If the Rams and Jackson can do it...
Seeing Steven Jackson and the Rams reach an agreementfor a contract extension then it also gives me hope that Jason Peters and the Bills can work something out. However, it doesn't sound like the FO is too willing to restructure his contract with "new" money at this point. But, seeing the Rams end the silly deliberations with Jackson, bring hope to me as a Bills fan that our Front Office can also end this silly holdout and get big #71 into camp to help this team do what it needs to do.
I will make one point that I think is hugely significant as a fan. If the Bills go into Week 1 and much thereafter without Peters, what kind of signal does that give to the fans of the Bills? That the Front Office is too cheap, too stubborn, too ethical, to get Peters, arguable the best player on the team, to get him to report in what is arguably one of the most anticipated and hopeful seasons since 1999? I think it would be a severe blow to Russ Brandon, Dick Jauron, and not a lasting legacy Ralph Wilson wants to leave. Which makes me wonder how much leverage old Ralphy has right now. Maybe Brandon and other Bills brass have the power to make these decisions because Ralph knows it is critical to not allow players to dictate how the Bills do business during these dicey economic times that Buffalo is in.
Whatever the case, Come September 7th, if #71 has not reported, and this season continues without him, the message sent to me as a long, long time Bills fan will be simply, "the Bills did not fairly give the team the best chance to win." So I hope in the next 2 weeks this "silliness" is brought to an end, that someone has the balls to start communicating and remove that line in the sand to bring fruitful and productive negotiating to the table. You don't "have" to sign him to a huge new deal, but you have to communicate otherwise NOTHING will ever happen. This is bad business right now. Just like any business in which a disgruntled employee is dissatisfied with his compensation because others at his same position are make 30-70% more than he is, there has to be communication to let him know it will be alright and he will be rewarded in due time. Nuff Said
This FanPost written by a registered user of Buffalo Rumblings.
0 recs |
23
comments
Comments
Gives me some hope too
but Jackson had also been in contact with the Rams all along. Peters is MIA. I really have to wonder what Parker is saying to him, if he can even contact him.
I will make one point that I think is hugely significant as a fan. If the Bills go into Week 1 and much thereafter without Peters, what kind of signal does that give to the fans of the Bills? That the Front Office is too cheap, too stubborn, too ethical, to get Peters, arguable the best player on the team, to get him to report in what is arguably one of the most anticipated and hopeful seasons since 1999? I think it would be a severe blow to Russ Brandon, Dick Jauron, and not a lasting legacy Ralph Wilson wants to leave. Which makes me wonder how much leverage old Ralphy has right now. Maybe Brandon and other Bills brass have the power to make these decisions because Ralph knows it is critical to not allow players to dictate how the Bills do business during these dicey economic times that Buffalo is in.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. And it would not surprise me in the least bit. This has been an incompetent front office for years, so being too stubborn towards your best player is something they’d do. If they truly think a lineup with Walker at LT and Chambers at RT is going to allow us to win a bunch of games and make the playoffs, they are dreaming. And if that’s the case, I have NO hope for this franchise going forward. If this franchise truly dedicated to winning, Peters will be reached out to and appeased. I’m afraid that that may not be the case….
~K
by Kurupt on Aug 21, 2008 11:59 AM EDT 0 recs
Wow. I completely disagree, K. You seriously believe that the Bills’ stubbornness on this front is equal to them saying that they’re not dedicated to winning? The guy has wronged them in every way possible since January! The front office deserves PRAISE for their stance, not scorn. There’s only so much they can do – who’s to say they aren’t calling Peters daily? PETERS gets ALL of the blame for this.
by Brian Galliford on
Aug 21, 2008 12:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
well
there is a lot we don’t know like what Peters reasoning really is. Never been documented that this is purely a contract issue. Could be a lot of things.
But also, we don’t know if the FO is communicating at all. I’m just saying it is bad business to not be communicating. Communication could lead to, “Listen Jason, you just signed this deal, play for 2 more years and you keep up what you are doing, and we promise to restructure before the 2010 season begins”
Just putting your foot in your mouth and not saying anything is ridiculous. Of course, we don’t know for sure if that is the case
MARVelous
by MARVelous on
Aug 21, 2008 12:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Like Marv said, who knows that they are trying to contact him?
If they are so committed to winning, wouldn’t they do everything to get their best player in here? The player who’s likely going to protect our QB from harm. Seems to me they are pretty stubborn.
I agree that at first they deserved some praise, but now that’s it’s dragged on and we saw Trent almost get killed against Pittsburgh, don’t ya think it’s time for them to do something? We aren’t winning squat with Kirk Chambers at RT and Walker at LT….
~K
by Kurupt on
Aug 21, 2008 12:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
But I’m saying, K, that what if they already ARE “doing everything” to get their best player in here, and it’s not working? Clearly, we’ll never know that. So, to condemn them for Peters not being here based on assumption is just a bad move, IMO.
by Brian Galliford on
Aug 21, 2008 1:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
My answer
was about precedence, and it became its own post. Now I have to get back and explain my 2 hour lunch break….
by Zumone on
Aug 21, 2008 2:14 PM EDT
up
0 recs
so
they can’t be criticized at all cuz they are taking a stand? Or we just can’t say anything cuz we don’t know the facts?
I’m just saying, that if come week 1 he is not on the field, this is a bigger issue than just not talking to him until he reports. If that happens it shows that the Bills have no idea what they are doing. I understand negotiating and having the upper hand, and putting the ball in Peters’ court, but after while the question must be asked, “what really is best for this football team?” I am not saying give him what he wants, what I am saying is healthy discussions have to be had for any progress to be made. And to sit and pout like a 12 year old girl and say, “i’m not talking until he shows up” is just childish and foolish
MARVelous
by MARVelous on
Aug 21, 2008 3:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
But the point is that I can just go ahead and say the opposite and it is just as true. Since we don’t know what is actually going on, every argument makes sense from both sides.
it shows that the Bills have no idea what they are doing
OR that Peters has no idea what he is doing.
And to sit and pout like a 12 year old girl and say, "i’m not talking until he shows up" is just childish and foolish
Personally, I think Peters is the one who is sitting around and pouting. The Bills have made it public knowledge that they are willing to negotiate with Peters if he shows up. It is stupid for the team to give a contract to a player who ended last season weighing more than 340 pounds and headed into surgery. He can show up and sit on the sidelines if he wants to and the Bills will start negotiating. What Peters is doing is irrational and just plain stupid. Why would the Bills reward such foolish behaviour with a new contract? Peters is essentially holding the Bills ranson and according to the FBI, it is unwise to negotiate or pay a ransom. Unlike in a kidnapping case, the Bills have way more leverage than Peters does. Everyone who is blaming the Bills is clay in Peters’ hands. He really has no choice other than to show up in Buffalo.
by kaisertown on
Aug 21, 2008 5:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Steven Jackson was in the last year of his contract
Going into the last year of a contract, a hold out is much more understandable, especially as a RB, especially as a performer for many years, etc. Jackson getting an extension may make Peters even more stubborn — and he’d be wrong for doing that. The Bills are doing the right thing by doing nothing and — as other posters have indicated in my prior survey — the Bills should not even waive or cut the fines that have already accumulated to get him in (which will make Peters even more furious).
by labill on Aug 21, 2008 12:15 PM EDT 0 recs
Lets be real here
jackson’s situation directly parallels Lee Evans as he is in last year of a 5 year deal. He also is a featured offensive weapon for the Rams. It made sense for the Rams front office to extend him now as he could sit out all or some of the season knowing he would get a huge high teens signing bonus come Mar 1 2009 to cover his losses this year.
The Bills Front Office does not and should not fell the same pressure. There is no way that jason peters foregoes a single game check at $225k each. HE HAS 3 YEARS LEFT ON HIS DEAL!!!! The Bills have all the leverage here.
Solution – have his fellow OL’s reach out to him and get him to Buffalo to start practicing and then do an extension to add 2 years at $8-9mm on the backend and give him $10.5mm up front to offset his lower salary in the next 3 years.
I commend the BILLS Front Offcie for being resolute not to deal with someone who isn’t here. They are working with Lee Evans AND he is here!
Jason, bury the ego and your agents bad advice and trust that OBD will do right by you. They already did with the 2006 deal!
by freddyjj on Aug 21, 2008 12:21 PM EDT 0 recs
I agree
that for Peters to hold out with 3 years remaining is unlike Jackson. And it is ridiculous being his agent and him agreed to the new deal a few years back. but we don’t even know if this is about contract, as his agent has never said anything. Which makes me somewhat scared that maybe this is a personal issue, but i have nothing to go on that other than my pure speculation.
But the overall point is regardless if Peters is holding out for more money or because he is depressed or whatev, the point is the FO should take responsibility and figure it out. How can you not? Anyone that is totally agreeable to the FO taking a stand and not even talking until he comes to camp doesn’t understand employee relations. You have to talk, and you have to communicate fairly. You owe that to Peters, to his teammates, and to us as Fans
MARVelous
by MARVelous on Aug 21, 2008 12:23 PM EDT 0 recs
I'll side with the FO on this one.
I think over the last two years they have made very good decisions when it comes to players and contracts. If they think playing hardball with Peters is the way to go I am on their side.
Craig.
by taskersd on Aug 21, 2008 12:25 PM EDT 0 recs
Let's simplify things....
Peters:
Show up, you get a new deal. Until then, the front office should keep it moving. And when you show and get your new deal, they should still impose the fines he has accrued. After that, no love lost.
by MonStarr_716 on Aug 21, 2008 3:10 PM EDT 0 recs
Peters is not and has never been Buffalo's best player
For the last several years, Brian Moorman has been Buffalo’s best and most important player. He’s been one of the league’s very best at his position. Also, because of the poor offense and pourous defense over the past few years Moorman’s been the most important player. Pinning the opposition deep has kept Bills games from becoming 56-10 type laughers.
Things are getting better and I see the torch being handed this year, but not to Peters. Whether he shows up or not Lynch will be the best player on the field (possibly not the most important—I think Stroud will take that title) wearing a Buffalo on his headgear. There is a definite drop off from Peters to Chambers (or Walker, for that matter) but an even bigger drop off from Lynch to Jackson. If Lynch runs for 1500ish yards the Bills will have a good (maybe even playoff) season. For my money, give me Lynch without Peters instead of Peters without Lynch.
To take it a step further, I’m not entirely certain whether the team would do better without Peters or without Butler. Yes, I know it’s blasphemy but Butler may be a better guard than Peters is tackle. Also, Peters plays a more critical position but the drop off from Butler to Preston is much sharper than the drop off from Peters to Chambers. It’s an interesting academic question and one that I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable answering one way or another.
From there it’s easy to see how I support the front office in their dealings with Peters. He’s an above average yet not dominant tackle. (Seriously, do you see him on the same plane as a Boselli or an Ogden?) He feels (rightly) that he’s being underpaid. He has seen player after player get a new deal and seen that they did so by showing up for work and demonstrating their committment to the team. While fans (like me) aren’t happy about Peters’ absence I’d rather deal with that than have Stroud sit out when he sees Peters’ petulance rewarded.
Steven Jackson has reportedly signed. Now maybe his one-trick-pony of an agent will find some time to pay attention to his other unhappy client. Hopefully some word will be received from the Peters camp and he’ll head to Buffalo. With any luck, he won’t need 2 seats on the plane and some sort of surgery on his injury.
by Ron From NM on Aug 21, 2008 7:39 PM EDT 0 recs
You may be right and I won’t argue against it, but there is something about saying the punter is my teams best and most important player that makes me wince.
The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me.
by sireric on
Aug 21, 2008 8:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Me, too....
…..but as I noted those days are over. Unless Stroud and Lynch are seriously injured (or seriously disappoint) they will be the most important and best players, respectively.
by Ron From NM on
Aug 22, 2008 12:13 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Besides, we are the ONLY team in the NFL who sells their punters jersey
I mean, I just checked and we are IT, other teams’ kickers are there e.g. Indianapolis and the Seahawks till Brown jilted them, but we are it for the Punter guys, that says something about how bad our lineups are, and how SMART our fans as whole are. Also how dedicated we are to blue collar make it big stories like Moorman’s, but thought it was interesting enough, and yes, Ron IS right, Moorman has been our best guy for the past 3-4 seasons, sadly.
Fear the mighty helmet wearing gopher, he is coming for your soul....
by WABillsfan on
Aug 22, 2008 2:16 AM EDT
up
0 recs
no way
is brian moorman the best player. how can you sleep at night and say that Ron??? I see what you are trying to pull there but there is no way he has been the best player. I can name pat williams, then winfield, then clements, then lee evans, then marshawn lynch as all being better players when Moorman has been year. And yes peters is better than Moorman too.
I agree Peters is overrated, but what I think is lost in all of this is how good he could be. He does what he does basically on pure athleticism and gifted natural ability. If he were to ever get a mean streak in him he could indeed one of the best at his position instead of just some silly media darling that they decide to vote to the Pro Bowl.
I’ve watched enough of him to know he gets beat, and isn’t overpowering. But my main concern was last year we had 5 guys start what 14 games together? And spend an entire trianing camp together on the O-line. If they would have done that again this year there is no telling how good they can be. And he has a huge right to be absolutely pissed off that they bring in Dockery and Walker who immediately get more than him. So he played out his one year and now he is taking a stand after he made the Pro Bowl and they didnt. I understand both sides. But its time to pay the frick’n man and move on.
MARVelous
by MARVelous on Aug 22, 2008 12:25 AM EDT 0 recs
I didn't say the best player ever....
Williams, Winfield, and Clements aren’t even on the team. Evans was a non-factor last season. Lynch will be the better player (as I said) when the offense can actually move the ball more than 25 yards per drive. Yes, Moorman has been Buffalo’s best and most important player for a couple of years. It’s sad but it’s true.
by Ron From NM on
Aug 22, 2008 12:36 AM EDT
up
0 recs
no way
that’s my point those guys were on the team before. So your saying last year he was the best player. You smok’n some wacky tobaccy there in those NM mountains?
MARVelous
by MARVelous on Aug 22, 2008 12:55 AM EDT 0 recs
No, Marv… Ron is right. When it comes to consistency and longevity, Brian Moorman is the face of the franchise. Denial can be an ugly thing… but it’s very much correct.
by Brian Galliford on
Aug 22, 2008 6:36 AM EDT
up
0 recs
What if Edwards became the best player on this team this year?
Wouldn’t that be something?
by Defensewinsgames on Aug 22, 2008 9:03 AM EDT 0 recs
It depends how you define best player.
There is no way he is the team’s most valuable player. If Moorman’s punt average is 3 yards better than your average punter, that is less valuable than a number of Offensive and defensive players.
If you define best as in relative to the rest of the league at their position, than Moorman is and has been Buffalo’s best player for quite some time. Sorry Bills fans, but their at least 5 offensive tackles who are better than Peters. There are 5-10 RBs better than Lynch. There are 15+ WRs better than Evans. There are at least 5 better DTs than Stroud and at least 20 better LBs than any of our guys. Moorman was the best punter in the league for a few years and he remains one of the very best.
by kaisertown on Aug 22, 2008 11:11 AM EDT 0 recs











