Kirby Jackson Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 One exception hardly "debunks" a premise. I believe most NFL pro personnel guys would largely agree with my post. Most teams these days would not even use a high pick on an RB, much less trade a 1st away for another teams RB. That position has been devalued by the passing rules and due to the short careers of RB's. They are largely viewed as having a finite amount of carries in them before they are "used up". Mid rounders often are highly productive. Many observers were shocked that the Browns were able to recoup a 1st for an RB. That was an act of desperation. There will always be exceptions to a rule, but teams value QB, LT, pass rusher and elite WR's more than other positions. That's why they go higher in the draft than safeties. With that being said 4 safeties went in the first 33 picks last year. The development of athletic TEs and these defenses that require such versatility has raised the need for good safeties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Losing Byrd, even if we got a first, does not necessarily improve the team. Byrd would still have to be replaced. Who does that? A safety they draft? Searcy is good, but not the type of Safety that Byrd is. Williams is good, but who is he paired with that plays like Byrd? To me, losing Byrd is spinning wheels. I think this stems from the perception (whether true or false) that Byrd does not want to re-sign with Buffalo. With the hold out, and the games missed due to his "boo boo foot," it is understandable why fans might feel this way. If he does not want to be here, and could only tagged for another season, it might not be a bad idea to get something for him now rather than let him walk for nothing. I am in the camp that wants to see a long-term extension, however, I do not think he is deservant to be the league's highest paid safety. If his "camp" and Buffalo can strike up a deal that makes sense for both parties, then I would love to see him in Buffalo for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimp 2 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 shhhh people here don't want to hear logic… only boohoo byrd don't like buffalo! Ohhhh I got it now, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 this Byrd decision is the hardest decision of any player in the last 10 years. Option #1 - make Byrd the highest paid safety in football. 5yr / $45 mil / $27 mil guaranteed (essentially a 3 yr deal). Option #2 - Franchise tag Byrd at $8.3 for 1 yr (and likely go through the exact same scenario next year, where he misses games waiting til he's 100% healthy before playing). Option #3 - Franchise Tag & trade. #1 Ironically could have signed him last year 5 years $42 & $25. Contracts go up every year #2 could be cheaper than a long term contract #3 I see a lot of people are for this. I can't see why a team would give up a high pick (they could use on a safety) AND take on a huge cap hit. Doesn't make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 #3 I see a lot of people are for this. I can't see why a team would give up a high pick (they could use on a safety) AND take on a huge cap hit. Doesn't make sense Check swnybillsfan's post earlier in the thread. He did a great job of painting the picture of how it could be possible. When I think of real life possibilities I would think Denver is the one that jumps out at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 One exception hardly "debunks" a premise. I believe most NFL pro personnel guys would largely agree with my post. Most teams these days would not even use a high pick on an RB, much less trade a 1st away for another teams RB. That position has been devalued by the passing rules and due to the short careers of RB's. They are largely viewed as having a finite amount of carries in them before they are "used up". Mid rounders often are highly productive. Many observers were shocked that the Browns were able to recoup a 1st for an RB. That was an act of desperation. There will always be exceptions to a rule, but teams value QB, LT, pass rusher and elite WR's more than other positions. That's why they go higher in the draft than safeties. You said these posts about Byrd for a first are ridiculous. Richardson proves that they aren't that far fetched. Mos observers weren't shocked, they applauded te Colts and thought the Browns were tanking. He plays (as you agree) a much less important and valuable position. He las has had much less success in this league. Obviously teams value qbs more than safeties. I think the disconnect here is between high and low first rounders. Can we get a top 10 pick for Byrd? Highly unlikely. A pick in the 20s though? I wouldn't call that ridiculous by any stretch. Also I am not in the camp of trading him. I want him to be signed and don't mind paying him elite safety money. He is a game changer and the Bills are better with him than without him IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 Check swnybillsfan's post earlier in the thread. He did a great job of painting the picture of how it could be possible. When I think of real life possibilities I would think Denver is the one that jumps out at me. Eagles are probably the most ideal from 10,000ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Eagles are probably the most ideal from 10,000ft. Not a bad thought at all. These teams tht think they are close are the targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 This is a great post. Last year SF took Eric Reid late in the 1st and had lots of picks. I have no doubt that they would have rather had Byrd than Reid (who is a goo player). True, but I can almost guarantee you that they'd rather have Reid at his salary vs Byrd at his salary. How do I know? Well, SF chose to let Goldson--a similar player to Byrd--walk in FA for $8M/year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Jared Allen, Keyshawn Johnson, John Abraham, Randy Moss, and Deion Branch are some examples of non-QB players who were traded for 1st round picks. Didn't we get a first for Peerless Price from Atlanta? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 True, but I can almost guarantee you that they'd rather have Reid at his salary vs Byrd at his salary. How do I know? Well, SF chose to let Goldson--a similar player to Byrd--walk in FA for $8M/year. Good point. That is the type of place though that it could work. Someone that is close with a window closing. I used Denver as and example which I could see. Once Peyton goes they are done so it is a 2-3 year window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 With that being said 4 safeties went in the first 33 picks last year. The development of athletic TEs and these defenses that require such versatility has raised the need for good safeties. Byrd is not a "matchup guy" for big TE's. Check out Seattle's safeties. They are far superior to Byrd and worth the money IMO because they are so physical. Byrd is not. Those 4 draft picks could just have been replacing vets about to hit free agency. A much cheaper solution than paying huge $$ for a position of lesser importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Interesting thing I just realized. Aaron Williams and Da'Norris Searcy are both free agents in 2015. So at some point, the Bills have to start paying their safeties. Otherwise we are in big trouble at that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Byrd is not a "matchup guy" for big TE's. Check out Seattle's safeties. They are far superior to Byrd and worth the money IMO because they are so physical. Byrd is not. Those 4 draft picks could just have been replacing vets about to hit free agency. A much cheaper solution than paying huge $$ for a position of lesser importance. Agree but if you are close (Denver) with the window closing I believe that Byrd will make a bigger impact than Matt Elam. It's worth the money for a team like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Agree but if you are close (Denver) with the window closing I believe that Byrd will make a bigger impact than Matt Elam. It's worth the money for a team like that. Hey, I'm all for trading Byrd, I just question that we would get anywhere near a 1st round pick for him. If the Bills can pull that off, even better still. I don't think he's worth big $$ . The two SEA safeties are best in the league IMO, and Byrd just doesn't remind me of them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 It takes two to tangle but why not just sign him to a 3-4 yr deal? What is the fascination with getting rid of the teams best players, how does that make the team better? BTW, the Bills are in great shape salary wise why isn't there pressure from the fan base to retain him? I think there has been a long enough drought doing it the other way...try something new, just a thought. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Hey, I'm all for trading Byrd, I just question that we would get anywhere near a 1st round pick for him. If the Bills can pull that off, even better still. I don't think he's worth big $$ . The two SEA safeties are best in the league IMO, and Byrd just doesn't remind me of them at all. I am with you on the Seahawks guys. I would rather keep Byrd but there will be a market. It is not like putting Calvin Johnson on the market where everyone will want him. It will be a limited market but certain teams would be better off with Byrd than the 32nd pick. I keep going back to Denver but they are the perfect example. They probably have another 2 years of being a contender. If he is the missing piece it would be a good move for both teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombstone56 Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 i doubt youd get a 1 and 3 for him but i could see us packaging him with a later pick to move either up in the first or for a late first.just imagine clowney opposite mario.. or k.mack and richardson .. ,,dare to dream .lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) Why am I the only one who understood you without you having to explain that? The title says it all... Trade Byrd AND a 3rd, for a 1st. Simple. Maybe the confusion came with all the urrrr sounding words. I would totally trade Byrd for 3 firsts? :-) Edited January 5, 2014 by BarleyNY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts