Joe DeLamielleure Comments/Jason Peters/O-line

[Thurman#1]

I will not miss Peters ever. He was fat, lazy and didnt want to work. He proved that by his play in 08' and then he followed it up with his comments that he didnt want to work because he wasnt getting paid.

 

 

 

Man, you guys kill me. You seem to just make up quotes saying whatever you feel like and putting them into people's mouths without ever actually checking whether the guy said that.

 

LET'S SEE A LINK having Peters saying that he didn't want to work because he wasn't getting paid. You won't be able to find one, of course, because he never said that.

 

It kills me. You guys are all the time going off with a thought process like

 

1) I hate Peters

2) Therefore he must have said something horrible

3) So I'll make up something and say he said it.

 

And yeah, he was fat and lazy and didn't want to work, which is why he was the second-best run-blocker of all LTs in the league. In an off-year, a year in which he didn't attend training camp. He was the best run-blocker on the Bills. But yeah, doubtless that was because he didn't want to work. This is so pathetic. Again the thought process is just that you hate the guy so you say whatever you want regardless of whether there is anything to back it up, and then you pretend that it's a fact.

 

I really should just ignore such nonsense, but I so enjoy shredding it.

 

Check the stats on footballoutsiders.com if you doubt what I said above about his run blocking this year. Which was, again, a bad year for him. 2nd best in the league.

[VOR]

Yes. It really is.

No it isn't, and I already "shredded" you regarding this.

[Thurman#1]

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.

 

 

I can see what you mean, but I think the question is better asked this way. Which line is better:

 

A) a line with one guy who is absolutely terrific, though having an off-year, two guys who are pretty good on the right side, an LG who is good at run blocking and not good at all at pass blocking and ... here's the kicker ... one guy, or rather one platoon of two guys who are simply below NFL standard, allowing teams to absolutely destroy him and blow up plays no matter how well the other guys are doing ...

 

or

 

B) a line with (and this is what we HOPE rookies Levitre and Wood, new FA Hangartner, and both of the good guys from the year before playing at new positions that they may not be suited for ... become) a low-standard but acceptable LT, a tough but smart interior and a serviceable, tough RT without very good movement skills who is again low-standard but acceptable. In other words, a line without anybody who is simply a speed bump.

 

I would say that B is probably better. But remember that we don't know if things will actually work out that way with our new line. That how they'll be IF everything works out well.

 

What we forget is that we COULD have had:

 

C) (from left to right) a motivated Peters with a new contract, Levitre, Hangartner, and Butler and Walker playing positions that they have already proven they play quite well, and playing with two years of experience playing together at those two positions. This line has last year's three best players playing positions they are already familiar with and thus able to much better mentor and be on-field coaches to the two new guys who would be the only two people playing at new positions.

 

CLEARLY, option C is much the best. Option A is the worst because it involves Fowler and Preston playing. And option Bi s basically still a mystery.

[Thurman#1]

No it isn't, and I already "shredded" you regarding this.

 

 

 

Yeah, if by shredding you mean arguing something ineffectively. In that case, you really did shred me.

 

Your argument is in logic terms like this:

 

If A then B.

If B, then C.

 

Therefore D.

 

Which simply doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "Chocolate is made from cocoa beans and bananas are also plant products. Therefore we can see that chocolate is made from bananas." You took two facts and pretended that since they were both true that they proved another fact which they simply did not logically prove.

 

Yeah, shredded.

[Thurman#1]

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.

 

 

This shreds you. In the more ordinary sense of proving your argument does not work. You argued that there is only one explanation for these facts. There are in fact many possible explanations.

[Thurman#1]

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.

 

 

Jeez. Maybe if you would actually read my posts ... you'd have an idea of what my opinions are.

[mrags]

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.

 

What were you trying to prove here? That Peters wasnt wanted because of his poor attitude? rediculous cap number? This is exactly the point that Peters lovers should look at. He wasnt good for this team just like he prolly wasnt for many other teams looking for LT's. They saw something in him that they didnt like, just like us. So why does that make us so bad for getting rid of him?

[The Senator]

Jeez. Maybe if you would actually read my posts ... you'd have an idea of what my opinions are.

Well let's just see - I posted

 

"Mikey will miss Peters. The Bills will not."

 

To which you replied...

 

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.

 

What did I miss?

 

"Deep in your hearts, so will you????"

 

Deep in my heart, I'm really glad the fu#ker's gone.

[The Dean]

What were you trying to prove here? That Peters wasnt wanted because of his poor attitude? rediculous cap number? This is exactly the point that Peters lovers should look at. He wasnt good for this team just like he prolly wasnt for many other teams looking for LT's. They saw something in him that they didnt like, just like us. So why does that make us so bad for getting rid of him?

 

 

It doesn't. It also doesn't make him a bad, or average, LT. I think his exceptional ability is recognized by most who follow the game. It's the other things that have proven to be problematic, for Jason.

[The Dean]

Well let's just see - I posted

 

"Mikey will miss Peters. The Bills will not."

 

To which you replied...

 

 

 

What did I miss?

 

"Deep in your hearts, so will you????"

Deep in my heart, I'm really glad the fu#ker's gone.

 

 

I recall your intense man-love with Jason Peters early in his career. You could barely talk, with his rod being stuffed so far down your throat and his balls dangling near your lips. He was like a GOD, to you.

 

One hold out, and a few sacks later, he sucks and you're glad he's gone. Love can be so fickle.

[nucci]

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.

I will bet that Peters does not play ten more years.

[Thurman#1]

Well let's just see - I posted

 

"Mikey will miss Peters. The Bills will not."

 

To which you replied...

 

 

 

What did I miss?

 

"Deep in your hearts, so will you????"

 

Deep in my heart, I'm really glad the fu#ker's gone.

 

 

 

Um, no. It takes real talent to misquote YOURSELF.

 

You posted "the Bills will not miss a beat without FatStupidLazyLoad at LT. In fact, their OL will likely be vastly improved this season." Without any apparent clue about my positions on the Bills line this season.

 

Seriously, misquoting yourself. That is a high-quality move. You're a man to watch.

[Thurman#1]

What were you trying to prove here? That Peters wasnt wanted because of his poor attitude? rediculous cap number? This is exactly the point that Peters lovers should look at. He wasnt good for this team just like he prolly wasnt for many other teams looking for LT's. They saw something in him that they didnt like, just like us. So why does that make us so bad for getting rid of him?

 

 

 

We saw something in Peters we didn't like?

 

Then why did we offer him the highest contract in Bills history, according to Russ. How do these two facts go together?

 

And I would be a lot more supportive of getting rid of Peters if I thought we had replaced him adequately. I don't. Time will tell.

 

Anyway, I'm out of here for the evening. Have a good night, or morning for you folks living anywhere near Buffalo.

[mrags]

Man, you guys kill me. You seem to just make up quotes saying whatever you feel like and putting them into people's mouths without ever actually checking whether the guy said that.

 

LET'S SEE A LINK having Peters saying that he didn't want to work because he wasn't getting paid. You won't be able to find one, of course, because he never said that.

 

It kills me. You guys are all the time going off with a thought process like

 

1) I hate Peters

2) Therefore he must have said something horrible

3) So I'll make up something and say he said it.

 

And yeah, he was fat and lazy and didn't want to work, which is why he was the second-best run-blocker of all LTs in the league. In an off-year, a year in which he didn't attend training camp. He was the best run-blocker on the Bills. But yeah, doubtless that was because he didn't want to work. This is so pathetic. Again the thought process is just that you hate the guy so you say whatever you want regardless of whether there is anything to back it up, and then you pretend that it's a fact.

 

I really should just ignore such nonsense, but I so enjoy shredding it.

 

Check the stats on footballoutsiders.com if you doubt what I said above about his run blocking this year. Which was, again, a bad year for him. 2nd best in the league.

 

It was in the Eagles press conference that he said that he absolutley was effected by his contract issue looming over head. I think its pretty funny that in both of the last 2 seasons that as soon as the Bills were out of playoff contention that the fat s*@t head came down with a boo-boo and couldnt play.

 

Im not looking for the link, its there. There are plenty of other posters on this board that have seen and heard it just like I did. I dont need to justify that your wrong on that. Its a fact. It happened.

 

If you really want to play the sarcasm game in your long drawn out post I will add to it. He was extremely in shape after missing all of OTA's, Training Camp, Mini Camp, and Pre-Season. He missed the first game because he wasnt in football shape. He sat out half of the 2nd game of the season because he was too winded and not in football shape. He sat out full quarters throughout the middle of the season because he was out of football shape. He missed the last 2 games of the season because he had a boo-boo that just happened to come about as soon as the Bills were out of the playoff hunt. Oh, and if you want to check stats on sites, why dont you check the stat that he also gave up the most sack of any starting LT in the league? Thats right, you want to praise what he did well (allegedly) and forget about the rest.

 

Give me a break. We can go on all day about this. The fact is that he didnt care about the team enough to practice with them in the off season, and when we tried to re-sign him he complained that he wanted more and more money, and ended up signing for Philly for close to the same that we offered. He didnt want to be here so get over him.

[ans4e64]

What were you trying to prove here? That Peters wasnt wanted because of his poor attitude? rediculous cap number? This is exactly the point that Peters lovers should look at. He wasnt good for this team just like he prolly wasnt for many other teams looking for LT's. They saw something in him that they didnt like, just like us. So why does that make us so bad for getting rid of him?

 

Read the thread.

 

I was saying that just because teams didn't give us their 1st rounder for Peters, and selected an OT with their pick instead, doesn't have to mean that Peters isn't as good as we think.

[ans4e64]

Yeah, if by shredding you mean arguing something ineffectively. In that case, you really did shred me.

 

Your argument is in logic terms like this:

 

If A then B.

If B, then C.

 

Therefore D.

 

Which simply doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "Chocolate is made from cocoa beans and bananas are also plant products. Therefore we can see that chocolate is made from bananas." You took two facts and pretended that since they were both true that they proved another fact which they simply did not logically prove.

 

Yeah, shredded.

 

 

This shreds you. In the more ordinary sense of proving your argument does not work. You argued that there is only one explanation for these facts. There are in fact many possible explanations.

 

Thank you. You said it better than I. Or at least explained it in terms that VOR can understand.

[VOR]

Yeah, if by shredding you mean arguing something ineffectively. In that case, you really did shred me.

 

Your argument is in logic terms like this:

 

A is true.

B is true.

 

Therefore C is true.

 

Which simply doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "Chocolate is made from cocoa beans and bananas are also plant products. Therefore we can see that chocolate is made from bananas." You took two facts and pretended that since they were both true that they proved another fact which they simply did not logically prove.

 

Yeah, shredded.

LOL! Thanks for the lesson on the law of sillyjism.

 

Only ONE TEAM offered anything substantial in trade for Peters, and that was the 5th-to-last pick in the 1st round. If that alone doesn't tell you how little Peters was valued league-wide, nothing else will. Unless you truly believe that only the Eagles were unhappy with their LT situation. But again, that is disproved by the Rams and Bengals spending the 2nd and 6th overall picks on LT's the following week in the draft, on players who are wholly unproven and will be paid at least what Peters got.

[mrags]

It doesn't. It also doesn't make him a bad, or average, LT. I think his exceptional ability is recognized by most who follow the game. It's the other things that have proven to be problematic, for Jason.

 

If Ive ever come right out and said hes a bad LT then I apologize. I have never thought he was a bad LT. I just think that with the issues that have come out of him and his attitude towards his contract I dont feel he is worth the money. I do however like to pull out the stat that he did give up more sacks than any starting LT in football a year ago. I know this stat is no official, but then again there is no official stat that says hes a god like LT either. It is what it is. Its a fact that his side of the line gave up 12+ sacks last year.

[VOR]

Thank you. You said it better than I. Or at least explained it in terms that VOR can understand.

LOL! After your "not all that great" equals "not a good player," you shouldn't be talking about what others can or cannot understand.

[The Dean]

LOL! Thanks for the lesson on the law of sillyjism.

 

Only ONE TEAM offered anything substantial in trade for Peters, and that was the 5th-to-last pick in the 1st round. If that alone doesn't tell you how little Peters was valued league-wide, nothing else will.

 

 

How many teams offered TO a contract? Does that speak to his ability?

 

Do you know for a fact that there were no teams who might have been interested in him, but were playing a waiting game until after the draft? Do you really think the Bills maximized what they could have gotten for Peters, or took the best offer at the time, to get the whole thing behind them?