Buftex Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 This thread has gotten so big, I haven't read the whole thing, so forgive me if this was mentioned. Paul Hamilton just said something that got me thinking... is it possible the Bills made what they thought was a very good offer...Byrd/Parker reject it because they still think they can get more money (this appears to be all about money)... so the Bills agree not to franchise Byrd, let him go out and see if he can get more money elsewhere, and then the Bills get the opportunity to match that offer? Interesting scenario...and it would explain why the Bills are not planning to franchise tag him.
BillnutinHouston Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Think of the motivation behind leaking the news that "Bills unlikely to tag Byrd". Who's interest does that serve? I think it serves Byrd's camp. In the hours leading up to the deadline, why not try to enflame the masses and put pressure on the Bills? What would get Bills have to gain by leaking this? I don't see where it helps the Bills in any way.
papazoid Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Think of the motivation behind leaking the news that "Bills unlikely to tag Byrd". Who's interest does that serve? I think it serves Byrd's camp. In the hours leading up to the deadline, why not try to enflame the masses and put pressure on the Bills? What would get Bills have to gain by leaking this? I don't see where it helps the Bills in any way. i'm going the other way....the leak helps the bills more. by getting out there they offered 5yrs/ $50mil with $30mil guaranteed in first 3 years......it let's the bills fan base know they made a substantial offer. by byrd rejecting it, fans will turn on Byrd and be satisfied the team did it' best.
bobobonators Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Theres only one possible thing i can think of that even begins to be a valid concern in the potential decision to not tag Byrd: the bills feel this guy wants out of here so bad that if we franchise him he'll have a sudden bout of PF again around august and sit on the bench " injured"until november. Of course, the PF will somehow get better in november and Byrd will work his butt off and perform on the field for about 4-6 weeks to showcase to other teams that hes got this PF under control. Other than that, i see no viable reason as to why the bills should not tag Byrd. We have absolutely nothing to lose by tagging Byrd. By not tagging Byrd, everyone else wins and we lose.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 What the??? I leave jere Friday thinking that the Bills and Bryd were making progress and now I come back and check today and its the exact opposite??? CBF
boyst Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 This thread has gotten so big, I haven't read the whole thing, so forgive me if this was mentioned. Paul Hamilton just said something that got me thinking... is it possible the Bills made what they thought was a very good offer...Byrd/Parker reject it because they still think they can get more money (this appears to be all about money)... so the Bills agree not to franchise Byrd, let him go out and see if he can get more money elsewhere, and then the Bills get the opportunity to match that offer? Interesting scenario...and it would explain why the Bills are not planning to franchise tag him. Ross Tucker was saying this about Byrd and Orakpo this morning. Saying he still thinks both teams could sign the player. He doesn't have much of a connection and doesn't pronounce Jairus right, though
Beerball Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 People act as if tagging him is some sort of brilliant, "stick it to Byrd" move. Byrd and his agent know full well what the tag means and that the Bills can use it again this year and they clearly don't see the tag as a worse option than signing the contract currently being offered. Getting tagged isn't a bad option for Byrd at all. He gets a 20% raise, around 8.4 million on top of the 6 something they paid him last year. That's over 14 million for two years of play and at the end of it, he will walk away a free man next year and sign a huge contract with someone else. Buffalo has cleverly maneuvered its way into a lose-lose scenario. They could tag him again next off season. You know that, don't you? But, put that out of your mind for a minute. What's a better option: the Bills with Byrd in 2014 at a very reasonable (by NFL standards) or the Bills without Byrd or an extra draft pick? I'm not sure why the team or any fan would care about anything else.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Theres only one possible thing i can think of that even begins to be a valid concern in the potential decision to not tag Byrd: the bills feel this guy wants out of here so bad that if we franchise him he'll have a sudden bout of PF again around august and sit on the bench " injured"until november. Of course, the PF will somehow get better in november and Byrd will work his butt off and perform on the field for about 4-6 weeks to showcase to other teams that hes got this PF under control. Other than that, i see no viable reason as to why the bills should not tag Byrd. We have absolutely nothing to lose by tagging Byrd. By not tagging Byrd, everyone else wins and we lose. Not out, biggest payday possible... It's completely reasonable that a free agent bidding war will result in more sure cash than any alternative. Again if buffalo outbids everyone, I am sure he'd stay.
GunnerBill Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I didn't think they could Beerball? I thought two consecutive years was the limit for tagging a guy?
bobobonators Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Tag Byrd and trade him to Eagles for desean jackson. Reunite him w chip
Beerball Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 The compensatory pick talk is nonsense unless it means they are not going to sign anyone in FA. Last year they didnt get one when Levitre signed for his big contract because we signed Lawson, Branch, etc. I expect we will sign a few more of those caliber guys, and won't get anything more than a 6th or 7th for losing Byrd. Preach on brother! People are hanging their hat on a compensatory pick?
mannc Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Byrd is betting they will let him walk. Why would he not sign for $10M if he knows the tag is only $8.6? Tagging him makes sense rather than just letting him walk. Care to elaborate? What are the reasons? Here are a few: Teams probably have made offers, but Bills have rejected them, for whatever reason. Byrd may have indicated an unwillingness to sign a long-term deal with whichever team(s) offered to trade for him. Byrd's medical history is a concern. Or, most likely, teams don't want to give up a high pick for a player they believe will hit the open market in a week or two. The type of "sign and trade" deal you are talking about is pretty rare these days in the NFL.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Theres only one possible thing i can think of that even begins to be a valid concern in the potential decision to not tag Byrd: the bills feel this guy wants out of here so bad that if we franchise him he'll have a sudden bout of PF again around august and sit on the bench " injured"until november. Of course, the PF will somehow get better in november and Byrd will work his butt off and perform on the field for about 4-6 weeks to showcase to other teams that hes got this PF under control. Other than that, i see no viable reason as to why the bills should not tag Byrd. We have absolutely nothing to lose by tagging Byrd. By not tagging Byrd, everyone else wins and we lose. You don't know what indications there were about Byrd not being as willing to play through "plantar fasciitis" next season if tagged. So yes you could lose him for the season have to pay him and still get nothing for him.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Are there any reports as to how much the BIlls offered?? CBF
Beerball Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I hope the Bills don't sign any new players represented by Mr. Parker. We'll develop them and lose them as soon as their stock rises yeah, that'll show him!
eme123 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 i'm going the other way....the leak helps the bills more. by getting out there they offered 5yrs/ $50mil with $30mil guaranteed in first 3 years......it let's the bills fan base know they made a substantial offer. by byrd rejecting it, fans will turn on Byrd and be satisfied the team did it' best. +1 There is one more negotiating advantage it gives the Bills. Leaking this publicly reinforces to Byrds camp that the Bills are done negotiating. Now Parker/Byrd have to consider this the Bills final offer and ask themselves a question. Is Jairus going to receive 10 mil a year from a contender? If I was Russ Brandon and I wanted to throw a little tie bit out to the media I would go to Joe Buscaglia first.
Beerball Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 You see, that is the point. The tag isn't a bad option for Byrd this time around, you are not sticking it to him by tagging "his ass". Tagging him is good for Byrd and bad for the Bills. That is why the Bills are, at last report, leaning on not tagging him. You certainly have an "interesting" perspective. Totally wrong IMO, but interesting. To you the Bills will be better off with a compensatory pick & you want them to have all the flexability needed at the start of FA so that they can reload. (there goes your valuable compensatory pick) What you haven't addressed one time is how does letting Byrd walk improve the team in 2014. Convince me of that and you'll get a gold star. I know you won't even try & you'll just keep saying the same things over and over hoping that it will somehow make sense to someone other than yourself.
papazoid Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Are there any reports as to how much the BIlls offered?? CBF Without revealing the full value and length of the offer, one person said Byrd would have been paid about $30 million over the contract's first three seasons. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10541752/buffalo-bills-talks-jairus-byrd-reach-standstill
Beerball Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 My guess is that they already shopped him around and it turns out that there wasn't a line for him, hence the report that the Bills "gauged the interest" in trading Byrd. I'm sorry, but as I read I gotta ask is your first name...Russ? Jeffrey? or Jim?
papazoid Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 the NFL team salary cap just took a significant increase. this is the perfect time for Byrd to become a UFA. the Bills should still FRANCHISE TAG Byrd and take their chances trading him. worst case scenario we have Byrd at $8.3 or $8.4 mil for half a season.
Recommended Posts