Pyrite Gal

They certainly are not reason enough in themselves as individual incidents. However, they are reasonable considerations to answer those who might whine that he never led a team to an SB win (correct he did not, but like it or not he did play an essential role throwing the winning TD in a must win game in the 02 run to the SB crown). Bledsoe did not lead his team to an SB win but many QBs and some HOFers have not so this is not a disqualifier. He does have a ring and he deserves it. Its part of his story. Also the Bills Pro Bowl is significant in that NE had made the correct choice of taking the younger (and now we see more talented) stud and simply axed Bledsoe. His making the Pro Bowl after he was axed his notable and commendable. Do you think some other QB deserved it more that year?

Surely you are not arguing that having the durability to last a long time in the NFL as Bledsoe did (old stone feet took a pounding from sacks but simply stood back up with a stupid grin on his face for the most part- he did go out for an extended period when a tackle collapsed his lung, but came back in that same season to throw the winning TD pass in a must win game and even made the Pro Bowl after the serious injury). Jones on the other hand lit it up a number of seasons (though actually his QB rating is about the same as Bledsoe's) but injury effectively ended his career. Making a premature exit makes you a worse QB, showing up again and again means someone is making a judgment that you are a good enough player to be paid big bucks to play. Again on the face of it, when one looks at accumulated stats, success getting to the SB and being an essential part of a winner, durability, Pro Bowl selections (4 for Bledsoe and for Bert Jones) I think that there is little comparison. I assume since you are referring to oldsters like Jones and Pastorini by Manning you are referring to Archie rather than Peyton who is a lock but far into the future so he is not the voting competition for the retired Bledsoe. Though again looking at the record there is no comparison between Archie and Bledsoe. Archie never even led his team to a winning record. Though he also played a long time for a team which often fell behind so he was slinging it, Archie produced a little more than half the yards as Bledsoe. As Peyton and Eli are of a different voting pool from Bledsoe (unless Peyton is gonna retire soon) and Archie is no where near Bledsoe in accomplishments (that is of course unless they open a special Stud HOF for sperm donors and Archie and Seattle Slew will be battling it out. Pastorini is interesting in that one of his teams did get the SB and his toughness and durability are unquestionable. Yet he threw way more INTs than TDs and this is probably why his career QB rating is a pedestrian 58 or so. Again despite Pastorini like Bledsoe being tough enough to often answer the starting bell, his total passing yardage, completions, and basic QB stats simply pale next to Bledsoe's numbers. Again there would seem to be little comparison here. I think that actually someone raised a better name for comparison in a different post. While Ken Anderson with the Bengals falls well short of Bledsoe in total yardage and completions, but his lengthy career, SB appearance, and getting 4 Pro Bowl nods like Bledsoe makes him at least comparable. I think one can make a fair case that if they passed on Anderson they would pass on Bledsoe. However, I think here the popularity contest kicks in. Anderson had the bad luck to be competing for HOF acknowledgment with some of the best and most successful QBs to play the game. Given a choice between Bradshaw and Anderson they faced each other head to head with the Pitts teams winning all the time. Anderson lost in the SB to the Montana led 49ers (or was it Steve Young but who cares same difference. The 80s saw and unprecedented plethora of QB talent. If Anderson gets in its probably as a senior. Bledsoe will hit eligibility after a long drought of QB HOF members and one which will not be broken now for 2 or more years (whenever Favre retires again but if he puts up an 08 like his 07 it may be a while). I think Bledsoe easily distinguishes himself from the Bert Jones and Archie Mannings, and it is why I suspect he is a happy man to see Favre separate from him in being a QB in waiting.

Thank you for the post as it is far better than many of the fact-free screeds in this thread in that it does propose an alternative who is more deserving of an HOF spot than Bledsoe. Bert Jones was an interesting mention for me since as a ardent NFL fan in the 70s, Bert Jones was one of those names that everybody who watched the game knew. I remember him as having one of the best arms ever, though I would guess he did not have the team around him as a Bears fan in my youth playing against Bert Jones was never a thought that bought any fear on my part as a fan. Looking at his career stats however as an indicator of his career, if folks want to keep Bledsoe out of the HOF they will need to come up with better competition than Bert Jones. Bledsoe easily piled up more completions, attempts, and yards than Jones (in fact well over twice as many) did in his career. Jones strong suits were that he had a rocket arm and had one of the best years ever in the 1876 regular season. However, my guess is that Jones will fall short of Bledsoe in the eyes of the HOF voters as not only did Bledsoe show far more durability in his career which allowed him to double Jone's output, but Jones has a pretty clear record of being far better in the regular season than he was in the playoffs. In fact, at the prime of his career he did a great job leading the Colts to division championships but in 3 straight years they went out in the first round. One of Bledsoe's missing elements is leading a team to an SB victory over a full season. However, this obviously is no flat out disqualifier as the explanation of Jimbo getting leading his team to a phenomenal 4 straight berths is a reasonable explanation for him never winning it all which is far more than a simple excuse. Likewise, Bledsoe can correctly be faulted for never leading a team for a full season to an SB win, but again the fact that he did lead his Pats team to the big dance once AND also played the critical role at Q throwing the winning TD in a must-win playoff game far exceeds anything Bert Jones ever achieved with his teams. When one links this fact with the fact that Bledsoe's cumulative stats far outpace Jones, it strikes me as not much of a question that Bledsoe is a better candidate than Bert Jones.

Whether you or I judge someone to be worthy in our humble opinions simply is not the point. What strikes me as the point which I have yet to see controverted in this thread is: 1. Bledsoe will make the nomination list by virtue of stats he recorded at the QB position which place him the top 10 all time when he retired. Again, like it or not, I have seen no one state the objective facts which indicate that my feeling that having finished in roughly 5th position in both receptions and passes attempted and easily in the top 20 or top 10 in other basic QB stats such as total yardage, TD passes, etc he easily will be nominated. 2. Once nominated, this popularity test will be determined by the unknowable who advocates for him and against him, but just as Bledsoe's presence excited a bunch of Bills fans to brave wintery weather and show up at the Ralph for the fairly impromptu welcome Drew party and then he managed to have one his better years after he was correctly cut lose by the Pats and make the HOF he will have at least a punchers chance at getting the nod. 3, Further it is my contention that more than the facts and certainly more than the opinions of Bills fans that the reinstatement of Favre means it is quite likely we will see the NFL without an HOF QB for a number of years between Elway getting in and Favre eventually getting in, Folks may have more faith than I do in he NFL not being swayed by their marketing desire to have a QB in the HOF as often as they can, Just as Bills fans were originally quite willing to drink the Kool-Aid with the Welcome Drew hullabaloo and season ticket sale ramp up so too will the NFL push him into the HOF based on his accumulated stats. key part in SB appearers and winners and him actually scoring the fame of getting selected to the Pro Bowl after he became a Bill and when the Pats were done with hi. I keep repeating the same thing but folks keep repeating the same fact-free opinions which may be true to those of us who watched him every week, but we do not vote in this popularity contest and no one has stated any real reasons why the NFL will not also drink the Kool-Aid.

The combination of HOF festivities and Favre getting reinstated triggered the fevered thought in my head. I don't know maybe folks have a little bit more faith than I do that the HOF decision making is based on some firm standard and is simply driven by some hard-edged assessment of the value of a particular player. If so, though stats can be manipulated to make many points, this firm NFL HOF standard can be easily reflected in stats. OK. Maybe the Easter Bunny is real as well. In fact, I have fairly limited doubt that the NFL and the HOF committee are ultimately motivated by the NFL promoting itself, its stars, and making bucks. I know many Bills fans are quite cheesed and bitter at Bledsoe. Yet, I am surprised that they would seemingly allow this dismay with Bledsoe to influence folks not to realize that if one obtains a level of accomplishment which Bledsoe has reached if only through him accumulation through many years in the NFL. Like it or not I think I remember him amassing #s which put him around fifth in terms of both attempts and completions. His amassing #s which are in the top 10 (or even the top 20 given the # of QBs in the HOF will get him nominated. Once nominated it will come down to a popularity contest and who decides to advocate for him. If the NFL is feeling at all cheesy about going from a standard of seemingly continual acknoledgment of QBs like Elway, Jimbo and Marino to a waste land awaiting the eventual Farve coronation, you will see Bledsoe get some serious consideration. The disappointment of Bills fans is given too little play in any regards (IMHO) and I doubt the disappointment of many Buffalo fans is gonna influence a lot of the voters. In fact, I am quite certain that the Buffalo chapter of the Bledsoe experience is actually gonna be chalked up as an arguing point for him because he was able to put up a Pro Bowl season here. As I have said I have no researched this issue to make statements which I do not think are subject to intelligent debate. However, in the absence of anyone stating any more objective facts like the roster of QBs waiting to get in having accumulated better $s than 5th or so in receptions and attempts, better #s than his 4 or so Pro Bowl appearances and a history of leading his team to the SB which he did once legitimately and playing an essential role for a team that won an SB when he threw the winning TD in a must-win game I think all the rant that label Bledsoe a journeyman who will not even get nominated are little more than fact-free opinions. I think this is a big day for Bledsoe because assuming this stalls the nomination of Favre for a couple of years and the QB competition for an HOF honor of a QB will be true journeyman such as Testaverde, my guess is that as much as it pisses some folks off Bledsoe is likely in the HOF, I can easily be wrong but if it is that easy there should be some objective facts that folks can point to such as his total stats for key items not being in the top 10 or 20, like his competition of retired QBs including names which are stiff competition, or some analysis by someone nice enough to take the time of the HOF ignoring the QB position for a time even approaching a decade if the candidates are not there. I do not think these factoids are there and in their absence I think the original point stands.

Whom do you see as the next set of QBs to gain induction. I will also try to check past records to see what the record is for years without a QB induction. Favre is the next one for sure I can think of. It will be interesting to see if they have the marketing stomach to go several years without a QB as they seem slated to do for awhile until Favre comes around. Bledsoe definitely went on a journey that included the NE place (where he had his career years, put up some top notch years, took a team to the SB in a losing role and then played an essential role in an SB winning year), booted out of town he went to Buffalo where he chalked up a Pro Bowl appearance after being passed by for a younger player, and then the journey ended after 3 stops (I guess 3 is the minimum to qualify as a journey) and though they did not reach the levels achieved under Romo the record improved with him coming there (whether someone wants to credit him or not). The bottom line is that he hung around long enough that he put up some cumulative #s that rank high in QB yore. You seem to have a lot more faith in the system to produce an outcome based on accomplishment rather than the hype surrounding the marketing of the QB position and the FAME (often undeserved at the level of credit/blame the QB gets) accorded to players. Several thousand folks showed up in dicey weather at the Ralph for the Welcome Drew festival and several thousand season tickets got sold based on the hype (ironically he fulfilled the hype his first year). I think in the end the hype will have a big impact on this popularity contest. Do you disagree?

What is the list of players in waiting and more specifically who are the QBs in waiting. Sure there are guys who deserve to get in more, but my general memory of things is that the NFL with its ongoing bias to promote QBs which allowed a few of them to exploit a clothing line known as the QBs club is going to be Jonesing to get in a QB at about the time Bledsoe becomes eligible, They routinely have cleared the decks of many QBs in waiting by voting in unquestioned applicants like Elway and even first round surprises like Jimbo in as quickly as they could print a throwback T-Shirt with their name on it to sell. They even reached back to his great career accomplishments pre-NFL and ignored the wife beating charges to put Warren Moon in. The Favre re-enlistment merely means that for several years the NFL will be thinking about QB names like Testaverde and picking and promoting Bledsoe will almost certainly seem like a good deal in the popularity contest that is HOF voting. The stalling of another year til they can bow at the Favre trough should benefit Bledsoe in that if the NFL is jammed for entrants (as they usually are in this select club) they get to pick Bledsoe in his second year of eligibility without the embarassment of direct comparison to Favre's career. The irony of this all may be that in fact if they are so starved for a A QB to promote when he comes off do not be shocked if he to gets in on his first ballot opportunity. I may be wrong about the outcome of the votes, but this is pretty easily indicated if someone can point to specific people who are likely to beat Bledsoe in this popularity contest. I cannot think of who this candidates will be who will beat out a guy who played for a while, got an SB ring, made several Pro Bowls (including one late in his career after he was correctly cut by NE, and retired to Montana with his rep as a stand-up guy (say what you want about him but their is marked difference between how he re-acted when Brady obviously supplanted him and how a star like Eric Moulds melted down when father-time helped make Evans heir apparent to his stardom. As I said, I will not be surprised if this popularity contest votes him in on the first ballot and now that better competition has removed himself from consideration for another year I will be surprised if he is not put in by his second appearance. Who knows, maybe he and the l'l woman will have some public falling out in 3 years and this will impact the vote for the HOF.

TSW favorite Drew Bledsoe. By being reinstated to the NFL Brett Favre has stalled off his eventual first ballot entry in the HOF by a year since he is no one is eligible until 5 seasons after they retire. By rejoining the NFL Favre puts another year between his virtually guaranteed 1st ballot entry. I do not remember exactly when folks retired, but my sense is that the NFL will go several years in a row with none of the over-hyped over-vaunted QB's entering the HOF. When Bledsoe hits his eligibility, the NFL likely will be starving to let in another stud QB. Bledsoe has piled up some impressive cumulative stats which when coupled with his wearing an SB ring which Brady did the huge lionshare of the work to acquire, but Bledsoe like it or not threw for the winning TD as a sub for an injured Brady in a must-win game to secure that SB win. In addition, Bledsow was correctly booted by the Pats in favor of Brady, but he did earn a Pro Bowl berth (if you disagree then simply say who should have got it instead) in his one good year for the Bills. He correctly got the boot here in Buffalo as TD was foolish to extend his contract and actually should have let Bledsoe go a year earlier than he did. Yet Bledsoe, though he clearly fell short of being the answer for Dallas over Romo, it also is true that the team improved its production in a significant way with Bledsoe at the helm of Parcell's team. While it is easily questionable whether Bledsoe will get in on his first ballot (I do not think he deserves it, but alas it is the Hall of FAME and not the Hall of STATS and my guess that Favre rolling back his eventual entry by a year will likely enhance the chances that an NFL starved for a recognizable star which the over-promoted QB generally is will be more likely to give Bledsoe the honor. Even if Bledsoe is denied the first ballot entry the star maker machine of the NFL produces, Favre putting off retirement for a year clears the deck in Bledsoe's second year of eligibility since if he went in with Favre he clearly would be second banana to this QB. I certainly think he will be the start of the class if he is elected his second year of eligibility and depending on what happens with the starmaker machinery it may even sleaze in on his first ballot with the NFL knowing it will have to wait another year before the Favre HOF coronation.

It really depends on what you mean by low priority. If you mean low active effort, I agree, because I GUESS that Parker has counseled Peters that there is nothing he can say or do short of accepting whatever the Bills are willing to offer him for an extension which will get him a new contract. Logistically and contractually the Bills have the leverage in this situation as Peters signed a deal (which in a world not driven by the modern financial ethic he would honor but it would simply be naive not to recognize that though honoring his word is the correct thing to do our version of capitalism routinely rewards folks who chose dollars over their word at the time- this does not justify what Peters is doing at all but it would simply be naive not to recognize that the Golden Rule has mutated in our society). There is nothing Peters can say and no argument he can make that will move the Bills to a position of giving him what he could get IF there was a free market for his services. However, he signed a deal which eliminated that free market for 3 more years. Now that reality has changed he wants to operate in a market for the new reality (he is a Pro Bowl LT rather than the old free market (he was a promising UDFA who had become a starting RT). Activity and negotiating is a low priority for Peters and Parker quite correctly as there is nothing really to negotiate about in the market he already signed a deal in. However, I think it would be simply naive to call Peters a low-priority for Parker overall. Parker has shown every sign in his past activities of assigning priority based on the cash money he can make. IF Peters and the Bills choose to operate in a free market for LT services, there is so much money to be made here by Parker that it would simply be foolish for him not to make Peters a big priority. Peters is only a limp (Walker from even a temporary muscle pull) and a questionable performance (word is that the young Chambers is already being taken to school by Kelsay) away from making it big time in the Bills interest to operate in a new market for bidding for Peters services. Its not there yet, but given what I now think is the likelihood that Peters will sit for a couple of games worth of fines we will see if reality changes.

Understand it more is probably a more accurate way of phrasing it as a Bills fan. Though I must say that after reading so many folks state a clear opinion that he and his agent were deranged, understanding it (I think at least) gives me a lot more respect for it that actually makes a word such as "like" a not inappropriate description of my feelings. Actually if this really does explain what and why they are doing what they are doing, I do like some of the side effects: A. This forces the Bills to plan a little bit for altering their OL line-up if an injury occurs. I think both Walker and Chambers will benefit from trying to make up for Peters. B. I found the explanations based on Peters not really being recovered from the injury which bounced him from the Pro Bowl a little bizarre but still troubling. As a Bills fan I like the explanation in this thread better. C. I like Wittle as a player but I think he is on the backend of his career and the Bills need another credible OL back-up. If the discomfort caused by the Peters situation makes the braintrust hit the waiver wire hard for another back-up OL player I will not be displeased. Thus like is probably not too strong a word for this Bills fan.

The mods may want to collapse this into one of the many existing Peters threads, but I think that my views (which have already been offered on TSW if so I apologize for the redundancy but I cannot keep up with all the Peters threads). My thinking is thus: 1. Is there any argument that Peters/Parker can make which will win the day for him in this dispute? I think not. First off, the only audience he has to convince of anything is the Bills org. There is nothing he can say to them which is going to make them give him a huge contract. Perhaps. if he pulled off some great bit of Obamaesque speechifying he could so convince the public of his views that these customers would pressure the Bills. No one mistakes Peters for a wordsmith last I checked. There simply is little he can say that will win the day for him and if you argue that there is then what is it? 2. Should Peters open back channels to the media, the team or his fellow players to help his case? I would say no. If there was some "semi-official" back channel which provided reliable info for him, this back channel would then be beseiged by the media and fans looking for info. They would then truly be distracted (if it were Dockery or another teammate) and even worse folks would take even greater authority to put words in Peters' mouth if he was running an active info campaign to the media. Quite frankly he is helped the most by letting folks imaginations run wild and then to watch these theories (the more ornate and complicated they are the easier it is for them to collapse)fall apart on their own without him having to take the time to correct things. 3. How will Peters win his case then? The answer is reality. If Langston Walker comes off the field with the barest bit of a hobble. If Chambers gets used and abused by the LDE in camp (as apparently has already happened with Kelsay) or in any of the first couple of pre-season games then the cry from fans, the media, and all Bills stakeholders will be to sign Peters to a long-term new deal quick. Peters well may not win this game if Walker and or Chambers prove to be productive. However, even in this case, when Peters chooses to waltz back into camp he immediately becomes the #1LT, Chambers goes back to the bench and Walker goes back to the right side. The media starved by Peters for anything authoritative, will be reduced to ranting about Parker with no real effect or against the cypher Peters who simply ignores them. Actually, to a fair degree they will begin to watch Walker/Chambers with a fine tooth comb and likely will rant against their play (and remotely against the FO for allowing this situation to occur. All in all, it looks like very intelligent strategy for Peters to just shut up. If reality deals him poor cards to play with because Chambers/Walker play well, then he waltzes into camp with two pre-season games to go (either 3 or 1 depending on what he thinks he and the rest of the OL need) announces he is sorry there was a dispute, he has paid dearly for it, and now all his time and attention is going to the getting ready for the next game and the season. It may or may not work for him depending on reality. but I like the strategy.

Actually not talking to anyone is to Peters advantage. Right now everyone is wondering what he, and his agent are thinking and whether they are fools. Any statement he makes will remove all doubts about this question. Is there any argument he can make which will help his case? This is a negotiation and with the Bills I doubt it. As far as any statements to the public any comment from him other than I will be in camp on X date will create such a crescendo of him getting grief I think it is no wonder he has nothing to say.

Though on second thought, I am happy to accept a configuration where: Peters: Get your ass to camp. Russ: Pay the man. Either configuration is fine.

Yep!

Again there is a demonstrable difference in status between the cases you site which explains their different treatment. Anderson, Gandy, and Peerless had money "thrown" at them several times in their careers because they hit the FA market several times in the case of some of these vets. Neither Evans nor Peters will be an FA this year. In fact, by extending Peters though the Bills were not forced to do this and in current negotiations based on Evans being an FA next season the Bills have already in Peters case and appear likely to throw money in the direction of the two examples you site. Even beyond the structural differences on where they are in their contacts, its totally legit for individual players to be treated quite differently based on the coaching assessment of each player's skills and the other alternatives available at that position on the team or in the league. The thing that seems befuddling is why you seem to insist on their really being much equality or certainly equivalency between one players contract and another players. As long as the Bills do not violate any rules there is really no reasonable expectation of equivalency.

Obviously there are any number of aspects that were a significant part of the horrendous statistical yardage production such as: 1. The O scheme designed and called by Fairchild (in particular we simply did not seem to run enough pass plays which tried to use the TE and RBs effectively as receivers. It would be one thing if they all were suffering a case of the droppsies similar to Reed's horrible personal streak his second year, but the problem with this aspect IMHO was not players not catching the ball but simply a lame O scheme. 2. One of Marv's favorite cliches which actually has some truth to it is that when a team has 2 starting QBs it has no starting QB. Due to injury and then some uncertainty this offense never really had consistent leadership. 3. The WR situation was jumbled at best and it was clear at draft time we needed to find a #2. 4. The ST portion of the game in terms of coverage was at the very least troubled and this resulted in a number of poor play starts. 5. The team led the NFL in players who were put on the IR, but in addition we suffered significant lost time by our RB starter and by both QBs which were not bad enough to end their season but influenced and hurt their play. 6. OL performance. Of these 6 I think you are looking at thing incorrectly if you judge the OL play as being the main reason for our poor O performance.

A lot depends on what happens after the deal gets done and both parties have bruised egos. Winning goes a long way toward making everyone happy regardless of any bad feelings. The good news for the Bills is that given their relative youth and their clearly improved play since the Mularkey days and maintaining the same record despite leading the NFL with players on the IR this team seems poised to make the playoffs bt next season,

I may plop into camp this year for the first time since the good ol days in Fredonia. St. John's Fisher sounds very impressive. One of the challenges I am considering though is that if one attends with a person in a wheelchair, how will the handicap access issues work. Due to the People with Disabilities Act, anything constructed in the modern world (as much as the training camp was) would need to make reasonable accomidations for folks with disabilities. However, camp is camp and though there may be both a legal and business reasons for doing this, the devil is in the details. I know for example, one parks some distance from the practice fields and must grab a shuttle bus to the play. While fortunately for us the disability would allow the person to cane up the steps rather than have their wheelchair ramped onto a bus, generally the preference would be to have the wheelchair with us for when exhaustion of a hot day or traversing the NFL experience makes a wheelchair useful or necessary for longer distance transport. Has anyone had any experiences with overcoming disability at St. John's Fisher? Many thanks for any useful guidance.

A lot of the criticism comes from Bruce Smith having set such a high standard for excellence at LDE that most folks woulf disagree with you and not call 6-8 sacks as being what a solid DE should produce. While some of this is because BS set such a high standard for performance (folks should not forget he was not merely solid but simply was one of the best ever producing double digit sack totals consistently, demanding at least a double if not a triple team some days, and was solid against the run even while being a monster against the pass), I do agree that Kelsay needs to produce more than 6-8 sacks to be truly worthy of being called solid. The simple fact is that in his highest sack output season he produced only 5.5 so even your prediction of 6-8 would be new for him. Despite his being average at best as a sack artist, he is in fact solid against the run but really not extraordinary as a run stopping talent. In the face of all of this, he was rewarded with a contract extension which seems to outpace his production. Expectation are for him to at least play at a level approaching his salary and he has not done this. Add to this, the method which Kelsay seems to get his relatively small sack totals is because he is what seems to be typical of today's Bills, a DE with a constant motor who gets his sacks by working and working but has not demonstrated the devastating first move which forces the opponent to double team him from the get-go. Kelsay should have a good statistical year this year as OL blocking will need to slide toward behemoth Stroud and Pro Bowler (another good motor guy who has developed a better first move and used his athleticism to generate more strength at the POA when he is engaged). However, Kelsay has really shown little (in the face of reasonable increased expectations after his new deal his tackle total went down and his sack numbers (over-emphasized as a measure but still critical for an LDE plummeted to a mere 2.5). Really his level of production would be judged good for a journeyman picked up on the waiver wire, but is not solid and arguably not good for a player who commands the cap room he does. It is good news to hear of Kelsay owning the back-up Chambers because he should. Perhaps this is a sign that he had in fact developed a good set of first moves and will log a number approaching double digit sacks (8-10) which IMHO would earn him the accolade of being solid. This assumes he remains solid against the run though quite frankly for an LDE if he logs 12+ sacks I would not feel bad at all about him sacrificing some of his run effectiveness because sack output at this level would make for a huge challenge for an OC deciding how to attack this DL.

My guess is that just like real life (rather than bulletin boards on the internet or "reality" TV) Peters has a more nuanced view than making a simple choice between winning and getting paid the maximum he can negotiate. Again quite simply Peters wants to BOTH win the game and get paid enormous (rather than just the huge sum he will be paid for playing this boys game) bucks. Is he committed to winning the game with no regard to his salary? Nope. Is he so committed to getting bucks he cares nothing about his teammates, the fans, or his teammates. Nope to that idea also. Within the bizarre bazaar of the NFL, Peters strikes me as having made a calculation that right here right now he has maximum leverage to exploit the market if he can create one. There is no market for him right now because he agreed to a contract which rewards him richly at a level far beyond what a UDFA is likely at all to get and even handsomely for an RT. However, what he either did not bank on or could not cut a deal for way back a bit over a year ago when he signed an extension that removed him from a free market for several years was that he would become by consensus one of the best LTs in the game. He agreed to a deal which pays him handsomely for being an RT but is relative chump change for one of the best LTs in the game and a young one at that. Peters IMHO has made a calculation that his current market leverage is higher than it is likely to ever be (if he gets hurts enough like he did last year he could quickly become Tony Boselli, if his talent suddenly goes south which is incredibly doubtful he could become Ryan Leaf). He is simply trying to create a marker where non exists by agreement prior to his virtually unprecedented success. He is willing to do this because if he does not then he will not be able to fully exploit the marketplace and my guess is that he and his agent calculate that like Bruce Smith used to do at another position, he can actually skip most of camp and still come in late and with 15 games playing with the OL last year pick up close to where he left out. The team has drawn a hard line and said that he will not create a market by holding out. My sense is that his teammates actually forgive him because in the big picture as far as salary its short-sighted to view the NFL as merely a zero-sum game where because of the salary cap more money for one player means less money for everyone else. Actually under the new CBA, the money that the NFLPA forced to the salary cap rather than the owners is so huge that the precedent of getting a team to part with dollars for the players rather than the owner simply hauling it off to the bank has tended to raise all salary ships for the players. There is a cost for Peters though playing the game this way, the fans will likely not forget all this, however, we fans have shown an ability quite often to forgive even if we do not forget. I think Peters can actually play this game out through much of pre-season without demolishing the team's chances of winning or without demolishing his ability to make a dime from card shows, personal appearances and other forms of making money from fan adulation as long as the team is winning or he is acknowledged as a stud player by his peers. Nothing is certain of course, but life is uncertain. His leverage is at a height now and he is trying to create a market where there is none. My bet is that he Bills are intelligently willing to pay him more as a young Pro Bowl LT can get if there were a free market. However, it likely will take some time for this dance to play out. I like it in fact that the Bills and Peters are not talking as actually it is unlikely that either side would say something positive to the other in the current dance (and might say something which pisses the other side off). I also like the fact that the Bills are working on developing a reasonable plan B if Peters does not come back of shifting Walker to LT and playing Chambers at the more protected by the TE RT position. The Peters injury in the last game last year shows that the Bills better have a credible back-up plan for all starters and Peters was suddenly so good that there was no credible back-up plan for the long-term.

IMHO, 1. Walker has pretty clearly been much better than he was with the Raiders (which may not be saying much given how sucky as a group the Raiders were), but even there, the analysis of some outside observers (JMac among them) was that their problem was in lots of other areas and the poor play was not all or even mostly Walker's problem. 2. The measurable performance of the Bills OL seems to support this contention as the team gave up the fewest # of sacks since the NFL started keeping the stat. 3. The running game also did fairly well with Walker as Lynxh out up very good numbers for a rookie and even in his absence or when he needed a blow, his back-up at RB, Div. III rookie player Fred Jackson did well. Part of this was likely that Jackson who experienced some success in Europe is actually a good player, but also this indicates some good blocking not dependent on Lynch's talent. It also is generally felt that Lynch was actually quite effective running to the right and not dependent on going behind Pro Bowler Peters and highly paid Dockery. These individual objectively measurable plaudits however, do not explain why the Bills O was ineffective in helping this team produce better than a 7-9 record. If Walker was in fact so good, then why did this team fail to make the playoffs? Well Walker escapes getting a lot of blame for the team's overall failures as there are simply far more likely explanations such as: 1. The D finished statistically near the bottom of both run and pass D, if Walker and his O cohorts sucked badly then we likely would have finished worse than 7-9. 2. The O was pretty poorly designed and Jauron ran things conservatively in a successful effort not to get blown out all the time and even to steal a game sometimes as they did when none other than Joe Gibbs made a stupid coaching mistake when they played the Skins, Nevertheless, this team never used the RB as a receiver, and was up and down using the TE. Finally, this was a team which did not settle on a QB until late in the season. Was Walker great? Nope. However, did the team's O failings point to something other than a Walker problem? Yep. 3. In addition the team's large number of players who went on IR is a simple fact and is probably better thought of as a "reason" fpor disappointing results rather than as an "excuse." Finally, despite stellar play by the ST skill players punting and placekicking, the ST unit got a little long in the tooth and needed a major retool and reload in this draft. All in all an assessment which jumps to the conclusion that Chambers must be bad because Walker is so bad does not really add up with the objectively observable evidence.

Of course folks are displeased anytime the teams looks cheesy (we are simply fans after all) and this strikes me as fine. I would be worried if the team had this problem with crowd noise and presence at the end of pre-season after practice and some ex games that being too worried about it right now. It also is interesting that TE attributed this problem to the team being not as experienced as it needs to be dealing with a raucous crowd. Actually, I think it is second year players like Edwards or Lynch who may legitimately have this problem they can solve (they never have played in an inhospitable place like Arrowhead in KC) but there are enough vets on this team that they should be able to lend some experience and calmness to the newbies like Edwards. One of the tough things about the approach the Bills have taken is that they have not really devoted a lot of energy to keeping reliable vets like Fletch or TKO around and thus this team is dependent on coaches like Jauron or April to lend this steadying hand to the team. While this is possible there are also limitation to this approach as coach leadership is good but not the same at all as internal player leadership. Who knows. maybe Brett Favre would have something immediate to offer this team besides his getting older (but still one of the best in the NFL at QB) play).

But BADO, know one can know for sure but we all just theorizing here, however, while it is clear the Bills made a proactive decision to go in another direction that did not include Clements, to what extent do you feel this was a mutual deal where like it or not Clements was gonna go elsewhere even if the Bills did all they could do financially for him. The simple fact was that prior to the new CBA and the new cash from the TV deals greatly expanding the salary cap, the Bills were under significant fiscal constraints which would have allowed them relative chump change for signing Clements. NC and his agent had to know that they had a choice between taking relative security of taking the best deal the Bills could offer or instead the "playmaker" could risk the possibility of injury and play til he hit the market. Nate simply would have been a financial fool to sign the biggest deal the cash-strapped by the cap the Bills could offer and walk away from what turned out to be the at the time the biggest contract ever signed by a defensive player in NFL history. NC's team needed only to look at whose contracts were coming up for renewal (folks like Bly and Samuel) to see that even if he had a mediocre year for him as he did in '05 he still was going to command a big contract in FA. I disagree that a flat out statement that the FO let Clements go away as not only would a Bills team running a Cover 2 would be badly managing the cap if they spent big bucks on a CB, but also Nate himself would almost certainly have not signed an extension.

I think the bottom line on this as demonstrated by NC signing the biggest contract ever given to a defensive player to go to SF is that Clements would have been a financial fool to sign an extension with the Bills for anything they could have offered him with the cap constraints they had when he hit FA. Perhaps one could argue that at that point (they tagged him after the 05 season) Clements might have placed more value in extending for the cap constrained Bills rather than simply play for the tag in 06 and cut a deal to guarantee he would hit the free market after 06. However, one thing this playmaker has never lacked was confidence in himself and I think it is a reasonable bet that Clements would have insisted on hitting the market rather than taking the smaller contract the Bills could offer as an extension. In addition to it being fairly unlikely NC would have taken the highest extension offer the Bills could make, once again it did not serve the Bills interests to extend NC: 1. Once the Bills decided to use the Cover 2 as their base D they made a decision that they would not use NC in his highest and best role in a Bills D. One of the strongest parts of Nate's game is that he is in fact a "playmaker" capable of covering opposing WRs all over the field. NC played a valuable role in the Bills Cover 2 in 06, but he was valuable mostly because McGee took a year (like many players) to master the Cover 2 and its reads and having NC allowed the Bills to assign him to the other team's best WR whatever side of the field he took. However, as the CB in the Cover 2 generally release the WR to the Safeties or MLB on deep routes we simply were not going to use NC as a playmaker all the time. if we chose th Cover 2 it was the correct move not to pay NC the playmaker salary he commanded in the free market. 2. In making an agreement with NC that he would not pull a Joey Gallowayesque holdout when they tagged him in 06 in exchange for the Bill agreeing not to tag him in 07 it is true that NC gave them nothing for this deal in that under the CBA once tagged NC was bound to the Bills for 06. However, though we got nothing for the deal besides NC living up to his contract we really gave up nothing for this deal. The Bills had decided to go Cover 2 and NC was gone in terms of value for us and in terms of what we could afford to pay him. Perhaps we gave up the ability to threaten to tag NC again and thus we might be able to trade him instead of him walking away with no compensation for us. However, other teams no the CBA as well and another team would have to be stupid to trade anything to us for Nate as it was clear it did not pay for him to extend with us and it did not pay for us, so one really would have to make a clear case that we could have gotten any compensation for NC going FA. We were owed nothing according to the rules and just as we paid nothing beyond his contract to get TKO other teams owed us nothing for NC. 3. Also, do not forget the year NC produced in the 05 season before one waxes so poetically about saying the Bills should have opened the vault for NC when he hit FA after that season (not that NC would have been enough of an economic fool to accept any extension we were by rule limiting the amount we could offer. The '05 season ended with Nate joining Lindall (who missed a chipshot), Bledsoe (who failed to lead the team to a rally), and the D (who let then back-up to the back-up Willie Parker peel off a 100+) in failing utterly against Pitts. NC layed a PR on the carpet which pretty much capped a season in which our shutdown CB had been badly burned several times (virtually all CBs get burned sometime but it was even arguable at the time that McGee was playing better CB than NC). Even though the limited CB market virtually guaranteed that NC would either get the best offer the cash-strapped before the new CBA the Bills could offer or play the market to get a good deal even for a good but not great CB after NC's somewhat embarassing 05 (afterall this was a guy who due to injury had made the Pro Bowl the year before. It simply is amazing that folks who have demonstrated great football knowledge in previous posts continue to moan about the Bills FO not showing NC the money, when: 1. NC even at his best for the Bills was a very good but not great CB. He arguably has not been in the top 6 CBs in the league ever!!! (an argument which has been made in every Pro Bowl of NCs career- sure one can make a case for him as being great, but one needs to acknowledge the reality that many also make the argument that he is not a great CB and certainly did not get the biggest D contract ever due to a lot more than him hitting the market at the right time when the better CBs were locked up contractually. 2. NC would have taken a huge financial loss over what the market might have and in fact did give him so it is questionable whether he would have even signed for the amount a cap constrained Bills FO could even offer him before the new CBA. Nate may gave been frightened by the prospect of injury or bad play that he would have taken the bird in the hand of a lesser Bill offer. However, a lack of self-confidence has never been an NC problem and I doubt seriously he would have taken what the Bills could offer, 3. The Bills in choosing the Cover 2 as their base D were not going to run a D that got the highest and best use of a playmaker like NC (read only the comments of Dre Bly who announced publicly when he hit FA that there was no amount of money that would get him to re-sign with Detroit to be a CB in their Cover 2 (which ironically was designed by Jauron). Jauron's approach to D is one that strikes the balance which must be struck under the CBA of not paying top dollar at all positions. Just like Indy after they let their CBs go for higher offers, a team which uses a Cover 2 as their base D generally is not going to spend their limited cap dollars getting the best of the CBs. If one wants to advocate us showing NC the money the market dictates is necessary to keep him then it is up to that advocate to lay out the fantasy world of how you would have built a team around NC's talents and skills. He is a very good player and occaisionally even shows flashes of greatness, but I do not see a team building themselves around NC. A CB can in fact be good enough to do this but he needs to be Deion Sanders great. NC is very good but no one would mistake him for one of the best CBs ever and you would build a winner around him. In fact, the coaches. peers, and fans who vote for the Pro Bowl do not even see him as one of the best CBs in the NFL.

Basically the logic that draws some to wonder whether Peter's injury last year is at the root of some conspiracy by the Bills and Peters simply is not that logical.