Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 His PF was serious. He took shots last year to play with the pain. What is telling, if not ominous, is that he wasn't fully healed after an offseason of treatment and rest. If Byrd has to take shots in order to play that is a clear sign that he is still plagued with the condition. Masking a health problem is not healing a health problem. Plantar fasciitis is a weird thing. It can flare unexpectedly during a change of activity. For example, if Byrd was staying in shape with a stair stepper and elliptical plus working out on a grass field, then switched to a turf field and different brand of cleats and working out with the team, it's entirely possible it could flare after being quiet all offseason. It's also possible Byrd wasn't feeling much pain after a couple months offseason and didn't follow any specific PF protocol to try to prevent recurrence - as a DB, he has to have a mindset of forgetting the last play once it's over and moving full go to the next one. So that could translate to "the pain subsided, I'm healed of that injury, full go as usual" mindset that would mean the PF was quiescent, not healed. I have to think that the PF situation must have factored into the contract negotiations, with Byrd and Parker taking the position it was 100% healed and done with, and the Bills taking the position it could become a recurring problem. That might explain the total inability to come to terms on the new contract. Not sure, actually. Other than providing a longer look at somebody or an initial look at somebody else. I didn't know that the request was for only one week, either. In retrospect, they should have pupped him. GO BILLS!!! As I understand it, if a player is on the 53 man roster for opening week, he is guaranteed his salary for the season. I'm frankly unsure what that means as far as provisions for being cut or injured - presumably the details in that player's individual contract apply - but I know the league does make a distinction whether a player is on the 53 man opening day or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatloaf Sandwich Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Byrd's vagina is acting up again, not expected to play but was able to walk to go get his game check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) Plantar fasciitis is a weird thing. It can flare unexpectedly during a change of activity. For example, if Byrd was staying in shape with a stair stepper and elliptical plus working out on a grass field, then switched to a turf field and different brand of cleats and working out with the team, it's entirely possible it could flare after being quiet all offseason. It's also possible Byrd wasn't feeling much pain after a couple months offseason and didn't follow any specific PF protocol to try to prevent recurrence - as a DB, he has to have a mindset of forgetting the last play once it's over and moving full go to the next one. So that could translate to "the pain subsided, I'm healed of that injury, full go as usual" mindset that would mean the PF was quiescent, not healed. I have to think that the PF situation must have factored into the contract negotiations, with Byrd and Parker taking the position it was 100% healed and done with, and the Bills taking the position it could become a recurring problem. That might explain the total inability to come to terms on the new contract. As I understand it, if a player is on the 53 man roster for opening week, he is guaranteed his salary for the season. I'm frankly unsure what that means as far as provisions for being cut or injured - presumably the details in that player's individual contract apply - but I know the league does make a distinction whether a player is on the 53 man opening day or not. I believe the term on the 53 is simply shorthand for signed which encompasses PUP, IR, or any other exemption that isn't practice squad.... But may be wrong. As to the PF writeup... Maybe. I think a lot if people assume its very linear when discussing it and all cases are equal severity when it occurs then follows a straight line progression to healing. The variability (in addition to lack of detection methods) are what make it so hard to discuss as an outsider with any certainty Edited September 29, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Plantar fasciitis is a weird thing. It can flare unexpectedly during a change of activity. For example, if Byrd was staying in shape with a stair stepper and elliptical plus working out on a grass field, then switched to a turf field and different brand of cleats and working out with the team, it's entirely possible it could flare after being quiet all offseason. It's also possible Byrd wasn't feeling much pain after a couple months offseason and didn't follow any specific PF protocol to try to prevent recurrence - as a DB, he has to have a mindset of forgetting the last play once it's over and moving full go to the next one. So that could translate to "the pain subsided, I'm healed of that injury, full go as usual" mindset that would mean the PF was quiescent, not healed. I have to think that the PF situation must have factored into the contract negotiations, with Byrd and Parker taking the position it was 100% healed and done with, and the Bills taking the position it could become a recurring problem. That might explain the total inability to come to terms on the new contract. Byrd stated that he followed the rehab protocol as instructed. As you noted it is a tough injury to deal with. Byrd and the training staff all are very aware of how tricky the injury is. If you get ahead of yourself and get too aggressive in your training you could end up aggravating the injury and then again have to start the rehab from the beginning point. As I stated in a prior post Russ Brandon was asked about Byrd's status. He said that Byrd was being diligent with his rehabbing and doing everything he could to get back on the field. He expressed no indication that Byrd was deliberatedly delaying his return as an expression of his contract disappointment. It's not in Byrd's interest to prematurely return to the field. It is also not in the organization's interest for him to prematurely return to action. If he reinjures himself to the point that he is damaged goods then how does the team next year value him from a contract standpoint? No one comes out ahead with him playing hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Simply saying number 1 money has the gap between Troy p and goldson (9.5 vs 8) "free safety" ordepending on "safety" that isn't agreed on around here. Turning it into a range of top 5 opens up a shade shy of 7m per to 9.5m per, with no discussion of guaranteed dollars or length of contract..... and totally ignoring how low you could stretch that low end if you had any motivation to do so. The potential gap there is HUGE so I think its fair to ask what numbers someone is using when they say he's worth top 5 money. I'm sure you'd feel differently based on 9m per year vs 7m per year. Both top 5, neither number 1 and one would be considered great value while the other would cause half the board to riot I guarantee you that Parker does not make the distinction between the designations in the negotiations. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) I guarantee you that Parker does not make the distinction between the designations in the negotiations. GO BILLS!!! Do the bills? Should the distinction be made? Edited September 29, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatloaf Sandwich Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Byrd stated that he followed the rehab protocol as instructed. As you noted it is a tough injury to deal with. Byrd and the training staff all are very aware of how tricky the injury is. If you get ahead of yourself and get too aggressive in your training you could end up aggravating the injury and then again have to start the rehab from the beginning point. As I stated in a prior post Russ Brandon was asked about Byrd's status. He said that Byrd was being diligent with his rehabbing and doing everything he could to get back on the field. He expressed no indication that Byrd was deliberatedly delaying his return as an exp<b></b>ression of his contract disappointment. It's not in Byrd's interest to prematurely return to the field. It is also not in the organization's interest for him to prematurely return to action. If he reinjures himself to the point that he is damaged goods then how does the team next year value him from a contract standpoint? No one comes out ahead with him playing hurt. Byrd has stamped "SUCKER" right on your forehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) I'm ok with the sportrac top 5 ranges for all categories: avg salary, signing bonus, guaranteed money. Much like they did with Wood as I said. Bottom line for me is that the Bills CLEARLY value him, they CLEARLY state their desire to retain him long term, and they CLEARLY are willing to pay for their HONEST assessment of the player's talents. It's just easier for me think they made a legitimate offer based on previous experience with players they value. We are now officially hoeing old ground. GO BILLS!!! You know, in these contracts, the devil is always in the details. Fitz didn't sign the Bills renegotiation offer, which was reportedly worth "up to $3.4 million dollars a year" - allegedly because he didn't want a backup role. He then signed with the Titans in a clear backup role for $3.25 million a year. Why? The fine print is that much of that $3.4 million the Bills offered was tied up in playing time and other incentives Fitzpatrick largely couldn't control, with an estimated $1.2-$1.4 million in base salary and no guaranteed money. Good for the Bills, bad for Fitz if he got cut. The Titans, on the other hand, offered him a $1.75M bonus (guaranteed money) in addition to $1.5 million base. So if Fitz gets cut, he walks away with a nice bankroll. You don't need a Hahvard finance degree to tell whether Door #1 or Door #2 likely holds the better business deal over 2 years. What's my point? Point is that the full story is never told in the details that leak from both sides. It's always self serving. The Bills may have offered Byrd a "fair market value" deal, but given their inside knowledge of his injury history, it may have been loaded with incentives for playing time and had lower guaranteed money to protect themselves in case he couldn't come back to his previous level. The $2 million the sides reportedly were apart may not have been Byrd holding out to be the highest paid safety, but Byrd wanting more bonus and guaranteed money and less tied to incentives. A huge overall contract for 5 years means very little because players seldom finish a contract. Guaranteed money and how much is tied in incentives are always the key points, and the least-publicized part of a negotiation. I don't know, none of us know except the Bills FO, Byrd and Parker. Edited September 29, 2013 by Hopeful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) Do the bills? Should the distinction be made? No and no. Although I can see them saying that Byrd isn't the same type of player as Polamalu, regardless. I can also see Parker demanding Berry-type guaranteed money because he thinks his client is a better player. So that's north of 9.1 in avg. salary (Polamalu) and north of 25.5 in guarantees (Berry). That's the starting aspiration point for Parker. If he's as intractable as they say, that's ridiculous. And if his walk-away point is between that and Goldson, that's still more than the Bills are wiling to spend on him I would think, given the holes in his game. GO BILLS!!! Edited September 29, 2013 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Ian RapoportVerified account@RapSheet #Bills S Jairus Byrd is viewed as a long shot to make his debut today after battling plantar fasciitis, per source. Trying to fully heal https://twitter.com/...282284875980800 Why don't they just IR this puss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Why don't they just IR this puss? I suspect they will if his injury keeps him out past mid-season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 You know, in these contracts, the devil is always in the details. Fitz didn't sign the Bills renegotiation offer, which was reportedly worth "up to $3.4 million dollars a year" - allegedly because he didn't want a backup role. He then signed with the Titans in a clear backup role for $3.25 million a year. Why? The fine print is that much of that $3.4 million the Bills offered was tied up in playing time and other incentives Fitzpatrick largely couldn't control, with an estimated $1.2-$1.4 million in base salary and no guaranteed money. Good for the Bills, bad for Fitz if he got cut. The Titans, on the other hand, offered him a $1.75M bonus (guaranteed money) in addition to $1.5 million base. So if Fitz gets cut, he walks away with a nice bankroll. You don't need a Hahvard finance degree to tell whether Door #1 or Door #2 likely holds the better business deal over 2 years. What's my point? Point is that the full story is never told in the details that leak from both sides. It's always self serving. The Bills may have offered Byrd a "fair market value" deal, but given their inside knowledge of his injury history, it may have been loaded with incentives for playing time and had lower guaranteed money to protect themselves in case he couldn't come back to his previous level. The $2 million the sides reportedly were apart may not have been Byrd holding out to be the highest paid safety, but Byrd wanting more bonus and guaranteed money and less tied to incentives. A huge overall contract for 5 years means very little because players seldom finish a contract. Guaranteed money and how much is tied in incentives are always the key points, and the least-publicized part of a negotiation. I don't know, none of us know except the Bills FO, Byrd and Parker. Agree that it's all about the guaranteed amount for the players. It's all about average salary for the agents. Sportrac.com seems to have a ton of details about contracts, from bonuses and guartantees to average salary. I don't think that info is as hard to find any more, given the new CBA and the NFLPA's insistence on transparency. Agree that regarding Parker/Byrd and the Bills, it's all conjecture. But it's more informed conjecture given what we know about the contracts for other safeties in the league. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 (edited) No and no. Although I can see them saying that Byrd isn't the same type of player as Polamalu, regardless. I can also see Parker demanding Berry-type guaranteed money because he thinks his client is a better player. So that's north of 9.1 in avg. salary (Polamalu) and north of 25.5 in guarantees (Berry). That's the starting aspiration point for Parker. If he's as intractable as they say, that's ridiculous. And if his walk-away point is between that and Goldson, that's still more than the Bills are wiling to spend on him I would think, given the holes in his game. GO BILLS!!! Interesting - with Troy, berry, goldson, weddle were talking north of 8m as a top 5, I didn't recall you getting that high in your numbers previously, and thought you were strongly in the camp of a salary that started with 7 (if you did, it's simply not remembering on my part). This does illustrate the very gap in the term top 5 though - byrds getting 6.9 on the tag, some are arguing the offer was 7.5 and if you wipe out the fs/ss distinction were north of 8 as a jumping off point. If he decided to turn down something right at the goldson (5 for 41) or berry (6 for 50) ballpark I'll agree he's crazy. Goldson plus a token $20 to say it was worth more has been me outsider guess to put this to bed Edited September 29, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Byrd's vagina is acting up again, not expected to play but was able to walk to go get his game check. His feet hurt because he's carrying around all his paychecks in his wallet...smuck he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 My guess is that Byrd's agent will give him permission to play this week because it is a prime time game. Then the "injury" will flare back up for the next game. Hope I'm wrong but I don't think so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 My guess is that Byrd's agent will give him permission to play this week because it is a prime time game. Then the "injury" will flare back up for the next game. Hope I'm wrong but I don't think so... If I'm the D coaches, I don't start him, regardless, unless he's lights out in practice with the first team. That's not from a punitive standpoint, just from a common sense standpoint. It just doesn't matter if Parker gives him permission or not. But you make an interesting point. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Right now Byrd and Hopkins are taking up two roster spots. We could use those for O-line or CB depth. Both should go to IR to free up roster slots. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDBUFFCUSEFAN Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Right now Byrd and Hopkins are taking up two roster spots. We could use those for O-line or CB depth. Both should go to IR to free up roster slots. PTR I give Byrd until the Cincy game, if he can't play by then off to IR he goes. Hopkins can go now since Carpenter has been great so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I give Byrd until the Cincy game, if he can't play by then off to IR he goes. Hopkins can go now since Carpenter has been great so far. and then we (more likely with byrd than hopkins) may face a situation where the player can force his way out. which is an added layer of complication with PF - the whole cant reliably diagnose. id be curious if one of the local writers or our own TBD guys that likes to research could delve into the rules as weve briefly touched on that issue before but never solidified the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Byrd is a fool not to play in this attacking defense. The D will only get better. If Byrd wants to be paid, no defense would showcase his abilities like the Bills. And I do not know how a football player watches his teammates from the couch, and does not rush to their aid. I wonder if the Bills players are harboring a grudge towards Byrd. Byrd is only hurting himself. !@#$ him if doesn't want to be a part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts