Fadingpain Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 The OP is putting too much value on "mentoring" by a veteran QB. That stuff doesn't matter and we are not missing anything by not having the veteran mentor on the team. But to the larger point, of course the organization's collective ego is tied to Peterman. Outside of that little bubble, no one in the NFL has Nate Peterman on their radar. Nate will get more than a fair shot in Buffalo, and probably no shot anywhere else.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 1 minute ago, ngbills said: Why not do both? We were a playoff team. ng, these are good questions. I got nothing. When they traded Tyrod, I thought for sure they would be bringing in Keenum or another of the FA, even Bradford. All the other teams drafting QB brought in better options (and yes, despite all the crap about COT and people who can't move on, TT's track record says better option than AJM) But it is what it is now.
hondo in seattle Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 15 minutes ago, ngbills said: Well there has to be a winner right? Peterman was not amazing he just won the battle against an average back up and a rookie. That is not saying much. If we cut him I dont think we would have teams racing to sign him. I actually think a lot of teams would love to have him as a backup. Whatever he did last year, he was pretty impressive in preseason this year. As the B/R article points out, Peterman led the league in completion pct and yards-per-attempt. But is a he a good starter? That's hard to say. It looks like he's improved both his arm strength and his reads since last year. But let's see what the regular season holds before we label him as a boom or bust. I'd be happy if we got 8 average-ish starts out of him and - with the help of our D - we were sitting at 4-4 when Allen took over. I really hope Allen can learn to process what he's seeing faster. When/if that happens, he'll be the better QB. Right now, Peterman is. 1
ddaryl Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 24 minutes ago, ngbills said: Well there has to be a winner right? Peterman was not amazing he just won the battle against an average back up and a rookie. That is not saying much. If we cut him I dont think we would have teams racing to sign him. SO you didn't watch any preseason games. Allen showed plenty of positives IMO.. But Peterman didn't just beat out the rookie he owned his preseason and won it straight up Passing Statistics Player Att Comp Yds Comp % Yds/Att TD TD % INT INT % Long Sck Sack/Lost Rating Josh Allen 44 24 210 54.5 4.8 2 4.5 0 0.0 27 7 51 82.6 Nathan Peterman 41 33 431 80.5 10.5 3 7.3 1 2.4 35 2 9 124.7 1
johnnychemo Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 (edited) I think McD sees a lot of value in Peterman's overcoming of the horrendous first start. The message to the locker room is that if you can learn from mistakes and put in the effort and have success you will be rewarded. Edited September 5, 2018 by johnnychemo
Saxum Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 6 hours ago, THE SLAMMER said: PETERMEN IS GOD, get over it If that is true I am an atheist.
PlayoffsPlease Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 6 hours ago, ngbills said: The Bills took some slack around the league last year starting Peterman over Tyrod. Then it completely blew up in their face when Peterman failed in historic magnitude. Luckily the Bills made the playoffs because if they had barely missed I think it would have been talked about over and over how the coach failed the team with that decision. Fast forward a year and I cant help but think McD doesn't still fume over this. That his ego is still hurt and wants redemption. If Peterman can be even ok then McD can turn the page on his terrible decision last year. Does this cloud his judgement and push the Peterman as the starter? I still cannot fathom how this team goes into the season with him as the starter. Its not like he was a high pick that you dont want to give up on. We are talking about a marginal guy that has shown he is average at best, limited upside and has minimal value as a mentor to a young QB. Makes no sense. If we are going with the average guy why not bring in a vet that can mentor Allen until he is ready. Starting Peterman is a waste of time. Yes maybe he plays great and increases his trade value but that is a longshot. Might as well roll the dice on a former early pick if that is the game. Peterman is not average, when compared to starting NFL QBs. More or less every objective observer who follows the NFL ranks him dead last. You are very kind with "average at best"
Big Turk Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 6 hours ago, THE SLAMMER said: PETERMEN IS GOD, get over it Where is SaviorPeterman to chime in on this??
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 4 hours ago, ngbills said: I was not high on AJM either. I think it depends on how close you think the team is. If they can compete then you get them a QB that can get the job done. And no way they really believe that is Peterman or they would not have gotten AJM and Allen. So going with him feels a bit like folding on the season but obviously hoping for the best. But its not making a strong play. They had cash and cap room, they wasted cash and cap room on some random moves like Coleman, etc. So I think they should have done more at the QB position. That's true about the wasted cap room on random moves, also with where we are, don't see the driver for renegotiating Cog. But I don't think we can rule out that maybe they wanted one or more of the FA QB, were trying to scramble together all the cap they could to make it happen, and either got outbid, or had them declare "no interest, sorry!". Let's assume either/both are true - Cousins and Keenum had no interest in coming to B'lo and Bradford got bid over their limit. What more would you have liked them to do at the QB position?
Lfod Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) I find it hard to take this topic seriously. People don't want to know the truth. The offense was literally terrible last season. New OC and a system to go with it with absolutely little to no foundation to start with. It might just not be the year to roll with Allen because right now the offense has no identity. It may not be the answer you like or even the right answer but it's what the team is doing. They are going to try to make it work with Peterman. Just accept it. I support Peterman starting and I still think it most likely will get very ugly and that isn't all Petermans fault either. I'm glad to finally have a coach with a spine that won't detour from the ultimate vision he has. Peterman is going to take the field and probably take a ton of damage just trying to be the QB we wish he was. If you don't like Peterman you probably don't like the people in charge starting him. You don't like the team you support and that takes all the fun out of being a fan. I understand it because I never supported Rex Ryan and it made being a fan difficult. Edited September 6, 2018 by Lfod 1
Mr. WEO Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, Doc said: I think McD is ecstatic that Peterman looked decent in pre-season, making the decision to sit Allen longer an easy and safe one for him. And if Peterman fails again, they just say "we gave him a shot and that's why we drafted Allen." As Allen was getting pounded in the 1st Q if the Bengals game (and not playing awfully either), I have no doubt that McD decided there was no way he was going to put NP in the 2nd Q against that Defense. He made his decision in that 1st Q. And he would not let NP look like that (and like he did in SD game) in the preseason. He wanted NP to "look steady" against the future preseason cuts so that the decision to not start Allen week 1 would be more palatable to the fans. Edited September 6, 2018 by Mr. WEO 1
Doc Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 21 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: As Allen was getting pounded in the 1st Q if the Bengals game (and not playing awfully either), I have no doubt that McD decided there was no way he was going to put NP in the 2nd Q against that Defense. He made his decision in that 1st Q. And he would not let NP look like that (and like he did in SD game) in the preseason. He wanted NP to "look steady" against the future preseason cuts so that the decision to not start Allen week 1 would be more palatable to the fans. True but Peterman still had to go out and perform well. If he had a performance like AJM had in the 4th pre-season game and McD still started Peterman, we'd be having fits.
Boatdrinks Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 No, I don’t think ego had anything to do with it. Starting NP to begin the season was the obvious choice. Not so much because of what Peterman brings to the table, but as I’ve said before it is a move with zero downside. None. If things go swimmingly and Peterman is lights out, you win. If Peterman is bad, you still buy time for Allen. The Oline can work their issues out for a few games. When the record is around 1-5 or so, you switch to Allen and no one will mention Peterman again. If you start Allen to begin the season and he struggles, all kinds of trouble can arise. Including injury, which could set the process back.
MJS Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 You think McD is the type to fune and dwell on past failures? That seems the complete opposite of the kind of guys he is.
RobbRiddick Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 8 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: As Allen was getting pounded in the 1st Q if the Bengals game (and not playing awfully either), I have no doubt that McD decided there was no way he was going to put NP in the 2nd Q against that Defense. He made his decision in that 1st Q. And he would not let NP look like that (and like he did in SD game) in the preseason. He wanted NP to "look steady" against the future preseason cuts so that the decision to not start Allen week 1 would be more palatable to the fans. And if he'd pulled Allen after one quarter he would have been criticized for not giving him a whole half with the starters, as was the plan. Some people would have said he obviously thought Allen wasn't looking good and so pulled the plug on him, others would have accused him of being over-protective and instead throwing Peterman to the wolves. Maybe he left Allen in for the second quarter because he wanted to see how he'd handle the adversity he saw in the first quarter. In fact I believe if he hadn't hit his head at the end of the half he might have even put him out there for one series after halftime, just to give him the experience of that.
Fr. Jerk Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 I don't want to read this story, I'll wait for the movie.
OldTimer1960 Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 16 hours ago, Doc said: I think McD is ecstatic that Peterman looked decent in pre-season, making the decision to sit Allen longer an easy and safe one for him. And if Peterman fails again, they just say "we gave him a shot and that's why we drafted Allen." I agree - starting Peterman is mainly being done to allow Allen more time to learn and develop - and- not expose Allen to injury or cause him to revert to/develop bad habits behind what looks to be a bad OL.
Mr. WEO Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 3 hours ago, RobbRiddick said: And if he'd pulled Allen after one quarter he would have been criticized for not giving him a whole half with the starters, as was the plan. Some people would have said he obviously thought Allen wasn't looking good and so pulled the plug on him, others would have accused him of being over-protective and instead throwing Peterman to the wolves. Maybe he left Allen in for the second quarter because he wanted to see how he'd handle the adversity he saw in the first quarter. In fact I believe if he hadn't hit his head at the end of the half he might have even put him out there for one series after halftime, just to give him the experience of that. If he had pulled Allen after 1Q, and then had to watch NP face that pass rush in Q 2, it would have forced him to start Allen in week 1, which I think he was already leaning against. 11 hours ago, Doc said: True but Peterman still had to go out and perform well. If he had a performance like AJM had in the 4th pre-season game and McD still started Peterman, we'd be having fits. No chance---many here would be hailing NP for a fantastic 4th Q comeback and saying it's proof he must start week 1. They would be saying "if only McD had left NP in that SD game for the second half, he would have turned it around"....etc.
Julio Hopkins Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 I doubt it's ego, just a lack of competent planning. These guys don't seem to have a plan B.
Recommended Posts