For all you Peters haters

[BB2004]

the sack stat is totally miscued, but I'd rather take two sacks and false start while mauling guys the rest of the game, than mediocre to $hitty play and tons of false starts that we cunrrently have. You have no idea what you are talking about if you think hes not a good player.

 

There were times in the Bears game where Jason was simply dominating at the line of scimmage. I also think he didn't play his best that night and still was very solid protecting the quarterback as well as on running plays.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Well thanks for arguing the minutia of my post. Your right. Peters will have to play 1 more game to play more complete games than Wood. What in the hell does Jones Jennings, who was old when we traded him, have to do with a 26 year old probowl LT that has only been playing LT for 3 years in the pros? Do you really think they have anywhere near the same upside when we got rid of them?

 

No how about addressing the meat? If I may translate there is NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER TO POINT TO THE FACT THAT PETERS WOULD NOT PLAY HERE!!!! You implied something that you have no proof what so ever of it being true. This is what gets people like Leonidas all in a lather because they hear these implications and sourceless rumors and actually believe they are true. They latch on to half truths and unsubstantiated grumblings to justify their hate of the man that took a paycheck over their beloved Buffalo instead of continuing to play for peanuts.

I have no proof it is true that Peters would not play in Buffalo. You have no proof that he would. A contract was not agreed upon & training camp was around the corner. Peters HELD OUT the year before, then reported out of shape & played poorly so he was traded rather than have him hold out again.

[K-9]

Sometimes I just can't help myself.

 

The BIGGEST issue the FO had with Peters started in January of '08 when it was revealed he would have to miss the Pro Bowl due to his groin injury. Eugene Parker, RIGHTLY SO, was asking his client to be paid comensurate with his performace as a Pro Bowl LT, the highest profile OL position. The Bills insisted, RIGHTLY SO, that their medical staff be able to evaluate the extent of the injury as well as prescribe a proper re-hab regimen.

 

This is where Parker/Peters lost their sense of professionalism and flatly denied the Bills the opportunity. Indeed, they saw fit to ignore numerous phone calls by Bills FO and medical staffs.

 

What does that tell you? Tells me the Bills were smart not to commit until they knew the extent of the injury and the corrsesponding length of re-hap before committing to pay him the highest salary in team history.

 

Also tells me Parker/Peters had something to hide by choosing to ignore attempts to contact them.

 

I don't know of any business where you blindly invest in assets you are unsure of. Especially pro football where it happens all the time.

 

It was all down hill from there. But the Bills' track record is clear and has been for awhile. They have ROUTINELY paid for what they think is top notch talent. Not sure if it's true anymore but there was a time when RW had the record for paying the top salaries at various positions.

 

Just from a pure business perspective it made no sense for the Bills to pay JP in '08 until they knew the extent of the injury AND that he would agree to report to OTAs and training camp.

 

Parker/Peters came up well short, revealed the nature of their characters, and by then is was too late.

 

Sucks not to have a great LT. Doesn't suck that the Bills made the best decision, based on the information they had at the time.

 

Oh, and as I've already done in the past, I'll repeat here. Marv was being kind in his description of JP's attitude. JP was a constant whiner and complainer from the moment he reported in '08. I've been told that personally by some that bore the brunt of his outbursts.

 

And screw anybody that wants a link. It's all off the record. Take it or leave it. But the events surrounding his injury status and the Bills' concern about it speaks for itself.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[colin]

while we need OTs in a huge way, peters was a jerk off for us and it's good that he's gone. the thing the chubby chasers on this board, you know the ones who pleasure themselves to the giant fat bodies of linemen and look at their own girth and pretend they could play in the nfl and shower with their heroes, don't get is that you can have a great set of lines AND STILL SUCK.

 

clevland has some high quality linemen on either side of the ball, including about the strongest guy in the nfl on D, and an LT who is better than peters. the thing is they still suck. it takes 53 players and plenty of coaches to make up a football team, and while we need OTs big time, we are actually better than cleveland (even tho we always lose to them!). imo you need a good d, best quarterback possible, and playmakers on O above all else. the lines have to be solid of course, but pittz and zona had sht lines but made it to the bowl last year.

[GrudginglyPessimistic]

Marv Levy on the Shredd & Ragan Show was asked about Peters & said that Peters was having a bad effect on the locker room & that if he were coach he wouldn't want Peters on his team.

Thanks for citing a specific quote. This in itself is far better than the often fact-free opinions which seem to make up a majority of this thread (folks are certainly entitled to think whatever they want, its just that those thoughts tend to be eminently ignorable without having a quote from one or more of the parties involved in the particular dispute.

 

This leads me ask a further question about whether Peters was in fact a cancer. Did Marv go any further with his comments to describe that Peters had divided the team. Though I doubt he would have named names is their any hint who the factions were that made Peters a cancer.

 

This is what I doubt and have seen not even a bit of subjective evidence to support such a claim.

 

From what I know of the situation, Marv was in fact being honest when he said Peters had an effect in the locker room which Marv did not like as a GM. This effect though was not one where Peters was a disease which caused the team to eat itself alive with warring factions as happened when TO was a cancer in Philly.

 

The locker room effect that got Marv's goat was likely that Peters refused to play in voluntary workouts and then subjected himself to the fines for missing exhibition games because he felt he was not being paid at the market rate for a Pro Bowl LT but instead as a starting RT level.

 

Rather than being a cancer, from all I have heard, Peters actually united the vast majority of the team as they wanted to see a key player receive fair market value so they would too when they signed a contract based upon one situation (in Peters case it was RT starter money, it could be ST money or back-up player money, that when your surprise (in fact downright shock when you prove to be not just simply competent at another role but in fact you make the Pro Bowl.

 

One can truthfully argue that Peters signed the contract and caveat emptor he has to wait until he hits FA to get whatever his market value is. However, the Bills had set the tone for how to deal with them in contractual disputes when Schobek sae out during voluntary workouts and the Bills FO caved to him before regular season.

 

The Bills had every right under the contract to never extend a deal before it was done. However, this generally is not the practice in the NFL for players moving from UDFA to Pro Bowl levels and when a player can be cut and any money not guarnteed is lost.

 

The Bills FO had the right to do what they did but on the face of it did not do the right thing and players like Dockery whome the Bills allegedly hired to lead the OL publicly stated they agreed with Peters.\

 

If anyone was divided on the team it FO and the players and Peters was not a cancer setting one part of the players against the others.

[Mickey]

Sometimes I just can't help myself.

 

The BIGGEST issue the FO had with Peters started in January of '08 when it was revealed he would have to miss the Pro Bowl due to his groin injury. Eugene Parker, RIGHTLY SO, was asking his client to be paid comensurate with his performace as a Pro Bowl LT, the highest profile OL position. The Bills insisted, RIGHTLY SO, that their medical staff be able to evaluate the extent of the injury as well as prescribe a proper re-hab regimen.

 

This is where Parker/Peters lost their sense of professionalism and flatly denied the Bills the opportunity. Indeed, they saw fit to ignore numerous phone calls by Bills FO and medical staffs.

 

What does that tell you? Tells me the Bills were smart not to commit until they knew the extent of the injury and the corrsesponding length of re-hap before committing to pay him the highest salary in team history.

 

Also tells me Parker/Peters had something to hide by choosing to ignore attempts to contact them.

 

I don't know of any business where you blindly invest in assets you are unsure of. Especially pro football where it happens all the time.

 

It was all down hill from there. But the Bills' track record is clear and has been for awhile. They have ROUTINELY paid for what they think is top notch talent. Not sure if it's true anymore but there was a time when RW had the record for paying the top salaries at various positions.

 

Just from a pure business perspective it made no sense for the Bills to pay JP in '08 until they knew the extent of the injury AND that he would agree to report to OTAs and training camp.

 

Parker/Peters came up well short, revealed the nature of their characters, and by then is was too late.

 

Sucks not to have a great LT. Doesn't suck that the Bills made the best decision, based on the information they had at the time.

 

Oh, and as I've already done in the past, I'll repeat here. Marv was being kind in his description of JP's attitude. JP was a constant whiner and complainer from the moment he reported in '08. I've been told that personally by some that bore the brunt of his outbursts.

 

And screw anybody that wants a link. It's all off the record. Take it or leave it. But the events surrounding his injury status and the Bills' concern about it speaks for itself.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Not true, he was checked out by team doctors after the surgery, in fact, it was the last time he was in B'lo until the hold out ended. I have posted that link many times, so no, I am not going to dig it up again.

 

Okay, one last time, here is the link to prior post with a link to the WGR interview with Brandon where he mentions that he last saw Peters when he came in to get checked out after his surgery. Link

[Thurman#1]

He stated that he was going to leave here anyways - no matter the offer. He was done when his current contract was over. He did not want to be here. The offer we made him, I think, was more than what he accepted from Philthy. SO you keep a mal-content on the roster and get nothing for him when he does leave? I think not.

 

 

 

Actually, if you remembered, this is almost verbatim what Russ Brandon had said. I'm not sure that our offer was bigger than Philly's, but it was the largest in team history and he turned it down, and that he had every intention of merely playing out his contract and skipping town. But you don't remember how Peters played over the course of the season, I wouldn't expect you to remember such a 'mundane' detail as this.

 

 

 

Yeah, this guy, saying "The offer we made him, I think, was more than what he accepted from Philthy," got Russ almost verbatim.

 

Except that Russ never compared our offer to Philly's at all. Yeah, except for that, almost verbatim.

 

You're right when you say that you're not sure our offer was bigger than Philly's. Because there is no evidence whatsoever that it was. Putting the absolute most generous construction on Russ's comment, all it means is that it was higher per year than Lee Evans' contract, and Lee's contract was well below what Philly are paying Peters.

 

You are also forgetting when Peters made that comment about just playing out his contract ...

 

1) ... in the middle of a negotiation. Gosh, a guy in a contract negotiation battle saying he was going to play out his contract and leave. I don't think I've ever seen that before. Certainly there's never been a case of a guy saying that and then recieving an offer that met his standards and staying. Not more than several hundred cases anyway.

 

2) ...after a year and a half of bloody negotiations that had appeared to come to a halt. Even if you assume that Peters really meant it and would never have changed his mind, it is extremely clear that the reason he made the statement was a simple and clear one ... i.e. it had become clear that Russ simply was never ever going to raise his offer to the market value ... a market value that Peters got within hours of the trade.

 

Peters wanted out because they weren't going to pay him. Until then there's no evidence whatsoever that he didn't want to stay in Buffalo. Quite the opposite.

[Thurman#1]

The site you linked is checked to display players that were on the field for 25% of the team snaps or less. If you change that to 50%, CIN's Collins falls off of their ratings. And Peters drops to #12, as ranked by that site. If you change it to 75%, Peters falls off entirely.

 

I'm here nor there regarding Peters, but it seems you've chosen to show a best-case scenario

 

 

 

25% is the default setting, not something I chose. Go to profootballfocus, hit "By Player" and "Tackle." It comes up at 25%. To tell you the truth, I had never even noticed that, much less played with it. Actually, it only makes sense to eliminate people who have played minimally, because they haven't got a fair sample of them yet.

[Thurman#1]

Sorry, you missed the "from me" that was implied. In other words, there's no hate for Peters from me. Pdaddy? DIAF. But yes, there is plenty of hate from Peters on the board. And agreed on Bell, but I don't agree on that Peters goes without blame this season. If you are consistently injured, some of that can be attributed to a lack of conditioning. If he suffers from chronic injuries, then it will be clear that Buffalo got the best of that trade. If he plays the next ten years giving up less than two sacks a year (which I find highly unlikely) in the mold of a Pace or an Ogden, then Philly will have gotten the best of the trade. We will see, but at the moment, Peters has not been worth the four draft picks OR the max contract he got.

 

 

I try not to put words into people's mouth, so I did indeed miss your implication there.

 

How has Peters been consistently injured? He hasn't.

 

In five years as a Bill, he missed four games. Now, he got a twisted ankle in Philly and has missed a couple of games, but is playing on the gimpy ankle because it helps the team.

 

You're right, if he suffers from chronic injury, the trade will look much better. But the fact is that there isn't a single player in the league who might not suffer from chronic injury in the future. I mean, look at our injuries list this year. It's catastrophic. Does that mean all those guys are losers and not worth having been acquired?

 

We didn't get four draft picks for him, we got three. Has Peters proven worthy of his contract yet? No. But no way he could when he got $26 mill guaranteed, not in the first ten games of the first season of the contract. But as I said, before the injury he was listed as the #2 tackle. Now, he's #12 fighting his way through a gimpy ankle. He's playing pretty much at the level you would want him to play at for two to three years to justify the contract.

 

 

Hrm you call him a fat lazy malcontent but there's no hate there. ROFLOL.

 

Ha ha ha ha. PDaDdy got you there, Leonidas. If you said that, how can you argue you're not a hater?

[Mr. WEO]

That Farve guy sucks by the way. I guess since he was injured last year with a torn tendon and who knows what else he wasn't and isn't still one of, if not the, best QBs to have ever played the game. Typical extreme Peters haterism.

You've proven my point. The Pro Bowl isn't supposed to a lifetime achievement award for something you toss to a guy because of past performance. An injured Favre playing at suboptimal level (for him) doesn't earn him a place among the best--he wasn't even ion the top 5...in the AFC!

 

Go back to to your coffee.

[Thurman#1]

I don't think anybody's saying he was a 'lousy' OT. But consistency is the key to being an elite tackle, and he just doesn't have it. We didn't get better by losing him and NOT replacing him adequately, of course, but had we replaced him adequately we could have gotten the better of this whole deal with the draft picks, the cap space, and the lack of locker room cancer. Let's see how the 2010 draft goes.

 

 

 

I'm one of those suspecting that we snag either an LT or a QB in the first.

 

Let's say we get an LT, and he ends up being above average. I would consider that enough to address the LT position.

 

But let's face it, that would mean that the Peters trade cost us an extra first-round pick. If we'd kept Peters, we wouldn't have had to replace him. Instead, we have to spend a high pick that we now can't use on DT, LB, QB, WR or RT. That's a major loss to this franchise. A major loss we are probably going to have to deal with.

 

If Bell (or Langston, but I never thought for a moment that that was even a possibility) had been an adequate replacement, hey, the trade looks a lot better. Now, though, the replacement cost for Peters will likely be a first-rounder, first-round money being spent at LT anyway, and the time it takes the new guy to get settled in.

[Thurman#1]

Marv Levy on the Shredd & Ragan Show was asked about Peters & said that Peters was having a bad effect on the locker room & that if he were coach he wouldn't want Peters on his team.

 

 

 

No, Levy said Peters was a "sourpuss." Wow. Gotta get them out of Buffalo. Wouldn't want anyone cranky on the football team.

[Thurman#1]

"Poisoned the well"???

 

Please. Peters is a total effin' mercenary - he was going to whomever offered the most $$$$.

 

 

No. Wow. I'm totally shocked. He was going to play for whomever offered the most $$$$?

 

My God! You'd almost think he lived in America under a capitalist system. Gee I had no idea his values were so twisted.

[Thurman#1]

You've proven my point. The Pro Bowl isn't supposed to a lifetime achievement award for something you toss to a guy because of past performance. An injured Favre playing at suboptimal level (for him) doesn't earn him a place among the best--he wasn't even ion the top 5...in the AFC!

 

Go back to to your coffee.

 

 

 

Actually, Favre was having a very fine year with the Jets till that shoulder injury late in the year, after the Pro Bowl voting was basically over.

[Flbillsfan#1]

No, Levy said Peters was a "sourpuss." Wow. Gotta get them out of Buffalo. Wouldn't want anyone cranky on the football team.

What are you saying no to? Levy did call him a sourpuss & also said he was affecting the locker room. Anyone that wants to hear it can download the podcast from Itunes, The Shredd & Ragan Show.

[PDaDdy]

Actually, Jonas Jennings was not traded. He was signed by the 49ers in free agency, and at the age of 27. Got any more pearls of wisdom? Furthermore, Peters said when he was traded that he was fed up and was going to just play out his contract and sign elsewhere as a free agent. Do your own goddamned homework.

 

 

Typical lame response with no integrity. Make a claim. Ask SOMEONE ELSE to find your proof and supporting documentation. Sorry the burden of proof is on you.

 

I indeed thought we got rid of Jennings later in his career. If we didn't, I ask again what the hell does that have to do with Peters especially seeing as how we didn't trade him but he was a free agent when San Fran got him.

[PDaDdy]

I was referring to you talking about your business dealings you !@#$ing idiot. You really don't have a clue, do you? Scroll up to your own comments. Dipshit.

 

Furthermore, Peters was signed in 2005(?) to a one-year, $425,000 deal. In 2006 he signed a 5-year, $15M deal. He wanted a new deal only a year later. In 2008 as we all know, he sat out and had a very poor season. I'm not going to get into the "we should/shouldn't have paid him" in 2007 since the argument is moot. But your argument is still worthless, so is your 'evidence.' What else is new.

 

If you want people to understand what you mean try using the proper tense dingleberry. It get's your point across much better which is what I was making fun of. Throw out all the profanity you want, you're the guy that needs the grammar lesson.

 

So on the Peters contract you're basically confirming what I said right? Deeeeeeeerrr. He signed his RT tackle contract deal in 2006 and was promptly moved to LT that same season. Is it sinking in now? Signed when he was a RT....promoted to LT during that year. Played LT for part of 2006 and all of 2007 and 2008 at a RT wage.

 

Hopefully that is clear enough for you although people of little integrity find it impossible to acknowledge a good point that someone they are arguing with has made. Let the hate go you Russ Brandon, Ralph Wilson, Guy lovin' chump!!!

[PDaDdy]

I have no proof it is true that Peters would not play in Buffalo. You have no proof that he would. A contract was not agreed upon & training camp was around the corner. Peters HELD OUT the year before, then reported out of shape & played poorly so he was traded rather than have him hold out again.

 

 

You are right. But I don't allude to things that can't be proven. On the expect hold ....uh....we could have considered option "B"....PAY THE MAN = NO HOLD OUT!!!

 

As usual frugality won out and we let talent go instead of acquiring it.

[PDaDdy]

Sometimes I just can't help myself.

 

The BIGGEST issue the FO had with Peters started in January of '08 when it was revealed he would have to miss the Pro Bowl due to his groin injury. Eugene Parker, RIGHTLY SO, was asking his client to be paid comensurate with his performace as a Pro Bowl LT, the highest profile OL position. The Bills insisted, RIGHTLY SO, that their medical staff be able to evaluate the extent of the injury as well as prescribe a proper re-hab regimen.

 

This is where Parker/Peters lost their sense of professionalism and flatly denied the Bills the opportunity. Indeed, they saw fit to ignore numerous phone calls by Bills FO and medical staffs.

 

What does that tell you? Tells me the Bills were smart not to commit until they knew the extent of the injury and the corrsesponding length of re-hap before committing to pay him the highest salary in team history.

 

Also tells me Parker/Peters had something to hide by choosing to ignore attempts to contact them.

 

I don't know of any business where you blindly invest in assets you are unsure of. Especially pro football where it happens all the time.

 

It was all down hill from there. But the Bills' track record is clear and has been for awhile. They have ROUTINELY paid for what they think is top notch talent. Not sure if it's true anymore but there was a time when RW had the record for paying the top salaries at various positions.

 

Just from a pure business perspective it made no sense for the Bills to pay JP in '08 until they knew the extent of the injury AND that he would agree to report to OTAs and training camp.

 

Parker/Peters came up well short, revealed the nature of their characters, and by then is was too late.

 

Sucks not to have a great LT. Doesn't suck that the Bills made the best decision, based on the information they had at the time.

 

Oh, and as I've already done in the past, I'll repeat here. Marv was being kind in his description of JP's attitude. JP was a constant whiner and complainer from the moment he reported in '08. I've been told that personally by some that bore the brunt of his outbursts.

 

And screw anybody that wants a link. It's all off the record. Take it or leave it. But the events surrounding his injury status and the Bills' concern about it speaks for itself.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

"Off the record" LOL.....nice ....I think I'll try it too. ......

 

eh emm......here we go...

 

 

I have a close friend that works at one Bills drive. I was told by him that Russ Brandon didn't want to look soft handling contract negotiations and that he wanted to set a precedent by not granting Peters fair market value for his services. Ralph anticipating the down turn in the economy did not want to commit that kind of cash to any player as he wanted to keep some of his financial resources liquid. The supposed injury issue was used as a clever smoke screen to help lend legitimacy to what the Bills have done since the advent of free agency and that is let high priced talent go. Russ Brandon was reported patting himself on the back for standing up and letting talent walk out the door again"

 

 

SCREW YOU IF YOU WANT A LINK TO PROVE WHAT I JUST SAID

 

 

 

 

See how stupid that sounds? I'll just allege anything I like and then call YOU a jerk for asking for proof. Nice try but inquiring minds want to know.

[PDaDdy]

Thanks for citing a specific quote. This in itself is far better than the often fact-free opinions which seem to make up a majority of this thread (folks are certainly entitled to think whatever they want, its just that those thoughts tend to be eminently ignorable without having a quote from one or more of the parties involved in the particular dispute.

 

This leads me ask a further question about whether Peters was in fact a cancer. Did Marv go any further with his comments to describe that Peters had divided the team. Though I doubt he would have named names is their any hint who the factions were that made Peters a cancer.

 

This is what I doubt and have seen not even a bit of subjective evidence to support such a claim.

 

From what I know of the situation, Marv was in fact being honest when he said Peters had an effect in the locker room which Marv did not like as a GM. This effect though was not one where Peters was a disease which caused the team to eat itself alive with warring factions as happened when TO was a cancer in Philly.

 

The locker room effect that got Marv's goat was likely that Peters refused to play in voluntary workouts and then subjected himself to the fines for missing exhibition games because he felt he was not being paid at the market rate for a Pro Bowl LT but instead as a starting RT level.

 

Rather than being a cancer, from all I have heard, Peters actually united the vast majority of the team as they wanted to see a key player receive fair market value so they would too when they signed a contract based upon one situation (in Peters case it was RT starter money, it could be ST money or back-up player money, that when your surprise (in fact downright shock when you prove to be not just simply competent at another role but in fact you make the Pro Bowl.

 

One can truthfully argue that Peters signed the contract and caveat emptor he has to wait until he hits FA to get whatever his market value is. However, the Bills had set the tone for how to deal with them in contractual disputes when Schobek sae out during voluntary workouts and the Bills FO caved to him before regular season.

 

The Bills had every right under the contract to never extend a deal before it was done. However, this generally is not the practice in the NFL for players moving from UDFA to Pro Bowl levels and when a player can be cut and any money not guarnteed is lost.

 

The Bills FO had the right to do what they did but on the face of it did not do the right thing and players like Dockery whome the Bills allegedly hired to lead the OL publicly stated they agreed with Peters.\

 

If anyone was divided on the team it FO and the players and Peters was not a cancer setting one part of the players against the others.

 

 

WAIT....you mean Schobel sat out of camp and the front office pays him and he is a hero while Peters held out didn't get paid and is a villain. ...Hrm.....sounds like the only difference to me is the front office deciding to pay an injured Schobel and not Peters. The difference between hero and good team mate and villain and fat bastard are if the front office decides to pay you or tries to run you down in the press.