RuntheDamnBall

I'd like to, too, but is that realistic? I suppose it could be if you guarantee more of it - Something like a $6MM bonus, 4 year deal with a roster bonus in there in year 2 - basically insurance against loafing in year 1, and guarantee the first year. Team option for year 5 at a nice raise? Overdorf, move over, I'm taking your f---ing job.

Jonathan Meeks? You're right, I'd be worried he might sneak up on somebody in his invisibility cloak.

I'm all for it, but do we want to pay him Levitre money? Is that suddenly acceptable salary for a guard, a year later, now that we've seen the perils of setting up an affordable turnstile at that position? It would be interesting to see the discussion around here concerning that. So many posters here asserted that you simply don't give that kind of money to an OG. Schwartz has a LOT of size over Andy, and is a different kind of blocker at the position, so maybe the Bills will feel that, yes, this is the kind of guy we want to pay elite guard money to. We'll see. Not disagreeing, but the iron is hot as regards free agents, and it's less of a gamble. Money is money and if the guy is a failure, he'll be cut before he sees all of it. But this is a guy with experience in the league, coming highly rated from a winner. It's not a simple "he comes from the Steelers, he must be good" a la Legursky. Also, you're competing with all 31 other teams for draft picks and hoping that your choice doesn't go before your slot, or maneuvering to increase certainty. Then the kid has to learn and develop. I don't hate the strategy and I'd draft one reguardless (see what I just did there). Also, what if you miss in the draft - either by losing out on the guy you wanted, or reaching? Then we're back to the bargain bin...

I've been thinking... good safeties are going to go up in price with the Seahawks having developed an effective blueprint for how to use them. Whaley should think long and hard about the value that he places on the position and the likelihood that a replacement will be a plug-and-play scenario. Now, if, like the Sabres, these guys think they aren't quite in the window yet - perhaps because of QB uncertainties - that's logical. But I personally don't think that shedding a player like Byrd will inch them any closer.

Nailed it.

I don't side with the player explicitly. I side with the player's right to establish his market value and I think it's folly to call anyone greedy when everybody in the mix can be characterized as such.

Difference between tax breaks and taxpayer-funded stadium projects. Vast difference, monetarily, and on principle. The first is to say, this entity brings in enough revenue to the community to make up the difference. The latter makes the taxpayer an investor with limited-to-zero return.

Difference between Jerry Jones and Ralph - or most owners for that matter - is that Ralph's team is in fact taking taxpayer money for the improvements to the stadium, and plenty of teams hold their communities hostage in this way. I can't champion the great entrepreneur when he's just using the powers of wealth, influence and leverage to extort money from taxpayers. If more of that money goes to players instead of to people who are beyond wealthy, I have zero problem with it, and I can't call the player greedy if greed is the foundation for some of these owners. The question here is not about greed. It's about what Byrd's market rate is. That will be established this spring. At the same time I recognize the value of a good attitude and my favorite players are the ones who let the business side of it take care of itself. FWIW.

Since you don't really know Byrd or how he spends his money, is this very fair? Maybe Byrd is big into philanthropy and wants to start a foundation in addition to securing his family's future in a short career. You're siding with the owners -- who make the real money and, by the way, do so while reaping tons of benefits on the backs of taxpayers -- instead of the players whom the game depends on. I do agree that it's folly for the Bills to not use the tag. But it's pretty clear that the rules the league has set up can end up singling out individual players and restricting their earnings. Meanwhile lesser players at your position on teams with more talent can secure long-term deals.

They still have a hell of a lot of cap room. I know it's not in the standard playbook to spend that money on safeties but they are young and cheap elsewhere. I'd rather cross the bridge of letting older, more expensive, more injury prone players go after some success. There is plenty of room right now. If this is about keeping Spiller or Byrd down the road, it's no contest as to which player is more easily replaced.

Oh lord, we're citing Wiki pages? http://www.theonion.com/articles/wikipedia-celebrates-750-years-of-american-indepen,2007/

Allow me. I majored in codecracking at Eastern State University. Clearly, if you isolate the 13th letter and then, approximately, every 45th letter, you get S-K-E-L-T-O-N. Our primary target is Skelton, men. This is your mission, should you choose to accept it.

It's a specious conclusion for me that the bills have been unable to adapt to the UFA era. They did just fine landing players like Paup and Spielman back in the day, and those mid level stars came here in part because the team was anchored by bona fide stars like Bruce, JK and Thurman. When you are missing critical pieces, FAs tend to steer clear. This is not to say you can't land a Mario Williams if the timing and the money is right. It's to say that the sell is easier for a front office if you have more players like Mario Williams at the core positions.

Chicken / egg scenario my friend. How long have we been saying this? And I am not saying that Byrd = Earl Thomas, but somebody will probably drop that kind of coin on Thomas. It has to do with what the market will bear when a player hits FA. Also, there was plenty of cap space last year, plus there would be more this season but for the Fitz dead cap hit being spread over two seasons. I am not holding my breath that the Bills will fully utilize it so much as creatively account to hit the minimum.

Bingo. I'll eat plenty of crow if they fill holes with capable starters. History suggests they'll do this to an extent, but not enough to make the team a winner.

I believe someone would trade more than a sixth. That's my opinion and it can't be proven or disproven. Does it seem possible that no one would offer more? Sure. It is just as possible that the Bills are rolling the dice that they could do better with the comp pick.

If you're trading him to a team that wants him enough to offer him top money, it does - especially if 1) partner is offering anything more than a 6th and 2) you intend to adequately replace Byrd while upgrading at OL, WR, TE or LB. The comp picks will even out and the NFL generally isn't generous with them. The only ways in which the comp pick outweighs a traded pick, in my estimation, are if the Bills do not spend much at all on FAs, if they only pick up guys who get released, or if no one at all will make a trade offer. The first scenario is dire, while the second and third are less plausible.

On this we agree. Byrd could steal them a playoff win, but QB is certainly the biggest driver of success.

I'm all for either of those two. They may be available even later due to the injury concerns, but if the Bills like them I am comfortable with pulling the trigger at that slot. Even better if they have traded down somewhere and acquired an extra third.

Graham has not just said that EJ needs competition. He said to EJ's face that they should draft another first round QB -- which is essentially saying his replacement should be drafted this season, whether the talent is there or not.

What about trading him, even for a seventh rounder? Even to give the team first crack at a player who might get cut and become a free agent? Better than nothing, no? Are we all agreeing that no team would trade ANYTHING for exclusivity with Byrd? Good management is creative. It is a poor management tactic to throw up your hands and say "I give up" six months before the season starts. See: Andy Levitre, Nate Clements, Jason Peters. You ditch your best players for pennies on the dollar, or you can let them go and hope you get better eventually. The Bills are not a premier destination that you can just lure talent to. This thing needs to be built and yet it feels like they have to hit "re-set" on some aspect of the team all too regularly.

Graham thinks they should draft a QB in the first round. I think they should draft a player who will make the most impact in the first round. Only one of the QBs fits that bill for me. And I do want a QB somewhere in rounds 2-5.

Which is why we'll likely be "building" again this time next year. The proof will be in what they do to replace one of the 4 best performers on the defense. Look at this less literally. What I meant is, we have plenty of track record to judge these guys on, and if they let Byrd walk without replacing him or bettering the team in other ways, I would be less interested as an FA.

Miami ≠ Buffalo.

To people who don't like EJ Manuel, Graham is a truth-teller and just telling it like it is. To reasonable people who think Manuel is a second-year player with much to prove, Graham is super un-professional and the proverbial blind squirrel, occasionally finding a nut. Any revelations that come through him are severely negated by his lack of professionalism.