PromoTheRobot Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Bench Peters? During our long protracted debate over Peters hold out, a few of us (me included) said that Peters would suffer for missing OTA's and training camp. Others (who coincidentally were arguing on Peters behalf, predicting Armageddon for Edwards if anyone but Peters played LT) said that Peters was so crazy good that he didn't need camp. Being "the best player on the team" meant that he can just walk ont the field and be better than what the Bills had. Now two games in and we are seeing that Peters is more of a liability to the Bills than an asset. Twice in two weeks, "our best player" has been beaten badly enough that the rusher caused Trent Edwards to fumble. Wasn't this the kind of stuff that wasn't supposed to happen with Peters at LT? Fortunately the Bills are 3-0 so we all just laugh it off, but I wonder if we were 1-2, and both games turned on those Peters-induced turnovers, how would we be feeling about "the best player on the team?" PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 A rusty Peters is better than the alternative. Additionally, he has made several plays where he took out 2 defenders on running plays; at least 1 resulted in a touchdown. His holdout, while it might seem (for now) ill advised, has not cost the team a game, right? We are 3-0, and Jason Peters should be the least of your worries, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted September 24, 2008 Author Share Posted September 24, 2008 A rusty Peters is better than the alternative. Additionally, he has made several plays where he took out 2 defenders on running plays; at least 1 resulted in a touchdown. His holdout, while it might seem (for now) ill advised, has not cost the team a game, right? We are 3-0, and Jason Peters should be the least of your worries, my friend. I would suggest otherwise. Peters is a little more than "rusty." I'm quite sure if it were Langston Walker instead of Peters who allowed Edwards to be pancaked like that, yours and others response would not be so casual. Do we wait until Peters costs us a game to make a change? All I know is Edwards was practically untouched in the Seattle game, a team with a decent D-line. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richNjoisy Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I would suggest otherwise. Peters is a little more than "rusty." I'm quite sure if it were Langston Walker instead of Peters who allowed Edwards to be pancaked like that, yours and other response would not be so casual. Do we wait until Peters costs us a game to make a change? All I know is Edwards was practically untouched in the Seattle game, a team with a decent D-line. PTR or worse: Do we wait until Trent is injured from another blindside hit? Too bad Jason can't play RT - at least Trent could see the guy coming...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I guarantee ya, PTR - the Peters ball-washers would find a way to blame it on someone else while insisting how lucky we are that PayMe graced us with his presence a month and a half late. As it is, get ready for the inevitable replies from his worshipers, i.e., "You don't know what the hell you're talking about...do you even watch football?", or, "I can't even believe you're citing an article from RF365!" We're 3-0 despite PayMe Peters, not because of him, but they'll never admit that. Have I said it yet today...??? F kc Jason Peters!!!! (There...I feel much better. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devldog131 Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 I concur, with Walker at LT and Chambers at RT in the Shehawks game, Edwards was practically untouched. The two guys also stood up very well to a solid D-Line, including a great DE in Patrick Kearney. Peters was ok against JAX, but was horrible against OAK. I am not sayin we need to bench him right away, but it is an option that cannot be ruled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 You're right, but it's a moot point now. The pressure is probably going to be less intense this week and there's a good chance that Peters should be game ready for Arizona and then have another two weeks to get prepare for SD. But yes, the talk of Peters being ready to play within one week is laughable in retrospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 A rusty Peters is better than the alternative. Additionally, he has made several plays where he took out 2 defenders on running plays; at least 1 resulted in a touchdown. His holdout, while it might seem (for now) ill advised, has not cost the team a game, right? We are 3-0, and Jason Peters should be the least of your worries, my friend. it was ill advised - period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted September 24, 2008 Author Share Posted September 24, 2008 I concur, with Walker at LT and Chambers at RT in the Shehawks game, Edwards was practically untouched. The two guys also stood up very well to a solid D-Line, including a great DE in Patrick Kearney. Peters was ok against JAX, but was horrible against OAK. I am not sayin we need to bench him right away, but it is an option that cannot be ruled out. I agree that benching Peters now would be extreme going into St.Louis. But going forward I think benching him should be an option. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devldog131 Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 it was ill advised - period Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayFinkle Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 most. retarded. thread. ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devldog131 Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 most. retarded. thread. ever. Why do you say that? I have seen a number of threads (at least hundreds) far more retarded than this. It was spawned by an article from realfootball365.com that is linked on the TBD main page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Dick Jauron thinks otherwise. He said on Monday that aside from a few plays, Jason Peters played "dominant football". Is he in top shape? No. Has he been beat? Yes. A few times terribly beat. Should he have held out? No. Is he rusty? Yes. But he's also still the best lineman we have on most of the plays. He was completely dominant in the fourth quarter Sunday. He was awesome more times than he was terrible on Sunday. He was tremendous on the two rushing TDs. Benching Peters has as much chance of happening as would be as stupid as benching Edwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 most. retarded. thread. ever. Promo is a superior poster, but I think you are right. A rusty Peters blows away Mike Gandy, John Fina, or any of the other stiffs we have been forced as Bills Fans to watch for 12 or so years. Greg Jerman anyone? Some of these guys sound like they want him to suck. Certain posters (not you Promo) have taken this to a childish level, especially in light of the fact that we are undefeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Dick Jauron thinks otherwise. He said on Monday that aside from a few plays, Jason Peters played "dominant football". Is he in top shape? No. Has he been beat? Yes. A few times terribly beat. Should he have held out? No. Is he rusty? Yes. But he's also still the best lineman we have on most of the plays. He was completely dominant in the fourth quarter Sunday. He was awesome more times than he was terrible on Sunday. He was tremendous on the two rushing TDs. Benching Peters has as much chance of happening as would be as stupid as benching Edwards. Bravo yet again KTFBD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 ...more predictable than daylight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender51 Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 You're right, but it's a moot point now. The pressure is probably going to be less intense this week and there's a good chance that Peters should be game ready for Arizona and then have another two weeks to get prepare for SD. But yes, the talk of Peters being ready to play within one week is laughable in retrospect. The Rams have sucked, sure enough, but are you assuming that the pressure is going to be less because it's the Rams? This is a desperate team with some talent at home. Doesn't Leonard Little still play for the Rams? Is he hurt? A game we should win, but teams that aren't winning sometimes scare me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 The Rams have sucked, sure enough, but are you assuming that the pressure is going to be less because it's the Rams? This is a desperate team with some talent at home. Doesn't Leonard Little still play for the Rams? Is he hurt? A game we should win, but teams that aren't winning sometimes scare me. considering kalimba edwards (who is average at best) consistently beat peters on the pass rush with simple speed to the outside and a quentin groves (a rookie) schooled him badly the week before also going to the outside, i don't think that leonard little (or chris long) should be discounted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 The Rams have sucked, sure enough, but are you assuming that the pressure is going to be less because it's the Rams? This is a desperate team with some talent at home. Doesn't Leonard Little still play for the Rams? Is he hurt? A game we should win, but teams that aren't winning sometimes scare me. Yes, I am saying that based on 460 yds and 37+ pts the Rams D gave up per game to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haven Moses Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Peters isn't going to get any better if he doesn't play. But based on what we've seen so far, he could be replaced with options we already have on the roster without much overall effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts