The Dean Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 I have gotten over the 'which team got the better end of the deal' thought process. A relevant discussion is that - did the Bills make the right choice given the options they had. The situation was that Peters played 'unhappily' last year and would likely do the same without a new contract. So if they wanted him to play well in 2009, they would have to pony up a lot of money. So, the ultimate decision was - do we spend over $11M per year for one player (who may likely become unhappy again in 2 years) or to get the best deal we can get for him. Doing the latter would allow allocation of those funds to more players and possibly build up an OL of personnel who may not blossom in 2009 (i.e. if a rookie) but set ourselves up for a good run after 2010. Given the situation as I understand it, the Bills made the right call. I would have preferred that Peters stay a Bill but not for the money he required or the drama/distraction that came with him. I agree, except I believe the Bills could have made a better deal. Obviously, they cared more about moving on, then milking the Peters trade for everything they could get. But, you are right, it's over...time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 It all goes back to Ralph Wilson. that's my point. he's not a hall of famer, he's a career loser. and we're the suckers who made him a billionaire when he's long-since given up trying to win. he's just trying to keep the seats as full as he can while he positions sale of the team to Toronto. f you ralph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Naw, not him - he only coached Munoz and turned an athletic TE in FA into a good to excellent LT. That and except for that loser Williams we didn't draft one OL in the first three rounds of the draft while he was here. So he hasn't exactly had the best talent to work with. He also coached a well heeled Giants OL before he left NY. Naw, not him. He's a total bum. He doesn't know anything about OL play at all. (Sarcasm button off) Be it known here, that no matter how irrational or illogical it seems the moves of our FO are, if you disagree you are a total bum... There are lot of coordinators and coaches who have done well everywhere, except Buffalo...kind of makes you wonder sometimes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaninATL Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 How do you know that he did not want to be here? He wanted to get paid, yes, but I'm sure if Buffalo paid him, he would have wanted to be here just fine. um - just guessing: lengthy holdouts, refusing to return phone calls, admitting he tanked near the end of last year, feigning "injury" and sitting out, etc., etc. All he had to do was open his eyes and feeble brain to see those other players get rewarded with extensions by putting all the $ & contract noise aside: i.e., Evans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Monkey Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I agree, except I believe the Bills could have made a better deal. Obviously, they cared more about moving on, then milking the Peters trade for everything they could get. But, you are right, it's over...time to move on. Then maybe YOU should have offered more!! What did you have to offer...a pack of gum and $40 (guessing what you have in your pocket.... ) OBVIOUSLY any other NFL team did NOT have a better deal to offer or they would have, so I think your point is off base. If you are suggesting that the Bills should have waited it out and traded closer to the draft due to gain some perceived extra emotion causing someone to reach, well, then you are also off base. In order for this trade to happen, it was contingent on a.)Peters passing a physical and b.) Peters negotiating a new agreement with said team. Both of these items take several days to complete sufficiently and any trade is CONTINGENT on the successful completion of both items. Therefore, it must happen like it did several business days before the draft in order to work, since if it did NOT work, you can not go back and "undo" the swap of draft picks after the draft! I agree with your point that we need to move on. This was a well-timed and well negotiated trade that was the maximum amount the 31 team market of suiters would pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Then maybe YOU should have offered more!! What did you have to offer...a pack of gum and $40 (guessing what you have in your pocket.... ) OBVIOUSLY any other NFL team did NOT have a better deal to offer or they would have, It's April Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 . He stunk last year and was not worthy of a raise. He got what he wanted and the Bill's made out pretty good to get a first, fourth, and another pick for a undrafted FA. I agree with much of what you say leading up to this point. However, I think the clear conclusion of your point is that while he has not played at a level worthy of a raise, the way the Bills played this that is exactly what he got big time. The Bills would have made a huge colossal cave if they gave in to his initial negotiating demand of an $11.5 million annual salary. There is no way they should have paid him this much. However, by taking an approach that did not represent a huge colossal cave but merely a very large big cave that has him getting an $10 million annual salary instead of the $4 million he was due under the contract he had signed himself the Bills have delivered virtually all of his initial negotiating demand to him. The bad thing for the Bills about this is that Fred Jackson has mounted his own pseudo holdout so far this off-season my sense is in part because he has seen that Peters made out like a financial wizard by being a jerk because the Bills caved rather than hold him to his contract. Jackson is in a precarious fiscal negotiating position as he is an EFA and like Peters he is under contract to the Bills if the team chooses. If Jackson follows the Peters example, simply withold services from the Bills to the extent you can while avoiding fines which are significant to you. The Rhodes deal disadvantages Jackson even further in negotiation, but Peters has demonstrated that if you pressure the Bills they will likely cave. The sad thing is that the 1st. fourth and another pick give the Bills alot in Mel Kiper land, but really represent a 50/50 shot at landing a solid player a year or so from now. If protecting Edwards, maximizing TO output in the one year you are guaranteed to have him and knowing Ralph will probably last through 09 but no one is taking bets on 10 and after then you got say the likelihood is that we got bent over the rail on this trade is pretty high. I hope it works out great, but the likelihood of 09 being another year in the wilderness is very high is quite likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Peter King also posted on page BEFORE quote by Reid: Quote of the Week I http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...20/draft/2.html "Jason Peters is the best left tackle in football.'' -- Philadelphia coach Andy Reid, after dealing first, fourth- and sixth-round picks to Buffalo for the Pro Bowl tackle. Not last year he wasn't. One was a quote (in red) from Reid justifying draft picks and huge contact, the other (in blue) was King's opinion. Not sure if posted yet... "I think, as I examine the Jason Peters deal -- first-, fourth- and sixth-round picks, with the first-rounder the 28th pick in Saturday's draft -- I think the Eagles got the major edge. "Other than Anthony Munoz, this is the most devastating blocker and pass-protector I've ever coached,'' said the retired and well-respected former NFL line coach Jim McNally, who mentored Peters from being a college tight end to one of the premier tackles in the game. "He's a terrific player and a good kid. What happened to him in Buffalo, I think, is he saw two linemen come in and make a lot of money [Derrick Dockery, Langston Walker], and he looked at them and said, 'I'm better than they are; why aren't I making that money?' And it really affected him. I think he'll be a dominating player in Philadelphia, and I don't think the money will affect him.'' We'll see." Peters like a lot of me generation is concerned not how well he did but his bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Peters was a man-child and acted like a baby throughout the whole situation. I personally think that a change of venue was best for all involved, goodbye. I hate to say this, but you only feel that way because you are a loser Bills fan who doesn't mind losing. You are partially correct however, it was certainly the best situation for the Eagles and JP. Now the Eagles should dominate the NFC east and be a clear SB favorite, while JP gets to play for a contender instead of pissing his career away for a team with no interest in being competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Watched the Bills/Chargers replay the other day. Peters doesnt so much dominate rushers as he just gets in their way. Literally. A lot of standing around while the rusher tries to figure out how to run around his girth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 When Kirk Chambers outplays you and nobody notices a difference then you probably are not worth a 13+M extension. His best year was '06 and he went down in '07 and was bad in '08. Anybody who watched the Bills would question why this guy was supposedly so good. Why was our R side of the line better. Basically the Bills upgraded because you can pay a guy 2M and get the same production as you got out of Peters for the past two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never NEVER Give-up Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I heard Mouse McNally on GR55 this morning and he felt there was no way the Bills could go thru with Peters holding out again this year and that this was the best for both parties involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Monkey Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 It's April ....so they should have waited until May/June (or later) for the holdout to begin and the associated circus that would go with it? ...which would also further reduce the Bills leverage in a trade due to: * less interest from other teams wanting to trade for a two time houldout * the very real perception that the Bills would have to unload Peters due to the circus he is creating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 My guess is that Peters will be 1st team All-Pro this year and we will, again, look cheap and foolish. Who's to say that he would have given the same effort and played as well for us if he had stayed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Monkey Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Who's to say that he would have given the same effort and played as well for us if he had stayed? EXACTLY. It really amazes me how people continue to think this is an issue of being cheap. There is NO WAY IN HELL the Bills were going to keep a player that quit on the team. Holding out is bad enough, but the fact he clearly did not play up to his ability demonstrates that he quit on the team. You can not reward a player for that behavior or you will see every other player that thinks they are outplaying their contract (see Jackson) also quit on the team. The Bills did not create the collective bargaining agreement with the players, but they play by it and so should Peters. He needed to go...end of story. With that said, I wish Peters well with the Eagles (I happen to like the Eagles!). The problem is, the Eagles have opened pandora's box and now we are seeing the cancer spread on the Eagles with Sheldon Brown and Andrews complaining about their deals after watching Peters get rewarded for the same behavior! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 ....so they should have waited until May/June (or later) for the holdout to begin and the associated circus that would go with it? ...which would also further reduce the Bills leverage in a trade due to:* less interest from other teams wanting to trade for a two time houldout * the very real perception that the Bills would have to unload Peters due to the circus he is creating Let's accept your points, for the sake of argument (I don't agree with them, but who cares?). The Bills traded still rushed into the trade, because they still had a week before the draft, to pull the trigger. There were rumors of the Giants, and possibly one other team, expressing some interest. Philly and the Bills have been talking about this trade, on and off, for some time, according to reports. Why not take the week to make the best deal? Philly has two 1st round picks...make them pony up #21 and/or deliver a 3rd rounder. They didn't have to make the deal when they made it. They pulled the trigger on the trade, very quickly, once they decided they wanted Peters traded. Fine...it's over and let's move on. But, don't believe for a second this was definitely the best deal that could be made. They traded him within days of making the decision to trade him. That's not the way to maximize your return on a player like Peters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 There is NO WAY IN HELL the Bills were going to keep a player that quit on the team. See, this is where I have to point out the absurdity in a post. The Bills offered him close to an $8 million/year contract. How can you say there was no way they were going to keep him? Do you think they were looking at sign and trade? There is zero indication of that, and everything the FO has said, leads one to believe their intention was to sign and keep Peters. There is no need to make up crazy/unrealistic/fake reasons when analyzing the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endzone Animal Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 We had to send away Peters to make room for guys who are less selfish and make better teammates both on and off the field... you know, like TO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Monkey Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 See, this is where I have to point out the absurdity in a post. The Bills offered him close to an $8 million/year contract. How can you say there was no way they were going to keep him? Do you think they were looking at sign and trade? There is zero indication of that, and everything the FO has said, leads one to believe their intention was to sign and keep Peters. There is no need to make up crazy/unrealistic/fake reasons when analyzing the trade. Fair enough. Though it is fair to say we do not know for sure exactly what was offered or not offered since we were not there and most of the leaked reports varied. A better way to say it: there is no way in hell the Bills were going to make him the highest paid lineman in the league after his stunts + 2 years left on his current deal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 We had to send away Peters to make room for guys who are less selfish and make better teammates both on and off the field... you know, like TO. Best WR in the league over the past 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts