nodnarb Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Here are a few facts: Peters was a UFA and played really well for ONE YEAR. Last year, he was average at best. He didn't show up for all of camp while under contract for 3 years. Says a lot about him. He has a groin that we'll probably hear more about this season. They like Bell just as they liked Peters while he was in development. Many fans whined at the idea of putting Peters on the left side when he started. We got really good value considering these things. If another team had done what the Bills had just done, *you* would probably look at the other side and conclude that the move was brilliant. The Bills did it, so it must be flawed. I was hoping this would happen. Feelin' good.
Beerball Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 I'm OK with the trade. I would rather another hole wasn't created, but the situation wasn't 'fixable'.
bills_fan Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 I'm OK with the trade. I would rather another hole wasn't created, but the situation wasn't 'fixable'. For a couple more $$$, its sure was. Let the Bills offer $10-11 mil per and he stays a bill.
The Big Cat Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Here are a few facts: Peters was a UFA and played really well for ONE YEAR. Last year, he was average at best. He didn't show up for all of camp while under contract for 3 years. Says a lot about him. He has a groin that we'll probably hear more about this season. They like Bell just as they liked Peters while he was in development. Many fans whined at the idea of putting Peters on the left side when he started. We got really good value considering these things. If another team had done what the Bills had just done, *you* would probably look at the other side and conclude that the move was brilliant. The Bills did it, so it must be flawed. I was hoping this would happen. Feelin' good. If your only metric for Peters' ability is his Pro Bowl appearances, then you're sorely mistaken. I love how Peters and Edwards never fell under the same criteria for being "injury prone" yet the same idiots making that claim about Edwards were willing to hand Peters the keys to the kingdom. I doubt the Bills go OT with #11, I truly do. I think that's what #28 is for. So, at this point you have to wonder which would hurt more for the Bills: paying top 5 dollar for Peters, only to have it blow up in their face when his fat a$$ finally goes down for good, or using a [more or less freebie] pick on a guy who may OR may not turn out to be good. Either way, how many times have we seen Peters lying face down squirming after a play? Plenty--I know--because it used to make my heart skip a beat. The guy does NOT have longevity, that's one prediction I'm willing to make.
Beerball Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 For a couple more $$$, its sure was. Let the Bills offer $10-11 mil per and he stays a bill. Isn't it funny how over one million dollars a year become a couple more bucks? Please tell me you believe he played better than average last year.
qwksilver Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 I'm OK with the trade. I would rather another hole wasn't created, but the situation wasn't 'fixable'. I think we got pretty good value considering how he played last year. How good would he have been this year wakling into in 1BD in week 10? He just isn't worth the 11 1/2-12 mill per. Now the team has an extra hole with extra picks to fill it.
Guest dog14787 Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 If your only metric for Peters' ability is his Pro Bowl appearances, then you're sorely mistaken. I love how Peters and Edwards never fell under the same criteria for being "injury prone" yet the same idiots making that claim about Edwards were willing to hand Peters the keys to the kingdom. I doubt the Bills go OT with #11, I truly do. I think that's what #28 is for. So, at this point you have to wonder which would hurt more for the Bills: paying top 5 dollar for Peters, only to have it blow up in their face when his fat a$$ finally goes down for good, or using a [more or less freebie] pick on a guy who may OR may not turn out to be good. Either way, how many times have we seen Peters lying face down squirming after a play? Plenty--I know--because it used to make my heart skip a beat. The guy does NOT have longevity, that's one prediction I'm willing to make. If we get Pettigrew now because of it I'm close to being happy, I swear I am.
Tcali Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Here are a few facts: Peters was a UFA and played really well for ONE YEAR. Last year, he was average at best. He didn't show up for all of camp while under contract for 3 years. Says a lot about him. He has a groin that we'll probably hear more about this season. They like Bell just as they liked Peters while he was in development. Many fans whined at the idea of putting Peters on the left side when he started. We got really good value considering these things. If another team had done what the Bills had just done, *you* would probably look at the other side and conclude that the move was brilliant. The Bills did it, so it must be flawed. I was hoping this would happen. Feelin' good. While i agree he isn't worth 8 figures a year; we still should have suckered some dumb team into a better deal. I mean--there are always teams like cincy or washington or Buffalo or detroit just waiting to make dumb deals. We shoulda done better.
drg2021 Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 While i agree he isn't worth 8 figures a year; we still should have suckered some dumb team into a better deal.I mean--there are always teams like cincy or washington or Buffalo or detroit just waiting to make dumb deals. We shoulda done better. Well wait until he holds out for more money next season after signing a heavy contract this season.GL to the Eagles when that happens
bills_fan Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Isn't it funny how over one million dollars a year become a couple more bucks? Please tell me you believe he played better than average last year. Don't know. I would have to know exactly what his assignment was on every play, watch every play via coaches film (focusing solely on Peters) and then I would have a reasonably informed opinion.
Heitz Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 The thing to watch with Peters is how he responds once he gets his contract - does he work to become the "undisputed" best LT or does he get complacent? Clearly the Bills didn't trust the guy enough to give him $12MM a year... I was initially disappointed, but I think I'm good with this move. I'm not sure a deal with Peters could ever get done, even at 12mil, so get some compensation and get out of the relationship. Hopefully we can replace him in the draft and move on.
BillsGuyInMalta Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 I'm not "happy" that we got rid of Peters, but I'm fine with the compensation and understand that it had to be done. I just REALLY hope the Bills are on the phone right now, trying to bring in some more veteran O-Line help.
Chief D Posted April 17, 2009 Posted April 17, 2009 Glad he is gone myself. He is a selfish ungreatful guy. With his poor attitude he will be a has been in a few short years. I was so high on him when we picked him up as an undrafted FA. Then the Bills took him from a longshot to make a team to one of the best (So Said) at his new position. He should be so greatful to the Bills organization to give him a shot and build him into the player he is. But, truth be told he crapped on the hand that fed him!!!!!!!!! Gone are two JP's that will make our Bills much better in the long run. Now the Bills need to act now to rebuild our line into a quality group for the long haul! BTW, Hello George!!!!!!!!!
Recommended Posts