To all those who said Peters would be ready to play

[The Senator]

Well, at least you admit you don't watch.

You like to watch?

[Kelly the Dog]

You like to watch?

The games? The players? The actual plays I'm posting about? Yes. Before I talk bullschit like yourself, sure.

[The Senator]

The games? The players? The actual plays I'm posting about? Yes. Before I talk bullschit like yourself, sure.

Glad you watch before you post the bullschit! At least you admit it's bullschit.

[34-78-83]

When you cut out all the Peters Love/Hate/Contract/ personal pride garbage and look at all the plays he has participated in over the past 2 games (the ones that the camera angle allows us to see at least) it is clear and actually not really debatable that-

 

1-He has made a few bad plays that hurt the team.

2-He has been dominant and/or done his job correctly on almost all the other plays.

 

There is also a short term effect on line chemistry that usually comes into play when a guy returns from an injury or hold out. That would have only gotten significantly worse the longer they kept him out.

[KevinRome]

Aside from the noise, there is some signal in this thread, and it's a topic worth discussing. This boils down to the following: OTAs and training camp are important. The play of Favre, Manning and Chambers can be attributed to this. So next year when there are players in the league that aren't in OTAs or training camp, and people say it doesn't matter, we've got data that says it does matter.

 

In Peter's case, we shouldn't be too sullen. We've got weak opponents for the next two weeks, and then a bye. Last year's data consists of Strahan. He sucked in the first few games, and then was a decisive factor in the Big Game.

[Mickey]

well, not exactly. Both Jauron and Peters said he was in good "physical shape", but not "football shape" which I assume is the same as "game shape". Peters at one point said he was in 85% of football shape, which, judging by the ratio of good or great plays vs bad ones is about right.

 

How can Peters be costing himself hundreds of thousands of dollars if Mickey says this hasn't cost him zip? I'm sooo confused!

The difference is speculation vs. reality. The salary Peters is getting now is the same he would have received had he not held out. So far, he hasn't paid a dime in fines. They are speculating that when and if he gets a new deal with the Bills, it will be for far less money because, in their opinion anyway, he is playing poorly. Of course, that is based on their own predjudiced view of Peters and an article from Realfootball.com. On the other hand we have Jauron calling him "dominant" and "amazing" though acknowledging some bad plays on his part.

 

So that is another difference. My assessment is the same as Jauron's, their's is at odds with the head coach and based on an internet blog.

[Mickey]

Aside from the noise, there is some signal in this thread, and it's a topic worth discussing. This boils down to the following: OTAs and training camp are important. The play of Favre, Manning and Chambers can be attributed to this. So next year when there are players in the league that aren't in OTAs or training camp, and people say it doesn't matter, we've got data that says it does matter.

 

In Peter's case, we shouldn't be too sullen. We've got weak opponents for the next two weeks, and then a bye. Last year's data consists of Strahan. He sucked in the first few games, and then was a decisive factor in the Big Game.

It certainly seems to make sense. I never argued that Peters wouldn't have benefited from camp, just that the holdout didn't cost him any money, etc.

 

Even though it makes sense, I can't help recalling Club Marv back in the glory days. They seem to do okay without much training camp dedication.

 

The fact is we are winning and I give credit for that to all the coaches and all the players, Peters included.

[d_wag]

Because they almost never do and because it has not been reported that he has. Thus, so far, this hasn't cost him anything and, as I thought I made clear, it "remains to be seen" whether it ever will.

 

so just because it hasn't been reported that means he hasn't paid anything?

 

your logic, as always, is extremely biased

 

the fact of the matter is that the bills have chosen to not make that information public.......thus, he could have paid the fines in full, he could have paid a portion, or he could have paid nothing.........it is factually incorrect to state that "this hasn't cost him anything" because you don't know that, and very few people do know the truth (including peters, who when asked did not deny that he has paid fines but instead replied "i don't know")

[nucci]

It certainly seems to make sense. I never argued that Peters wouldn't have benefited from camp, just that the holdout didn't cost him any money, etc.

 

Even though it makes sense, I can't help recalling Club Marv back in the glory days. They seem to do okay without much training camp dedication.

 

The fact is we are winning and I give credit for that to all the coaches and all the players, Peters included.

Are you comparing a holdout to a relatively easy training camp? While Marv did not overwork the players, they all said they was the most efficient camps that they were in.

[oak tree 12]

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

 

well DJ disagrees with your assessment. noting he has made 3 errors he also commended him saying his play was actually remarkable and he watches the film.

 

do you really think if as you say he was a liability he would be playing espicially in light of how well the line played with walker on the left side? you need to lighten up!

[BB2004]

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

 

I said by week 3 he should be starting and I probably was wrong. Maybe after the bye week he'll really be back to his old form of not giving up any sacks and just playing outstanding football like last year.

[StupidNation]

How anyone could equate Peters performances with just a few blown plays is an imbecile. Peters was getting torched for an entire first half. I watched him over and over again on the right side of my screen getting man-handled. Point is Chambers played better, and Peters lovers can't get over their man-crush.

 

If anyone uses Jauron's statements as indicative of anything need I remind you 3 years ago he said the same things about everyone who under-performs. That's his style. My eyes and Peters getting pushed like a rag doll don't lie.

[The Patient]

Peters just needs to get back into game shape and he'll be back to his pro-bowl level. Of course he is a little rusty but his superior athleticism should help him and I expect him to be back to form by the time we play S.D.

[Kelly the Dog]

How anyone could equate Peters performances with just a few blown plays is an imbecile. Peters was getting torched for an entire first half. I watched him over and over again on the right side of my screen getting man-handled. Point is Chambers played better, and Peters lovers can't get over their man-crush.

 

If anyone uses Jauron's statements as indicative of anything need I remind you 3 years ago he said the same things about everyone who under-performs. That's his style. My eyes and Peters getting pushed like a rag doll don't lie.

Name the plays.

 

Name one player three years ago that was under-performing that Jauron said was playing "pretty dominant football". He doesn't usually use superlatives like that. He says things like "pretty well" or "good player" or "has made plays for us", unless they are, well, playing pretty dominant football.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

The difference is speculation vs. reality. The salary Peters is getting now is the same he would have received had he not held out. So far, he hasn't paid a dime in fines. They are speculating that when and if he gets a new deal with the Bills, it will be for far less money because, in their opinion anyway, he is playing poorly. Of course, that is based on their own predjudiced view of Peters and an article from Realfootball.com. On the other hand we have Jauron calling him "dominant" and "amazing" though acknowledging some bad plays on his part.

 

So that is another difference. My assessment is the same as Jauron's, their's is at odds with the head coach and based on an internet blog.

Let me see if I understand you...

 

You're saying that if he hadn't held out, he would be getting the same salary as now? How is it possible that he could have made less money? By paying fines or losing game checks? And you're also inferring that by making "some" dumb plays, this makes no difference in how the Bills approach the negotiation? You seem like an educated guy, you're really not saying this, are you?

 

It's pretty darned clear to me, and maybe a few others, The Senator and Realfootball.com aside, that if he came to camp (at least the mandatory parts), and had his esteemed agent negotiating a new contract, that he would be at 100% playing/football/game shape by now and be in a much better negotiation shape. As it is, he has zero leverage until he reaches that point, assuming he does by the 4th or 5th game, and he will most likely lose his 2008 Pro Bowl chances.

 

Yet you continue to cling to this notion that it has cost him nothing.

 

It also seems that every pro football writer in the USA has made a statement that says it was a dumb and dumber move by holding out.

[koozyburger]

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

You are definately right in that Peters is not the player we all seen last year. And yes he gave up some bad plays that led to more bad plays. But the bottom line is that we escaped in the last 2 games and we all know the Peters can only get better. When the team returns from the bye week he will be back to form and he will all be loving him then. I am more worried about losing Roscoe and hoping that our rookies can step it up and fill the void.

[GG]

Name the plays.

 

Name one player three years ago that was under-performing that Jauron said was playing "pretty dominant football". He doesn't usually use superlatives like that. He says things like "pretty well" or "good player" or "has made plays for us", unless they are, well, playing pretty dominant football.

 

That's a red herring and you know it. Who gives a hoot what Jauron said. We all saw the game.

 

Peters' dominance came well into the second half and Bills' victory rested largely on the backs of the D. By sucking wind on the field in the first half and the O not able to generate positive plays, the only reason Bills even got a shot for the comeback was Raiders FGs and not TDs. Granted the OL didn't play well in general, but I don't recall any other OL being directly responsible for TE sacks and resulting turnovers.

 

So while I don't agree with the point that Peters should be benched, it's equally disingenuous to claim that the holdout was meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

[The Senator]

How anyone could equate Peters performances with just a few blown plays is an imbecile. Peters was getting torched for an entire first half. I watched him over and over again on the right side of my screen getting man-handled. Point is Chambers played better, and Peters lovers can't get over their man-crush.

 

If anyone uses Jauron's statements as indicative of anything need I remind you 3 years ago he said the same things about everyone who under-performs. That's his style. My eyes and Peters getting pushed like a rag doll don't lie.

ha...you said peeters lovers

[Kelly the Dog]

That's a red herring and you know it. Who gives a hoot what Jauron said. We all saw the game.

 

Peters' dominance came well into the second half and Bills' victory rested largely on the backs of the D. By sucking wind on the field in the first half and the O not able to generate positive plays, the only reason Bills even got a shot for the comeback was Raiders FGs and not TDs. Granted the OL didn't play well in general, but I don't recall any other OL being directly responsible for TE sacks and resulting turnovers.

 

So while I don't agree with the point that Peters should be benched, it's equally disingenuous to claim that the holdout was meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

I don't think the holdout was meaningless. I think it was stupid and he is a bit rusty and not up to his best play. His own words, 85% last week and probably close to 100% this week seems about right.

 

My umbrage is the fact people here are claiming he was horrible throughout, or most of the game, and he wasn't. Not even close. He was also amazingly quick, and he wasn't sucking wind. In the first half and second half, he was awesome on several extremely important plays. There were a couple plays, which I will even say were "bad plays" by him where he actually did his job, he pushed the rusher to the outside as Edwards had to easily step up a foot and avoid the pressure, which he did. And again, I am even calling them bad when they weren't even all that bad.

 

There were three sacks. One was clearly Peters fault. On the second, the other two OL on the right side were beat quicker and worse. Peters had his block for a few seconds but Edwards blindly reversed field right into Warren who, if you watch the play, may not even have been Peters man. Peters blocked a different guy and then took Warren on when Dockery let him go. He didn't get a great block on the second man he blocked but I would hardly call that his fault. The third sack had nothing to do with Peters. There were NUMEROUS plays in the first half that were runs to the left side and Peters had a good or great block and yet other players men made the tackle at the line of scrimmage or behind it. So if you werent actually watching him, it looked like there was no blocking wide left. if you were watching him, he was downfield blocking his man. Sometimes mauling him.

 

His run blocking was very solid and often tremendous throughout the game.

[John from Riverside]

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

 

I am not in Jason Peters corner at all in any way shape or form.....BUT...

 

- We know he is a good player

 

- The only way he is going to shake the rust off is to play at this point

 

 

There is no way that the Bills are going to take a player who made the pro bowl last year at left tackle and is considered in the top 5 of left tackles in the whole NFL is going to ride the bench......it just isn't going to happen.

 

And he was a schmuk for holding out