Flbillsfan#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 If you need to be explicitly told that Jason Peters is in a different class of player than Brad Butler, there isn't much more I can do for ya How were the Bills supposed to know how good he would be before he played the position? Even at that, he has had ONE GOOD YEAR at LT, that is all. It does not look like he is tearing up the NFC this year, so I don't think you can do anything for me or anyone else for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Others like Clements & Peters wanted out of Buffalo, this was reported at the time & NO I WILL NOT PROVIDE A LINK.....................LOOK IT UP YOURSELF. It's hard to provide a link for SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST, punk. You have a history of lying on this board. Not being mistaken. Lying. And here's more of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Well if players EXPECT a raise for switching positions, I guess we can expect Butler to hold out next camp. Believe it. If Butler plays the whole year next year and is one of the two best RTs in the league and thus is wildly underpaid, and if the Bills refuse to compensate him for it, yeah, he might hold out. If you were switched to a job in your company that paid three times your current salary and they kept paying your the same salary for the next two years with the obvious intention of making it four years at a higher-paying job being paid a low salary, you'd quit and join another company and show them that you had been doing the higher-paying job and deserved the higher salary. You'd get it. But if labor laws were such that you couldn't quit, and you had enough money banked, you'd hold out your services too. It would be nice to think that you wouldn't, but you would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 He said after a LOSS that he sat on the sideline for MUCH of ............I could have gone back in if I had to. That does not sound like a motivated player to me. A QB that goes back in with a separated shoulder & throws the winning TD, thats what I call a motivated player. Well, I guess that's your perspective on it. But it's not a perspective that many non-haters share. He could have gone back in if they were desperate and played, risking a much more serious injury. That's not a lack of motivation. Just the opposite, it's a willingness to seriously risk injury if the team wanted you to do it. The QB was injured in his non-throwing shoulder. It was great, but he wasn't risking the season to do it. OLs don't have "non-throwing" legs. Peters would have risked the rest of the season, and was willing to if the team needed him to do it. That is a highly motivated player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 It's hard to provide a link for SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST, punk. You have a history of lying on this board. Not being mistaken. Lying. And here's more of it. THIS DOES EXIST & WAS SPOKEN ABOUT ON THIS BOARD. LOOK IT UP PUNK. About Clements, I remember reading on this board that a poster sat next to Clements wife at a game Clements last season in Buffalo & she said she did not like Buffalo. LOOK IT UP. It has been discussed in other threads that Peters wanted out of Buffalo & Marv Levy said as much on the Shredd & Ragan show. YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE PODCAST PUNK. YOU SHOW ME ONE INSTANCE WHERE I HAVE LIED ON THIS BOARD............YOU LYING PUNK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Well, I guess that's your perspective on it. But it's not a perspective that many non-haters share. He could have gone back in if they were desperate and played, risking a much more serious injury. That's not a lack of motivation. Just the opposite, it's a willingness to seriously risk injury if the team wanted you to do it. The QB was injured in his non-throwing shoulder. It was great, but he wasn't risking the season to do it. OLs don't have "non-throwing" legs. Peters would have risked the rest of the season, and was willing to if the team needed him to do it. That is a highly motivated player. I think it is a perspective MOST people have. Peters sat out with a MINOR injury while Stafford returns to the game with a SEPERATED shoulder & Peters is the motivated player? Stafford went back in the game WITH A SERIOUS INJURY while Peters constantly takes himself out with minor nicks. Others have already posted links about Peters not playing with MINOR injuries in this thread. He could have gone in if they were desperate? THEY LOST THE GAME, how much more desperate do they need to be? There is no way you are going to sell that spin to anyone but people MADLY in love with Peters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 How were the Bills supposed to know how good he would be before he played the position? Even at that, he has had ONE GOOD YEAR at LT, that is all. It does not look like he is tearing up the NFC this year, so I don't think you can do anything for me or anyone else for that matter. He had two and a half excellent years on the OL in Buffalo, one and a half of which (the last half of 2006 and all of 2007) were at LT, and he was in pro bowl consideration in 2006. Don't know what you're talking about. But hey, you getting the facts wrong is par for the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 How is not NOT above-market when it's the highest contract in LT history? Never mind the fact that players making 1/3 what Peters makes are outplaying him. The Bills mistake was not replacing Peters in the draft. They stole Philly's draft picks and left the Eagles a fatass who won't play with a hangnail and still gives up sacks. If it were the Bills you'd be screaming how stupid we were for overplaying this tub of lard. PTR Um...market value is the price the open market is willing to pay for something. Peter's salary from the Eagles is therefore market. The fact that this doesn't jibe with the bill's or apparently your sense of frugality doesn't change that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 He had two and a half excellent years on the OL in Buffalo, one and a half of which (the last half of 2006 and all of 2007) were at LT, and he was in pro bowl consideration in 2006. Don't know what you're talking about. But hey, you getting the facts wrong is par for the course. He had two & 1/2 excellent years in YOUR OPINION. In my OPINION he had ONE GOOD year at LT. He had ALREADY been PAID for moving to RT so we are ONLY talking about his play at LT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 THIS DOES EXIST & WAS SPOKEN ABOUT ON THIS BOARD. LOOK IT UP PUNK. About Clements, I remember reading on this board that a poster sat next to Clements wife at a game Clements last season in Buffalo & she said she did not like Buffalo. That was me, actually. And she didn't say she didn't like Buffalo, she simply said she knew that Buffalo had no interest in signing him and that they were definitely out. He's from Ohio and would have much rather stayed close to home if he could. LOOK IT UP. It has been discussed in other threads that Peters wanted out of Buffalo & Marv Levy said as much on the Shredd & Ragan show. YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE PODCAST PUNK. YOU SHOW ME ONE INSTANCE WHERE I HAVE LIED ON THIS BOARD............YOU LYING PUNK. Peters wanted out of Buffalo only after the Bills handed over $70+ million to Dockery and Walker. Is that the way you treat your best player on the 0-line? Only in Buffalo would something as asinine as this take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Um...market value is the price the open market is willing to pay for something. Peter's salary from the Eagles is therefore market. The fact that this doesn't jibe with the bill's or apparently your sense of frugality doesn't change that fact. Thanks for taking the time to explain simple concepts to some of our board members. I salute you for your efforts, but most won't get it (especially if it reflects poorly on the Bills) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Give it up, he is gone. Who gives a **** about peters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 That was me, actually. And she didn't say she didn't like Buffalo, she simply said she knew that Buffalo had no interest in signing him and that they were definitely out. He's from Ohio and would have much rather stayed close to home if he could. Peters wanted out of Buffalo only after the Bills handed over $70+ million to Dockery and Walker. Is that the way you treat your best player on the 0-line? Only in Buffalo would something as asinine as this take place. I am pretty sure the poster I was refering to said she did not like Buffalo. I tried to do a search about Clements, but it did not go back past this year. I agree the Bills were STUPID in the way they handled things, especially Dockery. Walker at least played decent. Lets hope the NEW & IMPROVED Front Office does a MUCH better job. As others have said Peters is gone, it's time to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I hate when people say WE WOULD BE BETTER WITH HIM THAN WITHOUT HIM! That's only true if we arent aggressive in free agency and need cap room to sign new guys in the future. This year we had the cap room, and your right--we would be better with him--but what if a new GM talks Ralph out of his "cash to cap" conservatism and we go for some big name free agents. And there's overrated, selfish Jason over there at the dessert bar with a fat $9m cap number, limiting the guys we can consider signing simply because he's hogging the team cap. In that scenario, we would most likely NOT be better with him than without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I hate when people say WE WOULD BE BETTER WITH HIM THAN WITHOUT HIM! That's only true if we arent aggressive in free agency and need cap room to sign new guys in the future. This year we had the cap room, and your right--we would be better with him--but what if a new GM talks Ralph out of his "cash to cap" conservatism and we go for some big name free agents. And there's overrated, selfish Jason over there at the dessert bar with a fat $9m cap number, limiting the guys we can consider signing simply because he's hogging the team cap. In that scenario, we would most likely NOT be better with him than without him. Your logic is simply wrong. The money that should have gone to Peters is sitting in Langston Walker and Derrick Dockery's bank account. 2 underachieving overrated players the Bills handed $45M of cash to who are no longer with the team. Had they simply diverted some of that to Peters and "drafted" O-Line talent, this line could be one of the better lines in the NFL. Instead, they hung Peters out to dry, paid top dollar for inferior players, and are now left with the prospect of starting over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 THIS DOES EXIST & WAS SPOKEN ABOUT ON THIS BOARD. LOOK IT UP PUNK. About Clements, I remember reading on this board that a poster sat next to Clements wife at a game Clements last season in Buffalo & she said she did not like Buffalo. LOOK IT UP. It has been discussed in other threads that Peters wanted out of Buffalo & Marv Levy said as much on the Shredd & Ragan show. YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE PODCAST PUNK. YOU SHOW ME ONE INSTANCE WHERE I HAVE LIED ON THIS BOARD............YOU LYING PUNK. I already have showed you, on this board WHERE YOU LIED!!! I said something. You wildly misquoted me. I said that you misquoted me, and that I had never said that You denied that I asked for a link You said you weren't going to provide one This went on for a while. I figured that maybe you were genuinely misguided, so I went back and found the link and provided it. You refused to go look at the link and continued to make the same claim about what I said. I asked for a link You refused THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR!! Here's the link, yet again: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...99167&st=80 and go halfway down the page to post #88. As I said before, all you have to do is say something along the line of "Oh, guess I made a mistake" and this all falls by the wayside. But I've given you that challenge before and you simply ignored it and kept on lying. So here's the same challenge, yet again. Go to the link. Man up and admit that you made a mistake. I'll never mention it again. But frankly, you will neither admit a mistake nor prove your (unprovable) point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 I already have showed you, on this board WHERE YOU LIED!!! I said something. You wildly misquoted me. I said that you misquoted me, and that I had never said that You denied that I asked for a link You said you weren't going to provide one This went on for a while. I figured that maybe you were genuinely misguided, so I went back and found the link and provided it. You refused to go look at the link and continued to make the same claim about what I said. I asked for a link You refused THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR!! Here's the link, yet again: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...99167&st=80 and go halfway down the page to post #88. As I said before, all you have to do is say something along the line of "Oh, guess I made a mistake" and this all falls by the wayside. But I've given you that challenge before and you simply ignored it and kept on lying. So here's the same challenge, yet again. Go to the link. Man up and admit that you made a mistake. I'll never mention it again. But frankly, you will neither admit a mistake nor prove your (unprovable) point. The fact that I refused to provide you with a link is NOT a LIE. I interpretated what you posted correctly, you claim I was wrong but I don't think so. MAN UP & ADMIT you made a mistake. YOU STILL HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT I HAVE LIED ABOUT ANYTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 How is not NOT above-market when it's the highest contract in LT history? Never mind the fact that players making 1/3 what Peters makes are outplaying him. The Bills mistake was not replacing Peters in the draft. They stole Philly's draft picks and left the Eagles a fatass who won't play with a hangnail and still gives up sacks. If it were the Bills you'd be screaming how stupid we were for overplaying this tub of lard. PTR First, it is NOT the highest contract in LT history. It's just not. Check up on Long's contract. Peters' contract is lower. Second, if you go back and look, you will see that he was clearly talking about the contract Peters signed as an RT with the Bills and responding to someone who said that contract was above market value, which it CLEARLY was not. It was a solid contract for a promising young RT, as he said. As for Peters' performance, until the ankle problem, he was ranked as the #2 tackle in the league. He then played several games on a gimpy ankle to help the team and his rating fell all the way to #12 (of all tackles, both right and left) of 74. http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.ph...&numgames=1 You can also see that his play fell off quite a bit for four or five weeks, but it then started to return as he got healthy. http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?...p;playerid=2148 Peters hasn't sucked this year by any means. He played as an elite player till he fought through the injury and still played pretty well, and as he got healthy, he started to play extremely well again. I just don't see how a guy who stonewalls Julius Peppers to the point where they finally switch him to the other side can be accused of having a terrible year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffalo Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Stop with the annoying schoolyard namecalling, Peters is a starting left tackle with Philadelphia, he used to play for Buffalo. Some people wish he was here, some don't. Thurman#1 and Sfbillsfan#1 are either 9 or 10 years old and in need of wedgies, or a person suffering from multiple personality disorder and arguing with himself, please stop wasting bandwith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 The fact that I refused to provide you with a link is NOT a LIE. I interpretated what you posted correctly, you claim I was wrong but I don't think so. MAN UP & ADMIT you made a mistake. YOU STILL HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT I HAVE LIED ABOUT ANYTHING. See? Told you you would neither prove that I was wrong nor admit that you are wrong. You are continuing to believe that just stonewalling and saying "no, no, no" is anything but the argument of a 6 year-old. I have asked you for a link to what you have claimed over and over that I said. I showed you what thread it was in to make it easier. And you continue to avoid giving a link which would prove that I am wrong. On the other hand, I have provided link after link, showing that I never said that. You are a LIAR. At first, it might have started out as a mistake, but when I continued over and over to give you chances to prove yourself with minimal work, you turned it down again and again because ... you are wrong. It is a lie. I provided proof. You said no no no and refused to prove anything, and the other people who read this will see it and understand. If I'm wrong, where is the LINK? The problem for you? I never said it, so there is no link. And if I'm wrong about that, again, where is the LINK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts