Trading Peters would not...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Yasgur's Farm
    Moderator
    • Feb 2005
    • 7091

    Trading Peters would not...

    ...make the O-line worse than '08. Even if Chambers starts at LT, he would not be a drop-off from the '08 Peters.

    Anyway... We'd probably end up taking one of the 4 talented OT's available with our 11th pick.
  • DieHrdBillsFan23
    Nobody Circles the Wagon, Like the Buffalo Bills
    • Jan 2006
    • 126

    #2
    Re: Trading Peters would not...

    Only if you were to get 1 or 2 first in return would it make sense. Philly could be willing to deal. We could use the #11 on Oher, or maybe Smith (hopefully he isnt a head case). The only problem is you lose out on Everette Brown or BJ Raji, assuming there still there, so our poor pass rush wont be improved. Its going to be interesting these next few weeks till draft day.
    Lets Go Buffalo!!!!

    Comment

    • Throne Logic
      Terry Tate - Outside Linebacker
      • Aug 2002
      • 2052

      #3
      Re: Trading Peters would not...

      I've been on Peter's case since last spring. Between breech of contract and crappy play through most of last season resulting from the holdout, I really have a bone to pick with him.

      That said. Our Oline will be MUCH better this year WITH Peters. That is assuming that he comes to camp and participates in the pre-season. By simple comparison, Peters-Version 2009 would be an improvement over Peters-Version 2008. Funny how showing up for training camp, practices, team meetings, and a warm-up game or two really does effect your level of play.

      If we're truly looking at another all Summer holdout, then I agree completely with your statement.
      Still searching for that offensive rhythm.

      Comment

      • DrGraves
        Registered User
        • Mar 2008
        • 2693

        #4
        Re: Trading Peters would not...

        Yeah but if we have to take a LT at #11.... we would still have enormous holes at LG, TE, LB, and DE. We can't accord to make new holes at this point.

        Comment

        • Night Train
          Retired - On Several Levels
          • Jul 2005
          • 33117

          #5
          Re: Trading Peters would not...

          Sometimes there is a point of no return and you're forced to make a move you didn't want to make. A 2nd year of holding out & coming in late to play lousy football is unacceptable.

          I'm thinking the Bills may be reaching that point with Peters but the market for him must be researched. Will someone actually give the Bills a 1st Round pick (or high 2nd) for him, when 3-4 OT's are currently carrying 1st Round grades in April ? It's not etched in stone, just because posters decree it.

          My prediction is that the Bills will have to move him and make do with Chambers for now while a high pick develops or beats him out in camp. Another high pick will be Guard, so this line will be in a flux for a while. That's better than being consistently bad.

          That makes the aquisition of Owens look smarter by the minute, with his ability to get off the line and catch the quick slant (in addition to his red zone ability).

          Last season, the Bills got lousy play from both Centers, Dockery and Peters for most of the year. The line really has no where else to go but up. Butler is fair & hopefully improving. Walker is better than many think and did good filling in at LT. I've been very pleased with his play and willingness to switch positions. We got a Center last month.

          We need a Guard early, in addition to Peters replacement.

          Let it play out before jumping off the bridge.
          Anonymity is an abused privilege, abused most by people who mistake vitriol for wisdom and cynicism for wit

          Comment

          • Yasgur's Farm
            Moderator
            • Feb 2005
            • 7091

            #6
            Re: Trading Peters would not...

            Originally posted by DrGraves
            Yeah but if we have to take a LT at #11.... we would still have enormous holes at LG, TE, LB, and DE. We can't accord to make new holes at this point.
            And we'll have more picks to address those needs than we do today...

            1A - Michael Oher or Andre Smith (We probably won't see Raji, Brown, or Orakpo anyway)
            1B - Brian Cushing, Tyson Jackson, Brandon Pettigrew, Conner Barwin, Alex Mack, or Aaron Maybin
            And we'll still have our #2 thru 7 plus another 3rd or 4th for Peters.
            Last edited by Yasgur's Farm; 04-04-2009, 11:16 AM.

            Comment

            • Yasgur's Farm
              Moderator
              • Feb 2005
              • 7091

              #7
              Re: Trading Peters would not...

              2 - Larry English, Robert Ayers, Max Unger, Jared Cook, Eric Wood, Clint Simtim, or Duke Robinson

              Comment

              • casdhf
                Registered User
                • Jul 2002
                • 17542

                #8
                Re: Trading Peters would not...

                I am all for trading Peters if we can get value, but saying that we won't notice a difference between Chambers and Peters is ridiculous.
                Originally posted by BillsZone Mod
                cas,

                I'm just letting you know that you have been given 2 points for telling Wys AKA Mark to kill himself.

                BillsZone Mod

                Comment

                • X-Era
                  What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
                  • Feb 2005
                  • 27670

                  #9
                  Re: Trading Peters would not...

                  Originally posted by draz54
                  ...make the O-line worse than '08. Even if Chambers starts at LT, he would not be a drop-off from the '08 Peters.

                  Anyway... We'd probably end up taking one of the 4 talented OT's available with our 11th pick.
                  You cannot guarantee that. And with no starting LG, and some rookie at LT its more likely that the OL will in fact be worse.

                  Comment

                  • Yasgur's Farm
                    Moderator
                    • Feb 2005
                    • 7091

                    #10
                    Re: Trading Peters would not...

                    Do you think Chambers would give up 12 sacks

                    Comment

                    • X-Era
                      What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
                      • Feb 2005
                      • 27670

                      #11
                      Re: Trading Peters would not...

                      Originally posted by DrGraves
                      Yeah but if we have to take a LT at #11.... we would still have enormous holes at LG, TE, LB, and DE. We can't accord to make new holes at this point.
                      I know, thats the silly part.

                      Trade Peters we get a pick, and then we have a new hole as well to fill with a pick... thats a push and we got worse on paper by losing Peters.

                      Comment

                      • X-Era
                        What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
                        • Feb 2005
                        • 27670

                        #12
                        Re: Trading Peters would not...

                        Originally posted by draz54
                        Do you think Chambers would give up 12 sacks
                        With no solid LT, a brand new C, and no Dockery? very possible.

                        Comment

                        • X-Era
                          What this generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace
                          • Feb 2005
                          • 27670

                          #13
                          Re: Trading Peters would not...

                          Originally posted by draz54
                          And we'll have more picks to address those needs than we do today...

                          1A - Michael Oher or Andre Smith (We probably won't see Raji, Brown, or Orakpo anyway)
                          1B - Brian Cushing, Tyson Jackson, Brandon Pettigrew, Conner Barwin, Alex Mack, or Aaron Maybin
                          And we'll still have our #2 thru 7 plus another 3rd or 4th for Peters.
                          No idea whether that LT we took at 11 will be worth anything ever, much less starting in his rookie year.

                          Comment

                          • DraftBoy
                            Administrator
                            • Jul 2002
                            • 107452

                            #14
                            Re: Trading Peters would not...

                            Trading Peters would not...be a smart idea.
                            COMING SOON...
                            Originally posted by Dr.Lecter
                            We were both drunk and Hillary did not look that bad at 2 AM, I swear!!!!!!

                            Comment

                            • Buddo
                              Registered User
                              • Mar 2007
                              • 1864

                              #15
                              Re: Trading Peters would not...

                              Originally posted by DraftBoy
                              Trading Peters would not...be a smart idea.
                              But it may be the only sensible option left, if Peters keeps up the 'stupid money' demands.
                              If Peters thinks he can hold the team to ransom, I hope the team gives him the finger big style.
                              By that I mean that if he doesn't sign a deal by draft day, he either gets traded for an acceptable pick value (1st +), or he is made see out his contract (on the pine).
                              The Bills have made him a decent offer, and they may improve that some, we don't know, but if there is no real attempt from the Peters camp, to actually engage with sensible negotiations, then it's time to go to the plan that takes no account of him.

                              The OP is certainly correct that the O-Line without Peters, isn't necessarily worse than it was last year. Including games he missed, Peters probably only played ok in about 9 from 16 games, and even within some of those, he was still making fairly critical mistakes. People go on about things like, it was only 1 oe 2 plays in a game, which is sort of a fair point, but the difference being, is that those were plays that actually mattered, within the games played. The true top guys, don't make mistakes when things matter.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X