Hey all you Jason Peters haters

[Red]

No they wouldn't have. Or if they did, the back up plan wouldn't have been a guy no one ever thought could play left tackle who turned out to be not even good enough to be on the roster. They also wouldn't have publicly called out the player they are trying to reach a deal with. They probably also wouldn't have....oh god, the list is endless of the freaking mistakes the Patriots surely would not have made.

 

Really, is it such a stretch to conclude that this team, coaches, front office dudes and scouting screwed this up given how clearly they have screwed everything else up as the football we have watched over the last 10 years so amply demonstrates? Did they somehow royally screw up everything and yet managed to handle the Peters issue flawlessly?

 

 

And Peters turned himself into a pro bowler, the bills didn't wave a magic wand. The guy was tops on every sleeper list, and "project" player list of that draft due to his freakish athletic skills for his size.

 

By the way, how is that "team concept" that we so wonderfully maintained by losing Peters going? Sure made a difference didn't it? Call me crazy but rather than conjuring up some amorphous crap like "upsetting the team concept" and hope that gets a few wins, I would rather rely on players with the skill to perform in this league at the highest levels. So far, our "team concept" has yielded 16 sacks in 4 games and one win, against the 0-4 Bucs. Meanwhile, Philly, despite Peters having laid waste to their "team concept", have given up only 3 sacks and are 2-1 with their only loss to the undefeated Saints with their starting QB on the bench.

 

Where were the complaints that we were upsetting the oh-so-precious "team concept" when Schobel's already titanic deal was redone only a year after he signed it after he skipped some OTA's?

 

The worst personnel decision this team has ever made was to draft Mike Williams. The best decision they have made in years was stumbling across Jason Peters. They manages to bungle that good fortune.

 

As if Peters is the first pain in the neck, self centered athlete with skills to match his ego that ever graced a Roster. Half the best player in the league fit that description. What matters is if they can freaking play. God knows we have very few of those.

 

You obviously have no concept of team building. You don't negotiate with terrorists. Jason Peters had 2-3 years remaining on his deal when he all of sudden got the itch to be the highest paid at his position. He held out for an entire camp, and it clearly affected his ability in the first 3-4 games, and he struggled mightily as some have have even gone out and stated that he gave up 11 sacks on his own last year. Clearly not Pro Bowl material, but guess what? He was voted back to the Pro Bowl again.

 

The Pro Bowl is nothing more than a popularity contest. The players have even come out and said as much. Therefore, The Pro Bowl is not indicative of talent.

 

If all players suddenly had an inflated sense of value, then if they see the Bills cave to Peters unwarranted, me-first demands then other will follow. Trying not to build a team of me-first mentalities, the Bills did not succumb to Peters 2 years of pressure.

 

As far as your Patriots argument, they do it constantly. Damien Woody was replaced by a rookie. Ty Law was let go. Drew Bledsoe, Lawyer Milloy, Gay, Stallworth, their receiver #80- can't remember the name...all were on par demanding to be paid more and all were traded, let go, or signed elsewhere. Look at the recent dealing of Richard Seymour to the Raiders. Same deal. He will be due at the end of the year. Are his skills in decline? Maybe, maybe not. Needless to say, when the salary works against the team-first mentality and salary structure that the Pats have, 1 player will not rock the boat.

 

Peters would have been cut or traded. Who was the last Patriots player to hold out and not be traded?

 

You also mention that he was on the "hot list" of undrafted free agents. Really?!? Then why were the Bills the only team to sign him? If he was so coveted, then why wasn't he drafted? Bottom line, the Bills took a chance and developed an undrafted TE into a LT in the NFL.

 

Finally, I would say that the Bills far from bungled this one. Atleast they were able to take a former undrafted TE, develop him into a star LT, then, when the fish got too big for the pond got SOMETHING OF VALUE for the player in the way of a 1st round draft pick and an extra one.

 

So lets see, Peters cost them nothing in the draft, and they were able to have him play a few seasons for them at a relative bargain, and then get a 1st round draft pick for an undrafted player who is only concerned about his pay check?

 

That's far from bungling. That is shrewd.

 

Bills won that situation.

[Doc]

You obviously have no concept of team building. You don't negotiate with terrorists. Jason Peters had 2-3 years remaining on his deal when he all of sudden got the itch to be the highest paid at his position. He held out for an entire camp, and it clearly affected his ability in the first 3-4 games, and he struggled mightily as some have have even gone out and stated that he gave up 11 sacks on his own last year. Clearly not Pro Bowl material, but guess what? He was voted back to the Pro Bowl again.

 

The Pro Bowl is nothing more than a popularity contest. The players have even come out and said as much. Therefore, The Pro Bowl is not indicative of talent.

 

If all players suddenly had an inflated sense of value, then if they see the Bills cave to Peters unwarranted, me-first demands then other will follow. Trying not to build a team of me-first mentalities, the Bills did not succumb to Peters 2 years of pressure.

 

As far as your Patriots argument, they do it constantly. Damien Woody was replaced by a rookie. Ty Law was let go. Drew Bledsoe, Lawyer Milloy, Gay, Stallworth, their receiver #80- can't remember the name...all were on par demanding to be paid more and all were traded, let go, or signed elsewhere. Look at the recent dealing of Richard Seymour to the Raiders. Same deal. He will be due at the end of the year. Are his skills in decline? Maybe, maybe not. Needless to say, when the salary works against the team-first mentality and salary structure that the Pats have, 1 player will not rock the boat.

 

Peters would have been cut or traded. Who was the last Patriots player to hold out and not be traded?

 

You also mention that he was on the "hot list" of undrafted free agents. Really?!? Then why were the Bills the only team to sign him? If he was so coveted, then why wasn't he drafted? Bottom line, the Bills took a chance and developed an undrafted TE into a LT in the NFL.

 

Finally, I would say that the Bills far from bungled this one. Atleast they were able to take a former undrafted TE, develop him into a star LT, then, when the fish got too big for the pond got SOMETHING OF VALUE for the player in the way of a 1st round draft pick and an extra one.

 

So lets see, Peters cost them nothing in the draft, and they were able to have him play a few seasons for them at a relative bargain, and then get a 1st round draft pick for an undrafted player who is only concerned about his pay check?

 

That's far from bungling. That is shrewd.

 

Bills won that situation.

Just a few corrections:

 

- Peters would not have been cut. While I doubt the Bills would have kept him around, I think they would have taken less in trade just to move him, had the Eagles not offered what they did.

 

- Peters may have been a coveted UDFA (although I don't recall there being a bidding war for him or any other indication that he was hotly pursued), but it is immaterial. The Bills released him in the final cutdown and only the Giants thought enough of him to bring him in for a visit, but didn't even sign him to their PS.

[John from Riverside]

Oher is an RT, not an LT.

 

But you're right, if the Bills had managed to pick up one of the top 3 LTs in the draft or otherwise replaced Peters, this would not have been much of an issue. But they didn't.

 

Which is the point, for me. You never see elite LTs traded. For good reason. But at least, for God's sake, have a legitimate backup plan if you're going to make the move.

 

Hey, if Bell develops into a top 10 guy soon, you won't hear more from me about this. If he does it next year, it will still have been a stupid trade in terms of giving up on this season. And if it never happens ...

 

I'm hoping Bell develops not just quickly but instantaneously. But until we all see it, the FO's moves here are at best questionable and at worst outright stupid.

 

 

You know Thurman.....everything that you are saying may very well be true.....but the more I think about it the more I fee the need to point something out......

 

Even HAD we kept Peters this team is still in trouble because our coaching is awful.......but lets say for arguement sake that Peters manages to keep Edwards jersey a little cleaner then it is being kept now.......perhaps even winning more games.....but even then I dont think it gets us better then our past two 7-9 seasons....BUT somehow Ralph finds a way to add up the money it will cost him and some cockamanee idea on how the team might be improving and keeps the coaching staff for yet another year......

 

I just dont think I can take another year of this......just blow the damn thing up......get high first round picks, bring in new blood in coaching staff, and try again.

 

Next year you have Bell with another season under his belt and you have biult the interior of your OL......Aaron Maybin has a year under his belt and is probably 20 pounds heavier........young guys that are showing promise are also more experience....and hope to god that the new HC has the sense to know of veteran FA guys that can plug and play immediatey.

[Doc]

Does anyone think that Peters would have been the difference between 1-3 and 2-2, 3-1, or 4-0 at this point? I don't.

[JohnC]

Does anyone think that Peters would have been the difference between 1-3 and 2-2, 3-1, or 4-0 at this point? I don't.

 

Doc, When you are a very bad team no one player is going to dramatically improve the team's record. The strategy for success is to add talent to a roster lacking in talent, not letting talent go. Cutting payroll certainly is profitable but doesn't necessarily equate to competent perfromances on the field.

[Max997]

Oher is an RT, not an LT.

 

But you're right, if the Bills had managed to pick up one of the top 3 LTs in the draft or otherwise replaced Peters, this would not have been much of an issue. But they didn't.

 

Which is the point, for me. You never see elite LTs traded. For good reason. But at least, for God's sake, have a legitimate backup plan if you're going to make the move.

 

Hey, if Bell develops into a top 10 guy soon, you won't hear more from me about this. If he does it next year, it will still have been a stupid trade in terms of giving up on this season. And if it never happens ...

 

I'm hoping Bell develops not just quickly but instantaneously. But until we all see it, the FO's moves here are at best questionable and at worst outright stupid.

 

why is Oher strictly a RT? is it because thats where Baltimore is playing him while he develops?

 

Oher is a LT, he played there in college and was drafted to be a LT but is starting his career at RT like a lot of LT's do

[Thurman#1]

Does anyone think that Peters would have been the difference between 1-3 and 2-2, 3-1, or 4-0 at this point? I don't.

 

 

 

First, I think there's decent chance.

 

But more important, your question is beside the point. I think that if we got an excellent linebacker that we would probably have just as bad a record, because the team has so many problems at this point.

 

Does that mean that we shouldn't get an excellent linebacker?

 

When you improve the team at one position, even by a lot, you don't always jack the record up, particularly when there are a lot of weaknesses on the team to exploit But what you do is you upgrade the team at that one position anyway. And you keep doing it, position by position. And when you have eliminated most of the weaknesses, you suddenly discover that suddenly the difference between a below-average LT and an elite LT is huge.

 

We aren't at that point yet. Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get there.

 

LT is the second-most important position on the team. Upgrading it when you have the chance is a no-brainer. Downgrading it is shows exceptional cluelessness.

[JohnC]

First, I think there's decent chance.

 

But more important, your question is beside the point. I think that if we got an excellent linebacker that we would probably have just as bad a record, because the team has so many problems at this point.

 

Does that mean that we shouldn't get an excellent linebacker?

 

When you improve the team at one position, even by a lot, you don't always jack the record up, particularly when there are a lot of weaknesses on the team to exploit But what you do is you upgrade the team at that one position anyway. And you keep doing it, position by position. And when you have eliminated most of the weaknesses, you suddenly discover that suddenly the difference between a below-average LT and an elite LT is huge.

 

We aren't at that point yet. Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get there.

 

LT is the second-most important position on the team. Upgrading it when you have the chance is a no-brainer. Downgrading it is shows exceptional cluelessness.

 

Thurman, You are on target. Whether you are a good team or bad you continue to work to get better. Otherwise, what is the point?

[Doc]

I agree that the object is to continue to get better. But paying a player who played like crap and had a piss poor attitude over a contract dispute 10% of the Bills' actual team payroll for this season isn't the way to do it. Look at the Patriots, who jettisoned Richard Seymour because of contract issues. Sure it made them a weaker ball club for the next few years, but it removed a problem.

 

As for where the problems lie, like I've been saying, they start and end with Trent. So you can add a "franchise LT" and an "excellent LB'er" and you still get 1-3.

[Red]

Just a few corrections:

 

- Peters would not have been cut. While I doubt the Bills would have kept him around, I think they would have taken less in trade just to move him, had the Eagles not offered what they did.

 

- Peters may have been a coveted UDFA (although I don't recall there being a bidding war for him or any other indication that he was hotly pursued), but it is immaterial. The Bills released him in the final cutdown and only the Giants thought enough of him to bring him in for a visit, but didn't even sign him to their PS.

 

Ah, the argument you make is pure imagination since all of the league was sold on Peters as a Pro Bowl tackle worthy of ATLEAST a first rounder.

 

Go back and read your ESPN, sir.

 

On a separate note, and I don't know if this is worthy of its own thread, but did anyone else hear Gregg Williams last week, that when he was coach of the Bills they came within a few picks of selecting Drew Brees as their QB?

 

Excuse me? The Bills wanted Drew Brees?

 

I stopped this internet chatter for awhile, took the dog for a walk, and mulled this over. The next season, the Bills used a #1 pick to trade to the hated Patriots to obtain Drew Bledsoe. Two seasons later they used a #1 pick on JP Losman. Now, I don't pretend to know who the Patriots selected with that pick, but can you guys imagine what those 2 picks would have been able to address team-wise if we had gotten Brees?

 

Then I started to think of the other 1st round picks of the past decade. Mike Williams, Drew Bledsoe, JP Losman, John McCargo...those are 4 1st rounders wasted. Lynch and Evans are fine. I like the past 3 drafts. It shows, what I believe to be the ineffectiveness of both Tom Modrak and John Guy. 1st rounders are players, in today's salary climate, that need to come in and produce. As far as WR's go- Parrish is a return ace and therefore may somewhat justify his 2nd round selection. But what is up with James Hardy? Is this guy ever going to get onto the field? Why does it seem as though the Bills are the only problem with developing talent? Now, living here in the DC area I know that the Redskins have been terrible with drafting as well (Malcolm Kelly, etc). But the Bills failures in the first round of the drafts have been pretty bad and IMO have truly been the source of what is keeping the Bills in mediocrity.

 

I would then follow that up with spending on the wrong players. Pat Williams' loss hurt the interior of the 'D' for a few seasons. He should have been retained. The same should have been said for Antione Winfield. See, one thing that I am starting to notice is that the successful teams, the really successful teams find a way to draft and develop AND RETAIN their own talent. Clements cost too much. Spikes was the right decision based on the nature of his injury. But Fletcher should have been retained. Kelsay is waaaay overpaid based on his production. Now with Maybin, Kelsay is more a financial liability than a team asset. The second way that the Bills have been losing is that they are making the wrong decisions on the wrong players.

 

Was Peters a bad move? I don't pretend to doubt his ability. I am not a Peters detractor. I do believe that it was wrong for him to hold the organization hostage for reworking a deal that still had wet ink and that was 3 seasons prior to expiring. He held out for 2 consecutive offseasons, despite was the Bills told him about staying patient, and he would get paid. Looking at the deals they have handed out to Jackson, Kelsay, Schobel, Williams, Evans, etc he should have perhaps listened. I believe that the Bills would have paid him. But he would not wait. So he was shipped out. his demands AT THE TIME HE MADE THEM offset the salary structure. I wish the whole situation never occurred and the Bills still had him. But not for those tactics.

 

So, it seems a two-fold problem for the Bills. 1.) Failing to find and draft top-tier talent in the top-tier portion of the draft. 50/50 (at best) just doesn't cut it (jury is still out on Whitner). 2.) Failing to retain the correct talent and allowing the draft to round out and build depth for later on (Fletcher, Pat Williams, A. Winfield).

 

But if the Bills had obtained Brees, that maybe would have fixed alot right now.

 

We wouldn't be searching for a franchise leader who can make quick decisions.

 

We may have even used atleast 2 of those 4 first round picks on offensive lineman who can start and dominate. We may not even have needed to sign Owens.

[rstencel]

Hey, fine, if you want to say that you don't "think" he wanted to be here, hey, what can I say? I DO think he wanted to be here. Whatever you think is fine, we can agree to disagree. It's just that many here claim to "know" it, and that is just plain wrong.

 

And if you want to move on and talk about players who are still on the Bills, go look at the page listing all the active threads. You will notice that 95% of them do indeed talk about current Bills. Feel free to restrict yourself to those that do. But if you come here and talk about ex-Bills yourself, how can you attack others because they are doing the exact same thing you are?

 

Again, there's no proof that Peters didn't give 100% on the field, every time. The fact that he absolutely ripped up the league in run blocking last year certainly goes some way to showing that he did. Pass blocking is largely based on athletic ability and being synched up with the other OLs (which Peters was not after missing camp). Run blocking in mostly about how badly you want to do it and how tough you are. Peters had a sensational year run blocking, and that was in his off year. Again, he was second in the whole league at yards gained when the back ran behind him. How does that happen if he's not trying hard?

 

For proof, just look at footballoutsiders. com and click on "statistics" and make sure you're looking at the right year. Second in the league.

 

Not sure anyone but Peters can say more than they think on what he was really feeling. I see the statistics, but don't understand why the Bills couldn't run behind him very well if he was such a great run blocker. Yes the statistics looked good from him. The isolation tape I watched of him on runs to his side, he didn't look like a great run blocker. Yes his guy didn't make the tackle most of the time, but his guy was able to seal the edge effectively most of the time, and that is usually what the ends job is, to seal the edge and for the running back to the LB's,

 

He did look real good in the isolation for pass block on most of the plays however. Basically I am not trying to discount him as a player, he is a very good player. I agree with you there. I don't think he is a great run blocker, however, but is not a bad one either. He just happened to play on a line with a few horrible run blockers last year.

[Malazan]

ROFL, in this thread I saw "highly coveted undrafted free agent". I did not know Alanis Morisett was a Bills fan.

[jad1]

Anyone remember when Bruce Smith signed an offer sheet with the Broncos as a RFA?

 

Man, that must have been terrible for building team unity. Here's a guy who gave the big F-U to the team over money. Obviously, Polian should have just let the guy walk, because by signing with another team, Smith should that he didn't want to be part of the Bills any longer.

 

Right?

 

Jim Kelly signed with the USFL instead of the Bills, showing that he cared more about money than playing in the NFL, and made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with Buffalo. Buffalo should have immediately traded his rights when Kelly signed with the USFL to a warm weather city, which is exactly what Kelly suggested they should do at that time, right?

 

Basically following this advice about buying into drama of a contract negotiation, and take the statements made during a negotiation, would make for a lousy GM.

 

That's why good GMs like Polian (who by the way was very vocal during negotiations) focused on getting the talent on the field, while lousy GMs like Brandon, showed that he has no skill to negotiate in the NFL.

 

Bottom line, for 10 years Buffalo QBs have been chased and sacked all over the field. Building a strong offensive line with a corner-stone LT is a must to remedy this situation.

 

Brandon f#cked this up because he has no ability to understand that talent on the field trumps contract negotiation banter in all circumstances.

[Thurman#1]

You also mention that he was on the "hot list" of undrafted free agents. Really?!? Then why were the Bills the only team to sign him? If he was so coveted, then why wasn't he drafted? Bottom line, the Bills took a chance and developed an undrafted TE into a LT in the NFL.

 

 

"Why were the Bills the only team to sign him?" you ask? Seriously? Um, because only one team can sign a guy. After he's signed, nobody else can sign him. Has this really escaped you?

 

"Why wasn't he drafted?" you ask. Because he was a 320 pound tight end, a project. However, he was so obviously athletically talented that there was a lot of demand for him. I've already linked to a story that New Orleans wanted him, and there were others at the time.

 

 

 

 

Finally, I would say that the Bills far from bungled this one. Atleast they were able to take a former undrafted TE, develop him into a star LT, then, when the fish got too big for the pond got SOMETHING OF VALUE for the player in the way of a 1st round draft pick and an extra one.

 

So lets see, Peters cost them nothing in the draft, and they were able to have him play a few seasons for them at a relative bargain, and then get a 1st round draft pick for an undrafted player who is only concerned about his pay check?

 

That's far from bungling. That is shrewd.

 

Bills won that situation.

 

 

 

Actually, after Ty Law held out the first time, the Pats viciously put him in his place by making him the franchise player and took the high ground by paying him well over 9 million bucks. Yeah, they put him in his place.

 

One thing that the Pats do is sign their players early and avoid holdouts that way. Which is what the Bills should have done. How many players do the Pats have who are in the top 2 or 3 in the league but are paid the absolute lowest in the league for a starter? Because that's what Peters' situation was. The Pats sign these guys early. The Bills didn't, which created bad feelings.

 

Won that situation? Yeah, that's why LT, the second-most important position on the team looks so solid. Because the Bills won that situation. That's why they are 31st in the league in sacks.

 

They got something for him, yeah. But when you get considerably less than what you gave away was worth, that's not a win. That's a bungle.

[Thurman#1]

I agree that the object is to continue to get better. But paying a player who played like crap and had a piss poor attitude over a contract dispute 10% of the Bills' actual team payroll for this season isn't the way to do it. Look at the Patriots, who jettisoned Richard Seymour because of contract issues. Sure it made them a weaker ball club for the next few years, but it removed a problem.

 

As for where the problems lie, like I've been saying, they start and end with Trent. So you can add a "franchise LT" and an "excellent LB'er" and you still get 1-3.

 

 

 

The Pats* didn't get rid of Seymour as a disciplinary issue or for "contract issues". They did it because they simply don't have the money to pay him. They did it because there is no way they could afford both Seymour and Wilfork. They will pay Wilfork a boatload of money.

 

The Bills had plenty of money to pay Peters.

[Doc]

The Pats* didn't get rid of Seymour as a disciplinary issue or for "contract issues". They did it because they simply don't have the money to pay him. They did it because there is no way they could afford both Seymour and Wilfork. They will pay Wilfork a boatload of money.

 

The Bills had plenty of money to pay Peters.

The Pats have the money. They just didn't want to spend it on him given his age and figured they'd get something instead of losing him for nothing.

[C.Biscuit97]

What a circle jerk this thread is. It's done and let's move on.

[PDaDdy]

You obviously have no concept of team building. You don't negotiate with terrorists. Jason Peters had 2-3 years remaining on his deal when he all of sudden got the itch to be the highest paid at his position. He held out for an entire camp, and it clearly affected his ability in the first 3-4 games, and he struggled mightily as some have have even gone out and stated that he gave up 11 sacks on his own last year. Clearly not Pro Bowl material, but guess what? He was voted back to the Pro Bowl again.

 

The Pro Bowl is nothing more than a popularity contest. The players have even come out and said as much. Therefore, The Pro Bowl is not indicative of talent.

 

If all players suddenly had an inflated sense of value, then if they see the Bills cave to Peters unwarranted, me-first demands then other will follow. Trying not to build a team of me-first mentalities, the Bills did not succumb to Peters 2 years of pressure.

 

As far as your Patriots argument, they do it constantly. Damien Woody was replaced by a rookie. Ty Law was let go. Drew Bledsoe, Lawyer Milloy, Gay, Stallworth, their receiver #80- can't remember the name...all were on par demanding to be paid more and all were traded, let go, or signed elsewhere. Look at the recent dealing of Richard Seymour to the Raiders. Same deal. He will be due at the end of the year. Are his skills in decline? Maybe, maybe not. Needless to say, when the salary works against the team-first mentality and salary structure that the Pats have, 1 player will not rock the boat.

 

Peters would have been cut or traded. Who was the last Patriots player to hold out and not be traded?

 

You also mention that he was on the "hot list" of undrafted free agents. Really?!? Then why were the Bills the only team to sign him? If he was so coveted, then why wasn't he drafted? Bottom line, the Bills took a chance and developed an undrafted TE into a LT in the NFL.

 

Finally, I would say that the Bills far from bungled this one. Atleast they were able to take a former undrafted TE, develop him into a star LT, then, when the fish got too big for the pond got SOMETHING OF VALUE for the player in the way of a 1st round draft pick and an extra one.

 

So lets see, Peters cost them nothing in the draft, and they were able to have him play a few seasons for them at a relative bargain, and then get a 1st round draft pick for an undrafted player who is only concerned about his pay check?

 

That's far from bungling. That is shrewd.

 

Bills won that situation.

 

 

YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO CONCEPT OF "CUTTING OFF YOUR NOSE TO SPITE YOUR FACE"!!!!!!

 

Can't build a winning team if you keep letting all of your PRO BOWL talent leave via free agency. I am SOOOO tired of retarded arm chair GM posters who dispute the opinion of NFL coaches and players regarding the pro bowl. SHUT THE HELL UP! I'll take their opinion over yours any day! Go back to your mother's basement and play fantasy football with your stuffed dolls.

[Thurman#1]

why is Oher strictly a RT? is it because thats where Baltimore is playing him while he develops?

 

Oher is a LT, he played there in college and was drafted to be a LT but is starting his career at RT like a lot of LT's do

 

 

 

The reason Oher went so late in the draft compared to the top 3 guys is because there was a great deal of widespread doubt that he could ever handle left tackle. He's every bit the physical specimen that the top 3 guys are but there are major questions that he will be able to do the quick decision-making that being an LT requires.

 

That's the reason that he didn't go in the top 10.

 

And an awful lot of college LTs never make it at LT in the pros. It's a common problem.

 

Also, Jared Gaither, the Ravens LT, is a stud. They needed help at RT.

[Thurman#1]

The Pats have the money. They just didn't want to spend it on him given his age and figured they'd get something instead of losing him for nothing.

 

 

 

They have the money for Seymour or Wilfork. Not both. Obviously, they chose Wilfork.