NoSaint Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 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. problem is, the team and the player may not agree on where that acceptable risk lies. especially when the team has zero long term risk (if they dont see a long term deal likely) and the player has 100% of it. then it gets real tricky. just like we may value the position differently than other teams making us not want to pay him his worth other places possibly. there are some ways that this simply works out to two sides with interests and goals and priorities that dont match up and its less nefarious or lying cheating and stealing (or lowballing and taking advantage of) than either side might be feeling right now. itll be interesting to look back on this once its played out and we have more context around these comments, and leaks
4merper4mer Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) 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 ?" --- I don't think any reporter has the guts to ask this on the record. I think it would be equally fair to ask the Bills if they tried to low ball Byrd and where their offer fell within the spectrum of safeties. Top safety? Top 5? Top 10? No offer? Of course neither the Bills nor Byrd would answer. They should not be expected to answer. Parker can't "lose" this. Byrd will end up walking or being traded based on the best interest of Parker. If it also the best interest of Byrd and/or the Bills then fine, but Parker can't afford to lose. It is all about him. Edited October 1, 2013 by 4merper4mer
Dibs Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 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 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. I think that every player knows that it is part of the job to play when not at 100%.....but I don't believe that is fully established in the player contracts nor the CBA documents(though I haven't looked it up). As you said....."a hazy grey area". As far as I'm aware, for a player to take the field he has to be cleared by the doctor.....and has to give the okay himself. I don't blame Byrd because just like the Bills he is following the rules. He definitely had the condition last season and he chose to play when not 100%. He has it again this season and chooses not to play when not 100%. I don't believe he is doing himself any favours by not playing(assuming his PF hasn't become chronically bad) and is IMO likely hurting his chances of landing more money than if he plays.....but it is his decision to make.
GA BILLS FAN Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) I don't think any reporter has the guts to ask this on the record. I think it would be equally fair to ask the Bills if they tried to low ball Byrd and where their offer fell within the spectrum of safeties. Top safety? Top 5? Top 10? No offer? Of course neither the Bills nor Byrd would answer. They should not be expected to answer. Parker can't "lose" this. Byrd will end up walking or being traded based on the best interest of Parker. If it also the best interest of Byrd and/or the Bills then fine, but Parker can't afford to lose. It is all about him. Agree, similar questions should be posed to Whaley and Brandon, who, like you said, won't answer --- I have to think if the Bills were comfortable with a 1-year and approx. $7M, they would have been okay with that same amount for multiple years --- but it's possible they are not --- As for Parker, his reputation is taking a hit --- GM's talk and I think he overplayed his hand -- after all, Byrd was a non-exclusive franchised player and there wasn't one rumor on any team contacting the Bills to negotiate compensation to work out long term deal --- so, I think Parker told Byrd, he could get Top 5 multi-year money and it's not out there --- and based on Byrd missing at least 4 games, probably at least 5, I suspect his market value will be lower than the point it was last summer --- as for Carrington, I feel for him --- Parker passed on a multi-year offer and told him to play out the last year of his deal --- not sure Bills will re-offer that same money or not -- but I suspect his free market value is limited without any track record as proven starter ---- Agents can afford to play games with their clients as long as they win significantly more than they lose --- their risk is spread over many clients --- the few that lose get burned --- I think Byrd and Carrington might both fall in that category Edited October 1, 2013 by TXBILLSFAN
macaroni Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 The way I'd handle it if I were the "Boss Bill" (and I'm not) is to put Byrd on IR, make a public announcement that the injury wasn't responding to rehab as expected, and use the roster spot to bring in some CB or Safety or OG. At the end of the year I'd give Byrd and his agent our best and last offer, and let him walk if that's his preferance. IMHO the team and Byrd seem to have crossed the Rubicon as far as "friendly negotiations" go. Putting him on IR allows him to "save face" while opening up a roster spot that we could use. I know you all are going to scream that we will be paying him for nothing, and giving in to him ... but face it, we are already paying him for nothing and he's locking up a spot. We will never (nor will the Bills) get to the bottom of ... is he lying about the injury ... could he play ... yada yada yada. It's just time to call this stalemate a stalemate and move on.
NoSaint Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 The way I'd handle it if I were the "Boss Bill" (and I'm not) is to put Byrd on IR, make a public announcement that the injury wasn't responding to rehab as expected, and use the roster spot to bring in some CB or Safety or OG. At the end of the year I'd give Byrd and his agent our best and last offer, and let him walk if that's his preferance. IMHO the team and Byrd seem to have crossed the Rubicon as far as "friendly negotiations" go. Putting him on IR allows him to "save face" while opening up a roster spot that we could use. I know you all are going to scream that we will be paying him for nothing, and giving in to him ... but face it, we are already paying him for nothing and he's locking up a spot. We will never (nor will the Bills) get to the bottom of ... is he lying about the injury ... could he play ... yada yada yada. It's just time to call this stalemate a stalemate and move on. there was an early season discussion about if he passes a physical, i assume quickly, after put on IR he can force free agency immediately.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 The way I'd handle it if I were the "Boss Bill" (and I'm not) is to put Byrd on IR, make a public announcement that the injury wasn't responding to rehab as expected, and use the roster spot to bring in some CB or Safety or OG. At the end of the year I'd give Byrd and his agent our best and last offer, and let him walk if that's his preferance. IMHO the team and Byrd seem to have crossed the Rubicon as far as "friendly negotiations" go. Putting him on IR allows him to "save face" while opening up a roster spot that we could use. I know you all are going to scream that we will be paying him for nothing, and giving in to him ... but face it, we are already paying him for nothing and he's locking up a spot. We will never (nor will the Bills) get to the bottom of ... is he lying about the injury ... could he play ... yada yada yada. It's just time to call this stalemate a stalemate and move on. I wouldn't be surprised that this is the route they go. I also wouldn't be surprised that the Bills could try to sue him or otherwise take action not to pay him, due to some kind of material misprepresentation about his injury. Does Byrd have a duty to disclose such an injury, as the Bills may have elected to let him walk?
NoSaint Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 I wouldn't be surprised that this is the route they go. I also wouldn't be surprised that the Bills could try to sue him or otherwise take action not to pay him, due to some kind of material misprepresentation about his injury. Does Byrd have a duty to disclose such an injury, as the Bills may have elected to let him walk? who says he didnt let them know?
GA BILLS FAN Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 The way I'd handle it if I were the "Boss Bill" (and I'm not) is to put Byrd on IR, make a public announcement that the injury wasn't responding to rehab as expected, and use the roster spot to bring in some CB or Safety or OG. At the end of the year I'd give Byrd and his agent our best and last offer, and let him walk if that's his preferance. IMHO the team and Byrd seem to have crossed the Rubicon as far as "friendly negotiations" go. Putting him on IR allows him to "save face" while opening up a roster spot that we could use. I know you all are going to scream that we will be paying him for nothing, and giving in to him ... but face it, we are already paying him for nothing and he's locking up a spot. We will never (nor will the Bills) get to the bottom of ... is he lying about the injury ... could he play ... yada yada yada. It's just time to call this stalemate a stalemate and move on. Saying the injury is not responding to rehab and placing him on season ending IR is basically telling the 31 other teams that he has a chronic condition --- it will cut in half his guaranteed money if he becomes a FA and probably knock his base salary down by 25% --- if they go this far, if I were the Bills, also say that "we have decided not to use the franchise tag and will not be offering Byrd a long term contract" ---
macaroni Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 there was an early season discussion about if he passes a physical, i assume quickly, after put on IR he can force free agency immediately. If he "quickly" passes a physical after telling the team he is too injured to play ... how big of a market would there be for him? At least his true colors would be revealed.
808 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 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. shhhh you are not allowed to voice that both you can see both sides just shush and keep only agreeing with everyone else. lol ive tried saying both sides are at fault a bit here and people are such homers they cant see that maybe this bills FO deserves a little bit of the blame. i still dont trust this FO yet. they have about 15 years of getting it wrong in a row on the financial side of things and these guys keep guzzling the koolaid like this FO is 100% correct every time.
NoSaint Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 If he "quickly" passes a physical after telling the team he is too injured to play ... how big of a market would there be for him? At least his true colors would be revealed. if hes listed as questionable or day to day, how telling would it really be? by definition that means hes 50-50 to play any given week.
RyanC883 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Byrd practiced fully today. First time. interesting. perhaps trying to get in the CLE game against an inexperienced QB and collect some errant throws. After getting 5 INT's w/o him, I'm guessing he gets back in rather quickly.
NoSaint Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Byrd practiced fully today. First time. my guess (and its just a guess) is he plays thursday with a long week to rest after. we will see though.
TheZone78 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Albert Breer said it is Marrone's decision if Byrd plays on Thursday.
NoSaint Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Albert Breer said it is Marrone's decision if Byrd plays on Thursday. sounds like byrd is 100% (or whatever bar he planned on reaching) and marrone is deciding if hes ready to contribute based on ability/knowledge? if so, id expect him atleast in subpackages
K-9 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) 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 Same here. That remark caused me to lose a lot of respect for him as a football player. Just not a good team player based on that remark. Especially when you see first hand how decimated that secondary is or when you see, first hand, other players with painful injuries doing their best to get back on the field. He broke the code. GO BILLS!!! Edited October 1, 2013 by K-9
K-9 Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 I don't think any reporter has the guts to ask this on the record. I think it would be equally fair to ask the Bills if they tried to low ball Byrd and where their offer fell within the spectrum of safeties. Top safety? Top 5? Top 10? No offer? Of course neither the Bills nor Byrd would answer. They should not be expected to answer. Parker can't "lose" this. Byrd will end up walking or being traded based on the best interest of Parker. If it also the best interest of Byrd and/or the Bills then fine, but Parker can't afford to lose. It is all about him. I can't think of one beat reporter that would ask him this question given their pro-Byrd stance in the matter. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts