DazedandConfused

I think Tucker's position on the Peters deal is correct.

The time off is probably meaningless. His body and genes were injury prone when he was here and his body and genes are probably still injury prone even with time off.

Why? There would seem to be numerous good reasons for this release including: 1. The NFL is second only to Washington DC for there being a rumor mill which occaisionally is even correct. If this info were not released to the press, it abandons truth to the rumor mill and almost certainly some clean players would get caught up in folks lying about their drug test status as idiots from old girlfriends (or old boyfriends in the case of some players) would spread lies or even teams interested in a player and interested in scaring some other teams into not drafting him, or whomever else (which Larry Fitzgerald are you talking about). Releasing an official list actually makes it more likely innocent players are not hurt. 2. Information is the check and balance in the NFL. Our society does not like talking about money and folks are surprised to be able to find on the internet specific salary and contract info for players. This is out there because the players do not trust the players and the players do not trust the owners. While personal privacy issues are understandable reasons for keeping this info private, it is outweghed IMHO as the partnership between the NFL and NFLPA simply mandates transparency on almost all decisions of import to both the players and the owners. When stuff is hidden from public scrutiny the good ol boys network in the NFL correctly undermines the whole system as exceptions end up being made for those who are well connected and without transparency the whole thing dies from lack of faith. 3. These are coddled kids making the transition to adulthood. Actually this drug test is amazingly soft landing as these adult aged children do not lose their job as many would do when they get nabbed by a work drug test, but these players remain eligible for the draft, our placed in a rehab program (rather than jail in normal life in many cases) and their new employer who hired them and is paying them millions knows all about the problem and chose them anyway. These children are idiots for taking a drug when they know that a test is coming so clearly they need help from others in society so outing them is not only the least of their issues they need to confront but actually is useful for them as their cry for help is answered. It is so beneficial that the truth is known in this case it clearly to me outways a call for privacy. In fact if privacy is so important to any individual the "problem" is easi;y solved as playing in the NFL is a privilege and not a right. If the right to privacy is so all fired important to them then great skip the combine and the NFL and go home and sit in the dark with their right to privacy, a gun and alcohol.

The thing I care about most is that the Bills have set a horrible precedent for players who think they deserve more $ (which is probably almost all of them) to pursue given the way the Bills caved on this issue and delivered Peters a tremendous deal. The precedent is that even if you are under contract, if you deal with the FO by holding out on voluntary practices and then even the mandatory ones until your game check in endangered, the Bills FO will cave and trade you to a team that will give you a huge raise in an extension in a new contract. One of the silliest things going is that there are some posters who actually seem to believe the Bills really stood up to Peters by not giving in to his initial negotiating demand of $11.5 mill annual salary. Sure that is true, but it is a cave because the end result of this trade is the Peters has to "settle" for getting a mere $10 million a year in annual salary. The Bills have set a precedent that any of their desirable FAs can choose to pursue in search of big bucks even if they are bound to the Bills by a contract under the CBA. The deal seems to be simply create enough of stink to get the fan base divided between being pissed at the player and pissed at the team, and then the FO will cooperate by trading you to a new team willing to meet exhorbitant salary demands. The Bills did not screw Peters at all they simply delivered him to a team willing to more than double his annual salary. Even worse, all the Bills could get for a player whom the market incorrectly has rewarded with 2 straight Pro Bowls by getting only mere draft picks for him. Sure, maybe in the Mel Kiper world we got 3 true Pro Bowlers for one malcontent, but the factual occurrence is that its about a 50/50 occurrence that any 1st round pick will even turn out to be first on the depth chart as his position after a full year of play. Even worse for the Bills as they are 0 for the millenium so far in making the playoffs, protecting Edwards is a critical need in terms of his development and now we are going to have either a rookie or at best a journeyman as critical parts of our OL, and further we will have this learning pass pro during the one year we are guaranteed to have TO, and we are going to go through this learning year with Ralph's presence being something one would not bet on next year. What coulda,woulda,shoulda the Bills have done differently> Intelligent FO management and smart player assessment would have taken the recognition two years ago when they judged Peters was good enough to play LT to simply have ripped up his contract as they did when they extended this UDFA into a starter's contract to also rip up the Peters deal when he confirmed it by making the Pro Bowl and paying him starting LT $. The FO simply proved to be pennywise and poundfoolish by lavishing in the joy of only paying him $4 million the last two years when they were paying major bucks the worse Dockery and Walker gobs more. While it was true they had every contractual right to force Peters to play at the contract they agreed to, the moral position was not smart management by the team as they almost certainly could have gotten Peters to agree to play for far less and they could better manage the product. The Bills did the morally "correct" thing but a really stupid and unsuccessful thing in how they managed the team.

I agree with much of what you say leading up to this point. However, I think the clear conclusion of your point is that while he has not played at a level worthy of a raise, the way the Bills played this that is exactly what he got big time. The Bills would have made a huge colossal cave if they gave in to his initial negotiating demand of an $11.5 million annual salary. There is no way they should have paid him this much. However, by taking an approach that did not represent a huge colossal cave but merely a very large big cave that has him getting an $10 million annual salary instead of the $4 million he was due under the contract he had signed himself the Bills have delivered virtually all of his initial negotiating demand to him. The bad thing for the Bills about this is that Fred Jackson has mounted his own pseudo holdout so far this off-season my sense is in part because he has seen that Peters made out like a financial wizard by being a jerk because the Bills caved rather than hold him to his contract. Jackson is in a precarious fiscal negotiating position as he is an EFA and like Peters he is under contract to the Bills if the team chooses. If Jackson follows the Peters example, simply withold services from the Bills to the extent you can while avoiding fines which are significant to you. The Rhodes deal disadvantages Jackson even further in negotiation, but Peters has demonstrated that if you pressure the Bills they will likely cave. The sad thing is that the 1st. fourth and another pick give the Bills alot in Mel Kiper land, but really represent a 50/50 shot at landing a solid player a year or so from now. If protecting Edwards, maximizing TO output in the one year you are guaranteed to have him and knowing Ralph will probably last through 09 but no one is taking bets on 10 and after then you got say the likelihood is that we got bent over the rail on this trade is pretty high. I hope it works out great, but the likelihood of 09 being another year in the wilderness is very high is quite likely.

This statement runs counter to published reports that it was McNally who convinced a reluctant Peters who wanted to be a TE that putting his what turned out on the field to be considerable talent (we all remember the play he made when he forced his way onto the Bills ST unit where he not only blocked the punt, but gathered in the block and lumbered into the endzone for a TD. Claims of Peters being an unproductive idiot from the word go simply run counter to the real world where after making the PS (an impressive feat for any player) he actually made the permanent roster because the Bills had to do this or risk losing him. Upon making the permanent roster, the reports out of practice were that he was unblockable and the ST kick block and TD proved this to be the case not based on what somebody said but on the field also. Again, the fact that he was moved from ST to the OL given his OL production is an objective indicator that he showed real stuff as an unschooled OL player. Your statement that the OL coach wanted nothing to do with him makes little sense as it was clear the Bills as a team wanted something to do with him because other teams would have signed them to their permanent roster if the Bills did not. Likewise the comment that the OL coach wanted nothing to do with him but he somehow overcame this disinterest to win the spot at RT and then somehow win the start at LT. These are simply real world accomplishments which make the carping about him seem nonsensical. His gaining the Pro Bowl nod twice does not prove anything so that is right. However, it also seems silly to claim that because a Pro Bowl selection is no guarantee of perfection that it can be totally ignored. It is an outside observation that notes while Peters is far from perfect he is actually pretty good. This deal may turn out to be a great one for the Bills in time. The draft picks may turn out to be solid pros eventually (its possible even though the real world experience from the crapshoot known as the NFL draft is that even from 1st round picks they are 50/50 to be starters at the beginning of their second year and that even this group has a severe bias toward the elite choices in the top 10 picks. It may work out eventually but there are two more immediate potential great problems with this trade for the Bills: 1. The Bills need wins in a big way in 09 and this trade of a two-time Pro Bowler (even with the knowledge that the popularity contest called the Pro Bowl is no proof of greatness but actually is a reasonable indicator of a Pro Bowler being at least an upper half if not at least upper third of the league player) for mere draft picks is a pretty good indicator that this team is not going to be a success in 09. This is too bad since 09 is he one year we are guaranteed to have TO, it is going to be of critical importance that Edwards gets protected, and Ralph ain't getting younger. Going with a rookie and/or the journeymen who are left to repopulate the LG and LT spots may turn out OK but does not look good. 2. This move sets a bad precedent for the Bills dealing with FOs. Some folks seem to want to treat this as sending a positive message as the Bills refused to refused to pay the Peters negotiating offer of $11.5 million. This is true. However, any FA with half a brain sees that actually while the Bills did not pay the silly highball negotiaring offer, the final result is a huge victory for Peters and his agent. Peters was under contract for not simply $4 million or so each of the next two years, but his whiny tactics forced the Bills to trade him where he signed an extension which more than doubles his average salary to $10 million. The Bills strongly signaled to players that even if you are under contract it can pay big time to holdout and muscle the Bills. The view that this deal is somehow a win for the Bills really ignores a lot of reality. This is also true of the bizarre indictment of McNally. Was he perfect? No! He actually said so himself at the start. His choice of Tutan Reyes and his part in the decision to unvest in Dockery simply did not work. However, a sane person needs to recognize and give him props for: 1. His good cop bad cop prodding of Mike Williams got as much as one could have expected from bust M Williams chosen by the previous regime.. 2. The previous regime really left him with crap and he correctly sorted through it letting Jennings walk rather than giving him what the market gave him. 3. He turned a practice squad slug name Smith into a credible NFL guard for a season or so, 4. Published reports have him clearly overseeing a reportedly encouaging (your view of JMac not wanting him has no published reports I have seen supporting it so please link them if they are facts) Peters remarkable rise from UDFA TE to starting LT in about 5 years. Your ragging on JMac runs completely counter the simple fact that his last job with NYG saw him put together an OL from FAs like Glen Parker and Dusty Ziegler a crew which simply made the SB. Is JMac perfect? No. Are your comments about him unsubstantiated by any facts? Yep. Is this is more than a simple fact free opinion which we all are entitle to then simply list or link to some facts. Jeepers

1. I think the Bills are undertaking a risk that is unlikely to make this team perform better whether it is a rookie in 09 who like it or not is going to spend a year learning to become a vet (and unfortunately learning by doing by putting Edwards at risk as he learns to become a vet) or instead we use one of the journeymen LTs which appear to be about what is available out their on the market. The best bet for the Bills seems likely to flip Walker to the LT role and instead stick this journeyman (a Chambers level player at the RT role and hope for the best. 2. The Bills would have committed the cave to end all caves certainly if they had simply given in to Peters highball negotiating demand of $11.5 mill a year, but you can't seriously argue that because they participated in a deal which did not deliver Peters his highball that Peters is not laughing all the way to the bank (and that future Bills who want more are not taking note) that the Bills had a player under contract for two more years at $4 million and because he threw a hissy fit and could not work out something with the Bills he has well more than doubled his annual salary. The cave is whether the Bills can be forced to do something which gives a player under contract extraordinary rewards by the player in question holding his breath until he turns blue. This is what the Bills did. This is the cave in because not only did Peters parley this situation into a huge extention and increase but the Bills almost certainly reduced their productivity in 09 because they gave up their starting LT to do this.. Can it work for the Bills to find a starting level talent at LT with the number 11 pick? Sure, this happened as recently as last year with the Ryan Clady pick. However, one is not watching to know that the Clady pick and output is by far the exception and not the rule for a #11 pick. In fact the rule is likely more like the #4 Mike Williams pick where the Bills found a starting RT as we likely will do this year if we flip Walker to LT. Its 50/50 at best for us that a player acquired in the draft for us at either tackle position is gonna be a starter on our depth chart in his second year. This is not simply just a theory but this is generally how it plays out in the real world. Even worse, for every Clady who makes us forget the names of Peters, Woolford, etc, there actually are the Mike Williams and Corey Loucheys whom we wish we could forget. The Bills caved because they gave Peters virtually everything he wanted even though he was under contract. One would be a fool not to think that Fred Jackson is not taking note of these events. Brandon simply showed that it pays to be a jerk when it comes to negotiating with the Bills.

I think there are two problems for the Bills with this trade that are hard to argue intelligently against: 1. The Bills have traded away their starting LT for at best a rookie who almost certainly will need a year or more before he learns enough to become a vet at LT. This is in particular a tremendous risk for the Bills as they will need to rely on this rookie or a journeyman to guard the seemingly injury prone Edwards and to maximize the pass production in the one tear we are guaranteed T.O. You find a Ryan Clady once a decade or two but barring us finding this type of lightening in a bottle we likely have written off making the playoffs next year. 2. The Bills have set a horrible precedent by essentially caving into Peters demands. Peters had as a goal to be one of the highest paid OL players in the NFL. Well from Peters and any other future Bills under contract but wanting a new deal, the working method is to pitch a hissy fit even if one is under contract and Brandon will help you achieve yiour goals by caving in and trading you to someone willing to pay your price. I think it is really hard not to argue that the Bills have put their faith for 09 into the hands of the crapshoot winds of the Mel Kiper folks who worship the draft even though its 50/50 that any first round pick is gonna be first on the depth chart in their second year. It is also impossible not to see that at worst from Peter's perspective or any FA's that the Bills have given him exactly what he was demanding financially. Get ready for future Bills interested in FAs to throw hissy fits and be a pain because if you do Brandon the FO will give you what you want.

I think it is hard to know what the FO is doing as they seem to be motivated most by trying to build a team that the FO can most easily manage rather than build a team which has the best shot at winning games right here and right now. An example of this seems to be in the FO virtually complete caving to Peters demands for a super huge contract extension and raise even though he was still under contract to play at his current huge rate. In the face of this demand and Peters demonstrating he would throw a hissy fit, the Bills gave Peters exactly what he demanded by trading him. RB appears to offer the FO two issues which it wants to deal with to ease their management, dealing with the holdout from voluntary workouts by Jackson and the dealing with the criminal actions of Lynch. If the Bills follow the model that showed with Peters, they will do things to allow them to ship both Pro Bowler Lynch and surprise Jackson off to find big bucks elsewhere even though both clearly make this a better team in 09. Surprisingly to me even after the 0 for the millineum playoff showing, trading for TO with the guarantee of him only being around this year, and given it is not a sound bet that Ralph will live forever, the Bills do not seem to be driven by putting the best product in the field this year they can. Instead even if one hates Peters, the set-up we have produced where it appears we are going to depend on at least one and possibly two rookies to rebuild our OL makes our 09 prospects makes the NY Lotto being a good investment strategy.

Punctuation? I have heard about. Is it the same thing as getting puncted?

As I am just back in town after being down south for a week I have only gotten a general overview of folks reactions to the JP deal. In general it seems most folks are quite happy to get rid of this two time Pro Bowler who clearly has been a distraction and irritant to most fans with his pseudo hold out approach to trying to get a new contract with a huge escalation from the "mere" 4 million/yr he will get from the Bills. It strikes me as quite legit to be happy to have the Peters contract dispute off the table (though for the most part I think anyone with a serious interest in football can simply ignore the fantasy football/Mel Kiper stocked rants of anyone seeing this deal as little more than the Bills pretty much giving up on making a serious attempt to make the playoffs in this year as if reality occurs as it usually does in the NFL we will be quite lucky if our virtually new OL gets by even the 2010 season and TO is likely to be long gone and we will be quite fortunate if Edwards survives running for his life behind even talented rookie players learning to become vet NFL players. The question beyond us likely adding another non-playoff season this year is wondering what precedent will be set by the Bills simply caving in to JPs wishes thanks to his holdout and shipping him off to get exactly what he wanted which is a contract which appears to average a $10 million cap hit (more than doubling what he would get under his Bills contract). By being run into giving Peter exactly what he was looking for, it appears to me that the Bills have demonstrated in the face of a Peter's hissy fit of running a pseudo hold out which ended before he lost real money to fines last year and simply deliver him to another team ready and willing to give him the contract that he wants. If I am Fred Jackson I am looking carefully at the weak stomach the Bills are now showing by giving Peters exactly what he wanted. Jackson is in a considerably weaker position under the CBA as exclusive FA, but the precedent would seem to be that even though JP was under contract to the Bills if he simply made them uncomfortable it was the route to the Bills delivering him to the contract he wanted. A low leverage player like Jackson may want to consider really throwing a pain in the butt fit if the Bills have demonstrated they are willing to trade a malcontent player for mere draft choices.

A lot depends on your timeline for success. If the 0 for the millineum playoff drought, a desire to have the most effective pass attack you can in 09 because this is the 1 year T.O is guaranteed to be here, there is a desire to protect Edwards blindside with a vet rather than have him take the risk of a rookie (even a great one drafted will still be a rookie learning the pro game) protecting him, or if you want to macimize the chances of Ralph being alive then you value vets over rookies. If on the other hand you know that while the draft is not the only thing essential for building a winner it is almost certainly that several years of good drafting (usually starting with several years of drafting solid first day guys in the trenches) the team should devote itself to fortifying the draft. For this fan, the draft is a very cool thing, but the future is now and I have no problem trading draft picks for vets for this team right now. Either way the key is to be good at picking the players.

Parrish is a smaller guy than the bangers we would all want but in reality are not going to find. The reality is that Parrish has really impressed me with his willingness to go for passes in the slot and though he can be hurt and one would not want to count on him as your go-to guy, I think he can be a powerful tool in an O where both Evans and TO can demand double-teams, My sense of the only problem I have with Parrish is that actually neither Fairchild nor Schoenert seemed to design am O that utilized his skills well. It was not just Parrish as the entire O never seemed to get as much out of the pass patterns of any of he WRs. Use of more slant patterns and even getting a close as they could for using illegal pick plays to get more separation for the WRs seemed to be obvious failings of the O the Bills ran, I think this team would be far more productive if it used 3 WRs as its base set and generally did not use the conventional TE based NFL O. In fact, I think this team would be making a mistake if it devoted a 1st round pick for Pettigrew as quiite frankly neither Schouman ro fine strike me as well rounded enough talents to be credible starters. If TO still has the same performance he put up for Dallas last year in his gas tank, I think it simply forces other teams to run a nickel or even a dime package as the base D since if the really did dt both Evans and TO with an over and under xoverage, Parrish should be able to use his speed to run wild over the middle.

If this turns out to be true I would be: 1. Disappointed if we took Pettigrew as this team does not strike me as having a reasonable plan B of a strong blocking/pass catching threat to go if Pettigrew gets knocked out of the game or is hobbled by an injury so he can play but is ineffective, or like about 1/2 of first round picks turns out to be a disappointment. I think second TE according to the Bills depth chart is a good ST guy but not a good plan B or much of a TD threat in 2 TE sets. The injured as a rookie Fine may one day be a good pass catcher but is not good enough all around that I can see why he was option 3 on a troubled TE Bills last year. I think this team is a better team if it focuses on getting real OL players and dispenses with the traditional TE sets to do more 3 WRs. You do want to muscle up at times in the redzone but I would be more inclined to go H-backs than waste resources trying to find the 2 TEs we would need to make a TE oriented O work. 2. I like Wood a lot. Even better with the pick-up of Hamgartner we have a player who can fill the hole left by the departure of Dockery but also gives us a plan B at C if Wood does not prove to be good enough to play as a rookie. 4. I would be pleased if MacKenzie is still there when we make our third pick. The Bills seem to like LBs capable of playing the middle as well as outside LB and the sturdy MacKenzie fits this description well.

I agree that your strategy is a great way to win in the draft. However, this fan is more interested in winning football games than winning the draft. Maybe if I was Mel Kiper or spent too much time on fantasy leagues (rather than spending too much time on TSW) I would have a primary interest in winning the draft. Maybe if my primary interest was building for the future I would be looking to stockpile picks. However, when one considers: a. we need to make the passing game work now as we are only guaranteed a #2 WR with great NFL achievement for a year. b. we also need to get the pass pro together as the question about the once concussed Edwards is that he will not develop even if he survives running for his life c. Ralph ain't gonna live forever. The bottomline is that stockpiling picks is a bad strategy for collecting Ws in 2009 and like it or not more than ever before the future is now for this team, We are zero for this millenium in making the playoffs and showing Peters the money rather than both caving in to his desire for a big contract AND hurting the pass pro while a rookie LT learns to become a vet is a bad idea.

TO Man of the year? I doubt it. But TO Bills cancer of the year? I doubt that also but you could not tell that from the objective reporting of the media. It would not be so sick that they simply reported that as a possibility, but when you do this a reasonable person might also report on the possibility that this might be a good move and the simple fact that if implodes it has no future cap impact on the Bills. The deal also provides zero pressure on us hitting our cap restrictions this year because of the conservative (and this fan would say too conservative). Intelligent or simply adequate reporting on this signing would go a long way to understanding the Bills prospects here. Right now the media looks like a bunch of lemmings simply souting stuff from the old script whether it has something to do with reality or not. My conclusion is that TO is probably an idiot. However, I know the media is composed of a bunch of idiots. If Sully, Mort, Graham or anybody who wants to do some reporting on this issue would simply connect to reality rather than reality TV we would all be helped on this.

Some discussion below about how ESPN (Mort, Wilcot (sic), Graham) was reporting the unprecedented appearance by TO at a voluntary workout got me thinking. In general, I consider one incident and event, two incidents a potential coincidence, but three similar incidents a possible trend and worthy of discussion. I felt very good about two very positive incidents which already have happened for TO during his short time as a Buffalo Bill (he got recognized in DC for some previous work by him in support of Alzheimer's sufferers, and he appeared here for voluntary organized team activities when it has been his history to skip these events because he can, but he showed up). However, it seemed legit to me to let coverage of these two incidents go rather than drawing some general conclusion as maybe they were just coincidences. However, upon thinking about this, there are tangible examples of idiot pundits drawing false conclusions on this (it was either blog screeds PFT or PFW which launched an article when he skipped the first voluntary practice which provides tangible evidence of false conclusions already being made about TO, In addition, the fact that TO varied his traditional behavior and showed up for this voluntary OTA was noted by the press, but simply noting this just cries out for somebody to do good reporting and ask TO what was it about this situation which made him operate differently than his past practice (does he want to go on record saying he wants to demonstrate to the FO and Bills fans he is a Bill? does he feel a special need or opportunity to build chemistry with Edwards, is he getting older as we all do if we are lucky and feels a need for an organized workout even though historically he always shows up in great shape when the season begins. Hey Graham or somebody with access we normal fans do not have this one screams out for someone to do a little reporting. On the face of it there are several demonstrable facts which generally do not fit into the script the conventional wisdom has adopted that we could use an article or two on in order to bring what may well be reality to light. As there are more than three specific items, to me it may well be a trend that a good reporter would be ahead of the curve to highlight. Specifically: 1. The PFT or PFW article which cited TO's failure to attend the first voluntary OTA as a sign of the TO cancer already beginning was simply bad reporting. In order to draw this conclusion, one would have to: a. Ignore the fact that the OTA happened within 10 days or so of him being signed and he would have had to be just sitting at home playing John Madden to expect he would show up for this voluntary OTA in any case and the conclusion that this was some first sign of him being a me-first cancer was just a stupid conclusion. b. Lo and behold he not only did not show for the voluntary OTA because he was sitting at home but actually because he was attending a long scheduled event where he got honored for his Alzheimer's work. Simple reporting of calling his agent/office and asking what he was up to instead of attending the Bills voluntary OTA would have revealed this fact without much heavy reporting, but the pundits and observer whom Graham sites at being miffed at TO for not showing up clearly did not even take this elementary reportorial move before they blogged about it. They deserve to be called out on this. c. Missing this workout was not an "excused" absence for TO because good reporting would have simply pointed out that he did not need an excuse to miss this "voluntary" workout. If pundits are going to call TO out for missing this session then they should also report the fact that these sessions are missable under the CBA. Even if the want to say it would have been a good practice (though not a required practice) for TO to show-up, again this claim demands that some recognition be given to a Bills practice not even being on his schedule before he signed the contract and again that he was not sitting in front of the tube while Steve Jackson and Lee Evans were doing deep knee bends he as getting an award for charitable work. d. The OTAs were organized workouts and historically TO always shows up in great athletic shape, This was not some OL player who needed to cut down from 360 lbs. to 345 lbs but again the articles which explored this "miss" did not explore the additional fact that in general he has been in great shape without them. 2. The amazing thing is that unusual for him he has shown up for a voluntary practice. Why? Good reporting might explore: a. Does he feel some desire to impress the Bills fan and FO that he is in fact a Buffalo Bill b. Does he feel a need to develop a relationship or chemistry with Edwards/Evans/the team/the city/ whoever. c. Is he getting older and the organized voluntary activity is good for him when as a youth he worked out on his own and showed and played. Good reporting may well involve more than sitting in front of a computer like me and looking at what others are doing. A good reporter might actually have to arrange and interview (Horrors work) but for right now reporters seem content to follow the old script and us at home readers are left without the service of good information because as best as I can read no one is doing good reporting on this big story. 3. If the silly season of the off-season so theoretical football work may simply not get read. However, the draft is this month and already there are good stories out there about the Bills draft needs. However, I have seen few comprehensive reports from the media which attempt to put the TO acquisition in any context of how many WRs we keep, the relationshio between the OL status and getting use out of the 1 year we are guaranteed to have TO, or myriad other issues. Its simply time for some context from Sully, Carucci, Graham or those paid to have time to think and write about this. What are the potential impacts of the TO signing and what impacts does this tangibly or even theoretically have on Bills needs. 4. What is the developing backstory on promotion of the Bills produce with TO on board, We already have a planned initial Monday night gig in wk 1 where TO's arrival is part of the story the NFL will promo. We suddenly seen to get featured a ab lot more on ESPN )its not hard to get better than not at all). How does the timeline for having TO fit in with Ralph's age and a timeline for us getting back into the playoffs? Overall, I feel pretty poorly served by the media (ESPN, The Buffalo News and sportschannel WGR prominent among them) which it seems to be me could at least already be offering some in depth articles about this amidst what is still a good chunk of Bills coverage by them. Lets get on the stick Sully, Graham, Mort, Carucci and others and do some good reporting on this.

Graham covered it which was good. However, his post seems to emphasize the lack of connection in his reporting to have determined why Owens did this act which was so unusual for him. Graham does lay out some theories as to why Ownes should have attended (customary for new players, develop chemistry with young Edwards) but it would simply have been good reporting if Graham could have found out whether these were in fact motivations for TO. He does say that some pundits and observers were surprised (like who or was it mostly Graham himself and if so then say so) but again good reporting would call for interviewing some of these pundits to ask whether they though TO showing up represented some significant change. Graham does mention the fact that Jauron knew ahead of time that he was going to be honored for his charitable work in DC while the voluntary practices were going on. Between that, the fact that he just got traded and the Bills voluntary practice was clearly not part of his plans a week or 10 days before while his schedule is probably set at least a month out, any pundit who took umbrage at TO missing the voluntary workout on the face of it is being unreasonable. However, Graham does not explore or even mention this alternative view of reality. Overall, I think that a report from Graham would have been better reporting if he had actually just gone with the facts that TO was there and he generally has not gone to past voluntary practices. His straying off into mentions of this being surprising to some unnamed folks simply comes off to me as incomplete reporting. Perhaps Graham is waiting to do a more complete job when TO provides him with another fact which undercuts the conventional wisdom that TO is a toxic asset for the Bills. He has two (a. A jump to a conclusion that TO has already started dividing the team by missing the voluntary workout- a dumb report by PFT among others is simply a false conclusion as no one expressed any problem with this and TO was actually not there getting a long scheduled reward for his Alzheimers workand Jauron knew about this and TO did not need an excused absence anyway because you do not need an excuse for a voluntary workout, b. TO actually did attend a voluntary workout). A good reporter has tons of objective facts here which demonstrate that those who claim TO is already a cancer are simply wrong (at least so far) and that TO in fact has done two things which are unusual for him or many players that are positives worth noting (he got recognized for unusually good work by a player on Alzheimers and unusual for him showed up for a voluntary practice. If Graham wants to be considered an adequate reporter that is fine (though preferably he should just report the facts unless he wants to work hard and name names of the pundits he generally references). If instead he wants to be judged a good reporter then he should do the work of getting an interview with TO to find out from the horses mouth why he changed his usual habit or theorizing as he seemed to do in this article about the positive reasons that T.O.s actions so far may indicate. I think the Graham report simply emphasized what was not there rather than just the facts of what was.

For Peters fiscal purposes the Bills can cave in either of two ways: 1. They can sign him to the contract he thinks he deserves (this worked for Evans and Stroud by showing up for voluntary OTAs). This would speak to showing up. 2. They can trade him elsewhere and the new team would almost certainly only do this if they knew they could sign Peters to a new deal and not just simply inherit the Bills problems. This would speak to staying away as much as he could (he apparently will show up for mandatory stuff this year but I suspect he will be acting all sullen and increase the calls by some to get rid of him though if the Bills do it pays huge benefits to Peters financially. My guess is he stays away as long as he judged it useful which is likely until mandatory workouts.

My guess is because while telegraphing false information to the enemy is important, Modrak and the FO would be silly to only have one reason for doing anything. I think that comments about Johnson and about Bell as well enhance competition among the players. Everyone can make out well if they play well and everyone's job is in danger if they do not. This fan knows the TEAM is the important thing and not being truthful to me. I just hope Modrak and the FO are stretching the truth (and even flat out lying when useful) rather than telling me everything I want to know. We fans are important, but not more important than what helps the TEAM. Lie to me and if we win I will easily forgive them (and if we lose I will also forgive them but no guarantee I will be easy about it).

He likely actually knows enough that he is quite willing to fib to the fans and others about what the Bills needs are on draft day. In fact it the Bills are not blowing a lot of smoke or flat out lying about their needs, this Bills fan would be deeply disappointed. If by lying to me they also fool the enemy teams in their estimation of our draft needs I think this is a great thing. To some degree I think it is the intelligent thing to do for Bills fans to be pretty skeptical of assessments by FOfolks as the draft draws closer.

Not so fast as far as your assumption about what the NFLPA will do or how hard they will fight for Lynch even if they do file an appeal. It was certainly true that before the NFLPA became a partner with the NFL after the union forced the owners into signing the new CBA by threatening to decertify itself (the owners ran and did not walk to reach an agreement to collude with the vets to restrict free-trade negotiating with college players with the draft and also to prohibit players far beyond the age of adulthood from even signing with the league). The NFLPA arguably became the majority partner in this arrangement when Gene Upshaw dictated that the current revised CBA would dispense with the concept of a designated gross and that the players would get a share of the total gross which started with a 6 (it was no accident that the final agreement awarded the players with 60.5% of the total gross receipts). The result was that Upshaw was quite public in announcing that in the future the NFLPA was going to represent the interests of the majority of its members who were making money like bandits and by far getting the majority of the receipts and would support disciplining of players so these young fools did not kill the goose laying the golden eggs. The result was that Upshaw joined the NFL in announcing that in the future player disciplines like suspensions would be given out not when a player had been found guilty by a court but in fact when they had repeated incidents of unsavory behavior whether they were convicted or not. The test cases were idiots like Pac-Man Jones and Chris Henry and the NFLPA did not utter a discouraging word to protect them. So to with Lynch I suspect, the NFLPA undoubtedly signed off on the tougher than the pre-Pac-Man past when the NFLPA would reflexively defend a player almost no matter how stupid his behavior was.While Machiavelli would have the NFLPA join an appeal and get this sentence reduced to 2 games so it can demonstrate some moderation, it would not be surprising to me if the NFLPA wa joining with the NFLPA to crack down on miscreant behavior by young players. Overall, 3 games seems a little harsh but would not surprise me if when Lynch met with Goodell after his first auto malfunction that what may have happened is that Lynch promised to change his ways after the first incident. If this were the case Lynch is getting 3 games for the league because he already fooled them once claiming he would change his ways.

I think this is true. However, a long with a rough year by Peters last year the simple fact is that he did win a Pro Bowl berth many of us Bills fans did not feel he deserved, but the market is commanded by other folks who with their votes for Pro Bowl established the decisionmakers in the NFL (the coaches, his peer players and the customer who is always right for any successful business. Like it or not, Peters can ride his young age, substantial initial achievements, and the 2 Pro Bowl honors to a big contract IF he was in the free market. What Peters and his agent have been all about is attempting to create a market for him where contractually there is not one. The Bills held a position that they would not renegotiate Peters contract last year. After his holdout last pre-season, slow start and inconsistent play, but still winning the Pro Bowl nod, reports are that the Bills have moved from offering him zero to not only making an offer but reports have them $3 million apart with is demands escalating to about $11 million. Peters has offered no public argument because quite frankly he has no good arguments to make just a market based argument which is true (but contractually there is no market). By all outside reports Peters has moved the Bills $8 million bucks annually. If true he is clearly winning and though one may argue that he would have done better if he had simply shown up last year. It sure looks like Peters is winning. Ironically, a vocal part of the fan base on TSW and WGR want to screw him by trading him when actually a trade would be a total cave giving him what he is after as almost certainly any team that traded for him would make a willingess to show him the money and not simply take on Peters's holdout as their problem. Such a trade would set a horrible precedent for Bills players who feel they have some market value if there was a free market by showing you simply need to be a jerk and the Bills will trade you to a team who will then give you the contract you want. Its hard to tell because there are no objective signs yet of a contract being done, but the press reports see, to reflect that Peters leverage had greatly increased with the market being a huge deal if he accepts the reported Bills offer and some advocating a bigger contract for him even still if he got traded.

As best as I can tell he has made a business judgment that with as you say he has no leverage to get the market value a two-time Pro Bowl (I do not place a ton of value in this but since this is decided based on the voting of coaches, his peers, and the market, what I think and you think has market value are mere sideshows) so he is trying to create a market for his services by forcing the Bills to EITHER cave by giving in to his demands or CAVE by trading him to another team (which will almost certainly make part of the deal their signing Peters to a long term deal. He wins in either the case of the Bills re-signing him or trading him. My GUESS is that his agent made the argument to him that by holding out the entire pre-season last year he put himself into a position where as long as he played well in 2008 (Mission accomplished as George Bush would say with him getting the Pro Bowl nod whether you or I think he deserved it or not) he would put himself in a position where the Bills would likely CAVE and sign him long term or cave and trade him to another team which would be stupid if they traded for Peters and merely inherited the Bills hold out because they too refused to sign him to a long term deal. His agent probably argued that the worst case for Peters would be if the Bills refused to CAVE to his demand for a new contract by holding him and forcing him to play under the deal he himself agreed to. In the worse case Peters ends up getting fined $600K last year (a considerable sum but given he is getting millions to play a boys game pretty small relative to the wealth his is building even under his current contract. The agents probably argued as far as tactics go, that there is nothing he is gonna say that either convinces the Bills or the public of the correctness of views (mostly because his mercenary approach is wrong in my view) and if there is nothing to be gained from anything you can say then simply shut up.. The tough part is that the Bills do not appear to be willing to cave with the contractual leverage they have creating no market for Peters. Ironically, the reports are the Bills and he are still miles apart with the Bills at least #3 million a year below Peters demand of $11 mill annually or so, However, if this really true the Peters has won as he is under contract for a couple of years at about $4 million a year, He went from a situation where the Bills simply refused to negotiate where apparently the Bills figure is $4 million above his current salary. Perhaps you are right that the Bills would have made Peters an $8 million offer if he had just not held out.... ... ... Perhaps I am a cynic in this world of AIGs and Madoffs, but I doubt the Bills would have simply opened up their wallets to extend Peters because it was the right thing to do

I think this is a good guess. Not because this is such a great option but because the other options are so bad> A. Do as you suggest and show him the $: Downside- it gives a player under contract what he wants which is a new deal which the Bills are not contractually required to give him. Further, it risks a chunk of change on a player who granted is one of the most talented players ever to be acquired (even for those who hate him now and say so, being a UDFA TE who somehow morphs into an OL player who in his third tear as a pro deserved his Pro Bowl LT nod is quite impressive- even if you agree with me that his play last year did not deserve the Pro Bowl recognition he received, its way too early to declare this 26 year old as done) and risks that he will play in 09 like he did in 07. Upside- even if you agree with me that he did not deserve the Pro Bowl nod last year, given he won this honor with coaches and his peers supplying 2/3 of the vote total the Pro Bowl nod does not seal the case but is an impressive reality that speaks to his market value. All things in life are risks but the risks of giving a boatload of # to Peters is substantially less than the risk of giving a boatload to some rookie #11 )Ryan Cladys do happen but so do Mike Williams, McKinnie in his rookie year, Harrington or a ton of busts from the crapshoot known as the draft. It is a fact that Peters achieved what he achieved so far in his brief career and worked hard to do it. There is a real upside which in the real world may not play out well but to simply dismiss brings deserved laughter at someone who claims Peters will be horrendous. B. Trade him for draft picks: Perhaps easily the worse option suggested. Not only would this route set a horrible precedent for other Bills who feel they deserve a new contract, but by trading him you give Peters exactly what he wants and send a message to young Bills that if they simply act like idiots the FO will trade them to someplace where they can get the contract they want. What makes this worse is that it consigns the Bills to replace their starting LT with either one of the remaining journeymen in FA or a rookie who if lightening strikes he is Ryan Clady but far more likely is either one of the above mentioned busts or at best learns the game as a rookie before he becomes a vet. Even worse, the Bills needs for solid LT play are so skewed toward a credible 09 performance (Edwards blindside must be guarded, we only are guaranteed T.O. for 09, Ralph is not gonna last forever so 09 is a priority) that drafting a player to start at LT credibly might happen but is such a remote possibility is does not even deserve the phrase upside. C. Trade him for a solid vet LT Fine but doubtful. What do you think the deal is and why would anyone want to trade a solid LT for Peters if you also claim he is so unsolid we should trade him. I do not think showing him the money is a good option but it is by far the best option and I think that the Bills will take it.