ball, and a highly indecisive Taylor was sacked a season-high 7 times.

 

Hence the decision to give Peterman the nod at QB the following week.

 

I really never understood why so many seemed baffled by the move, unless those confused by the move were outsiders who didn't actually follow the Bills, since the coaches and fans had grown tired of the passive, passing attack led by Taylor.

 

Things didn't work out for Peterman in his first start against a scary Chargers pass-rush as hoped for obviously, but still enough good seemed to come out that very bad game.

 

1. Bills' fans found out that they had a young, decisive QB in Peterman, willing to put the ball in the air to make a play for the offense.

 

2. The defense buckled down to shut down a high-powered Kansas City Chiefs offense on the road for a win, after the 54-point romping and never allowed twenty points in 4 of the final 6 games after allowing 88 points in the span of two weeks, 34 coming by way of the hapless, Jets offense. 

 

I don't know if anything changes if Tyrod Taylor is never benched and Nathan Peterman never starts, but I know things didn't remain the same after he was.

 

Zay Jones even messed around and caught his first NFL TD.

 

How about that.

-The old qb played fine against Oakland. It was a nasty rainy day and the run game was humming. He did just fine managing that ball game and extending a couple big plays. Namely the 2nd and 20 to Tate and the td to Holmes. 

 

-he wasn’t benched after the jets game.

 

-Zay Jones caught his first td before peterman ever started the SD debacle

 

- how the hell does peterman being inserted have anything to do with the defense buckling down the rest of the season?

 

- And I learned some things about peterman that game but it wasn’t anything close to how you mention it in your first point. 

 

That whole post..... it’s all just so bad and inaccurate. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Stank_Nasty

[Augie]

8 hours ago, Norcalbillsfan said:

I like your point, I didn't think of it from a Dennison angle. But I feel like McD didn't want tyrod in there at all, from the offense he's building now McD wanted a pocket passer. I think he wanted to give Peterman a shot, he just gave him a shot at a terrible time.

 

I think they knew Tyrod wasn’t the guy, and maybe Dennison convinced McD to have more of a pocket style QB try to run his offense. I think some others with actual knowledge of this have posted as much in the past, but I won’t name names (because I’m not positive and I’m too lazy to try to find the prior posts). Or....I could be wrong. Again. ?

 

I generally like our FO, but that was a serious blunder for a variety of reasons. Ooops! 

[Stank_Nasty]

5 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I think they knew Tyrod wasn’t the guy, and maybe Dennison convinced McD to have more of a pocket style QB try to run his offense. I think some others with actual knowledge of this have posted as much in the past, but I won’t name names (because I’m not positive and I’m too lazy to try to find the prior posts). Or....I could be wrong. Again. ?

 

I generally like our FO, but that was a serious blunder for a variety of reasons. Ooops! 

You are right. There’s a couple that apparently had fairly reliable info that there was a ton of pressure from Dennison to make it happen. 

[Lfod]

6 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Okay.. but mid season it was dumb and jeapordized our playoff chances. Playoffs were out of our control. It's a Machiavellian train of thought. The ends justified the means. We got to watch Peterman **** the bed. Cool. That was a really fun fan experience.

 

So imagine the Giants bench a struggling Eli Manning 2007 8-8 season. Take a loss with a hypothetical rookie quarterback starting. "Well at least we won the Superbowl! Heck if we knew we'd go 8-8 we could have just started every loss with our bad quarterback. What's the point in being competitive if we know we're going to lose the Superbowl.

 

Idk about you but I had a bad Sunday the Chargers week. We're fans remember? By your logic competitive losses aren't fun to watch because we have a crystal ball knowing the game doesn't matter. 

 

Please debate these points with me. I'm begging.

 

 And uh.. you actually said this? "The chargers HC had Tyrods ticket. You don't think he could game plan for Tyrod having worked with him before? He knew the weaknesses" um.. their intern could have game planned for PETERMAN.

I just wanted to make the point that although starting Peterman turned out to be a bad choice that at the end of the day it wasn't the end of the world that some make it out to be. I won't argue that Peterman was ready. He clearly wasn't. I just think sometimes people go overboard with how bad it actually was. At the end of the day we got to see Tyrod and the Bills in the Playoffs. 

 

Yea seeing Peterman crash and burn wasn't fun. Seeing Tyrod in the Panthers game wasn't fun for me. Sticking with Tyrod may have been the correct choice but in the end it wasn't good enough either. That's really my point. Peterman wasn't ready and Tyrod wasn't good enough. It was a rock and a hard place situation. 

[Kirby Jackson]

16 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I think they knew Tyrod wasn’t the guy, and maybe Dennison convinced McD to have more of a pocket style QB try to run his offense. I think some others with actual knowledge of this have posted as much in the past, but I won’t name names (because I’m not positive and I’m too lazy to try to find the prior posts). Or....I could be wrong. Again. ?

 

I generally like our FO, but that was a serious blunder for a variety of reasons. Ooops! 

 

9 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

You are right. There’s a couple that apparently had fairly reliable info that there was a ton of pressure from Dennison to make it happen. 

Hokie and I exchanged PMs on it earlier in the week. We had heard the exact same thing from 3 different people in the room. Dennison  was 100% the reason that the move was made.  

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Just now, Kirby Jackson said:

 

Hokie and I exchanged PMs on it earlier in the week. We had heard the exact same thing from 3 different people in the room. Dennison  was 100% the reason that the move was made.  

There must have been a good reason. 

 

Did your guys say why Dennison wanted to make such a brash move?