Thurman#1 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 The correct number is NOT 5. Every LT gets credited with sacks they probably shouldn't be, not just Peters. There is not some league-wide conspiracy to make him look bad, he just sucked balls last year. There is a reason there is no official stat for sacks against OLs. The reason is that it often comes down to guesswork. The number may not have been five, but it was somewhere between about four and six. Every LT gets credited ...? Again, there is NO SUCH THING as this stat. The only people who know how many for sure are the coaching staff of the team. There is no way to be sure of what you are saying. None. "There is no league-wide conspiracy," you say? Well, you got one thing right. There is just one doofus who had no connection with the team, the league, or anything at all except maybe his mommy or the local pre-school. He didn't seem to put off the Eagles or the Giants, who were also interested. And both teams are NFL class, unlike this one for the last ten years. The only reason this number has been quoted and used is that it fits conveniently into what the Peters-haters believe. In 2007, the Bills said that Peters was responsible for one half of one sack. But none of the Peters-haters ever seem to quote that one, despite the fact that unlike the idiotic one, it comes from a good source, people who know who, when and where Peters was supposed to block on each play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Dude, you are just stupid. I am just so sick of listening to you rant about how great Peters was. Did you get to watch even one Bills game living in South Georgia? Peters was AWFUL last year. Say it again!! He was beaten several times in EVERY game he played last year. Langston Walker or whoever plays LT this coming season will more than adequately replace him. The Bills are not cheap. Was Pittsburg cheap to let Alan Faneca go to the Jets? Is every team cheap for not signing everyone of their own free agents? I dont' think so!! So just give it a rest and try and look at the big picture of the situation. Yeah, I guess this is why the Eagles paid him $10 mill/year. Because he was bad. The Eagles. A team unlike the Bills in that they consistently, year after year, put a very good OL on the field. The Eagles are paying him $10 mill on top of trading three picks for him. Yeah, he probably sucks. It's pretty obvious that you hatred has blinded you. I suspect that after has been a Pro-Bowler for eight or ten years and the Eagles have continuously put up excellent running games and given up few sacks, you will still, years later, be trying to justify it. I can hear you "Yeah, it's the other four guys. Peters sucks, and it's easy to get to the Pro Bowl and yadda yadda yadda." Whatever. Go on and believe whatever you want. It won't change that this was a very very bad deal for the Buffalo Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I didn't say he IS as bust. That doesn't even make sense. I think he WILL be a bust. Your rite, I'm wrong. You said he screams bust. Now I see the truth of your statement. Yet you find a way to rationalize the performance of a rookie LB who has only 20 games under his belt, takes constant bad angles and makes his tackles holding on for dear life. FYI--I don't hate the kid, but open your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts