DazedandConfused Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 As I am just back in town after being down south for a week I have only gotten a general overview of folks reactions to the JP deal. In general it seems most folks are quite happy to get rid of this two time Pro Bowler who clearly has been a distraction and irritant to most fans with his pseudo hold out approach to trying to get a new contract with a huge escalation from the "mere" 4 million/yr he will get from the Bills. It strikes me as quite legit to be happy to have the Peters contract dispute off the table (though for the most part I think anyone with a serious interest in football can simply ignore the fantasy football/Mel Kiper stocked rants of anyone seeing this deal as little more than the Bills pretty much giving up on making a serious attempt to make the playoffs in this year as if reality occurs as it usually does in the NFL we will be quite lucky if our virtually new OL gets by even the 2010 season and TO is likely to be long gone and we will be quite fortunate if Edwards survives running for his life behind even talented rookie players learning to become vet NFL players. The question beyond us likely adding another non-playoff season this year is wondering what precedent will be set by the Bills simply caving in to JPs wishes thanks to his holdout and shipping him off to get exactly what he wanted which is a contract which appears to average a $10 million cap hit (more than doubling what he would get under his Bills contract). By being run into giving Peter exactly what he was looking for, it appears to me that the Bills have demonstrated in the face of a Peter's hissy fit of running a pseudo hold out which ended before he lost real money to fines last year and simply deliver him to another team ready and willing to give him the contract that he wants. If I am Fred Jackson I am looking carefully at the weak stomach the Bills are now showing by giving Peters exactly what he wanted. Jackson is in a considerably weaker position under the CBA as exclusive FA, but the precedent would seem to be that even though JP was under contract to the Bills if he simply made them uncomfortable it was the route to the Bills delivering him to the contract he wanted. A low leverage player like Jackson may want to consider really throwing a pain in the butt fit if the Bills have demonstrated they are willing to trade a malcontent player for mere draft choices.
The Big Cat Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 It strikes me as quite legit to be happy to have the Peters contract dispute off the table (though for the most part I think anyone with a serious interest in football can simply ignore the fantasy football/Mel Kiper stocked rants of anyone seeing this deal as little more than the Bills pretty much giving up on making a serious attempt to make the playoffs in this year as if reality occurs as it usually does in the NFL we will be quite lucky if our virtually new OL gets by even the 2010 season and TO is likely to be long gone and we will be quite fortunate if Edwards survives running for his life behind even talented rookie players learning to become vet NFL players. Dude. Punctuate.
deep2evans Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Dude. Punctuate. Holy sh--, that has to be some sort of record.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 It strikes me as quite legit to be happy to have the Peters contract dispute off the table (though for the most part I think anyone with a serious interest in football can simply ignore the fantasy football/Mel Kiper stocked rants of anyone seeing this deal as little more than the Bills pretty much giving up on making a serious attempt to make the playoffs in this year as if reality occurs as it usually does in the NFL we will be quite lucky if our virtually new OL gets by even the 2010 season and TO is likely to be long gone and we will be quite fortunate if Edwards survives running for his life behind even talented rookie players learning to become vet NFL players. Wow, you're right. That is one helluva run-on sentence. One hundred and twenty nine freaking words!!! Oddly enough the paragraph/sentence made perfect sense to me. I guess that's my problem. Dazed, you're a good person. I'll gladly lend you any punctuation marks that I happen not to be using at the time.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Dazed however has a ways to go before going into the Guiness Book of World Records: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_English_sentence But he'd be in good company if he got close, William Faulkner, James Joyce...
DazedandConfused Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 Dazed however has a ways to go before going into the Guiness Book of World Records: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_English_sentence But he'd be in good company if he got close, William Faulkner, James Joyce... Punctuation? I have heard about. Is it the same thing as getting puncted?
Thurman#1 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 As I am just back in town after being down south for a week I have only gotten a general overview of folks reactions to the JP deal. In general it seems most folks are quite happy to get rid of this two time Pro Bowler who clearly has been a distraction and irritant to most fans with his pseudo hold out approach to trying to get a new contract with a huge escalation from the "mere" 4 million/yr he will get from the Bills. It strikes me as quite legit to be happy to have the Peters contract dispute off the table (though for the most part I think anyone with a serious interest in football can simply ignore the fantasy football/Mel Kiper stocked rants of anyone seeing this deal as little more than the Bills pretty much giving up on making a serious attempt to make the playoffs in this year as if reality occurs as it usually does in the NFL we will be quite lucky if our virtually new OL gets by even the 2010 season and TO is likely to be long gone and we will be quite fortunate if Edwards survives running for his life behind even talented rookie players learning to become vet NFL players. The question beyond us likely adding another non-playoff season this year is wondering what precedent will be set by the Bills simply caving in to JPs wishes thanks to his holdout and shipping him off to get exactly what he wanted which is a contract which appears to average a $10 million cap hit (more than doubling what he would get under his Bills contract). By being run into giving Peter exactly what he was looking for, it appears to me that the Bills have demonstrated in the face of a Peter's hissy fit of running a pseudo hold out which ended before he lost real money to fines last year and simply deliver him to another team ready and willing to give him the contract that he wants. If I am Fred Jackson I am looking carefully at the weak stomach the Bills are now showing by giving Peters exactly what he wanted. Jackson is in a considerably weaker position under the CBA as exclusive FA, but the precedent would seem to be that even though JP was under contract to the Bills if he simply made them uncomfortable it was the route to the Bills delivering him to the contract he wanted. A low leverage player like Jackson may want to consider really throwing a pain in the butt fit if the Bills have demonstrated they are willing to trade a malcontent player for mere draft choices. Yeah, couldn't really understand that sentence. But the Bills didn't give in. The Eagles did. To their benefit, IMHO. The Bills shipped the problem elsewhere. That is not giving up. It won't be a bad precedent.
Trader Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 As I am just back in town after being down south for a week I have only gotten a general overview of folks reactions to the JP deal. In general it seems most folks are quite happy to get rid of this two time Pro Bowler who clearly has been a distraction and irritant to most fans with his pseudo hold out approach to trying to get a new contract with a huge escalation from the "mere" 4 million/yr he will get from the Bills. It strikes me as quite legit to be happy to have the Peters contract dispute off the table (though for the most part I think anyone with a serious interest in football can simply ignore the fantasy football/Mel Kiper stocked rants of anyone seeing this deal as little more than the Bills pretty much giving up on making a serious attempt to make the playoffs in this year as if reality occurs as it usually does in the NFL we will be quite lucky if our virtually new OL gets by even the 2010 season and TO is likely to be long gone and we will be quite fortunate if Edwards survives running for his life behind even talented rookie players learning to become vet NFL players. The question beyond us likely adding another non-playoff season this year is wondering what precedent will be set by the Bills simply caving in to JPs wishes thanks to his holdout and shipping him off to get exactly what he wanted which is a contract which appears to average a $10 million cap hit (more than doubling what he would get under his Bills contract). By being run into giving Peter exactly what he was looking for, it appears to me that the Bills have demonstrated in the face of a Peter's hissy fit of running a pseudo hold out which ended before he lost real money to fines last year and simply deliver him to another team ready and willing to give him the contract that he wants. If I am Fred Jackson I am looking carefully at the weak stomach the Bills are now showing by giving Peters exactly what he wanted. Jackson is in a considerably weaker position under the CBA as exclusive FA, but the precedent would seem to be that even though JP was under contract to the Bills if he simply made them uncomfortable it was the route to the Bills delivering him to the contract he wanted. A low leverage player like Jackson may want to consider really throwing a pain in the butt fit if the Bills have demonstrated they are willing to trade a malcontent player for mere draft choices. Mel Kiper - Draft Guru - Where was Peters on his draft Board? 32 teams passed. They passed for a reason.
BillsNYC Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 The Bills caved in? Caving in would have been giving him 12 million a year. It was either that, trade him, or have him sit out til week 10 taking up a roster spot and being a major distraction. The Bills did not cave in, and didnt' set any precedent other than if you show up and be a team player, you get paid, don't show up and you're outa here. I can live with that.
Steely Dan Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Caving is not what the Bills did you see all they merely did is get rid of bad trash who was being a distraction to the team and being a bad teammate who was bringing the team down both physically and mentally because they couldn't count on him to be there when he was literally off the field and when he was on the field you see he was thinking about his contract instead of making his play the focus of his attention and that really made TE have to run for his life seeing as how JP allowed 11.5 sacks and his play has been declining over the years anyway and many people here believe he is on the decline and that once he got his big contract he would just sit down and get lazier you see I said lazier because he was already lazy by showing up to camp out of shape so bad that he had to sit out the first game of the season and that didn't help the Bills on the field or in the locker room because the guys on the team would feel like he had let them down and so if Buffalo had given him a big contract that would have been worse because it would show the team that long holdouts are acceptable to the team they showed the players that hard work and patience will pay off and by giving LE and MS extensions and the FO showed that both guys were happy with the eventual contracts they got and showed the team knows how to negotiate with guys who really care about the team and their team mates and you have to agree that's the best way to handle those negotiations so by not giving JP an extension they are showing the guys that the proper way to negotiate is to keep working hard and trust the team and their agents to get a good contract for them and that's because the team recognizes committed players and non committed players and they prefer to reward the committed players rather than reward the malcontent who they are better off getting rid of and I think you'll see that the Bills did the smart thing by trading him and that Philly will be mad because in a couple of years they'll be cap strapped by a huge tub o' lard that makes Donovan McNabb have to run for his life on every play and that Michael Westbrook's average yard per carry will fall off and so I think it's obvious that while Buffalo created a hole on the offensive line it can make it up by drafting a more committed player to both his team and his team mates at least that's how I see it. Oy Vey I've got a headache now from writing that.
cody Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 The Bills did what any other team would do. They had a choice - sign or trade They did not want to give him that much $, so they traded him. If they let him sit out, again - they would only be hurting the team. The Bills did not set a precedent - they followed the overall trend.
pBills Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I just love it when Peters said something along the lines of I don't care about 11 1/2 sacks, that just means I am only human, I'm just happy to be an Eagle. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Only a human making $10 million per year. One that SHOULD care.
Bill from NYC Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 The Bills caved in? Caving in would have been giving him 12 million a year. It was either that, trade him, or have him sit out til week 10 taking up a roster spot and being a major distraction. The Bills did not cave in, and didnt' set any precedent other than if you show up and be a team player, you get paid, don't show up and you're outa here. I can live with that. There is an element of truth to what the OP said about caving in. Peters is an excellent LT in the National Football League, and there aren't so many. As much as I wanted the Bills to keep him, I am forced to admit that he wanted out of Buffalo. That, and a big raise. Well, that is exactly what he got, even though he was under contract for 2 seasons. The Bills were scared at the prospect of a holdout, so they traded him essentially for a very late first round pick. A case could be made that Parker/Peters bulled their way out of town, leaving the Bills with a gaping hole at the 2nd most important position in football, and little compensation in return. We can pretend otherwise, but with gaping holes at DE, DT, LT, LG, and LB, we are more than likely in a rebuilding mode. It is also quite probable that we will have also seriously stunted the development of our quarterback. Maybe we can get lucky and retool both of our lines on Saturday, but history tells us that we will not. Sad but true.
SKOOBY Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 When you ask your current team to bump your salary and then take close to that from another team, you were not planning on staying. We fined him $600K last year and gave him 0 breaks, we received the same treatment back.
fbzh2 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 As I am just back in town after being down south for a week I have only gotten a general overview of folks reactions to the JP deal. In general it seems most folks are quite happy to get rid of this two time Pro Bowler who clearly has been a distraction and irritant to most fans with his pseudo hold out approach to trying to get a new contract with a huge escalation from the "mere" 4 million/yr he will get from the Bills. It strikes me as quite legit to be happy to have the Peters contract dispute off the table (though for the most part I think anyone with a serious interest in football can simply ignore the fantasy football/Mel Kiper stocked rants of anyone seeing this deal as little more than the Bills pretty much giving up on making a serious attempt to make the playoffs in this year as if reality occurs as it usually does in the NFL we will be quite lucky if our virtually new OL gets by even the 2010 season and TO is likely to be long gone and we will be quite fortunate if Edwards survives running for his life behind even talented rookie players learning to become vet NFL players. The question beyond us likely adding another non-playoff season this year is wondering what precedent will be set by the Bills simply caving in to JPs wishes thanks to his holdout and shipping him off to get exactly what he wanted which is a contract which appears to average a $10 million cap hit (more than doubling what he would get under his Bills contract). By being run into giving Peter exactly what he was looking for, it appears to me that the Bills have demonstrated in the face of a Peter's hissy fit of running a pseudo hold out which ended before he lost real money to fines last year and simply deliver him to another team ready and willing to give him the contract that he wants. If I am Fred Jackson I am looking carefully at the weak stomach the Bills are now showing by giving Peters exactly what he wanted. Jackson is in a considerably weaker position under the CBA as exclusive FA, but the precedent would seem to be that even though JP was under contract to the Bills if he simply made them uncomfortable it was the route to the Bills delivering him to the contract he wanted. A low leverage player like Jackson may want to consider really throwing a pain in the butt fit if the Bills have demonstrated they are willing to trade a malcontent player for mere draft choices. This sounds like another loquacious epistle from Pyrite Gal. Are you back again under another name?
dogbyte Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 There is no guarantee that the player we draft to replace Peters will be committed to the team! I think he outplayed his contract in 2006/2007 and his reward was Walker and Dockery making more money. The FO just did not want to pay! I think that is it in a nutshell. I think because the team does not rate OL as important as the skill players they would rather spend money on other positions. Only time will tell if they are right. We will have to see, who we draft and what they accomplish to determine if it was the right thing to do.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 What kind of precedent will the Bills caving into Peters set Not to be repetative as posted earlier... Your definition and mine of "caved" must be worlds apart. Caved IMO is paying TOP $$$ as Peters requested. Trading Peters means the Bills didn't cave.
KD in CA Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Wow, you're right. That is one helluva run-on sentence. One hundred and twenty nine freaking words!!! I really couldn't stay with it this early. Can anyone boil his post down to a couple sentences?
BillsNYC Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 There is an element of truth to what the OP said about caving in. Peters is an excellent LT in the National Football League, and there aren't so many. As much as I wanted the Bills to keep him, I am forced to admit that he wanted out of Buffalo. That, and a big raise. Well, that is exactly what he got, even though he was under contract for 2 seasons. The Bills were scared at the prospect of a holdout, so they traded him essentially for a very late first round pick. A case could be made that Parker/Peters bulled their way out of town, leaving the Bills with a gaping hole at the 2nd most important position in football, and little compensation in return. We can pretend otherwise, but with gaping holes at DE, DT, LT, LG, and LB, we are more than likely in a rebuilding mode. It is also quite probable that we will have also seriously stunted the development of our quarterback. Maybe we can get lucky and retool both of our lines on Saturday, but history tells us that we will not. Sad but true. I hear that, but what else could the Bills do? They weren't going to save the roster spot for a guy who would miss at least 9 games, and they can't just PUP or IR him. Hands were tied and Peters' team knew that.
ganesh Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 If I am Fred Jackson I am looking carefully at the weak stomach the Bills are now showing by giving Peters exactly what he wanted. Jackson is in a considerably weaker position under the CBA as exclusive FA, but the precedent would seem to be that even though JP was under contract to the Bills if he simply made them uncomfortable it was the route to the Bills delivering him to the contract he wanted. A low leverage player like Jackson may want to consider really throwing a pain in the butt fit if the Bills have demonstrated they are willing to trade a malcontent player for mere draft choices. Different situations. Peters was still making big money (4M a year) to sit on the bench while Fred Jackson is getting paid league minimum. I don't think it is in the character of the Bills to not be fair with players committed to them. If Jackson shows up and does his negotiation with the Bills rather than through the Press, the Bills will pay him this season.
Recommended Posts