Billistic Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 Some guys just love limp biscuits. Eat hearty...
Bill from NYC Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 I think, because of the holdout, Peters had an off year. I don't begrudge the Bills for trading him, and think they may end up being better for it. But that doesn't mean Peters stinks as an LT. If the players and coaches voted him into the Pro Bowl, I will take their vote over the gripes of pissed off fans, and the opinion of an obviously bitter ex-Bill (Joe D) and a guy who couldn't hold Peters' jock as an offensive lineman (Tucker). OK, that's not true, I'm sure Tucker could hold, and perhaps wash and dry Peters' jock. I once heard Ross Tucker say on Sirius that Jason Peters was easily the best offensive lineman he ever palyed with.
Alphadawg7 Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 I was in Vegas a few weeks ago and put $100 on the Bills to win the SB at 30/1 and a similar bet to win the AFC... GO BILLS!!!
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Posted August 7, 2009 So judging by the original poster, I'll guess he meant this Ross Tucker article... 'Two C's' are crucial for OLs ...and not this one: Peters trade has already started game of musical chairs in draft GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! You said something correct. Way to go, baby, I'm proud of you!! Kind of a historic event.
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Posted August 7, 2009 So you're a #'s guy, Dean - what percentage of "the guys that play now and voted him to the Pro Bowl" actually played with/against Peters? (I don't consider a WR, QB, RB, offensive lineman, kicker, etc., from a team we play - nor anyone from a team we don't play - as someone who played against him.) I'm curious. Ha ha ha ha ha. This is really funny. Here, I'll be the senator, "What percentage of guys actually played against or with him? And by the way, I have unilaterally decided that nobody counts if they are, say, offensive linemen to be eligible . You know,even though offensive linemen are the people most qualified to judge other offensive linemen. Or wide recievers. I mean, yeah, they are on the teams with guys who study Peters video like it was porn, and they talk, but I don't consider them eligible. Aw, heck, let's admit it, no professional football player knows half as much as me, The Senator, a poor man, sitting alone in his room crazy with jealousy and hate and other unnamed feelings about Peters. I know much more than the pros. Right. Anyway, Senator, this thread didn't even mention Peters. I have to wonder about you. You take a thread entirely about this year's Bills o-line, and again bring Peters in. I've often commented on your sheer quantity of hatred, and here's more evidence. I feel sorry for you, seriously. You must wake up in the morning thinking about Peters, dream about him at lunch and go to sleep thinking about how much you hate him. Are we going to read about you in the newspaper someday, with pictures of you being led off in chains after some horrific massacre? Seriously, it must be awful to live with so much hate.
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Posted August 7, 2009 I'm far from a Peters hater but do you honestly believe a guy who allowed 11.5 sacks in 13 games is a deserving pro bowler? Plus, how many 3 and shorts did we have stuffed running to his side? One rookie LT (Clady) didn't give up a sack. Another gave up only one (Long) on a playoff team. Just because they are players in the league doesn't mean they pour over game tapes of tackle play. I'm sure the majority just vote on guys they've heard of. Peters was underrated and became overrated. And the same thing has happen with the LT position. It's still important but you can get by with an elite guy, which I don't think Peters was anyways. Hi, C. Biscuit. Do a bit of research on that stat. It's not an official stat, for a reason. The reason is that that stat is reliant on guesswork to figure out who is responsible for many of the sacks. And also, for the purpose of making that statistic, sacks allowed, each sack is assigned to an o-lineman. Including sacks where the QB holds on to the ball for six seconds or more. Those shouldn't be assigned to an o-lineman at all, it's the QBs job to get rid of the ball at some point. When neutral people watch the video, they generally figure Peters responsible for 5 - 8 sacks. Now, that's not great, not even good, but it's pretty clear that by the last half of the year, Peters was playing extremely well again. And do yourself a favor, don't respond to people who hijack threads. This one is about the current o-line.
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Posted August 7, 2009 I'm finished talking about Peters in this thread, no matter what sewer scrapings get posted. There are plenty of threads for that. "Legitimate title aspirations." And Tucker seems to be talking about the Bills this year. I think he's gone a bit overboard here. But I do like that the Bills, after more than a decade of neglect, addressed the o-line in the early rounds. Gotta love that. What do you think of the article?
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 I'm finished talking about Peters in this thread, no matter what sewer scrapings get posted. There are plenty of threads for that. "Legitimate title aspirations." And Tucker seems to be talking about the Bills this year. I think he's gone a bit overboard here. But I do like that the Bills, after more than a decade of neglect, addressed the o-line in the early rounds. Gotta love that. What do you think of the article? Good effort at turning the thread around Thurman. I'll try to help out. I enjoyed the article and I have always respected Ross Tucker's writing and I appreciated him as a player too. As a football player Tucker was smart (attended and graduated Princeton) and mastered playing center and both guard positions. He was nasty...he was always the guy playing until and after the whistle and wasn't afraid of mixing it up. He was a bit undersized but had good mobility and blocked well at the second level. Ross Tucker because of his intelligence and experience as a pro lineman would be eminently qualified to comment on offensive line play. I think because he's a former Bill and enjoyed his time with us, that he has a soft spot for the Bills and would tend to play the positive angle. That said, here's a guy who was smart and nasty, saying that that's how an offensive line needs to be and mentioning the Bills as one of the teams seeking those traits. Great article. Thanks for posting Thurman.
reddogblitz Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 I do like that the Bills, after more than a decade of neglect, addressed the o-line in the early rounds. Gotta love that. Bills drafted Mike Williams with their #1 pick in 2002. 7 years is less than a decade. Maybe 7 years of neglect? But you're right, we could definitely use some OL help.
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Posted August 7, 2009 Bills drafted Mike Williams with their #1 pick in 2002. 7 years is less than a decade. Maybe 7 years of neglect? But you're right, we could definitely use some OL help. Fair enough, REDDOGBLITZ. To me, though one early round o-line pick in seven years to cover all five o-line positions ... to me, that counts as neglect. But you're right, they did pick Williams and it turned out to be a colossal mistake. That shouldn't have stopped them from picking o-line guys is all I'm saying.
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Posted August 7, 2009 Good effort at turning the thread around Thurman. I'll try to help out. I enjoyed the article and I have always respected Ross Tucker's writing and I appreciated him as a player too. As a football player Tucker was smart (attended and graduated Princeton) and mastered playing center and both guard positions. He was nasty...he was always the guy playing until and after the whistle and wasn't afraid of mixing it up. He was a bit undersized but had good mobility and blocked well at the second level. Ross Tucker because of his intelligence and experience as a pro lineman would be eminently qualified to comment on offensive line play. I think because he's a former Bill and enjoyed his time with us, that he has a soft spot for the Bills and would tend to play the positive angle. That said, here's a guy who was smart and nasty, saying that that's how an offensive line needs to be and mentioning the Bills as one of the teams seeking those traits. Great article. Thanks for posting Thurman. Thanks for replying, SAN JOSE BILLS FAN. Yeah, I loved Tucker as a player. He's telling us we should get tough smart guys in this article, and that was him, tough and smart, I totally agree with you. Not all that physically gifted, but he got his job done, and I thought he was the best guard on that team and was totally shocked when we got rid of him. And our o-line only went downhill from there. That was a Donahoe decision, wasn't it? We got rid of Tucker after the 2003 season. Actually, I've seen him write positive and negative stuff on the Bills. I think he does a pretty good job of remaining neutral. I don't always agree with him, but I definitely respect him.
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Hi, C. Biscuit. Do a bit of research on that stat. It's not an official stat, for a reason. The reason is that that stat is reliant on guesswork to figure out who is responsible for many of the sacks. And also, for the purpose of making that statistic, sacks allowed, each sack is assigned to an o-lineman. Including sacks where the QB holds on to the ball for six seconds or more. Those shouldn't be assigned to an o-lineman at all, it's the QBs job to get rid of the ball at some point. When neutral people watch the video, they generally figure Peters responsible for 5 - 8 sacks. Now, that's not great, not even good, but it's pretty clear that by the last half of the year, Peters was playing extremely well again. And do yourself a favor, don't respond to people who hijack threads. This one is about the current o-line. Again, not to get off topic, but this stat is used for every linemen in the league. Obviously, as you said, there are other factors used but every linemen faces the same criteria. So Peters wasn't judged an differently by people who "hate" him. And even if you're right, is 5 to 8 sacks acceptable out of a pro bowl $10 million LT? I say hell no. As for the current line, I like having young, hungry guys with something to prove. I like Butler but it is kinda cool to see how Bell will do against a good d-line. If Butler is a backup, that means we have a really good oline. They should improve as the season goes on and we have the foundation for a really good oline for years to come (I hope, finally )
The Senator Posted August 7, 2009 Posted August 7, 2009 Ha ha ha ha ha. This is really funny. Here, I'll be the senator, "What percentage of guys actually played against or with him? And by the way, I have unilaterally decided that nobody counts if they are, say, offensive linemen to be eligible . You know,even though offensive linemen are the people most qualified to judge other offensive linemen. Or wide recievers. I mean, yeah, they are on the teams with guys who study Peters video like it was porn, and they talk, but I don't consider them eligible. Aw, heck, let's admit it, no professional football player knows half as much as me, The Senator, a poor man, sitting alone in his room crazy with jealousy and hate and other unnamed feelings about Peters. I know much more than the pros. Right. Anyway, Senator, this thread didn't even mention Peters. I have to wonder about you. You take a thread entirely about this year's Bills o-line, and again bring Peters in. I've often commented on your sheer quantity of hatred, and here's more evidence. I feel sorry for you, seriously. You must wake up in the morning thinking about Peters, dream about him at lunch and go to sleep thinking about how much you hate him. Are we going to read about you in the newspaper someday, with pictures of you being led off in chains after some horrific massacre? Seriously, it must be awful to live with so much hate. :worthy: :worthy: Ha ha ha ha ha - actually, I woke up without a thought about the object of your man-crush. Then I saw your posts - time-stamped 12:50 AM, 12:59 AM, 1:05 AM, 1:17 AM, 6:24 AM, and 6:34 AM - continuing your proclivity of responding sequentially to every single freaking post that maligns the object of your man-lust. Judging from the time-stamps, it looks like Jason gives you about 6 to 12 minutes rest between blow-jobs, and about 5 hours after a good ass-pounding. And regarding your snotty remark... I know much more than the pros. Right. ...all I did was cite another article by a guy - Ross Tucker - whose opinion you claim to respect - Actually, I've seen him write positive and negative stuff on the Bills. I think he does a pretty good job of remaining neutral. I don't always agree with him, but I definitely respect him. ...and who, with regard to Pro Bowl voting - wrote - Though I'm quite sure some of my personal opinions regarding players that didn't deserve to get in (I'm talking to you, Jason Peters) and vice versa will come to the forefront, my focus will be on the process itself because more often than not that is where the problems originate.One team I was on simply had every player go into their own position room and fill out a ballot and turn it in like a fan voting online, with no discussion whatsoever. Some guys filled it out in less than five minutes. Not good. There is no way that I, as an offensive lineman, would know how well the corners or safeties around the league are truly playing. And do you honestly think the wide receivers really know what defensive tackle is doing the best job stopping the run? Please. All they know is what they hear on the scouting report, if they were even listening during that portion, or from the media hype machine that carries certain players to Hawaii every year. Players should primarily and often do only vote for the position groups they compete against or among. That means offensive linemen should vote for other offensive linemen, defensive linemen and linebackers. This varies from team to team. Then their votes are reconciled with the other position groups on the team to form one unanimous vote, for all intents and purposes, among the 53 guys on a team. That only works, or course, when the position groups decide to vote in unison, which is fairly common but can often cause heated discussions and some players may be forced to vote for players they do not deem worthy of the selection. That is where the politics can come into play. There is a long-held belief among a large segment of players that there is a mild form of collusion among the perennial Pro Bowlers to ensure they all make their way back to Hawaii yet again. Since Pro Bowlers are almost always the leaders of their position group if not their team, they tend to have a tremendous amount of influence during the voting process and thus the ability to push the room, as the case may be, in a certain direction. That might be part of the reason why a veteran stalwart that is having a subpar season, like Charles Woodson - or Jason Peters (my addition) - gets selected. link Ross Tucker's words, not mine. (A pro, an offensive lineman who played with Peters, and a guy whom you claim to respect.) But you know more than him. Right.
Recommended Posts