Rubes

Look, folks, I really think this has nothing to do with Parker trying to be a greedy bastard or the Bills trying to teach Parker/Byrd a lesson. Assuming—yes, this is an assumption— that Parker decided that Byrd should be the highest paid FS in the league, based on what he believes he would get on the open market, the Bills had only the following options: #1. Don't place the tag on him and let him walk. In this case, the Bills get nothing, and Byrd very likely gets what he wants. #2. Don't place the tag on him and negotiate. In this case, Byrd is a FA and can negotiate with other teams as well. If the Bills don't think he should be the highest paid FS in the league, they get nothing. Some other team very likely does, and Byrd gets the money he wants. #3. Place the tag on him and negotiate. If the Bills don't think he should be the highest paid FS in the league, they can retain him at a lower price for a year. Byrd can negotiate with other teams as well, but although other teams may be willing to pay him what he wants, it's unlikely they will do that AND give up high draft picks. This is also a deterrent to a sign & trade, but it's possible. In this case, the Bills get either Byrd for a year (most likely), or 1 or 2 high draft picks (less likely). If they keep Byrd for a year, we're at it again next year. Unless there is disaster (terribly injury) or an unexpectedly poor performance this year, Byrd will be in the same position next offseason, will still expect to be the highest paid FS in the league, and the Bills will still have the same three options. Would the Bills do the same thing again next year, and tag him, but without negotiating a long-term contract as the highest-paid FS in the league? They could, I suppose, but it's unlikely -- it doesn't help the team to have a guy who doesn't participate in offseason workouts and camps. So in the end, either next year or the year after, the Bills will take option #1 (Byrd gets what he wants, Bills get nothing), option #2 (Byrd gets what he wants, Bills get nothing), or option #3 (Byrd gets what he wants, Bills get draft picks). Any way you look at it, barring something unforseen like injury, Parker/Byrd is going to eventually get the money he wants. The Bills can retain Byrd on a yearly basis under less than ideal circumstances, but eventually it will come down to whether (a) the Bills want to be the ones to pay Byrd the money he wants, or (b) some other team pays Byrd the money he wants while surrendering one or two high draft picks to the Bills. If no other team is willing to do that, it leaves the two parties in a tag-based stalemate, as John put it, which is a lose-lose for both.

I have to say, even though we lost that game in completely agonizing fashion, it was one of the most incredible games I've seen. The fact that it was a night game on national television only added to it, as well as the fact that it was the craziest and loudest I think I've ever seen the crowd at the Ralph. The TD interception return by Wilson was electrifying, and the one by Kelsay was one of the most awesome single plays I can recall at the Ralph. The OP stated this list should be restricted to wins, but that game, as horrible as it was at the end, has to be up there on the list of great games. If only we had a shread of offense that game...

Two games I haven't heard much about, but which I thought were key games in my mind (maybe not in the top 5, but still): - 1987, Bills win at home against Miami 27-0. This was the strike year, and we had just traded for Bennett a few weeks earlier. Things were looking up, but this game (to me) was the real indication that the Bills had something really special brewing. Plus, you know, Miami. - 1988, Bills win on the road against the Jets, 37-14 on Monday night. In front of a national audience, the Bills go on the road to absolutely spank the Jets. Although the Bills were 5-1 at the time, most of the wins were squeakers. This one was a message to the league that the Bills could be a force.

Ya gotta be drunk for something to sober you up...

I agree. Especially with a new system on offense and defense. By the end of the season, I'd like to see the younger guys getting comfortable and making plays, so that next season they can take off right out of the gate. It will probably be a pretty sobering start to this season, but it's the development over time that I'm looking forward to watching.

Much appreciated!

Obviously they thought a lot about this kid if they drafted him. My guess is that all they need to see in training camp and preseason is if he is anywhere near Lindell in terms of accuracy and distance. If it's a close call, you probably have to go with the kid. It's unfortunate, since I think Lindell has been a great kicker for us, but he's at the age when you need to grab someone new if a good one comes around.

Dude, you're not paying close enough attention.

Both sides are in a tough situation, but Jarius is in a tougher spot. He's not going to want to participate in training camp, because any injury this year is a potential disaster for his future and any future contract. But by sitting out training camp, he won't be ready to play in this defense, so there is no reason for Pettine to play him. If he just rides the bench, then that doesn't put him in any better position for next offseason, and the Bills can just tag him again if they want. But are the Bills willing to pay someone $6.9 million to do nothing, just to rinse and repeat next offseason? The main problem is that, now that the deadline has passed, we can't negotiate any long-term deal with him until next offseason. So he either plays and risks injury or poor play, or he sits out and does nothing to help his cause for next year. I have no idea how this will play out this year, but my expectation is that he will be a sign-and-trade deal next offseason. Possibly.

On the same day? With the same content?

Yep, I'm on board now. I was a little reluctant at first, but I'm ready to see what this guy can do. Seems like he's an easy one to root for.

Well, the Bills didn't lose any games, so it's not too bad here.

Is there some link associated with this?

Now that's what I call a good poll question.

Cosell's podcast talking about Manuel has disappeared, but I found this on NFL.com from March: For what it's worth.

I favor anything that makes Tom Brady feel uncomfortable.

I'm a little surprised he didn't mention anything about the Byrd situation.

I swear, the instant I turned 40 my eyesight started to go. I'm 46 now and I can't read anything within two feet of my eyes without reading glasses. It's amazing how much longer it takes to get in shape, or how quickly it takes to lose it once you're in decent shape.

Well, he didn't say he saw him recently.

Am I having deja vu all over again?

Wow, that was totally worth it.

It's all just part of the grand plan for your signature....

I don't think I can comment on EJ3's logic, but isn't this more than just about signing the right and wrong players? It's about paying top dollar for individual components of a whole, and how many times you can get away with that. We paid Fred Jackson, and Stevie, and Fitz, but these were guys we didn't break the bank for. We did pay Mario, presumably because we thought the payoff was worth it. But can we have a defense with the top paid defensive player and the top paid safety? We have some cap space to work with, but if we want to retain some of the key players on this team moving forward (Wood, Spiller, Dareus) eventually you'll have to decide which of them you can keep, because you can't have them all. If letting Byrd go elsewhere means we can keep a handful of good core players, then it might be worth it, especially if the front office thinks one of the new guys is capable enough. Personally, I would love to see Byrd stay; I'm sick and tired of seeing our good young players leave after they've established themselves. But this is more about the long-term vision, I would guess.

Awesome stuff. I still don't understand how Utah allowed a brunette to take the state crown here, considering nearly the entire female population is blonde (naturally or unnaturally). I think it's the official state hair color. I agree, not quite at the same level of spectacle as Miss South Carolina, but a worthy follow-up.

Makes me wonder what the definition of an "independent" studio is.