Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

[raphael120]

Jason Peters is NOT worth what he wants. We would be better served to get picks for him, unload his damn contract, and move on. Now if our o-line is HORRID next season, then fine, the Bills (again) ****ed it up. But would you really be surprised?

Jason Peters wants to be paid like the best LT in the league.

Newsflash...he's not the best LT in the league.

Trade his disgruntled ass. Bills played this right, they locked him up in the very beginning. Peters played this wrong.

[TacklingDummy]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

Watch the elite LT at work.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80d4ac83

Be prepared for the strength of schedule argument.

[OpIv37]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

Are you implying that Chambers is responsible for the 5-1 start and Peters is the reason we finished so poorly? If not, what's the point of this thread?

Don't forget that Peters DID play for the 3-1 portion of that 5-1 start.

This team has a LOT of holes that transcend left tackle- no doubt about that. But we already need 3 starters going into the draft- LG, DE, OLB. Do you REALLY want to add T into that mix? Do you REALLY trust this cluster**** of a FO to find TWO starting caliber offensive linemen in one draft? Do you REALLY think that the Bills will take any money they save from trading Peters and use it to bring in a quality player?

[raphael120]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

No dude, I'm just saying that we have been pathetic on offense with Peters. Isn't it pointless to have a stud LT if Edwards sucks? So we sign Peters to a massive contract and therefore forcing us to stay put on the rest of the roster and not sign another LB or whatever players become available after the draft?

Its damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Either scenario, it relies on the front office knowing what the hell its doing. And theyve proven they dont. The whole situation is frustrating, its like the Sabres. Blow them up to, they all suck.

[OpIv37]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

No dude, I'm just saying that we have been pathetic on offense with Peters. Isn't it pointless to have a stud LT if Edwards sucks? So we sign Peters to a massive contract and therefore forcing us to stay put on the rest of the roster and not sign another LB or whatever players become available after the draft?

Its damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Either scenario, it relies on the front office knowing what the hell its doing. And theyve proven they dont. The whole situation is frustrating, its like the Sabres. Blow them up to, they all suck.

I agree but you could apply that logic ad nauseum. Why sign TO when Edwards is shaky and we can't even protect him? Why re-sign Stroud when we have no DE's who can get to the QB or LB's who can fill the other gaps in the running game?

The FO doesn't seem to understand that the chain is only as strong as the weakest link, and we have a ****load of weak links.

[raphael120]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

I dunno, but I'll take a first round draft pick and whatever else picks we get (or player perhaps???) from the Eagles or whoever over a disgruntled JP that wants to be overpaid and rewarded for one of his worst seasons as an LT.

[Kenny]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

So what if he didnt start at the beginning? We played some the ****tiest teams in the league and still struggled... so what does that say?

[theanswer74]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

Edwards got the crap beat out of him the 1st 5-6 games.

The OL couldnt run block either.

[MikeInRoch]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

I feel this needs to be reiterated!

In other words, you admin that this thread is repetitive and should be tossed in the SPAM area. Thanks.

[raphael120]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

In other words, you admin that this thread is repetitive and should be tossed in the SPAM area. Thanks.

Your face should be tossed in SPAM

oo snap snap

get a grip dude

[Jan Reimers]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

I've said it often, but the paraphrase of Branch Rickey's words to Ralph Kiner still ring true: Jason, we went 7-9 three straight years with you, we can certainly go 7-9 without you.

[X-Era]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

Jason Peters is NOT worth what he wants. We would be better served to get picks for him, unload his damn contract, and move on. Now if our o-line is HORRID next season, then fine, the Bills (again) ****ed it up. But would you really be surprised?

Jason Peters wants to be paid like the best LT in the league.

Newsflash...he's not the best LT in the league.

Trade his disgruntled ass. Bills played this right, they locked him up in the very beginning. Peters played this wrong.

1) I was say again, for the gazillionth time, that no one knows what he wants... that was a unconfirmed rumor. No one also knows what the Bills offered.

2) Jason Peters would be better than a rookie or Chambers or Walker at LT next year IMO.

[dplus47]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

No dude, I'm just saying that we have been pathetic on offense with Peters. Isn't it pointless to have a stud LT if Edwards sucks? So we sign Peters to a massive contract and therefore forcing us to stay put on the rest of the roster and not sign another LB or whatever players become available after the draft?

are the bills that close to the cap? i was under the impression they had more room.

i get your post and i get your frustration, but:

by not signing peters, aren't the bills just creating more variables? if you know you have a good LT and you're still iffy on your QB, don't you just go ahead and lock up the good LT, so you have one of those on hand while looking for a good QB?

isn't that preferable to just throwing your hands in the air and saying "we're never going to be good?" i mean, it's cool for a fan to do that, but that's not a viable strategy for a FO.

IF AND ONLY IF it doesn't screw up the cap, the bills should pay peters and eliminate one more variable, which will make the bills' draft picks go toward filling other holes and improving the team, not getting the team back to where it was before they tried to prove a point to peters.

[X-Era]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

Are you implying that Chambers is responsible for the 5-1 start and Peters is the reason we finished so poorly? If not, what's the point of this thread?

Don't forget that Peters DID play for the 3-1 portion of that 5-1 start.

This team has a LOT of holes that transcend left tackle- no doubt about that. But we already need 3 starters going into the draft- LG, DE, OLB. Do you REALLY want to add T into that mix? Do you REALLY trust this cluster**** of a FO to find TWO starting caliber offensive linemen in one draft? Do you REALLY think that the Bills will take any money they save from trading Peters and use it to bring in a quality player?

If Peters gets traded, we will have a worse record than last year.

No way we can fill all those holes from the draft. It would have been nice for us to do more in free agency so that we weren't relying so heavily on filling holes from the draft, but the Bills chose not to got that route... Thats about as nice as I can say that.

[Night Train]

Re: Jason Peters Was Not the Starting LT for the Start of Our 5-1 Run

if you know you have a good LT and you're still iffy on your QB, don't you just go ahead and lock up the good LT, so you have one of those on hand while looking for a good QB?

You don't rubber stamp a 11-12 Mil a year contract for Peters, which is what his agent is holding him out for.

Then everyone else gets in line, wanting a new deal with 1-2 years left on theirs.

He's forcing a trade issue.