Marcus Peters Thread

Originally posted by susweel:

Peters played great as usual, too bad goff played like a bish and cost them the ring.

Originally posted by sacniner:

Peters had a great game in the biggest game of his career

Anyone eating crow in here?

No. How could any of us eat crow. Peters and Talib had one job to do. Stop Eddleman, and they failed miserably. Neither could cover him in man all night. And it was Peters who gave up the 27 yard reception on 3rd and 4 with the Patriots backed up at their own 13 yard line.

If by great game, you mean held irrelevant Chris Hogan to 0 catches on however many of the targets he defended against Chris Hogan? Congratulations! That was Chris Hogans 5th game of the year with 0 catches!

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by sacniner:

Peters had a great game in the biggest game of his career

Anyone eating crow in here?

Would love to see Chiefs ownership eat some....but they dont have the nerve.

It wasn't that he didn't play well on occasions with KC, it was that he was inconsistent; gamble for a big pick on one play and blow a long completion the next. Then there was the attitude issue...

KC wound up with a better, more consistent CB. Don't think they care at all about how Peters did last night.

This isnt an either or situation here. They could have had both. And Marcus Peters making 1 play in the AFCCG for the Chiefs may have been the difference in winning a Superbowl or watching the game from home.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

This isnt an either or situation here. They could have had both. And Marcus Peters making 1 play in the AFCCG for the Chiefs may have been the difference in winning a Superbowl or watching the game from home.

He could've also lost his cool for a crucial penalty or tried to jump a route to get burned for a TD. Doubt the chiefs miss him much

Originally posted by frenchmov:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

This isnt an either or situation here. They could have had both. And Marcus Peters making 1 play in the AFCCG for the Chiefs may have been the difference in winning a Superbowl or watching the game from home.

He could've also lost his cool for a crucial penalty or tried to jump a route to get burned for a TD. Doubt the chiefs miss him much

So that means he basically would have played about as well as the Chiefs secondary played in the AFCCG. Lol

One play is all he would have needed to make. Their defense was horrendous.

Originally posted by susweel:

Peters played great as usual, too bad goff played like a bish and cost them the ring.

At least Goff is getting a sophmore salary. Girly was just extended via millions.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
One play is all he would have needed to make. Their defense was horrendous.

That was always the problem with Peters; he would make one great play but on the next series would gamble and miss. That is why Kendall Fuller rates so far above him (30 versus 78). Though he doesn't make the spectacular plays Peters made on occasion, he doesn't give up the huge plays by gambling.

Originally posted by dj43:
That was always the problem with Peters; he would make one great play but on the next series would gamble and miss. That is why Kendall Fuller rates so far above him (30 versus 78). Though he doesn't make the spectacular plays Peters made on occasion, he doesn't give up the huge plays by gambling.

It kind of reminds of the debate regarding going for it on 4th down and not punting. A lot of statistics support going for it, and playing football as a boom or bust style. Going for 2 pt conversions etc. There are analytics supporting maximizing possessions over field control. Ofcourse that only works in offensive games, not defensive slug fests like the SB.

But in 55-52 game, yes you'd prefer risk-taking defensive players to maximize possessions. You see more analysis of this stuff on the college level where shoot outs are more normal. The stats on shoot outs is even if a cornerback is able to shutdown a player, the team will have so many more weapons it will still inevitably score.

I don't think NFL has arrived at the pure shootouts though. Regular season sometimes, yes. But playoffs....no.

But is interesting stuff looking at the deep math on possessions and changing conventional ways of playing. When you look at it, yes turnovers are incredibly valuable. There's a reason why over time teams that win TO battle often win. The numerical value you can assign to a turnover is incredibly high.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

One play is all he would have needed to make. Their defense was horrendous.

That was always the problem with Peters; he would make one great play but on the next series would gamble and miss. That is why Kendall Fuller rates so far above him (30 versus 78). Though he doesn't make the spectacular plays Peters made on occasion, he doesn't give up the huge plays by gambling.

Again dj, they didnt have to choose one or the other. If Peters played the AFCCG and gambled and lost, he would have played exactly as the defense actually did play.

All I am saying is the Chiefs D was one play away from going to the Superbowl. Peters could have absolutely made the difference.

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:

Originally posted by dj43:
That was always the problem with Peters; he would make one great play but on the next series would gamble and miss. That is why Kendall Fuller rates so far above him (30 versus 78). Though he doesn't make the spectacular plays Peters made on occasion, he doesn't give up the huge plays by gambling.

It kind of reminds of the debate regarding going for it on 4th down and not punting. A lot of statistics support going for it, and playing football as a boom or bust style. Going for 2 pt conversions etc. There are analytics supporting maximizing possessions over field control. Ofcourse that only works in offensive games, not defensive slug fests like the SB.

But in 55-52 game, yes you'd prefer risk-taking defensive players to maximize possessions. You see more analysis of this stuff on the college level where shoot outs are more normal. The stats on shoot outs is even if a cornerback is able to shutdown a player, the team will have so many more weapons it will still inevitably score.

I don't think NFL has arrived at the pure shootouts though. Regular season sometimes, yes. But playoffs....no.

But is interesting stuff looking at the deep math on possessions and changing conventional ways of playing. When you look at it, yes turnovers are incredibly valuable. There's a reason why over time teams that win TO battle often win. The numerical value you can assign to a turnover is incredibly high.

Good point about the value of turnovers. They are critical. Raises more questions about why Peters was traded.

We may never know the entire story of why the Chiefs sent Peters away. It had to be a lot more than just his play on the field. We saw some of the crazy penalties and side line rants but those alone should not have been enough to deal him.

There were reports that the Chiefs insisted on Fuller in the Smith trade with Washington. I can't recall who it was that reported that Fuller was the deal breaker if he wasn't included. If true, that suggests the Chiefs had already made up their mind to trade Peters, dependent on getting Fuller. ???

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
One play is all he would have needed to make. Their defense was horrendous.

That was always the problem with Peters; he would make one great play but on the next series would gamble and miss. That is why Kendall Fuller rates so far above him (30 versus 78). Though he doesn't make the spectacular plays Peters made on occasion, he doesn't give up the huge plays by gambling.

Again dj, they didnt have to choose one or the other. If Peters played the AFCCG and gambled and lost, he would have played exactly as the defense actually did play.

All I am saying is the Chiefs D was one play away from going to the Superbowl. Peters could have absolutely made the difference.

All true.

KC must fix that defense, and with Houston beginning to show some wear, it will get even worse if they do not hit a couple of home runs in the draft.

I get a news feed from KC. This morning was a mock of the four picks they will have in the first three rounds. Safety in rounds one and three. (that was a major hole in the D). Also RB David Montgomery Iowa State and LB Devin Bush, the little spark plug from Michigan. A couple of surprises dark horse BPA picks due to coming cap problems: TE and OT. In short, their defensive window is short.

The league will make some adjustments to slow down that offense. When that happens, it will put even more pressure on the defense.

Originally posted by dj43:
Good point about the value of turnovers. They are critical. Raises more questions about why Peters was traded.

We may never know the entire story of why the Chiefs sent Peters away. It had to be a lot more than just his play on the field. We saw some of the crazy penalties and side line rants but those alone should not have been enough to deal him.

There were reports that the Chiefs insisted on Fuller in the Smith trade with Washington. I can't recall who it was that reported that Fuller was the deal breaker if he wasn't included. If true, that suggests the Chiefs had already made up their mind to trade Peters, dependent on getting Fuller. ???

Who knows what was said behind closed doors.

However, even though I'd be considered a pro-Marcus Peters person, its a no-brainer to have Fuller over Peters. I think giving up Fuller for a rental QB is a bigger question mark.

Back in 2016 I was a big proponent of drafting Fuller and thought drafting Redmond over Fuller was an idiot pick.

Originally posted by SunDevilNiner79:
Who knows what was said behind closed doors.

However, even though I'd be considered a pro-Marcus Peters person, its a no-brainer to have Fuller over Peters. I think giving up Fuller for a rental QB is a bigger question mark.

Back in 2016 I was a big proponent of drafting Fuller and thought drafting Redmond over Fuller was an idiot pick.

Asked this a few times and it wasnt addressed. Maybe you can answer it for me.

Why was this an either or situation for the Chiefs for you guys? They very easily could have had both.

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Why was this an either or situation for the Chiefs for you guys? They very easily could have had both.

My .02 worth is that Peters was not enough of a team-first guy for Andy Reid. His behavior and inconsistency came to be too great a price to pay for the relatively few great plays he made. He drew a lot of penalties, some for just dumb stuff.

Also, if you look at Reid's offense, it has been very unselfish. They spread the ball around like the Warriors and no one gets upset about not getting as many touches as they want. No one makes it about "me." Peters didn't fit that model.

Whatever it was, there was a surprise from some but "not surprised" from others when the trade was announced. The cue for those not surprised was when Fuller was announced as the price for Alex Smith.

He is certainly a very gifted athlete. Many thought that being under Wade Phillips eye would cause him to play with more discipline. I expected that to be the case but he clearly was a round peg/square hole deal in the Phillips' scheme for most of the year.

Originally posted by SisterFister:

No. How could any of us eat crow. Peters and Talib had one job to do. Stop Eddleman, and they failed miserably. Neither could cover him in man all night. And it was Peters who gave up the 27 yard reception on 3rd and 4 with the Patriots backed up at their own 13 yard line.

If by great game, you mean held irrelevant Chris Hogan to 0 catches on however many of the targets he defended against Chris Hogan? Congratulations! That was Chris Hogans 5th game of the year with 0 catches!

So this it's not even funny

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by SisterFister:
No. How could any of us eat crow. Peters and Talib had one job to do. Stop Eddleman, and they failed miserably. Neither could cover him in man all night. And it was Peters who gave up the 27 yard reception on 3rd and 4 with the Patriots backed up at their own 13 yard line.

If by great game, you mean held irrelevant Chris Hogan to 0 catches on however many of the targets he defended against Chris Hogan? Congratulations! That was Chris Hogans 5th game of the year with 0 catches!

So this it's not even funny

+1. both ate dust when covering edlemen.