ganesh Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I swear, some of you people are just bad business. Making players like Byrd stay when they've made it obvious and clear that they don't want to be here is just really bad business, no matter how you slice it. We drafted Byrd, he played out his contract, we made him more than one offer and he didn't take them. Why treat him like a red headed step child? Why make someone stay against their will or trade them to a team they don't want to play for? Why would you want someone on the Bills that is here against their will? As much as I hate to see Byrd go, and I really hate seeing him go, Whaley is acting like a professional here and not some bush league whiny baby who is butt hurt that a player didn't want to be here. It sucks that Byrd doesn't want to play here but he did his time and did it well. Agreed. The Bills made wise decision to invest in the OL (Paying Wood) and DL (Mario Williams as a FA, Kyle Williams as a home grown product). They have to continue to build around this talent. There is no point in burning 10M /year for a Safety. The Bills have other needs and being a small market team need to be wise with their dollars. And to add, the Bills have some talented players coming up for negotiation: Aaron Williams C.J. Spiller Dareus Gilmore Kennedy famously quoted in 1961: Ask what you can do for the country, not what the country can do for you. These players need to first win games for the Buffalo Bills before asking insane contracts. Byrd, I have a feeling, that wanted to get out of Buffalo and used an "Unreasonable" contract request to do so. There is already precedence for this with Peters. Peters played OL and hence there was a chance to get back a good draft pick. Unfortunately, no one would be willing to pay the bills a good draft pick for Byrd. This was a tough situation and in the end I think the Bills did the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 You've been a Bills fan for a long time? You remember the handshake agreement Ralph made in 1995 to extend Jim Kelly's contract after the 1996 season? Well, circumstances change. That's why contracts are signed. And no, there was no contractual agreement between the Bills and Clements not to franchise him. I get a laugh out of "it would have been wrong" though. The NFL isn't about doing right or wrong with regard to players.....they are temporary assets.....it's about doing what is permitted. In return, players like Clements and Byrd get a chance to make millions if they perform. Been a fan since before I attended my first Bills game in 1968 and the handshake agreement Ralph made with Kelly has no bearing on this argument. Here is a quote from a CBS Sports article from last year: "Giving prohibition clauses to Clady and Byrd wouldn't establish a new precedent for the Broncos or the Bills. Jason Elam received a prohibition clause from Denver in 2002 when he signed his franchise tender. Nate Clements also got one from Buffalo in 2006 as their franchise player." I am not going to continue to argue this point with you. There is ample proof to show the Bills had an agreement with Clements not to franchise him in 2007. And I am really sorry that you "get a laugh" out of honoring an agreement with integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Been a fan since before I attended my first Bills game in 1968 and the handshake agreement Ralph made with Kelly has no bearing on this argument. Here is a quote from a CBS Sports article from last year: "Giving prohibition clauses to Clady and Byrd wouldn't establish a new precedent for the Broncos or the Bills. Jason Elam received a prohibition clause from Denver in 2002 when he signed his franchise tender. Nate Clements also got one from Buffalo in 2006 as their franchise player." I am not going to continue to argue this point with you. There is ample proof to show the Bills had an agreement with Clements not to franchise him in 2007. And I am really sorry that you "get a laugh" out of honoring an agreement with integrity. You are right, Marv may have lied. Second laugh for referencing the NFL and integrity in such close proximity. You gotta' love an organization that craps all over it's fans and then gets them to defend their stupidity by getting them to assign their own every-man values to their cut-throat business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) You are right, Marv may have lied. Second laugh for referencing the NFL and integrity in such close proximity. You gotta' love an organization that craps all over it's fans and then gets them to defend their stupidity by getting them to assign their own every-man values to their cut-throat business model. Actually, the Bills organization doesn't "get" me to do anything. I defend what I choose to defend - and I don't "assign" my values to what the Bills do. I evaluate what they do according to my values. There is a difference. While there are certainly many things done within the NFL and many other business arenas that lack integrity, there are also many things that are still done with integrity. I despise the former and applaud the latter. Now back to our original debate. For the sake of argument, let us adopt your position that it was just a "handshake" agreement between Clements and the Bills to not franchise him a second time. My position is this: I applaud the Bills for honoring their agreement, even if it meant letting Clements walk. Just because others do things without integrity, it doesn't mean you should - and it certainly doesn't mean it is right. I am glad I have been able to amuse you with my posts. Edited March 4, 2014 by billsfan1959 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Actually, the Bills organization doesn't "get" me to do anything. I defend what I choose to defend - and I don't "assign" my values to what the Bills do. I evaluate what they do according to my values. There is a difference. While there are certainly many things done within the NFL and many other business arenas that lack integrity, there are also many things that are still done with integrity. I despise the former and applaud the latter. Now back to our original debate. For the sake of argument, let us adopt your position that it was just a "handshake" agreement between Clements and the Bills to not franchise him a second time. My position is this: I applaud the Bills for honoring their agreement, even if it meant letting Clements walk. Just because others do things without integrity, it doesn't mean you should - and it certainly doesn't mean it is right. I am glad I have been able to amuse you with my posts. I think you need to look up the definition of integrity. It's not really something you are one minute but not the next. The NFL at it's core is a very cutthroat business. It has it's own set of business ethics that teams are mandated to work within. That's what matters. Not your values imposed into that environment. What Marv did was weaken his teams position by sacrificing player control. Not just in Clements case. The team has been paying for it ever since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I think you need to look up the definition of integrity. It's not really something you are one minute but not the next. The NFL at it's core is a very cutthroat business. It has it's own set of business ethics that teams are mandated to work within. That's what matters. Not your values imposed into that environment. What Marv did was weaken his teams position by sacrificing player control. Not just in Clements case. The team has been paying for it ever since. Your first sentence makes absolutely no sense in the context of my posts. In essence, I said some people do things with integrity and some people do not. I applaud those that do and despise those that don't. That is an unequivocal, consistent position....and no, I do not need to look up up the definition of any words I use. Quite honestly, you are the one proposing that the NFL has its own version of integrity - and that it is absolutely allright to operate in any manner you deem appropriate. Your posts seem to indicate that you are one of those "the ends justify the means" kind of people. That pretty much says integrity is a sliding scale for you - not me. Maybe you should look up the definition of "projection." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I think you need to look up the definition of integrity. It's not really something you are one minute but not the next. The NFL at it's core is a very cutthroat business. It has it's own set of business ethics that teams are mandated to work within. That's what matters. Not your values imposed into that environment. What Marv did was weaken his teams position by sacrificing player control. Not just in Clements case. The team has been paying for it ever since. So judging by this statement, you are just as on board with Byrd faking(or not) an injury to sit out almost half the season to prove a point? Being that the NFL has it's own standards of business, it must mean that its perfectly okay for players to do things like hold out and malinger if it's okay for teams to hold players against their will. Were you rooting for Byrd to to hold out? Did you just write it off as ethical? Or is it only ethical when things go your way? I want Byrd to be here as much as anyone but I sure as hell don't want to hold a player here against their will. If they dislike playing in Buffalo so much that they wont sign a 10mil contract, then why not just let them go? If I'm a player who's contract is coming up and I see the Bills management do something like that I'm dipping the first chance I get. Byrd played 4 years under a 2nd round rookie contract, he was an all pro. We got more than what we paid for from him, now he's moving on and so should we. No sense in acting like the sky is falling or being butt hurt about it. People can call Whaley stupid or a moron but he at least comes across as an adult, more than what I can say for more than half this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 OP: you paint a very dire picture; disheartening when you think about it. What's funny though is I typically get most irked about the low-priced solid guys that we let go: Sammy Morris, Sam Aiken, David Nelson, chad rinehart, Marcus price, Ron Edwards. Lot of solid depth talent that was forgotten, in large part, due to the numerous regime changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 over pay for fitzpatrick and kelsay but let Levitre and Byrd walk- no wonder we haven't made the playoffs this millenium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) This Byrd thing got me wondering about all the failjobs the Bills have had over the years at keeping talent. To summarize (feel free to add others ive missed) Guys we decided to pay: Fitzpatrick, Kyle Williams (pro bowler), Chris Kelsay, Lee Evans, Fred Jackson, Stevie Johnson, Eric Wood, Leodis McKelvin Guys we decided not to pay: Pat Williams (pro bowler), Nate Clements (pro bowler), Antoine Winfield (pro bowler), London Fletcher (pro bowler), Jason Peters(pro bowler), Jabari Greer, Paul Pozluszny (pro bowler) , Donte Whitner (pro bowler), Andy Levitre, Jairus Byrd (pro bowler and on pace for HOF career....compare his stats to Ed Reed they are very similar) Guys we traded for peanuts: Willis Mcgahee (pro bowler), Marshawn Lynch(pro bowler) The wheels keep spinning and we dont go anywhere. Why? because we sign talent to either exhorborant contract extension (fitz, kelsay) out of line with their performance or we nab them early before they could get more money (K williams)...when it comes to paying our premium talent, its always made out to be that the player is asking for too much or hates buffalo. This is why we buff a blow. Also Decided to pay(when their own team would not): Mario Lawson Carpenter Chandler Also decided not to pay(extend): Maybin Hardy Rodgers Scott Wilson Carder Jones Nelson Troupe Etc... People only remember the poor decisions. Drafting needs to be better. That's the only thing that matters. NFL talent has a shelf life and no one can keep all the best players in this free agency era. Keeping one high dollar star will mean losing someone else now or later.... Edited March 4, 2014 by over 20 years of fanhood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 . People only remember the poor decisions. Drafting needs to be better. That's the only thing that matters. NFL talent has a shelf life and no one can keep all the best players in this free agency era. Keeping one high dollar star will mean losing someone else now or later.... And all this will become a non-issue if we have a Franchise QB who can consistently win ball games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts