Jason Peters watch

[Thurman#1]

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.

 

 

Yeah, you said you'd let Marv's comments stand. It's just that they prove what you say they do. Call it semantics if you want, hey, semantics is just the study of the meaning of words. Marv said one thing and you're saying he said another.

 

And if you have friends who saw this, great, then you know. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that for every guy who actually has friends inside the Bills there are 10 who say they have friends inside, so I make a policy to believe nobody. I'm not saying you are lying or anything. Just that you don't convince me (nobody does - again, this isn't personal). Which shouldn't worry you too much, after all.

 

EDIT: Yeah, I do edit. I worry if I haven't expressed myself clearly. I worry if my tone is too harsh. I worry a lot. If that bugs you, I genuinely apologize.

 

SECOND EDIT: Oh, and I worry that I might have missed something like your Bruce comments. Bruce wasn't a malcontent by my definition. He certainly had unhappy periods. But trading or getting rid of Bruce even though he had those periods would have been one of the biggest mistakes in franchise history. Which helps explain my position that getting rid of Peters (without an adequate backup plan) was simply a horrible decision.

[Mr. WEO]

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

 

It's likely that you missed his point.

 

First, he has to BE a "GREAT LT for a few years".....

 

And if he was, why would they cut him? He will unlikely be...so they will cut him to save otherwise wated money.

[thebandit27]

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!!!

 

So--according to your exact words--it's better to let him go than to pay him because he is a malcontent (and a jerk, no less). Yet, somehow, you state the following:

 

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.

 

Really? I thought that Thurman's point would be obvious to even the most casual (and biased, in this instance) of readers.

 

The point is this (since somehow, amazingly, you missed it): If a player is really talented, has proven it on the field (two points to which you already acquiesce relative to Peters in this very thread), and is unhappy (read: malcontented) with his contract, why not pay him and make him happy so that you can get the most out of him? That's what the team did with Bruce (I suspect you already knew that, which totally belies your claim that the point of bringing up Bruce is a mystery to you), but not what they did with Peters. Side note: why the team felt it was okay to pay one guy that routinely held out and also went a got an offer from another team, but didn't feel it was okay to pay another guy that held out for one off-season is totally beyond me, but I digress.

 

You clearly--based on your posts--agree that (1) Peters was a great player, (2) Peters was a "malcontent", (3) Bruce was also a "malcontent", and (4) the team was better served paying Bruce than letting him go, but somehow you don't see the relevance of the comparison? Come on dude.

 

Now, if you wanted to retort the Bruce Smith comparison, the only reasonable platform that I can see would be to say that Bruce never had a "let-down" season similar to Peters' 2008 performance (which I think most reasonable folks would agree was at least partially due to the holdout). Fine. I'd be okay with that statement, because it's true. That doesn't mean that paying Peters and making him happy would be wrong. In fact, I think--by all accounts other than Senaturd's Eagle-message-board-cronies (see the gigantic thread that you supposedly despise yet keep referencing in order to take shots at Thurman)--the Eagles are proving that it would have been a great move, based on his performance thus far.

 

So, in short: it should be really obvious what Thurman's mention of Bruce Smith has to do with this discussion.

[The Senator]

Why do I keep responding? Because I felt like it.

 

And yeah, I noticed the perverse crush you do in fact obviously have on me, and commented on it. You're like a junior high girl. You started talking about me before I even got on the thread. If it weren't so amusing, it would be pitiful.

 

Well, I'm seriously bored by this. Unless you say something infinitely more interesting than you have, I won't be responding to your further comments on this (and they'll only prove my point anyway).

Oh yeah you will - you're far from done - you've only got 22 posts in this thread, leaving another 40 or so posts you'll need to answer!!!!

 

(Only try not to act too queer - I know that's tough for for a knob-gobbler like you, but you're giving folks the creeps with all your talk about 'perverse crushes' :w00t: )

[K-9]

So--according to your exact words--it's better to let him go than to pay him because he is a malcontent (and a jerk, no less). Yet, somehow, you state the following:

 

 

 

Really? I thought that Thurman's point would be obvious to even the most casual (and biased, in this instance) of readers.

 

The point is this (since somehow, amazingly, you missed it): If a player is really talented, has proven it on the field (two points to which you already acquiesce relative to Peters in this very thread), and is unhappy (read: malcontented) with his contract, why not pay him and make him happy so that you can get the most out of him? That's what the team did with Bruce (I suspect you already knew that, which totally belies your claim that the point of bringing up Bruce is a mystery to you), but not what they did with Peters. Side note: why the team felt it was okay to pay one guy that routinely held out and also went a got an offer from another team, but didn't feel it was okay to pay another guy that held out for one off-season is totally beyond me, but I digress.

 

You clearly--based on your posts--agree that (1) Peters was a great player, (2) Peters was a "malcontent", (3) Bruce was also a "malcontent", and (4) the team was better served paying Bruce than letting him go, but somehow you don't see the relevance of the comparison? Come on dude.

 

Now, if you wanted to retort the Bruce Smith comparison, the only reasonable platform that I can see would be to say that Bruce never had a "let-down" season similar to Peters' 2008 performance (which I think most reasonable folks would agree was at least partially due to the holdout). Fine. I'd be okay with that statement, because it's true. That doesn't mean that paying Peters and making him happy would be wrong. In fact, I think--by all accounts other than Senaturd's Eagle-message-board-cronies (see the gigantic thread that you supposedly despise yet keep referencing in order to take shots at Thurman)--the Eagles are proving that it would have been a great move, based on his performance thus far.

 

So, in short: it should be really obvious what Thurman's mention of Bruce Smith has to do with this discussion.

 

Perhaps if this SAME front office were in charge back then, they would have let Bruce go, too.

 

If they had decided he was being as unreaonable. If he had treated the organization the same way. I never heard anyone say Bruce didn't return phone calls in the off season. Heard that a lot about Peters. That's a legit complaint by the FO since JP was to be treated for an injury after the 2007 season. He didn't have the professional demeanor to even return a phone call to let them know about his re-hab progress. So they were supposed to just speculate about it while trying to make a multi-million dollar decision.

 

Nobody ever questioned Bruce's commitment to off-season conditioning after his first season. The Bills were concerned about what shape Peters was in but again, he decided he didn't want to talk to them. Bruce was racking up sacks from the get go when he finally reported. JP was giving them up.

 

Nobody ever questioned Bruce's commitment to the game regardless of his dissatisfaction with this contract. JP admitted it was a distraction. Hmm. That's at least a red flag. Bruce let his discontent serve as a motivator to prove the FO wrong, JP seemingly didn't.

 

I never heard of an ex-coach, player, GM, or anyone else going on air and saying Bruce's "sourpuss" was effecting the team. That's the most telling difference and was the biggest factor in the Bills adding it all up and deciding to let him go.

 

I could go on but you get the point.

 

Bruce was infinately better as a DE than JP has been as an OT. Perhaps JP will attain that greatness over time. Get back to me after he's played 20 years so we can make a fair comparison of careers.

 

Bottom line is that, like in any business and any company, the Bills decided that keeping a disgruntled employee was not worth it. That simple. Regardless of the regression it caused at the position. They made a business decision knowing full well in the short term it would hurt. And it has, no doubt. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong. All that matters is what happens from that point moving forward. So far the decision has given us a VERY promising G/C and a TE with potential. We'll see. That's ON the field. Off the field the decision freed them of a personnel problem they perceived wasn't going to get better. The FO moved past it. Why can't everyone else?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Thurman#1]

Perhaps if this SAME front office were in charge back then, they would have let Bruce go, too.

 

If they had decided he was being as unreaonable. If he had treated the organization the same way. I never heard anyone say Bruce didn't return phone calls in the off season. Heard that a lot about Peters. That's a legit complaint by the FO since JP was to be treated for an injury after the 2007 season. He didn't have the professional demeanor to even return a phone call to let them know about his re-hab progress. So they were supposed to just speculate about it while trying to make a multi-million dollar decision.

 

Nobody ever questioned Bruce's commitment to off-season conditioning after his first season. The Bills were concerned about what shape Peters was in but again, he decided he didn't want to talk to them. Bruce was racking up sacks from the get go when he finally reported. JP was giving them up.

 

Nobody ever questioned Bruce's commitment to the game regardless of his dissatisfaction with this contract. JP admitted it was a distraction. Hmm. That's at least a red flag. Bruce let his discontent serve as a motivator to prove the FO wrong, JP seemingly didn't.

 

I never heard of an ex-coach, player, GM, or anyone else going on air and saying Bruce's "sourpuss" was effecting the team. That's the most telling difference and was the biggest factor in the Bills adding it all up and deciding to let him go.

 

I could go on but you get the point.

 

Bruce was infinately better as a DE than JP has been as an OT. Perhaps JP will attain that greatness over time. Get back to me after he's played 20 years so we can make a fair comparison of careers.

 

Bottom line is that, like in any business and any company, the Bills decided that keeping a disgruntled employee was not worth it. That simple. Regardless of the regression it caused at the position. They made a business decision knowing full well in the short term it would hurt. And it has, no doubt. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong. All that matters is what happens from that point moving forward. So far the decision has given us a VERY promising G/C and a TE with potential. We'll see. That's ON the field. Off the field the decision freed them of a personnel problem they perceived wasn't going to get better. The FO moved past it. Why can't everyone else?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

 

Bruce's conditioning was never questioned, absolutely right. But Peters also took care of his conditioning. There are all kinds of quotes from Bills officials that he had been working out. He was not in game shape, but there's no way to get that without games and scrimmages.

 

Bruce had some seriously slow starts to most of those seasons where he skipped camp. It's just that over the course of the season, he got enough sacks so people forgot about it.

 

It also has to do with the way that stats are kept for the two positions. If Bruce started off with three or four bad games, he had zero sacks. If he got 14 the rest of the way, he looked all right. Whereas if Peters started off with three or four bad games and gave up, say, 5 sacks in those games, and then gave up only 2 more all year, hey, that's 7, not a good year. With Bruce, they counted good things, so if he missed out on a few early, there were plenty more to come. With LTs they count bad things (and count very poorly generally, but that's another point), so even after you improve, your count is already high.

 

And yeah, you're right, Bruce never lacked commitment. But with Peters, being distracted, especially after the play, isn't about lacking commitment. Peters' play improved tremendously over the course of the season and I've talked about his excellent run blocking that year, as shown by footballoutsiders.com analysis. The commitment that Peters lacked was to the Bills, not to the game of football. Bruce also was perfectly willing to go elsewhere for money.

 

Hey, I hated Peters' decision not to answer phone calls too. Just stupid. But not nearly enough to get a guy who can be a huge help to your team sent elsewhere.

 

You're dead on about Bruce's greatness over time, and that it will be a decade or more before we can make a comparison between Peters and Bruce.

 

Yup, I've never heard Bruce described as a sourpuss either. Which might have been partly due to the fact that Bruce played on a lot of terrific, winning teams. Still, if Levy calls Peters a sourpuss, I'm ready to believe it.

 

EDIT: Yeah, you're right, if the same F.O. had handled Bruce's case, they might have let him go, too. But to me, that would have been criminally stupid of them.

 

And again, I hope you don't think that I'm impugning your character in any way, K-9, by questioning what you say about knowing insiders. I'm not. It shows more about my character than yours.

[thebandit27]

Perhaps if this SAME front office were in charge back then, they would have let Bruce go, too.

 

If they had decided he was being as unreaonable. If he had treated the organization the same way. I never heard anyone say Bruce didn't return phone calls in the off season. Heard that a lot about Peters. That's a legit complaint by the FO since JP was to be treated for an injury after the 2007 season. He didn't have the professional demeanor to even return a phone call to let them know about his re-hab progress. So they were supposed to just speculate about it while trying to make a multi-million dollar decision.

 

Nobody ever questioned Bruce's commitment to off-season conditioning after his first season. The Bills were concerned about what shape Peters was in but again, he decided he didn't want to talk to them. Bruce was racking up sacks from the get go when he finally reported. JP was giving them up.

 

Nobody ever questioned Bruce's commitment to the game regardless of his dissatisfaction with this contract. JP admitted it was a distraction. Hmm. That's at least a red flag. Bruce let his discontent serve as a motivator to prove the FO wrong, JP seemingly didn't.

 

I never heard of an ex-coach, player, GM, or anyone else going on air and saying Bruce's "sourpuss" was effecting the team. That's the most telling difference and was the biggest factor in the Bills adding it all up and deciding to let him go.

 

I could go on but you get the point.

 

Bruce was infinately better as a DE than JP has been as an OT. Perhaps JP will attain that greatness over time. Get back to me after he's played 20 years so we can make a fair comparison of careers.

 

Bottom line is that, like in any business and any company, the Bills decided that keeping a disgruntled employee was not worth it. That simple. Regardless of the regression it caused at the position. They made a business decision knowing full well in the short term it would hurt. And it has, no doubt. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong. All that matters is what happens from that point moving forward. So far the decision has given us a VERY promising G/C and a TE with potential. We'll see. That's ON the field. Off the field the decision freed them of a personnel problem they perceived wasn't going to get better. The FO moved past it. Why can't everyone else?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Congrats, that was a far better retort than saying you didn't understand why Thurman brought up Smith. If you disagreed with the relevance, go ahead and state your reasons. All Thurman did was point out that the team has--in the past--negotiated with malcontented players that held out from exisitng contracts, and used Bruce as an example.

 

Also, you can go on and on about how well smith handled himself during his holdouts, but I would hardly call signing a contract with another team (at which time he was quoted in the media as saying "it would be wise for Buffalo to let me go" [no link required, that baby's all over google]--yet Peters is the guy that "didn't want to be here") and subsequently getting arrested on drug charges--all in one offseason--"having a professional demeanor", being "committed to the team", or being "committed to the game" as you imply.

 

As I said, the biggest difference b/w Smith and Peters was the on-field performance following the holdout. The rest of it boils down to hearsay that's hard to consider fact.

 

I'm aware of what the Bills decided to do; I follow the team just as you do. I never claimed that I didn't understand their reasoning, I simply stated that I didn't agree with it.

 

And as for why some folks can't move past it, I don't know. Talk to (a) the people that keep starting threads about it and (b) the people that crash the threads and re-state their opinion a million times. You and I are as guilty of the latter as anyone else.

[Thurman#1]

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.

 

 

Why bother? anyone interested can sort through it all. I think this thread is done.

 

 

 

Well, that makes two threads in a row where you have been asked to back up what you said. Both times you ran like a dog instead, disappearing from the thread without producing any proof.

 

Once again, here is the thread: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?showtopic=97960

 

Referring to that thread, you said that "You stated as FACT everyone knew what Peters was willing to ACCEPT except me."

 

I really questioned that, because I have never ever pretended to know exactly what Peters was willing to accept, except in a general way by bracketing the Bills' offers and Peters' proposals.

 

But just for the heck of it, thinking I might have been exhausted when I posted and made a mistake, or screwed up an edit or something, I looked through to find out if I said that. And I didn't. It ... just ... did ... not ... happen. But I did find the place where the wording you used "everyone ... except [you]..." was used.

 

 

Here's what actually happened:

 

First you said this:

 

As I said before NOBODY KNOWS what went on behind closed doors. You have NO IDEA what Peters asked for or was willing to accept.

 

 

Then I said this:

 

... And if I didn't have any idea what Peters asked for or was willing to accept, then I would be the only one in the world, except you, of course. Everyone knows this. The fact that you don't even know that Peters agent made his offers public shows clearly you aren't worth talking with. Brandon's offers were not public. Peters on the other hand announced his offers from the rooftops, and if you don't know them, it's just because you are too lazy to do research.

 

You incorrectly interpreted me. I used a double negative, since I wanted to use your quote exactly and your post was a negative. In pointing out that you were wrong, my sentence used a double negative. It is as clear as Everest air that I was saying that anybody who read the papers had SOME IDEA what Peters was "asked for or was willing to accept." As I documented later, half the known world knew what he was asking for.

 

I also said that his "offers" had been made public, and never said I knew what he "was willing to ACCEPT," as you INCORRECTLY said I did. An offer and what a person is willing to accept are clearly different things.

 

You challenged me for links. I produced three links to articles from well-respected writers who gave figures for what Peters was asking.

 

You addressed this by saying:

 

NOTHING in that article states what Peters was willing to ACCEPT prior to being traded to the Eagles.

 

 

As shown above, I had never said that I had that. I don't know whether you misinterpreted me or maliciously lied about what I had said, but I have since asked you for links four or five times showing where I said I knew what he was willing to accept. Each time, you ignored it and finally ducked out of the thread.

 

When somebody makes a mistake like this, he generally has three choices.

 

1) He can turn tail and run like a whipped dog. So far, this is how you have proceeded.

 

2) He can simply refuse to admit he was wrong. Until you ran from each thread, this is what you had been doing.

 

or

 

3) He can act like a grown man and admit that he made a mistake and move on. Nobody is perfect, certainly not me. When you admit you made a mistake, you suffer momentary embarrassment and move on into the future with a clean record. You also get the respect of the people around you, who know that you are willing to man up and admit your mistakes.

 

 

So far, you have used the first two methods, and lost the respect of the people who followed this discussion. I hope you have reached the stage of your life where you can handle this in the mature way, now that it has been proven that I simply did ... not ... say what you said I did.

[Mr. WEO]

Bruce's conditioning was never questioned, absolutely right. But Peters also took care of his conditioning. There are all kinds of quotes from Bills officials that he had been working out. He was not in game shape, but there's no way to get that without games and scrimmages.

You must be joking. He was sucking wind halfway into the season. O2 mask to the face. Pulling himself out of plays each game.

 

Gee, the team made all kinds of quotes that he had been working out?? The same guys who listed JP at 340 lbs?? The same team that said they were happy to have McCargo back immediately after they tried to dump him on the Colts?

 

How, exactly, would the Bills have known if Peters was working out during the holdout? Was there direct contact with him? Was he being monitored by the team?

[zazie]

I am not seeing Peters name come up much outside of this board.

 

Maybe he is doing ok?

[Thurman#1]

You must be joking. He was sucking wind halfway into the season. O2 mask to the face. Pulling himself out of plays each game.

 

Gee, the team made all kinds of quotes that he had been working out?? The same guys who listed JP at 340 lbs?? The same team that said they were happy to have McCargo back immediately after they tried to dump him on the Colts?

 

How, exactly, would the Bills have known if Peters was working out during the holdout? Was there direct contact with him? Was he being monitored by the team?

 

 

 

As Jauron said at the time, he wasn't in game shape, but it's impossible to get in game shape without being in games.

 

It's pretty much the same thing you'd hear every year back in the day when Bruce would hold out.

 

How would they know? You'd have to ask them. I know that they know better than you or me, though.

[Thurman#1]

I am not seeing Peters name come up much outside of this board.

 

Maybe he is doing ok?

 

 

Very well. The Philly media said (in a story Pitoniak wrote) that he hasn't allowed a sack yet. He's kicking butt. Second in the tackle rankings on profootballfocus.com also.

[Doc]

I can only imagine how many posts Thurman would have about Jason Peters if he did like him.

 

And I also don't know why we're still talking about Peters. The Bills should be 4-2, if not for some idiotic ST's gaffes, while I doubt Peters would have made Trent play any better.

[Thurman#1]

I can only imagine how many posts Thurman would have about Jason Peters if he did like him.

 

And I also don't know why we're still talking about Peters. The Bills should be 4-2, if not for some idiotic ST's gaffes, while I doubt Peters would have made Trent play any better.

 

 

Doubt all you want. Anyone who doesn't realize that LT play directly affects QB play isn't getting the whole picture.

[Alphadawg7]

Why do I get the feeling JP will still be a topic on this board even 5 years from now

[BillsVet]

Doubt all you want. Anyone who doesn't realize that LT play directly affects QB play isn't getting the whole picture.

 

On this board? It's more fun to some on here to malign the guy and ignore the fact that at 25 he was among the top 3 LT's in the NFL.

 

These fans have too much invested in bashing the guy to admit they're dead wrong and know very little about the position. Idiot fans think in black and white, so a position like LT which can't be viewed that way, unless of course you cite a ridiculous "sacks allowed" statistic.

[Doc]

Doubt all you want. Anyone who doesn't realize that LT play directly affects QB play isn't getting the whole picture.

It didn't have much affect last year. Or the year before, when he was arguably playing at a Pro Bowl level. Why would this year be any different?

[K-9]

On this board? It's more fun to some on here to malign the guy and ignore the fact that at 25 he was among the top 3 LT's in the NFL.

 

These fans have too much invested in bashing the guy to admit they're dead wrong and know very little about the position. Idiot fans think in black and white, so a position like LT which can't be viewed that way, unless of course you cite a ridiculous "sacks allowed" statistic.

 

Dead wrong about what, exactly?

 

I'll bash him to kingdom come for being the consumante unprofessional in his dealings. I'll bash him for not lettting the Bills know how he was doing regarding his rehab after the 2007 season. I'll bash him for letting his contract distract him while playing. I'll bash him for bringing his contract issues into the locker room. You're GD right I'll bash him. He disrespected my team. The one I've rooted for the last 45 conscious years of my life.

 

I won't bash him for sacks allowed. A ludicrous stat. And I won't bash him for his talent. He's one of the best at the moment. Hell, I won't even bash him for listening to his agent and taking a stand for what he felt was best for him.

 

But please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting I don't know how important a great LT is to the team. Please don't insult me by suggesting that their aren't legit reasons TO bash him.

 

His comment about how he "could" have gone back in if he "had" to on Sunday is a bashable quote. His team was losing and they ended up losing and he says he "could" have gone back in? Are you fricken' kidding me?

 

As much as it hurt and caused a regression at the position, the Bills did the right thing by letting him go. So far we've got an All-Rookie RG and a promising, although injured, tightend in the deal. Why do I get the impression Eric Wood has to be dragged off the field when injured rather than come off and "suggest" he "could" have come back in if he "had" to.

 

I'm sorry but JP brings this crap on himself through his behavior and words.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Thurman#1]

Dead wrong about what, exactly?

 

I'll bash him to kingdom come for being the consumante unprofessional in his dealings. I'll bash him for not lettting the Bills know how he was doing regarding his rehab after the 2007 season. I'll bash him for letting his contract distract him while playing. I'll bash him for bringing his contract issues into the locker room. You're GD right I'll bash him. He disrespected my team. The one I've rooted for the last 45 conscious years of my life.

 

I won't bash him for sacks allowed. A ludicrous stat. And I won't bash him for his talent. He's one of the best at the moment. Hell, I won't even bash him for listening to his agent and taking a stand for what he felt was best for him.

 

But please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting I don't know how important a great LT is to the team. Please don't insult me by suggesting that their aren't legit reasons TO bash him.

 

His comment about how he "could" have gone back in if he "had" to on Sunday is a bashable quote. His team was losing and they ended up losing and he says he "could" have gone back in? Are you fricken' kidding me?

 

As much as it hurt and caused a regression at the position, the Bills did the right thing by letting him go. So far we've got an All-Rookie RG and a promising, although injured, tightend in the deal. Why do I get the impression Eric Wood has to be dragged off the field when injured rather than come off and "suggest" he "could" have come back in if he "had" to.

 

I'm sorry but JP brings this crap on himself through his behavior and words.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

 

Disrespectful? I don't think Peters saw it as any more disrespectful than the Bills refusing to negotiate with him. Stupid negotiating technique, yes. Any more disrespectful than the Bills were to him, no, in my opinion. Still, I didn't like it, and I don't blame you for being angry about it.

 

But it became obvious that the Bills just weren't going to pay market value. The Bills played hardball, and when you do that, you have to expect hardball back. IMHO, the Bills shouldn't have handled it that way unless they were willing to follow the Bears example with Briggs and simply force the guy, over the course of more than one season, to be on the roster at least, and to offer him a contract that was only a slight discount over market value. Instead, the Bills caved and Peters got what he wanted, a contract right at the level he was hoping for, market value.

 

You know, I have seen a few people bash him for that quote about going back in last week, and seriously, I don't even begin to understand that. Various Bills over the years have said the same thing and been lauded for their courage and team spirit, correctly.

 

The guy was hurt. Playing again would first have hurt the team because he couldn't play up to his usual standards. It would also have risked worsening the injury and having him have to possibly miss more games. Yet if the team said they needed him, he would have gone back in for them. There's nothing wrong with that. Just the opposite, it's admirable. That's how they're treating it in Philly, and that's how we would treat it if a Bill said the same thing.

 

That quote was fine.

[Thurman#1]

"Peters watched the second half from the sideline in uniform. He had to. If Dunlap had gotten hurt, the Eagles had nobody else that could play tackle."

 

http://www.app.com/article/20091018/SPORTS...ers+leaves+game

 

 

"King Dunlap played the remainder of the game as the Eagles' left tackle, and Peters said he returned to the sideline because he would have gone back into the game if something had happened to his replacement.

 

"Without Peters, the Eagles' offensive line struggled, managing just 283 total yards, and allowing a season-high six sacks.

 

"'It was disappointing just watching that,' Peters said. 'If we were going to struggle, I wanted to struggle with them.'"

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/647134...ml?cmpid=155857

 

 

This wasn't taken negatively at all in Philly. The only place where there was the slightest uproar was here in Buffalo, where plenty of people would find a way to get angry if Peters gave a million bucks to charity.