Anyone Agree with Tim Graham on This?

[VOR]

When Peters comes to camp and preseason he doesn't give up those kinds of sacks...and least he hasn't. So, had the Bills signed Peters, we can assume he would be at training camp and play in preseason. And remember, sacks aren't the only measure of a LT. Walker could give up fewer sacks and still play worse, overall than Peters. I am praying that doesn't happen.

Well all we have to go off of is Peters' 2007 season, Deano. I've consistently said that the Bills were right to not give him a huge deal without him coming-in and proving he was 100% over his torn groin at the end of 2007. So I think it's plausible to wonder if he's not the same player after that injury. Maybe he is, but I can't say with enough certainty, that I'd give him the richest contract for a LT in NFL history.

[Lori]

When Peters comes to camp and preseason he doesn't give up those kinds of sacks...and least he hasn't. So, had the Bills signed Peters, we can assume he would be at training camp and play in preseason. And remember, sacks aren't the only measure of a LT. Walker could give up fewer sacks and still play worse, overall than Peters. I am praying that doesn't happen.

There's the rub. Remember what Brandon said:

"... we offered Jason an enormous contract – the largest contract in Bills history – and he had no interest in it. None."

 

"We felt very strongly that Jason was not going to come back to camp, was not going to participate, and we were going to be in the same situation (as last year)."

 

I think most of us agree that there was very little chance of a deal getting done.

[Guest dog14787]

hey dean check this out man. Even is inflated, he can still see how bad peters did. Cut the sack number in half and he still had a bad year compared to other LT. I know he missed Training camp but that is his fault.

 

here is link from a KC chief site who has no bias towards peters : http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2009/3/13/79...allowed-left-ta

 

 

Left Tackle (sacks allowed)

 

1. Ryan Clady (Broncos) 0.5 sacks allowed (16 starts)

2. Michael Roos (Titans) 1.0 sacks allowed (16 starts) *PRO-BOWL*

3. Tra Thomas (Eagles) 2.0 sacks allowed (16 starts)

3. Orlando Pace (Rams) 2.0 sacks allowed (14 starts)

5. Jake Long (Dolphins) 2.5 sacks allowed (16 starts)

6. Jordan Gross (Panthers) 3.0 sacks allowed (15 starts) *PRO-BOWL*

6. Jammal Brown (Saints) 3.0 sacks allowed (15 starts)

6. Jared Gaither (Ravens) 3.0 sacks allowed (15 starts)

6. Marcus McNeill (Chargers) 3.0 sacks allowed (14 starts)

6. Tony Ugoh (Colts) 3.0 sacks allowed (12 starts)

6. Chris Samuels (Redskins) 3.0 sacks allowed (12 starts) *PRO-BOWL*

6. Todd Weiner (Falcons) 3.0 sacks allowed (11 starts)

13. Walter Jones (Seahawks) 3.5 sacks allowed (12 starts) *PRO-BOWL*

14. D’Brickashaw Ferguson (Jets) 4.0 sacks allowed (16 starts)

14. Bryant McKinnie (Vikings) 4.0 sacks allowed (12 starts)

14. Max Starks (Steelers) 4.0 sacks allowed (11 starts)

17. Joe Thomas (Browns) 4.5 sacks allowed (16 starts) *PRO-BOWL*

17. Branden Albert (Cheifs) 4.5 sacks allowed (15 starts)

19. Levi Brown (Bengals) 5.5 sacks allowed (11 starts)

20. Mike Gandy (Cardinals) 6.25 sacks allowed (16 starts)

21. David Diehl (Giants) 6.5 sacks allowed (16 starts)

22. Flozell Adams (Cowboys) 7.25 sacks allowed (16 starts)

23. Khalif Barnes (Jags) 7.5 sacks allowed (16 starts)

23. Matt Light (Pats) 7.5 sacks allowed (16 starts)

23. Chad Clifton (Packers) 7.5 sacks allowed (15 starts)

23. Kwame Harris (Raiders) 7.5 sacks allowed (11 starts)

27. Joe Staley (49ers) 8.5 sacks allowed (16 starts)

28. Donald Penn (Bucs) 8.5 sacks allowed (16 starts)

29. Jeff Backus (Lions) 9.25 sacks allowed (16 starts)

30. John St. Clair (Bears) 9.75 sacks allowed (16 starts)

31. Duane Brown (Texans) 11.5 sacks allowed (16 starts)

31. Jason Peters (Bills) 11.5 sacks allowed (13 starts) *PRO-BOWL*

 

 

PETERS SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE PRO BOWL-BOTTOM LINE

 

 

With 3 less starts, unbelievable, and somehow gets voted to the Pro bowl.

 

FO deserves some credit for not going overboard with JP.

[The Dean]

Well all we have to go off of is Peters' 2007 season, Deano. I've consistently said that the Bills were right to not give him a huge deal without him coming-in and proving he was 100% over his torn groin at the end of 2007. So I think it's plausible to wonder if he's not the same player after that injury. Maybe he is, but I can't say with enough certainty, that I'd give him the richest contract for a LT in NFL history.

 

 

I don't disagree with any of that, except to say Peters had some moments where he looked very dominant and not injured, last season. But you are right, he may never get back to his old form. Or maybe he just needed to rest it more, or needs some minor surgery. I have no problem with the Bills not giving him the kind of money Philly gave him.

 

And to address Lori's last post, there is the rub, indeed. Which is why I think the Bills made an understandable decision, and a decent deal under the circumstances.

 

None of that means Peters stinks, will stink, or the Bills might be worse off for the deal. We will have to wait for it to play out to KNOW.

 

But I can live with the Bills decision and think we should move on. Dumping on Peters (especially stupidly, without considering context) isn't necessary to like what the Bills have done.

[The_Philster]

None of that means Peters stinks, will stink, or the Bills might be worse off for the deal. We will have to wait for it to play out to KNOW.

 

But I can live with the Bills decision and think we should move on. Dumping on Peters (especially stupidly, without considering context) isn't necessary to like what the Bills have done.

Truth be told, Peters was a good LT...when he wanted to be. That's the trick...he's totally unprofessional and doesn't care enough to be truly great. We all remember how Bruce used to complain about his contract..even blew off camp a lot. Yet when he came in, he gave it 110%. The worst he ever was was the 2006 opener...in the 1st half he was playing into form...as if it were preseason...then he dominated in the 2nd half and made the key play in OT to help win the game. Point is...Bruce was a professional...and that's a big reason why he's getting inducted into Canton in less than 6 weeks. Peters doesn't have that kind of professionalism. When he's unhappy about his contract, he pouts and doesn't put in much effort and it hurts the team...costs us games.

[spartacus]

Truth be told, Peters was a good LT...when he wanted to be. That's the trick...he's totally unprofessional and doesn't care enough to be truly great. We all remember how Bruce used to complain about his contract..even blew off camp a lot. Yet when he came in, he gave it 110%. The worst he ever was was the 2006 opener...in the 1st half he was playing into form...as if it were preseason...then he dominated in the 2nd half and made the key play in OT to help win the game. Point is...Bruce was a professional...and that's a big reason why he's getting inducted into Canton in less than 6 weeks. Peters doesn't have that kind of professionalism. When he's unhappy about his contract, he pouts and doesn't put in much effort and it hurts the team...costs us games.

 

yeah-

 

the only difference with Bruce was that the team recognized his value and actually paid him - probably more every year even thought he as under contract

[VOR]

yeah-

 

the only difference with Bruce was that the team recognized his value and actually paid him - probably more every year even thought he as under contract

You must be twelve years old.

[The Dean]

You must be twelve years old.

 

 

I almost never agree with spartacus, but he isn't totally wrong, here.

 

Had the Bills made the first move, and rewarded Peters after moving him to LT, and having him perform admirably, they may never have gotten into this situation. That's why I blame both sides. Too much bad blood built up over time, though, and he had to go.

[The_Philster]

They didn't constantly up BRUCE's salary every year with new contracts, though

[VOR]

I almost never agree with spartacus, but he isn't totally wrong, here.

 

Had the Bills made the first move, and rewarded Peters after moving him to LT, and having him perform admirably, they may never have gotten into this situation. That's why I blame both sides. Too much bad blood built up over time, though, and he had to go.

I meant he must be 12 if he thinks the Bills re-did Bruce's contract everytime he demanded more money. And there is still NO proof that Brandon said that Peters would NOT get a new contract in 2008.

[The Dean]

I meant he must be 12 if he thinks the Bills re-did Bruce's contract everytime he demanded more money. And there is still NO proof that Brandon said that Peters would NOT get a new contract in 2008.

 

 

Gotcha.

 

I don't know what the Bills did, or didn't do last year for sure. But the Bills did say they would talk contract with Peters this offseason, which they did.

 

Unfortunately, we will never know what would have happened had the Bills approached Peters first, with a bonus and/or a new contract in 2007.

[DanInSouthBuffalo]

Peters was Buffalo's best offensive lineman last year. He led the Bills in point-of-attack blocking, according to analyst KC Joyner. Peters went to his second straight Pro Bowl because opposing coaches and players consider him one of the league's best.

 

I will agree that Jason Peters is a very good tackle so no sour grapes there. I don't agree however that he was the best O-lineman last year because I thought he had a very subpar season. If you want to make the argument that he was our best, then our O-line was complete s**t. The left side of the line was especially horrible: Peters & Dockery. Almost everyone in the NFL would agree on the Dockery part, in fact I just heard a Washington Times reporter talking about how bad Dockery was in Buffalo last year. Peters has a slacker attitude and played like it. I'll eat my words if need be, but he's in the NFC East now and will get eaten alive he plays with the lack of passion he did last year.

 

The Pro Bowl is largely a popularity contest. Period. Who cares, it doesn't mean anything.

