Eagles Bringing 38 Year-old Jason Peters Back to Play Guard **Edit** Now Moving Back to Left Tackle

[C.Biscuit97]

11 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

So what?  That fact had no impact on the Bills fortunes.  A really good LT on a bad team is a wasted resource.  See:  Joe Thomas's entire career.

Yup.  There was a lot of hand wringing over the Peters situation.  There were arguments that made sense both ways.  The Bills just paid him and he wanted big LT money after one season.  He acted like a huge baby, didn’t return phone calls, showed up fat and out of shape, and put the rest of his teammates at a disadvantage.  They traded him, got a 1st, 4th, and 6th.

 

peters is a HOF candidate but would this team been that much better with him blocking for JP, Trent, and all the other scrubs we had?  Fun fact: the Eagles won the SB with him missing 12 games.  
 

again, as difficult as fans try to make, it really only comes down to one position.  Salute to the Bills for turning an UDFA TE into a great LT and salute to Peters.   But so much wasted arguing over something that really didn’t matter. 

[HardyBoy]

30 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Yup.  There was a lot of hand wringing over the Peters situation.  There were arguments that made sense both ways.  The Bills just paid him and he wanted big LT money after one season.  He acted like a huge baby, didn’t return phone calls, showed up fat and out of shape, and put the rest of his teammates at a disadvantage.  They traded him, got a 1st, 4th, and 6th.

 

peters is a HOF candidate but would this team been that much better with him blocking for JP, Trent, and all the other scrubs we had?  Fun fact: the Eagles won the SB with him missing 12 games.  
 

again, as difficult as fans try to make, it really only comes down to one position.  Salute to the Bills for turning an UDFA TE into a great LT and salute to Peters.   But so much wasted arguing over something that really didn’t matter. 

 

I think ultimately it comes down to people being frustrated with cash to cap.

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Yup.  There was a lot of hand wringing over the Peters situation.  There were arguments that made sense both ways.  The Bills just paid him and he wanted big LT money after one season.  He acted like a huge baby, didn’t return phone calls, showed up fat and out of shape, and put the rest of his teammates at a disadvantage.  They traded him, got a 1st, 4th, and 6th.

 

peters is a HOF candidate but would this team been that much better with him blocking for JP, Trent, and all the other scrubs we had?  Fun fact: the Eagles won the SB with him missing 12 games.  
 

again, as difficult as fans try to make, it really only comes down to one position.  Salute to the Bills for turning an UDFA TE into a great LT and salute to Peters.   But so much wasted arguing over something that really didn’t matter. 

 

 

I agree.  Peters's value to the Bills was absolutely in trade and getting those picks for him was a steal.  

 

This is the thing about a "HOF LT".  The Browns wasted a better pick on one--and he squandered his career in futility (but...HOF LT!!).  The Eagles, as you pointed out, had a SB winning year with their "HOF LT" in the whirlpool--replaced by a scrub.  The next season, Peters comes back: 9-7, lost in the divisional game.

[prissythecat]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I agree.  Peters's value to the Bills was absolutely in trade and getting those picks for him was a steal.  

 

This is the thing about a "HOF LT".  The Browns wasted a better pick on one--and he squandered his career in futility (but...HOF LT!!).  The Eagles, as you pointed out, had a SB winning year with their "HOF LT" in the whirlpool--replaced by a scrub.  The next season, Peters comes back: 9-7, lost in the divisional game.

 

 

But but.  All those dollars were worth it?  HOF baby.

[thebandit27]

22 hours ago, IgotBILLStopay said:

1. Spring chicken compared to Brady and Brees

2. The iggles can only do 1 year deals given their 2021 cap situation - so probably a smart move by them - they need to hit on their draft picks to get young talent on the cheap in the coming years since they have no cap (w)iggle room.

3. And I am not upset AT ALL about the Peters trade. Yes we lost a Probowl OL - but people forget that Peters wanted a huge contract, was hurt a lot in the immediate aftermath of the trade and we netted Eric Wood. I'd still do that trade even knowing how well Peters worked out for the iggles. Our long playoff drought WAS primarily due to the shoddy QB situation and I doubt having Peters with us for huge $$ instead of Wood would  have changed that.

He started 42 of a possible 48 games for Philly his first 3 years there.

 

Then he missed a full season.

 

Then he started 62 of a possible 64 games the following 4 years.

 

”He was hurt a lot” is a bit of a mischaracterization IMO.

[GunnerBill]

54 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

He started 42 of a possible 48 games for Philly his first 3 years there.

 

Then he missed a full season.

 

Then he started 62 of a possible 64 games the following 4 years.

 

”He was hurt a lot” is a bit of a mischaracterization IMO.

 

Agreed. Peters is a sure fire HoFer. Trading those away because you didn't have a Quarterback (which seems to be the argument here) is nonsensical IMO.

[IgotBILLStopay]

1 hour ago, thebandit27 said:

He started 42 of a possible 48 games for Philly his first 3 years there.

 

Then he missed a full season.

 

Then he started 62 of a possible 64 games the following 4 years.

 

”He was hurt a lot” is a bit of a mischaracterization IMO.

You are basing your argument on looking back at the number of games Peters played. You are right that he did not miss many games. 

I am basing my statements on my memory of what happened following the Peters trade. Peters was the homegrown cinderella UDFA who made it big and he was beloved by the Bills fans. So I remember following what happened with him the whole of next season. Iggles fans actually thought the Bills had won the trade. I tried to go back and find articles from the "immediate aftermath of the trade" since games missed only tell part of the story. Here are two articles that reflect my view of the trade.

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/323415-jason-peters-trade-looks-better-and-better-for-the-buffalo-bills

 

Quote

He then proceeded to miss large parts of training camp with injuries.  Then he was hurt in a preseason game and did not even travel with the team for a game.  The regular season came and Peters spent almost the entire season on the injury report and missed all or part of several games, yet he still made the Pro Bowl (that is another story altogether).

The games that he did play in told the real tale. He never looked at home at left tackle in Philly.  Sure he had a couple good games but when it came to stopping a quick pass rush from multiple spots he struggled greatly as was seen throughout the season and especially on Saturday night against Dallas.

 

Sure you could say that he couldn't block everyone on Dallas but the left side of the line was over matched every other play.  Shouldn't a tackle that is "the best tackle in football" be able to make the players around him better?  Shouldn't he make an average left guard into a stud brick wall? This is clearly not the case.

 

Peters was skipping TC etc. in the hopes of getting a bigger contract and his conditioning and play had regressed. That said, he certainly got his act together and subsequently played well enough for Philly - hence my "immediate aftermath" caveat.

 

Here is a description of his play surrounding the trade.

 

https://walterfootball.com/jasonpeterstrade.php

 

Quote

Since the 2006 campaign, Peters' play has regressed exponentially. In 2007, Peters gave up six sacks in 15 contests. And last year, things got downright ugly, as Peters surrendered a whopping 11.5 sacks in just 13 games, good for tops in the NFL. Peters was also whistled for eight penalties, a career high for him.

 

This is not to say that Philly did not do well with the trade.  Peters is a HOFer. Given what we knew at the time, I'd make that trade for the Bills every time. There is just a lot of revisionist history calling it one of the worst trades made by the Bills - and that is flat out wrong. More importantly, even knowing how Peters turned out for the iggles, I'd probably still do the trade. Eric Wood was a warrior for us and we saved tons of cap space in the trade. I have seen articles suggesting we would not have had the playoff drought but for this trade. I disagree with that point of view.

[thebandit27]

1 minute ago, IgotBILLStopay said:

You are basing your argument on looking back at the number of games Peters played. You are right that he did not miss many games. 

I am basing my statements on my memory of what happened following the Peters trade. Peters was the homegrown cinderella UDFA who made it big and he was beloved by the Bills fans. So I remember following what happened with him the whole of next season. Iggles fans actually thought the Bills had won the trade. I tried to go back and find articles from the "immediate aftermath of the trade" since games missed only tell part of the story. Here are two articles that reflect my view of the trade.

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/323415-jason-peters-trade-looks-better-and-better-for-the-buffalo-bills

 

 

Peters was skipping TC etc. in the hopes of getting a bigger contract and his conditioning and play had regressed. That said, he certainly got his act together and subsequently played well enough for Philly - hence my "immediate aftermath" caveat.

 

Here is a description of his play surrounding the trade.

 

https://walterfootball.com/jasonpeterstrade.php

 

 

This is not to say that Philly did not do well with the trade.  Peters is a HOFer. Given what we knew at the time, I'd make that trade for the Bills every time. There is just a lot of revisionist history calling it one of the worst trades made by the Bills - and that is flat out wrong. More importantly, even knowing how Peters turned out for the iggles, I'd probably still do the trade. Eric Wood was a warrior for us and we saved tons of cap space in the trade. I have seen articles suggesting we would not have had the playoff drought but for this trade. I disagree with that point of view.

Well, at the time, I was a proponent of paying him in accordance with being a franchise LT, so there’s nothing revisionist about my opinion.

 

There can be no doubt, however, that Buffalo lost the trade. By a lot.

[IgotBILLStopay]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agreed. Peters is a sure fire HoFer. Trading those away because you didn't have a Quarterback (which seems to be the argument here) is nonsensical IMO.

C'mon GB. I normally agree with what you post but this is an exception. In 2008, there was no way of knowing Peters was going to be a surefire HOFer. And I did not ever say that the need for a QB led to the trade - which is what you inferred from my post. All I am saying is that our playoff drought is attributable less to trading away Peters and more to an inability to secure a franchise QB.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, IgotBILLStopay said:

C'mon GB. I normally agree with what you post but this is an exception. In 2008, there was no way of knowing Peters was going to be a surefire HOFer. And I did not ever say that the need for a QB led to the trade - which is what you inferred from my post. All I am saying is that our playoff drought is attributable less to trading away Peters and more to an inability to secure a franchise QB.

 

For sure, but we did know Peters was a top flight left tackle. Trading one of those away is never a good idea and the fact that we never managed to find a franchise QB doesn't make it any less of a bad idea.

[K-9]

Peters had to go. The situation in Buffalo became untenable. No amount of revisionism can change that. 

[FireChans]

6 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I agree.  Peters's value to the Bills was absolutely in trade and getting those picks for him was a steal.  

 

This is the thing about a "HOF LT".  The Browns wasted a better pick on one--and he squandered his career in futility (but...HOF LT!!).  The Eagles, as you pointed out, had a SB winning year with their "HOF LT" in the whirlpool--replaced by a scrub.  The next season, Peters comes back: 9-7, lost in the divisional game.

Is the argument truly that binary?

 

The bottom line is that the Bills held the record for playoff drought from 2000-2017. No one is arguing the Bills were going to be dominant for a decade if they kept Peters. But being that consistently bad to mediocre for that long was due to a culmination of consistently poor personnel decisions like the Peters trade. 

 

As much as Joe Thomas didn’t enjoy a ton of team success, the Browns were able to dedicate resources elsewhere to positions that WEREN’T the most important OL position and probably the third most important position on the offense. 

 

In a vacuum, the Peters situation didn’t matter, because we sucked anyway. But the decision is an absolute microcosm of the problems that Bills era faced, which was letting good players in key positions walk and replacing them with trash. 

2 hours ago, IgotBILLStopay said:

C'mon GB. I normally agree with what you post but this is an exception. In 2008, there was no way of knowing Peters was going to be a surefire HOFer. And I did not ever say that the need for a QB led to the trade - which is what you inferred from my post. All I am saying is that our playoff drought is attributable less to trading away Peters and more to an inability to secure a franchise QB.

 

 

Again, see above. Peters is just another name that added to our playoff drought, among many others.

[auburnbillsbacker]

On 7/14/2020 at 1:40 PM, dollars 2 donuts said:

I think we should have paid him.

 

 

We did and then he wanted more.

[Mr. WEO]

35 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Is the argument truly that binary?

 

The bottom line is that the Bills held the record for playoff drought from 2000-2017. No one is arguing the Bills were going to be dominant for a decade if they kept Peters. But being that consistently bad to mediocre for that long was due to a culmination of consistently poor personnel decisions like the Peters trade. 

 

As much as Joe Thomas didn’t enjoy a ton of team success, the Browns were able to dedicate resources elsewhere to positions that WEREN’T the most important OL position and probably the third most important position on the offense. 

 

In a vacuum, the Peters situation didn’t matter, because we sucked anyway. But the decision is an absolute microcosm of the problems that Bills era faced, which was letting good players in key positions walk and replacing them with trash. 

Again, see above. Peters is just another name that added to our playoff drought, among many others.

The Peters trade was a good move.  As in Cleveland,  having an elite LT was completely useless for a team with so much thirst for playmakers.  With no significant skill position playmakers on Offense,  it’s impossible to credibly argue that LT is the 3rd most important position.  It’s just not.  It’s a Rolls Royce hood ornament on a Chrysler LeBaron

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

The Peters trade was a good move.  As in Cleveland,  having an elite LT was completely useless for a team with so much thirst for playmakers.  With no significant skill position playmakers on Offense,  it’s impossible to credibly argue that LT is the 3rd most important position.  It’s just not.  It’s a Rolls Royce hood ornament on a Chrysler LeBaron

When you say playmakers, you really just mean QB, right?

 

Are you saying that if you were building a team and you didn’t have a QB, but you had a HoF LT, you would trade him and try to draft his replacement or fill his position with scrubs until you found a good QB? 

 

This feels eerily similar to “draft 5 QBs every year because no other position matters.”

 

You have to have someone play LT. It is better to have a good one than a bad one, especially with a young QB. Keeping a great LT under contract while looking for a good QB is better than having a crappy LT under contract while looking for a good QB. That’s pretty much it.

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, FireChans said:

When you say playmakers, you really just mean QB, right?

 

Are you saying that if you were building a team and you didn’t have a QB, but you had a HoF LT, you would trade him and try to draft his replacement or fill his position with scrubs until you found a good QB? 

 

This feels eerily similar to “draft 5 QBs every year because no other position matters.”

 

You have to have someone play LT. It is better to have a good one than a bad one, especially with a young QB. Keeping a great LT under contract while looking for a good QB is better than having a crappy LT under contract while looking for a good QB. That’s pretty much it.

 

I really don't mean just QB, obviously.  So the second bolded is also incorrect.

 

Anyway, having a bad QB (after bad QB) severely lowers the value of the LT to your team (what's there to protect?).  His work product will not add value to the team in regard to success in wins and losses.  It can't, especially of your QB is getting destroyed anyway (see Browns o-lines during Thomas's career).

 

However, his value to other teams (ones with good QBs who need a top LT) is high.  Trade him at his peak and load up on picks so you can draft or trade for a good QB.

 

Josh Allen will do fine with Dawkins (not an elite LT by any stretch).  Would you rather pay for Peters in his prime or, say Michael Thomas to the roster as an aid to Josh's development?  It's the WR and it's not even close.  

 

You don't need elite, you just need a pretty good (Dawkins, potentially).  With the mobility of QBs now and RPO offenses, there's not as much "blind side" to protect as when everyone was under center and dropping back.

 

So to answer your question, if building a team, I would put up for sale the team's HOF LT and start collecting picks that will get me what I need.    And the Eagles had a SB winning season with a "scrub" at LT....and none before or after that one year, with Peters at LT.

[FireChans]

8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I really don't mean just QB, obviously.  So the second bolded is also incorrect.

 

Anyway, having a bad QB (after bad QB) severely lowers the value of the LT to your team (what's there to protect?).  His work product will not add value to the team in regard to success in wins and losses.  It can't, especially of your QB is getting destroyed anyway (see Browns o-lines during Thomas's career).

 

However, his value to other teams (ones with good QBs who need a top LT) is high.  Trade him at his peak and load up on picks so you can draft or trade for a good QB.

 

Josh Allen will do fine with Dawkins (not an elite LT by any stretch).  Would you rather pay for Peters in his prime or, say Michael Thomas to the roster as an aid to Josh's development?  It's the WR and it's not even close.  

 

You don't need elite, you just need a pretty good (Dawkins, potentially).  With the mobility of QBs now and RPO offenses, there's not as much "blind side" to protect as when everyone was under center and dropping back.

 

So to answer your question, if building a team, I would put up for sale the team's HOF LT and start collecting picks that will get me what I need.    And the Eagles had a SB winning season with a "scrub" at LT....and none before or after that one year, with Peters at LT.

Well, the one year the Eagles won a Super Bowl is certainly the only year that matters. They also won without a high paid QB, should the Chiefs let Mahomes walk and search for a scrub backup to have the postseason of his life? Clearly, it worked for the Eagles!

 

Anywho, we traded Peters and used the pick to draft a decent C, who is certainly an inferior player in position importance and talent. So I don’t know how you say, “great move!” If we traded Peters for Matt Stafford, that would be a different story.

 

A bad QB also lowers the value of a good WR. This is such an obvious rebuttal I’m surprised you even tried that argument.

 

Also, we are going to pay Dawkins good money, close to what some of the best LT’s in the game are getting. Because LT’s are important. Everyone in the NFL seems to understand this, it’s just you who does not.

Edited July 15, 2020 by FireChans

[Mr. WEO]

35 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Well, the one year the Eagles won a Super Bowl is certainly the only year that matters. They also won without a high paid QB, should the Chiefs let Mahomes walk and search for a scrub backup to have the postseason of his life? Clearly, it worked for the Eagles!

 

Anywho, we traded Peters and used the pick to draft a decent C, who is certainly an inferior player in position importance and talent. So I don’t know how you say, “great move!” If we traded Peters for Matt Stafford, that would be a different story.

 

A bad QB also lowers the value of a good WR. This is such an obvious rebuttal I’m surprised you even tried that argument.

 

The Eagles won with their backup QB,  as you know.  Even he didn't need a "HOF LT" in front of him.  He did just fine with the scrub.  (talk about an "obvious rebuttal!)

 

The bolded part makes no sense, even as sarcasm.  But I guess I would say "obviously not".  By the way whom is young QB Mahomes's "elite LT"?  

 

Getting such value in that trade was a good move.  Making bad draft picks is always bad--and independent of the value of the trade.  My caveat for the Browns trading Thomas at his prime for top picks is that the Browns are traditionally horrible at day 1 drafting.  

 

You mentioned value to a young QB.  I used Allen as that young QB....because he's a young QB.  HE's not a "bad QB", so an elite WR (as an example) would be at least 1 order of magnitude more valuable to such a QB than any LT.  

 

That was the "obvious" part.....your "obvious rebuttal" seems to have missed that.

 

What they pay Dawkins isn't really part of this discussion.  They certainly won't pay him that much (if they do) because he is an elite LT, clearly he isn't.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The Eagles won with their backup QB,  as you know.  Even he didn't need a "HOF LT" in front of him.  He did just fine with the scrub.  (talk about an "obvious rebuttal!)

 

The bolded part makes no sense, even as sarcasm.  But I guess I would say "obviously not".  By the way whom is young QB Mahomes's "elite LT"?  

 

Getting such value in that trade was a good move.  Making bad draft picks is always bad--and independent of the value of the trade.  My caveat for the Browns trading Thomas at his prime for top picks is that the Browns are traditionally horrible at day 1 drafting.  

 

You mentioned value to a young QB.  I used Allen as that young QB....because he's a young QB.  HE's not a "bad QB", so an elite WR (as an example) would be at least 1 order of magnitude more valuable to such a QB than any LT.  

 

That was the "obvious" part.....your "obvious rebuttal" seems to have missed that.

 

What they pay Dawkins isn't really part of this discussion.  They certainly won't pay him that much (if they do) because he is an elite LT, clearly he isn't.

 

 

Yeah, the point that you missed was that just because a team wins a Super Bowl without a good player, doesn’t mean it isn’t good to have a good player. 

 

Just because a team wins once with backup at QB doesn’t mean you don’t want good QB’s.

[Bill from NYC]

We can (and will) sugar coat it, I mean; this IS a board for Bills Fans. The truth however is that Peters was one of the very best players in the history of this team. We traded him away in his prime and didn't get anything close to adequate compensation because at the time, we were a second rate franchise. Now, the FANS were NOT second rate. No, it was the ownership and management.

 

Peters will be in the Hall of Fame. Rationalizing getting rid of a world class left tackle in his prime is just silly. 

 

Jmo.