uticaclub Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 it would be so hard to find another LT, that will give up the most sacks for his position in only 13 games.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Huh? I never said it did... You IMPLIED that it had no effect by stating he only had 1 good year.
Alphadawg7 Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 You're mistaking production for talent. (I don't mean this in a rude way) Are you a pro scout who studies lineman and film on Peters? The reason I ask is simple...If you are not some kind of pro scout with film study on him, then you are making your claims of talent based on production too. So, your comment about mistaking production for talent can be flipped to say that you too are mistaking production for talent...you are basing your "talent" claims on the "production" he put up in 2007, because he didnt show elite talent before that year or after that year...
VABills Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Folks, neither Super Bowl team had a pro bowl LT. Who cares?
Fingon Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Folks, neither Super Bowl team had a pro bowl LT. Who cares? Yeah, but the cards lost the super bowl because of their LT.
Alphadawg7 Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 You IMPLIED that it had no effect by stating he only had 1 good year. Do you think he has earned the contract he wants? If not, and he doesnt get it, then he likely holds out again which holds us back once again...
VABills Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Yeah, but the cards lost the super bowl because of their LT. No they didn't. They lost it because of a great catch by the Pitts WR.
Fingon Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 No they didn't. They lost it because of a great catch by the Pitts WR. Gandy got absolutely abused by Harrison, and if the cards had a decent LT the game would have been completely different.
VABills Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Gandy got absolutely abused by Harrison, and if the cards had a decent LT the game would have been completely different. No it wouldn't have. And abused you mean the only 2 sacks coming from a blitzing LB that wasn't Gandys responsibility?
cåblelady Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Gandy got absolutely abused by Harrison The Buffalo curse continues.................
OrangeJuiceSimpson Posted March 10, 2009 Author Posted March 10, 2009 No they didn't. They lost it because of a great catch by the Pitts WR. Wasn't it Mike Gandy who blew the coverage?
Fingon Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 No it wouldn't have. And abused you mean the only 2 sacks coming from a blitzing LB that wasn't Gandys responsibility? Were you watching the game i was watching? Gandy had multiple holding penalties, and Harrison blew right by him many times.
K-Gun10 Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 I would be so friggin pissed if we traded him for a draft pick. Just imagine, we trade a proven product for 1st round unknown tackle. I don't like this Ya but what else could we get for him i would love a first rounder the tackle postion is deep in this draft.
ans4e64 Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 because he didnt show elite talent before that year or after that year... You couldn't be more wrong. Do you know what talent is? He showed he could be an OT since he was playing tight end in college at Arkansas. Why do you think the Bills took him and developed him into a LT? Because they saw a talent that he had for the position. They saw his raw talent and groomed his skills to fine tune his technique and develop what they saw. Are you a pro scout who studies lineman and film on Peters? The reason I ask is simple...If you are not some kind of pro scout with film study on him, then you are making your claims of talent based on production too. There isn't one Buffalo Bills fan who watches games that can say that Jason Peters doesn't have talent. You find me one. Are all of those fans scouts? Nope. It doesn't matter how badly Peters plays, or what his production is like, he has talent and that will never change. A lot of people have talent but suck, but that isn't the same as Peters. He has played 2 full seasons at LT. One of them, he was the best, or at least top 3, LT's in the entire league. The second, he got a late start to the season and underperformed. If you are willing to give up on a Pro Bowl player who underperformed for one season you ought to join the fans of the Detroit Lions.
lets_go_bills Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 The Eagles are poised to do something. Whether that's go after Boldin, Burress or Peters, who knows. But the reality is the Eagles have $40M in cap space and 12 draft picks. They're up to something...
OrangeJuiceSimpson Posted March 10, 2009 Author Posted March 10, 2009 The Eagles are poised to do something. Whether that's go after Boldin, Burress or Peters, who knows. But the reality is the Eagles have $40M in cap space and 12 draft picks. They're up to something... The Bills just might be up to something too. It's been pretty quite since the T.O. signing.
Fingon Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 The Bills just might be up to something too. It's been pretty quite since the T.O. signing. the entire NFL has been pretty quiet. There are a lot of good FA's still on the market.
cåblelady Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 The second, he got a late start to the season and underperformed. ....................and missed the Pro Bowl.
BuffOrange Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 What makes him a franchise LT? Because in one of his 5 years (2007) he put up a great season? He followed it up with a terrible season for a player of his so called caliber...lets look at the facts... Bills gave him a new contract based on his much improved performance... Then he goes out and "outplays" that contract in the first year of the deal... Now he holds out for a contract to be the highest paid OL in the league even though he just got a new deal... Comes back and puts up a season where he severly regresses and gives up double digit sacks, one not worthy of his existing deal, let alone the deal he wants... So, what makes him a franchise LT? His name or his play on the field? Because if you go off his on field play, he was severly beaten many times last year and was no where near the player he was in 2007. He has a lot of question marks still, especially after putting up a lame season in a year he is playing to get a contract to be highest paid OL in the league... If he is here, great, I hope he redeems himself. But, I for one don't think we should give him the contract HE wants because he has NOT earned it...and if is going to hold out for it, then we are best served trading him, especially if we can get extra 1st round draft picks, and get some young guys in here right at the start of camp. Just my 2 cents... I just think he's a franchise LT because I regurgitate everything ESPN tells me. I mean lets face it - that's the smug attitude that's common among everyone who doesn't like the guy. It's like all the mouth-breathers who insisted McGahee was a lousy blocker (which is ironic since that's the one thing he does well) because they happened to see a replay of the missed block vs. the Jets 3 years ago. Who was our LT before '07? It was a revolving door of futility. For the first time since Kelly retired, OL isn't a dire priority and not because it's the first time we have holes elsewhere. If you want to believe that year was the aberration then ok I guess, but don't act like the burden of proof is on somebody who wants to re-sign a good player at a vital position. That Andy Reid is interested tells me a lot by itself, since aside from Winston Justice he has a pretty good track record in his 10 years of showing he knows what a good OLman looks like. But you don't like him because he held out for $; I get it.
Steely Dan Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 1 year in 5 was at the talent level you speak of, and it wasnt 2008. So how do you know 2007 wasnt a fluke? I can name plenty of players who had amazing single seasons, even one or two, just to be mediocre or worse the rest of their career. There are still a lot of quesiton marks around Peters in my mind...it doesnt help in a year he was playing for a huge contract (2008) following a hold out, he put up one of his worst seasons... So to make the claim that even 5 first rounders wouldnt be worth it is insane, and to say no Tackles in the draft will ever be as good as our guy who gave up double digit sacks in a year he is playing for big dollars is a bit bold IMO...espeially about a guy who doesnt have a history of great season, just one, and it was in 07... How do you know 2008 wasn't just a bad year and that he won't bounce back? I can name plenty of players that have a down year and then come back.
Recommended Posts