Mickey

As I said, "so far" it has cost him nothing. Do you have information indicating he has paid a fine already? It will cost him when and if he ever has to pay them. They are often waived as condition of coming back to camp, as part of new deal if one is reached or incorporated into the higher salary demand. I personally wouldn't be shocked if his agent agreed to knock it off his fee. So, not having paid a thin dime in fines, my point holds, this has cost him nothing. As to whether it ever does, we'll have to see. Clearly, the fines are not exactly a shock to Peters or Parker, they knew that risk going in. Even if he paid them tommorow and came in to camp, he would still miss 2-3 games, maybe more. So he would be out some coin and maybe the team is out a few wins. What do you think the team would rather have, the fines or the wins? So this has definitely cost the team something, we just don't know how much as that will depend on what happens the next few Sundays. Maybe it costs Peters some coin, maybe not. Since a hold out by a player like Peters can cost the team in the win-loss column, Peters does have some cards to play. Not many mind you but there is a reason why lots of holdouts work.

Again, how is my point that he is one of the most underpaid LT's in the league "flat out wrong" as claimed? What that means and what if anything should be done about it is a whole other, debatable issue. But lets at least start with the same facts, that he is underpaid. Another issue that I keep raising but without much response is that a lot of these guys, having been drafted much higher than the undrafted Peters, started off with solid contract from the get go. Peters made around 150-175k in his first year and maybe 350-500 in his second. That is water under the bridge and its not the team's fault he didn't make a name for himself in college. However, it does mean that he has less room for error when it comes to getting the most out of his NFL career. Looking at the average career length of an NFL player and what happened to Everett last year, a former position mate of Peters, there should be at least some basic understanding of his motivation to get a better deal, now, and not 3 years or 2 years from now.

...And yet, thus far this whole thing has cost Peters nothing. If he reports next week, he doesn't lose a game check but regardless of when he reports at this point, the team has will not have a pro bowl left tackle when it lines up against the Seahawks on opening day. They might not even have him on the field until week 3 or 4. So, Peters loses nada and the Bills lose their best lineman for 2, 3 or 4 games. Hmm.....who do you figure came out ahead there? By this analysis, the Bills will hold all the cards next year and the year after that. And we know the team has refused, regardless of whether he comes to camp or shines Brandon's shoes, to give him a new deal for this year. There is no reason to think they won't continue doing the same thing. Rather than even trying a holdout, his only option, I guess he just be a good little boy and accept that he is going to be the lowest paid pro bowler in the league for 4 years. You are right, the Bills were proactive with Schobel. They knocked on his door in Feb. 2007 right after the Kelsay deal, they went to him, not the other way around. Even so, Schobel skipped the first 4 OTA's to give the team a taste of what was in store if they didn't sign him even though they were already negotiating. They finished the deal before camp save for a few details. Had they done that with Peters, we wouldn't be having this discussion. For whatever reason, they don't seem to think Peters is anywhere near as important to the team as Schobel. I don't like the situation any better than anyone else but given the team's big fat "no" on fixing his contrat this year, this is the only card Peters has to play and he is playing it. He will very likely be back this week so in the end, it will cost him very little but it will cost the team. How much? Only time will tell. If we win the first three, no one will care. If we lose them....

Look, I can see that you obviously have a strong appreciation for homoerotic imagery, not that there is anything wrong with it, but really, couldn't you just PM that stuff to eachother?

Sure, as soon as all the "Peters is a Peckerhead" posts stop, I'll stop defending him. I guess you have missed the parts of my posts acknowledging that the team isn't exactly crazy for not wanting to cash in on the good bet they made two years ago even though I disagree with them?

Yeah, but he left because they wouldn't sign him to a new contract at the market price for a guy of his abilities. The Bills don't want to pay Peters the market price for a guy of his abilities either. Lots of other differences for certain, no need to post them all, I totally agree there are many differences but yeah, there are some similarities too. I have to wonder if the volume of hate being leveled at Peters is really a function of just how important he is to this team which, ironically, is probably the exact argument Peters and his agent would like the chance to make to the team to justify a new deal. I don't think you would see this much belch and bile if it were Kirk Chambers holding out.

Didn't have to go that far, plenty around here do. Funny though itsn't it, one little article by some guy hardly anyone ever heard of that disagrees with the Peters lynch mob hereaboute and look and the volume and venom in the reaction. Really, the over the top responses here show far better than I could just how irrationally angry some have become over this. I actually do see why the team doesn't want to pay him this year. I disagree, but I don't think they are mentally challenged or have embarked on some sort of suicidal sabotage of the team's fortunes. I also think Peters has a very good argument that he should get an extension this year, a large one and I understand that the only leverage he has, the only leverage any player ever has is to withhold his services. Simple really. All these Peters haters however just have to villainize him and any one who defends him. Check Senator's posts, he couldn't put more venom in them if he tried.

You get more and more foaming at the mouth hysterical with every post. But no, you don't "hate" Peters now do you? Didn't take hours by the way, a search on your name and a few cut and pastes was all it took, its not like you have many posts that don't rant and rave about how much you hate Peters. I can't wait to hear you instruct me about how you despise him, think he is all these terrible, loathsome things but you don't "hate" him. The subtleties of your spleen venting are really fascinating.

"Scour"???? Were you looking over my shoulder when I did the search? I am actually at my Dad's house today visiting and he uses a different browser and search engine, article was the first one that popped up on the search I did and I thought I never saw it before so I then went immediately to TBD and marched the pages back to July 25 to see if it was already linked. I was surprised to see that it hadn't already appeared. I might have noticed the links at the bottom if my Dad's fonts were set on "blind". But you're right, it was all part of a diabolical plan, so fiendish in its conception, so heinous in its goals, with serpentine misdirections, so filled with demonic deceptions that only you with your superior dedication to truth, justice and the American way were able to unmask my vile and wicked plan. I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids. Curses. By the way, I just went back to look at those links I missed at the bottom, here they are: Related Stories JASON PETERS DEBATE: Get to camp! -by BuffaloFootballReport.com Jul 26, 2008 Bills Q&A With NFL Analyst Ed Thompson -by ScoutNFLNetwork.com Aug 11, 2008 Game of hardball reaching climax -by BuffaloFootballReport.com Aug 19, 2008 What about them indicates that they are a point-counterpoint to the article I linked as opposed to just "related stories"? The August 19th article requires a subscription, do I have to pay the $8.95 to check it out in case it makes any points contrary to my view so that I won't be accused of hiding the truth if I don't quote it? Really Lori, I am well aware that my opinion is not the only one on this issue and certainly, around here, it is a minority view though I am hardly alone.

Probably the same guys handling the Peters negotiations.

So we I can't order a blintz on tuesday because if everyone ordered blintzes on tuesday there would be chaos. That is an obscure Woody Allen reference. As for 2 years from now, I'd have to see his salary compared to his performance and the going rate for guys in his class. It is not exactly a new thing that rising league revenues leads to higher contracts. That is exactly what happened in the Schobel situation. He got a blockbuster deal for the money and cap limits of the time but 2 years later revenues and the cap limits were higher so that Kelsay, an inferior player, got more money than Schobel simply becuase of better timing. Recognizing that, the team went to Schobel immediately and headed off the exact kind of trouble we now have with Peters. If we were talking about Roscoe or Kelsay or Denney, I'd be far more interested in the team making a point. Not with Peters. Not with Lynch. Not with Trent (that day is coming soon) and not with Poz. He is the best lineman on the team and one of the very best in the league and he plays a critical spot, or QB's blind side against the premier rushers in the league. He is not the guy I would want to make an example of. Back in the day, the team understood that, that is why the core, top players were there to stay (Reed, Kelly, Thurman and Bruce, etc). Others came and went but they didn't mess with best.

Again, before the name calling, calm down and check the facts. Schobel went a long time without making the pro bowl. Peters made it his first full year starting at LT, that, to me, is a reason to treat Peters better than Schobel, not the reverse. Schobel skipped the first 4 OTA practices after the Kelsay deal and he did that even though the team approached him for a new deal in February of 2007 (the missed OTAs were in March). Think of that, the team went to him and said lets do a new deal and they did that 6 months before camp. Even though the team was already actually negotiating with him, Schobel skipped those practices. Nice way to reward the team's good faith wasn't it? His deal, all but a few details, was done before camp so Schobel never had to decide whether or not to hold out. The team has made it very, very clear, they aren't going to even talk about a new deal this year for Peters. Add in to that that Schobel was a high draft pick so his first contract was pretty solid and the deal he wanted extended had made him, at the time, the highest paid player on the team and pretty high on the all time $ list for the Bills. Peters was signed for the minimum and the extension he signed was no big deal, certainly not the blockbuster deal Schobel got and then got again after Kelsay's deal. All of that, to me, actually demonstrates its Peters that should have got the red carpet treatment. Were you not aware of any of those facts?

Those were the days, *sigh* Jason Peters Ha, so much for the moratorium Valdemort! I can't stop, I'm on a roll.

The post you linked to had a link at the end "for the other side of the debate", the one I linked to was apparently the response but contained no such link at the end "for the other side". Didn't link to it because I didn't know it existed. Or maybe I am part of a big conspiracy to silence the hysterical hatred of Peters floating around because not linking to one article would have done the trick. I simply ran across an article that I hadn't seen linked to here before so I added it to the pile. I sincerely apologize for posting a link to an article on a Buffalo Bills issue that hasn't been linked before on a Bills fan site full of links to articles on team issues. Don't know what I was thinking but clearly, that kind of shocking behaviour on my part deserved the high decibel responses herein.

Just added it to the database along with all the other articles from both sides of the issue. Sure sent a bunch of the Peters haters into a tizzy though. Opinions contrary to theirs seems to do that. I hadn't seen that one from the Senator yet, I'll have to check it out next time there is a shortage of hysterical bile. I guess he really, really, really hates Peters.

Jason Peters Debate: Show him the money! I ran across this article from 7/25 that I didn't see as having been linked to at the TBD front page so here it is, to be added to the database. Sorry if it already was. Just yet another corner heard from. Highlights: "If any team knows how rare it is to find a linchpin at left tackle it’s the Buffalo Bills. Arguably no team has struggled at that position more than Buffalo over the past decade, and it’s kept them out of the playoffs for eight years." "What a solid first step for Trent Edwards’ development. That’s exactly what Edwards needs – musical chairs on the offensive line and defensive ends constantly in his grill." "Peters’ base salary for this season of $3.25 million is an insult. Brandon noted that the Bills’ gave him this five-year, $15 million deal in 2006. The compensation-for-good play effect already played out, he attests. But a lot has changed since then. Buffalo rewarded Peters with this deal right after he made the switch from tight end to lineman. But then he made another switch – to left tackle. Now he’s the team’s reliable starter at arguably the most thankless, difficult job in sports. Left tackle. Or more appropriately, Trent Edwards’ blind side."

Follow it up, what is step 4 or 5? Tell us your plan for Peters to follow to get paid what he is worth or have the stones to accept the reality of your position, that you have no problem with Peters, even he stays at a pro bowl level, being one of the most underpaid OT's in the league for another 3 years.

I can play that game too: Should players never get a new contract before their old one has expired no matter how much better than their contract they perform? If the answer is "yes", show me links to posts where the board was up in arms over the raise Schobel got 3 years before his already huuuge deal was done. If the answer is "no", then we agree that under some circumastances a raise is in order. I think this is one of them. Peters didn't play a little bit better, he played a lot better. He isn't underpaid by 10% or 20%, more like 50% or more. Now, if you don't think he deserves a raise, just explain to me why and how much better he needs to play before he is. At what point under his current contract, if the level of his play continues, would you flip and support his demands for a new contract? Do you think that no matter how great he plays, he should play under this contract for the next 3 years?

I have never said that I think it is right that teams have to pay huge salaries to flops and busts. This is the system and the Bills did for Schobel last year what they refuse to even discuss with Peters this year. Its inconsistent, a Burger King assisstant manager knows that treating similary situated employees that differently is going to lead to trouble. But lets be sure of the facts first. My premise is that Peters was one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league last year and if he continues to play at that level and under his current contract, he will be one of the most underpaid OT's in the league, again. Agree or disagree?

No need to squirm, as would be obvious if you included the post to which I was responding, ie, what would happen NEXT YEAR if he again plays at a pro bowl level and the team still refuses to renegotiate. Oh, and you didn't include any of the numerous posts I made where, just as I claimed, I have opined that the team would be better off trading him in the unlikley event he really does refuse to play for Brandon again. Is your position that Peters should continue being one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league and if so, for how long?

I don't understand you point, that one hand the team wants to pay him what he is worth but on the other, wants to keep his pay where it is this year. Those are, respectufully, inconsistent. Paying what he is worth means paying him a lot more than his current contract this year. That means making him one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league, something he already was last year. I am sure the team has some sort of plan or strategy they are following. I don't understand how they could do what they did for Schobel last year and stiff arm Peters this year. I could see treating them both the same but I don't get their gleeful exuberance to give one guy a new deal, so much so that they went to his agent first 6 months before camp while they flatly refuse to even consider a new deal for Peters this year. It is inconsistent so unless their strategy is to be inconsistent, don't get it. Do you agree that Peters' performance far outstripped his salary last year? Do you agree that if he plays as well this year, under his current contract, he will once again perform far above his wage level? If you think the team is justified in refusing a new deal this year, fine, but the end result is that you are supporting Peters being one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league. Whatever strategy the team is pursuing, that is the result. I can certainly understand why Peters is doing the only thing he can, holdout, to try and get the team to change their minds. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether it makes sense for the team to sign him to a new deal or not but what bothers me is that so many here just refuse to entertain for even a moment that Peters has anything close to a legitimate beef. Flash forward to next year and assume that Peters does what so many here insist that he do, play another year as one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league. He will want a new contract next year and there will still be 2 years left on his current deal. Will you be on Peters' side if the team, holding the same cards they are holding this year, does the same thing and insist that he play another year under his existing contract? If you would be, then the there is only one year's difference in our positions. If you would still support Brandon, fine, but be clear on what that position means, that Peters should get paid for what he signed for regardless of his performance, that pay should not be effected by performance. I don't really care who supports what side, I am just pointing out what I think is obvious, that every year he plays under his current contract is another year that he is one of the most underpaid pro bowlers in the league.

Look, you're entitled to hate Peters and worship Brandon's accounting skills all you want but your assessment of Peters in his first year starting is flat out wrong. Peter King voted for him for the pro bowl that year and at least one NFL coach who never heard of him or saw his tape until he was prepping for the last game of the year, after he had already put in his ballot, said he wished he could change his vote. The only reason he didn't make the pro bowl that year was because he was an unknown who played two positions that year. Jason Taylor called him the best left tackle he faces, and he made that compliment prior their first game against the fins in November of last year thus his compliment was based on Peters' play from the year before. If you want to disagree that Jason was a pro bowl level player even in his firs year, fine, I have the opinion of a respected sports writer, of the NFL defensive MVP and and opposing coaches. Oh yeah, and the fact that he made it the very next year. Even if you are right and I am wrong, that just means that Peters would be, if he played this year on his current contract, the most underpaid OT in the league for two years running rather than three. Whoa, big difference. How underpaid is he? Pro Bowl starters at tackle: Flozell Adams: 25 Million, 5 years Walter Jones: 52.5 Million, 7 years Matt Light: 27.3 Million, 6 years Jason Peters: 15 Million, 5 years How about the pro bowl reserves at OT? Ogden: 50 Million, 7 years Samuels: 46 Million, 7 years Thomas: 42.5 Million, 5 years Clifton: 32.4 Million, 6 years So, how is my point that he is one of the most underpaid pro bowlers or OTs in the league flat out wrong? The guy is underpaid, that much is really not even debatable. You and others like you think he should continue to be paid less than he is worth and others, such as me, have taken the radical, looney tunes approach that he should get paid what he is worth and shouldn't be expected to be one of the most underpaid pro bowler is in the NFL, again. So there it is.

Actually, they have also insisted, as the poster points out, that there will no new deal this year, period. The most generous reading you can give htat is that if he were in camp, at most, they would be willing to negotiate a new deal for 2009 only. After watching what happened to Kevin Everett last year, I can see why Peters isn't so hot on waiting or being one of the most underpaid OT's in the league for the third year running.

The NFL is not the average work place. The rules are a bit different. Maybe this is the first holdout you have ever heard of taking place hence your shock and dismay but I assure you it is standard issue in the NFL. The team told him no new deal this year, period. From the ESPN article everyone is raving about: "They also have made it known to Peters' agent, Eugene Parker, they're not willing to renegotiate 2008, insisting any additional money will be paid next year forward." So, you agree he should get more money. The team told him no more money this year. So what should he do to get what you agree he is entitled to? What option do you suggest he should have pursued that would have resulted in the additional pay we agree he is entitled to? Coming to camp would not have done it, that much is clear unless you see some wiggle room in the phrase "not willing to renegotiate 2008". The only option a player has, the only card he has to play, is to withhold his services, to holdout, so that is what Peters is doing, playing the only card he has. It is true that the same article pointed out that the Bills won't talk to him unless he is in camp but coupled with the absolute refusal to even consider a new deal for this year, that only means that the team would talk to him about a new deal for 2009 if he came to camp. So there you have it, Peters has two choices here: 1. Play this year as one of the most underpaid OT's in the league for the third year running; or 2. Holdout and hope that it works and if it doesn't report just in time for his 1st game check so he ultimately loses nothing for having made the effort. Which one of these would you have advised that he do?

I know what it is, sarcasm used to take a shot at people who disagree with him. Which I responded to by pointing out that it was more than a little foolish to mock his own opinion. Unless of course he disagrees that Peters is our best lineman, that would have been a fun opinion to mock.