JayFromDC Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 gotten rid of Peerless Price is because I keep hearing all this talk about how Peerless Price wasn't worth top 5 WR money, but looking at our offense last year and our offense early this year in the preseason, maybe Peerless was a top 5 wideout that we didn't respect as, I mean he had 94 receptions for 1250 yards and 9 touchdowns and also allowed Eric Moulds to have his best year of his career, I think that was a disaster to let him run out of town, I mean I don't want to hear we didn't have the money after looking at the extension they gave Mark Campbell which I can't understand, the money they gave Lawyer, Takeo,Sam Adams, Jason and Troy this year, we could have paid Peerless, don't buy into that GM stevestojan, I have come to the conclusion that we will not win this year, you cannot have 1 all pro on one side of the field with no help, and an Immobile QB, I am not convinced that we won't be better than we was last year, and then JP gets hurt,
34-78-83 Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 TD did not in any way shape or form "get rid of" Peerless. Peerless and his agent did not wish to negotiate a reasonable contract with the team, thus the team used the franchise tag to reatain him. He would have earned an average of the top 5 salaries at his position and the Bills were willing to give that to him (which in itself was too much$) for a 1 year contract. Peerless and his agent incorrectly felt that they should be paid as a star #1 WR, which Peerless has proven not to be. TD in his wisdom even obtained a #1 pick for Peerless by creating urgency by ATL to sign him. We basically received something for nothing as Peerless no longer wished to play as a #2 WR.
Fezmid Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 How many times are you going to start this thread? CW
BuffaloBob Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 Who's Peerless Price? 14452[/snapback] Nobody!
JayFromDC Posted September 1, 2004 Author Posted September 1, 2004 I undertstand everything you just said 34 but who in the hell really wants to be TAGGED, yes that means you are paid in the top 5 category of your position, BUT IT'S ONLY FOR 1 YEAR, the bottom line was is that TD didn't draft Peerless, and didn't believe that he was worth the money he asked for and Tagged him, Most players in football around their second or third contract want a long term deal so they can secure their future as far as where they will be playing, their family and their financial situation, I keep hearing all these excuses but the bottom line is that we knew we had Eric so we figured we could lose Peerless sign someone like a bobby Shaw and that everything would work out fine and it didn't
JayFromDC Posted September 1, 2004 Author Posted September 1, 2004 Leave me alone Fez before I go on my Anti-Drew tyrade
Fezmid Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 Leave me alone Fez before I go on my Anti-Drew tyrade 14459[/snapback] But that would take away from your "Anti-TD, Pro PP" tirade. CW
BuffaloBob Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 TD did not in any way shape or form "get rid of" Peerless. Peerless and his agent did not wish to negotiate a reasonable contract with the team, thus the team used the franchise tag to reatain him. He would have earned an average of the top 5 salaries at his position and the Bills were willing to give that to him (which in itself was too much$) for a 1 year contract. Peerless and his agent incorrectly felt that they should be paid as a star #1 WR, which Peerless has proven not to be. TD in his wisdom even obtained a #1 pick for Peerless by creating urgency by ATL to sign him. We basically received something for nothing as Peerless no longer wished to play as a #2 WR. 14447[/snapback] [sarcasm] Stop apologizing for TD, dude. The guy ran off poor Peerless because he never retains any of his young talent![/sarcasm]
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 I undertstand everything you just said 34 but who in the hell really wants to be TAGGED, yes that means you are paid in the top 5 category of your position, BUT IT'S ONLY FOR 1 YEAR, the bottom line was is that TD didn't draft Peerless, and didn't believe that he was worth the money he asked for and Tagged him, Most players in football around their second or third contract want a long term deal so they can secure their future as far as where they will be playing, their family and their financial situation, I keep hearing all these excuses but the bottom line is that we knew we had Eric so we figured we could lose Peerless sign someone like a bobby Shaw and that everything would work out fine and it didn't 14455[/snapback] Peerless signed for 40 million. We got a number one pick for him, which turned out to be Willis McGahee for about a third of that, plus now have Lee Evans who is a better player and faster than Peerless (coming out of college). McGahee and Evans combined make a little more than half of what Peerless makes even if McGahee starts hitting some of his incentives. So tell me. Would you, as GM, rather have McGahee and Evans and 15 million dollars or Peerless Price?
34-78-83 Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 I undertstand everything you just said 34 but who in the hell really wants to be TAGGED, yes that means you are paid in the top 5 category of your position, BUT IT'S ONLY FOR 1 YEAR, the bottom line was is that TD didn't draft Peerless, and didn't believe that he was worth the money he asked for and Tagged him, Most players in football around their second or third contract want a long term deal so they can secure their future as far as where they will be playing, their family and their financial situation, I keep hearing all these excuses but the bottom line is that we knew we had Eric so we figured we could lose Peerless sign someone like a bobby Shaw and that everything would work out fine and it didn't 14455[/snapback] Yes, but the fact remains that Peerless indeed WASN'T worth NEAR the money he was asking for. Only a John Butler (RIP) type GM would have retained him for that figure.
JayFromDC Posted September 1, 2004 Author Posted September 1, 2004 No buffalo bob I agree with you, Im not apologizing, Im bashing him, Kelly you can't be serious dude, I won't even address what you said in your last post, hey Fezmid that was real funny man, Im going to post the drastic CHANGE IN 1 YEAR AFTER LOSING PEELESS, give me a min
BuffaloBob Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 Peerless signed for 40 million. We got a number one pick for him, which turned out to be Willis McGahee for about a third of that, plus now have Lee Evans who is a better player and faster than Peerless (coming out of college). McGahee and Evans combined make a little more than half of what Peerless makes even if McGahee starts hitting some of his incentives. So tell me. Would you, as GM, rather have McGahee and Evans and 15 million dollars or Peerless Price? 14468[/snapback] After the year PP had last season with Atlanta, I would have to go with Peerless, NOT! Actually, I'm sure Peerless will be good, but he is not worth the money he signed for with the Falcons, and there was no way we could have afforded two receivers making that kind of bank. And then of course, there was the 'TUDE.'
Mark VI Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 And then of course, there was the 'TUDE.' 14477[/snapback] ..and the short arming of countless passes, when he heard footsteps.
JayFromDC Posted September 1, 2004 Author Posted September 1, 2004 34 you guys keep saying he wasn't worth it, but you won't mention anything about PRODUCTION, Im just not so sure about that now, yall keep saying he's not in the top 5 as far as maybe being able to be on his own and catch 100 balls, and I agree with that, but it's only a few guys that can really, IM not saying he's necessarily in a class with TO, MOss and Harrison, or even Holt but gosh darnit, LOOK AT WHAT HE DID FOR OUR OFFENSE, so what if he played for the texans he might not dominate, but why would you base anything off but what he did for the BIlls and he produced and the offense produced and now our offense suck as a result of that move, it's going to take Lee Evans 3 years just like it does any other WR, he's no exception, Im not trying to wait that long, when we had a guy HERE ALREADY,
BuffaloBob Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 No buffalo bob I agree with you, Im not apologizing, Im bashing him, Kelly you can't be serious dude, I won't even address what you said in your last post, hey Fezmid that was real funny man, Im going to post the drastic CHANGE IN 1 YEAR AFTER LOSING PEELESS, give me a min 14474[/snapback] Jay, I hate to say this, but you are clueless! I KNOW you are bashing him. I was using the sarcasm button to indicate 34-78-83's response was actually quite true and sensible. You know, the kind of sense that Kelly is making that you refuse to even address? Peerless wasn't pissed because he was tagged! He was going..... no ifs ands or buts abouit it. THEN, he was tagged so we could get something for his sorry ass on the way out. There was no way TD was going to give PP anywhere near what he signed for in Atlanta, nor should he have. PP and his agent knew it and they were ready to bolt. Franchising him was just the means to squeeze the pick out of Atlanta for him.
Fezmid Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 34 you guys keep saying he wasn't worth it, but you won't mention anything about PRODUCTION, Im just not so sure about that now, yall keep saying he's not in the top 5 as far as maybe being able to be on his own and catch 100 balls, and I agree with that, but it's only a few guys that can really, IM not saying he's necessarily in a class with TO, MOss and Harrison, or even Holt but gosh darnit, LOOK AT WHAT HE DID FOR OUR OFFENSE, so what if he played for the texans he might not dominate, but why would you base anything off but what he did for the BIlls and he produced and the offense produced and now our offense suck as a result of that move, it's going to take Lee Evans 3 years just like it does any other WR, he's no exception, Im not trying to wait that long, when we had a guy HERE ALREADY, 14483[/snapback] Jay, it's a moot point -- he wanted to be the #1 receiver and since Moulds was here, he wanted to go to Atlanta. He was *pissed* when TD tagged him, but he got to go to Atlanta anyway. Get over it. CW
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 No buffalo bob I agree with you, Im not apologizing, Im bashing him, Kelly you can't be serious dude, I won't even address what you said in your last post, hey Fezmid that was real funny man, Im going to post the drastic CHANGE IN 1 YEAR AFTER LOSING PEELESS, give me a min 14474[/snapback] What is is that you disagree with? The 40 mil? It's a fact. The #1 we got that was Willis? That's a fact. The amount we paid Willis and Evans combined vs. 40 mil? Look it up. Thems facts. The fact that Evans was faster and a better player coming out of college than Peerless? Look up their times. Look up their stats. Look at their draft data. Look at the fact that Evans was picked #13 in the first round and Peerless in the second round. Those are facts.
JayFromDC Posted September 1, 2004 Author Posted September 1, 2004 Why do you guys keep saying NO.1 receiver don't you know that's an excuse, it didn't really matter in that offense it was Mould's and Price no matter whatever the hell you want to call it, Moulds had 100 recpets and Peerless had 94 recepts, so was he mad becuase Eric had 6 more catches??? that's stupid, why don't you guys open your eyes he just wanted to be compensated for what he did for the offense, and TD didn't respect him, so he choose to go somewhere WHO THOUGHT HE WAS A NO.1 Guy and paid him, you guys make it seem like if we would have gave him the money, he still WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN HAPPY, because Moulds is the No. 1 option, thats stevestojan, most teams have a 1 2 punch, Im going to post the difference give me a min
BuffaloBob Posted September 1, 2004 Posted September 1, 2004 34 you guys keep saying he wasn't worth it, but you won't mention anything about PRODUCTION, Im just not so sure about that now, yall keep saying he's not in the top 5 as far as maybe being able to be on his own and catch 100 balls, and I agree with that, but it's only a few guys that can really, IM not saying he's necessarily in a class with TO, MOss and Harrison, or even Holt but gosh darnit, LOOK AT WHAT HE DID FOR OUR OFFENSE, so what if he played for the texans he might not dominate, but why would you base anything off but what he did for the BIlls and he produced and the offense produced and now our offense suck as a result of that move, it's going to take Lee Evans 3 years just like it does any other WR, he's no exception, Im not trying to wait that long, when we had a guy HERE ALREADY, 14483[/snapback] Jay, you can't just say we should pay a guy whatever he wants without looking at the ramifications on the cap for the future. There is only so much cap space to go around. So you have to make decisions about who to keep fopr huge bucks and who to let go if there is someone out there willing to pay beyond what he was worth. Yes he meant a lot to our offense. Yes his production was great his last season. But without Eric Moulds and even Josh Reed in the slot, he doesn't have that kind of year. He benefitted from lot's of single coverage. The bottom line is, you have to spread the cap space around to a lot of different players, and there are only so many players you can have taking up that kind of cap space. This isn't the NBA where you can exceed the cap space under certain conditions to retain your own players. It isn't just a matter of gee, we didn't want to pay him. It is about allocating a finite amount of cap space over 53 players.
Recommended Posts