Dan

I would beg to differ. Why not Hamdan?

Didn't JP play a couple of years before JP was moved to LT? I don't recall him ever being on IR. Didn't Trent play a few games last year without Peters at LT? I don't recall him getting a season ending injury. Point? Yes, Peters is a good LT, but the entire offense doesn't completely fall apart without him. We all assume this is what happened. But, to be fair, there's been zero confirmation in the media as to the content of any conversations Parker and Brandon had regarding Peters contract. Just as it's likely the team told Peters to shut up and play; it's also possible that Brandon offered Peters a new deal worth $7-8 million a year and Peters turned it down. Can you please provide s a link to that article? I don't recall ever reading that Peters came in and got checked out after his surgery. I seem to recall reading that the team has had no contact with him since he had his surgery in mid Jan. But I don't recall the part about him getting checked out by the team.

Yes. They were playing a show in England at the time. However they said nothing at all about.... "President Bush [being] an embarrassment to the country and a stupid !@#$". Actually, all they said was... "they were embarrassed that Bush was from Texas". Of course, it got completely blown out of proportion, but why worry ourselves with the facts. I believe the interest of Toby Keith supporting Obama is that at the time he and the Dixie Chicks got into a war of words... they obviously against the war; Toby for it. Of course, once again facts got obscured and now most people think Toby Keith is a staunch supporter of Bush and the Republicans, when in reality he's openly said he disagrees with much of Bush's policies. He did, however, do a much better job of playing up the redneck crowd with lines like... "We'll put a boot up your ass. It's the American way."

You may be right. It could ultimately help him. However, my bigger concern is does he come back in shape and play at that same or higher level without sustaining an injury? It's not at all uncommon for a player to come back out of shape and late in the offseason and then have a subpar and/or injury plagued year. I think there's little doubt that if he comes back and has another Probowl-type year, then he gets mega money.

A little food for thought.... If Trent misses this week's preseason game, does he start for the fist half of the 4th game? On one hand, it'd be good for him to have the time with the starting offense. On the other, starters historically play very little of the 4th preseason game.

Agreed. I think he almost has to show pretty soon. The Bills have given zero indication that they may cave. And as sad as it may sound, but the Bills may be thinking - hey, we haven't had a good Oline for over a decade. So what's one more year while we look for Peters' replacement?

I think this year will be quite interesting for the Pats*. It'll really show how much character and heart that team has. How many teams have been so highly favored to win the Superbowl only to lose it and then still make the Superbowl the following year. Not many. That's one of the most amazing things about the Bills of the 90's. To make it back for 4 consecutive years was nothing short of incredible. That was a team of heart. I'm not sure the Pats* are.

Has the Bills' FO said that.. or has it just been TSW posters saying that Peters needs to show up and he'll get a new contract? I ask because the comments I've read from the Bills suggested that if Peters showed up, they would begin to talk about a renegotiation of his contract (or at least I thought I read). IMO, the Bills have probably told Peters and his agent all along that he's not getting a new deal this year. It would be next year, at the earliest. Peters didn't like that; hence, the holdout. However, IMO also, he'd get a better deal (or at least have a chance at a better deal) if he were in camp and played another great season.

Sorry, I was referring to his pay in relation to the other offensive linemen. Should he be the top paid guy? Yes. But, not necessarily within a year of the high end FAs signing. The other problem I have with this whole Peters situation is the talk that he's one of the top 3 or even top 5 LTs in the game. He's had one good year. A year, in which, he didn't even finish due to an injury. IMO, starting his career as an UDFA TE, he's got to prove it for a little more than 13 games before he becomes the one of the top 5 LTs in the game. Is that too much to ask - that he play one more year and reproduce his 2007 success while the Bills and his agent are discussing a new deal? If he has another good year, progresses, and stays healthy; then he gets the mega deal next offseason. This whole big hold out just seems a year premature, I guess.

Bill, what's your limit? If Peters is asking for $20mill per year do you pay him? Give him a $50 mill signing bonus? You seem to be placing one player above the entire team. As though you could tell the probowl QB he's not as important as the LT, therefore he can't renegotiate; or the probowl RB, the probowl Safety. You're placing one position and one player higher than all others. And that's when you lose the team. The biggest problem here is that the Bills went on a limb and signed Peters. They paid him plenty while he learned. They put time and energy into teaching him and grooming him. Then they give him a nice raise. All based on the promise of his potential. And at the first sight of that potential, Peters sits out and demands more. WTF?! After the Bills paying him on potential for 4 years, he says I want more after one decent season. I'm sorry but I call BS. Yes, Peters is good. But he's not yet in the HOF. He's not yet a perennial ProBowler. He's not yet the best tackle in the game. He's good. That's it. He's not better than the team. He shouldn't be placed on a pedestal above all others. He should, however, come to camp and play with his teammates and continue to learn and become that future HOF player. Yes, Peters is underpaid. But, lots of players with a 2-3 year old contract are underpaid as top FA's and 1st round rookies are signed. That's the nature of the game. Players all know that, but they don't sulk. They keep playing and cash in when their time comes. There's little doubt that the Bills would have begun negotiations with Peters and given him a big deal next year. They've done that with player after player. Next up is Evans. But, Peters decided he's more important that Evans. Screw Lee, pay Peters now. Is that his attitude? Sure seems like it.

I seem to recall some thoughts that part of the reason our pass blocking was so good last year was due to Kugler being in charge of the pass blocking schemes, while J Mac was in charge of run blocking. Hence there was some optimism that the run game might improve just by virtue of Kugler now being responsible for the run blocking as well. Certainly, we can't discount the value of play calling. Certainly, when the opposing defense knows exactly what play is coming and which side of the line you're running to, your job run blocking becomes more difficult. So, I'd think Turk's play calling is perhaps at least equally as important. Is it possible that our most pathetic offense last year was primarily coaching and not so much the players? Despite all that, I'd still say it's only game 2 of the preseason. So lets not get ahead of ourselves. However, it was darn nice to see the offense perform so well the other night.

