Don't get me wrong. I don't disagree that he's got some "above average" years ahead of him. And all things being equal, I would have loved to have kept him. The problem is that those "above average" years in Peterson's case aren't at 5-6M/year, they're at $6.5 million (2009), $7.5 million (2010), $8.0 million (2011) and $8.5 million (2012). Those are "superstar" dollars. If Peterson won't take a pay cut, do you jeopardize the chance to sign an up & comer like Hill who is only 26 so that you can keep Peterson one more year despite declining production? I think the Hill contract situation forces them to make a decision on Peterson and although it's a bummer, I think they made the right one (provided they get Hill signed long term).
And not to get into any statistical hair splitting but Peterson actually wasn't our most productive LB last year. Hill was. Hill had 84 tackles in 12 games (7 per game) while Peterson had 86 in 16 games (5.4 per game). Hill suffered an injury that made him miss four games. All that said, Peterson is still a very good LB and a very nice situational DE. I wouldn't have minded having him for another year at $6.5M. But what happens next year when his cap number goes to $7.5M and his production doesn't exceed last year's? Is anyone going to give you a starting DT and a 5th round pick or will he be released with no return like so many other "once upon a time" stars did this year? Would have loved to still had JP around but I don't blame them for letting him go while he still had decent trade value.
