3rdand12 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Nice take. Not enough high road around these parts. GO BILLS!!! I mentioned this way back. The good business (money over results ) that they got from J B. I would like to mention he also got paid a good number of millions last year under the tag . I think he was rewarded fairly for being underpaid under rookie contract to some degree. He wants to leave . Break even i think
bbb Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 what kind of x:s and O's do you want to know? In our history FS has been important. In our D the last 5 years it has diminished. Going forward I project three positions to reach peak value over the next 2-4 years. I can give you x's and o's if you'd like but what kind do you want? Or all? The three positions: RB, FS and Punter I just want to know enough so that I can tell if free safety is the most important position in football or just below long snapper?
bobobonators Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Lets be realistic here for a second. The bills had to do the PR thing here and show that they wanted the guy here but the team had a value on the guy and werent willing to go beyond that. It wasnt an accident that they drafted 2 safeties last year. They were planning for his exit. They now have the money to build the team in areas of weakness. The oline can be addressed, ILB can be addressed, dareus and aaron williams can be resigned and they can continue to build through the draft. I wanted Byrd to stay and he might but if he does it will on the Bills terms. They have spent a LOT of money on the coaching staff, they are building the team the way they want to. Byrd may not want to be a part of that, he will probably be paid more elsewhere and I dont blame him for that but how I will smile if we go to the play offs and imagine him watching on TV. Ever optimistic maybe but I do think we are building something here. When does it end, exactly? How can you build anything when the majority (not always) of the time you don't keep the talent you have. Clements wasn't worth top dollar - gone; Whitner wasn't worth top dollar - gone; Peters wasn't worth top dollar - gone; Levitre wasn't worth top dollar - gone; Poz wasn't worth top dollar - gone; Byrd wasn't worth top dollar - gone. Those players have gone on to play in 13 playoffs games and 6 pro bowls. Obviously other teams have managed to pay those players good $ and still win. We're still chasing our collective tails. Dareus will demand top 5 DT money; cordy glenn also at LT - somehow those two probably won't be worth it either. And at the end of the day, it's not even about paying Byrd top dollar - it's about not letting him go for NOTHING. And as for spending "a lot" of money on the coaching staff? You mean the entire Syracuse coaching staff? All we need is for the Dean of Students to sign as our GM to complete the transition from AFC East into the ACC. Edited March 4, 2014 by bobobonators
3rdand12 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Of course, it's a business and the Ravens were cap strapped. But if you want your players to actively try to make it work with your team then you need to show you want to win. Otherwise, if they are any good, they will have equally lucrative financial options in free agency to go along with better on-field prospects. It's no mistake that the players they have lost include All Pros and players who have starred elsewhere.......while the guys they have retained are considerably lesser. It's funny that Whaley mentioned McKelvin when comparing to Byrd. McKelvin was a reserve for almost his entire career in Buffalo......he wasn't going to hit the market and command big dollars. In fact, in last years market he would have made less. $5M turned out to be pretty generous considering the proven commodities on that market. And Fred Jackson? He was a 30 year old running back when they did that extension.......and it was a cheapo. Well, it's on Whaley now. He better nail the rest of this offseason. Of course, it's a business and the Ravens were cap strapped. But if you want your players to actively try to make it work with your team then you need to show you want to win. Otherwise, if they are any good, they will have equally lucrative financial options in free agency to go along with better on-field prospects. It's no mistake that the players they have lost include All Pros and players who have starred elsewhere.......while the guys they have retained are considerably lesser. It's funny that Whaley mentioned McKelvin when comparing to Byrd. McKelvin was a reserve for almost his entire career in Buffalo......he wasn't going to hit the market and command big dollars. In fact, in last years market he would have made less. $5M turned out to be pretty generous considering the proven commodities on that market. And Fred Jackson? He was a 30 year old running back when they did that extension.......and it was a cheapo. Well, it's on Whaley now. He better nail the rest of this offseason. I saw a better effort to retain players from a financial perspect last year. I had some questions about paying McKelvin . But he played up to it. Fred sentimental contract. He played over it. Woods broke even . Stevie lost ground. win some lose some but not for lack of effort , BOB.
Beerball Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Forgive me if this was said already but I am not up to reading 76 pages of posts,,,,,it takes 2 sides to make a contract work.......if the player does not want to be here then there is nothing the team can do no matter how much is offered....his rejection of the contract basically told the Bills he is no longer interested in being part of the team so they let him go. Would any supervisor want to keep a disgruntled employee around? This isn't a normal situation, you agree? Did Byrd want to be here last season? How did he play? And, it doesn't take 2 sides when one has the option of "forcing" a player to stay.
BADOLBILZ Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I saw a better effort to retain players from a financial perspect last year. I had some questions about paying McKelvin . But he played up to it. Fred sentimental contract. He played over it. Woods broke even . Stevie lost ground. win some lose some but not for lack of effort , BOB. It's a lot easier to get the lesser deals done. And yes, all of those guys were lesser.
Beerball Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 The Bills can be a winning team. They will be a winning team. Byrd could be part of that. But he is turning his back on his team. Woe is us. Too bad the Bills let this happen.
3rdand12 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 It's a lot easier to get the lesser deals done. And yes, all of those guys were lesser. your'e pushing it . It's a team game. And it wasnt like we were resigning Colin Brown. These are players of importance. Get a grip Man.
Ozymandius Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 “One, we didn’t think it was the best option for the team for us to get better and that takes another team to do it with,” said Whaley. “We felt for the best long term future of the Buffalo Bills was just not to tag him.” Bleh. That's a ridiculously weak answer by Whaley for not using the tag. More Whaley: “I know fans are going to say why didn’t we get something for him,” he said. “This system is not set up where you can sign everybody. We’ve done a great job of signing guys that we’ve had. Leodis McKelvin and Eric Wood last year. Fred Jackson, Kraig Urbik. So we do put an emphasis on signing and keeping our players and it’s just with the salary cap system and the way the NFL is you can’t keep everybody. How is the non-bold part at all an adequate answer for the bold part? The question wasn't why can't we keep everybody...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Bleh. That's a ridiculously weak answer by Whaley for not using the tag. It is. Even a guaranteed fourth or fifth round pick would be better than rolling the dice on the comp pick situation. How is the non-bold part at all an adequate answer for the bold part? The question wasn't why can't we keep everybody... It isn't. I am not sure how involved Whaley is in this decision, but if he is, this is his first big misstep in my opinion. Why not sign him to a non-exclusive franchise tag and give themselves the option of matching any offer? This is ludicrous.
YoloinOhio Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Well, there you have it folks. It's hard to trade in the NFL. I also like how he used the existence if the salary cap to explain why they haven't been able to get a deal done. Is Doug aware how much below the cap we are? I know this is meant to be a joke... but yes, it is very hard to trade a tagged player. Yes, he is aware of how much they have to spend, and how much of that they are willing to spend on one player. Condescending much?
offyourocker Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Honestly I think this could turn out to be a good thing for the Bills. They played defense just about as well without him last year the first 5 or 6 games. He does not want to be here so no point in throwing a ton a money to a guy who's heart is not in it. The last thing you want is for him to be for the money only. I think this opens the door for the Bills to do more in free agency. Go get us a a tackle, gaurd and a decent receiver.
boyst Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I just want to know enough so that I can tell if free safety is the most important position in football or just below long snapper? That is simple. My 7th grade coach put it wonderfully. Whoever touches the ball is the most important player on the field. My HS defensive coach put it better. On the other side you have one guy with the ball. Only one guy at a time. Your job is to be between him and the endzone. The first guy to the ball is the most important defender on the field and must stop him from advancing the ball. In short, to answer your question - it is the position which is often nearest the ball whom can keep it out of the end zone. Depending on your scheme, planning, player skill, etc it could vary.
YoloinOhio Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Bleh. That's a ridiculously weak answer by Whaley for not using the tag. More Whaley: How is the non-bold part at all an adequate answer for the bold part? The question wasn't why can't we keep everybody... I don't think the tag is a good option in this case either. I haven't heard anyone in the national media say it is. Interestingly, the only people I have seen who think it would be a good option are some people on this board and maybe a couple members of the Buffalo media but I don't know if that is really how they feel or if they just feel it necessary to act that way. I really like Byrd, but a long-term deal is the only good option here for the Bills. You can't have a disgruntled vet with influence in a locker room he wants no part of, on a team he isn't all-in with when your roster is filled with rookies and 2nd-yr players. If they could get something for him, they would have. Tagging only makes sense on a very myopic level, the way I see it. Edited March 4, 2014 by YoloinOhio
3rdand12 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Honestly I think this could turn out to be a good thing for the Bills. They played defense just about as well without him last year the first 5 or 6 games. He does not want to be here so no point in throwing a ton a money to a guy who's heart is not in it. The last thing you want is for him to be for the money only. I think this opens the door for the Bills to do more in free agency. Go get us a a tackle, gaurd and a decent receiver. Hells bells Leonhard got 4 INTS.THAT's what a pass rush does my friend! Edited March 4, 2014 by 3rdand12
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I don't think the tag is a good option in this case either. I haven't heard anyone in the national media say it is. Interestingly, the only people I have seen who think it would be a good option are some people on this board and maybe a couple members of the Buffalo media but I don't know if that is really how they feel or if they just feel it necessary to act that way. Why isn't it? It's within the rules. I agree it is not the best option, but until it's eliminated from the CBA, it should be an option. If you don't use it, you are not protecting your assets. I think too many people are hung up on the idea that it's a safety paired with the notion that safeties aren't worth that much. I think many of those same people wish we still had Levitre. Swap Levitre for Byrd in this conversation. What if? Maybe it's simply that the Bills picked the wrong player to play hardball with...
Beerball Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I don't think the tag is a good option in this case either. I haven't heard anyone in the national media say it is. Interestingly, the only people I have seen who think it would be a good option are some people on this board and maybe a couple members of the Buffalo media but I don't know if that is really how they feel or if they just feel it necessary to act that way. Apparently you missed Polian last week when he said that you absolutely use the tag. It's a tool available to a team and you use every tool available to build your team. Now, I'm not sure whether you consider Polian a member of the national media, but, I'll take his word over anyone out there.
boyst Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Apparently you missed Polian last week when he said that you absolutely use the tag. It's a tool available to a team and you use every tool available to build your team. Now, I'm not sure whether you consider Polian a member of the national media, but, I'll take his word over anyone out there. I like your take on many things. So, can you play devils advocate with your logic and reasoning on why it was the right choice to not tag him? Is there no upside?
thebandit27 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Ok...I've done some digesting of the situation, and here's where I'm at: - I still would've preferred if Byrd were tagged again and played one more year here - I don't buy the "how dare they didn't get something for him" stance at all. They obviously tried to shop him for something of value; they clearly didn't get a good offer - I'm not crying over this; the team was no better record-wise with him than they were without him - I still believe that the team can be better than they were last year by a significant margin if they add key pieces like a run stuffing LB, a LG, a RT, and some offensive weapons - I wish Jairus the best...except for when he faces our Bills Lastly: I don't blame either side; they both did as they felt was best Edited March 4, 2014 by thebandit27
Prickly Pete Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 This isn't Bruce Smith, Thurman Thomas, or Jim Kelly. Honestly, the team just has to find other ways to make up for his loss. It's not like they are letting the focal point of the defense walk out the door. I will be very irritated if they use the 1st pick on a Safety (they won't), but it just becomes a position that isn't as strong as last year. Not a big deal.
Recommended Posts