jwws9999 Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 I thought the OLine needed time to jel/gel. (sarcasm on) If Philly can shuffle new OLineman willy nilly during training camp, then I guess that conventional wisdom doesn't apply to them. And why would it? It's not like they sought after and paid top dollar for "one of the best players at the game's most important position" (sarcasm off) couldn't juaron just convert one of his cornerbacks to play LT, you idiots seem to think you can plug anyone into that spot
Speedy G Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Why not wait till we see how they perform in the preseason, before we lambaste them with negative criticism, I'm as skepticle as the rest, but no one has a crystal ball and can honestly say that they know they are gonna suck, if you're a psychic, please do tell us, are we gonna make the playoffs? I for one am gonna stay cautiously optimistic and keep my glass half full as opposed to the negative alternative. . .
iinii Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Great point. I can understand about being comfortable with a certain position, especially one that you've played your whole career, but why would you not want to move to a position where you could double your salary??? Lnagston has gotten his big contract and won't be getting that blockbuster deal. I think his reaction is being over simplified. He doesn't strike me as the bubbling over gushy p.r. type. He is probably very matter of fact, and while he may not be over joyed to be at LT he will put on his hard hat and go do his job.
Thurman#1 Posted August 1, 2009 Author Posted August 1, 2009 No evidence other than the two times in five years he asked for a reworked contract. And Williams, Greer, Clements, Winfield, etc... these guys were all happy to go to free agency and get new contracts. Actually, Williams desperately wanted to stay in Buffalo. And how do you know what the others felt? Not to mention that it is beside the point. You said that guys get a new contract if they are good boys. I pointed out plenty of cases when that was not true.
Thurman#1 Posted August 1, 2009 Author Posted August 1, 2009 Peters has missed the last 2 games of the season the past 2 years. So there's a concern. Being on the PUP list was likely a polite way of saying that he came into camp in less-than-optimal condition. And it seemed to take Peters by surprise. Welcome to Philly! Where is your evidence that being on PUP is likely because of coming into camp a bit out of shape? Seen any speculation in the papers? Are you aware that seven guys were put on PUP at the same time, including Shawn Andrews, Asante Samuel and Trevor Laws. Yeah, Asante Samuel is always showing up out of shape. Your assumption shows a lot more about you than it does about Peters. And I'm sure that if he heard you say "Welcome to Philly," he'd have an answer for you. "Thanks."
Thurman#1 Posted August 1, 2009 Author Posted August 1, 2009 If he makes the Pro Bowl, it will be based on performance, not rep like Peters last year. But if that happens, the more important question is, will he holdout until 2 days before the season starts, play like crap, and then refuse to negotiate with the Bills unless he gets his numbers? You know, he might if he were clearly among the top 3 at his position in the league, while being paid as the 32nd best at his position. Peters was the lowest-paid starting LT in the league. So if that situation ever comes up and Walker finds the Bills unwilling to negotiate, well, yeah, he might very well hold out.
Thurman#1 Posted August 1, 2009 Author Posted August 1, 2009 I keep on hearing how the bills redo contracts for SOME players Isnt there a common theme of those players that they actually come into camp and be part of the team while they work this out? Oh, you mean like Greer. And Jim Leonhard. And Mario Haggan. I could go on and on.
Captain Caveman Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Actually, Williams desperately wanted to stay in Buffalo. And how do you know what the others felt? Not to mention that it is beside the point. You said that guys get a new contract if they are good boys. I pointed out plenty of cases when that was not true. First, I didn't say anything about being good boys. Second, these guys played out their contracts, and the Bills decided they did not want to sign them to new contracts, because they didn't feel they were worth the money. There's a huge difference.
Captain Caveman Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Oh, you mean like Greer. And Jim Leonhard. And Mario Haggan. I could go on and on. You are going on and on. Every team decides not to re-sign players. The Bills' choices of who to keep and who to let go have certainly puzzled some people over the years, that's one of the reasons we're the most mediocre teams of the decade. But in most cases where they let a player go, they had reasonable concerns about that player. In the case of Williams, I hated to see him go, but they were worried about a guy that big holding up over the long haul. Clements was obviously not worth the $. For each of these players there's a reason they let him go. In the case of Peters, they didn't trust him to keep showing up and working hard once he got the $. I don't blame them. You're allowed to disagree.
Thurman#1 Posted August 1, 2009 Author Posted August 1, 2009 Sure, you can ask for a raise when you get a promotion. But when your last raise was more than you had earned at that point, and when you stop showing up for work, you're not going to get it. The first raise came before he had actually established himself as an OT, but the Bills thought he would pretty good, and gave him some pretty good $ up front. He was desperate for it and took it. And as for your attack on Wilson's spending, weren't you the one who was complaining about paying Dockery? It may not have worked out in that case, but you can't have it both ways. When you get a promotion, you're not supposed to have to wait for the raise. After his raise, Peters had played one and a half years at LT and been superb and showed consistent improvement. Where are you getting that he hadn't established himself as an RT before he got that first raise. He was excellent from day one. Belichick called him the best player on the Bills offense while he was still playing RT, before he signed that second contract. I'm not attacking Wilson's spending. Show me where I did. I am attacking certain decisions made by the Bills, including not paying Jason Peters what he was worth before this problem was even a blip on the horizon. Yeah, absolutely.
Thurman#1 Posted August 1, 2009 Author Posted August 1, 2009 I thought the OLine needed time to jel/gel. (sarcasm on) If Philly can shuffle new OLineman willy nilly during training camp, then I guess that conventional wisdom doesn't apply to them. And why would it? It's not like they sought after and paid top dollar for "one of the best players at the game's most important position" (sarcasm off) Hunh?
Thurman#1 Posted August 1, 2009 Author Posted August 1, 2009 First, I didn't say anything about being good boys. Second, these guys played out their contracts, and the Bills decided they did not want to sign them to new contracts, because they didn't feel they were worth the money. There's a huge difference. You (or whoever wrote the post I was referring to when I wrote this) said that if you come to camp and handle your business - this is what I meant by being good boys - then you get a new contract. I pointed out that that is not true. Yeah, there is a big difference. They got screwed and performed for several years for less money than they were worth. Peters didn't. That's the main difference. Another difference is that none of those guys was being so egregiously underpaid. The Bills signed him to a new contract that was reasonable for an RT. Then less than half a year later, they switched him to LT. You have to think that it was very probable that they had already considered that RT to LT switch and signed him to the second contract largely to save themselves from paying him LT money. The RT contract, looked at in that way, was anything but a gift or a kindness from the Bills. Again, Peters was the lowest-paid LT in the league. They should have given him a raise, and done it much earlier.
Thurman#1 Posted August 1, 2009 Author Posted August 1, 2009 You are going on and on. Every team decides not to re-sign players. The Bills' choices of who to keep and who to let go have certainly puzzled some people over the years, that's one of the reasons we're the most mediocre teams of the decade. But in most cases where they let a player go, they had reasonable concerns about that player. In the case of Williams, I hated to see him go, but they were worried about a guy that big holding up over the long haul. Clements was obviously not worth the $. For each of these players there's a reason they let him go. In the case of Peters, they didn't trust him to keep showing up and working hard once he got the $. I don't blame them. You're allowed to disagree. Oh, come on. They didn't let Greer go because they had doubts about him. Same for all of these guys. And if they did let them go for that reason, well, that's just another reason for Peters to have been concerned that the Bills were going to use him and milk him for the next three years and then maybe let him go for some reason only the Bills understood.
zazie Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 You are going on and on. Every team decides not to re-sign players. The Bills' choices of who to keep and who to let go have certainly puzzled some people over the years, that's one of the reasons we're the most mediocre teams of the decade. But in most cases where they let a player go, they had reasonable concerns about that player. In the case of Williams, I hated to see him go, but they were worried about a guy that big holding up over the long haul. Clements was obviously not worth the $. For each of these players there's a reason they let him go. In the case of Peters, they didn't trust him to keep showing up and working hard once he got the $. I don't blame them. You're allowed to disagree. Jim Leanhard and Mario Haggan are a far cry from a pro bowl LT that we could have kept for 10 years.
Cynical Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Oh, come on. They didn't let Greer go because they had doubts about him. Same for all of these guys. And if they did let them go for that reason, well, that's just another reason for Peters to have been concerned that the Bills were going to use him and milk him for the next three years and then maybe let him go for some reason only the Bills understood. Question: Didn't the Bills try to resign Greer before he hit free agency? Answer: Yep. Linky I guess Capt. Caveman did not get the memo. The Bills wanted to keep Greer.
Sisyphean Bills Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Lnagston has gotten his big contract and won't be getting that blockbuster deal. I think his reaction is being over simplified. He doesn't strike me as the bubbling over gushy p.r. type. He is probably very matter of fact, and while he may not be over joyed to be at LT he will put on his hard hat and go do his job. One could also look at it that the front office is setting him up to fail so they have a good excuse to cut his bloated contract next year. Asking a guy that has been in the NFL 8 years to elevate his game and step in at the toughest position on the OL after a rather pedestrian career to date is nothing short of a major gamble. There is a non-zero chance that Walker isn't cut out to be an elite LT, which will give the Bills a ready reason to go after someone else next off-season and toss Walker and his contract on the scrap heap. It's not like the writing isn't 10 foot high on the wall either after this past off-season.
zazie Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Question: Didn't the Bills try to resign Greer before he hit free agency? Answer: Yep. Linky I guess Capt. Caveman did not get the memo. The Bills wanted to keep Greer. They tried real hard; they offered him clearly less than he could get on the open market...
thewildrabbit Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Jim Leanhard and Mario Haggan are a far cry from a pro bowl LT that we could have kept for 10 years. I wholeheartedly agree here, the Bills found him and trained him to a pro bowl level by the very same O line coach who trained HoF Anthony Munoz. Jim McNally had stated that Peters and Munoz were very similar.
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Where is your evidence that being on PUP is likely because of coming into camp a bit out of shape? Seen any speculation in the papers? Are you aware that seven guys were put on PUP at the same time, including Shawn Andrews, Asante Samuel and Trevor Laws. Yeah, Asante Samuel is always showing up out of shape. Your assumption shows a lot more about you than it does about Peters. I re-read the article about Peters and I got it wrong the first time. He's actually got a problem with his quad. Which is worse, not passing the conditioning test because you're out of shape or injured? And I'm sure that if he heard you say "Welcome to Philly," he'd have an answer for you. "Thanks." We'll see what he says the longer he's on the PUP and depending on how he performs. The money may be greener on the other side, but the grass isn't always.
ThereIsNoDog Posted August 1, 2009 Posted August 1, 2009 Oh, come on. They didn't let Greer go because they had doubts about him. Same for all of these guys. And if they did let them go for that reason, well, that's just another reason for Peters to have been concerned that the Bills were going to use him and milk him for the next three years and then maybe let him go for some reason only the Bills understood. They didn't have doubts about Greer per se, although he did miss 6 games last year. They just felt that McGee and McKelvin are better and couldn't justify spending over $5M/year on him.
Recommended Posts