Rico Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Great thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Bob I never said Peerless was as good as a reciever as Eric I used the stats to show that in that Offense it didn't matter about 1 and 2 2 and 1 1 and 1a they both got it done as a Tandom, and as far as your forecast on the cap I disagree with that assesment because out of all the guys we signed we are still under the cap and you failed to mention Sam Adams and Mark Campbell's extension in which we could have dealed with out, plus we made Drew restructure his deal, and as a matter of fact Paul Mcguire who I think resides in Buffalo said it live on air that Buffalo could have resigned Peerless, they just didn't want to do it 14683[/snapback] Yes, it worked great for Peerless in that offense: Moulds caught 100 passes with double coverage and Peerless caught nearly as many with single coverage. I never said the Bills couldn't have re-signed him. Sure, they could have mortgaged the future and converted salary to bonus money, creating dead cap money problems for the future to pay Price what he wanted. But TD will not do that for anyone, and especially not for a guy who is not worth the money he is asking for. We will never get back to the Butler way of doing things. And by the way, Drew was forced to re-structure THIS year, and with the leverage based on the lousy year last year. As I said before, if you want to keep the books properly balanced, then we would have had to do without players we used to improve the defense. If we wanted to mortgage the future, we could have restructured salaries to pay bonus money instead of salary to some players. But, the bottom line, once again, is that Peerlless was not worth the contract he got from Atlanta, especially if you had to either forego players or mortgage the future to pay him that. Had he agreed to Steve Smith type money, the Bills may have found a way to squeeze him in. But the Bill were not going to pay him greater than Eric Moulds money. No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayFromDC Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 Read the new article on the homepage of Bills daily, I guess Im not alone after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Boy this thread is like a 10 car pile-up on the highway. A bloody mess you can't help but look at but when you drive away you feel kinda nauseous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guesteroo Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 TD did not in any way shape or form "get rid of" Peerless. Peerless and his agent did not wish to negotiate a reasonable contract with the team, thus the team used the franchise tag to reatain him. He would have earned an average of the top 5 salaries at his position and the Bills were willing to give that to him (which in itself was too much$) for a 1 year contract. Peerless and his agent incorrectly felt that they should be paid as a star #1 WR, which Peerless has proven not to be. TD in his wisdom even obtained a #1 pick for Peerless by creating urgency by ATL to sign him. We basically received something for nothing as Peerless no longer wished to play as a #2 WR. 14447[/snapback] "TD in his wisdom. . ." WOW is that laying it on thick. His track record here is certainly not above some criticism. I have a feeling that you must secretly be TD's mom or dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 let me ask you guys a question What if Peerless this year with a healthy Mike Vick and Matt Schaub looking impressive catches 90 passes again for over 1200 yards and 9 TD's, the same thing he did the year he left and makes it to the Pro Bowl then what will you guys say then??? Eric Moulds is not a top 5 wideout, but got paid though 14533[/snapback] Eric Moulds isn't a Top 5 wideout but Peerless Price is? Uhm, OK. Since we're asking "if" questions: "IF your head was as big as your front door, would it still fit up your ass? Getting rid of PP effectively netted us Takeo Spikes & Willis Mac last season. In case you missed the last 8 games of Price's career as a BILL, the offense had pretty much already been solved by our opponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Boy this thread is like a 10 car pile-up on the highway. A bloody mess you can't help but look at but when you drive away you feel kinda nauseous. 14828[/snapback] That's the same way I was feeling, I clicked on the link again and as it was loading I asked myself "Why am I doing this.." To put it simply: TD could have signed PP, but then last year we would have had the defense of 2002. Therefore, instead of losing every game last year 13-9, we would have lost every game 27-17. So all in all, we'd have still been in the 6-10 to 8-8 range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Read the new article on the homepage of Bills daily, I guess Im not alone after all 14788[/snapback] If you are referring to the article which discusses Lee Evans as the replacement to a sorely missed Peerles Price, so what? There are few on this board who disagree he was missed, if not sorely missed. That doesn't mean that this guy who wrote the article or anyone else thinks we should have paid him $6 Million per. Sorry! You can miss having a player, but that does not imply that you should pay him whatever he wants no matter how overvalued that might make him or no matter what you might have to give up in the rpesent or future because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 "TD in his wisdom. . ." WOW is that laying it on thick. His track record here is certainly not above some criticism. I have a feeling that you must secretly be TD's mom or dad. 14862[/snapback] The fact remains "ghosteroo" that I don't see too many other GM's getting 1st round picks for would be overpriced free-agents that in most cases leave with nothing in return. I would call that wisdom. You can call it whatever you like. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOOOOOO Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 I get you guys now, instead of spending a lil bit of Dough to keep a guy, LET'S JUST GO 6-10 EVERY YEAR WITH A IMMOBILE QB AND ONE THREAT ON THE OUTSIDE, OK I GOTCHA 14529[/snapback] Will someone remind this guy that our defense was terrible at this time....If we resigned Peerless there would be no TKO, No Milloy, No Adams...and yes maybe our offense would be tops but we would have Rookies starting all over our Defense and we'd be still losing games..... So its No Peerless and have Mcgahee&Evans plus the help on Defense Or have Peerless, a good offense but terrible Defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Since we're asking "if" questions: "IF your head was as big as your front door, would it still fit up your ass? 14874[/snapback] Classic!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_sfladave1_* Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 34 you guys keep saying he wasn't worth it, but you won't mention anything about PRODUCTION, Im just not so sure about that now, yall keep saying he's not in the top 5 as far as maybe being able to be on his own and catch 100 balls, and I agree with that, but it's only a few guys that can really, IM not saying he's necessarily in a class with TO, MOss and Harrison, or even Holt but gosh darnit, LOOK AT WHAT HE DID FOR OUR OFFENSE, so what if he played for the texans he might not dominate, but why would you base anything off but what he did for the BIlls and he produced and the offense produced and now our offense suck as a result of that move, it's going to take Lee Evans 3 years just like it does any other WR, he's no exception, Im not trying to wait that long, when we had a guy HERE ALREADY, 14483[/snapback] If you want stats: 2003 Atlanta Falcons Started 15 games played in 16 64 receptions for 838 yds. longest 49 yds. 3 TDs Yep those are number 1 receiver stats! The Bills should have given him $50 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts