Jason Peters on ESPN Insider

[Zero]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=5037654

I don't know if anyone here expanded on this but it looks like Jason Peters was deemed one of the worst linemen in the NFL in 2009 season by this article on Insider. Any insiders here that have read it?

[Pinkerton Security]

http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showthread.php?t=189874

[TedMock]

No insider, but I found this on Sporting News.



March 31, 2010 - 8:58 a.m.
Eagles LT Jason Peters graded as the worst at his position in 2009, according to Football Outsiders.

[Zero]

Looks like a duplicate thread, my bad...

[FlyingDutchman]

That cant be, hes the next coming of christ, and we should pay him more than any tackle in the game. HH told me this

[The Spaz]

Glad to see him earning his paycheck.

[Jaybird]

he' still better then any LT on our roster

[Yasgur's Farm]

Some un-named pro Peters poster >>> :opiv: >>> :couch:

[Don't Panic]

he' still better then any LT on our roster

But is he more worth having than Wood, who we got in return? I don't think so...

[Bill Cody]

Hangartner is listed as the worst center

[OpIv37]

But is he more worth having than Wood, who we got in return? I don't think so...

Is having a pro bowl LT worth more than having an injured sophomore G?

Stop and think about that one for a second.

[Goobylal]

he' still better then any LT on our roster
That's not saying much. And it would have been dumb to pay him $10M/year to be "better than any LT on [the Bills'] roster."

[Goobylal]

Hangartner is listed as the worst center
Yeah, but they at least qualified that by saying he was playing in-between 2 rookies and backups players. Peters had no excuses.

[Goobylal]

Is having a pro bowl LT worth more than having an injured sophomore G?

Stop and think about that one for a second.
He made the Pro Bowl based on his 2007 rep, just like he did in 2008.

[Don't Panic]

Is having a pro bowl LT worth more than having an injured sophomore G?

Stop and think about that one for a second.

Done. A Pro Bowl LT who statistically had the worst season of any LT in football? Vs. a LG who has a 10 year career ahead of him? Yeah, I'll take it.

[Bill Cody]

Is having a pro bowl LT worth more than having an injured sophomore G?

Stop and think about that one for a second.

Talk about a false comparison. Did Peters make the Pro Bowl last year? No? But he is named by ESPN Insider as the worst LT in the league for 2009, are we supposed to ignore that and focus on 2008? And he does make 10m a year. Yeah, Wood is hurt. But last I checked we ain't playing this Sunday. And how much is having a guy on your team that doesn't want to be here worth? Or should we just pretend that Peters bargained in good faith with us? God am I SICK of hearing about Jason ****ing Peters.

[BuffaloBlitz83]

Look who we started at LT. Every single one of those scrubs were worse than Peters. So he'd still be an upgrade in buffalo

[SquishDaFish]

Is having a pro bowl LT worth more than having an injured sophomore G?

Stop and think about that one for a second.

Wow the Pro Bowl I mean Popularity contest. Yippeee!! That doesnt mean **** IMO

[Buffalogic]

Yay pro bowl yay I'm David Garrard and Vince Young weeeee! Everyone knows we're a couple of the two best qb's in the league!!! It's not a total sham or anything!

[OpIv37]

Done. A Pro Bowl LT who statistically had the worst season of any LT in football? Vs. a LG who has a 10 year career ahead of him? Yeah, I'll take it.

And homerism is alive and well on BZ.

Some website comes up with their own criteria for LT stats, and you guys take it as gospel. The guy who's here is better than the guy that's gone.

It's insane how people in this board underrate Peters, and overrate Wood and Levitre.

[OpIv37]

Talk about a false comparison. Did Peters make the Pro Bowl last year? No? But he is named by ESPN Insider as the worst LT in the league for 2009, are we supposed to ignore that and focus on 2008? And he does make 10m a year. Yeah, Wood is hurt. But last I checked we ain't playing this Sunday. And how much is having a guy on your team that doesn't want to be here worth? Or should we just pretend that Peters bargained in good faith with us? God am I SICK of hearing about Jason ****ing Peters.

Well get used to it, because dumping guys like Peters is one of the reasons why this organization is in a world of hurt. WAAAAHH he wants $10 million! Guess what? That's what franchise LT's cost.

Some website slammed him? So what? He's not here anymore so people on this board like to rub it in every time he gets criticized, but the guy IS a franchise LT and is largely recognized as such around the league.

And this "he doesn't want to be here" crap is such a cop out. It's the front office's job to create a place where players want to play, and they consistently fail to do so.

We have Demetrius Bell and some Raiders reject playing T right now, yet, people slam Jason Peters. Unreal.

[OpIv37]

Wow the Pro Bowl I mean Popularity contest. Yippeee!! That doesnt mean **** IMO

and some obscure website's opinion on Peters doesn't mean **** IMO.

[OpIv37]

and btw, while I agree that the pro bowl is generally a popularity contest, Jason Peters was an undrafted TE converted to RT and eventually LT in Buffalo, during a string of losing seasons. How exactly does a player like that become popular enough to win a popularity contest? It's illogical.

[Buffalogic]

and btw, while I agree that the pro bowl is generally a popularity contest, Jason Peters was an undrafted TE converted to RT and eventually LT in Buffalo, during a string of losing seasons. How exactly does a player like that become popular enough to win a popularity contest? It's illogical.Umm just like how Fred Jackson is popular and so is Michael Oher. When people know of a players long and adverse road to be where they are at they gain immesnse popularity. People like Peters' success story.

[OpIv37]

Umm just like how Fred Jackson is popular and so is Michael Oher. When people know of a players long and adverse road to be where they are at they gain immesnse popularity. People like Peters' success story.

and how many people outside of Buffalo actually heard it?

[TacklingDummy]

Is having a pro bowl LT worth more than having an injured sophomore G?


Pro-Bowl means nothing.

[Buffalogic]

and how many people outside of Buffalo actually heard it?Anyone who watches football has had the name Jason Peter's crammed in their heads for years. From his probowl in Buff from an undrafted TE, his holdout and his eventual trade to a major tv market in Philly, people know Jason Peter's and his story.

[TacklingDummy]

and some obscure website's opinion on Peters doesn't mean **** IMO.
Does my opinion mean anything?

Peters is injury prone, not worth the money, and Im glad he is gone.

[feldspar]

Yay pro bowl yay I'm David Garrard and Vince Young weeeee! Everyone knows we're a couple of the two best qb's in the league!!! It's not a total sham or anything!

David Garrard and Vince Young played in the Pro Bowl...that's because Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Philip Rivers couldn't make it. Manning because of the Super Bowl coming up - Brady and Rivers because of injury.

17 players didn't play in the Pro Bowl because of injury...including our very own Jairus Byrd.

14 players didn't play in the Pro Bowl because it was played before the Super Bowl, and these 14 players were to play in the big one.

Bryant McKinnie didn't play in the Pro Bowl because of unexcused abscences from practice.

So you have 32 guys not playing in the Pro Bowl for the reasons I just said. 87 guys DID play, many of whom only made it because of the guys that deserved to make it more couldn't make it.

Almost 37% of the guys that get to be called "Pro Bowlers" are shams this year.

http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=...s&confirm=true

Then you get guys that get voted in because of name recognition, when other unheralded players outperformed them....Jason Peters, two years running now.

[madness]

And homerism is alive and well on BZ.

Some website comes up with their own criteria for LT stats, and you guys take it as gospel. The guy who's here is better than the guy that's gone.

It's insane how people in this board underrate Peters, and overrate Wood and Levitre.
So leading the team in penalties, sacks given up and hurries is a good thing? How about a former OL trashing him?


I was listening to Sirius Radio coming in to work today and they were talking about the Donovan McNabb trade situation. Randy Cross ( former NFL O-Lineman) and Carl Banks ( Former Giants LB) were saying that McNabb's O-Line last year couldn't play dead at times.

Then Cross made a point to say that if you had to rely on Jason Peters to keep you off the ground, you might want to go ahead and lay down before the snap, because he was awfull. Carl Banks laughed and agreed.

[TacklingDummy]

Every Bill player and former Bill players have Pro-Bowl potential. Coaching has screwed everything up. It's not the players fault.

[OpIv37]

Anyone who watches football has had the name Jason Peter's crammed in their heads for years. From his probowl in Buff from an undrafted TE, his holdout and his eventual trade to a major tv market in Philly, people know Jason Peter's and his story.

Except that the Pro Bowl was well BEFORE his holdout or his trade to Philly. As someone who lives outside of Buffalo, I can tell you first hand that the Bills get ZERO attention outside of Buffalo, and a lot fewer people know the story than you realize.

[OpIv37]

So leading the team in penalties, sacks given up and hurries is a good thing? How about a former OL trashing him?

Penalties is an objective stat, so I'll give you that one.

Sacks given up and hurries are subjective and make assumptions about the blocking scheme that the person making the assessment can't possibly know.

[Buffalogic]

Except that the Pro Bowl was well BEFORE his holdout or his trade to Philly. As someone who lives outside of Buffalo, I can tell you first hand that the Bills get ZERO attention outside of Buffalo, and a lot fewer people know the story than you realize.Yeah I said his probowl in buff and then his holdout and eventual trade. That's in the correct order.

And dude I like in Phoenix. It's pretty far from Buffalo. People here know who Jason Peters is.

[TacklingDummy]

and a lot fewer people know the story than you realize.
The people doing the voting...A) Vote name, B) Know the story, C) don't know what they are doing.

[feldspar]

Well get used to it, because dumping guys like Peters is one of the reasons why this organization is in a world of hurt. WAAAAHH he wants $10 million! Guess what? That's what franchise LT's cost.

According to Russ Brandon, we offered him something around that neighborhood, and he showed no response, let alone interest. We offered him the richest contract in Bills history, from what I understand. He's not getting that much more in Philly, if any.

Of course he's a lot better than what we have, but that should change this year.

[Goobylal]

And homerism is alive and well on BZ.

Some website comes up with their own criteria for LT stats, and you guys take it as gospel. The guy who's here is better than the guy that's gone.

It's insane how people in this board underrate Peters, and overrate Wood and Levitre.
He was also ripped by Ross Tucker, Randy Cross, and Carl Banks for his play in BOTH 2008 and 2009. Are they homers?

[HHURRICANE]

Most Philly fans aren't *****ing about Peters,

[Goobylal]

Most Philly fans aren't *****ing about Peters,
:lmao:

[OpIv37]

He was also ripped by Ross Tucker, Randy Cross, and Carl Banks for his play in BOTH 2008 and 2009. Are they homers?

I have no friggin idea. I don't read/watch/listen to any of those guys.

[Goobylal]

I have no friggin idea. I don't read/watch/listen to any of those guys.
The answer is: they're not. They're former NFL players, only one of whom played for the Bills, and who was cut, so he'd have no reason to be a homer. They saw Peters act/play and didn't like what they saw. Other websites have said he was pretty poor, even moreso given his salary. I have yet to see anyone say he had a good season, outside of people pointing to the Pro Bowl, which is a mostly popularity contest after you've been voted-in the first time.

[madness]

Jason Peters Trade Looks Better and Better For The Buffalo Bills

Philadelphia Eagles head coach Andy Reid exclaimed, "Jason Peters is the best left tackle in football. He is a powerful and athletic tackle and I have admired his play over the last few years on film. I have always believed that success in the NFL (http://bleacherreport.com/nfl) is derived from the strong play of the offensive and defensive lines."


He then proceeded to miss large parts of training camp with injuries. Then he was hurt in a preseason game and did not even travel with the team for a game. The regular season came and Peters spent almost the entire season on the injury report and missed all or part of several games, yet he still made the Pro Bowl (that is another story altogether).


The games that he did play in told the real tale. He never looked at home at left tackle in Philly. Sure he had a couple good games but when it came to stopping a quick pass rush from multiple spots he struggled greatly as was seen throughout the season and especially on Saturday night against Dallas (http://bleacherreport.com/dallas-cowboys).


Sure you could say that he couldn't block everyone on Dallas but the left side of the line was over matched every other play. Shouldn't a tackle that is "the best tackle in football" be able to make the players around him better? Shouldn't he make an average left guard into a stud brick wall? This is clearly not the case.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/323415-jason-peters-trade-looks-better-and-better-for-the-buffalo-bills

[Zero]

Jason Peters Trade Looks Better and Better For The Buffalo Bills

Philadelphia Eagles head coach Andy Reid exclaimed, "Jason Peters is the best left tackle in football. He is a powerful and athletic tackle and I have admired his play over the last few years on film. I have always believed that success in the NFL (http://bleacherreport.com/nfl) is derived from the strong play of the offensive and defensive lines."


He then proceeded to miss large parts of training camp with injuries. Then he was hurt in a preseason game and did not even travel with the team for a game. The regular season came and Peters spent almost the entire season on the injury report and missed all or part of several games, yet he still made the Pro Bowl (that is another story altogether).


The games that he did play in told the real tale. He never looked at home at left tackle in Philly. Sure he had a couple good games but when it came to stopping a quick pass rush from multiple spots he struggled greatly as was seen throughout the season and especially on Saturday night against Dallas (http://bleacherreport.com/dallas-cowboys).


Sure you could say that he couldn't block everyone on Dallas but the left side of the line was over matched every other play. Shouldn't a tackle that is "the best tackle in football" be able to make the players around him better? Shouldn't he make an average left guard into a stud brick wall? This is clearly not the case.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/323415-jason-peters-trade-looks-better-and-better-for-the-buffalo-bills



To me, Jason Peters was inconsistent at best. Sure he looked dominant sometimes, but other times he looked down right pitiful. I agree he is better than anything on our roster and definately should have been offered substantially more than he was earning but Philly grossly overpaid for a guy who is injury prone, lacks focus, has a questionable disposition and gives you inconsistent play.

[madness]

Most Philly fans aren't *****ing about Peters,

My first search when I googled Eagles Jason Peters Bust

<table bgcolor="#3a6666" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="756"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#d9d9d9" valign="top" width="525">
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table bgcolor="#3a6666" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="756"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#d9d9d9" valign="top" width="525">NotoriousEAG
Jason Peters = BUST
</td> <td valign="top" width="1"> http://www.700level.com/images/clear.gif
</td> <td onmouseout="style.backgroundColor='#d9d9d9'" onmouseover="style.backgroundColor='#cbcbcb';" style="background-color: rgb(217, 217, 217);" bgcolor="#d9d9d9" valign="top" width="56"> Reply (http://www.700level.com/fansview/createreply.aspx?forum_id=17&topic_id=13153)
</td> <td valign="top" width="1"> http://www.700level.com/images/clear.gif
</td> <td bgcolor="#d9d9d9" valign="top" width="153"> 11/9/2009 1:08 AM
</td> <td valign="top" width="10"> http://www.700level.com/images/clear.gif
</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="9" valign="top" width="756"> http://www.700level.com/images/clear.gif
</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="9" valign="top" width="756"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="756"> <tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="10"> http://www.700level.com/images/clear.gif
</td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top" width="736"> No doubt.

He sucks
</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
Starting to agree with NEAG on this one. I'm really missing Tre out there.

hat's certainly one of the themes Howard Eskin is hammering home today. I happened to catch part of his rant today about how SOFT Peters is and how he's "completely done with McNabb".

Until we see anything that resembles this label as "the best left tackle in the league," the guy will be a major disappointment. Peters has yet to play at a level anywhere near how he's been described.

Now compare to Cool Whip Peters. Here's a guy who held out to get more money, had Reid blow smoke up his rectum by calling him the best, replaced a solid but lovable long-term guy in Thomas, has had some big-time screw-ups (the false start penalties initially, especially on 4th and inches 2 weeks ago), and has had his toughness questioned, especially considering his predecessor and the guy on the other side who couldn't even sit down right. And Peters makes every injury seem like someone's ripped off his leg and is beating him with it.

My question was more of a slight against him - what changed between going up against one of the best rushers in the league after being hurt to last week? He couldn't have gotten taped up again to have another go at it? That's what I think Eskin was referring to.

Looks like everyone's jumping on the 'Jason Peters is a Mary' bandwagon:

One of the most impressive streaks in pro football probably is going to come to an end Sunday. Cornerback Sheldon Brown has played in 133 straight games for the Eagles, which just happens to be every game the team has played since it drafted him out of the University of South Carolina in 2002. But unless he makes a miraculous recovery from what appears be a fairly serious hamstring injury, he’ll be on the sideline this week for the first time in his pro career. The difference between Brown and a paycheck-collector like left tackle Jason Peters, who chose not to play Sunday because his sprained ankle still was sore, was evident in the third quarter when the already injured Brown returned to the game and tried to play. Unfortunately for him, he ended up injuring the hamstring worse.

In fact, maybe that's the problem. These morons actually believed Peters was the "best left tackle in football" and expected to play with a cape out there or somthing. He's a tackle for cripes sake.

And my favorite...



If you do a google image search fro Jason Peters this comes up

http://ry420guy.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/snuggle.jpg

[Goobylal]

The problem with Peters is he has no incentive to get better. He's already making top money and has been voted to the Pro Bowl the past 3 years. Good riddance.

[X-Era]

That cant be, hes the next coming of christ, and we should pay him more than any tackle in the game. HH told me this

I'm glad we saved that money... look at the big name players we have re-invested it in:

1)
2)
3)
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Mike]

What 99.99% of you are forgetting is that Buffalo had Peters under contract for 2 more seasons! So if you are making the argument that he was not worth the money anyway, guess what, the Bills were NOT Obligated to redo his contract.

The Bills held ALL the Cards and flat our made the dumbest decision possible. They could of kept him for 2 seasons at about 4mil per year. That is a steal of a deal for a LT, not to mention a Pro Bowl LT.

Don't forget the Facts. That is why he wanted, desperately a new deal, because he Way Out Performed that contract of $4mil/yr. Only Homer will not see the obviousness of this situation.

Ask any NFL GM who they Prefer, a Pro Bowl LT at 4mil/yr or a rookie G. Only the Bills were capable of making such a poor decision.

[psubills62]

Penalties is an objective stat, so I'll give you that one.

Sacks given up and hurries are subjective and make assumptions about the blocking scheme that the person making the assessment can't possibly know.

To me, this point is much more valid for run-blocking than pass-blocking.

Yes, there are times when a defender comes through and it's questionable who was supposed to block him - maybe it was the OG's fault, maybe the OT's fault.

But the stat that is listed on that webpage is specifically "blown blocks." To me, that says "he tried to make the block and failed." I remember watching a single Eagles game and seeing Peters get beaten two or three times (he was saved on a couple by McNabb getting rid of the ball) cleanly. And it wasn't a matter of questioning the blocking assignments - it was a matter of one guy coming at Peters and beating him.

Like I said, run-blocking is harder to identify assignments than pass-blocking. Most of the time, it's easy to see when a defender beats an OL in pass protection.

Also, the people doing the analysis use the same criteria for every player. So in general, it would tend to even out.

[TedMock]

Most Philly fans aren't *****ing about Peters,

This is not true at all. Two good friends of mine down here and my boss are Philly guys. They constantly call me to their office to ***** about Peters and show me negative Philly postings they read. They still hate Mamula too and rag me about going to high school with him.

Peters was very good for us until 2007. People need to remember how good he was & stop acting like he sucked the entire time. Of course, he was god awful after that and others need to keep that fact in mind too. He was absolutely not a franchise left tackle for his last two seasons and had no business making money like he was.

As for Wood and Levitre - they get a tad overrated by local fans, but they were also very good as rookies. Hangartner & the tackles were all bad. Yes - Hangartner was bad. Sorry. Russ Lande, former NFL scout and current Sporting News contributor, was was not fired, but left the NFL to start his own company, did an unbiased assessment of every team. He gave Wood a B+ and Levitre a B grade. I think those are fair. Somebody mentioned football outsiders as an obscure site earlier. What?! Aaron Schatz is a very well known writer and his site is far from obscure. In fact it has gained a tremendous amount of credibility even in some NFL circles - especially those who initially became enamored with Billy Bean's "moneyball" style and were trying to figure out how a similar thing could be brought to football. Bill Bellicheck has a good friend and employee who essentially does this exact type of work for him. There are more credible sites out there than the major outlets. Schatz, M. Lombardi, Lande, Chavous, etc all have very legit sites that aren't big names, yet all the site founders are. Guys, seriously, on both sides, keep your arguments legitimate and adult like. Lately I've seen "licker," "homer," "hater," etc make their ways back here. Let's pretend we're all over 13 years old and try to come up with more intelligent arguments than name calling and know-it-all sarcasm. It makes you look like a moron.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

we basically traded peters for wood, levitre, and a 6th round pick.... to me it was the best thing the bills have done in the whole decade..

[NOT THE DUDE...]

i wouldnt say hang played bad, he played below average at worst... he was average in my eyes... hell we might draft pouncey in the 2nd or walton in the 3rd.. idk. i know one thing. the oline is going to look way better after draft weekend...

[Don't Panic]

What 99.99% of you are forgetting is that Buffalo had Peters under contract for 2 more seasons! So if you are making the argument that he was not worth the money anyway, guess what, the Bills were NOT Obligated to redo his contract.

The Bills held ALL the Cards and flat our made the dumbest decision possible. They could of kept him for 2 seasons at about 4mil per year. That is a steal of a deal for a LT, not to mention a Pro Bowl LT.

Don't forget the Facts. That is why he wanted, desperately a new deal, because he Way Out Performed that contract of $4mil/yr. Only Homer will not see the obviousness of this situation.

Ask any NFL GM who they Prefer, a Pro Bowl LT at 4mil/yr or a rookie G. Only the Bills were capable of making such a poor decision.

Dumbest decision possible?? The guy was a holdout and a total distraction. We traded him for a 1st rounder... how is that the dumbest decision possible? Had we simply held onto him and basically told him to STFU, do you have any idea what a cancer he'd be by now? I LOVE what we got for him, and have zero regret about letting him go, even if our line did suck royally last year.

[FlyingDutchman]

I'm glad we saved that money... look at the big name players we have re-invested it in:

1)
2)
3)
.
.
.
.
.
.

what big named players have we had TO invest in? You can go back to Pat Williams and Winfield and ill agree, but you have your Nate Clements and Jonas Jennings too...I think this is one of the few moves that have turned out in the Bills favor. Was having Jason Peters for last year and this year until he became a FA really going to turn this team into a serious contender?

[Goobylal]

What 99.99% of you are forgetting is that Buffalo had Peters under contract for 2 more seasons! So if you are making the argument that he was not worth the money anyway, guess what, the Bills were NOT Obligated to redo his contract.

The Bills held ALL the Cards and flat our made the dumbest decision possible. They could of kept him for 2 seasons at about 4mil per year. That is a steal of a deal for a LT, not to mention a Pro Bowl LT.

Don't forget the Facts. That is why he wanted, desperately a new deal, because he Way Out Performed that contract of $4mil/yr. Only Homer will not see the obviousness of this situation.

Ask any NFL GM who they Prefer, a Pro Bowl LT at 4mil/yr or a rookie G. Only the Bills were capable of making such a poor decision.
Peters told the Bills that he would play-out (the last 2 years of) his contract and be gone. And judging by how he played in 2008, they would have gotten 2 more poor seasons out of him. They were actually lucky to get a 1st and 4th in 2009 plus a 6th this year for him.

[X-Era]

what big named players have we had TO invest in? You can go back to Pat Williams and Winfield and ill agree, but you have your Nate Clements and Jonas Jennings too...I think this is one of the few moves that have turned out in the Bills favor. Was having Jason Peters for last year and this year until he became a FA really going to turn this team into a serious contender?

Before his contract dispute almost everyone thought he was one of the best players on our entire team. But, we lose him and started Bell, almost everyone complained about how much worse the line was, but we didn't get worse, in part, because of losing Peters?

And so the only way we should spend big money on a critical position is if we are a serious contender? So, if we arent, we spend no money and expect to get better? Hows that worked so far for us?

The Bills traded him, and did nothing with the money they recouped. That's my point. Not just him, what did they do with the savings from Dockery and Walker? Were we so good before losing him that we could let him go and not replace him with a young up and comer even at another position?

The Bills got worse by the loss, and did nothing to try to get better.

As far as what we could do to make this team significantly better by spending money? McNabb is a good start. No way we arent at least 3 games better just by adding him. Thats a 10 win team, and a legit shot at the playoffs. And the reason we supposedly wont make that move? We wont sign him to a big extension.

[X-Era]

Peters told the Bills that he would play-out (the last 2 years of) his contract and be gone. And judging by how he played in 2008, they would have gotten 2 more poor seasons out of him. They were actually lucky to get a 1st and 4th in 2009 plus a 6th this year for him.

The value we got in the trade, in draft picks, was good. The lack of any re-investment into the team with the money recouped from our massive OL gutting was not.

[Goobylal]

The value we got in the trade, in draft picks, was good. The lack of any re-investment into the team with the money recouped from our massive OL gutting was not.
Where should it have been spent?

[X-Era]

Where should it have been spent?

Upgrading just about any of the following, take your pick:

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/roster.html

[Goobylal]

Upgrading just about any of the following, take your pick:

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/roster.html
Easier said than done.

[X-Era]

Easier said than done.

Especially when you don't really try.

[Goobylal]

Especially when you don't really try.
Take a look at this past off-season. There are a lot of coaches, players, and execs that don't want to go to Buffalo, and little of it has to do with losing, although that doesn't help matters.

[justasportsfan]

Peters wanted out and I don't blame him. What really screwed us up was bringing in Dockery and co who did nothing for us either. That set us back years.

No need to cry over spilled milk. We're moving on with a coach who knows offense.

[Mike]

We got a 1st rounder and a 6th rounder for Peters. To be exact is was a very late 1st, that we used on getting Wood.

I like Wood, and I think he can be a good player. As for the 6th rounder, they generally do not amount to much.

Regardless, we created a Huge Gaping Hole at LT and will have to address the possition in the Draft. In fact, we are looking at drafting an LT this year.

In summery, we traded a ProBowl LT who was making $4mil/yr with 2yrs left on hist contract that stated that "he will play out his contract" for a late 1st, Only to have to spend a Top 10 Pick on a Rookie LT who will make 8mil/yr and is a big Question Mark?

So, if you could go back in time what choice would YOU Make?
Peters @4mil + BPA in this years Draft - Wood (That other player can be Spiller or Dex Bryant, or any other Player who you think is the Best)
or
Wood + LT in this years Draft @8mil (maybe 4th best OT coming out)

Given this choice what would you do? Remember the Choice is yours, would you make the same decision or would you choose differently?

[better days]

Before his contract dispute almost everyone thought he was one of the best players on our entire team. But, we lose him and started Bell, almost everyone complained about how much worse the line was, but we didn't get worse, in part, because of losing Peters?

And so the only way we should spend big money on a critical position is if we are a serious contender? So, if we arent, we spend no money and expect to get better? Hows that worked so far for us?

The Bills traded him, and did nothing with the money they recouped. That's my point. Not just him, what did they do with the savings from Dockery and Walker? Were we so good before losing him that we could let him go and not replace him with a young up and comer even at another position?

The Bills got worse by the loss, and did nothing to try to get better.

As far as what we could do to make this team significantly better by spending money? McNabb is a good start. No way we arent at least 3 games better just by adding him. Thats a 10 win team, and a legit shot at the playoffs. And the reason we supposedly wont make that move? We wont sign him to a big extension.

Even if the Bills kept Peters & the entire O-Line from the year before intact, they would have finished no better than 7-9.............Dick was still HC & Trent was QB.

If getting rid of Peters was a major reason for the O-line falling apart & that was the reason the Bills got worse, then getting rid of Peters is the BEST move this team made in a long time because it led to Dick being fired.

[Mike]

Better Days

If getting rid of your Best Player ends up being good for your team because it leads to the firing of a poor head coach, then this teams is in REAL BIG TROUBLE!


[Ideally, you would keep the good player and get rid of the bad coach instead of doing the other way around...... and then reality hitting you in the face about the coach being bad...]

For you Homers out there, Image how Great Peters could have played if we had good coaching....

[X-Era]

So, my point is this. From the standpoint of the teams performance, we traded one of our best players and did not replace him with equal on the field value. That's worse by deletion.

If Wood turns into what we all think he will, it could end up being equal value or more. But, in this case, even if you feel Woods has an equal ability on the field to Peters, its still a push. We made one hole, to upgrade another. That's not getting better. My concept was, draft Wood, but then take the money you recouped from Peters and reinvest it in a new player.

I'm not complaining about whether we should have kept Peters or not, I'm complaining that we arent actively getting significantly better on the roster. We traded him away, got picks that became players, but pocketed the salary savings. Same with Dockery and Walker. We reduced or total salary, and then we should expect to reduce our overall performance. Thats what happened.

You get what you pay for.

[X-Era]

We got a 1st rounder and a 6th rounder for Peters. To be exact is was a very late 1st, that we used on getting Wood.

I like Wood, and I think he can be a good player. As for the 6th rounder, they generally do not amount to much.

Regardless, we created a Huge Gaping Hole at LT and will have to address the possition in the Draft. In fact, we are looking at drafting an LT this year.

In summery, we traded a ProBowl LT who was making $4mil/yr with 2yrs left on hist contract that stated that "he will play out his contract" for a late 1st, Only to have to spend a Top 10 Pick on a Rookie LT who will make 8mil/yr and is a big Question Mark?

So, if you could go back in time what choice would YOU Make?
Peters @4mil + BPA in this years Draft - Wood (That other player can be Spiller or Dex Bryant, or any other Player who you think is the Best)
or
Wood + LT in this years Draft @8mil (maybe 4th best OT coming out)

Given this choice what would you do? Remember the Choice is yours, would you make the same decision or would you choose differently?
Whether you like Peters or not, or whether this trade for picks was good or not, you lay out a systematic problem with the Bills and the way they think.

There concept is that they can simply start guys on their rookie contracts, UDFA's, or 2nd tier vets and go to the playoffs, or SB.

They think they can some how get to the playoffs on the cheap, with a mediocre QB, mediocre lines, pretty much mediocre everything.

The Peters trade is just another example of sabotaging your own team. Trade Peters? OK. Get draft picks? fine. What did you do with the money savings? Nothing. We sit at something like 40 mill under the assumed cap. Yet we cant pay X proven franchise player 10 mill per? We cant invest in the team that way?

They want to get 10 bucks out of 5 dollar players. Well, you can only coach them so much. At some point you have to realize that your talent on the roster cant take you to where you want to go, and that rookies wont make you significantly better day one. Our o-line is a perfect example of that.

Even if we follow our current method of drafting 2 1st rounders every year the contracts are usually for 5 years.

Year 1) Player A, and Player B
Year 2) Player C and Player D
Year 3) Player E and Player F
Year 4) Player G and Player H

4 years in and we have added 8 supposed studs. The problem is half wont become much of anything, Losman, Mike Williams, John McCargo, Donte Whitner. But the bigger problem is that its now Year 5, and anyone good from Year 1 we wont resign due to salary demands.

So,

Year 5) Lose Player A (Clemens) and/or Player B to another team because we didn't resign them, Draft new Player A's (McKelvin) and/or B's.

And there you have it. We build through draft, don't resign our own, and only hit on half the players. That means we perpetually have 4 good players from the draft at any given time, even with stellar drafting we have only 8.

Yes, I only looked at the 1st round, the success rate is worse in the other rounds. But the point is that we have constant turnover because we don't use our money to keep our own, and use money via FA/trades to significantly improve.

When we get serious in the off-season and make a real push to get better, we will get better on the field. Just my :2cents:

[TedMock]

Whether you like Peters or not, or whether this trade for picks was good or not, you lay out a systematic problem with the Bills and the way they think.

There concept is that they can simply start guys on their rookie contracts, UDFA's, or 2nd tier vets and go to the playoffs, or SB.

They think they can some how get to the playoffs on the cheap, with a mediocre QB, mediocre lines, pretty much mediocre everything.

The Peters trade is just another example of sabotaging your own team. Trade Peters? OK. Get draft picks? fine. What did you do with the money savings? Nothing. We sit at something like 40 mill under the assumed cap. Yet we cant pay X proven franchise player 10 mill per? We cant invest in the team that way?

They want to get 10 bucks out of 5 dollar players. Well, you can only coach them so much. At some point you have to realize that your talent on the roster cant take you to where you want to go, and that rookies wont make you significantly better day one. Our o-line is a perfect example of that.

Even if we follow our current method of drafting 2 1st rounders every year the contracts are usually for 5 years.

Year 1) Player A, and Player B
Year 2) Player C and Player D
Year 3) Player E and Player F
Year 4) Player G and Player H

4 years in and we have added 8 supposed studs. The problem is half wont become much of anything, Losman, Mike Williams, John McCargo, Donte Whitner. But the bigger problem is that its now Year 5, and anyone good from Year 1 we wont resign due to salary demands.

So,

Year 5) Lose Player A (Clemens) and/or Player B to another team because we didn't resign them, Draft new Player A's (McKelvin) and/or B's.

And there you have it. We build through draft, don't resign our own, and only hit on half the players. That means we perpetually have 4 good players from the draft at any given time, even with stellar drafting we have only 8.

Yes, I only looked at the 1st round, the success rate is worse in the other rounds. But the point is that we have constant turnover because we don't use our money to keep our own, and use money via FA/trades to significantly improve.

When we get serious in the off-season and make a real push to get better, we will get better on the field. Just my :2cents:

I agree with the premise here. I have always felt that a huge problem here is that we groom, but don't keep our own. HUGE problem. Winfield, Clements, Williams, etc. I am also of the belief that you should cut dead weight. As good as Peters could be, he was becoming dead weight. We had more years under contract, but realistically that was only going to mean more holdouts and poor play. I just don't think his situation was black-and-white simple like some others were. On the whole, yes, you are absolutely correct in your overall view that we fail to reward our own.

[Goobylal]

We got a 1st rounder and a 6th rounder for Peters. To be exact is was a very late 1st, that we used on getting Wood.

I like Wood, and I think he can be a good player. As for the 6th rounder, they generally do not amount to much.

Regardless, we created a Huge Gaping Hole at LT and will have to address the possition in the Draft. In fact, we are looking at drafting an LT this year.

In summery, we traded a ProBowl LT who was making $4mil/yr with 2yrs left on hist contract that stated that "he will play out his contract" for a late 1st, Only to have to spend a Top 10 Pick on a Rookie LT who will make 8mil/yr and is a big Question Mark?

So, if you could go back in time what choice would YOU Make?
Peters @4mil + BPA in this years Draft - Wood (That other player can be Spiller or Dex Bryant, or any other Player who you think is the Best)
or
Wood + LT in this years Draft @8mil (maybe 4th best OT coming out)

Given this choice what would you do? Remember the Choice is yours, would you make the same decision or would you choose differently?
The Bills also got a 4th rounder, which turned into Shawn Nelson. And as for keeping Peters for those 2 years, we all saw the (lack of) effort he put into the 2008 season. That's what would have happened the last 2 years of his contract, and the Bills wouldn't have even been able to get a 1st rounder for him (if they tried to trade him after last season). They handled a bad situation perfectly WRT getting rid of him, but they failed WRT replacing him.

And the 9th overall pick will make about $4.6M/year. That's what the 8th overall pick (Derrick Harvey) in 2009 made.

[Dying_-2-_Live]

But but but... Isn't he the best LT in the game?

Glad we robbed the Eagles

[Bill Cody]

Penalties is an objective stat, so I'll give you that one.

Sacks given up and hurries are subjective and make assumptions about the blocking scheme that the person making the assessment can't possibly know.

LOL. Sacks and hurries are subjective but the Pro Bowl is objective? Give it up. The guy didn't even make the Pro Bowl last year. Why? Because he had a bad year. He's wildly inconsistent. He's an all star from the neck down. We got good value for him and we will replace him in this draft. I'm glad he's gone. He's a greedy, soft, chimp for brains BUM.

[Goobylal]

LOL. Sacks and hurries are subjective but the Pro Bowl is objective? Give it up. The guy didn't even make the Pro Bowl last year. Why? Because he had a bad year. He's wildly inconsistent. He's an all star from the neck down. We got good value for him and we will replace him in this draft. I'm glad he's gone. He's a greedy, soft, chimp for brains BUM.
Actually, he did. He's made it the past 3 years. Which tells you what a joke being voted to the Pro Bowl is. He deserved it for 2007, but certainly not 2008 or last year.

[OpIv37]

LOL. Sacks and hurries are subjective but the Pro Bowl is objective? Give it up. The guy didn't even make the Pro Bowl last year. Why? Because he had a bad year. He's wildly inconsistent. He's an all star from the neck down. We got good value for him and we will replace him in this draft. I'm glad he's gone. He's a greedy, soft, chimp for brains BUM.

I never said the Pro Bowl was objective. But there are players who make the Pro Bowl because they deserve it, and in 2007 Peters was one of those.

As far as sacks and hurries given up, those are absolutely subjective. Someone has to make that determination. How does that person know who Peters was supposed to block? What if Peters was supposed to have help and the RB missed the assignment? What if the QB held onto the ball too long?

This is why the NFL doesn't keep objective stats on this, and the only way to get them is to go to websites that compile the stats themselves (and if you notice, each website that does it has their own criteria and comes up with different numbers).

Sorry, but I refuse to believe that Peters is a bad offensive tackle because some website came up with their own criteria and used it to blame him for a bunch of sacks.

[Bill Cody]

Actually, he did. He's made it the past 3 years. Which tells you what a joke being voted to the Pro Bowl is. He deserved it for 2007, but certainly not 2008 or last year.

http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d5d80d60467&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

If he made it it was because of injury. He wasn't named to the original team even as a backup.

[Goobylal]

http://www.nfl.com/probowl/story?id=09000d5d80d60467&template=without-video-with-comments&confirm=true

If he made it it was because of injury. He wasn't named to the original team even as a backup.
Ah, I see the problem. The Pro Bowl is named for the year in which it is played, not the season it follows. Hence the 2009 Pro Bowl (which you linked above) is actually the Pro Bowl following the 2008 season. And if you look under AFC tackles, you'll find his name there.

[Bill Cody]

I never said the Pro Bowl was objective. But there are players who make the Pro Bowl because they deserve it, and in 2007 Peters was one of those.
ok. so what? He was **** for us in 2008 and he was a disapointment in 2009 for the Eagles. Does he get to live on 2007 forever? Just asking.


As far as sacks and hurries given up, those are absolutely subjective. Someone has to make that determination. How does that person know who Peters was supposed to block? What if Peters was supposed to have help and the RB missed the assignment? What if the QB held onto the ball too long?

This is why the NFL doesn't keep objective stats on this, and the only way to get them is to go to websites that compile the stats themselves (and if you notice, each website that does it has their own criteria and comes up with different numbers).

Sorry, but I refuse to believe that Peters is a bad offensive tackle because some website came up with their own criteria and used it to blame him for a bunch of sacks.

If Peters is indeed a "pro bowl LT" as you claim why does he need help? It would not surprise me if he missed assignments at times, Peters is as dumb as a bag full of rocks, you know this. And the truth is these sack stats are usually remarkably conservative, they usually only tag a guy with a sack when it's clear cut his man beat him. Are they gospel? No. Are they more reliable than pretending Peters has been a pro bowl level player the last 2 years? Hell yeah.

[Bill Cody]

Ah, I see the problem. The Pro Bowl is named for the year in which it is played, not the season it follows. Hence the 2009 Pro Bowl (which you linked above) is actually the Pro Bowl following the 2008 season. And if you look under AFC tackles, you'll find his name there.

ok. But if anyone thinks Peters was even average in 2008 for us I beg to differ.

[Goobylal]

I never said the Pro Bowl was objective. But there are players who make the Pro Bowl because they deserve it, and in 2007 Peters was one of those.

As far as sacks and hurries given up, those are absolutely subjective. Someone has to make that determination. How does that person know who Peters was supposed to block? What if Peters was supposed to have help and the RB missed the assignment? What if the QB held onto the ball too long?

This is why the NFL doesn't keep objective stats on this, and the only way to get them is to go to websites that compile the stats themselves (and if you notice, each website that does it has their own criteria and comes up with different numbers).

Sorry, but I refuse to believe that Peters is a bad offensive tackle because some website came up with their own criteria and used it to blame him for a bunch of sacks.
Again, it wasn't just a website (or 3) that said this. Ex-players like Cross, Tucker, and Banks have also said he's been a poor LT the past couple of season. Outside of being named to the Pro Bowl, no one else has called him even one of the better LT's in the NFL, much less one of the best, and haven't, since 2007. Personally I think his injuries, particularly that groin tear at the end of 2007, have robbed him of his freakish athleticism, while his poor attitude just makes things worse.

[Typ0]

I'm sick of hearing about Peters. One thing the guy has going for him is good advice of being smart or both. He made a name for himself making a difficult positional change and being in the right situation at the time but he's not that great really. He wants to play out the rest of his career playing below his contract--who can blame him? I'm glad he won't be doing it here.

[SABURZFAN]

I agree with the premise here. I have always felt that a huge problem here is that we groom, but don't keep our own. HUGE problem. Winfield, Clements, Williams, etc. I am also of the belief that you should cut dead weight. As good as Peters could be, he was becoming dead weight. We had more years under contract, but realistically that was only going to mean more holdouts and poor play. I just don't think his situation was black-and-white simple like some others were. On the whole, yes, you are absolutely correct in your overall view that we fail to reward our own.


that's not true. they have rewarded their own but it just happened to be the wrong players. it seems that after they were rewarded, they became overpriced dead weight.

[better days]

So, my point is this. From the standpoint of the teams performance, we traded one of our best players and did not replace him with equal on the field value. That's worse by deletion.

If Wood turns into what we all think he will, it could end up being equal value or more. But, in this case, even if you feel Woods has an equal ability on the field to Peters, its still a push. We made one hole, to upgrade another. That's not getting better. My concept was, draft Wood, but then take the money you recouped from Peters and reinvest it in a new player.

I'm not complaining about whether we should have kept Peters or not, I'm complaining that we arent actively getting significantly better on the roster. We traded him away, got picks that became players, but pocketed the salary savings. Same with Dockery and Walker. We reduced or total salary, and then we should expect to reduce our overall performance. Thats what happened.

You get what you pay for.

It is not true that you get what you pay for in Football. The Bills did not get much out of Dockery or Walker for the money they paid them both, The 49ers way overpaid for Clements, The Redskins overpay for just about EVERYBODY they sign. I see nothing wrong with pocketing the money they saved on Peters if they had no one else they could or should have spent it on.

[Typ0]

The whole financial management scheme for a GM when looking at signing a player to a big long term deal is that the player will be playing above his contract in the later years. This happens because league salaries continue to rise. So when you get that guy you think he's going to be good for a while. If you just dump him because he doesn't perform you lost all the short term dollars (front end of the contract and signing bonus) you spent on him and it's a loss. Peters never looked like he was going to be that guy and letting him go was the right move.