Jason Peters signs with Cowboys

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  LT isn't a game changing position.  It's a final piece to put a loaded Offense over the top. Otherwise, it's not gonna help if your skill positions are mediocre or worse. 

 

CB, on the other hand, is an impact position--a potential game changing position with a single play.  A significant reason the Bills didn't make it to the AFCC game last year is because Levi Wallace was too dumb to notice what Kelce was shouting about his coverage (twice) at the end of the game.  I bet Tre wouldn't have let that happen.  

 

Most talented roster in the NFL??  Come on.  They had 1 receiver over 800 yards, no  RB over 800.  Wentz/Foles/Blount/Ertz/Agholor/Jeffries.   Stop....

 

In 2020, Eagles gave up over 60 sacks. The Bears gave up 58 sacks last year (most). The best thing you can say about Peters is that the sacks probably won't be coming from his side--which is good on him I guess.  His absence in 2017 had no impact at all on the Eagles. 

 

 

As usual........when you are wrong you are really wrong.

 

Peters was traded before the rules were drastically altered to protect QB's against more violent hits in the pocket in the 2010 season........they were the only thing between your QB and a crippling blindside hit.

 

So at the time good left tackles were the second highest paid players in the sport behind the QB.

 

They remain one of the 5 elite positions even today.........teams without a good one will trade a fortune to get one.........good ones rarely if ever make it to UFA........and they routinely get picked in the top 5 of drafts.

 

[Mr. WEO]

30 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

As usual........when you are wrong you are really wrong.

 

Peters was traded before the rules were drastically altered to protect QB's against more violent hits in the pocket in the 2010 season........they were the only thing between your QB and a crippling blindside hit.

 

So at the time good left tackles were the second highest paid players in the sport behind the QB.

 

They remain one of the 5 elite positions even today.........teams without a good one will trade a fortune to get one.........good ones rarely if ever make it to UFA........and they routinely get picked in the top 5 of drafts.

 

 

I've said it for years here--it's folly.  How many QBS suffered a season or career ending "crippling hit" from the blindside protected by a non-elite LT?  Is a crippling hit from the blind side more crippling than form the other side?  Lots of GMs making dumb decisions doesn't make the decision less dumb.  Philly (forgetting for a minute your laughable claim they had the most talented roster in the league) is a perfect example of this.  Peters disappeared and the team never noticed. Won their only SB without him.  

 

The Bills absolutely would have been no better (W/L) paying for Peters.  It makes no sense to believe so.  

 

Halapoulivaati Vaitai, who had never played on the blind side, was just as useful as future HOFer Jason Peters. Maybe he will get into the HOF as well....?

 

[Bill from NYC]

20 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Keeping Peters at a premium/market price would have done nothing for "winning" in Buffalo.  How could it?  He's one O-lineman.  It's like sticking Mercedes hood ornament on a Yugo.

 

I can't understand the above. I read it several times and came away with the implication that keeping him would have been wrong beacuse the team was bad.  Sorry, imo this does not justify trading away a GREAT Left Tackle who makes the entire offense better. 

 

Remember WEO, this was a team on which Mr. Wilson could actually dictate who was drafted with ticket selling to be the priority, and Levy who was obsessed with defensive backs even before the pass favoring rule changes. The OL was habitually neglected for decades, dating back to Will Wolford.

 

So, instead of keeping a HOF LT, we traded him for a draft pick which got us a fairly good Eric Wood. I can't come up with a way to rationalize this Bro. 

[John from Riverside]

I was big on bringing in Jason peters to back up I feel like the reserves on our office of line or not that great

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 9/2/2022 at 2:48 PM, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Remember Bledsoe Lurching around the backfield?...

lurching indicates some movement- he was a statue!!

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

3 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

lurching indicates some movement- he was a statue!!

So Bledsoe wasn't Lurch...he was Stosh! 😁

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Bill from NYC said:

I can't understand the above. I read it several times and came away with the implication that keeping him would have been wrong beacuse the team was bad.  Sorry, imo this does not justify trading away a GREAT Left Tackle who makes the entire offense better. 

 

Remember WEO, this was a team on which Mr. Wilson could actually dictate who was drafted with ticket selling to be the priority, and Levy who was obsessed with defensive backs even before the pass favoring rule changes. The OL was habitually neglected for decades, dating back to Will Wolford.

 

So, instead of keeping a HOF LT, we traded him for a draft pick which got us a fairly good Eric Wood. I can't come up with a way to rationalize this Bro. 

 

 

With the QB lineup taht followed his departure--how would one o-lineman make such a measurable difference on a bad team? The Bills absolutely made the right move to trade.  When the best player on your team is not your QB, but an O-lineman another team may covet, you unload him for picks.  I would argue Wood had more of an impact on that Offense in his tenure than Peters would have. 

 

The Eagles had top 10 scoring Offenses with and without him.  They were bottom half with and without him.  Then, when he was gone for over half the season, he was easily replaced and the team reached a level they could not before or after he went out.  During Petersons tenure there, there Offensive performance was all over the place--none of it related to the LT--this should be obvious.

 

Makes the entire Offense better?  Not in Philly (Reid made them better, Kelly did for 2 seasons, Pederson did for 1).  Not in Chicago--they led the league in sacks allowed.  Not in Buffalo--except for his rookie season (where he played in only 5 games--and yet the Offense was ranked 7th in points), the Bills Offense was uniformly awful with Peters at LT.  No different after he left.

 

I guess we can always repeat the old bromides like "an elite LT makes the whole Offense better"--certainly Munoz, Walter Jones and Orlando Pace played on some great Offenses.  But in Peters's case the claim doesn't ring true.  The more perfect example is Joe Thomas--the "anchor" of innumerable horrible Offenses his entire career. They had 10 wins his rookie year and over the next 10 years, they would win more than 5 games 1 time (7, in 2014).   "One of the best LT of all time"----zero impact.  In fact, one could argue he had a negative impact as they picked him over Adrian Peterson (who immediately made the Vikings offense better).  He would have done the same in Cleveland.  

[prissythecat]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

With the QB lineup taht followed his departure--how would one o-lineman make such a measurable difference on a bad team? The Bills absolutely made the right move to trade.  When the best player on your team is not your QB, but an O-lineman another team may covet, you unload him for picks.  I would argue Wood had more of an impact on that Offense in his tenure than Peters would have. 

 

The Eagles had top 10 scoring Offenses with and without him.  They were bottom half with and without him.  Then, when he was gone for over half the season, he was easily replaced and the team reached a level they could not before or after he went out.  During Petersons tenure there, there Offensive performance was all over the place--none of it related to the LT--this should be obvious.

 

Makes the entire Offense better?  Not in Philly (Reid made them better, Kelly did for 2 seasons, Pederson did for 1).  Not in Chicago--they led the league in sacks allowed.  Not in Buffalo--except for his rookie season (where he played in only 5 games--and yet the Offense was ranked 7th in points), the Bills Offense was uniformly awful with Peters at LT.  No different after he left.

 

I guess we can always repeat the old bromides like "an elite LT makes the whole Offense better"--certainly Munoz, Walter Jones and Orlando Pace played on some great Offenses.  But in Peters's case the claim doesn't ring true.  The more perfect example is Joe Thomas--the "anchor" of innumerable horrible Offenses his entire career. They had 10 wins his rookie year and over the next 10 years, they would win more than 5 games 1 time (7, in 2014).   "One of the best LT of all time"----zero impact.  In fact, one could argue he had a negative impact as they picked him over Adrian Peterson (who immediately made the Vikings offense better).  He would have done the same in Cleveland.  

 

but but  Peters was nominated to all those pro bowls and is a future HOF er apparently.   are you saying that the Eagles paid all that money and got no tangible return on their investment lol.   

[BADOLBILZ]

2 minutes ago, prissythecat said:

 

but but  Peters was nominated to all those pro bowls and is a future HOF er apparently.   are you saying that the Eagles paid all that money and got no tangible return on their investment lol.   

 

 

Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith were all made the highest paid players at their positions in the league by the Buffalo Bills in their primes.........they won zero Super Bowls but all reached the HOF...........is that zero tangible return on investment?

 

What keeping and building around star players does is allow you to maintain a winning culture...........they had winning records in 7 of his 11 seasons in Philly and the Eagles did that despite changing coaches several times in Peters tenure there..........three different coaches took them to the playoffs and they actually won a Super Bowl.   

 

Yes Peters was out of that SB game............but his presence as a dominant force on the OL allowed them to cultivate a raw but talented backup rather than having to fill the roster with a low ceiling, high floor vet.    When it was his time, he stepped up.   And Peters was there the whole way helping coach them up.   Unlike many injured players Peters never left the team and his contribution in preparing his OL teammates for those playoffs/SB was well documented in Philly.   They also won that SB without their QB who was having a league MVP type season.   That was a team in a window.........deep and talented.........but also hardened by two years of intense physical training like the league had never seen before under Chip Kelly. 

 

[buffaloboyinATL]

On 9/3/2022 at 1:14 PM, T&C said:

He is not signed.

 

The Cowboys are in "ongoing talks" with free agent LT Jason Peters.

Peters, 40, visited with the team this week and passed a physical. There looks to be momentum towards a deal for Peters, who started 15 games for Chicago last year. Signing Peters would allow the Cowboys to move first-round rookie Tyler Smith inside to open the season.

 

RELATED: Dallas Cowboys
SOURCE: Jordan Schultz on Twitter
Sep 3, 2022, 9:15 AM ET

Why is is taking so long to get him signed? I heard here that he loves football so much that he would play for free.  

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, prissythecat said:

 

but but  Peters was nominated to all those pro bowls and is a future HOF er apparently.   are you saying that the Eagles paid all that money and got no tangible return on their investment lol.   

 

9 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith were all made the highest paid players at their positions in the league by the Buffalo Bills in their primes.........they won zero Super Bowls but all reached the HOF...........is that zero tangible return on investment?

 

What keeping and building around star players does is allow you to maintain a winning culture...........they had winning records in 7 of his 11 seasons in Philly and the Eagles did that despite changing coaches several times in Peters tenure there..........three different coaches took them to the playoffs and they actually won a Super Bowl.   

 

Yes Peters was out of that SB game............but his presence as a dominant force on the OL allowed them to cultivate a raw but talented backup rather than having to fill the roster with a low ceiling, high floor vet.    When it was his time, he stepped up.   And Peters was there the whole way helping coach them up.   Unlike many injured players Peters never left the team and his contribution in preparing his OL teammates for those playoffs/SB was well documented in Philly.   They also won that SB without their QB who was having a league MVP type season.   That was a team in a window.........deep and talented.........but also hardened by two years of intense physical training like the league had never seen before under Chip Kelly. 

 

 

"tangible" in a literal sense, as in "look what Jim/Thurman/Bruce just did to alter the outcome of this game!"

 

The Eagles had a "winning culture" before Peters showed up.  They had made the playoffs 7 of the previous 9 seasons and had won the division  5 times.

 

Peters wasn't just "out of that SB game"---he was out of every game after week 7.  But now your saying his absence wasn't an absence at all---but in fact a "dominant force" as some sort of shadow coach that made it possible for him to be quickly and effectively be replaced by a second year backup who hadn't played the position before.  lol ...I'll give you that I guess, lol.

 

That SB they won with their former Pro Bowl QB--who was actually an MVP (in that SB), not a "MVP type".  

 

And what happened to that hardened, deep and talented team the next year, upon the return of their future HOF LT?  Return to mediocrity on Offense.  

 

And Chipp Kelly was fired 2 years before the 2017 season SB.  His training methods departed with him. 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

"tangible" in a literal sense, as in "look what Jim/Thurman/Bruce just did to alter the outcome of this game!"

 

The Eagles had a "winning culture" before Peters showed up.  They had made the playoffs 7 of the previous 9 seasons and had won the division  5 times.

 

Peters wasn't just "out of that SB game"---he was out of every game after week 7.  But now your saying his absence wasn't an absence at all---but in fact a "dominant force" as some sort of shadow coach that made it possible for him to be quickly and effectively be replaced by a second year backup who hadn't played the position before.  lol ...I'll give you that I guess, lol.

 

That SB they won with their former Pro Bowl QB--who was actually an MVP (in that SB), not a "MVP type".  

 

And what happened to that hardened, deep and talented team the next year, upon the return of their future HOF LT?  Return to mediocrity on Offense.  

 

And Chipp Kelly was fired 2 years before the 2017 season SB.  His training methods departed with him. 

 

 

Notice what happened to Jim/Thurman when Will Wolford left in free agency?    The offense immediately became a shadow of it's prior form.   Two seasons later the OL kept them out of the playoffs altogether.

 

Notice what happened to Bruce in Super Bowls when he had to face outstanding LT's like Jumbo Elliott, Mark Lachey and Marc Tuinei?  Rendered ineffective.

 

Just because you can't put a statistic on a position doesn't mean that a LT isn't making a massive impact on winning and losing.

 

And my point stands about the hard work and habits that carried over from Chip Kelly...........we've seen it time and again where disciplinarians depart.......are replaced by player's coaches and the player's coach reaps the benefits.    Like Wade Phillips taking over for Parcells in Dallas......initially there is an uptick in team performance because the players are happy but also still have the residual habits, conditioning, toughness and discipline left over from the disciplinarian.     Pederson's Wade Phillips-like inattention to detail eventually produced diminishing returns.   

[Bill from NYC]

23 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I guess we can always repeat the old bromides like "an elite LT makes the whole Offense better"--certainly Munoz, Walter Jones and Orlando Pace played on some great Offenses.  But in Peters's case the claim doesn't ring true.  The more perfect example is Joe Thomas--the "anchor" of innumerable horrible Offenses his entire career. They had 10 wins his rookie year and over the next 10 years, they would win more than 5 games 1 time (7, in 2014).   "One of the best LT of all time"----zero impact.  In fact, one could argue he had a negative impact as they picked him over Adrian Peterson (who immediately made the Vikings offense better).  He would have done the same in Cleveland.  

Cleveland is another example of a team with ongoing stupidity. And if the Browns had selected Peterson he would have had a much worse career, especially sans Thomas. Besides WEO, a running back over a great Left tackle? Only a franchise that was managed by idiots or those only thinking in terms of profit would do something this stupid. 

I think that as long time Bills fans, many of us have built up a resistance towards stupid contractual moves and ridiculous draft picks, and defend such idiocy as a reflexive action.  For instance, in 2007 when the Bills were desperate for OL help, the morons in charge drafted Leodis McKelvin with Ryan Clady and Branden Albert sitting there and some folks thought it was OK. Historically, Bills draft choices were dumb to the point of being indefensible and so was the trade of Peters, for whom we obtained a pretty good and sometimes frail center.

Good, solid line play is essential at every level of football. Before the rule changes, hits that would now be considered VERY late were totally legal, so yes, LT was THE 2nd most important position.

One thing that I'm sure we can agree on is how great it is that we lucked into Josh Allen. Now, let's hope that he gets enpogh tools and protection.

GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Notice what happened to Jim/Thurman when Will Wolford left in free agency?    The offense immediately became a shadow of it's prior form.   Two seasons later the OL kept them out of the playoffs altogether.

 

Notice what happened to Bruce in Super Bowls when he had to face outstanding LT's like Jumbo Elliott, Mark Lachey and Marc Tuinei?  Rendered ineffective.

 

Just because you can't put a statistic on a position doesn't mean that a LT isn't making a massive impact on winning and losing.

 

And my point stands about the hard work and habits that carried over from Chip Kelly...........we've seen it time and again where disciplinarians depart.......are replaced by player's coaches and the player's coach reaps the benefits.    Like Wade Phillips taking over for Parcells in Dallas......initially there is an uptick in team performance because the players are happy but also still have the residual habits, conditioning, toughness and discipline left over from the disciplinarian.     Pederson's Wade Phillips-like inattention to detail eventually produced diminishing returns.   

 

Kelly's conditioning program was despised in Philly.  There's no chance it's affect was felt 2 years later with a different coaching staff/methods.  

 

Bills didn't lose SBs because Bruce was neutralized by a LT.

 

17 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Cleveland is another example of a team with ongoing stupidity. And if the Browns had selected Peterson he would have had a much worse career, especially sans Thomas. Besides WEO, a running back over a great Left tackle? Only a franchise that was managed by idiots or those only thinking in terms of profit would do something this stupid. 

I think that as long time Bills fans, many of us have built up a resistance towards stupid contractual moves and ridiculous draft picks, and defend such idiocy as a reflexive action.  For instance, in 2007 when the Bills were desperate for OL help, the morons in charge drafted Leodis McKelvin with Ryan Clady and Branden Albert sitting there and some folks thought it was OK. Historically, Bills draft choices were dumb to the point of being indefensible and so was the trade of Peters, for whom we obtained a pretty good and sometimes frail center.

Good, solid line play is essential at every level of football. Before the rule changes, hits that would now be considered VERY late were totally legal, so yes, LT was THE 2nd most important position.

One thing that I'm sure we can agree on is how great it is that we lucked into Josh Allen. Now, let's hope that he gets enpogh tools and protection.

GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Of course good line play is essential for team success.  Great line play by one guy is not.

 

The Browns Offense would have been better with AP than Thomas---simply because they could not have been any worse than they were with Thomas.  They needed playmakers.  LT isn't a playmaker.   When your Defense sucks, you need to score points.  AP was a generational talent.  The NFL has seen such RBs succeed behind bad O-lines.  Cleveland's O-line was bad even with a "future HOFer" on it, by the way.  

 

All this talk about "rule changes"...no rules have prevented later/dirty/cheap shot hits.  They still happen all the time--only we complain when we disagree with the call.

 

In the past 20 years, despite several rule changes, the number of roughing the passer penalties hasn't changed much. There were 107 called in 2003, a whopping   128 in 2004, same in 2005---yielding a rate of around 0.5 per game.   By 2009, it had dropped down to a mid 1990's level of 0.26.  It didn't get above .45 again until 2018 (all of this encompassed Thomas's entire career, obviously).

 

This isn't about all the bad decisions of the Bills in the past.  This is about one that wasn't bad. When the cupboard is bare, you take the best of what you have and offer it for sale to restock. 

 

 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

47 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Kelly's conditioning program was despised in Philly.  There's no chance it's affect was felt 2 years later with a different coaching staff/methods.  

 

Bills didn't lose SBs because Bruce was neutralized by a LT.

 

 

Of course good line play is essential for team success.  Great line play by one guy is not.

 

The Browns Offense would have been better with AP than Thomas---simply because they could not have been any worse than they were with Thomas.  They needed playmakers.  LT isn't a playmaker.   When your Defense sucks, you need to score points.  AP was a generational talent.  The NFL has seen such RBs succeed behind bad O-lines.  Cleveland's O-line was bad even with a "future HOFer" on it, by the way.  

 

All this talk about "rule changes"...no rules have prevented later/dirty/cheap shot hits.  They still happen all the time--only we complain when we disagree with the call.

 

In the past 20 years, despite several rule changes, the number of roughing the passer penalties hasn't changed much. There were 107 called in 2003, a whopping   128 in 2004, same in 2005---yielding a rate of around 0.5 per game.   By 2009, it had dropped down to a mid 1990's level of 0.26.  It didn't get above .45 again until 2018 (all of this encompassed Thomas's entire career, obviously).

 

This isn't about all the bad decisions of the Bills in the past.  This is about one that wasn't bad. When the cupboard is bare, you take the best of what you have and offer it for sale to restock. 

 

 

 

 

Good strength and conditioning habits carry over.    And the intense work done over a period like the Eagles under Kelly has long term residual effects.   Weights lifted today and good conditioning done today pays off YEARS later.........there has been a good deal of study on this fact, as you should know since you fancy yourself an medical expert.   So still being in better shape 18 months after his firing than ever prior to Kelly's arrival is to be expected.

 

You do realize that roughing the passer penalties don't correlate to the violence of the contact to QB's over that period, right?   Because the drastic rules "re-interpretations" in 2010 basically made it illegal to do anything but form tackle a QB or smack the ball out of his hands.    No hits at the knees or lower.   No hits to the shoulder/head area.   No contact with helmet.  

 

As I said at the time...........any thought that trading a young LT for a single LATE first round pick and a day 3 pick was "restocking the cupboard" was ridiculous.    And my prediction that both players drafted would be out of the league LONG before Peters was..........well, how did that work out?   Wood's been out of the league 5 years now.........that's how long Peters was in the league when the Bills traded him.   So it wasn't even f*cking close.   Peters lasted 10 years longer than E Wood.  That's the way it works with GREAT players instead of good ones.    They not only play better but they can play longer because of their superior talent.    Implying that the Bills didn't end up with egg on their face for that stupid trade is one of your dumber takes ever.   At least you aren't insisting he isn't a HOF'er anymore.........that was even dumber.

 

 

[Rico]

On 9/4/2022 at 7:33 AM, Bill from NYC said:

I can't understand the above. I read it several times and came away with the implication that keeping him would have been wrong beacuse the team was bad.  Sorry, imo this does not justify trading away a GREAT Left Tackle who makes the entire offense better. 

 

Remember WEO, this was a team on which Mr. Wilson could actually dictate who was drafted with ticket selling to be the priority, and Levy who was obsessed with defensive backs even before the pass favoring rule changes. The OL was habitually neglected for decades, dating back to Will Wolford.

 

So, instead of keeping a HOF LT, we traded him for a draft pick which got us a fairly good Eric Wood. I can't come up with a way to rationalize this Bro. 

Mediocre Eric Wood for many years before he became fairly good. 
 

A complete blunder of a trade.

[Doc]

The decision to trade him wasn't the mistake: it was the decision not to give him $10M/year as soon as he demanded it, just 2 years after they gave him a new contract (that they didn't have to at the time).  Once that happened, he made his decision to leave and they had no choice but to trade him. 

 

Would he have made an appreciable difference in the W-L column?  Probably not.  But I'd rather have paid a HOF'er like him than some of the stiffs they did pay.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Good strength and conditioning habits carry over.    And the intense work done over a period like the Eagles under Kelly has long term residual effects.   Weights lifted today and good conditioning done today pays off YEARS later.........there has been a good deal of study on this fact, as you should know since you fancy yourself an medical expert.   So still being in better shape 18 months after his firing than ever prior to Kelly's arrival is to be expected.

 

You do realize that roughing the passer penalties don't correlate to the violence of the contact to QB's over that period, right?   Because the drastic rules "re-interpretations" in 2010 basically made it illegal to do anything but form tackle a QB or smack the ball out of his hands.    No hits at the knees or lower.   No hits to the shoulder/head area.   No contact with helmet.  

 

As I said at the time...........any thought that trading a young LT for a single LATE first round pick and a day 3 pick was "restocking the cupboard" was ridiculous.    And my prediction that both players drafted would be out of the league LONG before Peters was..........well, how did that work out?   Wood's been out of the league 5 years now.........that's how long Peters was in the league when the Bills traded him.   So it wasn't even f*cking close.   Peters lasted 10 years longer than E Wood.  That's the way it works with GREAT players instead of good ones.    They not only play better but they can play longer because of their superior talent.    Implying that the Bills didn't end up with egg on their face for that stupid trade is one of your dumber takes ever.   At least you aren't insisting he isn't a HOF'er anymore.........that was even dumber.

 

 

 

I'm not an expert in bulls---t medicine.  Despite Kelly's "conditioning program" they stunk the last 2 of his 3 seasons.  But somehow, 2 years after he was gone, this magical conditioning was the reason for the Eagles to win a SB without the aid of their Future Hall Of Fame LT?  lol come on....you are redefining "muscle memory"...

 

If penalties made it "illegal" to do anything but form tackle the QB, you would have seen a huge increase in called penalties immediately after the rule changes.  Not so.  As far as the changes--they predate "2010" by over a decade:  1995 was when the "throwing down/full weight" on the QB rule started. 2002 was when the no helmet to helmet on the QB started. 2006 was when the "low hit on the QB" came into play.  The "reinterpretation in 2010" did not result in a jump in penalties called--there were 100, compared with 121 in 2005.  So you're way off with you claim.

 

The "great" players are so because they last a lot longer than the "good" ones?  They are going to have to kick a lot of guys out the HOF then....

 

Yes, Peters lasted a long time---racking up Pro Bowl nods/padding his resume on mediocre Offenses for 6 of the past 7 years.  The one exception is where they became a top 3 in scoring and won a SB with him off the active roster.  You are making a very powerful case lol.

[without a drought]

Traded over 13 years ago and now a member of the Cowboys practiced squad. I can see how this is a hot Bills topic days before the Bills season opens.

[Bill from NYC]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I'm not an expert in bulls---t medicine.  Despite Kelly's "conditioning program" they stunk the last 2 of his 3 seasons.  But somehow, 2 years after he was gone, this magical conditioning was the reason for the Eagles to win a SB without the aid of their Future Hall Of Fame LT?  lol come on....you are redefining "muscle memory"...

 

If penalties made it "illegal" to do anything but form tackle the QB, you would have seen a huge increase in called penalties immediately after the rule changes.  Not so.  As far as the changes--they predate "2010" by over a decade:  1995 was when the "throwing down/full weight" on the QB rule started. 2002 was when the no helmet to helmet on the QB started. 2006 was when the "low hit on the QB" came into play.  The "reinterpretation in 2010" did not result in a jump in penalties called--there were 100, compared with 121 in 2005.  So you're way off with you claim.

 

The "great" players are so because they last a lot longer than the "good" ones?  They are going to have to kick a lot of guys out the HOF then....

 

Yes, Peters lasted a long time---racking up Pro Bowl nods/padding his resume on mediocre Offenses for 6 of the past 7 years.  The one exception is where they became a top 3 in scoring and won a SB with him off the active roster.  You are making a very powerful case lol.

Years ago, owners would slip defenders money to pay fines for late hits. Now, if they are called the players MUST pay it themselves because the penalties to the owners would be severe. The DEs are loathe to pay these fines and are more careful and the numbers probably reflect this.

 

It shoud also be noted that most DEs are faster now and more agile. As you know, they too are taken in the top 5. I think that if Edge Rusher Will Anderson stays healthy he will be the first player selected next year.  Teams (especially the Bills) need a good to great LT to protect their most important player. 

 

The Jets btw are another pathetic, idiotic franchise. They took a corner from a group of 5 school at #4 (with Evan Neal sitting there mind you), and just lost their left tackle. I am at a complete loss to understand how professional football people could be so inept. 

 

I rank the Jason Taylor trade as an epic disaster and a strikingly dumb move, even for the Bills of old. However this is just my (however strong) opinion, and thanks for the dialogue.