toddgurley

http://www.rototimes.com/nfl/player.php?tq...s&nid=59397 I have read that the redskins would cut former Bill Todd Collins because he is due to make around $3 Million this year, and there is a chance (according to ben Maller) that colt brennan cound beat him out as the number 2 qb. If that happens they would cut Todd Collins. If he would come at a reasonable price, would you want to sign him as a possible back up or no? He did well filling in for Jason Campbell-

someone please translate this?

HUH? how is that good news? Elaborate?

If that happens I will not be a Bills fan anymore. c'mon does toronto really care about the Bills like Buffalo does? Not a chance- Besides, the Bills somehow sold 54,000 season tix so far(3rd most in team history I think), not gonna happen in Toronto.

I am glad you found that, you proved my point. The article says there are 2 companies that record sacks. Now, granted that Tom Curran of NBC says this about the stat sack: "The sack stat -- who gets them and who gets blamed for them -- is one of the most bogus in football since they can be the by-product of so many things. They can be attributed to excellent coverage, a skittish quarterback, miscommunication, a teammate's pressure. Sacks are like snowflakes, people. Each one different." With that being said, the 2 COMPANIES/PEOPLE WHO TRACK THIS STAT ARE: 1. STATS, INC-Who said that Peters gave up 11.5 sacks for a loss of 106.5 yards. 2. KC JOYNER-as Tim Graham calls him in this article-"The football Scientist" says the Peters gave up 12 sacks!! In which 5.5 were in ONE-on-ONE cases alone. You cant really argue the one on one sacks. Also, the one-on-one sacks alone would make PETERS the 19th RANKED LT in the league. NOT WHAT YOU CALL PRO BOWL MATERIAL HUH? And to quote VOR from earlier-"While I don't know how much I can trust his analysis, the fact that he tagged Peters with 12 and STATS, Inc. tagged Peters with 11.5 tells me that it was indeed in the double digits." I would have to agree with that style of thinking, of course you probably disagree- And it was STATS, INC who came up with the LT sack list I posted earlier. Thanks for finding that article Lori

ok thanks lori. When i did the search for LT stats or jason peters stats-nothing came up, but its obviously out there

i just did and they closed it on me saying it was out there already. even though i search it and found nothing

hey dean check this out man. Even is inflated, he can still see how bad peters did. Cut the sack number in half and he still had a bad year compared to other LT. I know he missed Training camp but that is his fault. here is link from a KC chief site who has no bias towards peters : http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2009/3/13/79...allowed-left-ta Left Tackle (sacks allowed) 1. Ryan Clady (Broncos) 0.5 sacks allowed (16 starts) 2. Michael Roos (Titans) 1.0 sacks allowed (16 starts) *PRO-BOWL* 3. Tra Thomas (Eagles) 2.0 sacks allowed (16 starts) 3. Orlando Pace (Rams) 2.0 sacks allowed (14 starts) 5. Jake Long (Dolphins) 2.5 sacks allowed (16 starts) 6. Jordan Gross (Panthers) 3.0 sacks allowed (15 starts) *PRO-BOWL* 6. Jammal Brown (Saints) 3.0 sacks allowed (15 starts) 6. Jared Gaither (Ravens) 3.0 sacks allowed (15 starts) 6. Marcus McNeill (Chargers) 3.0 sacks allowed (14 starts) 6. Tony Ugoh (Colts) 3.0 sacks allowed (12 starts) 6. Chris Samuels (Redskins) 3.0 sacks allowed (12 starts) *PRO-BOWL* 6. Todd Weiner (Falcons) 3.0 sacks allowed (11 starts) 13. Walter Jones (Seahawks) 3.5 sacks allowed (12 starts) *PRO-BOWL* 14. D’Brickashaw Ferguson (Jets) 4.0 sacks allowed (16 starts) 14. Bryant McKinnie (Vikings) 4.0 sacks allowed (12 starts) 14. Max Starks (Steelers) 4.0 sacks allowed (11 starts) 17. Joe Thomas (Browns) 4.5 sacks allowed (16 starts) *PRO-BOWL* 17. Branden Albert (Cheifs) 4.5 sacks allowed (15 starts) 19. Levi Brown (Bengals) 5.5 sacks allowed (11 starts) 20. Mike Gandy (Cardinals) 6.25 sacks allowed (16 starts) 21. David Diehl (Giants) 6.5 sacks allowed (16 starts) 22. Flozell Adams (Cowboys) 7.25 sacks allowed (16 starts) 23. Khalif Barnes (Jags) 7.5 sacks allowed (16 starts) 23. Matt Light (Pats) 7.5 sacks allowed (16 starts) 23. Chad Clifton (Packers) 7.5 sacks allowed (15 starts) 23. Kwame Harris (Raiders) 7.5 sacks allowed (11 starts) 27. Joe Staley (49ers) 8.5 sacks allowed (16 starts) 28. Donald Penn (Bucs) 8.5 sacks allowed (16 starts) 29. Jeff Backus (Lions) 9.25 sacks allowed (16 starts) 30. John St. Clair (Bears) 9.75 sacks allowed (16 starts) 31. Duane Brown (Texans) 11.5 sacks allowed (16 starts) 31. Jason Peters (Bills) 11.5 sacks allowed (13 starts) *PRO-BOWL* PETERS SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE PRO BOWL-BOTTOM LINE

Inflated or not, he got beat by rookies and abused by joey porter. Do you think he should have made the pro bowl? No-bottom line

ya you are right matt. I think our 2nd game was in Florida (jax). Peters did get replace a couple of times because of the heat and lack of conditioning. Imagine that, jason peters being out of shape-

yup yup you are right. Also to run to no huddle you need a smart center to call the o-line blocking schemes. We have Hangartner, who scored like a 47 on the wonderlic test I believe. Thats one smart center-

I hope that Butler/Walker do a good job a tackle, but I NEVER said Walker/Butler will be better than Peters/Walker. But lets all hope that they are- I just said that I thought our best o-lineman last year were brad bulter (who played RG last year) and that Langston Walker was our 2nd best( who played RT, except for 3 games in which he played LT)

Spencer in Ellicottville, N.Y., can't "understand why every sports writer in the nation is on the Bills' case for shipping off Jason Peters." Spencer reasons that the Bills will be better off without Peters because they went 2-0 without him last year and 5-9 with him and he was "getting burned by rookie defensive ends almost every week." Tim Graham's Response: You can be upset with Peters' contract demands and the way he forced his way off the team, but I will never understand why fans channel their anger into rationalizing that he's no good. That's the definition of sour grapes (one of the most misused phrases, by the way). Peters was Buffalo's best offensive lineman last year. He led the Bills in point-of-attack blocking, according to analyst KC Joyner. Peters went to his second straight Pro Bowl because opposing coaches and players consider him one of the league's best. Yes, Peters gave up too many sacks last year and took a big step back from his sublime season in 2007. But he was better than most. You're flat-out lying when you state he was abused by rookie defensive ends. Peters lines up against elite pass-rushers every game. That's what left tackles do. As for your suggestion the Bills were better without Peters on the field, the records you gave are not only misleading, but also wrong. The Bills went 2-1 in games Peters didn't play. Their victories came over the Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos, teams that went a combined 12-20. They also lost to the Patriots in the season finale minus Peters. My Take I know we talked about this before and my thread will probably get merged, but I totally got to disagree with Tim. I think you will also agree that the Bills should have been 3-0 with Peters not in the lineup (should have beat N.E. just once again got out coached by Bellicheat) First, I think that the POINT OF ATTACK statistic by KC joyner to be a mis-leading STAT. In fact I hate the P-O-A statistic, I believe it an irrelevant and somewhat doctored stat, you may disagree and that s fine. 2nd, I am POSITIVE that Jason Peters was NOT our best o-lineman last year. (just look how the line did when he did not play) I would say that award would have went to Brad Butler, with Langston Walker finishing a close 2nd. I mean, remember how Peters got abused by Joey Porter? Two Years ago Peters was the man, but not this past year. And then there is always that SACK stat. Like it or not, Peters yielded 11.5 sacks last year. That was the most of any Tackle in the league, weather you believe in that stat or not. There is no doubt Jason Peters should NOT HAVE MADE THE PRO BOWL? Thats my take guys, let me know if you agree or think that I am way off? GO BILLS-

yup-i agree, this article is sh--. I read it the other day. What is this guy talking about? We are just gonna not play Whitner if Byrd does well? I doubt it- you would put scott on the bench

I love how you put that, because it should be called the Music city forward pass-because it was really a F*ing forward pass!! Man, if flutie was playing, it would have never happened because the game would not have even been close!!! I forgot how much that play pissed me off!!

is anyone else amazed that this thread got TEN PAGES worth of comments? WOW-

Even thou its a dream, still a good find on this ridiculous article. Just make the labels better so I know what I am reading. That all i am saying

yup-your right but c'mon, lable that thread better. I would have never read skooby's thread b/c of the way it is labeled.

Never would happen, but good post. I would love this trade. Harris is really good that why I dont believe it. Plus how could denver trade their 2 best offensive players to Bears? But pretty interesting stuff

nice, good stuff. Now lets hope the new d line coach can get McCargo on track.

"Suffice to say, that is not the preferred nomenclature." Ha ha Anyone know WTF this douchebag is talking about. I think your on the wrong message board bud. Use some more big words to make up for little things bud.

You make no sense. Re-group your thoughts and come back when your ready to make sense, ok?

Thats true in the state of New York, but once your out of NY its not. Its because they are front runners, believe me. I lived in NY all my life then moved to Myrtle Beach for College!! Lots of frontrunners out there, especially teams like Yankees, Redsox, Patriots, and of course the worst- the Steelers!! Steelers fans are everywhere down here, and they are annoying-and most times, they are fair weathered fans. When they win (like last year), front running fans were coming out of the wood work. AND THEY ARE REALLY ANNOYING-

How about because the team is technically in ANOTHER COUNTRY THATS WHY- Buddy, baseball is an American sport, so if you like the Blue Jays just because Toronto is relatively close to Buffalo then you are a RETARD- unless your from Canada. First of all they stink (had success in early 90's but not since), 2nd of all, you have 2 other NY baseball teams to cheer for!!! I am from the Utica area, and am a die hard BILLS, METS, RANGERS (yes Rangers, not sabres) and Knicks fan unfortunately and go CUSE too. I take it as an insult as a New Yorker if you are from NY and are RED SOX or Blue Jay fan- Thats my take-

Your girlfriend better be hot to put up with that. LOL