cody Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I really have no reply to another post attacking my team. However, I realized I need to increase my post count to be taken seriously in future post, so here is my post. Personally, I do not take anyone with more than 400 posts seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 How about just the pro bowlers? You should change you tag to "7-9", clearly you are quite satisfied with those awesome numbers. If the job of a front office is to get enough talent on the filed to make the playoffs, then this front office is an abject, unmitigated failure. 10 posts or 10,000 posts, the truth is the truth. Oh but we can't take the chance that a player might make the Pro Bowl. Then they will have been underpaid that season and we can't have that. Better we just give every player a billion-dollar contract. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 The Jackson/ Peters thing is interesting. The Bill's are under no obligation to pay Jackson anymore then the minimum tender. Every dollar they give him over that is a bonus. About three years ago they were in a similar position with Peters. In what they thougt was a judicious move they locked him up early and gave what was then a generous contract about a year or two earlier then they had to thinking it would pay off in the end. Funny thing,Peters and his agent aren't giveing them any discount price this time to reflect the fact that he made about $2 million more then he would have if they didn't try to be proactive. I can't blame the Bills for not going out of their way to take care of a 28 year old back up running back. You are completely right, the Bills are under no obligation to pay Jackson more than the minimum. But, they are also under no obligation to pay Peters more either, he is at least under contract. At least another team could make Jackson an offer, they can't offer Peters anything, that would be tampering. I wouldn't pay a ransom for a 28 year old running back either, but if the Bills were going to pay one of the two (Jackson or Peters) I would much rather they pay Jackson some type of raise, at least he has earned it on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bourbonboy Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Every team in the league is handling its business with professionalism except the Cardinals with the treatment of Boldin. ?? Denver was professional with Cutler? Washington has been professional with Jason Campbell? Cleveland has been professional in trying to dump every offensive weapon they own? And don't get me started on Detroit - they easily win the prize for leagues most dysfunctional FO. I don't claim we have the best FO, and sure there have been mistakes, but give some credit where credit is due. If they immediately gave in to Peters and Jackson, then they are viewed as soft, and suddenly you have half the team holding out for more money because they figure they can easily get it. It's a business, and the FO still has time on their side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Oh but we can't take the chance that a player might make the Pro Bowl. Then they will have been underpaid that season and we can't have that. Better we just give every player a billion-dollar contract. PTR Yeah, because that has been such a problem with this team, afterall, it has occurred once. So I guess we should organize the entire scheme around that one goal, rather than say, winning games. And Peters isn't asking for more $ because there is a chance he might make the pro bowl. He actually did, twice. So equating my position that we ought to do what we can to keep a pro bowler on the roster and that failing to do so is just that, a failure, to "...giving every player a billion-dollar contract..." is shows just how irrational you have become on this issue. You tried this same line in a question to Tim G. and got essentially the same answer, that Peters' situation is unique and that it has not and will not set off some sort of domino effect on contract negotiations with other players. A reasonable mind could certainly conclude that all things considered, the team's long term ability to be competetive is an interest best served by trading Peters and looking for an equally gifted but less expensive alternative at LT (good luck with that). But that really isn't the position that you've taken. Instead, you come up with ridiculous retorts like this. You assail the guy on a personal level at every chance as this has somehow become a moral crusade with you as if Peters was dating your daughter or spending your money. My position is quite simple, this is a good player and goodness knows, we don't have an abundance of those hence the long playoff drought we are in. I don't follow the logic in the idea that we would become a better team, not a better girl scout troop mind you, by losing a pro bowler. My sole interest is in watching this team win football games, I don't see that interest being advanced by losing Peters. I recall taping a game, I think it was in 2006 when he was still playing on special teams. We had KR for a TD and when I replayed the tape, I could see Peters blocking one guy and throwing him like a rag doll into a second defender, knocking them both down and creating a hole the wider than Rosie Odonnel's hips. You could have scored a TD on that play. Maybe you would like to see that talent in another team's uniform while we bite our nails watching Kirk Chambers take the field as a 16 game starter. With all due respect to Kirk, I know my preference. But then, I am a practical guy. I don't really care about contracts and promises and who is a nice guy and who isn't. I just want to win games. Good players win games. Bad players don't. Peters might be the biggest jerk on the planet but he is also a good player. A very good player. And apart from the Peters haters on this board like yourself, everyone thinks so, especially the people that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You are completely right, the Bills are under no obligation to pay Jackson more than the minimum. But, they are also under no obligation to pay Peters more either, he is at least under contract. At least another team could make Jackson an offer, they can't offer Peters anything, that would be tampering. I wouldn't pay a ransom for a 28 year old running back either, but if the Bills were going to pay one of the two (Jackson or Peters) I would much rather they pay Jackson some type of raise, at least he has earned it on the field. How soon your forget how well Peters played in 2006 and 2007 and, according to the majority of pro bowl voters, 2008. Certainly, an argument can be made that his worst year as starter was in 2008 which means that at his worst, he is still pro bowl caliber. If you truly think that if the team could only keep one, it ought to be Jackson than I have to believe that you are far more interested in having a roster of guys you like rather a roster of guys who win. I don't like or dislike any of them and I wish them all luck in getting paid as high a salary as they can get for themselves. You know, the same thing we all do in our own professions. What I want from them is not moral guidance or case of the warm and fuzzies. I want them to win. Those who would rather lose than have talented jerks on their team should learn to get very used to losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Grundy Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Yeah, because that has been such a problem with this team, afterall, it has occurred once. So I guess we should organize the entire scheme around that one goal, rather than say, winning games. And Peters isn't asking for more $ because there is a chance he might make the pro bowl. He actually did, twice. So equating my position that we ought to do what we can to keep a pro bowler on the roster and that failing to do so is just that, a failure, to "...giving every player a billion-dollar contract..." is shows just how irrational you have become on this issue. You tried this same line in a question to Tim G. and got essentially the same answer, that Peters' situation is unique and that it has not and will not set off some sort of domino effect on contract negotiations with other players. A reasonable mind could certainly conclude that all things considered, the team's long term ability to be competetive is an interest best served by trading Peters and looking for an equally gifted but less expensive alternative at LT (good luck with that). But that really isn't the position that you've taken. Instead, you come up with ridiculous retorts like this. You assail the guy on a personal level at every chance as this has somehow become a moral crusade with you as if Peters was dating your daughter or spending your money. My position is quite simple, this is a good player and goodness knows, we don't have an abundance of those hence the long playoff drought we are in. I don't follow the logic in the idea that we would become a better team, not a better girl scout troop mind you, by losing a pro bowler. My sole interest is in watching this team win football games, I don't see that interest being advanced by losing Peters. I recall taping a game, I think it was in 2006 when he was still playing on special teams. We had KR for a TD and when I replayed the tape, I could see Peters blocking one guy and throwing him like a rag doll into a second defender, knocking them both down and creating a hole the wider than Rosie Odonnel's hips. You could have scored a TD on that play. Maybe you would like to see that talent in another team's uniform while we bite our nails watching Kirk Chambers take the field as a 16 game starter. With all due respect to Kirk, I know my preference. But then, I am a practical guy. I don't really care about contracts and promises and who is a nice guy and who isn't. I just want to win games. Good players win games. Bad players don't. Peters might be the biggest jerk on the planet but he is also a good player. A very good player. And apart from the Peters haters on this board like yourself, everyone thinks so, especially the people that matter. Amen Mickey!! Except Rick Gosselin from the Dallas News thinks that we have enough talent on our roster to have been in the playoffs for a couple of years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 How soon your forget how well Peters played in 2006 and 2007 and, according to the majority of pro bowl voters, 2008.Certainly, an argument can be made that his worst year as starter was in 2008 which means that at his worst, he is still pro bowl caliber. If you truly think that if the team could only keep one, it ought to be Jackson than I have to believe that you are far more interested in having a roster of guys you like rather a roster of guys who win. I don't like or dislike any of them and I wish them all luck in getting paid as high a salary as they can get for themselves. You know, the same thing we all do in our own professions. What I want from them is not moral guidance or case of the warm and fuzzies. I want them to win. Those who would rather lose than have talented jerks on their team should learn to get very used to losing. Forget the Pro Bowl, which is a popularity contest. Peters was in the top-8 (actually he was in the #4-8 group) in AP All Pro voting, which is done by the writers, who are far less biased. So while he wasn't as bad as some claim, he also wasn't the top OT, or even the 2nd or 3rd best tackle last year, and was at best the 4th-best. So looking to be the highest-paid isn't justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 You are completely right, the Bills are under no obligation to pay Jackson more than the minimum. But, they are also under no obligation to pay Peters more either, he is at least under contract. At least another team could make Jackson an offer, they can't offer Peters anything, that would be tampering. I wouldn't pay a ransom for a 28 year old running back either, but if the Bills were going to pay one of the two (Jackson or Peters) I would much rather they pay Jackson some type of raise, at least he has earned it on the field. Actually Jackson is an exclusive rights free agent meaning he's not a free agent at all. No other team can make him an offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Why do I get the feeling that whoever at OBD that is REALLY responsible for contract negotiations is incapable of dealing with more than one at a time. From the standpoint of the team's own players as well as free agents, it seems like they move at the pace of a snail -- and never in mass. Am I the only one who is NOT sympathetic to Jackson's "plight"? OK, so maybe has to play as an Exclusive Rights Free Agent with the associative salary in 2009. But he has a tremendous opportunity before him with Lynch's 3-game suspension coming up. After this year, the Bills will have to tender him a high dollar offer, if they don't want to lose him in free agency. Moreover, they will have to match any contract offer to maintain his rights. Michael Turner made out pretty well, didn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Certainly, an argument can be made that his worst year as starter was in 2008 which means that at his worst, he is still pro Or that the Pro Bowl is a meaningless accolade. How's the "winning" going with the Pro Bowl Peters-led Bills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts