2020 Our Year For Sure Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I really hope I've been wrong this entire time and he signs. I think all Bills fans know what that's like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I really hope I've been wrong this entire time and he signs. I hope you're wrong too… but just because I like when you're wrong. :nana: :nana: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I hope you're wrong too… but just because I like when you're wrong. :nana: :nana: smart@$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 I think all Bills fans know what that's like. It's one of the things we fans do .Starting to miss Byrd being on the team. Don't think i like the feeling . But thats another thing we fans do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph W. Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) Everyone seems to want to try to compare Byrd to a HOF(he will be first ballad) Ed Reed. The kid has played nothing short of great in his first 4 years here even with a lousy supporting cast. So I wanted to look at the first 4 seasons of each. [Reed] (Byrd) INTs Reed-22, Byrd-18 FF/FR Reed-4/2, Byrd-10/5 Total Tackles Reed-269, Byrd-308 Stuffs Reed-17/0yards, Byrd-10/41yards This should be noted Byrd played 4 more games due to an injury with Reed in his 4th year. Byrd has yet to be injured. Reed has always had the better defense around him no one can argue that. As we all see Reed has more INTs then Byrd, but Buffalo's problem has been the run which is why Byrd has more FF. Reed has 24 turnovers and Byrd has 23. They are both very sound in their tackling. In Reeds first 4 years he took 2 turnovers in for TDs, So has Byrd. This doesn't mean we give him the world just some people are writing him off b.c they don't think he is good, or we can just plug in another guy. FS is a strong position when the QB is getting pressured, it is the FS that benefits from it most. This team has gone through so many defensive changes 3-4, 4-3 vanilla, and now a 3-4 hybrid, while Reed has gone through a very consistent defensive scheme. Thanks for reading. I know people don't want to overpay and their are two sides that need to talk not just one, but don't write this guy off b.c you don't think he has done much for us b.c that is a lie. I hope a deal can be made or at the very least he signs his Tag, either way we need him to be out there with us. Edited June 22, 2013 by Ralph W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterlaw Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 The overwhelming majority here, if not all, would agree that Byrd is a very very good player and in an ideal world he will be suited up for the Bills in Week One. There are some, me included, that want to see Byrd sign quickly for a reasonable price and for him to start thinking how can I help the team rather than thinking of his Bank Balance. For some people $6.91m pa would be enough and I'm sure Bills have offered a bit more on a Multi year basis. So for the 2 sides not to be talking they must be a significant distance apart. This smacks of personal greed, which a lot of people don't like to see. Are Byrd's numbers skewed by his 9 INTs in year 1 ? Only 9 INTs in the last 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph W. Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 (edited) Ed Reed also had 9 in one year they also both had a year with 1 in that 4 year stretch. Reed only played only 10 games the year he had 1 due to injury Don't forget though Byrd's 10FF compared to Reeds 4. Edited June 22, 2013 by Ralph W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byrdsbyrds Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 This means that both sides are digging in, this isn't good. seriously it means he is not under contract and has no responsibility to attend. why cant you people get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchmurraydowntown Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 seriously it means he is not under contract and has no responsibility to attend. why cant you people get that. So you would consider this good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) So you would consider this good? Depends what you consider good. On the spectrum of where this could be, it could be a lot worse. We had a player worth the tag - good. We tagged him and have his rights - good. He hasn't bashed us or the situation publicly - good. No attempts to force our hand to get out of town at the draft - good. He missed OTAs - not ideal, but not a huge deal. He doesn't have a new deal YET- yet being the key word. It isn't good but it may still change. For a few weeks I think you can say its short of ideal, but we could be in much worse situations. I'd like it to be better, but the sky has not fallen. Guess it depends a lot on what you think the next month holds and a little bit on whether the glass is half full or half empty. Edited June 23, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
first_and_ten Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 So you would consider this good? no it's not good. Eugene Parker will get him traded as he did Peters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchmurraydowntown Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) no it's not good. Eugene Parker will get him traded as he did Peters This is the way I see it, we're not going to pay him #1 money. I don't even see him as a #4 or a #7, he's crazy to even ask for that after our teams huge failures. Maybe he should look over the fact that we can't spend too much for him this year, especially after us being horrible on defense, it's just crazy. Edited June 23, 2013 by mitchmurraydowntown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 no it's not good. Eugene Parker will get him traded as he did Peters Parker can't "get him traded" if he wants to be here. I think fans assume agents have more pull with players than they do sometimes. No offense...just an observation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Byrd will only be traded if the Bills want to trade him. In the meantime they can pay him $6.9M this year and $8.3M next year by franchising him, which is still a bargain compared to what Goldson is getting, and then transition tag him in 2015. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 This is the way I see it, we're not going to pay him #1 money. I don't even see him as a #4 or a #7, he's crazy to even ask for that after our teams huge failures. Maybe he should look over the fact that we can't spend too much for him this year, especially after us being horrible on defense, it's just crazy. Who are the 7 or more free safeties that are better than him right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 The fixation on Parker and the Peters comparison misses a key point: Parker had become Peters' agent after Peters had signed his contract, and thus had an interest in forcing the renegotiations--he would not have been paid otherwise. The problems with the Peters situation was that it was a re-negotiation of an existing contract, which led to a fundamental disagreement between the two sides over when such a renegotiation should begin. It was that fundamental issue that led to the push for Peters to be traded. None of those issues apply here: Byrd is, unlike Peters, not renegotiating an existing contract, but seeking a contract after an old one has expired. There is no disagreement on whether a new contract is necessary. It is a matter of how much, and Parker can get his payday and serve his client without a trade. Does this mean a deal with inevitably get done? Certainly not. But unless one wants to get lost in fantasies that Eugene Parker is uniquely evil and anti-Buffalo, there is no reason to believe that it will inevitably not get done either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 The fixation on Parker and the Peters comparison misses a key point: Parker had become Peters' agent after Peters had signed his contract, and thus had an interest in forcing the renegotiations--he would not have been paid otherwise. The problems with the Peters situation was that it was a re-negotiation of an existing contract, which led to a fundamental disagreement between the two sides over when such a renegotiation should begin. It was that fundamental issue that led to the push for Peters to be traded. None of those issues apply here: Byrd is, unlike Peters, not renegotiating an existing contract, but seeking a contract after an old one has expired. There is no disagreement on whether a new contract is necessary. It is a matter of how much, and Parker can get his payday and serve his client without a trade. Does this mean a deal with inevitably get done? Certainly not. But unless one wants to get lost in fantasies that Eugene Parker is uniquely evil and anti-Buffalo, there is no reason to believe that it will inevitably not get done either. Additionally it plays into the "I only really know one incident of Parker negotiating and that was a trade, so every time he negotiates it has to be a trade" that we sometimes see. Just like the "only way he signs the tag is with a clause that we don't tag him next year, like Clements" crowd. Both those things are possible but if they didnt happen to the bills once before I don't think the crowds backing those angles would be as large or as certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph W. Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Who are the 7 or more free safeties that are better than him right now? Mitch seems to think that anyone can be plugged into Safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchmurraydowntown Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Who are the 7 or more free safeties that are better than him right now? If you include potential pay versus performance the past 3 years, there's many more than 7. Byrd wants to be paid as the top free safety in the league, even though he's played on horrible defense that have been statistically near last evey one of his 4 seasons in the league. I'd like to see him shine on good defense, then it'd make some sense. He will not earn anymore the $6.9 M this year, that's his best case scenario. Edited June 23, 2013 by mitchmurraydowntown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph W. Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) If you include potential pay versus performance the past 3 years, there's many more than 7. Byrd wants to be paid as the top fre safety in the league, even though he's played on horrible defense. I'd like to see him shine on good defense, then it'd make some sense. Lol Byrd played better then he was drafted. He played great and no injuries, yet it's his fault the guys around him just weren't good or were over the hill... If anything you blame the franchise not the only player that gave you everything he had week in and week out. Think of how bad it would be without him. Edited June 23, 2013 by Ralph W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts