For all you Peters haters

[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 try to run you down in the press.

[PDaDdy]

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.

 

Logic applied to the situation...SHOCKING.....maybe we should instead hate on the guy and try to come up with BS excuses for our sour grapes. It is so funny! Really. The haters are just crying sour grapes. AFTER ALL THIS TIME people still haven't learned the lesson of that parable. CLOWNS!!!!

[PDaDdy]

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.

 

My point is Farve and Rivers were BOTH GOOD. Farve later in the year suffered from injury but at the beginning when healthy was pretty much the best QB in football with the possible exception of Kurt Warner or Drew Brees. I DO NOT KNOW THIS FOR FACT but aren't probowl selections during the later part of the regular season? Perhaps the voting was also in before his TORN FREAKIN BICEP TENDON affected his play significantly.

 

Again don't use the player X in year Y shouldn't have made it excuses to invalidate ANYONE you personally feel shouldn't have made it because the nomination is actual factual proof that shoots down your argument.

[4BillsintheBurgh]

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.

Do you think Dockery's (7 for $9 mil) and Walker's (5 for $25mil) contracts preseason in 2007 didn't have an affect on Peters? What about the money they paid to Schobel and Kelsay, heck even Josh freakin' Reed signing a 4 for $10mil deal in 2006.

 

I think the Bills clearly defined Peters' value to the team with those moves. Whatever, it's over, but there is plenty of evidence as to why Peters was "all about the money" with the Bills in 2007/2008, regardless of the people who think OBD did a great job to get some picks for him.

 

I'm sure we'll be able to replace that talent and get a top notch qb and play making lb and run stuffing dt in this draft and FA just like we always do.

[PDaDdy]

Do you think Dockery's (7 for $9 mil) and Walker's (5 for $25mil) contracts preseason in 2007 didn't have an affect on Peters? What about the money they paid to Schobel and Kelsay, heck even Josh freakin' Reed signing a 4 for $10mil deal in 2006.

 

You mean Peters was by far the most talented on the o-line and he was getting paid the least? What a greedy fat bastard!!!!

 

I think the Bills clearly defined Peters' value to the team with those moves. Whatever, it's over, but there is plenty of evidence as to why Peters was "all about the money" with the Bills in 2007/2008, regardless of the people who think OBD did a great job to get some picks for him.

 

I'm sure we'll be able to replace that talent and get a top notch qb and play making lb and run stuffing dt in this draft and FA just like we always do.

 

 

Ah somebody who also gets it. You can't get better if you keep moving backwards and making new holes to fill.

 

In addition to now needing a quality LT we still need those positions you mentioned. LB in particular we need more than one. Mitchell is coming back from a season ending injury. Ellison is a solid LB but we still need an upgrade with some size and speed. Poz gets hurt EVERY year!!! LOL. I can't wait until they try to resign Poz. I wonder if the Peters haters will consider him as much of a injury risk and be OK with it if the front office low balls him an offer big time.

 

If we don't spend it on a QB we will probably use a first round pick to get a ROOKIE LT that we hope won't turn into Mike Williams 2. Not sure who is in free agency or the draft but between those two sources and the youth that is already on the roster we need 2 starting LBs and a DT that can start. Kyle Williams is the little engine that could and does a decent job but we need a HUGE body to put along side Stroud and possibly replace him eventually. Kyle Williams would be a GREAT guy to come off the bench but we need at least one more guy in that rotation and a BIG ONE at that.

[K-9]

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

 

Of course the Bills knew the surgery went well. It was right after the season and he was still in Buffalo. What they didn't know and what Parker/Peters refused to get back to them on was how he was PROGRESSING after the surgery, AFTER he left town, and whether or not he was following a prescribed rehab regimen because he refused to return phone calls let alone come up to Buffalo to be further evaluated.

 

"Successful" surgeries are a dime a dozen. What's NOT common is a player's refusal to allow the team to follow-up AFTER the surgery. That didn't sit well with the Bills nor will it have with ANY team's braintrust. It led to questions that perhaps he wasn't 100%. If you can't confirm a player is 100% at a time you're entereing into a substantial renegotiation you can justifiably be concerned about your investment.

 

The Bills found out on Monday that Eric Wood had successful surgery. Doesn't tell them much other than it was successful. In medical terms. In football terms, they won't know if the surgery was successful for a long time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[PDaDdy]

Of course the Bills knew the surgery went well. It was right after the season and he was still in Buffalo. What they didn't know and what Parker/Peters refused to get back to them on was how he was PROGRESSING after the surgery, AFTER he left town, and whether or not he was following a prescribed rehab regimen because he refused to return phone calls let alone come up to Buffalo to be further evaluated.

 

"Successful" surgeries are a dime a dozen. What's NOT common is a player's refusal to allow the team to follow-up AFTER the surgery. That didn't sit well with the Bills nor will it have with ANY team's braintrust. It led to questions that perhaps he wasn't 100%. If you can't confirm a player is 100% at a time you're entereing into a substantial renegotiation you can justifiably be concerned about your investment.

 

The Bills found out on Monday that Eric Wood had successful surgery. Doesn't tell them much other than it was successful. In medical terms. In football terms, they won't know if the surgery was successful for a long time.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Little bit of a difference between a run of the mill groin surgery compared to a totally mangled leg I would say. Also, if the supposed real reason why the Bills didn't resign Peters is because he didn't show and they couldn't verify the progress of his run of the mill injury they are even bigger dolts than I thought!!!!

 

We all know in a hold out you don't show up and practice. Kind of defeats the purpose of a hold out no?

 

Sounds like more smoke and mirrors for me that fans have bought into. Solely blame the player for the dispute but the front office was being shrewd and frugal. Of the picks we got for Peters that matter we have a promising rookie TE who has played fewer games than Peters and a LG who now has a severely mangled leg and will ALSO likely play fewer games than Peters by seasons end.

[K-9]

Little bit of a difference between a run of the mill groin surgery compared to a totally mangled leg I would say. Also, if the supposed real reason why the Bills didn't resign Peters is because he didn't show and they couldn't verify the progress of his run of the mill injury they are even bigger dolts than I thought!!!!

 

We all know in a hold out you don't show up and practice. Kind of defeats the purpose of a hold out no?

 

Sounds like more smoke and mirrors for me that fans have bought into. Solely blame the player for the dispute but the front office was being shrewd and frugal. Of the picks we got for Peters that matter we have a promising rookie TE who has played fewer games than Peters and a LG who now has a severely mangled leg and will ALSO likely play fewer games than Peters by seasons end.

 

Way to miss the point relative to my mention of E Wood.

 

And there is no such thing as "run of the mill" surgery.

 

Especially to multi-million dollar assets.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[PDaDdy]

Way to miss the point relative to my mention of E Wood.

 

And there is no such thing as "run of the mill" surgery.

 

Especially to multi-million dollar assets.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Uh ...yes.....yes there is!

 

I don't recall any medical report saying that there was even the remotest possibility that Peters groin surgery could end or impact his career. You can't blow it out of proportion to try to defend the Bills approach with him. Don't buy into it! THAT is not the reason why they didn't pay him. This isn't Angelo Crowell we are talking about. A successful surgery on a groin injury means that it is fixed therefore no impact on his ability to play football. Get it? It's not like he was getting a leg amputated and a successful surgery means that his leg was removed. That WOULD affect his ability to play football. Groin injury, no. See the difference?

[K-9]

Uh ...yes.....yes there is!

 

I don't recall any medical report saying that there was even the remotest possibility that Peters groin surgery could end or impact his career. You can't blow it out of proportion to try to defend the Bills approach with him. Don't buy into it! THAT is not the reason why they didn't pay him. This isn't Angelo Crowell we are talking about. A successful surgery on a groin injury means that it is fixed therefore no impact on his ability to play football. Get it? It's not like he was getting a leg amputated and a successful surgery means that his leg was removed. That WOULD affect his ability to play football. Groin injury, no. See the difference?

 

You have a habit of trying to put words in everyone's mouth around here. I wonder why that is.

 

Never said the Bills didn't sign him because of his groin injury. Not even close. His lack of communication about his condition simply raised flags. The Bills weren't going to budge from their position that he had to report before they would start talking new contract. Neither were Parker/Peters. Groin injury or no groin injury. Peters held out. The FO stuck to their guns. So did Parker/Petes. Peters said he wouldn't play for them after his current deal. The Bills traded him. End of story.

 

I really don't give a crap where the fault lies. It's not important. Like I've said, sucks not to have a Pro Bowl LT. Good for Peters that he got his money. And good for the Bills that they got something for a player they'd clearly had enough of by that point.

 

And...uh...no there ISN'T any such thing as routine surgery. Perhaps to the casual fan or the otherwise uninformed but not to ANY credible medical practitioner or athlete about to go under the knife.

 

And...uh...no again. Successful surgery on a groin injury does NOT mean it's fixed. Surgery is only a small part of fixing it. There's a REHAB process involved. A rehab process that renders the surgery useless if not followed. A rehab process the Bills had questions about. Legitimate questions. Questions that Parker/Peters didn't deem important enough to keep them informed about.

 

You equate severity of injury with something I'm not even remotely suggesting.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[PDaDdy]

You have a habit of trying to put words in everyone's mouth around here. I wonder why that is.

 

Never said the Bills didn't sign him because of his groin injury. Not even close. His lack of communication about his condition simply raised flags. The Bills weren't going to budge from their position that he had to report before they would start talking new contract. Neither were Parker/Peters. Groin injury or no groin injury. Peters held out. The FO stuck to their guns. So did Parker/Petes. Peters said he wouldn't play for them after his current deal. The Bills traded him. End of story.

 

I really don't give a crap where the fault lies. It's not important. Like I've said, sucks not to have a Pro Bowl LT. Good for Peters that he got his money. And good for the Bills that they got something for a player they'd clearly had enough of by that point.

 

And...uh...no there ISN'T any such thing as routine surgery. Perhaps to the casual fan or the otherwise uninformed but not to ANY credible medical practitioner or athlete about to go under the knife.

 

And...uh...no again. Successful surgery on a groin injury does NOT mean it's fixed. Surgery is only a small part of fixing it. There's a REHAB process involved. A rehab process that renders the surgery useless if not followed. A rehab process the Bills had questions about. Legitimate questions. Questions that Parker/Peters didn't deem important enough to keep them informed about.

 

You equate severity of injury with something I'm not even remotely suggesting.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

My bad if I put words in your mouth. Apparently we do agree that the injury wasn't the reason why the Bills didn't resign him. I am curious though why you even brought it up. Hopefully you can see how I was confused about that point. You have a point I'll give you rehab was necessary. I'm not sure what "SERIOUS" questions they might have had for him after undergoing successful surgery but I'm sure you can give me some examples. NOT!! LOL.

 

For a professional athlete I'm pretty sure the mundane rehab wouldn't have been a problem. They are used to exercising. I guess his eventual recovery from the injury is somewhat proof that there wasn't a significant risk. Especially considering how lazy many say he is. The rehab really must have been no big deal at all. If a fat lazy greedy bastard could get through it I can't image there was much risk there.

 

The whole "he wouldn't play here" stuff is tired too. I have repeatedly challenged anyone to provide any proof of this. Even IF it was true, which is possible, he was fed up with being jilted financially by the cheap front office and might have had enough. At some point you have to accept that a relationship isn't going to work. Perhaps he had resigned himself to play at the incredibly cheap contract that they wanted him to play for and then he was going to move on to a team that appreciated him specifically in the way of financial compensation.

 

As usual things can be looked at in many ways. The negative way was that he was never going to play for us after the contract is up because he NEVER wanted to stay in Buffalo. The positive way to look at it was that he WANTED to stay in Buffalo but they had screwed him around so much that he decided the best thing he could do was to play out the remainder of his contract at a silly low value and wash his hands of a historically, notoriously cheap franchise.

 

The Bills kept using that "report to camp and we'll talk" routine on him. All that was was a promise to talk which amounts to exactly....NOTHING!

[K-9]

... of a historically, notoriously cheap franchise....

 

Link, please.

 

The historical facts would not seem to back up this specious argument.

 

At one point, RW held the record for having the most highly paid players at their respective positions. Not sure if that's true any longer but it's not surprising given the amount of success they had at the time. RW has consistently paid top dollar for top performance.

 

He also learned a valuable lesson in rewarding holdouts and what that does to hurt a team when he renegotiated OJ's deal in the mid-70s. That fractured (or was it broke) that locker room at the time. Lot of pissed off players.

 

Perhaps one should ask themselves what's different in the Peters case.

 

The Bills kept using that "report to camp and we'll talk" routine on him. All that was was a promise to talk which amounts to exactly....NOTHING!

 

Once again, even the recent facts don't support this statement. Schobel, Stroud, McGee, Butler just to name a few who got new deals.

 

Again, one has to ask what's different about the Peters case.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[San-O]

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.

 

 

 

Right. So is showing up to camp.

[PDaDdy]

Link, please.

 

The historical facts would not seem to back up this specious argument.

 

At one point, RW held the record for having the most highly paid players at their respective positions. Not sure if that's true any longer but it's not surprising given the amound of success they had at the time. RW has consistently paid top dollar for top performance.

 

TRUE to a point. That was prior to free agency type rules and the salary cap. I think we had one of the higher payrolls in the early 90's with Kelly and the boys. Since then we have had a history of letting high priced talent go. Sometimes with proper backup which I don't have as much of a problem with, sometimes not. Since then I think history will show we have not paid big money for big talent. That is not to say we were always right at the cap or even cash to cap which has been the expressed theme of Mr Wilson.

 

He also learned a valuable lesson in rewarding holdouts and what that does to hurt a team when he renegotiated OJ's deal in the mid-70s. That fractured (or was it broke) that locker room at the time. Lot of pissed off players.

 

For learning that lesson he sure screwed it up with Bruce Smith. Don't forget those squabbles back in the 80's/90's. The man was worth EVERY PENNY but he got a bit of run around and took some hits in the media. Back then with his knee problems there we probably people that would have said the same thing about Bruce if he ended up with another team. I remember people using the is he worth it coming off the knee injury thing. Just sayin'

 

Perhaps one should ask themselves what's different in the Peters case.

 

 

 

Once again, even the recent facts don't support this statement. Schobel, Stroud, McGee, Butler just to name a few who got new deals.

 

This is my example of paying overpaying above average players instead of spending a fraction more and getting elite game changing players. At one point we had game changers like Bruce Smith, Jim Kelly and Thurman Thomas. We haven't had a game changer in almost 15 years I think.

 

Again, one has to ask what's different about the Peters case.

 

The difference with Peters case is he was elite talent and wanted to be compensated as such given the market. My bench mark for elite is NOT present and future hall of famers Orlando Pace, Jonathan Ogden and Anthony Munoz, who coach McNalley said Peters reminded him of by the way, being a converted TE himself.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

Quick point relative to Bruce and then I think we're done. Bruce not showing up for camp was not always about his contract. Number two, to a player, it was Bruce being Bruce. The OJ case on the other hand seriously messed up that locker room. There were a lot of pissed off players. Not so with the Bruce Smith. Most likely because Bruce wasn't recognized as the leader on defense, let alone the entire team.

 

If your standard for elite is NOT Pace, Ogden, or Munoz then who? Is it simply, as you've implied in other posts, one who makes the Pro Bowl? A better standard, in the absence of the obvious players you mentioned, would be the All Pro voting. By the way, you seem to contradict yourself when you dismiss Munoz as a barometer but then go out of your way to mention that McNally himself makes the comparison to Munoz.

 

I think we're done arguing Peters. There is no more to be said. At least on my end.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Ray]

The problem and frustrating thing about Peters is that he has Pro Bowl talent, but his attitude is poor and he does get beat a couple times a game almost getting his QB crushed. He is NOT a franchise LT that everyone thinks about but he probably does have the talent to be one if he was more dedicated and focused. He has admitted to not concentrating, being lazy etc....Not a guy you want to gamble 10M a year on for 5-6 years.

It is too bad because he great athletic ability and talent but his mind is inconsistent and that is why he gets beat and will not come close to living up to his contract. People in Philly I've heard are talking about getting a raw deal.....they were thinking he was a Pace/Boselli in their prime. They are sadly mistaken.