Deep Voice Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 I seriously think you might need mental help..... Why the @uck cant some people on this board just admit when they were wrong or that they miscalculated Peters held out for a new deal....he didn't get one.....THE TEAM LOST......but bills mgt certainly WON Yea
cåblelady Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Peters would have quite a learning experience (for the better) if he decided to read this board. Peters can read?
Koufax Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 As much as it tried my patience, I am back to have him back. He made one big deadline (reporting before the season started) and missed on big one (reporting a week ago so he could play in the opener). If we lose a close one to Seattle on a blindside sack-fumble-touchdown or something like that this wound could take a while to heal, but if we beat Seattle and Peters plays in week 2 this can be under the bridge pretty quickly. What matters now is Peters > Chambers, which is good news. Having him here the whole time would have been even better, but it is what it is. Glad the distraction is past us before the season starts, and hopefully the fallout (team morale, Chambers playing a game, Peters being behind physically or playbook-wise) are minor. But things are without a doubt better than if he had stayed away and Chambers started 16 games.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 As much as it tried my patience, I am back to have him back. He made one big deadline (reporting before the season started) and missed on big one (reporting a week ago so he could play in the opener). If we lose a close one to Seattle on a blindside sack-fumble-touchdown or something like that this wound could take a while to heal, but if we beat Seattle and Peters plays in week 2 this can be under the bridge pretty quickly. What matters now is Peters > Chambers, which is good news. Having him here the whole time would have been even better, but it is what it is. Glad the distraction is past us before the season starts, and hopefully the fallout (team morale, Chambers playing a game, Peters being behind physically or playbook-wise) are minor. But things are without a doubt better than if he had stayed away and Chambers started 16 games. It will be interesting to see what happens on Sunday in regards to the OL. Parker/Peters took a big gamble waiting that extra week, IMO, too. IF the Bills OL holds up well against the Seahags, the Bills management will have a huge extra bullet in their argument, saying, "Look, we're thrilled to have you back, but our other guys are really good, too." But IF Walker and Chambers don't play well, and Trent is under fire all game, Parker/Peters will have the I-told-you-so argument and bullet. The fans reaction, too, will be interesting. If the OL doesn't play well, I can see a lot more ill-will toward Peters immediately, saying you screwed us. Some, a lesser amount, will be in the "Peters was right" camp. Personally, I think both would be right, and that's why this was such a sticky, unusual situation, which should not be compared to other Bills re-negotiations. Ultimately, however, a month from now, most of this rancor will be forgotten if Peters starts pancaking people, Trent has a lot of time to throw, and Turk is able to open up the offense. That's still an IF, not a when, but I expect it to happen. Peters is pretty damn good, and he will be fighting for the big paycheck. Sunday may have a big influence on what he ends up getting. It literally could mean a million or so more per year.
Orton's Arm Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 I'm very happy Peters has decided to return. We need him. But I know of a certain NYC-based poster here who's even happier!
Recommended Posts