Thurman#1 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...line/index.html It's an article about offensive lines and in particular, how important continuity and chemistry, which is weird because it's quite positive about the Bills, even ending with a comment about them. Here's a quote (not the final sentence, a different one) from the article, "That means if you are a fan of a team with legitimate title aspirations and multiple new starters up front, like the Bears, Bills, Eagles, Ravens and Vikings, pay particular attention to the big boys over the next couple of weeks." Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 linky no work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBeane Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 linky no work same problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 So judging by the original poster, I'll guess he meant this Ross Tucker article... 'Two C's' are crucial for OLs ...and not this one: Peters trade has already started game of musical chairs in draft GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 So judging by the original poster, I'll guess he meant this Ross Tucker article... 'Two C's' are crucial for OLs ...and not this one: Peters trade has already started game of musical chairs in draft GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! Thanks, we can always count on you Senator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Thanks, we can always count on you Senator My pleasure. Thurman#1 does seem to put some credence into what Ross Tucker's opinions, so I'm surprised he didn't cite this piece... NFL Pro Bowl voting among players should be consistent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKillerRobots Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 "...and a force in 2010 and beyond."!? Man, wouldn't that be sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 My pleasure. Thurman#1 does seem to put some credence into what Ross Tucker's opinions, so I'm surprised he didn't cite this piece... NFL Pro Bowl voting among players should be consistent Ross Tucker seems to really like Jason Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Ross Tucker seems to really like Jason Peters Yeah, but not as much as... Joe DeLamielleure (go to around the 8:24 mark in the interview when he starts talking about Peters) Now why wouldn't two former Bills offensive linemen - one a Hall-of-Famer, and one who played alongside FatBoy - not realize what the TSW experts and Peters FanBoys know about football, playing o-line, and specifically Peters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Yeah, but not as much as... Joe DeLamielleure (go to around the 8:24 mark in the interview when he starts talking about Peters) Now why wouldn't two former Bills offensive linemen - one a Hall-of-Famer, and one who played alongside FatBoy - not realize what the TSW experts and Peters FanBoys know about football, playing o-line, and specifically Peters? I think the opinion of players who actually play with and against him, are a far better indicator than two guys who no longer play the game. The guys that play now, voted him to the Pro Bowl, despite what TSW experts and Peters haters think they know about football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I think the opinion of players who actually play with and against him, are a far better indicator than two guys who no longer play the game. The guys that play now, voted him to the Pro Bowl, despite what TSW experts and Peters haters think they know about football. So you're a #'s guy, Dean - what percentage of "the guys that play now and voted him to the Pro Bowl" actually played with/against Peters? (I don't consider a WR, QB, RB, offensive lineman, kicker, etc., from a team we play - nor anyone from a team we don't play - as someone who played against him.) I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I think the opinion of players who actually play with and against him, are a far better indicator than two guys who no longer play the game. The guys that play now, voted him to the Pro Bowl, despite what TSW experts and Peters haters think they know about football. I'm far from a Peters hater but do you honestly believe a guy who allowed 11.5 sacks in 13 games is a deserving pro bowler? Plus, how many 3 and shorts did we have stuffed running to his side? One rookie LT (Clady) didn't give up a sack. Another gave up only one (Long) on a playoff team. Just because they are players in the league doesn't mean they pour over game tapes of tackle play. I'm sure the majority just vote on guys they've heard of. Peters was underrated and became overrated. And the same thing has happen with the LT position. It's still important but you can get by with an elite guy, which I don't think Peters was anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 So you're a #'s guy, Dean - what percentage of "the guys that play now and voted him to the Pro Bowl" actually played with/against Peters? (I don't consider a WR, QB, RB, offensive lineman, kicker, etc., from a team we play - nor anyone from a team we don't play - as someone who played against him.) I'm curious. Percentages are irrelvant. Do you know what the percentage of ex Bills lineman think of Peters? Then real answer to your inquiry is: More than 2. More than 2 players who played against or with Peters voted him into the Pro Bowl. That's enough to counter the specious argument you set out in your last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Percentages are irrelvant. Do you know what the percentage of ex Bills lineman think of Peters? Then real answer to your inquiry is: More than 2. More than 2 players who played against or with Peters voted him into the Pro Bowl. That's enough to counter the specious argument you set out in your last post. Arm? That you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I'm far from a Peters hater but do you honestly believe a guy who allowed 11.5 sacks in 13 games is a deserving pro bowler? Plus, how many 3 and shorts did we have stuffed running to his side? One rookie LT (Clady) didn't give up a sack. Another gave up only one (Long) on a playoff team. Just because they are players in the league doesn't mean they pour over game tapes of tackle play. I'm sure the majority just vote on guys they've heard of. Peters was underrated and became overrated. And the same thing has happen with the LT position. It's still important but you can get by with an elite guy, which I don't think Peters was anyways. I don't know if he belonged or not, and neither do most who post here. The players are FAR less likely to vote for "guys they have heard of" than the public, IMO. The players have heard of most players. Peters, in fact, is a relative unknown at LT, compared to guys with big resumes and a high draft pick number. Plus, I assume those that know the game realize there is way more to evaluating the play of a LT than simply the unofficial "sacks allowed" stat. As has been shown here in the past, some of the great LTs of our time have allowed 9 or more sacks in a season. How many plays from scrimmage does a LT get? Do you think judging his entire value on the 11.5 plays is reasonable? I don't. Especially when no one can define what constitutes a "sack allowed". But, let's get to the real point here. Most of the Peters hate has little to do with his play. It is directed at his holdout and contract demands. The Senator was one of the biggest Peters knob gobblers, early in his career. But since he dissed the Bills, in the Sen's mind, he now stinks. That's childish. I think, because of the holdout, Peters had an off year. I don't begrudge the Bills for trading him, and think they may end up being better for it. But that doesn't mean Peters stinks as an LT. If the players and coaches voted him into the Pro Bowl, I will take their vote over the gripes of pissed off fans, and the opinion of an obviously bitter ex-Bill (Joe D) and a guy who couldn't hold Peters' jock as an offensive lineman (Tucker). OK, that's not true, I'm sure Tucker could hold, and perhaps wash and dry Peters' jock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I'm far from a Peters hater but do you honestly believe a guy who allowed 11.5 sacks in 13 games is a deserving pro bowler? Plus, how many 3 and shorts did we have stuffed running to his side? One rookie LT (Clady) didn't give up a sack. Another gave up only one (Long) on a playoff team. Just because they are players in the league doesn't mean they pour over game tapes of tackle play. I'm sure the majority just vote on guys they've heard of. Peters was underrated and became overrated. And the same thing has happen with the LT position. It's still important but you can get by with an elite guy, which I don't think Peters was anyways. The League should give out a statistical top ten NFL player in all positions media guide for voters to look over that illustrates the top ten players in each position( by stats) and gives a brief description of each one so we can at least get everyone on the same page. Its not a popularity contest and it would be nice to get the best players at each position invited to the Pro Bowl if at all possible, that is the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 The League should give out a statistical top ten NFL player in all positions media guide that illustrates the top ten players in each position( by stats) and gives a brief description of each one so we can at least get everyone on the same page. Its not a popularity contest and it would be nice to get the best players at each position invited to the Pro Bowl if at all possible, that is the idea. But stats don't tell you who the best players are, necessarily. What stats would you use for a Left Tackle? Keep in mind, sacks allowed is NOT an NFL stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I don't know if he belonged or not, and neither do most who post here. The players are FAR less likely to vote for "guys they have heard of" than the public, IMO. The players have heard of most players. Peters, in fact, is a relative unknown at LT, compared to guys with big resumes and a high draft pick number. Plus, I assume those that know the game realize there is way more to evaluating the play of a LT than simply the unofficial "sacks allowed" stat. As has been shown here in the past, some of the great LTs of our time have allowed 9 or more sacks in a season. How many plays from scrimmage does a LT get? Do you think judging his entire value on the 11.5 plays is reasonable? I don't. Especially when no one can define what constitutes a "sack allowed". But, let's get to the real point here. Most of the Peters hate has little to do with his play. It is directed at his holdout and contract demands. The Senator was one of the biggest Peters knob gobblers, early in his career. But since he dissed the Bills, in the Sen's mind, he now stinks. That's childish. I think, because of the holdout, Peters had an off year. I don't begrudge the Bills for trading him, and think they may end up being better for it. But that doesn't mean Peters stinks as an LT. If the players and coaches voted him into the Pro Bowl, I will take their vote over the gripes of pissed off fans, and the opinion of an obviously bitter ex-Bill (Joe D) and a guy who couldn't hold Peters' jock as an offensive lineman (Tucker). OK, that's not true, I'm sure Tucker could hold, and perhaps wash and dry Peters' jock. Uh oh...The Dean's 'on the hooch' again...and this time it's an angry buzz... Gin, I'll guess...God, I hate when he gets like this... The Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Uh oh...Dean's 'on the hooch' again...and this time it's an angry buzz... Gin, I'll guess...God, I hate when he gets like this... The Dean I notice you make no effort to refute what I have said, though. And, I AM angry. Somebody stole my bicycle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I notice you make no effort to refute what I have said, though. And, I AM angry. Somebody stole my bicycle! I'm still flabbergasted by your Arm-like statistical refutation regarding Pro Bowl voting (Sorry about the bike, though - I know it was expensive.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billistic Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Some guys just love limp biscuits. Eat hearty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I think, because of the holdout, Peters had an off year. I don't begrudge the Bills for trading him, and think they may end up being better for it. But that doesn't mean Peters stinks as an LT. If the players and coaches voted him into the Pro Bowl, I will take their vote over the gripes of pissed off fans, and the opinion of an obviously bitter ex-Bill (Joe D) and a guy who couldn't hold Peters' jock as an offensive lineman (Tucker). OK, that's not true, I'm sure Tucker could hold, and perhaps wash and dry Peters' jock. I once heard Ross Tucker say on Sirius that Jason Peters was easily the best offensive lineman he ever palyed with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I was in Vegas a few weeks ago and put $100 on the Bills to win the SB at 30/1 and a similar bet to win the AFC... GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 So judging by the original poster, I'll guess he meant this Ross Tucker article... 'Two C's' are crucial for OLs ...and not this one: Peters trade has already started game of musical chairs in draft GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! You said something correct. Way to go, baby, I'm proud of you!! Kind of a historic event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 So you're a #'s guy, Dean - what percentage of "the guys that play now and voted him to the Pro Bowl" actually played with/against Peters? (I don't consider a WR, QB, RB, offensive lineman, kicker, etc., from a team we play - nor anyone from a team we don't play - as someone who played against him.) I'm curious. Ha ha ha ha ha. This is really funny. Here, I'll be the senator, "What percentage of guys actually played against or with him? And by the way, I have unilaterally decided that nobody counts if they are, say, offensive linemen to be eligible . You know,even though offensive linemen are the people most qualified to judge other offensive linemen. Or wide recievers. I mean, yeah, they are on the teams with guys who study Peters video like it was porn, and they talk, but I don't consider them eligible. Aw, heck, let's admit it, no professional football player knows half as much as me, The Senator, a poor man, sitting alone in his room crazy with jealousy and hate and other unnamed feelings about Peters. I know much more than the pros. Right. Anyway, Senator, this thread didn't even mention Peters. I have to wonder about you. You take a thread entirely about this year's Bills o-line, and again bring Peters in. I've often commented on your sheer quantity of hatred, and here's more evidence. I feel sorry for you, seriously. You must wake up in the morning thinking about Peters, dream about him at lunch and go to sleep thinking about how much you hate him. Are we going to read about you in the newspaper someday, with pictures of you being led off in chains after some horrific massacre? Seriously, it must be awful to live with so much hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 I'm far from a Peters hater but do you honestly believe a guy who allowed 11.5 sacks in 13 games is a deserving pro bowler? Plus, how many 3 and shorts did we have stuffed running to his side? One rookie LT (Clady) didn't give up a sack. Another gave up only one (Long) on a playoff team. Just because they are players in the league doesn't mean they pour over game tapes of tackle play. I'm sure the majority just vote on guys they've heard of. Peters was underrated and became overrated. And the same thing has happen with the LT position. It's still important but you can get by with an elite guy, which I don't think Peters was anyways. Hi, C. Biscuit. Do a bit of research on that stat. It's not an official stat, for a reason. The reason is that that stat is reliant on guesswork to figure out who is responsible for many of the sacks. And also, for the purpose of making that statistic, sacks allowed, each sack is assigned to an o-lineman. Including sacks where the QB holds on to the ball for six seconds or more. Those shouldn't be assigned to an o-lineman at all, it's the QBs job to get rid of the ball at some point. When neutral people watch the video, they generally figure Peters responsible for 5 - 8 sacks. Now, that's not great, not even good, but it's pretty clear that by the last half of the year, Peters was playing extremely well again. And do yourself a favor, don't respond to people who hijack threads. This one is about the current o-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 I'm finished talking about Peters in this thread, no matter what sewer scrapings get posted. There are plenty of threads for that. "Legitimate title aspirations." And Tucker seems to be talking about the Bills this year. I think he's gone a bit overboard here. But I do like that the Bills, after more than a decade of neglect, addressed the o-line in the early rounds. Gotta love that. What do you think of the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I'm finished talking about Peters in this thread, no matter what sewer scrapings get posted. There are plenty of threads for that. "Legitimate title aspirations." And Tucker seems to be talking about the Bills this year. I think he's gone a bit overboard here. But I do like that the Bills, after more than a decade of neglect, addressed the o-line in the early rounds. Gotta love that. What do you think of the article? Good effort at turning the thread around Thurman. I'll try to help out. I enjoyed the article and I have always respected Ross Tucker's writing and I appreciated him as a player too. As a football player Tucker was smart (attended and graduated Princeton) and mastered playing center and both guard positions. He was nasty...he was always the guy playing until and after the whistle and wasn't afraid of mixing it up. He was a bit undersized but had good mobility and blocked well at the second level. Ross Tucker because of his intelligence and experience as a pro lineman would be eminently qualified to comment on offensive line play. I think because he's a former Bill and enjoyed his time with us, that he has a soft spot for the Bills and would tend to play the positive angle. That said, here's a guy who was smart and nasty, saying that that's how an offensive line needs to be and mentioning the Bills as one of the teams seeking those traits. Great article. Thanks for posting Thurman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I do like that the Bills, after more than a decade of neglect, addressed the o-line in the early rounds. Gotta love that. Bills drafted Mike Williams with their #1 pick in 2002. 7 years is less than a decade. Maybe 7 years of neglect? But you're right, we could definitely use some OL help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 Bills drafted Mike Williams with their #1 pick in 2002. 7 years is less than a decade. Maybe 7 years of neglect? But you're right, we could definitely use some OL help. Fair enough, REDDOGBLITZ. To me, though one early round o-line pick in seven years to cover all five o-line positions ... to me, that counts as neglect. But you're right, they did pick Williams and it turned out to be a colossal mistake. That shouldn't have stopped them from picking o-line guys is all I'm saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted August 7, 2009 Author Share Posted August 7, 2009 Good effort at turning the thread around Thurman. I'll try to help out. I enjoyed the article and I have always respected Ross Tucker's writing and I appreciated him as a player too. As a football player Tucker was smart (attended and graduated Princeton) and mastered playing center and both guard positions. He was nasty...he was always the guy playing until and after the whistle and wasn't afraid of mixing it up. He was a bit undersized but had good mobility and blocked well at the second level. Ross Tucker because of his intelligence and experience as a pro lineman would be eminently qualified to comment on offensive line play. I think because he's a former Bill and enjoyed his time with us, that he has a soft spot for the Bills and would tend to play the positive angle. That said, here's a guy who was smart and nasty, saying that that's how an offensive line needs to be and mentioning the Bills as one of the teams seeking those traits. Great article. Thanks for posting Thurman. Thanks for replying, SAN JOSE BILLS FAN. Yeah, I loved Tucker as a player. He's telling us we should get tough smart guys in this article, and that was him, tough and smart, I totally agree with you. Not all that physically gifted, but he got his job done, and I thought he was the best guard on that team and was totally shocked when we got rid of him. And our o-line only went downhill from there. That was a Donahoe decision, wasn't it? We got rid of Tucker after the 2003 season. Actually, I've seen him write positive and negative stuff on the Bills. I think he does a pretty good job of remaining neutral. I don't always agree with him, but I definitely respect him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Hi, C. Biscuit. Do a bit of research on that stat. It's not an official stat, for a reason. The reason is that that stat is reliant on guesswork to figure out who is responsible for many of the sacks. And also, for the purpose of making that statistic, sacks allowed, each sack is assigned to an o-lineman. Including sacks where the QB holds on to the ball for six seconds or more. Those shouldn't be assigned to an o-lineman at all, it's the QBs job to get rid of the ball at some point. When neutral people watch the video, they generally figure Peters responsible for 5 - 8 sacks. Now, that's not great, not even good, but it's pretty clear that by the last half of the year, Peters was playing extremely well