Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

McDermott is really between a rock and a hard place here. Granted, it’s entirely his fault, but it’s worth noting that his choice isn’t between Nate Peterman and John Elway.

Posted
1 minute ago, No Place To Hyde said:

Honestly, I brought this up on another thread, but the offense just looked dead with Peterman. Once Allen came in they showed SOME signs of a pulse. I'm wondering if they guys just feel like they can't and won't win with Nate, so they are just going through motions when he's there.

 

Not a case of looking bad on purpose, and not that they looked like All Pros with Allen. But the wrong guy in that spot can take the wind out of a team right from the get go.

 

I don’t think it looked much different with Allen to be honest.

Posted
Just now, No Place To Hyde said:

Honestly, I brought this up on another thread, but the offense just looked dead with Peterman. Once Allen came in they showed SOME signs of a pulse. I'm wondering if they guys just feel like they can't and won't win with Nate, so they are just going through motions when he's there.

 

Not a case of looking bad on purpose, and not that they looked like All Pros with Allen. But the wrong guy in that spot can take the wind out of a team right from the get go.

 

I can see it.  This is why I think Allen will probably be named starter (or at least hope).  McDermott has said multiple times he relies on his leaders/vets.  With the way things were going yesterday on offense, I would be surprised if in these meetings, these vets don't express concerns with Peterman running the offense.

 

I think going with Nate could lead to losing trust from the locker room.

Posted
3 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Don't think McBeane make it to next year if they go 0-16.

 

Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, fridge said:

McDermott is really between a rock and a hard place here. Granted, it’s entirely his fault, but it’s worth noting that his choice isn’t between Nate Peterman and John Elway.

should of been between peterman and AJM....oh well...hopefully the fascination with petey at OBD ends now!

Posted
4 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

I can see it.  This is why I think Allen will probably be named starter (or at least hope).  McDermott has said multiple times he relies on his leaders/vets.  With the way things were going yesterday on offense, I would be surprised if in these meetings, these vets don't express concerns with Peterman running the offense.

 

I think going with Nate could lead to losing trust from the locker room.

If McD names Peterman he loses the trust of the locker room. The media. The fan base. It would literally be the beginning of the end of his Buffalo tenure...and no I'm not overestimating.

 

What should happen is a Trent Edwards repeat where the opening day starter is cut soon after opening day. Literally anyone can be brought in to be Allens back up with zero drop off. If they like Nate, want to give him a job on the practice squad running the scout team, then whatever. He just never needs to be in a uniform on game day again.

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
27 minutes ago, No Place To Hyde said:

Decisions like this will make one pull out their hair. 

 

I'm glad I got it over with and shaved my head before the season started.

 

Posted

To be honest, I would still start Peterman this week but keep him on a short leash.  If the offense doesn't improve and we have to put Allen in to replace an innefective Peterman then you stick with Allen for the rest of the season and hope he can survive the pounding he will take behind our OL.

×
×
  • Create New...