thebandit27 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Q. Why are you so belligerent? A. You're a jackass B. You watch too much ESPN and don't have an original thought C. You rant about fair pay, when no one said anything about contract negotiations D. You're a jackass E. All of the above Not that I really care what you think of Magox, but I'm certain that I can find a near-carbon copy of some of your posts all over this forum. Posts that re-hash the same argument over and over have nothing original about them, so that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Again, not that I care, but I thought I might point out the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIE HARD 1967 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I just want to remind you guys that 4 years ago we were in a desperate search for a LT. It was a long journey since John Fina retired. QUALITY LT's are very hard to find and when Peters in gone you might wait another 8 years to find a decent replacement. Some of you claim Trent Edwards is injury prone and without a LT you maybe adding to that problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 He gave up 11.5 - in 13 games! (That means Peters alone gave up more sacks than entire Denver Broncos or Tennessee Titans defenses.) That makes sense, since usually its the OFFENSE that allows sacks. Sorry just messin', couldn't resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anzaloha Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Who the hell says peters is worth more than his current contract? I ahvent seen anything. NEWSFLASH FOR YOU HARDHEADS...........Peters isnt getting a new contract this year. IF he does I will leave this board forever. therefore, another holdout will ensue, followed but sh------- play, and a dinged up Trentski. Leave the board forever??? Promise?? I will not lead the lets get Peters a new contract campaign!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Peters is not one of the best LT's playing the game... The best LT's don't give up 10+ sacks in 13 games... anyone arguing agasnst that fact has desperate blinders on. Until Peters plays LT at a very high level consistently (for more then 1 season) he doesn't deserve to one of the top 5 payed LT's...Maybe Peters shouldn't have held out last year, he in no way deserved the probowl nod in 2009 and he missed camp and a few games and he looked like dog crap for most of the season and probably cost us the playoffs... the Peters love affair is unwarranted, he proved what type of player he really is in 2008 Sorry for the delay, but I had to check some stats before I came back and posted this: - David Diehl, who signed a huge extension with the Giants after making the pro bowl at left tackle, gave up 10 sacks in 14 games in 2007. - D'Brickashaw Ferguson gave up 8 in 7 games in 2007. - Marvel Smith gave up 6 in 7 games in 2007. All get paid more than Peters. http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.ph...=&teamid=-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Interesting, your choice of words. Know why? Because typically, that’s what I think to myself every time I read a “trade the best offensive lineman on the team” thread. I mean, verbatim: “Grow up or go away.” Trading the best lineman on the team is stoopid. No matter your justification. Yes, he gave up 11.5 sacks...supposedly. Since, you know, sacks-given-up is not an official NFL statistic, so it’s a completely subjective total. He played 13.5 games, which average about 55 offensive snaps (which, as a general side note, is piss poor offense), for a total of approximately 740 plays. So your (and everyone else’s) justification for trading the guy is that he went from making 4 mistakes (supposedly) in 740 plays to 11.5 mistakes (again, supposedly) in 740 plays. At this point, it's probably fashionable to ask how many of those sacks were the result of the QB holding the ball too long, the WRs failing to get open in time, or un-accounted-for blitzers that come untouched from the left side, which undoubtedly all get counted against Peters. However, I’m going to ignore those things for the purpose of my post and move along. You need to read my posts: I didn't say trade the guy, I am saying he held out and had a very bad year. I'm sorry but you can't just choose to ignore certain stats just because you don't like them. Sacks can be somewhat subjective, but much less so for a LT with nobody on your left side? If I were GM, I would tell his agent to get his client into camp, on time, and we'll see what we get from him this year. You want to just throw out 2008, then fine, we'll just throw out 2007 as well and see what he's really got in 2009. He's under contract, and if he wants to play like he did in 2008, good luck and good riddance, IMO. If he can show up like everyone else and be ready when the season starts, and perform, then pay him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Sorry for the delay, but I had to check some stats before I came back and posted this: - David Diehl, who signed a huge extension with the Giants after making the pro bowl at left tackle, gave up 10 sacks in 14 games in 2007. - D'Brickashaw Ferguson gave up 8 in 7 games in 2007. - Marvel Smith gave up 6 in 7 games in 2007. All get paid more than Peters. http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.ph...=&teamid=-1 Do you realize the link you reference has Peters with an overall LT rating of 2.2, placing him 27 on the list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 All of these trade scenarios are "pipe dreams" if we are truly looking to build on continuity. I say we are going to keep every player that is already signed to a deal for next season unless it will benefit us that much more towards our cap space for signing another player in FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 That makes sense, since usually its the OFFENSE that allows sacks. Sorry just messin', couldn't resist. oops - my extreme bad obviously, i meant offenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Q. Why are you so belligerent? A. You're a jackass B. You watch too much ESPN and don't have an original thought C. You rant about fair pay, when no one said anything about contract negotiations D. You're a jackass E. All of the above listen armchair, as far as having an original thought, well i suggest you read my posts again, if you fail to see the argument behind it, then you'll never see it. About fair pay, Thats what the whole argument was based on, HELLLOOOOOOOO!! As far being beligerent, I didn't call anyone here a dumbass, I said dumbass posts about Peters statistics on giving up stats based on one year. Lots of good players in this league have had bad years that went on to do great things. Peters has proven that he can play at a high level, and if we would of decided to have paid him what he is worth, we wouldnt even be having this argument today. Anyone who says, "lets wait for him to play well in 2009 before we open up contract talks again" really is just living in fantasy armchair gm land. In this league you pay based on potential not reward. Why do you think Matt Ryan gets paid more than Brady, cuz he's better? noooooo, cuz there is a dream that maybe he will be better or as good. If we don't pay Peters his real worth, than someone else will, and guess what? He'll be a probowl LT for some team, and we will be stuck searching for an entire decade for someone to replace him. Thats the reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Who plays LT so Edwards will have time to throw to Boldin? Please don't say Chambers or Walker. details details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 If you want to see Peters' value to the team, watch the last game of the 2007 season against the Giants. Compare what happened before he got hurt and after he got hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CFLstyle Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Also another thing. All these dumb ass stats of Peters Giving up more sacks than anyone. I got one here for you Season Team Passing Rushing Fumbles G GS Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Att Yds Avg TD FUM Lost 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 15 280 469 59.7 3,513 7.5 18 23 46 280 75.4 32 98 3.1 2 5 2 This is what Rothlesburger did in 2006 What I am assuming is that by giving these sack stats against Peters, you are justifying that he doesn't deserve more money and that we should either get rid of him, trade him or just let him be pissed and have him sit out the season. So based on the same logic, what Roethlesburger did in 2006, they should of just got rid of him right? I mean he had a 75.4 qb rating which is far lower than what Trent did this past year. He threw lots more Int's than TD's and gave up a shi$%t load of sacks with less than a 60 % accuracy. They should of dropped the Bum!! instead of doing that they payed him over $100 Million and they won a super bowl. What a bunch of dumbasses Ya you guys are right, lets Let Peters walk away or trade him based on his one crappy season. Finally, someone who gets it. If we trade Peters, you can kiss the playoffs goodbye for the next few years at the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Why would we have to swaps 1st and trade Peters for Boldin.. A probowl LT is worth more then any WR playing the game. In fact Arizona should give us something on top of Peters to take Boldin off their hands I can't resist. How about Fitzgerald for Peters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Scenario #1. AZ needs a LT BADLY, to replace Gandy. We have one and need an elite WR to complimant Evans' deep threat...som, trade Peters and swap 1st's with AZ for Bolden...spend the $$, Bolden fits perfectly with a check down offense as he can create yardage after the catch. Scenario #2. Baltimore will be in need of a CB, as they won't be able to hold on to both, or either for that matter, of thiers. We need a dominant OLB...so, trade Mcgee and swap firsts with Baltimore for Suggs. (assuming we re-sign Greer.) Scenario #3. Folllow 1 & 2 until you get to swapping 1st's w/baltimore, make both trade, but give baltimore McGee and our 3rd, then trade Lil' Roscoe and our 5th for someone's 3rd rd pick. There is Genious in this post, I know it! On the contrary, if there is, it's too smart for the Bills' front office. How is this not "far fetched"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Right. I'm sure that's the reason. Couldn't have been any of the following: Poor QB play Uncreative, uninspired offensive game planning Horrific in-game management Undewhelming defense that forces very few turnovers Complete lack of a secondary threat in the passing game Non-existent production from the tight end position Fewest sacks in the league from the defensive ends Fear not, your total lack of thought is forgiven. you left out playing next to an overpaid, underachieving turd at LG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 You know, there is just too much risk with rewarding Peters at this point, it was not only the sacks, but he had a bunch of un-timely penalties as well this past season. That shows not only a physical lack of sharpness, but mental as well. I still think that whether you want to call it a lack of motivation, or just plain indifference, it's anyones guess, but like other posters have mentioned, I don't think that the Bills are in a very giving mood, and wouldn't be suprised at all to see them try and move him. I heard what you say about others holding out, Bruuuuce, etc. but his holdouts weren't nearly as long, and he always performed when he did get there. I mean if we are that dependant on Peter's performance, man we are in big trouble, because, I still think that he is a big fat question mark. The Cardinals got to the SB with Gandy for Chr%$T'S s@&KE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair GM Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Not that I really care what you think of Magox, but I'm certain that I can find a near-carbon copy of some of your posts all over this forum. Posts that re-hash the same argument over and over have nothing original about them, so that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Again, not that I care, but I thought I might point out the irony. Take a look at the number of posts I've made...obviously a new comer to these parts. On a blog with thousands of posts, do you really think i've read all of them. Aside from that point my posts are my own musings and dilusions, most of which are completely unrealistic. At least I don't copy and paste a bunch of stats and draw a conclusion so similar to several NFL analysts and pass it off as my own. Now, if you want to have a serious conversation about the greatest sport to ever have been played, start a new topic that is worth an "original" thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair GM Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 How is this not "far fetched"? Peters is a dick for, Boldin wants out, Baltimore says they can't keep both CB's and can't afford to keep that lB corp together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 You are not allowed to use "there is Genious in this post" if you cant spell Genius.. grate pointe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts