zazie Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 I wouldn't trade Byrd for that alleged Chargers deal of a 2nd and 5th and 6th or whatever it was. No way in hadees. As far as it taking several weeks for Byrd to be ready, the Patsies game is 2 1/2 weeks away. That would classify as several weeks I'd think. Watch the video on this page and then tell me this is a guy we should let sit to teach a lesson. Or a guy that won't be ready to play September 8th or that you wouldn't want to play that game for any reason. Byrd is both a veteran and a pro, he will be ready to play
Chandler#81 Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 IMO, this defense is gonna be great defense and get a lot of press as the year develops. He should be a great benefactor of the blitzing and pass rush, given how great he already is with ball skills. Honolulu again and he'll ink a long term deal with us. Pie in the sky? Perhaps. But my Doomshield has been lifted. I'm exposed!
Captain Caveman Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Hung out with Jim Kelly a bit last season. There was nothing evident. Not really proof of anything. Just interesting because of what you said. Did you guys get a chance to ring up Kent Hull?
eball Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Has anyone yet uncovered any reliable information that there is truly "acrimony" between Byrd and the Bills, or is this solely the result of some ridiculous Twitter rumor?
Captain Caveman Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Apparently "a person informed of Byrd's thinking" thinks he's open to it. There is also a question mark on that headline. Because page views. This kind of stuff is great cause for the existence of the Peter Pan link. It reminds us how freaking susceptible we are to clickbait. I'll be very surprised if Byrd isn't on the field in week 1. Pettine should kick the ass of whoever is responsible if that ends up being the case. To me this reeks of Parker trying to drum up interest, without making Jairus out to be the bad guy. My suspicions are fueled by some fuzzy tweets from Tim G and Ed Werder yesterday, which seemed out of the norm.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) To me this reeks of Parker trying to drum up interest, without making Jairus out to be the bad guy. My suspicions are fueled by some fuzzy tweets from Tim G and Ed Werder yesterday, which seemed out of the norm. Graham appears to be Parker's special friend these days, ever since he write that glowing story on him some weeks back. And Graham seems happy to stir things up...just thinking out loud, of course. PTR Edited August 22, 2013 by PromoTheRobot
Doc Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 No one traded for him before. No one is going to trade for him now. Shut up, get back to the team, work hard, have a good season, and then talk about how much you think you're worth.
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Has anyone yet uncovered any reliable information that there is truly "acrimony" between Byrd and the Bills, or is this solely the result of some ridiculous Twitter rumor? I haven't heard any one solid report confirming it. Even the initial report seemed to hedge its bets and say, "man, there's no way the two sides weren't just playing hard ball, hittting the point of no return, with Byrd come back the instant that the risk:reward ratio swung back into his favor. They must hate each other. Therefore Byrd must be open to a trade" Of course, any player who wants to get paid more money, and is locked into a contract, would be open to getting paid more.
Captain Caveman Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills-nfl-columns/bills-take-wrong-tack-with-byrd-20130821 For once, the Bills could have bit the bullet and paid the going rate for one of the very finest players at the position. Translation: Ralph is cheap. I think Sully's just mad he had to come back from vacation. Edited August 22, 2013 by Captain Caveman
NoSaint Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 But it's still "open to a trade in the right situation" Which player, if told "weve lined up a trade but the catch is they will pay you more, you might have a shot at a ring, and you will enjoy the city your going to," is not open to a trade? It wasn't demands a trade, it wasnt even wants a trade. It couldn't be any less meaningful, even if the single unnamed source is spot on correct.... But won't stop the writers from making it a story.
Thurmal34 Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 http://www.buffalone...h-byrd-20130821 For once, the Bills could have bit the bullet and paid the going rate for one of the very finest players at the position. Mario Williams says "hi".
Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 http://www.buffalone...h-byrd-20130821 Translation: Ralph is cheap. I think Sully's just mad he had to come back from vacation. Did anyone else think Sully's article was somewhat bizarre in its timing? Of course the best thing would have been to sign Byrd to a long term deal before free agency. Last spring. That would have been a timely article to write - last spring. Once the Bills tagged Byrd, then the sides failed to agree to terms, it's a situation that's bad for both sides. We all know that. Sully gives a "probable" number Byrd was looking for, which may have no basis in reality whatsoever. We really don't know what Parker thought Byrd was worth, and the total amount/years is really not the germaine issue - it's always the guaranteed $$, stupid. Now Byrd is left being paid well but in a 1 yr deal with the chance to be franchised again. You might as well write an article chastizing Parker for putting his client's overall career and financial well being at risk by refusing to compromise until the compromise deadline had come and gone.
thebandit27 Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 http://www.buffalone...h-byrd-20130821 Translation: Ralph is cheap. I think Sully's just mad he had to come back from vacation. 1) Why does anyone read Jerry Sullivan? 2) If Jerry had the first clue what he was talking about, he'd know that the team re-signed the following players to fair-market deals: Fitz Stevie Freddie Urbik Pears Chandler Kyle Williams McKelvin
chris heff Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Did anyone else think Sully's article was somewhat bizarre in its timing? Of course the best thing would have been to sign Byrd to a long term deal before free agency. Last spring. That would have been a timely article to write - last spring. Once the Bills tagged Byrd, then the sides failed to agree to terms, it's a situation that's bad for both sides. We all know that. Sully gives a "probable" number Byrd was looking for, which may have no basis in reality whatsoever. We really don't know what Parker thought Byrd was worth, and the total amount/years is really not the germaine issue - it's always the guaranteed $$, stupid. Now Byrd is left being paid well but in a 1 yr deal with the chance to be franchised again. You might as well write an article chastizing Parker for putting his client's overall career and financial well being at risk by refusing to compromise until the compromise deadline had come and gone. Thought exactly the same thing and he also goes on to say that Byrd won't play hard because he'll be too worried about getting hurt. Wouldn't Byrd play hard to prove he is worth a big contract?
K-9 Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 To me this reeks of Parker trying to drum up interest, without making Jairus out to be the bad guy. My suspicions are fueled by some fuzzy tweets from Tim G and Ed Werder yesterday, which seemed out of the norm. If Parker were able to drum up any interest, he would have done it already. He's had the entire off-season to find a willing trading partner. GO BILLS!!!
K-9 Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) Thought exactly the same thing and he also goes on to say that Byrd won't play hard because he'll be too worried about getting hurt. Wouldn't Byrd play hard to prove he is worth a big contract? Good point. This whole "getting hurt" angle is crap anyway. Whether you're a first year undrafted free agent or a perennial All Pro at your position, you are ALWAYS one play away from career-ending injury in this league. Byrd's in a far better position to cope with that possibility than the aforementioned undrafted free agent. If Sully had even a hint of talent, his provocations might be worth reading. But he's an idiot with stale ideas and even less talent as a writer. GO BILLS!!! Edited August 22, 2013 by K-9
Doc Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 I like the comment after the article where the person said that if the Bills had given Byrd the huge contract, Sully would have written a piece about how irresponsible it was. And that he probably already has it written.
K-9 Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 I like the comment after the article where the person said that if the Bills had given Byrd the huge contract, Sully would have written a piece about how irresponsible it was. And that he probably already has it written. Makes sense. All of Sully's columns are already written. GO BILLS!!!
Luka Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 To address some of this trade speculation, I would think that he would've signed the tender sooner. My common sense says, if you are going to a new team, you would want to do it sooner rather than later. Personally, I feel like the franchise tag needs some refinement. It's purpose is for a team to retain the rights to a player and pay an average salary of the top 5 players at that position. That's great, but what it should do in the end is eliminate deadlines, etc. for that specific contract negotiation. Meaning, while contracts/extensions can't be discussed after a certain point in the offseason, the franchise tag would give you the option to extend talks with that player.
Recommended Posts