Simon Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Sign him to a backloaded deal with an option that will allow us to release him if he doesn't perform- remember you can't judge a single OL on stats. I'm sure he'll be eager to sign that! And who exactly is going to be the judge of whether he "performs"? You're just being silly now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Sign him to a backloaded deal with an option that will allow us to release him if he doesn't perform- remember you can't judge a single OL on stats. He plays along w/the others. If he is in shape, he has shown some solid traits that could make him one of the top OL's in team history- he showed that over more than a single season. We can't keep letting our top guys leave. What agent in their right mind would let his 2 time pro bowl (and all pro remember) client sign a BACK loaded deal? I don't care what you think of Peters' performance...Eugene Parker is a big time agent, he's negotiated major deals. Look at his client list fer crissakes He's NEVER going to let a client take a deal like that. Not ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 I'm sure he'll be eager to sign that!And who exactly is going to be the judge of whether he "performs"? You're just being silly now. He's a high level athlete- if we ever decided to pick up that option, he'd be snapped up in a second and he knows that If we franchise him and offer him a contract that on paper makes him one of the highest paid OT's in the NFL, I think he'd sign it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Wait, do you mean Franchise Tag a player still under contract for years? Pretty sure you can't do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 According to wiki In the National Football League, the franchise tag is a designation a team may apply to a player scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent. The tag binds the player to the team for one year if certain conditions are met. Each team has access each year to only one franchise tag (of either the exclusive or non-exclusive forms) or one transition tag. As a result, each team may only designate one player each year as that team's franchise player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsObserver Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 jason peters = long threads and who the hell suggested we franchise him, or is this guy just losing his mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Wait, do you mean Franchise Tag a player still under contract for years? Pretty sure you can't do that. Do I need sleep or what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeJuiceSimpson Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Remind me again what our record was before he came back last year...and the record after he returned. All he showed us for sure last year is his inclusion on the line did not help create W's. What happens when we sink $11m into him and he continues to play as he does last year? How is NOW the time to agree to pay him as a Top 3 LT? How is having a deal with 3 years left on it a good time to hold out? How is coming back to play football out of shape a good idea? How is giving up the most sacks in the league a good intro to 'I want a $7m raise?' I just don't believe in paying a guy with those kind of questions that kind of money. I'd be more interested in paying Greer the $4m/year he got from NO. What he said. We can not redo this deal until after next season. We've only seen one good season from this guy. He is not a top 3 LT! He's still got two years left. He can restructure after this season if he proves he's worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 What he said. We can not redo this deal until after next season. We've only seen one good season from this guy. He is not a top 3 LT! He's still got two years left. He can restructure after this season if he proves he's worth it. We have seen 1 great season at LT- we have seen what he can do at OT for a few seasons now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Wait, do you mean Franchise Tag a player still under contract for years? Pretty sure you can't do that. No, you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 No, you can't. Ok, ok....my mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 Ok, ok....my mistake No issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 11 million for him. NO. Not when there are MANY holes to fill. They still need to sign another OL, they would like to sign a LB, and they still have to sign draft picks. No way. Plus, this guy has shown that in a few years he will be doing this all over again... even while he is under contract. Evans was way overpaid, too. As for Peters, anyone that would hold out with 3 years on his contract is a bad risk. He'll just keep doing it over-and-over again. Trade him while he still has some worth and do something intelligent with the draft picks. I hate to see him go in a way because it's not like we have another guy who can easily step in and perform as well, but he's just too great of a risk and a distraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Evans was way overpaid, too. As for Peters, anyone that would hold out with 3 years on his contract is a bad risk. He'll just keep doing it over-and-over again. Trade him while he still has some worth and do something intelligent with the draft picks. I hate to see him go in a way because it's not like we have another guy who can easily step in and perform as well, but he's just too great of a risk and a distraction. We just signed TO, and Jason Peters is a distraction??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasBB Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 We just signed TO, and Jason Peters is a distraction??? Yes, I call holding out until after the season is underway a distraction. TO is leader and a hard-working player. And if the Bills sign Peters to a long-term deal you can COUNT on him holding out again well before it's over. We only have TO for one year anyhow and he's 35 years old. The guy wants to win a Super Bowl -- he'll be there to perform this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeJuiceSimpson Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 We have seen 1 great season at LT- we have seen what he can do at OT for a few seasons now We have seen what he can do, the good and the bad. But you said it perfectly 1 great season, 1. Do you know how many players have had just one great season and then dissapeared? Plenty. That's why I say he needs another season to prove he's a top LT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Evans was way overpaid, too. As for Peters, anyone that would hold out with 3 years on his contract is a bad risk. He'll just keep doing it over-and-over again. Trade him while he still has some worth and do something intelligent with the draft picks. I hate to see him go in a way because it's not like we have another guy who can easily step in and perform as well, but he's just too great of a risk and a distraction. This might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I know a guy who believes in ghosts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 If the concern is about his post-contractual effort, that is somewhat easy to address. Limit the guaranteed money and add incentives to the deal. But that does not appear to be what they're haggling over. Which, by the way, leads me to believe (like others here) that the deal will get done. There isn't a chance in hell he takes an incentive-laden contract. Are you on another planet? When was the last time a marquee player took a discounted salary and agreed to contract incentives?? If you traded your 1st and Peters to Philly for their two first round picks. Then i think it would be pretty much a wash. Philly has the 21 and 28 pick in the draft. Also you could maybe get a third out of them as well. You get your Tackle with pick number 21 your DE with pick number 28. In the second you get TE and then with two 3rds you get two more OL.There are plenty of good young tackles in the draft this year. Not to mention we have D Bell who sounds like he is developing into maybe the next Peters, play wise. Peters has shown he always wants to get paid more money. And thats fine so would we all. But what happens in two years from now when another left tackle gets 14 million a year. Are you gonna say he wont want another raise? You know he will. And the Bills will be right back here again. Not good enough. I'm demanding two firsts and a fourth for Peters and our second. I bet we could take those two first round picks and get Julius Peppers. Tell me that wouldn't be worth it??? Okay. Let me spell this out one more time. Peters' first contract was for an undrafted free agent. He became our starter at right tackle. We then restructured him to a new contract. After he signed the new contract we then moved him to left tackle where he made the Pro Bowl. He then held out and wanted more money. He's entering the 4th year of a 5 year $15 million contract. He's made less money in the last three years than Jake Long made last year. I really can't see how people view him as a malcontent for wanting more money. He's totally outperformed his contracts twice now. And people want to question his football desire. He's totally justified in wanting to be paid more, especially in light of the Schobel situation. What am I missing here? What is your problem here? Peters signed a five year deal. With three years left he decided to hold out on his team and hurt said team by being in terrible shape. Now, with two years left on his deal he is going to try the same strategy, after leading the league in sacks given up by a LT? Are you serious? And he wants to be the highest paid LT? This is a joke, right? It's not like he came in after his holdout in any kind of shape. I have no interest in keeping this guy at anywhere near his price. Here's $8M/year. Don't like it? Don't show up again. Like someone said, offer expires 4/1/09. Otherwise let's shop him and see what we can get. I remember Langston Walker played pretty well week 1 at LT. I also know Matt Light - who is a pretty good LT for the Patriots - makes $3.9M/year. I don't care what the economy is like, Peters is not worth anywhere near what he's asking and has proven in the past he's not a "team first" guy. Time to shop him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKOOBY Posted March 14, 2009 Author Share Posted March 14, 2009 This might be the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and I know a guy who believes in ghosts. Let me know when the ghost that possessed Peters in 07' is back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 It's too bad we didn't simply rework his contract last year or the year before: March 2007: Bills re-sign Chris Kelsay to ridiculous 4 year, $23 million contract. August 2007: Bills tear up last 3 years of Aaron Schobel's contract and give him 5 year $50 million contract to assure he's the highest paid D lineman on the Bills. Said Schobel "Obviously, I had three years left on my deal so they didn't have to do anything ..." March 2007: Bills sign Derrick Dockery to 7 year $49 million contract. Subsequently, Jason Peters continues to play under the 5 years $15 million contract he was given after being promoted to right offensive tackle over Mike Williams. January 2008: Peters is selected to the Pro Bowl. The Bills do nothing. January 2009: Peters selected to a second Pro Bowl. March 2009: Dockery is cut. Why the preferential treatment for Schobel and the stiffing of Peters? Every time I post this the thread dies out, except for VABillsfan who says it's racist. Is everyone going to continue to ignore this issue... How many times can you post this?? This is the third time I've seen you post it. "Everyone is going to continue to ignore the issue." What issue? That the Bills handles this situation poorly in the past in your opinion? I'm not sure what they can do about it at this point anyhow. Overpay him? Who's to say that if they "took care of this" he wouldn't have held out again? He thinks he should be the highest paid LT after giving up 11.5 sacks last year? Imagine if he had come in and only gave up two or three all season? Are you saying he'd be set earning $5M/year? And do you think one year of playing LT is sufficient to re-work a 5-year contract, with three years remaining? Peters didn't get "stiffed;" Schobel got his contract re-worked because he had proven more. Peters had proven very little, aside from one good year at LT (after a solid year at RT). Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts