mrags Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 You do realize the Bills are one of two teams to have missed the playoffs nine straight years, right?. Oh sure, they'll get one personnel move right every now and then, but that ain't enough kitty kat. Frankly, it needs to happen on the field for me before I rubber stamp these moves. You talk about the franchise as if they're a perennial success story but they're not. Hope, change, and optimism don't mean crap to me pal and I know the casual uninformed fans will latch onto anything to make themselves feel good, but not everyone thinks your way. OMG!!! The Bills havent made the playoff in 9 years?!?! That cant be true. We had Jason Peters on the team and hes the best LT in the history of football and he should have single handedly taken us to at least 4 playoff games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Actually it isn't. Oh, yes. Because teams weren't ambushing our phones to give up their high first rounders for him, that means he's not a good player. Very sound argument technique. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Instead of praising the front office for getting it correct this year by taking two guards high, it should be highlighted that for three drafts the Bills did not take a first day OL, and used in total only a 5th, and two 7ths on the offensive line. Of course. Why ever be positive when you can always find some fault on which you can obsess. All negative, all the time! Only an idiot would make an observation about a losing team that wasn't negative. ZZZzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Oh, yes. Because teams didn't want him, that means he's not a good player. Very sound argument technique. My bad. Sigh. Here is what you quoted: In the earlier thread, I deduced that if Peters had that much value, one of the 6 teams that drafted a tackle in the 1st round would have been willing to trade for proven vet, still in his prime. Conclusion - he's not all that great. Just a pretty decent tackle when he's in the mood. Where in the above do you see "he's not a good player?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Sigh. Here is what you quoted: Where in the above do you see "he's not a good player?" Sorry - decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKillerRobots Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 This whole senario should be an interesting case study in o-line play/development. We had a guy who was immensely talented and a physical freak of nature playing left tackle, who we could basically pu on an island with one guy and let the other four work in unison. It never really seemed like the linemen were great friends or that much in sync (as you can see from a few of the sacks they gave up). Part of this might be due to Peters holding out of camp and still not being a vetern who could miss that much time and jump right in or even due to his sort of mild demeaner. The line gets shuffled and the freak gets replaced with more normal human beings with more intelligence, less physical attributes, but a meaner attitude (as a whoel - not Walker specifically). These guys are big and mean, just not as athletic as Peters. Now the question that will hopefully be answered: For o-line play, is it better to have individuals who are amazing players, but are nto necessarily committed to playing with the other guys on the line, or are you better getting five guys who will work together and put in the work as a whole to get better. I gotta think that the five guys working together is going to wind up being a better o-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Sorry - decent. I was more going with the "not all that great" part rather than the "just a pretty decent tackle" part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I was more going with the "not all that great" part rather than the "just a pretty decent tackle" part. Well, his conclusion from that was that he's a decent tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Now the question that will hopefully be answered: For o-line play, is it better to have individuals who are amazing players, but are nto necessarily committed to playing with the other guys on the line, or are you better getting five guys who will work together and put in the work as a whole to get better. I gotta think that the five guys working together is going to wind up being a better o-line. Having 5 guys who give a fig will make a difference. I don't feel that either Peters or Dockery did, while Fowler and Preston didn't have the talent level, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Well, his conclusion from that was that he's a decent tackle. That was Joe D's conclusion as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 That was Joe D's conclusion as well. Just because teams weren't knocking down our doors to give their high 1st round picks for Peters doesn't mean that Peters MUST be just a decent tackle. It probably doesn't even have much to do with his play. It could be more because they don't want that type of attitude on their football team, or because they don't have the cap money to sign him, or they don't want to handicap their salary cap future. None of that has to do with how good Peters is. So to say that since teams woudn't give us their high first rounders, and instead wanted younger, cheaper guys with extremely high potential, somehow leads to Jason only being a decent player, is absolutely ridiculous, and a horrid way to set up an argument and make an unjustified conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Oh, yes they will. They will try to tell themselves they don't, but unless they get an actual LT, and soon, and if Peters looks all-World in Philly for the next ten years, which is what the entire rest of the football world expects to happen, not only will they, but deep in your hearts, so will you. Especially when next year three or four more LTs get contracts as high as Peters's "astronomical" one. Such a silly notion. I know you really want it to be true, but no, the Bills will not miss a beat without FatStupidLazyLoad at LT. In fact, their OL will likely be vastly improved this season. The Bills will not miss him, nor will I. I'm elated that he's gone. You need to get over your man-crush and stop pining over the useless dolt. The Bills will be a much better and more cohesive team now that PayMe Peters is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 That was Joe D's conclusion as well. Yes it was, and Juan Castillo's opinion--which I value in today's NFL about 350 times more than that of Joe D (not that he wasn't great in his time, but he played over 40 years ago, the game is totally different today)--is that Peters is one of the best in the game. Let's just remember folks, at this point all that we have to go on as far as which organization got the better of the deal is history, since the post-deal games are yet to be played. And history would tell the objective observer that the Eagles, a perennial playoff/nfc championship contender with an excellent offensive line, will come out of this deal better than the Bills, whose overall team and offensive line struggles are well documented. I'm not picking on you, VOR, but Joe D's opinion and the reality of the Peters deal aren't necessarily one and the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Just because teams weren't knocking down our doors to give their high 1st round picks for Peters doesn't mean that Peters MUST be just a decent tackle. It probably doesn't even have much to do with his play. It could be more because they don't want that type of attitude on their football team, or because they don't have the cap money to sign him, or they don't want to handicap their salary cap future. None of that has to do with how good Peters is. So to say that since teams woudn't give us their high first rounders, and instead wanted younger, cheaper guys with extremely high potential, somehow leads to Jason only being a decent player, is absolutely ridiculous, and a horrid way to set up an argument and make an unjustified conclusion. The Rams and Bungles have the cap room, and as I said, will have to spend AT LEAST as much on their rookie LT's as the Eagles will on Peters. So the cap room/handicapping the future arguments are moot. As for the attitude, if it's so poor (and I agree it is), he's not "all that great" a LT now, is he? Which was the point. Those teams had concerns about him to the point where they'd rather spend a MUCH higher draft pick and the same or more money on a wholly unproven player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Let's not forget that, while once a great Buffalo Bill, Joe D has turned into an old bitter crank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yes it was, and Juan Castillo's opinion--which I value in today's NFL about 350 times more than that of Joe D (not that he wasn't great in his time, but he played over 40 years ago, the game is totally different today)--is that Peters is one of the best in the game. Let's just remember folks, at this point all that we have to go on as far as which organization got the better of the deal is history, since the post-deal games are yet to be played. And history would tell the objective observer that the Eagles, a perennial playoff/nfc championship contender with an excellent offensive line, will come out of this deal better than the Bills, whose overall team and offensive line struggles are well documented. I'm not picking on you, VOR, but Joe D's opinion and the reality of the Peters deal aren't necessarily one and the same. I know you're not picking on me. But merely going off of Juan Castillo sounds like the poster last year (what WAS his name again?) who said that if the Jags were willing to trade Stroud, they knew he was finished, because "they know defense." I've been saying that time will tell who got the better end of the deal. But Peters has ENORMOUS pressure to live up to his deal, in a place where he'll be eaten alive the first time he screws-up. And issues of injury and motivation will always be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Let's not forget that, while once a great Buffalo Bill, Joe D has turned into an old bitter crank. Come on. He's just being a "realist." Seriously though, he's been calling it like he sees it, and hasn't shirked from criticizing the Bills. He's no Bills homer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 A known experienced player is far better than an unknown player, IMO, and I would guess the majority of NFL front offices see it that way too. yyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah. And that affects my argument how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Peters is 6'4" and 340 pounds Walker is 6"8" and 366 pounds For his height I don't think Walker is grossly overweight. JMO Oh, come on, man. Just look at a picture of the guy. He has a huge belly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Actually it isn't. Yes. It really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts