Hey, did anyone see ProBowler Jason Peters today?

[Thurman#1]

Stop with the annoying schoolyard namecalling, Peters is a starting left tackle with Philadelphia, he used to play for Buffalo. Some people wish he was here, some don't. Thurman#1 and Sfbillsfan#1 are either 9 or 10 years old and in need of wedgies, or a person suffering from multiple personality disorder and arguing with himself, please stop wasting bandwith.

 

 

 

Feel free to skip to another thread. When someone lies about me, I respond.

[C.Biscuit97]

And you are the Matt Millen of TBD.

 

Your opinions have been so WRONG the past few years, that you really need to re-invent yourself rather than be the snide prick you have always been.

 

Millen used to specialize in calling out players for not being tough or hard working, or even smart enough. Now he's just all warm and fuzzy because he has no credibility. Try it. Maybe people will forget how you attacked anyone who didn't think that Jauron was as good as Belichick....he just wasn't lucky enough to have Tom Brady. Yeah, you really need to be calling people out.

 

1) Who the hell are you?

 

2) You're a moron who needs to work on your reading comprehension. Let's bet $100. If you find post (since you seen like a complete stalker anyways) where I state Jauron is a better coach than Belichick. If you don't, pay me $ and shut the hell up.

 

I'll break it down one more time for you genius. Prior to this season, Jauron had a a slightly better winning % than Belichick did prior to Brady. It's a freaking fact that can't be dispute.

 

3) I'd rather be Matt Millen than some douche on an interent who has a name a 10 year old would find funny. A Dick joke, hilarious. Any time you want to match resumes (and our football backgrounds), let me know.

 

Now back to not knowing or caring who you are.

[mead107]

close this now please. could of would of should of all history now.

[C.Biscuit97]

He had two and a half excellent years on the OL in Buffalo, one and a half of which (the last half of 2006 and all of 2007) were at LT, and he was in pro bowl consideration in 2006. Don't know what you're talking about.

 

But hey, you getting the facts wrong is par for the course.

 

 

He played one really good year at RT, one good year at LT (where he got overrated), and one bad year at LT. This is terrible quality but this is from 2007 and is Lynch's long td against the Bengals. Guess who totally whiffs? The greatest LT ever and almost causes a 5 yard loss. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NpeDnee5QA...feature=related

 

Here's some facts IMO:

 

1) To say he is a bad LT is stupid. Athletically, he might be the most talented LT in the NFL.

 

2) To say he is an elite LT (which he is paid like) is also stupid. He is a good but not great LT. With his injuries, mental laspes, and questionable work ethic, he will never be consistent to be an elite LT. Too many blown assignments.

 

3) You can't cower to player's demands who go about their business the way Peters did. Guys who went about things the right way (Evans, McGee) got paid in the end.

 

4) He would have no real impact on this offense as he really didn't in the seasons he was here. We may have a few more rushing yards but we'd still be struggling because we have 2 backups at QB.

 

5) A replacement LT isn't that hard to find. More and more college LTs are able to step into the pros and play right away.

[Phlegm Alley]

We need to resurrect the "beating the dead horse" emoticon because every time a Jason Peters thread is started, it dumbs down the entire TBD community.

[Dawgg]

3) You can't cower to player's demands who go about their business the way Peters did. Guys who went about things the right way (Evans, McGee) got paid in the end.

If the Bills went out and signed another top receiver spending $50M on him, you better believe Evans would have been pissed.

 

If the Bills went out and signed another top corner for $35M when McGee was still being paid under his market value, you better believe McGee would have been pissed.

 

Those are not valid comparisons to the Peters situation. The Bills hung Peters out to dry and it's hard to blame him for becoming disenchanted with this joke of an organization.

[C.Biscuit97]

If the Bills went out and signed another top receiver spending $50M on him, you better believe Evans would have been pissed.

 

If the Bills went out and signed another top corner for $35M when McGee was still being paid under his market value, you better believe McGee would have been pissed.

 

Those are not valid comparisons to the Peters situation. The Bills hung Peters out to dry and it's hard to blame him for becoming disenchanted with this joke of an organization.

 

I understand that point and get it. I posted a while back that Marv tried to sign Reggie Wells, a RFA guard on Arizona. The Cards matched. However if we did sign Wells, we don't sign Dockery and I wonder how different the Peters situation is.

 

I've never once said Peters was completely wrong. But he handle it as badly as he could IMO. He is a good LT but I just don't like the people who act like he is some god LT and the Bills are completely wrong. They both could have done things better (Peters more so IMO). I do think Peters is never going to be an elite LT and a replace isn't as hard to find as we think it is. In general, the LT position has become overrated.

[birdog1960]

I hate when people say WE WOULD BE BETTER WITH HIM THAN WITHOUT HIM!

 

That's only true if we arent aggressive in free agency and need cap room to sign new guys in the future. This year we had the cap room, and your right--we would be better with him--but what if a new GM talks Ralph out of his "cash to cap" conservatism and we go for some big name free agents. And there's overrated, selfish Jason over there at the dessert bar with a fat $9m cap number, limiting the guys we can consider signing simply because he's hogging the team cap.

 

In that scenario, we would most likely NOT be better with him than without him.

That's a very big "but" (pun intended) and saving on experienced team veterans to sign free agents hasn't worked out so well for 10 years now. The salary cap hasn't been a serious issue for the bills in several years and look where its got us. I suspect we'd be much better off if it WAS more frequently an issue.

[Thurman#1]

He played one really good year at RT, one good year at LT (where he got overrated), and one bad year at LT. This is terrible quality but this is from 2007 and is Lynch's long td against the Bengals. Guess who totally whiffs? The greatest LT ever and almost causes a 5 yard loss. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NpeDnee5QA...feature=related

 

 

This must be the new math. Peters was with the Bills from 2004 - 2008, five years. He was a starter for ten games in his second year, 2005.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PeteJa21.htm

 

For us folks using the old math, yours doesn't add up. He started at RT for slightly more than one year and played extremely well, so well that he was switched to LT at the bye week of 2006. He then played extremely well at LT for slightly more than a year and a half.

 

Then he had his off year, during which he was the second-best run-blocking OL in the league ( footballoutsiders.com ) and radically improved throughout the year so that he was playing well enough the second-half of the year that the players voted him to the pro bowl. Granted, he just wasn't good in the first half of the year, but that's what you would expect of an OL who missed training camp.

 

As for your youtube clip, gosh, you mean he had a bad play one year, on a blitz that only developed at the last moment, which may or may not have called for him to change assignments? That's what I call shocking.

 

 

 

2) To say he is an elite LT (which he is paid like) is also stupid. He is a good but not great LT. With his injuries, mental laspes, and questionable work ethic, he will never be consistent to be an elite LT. Too many blown assignments.

 

 

Gee, and Dick Jauron apparently agreed with you. Not Andy Reid, though. What you have there is an opinion, and it's an opinion with which Andy Reid, a guy who has produced an excellent OL for years now, disagreed. Gotta go with Reid. And the Pro Bowl votes of the players. And pretty much everyone out there except for angry Buffalo fans.

 

 

3) You can't cower to player's demands who go about their business the way Peters did. Guys who went about things the right way (Evans, McGee) got paid in the end.

 

 

This just isn't true. The corrected statement would be SOME guys who went about things the right way (Evans, McGee) got paid in the end, but SOME guys who went about things in the right way (Pat Williams, Greer, Winfield, Pat Washington and more) didn't get paid. In other words, if you go about things in the right way, you might get paid, if you're lucky.

 

And when you have a guy who is as good as Peters is, you swallow your irritation at his juvenile negotiating methods and you get him on the field. That's what the good teams do. Who plays a damn good OLB for the Chicago Bears? Lance Briggs, who pulled the same kind of crap. Who played out of this world DE for the Super Bowl Bills? Bruce Smith, who pulled the same kind of crap. If you really believe that guys who go about their business this way should be jettisoned, then Bruce Smith should have been off this team, and we both know how little sense that would have made.

 

 

4) He would have no real impact on this offense as he really didn't in the seasons he was here. We may have a few more rushing yards but we'd still be struggling because we have 2 backups at QB.

 

So we should get rid of Lee Evans, hunh? And never should have gotten T.O.? Woods should be out of here? Levitre, too? Because they also, obviously, had no real impact on this offense.

 

When your offense sucks, what you don't do is get rid of the best players. What you do is keep the good ones and get rid of the crappy ones. And when you have a line-up with NFL quality guys everywhere, suddenly the best players start to have a huge impact on games because teams can't just game-plan around the good guys by attacking the Duke Prestons and Melvin Fosters.

 

Guess Haynesworth sucks and the Skins should get rid of him because he doesn't affect games. Put the guy in a good system and he's All World. But you don't get rid of Haynesworth because your team sucks.

 

 

 

 

5) A replacement LT isn't that hard to find. More and more college LTs are able to step into the pros and play right away.

 

 

Wow, we'll have to disagree on that. It seems to me that the ones who step right in and play are few and far between and when you do find them, they are almost all high first-rounders who cost an arm and a leg and force you to blow your first round pick on an LT when we have crying desperate needs at QB, LB, DT and probably WR.

 

That is one result of the Peters move that none of the supporters of the move talk about ... that we are going to have to blow a very high pick on a guy who will only be (hopefully) filling Peters' hole instead of addressing needs that we ourselves didn't create by kicking one of our best players to the curb.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Feel free to skip to another thread. When someone lies about me, I respond.

That is great, EXCEPT YOU are the person that lied about me. I NEVER lied about you. The fact I will NOT BE BULLIED into providing you with a LINK is NO REASON to say I lied!

[Thurman#1]

We need to resurrect the "beating the dead horse" emoticon because every time a Jason Peters thread is started, it dumbs down the entire TBD community.

 

 

 

Yeah, and the Trent/Fitz threads, and the Whitner/Ngata threads, and the constant repetitions of who we will draft even before free agency starts and the constant rehash of which coach we want before we even know who's interested and the criticisms of our recent drafts...

 

 

Of course, there will be nothing left to write about.

[Thurman#1]

There are some people it is easy to hate, like Willis Mcgahee, I am happy to see him play poorly. Others like Clements & Peters wanted out of Buffalo, this was reported at the time & NO I WILL NOT PROVIDE A LINK.....................LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.

 

 

 

Oh, I see how you're going about this. I like this technique. Let me give it a try. Let's see ...

 

The sun rises in the West and sets in the East. Yup. And, oh, a lot of people don't know this, but Genghis Khan was French. Yeah, it was all a misunderstanding. Genghis was reported to have said "Surrender or I will nail your heads to the walls, but he never said "nail heads," he said "baguettes." It was an easy mistake to make. Also, to all the Hollywood insiders, this is old news, but for those of you who are "out" of "the loop" let me share something with you. Beyonce is a guy. Yup, got a penis and more chest hair than Jon Bon Jovi. But give her credit, she shaves the chest for the videos

 

& NO I WILL NOT PROVIDE A LINK.....................LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.

 

I like it. You can say anything. Excellent.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Oh, I see how you're going about this. I like this technique. Let me give it a try. Let's see ...

 

The sun rises in the West and sets in the East. Yup. And, oh, a lot of people don't know this, but Genghis Khan was French. Yeah, it was all a misunderstanding. Genghis was reported to have said "Surrender or I will nail your heads to the walls, but he never said "nail heads," he said "baguettes." It was an easy mistake to make. Also, to all the Hollywood insiders, this is old news, but for those of you who are "out" of "the loop" let me share something with you. Beyonce is a guy. Yup, got a penis and more chest hair than Jon Bon Jovi. But give her credit, she shaves the chest for the videos

 

& NO I WILL NOT PROVIDE A LINK.....................LOOK IT UP YOURSELF.

 

I like it. You can say anything. Excellent.

Everything has been SAID in that thread. ANYONE that wants to read through it can spend the TIME & enjoy. You made a statement & I called you on it. You then said I misquoted you. I don't think so & as I said ANYONE interested can go through that thread & decide for themself. I did NOT LIE & I don't think you did either EXCEPT when you FALSELY accused me of lying.

 

AGAIN, I WILL NEVER BE BULLIED.

[Thurman#1]

That is great, EXCEPT YOU are the person that lied about me. I NEVER lied about you. The fact I will NOT BE BULLIED into providing you with a LINK is NO REASON to say I lied!

 

 

 

Yeah, crazy for me to ask you for evidence when you make a false statement.

 

You're wiggling like a worm on a hook, and it's obvious to everyone here. It's pathetic, frankly.

 

The reason I said you lied is because you lied. It would take you ten minutes to produce a link to show I was wrong, that is, if such a link existed. It doesn't. You are a liar. I'm not bullying you, I'm pointing out again and again that you made an accusation and then totally refused to back it up with anything like proof. Which is what liars do.

 

"Bullying" you into providing a link that you say would prove your point is like "bullying" a thirsty man into taking a drink. It would prove your point. It would be easy. It would force me to admit that I was wrong. The only reason you don't do it is because there is no link, because you are lying.

 

 

Everything has been SAID in that thread. ANYONE that wants to read through it can spend the TIME & enjoy. You made a statement & I called you on it. You then said I misquoted you. I don't think so & as I said ANYONE interested can go through that thread & decide for themself. I did NOT LIE & I don't think you did either EXCEPT when you FALSELY accused me of lying.

 

AGAIN, I WILL NEVER BE BULLIED.

 

 

 

You are not being bullied. You are being challenged to act like a man, and you aren't living up to it.

 

You said that I said something on ONE SEVEN-PAGE THREAD. I ask you to prove it, to go through that one seven-page thread to find the link that proves it, and I even gave you the link to that thread. The fact that you won't do it shows that even you know you're a liar.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Yeah, crazy for me to ask you for evidence when you make a false statement.

 

You're wiggling like a worm on a hook, and it's obvious to everyone here. It's pathetic, frankly.

 

The reason I said you lied is because you lied. It would take you ten minutes to produce a link to show I was wrong, that is, if such a link existed. It doesn't. You are a liar. I'm not bullying you, I'm pointing out again and again that you made an accusation and then totally refused to back it up with anything like proof. Which is what liars do.

 

"Bullying" you into providing a link that you say would prove your point is like "bullying" a thirsty man into taking a drink. It would prove your point. It would be easy. It would force me to admit that I was wrong. The only reason you don't do it is because there is no link, because you are lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are not being bullied. You are being challenged to act like a man, and you aren't living up to it.

 

You said that I said something on ONE SEVEN-PAGE THREAD. I ask you to prove it, to go through that one seven-page thread to find the link that proves it, and I even gave you the link to that thread. The fact that you won't do it shows that even you know you're a liar.

You had all last night to respond to my post yet you wait until this morning? Are you drunk, on drugs or just so stupid that you couldn't think of anything that it takes you this long to respond? You tried to BULLY me in the origional thread to going through that MASSIVELY LONG thread & link it. I told you then I was not going to waste my time doing that. ANYONE that is interested can read through that thread themselves & waste their time.

 

I did NOT LIE & if you think I did, YOU provide a LINK to what I said & what you actually said showing I lied. If you can show me where I lied I will appologize to you, but I know I did not.

 

If you can't or won't provide a link to show where you think I lied STOP trying to bully me because I will not be bullied. If you don't stop this crap on your own I will have to get the mods involved.

[34-78-83]

This must be the new math. Peters was with the Bills from 2004 - 2008, five years. He was a starter for ten games in his second year, 2005.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PeteJa21.htm

 

For us folks using the old math, yours doesn't add up. He started at RT for slightly more than one year and played extremely well, so well that he was switched to LT at the bye week of 2006. He then played extremely well at LT for slightly more than a year and a half.

 

Then he had his off year, during which he was the second-best run-blocking OL in the league ( footballoutsiders.com ) and radically improved throughout the year so that he was playing well enough the second-half of the year that the players voted him to the pro bowl. Granted, he just wasn't good in the first half of the year, but that's what you would expect of an OL who missed training camp.

 

As for your youtube clip, gosh, you mean he had a bad play one year, on a blitz that only developed at the last moment, which may or may not have called for him to change assignments? That's what I call shocking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gee, and Dick Jauron apparently agreed with you. Not Andy Reid, though. What you have there is an opinion, and it's an opinion with which Andy Reid, a guy who has produced an excellent OL for years now, disagreed. Gotta go with Reid. And the Pro Bowl votes of the players. And pretty much everyone out there except for angry Buffalo fans.

 

 

 

 

 

This just isn't true. The corrected statement would be SOME guys who went about things the right way (Evans, McGee) got paid in the end, but SOME guys who went about things in the right way (Pat Williams, Greer, Winfield, Pat Washington and more) didn't get paid. In other words, if you go about things in the right way, you might get paid, if you're lucky.

 

And when you have a guy who is as good as Peters is, you swallow your irritation at his juvenile negotiating methods and you get him on the field. That's what the good teams do. Who plays a damn good OLB for the Chicago Bears? Lance Briggs, who pulled the same kind of crap. Who played out of this world DE for the Super Bowl Bills? Bruce Smith, who pulled the same kind of crap. If you really believe that guys who go about their business this way should be jettisoned, then Bruce Smith should have been off this team, and we both know how little sense that would have made.

 

 

 

 

So we should get rid of Lee Evans, hunh? And never should have gotten T.O.? Woods should be out of here? Levitre, too? Because they also, obviously, had no real impact on this offense.

 

When your offense sucks, what you don't do is get rid of the best players. What you do is keep the good ones and get rid of the crappy ones. And when you have a line-up with NFL quality guys everywhere, suddenly the best players start to have a huge impact on games because teams can't just game-plan around the good guys by attacking the Duke Prestons and Melvin Fosters.

 

Guess Haynesworth sucks and the Skins should get rid of him because he doesn't affect games. Put the guy in a good system and he's All World. But you don't get rid of Haynesworth because your team sucks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, we'll have to disagree on that. It seems to me that the ones who step right in and play are few and far between and when you do find them, they are almost all high first-rounders who cost an arm and a leg and force you to blow your first round pick on an LT when we have crying desperate needs at QB, LB, DT and probably WR.

 

That is one result of the Peters move that none of the supporters of the move talk about ... that we are going to have to blow a very high pick on a guy who will only be (hopefully) filling Peters' hole instead of addressing needs that we ourselves didn't create by kicking one of our best players to the curb.

 

Not implying that I have any sort of beef w/ C. Biscuit but this is a fantastic post Thurman#1 ! Just spells it all out the way I think of it too.

[Thurman#1]

You had all last night to respond to my post yet you wait until this morning? Are you drunk, on drugs or just so stupid that you couldn't think of anything that it takes you this long to respond? You tried to BULLY me in the origional thread to going through that MASSIVELY LONG thread & link it. I told you then I was not going to waste my time doing that. ANYONE that is interested can read through that thread themselves & waste their time.

 

I did NOT LIE & if you think I did, YOU provide a LINK to what I said & what you actually said showing I lied. If you can show me where I lied I will appologize to you, but I know I did not.

 

If you can't or won't provide a link to show where you think I lied STOP trying to bully me because I will not be bullied. If you don't stop this crap on your own I will have to get the mods involved.

 

 

Yeah, I spend all day just waiting for you to post. Then I worry about what to say even though your answers are never anything more than "No no no no" with a few more words.

 

You are the bully, punk.

 

You simply lied about what I have said, over and over again. That is what a bully does. I gave you a ten-minute task: in one seven page thread, find where I said what you said I did. Let's face it, if you could take ten minutes and rub my face in the fact that I was absolutely wrong and humiliate me ... you'd do it.

 

The reason you don't do it is because I never said that.

 

You are the bully. It's just that you are so incompetent at it that you end up feeling persecuted and can therefore convince yourself that you are being bullied by me insisting that you tell the truth.

[C.Biscuit97]

Got smoked for a sack and that caused a fumble. Luckily for the Eagles, the Gaints are morons and didn't pick up the ball. Should of been a game changer.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Yeah, I spend all day just waiting for you to post. Then I worry about what to say even though your answers are never anything more than "No no no no" with a few more words.

 

You are the bully, punk.

 

You simply lied about what I have said, over and over again. That is what a bully does. I gave you a ten-minute task: in one seven page thread, find where I said what you said I did. Let's face it, if you could take ten minutes and rub my face in the fact that I was absolutely wrong and humiliate me ... you'd do it.

 

The reason you don't do it is because I never said that.

 

You are the bully. It's just that you are so incompetent at it that you end up feeling persecuted and can therefore convince yourself that you are being bullied by me insisting that you tell the truth.

YOU are the one accusing me of being the lier. It is up to you to show me where I lied about what you have said. You show me the Lie & I will apologize to you. If you can look it up in 10 minutes great, you look it up show me WHERE I lied about you & again I will apologize to you. If you CAN'T provide proof that I lied about you STFU & stop FALSLY accusing me of something I did not do.

[quikchomp]

I read about three responses on this page and just got a HUGE headache. You guys need to give it a rest, it's getting (been) really silly.