Former Bills Players look good, so what?

[Forward_Lateral]

Be happy for them (except Peters, who looked like crap anyways).

What's the point of bringing it up, though? Fletcher has looked real good in Washington. Winfield is a stud in Minny. Nate Clements looks pretty good in San Fran. The list goes on and on. It happens. Get over it.

[BAM]

Some people just aren't familiar with the free agency era, which began a long time ago. They'll catch up.

[SABURZFAN]

i see Williams and Winfield up in Minnesota and just frown about how inept the upper echelon in this organization is. Fletcher is still playing great football in Washington and i feel like throwing up when i think about how they let him go. i enjoyed watching these players when they played in Buffalo. i don't wish for them not to succeed. watching them kick ass only cements my idea of how cheap the Old Fart is and the people he has in charge know nothing more about football than i do.

[Forward_Lateral]

AT the time, almost everyone, myself included, agreed with letting these players go.

[SABURZFAN]

Some people just aren't familiar with the free agency era, which began a long time ago. They'll catch up.


it just makes me sick how they shell out the big contracts to the duds like Fina, Schobel, and Denney and not give it to the studs like Williams, Winfield, and Fletcher.

[ddaryl]

I'm more upset with the fact that we did let Winfield, and Pat Williams go

Clements was overpaid, but the BIlls could of locked him down in advance for less.

Peters heldo out and pissed on the fans and th eorganization IMO... So he is the only one out of our recent group of last players that I have a distate for

[Forward_Lateral]

In fairness, if they kept Winfield, they probably wouldn't have Mcgee right now. If they kept Fletcher, they likely wouldn't have Poz, and if they kept Williams, they probably wouldn't have Stroud.

[Forward_Lateral]

OK, maybe the Stroud thing is reaching a bit, but the other 2 I'm fairly certain are true.

[SABURZFAN]

AT the time, almost everyone, myself included, agreed with letting these players go.


it's not even about what people think on this board. it's the continued duds that they sign to the big contracts and they never fulfill what is expected of them. that's one of the most frustrating part about being a fan.

[Forward_Lateral]

it's not even about what people think on this board. it's the continued duds that they sign to the big contracts and they never fulfill what is expected of them. that's one of the most frustrating part about being a fan.

I agree 100% with you. I'm just saying, I'm tired of people living in the past.

[SABURZFAN]

In fairness, if they kept Winfield, they probably wouldn't have Mcgee right now. If they kept Fletcher, they likely wouldn't have Poz, and if they kept Williams, they probably wouldn't have Stroud.


maybe the FO would have had their head out of their asses too and address areas that needed to be addressed. like i said.... MAYBE!!!!!

[SABURZFAN]

I agree 100% with you. I'm just saying, I'm tired of people living in the past.


i understand where you were going with this thread but i was just expressing my frustrations out loud.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Fletcher looked great in Washington?

Are you saying that because of his stats or did you watch him play on Sunday?

I watched him play and saw a lot of the same things that a lot of folks criticized him for when he was with the Bills: making tackles 4-5 yards downfield and not being able to cover his man in pass coverage.

He was the guy that was beaten on both of Kevin Boss' big receptions that I saw and at least a couple of Steve Smith's catches came in the middle of the zone between the safety and MLB.

Don't get me wrong. Fletcher is still a decent player. He puts up great numbers. But, he is better in fantasy football than he is on the field. With Albert Haynesworth and Phillip Daniels (they both played well, although Haynesworth screwed up on a couple of plays, including getting a big offsides call against him) in front of him, a true stud MLB should be making tackles in the backfield or at the line of scrimmage all of the time, but the Giants were able to run the ball effectively.

Pat Williams and Winfield, different story. The Bills never should have let Pat Williams go and they know it. But, that was Donahoe's call all the way.

[Forward_Lateral]

I didn't watch the entire Giants Washington game, but when I did, London looked pretty good.

I'll admit, between falling asleep during the late games, and watching the Cards vs Niners, I didn't see much of the other 2 games.

[Jan Reimers]

It's actually a pretty short list, and I'm just as happy with our current starting CBs and Poz at MLB. Williams was a mistake, but every team let's a few guys go who they shouldn't.

I'm more disappointed in some of our draft picks, e.g., Whitner over Ngata, than in our FA losses.

[Forward_Lateral]

It's actually a pretty short list, and I'm just as happy with our current starting CBs and Poz at MLB. Williams was a mistake, but every team let's a few guys go who they shouldn't.

I'm more disappointed in some of our draft picks, e.g., Whitner over Ngata, than in our FA losses.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The Bills' day 1 picks (especially 1st rounders) have been pretty stupid in the past. They seem to be pretty good at finding mid-to-late round gems, but they may as well have traded their first round picks away, lately.

[SABURZFAN]

Fletcher looked great in Washington?

Are you saying that because of his stats or did you watch him play on Sunday?

I watched him play and saw a lot of the same things that a lot of folks criticized him for when he was with the Bills: making tackles 4-5 yards downfield and not being able to cover his man in pass coverage.

He was the guy that was beaten on both of Kevin Boss' big receptions that I saw and at least a couple of Steve Smith's catches came in the middle of the zone between the safety and MLB.

Don't get me wrong. Fletcher is still a decent player. He puts up great numbers. But, he is better in fantasy football than he is on the field. With Albert Haynesworth and Phillip Daniels (they both played well, although Haynesworth screwed up on a couple of plays, including getting a big offsides call against him) in front of him, a true stud MLB should be making tackles in the backfield or at the line of scrimmage all of the time, but the Giants were able to run the ball effectively.

Pat Williams and Winfield, different story. The Bills never should have let Pat Williams go and they know it. But, that was Donahoe's call all the way.


i didn't see the Washington game yesterday so i can't comment on his play. the past couple of years, he's been a great leader for that Washington defense. he has made people around him better players. sure, he's getting up there in age and losing a step, but the Bills defense has lacked that veteran leadership they needed badly the years he wasn't here. that's what i was trying to get at.

[Canadian'eh!]

Meh... I still disagree with a lot of the decisions made.

alienating Takeo (who's not great now, but still). Cutting Fletcher. Letting Clements and Winfield walk. Pat Williams.

Had we kept these guys we wouldn't have McKelvin (McGee we already had...), and we COULD have used the McKelvin pick on something else.

Some dead weight is a nice loss. Liek travis Henry and Willis McGahee. good riddence.

I'm not upset about Peters leaving either... screw him and his crap. I just wish we had tried harder to replace him.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

....it's the continued duds that they sign to the big contracts and they never fulfill what is expected of them.....

I read somewhere that that's one of the reasons that they decided not to give Peters the kind of money that Eugene Parker was asking for.

When Peters asked for them to renegotiate his contract, they were willing to do it, but they wanted him to "wait his turn". When he responded to that by holding out and, more importantly, showing up out of shape when he returned, all kind of alarm bells went off for the Bills and they began to worry that, if they gave him the big money, he wouldn't play up to previous standard or, if he did, he would hold out on them again to get an even bigger deal.

Then, when he wouldn't accept a deal that would be in the range of what Michael Roos got and kept insisting that he wanted to be paid more than Jake Long, they really got concerned. Given Eugene Parkers' history of holding players out (for example, he's Michael Crabtree's agent and has held others out as well) and the fact that Peters held out last year, they became really concerned about Peters. According to one report I read, there were some things that Peters said about the money he wanted and his previous holdout (if you recall, when he came back last year, he said some things about money that seemed odd) that really led them to question his motivation and what he would do if they gave him the money as well as what would happen if they didn't. And, that was when they decided that they would be better off trading him.

When Peters came to the Bills he was really motivated and said a lot of good things about the team. However, when he changed agents to Eugene Parker after he signed his contract extension, his attitude seemed to change entirely. As we all know, Peters isn't the brightest bulb on the tree--one of the reasons he went undrafted was his low Wonderlic score. Very often it is easy for someone to come along an influence a person who isn't that smart in a way that makes that person very devoted to him. After Parker became his agent, Peters started to approach money in a very different way than he did when he came to the Bills and did everything that Parker told him to do. I don't think that the way that the Bills treated Peters (or McNally, who Peters was devoted to) changed Peters. I think that Parker (and perhaps the absence of McNally on the coaching staff) changed Peters.

And, ultimately, at least from what I was able to read in various places, that was why the Bills decided that they had to part company with Peters--because they were afraid that, if they gave him the big bucks, this is precisely what would happen down the road.

[SABURZFAN]

I read somewhere that that's one of the reasons that they decided not to give Peters the kind of money that Eugene Parker was asking for.

When Peters asked for them to renegotiate his contract, they were willing to do it, but they wanted him to "wait his turn". When he responded to that by holding out and, more importantly, showing up out of shape when he returned, all kind of alarm bells went off for the Bills and they began to worry that, if they gave him the big money, he wouldn't play up to previous standard or, if he did, he would hold out on them again to get an even bigger deal.

Then, when he wouldn't accept a deal that would be in the range of what Michael Roos got and kept insisting that he wanted to be paid more than Jake Long, they really got concerned. Given Eugene Parkers' history of holding players out (for example, he's Michael Crabtree's agent and has held others out as well) and the fact that Peters held out last year, they became really concerned about Peters. According to one report I read, there were some things that Peters said about the money he wanted and his previous holdout (if you recall, when he came back last year, he said some things about money that seemed odd) that really led them to question his motivation and what he would do if they gave him the money as well as what would happen if they didn't. And, that was when they decided that they would be better off trading him.

When Peters came to the Bills he was really motivated and said a lot of good things about the team. However, when he changed agents to Eugene Parker after he signed his contract extension, his attitude seemed to change entirely. As we all know, Peters isn't the brightest bulb on the tree--one of the reasons he went undrafted was his low Wonderlic score. Very often it is easy for someone to come along an influence a person who isn't that smart in a way that makes that person very devoted to him. After Parker became his agent, Peters started to approach money in a very different way than he did when he came to the Bills and did everything that Parker told him to do. I don't think that the way that the Bills treated Peters (or McNally, who Peters was devoted to) changed Peters. I think that Parker (and perhaps the absence of McNally on the coaching staff) changed Peters.

And, ultimately, at least from what I was able to read in various places, that was why the Bills decided that they had to part company with Peters--because they were afraid that, if they gave him the big bucks, this is precisely what would happen down the road.


Peters wasn't one of those players i wanted around because of some of the things you touched on. (out of shape, holdout) however, one can't blame him for his argument about being paid more than Long. (that's where the NFL has to address rookie contracts but that's a different argument) he did make two consecutive Pro Bowls which makes his argument legit. people outside of Buffalo would agree for the most part, even though we (Buffalo fans) know better. i felt that the Bills FO made the right move by getting rid of him. the Eagles and their fans are going to find out that he won't be worth the contract he signed. i think Parker knows that too. that's why he made the stand he did with Buffalo's brass. his client gets a big payday and he gets his cut.