2 hours ago, TorontoEagle said:

Hundreds and thousands of scouts missed on players like Priest Holmes, your boy James Harrison, Rod Smith, Antonio Gates, Tony Romo, Nigh Train Lane, Kurt Warner, just to name a handful. Those hundreds and thousands get it wrong sometimes. 

Just on the OL: Jason Peters, Larry Little, Joe Jacoby, Nate Newton.

8 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

 

Disagree. Peters was demanding to be the highest paid tackle in the league. If the Bills knew he would turn out to be what he turned out to be, they would have paid his demands. He had entered the league as a TE, converted to RT, and then to LT. He had one great year in 2007, but they weren't ready to commit to making him the highest paid tackle yet. They didn't budge on his demands going into the 2008 season, where he showed up disinterested and allowed the most sacks of any tackle in the league that year.

He again demanded a significant increase in salary, and the Bills decided that even though he was an ascending talent, they didn't want to meet his contract demands and decided to trade him instead. Jauron is lying that the FO had a desire to keep him in Buffalo. They had every opportunity to keep him around, and at the end of the day, actions speak far louder than words, ESPECIALLY coach speak. 

Correct.  They didn't desire to be rid of him, but they couldn't come to terms on a new contract.   So, their desire to not lose him for nothing, they made the trade.  We aren't in disagreement, until you make it so that the trade has to mean that they had no desire to keep him.  That's just not how things work.   You can desire something, and still do the exact opposite due to other factors.    They did have the opportunity to keep him around, but at a certain cost.    I have the desire to go to Italy... but have never gone, because it is cost prohibitive to the other parts of my life, just as they had the desire to keep him, but they deemed it cost prohibitive to do so for it would hurt them in other areas.

But... we shall leave it here.

1 minute ago, justrelax said:

Just on the OL: Jason Peters, Larry Little, Joe Jacoby, Nate Newton.

Sad.  No mention of Honey Buns?  

5 minutes ago, Talonblood said:

I'm looking at this schedule closer, now that the regular season is about to begin. The 1st thing I notice is the Eagles have a HUGE opportunity to get off to a tremendous start this year. Like a 7-2 or better start. My only concern is if they are ready for the start of the season, as far as how they trained. Sure, people stay healthy when they don't do sheeeet, but are they ready for teams that trained hard? This is why I get pissed at SiriSoft™ training camps. They must be ready, because 7-2, 8-1, 9-0 is staring them right in the face. 

Who do you have as the 2 losses.

1 hour ago, TorontoEagle said:

No...you're in the right place...go on....

The Pro Bowl is a complete joke and has been for many, many years. It's hardly a measuring stick of talent. 

OK - but in this case Peters was a top tier LT at the time the Eagles traded for him.  It wasn't a projection and was a steal of a trade.  

8 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

 

Disagree. Peters was demanding to be the highest paid tackle in the league. If the Bills knew he would turn out to be what he turned out to be, they would have paid his demands. He had entered the league as a TE, converted to RT, and then to LT. He had one great year in 2007, but they weren't ready to commit to making him the highest paid tackle yet. They didn't budge on his demands going into the 2008 season, where he showed up disinterested and allowed the most sacks of any tackle in the league that year.

He again demanded a significant increase in salary, and the Bills decided that even though he was an ascending talent, they didn't want to meet his contract demands and decided to trade him instead. Jauron is lying that the FO had a desire to keep him in Buffalo. They had every opportunity to keep him around, and at the end of the day, actions speak far louder than words, ESPECIALLY coach speak. 

 

Ralph Wilson, the owner, was also cash-strapped. That definitely played a part.

1 hour ago, downundermike said:

I have no dog in this fight, not a Penn State fan.  IMO that was not a catch.

Hi read a book on how to watch football more astutely.

10 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

OK - but in this case Peters was a top tier LT at the time the Eagles traded for him.  It wasn't a projection and was a steal of a trade.  

I have always agreed it was a steal of a trade. And he was certainly a top tackle at the time. No argument at all. But his play in 2008 slipped from 2007, and there were questions about him when we made the trade. That's all. And it's supported by him leading the league in sacks allowed. 

6 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Hi read a book on how to watch football more astutely.

I have just watched it several times, as he goes to the ground, he momentarily has the ball in both hands, but his right hand comes off the ball and he pins it between his left hand and the ground, incomplete.

I have blown it up as best I can, right hand is not on the ball, and he is pinning it between the ground and his left hand.

 

3 hours ago, lornemalvo4133 said:

Claimed Sermon so no open spot. But there are PS call ups each week 

The open roster spot will come when/if Dillard is put on Injured Reserve

1 minute ago, TorontoEagle said:

I have always agreed it was a steal of a trade. And he was certainly a top tackle at the time. No argument at all. But his play in 2008 slipped from 2007, and there were questions about him when we made the trade. That's all. And it's supported by him leading the league in sacks allowed. 

 

34 minutes ago, downundermike said:

@TorontoEagle Bills sacks allowed in 2008

https://thephins.com/threads/2008-offensive-lineman-sacks-allowed.27106/?amp=1234709562

31. Jason Peters (Bills) 11.5 sacks allowed (13 starts) *PRO-BOWL*

32. Derrick Dockery (Bills) 8.25 sacks allowed (16 starts)

8. Duke Preston (Bills) 0.75 sacks allowed (11 starts)

4. Brad Butler (Bills) 1.0 sacks allowed (13 starts)

8. Langston Walker (Bills) 3.0 sacks allowed (16 starts)

 

15 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Disagree. Peters was demanding to be the highest paid tackle in the league. If the Bills knew he would turn out to be what he turned out to be, they would have paid his demands.

He was already one of the best left tackles in the league in the opinion of both his coach and the coach of the team who traded for him, as well as the people who select both the pro bowl and all pro teams.

Also, the Bills also refused to pay Byrd and Lynch. If your argument is that the Bills only didn't pay him because they didn't consider him the best at his position in the league, why did they also not pay Byrd and Lynch.

I am curious as to why you think this is, when the obvious answer was that the Bills mindset at the time is that they didn't want to pay any of their players top of the league money.

3 minutes ago, jsb235 said:

He was already one of the best left tackles in the league in the opinion of both his coach and the coach of the team who traded for him, as well as the people who select both the pro bowl and all pro teams.

Also, the Bills also refused to pay Byrd and Lynch. If your argument is that the Bills only didn't pay him because they didn't consider him the best at his position in the league, why did they also not pay Byrd and Lynch.

I am curious as to why you think this is, when the obvious answer was that the Bills mindset at the time is that they didn't want to pay any of their players top of the league money.

Because Safety and RB aren't comparable to having the best LT in the league. 

They were right about Byrd, and they had also drafted Fred Jackson to replace Marshawn. Lynch also had off field issues. 

20 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Is there anyone else besides me that actually WANTS to see Peters sign with the Cowboys?

Me

15 minutes ago, downundermike said:

Who do you have as the 2 losses.

Possibly the Cards n Cowturds. Possibly, I say. 

 

3 hours ago, Alphagrand said:

Hmmm .... a few minor adjustments.  I'd put the Eagles at 11-6 due to the CGJ acquisition to improve the secondary.  I'm shaky on the Bucs and Titans as both appear ripe for a fall, but I'll roll with it.  Tyron Smith getting injured was like the sun rising -- it was bound to happen.  I think the Pats could be pretty awful this season with Patricia and Judge running their offense.

 

NFC West — Rams 13-4, Niners 11-6, Cards 8-9, Seahawks 4-13

NFC North — Packers 12-5, Vikings 11-6, Lions 6-11, Bears 2-15

NFC South — Bucs 11-6, Saints 9-8, Panthers 7-10, Falcons 5-12

NFC East — Turds 11-6, Eagles 11-6, Commanders 9-8, Giants 5-12

 

AFC West — Chiefs 11-6, Chargers 10-7, Broncos 10-7, Raiders 8-9

AFC North — Bengals 11-6, Ravens 10-7, Steelers 7-10, Browns 7-10

AFC South — Titans 10-7, Colts 10-7, Jaguars 5-12, Texans 3-14

AFC East — Bills 13-4, Dolphins 11-6, Patriots 6-11, Jets 5-12 

You still have the Saints at 9-8 even though they have had a run of bad luck.  Do you stand by 9-8 for them?

Your totals are 273 wins and 271 losses, so you need to take one win away from some team and replace it with a loss.  I would adjust the Turds down to 10-7 myself.

@LeanMeanGMseason prediction 9-8, the schedule is just too easy for them to not have a winning record even with a sub-par QB.

Just now, devpool said:

@LeanMeanGMseason prediction 9-8, the schedule is just too easy for them to not have a winning record even with a sub-par QB.

Give us a bonus prediction, man!

1 minute ago, devpool said:

@LeanMeanGMseason prediction 9-8, the schedule is just too easy for them to not have a winning record even with a sub-par QB.

I'm keeping track of any type of hot take/prediction too if you want to give one

2 hours ago, Connecticut Eagle said:

With the new PS rules, the roster size is 53ish.

Both Howie and Siri have referred to having 70 guys available.

 

The gameday actives is 46ish.

Can be 48 as long as 8 O-Linemen are active.

3 minutes ago, mattwill said:

You still have the Saints at 9-8 even though they have had a run of bad luck.  Do you stand by 9-8 for them?

Your totals are 273 wins and 271 losses, so you need to take one win away from some team and replace it with a loss.  I would adjust the Turds down to 10-7 myself.

We'd better put the Saints at 8-9, then ..... because Baker is gonna "F them up" at least once.

4 minutes ago, Talonblood said:

Possibly the Cards n Cowturds. Possibly, I say. 

Minnesota is not going to be easy, you know Justin Jefferson is going to come out and be sure that everyone is clear we made the wrong choice, and you know Reagor will have some type of impact on the game, just because that is how these things work out.

@Detroit, week 1, you never know.

@Washington will be interesting, and Wentz will probably have his best game of the wear that week, just because that is how these things work out.

Then you get Doug Pederson the following week.

Week 8 after the buy, Steelers have the personnel to do exactly what Tampa Bay did in the playoffs to Hurts, but do they have enough offense.

I think 4-3 after the first 7 is realistic.

4 minutes ago, TorontoEagle said:

Because Safety and RB aren't comparable to having the best LT in the league. 

They were right about Byrd, and they had also drafted Fred Jackson to replace Marshawn. Lynch also had off field issues. 

The question isn't whether they were right to trade someone or if they had other options. They also had other options at left tackle when they traded Peters. The issue is whether or not decline in play on the field was the reason they traded players considered to be the best at their position.

You said the coach was lying about Peters because you think, had his play not declined, that they team would have kept him. Not only have I provided evidence that this is not true from numerous sources, I have provided examples of two players who were among the best at their respective positions who were also traded.

You can't say the coach is lying about Peters based on your assumption that the team would never refuse to pay a player considered to be the best at his position, and then ignore the fact that that is exactly what they did with two other players. 

1 minute ago, downundermike said:

Minnesota is not going to be easy, you know Justin Jefferson is going to come out and be sure that everyone is clear we made the wrong choice, and you know Reagor will have some type of impact on the game, just because that is how these things work out.

@Detroit, week 1, you never know.

@Washington will be interesting, and Wentz will probably have his best game of the wear that week, just because that is how these things work out.

Then you get Doug Pederson the following week.

Week 8 after the buy, Steelers have the personnel to do exactly what Tampa Bay did in the playoffs to Hurts, but do they have enough offense.

I think 4-3 after the first 7 is realistic.

My prediction for that week is Reagor takes a punt return to the house and looks like shades of Devin Hester 

Just now, jsb235 said:

The question isn't whether they were right to trade someone or if they had other options. They also had other options at left tackle when they traded Peters. The issue is whether or not decline in play on the field was the reason they traded players considered to be the best at their position.

You said the coach was lying about Peters because you think, had his play not declined, that they team would have kept him. Not only have I provided evidence that this is not true from numerous sources, I have provided examples of two players who were among the best at their respective positions who were also traded.

You can't say the coach is lying about Peters based on your assumption that the team would never refuse to pay a player considered to be the best at his position, and then ignore the fact that that is exactly what they did with two other players. 

Wrong