Okay, but you weren't only defending Peters. You've been simultaneously defending Peters, and attacking Bills management for not caving into his demands and giving him a new contract. You were wrong.
I distinctly remember one instance where another poster expressed interest in maintaining a good relationship with Peters throughout the holdout process, and you responded to that post by saying something along the lines of "its too late for that." I'm too lazy to find the post among all your drivel, but if you insist, I will. You were wrong about that too.
You said over and over again it was in the Bills best interest to cave in and give Peters whatever contract he's been asking for. Yet, by holding firm, Buffalo has gotten what they wanted: Peters playing football in 2008 under his current contract. You said this tactic wasn't in our best interest. So, if you truly believe "neither side lost much of anything," then you have a king-sized portion of crow sitting in front of you. Because you've been insinuating for about a month and a half that the Bills had quite a bit to lose by standing firm. Just be gracious, take your bow, and admit some of your attacks were misguided.