Analyzing the potential trade market for Jason Peters
Reports from The Buffalo News on Friday morning indicated that negotiations between the Buffalo Bills and OT Jason Peters may reach a stalemate. According to Mark Gaughan's source, the team and Peters' agent, Eugene Parker, are about $3 million in annual salary apart in their respective offers, and given the circumstances of Peters' holdout last summer, it's not difficult to envision the negotiations reaching an impasse.
The NFL Draft is just over six weeks (43 days) away. If the Bills can't get a deal done with Peters within a week or two of the draft, trade talks surrounding Peters will heat up. In fact, the rumors have already started.
From everything I've heard, negotiations are slow, but optimism on behalf of both parties remains high. Should push come to shove, however, it would be wise for the Bills to deal Peters, even if it means opening up a gaping hole on their already porous offensive line. In our opinion - and we have no inside information to put any sort of factual claim to any of this - there are (at least) five teams that would give the Bills a call should Peters "officially" be put on the trade block.
Philadelphia Eagles
As mentioned at the above link, the Eagles have already been linked to the Bills and Peters in terms of trade rumors. The team lost starting left tackle Tra Thomas to Jacksonville, and right tackle Jon Runyan isn't likely to be re-signed. The Eagles did dole out big money to bring in new right tackle Stacy Andrews (6 years, $42 million), but they still have a huge void to fill on the left side of their line.
Considering the amount of money they have invested in their right tackle, the Eagles ideally would probably prefer moving up in the draft and selecting a rookie at the bottom or just outside of the top ten, where the money investment would be significantly lower than if they acquired Peters. But as they're already rumored to have spoken to the Bills, it's likely that their interest is legitimate. With two first-round picks (21 and 28 overall) this year, they certainly have the ammo to make a deal - and said deal might only require one of those picks.
Detroit Lions
The Lions' entire roster is a mess, and obviously that includes their offensive line. Like the Eagles, Detroit has two first-round picks this year (1 and 20 overall). Finding a franchise left tackle is a must for them - and if the team drafts Matthew Stafford with the top overall choice as is widely anticipated, the team might have a hard time getting that left tackle.
The Lions do still have Jeff Backus and last year's first-round pick, Gosder Cherilus, and they also signed former Titan reserve Daniel Loper, who re-unites with coach Jim Schwartz. The Lions certainly have the money to pay Peters, but Buffalo won't be interested in the top overall selection, and it seems a bit of a stretch to assume that the Lions would be willing to dole out $35 million in guarantees to their top pick and then close to double it with Peters' new deal. Still, they're an interesting team to monitor, as they certainly have the need.
St. Louis Rams
This is a very similar situation to the Lions, minus the Rams having two first-round picks. Orlando Pace is gone. The Rams' current plan is to move the unspectacular, yet somewhat dependable Alex Barron to the left side, then move guard Jacob Bell to right tackle. Folks, Alex Barron simply isn't a franchise left tackle. The Rams obviously have an opportunity to pick one with the second overall pick, but if Aaron Curry is available, they might pull the trigger on the linebacker. The Rams do have pretty significant dollars tied up in Bell and new center Jason Brown, so they might feel inclined to avoid giving big bucks to another lineman, particularly when Peters could be had for slightly less.
Just like with Detroit's top overall pick, the Bills likely wouldn't have interest in the Rams' second pick. But the Rams do pick early in the second round, where top quality offensive guards will still be available, and if the Bills could nab that selection and possibly a future first or second rounder, they might pull the trigger. Still, though, St. Louis would have to be willing to dole out a third ultra-serious contract to an offensive lineman, which might be difficult for them to do with Brown in the fold.
Arizona Cardinals
The Cardinals have brought back Kurt Warner for at least one more season. That deal was reportedly contingent on the Cards re-signing WR Anquan Boldin, but now Boldin is apparently on the trade block. If Boldin goes, the Cards will need to do something substantial to placate Warner, and a franchise left tackle to upgrade over Mike Gandy would be a start.
Obviously Arizona will be picking second to last in the first round, so the Bills might be able to finagle that pick plus another pick should the Cardinals show interest. Two major questions hinder this deal, however: how does Peters fit in once Matt Leinart takes over the quarterback duties in the desert (i.e. does he move to the right side?), and would the Cardinals be interested in giving Peters a mega-deal after giving out Top 5 dollars to '07 first-round pick Levi Brown?
Pittsburgh Steelers
This one is easily the most unlikely option, but you have to figure that the Steelers would at least give Buffalo a call on Peters. Pittsburgh's offensive line was terrible last season; Ben Roethlisberger got hit more than any quarterback in the league. That needs to be rectified, but the Steelers have re-signed Max Starks, Willie Colon and Chris Kemoeatu. Not much has changed yet; obviously, the draft will help.
Pittsburgh is in a similar situation pick-wise as Arizona, so the Bills might be able to get more than one pick out of the Steelers in a trade, including the final pick in the first round. But the Steelers are a penny-pinching, small-market franchise that prefers to get by with defense and a power rushing attack. Peters obviously fits what they like to do offensively, but it's unlikely that the Steelers would be willing to dish out large bucks for a tackle, particularly with Starks making big bucks in '09 off of his franchise tender. They certainly need line help, but they've always been a franchise that looks to the mid-tier free agents and the draft to fill their needs. They also guard draft picks jealously.
When you're talking about trading a player that will command the type of salary and guaranteed money that Peters is going to require, the market for the player shrinks considerably. If Peters were seeking a deal much smaller, the trade market would be huge - but it'd also be a moot point, because the Bills would just re-sign him. Still, all it takes is one team to make a deal happen. The clear top priority for the Bills and for Peters is for the player to stay in Buffalo - and again, we haven't heard anything drastic to the point where reaching an agreement is out of the question. A deal very well could be done within the next month or so. But if push comes to shove and Peters hits the trade block, Buffalo's options will be limited. This Peters issue is, by miles, the most important factor in need of resolution. Stay tuned.
0 recs |
196 comments
|
Comments
Peters
This Peters issue is, by miles, the most important factor in need of resolution. Stay tuned.
That is the understatement of the off-season….it IS our off-season. Resolving this situation in the RIGHT way, is the most important decision the Bills Front Office will have made since drafting and then naming Trent Edwards their starting QB back in 2007. Deals to Aaron Schobel, Chris Kelsay, Derrick Dockery have been to be blunt: hugely disappointing. Mega-money spent in the wrong places on the wrong people. They resigned Evans to $9 mill a year. That was a great job at retaining a guy we drafted. Now, we have seen this regime let Clements and Jabari Greer walk. But this is an Offensive Lineman, a LT, a rare combo of size and athleticism. A guy we developed. Sure a 1st round draft pick would be nice, but it will never be enough compensation to a Pro-Bowl LT.
IMO you HAVE TO SIGN this SOB…..it’s pivotal to the success of the franchise moving forward. Draft picks are 50/50 propositions. Unless this FO deems that D Bell is ready to play at the NFL level, to trade Peters would all but destroy our offensive chances in 2009. They say you don’t realize you have a good thing till it’s gone. Well that’s exactly what the Bills would realize if Peters were dealt. We have a few ELITE talents on this team….Peters is one of em. You dont trade ELITE talent….and yes Peters is ELITE….just wait until he has a competent LG next to him
MARVelous - "I went from America's team to North America's Team" Terrell Owens
by MARVelous on Mar 13, 2009 12:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
IMO you HAVE TO SIGN this SOB…..it’s pivotal to the success of the franchise moving forward. Draft picks are 50/50 propositions.
I agree “181%” but the Bills have to do their best to hide this sentiment from Peters. They have to make him feel like he’s expendable to a certain degree so that he doesn’t hold them hostage.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think thats the proble, he knows that he's indespensible to this team
yes the Bills can trade him, but I don’t think that they’d get nearly enough for him (unless it two first rounders and thats not likely either). And I think Peters realises that too. The biggest problem with resigning him is that he has ALL the leverage in the negotiations.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not quite
The biggest problem with resigning him is that he has ALL the leverage in the negotiations
We still have under contract for 2yrs. and the could franchise him after that. Is he going to wait 2years. to finally get that $$$$? Doubt it. And who will pay him top dollar if he decides to sit for two years?
Seriously though, they do need to get this deal done before the draft. The sooner the better.
There is only one NFL football team that plays in New York state...and Canada?
by MonStarr_716 on Mar 13, 2009 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He can't get out of the contract by sitting.
He has to show up to get his two years of service.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you that it would be best for the bills talent wise next year to resign this guy. However, he is asking for A LOT of money that could hurt the Bills in the long run. Tough situation here. The thing is, he is under contract so I don’t think the Bills should give him all the money he wants.
by buffaloboy90 on Mar 13, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1st and a 3rd from the Eagles?
Sounds about right. But I would rather sign him. Does everyone agree he’s elite? Because if yes, then we should keep him, and signing him now pre a possibly uncapped year, would make it worthwhile…but then again, if the Bills have a contingency plan, Peters was not lights out last year at all times, especially against the Dolphins, and if we can draft a player or get better or similar production elsewhere for less money, i am all for it. I am just concerned that we can’t keep Peters around, a guy we drafted and developed at one of the most important positions in the game. Again, I would say, rework the entire deal, perhaps two years 22 mil 11 guaranteed, so that way he can still test the market before he is thirty and still get a monster deal from a desperate team elsewhere and in the mean time we groom his replacement.
The Bills CAN win every game
by killascript on Mar 13, 2009 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I would say, rework the entire deal, perhaps two years 22 mil 11 guaranteed
What would be the point of that? we’re trying to keep him here long term, not have him become a FA in two years. If we’re just going to lose him to FA in two seasons I’d rather just trade him now.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are we?
To me, why not get him short term, so at least we have him while TO is here and while we have a shot at the playoffs. I have even contemplated the idea of a one year deal that mirrors a franchise tag, just to have him for a playoff push
The Bills CAN win every game
by killascript on Mar 13, 2009 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have him signed for two more years now.
If he holds out he doesn’t get any money and he doesn’t get to become a free agent. A two year deal adds nothing.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But i do say
I would like him for a long term deal that keeps him here. I don’t feel like fooling around with another important position
The Bills CAN win every game
by killascript on Mar 13, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Signing him
Peters is already under contract so we don’t need to sign him really. I mean maybe renegotiate. I think the Bills have the leverage here actually because he is under contract.
by buffaloboy90 on Mar 13, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but whayts to stop him from holding out again?
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Incentive bonuses?
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does it matter?
He is under contract, so what, let him hold out again. Let him play his two remaining years and franchise his fat ass. I am a huge Peters fan, but if he wants to overvalue himself, fine. He signed a contract, play it out or don’t play. OBD has ALL the leverage.
by NorCal BillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my thoughts exactly
too busy to express them myself, but all this trade talk is overblown. If they get a great (and I really mean GREAT) deal for Peters, then deal him. If not, keep him and make his fat ass play the next three years in Buffalo.
John I.
by jri111 on Mar 14, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wanting to get paid?
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
by WABillsfan on Mar 13, 2009 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh, this situation is going to be a pain in our behinds. I haven’t been on the trade Peters boat, and I’m not about to jump on, BUT if there is no resolution by mid-April, they almost have to begin trade talks. Peters, nor any other OT, should be getting $12-13M a year. Sorry Jake Long. This franchise simply can’t pay that pricetag, which is sad and unfortunate, but reality.
I would not take anything less than a pair of 1st’s or a 1st, 2nd and another 2nd-3rd rounder. We can’t take diminished value on Peters because we aren’t willing to give him $13M a year. The problem with the teams listed, other than Philly and Detroit, is they don’t have the ammunition we should be looking for. STL isn’t going to offer #2, and if they did, why wouldn’t we just pay Peters what he wants since it’ll be comparable to what that unproven draftee gets? AZ and Pittsburgh have nothing to offer us. The latest first rounders available? No thank you. I bet the Redskins would be interested, maybe Tampa Bay.
And if we trade Peters and replace him with Andre Smith, I would absolutely barf.
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
by Kurupt on Mar 13, 2009 12:53 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Nicely put K
This is exactly the way I feel about the Peters situation.
Get the Bills back to the big game!
by Blitz on Mar 13, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, agreed.
The captial of Youboty is Youboty.
by thatguy34 on Mar 13, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Andre Smith would be a steal…..in the 6th round.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then
you haven’t seen him play
"I don't agree with a damn thing you say, but I would die for your right to say it."
by ForeignArrow on Mar 13, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I refer you to: Mike Williams.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Andre Smith couldn’t replace Peters.
Tough situation. Just makes you realize how immature these players really are.
by buffaloboy90 on Mar 13, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec'd
Andre Smith didn’t play DB for Ohio State so I think we’re safe on that score…
Peters is a very good but not elite tackle. He doesn’t deserve to be paid like the best in the game because he quite simply isn’t. I hope Buffalo doesn’t break the bank for him as it will be deterimental to the team as a whole.
Of course, Peters knows that Jauron has his back to the wall. Jauron has to win now or lose his last head coaching gig. Winning now requires stability at left tackle so I can see Peters digging in his hooves. The very same agent who told Peters last year (Parker?) that holding out was a fine idea will be telling him this year that it is an even better idea now.
So, the Bills won’t be inlined to pay Peters $10+ million per year (thereby weakening the team in the long run) and Peters won’t be inclined to take less. Yeah, the whole situation points to a trade.If it comes to it, Buffalo might be able to get the #21 and #28 out of the Eagles—-since Philly doesn’t like to pick in the first round anyway. If they don’t come through, the Lions have the #20 and #33 picks. That would allow them to get Stafford, Peters and still have a pair of third rounders.
by Ron From NM on Mar 13, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree. I’ve been on the bandwagon not because I want Peters to leave, but because it has been apparent that he just thinks he’s worth way more than he is. My belief this whole time is that the situation would come to an impasse, and a trade would be necessary. Not desirable, but necessary.
by thefourwinds on Mar 13, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep! I just hope we get good value for him.
What is the absolute lowest offer you take from Philly or Detriot for Peters? I would say this years 1st and 2nd, plus next years 2nd.
How T.O. got #81 as adapted from a "Fish called Wanda"
- After asking for #81 for free, Hardy calls T.O. a cheap, me first team cancer.
[T.O. dangles Hardy out a window.]
Hardy: All right, all right, I apologize.
T.O.: You're really sorry!
Hardy: I'm really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly.
T.O.: You take it back!
Hardy: I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.
T.O.: OK.
by Joe P. on Mar 13, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd want two firsts
and when I say this, I consider Detroit’s 33 pic a first rounder, cause lets be honest, it basicly is, and a later pick. So here it is:
From Philly: This year’s 21st pick, preferably also the 28th pick (although I’d settle for next year’s first rounder), and a third (if they give us the two firsts from this year, make the third next year’s, if they only give us one first this year, then the 3rd rounder must also be this year’S)
From Detroit: This years 20th pick, and the 33rd, and next year’s 3rd rounder or next year’s 4th rounder and 6th rounders.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Precedent? I think you are asking for more than any player has ever brought back in a trade since Eric Dickerson and Herschel Walker got traded. If you wouldn’t accept less in a trade, then you won’t find a partner to deal with. It’s really an outrageous amount.
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I realised my error in this post later down in the thread, and adjusted what i’d take accordingly. although what i put up there is a dream scenario, it’s very unlikely (look under a possible impossibility) that it would ever happen.
But 1 first and a third in this draft, plus a second next year, or another third and another later pick, wuld be a good deal for the Bills.
I think the most comparable trade that would indicate god value for what we can get for Peters is the Jared Allen trad from two seasons ago.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We would need to look to future drafts to secure the additional picks I feel
Most teams would cough up a 1st and maybe a 3rd this year, and say an additional 2nd next draft to do so if we pushed it. But no one will cough up 3 high picks this year.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
by WABillsfan on Mar 13, 2009 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Bills might want to try a new strategy- actually keeping their best players.
by Make a play Whitner on Mar 13, 2009 12:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's a great idea
Having cleared out Dockery, and with two relatively inexpensive guys at C and RG, the Bills ought to have the dollars to pay Peters. My guess is that their willingness to trade him will hinge on whether or not they think Demetrius Bell has the potential to be an elite LT. If they think he has, and if they believe they could plug him into that spot as soon as next season or midway through 2009, then it makes it much easier to trade Jason. Otherwise, they would have to use their #11 draft pick to replace him, and that is a terrible idea IMO. Of course, if they do use Bell to replace Peters, they will have to pay HIM a huge salary in a couple of years, so I don’t see the advantage, especially since 2009 is such a crucial year for the coach and organization.
by Macktruck on Mar 13, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chambers
Chambers didn’t do a terrible job a LT last season. I’m sure the Bills could make do with Langston at LT and Chambers at RT
by buffaloboy90 on Mar 13, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chambers/Walker/Bell
Or possibly put Walker at LT and use 2009 to break in Bell at RT, with Chambers either at LG or as the back-up OT. Keep in mind that Bell is now up to 320 lbs (on his way to 325 or 330 by the start of training camp). He is incredibly athletic and quick, and has very long arms. In effect, he is now the equivalent of the OT that would be available to the Bills in the first round of this year’s draft. He lacks NFL experience and represents something of a risk, but that would also be true of a rookie first-rounder. He may be a real possibility if Peters is traded, although my preference by far would be to work out a deal with Peters.
by Macktruck on Mar 13, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Langston Walker is not the answer at LT.
He performed well last year at the spot on a limited basis but he doesn’t have the footwork for the position.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 3:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know what you are saying, but if it is necessary to trade Peters it seems to me that putting Walker (or Chambers) at LT on a temporary basis would be ok until Bell is ready. I would much rather see that than using the #11 pick on an LT when the team has so many other needs and has the potential replacement for Peters (i.e., Bell) already on board.
by Macktruck on Mar 13, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But we have seen nothing from Bell
and you’re already saying he will step into the starting LT role by the end of the year? Has he even ever been active for a game?
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right that that may be jumping the gun, but the reports that have come out of OBD the past year indicate that the coaching staff thinks he is a very special talent — far beyond what one would expect from a seventh round pick. Chris Brown just today on his blog observed that the current plan appears to be to give Bell (along with Chambers) a shot at the starting LG position, which suggests the team thinks he might be ready to become a starter even though he got virtually no playing time last year. My main point remains that their willingness to trade Peters ought to depend on the confidence they have in Bell. If they think Bell will be ready to take over at LT before long, then Peters becomes more expendable; if they don’t think that then they ought to pay Jason whatever he wants.
by Macktruck on Mar 13, 2009 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's reasonable.
Starting an inexperienced guy at LG is different than LT. But I’m glad to hear they are so high on Bell.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 15, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, Walker is no LT
Walker is a really good RT, but he doesn’t have the speed or the ability to quickly adapt to a play that is necessary to cover Trent’s blind side.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
even though he played well last season at LT...
by buffaloboy90 on Mar 14, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
as a stop gap measure yes he did, but over an entire season, no way.
You have to remember that even when he was used at LT it was sparingly so, and mostly in runblocking situations. IMO he simply lacks the quickness and the footwork to be a good LT over the entirety of a season.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 14, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not at an overvalued price like he is asking for at the present time.
by tomsbills on Mar 13, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dream scenario out of a nightmare situation:
How ’bout the Cards 1st plus Boldin? Their 1st is essentially a 2nd, and Boldin is essentially a 1st.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 12:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Who are we? The Lions with trying to get all these WR's?
Don’t answer that
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
by Kurupt on Mar 13, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to be that "dead horse guy," so i'll try to refrain from here on out but,
It’s me looking into unfinished (well, okay never started on my behalf – how dare they!) business. TO most likely is on a 1-year trip here. Then they’re back in the same boat. Adding Q would get rid of the Q currently set to be in place at #2. I know, trading Peters for skill position players is not the wisest move. But trading him at all isn’t the wisest move. Why not get a stud player and a 1st? I could see AZ doing it.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't like it
We have all the WR’s that we need right now.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i just can’t believe we are talking about this. Peters, Lynch . . . what is wrong with these people. Maybe too young…
by labill on Mar 13, 2009 1:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Peters just woke up and realized “hey people like me, AND i’m good!” He’s not too young. Lynch, yeah he’s someone who’s going to look back in 5 years and smack himself silly.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lets hope your right about Lynch
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is Wrong
Lynch is from the hood man. Carrying around a gun and smoking the bad stuff is like carrying around a cell phone for him.
Peters is just an immature a$$
by buffaloboy90 on Mar 13, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is Peters looking for a contract extension in any way immature?
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 13, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or more reprehensible than Lynch’s transgressions?
by jj24 on Mar 13, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The man just wants his fair value
I doubt that you’d do any differently. it’s not immature
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If “his fair value” is more than last year’s #1 overall pick is making, then I would not describe that as “fair value.”
by thefourwinds on Mar 13, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
Long will be a GREAT LT, but I think in the end Peters is/will be even better. so for him to ask for the same amount or greater than Long isn’t uncalled for. Do I think he deserves more money than long? no, but equal contract value, yes. And I honestly think that thats what he’s aiming for when he asks for more, cause you never start out a negotiation by asking what you want, you always ask for more.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s not really the point he is making though. You can’t compare how good they are because what if Jake Long was a complete and total bust? Would every LT in the league suddenly be worth that much because they are better than Long? The point is that you can’t compare what the first overall pick got to determine what you are worth. The situtations are just too different. What if Miami had gone with Chris Long or Matt Ryan instead? Would Peters suddenly be worth less?
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True enough, but I still think that comparing the worth of the deal is still comparable. Although he’d probably be better off trying to compare himself to Floxell Adams, Tra Thomas and Shawn Andrews than Jake Long.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure Peters agrees. I just don’t see how you can because these guys all get the money based on where they got drafted and not due to what position they play or what the market price is for that position. It’s one of the big reasons that QBs and OTs and DEs always go so high, teams just don’t want to hand out those huge contracts to other positions when you can sign them for cheaper as FAs.
Jordan Gross and his shiny new 6 year, 60 mil contract should be the measuring stick for Peters. One way the situation could work out is where Peters wants more than that, or maybe even more than Long and Buffalo ends up giving him an extension that pays him more than Long, but still includes the last two years of his deal. So Peters signs a 4 year extension worth 54 mil (13.5 mil per season), but includes his last two seasons making it a 6 year deal worth 60 mil. Peters can go ahead and think he is the highest paid OT in the league, but he really just got the same contract as Gross. You keep his 09 and 2010 salaries the same, but include his monster signing bonus spread out over the 2 seasons so he gets his fair share of the contract right away.
It’s the same thing Buffalo did with Evans. People think it’s a 4 year contract worth 37 mil, but he was still technically under contract for this upcoming season. The final year was voidable and Evans obviously would have, but the contract that Evans signed was really an extension that included that voidable year, so Evans really signed a 5 year deal worth less than 40 mil and less than 8 mil per season.
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Kaiser – you took all of the words right out of my mouth. Everyone is saying how far off they are and blah, blah, blah. They are really not. This is just posturing by Parker. His ego mandates that Peters be deemed the highest paid OL.
I swear to you, I had the same idea as you. Only, my numbers were a little less (4 for 48). You didn’t say what you had in mind for an signing bonus. I was going on around 18.
I think this can, should, and will work itself out.
by krytime on Mar 14, 2009 12:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, they’re only far off because they havn’t done much negotiating. If Parker comes back from the Bills offer and says, 10 mil a year sounds fair, then Buffalo can come back and say, how about 9 mil a year? Like you said, they are just posturing.
I only picked 54 mil because it comes out to the same contract that Gross got. It could easily be more or less, it could be more years or they could end up throwing one or both of Peters’ remaining years under contract out. But I really doubt that the Bills end up giving Peters a long type contract.
I do like the idea of an extension though. It seems like the kind of thing Peters would go for.
by kaisertown on Mar 14, 2009 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair to you, I made my guess before Gross got signed.
by krytime on Mar 14, 2009 8:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just realised something, we were agree to basicly the same thing but from different points of view. whats you proposing is essentially a 10M per year contract extension, which is what I’ve been saying (look elsewhere in this thread, i do give about the same numbers). We just have different ways to go about it.
All though I must admit that I much prefer the way that you go about as opposed to an outright rewriting of his contract. Well thought out and well payed.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 14, 2009 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was never really sure if we were far apart numbers wise. 10 mil sounds about right to me and I honestly don’t care how they get there. I just thought the extension makes sense for both sides.
All I was really saying is that I agreed with fourwinds and that Long’s contract shouldn’t be relevant. I guess it does matter to Parker and Peters which makes it relevant, but logically it shouldn’t be the way to measure what Peters is worth.
Basically, comparing Peters to Long isn’t really comparing Peters to Long. It’s comparing Peters’ value to that of the first overall pick in the draft.
by kaisertown on Mar 14, 2009 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looking for an extension by itself wouldn’t be immature. The way he has gone about it for the last 1 1/2 years and the inflated amount he thinks he’s worth is what’s immature.
by thefourwinds on Mar 13, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is the difference between making 10 million a year or 9 million? I mean c’mon these guys are so ridiculous. If it were me, I’de take the 9 million and skip all the drama. idk if 9 million is the number but w/e
by buffaloboy90 on Mar 13, 2009 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
THere's a big difference between 9 and 12...
which are the likely numbers being thrown around.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m guessing it’s close to 8 and 11, but there still isn’t that much of a difference in the grander scheme of things. I’d offer him 10 per year and if he doesn’t take that,, hen you trade him.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jake Long got 11.5
Peters is asking for more than 11.5. He wants to be the highest-paid.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Long got 10M
Ok 11.5+ is a lot, and I don’t think he should get that.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What can you do with 12 million dollars that you can’t do with 9 million dollars?
by buffaloboy90 on Mar 14, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sign Jason Peters?
note: that was a joke
But seriously, they aren’t off by three mil, they are off by at least 3 mil per season. So it is really 3 mil times however many years Peters gets. So we are talking about a 15 mil or more difference.
by kaisertown on Mar 14, 2009 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d buy a 10 million dollar car.
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
by Kurupt on Mar 14, 2009 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then you’re thinking a Ferrari 250 GTO or a Bugatti Royale. Nice.
everything goes better with a BIG MACK
by keuka121 on Mar 14, 2009 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can I ask
Why is it that we know the Free Agent deals of every Tom, Dick and Harry, but Bills contracts are almost always slow (or not forthcoming)? I just want to know what Hangartner’s (and Fitzpatrick’s) contract is — I assume it is something like 4 years, $7 million, but knowing the Bills, I cringe at the thought of something rediculous.
by labill on Mar 13, 2009 1:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
we got Fitz and Hangartner on the cheap
considering Hangartner is a starter we got him real cheap. FO did a great job.
"Gooood…..let the apathy take root…" - Ron from NM
by poz on Mar 13, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In terms of salary…
Hangartner – 4 years, $9.6M
Fitzpatrick – 3 years, $6.9M
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 13, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
I had never seen that information. Both seem on the high end, but not too bad. Do you think there was any connection between the release of Dockery (the dollar savings) and the plans to re-do Peters? I always had presumed when Dockery got waived that that was so Peters would get his money (and cap the $ spent on the line in the aggregate).
by labill on Mar 13, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
labill - that is VERY cheap
in today’s NFL for two players that played almost ALL of last season AND started in a lot of games.
The time to deliver is now and if you fail to do so you will no doubt witness the consequences first hand.
by Cutter3636 on Mar 13, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2.4 M per year for Hangartner is a STEAL, and Fitzpatrick got signed for a fair value.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, especially considering the deals many other backups QBs are getting now
With the changes in the coverage rules, killing the QB is NOW the thing to do, so teams need someone who can cover for the starter in short bursts, or to finish the season, hence why all backup QBs deals are increasing at pretty good clip season to season.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
by WABillsfan on Mar 13, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just goes back to the old saying
Whats the most important position on a team? Quarterback. What’s the second most important position? Backup Quarterback.
The saleries are finally starting to show this as being truth.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Bills didn’t actually get Hangartner for 9.6 mil right? The Bills love to put lots of bonuses on contracts too. If you compare what Rotoworld says in terms of salary to what USA Today says players earned the year before, they don’t always match up. I learned that lesson the hard way with Dockery.
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
USA today usually uses cap hit figures.
The cap hits don’t line up with the salary because they add the pro-rated portion of the signing bonus onto that year’s salary.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus it's impossible to know when roster bonuses are due...
and how much they are worth.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it’s impossible to know when and what bonuses players are going to get, but you can figure out how much money the team still owes players over the life of the contract if you know what the total size of the contract is. My whole point is that Hangartner isn’t only making 2.5 mil per year and that you can’t trust Rotoworld without using other sources.
USA Today lists salary, bonuses and cap hits. I’ll use Marshawn’s contract as the example:
Lynch signed a 6 year deal worth 18.9 mil. The last year of the deal is voidable and worth 1.1 mil. So Marshawn really signed a 17.8 mil, five year contract. Rotoworld lists the salaries for the remaining years as:
2009 – .63 mil
2010 – .89 mil
2011 – 1.14 mil
So that adds up to a little more than 2.5 mil in remaining salary.
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_contract.aspx?sport=NFL&id=4186
But USA Today says that Marshawn has only received 6.6 mil in salary and bonuses so far.
http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/playerdetail.aspx?player=4533
So that leaves almost 9 mil in missing money that Buffalo owes Lynch, but that Rotoworld doesn’t list. I’m assuming that Hangartner, like Lynch is making more than Rotoworld has listed because of built in bonuses that OBD and their “not releasing contract information” policy hasn’t yet told anyone about.
So in the same way that Lynch will actually make about 3 mil per season over the last 3 years of his contract, Hangartner will probably be making around 4 mil per season depending on how big his initial signing bonus and other first year bonuses are.
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your probably right about the bonuses
but it doesn’t change the fact that Hangartner’s total contract is still worth only 9.6 million over 4 years, so i don’t really care how the binuses add up and where, and average salery of 2.4 million per year is a steal for a starting centre that can also start at the guard position.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you (or anyone else for that matter) have a solid link about that?
From what I can remember, every time I have seen that 9.6 mil figure, it has been followed by the phrase “in base salary”. If nothing else, I’m sure he got a signing bonus that obviously isn’t included in the 9.6 because rotoworld only lists his first year as 1.9 mil.
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’ve just been oing by the numbers that Brian gave us.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 14, 2009 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been silent on this issue for a while
truly because I don’t know what there is to really say about it.
I love Peters but a draft day trade with Philly for two firsts would be hard to turn down if Oher is on the board at 11
I dont know…too much speculation to have an indepth discussion.
"Gooood…..let the apathy take root…" - Ron from NM
by poz on Mar 13, 2009 1:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!
by J2 on Mar 13, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m on record as saying he’s at least worth two first rounders, plus some more. Think about this – how could his agent justify saying he should be the highest paid OL in the game at it’s most important position, and not be worth two firsts? If he’s not worth two firsts, he’s not worthy of being the king of the hill.
by krytime on Mar 14, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your right on the trade value
now the trick is to get other teams to agree on that value
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 14, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
how could his agent justify saying he should be the highest paid OL in the game at it’s most important position, and not be worth two firsts?
Because you aren’t just trading away two firsts, you are also giving up about 60 million dollars. You have to figure in the dollars and cap space that it takes to sign a player like Peters. So the Bills wouldn’t just be getting the draft picks, they are also acquiring the cap space and real dollars to sign about a forty to fifty million dollar player next offseason. That also means that Philly is giving up the draft picks as well as the cap space that they could have used to make a big move next offseason.
by kaisertown on Mar 14, 2009 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not quite sure I agree with that line of thinking. But, I can’t give a reason as of yet.
by krytime on Mar 14, 2009 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
three firsts would make for an exciting draft day.....
"Gooood…..let the apathy take root…" - Ron from NM
by poz on Mar 14, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you a Madden guy? If your looking to make a trade, who do you value more, the guy with an average sized contract, or the guy who makes the most at his position in the league?
And it isn’t just his salary, Philly has to give Peters a pretty sizeable signing bonus this offseason too.
by kaisertown on Mar 14, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's take a pragmatic view of the situation
Franchise LT’s are about the only position on par with Franchise QBs. Normally they get drafted in the top 3. For a 2times probowl LT that is in his prime (27) you must expect compensation in the same range as a #1 to #3 overall pick.
As per this year’s trade chart a #1 is worth 3000 and a #5 is worth 1700.
Philly would need to give up their #21 (800) AND their #28 (660) – and that would only be 1460, leaving 740. If we added their 2nd round pick (#52, 380) it would mean that they’d be offering a total of 1840, which is equivalent to a #4 overall, which seems reasonable to me.
At #11 we surely could get a decent LT that could start right away, someone like Andre Smith might actually fall to us or a guy like Michael Oher but in fact we could still trade down and still get him. Then we could take Pettigrew at 21 and maybe Stintim or Jerry at #28. Then we’d have possibly 3 2nd round picks (assuming we traded down) so we could get Robert Ayers, then Unger or Mack and maybe even Michael Johnson.
Call me crazy if you wish but Andy Reed is on the hot seat with McNabb and they need to win now, if they want a 2xpro-bowl LT, they need to ante up at least the equivalent of a #5 overall, which would be an incredible windfall for us. I’d take it in a flash!
Your ability to control the LOS is directly linked to your ability to win football games!
FEED the BEAST!
by keysh67 on Mar 13, 2009 1:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’ll agree that that should be the asking price for Peters, but I don’t think anyone is going to give use that (two first and a second). But if they do, you jump on it!
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
The difference is between thoretical value and tangible value.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But even Peters’ tangible value has been less than what he thinks. I have to go with Ron from NM here. Peters is indeed great, but not nearly as good as he perceives.
by thefourwinds on Mar 13, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what about Rams or Lions
and getting Curry at OLB? A lot of money but hes going to be a stud
"Gooood…..let the apathy take root…" - Ron from NM
by poz on Mar 13, 2009 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trade Value isn't what you think
Randy Moss was had for a 4th rounder and Matt Cassel AND Mike Vrabel were stolen for a 2nd. No one is going to give up a 1st rounder plus possibly 2 of them AND a third thrown in to sweeten the deal. the Bills need to sign Peters longterm….BOTTOM LINE, END OF STORY.
THIS PIC LOOKS LIKE 5-1 TO 7-9!!!!!!!!!!!!
by JTM1023 on Mar 13, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moss was thought to be washed up by the Raiders. They thought they were getting a steal i’m sure. Cassel and Vrabel have been exposed as a collusion situation. Plus, NE values 2nd rounders more than 1st, apparently.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but what about the Jared Allen trade?
Mini gave up a first, two thirds and a sixth for him. I think that thats just about the value that we can get out a Peters in a trade. Anything less and you just don’t trade him.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is easily the most comparable trade. Considering that Allen is probably a better player than Peters, I think we can throw the pipedream of two first round picks out the window.
You could probably get a first rounder and another good early/middle round pick for Peters.
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can say that I might be asking for a lot, but I either want 2 first rounders or a first and two 3rds. In an Ideal world, 2 first and a later round pick, but i doubt that will happen.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would go with this from Philly
Their 21st, their 53rd this year in the draft and also an additional 2nd rounder in the 2010 draft.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
by WABillsfan on Mar 13, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that would be an acceptable deal
not exactly great, but acceptible
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m still not sure you can get that, but it’s possible. Put yourself in Philly’s shoes and think about it like that. What would you trade for Jason Peters? Would you want the Bills to deal 2 firsts or a first and 2 seconds to get a younger Julius Peppers and then give him a contract to make him one of the highest couple paid players at his position in the league?
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you put it like that, yes
If i coul get a yong Julius Peppers and made sure he spent the prime of his potentially Hall Of Fame career with my team, then yes i would do that.
Now I’m not calling Peters a future HOFer, but if his talent augments/stay constant for the next 8-10 years, then he could deffinatly be considered.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. It isn’t that I don’t think Peters is worth the picks. It’s just the huge contract he will have to be given after the trade. A team will essentially have to give up the picks and then hand Peters a check worth 15 mil or whatever in signing bonus money. Your trading money or cap space along with the picks. A team that trades for Peters is basically making him their first round pick as well as a couple other picks AND their top FA signing.
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but those picks were all in one year….
WHat about a 1st and 3rd/4th this year, and maybe next year’s first from someone? Or next year’s second if that’s too steep?
We aren’t trading him though.
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
by Kurupt on Mar 14, 2009 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That sounds closer to me. A first and third this year and a second next year, especially if that is Philly making the deal and not Detroit.
I agree we aren’t trading him. And I don’t think the value that people are suggesting is that far off, I just don’t think you can get two picks in the top 33 for Peters right now.
by kaisertown on Mar 14, 2009 2:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know this wouldn't apply to him...
With two years left he is not eligable for it but does anyone know what the franchise tag number is for LT’s?
I think this number would give us a more realistic figure to start with in negotiations, instead of comparing it to a first round draft pick.
by Honestabe75 on Mar 13, 2009 1:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We already offered him more than that.
The franchise amount is 8.5M for O Linemen. We offered him at least that.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BRING IN THE FIRST 2 ROUNDERS AND WILL BE SET
look guy;s we can argue what we want but if Peters doesent want to play hear HELL WITH THAT=== Lets get the best deal so we can move on and dont have a distraction we want him hear . HE WANTS MEGA BUCKS . see you if he at least came last year and play maybe the bills will pay him what he wanted. becuse he put his team first . SO THat said LETS get the new players and I KNOW WE ARE GOING TO THE BIG SHOW. REGARDLESS who is hear so sayonara PETERS IF YOU DONT WANT TO play in BILLS TOWN. NOT COMPLAINING YOUST WANT TO WINN BABY
by abayarde on Mar 13, 2009 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
All indications are that Peters wants to be here. In fact, there are whispers that Peters recently told somebody somewhere that he’s not planning on holding out next year, even if he doesn’t have a new deal.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 13, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That sounds great BUT
I will believe that when I see it and not before. AND – if he has this attitude why not lock him up long term NOW???
The time to deliver is now and if you fail to do so you will no doubt witness the consequences first hand.
by Cutter3636 on Mar 13, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, they’re trying to lock him up, aren’t they? Hence the negotiations.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 13, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously this is what has come to fruition
but if the guy won’t hold out this year, why did he hold out last year if he doesn’t want a new deal??? Kind of stupid reasoning behind that theory.
The time to deliver is now and if you fail to do so you will no doubt witness the consequences first hand.
by Cutter3636 on Mar 13, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peters may actually be looking at things level-headed
Holding out isn’t playing nice with your teammates. Not playing nice with your teammates may cause your team to fail. Failing doesn’t allow you to reach the post season. Not reaching the post season doesn’t afford you the accolades and endorsments that finishing the post season does.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And prevents you from pushing for a bigger contract down the road
Either with your current team -“Look what we did with me on the team! I deserve more!” or in eventual FA “Look what I did with that team! We went deep in the Playoffs! Pay me like I deserve!”
He needs the team to succeed, and I still hold that it was Parker filling his head with nonsense, Parker is NOTORIUS for taking on new players who still have older deals in place and then trying to get new bigger deals so he can get a cut (3%) of the new deal since he doesn’t get anything from the old deal.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
by WABillsfan on Mar 13, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure what you’re driving at here.
- Peters held out last year because he wanted a new deal.
- Peters realizes now that his decision was dumb because it severely hindered his on-field play.
- Peters has apparently said he’s not going to hold out again, even if he doesn’t have a new deal.
That’s what I know.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 13, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a fresh of breath air.
His apparent announcement about not holding out is the best news i’ve heard on this entire matter.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just FYI, it’s second-hand information. I have no way of confirming it.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Mar 13, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It provides optimistic hope. We’ll take what we can get here.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not surprised that Peters wouldn’t hold out. I would bet that is only true if there are still efforts to get him that new deal going on though.
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mayb he held out last year because he wanted a new deal and thought that he'd get it
But since the Bills stood their ground, what would be the point of holding out again? he knows it wont bring anything more to the table. Plus he made his point last year and is now getting what he wanted during his holdout: a contract renegotiation.
Ok he might be asking for more than what h might be worth, but you always start a negotiation by asking for more than what you want. His asking price will eventually come down, and the Bills will eventually raise what they’re willing to pay. So I’m willing to wait and see what happens, I have confidence that OBD will get this deal done.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But since the Bills stood their ground, what would be the point of holding out again?
Because after an epic collapse, the Bills FO, especially Jauron, is under much more pressure to win now. A holdout by Peters combined with Lynch’s up coming suspension and T.O.‘s reaction to losing could put Jauron in a hole he can’t climb out of. I am sure Peter’s agent knows this too.
How T.O. got #81 as adapted from a "Fish called Wanda"
- After asking for #81 for free, Hardy calls T.O. a cheap, me first team cancer.
[T.O. dangles Hardy out a window.]
Hardy: All right, all right, I apologize.
T.O.: You're really sorry!
Hardy: I'm really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly.
T.O.: You take it back!
Hardy: I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.
T.O.: OK.
by Joe P. on Mar 13, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
true enough, but i think he’s more likely to get what he wants bu not threathening to hold out. you know, negotiating in good faith and all. and I think he an his agent know that as well. so it really could go either way.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All indications are that Peters wants to be here. In fact, there are whispers that Peters recently told somebody somewhere that he’s not planning on holding out next year, even if he doesn’t have a new deal.
And you just decide to tell us this now??
by thefourwinds on Mar 13, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plans change. I will believe it when he reports.
How T.O. got #81 as adapted from a "Fish called Wanda"
- After asking for #81 for free, Hardy calls T.O. a cheap, me first team cancer.
[T.O. dangles Hardy out a window.]
Hardy: All right, all right, I apologize.
T.O.: You're really sorry!
Hardy: I'm really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly.
T.O.: You take it back!
Hardy: I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.
T.O.: OK.
by Joe P. on Mar 13, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps I go back to our original position
Peters has 2 years of contract left. He has Franchise Tag after that. Too bad, so sad — you signed the extension, you live with it ($4 million is not so bad). I just don’t know why the Bills told him they would redo his contract in return for him ending the holdout last year (did they really do that?). I am surprised that the original position that many (most) of us had last year doesn’t still apply (hold out if you want to — we will not trade you; you have no leverage).
by labill on Mar 13, 2009 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Peters Holding out is a Disadvantage
to the Bills, Peters and the NFL. The Bills lose their best left tackle in years and they get NOTHING for him in return while he sits at home. Peters loses all sorts of money and the NFL is without one of the best lineman in the game today.
How did Miami rebuild it’s franchise? They started with LT and now you want to trade Peters? HORRIBLE IDEA!
Bottom Line – WE MUST RESIGN PETERS – 5 yrs. $50 million
The time to deliver is now and if you fail to do so you will no doubt witness the consequences first hand.
by Cutter3636 on Mar 13, 2009 2:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Absolutly
the price is high, but the caliber of player is worth it.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if we offered him 5 years and 50 mil and he turned it down?
More realistically they offered him aroun 8 or 9.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
then you see if you can’t bring his total price down by garanteeing more money, and if he still continuously turns you down without showing the ability to move off his asking price and meet the team half way, then you trade him
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, he’s not worth it. He is not Jake Long, he’s not as good, and he’s not as young.
by thefourwinds on Mar 13, 2009 4:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not as young, agreed, not as good?
I think Peters is as good/better than Jake Long will prove to be
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There were already stats shown earlier in the offseason that showed how much better at pass protection Jake Long was this past year (in his first season) than Peters was. Isn’t pass protection what’s supposed to make LTs so important?
by thefourwinds on Mar 13, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t pass protection what’s supposed to make LTs so important?
Yes it is, but Long also had two things that Peters missed: a good pass blocking guard and a QB thats good at avoiding the rush.
Lets be honest here, as great as Dockery is at run blocking is also as inept he his and pass blocking. The fact that Peters, on many occasions, also had to help Dock out on his assignments as well as taking care of his own caused his sacks aloud numbers to skyrocket.
As for the QB, Trent is decent at avoiding the rush and didn’t let an verwhelming amount of DE’s sack him. However we can’t say the same about JP Losman. No other QB let himself be sacked in so few plays as JP did last season. On many occasions when he had plenty of time to throw the ball away (or even make a completion) he just curled up in a ball and took the sack. JP did not help the sack total.
Peters is TREMDOUS in the runblocking department, and a great pass blocker that had a bad season. I am fully confident that Peters when all is said and done, Peters will prove to be the better LT.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 14, 2009 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, because Jake Long deserved $11.5M a year before even having one NFL practice.
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
by Kurupt on Mar 14, 2009 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it me? Or are our offseasons more exciting and eventful than our regular seasons?
by jj24 on Mar 13, 2009 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
nope
its not you….if you haven’t noticed the BIlls have been completely irrelevant for 10-15 years
MARVelous - "I went from America's team to North America's Team" Terrell Owens
by MARVelous on Mar 13, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for depressing my fandom
It was in 1995, against the Dolphins – 37-22. Wow has it been a long time. Since that game, it’s been 4 straight playoff losses.
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh wait -
3 straight losses. That seems so much better!
"Buffalo Bills Football 2009 (sponsored by Labatt): A Future as Uncertain as the Beer You’re Drinking"
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Mar 13, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah the memories ...
Tim Tindale running through the Miami defense … Shula looking like the clueless idiot he is …
Good times.
by sabre74kkn on Mar 13, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
bright side
the Cowboys haven’t won one since ‘96 right? Almost no point in going if you ain’t gonna win my book..
There is only one NFL football team that plays in New York state...and Canada?
by MonStarr_716 on Mar 13, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would say 10 to 15
But they haven’t been relevant since Flutie lef, that for sure
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Distraction
Since the signing of TO I have been hearing a lot about locker room cancers. As badly as we need peters back this can’t look good to his fellow teamates. It seems to me that a player holding out two years in a row for money reasons is just showing he is more interested in his money then getting his team back to the playoffs and making us a better team. Doesn’t this raise some red flags amongst the players and coaches?
by Bills_dude420 on Mar 13, 2009 2:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think your jumping the gun here
Peters hasn’t given any indications that he would hold out again; if anything there have been indications that he wouldn’t hold out even if he doesn’t get a new deal (thanks Brian). And calling Peters a cancer is way out of line. Lots of players have held out in the past, and the vast majority of them are far from being cancers. I think your just jumping to this cancer thing because, like you said, since signing TO we’ve been hearing a lot about team cancers. But I doubt that this label qualifies in anyway on Jason Peters.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a problem YET
I don’t think he is a cancer in the locker room right now. I just feel that if things continue the way they have there is a strong possibilty he could be. with this being the second year in a row we are having to deal with this, players and coaches will start to question if this is REALLY the place for him.
by Bills_dude420 on Mar 13, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the question might be is Buffalo “Really” a place for any all-pro. The Bills have to be committed to being competitive in compensating players that achieve a level of performance which requires top compensation within league standards. If the Bills feel otherwise than they need to stop pretending they are a competitive NFL franchise. Peters thinks he has reached that level and so do alot of other people on this site. This is gaged by what they expect in a trade for Peters. Since the Bills committed to Peters to renegotiate his current contract, that to me indicates a feeling of the FO that Peters is worth more than his current contract. The FO needs to come clean. Do they want to compete in the AFL East or did they sign T.O. just to sell some seats and con the Bills faithful into believing they are serious about winning something next year.
by gjv on Mar 13, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If the going market for an all-pro LT is $12-13 million /yr
then thats what the Bills need to pay Peters.
by gjv on Mar 13, 2009 3:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No, he is good maybe great, but NOT Elite
He got into the probowl this year due to name recognition, Ron pointed it out elsewhere that he had the MOST sacks of any tackle invited to the pro-bowl.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
by WABillsfan on Mar 13, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He had the most sacks allowed of any starting Left Tackle!!!
not just pro bowl tackles. :-)
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 13, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But thats with an inept Dock beside him. I’m positive that the number will drop with someone who knows how to pass block at left guard.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 13, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its really very simple, Pay him or not, If you pay him hopefully he again will play like a pro-bowler, if you don’t pay him he will hold out and eventually come in like last year but my bet is he don’t get a free pass to the pro bowl 2 yrs in a row and his agent knows that 2 poor years is not in their best interest. What is not the answer is to cave and trade him, You cannot expect anything good to happen if you have a new LT and a new LG , Edwards won’t last a month and the running backs will again be on their own. Like I said at the start it is very simple it all starts and ends in the trenches. The Bills should pay up and spend 3-4 of the 7 picks in the draft on acquiring Trench-men on both side for depth and eventual replacements.
by Rocco58 on Mar 13, 2009 8:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Miami and Denver both added a new LT and LG last year and they had OLs that played better than the year before. And Brad Butler is this team’s new LG unless they make a really big move (trading for Waters is maybe where that starts and ends). And the left side of the OL accounted for like 70% of the sacks from last year. I really doubt that a new combo, regardless of who they are will lead to Trent being hit more than last year.
by kaisertown on Mar 13, 2009 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peters Play Last Year
I don’t know if everyone just forgot, but Peters sucked last year. Big time. What was it like the 2nd most sacks let up in the NFL for a LT.?
by buffaloboy90 on Mar 14, 2009 12:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
MattRichWarren hit it right on the head. Just like you are pointing out.
Blockquoted paragraphHe had the most sacks allowed of any starting Left Tackle!!!
not just pro bowl tackles. :-)bq. Blockquoted paragraph
by Bills_dude420 on Mar 14, 2009 1:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
haha
Sorry I’m stupid how do I quote someone and not have all that non-sense in there?
by Bills_dude420 on Mar 14, 2009 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Highlight the text you want to quote, copy it. Then paste it in your reply window. Highlight it again, click on the the little quotation marks next to the strike through symbol and boom, you’re done.
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
by Kurupt on Mar 14, 2009 2:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t it, “BAM, you’re done!”
or… “Boom goes the dynamite!”
by thefourwinds on Mar 14, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe Brett Myers said it best with “boom …. outta here”
by kaisertown on Mar 14, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kaiser, is there another JLong or even R Clady out there for the Bills at 11 ? Yes Peters had a poor year,all the more reason to sign him, have reporting clauses and off season workout clauses. If he is in shape and involved you are not going to find a better option at LT. The line needs consistancy and stability or we will be having the same conversation next year.. Everyone who says trade him, Who will replace him D Bell, or a gamble on a rookie like MWilliams or maybe we’ll pay 8-9 mil to an old vet like Pace for a year or maybe two. Peters is our best option Lets get it done now!!
by Rocco58 on Mar 14, 2009 10:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Once again, for my part, I say that trading him is not what I want to see happen, but it is a better option than having him sit out.
What remains to be seen is whether he will actually report to OTAs, etc., if the contract isn’t worked out.
by thefourwinds on Mar 14, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your right that Buffalo isn’t likely to find a better left tackle then Jason Peters in the draft or any other way either. What I think is debatable is: Is there a better way to spend 60 million dollars? It’s not just Peters vs. new left tackle, its Peters vs. players you draft with the picks you acquire AND a player you can sign next offseason with the money you were going to give Peters.
And Michael Oher and Andre Smith have similiar ability to what people thought of Ryan Clady coming out of college. Both are way more highly thought of than Sam Baker who had a good year in Atlanta on that come from nowhere to be an awesome offense. I think there is a better chance that OT is the best player available than almost every other position.
by kaisertown on Mar 14, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To followup on your thought....
Due to the contract which Peters will command (around $60mil), isn’t it more logical for the Bills to trade with the Rams than anybody else?
Let’s face it, from Bills perspective, it’d be nice to get 2 first round picks from Philly. But why would Philly give up 2 first rounders AND then pick up Peters’ large contract at the same time? I just find it unlikely, but not impossible.
Rams, on the other hand, will HAVE to forge that money out if they stay on their 2nd overall pick. Consider that $60mil spent. Now that they have released Pace (creating a big hole at LT) and signed Jason Brown (FO’s direction of signing young and proven talent instead of just going all out for more picks to rebuild the team), I can totally see the Rams trading their 2nd overall pick for Peters — a proven commodity with 2 ProBowls under his belt as opposed to Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe (both of whom have yet to take a single snap in the NFL). With the “proven vs unproven” logic, it is reasonable to ask the Rams to give the Bills an extra 4th rounder to boot. Now the question is: If the Bills have to spend $60mil anyhow, why not on Jason Peters and on someone else? I have 3 reasons:
1)Aaron Curry — He is perfect fit for the Bills as a 4-3 OLB. He is also one of the best LB coming out in the last decade. He can be more elite than Peters.
2)An extra 4th round pick (the 3rd selection in the 4th round).
3)There are lots of great OT in this year’s draft whom I think can replace Peters. Oher is my fav.
Too outrageous?
Bills fan half way around the world
by moncheri on Mar 14, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rather realistic in it's logic
how it would translate to reality however remains to be seen.
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 14, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good call moncheri and CanadianBillsFan. I think it’s logical; let’s hope it happens. Curry would be awesome.
by thefourwinds on Mar 14, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what would you do with those picks ? Here is my take.
1 rd (2 from Rams) – Curry, OLD
1 rd (11) – Oher, OT
2 rd (42) – Michael Johnson, DE
3 rd (75) – Lawrence Sidbury, DE
*Overall selection number for all picks beyond round three will be added after compensatory picks are announced late in March, but just for a ball park reference as it stands now
4 rd (99 from the Rams) – Travis Beckum, TE
4 rd (106) – TJ Lang, OT
5 rd ( ) – Terrance Knighton , DT
6 rd ( ) – Quinn Johnson, FB
7 rd ( ) – Brian Hoyer, QB
The other day I came home and a guy was jogging, naked. I asked him,
'Why?' He said, 'Because you came home early.' - Rodney Dangerfield
by Joe P. on Mar 14, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like it, but why do you always insist on drafting a QB? I don’t get it
by CanadianBillsFan on Mar 14, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because I have always felt you should be developing a QB at all times
Fitz is set as the backup. Hammy has almost no value other than to pick up Edwards’ dry cleaning. Dump Hammy and draft someone with raw talent. If he develops, you pull a Pats and either trade your aging QB (Bledsoe) or trade him for more picks (Cassel)
The other day I came home and a guy was jogging, naked. I asked him,
'Why?' He said, 'Because you came home early.' - Rodney Dangerfield
by Joe P. on Mar 14, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only thing
I’d change from your picks would be the 2nd rounder (42). I’d pick Unger or Mack. We need to fill in the OG position.
I’m kinda hoping Chase Coffman is still available by the 99th overall pick. But if not, Beckum will be my pick as well.
Bills fan half way around the world
by moncheri on Mar 15, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would love that myself.
I am not sure if OBD would see DE or OG as the bigger need. I like Beckum better than Coffman.
The other day I came home and a guy was jogging, naked. I asked him,
'Why?' He said, 'Because you came home early.' - Rodney Dangerfield
by Joe P. on Mar 15, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Michael Johnson
has too many question marks. I’d rather pick Sidbury Jr.
Bills fan half way around the world
by moncheri on Mar 16, 2009 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What happens when Curry goes #1?
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
by Kurupt on Mar 15, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Take Stafford....HaaaaaHaaaaaaHaaaa!!!!
The other day I came home and a guy was jogging, naked. I asked him,
'Why?' He said, 'Because you came home early.' - Rodney Dangerfield
by Joe P. on Mar 15, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We’d have to take the best OT prospect, which seems counterproductive.
We’d have to pay that guy similar money to Peters, and we’d be getting an unproven player. I’m not sure that’s worth it…
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
by Kurupt on Mar 15, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wanna bet someone (Detriot) would give us some picks for Stafford?
Similar to the Eli situation.
The other day I came home and a guy was jogging, naked. I asked him,
'Why?' He said, 'Because you came home early.' - Rodney Dangerfield
by Joe P. on Mar 15, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So we’d trade up to #2, only to trade out of the spot all the way down to #20 with other picks?
~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"
by Kurupt on Mar 15, 2009 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only if Curry was snapped up after the trade was made.
Better value for the money in mid first to late second rounds anyway, right. Not ideal to be sure, but you asked.
The other day I came home and a guy was jogging, naked. I asked him,
'Why?' He said, 'Because you came home early.' - Rodney Dangerfield
by Joe P. on Mar 15, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Curry goes #1,
then trade with Philly. Without Curry I won’t be interested in trading with the Rams.
Bills fan half way around the world
by moncheri on Mar 16, 2009 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The more and more I hear about it the more and more I’m hoping something like a trade with the rams for their number 2 pick happens. IMO Michael Oher or Andre Smith couldnt have a worse year then Peters did last year, and we would be able to pick up Aaron Curry with that second pick.
by Bills_dude420 on Mar 14, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But why would Philly give up 2 first rounders AND then pick up Peters’ large contract at the same time? I just find it unlikely
Drafting a top LT is a game of chance, Last year Jake Long got 57,75M with 30M guaranteed and he made the probowl, the only other top 5 LT to make the probowl in recent years is Joe Thomas, while guys like Brown, Fergusson & Gallery are yet to make the probowl. All these guys get big $$$ and only 40% have made the probowl. Peters has made it twice in the 3 years that he has been playing the position. He is just 27 years old, healthy and supremely athletic – he sure as hell deserves the $$ and he is most definitely the equivalent of a top 3 pick and no less. At today’s chart values that means he’s worth 2200 pts.
Philly’s coach & QB are both on the hot seat this year. They are in a “must win” year. Drafting a rookie LT that might or not pan out is probably not a very smart risk to take. Peters is an absolute sure bet. If we do not get compensation in the amount of at least 1700pts then we should re-sign him and move on. He is worth the money that he is asking for.
If we can get both of Philly’s picks (21 & 28) which would amount to 1460pts plus their 3rd (85) bringing to total to 1625 – I think it would be acceptable, otherwise we should just keep Peters.
There are lots of great OT in this year’s draft whom I think can replace Peters. Oher is my fav.
Your ability to control the LOS is directly linked to your ability to win football games!
FEED the BEAST!
by keysh67 on Mar 15, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are lots of great OT in this year’s draft whom I think can replace Peters. Oher is my fav.
I meant to say that I agree with you that Oher seems like a decent option in the later teens
Your ability to control the LOS is directly linked to your ability to win football games!
FEED the BEAST!
by keysh67 on Mar 15, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we can get 2 first + 1 third from Philly,
then that’s like a hands down trade; will do it immediately. We’ll see how desparate Philly really is.
Bills fan half way around the world
by moncheri on Mar 16, 2009 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who Knows in 09
Mon-ch- My first reaction is this will never happen , but then again a week ago I said the same thing about T.O. So maybe this is the year everything falls for the Bills.
Kaiser- One thing for sure the longer you wait to sign Peters the higher the price goes. We could have probably done the deal last summer and saved a heap of money this year. Again I would not trade him, I would pay him and/or play him this year .You can always draft Oher or Smith if availiable at 11 and start them at LG for a year and move Peters next offseason. This gives us our best chance for the Playoffs THIS year.
by Rocco58 on Mar 14, 2009 4:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rocco.
If you want to reply to a specific comment, it makes a lot more sense to the other readers and the people you are talking to if you hit “reply” on the comment. A new comment box appears and will thread along with the other comments.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Mar 15, 2009 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 






















