Peter King - Peter's Trade

[bills_fan]

Agreed 1000% - I think you nailed it, Chicago - there was no other way to deal with someone who no longer wanted to be here. To the other posters who think the Bills FO is inept, they had to play the hand that was dealt them - which is, Peters wanted out and the Bills could not afford to be held hostage again with another training camp fiasco.

 

To all those Peters fans and Bills FO haters, do you remember Peters' bizarre behavior last summer when HE WOULD NOT EVEN RETURN PHONE CALLS from Bills management? I mean, ANY of us who refused to return phone calls from our bosses would not get "traded", we'd get FIRED. Enough said....now let's kick tail in the draft and move on.

 

 

How do you know that he did not want to be here? He wanted to get paid, yes, but I'm sure if Buffalo paid him, he would have wanted to be here just fine.

[HurlyBurly51]

Naw, not him - he only coached Munoz and turned an athletic TE in FA into a good to excellent LT. That and except for that loser Williams we didn't draft one OL in the first three rounds of the draft while he was here. So he hasn't exactly had the best talent to work with. He also coached a well heeled Giants OL before he left NY.

 

Naw, not him. He's a total bum. He doesn't know anything about OL play at all. (Sarcasm button off)

 

Be it known here, that no matter how irrational or illogical it seems the moves of our FO are, if you disagree you are a total bum...

 

No kidding. It absolutely amazes me the length to which some people will go to rationalize failure.

[cale]

Then why was no team willing to offer more than the Eagles offered for him? Obviously a lot of folks around the league have doubts about this "two-time pro-bowler".

 

To the contrary, we know that Detroit and the Giants were interested. We also know that a 1st and 3rd were in play. We just don't know why our FO chose to have 1,4 and a conditional in 2010. That conditional had better be a 4/5 or better for what we gave up.

 

I'm way past "trusting" this FO.

 

C

[bluenews]

The highly regarded McNally (who is soon to be demonized by those for the trade) believed Peters was a superior talent. Sure, he's partial, but I think he knows OL when he sees them.

 

I'll take the experts take before message board posters who don't study film. But again, only time will tell if this move benefits one side or the other more. I think we'll know by Week 6 of this upcoming season.

 

 

I have said this before......Jim McNally didn't want anything to do with Jason Peters. McNally did nothing for the Bills or Peters.

[cale]

I have gotten over the 'which team got the better end of the deal' thought process. A relevant discussion is that - did the Bills make the right choice given the options they had. The situation was that Peters played 'unhappily' last year and would likely do the same without a new contract. So if they wanted him to play well in 2009, they would have to pony up a lot of money. So, the ultimate decision was - do we spend over $11M per year for one player (who may likely become unhappy again in 2 years) or to get the best deal we can get for him. Doing the latter would allow allocation of those funds to more players and possibly build up an OL of personnel who may not blossom in 2009 (i.e. if a rookie) but set ourselves up for a good run after 2010.

 

Given the situation as I understand it, the Bills made the right call. I would have preferred that Peters stay a Bill but not for the money he required or the drama/distraction that came with him.

 

I don't know - those who don't understand history are condemned to repeat it. Look, I know that Peters wasn't the brightest bulb. In fact I'm shocked at how well of an OL player he has become given his purported intelligence. But he was a model player (did what he was asked by the team without complaint) until we overpayed for two middlin' OL players. Well hell, I would have been mad too. Contract or no contract. He deserved a "market adjustment" given the context.

 

Now, what do you do if you are the Bills? You find a way to make the situation work. True the guy behaved like a spoiled pre-schooler who took his ball and went home. But players like that don't grow on trees. Let's face it, we lucked out to find him in FA post draft.

 

As Parcells used to say, "I'm not interested in being fair. I'm interested in being right" IF and that's a big IF - they didn't think they could make the situation work financially, we should have gotten fair market value or better in the trade. The whole headache/drama argument just doesn't hold water. We just signed the biggest headache/drama nut case because we wanted to win. Or so we are led to believe. You telling me they couldn't put up with Peters for the same reason?

 

Either way the FO screwed up. We can all "move on" when we know or trust that management will do better. Until then it's a debate/discussion/dialogue worth having. Our loyalty to this pathetic team has at least earned us *that* right.

 

C

[AJ1]

What money should you pay one of the top LT's in the NFL? Cause in 2-3 years $11 mill will look like a bargain.

 

 

I doubt it. The gravy train is over for the NFL...they haven't got the news yet.

[AJ1]

Not sure if posted yet...

 

 

"I think, as I examine the Jason Peters deal -- first-, fourth- and sixth-round picks, with the first-rounder the 28th pick in Saturday's draft -- I think the Eagles got the major edge. "Other than Anthony Munoz, this is the most devastating blocker and pass-protector I've ever coached,'' said the retired and well-respected former NFL line coach Jim McNally, who mentored Peters from being a college tight end to one of the premier tackles in the game. "He's a terrific player and a good kid. What happened to him in Buffalo, I think, is he saw two linemen come in and make a lot of money [Derrick Dockery, Langston Walker], and he looked at them and said, 'I'm better than they are; why aren't I making that money?' And it really affected him. I think he'll be a dominating player in Philadelphia, and I don't think the money will affect him.'' We'll see."

 

Peter's proven to me he has a tremendous lack of character and stupid to boot. I don't see how you can go wrong getting rid of these types no matter what the so-called talent level.

[bills_fan]

I doubt it. The gravy train is over for the NFL...they haven't got the news yet.

 

 

Going into an uncapped year? No way the train is over, in fact, its only accelerating. Wait till every game is pay-per-view.

[Fan in Chicago]

What money should you pay one of the top LT's in the NFL? Cause in 2-3 years $11 mill will look like a bargain.

And that point, you can bet Peters would have been pouting yet again.

[Endzone Animal]

Bruce Smith pouted every single year and is now in the HOF. I fail to see how the Bills offensive line is better now than it was last season, and last season they stunk.

[Fan in Chicago]

Bruce Smith pouted every single year and is now in the HOF. I fail to see how the Bills offensive line is better now than it was last season, and last season they stunk.

If memory serves me right, Bruce would complain but still play his heart out.

[Stussy109]

I doubt it. The gravy train is over for the NFL...they haven't got the news yet.

 

Really? Directv Just locked up sunday ticket for extra years at an exhorbitant price.

[DazedandConfused]

I have said this before......Jim McNally didn't want anything to do with Jason Peters. McNally did nothing for the Bills or Peters.

This statement runs counter to published reports that it was McNally who convinced a reluctant Peters who wanted to be a TE that putting his what turned out on the field to be considerable talent (we all remember the play he made when he forced his way onto the Bills ST unit where he not only blocked the punt, but gathered in the block and lumbered into the endzone for a TD.

 

Claims of Peters being an unproductive idiot from the word go simply run counter to the real world where after making the PS (an impressive feat for any player) he actually made the permanent roster because the Bills had to do this or risk losing him.

 

Upon making the permanent roster, the reports out of practice were that he was unblockable and the ST kick block and TD proved this to be the case not based on what somebody said but on the field also.

 

Again, the fact that he was moved from ST to the OL given his OL production is an objective indicator that he showed real stuff as an unschooled OL player. Your statement that the OL coach wanted nothing to do with him makes little sense as it was clear the Bills as a team wanted something to do with him because other teams would have signed them to their permanent roster if the Bills did not.

 

Likewise the comment that the OL coach wanted nothing to do with him but he somehow overcame this disinterest to win the spot at RT and then somehow win the start at LT. These are simply real world accomplishments which make the carping about him seem nonsensical.

 

His gaining the Pro Bowl nod twice does not prove anything so that is right. However, it also seems silly to claim that because a Pro Bowl selection is no guarantee of perfection that it can be totally ignored. It is an outside observation that notes while Peters is far from perfect he is actually pretty good.

 

This deal may turn out to be a great one for the Bills in time. The draft picks may turn out to be solid pros eventually (its possible even though the real world experience from the crapshoot known as the NFL draft is that even from 1st round picks they are 50/50 to be starters at the beginning of their second year and that even this group has a severe bias toward the elite choices in the top 10 picks.

 

It may work out eventually but there are two more immediate potential great problems with this trade for the Bills:

 

1. The Bills need wins in a big way in 09 and this trade of a two-time Pro Bowler (even with the knowledge that the popularity contest called the Pro Bowl is no proof of greatness but actually is a reasonable indicator of a Pro Bowler being at least an upper half if not at least upper third of the league player) for mere draft picks is a pretty good indicator that this team is not going to be a success in 09. This is too bad since 09 is he one year we are guaranteed to have TO, it is going to be of critical importance that Edwards gets protected, and Ralph ain't getting younger. Going with a rookie and/or the journeymen who are left to repopulate the LG and LT spots may turn out OK but does not look good.

 

2. This move sets a bad precedent for the Bills dealing with FOs. Some folks seem to want to treat this as sending a positive message as the Bills refused to refused to pay the Peters negotiating offer of $11.5 million.

 

This is true.

 

However, any FA with half a brain sees that actually while the Bills did not pay the silly highball negotiaring offer, the final result is a huge victory for Peters and his agent. Peters was under contract for not simply $4 million or so each of the next two years, but his whiny tactics forced the Bills to trade him where he signed an extension which more than doubles his average salary to $10 million.

 

The Bills strongly signaled to players that even if you are under contract it can pay big time to holdout and muscle the Bills.

 

The view that this deal is somehow a win for the Bills really ignores a lot of reality.

 

This is also true of the bizarre indictment of McNally.

 

Was he perfect?

 

No! He actually said so himself at the start. His choice of Tutan Reyes and his part in the decision to unvest in Dockery simply did not work.

 

However, a sane person needs to recognize and give him props for:

 

1. His good cop bad cop prodding of Mike Williams got as much as one could have expected from bust M Williams chosen by the previous regime..

2. The previous regime really left him with crap and he correctly sorted through it letting Jennings walk rather than giving him what the market gave him.

3. He turned a practice squad slug name Smith into a credible NFL guard for a season or so,

4. Published reports have him clearly overseeing a reportedly encouaging (your view of JMac not wanting him has no published reports I have seen supporting it so please link them if they are facts) Peters remarkable rise from UDFA TE to starting LT in about 5 years.

 

Your ragging on JMac runs completely counter the simple fact that his last job with NYG saw him put together an OL from FAs like Glen Parker and Dusty Ziegler a crew which simply made the SB.

 

Is JMac perfect?

 

No.

 

Are your comments about him unsubstantiated by any facts?

 

Yep.

 

Is this is more than a simple fact free opinion which we all are entitle to then simply list or link to some facts.

 

Jeepers

[seadog]

Peter's proven to me he has a tremendous lack of character and stupid to boot. I don't see how you can go wrong getting rid of these types no matter what the so-called talent level.

Exactly, it's a team sport and me and my contract guy's need not apply. He signed the contract now go out and play. If you perform well the Billls will compensate you when the time comes. The Bill's were the team whom gave him a shot and converted him into a "Pro Bowl" caliber player. He stunk last year and was not worthy of a raise. He got what he wanted and the Bill's made out pretty good to get a first, fourth, and another pick for a undrafted FA. Fred Jackson also was a NFL Europe guy whom the Bill's groomed into a starting caliber back. In my opinion Fred should get a raise as he played his tail off last year unlike Jason Peters. I think Fred will get a new contract before opening day and we will have a three headed monster at the tailback position.

[The Dean]

'bluenews' date='Apr 20 2009, 03:25 PM' post='1394854']

I have said this before......Jim McNally didn't want anything to do with Jason Peters.

 

 

You are 100% wrong, on this.

 

And you were 100% wrong when you said it before.

[VOR]

Going into an uncapped year? No way the train is over, in fact, its only accelerating. Wait till every game is pay-per-view.

The uncapped year isn't the bonanza for players that people think it is. And if the NFL were stupid enough to make every game pay-per-view, they'd end-up killing the league.

[VOR]

If memory serves me right, Bruce would complain but still play his heart out.

Bingo. After hearing Peters' rationalization of his poor play, I'm glad his worthless azz is gone. And yes, I do mean worthless. The Bills' next LT will have a hard time being worse than Peters was last year.

[Tcali]

Not sure if posted yet...

 

 

"I think, as I examine the Jason Peters deal -- first-, fourth- and sixth-round picks, with the first-rounder the 28th pick in Saturday's draft -- I think the Eagles got the major edge. "Other than Anthony Munoz, this is the most devastating blocker and pass-protector I've ever coached,'' said the retired and well-respected former NFL line coach Jim McNally, who mentored Peters from being a college tight end to one of the premier tackles in the game. "He's a terrific player and a good kid. What happened to him in Buffalo, I think, is he saw two linemen come in and make a lot of money [Derrick Dockery, Langston Walker], and he looked at them and said, 'I'm better than they are; why aren't I making that money?' And it really affected him. I think he'll be a dominating player in Philadelphia, and I don't think the money will affect him.'' We'll see."

 

I think its a personal decision..

[The Dean]

Bingo. After hearing Peters' rationalization of his poor play, I'm glad his worthless azz is gone. And yes, I do mean worthless. The Bills' next LT will have a hard time being worse than Peters was last year.

 

 

I have yet to see, or hear, anything of the sort.

[Griswold]

I have gotten over the 'which team got the better end of the deal' thought process. A relevant discussion is that - did the Bills make the right choice given the options they had. The situation was that Peters played 'unhappily' last year and would likely do the same without a new contract. So if they wanted him to play well in 2009, they would have to pony up a lot of money. So, the ultimate decision was - do we spend over $11M per year for one player (who may likely become unhappy again in 2 years) or to get the best deal we can get for him. Doing the latter would allow allocation of those funds to more players and possibly build up an OL of personnel who may not blossom in 2009 (i.e. if a rookie) but set ourselves up for a good run after 2010.

 

Given the situation as I understand it, the Bills made the right call. I would have preferred that Peters stay a Bill but not for the money he required or the drama/distraction that came with him.

 

OMG!! The voice of sanity, balance and reason. Chicago? You must be Marv Freakin' Levy! Well done.