DrDawkinstein Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 I guess I just can't understand that feeling...he wanted to get paid. Period. It's not personal; it never was. He saw Jake Long get $30M+ guaranteed before he ever took a snap in the NFL, and believed that he deserved the same money. Obviously, other organizations (namely, the Eagles) believed that as well. He would've played here for the same money, and there's no evidence to support that he wouldn't have. the root of the word "fan" is fanatic. most of us here live and breath Bills football. Do we take it a little too seriously? most likely but it is very easy to see why, after years of personal investment both emotionally and financially, a lot of us here would take it personally. especially since he was already under a contract he had just signed. and especially since we already put our blind faith in him twice before that with making a roster spot for him while he figured out where he wanted to play, and giving him a bigger contract before his other one was up. its not like the FO had never done anything for him. you can say it's "just business", and youre not wrong, but then it is our right to choose to not do business with people like that. we do it at my company all the time. scumbags are scumbags and can potentially hurt your business, so sometimes its better to fire a customer.
DrDawkinstein Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 The Bills were looking for a tackle in the draft at #8. I pretty much know it for a fact. It would be impossible to prove, but I'd bet anyone that if any of the three tackles taken ahead of the Bills in round one were available, we would have taken that guy over Maybin. maybe, and that is why i specified "non blue chip" because we couldnt/didnt get one. at that point, this was the plan
Kelly the Dog Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 maybe, and that is why i specified "non blue chip" because we couldnt/didnt get one. at that point, this was the plan I added some to the above post, which is: "They also loved Wood, and for good reason. There were tackles available at 28 but they obviously felt Wood was a much better choice than any tackle and already that appears to be true. The same thing with Levitre. They liked him and decided none of the tackles that were still available were better than him at G, so they took him. If they had a tackle rated ahead of Levitre on their board, I can almost guarantee they would have taken him."
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 THAT'S something a person with a 6 wonderlic score would say. There is no reason whatsoever that Peters or any player should say in his press conference with a new team he was traded to that gave up a #1 and #3 and #4 and just paid him ten million dollars a year that he really wanted to be on his old team. Peters is no Academic All-American but he's not that dumb. He could easily have said "I wanted to stay a Bill, but I'm here now and..."
DrDawkinstein Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 I added some to the above post, which is: "They also loved Wood, and for good reason. There were tackles available at 28 but they obviously felt Wood was a much better choice than any tackle and already that appears to be true. The same thing with Levitre. They liked him and decided none of the tackles that were still available were better than him at G, so they took him. If they had a tackle rated ahead of Levitre on their board, I can almost guarantee they would have taken him." again, maybe. and that wouldnt have been so bad either. however, as it stands, i like what the Bills have done with the line and (without having seen them play a down), prefer it to last year's line. hopefully they prove me right.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 He could easily have said "I wanted to stay a Bill, but I'm here now and..." What purpose does that serve? To appease you and get Iggles fans that are just like you to scream "Look! Peters doesn't even want to be here he wanted to stay in Buffalo!"
Kelly the Dog Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 again, maybe. and that wouldnt have been so bad either. however, as it stands, i like what the Bills have done with the line and (without having seen them play a down), prefer it to last year's line. hopefully they prove me right. I'm hoping this is true. I love Eric Wood already. Think Hangartner could be good. Levitre has a lot going for him and some concerns for me. I thought Walker was pretty decent at RT and could easily live with him there for the next five years but I think it's a disaster waiting to happen at LT, especially if he's asked to run down the field after a significant gain and line-up in the no huddle. I think Butler is adequate but I like his tenacity. Bell has some promise but he's not nearly ready IMO, I'm anxious to see him. Two years from now we could have a great line. My worry is that we have TO for one year probably, and three good RBs, and this is the year we have to find out if Trent is our guy (which he may or may not be), so to put such a shaky line in front of him is just bad planning. I also don't really trust Kugler, especially Shonert, or Jauron on offense.
Guest dog14787 Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 So tweaking a quad muscle means that a guy didn't show up in shape? Does that mean that everyone that gets hurt in camp is not in shape? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line? Or is it that you hate the fact that Peters got his way, so you'll say anything to denigrate the guy? I guess I just can't understand that feeling...he wanted to get paid. Period. It's not personal; it never was. He saw Jake Long get $30M+ guaranteed before he ever took a snap in the NFL, and believed that he deserved the same money. Obviously, other organizations (namely, the Eagles) believed that as well. He would've played here for the same money, and there's no evidence to support that he wouldn't have. The thing about it is, in my opinion some players would have agreed to play for a little less to benefit the team knowing we are a smaller market. To some players and folks here on TSW, maybe that seems an unrealistic thing to do because its all about the money. To others, they realize there's 52 other men on that Roster that also deserve to get paid properly and so its taken into consideration during negotiations. Am I off base here?
Kelly the Dog Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 The thing about it is, in my opinion some players would have agreed to play for a little less to benefit the team knowing we are a smaller market. To some players and folks here on TSW, maybe that seems an unrealistic thing to do because its all about the money. To others, they realize there's 53 other men on that Roster that also deserve to get paid properly and so its taken into consideration during negotiations. Name one. To me it seems like pretty much every veteran player we re-signed in the last few years besides Peters we overpaid for. Schobel. Kelsay. Denney. Peerless. Roscoe (only because they don't use him IMO). Reed. Butler. Evans (even though he's great he's at the very top of WR in the league at over 9 mil a year). No one took a small market discount, just the opposite. Maybe McGee was paid about right but he didn't sign cheap, he wasn't even a solid starter back then.
The Senator Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 So tweaking a quad muscle means that a guy didn't show up in shape? Does that mean that everyone that gets hurt in camp is not in shape? If not, why not? Where do you draw the line? Or is it that you hate the fact that Peters got his way, so you'll say anything to denigrate the guy? I can almost see Adam West's Batman shaking his head slowly and sadly intoning, "You poor, deluded child..." 1) Peters held out all last summer, after missing the prior season's last two games and undergoing off-season surgery for a sports hernia and blown-out groin, and was clearly out of shape when he finally showed up at the Bills camp. His effort was half-assed all season long, leading the league among blind-side tackles in sacks-allowed. He missed the first game due to lack of preparation and conditioning, and the last two (plus the Pro Bowl) due to injury. So it's not exactly a reach to assume he's not a 'gym-rat' in the off-season. 2) Guy 'tweaked' his quad on day one of camp, either in the first running drills or from running from his bed to the breakfast table - take your pick - and has been rehabbing since. Doesn't exactly sound like 'The $60 Million Dollar Man' now, does he? 3) I absolutely do not hate that he got the money he wanted. Not at all. No freakin' way. But I would have been steamed as hell had he gotten it from Buffalo, and then pulled his crap all over again. There are reasons why a 340-pound athlete running a 4.8 40-yard dash out of college goes undrafted. The Bills took a shot, gave the guy a chance, paid him well beyond his wildest dreams, and turned him into a premier LT. The one thing they failed at - and that everyone will fail at - is stopping him from being an ass hole.
Guest dog14787 Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 Name one. To me it seems like pretty much every veteran player we re-signed in the last few years besides Peters we overpaid for. Schobel. Kelsay. Denney. Peerless. Roscoe (only because they don't use him IMO). Reed. Butler. Evans (even though he's great he's at the very top of WR in the league at over 9 mil a year). No one took a small market discount, just the opposite. Maybe McGee was paid about right but he didn't sign cheap, he wasn't even a solid starter back then. So is it poor management or we just don't have any incentive to keep players here. ( or both) I respect your opinion, but we continue to stay well under the salary cap and it seems like the big complaint around here is we constantly let quality players go rather then pay them properly the same way we did JP or Jabari Greer. It doesn't surprise me that players have zero incentive to sign here in Buffalo besides pay, maybe that's a big part of the problem and also a big part of the reason we can't get FA's here in Buffalo. I'm not very up on the salary side of things like you are Kelly, so with all due respect I don't mean to question your opinion.
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 What purpose does that serve? To appease you and get Iggles fans that are just like you to scream "Look! Peters doesn't even want to be here he wanted to stay in Buffalo!" Versus what they're saying that "Peters is only here because the Eagles are paying him $10M/year and gave up a 1st, 4th, and conditional pick in 2010?" As I said, there was NO mention of Peters wanting to stay in Buffalo. He didn't have to say it, but if he did, it would have meant something. The "I can't believe they traded me" wouldn't have sounded as arrogant had he added "...because I wanted to remain in Buffalo."
thebandit27 Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 the root of the word "fan" is fanatic. most of us here live and breath Bills football. Do we take it a little too seriously? most likely but it is very easy to see why, after years of personal investment both emotionally and financially, a lot of us here would take it personally. especially since he was already under a contract he had just signed. and especially since we already put our blind faith in him twice before that with making a roster spot for him while he figured out where he wanted to play, and giving him a bigger contract before his other one was up. its not like the FO had never done anything for him. you can say it's "just business", and youre not wrong, but then it is our right to choose to not do business with people like that. we do it at my company all the time. scumbags are scumbags and can potentially hurt your business, so sometimes its better to fire a customer. I understand the fan portion of it...I am as die-hard as anyone. In 22 years of having season tickets, I've never missed a game (except for one, when I was 9, because I had a virus that caused my cappliaries to leak blood--true story--it was the 1989 home game vs. NE and Buffalo lost, ugh). i didn't condone peters' holdout, but to say that i don't see his side of things would be a lie. i can't exactly agree about the blind faith point you're making. yes, Buffalo signed peters as an UDFA. he had other offers, and he chose Buffalo. UDFA signings are made to benefit the team, it's not exactly like they went out to get peters as a charity case. they saw potential in him, and they made an offer; he accepted it. But here's the thing: you invest in the TEAM emotionally and financially, you do not invest in one player. You have the sound of a business-minded person, so you would know as well as anyone that you invest in a whole company, not their lead salesperson or executive manager. if that company and one of it's employees do not see eye-to-eye, they separate...that's my mindset when you see me refer to the situation with the comment that it's just business. when a person works for someone else (and pro football is a job; a high paying job, but a job nevertheless), that employer controls everything. the only thing that the employee controls is his/her performance--do well and you deserve a raise. get promoted, and you deserve a raise. i can tell you, personally, that i never have (and never would) accept a promotion requiring more responsibility without a raise. apparently, neither would peters. he went from special teams ace to starting right tackle, so he got a raise. he went from starting right tackle to starting left tackle, and wanted a raise. that, to me, is not being a scum bag. am i disappointed he held out? yes, but players with little (or zero) financial prowess have agents so that they can rely on someone with experience to tell them how to go about getting the raise they seek. his agent told him what to do, and he did it...and it worked. i guess that's where i get confused: hating the system makes sense, hating the agent makes sense, hating the team or the player--in my opinion--makes no sense.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 So is it poor management or we just don't have any incentive to keep players here. ( or both) I respect your opinion, but we continue to stay well under the salary cap and it seems like the big complaint around here is we constantly let quality players go rather then pay them properly the same way we did JP or Jabari Greer. It doesn't surprise me that players have zero incentive to sign here in Buffalo besides pay, maybe that's a big part of the problem and also a big part of the reason we can't get FA's here in Buffalo. I'm not very up on the salary side of things like you are Kelly, so with all due respect I don't mean to question your opinion. I think it's a combination of factors, and BY FAR the biggest is simply that we don't draft well and we don't evaluate free agents well and we hire crappy coaches. Paying players and spending money are way, way, way down on the list of why we have been so crappy the last decade. I totally understand the Bills position on Jason Peters. I don't agree with it myself, because I think he is worth 10 million, but that is just an opinion. Every player has a monetary worth to your team -- how much you are willing to pay him to play that position. And every team has a team of evaluators to set that monetary number. The Bills, for instance, may say Peters is worth 9 million to us but not 10 million. That's a legitimate stance. But to me, the Bills evaluators, especially John Guy, are crappy. The Bills money men aren't really personnel people so that is a disadvantage. We just haven't made good decisions on who to draft and sign and for how much, and the coaches we signed and paid are subpar around the league. That's our problem, not Ralph and his purse strings. It's arguable that Ralph's unwillingness to pay even fair market rates to his coaches is part of the problem but there have been guys like Mike Tomlin and Ken Wisenhunt and John Fox etc that wouldnt have cost a lot but who would likely have done a better job here. The decisions like signing Dockery for 49 million just proved to be disasters, and that is John Guy the evaluator and Jim Overdorf the negotiator.
Captain Caveman Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 Versus what they're saying that "Peters is only here because the Eagles are paying him $10M/year and gave up a 1st, 4th, and conditional pick in 2010?" As I said, there was NO mention of Peters wanting to stay in Buffalo. He didn't have to say it, but if he did, it would have meant something. The "I can't believe they traded me" wouldn't have sounded as arrogant had he added "...because I wanted to remain in Buffalo." I'm not sure you're looking at this from the perspective of an Eagles fan. What would you think if when Stroud got traded here, he said in his first press conference "I really wanted to stay in Jacksonville, but I'll try to make the best of it."
thebandit27 Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 I can almost see Adam West's Batman shaking his head slowly and sadly intoning, "You poor, deluded child..." 1) Peters held out all last summer, after missing the prior season's last two games and undergoing off-season surgery for a sports hernia and blown-out groin, and was clearly out of shape when he finally showed up at the Bills camp. His effort was half-assed all season long, leading the league among blind-side tackles in sacks-allowed. He missed the first game due to lack of preparation and conditioning, and the last two (plus the Pro Bowl) due to injury. So it's not exactly a reach to assume he's not a 'gym-rat' in the off-season. 2) Guy 'tweaked' his quad on day one of camp, either in the first running drills or from running from his bed to the breakfast table - take your pick - and has been rehabbing since. Doesn't exactly sound like 'The $60 Million Dollar Man' now, does he? 3) I absolutely do not hate that he got the money he wanted. Not at all. No freakin' way. But I would have been steamed as hell had he gotten it from Buffalo, and then pulled his crap all over again. There are reasons why a 340-pound athlete running a 4.8 40-yard dash out of college goes undrafted. The Bills took a shot, gave the guy a chance, paid him well beyond his wildest dreams, and turned him into a premier LT. The one thing they failed at - and that everyone will fail at - is stopping him from being an ass hole. Senator, you are literally incapable of responding to a peters post without injecting rage and calling the guy names, so it's more than a little ridiculous for you to call anyone a "child". 1) yes, peters held out. he wasn't in football shape when he reported, that happens when you don't practice with your team. you harp on his lack of effort all season long as though you know something about it, and i can assure everyone reading this board that you do not. if you're going to say that, present a fact, not a quote that you choose to take out of context. if you have no fact, quote, or teammate/coach's opinion to back it up, then stop spouting off about it as though it's a fact. the sack stat, as has been discussed ad naseum, it total BS. there's a reason that it's not an official stat, but go ahead and cling to it if it makes you feel better about peters' being gone. 2) some of the best players in the league get hurt in training camp. it happens all the time, and does not reflect--in any way, shape, or form--whether or not a player deserves to be paid. your boy flutie tore his groin in the first training camp practice of 2000, was he fat, lazy, and out of shape? panthers DT ma'ake kemeoteau reported to camp in the best shape of his playing career, and blew out his knee. s**t happens dude. 3) to base part of your anger towards peters on what could possibly happen down the road "if he gets his money and pulls this crap again" is really strange to me. i also find it peculiar that you want to give the organization--and only the organization, not peters--the credit for "turning him into a premier LT". i'd think that the guy deserves quite a bit of credit for going through 2 position changes and turning himself into a premier LT after going undrafted. and by the way, if you're confused as to why a 340-lb TE that is a poor route runner and has zero experience on the OL might go undrafted, well, perhaps you should ask yourself if you'd draft a 340-lb TE that is a poor route runner and has zero experience on the OL if you were a GM.
Guest dog14787 Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 I think it's a combination of factors, and BY FAR the biggest is simply that we don't draft well and we don't evaluate free agents well and we hire crappy coaches. Paying players and spending money are way, way, way down on the list of why we have been so crappy the last decade. I totally understand the Bills position on Jason Peters. I don't agree with it myself, because I think he is worth 10 million, but that is just an opinion. Every player has a monetary worth to your team -- how much you are willing to pay him to play that position. And every team has a team of evaluators to set that monetary number. The Bills, for instance, may say Peters is worth 9 million to us but not 10 million. That's a legitimate stance. But to me, the Bills evaluators, especially John Guy, are crappy. The Bills money men aren't really personnel people so that is a disadvantage. We just haven't made good decisions on who to draft and sign and for how much, and the coaches we signed and paid are subpar around the league. That's our problem, not Ralph and his purse strings. It's arguable that Ralph's unwillingness to pay even fair market rates to his coaches is part of the problem but there have been guys like Mike Tomlin and Ken Wisenhunt and John Fox etc that wouldnt have cost a lot but who would likely have done a better job here. The decisions like signing Dockery for 49 million just proved to be disasters, and that is John Guy the evaluator and Jim Overdorf the negotiator. Thanks for taking the time to explain and as always you seem to have a very good understanding of why the Buffalo Bills struggle.
The Senator Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 Senator, you are literally incapable of responding to a peters post blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. 1) yes, peters held out. he wasn't in football shape when he reported, that happens when you don't practice with your team. you harp on his lack of effort all season long as though you know something about it, and i can assure everyone reading this board that blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. 2) some of the best players in the league get hurt in training camp. it happens all the time, and does not reflect--in any way, shape, or blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. 3) to base part of your anger towards peters on what could possibly happen down the road "if he gets his money and pulls this crap again" is really strange to me. i also find it peculiar that you blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Fixed - and I'm sure you feel the same about my posts. Guess we'll just agree to disagree on this whole Peters thing? And sorry - wasn't calling you a child (or, at least, didn't mean to) - just quoting one of the corniest lines from the old Batman series. My apologies. GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!!
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 I'm not sure you're looking at this from the perspective of an Eagles fan. What would you think if when Stroud got traded here, he said in his first press conference "I really wanted to stay in Jacksonville, but I'll try to make the best of it." Stroud wanted out and Jax wanted him out. Beyond that, he wasn't looking to be, nor was he, paid at the top-end for DT's when he was traded to the Bills, and only cost the Bills a 3rd and a 5th rounder.
thebandit27 Posted August 6, 2009 Posted August 6, 2009 Fixed - and I'm sure you feel the same about my posts. Guess we'll just agree to disagree on this whole Peters thing? And sorry - wasn't calling you a child (or, at least, didn't mean to) - just quoting one of the corniest lines from the old Batman series. My apologies. GO BILLSSS!!!! 19 and 0 baby!!!!! Guess so...no harm done.
Recommended Posts