colin

the question remains -- what would you have done? also -- our FO could have gone after any of the big DTs available for trade but chose stroud. are you that sure that they eff'ed that up and went for a washed up guy when other players were out there? dj picking over his old player shuan rogers makes me think he has a better idea of who is over the hill or not.

obie wan, i just disagree. i don't think peters is holding out from ota's because he is willing to accept some middle of the road thing. he's pushing hard to get the big big money, and he won't resign until he gets it. i say let him earn it this season, and then rip up 2 years on his contract. walter jones was a hold out for like 4 or 5 probowl years in seattle, at worst we can do that w peters. i think 3 years is too much to rip up after one good (albeit very good) season, especially since the 3 years left is from a recent re up.

akc, we ditched trip, traded for stroud, signed johnson and extended williams. we also drafted ellis. we upgraded/added 3 guys to our front 4, and signed mitchell and got poz back from injury. that's 5 new guys from the end of last year in the front 7. we wanted to get bigger and we did. what would you have had us do, spend our first 2 picks on the dl as well, so that we ignore huge cb and wr needs in order to add 7 guys to the front 7? there's more to a team than the dl, and it's not like we didn't upgrade ours.

ok bill, so you think there is no reason to consider his existing contract status at all? he's not coming cheap, not near dock money, not anything like that. he's going to want 35+ up front and something like 70 for 7 years. obviously he's a good player and important to our team, but we have the strength here, if we want we can have him for 5 more seasons using the existing contract and franchise tags. i think we should let him earn te big bucks this season. bill, you seem to be opperating under the assumption that our options are throw a ton of money at him now, or watch him walk. he's not in his contract year so that's not the case.

i don't agree with it all, but good post and thread IMO. i think @jax is gonna suck, but we've played them well (last year we were in it until the end and give jones drew fits, and our pass rush had gerrard on lock, jp decided to give the game away with his usual horrible late play). seattle is HORRIBLE on the road, particularly to the east coast. on D they have a good secondary (very good?) and a fast undersized pass rushing front 7. our O line is a rock vs pass rushing fronts, and will be able to push them around in the run (small linebackers on the road vs marshawn at home? i like lynch). on the flip side we've added a bit to our coverage ability and are playing against a team with meh and banged up WRs and no RB talent. the o line as it says above for the seachickens is hurt and we have put a ton of guys close to the ball on D, i expect hassleback to get beaten up pretty bad. i think we win and look good hosting seattle.

bill, you are missing the forest for the trees on peters here. he has 3 years left on his contract, we own his ass. he is going to play as hard as he can for us this year. if we really love how he plays this season, and we address all of our other big FA's (evans really), then yeah we give him the bank and lock him up for 7 years. if he gets hurt or falters, then we still have him for 2 more years, and he'll be trying to show that he hasn't fallen off and the one bad year was just a fluke. we just don't need to resign him now bill, we could but we don't need to. the guy you compare him too, the great walter jones, he was a camp missing malcontent (well, from a contract point of view) who was franchised what, 3 years in a row? he then signed a long term deal. what the fo is gonna do is use up as much cash to cap as they can this year on quality guys (williams, and prolly evans) and with a fresh bundle next season sign peters (if he's awesome again, and yeah i think he will be) and crow or somebody (maybe an FA WR). besides being an OL enthusiast do you have a real reason for the bills to extend peters today? don't say we can get him cheaper that way, his agent knows the game better than we do and will not let his star client get less than top dollar.

the way ppl here talk about difference makers and the cover 2 makes me laugh sometimes. aaron gets blasted, but is considered amoung the very best in the nfl by insiders, and our other "slow white" DEs are all considered solid. our D needs fresh linemen -- they run a track meet going after the ball and qb. you want 6 guys who could all be legit starters and 2 or 3 backups who can play and have a shot at being top dogs. williams is good at times, but yes did get mashed around at times as well. i think our staff knows if he will grow (lots of bigmen come on later in their careers -- it's just how it is). look at the indy line and D, they had very few sacks and lots of injuries, and their d line is tiny --BUT they were the number one D in terms of scoring. this is what depth and a rotation can do for you. people arguing for a few number of super giant linemen (like NE, sandiego, and now the browns) don't realize how that isn't as important for our D, how you need a different mix of talent to work with that, and how a single injury can just get you. even new england who has a ridiculous line wore out by the end of the season. those big animals were just dominant in the first 5 games, but late in the year they were just tired. the giants and colts seemed to improve with their speed and aggression advantage, but of course the colts just lost too many guys. the great d we had under gregg williams was an example of the super vet idea -- we had the best 11 by far but losing just one or two guys hurt us too much. i'd much rather have a deep mix of youth and vets.

phat pat used to sub for big ted, and johnson subbed for phat pat and k williams. tell me on the giants line who starts at what possy, and who makes an impact at what possy. our d has our linemen running to the ball and at the passer much more than many other nfl d's, we need lots of guys who can play.

all we need (if our D and ST are on point) is to control games and put the ball in the zone. this is what pitts does (and has done). they intend to control and play smash mouth, but mix it up and go pass crazy once in a while. a great open O can be spectacular, but at some point you tend to take more risk than is ideal. with a couple of strong backs, a giant O line, and hopefully a couple WRs who can go deep (evans, parish) or short (reed, hardy) we really are best off being in ball control mode the majority of the time. if we turn a few 3's into 7s, and on D a few 7's into 3s, and long drives into punts, we can be a team that no one wants to play.

m williams was over 5 years ago.

by the way most guys rate an nfl qb, there are about 10 catagories that have more or less equal measure. jp has athletic ability, arm power, and deep ball (seperate from the power as he really does have great touch on the bombs). so he smokes 3 of those catagories, but is bad to terrible in all the others. the issue is he hasn't really done much to improve those other areas. the accuracy issue isn't necessarily about the % of passes jp completes, but where he puts the pass when he throws it. he flat out misses open WRs (as in doesn't see them) and ends up getting sacked, fumbling, or throwing picks when there was a play there. he is poor at reading the d, and really has negative body language when we get down early. if he was a kordel stewart type (altho kordel eventually wanted to be the man) who came in as qb or even an other back on some plays, and ran gadgets that were either him running or throwing a missle deep i think he would be a great additional weapon. he just isn't a qb tho.

trent is a 2nd year guy who showed some promise in his 2nd year. he has a good pedigree (2nd best HS prospect next to vince young) but lacks quality reps in ncaa or the nfl. he needs to learn a lot in just a little while to be good for us. he is certainly the best qb on our team tho. jp losman just isn't an nfl qb, never was and never will be. his best year and games came when he was completly controlled and limited by our conservative coaching. he had games where we won or were competitive vs good teams and he had less production than top 10qbs have in many quarters. like the jax game last year, he was horrible and had some luck late after the game was blown open. he's just a non factor too often.

wb. name calling aside (and some of the usual suspects on here who don't work under the same rules as everone else did plenty themselves) you were pretty correct in your jp assesment there. i saw the tampa and atlanta games from that year after seeing trent start his first few games last season. i feel pretty safe in saying that trent will be a better qb this season than jp has ever been.

what if you didn't know that you hit someone?

the leverage is: greater for the player the fewer years left on his contract greater for the player the closer to opening day greater for the player if he's in a skill position (team practice needs the player more, more specific skills to practice) if we push this to the end game, peters could simply not sit out 3 years. because of that i think the bills have the greater position. i think when he has 2 years left on his contract (perhaps even during this season) he will be extended with a giant bunch of money. lots of guys hold out and then play, it isn't necessarily the biggest deal.

i think we extend evans this year, like 7 or 8 per, 20 up front. 5 for 38, something like that. as far as peters goes why should we extend him? he's had one season at LT, got hurt, and has 3 years on his deal left. is he gonna sit out for 3 years? no way. will he sit out this year? uh uh. he'll play this year, we'll make sure he is as good or better, then we can extend him after this season. 2 years left is fine for a renegotiation, but 3 is too many.

i laugh my ass off at guys who just outright trust the da and cops like they are something other than guys with jobs that give them the power to destroy people's lives. i bet when someone has an insurance claim you guys are all "well if that's the insurance company sees fit to pay you you should thank them. they are always fair and most people are just scamming them anyway". on your knees for authority figures like good little germans.

nyc bill, when you say the police can't talk to him cuz he's lawyered up, do you mean that they won't ask him questions as having his lawyer present will ensure that he won't say anything stupid that the police could use against him? if the cops can't prove it was marshawn driving, and there isn't strong enough evidence to link the car to the scene of the crime (the damage is just a scratch or something, witness can't say what the plate number was, etc.) can't he just ignore the whole thing and no one will press charges?

i heard (made up) that they are gonna give him the death penalty, no trial. tough but fair i say.

he really was a stud at times tho. i wonder if his lack of conditioning, work ethic and pain taking ability is the cause.

if trent is as bad in 3 years as he was last year, he will be a bust and equal to jp. i expect him to be a good steady player most of the time this year, with some bad looking picks at times, and an efficient quick strike O at other times. i think/hope we will be putting miles on our RBs legs. jackson, lynch, omon, and wright could all get a lot of touches over the year if our D and special teams are good and we just go to town beating people up.

i think we'll end up mid 20s or so in points and yards. that IMO would be a big improvement

ok, i take it back, you really are a fool. you and your gay uncle GG are circle jerking with tps over all of this, but you're all just clowns. gg (and you) don't understand the risks that bear was supposed to hold wrt the financial system. it wasn't that they themselves go under damaging their creditors (like when delphi went under) but that they would damage the counterparty system. this is a problem banks should have to fix themselves (and they have lots of ways of doing this, but they are expensive and difficult so they don't want to) and forcing some hard and expensive settlement and collections that SHOULD occur when a big house fails would provide this correction. you and gg are both too ignorant to see this, and too stupid to put 2 and 2 together to understand the implications. tps is just a down the middle sophomoric economist who thinks his particular prof or text is the oracle. i'll leave you to your toe tapping festival.

k, i might have been mean calling the other guy a fool, but it was because you are a fool (gg, not other guy). 2 things 1 -- do you understand what the counterparty risk with cds' is? i don't think you do. you have no clue. it has nothing to do with a delivery squeeze. there's a cash settlement market that people can just use when they are short the credit with a cds. the point you cannot understand is that the problem the fed was trying to avoid was not the impact on cds contracts that reference bear, but contracts (and not just cds at all) that had bear as a counter party. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CASH OR PHYSICAL SETTLEMENT OF CDS CONTRACTS THAT REFERENCE BEAR, ZERO DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU IGNORANT BLOW HARD? 2 -- the point of the self regulation is that the market WILL NOT self regulate IN ITS OWN SELF INTEREST if they have that crowded out by the fed. while dealers couldn't exactly predict that bear would be bailed out, the effect of the big brother fed is that dealers simply don't push for good controls (internal and external) since they feel they are doing enough as long as they meet the feds obligations. the fed has certainly bailed out people in the past (LTC happened barely 10 years ago), and frankly only now are many big banks looking into good modern (CCDS, do you have any idea what that is GG? of course you, right?) counterparty risk control. do you have the slightest idea what the counterparty risk, where bank A faces bank B on a cds contract referencing bank C for example, is? i don't think you do.

delphi wasnt' a COUNTERPARTY. it was the name on cds contracts being protected against. the CDS' all served their purpose just fine when delphi or anyone else goes under, that's what they are for. don't you understand what the issue with bear going under was? hint: it wasn't cds contracts with bear as the ref entity, it was contracts (and not just cds) where bear was the counterparty.