jester43 Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 anyone else wonder this after the avalanche of praise this guy has gotten since he's been activated? not to criticize, but why WAS he cut?!
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 anyone else wonder this after the avalanche of praise this guy has gotten since he's been activated? not to criticize, but why WAS he cut?! 141514[/snapback] He wasn't one of the best 53 and by all accounts wasn't mentally ready to contribute. Apparently players do get better on the practice field, contrary to the opinion of the leading cowboy in the retard rodeo.
bobblehead Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 The talk was because he was not understanding the play book, and he was not taking to blocking well.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 He was brought in as a TE, but was not one of the 3 best in camp. He was a project and must have shown something in practice to finally make the team.
eSJayDee Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Well, he started off as a TE. He wasn't among our 3rd best, & wasn't likely to be anytime soon. (IIRC, we had a FA rookie TE, Tauffalt or something, that I was impressed w/, too.) He had promising potential, so he was put on the PS. Given 8 weeks of work or whatever, he improved to the point where he was good enough to warrant a roster spot (primarily as a ST player & OT/short yardage TE).
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Well, he started off as a TE. He wasn't among our 3rd best, & wasn't likely to be anytime soon. (IIRC, we had a FA rookie TE, Tauffalt or something, that I was impressed w/, too.)He had promising potential, so he was put on the PS. Given 8 weeks of work or whatever, he improved to the point where he was good enough to warrant a roster spot (primarily as a ST player & OT/short yardage TE). 141543[/snapback] Plus, if he was so good another team would have snatched him when he was made available. No takers.
bobblehead Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Well, he started off as a TE. He wasn't among our 3rd best, & wasn't likely to be anytime soon. (IIRC, we had a FA rookie TE, Tauffalt or something, that I was impressed w/, too.)He had promising potential, so he was put on the PS. Given 8 weeks of work or whatever, he improved to the point where he was good enough to warrant a roster spot (primarily as a ST player & OT/short yardage TE). 141543[/snapback] "offically" at Tackle, #71. Although lining up at TE, even remembering to report in occasionally
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 In addition to any mental deficiencies he has in terms of absorbing the playbook and effectively communicating and co-ordinating with his teammates, apparently on the good side was his receiving game where he showed impressive athleticism for a big man and great hands. However, this was balanced by some blocking problems which meant he was a half a TE (though the Bills have dealt well with the problem before as they found a way to combine the good receiving skils of Remeirsma with the blocking skills of Friggin Lonnie to somehow make for having the appropriate TE for the approppriate play without telegraphing whether we had a run or pass play called). The fact he has made the actiive roster speaks 1. He is such a speedy big guy with soft hands this part of his game cannot be denied. 2. He has advanced and solved some of the blocking deficits (though his failure to report in as a TE despite his having a tackle number may indicate that he still is an enchilada short of a combination platter mentally). The fascinating thing about his development is that he is on the active roster as a tackle. Does this mean he has suddenly developed into such a blocking demon that he has become one of the best 53 s a blocker? Does this mean that we are willing to take his soft hands and pass catching skills out of the game ourselves by using him as a tackle rather than a TE? I doubt both of these. My guess is that his receiving skills are still what got him here, but he still has some blocking shortcomings that the Bills have chosen to train him beyond by putting him on the roster and depth chart as a tackle. but they use him as a TE (hence his brainiac faux pas Sunday). I he gets the blocking side of the game down, I think the Bills hope that he can become the new Ben Coates (or at least the new Butch Rolle) as a TE. It was interesting that apparently he was in for as many as 10 plays Sunday which is a lot of work so they clearly plan to use this man as a player.
Guest Guest Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 I think everyone who is placed on the practice squad has to clear waivers 1st. He was cut because he was going to be a practice squad person. i could be wrong, but I think tghat is how it works
stevewin Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 I think basically they knew he had potential but was going to need lots of work - including the 'mental' part of game - so he was slated as a PS player who could develop there, and they knew it was pretty unlikely anyone was going to claim him (the guy wasn't even drafted and didn't do anything in the preseason to draw attention from other teams). I think his being on the active roster now is a combination that he probably had progressed enough that they feel comfortable with him being out on the field to execute his assignment, as well as a real willingness/focus by the coaching staff in the 2nd half of the season to find good athletes on the roster and put them in specific situations (as with Bannen/Adams) where their physical abilities can be exploited (in this case as a ST destroyer and for certain short yardage situations). By keeping his PT restricted to specific situations he is probably not required to lern/know the whole playbook inside and out.
Dan Gross Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 You're saying he "developed" in practice? I thought the only place you can develop was on the field?
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 You're saying he "developed" in practice? I thought the only place you can develop was on the field? 141726[/snapback] YOU don't think that.
stuckincincy Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Any team can make an offer to a practice squad player. Perhaps they moved him to the roster to protect against that possibility. That he went undrafted was curious - many draft gurus figured he would be a 3rd or 4th rounder.
Dan Gross Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 YOU don't think that. 141729[/snapback] But you do....well, not you, but the other you....
Alaska Darin Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 But you do....well, not you, but the other you.... 141740[/snapback] Timmah!
TristanFabriani Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 I believe he was part of the first cut. The bills have tried this ploy before: cut a potential PS player in the first group and hope he stays under the radar until the last cut, then sign him to the PS. I made it a point of watching Peters on kickoffs during the Ram game. Very entertaining! He was also instrumental on a major gain by Willis when he sealed off the entire left side. A recent article mentioned that he asked to workout at tackle because he figured he might get more playing time and he wanted to improve his blocking. I like his potential.
stevewin Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 Any team can make an offer to a practice squad player. Perhaps they moved him to the roster to protect against that possibility. That he went undrafted was curious - many draft gurus figured he would be a 3rd or 4th rounder. 141734[/snapback] I believe one of the inhibitors in signing other teams PS players is that they must go on your active roster. In a recent article they attributed the fact that he didn't get drafted to him not having established himself at one position He thought he would be selected in the middle rounds but was undrafted. Scouts worried that he had not established himself at one position. He moved from defensive tackle to tight end in college. He had 21 catches for 218 yards and four touchdowns last season, but he was caught between tight end and tackle in the NFL. "I was shocked that he wasn't taken," said his agent, Jason Medlock. "He caught the ball well (at the combine). He showed he can play on the offensive line. He did everything he had to do to have a good showing. He can play offensive tackle or tight end. He has soft hands. He can even play defense if you want. He's just a gifted athlete." One wonders though if there wasn't some other personal/intelligence issue that helped scare people away.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 The whole PS thing createsan interesting dance in terms of teams cutting players and leaving them exposed to better offers which I woul suspect involves a few under the table deals and a fair amount of winking and nudging between teams and players as they work to maximize their individual interests. The Bills did cut Peters and expose him to better offers, but I suspect few or none came to him as other team's were wondering why we cut him and had to balance signing him against whatever other development projects they were committed to and whatever logjam or needs they had at TE. In addition, the Bills almost certainly communicated to him and other players cut what their rationale for doing so was and whether they wanted to offer an possibility or probability that they would resign this player to the PS. If the Bills gave Peters a strong message that they wanted tio bring him back after the waiver period to the PS, he may well no have taken or taken seriously calls from other teams. A visit seems to be an objective and tangible sign we can see of whether a team is truly interested in a player as they have at least committed to a plane ticket for him. By rule a player must be cut and then he cannot be resigned for 24 hours by the team which cut him to the PS and this allows the players to solicit and receive other offers. Generally i think these offers rarely come because the teams know the few players they would want and their teams do not let them go, if they do they have given the cut player as many assurances as they can give him they will sign him back and this bird in the hand is enought to stop the player from going elsewhere. When a player is on the PS he actually can simply be signed by another team, however, if he is signed he must go onto the active roster. This stops teams from signing a guy just to pump him for info about an upcoming opponent andthen cutting him when they are done with him. The idea that Peters was activated because another team was expressing interest in signing him off the Bills PS is interesting and possible. The idea that he asked to be made a tackle because he thought he had a better chance of making the team that way is interesting as well. I can see the former as potentially happening because Peter's skills are known around the league as he was a potential draftee and the Bills actions are testimony that though he isn't there yet he is worth the work. The tackle theory is possible but I think unlikely as I think guard where there is no one on the depth chart behind Villarial is the most likely OL position to break through on right now and if intellectual analysis is not Peter's strong suit, him successfully making this case may have happened but seems unlikely.
Recommended Posts