Kelly the Dog Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 They told him they'd talk numbers; they wanted to make sure of his injury. It should have gotten done but neither side was innocent.So you are going to believe that Peters publicly said he wanted to be the highest paid tackle, which was 10m per year, the Bills offered 9m without knowing anything about his injury, he refused to let them look at it, but let Philly look at him instead? Or Philly gave up a 1-4-6 AND 53m over four years new money without knowing of his injury? Â Thats absurd to me.
oldmanfan Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 So you are going to believe that Peters publicly said he wanted to be the highest paid tackle, which was 10m per year, the Bills offered 9m without knowing anything about his injury, he refused to let them look at it, but let Philly look at him instead? Or Philly gave up a 1-4-6 AND 53m over four years new money without knowing of his injury? Â Thats absurd to me. What's absurd is not responding to your boss when they try to contact you about an injury. As I said they should have signed him, but neither side was innocent.
Johnny Hammersticks Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Iirc he wasnt going to come in unless the contract was near his number. That became an excuse. Yeah...I don't think Peters wanted to be in Buffalo any more regardless, man. Wasn't there an ugly hold out as well? The FO fumbled that situation. They should have given him a new contract after the 2006 season when he played, IMO, at an all-pro level at RT. They kinda screwed him over. Â Ralph was cheap!!!
Scott7975 Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Iirc he wasnt going to come in unless the contract was near his number. That became an excuse. 9m isn't near 10m? Trading Glenn would be puzzling at best. The only way I trade Glenn is if I felt his feet/ankle whatever were going to be a problem for the rest of his career. If the dude is going to miss a lot of games every year then he isn't worth having. Especially when other people were pretty adequate filling in. Even Kujowhateverhisnameis played well in his absence and that kid was looking to be a total bust.
oldmanfan Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 9m isn't near 10m? Â The only way I trade Glenn is if I felt his feet/ankle whatever were going to be a problem for the rest of his career. If the dude is going to miss a lot of games every year then he isn't worth having. Especially when other people were pretty adequate filling in. Even Kujowhateverhisnameis played well in his absence and that kid was looking to be a total bust. If the docs think it's a chronic thing maybe.
Scott7975 Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Yeah...I don't think Peters wanted to be in Buffalo any more regardless, man. Wasn't there an ugly hold out as well? The FO fumbled that situation. They should have given him a new contract after the 2006 season when he played, IMO, at an all-pro level at RT. They kinda screwed him over. Â Ralph was cheap!!! They had just given him a contract extension in 2006.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 9m isn't near 10m?Not really. Â Peters was the best tackle in the game. He was playing for RT money. He was due to make under $4m for the next two years. He held out the year before and came in on the eve of the season. He and his agent said they wanted to be at or above 10m a year. There were two guys making around 10m I think. Â The Bills refused. They didnt want to pay him 10m. It had nothing to do with an injury. The Eagles were willing to pay him 10m because that was the going rate. They gave up a one, a four and a six to get him AND pay him, wait for it, exactly 53m over four years in new money. Why? Because that made his contract 6-60. It was all about money and what he was worth.
Scott7975 Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 If the docs think it's a chronic thing maybe. Yeah that's what I mean. I know the coaching staff is trying to dump high contracts but IMO Glenn's contract is reasonable if he can play. If he cant play or play at the level he has been consistently then it becomes not worth it.
nucci Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Yeah that's what I mean. I know the coaching staff is trying to dump high contracts but IMO Glenn's contract is reasonable if he can play. If he cant play or play at the level he has been consistently then it becomes not worth it. and then he has no trade value
Scott7975 Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 and then he has no trade value Not necessarily true.
Bills Fan of St Augustine Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 You have no idea of the value of things  Our OL being shaky is the single biggest problem we have going on right now......not RB....not WR.....NOT QB  Glenn manning that LT spot and Dawkins at RT solidifies that OL Agreed. Glenn, RI, Wood, Miller, Dawkins feels pretty good. Working in Grohn somehow maybe at C wood be nice. Somehow dumping MD would be more welcomed especially if he is not going to contribute.
3rdand12 Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Trading Glenn would be puzzling at best. It amazes me a bit the traction it gained with the media. It would thoroughly and overwhelmingly amaze me . to see Glenn gone. for many reasons. Â If it is about money? That's just silly in his case. how this falls out forms my opinion moving forward on the New Regime. Not necessarily true. explain please.
nucci Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Not necessarily true. Part of your statement was...if he can't play......
Scott7975 Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 It amazes me a bit the traction it gained with the media. It would thoroughly and overwhelmingly amaze me . to see Glenn gone. for many reasons. Â If it is about money? That's just silly in his case. how this falls out forms my opinion moving forward on the New Regime. explain please. Teams will always take a chance on a player that has shown to play at a strong level. He would just need to pass a physical. The trading team usually knows more, or at least thinks they do, than the receiving team. Part of your statement was...if he can't play...... Â Let me string it out to make better sense then... Â Cant play consistently or cant play at a high level consistently.
nucci Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Teams will always take a chance on a player that has shown to play at a strong level. He would just need to pass a physical. The trading team usually knows more, or at least thinks they do, than the receiving team. Â Let me string it out to make better sense then... Â Cant play consistently or cant play at a high level consistently. It makes sense....you said if he can't play or....I was responding to the If he can't play part of your statement
Scott7975 Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 It makes sense....you said if he can't play or....I was responding to the If he can't play part of your statement Yeah I just worded it poorly.
nucci Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Yeah I just worded it poorly. Np, wasn't trying to give you a hard time....sorry if I did
Scott7975 Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Np, wasn't trying to give you a hard time....sorry if I did Nah youre good
YoloinOhio Posted October 22, 2017 Posted October 22, 2017 Anyone who wonders why the broncos would trade for guy like Seantrel hasn't watched their RT situation.
Recommended Posts