Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 WTF Translate please. He was paid handsomley for the year that he performed. Still a lot more than what we see. I know that it is a brutal sport and all, but come on, the last time I checked, I didn't see any fatalities. First guy: Good for him. Why should he risk injury for a b.s. game? Senator: or, for that matter, a bills game? Thurman#1: (to Senator) Don't see you risking your knee tendons avoiding that sick day at your job. So the explanation is I felt that the Senator was accusing Peters of not risking injury for the final games of the Bills season. Peters has explained that he was injured. He would have been risking his long-term health to play in two games that could not possibly have gotten us to the playoffs and the Senator apparently thought that this made him a wuss. Therefore I asked him if he risked hi knee tendons to avoid using a sick day at his (presumably) office job. Got it? If I misunderstood the Senator, or anyone, I apologize, but this all seems fairly obvious to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 He wasn't our best lineman in 2008, not even close. He might have been our worst. At the end of the year he was once again our best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I'm sorry - please clarify: I can certainly believe Belichick* saying, two years ago, that FatBoy was our best player, but did Belichick* say he has gotten better in the past two years, or is it you saying that? Because I am inclined to believe it if Cheater* said it; your opinion, OTOH, is likely as jaded as mine. Regarding 'no one mentioned his name in the last 5-6 weeks', well, um, yeah, they did, and quite a bit - not only 'cause he sat himself down the last 2 games, but because of plays like waving bye-bye as Abram Elam blew by him and caused the fumble that cost us the game against the Jets. No one mentioned his name???? Pulease.....not only was he vilified here on TSW, but regarding FatBoy's 'selection' to the pro bowl... The Elam thing was a communication mistake, as - I believe - Dockery said. It was me who pointed out that he got better. However, it's hard to disagree. Belichick said that in 2006, and in 2007 Peters deservedly went to the Pro Bowl. He did so because he got better. And I guess I meant that they didn't mention his name in the last few weeks re: his week-to-week performance. The Pro Bowl stuff was fluff. And the people who criticized him because he got injured, well, it's such nonsense I didn't even open the threads. If you did, that's your choice. You'd listen to the telecasts early in the year and you could hear the announcers saying that he got abused. They were correct. The last 5 - 6 weeks he played ... nothing said about him on the telecasts, and that's what happens with o-line guys playing extremely well, they don't get mentioned. The guy was playing at an extremely high level. I don't consider fans still kvetching about his holdout or assuming they know more about his injuries than he or the Bills doctors to be important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 First guy: Good for him. Why should he risk injury for a b.s. game? Senator: or, for that matter, a bills game? Thurman#1: (to Senator) Don't see you risking your knee tendons avoiding that sick day at your job. So the explanation is I felt that the Senator was accusing Peters of not risking injury for the final games of the Bills season. Peters has explained that he was injured. He would have been risking his long-term health to play in two games that could not possibly have gotten us to the playoffs and the Senator apparently thought that this made him a wuss. Therefore I asked him if he risked hi knee tendons to avoid using a sick day at his (presumably) office job. Got it? If I misunderstood the Senator, or anyone, I apologize, but this all seems fairly obvious to me. Certainly no offense taken by me - we just strongly disagree about #71. His on-field performance this season did nothing to justify his off-field behavior over the summer, or a fat new contract, IMHO. Now, since he held out all summer, finally showed up outa shape, sucked for the first few games, lead the league in sacks-allowed, and didn't finish the season for the 2nd consecutive year, are you still willing to back the Brinks truck up to his door? Guy says he's injured. Same as last season. Should we write the check anyway, right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Fact of the matter is, Buffalo's front office said if Jason Peters reported to camp they would talk contract. Well he reported and they failed to hold their end of the deal. I doubt ANY negotiations took place with him. Granted his play was up and down then up again, but there is a thing called business ethnic here, Jason Peters knew he was wrong for holding out so he ended the holdout cause the front office stated they would talk contract once he reports, well they have yet to do so..... If Peters holds out and demands a trade, then the only people to point the finger at is the front office. Blame Peters all you want, but the front office never held up their end of the deal.....bad business ethnics by Buffalo....... Well, you got the "facts of the matter" wrong there. They absolutely NEVER said that. What they said was that they would NOT negotiate while he was still holding out. They also later absolutely PROMISED that they would NOT negotiate before the off-season. They promised that. Go back and look at the stories. That's what happened. Now, it's the offseason. They haven't promised anything, but if they are even mildly smart, they will renegotiate, since there are only two years left on the contract and that's the point at which they often renegotiate (Schobel, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Peters, right? You mean Peters isn't injured. We all know that. Dude just doesn't want to get injured while Parker tries to extort more $$$. Um, no. I hope that's a bad attempt at sarcasm rather than just a misunderstanding of my post. I corrected it to help you out just in case. But I'll go even further. Check the injury lists for the Bills and Fins in the last two weeks of the season. Check whether Jake is listed as injured. Then check whether Peters is. That ought to help you figure out who I am referring to as injured. Got it? Oh, and the injury doesn't help his bargaining position. It hurts a (very small) bit, if anything. Getting a renegotiated contract is helped by an end-of-the-season injury exactly how? The guy is injured. (Peters, just to help you out again.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Playing terrific ball? Yeah, sure... 'specially those last 2 games where he sat out, the Jets game where he cost us a win, the first 3 or 4 games where he was slow & outa shape, etc., etc.... Again, I quote... Yes, you do quote again. Congratulations on that. It would help, though, if it was germane. The guy is flat-out wrong when he says Elam was Peters's responsibility. Try reading my post again. Then you will see where else you are not understanding me. Or not. But if you don't, it would, for me, rule you out as being worthy of any more of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Um, no. I hope that's a bad attempt at sarcasm rather than just a misunderstanding of my post. I corrected it to help you out just in case. But I'll go even further. Check the injury lists for the Bills and Fins in the last two weeks of the season. Check whether Jake is listed as injured. Then check whether Peters is. That ought to help you figure out who I am referring to as injured. Got it? Oh, and the injury doesn't help his bargaining position. It hurts a (very small) bit, if anything. Getting a renegotiated contract is helped by an end-of-the-season injury exactly how? The guy is injured. (Peters, just to help you out again.) Oh. Thanks. Guess I knew you meant Long, & was just bein' a wise-ass. Sorry. So you gonna give a guy whose performance IS being questioned by some, who couldn't finish the last two seasons due to injury, and who apparently refused to do the extra work need to get back in shape for the start of this past season, and who admits he is again suffering an injury - you gonna give that guy a big fat new contract right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Certainly no offense taken by me - we just strongly disagree about #71. His on-field performance this season did nothing to justify his off-field behavior over the summer, or a fat new contract, IMHO. Now, since he held out all summer, finally showed up outa shape, sucked for the first few games, lead the league in sacks-allowed, and didn't finish the season for the 2nd consecutive year, are you still willing to back the Brinks truck up to his door? Guy says he's injured. Same as last season. Should we write the check anyway, right now? The Bills have all said he was in excellent shape. The problem was that he was not in "contact" shape, and there's no way to get that without being on the practice field or in the games. And yes, if we're smart, we write him a huge check. At the end of the year he was excellent. Get him in camp next year and he will once again be one of the two best LTs in the league. If what we have is simply different perceptions of what he is worth, fair enough. You don't pay the guy for the past. If you did, we should sign Jamal Lewis. You sign him for the future. Peters's future looks excellent for the next 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Oh. Thanks. Guess I knew you meant Long, & was just bein' a wise-ass. Sorry. So you gonna give a guy whose performance IS being questioned by some, who couldn't finish the last two seasons due to injury, and who apparently refused to do the extra work need to get back in shape for the start of this past season, and who admits he is again suffering an injury - you gonna give that guy a big fat new contract right now? Fair enough. I'm sorry too, as I'm sure I was a wise-ass myself. I guess we just disagree. That happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Yes, you do quote again. Congratulations on that. It would help, though, if it was germane. The guy is flat-out wrong when he says Elam was Peters's responsibility. Try reading my post again. Then you will see where else you are not understanding me. Or not. But if you don't, it would, for me, rule you out as being worthy of any more of my time. You haven't answered the question... You gonna give a guy whose performance IS being questioned by some, who couldn't finish the last two seasons due to injury, and who apparently refused to do the extra work need to get back in shape for the start of this past season, and who admits he is again suffering an injury - you gonna give that guy a big fat new contract right now? Edit: Never mind , I just saw that you answered in the affirmative. I'm still a bit wary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Fact of the matter is, Buffalo's front office said if Jason Peters reported to camp they would talk contract. Well he reported and they failed to hold their end of the deal. I doubt ANY negotiations took place with him. Granted his play was up and down then up again, but there is a thing called business ethnic here, Jason Peters knew he was wrong for holding out so he ended the holdout cause the front office stated they would talk contract once he reports, well they have yet to do so..... If Peters holds out and demands a trade, then the only people to point the finger at is the front office. Blame Peters all you want, but the front office never held up their end of the deal.....bad business ethnics by Buffalo....... Oh really, I don't think that the Bills meant a couple of days before the start of the regular season, not mentally or physically ready to play, and with a lackluster attitude, where are his work ethics? They made that offer at the start of training camp, he reported just about when it was finished. There are plenty of things that the Bills management will manage to screw up, but this was not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Who's the idiot? So you're saying he has a serious injury? Wow, guess we were pretty smart not to redo the contract, and better wait to see how he heals before restructuring. FatBoy could play in the pro bowl, just like he could have played the last 2 games, if he wasn't a lazy schitt and had the least bit of interest in playing football - unfortunately, his biggest interest is his pocketbook. Fat and lazy, huh? I bet if he were standing in the same room as you your opinion would change slightly! I guarantee you that your biggest interest is in your pocketbook as well. No, you say? Ok, then instead of working to earn money, go tell your boss/clients/whoever pays you that from now on you'll work for free. That way there's no possible way that people can say your biggest interest is your pocketbook, and you'll be free to say that about anyone you like. Until then, you should engage your brain before opening your mouth. Look, you can criticize his play all you like, but he lines up across from elite athletes every Sunday, something that I am quite certain you (or I) could never do. It is one of the most difficult and physically challenging jobs in the world. I mean, the guy makes 10 mistakes in a season where he plays upwards of 800 plays and everyone talks about how fat, lazy, and selfish he is. Meanwhile, his peers vote him among the best in the league at his position. But that doesn't seem matter to you, because you see him as some fat lazy guy that doesn't deserve to get paid. Forget about the fact that the guy has to watch people that have less success under their belt over a shorter period of time get paid (literally) 3-1/2 times more than him, that shouldn't matter at all. I'm sure you would be fine with that situation in your line of work, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 First, what are you talking about with the 50% thing? I have no idea how giving money back fits any argument whatsoever. OK, as for the first part of your example, yeah, you find the job that pays you what you're worth. Ten you quit the minute you find a job that pays 3 times as much. That's the American way. However, football screws the player in two ways. He can't simply go to the team that pays more the way you can. And most likely your company can't fire you without paying severance and so on. If you're unionized, they have to have a good reason to fire you. NFL teams not so much. Bang, pack your locker and get out this very minute. Bye bye. With those things in favor of management, you simply have to expect employee protests within agreed-upon guidelines. They will happen, now and on into the future. In ordinary jobs, if your company is unfair, you quit and get another job. In the NFL, there is no other job, because your team has the rights. Entitlement is wrong? In the case of finding another job that pays three times as much.?You are flat-out lying if you say you wouldn't quit on the spot and take the second job. We can all agree that his play was sub par this year, maybe I exaggerated on the 50 % rate. But, I can't belive that you would make a statement like that, man if I made the money in two or three years that Peters, or for that matter any other player in the NFL made, they could screw me every day. Someone posted earlier that you can't really compare a job in normal business to one in the NFL, and that has a lot of truth to it, but it works both ways, in other words, you really do have to compare relative to supply/demand in that particuliar industry, so yes, by that standard, Peters is underpaid, but in the grand scheme of things, I can't feel too sorry for someone that will likely not have to work another day in his life, even if his carrer ended today. Oh, but what if he were to blow out his knee.....give me a freakin break! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 At the end of the year he was once again our best. Another poster wrote that Bills Fans must often cling to bitterness as a defense mechanism against the frustration and losing. I agree, and this has never neen more evident. People can say what they choose, but Jason Peters is a very good player, who has a good shot at actual greatness. Have you noticed that some of those who want to trade Peters are the same people who complain about Trent being "fragile?" The problems start at the top. Peters wanted to get paid a fair salary. His holdout was ill advised, but there should have been a way to solve this before it hurt the team. I never thought Losman was any good, but HE didn't hire Levy and Jauron. Losman didn't draft Whitner, Youboty and Simpson to play on a team with weak lines. In the same breath, Peters didn't want Ralph to pay him at the 1966 rate, and thought that he deserved more than the 7 million dollar stiff he plays next to and carries. Ralph could have afforded to pay him more, but he is old and stubborn. Is he senile? Probably, but NOT when it comes to spending money. He wouldn't pay Peters market rate. The team lost; the fans suffered, but he made money. This stuff becomes more clear every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddaryl Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Peters should have never signed the extension before 2007 if he wanted a bigger raise in 2008. I for one think the guy is a complete douche bag. Yes I'd rather we resign him... but IMHO he is going to be a demanding whiny little wench and he will force us to have to trade him.. because IMO Peters is a me 1st player. His 2008 season was terrible and very unworthy of even being mentioned as a probowler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Fat and lazy, huh? I bet if he were standing in the same room as you your opinion would change slightly! I guarantee you that your biggest interest is in your pocketbook as well. No, you say? Ok, then instead of working to earn money, go tell your boss/clients/whoever pays you that from now on you'll work for free. That way there's no possible way that people can say your biggest interest is your pocketbook, and you'll be free to say that about anyone you like. Until then, you should engage your brain before opening your mouth. Look, you can criticize his play all you like, but he lines up across from elite athletes every Sunday, something that I am quite certain you (or I) could never do. It is one of the most difficult and physically challenging jobs in the world. I mean, the guy makes 10 mistakes in a season where he plays upwards of 800 plays and everyone talks about how fat, lazy, and selfish he is. Meanwhile, his peers vote him among the best in the league at his position. But that doesn't seem matter to you, because you see him as some fat lazy guy that doesn't deserve to get paid. Forget about the fact that the guy has to watch people that have less success under their belt over a shorter period of time get paid (literally) 3-1/2 times more than him, that shouldn't matter at all. I'm sure you would be fine with that situation in your line of work, right? Gotta defend the Senator here, first off, what he can or cannot do physically has nothing to do with the Peters situation, the Senator doesn't suit up for a living. Second, what planet do you reside on, has anybody ever told you that "life isn't exactly fair" or don't you remember your first rejection from that girl in 2nd grade? Maybe you would stay in your current situation and just go through motions, feeling sorry for yourself, and as a wow is me malcontent, but the majority of people would dig in their collective heels, work hard, shine, and be rewarded, and if the aren't eventually rewarded, then let me refer you back to the above quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Peters should have never signed the extension before 2007 if he wanted a bigger raise in 2008. He was making the NFL minimum while surrounded by inferior players who were making millions. What was he supposed to do? Remember, the Bills lucked into Peters. There are no UDFA Left Tackles in the probowl. I'm not sure if there ever were, or if there ever will be. We are talking about a team that took 16 or so years to replace Wolford. We don't draft these guys, other than a fat RT or late round picks every few years.. We draft defensive backs. I agree with you that he needs to be renegotiated so that we can avoid yet one more disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Breaking News! The AFC Pro Bowl quarterbacks threw some money at him so he wouldn't show up. He gave up so many more sacks than any other left tackle in the NFL, they didn't want their career put at risk. Those who say he is the best player on the team are so far off, they should work for NASA-he was the 3rd or 4th best lineman this year. After this past season, if they consider giving into his pay demands that is proof that they are clueless. Nobody put a gun to his head to sign the first contract or the restructured contract that he just signed a couple years ago. If he performed better, even close to as good as he thinks he is, the Bills might have won a few more games, at least the one against the Jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cookiemonster Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I know you enjoy Moorman, but I bet you'd like Jason's whittle secret... And if you don't, then go stick it up Jabari's Greer. Looks like we've officially killed this thread which is a good thing. I've had it with all of this Jason Peters talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts