PISSCHUNK Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 That is the downside to the move. Will he be good enough to keep the job there or will we be locked into another high LT salary for a RT. That's why his agent refuses to sign the extension on the table from the Bills as they are gambling that is what the Bills are thinking of doing. Late Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 That'd be fine by me if he can be a good LT that eliminates speed rushers without help. If we don't move Peters to LT, then eventually we'd have to pay Mike Gandy LT money. Good players get paid eventually and it's better to have them and pay them than to not have them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damj Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Hey, good thinking, so let's not play our best players at all ... we can make Nate a nickel back ... that might make him easier to sign ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 That is the downside to the move. Will he be good enough to keep the job there or will we be locked into another high LT salary for a RT. That's why his agent refuses to sign the extension on the table from the Bills as they are gambling that is what the Bills are thinking of doing.Late 684585[/snapback] He's a UDFA for two more years IIRC. If he's on the active squad, the Bills can pay the current money and he and his agent can squak all they like. Them's the union rules... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 That is the downside to the move. Will he be good enough to keep the job there or will we be locked into another high LT salary for a RT. That's why his agent refuses to sign the extension on the table from the Bills as they are gambling that is what the Bills are thinking of doing.Late 684585[/snapback] If the guy can be a solid LT, I don't see why we should have any problem paying the guy. Hopefully if they have a notion that he CAN play on the left side, then they should put him over there sooner rather than later. We already know what Gandy gives us, and we know that the upside of Peters is greater than that of Gandy, even though I believe Gandy is still a relatively young guy. If Peters can hold the fort and do a good job for us, then we're golden. Sign him long term, move Gandy to the right side, and we have a decent line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Are the Bills planning on moving Peters to LT? Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 Is that really your pre-draft mock for the Bills? 1.) Donte' Whitner--SS/FS, Ohio St. 1.) John McCargo--DT, N.C. St. 3.) Ashton Youboty--CB, Ohio St. 4.) Mark Anderson--DE, Alabama 5.) Ko Simpson--FS, South Carolina 5.) Barry Cofield--DT, Northwestern 6.) Montaivious Stanley--DT, Louisville 7.) Ryan LaCasse--DE, Syracuse 7.) Marcus Maxey--CB, Miami Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 5, 2006 Share Posted May 5, 2006 And the problem with paying a player union scale for the position they're filling more adequately than anyone in the last 8 years is exactly what? Sorry. I'd rather throw a bunch of bucks at him - IF he's the guy who'll stabilize that spot for the next ten years. I'm less interested in a "Bargain" there than I am in actual production. What? We're going to save a few thousand sheckles to throw at some more Wide Receiver types or a "Big Name" TE, FB or LB? after June 1? If there's a better LT candidate out there after 6/1/06 than Peters - sign him Marv and keep JP at RT and pay him cheap. Then watch him walk in two years - regardless of what you throw his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 Heaven forbid that the Bills pay any lineman the going rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo mike2 Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 And the problem with paying a player union scale for the position they're filling more adequately than anyone in the last 8 years is exactly what? Sorry. I'd rather throw a bunch of bucks at him - IF he's the guy who'll stabilize that spot for the next ten years. I'm less interested in a "Bargain" there than I am in actual production. What? We're going to save a few thousand sheckles to throw at some more Wide Receiver types or a "Big Name" TE, FB or LB? after June 1? If there's a better LT candidate out there after 6/1/06 than Peters - sign him Marv and keep JP at RT and pay him cheap. Then watch him walk in two years - regardless of what you throw his way. 684894[/snapback] Excellent. The problem for some people here is that they feel we should not pay a player the going rate- if they have not heard his name mentioned we the elite names. If Peters proves he is the man after this season, he'll get paid- and then known throughout the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 Hey this could actually be unique, performance based pay. What a concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 ...Seriously, is that your pre-draft prediction? Who's your Granpa- Marv? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts