Wood vs Peters

[Flbillsfan#1]

Yeah it is always wise to give up on a young two time Pro Bowl LT for a first round center moving to guard. You people are are morons. I don't see Trent surviving the first game with Walker and Butler at the tackle positions.

He survived the 1st game last year. The interior of the line should be much better than last year & they can use a RB or TE to help on the edges.

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

Peters allowed 11.5 sacks last season, so if Walker gives up the same amount or less, then it was a good idea to switch Walker to LT.

 

As long as both Wood & Levitre are as good as advertised, it really doesn't matter who is better, just as long as they make the O-line better and perform well on game day.

 

Well that statement just proves your ignorance. I think you should look at the total amount of sacks allowed by the line as a whole, since that would more accurately reflect the fact that JP could be left alone on blocking assignments all the time and LW will require continuous help from backs and TEs.

[DazedandConfused]

He survived the 1st game last year. The interior of the line should be much better than last year & they can use a RB or TE to help on the edges.

My sense of the OL is that the key to its success is not going to be the quality of a particular individual player but whether they develop the ephemeral quality good chemistry in world record time.

 

The keys to whether this happens are:

 

1. Player leadership- One element the OL has clearly lacked since the glory days of the 90s has been the difficult to question never say die player leadership Kent Hull provided the OL. He was never a league wide heralded stud like Ruben was and the inherent inequity of the play/performance (which led to us ovepaying Fina because he was our best bet at LT though he was adequate at best and then play LG Brown LT money since he was clearly our most heralded player even though Hull was for years our most valuable OL player).

 

We are clearly demanding and thus expecting a lot from Hamgartner, He actually seems to have enough vet experience and apparently is a nice guy who might provide it. The problem is that at best he seems good but not great and we are gonna ask a lot. We will see.

 

I think the most recent mediocre repeating 7-9 Bills squads have the play of Dockery as showing the leadership failure. Not only did the interior OL with its bright pulling center Fowler fail to see the hugely paid Dockery asset itself in short yardage, but my GUESS is that the Bills in part blame Dockery for not asserting himself to force Peters to be a stand up teammate.

 

The BIG Bills management error was in not really replacing the OL leadership Mouse McNally provided (he even carrot and sticked idiot Mike Williams into brief good performances and being a good person when he lost the Grammy who raised him and not having strong enough O leadership for the conservatively minded DJ to overcome the lack of solid player OL leadership.

 

We will see how Hamgartner does. He has never been a great player, but then neither was Hull. Hamgartner needs to give a refuse to lose ethic to his young OL teammates. Coaches can help coach the technical points but cannot replace onfield leadership and the breaking in of Wood til he becomes a vet he needs.

 

2. Our O scheme better generate a ton of WR pressure- Gone are the days when we had the biggest OL in the NFL and we planned to simply beat down opposing Ds. The new O scheme had better take some pressure off its very young OL by simply forcing opposing teams into a zone with dts commanded by Evans speed and growing athleticism and TOs proven RAC abilities. Add in Parrish who should be a monster with imprecise route running if he is consistently singled in a 3 WR base O and have Reed (miscast as a #2 and potentially devastating picking on LBs as a #4) and also Hardy (you can't teach tall and he was drafted as a #2 when he will be our #5 and Johnson (not short at 6' 3" and showed the talent Hardy should have shown) and we really are loaded at WR.

 

This loading at WR is essential since we are still a year (at best) away from adequacy at TE and FB is a placefiller at best. The young OL needs Evans to step up into the consistent #1 I think he can be (Edwards needs to step up here IMHO to make this happen as you cannot teach speed either and Evans not only has this but has hinted at times a real athleticism which impresses me). Like all human beings who are lucky TO is getting older. However, if the Bills were depending on him to be a #1 this would be laughable. If the Bills were depending on him not to blow up for more than a year, this would also be laughable (TOs demonstrated rep as a problem in SF, then Philly and then Dallas is that he is great his first year so I think the stories and comments which call him a cancer are simply bleating and whiining. Even with the age drop-off I expect him to have he should still prove to be the best #2 WR the Bills have had in years.

 

The key is for Turk to step up in designing slants and pressuring routes (run picks until the refs stop us from doing this) and go for the kill consistently on O. If the D is forced to zone up by the match-ups and not given time to run veteran stunts by things like the no huddle, our young OL will get to take on folks 1/1 and should have the talent to do this. Trent will have to watch and dump it off when the OL gets beat or find the open WR when they send run/blitz packages,

 

The Woods/Peter comparison is a silly distraction I hope the coaches ignore and smarter fans avoid.

[Jerry Jabber]

Well that statement just proves your ignorance. I think you should look at the total amount of sacks allowed by the line as a whole, since that would more accurately reflect the fact that JP could be left alone on blocking assignments all the time and LW will require continuous help from backs and TEs.

 

Oh, I forgot, Peters showed up in great shape and didn't allow 11.5 sacks last season?! Peters play was terrible for the first 6 games he played in. Yes, Losman held onto the ball way too long, but that's still no excuse for Peters showing up out of shape and giving up 11.5 sacks last season. His vote to the pro-bowl last season was a joke, he deserved it the year before, but definitely not last season.

[zazie]

Oh, I forgot, Peters showed up in great shape and didn't allow 11.5 sacks last season?! Peters play was terrible for the first 6 games he played in. Yes, Losman held onto the ball way too long, but that's still no excuse for Peters showing up out of shape and giving up 11.5 sacks last season. His vote to the pro-bowl last season was a joke, he deserved it the year before, but definitely not last season.

I'm thinking he will get it agaion this year. Although he likely won't go he seems to miss them all; smart, he doesn't want a Robert Evans injury to kill his career for a worthless game.

[Thurman#1]

I actually think if the situation were similar in New England, Bellichick would have been fine moving Peters for those picks and selecting Wood, and would have said no player is more important than the team.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree there. Belichick doesn't pay everyone too little. Look at the salary he paid Brady, it's huge. Look at what he pays Seymour. In 2006, he signed a contract with Seymour that "would make Seymour one of the highest-paid defenders in the league, regardless of position."

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2406619

 

Belichick is a tough negotiator, and he won't overpay guys who are essentially journeymen benefitting from the Patriots system. But he does pay the truly excellent players on his team. We'll never know, but IMHO he would have paid Peters. Before Seymour signed that contract, by the way, he skipped much of the Patriots early off-season workouts. Then the Pats worked out the difference with him.

 

Notice the differences in how the two teams work when facing the same situation.

[Thurman#1]

Oh, I forgot, Peters showed up in great shape and didn't allow 11.5 sacks last season?! Peters play was terrible for the first 6 games he played in. Yes, Losman held onto the ball way too long, but that's still no excuse for Peters showing up out of shape and giving up 11.5 sacks last season. His vote to the pro-bowl last season was a joke, he deserved it the year before, but definitely not last season.

 

 

Jerry, why do you force people to repeat this over and over again.

 

1) You said that Peters allowed 11.5 sacks last season. He didn't. Again, and you must know this by now, it's been on these boards a million times, that stat is an unofficial statistic. The reason it's unofficial is because it is put together by guessing. How can you pretend a stat compiled by guesswork is worth the paper it's printed on? Only the Bills know what the blocking assignments are on a given play. This stats guy had to, on many plays, simply guess who to blame a sack on.

 

How can you take a stat like that seriously?

 

There was a guy on another board that put together videos of all the sacks in question. When people looked at them, a huge huge majority said that it looked like Peters was responsible for somewhere between 5 and 8 sacks. And most of them were early in the season. 5 - 8, that is the reasonable figure. And, no, it's far from great, but when Peters goes to training camp he allows almost none.

 

The Bills said that in 2007, Peters was responsible for 0.5 sacks. That's what you get when you get Peters into camp.

 

 

2) Peters DID show up in great shape. But not in football shape. And there is simply no way to get into football shape without training camp or games. But he was in terrific shape. Doubt it?

 

"Buffalo Bills left tackle Jason Peters said he’s not worried about temperatures that could reach 94 degrees Sunday in Jacksonville.

“Not at all,” Peters said after the Bills’ practice Wednesday. “I just left Texas and it was like 105.”

Yes, but you weren’t playing football, Peters was told.

“No, but I was in the heat running,” he replied.

...

The 6-foot-4 Peters looked like he was in great shape, as trim and muscular as a person with a 340-pound frame can look.

“I’m going to be mentally ready,” Peters said. “It’s [about] getting back into football shape. I haven’t put the pads on since the Giants game [last Dec. 23].”

 

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/436406.html

 

 

Peters appeared to be in good shape Monday, but it could take another week or two before he’s fully prepared for game action.

“Mentally and physically, he’s fine,” Jauron said. “It will just be a question of timing and football shape and information. We’re different than we were a year ago.”

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/434692.html

 

 

There you have it. He was in good shape. But not in good football shape. And people downplay the information he missed, too. The Bills switched signals and terminology in the off-season and he was way behind in that too.

 

 

You're right on when you say that Peters just wasn't good early on last year. No question about it. We can agree on that, at least. But if you want to talk about the LT situation this year, you should be comparing it to the potential LT situation if Peters had been signed and was coming to training camp. Because when Peters comes to camp, he is one hell of a left tackle.

[Thurman#1]

Where's 'Mickey the Drama Queen' today?

 

Shouldn't he also be here to protect Jason?

 

 

"Protect Jason?" And someone else is a drama queen?

 

Well, you did it again, you made me crack up. Thanks for that.

 

Protect Peters? Are you crazy? Or do you just have a hugely-inflated idea of your own importance? I get the feeling that you think Peters is crouched down in Philly in an easy chair, with tears running down his cheeks, saying "Gee, I ... I just hope this Senator guys stops saying bad stuff about me. It hurts me so deeply. Thank goodness for the people on that site that come and protect me."

 

Peters doesn't know you're alive. Or me. Or anyone else on this board. Nobody is protecting him. Or attacking him. He doesn't care. In his situation, I sure wouldn't care. Neither would you.

 

All that is happening on these boards is a bunch of people are talking about the Buffalo Bills. That's all that is happening.

 

And you call someone else a drama queen? "Protect Jason." Unbelievable.

[Jerry Jabber]

http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2009/08/09/b...lls-fan-jersey/

[K-9]

We'll have to agree to disagree there. Belichick doesn't pay everyone too little. Look at the salary he paid Brady, it's huge. Look at what he pays Seymour. In 2006, he signed a contract with Seymour that "would make Seymour one of the highest-paid defenders in the league, regardless of position."

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2406619

 

Belichick is a tough negotiator, and he won't overpay guys who are essentially journeymen benefitting from the Patriots system. But he does pay the truly excellent players on his team. We'll never know, but IMHO he would have paid Peters. Before Seymour signed that contract, by the way, he skipped much of the Patriots early off-season workouts. Then the Pats worked out the difference with him.

 

Notice the differences in how the two teams work when facing the same situation.

 

Well since we're on the subject of Belicheat hypotheticals, how do you think he would have handled all those great DBs we got rid of? Would he have kept Winfield, Clements, and Greer after they hit free agency? What does his track record pertaining to DBs suggest?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Thurman#1]

Well since we're on the subject of Belicheat hypotheticals, how do you think he would have handled all those great DBs we got rid of? Would he have kept Winfield, Clements, and Greer after they hit free agency? What does his track record pertaining to DBs suggest?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

 

Interesting question, though this is clearly an OL thread, so I'll make it as quick as I can with such a complex subject:

 

1) The Pats* don't draft CBs in the first round (0 since the 2000 draft). That probably keeps their salary battles to a minimum, since they aren't getting guys like Clements, Winfield and McKelvin.

 

2) The Pats* do draft CBs in the second round (Darius Butler, Terrence Wheatley and Eugene Wilson since 2000), and they do draft CBs in the second round (Ellis Hobbs and Brock Williams since 2000). Again, this keeps their salary battles to a minimum while still bringing in competent guys.

 

3) Unlike the Bills, the Pats* draft d-line early. This makes the job of the CBs much easier, because the Pats* ferocious rush causes more hurried throws. This is where the Bills really ought to take a leaf out of the Pats* playbook. They don't need terrific CBs. On the other hand, with our very average d-line and (at least last year) pathetic rush, we desperately need good CBs.

 

4) The only really top-flight CB I can remember them having is Ty Law. When his contract ran out, the Pats* paid him $9 mill a year as a franchise player for one year. They fought like hell to get him re-signed and finally couldn't manage it. The franchise salary for CBs the next year was $12.5 million, and the Pats* finally balked at that. They did pay him $9 mill for the 2004 season. They wouldn't pay him $12.5 mill for the 2005 season.

 

Based on all that, he wouldn't have drafted the first-rounders in the first place. But if they were on the team, I think he obviously values CBs like Law to have paid him so much. I guess I don't know. If I had to guess, I think he would have let Clements go and re-signed Winfield.

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

Oh, I forgot, Peters showed up in great shape and didn't allow 11.5 sacks last season?! Peters play was terrible for the first 6 games he played in. Yes, Losman held onto the ball way too long, but that's still no excuse for Peters showing up out of shape and giving up 11.5 sacks last season. His vote to the pro-bowl last season was a joke, he deserved it the year before, but definitely not last season.

 

What makes you feel that his selection to the pro-bowl by people *actually* involved in the NFL is less valid than your ridiculous opinion that he didn't deserve it? What makes you feel that Peters in the only player in the NFL who is not susceptible to the dynamics of football and that he alone should never allow sacks, even when there are no options to throw to on the field and TE gets sacked merely because he held the ball too long? Out of those 11.5 sacks (which is unofficial), how many times did TE have at least 3 seconds or more to throw the ball before being sacked? Seriously don't sit here and spout meaningless statistics that DO NOT reflect the dynamics of the game as the primary argument for your position, because it makes you sound too stupid to even consider.

 

My above statement is not and indictment of Trent Edwards but rather of the lack of options he had which to deliver the ball. I believe TE will be an excellent and probably even Pro Bowl quarterback this year, *if* the Bills can keep him on his feet. But with a Jason Peters sized hole at LT, that remains a critical conditional statement that logic dictates will be hard to achieve.

 

To suggest that a pro bowl LT can be replaced by drafting a rookie guard is absurd beyond comprehension. That being said, I believe that the Bills acquisition of T.O. increased the talent and potency of their offense to a greater extent than the loss of JP diminished it, and for that reason I believe the Bills have a legitimate shot at making the playoffs. The main difference in my mind being that with JP on the roster, we would have had a Patriots-like offense and been a legitimate SB contender, not just hoping for a playoff birth and being happy with that.

[K-9]

Interesting question, though this is clearly an OL thread, so I'll make it as quick as I can with such a complex subject:

 

1) The Pats* don't draft CBs in the first round (0 since the 2000 draft). That probably keeps their salary battles to a minimum, since they aren't getting guys like Clements, Winfield and McKelvin.

 

2) The Pats* do draft CBs in the second round (Darius Butler, Terrence Wheatley and Eugene Wilson since 2000), and they do draft CBs in the second round (Ellis Hobbs and Brock Williams since 2000). Again, this keeps their salary battles to a minimum while still bringing in competent guys.

 

3) Unlike the Bills, the Pats* draft d-line early. This makes the job of the CBs much easier, because the Pats* ferocious rush causes more hurried throws. This is where the Bills really ought to take a leaf out of the Pats* playbook. They don't need terrific CBs. On the other hand, with our very average d-line and (at least last year) pathetic rush, we desperately need good CBs.

 

4) The only really top-flight CB I can remember them having is Ty Law. When his contract ran out, the Pats* paid him $9 mill a year as a franchise player for one year. They fought like hell to get him re-signed and finally couldn't manage it. The franchise salary for CBs the next year was $12.5 million, and the Pats* finally balked at that. They did pay him $9 mill for the 2004 season. They wouldn't pay him $12.5 mill for the 2005 season.

 

Based on all that, he wouldn't have drafted the first-rounders in the first place. But if they were on the team, I think he obviously values CBs like Law to have paid him so much. I guess I don't know. If I had to guess, I think he would have let Clements go and re-signed Winfield.

 

Round in which they're drafted has nothing to do with it. The fact is Belicheat has seen fit to say good-bye to at least TWO Pro-Bowl CBs in his tenure with the Pats, Ty Law and Asante Samuel. None of the CBs that the Bills saw fit not to re-sign enjoyed the success of those players. Yet you give the Pats* a pass on the very same criteria for the value they place on CBs that you criticize the Bills for.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[John from Riverside]

You know another way of looking at this (and I am just babbling here)

 

- We got an undrafted guy who gave us some good play at the LT spot

- We basically RENTED him because he really was not a Buffalo Bill at heart

- We USED him to get us a highly touted versitile player in Eric Wood

- Now here is the big part IF ERIC WOOD BECOMES A BUFFALO BILL PLAYER at heart....in the mold of say....Kent Hull. Well then in the end this becomes on of the best trade offs in Buffalo Bill history.

 

Yes.....LT's are hard to find.....yes....Jason Peters WAS one of those guys......but I also think guys like Eric Wood are special.....he is the kind of guy that will make the players around him better......you can see him being a lead by example AND vocal leader of our OL in the future.

 

Marshawn Lynch is a between the tackles runner.......this should help him excel.

[K-9]

You know another way of looking at this (and I am just babbling here)

 

- We got an undrafted guy who gave us some good play at the LT spot

- We basically RENTED him because he really was not a Buffalo Bill at heart

- We USED him to get us a highly touted versitile player in Eric Wood

- Now here is the big part IF ERIC WOOD BECOMES A BUFFALO BILL PLAYER at heart....in the mold of say....Kent Hull. Well then in the end this becomes on of the best trade offs in Buffalo Bill history.

 

Yes.....LT's are hard to find.....yes....Jason Peters WAS one of those guys......but I also think guys like Eric Wood are special.....he is the kind of guy that will make the players around him better......you can see him being a lead by example AND vocal leader of our OL in the future.

 

Marshawn Lynch is a between the tackles runner.......this should help him excel.

 

As usual, a GREAT OLine analysis by our representative in California.

 

I will go so far as to say Wood is ALREADY a Bill at heart. And will be for a long time. When he knocks the snot out of Wilfork in the opener everyone will see why.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Thurman#1]

Round in which they're drafted has nothing to do with it. The fact is Belicheat has seen fit to say good-bye to at least TWO Pro-Bowl CBs in his tenure with the Pats, Ty Law and Asante Samuel. None of the CBs that the Bills saw fit not to re-sign enjoyed the success of those players. Yet you give the Pats* a pass on the very same criteria for the value they place on CBs that you criticize the Bills for.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

 

Round in which they select QBs has a lot to do with it. They struggled and tried desperately to sign Law, you know that if you were anywhere around at that time. They were desperate. Couldn't get it done, but tried desperately. Again, in 2004, five years ago, they gave Law a one-year salary that was almost what Peters got. They gave Ty Law $9 mill as a franchise player. And thought about doing it again in 2005, but couldn't spend $12.5 million, in 2005, 25% more than Peters got this year. They were desperate to get Law, desperate.

 

And it should be plain that the Pats* and Bills are treating their corners very differently, with the Bills spending little time seriously trying to re-sign guys and instead using vital first round picks that they should be using for the lines the way that the Cheatriots* do, on guys to replace the CBs they aren't re-signing.

 

It is a huge difference. And again, you are the one who is concentrating on CBs, God knows why. The Bills have not re-signed guys from many different positions. It is not a CB issue, though I grant you that the Bills are more consistent about doing it with CBs than with any other position.

 

And if you want to talk about this anymore, start a thread about it and quit hijacking this one.

[Thurman#1]

You know another way of looking at this (and I am just babbling here)

 

- We got an undrafted guy who gave us some good play at the LT spot

- We basically RENTED him because he really was not a Buffalo Bill at heart

- We USED him to get us a highly touted versitile player in Eric Wood

- Now here is the big part IF ERIC WOOD BECOMES A BUFFALO BILL PLAYER at heart....in the mold of say....Kent Hull. Well then in the end this becomes on of the best trade offs in Buffalo Bill history.

 

Yes.....LT's are hard to find.....yes....Jason Peters WAS one of those guys......but I also think guys like Eric Wood are special.....he is the kind of guy that will make the players around him better......you can see him being a lead by example AND vocal leader of our OL in the future.

 

Marshawn Lynch is a between the tackles runner.......this should help him excel.

 

 

 

None of these guys are Buffalo Bills at heart, in the sense that you mean it. If another team offers them more money, they are all going. Peters wanted to stay in Buffalo, but only if they gave him market value, which they didn't. If we don't give Wood market value, he'll be gone too.

 

And LT is the most important position on the line, as well as the hardest to find.

 

I respect that you're trying to find some positives about this. I just think it's better to face these things straight on. Getting Wood is good. Losing Peters is bad, in my opinion. But hey, we can agree to disagree.

[Pilsner]

You know another way of looking at this (and I am just babbling here)

 

- We got an undrafted guy who gave us some good play at the LT spot

- We basically RENTED him because he really was not a Buffalo Bill at heart

- We USED him to get us a highly touted versitile player in Eric Wood

- Now here is the big part IF ERIC WOOD BECOMES A BUFFALO BILL PLAYER at heart....in the mold of say....Kent Hull. Well then in the end this becomes on of the best trade offs in Buffalo Bill history.

 

Yes.....LT's are hard to find.....yes....Jason Peters WAS one of those guys......but I also think guys like Eric Wood are special.....he is the kind of guy that will make the players around him better......you can see him being a lead by example AND vocal leader of our OL in the future.

 

Marshawn Lynch is a between the tackles runner.......this should help him excel.

 

 

Well stated. I agree with your post 100%. Wood definitely has the potential to make the players around him better. He has what it takes to become a leader. He's the kind of leader our 0-line needs. Let's hope he is the 2nd coming of Kent Hull. I sure hope he is.