Offense: I'd say Langston Walker. He's quickly making the absence of Peters seem less devastating. I wouldn't say the line is great. But, it certainly doesn't seem to be abysmal either. Defense: I'd say Youboty. Maybe it's just a function of him getting a lot of playing time, but he seems to be in on a lot of plays. Special Teams: McKelvin. One near touchdown in the first game. One easy touchdown in the second. Enough said. It'll be interesting to see if they can keep the momentum going in the 3rd game. It could be a blessing in disguise to have several of the Colts stars possibly out. Nothing like a little success to give the team confidence.

Agreed. Until I see different, I would say that cold, wind and snow are as big a disadvantage to our team as it is to visiting teams.

I would counter that Hamdan's position on this team is as safe as Moorman's.

I would disagree with much of this. First of all, at the time of realignment, the Bills/Dolphins rivalry was in full swing. That was, by far, the biggest draw each year. There were a very small few that wanted the Bills/Dolphins rivalry to be over at that time. I'm not sure how that can be considered a bad move, let alonoe his worst move. The problem with the Bills in the region has never been fan support or attendance at games. Even in the leanest of years, the Bills have been in the top half of the league in ticket sales. The problem with the Bills stems from a lack of corporate support. Corporations provide all the expendable cash that allows teams to be highly profitable and acquire the high-priced free agents. TV ratings will go up if, and when, the Bills become a playoff team. Imagine if the Bills could seriously contend with the Pats* for the AFC East every year, they'd have 2 prime time games a year, if that were the case. But, how many people want to watch a bad team get rolled over another? Even if we were playing the Steelers, Browns or Detroit twice a year, those games wouldn't get big TV audiences. Do you really think a Detroit/Bills game would be worthy of a national audience? I would disagree completely with your comments on Ralph. He quite clearly knows what he's doing. He's owned an NFL franchise for quite some time and done nothing but guarantee that team stay in Buffalo as long as he's alive. To even suggest that he doesn't know what he's doing or doesn't care about Buffalo, is to utter laziness of thought. It's kinda like watching Phelps win his 8th gold medal rather easily last night and concluding that he's not really that great - without any understanding of how he got to that point, the history of the sport, the history of the Olympics, or any understanding of his competitors. To say that Ralph has not done enough to ensure the Bills stay in Buffalo, completely ignores everything he's done for the last 40+ years. Think about that for a second... the Bills have been in Buffalo longer than many posters have been alive. Why? Because of one man. But perhaps you're right. Ralph should have just given up on this charade of pretending to want the Bills in Buffalo back in the late 60's. The last 40 years have really sucked knowing that he really hates Buffalo and can't wait until he dies so the team can be sold and make billions for himself. What's the difference in playing a bad Miami team or a bad Cleveland team? How is playing the Browns any more fun? Personally, I'd rather play the team with a history between us. You can still go to Cleveland and Pittsburgh for games. If that's your idea of a great time... seeing Pittsburgh and/or Cleveland play, then you have plenty of oppurtunities each year. In fact, they play each other twice a year. You could see both of them in the same week. How great would that be?!

If Hamdan mailed a letter without a stamp... it would still get there. It was just reported by NASA that you can see his Chroise from space. Cutting Hamdan would be ill-advised.

You do realize that you just negated the majority of what you've been arguing in this thread with that one statement.

I think the confusion on this guy's part might stem from the fact I'm sure the Steelers expected the all too familiar run, run, pass, punt offense of the Bills. However, the Bills actually had a game plan (not to be confused with game planning) that tried to resemble a professional NFL offense. I thought it most humorous on the first play of the game - a play action pass to Evans - the announcers immediately called it a busted play. Because, like all of us, I'm sure they can't recall the last time a Bills' offense did something as crazy as not run on the first down of the first series of a game.

Thank you. All this talk about not playing our starters enough is nonsensical. Look around the league. Every other team approaches the preseason the same way that the Bills are. Ask any player, coach, front office guy, or knowledgeable fan what's the most important thing to get out of a preseason game and they'll all answer the same way.... no injuries. I could just imagine the outrage if Jauron left Trent in the game for a couple of quarters and late in the 2nd quarter he gets injured and loses a few months of playing time.

I prefer clicks as well.

I really love this. JP has a good night; good completion percentage; TD; 2pt conversion. Yet all we can say is he made his receivers stretch for the ball, he was lucky, erratic. How about appreciating the fact that we actually have a pretty good #2 QB? Would that be too much to ask?

I noticed that too. But, I didn't want to start a mess over it all. Interesting how observations go.

I'd readily and emphatically agree with you. Having him definitely gives us the best combination of linemen. But, lets just pretend Peters is dead in a canyon and doesn't return... were we at least adequate in is stead?

I'm somewhat confused (not that that's a great revelation or anything). But, on one hand, I've read several posts that say... get Peters into Camp! We need him. Then on the other hand, I've read several posts that say the offense was similar to last year... decent pass protection, but not great run blocking. So.. which is it? Does the line blow without Peters? Or is it similar to last year's? Or was it too little to tell? Please, enquiring minds (that didn't watch the game) want to know.

I'm never in favor of trading good players. And it would seem Youboty played well enough tonight to think he could be coming around. However... you do pose an interesting scenario. Use a position in which we're fairly well stocked to trade and get a player at a position of need. Not really a bad idea. I guess it depends on the guy they were trading for as to how good of an idea it might be.