Loved what Gaughan said

[ghz in pittsburgh]

[Comment From Clarence from Clarence]
Talk me into getting excited about the O-Line. We traded our best player by far (peters). Now we have a fat, out of shape RT playing LT, a RG playing RT, 2 rookies at Guard, and a career backup at Center.

Mark Gaughan:

OK. Well let me first put on my rose-colored sunglasses. But before I do that I'll remind you that I was against trading Peters from the start, and was all for making him the highest-paid OT in NFL history (which is what it would have taken to keep him).

That being said, the BIlls have undergone a personality transplant on the O-line. They got three guys in the middle now who are nasty and tough. You can never go too far wrong drafting big (except when he's a 400 pounder from Texas). So the Bills have made a huge investment in their O-line. That can't be a bad thing. They made a huge investment in the O-line in 2006 in free agency, they just didn't get the right guy in Dockery. So they're committed to the O-line. They've been getting their butt kicked by Vince Wilfork for 6 years and by Kris Jenkins for 1 year. They finally have the solid interior to match up in the division. There is a very very low probability that these guards will be busts. So their middle looks good. Brad Butler started his entire career in college at right tackle. He's going back to the position he knows best. He was a little tall for a guard anyway. He's feisty too. Their line is super smart. Now as long as Langston Walker can handle left tackle, you have a front five that can win. ... How's that.

----------------------------------

Now I stated before that I don't think Butler is a quality RT. But I'd admit against 3-4 OLBs, he has a better chance. Considering all our foes in the division plays 3-4, I can understand the move if it happens.

I guess going 0 for in AFC east really shook up the brain of this team. They are re-tooling the whole O-Line to fight those big nose tackles. They are considering no-huddle to neutralize the rushing OLBs, too ...<!--QuoteEnd-->

[Pride]

I, for one, thought Peter's was waaay overrated. Say what you want about the competition, but we were 5-1 with Walker at LT.

I also think we needed to get faster, stronger, more stout guards on this team. I think the OL is upgraded from last year.

[OpIv37]

I, for one, thought Peter's was waaay overrated. Say what you want about the competition, but we were 5-1 with Walker at LT.

I also think we needed to get faster, stronger, more stout guards on this team. I think the OL is upgraded from last year.

Um, Walker only played 2 of those first 6 games at LT. He didn't play all 6. We were 2-0 with Walker and 3-1 with Peters.

[Oaf]

Walker can capably handle LT IMO. Chambers is top notch depth as he's shown he can play, Bell is the project. Butler back at RT next to Levitre is my only q-mark.

[mikemac2001]

Um, Walker only played 2 of those first 6 games at LT. He didn't play all 6. We were 2-0 with Walker and 3-1 with Peters.


that is a good point but peters was still being subbed in those games

Especially vs the jags



Peters was very talented but bottom line he didn't play up to his standards last year, he wanted to much money for his performance and seems like he really didn't want to work with the organization (he just wanted to be highest paid tackle) (and he gave up most sacks for a tackle) kinda backwards

[ChristopherWalken]

Walker worked well when playing LT last year. I'm more concerened about his conditioning as I can see him wearing down late in the season.

As for Mark's comments; I think he might be on to something but until the first 3-4 games are played we really don't know what we're dealing with here. There is more to playing football then size and aggressiveness. This newly assembled line will need a good amout of time to gel. They need to play as a cohesive unit and pad their "circle of trust". Quite honestly the youth on this line is freightening as rookie mistakes are going to be made. But at what cost? Loss of a QB for a season?

I don't care how smart, big or mean a lineman is. If you can't trust the guys on either side of you to do their job accurately, then you begin to cheat and compensate more and focus on technique and play design less.

[ghz in pittsburgh]

Chris, I share your concern. I guess that's why they insist the supposedly smart Hangartner being the center this year as he probably will give potentially the two rookie guards instructions before the snap.

Looking on the bright side, the Jets did it with rookie C and LT two years ago. Two rookie Gs is certainly easier than that.

[ServoBillieves]

Peters was honestly our best player?

11.5 sacks in 13 games and 8 penalties is our best player?

We really do suck then...

[OpIv37]

Peters was honestly our best player?

11.5 sacks in 13 games and 8 penalties is our best player?

We really do suck then...

arrgh, we've been over this.

That stat is subjective. It's compiled by someone who is guessing and doesn't know the coverage calls, and it doesn't account for the number of times that Trent and JP held the ball too long (and we all know that was a frequent problem).

Peters was out of shape when he returned to the team, and he didn't play up to his standards in 08. There is no doubt about that.

But regurgitating numbers like this is just a desperate attempt to feel like we didn't lose a good player, when in reality we did.

For you Peters doubters, wait and see. Keep an eye on Peters in Philly and keep an eye on our OL. You'll come around.

[OpIv37]

and btw, to all the people who criticize me for saying the same thing over and over again- where are you to criticize all the people parroting back that "Peters gave up 11.5 sacks" stat a zillion times?

[casdhf]

Because it is clearly a subject stat. There is no way for these people to prove it and you have no way to disprove it. Just ignore it and move on, if that's possible.

[OpIv37]

Because it is clearly a subject stat. There is no way for these people to prove it and you have no way to disprove it. Just ignore it and move on, if that's possible.

It's really not possible.

I want to have intelligent discussion and debate about the team on here, but it's a little hard when people insist on basing their arguments on a subjective number.

[Dr. Pepper]

It's really not possible.

I want to have intelligent discussion and debate about the team on here, but it's a little hard when people insist on basing their arguments on a subjective number.

from the guy who continually quoted ONE source as gospel that said peters didnt give up 11.5 sacks? you're as guilty as the rest of them in bringing up the "subjective" sacks against stat.

[justasportsfan]

Walker gave up 10.5 sacks vs. Raiders. Means nothing now.

[Tatonka]

I, for one, thought Peter's was waaay overrated. Say what you want about the competition, but we were 5-1 with Walker at LT.

I also think we needed to get faster, stronger, more stout guards on this team. I think the OL is upgraded from last year.

we were not 5-1 with peters at LT.

Walker played LT for 1 game, the opener against Seattle. he rotated with peters for parts of game 2. that was it.

that said.. peters was overrated and played piss poor last year. no way is walker worse than how peters played.

[Tatonka]

and btw, to all the people who criticize me for saying the same thing over and over again- where are you to criticize all the people parroting back that "Peters gave up 11.5 sacks" stat a zillion times?

stop repeating yourself. you just said that in your other post.

[ghz in pittsburgh]

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. In my world, I know
1) Everyone wanted to have Peters on this team no question. Whether he is the best OT or not is not really important. The Bills tried hard to make him happy too.
2) The Bills can be better without Peters, too. The Peters trade brought us Wood and helped us get Levitre. If both of them pan out, I can honestly say we are better off than having Peters alone. I believe save for QB, it's always to have two quality players than one, let alone offensive line players where the line has to perform as a unit.
3) Can we have both 1) and 2)? I don't think so, unless we morgage our future which no team is doing any more (no team trades away next year's 1st round!). We know Maybin is a must. Wood won't be around at 42.

Now there is a big IF in 2). but then again there is a big if on Peters - if he will get complacent once he got the money. People have different comfortable level of the two ifs. No biggie.

[Tatonka]

Because it is clearly a subject stat. There is no way for these people to prove it and you have no way to disprove it. Just ignore it and move on, if that's possible.

when peters was asked about it.. like a true winner, he basically said, he didnt give a **** and he just would think about his contract when he gave up a huge sack and our qb was lying face first in the ground.

so regardless of sack NUMBERS.. i know what i saw.. and i know what he said.

he can suck it.

:ignore:

[Tatonka]

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. In my world, I know
1) Everyone wanted to have Peters on this team no question. Whether he is the best OT or not is not really important. The Bills tried hard to make him happy too.
2) The Bills can be better without Peters, too. The Peters trade brought us Wood and helped us get Levitre. If both of them pan out, I can honestly say we are better off than having Peters alone. I believe save for QB, it's always to have two quality players than one, let alone offensive line players where the line has to perform as a unit.
3) Can we have both 1) and 2)? I don't think so, unless we morgage our future which no team is doing any more (no team trades away next year's 1st round!). We know Maybin is a must. Wood won't be around at 42.

Now there is a big IF in 2). but then again there is a big if on Peters - if he will get complacent once he got the money. People have different comfortable level of the two ifs. No biggie.

actually the peters trade was for wood and nelson. levitre was acquired from our picks that we already had.

[ghz in pittsburgh]

actually the peters trade was for wood and nelson. levitre was acquired from our picks that we already had.

You are right. So it is Wood and Nelson plus someone else next year for Peters. If Wood and nelson pan out, we're already ahead.

[Tatonka]

i agree. wasnt trying to knitpick.

[Stewie]

Um, Walker only played 2 of those first 6 games at LT. He didn't play all 6. We were 2-0 with Walker and 3-1 with Peters.

What?

"Fat" Langston was switching back and forth between LT and RT while "pro bowl" Peters was catching his breath on the side line.

[jimbohastle51]

Walker can capably handle LT IMO. Chambers is top notch depth as he's shown he can play, Bell is the project. Butler back at RT next to Levitre is my only q-mark.

it will be wood next to butler actually. levitre is our LG. he has all of his expirience from LT and LG so they are plugging him in at LG from day one. its pretty obvious that in a year they are planning on hangartner and wood swapping and hangartner either being a backup or playing RG and wood playing C. wood is for sure our C for years to come it just takes a while to get all the calls and protections down and they probably dont want to rush wood since our whole division is top flight DT's. no way we drafted wood in the first round to play RG. RG is the cheapest position on the Oline. not too downplay the position but the left side protects the QB's blindside so that is the money spots and were you want your best Olinemen of cource C as well but he has alot more to do than just block. as far as butler playing RT, i think it is a great move. he was a AWESOME! RT in college and played accross from D'brickishaw fergueson his whole career at virginia. he will excell at RT and honestly probably wanted to go back there all along.

[OpIv37]

from the guy who continually quoted ONE source as gospel that said peters didnt give up 11.5 sacks? you're as guilty as the rest of them in bringing up the "subjective" sacks against stat.

hahaha, nice try- I quoted that source only ONCE and I never used it as part of my argument. The only reason I quoted that source was to prove that the 11.6 number is subjective and that we shouldn't take EITHER number as proof of anything.

[Dr. Pepper]

hahaha, nice try- I quoted that source only ONCE and I never used it as part of my argument. The only reason I quoted that source was to prove that the 11.6 number is subjective and that we shouldn't take EITHER number as proof of anything.

sounds fishy but i dont want to take the time to go through old posts.... ill have to take your word for it.

[Mr. Pink]

hahaha, nice try- I quoted that source only ONCE and I never used it as part of my argument. The only reason I quoted that source was to prove that the 11.6 number is subjective and that we shouldn't take EITHER number as proof of anything.


Ok, so the whole thing is subjective and compiled by the same people for one "stock list." That means every LT is judged/graded/looked at in the same manner.

Having said that, while the 11.5 might not be the "actual" number, no on else on the list might have the "actual" number either...which still puts Peters at the absolute bottom while judged against his peers.

It's not like whoever did the tracking was completely biased against Peters.

Come on now.

[Mahdi]

Walker can capably handle LT IMO. Chambers is top notch depth as he's shown he can play, Bell is the project. Butler back at RT next to Levitre is my only q-mark.
It would be Wood next to Butler on the right side. Levitre and Walker on the left.

[OpIv37]

Ok, so the whole thing is subjective and compiled by the same people for one "stock list." That means every LT is judged/graded/looked at in the same manner.

Having said that, while the 11.5 might not be the "actual" number, no on else on the list might have the "actual" number either...which still puts Peters at the absolute bottom while judged against his peers.

It's not like whoever did the tracking was completely biased against Peters.

Come on now.

whoever did the list doesn't know the blocking schemes for Peters or anyone else. He was guessing every time. And his guesses may have been more accurate for some offenses than for others. Bottom line: there's just far too much subjectivity to it and it's not valid.

[FlyingDutchman]

and btw, to all the people who criticize me for saying the same thing over and over again- where are you to criticize all the people parroting back that "Peters gave up 11.5 sacks" stat a zillion times?

for someone who argues about facts vs opinions you shouldnt question this. Sure its a subjective fact but it goes both ways. Just as you can say maybe he had less bc someone screwed up, you can also say maybe he had more. Coverage has nothing to do with it. If you get beat, it counts, simple as that. Its the same as recording sacks for Dlinemen. You can clearly see when they beat someone and count it, and sometimes the QB goes down in a group and you have to figure out who it really was who got to him. You can say maybe its different Olineman messed up their blocking scheme so it shouldnt be his fault. Well just like Dlineman can have the guy whos trying to block them trip and fall and it will count as a sack just the same.

[WeAreArthurMoates]

whoever did the list doesn't know the blocking schemes for Peters or anyone else. He was guessing every time. And his guesses may have been more accurate for some offenses than for others. Bottom line: there's just far too much subjectivity to it and it's not valid.

Dude, Peters had a bad year last year, he sucked. I wanted Peters resigned but I don't care that he is, it's time to move on.

[FlyingDutchman]

whoever did the list doesn't know the blocking schemes for Peters or anyone else. He was guessing every time. And his guesses may have been more accurate for some offenses than for others. Bottom line: there's just far too much subjectivity to it and it's not valid.

dude dont act dumb youre smarter than this. Dont say act like the guy was completely guessing every time, and really has no clue whats going on. This wasnt a stat kid taking count. Besides what I saw with my two eyes backs up the numbers.

[FlyingDutchman]

OP it they said Peters only gave up 2 sacks, youd be arguing that this is the closest thing to "fact" therefore, should be the only factor deemed acceptible for judging his performance.....

[kid mickey]

Peters isn't that good bottom line. Joe Thomas is better, Jake Long is better, Walter Jones is better, Ryan Clady is better, Jordan Gross is better, so he is already out of the top 5. You could knock his sack number down to five and he still wouldn't be better than any of the guys I just mentioned. That's the bottom line.

[The Juice Is Loose]

Um, Walker only played 2 of those first 6 games at LT. He didn't play all 6. We were 2-0 with Walker and 3-1 with Peters.

Yeah and in Jacksonville in 100 degree heat, Langston's "fat out of shape ass" was switching back and forth from RT to LT.

And when did we give a sack/fumble? From the left side. When Peters was in.

Langston Walker > Jason Peters

Go ahead and disagree I'm not reading it.

[Borosai]

Personally, I'm glad Peters is gone. It has nothing to do with his talent or performance on the field: we all know what kind of tackle he can be. Simply put, I can't root for a guy who is that selfish. He put himself and his economic bliss (overpayed) before the success of his team. So, the Bills may have lost a talented player, but at least he took his character with him.

[Goobylal]

There was a post on BB.com's MB showing all the sacks Peters was involved in. The poster gave him 6 sacks for sure, and said it was questionable on another 8. Plus he had 8 penalties. This in 13 games. Not even, considering he was being subbed-in and out in many of the early ones. And again he missed time at the end of the season with an injury. It wasn't a good season by him any way you look at it.

[ChristopherWalken]

I think we can all agree that despite last years statistical figures, Peters has the potential to be a top 5, if not a top 3 tackle in this league. but regardless, its quite obvious that he didn't want any part of this Bills team. The offer was on the table to make him the highest paid Bill in team history and he gwaffed at the figures laid out in front of him. My point is the Bills did exactly what they needed to do to better the team. Peters did what he did to better his pocket book. I wish him well, but even if the Bills OL perform average this year, that's far better then what we had last year.

[jmb1099]

I'm not going to try to predict the future, but it will be interesting to see how Peter's plays now that he thinks he's been paid. We have rookies and they will make rookie mistakes. That being said for the first time in a long time we have nasty interior lineman. While noting completely compensates for experience, having a line with a nasty reputation can pay some dividends. As with any and every year, we won't know until we know.

[alohabillsfan]

Bottom line is Peters is not worth the money he commanded based on his perfromance!

[colin]

peters has all world talent, no heart, no brains, and is injury prone.

his effort and performance last year were terrible for us, and while it would have been nice to have him at his 07 level, from last year we won't take a big step back this year, if at all.

[HHURRICANE]

[Comment From Clarence from Clarence]
Talk me into getting excited about the O-Line. We traded our best player by far (peters). Now we have a fat, out of shape RT playing LT, a RG playing RT, 2 rookies at Guard, and a career backup at Center.

Mark Gaughan:

OK. Well let me first put on my rose-colored sunglasses. But before I do that I'll remind you that I was against trading Peters from the start, and was all for making him the highest-paid OT in NFL history (which is what it would have taken to keep him).

That being said, the BIlls have undergone a personality transplant on the O-line. They got three guys in the middle now who are nasty and tough. You can never go too far wrong drafting big (except when he's a 400 pounder from Texas). So the Bills have made a huge investment in their O-line. That can't be a bad thing. They made a huge investment in the O-line in 2006 in free agency, they just didn't get the right guy in Dockery. So they're committed to the O-line. They've been getting their butt kicked by Vince Wilfork for 6 years and by Kris Jenkins for 1 year. They finally have the solid interior to match up in the division. There is a very very low probability that these guards will be busts. So their middle looks good. Brad Butler started his entire career in college at right tackle. He's going back to the position he knows best. He was a little tall for a guard anyway. He's feisty too. Their line is super smart. Now as long as Langston Walker can handle left tackle, you have a front five that can win. ... How's that.

----------------------------------

Now I stated before that I don't think Butler is a quality RT. But I'd admit against 3-4 OLBs, he has a better chance. Considering all our foes in the division plays 3-4, I can understand the move if it happens.

I guess going 0 for in AFC east really shook up the brain of this team. They are re-tooling the whole O-Line to fight those big nose tackles. They are considering no-huddle to neutralize the rushing OLBs, too ...<!--QuoteEnd-->



This argument is great if both rookies play well, and a guy who sucked at LT in Oakland can all of a sudden play well in Buffalo at the same position.

Promise you that we'll be addressing LT at the end of the season and the carousel will continue to go round and round.

[seanbillsfan]

:deadhorse :banghead: :smashfrea

[Goobylal]

This argument is great if both rookies play well, and a guy who sucked at LT in Oakland can all of a sudden play well in Buffalo at the same position.

Promise you that we'll be addressing LT at the end of the season and the carousel will continue to go round and round.
Wait, on what are you basing that Walker "sucked at LT in Oakland?"

[FlyingDutchman]

Promise you that we'll be addressing LT at the end of the season and the carousel will continue to go round and round.

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/nfl/New_England_Patriots.gif


Power to Give Rep: 32
http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gifhttp://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gifhttp://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gifhttp://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gifhttp://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gifhttp://www.billszone.com/fanzone/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif 20858

[mayotm]

Wait, on what are you basing that Walker "sucked at LT in Oakland?"Allow me to answer for HH. HH, "Walker sucked at LT because he gave up a ton of sacks his final year in Oakland". He's horrible". Most fans on this site, "But Peters gave up more sacks than any LT in the league last year". HH, "Sacks given up is an unofficial subjective stat". Most fans on this site, "How can the sacks allowed stat be counted against Walker, but not against Peters"? HH, "um, um.... screw it, I'm a Pats fan anyway."

[Goobylal]

Allow me to answer for HH. HH, "Walker sucked at LT because he gave up a ton of sacks his final year in Oakland". He's horrible". Most fans on this site, "But Peters gave up more sacks than any LT in the league last year". HH, "Sacks given up is an unofficial subjective stat". Most fans on this site, "How can the sacks allowed stat be counted against Walker, but not against Peters"? HH, "um, um.... screw it, I'm a Pats fan anyway."
Dang it all mayotm, I was expecting HH to say all that, and then I was going to call him out for it! Thanks.

And then I was going to inform him that Walker started at RT during that 2006 for the Raiders, not LT. And since coming to Buffalo and playing RT, he's been very good.

[Novacane]

Whether he gave up 11.5 sacks or not he played poorly last year. I will bet anyone we do not get any worse play out of LT this year than we did last year.

[Mike]

Here is the bottome line guys:
1. Peters sucked last year and did not deserve top dollar (regardless of exact sack #)
2. He was also our most talened o-line player and had 2 years on his contract (we did not Have to trade him!)
3. The Bills F.O. could have managed the Peters situation better (not traded him or gotton more for him)
4. We have no valid reason to believe that the Bills O-line will improve and most every reason to believe it will regress.
5. Most likely than not, we will be drafting a LT next year! (next year many of you will be saying that our o-line will be great in 2010 b/c of new LT and Walker going back to RT and o-line gelling)
6. Bills are a few GOOD draft away from being competative.

...As for Peters, my prediction is that he will continue having Pro Bowl seasons and in a few short years, he will ask for another pay raise.

[Buckets]

and btw, to all the people who criticize me for saying the same thing over and over again- where are you to criticize all the people parroting back that "Peters gave up 11.5 sacks" stat a zillion times?

Because apparently you are not listening.

[casdhf]

This argument is great if both rookies play well, and a guy who sucked at LT in Oakland can all of a sudden play well in Buffalo at the same position.

Promise you that we'll be addressing LT at the end of the season and the carousel will continue to go round and round.He all of a sudden did play well at LT last season.

:gtfo2:

[HHURRICANE]

Here is the bottome line guys:
1. Peters sucked last year and did not deserve top dollar (regardless of exact sack #)
2. He was also our most talened o-line player and had 2 years on his contract (we did not Have to trade him!)
3. The Bills F.O. could have managed the Peters situation better (not traded him or gotton more for him)
4. We have no valid reason to believe that the Bills O-line will improve and most every reason to believe it will regress.
5. Most likely than not, we will be drafting a LT next year! (next year many of you will be saying that our o-line will be great in 2010 b/c of new LT and Walker going back to RT and o-line gelling)
6. Bills are a few GOOD draft away from being competative.

...As for Peters, my prediction is that he will continue having Pro Bowl seasons and in a few short years, he will ask for another pay raise.

Common sense from a new poster. I like it!!

Great post.

[Captain gameboy]

Here is the bottome line guys:

Here's my bottom line.
Peters is a is a guy who needs a lot of decision making help.
He got it from a guy who is commission driven, like a broker who makes his $ based on the trade, not on what it does for you.

Peters mishandled the situation so bad last year, that the bad blood between the two parties had a significant impact on this year's negotiations, but him being gone was a fait accompli, and both sides probably realized that before the draft, forcing the timing of the issue, putting both in a better position to adjust to the situation prior to draft weekend.

Lastly, Peters is an ass who makes me sick.

[ParanoidAndroid]

whoever did the list doesn't know the blocking schemes for Peters or anyone else. He was guessing every time. And his guesses may have been more accurate for some offenses than for others. Bottom line: there's just far too much subjectivity to it and it's not valid.

So, do you remember him getting beat one-on-one several times where he was engaged with a DE or LB and they got the sack? I remember some dude named Anderson from Miami.....some back-up.....making Peters look silly. I can remember 5 times off the top of my head that Peters was beat one-on-one.

I kind of think you are a bit guilty of doing something you profess to dislike. It seems you are defending Peters even though he was not a good player for us last year and was even a liability at times. Whether is is from a stat or whatever, you are defending him.

[OpIv37]

So, do you remember him getting beat one-on-one several times where he was engaged with a DE or LB and they got the sack? I remember some dude named Anderson from Miami.....some back-up.....making Peters look silly. I can remember 5 times off the top of my head that Peters was beat one-on-one.

I kind of think you are a bit guilty of doing something you profess to dislike. It seems you are defending Peters even though he was not a good player for us last year and was even a liability at times. Whether is is from a stat or whatever, you are defending him.

He was out of shape and disgruntled last season. Granted, that was his own fault for holding out, but we all know he's better than how he played last year and he's better than anyone we currently have. This is typical Buffalo revisionist history- now that he's out of town, he sucks, he's always sucked and he never really helped us anyway.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself that- you'll come around when Trent's on IR before the start of October.

[ParanoidAndroid]

He was out of shape and disgruntled last season. Granted, that was his own fault for holding out, but we all know he's better than how he played last year and he's better than anyone we currently have. This is typical Buffalo revisionist history- now that he's out of town, he sucks, he's always sucked and he never really helped us anyway.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself that- you'll come around when Trent's on IR before the start of October.

Unable to deny defending him even though he was an idiot and screwed his teammates...that's what I thought. And....

I'm not telling myself anything, thank you very much. I personally don't care what he does in Philly. All I know is that he sucked last year for whatever reason and I am not sad that he's gone. I'm simply moving on.

[OpIv37]

Unable to deny defending him even though he was an idiot and screwed his teammates...that's what I thought. And....

I'm not telling myself anything, thank you very much. I personally don't care what he does in Philly. All I know is that he sucked last year for whatever reason and I am not sad that he's gone. I'm simply moving on.

being an idiot and screwing his teammates doesn't change the fact that he's a better football player than anyone we have now. The problem is that none of your arguments have anything to do with talent. I could care less about losing Peters if we had someone equal or better talent-wise, but we don't. Saying "he was a *****- I'm glad he's gone and I don't care how he does" will not make the Bills better on the football field.

[psubills62]

He was out of shape and disgruntled last season. Granted, that was his own fault for holding out, but we all know he's better than how he played last year and he's better than anyone we currently have. This is typical Buffalo revisionist history- now that he's out of town, he sucks, he's always sucked and he never really helped us anyway.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself that- you'll come around when Trent's on IR before the start of October.

He's certainly better than he was in 2008.

I just don't understand why you assume any OL minus Jason Peters will automatically land Edwards on the IR. I wasn't on here at the time, but I know on other boards people were saying the same things about Edwards being on IR if Peters didn't play the first few games. We let up a couple sacks to Jacksonville, but only one to a very good pass-rushing team in Seattle. I'm sure you'll come back with "well, Seattle sucked," but the fact is that they got over 35 sacks last year, and our shuffled OL (with Dockery and Fowler) only allowed one sack.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather take the "wait and see" approach before assuming our OL sucks.

[FlyingDutchman]

being an idiot and screwing his teammates doesn't change the fact that he's a better football player than anyone we have now. The problem is that none of your arguments have anything to do with talent. I could care less about losing Peters if we had someone equal or better talent-wise, but we don't. Saying "he was a *****- I'm glad he's gone and I don't care how he does" will not make the Bills better on the football field.

great standards OP...seriously i get your point but this is just so stupid...

[ServoBillieves]

He was out of shape and disgruntled last season. Granted, that was his own fault for holding out, but we all know he's better than how he played last year and he's better than anyone we currently have. This is typical Buffalo revisionist history- now that he's out of town, he sucks, he's always sucked and he never really helped us anyway.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself that- you'll come around when Trent's on IR before the start of October.

That's exactly the case though. With a revamping of the offensive line, albeit slightly poorly taken care of, can you go through another hold out year? Sure, you could buckle and cave, but we're also looking at an uncapped year next year, we may be saving that kind of money for other positions of need that will be coming up.

Again, it's beating a dead horse by now, I look to resigning Freddy and Terrence (although with all the corners drafted and his return skills no longer really needed, I think Freddy becomes priority #1).

[OpIv37]

great standards OP...seriously i get your point but this is just so stupid...

do you want to win football games or do you want to have high character standards? Obviously it would be nice to do both but sometimes good football players are *****s. From 2003 to 2006, this team had ZERO arrests. ZERO. Yet, our overall record for those years was atrocious.

And in case you didn't notice, we just signed TO. While he's never been arrested or been in any trouble outside of football, he's a well-known distraction and some would say he's a locker room cancer. It's hypocritical for the FO to claim they're taking the moral high ground on Peters then sign TO, and it's hypocritical for fans to say it's ok to cut Peters because he's a ***** but defend the TO signing.

[OpIv37]

He's certainly better than he was in 2008.

I just don't understand why you assume any OL minus Jason Peters will automatically land Edwards on the IR. I wasn't on here at the time, but I know on other boards people were saying the same things about Edwards being on IR if Peters didn't play the first few games. We let up a couple sacks to Jacksonville, but only one to a very good pass-rushing team in Seattle. I'm sure you'll come back with "well, Seattle sucked," but the fact is that they got over 35 sacks last year, and our shuffled OL (with Dockery and Fowler) only allowed one sack.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather take the "wait and see" approach before assuming our OL sucks.

Walker sucked at LT in Oakland. He held his own for two games here- wow. And we didn't face any of the AFCE teams with their huge NT's during those games. And Hangartner's never been a named starter. And we have two rookies plus Walker and Butler changing positions. Not ONE position on the OL is the same as last year- not ONE. Those are perfectly legitimate reasons for concern, and it's much more realistic than expecting a totally reshuffled line featuring two rookies will be as good as last year's line, let alone show improvement (which is what we really need).

[psubills62]

Walker sucked at LT in Oakland. He held his own for two games here- wow. And we didn't face any of the AFCE teams with their huge NT's during those games. And Hangartner's never been a named starter. And we have two rookies plus Walker and Butler changing positions. Not ONE position on the OL is the same as last year- not ONE. Those are perfectly legitimate reasons for concern, and it's much more realistic than expecting a totally reshuffled line featuring two rookies will be as good as last year's line, let alone show improvement (which is what we really need).

I don't see why the huge NT's would make any difference with the tackles. And maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe Peters was out for the last game against NE last year...unless they were lacking their "huge NT" in that game.

Oh gee, Hangartner's NEVER BEEN NAMED A STARTER. OH MY GOSH, WHAT WILL WE DO?????? Come on, that's an absolutely lousy explanation. At the least tell me he's not a good player. But he's never been named a starter? Gee, I guess those times when he actually WAS a starter have to be completely ignored. Because a player obviously is SO much better when he becomes a starter due to injury instead of being NAMED the starter.

You act like moving to a new OL position is a huge deal. Maybe if the rookies were doing it in the middle of the game when they've never played it before, sure. But they drafted these guys (who are known for their intelligence, btw) to specifically be guards. If they drafted a defensive tackle and a rushing linebacker to be offensive guards, then yes I would be worried. But changing positions on the OL is not that huge of a deal. Butler's been here for several years, I'm sure that he has a vague idea of how to play the right tackle spot.

[psubills62]

P.S. out of curiosity, can anyone show me a source that said Walker played LT in Oakland? Because this site:

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2008/9/19/617739/oakland-fans-will-barely-r

while it is a random site, it's the only one I found. And it says Walker played RT in Oakland the year before the Bills signed him.

This article says he played RT in 2006:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/raiders/detail?blogid=11&entry_id=14018

[FlyingDutchman]

you know OP, you make the arguement that the Oline is going to stink without Peters a lot without even seeing them play, yet we saw with our own eyes last year Peters as a liability...all you do is make excuses for him..."he was out of shape"..."sacks allowed souldnt be counted as stat"...if it makes you feel better and warm inside that your stance against the FO is right on this issue than make as many excuses as you want. Bottom line is with the FACTS given and what everyone saw out of that piece of crap last year justifies getting rid of him versus paying him some ungodly amount of money for underachieving, youre not going to win this arguement until proven otherwise. That "otherwise" cant be shown until the season.

[OpIv37]

I don't see why the huge NT's would make any difference with the tackles. And maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe Peters was out for the last game against NE last year...unless they were lacking their "huge NT" in that game.

Oh gee, Hangartner's NEVER BEEN NAMED A STARTER. OH MY GOSH, WHAT WILL WE DO?????? Come on, that's an absolutely lousy explanation. At the least tell me he's not a good player. But he's never been named a starter? Gee, I guess those times when he actually WAS a starter have to be completely ignored. Because a player obviously is SO much better when he becomes a starter due to injury instead of being NAMED the starter.

You act like moving to a new OL position is a huge deal. Maybe if the rookies were doing it in the middle of the game when they've never played it before, sure. But they drafted these guys (who are known for their intelligence, btw) to specifically be guards. If they drafted a defensive tackle and a rushing linebacker to be offensive guards, then yes I would be worried. But changing positions on the OL is not that huge of a deal. Butler's been here for several years, I'm sure that he has a vague idea of how to play the right tackle spot.

When a player is NAMED a starter, it means they BEAT OUT ANOTHER PLAYER FOR THE POSITION. Hangartner never did that. It's really not that complicated of a concept.

As far as the NT's- true, the tackles don't go up against the NT's, but they do have to adjust to the pressure and blitz packages that come out of the 3-4. No, Peters didn't play in the final game against NE. Who won that game, by the way?

Moving an OL to a new position IS a big deal, particularly when moving an interior OL to the outside (like Butler). The techniques are different and the blocking assignments change. Granted, Butler played T in college, but that was several years ago and UVA isn't exactly the NFL.

Again, last year the argument was supposed to be that cohesion would make the OL better. This year, the line has 3 new players and EVERY player out of position, and now no one is worried about the lack of cohesion (to say nothing of the two players out of position or the two rookies or the C who's never beaten out another player for the starting job)? The argument is never based in reality- it's about whatever makes the Bills look better for the upcoming season to avoid facing reality.

[FlyingDutchman]

and OP...all you did predraft was ***** ***** ***** about the Oline...they made it a top priority and what happens....***** ***** *****....do you ever get tired?

[OpIv37]

you know OP, you make the arguement that the Oline is going to stink without Peters a lot without even seeing them play, yet we saw with our own eyes last year Peters as a liability...all you do is make excuses for him..."he was out of shape"..."sacks allowed souldnt be counted as stat"...if it makes you feel better and warm inside that your stance against the FO is right on this issue than make as many excuses as you want. Bottom line is with the FACTS given and what everyone saw out of that piece of crap last year justifies getting rid of him versus paying him some ungodly amount of money for underachieving, youre not going to win this arguement until proven otherwise. That "otherwise" cant be shown until the season.

lmao.... here we go again... exaggerating how poorly Peters played, dismissing his skill, attacking me and assuming that two rookies are going to instantly make an impact rather than facing the reality that this OL is in trouble.

Rest assured, I will be winning this argument once the season starts. I won't feel good about it, because it'll mean the Bills are still losing, but at least I'm willing to deal with that reality now rather than cling to a desperate thread of hope until reality finally cuts it.

[OpIv37]

and OP...all you did predraft was ***** ***** ***** about the Oline...they made it a top priority and what happens....***** ***** *****....do you ever get tired?

wait, letting a pro bowl left tackle walk to start two rookies and bringing in a backup to start is making the OL a priority? Wow.

I *****ed about the OL pre draft because I don't think TWO rookies can come in and both be quality starters. And I still don't think two rookies can come in and be quality starters, so I'm still *****ing.

[FlyingDutchman]

lmao.... here we go again... exaggerating how poorly Peters played, dismissing his skill, attacking me and assuming that two rookies are going to instantly make an impact rather than facing the reality that this OL is in trouble.

Rest assured, I will be winning this argument once the season starts. I won't feel good about it, because it'll mean the Bills are still losing, but at least I'm willing to deal with that reality now rather than cling to a desperate thread of hope until reality finally cuts it.


exaggerating? do you even watch the games? if you say he was not a liability at times you obviously didnt watch closely. where did i assume anything about rookies?...random...rest assured blah blah...youre wrong now thats what matters. youre trying to make an i told you so arguement in the future...

[FlyingDutchman]

wait, letting a pro bowl left tackle walk to start two rookies and bringing in a backup to start is making the OL a priority? Wow.

I *****ed about the OL pre draft because I don't think TWO rookies can come in and both be quality starters. And I still don't think two rookies can come in and be quality starters, so I'm still *****ing.

2 picks in the first 2 rounds on the oline isnt a priority...LMAO...ok buddy...

[OpIv37]

exaggerating? do you even watch the games? if you say he was not a liability at times you obviously didnt watch closely. where did i assume anything about rookies?...random...rest assured blah blah...youre wrong now thats what matters. youre trying to make an i told you so arguement in the future...

AT TIMES. Yes, at times he was a liability and I addressed the reasons for that. We still don't have anyone as good or better than him. We still had to reshuffle our entire line and start from scratch. But it's OK because Peters was a ***** and made a handful of bad plays. :rolleyes:

Dumping Peters was a bad move and one we'll regret for a long ass time.

[FlyingDutchman]

wait, letting a pro bowl left tackle walk to start two rookies and bringing in a backup to start is making the OL a priority? Wow.

I *****ed about the OL pre draft because I don't think TWO rookies can come in and both be quality starters. And I still don't think two rookies can come in and be quality starters, so I'm still *****ing.

letting him "walk"...no no Op...they got value for a guy who did not want to be here and was going to leave either now or in two years....might as well get value now and not have to deal with his bull crap all the way up to opening day this year. Stop acting like hes some victim.

[OpIv37]

2 picks in the first 2 rounds on the oline isnt a priority...LMAO...ok buddy...

yeah, that's good, for next year if we're lucky- more likely the year after. Does very little for us now. Draft picks do not make instant starters.

[psubills62]

When a player is NAMED a starter, it means they BEAT OUT ANOTHER PLAYER FOR THE POSITION. Hangartner never did that. It's really not that complicated of a concept.

As far as the NT's- true, the tackles don't go up against the NT's, but they do have to adjust to the pressure and blitz packages that come out of the 3-4. No, Peters didn't play in the final game against NE. Who won that game, by the way?

Moving an OL to a new position IS a big deal, particularly when moving an interior OL to the outside (like Butler). The techniques are different and the blocking assignments change. Granted, Butler played T in college, but that was several years ago and UVA isn't exactly the NFL.

Again, last year the argument was supposed to be that cohesion would make the OL better. This year, the line has 3 new players and EVERY player out of position, and now no one is worried about the lack of cohesion (to say nothing of the two players out of position or the two rookies or the C who's never beaten out another player for the starting job)? The argument is never based in reality- it's about whatever makes the Bills look better for the upcoming season to avoid facing reality.

Well gee. I guess I'll assume Hangartner is terrible based on the fact that he wasn't named a starter on the most dominating run-blocking OL this past season. The same one he contributed to throughout the season. I'm sorry, but I'll take the word of people who watched Hangartner play and said he was a good player over the "he wasn't named a starter" argument.

Haha, of course NE won the game. But guess what...there's 20-30 other players who see the field besides the starting OL. Didn't you just make that argument in the Maybin thread? Mahdi argued that PSU's run defense was dominant and you said "there's 10 other players on the field." So I guess now if we win or lose, it's all on the OL. Completely ignore the fact that Fred Jackson, an unheralded backup, ran for 136 yards against the "huge NT," and they only gave up 2 sacks.

Moving to a new position on the OL is not a big deal, especially for Butler. He's played next to Walker for two years, you think Butler isn't aware of what Walker needs to do? Like you said - Butler has played OT before and knows what the techniques, reads, etc. are, and he has a whole offseason to re-learn them.

Will cohesion be an issue? It certainly could be. But the Bills finally appear to be building an offensive line that could actually match their game-plan, which is to be a running team. Will they succeed? Who knows. I'd like to hope they will, and I'm going to wait to find out. But while there are a few reasons to be concerned, I'm not going to be concerned until they disappoint my expectations on the field.

[OpIv37]

letting him "walk"...no no Op...they got value for a guy who did not want to be here and was going to leave either now or in two years....might as well get value now and not have to deal with his bull crap all the way up to opening day this year. Stop acting like hes some victim.

I don't care about him- I care about this team. Trading Pro Bowl players for draft picks is something that a rebuilding franchise does, and that's where we're at. Stocking up on young guys, few if any vets, starting a bunch of rookies and 2nd or 3rd year players.... Once again, this team is building for the future that never arrives, because 2 or 3 years from now we'll be doing this drill all over again.

[FlyingDutchman]

AT TIMES. Yes, at times he was a liability and I addressed the reasons for that. We still don't have anyone as good or better than him. We still had to reshuffle our entire line and start from scratch. But it's OK because Peters was a ***** and made a handful of bad plays. :rolleyes:

Dumping Peters was a bad move and one we'll regret for a long ass time.

um he basically is the reason we lost the jets game, and if hardy didnt make that catch against the jags, that game would have been a loss and you could have chalked it up to him...there was NUMEROUS other times he was smoked, but those are actual GAMES or FACTS that he single handedly blew for us. We should definately be paying him the highest contract in football just because hes the best player on our Oline right...PLEEEEASE. So glad you dont run this team...

[FlyingDutchman]

I don't care about him- I care about this team. Trading Pro Bowl players for draft picks is something that a rebuilding franchise does, and that's where we're at. Stocking up on young guys, few if any vets, starting a bunch of rookies and 2nd or 3rd year players.... Once again, this team is building for the future that never arrives, because 2 or 3 years from now we'll be doing this drill all over again.

call it how you want...and if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy about your arguement that this team is rebuilding and we're an inept team always doing this than go nuts. It was a crappy situation, the Bills did what they had to do. period.

[OpIv37]

um he basically is the reason we lost the jets game, and if hardy didnt make that catch against the jags, that game would have been a loss and you could have chalked it up to him...there was NUMEROUS other times he was smoked, but those are actual GAMES or FACTS that he single handedly blew for us. We should definately be paying him the highest contract in football just because hes the best player on our Oline right...PLEEEEASE. So glad you dont run this team...


yeah, clearly the people who do run it are doing such a SPECTACULAR job.....

[OpIv37]

call it how you want...and if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy about your arguement that this team is rebuilding and we're an inept team always doing this than go nuts. It was a crappy situation, the Bills did what they had to do. period.

I disagree that it's what they had to do... but that's irrelevant because it's what they did do. And as usual, it will lead to more losing.

[Lexwhat]

P.S. out of curiosity, can anyone show me a source that said Walker played LT in Oakland? Because this site:


This article says he played RT in 2006:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/raiders/detail?blogid=11&entry_id=14018

That "sfgate" article clearly says he played Left Tackle...


But Walker never found his footing moving around the Raiders' offensive line over the years (he played at LT and LG in addition to RT) and was pushed around a lot for a guy who checks in at 6-feet-8 and 350 pounds.

[FlyingDutchman]

yeah, clearly the people who do run it are doing such a SPECTACULAR job.....

no, youre obviously right, and you just missed your calling in life

[FlyingDutchman]

we should also have paid Clements the highest contract in football bc he was our best corner also right....how did that work out for the 49ers...

[OpIv37]

no, youre obviously right, and you just missed your calling in life

Well it can't be hard to run a franchise better than this FO does. Roughly 27 or 28 of the other 31 teams in the league do it as a matter of routine.

[FlyingDutchman]

http://a.espncdn.com/i/headshots/nfl/players/65/2569.jpg <!-- begin playerStatCont -->Nate Clements #22 CB
<!-- comp -->» Add Widget (http://widgetcenter.espn.go.com/widgets/tags/NFL/Player/San%20Francisco%2049ers#2569)


<TABLE class="tablehead statCont" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2><TBODY><TR class=gamehead><TD colSpan=4>2008 STATS</TD></TR><TR class="colhead playerStatSub"><TD>TACK</TD><TD>FF</TD><TD>INT</TD></TR><TR class="oddrow playerStats"><TD>63</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>2
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- end playerStatCont -->
<!-- begin o --><TABLE class=metaData cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top><!-- begin n --><TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD vAlign=top></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD vAlign=top></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD vAlign=top></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top></TD><TD vAlign=top></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- end n --></TD><TD vAlign=top><!-- begin n --><!-- end n --></TD><TD vAlign=top><!-- begin n --><TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY></TBODY></TABLE><!-- end n --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>The Bills are so stupid, I cant believe they were so cheap and didnt want to pay for this production<!-- end o -->
<!-- end player --><!-- begin buttons -->

[OpIv37]

we should also have paid Clements the highest contract in football bc he was our best corner also right....how did that work out for the 49ers...

What does Clements have to do with Peters? Different players, different positions, different situations for the team at the time they occurred. There is absolutely NO logical reason to assume not paying Peters is the correct decision just because not paying Clements was the correct decision.

[OpIv37]

Why bring up Clements and not Pat Williams or London Fletcher? Not only is your logic specious, it's selective.

[FlyingDutchman]

Well it can't be hard to run a franchise better than this FO does. Roughly 27 or 28 of the other 31 teams in the league do it as a matter of routine.

obviouusly it cant be hard, i mean hell, you obviously know what youre talking about. did you ever think about applying?

[FlyingDutchman]

Why bring up Clements and not Pat Williams or London Fletcher? Not only is your logic specious, it's selective.

bc youre talking about paying a player the highest amount at that position IN FOOTBALL simply bc they were the best on our team at that position, it doesnt mean you grab your ankles and pay whatever amount

[FlyingDutchman]

You would be the biggest push over/agents ***** to ever run a front office it seems

[billsfanone]

All of this sounds good on paper, but when you think about it, all they did was rearrange the deck chairs a little. Still a lot of inexperience on the OL.

[HHURRICANE]

What does Clements have to do with Peters? Different players, different positions, different situations for the team at the time they occurred. There is absolutely NO logical reason to assume not paying Peters is the correct decision just because not paying Clements was the correct decision.

You ever notice that Dutchman can't debate points? He has to to be abusive and condescending.

He brings up Clements even though the situation is completely different. Nobody on this board wanted or expected to keep Clements in his last year. We also knew that because of the cap changes he was going to get a stupid contract. The Bills of course blew this one as well because they agreed to not franchise him costing us draft picks via a trade.

Nobody in the media has said that the contract peters signed in Philly was stupid. Nobody. The only criticism I've heard is that the Bills let a top player walk when LTs don't grow on trees.

[mayotm]

You ever notice that Dutchman can't debate points? He has to to be abusive and condescending.

He brings up Clements even though the situation is completely different. Nobody on this board wanted or expected to keep Clements in his last year. We also knew that because of the cap changes he was going to get a stupid contract. The Bills of course blew this one as well because they agreed to not franchise him costing us draft picks via a trade.

Nobody in the media has said that the contract peters signed in Philly was stupid. Nobody. The only criticism I've heard is that the Bills let a top player walk when LTs don't grow on trees.I noticed that Dutchman doesn't throw temper tantrums and stop being a fan when the team does something that he doesn't agree with.

[MountainMan]

arrgh, we've been over this.
For you Peters doubters, wait and see. Keep an eye on Peters in Philly and keep an eye on our OL. You'll come around.

While I don't doubt in any way that Peter's physical gifts will play out to the Eagles satisfaction for many years to come, there is a whole 'nother way to look at the move.

The evidence points to an ever increasing reliance on our part to 3 step throws. The reason you don't see front offices committed to the West Coast O out paying money for the top LTs is that the offense just doesn't call for a great one-on-one guy who is among the best paid at his position there- in the WC you save money on the left edge and even to a large degree along the rest of your OLine in favor of other positions on both sides of your line. Committing the big $ to Peters to hang on could be looked at as neglecting other areas in favor of an area of less need based upon our O scheme.

Whether it all plays out this way is another story, but it sure looks as if we've built a pretty solid wall for a drop and toss O with the talent we have. I might not even be surprised to see LWalker sitting in favor of a more suitable and faster footed blocker on that side if he plays as slow as he has for the past 4 years or so. The OLine looks like the part of the 2009 Bill's team they want to make quick off the snap and with great cohesion in run blocking; a common trait of the WC O's from SanFran's Super Bowl teams and the more recent aberration of the offense in our own division. It's possible we are deep enough with our acquisitions right now to field a competent WC Oline with Mr. Walker on the bench.

Under all circumstances, paying for one of the great one on one LTs is something that is only wisely done by a team that intends to make deep passes a feature of its offense, not a result of their offense as it can become in a well run West Coast O.

For the first time in a long time I'll be putting as much energy into keying on our Oline play as of that along our defensive front 4 when the whistles start blowing this year. And that alone is a change I'd like to believe will work out on the better side of the quality of team we field in 2009.

[OpIv37]

While I don't doubt in any way that Peter's physical gifts will play out to the Eagles satisfaction for many years to come, there is a whole 'nother way to look at the move.

The evidence points to an ever increasing reliance on 3 step throws. The reason you don't see front offices committed to the West Coast O out paying money for the top LTs is that the offense just doesn't call for a great one on one guy who is among the best paid at his position there- in the WC you save money on the left edge and even to a large degree along your OLine in favor of other positions on both sides of your line. Committing the bid $ to Peters to hang on could be looked at as neglecting other areas in favor of an area of less need based upon our O scheme.

Whether it all plays out this way is another story, but it sure looks as if they've built a pretty solid wall for a drop and toss O with the talent we have. I might not even be surprised to see LWalker sitting in favor of a more suitable and faster footed blocker on that side if he plays as slow as he has for the past 4 years or so. The OLine looks like the part of the 2009 Bill's team they want to make quick off the snap and with great cohesion in run blocking; a common trait of the WC O's from SanFran's Super Bowl teams and the more recent aberration of the offense in our own division. It's possible we are deep enough with our acquisitions right now to field a competent WC Oline with Mr. Walker on the bench.

Under all circumstances, paying for one of the great one on one LTs is something that is only wisely done by a team that intends to make deep passes a feature of its offense, not a result of their offense as it can become in a well run West Coast O.

For the first time in a long time I'll be putting as much energy into keying on our Oline play as of that along our defensive front 4 when the whistles start blowing this year. And that alone is a change I'd like to believe will work out on the better side of the quality of team we field in 2009.

A West Coast offense and a Cover 2 defense? If this were 1999 and we had an indoor stadium, we'd probably win the Super Bowl.

But it's not 1999. Teams know how to answer the Cover 2 D. The WC offense is pass-happy and not well suited to cold, windy places like Buffalo, especially late in the season when it matters most. Regardless of the general offensive philosophy, there are still situations where long passes are needed. There are short yardage situations where we'll need to control the LOS. And not having a LT SUCKS in those situations.

On top of that, this team ALWAYS uses the system excuse. "We don't need top-shelf CB's- we'll just run a cover 2." "London Fletcher doesn't fit the Cover 2 D." "We don't need big DT's for the Cover 2." Any of this sound familiar? It's just an excuse not to give out big paychecks.

If the Bills took that money that they were going to give Peters and used it to extend somebody or go out and get an FA, then I'd be a little more open to what you are saying. But they didn't- Ralphy just put it in his pocket.

[WeAreArthurMoates]

The WC offense is pass-happy and not well suited to cold, windy places like Buffalo, especially late in the season when it matters most.

Yep, it really hasn't worked out in Philly under Reid at all. Actually as long as you run the ball as well, having the passing scheme of the WCO is actually smart. Jauron will run the ball and the short passes in crappy weather is much more effective than the long ones.

Oh' by the way we did use that money that we were going to pay peters with, his name was Stroud. This guy was much, much, much more valuable to the team than Peters was last year.

[MountainMan]

If the Bills took that money that they were going to give Peters and used it to extend somebody or go out and get an FA, then I'd be a little more open to what you are saying. But they didn't- Ralphy just put it in his pocket.

I'd think that if Ralph were the money-hungry owner he is too often painted as, he'd have taken one of the many opportunities he's had over the years to cash the whole franchise in for a stunningly huge payday, and hardly the chump change that player salaries amount to in the overall NFL money scheme.


A West Coast offense and a Cover 2 defense? If this were 1999 and we had an indoor stadium, we'd probably win the Super Bowl.

But it's not 1999. Teams know how to answer the Cover 2 D. The WC offense is pass-happy and not well suited to cold, windy places like Buffalo, especially late in the season when it matters most. Regardless of the general offensive philosophy, there are still situations where long passes are needed. There are short yardage situations where we'll need to control the LOS. And not having a LT SUCKS in those situations.

On top of that, this team ALWAYS uses the system excuse. "We don't need top-shelf CB's- we'll just run a cover 2." "London Fletcher doesn't fit the Cover 2 D." "We don't need big DT's for the Cover 2." Any of this sound familiar? It's just an excuse not to give out big paychecks.



I think the arguments for trashing the C2 are about as good as those for keeping it these days.

It was designed in part to be able to defend against West Coast passing attacks by getting pressure inside in a hurry, and when it has the personnel up front to do it it is still the best defense against a short drop passing game. And it can be effective against the run if you are getting the gap penetration to get hands on runner’s feet in the backfield with regularity, offsetting the size disadvantage for using faster but smaller interior guys. The whole problem with a cover 2 is getting that superior inside talent- there's normally only one, two or maybe three great gap splitters playing in the league at any one time, and you have to have one of them on your team if you want to excel with the C2. A great gap splitting DT makes the whole system work, and that's both in the passing and the running game. I have to say think we're going about it wrong by not following the hybrid Juaron used in Chicago- a true 0 technique with the excellent 3 technique rusher- instead of two 3 techniques with one playing on the nose and the other over the guard. What we're chasing is more along the Indy line with edge pressure.

Stroud was actually a very good 2 gap DT when he came into the league and before they drafted Henderson, but he's in the twilight and not really fit for that punishment anymore. He'd be a very good answer right now if we had a solid 2 gap Tackle to put on the field with him- but we keep adding 1 gappers and that's been our big problem IMO- not to mention that you need a YOUNG and talented 3 technique guy to excel at the C2.

So back to the idea of following the pack to a 3-4 or staying with the C2, the number of teams fighting over premium NTs and LBs for their 3-4s today is so high and growing that it makes the personnel available for the C2 a better and more available deal every time another team switches out of the C2. The downside of that argument is still that IMO you have got to have a young premier inside gap splitter, and we don’t have that luxury at this time.

[HHURRICANE]

While I don't doubt in any way that Peter's physical gifts will play out to the Eagles satisfaction for many years to come, there is a whole 'nother way to look at the move.

The evidence points to an ever increasing reliance on our part to 3 step throws. The reason you don't see front offices committed to the West Coast O out paying money for the top LTs is that the offense just doesn't call for a great one-on-one guy who is among the best paid at his position there- in the WC you save money on the left edge and even to a large degree along the rest of your OLine in favor of other positions on both sides of your line. Committing the big $ to Peters to hang on could be looked at as neglecting other areas in favor of an area of less need based upon our O scheme.

Whether it all plays out this way is another story, but it sure looks as if we've built a pretty solid wall for a drop and toss O with the talent we have. I might not even be surprised to see LWalker sitting in favor of a more suitable and faster footed blocker on that side if he plays as slow as he has for the past 4 years or so. The OLine looks like the part of the 2009 Bill's team they want to make quick off the snap and with great cohesion in run blocking; a common trait of the WC O's from SanFran's Super Bowl teams and the more recent aberration of the offense in our own division. It's possible we are deep enough with our acquisitions right now to field a competent WC Oline with Mr. Walker on the bench.

Under all circumstances, paying for one of the great one on one LTs is something that is only wisely done by a team that intends to make deep passes a feature of its offense, not a result of their offense as it can become in a well run West Coast O.

For the first time in a long time I'll be putting as much energy into keying on our Oline play as of that along our defensive front 4 when the whistles start blowing this year. And that alone is a change I'd like to believe will work out on the better side of the quality of team we field in 2009.

It's obvious that you are new to the board and I have to say:

Excellent post and nice way to debate the scenarios intelligently.

Really impressed!

[MountainMan]

After too many seasons of watching our Front Office act more like a Fantasy Football team in April, the philosophical shift to improving our lines is promising. It doesn't mean they hit any home runs this year or that we'll even improve our record, but at least there's that promise that goes along with redirecting the strategy away from acting like the Lions to an approach more like most of the successful models in the league who are always protecting their lines with fresh, young talent.

The two areas we weren’t able to address are a quality every down TE and a young premier inside defensive presence to complement the good but limited reps we should be asking of Marcus Stroud.

The drafted TE is being touted as an immediate threat at WR, but when you watch the teams deep in the hunt every year, one common point of personnel is a TE who is better than average in both the running and passing games. Even if our rookie pans out, it’ll be a few years before we should expect to see his blocking skills improve to the level an every down TE has to reach.

On D, McCargo is a lost cause. He plays too high, taking him out of any help in the run game, and he also free-lances way too often. On top of that he does not really appear to have the stomach for the intense and physical inside game that you need to play in the NFL. Kyle Williams is a gutsy kid who would be a great #4 DT in a rotation, but as a 2 he’s way overmatched. Spencer Johnson has good instincts and maybe he becomes a playmaker if Maybin draws more attention, but it’s doubtful we’ll see Spencer playing the same role they envisioned for him- the Justin Tuck- disruptive- move anywhere any down- concept. Tuck’s a special athlete with incredible leverage and a lower center of gravity than Spencer, and so far that has not panned out. Bottom line is that to play our defense we either need Maybin to play the Kearse/Freeney speed freak that can disrupt a backfield so fast that it doesn’t matter whether we’re playing a short drop team, or Maybin has to pull so much attention that the single teams in the middle lead to inside pressure. I’d guess we’re a year away from addressing this too- but there's anot always the kind of help in a draft to give you that interior presence.

On all fronts though, it has been less than inspiring going into the past few seasons where our priorities we so out of touch with the shifting strategies of the best teams- and this year we did at least get the strategy side right. If the personnel also turns out to be solid choices, we might just have reversed our downtrend as an annual below average NFL team and be on our way to improving for an extended period of time.

I look forward to joining the discussion here as the franchise scratches its way back toward regaining its health.

Next time I'm in Atlanta for a game I'll get the wings at that Buckhead Sports Bar- is it "Offsides" or something like that?