obie_wan Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 However, it strikes me as strange why if Peters is such a phenomenal athlete, why on earth we would take the ball out of his hands by switching him from TE to LT. This is even more true with the injury to Everett which creates a gap at TE. If Peters is sch a phenomeal blocker now when it was his inability to block which made him a PS player last year despite his soft hands and phenomenal speed. 326986[/snapback] Can't see why you can't grasp the simple answer. $$$$ Top flight LTs are far more valuable than TEs because they are in such short supply, especially at the bargain basement price Td will be paying Peters. The TE position can be handled by committee if no one steps up. Similar strategy is not going to work at LT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Can't see why you can't grasp the simple answer. $$$$ Top flight LTs are far more valuable than TEs because they are in such short supply, especially at the bargain basement price Td will be paying Peters. The TE position can be handled by committee if no one steps up. Similar strategy is not going to work at LT. 327839[/snapback] Both positions are very important. In our particular case, we are much worse off at LT than we are at TE right now so the move is probably a good one for us. If Peters ends up a solid LT and that is..., a big IF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 In addition to not declaring JMac a miracle worker, I woulfn;y get all warm and fuzzy thinking to much of Jonas Jennings either. He did play well for the Bills when he was on the field, but inaddition to some good games he has against the games stars, he also could be used and abused from time to time as he was in the first Jets game when Abraham rung up two sacks on him. ogden was "used and abused" by schobel -- you wouldn't want him on the roster? pace was "used and abused" by okeafor (in the playoffs no less) -- you wouldn't want him on the roster? show me a LT and i can show you a bad game they have had.........pointing out a bad day by jonas time and time again (a game he was battling through a concussion no less) is quite weak in the overall picture.......look at his entire season (and career) if you want to grade him, but harping on one game doesn't do much to support his overall play....... There simply were not a ton of teams in the LT market since most teams have already made huge mutlt-year commitments to LTs. Jennings really lucked out in my view as there was still one of the few remaining teams with an LT opening also had the caproom to overspend and SF did. lucked out? give me a break.......he had MANY options...... the jets wanted him badly.......he talked to the giants and they also would have likely took him......and obviously the niners stepped up to the plate....... the fact of the matter is the price for good young LT's is 5M per year.......this has been established over the past few years and it came as no surprise when SEVERAL teams were ready to pony up that kind of cash for jonas......TD didn't think he was worth it -- good for him.......but obviously many around the league disagree with that assessment and we're willing to pay him market value..... jonas didn't get "lucky" -- he earned his contract and he got paid......it was very easy to see that was going to happen...... In addition to failing to start all 16 games in his career, Jennings also failed to finish a couple of additional games at DE due to a concussion amd a shoulder injury. Jennings was simply not worth what the Bills would have had to pay to keep him. that is your and TD's opinion, but that is yet to be determined........if the bills go in to next season with the current trainwreck at LT and struggle at the position, they may in hindsight wish they did put up the cash to keep a good, young LT around.......they have taken the cheap route, choosing to let the more talented player walk instead of paying him market value........we'll see how it works out, but it is not the strategy that most teams use....... The OL situation is better than it was at this time last year and will need a lot of work but we have a lot of horses and I am comfortable that we will get to a reasonable and probably very good outcome. i would rather have a hole at LG then a hole at LT.......we all saw how many problems the LG caused last year, even though the need could have been addressed in the previous off-season by spending a few bucks on it........instead TD went the cheap route, trying to get by with scrub talent.......it took them 3 tries to get an adequate LG in the line-up, and they thought so highly of him they went out and replaced him this off-season........i sense a repeat of this failure with the LT spot this year, all because TD wouldn't spend to keep a good, young talent on the roster....... the line has taken a step back from last year.......and the scary thing is it wasn't all that good last year...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 jonas didn't get "lucky" -- he earned his contract and he got paid......it was very easy to see that was going to happen...... I wouldn't say Jonas "got lucky" either (although for him I think he was lucky that he was switched from RT to LT a few years ago), but he's not worth what the 49'ers paid him, or even the "hometown discount" he was allegedly going to give the Bills. He's a good but not great LT and always misses at least a couple games every year. To keep/overpay him because you think there isn't anyone to replace him is not the best route. We'll see what kind of ROI the 49'ers get from Jonas. the line has taken a step back from last year.......and the scary thing is it wasn't all that good last year...... At worst the line has taken a step back at LT. Big Mike is already in-shape and focused, from all reports. Villarrial has a year in the system. Anderson is an upgrade from last year. Teague is better for having Anderson next to him. That leaves LT which might be a problem, but again we don't know, and again the Bills will probably move the pocket/use a TE to that side to compensate for that if LT IS a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 I saw this immediately as well. FFS, why aren't you addressing this "slip"? 327762[/snapback] Okay, I'll address it. It was a slip (Freudian or otherwise) because when it comes to young developing Bill's QBs I clearly still am scarred by the RJ experience, However, I think the two (JP and RJ) share little in common beyond their home state. I think one can truthfully label RJ injury prone after he suffered multiple injuries to multiple different places on his body in a short time. I think it is waaayyyy premature to give that same label to JP after one injury that occured in an unusal (training while he was wearing the QB tutu that says don't hit me) circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Can't see why you can't grasp the simple answer. $$$$ Top flight LTs are far more valuable than TEs because they are in such short supply, especially at the bargain basement price Td will be paying Peters. The TE position can be handled by committee if no one steps up. Similar strategy is not going to work at LT. 327839[/snapback] I understand what judgment is being made relative to the value of a good TE vs. a good LT and the holes/needs we have in both places. Its just that from what I have seen of Peters and the two holes, I disagree with the decision to have him focus on LT unless he is really very really that good of an athlete. When Peters was signed as a UDFA last year, he was signed because he brought so much to the table as a fast big guy with soft hands who with training might be the next Ben Coates in a perfect world. The seeming downside to him is that despite his extraordinary talent at catching the ball, he had never devoted much effort to blocking. In fact, he blocked so badly that despite his promise at pass catching he was to much of a liability to play TE. Yet, what we're being told is no wait, Peters is such an athlete that rather than his blocking being a liability that prevents him from being used as a TD scoring threat, he in fact is such a good athlete we can give him responsibility to block and protect our franchise QBs blindside. In fact, he is such a good blocking prospect (now suddenly) weare willing to stop him from catching a single pass or being a receiving threat by making him a tackle. I understand what we allegedly are trying to do and why we would do it. It just makes little sense to me. 1. If he is a good enough blocker we can trust and employ him at LT, he easily should be good enough to block at TE and the bonus is we get to use him as a pass threat. 2. If he is such a great athlete that he can learn a whole new position at tacklehe easily should be such an athlete that he can dominate at his old position of TE. JMac can easily make different judgments than me and he may be all right and I may be all wrong. I guess you are seeing the future is now aspects to my adoration of football as it seems incredibly difficult to me that Peters can ever be trained and perform at a level where we would be comfortable entrusting JPs life and blindside to a fellow who has never played LT before no matter how good an athlete he is. Even if this mrcale switch can be done, I see it as a project which comes to fruition at best in 2006 (if ever) and does zero to solve the LT hole we have right now. I have no clear idea what is going to happen here (which nicely is how TD, et a. should want it), but my guess (just a guess) is that they are saying this jus to confuse and fool the opponents. Th LT of choice is likely bnot on the roster yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts