uncle flap

Right. He substituted "fines" for "forfeiture of salary." While the franchise tag salary is guaranteed, it's only guaranteed for the games he plays. So if he doesn't sign (or "holds out," another misnomer), he loses that game check. Each game he misses is 1/16 of that $6.9 mil he misses out on. In a sense, it's equivalent to a fine, but shouldn't be described as such.

Didn't you hear? Those stats are padded!

No, I wrote it could be the case that top-tier QBs avoid throwing toward top-tier defenders. All else equal, does Tom Brady throw it where Byrd can make a play on it, or where Justin Rogers left his man open? Or put another way: a good QB is more likely to throw to an open receiver. A good defender is likely to have his man covered. So good QBs don't make a habit of throwing at good defenders. Is that some absolute law with no exceptions? Of course not, but I'd venture to say it accounts for some of the trends you've noticed. In one sense, INTs are essentially a fluke. They happen on about 3% of passing plays (or about 1% of all plays). Getting an INT is certainly "good," although some are undoubtedly "lucky." You threw out the 114 INT stat. Well there were 292 other INTs. There are also far more defenders and receivers than there are QBs. I don't know, or care, who is throwing and making those interceptions as a trend, because each interception is unique. Some are caused by bad throws, some of those bad throws are caused by pressure from the pass rushers. Some are tipped balls. Some are incredible plays by defenders. Some are caused by bad route running. The list goes on. Some are a combination of factors. I was just making the point that either a.) you are cherry picking stats to support a predetermined point of view, or b.) you are erroneously using a small sample size of an already rare occurrence to extrapolate some greater meaning. I'll grant that Byrd may have an "padded" INT total by your definition, but I just don't think that it means anything without any context. Until you or someone else wants to take the time to break down each and every interception, and then compare those made by other defenders, I don't see any point in breaking down one player's interceptions in a vacuum. All that said, I wouldn't go so far as to say INTs are completely arbitrary. Having a high INT total, "padded" or otherwise, tells me that a player is opportunistic. And that is a certainly good thing. Even if a ball were to fall into a player's lap, he still has to make the catch. I also don't think it is a coincidence that the players with high INT totals are also considered to be very good players, be those totals "padded" or not.

While I appreciate your somewhat sophisticated breakdown of the stats - they are indeed closer to the "eye ball test," than simply looking at the numbers- I wasn't claiming to have a superior measuring stick. I just think that your measuring stick- or at least the subsequent conclusion- isn't very good. I don't mean any offense, and apologize for the snark upthread. I look for stats that support the ol' "eye ball test." My eyes tell me Byrd is one of, if not the best, free safeties in the game. I also recognize that there are stats that refute my opinion, as well as those that support it. So, take it as a cop-out if you will, but my measuring stick is based on a convergence of stats, experts' opinions, and my own eyes. In this case, my "eyes" are telling me that you went to a lot of trouble to seek out information that supports a pre-conceived narrative. Not only that, but it could certainly be the case that, although they throw their fair share of INTs, top-tier QBs avoid throwing toward top-tier defenders.

Well, you shouldn't want to get into it. I don't want to either, but I'm sure I can find stats that more than refute your "analysis." Is there some DB that thrives on intercepting top-tier QBs? You seem to be saying that Byrd isn't as good as conventional wisdom suggests because his INTs stem from not so good QBs. You say the opportunities are there, yet you made no comparison to any other players. Does Weedle have lots of picks against top tier QBs? That's like saying Mario had 10 sacks but 7 of them were coverage sacks, and then not offering what the typical percentage of all sacks are "coverage sacks." I think you are putting Byrd on trial and your thread title implies your conclusion: Byrd's INT count is padded. I didn't write that, you did.

Wow that was a lot of work to prove... what, exactly? Guess what? Elite QBs don't throw a lot of interceptions in the first place, so of course you'd expect Byrd (and anyone else) to have little to no interceptions thrown by top tier QBs. Also, even saying 3-5 is a better gauge- well that's not too shabby. 5 INTs will consistently get in the top 10 INT leaders. Not top 10 INTs for safeties, but INTs for defenders period. Ya know, like, Byrd should just drop those "meaningless" INTs. I mean the QB was probably just trying to pad Byrd's stats in a game they were likely to lose anyway. Quick- somebody check if Parker represents any of those QBs!

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

Sick burn, bro.

Soooooo... your plan is to teach Parker a lesson by paying Byrd $15 million to do nothing?

Even a blind squirrel is right twice a day.

I get your point, but if they are actually playing well, should he not report that for fear of being labeled a cheerleader? Or must he include a disclaimer? Something like, "Aaron Williams turns in yet another great practice- but surely Byrd would've been even better."

He's not. Those figures haven't been reported by any credible outlet. That "writer" is just speculating.

I realize I'm one of the exceptions, but I have a MLIS and I'm a pretty normal dude. To the above point, I often clash with my peers (and professors while I was in grad school) who live in a theoretical "by the book" fantasy land, whereas I approach things practically and rationally. To the OP, I would think the sage advice is get your Master's, as your career mobility and earning potential increase dramatically at a relatively low cost. Mead raises a good question: Are you prohibited from leaving your company once they bank roll your education? In general, I'd say attend a public university and seek out grants/scholarships to cover the cost- they're out there. Yeah, a degree from certain private universities might look a little better at face value, and open a few more doors, but IMO it is not worth the substantially higher cost.

What's weird is that those are replicas (Game and Limited Grade), and the only Elite (on-field) jerseys on the Bills site are the same. If you go to the Nike website, the page for Bills Elite jerseys has been down for a few weeks. http://store.nike.com/us/en_us/pw/nfl-buffalo-bills-elite-jerseys-clothing/bgdZ8qlZ9phZ9g6Zbhl So while I'd say it looks like they're scrapping the horse collar, it's still inconclusive. Are they just trying to get rid of the old inventory first? Why else can't you buy a 2013 Elite jersey? Maybe there's a "surprise" official unveiling leading up to camp. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only "new" jersey is Stevie's. Even Robert Woods's jersey has the toilet seat.

2008

Right, I mentioned that in the first post that there were a number of teams interested. But we don't know how interested they were (financially and/or "selling" his prospects at making the team) or the source of said info. I recall the reports too, but as we all know, agents love feeding info to "insiders" and those insiders are quick to make it a part of the news cycle. It only takes one of them to make a report and then it is immediately taken as gospel. There's no harm in reporting that X amount of teams were interested after the fact, since it doesn't matter if it's actually true. And since it was so inconsequential, it's not as if execs are going to deny that they were interested. Yeah, the agent is the source: http://blogs.buffalonews.com/press-coverage/2013/04/darick-rogers-tell-bills-fans-they-got-the-steal-of-the-draft.html

My man! Great minds think alike!

Yeah, minus the grammar mistakes. It could also just be a product of groupthink. Maybe teams A, B, and C were prepared to draft him in a later round, but when he was actually still there, they might've thought, "Hey, maybe there's something we don't know about this guy." Or, as unlikely as it might be, they might not have had him on their board at all since they figured pre-draft, "We'd take him in the 5th, but he'll certainly be gone by then so let's focus elsewhere," and basically "forgot" he was still out there in the later rounds. Far-fetched for sure, but I'd love for the Bills to have caught a break for once. Still, evidently not one out of thirty two teams felt he was worth the risk. Makes ya think.

I'm hoping the same re: Rogers, but it did cross my mind that perhaps the "drug tests" might have been substandard, since they were administered at a second-rate school. Not a dis to TT, but they literally aren't in the same league as Tennessee. Might they be a little lax when it comes to keeping an eye on perhaps their best football player ever? Leading up to the draft, there were plenty of reports that Rogers had turned it around, and I even thought the Bills should target him in the third round- but not a single team took a flyer on him in the 6th or 7th round. This is a guy whom by all accounts has ELITE talent, yet NO ONE drafted him. Meanwhile the Aaron Hernandezes and the Tyrann Mathieus of the world see their stock drop, but are still drafted relatively high. It's certainly true that scouts and executives are privy to info to which we are not. The question is: What was so alarming to cause Rogers to drop beyond the seventh round? Yes it was reported 15 or 16 teams were bidding for his services, but it seems fishy to me that would be true considering 5 WRs were picked in the seventh round. The Packers even took two! Most seventh rounders don't even make their respective teams, but you're going to bypass Da'Rick Rogers for essentially camp fodder? I'm definitely rooting for Rogers to succeed, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if we find out there's more to the story of his slide.

Hey, I was just being diplomatic.

FWIW, this past year he was selected to the All-Pro team which many would argue is a higher achievement. And Byrd was selected to the Pro Bowl and the All-Pro team following his rookie year. He just didn't play in the Pro Bowl because he chose to undergo shoulder surgery instead. I don't know how you can be so sure. What if the [insert team likely to go to the Super Bowl] were to sign him for less money? Do the Bills become a better option simply because they are willing to shell out a little more money? Obviously, it's cliche but Byrd essentially said, "it's about the money, but it's not all about the money." I think he'd take a discount to be on a surefire contender. Of course the Bills retain his rights, so it's not a cut and dry situation.

I think I did a good job "reading between the lines" as to how each side is posturing. If you aren't seeing it, you might be a little naive. JMO. The fact that the link is from a paid Bills shill is exactly the point. The Bills themselves are highlighting (relevant or not) that Byrd said things that can be construed as him not wanting to be a Bill, or that the Bills would have to overpay for his services. He said them in December, but Chris Brown is reminding us NOW in retaliation to Parker's camp "leaking" that talks are at a standstill or nonexistent. Like I said in the earlier posts, that signals to me that Parker is attempting to stir up the fan base and get the "just pay the man" mafia to pressure the FO. Ultimately it boils down to what's best for the team, but part of that is PR and perception. Bills want to appear committed to winning, but don't want to be seen as pushovers when it comes to handing out big contracts. What kind of message does it send that they spend on Mario but not on Byrd? It's subject to interpretation, of course, but as someone mentioned before, this is essentially a new regime and they need to build their reputation. Yes Overdorf is still here, but Brandon is now his boss. I don't hate Parker at all. I also wasn't making any type of value judgment on these tactics, just pointing out the subtleties that may seem lost on some. I also don't see either side as "the bad guy." I'm not and you're not privy to the status of the negotiations and the demands and offers out there. So how could one say with any conviction which side needs to budge?

Couldn't find the info on that, but season ticket holders got a thing in the mail to call if they wanted tickets.

Looks like Chris Brown reads the wall! I post the following this morning; and he posts this: http://blogs.buffalo...e-a-free-agent/ a few hours later. Or maaaaaybe I just have a nose for news, or maaaaybe I've got a serious gauge on the pulse of the fanbase, or maaaaaaaaaaybe I'm the frightened lemur. Mwuahahahaha! In any case, I think it can be construed as damage control. The article/interview highlights the idea of Byrd simply not wanting to be here, and that it's not the FO's fault if they can't get Parker to negotiate. Or put another way: Parker "leaks" that the Bills aren't willing to negotiate, to make the fans think "Ralph/Russ/Overdorf is cheap." Meanwhile the Bills "leak" that Byrd doesn't even want to be here, so why should they pay him a buttload of $. Each side is trying to paint the other as the bad guy.

Thought this might be worth revisiting, via Chris Brown: Full interview here: http://www.buffalobi...7f-a9925003891c I'm beginning to think Byrd probably wants to be on a legitimate contender, or at least is posturing as such in an effort to make the Bills overpay. I don't think simply making him the highest paid safety is overpaying in and of itself; the question is: By how much does he want to be the highest paid safety? The "source" that says no talks are to be expected is obviously from Parker's camp, or Parker himself. This was reported by Tim Graham, who wrote a ballwashing piece on Parker in the Sunday paper a few weeks ago. This says to me that Parker is the one unwilling to negotiate. Especially when the Bills have time and time again kept a tight lid on their contract negotiations. Do I take everything that comes out of the FO at face value? Of course not, but Bills don't have anything to gain by leaking or acknowledging that negotiations are at a standstill. I'm not criticizing Parker for his tactics, but for the "just pay the man" crowd, it's worth noting that an agent "publicly" refusing to negotiate is an obvious ploy to smear the FO and generate fan hostility. The optimist in me sees an eleventh hour deal being struck in a front loaded contract with a lot of guaranteed money. A win-win, in my book. Both Overdorf and Parker, two hardballers, can save face by creating the appearance that a last minute deal means the other side caved. The pessimist in me sees Byrd simply not wanting to stay with the Bills for any amount of money, and the real negotiations are getting the Bills adequately compensated for Byrd's departure.