Anyone Agree with Tim Graham on This?

[VOR]

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.

How many sacks charged to other LT's were coverage sacks? And even if there's good coverage, a "franchise LT's" man shouldn't be getting the sack. But I guess that's what Peters referred to when he said he got beat on "hustle plays," i.e. where the other guy was working harder than him.

[Thurman#1]

How many sacks charged to other LT's were coverage sacks?

 

 

Um, what part of "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" do you not understand?

 

I said this in Post #93 on this thread, and probably around 100 other times as well.

 

 

 

 

 

And even if there's good coverage, a "franchise LT's" man shouldn't be getting the sack. But I guess that's what Peters referred to when he said he got beat on "hustle plays," i.e. where the other guy was working harder than him.

 

 

Haven't seen that quote. Link, please. But even without having seen that quote, it looks very questionable that you are correctly paraphrasing. In fact, it looks like you are taking something he says and deliberately changing the meaning to something he would not agree with, a very questionable debating tactic, and therefore right in line with your usual stuff.

 

Again, though, link, please.

[Thurman#1]

As I look back, I didn't need to post on this thread. I was just repeating stuff that had already been said by the Dean and several other folks, particularly the notion that you can think the Peters move was a good one without deciding that Peters is not a good player.

 

I personally think Peters is going to be terrific in Philly, and that it was not a good trade for the Bills (though I like what they did with the draft picks they got), but I have respect for people with contrasting opinions. I just object to the use of clearly questionable stats to support an argument, and I also have no respect for people who believe they have proved anything that is clearly an opinion. For example, there are many people on here who "know" that Peters didn't want to be in Buffalo, or that he took plays off, or that he will be terrible next year or that ... the hater's agenda, basically.

 

Hate Peters? Fine. Know conclusively that he would not have signed a contract with the Bills if they had made the same offer that Philly did? Yeah, right.

[VOR]

Um, what part of "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" do you not understand?

 

I said this in Post #93 on this thread, and probably around 100 other times as well.

 

Haven't seen that quote. Link, please. But even without having seen that quote, it looks very questionable that you are correctly paraphrasing. In fact, it looks like you are taking something he says and deliberately changing the meaning to something he would not agree with, a very questionable debating tactic, and therefore right in line with your usual stuff.

 

Again, though, link, please.

Look, we now have 2 separate sources who track sacks allowed, who have said that Peters surrendered over 11 sacks. There is a mystery 3rd site as well, or so I've been told.

 

The methodology is impartial, so any inflated numbers would be attributable to every other LT, unless you think that they're "Peters haters" as well. Although you did reference a site (footballoutsiders.com) for their work on evaluating OL on their run-blocking, and the same guy who did that is the one who evaluated Peters' pass-blocking. In the link Lori provided. So you can't have it both ways.

[Guest dog14787]

As I look back, I didn't need to post on this thread. I was just repeating stuff that had already been said by the Dean and several other folks, particularly the notion that you can think the Peters move was a good one without deciding that Peters is not a good player.

 

I personally think Peters is going to be terrific in Philly, and that it was not a good trade for the Bills (though I like what they did with the draft picks they got), but I have respect for people with contrasting opinions. I just object to the use of clearly questionable stats to support an argument, and I also have no respect for people who believe they have proved anything that is clearly an opinion. For example, there are many people on here who "know" that Peters didn't want to be in Buffalo, or that he took plays off, or that he will be terrible next year or that ... the hater's agenda, basically.

 

Hate Peters? Fine. Know conclusively that he would not have signed a contract with the Bills if they had made the same offer that Philly did? Yeah, right.

 

 

The inaccuracy of the sack stat is applied to everyone the same way. With all the variables is it a perfect assessment of a player to just throw out the number? Of course not, but its something to give us an idea of whats going on. I've also repeated myself, to think that JP was Pro bowl material last year is a joke. In my opinion to think that JP was ever Pro bowl material is a joke. How can you explain Marshawn never getting over the 100 yard mark in a game and you can't say it was because he was splitting duties all the time with Fred Jackson because we tried to give him more carries, but to no avail. How can you explain not getting first downs when we need them, sometimes on 3rd and one with a pretty good running back in Marshawn Lynch. How can you explain our pass protection being sub-par and our offense being one of the worse in the league over the last three years.

 

Here, I'll explain it for you, OUR O-LINE SUCKED AND THATS INCLUDING JASON PETERS.

 

How you would ever single him out as Pro Bowl material is beyond me, based on what?( the rest of our crappy line)

 

After sitting down with my cousin who had done a thorough investigation on the sacks JP allowed last season and he walked me through each one, I'm thoroughly convinced the Buffalo Bills will be better off without him. Regardless of what good he did in the past, the bad out weighed the good.

 

It says allot about a man who considers his pay as an excuse for his poor work ethic. Personally, I pride myself in doing a good job in anything I do regardless of the rewards. Doing a good job is a reward in itself to me.

[The Dean]

Look, we now have 2 separate sources who track sacks allowed, who have said that Peters surrendered over 11 sacks. There is a mystery 3rd site as well, or so I've been told.

 

The methodology is impartial, so any inflated numbers would be attributable to every other LT, unless you think that they're "Peters haters" as well. Although you did reference a site (footballoutsiders.com) for their work on evaluating OL on their run-blocking, and the same guy who did that is the one who evaluated Peters' pass-blocking. In the link Lori provided. So you can't have it both ways.

 

 

Again, nobody knows the method, so calling it "impartial" is a stretch. Every stat has to have some criteria, and every stat is, in some way "manufactured". that is, the stat doesn't magically appear, rather individuals assign them based on some codified rules. We don't even know what the codified rules are.

 

But if an "allowed sack" is assigned on every sack, whether the QB takes 2 seconds or 20, then there is bias in the system. The bias isn't against an individual (necessarily), but against teams whose QBs hold the ball too long, for example. Certainly having JP at QB for a few games, and Edwards post-concussion performances may tilt the data against Bills offensive linemen. Teams with RBs who are excellent at picking up the blitz may have an advantage over those who do not. LTs who line up next to great LGs and TEs have a huge advantage too, I would think.

 

If there really is a criteria for assigning sacks, and the offensive linemen know what is likely to get tagged an "allowed sack", then I would suspect an experienced LT (or any other offensive line position) knows how to avoid getting dinged for a sack, even when missing a block or assignment. He would probably be more skilled at manipulating that stat then someone who has only played the position for two years (including college). For example, I'm relatively certain an experienced NFL QB is more aware of what is likely to be called grounding than a guy who has just started playing the position. Everyone knows the rule as written, but the experienced QB knows what he can get away with, without getting dinged for the call. Most stats work pretty much the same way. I'm guessing an inexperienced (and not particularly intelligent) LT like Peters hasn't mastered the manipulation of that sort of thing yet, and probably doesn't get the benefit of the doubt when there is a close call. I don't know that this is true, and you don't know that is isn't.

 

I'm not suggesting picking apart the sacks allowed stat, as it is impossible to do without some criteria. Nor am I suggesting Peters didn't allow too many sacks. I think he did. But 11? 12? 9? Anyway you look at it, those are very few plays compared to the total number he played in. It's severe tunnel vision if the only thing that matters to you is sacks. And the difference between a great LT and a poor (or average) LT is 5 or 6 sacks...and nothing else. Especially when you understand the sack stat is dubious and that sacks involve far more than simply the offensive lineman (most sacks have multiple causes). Factor in Peters missed all of the preseason stuff, and it really doesn't tell me he is no good, because of that one single number. Even if you truly believe the stat count, you put too much stock in it as the sole evaluator of any LT, but particularly the 2008 version of Peters.

[Guest dog14787]

I pretty much agree with Tim's take. Close to 100%, actually.

 

but the 3% that's saying your a big dummy could actually be correct.

 

Kidding Dean, but why defend the SOB, given his attitude and all things considered, he's probably one of the biggest contributing factors in why TE lost his confidence last season.

[VOR]

The methodology is "impartial" in that it doesn't have a bias for or against a particular player. And I'm sure that most of the other LT's were charged with "coverage/QB held the ball too long" sacks as well. But we all saw last year how many sacks JP surrendered that turned into fumbles and turnovers. The one in particular against the Jets was a game-loser. What got me was the inexcusably pathetic "hey, I'm only making $4M this year, who gives a f%#$?" excuse. And who is to say that if the Bills gave him the huge deal he watned, he still wouldn't have been pissed-off about 2008 and "let that affect him?" His attitude was wholly unprofessional, and that's the reason virtually no one on the Bills is sad to see him go.

[The Dean]

but the 3% that's saying your a big dummy could actually be correct.

 

Kidding Dean, but why defend the SOB, given his attitude and all things considered, he's probably one of the biggest contributing factors in why TE lost his confidence last season.

 

 

If you have to ask the question (and phrase it in a completely leading way) then I don't think you would be able to understand the answer. But, let's just say I try to make nonjudgmental and relatively unbiased observations and stay free of jumping to conclusions about things which I have no information about (where did you get that TE info?). But it is clear you don't know how to do that, dog. Your world sees to be very black and white, and quite simplistic.

[The Dean]

The methodology is "impartial" in that it doesn't have a bias for or against a particular player.

 

 

Right, stars NEVER get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to calls, or stats. Right. Everything is totally unbiased. Right.

[VOR]

Right, stars NEVER get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to calls, or stats. Right. Everything is totally unbiased. Right.

Clady and Long weren't stars, but were near the top of the list for fewest sacks allowed. And if you want to continue down that path, Peters was a Pro Bowler (a "star") in 2007, so one could argue that he got the benefit of the doubt on some sacks that were never charged to him, making his true number even higher.

 

But when a guy says that Peters was beaten one-on-one for 5.5 sacks, there's little room to start claiming bias or faulty methodology. And 5.5 sacks allowed, even if we say that no other LT was charged with a coverage sack, would still put him tied for 19th. As for hearing that another 5.5 sacks were "coverage" sacks, it doesn't make me say "well, he's not responsible for those, since he's not supposed to keep blocking his man for more than a couple seconds."

 

Look, Peters had a poor season last year. I don't need sacks-allowed stats to tell me that. And hearing his justification for his poor play made me even more glad he's gone. It's a shame, but it is what it is. I wish him health, but I hope he fails miserably in Philly.

[thebandit27]

I didn't realize that Jones would routinely miss training camp and pre-season, yet still return to dominate from the first snap of the first game of the season. Pretty impressive. If Peters had done that, I'd have had no problem with the Bills making him the highest-paid LT this past off-season.

 

It's worth noting that, at that point in his career, Walter Jones had been playing OT for 4 years of college and 6 years as a pro. Jason Peters had been playing OT for 2 seasons total in his life.

 

It's not exactly apples to apples.

 

Either way, Dean is right, the "sacks allowed" stat is totally subjective and even less reliable than the "tackles" stat. at least in the "tackles" category, you can tell who was in on a play.

 

Even Ross Tucker says that the "sacks allowed" stat is garbage since nobody knows how often a blocker is getting TE or RB help or what his exact blocking assignment is.

 

That's not saying that peters didn't have a down year, he did. however, i think that most people that aren't holding a grudge would agree that he's an extremely good player who's performance suffered due to a holdout. there won't be a holdout this year, so we'll see how his performance goes now that he's got his pay day.

 

my guess is that he plays really, really well (again).

[thebandit27]

ya you are right matt. I think our 2nd game was in Florida (jax). Peters did get replace a couple of times because of the heat and lack of conditioning. Imagine that, jason peters being out of shape-

 

he also drove a linebacker 10 yards backwards into the end zone to spring marshawn for a td on the first series of the game, but way to focus on the important stuff.

[The Dean]

Clady and Long weren't stars, but were near the top of the list for fewest sacks allowed. And if you want to continue down that path, Peters was a Pro Bowler (a "star") in 2007, so one could argue that he got the benefit of the doubt on some sacks that were never charged to him, making his true number even higher.

 

But when a guy says that Peters was beaten one-on-one for 5.5 sacks, there's little room to start claiming bias or faulty methodology. And 5.5 sacks allowed, even if we say that no other LT was charged with a coverage sack, would still put him tied for 19th. As for hearing that another 5.5 sacks were "coverage" sacks, it doesn't make me say "well, he's not responsible for those, since he's not supposed to keep blocking his man for more than a couple seconds."

 

Look, Peters had a poor season last year. I don't need sacks-allowed stats to tell me that. And hearing his justification for his poor play made me even more glad he's gone. It's a shame, but it is what it is. I wish him health, but I hope he fails miserably in Philly.

 

 

You still seem to be fairly confused on the concept, but it's time to move on.

 

Do you think of anything OTHER than sacks when talking about an LT?

 

Do you think Peters absence from OTAs/minicamp/preseason played any part in his overall performance? Do you think being lined up next to DD might have played a factor?

 

Like dog, you obviously don't like Peters and try to make every case against him, instead of trying to take an objective look at him (faults, strengths, context, etc). This make for a very biased, simplistic, and ultimately worthless evaluation.

[thebandit27]

The sack numbers are impartial. They're kept by STATS, Inc., which is the NFL's official stat keeper.

 

no, elias sports bureau is the nfl's official stat keeper.

[34-78-83]

J Peters might have been a big brat when it comes to negotiations and didn't play too well when he skipped long periods of practice, but for anyone to question or downplay his abilities (or his performance for that matter) in 06, 07 or once he was conditioned in 08 is nothing short of ignorance.

 

Throw all your expert quotes and numbers out the window.

Watch football

Over time, You'll notice traits about guys (when in their prime) like Anthony Munoz, Will Wolford, Orlando Pace, Eric Williams, Walter Jones, Art Shell, Jackie Slater, etc. etc.

 

Traits you might notice are:

Footwork

Balance

Strength

knee bend / how do they drop their hips

hand fighting ability

 

Traits that we might not ever really know on a player:

Football intelligence

Pre-Snap reads

who's responsibility it is to do what on a particular play

 

So, while looking at the traits we can compare to other players as fans, somebody please try and argue that J Peters did not have excellent Footwork, balance, Strength, Knee bend and hand fighting ability comparable to some of these greats...

Look at his one on one matchups over the time he was here ... He was dominant most of the time.

 

J Peters may have turned into a jacka$$ but lets not try to make ourselves feel better and question that he has greatness potential at LT. And many of the coaches and players across the league support the idea that has has greatness within himself.

[The Dean]

J Peters may have turned into a jacka$$ but lets not try to make ourselves feel better and question that he has greatness potential at LT. And many of the coaches and players across the league support the idea that has has greatness within himself.

 

 

Some fans know no other way. Focus on a negative and ride it all the way. If he's not with the Bills, or if he is holding out, he MUST be a bum and suck. Simple thoughts for simply minds, it seems.

[KRC]

Some fans know no other way. Focus on a negative and ride it all the way. If he's not with the Bills, or if he is holding out, he MUST be a bum and suck. Simple thoughts for simply minds, it seems.

 

It takes time and effort to analyze game film. It is simple to look up a number. When people talk about the "greatest of all-time" at whatever position, but only use stats to make their point, it just proves that they don't know what they are talking about.

 

As you said...simple things for simple minds.

[2003Contenders]

The interesting thing to me was the myth that Peters came in, struggled early due to having been out of shape from missing training camp -- and the then managed to get it together 3-4 games into the season. Recall that the coaching staff tried to ease him back in: he skipped all of the first game and played part-time against the Jags in Week 2. However, remember that the team payed well during this supposed catch-up spell for Peters and was 5-1 after the first 7 weeks of the season (counting bye week). His horrible performances against the AFC East teams (and Joey Porter and the Dolphins in particular) can hardly be blamed for his not having been in game shape.

 

Peters is an enigma. He has the natural talent to be an elite LT. Like him or not, he has the God-given freakish size/athleticism to dominate at the position if he so chooses. The question is whether or not he has the desire to do this on every play. I certainly believe that he let his teammates down for leaving them high and dry in training camp -- and then showing up and playing with a less than 100% effort attitude. From a physical standpoint, the position has undeniably been downgraded -- but from a commitment standpoint I believe that it is has most certainly been upgraded. The sad thing is that Reid and his staff seem to be able to get more out of their players than Jauron and company, so I suspect that Peters will play well for the Eagles next season. The question we will never know the answer to (assuming that I am correct) is: Was this due to a better situation in Philly (i.e. supporting cast and coaching) or due to the fact that the Eagles paid him and made him a happy/motivated man? The media will certainly insist on the latter.

[Lori]

no, elias sports bureau is the nfl's official stat keeper.

Yup. STATS, Inc. is the one with the deal with ESPN. And as Tim noted in the story I linked a couple of pages back, "sacks allowed" is NOT an official stat.

 

To revisit VOR's assertion that "... when a guy says that Peters was beaten one-on-one for 5.5 sacks, there's little room to start claiming bias or faulty methodology," it seemed like there was a LOT of room to disagree on whether or not Peters should have gotten out to block Abram Elam on the infamous Losman fumble at the Meadowswamp.