Thurman#1 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probowl#Criticism sums it up nicely.... "The player voting has also been subject to significant criticism. It is not uncommon for the players to pick the same players over and over again; former offensive lineman (and SI.com analyst) Ross Tucker has cited politics, incumbency, and compensation for injury in previous years as primary factors in player's choices among themselves, resulting in players such as Charles Woodson, Ruben Brown, and to a lesser extent Jason Peters repeatedly being selected to the game despite having subpar seasons." 1/3 by fans (basicly a who's most popular or most known vote). Yes, but again, Peters was not elected by the fans. He was elected by the players, his peers, the ones who actually know who is good and who is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timba Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Yes, but again, Peters was not elected by the fans. He was elected by the players, his peers, the ones who actually know who is good and who is not. They also know who's fun at a party and who is not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Yes, but again, Peters was not elected by the fans. He was elected by the players, his peers, the ones who actually know who is good and who is not. Ah yes..."the players, his peers, the ones who actually know who is good and who is not..." Here's a slightly more accurate view of the process from an actual player, an offensive tackle, a peer, someone who actually knows who's good and who's not... The rosters for the 2009 Pro Bowl have been announced, which of course means it is time for the annual rite of passage in which all of the media pundits will harp on the same three things: the players that were snubbed, the players that got in but didn't deserve to and, perhaps most importantly, the flaws in the selection process. Though I'm quite sure some of my personal opinions regarding players that didn't deserve to get in (I'm talking to you, Jason Peters) and vice versa will come to the forefront, my focus will be on the process itself because more often than not that is where the problems originate. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You are, per Mark Gaughan's latest story. RFA after this season: Thanks. I wonder where I got the impression he was ERFA again next year, if nothing happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlbillsfan1975 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Hey Tim would you consider doing a write up on Bell? I mean it would be the perfect time to find out if he really is ready and a viable option to see a lot of time this season. Find out what the coaches/other players think about him. Be another way at looking how the Peters trade will maybe lead to the next unknown ProBowl LT. Either way keep up the great work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Thanks. I wonder where I got the impression he was ERFA again next year, if nothing happened. The confusion comes from the uncapped year. The NFLPA had advised Jackson he would remain exclusive rights if there's no new CBA in place for next year, but upon clarification, Jackson should be restricted whether there's a new CBA or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In space no one can hear Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Tim: The Eagles have been a very successful franchise the past decade. It's telling that the Eagles had plenty of cap room and extra picks this year and could have obtained Braylon Edwards or Anquan Boldin with the picks they traded us---but instead targeted Peters. The Eagles feel he is worthy of 3 picks(including a first rounder) AND probably the 11 million a year he is seeking. What does a successful franchise like the Eagles know and practice that a losing one like the Bills doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The confusion comes from the uncapped year. The NFLPA had advised Jackson he would remain exclusive rights if there's no new CBA in place for next year, but upon clarification, Jackson should be restricted whether there's a new CBA or not. Hey thanks, Tim. It makes me feel slightly better to know I had SOME basis for that thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Tim: The Eagles have been a very successful franchise the past decade. It's telling that the Eagles had plenty of cap room and extra picks this year and could have obtained Braylon Edwards or Anquan Boldin with the picks they traded us---but instead targeted Peters. The Eagles feel he is worthy of 3 picks(including a first rounder) AND probably the 11 million a year he is seeking. What does a successful franchise like the Eagles know and practice that a losing one like the Bills doesn't? You're comparing apples and grapefruits. The Bills had a player under contract and were willing to give him a raise, but not the moon. Peters was holding them hostage. The Bills had principles to adhere to, and I don't think they should be faulted for that. Plus, the Eagles do have cap issues, and they're creating some problems in negotiations as we speak. The deal will get done, but it's not like the Eagles had all sorts of flexibility. The Bills have a ton of cap room. They just don't use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Hey thanks, Tim. It makes me feel slightly better to know I had SOME basis for that thought. The uncapped year will have us all confused quite soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You're comparing apples and grapefruits. The Bills had a player under contract and were willing to give him a raise, but not the moon. Peters was holding them hostage. The Bills had principles to adhere to, and I don't think they should be faulted for that. Plus, the Eagles do have cap issues, and they're creating some problems in negotiations as we speak. The deal will get done, but it's not like the Eagles had all sorts of flexibility. The Bills have a ton of cap room. They just don't use it. You obviously are closer to the situation than I, but I have a feeling it was as much about attitude, and negotiating style, as it was about the money, this time. I'm not saying the Bills would have gladly ponied up $11+ million, but I'm not sure they would have pulled the trigger if negotiations were amicable and straightforward. If Peters would have returned the Bills numerous calls (I've been told he was totally unreachable), maybe showed his face at the voluntary workouts, etc, things might have been different. I'm on record as saying it takes both sides to screw things up this badly. I'll stick to that until I hear differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 The uncapped year will have us all confused quite soon. That's what I'm afraid of. Thanks for the clarification, as well as the breaking-news service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You obviously are closer to the situation than I, but I have a feeling it was as much about attitude, and negotiating style, as it was about the money, this time. I'm not saying the Bills would have gladly ponied up $11+ million, but I'm not sure they would have pulled the trigger if negotiations were amicable and straightforward. If Peters would have returned the Bills numerous calls (I've been told he was totally unreachable), maybe showed his face at the voluntary workouts, etc, things might have been different. I'm on record as saying it takes both sides to screw things up this badly. I'll stick to that until I hear differently. I don't see how we disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You're comparing apples and grapefruits. The Bills had a player under contract and were willing to give him a raise, but not the moon. Peters was holding them hostage. The Bills had principles to adhere to, and I don't think they should be faulted for that. Plus, the Eagles do have cap issues, and they're creating some problems in negotiations as we speak. The deal will get done, but it's not like the Eagles had all sorts of flexibility. The Bills have a ton of cap room. They just don't use it. So how do the Bills come out looking after this trade? Are they seen as too cheap to pay players what their worth or a principled, disciplined organization that made the best of a bad situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 So how do the Bills come out looking after this trade? Are they seen as too cheap to pay players what their worth or a principled, disciplined organization that made the best of a bad situation? Hard to say because each situation is different. They did pay Evans and Stroud in the past 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bills Fan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The confusion comes from the uncapped year. The NFLPA had advised Jackson he would remain exclusive rights if there's no new CBA in place for next year, but upon clarification, Jackson should be restricted whether there's a new CBA or not. Tim, Thanks for joining us here - I certainly enjoy getting opinions that are much closer to inside than most of us will ever be. And I am not saying you have a Buffalo bias, but you definitely understand our town and Bills fans. Now that the Peters issue is just about put to bed, do you think that the Bills will move forward with a better deal for Fred Jackson. He was a helluva player last year, definitiely seems to be a high character guy and makes clutch plays out of sheer will and effort - what more can you ask for. I know that the Bills don't have to do anything considering his status, but they certainly reached with Kelsay and Dockery, so why not take care of a guy who is actually productive? Is this battle with him just part of the negotiation process, a matter of timing, or are they just being dumb? -BBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Tim, Any idea if the Bills are going to pursue any veteran O-Line help over the next week before the Draft? Also, do you hear any rumblings about possible trade activity in regards to the Bills moving up? I'll sit down now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 and nothing of substance was reported. Of course Brandon "expects" Peters to be on the team, he is currently under contract Brnadon makes a few generic statement and everyone starts reading too much into them. McDaniel said he expected Cutler to be his startiing QB 2 days before he was traded. I think its funny that Peters was traded less than 24 hours after Brandon said he expected Peters to be a Bill and the media fell for his lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Tim, I'm sure you are already working on it but I'd love to know why the Bills only got the #28 pick (and the other minor picks) for someone who is supposedly an elite NFL player. I'm a bit surprised that the Bills didn't do better, especially with other teams allegedly in the bidding. Did Brandon panic or was the market for Peters not as strong as advertised? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimGraham Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 I think its funny that Peters was traded less than 24 hours after Brandon said he expected Peters to be a Bill and the media fell for his lie. Brandon made those comments on Wednesday afternoon, and this trade came together Thursday night. And I hate to quibble, but reporting Brandon's comments for readers to absorb doesn't constitute "falling for a lie" in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts