ADVERTISEMENT

Peterman / Voytik

Jan 9, 2002
3,254
121
63
Anyone else seeing a bit of resemblance in the styles of play, sizes, throwing motions, etc., of Peterman and Voytik to those of Flacco and Palko roughly 10 years ago?

(I do realize that Palko was a lefty, and that we really didn't get to see Joe Flacco in the capacity that we see Nate Peterman.... but, ....)
 
Are we ready to compare J Peterman, who has 2 career games of throwing more than 200 yards and 0 career games of throwing more than 250 yards, to a first round draft pick with a super bowl ring?

Amazing.
 
Are we ready to compare J Peterman, who has 2 career games of throwing more than 200 yards and 0 career games of throwing more than 250 yards, to a first round draft pick with a super bowl ring?

Amazing.

Geez, relax ... I qualified this as nothing more than an observation on the physical appearances, styles of play and throwing motions of the two QBs now, compared to the two QBs 10 years ago. I thought there were some similarities to the looks and styles - and the fact that there is/was a competition for the position. I was in no way making some grandiose prediction on the future success of anyone.
 
Anyone else seeing a bit of resemblance in the styles of play, sizes, throwing motions, etc., of Peterman and Voytik to those of Flacco and Palko roughly 10 years ago?

(I do realize that Palko was a lefty, and that we really didn't get to see Joe Flacco in the capacity that we see Nate Peterman.... but, ....)

No not really. And while we are at it, can we stop the Palko vs Flacco stuff. Everyone has their opinion. My opinion and the statistics assert that regardless of pro career, Tyler was the much better college football player.
 
Joe
Geez, relax ... I qualified this as nothing more than an observation on the physical appearances, styles of play and throwing motions of the two QBs now, compared to the two QBs 10 years ago. I thought there were some similarities to the looks and styles - and the fact that there is/was a competition for the position. I was in no way making some grandiose prediction on the future success of anyone.

Physical appearance? Joe Flacco is four inches taller than J Peterman.
 
I don't know about the comparison because I never saw much of Flacco in a Pitt uniform, but it really is nice having a QB who throws the ball as accurately as Peterman. I feel pretty confident now watching the offense in 3rd and 5 situations, because he always seems to be on target with shorter passes.
 
Peterman has been been serviceable and made some nice throws.
He's done his job good enough to keep the offense moving, when we actually call plays down the field for him.
I wholeheartedly agree, but I'd add that he'll be "complete" only after he demonstrates that he can throw the bomb to Tyler Boyd. We've got a WR who's a bonafide deep threat and projected as an NFL 1st-round draft choice, but we're still not connecting on the deep ball.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the deep pass was a part of last year's offense, but we've not seen it to any great degree this season - at least to this point.
 
I wholeheartedly agree, but I'd add that he'll be "complete" only after he demonstrates that he can throw the bomb to Tyler Boyd. We've got a WR who's a bonafide deep threat and projected as an NFL 1st-round draft choice, but we're still not connecting on the deep ball.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the deep pass was a part of last year's offense, but we've not seen it to any great degree this season - at least to this point.
Probably tough to throw deep to TB when he has a corner and a safety following him around. Throwing deep with a safety in the area is usually not going to end well.

Go Pitt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vinniep33
I think also hard to judge either Pitt QB with one serviceable wide out. I am definitely pleased with how Peterman has played for sure.
 
Flacco was absolutely terrible at the time when we had to make the decision who our starter would be. Palko is the best QB we've had in quite some time. Flacco always had the size and arm strength to become a great QB, but Pitt was not going to throw him out on the field every week and wait for it all to come together. The only reason that was ever a QB controversy at all was because everyone on earth knew Flacco had unlimited potential. At the time though, Palko was so much better than Flacco it wasn't even close. They wanted Flacco to stay and keep pushing Palko and who knows maybe one year he may have taken the job over. Joe did not want to wait and transferred, played right away, got drafted, and is having a great NFL career.

I have no doubt with Flacco playing in '04 Pitt does not go to the Fiesta Bowl. He just was not ready to start then. Pitt made the right call playing to win and not for the future. They knew the sacrifice they were making with potentially losing Flacco.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrowthHormone
No not really. And while we are at it, can we stop the Palko vs Flacco stuff. Everyone has their opinion. My opinion and the statistics assert that regardless of pro career, Tyler was the much better college football player.


Well considering Joe only got to play two years of college ball because he sat behind Tyler, your statement is pretty misleading. Who knows what would have been had Joe played 3 full years of college ball...but the stats would not be nearly as one sided...and he likely would have eclipsed Tyler's stats. Of course we know how the NFL has turned out for the two. Hail to Pitt!
 
  • Like
Reactions: vietvet1
I wholeheartedly agree, but I'd add that he'll be "complete" only after he demonstrates that he can throw the bomb to Tyler Boyd. We've got a WR who's a bonafide deep threat and projected as an NFL 1st-round draft choice, but we're still not connecting on the deep ball.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the deep pass was a part of last year's offense, but we've not seen it to any great degree this season - at least to this point.
i'm more concerned with how he throws behind receivers on a fairly regular basis..so they either have to stop their route and momentum to catch the ball.
picking nits...but his efficiency is in large measure to having receivers selling out to catch balls not thrown in stride too often.
 
Flacco was absolutely terrible at the time when we had to make the decision who our starter would be. Palko is the best QB we've had in quite some time. Flacco always had the size and arm strength to become a great QB, but Pitt was not going to throw him out on the field every week and wait for it all to come together. The only reason that was ever a QB controversy at all was because everyone on earth knew Flacco had unlimited potential. At the time though, Palko was so much better than Flacco it wasn't even close. They wanted Flacco to stay and keep pushing Palko and who knows maybe one year he may have taken the job over. Joe did not want to wait and transferred, played right away, got drafted, and is having a great NFL career.

I have no doubt with Flacco playing in '04 Pitt does not go to the Fiesta Bowl. He just was not ready to start then. Pitt made the right call playing to win and not for the future. They knew the sacrifice they were making with potentially losing Flacco.

I agree. Palko was a very good QB and Flacco wasn't ready. I don't blame Flacco for leaving, because it worked out pretty well for him! Palko was the better QB at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pittx9
Well considering Joe only got to play two years of college ball because he sat behind Tyler, your statement is pretty misleading. Who knows what would have been had Joe played 3 full years of college ball...but the stats would not be nearly as one sided...and he likely would have eclipsed Tyler's stats. Of course we know how the NFL has turned out for the two. Hail to Pitt!

And Flacco racked his stats up playing for a great team in his division, while Palko did it with a mediocre D1 team and against better competition.

Look, being a better pro has no bearing on who was a better college quarterback.
 
Well considering Joe only got to play two years of college ball because he sat behind Tyler, your statement is pretty misleading. Who knows what would have been had Joe played 3 full years of college ball...but the stats would not be nearly as one sided...and he likely would have eclipsed Tyler's stats. Of course we know how the NFL has turned out for the two. Hail to Pitt!

Of course we also know that how the NFL turned out for them has nothing at all to do with which one was the better college quarterback. The fact that a guy like, for instance, Pat White was never an NFL quarterback doesn't mean that he wasn't a very, very good college quarterback.

As far as their stats go, look at their rate stats and not the raw numbers. As I have said (and posted the numbers) before, their rate stats, things like completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown percentage, interception percentage, and so on are actually very similar. Palko's are actually a little bit better. Except while Palko was playing against teams like Notre Dame and West Virginia and the like Flacco was playing against teams like New Hampshire and William and Mary.
 
And Flacco racked his stats up playing for a great team in his division, while Palko did it with a mediocre D1 team and against better competition.

Look, being a better pro has no bearing on who was a better college quarterback.


I never said a college career had anything to do with a pro career. However, the Delaware team Flacco started for his first year was far from a great team...it was 5-6. Sound familiar? His final year at Delaware they went 11-4, largely on his strong QB play. It is next to impossible to compare college careers, especially if you don't get time on the field--which was my primary point. If you compare the two years Joe played in college, they are practically the same as Tyler's best two years, and in fact in some categories, Joe was better. Hail to Pitt!
 
  • Like
Reactions: vietvet1
Of course we also know that how the NFL turned out for them has nothing at all to do with which one was the better college quarterback. The fact that a guy like, for instance, Pat White was never an NFL quarterback doesn't mean that he wasn't a very, very good college quarterback.

As far as their stats go, look at their rate stats and not the raw numbers. As I have said (and posted the numbers) before, their rate stats, things like completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown percentage, interception percentage, and so on are actually very similar. Palko's are actually a little bit better. Except while Palko was playing against teams like Notre Dame and West Virginia and the like Flacco was playing against teams like New Hampshire and William and Mary.


The point was and remains, it is pretty tough to compare college careers of anyone, particularly if they don't get the opportunity to play. Personally, based on what I saw at the time, Luke Getsy was a better QB than Tyler [had a far stronger arm--sound familiar?]. I've looked at the stats for both Joe and Tyler, and they are very comparable with Tyler winning some things and Joe winning others. Hey, I like Tyler...but think he was vastly over-rated as a college QB, particularly when it came to delivering wins--which is the ultimate measure of a QB [in my book]. Otherwise, Alex Van Pelt might be Pitt's greatest college QB. Hail to Pitt!
 
Are we ready to compare J Peterman, who has 2 career games of throwing more than 200 yards and 0 career games of throwing more than 250 yards, to a first round draft pick with a super bowl ring?

Amazing.
No, but he is way better than Voytik, a QB's #1 priority is PASSING THE FOOTBALL, and he's head and shoulders above Voytik.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rc79 and JSSTartan
Palko was made to run the Walt Harris offense. He single handedly beat Notre Dame and made big plays against WVU and took the team to the Fiesta Bowl. Definitely didn't have a gun-slinger arm, but I think he was very underrated. Some things you can't teach and don't show up on stat sheets. Tyler Palko had all of those things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Consultant Panther
Palko was made to run the Walt Harris offense. He single handedly beat Notre Dame and made big plays against WVU and took the team to the Fiesta Bowl. Definitely didn't have a gun-slinger arm, but I think he was very underrated. Some things you can't teach and don't show up on stat sheets. Tyler Palko had all of those things.
He does get dissed a lot for a guy that was a good if not great COLLEGE QB. There was no way you could bench him for Flacco back in '04. And Palko surprised me that he even did play at the NFL level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pittx9
He does get dissed a lot for a guy that was a good if not great COLLEGE QB. There was no way you could bench him for Flacco back in '04. And Palko surprised me that he even did play at the NFL level.
As good as he was, I was surprised too. Size and arm strength didn't work to his favor. Comes back to what I mentioned. His toughness and competitiveness took him a long way. Was never going to be a starting QB for an entire season, but some scouts obviously noticed these things as well as his intelligence of the position.
 
Palko was made to run the Walt Harris offense. He single handedly beat Notre Dame and made big plays against WVU and took the team to the Fiesta Bowl. Definitely didn't have a gun-slinger arm, but I think he was very underrated. Some things you can't teach and don't show up on stat sheets. Tyler Palko had all of those things.

No doubt...I'll never forgot the ND game. I was at the game with a several relatives that were ND fans. Palko carried the team on his back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pittx9
The point was and remains, it is pretty tough to compare college careers of anyone, particularly if they don't get the opportunity to play. Personally, based on what I saw at the time, Luke Getsy was a better QB than Tyler [had a far stronger arm--sound familiar?]. I've looked at the stats for both Joe and Tyler, and they are very comparable with Tyler winning some things and Joe winning others. Hey, I like Tyler...but think he was vastly over-rated as a college QB, particularly when it came to delivering wins--which is the ultimate measure of a QB [in my book]. Otherwise, Alex Van Pelt might be Pitt's greatest college QB. Hail to Pitt!

Fortunately for those of us who want to make the comparison both guys actually got to play a lot of quarterback at the college level. So that really isn't an issue. If two guys have numbers that are generally comparable and one guy did it at a higher level it isn't really hard to figure out which is more impressive. That's why most football fans know that Brett Favre is the NFL passing leader (although not for much longer) and almost no one could tell you that Case Keenum is the all time college passing leader. One of them did it at a higher level, so their accomplishment means more. Palko compiled his numbers at a much higher level, that's why he was the better college quarterback.
 
Fortunately for those of us who want to make the comparison both guys actually got to play a lot of quarterback at the college level. So that really isn't an issue. If two guys have numbers that are generally comparable and one guy did it at a higher level it isn't really hard to figure out which is more impressive. That's why most football fans know that Brett Favre is the NFL passing leader (although not for much longer) and almost no one could tell you that Case Keenum is the all time college passing leader. One of them did it at a higher level, so their accomplishment means more. Palko compiled his numbers at a much higher level, that's why he was the better college quarterback.


Interesting that you don't seem to think winning has much to do with it. I'd much rather have a QB that wins games than racks up stats. And yeah, a guy that wins more, is a far better QB in my book. As Coach Narduzzi said, stats are for losers...it is the W that counts. Of course you are welcome to argue with coach about that:) Hail to Pitt!
 
  • Like
Reactions: vietvet1
Interesting that you don't seem to think winning has much to do with it. I'd much rather have a QB that wins games than racks up stats. And yeah, a guy that wins more, is a far better QB in my book. As Coach Narduzzi said, stats are for losers...it is the W that counts. Of course you are welcome to argue with coach about that:) Hail to Pitt!
So, you'd rather have Trent Dilfer than Dan Marino or Bill Stull rather than Alex Van Pelt. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pghfan
I witnessed Tyler up front and personal when he was in high school. Tyler was an excellent Safety. He had great ball skills and loved the physicality of that position. I remember watching Joe in our first Spring Game under DW at Gateway High Scool and was really impressed with his passing. I'n hindsight, and I've said this before, I would have preferred Tylor at safety. I feel, to this day, that would have been his ticket to a successful NFL career. just my take
 
  • Like
Reactions: PittPoker
I love Palko but have to laugh when people say he'd be an NFL safety.. He is 6'1", 210 pounds that runs a 4.7 or 4.8.. Oh, and he is white.. So yeah, not many 6 foot white safeties in the NFL that run a 4.8..
 
So, you'd rather have Trent Dilfer than Dan Marino or Bill Stull rather than Alex Van Pelt. Got it.
So, you'd rather have Trent Dilfer than Dan Marino or Bill Stull rather than Alex Van Pelt. Got it.


Apparently you missed we were talking college careers, not NFL. I'd obviously take Marino over Dilfer in college any day. Marino won far more games, actually won a couple of important bowl games, and has his team ranked highly each season. So no brainer, I'd take Marino--he was a major winner in college. As for Stull versus Van Pelt...Alex racked up some amazing numbers in college [had one of the sweetest play action moves of any QB I have ever seen play the game]...but was pretty much a loser his entire college career...so yeah, I'd take Stull and his wins, despite not nearly having the natural talent Van Pelt had. Even a good QB on a bad team or a poorly coached team has his limits. Hail to Pitt!
 
So , you rather have a pedestrian qb on a great team than a great qb on a great team?

Seems silly to hold it against a qb if the defense of his team stinks and gives up a lot of points to lose games, at no fault of the qb or offense??

But, logical consistency isn't your bag.
 
No doubt...I'll never forgot the ND game. I was at the game with a several relatives that were ND fans. Palko carried the team on his back.
Was the greatest Pitt game in my memory possibly, just IMO, "I loved that fcckin game!" lol.
 
So , you rather have a pedestrian qb on a great team than a great qb on a great team?

Seems silly to hold it against a qb if the defense of his team stinks and gives up a lot of points to lose games, at no fault of the qb or offense??

But, logical consistency isn't your bag.


Just win baby...that's all I am interested in Pitt doing, regardless of the strength or weakness of the QB in any particular season. I note you seem to concede your Marino/Dilfer example was DOA. Hail to Pitt!
 
Many people are smart enough to understand that in a game with 22 starters (not counting the specialists) that ascribing the complete value of winning to any one player is a little silly. Not everyone though.

So I guess if you are crowing that he seemed to concede that Marino was better college quarterback than Dilfer does that mean that you are also conceding that Dilfer was a better pro quarterback than Marino? I mean the whole thing is kind of odd since you have previously argued that Flacco was better than Palko based solely on what they did in the NFL. But I guess when different standards when comparing the same things help you make your point might as well give it a shot. No matter how dumb your point is.
 
Many people are smart enough to understand that in a game with 22 starters (not counting the specialists) that ascribing the complete value of winning to any one player is a little silly. Not everyone though.

So I guess if you are crowing that he seemed to concede that Marino was better college quarterback than Dilfer does that mean that you are also conceding that Dilfer was a better pro quarterback than Marino? I mean the whole thing is kind of odd since you have previously argued that Flacco was better than Palko based solely on what they did in the NFL. But I guess when different standards when comparing the same things help you make your point might as well give it a shot. No matter how dumb your point is.
* * * * *


Well like usual, you distort and attempt to ascribe quotes to me that I did not make. Of course you are always welcome to skip my posts, but I know you cannot resist responding. I actually never said Flacco was a better college QB than Palko--I challenge you to find those words. I did say that Palko was over-hyped and over-rated. I indicated that Flacco only started two years of college football and that Palko started three years--so that comparing stats was not really fair in proclaiming one a "better" college QB since he did not get the opportunity. Remember? That was actually my initial point. I'm not an NFL fan and do not generally follow player performances, stats or wins and losses. I know that Dilfer has a ring, and Marino does not--despite having a ton of stats and passing records. I presume that Marino has more wins than Dilfer, just premised upon his longer career and generally playing for a good team. So I stick with my position that winning is the most important thing for a QB--which I do...whichever guy had more wins was the better NFL QB--regardless of whether they have a Super Bowl ring. And yeah, the Marino/Dilfer college example was dumb. Hail to Pitt!
 
Many people are smart enough to understand that in a game with 22 starters (not counting the specialists) that ascribing the complete value of winning to any one player is a little silly. Not everyone though.

So I guess if you are crowing that he seemed to concede that Marino was better college quarterback than Dilfer does that mean that you are also conceding that Dilfer was a better pro quarterback than Marino? I mean the whole thing is kind of odd since you have previously argued that Flacco was better than Palko based solely on what they did in the NFL. But I guess when different standards when comparing the same things help you make your point might as well give it a shot. No matter how dumb your point is.
* * * * *


Well like usual, you distort and attempt to ascribe quotes to me that I did not make. Of course you are always welcome to skip my posts, but I know you cannot resist responding. I actually never said Flacco was a better college QB than Palko--I challenge you to find those words. I did say that Palko was over-hyped and over-rated. I indicated that Flacco only started two years of college football and that Palko started three years--so that comparing stats was not really fair in proclaiming one a "better" college QB since he did not get the opportunity. Remember? That was actually my initial point. I'm not an NFL fan and do not generally follow player performances, stats or wins and losses. I know that Dilfer has a ring, and Marino does not--despite having a ton of stats and passing records. I presume that Marino has more wins than Dilfer, just premised upon his longer career and generally playing for a good team. So I stick with my position that winning is the most important thing for a QB--which I do...whichever guy had more wins was the better NFL QB--regardless of whether they have a Super Bowl ring. And yeah, the Marino/Dilfer college example was dumb. Hail to Pitt!
 
Why would I skip your posts? Correcting your misinformation and illogical posts and then watching you have a fit that someone had the audacity to challenge you on them is always worth a chuckle.

For instance when you say something like "of course we know how the NFL has turned out for the two" when making a comparison of two players it isn't hard for anyone to understand what your implication is. And it certainly is not the first time you've said and/or implied the same thing. But if you want to now pretend that you've done no such thing that's fine too. Just another chuckle at your expense.
 
Anyone else seeing a bit of resemblance in the styles of play, sizes, throwing motions, etc., of Peterman and Voytik to those of Flacco and Palko roughly 10 years ago?

(I do realize that Palko was a lefty, and that we really didn't get to see Joe Flacco in the capacity that we see Nate Peterman.... but, ....)

Not a lot of parallels in the two sets of QBs you mention. Palko was a much more poised and effective passer than Voytik. Flacco never played enough at Pitt to assess his ability at all. Peterman reminds me of a more athletic David Priestly who had a very good senior year(with Antonio Bryant) on the Pitt Tangerine Bowl team coached by Walt Harris that beat NC St.and Phillip Rivers.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT