Real Question About Peters

[Mike]

I have noticed that many on this board, when talking about Peters, always beg the following argument: 1. Peters was bad last year, 2.Walker can do better this year = we are better off. The logic depends on the assumption that if Walker outperforms Peters last season we will be better off. The fault in the logic is that there is NO value in such a comparison. The Real Question, the valuable question is, will Walker outperform Peters THIS Year. If yes that we are better off [only kind of because we will still miss him at RT] and if not, then we really are not better off [then obviously Peters was the better option]. Using last year as the baseline to determine value for this year is very faulty logic. The best part about all of this is what we Will know by season's end.

[Jan Reimers]

You can't really compare this year, either, since Peters will not be in Buffalo, but in Philadelphia. It's impossible to determine how he would have played in Buffalo, especially without knowing his contract status.

[MikeInRoch]

Ah yes - someone else who wants to base decisions on information that was UNKNOWN at the time of the move. Maybe they should have contacted the Psychic hotline first.

[Jan Reimers]

Peters, playing his first year with a new contract, a completely new coaching staff, and an entirely different roster, might be great in Eagles' green. Judging by his attitude and unhappiness here, he may have played closer to his mediocre 2008 level in Buffalo, particularly if he were still pouting about his contract.

[HHURRICANE]

Here's some logic:

Peters>Walker at LT on any team in the league.

The poster is debating that because Peters didn't play up to his pro-bowl staus that Walker playing well at LT would be an upgrade over last year.

[Turbo.GUN.Hawk!]

I don't care if Peters didn't live up to expectations last season, he was young and clearly the most talented tackle in our o-line.

Maybe the new combo will work though, so we can't argue yet if this was a good move or not.

[MikeInRoch]

Here's some logic:

Peters>Walker at LT on any team in the league.

The poster is debating that because Peters didn't play up to his pro-bowl staus that Walker playing well at LT would be an upgrade over last year.

Peters the way he played 2 years ago > Walker

Peters today? We don't know.

[Jan Reimers]

Peters the way he played 2 years ago > Walker

Peters today? We don't know.
And we never will. The way he plays for the Eagles may not be the same as he would have played for the Bills.

[Goobylal]

Walker merely has to be better this year than Peters was last year and the Bills made-out on the deal. I think Peters is damaged goods, both mentally and physically.

[SquishDaFish]

Peters is gone. End of story. End of the fatass in Buffalo. MOVE ON

[seanbillsfan]

:deadhorse

[don137]

I would not be surprised to see Peters struggle at times this year in Philly. Not because he took plays off but because he didn't remember his assignment for a play. Peters is a great athlete but dumb as a rock. Throw him in a new system and I can see him making mental mistakes as a result. Overall I think he will do better than last year but he will get McNabb killed a few times this year.

[The Juice Is Loose]

I have noticed that many on this board, when talking about Peters, always beg the following argument: 1. Peters was bad last year, 2.Walker can do better this year = we are better off. The logic depends on the assumption that if Walker outperforms Peters last season we will be better off. The fault in the logic is that there is NO value in such a comparison. The Real Question, the valuable question is, will Walker outperform Peters THIS Year. If yes that we are better off [only kind of because we will still miss him at RT] and if not, then we really are not better off [then obviously Peters was the better option]. Using last year as the baseline to determine value for this year is very faulty logic. The best part about all of this is what we Will know by season's end.

The argument is will Walker outperform how Peters would have performed on this team, after skipping every workout and practice?

Now that he's paid, he'll probably show up to practice in Philly, and know the playbook. Both of which he didn't last year for us.

The guy had unreasonable demands, and now that whats done is done the only thing any of us or anybody in this organization can do is find positives and build off them.

Right now we have a highly committed, intellegent LT in Langston Walker, who showed me enough last year to have at least a moderate amount of faith in him.

Should Walker get hurt, then we are totally f'd.

[Goobylal]

The 2nd Jets game was later in the season. If Peters didn't know the play call by then, that's freakin' sad.

[djjimkelly]

Ah yes - someone else who wants to base decisions on information that was UNKNOWN at the time of the move. Maybe they should have contacted the Psychic hotline first.


miss cleo specifically

[PromoTheRobot]

Let's put the Peters stuff to bed until the end of the season. If he's great and TE gets sacked 50 times then it was a mistake. If Peters gets beat like a rug and Walker has a Pro Bowl year, we look smart. Chances are it will be something in between.

PTR

[thenry20]

I have noticed that many on this board, when talking about Peters, always beg the following argument: 1. Peters was bad last year, 2.Walker can do better this year = we are better off. The logic depends on the assumption that if Walker outperforms Peters last season we will be better off. The fault in the logic is that there is NO value in such a comparison. The Real Question, the valuable question is, will Walker outperform Peters THIS Year. If yes that we are better off [only kind of because we will still miss him at RT] and if not, then we really are not better off [then obviously Peters was the better option]. Using last year as the baseline to determine value for this year is very faulty logic. The best part about all of this is what we Will know by season's end.

I wouldn't use that reasoning with regard to this situation. My feeling is that we must draft or acquire a player (hopefully an OL starter) who will match the success Peters has from now on. Otherwise, we should've just paid the man. Time will tell.

[Goobylal]

I wouldn't use that reasoning with regard to this situation. My feeling is that we must draft or acquire a player (hopefully an OL starter) who will match the success Peters has from now on. Otherwise, we should've just paid the man. Time will tell.
Considering the Bills got 2 players in this draft (Wood and Nelson) with picks acquired from trading him, they along with Walker's and Peters' performances going forward determine whether the trade was a good one.