Mickey

Any idea what the track record is on a player ever having to actually pay any of those fines once the matter is resolved? I am thinking it hovers around zero. When he does work it out with the Bills, clause 1 will waive those fines, clause 2 will pay him what he missed during the hold out. If he ultimately ends up elsewhere, the new team will pay his fines assuming they don't get waived when appealed, which they will be and they will give him the back pay too. Peters is not screwing himself. He will either get a better deal now or end up playing for the same $ he would have had he not taken a stab at a new deal. What the Bills lose will be the services of this player the instant he is able to walk. So if you want this guy for the next 2 years, fine, play hard ball. He'll come back, play out his contract and then go be an all pro for someone else for the next 5 years after that. Brilliant strategy, for the next team he plays for. Has the team made any public comment expressing concern about his injury or his recovery?

If true, that would be pretty interesting but I haven't seen anything which shows what you assert to be true: that the team has committed to a large raise, has communicated that to him and placed just one contingency- that being to verify he is in playing condition. Is there some article out there I have missed which says the team has agreed to pay him 8 million or more but just wants to verify his condition and he has refused? Just trying to sort out facts from guesses.

Interesting. Do we really know that the team has no information on how the surgery went or how his recovery is going? They don't need a face to face exam to do find that out. It would be reasonable for the Bills to say we will pay you X but we need you to pass a physical first. I can't imagine any player not agreeing to that but I don't think they are even close to that point. Obviously, a player who won't agree to having his condition verified has something to hide. I can't even think of an example in recent memory where a player refused such a request. The bottom line is we just don't know what is really going on. The team did some public complaining but Jason hasn't which I think is to his credit. The whole thing is frustrating but its early yet. Plenty of time to get him in here and ready for the opener, I hope.

Half full, half empty I guess. Given Kelsay's numbers last year, I am more inclined to conclude that Chambers stinks rather than that Chris is an all-pro. It'd be nice though.

What is it that pride goeth before?

Every year, without fail, there is a contract dispute and every year the consensus on the board is the same: the player is a jerk and the agent is a moron. So it is with Peters and so it will be with the next guy. Maybe he will get a new deal and maybe he will have to eventually give in and play under the same contract. If the former, then the result would validate the strategy. If the latter, it cost him nothing. He gets to skip camp and enjoy his vacation that much longer and get the same $ he would have if he hadn't held out. Yeah, what a moron.

That would be a sound strategy I guess but not when you already have given in to extensions for top performance regardless of remaining time left on a player's contract. Peters is ony what, 25? 26? Walter Jones is 8 years older than he is and going strong. He was the starting LT for the NFC in the pro bowl and has a $50 Mil. contract. Peters has a lot more than 3 years left in him. No need for him to come in and dog it or to make any declarations about the future. He certainly has been very quiet so far and I don't see that changing. I am sure he will play as well as he alwasy has. He will probably hold out again in his last year and demand a trade, maybe we will franchise him or maybe he will sit the whole year. Either way, screw him over now and you insure losing him later. Exactly when and how is debatable but we can't expect to pay a guy worth 50-60 million only 15 and expect that he is going not going to get out when he can. So, do you want him for 2-3 years under his original 15 mil contract and then watch him play for the someone else for 7-8 years after that or do you want him for the next 10 at 50 to 60? That is for the team to decide. In my opinion, we should waste no time in getting the best deal we can with him and put this to bed.

Yes, the team could have done that rather than extend him and then he would have bolted when his original contract was up becoming a free agent sooner and some other team would be struggling with the terrible problem of having a pro bowl left tackle. Peters has proved his worth to this team, that is why we are having this discussion and that is why this thread is up to 17 pages, because this guy is very, very good, we all know it and that is why his hold out has everyone in a tizzy. For about the 10th time, Shobel was in camp because his deal was done before hand. I am sure that if Peters had a deal before hand he would be in camp. As for being "professional", hold outs are a part of this profession, they happen every year across the league so lets not pretend that Peters has committed some sort of unspeakable outrage. Whitner held out of camp and missed 14 practices. McCargo held out. Clements held out. I never said the situations are the same, they are similar and ceratinly similar enough for comparison purposes. That is how player values are set league wide, by comparison to other similarly situated players. Of course they are not all exactly the same but pointing that out is meaningless, the comparisons are made. That is absolutely how salaries are determined. When you tag a guy as your franchise man, the rules determine his salary based on comparison to the top players at his position. Schobel and Peters are similar enough for any agent without his head up his brief case to make the comparison and argue, convincingly, that Peters should get a new deal despite all this moralizing about professionalism and committment. If you truly think that matters why not argue that we should release Peters because his non-professionalism reduces his value? The fact is we need this guy and we want this guy because, non-professionalism aside, he is a kick-a$$ LT. If we want him for a year or two, then play hard ball. If we want him for 5 more years or longer, we need to get him signed. What we don't need is our GM calling him out publicly when Peters himself has refrained from doing so. That makes negotiations harder, not easier.

He does have leverage, long term leverage. The question being considered now isn't "do we want to give him a new contract to get him into camp?" The question is "Do we want this guy at LT for pretty much the rest of his career or are we comfortable with losing him in the next year or two?" Play hardball with him now and you are right, he will end his hold out eventually. That will cost us his services when his current contract is up and the shoe is on the other foot. This is really a win-win situation for Peters. Either he will get the extra money he wants or he will get paid what he would have anyway and will kiss Buffalo good-bye when the time comes. All he risks are fines which are nothing. Teams often waive them as a condition for ending the holdout. I would bet his agent agreed to pay his client back if the hold out doesn't work. It is not a win-win situation for the Bills, quite the opposite. They either have to pay him now or face losing him later when the leverage shoe is on the other foot. Usually, hjaving players want more $ because their performance merits a raise is the kind of problem you want to have.

Of course they are not identical. They never are but in this league that is how value is established, by comparison to other players similarly situated despite no two situations ever being exactly alike. The facts I have alluded to showing the similarities are almost all factual. They were both recently extended. They both lots of time left on those contracts. They both were underpaid, etc. The only non-factual opinions I recall listing is regarding whose skills were likely to get better and whose would get worse. I haven't speculated about what went on behind the scenes at all, others did that to "prove" that there were valid reasons for drastically different outcomes. In response, I simply pointed out you could just as easily speculate in Peters' favor. Cavalier with someone else's money??? I want a winning team and you don't have to be a Mensa member to know that you don't improve a 7-9 team by losing arguably its best player. Cavalier was dumping all that money on Kelsay. I am not sure its cavalier to want to keep one of the only elite players we have. I prefer a winning team with a large payroll to a losing one with a lower payroll. I am funny that way. I cheer for football players, not accountants. I am not being critical of Schobel, just arguing that Peters has a good argument for the same treatment. I compared the two, I didn't put down either. The responses about what an angel Schobel is and what a disloyal, greedy git Peters is, those are the people who apparently like one over the other. You didn't see fit to point that out though in responses to their posts. Maybe you're the one with a crush on Schobel?

Fair enough and I agree, the Bills ultimatey hold the cards but you have to consider the question of whether or not you want this guy until the end of his career manning the LT spot or do you want to guarantee that he finishes his career blocking like a mad man for someone else? Play hard ball with him now and you can kiss him good bye, maybe not this year but soon. Frankly, after the Mike Williams debacle, I'd rather have to replace a good, non-pro bowl WR than a great, pro bowl LT.

You were speculating about Schobel, do you have any idea at all what was discussed between him and the team after he skipped those OTA's and then showed up for later off season work outs? And do you know for a fact Where have they committed to paying him a significant extension if he attends camp? Brandon hasn't ruled out a new deal if he shows but he also said: "We expect Jason to be here to honor his commitment to the organization because we made a substantial commitment to him two years ago." How do you get, "show up and we will pay you more money" from that? That sounds an awful lot like they aren't going to extend him again. Brandon has spoke publicly on the issue criticizing Peters but Peters, to his credit, hasn't done the same. Two sides to every story we don't know Jason's. If Brandon wanted to talk to Peters or his agent, all he has to do is pick up the phone. Did you think Schobel was "pouting" when he didn't show up for those OTA's? Really, all this Pollyannish weeping and whining about Peters around here is silly. You'd think no player ever held out of camp to get more money before Jason Peters. "Elite pro-bowl left tackle getting paid like a long snapper holds out" Shocked I am, shocked, shocked, shocked.

Please read above quote from Brown's blog quoting Schobel, the extension was done before camp hence that is why he was there. Obviously, if a deal was done with Peter before camp he would be there too. Lets see: Were both coming off of pro bowl seasons? Check. Were both underpaid compared to others on the team at similar positions who aren't as good? Check. Did both have siginificant time left on long term contracts? Check. Did both keep their mouth's shut in public? Check. Did the team have no worthy player backing either up? Check. Had both recently signed extensions? Check. Are both vital to the teams success? Check. Are both young with long careers ahead of them worth securing? Advantage Peters. Are both rated among the elites at their position? Advantage Peters. Are both going to get better or worse? Advantage Peters. Did both miss offseason works out to send a message? Check. Lori, for each difference you can reference in favor of better treatment for Schobel, I can come up with one in favor of Peters. Of course the situations aren't absolutely exactly alike. No twp contract situations ever are. But in this league, it is beyond dispute that the player values are determined relationship to other players similarly situated. Its even written into the rules such as in the case of franchised players. That is why we all looked to what players picked ahead of Hardy and behind him got to figure out what he should get. It is not my argument that the situations are exactly alike. The situations between Schobel and Peters are easily alike enough for the outcomes to be expected to be similar. Instead, we have drastically different outcomes. Peter's agent is simply doing what any agent would do, compare his client's contract with his performance and that of others in the league and on the same team. If his agent didn't try to get a new deal for him this year he ought to be fired and if Brandon doesn't find a way to get a deal done that team can live with and that keeps our best, most promising player fat and happy, then he isn't doing his job either.

...or maybe Ralph was dating his mother. Total speculation and that is fine, if we didn't speculate around here we would have no fun at all. Lacking any facts on this particular point, you are free to speculate in favor of Schobel but that could just as easily be done for Peters. Maybe the team committed to a new contract with Schobel right away with the details to be worked out so that is why he came back, maybe they haven't given Peters any indication at all as to what they want to do even though it was clear from the first missed OTA that he wanted a new deal. Again, I don't really see any reason to assume the best for Schobel and the worst for Peters.

True. But don't give him credit for reporting to training camp, the deal was done by then, Peters doesn't even have an offer as far as we know. Do we have any idea if, when he Schobel returned to the off season sessions, his contract negotiations were well underway? There may have been a perfectly good reason for him to have shown. Do you really think this difference justifies making one guy the highest paid player in team history and the other the target of public criticism with nary a hint of a new deal in the air? I know Brandon has said stuff about Peters not being in camp, has Jason said word one in public about the team? Whose skills are likely to get better and whose, given his age, are more likely to decline? There are plenty of differences which weigh in Peter's favor if you want to dice things this thin but the basic point I think is the situations are similar enough that there is no justification for a drastically different outcome.

Keep the faith said "Well Said" in reference to this post: "Go back and check your facts. Schobel signed his new deal on August 24th. That's hardly "as camp opened." While he skipped OTAs, Schobel was there all throughout camp busting his ass getting prepared for a season. He wasnt whining and staying home like Peters is. Also, i have yet to see proof that Schobel was dissatisfied with his old deal. He simply got paid in line with what other top DEs are making. Another difference is that Schobel had proven his worth over 5-6 seasons, not 1." To which I responded that none of "it", the post above, is true. Please note that the post under discussion does not mention the Peter's injury. Still waiting for your response about the timing of Schobel's deal, the one that lead you to jump in to the debate with a personal insult.

I just don't get it. No two situations are ever exactly alike but these two, Schobel and Peters, are close enough that it is almost surreal that Peters is being so roundly criticized while Schobel was not. I can see being ticked at both or defending both. I don't see any basis for the difference in opinions and treatment. Who knows, maybe if we didn't accomodate Schobel last year, Peters wouldn't be trying to get the same accomodation now. We need this guy and there is just no way he and his agent don't see the similarities between the two situations. I'd find it far more defensible for the team to have refused to extend either contract than I do extending one and not the other.

Accept that none of it is true, see above.

Gee, I hate to embarass you like this and I know you won't be man enough to apologize anyway but since you were so willing to leap before looking, here goes: From Chrs Brown's blog: "Schobel said the main body of the contract was complete at the start of training camp, but because it was a bit different from typical contracts it took time to iron out all the details." If your going to insult somebody, you might want to check your facts first. I'd insult you back but the facts do that without any help from me.

Schobel explained that the deal was worked out before camp, they just had some details to work out which is why it wasn't actually signed until later. From Chris Brown's Blog: "Schobel said the main body of the contract was complete at the start of training camp, but because it was a bit different from typical contracts it took time to iron out all the details." Please explain why you didn't know this. As for proof that Schobel was disatisfied with his contract: “Well he [schobel] told me from day one coming into the season last year that he was hoping they would up my contract and extend me because if they did so he’d have some leverage as well,” said Kelsay. “Schobel is not a dumb guy. He knows the business side of it too. As soon as I signed he knew it was his turn.” See Brown And this from the Washington Post addressing trade rumor about Schobel: "After sitting out a week or so of OTAs in Buffalo, Schobel reported last week, but from what I heard he isn't happy. Far from it He wants a new deal (get in line, 'cause that's an epidemic these days), particularly after seeing all the crazy money the usually tight-wadded franchise threw around on outsiders in free agency this year" Really, there are so many articles covering his concern about his contract and desire for a rewrite that I am not going to bother digging them all up. Suffice it to say it is not exactly a stretch of logic to conclude he wasn't happy when you consder that he never missed a practice or game and suddenly skipped a week of OTA's just after the team signed a lesser player at the same position for more money. Not only did we resign him, we made him the highest paid player in team history at the time. Please show me some proof of this "whining" you accuse Peters of? These two situations are far more alike then different. I don't understand how anyone could possibly think that the minor differences in their actions justify one guy being rewarded with the best contract in team history while the other is raked over the coals and further that those petty differences are worth losing our best player over. I'd admonish you to check your facts again but clearly that isn't your style.

Check your facts, Schobel skipped 4 OTA's and had 3 years left on his deal. The Bills signed Kelsay to a contract even larger than his that year. I am not aware of a single disrespectful comment Peters has made in public. Schobel sang the teams praises after they gave him new and very lucrative deal. The situations are far more alike than different. Most of the differences argue in favor of it being even more appropriate to give Peters a raise than it was for Schobel.

Schobel skipped 4 OTA's when he still had 3 years left on a contract extension he signed previously. Schobel didn't talk to the press about his dissatisfaction. He had made the pro bowl and the Bills signed Kelsay for more $ than Schobel was getting. The Bills gave him a new 7 year deal with a substantial raise and wiped out the last 3 years of his old contract. They ponied up just as camp opened. Compare that with Peters. He made the pro bowl to and league wide, he is much higher rated at his position than Schobel ever was. He skipped OTA's clearly sending the message that he was serious about a new deal just as Schobel did. He also has not talked to the press about it. With Peters, the silence is characterized as "stonewalling" while Schobel's was characterized as being noble and respectful of the team, not airing dirty laundry etc, etc. With Schobel they gave him a new deal and did it in time for camp. With Peters, nothing. The reason Peters is not in camp is for some reason they won't do for him what they just did last year for aging veteran Aaron Schobel. Who would you say is more valuable to the team's future? Why is this so hard to understand?

Didn't we re-do Schobel's contract one year after it was signed because we gave Kelsay more money and Schobel was clearly better?

Peters isn't just any player. The guy is a pro bowler and one of the best in the game. And he is young enough to keep that key position filled for years. Given the money we forked over for guys like Kelsay, I can see Peters' point. I remember when he was playing special teams seeing McGee take one back all the way where Peters knocked one guy into another guy and put them both on the ground just before McGee fired through the gaping hole Peters had created. Peters is doing what every player in the history of this league has always done, everything he can to get paid what he is worth. As for unexpected, we gave Schobel a new deal and the next year when we gave Kelsay even more money, we redid Schobel's deal. Peters is right to ask why they didn't hold Aaron to a deal only a year old and won't re-do his 2 year old deal when, in the interim, he rose to be one of the best in the game. I know the Bills have to manage their cap and I can't blame them for doing their job which is to keep that payroll manageable but man oh man, Jason Peters is not the player I want to see them use to make the point. Save some money on the next guy and get this guy smiling, fat and happy back into camp. Even if he folds his tent, he come back an angry young man who likely has instructed his agent to get him the heck out of Buffalo at the first opportunity. Is this what we want?

Which one of those head coaches should we have kept on? Mularkey? Williams? Seems to me lke the problem wasn't that we got rid of them prematurely but that we ever hired them in the first place. By the way, what 6 coaches in the last 10 years are you talking about? Run the same stat check and see if those coaches managed to field, with no major injuries on that side of the ball, the worst offense in the history of those respective franchises. If you are not going to hold the head coach responsible for the results on the field, who is responsible? If Jauron puts another offense on the field as bad as last year's, atrocious play calling and all, none of the excuses you are rolling out for him will save his job.