Scraps Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 If Gibson cannot beat out a converted TE for the RT position, he does not belong on this team. I doubt Jauron brought him in to backup Peters. I think he had intended to get a real RT, and not we are stuck with a TE who got moved into the RT position out of the lack of depth. 751469[/snapback] Isn't Gibson making vet minimum? If so, then if he earns a starting spot, the Bills got a bargain. If he simply provides quality depth, something sorely lacking on this team, the Bills still got a bargain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I am wrong....Peppers plays LDE....IMHO I think Peters is average...when the season starts we shall see. I am less hung up on converted TE, then he was converted from TE because the Bills lacked depth at RT last season. I knew MW would struggle because he played LT in college and the RT was different footwork. I think Peters does not have the pass blocking footwork. He developed a TE mentality of run blocking footwork...that is all...we can agree to disagree. 751522[/snapback] Wrong again. MW played RT in college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Wrong again. MW played RT in college. 751532[/snapback] Wrong twice...three times a charm? Thought the Bills converted him...but now that I think about it, you are correct, because I was pissed that TD used a 4th overall on a RT....yikes...old age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Wrong twice...three times a charm? Thought the Bills converted him...but now that I think about it, you are correct, because I was pissed that TD used a 4th overall on a RT....yikes...old age 751535[/snapback] Gives one little confidence in that company advertised in your sig line, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Gives one little confidence in that company advertised in your sig line, eh? 751537[/snapback] Nah....my company and my professional work is totally different than opining on the Buffalo Bills....but I can see how one can confuse it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Everyone else has covered the "LT in college part" We DID have depth at RT last season....the problem is that when you pick a top 5 OT in the draft all of your eggs are in that basket.....Peters was a converted TE so they were bringing him along very slowly... It it looks like it is working out well for us....I like Peters play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Wrong twice...three times a charm? Thought the Bills converted him...but now that I think about it, you are correct, because I was pissed that TD used a 4th overall on a RT....yikes...old age 751535[/snapback] Actually, the reason that Peters wasn't drafted was because teams didn't know if he was going to be a tight end OR an offensive lineman. They didn't know his best position and for a couple years his college team didn't even have a TE coach, so he didn't get the best instruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Actually, the reason that Peters wasn't drafted was because teams didn't know if he was going to be a tight end OR an offensive lineman. They didn't know his best position and for a couple years his college team didn't even have a TE coach, so he didn't get the best instruction. 751545[/snapback] I'd have to belive that numerous clubs have slapped themselves on the forehead for not taking a look at UDFA Peters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I'd have to belive that numerous clubs have slapped themselves on the forehead for not taking a look at UDFA Peters... 751568[/snapback] Remeber he was cut by the Bills and put on their PS. All teams had several chances to claim him..none did. Maybe you are all correct that the Bills patience will pay off....we shall see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I am wrong....Peppers plays LDE....IMHO I think Peters is average...when the season starts we shall see. I am less hung up on converted TE, then he was converted from TE because the Bills lacked depth at RT last season. I knew MW would struggle because he played LT in college and the RT was different footwork. I think Peters does not have the pass blocking footwork. He developed a TE mentality of run blocking footwork...that is all...we can agree to disagree. 751522[/snapback] As far as the footwork, that is what McNally attributes as one of his best assets. McNally has said he is the most athletic and nimble on his feet OL he has coached possibly ever. The technicalities of having your feet in the right position can and is being taught, but the athletic ability to move his feet is his strong suit. I know people flame eachother for combine stats but a 4.9 40 for a 330 pound tackle is impressive, his athleticism is top notch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Very serious....I am not impressed with Peters at RT. He is an excellent run blocker, but Julius Peppers made that boy look like a turnstile on pass plays. 751481[/snapback] News flash ... Peppers makes lots of good tackles look bad. Most tackles get help with Peppers. Lets's not forget that it was the first game of pre-season and Peters (who has less than one year at the position) is learning a new system. There are many tackles that are converted tight ends. In the Bills history I can think of Paul Costa in the 60's, Paul Seymour in the 70's, just to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 (edited) Remeber he was cut by the Bills and put on their PS. All teams had several chances to claim him..none did. Maybe you are all correct that the Bills patience will pay off....we shall see. 751571[/snapback] Yes, that's so. If memory serves, he was scooped back up in a few days and put on the PS. I think the patience has paid off, to a fair degree. Average or not, the fellow is on the starting 5 of an NFL club. In these days when personnel types crunch numbers that seemingly tell them that this chap is the best hire - if this or that criterion is not met, forget that other one, he's "de-selected" - one can with fair frequency end up being the buying of the shiny toy that then turns smelly when in the fold. It's useful to judge the man, not just the tools. Tools and skills can be acquired afterwards... Edited August 25, 2006 by stuckincincy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 There are many tackles that are converted tight ends. In the Bills history I can think of Paul Costa in the 60's, Paul Seymour in the 70's, just to name a few. Actually Seymour was the other way around. He played T in college, & from day 1 was a TE for the Bills. (Which w/ the game play at the time, our TEs of recent years would be considered prolific rcvrs, so he was essentially a 3rd T.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 In these days when personnel types crunch numbers that seemingly tell them that this chap is the best hire - if this or that criterion is not met, forget that other one, he's "de-selected" - can with fair frequency end up being the buying of the shiny toy that then turns smelly when in the fold. 751586[/snapback] Pardon me? I don't usually like to post grammar-police type comments, but I cannot understand this "sentence." Peters is a shiny toy, or smelly toy? ...or shiny toy tha may turn smelly? I really don't know if this is what you're saying, but we found a starter we signed to a long term contract without giving up a draft pick or getting into a FA bidding-war. Good job front office! Find us some more shiny, stink-resistent toys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Pardon me? I don't usually like to post grammar-police type comments, but I cannot understand this "sentence." Peters is a shiny toy, or smelly toy? ...or shiny toy tha may turn smelly? I really don't know if this is what you're saying, but we found a starter we signed to a long term contract without giving up a draft pick or getting into a FA bidding-war. Good job front office! Find us some more shiny, stink-resistent toys. 751616[/snapback] Ah, yes you are right...I since edited and added "one" before the word "can". I didn't think my sentence made much sense, either! Mea culpa! The idea was that the conventional wisdom can fail. The fellow that shines like the sun (e.g MW) ends up stinking like yesterday's trash after he gets hired. Hire the man, not the pieces of paper so to speak. Peters was a smelly toy (not drafted) that upon furthur review outside of the "rules of hiring", turned to have a glimmer after all. So yes, good job front office. Did I do better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Ah, yes you are right...I since edited and added "one" before the word "can". I didn't think my sentence made much sense, either! Mea culpa! The idea was that the conventional wisdom can fail. The fellow that shines like the sun ends up stinking like yesterday's trash after he gets hired. Hire the man, not the pieces of paper so to speak. Peters was a smelly toy (not drafted) that upon furthur review outside of the "rules of hiring", turned to have a glimmer after all. So yes, good job front office. Did I do better? 751628[/snapback] Much better. I get it, and strongly agree. I'm so glad you didn't really want to talk about Peters' smelly folds or whatever.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I'm so glad you didn't really want to talk about Peters' smelly folds or whatever.... 751635[/snapback] No!!! Never!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitnbills Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I am wrong....Peppers plays LDE....IMHO I think Peters is average...when the season starts we shall see. I am less hung up on converted TE, then he was converted from TE because the Bills lacked depth at RT last season. I knew MW would struggle because he played LT in college and the RT was different footwork. I think Peters does not have the pass blocking footwork. He developed a TE mentality of run blocking footwork...that is all...we can agree to disagree. 751522[/snapback] Why do you feel this way? He only played two years of TE in college. He's actually played more RT than TE according to this. Left Arkansas after his junior season…played in a total of 36 games in three years, catching 28 passes for 300 yards and four touchdowns…in 2003, All-Southeastern Conference second team choice by the league's media…started every game at tight end, ranking third on the team with 21 receptions for 218 yards and four touchdowns…delivered 61 knockdowns/key blocks…played in thirteen games, starting twelve contests in 2002…finished with four receptions for 37 yards…in 2001, started three games while playing in 10…spent the first half of the season as a reserve defensive end and tackle, moving to tight end for the Auburn contest…redshirted in 2000, spending the season as a scout team defensive lineman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 hes fat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl Bills Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I know people flame eachother for combine stats but a 4.9 40 for a 330 pound tackle is impressive, his athleticism is top notch. A 4.9 is really impressive for a man that size but a 4.78 is even more impressive and that is what Peters ran at the combine if I'm not mistaken. If you want to see what that gets you, go back and watch the Lee Evans reverse in the 2nd Jets game. Peters is trucking it down the field, leading the way and knocking Jets on their asses. In fact that game is a good example of what he'll be capable in the coming years if he can continue to develop; he dominated that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts