Adam Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 We have seen what he can do, the good and the bad. But you said it perfectly 1 great season, 1. Do you know how many players have had just one great season and then dissapeared? Plenty. That's why I say he needs another season to prove he's a top LT. Peters showed some great explosiveness and very good feet over those years- unless thats completely gone, I hink he can return to form. That can be even more pronounced if we get a good replacement for Dockery and the new center holds up.
SKOOBY Posted March 14, 2009 Author Posted March 14, 2009 Peters showed some great explosiveness and very good feet over those years- unless thats completely gone, I hink he can return to form. That can be even more pronounced if we get a good replacement for Dockery and the new center holds up. What new center?
OrangeJuiceSimpson Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Peters showed some great explosiveness and very good feet over those years- unless thats completely gone, I hink he can return to form. That can be even more pronounced if we get a good replacement for Dockery and the new center holds up. Yes that is true. I think a topic that is goes unmentioned on this board pretty often is that fact that this guy had a moderately serious injury. I would like to see if Peters has lost a step due to the injury or if it was because of the late start. I think we need one more year to properly assess his worth.
timmyk12 Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Mark my words: Contract or No contract Peters will be in camp. He saw how Lee Evans showed up and a contract got done. I have a gut feeling that he will come to terms before the season w/o a holdout.
DanInUticaTampa Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Mark my words: Contract or No contract Peters will be in camp. He saw how Lee Evans showed up and a contract got done. I have a gut feeling that he will come to terms before the season w/o a holdout. That sounds like the best case/realistic scenario
Britbillsfan Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 One guy yesterday actually stated that sacks was an irrelevant stat-now that is a true lack of knowledge. No. I stated the Sacks Allowed stat is pretty much irrelevant, as others here have also stated. Sack on the other hand are important. It is your reading comprehension skills which are lacking, not my knowledge.
Britbillsfan Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Pretty much sums up a lot of the arguments here.
kota Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 It's simple. Teams Lowball Players Players put crazy price tags on themself. Somewhere in the middle they meet. I doubt the Bills will let him walk.
ChasBB Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Mark my words: Contract or No contract Peters will be in camp. He saw how Lee Evans showed up and a contract got done. I have a gut feeling that he will come to terms before the season w/o a holdout. Whatever the Bills do, I just hope they do it before the season starts. That's what the offseason is for -- to get these deals done. Once the season starts, it becomes a distraction. Once the season is underway, you want the players thinking only about football and not about contracts. I just think it produces better team chemistry and team focus to not be dealing with contracts in week 5 of the season. Look at Evans -- gets his HUGE contract in week 5 and what happens to the Bills? OK, OK, I'm not necessarily saying there is a cause-and-effect here in regards to the Bills sudden downturn last season, but I'm just saying if we're going to keep Peters then get it done before the season starts.
SKOOBY Posted March 14, 2009 Author Posted March 14, 2009 C Geoff Hangartner It was a joke / we'll see how he does.
ganesh Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Mark my words: Contract or No contract Peters will be in camp. He saw how Lee Evans showed up and a contract got done. I have a gut feeling that he will come to terms before the season w/o a holdout. And he knows what impact it has from playing perspective when he held out. He came in out of game shape and struggled in Jacksonville and finally it held him back at the end of the season...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 The bottom line is, if you trade Jason Peters for a 1st round pick, that means that the team we traded him to, which in ALL likelihood has a better evaluator of talent in the front office than we do, thinks Peters is worth about 13-14 million a year (considering they are going to be willing to sign him to what he will agree to, over 10 mil, PLUS give away their #1 pick and probably more) Sign him. Soon. 10 mil a year but try to keep the guaranteed money reasonable so they can cut him after two years if he isn't performing.
Nostradamus Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 It's too bad we didn't simply rework his contract last year or the year before: March 2007: Bills re-sign Chris Kelsay to ridiculous 4 year, $23 million contract. August 2007: Bills tear up last 3 years of Aaron Schobel's contract and give him 5 year $50 million contract to assure he's the highest paid D lineman on the Bills. Said Schobel "Obviously, I had three years left on my deal so they didn't have to do anything ..." March 2007: Bills sign Derrick Dockery to 7 year $49 million contract. Subsequently, Jason Peters continues to play under the 5 years $15 million contract he was given after being promoted to right offensive tackle over Mike Williams. January 2008: Peters is selected to the Pro Bowl. The Bills do nothing. January 2009: Peters selected to a second Pro Bowl. March 2009: Dockery is cut. Why the preferential treatment for Schobel and the stiffing of Peters? Every time I post this the thread dies out, except for VABillsfan who says it's racist. Is everyone going to continue to ignore this issue... Because Marv Levy was pretty much incompetent as a GM. Russ Brandon appears to be more fiscally responsible. That is the short answer. The Kelsey disaster than gave rise to the Schobel disaster. That does not mean that since the Bills vastly overpaid those two players, they should continue to make wasteful front office decisions.
SKOOBY Posted March 14, 2009 Author Posted March 14, 2009 The bottom line is, if you trade Jason Peters for a 1st round pick, that means that the team we traded him to, which in ALL likelihood has a better evaluator of talent in the front office than we do, thinks Peters is worth about 13-14 million a year (considering they are going to be willing to sign him to what he will agree to, over 10 mil, PLUS give away their #1 pick and probably more) Sign him. Soon. 10 mil a year but try to keep the guaranteed money reasonable so they can cut him after two years if he isn't performing. Peters is going to want ~$40 M guaranteed (3 years of his contract), then he will need even more 2 years from now when the upcapped situation allows a NY Yankee type spending spree to occur.
VABills Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 The bottom line is, if you trade Jason Peters for a 1st round pick, that means that the team we traded him to, which in ALL likelihood has a better evaluator of talent in the front office than we do, thinks Peters is worth about 13-14 million a year (considering they are going to be willing to sign him to what he will agree to, over 10 mil, PLUS give away their #1 pick and probably more) Sign him. Soon. 10 mil a year but try to keep the guaranteed money reasonable so they can cut him after two years if he isn't performing. Why? Because you say so? What if its Detroit, Houston, Washington, Cincy, etc? You know the other bumbling teams like the Bills. Your argument ispretty inane. Just because someone is willing to pay huge bucks and a 1st round draft pick doesn't mean they are better evaluators, it means they are more desperate, stupid, or possibly better evaluators. But a trade doesn't automatically mean they are.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 Why? Because you say so? What if its Detroit, Houston, Washington, Cincy, etc? You know the other bumbling teams like the Bills. Your argument ispretty inane. Just because someone is willing to pay huge bucks and a 1st round draft pick doesn't mean they are better evaluators, it means they are more desperate, stupid, or possibly better evaluators. But a trade doesn't automatically mean they are. Hence the term "in ALL likelihood". I would argue that at least 80% of the league has better talent evaluators, as evidenced by nine years and no playoffs and poor drafts and lousy FA signings and few stars on the team. Most people seem to think Philly is the right team to trade, who surely has better talent evaluators.
SKOOBY Posted March 14, 2009 Author Posted March 14, 2009 Hence the term "in ALL likelihood". I would argue that at least 80% of the league has better talent evaluators, as evidenced by nine years and no playoffs and poor drafts and lousy FA signings and few stars on the team. Most people seem to think Philly is the right team to trade, who surely has better talent evaluators. The Bills cannot trust Peters and neither do I, he has shown he will be a force that divides the locker room. He wants more and deserves more money without a doubt but not every few years.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 14, 2009 Posted March 14, 2009 The Bills cannot trust Peters and neither do I, he has shown he will be a force that divides the locker room. He wants more and deserves more money without a doubt but not every few years. There is zero indication he divides the locker room.
Recommended Posts