Thurman#1 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I like Reed.. but should he be ranked #10? I guess by the stats.. It's still early in the season. He should indeed be ranked #10, based on what has happened so far this season, but this isn't yet a representative sample of games. Around mid-season, things will settle down, if history is a good indicator. let's see where Reed ranks then. And Peters too.
Thurman#1 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 The guy didnt want an extension from the bills, his agent eugene parker told the bills he wanted out and wouldnt negotiate and he spun it to the media that the bills wouldnt extend him. We all knew he was good the man just didnt wanna be in buffalo at all I'm sorry, but this is just not true. He told the Bills that he was going to play out the next two seasons with the Bills and then re-sign elsewhere, yes. Any idea when it was that he said that? The day that he was traded. The point being that he said only after a season and a half of ruinous negotiations followed by a total lack of any basis for an agreement. In other words, it was only after it became very obvious that the Bills were not going to pay market value that Peters said he no longer wanted to be there. There are two possible reasons for saying this: 1) Yet another negotiating position in the long-term battle. 2) Peters had genuinely given up hope that Russ would ever give him a market-level contract, and was serious about wanting to get out of Buffalo BECAUSE BUFFALO WOULDN'T PAY HIM. There is no evidence whatsoever that he didn't want to be here. It's just sour-grapes thinking.
Thurman#1 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 As someone who has a bunch of friends who Eagles fan, Peters get his share of penalties too. You Peters haters will say anything, won't you? As long as it makes Peters look bad, that is. Peters had two penalties in week one. Both were false starts. And none since. Two false starts in your first game with a new team, a new QB and a new blocking system. That's pretty understandable. And none since. Two penalties in week one. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/moving_...nalty_woes.html Two penalties total in the first two games. And both came in week one ( http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/moving_...nalty_woes.html Zero penalties in the third game. Three total penalties on Philly, totalling 20 yards, on D. Howard, M. Fotou and E. Buckley. http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009092706/2...post-playbyplay
Thurman#1 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 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!!! 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... Yes, bandit - Kolb has been sacked 3 times, but - according to your site - no one else on the Eagles team has given up a sack. Must be the new math. And Garcia fumbled the ball on his first exchange from center in his one series with the Eagles - which would have made four sacks, had the Chiefs not recovered the fumble. I'm just going by what I read on the Eagles fan blogs, bandit, which I follow quite closely - want to be sure I haven't misjudged or falsely maligned your beloved Jason - and they seem to credit FatSlob with all 4 sacks/QB tackles-behind-the-LOS. So far, the Eagles fans don't love FatBoy nearly as much as you do. Sorry. Senny, have they taught you to read your tables yet? Go look at Winston Justice's stats on the same website you just cited. You will see that: 1) He's on Philly. 2) He's credited with two sacks allowed. In my "new math," one sack by Peters and two by Justice equals three total allowed by Philly. Wow, what nutty "new math," to imply that 1 + 2 = 3. You really made your point there. Here: http://www.nfl.com/teams/philadelphiaeagle...istics?team=PHI The team has only given up 3 sacks. The two sacks in week 1 came from the right side of the offensive line: 1 by Peppers against Stacy Andrews, 1 by Louis Leonard against Max Jean-Gilles. According to the game log, the sack against NO was credited to Bobby McCray, which came against Peters. So I guess the Eagle fans are pretty clueless, since I don't think one guy can give up 4 sacks when the team has only given up 3. But you guys can go ahead and say whatever makes you feel better. Yes, bandit, I already acknowledged that their web site says Kolb took only 3 sacks. You really need to get a life - maybe find something else to wash, now that Jason's ball are in another city. Absolutely hilarious exchange here. I almost wet myself. First Senator claims that Peters has been credited with four sacks. Then Bandit corrects him, saying that he's been credited with one, not four, and that he's the highest-rated guy in the league. Then, hilariously, Senator ignores the stats about sacks, tries to blame Peters for Garcia fumbling ON THE EXCHANGE (I almost coughed up my gall bladder on that one, man does illogical unfettered unreasonable hatred ever shine through here), and in the same post totally misreads the stats on the website, and STILL tries to blame Peters for four sacks when he has one and the entire team has three. I mean, Senator just flat-out ignores the evidence and refuses to hear the stats because he's been reading Eagles boards and following them quite closely, all without even bothering to give us a link. Bandit gives him more facts, pointing out that the game logs don't even begin to allow Senny's interpretations. And then Senny says he already agreed that there were three sacks. Of course, what Senny doesn't say is that Bandit ALSO proved that Peters is credited with one and one only, and that two sources back that up and none back up Senny. Senny hasn't agreed to that. Also hasn't even tried to prove it wrong, because how would you. And then Senny rolls his eyes. Oh my God, too funny. How you roll your eyes when you have been proven wrong in every particular and refused to admit most of it ... that's beyond me. Hilarious stuff, absolutely cracked me up.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 You can continue to chirp and chirp until you run out of energy, but you are still flat out wrong- nothing would have come of us resigning Peters to an overinflated contract- Jauron would still suck, Edwards would still suck, our defense would still be missing key starters, and a losing season would still be imminent! Continue to waste your time by all means- it is your right, but IMO you are still dead wrong, and will be no matter how loud you are.
The Senator Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Well, at least Thurman #1 has something to take his mind off the Bills - namely, about 80 more anti-Peters posts that he will feel compelled to rebut, individually and sequentially
tennesseeboy Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 You can continue to chirp and chirp until you run out of energy, but you are still flat out wrong- nothing would have come of us resigning Peters to an overinflated contract- Jauron would still suck, Edwards would still suck, our defense would still be missing key starters, and a losing season would still be imminent! Continue to waste your time by all means- it is your right, but IMO you are still dead wrong, and will be no matter how loud you are. no. Nailing down left tackle would have been a good beginning. Drafting a quality right tackle (Oher) and the offensive line would have been pretty much solidified. Given more time I suspect TE would have been able to utilize Evans and TO in the vertical game or been benched. The running game would have been solid. DJ would have fixed the largest and most glaring hole on offense. But don't worry..Maybin will explode and be the next Bruce Smith in the next few games.
Thurman#1 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 You can continue to chirp and chirp until you run out of energy, but you are still flat out wrong- nothing would have come of us resigning Peters to an overinflated contract- Jauron would still suck, Edwards would still suck, our defense would still be missing key starters, and a losing season would still be imminent! Continue to waste your time by all means- it is your right, but IMO you are still dead wrong, and will be no matter how loud you are. First, it was market value. You can pretend it was overinflated if you like, but that's what happens to salaries in football. If you are one of the top players at a position, the salaries keep going up. And hey, you may be right, though there's no way to know for sure. But at least we would have a much better left tackle situation. And with a much better LT situation, Trent would have less reason for his happy feet and quick checkdowns. If he is ever going to turn it around, a good LT would help. A lot. And if he isn't, a good LT would radically improve the situation and likely the health of the new QB, whoever he is. And you're right again, I'll try not to waste my time reading posts like yours.
Thurman#1 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 no. Nailing down left tackle would have been a good beginning. Drafting a quality right tackle (Oher) and the offensive line would have been pretty much solidified. Given more time I suspect TE would have been able to utilize Evans and TO in the vertical game or been benched. The running game would have been solid. DJ would have fixed the largest and most glaring hole on offense. But don't worry..Maybin will explode and be the next Bruce Smith in the next few games. Man, I hope you're right about Maybin, though I suspect it may take longer if it happens. That would be a huge improvement.
Thurman#1 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Well, at least Thurman #1 has something to take his mind off the Bills - namely, about 80 more anti-Peters posts that he will feel compelled to rebut, individually and sequentially It's true, I do feel compelled to answer idiocy.
The Senator Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 It's true, I do feel compelled to answer idiocy. How utterly predictable - but if that were true, you'd be responding to your own posts.
dave mcbride Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Please tell us about how awesome Peters is one he plays a real defense (i.e. the Giants). Wow, he is a stud agaisnt KC. He still hasn't proven he is a $10 million LT and Bell, who made mistakes, should flashes of being a good player. Actually, since you asked, he played extremely well against the Giants in 07 before getting hurt. After he went out, it was jailbreak time for Umenyiora. Prior to that, he had been completely bottled up.
Thurman#1 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 How utterly predictable - but if that were true, you'd be responding to your own posts. Hey, babe. I'm not the one who said Peters was responsible for four sacks when the facts are that the entire team had allowed only three. I'm not the one who looked at the website and said that no other Eagles players were listed as having a sack when a two-second look shows that Winston Justice is listed with two. Flat-out mistakes. Flat-out wrong. That wasn't me. That was you, Senator. And you STILL haven't admitted that you were wrong on any point except the fact that the Eagles don't have four sacks. Your hatred of Peters drives you right off the deep end. I'm actually sorry you answered so quickly. I was going to edit my last post and make it less harsh, something like "... compelled to respond to factual errors." Sorry I got there too late.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 It's true, I do feel compelled to answer idiocy. Talking to yourself is a sign of impending mental collapse, so they you'd be engaging in idiocy AND be ripe for the asylum. SACKS! PETERS! GAH! We would still have Jauron as coach- we'd be 6-10 instead of 4-12.. WHOOPIEEEEEE!!!
The Senator Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Hey, babe. I'm not the one who said Peters was responsible for four sacks when the facts are that the entire team had allowed only three. I'm not the one who looked at the website and said that no other Eagles players were listed as having a sack when a two-second look shows that Winston Justice is listed with two. Flat-out mistakes. Flat-out wrong. That wasn't me. That was you, Senator. And you STILL haven't admitted that you were wrong on any point except the fact that the Eagles don't have four sacks. Your hatred of Peters drives you right off the deep end. I'm actually sorry you answered so quickly. I was going to edit my last post and make it less harsh, something like "... compelled to respond to factual errors." Sorry I got there too late. You'll do this all day & night, wont' you?!!! I'll give ya this, when it comes to defending the indefensible, you're truly indefatigable.
Thurman#1 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Talking to yourself is a sign of impending mental collapse, so they you'd be engaging in idiocy AND be ripe for the asylum. SACKS! PETERS! GAH! We would still have Jauron as coach- we'd be 6-10 instead of 4-12.. WHOOPIEEEEEE!!! Looks like I'd have company in the asylum. Heh heh. Probably lots of Bills fans there to keep us company. Also, I like your argument. Let's not bother to improve our personnel, because we'll still be losers. Have you considered that you may have been a Bills fan for too long. Something may have broken inside.
Pete Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I notice all of you Jason Pets haters are quiet now...maybe Peters will send you a postcard from the NFL Playoffs or the Super Bowl! How has Peters played for the Eagles? And I will take Eric Wood for Jason Peters, thank you
Thurman#1 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 You'll do this all day & night, wont' you?!!! I'll give ya this, when it comes to defending the indefensible, you're truly indefatigable. Still not owning up to your mistakes, I see.
John from Riverside Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 OK....somebody correct me if I am wrong please...... This was not a trade of Peters for Bell.... It was a trade of Peters for Wood and Nelson...correct? Bell was already on the roster....and the bills liked what they saw of him. They had a player in Peters who was being a hold out head ache and rejecting every offer the bills made to sign him and even flat out said he was going to play out his contract (after holding out as long as he could in preseason) and then bolt when his contract was up (this was a direct quote I saw in an article) Soooooo.....if Wood becomes a pro bowler and Shawn Nelson turns into a stud tight end.....both of which being very possible. Then would it be a good net trade? I think so.
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 OK....somebody correct me if I am wrong please...... This was not a trade of Peters for Bell.... It was a trade of Peters for Wood and Nelson...correct? Bell was already on the roster....and the bills liked what they saw of him. They had a player in Peters who was being a hold out head ache and rejecting every offer the bills made to sign him and even flat out said he was going to play out his contract (after holding out as long as he could in preseason) and then bolt when his contract was up (this was a direct quote I saw in an article) Soooooo.....if Wood becomes a pro bowler and Shawn Nelson turns into a stud tight end.....both of which being very possible. Then would it be a good net trade? I think so. Stop making sense.
Recommended Posts