dave mcbride Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 I realized they didn't trade the Eagles' fourth rounder, but I doubt they make the trade if they don't have another 4th rounder in their back pocket. That's how I'm going to measure the trade going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 I realized they didn't trade the Eagles' fourth rounder, but I doubt they make the trade if they don't have another 4th rounder in their back pocket. That's how I'm going to measure the trade going forward. Where did our 11th pick in the third round go in this equation? Huge difference between #11 in round 3 and #28 in round four. To me, the trade may better be looked at as Wood, whom I love as a player and pick, and whomever they spend the extra 7-8 million dollars on they saved by not having to pay Peters. That will be difficult to determine, even through next year's free agency or whomever they extend. But the money they saved by not resigning Peters is what is going to determine whether the trade was a good one or not. Wood is an excellent start on paper, but we need to spend the money wisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 26, 2009 Author Share Posted April 26, 2009 Where did our 11th pick in the third round go in this equation? Huge difference between #11 in round 3 and #28 in round four. To me, the trade may better be looked at as Wood, whom I love as a player and pick, and whomever they spend the extra 7-8 million dollars on they saved by not having to pay Peters. That will be difficult to determine, even through next year's free agency or whomever they extend. But the money they saved by not resigning Peters is what is going to determine whether the trade was a good one or not. Wood is an excellent start on paper, but we need to spend the money wisely. ?? - We used our 11th pick in the third on Levitre. We just added in the 110th pick to make sure no one picked him before that point. That's how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 ?? - We used our 11th pick in the third on Levitre. We just added in the 110th pick to make sure no one picked him before that point. That's how you look at it. I know. But you're saying we should look at this trade as being Peters for Wood and Levitre. But now we have no Peters and no #3, but we do have Wood and Levitre (you were the one that added him to the trade). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 26, 2009 Author Share Posted April 26, 2009 I know. But you're saying we should look at this trade as being Peters for Wood and Levitre. But now we have no Peters and no #3, but we do have Wood and Levitre (you were the one that added him to the trade). Yes, you're right. My bad. I guess I'm seeing it as a case in which the only way we get him is with that 4th rounder. Otherwise, they get someone else at 75 who is presumably not as good a player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 we traded peters and a 3rd for wood levitre and a conditional (6th or something?) next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 26, 2009 Author Share Posted April 26, 2009 we traded peters and a 3rd for wood levitre and a conditional (6th or something?) next year. A sixth next year. I don't expect anything will come of that pick based on past history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poeticlaw Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 I know. But you're saying we should look at this trade as being Peters for Wood and Levitre. But now we have no Peters and no #3, but we do have Wood and Levitre (you were the one that added him to the trade). Levitre was our third used in the second. we dont have our 4th round pick but have the 4th we got from the eagles so essentially the poster is right we havent lost any picks per say becuase we had the extra 4th as ammo. Without the extrAa 4th we would have been down a pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Levitre was our third used in the second. we dont have our 4th round pick but have the 4th we got from the eagles so essentially the poster is right we havent lost any picks per say becuase we had the extra 4th as ammo. Without the extrAa 4th we would have been down a pick. Only if you equate the 11th pick in the 3rd round with the 28th pick in the 4th round. I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Rob Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 A sixth next year. I don't expect anything will come of that pick based on past history. I love this attitude.jason Peters was un drafted.They got Bell and Steve Johnson in the 7th last year.Pat Williams one of the best DTs in the game was picked by us as an un drafted player.I guess my point is that our talent guys are not asleep at the wheel.They have hit on some very good talent late in the draft. If you look at the at other teams picks in the 6th round on I would say we do well getting players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 I love this attitude.jason Peters was un drafted.They got Bell and Steve Johnson in the 7th last year.Pat Williams one of the best DTs in the game was picked by us as an un drafted player.I guess my point is that our talent guys are not asleep at the wheel.They have hit on some very good talent late in the draft. If you look at the at other teams picks in the 6th round on I would say we do well getting players. Huh? You just listed a few players we got either in the 7th round or UDFA. None of whom were 6th round picks. You also ignored the fact that we have made about 50 6th round picks in the history of the franchise and there are not more than a handful that have been any good. You're also ignoring that each year we sign 10-20 UDFA and if you're unbelievably lucky, one of them makes your team and becomes good. Once or twice every decade you strike gold, like Peters, or Pat Wiliams or Greer, which like 2-4% chance on each guy. Any random 6th round pick is practically worthless. There is a 1-20 chance he will be pretty good. Do you like those odds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 26, 2009 Author Share Posted April 26, 2009 Huh? You just listed a few players we got either in the 7th round or UDFA. None of whom were 6th round picks. You also ignored the fact that we have made about 50 6th round picks in the history of the franchise and there are not more than a handful that have been any good. You're also ignoring that each year we sign 10-20 UDFA and if you're unbelievably lucky, one of them makes your team and becomes good. Once or twice every decade you strike gold, like Peters, or Pat Wiliams or Greer, which like 2-4% chance on each guy. Any random 6th round pick is practically worthless. There is a 1-20 chance he will be pretty good. Do you like those odds? You said it better than I ever could, Dog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Forgot My Last Username Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Usually when you take Levitre, Wood is the result. In this case though, somehow we got Wood first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 So ... how's Peters for Wood and Shawn Nelson sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 So ... how's Peters for Wood and Shawn Nelson sound? Time will tell. But Wood will start right away and Nelson will see the field too, especially in the red zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 So ... how's Peters for Wood and Shawn Nelson sound? Right now, 31 out of 32 GMs in the league would take Peters. Down the line, if Wood and Nelson play well, it will be a good trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 I realized they didn't trade the Eagles' fourth rounder, but I doubt they make the trade if they don't have another 4th rounder in their back pocket. That's how I'm going to measure the trade going forward. Don't forget to add the fact they don't have to shell out $60 million to one player over the next few years. More budget flexibility is a good thing to have if they, for example, want to sign a quality UFA next year or somehow trade for Henderson this season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Right now, 31 out of 32 GMs in the league would take Peters. Down the line, if Wood and Nelson play well, it will be a good trade. If Peters is happy and motivated, sure, but I don't think the Bills believed they were ever going to see that player again. I won't get into assigning blame; Lord knows we've already beaten that topic so far into the ground that we're halfway to China. But for me, the trade is easier to accept knowing that they seem to have done all right with the picks they received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 So ... how's Peters for Wood and Shawn Nelson sound? The big problem with this is that even if it works out (I suspect Wood will and quickly and I have grave doubts about Nelson as we do not have a scheme which uses the TE well) it is gonna take some time most likely. I am quite pumped that we finally seemed to have been motivated by the huge gap left by us letting go our starting LT that this team has loaded up and then some on durable flexible talents who seem quite likely to one day develop the chemistry with some of these players working out and some not to give us a very good OL. The problem is this will take time and as pumped as I am I still am left with the cold feeling that 09 is essentially a write off year for development. This happens so we have no choice but to deal with it. However its a bitter pill to take after being 0 for the millenneum so far for the playoffs, there is a special need for immediate production as this is the only guaranteed year with TO, having folks learn to become vets and relying on journeymen to protect Edwards is dodgy and in the big picture I am surprised because there is no guarantee of Ralph anytime and especially one year after another. It does not appear that the Bills FO could manage things with Peters to a reasonable outcome (something I actually blame the FO big time for along with the childlike Peters as paying bigger bucks to Dockery/Walker than Peters was simply a miscalculation- it does not forgive Peters but does not make the FO look very good). I hope we will be better in the long run but that being said even with a malcontent Peters we are not putting the best team possible on the field this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 peters quit on us, that's all i need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 The big problem with this is that even if it works out (I suspect Wood will and quickly and I have grave doubts about Nelson as we do not have a scheme which uses the TE well) it is gonna take some time most likely. I am quite pumped that we finally seemed to have been motivated by the huge gap left by us letting go our starting LT that this team has loaded up and then some on durable flexible talents who seem quite likely to one day develop the chemistry with some of these players working out and some not to give us a very good OL. The problem is this will take time and as pumped as I am I still am left with the cold feeling that 09 is essentially a write off year for development. This happens so we have no choice but to deal with it. However its a bitter pill to take after being 0 for the millenneum so far for the playoffs, there is a special need for immediate production as this is the only guaranteed year with TO, having folks learn to become vets and relying on journeymen to protect Edwards is dodgy and in the big picture I am surprised because there is no guarantee of Ralph anytime and especially one year after another. It does not appear that the Bills FO could manage things with Peters to a reasonable outcome (something I actually blame the FO big time for along with the childlike Peters as paying bigger bucks to Dockery/Walker than Peters was simply a miscalculation- it does not forgive Peters but does not make the FO look very good). I hope we will be better in the long run but that being said even with a malcontent Peters we are not putting the best team possible on the field this year. How do you know we don't have a good scheme for TEs, when we haven't had one worth a damn in close to 20 years? (Sorry, Rearsmegma [cq]. You weren't THAT good.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Usually when you take Levitre, Wood is the result. In this case though, somehow we got Wood first. Ya musta been lookin at Dib's avatars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 How do you know we don't have a good scheme for TEs, when we haven't had one worth a damn in close to 20 years? (Sorry, Rearsmegma [cq]. You weren't THAT good.) From a production standpoint what I mean about not having a good scheme is that we have not made it work. I think all agree with that. Is it a lack of talent? I would say yes. Royal did somethings well (I think our pass pro was good in 07 and I suspect Royal being a good blocker as part of that) but despite him hitting career bests in catches the last two years he never seemed to be someone as a fan I felt we could get a lot more out of him or that other teams seemed afraid of him. Was it a lack of good coaching? I would say yes to that as well as we have seen what good coaching can do for the TE position in the past because there was even one year where some how or other the Bills got good production that our opponents somehow did not easily seem to be able to predict and combat as the Bills got production from Rearsmegma because Friggin Lonnie could not catch and good blocking from Lonnie because Rearsmegma could not block. An objective measure of this production (it seemed like only one year's worth to me) was that Rearender was able to parlay this into a big contract (which he later screwed the Bills on as he forced them to pay the huge out years rather than renegotiate and Friggin Lonnie unbelievably got signed by some other fools when he left here and we were gifted with what I remember was a first day compensatory pick for the package where the NFL listed one of our significant FA losses as Lonnie. The pick of Nelson strikes me as simply following the past as even with a former TE as the HC we simply have failed to get consistent production out of the TE slot, this is the coaching fault I find. Add to that talent because as much as many of us feel Nelson is a good performer as an individual player, I have not heard or seen anyone say that they are confident he is ready to be an adequate pro TE right away. In fact, the assessments of him speak highly of his receiving ability but state he still has a lot to learn before he becomes an adequate pro blocker. The worse thing is that even with that assessment he is probably a better option as a starting TE than either ST ace Schouman or the potential good receiver but still learning Fine. These are the reasons I do not see us as being adequate in 09 commiting to conventional use of the TE. i think going qith 3 WRs as our base offense offers us better possibilities for production and putting resources into TE rather than improving other gaps on this team does not strike me as a good investment. Do you or others agree or disagree with this view and if I am wrong I would love to have the pieces I am missing beyond some leap of faith for showing it. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB Fan 4 LIFE Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Did the Peters trade make us better this year? By moving Walker to LT and Chambers to RT, we simultaneously downgraded at two positions. The trade allowed us to get the 2nd Center taken overall, and draft a TE who was not considered one of the top 5 TE's. What we lost was a proven LT who I don't think anyone would argue was not in the top 1/2 of the league at his position, which is the 2d most important on offense. I'm ashamed. Mr. Wilson, you have monkeys in your front office. Call security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkman Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Did the Peters trade make us better this year? By moving Walker to LT and Chambers to RT, we simultaneously downgraded at two positions. The trade allowed us to get the 2nd Center taken overall, and draft a TE who was not considered one of the top 5 TE's. What we lost was a proven LT who I don't think anyone would argue was not in the top 1/2 of the league at his position, which is the 2d most important on offense. I'm ashamed. Mr. Wilson, you have monkeys in your front office. Call security. Your 2nd post, and you still continue to call the FO a bunch of monkeys. Go root for the Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Your 2nd post, and you still continue to call the FO a bunch of monkeys. Go root for the Raiders. Guys like him only know what Kiper and Madden 2009 tell them. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkman Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Guys like him only know what Kiper and Madden 2009 tell them. PTR He's still holding Peter's peter and won't let go. Common sense is not something he has much of. Peters did not want to be here. We could've kept him, but he would've held out until the last few games, so what's the point? Get a guy that can contribute this year, or keep a guy that doesn't want to be here and won't play anyway until he has to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Capolupo Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Huh? You just listed a few players we got either in the 7th round or UDFA. None of whom were 6th round picks. You also ignored the fact that we have made about 50 6th round picks in the history of the franchise and there are not more than a handful that have been any good. You're also ignoring that each year we sign 10-20 UDFA and if you're unbelievably lucky, one of them makes your team and becomes good. Once or twice every decade you strike gold, like Peters, or Pat Wiliams or Greer, which like 2-4% chance on each guy. Any random 6th round pick is practically worthless. There is a 1-20 chance he will be pretty good. Do you like those odds? You are missing the poster's point completely. Guys can be found late in a draft. He never said anything statistically, he was making a point, they can be found and productive. You can say that trading up in the draft hasn't been statistically good for us recently, therefore the pick we're trading up for is worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mousetrap08 Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Usually when you take Levitre, Wood is the result. In this case though, somehow we got Wood first. HA HAHA THATS A GOOD ONE if levitre can't get you wood then go see alice get it. lol, that was funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DazedandConfused Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 He's still holding Peter's peter and won't let go. Common sense is not something he has much of. Peters did not want to be here. We could've kept him, but he would've held out until the last few games, so what's the point? Get a guy that can contribute this year, or keep a guy that doesn't want to be here and won't play anyway until he has to. My major problem with the Bills FO is that they caved to Peters demands by giving him exactly what he was looking for which was a contract extension which makes him among the highest paid OL players in the NFL. Peters public demand was for roughly a salary of $11.5 million a year and a contract extension and the Bills traded him o Philly which gave him a deal for an annual salary hit of $10 million over the next 5 years. Sounds like a cave in to me that has Peters/Parker laughing all the way to the bank. Perhaps the FO tries to take solace in the fact that they did not sign the new deal with Peters themselves so rather than the money coming out of Ralph's pocket to Peters he instead is going to give it to Wood, Levitre, whomever we draft next years and whatever FAs force Ralph to pay out his share of the money guaranteed to the NFLPA under the new CBA. The bottomline will actually be the same for Ralph regardless of who the money goes to, the difference is whether a team distributes the set amount of $ an NFL team must pay to their partners in the NFLPA. The Bills FO failed to properly manage one of their employees who used the fact that the market he set for himself with two Pro Bowl berths (deserved or not this is how the market reflected in the votes of coaches., fellow players, and the fans judge his worth to get into a pissing match with this employee even if he was under contract for two more years, The FO set a horrible precedent which may come back to bite us as soon as the Fred Jackson situation where they have demonstrated that if a player can increase his public leverage, the Bills will blink and give that player what he wants as long as they are not paying for it. Like it or not the Bills gave Peters what he was looking for (the current average of the top 5 OL salaries is about $8.5 million and the Bills arranged a deal for Peters that exceeds even that amount). The amazing thing is that some posters seem to want to feel we showed that idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wing Man Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 peters quit on us, that's all i need to know. Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts