mannc
-
Posts
18,641 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mannc
-
-
The players would lose in any work stoppage, just as they have in every other work stoppage.
Regardless of who the fans side with, the billionaires are the ones that don't need the money, whereas the bottom 90% of NFL players do, in fact, need their weekly game checks to support their families and lifestyles.
Unless the top 10% paid NFL players are prepared to set up a "survival fund" for the bottom 90%, a work stoppage is a bad, bad decision.
The NFL players certainly have fared poorly in past labor disputes, but that need not always be the case. In the past, the players have been incompetently represented by their union. I suspect things have changed. Nevertheless, NFL players have a lot of legitimate concerns, especially in comparison to their comrades in MLB and the NBA, that can and should be addressed in future negotiations with the owners.
And I think you might be overestimating the owners' invulnerability. Yes, they have a lot of money, but they also have a golden goose that they don't want to kill, and that could happen in a prolonged and ugly work stoppage. There is plenty of money to go around...
The NBA has 1/4th the number of players that the NFL does.
And how does that prove that guaranteed contracts would be bad for the NFL?
-
Fully guaranteed deals would make the NFL worse. No thanks.
Evidence? The NBA certainly isn't suffering, is it?
-
If the Bills had played in the NFC North the past 17 years, its likely that they would have made the playoffs at least a handful of times.
-
Probably but it does stick out.
So does Stafford suck or the Lions?
I'm not sure, but with all those game-winning drives, the Lions only managed 9-7 in a weak division, and got blown out in their wild card game.
-
Teams were not allowed to talk to Tyrod or his agent yet Teams could talk to Teams about trades, no?
That is my understanding.
-
Contracts absolutely do reflect roster roles. If a team had strong enough feelings on a player it would be expressed through their contract offerings. You don't think that if a team that was serious in wanting him it would have offered him an appealing contract that would have enticed him to leave the Bills, an organization that demanded a reduction in salary to stay? No team gave him that type of offer.
The reason why TT wasn't released was because he took a reduction in salary. There were plenty of teams that could have theoretically offered him more if they wanted him. They didn't. TT for them, as for us, is a bridge qb. He had value up to a point. And what is telling is that no team, including the Bills, was foolish enough to go beyond the point with their offerings.
We can go in circles until the sun goes down. The reality is he stayed with his team under a reduced contract. Were other teams interested in him? Probably so. But that's not a big deal because marginal qbs have a value up to a point. And no team was going to go beyond a reasonable discount price to sign him. The market spoke and TT responded to it.
John, let's re-set this again. Tyrod was not a free agent. Any team that even discussed making him an offer would have been severely sanctioned by the league. Therefore, there was no "market", and therefore your entire post is based on a demonstrably false premise.
Your statement that the Bills would have released Tyrod if he had not agreed to a restructuring is also pure conjecture and not an established fact. It's possible that was the Bills' position during the negotiation, but it remains to be seen if they would have released him if he had not agreed to the restructure. I highly doubt it since their new coach clearly wanted to retain him and had no better short-term alternatives, but others may have a different opinion. Either way, it's not a fact and should not be presented as one.
-
Name the team that gave him an offer. None did. No team made him an offer that matched his original contract. None. He took a reduction in salary and term in order to stay with the team he was with. That is a fact. How do you measure actual interest? By how much another team was willing to give him. Sure there were teams interesting in exploring him as an option. What materialized? No tangible offers were made. If there were then state which team made him an offer.
John, do you really not understand? Tyrod was still under contact with the Buffalo Bills. It would have been illegal for any team to even talk about making him an offer, much less actually making one. Any team doing so would have been subject to severe penalties, including the loss of a first round draft pick. The fact that "no team made him an offer" therefore proves absolutely nothing.
-
What did you mean by "actual response" and how do you know there was none?We have been through this issue a thousand times. You clearly haven't grasped the point. If you don't believe that agents , themselves and through surrogates, send out back door feelers to find out what the market value and interest are then you are unaware of the real world and are naive.
Once again, you can't possibly know if either statement is true, and yet you continue to assert them as established facts. At best they are your own personal opinion/speculation.The former GM wanted to outright cut the qb. The new regime was only willing to keep him on the roster with a reduction in money and term.
-
"their lack of actual response"?? What on Earth are you talking about? You know that Tyrod was at all times under contract, right? And that any "response" by other teams would be tampering, right?With respect to the highlighted area go ahead and name those teams. I promise you that I won't ask for proof. I have no doubt that some teams had an interest in him. However, their lack of actual response is a statement in itself.
-
Long is out of the league and Ryan just had a career year and is hitting his peak as a franchise QB. Yeah, great pick, Miami.I liked the move... Ryan would've gotten killed behind that trash O-line... Long made sense, and proved his worth.
-
Then they would have been morons, especially in that draft class.I would think that, a couple years back, most Bills fans would have gladly sold off half the team, in order to tank the 2013 season so that they could take Clowney.
-
I will concede one thing: Tyrod is a very unconventional QB and, regardless how effective he is, that was likely a limiting factor in terms of generating interest from other teams. NFL GMs are much more likely to roll the dice with a standard issue pocket passer who might be less talented (e.g. Glennon) than someone for whom they might have to adjust their offense, like Tyrod. And there's also (imo) a reluctance to take someone who just doesn't jibe with the commonly held idea of what an NFL QB should look like.And I think you're coming at from the perspective of a Bills fan who sees his td-int ratio.
Next year is supposed to be a good qb draft. Teams drafted qbs this year. There is no loyalty in the NFL. If he sucks or gets hurt, the Bills or other teams aren't going to give him big money. If there was really interest in him, he should have pursued it.
-
If you think anyone is going to tank for a defensive lineman you are beyond delusional.
W-w-w-w-ait a minute! -So YOU DO support the occasional tank-job!In for a penny, -in for a pound... Full-throttle on a tank job could have meant Mahommes or, (for some of you) Trubisky.. -That's WITHOUT selling your firstborn, or breaking a sweat.
I think Beane gets it... he's not going too far without a franchise QB, or a franchise replacement on his D-line...
.
-
What if it was a team he did not want to play for, or at least did not prefer to the Bills? And of course, one could argue that the current deal is better for Tyrod than the previous one if he has a big year in 2017.Generally agree. But if you thought even one team was really interested, it would be a stupid decision to come back here instead of testing the market. He could have gotten a fat signing bonus and more security. Now, if he regresses or gets hurt, he will have really screwed himself.
-
Again, it's fine to say that you doubt other teams were interested, but it's wrong to state that as an established fact. There are a lot of reasons, other than lack of interest from other teams, that Tyrod may have signed the restructured deal. Those reasons have been covered in other threads at length, not to mention the fact that other teams were not allowed to even talk to Tyrod or his agent while he was under contract. And of course, it's not his agent's decision, it's Tyrod's.No one can prove other teams wanted him either.
But if you were his agent, would you want him to test the market where he would be the most sought after qb or have him re-sign for least money on a team that was iffy about him? It seems really strange he would re-sign with us if his market was as big as someone of you think.
-
I never made any proclamation one way or another regarding whether Tyrod would have been given the chance to start elsewhere. I don't know for sure because he never hit the market and no GM or coach was foolish enough to risk losing a high draft pick by speaking publicly about their team's interest in a player under contract with another team. The burden to produce evidence falls on those, like JohnC, who state categorically that no other team had any interest in TT as a starter.Is it now?
Teams have never ever tried to work out deals with players under contract before?
Explain to me how a team goes about negotiating a trade? meaning the player has to be under contract or there is no need for a trade.
What we could call being disingenuous is not providing the link asked for.
-
The idea of tanking an entire season for the chance to draft one player is so absurd that it's not worth discussing. What's not absurd is tanking a single game at the end of the season to improve draft position. What the Bills did last year was a textbook example and it worked to perfection. If they win that meaningless Jets game they draft 15, don't pick up an extra 1st rounder in 2018 and still don't have a chance to draft Mahomes or Watson. Not to mention m, the loss allowed them to pick significantly earlier in all the other rounds.
-
Stick to your guns, John. Cam is one of the most overrated players in the NFL (career completion percentage under 60%), and Tyrod very clearly outplayed him in 2016. On top of that, Tyrod is a strong leader and a good guy, while Cam is a punk.By the way....I am not saying that TT is a more talented qb then Cam Newton especially physically. Only that there are certain intangibles to the postiion that I feel TT has over Cam that cannnot be discounted.
-
That's entirely disingenuous. Since Tyrod was at all times still under contract with the Bills, it would have been illegal tampering for anyone associated with another team to make any such statement, and you know it. Which is why John's original statement (presented as cold, hard fact) is nothing more than uninformed speculation.There were no other teams interested in him as a starter.
I too would love see it in type
If there were then state them
And not some tabloid or talking head. Something from a teams Front Office or coaching staff.
-
John, your entire first paragraph, as well as the part about Whaley, is nothing but speculation, yet you state it as an established fact. Other statements you make (bridge QB, he is what he is) are obviously just your opinion of the player, which is fine. But you should not present rumor and unsupported speculation as fact. You also did it in the Ryan Brothers bar fight thread, when early on you stated unequivocally that they did not instigate anything. That speculation, presented as fact, also turned out to be wrong.What am I making up? If Taylor would not of taken a pay cut with a lesser term he wouldn't even be on the Bills' roster. That's a fact. TT had the ability to decline the lower contract offering and go to another team. There were no other teams interested in him as a starter. If there were then state them.
At best TT is a bridge qb for us. He taking a diminished contract illustrates that point. If the organization under the new regime was unwilling to invest in him under his original contract what does that tell you? If Whaley would have been retained TT would have been unceremoniously dispatched.
TT has been in the league for at least a half dozen years. He is what he is. Those hoping for him to be something more than what he has already demonstrated are being wishful. TT does serve a useful purpose. But it is not as our long term franchise qb.
-
John, you are just making stuff up. You are stating things as cold, hard facts that you cannot possibly know to be true.You and many others continue to make the argument that he was an attractive qb option for a number of qb starved teams. The reality is that when he had the opportunity to pursue other options no team was interested in him at his former salary or even at a lower salary rate. The point is frequently made that he couldn't check out the market because he was contractually obligated to the Bills. That is a naive response because there was always a behind the curtain way through his agent to determine what other teams were interested in him and at what price range. No team showed an interest in him as a starter.
The stark reality is he took a salary cut with a shorter term because he had no other offers. If you believe that there is still potential for him, even with his glaring limitations, then so be it. What I am saying in a declarative manner is that when he had an opportunity to avail himself to the market there were no takers. What does that tell you?
The issue for me isn't whether TT can be a starter for the Bills because he is currently the designated starter. The issue for me is whether as a starter he is good enough. I am comfortable in saying no.
-
True. But if they start 2-8...all bets are off.Can't see them throwing in the towel at mid-season. Giving a young guy a shot in the last couple of games is more of the norm if a team is no longer "in the hunt".
-
I agree with this. I would want them to put one of the young qbs out there to see what we've got. But to state unequivocally, before a single game is played, that they can't make the playoffs or they can't win more than 6 games, and they should therefore tank, is asinine.If they are 2-6 after 8 games I will want them to stop pretending the season is recoverable.
-
Not responsive to my post, but whatever. The idea that you have to bottom out out to succeed in the NFL is utter nonsense. The Pats, Steelers, Packers, Ravens, Seahawks,etc haven't succeeded that way. The Colts are the only team that has ever landed a franchise QB by tanking, and so far the results are underwhelming.haha, we are always "IN THE MIX"
that should be our slogan from the last 20 yrs. the Buffalo Bills...we aren't very good but at least we are IN THE MIX. being in the mix is why we haven't been able to rebuild correctly. the Colts hit rock bottom and got Peyton Manning and then did it again and got Andrew Luck. our GM and coach were there when the Panthers did it and ended up with Cam Newton. we have never hit bottom which is why we have nobody
Finally, picking in the top 3 guarantees you nothing, in any event. The last time the Bills did it, they failed to come away with a franchise-changing talent, even though there were plenty of those available.
Sherman says players should strike!
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Sorry, I don't understand your point.
Then how does the NBA survive? At any rate, there is already plenty of guaranteed $$ out there in the NFL...all we are talking about is increasing something that's already there