THE GASH STATION Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 "to tell a family secret, my grandmother was Dutch." They said you was hung ? They was right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellDressed Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Evans will get an elite contract not because he is an elite player but because somebody will pay him "elite" money just because he will be the best WR available. Did anyone in their right mind think Berneard Berrian was a 7mil a year WR? I sure as hell didnt. In the NFL today you dont make what you are worth compared to similar players at your position you get paid based on what other options are out their for teams that year. If Evans hits the FA market regardless of the fact that he has never been to a pro bowl he will most likley be the best WR on the FA market. When a team is desperate for a WR they will overpay to make sure they get the guy... Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 It seems like the Bills are willing to pay their players more... I hope this extends to Evans and Peters... I'm a bit disappointed in Peters decision to hold out - seeing as he was just extended (and presumably given a raise) last year... But, he didn't have a Pro Bowl then and deserves a raise, holding out just doesn't impress me... And it could have an effect on his conditioning and ability... many times before holdouts are injured early in a season when they don't show up for training camp. We NEED Peters if we are going to be the team everyone hopes we can be this season. After that raise Dockery and Walker where both signed for rediculous amounts of money, both of which he is better than and at a more important, higher paid position, he needs to be paid accordingly, Peters is more pressing than Evans imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I bet Evans and Peters new deals are well into the works already, probably for some time. Extending Peters now just makes sense, he's 26 and got 3 years left on his deal. Add 4-5 more years and give him a big fat lump to make him one of the highest paid lineman in the NFL because damnit...he's worth it. What a statement that would make to ensure Buffalo's existence and validity in the AFC East. Extending Evans also makes sense as he was a 1st round pick that has played up to expectations considering the carousel of QB's he's had to deal with. He's worth re-signing and I believe his deal will be done as well before the season commences. It should be really exciting when those two deals get done and help solidify this young, talented group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Peters needs to wait his turn. It's more important to know or secure the future of Evans before we worry about Peters. The Buffalo News is reporting the details of the contract extension signed by OG Brad Butler on Wednesday. The deal adds three years to his contract worth $8.8M of new money and locks him through 2012 at an average of $2 Million a year. Base $945,000 (2008); $1M (2009); $1.55M (2010-12) And as a reward for waiting might get much more cash than Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I bet Evans and Peters new deals are well into the works already, probably for some time. Extending Peters now just makes sense, he's 26 and got 3 years left on his deal. Add 4-5 more years and give him a big fat lump to make him one of the highest paid lineman in the NFL because damnit...he's worth it. Playing devil's advocate, what would you have the team do in 3 more years when Peters want another renegotiation because he's 'underpaid'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 Playing devil's advocate, what would you have the team do in 3 more years when Peters want another renegotiation because he's 'underpaid'? replace him with Kirk Chmabers or Matt Murphy If the Bills want to be tightwads, they should do it with some other postion on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 replace him with Kirk Chmabers or Matt Murphy If the Bills want to be tightwads, they should do it with some other postion on the team. I agree to a point. We certainly do not want to lose one of the best offensive linemen in the league, especially considering how difficult it has been for the Bills to find someone @ the left tackle position who can play @ such a high level. However, we do not want to be stuck w/ a team of high priced players that isn't winning. It is very tough to get from under that (see Redskins, Washington or Dolphins, Miami). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKillerRobots Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 LOL! For the guy talking about the court of public opinion, you sure are hypocritical. Again the Bills have no problem giving early extensions to Schobel and Butler, but with Evans and Peters it's taking time and both players are sitting out as a result. Pay the men! I'm pretty sure that Evans is sitting out due to shoulder surgery he had in the offseason. Also, the deals for Evans and Peters are much different from those for Schobel and Butler. First of all, Schobel was one of the oldest players on the team last year and a pretty good guy during his career here. He deserved a raise from what he was making (about $3-4 million at the time I think), but he didn''t have a lot of leverage, since he was not widely considered to be in the top 5 or maybe even top 10 at his position. The Bills gave him an extension that was probably more about not having to fill his spot and keeping him happy than it was about his talent level at the time. As a result the negotiations probably weren't that hard to do; I doubt that his agent was doing a lot fo counter-offerings. The same could be said of Butler as well. He had very little leverage in the negotiation of his new contract either. He has only been in the league for two years, he has two years left on his contract, and he is by no means an elite-level player. His agent probably wasn't making a lot of counter offers either. As far as Peters and Evans, they are both in the upper echelon of players at their positions and do have a fair amount of leverage in their negotiations. Evans has one year left and all he really has to do to ensure that he gets a lot of money next offseason at the latest is play well, be a good teammate, and not get hurt. The Bills really do not have a lot of leverage here because his contract will run out and then they can either let him walk or franchise him; eventually, without a lucrative contract he will be able to walk. Peters has more and less leverage than Evans depending on how you look at it, but certainly more than Schobel or Butler had. He does have three years left on his contract, but he is also the best player on the team and probably one of the top three or five at his position. Him not playing the season opener will have a much more detrimental affect on the offense than Evans not playing in the opener. The Bills have the upper hand in the sense that they can make him sit until he decides to play for his contract, but at the same time they are not going to be able to do much without him on offense. Basically, what I'm saying is that to try draw a comparison about the color of a player and how his contract is dealt with by the Bills is absurd. This is especially true when looking at the type of players each are and when/how they got their extensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I agree to a point. We certainly do not want to lose one of the best offensive linemen in the league, especially considering how difficult it has been for the Bills to find someone @ the left tackle position who can play @ such a high level. However, we do not want to be stuck w/ a team of high priced players that isn't winning. It is very tough to get from under that (see Redskins, Washington or Dolphins, Miami). you pay the players that deserve it at the positions that command it. Peters is performing at a posittion that commands the big bucks. The Bills screwed up their economics by paying huge money to LG and RT which is out of whack with what those positions should be paid. They were forced to pay big bucks because they have failed to draft lower cost options for those positions. Spending 3 rnd 1-4 picks in the last 10 years on OL will result in little or no homegrown OL talent. Now they have to pay the consequences. But since they have screwed up in the past, they should not compound the problem by short changing the critical LT position now that they have lucked into a quality performer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 The Bills screwed up their economics by paying huge money to LG and RT which is out of whack with what those positions should be paid. And then there are people who simply cannot grasp their little minds around the fact that the economic face of the game is changing. just because YOU don't think players should be paid X amount of dollars doesn't mean that the rest of the league doesn't. Players are making more now than ever, thanks to the last CBA. Dockery might be slightly overpaid, but not by a long stretch. Based on what other top guards are making and given the market, Dockery would have at least made 6 mil per season. I'd rather have the Bills pay a bit more to sign him than to not sign him at all. As for Langston Walker, his pay isn't that out of line at all. Plus, its not as if either of these guys are using up all of our cap space. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3465167 Regardless of who drafts a player, a good OL is gonna cost you between 6-10 million to keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 replace him with Kirk Chmabers or Matt Murphy If the Bills want to be tightwads, they should do it with some other postion on the team. In 3 years he'll be what, 29? So we pay him at 26, ditch him at 29. Is that the cutoff? What if he comes back in 2 years? Still cut his big butt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 you pay the players that deserve it at the positions that command it. Peters is performing at a posittion that commands the big bucks. The Bills screwed up their economics by paying huge money to LG and RT which is out of whack with what those positions should be paid. They were forced to pay big bucks because they have failed to draft lower cost options for those positions. Spending 3 rnd 1-4 picks in the last 10 years on OL will result in little or no homegrown OL talent. Now they have to pay the consequences. But since they have screwed up in the past, they should not compound the problem by short changing the critical LT position now that they have lucked into a quality performer. I agree that the Bills should do what it takes to keep Peters on the line, since they do have the cap space. However, if the team continues to lose and makes no progress, keeping our core intact isn't going to thrill me quite as much. I hope they can keep these guys and get back on the winning track, but I'm not so enamored w/ the players that I want them here more than I want a winning team here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 And then there are people who simply cannot grasp their little minds around the fact that the economic face of the game is changing. just because YOU don't think players should be paid X amount of dollars doesn't mean that the rest of the league doesn't. Players are making more now than ever, thanks to the last CBA. Dockery might be slightly overpaid, but not by a long stretch. Based on what other top guards are making and given the market, Dockery would have at least made 6 mil per season. I'd rather have the Bills pay a bit more to sign him than to not sign him at all. As for Langston Walker, his pay isn't that out of line at all. Plus, its not as if either of these guys are using up all of our cap space. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3465167 Regardless of who drafts a player, a good OL is gonna cost you between 6-10 million to keep. For all of your brilliance, you can't grasp the concept that if the Bills had spent a few picks in the last 5 years in the top 4 rounds of the draft on OL, they would not have had to break the bank and overpay for a LG and a RT just to field a competitive OL. Elite OL may deserve big bucks, but Doclery and Walker are not elite players. The big money and resources should be going to the LT. If they don't feel comfortable extending Peters now, at a minimum they should add 1 year and convert some salary to bonus to meet Peters in the middle. If he performs n 2008, he gets his big payday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsD#1in2008 Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 uhh i say we lock up Evans and Crowell first...they are in contract years and then workout a deal with peters during the year. People don't say that this is Crowell's last year in Buffalo.....he is a great linebacker and the core of our LBs, you dont let that type of player go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 Playing devil's advocate, what would you have the team do in 3 more years when Peters want another renegotiation because he's 'underpaid'? I'd worry about that in three years. Maybe he's played up to expectations? Maybe not? Besides, i'm sure the deal he's going to get is going to be astronomical. He'll be set forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 I disagree. Now that they've given Butler almost $3M a year, they HAVE to redo Peters' deal. Butler was a 5th round pick, which isn't too far off from an UDFA. And Butler had a couple years left being owned by the Bills seeing as how he'll be a 3rd year player, meaning EFA after the season, then RFA the following year. Not redoing Peters' deal would be unconscionable and would smack of racism, i.e. they'll do it for the white players. Where the heck are you coming from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 I agree that the Bills should do what it takes to keep Peters on the line, since they do have the cap space. However, if the team continues to lose and makes no progress, keeping our core intact isn't going to thrill me quite as much. I hope they can keep these guys and get back on the winning track, but I'm not so enamored w/ the players that I want them here more than I want a winning team here. Let's not confuse losing players with losing coaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 For all of your brilliance, you can't grasp the concept that if the Bills had spent a few picks in the last 5 years in the top 4 rounds of the draft on OL, they would not have had to break the bank and overpay for a LG and a RT just to field a competitive OL. Elite OL may deserve big bucks, but Doclery and Walker are not elite players. The big money and resources should be going to the LT. If they don't feel comfortable extending Peters now, at a minimum they should add 1 year and convert some salary to bonus to meet Peters in the middle. If he performs n 2008, he gets his big payday. Walker isnt elite. He's a sold RT, and being paid like one. Dockery is a very good guard. He's not a top 5 guard, but he's definitely in the top-10 or top-12 starting guards in the NFL. And his pay is right in that area. (especially given the recent changes in salary structure). You've been acting like the Bills paid double the market value for those players, which they certainly did not. And i'm not arguing against drafting early round OLs. They need to be spending more early round (rounds 2-3) picks along the OL. Either way, you need to pay them when they approach free agency. Also, you need to consider most OL take 2-3 years to fully develop. So while they are cheap, they arent yet at the top of their game. Then when the OL players hit the top of their game, they need to be paid. Some of you guys complain about the revolving door of CBs, but would replace it with a revolving door of OL. The Bills decided that, for them, the best and quickest way to improve the OL was to go out and spend some bucks on it, instead of waiting 2-3 years for some rookies to hopefully develop. You act like there are 30 teams that all have "homegrown" talent on their OLs that are being paid 5 million combined. That simply isnt the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts