Anyone Agree with Tim Graham on This?

[SABURZFAN]

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 agree for the most part but having a disgruntled player on your roster is not good for your team, even if he was the best OL. go back and look at that Jet game, where Losman fumbled, and you'll see that Peters didn't make any kind of effort and laid off on that play completely. that's not a Pro Bowl type player to me when you leave your QB out to dry like he did.

[Cornerville]

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).

 

Perfectly said, and describes a LOT of the Peters haters who just focus on 1 season, to a tee.

[colin]

i dont think anyone is questioning his talent, but just watch the sacks porter had against him last year. they were all fuggin horrible. we will be a better team in 09 than 08 without peters.

[BillsVet]

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).

 

Perfectly said, and describes a LOT of the Peters haters who just focus on 1 season, to a tee.

 

I think it's fair that some fans see Peters as having let the team down last season by skipping all the camps. His presence in 08 wasn't nearly what it was in 07 because he didn't stay in game shape. At the same time, these fans assume Peters is washed up, because his 08 campaign was so poor, and therefore a trade is more easily digested.

 

Still, it is perfectly said by Graham. There's no question the Bills OL is worse without him than with him. After all, this one trade forces the team to move their RT to LT, a RG to RT, and replace the RG with another player. By the time he was shipped to Philadelphia, veteran options from outside the organization were nil. Many football analysts are saying Buffalo's OL is among the worst in the league, given the mix of rookies and position changes. That's not to say they can be good however.

 

It should also be pointed out that his trade produces a big cost savings to the team, which cannot be understated.

[TimGraham]

I believe we will all need to reserve judgement till after the 2009 season.

 

Wasn't it Tim Graham that made the statement that buffalo screwed up releasing Mike Gandy right before the Superbowl?

 

I have never written about Mike Gandy. In fact, I think that's the first time I've typed the words.

[TimGraham]

I can remember, without doing any research, at least two rookies who beat Peters clean for sacks last year. Groves from Jacksonville and Anderson from Miami beat him clean. So, in this instance for Graham to assert that the original poster is 'lying' is certainly irresponsible journalism on his part. Peters was being beaten regularly for sacks last year; it just so happened that occasionally, he was lined up against rookies when it happened.

That being said, I do agree that Peters is extremely talented and, when he wasn't getting abused last year for sacks, he was playing pretty well. Further, one of the reasons he gave up so many sacks was that the Bills offensive scheme was designed to not give him any help, and he probably was matched up single-teamed against defensive ends more than any other left tackle.

 

I'm just getting into this thread, so somebody else might have posted this, but just in case ...

 

Charlie Anderson was in his fifth NFL season last year.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Haven't seen that quote. Link, please. But even without having seen that quote, it looks very questionable that you are correctly paraphrasing. In fact, it looks like you are taking something he says and deliberately changing the meaning to something he would not agree with, a very questionable debating tactic, and therefore right in line with your usual stuff.

 

Again, though, link, please.

Is Bills' Peters slipping from Pro Bowl standard? - tough love from JW

 

"I've been doing OK," Peters said as the Bills (5-2) prepare to host the New York Jets (4-3) this weekend. "We have a home game Sunday. You watch me and you grade me."

 

It will be an important test, considering the Jets have registered 24 sacks, the third-most in the NFL.

 

For Peters, his was a defiant response from a player who's performance was a touchy subject after outside linebacker Joey Porter registered two sacks - including one that resulted in a game-turning fourth-quarter safety - in a 25-16 loss to Miami last Sunday.

 

Peters was the player Porter beat in securing the safety, bursting inside after the tackle set up to block for an outside rush. Porter then slipped past guard Derrick Dockery to get to Trent Edwards and force a fumble that was recovered by Buffalo center Duke Preston in the end zone.

 

"I put the blame on me," Peters said, assessing what happened. He then defended himself by saying that was only one play out of 68 in which he failed to protect the quarterback.

 

"I dominated them for 67. Just one play. He makes a play so he had a good game," Peters said. "The plays that I have given up, it's just hustle plays on their part."

 

That assessment is similar to what Peters said after he allowed two sacks, one which resulted in a fumble, in a 24-23 win over Oakland in Week 3.

 

"I felt like I could take away three, maybe four plays," Peters said. "In another week, I'll be back to 100 percent every play, getting ready to go."

[The Dean]

Still, it is perfectly said by Graham. There's no question the Bills OL is worse without him than with him.

 

 

While I agree with most of your post, I have to address the comment above. Whether the Bills offensive line is better, or worse, without Peters is absolutely a question, until is is answered during the season. Offensive lines are more than the sum of the parts. This group, even with the removal of their top talent, might end up being a better overall offensive line than last year's. Then again, it might not. I'm counting on the interior to be better than last year's group.

[TimGraham]

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.,

 

Jones gave up 10.5 two years ago. Pace has a lot of 8's and 9.5's. Can't find Ogden, but about to get on a plane.

[VOR]

Some fans know no other way. Focus on a negative and ride it all the way. If he's not with the Bills, or if he is holding out, he MUST be a bum and suck. Simple thoughts for simply minds, it seems.

Oh, the irony.

[VOR]

Yup. STATS, Inc. is the one with the deal with ESPN. And as Tim noted in the story I linked a couple of pages back, "sacks allowed" is NOT an official stat.

My bad on STATS being the official stat keeper. And just to clarify, I never claimed that sacks allowed was an official stat.

To revisit VOR's assertion that "... when a guy says that Peters was beaten one-on-one for 5.5 sacks, there's little room to start claiming bias or faulty methodology," it seemed like there was a LOT of room to disagree on whether or not Peters should have gotten out to block Abram Elam on the infamous Losman fumble at the Meadowswamp.

True, but we don't know if Joyner even counted that as a "cleanly beaten" sack.

[The Dean]

Jones gave up 10.5 two years ago. Pace has a lot of 8's and 9.5's. Can't find Ogden, but about to get on a plane.

 

 

While I continue to think the stat is next to worthless if the criteria can't be defined, this goes a long way in disputing some assertions that these great LTs never gave up big numbers, at any point in their careers.

[thebandit27]

i dont think anyone is questioning his talent, but just watch the sacks porter had against him last year. they were all fuggin horrible. we will be a better team in 09 than 08 without peters.

 

To be fair, Porter also had 4 sacks against Matt Light in week 3 of last season, and he didn't even have a lengthy holdout. Unless I am mis-remembering (a la Roger Clemens), Light was a pro bowl starter in 2007. Would that make New England a better team without him too?

[thebandit27]

Jones gave up 10.5 two years ago. Pace has a lot of 8's and 9.5's. Can't find Ogden, but about to get on a plane.

 

I remember reading in Ogden's bio that he allowed the most in the league twice, but now I can't find the link...

[toddgurley]

So Joyner's guess is better? When he says that 5 of them were coverage sacks? I saw that and think it backs up my point very well in that they are both guesses, and in that when you throw in coverage sacks, your sack totals go way up.

 

 

Thurman, check my earlier post bud. Here it is for ya

 

I am glad you found that, you proved my point. The article says there are 2 companies that record sacks. Now, granted that Tom Curran of NBC says this about the stat sack:

 

"The sack stat -- who gets them and who gets blamed for them -- is one of the most bogus in football since they can be the by-product of so many things. They can be attributed to excellent coverage, a skittish quarterback, miscommunication, a teammate's pressure. Sacks are like snowflakes, people. Each one different."

 

With that being said, the 2 COMPANIES/PEOPLE WHO TRACK THIS STAT ARE:

 

1. STATS, INC-Who said that Peters gave up 11.5 sacks for a loss of 106.5 yards.

2. KC JOYNER-as Tim Graham calls him in this article-"The football Scientist" says the Peters gave up 12 sacks!! In which 5.5 were in ONE-on-ONE cases alone. You cant really argue the one on one sacks. Also, the one-on-one sacks alone would make PETERS the 19th RANKED LT in the league. NOT WHAT YOU CALL PRO BOWL MATERIAL HUH?

 

And to quote VOR from earlier-"While I don't know how much I can trust his(KC Joyner) analysis, the fact that he tagged Peters with 12 and STATS, Inc. tagged Peters with 11.5 tells me that it was indeed in the double digits."

 

I would have to agree with that style of thinking, of course you probably disagree-

[Taro T]

While I agree with most of your post, I have to address the comment above. Whether the Bills offensive line is better, or worse, without Peters is absolutely a question, until is is answered during the season. Offensive lines are more than the sum of the parts. This group, even with the removal of their top talent, might end up being a better overall offensive line than last year's. Then again, it might not. I'm counting on the interior to be better than last year's group.

I'd agree that, at least by the midpoint of the season, barring injuries, the middle of the line should be significantly improved.

 

I expect that Walker/Butler will be better than what the Bills would have had with a disgruntled Peters and Walker, and that it'll be worse than what Peters/Walker could have been.

 

As such, I expect this year's line as a whole to be better than last year's line. I'm looking forward to seeing what the RB's can do when they can actually make it to the line of scrimmage before the 1st contact on traps and draws.

[toddgurley]

As I look back, I didn't need to post on this thread. I was just repeating stuff that had already been said by the Dean and several other folks, particularly the notion that you can think the Peters move was a good one without deciding that Peters is not a good player.

 

I personally think Peters is going to be terrific in Philly, and that it was not a good trade for the Bills (though I like what they did with the draft picks they got), but I have respect for people with contrasting opinions. I just object to the use of clearly questionable stats to support an argument, and I also have no respect for people who believe they have proved anything that is clearly an opinion. For example, there are many people on here who "know" that Peters didn't want to be in Buffalo, or that he took plays off, or that he will be terrible next year or that ... the hater's agenda, basically.

 

Hate Peters? Fine. Know conclusively that he would not have signed a contract with the Bills if they had made the same offer that Philly did? Yeah, right.

 

 

I dont hate peters, but he in not as good as you all (Dean and others) think. Numbers dont lie, and c'mon STATS, INC has one job-STATS! ESPN USES THEM, SO HAVE TO BE SOMEWHAT RELIABLE! Official or not

 

That is what these people do for a living, and despite what you keep saying about being "UNRELIABLE" stats know this:

 

JASON PETERS GOT BEAT ONE ON ONE FOR 5.5 SACKS, THAT IS HARD TO ARGUE-

 

SEE EARLIER POST:

 

To revisit VOR's assertion that "... when a guy says that Peters was beaten one-on-one for 5.5 sacks, there's little room to start claiming bias or faulty methodology," it seemed like there was a LOT of room to disagree on whether or not Peters should have gotten out to block Abram Elam on the infamous Losman fumble at the Meadowswamp

 

HOW YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?

[toddgurley]

Couldn't agree more. In fact, no offense, but that original post was ridiculous.

 

I mean:

 

Really?

 

 

so you dont think we should have won the last game of the season vs NE? The one where Freddy Jackson ran all over them, and we still got shut out. Watch the game again, we should have beaten them. Which would have made us 3-0 in games Jason Peters did not play in. What dont you understand about that?

 

Really?

[Lori]

so you dont think we should have won the last game of the season vs NE? The one where Freddy Jackson ran all over them, and we still got shut out. Watch the game again, we should have beaten them. Which would have made us 3-0 in games Jason Peters did not play in. What dont you understand about that?

 

Really?

I was at that miserable game. The Bills made it inside the 20-yard line ONCE, during the two-minute drill that flamed out when Duke Preston decided to brawl rather than get ready for the next play, and they never got past the Pats' 34 in the second half. Jackson had 103 of his yards before halftime -- 32 on one play -- but once NE went up 10-0, the running game went out the window.

 

So, no. I think it would have been a Christmas miracle if they managed to score more than three points in that game, much less win it. JMO.

[toddgurley]

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 RESPONSE/QUESTION TO TIM GRAHAM:

 

I am pretty pumped that Tim G is weighing in on this. And for the record, I am a Tim Graham fan, but just simply disagree with him on this topic. Keep up good work Tim.

 

But tim, Did nt Chris Long of STL and Quinton Groves of JAX BOTH BEAT PETERS FOR SACKS? They were rookies last year, right? So the original post was'nt way off. So he did technically get beat by rookies, right? Just not every week like the guy suggested. (and yes i know that the week 2 game vs Jax was Peters 1st start, but once again that is his fault)

Also, we should have beat NE is the last game, if you watch it again, we blew it PRETTY badly. That would have made us 3-0 in games Peters did not play in, but we lost making us 2-1. Also Freddy Jackson also ran for 136 yards on 27 carries (5.0 yards per carry). That is pretty good for not having your "BEST O-LINEMAN" huh? As opposed to the game where Jason Peters did play vs NE (week 10) when the BILLS AS A TEAM RUSHED FOR 60YARDS ON 18 CARRIES= 3.3 YPC. (am tying not to compare apples to oranges)

 

 

 

Go Bills!!

 

Bills vs STL box score: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=280928014

Bills vs Jax box score: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=280914030

Bills vs NE (week 17): http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=281228002

Bills vs NE (week 10): http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=281109017

 

AND THESE STATS ALL CAME OFF ESPN (FOR YOU DEANER)