Malazan Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 (edited) The defense looks worlds better and he's not playing so he's not exactly an integral part. Edited September 19, 2013 by jeremy2020
3rdand12 Posted September 19, 2013 Posted September 19, 2013 The defense looks worlds better and he's not playing so he's not exactly an integral part. it does. But would it not look even MORE worlds better with him ? I think it might've before the grapes soured. I think he would have had a hell of a lot of fun on the way to a significant season . both for him and the team. shame. all caused by achy feet
atlbillsfan1975 Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 The defense looks worlds better and he's not playing so he's not exactly an integral part. With Byrd and Gilmore in the backfield along with what McKelvin and Williams are playing like, this D just got nasty good. Take into consideration the Mario, K. Williams and Dareus look inspired and healthy. Kiko looks like he is progressing well. I think Searcy plays the rover role good. This could be a 'Ravens' type D.
Donszar Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 It's not that awful. uh, yes it is that awful.
Dorkington Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 People get all bent out of shape about things that are really quite simple. Byrd has a legit injury. He doesn't want to play with it and risk further injury with a one year contract. If he was under contract for a longer period of time I'm guessing he'd likely tough it out since he has the security of a long term deal. Since he doesn't have that security he's not taking the risk. It's not a conspiracy or some whiny wimp who is pouting. He's simply doing what he thinks is in his best interest and he's not going to risk his future earning potential without a security blanket. I'm sure most intelligent people would make the same choice if they were in his shoes. This. It's basically common sense at this point, but for whatever reason it's a big debate.
FitzShowUsYourTitz Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 C'mon. seriously now. I get that football is a business and I am 98% of the time on the player's side, but let's be real. If he would have signed a 100 million contract, do you think he would be coming down with PF? He IS getting paid every bit of his contract even if he does NOT play. That is in the new CBA for Franchise Players. How PO'd would the FO and all of us be if he signed a huge contract and then claimed he's had PF for-ever?? C'mon now. It's a business. Looks who his agent is. His agent is an expert at working the system. The Bills.... and us are being worked. Pretty simple. The Bills played their hand and now Tyrd is playing his, Let's not kid ourselves. Go Bills!
BuffaloBob Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 If the Browns can get a first for Richardson we should be bale to get a first for a pro bowl safety. Ummm, Richardson has a bunch of years left on his contract. Byrd would be playing on a one year deal that can't be extended until after the off-season. Do ya see why that is different? In case you can't, it means that after playing out the one year deal, he is free to go anywhere else. So let's say your a GM and you're dumb enough to give up a first round draft choice to get him for the rest of this season, and he walks. How happy is your fan base going to be when you have no first round draft choice, AND Byrd is now playing for your division rival. Hmmmmmmm.
bbb Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 This. It's basically common sense at this point, but for whatever reason it's a big debate. So, do you think it's cool to take nearly $7M to not play until your 100% in a league where nobody is 100%?
BUNCH OF MULARKEY Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Like most of you I think it's pretty much bs that Byrd hasn't sucked it up and got on the field. That being said, Doug has repeatedly defended him as far as Byrd working to get back and being with the program. From what I see from coach, if he wasn't pleased with Byrd, I just don't see him sugar coating it for the media. I think its possible that Byrd plays Sunday, and neither us nor the jets will know till then.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Ninety-nine percent of this thread is no different from the many lengthy Byrd discussions we've had before going back to the offseason. However below is a very under-discussed aspect, IMO: Plus you ignore the apparent fact the Byrd was hiding an injury. PTR i also do not think you can present as fact that he was hiding an injury that the bills treated him for just last year. Had the Bills given into Byrd's demands, would he be playing football right now? Let's say for the sake of discussion that Byrd truly can't play due to the PF: On one hand I wouldn't expect Byrd/Parker to sacrifice leverage by publicly disclosing that Byrd was medically unable to play/practice. On the other hand it's unlikely that the Bills knew or thought that Byrd was unable to play/practice based on the fact that he played through the condition last year and had a whole offseason to treat and rest his feet. So we're left with: 1) Byrd truly can't play and thus he and Parker were hiding the severity of the PF. 2) Byrd's condition is no worse than last year but he refuses to play on it without a long-term contract. The two above possibilities can be viewed: 1) From a strict business/legal perspective. 2) From a philosophical/moral/ethical perspective.
bbb Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Ninety-nine percent of this thread is no different from the many lengthy Byrd discussions we've had before going back to the offseason. However below is a very under-discussed aspect, IMO: Let's say for the sake of discussion that Byrd truly can't play due to the PF: On one hand I wouldn't expect Byrd/Parker to sacrifice leverage by publicly disclosing that Byrd was medically unable to play/practice. On the other hand it's unlikely that the Bills knew or thought that Byrd was unable to play/practice based on the fact that he played through the condition last year and had a whole offseason to treat and rest his feet. So we're left with: 1) Byrd truly can't play and thus he and Parker were hiding the severity of the PF. 2) Byrd's condition is no worse than last year but he refuses to play on it without a long-term contract. The two above possibilities can be viewed: 1) From a strict business/legal perspective. 2) From a philosophical/moral/ethical perspective. Bingo - and he'll gladly cash $7M worth of checks!
Dragonborn10 Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 I juat don't see Marrone defending the guy if the injury was not legit. What is in it for Marrone to do that? If he though the guy could and should play he would call him out or make him dress. If they didn't think he could help the team they cold put him on IR and still franchise him again next year. I see little upside for Byrd not playing. If he wants out then he and his agent need to orchestrate a trade with a willing partner. No one will give up a high pick for a guy who isn't playing. The only upside is avoiding injury. There certainly is merit in that agruement if he could not be franchised again next year.
Nanker Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Bingo - and he'll gladly cash $7M worth of checks! And next year 120% of that to boot. Parker can justify it as "back wages" for his previously "underpaid-overperforming" player. However, if that happens, and Byrd continues to milk his condition, it's highly unlikely that he'll make more in the end than if he and Parker negotiated in good faith with The Bills. I think The Bills were willing to go only so far in their offer to him knowing that he had a PF condition. That just wasn't good enough for Parker who evidently thinks an injured player should be given every penny that his agent demands. Damaged goods. That's what Byrd is at this point, and not just to The Bills if he continues this charade much longer. The entire League can see what's going on. Sure, some jackazz team owner will pay him a gazillion dollars and he'll cash in with the guaranteed money - just like he's cashing in this year and likely next - for doing nothing. My hope is that if this does play out in this manner, that he gets cut in the third year of his next contract when he's due to get $20million - and he ends up getting ****. I juat don't see Marrone defending the guy if the injury was not legit. What is in it for Marrone to do that? The company line is that they want Byrd here long term. Why would a coach alienate a disgruntled player AND the FO by calling him out in the media? Marrone probably does want him on his team. He is a good player and better than what they have right now. But don't confuse his soft-pedaling the issue is evidence that he's buying into Byrd's horse ****.
Captain Caveman Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Would be nice if Jairus or his agent make a statement to clarify the position. Is he prepared to play through the pain for the team that is paying him $400k+ every match day. You mean in addition to this? http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9638820/jairus-byrd-buffalo-bills-questions-report-requested-trade
K-9 Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 ... The company line is that they want Byrd here long term. Why would a coach alienate a disgruntled player AND the FO by calling him out in the media? Marrone probably does want him on his team. He is a good player and better than what they have right now. But don't confuse his soft-pedaling the issue is evidence that he's buying into Byrd's horse ****. Agree with all of this. Marrone has walked the walk and as an OLineman to boot. He knows what it's like to play with pain vs. injury. GO BILLS!!!
Mickey Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 And substantially lower his value. That would teach me a lesson. That's for sure. How would that lower his value if he passes a team's physical? Seems to me he would have made a ton of money, not risked injury while playing without a long term contract and also not risked playing poorly. He would be negotiating with teams as a healthy safety with top notch stats and a year's worth of rest. People around here might not think much of Byrd right now but GM's from other teams are not a bunch of Buffalo homers like we are.
papazoid Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 "if" Marrone ever called out Tyrd for "not playing hurt" or "faking it"...it would be the end of Tyrd in Buffalo. they would NEVER be able to sign him long term after that.
Kemp2Warlick Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) Buffalo Bills @buffalobills28s S Jairus Byrd and OL Doug Legursky are questionable for Sunday. #BUFvsNYJ.. Joe Buscaglia @JoeBuscaglia 2m Byrd and Legursky will both be making the trip. Both are questionable. #Bills Edited September 20, 2013 by Kemp2Warlick
The Big Cat Posted September 20, 2013 Posted September 20, 2013 Buffalo Bills @buffalobills28s S Jairus Byrd and OL Doug Legursky are questionable for Sunday. #BUFvsNYJ.. Joe Buscaglia @JoeBuscaglia 2m Byrd and Legursky will both be making the trip. Both are questionable. #Bills Up from "questionable"
Recommended Posts