Byrd Skipping mandatory mini-camp

[thebandit27]

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.

 

1. Pettine wasn't the D coordinator in Baltimore, so it seems ridiculous to lump them in with the analysis of a "Mike Pettine defense", especially when he coached OLB's there and had nothing to do with DBs. Nice strawman though.

2. Rex Ryan wanted Leonhard and was adamant about it. As you can see, Leonhard didn't really have the impact that Ryan wanted. Being a playmaker implies more than creating 5 turnovers in 3 years.

3. Byrd wants to be the highest paid, so he'll be looking for more than the $22M in guarantees that Goldson got from Tampa Bay, and probably more than the $30M in guarantees that Eric Berry got from KC. I don't see how paying 60% of that amount is poor planning. In actual cash investment, they'll be saving a lot of money in the long run, and they're not hurting for cap space. This is a pretty flimsy criticism.

[PromoTheRobot]

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

 

Again, you assume that Parker is winning here. I don't see it the way you do. In fact I don't believe they misjudged Parker one bit.

 

PTR

[Doc]

And there's a large difference between a LT, who protects the most important position on the team, and a CB, who covers the #1 WR on an opponent's team, and a FS.

[K-9]

jeesuz holy crap again. Byrd is a free safety. Tony Polamalu is a STRONG safety.

 

jw

 

 

 

can't see a best case happening, but then again, i'm merely a shill.

 

jw

 

No kidding. But seeing as how Parker and Byrd don't delineate the "F" from the "S" in establishing their price points, I lumped him into the same generic position of "S."

 

Any time you wish to discuss the finer points of safety play, regardless of scheme and who innovated that scheme, I'm more than willing.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[GG]

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.

 

What in the world are you talking about? I'm comparing of what the Bills would pay Byrd under two consecutive years of FP vs signing him to a long term deal this spring. If they have the cap room to sign him to a long term this year, they absolutely need to do it because the cap will be very challenging over the next two years.

 

This is why so many people in this thread like to defend the myopic views of Brandon & Co. The only focus is on Byrd, without looking at the contracts and cap situation next year. If you thought that Byrd was valuable enough to tag, and you know how Parker negotiates, you had to get the deal done in the spring. Otherwise, you still pay a lot, lose opportunity to work the cap for the long term, and lose valuable FP flexibility next year.

[Delete This Account]

Again, you assume that Parker is winning here. I don't see it the way you do. In fact I don't believe they misjudged Parker one bit.

 

PTR

 

i'm not assuming anything. you are. all i'm saying is that he's not losing and the Bills aren't winning. you might have missed it: but i've called it a stalemate.

 

jw

[thebandit27]

jeesuz holy crap again. Byrd is a free safety. Tony Polamalu is a STRONG safety.

 

jw

 

Polamalu is one of the most versatile players in the game. Sure, he's listed as a SS, but he plays free quite a bit (and the team shifts Ryan Clark to strong) in Dick Lebeau's "Bitzburgh" fire zone. He did this, most notably, as part of the "inverted cover 2" scheme that the Steelers used against Kurt Warner and the Cardinals in Superbowl 43 (in which he frequently lined up on coverage on Larry Fitzgerald). Here is a really nice write-up that Grantland did on how Polamalu and Reed have basically destroyed the FS/SS designation with their unique skill sets:

 

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7124536/how-troy-polamalu-ed-reed-changed-nfl-defenses

 

K-9 has a very valid point that Byrd does not even come close to their type of impact.

 

No kidding. But seeing as how Parker and Byrd don't delineate the "F" from the "S" in establishing their price points, I lumped him into the same generic position of "S."

 

Any time you wish to discuss the finer points of safety play, regardless of scheme and who innovated that scheme, I'm more than willing.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

You'll love the article above that I linked to, knowing how similarly we view the safety position.

[Delete This Account]

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.

 

should i get the warning before i question a Global Moderator's approach to decorum or should i wait until i actually do it?

 

jw

[stony]

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!!!

 

Fair enough, I'll disagree with most of those but I'm simply curious over the next few years how many players at either safety position will be better than Byrd.

 

To me, it's maybe 2-3. And if this is the case, that's hardly a deterrent to paying him the money he seeks. If we have to "overpay" (as many seem to think we do), we may as well "overpay" for our good players.

[Maddog69]

i'm not assuming anything. you are. all i'm saying is that he's not losing and the Bills aren't winning. you might have missed it: but i've called it a stalemate.

 

jw

You can also write it the other way. Parker isn't winning and the Bills aren't losing. I guess it depends on your perspective. At this point, the Bills have won the battle. Byrd did not get his huge contract and he has no other option but to play for the $6.9m this year (or lose that salary). It remains to be seen who wins the war. Maybe both. Maybe the Bills get a year or two our of Byrd at a fair price before he moves on to a huge payday somewhere and the Bills young safeties are ready to take over. Nobody knows.

[PromoTheRobot]

i'm not assuming anything. you are. all i'm saying is that he's not losing and the Bills aren't winning. you might have missed it: but i've called it a stalemate.

 

jw

 

But you did say the Bills are "failing" so I'm assuming you see Parker holding the higher ground here. I'm sorry I suggested you were acting as a shill. I know you don't do that. But I must disagree strongly with you take on WGR today. You make a lot of assumptions and bring up ghosts from the past that have little bearing here.

 

PTR

[mitchmurraydowntown]

Byrd was tagged to retain value for the team for their investment in him. It's either going to be Byrd on the field giving us value or the ability to draft one or more players relatively early in the draft.

 

 

 

nope, not shilling for anyone. Parker's reputation is that he'll wait things out upon expecting what he believes is fair value for his client. the Bills know this -- or should have going in. there are ways to negotiate around the edges here, but Parker's establishes a number is generally sticks with it.

the Bills do not set the market. the market sets the market. and Parker's approach to all negotiations involves establishing a number his client would get in free agency. that the Bills failed to allow Byrd to test free agency is a moot point. it's what Parker believes Byrd would've received is what helps establish his client's value in his mind.

 

argue it however you want. that is Parker's approach.

the Bills once again thought they could bluff Parker in this instance. not sure when that's ever been a success, but the Bills failed in this instance once again.

 

and for those who might suggest Byrd is hurting his own value, well, he's actually not.

there is the case of Nate Clements, who was tagged by the Bills and still got his big contract the following year.

you say, well, Clements at least signed his tag in May.

ok, then, there's the case of Jason Peters who was an offseason no-show until two days before the season opener, which he wound up missing. Peters still got his money -- money the Bills were unwilling to pay -- despite all that.

 

teams will spend and over-spend for talent. Parker knows this. the Bills seem to continue to believe that they can get a pass.

instead, what they've gotten is the right to retain a solid player who will not be entirely ready for the start of the season.

 

it's like the Seinfeld episode where the car rental company screws up his rental.

"anyone can take a reservation (or in this case tag a player), the key is having the car available (or in this case, following through by signing the player to a long-term deal)." the bills did the first and failed on the second.

 

and to tag him once again does very little but to expose the Bills as being the same old franchise around the league, making it even more difficult to attract free agents, forcing the team then to overpay for them.

 

in my opinion, if the Bills were unwilling to play ball with Parker, fully knowing his M.O., then why did they tag him?

 

-- out of spite?

-- out of naivety?

-- out of a ploy to show the fans they are intent on keeping their own players?

 

if Parker/Byrd can be accused of over-playing their hand, then so can the Bills, because they're certainly not sitting with pocket aces here. it's a stalemate hurting both sides.

 

 

 

 

well, what has it gotten the Bills so far?

and there seems to be no indication it will get them anything more than a player playing under a $6.9 million tag who won't likely be ready for the season.

 

 

 

my point exactly.

 

jw

[JohnC]

JohnC, even if Byrd reports on the last day before the season starts, his presence on the roster makes the Bills' secondary better at some point this season. People act as though the franchise tag is a "punishment" to players -- it's not. They get a guaranteed payday at the top of their profession, and they are still free to negotiate with whomever they choose. I absolutely support the Bills' decision to make sure they get something in return for Byrd if he wants to leave. The salary they'll pay this year is not at all restrictive with respect to anything else they want to do.

 

Because of the injury risk he has little incentive to report to training camp and play in preseason games. His salary scale on a one year deal is not cheap. But if you put it in the context of a typical contract deal of at least a fews years with more guaranteed money than under a one year restricted deal you can understand why he wants a full contract deal done.

 

There is another perspective to be taken in this contract negotiation. Byrd has been one of the top 5 or so safeties in the league for the past few years. Although he signed a deal within the CBA system the team still got above value from his performances with his first contract.

 

The Bills have the leverage ---there is no doubt about it. But what is the end game? The Bils have been losers for a generation. Why not bend a little bit and get one of its best defensive players locked up? Byrd is certainly seeking a good deal but it is not outside the boundaries of a fair market deal.

 

As I stated in the prior post the Bills have enough cap space to come to a reasonable contract settlement. They also have pleny of cap flexiblitiy with higher paid players who are not playing up to their contract level. Sometimes being tough isn't always being smart.

[thebandit27]

Because of the injury risk he has little incentive to report to training camp and play in preseason games. His salary scale on a one year deal is not cheap. But if you put it in the context of a typical contract deal of at least a fews years with more guaranteed money than under a one year restricted deal you can understand why he wants a full contract deal done.

 

There is another perspective to be taken in this contract negotiation. Byrd has been one of the top 5 or so safeties in the league for the past few years. Although he signed a deal within the CBA system the team still got above value from his performances with his first contract.

 

The Bills have the leverage ---there is no doubt about it. But what is the end game? The Bils have been losers for a generation. Why not bend a little bit and get one of its best defensive players locked up? Byrd is certainly seeking a good deal but it is not outside the boundaries of a fair market deal.

 

As I stated in the prior post the Bills have enough cap space to come to a reasonable contract settlement. They also have pleny of cap flexiblitiy with higher paid players who are not playing up to their contract level. Sometimes being tough isn't always being smart.

 

That one small word is the fly in the ointment. Parker isn't asking for reasonable, he's asking for the moon.

[GG]

1. Pettine wasn't the D coordinator in Baltimore, so it seems ridiculous to lump them in with the analysis of a "Mike Pettine defense", especially when he coached OLB's there and had nothing to do with DBs. Nice strawman though.

2. Rex Ryan wanted Leonhard and was adamant about it. As you can see, Leonhard didn't really have the impact that Ryan wanted. Being a playmaker implies more than creating 5 turnovers in 3 years.

3. Byrd wants to be the highest paid, so he'll be looking for more than the $22M in guarantees that Goldson got from Tampa Bay, and probably more than the $30M in guarantees that Eric Berry got from KC. I don't see how paying 60% of that amount is poor planning. In actual cash investment, they'll be saving a lot of money in the long run, and they're not hurting for cap space. This is a pretty flimsy criticism.

 

It doesn't matter that Ryan was the DC in Baltimore and Pettine ran LBs. They imported the defense to NYJ, and Pettine will run a similar defense. Leonhard's lack of production is irrelevant to the value the coaches placed on his role in the defense. Plus, my point on this is to counter the logic that's been tossed that Pettine doesn't value safeties in his defense. So the straw isn't as flimsy as you suggest.

 

So are we comparing strong or free safeties?

 

Goldson's guarantees are over more than three years.

 

Bills only win financially in the first year of the tag, when they get Byrd to play at $7 million. Next year, the tag salary will go up and Bills will lose flexibility in applying that cap to Byrd vs Wood. Plus, you'll have another holdout by Byrd.

 

So in the end, the Bills will save $2 million, but will have a disgruntled player whose agent will likely orchestrate a move at some point. And will have to find a capable replacement for one of the top players in the league. But hey, the Bills sure have tought Parker a lesson.

 

And then each January, people wonder why Bills are among the perennial laughing stock.

 

Lather rinse repeat.

[K-9]

Polamalu is one of the most versatile players in the game. Sure, he's listed as a SS, but he plays free quite a bit (and the team shifts Ryan Clark to strong) in Dick Lebeau's "Bitzburgh" fire zone. He did this, most notably, as part of the "inverted cover 2" scheme that the Steelers used against Kurt Warner and the Cardinals in Superbowl 43 (in which he frequently lined up on coverage on Larry Fitzgerald). Here is a really nice write-up that Grantland did on how Polamalu and Reed have basically destroyed the FS/SS designation with their unique skill sets:

 

http://www.grantland...ed-nfl-defenses

 

K-9 has a very valid point that Byrd does not even come close to their type of impact.

 

 

 

You'll love the article above that I linked to, knowing how similarly we view the safety position.

 

I'm sure I don't have to read the article (although I will) to know that we view the position in a very similar fashion.

 

As you pointed out above, I am strictly looking at how players impact the game on a play to play basis.

 

Great point about how Palomalu is used in LeBeau's scheme. I just didn't have the energy to point out the finer points in my argument to JW. Once he immediately assumed I don't know the difference between the two positions, I just didn't want to go there with him.

 

But it's interesting to me that Parker and Byrd don't seem to draw the same distinction between the positions. Wonder why that is?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Fair enough, I'll disagree with most of those but I'm simply curious over the next few years how many players at either safety position will be better than Byrd.

 

To me, it's maybe 2-3. And if this is the case, that's hardly a deterrent to paying him the money he seeks. If we have to "overpay" (as many seem to think we do), we may as well "overpay" for our good players.

 

That's cool. I don't care if they DO pay him the highest salary ever for the position. I just don't want anyone to confuse him with being he best safety just because he's the best paid. For the umpteenth time, Byrd lacks the sheer athleticism to be that kind of player on a play to play basis. Nobody will convince me otherwise.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited July 18, 2013 by K-9

[eball]

What in the world are you talking about? I'm comparing of what the Bills would pay Byrd under two consecutive years of FP vs signing him to a long term deal this spring. If they have the cap room to sign him to a long term this year, they absolutely need to do it because the cap will be very challenging over the next two years.

 

This is why so many people in this thread like to defend the myopic views of Brandon & Co. The only focus is on Byrd, without looking at the contracts and cap situation next year. If you thought that Byrd was valuable enough to tag, and you know how Parker negotiates, you had to get the deal done in the spring. Otherwise, you still pay a lot, lose opportunity to work the cap for the long term, and lose valuable FP flexibility next year.

 

I'm not sure you understand the cap -- or maybe I don't. If the Bills sign Byrd to a 4-year deal with $20M guaranteed, my understanding is they can split that 20M across the four years for cap purposes...so 5M each year. Certainly they'd be paying Byrd a base salary as well, so I still don't see how your scenario "frees up" more cap money in subsequent years than paying Byrd 7M this year and 8M next year.

[GG]

I'm not sure you understand the cap -- or maybe I don't. If the Bills sign Byrd to a 4-year deal with $20M guaranteed, my understanding is they can split that 20M across the four years for cap purposes...so 5M each year. Certainly they'd be paying Byrd a base salary as well, so I still don't see how your scenario "frees up" more cap money in subsequent years than paying Byrd 7M this year and 8M next year.

 

Let's just say that based on your response, I understand the cap, accrual accounting and contracts better than you.

[eball]

Let's just say that based on your response, I understand the cap, accrual accounting and contracts better than you.

 

Well that's a schitty response. Enlighten me please; I'd like to know how the Bills will have "so much more flexibility" under the cap with your proposal.

[thebandit27]

It doesn't matter that Ryan was the DC in Baltimore and Pettine ran LBs. They imported the defense to NYJ, and Pettine will run a similar defense. Leonhard's lack of production is irrelevant to the value the coaches placed on his role in the defense. Plus, my point on this is to counter the logic that's been tossed that Pettine doesn't value safeties in his defense. So the straw isn't as flimsy as you suggest.

 

 

It absolutely does matter. You asked when the last time a Pettine defense succeeded without a playmaking free safety. If you want to call Baltimore's D a Pettine defense, that's just not true. The corollary you're trying to make is that Pettine values safety play; him having coached OLBs in Baltimore does nothing to support that idea.

 

Leonhard's lack of production is indicative that he wasn't a playmaker, which is what you asked about to begin with. If you want to talk value, that's a different story because it can't be objectively defined. That said, the Jets' D clearly placed far, far more value on CB play than they did on safety play based on both scheme and salary allotment.

 

So are we comparing strong or free safeties?

 

Both...the tag doesn't discriminate, and the best safeties in the league are hybrids of both spots (Reed, Polamalu, Berry).

 

Goldson's guarantees are over more than three years.

 

Bills only win financially in the first year of the tag, when they get Byrd to play at $7 million. Next year, the tag salary will go up and Bills will lose flexibility in applying that cap to Byrd vs Wood. Plus, you'll have another holdout by Byrd.

 

So in the end, the Bills will save $2 million, but will have a disgruntled player whose agent will likely orchestrate a move at some point. And will have to find a capable replacement for one of the top players in the league. But hey, the Bills sure have tought Parker a lesson.

 

And then each January, people wonder why Bills are among the perennial laughing stock.

 

Lather rinse repeat.

 

Guaranteed money gets paid regardless of how it gets spread throughout the contract. You're talking about savings versus the cap on a per annum basis, I'm talking about cap impact plus real cash savings to apply to new contracts, which is how the Bills have to look at it in order to responsibly run their organization.

 

If Byrd wants to be disgruntled making a guaranteed salary of $6.9M this year, let him. He gets to choose his attitude.

 

You have your opinion on it, and I understand that. Mine is that kowtowing to the demands of a top-10 safety that wants to be paid as the best in the game is a poor investment.