Sisyphean Bills Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Very true. It is the small cross section of two much larger groups. The group that thought Peters sucked as a football player and the group that thought Walker was an adequate replacement. And, anybody that understands line play would be in neither of those groups.
billybob Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Bills FO: Walker get over here you are our new starting LT Walker: Thank you sir but I don't think I'm really cut out for LT, I've tried before and I sucked. Bills FO: Listen Walker we're in the Bills front office and we know what we are doing, just do your best Walker: yes sir I'll do my best some times passes Bills FO: Walker why did you tell us you could play LT, you stink, you suck, we are cutting you right now, we can't abide people like you in our fine organization.
Wilson from Gamehendge Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Here is a video proving that Walker has been staying in shape by lifting weights...
rstencel Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Here is a video proving that Walker has been staying in shape by lifting weights... Doesnt look like hes been doing much cardio.
PDaDdy Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 From his own interview comments for one. Fact he would stand around so much in plays for another. Looked at tapes from last year, compared to this preseason, and noticed that he didn't have the hustle or follow through has shown in past. When play was away from him, he would hold his blocks, when no one rushed him he would look for someone to block, and finished his blocks frequently. This preseason he did allot of watching when play wasn't his way, and when he blocked, he only held for a few seconds then let go allot, rather than driving and or finishing. Can understand him not being able to keep up with a smaller guy sometimes, but if gets his hands on them, he should be able to finish them like has shown in past. I'm sure you saw what you saw but I would draw a different conclusion. I think you seeing him play differently is a reflection of his lack of ability to play LT. I also don't recall Langston saying he wasn't motivated to play LT I assume you are equating his lack of optimism with lack of trying. He was obviously not optimistic but I wouldn't be optimistic going into the ring with Mike Tyson. I just know I'm not the right guy for that job! I'm sorry but it is just a complete fantasy that a significant contributing factor to his failure was lack of enthusiasm. The lack of enthusiasm was a symptom not the problem. HUGE difference.
PDaDdy Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 I wasn't meaning to imply that he would ever actually play at that weight, just that he would be one heck of an athlete if could get to it. What I meant it to say is that if he got in shape, and got to the 350 range. He would be much quicker at changing directions, and have quicker first step that is needed for LT. Doubt he was much less than 380 this year however, and he looked bigger this year than last to me. Difference of opinion I guess. I don't see Walker as a LT at any weight. He was moved there out of desperation not on field performance.
PDaDdy Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Bills FO: Walker get over here you are our new starting LT Walker: Thank you sir but I don't think I'm really cut out for LT, I've tried before and I sucked. Bills FO: Listen Walker we're in the Bills front office and we know what we are doing, just do your best Walker: yes sir I'll do my best some times passes Bills FO: Walker why did you tell us you could play LT, you stink, you suck, we are cutting you right now, we can't abide people like you in our fine organization. LOL...TOO TRUE!!!!
rstencel Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 I'm sure you saw what you saw but I would draw a different conclusion. I think you seeing him play differently is a reflection of his lack of ability to play LT. I also don't recall Langston saying he wasn't motivated to play LT I assume you are equating his lack of optimism with lack of trying. He was obviously not optimistic but I wouldn't be optimistic going into the ring with Mike Tyson. I just know I'm not the right guy for that job! I'm sorry but it is just a complete fantasy that a significant contributing factor to his failure was lack of enthusiasm. The lack of enthusiasm was a symptom not the problem. HUGE difference. Yes I am partially tying them together. When people are vocal about not being happy about doing something, it usually shows in their performance. And watching his performance didn't look to me like he was finishing plays or hustling. It is true could be reading to much into it, but that it sure looked that way to me.
SuperKillerRobots Posted September 11, 2009 Posted September 11, 2009 Hold up - after Peters was traded and up until Walker was let go - Walker was deemed by a lot on this board to be better than Peters and an upgrade! He was so great according to some in filling in for Peters last year and he only gave up 3 sacks last year and his long arms and footwork would negate his lack of mobility. Now he is being cast off as being on the level of Mike Williams! Help me I'm confused; did he just get bad overnight? Oh wait - the Bills staff said his play regressed - if they sign Runyan and put Butler on the bench after playing him out of position will his play regress as well? If Levitre struggles all season will his play just be deemed as he is learning and improving? Look its one thing for delusional fans to hate on player and overhype another and at the same time make excuses for players the have a liking for; it is another for Bills management to do the same! This isn't Madden folks this is the N. F. L. which stands for Not For Long - unless you want to talk about our Non Playoff Streak! I still think he's a decent player and worth having on your team even as a starter, as long as you are not going to run an offense that requires him to not get his breath in between plays though.
bluv Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 Definitely some good points in there. QB has been a problem for us since Kelly. A fact that everyone here laments. It's not the only way to make the play offs or win a super bowl but it sure freakin' helps and we haven't had that guy since. Of course we can't be stocked with pro bowl talent at every position. It's just one facet, but we need to be willing to pay at least SOME of the good to pro bowl talent we draft or develop. We hang on to and over pay for chumps for lineman and let GOOD to GREAT CBs run through us like a turnstile. We should be drafting impact players at any position that gives us value when its our pick instead of continually restocking the shelves with CB because we won't pay the last guy fair market value. Until we find a franchise QB, a flexible coaching staff, and scouts to bring in talent to either fit a scheme we will always be on the verge!
JohnC Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 You need to go back and check! There were plenty who pointed out how well Walker stepped in the first 2 games and played so well and how Peters gave up 11 sacks to Walkers 3. Don't forget those wwho poined out how we averaged a half yard more per carry running right than left. You don't remember all those Peters was a fat lazy bum comments or how Walker and Butler were the best players on the line. It might not have been you or your friends but it was plenty of insane similar comments going on until 6 days ago! Remember how some were quick to defend Walker once Mark Sclerth called him a journeyman? Face it: fans on this board over react and jump on board to bash players they don't like; especially those who want to be paid or leave. Once they make a bad play the haters jump on it, point it out and others feed in and then they make it indictative of that players whole body of work. It goes the same way in the opposite direction as some can make one key play and it can get overhyped for days to weeks; especially if they play a position of a player who is being ganged banged! I don't want to belabor the Peters issue but isn't it curious that the Eagles made the trade and almost immediately signed him to the mega-deal worthy of an upper tier LT while the Bills were adamant that they were not going to give him an upgraded contract. The Eagles have been in the NFL Championship game five out of the last ten years. The Bills have not made the playoffs over the past decade, including this year. Which organization has demonstrated good personnel judgment, and which organization has demonstrated an abysmal personnel judgment? If you are not sure, just look at the records.
K-9 Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 I don't want to belabor the Peters issue but isn't it curious that the Eagles made the trade and almost immediately signed him to the mega-deal worthy of an upper tier LT while the Bills were adamant that they were not going to give him an upgraded contract. The Eagles have been in the NFL Championship game five out of the last ten years. The Bills have not made the playoffs over the past decade, including this year. Which organization has demonstrated good personnel judgment, and which organization has demonstrated an abysmal personnel judgment? If you are not sure, just look at the records. Can you say revisionist history? There's no need to go done this badly worn road again but when people just make sh*t up to support their view I have to call it. Get acquainted with the facts. GO BILLS!!!
bluv Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 Can you say revisionist history? There's no need to go done this badly worn road again but when people just make sh*t up to support their view I have to call it. Get acquainted with the facts. GO BILLS!!! Dont forget we have marketing guys acting as GM's - they know how to make a player look selfish - it really isn't that hard come to think of it. The real behind the scnes facts are (common sense rules): he asked for an upgrade and was originally told no as we just redone your contract, he threaten to hold out. After it made the Bills look bad that he was the 3rd highest paid player on the O-line when he was one of the best in football, they either made him a market offer or a marketing ploy statement to say that they did to keep good face. Regardless Peters didn't like the offer and he was branded as being selfish; wanting to be the highest paid O-lineman; whatever. After his holdout was unsuccessful, he played out the season and had an attitude that he was playing out his contract and bolting town regardless of what he was offered as he felt he was wronged and probably didn't care much for Buffalo anyway. So what? they had him under contract and since he has the ability and will only get paid when he performs at a high level, he would have bust his a$$ to get his way out of Buffalo. Then we could have franchised him after 2 years. Good franchises dont let young,elite Pro Bowl talent at hard to fill positions such as QB, LT, DE,DT, etc leave your squad easily.
JohnC Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 Can you say revisionist history? There's no need to go done this badly worn road again but when people just make sh*t up to support their view I have to call it. Get acquainted with the facts. GO BILLS!!! What is revisionist about my posting? It is a fact that the Eagles quickly signed him to a very lucrative deal after the trade while the Bills refused to redo his below market contract. It is also a fact that the Bills are a consistently losing team and the Eagles are a consistently winning team. Do you deny that the Eagles are superior in making personnel decisions? Even the Bills front office would admit to that obvious fact. If you don't agree with that assessment then compare the records of the teams. You are right about what is done is done. But as long as this mediocre organization takes a step forward and then two back the lousy results will continue.
K-9 Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 What is revisionist about my posting? It is a fact that the Eagles quickly signed him to a very lucrative deal after the trade while the Bills refused to redo his below market contract. It is also a fact that the Bills are a consistently losing team and the Eagles are a consistently winning team. Do you deny that the Eagles are superior in making personnel decisions? Even the Bills front office would admit to that obvious fact. If you don't agree with that assessment then compare the records of the teams. You are right about what is done is done. But as long as this mediocre organization takes a step forward and then two back the lousy results will continue. The revisionist part is that which I highlighted from your post: ...while the Bills were adamant that they were not going to give him an upgraded contract... That's simply not true. And that's all I'm disagreeing with you about. The Bills told him if he participated in the off-season activities and report to camp on time they would renegotiate. Peters chose not to. The Bills' track record of renegotiating contracts with players who show up was/is well established. Peters chose a different route. Fact of the matter is, he didn't want to play in Buffalo. I'll have to dig up the quote he gave the Philly papers not too long ago where he said that. GO BILLS!!!
BuffaloBill Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 ouch ... too painful to watch that moobage.
PDaDdy Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 The revisionist part is that which I highlighted from your post: ...while the Bills were adamant that they were not going to give him an upgraded contract... That's simply not true. And that's all I'm disagreeing with you about. The Bills told him if he participated in the off-season activities and report to camp on time they would renegotiate. Peters chose not to. The Bills' track record of renegotiating contracts with players who show up was/is well established. Peters chose a different route. Fact of the matter is, he didn't want to play in Buffalo. I'll have to dig up the quote he gave the Philly papers not too long ago where he said that. GO BILLS!!! To be clear they said they would TALK if he reported. There was NO promise of a new contract, NOR the promise of a fair market value contract. The front office for whatever reasons, which perhaps they will only know 100%, let a young pro bowl LT tackle leave town.
PDaDdy Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 Hey just throwing this out there. What do we think the chances are that we resign Langston Walker after the first game? To my knowledge nobody has jumped on him yet or rung up his phone. Langston is not a LT but I was fine with him at RT. We could probably get him for a lot less money with no guaranteed year long contract if we resign him after Monday night.
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 Fact of the matter is, he didn't want to play in Buffalo. I'll have to dig up the quote he gave the Philly papers not too long ago where he said that. What's curious: Melvin Fowler, I read in some report, basically went to the coaches last year and said he didn't want to play against the 3-4 defenses. So, they glued him to the bench. That has always struck me as, well, more than a little strange. He was the pivot on an offense that was 4-1, IIRC, at the time. Peters said in a recent interview that he was so exasperated with the contract negotiations that he told his agent to tell the Bills he didn't want to hear any more offers. He was going to play out his contract and leave. At that same time, the Bills called and told him he was traded. Now, there is this story that Dockery watched Redskins games on Monday, crying in his beer as he was handed his game check from the Bills. Finally, we have the unexpected cut of Langston Walker. He sounded less than eager to be switching from RT to LT and his play in practice and pre-season has been labeled, "mailing it in". That is 4 starters out of a unit of 5 that are gone and seemed, shall we say, less than gung-ho about playing for the Bills. Maybe it is all just a coincidence...
spartacus Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 The revisionist part is that which I highlighted from your post: ...while the Bills were adamant that they were not going to give him an upgraded contract... That's simply not true. And that's all I'm disagreeing with you about. The Bills told him if he participated in the off-season activities and report to camp on time they would renegotiate. Peters chose not to. The Bills' track record of renegotiating contracts with players who show up was/is well established. Peters chose a different route. Fact of the matter is, he didn't want to play in Buffalo. I'll have to dig up the quote he gave the Philly papers not too long ago where he said that. GO BILLS!!! in January 2008, when it mattered and when they could have easily made their best player happy, Brandon point blank told Peters to stuff it and were adamant that they were not going to give him an upgraded contract... in 2008 since he had 3 years left on his contract. if they rewarded their best player for pro bowl performance at this time, there would not have been a hold out. in retrospect, this situation is too stupid to comprehend. The 2 guys that were getting megabucks that pushed Peters to ask for more money have now been cut outright savings tens of millions of $$$$. Of course, none of this money saved has been applied to fixing the LT hole, as the Bills are again employing the lowest paid LT in the league.
Recommended Posts