again. And do yourself a favor, don't respond to people who hijack threads. This one is about the current o-line. Again, not to get off topic, but this stat is used for every linemen in the league. Obviously, as you said, there are other factors used but every linemen faces the same criteria. So Peters wasn't judged an differently by people who "hate" him. And even if you're right, is 5 to 8 sacks acceptable out of a pro bowl $10 million LT? I say hell no. As for the current line, I like having young, hungry guys with something to prove. I like Butler but it is kinda cool to see how Bell will do against a good d-line. If Butler is a backup, that means we have a really good oline. They should improve as the season goes on and we have the foundation for a really good oline for years to come (I hope, finally ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Ha ha ha ha ha. This is really funny. Here, I'll be the senator, "What percentage of guys actually played against or with him? And by the way, I have unilaterally decided that nobody counts if they are, say, offensive linemen to be eligible . You know,even though offensive linemen are the people most qualified to judge other offensive linemen. Or wide recievers. I mean, yeah, they are on the teams with guys who study Peters video like it was porn, and they talk, but I don't consider them eligible. Aw, heck, let's admit it, no professional football player knows half as much as me, The Senator, a poor man, sitting alone in his room crazy with jealousy and hate and other unnamed feelings about Peters. I know much more than the pros. Right. Anyway, Senator, this thread didn't even mention Peters. I have to wonder about you. You take a thread entirely about this year's Bills o-line, and again bring Peters in. I've often commented on your sheer quantity of hatred, and here's more evidence. I feel sorry for you, seriously. You must wake up in the morning thinking about Peters, dream about him at lunch and go to sleep thinking about how much you hate him. Are we going to read about you in the newspaper someday, with pictures of you being led off in chains after some horrific massacre? Seriously, it must be awful to live with so much hate. :worthy: :worthy: Ha ha ha ha ha - actually, I woke up without a thought about the object of your man-crush. Then I saw your posts - time-stamped 12:50 AM, 12:59 AM, 1:05 AM, 1:17 AM, 6:24 AM, and 6:34 AM - continuing your proclivity of responding sequentially to every single freaking post that maligns the object of your man-lust. Judging from the time-stamps, it looks like Jason gives you about 6 to 12 minutes rest between blow-jobs, and about 5 hours after a good ass-pounding. And regarding your snotty remark... I know much more than the pros. Right. ...all I did was cite another article by a guy - Ross Tucker - whose opinion you claim to respect - Actually, I've seen him write positive and negative stuff on the Bills. I think he does a pretty good job of remaining neutral. I don't always agree with him, but I definitely respect him. ...and who, with regard to Pro Bowl voting - wrote - Though I'm quite sure some of my personal opinions regarding players that didn't deserve to get in (I'm talking to you, Jason Peters) and vice versa will come to the forefront, my focus will be on the process itself because more often than not that is where the problems originate.One team I was on simply had every player go into their own position room and fill out a ballot and turn it in like a fan voting online, with no discussion whatsoever. Some guys filled it out in less than five minutes. Not good. There is no way that I, as an offensive lineman, would know how well the corners or safeties around the league are truly playing. And do you honestly think the wide receivers really know what defensive tackle is doing the best job stopping the run? Please. All they know is what they hear on the scouting report, if they were even listening during that portion, or from the media hype machine that carries certain players to Hawaii every year. Players should primarily and often do only vote for the position groups they compete against or among. That means offensive linemen should vote for other offensive linemen, defensive linemen and linebackers. This varies from team to team. Then their votes are reconciled with the other position groups on the team to form one unanimous vote, for all intents and purposes, among the 53 guys on a team. That only works, or course, when the position groups decide to vote in unison, which is fairly common but can often cause heated discussions and some players may be forced to vote for players they do not deem worthy of the selection. That is where the politics can come into play. There is a long-held belief among a large segment of players that there is a mild form of collusion among the perennial Pro Bowlers to ensure they all make their way back to Hawaii yet again. Since Pro Bowlers are almost always the leaders of their position group if not their team, they tend to have a tremendous amount of influence during the voting process and thus the ability to push the room, as the case may be, in a certain direction. That might be part of the reason why a veteran stalwart that is having a subpar season, like Charles Woodson - or Jason Peters (my addition) - gets selected. link Ross Tucker's words, not mine. (A pro, an offensive lineman who played with Peters, and a guy whom you claim to respect.) But you know more than him. Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts