Boatdrinks Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Well, most of that is ancient history with different GMs etc. No team will give up any substantial pick for an RB not named Peterson. Those guys don't even get drafted in the first round anymore. I can't remember a pending FA that seemed to want to be here less than Byrd. It takes two to get a deal done. Not overpaying a G and FS seem like good moves 2 me. Heck, SF lost Goldson last year. No team can keep them all. Keeping Byrd would have all but guaranteed losing a Dareus in the future. Good riddance, the guy just wanted to leave. This Tyrd has flown....
BADOLBILZ Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 a.) wtf are you talking about? b.) how you doing finding that link proving the last thing you made up about me? A) Self explanatory. B)Look it up yourself......just tell your boss you were doing something work related.
Bill from NYC Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) Byrd is gone but does this mean the Bills will look to trade down in the draft and possibly draft a saftey in the first round? I have been wrong my share of times on this board. When the pair of losers that were Levy/Jauron drafted Whitner and dedicated the 2006 draft to defensive backs, I said that the franchise would take many years to recover. Well, that one I nailed. Here's another prediction: If the Bills opt to draft a first round safety, the franchise will never recover. They will lose for a few more years and leave town. Edited March 3, 2014 by Bill from NYC
billsfan1959 Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 This Byrd thing got me wondering about all the failjobs the Bills have had over the years at keeping talent. To summarize (feel free to add others ive missed) Guys we decided to pay: Fitzpatrick, Kyle Williams, Chris Kelsay, Lee Evans, Fred Jackson, Stevie Johnson, Eric Wood, Leodis McKelvin Guys we decided not to pay: Pat Williams, Nate Clements, Antoine Winfield, London Fletcher, Jabari Greer, Paul Pozluszny, Donte Whitner, Andy Levitre, Jairus Byrd Guys we traded for peanuts: Willis Mcgahee, Marshawn Lynch The wheels keep spinning and we dont go anywhere. Why? because we sign talent to either exhorborant contract extension (fitz, kelsay) out of line with their performance or we nab them early before they could get more money (K williams)...when it comes to paying our premium talent, its always made out to be that the player is asking for too much or hates buffalo. This is why we buff a blow. This really is a pretty simplistic, superficial, and skewed take on the players you listed that the Bills did not keep. Maybe you can go through them individually and tell us, respectively, how and why the Bills screwed up on each one - like not offering Nate Clements more than the 80 million dollar contract (with 22 million dollars guaranteed) he got from the 49ers...
The Big Cat Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 A) Self explanatory. B)Look it up yourself......just tell your boss you were doing something work related. (a) don't have a boss (b) i don't ridicule people for things i make up about them then not have the decency to cite myself. burden's on you, smarty pants.
3rdand12 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (a) don't have a boss (b) i don't ridicule people for things i make up about them then not have the decency to cite myself. burden's on you, smarty pants. I am just beginning to " get " his humor . That was kinda funny and i know neither of you : ) . I think The Bills have made a serious attempt to right the ship with Whaley . I dont know what to make of them yet , it's so early in the game. Can they recover from the failure they have been ? hell if i know . But its a different synergy right now. This Byrd thing has been and is a huge thorn. I am glad to just move on actually . Maybe the Bills have another very good draft and get some darned good value from trades . Again . Who knows. its' certainly possible ?
....lybob Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 any particular player move is weather 14 years without a playoff appearance is climate
Bill from NYC Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Maybe the Bills have another very good draft and get some darned good value from trades . Again . Who knows. its' certainly possible ? Perhaps. But the Bills history is to draft players early that they place little value on. Then, they let them walk and replace them with more prime resources. Remember, the team that drafted AFTER the Bills took Byrd made a trade and picked up a first round pick in the following season. I am guessing the Bills could have had this deal. And if you recall, the Bills traded UP to get back into round 2 and draft Levitre. Both of these guys played well and are gone. The ugly scenario of the Bills drafting Clinton-Dix now exists and if they do this, they are flushing the franchise straight down the toilet. And I am a lifelong Crimson Tide Fan.
DC Grid Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 On the plus side at least the Bills didn't let Byrd walk for nothing. Oh, oops.
Heitz Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I swear, some of you people are just bad business. Making players like Byrd stay when they've made it obvious and clear that they don't want to be here is just really bad business, no matter how you slice it. We drafted Byrd, he played out his contract, we made him more than one offer and he didn't take them. Why treat him like a red headed step child? Why make someone stay against their will or trade them to a team they don't want to play for? Why would you want someone on the Bills that is here against their will? As much as I hate to see Byrd go, and I really hate seeing him go, Whaley is acting like a professional here and not some bush league whiny baby who is butt hurt that a player didn't want to be here. It sucks that Byrd doesn't want to play here but he did his time and did it well. Well said - I'm in the same camp. The fact we couldn't sign Byrd sucks, but it happens. IMO, even if we made Byrd the highest paid S, he'd still want to test FA because of his Dad urging him to do so.
3rdand12 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Perhaps. But the Bills history is to draft players early that they place little value on. Then, they let them walk and replace them with more prime resources. Remember, the team that drafted AFTER the Bills took Byrd made a trade and picked up a first round pick in the following season. I am guessing the Bills could have had this deal. And if you recall, the Bills traded UP to get back into round 2 and draft Levitre. Both of these guys played well and are gone. The ugly scenario of the Bills drafting Clinton-Dix now exists and if they do this, they are flushing the franchise straight down the toilet. And I am a lifelong Crimson Tide Fan. Bill , i know how the regime has worked . I just thinks Whaley is playing a different game than we are adjusted to as fans.i dont have a leg to stand on in defense yet , so i wont prop up some small details. But the Bills have had yet another major overhaul last spring or so. This one is just barely taking shape. I certainly can tell it does Not have the Buddy Nix feel. God bless him. Edited March 4, 2014 by 3rdand12
PromoTheRobot Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 This Byrd thing got me wondering about all the failjobs the Bills have had over the years at keeping talent. To summarize (feel free to add others ive missed) Guys we decided to pay: Fitzpatrick, Kyle Williams, Chris Kelsay, Lee Evans, Fred Jackson, Stevie Johnson, Eric Wood, Leodis McKelvin Guys we decided not to pay: Pat Williams, Nate Clements, Antoine Winfield, London Fletcher, Jabari Greer, Paul Pozluszny, Donte Whitner, Andy Levitre, Jairus Byrd Guys we traded for peanuts: Willis Mcgahee, Marshawn Lynch The wheels keep spinning and we dont go anywhere. Why? because we sign talent to either exhorborant contract extension (fitz, kelsay) out of line with their performance or we nab them early before they could get more money (K williams)...when it comes to paying our premium talent, its always made out to be that the player is asking for too much or hates buffalo. This is why we buff a blow. There has never been a Bills free agent that we as a fan base felt didn't deserve to be paid whatever they wanted. The only difference is the ones we sign suddenly suck and the ones we let leave are destined for the hall of fame...or at least that is the reaction.
BADOLBILZ Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) This really is a pretty simplistic, superficial, and skewed take on the players you listed that the Bills did not keep. Maybe you can go through them individually and tell us, respectively, how and why the Bills screwed up on each one - like not offering Nate Clements more than the 80 million dollar contract (with 22 million dollars guaranteed) he got from the 49ers... Clements was in the same position as Byrd......subject to the franchise tag. Regardless of whether you think it was stupid to let him walk for nothing or not........the most important aspect of that deal is that the Bills pass defense dropped 20 spots the year after he left. To combat the problem, the Bills used their hard earned....via losing....high first round pick the following offseason on Leodis McKelvin, who went on to be a lousy reserve cornerback for 5 years before finally nailing down a starting job last year. Edited March 4, 2014 by BADOLBEELZ
billsfan1959 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Clements was in the same position as Byrd......subject to the franchise tag. Regardless of whether you think it was stupid to let him walk for nothing or not........the most important aspect of that deal is that the Bills pass defense dropped 20 spots the year after he left. To combat the problem, the Bills used their hard earned....via losing....high first round pick the following offseason on Leodis McKelvin, who went on to be a lousy reserve cornerback for 5 years before finally nailing down a starting job last year. Actually, I do not believe you are right. If I remember correctly, part of Clements' signing under the franchise tag in 2006 was that the Bills could not franchise him in 2007 (I believe it was actually written into the contract). So, unless I am mistaken, the Bills would have had to at least match the offer the 49ers put forth and, as good as Clements was - he wasn't worth that type of a contract. That was the whole point of my post. Edited March 4, 2014 by billsfan1959
Reed83HOF Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Here's another prediction: If the Bills opt to draft a first round safety, the franchise will never recover. They will lose for a few more years and leave town. Honestly your last point I am afraid will happen regardless of who or what position we draft in round1. IN all honestly we have gone 2 decades with crappy draft after crappy draft . We overpay for garbage in FA and squabble over a few million for our own who are at least semi-proven. We only spend close to the cap in dead money, for cruddy FAs or our marginal players. I can't recall if it was this thread or another someone stated well "SF lost Goldon; you can't keep them all"...I would beg to differ - there are vast differences between the Bills and 49ers orgs... At one point; I tried to drink the kool-aid; but remove your emotion and stand back and look at what this franchise is. As Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Edited March 4, 2014 by Reed83HOF
BADOLBILZ Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Actually, I do not believe you are right. If I remember correctly, part of Clements' signing under the franchise tag in 2006 was that the Bills could not franchise him in 2007 (I believe it was actually written into the contract). So, unless I am mistaken, the Bills would have had to at least match the offer the 49ers put forth. You are mistaken. Marv said it was not written into any contract.......just a handshake agreement. A very dumb handshake agreement. That was the beginning of the push-over Bills. He then proceeded to trade McGahee so that Willis could get his dream contract and Spikes so he could play for a contender. Marv was all-kinds of accomodating. London Fletcher wanted to stay but Marv was too busy making dreams come true to get that deal done.
tombstone56 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Do you mean the "tackle the guy YES but 8 yards down the field Fletcher" that played for the Washington Redskins? Look at their W/L record. He had the same issue at Buffalo. A lot of tackles but only after big gains. exactly right! london im falling down fletcher .owner of the most cleat marks in the face award., co -owner of most personal foul calls, and general all around con at mlb.!
billsfan1959 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 You are mistaken. Marv said it was not written into any contract.......just a handshake agreement. A very dumb handshake agreement. That was the beginning of the push-over Bills. He then proceeded to trade McGahee so that Willis could get his dream contract and Spikes so he could play for a contender. Marv was all-kinds of accomodating. London Fletcher wanted to stay but Marv was too busy making dreams come true to get that deal done. No, I don't believe I am. I think if you research it and you will find that Clement's agent was the first to actually have a promise not to franchise again written into the contract. However, even if we accept your contention that it was "just a handshake agreement," it was still an agreement. You can assert they could still have "technically" franchised him; however, under any definition of integrity you care to adopt - it would have been wrong. So, in the end (if your contention is correct), you can argue that it was a foolish position to place themselves in - but, my point still remains that to keep Clements they would have had to at least match the 49ers offer. Which, again, is the whole point of my post.
BADOLBILZ Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) No, I don't believe I am. I think if you research it and you will find that Clement's agent was the first to actually have a promise not to franchise again written into the contract. However, even if we accept your contention that it was "just a handshake agreement," it was still an agreement. You can assert they could still have "technically" franchised him; however, under any definition of integrity you care to adopt - it would have been wrong. So, in the end (if your contention is correct), you can argue that it was a foolish position to place themselves in - but, my point still remains that to keep Clements they would have had to at least match the 49ers offer. Which, again, is the whole point of my post. You've been a Bills fan for a long time? You remember the handshake agreement Ralph made in 1995 to extend Jim Kelly's contract after the 1996 season? Well, circumstances change. That's why contracts are signed. And no, there was no contractual agreement between the Bills and Clements not to franchise him. I get a laugh out of "it would have been wrong" though. The NFL isn't about doing right or wrong with regard to players.....they are temporary assets.....it's about doing what is permitted. In return, players like Clements and Byrd get a chance to make millions if they perform. Edited March 4, 2014 by BADOLBEELZ
Rico Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 You are mistaken. Marv said it was not written into any contract.......just a handshake agreement. A very dumb handshake agreement. That was the beginning of the push-over Bills. He then proceeded to trade McGahee so that Willis could get his dream contract and Spikes so he could play for a contender. Marv was all-kinds of accomodating. London Fletcher wanted to stay but Marv was too busy making dreams come true to get that deal done. Friggin' Marv.
Recommended Posts