lets_go_bills Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 If only we still had Bill Polian... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Wow. This thread is retarded. Not only do you need to do some research before you pretend to have a clue about Jackson's status, but you don't need to start a topic that's being discussed in nearly ever thread. Thank you. Finally someone with some sense. Wow, what are you talking about? Jackson's status?.... He is a restricted free agent due to the amount of time he's been in the NFL. The Bills are only required to offer him a tender deal for players that fit into that category, which they did. Of course, he's had a couple of nice seasons that should mean he should get more money then that tender offer, but since the idiots at One Bills Drive don't have to do more, they have not, at least not yet. And Jackson was hoping the Bills would offer a long term contract representing his true value to the team, so now he is pissed off. Now, please tell me what additional "research" I should have done before beginning this thread?? And as for other threads being similar to this one, who cares? Don't read it if you think it's redundant, or "retarded". He's talking about the fact that if Jackson signs the tender we have rights to him the next year too. If at any point this year or next - correct me if I'm wrong here fellas - another team swoops him and makes him an offer and we choose not to match, we get a first round pick (pretty sweet for an undrafted free agent from the Arena League, huh?). This idea that he's "pissed off" is stupid. He'd love a long-term deal, but even moreso than the Peters situation, the Bills have all the leverage here. He hasn't been in the league long enough to escape the RFA status any time soon, and he plays at the position with the shortest shelf life. He won't hold out because, at 28 and a backup RB, he needs all the money and exposure he can get before he hits the dreaded age of 30. And he's not holding out, but since he hasn't signed the tender offer yet (which he doesn't need to sign until mandatory OTA's and mini-camps start, by union rules he cannot attend. That's the "research" I believe he was referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robkmil Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 You cant use real world rationale when discussing pro sports and contracts. Its leverage. Unless the bills draft someone or sign a RB Jackson just picked up a whole bunch of leverage. We should have taken care of this weeks ago with a reasonable deal, i highly doubt jackson is asking the brinks trucks be brought in he picked up no leverage, no other team can sign him. know the rules of the game. I think we should offer him more, but we own him for two years. if he sits out for a year we own him for the two after. he has noe leverage. sucks to be him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VJ91 Posted April 10, 2009 Author Share Posted April 10, 2009 Thank you. Finally someone with some sense. He's talking about the fact that if Jackson signs the tender we have rights to him the next year too. If at any point this year or next - correct me if I'm wrong here fellas - another team swoops him and makes him an offer and we choose not to match, we get a first round pick (pretty sweet for an undrafted free agent from the Arena League, huh?). This idea that he's "pissed off" is stupid. He'd love a long-term deal, but even moreso than the Peters situation, the Bills have all the leverage here. He hasn't been in the league long enough to escape the RFA status any time soon, and he plays at the position with the shortest shelf life. He won't hold out because, at 28 and a backup RB, he needs all the money and exposure he can get before he hits the dreaded age of 30. And he's not holding out, but since he hasn't signed the tender offer yet (which he doesn't need to sign until mandatory OTA's and mini-camps start, by union rules he cannot attend. That's the "research" I believe he was referring to. No kdding, really?? What does all that giberish add to my original post stating the fact that Jackson is a restricted free agent, becuase of the years he has been in the NFL, and all the Bills have to do is offer him a tender offer??? Do we fans now need to be lawyers or player agents to qualify to post on this arrogant board or what??? My point is that Jackson is not happy about it. And why do the Bills want to have an unhappy Freddy Jackson on the team when he is the best running back to lead them into the first three games that Lynch will be on the sidelines for? Research this, becauase we all know it is true: The jerks can afford to offer Jackson a 2 or 3 year deal, right now, that pays him what he is worth to this football team, and make the guy feel like all of his hard work was worth it. They gave Marcus Stroud an awesome new contract, and he never even asked for it. They are still under the cap, and they did not sign any of the free agent running backs that visited. Thus, my post about the inner-circle jerks being brainless regarding Fred Jackson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VJ91 Posted April 10, 2009 Author Share Posted April 10, 2009 he picked up no leverage, no other team can sign him. know the rules of the game. I think we should offer him more, but we own him for two years. if he sits out for a year we own him for the two after. he has noe leverage. sucks to be him. Yeah, sucks to be him. Right on. Tough love and all that. Forget the fact he hits the holes harder the Lynch. Forget the fact he caught passes that made first downs last season when nobody else did. Forget the fact he loves the game and appreciates evey down he plays. Screw him. The Bills "own him" so why reward him for hard work, even though a nice reasonable 2 or 3 year deal with a respectable signing bonus would not even make a ripple against the salary cap space left - why make a feel-good deal like that to a player that really deserves it, when you don't have to, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Yeah, sucks to be him. Right on. Tough love and all that. Forget the fact he hits the holes harder the Lynch. Forget the fact he caught passes that made first downs last season when nobody else did. Forget the fact he loves the game and appreciates evey down he plays. Screw him. The Bills "own him" so why reward him for hard work, even though a nice reasonable 2 or 3 year deal with a respectable signing bonus would not even make a ripple against the salary cap space left - why make a feel-good deal like that to a player that really deserves it, when you don't have to, right? well why would they want a happy player if they are going to screw their best player and put their QB at risk, why would they reward a nobody RB who has no leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts