murra Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Rather than opposing The Senator's general reasoning for why he is for a Peters trade, could you provide some reasons Dean why you're against one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Rather than opposing The Senator's general reasoning for why he is for a Peters trade, could you provide some reasons Dean why you're against one? I'm not, if it comes to that. I think the Bills should get real value for Peters because, unlike the Senator, I think Peters is a quality LT, who should continue to get better. I just find it amusing that a guy who thinks Peters sucks, and is a POS, is demanding more value than most of the others, here. Best case scenario is signing Peters, IMO. While I wouldn't make him the highest paid LT in the game, I would attempt to give him starting LT money, with enough upside, he could possible be the highest paid LT, if he performs at that level, makes camp on time, agrees to a workout program, etc. etc. I would also build whatever dis-incentives are allowed, to make sure he is punished by not doing everything he can to get better, and to help the team. I am of the belief that Peters, for several years, did everything he was asked to do, by the Bills' coaches. Yes the Bills took him as a UFA, but some other team certainly would have taken him, if he hadn't come here. He was discussed as a high-reward late round pick, well before the draft. It isn't as if the Bills took him off the street, when no NFL team wanted him. Anyway you look at it, Peters was a model citizen, for the Bills. The Bills and Peters signed a long term contract when Peters was playing RIGHT guard. One Peters became the starting LEFT guard (a higher paying position, on almost every NFL team), he performed at a high level. Peters got a new agent who (correctly, I think) convinced Peters that he was due a new contract and (incorrectly) convinced him that the best way to get it, was to hold out. Peters (stupidly) listened to his agent, and the result was he wasn't ready to play by the time he reported to the Bills, and he hurt his production...and the team Now, Peters does not have a history of not performing after he gets paid (admittedly this is based on very little data, as he only got one new contract with the Bills, I think) as he performed very well at RT and LT, after signing his last deal. And he doesn't have a reputation as a whiner, or a guy who doesn't work hard and listen to coaches. In fact, his rep is just the opposite...a hard worker who listens to coaches, and plays hard. So, I don't see a lot of risk, if he works out a new LT deal with the Bills, that he will become a regular hold-out problem. His one-time issue, is perfectly explainable, and is an anomaly, IMO. If the Bills are still worried, though, they should give him a good bonus, and a big salary for this year, and make the rest of the bonus deliverable if/when he shows up to camp. Now, if the deal can't get done, I think they should get high value. A contributing player (LT would be nice) and a high draft pick (number and round would depend, in part, on the quality of the player they get in return), is what I would go for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I did read the last sentence. My point remains pointless. fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 So, I don't see a lot of risk, if he works out a new LT deal with the Bills, that he will become a regular hold-out problem. His one-time issue, is perfectly explainable, and is an anomaly, IMO. If the Bills are still worried, though, they should give him a good bonus, and a big salary for this year, and make the rest of the bonus deliverable if/when he shows up to camp. Now, if the deal can't get done, I think they should get high value. A contributing player (LT would be nice) and a high draft pick (number and round would depend, in part, on the quality of the player they get in return), is what I would go for. It's difficult to deny the raw talent Peters possesses, so from the standpoint of, you think we should sign him, it's very difficult for me to argue. Considering that we're on the same page in that regards, I'm not quite sure I'm satisfied with your other arguments. Yes, it's not likely that he will be a hold-out issue each off-season, and yes, it seems obvious that the Bills "owe" him one, but in my opinion, that's not how it works. I'm not saying you said that's how it works, I'm simply using your logic that he was a foot soldier who paid his dues and therefore is a reliable guy. You see I think that's where this whole Peters contract situation is flawed. Peters obviously has an insane value right now. Unlike The Senator, however, I think he is fantastic. The reason that I say trade him, rather than, trade him if a deal doesn't work is because I do believe there to be some baggage. It's not terrible baggage. Just the right amount of injuries, behavior, and lack of leadership and team unity type stuff that I'm not willing to compromise with for a mega contract. I think that if The Senator's right, and we can get what we want for this guy, then there is no reason not to. If other teams see this type of baggage as an issue (and I'm sure there are those that will, and many that wont), then so be it. He is a top 5 LT in his prime, coming of age, and therefore I feel The Senator, however he feels about his actual ability, is right in assessing that the Bills should dangle this guy out there. One final note... If you're satisfied with trading Peters for a LT and a pick, then perhaps it's you who is undervaluing this guy's ability. I mean, I'm not too certain a deal like that will ever pan out, so it's difficult to really even debate on this further, but don't you feel like this guy's reputation would actually warrant some serious value in return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robchester Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Mr. Weo--Jim McMahan, Tom Brady, Jim Kelly, Terry Bradshaw... to name a few Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 It's difficult to deny the raw talent Peters possesses, so from the standpoint of, you think we should sign him, it's very difficult for me to argue. Considering that we're on the same page in that regards, I'm not quite sure I'm satisfied with your other arguments. Yes, it's not likely that he will be a hold-out issue each off-season, and yes, it seems obvious that the Bills "owe" him one, but in my opinion, that's not how it works. I'm not saying you said that's how it works, I'm simply using your logic that he was a foot soldier who paid his dues and therefore is a reliable guy. You see I think that's where this whole Peters contract situation is flawed. Peters obviously has an insane value right now. Unlike The Senator, however, I think he is fantastic. The reason that I say trade him, rather than, trade him if a deal doesn't work is because I do believe there to be some baggage. It's not terrible baggage. Just the right amount of injuries, behavior, and lack of leadership and team unity type stuff that I'm not willing to compromise with for a mega contract. I think that if The Senator's right, and we can get what we want for this guy, then there is no reason not to. If other teams see this type of baggage as an issue (and I'm sure there are those that will, and many that wont), then so be it. He is a top 5 LT in his prime, coming of age, and therefore I feel The Senator, however he feels about his actual ability, is right in assessing that the Bills should dangle this guy out there. One final note... If you're satisfied with trading Peters for a LT and a pick, then perhaps it's you who is undervaluing this guy's ability. I mean, I'm not too certain a deal like that will ever pan out, so it's difficult to really even debate on this further, but don't you feel like this guy's reputation would actually warrant some serious value in return? Good points, and questions. First of all, why in the world would you ever WANT the Bills to trade a guy you feel "is a top 5 LT in his prime, coming of age"? If you really believe that, then I question why you would even entertain a deal, as those guys are very very rare, and very very valuable to a team. I don't think you can ever get the proper value for a guy like that. Maybe if there was a "can't miss" LT in the draft, or a top guy in FA, I would feel differently. I don't think Peters is currently a top 5 LT...but I think he has that potential, which is why I don't mind the team paying him big money (and a chance to ne the highest paid, if he delivers). Also, I would guess that his latest holdout hurts his trade value, as teams know there is friction. Some probably think he can be had for less, if they sense bad blood between the two sides, and some might be put-off by the holdout, if they look at it in a very surface way (like the Senator does) instead of really examining the situations. But, I think, if they HAVE to trade him (that is, nothing is going to get done) then getting a good LT in return is a must. So, depending on the quality of the LT, the draft pick (picks) would be a variable. An average LT isn't worth much, IMO, so maybe two 1st round picks, or a 1st and a 3rd. If it is a real quality (and established) LT they get in return, maybe a 1st is enough...who knows, maybe just a 2nd...again, depending on the player they get in return. I'm not qualified to know what deal can be negotiated, so I don't pretend to know if he is worth two 1sts, a 1st and a 3rd, etc. I am qualified to know that the Bills aren't going to pull a "Hershel Walker" type trade with anyone...nor do I think that is even what I would want, if a good LT wasn't part of the deal (3-way, or quick 2nd trade, etc). IMO, the best way to avoid all of this, is to get the deal done with Peters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Some will poo-poo stuff like this, but this is what I think should have been happening. all along. If it takes a TO signing to get it started, fine. But, anyone who thinks this kind of stuff isn't important, I think is really underestimating the on-field chemistry stuff like this builds. While there is no guaranteed benefit to this, there is definite liability to a lack of it, which translates to, "Every man for himself". I'm not sure that Owens will ever be "one of the guys", but this is is a move in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 You see, when someone is able to put their ideas and thoughts on a situation down in one or two nice lengthy posts, it's difficult to misinterpret their logic, and where they come from. I think the more and more I read your posts, Dean, the more I begin to realize that when it comes to sports, many message boards don't cut it because you rarely end up getting someone's entire perspective (often times they don't even have one and just blather away whatever meaningless topic they can muster). In having fully grasped your stance on this, I'm also happy to realize where some fans sit on this (considering I take your wiser words to be more of the general consensus for all of the older generation Bills fan...think of yourself as the spokesman for all Bills fans two generations older than me). Dare I ask The Senator to extrapolate on his thoughts as to why Jason Peters is not worthy of being on our roster, and should be traded immediately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 And sorry for sabotaging this thread, there isn't much more to say on Trent being in Buffalo, other than that he is supposed to be showing up within the next weeks anyways for team meetings as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Some will poo-poo stuff like this, but this is what I think should have been happening. all along. If it takes a TO signing to get it started, fine. But, anyone who thinks this kind of stuff isn't important, I think is really underestimating the on-field chemistry stuff like this builds. you said 'poo' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 you said 'poo' ...and I meant it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Not enough - I'm looking for something like what Jimmy Johnson did with Herschel Walker... ( from Wikipedia - link ) Minnesota Vikings Received: * RB Herschel Walker * Dallas's 3rd round pick - 1990 (54) (Mike Jones) * San Diego's 5th round pick - 1990 (116) (Reggie Thornton) * Dallas's 10th round pick - 1990 (249) (Pat Newman) * Dallas's 3rd round pick - 1991 (68) (Jake Reed) Dallas Cowboys Received: * LB Jesse Solomon * LB David Howard * CB Issiac Holt * RB Darrin Nelson (traded to San Diego after he refused to report to Dallas) * DE Alex Stewart * Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1990 (21) - traded along with pick (81) for pick (17) from Pittsburgh to draft (Emmitt Smith) * Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1990 (47) (Alexander Wright) * Minnesota's 6th round pick in 1990 (158) (traded to New Orleans, who drafted James Williams) * Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1991 (conditional) - (11) (Pat Harlow) * Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1991 (conditional) - (38) (Darryll Lewis) * Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1992 (conditional) - (37) (Darren Woodson) * Minnesota's 3rd round pick in 1992 (conditional) - (71) (traded to New England, who drafted Kevin Turner) * Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1993 (conditional) - (13) (traded to Philadelphia Eagles, and then to the Houston Oilers, who drafted Brad Hopkins) "Dallas ended up with a total of six of Minnesota's picks over the succeeding years, two of which were used to draft Emmitt Smith and Darren Woodson. Jimmy Johnson used the other draft picks to make trades with other teams around the NFL. One of the trades led to obtaining the first overall draft pick in 1991, which was used to draft Russell Maryland. In other words, the trade of Herschel Walker to the Vikings contributed largely to the Cowboys' success in the early 1990s." Now I'm not saying Peters can pull that much, and Brandon probably doesn't have a clue how to even start, but trading Peters while he's still got high trade value could set the Bills up for years to come. Problem is that this was likely the most lopsided trade in history - closest "real" case for Buffalo might be the Jared Allen trade last year a first and third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Problem is that this was likely the most lopsided trade in history - closest "real" case for Buffalo might be the Jared Allen trade last year a first and third. You mean we can't get all that and more for PayMe? Guess I must be jaded by all the crap I keep reading that Peters is just the greatest freakin' God of a football player that ever set foot on the gridiron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 You mean we can't get all that and more for PayMe? Guess I must be jaded by all the crap I keep reading that Peters is just the greatest freakin' God of a football player that ever set foot on the gridiron! I thought Trent was the be-all, end-all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts