If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
All: The new Billszone site with the updated software is scheduled to be turned on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. The company that built it, Dynascale, estimates a FOUR HOUR shut down, from 8pm Pacific, (5pm Eastern) while they get it up and running. Nobody will be able to post in any forum until they are done. Afterwards, you may need to do a web search for the site, as old links will not work, because the site is getting a new IP address. Please be patient. If there are bugs, we will tackle them one at a time. Remember the goal is to be up and running with no glitches by camp. Doing this now assures us of that, because it gives us all summer to get our ducks in a row. Thank you!
There is work to be done and things to be learned. We are going to try to get the old look back - or something close to it. We also know there are bugs. A thread will be started to report bugs and then we can pass those onto the host.
Thank you for all the patience and support with this - hopefully this will greatly reduce the crashes and other site issues we have had lately.
Please use this thread to report any issues you come across
http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/forum/feedback-forums/billszone-q-a/6521455-upgrade-report-bugs-here
Oh, there's nothing wrong with drafting a QB ...by week 6 or later...it should have been done for the past few years.
But QB is not what made the O regress.
Our offense lives and dies by the running game. Our "quarterback" is a running back who can throw. If or when the running game gets shut down, our whole offense gets stifled.
Ever since Brady became the Patriots' starter, their offense has been the opposite of that. I've seen long, many-play drives where the Patriots didn't run the ball once. Sure, over the course of the game they'll run it here and there. Keep the clock running. Keep the DL from selling out on the pass. But mostly the running game is an afterthought. Their offense lives and dies by the pass.
So which is better? Normally, about 9/10 Super Bowl champions will have a franchise QB. I can't remember the last time the Super Bowl champion had as their QB a running back who could throw.
The offense is good when the OL and Shady are good. They weren't good today. TT is just along for the ride. When the running game struggles it magnifies how bad he is as a passer.
I don't get why some don't recognize this. The most mediocre of QB's can look decent when the ground game is gashing a defense.
Why wait? Start him now. Losing with TT does absolutely NO good. Losing with Peterman at least has the value of testing him out. Literally cannot tell me that TT gives us that much better of a chance to win. The guy is EXACTLY the same after 2 years. Has not progressed AT ALL. He's hit the ceiling, plain and simple.
I honestly don't think that they pull Tyrod until we fall 2-3 games behind the fish.
Could be due to injury, or a complete meltdown, (meaning a 4-5 game losing streak) but I think he's on a short leash.
However, I do not think that either one of the first two games is a good barometer of how this team is performing, as the Jets are beyond putrid, and the Panthers beyond talented, albeit underachieving last year.
The key thing to watch would be to see what kind of snap percentage Peterman gets in practice each week with the first team.
If the Bills go on a slide, say they're 2-5 after the Raider game, they may feel it's time to make a change.
Within 2-3 games fans will be screaming to put Tyrod back in and bench Nathan Marangi.
This is at least the second time you've equated Peterman to Marangi.
In the NFL, Marangi achieved a pathetic 4.9 yards per attempt, while throwing nearly twice as many INTs as TDs. I can't recall ever seeing a QB put up career stats as bad as those.
On the other hand, Peterman was our best preseason QB, and it wasn't even close. Does preseason success always equate to success in the regular season? Of course not. But Peterman hasn't yet played a down of football in a regular season NFL game, and you've already written him off. Why?
This is at least the second time you've equated Peterman to Marangi.
In the NFL, Marangi achieved a pathetic 4.9 yards per attempt, while throwing nearly twice as many INTs as TDs. I can't recall ever seeing a QB put up career stats as bad as those.
On the other hand, Peterman was our best preseason QB, and it wasn't even close. Does preseason success always equate to success in the regular season? Of course not. But Peterman hasn't yet played a down of football in a regular season NFL game, and you've already written him off. Why?
My point is be careful what you wish for when you call for the backup QB. Right now the Peterman fans are very reminiscent of the fans over 40 years ago who were begging to see Marangi replace Ferguson. I use Marangi because he is the epitome of a bad backup exposed. Do I expect Peterman to be as bad as Marangi, who holds the NFL record for worse completion % in a season? Of course not, there may never be a starting QB as bad as Marangi was ever again in Buffalo (I sure hope not). But it's my way of saying to the Peterman crowd curb your enthusiasm. I'm going to the game Sunday & if I hear someone near me calling for Peterman, I'll counter with "We want Marangi"
Tweet
Comment