Thurman#1 Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Really??? Please check my post - the one you replied to... link ...then, STFU. All right, I've got it. You simply didn't understand what I said. Here's what happened. You said in response to my statement about Peters: Such a silly notion. I know you really want it to be true, but no, the Bills will not miss a beat without FatStupidLazyLoad at LT. In fact, their OL will likely be vastly improved this season. The Bills will not miss him, nor will I. I'm elated that he's gone. You need to get over your man-crush and stop pining over the useless dolt. The Bills will be a much better and more cohesive team now that PayMe Peters is gone. In other words, you started about Peters but went on to talk about the Bills o-line this year, taking the time to be an obnoxious turd by using "man-crush" and "pining." That was your first high-class move. I replied: Jeez. Maybe if you would actually read my posts ... you'd have an idea of what my opinions are. I thought that it was pretty obvious that you hadn't misunderstood my belief that Peters is a superior LT. I believe that and it is obvious. So I gave you credit, thinking that you would understand that the Peters part of your argument was not what I was talking about, because we fully understand each other on that issue. I was referring to your comments about the Bills line next year. I gave you too much credit, obviously, because you went way back to a quote that had nothing to do with what I was saying. Nothing whatsoever. I should have figured that you wouldn't get it. I should have checked your next post more carefully, to see that it responded to my last post instead of picking out some random post from deep in the past, as you did. My fault for that. So when you came back quoting yourself from three pages back without bothering to use the quote function, I assumed, naturally, that you were quoting, wrongly, the thing that I had called you on. You weren't. My bad. I expected you to figure out what I meant. I posted this: Um, no. It takes real talent to misquote YOURSELF. You posted "the Bills will not miss a beat without FatStupidLazyLoad at LT. In fact, their OL will likely be vastly improved this season." Without any apparent clue about my positions on the Bills line this season. Seriously, misquoting yourself. That is a high-quality move. You're a man to watch. This spelled out where I disagreed with you. You still didn't pick up on it, though. Too busy getting your jollies off the fact that when you went three pages back and outside the context of our argument for no reason whatsoever that I didn't recognize the old quote. I shouldn't have expected you to answer anything substantive. Again, my bad. Then, finally, ignoring a chance to actually pay attention to what I said, you again take the high road and tell me to stfu. Stfu? Ah, class. Is that a word? Why don't you slap that thing out of your mouth, and then maybe I could hear you better. So I should try to understand. You obviously didn't understand what I was saying and that's why you went so far off-track to answer.
Thurman#1 Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 If there's only one way to get into football shape what are the offseason conditioning programs, mini camps, OTA's and training camp all about? Peters didn't participate in any of those in 2008 because he was putting himself above the team. Oh, confused? There REALLY IS only one way to get into football shape, since you seem to doubt it. And that is to play football. Which includes basically training camp and the season. That other stuff gets you into shape, but not football shape. Jauron and others have been quoted as saying that Peters was in good shape, but not in football shape. And I know that he didn't participate in those. Because there was a dispute between him and the team. If you're curious, you can go back and read all about it. As in most disputes, this was the fault of both people involved.
Thurman#1 Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Jason Peters Langston Walker Not much difference. Walker looks a little more in shape. JMO Ah, but that was Langston last year. How about this one instead: http://media.buffalonews.com/smedia/2009/0...ffiliate.50.jpg
Thurman#1 Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 You have me at a loss as to why we offered him as much as we did. I have no idea why/how they go together. I personally think we had good starters at both T positions (if JP just shows up and works) but our interior line sucked. That was addressed in the off season. We picked up a new center, LG, and RG in FA and the draft. We also picked up McKinney who is a previous starter in this league for depth. I feel the interior of the line is more important than the exterior. Obviously you cant just throw anyone in at LT, or RT, but with a beefed up interior and decent T's the line SHOULD be better. I think we played alright with Walker at LT last year which would make him decent. Is he the best in the league? No, hes not, but he should be enough to get the job done. At least this is what were hoping. You have no idea why the Bills offered him the highest contract in team history? Is that how I should read your first two sentences? If I'm wrong, I apologize, but that seems to be what you meant. Well, it is because they think that Peters is a lot better than "enough to get the job done." They offered him the highest contract in history because he was probably the best player on the team, at the second-most important position in football because he protects the QBs blind side, on a team which has a QB with a bit of a history of brittleness. Seriously, that's why. Again, if I didn't understand you, I'm sorry.
Thurman#1 Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 No this is; Asked if the contract situation affected his play, Peters said: “A little bit. I was thinking about it sometimes. If you get beat on a play and you think about your contract See above. Yeah, um, I was replying to another poster. Not to you. If you want to quote me, that's fine, but to then act as if you can correct me about what I was replying to ... it's rude, particularly when you are wrong. I was in fact replying to what he said, obviously, not to a quote which until your post, nobody had entered into the discussion. But thank you for entering that quote, even if you did so in a pretty rude and misleading way. Asked if the contract situation affected his play, Peters said: “A little bit. I was thinking about it sometimes. If you get beat on a play and you think about your contract. It doesn’t affect me that much. I thought about it some early in the year but later on in the year it wasn’t a big deal.” Well, there it is. It may have affected his play a little bit early in the year. What, you mean he's not a robot? I'm shocked. Where is the big surprise here? A little bit, and only early in the year. It's not surprising to think that this huge disagreement entered his mind at times, it really isn't. Oh, and here's another quote from the same article you linked to. "'It blew my mind, first and foremost, for them to trade me,' Peters said. I was happy to come over and be an Eagle." It blew his mind. He expected to come to agreement with the Bills.
Steely Dan Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Oh, confused? There REALLY IS only one way to get into football shape, since you seem to doubt it. And that is to play football. Which includes basically training camp and the season. That other stuff gets you into shape, but not football shape. Jauron and others have been quoted as saying that Peters was in good shape, but not in football shape. And I know that he didn't participate in those. Because there was a dispute between him and the team. If you're curious, you can go back and read all about it. As in most disputes, this was the fault of both people involved. Why could every other starter on the team start on week 1? Why couldn't Jason? He wasn't in shape to play week one and he wasn't in shape physically or mentally. He didn't even know he had given up 11.5 sacks until his Philly press conference. He just didn't care about anything but his contract. IMO It wasn't the fault of both sides. Evans didn't have a contract extension going into the season but he was there all offseason. Stroud didn't get a new contract until the beginning of this year and you didn't see him all pouty and skipping offseason and camp. Fred Jackson was annoyed with his contract status at the beginning of this year but he stayed in Buffalo and eventually went to the OTA's before his contract was finalized. The Bills were 100% right in the way they handled Peters. If they had caved to his tactics then that opens the floodgates for other players to do the same. Once again Peters only cares about himself, not the team.
Steely Dan Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Man, you guys kill me. You seem to just make up quotes saying whatever you feel like and putting them into people's mouths without ever actually checking whether the guy said that. LET'S SEE A LINK having Peters saying that he didn't want to work because he wasn't getting paid. You won't be able to find one, of course, because he never said that. It kills me. You guys are all the time going off with a thought process like 1) I hate Peters 2) Therefore he must have said something horrible 3) So I'll make up something and say he said it. And yeah, he was fat and lazy and didn't want to work, which is why he was the second-best run-blocker of all LTs in the league. In an off-year, a year in which he didn't attend training camp. He was the best run-blocker on the Bills. But yeah, doubtless that was because he didn't want to work. This is so pathetic. Again the thought process is just that you hate the guy so you say whatever you want regardless of whether there is anything to back it up, and then you pretend that it's a fact. I really should just ignore such nonsense, but I so enjoy shredding it. Check the stats on footballoutsiders.com if you doubt what I said above about his run blocking this year. Which was, again, a bad year for him. 2nd best in the league. It doesn't matter who you're specifically talking to. Anyone can take a post and respond to it. It's not rude to show you you're wrong. Ah, but that was Langston last year. How about this one instead: http://media.buffalonews.com/smedia/2009/0...ffiliate.50.jpg Find me one where he isn't bent over, please. Yeah, um, I was replying to another poster. Not to you. If you want to quote me, that's fine, but to then act as if you can correct me about what I was replying to ... it's rude, particularly when you are wrong. I was in fact replying to what he said, obviously, not to a quote which until your post, nobody had entered into the discussion. But thank you for entering that quote, even if you did so in a pretty rude and misleading way. Asked if the contract situation affected his play, Peters said: “A little bit. I was thinking about it sometimes. If you get beat on a play and you think about your contract. It doesn’t affect me that much. I thought about it some early in the year but later on in the year it wasn’t a big deal.” Well, there it is. It may have affected his play a little bit early in the year. What, you mean he's not a robot? I'm shocked. Where is the big surprise here? A little bit, and only early in the year. It's not surprising to think that this huge disagreement entered his mind at times, it really isn't. Oh, and here's another quote from the same article you linked to. "'It blew my mind, first and foremost, for them to trade me,' Peters said. I was happy to come over and be an Eagle." It blew his mind. He expected to come to agreement with the Bills. Your quote; LET'S SEE A LINK having Peters saying that he didn't want to work because he wasn't getting paid. You won't be able to find one, of course, because he never said that. I post; Asked if the contract situation affected his play, Peters said: “A little bit. I was thinking about it sometimes. If you get beat on a play and you think about your contract. It doesn’t affect me that much. I thought about it some early in the year but later on in the year it wasn’t a big deal.” How is that misleading? The words came out of his mouth! You were wrong. Admit it. The quote you supplied from the article; "'It blew my mind, first and foremost, for them to trade me,' Peters said. I was happy to come over and be an Eagle." It blew his mind. He expected to come to agreement with the Bills. It has nothing to do with the point you wanted confirmed. You're trying to move the conversation to a different place; "Hurry on people there's nothing to see here." If he expected an agreement then why didn't he accept the highest contract in Bills history? He was a douche. He wasn't willing to budge at all for the team. I believe the contract he got from Philly wasn't significantly more. BTW, please point out my rudeness. I believe I have been more respectful to you than you've been to almost everyone else here that disagrees with you. Once again you're trying to smoke screen the truth. Why is it so hard to admit you were wrong about that? BTW, here's a little history from this thread; Thanks Steely, I knew it was out there but didnt feel the need to prove myself. Im also at work and pretending to be busy. LOL It won't matter, really. He'll just say something like; "Only a little! C'mon you've got to be kidding me. Is that really your proof! Thanks for proving my point.
Thurman#1 Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Another generalization. In this instance, Peters had "value" to more than just the Eagles, since at least 2 other teams were looking for starting LT's, and ended up using high picks and tons of money for unproven players. As for the "how good he is," the Eagles said he is the "best LT in football." So in this case, "value" should relate to "how good he is." Unless you want to suggest that the Eagles OVER "valued" Peters, because they had no better options at LT. Ah, so no other teams were looking for WRs? There were many reasons T.O. was not subject to a bidding war. Just as there were many reasons Peters was not subject to a bidding war. "The Eagles said he is the 'best LT in football.'" Just remind me, how does that hurt my argument again? Three teams expressed interest to the Bills, including the Giants, yet another team with a much much better record of evaluating OL talent than the Bills. Your argument is that the fact that nobody made the move to trade a high draft pick for Peters or outbid the Eagles proves that nobody wanted him. Right? So all any of us have to do is provide even one possible reason why they didn't grab him beyond the one that you think is the only possible one. And we have provided many very possible reasons. Many. But here are three: 1) They felt that in their scheme Peters would have to unlearn some habits taught him by the Bills, so they wanted to get a guy they could mold from scratch instead. 2) They were far from sure that Peters would sign a contract with them. The teams drafting high, the Jags and Bungles, were quite a bit worse than the Bills last year and who's to say that Peters would have accepted a trade to them and signed? 3) Teams which might have wanted him and even considered trading a higher draft pick with the Bills decided that they had other positions which were even higher priorities that they wanted to address in the draft. 4) They loved Peters but simply didn't have the cap room to sign him and still do all the other things they wanted to do. The Peters deal has an $11 million signing bonus and a base salary of $10.5 million the first year. Which means that it would cost teams about $12.4 million against their cap. Cincy has $13.3 mill available under their cap, before they even sign their draft picks. I'm sure this would have fit right into their plans. And remember that the Peters deal would only amount to $12.4 million of damage in the traditional way of calculating the cap. But about 20 out of the 32 teams use cash-to-cap. Under cash-to-cap, you would calculate it as the entire signing bonus plus the entire first year's salary, which comes to $21.5 mill. A mere bagatelle. I'm sure there aren't any teams out there that would be bothered by figures like this. Cincy salary cap info: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-u...o&type=lgns All four of these possible explanations are extremely reasonable. And if even one is even POSSIBLE, then you lose the argument.
Thurman#1 Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Why could every other starter on the team start on week 1? Why couldn't Jason? He wasn't in shape to play week one and he wasn't in shape physically or mentally. He didn't even know he had given up 11.5 sacks until his Philly press conference. He just didn't care about anything but his contract. IMO It wasn't the fault of both sides. Evans didn't have a contract extension going into the season but he was there all offseason. Stroud didn't get a new contract until the beginning of this year and you didn't see him all pouty and skipping offseason and camp. Fred Jackson was annoyed with his contract status at the beginning of this year but he stayed in Buffalo and eventually went to the OTA's before his contract was finalized. The Bills were 100% right in the way they handled Peters. If they had caved to his tactics then that opens the floodgates for other players to do the same. Once again Peters only cares about himself, not the team. It WAS the fault of both sides. Were Evans or Stroud getting paid as the lowest-paid starter at their position in the league? The lowest of all 32 starters? No. But Peters was. The Bills should have handled the situation a year ago.
Thurman#1 Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 It doesn't matter who you're specifically talking to. Anyone can take a post and respond to it. It's not rude to show you you're wrong. I don't mind you responding to my post, or ATTEMPTING to show that I was wrong. What I mind is that you totally misrepresented my position, as if I had referred to the wrong quote. I hadn't. Here is another look at the original post (sorry, I don't know how to quote the whole thing, including interior quotations from other people. Due to my own technical limitations, I had to break up my one post quoting him into several quotations here. But I preserved the flow. Here is how it started: This is the quote I was referring to:." followed by this quote from MRAGS: 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. followed by this bit of explanation by me: But now, after I call you on that and say that you made up the quote, you change to this: followed by another quotation of his which came after I yelled at him for making up quotes: It was in the Eagles press conference that he said that he absolutley was effected by his contract issue looming over head. followed by another explanation by me: Somehow your quote from Peters here has changed from "his comments that he didnt want to work because he wasnt getting paid." Now suddenly you say that your comment was only that "it affected him." Get it, Steely? I wasn't saying that Peters had never said that this had affected him. First he quoted Peters incorrectly as saying that he didn't want to work. Then when I yelled at him, he suddenly backed down. His second quotation, that Peters said it had affected him, was reasonable. His first was totally made up. If you will go back and read this through, you will see all this. It's all in post #98. After all of this, you swept in and said, after quoting me saying "This is the quote I was referring to:" said: No this is; Asked if the contract situation affected his play, Peters said: “A little bit. I was thinking about it sometimes. If you get beat on a play and you think about your contract Go back and read the original post you replied to, post #98, again. You will see that I never said what you apparently thought I did, and that you wrongly corrected me when you said "No, this is;" although I may never understand why you used a semi-colon there. You were totally rude and misleading.
Thurman#1 Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 It has nothing to do with the point you wanted confirmed. You're trying to move the conversation to a different place; "Hurry on people there's nothing to see here." Um, no. I had made my point and was changing the subject. Glad you picked up that the subject had changed. Too bad you didn't notice it was done deliberately. (Hint: here's another subject change) Oh, and Langston is fat this year bent over or not. I've seen at least four pictures of him looking hugely overweight this year. But I'm not taking the time to find another. That one is enough. If you are genuinely curious, though, they are out there and easy to find. I hadn't thought that Langston was overweight much at all right through last season. But this year, man, he really looks big.
Steely Dan Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 I don't mind you responding to my post, or ATTEMPTING to show that I was wrong. What I mind is that you totally misrepresented my position, as if I had referred to the wrong quote. I hadn't. Here is another look at the original post (sorry, I don't know how to quote the whole thing, including interior quotations from other people. Due to my own technical limitations, I had to break up my one post quoting him into several quotations here. But I preserved the flow. Here is how it started: followed by this quote from MRAGS: followed by this bit of explanation by me: followed by another quotation of his which came after I yelled at him for making up quotes: followed by another explanation by me: Get it, Steely? I wasn't saying that Peters had never said that this had affected him. First he quoted Peters incorrectly as saying that he didn't want to work. Then when I yelled at him, he suddenly backed down. His second quotation, that Peters said it had affected him, was reasonable. His first was totally made up. If you will go back and read this through, you will see all this. It's all in post #98. After all of this, you swept in and said, after quoting me saying "This is the quote I was referring to:" said: Go back and read the original post you replied to, post #98, again. You will see that I never said what you apparently thought I did, and that you wrongly corrected me when you said "No, this is;" although I may never understand why you used a semi-colon there. You were totally rude and misleading. He said "his comments" were. Comments aren't quotes; Main Entry: 2comment Function: verb Date: 15th century transitive verb : to make a comment on <the discovery…is hardly commented by the press — Nation> intransitive verb : to explain or interpret something by comment <commenting on recent developments> QUOTE (Thurman#1 @ Jul 22 2009, 11:53 PM) *But now, after I call you on that and say that you made up the quote, you change to this: So your theory is incorrect. Peters did comment on not wanting to play without a contract. It seems you're confusing the word comment for quote. Um, no. I had made my point and was changing the subject. Glad you picked up that the subject had changed. Too bad you didn't notice it was done deliberately. (Hint: here's another subject change) Oh, and Langston is fat this year bent over or not. I've seen at least four pictures of him looking hugely overweight this year. But I'm not taking the time to find another. That one is enough. If you are genuinely curious, though, they are out there and easy to find. I hadn't thought that Langston was overweight much at all right through last season. But this year, man, he really looks big. I did pick up on it being done deliberately, that was the point! No they aren't!
Mickey Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 It WAS the fault of both sides. Were Evans or Stroud getting paid as the lowest-paid starter at their position in the league? The lowest of all 32 starters? No. But Peters was. The Bills should have handled the situation a year ago. It is useless, the sour grapes here are so sour that there is no objectivity here about Peters and never will be. You can hardly have a converstation about without the rudest members of the board descending on you like a flock of flying monkeys. I think even Tim G. tried to point this out in a post a while back. The same logic that thinks it was brilliant/shrewd to: make an established vet who no coach has ever thought could play LT a starting LT; to move a good but not great Guard to RT; to make a career non-starter a starter at C and to start two rookies at G is not going to be able to get past their anger at Peters and acknowledge that you don't improve a team by losing one of its best players. All those moves might work out, I certainly hope they do and even if they don't, I'll find a way to enjoy watching these new guys learn the game and hopefully establish something later in the year. The end story on Peters is that he got out of his contract way before it was going to expire and his new contract is truly exceptional and on top of that he is now playing for a perennial contender in a much larger market. Despite his being "fat, lazy and stupid" and the proclamations by the same people you are arguing with that the team had Peters by the balls and that his agent was a moron, things worked out pretty well for Peters. As for the Bills, they wanted to keep him and offered him a large contract, a huge contract. But in the end, Philly offered more and given the no class move the Bills pulled by publicly calling him out last year at the start of camp, you have to wonder if Peters had decided that he needed to get out of Buffalo, period. Clearly, the team didn't want to lose him and had no long term plan for the OL that didn't include him. But lose them they did and what you see this year is necessity becoming the mother of invention. The new line with all the new faces and the shuffling, is, in part, the result of the team's scramble to cobble together a new line. Docjery and Fowler/Preston were going to be replaced anyway but moving Butler and Langston was not part of any plan, its is the best they could come up with in the face of the Peters disaster. The bottom line is that this is a free enterprise league and the market determined that Peters was worth more than the Bills were willing to pay, not a lot more, but more. So he moved on and so has the team but not, unfortunately, this board.
The Senator Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 All right, I've got it. You simply didn't understand what I said. Here's what happened. You said in response to my statement about Peters: In other words, you started about Peters but went on to talk about the Bills o-line this year, taking the time to be an obnoxious turd by using "man-crush" and "pining." That was your first high-class move. I replied: I thought that it was pretty obvious that you hadn't misunderstood my belief that Peters is a superior LT. I believe that and it is obvious. So I gave you credit, thinking that you would understand that the Peters part of your argument was not what I was talking about, because we fully understand each other on that issue. I was referring to your comments about the Bills line next year. I gave you too much credit, obviously, because you went way back to a quote that had nothing to do with what I was saying. Nothing whatsoever. I should have figured that you wouldn't get it. I should have checked your next post more carefully, to see that it responded to my last post instead of picking out some random post from deep in the past, as you did. My fault for that. So when you came back quoting yourself from three pages back without bothering to use the quote function, I assumed, naturally, that you were quoting, wrongly, the thing that I had called you on. You weren't. My bad. I expected you to figure out what I meant. I posted this: This spelled out where I disagreed with you. You still didn't pick up on it, though. Too busy getting your jollies off the fact that when you went three pages back and outside the context of our argument for no reason whatsoever that I didn't recognize the old quote. I shouldn't have expected you to answer anything substantive. Again, my bad. Then, finally, ignoring a chance to actually pay attention to what I said, you again take the high road and tell me to stfu. Stfu? Ah, class. Is that a word? Why don't you slap that thing out of your mouth, and then maybe I could hear you better. So I should try to understand. You obviously didn't understand what I was saying and that's why you went so far off-track to answer. when yer explainin' , yer losin', a-hole... welcome to 'ignore' but, by all means, please continue to... STFU!!!!
Recommended Posts