I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

[Wally The Barber]

Mike Gandy.

I would hate to be in Arizona's position right now.

Mike Gandy is out of Buffalo for a reason and you found that reason in the Superbowl.

And some of you want to trade Jason Peters????

Yea, right...

If the Cardinals had Jason Peters at Left Tackle they would have won the Superbowl ( My opinion)

You don't trade away an ALL-PRO player when you don't have a replacement.

Some of you insist Trent Edwards is injury prone and now you want to trade away Buffalo's best Offensive linemen.

That makes about as much sense as trading away Lee Evans to create Cap Space.

Let Jason Peters whine, but I believe a new deal will come before the end of 2009.




THE SLAMMER

[X-Era]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

Mike Gandy.

I would hate to be in Arizona's position right now.

Mike Gandy is out of Buffalo for a reason and you found that reason in the Superbowl.

And some of you want to trade Jason Peters????

Yea, right...

You don't trade away an ALL-PRO player when you don't have a replacement.



THE SLAMMER

Losing Peters makes us worse... its just that simple

[Night Train]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

I don't want him traded. We have too many other holes and don't need to create another.

[jamze132]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

Mike Gandy.

I would hate to be in Arizona's position right now.

Mike Gandy is out of Buffalo for a reason and you found that reason in the Superbowl.

And some of you want to trade Jason Peters????

Yea, right...

If the Cardinals had Jason Peters at Left Tackle they would have won the Superbowl ( My opinion)

You don't trade away an ALL-PRO player when you don't have a replacement.

Some of you insist Trent Edwards is injury prone and now you want to trade away Buffalo's best Offensive linemen.

That makes about as much sense as trading away Lee Evans to create Cap Space.

Let Jason Peters whine, but I believe a new deal will come before the end of 2009.




THE SLAMMER

Duh!

[ddaryl]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

Let Jason Peters whine, but I believe a new deal will come before the end of 2009.


THE SLAMMER

I guess you don't recall how Jason Peters held out of OTA's and Training Camp. Came back after the season started, looked like crap and cost us the playoffs because of his crappy play all season.

So lets wait until the end of 2009 to make that deal ????? He'll hold out again... and if Jason is going to whine and hold out and if the Bills are not going to get this contract done before the draft then the Bills are idiots for not trading him. What possible reaosn would the anyone have for keeping around a guy for another holdout and another year of crappy play becuase he is out of shape and football condition again

I'd rather sign him too but in the above scenario I'd rather get rid of the douche.

Losing Peters may make us worse, but Peters not signing a realistic deal before OTA's and training camp makes us worse just the same.

I really wish people would learn to think through the entire scneario instead of just syaing we must sing Peters at all costs. Peters doesn't deserve to be paid top 5 LT money until he proves he can play LT at a top 5 LT level consistently.. and in 2008 he proved without a doubt he wasn't worth top 5 LT money.. or maybe I was watching a different LT give up over 10 sacks in 2008... No top 5 LT gives up 10 sacks in a season.

He also signed a contract extension in 2007 and I don't care what the scenario is you accept and extension you have ot accept the conditions for a few years before demanding more. My opinion on that won't budge... if Peters blew out his knee in 2007 the Bills wouldn't be demanding he pay back the raise he was given just the same.

However the Bills screwed themselves here by signing Dockery to a big contract out of desperation to fix our OL from years of Donahue neglect. It still doesn't make peters worth what he is going oto demand IMO.

SO now the question is does Peters accept a very heavily incentive laden contract or does he take less money becuase he knows he sucked ass in 2008

[Pinkerton Security]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

I guess you don't recall how Jason Peters held out of OTA's and Training Camp. Came back after the season started, looked like crap and cost us the playoffs because of his crappy play all season.

So lets wait until the end of 2009 to make that deal ????? He'll hjold out again... and if Jason is going to whine and hold out and if the Bills are not going to get this contract done before the draft then the Bills are idiots for not trading him.

I'd rather sign him too but in the above scenario I'd rather get rid of the self douche.

Losing Peters may make us worse, but Peters not signing a realistic deal before OTA's and traingni camp makes us worse just the same.

I really wish people would learn to think through the entire scneario instead of just syaing we must sing Peters at all costs. Peters doesn't deserve to be paid top 5 LT money until he proves he can play LT at a top 5 LT level consistently.. and in 2008 he proved without a doubt he wasn't worth top 5 LT money.. or maybe I was watching a different LT give up over 10 sacks in 2008... No top 5 LT gives up 10 sacks in a season.

However the Bills screwed themselves here by signing Dockery to a big contract out of desperation to fix our OL from years of Donahue neglect. It still doesn't make peters worth what he is going oto demand IMO.

SO now the question is does Peters accept a very heavily incentive laden contract or does he take less money becuase he knows he sucked ass in 2008

i agree, its sort of a double edged sword. We need him, but we certainly do not need his me-first attitude. With our overall lack of talent right now, I dont think we can part with a known commodity like Peters, who despite playing somewhat poorly last year is still better than, idk, 85% or more of the starting tackles in the league, at least talent-wise.

[ddaryl]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

i agree, its sort of a double edged sword. We need him, but we certainly do not need his me-first attitude. With our overall lack of talent right now, I dont think we can part with a known commodity like Peters, who despite playing somewhat poorly last year is still better than, idk, 85% or more of the starting tackles in the league, at least talent-wise.

that was a good paraphrase of what I was saying...

it'll come down to Peters demands. if him and his agent are going to hold the Bills hostage then I think the Bills wil trade him. We can't play this game of letting a player hold the entire team hostage until he gets what he wants.

[TacklingDummy]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

Mike Gandy is out of Buffalo for a reason and you found that reason in the Superbowl.

And some of you want to trade Jason Peters????

1) Gandy didn't play all that bad against Harrison in the Super Bowl. Considering he was 1 on 1 with him most of the game.

2) How did Arizona ever even get to the Super Bowl without Jason Peters?

[don137]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

While I hate Peters attitude last season and he had some really bad plays he is still one of the better OTs in the league. The Bills are in great cap shape and I much rather see them spend the money on Peters than give out outrageous contracts for below average players such as Kelsey.

[Wally The Barber]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

I guess you don't recall how Jason Peters held out of OTA's and Training Camp. Came back after the season started, looked like crap and cost us the playoffs because of his crappy play all season.

So lets wait until the end of 2009 to make that deal ????? He'll hold out again... and if Jason is going to whine and hold out and if the Bills are not going to get this contract done before the draft then the Bills are idiots for not trading him. What possible reaosn would the anyone have for keeping around a guy for another holdout and another year of crappy play becuase he is out of shape and football condition again

I'd rather sign him too but in the above scenario I'd rather get rid of the douche.

Losing Peters may make us worse, but Peters not signing a realistic deal before OTA's and training camp makes us worse just the same.

I really wish people would learn to think through the entire scneario instead of just syaing we must sing Peters at all costs. Peters doesn't deserve to be paid top 5 LT money until he proves he can play LT at a top 5 LT level consistently.. and in 2008 he proved without a doubt he wasn't worth top 5 LT money.. or maybe I was watching a different LT give up over 10 sacks in 2008... No top 5 LT gives up 10 sacks in a season.

He also signed a contract extension in 2007 and I don't care what the scenario is you accept and extension you have ot accept the conditions for a few years before demanding more. My opinion on that won't budge... if Peters blew out his knee in 2007 the Bills wouldn't be demanding he pay back the raise he was given just the same.

However the Bills screwed themselves here by signing Dockery to a big contract out of desperation to fix our OL from years of Donahue neglect. It still doesn't make peters worth what he is going oto demand IMO.

SO now the question is does Peters accept a very heavily incentive laden contract or does he take less money becuase he knows he sucked ass in 2008

Jason did not play well at the beginning of the season but we went 4-0, hardly cost us the playoffs.

If he sits out again then someone else will get more reps at his position, that will help with depth.

You never dump an ALL-PRO unless you absolutely have to!

We already have a ready list of needs this year, do you realize these guys are extremely hard to find?

Sure you can move anther player to his position, but how well will he hold up against the Julius Peppers DE's of the league???

[ddaryl]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

Jason did not play well at the beginning of the season but we went 4-0, hardly cost us the playoffs.

If he sits out again then someone else will get more reps at his position, that will help with depth.

You never dump an ALL-PRO unless you absolutely have to!

We already have a ready list of needs this year, do you realize these guys are extremely hard to find?

Sure you can move anther player to his position, but how well will he hold up against the Julius Peppers DE's of the league???

we went 4-0 in the beginning of the season against crap fest teams. AND I would never accept the theory that if he sits out its good for the team because others get reps.. actually I find that theory to be horrible way of accepting Peters holdout ads a positive. It cost us last year it will cost us this year.

Peters was not an ALL_PRO in 2008 no matter who voted him into the probowl. His play was solid at best, not probowl worthy. His play for the year was not top 5 LT pay worthy.

and I'll say this again, if him and his agent are going to play hardball and hold the team hostage then the Bills should trade him to the highest bidder and move on before Peters holds out again and looks like crap in 2009 and costs the Bills wins and continuity on their OL.

All I saw in 2008 is a player who held out and regressed 10+ sacks in 13 games is not worthy of a big time raise.

I am completely unwilling to see the Bills pay Peters and extreme salary out of fear, which is what many fans are demanding. I do not subscribe to the "We must sign Peters no matter the cost" theory, and if we do trade him it will be because Peters obviously had no intention of being a Buffalo Bill unless he was overpaid him to do so.

Buffalo's Jason Peters gave up more sacks than any starting left tackle in the league in 2008.

His 11.5 sacks allowed came in only 13 games because he missed three with various injuries after a training camp holdout. He was even worse than fellow turnstile LTs Jeff Backus, Khalif Barnes, Kwame Harris, Max Starks, and Levi Jones. Peters has very little leverage if he still wants that raise.

1. Ryan Clady, Denver, 0.5 sack
2. Michael Roos, Tennessee, 1 sack PRO BOWLER
3-T. Tony Ugoh, Indianapolis, 2 sacks* (Started 11)
3-T. Tra Thomas, Philadelphia, 2 sacks
3-T. Jared Gaither, Baltimore, 2 sacks* (He missed first quarter of Philadelphia game because of a shoulder injury)
7. Jake Long, Miami, 2.5 sacks
8-T. Marcus McNeill, San Diego, 3 sacks* (13 games)
8-T. Chris Samuels, Washington, 3 sacks* (Only appeared in 12 games)
8-T. Jordan Gross, Carolina, 3 sacks* (Missed 1 game) PRO BOWLER
8-T. Jammal Brown, New Orleans, 3 sacks* (Missed 1 game)
8-T. Todd Weiner, Atlanta, 3 sacks* (Started 10 games and appeared in 15)
13-T. Joe Thomas, Cleveland, 3.5 sacks PRO BOWLER
13-T. Walter Jones, Seattle, 3.5 sacks* (12 games) PRO BOWLER
15-T. D'Brickashaw Ferguson, NY Jets, 4 sacks
15-T. Bryant McKinnie, Minnesota, 4 sacks* (11 games)
15-T. Max Starks, Pittsburgh, 4 sacks* (10 starts)
18. Brandon Albert, Kansas City, 4.5 sacks* (Missed 1 game)
19. Levi Jones, Cincinnati, 5.5 sacks* (10 games)
20. Mike Gandy, Arizona, 6.25 sacks
21-T. Chad Clifton, Green Bay, 6.5 sacks* (missed 1 game)
21-T. David Diehl, NY Giants, 6.5 sacks
23. Flozell Adams, Dallas, 7.25 PRO BOWLER
24-T. Khalif Barnes, Jacksonville, 7.5 sacks
24-T. Matt Light, New England, 7.5 sacks
24-T. Kwame Harris, 7.5 sacks* (Started 11, appeared in 13)
27. Donald Penn, Tampa Bay, 8 sacks
28. Joe Staley, San Francisco, 8.5 sacks
29. Jeff Backus, Detroit, 9.25 sacks
30. John St. Clair, Chicago, 9.75 sacks
T-31. Duane Brown, Houston, 11.5 sacks
T-31. Jason Peters, Buffalo, 11.5 sacks* PRO BOWLER (13 games)

Peters cost this team last year by holding out. Evans who could of held out and had a real reason too did not and even started the season without a new deal in place. Evans is a quality person and player you can invest into. Peters showed his hand last year, I just will not fall prey to the "we must sign Peters no matter what" philosophy. He didn't earn it and he DID REGRESS in a MAJOR WAY.

If Peters wants to accept a deal worthy of a player who regressed in 2008 then OK, but if he thinks he is goin gto get paid top $$$$ by the Bills for not being loyal to the team, holding out, and then regressing then **** HIM

[Wally The Barber]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

we went 4-0 in the beginning of the season against crap fest teams. AND I would never accept the theory that if he sits out its good for the team because others get reps.. actually I find that theory to be horrible way of accepting Peters holdout ads a positive. It cost us last year it will cost us this year.

Peters was not an ALL_PRO in 2008 no matter who voted him into the probowl. His play was solid at best, not probowl worthy. His play for the year was not top 5 LT pay worthy.

and I'll say this again, if him and his agent are going to play hardball and hold the team hostage then the Bills should trade him to the highest bidder and move on before Peters holds out again and looks like crap in 2009 and costs the Bills wins and continuity on their OL.

All I saw in 2008 is a player who held out and regressed 10+ sacks in 13 games is not worthy of a big time raise.

I am completely unwilling to see the Bills pay Peters and extreme salary out of fear, which is what many fans are demanding. I do not subscribe to the "We must sign Peters no matter the cost" theory, and if we do trade him it will be because Peters obviously had no intention of being a Buffalo Bill unless he was overpaid him to do so.






Peters cost this team last year by holding out. Evans who could of held out and had a real reason too did not and even started the season without a new deal in place. Evans is a quality person and player you can invest into. Peters showed his hand last year, I just will not fall prey to the "we must sign Peters no matter what" philosophy. He didn't earn it and he DID REGRESS in a MAJOR WAY.

If Peters wants to accept a deal worthy of a player who regressed in 2008 then OK, but if he thinks he is goin gto get paid top $$$$ by the Bills for not being loyal to the team, holding out, and then regressing then **** HIM

Little leverage to a new deal???
You better check out what he makes vs the rest of the starting LT around the league
He signed that deal as a special teams player and his salary is a joke.
LT don't make the Pro Bowl on sacks totals alone, he is the only offensive linemen with any speed to block for the running game

[yordad]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

He quit on the Bills. All options should be explored. Either way, you don't just give him away slammer. This is a thread from the department of redundancy department.

[ddaryl]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

Little leverage to a new deal???
You better check out what he makes vs the rest of the starting LT around the league
He signed that deal as a special teams player and his salary is a joke.
LT don't make the Pro Bowl on sacks totals alone, he is the only offensive linemen with any speed to block for the running game

he singed and extension in 2007 that gave him a substantial raise. I don't care what position he played. He signed the deal he needs to live with it for a few years. Holding out is acceptable when you have 1 year left on an agreed upon deal. Nobody held a gun to his head and told him to sign the extension in 2007... I don't think Peters had any right to hold out in 2008 none , notta, zilch, and because he did he cost the Bills continuity on their OL and he played crappy during the year.

Everyone knows Peters didn't deserve the probowl nod this year. Any argument for him and I'm just going to bust my gut laughing at it. FACT is no T, left or right, should ever make a probowl giving up that many sacks regardless of what else the guy might have done right. Peters made the probowl on name only, and IMO it almost seems like a setup to force the bills hand to over pay or deal him becuase he played that inconsistently all season.

You mean the running game that looked pretty ineffective until the last 1/3 of the season and still only shined in a handful of games


I would rather us keep Peters, but only if he is going to be a good boy take a fair incentive laden deal and not threaten to hold out as the deal is being worked. BUT if he thinks he is a top 5 LT and wants to be paid 10 million a year without incentives earned then adios amigos... Top 5 LT's are consistenlty dominant and don't give up 10 sacks a season nor do they hold out of OTA's and training camp after siging an extension which included a significant raise the year before...

[Jan Reimers]

Re: I'll say it again, I would rather have Jason Peters then....

I don't want him traded. We have too many other holes and don't need to create another.

That's how I feel about all of these threads to release, trade or not re-sign any of our decent players, be it Peters, Dockery, Crowell or a handful of others that are constantly mentioned.