SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

I certainly wouldn't want to bet my chips on the Bills with him as the starter, but that being said, I'd love to have him on the roster and wouldn't be surprised if he played at an exceptional level his rookie season - like if someone got injured.

The Bills would be wise to take him. But this would add depth to the line which we need without really plugging our hole at guard adequately. I say we draft him if we can get him at a good value but I expect to see a FA acquisition at this position (unless we pull off some kind of trade for an elite caliber guard) and thus I don't expect the Bills to make the pick unless they have secured a good pass rusher already, and probably a TE or another pass rusher as well. If we can manage to get him in the third round, I will be very happy though.

It depends on what position we want to draft. If we go after a tight end in the first round, we should trade down...because seriously TE is one of the least important positions on the field, and hence teams don't tend to pick them with high picks. It is perfectly reasonable that Brandon Pettigrew will still be available later in the first round, and honestly I think we could trade down at least 10 spots and still get him. I don't believe this is what we should do however. The Bills finally actually have a good corp of skill players, and by securing fundamental positions on the o-line and defensive front we could even be an elite team next year. If we have a chance to get a top caliber rookie who can rush the pass and make an immediate impact as a starter at #11, then we need to take that. #11 is really the perfect position because you can potentially draft immediate impact players which much less value to risk ratio than a true top 5 pick. With our revamped receiving corp, TE is not our #1 priority by a long shot and so we should not waste our best chance of acquiring an immediate impact player on it. We either trade that pick for a good offensive guard or an established pass rusher or we pick up a DE in the draft. In my opinion.

To the OP: I think its a good idea. You could also add in some options in his contracts and incentives. Pay him 8 mil base salary, 4 mil/yr guaranteed, with 2 mil in bonuses if they make the playoffs, another mil in bonuses if they make the AFC championship, another mil if they win the SB. Then have an option to sign him in 2 years at 11.5 mil/year with comparable incentives. It may seem like an expensive approach, but lets just assume the Bills win everything and they have to pay all the incentives. They can afford it because with winning comes additional income. Just look at the Patriots. If the Bills go the playoffs they are going to sell out a lot more games, merchandise, etc. So there will be money to cover his contract. If they lose, they get his services at a bargain price. If he gets injured, they suffer a substantial salary cap penalty, but will lack the talent to win consistently regardless of how they spend that 4mil/year they lose in guaranteed salary. I'm sorry but drafting a highly rated college player to a critical position is what you do when you are rebuilding, and personally, I'm sick of watching the Bills rebuild.

Also, his grievance with his salary is justified. I think if the Bills at least acknowledge that and put forth a genuine effort to compensate him accordingly, he will be much more willing to compromise. If the Bills show they are willing to shoulder a good share of this risk in signing him, I think he will be willing to take a little less money. Offer him more guaranteed money and we can achieve a smaller bottom line. If the Bills get burnt by taking that risk, they won't be in any worse shape than they are right now in terms of winning games and making the playoffs. Let's roll the dice - its clear the Bills' ultra-conservative approach to filling a roster DOESN'T work.

You can tell Buffalo has been losing a lot in recent years. How else can you explain the logic that trading Peters and drafting a replacement is a move that makes your team stronger? It makes no sense. We have possibly the premier left tackle in the league on our roster, and only QB is a more important offensive position. Let's pay the guy and win some games already. If we don't have Peters, we don't make the playoffs. It's plain and simple. If we had a solid o-line all the way across then perhaps we could consider this. But comon...he is the only player we have who can really dominate anyone who lines up against him. If we want to win and make the playoffs, we have to keep him. That's all there is to it.

With the amount of teams who are always desperate for elite left tackles it is amazing to me that people who want to see the Bills win would suggest trading Peters. Look left tackle is the most important offensive position except quarterback, and when you have an elite one like Peters, with a now fearsome receiving corps, it makes no sense to me to suggest that you get rid of the guy. 11.5 million is a lot to pay him, but I think the Bills could offer him a smaller contract with more guaranteed money and compensate that way. I know its a risk but trading a pro bowl left tackle for a lesser player is a step backwards. Pay the guy and you are basically putting your money in the "Bills will make the playoffs" basket. If they do, money will be there and this won't be as much an issue next year. If they don't make the playoffs, what have we lost? Nothing. But, without Peters, they *don't* make the playoffs and have to deal with the fact that they lost one of their few cornerstone elite players around which you can build a franchise. Do whatever is necessary to keep this guy.

We will see how well he covers Lee Evans.