Malazan Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Eh, I heard Peters can throw, catch and if killed, will walk out of a cave a few days later.
K-9 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 After exhausting further analysis, I've come to the irrefutable conclusion that the Bills would be 4-0 if they still had Peters. He's a difference maker. GO BILLS!!!
thebandit27 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Please stop. Just put the Senaturd on ignore, it's the easiest way...trust me.
thebandit27 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Hi First post, stumbled across this in looking for feedback for our site. I work for Pro Football Focus (so am happy to answer any questions or queries) but this is exactly the point I was going to raise in relation to the rankings now. Its very early so great performances carry more weight than consistent production ... I'd look at the example of someone like Mario Williams who hasn't been that good until he had an incredible, out of this world game against the Raiders that jumped him up big time. Schouman didn't really have a chance to suck almost after a great week 2, while Reed is benefiting from exactly the point Thurman makes so we'll see how it plays out over the season. Peters is an interesting one. I think for the past two years he was nothing special (certainly not bad, but not Pro Bowl good) but he has started this season pretty well. The opposition he faces may have something to do with it, or he may be on his best behaviour and playing to his potential rather than his attitude. The Bills need a good offensive line to succeed in the East, unfortunately they have one of the weakest in the league right now. Anyways, happy to answer any questions regarding the site and hoping to get involved in some good discussion over here. I, along with a few others (I assume), would love to know how the "sacks allowed" stat is evaluated. It would seem--in my opinion--to be somewhat subjective at best, and almost a guessing-game at worst. My assumption is that you look at the play pre-snap, and then assess the offensive lineman's assignment based on their post-snap directive. If that's the case, and again I'm being presumptuous here, how do you determine if the offensive lineman played his assignment correctly (which could subsequently lead to leaving an unblocked blitzer, for example) versus the lineman that correctly identifies his assignment but fails to make his block effectively? Is the blocking scheme (i.e. man, zone, radar, etc.) taken into account on this as well? I guess that's a really long-winded way of asking for an explanation of how sacks are assigned to lineman, and if there's a method you follow to verify what the lineman's actual responsibility is on a given play. I appreciate any details you can provide. Thanks.
Thurman#1 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 fixed. Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh, my God, you are so funny, Senator. Your post at the top of this page is PERFECT!! Yeah, you fixed it, all right. You printed up exactly what YOU hear when people say anything positive about Peters. It can be based on facts. It can be obviously true. But all you hear is "blah blah blah blah." Sensational job of printing up your own mental map. You're incapable of hearing anything positive about the guy, logical or not, and you're proud to admit it. This is the way you hear the world, utterly closed-minded, utterly convinced, the Osama Bin Laden of the anti-Jason Peters folks. Like Bin Laden, intelligent stuff that disagrees with you is just a buzzing in your ears. Like Bin Laden, you are constitutionally unable to admit mistakes. I'm glad you can at least understand yourself. The hilarious thing is that everybody is going to look at your posts in pure pity. And you just won't understand. You couldn't possibly have made a better argument in support of Bandit and I. Thanks.
Thurman#1 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Where were you until both of our starting tackles were injured? The line was looking very good until both Butler and Bell went down. So yeah, when we have our starters in I'm a fan. We need some more depth. I will agree with you that I'd like Peters over Chambers and Scott. The interior of the line looked good, indeed. Not so much the tackles. Anyway, if you look back, you will see that I was right here, and I have been since well before the Peters trade.
Thurman#1 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 In the famous words of yourself, read the entire thread. My next post explains all of that. I respect your opinion Bandit, I just dont see why we should care anymore. Its over with now. Were not getting him back. And to say that JP is better than Bell after just 4 games, and only 2-3 with Bell starting/playing we dont really know jack at this point. Because "Those who cannot remember their past are condemned to repeat it." Santayana said that, and he was dead on. If you forget this, either way, whether it turns out in the long run to have been a good or a bad move, you let Russ and the FO off the hook. MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE!!! Never forget. And as for Bell being better than Peters, yeah, right. The question is whether he will become an upper-echelon LT. He might, and let's continue hoping that he does.
Thurman#1 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Really who gives a crap. Peters did not want to be in Buffalo. They should have kept Walker and Dockery. He didn't want to be in Buffalo BECAUSE Buffalo didn't give him market value. That's the only reason. I've challenged dozens of people to give evidence otherwise. None could. Who gives a crap? Not you apparently, and yet you still post on this issue.
Thurman#1 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Oh, and just so you know for future reference, you're on "ignore", so forgive me when I don't respond to your petulant act anymore. Hey, Bandit, don't put him on ignore. It's obvious that he doesn't know when he's beaten, whether he's blinded by his emotions or whether he has simply stuck his fingers in his ears. But who cares. The point isn't what he thinks. The point is what others think. And when they see him doing the 6 year-old stuff, the only thing left to him at this point, it helps people see what is left of his arguments. It's just me, but don't put him on ignore just when he hands you a huge victory.
Thurman#1 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Hi First post, stumbled across this in looking for feedback for our site. I work for Pro Football Focus (so am happy to answer any questions or queries) but this is exactly the point I was going to raise in relation to the rankings now. Its very early so great performances carry more weight than consistent production ... I'd look at the example of someone like Mario Williams who hasn't been that good until he had an incredible, out of this world game against the Raiders that jumped him up big time. Schouman didn't really have a chance to suck almost after a great week 2, while Reed is benefiting from exactly the point Thurman makes so we'll see how it plays out over the season. Peters is an interesting one. I think for the past two years he was nothing special (certainly not bad, but not Pro Bowl good) but he has started this season pretty well. The opposition he faces may have something to do with it, or he may be on his best behaviour and playing to his potential rather than his attitude. The Bills need a good offensive line to succeed in the East, unfortunately they have one of the weakest in the league right now. Anyways, happy to answer any questions regarding the site and hoping to get involved in some good discussion over here. 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.
The Senator Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Just put the Senaturd on ignore, it's the easiest way...trust me. Oh please please please pretty please don't put me on 'ignore', bandit - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE..... Whatever you do, bandit.... PUHLEEEEEEEZE PRETTY PUHLEEEEEEEZE don't out me on 'ignore'... Whatever will I do if YOU put me on 'ignore'
Thurman#1 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Oh please please please pretty please don't put me on 'ignore', bandit - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE P{LEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE..... Whatever you do, bandit.... PUHLEEEEEEEZE PRETTY PUHLEEEEEEEZE don't out me on 'ignore... Whatever will I do If YOU put me on 'ignore" Yeah, you'd love it if he put you on ignore. He spanked you like you were a 7 year-old girl.
Buffalonian-at-Heart Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 fi... oh, never mind. Boring. People like you are why I go to Buffalo Rumblings mostly now. You're ruining this site.
The Senator Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Boring. People like you are why I go to Buffalo Rumblings mostly now. You're ruining this site. That, or you've been banned everywhere else. (That you, SKOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBY????) suggestion - put me on 'ignore'
Cornerville Posted October 8, 2009 Author Posted October 8, 2009 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. 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!!!
The Senator Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Yeah, you'd love it if he put you on ignore. He spanked you like you were a 7 year-old girl. Son, you and bandit are both mental midgets - together, you share the intellect of a wax moth. I really couldn't care less if I'm on your or anyone else's 'ignore' list - in fact, I hope you both ignore me. Just be ready for the biggest 'haircut' of your life if you think you're going to 'dress me down' - you just don't have the tools, or the indefatigability.
timba Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 The interior of the line looked good, indeed. Not so much the tackles. Anyway, if you look back, you will see that I was right here, and I have been since well before the Peters trade. I don't feel like you're giving the tackles enough credit. I didn't hear any negativity on the board about Butlers performance (normally this boards focus) and while Bell had several mental mistakes (penalties) he was performing pretty well for a guy who was tossed into the LT position without a game under his belt. We had a very small sample size of what they could do. Yes, it was against a NE team that was trying to get their feet under them and pathetic looking Bucs team; so why not wait and see how they perform against decent teams instead of our backups?
BillsVet Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 I don't feel like you're giving the tackles enough credit. I didn't hear any negativity on the board about Butlers performance (normally this boards focus) and while Bell had several mental mistakes (penalties) he was performing pretty well for a guy who was tossed into the LT position without a game under his belt. We had a very small sample size of what they could do. Yes, it was against a NE team that was trying to get their feet under them and pathetic looking Bucs team; so why not wait and see how they perform against decent teams instead of our backups? Butler's been injured each year he's been in the league. I don't think it was a stretch to believe he'd get hurt in 2009, especially when he's facing better athletes at DE and/or OLB. It's like making plans not to have a decent backup QB with Edwards as the starter. Bell was not ready when they pressed him into duty. He's struggled, but the idea we're depending mightily on a guy who hadn't played organized football previous to 2005 is weird
thebandit27 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 This is GREAT: You have chosen to ignore all posts from: The Senator. · View this post · Un-ignore The Senator I LOVE this function!!!
Recommended Posts