Brandon talks with AP about Byrd's contract

[RuntheDamnBall]

That's being presumptive about the money the BILLS "might" have if they were to do that. My point is that over paying for a *POSITION* and not just a player is what puts teams in a strapped cash category. Someone said I was grasping at straws, but the very point of not over-committing to one player, that is not a value *POSITION* is exactly my point...you can NOT know what will happen in six months, let alone next year. And yet, committing all that cash to a player who is NOT worth it, fails to meet the financial reasonability test. There are and will be great players that can truly help this team in the next year or two to come into FA, not to mention their own, and paying a player such as Byrd just is not the smart money. Don't believe me? Look at the teams who are consistently successful...how do they do it? They pay the *POSITIONS* of true value and let other guys walk or trade them for value to replace them because a Safety is a dime-a-dozen in the NFL. Will you be able to get an immediate impact player at Safety to replace Byrd? Probably not, but you will get similar production for signficantly less money...however, the trade-off for a Pro-Bowl, All-Pro, LT or Center pales in comparison to that value...spend the money on the O Line and D Line, the QB, and Corners, maybe a LB...not WRs, not RBs, not TEs, and not Safeties...these are all skill-set guys that depend on the aforementioned players in their positions of value. Getting caught-up in paying a single player, who does not play at a *POSITION* of value is where teams like the Redksins, et. al, get into cap trouble and are frequently scrambling to find ways to stay below the cap and then paint themselves into a corner.

 

If you want to disagree about paying Byrd, fine...then feel free to vocalize your support in paying him...but realize you're paying a *PLAYER* at a *POSITION* that does NOT hold that value in the NFL...

... Now also consider, Earl Thomas is 21st, Ryan Clark is 23rd, McCourty is 35th, and Adams (Broncos) is 38th.

 

Tell me where the money is best spent...there are 4 Safeties, 2 on the 49ers who had one of the best Defenses in the game, that are in the bottom 10 paid Safeties while there are a littany of good to great Safeties in the middle tier, some still working on Rookie Salary wage, which only bolsters my argument that you can Draft a Safety and get nearly the same production at a much cheaper rate.

 

Of the Offensive Line salaries: the Seahawks spend the 2nd most on the Offensive Line and the Broncos spend the 4th most on the Offensive line. OH, and the BILLS spend the 4th L-E-A-S-T!!!

Earl Thomas is on a rookie contract, and if he hit the market right now would exceed what Byrd earns. Don't you think Seattle will try to keep him, or to draft his replacement (someone we do not have right now)? You're also looking at some pretty selective data. 2013 playoff appearances is one thing. Look back a year or two and the Ravens, Giants and Steelers have playoff histories with those players. Safeties are important in today's game because they are often the victims of mismatches if they aren't good enough. Ask the Niners or Patriots from these playoffs how important safety play can be.

 

Regardless, good players come from everywhere. I argue we need more good players, and we shouldn't be in the business of letting any of them go unless we have his replacement ready and able to fill in without missing a beat. If we reach that salary cap ceiling, solve that problem then.

 

Nothing is showing me right now that paying Byrd is going to hold us back from paying CJ Spiller or Dareus what they are worth -- in fact, I feel that Byrd has a stronger performance record than either of these two.

[thebandit27]

Earl Thomas is on a rookie contract, and if he hit the market right now would exceed what Byrd earns. Don't you think Seattle will try to keep him, or to draft his replacement (someone we do not have right now)? You're also looking at some pretty selective data. 2013 playoff appearances is one thing. Look back a year or two and the Ravens, Giants and Steelers have playoff histories with those players. Safeties are important in today's game because they are often the victims of mismatches if they aren't good enough. Ask the Niners or Patriots from these playoffs how important safety play can be.

 

Regardless, good players come from everywhere. I argue we need more good players, and we shouldn't be in the business of letting any of them go unless we have his replacement ready and able to fill in without missing a beat. If we reach that salary cap ceiling, solve that problem then.

 

Nothing is showing me right now that paying Byrd is going to hold us back from paying CJ Spiller or Dareus what they are worth -- in fact, I feel that Byrd has a stronger performance record than either of these two.

 

The Thomas case will be very interesting...he should want a big bump in pay given the year he's had. It'll be tough to give it to him with Seattle having handed Chancellor a huge deal last off-season and knowing that Sherman is up for a new deal in the next year.

[BigBuff423]

At which point does a team like Buffalo begin keeping their developed (i.e. drafted) AND elite talent? It sends a powerful message to current players that while the team might sign a top UFA like Mario, they shy away from handing out the big contracts to players drafted and developed in Buffalo. I think it'd be akin to a company never promoting from within, but always advertising their management positions outside. You can be sure people at that company looking for promotions would wonder why the company handled it this way.

 

A few years ago when Whitner was drafted people were running to the mountain tops shouting why safeties were valuable. But noow when Byrd's deal comes up many people are saying safety play isn't as valuable. Back then it was because people wanted to defend the organizations draft day decision. And now it's because people don't like the player. My, how times have changed.

 

I kept adding in more info to my last post. Please see it and review. And see where the good teams invest their limited money, via cap space. If this were baseball and the BILLS were the Yankees or Red Sox, I would say to pay Byrd, whatever the market value is for a player of his caliber. But in the NFL, this is all about choosing the location of your dollars. FWIW, I prefer this model of team management, but again, if there was no cap and the BILLS had the endless revenue, I would have no problem with the BILLS paying their own guy whatever he wanted.

 

Earl Thomas is on a rookie contract, and if he hit the market right now would exceed what Byrd earns. Don't you think Seattle will try to keep him, or to draft his replacement (someone we do not have right now)? You're also looking at some pretty selective data. 2013 playoff appearances is one thing. Look back a year or two and the Ravens, Giants and Steelers have playoff histories with those players. Safeties are important in today's game because they are often the victims of mismatches if they aren't good enough. Ask the Niners or Patriots from these playoffs how important safety play can be.

 

Regardless, good players come from everywhere. I argue we need more good players, and we shouldn't be in the business of letting any of them go unless we have his replacement ready and able to fill in without missing a beat. If we reach that salary cap ceiling, solve that problem then.

 

Nothing is showing me right now that paying Byrd is going to hold us back from paying CJ Spiller or Dareus what they are worth -- in fact, I feel that Byrd has a stronger performance record than either of these two.

 

And yet the Giants Offensive line couldn't stop a hamster with a backpack full of marshmallows while their Defensive Line was much, er maligned, and couldn't get pressure. And how do you think the Steelers are feeling right now with Polomalu's contract when he hasn't produced and truly contributed while Clark is in the middle of the pack regarding salary and yet been quite good? The Steelers are a perfect of example of keeping a player around for sentimentality while his projected productivity is less than the current level of play. It's why players leave the Patsies and seem to relatively disappear after being at the center of the football universe while there...and don't say Welker, he walked into a situation where there is an Offense that even TJ Graham could get open and come close to a 1,000 yards and 8 TDs...

 

As for having a replacement ready...that's what the Draft is for! You get the guy you think you can replace in talent. Every team...I repeat, EVERY team, goes through cycles of talent and moving guys forward, up and out...that's the NFL.

[GA BILLS FAN]

The Thomas case will be very interesting...he should want a big bump in pay given the year he's had. It'll be tough to give it to him with Seattle having handed Chancellor a huge deal last off-season and knowing that Sherman is up for a new deal in the next year.

Seattle is going to have a tough time keeping that team together and under the cap. They have several guys significantly outplaying their contracts. Thomas, Wilson, Sherman, to name a few.

[TDRupp]

 

Earl Thomas is on a rookie contract, and if he hit the market right now would exceed what Byrd earns. Don't you think Seattle will try to keep him, or to draft his replacement (someone we do not have right now)? You're also looking at some pretty selective data. 2013 playoff appearances is one thing. Look back a year or two and the Ravens, Giants and Steelers have playoff histories with those players. Safeties are important in today's game because they are often the victims of mismatches if they aren't good enough. Ask the Niners or Patriots from these playoffs how important safety play can be.

 

Regardless, good players come from everywhere. I argue we need more good players, and we shouldn't be in the business of letting any of them go unless we have his replacement ready and able to fil

l in without missing a beat. If we reach that salary cap ceiling, solve that problem then.

 

Nothing is showing me right now that paying Byrd is going to hold us back from paying CJ Spiller or Dareus what they are worth -- in fact, I feel that Byrd has a stronger performance record than either of these two.

 

What about Cordy Glenn, Gilmore, and Aaron Williams?

 

We need to address those guys in in 2 or 3 years and makes it much more difficult when you factor then in, right?

 

can't keep them all!

[RuntheDamnBall]

I kept adding in more info to my last post. Please see it and review. And see where the good teams invest their limited money, via cap space. If this were baseball and the BILLS were the Yankees or Red Sox, I would say to pay Byrd, whatever the market value is for a player of his caliber. But in the NFL, this is all about choosing the location of your dollars. FWIW, I prefer this model of team management, but again, if there was no cap and the BILLS had the endless revenue, I would have no problem with the BILLS paying their own guy whatever he wanted.

 

And yet the Giants Offensive line couldn't stop a hamster with a backpack full of marshmallows while their Defensive Line was much, er maligned, and couldn't get pressure. And how do you think the Steelers are feeling right now with Polomalu's contract when he hasn't produced and truly contributed while Clark is in the middle of the pack regarding salary and yet been quite good? The Steelers are a perfect of example of keeping a player around for sentimentality while his projected productivity is less than the current level of play. It's why players leave the Patsies and seem to relatively disappear after being at the center of the football universe while there...and don't say Welker, he walked into a situation where there is an Offense that even TJ Graham could get open and come close to a 1,000 yards and 8 TDs...

 

As for having a replacement ready...that's what the Draft is for! You get the guy you think you can replace in talent. Every team...I repeat, EVERY team, goes through cycles of talent and moving guys forward, up and out...that's the NFL.

Then the two questions are, do we have Byrd's replacement, and is his play in decline? If the answers to both of those questions are "no," then I think you need to pay him. His contract will ostensibly be a three year deal with good guaranteed money and backloaded salary / bonus structure so he will be cuttable if his play falls off.

 

What about Cordy Glenn, Gilmore, and Aaron Williams?

 

We need to address those guys in in 2 or 3 years and makes it much more difficult when you factor then in, right?

 

can't keep them all!

Well, let's lose most of them and franchise one guy. Has worked out pretty well so far.

[GG]

That's being presumptive about the money the BILLS "might" have if they were to do that. My point is that over paying for a *POSITION* and not just a player is what puts teams in a strapped cash category. Someone said I was grasping at straws, but the very point of not over-committing to one player, that is not a value *POSITION* is exactly my point...you can NOT know what will happen in six months, let alone next year. And yet, committing all that cash to a player who is NOT worth it, fails to meet the financial reasonability test. There are and will be great players that can truly help this team in the next year or two to come into FA, not to mention their own, and paying a player such as Byrd just is not the smart money. Don't believe me? Look at the teams who are consistently successful...how do they do it? They pay the *POSITIONS* of true value and let other guys walk or trade them for value to replace them because a Safety is a dime-a-dozen in the NFL. Will you be able to get an immediate impact player at Safety to replace Byrd? Probably not, but you will get similar production for signficantly less money...however, the trade-off for a Pro-Bowl, All-Pro, LT or Center pales in comparison to that value...spend the money on the O Line and D Line, the QB, and Corners, maybe a LB...not WRs, not RBs, not TEs, and not Safeties...these are all skill-set guys that depend on the aforementioned players in their positions of value. Getting caught-up in paying a single player, who does not play at a *POSITION* of value is where teams like the Redksins, et. al, get into cap trouble and are frequently scrambling to find ways to stay below the cap and then paint themselves into a corner.

 

If you want to disagree about paying Byrd, fine...then feel free to vocalize your support in paying him...but realize you're paying a *PLAYER* at a *POSITION* that does NOT hold that value in the NFL...

 

Furthermore, take into consideration the following information:

 

Top 10 paid Safeties in 2013: **Denotes Playoff Team

 

1. Polamolu

2. **Berry

3. **Goldson

4. **Weddle

5. Rolle - Giants

6. Jones - Dolphins

7. **Chancellor

8. Griffin - Titans

9. Byrd

10. Branch - Raiders

 

4 Safeties that are in the top 10 paid and in playoffs.

 

Lowest Paid Safeties in 2013: **Denotes Playoff Team

 

1. Miles - Ravens

2. Cyprien - Jags

3. Doughty - Redskins

4. **Spillman - 49ers

5. Landry - Jets

6. **Bruton - Broncos

7. **Wilson - Patsies

8. Elam - Ravens

9. **Dahl - 49ers

10. Smith - Vikings

 

Now also consider, Earl Thomas is 21st, Ryan Clark is 23rd, McCourty is 35th, and Adams (Broncos) is 38th.

 

Tell me where the money is best spent...there are 4 Safeties, 2 on the 49ers who had one of the best Defenses in the game, that are in the bottom 10 paid Safeties while there are a littany of good to great Safeties in the middle tier, some still working on Rookie Salary wage, which only bolsters my argument that you can Draft a Safety and get nearly the same production at a much cheaper rate.

 

Of the Offensive Line salaries: the Seahawks spend the 2nd most on the Offensive Line and the Broncos spend the 4th most on the Offensive line. OH, and the BILLS spend the 4th L-E-A-S-T!!!

 

Here's a link to a site that allows an interactive demonstration of exactly where the money is spent. you can hover over the position and see the players and their salaries for this year. Quite interesting. Broncos spent money on Corners and LBs, while saving money on DT and Safeties. Seahawks spent most of their Defensive money on DE and DT. They are relying on Rookie salary contracts for their incredible Corners. But good info to have...

 

http://www.theguardi...,denver-broncos

 

Oh goodie, another apples to oranges comparison. Guess what, in 2011, Bills had a lower allocation to the safety spot because Byrd was still playing out his rookie contract and Bills were getting great value.

 

As far as similar production, the mid tier safeties are not All Pro caliber and don't provide the same impact that Byrd has for this defense.

 

I'm wondering if you are the reincarnation of the Aisle 8 QB theory a decade ago who proved that you didn't need to devote as many resources to the QB position because the salary cap numbers proved that playoff teams didn't pay their QBs a lot. The data was right of course because at that time, Brady & Kurt Warner were playing at bargain basement rates. After all, who can argue with irrefutable statistics like that?

[BillsVet]

1st, they'll start keeping elite talent when they have some to keep. I'd argue Wood is a top 5 center in the league, a/k/a "elite", and they kept him.

 

Who else really qualifies? Mario, who they signed. Perhaps Byrd, who they kept (albeit on a 1-year franchise deal).

 

Honestly...who else qualifies in the past 8-10 years? Maybe Peters...they did re-sign him...and two years into a 5-year deal he became a malcontent. Lynch certainly wasn't an elite player when he was here...good, but not elite by any metric.

 

So I guess that means their drafts have been terrible, as a certain owner admitted a few years ago after an away Miami game, correct?

 

In the few instances when they needed to pay market rate for top talent, they chose otherwise and the player was allowed to leave or traded. I'm not re-hashing the Peters saga, but he's been a multiple All-Pro selection and Buffalo didn't replace him adequately until Glenn was drafted with a second round pick. With the Bills, the draft is frequently used to replace departed and more expensive veterans after the veteran player has already left. After all, it's cheaper that way.

 

As for having a replacement ready...that's what the Draft is for! You get the guy you think you can replace in talent. Every team...I repeat, EVERY team, goes through cycles of talent and moving guys forward, up and out...that's the NFL.

 

The Bills rarely have a suitable replacement ready when a veteran is set to hit UFA. Levitre is the latest example. After Peters was dealt before the 2009 draft, Buffalo actually, under Russ Brandon as GM(!) decided to play Langston Walker at LT. When he was deemed not good enough (as he was clearly not a LT nor ever played the position in his entire career) the team started red shirt rookie Demetress Bell there, who later was injured.

 

GM's change every few years in Buffalo. But the bad decisions keep on coming, which indicates to me the level of control a GM has over personnel hasn't really changed.

 

Then again, not every team has lost 10 or more games 5 seasons in row.

Edited January 30, 2014 by BillsVet

[thebandit27]

Well, let's lose most of them and franchise one guy. Has worked out pretty well so far.

 

Again, this simply isn't the case. Since Nix/Whaley took over, they've re-signed an overwhelming majority of their UFAs. I invite anyone that disagrees to provide a list that shows the contrary, as I've already provided a partial list that backs up this position.

 

So I guess that means their drafts have been terrible, as a certain owner admitted a few years ago after an away Miami game, correct?

 

In the few instances when they needed to pay market rate for top talent, they chose otherwise and the player was allowed to leave or traded. I'm not re-hashing the Peters saga, but he's been a multiple All-Pro selection and Buffalo didn't replace him adequately until Glenn was drafted with a second round pick. With the Bills, the draft is frequently used to replace departed and more expensive veterans after the veteran player has already left. After all, it's cheaper that way.

 

The drafts were overly lousy from about 2005 to 2009. Since then it's been a different story.

 

As for the bold, once again, that's not true at all. It's clear to me at this point that--whether you intend to do so or not--you're lumping Whaley in with the management of the team pre-Nix.

 

Since that's the case, I'm afraid we're just talking past each other.

[BigBuff423]

Oh goodie, another apples to oranges comparison. Guess what, in 2011, Bills had a lower allocation to the safety spot because Byrd was still playing out his rookie contract and Bills were getting great value.

 

As far as similar production, the mid tier safeties are not All Pro caliber and don't provide the same impact that Byrd has for this defense.

 

I'm wondering if you are the reincarnation of the Aisle 8 QB theory a decade ago who proved that you didn't need to devote as many resources to the QB position because the salary cap numbers proved that playoff teams didn't pay their QBs a lot. The data was right of course because at that time, Brady & Kurt Warner were playing at bargain basement rates. After all, who can argue with irrefutable statistics like that?

 

 

If you read my previous posts then you would see that I'm all for paying a Franchise caliber QB whatever the market value is, so bringing QB into the argument is your own, not mine. As for apples and oranges, really? Did you even bother to look at the link I provided or look over the information. Because part of your statements is, "As far as similar production, the mid tier safeties are not All Pro caliber and don't provide the same impact that Byrd has for this defense", and yet that's exactly what Earl Thomas is, not to mention the advent of Clark and the up and coming McCourty (much to the BILLS' chagrin). What Byrd means to "this Defense" is what's wrong with the argument, because you ASSUME in that vacuum that no Safety can replace him, when that's not nearly accurate as it's an assumption. What I do know is that good and successful teams on a consistent basis do an evaluative analysis as to where the money is spent, by *POSITION*, AND NOT PLAYER. The point here is not whether Byrd is any good, or if the BILLS should want to keep him, it is in my opinion about whether the money allocated to the position of Safety is a wise allocation of the limited amount of money a team can spend. In earlier post someone mentioned Glenn, Gilmore, and A. Williams. And to that same argument, the money is better spent on Glenn and Gilmore, based upon their POSITION. Now, if A. Williams is reasonable in his request and the money spent is more of the middle-tier money, then keeping A. Williams would be fantastic, assuming he continues to play well. However, if A. Williams is Byrd-esque in his demands, then let him go or trade him, but it would be unwise to allocate once again money in a position that does not value itself that way. Look at how successful teams have done it over the last several years, or the Pats since Belichick has been there, and you will see a pattern develop. I like Byrd, and all things being equal I hope the BILLS can sign him to a reasonable contract. But if he wants to be the top paid Safety in the game, it would be IMO a foolish and frivolous decision to give in to his contractual demands.

Edited January 30, 2014 by BigBuff423

[Gordio]

If you read my previous posts then you would see that I'm all for paying a Franchise caliber QB whatever the market value is, so bringing QB into the argument is your own, not mine. As for apples and oranges, really? Did you even bother to look at the link I provided or look over the information. Because part of your statements is, "As far as similar production, the mid tier safeties are not All Pro caliber and don't provide the same impact that Byrd has for this defense", and yet that's exactly what Earl Thomas is, not to mention the advent of Clark and the up and coming McCourty (much to the BILLS' chagrin). What Byrd means to "this Defense" is what's wrong with the argument, because you ASSUME in that vacuum that no Safety can replace him, when that's not nearly accurate as it's an assumption. What I do know is that good and successful teams on a consistent basis do an evaluative analysis as to where the money is spent, by *POSITION*, AND NOT PLAYER. The point here is not whether Byrd is any good, or if the BILLS should want to keep him, it is in my opinion about whether the money allocated to the position of Safety is a wise allocation of the limited amount of money a team can spend. In earlier post someone mentioned Glenn, Gilmore, and A. Williams. And to that same argument, the money is better spent on Glenn and Gilmore, based upon their POSITION. Now, if A. Williams is reasonable in his request and the money spent is more of the middle-tier money, then keepin A. Williams would be fantastic, assuming he continues to play well. However, if A. Williams is Byrd-esque in his demands, then let him go or trade him, but it would be unwise to allocate once again money in a position that does not value itself that way. Look at how successful teams have done it over the last several years, or the Pats since Belichick has been there, and you will see a pattern develop. I like Byrd, and all things being equal I hope the BILLS can sign him to a reasonable contract. But if he wants to be the top paid Safety in the game, it would be IMO an foolish and frivolous decision to give in to his contractual demands.

 

The bottomline is the Bills are going to be significantly under the cap once again this year. Having Byrd on this team is not going to blow the cap up or keep us from signing young guys that are on the roster & their contracts are up in a year or 2. Having Byrd on this team clearly makes them a better team. Your arguement is only valid if the Bills were pressed against the cap which they are clearly not. Give Byrd his money.

[BigBuff423]

The bottomline is the Bills are going to be significantly under the cap once again this year. Having Byrd on this team is not going to blow the cap up or keep us from signing young guys that are on the roster & their contracts are up in a year or 2. Having Byrd on this team clearly makes them a better team. Your arguement is only valid if the Bills were pressed against the cap which they are clearly not. Give Byrd his money.

 

I disagree...and my argument is valid for this reason: paying him now, whatever his demands may be, makes it difficult to pay the players at POSITIONS of value in the coming years. And for those who say, "he'll restructure his contract", how do you know that? And if he doesn't and the BILLS release him, they get no value for him AND take the Cap hit anyways! If they want to trade him at that point, you have to find a team willing to take on the contract the BILLS agreed to or have Byrd willing to renegotiate it at that point. Again, a place the BILLS don't need to be in when another Safety Drafted will do just fine. He's not a LT or Center, he's not a QB or a Shut-down Corner, he's not a DT or pass-rushing DE...he's a Safety. His position does NOT command that kind of money. And paying now while planning later is exactly how teams lose their good players or how they lose players while getting nothing in return. It's a poor man's philosophy.

[GG]

If you read my previous posts then you would see that I'm all for paying a Franchise caliber QB whatever the market value is, so bringing QB into the argument is your own, not mine. As for apples and oranges, really? Did you even bother to look at the link I provided or look over the information. Because part of your statements is, "As far as similar production, the mid tier safeties are not All Pro caliber and don't provide the same impact that Byrd has for this defense", and yet that's exactly what Earl Thomas is, not to mention the advent of Clark and the up and coming McCourty (much to the BILLS' chagrin). What Byrd means to "this Defense" is what's wrong with the argument, because you ASSUME in that vacuum that no Safety can replace him, when that's not nearly accurate as it's an assumption. What I do know is that good and successful teams on a consistent basis do an evaluative analysis as to where the money is spent, by *POSITION*, AND NOT PLAYER. The point here is not whether Byrd is any good, or if the BILLS should want to keep him, it is in my opinion about whether the money allocated to the position of Safety is a wise allocation of the limited amount of money a team can spend. In earlier post someone mentioned Glenn, Gilmore, and A. Williams. And to that same argument, the money is better spent on Glenn and Gilmore, based upon their POSITION. Now, if A. Williams is reasonable in his request and the money spent is more of the middle-tier money, then keeping A. Williams would be fantastic, assuming he continues to play well. However, if A. Williams is Byrd-esque in his demands, then let him go or trade him, but it would be unwise to allocate once again money in a position that does not value itself that way. Look at how successful teams have done it over the last several years, or the Pats since Belichick has been there, and you will see a pattern develop. I like Byrd, and all things being equal I hope the BILLS can sign him to a reasonable contract. But if he wants to be the top paid Safety in the game, it would be IMO a foolish and frivolous decision to give in to his contractual demands.

 

The Aisle 8 QB Theory was a comparison to your Plug & Play Player theory.

 

The biggest problem with your logic is thinking that players are interchangeable. That's why those mid-tier players at bargain rate salaries are not the exact replacement for All-Pro players. Aaron Williams has developed into a solid contributor, but he's not at the elite level that Byrd is. Players aren't fungible, and if you have an All-Pro, you don't let him walk and hope that you will find his replacement in Aisle 8.

 

Since you use big word, I'm sure you're also familiar with the concept of opportunity cost. Even if Bills were to find an equally good safety in the draft, that's a pick that's wasted on replacing a roster hole you created by not keeping Byrd. So for a team that is not financially strapped, and that has a good cap position and contract situation for the next two years, not resigning Byrd would be a foolish decision. It would mean that Bills are true to old time form where they keep dry powder for the quixotic free agency needs or to line the owner's pockets. If this is truly a new regime, then we wouldn't have to experience the ineviatble.

 

BTW, thanks for the McCourty reference. I'm glad he's doing well. Too bad that NE had to go through Chung & Merriwhether to finally land McCourty. By that standard, Bills will have Byrd's replacement by 2019.

[Delete This Account]

I think this point bears emphasizing. When scribes like Wawrow simply accept the assertion that tagging Byrd a second time would be a poor strategy for the Bills both from a salary cap perspective and from a team distraction perspective, they essentially are providing the front office with an excuse to let him walk.

 

If this front office is as committed to winning as it claims in rhetoric, then the Bills will do whatever it takes to retain Byrd for next season. If they can't get him signed long-term, tag him. If they can't get him to sign long-term after tagging him, trade him to the highest bidder (aim for 2nd round pick). If they can't get value for him in a trade, simply make him play at the franchise tender next season. Anything short of this strategy tells me that their promises of ("we aim to keep our best players") ring hollow.

 

Letting an upper echelon safety walk in free agency, receiving nothing in return and saying "we tried" simply does not and should not hold water. Sometimes teams need to make tough choices. The 49ers chose to let Goldson walk because they paid big $ to Willis and Bowman and have a number of upper echelon players ready for extensions (Kap, Crabtree, Iupati, etc). The Bills have no such issue -- with a comparative dearth of upper echelon talent on the Bills' roster, the media should not be providing the front office with a blanket excuse for letting a young top-notch player walk.

 

i'm doing what now?

not sure what "blanket excuse" we in the media are providing the Bills.

this is the situation they find themselves and it's up to them to extricate themselves from it.

 

i've also been consistent in saying that the Bills failure to make a push in locking up Byrd to a long-term deal a year earlier has contributed to this. rather than spending that money on Mark Anderson, who got paid a lot of money for doing very little, the Bills could have used that money to lock up Byrd. or Levitre.

they did neither.

 

i've also been consistent in questioning the Bills in regards to their failure to deliver on a long-term deal after they tagged Byrd. though the tag was below Byrd's market value, the Bills still didn't get what they could have gotten out of Byrd because the contract dispute led the player to miss valuable time in learning the defense through training camp.

and then, once the season began, Byrd refused to risk the potential of hurting his future value by being cautious regarding his nagging foot problems.

 

had Byrd been signed to a long-term deal, he would not have missed camp. he would have been better prepared in Pettine's defense and, with the security of a long-term deal, he likely would have went out and played through the pain of the foot problems much earlier than October.

 

value is in the eye of the beholder. the Bills, i'll contend, didn't get the potential value they were counting on getting from a player that ate up $6.9 million salary, and ate up a roster spot through the first five weeks of the season. that spot could have been served to address another position, no?

 

and now the Bills find themselves in essentially the same spot: attempting to lock up Byrd to a long term deal with a franchise tag as a fallback position. and in the meantime, they're bringing in a new coordinator who will be introducing yet another new scheme. so if Byrd is tagged and missed a majority of the offseason, the Bills will be in a position of having committed more than $15 million to a player to be in Buffalo for essentially 7-8 months over two years.

 

no one on the Bills side of this argument has come close to convincing me how the team is getting value for paying a player to not be here for 8 months out of the year.

 

jw

[sodbuster]

Is it just me or is it getting a bit windy in here?

[Delete This Account]

Is it just me or is it getting a bit windy in here?

 

it's you.

 

jw

[Rubes]

no one on the Bills side of this argument has come close to convincing me how the team is getting value for paying a player to not be here for 8 months out of the year.

 

jw

 

FWIW, I'm with you on this one, and I appreciate the clarity of your arguments. Just curious: in relation to this statement, have you tried getting comments from anyone from the Bills FO after presenting this argument?

[Delete This Account]

FWIW, I'm with you on this one, and I appreciate the clarity of your arguments. Just curious: in relation to this statement, have you tried getting comments from anyone from the Bills FO after presenting this argument?

 

yes.

 

jw

[thebandit27]

i'm doing what now?

not sure what "blanket excuse" we in the media are providing the Bills.

this is the situation they find themselves and it's up to them to extricate themselves from it.

 

i've also been consistent in saying that the Bills failure to make a push in locking up Byrd to a long-term deal a year earlier has contributed to this. rather than spending that money on Mark Anderson, who got paid a lot of money for doing very little, the Bills could have used that money to lock up Byrd. or Levitre.

they did neither.

 

i've also been consistent in questioning the Bills in regards to their failure to deliver on a long-term deal after they tagged Byrd. though the tag was below Byrd's market value, the Bills still didn't get what they could have gotten out of Byrd because the contract dispute led the player to miss valuable time in learning the defense through training camp.

and then, once the season began, Byrd refused to risk the potential of hurting his future value by being cautious regarding his nagging foot problems.

 

had Byrd been signed to a long-term deal, he would not have missed camp. he would have been better prepared in Pettine's defense and, with the security of a long-term deal, he likely would have went out and played through the pain of the foot problems much earlier than October.

 

value is in the eye of the beholder. the Bills, i'll contend, didn't get the potential value they were counting on getting from a player that ate up $6.9 million salary, and ate up a roster spot through the first five weeks of the season. that spot could have been served to address another position, no?

 

and now the Bills find themselves in essentially the same spot: attempting to lock up Byrd to a long term deal with a franchise tag as a fallback position. and in the meantime, they're bringing in a new coordinator who will be introducing yet another new scheme. so if Byrd is tagged and missed a majority of the offseason, the Bills will be in a position of having committed more than $15 million to a player to be in Buffalo for essentially 7-8 months over two years.

 

no one on the Bills side of this argument has come close to convincing me how the team is getting value for paying a player to not be here for 8 months out of the year.

 

jw

 

John...I have several questions about this post...

 

1) Do you have any source, from Byrd's end or the team, that will confirm that Byrd had any interest in signing a long-term deal a year before hitting free agency, as you are seemingly chiding the team for not doing? Furthermore, can you point to any Eugene Parker client that has signed a long-term deal a year before hitting free agency?

 

2) If the Bills failed to get value for the $6.9M they spent on Byrd last year, why are you so ardent that they'd have gotten or that they will get value out of paying him more than that? Regarding the injury, if we're to take Byrd at his word (and also take the word of the coaching staff), he didn't play in the first 5 weeks because he wasn't 100%. If everyone is being honest, then I don't see how he couldn't participated in camp or the first 5 games without aggravating the injury of playing at less than full throttle.

 

3) Why is it the Bills' side that is the only one you're seemingly willing to criticize for not delivering on a long-term deal? If the only report regarding the Bills' offer to Byrd (Adam Benigni's tweet) is to be believed, then they offered top 4-5 safety money to Byrd (which would be upwards of $7.5M in annual compensation). Apparently Byrd didn't want to take that deal. It does take two sides to agree on a contract, as you well know. Are you saying that either (a) Benigni's information is incorrect, or (b) Byrd's side was right to pass on the deal (reportedly without so much as responding to the offer at all)?

 

Here's what's been made public about the situation: the Bills made an offer to Byrd and it was not accepted. They franchise tagged him, presumingly knowing what his demands were and deciding not to meet them. Byrd then sat out with an injury until he was 100%, and came back to have another Pro Bowl year.

 

He is now slated for unrestricted free agency, and both parties have publicly said their open to a long-term deal.

 

Anything else is postulating at best, assumptive at worst.

 

As for the Bills' convincing you of value, do they really need to? They got a very similar level of play from Byrd to his previous seasons for less than he'd have gotten on the open market...why does what they say make any difference?

Edited January 30, 2014 by thebandit27

[K-9]

...2) If the Bills failed to get value for the $6.9M they spent on Byrd last year, why are you so ardent that they'd have gotten or that they will get value out of paying him more than that? Regarding the injury, if we're to take Byrd at his word (and also take the word of the coaching staff), he didn't play in the first 5 weeks because he wasn't 100%. If everyone is being honest, then I don't see how he couldn't participated in camp or the first 5 games without aggravating the injury of playing at less than full throttle. ...

 

From the sounds of it, Byrd would have "been likely" to play vs. deciding to "refuse to risk the potential of his future" if the Bills had met his contract demands.

 

Pay me and I'm good to go.

 

Tag me or offer me top 5 money, and it will be a while before I'm 100%.

 

Hmm.

 

There was ZERO, repeat ZERO, chance that Byrd was going to agree to an extension BEFORE he became a free agent unless it was for top safety (read Polamalu) money. And even THAT may have been insufficient given Byrd's upcoming status as the best FA available in his class. All the 20/20 hindsight analysis about how much we wasted on Anderson that COULD have gone to Byrd isn't gonna change that.

 

GO BILLS!!!