Thurman#1 Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 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. Interesting stuff, thanks. I really liked the stuff at your site where they said that if a case wasn't clear, they didn't numerically punish the guy, as well as what you said here. It makes it much more reasonable. And I'm not sure about the line this year either. It's the year where we have to try to figure out whether Trent can be our guy long-term, and putting him behind a line with problems is just not a good way to help make that decision. As for 2007, before the holdout -which engendered a great deal of hate here and made it impossible for some folks to consider Peters in any way neutrally - the consensus on these boards was that he was in the top three in the league, and that he had improved quite a bit over 2006 when he was already damn good. Somewhere on this thread I linked to where Dr. Z had him in the top two LTs in football in 2007, on his all pro team. For most here, the ones who don't pop little veins in their eyes at the mention of his name anyway, the real question about Peters this year wasn't talent. There's no doubt he's got it. The question was motivation. There was a school of thought that since he had signed a high contract that his play would suffer. It was hard to argue with, though I always pointed out that he actually improved when he signed a contract with the Bills, a contract that looked very high at the time, or at least looked high until the Bills switched him from RT to LT about five games later. The fact that he's playing well at Philly seems to point towards motivation not being a problem. And if it's not, IMHO, in ten years we won't be talking about Walter Jones and Jonathan Ogden, we'll be talking about Jason Peters and someone else, maybe Clady. He's that good. I could be wrong, of course, I'm no Nostradamus. But that's the direction things seem to be moving in.
Thurman#1 Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 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. And John, here's the link I talked about earlier. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sports/57578607.html ------- "Undaunted by his contract discontent, the Eagles completed the deal for Peters just before the draft. "I was shocked," Peters said. "I had no clue. I had just told Buffalo I was going to play two more years there and I was done with them. And then my agent [Eugene Parker] called." ------- He said this right before the trade took place. That shows pretty clearly that he only said that playing out his contract wasn't something he had been thinking all along. It was a reaction to the whole situation and how negotiations had totally bogged down. It's also worth remembering that saying that you will play out your contract and leave is a common negotiating tactic, and it's very possible that that is how Peters was using it here. You're welcome to try to find another link that talks about Peters not wanting to be in Buffalo, but I have challenged dozens of people, and this is absolutely the only time Peters indicated this. Still, if you can outdo the rest and produce a link, I'll be glad to listen.
Thurman#1 Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 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. Oh, my God, that's true. Wow. So that means what? That we had something wrong with the offense other than Peters? Gosh, I would never have guessed that. Thanks for pointing it out to me. It couldn't be, could it, that the reason we are able to do as well as we have is that when we got rid of Peters, we also picked up Owens? We got rid of one of the best players at his position and picked up one of the best at another, and we still suck. Hmm. Gosh, when you look at the evidence you are pointing out, you might almost think that football was a team game. Whew, what a concept. That a team with major problems at QB is likely to have major problems all around. Mind-blowing.
Thurman#1 Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 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. Why is it re-hashed? Maybe because people like you come on and say stuff like "he did not want to be here anymore," and "isn't always motivated," none of which can even remotely be proven. That gets folks like me, who only want Peters to be looked at in a neutral light, frustrated. I really really understand people not wanting to hear more of this, but if you join the argument on one side, then you are helping cause it to go on and on. I personally haven't started a Peters thread since a few days after he got traded. But if people start negative threads or say negative things, hey, I feel very justified in pointing out if they say stuff that has never been proven or is a flat-out mistake. And another point is that I just didn't think that Bell looked good when healthy. I wish he had, but I thought he was getting beaten like a drum. Like you, though, I hope he improves and think there's a chance that he will.
Kal Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Interesting stuff, thanks. I really liked the stuff at your site where they said that if a case wasn't clear, they didn't numerically punish the guy, as well as what you said here. It makes it much more reasonable. And I'm not sure about the line this year either. It's the year where we have to try to figure out whether Trent can be our guy long-term, and putting him behind a line with problems is just not a good way to help make that decision. As for 2007, before the holdout -which engendered a great deal of hate here and made it impossible for some folks to consider Peters in any way neutrally - the consensus on these boards was that he was in the top three in the league, and that he had improved quite a bit over 2006 when he was already damn good. Somewhere on this thread I linked to where Dr. Z had him in the top two LTs in football in 2007, on his all pro team. For most here, the ones who don't pop little veins in their eyes at the mention of his name anyway, the real question about Peters this year wasn't talent. There's no doubt he's got it. The question was motivation. There was a school of thought that since he had signed a high contract that his play would suffer. It was hard to argue with, though I always pointed out that he actually improved when he signed a contract with the Bills, a contract that looked very high at the time, or at least looked high until the Bills switched him from RT to LT about five games later. The fact that he's playing well at Philly seems to point towards motivation not being a problem. And if it's not, IMHO, in ten years we won't be talking about Walter Jones and Jonathan Ogden, we'll be talking about Jason Peters and someone else, maybe Clady. He's that good. I could be wrong, of course, I'm no Nostradamus. But that's the direction things seem to be moving in. Thanks for the reponse, interesting read. I'd certainly share a lot of sentiments on Peters. However that last point at the end ... I think he's very good, but I don't think he's ever going to be a dominant tackle like Ogden, Jones or Pace (if a player struggles with motivation in one aspect of his career I worry about it recurring). I would be even less surprised if Clady gets into that consideration (its amazing how having a QB who can get rid of a ball quickly can earn you some praise). The guy I always look out for, and he's playing for a team that won't lend himself to getting credit, is Joe Thomas. Excellent in every way, and for a masterclass of left tackle play look at how in week 1 he made Jared Allen his prison wife. He's the guy I'd turn to if I needed a franchise LT. As for the site as a general rule we never guess about anything (unlike say NFL scorers who guess everything - is why we have different tackle counts to them that are far more accurate since we do stuff retrospectively rather than in the moment. You'd be surprised how many times a scorer credits a tackle to a guy who isn't even on the field)
Kal Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 And another point is that I just didn't think that Bell looked good when healthy. I wish he had, but I thought he was getting beaten like a drum. Like you, though, I hope he improves and think there's a chance that he will. Admire your honesty. I think sometimes people are too keen to give young players a free pass. Bell has given up 6 penalties from my memory which is a terrible ratio (first 3 games). His pass blocking is pretty poor as well and right now I don't think he's NFL ready. That said sometimes the only way to get players NFL ready is for them to take their lumps and learn from it. In the first three games I wouldn't say he faced any defender that was elite at getting at the QB which would be a worry considering there will be tougher tests.
Thurman#1 Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 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. I'm sorry, but that doesn't force your hand, not unless you are an inferior organization. If you look at the roster of the Chicago Bears, you will notice the name Lance Briggs. Briggs is still playing for the Bears, and happily now, even though at one point he went way beyond what Peters said. Briggs said that he would never play another game with the Bears. The Bears just maintained pressure and continued negotiating reasonably. They came to an agreement. Now both sides are happy. If you are right and the Bills felt that their hand had been forced, that would really mark the Bills as an inferior team without much of a concept of how negotiations can go.
Thurman#1 Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 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!!! Pay Peters and there is no dissension. I don't know why you don't get that. As I pointed out above, Lance Briggs is a great example, but there are dozens more.
Thurman#1 Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 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. Nice post.
Mickey Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 One difference would be that Peters is having a very good season, at least so far. http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.ph...&numgames=1 It's early, but so far so very very good. Both this site and footballoutsiders.com have the stats to say that Peters is having another very good season. Which shouldn't surprise us. So far in his career, whenever Peters has come to training camp, he has been sensational. This year, he came to training camp, like he would have if the Bills had paid him. And I really don't blame Lee Evans for his bad season. If you really want to have a good cry, look where they rank the CBs, league wide. Three of the top 5 are former Buffalo Bills. Clements, Winfield and Greer. Sheesh. TKO is the top rated inside LB and London Fletcher is ranked 10. Add Peters to that mix. That means there are 6 guys ranked in the top 10 at their position that could be on our roster right now. Who would have thought that letting good players go every year would matter? I am beginning to think that we may very well have the worst front office in the entire league.
mrags Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 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 I enjoy arguing with you Bandit. You make it fun. I do agree that JP is a talent and shoudl have been signed. Like you, I also believe this days NFL is filled with hold-outs and contract disputes on every team, every year. However, I still believe that the player is in charge of how they handle the situation regardless of what their agents say. Im sure Michael Crabtree is happy he is now signed but it still looks like his situation was mishandled the very same agent as JP. Ill be at the game on Sunday if you feel like stopping by for a beer. Let me know.
Doc Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Thanks for the reponse, interesting read. I'd certainly share a lot of sentiments on Peters. However that last point at the end ... I think he's very good, but I don't think he's ever going to be a dominant tackle like Ogden, Jones or Pace (if a player struggles with motivation in one aspect of his career I worry about it recurring). I think that your assessment of Peters if a fair one. That and his attitude are what probably made the Bills look to move him instead of paying him almost 1/12th of the salary cap. Admire your honesty. I think sometimes people are too keen to give young players a free pass. Bell has given up 6 penalties from my memory which is a terrible ratio (first 3 games). His pass blocking is pretty poor as well and right now I don't think he's NFL ready. That said sometimes the only way to get players NFL ready is for them to take their lumps and learn from it. In the first three games I wouldn't say he faced any defender that was elite at getting at the QB which would be a worry considering there will be tougher tests. I don't think anyone is giving Bell a "free pass" so much as we know he's green and needs more playing time/experience. And he's playing next to a rookie as well.
QB Bills Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 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. Perfectly said. If nothing else, mouth breathers like senator really make the rest of us feel like rhodes scholars in comparison. I'm actually surprised this clown even knows how to use a computer.
Ray Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Peters has great talent, but average at best motivation at least to play for th Bills. Objectively, he was great in '06 and good in '07 and average in '08 with what he admits was a poor attitude. If you are going to pay a guy 10M per year he better be great for the next decade.....not sure he has the motivation to play that well considering what happened to him after '07. He has played good this year not great. But you can find a LT and pay him half of what you paid Peters. The reasons guys like Pace are/were considered elite are b/c of their consistency year after year. Time will tell if Peters is in that category. But if history is any indication he is more interested in his own paycheck than the team (to the point he thinks about it while playing).....to many that is actually okay as now he is set for life b/c he got his paycheck.
The Senator Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Some independent thoughts - minus all the passion and vitriol - on Jason 'FatSlob' Peters, the meaningless Pro Bowl, and the Bills-Eagles trade that got a $60M cancer off of our roster just in the nick of time... 'The Pro Bowl is a joke. Some of the top players opt out. Those who go don't really try. It's not even a real football game. And it's impossible to bet on because no one puts forth any effort. As a degenerate gambler, I do not find this appealing. However, the reason I hate the Pro Bowl more than anything is that there are far too many crappy players named to the two squads. I don't think the NFL should strip the fans of all of the decision-making, but it's a joke because there too many clueless voters out there. Jason Peters is the perfect example. Peters, a 6-4, 340-pound mauling left tackle, is entering his sixth year. In 2006, he started all 16 games and surrendered just two sacks.... Since the 2006 campaign, Peters' play has regressed exponentially. In 2007, Peters gave up six sacks in 15 contests. And last year, things got downright ugly, as Peters surrendered a whopping 11.5 sacks in just 13 games, good for tops in the NFL. Peters was also whistled for eight penalties, a career high for him. Now you see why I hate the Pro Bowl so much. How could the league's worst left tackle, statistically speaking, be voted in as one of the premier players at his position?' link
The Senator Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 If you really want to have a good cry, look where they rank the CBs, league wide. Three of the top 5 are former Buffalo Bills. Clements, Winfield and Greer. Sheesh. TKO is the top rated inside LB and London Fletcher is ranked 10. Add Peters to that mix. That means there are 6 guys ranked in the top 10 at their position that could be on our roster right now. Yes, but the consolation is that 'Trenters' is having a better year than Mark Sanchez, Kevin Kolb, Jay Cutler, and Brett Favre, among others. And the beauty of that web site is that it's so damned credible - everything on there is such an incontrovertible, rock-solid statement of fact! Yep...if it's on that site, you can 'take it to the bank'!!! So, if you want to talk about "having a good cry", just think how hard those teams and their fans are crying because they don't have Trent Edwards - who's having a better season than even Tom Brady!!!! Hey Trent - start packing the sun-tan lotion and your Hawaiian shirts - you're goin' to the Pro Bowl!!!!!
Adam Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Quiet??? Guess again. I know you've probably already sent in your Pro Bowl ballot, but I haven't been quiet at all - the only reason FatBoy didn't give up a sack yesterday is 'cause the Eagles had a bye week! FYI, Mr. 6-Wonderlic-Fat-Lazy-Stupid-Tub-o'-Goo has given up 4 sacks so far this season. If we extrapolate that over a full season, he'd be giving up over 21 sacks in a sixteen game season - or roughly double his league-leading 11.5 sacks allowed last year. (But he hasn't managed to play 16 games in either of the last 2 seasons, has he? ) Hey, give 'im a big raise and send 'im to Hawaii!!! Quiet??? Not me. Hell no. I've been screaming from the rooftops about FatBoy's failure!!! Stats for individual offensive linemen are stupid to base anything on- one lineman doesn't give up a sack. I really hate fantasy football......
The Senator Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Stats for individual offensive linemen are stupid to base anything on- one lineman doesn't give up a sack. I really hate fantasy football...... No, everything on that site is 100% true - that's why everyone needs to accept it as iron-clad proof that FatBoy's the best OT that ever lived!
Adam Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 No, everything on that site is 100% true - that's why everyone needs to accept it as iron-clad proof that FatBoy's the best OT that ever lived!
GG Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 Why is it re-hashed? Maybe because people like you come on and say stuff like "he did not want to be here anymore," and "isn't always motivated," none of which can even remotely be proven. Did you really just write the above only two posts below this: "I was shocked," Peters said. "I had no clue. I had just told Buffalo I was going to play two more years there and I was done with them. And then my agent [Eugene Parker] called." Does that sound like a man who really wants to be "here?"
Recommended Posts