stevewin Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Just saw this in the "NFL's Policy on Cannabis" thread - so this is his 4th offense? Here is the NFL breakdown: First Infraction – Mandatory Rehabilitation Program Second Infraction – 2 Game Fine (Can Play Un-Paid) Third Infraction – 4 Game Fine (Can Play Un-Paid) Fourth Infraction – 4 Game Suspension
JohnC Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 You don't know if he lacks judgement, has a serious issue or just doesn't care. It's unfair to say he has a serious mental illness His repeated self-destructive behavior is an indication that he has some serious issues that he needs to address. When an adult continues to behave like an undisciplined child there is a deeper issue that needs to be examined.
dpberr Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 If I'm the Bills I trade MD this offseason. Hopefully he has a great season and they can sell and get good value. There is serious trouble here and the Bills have to decide whether they want to go down the Josh Gordon route with him. There is little expectation IMO that it's going to go anywhere but this sad route.
jahnyc Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Looks like we get some relatively minor cap savings because of the suspension for base and bonus that otherwise would have been payable to Dareus over the first four games of the regular season. Do we know if this translates into immediate cap savings (and available for use now) or does it happen over the course of the first four games of the season?
Maury Ballstein Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 (edited) The exact same logic that condemns a relatively harmless herb applies to sugar and other much more harmful foods that directly cause heart disease - the leading cause of death in the world. And none of it is criminalized like marijuana. It's a joke. But what's worse is that there are still uninformed and often times ignorant people out there like the person I replied to who buy into it. It's reefer madness!!! Finish him ! Some guy in a powdered wig who had slaves told him pot was bad. He probably still believes in the tooth fairy. What a good follower. Edited August 17, 2016 by Ryan L Billz
YattaOkasan Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 2015 Hughes 92.5% Mario W. 81.3% Dareus 69.2% C. Bryant 58.2% Kyle W. 31.8% S. Charles 20.9% A. Carrington 16% Enemkpali 13.4% T. Barnes 2.4% J. Worthy 2.1% 2014 Hughes 71.9% Mario W. 72.5% Kyle W. 66.1% Dareus 62.4% C. Bryant 32.5% M. Lawson 31.3% S. Charles 31.0% J. Wynn 28.6% While last year Mario and Hughes were substituted very little, after that it's somewhat similar. Dareus went from 62 to 69%, spending less time on the bench under Rex. Hmm... not as stark as I had remembered (numbers I'm recalling may have been from when Kyle wasn't hurt), but K WIlliams absence sort skews this data. Kyle would likely have been well over his 2014 66% mark in 2015 if he wasn't injured. In 2014 the back ups were playing 1 in every 3 snaps almost. In 2015 that dropped to 1 in every 5 snaps (making the bold assumption that Bryant is closer to 20% than 25%). I do think thats a large drop, and as you mentioned there is no denying that Mario and Hughes were not being substituted. Thanks for the data, and I do think it supports the assertion that this defense was less reliant on subbing than Schwartz (so I'm backing off my assertion a little). What are your thoughts.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 @TyDunne Note on language in Marcell Dareus' contract: If suspended, all guaranteed $$ in subsequent years do not void. That is... uncommon. @JoeBanner13 Joe Banner Retweeted Tyler Dunne This is shocking and is unheard of. Owner should be demanding answers. Mistake made worse by history of this player @NFLosophy NFL Philosophy Retweeted Tyler Dunne WOW. This may be unprecedented language. Can't believe this was ever negotiated in.
stony Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 @TyDunne Note on language in Marcell Dareus' contract: If suspended, all guaranteed $$ in subsequent years do not void. That is... uncommon. @JoeBanner13 Joe Banner Retweeted Tyler Dunne This is shocking and is unheard of. Owner should be demanding answers. Mistake made worse by history of this player @NFLosophy NFL Philosophy Retweeted Tyler Dunne WOW. This may be unprecedented language. Can't believe this was ever negotiated in. Is this on Whaley or Overdorf? Did Whaley pressure Overdorf to get a "deal done at all costs"???
FireChan Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 @TyDunne Note on language in Marcell Dareus' contract: If suspended, all guaranteed $$ in subsequent years do not void. That is... uncommon. @JoeBanner13 Joe Banner Retweeted Tyler Dunne This is shocking and is unheard of. Owner should be demanding answers. Mistake made worse by history of this player @NFLosophy NFL Philosophy Retweeted Tyler Dunne WOW. This may be unprecedented language. Can't believe this was ever negotiated in. Probably was on the table in negotiations. Whaley and co bought that Marcel had changed. A mistake, but not egregious, IMO.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 at his statement on twitter. Yeah, you wrote that...genius.
jahnyc Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 If no other team agrees to this language, especially with regard to a player that previously has been suspended, than it is worse than egregious.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Is this on Whaley or Overdorf? Did Whaley pressure Overdorf to get a "deal done at all costs"??? That's an Overdorf thing, but the entire front office should have discussed this kind of clause with an emphasis to protect themselves from this very situation. Bad job by OBD!
thebandit27 Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Is this on Whaley or Overdorf? Did Whaley pressure Overdorf to get a "deal done at all costs"??? Both IMO Probably was on the table in negotiations. Whaley and co bought that Marcel had changed. A mistake, but not egregious, IMO. I would call it egregious. It is, IMO, as bad a contract decision as the Tyrod contract is good. There's no way they should've caved on that, let alone offered it (not sure if they did). The minute you give that concession, you're telling the player that it's okay to get suspended.
NoSaint Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 its not like we were cutting him ASAP for a drug suspension at this point. by the time the full on melt down would have transpired, odds are we would be past guaranteed salary. additionally, even if it was a fast melt down, wed be on the hook for amortizing all that bonus money. by the time thats a pill we could swallow, i believe we are likewise past the "future guarantees" we could have voided. just some gut reaction there. while it may be uncommon, it may not be a real issue.
FireChan Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Both IMO I would call it egregious. It is, IMO, as bad a contract decision as the Tyrod contract is good. There's no way they should've caved on that, let alone offered it (not sure if they did). The minute you give that concession, you're telling the player that it's okay to get suspended. Obviously IMO, but to offer a player that much money, especially GTD money, with a history of drug problems, is a vote of confidence. I'm not saying that it isn't a screw up, it is. And I agree it's a huge concession. But I can also see how Dareus and his agent can play the other side.
stony Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 Both IMO I would call it egregious. It is, IMO, as bad a contract decision as the Tyrod contract is good. There's no way they should've caved on that, let alone offered it (not sure if they did). The minute you give that concession, you're telling the player that it's okay to get suspended. Yep. It's easy to suggest JO is at fault for the contract language, but Whaley would set the 'tone' for all contract negotiations.
thebandit27 Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 its not like we were cutting him ASAP for a drug suspension at this point. by the time the full on melt down would have transpired, odds are we would be past guaranteed salary. additionally, even if it was a fast melt down, wed be on the hook for amortizing all that bonus money. by the time thats a pill we could swallow, i believe we are likewise past the "future guarantees" we could have voided. just some gut reaction there. while it may be uncommon, it may not be a real issue. I don't know...maybe I'm reading the contract wrong, but it appears that there's $41.2M in guarantees remaining after his 2017 base salary and a portion of his 2018 base salary became guaranteed earlier this year: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/marcell-dareus/ Obviously IMO, but to offer a player that much money, especially GTD money, with a history of drug problems, is a vote of confidence. I'm not saying that it isn't a screw up, it is. And I agree it's a huge concession. But I can also see how Dareus and his agent can play the other side. I cannot. If you need to ask for that to be included, then you don't deserve a vote of confidence. The vote of confidence is the owner signing a $60M check that you don't have to give back unless you do something grotesquely stupid. My apologies if that comes off harsh towards you; it's not meant that way.
jahnyc Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 I think it is a real issue, and given the amount of guaranteed money in the contract (which I believe is significant), someone should be fired over this if ownership was not fully aware of the concession, ramifications and lack of precedent in other NFL player contracts.
FireChan Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 I don't know...maybe I'm reading the contract wrong, but it appears that there's $41.2M in guarantees remaining after his 2017 base salary and a portion of his 2018 base salary became guaranteed earlier this year: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/marcell-dareus/ I cannot. If you need to ask for that to be included, then you don't deserve a vote of confidence. The vote of confidence is the owner signing a $60M check that you don't have to give back unless you do something grotesquely stupid. My apologies if that comes off harsh towards you; it's not meant that way. Of course. You have a point. It being a commonality of these sort of contracts adds more credence to your point.
NoSaint Posted August 17, 2016 Posted August 17, 2016 I don't know...maybe I'm reading the contract wrong, but it appears that there's $41.2M in guarantees remaining after his 2017 base salary and a portion of his 2018 base salary became guaranteed earlier this year: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/marcell-dareus/ ouch. i didnt realize they were hitting him with that much, that far out. 3 seasons ahead with a guy with a history of issues and no recourse written in does actually bug me then.
Recommended Posts