Jump to content

Eric Reid possibility?


nero1

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The only place that we disagree is that not all 32 teams are private. 31 are and that is a part of the reason that it is difficult to enforce. In general, I agree with your sentiment.

 

FWIW, I wouldn’t sign either of these guys because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. If Khalil Mack was the guy doing this I would be all for adding him. If I thought that these guys could impact the team I’d be all for it. I don’t think that the media attention and distractions are worth it for these guys.

100% agree

 

Agree.  It's about @$$es in seats.  Posters that think bringing Reid to Buffalo have not been to a game in a while.  At the opener, one guy in my section inadvertently did not take his hat off during the anthem and the people around him immediately started yelling at him.  I can't imagine what people would have done if anyone chose to stay seated.  There is just not enough upside with Reid's play to bring him to blue collar Buffalo where the backlash would be tremendous.  

 

At the end of the day, even bringing in a hall of fame safety wouldn't do much when opposing QB's have all the time in the world to pick your secondary apart.  Focus needs to start with our line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RyanC883 said:

 

Pitts stepping up would be huge.   I guess the coaches believe he will.  

I guess he played better in the second half of the Chargers game than Vontae Davis did in the first half.  Ryan Lewis has good athleticism too.  I'd love to see wone more guy with some experience, but Buffalo won't be any worse off in the secondary than they were in the Chargers game, and they might be a bit better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of rights I would say that safety isn't our greatest area of need. If Reid is asking for more compensation than he's worth I would pass. But if he is looking for a fair deal he should be evaluated. Other kneelers are still in the league. While he was very visible... he is not Kaepernick.

 

Kaepernick has other issues beyond kneeling, even if kneeling and suing the NFL are the big ones:

1) I think he has been asking for starter level money.

2) If rumors are correct he (or his GF) insulted rhe Ravens owner and Ray Lewis while he was being considered. That kind of action has repercussions with other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

They “should” be. It has already been determined that you cant punish someone for something that they “should” do. That’s why guys can (and are) still kneeling with no repercussions. 

didn't Jerry Jones mandate that none of his players would kneel (Neal was it?) or else they would find themselves unemployed? i don't think any Cowboy Neals (kneel (sp?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

I would have signed him. Makes team better. 

 

But he kneeled so NFL blackballed him. 

 

Felons

rapists

abusers

drugs

running around naked

gun violations 

murderers

 

All ok. But DONT exercise your Constitutional Rights. Then your not welcome

You forgot the biggest fault of all. Being a "leftist".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RyanC883 said:

 

If you are at work, your employer has the right to control your behavior, publicly funded space or not.  Public funding has nothing to do with it.  It's simply not a Constitutional Right to kneel during an NFL game.  period.  

 

Employer policy also does not implicate Constitutional Rights.  If an employer wants to fire you for it, the employer has every right to do so.

Just because they have the right to do it doesn't make them right for doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Reid is likely to have 1-2 years of good play, I would seriously consider adding him. As long as he isnt a slouch or a quitter, I am fine. The reason is that the Bills "stock" (not laughing) is very low right now. We are being rightfully bashed in the media and among us fans as fielding a poor team. This is the right time to add a player who could create controversy. How bad can it get ? If it pans out and we look respectable, then people will soon forget that he didnt kneel. As for ticket buyer backlash, the Bills fans have come no matter what the state of the team has been. The delta via fans taking a stand may not be noticeable. 
Of course all of this hinges on his ability and willingness to play well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, That's No Moon said:

Just because they have the right to do it doesn't make them right for doing it.

Yes it does. The business owner is there to make money, not to give anyone a platform to express views on something. Controversial views expressed by employees may offend some customers. This interferes with the purpose of the business. What could be more right than the business owner making such a decision ?Just who should make it for them ? What a nonsensical notion. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Flutie Flakes said:

 

Agree.  It's about @$$es in seats.  Posters that think bringing Reid to Buffalo have not been to a game in a while.  At the opener, one guy in my section inadvertently did not take his hat off during the anthem and the people around him immediately started yelling at him.  I can't imagine what people would have done if anyone chose to stay seated.

Sounds like we have a serious problem with Anti-American sentiment at games if people are suppressing freedom.

 

If a fan acts in a threatening manner towards another fan for their choice of headwear, he/she should be permanently banned from the stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

didn't Jerry Jones mandate that none of his players would kneel (Neal was it?) or else they would find themselves unemployed? i don't think any Cowboy Neals (kneel (sp?).

There are only two guys still kneeling and they are on the Dolphins. Jerry Jones, I suppose could cut a guy that kneels but he’d have hell to pay from the NFLPA. The league has decided not to institute a policy this year and would strongly push Jerry against taking action towards said player. It will become another PR nightmare. So in theory, he could cut a guy that kneels, but it won’t happen. It will be too big of a headache.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Yes it does. The business owner is there to make money, not to give anyone a platform to express views on something. Controversial views expressed by employees may offend some customers. This interferes with the purpose of the business. What could be more right than the business owner making such a decision ?Just who should make it for them ? What a nonsensical notion. 

 

Look at Hollywood.

Gunn was fired from Disney as the guardians of the Galaxy director and writer for some bs joking (albeit poor taste) tweets from like 10 years ago.

He just wrote and directed two of the biggest blockbusters ever, and was in the middle of production on the third, and was still fired, even with the entire cast siding with him!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Look at Hollywood.

Gunn was fired from Disney as the guardians of the Galaxy director and writer for some bs joking (albeit poor taste) tweets from like 10 years ago.

He just wrote and directed two of the biggest blockbusters ever, and was in the middle of production on the third, and was still fired, even with the entire cast siding with him!!

This can happen even in Tinseltown ... and who’s to say the business owner isn’t right? In the end, the business will do as it sees fit. Own the business, and do as you wish. No one is owed a platform as an employee. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Stadiums Publically Funded. 

 

Employer has no policy against. So want to try again. Collusion to blackball is not a policy 

Many jobs are publicly funded. Still can not bring politics to work.

 

NFL has policy that all payers must be on field standing for anthem. They then changed it and then rescinded the change. Now no one knows what the policy is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2018 at 12:58 PM, Chuck Wagon said:

Reid is the finished version of what they drafted Siran Neal to be.  I think he'd be a very nice fit, especially in nickle packages with Hyde / Poyer and allow Hyde to be the "nickle".  But I'm sure McD is afraid he would cause massive upheaval in the locker room due to independent thought, so that isn't happening.

 

Reid is finished so you got that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2018 at 12:35 PM, MAJBobby said:

I would have signed him. Makes team better. 

 

But he kneeled so NFL blackballed him. 

 

Felons

rapists

abusers

drugs

running around naked

gun violations 

murderers

 

All ok. But DONT exercise your Constitutional Rights. Then your not welcome

Football players kneeling is not a First Amendment issue

Edited by Pablocruise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:

Yes it does. The business owner is there to make money, not to give anyone a platform to express views on something. Controversial views expressed by employees may offend some customers. This interferes with the purpose of the business. What could be more right than the business owner making such a decision ?Just who should make it for them ? What a nonsensical notion. 

Nobody is suggesting somebody else make the decision for them.  Just because you CAN do a thing doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing and the Pegulas and the rest of the owners are wrong IMO.  God forbid someone sometime side with what is right and just over what is expedient and profitable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Pablocruise said:

Football players kneeling is not a First Amendment issue

You are correct it's not.  The owners are well within their legal rights to do what they are doing.  That doesn't make it the morally and ethically correct decision, however.  When profitability trumps morality the world becomes a darker place for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

Nobody is suggesting somebody else make the decision for them.  Just because you CAN do a thing doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing and the Pegulas and the rest of the owners are wrong IMO.  God forbid someone sometime side with what is right and just over what is expedient and profitable.  

Business exists to make profit. You are making a huge assumption that Reid, Kaepernick et al are doing what is “ right”. I for one do not believe that their assertions about America and Police are anywhere near correct, much less “ right and just”. You seem to believe that because wrongs were committed  in the distant past, society must make up for it today.  The situations being “ protested” are statistically uncommon, to the point of being negligible. There is an existing legal procedure to deal with them and determine if any criminal act was involved. Media hyperbole doesn’t make these occurrences statistically frequent. Do you side with the law and those who enforce it ( acknowledging that errors sometimes occur)  or do you side with those who do wrong and excuse their behavior due to whatever external factors life has thrown at them ? Some individuals being “ honored “ with these protests weren’t exhibiting right and just behavior ; such as reaching for a Cop’s gun. 

20 minutes ago, That's No Moon said:

You are correct it's not.  The owners are well within their legal rights to do what they are doing.  That doesn't make it the morally and ethically correct decision, however.  When profitability trumps morality the world becomes a darker place for everyone.

Such as promoting hatred of Police and pushing a false narrative about America in order to sell more sneakers ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...