Mickey

You have a right to be as anti-peters as you want Senator but for PTR to deny that there is anyone who is anti-peters is just Bush level stupidity. And I don't mean to single you out as there are plenty of people that are really mad at Peters, though PTR would deny it. Here is where he comes in and says something along the lines of how you can call Peters the anti-christ and still not be "anti-Peters".

Again, what part of "remains to be seen" do you not understand? How is this: There is not a shred of evidence in the public domain that Peters has paid a nickel of fines. Typically, as part of the deal to return to camp, such fines are waived. In discussing his return to camp, not the team, not the front office, not his agent, not Peters himself and not a single solitary reporter has indicated that the fines were still being imposed. So, as far as we know, they haven't been paid. Thus IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN if this will cost him anything. Your logic, as always, is extremely biased. What you are asking is to prove a negative. The status quo is no fine being paid. Something has to happen to change it, there is not proof that it has happened, thus, the rational conclusion is that, until proven otherwise, it hasn't. Could the team have employed a cloaking device so that no reporter could find out that the fines were paid, sure, speculate away. Could the team have rewarded him by waiving the fines and given them a night with G.host so he can finally enact his homoerotic fantasies, sure they could have, after all, no one has proven that they didn't and maybe they chose to keep that quiet.

I suppose your posting complaints about Peters' performance while ignoring his good plays and quoting Realfootball instead of the head coach who has referred to Peters' preformance as "dominant" and "amazing" doesn't strike you as being "anti-Peters" but I am going to respectfully disagree. And I would really like to hear your explanation of how Senator's endless attacks against Peters as selfish, greedy, stupid, fat, lazy and a "pecker head" are not anti-Peters. You should get a job at Fox News where you could explain how referring to Michelle Obama as a "baby mama" is not racist or "anti-Obama".

Pity DJ doesn't agree with you referring to his performance as "dominant" and "amazing". Oh yeah, and we won. Oh yeah and his coach went out of his way to compliment him on being in such good shape despite missing camp. Seriously, a reasonable poster could certainly complain about his lapses and even give short shrift to his best plays but this suggestion is just ridiculous. This is professional football, not a boy scout troop. I think the problem here isn't Peters' ego but the elephant sized grudge people like you seem to have against this guy whose biggest sin is caring about his interests over yours. Jason Peters is a Buffalo Bill, get over it.

It certainly seems to make sense. I never argued that Peters wouldn't have benefited from camp, just that the holdout didn't cost him any money, etc. Even though it makes sense, I can't help recalling Club Marv back in the glory days. They seem to do okay without much training camp dedication. The fact is we are winning and I give credit for that to all the coaches and all the players, Peters included.

The difference is speculation vs. reality. The salary Peters is getting now is the same he would have received had he not held out. So far, he hasn't paid a dime in fines. They are speculating that when and if he gets a new deal with the Bills, it will be for far less money because, in their opinion anyway, he is playing poorly. Of course, that is based on their own predjudiced view of Peters and an article from Realfootball.com. On the other hand we have Jauron calling him "dominant" and "amazing" though acknowledging some bad plays on his part. So that is another difference. My assessment is the same as Jauron's, their's is at odds with the head coach and based on an internet blog.

Because they almost never do and because it has not been reported that he has. Thus, so far, this hasn't cost him anything and, as I thought I made clear, it "remains to be seen" whether it ever will. Senator's bleating about the team would fascinatingly relevant if that were the issue at hand. This discussion dates back to the early days of the holdout and whether Peters was making a mistake in terms of his own best interests. Was he, as Senator so often pointed out with his poisonous prose, a moron, a pecker head who didn't know what was good for him, who was being taken advantage by his much smarter and evil agent. The point I made is that trying to get a new deal for this year cost Peters nothing, made a new deal next year more likley (still 2 years ahead of schedule) and had a shot, even if a slim one, of working this year. As for the team, their refusal to give him a new deal this year cost them his services during camp and whatever benefit to the team that would have been derived from him being more fully prepared for the start of the season. Apparently abandoning the debate about whether this was a good or bad strategy for Peters in terms of his own interests, Senator instead moves on to slamming him for not being team player. That is a tired argument that surfaces whenever a player goes for a better deal. You could just as well complain that if Schobel was a team player, he would have given up a large percentage of his huge salary so that the team would have had some extra coin to sign a better center or another linebacker. But even if Senator is right, it is irrelevant to the point, the hold out strategy hasn't cost Peters anything and my benefit him. It remains to be seen. I do note that despite the expert assessment from the Peters haters that he has been awful so far, Jauron called him "dominant" and that his performance with so little practice has been "amazing" though he also pointed out that he has indeed had a few bad plays. Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me but PTR and Senator know better.

Did he let the team down when he was the lead blocker pulling on the sweep that resulted in Lynch's first TD? Gee, the guy who hates Peters still does. Imagine that.

Actually, two. He took out an outside backer in J'ville and took out 2 guys when he pulled to lead the blocking on Lynch's first TD on Sunday. He put his man on the carpet and the heap made by his substantial bulk and the player he pancaked got in the way of a pursuing linebacker, taking him out of the play. Kelly exhaustively examined Peters on a play by play basis for the J'ville game and as it turns out, he played pretty well. You have to consider that this thread was started by a guy who, of the Jacksonville game, said "...every hard hit Edwards has taken came from Peters getting beaten like an old rug..." Conveniently forgetting the blast Edwards took when he was sacked at our own 5 yard line from an inside rush that beat Fowler and Butler. The sack that Warren got on Sunday was the result of Walker getting bullrushed in to Trent's face and Butler's man getting loose. Trent saw the right side disintegrating and headed back and to his left, right where Peters had shoved his man deep. Fouts even said that Trent should have stepped up in to the pocket where he might have had more time. The anti-Peters crowd is just never going to get over it. And, as I have said over and over, this hasn't cost Peters anything and if, as his haters are sure, his performance is not what it otherwise would have been, it has hurt the team, not Peters. That was as much a choice made by Brandon as it was by Peters. That was the price the team paid for not giving him a new deal. Whether in the long run it will ever cost Peters anything, remains to be seen.

Not me. Marv told us before the draft that he was going to take a QB that year. I think we got rid of Holcomb and Nall stunk so we needed to get a developmental guy. I and others defended the pick against the "Marv is senile" crowd. The only surprise was how well Edwards played in preseason which elevated him past Nall so that he got the opportunity that Nall would have had when JP went down.

That's not bragging. That's just a fact.

Really, "every hard hit"? And that sack inside the 5 in J'ville when he got blasted from the inside, was that not a "hard hit"? I am not sure which sacks you are talking about yesterday but there was one where the whole right side caved in and Trent took off to the left, running right into Peters' guy who got the sack but not because Peters blew the block. Wouldn't it be fair to also cover plays where he made key blocks? On Lynch's first TD, he pulled to the left and was the lead blocker on the sweep. He put the CB on the ground giving Marshawn just enough room to turn the corner for home. No doubt he is rusty but considering the lack of practice, he is doing pretty good. Too bad they wouldn't negotiate with him to get him in to camp. As I have said many times, what you are seeing is the cost of his holdout to the team. The cost to him so far? Zip.

Actually, several Patriots have endorsed this site for ultra-lightweight cold weather gear for under the pads.

I think a pass is not "incomplete" until it hits the ground or leaves the field of play. If Lee was bobbling it, it would still be a live ball even though he is on the ground.

Isn't that why he worked so hard for so long? I can't believe it was just for the medals, it had to be for the guaranteed hottie sex for life. I mean, patriotism only gets you so far.

I couldn't hear the explanation the ref gave as everyone in the house was cursing up a storm. What was it? Sure looked like they both had it with them both on the ground and ties go to the WR, or so I thought.

Why on earth did the Raiders have Hall playing 15 yards off? Credit Trent for finding the weakness in that secondary and hitting it over and over, right on the money every time. Also credit Josh and Marshawn for being as flawless as Trent was on that last drive.

I would like to give Texas to Mexico. Dallas Cowboys: "Mexico's Team".

What can I say? I'm just so huggable.

Lee really isn't an extension, his contract is up, we sign him, franchise him or lose him.

Compared to the Farve saga in the offseason, any effort would appear "quiet" by comparison. That said, I think we made our share of noise. Mitchell with his SB ring and Stroud with his pro bowl history were high profile signings and the money we paid on, as I recall, the first day of free agency, to Dockery and Walker were pretty big splashes. Only time will tell if we have made the right choices but finally, we are certainly starting to make progress. I don't know what to make of the Jets so far. I am not impressed but its early yet and adjusting from Pennington to Favre is a pretty major adjustment.

I can't beleive they would pull a Clements or Winfield move with this guy. It does raise an issue however, is there a price that would be too high to keep Lee Evans? There was with Clements. Do you think there is a line in the sand out there somewhere even for a guy this good?

I think that his price goes up with every good game he has and he has had two already. Can you imagine the meetings? Agent": "Russ, how many catches did Lee have yesterday? How much do you think that catch against the Jags is worth?" Russ: "I know, I know" All in all, trying to find the money for a player who is playing great is not the worst problem for a team to have.

Going for 2 keeps your destiny in your hands rather than gambling on a coin flip. Given how easily both teams were scoring, I doubt that the loser of the coin flip would have been able to get a stop outside FG range. Denver had a chance to win it right there so, under those circumstances, I can see why they went for it.

Yeah, DJ said they warned the guys right before that kick that an onside might be coming. I think it was just executed very well and the ball just took a bad bounce when Wendling tried to cover it. I think he was the first guy there from either team, barely. A good rule of thumb to protect agaist this kind of onside kick is to have your center man, Wendling in this case, take his first step forward, not back, automatically, whether he reads an onside or not. The guys up front usually start dropping back into whatever blocking pattern is called just as the kicker makes contact. Similar to the way lineman drop back at the snap on passing plays. Wendling has to read the onside as it happens and before he drops back and then goes forward to try and nab it. But in the time it takes to make the read, he loses ground. If he always takes his first step or two fwd when the ball is kicked, then if it is an onside, he is already moving to where he needs to be and if it isn't, he stops and heads back. If done right, that kind of onside kick is really tough to defend. Bobby has used it himself on a number of occasions.