The Senator Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 If you call STANDING on the sideline while your team LOSES playing sensationally, then yeah Peters is playing sensationally. :lol: BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Game, set, match! (Even though they lost to the Raiders, FatBoy looked SENSATIONAL sitting on the bench, and don't forget that he did say he would have gone back in - if he HAD to!!! )
Doc Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 Sorry, what quote are you talking about? There was no quotation in the post you replied to. And jeez, you are cracking me up here with that last sentence. Not one page ago you were saying that Peters being out made the Eagles lose. Now you're saying it made no difference. Before that you said he wouldn't have made any difference if he were here in Buffalo. Could you do me a favor and decide what you want to say? Maybe we will agree. Does Peters make a difference or not? I said that Peters' presence "probably" would have helped the Eagles win. That's what one would expect from a $10M/year franchise LT, no? What that has to do with others possibly thinking his absence had no effect on the game, and thus not taking him to task for it, is anyone's guess! He would have been better-served not saying he COULD have gone back into the game, just like he would have been better-served not talking about how his contract situation affected his play last year. I think I've heard of Clumping Platelets in my travels, but I can't remember specifically. Well, as I showed in my link, I get my numbers from the Buffalo News. I trust them more, frankly. And after the season started, the Bills signed McGee to an extension, so they are now spending more than the News said they were. And again, you said "10% of the cap." You keep trying to forget that, but it's what you said. The cap is $128 million, and that would put Peters at less than 8%. The salary max could be $200M, making Peters' salary a mere 5% in relation. It's immaterial when Ralph is spending $100M on players. I won't belabor this point any further.
Malazan Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 Excellent point, dude. Check the Eagles record to see if they make the right choices. Thanks for suggesting that. Let's see ... the Eagles made the playoffs this decade in: 2007 2005 (made the SB but lost) 2004 2003 2002 2001 and 2000. Seven out of nine years. And during the same period, the Bills made the playoffs in: Hmmmm. There seems to be some kind of failure in google, because I can't find any playoff appearances during the same period for the Bills. Still, I'm sure you're right. There must be some way to use this data to prove that the Eagles make worse choices than the Bills, and I'm sure you will let me know. Finally, a brother in arms on my boy, Peters and the quality organization that is the Eagles. They are like the Bills that went to the Superbowl four years in a row and lost, but they went to the NFC championship and lost instead. Everyone knows the NFC is dominant so that game is pretty much the Superbowl anyway. As I understand a minute of commercial time during the NFC championship could pay for Peters to play like five minutes. That is an AWESOME ratio. I mean, look at this: Let's see ... the Eagles made the playoffs this decade in: 2007 2005 (made the SB but lost) 2004 2003 2002 2001 and 2000. Seven out of nine years. Andy Reid went to the SUPERBOWL in 2005 with a 6-10 record. He had one win less than Jauron and went to the SUPERBOWL. Jauron has had a 7-9 record for three straight years and didn't make the SUPERBOWL once. Imagine what will happen with a talent like Peters. The Eagles have a 7-9 season virtually locked up which means they should WIN the SUPERBOWL this year. You can't argue with facts like these. Thurman has told us the Eagles made the SUPERBOWL in 2005 with a 6-10 record. You don't think Peters gets them one more win and thus the championship? You are all on crack. I think Thurman and I are the only ones who understand football and being part of a team here.
The Senator Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Finally, a brother in arms on my boy, Peters and the quality organization that is the Eagles. They are like the Bills that went to the Superbowl four years in a row and lost, but they went to the NFC championship and lost instead. Everyone knows the NFC is dominant so that game is pretty much the Superbowl anyway. As I understand a minute of commercial time during the NFC championship could pay for Peters to play like five minutes. That is an AWESOME ratio. I mean, look at this: Andy Reid went to the SUPERBOWL in 2005 with a 6-10 record. He had one win less than Jauron and went to the SUPERBOWL. Jauron has had a 7-9 record for three straight years and didn't make the SUPERBOWL once. Imagine what will happen with a talent like Peters. The Eagles have a 7-9 season virtually locked up which means they should WIN the SUPERBOWL this year. You can't argue with facts like these. Thurman has told us the Eagles made the SUPERBOWL in 2005 with a 6-10 record. You don't think Peters gets them one more win and thus the championship? You are all on crack. I think Thurman and I are the only ones who understand football and being part of a team here. Injury Report - Washington Redskins vs Philadelphia Eagles: Jason Peters, Questionable (Knee/Ankle) (Might as well throw in a quad, a groin, and a brain-sprain as well.)
Gotta Dream Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Ok, I wish this thread would die, but I can't let it after seeing JP give a lazy, weak effort and allowing McNabb to be blindsided.
Simon Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Injury Report - Washington Redskins vs Philadelphia Eagles: Jason Peters, Questionable (Knee/Ankle) (Might as well throw in a quad, a groin, and a brain-sprain as well.) You forgot distended abdomen....
The Senator Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Ok, I wish this thread would die, but I can't let it after seeing JP give a lazy, weak effort and allowing McNabb to be blindsided. You want protection, you gotta pay extra.
buffaloboyinATL Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Ok, I wish this thread would die, but I can't let it after seeing JP give a lazy, weak effort and allowing McNabb to be blindsided. It's almost embarassing to hear him described as a "pro bowl" left tackle as he falls to the ground on a weak cut block, misses the block and almost gets his QB killed.
HurlyBurly51 Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Focus on what Peters does on every snap tonight, compare and contrast it to what Bell did yesterday, and I just don't see a huge difference. Certainly not a $10M difference.
Malazan Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Focus on what Peters does on every snap tonight, compare and contrast it to what Bell did yesterday, and I just don't see a huge difference. Certainly not a $10M difference. It seems sanity may never return to this board. Bell has been given every advantage in starting and given way too much slack for not playing up to the MASSIVE legacy left behind by Jason Peters. Do you guys remember when Peters came into the league? He was the best left tackle playing even though he was a tight end. This was even having to suffer the oppressive coaching of Jim McNally. Everyone knows he was a pretty poor coach. That guy doesn't even have a job coaching anymore. It's pretty obvious that Jason Peters was thrust into the fire and had to learn on the go as backup for 2004, 2005 and then just thrust in at right tackle replacing Mike Williams before being moved to left tackle. Has any player had to face that kind of adversity before? Years as a backup and then just BAM, a starter after only years. Bell has been named the starter since game 1! They have both been starters since game 1 this season so it's a pretty accurate comparison. Also, Bell has two QBs competing for the job who need to play well. It's not like he's dealing with an entrenched probowl starter who has proven he shouldn't be starting in the NFL. On top of all that, Jason Peters only got 10 million and is expected to be the BIG addition to the Eagles offensive line. Bell has TWO FIRST ROUND draft picks on the line with him. Peters doesn't have the advantage of having that kind of drafted talent to play with and let's not even talk about Meredith on the other side. The situation favors Bell is every conceivable way.
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Cue Thurman to say it was Dockery, Trent, or Lynch's fault. I've never seen an "elite" Lt get beat for sacks as much as Peters does.
HurlyBurly51 Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 It seems sanity may never return to this board. Bell has been given every advantage in starting and given way too much slack for not playing up to the MASSIVE legacy left behind by Jason Peters. Do you guys remember when Peters came into the league? He was the best left tackle playing even though he was a tight end. This was even having to suffer the oppressive coaching of Jim McNally. Everyone knows he was a pretty poor coach. That guy doesn't even have a job coaching anymore. Really? McNally was one of the most respected OL coaches in the league. And he decided to retire. It's pretty obvious that Jason Peters was thrust into the fire and had to learn on the go as backup for 2004, 2005 and then just thrust in at right tackle replacing Mike Williams before being moved to left tackle. Has any player had to face that kind of adversity before? Years as a backup and then just BAM, a starter after only years. Bell has been named the starter since game 1! After learning from the sidelines his 1st year. Developed just like JP. They have both been starters since game 1 this season so it's a pretty accurate comparison. Accurate in what sense? Peters has years of starting experience, Bell has 6 games under his belt. Also, Bell has two QBs competing for the job who need to play well. It's not like he's dealing with an entrenched probowl starter who has proven he shouldn't be starting in the NFL. Shouldn't that favor Peters, who plays behind a more experienced and mobile QB? On top of all that, Jason Peters only got 10 million and is expected to be the BIG addition to the Eagles offensive line. Bell has TWO FIRST ROUND draft picks on the line with him. Peters doesn't have the advantage of having that kind of drafted talent to play with and let's not even talk about Meredith on the other side. The situation favors Bell is every conceivable way. Theres' one 1st rounder - Wood. I'm not sure if this was sarcastic or not, but watching Bell snap for snap compared to Peters snap for snap this week, I don't see a big difference in their level of play. And Bell has only 6 starts and will get much better, while Peters has proven he will quit on you at some point.
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 I'm pretty sure his post was filled with insane amounts of sarcasm.
No QB - No Bueno Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 He's gawwwwwwwwwwwwn. Oh What. What went wrong?
Mantis Toboggan M.D Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Andy Reid went to the SUPERBOWL in 2005 with a 6-10 record. He had one win less than Jauron and went to the SUPERBOWL. Jauron has had a 7-9 record for three straight years and didn't make the SUPERBOWL once. Imagine what will happen with a talent like Peters. The Eagles have a 7-9 season virtually locked up which means they should WIN the SUPERBOWL this year. You can't argue with facts like these. Thurman has told us the Eagles made the SUPERBOWL in 2005 with a 6-10 record. You don't think Peters gets them one more win and thus the championship? You are all on crack. I think Thurman and I are the only ones who understand football and being part of a team here. Are these two paragraphs serious? There is so much sarcasm going off on this board that I can't tell whats real anymore. The Eagles went 6-10 and missed the playoffs in 2005. Commonly known as the Superbowl Curse. They made the Superbowl on a 13-3 record with no Terrell Owens and McNabb controversy. 2006 was the year Terrell Owens blew up on McNabb for being out of shape during the Superbowl. I'm assuming the poster who wrote 05 meant the 2004 to 2005 season. The only way Andy Reid could EVER pull off a 6-10 Superbowl season is if he played Madden and controlled the Eagles Redskins Cowboys and Giants.
The Senator Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 It's almost embarassing to hear him described as a "pro bowl" left tackle as he falls to the ground on a weak cut block, misses the block and almost gets his QB killed. Yeah, methinks FatBoy lost more than a few ProBowl votes last nite... Why are 300-pound dudes diving at other people's knees? I hope Juan Castillo gives his offensive line a nice talking-to about the lame attempts to upend the Redskins defensive linemen. For Jason Peters to do that (and surrender a vicious sack) is pretty unacceptable. For Herremans to do it against Haynesworth was really just an act of desperation, but still. This doesn't look like an Eagles offensive line right now. Not the brand to which we've become accustomed. link
Malazan Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Are these two paragraphs serious? There is so much sarcasm going off on this board that I can't tell whats real anymore. The Eagles went 6-10 and missed the playoffs in 2005. Commonly known as the Superbowl Curse. They made the Superbowl on a 13-3 record with no Terrell Owens and McNabb controversy. 2006 was the year Terrell Owens blew up on McNabb for being out of shape during the Superbowl. I'm assuming the poster who wrote 05 meant the 2004 to 2005 season. The only way Andy Reid could EVER pull off a 6-10 Superbowl season is if he played Madden and controlled the Eagles Redskins Cowboys and Giants. Stop trying to distort the facts. Thurman has provided many, many links to back up all of his assertions. He says they made it in 2005 and you say 2004. Who's word do you think I'm going to believe? Another frothing at the moth Peters basher or Thurman #1. You can't just say things without providing links from at least 47 different reputable sites to back it up or it's just hearsay. Look at Madden, the ranking clearly indicate that Jason Peters would have been the best Offensive lineman on the Bills. His throwing stats are way above the other lineman. So he would have solved our QB problem too. If you lunatics had been watching any Eagles game, you can see Peters is about to blow up on McNabb too. The guy is not running towards the right side enough and making Peters job much more difficult. So McNabb's lack of conditioning is responsible for all those pressures in their last game. He doesn't work as hard on his physique as Peters does and it shows. So stop making up stuff like the Eagles being in the Superbowl in 2004 when there are absolutely NO sites out there that will back you up.
nucci Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Stop trying to distort the facts. Thurman has provided many, many links to back up all of his assertions. He says they made it in 2005 and you say 2004. Who's word do you think I'm going to believe? Another frothing at the moth Peters basher or Thurman #1. You can't just say things without providing links from at least 47 different reputable sites to back it up or it's just hearsay. Look at Madden, the ranking clearly indicate that Jason Peters would have been the best Offensive lineman on the Bills. His throwing stats are way above the other lineman. So he would have solved our QB problem too. If you lunatics had been watching any Eagles game, you can see Peters is about to blow up on McNabb too. The guy is not running towards the right side enough and making Peters job much more difficult. So McNabb's lack of conditioning is responsible for all those pressures in their last game. He doesn't work as hard on his physique as Peters does and it shows. So stop making up stuff like the Eagles being in the Superbowl in 2004 when there are absolutely NO sites out there that will back you up. Wow...really?
Thurman#1 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 He would have been better-served not saying he COULD have gone back into the game, just like he would have been better-served not talking about how his contract situation affected his play last year. Yeah, you're probably right in both cases. But again, the only ones who were upset about the quote about going back in were the 10 or so guys on the Bills boards who would attack him as idiotic if he said the Lord's prayer. In Philly, nobody cared about that at all. It's a non-issue. The salary max could be $200M, making Peters' salary a mere 5% in relation. It's immaterial when Ralph is spending $100M on players. I won't belabor this point any further. The "salary max"? Could be $200M? No wonder you won't belabor this point any further. You didn't say anything about a "salary max." You said the Bills saved 10% on the salary CAP. Which is $138 million, not $200 million or $100 million. I wouldn't belabor it any further either if I were you.
Recommended Posts