bobobonators Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 would "After receiving a second opinion surgery was opted for and will be completed this morning" be a much nicer read than "Tyrod Taylor had a consultation visit yesterday with Dr. William Meyers and elected to have surgery this morning. The Bills were informed late yesterday of this mornings procedure"???? I suppose. But we already knew it was a second opinion as it had already been reported. And opted means the same as elected and/or chose. The only difference being the "late last night" comment. But if they were notified late last night who cares one way or another. This injury isnt news. The Bills have known about it for weeks. Are we assuming that late last night didnt afford the Bills an opportunity to do something? And what would that something be? Bc thats the implication im assuming - that he didnt give them ample notification? Lol. I just dont follow the inquisition into the wording. If he notified them late last night then thats what happened factually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 I may be in the minority, but I'm hoping Tyrod comes out on top in this. Our organization came up with this contract. It's their fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 I may be in the minority, but I'm hoping Tyrod comes out on top in this. Our organization came up with this contract. It's their fault. I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) I may be in the minority, but I'm hoping Tyrod comes out on top in this. Our organization came up with this contract. It's their fault. Its nobody's fault imo. Tt played his ass off and got injured. The Bills werent 100% sold on TT but liked him enough to offer him this team friendly deal. Contrary to what people want to complain about is that it IS team friendly. The injury clause secures TT personally in case they cut him and he cant pass a physical for another team. Everyone wins. Edited January 5, 2017 by bobobonators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 I think Tyrod wants out, and he and his agent are working behind the scenes to make that happen. If there is a chance to say "you have to pay me, no matter what and I want out" he could always waive that clause in return for the team cutting him loose. From Tyrod's perspective, the team doesn't truly have faith in him. He's been around long enough to know that the backup QB (especially a rookie or a guy like Jones) is going to be the most popular guy in town if the team struggles next year. Then he's stuck on the bench. Just my guess. Obviously he needed the surgery, so he got it. But never let an opportunity to gain leverage pass you by. Teams do it to players all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 So if we allowed Tyrod to start the last game, do you think any of this would be happening? Just curious. Its nobody's fault imo. Tt played his ass off and got injured. The Bills werent 100% sold on TT but liked him enough to offer him this team friendly deal. Contrary to what people want to complain about is that it IS team friendly. The injury clause secures TT personally in case they cut him and he cant pass a physical for another team. Everyone wins. I'm not sure everyone is going to win here. I think both parties will lose with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Tyrod will go somewhere else if the Bills release him, and he will make more money than the Bills were willing to give him. So in that sense, Tyrod wins. Plus he picks his spot in that scenario. Look art the stupid money guys like Osweiller got. Someone will pay him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Can't tell if serious or being facetious, as these comments sound identical to what many here were saying last off-season when Sammy's foot problems began. Routine hernia surgery is nothing close to what Watkins is dealing with. Apples and oranges comparison. You might as well be comparing a plantar to a bad flu bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just in Atlanta Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 What's the over/under on him not passing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Except Taylor already informed the team that he was getting a second opinion on his groin after the Bills team doctors recommended surgery! He went to an outside doctor, who confirmed the Bills docs findings, and BOOM he decides to get the surgery asap. You have to remember it's the job of the Joe B's to turn mole hills into the Himalayas of horseshit. Right. And I'm not stressed but it is the teams PR dept's job to provide them easy material in an uncomfortable situation with a potentially cornerstone player, no? Do you think the team made this statement in a way that fully minimizes its potential to be run with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Right. And I'm not stressed but it is the teams PR dept's job to provide them easy material in an uncomfortable situation with a potentially cornerstone player, no? Do you think the team made this statement in a way that fully minimizes its potential to be run with? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) What's the over/under on him not passing? He will be examined by a team physician and have close to 2 months to recover...what do you think? Edited January 5, 2017 by nucci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) Right. And I'm not stressed but it is the teams PR dept's job to provide them easy material in an uncomfortable situation with a potentially cornerstone player, no? Do you think the team made this statement in a way that fully minimizes its potential to be run with? Aren't you overthinking this? It's only an issue because the Joe B's of the world make it one. And really, it doesn't even matter what the Bills or don't do. The media will spin it as dysfunction either way. Edited January 5, 2017 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Yup interesting. Myers is an expert in the field. I trust that if the expert said to have surgery, surgery was required. I dont necessarily think that the bills statement saying he elected to have surgery is a definitive statement that surgery wasnt required. Does it mean that surgery was required but he couldve had it later on not right now? Does it mean that no surgery was required and it wouldve healed on its own over several months? If it wouldve taken months to heal on its own would be pass a physical in March? Would electing to have surgery allow him to pass a physical in March as opposed to just letting it heal on its own? Nobody knows these answers yet and shouldnt pretend to know them. He consulted with a specialist. The specialist obviously recommended to have surgery. Thats all we know. What the Bills statement establishes is that they played no role in the decision to have surgery. Were it otherwise, they could hardly argue later that the surgery was elective and not "medically necessary". As for whether or not the surgery really was optional, the Bills statement clearly sends the message that they view it as being elective. Without having the exact contract language at our disposal, we can't be sure what does and what does not trigger an injury settlement. However, the fact that the Bills made it clear that they think it was elective and that they didn't participate in the decision leads me to believe that medical necessity is a key finding to trigger an injury settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 What the Bills statement establishes is that they played no role in the decision to have surgery. Were it otherwise, they could hardly argue later that the surgery was elective and not "medically necessary". As for whether or not the surgery really was optional, the Bills statement clearly sends the message that they view it as being elective. Without having the exact contract language at our disposal, we can't be sure what does and what does not trigger an injury settlement. However, the fact that the Bills made it clear that they think it was elective and that they didn't participate in the decision leads me to believe that medical necessity is a key finding to trigger an injury settlement. You do know the Bills doctors examined Tyrod and told him they recommended surgery, right? And that Tyrod said he'd get a second opinon, which concurred with the Bills doctors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) Aren't you overthinking this? It's only an issue because the Joe B's of the world make it one. And really, it doesn't even matter what the Bills or don't do. The media will spin it as dysfunction either way.Then what do they pay the PR team lots of money for? It's ok to say it wasn't a great statement Edited January 5, 2017 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 5, 2017 Author Share Posted January 5, 2017 It's open season on OBD. @Deadspin Tyrod Taylor might be calling the Bills' bluff: http://deadsp.in/UNjkoUT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Then what do we pay the PR team lots of money for? Haters gonna hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 So if we allowed Tyrod to start the last game, do you think any of this would be happening? Just curious. Yes. I'm not part of the "everything's a conspiracy" crowd. This didn't come out of nowhere: 1) Anita Marks reported Taylor had a groin issue Nov. 16., implies Anthony Lynn is her source (NFL Week 11). 2) Taylor shows up on Bills Injury Report (groin) week 12 and afterwards 3) In his locker clean out interview, Tyrod appeared sincere and relaxed saying he hoped the groin injury wasn't "as severe as they say" and he was getting a 2nd opinion, wanted immediate surgery if surgery was needed so he could get into off-season conditioning. This is in the locker room with Bills employee Chris Brown standing right there, which would be odd if it were somehow "new news" to the Bills 4) Groin injuries are common in athletes who cut and change direction readily, and one option is to try to avoid surgery and allow healing for 6-10 weeks then have surgery only if insufficient improvement. All signs point to there really was a groin injury, the Bills physicians thought it needed surgery, Taylor was reluctant to have surgery but once his 2nd opinion agreed, he didn't want to "wait and see". Waiting to see would be one option, and if Taylor chose to wait 10 weeks then have surgery, would put him at higher risk to miss time next season - which is the benchmark in the contract clause. What the Bills statement establishes is that they played no role in the decision to have surgery. Were it otherwise, they could hardly argue later that the surgery was elective and not "medically necessary". As for whether or not the surgery really was optional, the Bills statement clearly sends the message that they view it as being elective. Without having the exact contract language at our disposal, we can't be sure what does and what does not trigger an injury settlement. However, the fact that the Bills made it clear that they think it was elective and that they didn't participate in the decision leads me to believe that medical necessity is a key finding to trigger an injury settlement. It establishes no such thing, the Bills would be hard put to argue any such thing when apparently their own doctors recommended surgery and Tyrod chose to get a 2nd opinion, and we do have the exact contract language at our disposal thanks to Maj Bobby. Then what do they pay the PR team lots of money for? Mediocrity at best, Incompetence at worst, evidently. It's ok to say it wasn't a great statement It wasn't a great statement, but in another climate it wouldn't be getting a second look much less analyzed for its "tone". It really isn't going to advantage Tyrod in ensuring he plays somewhere and is well-compensated for it, to be seen as possibly "milking" team for injury money or puffing up an injury. No competent agent would advise his client to do this, unless the client really was injured or really didn't want to play any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 I see stuff like this playing out in Buffalo, then I read articles like this one on Carr and just wish we had a time machine and could go back to a time when this team made me proud and felt like a family. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2685215-the-devastation-of-derek-carr-injury-left-raiders-star-qb-asking-why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts