808 Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 just for second for you people mad at byrd take a second and a step back from this situation lets pretend its not the bills a team you love and have supported your whole life and are a die hard for. lets pretend its san diego chargers or something and that this situation was playing out there with a team you are not emotionally invested in. do you guys still feel this strongly about byrd holding out? as much as some of you dont wanna hear this. its a business and you are too emotionally attached that you feel YOU deserve better and that if a player and team dont agree that the player is personally slighting you. the front office isnt you or your buddies. they are conducting business. and players should do whats best for them weather you like it or not. these players have no emotional attachment to buffalo the way most fans do and thats just the reality of it. i keep saying this but the FO does not deserve blind loyalty. love the team? 100% you should. but i question the FO quite a bit for moves they have made in the past and you should too. the bills havent been a winning team in 13 years and thats total BS.
dubs Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 as much as some of you dont wanna hear this. its a business and you are too emotionally attached that you feel YOU deserve better and that if a player and team dont agree that the player is personally slighting you. the front office isnt you or your buddies. they are conducting business. and players should do whats best for them weather you like it or not. these players have no emotional attachment to buffalo the way most fans do and thats just the reality of it. Is the NFL a business? I thought it was a not for profit charity? I think everyone gets that point. He signed a contract, he's getting paid, he's (assuming) healthy enough to play, so get out there and play. If he really is injured and can't play, then I am 100% on Byrd's side. I just don't think that is likely the case anymore.
NoSaint Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 If you don't believe the fans of the team deserve to know if he is stealing 7 million dollars. Not sure why you feel the need to insult fans because one fan doesn't pay his 7 million dollar salary for this season. All the fans of the Bills together pay that salary. i dont in the slightest feel entitled to his medical records. i find it incredibly strange that you feel owed them. am i curious, or would i listen if they were released - sure... but no way do i feel like as a fan of a team its your right to see them. do fox and cbs and the advertisers, and fans of other teams, and nike and the other owners sharing revenue and.... on and on also deserve the right to know? they all chip in - or is this limited to just bills fans?
808 Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 Is the NFL a business? I thought it was a not for profit charity? I think everyone gets that point. He signed a contract, he's getting paid, he's (assuming) healthy enough to play, so get out there and play. If he really is injured and can't play, then I am 100% on Byrd's side. I just don't think that is likely the case anymore. so because you dont think its the case you will voice out against him? why not wait till the situation plays out and the facts are out to pass judgement?
dubs Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 so because you dont think its the case you will voice out against him? why not wait till the situation plays out and the facts are out to pass judgement? It's a good point and that's why I always try to end my posts with the disclaimer that if he is injured and cannot play, then I am on his side. It's just difficult to do that on every post and we are discussing this in the hypothetical anyway. You are right, we don't know the extent of his injury. What's known though make the situation stink and makes him look as if he's making excuses because he's upset about the tag.
thebandit27 Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 The Bills are free to offer an insulting low-ball offer to an All-Pro safety and then tag him when he refuses to accept it. Byrd is free to react to the insulting low-ball offer by refusing to play until he's 100%. The franchise tag allows teams to retain player's services. It does not provide a right to have a happy player, eager to suit up and play for a team that basically said "EFF YOU" during negotiations. Any evidence that the team offered him an "insulting low-ball offer"? The only report I've seen was Adam Benigni's report that the team offered top 5 safety money.
YoloinOhio Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 It's a good point and that's why I always try to end my posts with the disclaimer that if he is injured and cannot play, then I am on his side. It's just difficult to do that on every post and we are discussing this in the hypothetical anyway. You are right, we don't know the extent of his injury. What's known though make the situation stink and makes him look as if he's making excuses because he's upset about the tag. And when other players around the league who know they are critical to their team's success are playing with injuries because it is a matter of "pain tolerance" and not exacerbating the injury, which is what I see here with Byrd. Examples just from today - Amendola, Holmes, Rice, SJ13
NoSaint Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 Any evidence that the team offered him an "insulting low-ball offer"? The only report I've seen was Adam Benigni's report that the team offered top 5 safety money. which isnt all that much in the way of proof of anything, and only underscores how little we know. even IF accurate it leaves out length, guarantees, structure, etc... It's a good point and that's why I always try to end my posts with the disclaimer that if he is injured and cannot play, then I am on his side. It's just difficult to do that on every post and we are discussing this in the hypothetical anyway. You are right, we don't know the extent of his injury. What's known though make the situation stink and makes him look as if he's making excuses because he's upset about the tag. agreed its tough - i kind of do the same thing on the opposite side "if hes totally faking then screw him" but its near impossible to reasonably write the disclaimer each time, and without it its hard to keep track of whos talking hypotheticals and who is just spewing anger (towards either side, although obviously mostly directed at byrd these days)
K-9 Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 The Bills are free to offer an insulting low-ball offer to an All-Pro safety and then tag him when he refuses to accept it. Byrd is free to react to the insulting low-ball offer by refusing to play until he's 100%. The franchise tag allows teams to retain player's services. It does not provide a right to have a happy player, eager to suit up and play for a team that basically said "EFF YOU" during negotiations. So, anything less than getting what you want is tantamount to being told "F you?" Interesting negotiating ploy that is. But, given his complete lack of professionalism, I'm not surprised Byrd would take it that way. GO BILLS!!!
NoSaint Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 So, anything less than getting what you want is tantamount to being told "F you?" Interesting negotiating ploy that is. But, given his complete lack of professionalism, I'm not surprised Byrd would take it that way. GO BILLS!!! depends, im still waiting to hear what the gap between the two sides amounts to - could be either one or both that are out of line
808 Posted September 26, 2013 Posted September 26, 2013 So, anything less than getting what you want is tantamount to being told "F you?" Interesting negotiating ploy that is. But, given his complete lack of professionalism, I'm not surprised Byrd would take it that way. GO BILLS!!! what about the professionalism on the bills side? he far out played his rookie contract. this is a 2 way street both sides are probably to blame here. but blind byrd hate because people are emotionally connected to the bills and cant see this as a business and that if byrd gets hurt after he already laid it on the line expecting the bills to reward him once that i can see why hes decided to wait it out.
K-9 Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 what about the professionalism on the bills side? he far out played his rookie contract. this is a 2 way street both sides are probably to blame here. but blind byrd hate because people are emotionally connected to the bills and cant see this as a business and that if byrd gets hurt after he already laid it on the line expecting the bills to reward him once that i can see why hes decided to wait it out. No side is to blame for anything here. Neither side did nothing wrong. You can stop repeating that mantra. As to the Byrd hate, I don't care to rehash the dozens of my posts that suggest otherwise, but his "100%" remark crossed the line in my mind. Doesn't make me hate him at all, but I have little respect for him as a professional when I know for a fact that not one regular starter in that locker room is at 100%. And while he would make our hurting secondary a better one, I really don't care if he plays or not at this point. That's not hating him. That's total indifference. Which, on many levels, is worse. GO BILLS!!!
YoloinOhio Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 I go back and forth on how much I blame/dislike Byrd. Today I am kind of neutral. The reason is twofold. First, I know he has to think about himself and there have been some crazy injuries this year on guys who are playing under the one year tag. This is his priome chance to get the biggest contract he can, and he is playing it smart, from that standpoint. If he goes out with this injury and it hampers his ability to play at the level he feels he needs to - not only to help the team but help himself - nobody benefits. The second thing, is that I can compare this to other situations around the league where key players are not playing not because of injury, but because they were selfish/stupid and are suspended or in rehab. Von Miller, Aldon Smith, Josh Gordon (just got back)... If I am a fan of those teams I am much more p**ed that they went out and did things that take them off the field and were in their control, not an injury situation. Not even taking into account the off-the-field implications of Smith's behavior. At least Byrd has been participating in practice, meetings, and helping the other safeties. It is not an ideal situation, and maybe I am stretching here,I still feel like if he wanted to play he could, but it could be worse.
Mickey Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 I have no emotional reaction to Byrd at all either way. My only concern is watching a good football team and we are a better team with him on the field than we are without him. It is the responsibility of this team's FO to put together a good football team. They have failed at that task for many years now so I am not disposed to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to critical personnel decisions. Byrd's job is to be as good a FS as he can be and I think he has done his job throughout his contract. Plenty of other teams have been able to put forth competitive teams year in and year out. I suppose our front office could just be terribly unlucky in having so many of their good players being "greedy" and insisting on getting "more than they are worth". I think it more likely that they are simply poor judges of talent, frequently overpaying mediocre talent (Fitz, Kelsay) and unwilling or unable to hang on to good players. No matter who you blame, the Byrd situation could hardly be described as anything other than a mess. An ugly contract dispute with one of the few proven talents on the team is not exactly the way to have started off a new regime in Buffalo. However they got they there, the end result, a losing franchise, is their responsibility.
papazoid Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 (edited) Jets wide receiver Santonio Holmes says he still isn't 100 percent recovered from the foot injury that kept him out for most of last season and the entire preseason, but he's been in the lineup and his 69-yard touchdown catch beat the Bills last weekend. Had safety Jairus Byrd been in the Buffalo lineup, perhaps things would have played out differently. Byrd hasn't been in the lineup at all for the Bills this year because of his own foot problem and, unlike Holmes, Byrd won't be taking a step on the field until he's certain that he's 100 percent. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/26/jairus-byrd-wont-play-unless-he-feels-100-percent/ Edited September 27, 2013 by papazoid
Dawgg Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 Jets wide receiver Santonio Holmes says he still isn't 100 percent recovered from the foot injury that kept him out for most of last season and the entire preseason, but he's been in the lineup and his 69-yard touchdown catch beat the Bills last weekend. Yawn. The Jets committed to Holmes long-term and signed him to a five-year, $45.25 million contract with $24 million guaranteed. This comes after he was suspended for 4 games for violating the substance abuse policy, placing him one strike away from being suspended for an entire season. So you think Holmes has a reason to be loyal to the Jets organization and play through pain? Hell yeah he does. Let's not compare apples to oranges.
NoSaint Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 Yawn. The Jets committed to Holmes long-term and signed him to a five-year, $45.25 million contract with $24 million guaranteed. This comes after he was suspended for 4 games for violating the substance abuse policy, placing him one strike away from being suspended for an entire season. So you think Holmes has a reason to be loyal to the Jets organization and play through pain? Hell yeah he does. Let's not compare apples to oranges. and not just loyalty, but the sharing of risk if the injury gets worse or something happens. that said, we just dont know what the bills offered and it may have been reasonable.
YoloinOhio Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 Last week folks were saying that we didn't need Byrd and we didn't care if he played or got traded because the secondary was playing well. The McK injury exacerbated the holes caused by Gilmore and Byrd. At some point, McK, Gilmore and possibly even Byrd will be back. That will be fun. Also, Rogers has had some decent plays over the last couple weeks. He intercepted Brady and had an integral PBU on the flea flicker against the Jets. They didn't make up for his mistakes last week, but as Marrone said they are correctable. I would not be surprised if our secondary plays much better this week.
K-9 Posted September 27, 2013 Posted September 27, 2013 and not just loyalty, but the sharing of risk if the injury gets worse or something happens. that said, we just dont know what the bills offered and it may have been reasonable. Well, they gave Wood top 5 center money. Reports were the Bills offered Byrd top 5 safety money as well. Assuming they value Byrd as much as Wood (and I think the FT suggests this), and the oft stated rhetoric that the front office was and still is committed to a long term deal, I tend to believe top 5 is exactly what they offered. I've already stated my reasons why I believe Byrd SHOULD be top 5 but not highest paid on numerous occasions, so I won't rehash why again. I only mention it because I think the Bills offer was fair given an honest assessment of his talent level. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts