Bills were in serious discussions with Philly about Peters

[BuffaloBob]

That chart represents the money those players get THIS year. Accurate? i don't know.

 

According to the chart, it is the money each of those players received in 2008.

 

 

 

Of course, he won't be the highest paid LT every year.

No, and the concern of many, myself included, is that he will pull this stunt EVERY time he feels under-compensated. I would not have problem if the Bills upped their offer with incentives that could bring the deal closer to what he is asking, as that would at least solve the problem of keeping him motivated. But it still doesn't solve the problem that he will have have essentially held the team hostage in a way that other players on the team did not who got their deals extended.

 

Moreover, I am also of the opinion that he has NOT put in a body of work that entitles him to be the highest paid or nearly highest paid LT in the league. I don't care about his upside or his potential, and I don't care that the new contract he willingly signed and performed only one year under before trying to hold the team for more money is undercompensating per the market. In my mind, to be the highest paid at anything there should be a well-established track record for that level of performance that warrants that kind of huge financial commitment from the team, including a rock-solid commitment to the team on his part. If he's that worried about a career ending injury in team conditioning and off-season workouts, maybe he should be in another field. And as for the possibility of injury in games while demonstrating his commitment, let him buy insurance for the $600,000 that he is paying in fines to sit out.

 

I think the offer the Bills have made him is more than a reasonable one given market parameters and given what he has done on the field so far. I think it also reflects an unwillingness to overpay him for his poor decision-making that led to less than stellar play last year and which put the team in a real bind. And regardless of what some people think about sack stats, the reality is that it ain't THAT ambiguous. It is certainly possible that on a few occasions, someone else blew an assignment that made him look bad, but I submit that anyone with a little knowledge of football can make a pretty sound assessment of most of those sacks. At best, he was inconsistent last year and clearly gave up at least three blind side sacks that I saw that were not ambiguous.

 

I want the Bills to stick their guns, and if he shows no willingness to get his ass into town and work-out with the team or to sign what is a very reasonable offer, then I am perfectly happy to be rid of him. Even if he ultimately signs what the Bills are offering him, he'll be back for more in no time. If he decides not to sign and hold out, we will have at best the kind of performance he put in last season. I could do without that. We have managed to win some games without him and lost lot's of games with him. We have managed to achieve paltry offensive numbers with him, and we've done well on occasion without him.

 

What that tells me is not the huge impact player some think he is. He is certainly not deserving of what he is demanding.

[SuperKillerRobots]

Ok, something needs to be said here. Are the majority of the people on this board clinically insane? You have a 2 time pro bowl left tackle on the team, who is under contract for 2 more freakin years and you want to trade him????

 

Did he deserve to go to the pro bowl last year? Maybe not. But I'm sick of seeing this stupid "sacks allowed" pseudo-stat that everyone has got their panties in a bunch over. You do realize that it is not an official stat kept by the NFL because it is way too ambiguous. And please don't forget that he was playing next to dockery the pylon who was atrocious this year. The only time I remember him getting burned legitimately was the Edwards fumble against jacksonville (his first game back). The JP fumble against the jets that everyone places on Peters was a perfectly timed CB blitz and would have been tough for anyone to stop. Not to mention JP held onto the ball way too long.

 

Facts:

 

 

1. He did not have nearly as bad a year as most people here believe

 

2. He is the Bills' most valuable player by a wide margin. Please don't argue this. Think of what everyone is throwing around as to what we could get for him and see if any other player on the roster could even come close to that

 

3. The most important factor...the team still has all the leverage here. He is under contract for two more years at a serious discount. It would be completely asinine to trade him

 

4. Me saying he is awesome doesn't mean much but does the fact Jason Taylor said that he's the toughest lineman he's faced mean anything??

 

5. He wants as much money as he can get. As fans this bothers us, but this is his life...it's important to note the distinction. Like most people, he wants to maximize his earning power.

 

6. Save the crap about how he should take a hometown discount because the bills took a chance on him. They did so because they saw he had talent and could potentially help their team. Give whoever pushed for him (Bobby April) a raise if anything, not punish Peters. It wasn't like it was done out of charity.

 

7. Him not attending training camp is being overblown quite a bit. I'll bet the nagging knee injury that never gets mentioned had more to do with him not being as dominant as the year before. He didn't even partake in the pro bowl because of it and that was about two months after he had shut it down for the year. It stands to reason that it was more serious than anyone let on.

8. As much as a lot of you hate him, he likes Buffalo. Said it himself after the game in Toronto how much they missed the fan support. Everyone else was being diplomatic except him. I appreciated that (and I'm from Toronto!).

 

9. Best thing for the Bills to do would be to pay him. Contracts are just going to keep going up. The most economical, however, would be to refuse to renegotiate and let him play for 2 years at his current salary (and he would play, that's almost a guarantee..no way he sits out the first 9 games or whatever the number is) and try to find another LT in the draft in the meantime.

 

 

I really hope this story about them shopping Peters is untrue. The front office can't afford to be this stupid, especially not this year with all the buzz they've generated. The Bills offense can be good this year but it will all unravel if Peters is gone.

 

Wouldn't that be a concern when signing him to a long-term deal as well? What if the injury really is the reason he didn't do well last year? Do we want to make a possibly injury prone LT the highest paid in the league? I think a lot of time the idea of giving a guy a contract that makes him the hgihest paid player at his position is that at one time you got real alue for his services, so it's easy to make that call - it shows a commitment to a player that shows commitment to the team. In this case, when have the Bills ever really gotten a discount on him? Everytime he had a jump in production or the team started to rely on him more, he got a new contract. Now he wants another.

 

I'd love the Bills to sign him, especially if he is not hurt, will come in in the offseason to work and learn, and not pull this crap again. Not sure that I feel very good about any of those things being the case.

[The Dean]

Yeah, and he also made an issue that affected the entire team for the entire season. And he did it with three years left on his current deal after having his deal re-structured once already. And he did it after only one full season at his position. There is a difference between holding out after three seasons of the so-called "outperforming" your contract. This is another situation altogether.

 

Sorry, am I coming off like a negotiator for the Bills again???

 

 

A little bit.

 

I was responding to a post which inferred he has had repeated holdouts. I stated he has had only one. Am I right, or wrong? The other stuff you posted is unrelated to my response. But, let's continue:

 

All of what you say above is true...and one sided. Why not paint the entire picture, so it looks like you aren't biased? Here's what it looks like, to me (some opinion is thrown in, for good measure):

 

The Bills restructured Peters contract, when he progressed from a special teams players, to a starting offensive lineman. They gave him a contract for an adequate young, right tackle.

 

Peters has had three good years with the Bills, not one. He had one very good year as a starting LT, and then last season (OPINION) which wasn't great, but probably wasn't as terrible as most here are saying. I base that on what the Bills are willing to pay him and what he is likely to get from other teams.

 

After competing one very successful year as a starting LEFT tackle, he thought he deserved more money, as it clearly was a different position, with a different pay scale, than the one he played when he signed his contract. The Bills disagreed.

 

OPINION: IMO, the Bills made a mistake by telling him they wouldn't adjust his contract until this year. They should have done for him last year, what they did for Stroud this year.

 

OPINION: Peters, led by Parker, chose the wrong way to negotiate with the Bills. The holdout hurt the team, and likely damaged the ability of Parker to get a deal done with the Bills...at least a little. I hope it wasn't totally ruined.

 

Peters action last year was horrible...but there is no other evidence that he is a bad human, or is a constant threat to holdout. Most of his career in Buffalo he has worked hard, and done what he was asked to do.

 

The holdout hurt the Bills, and Peters play. Still, the Bills offer of over $8 million/year suggests they aren't that concerned about his play, last year, and believe he is an elite LT. They wouldn't be offering him that kind of $$, if they had real questions about his play.

 

Right now, the Bills don't have a clear replacement for Peters and ANY draft pick is a gamble...(OPINION) far more of a gamble than Peters.

 

So, the sides continue to negotiate. Typically, in negotiations, one side offers less than they are really willing to pay, and the other asks for more than they are likely to get. According to reports, they are about $3 apart.

 

OPINION: There is a number, between what the Bills are offering and what Peters is asking for, that will get the deal done. Also, there are ways to structure the contract that can make Peters feel loved, while giving the Bills some protection against Peters not showing up, working out, etc. Since the Bills use cash-to-cap accounting, his bonus will be accounted for early in his contract (at least that's the way I understand it). So, they can always axe, or trade, him, to negate the back-end, should they desire.

 

OPINION: I might feel differently about the outcome of the negotiations, if the Bills had a clear replacement for Peters. Sometimes, due to context, something is worth more to you than it would be in a different context. That's why they can charge $7 for a beer at a sporting event. Right now, I think Peters is worth more to the Bills than what you might conclude by looking at the salary of other players in the league...at least for the next couple of years. Getting him to camp, and happy, gives the team a far better chance to succeed, the next two years, than any other likely option on the table. If that cost an extra $2/year, I think that is money well spent. I can accept that you don't. But, I take issue with the picture being painted with a one-sided brush.

[Steely Dan]

If its true what you say about the odds of picking and becoming outstanding at the position are slim to none, and that no one beyond the second round has ever been average then why so high on Peters? Hmmmmm...... Doesnt Peters fall under both of those catagories?

 

For all you Peters Lovers out there:

We picked him up as an UDFA TE, converted him to the position of RT, then LT, and should take sole resposibility for acknowledging his talent in the first place.

 

And who really thinks he belonged in the Pro-Bowl last year? If you really did you should jump off a bridge with a frozen over river at the bottom. Peters hasnt really shown us anything. He was great for 1 year at LT. Thats it. End of list. He didnt prove anything last year except he knows how to hold out. And its looking the same this year.

 

Can we please end the experiment? He doesnt want to be here, and IMO theres no way hes proved to be paid highest LT in the league. If he played last year the way he did 2 years ago, I would say you have an arguement.

 

Call the players who voted for him and played against him and tell them they were wrong.

 

Also, Peters became an elite LT by working his ass off.

 

 

If anything, that is a supporting argument for Peters. Shows that his learning curve was made up very quickly, and that he has tremendous upside.

 

What he said.

[Leonidas]

Let's just assume that there are only a handful of LT's getting payed over $8 Million a year, just for the sake of not arguing this point.

 

Or for the sake of being factual...

 

Let's just assume that there are only a handful of LT's getting payed over $8 Million a year, just for the sake of not arguing this point.

 

Your argument is that Peters shouldn't get payed over $8 Million based on existing contracts.

 

Now I ask you, what do you think a good LT is going to demand on a new contract?

 

We've all ready seen some decent Tackles getting payed $7.5 Million. Tackles that are considered no where near as good as Peters.

 

You have to realize that the majority of posters are basing their arguments are on existing contracts. That is a flawed way of looking at what someone's current value is.

 

You mention Walter Jones contract as a measuring stick. You have to realize that he signed that contract back in 2005. Things have changed since then. To compare Peters value today vs. Walters Value in 2005, you have to take into consideration how much salaries have increased since then.

 

Pro Bowl LT's from now on, I will gaurantee you anything, will get compensated over $8 Million a year.

 

I think we've found the flaw in your logic. I rattled off a number of tackles and no one could tell me if Peters was better than any or all of them.

 

 

You have to realize that the majority of posters are basing their arguments are on existing contracts. That is a flawed way of looking at what someone's current value is.

 

You mention Walter Jones contract as a measuring stick. You have to realize that he signed that contract back in 2005. Things have changed since then. To compare Peters value today vs. Walters Value in 2005, you have to take into consideration how much salaries have increased since then.

 

Pro Bowl LT's from now on, I will gaurantee you anything, will get compensated over $8 Million a year.

 

The problem is that that's not really true. The "just pay Peters" crowd - while some of them appear to base their argument on nothing whatsoever - the other ones are basing their "arguments" on the Long/Gross contracts solely. When you look at the market as a whole for that position, and you see the performance of the player, you see he's not worth anywhere near the $10-11M/year some morons insist we pay him.

 

 

Pro Bowl LT's from now on, I will gaurantee you anything, will get compensated over $8 Million a year.

 

While that may be true, that doesn't change the fact that had we paid him last year and he performed the way he did that he would have "underperformed" the massive contract.

 

I'm also sick to death of the pro bowl argument. Did you think he played at a pro bowl level this year? If so, this conversation is over. If not, then the argument doesn't hold water anyhow.

[dave mcbride]

A little bit.

 

I was responding to a post which inferred he has had repeated holdouts. I stated he has had only one. Am I right, or wrong? The other stuff you posted is unrelated to my response. But, let's continue:

 

All of what you say above is true...and one sided. Why not paint the entire picture, so it looks like you aren't biased? Here's what it looks like, to me (some opinion is thrown in, for good measure):

 

The Bills restructured Peters contract, when he progressed from a special teams players, to a starting offensive lineman. They gave him a contract for an adequate young, right tackle.

 

Peters has had three good years with the Bills, not one. He had one very good year as a starting LT, and then last season (OPINION) which wasn't great, but probably wasn't as terrible as most here are saying. I base that on what the Bills are willing to pay him and what he is likely to get from other teams.

 

After competing one very successful year as a starting LEFT tackle, he thought he deserved more money, as it clearly was a different position, with a different pay scale, than the one he played when he signed his contract. The Bills disagreed.

 

OPINION: IMO, the Bills made a mistake by telling him they wouldn't adjust his contract until this year. They should have done for him last year, what they did for Stroud this year.

 

OPINION: Peters, led by Parker, chose the wrong way to negotiate with the Bills. The holdout hurt the team, and likely damaged the ability of Parker to get a deal done with the Bills...at least a little. I hope it wasn't totally ruined.

 

Peters action last year was horrible...but there is no other evidence that he is a bad human, or is a constant threat to holdout. Most of his career in Buffalo he has worked hard, and done what he was asked to do.

 

The holdout hurt the Bills, and Peters play. Still, the Bills offer of over $8 million/year suggests they aren't that concerned about his play, last year, and believe he is an elite LT. They wouldn't be offering him that kind of $$, if they had real questions about his play.

 

Right now, the Bills don't have a clear replacement for Peters and ANY draft pick is a gamble...(OPINION) far more of a gamble than Peters.

 

So, the sides continue to negotiate. Typically, in negotiations, one side offers less than they are really willing to pay, and the other asks for more than they are likely to get. According to reports, they are about $3 apart.

 

OPINION: There is a number, between what the Bills are offering and what Peters is asking for, that will get the deal done. Also, there are ways to structure the contract that can make Peters feel loved, while giving the Bills some protection against Peters not showing up, working out, etc. Since the Bills use cash-to-cap accounting, his bonus will be accounted for early in his contract (at least that's the way I understand it). So, they can always axe, or trade, him, to negate the back-end, should they desire.

 

OPINION: I might feel differently about the outcome of the negotiations, if the Bills had a clear replacement for Peters. Sometimes, due to context, something is worth more to you than it would be in a different context. That's why they can charge $7 for a beer at a sporting event. Right now, I think Peters is worth more to the Bills than what you might conclude by looking at the salary of other players in the league...at least for the next couple of years. Getting him to camp, and happy, gives the team a far better chance to succeed, the next two years, than any other likely option on the table. If that cost an extra $2/year, I think that is money well spent. I can accept that you don't. But, I take issue with the picture being painted with a one-sided brush.

Excellent post.

[Magox]

Or for the sake of being factual...

 

 

 

I think we've found the flaw in your logic. I rattled off a number of tackles and no one could tell me if Peters was better than any or all of them.

 

 

 

 

The problem is that that's not really true. The "just pay Peters" crowd - while some of them appear to base their argument on nothing whatsoever - the other ones are basing their "arguments" on the Long/Gross contracts solely. When you look at the market as a whole for that position, and you see the performance of the player, you see he's not worth anywhere near the $10-11M/year some morons insist we pay him.

 

 

 

 

While that may be true, that doesn't change the fact that had we paid him last year and he performed the way he did that he would have "underperformed" the massive contract.

 

I'm also sick to death of the pro bowl argument. Did you think he played at a pro bowl level this year? If so, this conversation is over. If not, then the argument doesn't hold water anyhow.

 

Man you are really hard headed sometimes, and I'm sure this is not the first time you've heard that before.

 

You have unrealistic views and the fact of the matter is you dodged my question. You expect players to receive new contracts based solely on existing contracts. If that was entirely the case, contract values would barely rise. That is your view. Your logic is flawed.

 

A player's value is based on how much teams are willing to pay, and my guess is that he will get a deal of over $10 Million, if not from us, from someone else.

 

We'll see who's right.

[Leonidas]

A little bit.

 

I was responding to a post which inferred he has had repeated holdouts. I stated he has had only one. Am I right, or wrong? The other stuff you posted is unrelated to my response. But, let's continue:

 

All of what you say above is true...and one sided. Why not paint the entire picture, so it looks like you aren't biased? Here's what it looks like, to me (some opinion is thrown in, for good measure):

 

The Bills restructured Peters contract, when he progressed from a special teams players, to a starting offensive lineman. They gave him a contract for an adequate young, right tackle.

 

Peters has had three good years with the Bills, not one. He had one very good year as a starting LT, and then last season (OPINION) which wasn't great, but probably wasn't as terrible as most here are saying. I base that on what the Bills are willing to pay him and what he is likely to get from other teams.

 

After competing one very successful year as a starting LEFT tackle, he thought he deserved more money, as it clearly was a different position, with a different pay scale, than the one he played when he signed his contract. The Bills disagreed.

 

OPINION: IMO, the Bills made a mistake by telling him they wouldn't adjust his contract until this year. They should have done for him last year, what they did for Stroud this year.

 

OPINION: Peters, led by Parker, chose the wrong way to negotiate with the Bills. The holdout hurt the team, and likely damaged the ability of Parker to get a deal done with the Bills...at least a little. I hope it wasn't totally ruined.

 

Peters action last year was horrible...but there is no other evidence that he is a bad human, or is a constant threat to holdout. Most of his career in Buffalo he has worked hard, and done what he was asked to do.

 

The holdout hurt the Bills, and Peters play. Still, the Bills offer of over $8 million/year suggests they aren't that concerned about his play, last year, and believe he is an elite LT. They wouldn't be offering him that kind of $$, if they had real questions about his play.

 

Right now, the Bills don't have a clear replacement for Peters and ANY draft pick is a gamble...(OPINION) far more of a gamble than Peters.

 

So, the sides continue to negotiate. Typically, in negotiations, one side offers less than they are really willing to pay, and the other asks for more than they are likely to get. According to reports, they are about $3 apart.

 

OPINION: There is a number, between what the Bills are offering and what Peters is asking for, that will get the deal done. Also, there are ways to structure the contract that can make Peters feel loved, while giving the Bills some protection against Peters not showing up, working out, etc. Since the Bills use cash-to-cap accounting, his bonus will be accounted for early in his contract (at least that's the way I understand it). So, they can always axe, or trade, him, to negate the back-end, should they desire.

 

OPINION: I might feel differently about the outcome of the negotiations, if the Bills had a clear replacement for Peters. Sometimes, due to context, something is worth more to you than it would be in a different context. That's why they can charge $7 for a beer at a sporting event. Right now, I think Peters is worth more to the Bills than what you might conclude by looking at the salary of other players in the league...at least for the next couple of years. Getting him to camp, and happy, gives the team a far better chance to succeed, the next two years, than any other likely option on the table. If that cost an extra $2/year, I think that is money well spent. I can accept that you don't. But, I take issue with the picture being painted with a one-sided brush.

 

Dean, congratulations. You have taken all the fun out of discussing the Bills. I have zero desire to debate this any more, and quite frankly, you've done just as much to attack the person making the argument as the argument itself. I'm done here.

[Leonidas]

Man you are really hard headed sometimes, and I'm sure this is not the first time you've heard that before.

 

Yeah, many exes have told me the same thing.

 

You have unrealistic views and the fact of the matter is you dodged my question. You expect players to receive new contracts based solely on existing contracts. If that was entirely the case, contract values would barely rise. That is your view. Your logic is flawed.

 

I don't see how it's flawed. I don't think it's worth it to pay a left tackle that kind of money unless he is truly an absolute stud. If that's contrarian then so be it. But there's a reason teams like the Patriots are so successful - they don't overpay for talent. Did Peters outplay Matt Light last season? Definitely not. And look at Matt Light's contract. Their offensive line philosophy appears to be much different than our, in that five very solid lineman is better than a stud LT and four adequate linemen. I happen to agree.

 

And concerning players' salaries rising, I think they're getting out of control. We're in a recession, everyone is losing their jobs or getting cut back, I don't think it's insane for athletes to merely have a sort of pay "freeze," if you will, in effect. Also, if salaries climb too quickly the NFL will find itself like the NHL did just a few years ago, where it is more profitable to close the doors to take a small loss than a big one. Thats when small market teams get !@#$ed.

 

I also don't think players' salaries should increase by enormous margins year after year. Rise for inflation, yes, and rise as you get experience and add value to the team. But the argument that these players are somehow underpaid is a joke.

 

A player's value is based on how much teams are willing to pay, and my guess is that he will get a deal of over $10 Million, if not from us, from someone else.

 

We'll see who's right.

 

I don't disagree that someone will pay that. I just hope it's not us.

 

Just because someone pays that much doesn't make it worth it. Anyone who has watched the Redskins do business over the years could tell you that.

[The Dean]

Dean, congratulations. You have taken all the fun out of discussing the Bills. I have zero desire to debate this any more, and quite frankly, you've done just as much to attack the person making the argument as the argument itself. I'm done here.

 

 

Honestly, I really didn't want to attack you, sorry if it came off that way. I like a lot of your posts, and think you are a good poster. I just think, on this issue, you (and others far more than you) seem to take a one-sided view of the situation. I think it's more complicated than that, this time. That's all.

[Magox]

Yeah, many exes have told me the same thing.

 

 

 

I don't see how it's flawed. I don't think it's worth it to pay a left tackle that kind of money unless he is truly an absolute stud. If that's contrarian then so be it. But there's a reason teams like the Patriots are so successful - they don't overpay for talent. Did Peters outplay Matt Light last season? Definitely not. And look at Matt Light's contract. Their offensive line philosophy appears to be much different than our, in that five very solid lineman is better than a stud LT and four adequate linemen. I happen to agree.

 

And concerning players' salaries rising, I think they're getting out of control. We're in a recession, everyone is losing their jobs or getting cut back, I don't think it's insane for athletes to merely have a sort of pay "freeze," if you will, in effect. Also, if salaries climb too quickly the NFL will find itself like the NHL did just a few years ago, where it is more profitable to close the doors to take a small loss than a big one. Thats when small market teams get !@#$ed.

 

I also don't think players' salaries should increase by enormous margins year after year. Rise for inflation, yes, and rise as you get experience and add value to the team. But the argument that these players are somehow underpaid is a joke.

 

 

 

I don't disagree that someone will pay that. I just hope it's not us.

 

Just because someone pays that much doesn't make it worth it. Anyone who has watched the Redskins do business over the years could tell you that.

I thought you were done here.

 

j/k

[BBills14]

Can someone please answer how we can possibly get a 1st and 3rd for Peters when the Chiefs gave the pats a 2nd for Vrabel and Cassel? Doesn't make sense to me....

[stuckincincy]

Can someone please answer how we can possibly get a 1st and 3rd for Peters when the Chiefs gave the pats a 2nd for Vrabel and Cassel? Doesn't make sense to me....

 

 

99 bottles of beer on the wall, 99 bottles of beer....

 

[The Dean]

Can someone please answer how we can possibly get a 1st and 3rd for Peters when the Chiefs gave the pats a 2nd for Vrabel and Cassel? Doesn't make sense to me....

 

 

I hear ya, but I don't think that's a good deal to use for comparison. That was a serious inside deal.

[VJ91]

For the love of god, it just makes me sick how much love there is on this board for Jason Peters. Why do all you supporters of him think he is so GREAT? What on earth has he done to make you feel so warm and fuzzy about him? Our offense has been horrible every year he has started on the O line. Is it all his fault? Of course not. Did he contribute to that? Yes he did. His play was AWFUL last year-game in and game out. Is he worth more than his current contract? Probably. Is he worth close to 10 million/year? NO WAY. He is not a LEADER on this team. His holdup cost the team bigtime last year and they know it.

 

Most of you have this view of the Bills FO as being totally incompetent. And our record over this decade has not been good. But signing Jason Peters to a new contract will not make or break this team, period. The guy is not tough, and does not dominate on every play. And he is not a team player. Why do we want to pay someone like that so much money? I am sure all things being equal the Bills would like to keep Peters at a reasonable cost. But given his erratic play, his difficult agent, his unreasonable salary demands, and his unwillingness to be part of the team, I think the Bills will trade him for the best deal they can get. Does that mean it is a bad move on their part? NO WAY!!! There are other guys on this team and in the draft who can play O line fairly well I am sure. And they will be with the team the entire offseason. Building continuity is everything on the O line. Peters is gone. Lets hope for the best deal and stop this talk about making new holes to fill. The way this offense has not performed, everyone save our two RB's should be available to move if the price is right. Would anyone be upset if we got rid of the entire O line from last year, our QB, TE's and all of last year's receivers other than Lee? I didn't think so.

 

So spare us all the rhetoric about how Peters is so good. There is absolutely nothing to support that giving him a ridiculous extension's positives outweigh the negatives.

 

Nothing?...Other then the fact that he's been voted into two consecutive Pro Bowls, right? But of course you educated Bills' fans know way more then the players, coaches and fans who keep voting him into the Pro Bowl right?

[VJ91]

Great post.

 

Yeah, really great post. Here is what he's saying: After 9 consecutive years missing the playoffs, and 3 consecutive 7-9-0 seasons, the Buffalo Bills are too good of an organization to have to deal with young Pro Bowl players who want to be paid what they are worth.

[VJ91]

Yeah, Jason Peters = Bruce Smith. Good argument. "Just pay him" and then wonder why the Bills franchise is unsustainable as having the lowest ticket prices in the league and watch us drift back into salary cap hell. "Just cut Chris Kelsay." It doesn't work that way, sorry.

 

First of all, you have no idea whether Jason Peters will end up in the Hall of Fame or not at this early stage of his career do you? In that light, maybe it is not such a stretch to compare him to Bruce Smith, was only five years into his career back in 1989 when the Broncos signed him to that offer sheet.

 

Secondly, despite the general feelings about Peters on this board, he is TALENTED. I believe in today's NFL, you need as many talented Pro Bowl caliber players as you can sign to make a one or two year run at a SB Championship. If the Bills can achieve a two year run with playoffs and maybe even a Conference Championship game or God forbid even a Cardinals-like SB appearance thrown in, don't you think going back into "salary cap hell" would be freakin' worth it?? After nine years without a playoff game to cheer for?? After three straight 7-9-0 seasons, you are concerned about "drifting back into salary cap hell"?? How much worse would that be right about now?

 

So, you sign Jason Peters, the two time consecutive Pro Bowl left tackle, to his huge contract, and he comes to camp happy and blocks his ass off for Edwards THIS SEASON, so Edwards can have time to find T.O. THIS SEASON, so T.O can find the freakin' end zone 10 or more times, and the Bills can have a chance to score enough points to make the playoffs during T.O's one year contract!

[MRW]

So, you sign Jason Peters, the two time consecutive Pro Bowl left tackle, to his huge contract, and he comes to camp happy and blocks his ass off for Edwards THIS SEASON, so Edwards can have time to find T.O. THIS SEASON, so T.O can find the freakin' end zone 10 or more times, and the Bills can have a chance to score enough points to make the playoffs during T.O's one year contract!

To me that's the bottom line. I don't understand signing TO to a one-year deal if you're just going to turn around and throw a patchwork offensive line in front of Edwards. I don't see any way the Bills become a better team this year by getting rid of Peters.

[thewildrabbit]

From Rotoworld.com: http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playernews.aspx?sport=NFL

 

 

ESPN's Michael Smith reports that the Eagles have "engaged in serious discussions" with the Bills about LT Jason Peters.

Peters wants a new contract (why he didn't get one before Marcus Stroud is perplexing) and may want out of Buffalo, but it's still extremely difficult to imagine them trading him right now. They have nothing remotely resembling a starting-caliber left tackle behind him. Perhaps the Bills would consider a draft-day trade if Michael Oher fell to them at No. 11.

[thebandit27]

From Rotoworld.com: http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playernews.aspx?sport=NFL

 

 

ESPN's Michael Smith reports that the Eagles have "engaged in serious discussions" with the Bills about LT Jason Peters.

Peters wants a new contract (why he didn't get one before Marcus Stroud is perplexing) and may want out of Buffalo, but it's still extremely difficult to imagine them trading him right now. They have nothing remotely resembling a starting-caliber left tackle behind him. Perhaps the Bills would consider a draft-day trade if Michael Oher fell to them at No. 11.

 

Bingo