Lurker Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 What does that have to do with Peters showing up out of shape and playing like crap? Nothing. But that's not the point...bash, bash, bash.
gus2378 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Except you NEVER f**k your team over when negotiating a deal. You show up and play your a$$ off and prove you are worth every penny. No one said Peters didn't earn a raise in 2007. He just went about it the worst way you possibly can. PTR Again, not defending what he did last season. Point is, it should never have been an issue. They should have taken care of it as soon as it was obvious he was outplaying his contract. He should not have had to beg for a fair deal and he certainly should not have been the guy they chose to make an example of so that Russ Brandon could show he would not be pushed around. Some would say Bill Polian and John Butler got pushed around by Bruce Smith, but funny how that jerk always showed up on Sunday. Polian made an example of guys like John Hagy, not his all-pros. You want to rengotiate? Go outperform your contract. Peters did that way more than Schobel or Kelsay or even Evans, and they tried to take advantage of him. Not saying Peters was right to hold out, but he's also not the only guy ever to hold out of minicamp or the start of training camp. They don't all end up traded for draft picks. The Bills blew it a year ago, no matter how much of a jerk he is or how fat and out of shape he was last season.
Ramius Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I heard it. The best part was in the beginning when Peters said "I wasn't looking for a lot of money or anything, I just wanted to get what I think I deserved". He also stated that he didn't understand why Buffalo was giving money to everyone else and not him. Lets see...Evans, Stroud got new deals, and Peters didn't. What did Peters do different than those 2? If he honestly can't determine the answer to the question, he probably should be legally declared mentally handicapped.
1billsfan Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 What does that have to do with Peters showing up out of shape and playing like crap? Someone was trying to use what Jim Miller says as if it was profound when the guy is and has always been a hugely biased Jauron and Bills front office supporter. The guy sucked as a QB and sucks just as badly as an NFL radio host. Yes, it was unprofessional for Peters to not stay in shape. That's very fair to bring up. But these guys are not robots, and not everyone is going to do things the right way. But unless you're an organization not named the Buffalo Bills, you also don't cut off your nose to spite your face. Until Peters proves he was just in it for the money and craps out in Philly, I will still believe that had the Bills just given him the money prior to the '08 season he would be still considered hands down the best LT in the game. Time will tell. I'm almost ready to move on in the hopes that the Bills sign Henderson and Brooks then draft Ayers at#11 and either Mack or Unger at #28, the best OL in the 2nd and then Cornelius Ingram in the 3rd.
Jerry Jabber Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Yeah IF he wasn't an NFL player he's just be a regular guy ... problem is, he IS an NFL player, so he lives by different rules than everyone else. Those rules say you get every penny you can, when you can, because in 20 years you could be dead or crippled from the beating your body took in your 20s.I know it is not popular to defend the guy making $3 million who held out, and I am not defending him FOR holding out. But the Bills have to take some of the blame. If they had gone to him when he was named All-Pro and said "Hey, you are our best O-lineman and we want to pay you that way" they could have worked something out. As long as he got more than crappy Dockery, he would have been happy. He was never asking to be THE highest paid guy until after he made the Pro Bowl (undeservedly) again. I am fine with them trading him, and his attitude and selfishness probably did affect the team last season. But the Bills made their own bed and backed themselves into a corner. They should have paid the guy what he deserved immediately after the 2007 season and none of this would ever have happened. All that "It would set a bad precedent" stuff is B.S. If someone else comes to you wanting to re-do their deal with 3 years left, you say "When you make All-Pro like Peters did, we'll talk." Instead they reward Kelsay for being a good guy and showing up fpr minicamp and being supremely average during the season. They wanted a hometown discount just because they got lucky with Peters, but the NFL does not work that way. It's not the real world. We as fans can go ahead and be pissed at Peters for holding out when he is under contract for $3 million. But if you are the Bills, you pay the guy. The fans still B word about what a jerk Bruce Smith was and he has been off the team for 10 years and retired for five ... but funny they haven't been to the playoffs since he left. It's the price of doing business in the NFL. Or, more accurately, it's the price of WINNING in the NFL. The Bills already rewarded Peters by giving him a new contract (after his initial rookie contract) which paid him $3 mil a year. If Peters was unhappy about the $3 mil a year, he should have been a man and talked to management about it, instead of not showing up to work and not talking to his teammates.
PromoTheRobot Posted April 20, 2009 Author Posted April 20, 2009 Again, not defending what he did last season. Point is, it should never have been an issue. They should have taken care of it as soon as it was obvious he was outplaying his contract. He should not have had to beg for a fair deal and he certainly should not have been the guy they chose to make an example of so that Russ Brandon could show he would not be pushed around. Some would say Bill Polian and John Butler got pushed around by Bruce Smith, but funny how that jerk always showed up on Sunday. Polian made an example of guys like John Hagy, not his all-pros. You want to rengotiate? Go outperform your contract. Peters did that way more than Schobel or Kelsay or even Evans, and they tried to take advantage of him.Not saying Peters was right to hold out, but he's also not the only guy ever to hold out of minicamp or the start of training camp. They don't all end up traded for draft picks. The Bills blew it a year ago, no matter how much of a jerk he is or how fat and out of shape he was last season. The end of the 2007 season was about when Peters was due a new deal. But forgive the Bills for thinking they had a little grace period since Peters just signed a 5 year extension. But Peters/Parker decided that showing up for work while asking for a new deal wasn't good enough. They decided to crap all over the team as their calling card. That never ends well. PTR
gus2378 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 The Bills already rewarded Peters by giving him a new contract (after his initial rookie contract) which paid him $3 mil a year. If Peters was unhappy about the $3 mil a year, he should have been a man and talked to management about it, instead of not showing up to work and not talking to his teammates. You really think he didn't ask for more money, he just decided to not show up and the Bills had to guess what was wrong? Maybe he had the flu? What, because his agent called and asked instead of Peters himself it makes a difference? Whatever the case, I am not saying the guy handled it well or that he is not a baby. But none of that is a good enough reason to have it come to this. he handled it HORRIBLY and is a HUGE baby. But because he was an immature jerk the Bills sabotaged the 2008 season and then had to give him away for draft picks ... and the immature jerk still got exactly what he wanted. That's the point, the player ALWAYS gets what he wants if he is good enough. The teams that win recognize when they need to pay the piper, roll their eyes and play ball. Not saying I like it, but that is reality. The Bills are better off now having traded Peters than they were a week ago for sure, but the are WAY worse off now than they were a year ago when they could have had a happy All-Pro LT in camp and in shape ... but hey, at least Kelsay was happy last season. The end of the 2007 season was about when Peters was due a new deal. But forgive the Bills for thinking they had a little grace period since Peters just signed a 5 year extension. But Peters/Parker decided that showing up for work while asking for a new deal wasn't good enough. They decided to crap all over the team as their calling card. That never ends well. PTR Really? It ended pretty well for Peters, didn't it? Now he is on a team that goes to the playoffs regularly and has his money. In the real world, the Bills would have a grace period and people work while they ask for more money. In the NFL, the players hold most of the cards. That's just how it is. I am not saying the Bills had to be happy about it, but once it became obvious Peters was going to be stubborn about things, they should have worked it out and made sure he was in camp on time in July. I fail to see the downside of that scenario.
8-8 Forever? Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 You really think he didn't ask for more money, he just decided to not show up and the Bills had to guess what was wrong? Maybe he had the flu? What, because his agent called and asked instead of Peters himself it makes a difference? Whatever the case, I am not saying the guy handled it well or that he is not a baby. But none of that is a good enough reason to have it come to this. he handled it HORRIBLY and is a HUGE baby. But because he was an immature jerk the Bills sabotaged the 2008 season and then had to give him away for draft picks ... and the immature jerk still got exactly what he wanted. That's the point, the player ALWAYS gets what he wants if he is good enough. The teams that win recognize when they need to pay the piper, roll their eyes and play ball. Not saying I like it, but that is reality. The Bills are better off now having traded Peters than they were a week ago for sure, but the are WAY worse off now than they were a year ago when they could have had a happy All-Pro LT in camp and in shape ... but hey, at least Kelsay was happy last season. Really? It ended pretty well for Peters, didn't it? Now he is on a team that goes to the playoffs regularly and has his money. In the real world, the Bills would have a grace period and people work while they ask for more money. In the NFL, the players hold most of the cards. That's just how it is. I am not saying the Bills had to be happy about it, but once it became obvious Peters was going to be stubborn about things, they should have worked it out and made sure he was in camp on time in July. I fail to see the downside of that scenario. Whatever Parker/Peters were doing, it worked. He forced a trade to a great team AND he got the $$$. So say what you want, Peters won. Bills, with a late 1st rounder in return, lost. Plain and simple.
VOR Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Whatever Parker/Peters were doing, it worked. He forced a trade to a great team AND he got the $$. So say what you want, Peters won. Bills, with a late 1st rounder in return, lost. Plain and simple. They did? Really?
Ramius Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Really? It ended pretty well for Peters, didn't it? Now he is on a team that goes to the playoffs regularly and has his money.In the real world, the Bills would have a grace period and people work while they ask for more money. In the NFL, the players hold most of the cards. That's just how it is. I am not saying the Bills had to be happy about it, but once it became obvious Peters was going to be stubborn about things, they should have worked it out and made sure he was in camp on time in July. I fail to see the downside of that scenario. Whatever Parker/Peters were doing, it worked. He forced a trade to a great team AND he got the $$$. So say what you want, Peters won. Bills, with a late 1st rounder in return, lost. Plain and simple. Given peters painfully evident lack of intelligence, he'll be on one of those ESPN specials in about 10 years about players that are broke and living on welfare.
Jerry Jabber Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 You really think he didn't ask for more money, he just decided to not show up and the Bills had to guess what was wrong? Maybe he had the flu? What, because his agent called and asked instead of Peters himself it makes a difference? Whatever the case, I am not saying the guy handled it well or that he is not a baby. But none of that is a good enough reason to have it come to this. he handled it HORRIBLY and is a HUGE baby. But because he was an immature jerk the Bills sabotaged the 2008 season and then had to give him away for draft picks ... and the immature jerk still got exactly what he wanted. That's the point, the player ALWAYS gets what he wants if he is good enough. The teams that win recognize when they need to pay the piper, roll their eyes and play ball. Not saying I like it, but that is reality. The Bills are better off now having traded Peters than they were a week ago for sure, but the are WAY worse off now than they were a year ago when they could have had a happy All-Pro LT in camp and in shape ... but hey, at least Kelsay was happy last season. Really? It ended pretty well for Peters, didn't it? Now he is on a team that goes to the playoffs regularly and has his money. In the real world, the Bills would have a grace period and people work while they ask for more money. In the NFL, the players hold most of the cards. That's just how it is. I am not saying the Bills had to be happy about it, but once it became obvious Peters was going to be stubborn about things, they should have worked it out and made sure he was in camp on time in July. I fail to see the downside of that scenario. IMO, since Peters didn't get a new deal during his holdout, he was either going to force the Bills to pay him what he wanted or force the Bills to trade him. I don't think this move is going to destroy the O-Line like many think. I think the Bills will move Walker back to LT, draft a O-linemen and have the new guy and/or Bell play the right side until either one can step up and play well at LT. I think this will take a year or two until Walker is back at RT. Walker played very well at LT vs the Seahawks, let's see what he can do all season long. Yes, it sucks to have to switch up the O-line line again, but we can't let players hold this team hostage because they want more money.
gus2378 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 IMO, since Peters didn't get a new deal during his holdout, he was either going to force the Bills to pay him what he wanted or force the Bills to trade him. I don't think this move is going to destroy the O-Line like many think. I think the Bills will move Walker back to LT, draft a O-linemen and have the new guy and/or Bell play the right side until either one can step up and play well at LT. I think this will take a year or two until Walker is back at RT. Walker played very well at LT vs the Seahawks, let's see what he can do all season long. Yes, it sucks to have to switch up the O-line line again, but we can't let players hold this team hostage because they want more money. Yeah that sounds like a blueprint for winning championships. We can't let players hold this team hostage because they want more money? What do you think he just did?!?! His holdout and subsequent sucking is a big reason this team underachieved again last season, and all they proved was if you hold out and complain they will trade you somewhere so you can get paid. Not to mention, you better hope that little plan of developing Bell or a draft pick at RT doesn't work TOO well ... the guy might end up a Pro Bowl left tackle and then he'll ask to be paid like one and then ... oh, wait, this sounds familiar ... So explain to me again how they are better off now? Seems to me they wasted those years developing Peters and now they are right back where they were in 2005 or so, hoping they can find a diamond in the rough. Think they will get lucky again? think they will pay the guy if they do?
Reed83HOF Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I still would have made his sorry arse sit on the bench for 2 years...screw the picks and the other bs...He would have been two years older and not played in two seasons...He didn't understand why the other guys got paid and he didn't. F&ck 'em in the ear... Sitting him on the bench for two years with no shot to play in my books is money well spent...what a douche
hotwing Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Jim Miller was a failure as an NFL QB and is currently a major shill and excuse-maker for Dick Jauron and Co. I have Sirius NFL radio and have had more than enough of his warped way of thinking regarding the Bills. Here's a question. How can you reward a head coach who coached as badly as he has since he's come to Buffalo? Oh that's right, according to that former scrub QB none of it was his fault. His buddy got his extension and that is all that matters. Everyone else is an ungrateful jerk. This has to do with Peters how? Try and stay on topic.
Original Byrd Man Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 IMO, since Peters didn't get a new deal during his holdout, he was either going to force the Bills to pay him what he wanted or force the Bills to trade him. I don't think this move is going to destroy the O-Line like many think. I think the Bills will move Walker back to LT, draft a O-linemen and have the new guy and/or Bell play the right side until either one can step up and play well at LT. I think this will take a year or two until Walker is back at RT. Walker played very well at LT vs the Seahawks, let's see what he can do all season long. Yes, it sucks to have to switch up the O-line line again, but we can't let players hold this team hostage because they want more money. I've banged this drum on other threads. For all who think peters should have sucked it up and taken one for the team until his most recent agreement played out let me ask you this. If you got a promotion at work would you not rightly expect a raise commensurate with the position??? Now take into account a player at you old job of lesser stature is making more money than you. Tell me you wouldn't be pissed. The one thing I have against Peters is reporting out of shape and unmotivated, but the Bills are responsible for this transgression as much as Peters for allowing the situation to develop. What did they do with the money they saved from what should have been JP's new contract???? Nothing I can see.
Jerry Jabber Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Yeah that sounds like a blueprint for winning championships. We can't let players hold this team hostage because they want more money? What do you think he just did?!?! His holdout and subsequent sucking is a big reason this team underachieved again last season, and all they proved was if you hold out and complain they will trade you somewhere so you can get paid. Not to mention, you better hope that little plan of developing Bell or a draft pick at RT doesn't work TOO well ... the guy might end up a Pro Bowl left tackle and then he'll ask to be paid like one and then ... oh, wait, this sounds familiar ... So explain to me again how they are better off now? Seems to me they wasted those years developing Peters and now they are right back where they were in 2005 or so, hoping they can find a diamond in the rough. Think they will get lucky again? think they will pay the guy if they do? Okay, so what would you have done...caved in and paid him $11.5M a year? He held out already, what makes you think that in a few years when some other LT is making more money than him, don't think he'll holdout again? Yes, we developed him and made him into the player he his, so that means we have to keep him when he underperforms, doesn't show up for work and mysteriously misses games at the end of the season? Yes, it sucks losing him, but you can't keep a player when his expectations are unrealistic and doesn't want to be here.
Jerry Jabber Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I've banged this drum on other threads. For all who think peters should have sucked it up and taken one for the team until his most recent agreement played out let me ask you this. If you got a promotion at work would you not rightly expect a raise commensurate with the position??? Now take into account a player at you old job of lesser stature is making more money than you. Tell me you wouldn't be pissed. The one thing I have against Peters is reporting out of shape and unmotivated, but the Bills are responsible for this transgression as much as Peters for allowing the situation to develop. What did they do with the money they saved from what should have been JP's new contract???? Nothing I can see. Peters was rewarded from his rookie contract and would have been rewarded with another. The Bills are not like the Sabres and wait until a players contract is over to negotiate a new one. Schobel, Evans, Kelsay, McGee, Parrish & Stroud all got new deals by playing hard and showing up to work. Yes, this situation sucks, but it happened so it's time to move on.
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 My biggest problem with Peters is his lack of loyalty. Nope. The biggest problem is his disconnect between his work ethic and preparation and his value. He either got some really bad advice, made a really bad decision to ignore that advice, or was doing everything possible to get out of Buffalo by wearing his lack of respect on his sleeve.
gus2378 Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 Okay, so what would you have done...caved in and paid him $11.5M a year? He held out already, what makes you think that in a few years when some other LT is making more money than him, don't think he'll holdout again? Yes, we developed him and made him into the player he his, so that means we have to keep him when he underperforms, doesn't show up for work and mysteriously misses games at the end of the season? Yes, it sucks losing him, but you can't keep a player when his expectations are unrealistic and doesn't want to be here. I would have gone to him before he even had a chance to hold out and tried to do right by the guy. He was an All-Pro left tackle beinig paid like a middle-of-the-raod right tackle. But they didn't, and he had to ask for more ... so at that point I would have paid him the $8 or 9 million he would have taken last spring when he sat out of minicamp. The guy makes all-pro, you make him your highest paid O-lineman and one of the top paid left tackles in the league and you move on, even if you did just re-do his deal a year ago. The circumstances changed. He won that round. Lesser players have held out and won against better teams. And if he doesn't live up to it or gets old and is overpaid, you cut him. That's the way the league works. I said in my first post, I don't have a big problem with the trade NOW, they did the best they could with a horrible situation. I was just saying they deserve some blame for creating that horrible situation. Everyone is railing on Peters and calling him stupid and fat and lazy and cracking wise about how he'd be working in a convenience store in Arkansas if not for the Bills, as if that is relevant and as if the Bills were somehow the innocent victims. They had a couple chances to make him happy before he became a fat, lazy, locker room cancer and they didn't do it. Once he became those things, yeah, they did the best they could.
Jerry Jabber Posted April 20, 2009 Posted April 20, 2009 I would have gone to him before he even had a chance to hold out and tried to do right by the guy. He was an All-Pro left tackle beinig paid like a middle-of-the-raod right tackle. But they didn't, and he had to ask for more ... so at that point I would have paid him the $8 or 9 million he would have taken last spring when he sat out of minicamp. The guy makes all-pro, you make him your highest paid O-lineman and one of the top paid left tackles in the league and you move on, even if you did just re-do his deal a year ago. The circumstances changed. He won that round. Lesser players have held out and won against better teams. And if he doesn't live up to it or gets old and is overpaid, you cut him. That's the way the league works.I said in my first post, I don't have a big problem with the trade NOW, they did the best they could with a horrible situation. I was just saying they deserve some blame for creating that horrible situation. Everyone is railing on Peters and calling him stupid and fat and lazy and cracking wise about how he'd be working in a convenience store in Arkansas if not for the Bills, as if that is relevant and as if the Bills were somehow the innocent victims. They had a couple chances to make him happy before he became a fat, lazy, locker room cancer and they didn't do it. Once he became those things, yeah, they did the best they could. Sorry, but I disagree with you. The Bills were doing their best to wrap a deal with Lee Evans last year. Peters was not returning anyone's phone calls from the front office last year, so he was being a douchebag. At least 6 players got rewarded for their hard work, Peters would of had another deal but he decided to play hard ball.
Recommended Posts