Eight teams to shop Jason Peters to
by Ron From NM on Apr 10, 2009 1:39 PM EDT
in Buffalo Bills Opinion
Email
PrintWe've been speculating for quite some time about possible landing spots for Buffalo Bills OT Jason Peters. The Eagles and Lions have been the most often mentioned landing spot, but they aren't the only team that could have interest. Tim Graham's most recent Peters article says Buffalo is not getting much interest from teams with a No. 1 and No. 3 asking price. So, the options, as I see them, that might be a bit more obtainable are after the jump.
The Lions have holes all over the team. If the team locks in on Stafford, as is being rumored at places like PFT, then trading for Peters certainly is plausible. In addition to #1 the Lions have #20, #33, #65 and #82. Some have speculated that the Lions wouldn't offer more than #33 and #65, which together equal the value of #20. I tend to think the Lions would rather go with the single pick as it lets them get more bodies. Besides, the Lions have already traded their 4th and 5th rounders away so any depth they get will be in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. My guess is that the Lions would consider trading #20 and possibly a pick next season contingent on Peters' performance.
The Eagles are loaded with picks and really aren't pressed at many positions other than OT. With #21, #28, #53, #85, and #117 they certainly have the picks to pry Peters away from Buffalo. I can see Buffalo wanting the #21 and the Eagles wanting to give up the #28. The point difference between those picks is 140 so I can see the teams getting creative in closing the gap. With most folks assuming that Parrish is worth about a 4th rounder (average of 70), the Eagles might have an interest in Parrish and Peters for #21 and perhaps a 5th or 6th rounder. Yes, the Eagles have a small receiver already (Jackson) and look what he did for them.
The Packers have tackle problems. Clifton has bad knees and I think is in the last year of his deal. Their right tackle took out his ACL last season. If there's one team that the Bills might be able to squeeze some real value out of it is the Pack. They have the #9, #41, #73, #83 and #105 picks. With their sights fixed on Raji at #9 I tend to doubt they'd give up that pick. I could see the Packers giving Buffalo #41, #73 and a 2nd or 3rd in 2010 for Peters. However, in addition to keeping Rogers vertical, the Packers might also be a home for Parrish. The Bills might be able to trade Peters and Parrish for #41, #73 and #83--and possibly a 3rd or 4th next season depending on how Parrish and/or Peters did for the Pack in 2009.
The Bengals have Carson Palmer and a need to keep him healthier than he was last season when our current backup saw significant playing time. They have #6, #38, #70 and #102. They also have a penchant for taking problem children in the draft and a sudden hole at WR. Given the options at OT at #6 I can see the Bengals trading it to Buffalo for Peters but wanting at least #75 thrown into the deal. However, with their WR woes perhaps Cincy would trade the #6 to Buffalo for Peters, Parrish and #139. It's a steep price for Buffalo but it does likely land the Bills the 3rd OT off the board while hanging on to #11.
The Rams have needs everywhere (including OT and WR) and the #2, #35, #66 and #99 picks. Unless Buffalo really, really has Curry in their sights I kind of doubt Buffalo even wants the 2nd overall pick. If the Lions lock onto Stafford, I can see the Rams coveting Curry after trading for Peters. As with several of these scenarios, I don't see them giving up more than 2 picks this year unless Parrish is added to the mix. The Rams have been run-after-the-catch fans but with their new coach they might want bigger WRs than Parrish. For now, I can see the Rams giving up #35 and #66 this year with a 2nd or 3rd next year depending on Peters' performance.
The Raiders are overlooked in our discussions because they signed Kalif Barnes, but he only got a 1 year deal. They have the #7, #40, #71 and #122 picks. Davis likes to wheel and deal but I imagine he's got someone in mind at #7 (maybe a punter) so it won't be a straight across trade for Peters. Parrish is fast and shifty so I can see Davis wanting him as part of the deal. Buffalo might be able to trade Peters, Parrish and a 3rd or 4th next year for #7, though I think OBD would be happier trading Peters and Parrish for #40, #71, #122 and a 2nd or 3rd next season.
The Redskins and 49ers can't be discounted entirely but they are really more in need of right tackles than left...and not even Dan Snyder is going to pay a guy $11 million per year to play right tackle. My guess is that either team would consider Peters but only at a bargin basement trade price--like a 3rd rounder.
111 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
wow
does this suck. The bottom line is not that teams don’t want Peters, but there is no way in hell they are giving him $11 mill a year, and a 1st and 3rd round pick. That’s just ridiculous
Bills are screwed and they know it. That’s why they may want to start looking at ways to play hard ball of their own, in order to show Peters that they are for real too
MARVelous - "I went from America's team to North America's Team" Terrell Owens
If a team will give up 2 firsts and a third for Jay Cutler....
someone will give a first and a mid round pick for Peters……its just a matter of time until they Bills find a partner.
Godspeed Nick - RIP - 1986-2009
by norcaliangelsfan on Apr 10, 2009 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Calm down Ron, we still have two weeks.
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 11, 2009 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually, they’ve got a pretty solid chunk of time. They can be patient for another week or so, methinks…
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Apr 11, 2009 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions
One first rounder seems fair enough
Maybe even a high second, like the Lions 33rd
I was listeninng to Gil Brandt today on NFL radio and they were talking about Arizona, and how players, when they get to play on a Super Bowl team, figure they want Super Bowl player money.
Brandt’s suggestion for players to who put up a stink was to take the biggest stinker (in this case Peters) and trade him to the worst team you can (i.e. Raiders-Rams-Lions) and let everyone know there are worse places to go.
Maybe that doesn’t make as much sense for Buffalo, but I do hope they unload him now, this is just too much.
However, if its looking grim, maybe he’ll accept the 9 mil, and just wanted to see. This is all bull crap though, and I just hope something happens. Peters and Parrish together sounds like a more appealing offer to other teams now who are weary about Peters. An electrifying PR is a good addition as well….
The Bills CAN win every game
I would put the likelyness in this order
1.eagles- need for tackle is too big to ignore
2.Lions-Every team needs a qb and LT. every good team at least
3.Bengals- Carson Palmer isn;t getting any healthier. Gets injured every year
4. Rams- I see them taking an OT with the 2nd pick
5.Packers- Tackles getting old, usually dont trade picks
6.Radiers- I see them using the 6th pick, but roscoe might entice them
McCoverage- McGee and McKelvin :D
The last one
Peters and Parrish for the Sixth pick would be big…We could get a great OT at 6, but he would still be expensive and then OLB or DE at 11….
But, Im not sure I think at this point Id rather just see what happens and decide whether said move was good or bad in hindsight…Its all too much!
The Bills CAN win every game
A) The Raiders have No. 7,
B) Why does everyone keep packaging Peters and Parrish together? That makes any trade scenario less likely, IMO.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Apr 10, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Only if Parrish isn’t there to sweeten the deal, rather than make it more expensive for the other team.
Duh
Only if Parrish is there to sweeten the deal, rather than make it more expensive for the other team.
I also could have added that I don’t see any of these teams giving up 3 picks (really any 3) for Peters. They’ve just got too many holes to fill. However, for the teams that have WR issues (or Al Davis calling the shots) Peters and Parrish for 3 picks could work. The team would be getting 2 guys (one of the better—not best—LTs in the league as well as the NFL’s leading punt returner) for their 3 picks. In most of the cases I’ve outlined the team would also have a 1st rounder. How upset would you be if your team got a 1st rounder, (a happy) Peters and Parrish in the first 3-4 rounds?
So how would that help those teams with WR issues? Parrish isn’t going to do much to solve their issues….
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
I agree
I think including Parrish in a deal with Peters decreases the value we would get in return. I think we could get a 4th round pick for Parrish, especially if a front office views special teams as important as the Bills do. If we include Parrish with Peters, I dont see a team giving us a 1st, 3rd and 4th for those two guys. That would be too many picks for a team to give up in one trade.
by hilliarddavid on Apr 10, 2009 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Question
Hey you guys and Rumblers,
Do any of you know where I can see the chart that shows what number of picks will equal something else? For example the Lions #33 and #65 would equal a #20. I’ve always been interested in that stuff? Any answers?
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Apr 10, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I hadn’t seen this one published before…. typically people rely on the Jimmy Johnson one which is so outdated and top heavy that it’s laughable (but which I think a lot of teams had been using anyway).
I think this is still a little top heavy but it’s certainly more realistic.
The good teams I suspect know the cost/benefit of picks and can exploit them….. I know the Packers were a team that traded down much more frequently than most.
I like the ambiance
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
This site is great. A variety of opinions, realistic fan, instant updates on the boards and such depth of knoledge… it’s addictive really.
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 11, 2009 8:17 AM EDT up reply actions
If its going to be one of Phillys picks
I think the difference between getting pick #21 and pick #28 is a larger value gap than one would think based on the players we probably want. This is mainly because the Atlanta Falcons have many of the same needs as us and they pick #24. If we are forced to take an OT at #11 by trading Peters I’m assuming we’d be looking to draft Brandon Pettigrew, Clay Matthews, or Brian Cushing with the later first and then Michael Johnson, Connor Barwin, Larry English, Robert Ayers, Alex Mack, Max Unger, or Duke Robinson with the #43. It just seems to me that after we go OT at 11 there will be more defensive ends or interior lineman available in the second round than linebackers and the Bills seem to like Pettigrew a lot more than the other “pass catching” tight ends and he will be gone by the 1st.
The Falcons lost Michael Boley and Keith Brooking (two solid starters) from their linebacker corps this off-season and even thought they added Mike Peterson in the middle, he’s 33 years old and they still have a glaring hole on the outside. That means, like us, they will be targeting Cushing and Matthews at pick #24. The Falcons also have a young star QB in Matt Ryan who has decent receivers to target but could really elevate his already high level of play with a stud tight end to dish it to, ala Brandon Pettigrew.
Let’s also not forget that at #25 and #26 the Dolphins and Ravens could both use a linebacker. For the Dolphins, Joey Porter is aging and they need a guy to build around at OLB and while the Ravens need an inside linebacker, as many pointed out, we could always take a MLB and move Poz outside.
For the reasons above, I think #21 is a much better value to the Bills than #28, even more so than is apparently obvious.
Guards Brad Butler and Brandon Rodd are decent. - Pete Prisco
Brandon Rodd!! Our best player.
good thinking – I know thephinsider are looking at LB’s and specifically the middle of their defense (those guys hate me over there – LOL). Seems like we have a lot of options and it’d be nice to get philly’s pick and the get petti, matthews, cushing with that while taking the OT at 11.
The rest of you go get the goods on Stan. His mom grounded him once for setting something on fire. Let's find out what that something was and then lie and say it was a puppy.
by J2 on Apr 10, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
especially
if taking one of those linebackers meant foiling Bill Parcells plans just a little, right?
Guards Brad Butler and Brandon Rodd are decent. - Pete Prisco
Brandon Rodd!! Our best player.
oh you know it
The rest of you go get the goods on Stan. His mom grounded him once for setting something on fire. Let's find out what that something was and then lie and say it was a puppy.
by J2 on Apr 10, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Phins may also go DB as well this draft
They gave up a number of long passes, the question for them is it run D or pass D that needs the most help right away.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
I wouldn't mind...
sending Peters and his bad attitude to the Rams for the #2 pick. The Bills could grab Aaron Curry who I believe is a once-in-a-decade player. They would instantly upgrade their defense from above-average to top 5-10 in the league. Keeping the #11 pick would allow them to get Peters replacement. I’m not sure how the finances of such a deal would work but I would be perfectly content if that’s how this situation played out.
I'll donate $1 to help Mary Wilson pay the estate tax...who's with me?!?
by O.J. Is My Bodyguard on Apr 10, 2009 4:30 PM EDT reply actions
Plus
The contract would be little different between what the no 2 would get and what Peters wants, and at least Peters is prven
The Bills CAN win every game
Good list. You’ve done your homework. Lets drill down into your teams a bit from Peters’ perspective:
Lions — Why would Peters want to go to the NFL’s worst franchise? Players want to be paid for their production on the field, but just as much or more, they want to win . . . ideally win a Super Bowl ring. Detroit is as far from a SB as any team in the NFL. I can’t see Jason wanting to go to Detroit rather than stay in Buffalo. In addition Detroit only has $11 million in Cap space for 2009, which would make absorbing Peters’ desires quite hard.
Eagles — As long as they are willing to pay him, the Eagles are a very good option. There is a very reasonable chance they could be a SB team with Peters as their LT.
Packers — I agree with you that the Pack makes some sense. They are farther from a SB than the eagles are, but it isn’t unrealistic to feel that they do have SB potential. I can’t see Peters saying “No” to at least considering the Packers. The Packers appear to have sufficient Cap room to absorb the kind of contract Peters wants.
Bengals — See Lions argument above. They do have $16 million in Cap space so they have a bit more flexibility than the Lions. But it still boils down to the question, "Would you want to go to the Bengals if you were interested in winning.
Rams — Another team like the Lions and Bengals, and a team with only $12 million of Cap space.
Raiders — They are a bit more competitive, but given Al Davis is the owner, would you want to go to the Raiders if you were an NFL player? Because of all their crazy FA signings they are short on Cap spacce too.
Redskins — One can never rule out Dan Snyder, but I tend to agree with your assessment that not even Dan Snyder is going to pay a guy $11 million per year to play right tackle.
49ers - Has the Cap space, but I agree with you that they would consider Peters but only at a bargin basement trade price-like a 3rd rounder.
So, the only realistic prospects on your list are the Eagles and the Packers.
JMHO
You’re factoring in what Peters wants, but ultimately, it’s not going to matter one iota where he wants to go. If the two teams agree to a trade, the trade will be made regardless of how much Peters hates it – and then he becomes their problem.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Apr 10, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly, Peters wishes mean jack squat on in the NFL
If your butt gets moved to a new team, you got two choices, show up and play, or stay home and pout. If Peters wants any amount of cash, his butt will be on the field for the team that gets him.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
I think you and Brian are only half right. Sure Buffalo can trade Peters to any team and when they do, he becomes that team’s problem. But a team has to agree to the trade and I can’t see a team trading for Peters without talking to him first and getting at least some understanding of Peters’ contract demands before finalizing any trade.
So while Peters doesn’t technically have the ability to decide where he ends up, he does have the ability to nix a potential trade by telling his suiter that he won’t show up to camp unless he gets his 12 mil a year. If Peters didn’t want to play in Detroit (random example) who’s to say that he wouldn’t raise his contract demands to 15 mil a season? He can scare away a team that he doesn’t want to play for.
Brian, I respectfully disagree. Look at the Eli Manning situation. Look at the John Elway situation. Both San Diego and Baltimore in those situations had little choice but to accept the fact that the player was clearly stating that he would not play for the team. Peppers has effectively done the same thing this year to Carolina. That effectively elliminated all the 4-3 teams. It isn’t that they aren’t interested in Peppers, but rather that they are faced with the prospect of getting nothing for something if they make the trade, because Peppers simply won’t report to the new team.
Now, with that said, thus far Peters hasn’t gone public with similar restrictions, but I’m not sure that that isn’t simply an issue of timing. Thus far the Bills haven’t made any public statements that they are ready to trade Peters. We fans, and the media, have said lots, but OBD (to the best of my knowledge) hasn’t talked trade. When they do, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear rumblings (no pun intended) from Peters. Of course the easy way to avoid that is for OBD to simply give Peters and his agent permission to identify a viable trade.
I don’t know that Peters is shopping for a Super Bowl contender. From what we’ve seen he’s pretty much in it for himself. Sure, the guy would like to win a ring but I don’t know that he’d give a team like the Eagles a discount. Peters is in it for the money and I don’t think it matters to him who gives it to him.
Help me Ron, do you really think that there are any topflight NFL players who don’t crave a SB ring if they don’t already have one?
False Choice
I’m sure every single player in the NFL deams of hoisting the Lombardi trophy. I’m equally sure every single player in the NFL dreams of signing a monster contract that pays him even if he becomes a fat, useless slob. The Super Bowl dream is a distant goal while the monster contract is an immediate (and, for the lucky few, obtainable) goal. The immediate reinforcement generally beats out the distant reinforcement. It’s why people get fat and/or fail to save money.
even though it doesnt matter where Peters wants to go
you make a good point about Detroit’s cap room. If they are only 11 mil under the cap there is no way they can afford to sign Stafford and Peters
Guards Brad Butler and Brandon Rodd are decent. - Pete Prisco
Brandon Rodd!! Our best player.
Creative financing
NFL franchises are very good at it. Plus, doesn’t the cap exclude the rookie salary pool? If so, Stafford’s contract wouldn’t matter this year.
How can Detroit only have 11 mil in cap space
who the heck is the team paying? Im sure they took the hook for the guaranteed jack of the Cody deal a few yrs back, but seriously they have not talent? who the heck is getting all the money? Must be all the high draft picks that havent worked out (except C.Johnson).
How many years can we go without making the playoffs...eventually the odds go in your favor.........right?!?!?
The ions spend more money on mediocre backups than we do. Thats where all that cap space went.
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 11, 2009 8:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Nah, ions seems more appropriate, they play like those on the field
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
You guys don’t think the Steelers would be slightly interested?
I'll drink your Milkshake, I'll drink it up!
by Frank Mineo (DYMS) on Apr 10, 2009 5:33 PM EDT reply actions
Interested? Yes, Willing to part with ANY picks? Nope.
They just don’t do it unless its to move down.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
They moved up from spot 32 to spot 26 the year after they won their first SB with Big Ben.
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 11, 2009 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Ron...looks like Doomed still misses you
From yesterday…post #92 – “Ron is the sensible one. He has been able to predict the outcome of games based upon the number of rotations of the coin during the pre-game flip, and the precise values of the direction and velocity of the wind at the 7:14 point of the 1st quarter even in domed stadia.”
Brian didn’t fair as well in his little BR rant.
My family was so poor that if I hadn't been born a boy, I wouldn't of
had anything to play with. - Rodney Dangerfield
Is that surprise?
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
No....I just find it funny that he hates this site so much, but clearly come here to read about the Bills.
My family was so poor that if I hadn't been born a boy, I wouldn't of
had anything to play with. - Rodney Dangerfield
On what site is this guy on? I’m just interested to see what laughable contributions he brings to his team’s site.
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 11, 2009 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Huh?
Is that over on realfootball? God, I haven’t hit that site in over a year. Why bother when we’ve got Rumblings?
yep......I mostly go to see if Goose posted a joke of the day. They are usually very funny. Here is today's
A businessman met a beautiful girl and agreed to spend the night with her for $500. They did their thing, And, before he left, he told her that he did Not have any cash with him, but he would have his Secretary write a check and mail it to her, calling The payment ‘RENT FOR APARTMENT.’
On the way to the office, he regretted what he had done, realizing that the whole event had not been worth the price. So he had his secretary send a check for $250 and enclose the following typed note:
’Dear Madam:
Enclosed find a check for $250 for rent of your Apartment. I am not sending the amount agreed upon, Because when I rented the place, I was under the Impression that:
- - it had never been occupied;
- - there was plenty of heat; and
- - it was small enough to make me feel cozy and at home.
However, I found out that:
- - it had been previously occupied,
- - there wasn’t any heat, and
- - it was entirely too large.’
Upon receipt of the note, the girl immediately Returned the check for $250 with the following note:
’Dear Sir:
- - I cannot understand how you could expect a Beautiful apartment to remain unoccupied indefinitely.
- - As for the heat, there is plenty of it, if you know how to turn it on.
- - Regarding the space, the apartment is indeed of Regular size, but if you don’t have enough furniture to fill it, please do not blame the management.
So, Please send the rent in full or we will be forced to contact your present landlady.’
My family was so poor that if I hadn't been born a boy, I wouldn't of
had anything to play with. - Rodney Dangerfield
I for one, would like a joke of the day added to this site.
I’d love to pitch inm but there’s a problem – I’m not very funny….
Well, Goose did post here once last week, but it got lost and I haven't seen him since
I could post his jokes here, but they are not always PG.
My family was so poor that if I hadn't been born a boy, I wouldn't of
had anything to play with. - Rodney Dangerfield
And you’re PG?
I’d say check with BG first. If he gives the thumbs up, let’s fire away a good joke of the day.
I’m cool with it, so long as they don’t get much worse than this…
Seriously, idk if it was just me, but I didn’t laugh at this one. :)
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Apr 11, 2009 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Brian didn’t fair as well in his little BR rant.
I’m guessing that’s because I caught his two extra screen names as he tried to sneak back onto the site. :)
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Apr 10, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions
The Lions thing got me thinking
With their lack of 5th and 6th round picks, perhaps Buffalo should consider trading for #20—not Peters, but rather #42, #75 and #106 (or Parrish if the Lions wanted to pair him with Calvin Johnson). Detroit would then have #1, #33, #42, #65, #75, #106 (or Parrish) and their 6th and 7th rounders. I can see that having great appeal to Detroit.
Buffalo would then have #11, #20, #139, #170, #203 and Peters. The Bills could then look to trade Peters for a 2nd and 3rd this year and another pick (2nd or 3rd) next year. Take the Packers, for example. They would have #9, Peters, #83, #105 and their 5th-7th round picks. That’s not a bad haul, with Peters ‘feeling like’ a 2nd round pick due to the Pack having an extra 3rd rounder this year. Buffalo would have #11, #20, #41, #73, #139, #170 and #203. For the Bills, the sum total of the two deals would ‘feel like’ trading Peters and #106 for #20 and slightly better position in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. The same basic idea works with the Bengals, Rams and Raiders.
The Eagles would be a bit different with the Lions trade (#20 for #43, #75, #106-or Parrish) because they pick after Buffalo. Trading Peters to them for their 2nd and 3rd rounders (#53 and #85) plus a pick next year would have the effect of costing Buffalo position in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. I don’t think OBD would go for that. Using Parrish as a pot sweetener (don’t let Marshawn read that phrase…) might pry #21 from Philly, giving Buffalo #11, #20, #21, #139, #10, #203—basically lots of action in round 1 and the late rounds but nothing in between….unless someone came calling to offer a 2nd and 3rd for either #20 or #21.
Anyway, be of good cheer. Buffalo still has options with Peters, though not as many as we’d all like. Also, Peters was undrafted so any picks Buffalo gets for him represent a profit. Yes, we’d rather he stayed and played for rational money but we’d rather not say stupid things in front of blindingly beautiful women, too.
The Eagles might well offer #53 plus Winston Justice plus the Bills choice from the following OLinemen Nick Cole, Mike McGlynn, Mike Gibson and Chris Patrick. Cole started a number of games for the Eagles at RG last year, is a solid (but not outstanding) OC. McGlynn and Gibson were rookies last year and both showed promise both at OG and OC. Patrick is the least attractive of the four.
Justice certainly hasn’t realized the potential he had coming out of USC as a 2nd Round pick, but he could turn things around with a change of scenery.
Given the Bills OLine needs, especially if Peters departs, the above package could address those needs.
Options are good, but the more complicated they are the less likely the Bills are to be able to pull it off
If we manage one trade this draft, be it for Peters or out of the #11 spot, I will be happy.
we’d rather not say stupid things in front of blindingly beautiful women, too.
I just wish I could stop drooling :-)
My family was so poor that if I hadn't been born a boy, I wouldn't of
had anything to play with. - Rodney Dangerfield
I don’t think the trade to the Lions (#20 for #43, #75, #106-or Parrish) is complicated at all. I think it would have a high probability of being accepted. I also don’t think it would be much of a stretch for Buffalo to unload Peters for a 2nd and 3rd. Neither trade would be contingent upon more than 1 team.
By the way, since I think we pretty much all blame Parker for Peters’ obstinance, why doesn’t OBD give Parker permission to shop Peters? Let him do the work. It’s the least he can do for the $2 million+ he’s looking to pocket from the Peters deal.
why doesn’t OBD give Parker permission to shop Peters?
Good question.
My family was so poor that if I hadn't been born a boy, I wouldn't of
had anything to play with. - Rodney Dangerfield
I would assume they would have by now.
On a tangent, did I ever mention how much I hate agents? Again, why should they have the ability to affect a team and their future? They are just a middle man, and they take away some of the money we spend. Why does even a penny of my money go to Eugene Parker’s condo on the beach?
Rosenhaus is a perfect example here. He works well with the Bills. His players get money from the Bills (ask Mr. Stroud as the latest example). Parker does not work well with the Bills. We all agree that this “Peters” thing is a hindrance to the off season goal, namely that of making your team better.
Why do we, the NFL, and the NFLPA need these money grubbing people of ill repute? We don’t; none of us do. And yet, they have finangled millions of dollars from us and the players. We don’t need these sycophants in our game.
They are just a middle man, and they take away some of the money we spend. Why does even a penny of my money go to Eugene Parker’s condo on the beach?
They aren’t a middle man. They are hired to do what the players could do themselves, but would rather not. You don’t pay Eugene Parker anything. You pay the Bills, the Bills pay Peters and Peters pays Parker. You pay Parker as much as you paid the auto company that Peters bought his car from or the company that makes his favorite kind of cereal. How Peters spends his money is his business and you shouldn’t be able to have any say over it.
Why do we, the NFL, and the NFLPA need these money grubbing people of ill repute?
They don’t. They choose to hire them just like you would choose to pay someone to do your taxes. It’s something that you could do, but you think you are better off leaving it to an expert who can protect your own interests better than you can yourself.
Awgh. I forgot how you & I went around and around on this before.
Again – they do nothing that benefits the game itself. They only drive up the cost of the game, and that hurts you and me.
How Peters spends his money
If Peters uses his money to bring in a variable (in this case, a stubborn agent), which ultimately drives up player costs which drives up the cost of my season ticket, then yes, I have a right to beef.
Are we going for round #2 here, or should we save this for after the draft?
Fight! Fight! Fight!
We could use a good ruckus….
Seriously, I see very little use for agents. Maybe in the new collective bargining agreement the teams and players can agree to have either guaranteed contracts or contracts so simple that any idiot could understand them.
Also, the players and teams could establish (assuming there is a salary cap) a rookie wage scale. It’s win-win for the players and teams. The teams aren’t throwing millions at unproven guys and there’s more money available for the players. The only people that get hurt are the agents and guys who aren’t yet in the NFL.
I think this is what will come out of the new CBA talks
1- New rookie wage scale, but with contract maximum lengths set to 4 years, with the 4th voidable due to playing time (like the NBA). Mawae their player Pres is already on board with this, though publically he backed down while Upshaw was still kicking.
2- 17 or 18 games a season, though that may be sacrificed this time around to secure the above Rookie Wage Scale.
3- I expect the amount received by the players to drop to 58 cents on the dollar from 60, BUT that they will be able to draw from ALL revenue streams the Owners get rather than the 3/4s they get now.
This round of CBA talk is going to be tough, the Owners now have over a Billion dollars in the bank thanks to the new DirectTv deal to use in case of a lockout. The Players have jack squat when it comes to a war fund, this will go as bad for the Players as it did in the 80s I fear. But, unlike the Baseball Players Association, these guys are amateurs as far as being a Labor Union. Just the nature of the sport vs. that of baseball, they really should call up the MLBPA for assistance on this one…..
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
Don’t the players currently get 59 cents of every dollar now? Isn’t that the heart of the problem with the current deal? Basically, the Bills are going to face a higher cap because the Jets/Giants will sell the naming rights to their new stadium—and the players will get 59% of that cash….raising the cap for everyone.
Exactly, thats why I think we might see that drop slightly
But it will be up to the owners to have the guts and not play football next season. With that billion in reserve, they can.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
I think the more viable long term solution is to up the percentage players get of shared money and dropping the percentage they get of unshared money to zero. That way the Bills, for example, wouldn’t incur any expense when a team like Dallas sold the rights to their stadium. For their part, the big market teams would get to keep the revenue they generate on their own.
Why do we, the NFL, and the NFLPA need these money grubbing people of ill repute?
We dont, but if the NFL is anything like the European and SOuth Ameriacan football leagues the clubs use agents to find players just as much as the the players use them to find clubs.
And if there were no agents the clubs would need to find someone else to blame for their own incompetence.
Remember the Bills gave Peters a good contract because he showed lots of potential, when he delivered onthat potential he deserved a new contract, better than Dockery’s or Walkers. If the Bills had sorted this out last year, if Peters had not acted like a spoilt brat last year and if Parker had been alot more condtuctive last year…. if if if
Football. Bloody Hell!!
I like the Cincy option
Yes Peters, Parrish and pick 139 would be a steep price for pick number 6, but it might very well be worth it. And remember, with that trade we can always trade down the number 11 spot to get that later 1st and 3rd we’re desireing. if not, the we can draft both Smith and Everette Brown and finally get K to shut up about the d-line ;-)
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 11, 2009 8:11 AM EDT reply actions
I don’t think drafting Brown would get Kurupt to shut up about the defensive line any more than signing Hang got me to shut up about the offensive line. After all, drafting Brown would only serve to highlight how bad the lack of pass rush is on the other side of the line….as well as up the gut.
Silly me, K to shut up about the D-Line? what was I thinking?
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 11, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
How can I shut up about it if it’s going to be a revolving door of ineptitude? Until we getting 25-30 sacks out of our DL, getting consistent pressure on the QB and forcing turnovers, there will always be something to strive for….
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
You are gold K
“The Bills D-line….A revolving door of ineptitude!”
"Get ready for the pain women…the pain train is coming Whooo Whooooo !!!!!" – Terry Tate Office Linebacker
I should have added Seattle to the list
I somehow managed to forget that their LT is both old and injured. A story on PFT about microfracture surgery jogged my memory. So…
Seattle has the #4, #37, #68, #101, #129, #165, and #196 picks. Like the Rams, I can see Seattle giving up the #37 and #68 picks plus something next year for Peters but not the #4—at least not straight across. Still, that would give the Bills #11, #37, #42, #68, and #75 in the first 3 rounds.
Wouldn’t be a bad pickup… now to see if we can change a few of those later picks into another first and nab Pettigrew.
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 11, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Seattle is really zeroing in on Sanchez right now
I think Mora is worried about Hasselbecks health.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
Or is that a smokescreen?
I think Mora would be right to be worried about QB but LT is a huge concern as well.
Well, according to all reports, Jones is doing really well coming back from surgery
But they also consider the guy they have playing RT as being capable of filling in for half a season if need be.
Honestly, if I was the Seahawks, I would take another LT to be sure and pick up a project QB in the 3-5 range. Or Crabtree regardless of getting TJ Whoseyourdaddy.
If the Bills were a drug, I could only hope they were like speed so I could lose some weight as well.
Sporting News
- Reports that Eagles are interested in Peters, but that the Bills have had no contact with the Eagles. And yes, Peters would demand a 1st and 3rd.
- Only problem is that the article also states that nothing will happen before the draft?
Joke of the day
Joe P—-thanks for the acknowledgment of the joke of the day—-it tends to lighten the mood after a day of bantering, squabbling, arguing etc etc.
Brian—-you might not have like that particular joke but when posted it was in the flow of the conversations—-with a joke timing is everything…
365 and this site are unique in their own ways, BR from the times I’ve read tends to stay to topic. At 365 if the the topics gets tedious (and it happens) there might be 100+ posts on the best pizza in Buffalo, bands, restaurants, bars, women etc. Now that might not be everyone’s cup a tea but it is entertaining.
Both sites have knowledgeable writers and are enjoyable to read.
To the people that think the Bills will trade Peters to get into one of the top ten slots, please think again. The Bills are not going to spend that kind of money that a top 10 pick is going to command.
They are sitting in a good position at the #11 spot, with Cutler traded the Broncos, Jets, Bucs, Vikings might be willing to trade up to that spot to assure themselves of getting Sanchez (if he drops) or Freeman. Liars poker anyone!!!!
To the people that think the Bills will trade Peters to get into one of the top ten slots, please think again. The Bills are not going to spend that kind of money that a top 10 pick is going to command.
Amen to that…
Brian—-you might not have like that particular joke but when posted it was in the flow of the conversations—-with a joke timing is everything…
… and to that. :)
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Apr 11, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Welcome back Goose
I know your Goose22, but you will always be just Goose to me :-) I thought I might be on the hook coming up with a joke of the day or stealing yours, but now that your here……
I agree…..Freeman is the key to the Bills trading out of #11, but if Peters gets traded they will have to spend that pick on a LT. I hope Brandon has the brass to play “chicken” and “poker” at the same time.
"Get ready for the pain women…the pain train is coming Whooo Whooooo !!!!!" – Terry Tate Office Linebacker
So this morning I was backing out of a parking space at the grocery store, when I t-boned another car. We pulled off to the side and from the other car out stepped a midget. I apologized profusely and asked to trade info/insurance. The little person says “well, obviously, I’m not happy, but…”. I had to cut him off and ask “well, which one are you then?”
/lame joke
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
yeah, but funny.
"Get ready for the pain women…the pain train is coming Whooo Whooooo !!!!!" – Terry Tate Office Linebacker
Whitner
“Don’t tase me Bro” was heard all the way here in Florida unfortunately the police didn’t listen an shot him full of electrical juice. Maybe the currents helped Donte’s shoulder heal…
Joe P—-you are correct that is me that is my nickname and the number I use to wear.
I have the perfect day planned it is overcast but in the low 80’s—-I received my new Pro Football Weekly, Sporting News, OurLad’s guide to the draft, PFW’s draft preview and the new Bills Digest. After I get done with the lawn, I will roll a fat one, enjoy a few cold one’s and have a couple of chilled shots a vodka while working on my draft board. Yes I am a nerd when it comes to the draft but for many years my friends and myself have had a 1st round contest on who picks the most right—-by player an position. So today I will work on my picks for the total 1st round if I don’t get too F#@K up and that’s a big if—-ha ha!!!!
…
Sounds great Goose..... I am still waiting for all the snow to melt :-(
Got company at the home today, so the joint is jumping with relatives, kids, etc. Beer is not cutting it. I might have to kick it up a notch!
"Get ready for the pain women…the pain train is coming Whooo Whooooo !!!!!" – Terry Tate Office Linebacker
Trading up?
Why hasn’t anyone seriously discussed the prospect of trading up here yet? Ron mentioned it in his original piece, but nobody’s seemed to latch on to the idea yet.
I think it’d work out way better than going for low-round picks. Buffalo has money to spend on the top 2 picks. Detroit and St. Louis seem a bit sketched-out at the prospect of paying Jason Smith like Jake Long – to the extent that I’ve seen articles mentioning how Detroit wants to let the clock run out on their pick. Plus, Aaron Curry seems like exactly the player this team needs.
I’ve thought this one over and it seems doable:
To Detroit: Buffalo #11, Jason Peters
To Buffalo: Detroit #1, Detroit #33
Basically, Buffalo snags Curry and Unger with these picks. Detroit’s got a good chance at landing either Stafford or Sanchez with #11, and pick up Peters for protection. Plus, Detroit doesn’t have to pay Stafford/Sanchez #1 money.
What do you think?
Good idea, but unless you need a franchise QB or a Mario Williams type DE,
I don’t think many teams want to have to spend the kind of money it takes to sign the 1st pick. It is more of a curse than a blessing to pick 1st. I don’t think Curry would be worth it to the Bills FO.
"Get ready for the pain women…the pain train is coming Whooo Whooooo !!!!!" – Terry Tate Office Linebacker
I don't see it
I think Detroit is after a franchise QB and that points to them staying put at #1. Also, while I’m sure Buffalo likes Curry I don’t know that OBD wants to get him at #1 overall.
I don't think trading up will happen
Simply because of the money attached to a top ten rookie… I mean sure it’s not that much different that an 11th pick, but still, I doubt OBD likes pay that big money to a rookie.
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 11, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Who does want to pay a rookie #1 money?
First, I think Detroit does have a pretty good chance at snagging a franchise QB – Stafford or Sanchez – outside of the top 10. One of them will probably slip.
And I’d much rather have Curry at $10 mil per year than Matthews at, like, $5 mil per year, or whatever a #11 linebacker goes for.
While we’re at it, I’d also rather have Curry at $10 mil per year than Peters at $10 mil per year.
Curry wouldn't make that much.
James Harrison is now the league’s highest paid LB and he is making less than 8M per.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Apr 13, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
That isn’t really relevant, though – Jake Long immediately became the NFL’s highest-paid offensive lineman last year. Curry will make more than Harrison if he goes No. 1 overall – but obviously that’s a big if.
Buffalo Rumblings - all you care to know about the Buffalo Bills and more
by Brian Galliford on Apr 13, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I still see him as the league’s highest paid LB if he’s drafted in the top 3, and that will almost certainly happen.
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 13, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
But that's still not 10M a year.
He wouldn’t make Jake Long’s 11.5 avg. if he went #1 would he?
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008. Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
by MattRichWarren on Apr 13, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
