Thurman#1 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 You know Thurman.....everything that you are saying may very well be true.....but the more I think about it the more I fee the need to point something out...... Even HAD we kept Peters this team is still in trouble because our coaching is awful.......but lets say for arguement sake that Peters manages to keep Edwards jersey a little cleaner then it is being kept now.......perhaps even winning more games.....but even then I dont think it gets us better then our past two 7-9 seasons....BUT somehow Ralph finds a way to add up the money it will cost him and some cockamanee idea on how the team might be improving and keeps the coaching staff for yet another year...... I just dont think I can take another year of this......just blow the damn thing up......get high first round picks, bring in new blood in coaching staff, and try again. Next year you have Bell with another season under his belt and you have biult the interior of your OL......Aaron Maybin has a year under his belt and is probably 20 pounds heavier........young guys that are showing promise are also more experience....and hope to god that the new HC has the sense to know of veteran FA guys that can plug and play immediatey. John, this argument comes out of frustration, and God knows I can understand that. I have felt horrible the past two days. I just don't know what this team needs, and nobody else does either. It's unbelievably frustrating. But I have heard several people saying that Peters wouldn't have made us a playoff team, or Peters wouldn't have made us a great team, or whatever, so we were right not to sign him, and I think this argument couldn't be more wrong-headed. If we got a great linebacker right now, we wouldn't be a playoff team. So does that mean that we shouldn't try to improve the team by getting a great linebacker? Frankly, I hate how Trent is playing, but I don't think that even a good QB could make this team into a playoff team with the current OL and the current scheme. So we shouldn't bother to snag ourselves a good QB? That's how teams get good. By improving themselves at position after position, concentrating on the most important positions. LT is the second or maybe third most important position on a team. When you have a chance to get a great LT, you take it. Even if it wouldn't have made a huge difference this year, presumably we'll get a decent coach/QB/offensive coordinator/strength coach at some point in the next few years. And if Peters were there, at that point it would make a huge difference. We are quite likely at this point to have to spend a first-rounder over the next year or two to replace Peters - with a guy who simply isn't as good. And that will be a pick we could have used to get a QB, a stud LB, a stud DT or pass rusher or fill one of our many other needs. Right now, LT and QB are our two biggest weaknesses, certainly on the offense and probably on the team, and when that is the case, you shouldn't be surprised if your offense sucks. Does anyone think that Peters would have been the difference between 1-3 and 2-2, 3-1, or 4-0 at this point? I don't. See above.
Thurman#1 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 He held out for 2 consecutive offseasons, despite was the Bills told him about staying patient, and he would get paid. You are the second guy to say this recently. And it just isn't true. Peters held out for one year and one year only, 2008. And man, do I agree with you about those first round draft picks. The Donahoe years were a wasteland in the first round though he did alright in later rounds. As you say, I like the last three years or so. I think they are finally listening to Modrak, and it's paying dividends. I do really question our pro player people, though. We have done quite badly with FAs. Excepting the Stroud trade and maybe Drayton Florence, we haven't gotten a decent non-draftee in years. Almost not since Takeo Spikes and London Fletcher. Kavika has been solid, but not the real stud we had hoped.
Thurman#1 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Not sure anyone but Peters can say more than they think on what he was really feeling. I see the statistics, but don't understand why the Bills couldn't run behind him very well if he was such a great run blocker. Yes the statistics looked good from him. The isolation tape I watched of him on runs to his side, he didn't look like a great run blocker. Yes his guy didn't make the tackle most of the time, but his guy was able to seal the edge effectively most of the time, and that is usually what the ends job is, to seal the edge and for the running back to the LB's, He did look real good in the isolation for pass block on most of the plays however. Basically I am not trying to discount him as a player, he is a very good player. I agree with you there. I don't think he is a great run blocker, however, but is not a bad one either. He just happened to play on a line with a few horrible run blockers last year. Again, if he wasn't good, how come they had sensational results running behind him? Especially impressive when you consider that he was set next to an RG who had lost his motivation and a center platoon who were simply not up to NFL standards. Check footballoutsiders.com, last year and this year both. Check profootballfocus.com. There is a reason that both sites rank Peters as a very fine run blocker.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 You are the second guy to say this recently. And it just isn't true. Peters held out for one year and one year only, 2008. And man, do I agree with you about those first round draft picks. The Donahoe years were a wasteland in the first round though he did alright in later rounds. As you say, I like the last three years or so. I think they are finally listening to Modrak, and it's paying dividends. I do really question our pro player people, though. We have done quite badly with FAs. Excepting the Stroud trade and maybe Drayton Florence, we haven't gotten a decent non-draftee in years. Almost not since Takeo Spikes and London Fletcher. Kavika has been solid, but not the real stud we had hoped. The only reason Peters did not hold out two years is because he was TRADED. He would have held out again this year. He did not want to sign with the Bills unless they were willing to break the bank which they were not willing to do.
Thurman#1 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 ROFL, in this thread I saw "highly coveted undrafted free agent". I did not know Alanis Morisett was a Bills fan. Laugh all you want. Since 2000, more UDFAs have become pro-Bowlers than 7th rounders. And sixth rounders. Surprised, right? And fifth rounders, too, believe it or not, AND fourth rounders. That one blew my mind, but it's true. The point being that anyone who thinks UDFAs are unimportant simply is kidding himself. There are bidding battles for some of them, and that's just a fact. And Peters was one.
Thurman#1 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Anyone remember when Bruce Smith signed an offer sheet with the Broncos as a RFA? Man, that must have been terrible for building team unity. Here's a guy who gave the big F-U to the team over money. Obviously, Polian should have just let the guy walk, because by signing with another team, Smith should that he didn't want to be part of the Bills any longer. Right? Jim Kelly signed with the USFL instead of the Bills, showing that he cared more about money than playing in the NFL, and made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with Buffalo. Buffalo should have immediately traded his rights when Kelly signed with the USFL to a warm weather city, which is exactly what Kelly suggested they should do at that time, right? Basically following this advice about buying into drama of a contract negotiation, and take the statements made during a negotiation, would make for a lousy GM. That's why good GMs like Polian (who by the way was very vocal during negotiations) focused on getting the talent on the field, while lousy GMs like Brandon, showed that he has no skill to negotiate in the NFL. Bottom line, for 10 years Buffalo QBs have been chased and sacked all over the field. Building a strong offensive line with a corner-stone LT is a must to remedy this situation. Brandon f#cked this up because he has no ability to understand that talent on the field trumps contract negotiation banter in all circumstances. Thank you. Excellent post. I'd forgotten that about Bruce. Great stuff.
Thurman#1 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 The only reason Peters did not hold out two years is because he was TRADED. He would have held out again this year. LINK? The fact is that you're guessing. You have no idea. And more to the point, he wouldn't have held out at all if they had given him market value.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 LINK? The fact is that you're guessing. You have no idea. And more to the point, he wouldn't have held out at all if they had given him market value. Peters said so at the time. Peters did NOT want market value. He wanted to be paid as the BEST LT in the NFL (which he isn't).............which he also said at the time. Look it up.
Doc Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 They have the money for Seymour or Wilfork. Not both. Obviously, they chose Wilfork. What is their cap situation for 2010 (he asked, knowingly)? And Seymour always gave 100% on the field and always showed-up to off-season activities.
Max997 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 The reason Oher went so late in the draft compared to the top 3 guys is because there was a great deal of widespread doubt that he could ever handle left tackle. He's every bit the physical specimen that the top 3 guys are but there are major questions that he will be able to do the quick decision-making that being an LT requires. That's the reason that he didn't go in the top 10. And an awful lot of college LTs never make it at LT in the pros. It's a common problem. Also, Jared Gaither, the Ravens LT, is a stud. They needed help at RT. yeah Oher would have been horrible at LT for the Bills...he only started at LT this week going up against the NFLs co sack leader and played really well http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_...?urn=nfl,195375 the guy has now proved his is versatile enough to play both left and right tackle but you probably still cant admit he is a LT that would have been a big help to the Bills o-line and made trading Peters a non issue
PDaDdy Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 John, this argument comes out of frustration, and God knows I can understand that. I have felt horrible the past two days. I just don't know what this team needs, and nobody else does either. It's unbelievably frustrating. But I have heard several people saying that Peters wouldn't have made us a playoff team, or Peters wouldn't have made us a great team, or whatever, so we were right not to sign him, and I think this argument couldn't be more wrong-headed. If we got a great linebacker right now, we wouldn't be a playoff team. So does that mean that we shouldn't try to improve the team by getting a great linebacker? Frankly, I hate how Trent is playing, but I don't think that even a good QB could make this team into a playoff team with the current OL and the current scheme. So we shouldn't bother to snag ourselves a good QB? That's how teams get good. By improving themselves at position after position, concentrating on the most important positions. LT is the second or maybe third most important position on a team. When you have a chance to get a great LT, you take it. Even if it wouldn't have made a huge difference this year, presumably we'll get a decent coach/QB/offensive coordinator/strength coach at some point in the next few years. And if Peters were there, at that point it would make a huge difference. We are quite likely at this point to have to spend a first-rounder over the next year or two to replace Peters - with a guy who simply isn't as good. And that will be a pick we could have used to get a QB, a stud LB, a stud DT or pass rusher or fill one of our many other needs. Right now, LT and QB are our two biggest weaknesses, certainly on the offense and probably on the team, and when that is the case, you shouldn't be surprised if your offense sucks. Intelligent and calm post. I have also had this discussion with people. You will never be a play off team if you are continually filling holes because you are unwilling to pay your top talent fair market value for their talents. Sometimes you have to let some go. Other times you have to accept what the market value is and pay it. We spend SO much time spinning our wheels replacing great players that we were unwilling to play. We are never able to improve on our talent level as we are always trying to replace the guy we wouldn't fairly compensate. I'm not saying you have to pay EVERY star performer at every position but you have to pay some. LT is the second most important position on o-line. The Patriots are a good example of this. They had a tough decision to make between 2 players in Wilfork and Seymour. They kept and will/did pay Wilfork fair market value and they got something for Seymour while they could. The Bills on the other hand when faced with similar decisions generally let those types of guys play out their contracts and then let them leave in free agency getting nothing. Our strategy seems to be to NOT pay and let go the REALLY good players but sign the slightly above average to solid role players. Maybe they think this is where the "value" is. My question is "how's that working out for us?".
dave mcbride Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Thank you. Excellent post. I'd forgotten that about Bruce. Great stuff. Read and discuss: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...11/week5/5.html "2. I think if you're a Chiefs' fan, you might want to skip this section. Kansas City refused to give Jared Allen a top-tier defensive end contract 18 months ago, instead shipping him to Minnesota for what appeared to be fair compensation three days before the 2008 draft. Here's how the deal looks today: What the Chiefs got: 1st round (15th overall) Branden Albert, OT -- Starting LT has a chance to be good. In-and-out work ethic. 3rd round (73) Jamaal Charles, RB -- Change-of-pace back averaging five carries a game in 21 pro games. 3rd round (82) DaJuan Morgan, S -- Sub safety who still has to prove self to new coaching staff. 6th round (182) Kevin Robinson, WR -- Cut by Chiefs in '08. What the Vikings got: Jared Allen, DE -- The league's best all-around defensive end has 21 sacks and three safeties in 22 Viking games. 6th round (187) John Sullivan, C -- First-year starting center on one of NFL's best lines. It's not certain, but it's possible that history will show that the Vikings got a more productive player at 187 (Sullivan) than the Chiefs got at 15 (Albert). Ouch."
PDaDdy Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 The only reason Peters did not hold out two years is because he was TRADED. He would have held out again this year. He did not want to sign with the Bills unless they were willing to break the bank which they were not willing to do. The only reason Peters held out in 2008 and possibly would have in 2009 is because our tight pursed front office wouldn't pay him what he was worth!!!
PDaDdy Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Peters said so at the time. Peters did NOT want market value. He wanted to be paid as the BEST LT in the NFL (which he isn't).............which he also said at the time. Look it up. If he did how come he didn't sign for that kind of money with Philly? It's just a negotiation claim statement rumor that he obviously didn't adhere to. Look it up.
PDaDdy Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Read and discuss: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...11/week5/5.html "2. I think if you're a Chiefs' fan, you might want to skip this section. Kansas City refused to give Jared Allen a top-tier defensive end contract 18 months ago, instead shipping him to Minnesota for what appeared to be fair compensation three days before the 2008 draft. Here's how the deal looks today: What the Chiefs got: 1st round (15th overall) Branden Albert, OT -- Starting LT has a chance to be good. In-and-out work ethic. 3rd round (73) Jamaal Charles, RB -- Change-of-pace back averaging five carries a game in 21 pro games. 3rd round (82) DaJuan Morgan, S -- Sub safety who still has to prove self to new coaching staff. 6th round (182) Kevin Robinson, WR -- Cut by Chiefs in '08. What the Vikings got: Jared Allen, DE -- The league's best all-around defensive end has 21 sacks and three safeties in 22 Viking games. 6th round (187) John Sullivan, C -- First-year starting center on one of NFL's best lines. It's not certain, but it's possible that history will show that the Vikings got a more productive player at 187 (Sullivan) than the Chiefs got at 15 (Albert). Ouch." Lesson to learn from this. When you have GREAT talent at VERY important positions YOU KEEP AND PAY THEM LEST YOU END UP SUCKING!!!!
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 If he did how come he didn't sign for that kind of money with Philly? It's just a negotiation claim statement rumor that he obviously didn't adhere to. Look it up. He had NO CHOICE but to sign that deal with the Eagles. NO TEAM was going to pay him as the best LT in the game & he wanted out of Buffalo.
bills_fan Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Read and discuss: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...11/week5/5.html "2. I think if you're a Chiefs' fan, you might want to skip this section. Kansas City refused to give Jared Allen a top-tier defensive end contract 18 months ago, instead shipping him to Minnesota for what appeared to be fair compensation three days before the 2008 draft. Here's how the deal looks today: What the Chiefs got: 1st round (15th overall) Branden Albert, OT -- Starting LT has a chance to be good. In-and-out work ethic. 3rd round (73) Jamaal Charles, RB -- Change-of-pace back averaging five carries a game in 21 pro games. 3rd round (82) DaJuan Morgan, S -- Sub safety who still has to prove self to new coaching staff. 6th round (182) Kevin Robinson, WR -- Cut by Chiefs in '08. What the Vikings got: Jared Allen, DE -- The league's best all-around defensive end has 21 sacks and three safeties in 22 Viking games. 6th round (187) John Sullivan, C -- First-year starting center on one of NFL's best lines. It's not certain, but it's possible that history will show that the Vikings got a more productive player at 187 (Sullivan) than the Chiefs got at 15 (Albert). Ouch." Makes you think twice about dealing a proven player for picks.
Cornerville Posted October 13, 2009 Author Posted October 13, 2009 We are quite likely at this point to have to spend a first-rounder over the next year or two to replace Peters Bingo. PLUS you have to know the Bills have a reputation around the NFL in that, they will not always pay players they have who are ready for a big contract, and sign guys like Owens when noone else wants them. $ay what you want about Peters attitude...Talent > Attitude, especially with the OL.
Mr. WEO Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Read and discuss: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...11/week5/5.html "2. I think if you're a Chiefs' fan, you might want to skip this section. Kansas City refused to give Jared Allen a top-tier defensive end contract 18 months ago, instead shipping him to Minnesota for what appeared to be fair compensation three days before the 2008 draft. Here's how the deal looks today: What the Chiefs got: 1st round (15th overall) Branden Albert, OT -- Starting LT has a chance to be good. In-and-out work ethic. 3rd round (73) Jamaal Charles, RB -- Change-of-pace back averaging five carries a game in 21 pro games. 3rd round (82) DaJuan Morgan, S -- Sub safety who still has to prove self to new coaching staff. 6th round (182) Kevin Robinson, WR -- Cut by Chiefs in '08. What the Vikings got: Jared Allen, DE -- The league's best all-around defensive end has 21 sacks and three safeties in 22 Viking games. 6th round (187) John Sullivan, C -- First-year starting center on one of NFL's best lines. It's not certain, but it's possible that history will show that the Vikings got a more productive player at 187 (Sullivan) than the Chiefs got at 15 (Albert). Ouch." If Peters had even 1/2 the impact on any team that Jared Allen has, this would be a discussion worth having.
webtoe Posted October 13, 2009 Posted October 13, 2009 Thank you. Excellent post. I'd forgotten that about Bruce. Great stuff. That is a false analogy as there was no open free agency at the time, and the player would never have any opportunity to play for another team. Peters could have held out, showed up for the last 8 weeks of the next two seasons and be an unrestricted free agent. The Bills had no leverage. I wish we still had Peters, but based on what he has said since, he had no intention of signing here after he held out in 2008.
Recommended Posts