dave mcbride Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...ions/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 "Take Buffalo for example. Most people expected them to take a pass rusher with the 11th overall pick to aid Aaron Schobel and allow the Bills to get pressure on the thinking man's quarterbacks that reside in the AFC East like Tom Brady and Chad Pennington. The Bills' controversial trade of Peters, which I will delve into in-depth below, now more than likely puts the onus on the Bills to select a tackle with the first of their first-round picks if either Alabama tackle Andre Smith or Mississippi tackle Michael Oher are still on the board even though they are high on last year's sleeper seventh-rounder, Demetrius Bell." I don't get the logic here. Just because LT is a top need doesn't mean you go top pick with it. Had we used that logic we would have taken Devin Thomas at #11 last year. What a disaster that would have been. But thanks for the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heitz Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Great article - I enjoy Ross on Sirius... This is right on the money: "If you start with the assumption, and we must for this exercise, that the Bills took the best offer that was available to them, then a number of teams around the NFL evidently had their head in the sand and missed out on an unbelievable opportunity. The Eagles are hardly the only team in the market for a left tackle. The Lions, Rams, Seahawks, Bengals, Raiders and Jaguars could all use a guy with Peters' ability to man the premier spot along the offensive line for the next six years. If the Eagles got such a great deal, why didn't the Lions offer the 20th overall pick and a couple of mid-round selections for a guy that would have allowed them to select Matthew Stafford or Aaron Curry at the top without any concern about their left tackle spot?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 "Take Buffalo for example. Most people expected them to take a pass rusher with the 11th overall pick to aid Aaron Schobel and allow the Bills to get pressure on the thinking man's quarterbacks that reside in the AFC East like Tom Brady and Chad Pennington. The Bills' controversial trade of Peters, which I will delve into in-depth below, now more than likely puts the onus on the Bills to select a tackle with the first of their first-round picks if either Alabama tackle Andre Smith or Mississippi tackle Michael Oher are still on the board even though they are high on last year's sleeper seventh-rounder, Demetrius Bell." I don't get the logic here. Just because LT is a top need doesn't mean you go top pick with it. Had we used that logic we would have taken Devin Thomas at #11 last year. What a disaster that would have been. But thanks for the article. If you read the rest of the article, he qualifies this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Tucker is dead-on about Peters, i.e. saying that no other teams made a run at him because there were huge question marks about him and how time will tell whether Philly got fleeced (the Bills made-out no matter how you look at it). But I think he's wrong about the Bills looking OT with the 11th overall pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I don't get the logic here. Just because LT is a top need doesn't mean you go top pick with it. Had we used that logic we would have taken Devin Thomas at #11 last year. What a disaster that would have been. But thanks for the article. See, i think the article made a ton of sense. I must say I like most of articles, so maybe come in biased. But if LT is the premier position we all assume it to be, and the "best" LT is on the market, we have to assume no one offered more eh? Now, that doesn't mean the Bills got equal value, but they got the value they could once they made the decison to trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 If you read the rest of the article, he qualifies this. Yeah, I jumped the gun. The thought of drafting a surefire potential bust like Andre Smith (or even Oher) at #11 just worries me though. See, i think the article made a ton of sense. I must say I like most of articles, so maybe come in biased. But if LT is the premier position we all assume it to be, and the "best" LT is on the market, we have to assume no one offered more eh? Now, that doesn't mean the Bills got equal value, but they got the value they could once they made the decison to trade him. That wasn't the part that didn't make any sense, it was the part about taking OT at #11... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...ions/index.html I think Tucker's position on the Peters deal is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 He will not last long in the sports writing business. Too level-headed and intelligent. Buffoonery and absolutes are what rule now-a-days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY Nole Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Great job by Ross Tucker - one of the surprisingly best NFL analysts in the business IMHO. I do disagree with his personal opinion of making Peters play out his contract, we tried that last year and it didn't work out so well -- and then he filled us all in on his mindset during the Philly press conference. As I said in Tim's blog -- be careful what you wish for Philly -- if he has one good year he'll be demanding his $11.5 mil/yr contract. As for speculation about Bills drafting OT, I think his point was that there is now a bit of doubt to the teams picking below us which way we go (in case any of them are targeting Michael Oher/Andre Smith). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 The Bills' controversial trade of Peters, which I will delve into in-depth below, now more than likely puts the onus on the Bills to select a tackle with the first of their first-round picks if either Alabama tackle Andre Smith or Mississippi tackle Michael Oher are still on the board even though they are high on last year's sleeper seventh-rounder, Demetrius Bell." I don't get the logic here. Just because LT is a top need doesn't mean you go top pick with it. Had we used that logic we would have taken Devin Thomas at #11 last year. What a disaster that would have been. But thanks for the article. You apparently missed this part, "Unless of course the Bills are high on Connecticut tackle William Beatty and think he will be available at No. 28, then they may indeed take Maybin or Brown at 11." Tucker is dead-on about Peters, i.e. saying that no other teams made a run at him because there were huge question marks about him and how time will tell whether Philly got fleeced (the Bills made-out no matter how you look at it). But I think he's wrong about the Bills looking OT with the 11th overall pick. You apparently misssed this part, "Unless of course the Bills are high on Connecticut tackle William Beatty and think he will be available at No. 28, then they may indeed take Maybin or Brown at 11. " As far as your comment that "the Bills made out no matter how you look at it", well you're certainly speaking for yourself and about half the board as far as I can tell. You should state that stuff as your opinion because...that's what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 You apparently missed this part, "Unless of course the Bills are high on Connecticut tackle William Beatty and think he will be available at No. 28, then they may indeed take Maybin or Brown at 11." Can everyone settle down please? Did you miss this? Yeah, I jumped the gun. The thought of drafting a surefire potential bust like Andre Smith (or even Oher) at #11 just worries me though. Sheesh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Ross nailed it. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobDVA Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I liked the article, and it made a ton of sense to me..... Except, I would not take a tackle with the #11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Ross nailed it. Again. I agree--the guy has been a favorite of mine for a while now to the point where I look forward to his bi-weekly columns. Take a Princeton education, add some NFL experience, and you've got a very good formula for a successful NFL beat writer. Here's hoping he keeps it up. PS No offense, Tim, I still like your stuff as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Great article - I enjoy Ross on Sirius... This is right on the money: "If you start with the assumption, and we must for this exercise, that the Bills took the best offer that was available to them, then a number of teams around the NFL evidently had their head in the sand and missed out on an unbelievable opportunity. The Eagles are hardly the only team in the market for a left tackle. The Lions, Rams, Seahawks, Bengals, Raiders and Jaguars could all use a guy with Peters' ability to man the premier spot along the offensive line for the next six years. If the Eagles got such a great deal, why didn't the Lions offer the 20th overall pick and a couple of mid-round selections for a guy that would have allowed them to select Matthew Stafford or Aaron Curry at the top without any concern about their left tackle spot?" Maybe, just maybe, teams were weary of paying a guy $10+ million who just led the NFL in sacks allowed and the market wasn't as big as people as they think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Players who quit on a team over money will do it again. That's the chance Philly is taking. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Maybe, just maybe, teams were weary of paying a guy $10+ million who just led the NFL in sacks allowed and the market wasn't as big as people as they think. Yes, as I said a few times before, the way Peters/Parker handled it was not the best precisely for this reason. A long term holdout and showing up disinterested and out of shape did not increase Peters value at all -- it only served to lessen it. He was lucky that the Eagles were still interested and still willing to take a chance on his 'tude. Peters has all the physical tools to be one of the greatest of all time; but, unless he dedicates himself to that goal, he could be just another might-have-been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 You apparently missed this part, "Unless of course the Bills are high on Connecticut tackle William Beatty and think he will be available at No. 28, then they may indeed take Maybin or Brown at 11." What are you, Tucker's mom or something? As far as your comment that "the Bills made out no matter how you look at it", well you're certainly speaking for yourself and about half the board as far as I can tell. You should state that stuff as your opinion because...that's what it is. No, it's a fact. The Bills took an UDFA TE and turned him into a LT worth trading for a 1st, 4th, and conditional pick. This despite having a poor season and putting them in a difficult position. The better question is whether Peters will live-up to expectations in Philly and/or how long it will be before he's pulling the same stunt there because he feels he's underpaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Yes, as I said a few times before, the way Peters/Parker handled it was not the best precisely for this reason. A long term holdout and showing up disinterested and out of shape did not increase Peters value at all -- it only served to lessen it. He was lucky that the Eagles were still interested and still willing to take a chance on his 'tude. Peters has all the physical tools to be one of the greatest of all time; but, unless he dedicates himself to that goal, he could be just another might-have-been. It really depends on what Peters/Parker goals were in determining whether they did the right thing (btw is it just me but I have never seen Peters/Parker and Spiderman together at the same time- I wonder about secret identities). My sense is that if Peters had dual goals of retiring as a Bills and being paid at the current market rate for LTs then he only is half way there. However, I think his goal actually was to simply get paid at the current market rate for LTs and it would be nice to finish his career as a Bill but if the Bills were not going to pay him something at or at least approaching the current LT market rate because he had signed a contract based on the starting RT salary rate and he was bound to that for 2 years unless the Bills decided to rip his contract or trade him, then his goal was to simply get the money. Fortunately for Peters, it merely took the hissy fit of him holding out of pre-season and not getting fined a gamecheck to get the Bills to give him everything he wanted financially by trading him to Philly. I liked Tucker's article because he did not pretend as some posters do that he could predict the future. He interestingly has a ton more info than many posters who have never played with Peters and have only seen him on TV and his stats from the game. Even with his far greater knowledge than the avg Joe or Josephine, Tucker knows it is impossible to predict what will happen. The simple facts are that Peters is one of the most gifted OL players in the game. The fact is he worked hard enough to achieve amazing things for a UDFA TE by the 3rd year of his career. However, the fact is that at the very least he was distracted last year and this was reflected in much poorer results in 08 than he saw in 07. What will happen in the future and which Peters will show up in Philly? No one knows and that is what I liked about Tucker's article. I did think it fell short of giving correct analysis on a couple of points but they are so inside baseball for the Bills it is no wonder to not see them in an article. Specifically they are: 1. If I am Fred Jackson or any Bill who thinks he deserves more $ (pretty much all of them) and I think that the market would give me more if there was a market (some of them this is true but most pro athletes are legends in their own minds and think more highly of themselves than the market will actually give them) then the Bills have demonstrated it does not take a lot to get them to cave into financial demands by either getting them to give you an undeserved contract (Kelsay and Schobel are real world examples though apparently it helps to be a white DE with a good motor) or to cave by trading you to someone who will meet your fiscal dreams. Fred Jackson is not in a strong negotiating position because under the CBA even though he is not under contract the Bills have retained exclusive rights to him with a qualifying offer. Jackson though has now seen that the Peters/Parker strategy can work and he has sat out the voluntary workouts. The Bills have increased their leverage by signing Rhodes, but Jackson is almost certainly thinking about if i sit out for at least a couple of mandatory pre-season games then maybe the Bills cave and trade me while they can get something or the first time their is a twitch in Rhodes' hammy the Bills FO will run and not walk to sign me long term. Its all speculative so I can see why Tucker did not go into this vision, but given the Bills seem to choose between whether they can cave institutionally and roll up the vault to Kelsay, or cave by letting some other team meet Peters demands, the Bills FO has demonstrated that the approach for dealing with them is to withold services as long as you can. Perhaps with other teams there is enough internal leadership that the dumb players peers can reign him in. However, one of the side-effects of the Bills getting rid of a lot of the higher character old guard like Fletcher-Baker and even TKO is that here really is not much in terms of vet leadership on this team. I think the braintrust viewed folks like Dockery and former SB winner whathiasname at LB playing that role. However, Dockery repaid the Bills for his huge contract by supporting the radio silence of Peters/Parker (my guess is that this is one reason why he is gone) and Mitchell just has not asserted himself as a leader as best as this outsider can tell. Jauron is a nice guy but he simply does not replace having refuse to lose internal leadership from fellow players. 2. The other piece of speculation I would have is that with the Bills relegating protection of Edwards blindside to Walker (this may work as he did a good job last year but now creates a hole at RT), or unfortunately to a journeyman, ior even worse to a rookie (who by definition will not be an elite player capable of getting a top 10 pick, but even if they were Mike Williams was a #4 and rookie holdout McKinnie was a #7, the Bills have demonstrated to me that I am simply here to put on a show for a year and I need to choose whether it floats my boat more to get a huge contract next year or to be a prima donna this year. My guess is that TO has to look at this trade and think it may work out, but really I need to do what I judge is good for me in 09. It is my hope as a Bills fan that TO judges that one year of him playacting to be a team player is worth it because with even moderate production if he can fake sincerity for a year it will be a very nice FA next year. This makes sense, but as TO has routinely done things throughout his career that make no sense I will not bank on this happening. The adoption of a 2 year plan (if we are lucky) would convince me as TO that its every me for himself in 09. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts