Eagles near a deal for Peters, Giants close on Edwards

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:44 pm

The Giants are about to fill their biggest need, the Eagles are about to improve their already terrific offensive line...

What are the Redskins doing? Messing with Jason Campbell's head? Contemplating a trade up in the draft for Sanchez? Losing out on mid level free agents for the defensive line? Getting older?

It doesn't look good. The Redskins are looking at another last place finish IMO.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:39 pm

Peters is a done deal. Great move for the Eagles.

The Eagles have acquired Pro Bowl left tackle Jason Peters from the Bills for the 28th overall pick in next week's draft, FOXSports.com has learned.
Buffalo will also receive a second-day pick in this year's draft, as well as a late-round pick in the 2010 draft.

Peters held out before the start of the 2008 season, missing Buffalo's entire training camp and all four of the team's preseason games. Peters ended his holdout before the regular season began with the Bills never giving in to his contract demands.

Peters, 27, has made the Pro Bowl the last two seasons, and was an All-Pro selection in 2007.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9466866/Sources:-Eagles-trade-for-Bills-Pro-Bowl-LT-Peters

broomboy · Post by **broomboy** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:30 pm

Great trade for the eagles *sigh* we should have been in on this , peters is a proven BEAST! and young...

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:59 pm

broomboy wrote:Great trade for the eagles *sigh* we should have been in on this , peters is a proven BEAST! and young...

Yeah, let's trade our #13... Let's not have ANY first day picks...

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:00 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:
broomboy wrote:Great trade for the eagles *sigh* we should have been in on this , peters is a proven BEAST! and young...

Yeah, let's trade our #13... Let's not have ANY first day picks...

I'm not saying that we should have traded for Peters, but do you consider the 13th overall pick (that we are likely to spend on an olineman) to be more valuable than a pro-bowl left tackle that is only 27 years old?

broomboy · Post by **broomboy** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:06 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
broomboy wrote:Great trade for the eagles *sigh* we should have been in on this , peters is a proven BEAST! and young...

Yeah, let's trade our #13... Let's not have ANY first day picks...

I'm not saying that we should have traded for Peters, but do you consider the 13th overall pick (that we are likely to spend on an o lineman) to be more valuable than a pro-bowl left tackle that is only 27 years old?

Exactly my point, why not trade our first (which most people agree needs to be used on a tackle) for a proven young stud who happens to be a tackle? It seems obvious that its a better deal... peters is one of the best young tackles in the game, I would have pulled the trigger in a heart beat. Would you rather gamble with the 13th pick or you pick up a known commodity?

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:54 pm

Hold on a second fellas, there's other angles of comprehension needed before you simply say the Skins were wrong not to go after Peters. First of all, how do you know the Skins didn't make an inquiry? I'll bet they did. But Peters is a Pro Bowl left tackle... we already have a Pro Bowl left tackle. With Peters big ego and for the money he wants, I'm not sure he would agree to move to right tackle.

Philly gave up 3 draft picks for Peters, including their 28th overall 1st round pick. Peters was causing a major headache in Buffalo because he wanted a new contract. It was becoming such a distraction, it was reported today on NFL Live that many of Peters teammates were becoming completely annoyed with him, and Peters was never all that popular in the locker room to begin with.

Peters wants a new deal, so perhaps there are cap considerations and restraints with the Skins. Peters is already scheduled to make a base salary of $7.2 million over the final two years of his contract, and he's been holding out and causing disruption because he wants more money than that.

Peters is a good player, no doubt, but for the Skins to give up 3 draft picks and have to sign him to a huge contract right now seems like a lot.

What's curios though, the Bills wanted to trade Peters because he was becoming a distraction. Yet just a few weeks ago, the Bills signed the leagues biggest distraction there is. I guess T.O. didn't want competition in the distraction department.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:22 pm

I'm not saying it was the wrong move for us not to get him, or anything like that. (Others seem to be.)

What I am saying is that our competition is making moves to improve and IMO leaving us in the dust. Some smart drafting, and intelligent management next season ought to go a long way but I just don't see how the Skins are going to get themselves ouf of the basement next season and if they don't get out of the basement I don't see how Jason Campbell or Zorn come back... and then we're right back to where we started when Schottenheimer left. This team hasn't really moved an inch in years.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:02 pm

Skinsfan55 wrote:What I am saying is that our competition is making moves to improve and IMO leaving us in the dust.

Wait. Didn't the Redskins just sign a player to the largest contract for a defensive player in history? Didn't the Redskins also sign a new LG? Are those not moves to improve the team?

Are you actually complaining that the Redskins are NOT trading away their draft picks?

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:18 pm

PulpExposure wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:What I am saying is that our competition is making moves to improve and IMO leaving us in the dust.

Wait. Didn't the Redskins just sign a player to the largest contract for a defensive player in history? Didn't the Redskins also sign a new LG? Are those not moves to improve the team?

Are you actually complaining that the Redskins are NOT trading away their draft picks?

Beyond that, a team picking up a monster DT would tend to make other teams in the same Division want to beef up their O-lines, donchathink? When you have to double up in the middle, your Tackles better be able to work without help... Seems to me, the Peters hiring is, at least in part, a response to moves made by the Redskins.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:40 pm

PulpExposure wrote:
Skinsfan55 wrote:What I am saying is that our competition is making moves to improve and IMO leaving us in the dust.

Wait. Didn't the Redskins just sign a player to the largest contract for a defensive player in history? Didn't the Redskins also sign a new LG? Are those not moves to improve the team?

Are you actually complaining that the Redskins are NOT trading away their draft picks?

Classic.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:25 pm

We must trade all of our draft picks to stock our depth chart with young, rising stars. . .but we must also keep all of our picks to get quality, young depth. It's simple math and a tragedy that the FO has never picked up on this SIMPLE secret to success.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:50 am

The Eagles gave up 3 draft picks for Peters and will be paying him $60 million over the next six years, making him the 2nd highest paid offensive lineman in the league (Jake Long has a five-year, $57.5 million contract).

The media has said the Eagles made a good trade. Hmm...

If the Redskins had made the exact same trade, the fans and media would've been in an uproar, saying that this is just Snyder being Snyder... trying to make the offseason splash, trying to buy a championship, stupid for trading away draft picks, not building through the draft and overpaying for another teams disgruntled player.

On one day, they're screaming that we're stupid for trading away draft picks and not building through the draft, like the great teams in this league do. The next day they're screaming that the FO was stupid for NOT trading away our draft picks and are concluding that we got screwed.

Just think about it... in the last week alone, we could have given up three 1st round draft picks, three mid-round draft picks and Jason Campbell for Cutler, Peters and about another $125 million more in salaries. Geez... our FO is so foolish at times.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 11:10 am

Irn-Bru wrote:We must trade all of our draft picks to stock our depth chart with young, rising stars. . .but we must also keep all of our picks to get quality, young depth. It's simple math and a tragedy that the FO has never picked up on this SIMPLE secret to success.

Simply the most brilliant statement EVER! =D>

MDSKINSFAN · Post by **MDSKINSFAN** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 12:11 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:The Eagles gave up 3 draft picks for Peters and will be paying him $60 million over the next six years, making him the 2nd highest paid offensive lineman in the league (Jake Long has a five-year, $57.5 million contract).

The media has said the Eagles made a good trade. Hmm...

If the Redskins had made the exact same trade, the fans and media would've been in an uproar, saying that this is just Snyder being Snyder... trying to make the offseason splash, trying to buy a championship, stupid for trading away draft picks, not building through the draft and overpaying for another teams disgruntled player.

On one day, they're screaming that we're stupid for trading away draft picks and not building through the draft, like the great teams in this league do. The next day they're screaming that the FO was stupid for NOT trading away our draft picks and are concluding that we got screwed.

Just think about it... in the last week alone, we could have given up three 1st round draft picks, three mid-round draft picks and Jason Campbell for Cutler, Peters and about another $125 million more in salaries. Geez... our FO is so foolish at times.

Exactly, if we had made the deal the Eagles made we would have been ripped by the media. And if we would have made the deal that the Bears made for Cutler Snyder would have been criticized by the media, but when the bears do it it's a heck of a trade. If we were to trade for Edwards they would criticize us for getting a WR that drops a lot of balls, but when it is rumored the Giants will get him, the media says O he will return to 2007 form on the Giants team. :roll:

The only one one of these trades that really hurts is Peters to the Eagles. He is a great OL filling a gap on a team that was already a NFC championship game team. The Giants can go ahead and get Edwards; Who is to say that he won't keep dropping balls? Just because a good team goes out and gets him it doesn't mean he will magically get better hands like the media is making it out to be because he could be going to the Giants. Let's see if he can catch with Chris Horton or Laron Landry running at him.

HEROHAMO · Post by **HEROHAMO** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 2:08 pm

Hello!

Snyder has a history of making bad moves. That is why we get scrutinized.

The Eagles on the other hand have drafted well. They have also been pretty stingy with who they give money to. Just this off season there was talk of Mcnabb being traded. There franchise QB. But, they rectified the situation and resigned Mcnabb.

As far as the FO goes. The Eagles have us beat by a mile. Come on guys. Why even argue this. The proof is in the pudding

The Eagles have been to what? 4 or 5 NFC Championship games in the last ten years. How many has our team have? Lets just drop this subject because it is foolish. :lol:

The media rips Snyder because he deserves it. Until he proves otherwise it wont stop.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:33 pm

IMO there are the team to beat in the East this year...I thought that before this move. Keep in mind the Eagles still have a first round pick, so they could afford it. They will most likely add a RB to compliment Westbrook

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:58 pm

DEHog wrote:IMO there are the team to beat in the East this year...I thought that before this move. Keep in mind the Eagles still have a first round pick, so they could afford it. They will most likely add a RB to compliment Westbrook

I agree they could be the team to beat, but didn't we sweep this team last year?

The fact is that the Eagles needed to make this move... and yes, having two 1st round picks made the trade easier. But they've lost their two starting tackles this offseason (Tra Thomas and John Runyan), as well as their starting TE, a starting RB, two safeties including Dawkins, traded away CB Lito Shepard and WR Greg Lewis, and McNabb still doesn't have a legit #1 WR. They have many holes to fill.

I can't help going back to what Countertrey previously said. Having lost both starting OT's, when a divisional opponent signs a monster DT, arguably one of the best in the league, you better beef up your o-line knowing you're going to face that monster twice a year.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:20 pm

HEROHAMO wrote:The Eagles on the other hand have drafted well. They have also been pretty stingy with who they give money to. Just this off season there was talk of Mcnabb being traded. There franchise QB. But, they rectified the situation and resigned Mcnabb.

They didn't resign McNabb, they just didn't trade him. He's still under contract until after the 2010 season.

The trade for Peters, just considering the draft picks, is a very good trade for the Eagles. The kicker is the fact that Peters is getting a seriously monstrous contract, for a guy who didn't play all that well for them last year (but was great for them in 2007). Yes, yes, I know he was in the Pro Bowl, but we all know that doesn't mean a whole lot (see London Fletcher, zero pro bowls).

The big issue with the Eagles is that they lost the heart and soul of their team in the offseason. Dawkins was getting older, but his play elevated immensely for them at the end of the year last year (coincidentally when their defense started playing better), and more importantly, has shown great leadership for that team.

It may be possible to replace his play on the field; it will be impossible for the Eagles to replace his leadership. It's a big loss.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:35 pm

PulpExposure wrote:
HEROHAMO wrote:The Eagles on the other hand have drafted well. They have also been pretty stingy with who they give money to. Just this off season there was talk of Mcnabb being traded. There franchise QB. But, they rectified the situation and resigned Mcnabb.

They didn't resign McNabb, they just didn't trade him. He's still under contract until after the 2010 season.

The trade for Peters, just considering the draft picks, is a very good trade for the Eagles. The kicker is the fact that Peters is getting a seriously monstrous contract, for a guy who didn't play all that well for them last year (but was great for them in 2007). Yes, yes, I know he was in the Pro Bowl, but we all know that doesn't mean a whole lot (see London Fletcher, zero pro bowls).

The big issue with the Eagles is that they lost the heart and soul of their team in the offseason. Dawkins was getting older, but his play elevated immensely for them at the end of the year last year (coincidentally when their defense started playing better), and more importantly, has shown great leadership for that team.

It may be possible to replace his play on the field; it will be impossible for the Eagles to replace his leadership. It's a big loss.

I still think that on field performance, Buckhalter is in the running for the largest loss for the Eagles. He may not be a starters, but he is crucial to their success.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:41 pm

VetSkinsFan wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
HEROHAMO wrote:The Eagles on the other hand have drafted well. They have also been pretty stingy with who they give money to. Just this off season there was talk of Mcnabb being traded. There franchise QB. But, they rectified the situation and resigned Mcnabb.

They didn't resign McNabb, they just didn't trade him. He's still under contract until after the 2010 season.

The trade for Peters, just considering the draft picks, is a very good trade for the Eagles. The kicker is the fact that Peters is getting a seriously monstrous contract, for a guy who didn't play all that well for them last year (but was great for them in 2007). Yes, yes, I know he was in the Pro Bowl, but we all know that doesn't mean a whole lot (see London Fletcher, zero pro bowls).

The big issue with the Eagles is that they lost the heart and soul of their team in the offseason. Dawkins was getting older, but his play elevated immensely for them at the end of the year last year (coincidentally when their defense started playing better), and more importantly, has shown great leadership for that team.

It may be possible to replace his play on the field; it will be impossible for the Eagles to replace his leadership. It's a big loss.

I still think that on field performance, Buckhalter is in the running for the largest loss for the Eagles. He may not be a starters, but he is crucial to their success.

He was good for them last year, but he's been completely undependable over his career (lots and lots of injuries). He's replaceable, really. If they actually draft a RB with any size, which they apparently hate doing.

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Sat Apr 18, 2009 8:43 pm

PulpExposure wrote:
VetSkinsFan wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
HEROHAMO wrote:The Eagles on the other hand have drafted well. They have also been pretty stingy with who they give money to. Just this off season there was talk of Mcnabb being traded. There franchise QB. But, they rectified the situation and resigned Mcnabb.

They didn't resign McNabb, they just didn't trade him. He's still under contract until after the 2010 season.

The trade for Peters, just considering the draft picks, is a very good trade for the Eagles. The kicker is the fact that Peters is getting a seriously monstrous contract, for a guy who didn't play all that well for them last year (but was great for them in 2007). Yes, yes, I know he was in the Pro Bowl, but we all know that doesn't mean a whole lot (see London Fletcher, zero pro bowls).

The big issue with the Eagles is that they lost the heart and soul of their team in the offseason. Dawkins was getting older, but his play elevated immensely for them at the end of the year last year (coincidentally when their defense started playing better), and more importantly, has shown great leadership for that team.

It may be possible to replace his play on the field; it will be impossible for the Eagles to replace his leadership. It's a big loss.

I still think that on field performance, Buckhalter is in the running for the largest loss for the Eagles. He may not be a starters, but he is crucial to their success.

He was good for them last year, but he's been completely undependable over his career (lots and lots of injuries). He's replaceable, really. If they actually draft a RB with any size, which they apparently hate doing.

Westbrook needs someone to spell him. Buckhalter did that well.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:33 am

SkinsFreak wrote:
DEHog wrote:IMO there are the team to beat in the East this year...I thought that before this move. Keep in mind the Eagles still have a first round pick, so they could afford it. They will most likely add a RB to compliment Westbrook

I agree they could be the team to beat, but didn't we sweep this team last year?

The fact is that the Eagles needed to make this move... and yes, having two 1st round picks made the trade easier. But they've lost their two starting tackles this offseason (Tra Thomas and John Runyan), as well as their starting TE, a starting RB, two safeties including Dawkins, traded away CB Lito Shepard and WR Greg Lewis, and McNabb still doesn't have a legit #1 WR. They have many holes to fill.

I can't help going back to what Countertrey previously said. Having lost both starting OT's, when a divisional opponent signs a monster DT, arguably one of the best in the league, you better beef up your o-line knowing you're going to face that monster twice a year.

Are you saying Andrews, Peters and Schobel are not an udgrade to Thomas Runyan and Smith??

They didn't lose a starting back??

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:37 am

SkinsFreak wrote:The Eagles gave up 3 draft picks for Peters and will be paying him $60 million over the next six years, making him the 2nd highest paid offensive lineman in the league (Jake Long has a five-year, $57.5 million contract).

Is a Redskins fan actually complaining about another team "overpaying" a player :shock:

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:32 am

DEHog wrote:
SkinsFreak wrote:The Eagles gave up 3 draft picks for Peters and will be paying him $60 million over the next six years, making him the 2nd highest paid offensive lineman in the league (Jake Long has a five-year, $57.5 million contract).

Is a Redskins fan actually complaining about another team "overpaying" a player

Complaining? No... and not sure how you came to that conclusion.