Fixxxer Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Peters complained in 2005 & got a $15 M extension, he made the probowl in 2007 and hasn't been happy since and asking for more money. So that looks to be about 2 years later to me. Fill in the rest yourself. To play RT, then the team that gave him a contract according to that position moved him to LT. He moved, played at a Pro Bowl level and now he wants more money. It's the natural thing to do. Now, lets pretend the team moves him to QB, he says yes, kicks some ass throwing to TO and Evans and goes to the Pro Bowl, my guess is that he will be asking for more money. If you would have been promoted to a better position in your workplace but with the money from the previous position you too would be asking for better money.
BillsWatch Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Once again you display your comtempt for the Bills by reading the worst possible motive into everything they do. There is no pattern of underpaying Bills players. Crawl back into Peters jock, why don't you. PTR For heaven's sake, can you really be that stupid about every topic? Just ignore the troll from Florida. He posts inane questions to annoy people until he is booted. There is no way you could be that stupid every day and still remember to breathe. Jackson is under contract - he ought to be insisting NFLPA stop negotiating contracts which require teams to pay on potential (when drafted) not on production. Bills should give every free agent a chance to show what he can do and maybe Bills can find another gem. If they do then Jackson, as much as I like the player, could be #3 in depth chart again.
Leonidas Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 There better not be anyone that rips Peters and defends Jackson here. With all of the comments I've seen on this board alleging that Peters "held the team hostage" during his holdout, I'd surely hope those folks wouldn't clam up about this one. Apples and oranges, my friend. Apples and oranges.
thebandit27 Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Apples and oranges, my friend. Apples and oranges. Agreed, but not for the reason that (I assume) you're insinuating. See my original post for why it's different. Peters is younger, plays a position that is much more critical, and is far more accomplished.
atlbillsfan1975 Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 No it's just me in San Jose. I'm trying to stem yet Peters' thread. In addition, I think it's important for us to conclude what is fair so we can follow the negotiations and judge the actions of both parties. This is a fairness issue and I want to see how Brandon and Company acquit themselves in this situation. I hear ya. Was just busting your oranges. And yeah i don't want another Peters thread either. I hope the Bills have the foresight to go ahead and lock him up now. If you go down the road of offering him minimums then when it comes time for him to hit FA he will cost you a lot more then now. He has shown he can play in this league. Give him the four year deal and move on. Either way i dont see him not being there come June.
Astrobot Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 correct. he has yet to sign his tender offer. 4 year at 2.5 per is a fair shake for a stand up class act guy who is one hell of an RB. also, it should be noted we have been in negotiations with his agent. My guess is, the bills are putting him on the back burner with 1.) peters and 2.) the draft upcoming. But that said, the dude is IN buffalo training on his own. get him signed, make everyone happy. he's a fan favorite so lets do it already... in addition, had they succeeded in getting someone like Kevin Jones it would have given them leverage in negotiations with him (which is again stupid on the FO part).... I agree that 4 yrs/$10M sounds right for a proven back. However, the Bills will wait until after draft day to offer it. Compensation for Jackson would be a first rounder, and there are RB's in RD6 of this draft better than Xavier Omon IMHO. Add to this, we don't know right now if we will have money (thanks, Peters and agent), or if we'll have 2-3 first rounders to pay using the same money (our #11, and 1 or 2 first-rounders for Peters or trade-down).
lets_go_bills Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 I honestly don't blame him for sitting out. He's 28 and played hard and well. But he knows he only has a few years of football in him at that age and he just wants to get a nice payday to take care of himself and his family for life after football.
Fingon Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 I agree that 4 yrs/$10M sounds right for a proven back. However, the Bills will wait until after draft day to offer it. Compensation for Jackson would be a first rounder, and there are RB's in RD6 of this draft better than Xavier Omon IMHO. Add to this, we don't know right now if we will have money (thanks, Peters and agent), or if we'll have 2-3 first rounders to pay using the same money (our #11, and 1 or 2 first-rounders for Peters or trade-down). How is compensation for Jackson a 1st rounder?
cåblelady Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 There better not be anyone that rips Peters and defends Jackson here. Don't tempt me.
SuperKillerRobots Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 I agree that 4 yrs/$10M sounds right for a proven back. However, the Bills will wait until after draft day to offer it. Compensation for Jackson would be a first rounder, and there are RB's in RD6 of this draft better than Xavier Omon IMHO. Add to this, we don't know right now if we will have money (thanks, Peters and agent), or if we'll have 2-3 first rounders to pay using the same money (our #11, and 1 or 2 first-rounders for Peters or trade-down). Isn't he an ERFA? Meaning he can't negotiate with anyone besides the Bills? He can't play for another team next year unless we trade him there. He's kinda SOL. I think Ryan Grant had the same issue last year and held out from the Packers' camp.
The_Philster Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Jackson is not currently under contract with the Bills, so I don't think he's even allowed to attend the workouts. Bingo...practicing without a contract is a big no-no per the NFLPA. If he gets hurt, he gets nothing. Under contract, he can get placed on IR and get his full salary Some people here need a panty debuncher. The article makes it sound like he could be there if he wanted. Gaughan needs to pay better attention to the NFL than he already does if he meant it to sound that way The person who wrote the article Apples and oranges, my friend. Apples and oranges. Peters is under contract, Jackson isn't I honestly don't blame him for sitting out. He's 28 and played hard and well. But he knows he only has a few years of football in him at that age and he just wants to get a nice payday to take care of himself and his family for life after football. he's not sitting out...holding out or sitting out,..it's when a player who's under contract doesn't report..Jackson isn't signed
PromoTheRobot Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 So was Peters until the Bills decided not to pay him what he was worth. When exactly did that tragedy of humanity occur? PTR
Mickey Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Maybe he's not selling enough jerseys for Brandon to want to resign him. I'd rather the Bills sign him to a solid contract than bring in some over the hill 3rd running back like Fred Taylor. But they don't have to, they have him tied up, just like Peters and they can tie him up him again in 2010 for only 2.2 million. Peters certainly proved himself, far more than did Freddy, in 2007, it didn't get him much. So now Freddy is doing the same thing Peters did after his best year as a pro and what Schobel did, etc. I don't see any way they give Freddy anything huge. I like the guy, a lot, but he has even less leverage than Peters. Now, maybe there are those who think the Bills make contract decisions based on good citizenship, or a sense of morality and fair play. Okay, now that I have stopped laughing, let me finish that thought. I rather think they make decisions based on business realities. What is the least they can pay a guy and still get him to perform based on the leverage they have and don't have in the negotiations? That is the standard. One of the few times they deviated from that for anything but a hall of famer was Schobel and that was a huge mistake.
The Dean Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 When exactly did that tragedy of humanity occur? PTR I'd pinpoint that early in the offseason, after 2007, when they knew they had a Pro Bowl LT playing at a mediocre RT's salary. The RIGHT thing to do then (and the thing that likely would have made all of this moot), would have been to sign him to a legit contract for a starting NFL LT.
Lurker Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 I'd pinpoint that early in the offseason, after 2007, when they knew they had a Pro Bowl LT playing at a mediocre RT's salary. The RIGHT thing to do then (and the thing that likely would have made all of this moot), would have been to sign him to a legit contract for a starting NFL LT. The NFL is a 'prove it more than once' league, which is why over the hill All Pros like Pace get $5 million and guys like Peters get $3.5 million.
The Dean Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 The NFL is a 'prove it more than once' league, which is why over the hill All Pros like Pace get $5 million and guys like Peters get $3.5 million. That is simply untrue. The top OL drafted will get a far bigger contract than JP, and he has yet to play a down. But, if we are talking about players already in the league, does the name Matt Cassel ring a bell? And, how long did it take for NE* to give a raise to Brady, after he went from a 6th round backup QB to a successful starter?
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Except that Brandon doesn't make the decisions...and the Bills didn't pick up Taylor. Other than the fact that you seem to be wrong on both points...good post! i never said peters shouldn't get a raise, but what he is DEMANDING he is entitled to is insane. there is no way he is worth #1 LT money. does he deserve a raise, yes. does he deserve to be the highest paid LT, no. he has alienated fans with the way he is handling this.
The Dean Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 i never said peters shouldn't get a raise, but what he is DEMANDING he is entitled to is insane. there is no way he is worth #1 LT money. does he deserve a raise, yes. does he deserve to be the highest paid LT, no. he has alienated fans with the way he is handling this. Your last post suggested you were against his contract negotiation. so the bills should re-negotiate his already re-negotiated contract an an annual basis? whats the point of even giving him an extended contract when he has no intention to ever attempt to live by what he signed? Now you say you are OK with a contract negotiation. What do you really think?
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Your last post suggested you were against his contract negotiation. Now you say you are OK with a contract negotiation. What do you really think? you like getting into arguments of circle logic don't you? I don't want to give Peters the contract he wants, there is no way i want the bills to do that. He has not demonstrated he is commited to the team and therefore I don't think he has EARNED another contract negotiation. Fred Jackson DOES deserve an extension/negotiation. (which is what this thread is on without getting this on a complete tangent) but just based solely on the position he plays, he is "underpaid" compared to his starting LT peers and "deserves" more as a result just on the pay scale for his position.
The Dean Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 you like getting into arguments of circle logic don't you? Not particularly. But, I do like to understand where people are coming from. Those two positions seemed, on the surface, to be contradictory, I don't want to give Peters the contract he wants, there is no way i want the bills to do that. He has not demonstrated he is commited to the team and therefore I don't think he has EARNED another contract negotiation. Fred Jackson DOES deserve an extension/negotiation. (which is what this thread is on without getting this on a complete tangent) but just based solely on the position he plays, he is "underpaid" compared to his starting LT peers and "deserves" more as a result just on the pay scale for his position. OK. Although I don't agree with you, I understand what you are saying, a little better.
Recommended Posts