Mickey Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 DJ should bench him, especially after screwing over the team during the training camp and OTA's. He showed up not in shape, not aware and has proven he is not ready to play. They should bench him and make him feel the heat. Everyone can be replaced, perhaps that hasn't sunk in yet with his big ego. Pity DJ doesn't agree with you referring to his performance as "dominant" and "amazing". Oh yeah, and we won. Oh yeah and his coach went out of his way to compliment him on being in such good shape despite missing camp. Seriously, a reasonable poster could certainly complain about his lapses and even give short shrift to his best plays but this suggestion is just ridiculous. This is professional football, not a boy scout troop. I think the problem here isn't Peters' ego but the elephant sized grudge people like you seem to have against this guy whose biggest sin is caring about his interests over yours. Jason Peters is a Buffalo Bill, get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 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. And I am asking you to at least accept the possibility that you are wrong. For one thing, I don't know what you expect to see while watching OL play. Do you think that a LT should pancake the DE on every play? It doesn't work like that. If a LT can shove the DE away from the inside on passing downs, he is generally doing his job. On running plays, Peters has been very good so far. He was beat a couple of times on passing downs, probably due to the holdout. That said, did you notice the 2 4th quarter comebacks? If Peters was getting mauled as you claim, we would have cerainly lost both games!!! Not only that, do you truly believe that Jauron would leave him in if he was getting "pushed like a rag doll?" I mean WTF would possibily lead you to believe that he wouldn't have pulled him out if he was SO freaking bad? One more thing.....even at full speed, it is possible for Peters to get beat. He is human, and NFL DEs are the best of the best. If you get even a great LT off balance, sometimes you can make a play. Bruce was great at this. That said, imo there is not 1 defender in this league that is so much stronger than Jason Peters that he can out-muscle him consistently, and I mean nobody, including Richard Seymour. This is a ridiculous thread which is being fueled by posters with an axe to grind, hurt feelings that just won't mend, and/or a desire to be "right." I was pissed off too about the holdout, but we are 3-0. If Peters was getting his ass kicked right and left as some here state, we would be 1-2. Sheesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Mickey, Mickey, Mickey...no one is anti-Peters, we're anti-YOU. We're just reminding everyone of your absurd predictions back when Peters was holding out. It's good to see you are as entertaining as ever. Have you ever considered a career as a White House press secretary? PTR I suppose your posting complaints about Peters' performance while ignoring his good plays and quoting Realfootball instead of the head coach who has referred to Peters' preformance as "dominant" and "amazing" doesn't strike you as being "anti-Peters" but I am going to respectfully disagree. And I would really like to hear your explanation of how Senator's endless attacks against Peters as selfish, greedy, stupid, fat, lazy and a "pecker head" are not anti-Peters. You should get a job at Fox News where you could explain how referring to Michelle Obama as a "baby mama" is not racist or "anti-Obama". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsZubaz Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 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. ) Well said. He basically threw this team under the bus this offseason to "send a message". How well was that message received? Does Jason have a new contract? NO. All he did was alienate a large group of his supporters and cost his team. PS. Maybe the Wonderlic is a decent gauge of intelligence after all? What was Peters score?...oh yeah 9!!! Tied for third worst of the draft!!! BTW, a score of 20 indicates an IQ of 100 (average intelligence)!!! WHAT A MEAT HEAD! That said, I really hope Peters is able to kick it into gear going forward... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I suppose your posting complaints about Peters' performance while ignoring his good plays and quoting Realfootball instead of the head coach who has referred to Peters' preformance as "dominant" and "amazing" doesn't strike you as being "anti-Peters" but I am going to respectfully disagree. And I would really like to hear your explanation of how Senator's endless attacks against Peters as selfish, greedy, stupid, fat, lazy and a "pecker head" are not anti-Peters. You should get a job at Fox News where you could explain how referring to Michelle Obama as a "baby mama" is not racist or "anti-Obama". Endless???? I haven't called him 'stupid', 'fat', 'lazy', or 'pecker head' in weeks!!!!! Let's hear it for Jason.... G......O......M......E...... gooooOOO, ME!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 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") Again, what part of "remains to be seen" do you not understand? How is this: There is not a shred of evidence in the public domain that Peters has paid a nickel of fines. Typically, as part of the deal to return to camp, such fines are waived. In discussing his return to camp, not the team, not the front office, not his agent, not Peters himself and not a single solitary reporter has indicated that the fines were still being imposed. So, as far as we know, they haven't been paid. Thus IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN if this will cost him anything. Your logic, as always, is extremely biased. What you are asking is to prove a negative. The status quo is no fine being paid. Something has to happen to change it, there is not proof that it has happened, thus, the rational conclusion is that, until proven otherwise, it hasn't. Could the team have employed a cloaking device so that no reporter could find out that the fines were paid, sure, speculate away. Could the team have rewarded him by waiving the fines and given them a night with G.host so he can finally enact his homoerotic fantasies, sure they could have, after all, no one has proven that they didn't and maybe they chose to keep that quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Endless???? I haven't called him 'stupid', 'fat', 'lazy', or 'pecker head' in weeks!!!!! Let's here is for Jason.... G......O......M......E...... gooooOOO, ME!!!! You have a right to be as anti-peters as you want Senator but for PTR to deny that there is anyone who is anti-peters is just Bush level stupidity. And I don't mean to single you out as there are plenty of people that are really mad at Peters, though PTR would deny it. Here is where he comes in and says something along the lines of how you can call Peters the anti-christ and still not be "anti-Peters". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 And I am asking you to at least accept the possibility that you are wrong. For one thing, I don't know what you expect to see while watching OL play. Do you think that a LT should pancake the DE on every play? It doesn't work like that. If a LT can shove the DE away from the inside on passing downs, he is generally doing his job. On running plays, Peters has been very good so far. He was beat a couple of times on passing downs, probably due to the holdout. That said, did you notice the 2 4th quarter comebacks? If Peters was getting mauled as you claim, we would have cerainly lost both games!!! Not only that, do you truly believe that Jauron would leave him in if he was getting "pushed like a rag doll?" I mean WTF would possibily lead you to believe that he wouldn't have pulled him out if he was SO freaking bad? One more thing.....even at full speed, it is possible for Peters to get beat. He is human, and NFL DEs are the best of the best. If you get even a great LT off balance, sometimes you can make a play. Bruce was great at this. That said, imo there is not 1 defender in this league that is so much stronger than Jason Peters that he can out-muscle him consistently, and I mean nobody, including Richard Seymour. This is a ridiculous thread which is being fueled by posters with an axe to grind, hurt feelings that just won't mend, and/or a desire to be "right." I was pissed off too about the holdout, but we are 3-0. If Peters was getting his ass kicked right and left as some here state, we would be 1-2. Sheesh! I think Jauron called him "dominant" and "amazing". If only all of our players were such rag dolls. Of course, what does the head coach know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Well said. He basically threw this team under the bus this offseason to "send a message". How well was that message received? Does Jason have a new contract? NO. All he did was alienate a large group of his supporters and cost his team. PS. Maybe the Wonderlic is a decent gauge of intelligence after all? What was Peters score?...oh yeah 9!!! Tied for third worst of the draft!!! BTW, a score of 20 indicates an IQ of 100 (average intelligence)!!! WHAT A MEAT HEAD! That said, I really hope Peters is able to kick it into gear going forward... Certainly entitled to this opinion, melodramatic though it may be. Hey PTR, does calling Peters a "meat head", ragging on his intelligence, and accusing him of throwing his "team under the bus" make one "anti-peters"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 This is true ! No it isn't ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Disagree entirely based on facts. The Pitt game in pre-season and our 1st game is evident that a rusty Peters is worse. Chambers did better in the Raiders game. Stupid coaches, what do they know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I can't - some guy named Mickey is constantly draped all over him. Jealous? Finally the truth comes out, the source of all that anger towards Peters: the wrath of a lover scorned. Cheer up Sen, its not you, its him, and you'll always have Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Pity DJ doesn't agree with you referring to his performance as "dominant" and "amazing". Oh yeah, and we won. Oh yeah and his coach went out of his way to compliment him on being in such good shape despite missing camp. It wasn't that long ago that Brownie was congratulated for doing a hell of a job by his boss, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsZubaz Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Certainly entitled to this opinion, melodramatic though it may be. Hey PTR, does calling Peters a "meat head", ragging on his intelligence, and accusing him of throwing his "team under the bus" make one "anti-peters"? I actually like Peters as a player. I just feel like he let his team down this off-season because as direct result of his decision he not ready to play football. It's a shame. Maybe I was a bit harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 good to see a Peters thread that hasnt turned into a Mickey/Senator pissing match... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 It wasn't that long ago that Brownie was congratulated for doing a hell of a job by his boss, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Jealous? Finally the truth comes out, the source of all that anger towards Peters: the wrath of a lover scorned. Cheer up Sen, its not you, its him, and you'll always have Paris. Seriously, Mickey, just how badly are you pining for Jason's man-love? Do you cry out his name in your wet-dreams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 You have a right to be as anti-peters as you want Senator but for PTR to deny that there is anyone who is anti-peters is just Bush level stupidity. And I don't mean to single you out as there are plenty of people that are really mad at Peters, though PTR would deny it. Here is where he comes in and says something along the lines of how you can call Peters the anti-christ and still not be "anti-Peters". Geez, Mick...glad you 'don't mean to single me out'...did you also not mean to do that in this post...??? 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. Senator's bleating about the team would fascinatingly relevant if that were the issue at hand. This discussion dates back to the early days of the holdout and whether Peters was making a mistake in terms of his own best interests. Was he, as Senator so often pointed out with his poisonous prose, a moron, a pecker head who didn't know what was good for him, who was being taken advantage by his much smarter and evil agent. The point I made is that trying to get a new deal for this year cost Peters nothing, made a new deal next year more likley (still 2 years ahead of schedule) and had a shot, even if a slim one, of working this year. As for the team, their refusal to give him a new deal this year cost them his services during camp and whatever benefit to the team that would have been derived from him being more fully prepared for the start of the season. Apparently abandoning the debate about whether this was a good or bad strategy for Peters in terms of his own interests, Senator instead moves on to slamming him for not being team player. That is a tired argument that surfaces whenever a player goes for a better deal. You could just as well complain that if Schobel was a team player, he would have given up a large percentage of his huge salary so that the team would have had some extra coin to sign a better center or another linebacker. But even if Senator is right, it is irrelevant to the point, the hold out strategy hasn't cost Peters anything and my benefit him. It remains to be seen. I do note that despite the expert assessment from the Peters haters that he has been awful so far, Jauron called him "dominant" and that his performance with so little practice has been "amazing" though he also pointed out that he has indeed had a few bad plays. Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me but PTR and Senator know better. Link Honestly, one of the only reasons we keep this going is just to provoke your 4-year-old-like reactions and responses, which are so freakin' predictable and hysterical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Again, what part of "remains to be seen" do you not understand? How is this: There is not a shred of evidence in the public domain that Peters has paid a nickel of fines. Typically, as part of the deal to return to camp, such fines are waived. In discussing his return to camp, not the team, not the front office, not his agent, not Peters himself and not a single solitary reporter has indicated that the fines were still being imposed. So, as far as we know, they haven't been paid. Thus IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN if this will cost him anything. Your logic, as always, is extremely biased. What you are asking is to prove a negative. The status quo is no fine being paid. Something has to happen to change it, there is not proof that it has happened, thus, the rational conclusion is that, until proven otherwise, it hasn't. Could the team have employed a cloaking device so that no reporter could find out that the fines were paid, sure, speculate away. Could the team have rewarded him by waiving the fines and given them a night with G.host so he can finally enact his homoerotic fantasies, sure they could have, after all, no one has proven that they didn't and maybe they chose to keep that quiet. it does remain to be seen, i agree (and perhaps we'll never know for sure) - so in the meantime, stop saying to date it hasn't cost him anything, because that is a speculation that you are trying to pass off as fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts