He signed for 1 year 3 million to replace Brooks at G after his achilles injury. Once Dillard tore his bicep as well Peters strong armed more money out of the Eagles to replace him at LT.
[Reply]

yeah, a couple of posters here keep bringing this up as an example of being a bad locker room guy.

I mean, I don't see the big deal. If he's going to play the premium position on the line, he probably ought to be paid like it.

'strong-armed'? Says who? that makes it seem like a super confrontational thing when it more than likely was not.

I mean, yes, he's 39, yes he's been hurt a lot, and if you don't like the idea that's fine and I ain't mad about it. I just think for a guy you might need for a handful of games and will be dirt cheap you could do a whole lot worse.

But whatever.
[Reply]

When did I ever say it made him a 'bad locker room guy?' It's more to do with the fact that if you want him to play T, he's already made it clear by his actions previously that he's not exactly willing to do it for dirt cheap.
[Reply]

It's been brought up a couple of times. I didn't say you specifically.

And he'd signed for $3m to play guard. Moving to LT, he asked for a raise.

Here, it's his best chance for a ring which he says he's looking for. He also wouldn't be signing to be THE GUY, he'd be A guy.

I absolutely wouldn't give him a bunch of money. If that's what he's looking for, hard pass.

If he's cheap, and willing to be helpful as a fill-in/swing tackle/super-sub type guy, which I think is reasonable at his advanced age, then I'd take him on. You could do much worse.
[Reply]

Hard pass, but I’d understand.
[Reply]

I'm with you on this. I don't think it makes much sense.
[Reply]

hard pass / brokedick
[Reply]

It's a pretty big deal. Pederson didn't design an offense to Wentz and Wentz holds on to the ball way way too long because he's afraid to make the first throw these days. Reminds me of alex Smith when he was tentative to throw a guy open.

He's gonna be a little expensive. But not sure what LT people think we're gonna get that's cheap, capable of starting, and willing to take a one year contract and sit the bench when our starters get healthy. Any LT who can start is going to cost a fortune and expect a multiyear deal.
[Reply]

If you give every other LT the same excuses you guys are giving Peters, they'll all look better too. Peters still accounted for the most or 2nd most sacks allowed on his O-line in only 8 games. And all of them had to deal with Wentz and Peterson.
[Reply]

No one is going to give a 39 year old lineman with an injury history a multi-year contract unless they're crazy. How bad does he want a chance at a ring? We kind of hold the cards here.
[Reply]

Did you read the link/watch the videos within? I found them informative.

I wouldn't be cocky or anything about Peters and agree there are other options that would work better, but he still looks like an upgrade over starting the season with someone like Remmers holding down LT.
[Reply]

Injuries, age are understandable reasons as to why a signing like this may be questionable?

Maybe such a circumstance or situation could be indicative of him being a role player on a good team like ours?

With that being said, he could be a good backup provided if he is willing to accept that role. Chiefs could use some depth on the oline. We know that from what we saw in the superbowl.
If I were the Chiefs I would be open to signing Peters if it means we could solidify the depth along the oline. Why not.
[Reply]

Yeah I watched the video and read it. I agree with all the sacks they assigned him. Only borderline one was the chip one and I agree that Peters shouldn't have been protecting that far outside knowing he had help there anyway.

He still gave up a bunch of sacks in only 8 games. He still suffered a season ending injury and he's still 39. I don't know what part about him screams that he'd be reliable if/when Fisher comes back.

And just because he's be better than Remmers at LT isn't really a great point. Remmers played probably the worst game I've ever seen a tackle play.
[Reply]

https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/...ve-tackles-nfl
Good article in 2017 about the age wall left tackles hit after around age 32.. I’m not in favor of signing Peters even for a few games.. A rookie or younger player would at least get in the way some of pass rushers.. Peters will be beat right off the snap..
Sorry can’t embed on my phone..
[Reply]

Nobody would be thrilled about having to start Peters at LT. We all wish there were far better realistic options. The truth is, there’s not.

The thing people like King that are clueless about the NFL don’t understand is that:

1. OL play around the entire NFL is down.

2. The Chiefs won’t have much cap space even after restructures and extensions.

3. There aren’t many cheap options in free agency that can be a temporary fix at LT.

4. The likelihood of a day 1 LT being available at 31 is also very slim.

5. Peters, even at age 39, is a far better option than a Remmers or Erving at LT.

6. The rest of the OL should be much better than the SB and the Eagles last year.

If the Chiefs signed Peters, we’d all be hoping that Fisher would be ready week 1 and Peters becomes insurance. Hell, we’d also be hoping that Niang could beat him out if Fisher wasn’t ready.
[Reply]