BillsWatch Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 http://www.wgrz.com/sports/story.aspx?storyid=64901 As word continues to circulate that Bills Pro Bowl left tackle Jason Peters won't be happy until and unless he becomes the highest-paid left tackle in the NFL, the football-wise observers out there seem to weigh in on the side of the Bills doing whatever it takes to keep him. By "football-wise observers" he means column writers and bulletin board posters. This is where I think the Bills have to draw some type of line and stick to their guns, because for me, a player who's only leverage is to hurt his team and teammates by withholding his services despite being under contract, is not a player to count on. Peters still has two years left on a deal that was already restructured for him once, and while he has good reason to feel underpaid at $3.8m and $3.4m due in 2009 and 2010, that is still the contract he gladly signed two years ago. Gladly signed - he could have no signed extension and been free agent now. The going rate? No doubt Peters and Parker will point to the deal top overall pick Jake Long signed with Miami a year ago; a deal worth an average of $11.5m a year. It's a virtual joke that NFL rookies who haven't played a down rake in that kind of money, and the NFL really needs to address that, but that's another subject for another day. Isn't that agent Parker the one who stuck the Bills before or was that a different Parker? I agree rookie salaries are out of control but that also doesn't mean a player who could not cut it in college enough to be drafted in ANY round deserves that money after year and half of performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Great points. The guy STILL isn't proven, and going by last year he didn't look that great. The guy single-handedly almost had us lose a few games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I'd give him 5 years at $60M, which means $12M per. Only it'd have to have clauses he'd need to hit, like playing time, pro bowls and low sacks allowed numbers. He can have the money, but he has to earn it, ya know? I know he wouldn't be quick to sign an incentive-laden deal, but if he's confident in his abilities, he'd do it. Because if he is the best LT in the game and wants to be the highest paid LT, then he should step up and show it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 Kilgore is an idiot if he thinks that the Bills do not already have a clear line in their head about the date they need to settle the deal with Peters on, and that plan does not include several contingencies of what the Bills will do if Peters does not make a deal by that date. He is an even bigger idiot if he thinks it helps the Bills in this negotiation to publicly draw a line in the sand and essentially move this from a negotiation about how many dollars does Peters want and how many dollars are the Bills willing to pay him and instead turn this into some mano a mano pissing match between the juvenile athlete Peters and the corporate monolith known as the Bills. In this negotiation, the status quo is on the Bills side as they like the current contract and pressure to change it is all on Peters side because he wants a new deal. What Kilgore is advocating is that the Bills blink in this staring match and instead hand the initiative to Peters. My guess is that Kilgore is advocating this because such a public announcement though likely counterproductive to the Bills negotiating a deal with an employee would be great for WGRZ and the newsmedia as the would get to fill air time and column inches with a ticking timebomb clock for Peters to make a deal. Perhaps he knows something about the negotiations which would give the Bills tactical advantage in getting a deal done, but far more likely is that Kilgore is playing to the sissies in the fanbase who have their panties all up in a wad about needing certainty and it is really these weak in the knees folks who would need some type of artificial deadline. The call for some line in the sand really would be a weenie move on the Bills part if they caved into this temptation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I'd give him 5 years at $60M, which means $12M per. Only it'd have to have clauses he'd need to hit, like playing time, pro bowls and low sacks allowed numbers. He can have the money, but he has to earn it, ya know? I know he wouldn't be quick to sign an incentive-laden deal, but if he's confident in his abilities, he'd do it. Because if he is the best LT in the game and wants to be the highest paid LT, then he should step up and show it. i agree with this and is the most logical approach. I have a horrible feeling that after he gets his brinks truck of money he will become mike williams part 2. a dominant LT is a great asset and IMO based on Peters history i have no problem paying for his talent but he needs to stay motivated with incentives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 i agree with this and is the most logical approach. I have a horrible feeling that after he gets his brinks truck of money he will become mike williams part 2. a dominant LT is a great asset and IMO based on Peters history i have no problem paying for his talent but he needs to stay motivated with incentives Last time after he signed a contract he played sensationally for the next year and a half. So this really isn't a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offde-fence Posted March 15, 2009 Share Posted March 15, 2009 I totally agree with the belief that a player whose only leverage is hurting his team, or, by not playing to his calaber, because he isn't satisfied with the contract he signed willingly, isn't the kind of teammate the bills need. The offensive line needs to be above average for a team to be successful, but the price of not knowing or being able to rely on a guy who the Bills gave a chance to coming out of college when no one else did, and then by helping him reach new levels of potential, because he seems to play hard and good when he wants to, isn't worth it. I'd rather have a consistently good guy in there. Ideally, you want that quality talent; but, this could go so far as to be not worth it. What kind of a signal does that send other players in the league if the Bills buckle and pay up? It tells every other guy who isn't satisfied with a contract he willingly signed that to come into games or to the regular season out of shape and not ready is the way to get what you want. Can the Bills stop paying a guy when they become disappointed? Or, pay less on a week to week basis upon the quality of play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts