Mickey

Maybe we are both right, its the money and he doesn't want to be here. That 30 mill is part of a long term contract, this is a one and done contract. That is the value for Byrd. He got 6+ last year and would get 8.4 this year and still gets the 30 mil next year. On top of that, he may be nursing a grudge over being tagged last year and further, he might not be interested in playing for a team that hasn't made the playoffs since Bill Clinton was President.

"Tag his ass" isn't the stick it to Byrd move you think it is. It is a bad move for Buffalo and not at all a terrible thing for Byrd which is precisely why Byrd would rather risk the tag then sign the contract being offered. The idea that "tagging his ass" is somehow making a point and really playing hardball with Byrd is a fantasy. If it was really hardball, Byrd would be signing a contract rather than risk it, wouldn't he?

You see, that is the point. The tag isn't a bad option for Byrd this time around, you are not sticking it to him by tagging "his ass". Tagging him is good for Byrd and bad for the Bills. That is why the Bills are, at last report, leaning on not tagging him.

An 8.4 million dollar message? What is the message? "We are stupid and we are really mad, so here is $8.4 million dollars for one more lousy year on our roster, bwahahahah."

Wouldn't they be tying up all that cap money if they tagged him? The best FA's are often gone at the very start of the free agent signing period. A desperate futile gesture doesn't demonstrate that you are running the show, quite the opposite.

Which is apparently as much or more than we could get in a trade: "The Bills initially believed there would be a trade market if they tagged Byrd and shopped his services, but the team has changed its stance in the past week. It's now believed to be unlikely a team would be willing to trade for Byrd, then sign him to a substantial long-term deal. Byrd, 27, becomes one of the hottest names on the free-agent market if he's not under contract by March 11. The three-time Pro Bowl pick ranked No. 3 on ATL's list of the top 101 free agents. The Bills would be pained to lose one of their best players for a compensation pick, but it might end up being their most sensible option." NFL.com

Maybe so but I am going to guess that Byrd and his agent know what is in his best interests better than you or I. Byrd is willing to risk getting tagged rather than signing the contract being offered. It's all moot anyway. According to Buscaglia and NFL.com's Ian Rappaport, the Bill's aren't going to tag him. The report indicates that the Bill's gauged the trade market for him and turns out it's not any better than the 4th or 5th round compensatory pick they would get if they just let him walk. NFL.com They looked at a trade and despite all the Byrd trade fantasies regularly bandied about around here, it turns out no one was offering anything better than the compensatory pick in the 4th or 5th round we would get if we let him walk. And that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Every team in the league knows we want to get rid of him so why on earth would they offer a top pick when the odds are that we would be releasing him?

People act as if tagging him is some sort of brilliant, "stick it to Byrd" move. Byrd and his agent know full well what the tag means and that the Bills can use it again this year and they clearly don't see the tag as a worse option than signing the contract currently being offered. Getting tagged isn't a bad option for Byrd at all. He gets a 20% raise, around 8.4 million on top of the 6 something they paid him last year. That's over 14 million for two years of play and at the end of it, he will walk away a free man next year and sign a huge contract with someone else. Buffalo has cleverly maneuvered its way into a lose-lose scenario.

A PR battle would totally work, because Byrd is clearly motivated by what fans in Buffalo think of him. I think it has been so long since the Bills have done anything on the football field to capture our long term interest that we have become obsessed with the team's financial decisions and endless debates over accounting.

So, just how long has it been since the Bills were in the Playoffs? On January 8, 2000, the last time the Bills were in the Playoffs: 1. The average price for a gallon of glass was $1.26. 2. Bill Clinton was President of the United States. 3. "Seinfled" had been off the air for over a year. 4. "Hunger Games" star Jennifer Lawrence was 9 years old. 5. I had a full head of hair. 6. The top grossing movie was "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and it would have cost you $5.00 to see it. 7. AOL had 23 million subscribers, it now has 2.5 million. 8. 64 MB of RAM cost $100 (8 Gig's now cost $50-70, 128 times cheaper than in 2000). 9. Blockbuster turned down an opportunity to buy a new company called "Netflix" for $50 million. 10. Napster was still a thing. 11. Cell phones all had black and white screens that were 2"x 2". 12. As a harbinger of many TV horrors to come, "Survivor" debuted to massive ratings. 13. The evil that was Pokemon raged across the American landscape consuming all in it's path. 14. We were still referring to online fun as being on "the Web". 15. We were all looking forward to a long and successful career for Rob Johnson as our franchise QB. Feel free to add.

I agree with your basic point that losing Byrd for a draft pick is pretty sad. I don't see them reaching an agreement for the simple reason that nothing has changed over last year. Whatever the obstacles are in reaching a deal, they are still there. I think the Bills may not have nearly as much leverage as they think they have over the Byrd situation and as a result, I don't think they are in a position to get a good trade or for Byrd to suddenly agree to a contract the Bills like. Everyone knows that the Bills don't really have an attractive alternative to a trade. They can sign him to the same long term deal they rejected last year but doing so would be an admission that the whole franchise tag circus they went through last year was unnecessary. They can franchise him again, spending a ton of money on a guy who is out of here at the end of the season. They can let him walk. Or they can bite the bullet and just take whatever mediocre trade they can get and move on. That is one lousy set of options. Given that they have painted themselves into a corner, I have to say that at this point I would give the front office an interim grade of D- on its handling of the Byrd situation. I will say they have conducted themselves far more professionally than in the past. To the credit of both sides, no one negotiated through the press or took cheap shots at the other. The details of the negotiations remained remarkably behind closed doors. The Bills think Byrd is worth X and he thinks he is worth Y, that doesn't make either side a bad guy. But the end result of a 6-10 team that hasn't seen the playoffs since gas was 89 cents per gallon is that they are losing an elite or almost-elite player for, likely, not very much. That is not a hand well-played.

Why would they trade all of that for a guy they could have for nothing next year? Maybe even this year if the franchise tag is a bluff which it might be because, really, do the Bills want to go through a repeat of last year's circus and pay Byrd all that cash knowing it's not an investment in the future but instead, a farewell present? The Bills could very well just be hoping some idiot infested team rescues them from the Byrd situation sometime between now and August. If the situation were reversed and the Bills were planning to trade a first round pick for a player like Byrd, we would be hanging ourselves in the basement en masse.

I like Robinson but I don't think he will be there at 9 and that seems a bit high for Ebron. I am not a big fan of Mosely, he just seems to be a pedestrian talent for a first round pick, especially at 9.

Mostly alcohol and cocaine it seems.

I think it's high time that the NFL stopped paying so much attention to red herrings like wife beating, drug abuse and steroids and focused on what is the gravest threat to football-as-we-know it: gay players and their eye-movements while in the shower. Where are their priorities?

Why aren't you thanking the gay and bisexual people in your past? You do realize that gay and bisexual men do have sex with women and father children, don't you? And lesbian women do have children. The odds of you not having a single gay ancestor in your family tree is essentially zero. I am glad you realize your beliefs on this issue are outdated. But I think the better description would be a belief that, more than being outdated, is fast on its way towards extinction. Ideas and beliefs are subject to a process similar to natural selection. Bad ideas and erroneous beliefs eventually die out or are at least reduced to irrelevancy. "Gay people are sick" is a wooly mammoth idea that is tops on the list of endangered beliefs. Someday we will have to go to museums to see it. Thanks for giving me the chance to see it in its natural habitat!

All else being equal, I wouldn't care either way. But its an unfair and irrelevant question. If I lived in Nazi Germany, would I want my child to be Jewish? If I lived in the ante-bellum south, would I want my child to be african american? If I lived in a world where people with red hair were unfairly and unjustifiably discriminated against in virtually every walk of life, would I want my child to have red hair? If I say answer any of those questions with the word "no", does that mean I am anti-semitic or a racist? Does it mean I am a hypocrite if I preach equality and fraternity for all? How is that question at all relevant to the issue? I would not want my child subjected to bigotry and hate. But my answer to that concern isn't to pray for straight children, its to pray for a world safe for all children.

I am not sure what you mean by having to "include a certain lifestyle as part of your everyday life nor how you went from that to "male on male" action? Have you had a problem lately where gay couples forcing you to watch gay porn or having sex on your dining room table and demanding your applause? Depending on the setting and context, our society tolerates a certain amount of public displays of affection such as hand holding, hugs and light kissing. Gay couples aren't asking for anything more than that. If you had gay neighbors or a family member, would you consider their holding hands with their loved one, hugging or exchanging a hello/good-bye kiss to be engaging in "male on male action" that grosses you out? Is that the kind of inclusion of a lifestyle in your daily life that you feel unable to endure? People are entitled to their likes and dislikes, maybe you can help me understand why it is that so many people feel the need to indicate what sex they like and don't like in a conversation about the civil rights and fair treatment of gay people. Is it a way of trying to make sure everyone knows you are straight? Is it a way of being straighter than the other guys? If one guy thinks of gay sex and simply reacts "no thanks" while a second guy goes into a medically verified coma, does that mean the second guy is more straight the than the first one? Gay people have long had to deal with having their identity reduced to their specific sex acts. I am not accusing you of this at all. The thinking behind this is believed to be: "what I like and do is wonderful and full of love but what gay people do is devoid of love and just some sort of creepy sexual obsession with icky body parts." All desire and no love. Two men who love each other do so for the same reason other couples do and not because of some overpowering desire for an anus over a vagina. When people talk about their straight-couple friends, they don't boil them down to intricate details of whatever sex they are imagined to be having and they certainly aren't included or excluded from social events and gatherings based on personal reactions others might have about their sex lives. Help me understand how it makes sense to respond to a discussion about civil rights, prejudice and social exclusion/inclusion with comments focused on ones personal preferences or revulsions regarding specific sexual activities when no one is asking you to participate in or witness those activities: "I think that people who are overweight often are treated unfairly" -----"Yeah, but when they have sex it grosses me out" 'I think women should get equal pay for equal work" ------ "Maybe but you know, when they have sex during their periods its really icky, I hate that." "I am concerned about african americans having unfair hurdles to cross before voting ---"Maybe so but I am not attracted to black people" Our immigration policy is outdated and inefficient, what do you think? ---- "It makes me want to puke when I think of immigrant-on-immigrant action." Lets invite Dave and Mary to the party ---- No way, she doesn't shave her legs, when I think of them having sex with all that hair everywhere, I retch." If one reduces people to a sex act one then describes as sick, dirty, disgusting and then comment about how it is simply incomprehensible that someone would actually like doing that, it comes perilously close to saying that the people themselves are sick, dirty, disgusting and incomprehensibly gross. I don't think that is how you feel about people who are gay, but if you can put yourself in their shoes, imagine what it sounds like to them when they are having a conversation about marriage equality or some other issue important to them and the immediate reaction is a discussion of hairy anuses, beautiful vaginas and how their love lives are sick and disgusting.

I respectfully disagree. I don't know many, or even any, victims of hate who found it "advantageous". I have counseled LGBT youth and seen first hand what they go through, from parents throwing holy water on them trying to cure them to gym teachers looking the other way while they get assaulted and everything in between. The saddest ones I have talked to are those who attempted suicide, preferring to die rather than to live and be gay because of all the crap they have been told it means to be gay. Things like, "you are sick", "you choose to be a deviant", "you are going to hell but don't worry, we love you anyway" etc.,etc., etc. The reality of what it means to be gay for so many people makes the chance of their "playing victim" because it's just so darn advantageous is zero, zero, zero. Nobody chooses this, not the ones who go through hell over it and not the ones who are lucky enough to come out and come of age in a supportive atmosphere. I don't know if it is something they are born with, predisposed to or that develops at an early age or some combination. Either way, its not a choice unless you think maybe a 5 year old is capable of such choices. I think that rather than to theorize and pull apart logic puzzles over this issue, people ought to listen to people who are gay, experience their stories first hand and then see what your heart tells you about LGBT folks. Abstract theories about genetics, societal "norms" and the pernicious effect of permissiveness on crop yields in the Ukraine are easy to obsess over when you haven't had the chance to get to really know people facing these problems everyday.

It took courage for this young man to come out, especially on the eve of the draft, a critical step in his career. I volunteer at a local youth center which includes safe spaces for LGBT youth and I can tell you that the things they have to endure on a daily basis are criminal. The fact that things are better now compared to the past is more an indictment of just how bad things were than a statement of modern day progress. I know some of you "disagree" with homosexuality but at the same time seem to respect people who are gay and I think that is a welcome discussion but at the same time, I think agreeing or disagreeing is not the issue. People are going to be gay whether you disagree with that or not just as people are going to be evangelical christians regardless of whether or not others agree with that set of beliefs. The difference is that you can't be legally fired from your job for your religious beliefs, beliefs by the way that are most certainly a product of choice not genetics. You can't be denied a job based on your religious beliefs. Your beliefs are protected even though some people might find them repugnant. The real issue is not what this person or that person agrees with or disagrees with, the issue is whether or not people who are gay are going to be treated fairly which means getting jobs they are qualified for without having to keep something as basic as their sexual orientation a secret. If you think the almighty says homosexuality is wrong, fine, go for it. I think the exact opposite about the almighty and that's my right. But if you think that your belief warrants discrimination against LGBT folks in the workplace or in any other realm of civil life, then yours is a position I find untenable and, even on religious grounds, indefensible.

Yes, there are idiots in every city but I don't see where anyone claimed that Buffalo was the only city with idiot fans so I don't see where that observation gets us. That kind of behavior is wrong whether it can be found in every city or not. It wouldn't take much for that kind of thing to erupt into something ugly.

They didn't say anything different than what our guys said at the end of season presser, "we always look to upgrade" "if we have a chance to improve the franchise, we will take it",etc.

Great TE's with hall of fame QB's throwing to them who are playing on teams that have won a SB and been contenders year in and year out. I am all for a great TE but I don't see a Gonzalez in this draft and this team has a lot of other holes to fill.

I don't think any of this year's TE's are being compared to Gronk or Jimmy Graham. And as good as those two are, they are getting passes from QB's who have won championships. We clearly need a TE but we also need a guard, badly, and we need an OLB, depth in the secondary, a RT, a WR with size, etc Unfortunately, it's a long shopping list for one off season.

There was 8:54 left in the game when Stevie dropped that pass against New England, who had all their time outs left. Further, the defense then held the Patriots after that series forcing them to punt from their 43 resulting in a touchback so that the offense got the ball back on the 20 with 5:54 left and another chance to run out the clock. They dove into the line for no gain, then Manuel overthrew Johnson at the 35 and threw underneath (hopelessly short of the first down) to Chandler on 3rd down. How on earth do you conclude that we would have run out the clock and won that game but for that drop? The Bills started that drive with 10:48 left on the clock, just how many drives have you seen the Bills have this year that lasted nearly 11 minutes against a team with all of its time outs left? Why do you find it a done deal that the same team that couldn't run 5:54 off the clock would have run 8:54 off the clock but for one dropped pass?