Hey all you Jason Peters haters

[PDaDdy]

but you also have personalities to be concerned with, and that's a big part of the pciture. is the guy a leader, a cancer, somewhere in-between? will he show up, do his job and be done with it? will he get his payday and lose the fire that brought him to the top of his game?

 

there was plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that they were taking a chance re-signing peters to a huge contract at that point in time. in fairness to the bills, they have to take that into cosideration. and, the nfl is littered with high profile players who signed for big money elsewhere and said team was sitting at home, just like the Bills, come playoffs.

 

Taking your argument to the extreme, shouldn't the pro-bowlers each year look to renegotiate their contract based on the new standard set with rookies and free agent signings? Should most of them holdout if they didn't get a new deal struck?

 

I'm absolutely ok trashing the bills brain trust for decisions made for virtually forever, but on this issue, peters was as much the problem as anyone else.

 

 

If they are already paid appropriately for their position, youth and skill level why would they need to renegotiate? That's a silly supposition. If there are any grossly underpaid young probowl performers then YES they should get new contracts. Most clubs wouldn't require them to hold out to do it. They pull the PLAYER into the office and reward them for a job well done. The player doesn't have to come begging. This is the kind of treatment that gets real franchises free agents and good players.

 

And signing any player is taking a chance. Fortunately front offices can rip up contracts and send a player packing anytime they want. The only issue is salary cap hit due to guaranteed money.

[Flbillsfan#1]

Man you are dense. What it PROVES is that Peters was negotiating for a better contract. Apparently you are unaware that usually you "ASK" for more than you are willing to "ACCEPT". I apologize if that concept is new to you but most of us know this already which is where our frustration comes from.

 

What we DO know is that what he did "ACCEPT" was less than what the highest paid LT received. To allege that he wouldn't have signed in Buffalo for the money he did with Philly is ridiculous pure unsubstantiated speculation. All it does is to lamely attempt to put 100% blame on Peters and none on our tight pursed front office!

 

The argument is getting old. The Peters can be replaced by Walker or Bell argument doesn't wash anymore. Quit with the sour grapes. Plain and simple he was a great YOUNG LT talent who was still improving as he had only been playing Tackle for what 5 years. We didn't want to pay him what he was worth. We tried to string him along at a GREAT bargain. He stood up for himself and demanded to be paid. END OF STORY.

Here are my final thoughts on the Peters saga.

 

I was ALL FOR the Bills resigning Peters & was disappointed when he was traded. Anyone can look up my posts to see I'm telling the truth. There is no way to know if he would have signed with the Bills or not for the amount he signed with the Eagles.

 

It was only after reading Peters remarks after the trade that I changed my mind about him. Those remarks along with the hold out & POOR PLAY the previous year spoke volumes about Peters character or lack there of to me.

 

He may have a very good career with the Eagles. I do not care. He is not a player I want on the team I love.

[Doc]

"Can the Patriots really afford to keep Seymour, Wilfork and Ty Warren?"

 

"Depending on the source, the Patriots are anywhere between $5 and 5.8 million under the cap for 2009. So they probably can't afford to give Wilfork the raise he's looking for in 2009. In reality, teams can find ways around the cap, and if the Pats want to extend Wilfork, they can find a way to do it. Adalius Thomas will cost the Patriots $13.2 million in cap money this season. You'd have to think they'd go to him first if they needed to find a player to restructure. James Sanders and Brandon Meriweather will each cost the team more than $3 million in cap dollars. Mike Wright will cost the team nearly $2.5 million. So there's some wiggle room if the Patriots need it. The bottom line: Ty Warren is staying through 2013, and he's counted as $10.5 million against the cap in 2009. Richard Seymour and Vince Wilfork will be without contracts following this season. If I were to guess, I'd say there's a zero percent chance both return, a 20 percent chance only Seymour returns (if Wilfork prices himself out), a 30 percent chance only Wilfork returns (if Seymour wants another payday), and a 50 percent chance neither return (if they both follow the dollars)."

 

http://thanksforplaying.weei.com/tag/vince-wilforks-wife/

 

 

Tough challenge there, Doc. Took me nearly three minutes.

 

To repeat the important bit from above: "...I'd say there's a zero percent chance both return..."

Let me repeat another important bit from above: "If if had to guess..."

 

As of right now, there is no cap for 2010. So any talk of "affording" a player is moot. But the bottom line is, if the Patriots wanted to keep Seymour, they would have.

 

And judging by the volume of your posts regarding Peters, I can only assume you're related to him somehow. I don't know anyone else that would go to such lengths to defend a guy who put the Bills in a horrible position, just because he didn't get paid $10M/year as soon as he demanded it. I too thought the Bills should have paid him last year, but ONLY after showing up first, given the way his 2007 season ended (with Umenyiora causing him to shred his groin). And his play in 2008 was poor and didn't help the Bills win many games, while his salary would have eaten-up 10% of the cap.

[Thurman#1]

So this link PROVES my point. Peters according to Lombardi was asking for OVER 10 Million per year.

 

 

 

If your point is that Peters was asking for more than he eventually recieved, you are right, you proved your point. However, that doesn't amount to anything, because I had already said many times that Peters was asking for more than he recieved. In fact, I don't think you will find anyone familiar with the situation who doesn't believe that you are right about that.

 

The point is, though, that the reason he asked for more than he got is because that's the way these things are done. You ask for more than you want. And you negotiate.

 

This doesn't prove that he didn't want to be in Buffalo. It proves that his agent had an IQ above single digits.

[PDaDdy]

Here are my final thoughts on the Peters saga.

 

I was ALL FOR the Bills resigning Peters & was disappointed when he was traded. Anyone can look up my posts to see I'm telling the truth. There is no way to know if he would have signed with the Bills or not for the amount he signed with the Eagles.

 

It was only after reading Peters remarks after the trade that I changed my mind about him. Those remarks along with the hold out & POOR PLAY the previous year spoke volumes about Peters character or lack there of to me.

 

He may have a very good career with the Eagles. I do not care. He is not a player I want on the team I love.

 

 

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree about his poor performance last year. By Peters standards it was not up to par. Compared to what we have now he was stellar. I attribute it to the hold out and not a problem with his talent. That could be taken by many as a character issue. I look at it as the result of a bargaining ploy.

 

I understand wanting to love all the players on your team for their performance AND personality but I am so tired of losing with "character" guys. Talent and character aren't mutually exclusive. If Russ signed him to the contract the Eagles did after 2007 Peters would be a home town hero. No hold out.

 

I want talent 1st, good teammates 2nd and good contract negotiators somewhere way down the line but I understand you standing on principal.

[Thurman#1]

This Link also proves my point that at that time, Peters was asking to be paid as the best LT in the game. Thanks for helping prove my point.

 

 

 

Again, if that was your point, then you also might want to spend a lot of time arguing that the sky is blue and that water is wet.

 

I have agreed with the fact that at the beginning of the negotiations his position was that he wanted to be paid as the best LT in the game. I agreed with it about five months ago and ever since. Yet again, that was what is known as a bargaining position, and a fairly reasonable one, as Peters is absolutely one of the two or three best LTs in the game, and is very possibly #1.

 

The nature of bargaining is that if you want $10, you had better ask for $15. That way when the other guy moves his offer up to $7, you can show movement and willingness to negotiate by moving your offer down to $12. Asking for something doesn't mean that you expect to get it.

[Adam]

The situation was handled poorly by all parties involved. The Bills would be a better team if they had Peters all through training camp and the start of the season. Peters is a better left tackle than Walker or Bell and that's why he was prematurely rushed on the field, when he wasn't ready to play yet.

 

He wanted to be overpaid. Many players in the league are overpaid based on need. He is gone and so is Pat Williams, Ted Washington, London Fletcher, Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield. The Bills are an amalgamation of front office errors

[PDaDdy]

The situation was handled poorly by all parties involved. The Bills would be a better team if they had Peters all through training camp and the start of the season. Peters is a better left tackle than Walker or Bell and that's why he was prematurely rushed on the field, when he wasn't ready to play yet.

 

He wanted to be overpaid. Many players in the league are overpaid based on need. He is gone and so is Pat Williams, Ted Washington, London Fletcher, Nate Clements and Antoine Winfield. The Bills are an amalgamation of front office errors

 

 

Unfortunately I think Peters exactly falls into this category of player. His contract became an issue to the point where fans started to become entrenched on either side of the situation so people won't forget. He could go on to another 1 - 8 pro bowls and people will still be complaining about his 2008 season ,which was WAY better than what we have currently but a down year for him.

 

Long story short he is 95% likely to be one of those guys where we are saying 3 years down the road..."MAN, how did we not keep [fill in name here]? We should have never let him go!"

[PDaDdy]

I suppose it's also like the Whitner vs Ngata debate. Some people will never give Whitner a chance because he wasn't Ngata. At least we will be able to resign Whitner for peanuts. Ngata being the star he is would have required a star level pay raise before or by the time his rookie contract expires which we wouldn't have paid.

 

Perhaps this is what the front office was thinking of all along on that choice!!!

[Mickey]

I bumped the thread because it kept getting buried on page two. I posted in the morning, afternoon & late at night, that is hardly every hour. The reason I did this is because you like to call everyone else out for links then you CAN'T provide one yourself. You provided two links. One was AFTER the agreement was in place to trade Peters which is NOT the link I asked for & the other PROVED MY POINT that Peters was asking for MORE than he signed for with the Eagles.

I don't really see how any of that matters. The reall issue is what happened during the offseason in 2008, not the failed attempt to sign him before the 2009 draft resulting in the trade to Philly. The Bills could have and should have signed him to an extension then. Something they could have done for less than whatever he was asking a year later. That was before the press conference Brandon had when camp opened in 2008 publicly calling out Peters. Throughout the contractual impasse that offseason, Parker and Peters did not classlessly conduct negotiations in public or try to use fan pressure against the Bills by getting them all riled up with a press conference of their own. The Bills poisoned their relationship beyond repair. I said then that it was a mistake to alienate a very good player who, sooner or later, you are going to have to negotiate with. I said then that Peters would end up never wanting to play for the Bills at any price.

 

He wanted a new deal, they wanted one more year out of him before discussing a new deal. The two sides had nothing to really talk about all offseason and during training camp. Neither side blinked until Peters finally reported in time to make sure he didn't miss a game check. About the only significant event in that whole time was the press conference Brandon had afterwhich this board exploaded. People actually believed that the problem wasn't the money now or next year problem but a communication problem. The only reason for Brandon to do what he did in that press conference was to use the press and the fans to pressure Peters. It didn't work. Parker and Peters whatever mistakes you may think they made, they never played that card.

 

It looks to me like the Peters haters have had to abandon their first point which was that Peters stinks and our line was improved without him because Walker and Chambers showed they were just as good when they held down the fort early in 2008. They seemlessly moved off of that to Demetrius Bell being the reason we didn't need Peters. Now that iit s clear that it was a mistake to lose Peters, something that was obvious everywhere outside the confines of this board, they have moved to a different point, that Peters wasn't going to sign with the Bills at any price so the Bills didn't really lose him, they had no choice and just did the best they could.

 

That notion however ignores what started in February of 2008 and focuses only on what little we know about the negotiations in 2009 that ultimately failed.

 

For those who want to torture themselves and those who will demand links, here is a link to a post showing my opinions then with links on the negotiations: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...amp;pid=1111692

 

In February of 2008, Peters had not yet held out, there had been no stupid press conference flaying Peters to the fans and Peters was a year further from free agency than he was in 2009. He wanted a new deal then and they wanted another year out of him under his old contract. It was a standoff that ultimately resolved to the detriment of the team and its fortunes on the field. You simply do not improve a team by losing good players.

 

Why fans get so obsessed over player contracts as if Ralph's money was their money, I'll never understand. So many get positively apoplectic over the idea of a player getting paid more than he is worth. Far less concern is ever expressed when a player is performing better than his contract. My only concern about contracts is the effect it has on keeping good players. Peters was a good player. So was Pat Williams, so was Antoine Winfield, so was Jabari Greer. If anyone of us picked up the paper in the morning and saw that the Bills just signed anyone of those guys, we'd all be smiling for a day or two over it.

[Mr. WEO]

I don't mean to be a jerk but you blew up your own argument. There are few lines of work (paying that much) where such an employee could shop their services to the highest bidder... Yep football is one of them You have obviously not worked in a profession where these rules hold true. In many technical fields, like the computer industry, network engineers, software developers, this does hold true when the economy isn't complete crap.

 

I won't say you have a disconnect from reality but it is obvious that you have never been in an industry where there is a great demand for skill and a very limited supply of talent. How many people of the billions in the entire world are capable of filling approximately 1590 positions in the NFL? Hopefully that gives you some perspective on the RARE talent, durability and athleticism it takes to play in the NFL.

No, you're not being a jerk--you just don't seem to understand what you originally posted.

 

You said:

 

 

Imagine if you and I had to sign contracts to work with our employer? A company brings us along and rewards our performance with an assistant manager job and pay grade and then shortly there after fires our manager and give us all of their responsibilities. Instead of giving us the corresponding pay raise, they ask us to handle all of a managers responsibilities for a few years but do it at an assistant managers pay. You would tell your employer where they could go and what they could "do" to themselves and find an employer that appreciated you for your worth and market value skills.

 

Most of us with any brain and ambition would do the same thing in their PROFESSION of choice!!!!

 

 

I was simply pointing out that the analogy was poor because "any of us in [our] PROFESSION of choice" could do as you say. Your current post agrees with mine and contradicts the above; i.e., you now claim such an option only exists for the most highly talented at specific jobs.

 

Anyway, JP held out, showed up in horrible shape and was part of an O-line that allowed a ton of sacks. As for durability, he again failed to complete a season at LT.

 

The question of his "greatness" is legitimate, regardless of your inability to acknowledge it.

 

For the record, I am familiar with jobs with a great demand for skill and a limited supply of talent.

[Cornerville]

Why fans get so obsessed over player contracts as if Ralph's money was their money, I'll never understand. So many get positively apoplectic over the idea of a player getting paid more than he is worth. Far less concern is ever expressed when a player is performing better than his contract. My only concern about contracts is the effect it has on keeping good players. Peters was a good player. So was Pat Williams, so was Antoine Winfield, so was Jabari Greer. If anyone of us picked up the paper in the morning and saw that the Bills just signed anyone of those guys, we'd all be smiling for a day or two over it.

 

WELL said Mickey.

 

Another thought: I think a lot of Bills fans here think that since teams like the Pats* don't 'cave' in to signing players to long term deals all the time, the Bills should act the same way...we are not the Pats* not even close...and couple that we are in a market that is less desirable them others, it is more imperative that this organization has a reputation of keeping its players.

 

What a colossal mess this organization is...its so bad, that it is actually comical

[Thurman#1]

Let me repeat another important bit from above: "If if had to guess..."

 

As of right now, there is no cap for 2010. So any talk of "affording" a player is moot. But the bottom line is, if the Patriots wanted to keep Seymour, they would have.

 

And judging by the volume of your posts regarding Peters, I can only assume you're related to him somehow. I don't know anyone else that would go to such lengths to defend a guy who put the Bills in a horrible position, just because he didn't get paid $10M/year as soon as he demanded it. I too thought the Bills should have paid him last year, but ONLY after showing up first, given the way his 2007 season ended (with Umenyiora causing him to shred his groin). And his play in 2008 was poor and didn't help the Bills win many games, while his salary would have eaten-up 10% of the cap.

 

 

Let me point out that unless you are the NFL executive involved in making the decision, your only choice is to guess or to not comment. The important point there isn't "guess," it is "if I had to..."

 

OK, if you're not getting the point that there is still a chance of having a salary cap in 2010, and that that has a MAJOR effect on the thoughts and actions of NFL GMs, you're not really worth talking to.

 

Gosh, you have shocked me there. You mean that our best player would have eaten up about 8% (actual figure, rather than your own inflated one) of the cap? Wow. Shocking. If that were true, we would join far more than half the teams in the NFL. The best players in the league get more money than the worst. This won't change. If you want to be surprised and frustrated by it, feel free, but it's a fact of life in the NFL.

 

Here is a site which ranks the top-salaried players in the NFL by salary. Peters doesn't even make the top 25. The top 25 ends with Calvin Pace, who recieved $12 million. And these salaries are LAST YEAR'S. Salaries go up, and this year's will be even higher.

 

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/footbal....aspx?year=2008

 

Peter King ranked Peters as the 32nd best player in the game. In the year 2006. And while he didn't have a good 2008, he has only gotten better.

 

He's currently listed as the second-best tackle in the league at profootballfocus.com, and it's worth noting that the #1, Joe Thomas, is being ranked on five games, while they apparently haven't had time to evaluate Peters' last game yet, so he's only being ranked on three games. Since their system gives points for plays that effect or change games, when they evaluate him on week 5, his score is likely to go up.

 

Go ahead and get all hissy about his salary eating up a percentage of the cap if you want, but he's a highly elite player at what is generally considered the second or third most important position in the game. He's worth it.

[Thurman#1]

No, you're not being a jerk--you just don't seem to understand what you originally posted.

 

You said:

 

 

Imagine if you and I had to sign contracts to work with our employer? A company brings us along and rewards our performance with an assistant manager job and pay grade and then shortly there after fires our manager and give us all of their responsibilities. Instead of giving us the corresponding pay raise, they ask us to handle all of a managers responsibilities for a few years but do it at an assistant managers pay. You would tell your employer where they could go and what they could "do" to themselves and find an employer that appreciated you for your worth and market value skills.

 

Most of us with any brain and ambition would do the same thing in their PROFESSION of choice!!!!

 

 

I was simply pointing out that the analogy was poor because "any of us in [our] PROFESSION of choice" could do as you say. Your current post agrees with mine and contradicts the above; i.e., you now claim such an option only exists for the most highly talented at specific jobs.

 

Anyway, JP held out, showed up in horrible shape and was part of an O-line that allowed a ton of sacks. As for durability, he again failed to complete a season at LT.

 

The question of his "greatness" is legitimate, regardless of your inability to acknowledge it.

 

For the record, I am familiar with jobs with a great demand for skill and a limited supply of talent.

 

 

He understands it.

 

I don't believe he ever claimed that this was only true at highly-skilled jobs with severely-limited talent pools. He just said that at those types of jobs, it was even more true and even easier to quickly upgrade your situation.

 

The jobs he cited as not being subject to this were entry-level or unskilled type positions. A majority of jobholders do indeed have legitimate opportunities to improve their situation if they are being treated poorly.

 

The analogy works fine.

 

And as for Peters' greatness, he is magnificently talented, and pretty much everyone has acknowledged it. The only question that was legit about him was whether he would lose motivation after he signed a huge contract. It's too early to judge definitively, but he's having a terrific year so far. It sure doesn't look like that is going to be a problem.

[Thurman#1]

I realize how negotiations work, that is why I KNEW you could not provide a link about what Peters was willing to accept prior to the trade with Philly. The point is you said you & everyone but me knew what Peters would accept which just is not true.

 

 

I never said that I knew to the dollar.

 

But yeah, it was pretty obvious from bracketing the offers where things were going. You looked at where the Bills offers were moving, and where Peters' proposals were moving, and you went to the middle. Which was right in the area where he ended up. SURPRISE!!!!!!

[Billy in 4C]

We have a left tackle? Could have fooled me...

[Mr. WEO]

He understands it.

 

I don't believe he ever claimed that this was only true at highly-skilled jobs with severely-limited talent pools. He just said that at those types of jobs, it was even more true and even easier to quickly upgrade your situation.

 

The jobs he cited as not being subject to this were entry-level or unskilled type positions. A majority of jobholders do indeed have legitimate opportunities to improve their situation if they are being treated poorly.

 

The analogy works fine.

 

And as for Peters' greatness, he is magnificently talented, and pretty much everyone has acknowledged it. The only question that was legit about him was whether he would lose motivation after he signed a huge contract. It's too early to judge definitively, but he's having a terrific year so far. It sure doesn't look like that is going to be a problem.

 

 

He said:

 

I don't mean to be a jerk but you blew up your own argument. There are few lines of work (paying that much) where such an employee could shop their services to the highest bidder... Yep football is one of them You have obviously not worked in a profession where these rules hold true.

 

Nice try--let the guy defend his own contradictory statements.

 

JP may be magnificently talented, but his performance last year was what it was. His durability is in question. He will not finish the year at LT.

[Doc]

Let me point out that unless you are the NFL executive involved in making the decision, your only choice is to guess or to not comment. The important point there isn't "guess," it is "if I had to..."

 

OK, if you're not getting the point that there is still a chance of having a salary cap in 2010, and that that has a MAJOR effect on the thoughts and actions of NFL GMs, you're not really worth talking to.

 

Gosh, you have shocked me there. You mean that our best player would have eaten up about 8% (actual figure, rather than your own inflated one) of the cap? Wow. Shocking. If that were true, we would join far more than half the teams in the NFL. The best players in the league get more money than the worst. This won't change. If you want to be surprised and frustrated by it, feel free, but it's a fact of life in the NFL.

 

Here is a site which ranks the top-salaried players in the NFL by salary. Peters doesn't even make the top 25. The top 25 ends with Calvin Pace, who recieved $12 million. And these salaries are LAST YEAR'S. Salaries go up, and this year's will be even higher.

 

Peter King ranked Peters as the 32nd best player in the game. In the year 2006. And while he didn't have a good 2008, he has only gotten better.

 

He's currently listed as the second-best tackle in the league at profootballfocus.com, and it's worth noting that the #1, Joe Thomas, is being ranked on five games, while they apparently haven't had time to evaluate Peters' last game yet, so he's only being ranked on three games. Since their system gives points for plays that effect or change games, when they evaluate him on week 5, his score is likely to go up.

 

Go ahead and get all hissy about his salary eating up a percentage of the cap if you want, but he's a highly elite player at what is generally considered the second or third most important position in the game. He's worth it.

Where did profootballfocus.com (who?) rank him last year? Sorry but a "highly elite" player doesn't play like that, even after missing training camp. Walter Jones routinely skipped training camp and dominated from the first snap of the season. And that's the reason the Bills balked at paying him what he demanded this past off-season, while ALL they asked the year before is that he come into camp before they talked about a new contract.

 

Whether he proves to be worth his contract still remains to be seen. And I can still can't say that he would have helped the Bills win any more games this year, because he doesn't play QB and he doesn't play ST's (which cost the Bills 2 games) anymore.

 

And there is ZERO indication that a new CBA is on the way. That means that until proven otherwise, there IS no cap for 2010. But even if there is, it didn't stop teams like the Eagles from doling out large contracts this past off-season.

[Thurman#1]

So this link PROVES my point. Peters according to Lombardi was asking for OVER 10 Million per year.

 

 

 

Hunh? Of course he was asking for over $10 mill a year. He GOT over $10 mill a year.

[Thurman#1]

I realize how negotiations work, that is why I KNEW you could not provide a link about what Peters was willing to accept prior to the trade with Philly. The point is you said you & everyone but me knew what Peters would accept which just is not true.

 

 

 

Actually what I said was that everyone but you knew what offers Peters was making.

 

You had said that nobody knew what goes on behind closed doors. I pointed out that Peters' agent was making his offers highly publicly. He was leaking them to half the reporters on the planet.

 

But you're right, it was also fairly easy to figure out the general vicinity where Peters was aiming to eventually sign, using the bracketing technique.