Felser Says Bills

[thebandit27]

The argument is about his freakin attitude as much as his skill level. Guy only wants money. I'd like to see more than that in a player.

 

What attitude? Seriously. You don't know the man, you have no idea what his attitude is like, so stop pretending that you're opinion is a factual statement about the guy's mindset, attitude, work ethic, etc. It isn't. You're as in the dark about his personality as everyone else on this board.

 

Oh my word, you mean the guy wants to get paid more than rookies that have never taken an NFL snap? That unreasonable jerk. I'm sure if the same thing happened in your field, where a guy that's never done the job before gets paid more than you, that you'd be fine with it.

 

Bruce Smith held out of training camp for a new contract every...single...year.

 

Guys hold out all the time, it's not an attitude problem, it's a fact of life in the NFL, one that some people want to ignore. I still haven't figured out why.

[The Big Cat]

What attitude? Seriously. You don't know the man, you have no idea what his attitude is like, so stop pretending that you're opinion is a factual statement about the guy's mindset, attitude, work ethic, etc. It isn't. You're as in the dark about his personality as everyone else on this board.

 

Bruce Smith held out of training camp for a new contract every...single...year.

 

Guys hold out all the time, it's not an attitude problem, it's a fact of life in the NFL, one that some people want to ignore. I still haven't figured out why.

 

11.5 sacks in 13 games.

 

I guess gaudy sack totals is something Peters and Smith DO have in common.

 

Seriously though, Peters is no Bruce Smith. Period.

[thebandit27]

11.5 sacks in 13 games.

 

I guess gaudy sack totals is something Peters and Smith DO have in common.

 

Seriously though, Peters is no Bruce Smith. Period.

 

Once again..."sacks allowed" is NOT an official NFL statistic. Why do you think that is? Possibly because it can't be tracked to any reasonable level? Because the powers-that-be in the NFL are conspiring to get Peters a new contract? Because aliens corrupted the NLF stat book?

 

But hey, let's suppose, just for a minute, that it were an actual statistic...which it isn't. Giants Pro Bowl LT David Diehl supposedly "gave up" the most sacks in the NFL in 2007. What did the Giants do? Gave him a 4-year, $33M extension. Do you know why? Because a quality organization realizes that great LTs (like Peters) don't fall off of trees.

 

There's a reason why personnel guys from around the league believe that Peters is one of the top 5 tackles in the league. I trust their opinions more than those of the people on this board.

 

If Buffalo released Peters, he'd have a huge deal by tonight.

[Peace Frog]

I for one hope the Bills get rid of him. We can get good picks or a possible trade from some team stupid enough to believe the hype about this guy. The definition of overrated IS Jason Peters. I don't know how he got to the Pro Bowl this year. He led the league in sacks allowed by a LT. If you watch the replay of that awful Jets game at the Meadowlands, he is at fault for JP getting manhandled...(of course the play call was rediculous as well)...leading to fumbling the game away, The point is that this man misses his assignments, missed the first couple of weeks due to a holdout the cost his team down the stretch and not to mention he get's injured all the time. And don't even tell me TO is a distraction...I know all about. Let's talk about Peters.

 

Get rid of him. Get somebody in there that wants to be a Buffalo Bill.

 

He sucks.

 

 

 

Just my opinion anyway.

Mother-Falcon true that!!!

[aristocrat]

during the years that bruuuuuuuce held out...how did you guys feel?

[thebandit27]

during the years that bruuuuuuuce held out...how did you guys feel?

 

Honestly? I felt as though the best DE in the NFL should be paid that way.

[N.Y. Orangeman]

Yeah...let's get rid of a 28 year old Pro Bowl LT whose best days are ahead because we can replace him for a third of market value and get better in the process....brilliant. And let's question his desire, integrity, etc. because he held out for a market-value contract.

 

This is the NFL; it isn't the real world. We've tried the real world theory of management in the NFL, wherein we wouldn't pay market value for players and would go cheap (both in management and in personnel). Where has it led us? If we trade a player like Peters and open up another hole, we deserve to finish last in the AFCE again.

[The Big Cat]

Once again..."sacks allowed" is NOT an official NFL statistic. Why do you think that is? Possibly because it can't be tracked to any reasonable level? Because the powers-that-be in the NFL are conspiring to get Peters a new contract? Because aliens corrupted the NLF stat book?

 

But hey, let's suppose, just for a minute, that it were an actual statistic...which it isn't. Giants Pro Bowl LT David Diehl supposedly "gave up" the most sacks in the NFL in 2007. What did the Giants do? Gave him a 4-year, $33M extension. Do you know why? Because a quality organization realizes that great LTs (like Peters) don't fall off of trees.

 

There's a reason why personnel guys from around the league believe that Peters is one of the top 5 tackles in the league. I trust their opinions more than those of the people on this board.

 

If Buffalo released Peters, he'd have a huge deal by tonight.

 

Well, as much "personell guys around the league" know, I trust that the personell guys at One Bills Drive have a keener insight. I haven't said they should trade him/cut him/whatever, I DON'T think he's due a pay increase. Comparing him to a LT that played on a Super Bowl winning offensive line that pushed their RB stable to 4th best in the league is hardly analogous.

[thebandit27]

Well, as much "personell guys around the league" know, I trust that the personell guys at One Bills Drive have a keener insight. I haven't said they should trade him/cut him/whatever, I DON'T think he's due a pay increase. Comparing him to a LT that played on a Super Bowl winning offensive line that pushed their RB stable to 4th best in the league is hardly analogous.

 

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your points are as follows:

 

1) The Bills Front Office judges OL talent better than most others around the league

2) Peters doesn't deserve a contract that pays him better than the 20th-highest in the league for a LT (nevermind how many RTs make more than him) because the Bills didn't win the Superbowl

 

I don't mean to be a jerk, and I'm not just trying to get on your case, but do either of those statements make sense when you read them?

[John from Riverside]

Im confused.......is he asking for 12 million a year or 10 million a year?

[kota]

God. Why is everyone assuming that a deal won't get worked out? There hasn't been any trade me requests yet and the two sides are actually talking. If the Bills trade him over this they are taking two steps back.

[The Big Cat]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your points are as follows:

 

1) The Bills Front Office judges OL talent better than most others around the league

2) Peters doesn't deserve a contract that pays him better than the 20th-highest in the league for a LT (nevermind how many RTs make more than him) because the Bills didn't win the Superbowl

 

I don't mean to be a jerk, and I'm not just trying to get on your case, but do either of those statements make sense when you read them?

 

You're not being a jerk, I don't mind discussing this.

 

1.) Yes, that does make sense to me. I trust that the FO is better at evaluating THEIR OWN talent.

2.) I will rescind my claim that he "doesn't deserve more money" but only because the point you raise about being the 20th highest paid means to me that it's not a black or white issue. I think the Bills made the right move not giving him the money last year at a time when asking for a raise was far more justifiable than it is now. Going back to the point I made earlier--he had one good year at LT. I think we can all agree that one year does not a career make. Therefore, The Bills put the ball in his court during the 2008 offseason/season to PROVE that he'll be a reliable LT. I DON'T think he proved that, and is therefore not deserving of more money than he made in 2007 -or- 2008.

 

What if he pulls the same crap he did last year during the off season, the Bills keep him on the cheap, and 2009 looks like 2008? Suddenly he's worthless, to everyone at OBD, to everyone here, to everyone around the league because that'll make TWO substandard seasons to his ONE good season (at LT).

 

What if he shuts up, puts in his work, and plays out the second to last year of his contract and has another 2007esque season? Yeah, you're ONLY making $3M, but you don't think the Bills would back-pay him if he proved he's truly a "building block?" It's during this debate that folks forget how much money we're giving the intangible efforts of Chris Kelsay.

[Justice]

You want to get rid of Peters and sign Pace? Do you watch football?

 

 

I never said that is what I want to do, I would like the Bills to re-sign Peters, but if we were to get rid of Peters, what do you recommend we do that would be better than Orlando Pace?

[ax4782]

Before we all decide to take a run off a cliff, perhaps we should consider the possibility that so far the negotiations on the contract are in the preliminary stage and that both sides are taking a flyer to find out where the other side is coming from? Maybe its just me, but there are a lot of things still going on in the offseason and the Bills haven't finalized all of their FA and Draft signings. Until that happens they won't really know how much money they have to give Peters an extension. Not to mention, they are going to have to be prepared to give an extension to Edwards, Lynch and Poz after this year if they don't want to run into problems retaining them. While I would love for them to throw everything at Peters to keep him, because he is very talented and a huge building block for this team going forward, there are a lot of considerations to keep in mind, a fact about which both sides must be aware.

 

And as to the fact that Peters gave up a ton of sacks last year, those numbers are accurate, but look at when in the season he gave up most of them. The majority were at the beginning of the season when he was just coming back and out of shape and when the Bills were winning their games anyway. He was a much better lineman at the end of the season and was playing at a starting LT level by week six or seven. He would have been back to form by the end of the year had it not been for injury. I do think that Buffalo will give him the extension, I just don't know that it is going to be this week or next week. I would guess they may even wait until after the draft.

[cody]

The reports are that the Bills offered Peters a contract better than what Jake Long the #1 overall pick got last year.

Peters now wants to be the highest paid left tackle in the NFL.

 

If the Bills negotiated with Peters in March of '08, they would not be in this position.

The Bills promised to re-work Peter's contract in '09 in order to get Peters to report.

Peters made the pro-bowl again.

If Peters was a free agent, he'd be the highest paid left takle in the nfl.

When you promise a guy that you will re-work a deal, you've got to pay the market rate.

[Astrobot]

Also, keep in mind the Bills are still working behind the curtain, rather than publicly "playing" the media, giving Peters an ultimatum, or parading OT's through Buffalo. This may last until Draft Day, and that's 40 days and 40 nights.

[RayFinkle]

Great article, found it interesting he senses Peters is on his way out and mentions it twice:

 

"This team has few options. It sounds as if they are about to discard the best offensive lineman they have had since their Super Bowl days, left tackle Jason Peters, whom they should have tied up for the next five or six years. They don’t have a left guard. They may or may not have a center. They don’t have a tight end. They need a pass rusher. Now they may be bidding bye-bye to Peters.

"

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/billsnfl/story/608132.html

Somebody should tell Felser that the Bills did recognize Peters talent and signed him to a 4 year extension two years ago. Fuggin douche bag. Now, because Peters wants more coin, the Bills are the dummies?

[John from Riverside]

OK so once again I am confused....

 

We really offered a deal comparable to what Jake Long got and Peters is turning it down? I think that kind of offer is more then fair.

 

The way some people talk you would think the bills are telling Peters to digest a deal that is an insult....I wouldn't call Jake Long's contract an insult.

[The Big Cat]

OK so once again I am confused....

 

We really offered a deal comparable to what Jake Long got and Peters is turning it down? I think that kind of offer is more then fair.

 

The way some people talk you would think the bills are telling Peters to digest a deal that is an insult....I wouldn't call Jake Long's contract an insult.

 

IMO, offering Jason Peter Jake Long money is like offering Ko Simpson Ed Reed's contract!

[colin]

imo peters has sick rare talent and the tools to dominate. he is also inconsistent and gets banged up a bit.

 

i consider the oline very important AS A UNIT, not as a collection of individual great players (like the dline is). we need a very good overall o line to dominate in the nfl. having a strong left tackle is important for that, but not crucial like having a pass rusher is on D. so we need an LT, and one is hard to get, but the best LT only does what a good LT does on the vast majority of plays, his job is to stop bad things from happening more than it is to make plays happen. so i'd be happy to sign peters IF he plays up to his talent and is consistent and plays hard. i'd also be happy to trade him for good value if we have a guy who can play there.

 

we've had teague, gandy, jennings, williams, peters and walker as our tackles in the past few years. better blocking is always better, but it's not like peters has resulted is strikingly better (or even slightly better) O than the other guys. it's not quarterback, so it isn't an absolute, we have to look at our line as a unit, not as individuals, so keeping peters or not depends on who else we got.