CodeMonkey Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) It's ironic that the longer Byrd sits due to his condition, the more he actually validates the Bills' side in the contract negotiations. Not saying Byrd is faking, just that his condition validates the Bills' decision to wait and see how this year plays out before paying above the tag value for his services. Bull ****. Negotiations failed and the Bills tagged him because they could. If Byrd is feigning injury or at least milking it, it is the card he could play so he did. This situation no how no way validates either side. IMO, Byrd is more concerned about self-preservation than he is about his teammates and helping his team on the field. Of course he is! This is his future and livlihood at stake. It is a business. The Bils are looking out only for their interests and Byrd is looking out for his. Why is that hard to understand? Man, homers make me crazy sometimes. Edited September 21, 2013 by CodeMonkey
San-O Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Bull ****. Negotiations failed and the Bills tagged him because they could. If Byrd is feigning injury or at least milking it, it is the card he could play so he did. This situation no how no way validates either side. Of course he is! This is his future and livlihood at stake. It is a business. The Bils are looking out only for their interests and Byrd is looking out for his. Why is that hard to understand? Man, homers make me crazy sometimes. This whole thing is doing nothing other than costing him money. $$$
peterlaw Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Call the police. The Buffalo Bills are being robbed of $421k every week. Is it robbery or is it fraud?
Special K Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 My take: Byrd wanted to be paid 9 million/yr, and he is being paid 7 mil/yr. Therefore, playing 12 games for 7mil will be equal to playing 16 games for 9 mil. So look for him to come back for the Thursday night game vs Cleveland. It's a prime time game, so he will get national attention, and he will have 10 days to recover before the next game.
bills44 Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Of course he is! This is his future and livlihood at stake. It is a business. The Bils are looking out only for their interests and Byrd is looking out for his. Why is that hard to understand? Man, homers make me crazy sometimes. Byrd can do whatever he pleases. I really don't care, as I'm a Bills fan, not a Byrd fan. I do think it's disingenuous of him to sign the franchise tender if he was suffering from plantar fasciitis, though. Kind of shows his true coIors, I think.
NoSaint Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Byrd can do whatever he pleases. I really don't care, as I'm a Bills fan, not a Byrd fan. I do think it's disingenuous of him to sign the franchise tender if he was suffering from plantar fasciitis, though. Kind of shows his true coIors, I think. The bills passed him on a physical knowing it was an issue. The bills could've withdrawn the offer at any point. Your saying Byrd should've sat unemployed, and not accrued a season while the bills held rights to him for free?
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) The bills passed him on a physical knowing it was an issue. The bills could've withdrawn the offer at any point. If the Bills withdrew the offer (I'm assuming you mean the franchise designation) wouldn't that make Byrd a free agent? A different question would be whether they could have failed his physical and filed some sort of action where they wouldn't have to pay him until he was able to play. That would be playing some serious hardball but I think it's still relevant to ask whether it was an avenue that the team could have pursued. Edited September 21, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Byrd can do whatever he pleases. I really don't care, as I'm a Bills fan, not a Byrd fan. I do think it's disingenuous of him to sign the franchise tender if he was suffering from plantar fasciitis, though. Kind of shows his true coIors, I think. He was treated for PF last season so it looks like the Bills were aware of this before using the franchise tag on him.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 He was treated for PF last season so it looks like the Bills were aware of this before using the franchise tag on him. Yes. However the difference being that Byrd played with the condition last year. That means that either the condition has gotten worse or . . . On a related point, because Byrd never reported and worked out with the team during the offseason, there might have been some cause for the Bills to believe that rest and rehab had alleviated or even eliminated the condition. Just some thoughts.
Not at the table Karlos Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 How bad does PF get? I have it in both feet and have had it for a while. It is only a problem for me when l get up in the morning. After that it's fine. I hope we franchise him again and trade him to Jacksonville.
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Yes. However the difference being that Byrd played with the condition last year. That means that either the condition has gotten worse or . . . On a related point, because Byrd never reported and worked out with the team during the offseason, there might have been some cause for the Bills to believe that rest and rehab had alleviated or even eliminated the condition. Just some thoughts. My personal opinion is that Byrd sucked it up last year in order to get his mega contract. Now that he didn't get that contract he is waiting until he is 100% in order to stay healthy enough to get that deal. Without knowing what was asked for/offered by either side I can't pass judgement on the Bills or Byrd. I also do not blame the Bills for wanting to see Byrd in the new defense before giving him a long term deal, I also do not blame Byrd for looking out for himself. This isn't the 1970's, football is big business and Byrd has played well enough to be paid as a top 5 player and maybe top 3.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 My personal opinion is that Byrd sucked it up last year in order to get his mega contract. Now that he didn't get that contract he is waiting until he is 100% in order to stay healthy enough to get that deal. Without knowing what was asked for/offered by either side I can't pass judgement on the Bills or Byrd. I also do not blame the Bills for wanting to see Byrd in the new defense before giving him a long term deal, I also do not blame Byrd for looking out for himself. This isn't the 1970's, football is big business and Byrd has played well enough to be paid as a top 5 player and maybe top 3. I agree wholeheartedly with your take. Honestly I feel emotionless about the Byrd situation understanding full well that this is a business impasse.
K-9 Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 So I'll ask again: was Whaley justified in asking for an extension of Byrd's roster exemption? In retrospect, I say yes. GO BILLS!!!
Meatloaf Sandwich Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Every play that is given up and would have been Byrd's guy I blame on Byrd. Yep I blame it on a guy who isn't playing
K-9 Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Every play that is given up and would have been Byrd's guy I blame on Byrd. Yep I blame it on a guy who isn't playing Does this assume Byrd makes all the plays that have been made, too? Does Byrd return that fumble like Searcy did, for instance? GO BILLS!!!
Meatloaf Sandwich Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) Does this assume Byrd makes all the plays that have been made, too? Does Byrd return that fumble like Searcy did, for instance? GO BILLS!!! No you only Blame the bad on a guy who isn't playing. You should know that. Edited September 21, 2013 by Meatloaf Sandwich
San-O Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 I agree wholeheartedly with your take. Honestly I feel emotionless about the Byrd situation understanding full well that this is a business impasse. We'll see how much this contract/holdout/injury issue hurts him for next year. After all, it's only business.
CodeMonkey Posted September 21, 2013 Posted September 21, 2013 Honestly I feel emotionless about the Byrd situation understanding full well that this is a business impasse. Exactly!
NoSaint Posted September 22, 2013 Posted September 22, 2013 If the Bills withdrew the offer (I'm assuming you mean the franchise designation) wouldn't that make Byrd a free agent? A different question would be whether they could have failed his physical and filed some sort of action where they wouldn't have to pay him until he was able to play. That would be playing some serious hardball but I think it's still relevant to ask whether it was an avenue that the team could have pursued. I can't imagine the nflpa would agree to a policy where a team could hold exclusive rights to a guy and not pay him due to a football related injury. Mostly I didnt feel it fair bills44 have ill will towards him for signing a contract when the bills told him sign this paper guaranteeing these terms or quit football - up to you. It's not a great situation but the whole don't pay him til he plays thing just doesn't seem like a reasonable take, even if this specific situation has you upset. I agree wholeheartedly with your take. Honestly I feel emotionless about the Byrd situation understanding full well that this is a business impasse. It is what it is. I'd like to see it worked out, but I'm a 3rd party that really doesn't matter or have the access to have an intelligent opinion. Until a couple weeks ago we never knew about any injury, then he was faking it, then it was real and treated last year.... It all goes to show how little we know behind closed doors. Hopefully we can start talking the stuff on the field that we can see with our own eyes soon. So I'll ask again: was Whaley justified in asking for an extension of Byrd's roster exemption? In retrospect, I say yes. GO BILLS!!! In any situation he should've atleast asked. By the rules of the league I don't see any reason it was more justified. I'm curious, if he didnt practice that first day or two would we have been able to pup him the first 6 weeks? I doubt we would've done it but I guess it would've been possible despite never having seen it with a holdout guy?
San Jose Bills Fan Posted September 22, 2013 Posted September 22, 2013 I can't imagine the nflpa would agree to a policy where a team could hold exclusive rights to a guy and not pay him due to a football related injury. I alluded to it upthread so I'll just state it here: Byrd was most likely extended the franchise tender by the Bills under the assumption that he was physically able to play football. He signed that tender. If he knew that he was physically unable to play football, then on some level he signed the tender in bad faith. As I said, it's all business and these are all "plays" by the respective sides but on some level, Parker and Byrd were disingenuous, IMO.
Recommended Posts