Brandon talks with AP about Byrd's contract

[BigBuff423]

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.

 

I'm not sure if the dart, "Since you use big word" was intended to be jab at me or not, so I'll leave that alone since I've kept the dialogue open without personal attack. However, it's not a matter of thinking just any ole player can be as good as Byrd or the "plug and play" opinion. I do think the BILLS would need to do their homework, as in any Draft and the result of any good Draft, but I very much think Byrd is over-stating his value. I would rather Draft a Safety to play in Byrd's position and SPEND the FA money on *POSITIONS* of real impact such as Offensive Line. Let me ask you this: if the BILLS spent that same money on a viable RT and / or LG, and then took a Safety in the 3rd round, how do you think this team would fare? Do you believe that Byrd's impact would be greater than the ability to have a proven Tackle and / or Guard to protect EJ and provide good run-blocking, especially on goal line and 3rd down situations, with a Rookie Safety in the backfield? I think the effect of having a good to great Tackle and / or Guard who could do those things, and potentially truly effect the Offense, while a Rookie Safety would only have a minimal marked difference in a game -- with all other factors being equal of course. You may disagree, and that's cool...I'm man enough to be amiable to the differences of opinion without trying to bully someone else into my way of thinking or ridicule someone just because they hold a zealous opinion divurgent from my own. But, let's keep these facts in mind when it comes to how the BILLS do business in the future. Also, you besmirch the BILLS in years gone by because they would let good talent and players go, yet you fail to acknowledge that the BILLS front office has done the opposite in many recent cases, ala KW, SJ, FJax, and landing Super Mario. Just food for thought...no need to be all angry or frustrated in a lame attempt to say things like, "Since you use big word", as though that's something to be ashamed of or go hiding from...I said I was going to leave that alone...well, apparently not.

Edited January 30, 2014 by BigBuff423

[Gugny]

 

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.

 

Why did you feel the need to repeat ZERO?

[thebandit27]

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!!!

 

I'll await John's response before getting too far into this, as I don't want to go into that dialogue with a loaded gun. To your statements, however, I would say 2 things:

 

1) If Byrd's playing condition/status truly did depend--wholly or partially--on his contract status, that would give me pause regarding his commitment to the team.

 

2) If Parker/Byrd were so committed to hitting FA, that makes getting him to play under the value of the tag an even better investment IMO.

 

Why did you feel the need to repeat ZERO?

 

It's a monetary discussion; the more zeroes the better.

[Delete This Account]

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?

 

 

sigh. last time i'm answering these questions.

Byrd told me on numerous occasions before and during 2012 he was waiting to hear from the Bills.

what's unknown is made Byrd the offer presented in Feb. 2013 in Aug. 2012 whether it would have been accepted. my guess is 50-50.

 

 

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.

 

 

i take Byrd's, the Bills and the doctor's word that Jairus' feet were no 100 percent.

you miss my point: Byrd played through injuries throughout the first four years of his contract. when it came to playing under a franchise tag, and the uncertainty of what comes next, he was very cautious to ensure he was healthy enough to play without overly risking a significant injury that could hamper him beyond the length of the tag.

 

 

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)?

 

 

The Bills offer was not what Byrd expected to get had he been allowed to enter free agency. not sure how many times i have to say this, but value is value, and by tagging Byrd, the Bills did not decrease his value. he was looking for the type of money he would have more than likely attracted in free agency.

and people make too much of these assertions that Byrd wants to be the highest paid safety because he is the best safety. no. he was looking for the money he was expecting to get in free agency, which likely would have made him the highest paid safety. ... why is that so difficult for some to comprehend?

 

 

 

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?

 

please, re-read what i wrote. i wrote those on the Bills side have failed to provide a convincing argument.

and i would argue they got "a very similar level of play" from Byrd last season.

first, he missed 5 games.

second, he wasn't ready for the start of the season.

third, and most important, Byrd missing the entire offseason in now way helped the Bills. it hurt them (and here, let me increase the size and bold the period at end of this sentence for emphasis).

 

jw

 

I'll await John's response before getting too far into this, as I don't want to go into that dialogue with a loaded gun. To your statements, however, I would say 2 things:

 

1) If Byrd's playing condition/status truly did depend--wholly or partially--on his contract status, that would give me pause regarding his commitment to the team.

 

2) If Parker/Byrd were so committed to hitting FA, that makes getting him to play under the value of the tag an even better investment IMO.

 

 

 

It's a monetary discussion; the more zeroes the better.

 

oh gawd. puhleeze.

[thebandit27]

sigh. last time i'm answering these questions.

Byrd told me on numerous occasions before and during 2012 he was waiting to hear from the Bills.

what's unknown is made Byrd the offer presented in Feb. 2013 in Aug. 2012 whether it would have been accepted. my guess is 50-50.

 

So you're going purely on your own guess when you criticize the Bills for not re-signing Byrd prior to hitting free agency? No offense intended here, John--that's not very compelling.

 

i take Byrd's, the Bills and the doctor's word that Jairus' feet were no 100 percent.

you miss my point: Byrd played through injuries throughout the first four years of his contract. when it came to playing under a franchise tag, and the uncertainty of what comes next, he was very cautious to ensure he was healthy enough to play without overly risking a significant injury that could hamper him beyond the length of the tag.

 

No, I do understand your point. I don't agree with it. I don't see how getting an injured Jairus Byrd on the field for the first 5 weeks by paying him $22M in guaranteed money increases his value to the team--and that's totally neglecting the fact that he's risking further injury.

 

The Bills offer was not what Byrd expected to get had he been allowed to enter free agency. not sure how many times i have to say this, but value is value, and by tagging Byrd, the Bills did not decrease his value. he was looking for the type of money he would have more than likely attracted in free agency.

and people make too much of these assertions that Byrd wants to be the highest paid safety because he is the best safety. no. he was looking for the money he was expecting to get in free agency, which likely would have made him the highest paid safety. ... why is that so difficult for some to comprehend?

 

I'm going to go ahead and look past your assertion that I don't comprehend that Byrd was looking for a salary on par with what he'd get on the open market, despite the fact that I've stated it many times...

 

It sounds like what you're really saying is that the Bills should simply pony up and pay Byrd whatever he wants because had they not tagged him he would've hit the open market. Obviously, the answer to this is that Buffalo made him an offer of what they felt he was worth to them, and Byrd felt differently.

 

That's two sides having a different opinion of what they're worth, an unfortunate fact of life when you need two sides to agree on a deal.

 

So again, I ask: why is it the Bills' side that gets the blame because they didn't meet Byrd's demands? I don't blame either side. Byrd wanted to be the top-paid safety, and the Bills wanted to pay him what he's worth in comparison to the others at his position.

 

There's a very convenient solution to this: the franchise tag. Byrd gets a massive pay raise, and the Bills get him for close to what they feel is market value.

 

please, re-read what i wrote. i wrote those on the Bills side have failed to provide a convincing argument.

and i would argue they got "a very similar level of play" from Byrd last season.

first, he missed 5 games.

second, he wasn't ready for the start of the season.

third, and most important, Byrd missing the entire offseason in now way helped the Bills. it hurt them (and here, let me increase the size and bold the period at end of this sentence for emphasis).

 

jw

 

And I asked you why you felt they need to provide a convincing argument given Byrd's performance? As for his level of play, well:

 

1) Your two points are not two points at all, they're the same point. He missed 5 games because he wasn't ready for the start of the season...due to injury. Injury is injury regardless of his contract status, a point that we seem to agree upon. If you're going to contend that his performance dropped due to injury, then my response is that I don't see how having him out there at diminished capacity and doing further damage to his injury is going to make his performance better. Pad his stats maybe, but not make him perform any better.

 

2) His performance was quite on par with previous years:

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/12613/jairus-byrd

 

3) Missing the off-season was his choice. 8 players were franchise tagged last year, guess who the only guy not to sign his deal and hold out was...

 

http://nfl.si.com/2013/07/15/franchise-tag-deadline-ryan-clady-branden-albert/

 

Go ahead and blame the Bills if that's your position; mine is that the other 7 organizations that used the tag expected their players to be professionals and sign the guaranteed deal and show up to work...and they were right.

 

oh gawd. puhleeze.

 

I don't apologize for not falling in line with your position, John. You can puhleeze all you like; that doesn't make you right.

[papazoid]

in the end, Parker and Byrd are going to win (he will be the highest paid safety in football).

 

the bills will only prolong the agony (tag him again).

 

 

at this point, the bills need to tag and trade. I would not invest $9-10 mil/yr in him. bad feet, bad hip, bad back.

[K-9]

...

oh gawd. puhleeze.

 

You're the one who floated the idea that Byrd wasn't willing to "risk his potential future" and would have been "more likely" to have played earlier had he had the "security" of a long-term deal.

 

The only time I got pissed at Byrd was at his 100% comment when he knows full well that EVERY player on his team isn't 100%, either. That reeked of selfishness. And while I or anyone else can't blame him for being cautious with his recovery, I don't want to think the difference between him being cautious or not depended on his satisfaction level with his contract. It was enough to suggest he was following doctor's advice.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[papazoid]

 

 

You're the one who floated the idea that Byrd wasn't willing to "risk his potential future" and would have been "more likely" to have played earlier had he had the "security" of a long-term deal.

 

The only time I got pissed at Byrd was at his 100% comment when he knows full well that EVERY player on his team isn't 100%, either. That reeked of selfishness. And while I or anyone else can't blame him for being cautious with his recovery, I don't want to think the difference between him being cautious or not depended on his satisfaction level with his contract. It was enough to suggest he was following doctor's advice.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

his waiting til he was 100% healthy HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIS CONTRACT DISSATISFACTION !!!!

Edited January 30, 2014 by papazoid

[GG]

I'm not sure if the dart, "Since you use big word" was intended to be jab at me or not, so I'll leave that alone since I've kept the dialogue open without personal attack. However, it's not a matter of thinking just any ole player can be as good as Byrd or the "plug and play" opinion. I do think the BILLS would need to do their homework, as in any Draft and the result of any good Draft, but I very much think Byrd is over-stating his value. I would rather Draft a Safety to play in Byrd's position and SPEND the FA money on *POSITIONS* of real impact such as Offensive Line. Let me ask you this: if the BILLS spent that same money on a viable RT and / or LG, and then took a Safety in the 3rd round, how do you think this team would fare? Do you believe that Byrd's impact would be greater than the ability to have a proven Tackle and / or Guard to protect EJ and provide good run-blocking, especially on goal line and 3rd down situations, with a Rookie Safety in the backfield? I think the effect of having a good to great Tackle and / or Guard who could do those things, and potentially truly effect the Offense, while a Rookie Safety would only have a minimal marked difference in a game -- with all other factors being equal of course. You may disagree, and that's cool...I'm man enough to be amiable to the differences of opinion without trying to bully someone else into my way of thinking or ridicule someone just because they hold a zealous opinion divurgent from my own. But, let's keep these facts in mind when it comes to how the BILLS do business in the future. Also, you besmirch the BILLS in years gone by because they would let good talent and players go, yet you fail to acknowledge that the BILLS front office has done the opposite in many recent cases, ala KW, SJ, FJax, and landing Super Mario. Just food for thought...no need to be all angry or frustrated in a lame attempt to say things like, "Since you use big word", as though that's something to be ashamed of or go hiding from...I said I was going to leave that alone...well, apparently not.

 

There's a simple reason successful teams tend to keep their best players. They know that players aren't fungible and you stay with the devil you know vs rolling the dice on a replacement (financial considerations aside) Since the Bills don't have monetary constraints, they should follow the NFL truism to keep the better player. Your scenarios are a false option, because the Bills have the capacity to pay Byrd and get a FA tackle. For all your examples, would you rather keep Byrd, or sign Tyson Clabo and draft Travares Tillman?

 

I'm sure you also remember that Bills had a contingency in the 2013 by drafting two replacements for Byrd in the mid rounds. How did that work out? What makes you confident that they will strike gold in 2014? What would someone call a drafting strategy that uses up 3 draft choices in two years on a safety?

Edited January 30, 2014 by GG

[Delete This Account]

So you're going purely on your own guess when you criticize the Bills for not re-signing Byrd prior to hitting free agency? No offense intended here, John--that's not very compelling.

 

 

 

No, I do understand your point. I don't agree with it. I don't see how getting an injured Jairus Byrd on the field for the first 5 weeks by paying him $22M in guaranteed money increases his value to the team--and that's totally neglecting the fact that he's risking further injury.

 

 

 

I'm going to go ahead and look past your assertion that I don't comprehend that Byrd was looking for a salary on par with what he'd get on the open market, despite the fact that I've stated it many times...

 

It sounds like what you're really saying is that the Bills should simply pony up and pay Byrd whatever he wants because had they not tagged him he would've hit the open market. Obviously, the answer to this is that Buffalo made him an offer of what they felt he was worth to them, and Byrd felt differently.

 

That's two sides having a different opinion of what they're worth, an unfortunate fact of life when you need two sides to agree on a deal.

 

So again, I ask: why is it the Bills' side that gets the blame because they didn't meet Byrd's demands? I don't blame either side. Byrd wanted to be the top-paid safety, and the Bills wanted to pay him what he's worth in comparison to the others at his position.

 

There's a very convenient solution to this: the franchise tag. Byrd gets a massive pay raise, and the Bills get him for close to what they feel is market value.

