reddogblitz Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: He doesn’t throw a near easy int let alone a pick six type 30 seconds in. Anywhere around there. the 2nd and 13 play. Clay is wide open and Josh throws it way short and it hits number 27 on the numbers. At least that's the way I see it. What do you see on that play? might have been a pick six.if Prime had caught it ? Edited September 4, 2018 by reddogblitz
Kelly the Dog Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 16 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: the 2nd and 13 play. Clay is wide open and Josh throws it way short and it hits number 27 on the numbers. At least that's the way I see it. What do you see on that play? might have been a pick six.if Prime had caught it ? Terrible throw 40 yards downfield and surely should have been an Int but nowhere near a automatic pick six play. 10 of 11 Bills were between him and the goal line from the 40 yard line.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said: Not necessarily. He may be Dolphins at home ready not Ravens on the road ready. He maybe ready is Nate stinks ready but not ready if Nate is great ready. There are levels and variables to that term. There is no such thing as "knowing" any rookie QB in the NFL is ready. there is absolutely such a thing as knowing he’s not ready though, which is my read.
reddogblitz Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 Just now, Kelly the Dog said: Terrible throw 40 yards downfield and surely should have been an Int but nowhere near a automatic pick six play. 10 of 11 Bills were between him and the goal line from the 40 yard line. True. That's why I added my comment that it may have been a TD if Prime had gotten it. but truly a horrid pass on what is allegedly his strength, completing long passes (of which he is yet to do).
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 57 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said: Pros he’s somewhat mobile, and has a quick release. Cons weaker arm, injury prone. The question becomes how improved is he from 2017? If he’s only marginally better expect Allen by game 5. ..injury prone?...if he's smart and slides while chasing the extra yard, he'll be fine......feet first lad like Lou Brock.......he didn't do too bad slidin'.....
Kelly the Dog Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 Just now, reddogblitz said: True. That's why I added my comment that it may have been a TD if Prime had gotten it. but truly a horrid pass on what is allegedly his strength, completing long passes (of which he is yet to do). Yep. Clay was wide open. He was throwing on the run, to a tight end who is not fast, but it was ten yards too short. Two of his three bombs to Foster in game one were perfect throws. One pretty long one to KB in Cinci game was dropped.
JohnC Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said: If he doesn't throw any picks but we cannot run and he cannot throw the ball downfield and we cannot score that is a disaster without being like last year, and worthy of benching, and just as likely as being like last year. The biggest reason to play Allen is the run game not the passing game. Explain to me why you think McDermott and staff decided to start Peterman over Allen?
Bing Bong Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 5 hours ago, TheBrownBear said: I actually feel a little better after looking at those stats. Outside of that terrible half against the Chargers, he wasn't too bad. IMO, he's looked great this preseason. I like Allen too, but it would be great if Nate continued his strong play in the regular season to buy Josh a season of preparation. And then you've got a really strong trade chip in Peterman (or Allen if Peterman somehow ends up elite) to acquire future draft picks. Peterman looks bradyesque with his quick timing throws. Obviously the knock is he doesn't have nearly the mind for decison making and NOT throwing that quick pass if it's read like a book and taking a sack if necessary. Or the arm. Or the looks. Or the rings and MVPs. But yeah he does make that o line look better at least against second stringers. Even in the 3rd game he played well with the 1st guys when Allen went out.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 Just now, JohnC said: Explain to me why you think McDermott and staff decided to start Peterman over Allen? 1. Same reason McDermott allowed himself to be talked into starting Nate against the Chargers. He looks good in practice and preseason. Same reason Gailey started Trent Edwards for three games and then cut him. He looks good in practice and preseason. They bet he can do it when they should know they can’t. 2. McD loves Peterman as a guy and worker and example to his teammates. Loved how he came back from last year and played well in preseason. And preaches to his team about anyone that does all the right things can win the job. 3. If the line stinks and our QBs are getting killed it’s much much easier to go from Nate to Josh then Josh to Nate. 4. We won last year by playing good defense and controlling the ball in close scoring games. He’s gambling (hope against hope) that Nate is going to be smart enough to complete these short passes and not be a turnover machine, as opposed to wild eyed big armed rook throwing it all over the field. 5. He’s just not that smart on offense. Pretty much everyone regressed last year. He hired a terrible OC and OL coach. Didn’t get new players this year to fill glaring holes. 1
reddogblitz Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, TheBrownBear said: I actually feel a little better after looking at those stats. Outside of that terrible half against the Chargers, he wasn't too bad. IMO, he's looked great this preseason. I like Allen too, but it would be great if Nate continued his strong play in the regular season to buy Josh a season of preparation. And then you've got a really strong trade chip in Peterman (or Allen if Peterman somehow ends up elite) to acquire future draft picks. Actually, Paxton LYnch's rookie stats were quite a bit better. http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/2977881/paxton-lynch Outside of the last play of Super Bowl XXV, Scott Norwood was a good kicker. Edited September 4, 2018 by reddogblitz
fansince88 Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 On 9/3/2018 at 11:29 AM, Gugny said: Pro: He's not Tyrod Taylor. Upgrade. Amen Brother! 1
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: Actually, Paxton LYnch's rookie stats were quite a bit better. http://www.espn.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/2977881/paxton-lynch Outside of the last play of Super Bowl XXV, Scott Norwood was a good kicker. ...and these stats earned him the ax............now what?.....uh oh........... Denver-Offense vs Cards: Pre Season game #4 Passing CP/ATT YDS TD INT FPTS P. Lynch 14/15 128 2 0 19
reddogblitz Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) Couple of good ones. Hotrod and Flutie. Remember the year we thought Tuel Time was gonna start? Edited September 4, 2018 by reddogblitz
JohnC Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 11 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: 1. Same reason McDermott allowed himself to be talked into starting Nate against the Chargers. He looks good in practice and preseason. Same reason Gailey started Trent Edwards for three games and then cut him. He looks good in practice and preseason. They bet he can do it when they should know they can’t. 2. McD loves Peterman as a guy and worker and example to his teammates. Loved how he came back from last year and played well in preseason. And preaches to his team about anyone that does all the right things can win the job. 3. If the line stinks and our QBs are getting killed it’s much much easier to go from Nate to Josh then Josh to Nate. 4. We won last year by playing good defense and controlling the ball in close scoring games. He’s gambling (hope against hope) that Nate is going to be smart enough to complete these short passes and not be a turnover machine, as opposed to wild eyed big armed rook throwing it all over the field. 5. He’s just not that smart on offense. Pretty much everyone regressed last year. He hired a terrible OC and OL coach. Didn’t get new players this year to fill glaring holes. Your pessimistic view might come to pass. That is not going to change who is going to start the season. The decision has been made. My view is that when McDermott took over he was going to not only rebuild the roster but also the organization. This was going to be a four year endeavor. Last year, everything worked out better than expected. I consider that season an aberration. Good luck is not to be questioned; it is to be pocketed. There was never going to be a quick fix. It was part of the plan to dramatically alter the roster, the organization and the cap structure/mix. The process is still in the early stage. I'm more than satisfied how the rebuilding plan has been executed. The investments are not about now so much as they are about the next couple of years. Keeping that in mind I differentiate between the short term decisions being made now as opposed to the next couple to few years. Within the broader context I have no problems with the decisions that have been made. If you want magic go to the magic show. Instant gratification is not realistic. It takes time.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, JohnC said: Your pessimistic view might come to pass. That is not going to change who is going to start the season. The decision has been made. My view is that when McDermott took over he was going to not only rebuild the roster but also the organization. This was going to be a four year endeavor. Last year, everything worked out better than expected. I consider that season an aberration. Good luck is not to be questioned; it is to be pocketed. There was never going to be a quick fix. It was part of the plan to dramatically alter the roster, the organization and the cap structure/mix. The process is still in the early stage. I'm more than satisfied how the rebuilding plan has been executed. The investments are not about now so much as they are about the next couple of years. Keeping that in mind I differentiate between the short term decisions being made now as opposed to the next couple to few years. Within the broader context I have no problems with the decisions that have been made. If you want magic go to the magic show. Instant gratification is not realistic. It takes time. I agree with all of that. I think last year they overachieved which is great. And next year is the first year I expect them to win. And I like both McD and Beane. But that doesn’t negate any of the five points I made. Nor does it prove they know anything about offense yet (I’m saying they haven’t shown it not that I’m convinced they can’t). Nor does it really say anything about Nate. You asked a question about him and why I thought they would start him, and I gave you a detailed answer to it. 1
reddogblitz Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, JohnC said: Your pessimistic view might come to pass. That is not going to change who is going to start the season. The decision has been made. My view is that when McDermott took over he was going to not only rebuild the roster but also the organization. This was going to be a four year endeavor. Last year, everything worked out better than expected. I consider that season an aberration. Good luck is not to be questioned; it is to be pocketed. There was never going to be a quick fix. It was part of the plan to dramatically alter the roster, the organization and the cap structure/mix. The process is still in the early stage. I'm more than satisfied how the rebuilding plan has been executed. The investments are not about now so much as they are about the next couple of years. Keeping that in mind I differentiate between the short term decisions being made now as opposed to the next couple to few years. Within the broader context I have no problems with the decisions that have been made. If you want magic go to the magic show. Instant gratification is not realistic. It takes time. How is this different from Donahoe's plan or Gailey's plan or Coach Moron's plan? If I had any confidence at all that the Bills could get worse and then actually get better in a short period of time once all the pieces are in place I might be for it. But we've gotten worse several times over the last 20 years with promises of getting better only not to happen. It finally happened when a smart coach decided to do what is best to win now. We should have just stuck to that plan IMHO.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 40 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: 1. Same reason McDermott allowed himself to be talked into starting Nate against the Chargers. He looks good in practice and preseason. Same reason Gailey started Trent Edwards for three games and then cut him. He looks good in practice and preseason. They bet he can do it when they should know they can’t. 2. McD loves Peterman as a guy and worker and example to his teammates. Loved how he came back from last year and played well in preseason. And preaches to his team about anyone that does all the right things can win the job. 3. If the line stinks and our QBs are getting killed it’s much much easier to go from Nate to Josh then Josh to Nate. 4. We won last year by playing good defense and controlling the ball in close scoring games. He’s gambling (hope against hope) that Nate is going to be smart enough to complete these short passes and not be a turnover machine, as opposed to wild eyed big armed rook throwing it all over the field. 5. He’s just not that smart on offense. Pretty much everyone regressed last year. He hired a terrible OC and OL coach. Didn’t get new players this year to fill glaring holes. ...Jesus, sounds to me like those "Peterman flea bites" got the best of "Kelly Dawg".....hell, I'd bet if the kid sported a Hartz Mountain 90 day collar, he STILL ain't makin' YOUR Christmas list.....
Dr. Who Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 9 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: I agree with all of that. I think last year they overachieved which is great. And next year is the first year I expect them to win. And I like both McD and Beane. But that doesn’t negate any of the five points I made. Nor does it prove they know anything about offense yet (I’m saying they haven’t shown it not that I’m convinced they can’t). Nor does it really say anything about Nate. You asked a question about him and why I thought they would start him, and I gave you a detailed answer to it. I'm a cat person myself, but you're pretty smart for a dog.
JohnC Posted September 4, 2018 Posted September 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said: I agree with all of that. I think last year they overachieved which is great. And next year is the first year I expect them to win. And I like both McD and Beane. But that doesn’t negate any of the five points I made. Nor does it prove they know anything about offense yet (I’m saying they haven’t shown it not that I’m convinced they can’t). Nor does it really say anything about Nate. You asked a question about him and why I thought they would start him, and I gave you a detailed answer to it. Our thinking is more aligned than it appears. It's not too challenging to come up with a list of deficiencies in the first stage of a rebuild. Next year the Bills will have over $50M of cap space and a young franchise qb on the team. They will also have a full complement of draft picks. Sweeping out much of the old for the new takes time. I'm not bothered by the Peterman decision. Why expend so much energy on a short term player (as a starter)? He has a role on this team as a backup. His role now will not be as significant as it will be in the not too distant future. Whether the HC decided to start Peterman or go with the rookie there was some merit and logic to whatever he decided. As it stands I more than comfortable with the decision.
Recommended Posts