NoSaint Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) Because it isn't true. He would've re-signed here for the same deal that he signed in New Orleans...I'm unsure as to why you refuse to accept that. If we're keeping track, it was about 8 hours into free agency, and New Orleans was his only visit. Cleveland and head coach Mike Pettine--Byrd's former DC--chose to go with Whitner for about $1M/year less. Denver signed T.J. Ward for the same as Whitner got in Cleveland. It's not like there was a huge lineup of suitors out there waiting for Byrd. To put this in perspective, Byrd got $2M/year more than Kam Chancellor, who's a superior player IMO. This is spot on...the Bills offered what they believed to be a fair deal (I happen to agree with their valuation of Byrd). Byrd had other ideas, so they parted ways. That's business. I don't like it, but I understand it. Not sure they'd have gotten a good offer...plus, he'd need to sign the one-year tag deal before they could trade him. Yep. Really the only thing we disagree on is the tag and trade..... Even a 7th contingent upon an extension would've been more than we are in line for. I don't think we were getting a kings ransom for him but I do think we could've found SOMETHING. Heck, knowing we were going to be aggressive in FA with players that counted in the comp pick calculations they could have transition tagged him and atleast had a chance to match even if they were likely to decline Edited May 21, 2014 by NoSaint
thebandit27 Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Really the only thing we disagree on is the tag and trade..... Even a 7th contingent upon an extension would've been more than we are in line for. I don't think we were getting a kings ransom for him but I do think we could've found SOMETHING. Heck, knowing we were going to be aggressive in FA with players that counted in the comp pick calculations they could have transition tagged him and atleast had a chance to match even if they were likely to decline Good point on the transition tag...I think that would've made sense as well. Regarding the tag/trade, I think the team just didn't want to have the stigma (right or wrong) of trading their franchise player for a late-round pick. Plus I'm not sure Byrd would've signed the tag deal in order to facilitate the trade. I do see your point though, and I'm not sure I disagree.
Dibs Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Really the only thing we disagree on is the tag and trade..... Even a 7th contingent upon an extension would've been more than we are in line for. I don't think we were getting a kings ransom for him but I do think we could've found SOMETHING. Heck, knowing we were going to be aggressive in FA with players that counted in the comp pick calculations they could have transition tagged him and atleast had a chance to match even if they were likely to decline I always figure that there are many aspects that us fans just simply aren't aware of. It's understandable to look at the Byrd situation and wonder why we didn't try for some sort of recompense, but it is not an uncommon situation in the NFL. When we signed Mario we gave no compensation for a premiere talent. Swings and roundabouts.
NoSaint Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 I always figure that there are many aspects that us fans just simply aren't aware of. It's understandable to look at the Byrd situation and wonder why we didn't try for some sort of recompense, but it is not an uncommon situation in the NFL. When we signed Mario we gave no compensation for a premiere talent. Swings and roundabouts. Definitely. I'm not arguing "fire them all" or anything.... Just feels "off" for me still
Dibs Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Definitely. I'm not arguing "fire them all" or anything.... Just feels "off" for me still Oh yes.....I got that. It feels off to me too. That's why I figure there are often factors that we don't know.....thus it occuring regularly in the NFL. It follows with one of my many sayings in life.... "If something doesn't make sense, there is usually something you don't know."
smapdi Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 At the end of the day, if we franchised him again, he would've been pissed. He would've pulled the same injury shenanigans as last season and play just enough to make sure he got credited for the year by the NFL. Marrone is trying to build a winning club here with lots of young talent. You don't want an angry Byrd in the lockerroom, possibly undermining what you are trying to do. Why even waste the reps on him? It's like anything else in life: if you have someone involved who clearly doesn't want to be there, it's only going to slow everyone else down. They clearly liked Williams a lot after last season and extended him for 26 million. He took Byrd's spot last season and did a pretty good job.
HeHateMe Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Why would you want a guy who faked an injury last year because he was butt hurt about not getting a mega deal back in the locker room?
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Why would you want a guy who faked an injury last year because he was butt hurt about not getting a mega deal back in the locker room? I love how the rational response that any of us would have to a restriction of their earning power at work, relative to their peers, gets twisted around. Byrd was obviously worth more than the Bills were offering, because NO paid it. Byrd was within his rights to express his displeasure, just as the team was within its rights to place the tag on him. I think it's just kind of a crappy system all around.
Mark Vader Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Not sure what many of you are going on about. Whaley admitted that their offer wasn't as good as what he got from New Orleans. Would he have signed if the Bills offered that too? Who knows, but in my opinion they should have tried. Say what you want and drink the koolaid if you must, but players like Byrd don't grow on trees. He made game-changing plays and is one of the best at his position. And we aren't speaking of a long snapper here. I get that it's the off season and everyone's glass is half full. But to me, it looks like the same polished turd in the Bills front office. As usual. So you don't think the Bills have done anything to try to improve, during this offseason?
HeHateMe Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 I love how the rational response that any of us would have to a restriction of their earning power at work, relative to their peers, gets twisted around. Byrd was obviously worth more than the Bills were offering, because NO paid it. Byrd was within his rights to express his displeasure, just as the team was within its rights to place the tag on him. I think it's just kind of a crappy system all around. He was paid what $7 Million last year under the tag.. You are saying he was within his rights to fake a foot injury? Is that how you voice displeasure?
bigK14094 Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 IMHO, byrd was skilled but slower than the top safeties in the league. So, I think he is replaceable, actually glad is gone with the BA etc. Slow skilled guys are around....like the FA signed from Vandy.
Mark Vader Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 I guess nobody feels like me that we shoudl have tyagged him, signed him, then traded him for a pick in either this or next years draft??? Maybe Cleveland or NY???? I would have liked that. But we don't know if there would have been any takers. Remember the first day of free agency? Lots of Safeties were being signed, and while Byrd was regarded as the top Safety to get, he was one of the last ones to sign. All the teams that were deemed as needing help at Safety(Browns, Eagles & Rams) all passed on him. A lot of teams were not all that keen on giving Byrd the type of money he was asking for. The Saints were the ones who swooped in and saved the day for Byrd, and nobody had them on the radar. I would have liked to have tagged and traded Byrd, I just wonder if we could have found someone who was willing to trade with us, considering the steep price it would cost.
PromoTheRobot Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) I get that it's the off season and everyone's glass is half full. But to me, it looks like the same polished turd in the Bills front office. As usual. Did you just come out of a coma? Edited May 21, 2014 by PromoTheRobot
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 He was paid what $7 Million last year under the tag.. You are saying he was within his rights to fake a foot injury? Is that how you voice displeasure? No. I also don't think he was faking the injury, though. I do feel like he was taking it easier on himself to preserve his viability as a long-term investment, when he decided that the team was not making a long-term investment in him that he felt was commensurate with his value. Tell me if this would sit right with you: You find out that your co-workers, many of whom you have out-performed, are making more money than you. Your contract is up. You would like to explore your value -- to other employers and perhaps to stay, if you think your current place of work would make a better offer knowing you are thinking of leaving. Your employer says, "Nope - we'll give you really good money for a year, but no commitments after that. And you either come work for us at that salary, or you don't work, period." And they are in control. Look, I know the NFL is not normal work. The compensation is very much outsized compared to the ratio of compensation to work that most of us get out of our day jobs. But he has a limited window of that earning power. I understand why players hate the tag -- that's all I'm saying. For some context, I also wanted the Bills to tag Byrd again, because I didn't want them to give something away for nothing given the safeguards in the CBA.
Rob's House Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 If I may go off on a tangent, I'd like to share my feelings on Byrd. I don't like him. I don't think he wanted to be here, if the money was all the same I think he'd have gone anyway. I understand that he never chose to come to Buffalo, and he owed us nothing, so I have no ill will toward him personally. As a fan however, I'm glad he's gone, I hope he fails, and he can kiss my ass.
Big C Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 All of the Byrd is "slow" talk and what not is semi-valid, but lets not pretend that he wasn't a great player for us. That being said, as has been said many times already, I think we're fine without him. Watching AW last year was a delight. He hits harder than Byrd, he's faster than Byrd and he made so many more "wow" plays too (extending for that interception in the endzone against Baltimore and that swat at the goal line against Jacksonville come to mind). Plus, after hearing his mic'd up feature on bb.com, I love his attitude out there and it seems like he has some leadership qualities I don't think Byrd demonstrated.
John from Riverside Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Regarding tagging him.....didnt you guys see the article about how if Bryd was tagged he was not going to negotiate with the bills at all? In good faith Doug Whaley honored his wishes and didnt tag him......and he promptly left for the Saints HE DID NOT WANT TO BE HERE....... Whaley got played a little bit there.....but DW has been darn good at most of the aspects of the job
thebandit27 Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Regarding tagging him.....didnt you guys see the article about how if Bryd was tagged he was not going to negotiate with the bills at all? In good faith Doug Whaley honored his wishes and didnt tag him......and he promptly left for the Saints HE DID NOT WANT TO BE HERE....... Whaley got played a little bit there.....but DW has been darn good at most of the aspects of the job I still don't know how anyone can say that when all we know is that he was offered a contract here that amounted to less on a per-year basis than what he eventually signed for in New Orleans. Is there any reason, whatsoever, to suspect that he wouldn't have signed the same deal here?
Rob's House Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 I still don't know how anyone can say that when all we know is that he was offered a contract here that amounted to less on a per-year basis than what he eventually signed for in New Orleans. Is there any reason, whatsoever, to suspect that he wouldn't have signed the same deal here? Unless he gave the Bills a chance to match the offer I'd say it's a safe bet. I realize we may never know, but I haven't even heard it rumored that he did.
Doc Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Unless he gave the Bills a chance to match the offer I'd say it's a safe bet. I realize we may never know, but I haven't even heard it rumored that he did. I heard a rumor that he did. But it was still just a rumor.
Recommended Posts