Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Fa kim Best of luck, time to move on. We're betteroff not paying your 30 mill yon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted March 4, 2014 Share 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? Seems like an odd system that makes it impossible for all the teams to keep any All-Pro caliber players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Because they wanted him to play and there was still a chance to sign him long term. Kelly - do you honestly believe that? There is no chance in hell.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 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? I said in another thread that I'm 100% convinced it was the wrong move, but, to play devil's advocate... Byrd and Parker made it clear to the Bills that he would not play nice next season. He would be hurt and wouldn't be able to play until the week necessary to get him his service year. He'd be disruptive in the lockerroom and would publically bad mouth his coaches and the front office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 4, 2014 Share 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 didn't miss Polian. I absolutely respect him and do consider him a member of the national media. What I took away from that was he said there isn't a "stigma" on using the tag and it is a tool to use if you think there a is a good chance to get the player re-signed. In this case, I don't think the Bills feel that chance is there. If it isn't there, 1 year does no good in the long run and you have a very respected veteran in the locker room who isn't all-in for the team. That sends a poor message, they would be paying him almost 9 mill, and they are delaying the development of his replacement. If both sides don't ultimately want the deal done, the tag is not a good tool. The Bills used the tag correctly last year, yet Byrd responded in a way that showed he was not interested in the team long-term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Share 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. The focal point of the defense isn't on an expired contract. You use the franchise tag on a player whose contract is up, that you want to keep control over. Whether you use that control to broker a trade or to maintain exclusivity is your prerogative. I've still heard no one explain why they wouldn't use the non-exclusive tag, where they are afforded the right of first refusal on an offer. If they think their offer is competitive, they can match another team's in this scenario. If they don't, they at least give themselves a chance and they do not forfeit the chance to earn compensatory picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) I would have like Byrd be a Bill for a long time. He's a very good, pro-bowl caliber safety that definitely improved our defense. That being said, let's not pretend we just let Joe Montana in his prime just walk our the door. Safeties are not critical to success in the NFL and not paying him 10m a year or more is fine. If we tagged him again there's no guarantee We can unload Byrd for much and risk paying a guy 9m who doesn't want to play here, doesn't want to get hurt, and could come down with a mysterious case of athletes foot again. The Bills are 25-48 in games Byrd has played. They were 4-7 last year when he came back, and he came back after the difficult part of the schedule. Not saying it's his fault, but his presence clearly wasn't a big factor in success. Edited March 4, 2014 by dubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted March 4, 2014 Share 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? This is why it is hard to win in the NFL.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) 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... They did use it, last year. It is within the CBA but players hate it because it is preventing them from signing a long term deal. The numbers of tagged players has gone down every year since it has been in place. I am not hung up on him being a safety, I consider the FS position very important, I don't think we should have paid Levitre and we couldn't use the tag on both him and Byrd. Edited March 4, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I would have like Byrd be a Bill for a long time. He's a very good, pro-bowl caliber safety that definitely improved our defense. That being said, let's not pretend we just let Joe Montana in his prime just walk our the door. Safeties are not critical to success in the NFL and not paying him 10m a year or more is fine. If we tagged him again there's no guarantee We can unload Byrd for much and risk paying a guy 9m who doesn't want to play here, doesn't want to get hurt, and could come down with a mysterious case of athletes foot again. The Bills are 25-48 in games Byrd has played. They were 2-10 last year when he came back, and he came back after the difficult part of the schedule. Not saying it's his fault, but his presence clearly wasn't a big factor in success. The Niners sucked for most of Alex Smith and Vernon Davis' tenure. Did it not make sense to keep one of them and to turn the other into a trade chip? False correlations here. This is less about the specific player and more about a team that is at a distinct disadvantage NOT using all of the advantages the system affords them. I don't understand how anyone can make it about anything else. Take a 6th rounder for him for all I care. Taking the chance on the comp pick market is rolling the dice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 The Niners sucked for most of Alex Smith and Vernon Davis' tenure. Did it not make sense to keep one of them and to turn the other into a trade chip? False correlations here. This is less about the specific player and more about a team that is at a distinct disadvantage NOT using all of the advantages the system affords them. I don't understand how anyone can make it about anything else. Take a 6th rounder for him for all I care. Taking the chance on the comp pick market is rolling the dice. I'm not claiming there's a correlation, just pointing out his presence didn't really do much either. The armchair GMs know more about what Buffalo would have received than actual GMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) The Niners sucked for most of Alex Smith and Vernon Davis' tenure. Did it not make sense to keep one of them and to turn the other into a trade chip? False correlations here. This is less about the specific player and more about a team that is at a distinct disadvantage NOT using all of the advantages the system affords them. I don't understand how anyone can make it about anything else. Take a 6th rounder for him for all I care. Taking the chance on the comp pick market is rolling the dice. It is definitely about a specific player who doesn't want to be on this team. I don't think they care much about the comp pick. They will likely not get one when they sign FAs. Do you think the Bills should've put a stranglehold on one of most respected vets in locker room? I don't think that is such a great way to show what team is about. Edited March 4, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC in St. Louis Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 The take that he played for 2nd round money for years would be valid if they didn't pay him nearly 7 million last year. He earned that. There are football players all over the league who play out their first contract and get the big money on the second. Look what Mike Trout just did. He is young, but might be the best player in baseball. he signed a 1 year 1 million dollar deal. Tanaka just rolled into 155 mil, and hadn't pitched in MLB till last week in an exhibition game. Money is strange, but the parameters are set for a reason. Byrd is a really good player. But he ain't Polamalu or Ronnie Lott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirdborn Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I'm not claiming there's a correlation, just pointing out his presence didn't really do much either. The armchair GMs know more about what Buffalo would have received than actual GMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) The Niners sucked for most of Alex Smith and Vernon Davis' tenure. Did it not make sense to keep one of them and to turn the other into a trade chip? False correlations here. This is less about the specific player and more about a team that is at a distinct disadvantage NOT using all of the advantages the system affords them. I don't understand how anyone can make it about anything else. Take a 6th rounder for him for all I care. Taking the chance on the comp pick market is rolling the dice. Not to mention, comparing safeties and QBs is like comparing an average 2B and the ace of a pitching staff. Much easier to trade a QB who wasn't franchised and was leading the league in QBR. Edited March 4, 2014 by dubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Kelly - do you honestly believe that? There is no chance in hell.... I wholeheartedly believe that. I think if they gave him the biggest contract in the league for a safety, a contract that some other team is going to offer him, IMO, he would be signed right now. He wanted to be paid for what he was worth. He wasn't a #1 pick. His contract has been peanuts for four straight years. He wants to be paid at the top of the league, which is what the market will dictate IMO. And then they could have released him after 3 years, or kept and overpaid him if they were on the verge of something big years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Not to mention, comparing safeties and QBs is like comparing an average 2B and the ace of a pitching staff. Much easier to trade a QB who wasn't franchised and was leading the league in QBR. Actually, it's much more like comparing a top-5 second baseman and a fringey #2-3 starter. Smith is no ace. But circumstances made him easier to trade. Had he been franchised, he still would have been tradeable but they may not have lined up on value. The big point is that it's easier to trade a QB who isn't franchised. Regardless, my response was to your point that "we've sucked with 'em, we can suck without 'em." (not quoting you, but the gist of it IMO.) I think that's a silly approach. You need more good players, always, in the NFL. It is definitely about a specific player who doesn't want to be on this team. I don't think they care much about the comp pick. They will likely not get one when they sign FAs. Do you think the Bills should've put a stranglehold on one of most respected vets in locker room? I don't think that is such a great way to show what team is about. What is different about this year vs. last? Again, it's their right. It's business. You do this in hopes of negotiating something better for both parties. The upshot of all of this is that Byrd doesn't want to be here and that the Bills are respecting that... which may be admirable in the book of some. To me it signals a compromised commitment to winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I didn't miss Polian. I absolutely respect him and do consider him a member of the national media. What I took away from that was he said there isn't a "stigma" on using the tag and it is a tool to use if you think there a is a good chance to get the player re-signed. In this case, I don't think the Bills feel that chance is there. If it isn't there, 1 year does no good in the long run and you have a very respected veteran in the locker room who isn't all-in for the team. That sends a poor message, they would be paying him almost 9 mill, and they are delaying the development of his replacement. If both sides don't ultimately want the deal done, the tag is not a good tool. The Bills used the tag correctly last year, yet Byrd responded in a way that showed he was not interested in the team long-term. Sorry, IMO that's lots of spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Tell me this: if you're a free agent LB looking at teams, do you pick the team that held onto Jairus Byrd as your last line of defense, or the team that let him walk away for nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts