If Bryd is a man....

[thebandit27]

100% right -- you're one of the few on this board who possesses an unemotional grasp of the underlying business.

 

Byrd signed the one-year deal because it was the best alternative available to him. The Bills didn't have to offer him a one-year deal either, they could have let him walk. There's no doubt in my mind that they knew this was coming, particularly given the team's decision to draft (not one) but two safeties in the first five rounds AFTER they made the decision to move Aaron Williams to the safety position. The team knew what it was doing then and it knows what it's doing now. Byrd is doing the right thing for himself and the Bills did the right thing for the team.

It's unpopular but you're right. Ask Dustin Keller, Henry Melton, and Anthony Spencer if they are happy about their franchise tag? http://www.usatoday....s-byrd/2873207/ If Ryan Clady didn't get his long term deal, he would have been in the same boat this year.

 

I just love the whole blame the player mentality fans have. I loved the Bills more than I care about Byrd. But it's funny that a player making millions is the bad guy vs. a team making billions. How come no fans praised Byrd for far outplaying his 2nd round rookie contract? If you had a brother or son, you would be an idiot for advising him to risk injury on a one year deal.

 

This situation sucks. I get both sides. But IMO, it's straight up BS to make Byrd out to be some bad guy. The guy has made a ton of plays, played through injuries, didn't get the payday he wanted, and now isn't going to risk himself for the team. But because we're Bills fans, Byrd is somehow the devil. Not the billionaire franchise.

 

 

 

By the same logic, let's ask the Bills if Byrd got seriously hurt playing this year, would they give him a multi-year deal? It goes both ways.

 

And yes, if he got paid, he would probably being playing. But he didn't, so he's not risking anything. If you were advising him, you'd tell him to do the same thing.

 

Just curious, if you folks are okay with Byrd signing the deal and then refusing to play, would you also be okay with Buffalo now refusing to pay Byrd his salary?

 

Let's remember that it's a contract with clearly defined terms, and there's only one side that's living up to their end of the deal.

[4merper4mer]

And it's a pretty serious thing to call someone a liar. It's hilarious that message board posters can call him a liar when not one team source has questioned him.

 

 

I agree that is is bad to call someone a liar.

 

In Byrd's case he either wanted to be paid at the top of his profession knowing full well he could not play at all due to injury, or he is pouting and claiming injury because he does not like a 100% by the book contract.

 

Liar? Maybe not, but I can't see how someone could call him honest or say he is doing the right thing.

[thebandit27]

I would argue that he earned this money by outplaying his original contract. And it's a pretty serious thing to call someone a liar. It's hilarious that message board posters can call him a liar when not one team source has questioned him.

 

Sorry, this is different from your job. He is one of the best in the world at what he does. He's not going to risk his long term contract for a one year deal. I get why fans hate him for it, but your hate is in the wrong place. The team could have given him a new contract earlier.

 

And the bottomline is if he gets paid liek a top S next year (which he probably will barring a serious injury), he was right in his stance. He probably won't be popular in Buffalo but he will be popular in his household.

 

The team gave him a contract; it's the franchise tag. He may not like that contract, but it's a contract nonetheless.

[4merper4mer]

Again, not one person on the Bills has claimed he is faking. How in the world can you make that claim?

 

And what rules is he ignoring? Is the team calling him out? Or is it just frustrated fans? And if he gets paid like a top S, I guess his ego was justified.

 

There is a giant difference between getting a long term deal (with big time guaranteed money) than a one year deal. Say it's a game all you want, but it's a business. No one cares when a player blows out his knee, gets cut, and doesn't get another deal.

 

I made no such claim. How can you claim I made that claim? Read it again.

[C.Biscuit97]

Just curious, if you folks are okay with Byrd signing the deal and then refusing to play, would you also be okay with Buffalo now refusing to pay Byrd his salary?

 

Let's remember that it's a contract with clearly defined terms, and there's only one side that's living up to their end of the deal.

 

Again, who is saying Byrd is faking? not one member of the Bills. And you can argue that Bills got a terrific bargain by what they paid Byrd when he was drafted. He far out performed that contract. And the second Byrd gets hurt, the Bills can cut him and not pay him a penny more!

 

Why is Byrd the bad guy and the team is fine? Again, I see both sides but being a Bills' fan is clouding folks judgment.

 

I made no such claim. How can you claim I made that claim? Read it again.

 

You said if (such a big word for 2 letters) the injury is real, not disclosing it is wrong. You don't think teams give a physical before a contract? And the injury is real except last year, he was more willing to play through the pain.

 

I believe hisinjury is very real and it is painful. I also believe if he had a long term deal, he'd be playing. But why should he risk his future for one year?

[4merper4mer]

Again, who is saying Byrd is faking? not one member of the Bills. And you can argue that Bills got a terrific bargain by what they paid Byrd when he was drafted. He far out performed that contract. And the second Byrd gets hurt, the Bills can cut him and not pay him a penny more!

 

Why is Byrd the bad guy and the team is fine? Again, I see both sides but being a Bills' fan is clouding folks judgment.

 

There is a document called the collective bargaining agreement. Familiarize yourself with it and then come back to this thread. You may make more sense.

 

Byrd's first contract is over. He indeed was a bargain for the Bills IMO. That is meaningless. The Bills and every other team also paid guys who never panned out. Think about Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Tony, Mandarich, Poz, and others.

 

There are not many non-Parker clients who sit out a whole year after signing a franchise tag or fail to disclose an injury while asking to be paid the top money for their position.

[C.Biscuit97]

There is a document called the collective bargaining agreement. Familiarize yourself with it and then come back to this thread. You may make more sense.

 

Byrd's first contract is over. He indeed was a bargain for the Bills IMO. That is meaningless. The Bills and every other team also paid guys who never panned out. Think about Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Tony, Mandarich, Poz, and others.

 

There are not many non-Parker clients who sit out a whole year after signing a franchise tag or fail to disclose an injury while asking to be paid the top money for their position.

 

You are so wise!

 

And Leaf and Russell have nothing to do with this situation, not sure why you are bringing it up.

 

I'm like the biggest Bills' homer, yet I can see both sides. And it's just hilarious how many message board doctors can say a guy is faking (or covered up an injury) when no one connected with the team has.

[NoSaint]

 

 

 

Just curious, if you folks are okay with Byrd signing the deal and then refusing to play, would you also be okay with Buffalo now refusing to pay Byrd his salary?

 

Let's remember that it's a contract with clearly defined terms, and there's only one side that's living up to their end of the deal.

 

depends on the extent of the injury - if he would have to be shot up with painkillers weekly and risking further damage, id say its his decision and as a guy that goes out there playing a VERY violent game with high stakes physically and financially -- im not going to question his manhood from behind my keyboard.

 

if hes just sitting at home and decided instead of holding out he would just hold out and get paid - then the bills have the right to go after that money under the terms of contract and that is a decision the bills CAN make if they choose.

 

unfortunately, as fans, we know NOTHING of the injury so any accusations are simply emotion based.

Edited October 1, 2013 by NoSaint

[thebandit27]

Again, who is saying Byrd is faking? not one member of the Bills. And you can argue that Bills got a terrific bargain by what they paid Byrd when he was drafted. He far out performed that contract. And the second Byrd gets hurt, the Bills can cut him and not pay him a penny more!

 

Why is Byrd the bad guy and the team is fine? Again, I see both sides but being a Bills' fan is clouding folks judgment.

 

Nobody has said Byrd is faking. However, it's been reported that some folks in the organization believe he could play if he wanted to:

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/23910699/tension-mounting-with-injured-star-safety-jairus-byrd-bills

 

...a sentiment that Byrd isn't helping to dismiss when he says things like this:

 

“I mean, I don’t want to see them do bad. I’ve said that since Day One. But me going out there at less than 100 percent isn’t going to help the case, either. I can’t do anything about it. That’s the tough part.”

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/26/jairus-byrd-wont-play-unless-he-feels-100-percent/

 

Does this really sound like a guy that wants to be out there to you?

 

As for the "bargain" that the Bills got when they drafted Byrd, that's all well and good. You know what he deserves? A raise, and a bunch of guaranteed money. The Bills gave him both, with the chance to earn more in the next several years. You are also incorrect about him getting hurt, as the Bills are still on the hook for the $6.9M guaranteed contract that he isn't out there playing for right now.

 

As for who's the bad guy, the team is saying that they made an offer and never got so much as a counter from Byrd's side. Byrd's side could easily refute that if it weren't true, but they've said nothing...the silence, in my mind, speaks volumes.

[peterlaw]

If Byrd has nothing to hide then he should have no objection in strapping on the Lie Detector.

 

Perhaps Eugene Parker could negotiate the Television rights to make a few dollars on the side.

 

 

 

 

 

[NoSaint]

 

 

Nobody has said Byrd is faking. However, it's been reported that some folks in the organization believe he could play if he wanted to:

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/23910699/tension-mounting-with-injured-star-safety-jairus-byrd-bills

 

would you say a player owes it to a team to be on the field no matter what if he could be physically capable to contribute despite potential risk (physical and financial) and of course if it requires pain killers and the like to contribute? and if thats not the case, where is the line drawn (for simply disapointment from fans, vs accusations of stealing, vs should actually be able to be pursued by teams)?

 

i think thats an interesting discussion that this ties up into

Edited October 1, 2013 by NoSaint

[4merper4mer]

You are so wise!

 

And Leaf and Russell have nothing to do with this situation, not sure why you are bringing it up.

 

I'm like the biggest Bills' homer, yet I can see both sides. And it's just hilarious how many message board doctors can say a guy is faking (or covered up an injury) when no one connected with the team has.

 

You said Byrd was a bargain so he deserves to be compensated for that. Does that mean Leaf or Poz should give money back?

 

I did not say Byrd was faking although it is clear he doesn't like to practice from his history. He is either:

 

Faking an injury because he doesn't like his contract status OR

 

Was asking for top dollar at his position even though he had an injury which would keep him from playing AND/OR

 

Is buying a bill a goods from his agent who has a history of running roughshod over the Bills and is trying to do it again.

[thebandit27]

depends on the extent of the injury - if he would have to be shot up with painkillers weekly and risking further damage, id say its his decision and as a guy that goes out there playing a VERY violent game with high stakes physically and financially -- im not going to question his manhood from behind my keyboard.

 

if hes just sitting at home and decided instead of holding out he would just hold out and get paid - then the bills have the right to go after that money under the terms of contract and that is a decision the bills CAN make if they choose.

 

unfortunately, as fans, we know NOTHING of the injury so any accusations are simply emotion based.

 

would you say a player owes it to a team to be on the field no matter what if he could be physically capable to contribute despite potential risk (physical and financial) and of course if it requires pain killers and the like to contribute? and if thats not the case, where is the line drawn?

 

i think thats an interesting discussion that this ties up into

 

I think that a player's responsibility is to do his job to the best of his ability. I realize that's a bit nebulous as it's hard to define. Do I think Byrd is responsible for earning the nearly $7M in guarantees that the team is on the hook for? Yes. Do I think that he should do so if it presents a palpable risk to his long-term physical well-being? Of course not. My opinion on the situation is based on the available information, part of which has Byrd quoted as saying "not until I'm 100%", which to me doesn't sound like a guy who's concerned about long-term health outside of the arena of negotiating a new contract. The report that the organization thinks he's milking it also plays into my feelings, I'll readily admit.

[bbb]

Name one player who is under a long term contract who does not risk that contract's ensuing years every Sunday.

 

Faking an injury and collecting millions is dishonest. If the injury is real then not disclosing it and asking to be the top paid safety is dishonest.

 

If he doesn't like the CBA he has the right to his opinion and should run for election in the union. He shouldn't just ignore the rules because his agent has a large ego.

 

This sums it up sooooo good!

 

One way or another, the guy is or was lying.

[Rubes]

Guys fight through injuries and get back on the field for many different reasons. They feel dedicated to the team to do so. They really really want to contribute and win. They want to improve their bargaining power next offseason, maybe because they're an average player. They feel they need to get back out there for fear of losing their starting spot, or of getting cut, or of getting cut the following training camp. Lots of reasons.

 

So to use the others like Fred, CJ, Urbik, and others to compare...well, it doesn't always apply.

 

[NoSaint]

 

 

 

 

I think that a player's responsibility is to do his job to the best of his ability. I realize that's a bit nebulous as it's hard to define. Do I think Byrd is responsible for earning the nearly $7M in guarantees that the team is on the hook for? Yes. Do I think that he should do so if it presents a palpable risk to his long-term physical well-being? Of course not. My opinion on the situation is based on the available information, part of which has Byrd quoted as saying "not until I'm 100%", which to me doesn't sound like a guy who's concerned about long-term health outside of the arena of negotiating a new contract. The report that the organization thinks he's milking it also plays into my feelings, I'll readily admit.

 

i understand, and despite often coming across as being blindly in his corner - im not. hes had some comments that rub me the wrong way, but at the same time i feel like ive kind of put that "rub some dirt on it and get back out there and play" mentality behind me when looking at these guys. its definitely a hazy grey area with regards to doing what he needs to do to look out for himself and when the line is crossed to actually violating the contract - and thats different than what the fan in me wants to see too. as is currently, the bills apparently are either comfortable enough with it that they dont think hes crossed that line, or they at the very least with FAR more info than you or i dont feel like its in their best interest to pursue it yet.

 

rumblings that he COULD play, i dont doubt.... but whether that has crossed the line into should play, or is contractually obligated to be out there i dont know.

 

Guys fight through injuries and get back on the field for many different reasons. They feel dedicated to the team to do so. They really really want to contribute and win. They want to improve their bargaining power next offseason, maybe because they're an average player. They feel they need to get back out there for fear of losing their starting spot, or of getting cut, or of getting cut the following training camp. Lots of reasons.

 

So to use the others like Fred, CJ, Urbik, and others to compare...well, it doesn't always apply.

 

i think for a wide majority its a fear of being replaced or being labeled soft come contract time. i dont know how many truly do it selflessly to better the team.

Edited October 1, 2013 by NoSaint

[thebandit27]

i understand, and despite often coming across as being blindly in his corner - im not. hes had some comments that rub me the wrong way, but at the same time i feel like ive kind of put that "rub some dirt on it and get back out there and play" mentality behind me when looking at these guys. its definitely a hazy grey area with regards to doing what he needs to do to look out for himself and when the line is crossed to actually violating the contract - and thats different than what the fan in me wants to see too. as is currently, the bills apparently are either comfortable enough with it that they dont think hes crossed that line, or they at the very least with FAR more info than you or i dont feel like its in their best interest to pursue it yet.

 

rumblings that he COULD play, i dont doubt.... but whether that has crossed the line into should play, or is contractually obligated to be out there i dont know.

 

I don't think you come off that way at all. Frankly, what you're expressing makes sense, and I don't have an issue with any of it. If Byrd is limited beyond where he should be out there, then so be it; terrible timing on the team's part. If not, well, I think most of us agree that that part has been hashed out rather thoroughly in the last 16 pages.

[GA BILLS FAN]

Has anyone in the Buffalo media tried to pin Byrd down on this injury issue ? --- They could ask the direct question, "are you making more out of this injury to get back at the Bills for the franchise tag ?" --- unlikely --- or go the indirect route --- "Last year, he had a similar injury and played with it by taking shots, why not do the same this year ?" . . . . "You say, you won't play until you are 100%, have you played at less than a 100% in the past ?" --- "Would you play at less than a 100% in the future, for instance, if another teams signs you to a 5-year $45M contract ?" ---

[Doc]

If this drags out any longer, I hope the Bills suspend him without pay. That will get his and Eug's attention right quick.

[GA BILLS FAN]

I don't think you come off that way at all. Frankly, what you're expressing makes sense, and I don't have an issue with any of it. If Byrd is limited beyond where he should be out there, then so be it; terrible timing on the team's part. If not, well, I think most of us agree that that part has been hashed out rather thoroughly in the last 16 pages.

My BIGGEST issue with what Byrd said is using the word "100%" -- he chose those words carefully and deliberately --- few professional athletes ever are at 100%, especially in football