Dan

I'd agree. I'm not saying Peters is a bad guy at all. In fact, some of the reports (as I recall) suggested that Parker is the one that's advised him to not talk to teammates and all. So, he could be just a super great guy that's just getting really bad advice. Parker doesn't seem to understand that Ralph comes from a time when owners called the shots, not players. I would suspect the problem is in the details now as well. Whether it be the length of the contract, the up front money, the amount of incentives vs base, who knows. But, my guess, Brandon doesn't cave much on the "show up then we'll talk" stance. IMO, he has too many young players on the verge of re-signing to set such an example. For better or worse, he's using Peters to tell the other young guys (Edwards, Lynch, Whitner, Poz, etc.) exactly how not to negotiate a new deal.

I would agree completely. I imagine the Bills told them that if Peters came in and played hard and all that, that they'd talk about a new deal for 2009. Parker, of course, didn't like that and said he'll hold out. At that point it was a game of chicken. He probably thought the Bills would turn first. They didn't. Now, we're essentially (or so it would seem) in pretty much the same place. The Bills seem willing to talk about a new contract, but it appears there's something in their offer that made Parker take the hard stance again. Quite honestly, for a player/agent to take the hard stance 2 years in a row when it didn't work the the first time tells me one thing... Peters has zero commitment to playing with the Bills.

Parker: [click] Parker: [scrolls down to Peters] Parker: Hey, J my man. How's it going? Yeah, yeah. It's all good over here. I got them right where I want 'em. I'll be in touch. You too man, enjoy the pool. Parker: [click] Parker: [to himself] Crap, now what. Hey honey get me a mocho latte thing.

I think that's a big part of it and gets to Kelly's initial question. The Bills may be willing to give Peters the full $11.5 mill, but that's alot of coin to give to someone that's giving you huge mixed signals about whether he wants to play up to that level of salary. You've got 2 employees, both want a raise. One comes to work every day, tries hard, always asks for more to do, gets along well with the other employees, and buys into what you want to do. The second employee decides to take the other route and complain about his lack of pay, take all his personal and vacation days at once in an effort to prove how important he is, and distances himself from the other employees. Both may deserve a huge raise - the 2nd employee more than the first. But, are you going to rush to give him that raise? I'm sorry, but as a manager, Peters gets absolutely nothing until he shows up, smiling, and says he'll work his butt off to improve. When I see the attitude change, I'd gladly hand over the cash, but not before. Yes, he has looked like the franchise left tackle we all want. But, he's also looked very average at times getting beaten for sacks or standing on the sideline with a late season injury when the playoffs are out of the picture. I'm sorry, but everything about this guy right now screams attitude problem. Once you pay him, you're not at all guaranteed that the attitude turns around. Let me ask a simple question. What would we have all said about the FO if they paid Peters $11mill/yr last August and then he had the season he just had? Because right now there's just as much of a chance that's the player they'd get as there is he'd become an immovable wall on the left side. So, back to the original point... IMO, at this point, its not so much about the money as it is his attitude. Sure the details (how much guaranteed, length of deal, etc.) are probably long from being worked out, but I'd bet my next paycheck that would all get done pretty quickly if Peters was in town working out with his teammates, laughing and having a good time; while his agent was in Brandon's office daily assuring them that Peters wants to retire a Bill with multiple SB rings.

I'll agree with every bit of your post. Well stated. Just to make sure we're clear.. I'm not attempting to insinuate that Peters won't work once he gets paid; but suggesting that the risk is there and it could be a primary factor in why the team is not in more of a hurry to give him a mega deal. His actions several years ago demonstrated his incredible work ethic; however, more recently he seems to have cast doubt onto why he works so hard. There's nothing I would love more than to have Peters signed at any price (hell its not my money), but I can understand why the team might be reticent.

No it doesn't. But, neither does the argument that the Bills should just sign a new contract at whatever Peter's agent asks for. The point is, no FO can just cave to a player's demands. There has to be a negotiation no matter how good or bad a player is. We don't know the whole story, but it seems the Bills' FO has made offers that Parker has flatly refused with little to no negotiation. Parker needs to tell his client to get into Buffalo and play nice, if for no other reaason than just to say.. see Peters wants to be there and get better. The cold shoulder approach is akin to saying FU. Playing hardball didn't work last year. Why will it suddenly work this year?

Just curious.... Edwards had a great stretch last season. Should Brandon swallow his pride and get a deal done if Edwards asks tomorrow? Lynch is now a ProBowl RB with 2nd consecutive 1,000 yd seasons. Should Brandon swallow his pride and get a deal done if Lynch asks for top 5 money tomorrow? Should the Bills just pay whatever salary any of the player's agent asks for? Which players should be able to demand whatever they want and get it? Just curious.

I agree completely. They've got their price, of course, as with any negotiation, I would suspect they came in low on the initial offer. However, the reason they haven't come to terms yet, is exactly the latter part of the bolded statement. That is.. they're not happy with him. Peter's effort has been less than ideal since he was named a ProBowl, franchise LT. That immediately sends up red flags about his personality and motivations. Is he really the franchise player that we all think he is? Sure he can be. But, will he be once he's paid? I would suggest his agent hurt him by having him hold out last year. Yes, had he participated in all of last year's activities and truly played at a Probowl level (i.e. not giving up numerous sacks, being in less than ideal shape, and getting injured/not finishing the season again), I think he's well on his way to signing that mega contract right now. And yes, maybe the Bills pay him eventually this off season. But, if they don't and he holds out all off season again - I think he's unlikely to ever get it because he likely has a similar season to 2008 and no way you invest that kind of money in a guy that had a great season 3 years ago followed by 2 average to above average seasons. As others have suggested, I think if he's in Buffalo, working out, in camp, giving his all to the team then the Bills' FO is more inclined to pay him as they have others. Problem is... Peters has not done that. He's appeared to do the minimum to play well all the while asking for more money.

That's an excellent point. To get Peters another team likely has to give up a couple of high draft picks, plus a $10mill/yr salary. That's a huge expense for one player. Add in the knowledge that he'll hold out at the drop of a hat and you've got exactly what we're seeing - a probowl LT, that's the best in the league, waiting for the phone to ring. Dude has a ton of talent, but he also has a ton of risk. Bottom line is you can't be the best and highest paid LT in the game if you're sitting on the sidelines upset about your paycheck or injured. His agent has completely mishandled this negotiation (if you can call it that) at this point.

That's one way to look at it. Of course, the flip side is.... here's an undrafted TE, that was shaped into a starting LT. He was given a new contract worth $4mill/yr (roughly) when he had yet to prove anything; which he immediately wanted out of once he proved something (forgetting that he was arguably overpaid for the first 2 years of that deal). So, now he's a starting left tackle with all the talent in the world, but hasn't finished a season in 2 years (i.e. opts out at the first sign of injury) and has demanded to be the highest paid lineman in the league or he won't perform (i.e. more concerned with money than play). IMO, both of those 2 items seriously cast doubt on him. Yes, he has talent. Yes, he may be the best LT in the game. But... will he continue to develop that talent and actually be the best LT in the game after he gets $12mill/year? That's the sticking point, IMO. No one is arguing his talent or potential. What's causing some fans (and GMs apparently) to balk is the concern over his motivation and commitment to continually improve.

And if won't accept $10mill/yr?

Oh yeah. Definitely getting "Trade" and "Peters" in the same sentence is better than that. Great coverage and perspective on the team, Tim. For us diehard nuts, you're a Godsend.

Just curious.... what was the original title?

I think this says it all with regards to Peters: What Peters has accomplished more than anything else is create a huge cloud of doubt around himself. He's clearly more worried about making money than playing football. So what happens when he gets that money? If your only motivation for playing well has been to make money, what happens when you finally get that mega contract? I'm certain that's why no one is rushing to give him the most money any NFL lineman has ever gotten.

I had almost forgotten that horrendous bit of football. Thanks for reminding me why I finally gave up completely on this coaching staff. How we didn't even get a FG try off in that scenario is simply amazing.

Yeah that's what I keep seeing. I'm getting ansy though. I assume its normal to wait so long after it announced? and I'll still be able to get tickets through them eventually?

Any word on when tickets for the game become available?

I lasted 14 seconds. Yeah, good find.

Being a Bills fan is not for the faint of heart.

Completely agree there. It also seemed that our first 4 games were somewhat decent in regards to play calling. I actually recall seeing a quick slant on a 3rd and 4 (something close to that) and nearly dropping out of my chair. I actually called my sister and we celebrated. Alas, it was not meant to last. By midseason, I was watching the most boring predictable football imaginable.

I would suggest that the single biggest problem with our offense has been... predictability in the play calling. Look no further than the final Pats* game last year. Given the weather both teams knew the other was running the majority of downs. Buffalo had about 3 or 4 run plays that they steadily rotated through. The Pats* had about a dozen. Look at any game from last season when we were on offense. You'll see the defense adjust presnap and have extra guys right in the whole. You'll hear them call out "left, left" as they all shift left and Lynch runs left for no gain. You'll see them all drop off the line at just the right time, double cover all the receivers and Edwards look lost trying to find someone open. Has anyone ever seen how we run a WR screen and how any other successful team runs one? Other teams: WR far left, Slot receiver. Ball is hiked, slot guy kicks out and blocks the CB covering the WR, LT kicks out and blocks CB that was on the slot guy. WR catches the ball behind the LOS and runs for 5 yards. Buffalo: WR far left, Slot receiver. Ball is hiked, slot guy blocks the CB covering him. WR catches the ball behind the LOS, the CB that was lined up 2 yds off him runs up and takes him for no gain. See the difference? How many times have you seen Reed go in motion and we run to exactly where he stops? Or 3rd and 3 and we have no one in the backfield ever wonder if Trent is looking to pass in that situation? And so on and so forth. So, yes, it may be exciting that TO gives us more potential options; having a real tight end would also be great, but until TS proves he can design and implement a professional NFL offense, I just can't see how any of it will matter.

I have to ask.... Seriously, what have the Bills done in the last 3 years to make anyone think they would change things up or gameplan for a particular opponent? For the most part, I can sit on my couch gettin my drink on with some eats and easily call 80-90% of the plays just based on player substitutions and formations. Why would we suddenly change that just because TO is out there? Although I do suspect they'll throw in a few WR double reverse runs in for him each game.

I've actually had work to do the last few days (sucks I know), so I completely missed all this. I'm still not entirely sure what you're all talking about, but I can surmise the gist of it. I really can't imagine a more tasteless, shameful thing to do than to spread rumors of a person's passing. If ever there were a justification for a lifetime posting ban, I would think it falls into that category.

Why not keep the rules the exact same with one minor exception... The initial coin toss of the game determines who receives. Why not make whoever receives the opening kick also receives the overtime kickoff. It would give more potential importance to the decision to defer the opening kickoff if you win the coin toss. So Team A receives opening kick. Team B gets 2nd half kickoff. Team A then gets the overtime kickoff, if needed. Right now the vast majority of coaches are deferring the opening kickoff, make them think about that decision.

You got me to thinking.. .so here's more from a 2009 NPR Article: Perhaps we're both right? Interesting point in that snippet for me was the idea that field goal kickers were having a big impact in the overtime results. Makes sense, when you think about it. I just hadn't thought about it.