Kal Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Welcome. Geez, not too many first posts are as good as this one. Yeah, you said it better than me about Schoumann, Mario Williams and the whole issue generally. We'll have to agree to disagree about Peters. I can agree with you about his performance in 2008, but in 2007, I thought he was out of this world. Dr. Z (I really miss his column) had Peters ranked as one of his two all-Pro tackles that year, Peters and Flozell Adams. And Z's column didn't use backups or any of that, he simply picked one QB, one RB, one center, two guards, two tackles, and so on. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writ...all.pros/1.html And you're dead on about the o-line being weak right now. I think they have a chance to improve when Bell returns and as they gel as the season goes on. The question is how much. EDIT: Oh, you work for Pro Football Focus. I didn't go there until after I finished my post, so I didn't realize that it was the website we had all been talking about. Great stuff. I guess I do have a question about "sacks allowed." It's not a stat that I like. Do you find that it is difficult on some percentage of plays to assign blame for a sack? For example, if a blitzer runs between two engaged blockers or if the QB hangs on to the ball for 5 seconds or more? How do you work out that stuff? And how about QB pressures? Are those also tough to determine? How do they compare to sacks allowed. I can imagine QB hits are fairly easy to determine, but I'm curious about those other two. Again, welcome. I'm going to get an official answer from our analysts (I work on a different aspect so wouldn't be able to give the exact wording) but sometimes we don't allocate sacks as an offensive players fault. If the QB holds onto the ball too long we'll put the sack on him, I know that ... and the way our grading works is we assign a value on the type of sack (so if its a case of a guy going straight to the QB untouched then why should he get a positive grade, or if a linemen holds his block for a long time but the QB runs out of the pocket and into a sack the linemen won't be graded down) There is a degree of subjectivity to it, but what we have is consistency throughout so we apply the same rules throughout. Pressure is a case of whenever the QB is forced from his position (where he sets himself) or if he can't step up into the pocket In regards to Peters I'll admit to not seeing a lot of him in 2007 but didn't buy into the hype quite so much ... but I'll hold my hands up to being wrong if you saw more of him (Buffalo before this season weren't a team I saw much of). No doubt the line will get better as the season goes on, though whether its enough to keep Trent upright long enough to prove himself I'm not sure.
dbringer Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Senator, I know you hate Peters, but shouldn't the facts have something to do with your assessment? Your numbers are waaaaaaaay off: http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.ph...&numgames=1 According to these guys, he's allowed 1 sack in 3 games and is the highest overall rated lineman in the NFL. That doesn't seem like failure to me... This is a great site - I'll have to bookmark it. The one problem I have with numbers-based systems like this (similar to the QB rating) is that you can't measure intangibles. I see Kirk Chambers is rated highly by this chart - but the chart must not have been watching the Bills game last week.
John from Riverside Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Hey, wait a second there, John. Peters didn't hold out two years. That just didn't happen. I admit that sometimes it lasted so long and was so talked about that it seemed like two years, but Peters only held out one year, 2008. In 2007, he was in camp and OTAs. You can look it up. That's an interesting point about the possible results among management. I never thought of that. A good point. And yeah, while I will never love this trade unless Peters flops - and that looks less likely day by day - it would have looked much much better if we had had a good back-up plan And that quote that you're talking about, I have the link, but not on this computer. The background on that quote is that he said it at one of the early press conferences after being traded. And what he said was that THE DAY THAT HE WAS TRADED, he had just called the Bills and told them that he would play out his contract and then leave. The point being that he hadn't wanted to leave until the negotiations finally broke down and he realized that he simply wasn't going to get market value from the Bills. I can't post the link from this computer, but that's what that quote was all about. Nice talking to you. You right he didnt hold out for two years.....that is a lot of assuming on my part that he was going to hold out this year (the year he was traded) but he didn't really officially hold out because we traded him before it came to that point.
K-9 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Regardless if the Bills low-balled him, treated him unfairly, whatever. The bottom line is that as soon as JP announced to the Bills that he intended to play out his contract and NEVER re-sign with the team, he forced the Bills' hand. It became management 101 at this point. An important employee announced he has no intentions of being loyal to the organization after his contract expires. He became a short-timer in every sense to the word. You NEVER keep that type of employee around for very long. It ALWAYS goes south and just broods an ongoing and festering disprespect. In a team sport this becomes anathema to tight locker rooms. If JP new that he wasn't going to be around past his contract and the Bills FO knew it as well, there was no other course available at that point. Deterioating relationships, especially with star players, is the very genesis of dissention. The Bills were forced into a corner and had no other recourse than to seek to get rid of him. They did a good job of converting the assets acquired in the trade to this point. Good luck, Peters. Good luck, Bills. Why some insist on the continual harping about his loss is counter-productive. Move on. GO BILLS!!!
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Regardless if the Bills low-balled him, treated him unfairly, whatever. The bottom line is that as soon as JP announced to the Bills that he intended to play out his contract and NEVER re-sign with the team, he forced the Bills' hand. It became management 101 at this point. An important employee announced he has no intentions of being loyal to the organization after his contract expires. He became a short-timer in every sense to the word. You NEVER keep that type of employee around for very long. It ALWAYS goes south and just broods an ongoing and festering disprespect. In a team sport this becomes anathema to tight locker rooms. If JP new that he wasn't going to be around past his contract and the Bills FO knew it as well, there was no other course available at that point. Deterioating relationships, especially with star players, is the very genesis of dissention. The Bills were forced into a corner and had no other recourse than to seek to get rid of him. They did a good job of converting the assets acquired in the trade to this point. Good luck, Peters. Good luck, Bills. Why some insist on the continual harping about his loss is counter-productive. Move on. GO BILLS!!! Because some have inflated opinions on how good he really was. But they ALL ignore the fact that WITH Peters the offense sucked just as badly as it does WITHOUT him.
K-9 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Because some have inflated opinions on how good he really was. But they ALL ignore the fact that WITH Peters the offense sucked just as badly as it does WITHOUT him. That's why I made my sarcastic post earlier in the thread where I stated the Bills would certainly be 4-0 if they had Peters. Even if JP goes on to be a perrenial AP ALL PRO selection and ends up in the HOF, the Bills' FO still had to do what they did vis-a-vis his intractable position of not wanting to play for them after his contract ran out. You simply don't want those players around if you can help it. Like I implied, so far this looks like a good trade for both teams. Eric Wood will be an All Pro before long and Nelson will trun into the te threat they've lacked. Time for all to turn the page. But they won't. Because as you suggested, their egos won't let them. When Peters makes ALL Pro they'll be out in force condemning the Bills' handling of the situation. Everytime Bell gets exposed as the raw player he is, they'll be out with their "I told you" soes. Never mind that the inevitable dissention that naturally arises would have been FAR more detrimental and FAR outweighed the benefits of keeping him. While JP had a responsibility to himself the FO had a far bigger one to the rest of the players that actually want to be in Buffalo. GO BILLS!!!
jad1 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Because some have inflated opinions on how good he really was. But they ALL ignore the fact that WITH Peters the offense sucked just as badly as it does WITHOUT him. You mean like peers, who voted him to two Pro Bowls? Or the Eagles, who have a much better football operations group than the Bills? There are reasons why the offense sucked last year. The interior of the oline was terrible. The team was missing a competent 2nd receiver. The QBs included a guy who couldn't read defenses and guy who checked-down 95% of his throws. As far as the Oline goes, the problem with the Peters trade is that the front offense weakened the tackle position to fix the interior of the line. Last year the Bills had servicible tackles with some decent depth at the position. They traded that for better interior players. Ignoring the position in FA and the draft compounded the problem. It's a great plan for to ensure the long-term mediocrity of the offensive line.
K-9 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 You mean like peers, who voted him to two Pro Bowls? Or the Eagles, who have a much better football operations group than the Bills? There are reasons why the offense sucked last year. The interior of the oline was terrible. The team was missing a competent 2nd receiver. The QBs included a guy who couldn't read defenses and guy who checked-down 95% of his throws. As far as the Oline goes, the problem with the Peters trade is that the front offense weakened the tackle position to fix the interior of the line. Last year the Bills had servicible tackles with some decent depth at the position. They traded that for better interior players. Ignoring the position in FA and the draft compounded the problem. It's a great plan for to ensure the long-term mediocrity of the offensive line. So you would have kept him even after he stated he wouldn't play for the Bills after his deal expired? It makes NO sense from an organizational standpoint, regardless of the type of business involved, to keep that kind of attitude around the workplace. It just doesn't work. It's easy, in the face of all the OLine injuries to say, "Ah ha! If Peters was here we wouldn't have this problem." Funny, nobody, except the true zealots, were bitchin' about the situation BEFORE Bell and Butler went down. Perhaps the Bills should be faulted for not having a better solution. I don't know. But they had no choice but to trade Peters once he said he was no longer interested in being there. GO BILLS!!!
MRW Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 So you would have kept him even after he stated he wouldn't play for the Bills after his deal expired? It makes NO sense from an organizational standpoint, regardless of the type of business involved, to keep that kind of attitude around the workplace. It just doesn't work. It's easy, in the face of all the OLine injuries to say, "Ah ha! If Peters was here we wouldn't have this problem." Funny, nobody, except the true zealots, were bitchin' about the situation BEFORE Bell and Butler went down. Perhaps the Bills should be faulted for not having a better solution. I don't know. But they had no choice but to trade Peters once he said he was no longer interested in being there. GO BILLS!!! I guess I would say I fault Bills' management for playing a key role in driving relations with Peters down to that point. I agree with you, once things have deteriorated to the point where a guy says he'll just play out his contract, getting what you can for him may be a good deal. But I don't think it had to be that way, if the Bills had been open to extending his contract earlier (i.e. at the time of his holdout), bringing him up to the level of other talented LTs. But the Bills instead opted to play hardball, got an unmotivated Peters to come in and play eventually, and set the tone for his acrimonious departure. I guess I should be happy they didn't just cut him outright. So while you make a good case that the situation was unsalvageable, I don't think it had to be that way. And it's worth looking at because the same management team that (IMO) badly bungled things to begin with is still in charge now.
Mickey Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 GREAT post Mickey....glad to see someone uses rationale with what happened with Peters... Team concept..Im here for the team but have no talent..yippee!!! People, well dumb people anyway, can't seem to distinguish between a player's personality and his ability on the field. Whether or not a player helps you win or not has nothing to do with whether you love him or hate him. For the Senator, that is all that matters, hence all his mocking posts which end with "I Love Jason Peters". I don't even know the guy let alone "love" him. He is a good player though which is kind of all that matters. But for the Senator, it's all about who he likes and doesn't like, not who can play and who can't. For a guy like that, the whole debate is between people who love Peters and people who hate him. Meanwhile, the rest of us are trying to talk about, you know, football. I don't know if Peters is kind to animals or if he leaves the seat up. I do know he can block as well as any LT in the league and that my opinion is shared pretty much league wide. No one doubts his ability apart from senator and his lovable posse of guffawing. locker room, towel snapping trolls. But it kinda no longer matters. Peters is gone so good or bad, we are stuck with that one. He was just one player. All you can do is look this year at these young guys and hope to see a bright future. I am sure Peters is doing just fine. He has a pretty good job and a secure future at the moment. Can't say the same for Russ Brandon whose ill considered and classless calling out of Peters at the start of camp in 2008 is why I think Peters wouldn't take the hefty offers the Bills finally made.
mrags Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 You're a funny guy, mrags. Again, you might try reading the thread before making ignorrant statements like: Bandit also didnt comment about how the link he provided doesnt mean anything when your talking about how a player is rated. Umm, mragsy, what would you call this bit, from post #59: I'm not really interested in the ratings, the sack stats were mentioned by Senator (Peters giving up 4), and I used this site to refute them. Or this one, from post #115, which was in DIRECT RESPONSE to one of your posts: We've been through this already. I could give a darn about their rankings, the stats are accurate. What I asked for is not a link to Peters saying that he thought about his contract, or that it affected his play. You didn't say that, so why would I need a link to that. We all know that quote exists, my point (since you are--in direct contradiction to my initial impression of you--unable to read and process what I've written to you time and again) is that it's pretty pathetic fodder for you (and Senaturd, and others) to make blanket statements like: he didn't want to be here (based on what? the fact that he cares about his salary--gasp) he has a bad work ethic (based on what? the fact that he cares about his salary--gasp) he badmouthed the team (still waiting on this one...the closest I've got is Peters saying that the team didn't give him a new contract worth $10M/year...ummm, isn't that a concrete, incontravertible fact? or are we ignoring those now too?) thus, I asked you to show me where he said/did those things, and the best you can come up with is him saying that he thought about his contract, even during games. Wow...compelling stuff. As for my response to the PFF rankings, which I already stated (at least twice in this very thread--which you somehow managed to skip over or ignore in your rush to call me a ball-washer/ball-stroker...very eloquent, by the way) I don't put a lot of stock into, you can find the reasoning right on the site with very, very little effort. But since that's apparently beneath you (or you simply lack the ability to click a mouse--which I highly doubt), I'll provide the link: http://profootballfocus.com/about.php?tab=about#grad3 As for my next point of rebuttal: I respectfully ask you to not put words in my mouth (could also be referred to as "Senaturdial tactics"--although yours are at least more articulate than the uber-intelligent Senaturdial vernacular of "blah"), since I don't remember ever saying that Peters deserved to be in the pro bowl. I do remember, however, saying that obviously someone felt that way, since he made it there (or is that up for debate as well? Perhaps the fact that he was voted in was my imagination, that at least would make sense given your argument). I also don't remember claiming that I can predict the future, which you claimed in your last post. Perhaps for your next feat you'd like to tell me what I'll be eating for dinner tonight? No? Well, allow me to do that for you: you'll be eating...your words, as you said you'd do in this post (above) if you were wrong about the Peters offer. The only article I ever saw regarding Buffalo's offer to Peters was in the $8.5M/year range, and he signed for $10M+/year in Philadelphia, so eat up (don't worry, I'll come back and post a link once I find it--EDIT: here, it can easily be inferred from the attached: http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/story/606369.html# Obviously, since Peters was looking for $10M+, and eventually signed for $10M+, and the two sides were about $3M apart, well, hopefully ou can do the math from there). I also don't recall saying that Peters was the second coming of Christ, but hey, misquoting me has never bothered you before, so go ahead and sling some other BS while you're at it. Wrapping things up--no matter how you slice it, this discussion comes down to this (and I bet this will sound familiar, since I've already pointed it out twice--but then again, we already know you didn't read through the thread): Senaturd made up a stat, and I corrected him by providing a link. When the integrity of that link was questioned (by you and others) I provided links to NFL.com game logs that confirmed Senaturd's statement as BS. You (and others) obviously didn't like that, since it took away part of the platform on which you grind your Peters-spurned axe, and so you responded with the typical insulting vitriole. I like you, mrags, and at one point I considered you a good poster. But when you feel like you have to launch a profane, personally-insulting tirade to prove a point that doesn't exist, I tend to lose a little of that respect (I don't think calling someone a "ball-stroker" is a really good way to debate intelligently). You might try, next time, basing your arguments on facts, it'll work a whole lot better than this garbage. Peace. Based on your post# 17 it sounded like you were ready to back up the fact that he was the best LT in the league at this point. "According to these guys, he's allowed 1 sack in 3 games and is the highest overall rated lineman in the NFL. That doesn't seem like failure to me... " For what its worth I do consider you a good poster and we both know that we disagree with each other on this topic. I guess Im the one in the wrong for coming to a "hail Peters" thread and expect to win an argument. I just dont see the point in everyone loving this guy. He had 1 good year and held out. Hes not on the team anymore. End of list. Why should we bother to keep bringing it up. We all know the FO sucks and makes horrible decisions. I wanted to keep Peters too. However the way he handled his situation was wrong. That was proven by Lee Evans coming to camp and the Bills resigned him. Same thing they promised Peters if he showed up and he didnt. And sorry for calling you a ball stroker. Have a good night
jad1 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 So you would have kept him even after he stated he wouldn't play for the Bills after his deal expired? It makes NO sense from an organizational standpoint, regardless of the type of business involved, to keep that kind of attitude around the workplace. It just doesn't work. It's easy, in the face of all the OLine injuries to say, "Ah ha! If Peters was here we wouldn't have this problem." Funny, nobody, except the true zealots, were bitchin' about the situation BEFORE Bell and Butler went down. Perhaps the Bills should be faulted for not having a better solution. I don't know. But they had no choice but to trade Peters once he said he was no longer interested in being there. GO BILLS!!! Name one player that has committed to staying with the Bills AFTER their current deal expires. Should the Bills trade every veteren in their last year if they haven't committed to resigning with the Bills? By your criteria, the Bills should dump Owens tomorrow because he has not committed to the Bills after this season. And I'll translate your use of 'zealots' into meaning, 'every person who has a modicum of football knowledge,' because people who believed that Walker or Bell would be a suitable replacement for Peters were delusional. And to your last point, just consider the case of Brandon Marshall, who made a complete jackass of himself in preseason in Denver. He was, by far, a bigger problem to the Broncos than Peters ever was to the Bills. The Broncos dealt with him though, and he has contributed to the team's 4-0 start. Hmm, Broncos deal with their headcase and benefit from his talent on the field. The Bills can't figure out how to deal with a disgruntled player (and disgruntled players are common in the NFL), and are 1-3 and sinking with no real answer at left tackle. And the fans, well we're treated to watching our QB get slaughtered week after week, the same thing we've been watching for the last 10 years. We'll at least we can say that Peters was a real a##hole when we watch them pick up Edwards' teeth from the field as our 7th round LT with ONE NFL start tries to catch the number of the DE that just blew by him. Over the last 25 years, the Bills have had TWO decent left tackles. TWO. Peters could have been the third, but management couldn't deal with a common contract dispute. That's the point here.
Doc Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 It wasn't a "common contract dispute." Peters couldn't handle hearing the Bills tell him that he'd have to wait for a new contract. So he decided to holdout until the day before the season started, played like a chump during the season, and then informed the Bills that he'd just play-out (probably poorly) his existing deal and be gone. So basically on Peters' end it was "pay me now or you'll get no effort on my part." The Bills played it right. And time will tell whether the deal was a good one for either club.
K-9 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Name one player that has committed to staying with the Bills AFTER their current deal expires. Should the Bills trade every veteren in their last year if they haven't committed to resigning with the Bills? By your criteria, the Bills should dump Owens tomorrow because he has not committed to the Bills after this season. And I'll translate your use of 'zealots' into meaning, 'every person who has a modicum of football knowledge,' because people who believed that Walker or Bell would be a suitable replacement for Peters were delusional. And to your last point, just consider the case of Brandon Marshall, who made a complete jackass of himself in preseason in Denver. He was, by far, a bigger problem to the Broncos than Peters ever was to the Bills. The Broncos dealt with him though, and he has contributed to the team's 4-0 start. Hmm, Broncos deal with their headcase and benefit from his talent on the field. The Bills can't figure out how to deal with a disgruntled player (and disgruntled players are common in the NFL), and are 1-3 and sinking with no real answer at left tackle. And the fans, well we're treated to watching our QB get slaughtered week after week, the same thing we've been watching for the last 10 years. We'll at least we can say that Peters was a real a##hole when we watch them pick up Edwards' teeth from the field as our 7th round LT with ONE NFL start tries to catch the number of the DE that just blew by him. Over the last 25 years, the Bills have had TWO decent left tackles. TWO. Peters could have been the third, but management couldn't deal with a common contract dispute. That's the point here. Name ONE Bills player who has publicly stated, after a heated holdout, that he will no longer play once his contract is up? Don't know what you mean by my criteria vis-a-vis your quote about Owens. That makes no sense to me so if you care to clarify, perhaps I'll understand what you mean. My ONLY criteria, as you put it, is that once a player has publicly burned a bridge it's better to get rid of him rather than risk the festering of a lot of dissension that is very devisive most of the time. Your example of B Marshall notwithstanding. Has he said he's leaving the Broncos after his deal is up? The rest of your post just meanders back into the same stuff that's been debated ad nauseum here so I see no sense in rehashing it. There are plenty of others that are willing to do that around here. I prefer to get past the Peters incident. As I said, good luck Jason. Good luck Bills. GO BILLS!!!
thebandit27 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Based on your post# 17 it sounded like you were ready to back up the fact that he was the best LT in the league at this point. "According to these guys, he's allowed 1 sack in 3 games and is the highest overall rated lineman in the NFL. That doesn't seem like failure to me... " For what its worth I do consider you a good poster and we both know that we disagree with each other on this topic. I guess Im the one in the wrong for coming to a "hail Peters" thread and expect to win an argument. I just dont see the point in everyone loving this guy. He had 1 good year and held out. Hes not on the team anymore. End of list. Why should we bother to keep bringing it up. We all know the FO sucks and makes horrible decisions. I wanted to keep Peters too. However the way he handled his situation was wrong. That was proven by Lee Evans coming to camp and the Bills resigned him. Same thing they promised Peters if he showed up and he didnt. And sorry for calling you a ball stroker. Have a good night I appreciate your position, and I have no need/desire to convert people to my side of the argument. When it comes to Peters, I actually don't love the guy. I don't even like him (other than his famous post-game "they don't think it be like it is, but it do" quote--my closest friend got that one on tape in the locker room and we listened to it about 500 times that evening), and I have never started a thread about him or his holdout (save for the one I started when I found the DK Turtle sack analysis thing b/c I hadn't seen in on here and thought people may want to decide for themselves). I think that's the part that made the ball stroker comment irk me so much. I merely defend his ability and his stance because I believe that (1) guys with that level of talent are rare, (2) he didn't deserve to be making 1/10 the salary of a rookie playing the same position, (3) this team had been without a quality LT since before I could legally operate a motor vehicle, and (4) I think he could've been a great long-term asset for this franchise...and now we'll never know. I really don't know why people continue to bring him up, starting threads that end up like this one. As for my part, I'm guilty of always reading these threads...but then again, I read pretty much every thread that isn't marked with a title that makes it seem like it spawned from someone's backside entry-way. When I see a comment I vehemently agree or disagree with, I feel compelled to comment, as many of us do. And so I read this one and found some false information and we all know the story from there. I don't appreciate the way Peters handled his business, but I also feel that players holding out/pining for new contracts is a fact of life in today's NFL. It happens on every team. Some teams are more equipped to deal with life without said player than others, and I've always felt that the Bills weren't one of the well-equipped teams when it came to Peters. Sometimes, even if it seems wrong, I believe organizations have to make exceptions to keep their best players happy and productive (i.e. the Bills' handling of Schobel's contract when he felt underpaid after Kelsay got his big deal, despite the fact that he had 3 years remaining on it). For failing to do that, I place the blame on the organization. And don't sweat the comment, nothing a few cold ones won't fix
rstencel Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 I just don't get why there seem to be more people posting positive things about players we used to have than ones we do. Peters is long gone, and he did not want to be here anymore. Why is this subject rehashed every other week. He has talent but isn't always motivated. He may be great for them, but highly doubt he would have played well if buffalo kept him, because he wouldn't have cared. Hes gone, lets move on and talk about how good Bell has looked when healthy instead.
Kal Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Okay getting an official answer from our analysts (and they have this verified by talking to a former NFL offensive linemen) is that 'we grade what we see'. Our analyst remarked that offensive line play is one of the easiest aspects to judge and that a lot of people over complicate it - that just from watching tape 85% (without knowing the coaching schemes) is easily evident. If we're not sure whose fault it is we don't apportion blame to anyone, hence why around 20% of the sacks we have aren't on anyone (this accounts for overload blitzes etc) If a defender gets caught out by a stunt and loses his man, that to me would be the hardest thing to judge but our experienced analysts pick that up a mile away because they've been doing it for three years now. So I guess that would our take: don't overcomplicate apportioning blame, sometimes no individual is responsible and its a coaching thing perhaps (but we rate players, not teams so that doesn't fall into our sphere Any other questions I'm happy to answer/ relay on - or any feedback to improve the service to you guys
Thurman#1 Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Since you've been begging my to reply all morning, thurman, instead of bumping this thread all day like you've been doing, why don't you and bandit just set up your own "I LOVE JASON PETERS" worship site? (I'm sure someone can even help you two set up an e-storefront to sell your collection of his worn gym socks and used jock straps! ) Yeah, whatever.
Thurman#1 Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Yeah, I miss him because he was so consistent. Yup. Outside of the year he missed training camp, he was extremely consistent, and improving. Great post.
Recommended Posts