Thurman#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Wow, what a revelation! That's not a slam on you, FL. I appreciate you providing the info. But Peters' attitude problems in Buffalo were well known. Not just because it was obvious from what he said but also from what others said off the record. Yeah, it sucks not to have a talented LT but not at the expense of the rest of the team. To say he was a malcontent is an understatement. The short term pain of losing him is well worth the long term gain of not having to deal with a jerk. GO BILLS!!! Sourpuss to malcontent. Typical unsupported leap made by a pure hater.
Thurman#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 I do want to know why Thurman#1 loves Peters so much. However I am not going to ask because I don't want to be bombarded with posts telling me to provide a LINK as to why I don't like him. As a Giants fan, I love that he is in the NFC East. Good luck with that. Seriously. I like the Giants more than the Eagles, but Peters is going to make life tough on Umenyiora. And I have explained this a hundred times, but the vein-popping Peters hating crowd doesn't hear it. But maybe you haven't read it, so I'll be glad to explain. I don't like Peters. Don't hate him either. From what I can tell, he wasn't a great guy. I hated the way he didn't answer the phone during negotiations, for example. But I respected his skills greatly and thought he was a huge asset for the Bills. And I think that the development of the current left tackle situation on the Bills just goes further to show that this was simply a bad trade for the Bills, weakening the team. It's that simple. And I'm going to be here saying that. And if you start making unsupported wild claims, you're right, I'll ask you for a link. Crazy me. You have been nice enough, though, so far on this thread, so you certainly deserve a polite reply, which I hope this qualifies as.
Thurman#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Go read the 23 page Jason Peters mega thread. I swear the last four pages are filled with people yelling at each other to provide links to specific things about him. Yeah, it's true. And the guys I challenged weren't able to provide a link. And when they challenged me, I provided a link.
Thurman#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 I predict one thing about Jason Peters in Philly. The Eagles will cut him in a salary savings move before the end of his contract. You heard it here first. Although this year might be OK to good for Peters, I see nagging injuries long term and also lack of effort once the novelty wears off of having a big contract. In life when someone has a bad attitude like Jason Peters did for parts of two seasons, things will come up in Philly that will dictate a bad attitude there as well. You can't just turn it on and off in a sport as brutal as football. He was a slacker his last year here and he will find he will at times be a slacker in Philly even if he doesn't intend to be at this point. That is why it was best the Bills did not re sign him. He would not have been great for the long haul based on his personality. Fair enough. I certainly disagree, but fair enough.
WellDressed Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 The price to go back would have gone up at that point. Would have been like 1 million since he's be more valuable then. The Eagles were cheap and they got their QB killed because of it. They could have had Peters in the game for that extra 500k, but they didn't want to pay and look where that got them. The eagles are cheap, but they draft better than we do.
PDaDdy Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 I predict one thing about Jason Peters in Philly. The Eagles will cut him in a salary savings move before the end of his contract. You heard it here first. Although this year might be OK to good for Peters, I see nagging injuries long term and also lack of effort once the novelty wears off of having a big contract. In life when someone has a bad attitude like Jason Peters did for parts of two seasons, things will come up in Philly that will dictate a bad attitude there as well. You can't just turn it on and off in a sport as brutal as football. He was a slacker his last year here and he will find he will at times be a slacker in Philly even if he doesn't intend to be at this point. That is why it was best the Bills did not re sign him. He would not have been great for the long haul based on his personality. So let me get this straight. So if he is a GREAT LT for a few years and then 4, 5, 6 years down the road they cut him some how your point is relevant? Please explain? Are you trying to make some point that matters by saying he could be a salary cap casualty years in the future? Really going out on a limb there aren't you? LOL
Malazan Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Jason Peters is the Fitzpatrick of the Eagles. The missing link, the difference between just missing and winning the big game. That one element that was missing that makes the team better. The guarantee of a deep playoff run. Just think, we could have had Jason Peters at LT AND Fitzpatrick at QB. Missed opportunities...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Yeah, it's true. And the guys I challenged weren't able to provide a link. And when they challenged me, I provided a link. No you didn't. I asked for a link that showed what Peters was willing to accept prior to the trade because you said everyone but me knew what it was. You DID NOT provide that link. You provided a link showing what he asked for which was MUCH higher than what he signed for.
K-9 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Sourpuss to malcontent. Typical unsupported leap made by a pure hater. Sourpuss v. malcontent? Is there really a discernable difference relative to the attitude of a player who is unhappy with his contract? Unless Peters was HAPPY with his situation then, by DEFINITION, we was not content. Ergo, he was a malcontent. In the words of Marv Levy, "Look it up, Thurman." Unsupported leap? Umm, no. I'll let Marv's comments suffice as support enough. Let alone JP's OWN comments about the situation. Please don't ask me for links, though. It's beneath you. Hater? Wrong again. Never hated the man. Great respect for his ability (try reading the part in my post where I say it sucks to not have a talented LT). Besides, why would any mature adult hate another person for such a trivial reason? Never mind. Marv's revelations aside (I trust you realize he WAS close to the situation as an insider), I have it on pretty good authority that JP made it a POINT to make sure everyone on that team KNEW how unhappy he was. But you can just take Marv's word for it, ok. He is a great player, no doubt. I've never said or thought otherwise. But the way he handled things in the eyes of most of us leaves him wide open to get his balls busted when the opportunity arises. Like it did when he made his childish quote after the Oakland game. GO BILLS!!!
Thurman#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 No you didn't. I asked for a link that showed what Peters was willing to accept prior to the trade because you said everyone but me knew what it was. You DID NOT provide that link. You provided a link showing what he asked for which was MUCH higher than what he signed for. Yeah, you did ask for a link that showed what Peters was willing to accept before the trade. Thing is that I never said that I had the exact facts on that. You're not allowed to just suddenly say "I want a link on this," if the guy didn't say anything about it. That's missing the point of asking for a link. You can figure out just about what he was likely to accept, yes, with a bracketing technique, and I said so. But I never said I had the exact figure. That particular bit of the thread went something like this: Thurman#1: Green. Green and blue. FlBillsFan#1: Oh, yeah, well prove it. Show me a link that says "Red." Go ahead, I dare you. Thurman#1: I never said "Red." In fact, I agree with you that "Red " is wrong. (sends links showing green and blue). FlBillsFan#1: See, I told you you couldn't produce a link that says "Red." Thurman#1: I never said "Red." I agree that "Red" is wrong. FlBillsFan#1: See. That proves my point. You don't seem to get the point of asking for a link. When a guy states something as a fact, you can ask for a link that proves it. You asked me to show you a link. But I simply never said I could show "what Peters was willing to accept prior to the trade." You had said that all the figures were unknown, and I said that the offers from Peters' camp had leaked. Then you came out of left field and asked me to link to something I had never said. On the other hand, here's what you said: I don't understand what you are trying to say. He did NOT sign with the Bills, although it has been reported the Bills offered him the same money the Eagles paid him. I asked for a link. You couldn't provide one. There's never been any credible report like this. Anyway, that argument is in the other thread. I'm not going to re-open it again here. Above, you said "I asked for a link that showed what Peters was willing to accept prior to the trade because you said everyone but me knew what it was." I simply never said that everyone knew what it was, I never said that. I may have said that people had some idea of where it was from bracketing, something like that. But I simply never said what you said I did. If you can prove differently, I'll owe you an apology.
Thurman#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Sourpuss v. malcontent? Is there really a discernable difference relative to the attitude of a player who is unhappy with his contract? Unless Peters was HAPPY with his situation then, by DEFINITION, we was not content. Ergo, he was a malcontent. In the words of Marv Levy, "Look it up, Thurman." Um, you're saying that anyone who is momentarily not content with his situation is a malcontent? Well, in that case, yeah, Peters is a malcontent. And so is every player, and for that matter, person, who has ever lived. "Look it up, Thurman," you say? OK. Dictionary.com has one definition of malcontent as a noun: "a malcontent person, esp. one who is chronically discontented or dissatisfied." So, no, he's not a malcontent by definition, not at all. Marv said "sourpuss," and you exaggerated it to malcontent.
Thurman#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Sourpuss v. malcontent? Is there really a discernable difference relative to the attitude of a player who is unhappy with his contract? Unless Peters was HAPPY with his situation then, by DEFINITION, we was not content. Ergo, he was a malcontent. In the words of Marv Levy, "Look it up, Thurman." Unsupported leap? Umm, no. I'll let Marv's comments suffice as support enough. Let alone JP's OWN comments about the situation. Please don't ask me for links, though. It's beneath you. Hater? Wrong again. Never hated the man. Great respect for his ability (try reading the part in my post where I say it sucks to not have a talented LT). Besides, why would any mature adult hate another person for such a trivial reason? Never mind. Marv's revelations aside (I trust you realize he WAS close to the situation as an insider), I have it on pretty good authority that JP made it a POINT to make sure everyone on that team KNEW how unhappy he was. But you can just take Marv's word for it, ok. He is a great player, no doubt. I've never said or thought otherwise. But the way he handled things in the eyes of most of us leaves him wide open to get his balls busted when the opportunity arises. Like it did when he made his childish quote after the Oakland game. GO BILLS!!! Hey, if all your posts were as calm and well-reasoned as this, I would have no argument with you, K-9. I disagree, but except for the stretch from sourpuss to malcontent, and my doubts on your good authority (not you particularly - I doubt everyone who says they have things on good authority until they prove it), this is a great post. I can definitely understand people not liking Peters. But what do you mean "childish quote after the Oakland game"? Don't quite know what you mean.
K-9 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Um, you're saying that anyone who is momentarily not content with his situation is a malcontent? Well, in that case, yeah, Peters is a malcontent. And so is every player, and for that matter, person, who has ever lived. "Look it up, Thurman," you say? OK. Dictionary.com has one definition of malcontent as a noun: "a malcontent person, esp. one who is chronically discontented or dissatisfied." So, no, he's not a malcontent by definition, not at all. Marv said "sourpuss," and you exaggerated it to malcontent. Peters was "momentarily" unhappy with his contract? Even if you give it a conservative time estimate, he was unhappy about it for over a year. Although he started griping as early as the offseason before 2007. If a year is "momentary" I'd hate to hear your definition of something that takes forever. He was the poster child of someone "chronically dissatisfied" with his situation. I stand by my use of the term malcontent. If you still care to quibble, feel free. Marv also said he was grumpy and, confirming what many have not only speculated but heard from some around the organization, he was "effecting" the team. What do you suppose he meant by this? Do you think JP was having a "positive" influence in the locker room? It all adds up to being malcontent. If anything, based on Marv's statements alone, using the word malcontent not only applies, it may very well be an understatement, let alone an exaggeration. GO BILLS!!!
Thurman#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Peters was "momentarily" unhappy with his contract? Even if you give it a conservative time estimate, he was unhappy about it for over a year. Although he started griping as early as the offseason before 2007. If a year is "momentary" I'd hate to hear your definition of something that takes forever. He was the poster child of someone "chronically dissatisfied" with his situation. I stand by my use of the term malcontent. If you still care to quibble, feel free. Marv also said he was grumpy and, confirming what many have not only speculated but heard from some around the organization, he was "effecting" the team. What do you suppose he meant by this? Do you think JP was having a "positive" influence in the locker room? It all adds up to being malcontent. If anything, based on Marv's statements alone, using the word malcontent not only applies, it may very well be an understatement, let alone an exaggeration. GO BILLS!!! Yeah, he was unhappy about his contract for a year, but so was Greer. Was he a malcontent? I can give you lists of others who were unhappy with their contracts for a long time but were not malcontents. I'm sorry, but using the fact that he was unhappy with his contract as the only evidence to prove that he was a malcontent simply doesn't do the job. Chronic does not mean temporary. Something that happens over the course of a year is not chronic, it is temporary. Marv said sourpuss, you inflated it. Dictionary.com: Sourpuss: a person having a grouchy disposition that is often accompanied by a scowling facial expression. Malcontent: a malcontent person, esp. one who is chronically discontented or dissatisfied. These just aren't the same. A grouch versus a chronically discontented guy. Not the same thing. Is Peters a grouch? I haven't a clue, and I don't care. Is he a malcontent? He's been a good team guy throughout most of his career. It is absolutely certain that Marv's calling him a sourpuss doesn't go towards proving him a malcontent. You say "heard from some around the organization, he was 'effecting' the team." I'm sorry, but I never heard this. I heard that some guys were frustrated that he was letting this drag on so long, but I never heard that he was poisoning the team or whatever. Maybe I missed it. Do you have a link? If you can find a quote, even an anonymous one, from somebody saying that he was affecting the team, that would go against Peters (so I'd be interested to see it, and it would make my impression of him more negative), but again wouldn't prove him a malcontent, because malcontents are chronic. Is Lance Briggs a malcontent? I don't think so, and he's not known as one. He had a problem, it lasted a bit more than a year, but wasn't permanent, and now he's playing well and helping the team. Just like Peters is playing extremely well and helping his team. Was Bruce Smith a malcontent? He signed an offer to go to another team right during the glory years. He was frustrated and angry, on an ongoing basis. When the Bills matched the offer, he was satisfied and played well. The only difference is that the Bills stepped up for Bruce, and they didn't for Peters. If you want to keep arguing, go ahead, but I've finished with this. (Unless you come up with that link. I would really be interested in seeing that.)
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Yeah, you did ask for a link that showed what Peters was willing to accept before the trade. Thing is that I never said that I had the exact facts on that. You're not allowed to just suddenly say "I want a link on this," if the guy didn't say anything about it. That's missing the point of asking for a link. You can figure out just about what he was likely to accept, yes, with a bracketing technique, and I said so. But I never said I had the exact figure. That particular bit of the thread went something like this: Thurman#1: Green. Green and blue. FlBillsFan#1: Oh, yeah, well prove it. Show me a link that says "Red." Go ahead, I dare you. Thurman#1: I never said "Red." In fact, I agree with you that "Red " is wrong. (sends links showing green and blue). FlBillsFan#1: See, I told you you couldn't produce a link that says "Red." Thurman#1: I never said "Red." I agree that "Red" is wrong. FlBillsFan#1: See. That proves my point. You don't seem to get the point of asking for a link. When a guy states something as a fact, you can ask for a link that proves it. You asked me to show you a link. But I simply never said I could show "what Peters was willing to accept prior to the trade." You had said that all the figures were unknown, and I said that the offers from Peters' camp had leaked. Then you came out of left field and asked me to link to something I had never said. On the other hand, here's what you said: I asked for a link. You couldn't provide one. There's never been any credible report like this. Anyway, that argument is in the other thread. I'm not going to re-open it again here. Above, you said "I asked for a link that showed what Peters was willing to accept prior to the trade because you said everyone but me knew what it was." I simply never said that everyone knew what it was, I never said that. I may have said that people had some idea of where it was from bracketing, something like that. But I simply never said what you said I did. If you can prove differently, I'll owe you an apology. You stated as FACT everyone knew what Peters was willing to ACCEPT except me. I asked you to prove it with a link. You couldn't.
Thurman#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 You stated as FACT everyone knew what Peters was willing to ACCEPT except me. I asked you to prove it with a link. You couldn't. Sigh. LINK? Give me a link to where I said that. You know which thread it should be in. It just shouldn't be difficult to find. Again, if you can find where I said this, I will owe you an apology.
Flbillsfan#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Sigh. LINK? Give me a link to where I said that. You know which thread it should be in. It just shouldn't be difficult to find. Why bother? anyone interested can sort through it all. I think this thread is done.
K-9 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Yeah, he was unhappy about his contract for a year, but so was Greer. Was he a malcontent? I can give you lists of others who were unhappy with their contracts for a long time but were not malcontents. I'm sorry, but using the fact that he was unhappy with his contract as the only evidence to prove that he was a malcontent simply doesn't do the job. Chronic does not mean temporary. Something that happens over the course of a year is not chronic, it is temporary. Marv said sourpuss, you inflated it. Dictionary.com: Sourpuss: a person having a grouchy disposition that is often accompanied by a scowling facial expression. Malcontent: a malcontent person, esp. one who is chronically discontented or dissatisfied. These just aren't the same. A grouch versus a chronically discontented guy. Not the same thing. Is Peters a grouch? I haven't a clue, and I don't care. Is he a malcontent? He's been a good team guy throughout most of his career. It is absolutely certain that Marv's calling him a sourpuss doesn't go towards proving him a malcontent. You say "heard from some around the organization, he was 'effecting' the team." I'm sorry, but I never heard this. I heard that some guys were frustrated that he was letting this drag on so long, but I never heard that he was poisoning the team or whatever. Maybe I missed it. Do you have a link? If you can find a quote, even an anonymous one, from somebody saying that he was affecting the team, that would go against Peters (so I'd be interested to see it, and it would make my impression of him more negative), but again wouldn't prove him a malcontent, because malcontents are chronic. Is Lance Briggs a malcontent? I don't think so, and he's not known as one. He had a problem, it lasted a bit more than a year, but wasn't permanent, and now he's playing well and helping the team. Just like Peters is playing extremely well and helping his team. Was Bruce Smith a malcontent? He signed an offer to go to another team right during the glory years. He was frustrated and angry, on an ongoing basis. When the Bills matched the offer, he was satisfied and played well. The only difference is that the Bills stepped up for Bruce, and they didn't for Peters. If you want to keep arguing, go ahead, but I've finished with this. (Unless you come up with that link. I would really be interested in seeing that.) That's the safe play. I'll just follow-up with one last question: is it possible that one's experience as a malcontent can lead him to have a grouchy disposition accompanied by a scowling facial expression? Your incessant need to argue semantics is what causes you to lose sight of the big picture. Why do you so easily dismiss Marv's more important point about JP's impact on the locker room (ok, that's two questions)? THAT was the biggest reason the Bills decided to part ways. It's strange that you simply ignore that. Your comparison to Greer is ludicrous. For too many reasons to list and you wouldn't give a crap anyway. GO BILLS!!! PS - I see you did some (read: A LOT) of editing to the original post. As I said earlier, I'll let Marv's comments about the situation be your almighty "link." You obviously missed that in my earlier post. If you dismiss Marv as an insider that would know how JP's attitude is effecting the team, by all means, dismiss him. The rest you can simply refuse to believe. I don't care. But you really might want to entertain the idea that some people know people as friends and aren't about to compromise that friendship for the sake of a cyber-psycho who would then proceed to bombard them with rants about the situation and DEMAND from them LINKS proving how JP's negative influence was a disruption around the office WHEN THEY WERE STANDING RIGHT THERE WITNESSING SAID DISRUPTIONS! And yes, Bruce was one of the biggest malcontents in the history of the organization. What that has to do WITH ANYTHING germane to this discussion is a mystery to everyone but you.
K-9 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Why bother? anyone interested can sort through it all. I think this thread is done. Done? You think this thread is done? This thread is done when Thurman says it's done! GO BILLS!!!
Thurman#1 Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 Why bother? anyone interested can sort through it all. I think this thread is done. You've lost your credibility. Maybe this is indeed time for you to leave.
Recommended Posts