VABills Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 The Cards lost the super bowl because of their LT. He had multiple holding penalties, and was abused all night by Harrison. The SB would have been MUCH different if Gandy didn't allow constant pressure on Warner. He gave up no sacks and had 3 holding penalties. He also did well enough that his QB threw for 400 yards. Oh and did I mention he blocked well enough that they made the playoffs and went to the super bowl? What a concept. Of course Peters gave up the most sacks of all the LT's in the league and he only played in what 11 games maybe? that's pretty sad.
BillsNYC Posted April 1, 2009 Author Posted April 1, 2009 Bill, that pretty much sums it up as well as anyone can. Why thank you! I love that there's 20 threads on this topic yet they all spin off in their own directions.
BillsGuyInMalta Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I love that there's 20 threads on this topic yet they all spin off in their own directions. No, YOU take your damn jacket back!
Fingon Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 He gave up no sacks and had 3 holding penalties. He also did well enough that his QB threw for 400 yards. Oh and did I mention he blocked well enough that they made the playoffs and went to the super bowl? What a concept. Of course Peters gave up the most sacks of all the LT's in the league and he only played in what 11 games maybe? that's pretty sad. And if Gandy had actually played well? Warner might have thrown for 500+ yards, or at least been much more efficient. The fact is that Gandy was absolutely abused, and Warner was pressured multiple times. His piss-poor play most certainly cost the Cardinals points.
Rockinon Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 i don't understand why the Bills don't pay him. Because he is still obligated by the contract he signed. They are trying to negotiate but he wants to be the highest paid LT in the whole NFL. As a businessman I would have a problem with his demands too...especially after his long hold-out last year and poor performance.
VABills Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 And if Gandy had actually played well? Warner might have thrown for 500+ yards, or at least been much more efficient. The fact is that Gandy was absolutely abused, and Warner was pressured multiple times. His piss-poor play most certainly cost the Cardinals points. That's your opinion. Of course if it wasn'tfor a great reception in the endzone, you'd be singing the praises and whining that Gandy was cut. Again, even if Peters is above average for a LT, which in my opinion he isn't, putting that much cap space in any one player is idiotic, and even more so for a guy who can't stay on the field for 16 games, and shown he can get a bad attitude and want a new contract at the blink of an eye.
The Dean Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Because he is still obligated by the contract he signed. No matter how you fell about that, how much that bothers you, it's a dead issue, more or less/ The Bills understand that isn't an appropriate contract for a starting LT. Maybe you should arrive at that conclusion, too. The absolute worst case scenario, for all involved, is if Peters stays with the Bills and doesn't get a new contract.
BillsNYC Posted April 1, 2009 Author Posted April 1, 2009 No, YOU take your damn jacket back! I need help on that one brother.
The Dean Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 That's your opinion. Of course if it wasn'tfor a great reception in the endzone, you'd be singing the praises and whining that Gandy was cut. Again, even if Peters is above average for a LT, which in my opinion he isn't, putting that much cap space in any one player is idiotic, and even more so for a guy who can't stay on the field for 16 games, and shown he can get a bad attitude and want a new contract at the blink of an eye. Gandy sucked in the Super Bowl. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Hell, Gandy knows it. Why are you ever arguing about it?
LynchMob23 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Because he is still obligated by the contract he signed. They are trying to negotiate but he wants to be the highest paid LT in the whole NFL. As a businessman I would have a problem with his demands too...especially after his long hold-out last year and poor performance. I think the difference for Jason is that when Walter Jones did it, he wound up being phenomenal every year after a holdout. Same thing with Pace. But since he's still learning, despite his freakish talents, he retarded his growth - because we all know if he had had a season where he allowed for instance 2 sacks he'd throw that in their face. Instead, he can say, "well if you didn't make me hold out I would have been in shape." To be honest, it may have been cheaper to give him what he wanted then (8 mil) than now. But, after Gross' contract, who's to say he wouldn't pull a Bruce and hold out again? Also, think about some of the stories that have come out involving other Bills holdouts - Cookie, Bruce, etc. At the end of the day, Ralph said, "I'll pay him" and left it at that. The fact that Ralph hasn't said that...yet...is telling as well.
Magox Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Gandy sucked in the Super Bowl. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Hell, Gandy knows it. Why are you ever arguing about it? As God as my witness, I remember thinking to myself, how glad I was Gandy wasn't a Bill anymore. He absolutely sucked in a big way that game. As close as that game was, and the amount of times he was abused, there is little doubt in my view, that if they had a half way decent LT they would of won that game.
VABills Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Gandy sucked in the Super Bowl. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Hell, Gandy knows it. Why are you ever arguing about it? He sucked, yet he gave up no sacks to the defensive player of the year in the NFL. If I owned a team and he gave up no sacks to the NFL DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR and allowed my Qb to throw for 400 yards, I'd be pretty !@#$ing happy with his performance.
The Dean Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 He sucked, yet he gave up no sacks to the defensive player of the year in the NFL. If I owned a team and he gave up no sacks to the NFL DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR and allowed my Qb to throw for 400 yards, I'd be pretty !@#$ing happy with his performance. Your obsession with sacks, as seemingly the only measure of a Tackle's worth, is quite interesting. It's as if you just started watching football, or something.
Rockinon Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I think the difference for Jason is that when Walter Jones did it, he wound up being phenomenal every year after a holdout. Same thing with Pace. But since he's still learning, despite his freakish talents, he retarded his growth - because we all know if he had had a season where he allowed for instance 2 sacks he'd throw that in their face. Instead, he can say, "well if you didn't make me hold out I would have been in shape." To be honest, it may have been cheaper to give him what he wanted then (8 mil) than now. But, after Gross' contract, who's to say he wouldn't pull a Bruce and hold out again? Also, think about some of the stories that have come out involving other Bills holdouts - Cookie, Bruce, etc. At the end of the day, Ralph said, "I'll pay him" and left it at that. The fact that Ralph hasn't said that...yet...is telling as well. Insiteful, but I think that holding out when you still have 3 years on a contract is very foolish. I think a contract will happen but it had damn well better be very heavy on incentives otherwise he doesn't get paid the big bucks. No way would I give that much guarenteed money away.
Magox Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Your obsession with sacks, as seemingly the only measure of a Tackle's worth, is quite interesting. It's as if you just started watching football, or something. the day he said that Marshawn Lynch was the 5th best rb in the AFC East, it was all downhill from there
VABills Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Your obsession with sacks, as seemingly the only measure of a Tackle's worth, is quite interesting. It's as if you just started watching football, or something. And the fact that you seem to think a LT is supposed to be perfect against the NFL DEFENSIVE PLAYER of the year is idiotic.
The Dean Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 And the fact that you seem to think a LT is supposed to be perfect against the NFL DEFENSIVE PLAYER of the year is idiotic. Where did I suggest he should be perfect? I simply noted that he sucked.
H2o Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 If the Eagles offered me a 1st and a 3rd for Peters right now, I'd take it. I'd then draft in the first three rounds: 1a) Brandon Pettigrew, TE out of Oklahoma State 1b) Andre Smith, OT out of Alabama 2) Clint Sintim, OLB out of Virginia 3a) Herman Johnson, OG out of LSU 3b) Lawrence Sidbury, DE out of Richmond I'd draft: 1a. Michael Oher / OT / Ole Miss 1b. Michael Johnson / DE / Georgia Tech 2. Jared Cook / TE / South Carolina 3a. Eric Wood / C / Louisville 3b. Marcus Freeman / LB / Ohio St.
Pirate Angel Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 1) He had a down year last year 2) He sabotaged the team by not only holding out, but refusing to even talk about the situation 3) He's missed games the last two years due to injury 4) Allowed 11.5 sacks last season 5) Appears to be driven by money, not winning 6) Is an undrafted TE 7) The Bills are more than one player away from playoffs 8) Only one good season 9) Bills got burned by Dockery 10) No guarantee he'll return to form Not saying they shouldn't pay him, but those reasons are enough to make the Bills not want to make him the highest paid tackle and spend 70 million dollars on him. 11) His heart and desire have been questioned since college. The Bills organization is afraid that if they pay him he will turn into a Mike Williams. He somewhat confirmed this when he returned last year out of shape.
Steely Dan Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 That's nice he's a receiver. Signing Eric Moulds back in the day was great as well. You dont build a team around a receiver. We've still let far too many good players go. You realize we went from having a defense consisting of Spikes/Fletcher/Crowell/Nate Clements/Antoine Winfield/Pat Williams/Sam Adams/Ron Edwards/Jabari Greer. Granted I realize Winfield didnt play with all these people, and Spikes injury. Although one could argue he'd still be an upgrade to what we currently have. We let all these people go and did nothing but fill self created holes. The DT position wasnt filled until trading for Stroud who's on the wrong side of 30, with no depth to speak of. LB is a mess, and countless picks spent on secondary players, but hey "We kept Lee Evans" Stroud was 29 when they traded for him and he's 30 now. Why thank you! I love that there's 20 threads on this topic yet they all spin off in their own directions. I like Ben and Jerry's Cinnamon Buns Ice Cream. Insiteful, but I think that holding out when you still have 3 years on a contract is very foolish. I think a contract will happen but it had damn well better be very heavy on incentives otherwise he doesn't get paid the big bucks. No way would I give that much guarenteed money away. I agree with the incentive stuff. Especially for every sack allowed. The Bills QB is very brittle and they need a great LT.
Recommended Posts