KollegeStudnet Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I honestly believe this deal will be done...I've been banking on Philly getting Peters for a 1st & 3rd since Thomas & Runyan left for Free Agency... I reviewed Langston Walker's resume in 2008... playing RT last year he only allowed 3 sacks...during Peters holdout, Walker was moved to LT & gave a stellar performance with 0 sacks...Peters came back and gave up 11.5 sacks, which was 31st overall among Left Tackles... Prediction: 1) Langston will be moved to LT 2) a DL & OT will be drafted in the first round 3) Saftey, OLB & Offensive Gaurd will be drafted in 2nd & 3rd rounds
lets_go_bills Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Wasn't sure what to title the thread to not make it sound like there was a deal. http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2009/3/31/...ion-talks-jason Great breakdown and feedback from the Eagles bloggers. In short - no concrete evidence the Eagles have interest in Peters, the Eagles have depth they can use at LT if needed, if a trade were to go down a first and a third would be likely. Thanks for the read. Some interesting stuff there. I for one, want to keep Peters and have no problem seeing him paid $10M per. But he sucked last year, and yes I do think it was because of his holdout and not attending camp. So he needs to show he's great and earn it with some incentives in his contract. But clearly the two sides are far apart and with the draft fast approaching, this Peters thing needs to end. Quite frankly, it's wearing me thin. I'd rather him be on our team, but if we can't come to some form of a reasonable agreement on a contract, I'd be okay to see him shipped to Philly for a 1st and a 3rd. I just don't want to have to suffer through another holdout. We could then draft Andre Smith and Robert Ayers in Round 1, the top TE left in Round 2 (Cook or Nelson), go OLB and LG in Round 3, and then C in Round 4.
BB2004 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 i don't understand why the Bills don't pay him. I think the Bills are trying to do something. Clearly they have mentioned that they want Jason as there starting left tackle for years. I would like it so that they could sign him as well to a deal that would be fair for both sides.
CanadianBacon Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I would rather trade him at this stage for the eagles 2 first rounders. Even if we throw in a third to complete the deal it's a good deal. We could get 2 talented lineman and some defensive help all in the first round. They would all probally not cost 12 million a season!!! God help us if we draft Pettigrew I would have rathered signed LJ Smith from philly. I WOULD rather 2 top tier OT ROOKIES than a whiney Me first player like peters...proven player sure but one of the 2 you'd draft would be a star if not both very solid. CB
Trader Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 If the Eagles offered me a 1st and a 3rd for Peters right now, I'd take it. I'd then draft in the first three rounds: 1a) Brandon Pettigrew, TE out of Oklahoma State 1b) Andre Smith, OT out of Alabama 2) Clint Sintim, OLB out of Virginia 3a) Herman Johnson, OG out of LSU 3b) Lawrence Sidbury, DE out of Richmond I will take the one and the three.
Bill from NYC Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 That's nice he's a receiver. Signing Eric Moulds back in the day was great as well. You dont build a team around a receiver. We've still let far too many good players go. You realize we went from having a defense consisting of Spikes/Fletcher/Crowell/Nate Clements/Antoine Winfield/Pat Williams/Sam Adams/Ron Edwards/Jabari Greer. Granted I realize Winfield didnt play with all these people, and Spikes injury. Although one could argue he'd still be an upgrade to what we currently have. We let all these people go and did nothing but fill self created holes. The DT position wasnt filled until trading for Stroud who's on the wrong side of 30, with no depth to speak of. LB is a mess, and countless picks spent on secondary players, but hey "We kept Lee Evans" That Sir, was a great summary.
BillsNYC Posted April 1, 2009 Author Posted April 1, 2009 I honestly believe this deal will be done...I've been banking on Philly getting Peters for a 1st & 3rd since Thomas & Runyan left for Free Agency... I reviewed Langston Walker's resume in 2008... playing RT last year he only allowed 3 sacks...during Peters holdout, Walker was moved to LT & gave a stellar performance with 0 sacks...Peters came back and gave up 11.5 sacks, which was 31st overall among Left Tackles... Prediction: 1) Langston will be moved to LT 2) a DL & OT will be drafted in the first round 3) Saftey, OLB & Offensive Gaurd will be drafted in 2nd & 3rd rounds I don't think we're going to get a first.
Magox Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I don't think we're going to get a first. If we don't get offered a first, I don't think we'll trade him.
BillsNYC Posted April 1, 2009 Author Posted April 1, 2009 If we don't get offered a first, I don't think we'll trade him. Then what?
Magox Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Then what? What I think people are failing to realize is that he is under contract. Just think about this for a sec. He has three options, and three options only. 1) He rejects the Bills contract offer, he hold's out and comes back into camp the day before the season and he get's payed $3.8 Million for the year 2) He rejects the Bills contract offer, and he sits out for the entire season and he get's payed $0 3) He accepts the Bills contract offer, and he get's a pay increase of approximately %150 He has shown that he will go for the money, so I don't believe 2 is an option. If holds out and goes the route of scenario 1, then he risks two things, one, that he will short change himself $6 Million dollars (approximately), which I really don't believe he will and two, he risks having another lackluster year, and there is no doubt that 2 consecutive years of lackluster play will diminish his contract value. As long as the Bills don't fold, and realize that they have the winning cards, then he has little choice.
BillsNYC Posted April 1, 2009 Author Posted April 1, 2009 What I think people are failing to realize is that he is under contract. Just think about this for a sec. He has three options, and three options only. 1) He rejects the Bills contract offer, he hold's out and comes back into camp the day before the season and he get's payed $3.8 Million for the year 2) He rejects the Bills contract offer, and he sits out for the entire season and he get's payed $0 3) He accepts the Bills contract offer, and he get's a pay increase of approximately %150 He has shown that he will go for the money, so I don't believe 2 is an option. If holds out and goes the route of scenario 1, then he risks two things, one, that he will short change himself $6 Million dollars (approximately), which I really don't believe he will and two, he risks having another lackluster year, and there is no doubt that 2 consecutive years of lackluster play will diminish his contract value. As long as the Bills don't fold, and realize that they have the winning cards, then he has little choice. I had this exact discussion last night on the Buffalo Rumblings site, and made all the arguments you did, but after several posts I'm leaning towards the Bills having to trade him. If they want to win now (which is what the TO move signified) then they're not going to go through another holdout. So its either a deal works out (which Peters prob doesn't want) and trading him.
Big Hurt Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 i don't understand why the Bills don't pay him. Basically, Peters has an asking price, that mean he is willing to deal. The Bills not signing him is totally because of cheapness. If Peters is so good that you won't trade him to Philly less than 2 first round picks, then why not sign him? If Peters is so bad, then why you ask for so much in a trade? Peters is good or has potential to be very very good, but people just hate him because he sat out OTA last year, and refuses to fall in line when asked upon by the Bills. None of that make any sense. He played three years of his five year contract. Good players got their contracts renewed before they expire. If they cut Kelsay and give the money to Peters to keep him, I think a lot of people would cheer for that. So it is not how much money you have but how you spend that money. I think it is Russ Brandon's fault if Peters is going to be playing for another team next year.
atlbillsfan1975 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Then what? You have to trade him, if his deal doesn't get done before the draft. The Lions first second rounder, and there first third would be suitable. Like the article pointed out, he is going to be expensive. Lions could trade there first overall to Denver for Cutler. The Lions then do not have to spend big bucks on a first overall pick. Lions get a qb for very cheap. He still has (i believe)3 years left on his rookie contract and in none of those years does he make more then 3mil a season. Then the Lions can sign Peters to the big contract he wants. Bills get the 33 pick and the 66 pick. So you would have 5 picks in the first 66. Should be able to get a lot of need areas addressed. Get best tackle at 11 (not Andre Smith).
Magox Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I had this exact discussion last night on the Buffalo Rumblings site, and made all the arguments you did, but after several posts I'm leaning towards the Bills having to trade him. If they want to win now (which is what the TO move signified) then they're not going to go through another holdout. So its either a deal works out (which Peters prob doesn't want) and trading him. I hear ya, but I believe that we would be folding. This is like a high stakes game of poker and the Bills FO needs to realize that we are holding the better cards. If Eugene Parker doesn't consider the risk to reward on this deal then he is doing his client an absolute disservice. Peters has much more to lose than the Bills do. Our risk is that one of our 22 starters will play at a mediocre level. Peters risks his career and possibly well over $5 Million this season and maybe next and the possibility that he could very well play mediocre again and diminish his future contract value by many millions of dollars. So he is risking in essence 10's of Millions of dollars and if you think about it he is risking it over just a few million dollars. He wants to get paid $11.5 approximately, and we are offering let's say around $9.5 by the time it's all said in done. That means his Agent would be risking $2 Million a year upside. His downside is over $5 Million over the next two years and maybe a lot more afterwards. Remember he will be pushing on 30 by the time his contract ends. Who will want to pay a player pushing on 30, who is a disgruntled player that has played mediocre football over the last few years. What I'm saying is that we need to stick to our guns and he will fold.
BillsNYC Posted April 1, 2009 Author Posted April 1, 2009 I hear ya, but I believe that we would be folding. This is like a high stakes game of poker and the Bills FO needs to realize that we are holding the better cards. If Eugene Parker doesn't consider the risk to reward on this deal then he is doing his client an absolute disservice. Peters has much more to lose than the Bills do. Our risk is that one of our 22 starters will play at a mediocre level. Peters risks his career and possibly well over $5 Million this season and maybe next and the possibility that he could very well play mediocre again and diminish his future contract value by many millions of dollars. So he is risking in essence 10's of Millions of dollars and if you think about it he is risking it over just a few million dollars. He wants to get paid $11.5 approximately, and we are offering let's say around $9.5 by the time it's all said in done. That means his Agent would be risking $2 Million a year upside. His downside is over $5 Million over the next two years and maybe a lot more afterwards. Remember he will be pushing on 30 by the time his contract ends. Who will want to pay a player pushing on 30, who is a disgruntled player that has played mediocre football over the last few years. What I'm saying is that we need to stick to our guns and he will fold. 110% agree, however I don't think the Bills brass has the balls to do that.
Magox Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 110% agree, however I don't think the Bills brass has the balls to do that. I hope you're wrong. If the Bills can get a first rounder and they believe that the Tackle they draft is going to be a good one, then I could be ok with that. Not happy, but Ok with it. If we trade him for a second, I think we will have totally caved in, and Peters would have won. We come out the losers.
BB-Gun Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 So if you were offered Andre Smith and Lawrence Sidbury for Jason Peters you would jump on it? I think thats a terrible idea. You trade a proven LT for a rookie LT and a 3rd round DE prospect. If Philly wants Peters bad enough they would swing a deal that would give us both there firsts. How about Peters and a 3rd for both of Phillys 1sts. Some may say that is a ridiculous price but to me thats what a top tier LT should bring you. If you cant get that then jsut sign the guy. AMEN Brother!
thebandit27 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 And yet, the NFL seemed to think I was off by only one. 3 players in the AFC east were selected to the pro bowl in front of him. That is a fact. My viewsare pretty damn close to accurrate. Your busted, VABills. Explain to me how it's accurate to use Pro Bowl selections to evaluate RBs, but using it to evaluate LTs is incorrect... Like I said, your busted.
Magox Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Your busted, VABills. Explain to me how it's accurate to use Pro Bowl selections to evaluate RBs, but using it to evaluate LTs is incorrect... Like I said, your busted. I pointed that out to him last night, he never got back to me
thebandit27 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I pointed that out to him last night, he never got back to me Yeah I just saw that. LOL.
Recommended Posts