erynthered Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10861976 An article on jason Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10861976 An article on jason Peters wtf, is it "don't click on the first link" day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 wtf, is it "don't click on the first link" day This one was on purpose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Regarding Peters. It is simply unfair for him to demand that the Bills renegotiate after he signed the renegotiated deal he got from the Bills who took the risk of signing this UDFA and then properly trained and guided him under JMac to obtain Pro Bowl status. The problem simply is that life is not fair and the Bills ultimately will have to show him the money. Its tough for the Bills though in that Peters chose to resort to beyond the rules activities in his negotiation with the Bills. Sure we are certainly morally justified in drawing a line in the sand and refusing to renegotiate. However, to stand on this correct principle will ultimately disadvantage third parties such as the fans and his teammates. My sense is that the Bills will ultimately be intelligent and do the right thing to show Peters the money. However, it is essential if only to do an inadequate job of upholding the principle and also so as not to encourage future Bills to try to bulldoze them in negotiations to make this rolling over for Peters as painful for him as possible without creating bad blood that cannot be recovered from. The dance will be to make it painful but not too painful. Its not right and its not fair but life is not fair. One irony here is that the Bills are actually seeing one the effects of chopping the older players and having a young team. Part of the reason why the Bills had higher character players in the not distant pass was that internal player leadership was provided by folks such as ordained minister London Fletcher or a Pro Bowler like TKO who joined with Troy Vincent to set up a MBA program for players at an Ivy League school. It had clear good sides to chop players who were getting older in terms of creating a hungry youth movement and making the coaches the sole authority on the team. However, it also had the negative that these incredibly rich steroid infused (in some cases) young players simply question authority a lot. By getting rid of the old guard players they set up a situation where there were limited internal good examples of success, outside diligence, and being a solid teammate. Instead the Bills players are mostly subject to non current -player good examples like Jauron who like it or not the younger players do not listen to the same as they would their peers who have success like TKO. Its too bad but its life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I thought they did that already. That's why Peters is holding out. PTR Exactly, they did, they signed him to something both thought was fair. The problem is, it was only fair when he was paid modestly/overpaid, but once a player fees underpaid, its time to renegotiate. Like I said in a different post, would he be asking to renogotiate to get a lower contract or give money back if he was mediocre or sucked at LT and was being overpaid? If you do this for him, where does it stop? If Lynch has another great year, do you renegotiate his rookie contract? What about Edwards? What if he leads the offence to TD's this year and plays better then a player who was picked before him? Do you renegotiate? What about Evans? If you lock him up to a long term deal now, and he has a Pro Bowl season next year, do you re-do his new deal to reflect the Pro Bowl nomination? The Bills knew they had something in Peters, its the reason why they wanted to lock him up early before they had to pay sky rocketed UFA salary to keep him, and he knew he was being groomed for bigger things. He accepted the long term deal, now he needs to live with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 wtf, is it "don't click on the first link" day You have to admit, his article was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 That must be how much money he is planning on making this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE GASH STATION Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10861976 I think the article is right, Jason Peter's presence at the minicamp can be summed up by one word: null Anyone agree/disagree? dev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The Bills are making a stupid move if they don't lock him up. They can sign him long term for much less than he is worth. He will just hold out for more money again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10861976 I think the article is right I enjoyed, and agreed with, every word of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stenbar Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I understand your point and don't want to argue, but what if he doesn't continue to develop? What if he gets his money and get lazy? Tough call for the Bills right now and Peters is taking a very costly chance sitting out. Plus contacts go up every year. Just because another player signs a larger contract, you are not entitled to one. Tell that to Aaron Schoebel.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The Bills are making a stupid move if they don't lock him up. They can sign him long term for much less than he is worth. Isn't that what they did last time? Look where it got them. He has three years left on his deal and his is complaining. If you sign him to another long-term deal, he will just start whining again in about a year or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Isn't that what they did last time? Look where it got them. He has three years left on his deal and his is complaining. If you sign him to another long-term deal, he will just start whining again in about a year or two. Ken, would you ask the same question if he was a quarterback? I ask this because it is probably harder to get a pro bowl LT than a pro bowl QB. Think about it....guys like Pace and Ogden tied up these spots for years. Joe Thomas was a #3. Long was a #1. Levi Brown was a #5. These guys got more to sign than Peters makes in his entire renegotiated contract, and he just might be as good or better than any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Ken, would you ask the same question if he was a quarterback? Yes. You locked Peters up with a long deal. He wants to re-negotiate with three years left. If you rip up, or even modify, his current deal, there is nothing from stopping him from wanting more money in a year. Can the Bills really afford pay him more than, say Faneca? Pace and Jones are making in the neighborhood of $7.5MM. Faneca is playing for about $8MM. Long signed with the fish for over $57MM with $30MM signing bonus. You can make him the highest paid OT in the game, and it isn't going to mean anything in a year or two when other OTs are being paid more. He is just going to whine and hold out around 2010. My solution: He is currently in the $4MM range. Keep the current contract, but give him a small raise (take him up to about $6.5MM and add bonuses for Pro Bowl etc). Move it up to about $8MM for next year and tell him that they will give him a new deal for 2010. This cuts one year off of his current deal and still gives him more money. He would now be paid more than Walker and close to Dockery. He would still be less than Pace and Jones, who have both been doing it longer than Peters. At that point, STFU and get your arse to practice. I ask this because it is probably harder to get a pro bowl LT than a pro bowl QB. I wouldn't argue with that. Joe Thomas was a #3. Long was a #1. Levi Brown was a #5. These guys got more to sign than Peters makes in his entire renegotiated contract, and he just might be as good or better than any of them. Happens every year. Rookies are getting an obscene amount of money before they ever make it into camp. All-pro veterans are playing for less money than rookies. This has to be addressed in the new CBA or the NFL is in trouble. Now, if we want to compare the money with the three players you have listed, where was Peters drafted in relation to Thomas, Long and Brown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Yes. You locked Peters up with a long deal. He wants to re-negotiate with three years left. If you rip up, or even modify, his current deal, there is nothing from stopping him from wanting more money in a year. My solution: He is currently in the $4MM range. Keep the current contract, but give him a small raise (take him up to about $6.5MM and add bonuses for Pro Bowl etc). Move it up to about $8MM for next year and tell him that they will give him a new deal for 2010. This cuts one year off of his current deal and still gives him more money. He would now be paid more than Walker and close to Dockery. He would still be less than Pace and Jones, who have both been doing it longer than Peters. At that point, STFU and get your arse to practice. But my friend, you are both for and against giving him a raise here, no? I have no problem with the 2nd paragraph if he would go for it, but he might insist on a signing bonus. I think that he is easily the best player on our Bills right now, and don't have a problem with Ralph tossing him a few mil. Again, how can we ask him to line up as the 3rd or 4th highest paid OL on our team? Btw, I have a feeling that Butler will soon be wanting more money, and I am all for that as well. The Bills do have the cap space, and don't have a propensity toward drafting blockers. No, we go for secondary in a cold weather, outdoor climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 But my friend, you are both for and against giving him a raise here, no? My original comments were toward signing him to another long-term deal. My philosophy is to keep the same length, but give him a little more money. He still wouldn't be the highest paid OL in the league (or on the Bills) and he still needs to prove himself that he should be the highest paid OL in the league. The raise is a good faith gesture for 2010, when they tear up his contract and give him a new one. If he keeps performing at the same level, he gets the contract he is looking for. Otherwise, he has proven that he does not deserve the money he wants. It's a reward for his performance so far. Keep it up and he gets paid. I have no problem with the 2nd paragraph if he would go for it, but he might insist on a signing bonus. I think that he is easily the best player on our Bills right now, and don't have a problem with Ralph tossing him a few mil. IMO, any bonuses should be performance-based. I wouldn't give him a signing bonus. Again, how can we ask him to line up as the 3rd or 4th highest paid OL on our team? Btw, I have a feeling that Butler will soon be wanting more money, and I am all for that as well. My plan moves him to #2 on the OL in salary (if my numbers are correct). The Bills do have the cap space, and don't have a propensity toward drafting blockers. No, we go for secondary in a cold weather, outdoor climate. You just had to go there, didn't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts