K-9 Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 A VERY good question. The ONLY and I mean ONLY reason we still discuss it is because SOME people won't admit that he was a) a GREAT player b) We probably SHOULD have paid him c) The ONLY reason they can hold against him is that they don't like that the NFL is a business and an employee will generally go to the employer willing to pay them the highest or AT LEAST fair market value for their talent. ONCE PEOPLE CAN ADMIT THESE THINGS THE DISCUSSION ENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So the discussion ends when EVERYONE agrees with your viewpoint on the matter. Got it. What a sad commentary on the fragility of your ego. GO BILLS!!!
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 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. Hardly a silly supposition at all. Peyton Manning becomes the highest paid player if football, Tom Brady, Ben Rothly, Peyton Drew Brees, et al, are by definitionn not. Tom Brady lead the most prolific offense in the history of the NFL just a short time ago. Rothly delivers one of the clutch performances in the history of the game. Come on, each time a new guy is the highest paid at any position by extension there has to be a minimum of three of four who might reasonably be expected to feel slighted. Your scenario works get in theory, but ignores real word factors. In the end, I respect your right to argue that Peters was mistreated, I'll continue to hold that Peters was a large part of the problem.
PDaDdy Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 So the discussion ends when EVERYONE agrees with your viewpoint on the matter. Got it. What a sad commentary on the fragility of your ego. GO BILLS!!! YES....lol...well me and a VERY large group of other realists ....OR....I suppose that we could just listen to the group that says "Why are we still discussing this. It's a dead issue"...Got it
PDaDdy Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Hardly a silly supposition at all. Peyton Manning becomes the highest paid player if football, Tom Brady, Ben Rothly, Peyton Drew Brees, et al, are by definitionn not. Tom Brady lead the most prolific offense in the history of the NFL just a short time ago. Rothly delivers one of the clutch performances in the history of the game. Come on, each time a new guy is the highest paid at any position by extension there has to be a minimum of three of four who might reasonably be expected to feel slighted. Your scenario works get in theory, but ignores real word factors. In the end, I respect your right to argue that Peters was mistreated, I'll continue to hold that Peters was a large part of the problem. I think I understand what you are saying but what does it have to do with my post you replied to? Are you suggesting when Peyton Manning got paid that Brady, Brees, et al who are already highly paid and in excess of their fair market value should go ask for more money? Also if Peters was indeed a large part of the problem....wouldn't it logically follow that things should have gotten better? I assumed you meant his performance on the field. If you were referring to the contract situation I think it is a bit of a reach to place most of the blame on Peters when it was Russ Brandon that gave him and assistant managers pay and then made him acting manager for 2 years. Don't you? Maybe in your personal life you don't have the same drive and ambition or a set of highly desirable skills but no way "I" put up with that!!! Only a chump would put up with that.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 I think I understand what you are saying but what does it have to do with my post you replied to? Are you suggesting when Peyton Manning got paid that Brady, Brees, et al who are already highly paid and in excess of their fair market value should go ask for more money? Also if Peters was indeed a large part of the problem....wouldn't it logically follow that things should have gotten better? I assumed you meant his performance on the field. If you were referring to the contract situation I think it is a bit of a reach to place most of the blame on Peters when it was Russ Brandon that gave him and assistant managers pay and then made him acting manager for 2 years. Don't you? Maybe in your personal life you don't have the same drive and ambition or a set of highly desirable skills but no way "I" put up with that!!! Only a chump would put up with that. No need to make it personal, but if you feel like you need to, go to town. The post I replied to, and some of the subsequent things you've written lead me to the conclusion that you place the failure to re-sign Peters squarely and solely at the feet of Bill's management. I disagree and think it's an oversimplification of the situation. You wrote at one point that the oft-cited commentary that Peters would never re-sign in Buffalo was impossible to prove. I agree with you on that. How could we really know what happened? All I was suggesting was that the decision to re-sign a player is not as simple as pro-bowl = we gotta sign him. I contend that the Bill's may rightly have questioned his attitude toward the team and his time in Buffalo, and his desire to play at a high level if they signed him to a fat contract on his terms. I also contend there are other working parts to the team, including but not limited to other contractual issues with other players that they must thing about. I guess you see it as Peter's holding out so he wouldn't get screwed by the man, I see it as the man might have worried about Peter's sticking it to him. In my personal life, I became self-employed because I have a set of skills that work for me, quite nicely in fact. I left a nice job that paid well and offered very nice benefits because I felt like I could be happier controlling my own destiny. Along the way, wisdom was acquired that allowed me to quite rationally come to the conclusion that in every interaction between two parties, there are three likely outcomes: What party number one says, what party number two says, and the truth, which is generally somewhere in the middle. In Peter's case, say what you want, think what you want, but I find it hard to find him the only aggrieved party in the NFL who HAD to skip camp and show up at the last moment. Better players than him have played for less than "market value" based on their past accomplishments. Finally, speaking of over-simplification, the NFL is a complicated game. The decision to sign, or not to sign, one player does not guarantee success. I never suggested that not signing Peter's should have resulted in a better line, just as I'm sure you wouldn't guarantee me a top 3 offense if they had signed him. I'm no fan of the Bill's management and share the frustration of virtually every other loyal Bills fan and agree changes need to be made. At the same time, I won't give Peter's a pass for how things ended up just because he was an all-pro, and won't assume he was a victim here.
PDaDdy Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 No need to make it personal, but if you feel like you need to, go to town. The post I replied to, and some of the subsequent things you've written lead me to the conclusion that you place the failure to re-sign Peters squarely and solely at the feet of Bill's management. I disagree and think it's an oversimplification of the situation. You wrote at one point that the oft-cited commentary that Peters would never re-sign in Buffalo was impossible to prove. I agree with you on that. How could we really know what happened? All I was suggesting was that the decision to re-sign a player is not as simple as pro-bowl = we gotta sign him. I contend that the Bill's may rightly have questioned his attitude toward the team and his time in Buffalo, and his desire to play at a high level if they signed him to a fat contract on his terms. I also contend there are other working parts to the team, including but not limited to other contractual issues with other players that they must thing about. I guess you see it as Peter's holding out so he wouldn't get screwed by the man, I see it as the man might have worried about Peter's sticking it to him. In my personal life, I became self-employed because I have a set of skills that work for me, quite nicely in fact. I left a nice job that paid well and offered very nice benefits because I felt like I could be happier controlling my own destiny. Along the way, wisdom was acquired that allowed me to quite rationally come to the conclusion that in every interaction between two parties, there are three likely outcomes: What party number one says, what party number two says, and the truth, which is generally somewhere in the middle. In Peter's case, say what you want, think what you want, but I find it hard to find him the only aggrieved party in the NFL who HAD to skip camp and show up at the last moment. Better players than him have played for less than "market value" based on their past accomplishments. Finally, speaking of over-simplification, the NFL is a complicated game. The decision to sign, or not to sign, one player does not guarantee success. I never suggested that not signing Peter's should have resulted in a better line, just as I'm sure you wouldn't guarantee me a top 3 offense if they had signed him. I'm no fan of the Bill's management and share the frustration of virtually every other loyal Bills fan and agree changes need to be made. At the same time, I won't give Peter's a pass for how things ended up just because he was an all-pro, and won't assume he was a victim here. Well said. I was merely trying to make a point of not putting up with it. Sorry if I made it personal. I'm not a fan of his hold out but do think that perhaps it unfortunately was his only leverage. The problem is that it hurt the team and that is something I think everyone can agree on. I don't know that there were really any better players in respect to their position that were that underpaid. James Harrison of the Steelers does come to mind. But after turning in a year, perhaps 2, of great performances he was rewarded. I think part of the issue as I believe someone posted earlier said was that he was the worst paid LT in the league. A good front office doesn't allow that to happen and rewards performance if not for anything else than to show other players and potential free agents that they can expect to be treated well and that Buffalo is a franchise that takes care of it's stars. You do make some good points that I agree with though.
LancasterSteve Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 . You wrote at one point that the oft-cited commentary that Peters would never re-sign in Buffalo was impossible to prove. I agree with you on that. How could we really know what happened? I was told face to face by Russ Brandon himself and again in part before a previous Bills Booster meeting, that the Bills in their negotiations actually tried to offer Peters a better contract, but that Peters agent would not return the Bills calls. He further stated that the Bills felt that the only option left was to try to get fair compensati0n for Peters in a trade. That they were sorry that JP wanted to move on or some words to that effect. Many Boosters were upset (me among them) that the Bills failed to resign Peters, so Russ Brandon got peppered with many questions about the Peters non-signing and subsequent trade. There are other posters from TwoBillsDrive that were there and if they happen to read this, they might offer something I may have forgot. Sigh, once you hit 60 everything starts to go including memory
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 . You wrote at one point that the oft-cited commentary that Peters would never re-sign in Buffalo was impossible to prove. I agree with you on that. How could we really know what happened? I was told face to face by Russ Brandon himself and again in part before a previous Bills Booster meeting, that the Bills in their negotiations actually tried to offer Peters a better contract, but that Peters agent would not return the Bills calls. He further stated that the Bills felt that the only option left was to try to get fair compensati0n for Peters in a trade. That they were sorry that JP wanted to move on or some words to that effect. Many Boosters were upset (me among them) that the Bills failed to resign Peters, so Russ Brandon got peppered with many questions about the Peters non-signing and subsequent trade. There are other posters from TwoBillsDrive that were there and if they happen to read this, they might offer something I may have forgot. Sigh, once you hit 60 everything starts to go including memory but isn't it awesome to have been around so long that the standing Buffalo is cool again? I'm not not 60 yet, 48 this year, but my 10 year old loves the throwbacks. a few years back i was speaking with scott berchtold at a party, when he lived near my sister. the question came up about the past acquisition of randy moss---at the time still considered by some to be a malcontent who would divide the team and maybe had loss a step or three. when sb was asked about it, he looked almost surprised someone would ask it and said basically----"duh, yeah. brady/welker/moss?? we're very concerned!". so, alot of th news and focu was on how it might divide the pats,while the guys in the know, well, knew."
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Well said. I was merely trying to make a point of not putting up with it. Sorry if I made it personal. I'm not a fan of his hold out but do think that perhaps it unfortunately was his only leverage. The problem is that it hurt the team and that is something I think everyone can agree on. I don't know that there were really any better players in respect to their position that were that underpaid. James Harrison of the Steelers does come to mind. But after turning in a year, perhaps 2, of great performances he was rewarded. I think part of the issue as I believe someone posted earlier said was that he was the worst paid LT in the league. A good front office doesn't allow that to happen and rewards performance if not for anything else than to show other players and potential free agents that they can expect to be treated well and that Buffalo is a franchise that takes care of it's stars. You do make some good points that I agree with though. fair enough then. we probably agree on 90% of our thoughts on the bills, it's just some of these hot issues still sting a bit. have a good night. tim
BillsVet Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 I was told face to face by Russ Brandon himself and again in part before a previous Bills Booster meeting, that the Bills in their negotiations actually tried to offer Peters a better contract, but that Peters agent would not return the Bills calls. He further stated that the Bills felt that the only option left was to try to get fair compensati0n for Peters in a trade. That they were sorry that JP wanted to move on or some words to that effect. Many Boosters were upset (me among them) that the Bills failed to resign Peters, so Russ Brandon got peppered with many questions about the Peters non-signing and subsequent trade. I also remember RB saying the Bills had offered Peters the largest contract in team history. That's somewhat misleading, as NFL deals aren't guaranteed. But I don't think it'd be out of the question to say the contract was 6 yrs and 9M per. At 54M total, it's less (in total dollars) than what Peters received in Philadelphia but more than Schobel received 2 years ago. Peters may not singlehandedly win games for his new team, but he's a far cry from losing them. Even factoring the cost, his being on this team would mean the line wouldn't change like it did, and the need to draft a LT (Bell is nowhere near ready) wouldn't be there either.
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 The trouble with Brandon's "damage control" efforts are stories like the Hall of Fame ceremony that he apparently "knew nothing at all about". Although others in the organization knew about it and called it off the Friday before, supposedly. Yet, there was no half-time and people from the Hall of Fame were in attendance supposedly. Both sides were at fault, I have no doubt. Peters wasn't overly professional from his side of it nor would I wager that Brandon was really Mr. Clean from his side. It was just a good old fashioned pissing match without cooler heads and ultimately, as always, the Bills fans got the big shaft.
Thurman#1 Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Thanks, you are more than holding your own. There actually were decent, rational reasons for the Bills to play hardball with Peters. In my opinion the balance of interests weighed heavily in favor of signing him to a new conrtract in the spring of 2008 but there were good arguments to make on the other side. What was maddening to me was that rather than make those rational arguments, people like Sen mostly hurled personal insults of the worst kind at Peters and at anyone on the board who dared post anything supporting Peters or questioning the wisdom of the team's strategy. I never understood and still don't, why it is that people here turn with such a mean spirited vengeance against fellow Bills fans who disagree on some issue related to the team. It is one thing to post your opinion that Peters or Jauron is a moron but quite another to post that anyone who disagrees is also a moron. It is obnoxious and regularly leads to one toxic thread after another. Can you even imagine anyone showing up at a tailgate and saying that kind of stuff to peoples faces? I doubt even the worst offenders here would of act like that on their worst day. But give them a patina of anonymity and watch out. I guess that is the nature of these boards so you just have to deal. If you can avoid wrestling with the trees, there is a forest of information to be found here. Yeah, it's so true, you can't imagine them talking that way to anyone in person. And I also agree that there were good reasons for them to play hardball with Peters. But ... not if they were then going to cave and trade him. You should only play hardball if you're then going to put up with whatever comes back at you. The Bills played hardball and then cracked. If they weren't willing to pay market value, they should have kept him, put up with any holdouts, and made it clear that after his contract ran out that they were going to franchise him. In other words, they should have forced him to sign a contract, and if they had done that, they probably could have worked out some small discount, something in the high $9 mill per year range. If they weren't willing to do that, they shouldn't have played hardball. What they really should have done is reward him earlier on, though. Well, our QBs will pay the price for these moves, until Bell develops (it's worth hoping) or until we get a decent LT in here as a replacement. But good LTs just aren't available as FAs or for trade. Peters is about the only example. So if Bell doesn't work out, we'll end up having to blow an early first round pick on an LT or go yet another decade without having one and wondering why our OL sucks and our QBs all develop happy feet.
Thurman#1 Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Anyway, [Peters is] gone---and our QB is still getting sacked as if he was still here. So there you go. Yeah, but Philly's QB isn't. The Bills are #31 in the league, having allowed 18 sacks. The Eagles are tied for #6 in the league, having allowed 6 sacks.
Thurman#1 Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 So the discussion ends when EVERYONE agrees with your viewpoint on the matter. Got it. What a sad commentary on the fragility of your ego. GO BILLS!!! So you only join discussions where everybody agrees with you? You're an unusual person.
Thurman#1 Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 Hardly a silly supposition at all. Peyton Manning becomes the highest paid player if football, Tom Brady, Ben Rothly, Peyton Drew Brees, et al, are by definitionn not. Tom Brady lead the most prolific offense in the history of the NFL just a short time ago. Rothly delivers one of the clutch performances in the history of the game. Come on, each time a new guy is the highest paid at any position by extension there has to be a minimum of three of four who might reasonably be expected to feel slighted. Your scenario works get in theory, but ignores real word factors. In the end, I respect your right to argue that Peters was mistreated, I'll continue to hold that Peters was a large part of the problem. Real world factors? When was the last time someone in the real world tried to force renegotiation because he had slipped from #1 to #2? What causes people to try to renegotiate is almost always being radically underpaid, and if you don't think Peters was radically underpaid when he was the lowest-paid starting LT in football, I don't know what to say to you.
8-8 Forever? Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 I think Bell has played pretty well. The fact that he's hurt kind of hurts evaluating him, but I think he's done pretty well considering he was just thrown in there. Hell, he still may end up playing more games this year, than Peters played last year. this is why ralph wilson is the smartest guy in the world.. he owns a franchise in a place where the fans are OK with and keep buying tickets and merchandise while their best players simply walk away and are replaced by basketball players. i wish I was ralph wilson.. most bills fans can rationalize away anything...
Thurman#1 Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 . You wrote at one point that the oft-cited commentary that Peters would never re-sign in Buffalo was impossible to prove. I agree with you on that. How could we really know what happened? I was told face to face by Russ Brandon himself and again in part before a previous Bills Booster meeting, that the Bills in their negotiations actually tried to offer Peters a better contract, but that Peters agent would not return the Bills calls. He further stated that the Bills felt that the only option left was to try to get fair compensati0n for Peters in a trade. That they were sorry that JP wanted to move on or some words to that effect. Many Boosters were upset (me among them) that the Bills failed to resign Peters, so Russ Brandon got peppered with many questions about the Peters non-signing and subsequent trade. There are other posters from TwoBillsDrive that were there and if they happen to read this, they might offer something I may have forgot. Sigh, once you hit 60 everything starts to go including memory Hey Steve, I'm a bit younger than you, but my memory is already on it's way out. I definitely don't place ALL the blame on Russ. Peters deserves his share, and particularly for that thing about not answering phone calls. That was idiotic. But you say that Russ wanted to give him a better contract. The question, and I'm sure you already realize this but it's worth repeating, is how much better. The Bills offered around $6 - $7 mill per year at the beginning of this off-season. If I pick up the phone and listen to that offer, I would have wished I hadn't wasted the time of having the conversation. The time to offer $8 or $9 mill was right after the season in 2007.
billsfreak Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 A VERY good question. The ONLY and I mean ONLY reason we still discuss it is because SOME people won't admit that he was a) a GREAT player-how can a LT that led the league in sacks allowed be Great? He isn't, never has been,never will be b) We probably SHOULD have paid him-If we pay every overrated player who wants ANOTHER renegotiated contract, we would be worse than we are now.c) The ONLY reason they can hold against him is that they don't like that the NFL is a business and an employee will generally go to the employer willing to pay them the highest or AT LEAST fair market value for their talent.-and Peters like most others are more concerned with being overpaid than winning or improving their game, he game was getting worse each year in Buffalo. ONCE PEOPLE CAN ADMIT THESE THINGS THE DISCUSSION ENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thurman#1 Posted October 17, 2009 Posted October 17, 2009 WHY WON'T THIS THREAD DIE?!!??!?!? Maybe because people like you keep supporting it!! Thanks for your participation.
Recommended Posts