Jason Peters - Philadelphia Eagle

Started by mikey418, April 17, 2009, 01:43:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rome

LOL  Dude - it's the farging Buffalo Bills, not the Patriots, man.  They're as dysfunctional an organization as it gets in the NFL, so asking rationally why they would or wouldn't do something is like asking the same of the Raiders or taterskins.  A lot of teams in the NFL are run like shtein and the Bills definitely qualify in that regard. 

Hell, they signed a psychotic farger like Terrell Owens despite the bullshtein he's put three previous employers through.  Consider that and then tell me they're acting rationally.

shorebird

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 18, 2009, 09:29:13 PM
the complicated part is why wouldnt the bills pay a 27 year old tackle who was anywhere from the best LT in the league to an all out beast...depending on who you listen to

Who.................................friggen'........................cares?

ice grillin you

Quote from: shorebird on April 18, 2009, 09:34:47 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on April 18, 2009, 09:29:13 PM
the complicated part is why wouldnt the bills pay a 27 year old tackle who was anywhere from the best LT in the league to an all out beast...depending on who you listen to

Who.................................friggen'........................cares?

i do

you can have blind faith in every single move the eagles make but i will choose to evaluate with an open and inquisitive mind
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

shorebird

Blind faith?? NO.

And why would you care the reason for the Bills not offering Peters a deal? They didn't want him, plain and simple. They didn't want to go through what they went through last year when Peter's wasn't ready for the season opener because of holding out. Also, it was well known they would never come to an agreement because they considered his contract demands unrealistic. He's a pro bowl player, a monster run blocker. And as for the sacks, Edwards was sacked 35 times in the last two years. He's a friggen' statue.

The pros far, far outweigh the cons in this situation.

General_Failure

I was under the impression that the Bills did offer him a deal, and he refused it.

The man. The myth. The legend.

ice grillin you

Quote from: shorebird on April 18, 2009, 09:59:30 PM
Blind faith?? NO.

And why would you care the reason for the Bills not offering Peters a deal? They didn't want him, plain and simple. They didn't want to go through what they went through last year when Peter's wasn't ready for the season opener because of holding out.  


you keep saying this as if their only choices were to have him hold out or trade him...just say you have no idea why they traded a 27 year old all out beast of a lt...a position that is arguably other than qb the most important in the entire league
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

shorebird

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 18, 2009, 10:05:05 PM
Quote from: shorebird on April 18, 2009, 09:59:30 PM
Blind faith?? NO.

And why would you care the reason for the Bills not offering Peters a deal? They didn't want him, plain and simple. They didn't want to go through what they went through last year when Peter's wasn't ready for the season opener because of holding out.  


you keep saying this as if their only choices were to have him hold out or trade him...just say you have no idea why they traded a 27 year old all out beast of a lt...a position that is arguably other than qb the most important in the entire league

I've given' you numerous reasons as to why I think they traded him. YOU are the one who seems to have no idea, as is evident in your posts when you continually ask why, even after having been given' more than one reason.

ice grillin you

the ONLY reason youve given is that he wanted a new contract...but they have more than enough money to give him a new one

buffalo CHOSE to no keep him...thats a fact...im simply asking why they would do that?
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

shorebird

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 18, 2009, 10:18:47 PM
the ONLY reason youve given is that he wanted a new contract...but they have more than enough money to give him a new one

buffalo CHOSE to no keep him...thats a fact...im simply asking why they would do that?

Quote from: shorebird on April 18, 2009, 08:58:56 PM
They traded him because he was going to hold out and he's major pissed with his contract because he was the third highest paid lineman on the team dispite being it's only pro bowler.



Quote from: shorebird on April 18, 2009, 09:27:12 PM
Obviously they didn't want to deal with the media shtein storm that would come along with Peters holding out, and they didn't think he was worth the money he would want. But like I said before, who cares?

Quote from: shorebird on April 18, 2009, 09:59:30 PM
They didn't want him, plain and simple. They didn't want to go through what they went through last year when Peter's wasn't ready for the season opener because of holding out. Also, it was well known they would never come to an agreement because they considered his contract demands unrealistic.

Seabiscuit36

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 18, 2009, 10:18:47 PM
the ONLY reason youve given is that he wanted a new contract...but they have more than enough money to give him a new one

buffalo CHOSE to no keep him...thats a fact...im simply asking why they would do that?
from what i understand, Buffalo is in such dire straits that unless they went to a bank and got a loan, they could not afford Peters guaranteed contract.  They actually offered him more per year than what the eagles initial offer was, and he wanted to take the eagles offer.  I think it comes back to getting low balled, and the negative view from that(look at Lito). 
"For all the civic slurs, for all the unsavory things said of the Philadelphia fans, also say this: They could teach loyalty to a dog. Their capacity for pain is without limit." -Bill Lyons

ice grillin you

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on April 18, 2009, 10:30:48 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on April 18, 2009, 10:18:47 PM
the ONLY reason youve given is that he wanted a new contract...but they have more than enough money to give him a new one

buffalo CHOSE to no keep him...thats a fact...im simply asking why they would do that?
from what i understand, Buffalo is in such dire straits that unless they went to a bank and got a loan, they could not afford Peters guaranteed contract.  They actually offered him more per year than what the eagles initial offer was, and he wanted to take the eagles offer.  I think it comes back to getting low balled, and the negative view from that(look at Lito). 

such dire straights that they caked off a POS like TO?

lol look at birds post above yours.....haha

you guys are desperate to find ways this deal makes the eagles look like heroes and i dont know why
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

Seabiscuit36

and you are desperate to make the complete opposite call.  TO sells tickets period.  They had to move games to Toronto to sell games.  All i'm saying is what i heard via Sal Pal yesterday on DNL.  TO basically capped them out, and they had to let Peters walk, they offered him 9.5 per or and he wanted to keep talking to the eagles.  If you think i love this offseason you are very off in your read, how they farging let a legend like dawk walk for basically 3 million when they were over 40mm over the cap, means they wont get any respect. 
"For all the civic slurs, for all the unsavory things said of the Philadelphia fans, also say this: They could teach loyalty to a dog. Their capacity for pain is without limit." -Bill Lyons

shorebird

No one is trying desperatly to make anyone look like heroes. I think it's a great move, plain and simple. I think it makes the Eagles line one of if not the best in football, at least on paper.

And whats so funny about my post? I didn't have to come up with anything new to answer the same question you keep asking over and over.

OK, Now I think I know what you want to hear, I have no doubt that they didn't sign him because he gives up too many sacks. There.


Diomedes

what, another vigy vs. anyone who will argue with him session?  refreshing
There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." - Yosemite Park Ranger

shorebird

Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on April 18, 2009, 10:41:02 PM
and you are desperate to make the complete opposite call.  TO sells tickets period.  They had to move games to Toronto to sell games.  All i'm saying is what i heard via Sal Pal yesterday on DNL.  TO basically capped them out, and they had to let Peters walk, they offered him 9.5 per or and he wanted to keep talking to the eagles.  If you think i love this offseason you are very off in your read, how they farging let a legend like dawk walk for basically 3 million when they were over 40mm over the cap, means they wont get any respect. 

Exactly, they get no respect from me for a lot more reasons than just letting Darth go. But still, I will give them credit when I think they've made a good move like this one.

Igy is just being igy, argument for the sake of argument, and the Eagles, although one game away from a Superbowl last year losing a game he guaranteed they'd win, can do absolutly nothing right. Not to mention that he'll probably lay awake in bed tonight pondering the reason why Buffalo would trade Peters.