Look! Another Peters thread!

[Dan]

I think the Bills aren't convinced that once he gets paid this large contract, that he'll continue to dedicate himself to improving, becomming a better player and taping into his unlimited potential and talent.

 

I think that Peters showing up to workout/practice and being with his teammates shows he wants to play football and be good at it, not just have the financial security of a huge contract and then only play when he wants to.

 

All the Bills are asking for is a sign of good faith and in return they'll reward that faith with significant monetary compensation.

I think that's a big part of it and gets to Kelly's initial question. The Bills may be willing to give Peters the full $11.5 mill, but that's alot of coin to give to someone that's giving you huge mixed signals about whether he wants to play up to that level of salary.

 

You've got 2 employees, both want a raise. One comes to work every day, tries hard, always asks for more to do, gets along well with the other employees, and buys into what you want to do. The second employee decides to take the other route and complain about his lack of pay, take all his personal and vacation days at once in an effort to prove how important he is, and distances himself from the other employees.

 

Both may deserve a huge raise - the 2nd employee more than the first. But, are you going to rush to give him that raise? I'm sorry, but as a manager, Peters gets absolutely nothing until he shows up, smiling, and says he'll work his butt off to improve. When I see the attitude change, I'd gladly hand over the cash, but not before.

 

Yes, he has looked like the franchise left tackle we all want. But, he's also looked very average at times getting beaten for sacks or standing on the sideline with a late season injury when the playoffs are out of the picture. I'm sorry, but everything about this guy right now screams attitude problem. Once you pay him, you're not at all guaranteed that the attitude turns around.

 

Let me ask a simple question. What would we have all said about the FO if they paid Peters $11mill/yr last August and then he had the season he just had? Because right now there's just as much of a chance that's the player they'd get as there is he'd become an immovable wall on the left side.

 

So, back to the original point... IMO, at this point, its not so much about the money as it is his attitude. Sure the details (how much guaranteed, length of deal, etc.) are probably long from being worked out, but I'd bet my next paycheck that would all get done pretty quickly if Peters was in town working out with his teammates, laughing and having a good time; while his agent was in Brandon's office daily assuring them that Peters wants to retire a Bill with multiple SB rings.

[Kelly the Dog]

Here's where we disagree. You claim Peters was underpaid the moment he was moved to LT. I contend that he was never underpaid. He was voted to his first Pro Bowl and decided he was god's gift to football.

 

PTR

Your blatant mistake was saying he never played a snap while he was underpaid at LT. The playing of LT (at his old contract) is what got him to the Pro Bowl. Not his play at RT. And it wasn't the fans that chose him. Most had likely never heard of him. It was the players and coaches.

[PromoTheRobot]

Your blatant mistake was saying he never played a snap while he was underpaid at LT. The playing of LT (at his old contract) is what got him to the Pro Bowl. Not his play at RT. And it wasn't the fans that chose him. Most had likely never heard of him. It was the players and coaches.

I know this is hard to follow but try...

 

Peters was just another LT UNTIL he gets voted to the Pro Bowl. That means he wasn't underpaid in 2007. Moving someone to LT doesn't earn you an automatic raise. You have to be good at it. Even setting aside the concept of proving one year wasn't a fluke, there was nothing to discuss with Peters until AFTER the 2007 season. But Peters decided to go into full a--hole mode before even giving the Bills a chance.

 

PTR

[billybob]

I know this is hard to follow but try...

 

Peters was just another LT UNTIL he gets voted to the Pro Bowl. That means he wasn't underpaid in 2007. Moving someone to LT doesn't earn you an automatic raise. You have to be good at it. Even setting aside the concept of proving one year wasn't a fluke, there was nothing to discuss with Peters until AFTER the 2007 season. But Peters decided to go into full a--hole mode before even giving the Bills a chance.

 

PTR

The second that Peters got nominated to the Pro-bowl the Bills should have been there with a new contract and a lot of ego stroking- it would have saved them headaches in the long run.

[LynchMob23]

One thing about that "underpaid" contract - at the time he was given that contract, he was an ERFA, which meant they could have sat on him for two more years before getting serious with him. However, they didn't - they gave him a pretty good salary for a starting right tackle (3.75 or something) AND a provision that if he played LT he'd instantly get another 1.25 putting him at 5 mil/year, plus pro bowl incentives, which that year he met.

 

At no point in that do I see that as unfair on undervaluing his talent; to me they accounted for it.

[Kelly the Dog]

I know this is hard to follow but try...

 

Peters was just another LT UNTIL he gets voted to the Pro Bowl. That means he wasn't underpaid in 2007. Moving someone to LT doesn't earn you an automatic raise. You have to be good at it. Even setting aside the concept of proving one year wasn't a fluke, there was nothing to discuss with Peters until AFTER the 2007 season. But Peters decided to go into full a--hole mode before even giving the Bills a chance.

 

PTR

Ummmm... I hate to break this to you, but that's how all new contracts are done and thought of. At the end of the season, the agent comes in and says "My guy has been great since X, the team improved drastically by his play, he got voted to the Pro Bowl, he's young and going to be better next year and so deserves Y for the upcoming years."

 

Not to mention that Peters didnt become an A-hole as you call him until after the season either. What a ridiculous argument.

[PromoTheRobot]

Ummmm... I hate to break this to you, but that's how all new contracts are done and thought of. At the end of the season, the agent comes in and says "My guy has been great since X, the team improved drastically by his play, he got voted to the Pro Bowl, he's young and going to be better next year and so deserves Y for the upcoming years."

 

Not to mention that Peters didnt become an A-hole as you call him until after the season either. What a ridiculous argument.

So why didn't Parker ask the Bills for a deal instead of having Peters disappear without explanation? To me that is a very disrespectful way to start off a negotiation. Especially, as LynchMob points out, the Bills had a history of treating Peters well.

 

PTR

[Kelly the Dog]

So why didn't Parker ask the Bills for a deal instead of having Peters disappear without explanation? To me that is a very disrespectful way to start off a negotiation. Especially, as LynchMob points out, the Bills had a history of treating Peters well.

 

PTR

First, you're right on one point, that the Bills had a history of treating Peters well. Very well in fact. By his PLAY, he treated them very well in return. By his actions, he hasn't treated the team well in return at all.

 

But you're also assuming something that has no basis in logic. Parker and Peters did know the Bills weren't willing to renegotiate in 2008. THAT is why they held out. It's downright laughable for you or anyone to think that Peters just didn't show up and didn't attend the camps without ever knowing what the Bills stance on his contract was. Or without ever talking to them about it (through his agent). A guy in an insane asylum wouldn't do that. Of course Parker and Peters knew, it's his job to know. That was the only reason for the holdout. And that was my only problem with the Bills. I think Brandon has handled this terrific, outside of being disingenuous with the press. I still think he is handling this good.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think that's a big part of it and gets to Kelly's initial question. The Bills may be willing to give Peters the full $11.5 mill, but that's alot of coin to give to someone that's giving you huge mixed signals about whether he wants to play up to that level of salary.

 

You've got 2 employees, both want a raise. One comes to work every day, tries hard, always asks for more to do, gets along well with the other employees, and buys into what you want to do. The second employee decides to take the other route and complain about his lack of pay, take all his personal and vacation days at once in an effort to prove how important he is, and distances himself from the other employees.

 

Both may deserve a huge raise - the 2nd employee more than the first. But, are you going to rush to give him that raise? I'm sorry, but as a manager, Peters gets absolutely nothing until he shows up, smiling, and says he'll work his butt off to improve. When I see the attitude change, I'd gladly hand over the cash, but not before.

 

Yes, he has looked like the franchise left tackle we all want. But, he's also looked very average at times getting beaten for sacks or standing on the sideline with a late season injury when the playoffs are out of the picture. I'm sorry, but everything about this guy right now screams attitude problem. Once you pay him, you're not at all guaranteed that the attitude turns around.

 

Let me ask a simple question. What would we have all said about the FO if they paid Peters $11mill/yr last August and then he had the season he just had? Because right now there's just as much of a chance that's the player they'd get as there is he'd become an immovable wall on the left side.

 

So, back to the original point... IMO, at this point, its not so much about the money as it is his attitude. Sure the details (how much guaranteed, length of deal, etc.) are probably long from being worked out, but I'd bet my next paycheck that would all get done pretty quickly if Peters was in town working out with his teammates, laughing and having a good time; while his agent was in Brandon's office daily assuring them that Peters wants to retire a Bill with multiple SB rings.

That's a very good post, and for the most part I agree with it.

 

The problem as I see it is that there is no way around it now, and no way of knowing either way. They have already gone through all the angles. It's going to be a gamble for any team. My opinion is that his problems last year weren't from a lack of effort. And he was disgruntled. And he is not a jerk, he's just a different kind of guy.

 

If you give him a good contract and he signs, he will be happy and he will work. But I don't know that for sure. This may sound funny, but I'm not even sure Jason Peters knows the answer to that. I'm sure he thinks he will but some guys are driven internally and some arent.

 

The more incentives built in the better. And I think that is really the sticking point in the contract: How much incentive, aka, how much guaranteed do you pay him.

[Dan]

First, you're right on one point, that the Bills had a history of treating Peters well. Very well in fact. By his PLAY, he treated them very well in return. By his actions, he hasn't treated the team well in return at all.

 

But you're also assuming something that has no basis in logic. Parker and Peters did know the Bills weren't willing to renegotiate in 2008. THAT is why they held out. It's downright laughable for you or anyone to think that Peters just didn't show up and didn't attend the camps without ever knowing what the Bills stance on his contract was. Or without ever talking to them about it (through his agent). A guy in an insane asylum wouldn't do that. Of course Parker and Peters knew, it's his job to know. That was the only reason for the holdout. And that was my only problem with the Bills. I think Brandon has handled this terrific, outside of being disingenuous with the press. I still think he is handling this good.

I would agree completely. I imagine the Bills told them that if Peters came in and played hard and all that, that they'd talk about a new deal for 2009. Parker, of course, didn't like that and said he'll hold out. At that point it was a game of chicken. He probably thought the Bills would turn first. They didn't. Now, we're essentially (or so it would seem) in pretty much the same place.

 

The Bills seem willing to talk about a new contract, but it appears there's something in their offer that made Parker take the hard stance again. Quite honestly, for a player/agent to take the hard stance 2 years in a row when it didn't work the the first time tells me one thing... Peters has zero commitment to playing with the Bills.

[Dan]

That's a very good post, and for the most part I agree with it.

 

The problem as I see it is that there is no way around it now, and no way of knowing either way. They have already gone through all the angles. It's going to be a gamble for any team. My opinion is that his problems last year weren't from a lack of effort. And he was disgruntled. And he is not a jerk, he's just a different kind of guy.

 

If you give him a good contract and he signs, he will be happy and he will work. But I don't know that for sure. This may sound funny, but I'm not even sure Jason Peters knows the answer to that. I'm sure he thinks he will but some guys are driven internally and some arent.

 

The more incentives built in the better. And I think that is really the sticking point in the contract: How much incentive, aka, how much guaranteed do you pay him.

I'd agree. I'm not saying Peters is a bad guy at all. In fact, some of the reports (as I recall) suggested that Parker is the one that's advised him to not talk to teammates and all. So, he could be just a super great guy that's just getting really bad advice. Parker doesn't seem to understand that Ralph comes from a time when owners called the shots, not players.

 

I would suspect the problem is in the details now as well. Whether it be the length of the contract, the up front money, the amount of incentives vs base, who knows. But, my guess, Brandon doesn't cave much on the "show up then we'll talk" stance. IMO, he has too many young players on the verge of re-signing to set such an example. For better or worse, he's using Peters to tell the other young guys (Edwards, Lynch, Whitner, Poz, etc.) exactly how not to negotiate a new deal.

[spartacus]

I'd agree. I'm not saying Peters is a bad guy at all. In fact, some of the reports (as I recall) suggested that Parker is the one that's advised him to not talk to teammates and all. So, he could be just a super great guy that's just getting really bad advice. Parker doesn't seem to understand that Ralph comes from a time when owners called the shots, not players.

 

I would suspect the problem is in the details now as well. Whether it be the length of the contract, the up front money, the amount of incentives vs base, who knows. But, my guess, Brandon doesn't cave much on the "show up then we'll talk" stance. IMO, he has too many young players on the verge of re-signing to set such an example. For better or worse, he's using Peters to tell the other young guys (Edwards, Lynch, Whitner, Poz, etc.) exactly how not to negotiate a new deal.

 

The Bills have a window of time to salvage this situation.

 

they need to get Peters extended before the mandatory team activities start.

 

IF Brandon continues to play tough guy and require that Peters "show up and then we talk"- he is simply asking for a disaster.

 

right now - he has a mulligan to solve the problem

 

however- he really does not want to open pandora's box by drawing a line in the sand and hold off negotiating until Peters shows up. Nothing is gained by this grandstanding, except boxing both parties into their positions.

 

swallow the pride and get the deal done

[PromoTheRobot]

Peters is finished as a Bill. I don't want him anymore. A guy who had one-half of one good season and wants $11.5M/yr. That's al he is, you know. One meaningless pro bowl vote (2008). The Bills sucked with him. We can do better without him.

 

PTR

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't see why they can't just offer him 6 years and 61.5 million. They give him on average what they want the first three years, say 9 million a year, but guarantee it. 27 million. The second three years, they give him what he wants, 11.5 million on average. That way he gets a lot of money, a ton guaranteed, bragging rights to the second best contract in the league, the Bills are only on the line for three years, and if he plays well, he will be well worth the 11.5 per in years 4-6.

[San-O]

Hmmm...Evans...Stroud...now hopefully Jackson. So what is your point? What is so hard to see here? I know you love Peters no matter what he does or how poorly he plays because (drum roll, please) HE'S A TWO-TIME PRO BOWLER!!!! But he also is taking a pretty poor attitude toward the Bills, which of course you justify because the Bills are such a inhumane organization they have been cruelly underpaying Peters.

 

And to make matters worse, Peters hurts your team last season by missing all OTA's and training camp, shows up fat and out of shape the day before the season starts, and gives up more sacks than Mike Gandy in his worst year as a Bill....oh, and he gets injured again.

 

Now he comes back wanting to be paid more money than any LT in history. A guy who has shown that he doesn't care about the Bills. A guy who now has a history of being injury-prone. A guy who now has a reputation around the NFL as having a lack of dedication.

 

Expect Peters to be shipped off in a week or two. Good riddance.

 

PTR

 

 

Nice post. I hope they get some good picks for him, however his performance, attitude,durability and professionalism

may end up costing the Bills also: i.e., he's lowered his value by being not very smart. "smaaahht"

[atlbillsfan1975]

If you cant draw the conclusion to what the Bills philosophy is for signing players to contract extensions, then you might be as misguided as Peters. The Bills have proven they will pay talented players that they need and have a good attitude.

I remember last year after being traded Stroud joked about getting a contract extension. He also said the Bills wanted to see him play first. After playing one year, and being a good team guy he got a nice contract extension.

Evans last year also made it known that he wanted to get a deal done before the end of the year. He showed up to everything and went out and played hard. He got a new contract. He and Stroud both have the talent and attitude the Bills want on the team.

Peters has made it clear he wants a new deal. Now he has the talent, but he does not have the positive attitude. He went about his business the total other way. And here we sit today. Peters has no deal. He and the Bills are in a pissing contest now. And to be quit honest, the Bills have him by the you know what.

I would personally send a video of the first few games last year when he did not play. And the second Pats game when he did not play (and Jackson rushed for 120+ yds). Tell Parker and Peters we did ok with out you. You are under contract we own the rights for you to play in the NFL for two years. You can sit at home and collect dust, and people will slowly forget about you. Point out the fact that Gandy just Started at LT for Arizona, who was in the Super Bowl. Point out that there are ways to help a LT with TE and RBs. The season and the game will go on with out Peters. Or you can come in and sign a salary of 9 million a year. With bonuses that could pay you up to 11 million a year. Those bonuses will be based on attendance to all mandatory workouts, games played, and both team and personal goals...ie playoffs and/or probowls. This should keep everyone happy. Peters would control his own paycheck, by showing up and playing at a high level. And the bills would know they are not going to have to pay a guy a big salary then watch him turn into a non performer.

This would be my approach if i could not trade him for a first and a third, like being reported.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Read online yesterdy someplace, may have been Tim Graham's article that teams are becoming a bit concerned with trading for Peter's because of his "attitude" This article was more geared towards the Bill's having a more difficult time trading him as teams are becoming wary of picking him.

 

Conversely though the same thing can be said for his value as a free agent. Teams are going to become nervious about signing him based on his work ethic. I suppose the Bill's could tell Peters, hey we tried to trade you, but no one wants to give us what we think a pro-bowler is worth so we're not trading you for nothing. And oh BTW, Since no one else views you as a pro-bowler, we're not paying you the most in the league either so take our offer or leave it. You're ours for the next two years and fro mwhat we're eharing you'll never get an offer basee on what you think you're worth.

[San-O]

First, you're right on one point, that the Bills had a history of treating Peters well. Very well in fact. By his PLAY, he treated them very well in return. By his actions, he hasn't treated the team well in return at all.

 

But you're also assuming something that has no basis in logic. Parker and Peters did know the Bills weren't willing to renegotiate in 2008. THAT is why they held out. It's downright laughable for you or anyone to think that Peters just didn't show up and didn't attend the camps without ever knowing what the Bills stance on his contract was. Or without ever talking to them about it (through his agent). A guy in an insane asylum wouldn't do that. Of course Parker and Peters knew, it's his job to know. That was the only reason for the holdout. And that was my only problem with the Bills. I think Brandon has handled this terrific, outside of being disingenuous with the press. I still think he is handling this good.

 

 

Maybe Peters should have shown up last year (2008) and not been a turnstile on the left side?

 

[San-O]

I would agree completely. I imagine the Bills told them that if Peters came in and played hard and all that, that they'd talk about a new deal for 2009. Parker, of course, didn't like that and said he'll hold out. At that point it was a game of chicken. He probably thought the Bills would turn first. They didn't. Now, we're essentially (or so it would seem) in pretty much the same place.

 

The Bills seem willing to talk about a new contract, but it appears there's something in their offer that made Parker take the hard stance again. Quite honestly, for a player/agent to take the hard stance 2 years in a row when it didn't work the the first time tells me one thing... Peters has zero commitment to playing with the Bills.

 

 

Nice points. I would think also that Peters being presented as an underpaid LT, and then again the same the following year isn't going well.

 

It's not a long walk from being underpaid with three years left on a contract, to being a perennial malcontent, given his performance last season.

[GG]

First, you're right on one point, that the Bills had a history of treating Peters well. Very well in fact. By his PLAY, he treated them very well in return. By his actions, he hasn't treated the team well in return at all.

 

Let's look at another situation, which I think is very similar.

 

Let's say you have an octogenarian boss who rarely listens to others' advice and runs his company with a micromanaged iron fist. He is in the star business, and knows that you need to spend big to make big. Yet, there's one star who while earning him pretty big sums is starting to be a royal pain by costing a lot more without providing commensurate returns. More importantly, the star isn't as deferential to the boss as he should be (according to the boss).

 

What does the boss do? He stages an uncharacteristically public firing of the star by severing all ties. The star laughs, the industry lines up behind the star, and then the star goes on to be a massive flop in every vehicle he touches since the departure. Why? Because he had gotten too expensive for the work he was producing and he just wasn't as good as the true masters of the craft.

 

Meanwhile the old coot made out fine, as his company either led or was 2nd in they key industry category ever since the star got dumped (until the credit crunch nearly wipes out his family holdings).

 

I think you know the story I'm talking about.