 

 

 

And I asked you why you felt they need to provide a convincing argument given Byrd's performance? As for his level of play, well:

 

1) Your two points are not two points at all, they're the same point. He missed 5 games because he wasn't ready for the start of the season...due to injury. Injury is injury regardless of his contract status, a point that we seem to agree upon. If you're going to contend that his performance dropped due to injury, then my response is that I don't see how having him out there at diminished capacity and doing further damage to his injury is going to make his performance better. Pad his stats maybe, but not make him perform any better.

 

2) His performance was quite on par with previous years:

 

http://espn.go.com/n...613/jairus-byrd

 

3) Missing the off-season was his choice. 8 players were franchise tagged last year, guess who the only guy not to sign his deal and hold out was...

 

http://nfl.si.com/20...branden-albert/

 

Go ahead and blame the Bills if that's your position; mine is that the other 7 organizations that used the tag expected their players to be professionals and sign the guaranteed deal and show up to work...and they were right.

 

 

 

I don't apologize for not falling in line with your position, John. You can puhleeze all you like; that doesn't make you right.

 

yes, Byrd failed to act professionally because he chose to exercise the rights awarded to him by a collective bargaining agreement, and seek a contract he believed to be fair. and his offseason absence in no way shape, or form hindered the Bills.

 

gotcha

 

jw

[thebandit27]

yes, Byrd failed to act professionally because he chose to exercise the rights awarded to him by a collective bargaining agreement, and seek a contract he believed to be fair. and his offseason absence in no way shape, or form hindered the Bills.

 

gotcha

 

jw

 

What I said was that it was his choice not to show up.

 

if your assertion is that the Bills, like the other 7 organizations, did something wrong by expecting Byrd to show up when offered a guaranteed 500% raise, then I totally disagree...

 

...and so do the other 7 players that got the tag...

 

but it's the Bills that should be chided...

 

Gotcha

 

EDIT: I should also add that the same CBA awarded the Bills the right to tag Byrd for a 1-year guaranteed deal. Somehow, Byrd exercising his right is just fine with you--the Bills doing the same isn't...

Edited January 30, 2014 by thebandit27

[BigBuff423]

There's a simple reason successful teams tend to keep their best players. They know that players aren't fungible and you stay with the devil you know vs rolling the dice on a replacement (financial considerations aside) Since the Bills don't have monetary constraints, they should follow the NFL truism to keep the better player. Your scenarios are a false option, because the Bills have the capacity to pay Byrd and get a FA tackle. For all your examples, would you rather keep Byrd, or sign Tyson Clabo and draft Travares Tillman?

 

I'm sure you also remember that Bills had a contingency in the 2013 by drafting two replacements for Byrd in the mid rounds. How did that work out? What makes you confident that they will strike gold in 2014? What would someone call a drafting strategy that uses up 3 draft choices in two years on a safety?

 

Because despite the length of our discussion, I don't want to belabor the point - I think it is best to say we will just agree to disagree. And that's fine, no sweat. Honestly, if either of us really had any input to this situation, we most likely wouldn't be having this discussion / debate in this forum. So, the BILLS will do whatever they think best. I happen to believe it is in the team's best interest to make a good, quality offer and hope that Byrd wants to play in Buffalo for good money, maybe not making him the highest paid Safety in the league, but top 4 or 5 money. And if that is not good enough, tag him and trade him. That's my opinion, and I know you disagree but I don't think discussing it ad nauseum will change either of our positions and before this turns personal or nasty, I'll say that this forum is a great way to extend support to the BILLS, have healthy discussions and debates, and see other people passionate about a team that frankly, hasn't given the fans a great deal to be passionate about. But, we keep coming back...so with that in mind, despite our difference of opinion we are "brothers in arms" for the BILLS and with that, we all want them to be successful. Let's just hope however they do it, this team makes it to the Super Bowl and brings the Lombardi Trophy to Buffalo in the next few years!

[thebandit27]

it was his RIGHT not to show up. that's a significant distinction.

 

jw

 

It's also his RIGHT to show up if he wants to...what distinction are you drawing?

 

That he didn't have to?

 

Great.

 

How is that doing what's best for him and the team?

 

I would submit, and apparently so would the other 7 guys that got the tag, that the best thing to do for himself and the team is show up in good faith and work for the raise you've been given.

 

I'd love to hear how exercising that right helped him in this scenario...

[Delete This Account]

What I said was that it was his choice not to show up.

 

if your assertion is that the Bills, like the other 7 organizations, did something wrong by expecting Byrd to show up when offered a guaranteed 500% raise, then I totally disagree...

 

...and so do the other 7 players that got the tag...

 

but it's the Bills that should be chided...

 

Gotcha

 

EDIT: I should also add that the same CBA awarded the Bills the right to tag Byrd for a 1-year guaranteed deal. Somehow, Byrd exercising his right is just fine with you--the Bills doing the same isn't...

 

it was his RIGHT not to show up. that's a significant distinction.

as for the other point, still awaiting an answer.

 

jw

[thebandit27]

it was his RIGHT not to show up. that's a significant distinction.

as for the other point, still awaiting an answer.

 

jw

 

It's also his RIGHT to show up if he wants to...what distinction are you drawing?

 

That he didn't have to?

 

Great.

 

How is that doing what's best for him and the team?

 

I would submit, and apparently so would the other 7 guys that got the tag, that the best thing to do for himself and the team is show up in good faith and work for the raise you've been given.

 

I'd love to hear how exercising that right helped him in this scenario...

[Delete This Account]

It's also his RIGHT to show up if he wants to...what distinction are you drawing?

 

That he didn't have to?

 

Great.

 

How is that doing what's best for him and the team?

 

I would submit, and apparently so would the other 7 guys that got the tag, that the best thing to do for himself and the team is show up in good faith and work for the raise you've been given.

 

I'd love to hear how exercising that right helped him in this scenario...

 

 

really no use debating this point, if you don't understand this distinction. you seem to believe that Byrd needed to cede his own interest for the sake of the team's interest by positing: "How is that doing what's best for him and the team?"

you realize that there is a distinction in that what's best for the team isn't generally the best for him, right?

 

until you understand that basic principle, then really, i can't foresee us getting any further in this discussion.

 

jw

 

in regards to your final point: "I'd love to hear how exercising that right helped him in this scenario..."

a better question would be i'd love to hear how it didn't.

Edited January 30, 2014 by john wawrow

[papazoid]

 

 

It's also his RIGHT to show up if he wants to...what distinction are you drawing?

 

That he didn't have to?

 

Great.

 

How is that doing what's best for him and the team?

 

I would submit, and apparently so would the other 7 guys that got the tag, that the best thing to do for himself and the team is show up in good faith and work for the raise you've been given.

 

I'd love to hear how exercising that right helped him in this scenario...

 

i'm not a Byrd fan.....but one way this helped him is the following:

 

i'll start by asking a question. in 6 or 7 years from now...will anyone pay Byrd $7 mil/yr ?.....I think unlikely.

 

so, by delaying the start of his inevitable big contract....he added a year or maybe two at $6.9 & $8.3 before getting his big deal.

[ALF]

Well they have till July 15 to work out a long term deal or trade if he's tagged again. Guaranteed money for more than 1 season is risky because of his PF.

[papazoid]

Well they have till July 15 to work out a long term deal or trade if he's tagged again. Guaranteed money for more than 1 season is risky because of his PF.

 

here's a BIG question.....if he doesn't sign his Franchise Tag Tender BEFORE July 15th......can they trade an unsigned player ?

[BillsVet]

I would rather draft a safety to play in Byrd's position and SPEND the FA money on *POSITIONS* of real impact such as Offensive Line. Let me ask you this: if the BILLS spent that same money on a viable RT and / or LG, and then took a Safety in the 3rd round, how do you think this team would fare? Do you believe that Byrd's impact would be greater than the ability to have a proven Tackle and / or Guard to protect EJ and provide good run-blocking, especially on goal line and 3rd down situations, with a Rookie Safety in the backfield? I think the effect of having a good to great Tackle and / or Guard who could do those things, and potentially truly effect the Offense, while a Rookie Safety would only have a minimal marked difference in a game -- with all other factors being equal of course. You may disagree, and that's cool...I'm man enough to be amiable to the differences of opinion without trying to bully someone else into my way of thinking or ridicule someone just because they hold a zealous opinion divergent from my own. But, let's keep these facts in mind when it comes to how the BILLS do business in the future. Also, you besmirch the BILLS in years gone by because they would let good talent and players go, yet you fail to acknowledge that the BILLS front office has done the opposite in many recent cases, ala KW, SJ, FJax, and landing Super Mario.

 

The Bills own an unimpressive 22-42 record since 2010, so something is amiss at OBD or they'd be better than a team which wins 35% of their games.

 

Not signing a premier UFA who they developed tells me they're closer to rebuilding than competing, and in 2014, it's playoffs or bust. We can belabor the strategy for the player, but the team is at a critical juncture in team history. Either pay the cost to compete or become a quadruple A franchise that never will make the playoffs because they're to busy "saving" that money for other players.