[Thurman#1]

With 3 less starts, unbelievable, and somehow gets voted to the Pro bowl.

 

FO deserves some credit for not going overboard with JP.

 

 

 

IMHO, this is only about the 12,000th time this has had to be said, but those sack stats you are talking about are simply not reliable. They are largely based on guesswork. They should not be considered in any argument, because they are - wildly - imprecise.

 

When most folks looked at the video of sacks that many had laid at Peters's door last year, they gave Peters responsibility for between 5 and 8 sacks. Most of which came early in the season, though not all. Again, those stats are based on a guy's guesswork, not a good basis for any stat.

 

In 2007, the Bills (who know which guy Peters was responsible for on each play), said Peters was responsible for 0.5 sacks. That gives you a much better look at two things, first of all how different the numbers can be when you KNOW who the guy is supposed to be blocking, and second, how good Peters can be when he comes to camp.

[VOR]

IMHO, this is only about the 12,000th time this has had to be said, but those sack stats you are talking about are simply not reliable. They are largely based on guesswork. They should not be considered in any argument, because they are - wildly - imprecise.

 

When most folks looked at the video of sacks that many had laid at Peters's door last year, they gave Peters responsibility for between 5 and 8 sacks. Most of which came early in the season, though not all. Again, those stats are based on a guy's guesswork, not a good basis for any stat.

 

In 2007, the Bills (who know which guy Peters was responsible for on each play), said Peters was responsible for 0.5 sacks. That gives you a much better look at two things, first of all how different the numbers can be when you KNOW who the guy is supposed to be blocking, and second, how good Peters can be when he comes to camp.

I guess you missed this post (#75): http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1464705

[Thurman#1]

Truth be told, Peters was a good LT...when he wanted to be. That's the trick...he's totally unprofessional and doesn't care enough to be truly great. We all remember how Bruce used to complain about his contract..even blew off camp a lot. Yet when he came in, he gave it 110%. The worst he ever was was the 2006 opener...in the 1st half he was playing into form...as if it were preseason...then he dominated in the 2nd half and made the key play in OT to help win the game. Point is...Bruce was a professional...and that's a big reason why he's getting inducted into Canton in less than 6 weeks. Peters doesn't have that kind of professionalism. When he's unhappy about his contract, he pouts and doesn't put in much effort and it hurts the team...costs us games.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I just don't see it that way, and the stats don't show that to be true at all. Last year, in his worst year, he had the second-best run blocking stats for any LT in the league. (Check footballoutsiders.com) And number three was not very close behind, there was a pretty major jump between number two and number three. That simply doesn't look like effort was a problem.

 

The problem appears to have been exactly what you would expect from a guy who did not come to camp. He was in shape, but not in football shape, he hadn't played together with the other linemen so there were problems communicating and gelling generally, and the Bills had switched signs for the linemen and Peters had problems dealing with it. He got even better at the end of the year.

 

This just doesn't look like a guy who has effort problems.

[Thurman#1]

You must be twelve years old.

 

 

 

And you, eleven?

[Thurman#1]

I almost never agree with spartacus, but he isn't totally wrong, here.

 

Had the Bills made the first move, and rewarded Peters after moving him to LT, and having him perform admirably, they may never have gotten into this situation. That's why I blame both sides. Too much bad blood built up over time, though, and he had to go.

 

 

 

I think this may be right, but I think everybody is not looking at one possible solution to this problem, which would have been to simply keep him on the roster and threaten another two years at his old salary. He might well have eventually caved enough to settle for somewhere around the $9 mill mark. And we would have had Langston anyway, so even if Peters had not played, our LT status quo would not have been worse.

 

And I definitely agree about the Bills not making the first move. Both sides definitely deserve a share of the blame for the impasse.

[VOR]

And you, eleven?

Judging by your debating skills, you'd be 5. I'm still waiting to hear how a mystery 3rd team and the Giants who never made an offer for Peters better than the 28th overall pick, demonstrates that Peters was highly-regarded around the league.

[Thurman#1]

Without reading back through the entire thread, I'm not sure if anyone went back and dug up this earlier piece from Graham:

How many sacks did Peters really surrender?

 

 

 

So Joyner's guess is better? When he says that 5 of them were coverage sacks? I saw that and think it backs up my point very well in that they are both guesses, and in that when you throw in coverage sacks, your sack totals go way up.

[Thurman#1]

Judging by your debating skills, you'd be 5. I'm still waiting to hear how a mystery 3rd team and the Giants who never made an offer for Peters better than the 28th overall pick, demonstrates that Peters was highly-regarded around the league.

 

 

 

You may still be waiting, but nobody else is. The other readers of that thread saw that I had already addressed it several times. You didn't get it, that was obvious, but I'm not repeating it for the fourth time just for the slower members of the class.

 

This is a different thread. And anyone who doesn't get that a guy who gets one offer in the $8 - $10 mill per year area and another that is over $10 mill is highly regarded ... well, again it's not really worth going back and talking about yet again.