Thurman#1 Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Our LT last year allowed 11.5 sacks in 13 games, including 4 that caused game turning plays. I'm not going to say Walker is an upgrade talent wise over Peters but Peters was a pro bowler in name allowed. He was pretty terrible. A lot of people like to use only actual stats, rather than stats which are the product of pure guesswork. I see that you are different. Well, that's your choice, but don't think that sacks allowed is an actual statistic, because it's not. Folks who looked at the tape last year had Peters down for between 5 and 8 sacks, most of which came early in the year when he was not playing at his best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 A lot of people like to use only actual stats, rather than stats which are the product of pure guesswork. I see that you are different. Well, that's your choice, but don't think that sacks allowed is an actual statistic, because it's not. Folks who looked at the tape last year had Peters down for between 5 and 8 sacks, most of which came early in the year when he was not playing at his best. I think even Bill in NYC will admit (as he did in his weekly Thoughts) that Peters did not have a great year. He had his moments of pure domination but he also had a lot of brainfarts that your best lineman shouldn't have. Maybe his contract status affected his play. Maybe missing camp did. Maybe he counted on Dockery to help more and he didn't. Whatever the reason, Peters did not have a great season. It may not have been as bad as some here think but it was also not great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 A lot of people like to use only actual stats, rather than stats which are the product of pure guesswork. I see that you are different. Well, that's your choice, but don't think that sacks allowed is an actual statistic, because it's not. Folks who looked at the tape last year had Peters down for between 5 and 8 sacks, most of which came early in the year when he was not playing at his best. KC Joyner had him at 13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreMarshawn23 Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 because it's not. Folks who looked at the tape last year had Peters down for between 5 and 8 sacks, most of which came early in the year when he was not playing at his best. Ya Peters finished the season strong all right, Porter abused him for two sacks in Toronto and the following week Pace out worked him for a sack FF in the Meadowlands. This is also not including the sack by Elam to end the drive. What's the best way to finish the season strong, pulling up lame with an injury that should not knock and o lineman out for two games. Ya, Peters was dominant at the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreMarshawn23 Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Kerney is the left DE, so he plays against the RT. The right DE last year, who was up against Langston, was Lawrence Jackson. Jackson had two sacks all of last year. Way to go, Langston, for stopping this ravening sack monster. Actually Tapp was the starter that game at RDE, while not a sack monster he did have 5.5 last year and 7 the year before. He's not a beast but he's solid and most importantly not the guy you were trying to use to slam Langston. Geez, if your gonna talk trash you should get your facts straight so you don't sound silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I like his chances of being an average LT. I'm worried about his run blocking more than pass protection. For a big fat guy, he has decent agility. Oddly enough, I think his weakness is strength. Langston has a nice opportunity to put some cash in his pocket. He's a smart guy and knows that this could parlay into a nice contract. IMO, it won't be for lack of effort on his part. I'm also a fan of Chambers. He's not spectacular but is a solid backup/vet. FWIW, we have the smartest o-line in the NFL. Yes, they are inexperienced but knowing eachothers assignments shouldn't be a problem. The learning curve could be alot shorter than many think. He has strength, but not a lot of power to explode out of his stance and get push....the guy is usually already in the backfield by then............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 A lot of people like to use only actual stats, rather than stats which are the product of pure guesswork. I see that you are different. Well, that's your choice, but don't think that sacks allowed is an actual statistic, because it's not. Folks who looked at the tape last year had Peters down for between 5 and 8 sacks, most of which came early in the year when he was not playing at his best. Funny that these same stats are used for every single offensive linemen with the same criteria. But obviously they are just JAson Peters biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Kerney is the left DE, so he plays against the RT. The right DE last year, who was up against Langston, was Lawrence Jackson. Jackson had two sacks all of last year. Way to go, Langston, for stopping this ravening sack monster. As another poster point out, you were wrong about Jackson starting at LDE. IT was Tapp. But it also goes to further valid that LTs isn't as important as it once was. Not an elite pass rushers come from the left side. Here are a few studs that blew by our pro bowl LT last year: rookies Quetin Groves (2.5 sacks) and Chris Long (4 sacks), plus that monster 207 lbs. defensive back Abram Elam (he of 2 career sacks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Our LT last year allowed 11.5 sacks in 13 games, including 4 that caused game turning plays. I'm not going to say Walker is an upgrade talent wise over Peters but Peters was a pro bowler in name allowed. He was pretty terrible. you have a short memory terrible is what the Bills have had on their OL for the last 15 years other than Peters and Ruben Brown. hopefully they get something better than terrible out of Walker at LT in 2009 you constantly quote the 13 sack number as proof of peters being "terrible" how many plays was Peters on the field for in 2008? at least 753?? out of the total 956 even assuming the 13 sacks is valid, that's 740 good to dominant plays that will not be duplicated by whoever plays LT in 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 how many plays was Peters on the field for in 2008? at least 753?? out of the total 956 even assuming the 13 sacks is valid, that's 740 good to dominant plays that will not be duplicated by whoever plays LT in 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 i laughed at that too!!! i didn't know a guy could post w peter's peter in his mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreMarshawn23 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 i laughed at that too!!! i didn't know a guy could post w peter's peter in his mouth Hahahaha, seriously that was a weak, weak arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts