GG Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 If it reads like a shill and smells like a shill.. What's with all the past-tense talk, JW? '..the Bills failed; ..the Bills failed; ..does little but expose the Bills as being the same old franchise.' This negotiation is no where near finished, but one can't tell that from your rant. It's not only possible, it's quite likely the Bills and Byrd will eventually come to agreement and sign a lengthy contract here. Your 'insight' notwithstanding. You realize that Byrd can no longer sign a long term deal until the season ends? Which means that the cap room that's available this year will be toast. They better lock up Wood & Spiller as soon as possible this year, because next year's cap will be a mess with upcoming free agents and Mario's & Fitz contracts eating up a bundle.
Maddog69 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I would be very interested in hearing if Parker countered the Bills initial offer or basically said this is our number and we are sticking to it. CBF the reports the other day were that the Bills made an offer fairly recently and that Byrd and Parker never countered the offer. This seems to me as if Byrd wants out of Buffalo. He tells his agent to set a ridiculous price. If the Bills pay it, then he signs and stays (and probably sulks and holds out every year). If they don't cower to his demands, then he can leave and blame the Bills.
Delete This Account Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 So, in your opinion, the Bills should make a "solid player" the highest paid safety in the history of the league? And not doing so is proof that nothing at 1 Bills Drive has changed? Consider me in EXTREME disagreement with both of those statements. Byrd is not worth making the highest paid safety in NFL history (which, if he wants a contract that makes him the highest paid in the NFL today, is exactly what he's asking for). So in that case, I agree with the Bills. Tag him, see what the other guys on the roster can do in Pettine's defense, and perhaps tag him again next year. What, exactly, is the issue here? And to answer your question, the Bills tagged Byrd to retain his rights for this year. Why wouldn't they do that? Are you saying that he's not worth keeping at $6.9M on a 1-year deal? If that's the case, how can you condone paying him $9M/year or more? The whole take is confounding to me... EDIT: I'd also like to add that I don't subscribe to the idea that the tagging of Byrd sends a bad message to free agents around the league. Teams use the tag every single year, and many of those players don't get long-term deals. In this year alone, I believe only 1 of 10 players got one; I highly doubt that free agents will pick the Bills out of those 9 teams that didn't negotiate long-term deals as the one team to hold it against. 1) someone was going to make Byrd essentially the top-paid FS this offseason had the Bills not tagged him. it's not a number based on whether Byrd is THE ABSOLUTE best at his position. it's based on the dearth of highly talented FS that would have been on the market. 2) sure tag him again next year, and the Bills will have paid nearly $14 million in guaranteed money to a player with which they're having an issue with regarding, in part, how much guaranteed money he wants over a long-term period. kind of defeats the purpose as Byrd will get paid one way or the other. also, a bad way to do business. 3) you're right, the Sabres didn't get a reputation around the NHL for being cheap with their players -- Briere, Drury, Kennedy, JP Dumont etc -- so why would the Bills in this instance. 4) OK, i'll play the numbers game, too, by noting that you fail to mention that out of the 10 or so players tagged this offseason, only one (1) failed to be signed to a contract by the deadline Monday. Teams use the tag every year. and a majority of those teams are able to get that player signed before training camp to at least one year. jw If it reads like a shill and smells like a shill.. What's with all the past-tense talk, JW? '..the Bills failed; ..the Bills failed; ..does little but expose the Bills as being the same old franchise.' This negotiation is no where near finished, but one can't tell that from your rant. It's not only possible, it's quite likely the Bills and Byrd will eventually come to agreement and sign a lengthy contract here. Your 'insight' notwithstanding. there is no more room for negotiation except a few minor details regarding the possibility of getting Byrd signed before training camp if the Bills drop any threat of retagging him. this is not a rant. it's my opinion. don't know why you need to react so harshly. ... oh, wait, i do. you've held things against me for quite some time now. ... sorry for expecting anything different. jw
thebandit27 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 And in that case, didn't Parker get exactly what he was asking for his client? Did Bills look beyond 2013 in their stance in Byrd's negotiations? Sure they can tag him again next year. But that would limit their ability to use the tag on the other guys whose contracts are expiring after 2013. Bills had two key free agents heading into this season. They decided to to let one walk without even tossing out a near market number to him. To me that indicates that they valued the other guy more, who was franchised. So how do you get your organization in a position that you could lose both key players within two years? And remind me again of a defense that Pettine has been involved in recently that didn't place a premium on a playmaking safety? Lather, rinse, repeat. The team clearly doesn't/didn't place high value on the guard or safety position; at least not nearly as high as the players/agents would like. Thus, they weren't given long-term, big $$ deals. I'm fine with the team not paying Andy Levitre $8M/year; that's ridiculous. I'm also fine with Jairus Byrd not being the highest paid safety in the history of the game; that's preposterous in my opinion. As for Pettine's D and the play-making safety, who are you referring to from the list below? 2009 - Kerry Rhodes & Jim Leonhard and their combine 4 forced turnovers 2010 - Brodney Pool & Jim Leonhard and their combine 4 forced turnovers 2011 - Eric Smith & Jim Leonhard and their combine 3 forced turnovers In 2012, LaRon Landry had 4 INTs and 2 FFs...this appears to be the only year the Jets had anything close to a playmaker at safety. Let's take a look at those team's respective rankings in the NFL: 2009 - 1st overall, 8th vs. run, 1st vs. pass 2010 - 3rd overall, 3rd vs. run, 6th vs. pass 2011 - 5th overall, 13th vs. run, 5th vs. pass 2012 - 8th overall, 26th vs. run, 2nd vs. pass It appears that the only year that Pettine's D had a playmaking safety, it was the worst of his 4 years with the team. I would call that the exact opposite of placing a premium on the position, wouldn't you? The Bills tried to "bluff" Parker? Placing the franchise tag on a player is the epitome of laying your cards on the table, the opposite of a bluff, in fact. It serves to publicly announce your willingness to open the negotiations at 6.9m a year. If anything, Parker assumes he can bluff the Bills by suggesting Byrd demand a salary as the highest paid S in the league, when it's obvious to most observers, both professional and otherwise that Byrd, while certainly a good player, is certainly not the best at the position. If Parker knows he can get another team to make Byrd the highest paid player, then why hasn't he? He's not precluded from seeking that. If anything, Parker is trying to bluff the Bills. And he's been called. Why did they tag Byrd? Spite and naivety are simply ridiculous items to throw out there. While it may serve to show some fans that they are committed to retaining their homegrown talent, the simple and most obvious answer is that they tagged him because they think Byrd is worthy of that designation, the commensurate pay it indicates and, most importantly, they wish to be compensated for the loss of a player they place such a high value upon. As for Byrd's value declining in any way, it's too early to tell. It most assuredly will if he sits out the season, so that's out. Him not being ready to play upon reporting may also decrease his value if that should result in injury. His value to the Bills may certainly decrease if they get adequate play from those slated to replace him. But none of what may effect his value is controlled by the Bills anyway. It's his decision and his decision only whether to get himself in camp and start proving why he should be the highest paid safety in the league. Finally, the Byrd and Peters situations are entirely different scenarios, regardless of the fact that Parker represents both players. GO BILLS!!! GO BILLS!!! ^ this
Delete This Account Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 You assume Byrd was open to negotiation last year. When exactly was Parker retained as Byrd's agent? You also overlook the fact the Bills were in the midst of a major reorganization at that time. I'm still not following your logic, John. The first assumption you make is that the price Parker sets is infallible. You just said the market sets the price but then state that Parker always knows what that number is. So basically you are saying the Bills should pay whatever Byrd is asking for because (in your opinion) these things never work out well for the Bills. You cite the Peter's case, and while he did get his fat deal the Bills also got two draft picks and jettisoned a player who let himself go and spent half his career in Philly on IR. (And funny how Parker isn't offering the Eagles a rebate because Peters is playing below his contract. I guess his concern is only focused on players who are being underpaid.) I also don't follow your statement on why the Bills tagged Byrd. You are advocating that the Bills let him walk because they have no intention of meeting his demand. Why? Why shouldn't the Bills use every card in their hand? if Byrd is as valuable as you and others contend he is then there must be some team willing to trade for him. Yet I have not heard any team being remotely interested in giving up picks for Byrd. Is it because safeties are too easily replaceable? Ironic, no? I'm of the opinion that Byrd and Parker gambled on the Bills folding and are now in a tenuous position, despite the pressure being put on the team by some in the media. This is a negotiation. And if one side digs their heels that is not a reason to capitulate. PTR no, i don't at all suggest Parker or his price are infallible. i'm merely explaining his approach. my point is the Bills are attempting to establish a soft market here. Parker ignores that and points to what Byrd would likely have received in free agency. still don't see how this is a gamble on Parker's end. Parker got what he wanted in the end in the Peters' holdout. i'm attempting to approach this from a logical perspective and provide insight. evidently, the Bills under-estimated once again Parker's resolve, too. jw
K-9 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Exactly. The whole "why didn't we negotiate an extension last year" crowd repeatedly ignores or forgets this premise. Agents like Parker know what values they are setting for their clients before the "walk year" and you need two parties to negotiate. Parker doesn't negotiate -- he sets a price and says "take it or leave it." Some teams will pay, and it makes sense for certain positions and certain situations. This wasn't one of them. And let's not forget Levitre's repeated mantra of "free agency is a once in a lifetime opportunity and I'm looking forward to it." Bottom line is that unless the Bills were going to make him or Byrd the highest paid at their respective positions, they would have been STUPID to deny themselves the chance to see what the market WOULD offer. Last fall, when bloggers and others were speculating on getting ahead of free agency and re-signing Levitre, the HIGHEST number I recall was 5/36. He ended up getting 12m more with 26m guaranteed! I don't blame the Bills one bit for not matching that number for a one-dimensional guard who, while a great tactician, is not a very good run blocker overall and is too often overpowered at the POA. Eric Wood is a far better player and that's who the Bills will focus on retaining. As they should. GO BILLS!!!
Delete This Account Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Hi John - I like and respect your writing and I enjoy your participation here but I could not disagree with you more about "why tag him". 1.) The Bills reportedly made a very fair initial contract offer. They are reportedly offered top 5 money in their initial offer. Byrd/Parkers response was to not counter at all. How are the Bills supposed to "negotiate the edges" if Parker/Byrd will not negotiate in good faith 2.) Byrd is an asset. Why would the Bills simply allow him to walk away for free. They have him under their control for 2 seasons minimum. Why let that go for nothing? That would be ridiculously irresponsible. If he can find a team willing to meet his demands, then the Bills either match it or get fair compensation. Why should they Bills give that away? 3.) This is a negotiation. If one side is unwilling to negotiate, you're opinion is that the other side should just give in? Thats not how business works. Thats not how life works (unless you're a married man, LOL). I sense your frustration and mirroring of what the Bills fans feel. We just want Byrd signed. But to say the Bills should not have tagged him if they did not plan to cave to all of his demands doesn't make any sense to me. This situation is exactly why the owners wanted the tagging system in the CBA. Just imagine the column you would have written if the Bills had just let Byrd walk without tagging him. Jerry Sullivan would have had a field day with that. they let Levitre walk and anted up on Byrd. and that's not turned out. now they risk losing out on both within a year's span. not sure how that's smart business. i'm not speaking out of frustration. i'm merely laying out how i see the bills failed in this case. jw
thebandit27 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 1) someone was going to make Byrd essentially the top-paid FS this offseason had the Bills not tagged him. it's not a number based on whether Byrd is THE ABSOLUTE best at his position. it's based on the dearth of highly talented FS that would have been on the market. Since that's the case, aren't the Bills smart for tagging him to keep him off the market? I still fail to see why what they did was wrong... 2) sure tag him again next year, and the Bills will have paid nearly $14 million in guaranteed money to a player with which they're having an issue with regarding, in part, how much guaranteed money he wants over a long-term period. kind of defeats the purpose as Byrd will get paid one way or the other. also, a bad way to do business. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I don't think paying $14M in guaranteed money is worse than paying, say, the $30M he'll get with a new contract. The only downside with back-to-back tags is the amount of cap space it eats up. 3) you're right, the Sabres didn't get a reputation around the NHL for being cheap with their players -- Briere, Drury, Kennedy, JP Dumont etc -- so why would the Bills in this instance. I'd put a lot more stock in this argument if they didn't do things like re-sign Stevie Johnson, Fred Jackson, Kyle Williams, Kraig Urbik, Scott Chandler, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Chris Kelsay, Erik Pears, etc. Sorry, but you're seemingly building a strawman with that argument. 4) OK, i'll play the numbers game, too, by noting that you fail to mention that out of the 10 or so players tagged this offseason, only one (1) failed to be signed to a contract by the deadline Monday. Teams use the tag every year. and a majority of those teams are able to get that player signed before training camp to at least one year. So it's the Bills' job to make sure Byrd signs the franchise tender? Come on John, you cover this game for a living. You know fully well that he could've signed the tag any time he wanted. Eight other players did it without the assurance of a long-term deal...why couldn't Byrd? It was HIS choice to make, not the team's.
GG Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 The team clearly doesn't/didn't place high value on the guard or safety position; at least not nearly as high as the players/agents would like. Thus, they weren't given long-term, big $$ deals. I'm fine with the team not paying Andy Levitre $8M/year; that's ridiculous. I'm also fine with Jairus Byrd not being the highest paid safety in the history of the game; that's preposterous in my opinion. As for Pettine's D and the play-making safety, who are you referring to from the list below? 2009 - Kerry Rhodes & Jim Leonhard and their combine 4 forced turnovers 2010 - Brodney Pool & Jim Leonhard and their combine 4 forced turnovers 2011 - Eric Smith & Jim Leonhard and their combine 3 forced turnovers In 2012, LaRon Landry had 4 INTs and 2 FFs...this appears to be the only year the Jets had anything close to a playmaker at safety. Let's take a look at those team's respective rankings in the NFL: 2009 - 1st overall, 8th vs. run, 1st vs. pass 2010 - 3rd overall, 3rd vs. run, 6th vs. pass 2011 - 5th overall, 13th vs. run, 5th vs. pass 2012 - 8th overall, 26th vs. run, 2nd vs. pass It appears that the only year that Pettine's D had a playmaking safety, it was the worst of his 4 years with the team. I would call that the exact opposite of placing a premium on the position, wouldn't you? ^ this I'm guessing that's why they insisted on bringing in Leonhard as the QB of the defense to NYJ if they didn't think it was important. And guess what, Byrd is infinitely better than Leonhard. Also does having a top 6 passing defense is not a factor at all in that claculation? Nice of you to forget about the Baltimore defenses. I forget who the FS was there. Bottom line is that Bills are on the hook for $7 million to Byrd this year, and probably $8 million next year if he's tagged. So they'll use up $15 million in two years compared to the $20 million guaranteed over four years that Parker is looking for. Great cap planning by the Bills' master.
Delete This Account Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 Since that's the case, aren't the Bills smart for tagging him to keep him off the market? I still fail to see why what they did was wrong... Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, as I don't think paying $14M in guaranteed money is worse than paying, say, the $30M he'll get with a new contract. The only downside with back-to-back tags is the amount of cap space it eats up. I'd put a lot more stock in this argument if they didn't do things like re-sign Stevie Johnson, Fred Jackson, Kyle Williams, Kraig Urbik, Scott Chandler, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Chris Kelsay, Erik Pears, etc. Sorry, but you're seemingly building a strawman with that argument. So it's the Bills' job to make sure Byrd signs the franchise tender? Come on John, you cover this game for a living. You know fully well that he could've signed the tag any time he wanted. Eight other players did it without the assurance of a long-term deal...why couldn't Byrd? It was HIS choice to make, not the team's. hey, all i'm saying is that Bills should've known what they were getting into here. a proactive team would've gotten a deal done a year ago. a proactive team would've/should've known what Byrd's price was before electing to tag him. a proactive team would've found ways of negotiating around the fringes on guaranteed money or length or both to get a deal done and not let talks essentially fall apart to the point where there were no talks on the final day. what i don't get is many here keep suggesting that Byrd doesn't have any leverage. given the amount of anger being thrown at him and me -- by explaining Parker's side -- it seems to me that leverage is building into frustration. budging is an option. not budging is also an option. Eugene Parker appears to have a grasp of that. jw
Maddog69 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 4) OK, i'll play the numbers game, too, by noting that you fail to mention that out of the 10 or so players tagged this offseason, only one (1) failed to be signed to a contract by the deadline Monday. Teams use the tag every year. and a majority of those teams are able to get that player signed before training camp to at least one year. jw Most of those players signed their 1yr tender. They did not get long term deals and the team did not cave to their demands. A few of them negotitated in good faith and got fair deals. Victor Cruz actually caved from his ridiculous demands to accepted the teams initial offer. The fact that Byrd is holding out cannot be blamed on the Bills. If he wants to selfish, hurt his team, himself and hold out, that's on him. Let him stand in the corner and pout all he wants. As you said, he is the only 1 of 10 players in a similar situation to be doing this. My biggest concern with him at this point would be that even if the Bills caved to his demands and made him the highest paid safety this year, he would be holding out again next year when someone else was paid more.
Delete This Account Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I'm guessing that's why they insisted on bringing in Leonhard as the QB of the defense to NYJ if they didn't think it was important. And guess what, Byrd is infinitely better than Leonhard. Also does having a top 6 passing defense is not a factor at all in that claculation? Nice of you to forget about the Baltimore defenses. I forget who the FS was there. Bottom line is that Bills are on the hook for $7 million to Byrd this year, and probably $8 million next year if he's tagged. So they'll use up $15 million in two years compared to the $20 million guaranteed over four years that Parker is looking for. Great cap planning by the Bills' master. yep. jw
Chandler#81 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 You realize that Byrd can no longer sign a long term deal until the season ends? Which means that the cap room that's available this year will be toast. They better lock up Wood & Spiller as soon as possible this year, because next year's cap will be a mess with upcoming free agents and Mario's & Fitz contracts eating up a bundle. Yes, GG, I do. It's still not a death sentence and I'm really not seeing through rose colored glasses. Worst case, Byrd is a Bill for 2 more years or we get excellent compensation. Best case, he signs a long term deal at season's end.
eball Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 they let Levitre walk and anted up on Byrd. and that's not turned out. now they risk losing out on both within a year's span. not sure how that's smart business. i'm not speaking out of frustration. i'm merely laying out how i see the bills failed in this case. jw How is letting Levitre walk bad business for the money at issue? I'm glad Tennessee ante'd up -- that contract will give them plenty of heartburn in due time. The Bills "risk losing out on [byrd] within a year's span?" Actually, they are guaranteed to have Byrd for at least two more seasons, and Byrd is an absolute fool not to accept the money and play his ass off. And in the meantime, both sides are free to negotiate if Parker decides he actually wants to. Your assertions of how the Bills have failed here are anything but persuasive.
K-9 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) I'm curious given his production and durability, what safeties you would rather have on your team for the next 5 years? Why haven't they? Giving up picks and 40mil is rough on any team. Palomalu, Berry, Reed, Collins, Thomas, Griffin, and Clark. Surely, the best safety in the game is worth that price, right? What's 9m a year with 25m guaranteed when we're talking "best" safety in the game? Surely Parker can a convince SOME team out there that Byrd is worth that price. He's doing his client a disservice by suggesting the Bills are the only team that should/would make him the highest paid. EDIT: just re-read and saw the "next 5 years" that I missed the first time. Given their ages, drop Palomalu and Reed. GO BILLS!!! Edited July 18, 2013 by K-9
Delete This Account Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 whatever folks. i've outlined my point of view on this. agree/disagree call me a "shill" if you want ... well, actually, i take exception to that PTR and Chandler ... but i've simply stated my case. have at it. jw How is letting Levitre walk bad business for the money at issue? I'm glad Tennessee ante'd up -- that contract will give them plenty of heartburn in due time. The Bills "risk losing out on [byrd] within a year's span?" Actually, they are guaranteed to have Byrd for at least two more seasons, and Byrd is an absolute fool not to accept the money and play his ass off. And in the meantime, both sides are free to negotiate if Parker decides he actually wants to. Your assertions of how the Bills have failed here are anything but persuasive. jeesuz. i wrote it looks like they're going to let both walk. and you've made my point. Levitre got "overpaid" by the Titans because he entered the market. Byrd is looking for the same type free-market compensation from the Bills despite being tagged. jw
eball Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 I'm guessing that's why they insisted on bringing in Leonhard as the QB of the defense to NYJ if they didn't think it was important. And guess what, Byrd is infinitely better than Leonhard. Also does having a top 6 passing defense is not a factor at all in that claculation? Nice of you to forget about the Baltimore defenses. I forget who the FS was there. Bottom line is that Bills are on the hook for $7 million to Byrd this year, and probably $8 million next year if he's tagged. So they'll use up $15 million in two years compared to the $20 million guaranteed over four years that Parker is looking for. Great cap planning by the Bills' master. That's a ridiculous statement; I presume you're suggesting the Bills would cut Byrd in two years? If so, then they'll certainly have spent more than $20M plus have dead cap money to deal with.
Delete This Account Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) Palomalu, Berry, Reed, Collins, Thomas, Griffin, and Clark. Surely, the best safety in the game is worth that price, right? What's 9m a year with 25m guaranteed when we're talking "best" safety in the game? Surely Parker can a convince SOME team out there that Byrd is worth that price. He's doing his client a disservice by suggesting the Bills are the only team that should/would make him the highest paid. GO BILLS!!! jeesuz holy crap again. Byrd is a free safety. Tony Polamalu is a STRONG safety. jw Yes, GG, I do. It's still not a death sentence and I'm really not seeing through rose colored glasses. Worst case, Byrd is a Bill for 2 more years or we get excellent compensation. Best case, he signs a long term deal at season's end. can't see a best case happening, but then again, i'm merely a shill. and from a Global Moderator no less. geez. jw Edited July 18, 2013 by john wawrow
first_and_ten Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 This whole Byrd negotiation or the lack of, makes me lose my love of the NFL just a litle more. Why can't Byrd be satisfied with being in the top 4 paid safties in the league? If Parker has this so called reputation of being a fair but tough negotiator then why would he demand that Byrd be the highest paid safety in the league? It seems to many that this is a stretch, to say the least. The greed of players in this league makes me dislike the NFL just a bit more.These types of situations will drive fans away slowly but surely. I know a player has a limited life span in the NFL, but can a player live comfortably on 8 million? I think so. Why do players always want more and more? Why can't more player be like Kent Hull , who wanted to stay with the franchise he came in with and worked out the contract that would make that happen. There is no sense of loyalty except to the almighty dollar. A team cannot pay every good player thay have over market value. The team will never win a championship that way. Most players don't care about championships. Thay care about making the money.Next comes Wood, and Spiller. Will they also ask to be the highest paid player at their position? I wouldn't be surprised. It almost seems like a ploy to get out of Buffalo. Ask to be the highest paid,then they get their ticket out of Buffalo. It's a bit discouraging as a fan and makes me care less about that No Fun League.
Maddog69 Posted July 18, 2013 Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) they let Levitre walk and anted up on Byrd. and that's not turned out. now they risk losing out on both within a year's span. not sure how that's smart business. i'm not speaking out of frustration. i'm merely laying out how i see the bills failed in this case. jw You are getting further and further away from making any sense at all. They let Levitre walk because they negotiated with him in good faith and could not come to an agreement. He was never going to be tagged because the Franchise tag for OL was much higher than the Bills were willing to pay for a Guard. They put the tag on Byrd to protect an asset (as I explained before). The tag # for Safety was a number they are reasonable confortable paying while protecting this asset and giving them time to work out a long term deal. If Parker refuses to negotiate, they is no way they would have signed him. Unless Byrd holds out for 10 games and gives up all of that salary (never going to happen),. the Bills have him for this year at $6.9m. If they tag him again next year, that is two years at just over $14m with no Huge signing bonus. I'm sure Ralph can live with that. The Bills are 100% handling this correctly and the more you try to justify your initial stance, the further in the weeds you get. Byrd is the only one who stands to lose in this scenario. The Bills are willing to pay him in the ballpark of $7-8M on a long term deal. What if he blows his achilles the first time he steps on the practice field. The Bills waive him injured, he get ZERO. From Byrd's perspective, the best he can hope for is for him to play this year under the franchise tender, have a good season, pray the Bills don't tag him again and then PRAY that some team is going to give him more than the Bills would have been willing to give him in the first place. *serious question: Can the Bills use a Transition tag on him next year? Allowing for the Bills to pay him a lower salary but another team to sign him for less compensation? P.S. - I think it is really awesome that you are here debating this. You're the man, even though I think you're nuts. Lol. Edited July 18, 2013 by Maddog69
Recommended Posts