Kelly the Dog Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Perhaps this could be strategy on the part of the Bills: go ahead and talk to potential suitors and see if any of them believe that you are worth as much as you think you are. If a re trade is consummated and the Eagles wind up paying him less than, say $11 M per year, we'll know that Peters simply did NOT want to be in Buffalo. No, we don't know what the Bills offered him. I thoroughly believe he would take less than 11 mil. There is almost no chance they did offer him that or they would be saying we are close instead of we are far away.
PromoTheRobot Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 You aren't the only one. I know you're a wagering man, Gordio. If this deal goes through, what's the over/under on the number of games Edwards misses due to injury this season? If Edwards gets sacked less than 11.5 times because of Peters replacement it will be an improvement. PTR
jahnyc Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 This is an unmitigated disaster and the worst possible news. Excellent management to trade your best player and only all pro level player who is in his prime for what is likely going to be draft picks.
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Stupid f'n team. Go to hell Brandon. Trust me. I was in the pay Peters at any cost camp. But the more things on, it just became clear that Peters wasn't really trying to get anything done. It was pay me the top amount or I'm not coming in. That's now how you work out deals. The Bills have shown if you handle your business the right way, you will get paid. When Peters is on, there is no one better. But there are questions about his commitment. I always said if you give a fat guy a lot of money, you better be 100% sure they are gonna be fully committed. Additionally as hard of a position LT is, 3 rookies (Long, Clady, Baker) stepped in as rookies and we all really good players. In fact, they all gave up less sacks than Peters did. If there is ever a good time to trade a pro bowl LT, this maybe the best draft to do so. So as much as people female dog about lack of drafting o-linemen, this probably will be a draft with at least 3. There is a chance to get a really good young group together and let them grow. As much as it would suck to lose Peters, the season is not necessarily over.
The Senator Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 no big surprise - i've maintained since mid-december that peters has played his last game in a bills uniform
Lori Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 if the trade doesn't go through, what's the over/under on the number of games Edwards misses due to injuries? Either way, it's not zero ... but I personally think the number would be lower with Peters in that LT spot than with a yet-to-be-determined replacement. Guess we might be about to find out.
NyQuil Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 The Buffalo Bills are the KC Royals of the NFL. "We have to pay how much for top talent???? Eh let's just trade him, we're just a farm team anyways. So what if our defense will still have Kelsay as a starting DE and Edwards' blindside will be protected by a clueless rookie." He sat out four games last year and came back out of shape and allowed one sack per game. He was going to do it again this year. Get him out.
Kelly the Dog Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 if the bills are smart, they work out a 3 way deal; peters to philly for 1st and 2nd. or 1st and 3rd 1st and 3rd this year +parrish to arizona for bolden. owens gets to walk away from buffalo after this year with no hard feelings and we have young long term answers for wr's for the bills O So they would pay another 9-10 for mil another WR but not a LT?
Rubes Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Can't say I'm very happy about this. Count me as one of those who believes you need a strong offensive and defensive line to win, and this does nothing but weaken our offensive line at the most important position. Walker may be okay as a LT, but you need more than okay to be good.
KD in CA Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 I say good riddence to total me-first player. PTR Agreed. The guy doesn't want to be in Buffalo, period.
VOR Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Either way, it's not zero ... but I personally think the number would be lower with Peters in that LT spot than with a yet-to-be-determined replacement. It might be lower...if he agreed to a reasonable extension and attended all the workouts. But since it doesn't appear he will sign a reasonable extension, the chance he holds-out again is very real, and that means a repeat of last year.
SKOOBY Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Get both 1st rounders and let's stock our team up for winning.
Coach Tuesday Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Oh my God, it's just hit me. We have absolutely no offensive line.
Numark Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 If Edwards gets sacked less than 11.5 times because of Peters replacement it will be an improvement. PTR what about the other 400 plays a starting LT will play in. Or just the sacks that matter. I want him gone, but I am just saying. How many sacks a LT gives up is an over-rated stat
Lori Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 It might be lower...if he agreed to a reasonable extension and attended all the workouts. But since it doesn't appear he will sign a reasonable extension, the chance he holds-out again is very real, and that means a repeat of last year. Valid point.
Leonidas Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 I'm sure you're not serious. They make it deep into the playoffs every fuggin year, in one of the harder divisions in football. They consistently draft well and stockpile on draftpicks. They know when to release aging players and lockup emerging stars so they're always in a good situation capwise. They are MILES ahead of the Bills in terms of cap management and talent evaluation, and the fact that they're willing to deal for Peters and pay him his asking price should tell us all we need to know. Actually, if you knew anything about the Philly FO you'd know that they have a zero tolerance policy on hold-outs. Ask Terrell Owens and Lito Sheppard, among others. So in a sense I agree with you. But not the way you'd prefer, I'm sure. You aren't the only one. I know you're a wagering man, Gordio. If this deal goes through, what's the over/under on the number of games Edwards misses due to injury this season? No more or less than if Peters was playing. I'm sure he'll miss his standard 3-4 games, per usual. if the bills are smart, they work out a 3 way deal; peters to philly for 1st and 2nd. or 1st and 3rd 1st and 3rd this year +parrish to arizona for bolden. owens gets to walk away from buffalo after this year with no hard feelings and we have young long term answers for wr's for the bills O You sir, are on drugs.
PromoTheRobot Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 what about the other 400 plays a starting LT will play in. Or just the sacks that matter. I want him gone, but I am just saying. How many sacks a LT gives up is an over-rated stat Everyone says Edwards is a dead man without Peters blocking for him. Yet Edwards was hammered with Peters last year. I fail to see why Peters is so valuable. He had one good year. One. PTR
hotwing Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 This is an unmitigated disaster and the worst possible news. Excellent management to trade your best player and only all pro level player who is in his prime for what is likely going to be draft picks. I will assume you didnt watch him play last year. If you did, then I will alos assume giving nearly a sack per game makes a great player.
thebandit27 Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Andre Smith or Oher, welcome to Buffalo. Not unless Buffalo is going to trade into the top 10.
Recommended Posts