Joe DeLamielleure Comments/Jason Peters/O-line

[C.Biscuit97]

OH MY F-CKING GOD! "Instead of praising them this year, I'd rather b-tch about the last three years...waa waaa waaaaaah!!"

 

Also, it's been well established now that 2007 Jason Peters > (x500) 2008 Jason Peters.

 

I mean, what? Do you just glue yourself to your keyboard looking for any excuse (as ludicrous as it might be) to squash any bit of optimism expressed about The Bills? Pathetic!

 

[The Big Cat]

It would be more genuine to claim they won't miss Peters at all if they actually had another top 16 LT that was stepping in to replace him. They don't.

 

By this logic, Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe, Andre Smith, and Michael Oher are all "top 16 LT's." Afte rall, they were picked HIGHER than the 28th pick by teams showing no interest in Peters.

[The Big Cat]

You do realize the Bills are one of two teams to have missed the playoffs nine straight years, right?. Oh sure, they'll get one personnel move right every now and then, but that ain't enough kitty kat.

 

Frankly, it needs to happen on the field for me before I rubber stamp these moves. You talk about the franchise as if they're a perennial success story but they're not.

 

Hope, change, and optimism don't mean crap to me pal and I know the casual uninformed fans will latch onto anything to make themselves feel good, but not everyone thinks your way.

 

Then let it "happen on the field," Scrooge. Stop comparing the yet-to-play 2009 Bills with the Bills of the last nine years (six of which had nothing to do with the current administration).

 

Also, don't call me uninformed. At least I know have a sense for what's going on THIS year, and don't dwell in the past.

 

Get over it, you cranky beotch.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I guess it's unavoidable to get into yet another Jason Peters debate.

 

For my part, I think it's interesting that Joe D feels comfortable with the possibility of starting two rookies on the O-line. Yes he and Reggie McKenzie were "young in the game" as starters (to borrow from Dick Jauron).

 

Paul Seymour was also a first round O-lineman the year Joe D was picked in the first and he too played substantially as a rookie. Also both Joe Devlin and Ken Jones received considerable playing time as Bills rookie offensive linemen.

 

Maybe it's wishful thinking but I'm not terribly worried about possibly starting both Woods and Levitre, partly because as was stated, it's a bit easier for interior guys than for tackles.

[billybob]

1. I agree with Joe D that there has been a good track record of guards playing well their rookie year.

 

2. Physically when 100% Peters is a top 5 LT- now all the buts- he been injured at the end of the last two seasons, football is a game of passion and Peters definitely didn't have passion last season was it just a screw you Bills type thing or will it go on the rest of his football career, maybe this year for Philly he plays like his hairs on fire and next season he's going at 80% playing like a middle of the pack type guy, his weight 350lbs is a lot of weight for a 6,4 guy even if it's mostly muscle I liked his play better at 330 I question the obsession with getting as big as possible so many of the DE's you're going against are in the 245-265 weight range is it really necessary to outweigh them by 90lbs.

 

3. The money- this was the least convincing argument to me because these deals always seem outrageous at first then in a year or two seem normal and in 3 years seem kind of cheap.

 

4. Where does this leave us- It use to be I felt pretty good about the OTs and thought the interior sucked, now I feel pretty good about the interior and have grave concerns about the OTs .

[Bufcomments]

I don't know if I agree with Joe D's thoughts. not about Peters but about the young guys stepping in and playing right away.

 

First the game has changed since he has played. The playbook is certainly bigger than it was 30 + years ago.

 

Also I think that it takes longer for an O- line to jell these days. When I played college ball in the 80's ( I played OT) the whole line hung out together , drank together, eat together. I hope they at least eat together in the pros but you get my drift.

 

I hope the young bucks can catch on fast and start week one. But I would not be surprised if McKinney beats Levitre out. I think Wood has to start for us to have a semi decent line.

[Steely Dan]

Joe D echoes the sentiments of a lot of people in that Peters was overrated. The Bills may miss him some, but not to the extent that the OL will collapse without him.

 

Agreed. I have zero concerns with Butler moving to RT. He played 30 games at that position in college and has the physical tools, IMO, to play it in the NFL.

 

I think it's a better bet than the gamble on Bledsoe, the gamble on McGahee, the gamble on JP Losman, the gamble on Mike Williams, the gamble on Darwin Walker...

 

I don't call Mike Williams a gamble. A huge bust, yes. A gamble, no. If the Bills had passed on him there is a good chance the Vikings would have taken him instead of Mckinney. He was very highly rated by a lot of teams he's just a guy that didn't live up to his hype. JMO

 

OH MY F-CKING GOD! "Instead of praising them this year, I'd rather b-tch about the last three years...waa waaa waaaaaah!!"

 

Also, it's been well established now that 2007 Jason Peters > (x500) 2008 Jason Peters.

 

I mean, what? Do you just glue yourself to your keyboard looking for any excuse (as ludicrous as it might be) to squash any bit of optimism expressed about The Bills? Pathetic!

 

What he said +1

 

 

I believe it's best to forget about Peters altogether, and to move forward. Even if he does great in Philly, or opposite, it doesn't mean he would've had the same results here. More importantly, I think, is that he showed he was willing to put his ego and personal goals ahead of the teams, to the point where he acknowledged not showing up a hundred percent, and justified it by saying he wasn't getting paid enough to play at an elite level. Any guy talking that way would be booted off a lot of good teams, and rightfully so. If the Bills paid him, it would have sent the wrong message, and imagine the cancer a guy like that would be to a team. So, I think we're better off moving on without him, and, now is all we have. I'm glad the Bills picked up the makings of a really solid interior line for the next four years, and we might have on the roster, right now, guys good enough for the tackle positions. Let's hope put it together this year, and surprise some teams.

 

I agree totally with that. If he had stayed in Buffalo there is no guarantee that his bad attitude about the contract would've dissolved away after the money was laid on the table. He might be hair on fire motivated for the bEagles this year to show Buffalo they were stupid to let him go, but that won't last for years. I also think he's dealing with a much different breed of cat in the NFCE. Haynesworth and Umenyiora will make him look ordinary this year. JMO

 

 

Oh, yes they will. They will try to tell themselves they don't, but unless they get an actual LT, and soon, and if Peters looks all-World in Philly for the next ten years, which is what the entire rest of the football world expects to happen, not only will they, but deep in your hearts, so will you. Especially when next year three or four more LTs get contracts as high as Peters's "astronomical" one.

 

As stated above I believe the bEagles may get one motivated year from him but the NFCE DE's will make him look ordinary. The two guards they got this year more than make up for Peters' loss. I guess we'll see.

 

 

The only thing I wounder is if the Bills could have gotten a pick a little higher than 28th like the Eagles 21st or another teams pick that was a little higher. I think most teams viewed Peters as a LT who was slightly better than Oher and slightly worse than the top 3 LTs drafted. But unlike Oher you would have to pay Peters (Who is older than all 3 guys coming into the draft although he is more certain of a product.) like a top 10 pick. To me the Bills got around market value I hope.

 

You don't really believe that the Bills turned down better offers for him do you? I agree that in theory they might have gotten more but the fact that nobody offered more is very telling, IMO.

 

You do realize the Bills are one of two teams to have missed the playoffs nine straight years, right?. Oh sure, they'll get one personnel move right every now and then, but that ain't enough kitty kat.

 

Frankly, it needs to happen on the field for me before I rubber stamp these moves. You talk about the franchise as if they're a perennial success story but they're not.

 

Hope, change, and optimism don't mean crap to me pal and I know the casual uninformed fans will latch onto anything to make themselves feel good, but not everyone thinks your way.

 

Nor does everyone think your way, pal. In fact it's really "uninformed" to think that the prior administrations have anything to do with this one.

 

fan

Function:

noun

Etymology:

probably short for fanatic

Date:

1682

 

1 : an enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator 2 : an ardent admirer or enthusiast (as of a celebrity or a pursuit) <science-fiction fans>

 

Most of us are fans here. If you enjoy running down the Bills so much I'm sure you'd more than welcome at the Jests, Poorpisses or Pets* boards.

 

 

Then let it "happen on the field," Scrooge. Stop comparing the yet-to-play 2009 Bills with the Bills of the last nine years (six of which had nothing to do with the current administration).

 

Also, don't call me uninformed. At least I know have a sense for what's going on THIS year, and don't dwell in the past.

 

Get over it, you cranky beotch.

 

Well, let's dwell on the past for moment. AFL Championships 1964 and 1965. They also went to four consecutive SB's in the 90's. Their past doesn't seem so bad to me.

[Thurman#1]

I can pretty much guarantee you that even if Peters plays well for a year or 2, by year 3 he will want a new contract & will pull the same Crap he pulled in Buffalo.

 

 

 

And you can guarantee that how? Oh, by guessing while under the influence of anger.

 

Because you sure can't predict it by looking at the past.

 

To recapitulate, Peters was the lowest-paid starting LT in the league at the end of 2007. The lowest-paid out of 32, despite generally being considered at the end of 2007 as a top three guy. So if by year 3 he is still a top 3 guy and is the lowest-paid LT in the league, I think you're right, he will hold out. And in that case he will deserve a new contract. As he did in 2007 and 2008.

[Thurman#1]

Let's face it, the OL collapsed last year with him. I will be surprised if the OL does not play much better this year than last.

 

 

Yeah, except at LT, of course. Have to agree that our center situation looks a whole lot better this year, but I still have questions about RT too. Still, I think there is a chance that the line will, by the end of the year, be better.

 

But it would look a lot better yet like this: Peters, Levitre, Hangartner, Butler, Walker.

[Thurman#1]

The same goes for the speculation that the Bills did not offer Peters market value. We have quotes from Brandon that the Bills offered him the richest contract in team history, but the Peters fans do not believe it.

 

 

I'm not really a Peters fan, but I'm sure most on here think I am. I just try to stay realistic and argue when foolishness comes up on the board, and it seems to me that there's a lot of foolishness about Peters since he left.

 

Suddenly center is a much more important position than LT. Suddenly Peters's whole career sucked. Suddenly Peters is a locker room cancer despite the fact that he has never, not once, been accused of that by any insider. And on and on and on. It is sour grapes to an exponential degree. And it goes on and on and on.

 

Anyway, you say that people don't believe that the Bills offered him the richest contract in team history? Yes we do. We believe it. But it is pretty obvious that:

 

1) There are many ways to define richest contract in team history. Richest per year? Richest guaranteed or non-guaranteed? Richest in total dollars? There are many ways to say that it was the richest contract in team history that still leave it significantly short of the Eagles offer. In fact, no matter what way you read it, it is easy to name figures which fit Russ's quotation, yet are short of the Eagles offer.

 

2) You don't have to believe that the Bills offered him market value, even if you buy Russ's statement 100%. There are huge doubts.

 

3) If you wanted, you could make a contract that had the highest total value in Bills history and still was MUCH less remunerative than the Philly contract. Like the Clements contract with S.F. that had a huge total value but is structured to be ended 2 years before the contract ends, and the Bruce Smith Redskins contract that was the same way.

 

 

Anyway, I like your attitude about wishing him well and hoping his team loses horribly when they play the Bills.

[Thurman#1]

By this logic, Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe, Andre Smith, and Michael Oher are all "top 16 LT's." Afte rall, they were picked HIGHER than the 28th pick by teams showing no interest in Peters.

 

 

 

Wrongosaurus. Unless you were in their draft rooms, that is. Were you? You just don't know.

 

The only thing you do know is that those teams didn't actually pull the trigger on a trade. You have no idea whether they thought long and hard about it. There are a thousand reasons teams might think seriously about making a deal but decide not to do it.

 

The eighth pick in particular will be much cheaper than Peters. Last year the 8th pick got a 5 year, 33.4 mill contract with 17 mill guaranteed. If your salary cap is a worry, that is way cheaper than Peters. The sixth pick was only a bit cheaper but had a much lower guarantee ($21 mill for Gholston vs. $28 for Peters). And those teams were probably reasonably sure of the ballpark figure Peters wanted but it might have easily been half a mill per year or so higher than it turned out to be.

 

Plus, the Bengals in particular sucked and the Jags were no bargain either at 5 - 11. Think they might have had some doubts that they could have signed him.

 

Or maybe they wanted a different kind of guy and thought the draft pick would better fulfill their specific needs.

 

The whole "they didn't make the trade and therefore we absolutely know that they felt that Peters sucked and they didn't have even a scintilla of interest" line of argument is horribly flawed. It just doesn't make sense. There are so many other reasons that teams might have liked Peters, considered it seriously, and decided to go in another direction.

[Thurman#1]

As stated above I believe the bEagles may get one motivated year from him but the NFCE DE's will make him look ordinary. The two guards they got this year more than make up for Peters' loss. I guess we'll see.

 

 

That we will, we'll see. But Peters has faced extremely good pass rushers before, in 2007 and the end of 2006 and made them look foolish. And the Bills were giving him no help, while the Eagles won't leave him on an island. Their system will be easier for Peters than ours was. I'm betting the guy stomps NFC East rump. All year long.

 

And guards don't make up for lost LTs. They make up for the loss of last year's guards. These guys have a chance to do that. I love that the Bills finally addressed the interior early in the draft, I truly love it.

 

But the only guy who can make up for the loss of Peters is whoever takes his position at LT, which right now looks like Walker. Who is wildly overweight, has significantly slower feet, and who failed at LT in Oakland when they put him there. And who has faced no decent speed rushers (never mind good ones) in his short stint at LT in Buffalo.

 

I'm hoping it works out OK, but this is FAR from a sure thing.

[Steely Dan]

Wrongosaurus. Unless you were in their draft rooms, that is. Were you? You just don't know.

 

The only thing you do know is that those teams didn't actually pull the trigger on a trade. You have no idea whether they thought long and hard about it. There are a thousand reasons teams might think seriously about making a deal but decide not to do it.

 

The eighth pick in particular will be much cheaper than Peters. Last year the 8th pick got a 5 year, 33.4 mill contract with 17 mill guaranteed. If your salary cap is a worry, that is way cheaper than Peters. The sixth pick was only a bit cheaper but had a much lower guarantee ($21 mill for Gholston vs. $28 for Peters). And those teams were probably reasonably sure of the ballpark figure Peters wanted but it might have easily been half a mill per year or so higher than it turned out to be.

 

Plus, the Bengals in particular sucked and the Jags were no bargain either at 5 - 11. Think they might have had some doubts that they could have signed him.

 

Or maybe they wanted a different kind of guy and thought the draft pick would better fulfill their specific needs.

 

The whole "they didn't make the trade and therefore we absolutely know that they felt that Peters sucked and they didn't have even a scintilla of interest" line of argument is horribly flawed. It just doesn't make sense. There are so many other reasons that teams might have liked Peters, considered it seriously, and decided to go in another direction.

 

A known experienced player is far better than an unknown player, IMO, and I would guess the majority of NFL front offices see it that way too.

[Steely Dan]

That we will, we'll see. But Peters has faced extremely good pass rushers before, in 2007 and the end of 2006 and made them look foolish. And the Bills were giving him no help, while the Eagles won't leave him on an island. Their system will be easier for Peters than ours was. I'm betting the guy stomps NFC East rump. All year long.

 

And guards don't make up for lost LTs. They make up for the loss of last year's guards. These guys have a chance to do that. I love that the Bills finally addressed the interior early in the draft, I truly love it.

 

But the only guy who can make up for the loss of Peters is whoever takes his position at LT, which right now looks like Walker. Who is wildly overweight, has significantly slower feet, and who failed at LT in Oakland when they put him there. And who has faced no decent speed rushers (never mind good ones) in his short stint at LT in Buffalo.

 

I'm hoping it works out OK, but this is FAR from a sure thing.

 

Peters is 6'4" and 340 pounds

 

Walker is 6"8" and 366 pounds

 

For his height I don't think Walker is grossly overweight. JMO

[SouthernMan]

I don't know if I agree with Joe D's thoughts. not about Peters but about the young guys stepping in and playing right away.

 

First the game has changed since he has played. The playbook is certainly bigger than it was 30 + years ago.

 

Also I think that it takes longer for an O- line to jell these days. When I played college ball in the 80's ( I played OT) the whole line hung out together , drank together, eat together. I hope they at least eat together in the pros but you get my drift.

 

I hope the young bucks can catch on fast and start week one. But I would not be surprised if McKinney beats Levitre out. I think Wood has to start for us to have a semi decent line.

 

I believe the O-line will improve for the very reasons you mentioned.

 

Bigger playbook? Both Woods and Levitre are supposed to be highly intelligent. Don't see a problem there. I mean, if Travis Henry got through it......

 

And yes, as you stated, the chemisty of the O-line teammates is an important element of a cohesive and effective unit. That's where I think the Bills finally got it right after years of plugging in random players and expecting it to all come together like magic.

 

I sense that Butler, Woods, Levitre, Walker, and Hangartner are all cut from the same cloth. All bright guys with a lot of competative fire. The mix reminds me a lot of the those dominating Bills' O-lines of the late 80s to mid 90s. When I think of a prototypical lineman that the Bills should have been modeling their lines after, I think of names like Billy Shaw, Joe Devlin, Joe Delamielleure, Reggie McKenzie, Kent Hull, Ruben Brown, Will Wolford, Jim Ritcher, Ken Jones, Will Grant, etc. - team players. All with the right combination of toughness and smarts.

 

In more recent times, the Bills have attempted to use size as their weapon of choice on the O-line. Slugs like all-time Bills draft bust Mike Williams come to mind. Used his size in college to out-man inferior opponents, but in the pros, his lack of talent was immediately exposed. Big as an airplane hangar, but not an ounce of competative fire. The poster child for the all-2000's Bills offensive line. Pretty pathetic when the strategic hope for the line is that a defender might trip over them on the way to the QB.

 

Maybe the front office at One Bills Drive finally reached the conclusion (at last) that they'd be better off having more intelligent, quicker, and nimble linemen who can out-finese their defensive counterparts, and act and react as a single unit in the style of those great Bills O-lines of the mid 60s, early 80s, and early to mid 90s.

 

I'll buy the first round for the fellas at the Big Tree Inn.

[ans4e64]

There was a thread a month or so ago, concerning Jason Peter's prowess, value, etc.

 

Many have argued that the Bills got a bad deal in the trade, only getting a #28 pick. Of course, Peters was touted by some as being one of the best LTs in the league.

 

In the earlier thread, I deduced that if Peters had that much value, one of the 6 teams that drafted a tackle in the 1st round would have been willing to trade for proven vet, still in his prime. Conclusion - he's not all that great. Just a pretty decent tackle when he's in the mood.

 

Just fyi... that is a horrible argument.

[VOR]

LOL! Come on Thurm, that's about as laughable as Mr. WEO claiming he's not a Patriots fan. Actions speak louder than words, and you've taken every opportunity to defend Peters, to the point of suggesting that the Bills turned down better offers than just the 5th-to-last pick in the 1st round for him, while teams took gambles on unproven rookies with higher picks and contracts.

 

And regardless of how well he played in 2007, the fact remain that he's been injured in each of the last 2 seasons, severely enough to miss the Pro Bowl (which is what his goal is), and he's displayed an inexcusably poor attitude. His inflated ego has him believing that he's the best LT in the game, and as another poster said, he'll likely be looking for another huge payday in 2 years, should he make the Pro Bowl again. The Bills thought they were doing him a favor and a good thing when they gave him a new deal after 2 years, but apparently it created a monster.

 

As for the current O-line, I'd feel much more comfortable with what I've been saying, i.e. Walker and Butler at their previous positions, Hangartner at C, whichever rookie wins the LG spot, and Bell, or Chambers, at LT. That's the least amout of change, and inexperience playing, although it has a rookie playing next to Bell, which might be what they want to avoid.

[VOR]

Just fyi... that is a horrible argument.

Actually it isn't.

[Alaska Darin]

I think the BILLS have proven they can lose with Jason Peters.

 

The reality of the guy is he's a physical marvel with a 10 cent brain. In Philly he doesn't have to assume a leadership role because the team is an established winner. Because of this, he'll likely be more productive. The same can't be said in Buffalo where because of his stature/status he should have been a leader.

 

He may end up being worth the money for the Eagles but it's quite doubtful he'd ever have been more than a disappointment in Buffalo.

[mrags]

Oh, yes they will. They will try to tell themselves they don't, but unless they get an actual LT, and soon, and if Peters looks all-World in Philly for the next ten years, which is what the entire rest of the football world expects to happen, not only will they, but deep in your hearts, so will you. Especially when next year three or four more LTs get contracts as high as Peters's "astronomical" one.

 

I will not miss Peters ever. He was fat, lazy and didnt want to work. He proved that by his play in 08' and then he followed it up with his comments that he didnt want to work because he wasnt getting paid.