JohnC

If you get production out of him then you are in better shape than you were without him on the field. I agree with you that he was over-drafted. But salvaging something is better than not salvaging something. As e-ball stated rotating d-linemen has now become the standard practice for most teams. So if you have a backup involved in the regular rotation that is almost as important as having your starter play well. TT has been plagued with a back problem since he has been with the team. He has worked hard to get back on to the field. He is the type of prerson you root for. He is never going to be a stud perfomer but he can be a useful player for the defense. I'll take that.

That is exactly what I am saying. Losing teams should be focused on getting better, not satisfied with the status quo of systemic mediocrity. I agree with your suspicions. Being on a losing team can wear you down where you would prefer a change of scenery to a more positive environment. The Bills signed Mario to a contract that no other team would have made because this lowly franchise had no other choice. Mario acted in its best interest, and so did the team. In my estimation Mario is overpayed. I have no problem with that inflated expenditure by the organization. It was the right thing to do. I have no problem with each side taking a tough stance. Why would you believe that I think otherwise? There comes a point where the organizatiion has to act on getting better. The figures that are in play are actually not that far apart. A 7 million tender is not that far off the annual rate he wants on an extended deal. If the Bills have to pay a little more than they want then so what is the big deal? They overpayed for Mario but at least they got a talent. They overpayed for Anderson and later cut him. They overpayed for Kelsay. They overpayed for Fitz. What is the point of hardbaling a talent when you losen your pockets for mediocre talent? The Bills have not been a successful team for a generation. It isn't because they have an abundance of talent!

You are not giving much credit to the intelligence to the player. Byrd doesn't need Parker to tell him that he is one of the best players at his position. He doesn't need Parker to tell him that he should be one of the highest paid players at his position. It doesn't matter who his agent is Byrd is smart enough to recognize his market worth because the market rate has been set by comparable caliber of players. People derisively claim that Parker is a hard-ball negotiator. Let me tell you if I was searching for an agent I certainly would not want a soft-ball negotiator. What Parker understands very well is the market value of his clients. He has a good track record of getting it not because he is out smarting the organizations but because he is negotiating a fair deal with them on behalf of his clients. Parker is a well respected agent in the NFL. Almost all the organizations will acknowledge that he is tough but he is also fair. The organizations argue on their behalf and he argues on his clients behalf. An agreeable deal is usually made. That is how the system is set up and how it works.

You can't know for sure whether your defense is better or worse because it is a team defense. It's not like baseball where there are individual stats that are more measurable. What I do know for sure is that Byrd is not only one of better DBs on the defense but he is also one of the best players on the defense. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't he our only defensive pro ball player? Regardless if it is measureable or not I'm confident that this year's defense will be a better defense with him than without him. The organization certainly didn't tender him because he was an inconsequential player. As I stated in prior posts by tendering him the organization acknowledges that he is an upper tier player at his position. This is a team without many upper tier players at their respective position. So there shouldn't be a cavalier attitude at letting those caliber of players leave. Sometimes a departure of a good player can't be prevented, but sometimes a more energetic effort can be made to retain an impactful player. What has crushed this franchise as much as anything is the same self-defeating cycle of developing a good player and then see that player leave and go through the process of replacing the player that left. Digging a hole and then refilling it and then again digging another hole at the same spot doesn't seem too smart to me. It has proved very damaging to this generational stuck in the mud organization.

Last year our defense played poorly due to a lack of talent and underperforming from other players, mostly on the D-line. Byrd at the FS position was not a position of weakness, it was a position of strength. By tendering him at a high one year rate the organization implicitedly recognizes that he is an upper tier FS. That doesn't necessarily translate into giving him a cap busting contract but it does suggest that his contract should be at the higher end FS rate. I'm not stating that a deal can't get but I am stating that a deal would enhance this roster. If the organization can't come to a deal with him other players who will eventually be in their contract years will take note when they have options to go elsewhere. Losing does get tiresome for players who have a relatively short career life span. Sometimes the problem doesn't develop when a particular transaction doesn't work out but it becomes manifestly apparent when it too often happens. The Bills have been out of the playoffs for 13 consecutive years and still counting. The Bills have had losing seasons nine out of the past ten seasons. I'm sure that you would agree that retaining and adding talent to a roster is a better way to get better than repeating the self-defeating cycle of developing a player---having the player leave---and then replacing the lost player. The Bills have gone through a major organizational staffing change and player culling this offseason. The odds lean toward them not making the playoffs and having a winning record. That doesn't mean that this franchise can't make progress and build for future success. You don't do that be shedding talent when you already have a lack of talent.

The agent doesn't act on the team's behalf he acts on the behalf of the player. He represents the player's interest, not the team's interest. It was Byrd who selected the agent, not the agent selecting the player. He can sell himself as a rep but it is the player who makes the call as to who is going to represent him. There are no outlandish demands being made by the player. The player believes that he is one of the top FSs in the game. There is an established salary scale for that echelon of FSs. The player wants to be paid in that range, regardless who is representing him. The negotiating strategy that Parker is employing is without a doubt a strategy that Byrd signed on to. I'm sure that the agent explained the ramifications and risks associated with it prior to employing it. There is too much at stake for the player not to be clued in to what is going on. Byrd is not an unsophisticated slug like the idiot player for San Fran who claimed that he didn't know that he had a $2M offseason team workout bonus clause. By tendering Byrd the franchise has signaled that they also consider Bryd to be one of the best FSs in the game. If they didn't believe that they wouldn't have tendered him at a $7 M price tag. There is still time to get a deal done. The stakes are high for both the organization and player. My position is that I would reasonably overpay for a talented player then squander money on a less taented player. Byrd is not a player like Anderson who came in from another organization and was paid beyond his talent level. With Byrd you already know what you are getting. Even if you slightly over pay you still are going to get good production. The way for a lagging team to get better is to keep talent and add talent.

Where is the logic in backing Barber who was an organizatinal malignacy who created an environment of obstruction (your description) against a HC who salvaged his franchise from irrelevancy to being a serious team? That isn't making a bad decision----it is a stupendously bad decision. He not only hired Barber but he kept him on a lot longer than he should have. Wilson isn't the type of hardnosed business person to allow himself to be deceived. He sided with Barber over the HC because that is what he wanted to do. That was his decision. He made the decision he wanted to make for some inexplicable reason. Wilson has been generous with his charitable contributions. I have never said anything critical about that. But his stewardship of the franchise has been far from being enlightening. We can go back and forth on the business approach he takes with respect to the franchise. Who cares. His record speaks for itself.

Who hired Barber? The owner did. If there was an irresolvable conflict between Knox and Barber don't you think that issue came up when his contract ended and a new contract was being negotiated? When a contract is being negotiated money is certainly a primary issue but so are the terms of how one functions within the organization. You don't think the issue associated with lines of authority came up? If it is as you described that the issue wasn't only over money then certainly another issue was over Knox's role within the organization and his relationship with Barber, who you described as an obstructionist. Ralph Wilson was not known to be a wallflower who was afraid to meddle. Why didn't he intervene on the side of the productive employee instead of allowing the obstructionist drive the person out who turned his floundering team into a relevant team? In this Knox saga there have been numerous reports that the issue that made Know walk away was his contract. In spite of the abundance of reporting on this issue you insist that it wasn't the case. Your explanation as to why Knox didn't sign another contract doesn't seem credible to me. It makes no sense. Maybe I'm just too implacable on this issue (I plead guilty) but there are too many accounts that contradict your version of the Knox departure. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter which version of ours is more accurate. The bottom line is that this organizatiion made a very damaging blunder when they didn't renew his contract. The lesson is that ownership matters. The Buffalo franchise demonstrates the difference between having a competent and incompetent owner. If you don't believe me then check the record. There are a lot of issues that you and I can strenuously disagree over. What we can't disagree over is the team's record. It is black and white and not open to interpretation!

Chuck Knox left the organization because he couldn't come to a contract agreement with the owner. This is after he did a superlative job for him on his first contract. I don't doubt that there were internal conflicts but the primary reason that he left was due to contract issues with the owner. The following is a Wikepedia quote. I am well aware that Wikepedia sourced material isn't the end all and be all but it does reflect the many reports I have read that Knox's departure was mostly due to money. "In his first year (under the new 16-game schedule), Knox led the Bills to a 5-11 mark. Just two years later, the Bills won the AFC East title with an 11-5 record, but dropped a close battle with the high-powered San Diego Chargers in the divisional playoffs. The following year, his team defeated the Jets in a wild card clash, but then fell to the Cincinnati Bengals. After a 4-5 strike-shortened season in 1982, Knox failed to come to terms on a new contract with team owner Ralph Wilson, and left to accept the head coaching position with the Seahawks on January 26, 1983."

You just undercut your own position. If a player can play multiple positions and roles then he would be a valuable player on a limited roster. Now that his salary has been reduced his value/talent relationship increases. He certainly isn't an instrumental type player but without a doubt he can be a good bargain and contributing player.

Chuck Knox did a sterling job for Wilson. He took over a flagging franchise and made it competitive. He not only was the HC but in many respects he acted as a GM. When his contract ran out he and the organization couldn't come to an agreement on a contract extension. One can reasonably make the case that he was the best HC that this organization ever had. He ended up walking away due to a contract issue.

More often than not how much you spend is not as important as how you spend it. You can spend less and be very judicious and productive with your money; you can also foolishly spend more money and be less productive with your money. The amount of money unwisely spent on players such as Dockery, Langston Walker, Kelsay, Cornell Green etc then affects your ability to spend money on players you should keep and players you should pursue.

If Brad Smith was used in specialty situations such as in short third down situations in a wild cat formation with an 80% conversion rate compared to a more conventional formation with him on the sideline with a 50% conversion rate which formation would you call for? Very often teams go to a tightly packed formation and try to ram the ball in for a first down. If you can bring in a player who increases the rate of success in a specific situation then why be so troubled with the admittedly more unconventional approach?

They got blue pills to correct that problem! If one doesn't work then take two. If that doesn't work then take the whole bottle and shoot multiple scenes.

We are not on the same page. I agree with you that as a qb he is very limited to the point of being useless. There is no chance that he will be considered in that conventional role. However, in his first year he was useful when used in specific short yardage third down situations. Even in those situations as the season advanced he was phased out in that role. The central point I was making in the prior post was that he was brought in at a relatively expensive rate for what purpose? Even as a wildcat situatiional player why pay a premium price for such a limited role player? If he was mostly a good special teams' player was his price tag worth his production? Obviously not. Was he a receiver? Rarely so. My criticism is that this is another front office poor calculatiion. If you are not going to use him as envisioned then what was the reason for his signing? There is an irony here with this lame organization. They play hardball with their productive players and they have loose pockets for not only questionable players but players whose intended roles are not utilized . Isn't it wiser to slightly spend more for talent, at least you get production, rather than over spend on players that you haven't figured out how to use?. There are still many Nix apologists that exist. That I don't understand. He had an undisciplied and haphazard approach to assembling a roster. It lacked coherency and intelligence. His 16-32 record reflected his competency level as a GM. Who the heck hired a person so ill-equpped for the position? It must have been the same person who hired the congenial Levy to be a GM!

Chan Gailey was supposed to be an offensive minded coach. Yet, he stubbornly under utilized Spiller and he didn't exploit Smith's talents. Smith was a successful wild cat runner who often came in on third down situations. I don't have the stats but his rate of success in gaining first downs in short yardage situations was very high. Then it seemed like he became a forgotten man. How often was he used in the passing game? What was the point of bringing in a player and giving him a relatively high end contract and then under utilize him. I'm well aware that Fitz was a scatter arm but it makes no sense to "bring in" players and then waste their talents. Smith is probably not going to be a major impact player but that doesn't mean that his abilities can't be better used to give our offense a wider dimension.

Most people would concede that this is a rebuilding year. The problem is that from a record stadnpoint there is little difference between the Bills rebuilding and rebuilt team. Over the past decade the Bills have had a losing season in 9 out of its last ten years. In the exception year the record was 9-7. What many cynical posters (including me) are suggesting is that there is a designed business model (method of operation) that is the cause of this perpetual flaccid performances. How can a franchise performing in a system designed for parity be bad for a full generation? How can a franchise have 9 losing seasons out of 10 when by losing teams gain advantages in the draft over winning teams? The Bills for sure are not the most sagacious franchise. But I strongly believe that there is a systemic reason why this franchise can not get out of its unending rut. My view (not accepted by many) is that they have deliberately created a business that is too skewed toward the cash/flow side of the operation at the expense of the football side of the operation. I have watched this frachise perform for a very long time. Longer than most. If the franchise put as much thought and ingenuity into the football side of the operation as they do with the financial side of the operation the Bills would be a more entrtaining and winning team.

I'm not sure which players you are referring to but the Merriman and even the multi-positional player, Smith, haven't given much return on the $$$$$.If Byrd is asking for an outlandish salary then the organization has a right to hold the line. But are they really that far apart in a salary range that can't be breached?

The difference between what he could have gotten in an extended deal compared to being franchised for two years is miniscule. If you factor in the money that was wasted on the Anderson signing that would have made up the difference. You say he is asking for $9M/yr. That certainly could be negotiated down to $8M/yr on an extended deal. Playing hardball with one of your more talented players and being very loose with your money for an outside questionable talent is counter-productive.

Smartly run teams try to resolve an issue before it becomes an issue. No one is arguing against your point that the Bills have the leverage in the negotiation with Byrd. But the end game is to keep and add talent to a lackluster roster. Why play hardball against a talented player that you drafted while overpaying for free agent players who get cut in short order. That makes no sense. Instead of being generous with the outside talent that is over rated wouldn't it be better for the sake of the team to possibly overpay a tad for a quality player alreay on your roster. Let's put things in context: The Bills have not made the playoffs in 13 consecutive years and still counting They have also have had 8 or 9 losing seasns over the past decade. Isn't having more talent better than having lesser talent? Injudiciously exercising leverage is not always the wise thing to do if you are interested in winning more.

I didn't take your response as being harshly directed to me. You are one of the better contributors on this board. Reading your well reasoned posts and responding to them is enjoyable. My point regarding Ryan is that he is the caliber of qb who can legitimately give your team a chance to compete far into the playoffs. Even if that deep run doesn't actually materialize the team still has a realistic chance. Regarding Atlanta's roster Dimitroff has done a superb job assembling it since he took over after the Vick and Petrino fiasco. After those two earthquakes the franchise was in a state of shock. Dimitroff put the franchise back on track in a relative short order. Compare Blank's hire of a competent GM to Wilson's frequent hire of unqualified staff. There certainly is a lesson to be learned!

What would be the functional coverup for the murder? Regardless on how the brutal murder was executed (no pun intended) he was going to be a prime suspect. Even Inspector McDope could figure this one out.

As a reward i offer you a popcorn/baby/dog video. http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/living/2013/07/24/orig-distraction-baby-laughs-at-dog-eating-popcorn.youtube-petsami#/video/living/2013/07/24/orig-distraction-baby-laughs-at-dog-eating-popcorn.youtube-petsami

You misinterpreted my post. I didn't say that the Falcons were awful without him. I didn't say he was a savior---your description. What I did say is that he is a very good qb (top 25%) that allows your team to compete at the upper level. What would be the results if you take him off of the Falcons and replace him with a middle of the pact type qb? They probably wouldn't be in the playoffs. With respect to EJ Manuel if he turns out to be a Ryan caliber qb I would be ecstatic! In order to discuss the number of playoff wins a qb has you have to reach the hurdle of getting into the playoffs. As it currently stands for the Bills that is an unreasonable expectation. Let's get real here: 85-90% of the league rosters excluding the qb positon are better than the Bills. The continuous 3 yr rebuilding cycle has taken its toll on this bedgraggled franchise.

If you take Ryan off the roster how good would the Falcons be? You state that Ryan struggles against the good teams. That is one way of lookin at it. But another way of looking at his level of play is that he elevates an above average team to being a good team. That the Falcons are not an elite team has little to do with the quality of play of the qb, and more to do with the rest of the roster. The Bills would love to have a qb the caliber of Ryan. The Bills have been on a quest for a respectable qb for a generation, and still haven't found one. I'm sure they wouldn't scoff at a Ryan caliber qb. The Falcons can be contrasted to the Bills. They find a way to retain their best players while the Bills too often end up losing them. That is why the Bills are stuck in the cycle of mediocrity.