Jackson Sitting Out

[Trent=Answer]

I see a pattern of not paying the players, way to create team spirit.

 

Certain players dont deserve to be paid.. aka jason peters if that what your refering to be not paying

 

Fast freddy deserves a new deal and we should pay him

 

but to think that paying players creates team spirit is idiotic... paying players creates lazy half ass productivity and all it does is make everyone else on the team think they deserved to be paid

 

getting paid is what broke up the ravens this year.. when that stayed on the team not getting paid big money to win a ring is what team spirit is all about .. we need that kind of intensity.. minus ray lewis who actually does kill people

[Trent=Answer]

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.

 

 

Ah men.. 1 season of success doesnt mean sh--

[DazedandConfused]

Ah men.. 1 season of success doesnt mean sh--

However the league has declared him a success twp years in a row by voting him onto the Pro Bowl. You an I might disagree with this selection, but the fact of the matter simply is that by a vote of 1/3 from the coaches, 1/3 from his peers, and 1/3 from the fans he has succeeded 2 years in a row at the tender age of 26,

 

You and do not make the trades or set the market, the coaches, his peers, and the fans (you and I may disagree but the customer is always right in this entertainment business),

 

And for this the Bills develop a rep with their players and their agents that the working strategy if you think you can get more money is to throw a hissy fit and the Bills will give you just what you want financially by trading you,

 

I do not see it.

[VJ91]

Good for him, the Bills should give him at least a 2 year contract and pay him what he's worth. He proved himself last year (unlike Peters) especially against New England.

 

http://www.buffalonews.com/452/story/631518.html

 

Yeah, Jackson "racked up" a whopping 500 or 600 yards rushing as a number two running back, while all Peters did was get voted into his second consecutive Pro Bowl! Absoultely, pay Jackson and screw the two time Pro Bowl left tackle that is in the prime of his career, while Jackson is almost 30 years old. It's all a conspiracy right? We as Bills fans know better then the other NFL players and coaches that voted Peters in right? We know that those other players and coaches only want to see Peters get his money from that cheap idiot Wilson, right? While we experts in Buffalo know that Peters really sucks, and he gave up his 11.5 sacks, and he needs to be traded, right???

 

Two things. the circle jerks should give Freddy a better long term contract, because I like the guy too. But that doesn't change my stance on the fact that yes, Peters should get his money too, since the team that the jerks trade him to will sign him to the contract he demands anyway. And even though all you expert fans are sure that he will suck and get cut like big fat Mike Williams, I think you are all nuts. Jason Peters is a special talent, and he will be a franchise left tackle for whoever signs him, and that is the way I see this.

[BillsNYC]

I just realized Tim referred to Jackson as Action Jackson.

 

I thought he was Fast Freddy?

[The Dean]

I just realized Tim referred to Jackson as Action Jackson.

 

I thought he was Fast Freddy?

 

 

"Fast Freddie" was the nickname of former Bills player, Jonathan Smith, who was neither fast, nor named "Freddie".

 

As far as I know, Fred Jackson has no common nickname, other than "Head", which is apparently what Marshawn calls him.

[BillsNYC]

"Fast Freddie" was the nickname of former Bills player, Jonathan Smith, who was neither fast, nor named "Freddie".

 

As far as I know, Fred Jackson has no common nickname, other than "Head", which is apparently what Marshawn calls him.

 

HAHAHAHA!! That's right!

[Leonidas]

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.

 

He's also demanding somewhere around 4-5x more than what Peters is. And Jackson more than filled his role last year as the #2 (and potential #1) RB; Peters sh-- the bed at LT. It still blows my mind that people who supposedly watched the games didn't notice this.

 

Bottom line is, if you offered Jackson a deal somewhere around 3 years/$9M there's no way he turns it down (beyond the standard agent negotiations and such). Peters wants, what, six years/$70M? There are a whole host of reasons not to pay him including a) his level of play in '08, b) what it does to the payscale for the rest of the team, c) what it does to the salary cap, and d) what it does from a future negotiating standpoint. THAT is why I think it's time to say bye-bye to the latest JP (sorry for sort of turning this into a Peters thread).

 

One interesting thing is that as an RFA - someone correct me if I'm wrong - if we tender him this year, then someone swings in next year and signs him to a contract of a certain dollar value (this year's was $2.2M - I'm not sure what it's based on) then we get a first round pick as compensation. That could preclude the team from signing him to a long-term deal. If that is the FO's strategy - a strategy I like, personally - they could still pay him more THIS year than the $460,000 tender but would probably wait until after signing the rookies to offer it to him. Remember, Freddy J. is 28. Once RB's hit about 30 or 31 they're just about done. Marshawn is 22. He is the future at RB. Parlaying Jackson into a 2010 first round pick would be a brilliant move by the FO.

 

 

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?

 

Well, those guys at least proved it in college. When you come in as an undrafted free agent you don't have that luxury.

 

And the rookie pay scale will be addressed before the new CBA is signed. Nobody wants a top five pick anymore because it's too expensive and that needs to be addressed.

 

 

"Fast Freddie" was the nickname of former Bills player, Jonathan Smith, who was neither fast, nor named "Freddie".

 

haha, I was trying to remember who that bum was!

[Adam]

And now they are probably looking to get out on the cheap for a Kid who is arguably their most valuable Player...The Guy does everything they ask Him to do...And He does it all quite well...Freddy is a KEY piece to this thing...By not paying Him I think The Bills risk sending the worst possible message to that Locker Room...Because Freddy is a special kind of Player...I'm quite sure the other Players recognize that...

 

Oh well...

PROBABLY? How much inside information do you have? Probably, or are you just speculating......

[thebandit27]

He's also demanding somewhere around 4-5x more than what Peters is. And Jackson more than filled his role last year as the #2 (and potential #1) RB; Peters sh-- the bed at LT. It still blows my mind that people who supposedly watched the games didn't notice this.

 

Bottom line is, if you offered Jackson a deal somewhere around 3 years/$9M there's no way he turns it down (beyond the standard agent negotiations and such). Peters wants, what, six years/$70M? There are a whole host of reasons not to pay him including a) his level of play in '08, b) what it does to the payscale for the rest of the team, c) what it does to the salary cap, and d) what it does from a future negotiating standpoint. THAT is why I think it's time to say bye-bye to the latest JP (sorry for sort of turning this into a Peters thread).

 

One interesting thing is that as an RFA - someone correct me if I'm wrong - if we tender him this year, then someone swings in next year and signs him to a contract of a certain dollar value (this year's was $2.2M - I'm not sure what it's based on) then we get a first round pick as compensation. That could preclude the team from signing him to a long-term deal. If that is the FO's strategy - a strategy I like, personally - they could still pay him more THIS year than the $460,000 tender but would probably wait until after signing the rookies to offer it to him. Remember, Freddy J. is 28. Once RB's hit about 30 or 31 they're just about done. Marshawn is 22. He is the future at RB. Parlaying Jackson into a 2010 first round pick would be a brilliant move by the FO.

 

haha, I was trying to remember who that bum was!

 

Ok, one at a time:

 

(a) It may blow your mind that "people who supposedly watched the games" didn't notice that Peters "s**t the bed at LT" last year, but it completely mystifies me that "people who supposedly watched the games" judge Peters entire season by 11.5 plays (allegedly, since it's not even an NFL stat) on which he was beaten. He had some issues in pass protection, most of which came early on in the season. I think we're all educated enough fans to admit that most of his struggles resulted from his holdout. Regardless, there were many, many plays in both the running and passing game in which Peters was quite literally dominant. Again, I urge people to put on the tape of the Jax game--the first Peters played for the team in '08. He was mauling people out there for most of the game (I especially liked Lynch's TD run, that was a classsic piece of LT dominance). Also, I can't think of one sack against Peters that came in the second half of the season...people like to point to the second Jets game (infamous JP fumble) and pin the blame on Peters, but Peters was assigned to block Calvin Pace on the play (and did so, by the way). I thought he gave up 2 to Joey Porter in Toronto, but when I looked, it turned out that (for some reason) Chambers was in the game on both plays that Porter got to Losman.

 

To hold out when you're widely considered among the top players in the league at your position, even though you're being paid less than 20 other guys that play your position, is--in my mind--much more forgivable than holding out when you've had 2 productive games as a feature back and are trying to use another player's suspension as leverage against a team that held on to you for 4 years while you worked through the Arena and European Leagues.

 

(b) Since the team only has one pro bowl LT, and only one pro bowler period, I would say that paying Peters does absolute zilch to the rest of the team's pay scale, unless they either (1) all become pro bowlers, or (2) all become LTs. Sorry if this sounds a little smart-a$$ed, but I really think it has zero effect.

 

© The Bills are far enough below the cap, even with their cash-to-the-cap policy (which isn't a new idea, pretty much every team does this now), to sign Peters and have enough space to sign draft picks and keep mid-season breathing room available. Besides, at this point, this is the final year in which there will be a cap anyway, so why is that a concern?

 

(d) Here's what signing Peters would do for future negotiations: If the team considers you an invaluable asset, they'll pay you like an invaluable asset. There's nothing more to it than that...are you concerned that everyone is going to hold out? It's not as though this happens every day.

 

Lastly, there's no reason to sign Jackson to an extension for one simple reason: he currently won't be an unresricted free agent until after the 2011-2012 season. This is because of the looming CBA expiration. If the CBA isn't worked out, and the salary cap disappears, players will need 6 accrued seasons to become an UFA, rather than the current 4 years. Jackson currently has 2, so he can't go anywhere without the Bills being compensated for another 3 years.

[billsfreak]

I am thinking about not going into work today, I don't think I get paid enough, although I am getting paid under the rules. I shouldn't have to pay attention to rules or contracts.

[The Dean]

I am thinking about not going into work today, I don't think I get paid enough, although I am getting paid under the rules. I shouldn't have to pay attention to rules or contracts.

 

 

Good luck with that

[Leonidas]

(a) It may blow your mind that "people who supposedly watched the games" didn't notice that Peters "s**t the bed at LT" last year, but it completely mystifies me that "people who supposedly watched the games" judge Peters entire season by 11.5 plays (allegedly, since it's not even an NFL stat) on which he was beaten. He had some issues in pass protection, most of which came early on in the season.

 

Sacks weren't a stat until 1982. Your whole "isn't a stat" argument is irrelevant. Having "some issues" in pass protection?? Hahahaha, yeah, you could say that.

 

I think we're all educated enough fans to admit that most of his struggles resulted from his holdout. Regardless, there were many, many plays in both the running and passing game in which Peters was quite literally dominant. Again, I urge people to put on the tape of the Jax game--the first Peters played for the team in '08. He was mauling people out there for most of the game (I especially liked Lynch's TD run, that was a classsic piece of LT dominance). Also, I can't think of one sack against Peters that came in the second half of the season...people like to point to the second Jets game (infamous JP fumble) and pin the blame on Peters, but Peters was assigned to block Calvin Pace on the play (and did so, by the way). I thought he gave up 2 to Joey Porter in Toronto, but when I looked, it turned out that (for some reason) Chambers was in the game on both plays that Porter got to Losman.

 

Not my problem. Not the Bills problem, the fans, or his teammates' (although it became his teammates' problem when his play deteriorated). If you choose not to honor your contract and then your play deteriorates from said defiance then that is your problem. I'm not sure if there was a season Pace did report on time, but that never hurt his play. I know Orlando Pace, and Jason, you are no Orlando Pace.

 

And yes, Peters made some good plays. But that's the thing about playing offensive line. If you give up a sack every game - just one play in every game - you can't cut it in this league.

 

 

To hold out when you're widely considered among the top players in the league at your position, even though you're being paid less than 20 other guys that play your position, is--in my mind--much more forgivable than holding out when you've had 2 productive games as a feature back and are trying to use another player's suspension as leverage against a team that held on to you for 4 years while you worked through the Arena and European Leagues.

 

Too bad he had three years left on his deal. Holding out was the wrong move. The reason teams like Philly and New England have a zero tolerance policy for holdouts is because once you cave to one you invite more people to hold out on you. And I think you've got Peters confused with a Pace/Ogden type. Peter was considered one of the best young tackles in the game meaning teams liked him for what he did but even more for his potential, since he's so young. But he doesn't have the pedigree, he wasn't even drafted out of college, and only had one solid year at LT previously. So yes, as one of the best young tackles in the game he was underpaid. He could have worked out a deal as the season went along (a la Lee Evans), or he could have played out one more season (to tally a total of two at LT) and would have certainly gotten a new deal this year. But now he's burned his bridges with management, fans, and possibly some of his teammates all the while having the audacity to ask to be the highest paid lineman in the league, as if he comes anywhere close to deserving it. Get real.

 

Also, Fred Jackson isn't holding out. If you actually read some of the other posts (or by chance been more familiar with the CBA) you'd realize he hasn't signed his tender and therefore would be violating union rules by attending voluntary workouts.

 

 

(b) Since the team only has one pro bowl LT, and only one pro bowler period, I would say that paying Peters does absolute zilch to the rest of the team's pay scale, unless they either (1) all become pro bowlers, or (2) all become LTs. Sorry if this sounds a little smart-a$$ed, but I really think it has zero effect.

 

It does, you're not actually sorry that it does, and it also doesn't make any sense. Do you think if Trent has a solid year he's going to mind making less than $1M year while is above average LT is making twelve times that much?? Are you serious?? Do you think his teammates give a sh-- about the Pro Bowl? Only you and a handful of idiots do. What kind of precedent does this set?? Everyone who busts their ass on defense and brings the unit up to the #14(?) ranked defense in the league sees a guy who skips every single manadatory workout until the regular season, comes in and plays below average, and gets a $60M raise?? And that doesn't affect what every other player thinks their worth?? Are you insane?? Oh wait, it's all about Pro Bowls, I forgot.

 

It reminds me of the 2003(?) baseball season when Nomar Garciaparra was leading the All-Star voting at SS despite missing every game up to that point. I guess if he had made it the Red Sox front office should have cut him a check.

 

 

© The Bills are far enough below the cap, even with their cash-to-the-cap policy (which isn't a new idea, pretty much every team does this now), to sign Peters and have enough space to sign draft picks and keep mid-season breathing room available. Besides, at this point, this is the final year in which there will be a cap anyway, so why is that a concern?

 

So when the cap is gone, the team in the smallest market should just spend wildly on all it's players?? That is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard (well, today). As a fan of a small market club, you should be very concerned about uncapped seasons past 2010 and 2011 and hope for a new CBA to be signed soon. Ever watch baseball? Do you remember the last time the Pittsburgh Pirates or the Kansas City Royals were competitive?? I don't.

[Cookiemonster]

PROBABLY? How much inside information do you have? Probably, or are you just speculating......

Ah, Adam, Ah this is a discussion board, not the National Fact Archive Vault, um, you will see a lot of

speculating here, this is what we do.

[thebandit27]

Sacks weren't a stat until 1982. Your whole "isn't a stat" argument is irrelevant. Having "some issues" in pass protection?? Hahahaha, yeah, you could say that.

 

 

 

Not my problem. Not the Bills problem, the fans, or his teammates' (although it became his teammates' problem when his play deteriorated). If you choose not to honor your contract and then your play deteriorates from said defiance then that is your problem. I'm not sure if there was a season Pace did report on time, but that never hurt his play. I know Orlando Pace, and Jason, you are no Orlando Pace.

 

And yes, Peters made some good plays. But that's the thing about playing offensive line. If you give up a sack every game - just one play in every game - you can't cut it in this league.

 

 

 

 

Too bad he had three years left on his deal. Holding out was the wrong move. The reason teams like Philly and New England have a zero tolerance policy for holdouts is because once you cave to one you invite more people to hold out on you. And I think you've got Peters confused with a Pace/Ogden type. Peter was considered one of the best young tackles in the game meaning teams liked him for what he did but even more for his potential, since he's so young. But he doesn't have the pedigree, he wasn't even drafted out of college, and only had one solid year at LT previously. So yes, as one of the best young tackles in the game he was underpaid. He could have worked out a deal as the season went along (a la Lee Evans), or he could have played out one more season (to tally a total of two at LT) and would have certainly gotten a new deal this year. But now he's burned his bridges with management, fans, and possibly some of his teammates all the while having the audacity to ask to be the highest paid lineman in the league, as if he comes anywhere close to deserving it. Get real.

 

Also, Fred Jackson isn't holding out. If you actually read some of the other posts (or by chance been more familiar with the CBA) you'd realize he hasn't signed his tender and therefore would be violating union rules by attending voluntary workouts.

 

 

 

 

It does, you're not actually sorry that it does, and it also doesn't make any sense. Do you think if Trent has a solid year he's going to mind making less than $1M year while is above average LT is making twelve times that much?? Are you serious?? Do you think his teammates give a sh-- about the Pro Bowl? Only you and a handful of idiots do. What kind of precedent does this set?? Everyone who busts their ass on defense and brings the unit up to the #14(?) ranked defense in the league sees a guy who skips every single manadatory workout until the regular season, comes in and plays below average, and gets a $60M raise?? And that doesn't affect what every other player thinks their worth?? Are you insane?? Oh wait, it's all about Pro Bowls, I forgot.

 

It reminds me of the 2003(?) baseball season when Nomar Garciaparra was leading the All-Star voting at SS despite missing every game up to that point. I guess if he had made it the Red Sox front office should have cut him a check.

 

 

 

 

So when the cap is gone, the team in the smallest market should just spend wildly on all it's players?? That is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard (well, today). As a fan of a small market club, you should be very concerned about uncapped seasons past 2010 and 2011 and hope for a new CBA to be signed soon. Ever watch baseball? Do you remember the last time the Pittsburgh Pirates or the Kansas City Royals were competitive?? I don't.

 

Wow. I realize that some people have to resort to acting like a tool box when someone disagrees with them, but you're on a whole new level. I love when people like you take a simple post and make it personal. Way to go, do you feel better now? Some of us are capable of making a point without being a complete jerk, you know. Not that I care, I just thought you might be curious how much of an unbelievable dickweed you come off as.

 

Don't worry, I'm getting around to deconstructing your post, and I'll do so one item at a time (again):

 

- You can talk about sacks all you want. Jonathan Ogden "gave up" (in quotes since it's NOT a stat--yes, I'm going to cram that down your throat every chance I get) the most sacks in the league twice in his career, obviously he s**t the bed too, right? David Diehl "gave up" (in quotes since it's NOT a stat) the most sacks in the league in 2007, and the Giants gave him a 4-year, $33M extension after that year, obviously he s**t the bed too, right?

 

- "But that's the thing about playing offensive line. If you give up a sack every game - just one play in every game - you can't cut it in this league." Yes, of course, that must be the case. See aforementioned item about Diehl, who's team won the Superbowl that year.

 

- Instead of trumpeting the mighty Eagles and Patriots for the way they handle holdouts, maybe you should actually look to see how often those teams have key players that hold out? I can remember only one between the two teams (Deion Branch--who, by the way, eventually got a new deal) in the last 5 years. Perhaps that's not because the players are scared of the big, bad front office, but rather BECAUSE THOSE TWO TEAMS SIGN THEIR PREMIER PLAYERS TO NEW CONTRACTS AT FAIR MARKET VALUE. By the way, who at One Bills Drive assured you that Peters would get a new deal after last season, since you claimed it to be a fact? Also, who at One Bills Drive told you that Peters burned his bridges? Sure doesn't seem like that to me, since the team is still negotiating with him.

 

- Right. Jackson is just "skipping" voluntary workouts, in what is being reported as a "contract dispute". Hide behind whatever terminology lends convenience to your argument dude. By your logic, if Jackson just signed his ERFA tender and reported, he'd surely get a new deal, right?

 

- When a poster says "sorry if this sounds a little smart-a$$ed", that means "sorry if this sounds a little smart-a$$ed". I didn't think that needed a translation, but apparently, it does. While I'm certain that you know me better than I do, perhaps next time you should proceed as though the poster actually means what they're posting. I know it's a novel concept, but I'm sure you can handle it.

 

- I honestly don't know what post you read that makes you think I said it's all about pro bowls. But for your benefit, since you brought it up, I give you this: Peters did not finish in the top 5 in fan voting for the pro bowl, which means it was the players and coaches around the league that voted for him. While I admire your clearly superior football analytical prowess (yes, that was sarcasm), I trust their opinions slightly more than yours. Nevertheless, I digress: your question was "what does it do to the payscale for the rest of the team?" My answer is: nothing, because THE TEAM ONLY EMPLOYS ONE LEFT TACKLE. Someone that watches and understands pro football would know that there are 3 positions that are unanimously accepted as the highest-paid in the game: QB, DE, and LT. To pay your LT one of the highest salaries on the team does not change the team's pay scale. At all. When other players on the team provoke talk in league circles that they're among the best in the game at their positions (which, whether you acknowledge it or not, many personnel people around the league believe is the case for Peters), then they can start pining for a huge extension. You sound like you're afraid that Trent Edwards is going to ask for Tom Brady money...tell you what, come see me when that's even close to a reality and we'll discuss it.

 

- This one's funny: "So when the cap is gone, the team in the smallest market should just spend wildly on all it's players?? That is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard (well, today). As a fan of a small market club, you should be very concerned about uncapped seasons past 2010 and 2011 and hope for a new CBA to be signed soon. Ever watch baseball? Do you remember the last time the Pittsburgh Pirates or the Kansas City Royals were competitive?? I don't." Where did I say that the Bills should "spend wildly"? I thought I said that they should sign Peters...hold on, let me read my post again...nope, no mention of "spending wildly". If you kept up with the state of the NFL or the economy, you'd know that the general consensus from owners is that--save for two exceptions (Dallas and Washington)--every team will spend LESS money when there is no salary cap, since there will also be no salary floor. Signing Peters does not preclude the Bills from doing this, so your argument is completely, totally, and in all other ways irrelevant.

 

- Also, an interesting note for you: football and baseball are different sports. The economics, salary structure, pay scale, revenues, TV contract, and pretty much every other financial facet of the two games are completely different. However, once again--for your benefit--I'll help you out, since you apparently have a short-term memory difficulty: the Tampa Bay Rays had the 2nd-lowest payroll in MLB last season, and all they did was make the World Series.

 

Ok, I'm done.

[The Senator]

"Fast Freddie" was the nickname of former Bills player, Jonathan Smith, who was neither fast, nor named "Freddie".

Why, then?

[bladiebla]

Fred Jackson has clearly stated that he wanted to renew his contract with the Bills and remain a Bill untill the end of his career adding to that, that he wanted the Bills to show their commitment to him by signing him to a multiyear deal (3-5 years is what he said).

 

He was tendered an offer in order to prevent him from becoming a free agent, this can be explained in a couple of ways but the bottomline is that they are still negotiating. However him being without a valid contract at the moment doesn't allow him to participate in the ota's. The title of the thread is misleading. Peters is not showing up by choice, Jackson isn't allowed to show up.

[Spiderweb]

While I believe Fred Jackson has turned out to be a heck of a player, he's a 28 year old RB. The Bills could conceivably hold him for the next two years, without having to spend much. The market for a 30 year old RB is a pretty weak one generally.

 

While we all pretty much agree he deserves to be better paid, the business side of football says "not likely".

[BillsWatch]

Fred Jackson has clearly stated that he wanted to renew his contract with the Bills and remain a Bill untill the end of his career adding to that, that he wanted the Bills to show their commitment to him by signing him to a multiyear deal (3-5 years is what he said).

 

He was tendered an offer in order to prevent him from becoming a free agent, this can be explained in a couple of ways but the bottomline is that they are still negotiating. However him being without a valid contract at the moment doesn't allow him to participate in the ota's. The title of the thread is misleading. Peters is not showing up by choice, Jackson isn't allowed to show up.

 

Technically he can show up as long as he signs a waiver or other agreement with Bills but a player who is refusing to sign the tender, a tender the Bills by NFLPA contract can choose to enforce if they wish to, is unlikely.

[BillsNYC]

While I believe Fred Jackson has turned out to be a heck of a player, he's a 28 year old RB. The Bills could conceivably hold him for the next two years, without having to spend much. The market for a 30 year old RB is a pretty weak one generally.

 

While we all pretty much agree he deserves to be better paid, the business side of football says "not likely".

 

Do we really want him sitting out while Lynch is on suspension?