Anyone Agree with Tim Graham on This?

[Peter]

JP was our best offensive lineman. Philly got a good deal. A lot of you guys are blinded by your dislike for JP.

 

I just hope that the whole of our 2009 line is greater than the sum of its parts. We have a lot of work to do. What we are able to do on offense will depend on our line.

[The Dean]

No, he did that because the players starting ahead of him, like Mike Gandy and Mike Williams, were playing very poorly.

 

 

Sure, you keep telling yourself that.

[Guest dog14787]

Completely false. He was good in every season with the Bills, except for his spottiness last year (when he missed ALL of the offseason workouts, minicamp, training camp and the preseason). How do you think he ended up being a starting LT, when he was an undrafted TE? He did that by playing great, and exceeding expectations at every position, in every season from 2004-2007.

 

 

I always want the best talent we can get our hands on and I was disappointed to lose JP when we did, but he was overrated.

 

We couldn't run the ball off the LT, we did an average at best job protecting the QB and our offense was one of the worse in the league.

 

We couldn't even get first downs on short yardage situations with a pro bowl caliber running back.

 

F%@K JP ( meaning no disrespect to Tim Graham )

 

I just don't get how one of the worse offenses in the NFL has one of the best LT in football, based on what? Other coaching staffs and players not having much else to worry about when playing the Bills?

[Tcali]

Sure, you keep telling yourself that.

Dean... is that response similar to "I know you are but what am I"?

[The_Philster]

JP was our best offensive lineman. Philly got a good deal. A lot of you guys are blinded by your dislike for JP.

Pass protection is a high priority when protecting the QB's blind side and Peters was the worst LT in the league at that. Sorry, but a LT is supposed to try to prevent sacks...not just wave people past

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

You're probably right with regards to last season, however if you look at the year prior, Peters was the best. Getting a 1st round pick for someone who didn't appear to want to play here and made what many will argue were crazy contract demands, the Bills did the best they could with the deal. But I do agree with TG it's not likely that either tackle this year will be a better player than JP. The pick we used could be come an all-pro which again could make the Bill's look smart. But until that happens, and even then unless JP also continues to play like he did in 2008, there's a good chance TG will be correct.

 

My Take

 

 

2nd, I am POSITIVE that Jason Peters was NOT our best o-lineman last year. (just look how the line did when he did not play) I would say that award would have went to Brad Butler, with Langston Walker finishing a close 2nd. I mean, remember how Peters got abused by Joey Porter? Two Years ago Peters was the man, but not this past year.

 

And then there is always that SACK stat. Like it or not, Peters yielded 11.5 sacks last year. That was the most of any Tackle in the league, weather you believe in that stat or not. There is no doubt Jason Peters should NOT HAVE MADE THE PRO BOWL?

 

GO BILLS-

[NewHampshireBillsFan]

Two things about Peters:

 

1.) Giving up sacks has to be factored as a significantly bigger issue than point of attack blocking, etc. Even allowing a clean hit after a pass can get your QB injured. Look at Edward's concussion last year and the effect it had on his season both mentally and physically after that. Nothing will give a QB happy feet or mess up his mental rhythm like worrying about blind side hits when the LT gives up a lot of sacks.

 

2.) JP made the statement that after allowing a sack last year he thought about how underpaid he was and then he didn't feel so bad about the sack. JP understands better than we can about point 1 and therefore he is a total jerk to have that kind of attitude about his QB's physical health and mental state of mind. Edwards also must have sensed that JP would not go all out and that had to affect him as well.

 

Based on these two points I don't look at it as if JP stinks, I just hope things don't go that great for him in Philly. He doesn't deserve it based on his extremely damaging attitude last year. Personally, I expect him to have problems on and off with injuries this year. Just a hunch.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

Spencer in Ellicottville, N.Y., can't "understand why every sports writer in the nation is on the Bills' case for shipping off Jason Peters." Spencer reasons that the Bills will be better off without Peters because they went 2-0 without him last year and 5-9 with him and he was "getting burned by rookie defensive ends almost every week."

 

Tim Graham's Response:

 

You can be upset with Peters' contract demands and the way he forced his way off the team, but I will never understand why fans channel their anger into rationalizing that he's no good. That's the definition of sour grapes (one of the most misused phrases, by the way).

 

Peters was Buffalo's best offensive lineman last year. He led the Bills in point-of-attack blocking, according to analyst KC Joyner. Peters went to his second straight Pro Bowl because opposing coaches and players consider him one of the league's best.

 

Yes, Peters gave up too many sacks last year and took a big step back from his sublime season in 2007. But he was better than most. You're flat-out lying when you state he was abused by rookie defensive ends. Peters lines up against elite pass-rushers every game. That's what left tackles do.

 

As for your suggestion the Bills were better without Peters on the field, the records you gave are not only misleading, but also wrong.

 

The Bills went 2-1 in games Peters didn't play. Their victories came over the Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos, teams that went a combined 12-20. They also lost to the Patriots in the season finale minus Peters.

 

 

My Take

 

 

I know we talked about this before and my thread will probably get merged, but I totally got to disagree with Tim. I think you will also agree that the Bills should have been 3-0 with Peters not in the lineup (should have beat N.E. just once again got out coached by Bellicheat)

 

First, I think that the POINT OF ATTACK statistic by KC joyner to be a mis-leading STAT. In fact I hate the P-O-A statistic, I believe it an irrelevant and somewhat doctored stat, you may disagree and that s fine.

 

2nd, I am POSITIVE that Jason Peters was NOT our best o-lineman last year. (just look how the line did when he did not play) I would say that award would have went to Brad Butler, with Langston Walker finishing a close 2nd. I mean, remember how Peters got abused by Joey Porter? Two Years ago Peters was the man, but not this past year.

 

And then there is always that SACK stat. Like it or not, Peters yielded 11.5 sacks last year. That was the most of any Tackle in the league, weather you believe in that stat or not. There is no doubt Jason Peters should NOT HAVE MADE THE PRO BOWL?

 

Thats my take guys, let me know if you agree or think that I am way off?

 

GO BILLS-

 

I kind of agree with you ToddGurley...or should I say "Spencer in Ellicottville, N.Y"

 

I think if the Bills either paid or didn't pay Peters the big money, he would have still played at 1/2 speed for us this year. He was either going to be lazy because he was angry or lazy because he lacked motivation having a big contract in hand. Peters might be a great talent; but the Bills had to trade him.

[Guest dog14787]

Two things about Peters:

 

1.) Giving up sacks has to be factored as a significantly bigger issue than point of attack blocking, etc. Even allowing a clean hit after a pass can get your QB injured. Look at Edward's concussion last year and the effect it had on his season both mentally and physically after that. Nothing will give a QB happy feet or mess up his mental rhythm like worrying about blind side hits when the LT gives up a lot of sacks.

 

2.) JP made the statement that after allowing a sack last year he thought about how underpaid he was and then he didn't feel so bad about the sack. JP understands better than we can about point 1 and therefore he is a total jerk to have that kind of attitude about his QB's physical health and mental state of mind. Edwards also must have sensed that JP would not go all out and that had to affect him as well.

 

Based on these two points I don't look at it as if JP stinks, I just hope things don't go that great for him in Philly. He doesn't deserve it based on his extremely damaging attitude last year. Personally, I expect him to have problems on and off with injuries this year. Just a hunch.

 

I agree with you 100% and was ridiculed by some to suggest there was a problem with JP's attitude and lack of unity/loyalty to our team and TE.

 

I wasn't aware of a bone headed statement like that , but it doesn't surprise me, good riddance.

[Dan]

Two things about Peters:

 

1.) Giving up sacks has to be factored as a significantly bigger issue than point of attack blocking, etc. Even allowing a clean hit after a pass can get your QB injured. Look at Edward's concussion last year and the effect it had on his season both mentally and physically after that. Nothing will give a QB happy feet or mess up his mental rhythm like worrying about blind side hits when the LT gives up a lot of sacks.

 

2.) JP made the statement that after allowing a sack last year he thought about how underpaid he was and then he didn't feel so bad about the sack. JP understands better than we can about point 1 and therefore he is a total jerk to have that kind of attitude about his QB's physical health and mental state of mind. Edwards also must have sensed that JP would not go all out and that had to affect him as well.

 

Based on these two points I don't look at it as if JP stinks, I just hope things don't go that great for him in Philly. He doesn't deserve it based on his extremely damaging attitude last year. Personally, I expect him to have problems on and off with injuries this year. Just a hunch.

This kinda sums it up.

 

Bottom line was regardless of Peters' talent, he had a miserable attitude and sand bagged last season. Do you reward a player like that? You can't. You'd have every player on the team trying to hold the team hostage for new contracts in short time.

 

The real question should be, should the Bills have made Peters the highest paid lineman after the 2007 season? IMO, no. You can't renegotiate every 2 years based on a players performance. The FO locked him up for 5 years at a great contract and everyone thought it was a great move. They had their franchise LT at a great price. Next thing you know the guy has a good year and wants to throw the contract out and now the FO is bad? I don't get it. Again, I think the FO had little options and Peters forced the situation.

 

So, is he a great talent? Yes. Do you reward a player with your highest contract that tanks the entire off season and under performs during the regular season? No. Was the whole situation unfortunate? Yes. And I'd suggest that both sides had a hand in it. Either way, it was time to move on.

[The Dean]

Dean... is that response similar to "I know you are but what am I"?

 

 

I actually thought it was too well reasoned, and complex, for the point to which I was responding.

[Lori]

So, is he a great talent? Yes. Do you reward a player with your highest contract that tanks the entire off season and under performs during the regular season? No. Was the whole situation unfortunate? Yes. And I'd suggest that both sides had a hand in it. Either way, it was time to move on.

Quoted for truth.

[The Dean]

And I'd suggest that both sides had a hand in it. Either way, it was time to move on.

 

 

I agree 100%. But I don't think Tim's comments conflict with this conclusion. The OP was trying to make too much pf Mr. Graham's statement.

[Dan]

I agree 100%. But I don't think Tim's comments conflict with this conclusion. The OP was trying to make too much pf Mr. Graham's statement.

I'd agree. I think Tim's comments were spot on. Right down to the suggestion that too many Bills' fan try to rationalize his departure. But, I suppose that's to be expected. It's tough to admit we just traded away our franchise LT.

 

I guess it remains to be seen if Peters was all that. But, I will say that for all Peters greatness and talk of how bad Trent is going to get abused this year, it seems Trent got sacked quite a bit last year - with Peters on the line. Rationalization or not. I guess if we had some assurance that the 2009 Peters was going to play like the 2007 Peters, then maybe it'd be more of a concern. But, let's not forget that even in 2007, Peters didn't finish the season. So, at any rate... now I think I'm rationalizing. So I'll shut up.

[NewEra]

I don't feel he's a terrible player. I think he was our best o-lineman, though maybe not last year. I thought he was average. As far as "sour grapes" comment, I think that's off-base. He rubbed us the wrong way because he was asking for money than we think he's worth. His holdout lasted too long and he's just a greedy sob. He doesn't deserve 10 mill a year, he's lucky Andy Reid is good enoughto make him look worth it.

[The Dean]

I'd agree. I think Tim's comments were spot on. Right down to the suggestion that too many Bills' fan try to rationalize his departure. But, I suppose that's to be expected. It's tough to admit we just traded away our franchise LT.

 

I guess it remains to be seen if Peters was all that. But, I will say that for all Peters greatness and talk of how bad Trent is going to get abused this year, it seems Trent got sacked quite a bit last year - with Peters on the line. Rationalization or not. I guess if we had some assurance that the 2009 Peters was going to play like the 2007 Peters, then maybe it'd be more of a concern. But, let's not forget that even in 2007, Peters didn't finish the season. So, at any rate... now I think I'm rationalizing. So I'll shut up.

 

 

I hate the way it went down, and I blame both sides. But it had to be resolved, and given the situation at the time, I think the Bills did fairly well with the trade. If moving Peters, and the extra picks, led them to fortify the interior of the offensive line, maybe it was all for the best.

 

It is possible this group will be better than last year's unit, in time of course, even though they lost a very talented player. It is also possible the rookies won't come around quickly, Butler can't handle the RT position, and the s#it hits the fan. I'm willing to see how it plays out.

 

You and I both know that the blockheads who think everything the Bills do is stupid will be out if force if the line struggles. Likewise, the boneheads who think Peters stinks will be giving us the "I told you so" if the Bills line comes together and/or Peters has any hiccup in Philly.

 

The way I see it, the Bills made a move to versatile, intelligent linemen who scrap and play hard, and they seem to me pretty much diva-free. I can respect that direction. It works or it doesn't, and it happens quickly or takes some time. The thing is, the decision has been made and there is a logic to it. So let's move on. But we don't have to justify it by concluding Peters sucks, or attack it by calling the Bills FO idiots who don't know what they are doing.

[Fingon]

You know, Peters will NEVER be a top 3-4 LT in the NFL. Guys like Walter Jones, Jonathan Ogden, and Orlando Pace didn't give up 11.5 sacks in a year. Walter Jones skipped training camp for 3-4 years in a row, and guess what? He always had a very good season. You have to give it your all to be the best in the NFL, you can't let rookies like Chris Long blow by you untouched. Peters doesn't have the work ethic to dominate, and he probably never will. In fact, the LT position has become easier and easier to fill. It's much harder to find a good QB than it is to find a left tackle.

 

 

There are a plethora of good LTs in the NFL, and it isn't very hard to find a good one in the draft. So there was no reason to be held hostage by a player who makes Vernon Gholston look like a high effort player.

[OCinBuffalo]

Some time, when I get time, I am going to complete a full statistical criticism of KC Joyner's work. I have had it up to here with people taking his so-called "analysis" seriously.

 

Specific to the POA nonsense: he treats all blocks the same regardless of which side the ball the running back attacks. As if D lineman, LBs, and Safeties are these automatons, that, once realizing the ball isn't headed towards them, will continue to engage the guy in front of them, video game style. Really? According to dipshizz, they will not run away from their blocker and run to where the ball is actually going. Thus that blocker gets an easy "+1" in this POA nonsense as his guy runs away from him and towards the ball. This "+1" now counts the same as the guy's who successfully blocked his guy on the side where the ball actually went. Stupidity.

 

There are significant errors in everything that guy does. He completely ignores critical factors, or, doesn't weigh them properly, or, pretends that variables are constants and vice versa. He creates relationships in data that are either flawed, or, based on skewed data, or, his method for collecting his raw data is flawed to begin with. He rarely standardizes his data or his comparisons and he sure as hell doesn't take into account deviation. An outlier is a foreign concept to this guy. Just as foreign as his work is to anyone who has passed a basic college stats course.

 

Argue with me about anything and I will listen: except when you start using KC Joyner's work as a premise, or try to tell me that socialism is a feasible economic policy for this country. Both are equally ludicrous.

[The Dean]

Guys like Walter Jones, Jonathan Ogden, and Orlando Pace didn't give up 11.5 sacks in a year.

 

 

Do you have a link to a source for the year-by-year total sacks allowed for those guys. I'd be interested to see the numbers.,

[Fingon]

Do you have a link to a source for the year-by-year total sacks allowed for those guys. I'd be interested to see the numbers.,

No, but if you read the articles from when those guys were in their primes, they talk about how rare it was that they actually gave up a sack. I remember reading an article that stated Walter Jones gave up 0 sacks in a season multiple times. I'll try to find it.

 

 

18 LTs gave up less than 5 sacks last year, so i don't think it's a stretch to say those guys didn't give up 11.5 in their primes.