Mickey Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 The Franchise Tag gives him the Salary equivalent to the average salary of the top 10 paid players at his position, Thats seems pretty fair since there is 3-4 FS better then him No signing bonus which is the heart of a FA contract, it is what protects a player against career ending injuries. I don't care if it was or wasn't fair. I don't care at all about the team's financial statement. I care about winning games. We are a better team with Bird than without him. I don't think that if last January we were told that the result of the negotiations with Byrd would be a long hold out followed by a nagging injury and a pro bowl player who clearly is miserably unhappy that we would have all shouted "Way to Go Overdorf!!!" You do not improve a team by losing good players. It is known.
dubs Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 (edited) Was he playing under the franchise tag last year? No? Ok, then. In that case the answer to your question resides in the post you just responded to. What's the difference. They are both one year deals and at the conclusion he's got a bigger deal coming. No difference at all. The only difference between a player in the final year of his deal and getting franchised is that in the latter, the player feels disrespected. Disrespected despite the fact that their own labor union agreed to this provision in the collective bargaining agreement. In other words, get on the field. Edited September 25, 2013 by dubs
ALF Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 I would trade Byrd for whatever we can get . How can any team guarantee him top money if he can refuse to play because of PF? If he's that injured he should retire.
HamSandwhich Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 (edited) Yet another article who is saying the same thing. Read between the line folks, he can play but he wont. http://espn.go.com/b...ppled-secondary There is no excuse, he's sandbagging it. Lets hear it from the apologists who say its a business. That's exactly what will be the eventual downfall of the NFL, along with all the rules to make it a flag football league. Crazy kids and their damn "rock and roll" music! It all started going to hell when they gave women the vote. You see so clearly what all the fools out there simply refuse to see: the NFL is done, over, kaput. Don't believe all that propaganda about the Super Bowl being the most watched sporting event ever or the league's laughably inflated claim that over 200 million people watched an NFL game last year. Lol, I'm not a geezer, I'm calling the downfall well before it happens. I know it's the most popular sport right now. You can't ignore the grumbling that is happening about the No Fun League. Go ahead, try and turn it off. Go ahead and believe the NFL will ALWAYS be the best sport in the US/World. Not too long ago it was baseball. If you think that the NFL is infallable, you're blind. On another note, from the article: "I don't want to use words like 'wake up' and things like that, but I would rather say, he's working extremely hard to get back," Marrone said. "Again, I keep going back to that same statement I said, because it's the truth. It's a condition that we haven't been able to get over this one last hurdle. When we get over that one last hurdle, he'll be ready to go." Does anyone else see this as counterintuitive? Isnt the cure for this type of "condition" rest and relaxation. Perhaps while you're counting your 7 million? Edited September 25, 2013 by HamSandwhich
Meatloaf Sandwich Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 I would trade Byrd for whatever we can get . How can any team guarantee him top money if he can refuse to play because of PF? If he's that injured he should retire. Nobody wants him. I mean what team would even bother? He is injured and wants big money.
KD in CA Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 Yet another article who is saying the same thing. Read between the line folks, he can play but he wont. Hard to imagine why more people don't side with the players union during lockouts.
Mike in Horseheads Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 http://espn.go.com/b...ppled-secondary I just read that article and came over here. This guy isn't even hiding the fact that he doesn't give a **** when he says he played with it last year but he's not going to this year. I think Russ and Doug are trying to "politely" point out that they need him and he just blows it off. Bills are screwed now because if they try and trade him they will get 50 cents on the dollar because other teams know that he doesn't want to be here and won't play. If they keep him he will sit and collect his 7mil and laugh. As my dad would have said... what a smuck!
dubs Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 The bottom line is, if Byrd is legitimately hurt then he should definitely rest and wait until he's healthy enough to play. I gave him the benefit of the doubt the first few weeks of this saga. Increasingly it appears he's essentially "holding out" while getting paid. That's a direct violation of the collective bargaining agreement and he should not collect a dime (if that is the case). And spare me the its a business BS. Byrd is making a ton of money and agreed to work under the conditions outlined in the labor agreement. You can't pick and choose what provisions you like and what you don't. If he got injured, that would be terrible. But if (or any player) isn't making preparations for life after football the day they get to their first training camp, then that's their fault. I have no sympathy for someone starting off life in the real world with millions in the bank.
HamSandwhich Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 http://espn.go.com/b...ppled-secondary I just read that article and came over here. This guy isn't even hiding the fact that he doesn't give a **** when he says he played with it last year but he's not going to this year. I think Russ and Doug are trying to "politely" point out that they need him and he just blows it off. Bills are screwed now because if they try and trade him they will get 50 cents on the dollar because other teams know that he doesn't want to be here and won't play. If they keep him he will sit and collect his 7mil and laugh. As my dad would have said... what a smuck! Few posts ahead of ya bud! The bottom line is, if Byrd is legitimately hurt then he should definitely rest and wait until he's healthy enough to play. I gave him the benefit of the doubt the first few weeks of this saga. Increasingly it appears he's essentially "holding out" while getting paid. That's a direct violation of the collective bargaining agreement and he should not collect a dime (if that is the case). And spare me the its a business BS. Byrd is making a ton of money and agreed to work under the conditions outlined in the labor agreement. You can't pick and choose what provisions you like and what you don't. If he got injured, that would be terrible. But if (or any player) isn't making preparations for life after football the day they get to their first training camp, then that's their fault. I have no sympathy for someone starting off life in the real world with millions in the bank. Uhhh, he said 100%, not when he is "healthy enough" to play. He's sandbagging it. It's really easy to see, but people want to turn a blind eye.
dubs Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 Few posts ahead of ya bud! Uhhh, he said 100%, not when he is "healthy enough" to play. He's sandbagging it. It's really easy to see, but people want to turn a blind eye. You didn't read my whole post did you? I wasn't quoting Byrd, was saying that if he can play, he should.
HamSandwhich Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 You didn't read my whole post did you? I wasn't quoting Byrd, was saying that if he can play, he should. I read the whole post, pointed out the problem with your post Wasn't saying you were wrong, just wanted to make clear he has to be 100%, not just able to play. That makes it even more BS
dubs Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 (edited) I read the whole post, pointed out the problem with your post What's the issue? I'm saying the same thing. The 100% is Ridiculous. He shouldn't play if he can't play. A 100% threshold is absurd. Got it. We are in total agreement Edited September 25, 2013 by dubs
HamSandwhich Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 So you think he's only healthy enough to play at 100%?
dubs Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 So you think he's only healthy enough to play at 100%? Hah. Well played
808 Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 he played last year with a injury with hopes that the team would reward him for doing so. and they didnt pay him when they had more than enough money to. none of us know what the contract size was that was offered him. its all speculation but i dont get why you guys are trusting the bills did the right thing here. when is the last time they got it right with resigning there own players? the argument of him being paid millions and should suck it up and play is ludicrous when you think about how 1 injury could screw him from being paid. henry melton and anthony specer both got season ending injuries this past weekend while playing on a franchise tag. its a bad move on the players part. they really only have a few years to be paid well and get a big contract. the bills should have done more to resign him prior. he far outplayed his rookie deal. the bills FO has shown time and time again that they are the ones that are usually the stubborn end on negotiations. im on byrds side and if i were him id wait till gilmore and mclovin were healthy enough to play and come back at the same time. it gives him more time to get the playbook down and ill bet it only will amplify how much better the secondary looks with them back. him playing FS with justin rodgers and AW at corner isnt gonna help him look that good. but with gilmore and mclovin back it will prove even more so when he does return what hes worth. its a business and the bills played him and hes playing them. should you not be mad at this FO for not signing him last year? he played thru a injury holding up his end that he would be rewarded with a new deal. this FO didnt get it done and so people blame byrd? why? this FO hasnt proved to get it right in the past why are people so sure they did what it would take now? we arent in salary cap issues and im pretty sure that the bills have a lot of money that cant be rolled over to next year because its already been rolled from last year. you cant roll the money twice. even the fitzpatrick/mark anderson deadmoney they split to carry to next year is proof they are playing penny pinching. why not put it all on this years cap that cant be rolled so you have more money next year? instead they split the money so we take a cap hit on those contracts next year. its dumb and people should start blaming this FO not the players
run dat back Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 HIS team? His TEAM? This hasn't been Byrd's team in a while now. He's an unhappy mercenary, nothing more. GO BILLS!!! Do you think most of the team enjoys playing for Buffalo? Do you think they wish they were someplace else on a better team? Can you blame them? This isn't to say Byrd should sit out if he can play. Of course he should play if possible. It doesn't mean he, or anyone else, should be happy about playing for the Bills.
Mike in Horseheads Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 he played last year with a injury with hopes that the team would reward him for doing so. and they didnt pay him when they had more than enough money to. none of us know what the contract size was that was offered him. its all speculation but i dont get why you guys are trusting the bills did the right thing here. when is the last time they got it right with resigning there own players? the argument of him being paid millions and should suck it up and play is ludicrous when you think about how 1 injury could screw him from being paid. henry melton and anthony specer both got season ending injuries this past weekend while playing on a franchise tag. its a bad move on the players part. they really only have a few years to be paid well and get a big contract. the bills should have done more to resign him prior. he far outplayed his rookie deal. the bills FO has shown time and time again that they are the ones that are usually the stubborn end on negotiations. im on byrds side and if i were him id wait till gilmore and mclovin were healthy enough to play and come back at the same time. it gives him more time to get the playbook down and ill bet it only will amplify how much better the secondary looks with them back. him playing FS with justin rodgers and AW at corner isnt gonna help him look that good. but with gilmore and mclovin back it will prove even more so when he does return what hes worth. its a business and the bills played him and hes playing them. should you not be mad at this FO for not signing him last year? he played thru a injury holding up his end that he would be rewarded with a new deal. this FO didnt get it done and so people blame byrd? why? this FO hasnt proved to get it right in the past why are people so sure they did what it would take now? we arent in salary cap issues and im pretty sure that the bills have a lot of money that cant be rolled over to next year because its already been rolled from last year. you cant roll the money twice. even the fitzpatrick/mark anderson deadmoney they split to carry to next year is proof they are playing penny pinching. why not put it all on this years cap that cant be rolled so you have more money next year? instead they split the money so we take a cap hit on those contracts next year. its dumb and people should start blaming this FO not the players ...OK... and how do we know he played with this last year? Are there weekly injury reports to support that?
maddenboy Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 (edited) Byrd should be a man, lop off his foot, replace it with one of those blade deals and get out there and make some plays! FWIW, my girlfriend has PF and there are days that she can barely walk on it. It's not just a "tough it out" injury... But, we've heard that he had the injury last year. And he supposedly "toughed it out" last year, when it was in his best interest to do so. THAT is what this discussion is about, imho. I have PF too, off and on. And it sucks. I can barely walk without limping when it flares up. But if somebody offered me $400,000 to go play some football for 3 hours, you'd best believe I'd tough it out. Or die trying. Edited September 25, 2013 by maddenboy
Jauronimo Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 What's the difference. They are both one year deals and at the conclusion he's got a bigger deal coming. No difference at all. The only difference between a player in the final year of his deal and getting franchised is that in the latter, the player feels disrespected. Disrespected despite the fact that their own labor union agreed to this provision in the collective bargaining agreement. In other words, get on the field. Are you really asking what is the difference between a forced 1 year deal and having one year remaining on a 5 year contract?
808 Posted September 25, 2013 Posted September 25, 2013 ...OK... and how do we know he played with this last year? Are there weekly injury reports to support that? didnt both the team and he confirm he had it last year? lets say he didnt for your sake. does he not deserve a new contract regardless? he has far out preformed his rookie contract and thought he the bills would reward him with a long term deal and it didnt get done. my first response is not to question his toughness and heart. id like to know why the deal didnt get done sooner. because thats really the issue here and looking back at history what tells you the bills handled it right and didnt try and nickel and dime him? cause history shows that this bills FO has continually got it wrong and not handled contract negotiations well. the fact that the GM has no power in the contract negotiations tells me its all about $$$ with them. its seems like if the bills win they are happy but if they lose and still make just as much money with a cheaper roster that is just fine.and thats my opinion.
Recommended Posts