AlbanyBill Posted December 19, 2008 Author Posted December 19, 2008 This is absolutley absurd. You simply don't trade franchise players, you don't trade your best players and you don't trade a star left tackle. Ridiciulous. Decent LTs are hard to come by, let alone dominant ones. There's a reason LT is the second highest paid position: it's the second most important position. Ithink almost everyone who responded to this post does not understand what I am saying. Let me try to clarify- I'm not saying the Bills should trade Peters this offseason, even though he will undoubtedly hold out again and the team will suffer for it. I'm not saying it would be ideal for the Bills to trade Peters at all. All I'm saying is the Bills FO has shown in the past that they are willing to let great players walk rather than pay them what they demand in free agency and if that is the case, if the options are let Peters go for nothing or trade him and get a couple of day one draft picks for him, the choice is clear. Does anyone disagree with that? I know we would all like to keep our great players but the fact is Mr. Wilson is a cheapskate who won't pay for real talent and I could see him letting Peters walk instead of paying top dollar to keep him. (even though he will overpay mediocre players like Schobel and Kelsay). That is all I'm trying to say.
colin Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 there is a price for everything. i have been hard of peters, but i wouldnt' trade him uless it was for multiple high picks AND we had some real studs targetted AND we figured peters is not really about the team. i'd trade him for 2 firsts, maybe 2 firsts and a couple of extra picks. what we really need is a play maker on O, if we can keep our line at a similar level with someone besides peters and add a winslow and a passrusher and a LB, i'd do it. of course if we can add those guys while keeping peters all the better.
davefan66 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 I'm thinking that the Bills signed what's his name to add some depth at OT as they get ready to move Peters. My thinking is that the Bills and Ralph "Mr Cheap" Wilson won't be willing to pay what he will demand after his contract is up in 2 years. I'm not sure they will trade him this offseason but next year, IMO, they will definitely shop him. I'm not so sure I would be too upset. He is good but he is going to want big $ and I'm not exactly sure he's worth it. If we could get a 1st round pick I'd be happy. thoughts? Every player in the NFL is tradeable, for the right price. Be it Randy Moss for a 4th, or Peyton Manning for 5 first rounders, so I would not be surprised. Would I agree with trading Peters? No. But let me tell you, this team isn't going anywhere until we fill holes at DE, TE, OL, LB and with Hardy injured (and I don't see him being ready for real ball until after next year) a WR. We are not going to get these filled through the draft. Don't know if trading Peters for 1 or 2 of these helps, but it also causes another hole in the OL that we would have to fill. I don't want draft picks, we need established players (see Kawika Mitchell) who can step in and be a force. It's gonna take some serious $$ to get these players, as well as sign Peters. Question is, do we keep the OL intact and toss $$ at Peters?? Or do we trade and fill other holes using the same $$?
Alphadawg7 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Ithink almost everyone who responded to this post does not understand what I am saying. Let me try to clarify- I'm not saying the Bills should trade Peters this offseason, even though he will undoubtedly hold out again and the team will suffer for it. I'm not saying it would be ideal for the Bills to trade Peters at all. All I'm saying is the Bills FO has shown in the past that they are willing to let great players walk rather than pay them what they demand in free agency and if that is the case, if the options are let Peters go for nothing or trade him and get a couple of day one draft picks for him, the choice is clear. Does anyone disagree with that? I know we would all like to keep our great players but the fact is Mr. Wilson is a cheapskate who won't pay for real talent and I could see him letting Peters walk instead of paying top dollar to keep him. (even though he will overpay mediocre players like Schobel and Kelsay). That is all I'm trying to say. There is a very distinct difference in retaining players and grossly over paying players to stay. We let players like Clements (thank god) walk in FA because he wanted an ABSURD amount of money and was not WORTH what he wanted. Look at the SF defense...are they really much better off after giving him what was the biggest contract in history for a defensive player? That doesnt make us cheap, that makes us smart.
lets_go_bills Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Ithink almost everyone who responded to this post does not understand what I am saying. Let me try to clarify- I'm not saying the Bills should trade Peters this offseason, even though he will undoubtedly hold out again and the team will suffer for it. I'm not saying it would be ideal for the Bills to trade Peters at all. All I'm saying is the Bills FO has shown in the past that they are willing to let great players walk rather than pay them what they demand in free agency and if that is the case, if the options are let Peters go for nothing or trade him and get a couple of day one draft picks for him, the choice is clear. Does anyone disagree with that? I know we would all like to keep our great players but the fact is Mr. Wilson is a cheapskate who won't pay for real talent and I could see him letting Peters walk instead of paying top dollar to keep him. (even though he will overpay mediocre players like Schobel and Kelsay). That is all I'm trying to say. I'm not saying you're absurd. The idea of trading Peters is. And since Wilson shelled out for Dockery and most recently Evans, why not Peters too. He's young and talented. Just give him his money and he'll shut the hell up, andhe will show up at OTAs and camp. Problem solved. By locking Peters up you suddenly don't have to worry about the LT position for the next 8 years. And lord knows our QBs need all the protection they can get.
StupidNation Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 This is absolutley absurd. You simply don't trade franchise players, you don't trade your best players and you don't trade a star left tackle. Ridiciulous. Decent LTs are hard to come by, let alone dominant ones. There's a reason LT is the second highest paid position: it's the second most important position. Tony Dorsett's trade changed the Cowboys into perennial winners. Peter's hasn't transformed us at all this year. He deserves the nod last year, and now he SHOULD be traded if we can get a 1st and some other 1st day picks. I'm all for it. Pats traded Deion Branch and got a few 1sts for him. Great teams know that one dominant player isn't that important unless it's the QB position. I would love to build the trenches, but I know Peters is holding out next year and we did just fine without him for the first 2 games. I'm not that impressed with him as a game-changer, unless you are talking about changing the game by allowing fumbles and inopportune sacks. I would be all for Peters getting an extension and a pay-day if he showed up. He set us back with his selfishness. Sorry, that's not a guy I want on my TEAM and if I can build the trenches with higher draft picks from the Peters trade I do it. I won't miss what he brings to the team right now. He's no Orlando Pace or Walter Jones in their primes.
ieatcrayonz Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 We should move Evans, Lynch, Edwards, McGee, McKelvin and Stroud too. I mean they could get first or 2nd round picks too. A 2nd round pick for Glove wearing Mary? Is this the NFL Europe draft? I thought they closed that down.
Mickey Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Langston Walker looked just fine over there... If you move him, then you just have to replace the easier to fill RT spot. Not saying i would trade peters at all, but if the right offer came through the phone, i'd pull the trigger. (Based on our draft performance as of late, I'd prefer proven NFL talent over draft picks) They all looked good for 4 weeks and have all looked bad since. Walker is no solution and it just opens another hole on the line. Fire up the DVR and take a second look at virtually any play, especially screens, that required Walker to get to the outside in front of a back. Have tissues with you because you will blubber like a baby when you watch that whale consistently being 5 yards short of where he needed to be to block the guy that stopped the play. We have a lot of higher priority holes to fill and I just don't think we can afford to create even more. For example, we don't have a defensive end on the roster worth a start save an aging, marginal, overpaid veteran with a serious injury. I am no expert but I have heard it said that defensive end is a relatively important position to a defense. So lets replace that crew of total stiffs before we give up on a two time pro bowl OT despite the legit questions about his abilities.
todd Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Yeah, but it's better than letting them just walk away in free agency with nothing to show for it (as the Bills have done for years). All I'm saying if Peters is going to go one way or the other, we might as well get something in return. I just can't see the Bills paying the $ he is going to demand on the free market. Peters is under contract until after the 2010 season. Why would they get rid of him now?
EasternOHBillsFan Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 I'm thinking that the Bills signed what's his name to add some depth at OT as they get ready to move Peters. My thinking is that the Bills and Ralph "Mr Cheap" Wilson won't be willing to pay what he will demand after his contract is up in 2 years. I'm not sure they will trade him this offseason but next year, IMO, they will definitely shop him. I'm not so sure I would be too upset. He is good but he is going to want big $ and I'm not exactly sure he's worth it. If we could get a 1st round pick I'd be happy. thoughts? I think getting rid of him is the best 'cheap' deal we could hope for in a trade... he's obviously selfish due to his inexplicable holdout, we didn't do a good job of running the ball at all with him in there, and his comments of late aren't very smart and open a window into his mentality of "as long as I get paid, I don't care about winning." For once, trading is a great option, and let someone else overpay for his services. We need to draft lineman and target them in free agency with discretion, like we did when we were successful.
lets_go_bills Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Tony Dorsett's trade changed the Cowboys into perennial winners. Peter's hasn't transformed us at all this year. He deserves the nod last year, and now he SHOULD be traded if we can get a 1st and some other 1st day picks. I'm all for it. Pats traded Deion Branch and got a few 1sts for him. Great teams know that one dominant player isn't that important unless it's the QB position. I would love to build the trenches, but I know Peters is holding out next year and we did just fine without him for the first 2 games. I'm not that impressed with him as a game-changer, unless you are talking about changing the game by allowing fumbles and inopportune sacks. I would be all for Peters getting an extension and a pay-day if he showed up. He set us back with his selfishness. Sorry, that's not a guy I want on my TEAM and if I can build the trenches with higher draft picks from the Peters trade I do it. I won't miss what he brings to the team right now. He's no Orlando Pace or Walter Jones in their primes. What if the picks turn into busts? Is it worth it then. Comparing LTs and WRs is unfair. Branch was traded because the Pats knew they'd be fine without him. The Hawks got hoodwinked. I hated his holdout as much as everyone. I booed him a lot at the home games. But I think the Bills should give him money before the OTAs. Problem solved. Once he got going in the back half of the season he was dominant again. I think he's the real deal now. He's only 26, still young and has yet to peak. Locking him up now takes care of him and you won't hear from him again and you won't have to worry about the LT spot for the next eight years. The Pro Bowl nod he got bodes poor for us though. Now he has the ammo to hold out AGAIN.
StupidNation Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Once he got going in the back half of the season he was dominant again. I think he's the real deal now. ... He had 2 games where he was very good and pro-bowl material. There are games, actually most this year, where I wanted Kirk Freaking Chambers to play. His hold-out screwed up team chemistry. I'm glad they didn't pay him. He's only proven himself for 1 year, and this year was actually below average, and suffice it to say I would have preferred the play of Mike Gandy for Arizona (yes, that Gandy) than Peters this year, but certainly not last year. To me he's not worth it. I would take my picks and run with them. I will take the Tony Ogohs of the world and work with them and use the picks. If you pick 3 guys in the top 3 rounds 2 of the 3 usually pan out without all the fan-fare and hold-outs. I'll take my chances at this point where he thinks he's God and he's played like Wonder Woman.
The Tomcat Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Peters has been awful this year, watch the tape of the 2nd and 5 play vs the Jets.....look at who gives the 'OLAY when the linebacker comes off the edge.....Peters has looked horrible all year. Lynchs best runs have been to the Walker side. They have not been able to run over Peters/Dockery at ALL this year!!!! As much I agree Peters hasn't been the best this year. On that play, Peters is supposed to double team the inside guy because of the roll out of the QB. That play is entirely on JP Losman.
Dan Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 As much I agree Peters hasn't been the best this year. On that play, Peters is supposed to double team the inside guy because of the roll out of the QB. That play is entirely on JP Losman. Am I the only one that sees a problem with an offense that is designed to let blitzers come untouched to young, inexperienced QBs?
Alphadawg7 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Am I the only one that sees a problem with an offense that is designed to let blitzers come untouched to young, inexperienced QBs? The topic title on this bugs me...it implies Peters is on the block which he clearly isnt... Can you change the title to be a more accurate reflection of what this truly is...a posters personal view not a topic of any substance down at Bills Headquarters... Maybe - "Do you think the Bills might consider trading Peters"
Bufcomments Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Buffalo will sign him to as large and extended contract this offseason. No way are they stupid enough to trade him away. Ask Pat Williams and A. Winfield how smart the Bills are If you think about it...if it wasnt for the 12th man this would not be a great draw for free agents
Poeticlaw Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 I'm sorry but you don't build a championship team by trading away your best players for unknowns. We were 2-0 without him were we not? Bring on the Mcnabb for peters trade!
NY Nole Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 F Jason Peters. I am really sick of hearing about this guy. He is the most over-rated LT in football. He had a good year last season and a decent year this season (when he finally got his fat ass in shape), but has not been the "dominant" LT that so many posters on this board -- and evidently many pro bowl voters -- think he is. He has a "me-first" mentality in a team-oriented, blue collar town like buffalo. This quote sums up his whole approach "This is what you play the game for, to get to Hawaii..." What a bunch of sh-t! You play the game to be a part of a winning team. Trade this jerk. We haven't won anything with him and we sure as hell can go on without him. I'd take Joe Thomas, Jake Long or Brandon Albert over this chump any day My lasting impression of him this year will be the ill-fated JP Losman sack/fumble against the Jesters, when our Pro Bowler watched the blitzing Elam march right past him en route to the fumble. Pro Bowl -- yea right.
BillsFan74 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Peters is under contract until after the 2010 season. Why would they get rid of him now? I am starting to think he is a me guy and not a team guy. He is still crying about a 5 year deal the he singed b/c $3.25 mil is not enough money and the reason he plays the game is for personal achievement. If he does not play Sunday he has mailed it in and shown me that he is soft.
marauderswr80 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 yeah lets have yet another set back for this team. If the front office dont get something done with him before next season, to hell with them all. Granted he had a rough start to the year holding out and all, but lets face it, hes our best OL. Peters has a point calling out the front office, they said they wont do any talks unless he reports, he reported and the front office has yet to hold up its end of the deal...... I wont be shocked if Jason Peters holds out yet again, but this time he will stand ground and WONT return.........
Recommended Posts