Why is everybody so down on Peterman?

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,571
Reaction score
27,856
dalsyk said:
I believe Parcells is down on him. He has mentioned he is a left guard and not capable at this point at playing any other position. Thus Parcells says he can not take him to the game because of the numbers game.

and how does that translate on being down on him?

His first season after being injured for the whole season and stick him at one position. He didnt move Burnett and Ware around? was he down on them too?
 

Natedawg44

Active Member
Messages
2,598
Reaction score
0
Hate to say it but it looks like another waste to add to the carnage of 2nd rounders Johnson, Gurode and Rogers. It will continue to be so until he's actually activated for a fricking game.
 

Mike 1967

New Member
Messages
2,767
Reaction score
2
Well...the logic might be....

If the Oline is bad....then the guys who are riding the pine (because they are not as good as those who are on the field) must not only also be bad, but must be worse than those on the field.

Or...the other option is to say that the coaches don't know who the best players are.
 

FuzzyLumpkins

The Boognish
Messages
36,571
Reaction score
27,856
Natedawg44 said:
Hate to say it but it looks like another waste to add to the carnage of 2nd rounders Johnson, Gurode and Rogers. It will continue to be so until he's actually activated for a fricking game.

This is what Im talking about. This point right here.

When he played in the preseason I remember Stanley or someone grading him better than any other lineman we had.

He played as Allen's backup.

This inferance is premature I say.
 

Natedawg44

Active Member
Messages
2,598
Reaction score
0
It's very easy for him to avoid this label. BE GOOD. That's it. Be good enough that they actually want to activate you to play in a game, otherwise what purpose does he exactly serve besides taking up space.
 

CalCBFan

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,277
Reaction score
31
ravidubey said:
Peterman is not very good and they didn't see much potential, otherwise they wouldn't have signed Rivera-- it's that simple. Had Peterman shown signs of being a player, we'd have seen him on the field.
I thought he WAS playing VERY well in the preseason when BP "forced" him to play on his bad knee and he wrecked it all together. This is another thing I don't like about BP. And I'll tell you something else. I am beginning to wonder if some of these players don't want to play here anymore: Whitten and Jones to name a couple. They have had some very mediocre games this year after having some pretty good ones last year...
 

BigDFan5

Cowboys Make me Drink
Messages
15,109
Reaction score
546
Natedawg44 said:
It's very easy for him to avoid this label. BE GOOD. That's it. Be good enough that they actually want to activate you to play in a game, otherwise what purpose does he exactly serve besides taking up space.


to play him they have to bench Larry Allen like thats gonna happen
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,680
Reaction score
12,392
ravidubey said:
Peterman is not very good and they didn't see much potential, otherwise they wouldn't have signed Rivera-- it's that simple. Had Peterman shown signs of being a player, we'd have seen him on the field.

We signed Rivera because BP wanted a veteran leader for the OL -- in case you didn't notice Flo and Larry aren't really the leader types. nothing to do with Peterman - how could it, we didn't know anything about him since he'd been out since pre-season.
 
Top