robertpaul49 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 What I don't understand is that Gross got paid $60 mil over 6 years, so Peters wants at least $61 mil over 6 years. Didn't they sign Dockery to a deal like that? Peters is a better player and has played better, so what's the issue with giving him the money. I understand why they didn't want to give him a new deal last year since he had just signed his original contract, and just like negotiating with terrorists, NFL teams do not like to negotiate with players with three years left on a contract. Wilson has spread money around before, and they are getting more money by playing games in Toronto. What's the point of playing in Toronto is the they aren't willing to keep their best players and at least pretend that they want to have a competitive team?
The Senator Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Link - Eagles Notes: Bills' Peters could hold interest for Eagles Could be just speculation or wishful thinking by the writer but, if the Eagles are really interested in FatBoy, their 2 first round picks look awfully tempting. We get rid of a malcontent who's only going to keep pulling this crap every time someone gets a better deal, and end up with 3 first round picks. Git 'er done, Russ.
The Dean Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Link - Eagles Notes: Bills' Peters could hold interest for Eagles Could be just speculation or wishful thinking by the writer but, if the Eagles are really interested in FatBoy, their 2 first round picks look awfully tempting. We get rid of a malcontent who's only going to keep pulling this crap every time someone gets a better deal, and end up with 3 first round picks. Git 'er done, Russ. What if they aren't willing to part with one 1st round pick? ...or none of their 1st round picks? What would you do if their interest translated to a 2nd round pick?
LynchMob23 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 What I don't understand is that Gross got paid $60 mil over 6 years, so Peters wants at least $61 mil over 6 years. Didn't they sign Dockery to a deal like that? Peters is a better player and has played better, so what's the issue with giving him the money. The problem doesn't lie in the fact that Peters wants 61 mil over 6 years, he wants at least 72 mil (12 per) over 6 years. If you're paying your LT that, what are we going to pay Edwards or whomever is our long term QB?
dave mcbride Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 ya, I agree, but check out SI's Dr Z from the 2008 training camp and CBSSports.com looks like he's been getting advice from both for a while... Interesting. I hadn't known that. It appears that Gleason was wrong.
DazedandConfused Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Link - Eagles Notes: Bills' Peters could hold interest for Eagles Could be just speculation or wishful thinking by the writer but, if the Eagles are really interested in FatBoy, their 2 first round picks look awfully tempting. We get rid of a malcontent who's only going to keep pulling this crap every time someone gets a better deal, and end up with 3 first round picks. Git 'er done, Russ. 2 1st round picks are a bad deal for us and our prospects. First, based on the reality of how this works out: 1. First, the statistical fact is that even 1st round choices are only a little bit above a 50/50 proposition to work out. We know Jason Peters is a flawed player (a Pro Bowl flawed player but a Pro Bowl quality player) but he is the devil you know versus the devil you don't know. Maybe lightening strikes with the two picks and they both work out, but probably not and we in essence have traded a Pro Bowler for one solid player. 2. The Philly draft picks are both in the last third of the 1st round. Of the draft choices from the 1st round who work out there is a heavy bias toward elite players (which I think are reasonably defined as players who command a top 10 pick. Again the odds are pretty heavily that the two picks we get may work out but just as easily can end up being Mike Williams who was a bust even at #4. I think you have confidence in yourself and feel you have a not impossible shot at getting what the Jets got a couple of years ago in terns of 2 immediate starters on the OL with your first round picks. However, one would be a fool not to realize that though this may happen it probably will not and if we trade a vet whom we know what he can do (even though what we know is he is flawed Pro Bowler) we are simply rolling the dice. Risk is what life is about, but the occurrence of the Williams example and the McCargo example are pretty fresh and again we would be foolish to simply assume this will work. 3. Timeline makes a big difference. Ralph ain't getting younger and there is a pretty strong need for us to take as strong a run as we can at making the playoffs this year. Let's assume foolishly that the two picks will prove to be solid pros once we look back. However, even in this wonderful fantasy, you gotta assume that in their rookie years they will not be vets and that 09 is going to be a challenging year as they learn. I do not see how you risk Edwards playing behind 2 rookies andI do not see how you use your one guaranteed year of TO with a learning experience for your OL. We get rooked big time most likely if all we get for Peters is Philly's 2 firsts.
The Senator Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 What if they aren't willing to part with one 1st round pick? ...or none of their 1st round picks? What would you do if their interest translated to a 2nd round pick? maybe nothing. maybe get a 1st & 2nd this year, and a 1st & 2nd next year. maybe package him with other players for picks & players. maybe shop him to another team, which they're probably already doing if they're thinking of trading him. maybe a 3-way trade involving picks & players. what i wouldn't do is let him hold our team & our season hostage again.
ddaryl Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 What if they aren't willing to part with one 1st round pick? ...or none of their 1st round picks? What would you do if their interest translated to a 2nd round pick? force him to play on his existing deal and draft Oher @ #11 if he holds out we have perosnel to absorb the blow. If he decides to play we have a very rock solid OL and are better able to deal with Peters in 2010. Bottom line is the Bills are not going to offer more then the 8.5 - 9 million already on the table. If Peters is dumb enough to hold out again, and /or play on his exisitng dela then Peters is the one that has the most to lose.
Magox Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Link - Eagles Notes: Bills' Peters could hold interest for Eagles Could be just speculation or wishful thinking by the writer but, if the Eagles are really interested in FatBoy, their 2 first round picks look awfully tempting. We get rid of a malcontent who's only going to keep pulling this crap every time someone gets a better deal, and end up with 3 first round picks. Git 'er done, Russ. I don't think that's gonna happen. According to Tim and his connections, he doesn't even believe that he will get even 1 first round. I don't agree with that, but I also don't believe that we will get two first rounders as well. And stop correcting me!
thebandit27 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 maybe nothing. maybe get a 1st & 2nd this year, and a 1st & 2nd nest year. maybe package him with other players for picks & players. maybe shop him to another team, which they're probably already doing if they're thinking of trading him. amybe a 3-way trade involving picks & players. what i wouldn't do is let him hold our team & our season hostage again. wow, over-dramatize much? I guess the important part here is to remember the time-honored Buffalo Sports Fan Tradition of running every talented player out of town as soon as they want to be paid the way that the rest of the league would pay them. I maintain that the best way to do this is to package Peters with Owens, Evans, Lynch, Jackson, Butler, Schobel, Stroud, Micthell, Posluszny, Whitner, McGee, and McKelvin and get all 32 first-round picks. No talented players asking for new deals = no more holdouts! Geez, some people on this board act like a holdout is the end-all-be-all of scumbaggery. It isn't. Bruce Smith did it, literally, every year. Guess what? It worked. Players around the league hold out every year. In a system where a college player works as hard as humanly possible to get a job; has little to no control over their initial contract entering the league, and could lose their career in a single play, a holdout is literally the only leverage a player has to get a raise. It's not a terrible thing to do, it doesn't mean he's a bad teammate, and it certainly doesn't mean that a guy that's worked his entire life to be a professional athlete is lazy. If Peters is lazy, then 99% of the people on this board should be smote for apathy.
The Senator Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 wow, over-dramatize much? I guess the important part here is to remember the time-honored Buffalo Sports Fan Tradition of running every talented player out of town as soon as they want to be paid the way that the rest of the league would pay them. I maintain that the best way to do this is to package Peters with Owens, Evans, Lynch, Jackson, Butler, Schobel, Stroud, Micthell, Posluszny, Whitner, McGee, and McKelvin and get all 32 first-round picks. No talented players asking for new deals = no more holdouts! Geez, some people on this board act like a holdout is the end-all-be-all of scumbaggery. It isn't. Bruce Smith did it, literally, every year. Guess what? It worked. Players around the league hold out every year. In a system where a college player works as hard as humanly possible to get a job; has little to no control over their initial contract entering the league, and could lose their career in a single play, a holdout is literally the only leverage a player has to get a raise. It's not a terrible thing to do, it doesn't mean he's a bad teammate, and it certainly doesn't mean that a guy that's worked his entire life to be a professional athlete is lazy. If Peters is lazy, then 99% of the people on this board should be smote for apathy. wow...over-dramatize much?
mrags Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 If anyone here really thinks we will get 2 first round pick for Peters they are smoking crack through a plastic straw, with an espestos filter while sitting on a pole. There is no way in hell that we get 2 first round picks for Peters. If we were offered 2 first rounders we would be the dumbest FO in football not to take it. Peters is going to demand rediculous money, on top of being a fat out of shape slob, and letting up 12 sacks a year. How he made the pro-bowl is rediculous. And anyone that says he made the pro-bowl we need to pay him....you can go back and think all those years about how much a joke it was that Ruben made the pro-bowl each year. And Peters isnt good enough to lick Rubens jock strap. If we get 1 first round pick we should jump at the opportunity to get rid of this massive 340 baby. If we got anything on top of a 1st round pick we should be extremely lucky. To the people thinking we will get deals like 2 first rounds, and 2 second rounds over the course of this years, and next years draft need to wake up. Thats my take. You can flame away, or agree with me completely.
The Dean Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 force him to play on his existing deal and draft Oher @ #11 if he holds out we have perosnel to absorb the blow. If he decides to play we have a very rock solid OL and are better able to deal with Peters in 2010. Well, of course you can't force a guy to play, but i get your drift. Part of me agrees with what you say here. But, the Bills would probably be better off getting the best trade they can for Peters, if it becomes clear they are deadlocked and he won't report (until the very last minute, again). The Bills need to be concerned about the Bills, and not punishing Peters if things don't work out. Of course, if there is no decent trade...you let him sit. Bottom line is the Bills are not going to offer more then the 8.5 - 9 million already on the table. If Peters is dumb enough to hold out again, and /or play on his exisitng dela then Peters is the one that has the most to lose. With this I completely disagree. Teams rarely hold steady on the first offer...it just isn't the way contracts are negotiated. I imagine the Bills have a number in mind they can settle at...but I doubt that was their opening offer. I don't think the Bills are prepared to meet Peters' opening demand, either. And, as for who will gain or lose...it depends on how much the Bills are willing to hurt themselves again, this year. If they are willing to let Peters sit, to the detriment of the team, both sides lose. If the Bills come to a decent contract agreement with Peters, both sides win. If they trade Peters, and he gets the big contract he wants from another team, then he wins and the Bills either win, or lose, depending on what they get in trade and how that works out. Getting the contract done, ASAP, is the best possible scenario for both sides, and the only real win-win option, IMO.
2003Contenders Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I am choosing to remain optimistic about this whole thing. There is a great deal that differentiates this off-season as it relates to Peters from last season. For one thing the two sides are at least talking. Last year the stance that OBD was taking is that Peters was currently under contract, and they expected him to honor the existing contract. This year they have made an attempt to reach out and off him a more reasonable pay increase. Now, this may still be well below the market value that Peters and his agent(s) perceive ($3 M per year according to Gaughan). However, at least negotiations are in the works, and if the disparity is between, say, $9 M and $12 M a year, you have to figure that there is a middle ground somewhere. With this in mind, I see no reason why Peters and his agent(s) should make this more contentious than it needs to be. After all, Lee Evans set a nice precedent last season by showing up for all of the workouts and slowly working to get a contract extension that didn't actually see the light of day until after the start of the regular season.
thebandit27 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 wow...over-dramatize much? apparently the sarcasm didn't ring through there, huh?
MarkyMannn Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 If anyone here really thinks we will get 2 first round pick for Peters they are smoking crack through a plastic straw, with an espestos filter while sitting on a pole. There is no way in hell that we get 2 first round picks for Peters. If we were offered 2 first rounders we would be the dumbest FO in football not to take it. Peters is going to demand rediculous money, on top of being a fat out of shape slob, and letting up 12 sacks a year. How he made the pro-bowl is rediculous. And anyone that says he made the pro-bowl we need to pay him....you can go back and think all those years about how much a joke it was that Ruben made the pro-bowl each year. And Peters isnt good enough to lick Rubens jock strap. If we get 1 first round pick we should jump at the opportunity to get rid of this massive 340 baby. If we got anything on top of a 1st round pick we should be extremely lucky. To the people thinking we will get deals like 2 first rounds, and 2 second rounds over the course of this years, and next years draft need to wake up. Thats my take. You can flame away, or agree with me completely. AGREE with you COMPLETELY Pretty good summary of the whole situation
thebandit27 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 If anyone here really thinks we will get 2 first round pick for Peters they are smoking crack through a plastic straw, with an espestos filter while sitting on a pole. There is no way in hell that we get 2 first round picks for Peters. If we were offered 2 first rounders we would be the dumbest FO in football not to take it. Peters is going to demand rediculous money, on top of being a fat out of shape slob, and letting up 12 sacks a year. How he made the pro-bowl is rediculous. And anyone that says he made the pro-bowl we need to pay him....you can go back and think all those years about how much a joke it was that Ruben made the pro-bowl each year. And Peters isnt good enough to lick Rubens jock strap. If we get 1 first round pick we should jump at the opportunity to get rid of this massive 340 baby. If we got anything on top of a 1st round pick we should be extremely lucky. To the people thinking we will get deals like 2 first rounds, and 2 second rounds over the course of this years, and next years draft need to wake up. Thats my take. You can flame away, or agree with me completely. I choose flame away, since there's not one item in this entire post that even seems reasonable. I'll start at the top: - There's no way to know what Buffalo could get for Peters, since THERE ISN'T ANOTHER TEAM IN FOOTBALL THAT EVEN CONSIDERS TRADING A 27-YEAR OLD PRO BOWL LEFT TACKLE, and thus there's no precdent. That said, 2 #1s does sound like the starting point for the Bills to even begin listening, since that's probably the number of picks the team would need to spend to find a viable replacement. I know, I know, I smoke asbestos-laced crack. - Second, although I know it sounds pretty, Peters didnt' "let up 12 sacks" last year, the year before, or in any year. ESTIMATES have him at 9.5 to 10.5 sacks allowed last year. It's an estimate because, as I have to point out to everyone that fails to qualify their rant, sacks are NOT an official NFL statistic. They aren't kept, because it's nearly impossible to determine on every play what a team's blocking scheme is supposed to entail. Also, as I have to point out time and again, the Giants gave Pro-Bowl LT David Diehl a 4-year, $33M extension in 2008 after he allegedly "let up" the most sacks in the NFL in 2007. I know, I'm sure the situation is completely different, so the logic of a champion organization shouldn't apply. - Peters is not lazy, fat, or out-of-shape. He plays football for a living, unless you're going to (seriously) go out there and compete with him, you are a no better than a hypocritical jacka$$. He's worked his entire life to play professional football, and I'm guessing you don't know him from Adam. So state your opinion as just that, and don't try to knock the guy's personality or character. The bottom line is that Peters is a tremendously talented player that proved in 2007 that he can dominate over the course of a season. It stands to reason that he would return to form if he worked for an entire off-season and pre-season with the team. If you're going to play the "he'll never be happy" card, just save it. The last time he got a new contract he went out and played outstanding football (2nd half of '06 and '07), so that argument is completely baseless. Grow up, pay the man, and let's move on. Left tackles don't grow on trees, and every other organization seems to realize that.
The Senator Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 apparently the sarcasm didn't ring through there, huh? ditto, dude
Steely Dan Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Yeah, 'cuz that happens all the time. In fact, I can think of...of...of...well, okay, I can't think of a single example where a player got a new contract one year, and held out that same year. Can you? They are talking and that is a good thing, you can't make a deal if you are not even talking. And as long as there are negotiations, I think Peters will come in and we can all go on with our lives. I also think it is a good thing that his agent isn't negotiating in public and that this time around, the team is doing the same thing. Brandon publicly demonizing Peters last year served no purpose unless they had decided to let him go and were just getting the fans on their side before doing so. That clearly is no their intention so I still don't know what Brandon was thinking. I don't recall him demonizing Peters last year. What do you mean?
mrags Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 The bottom line is that Peters is a tremendously talented player that proved in 2007 that he can dominate over the course of a season. It stands to reason that he would return to form if he worked for an entire off-season and pre-season with the team. If you're going to play the "he'll never be happy" card, just save it. The last time he got a new contract he went out and played outstanding football (2nd half of '06 and '07), so that argument is completely baseless. Grow up, pay the man, and let's move on. Left tackles don't grow on trees, and every other organization seems to realize that. You made my point about him being fat and lazy. He didnt show up to camp last year and was out of shape. so much that they made him sit all of the first game, and then parts of the 2nd game. It has also been noted on multiple occasions, by multiple people in the media that he was not in game shape until about week 4. I agree with you that we need to keep our big name players. I've been a supporter of the get Peters a contract fan club for a while now. But if hes going to hold out and not come to camp again and screw up the team chemistry on the O-Line then maybe its better that we cut bait now. I really hope we sign him for a somewhat reasonable contract and make him happy and keep him as a Bill for the rest of his days. But if he gets traded for a 2nd and maybe a 3rd ill be the first one to say I told you so. Ill be eagerly waiting to hear that the Bills have traded the Eagles for 2 first round picks.
Recommended Posts