Rubes

Well obviously I get that. What I wasn't expecting is that so many people here came down on the side of "pay him the top money", at least given what people thought of him last off season.

Not me. If they can re-sign Chandler, I'd be pretty comfortable with the quartet of Chandler-Moeaki-Smith-Gragg, at least under the assumption that Moeaki can come in and do some good things while staying healthy. I wouldn't mind seeing a top draft pick used on a beast of a TE, but if not, I wouldn't be upset.

Good to see you again. Really.

Interesting. A good 1/3 of voters believe Byrd should be the highest paid safety in the league. For some reason, I wasn't expecting that.

Perhaps, but maybe one reason the top teams don't bring in top FAs is because they don't need them. They already have a bunch of good players, and can't necessarily afford another one.

Funny you should ask...

That's a fair point, although you have to look at it from the standpoint of how much you value the player -- in Byrd's case, how much does he add to the defense? How many game-changing plays does he make that other players wouldn't be able to? If he's the kind of player that can make a difference in a game, how much of the cap is that worth, even if it's at the safety position?

In the discussion this year and this past year about Byrd, it got me wondering about how people perceive the idea of being the "highest paid" (or even a "top paid") player at a particular position. Obviously, this occurs in the context of a player becoming a free agent and testing the market (or perhaps a trade/renegotiation situation). Often we see players who we don't think are the best at a particular position being offered astronomical money, sometimes to be the highest paid player at their position. But it also applies to players who are very good, but are offered ridiculous money that would make them one of the top paid at their position. Many times, the reaction is that the player is "not worth it", because they are being paid as the "Top #X" at their position, but they are not perceived to be in the Top #X of their position. See: Levitre, Andy. But I wonder how many people out there, such as myself, believe that what a player is paid during a particular free agency year is not necessarily precisely reflective of their formal (or informal) ranking at the position. Rather, it is reflective of a few important factors: - which players are free agents that year - how much the cap went up that year - the cap space different teams have available - what new contracts were given to similar level players in the past year or two - what it would take to get the player to sign with your team In other words, just because a player is paid to become the highest paid at their position, doesn't necessarily mean he is the best (or even perceived to be the best) at his position. The amount a player is paid during one particular offseason is a product of the various factors that inflate values from one year to the next. Take Byrd, for instance (sorry for two Byrd-related threads in one day). The general thinking is that it's going to take paying him to be in the top 3 of all safeties to sign him, and probably the top safety overall. If the Bills don't do it, somebody likely will (see: Bears, Chicago). But a lot of the opposition to paying Byrd to be the top safety is because people don't think he's the top safety in the league and doesn't deserve to be paid as such. But is that necessarily the right way to think about it? My thinking is that this is not the way it works. Byrd receiving a contract that pays him the most of all safeties in the league just means this: at this point in time, this year, given who else is available in free agency and which safeties were given a new contract last year or the year before -- that is the amount dictated by the market. It doesn't mean the team paying him necessarily thinks he is the best safety in the league, better than Polamalu, or Berry, or Rolle. Another way to think about it: if all of those safeties were to become free agents this year at the same time, how would the salaries shake out? Would Byrd still be the highest paid? Probably not. But that doesn't mean he couldn't, or shouldn't, become the highest paid in the league this off season. What you pay for a player really comes down to how much you have, how much you value the player, how much you want to tie up at a particular position on your team, and how strongly the player wants to be on that team. Not quite so much how a team values a player against his peers -- at least, probably not as much as we think it does. At least, the amount given should not necessarily communicate this. Thoughts?

Good points. I think picking a good LB is harder than most people seem to think. Size and speed seem to be the most coveted qualities, but I agree that instincts, intelligence, and playmaking ability are probably more important. I think Kiko is a good example of this.

Well, franchise tag would be included in #2. Also, I wanted to know if we should keep Byrd, not necessarily trade him, which I guess would be included in #3.

What does everybody think? Time to put your opinion down. Just curious, but with the votes for #2, what would people say if Byrd would only stay if he is the highest paid safety in the league? Do it, or move on?

Man, too many to count. Besides Lori and The Dean, Mark VI always comes to mind right away.

I'm surprised the Pats* haven't figured out how to acquire favors from the gods, not just the refs.

Good defenses do what they're supposed to do against lesser competition. You could hardly ask for better pass defense against those QBs.

I can't believe you aren't getting more love for this comment. That has to be one of the better ones around here lately.

Coach, one of your goals this year was to come in and change the culture. With the Bills missing the playoffs yet again and still finishing in last place just like the last six years, what about the culture do you think has changed and what hope should this give the fans moving forward?

A bit of hyperbole, I would say, but then again -- getting soundly beaten on a 3rd and 18 with your opponent's back squarely against the ropes for a 50-yard catch is inexcusable. I will note that I am a Gilmore supporter, by the way. I think he's struggled this year, but I also think he's going to be outstanding next year.

We wait with patience for the team to develop under it's new players, coaches, and schemes, that's what. It takes time for rookie QBs to develop, and it takes time for teams to adjust and become comfortable with new schemes. Does anyone not think that our defense is going to be even better next year, with a full year of Pettine's scheme under their belts? They're just getting started.

Thanks, man. I've been perfecting that science for years. Note that it also means that I will root for any team from a lower opposition group when they are playing a team from a higher opposition group in the Super Bowl. Interestingly, the teams from #2 and #3 are basically all NFC teams, and the teams from #1 are all AFC East teams, so that means anytime those teams face each other in the SB, I'd always root for the NFC team. So for instance, even though I hate the Cowboys with a passion, if they were playing against New England* in the SB, I'd root like hell for the Cowboys, and I wouldn't be shy about it either. This illness runs deep.

It was started in this thread.

Per today's D&C: "The Bills have held six of their last seven opponents under 200 net yards passing and now rank fifth in the NFL in pass defense, and third in yards per pass attempt."

You might actually notice that most corners, even the top ones, do this on a regular basis. It's how the position needs to be played these days.

Kinda like those two dropped passes by Gilmore. Those wouldn't have made a huge difference.

Why would Lewis be gone? He's under contract through next year. His salary next year is around $645K.

This is a tough one, really. I think Lewis is a very capable backup, but he does have his limitations. But that's the thing about backup QBs -- they're backups for a reason. They usually have limitations that prevent them from being quality starters. The things I like about Thad are that (1) he seems to play with confidence, and is not afraid to sling it around, (2) he is mobile, and can get himself out of trouble with his legs, and (3) the guys on the team really seem like they respect him and rally around him. His accuracy is a problem, but that doesn't really surprise me given how little he has played in his career to this point. I do think that if he was pressed into action for an extended period, his accuracy would improve. I'm comfortable with Lewis as the primary backup next year, with the chance that Tuel improves gradually to the point of replacing him. But I also wouldn't be grief stricken if the Bills go out and nab a veteran backup. As an aside, I thought it was grand how Sully claimed Lewis was "turnover-prone", and then proceeded to suggest Schaub as a replacement. He of 12 INTs in 10 games, a handful of which were pick 6s.