Jamie Nails Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 If I were the Bills, I'd consciously make an effort to avoid drafting any player represented by Parker.
K-9 Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 Please explain how Byrd is not a "game changer"--whatever that means. 33 forced turnovers (interceptions and forced fumbles) in 73 career games. "Polamola" has 45 forced turnovers (13 forced fumbles and 32 ints) in exactly twice as many career games. Who is the "game changer"? I understand your point, but Polamalu was simply more of a force on a play to play basis by virtue of the position he plays. LeBeau devised entire schemes around his unique abilities. He's a first ballot HOFer. Turnovers don't tell the whole story, either. Byrd has left his fair share of plays on the field as well. There are a ton of plays he hasn't made. GO BILLS!!!
mannc Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 5 years and over $50m? No, he doesn't want to be a Bill. Not in the least. Given that, you don't franchise the guy. Like I predicted, no amount would get Byrd to sign in Buffalo. Good luck, Jairus. GO BILLS!!! I don't think Byrd wanted to be in Buffalo last year either, but he nonetheless played extremely well when he was on the field and by all accounts he was not a cancer in the locker room. Whatever his feelings about the team, Byrd is a professional and will perform well next year whether he is under the franchise tag or not. I would franchise him if he can't be signed long term. Better than letting him walk and I doubt there is any better use of the tag this year.
offyourocker Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 If I were the Bills, I'd consciously make an effort to avoid drafting any player represented by Parker. Not an effort. Just never again. Even if bpa, move on to next bpa
BillsVet Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) If I'm Doug Whaley I seriously think about resigning. He's clearly not a true GM here. Isn't it embarrassing to have the title of GM when it's not really true? The truth of this severe dysfunction of the Bills front office is quickly coming to the surface. I doubt he'd resign, hence Graham's story last week which emanates from the coaches and perhaps the front office types who are working with one hand tied behind their collective backs. Also, Whaley's the guy who said they'd tag him if they had to, right? Yes he did, but I doubt he received permission from Scott Berchtold to make this claim. After all, the tag means the team has to pay 8.4M, which is an expenditure not approved by the rest of the "old guard." This team can't even change out their training staff when they want, so paying the tag value has to probably get Littmann approval, not just the GM. Edited March 2, 2014 by BillsVet
Kelly the Dog Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 So are they, what? Saying that he is not a Hall of Famer now, but if he continues on the path, he may very well be. You were obviously complaining about the fact some of the posters were acting as if he was the best safety in the game, or a Hall of Fame caliber player right now. I then asked you who exactly is acting like he is the best safety in the game or a Hall of Fame player right now, and you gave me examples of guys who said if he keeps on playing like this, and plays out a long term contract on the Bills, and keeps getting better and better, after ten years, he will be a Hall of Famer. Granted, this is all a semantic argument. It all boils down to the fact that you think he's not a great, great safety and he should be thought of as such, and the Bills shouldnt pay him 50m over 5 years or whatever. That's a legitimate stance. I think, and others think, he is worth that much and the Bills should pay him that much. Because he's very, very good now and no reason to think he will not be even better. Those are both just opinions with no facts anywhere.
frogger Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 I think we are reading this the wrong way, maybe Parker and Byrd are under the assumption he is going to make bigger money elsewhere...that's why I'd transition tag him, 5 year 50 million is a lot of money, I'm not sure he will find that anywhere else. When the best he gets offered is 4 for 34, he will be running back to western NY looking to sign the deal offered to him earlier.
BillsVet Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 If I were the Bills, I'd consciously make an effort to avoid drafting any player represented by Parker. Nothing like waving the white flag to Eugene Parker. That'll show potential free agents Buffalo means business.
mannc Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 I understand your point, but Polamalu was simply more of a force on a play to play basis by virtue of the position he plays. LeBeau devised entire schemes around his unique abilities. He's a first ballot HOFer. Turnovers don't tell the whole story, either. Byrd has left his fair share of plays on the field as well. There are a ton of plays he hasn't made. GO BILLS!!! I agree that Polamalu is first ballot HOFer, and I understand that stats don't tell the whole story, but Byrd's stats are better than those of Polamalu--a first-ballot HOFer. I found it particularly interesting that Byrd has forced 11 fumbles (the same number as Ed Reed over a much longer career), which seems to give the lie to the notion that Byrd is not physical enough or is not a great tackler. Your other points about Byrd (and Polamalu, for that matter) are impossible to prove or disprove. I believe if Byrd has been playing for the Steelers or the Patriots for the last five years he would be recognized far and wide as the best FS in the game. And you're right, I can't prove that.
1billsfan Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 5 years and over $50m? No, he doesn't want to be a Bill. Not in the least. Given that, you don't franchise the guy. Like I predicted, no amount would get Byrd to sign in Buffalo. Good luck, Jairus. GO BILLS!!! So then you'll understand the Bills not franchise tagging Dareus, Glenn, Gilmore, Alonzo if they just don't feel like playing on the Bills even if they are offered more than fair contracts? Because that's exactly what you're saying. The reason for the franchise tag is partly for places like Buffalo (where few players want to go) to remain competitive. I don't care what Byrd wants. I want him tagged just to make clear the president that his wants and desires to be somewhere else are meaningless. If or when this team becomes great again, all of this wanting out will begin to disappear. Until then, him and his agent can take a walk.
disco Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) I do think we need to be careful with this $30 million over the first three years of the contract thing. We do not know if it is true, and even if true or patly true, whether the full amount was guaranteed or the number of overall years or dollar amount. Seems like a leak from the Bills to try to claim that we were not cheap and did everything they could do to keep Byrd. No reason to doubt those figures. From the USA Today article: Eric Berry - 6yrs/$50m (2010) Polamalu - 3yrs/$29.6m (2011) Weddle - 5yr/$40m (2011) We already know he wants to be paid as the top safety, so the $30 m / 3 years is the range they'd need to be in. Looking at recent Fitz, Stevie, Mario contract numbers - it's not like that's a number the Bills wouldn't be willing to offer. So let's assume it is the case. Byrd may know that very well could be the best offer he'll receive. Even if he doesn't get that elsewhere, we know he'll get pretty close to it. Maybe the guy just wants to be on a team with a higher chance of winning for the next few years and is willing to risk getting say $27m guaranteed instead of $30. Who knows? Again, assuming this is an accurate offer, I think that's probably as high as the Bills can go. Edited March 2, 2014 by disco
LB3 Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 I agree that Polamalu is first ballot HOFer, and I understand that stats don't tell the whole story, but Byrd's stats are better than those of Polamalu--a first-ballot HOFer. I found it particularly interesting that Byrd has forced 11 fumbles (the same number as Ed Reed over a much longer career), which seems to give the lie to the notion that Byrd is not physical enough or is not a great tackler. Your other points about Byrd (and Polamalu, for that matter) are impossible to prove or disprove. I believe if Byrd has been playing for the Steelers or the Patriots for the last five years he would be recognized far and wide as the best FS in the game. And you're right, I can't prove that. This. Even if he wasn't playing for the Steelers or Patriots, having the same defensive scheme would have been a nice change. Instead, it changed what, 4 out of 5 years?
K-9 Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 So then you'll understand the Bills not franchise tagging Dareus, Glenn, Gilmore, Alonzo if they just don't feel like playing on the Bills even if they are offered more than fair contracts? Because that's exactly what you're saying. The reason for the franchise tag is partly for places like Buffalo (where few players want to go) to remain competitive. I don't care what Byrd wants. I want him tagged just to make clear the president that his wants and desires to be somewhere else are meaningless. If or when this team becomes great again, all of this wanting out will begin to disappear. Until then, him and his agent can take a walk. I understand what you're saying and I'd normally agree. It sets a bad precedent. Maybe I just need some time to process the idea that a FREE SAFETY turned down $50m over 5 years. Then again, papazoid called it.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 So then you'll understand the Bills not franchise tagging Dareus, Glenn, Gilmore, Alonzo if they just don't feel like playing on the Bills even if they are offered more than fair contracts? Because that's exactly what you're saying. The reason for the franchise tag is partly for places like Buffalo (where few players want to go) to remain competitive. I don't care what Byrd wants. I want him tagged just to make clear the president that his wants and desires to be somewhere else are meaningless. If or when this team becomes great again, all of this wanting out will begin to disappear. Until then, him and his agent can take a walk. Exactly. EVEN if it were true that the Bills are sick of all this and think they made Parker a fabulous offer and he is stupid not to take it and we're dealing with a guy who doesn't want to be here and an agent who doesnt want to be reasonable... even if that were all true... you tag him tomorrow.
LB3 Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 "With the ninth pick in the 2014 NFL Draft, the Buffalo Bills select, Ha-Ha Clinton Dix, safety, Alabama".......... This is my nightmare!
TheMunsch Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Sorry if this already came up in the past 49 pages but what is the problem with tagging him and then trading him? It seems to me stupid to let him go for nothing, but I might be missing something
Mark Vader Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 No one on this board said that if Byrd retired today, he would go into the HOF. All I said was that if he continues at his current level of production through the remainder of his career, he likely will be (or should be) elected to the Hall of Fame. Do you disagree with that statement? No I would not disagree with that.
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 No reason to doubt those figures. From the USA Today article: Eric Berry - 6yrs/$50m (2010) Polamalu - 3yrs/$29.6m (2011) Weddle - 5yr/$40m (2011) We already know he wants to be paid as the top safety, so the $30 m / 3 years is the range they'd need to be in. Looking at recent Fitz, Stevie, Mario contract numbers - it's not like that's a number the Bills wouldn't be willing to offer. So let's assume it is the case. Byrd may know that very well could be the best offer he'll receive. Even if he doesn't get that elsewhere, we know he'll get pretty close to it. Maybe the guy just wants to be on a team with a higher chance of winning for the next few years and is willing to risk getting say $27m guaranteed instead of $30. Who knows? Again, assuming this is an accurate offer, I think that's probably as high as the Bills can go. Berry's shouldn't really count. I'm sure that Byrd and Parker will say of course it does, and the Bills will say no way it should. I would think, objectively, it shouldn't count. He hadn't played a down, he was drafted 5th overall in 2010 which is why he got a 6-60 million deal. If he was drafted the next year, or this year, he would have got about 4 years and 20 million like the #5 the next year, Patrick Peterson got.
klos63 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) Who cares. Jim Kelly didn't either. This team needs to not care about players' feelings or wishes and take care of business by tagging him. Cross the next bridge when it comes. He cares, and that's pretty much all that matters. Can't force him to sign a contract with us. Jim Kelly didn't play for us his first 2 years of pro ball, only played when he had no other options. Edited March 3, 2014 by klos63
auburnbillsbacker Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Sorry if this already came up in the past 49 pages but what is the problem with tagging him and then trading him? It seems to me stupid to let him go for nothing, but I might be missing something It appears that teams don't wont to trade a draft pick and pay him a a lucrative contract. I think the Bills should tag him then start him at Safety.
Recommended Posts