simpleman Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 This is not a criticism of you per se, but I did want to address this idea of letting Byrd go and replacing him with a quality free agent. First off, there has to be a so called FA safety available. Secondly, that FA would have to choose Buffalo. And third, just how much is that quality FA going to cost? It seems to me that a Byrd in the hand is much better than a pig in a poke. For those that would consider learning from last years debacle when Lev was not resigned and the Bills failed to replace him with another less expensive Quality Free Agent. To see what they made last year as a reference see the spotrac link. If Byrd is tagged & traded, here are the FA options: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/2/18/5335164/top-nfl-free-agents-2014-safety http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2014S.php http://www.spotrac.com/free-agents/nfl/safety/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 guess the meeting with Byrd went about as well as the meeting with rogers communications about the Toronto series. NOWHERE !! im pretty sure that byrd could volunteer to play his career out at vet minimum for the bills and youd be upset by the situation at this point. For those that would consider learning from last years debacle when Lev was not resigned and the Bills failed to replace him with another less expensive Quality Free Agent. To see what they made last year as a reference see the spotrac link. what was especially frustrating with Levitre was that there was a wealth of serviceable to very good guards on the market last year. i know moore was the favorite around here and turned out not to be an option, but there were 5-10 that couldve been plugged into the starter role easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 John Murphy said on his show tonight something to the effect of, at least they met, that shows progress.. really painted the likelihood of him being tagged prior to the 3/3 deadline almost as a foregone conclusion as he didn't think they would reach a deal by then. He then had Polian on and Polian talked a lot about how that is what the tag is there for, no stigma at all in using it. Murphy seemed to really hone in on this and then they tweeted it out. At this point with all the FO stuff coming out which looks like fallout from the Byrd situation, plus Murph talking this way and he is employed by the Bills, they are setting up the fan base for the inevitable tag. The only question is whether they trade him - and it sounds like they would not settle for less than a low 1st to high second round pick if it was to be the Browns. If it's about more than money then Cleveland and Buffalo don't stand a chance. The only way Byrd would end up in Cleveland would be if the payday mattered more than winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 We must have watched different games. Leonhard had a couple of picks and made a couple mistakes, sure. He wasn't all-pro, but it wasn't like we weren't gonna be able to win a game when he's a starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Leonhard had a couple of picks and made a couple mistakes, sure. He wasn't all-pro, but it wasn't like we weren't gonna be able to win a game when he's a starter. He's bad, really bad. He knows where he's supposed to be, but his body can't get him there any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 PFT now citing anonymous sources that they cap may be jumping to roughly $135m higher even than the projected increase discussed the last couple weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 PFT now citing anonymous sources that they cap may be jumping to roughly $135m higher even than the projected increase discussed the last couple weeks FWIW, this was Ralph's concern when he voted against that CBA years ago. He said that the rate at which the non shared revenues would grow because of new stadiums in (NY, Arizona, etc...) would drive the cap past a point that small market teams can compete. The example was that the NY stadium generates $50M in suite revenue every year moving the cap by like a million and a half a year. The Bills maximum suite revenue is something like $7-$8M. There will come a point where that suite revenue is in the red compared to the cap. Suite revenue is just a portion but local sponsorships and any other non shared revenues would do this. It's been a long time since I studied that stuff so it may have changed. At the time the reason that suite revenue was not shared is because Arizona did not have suite revenue. The big market owners fought to keep that $50M or whatever while the Bills wanted it shared like TV money or ticket revenue (which is done as a %). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 I don't want to start a whole thread over this seeing that it involves Byrd but if we can't come to terms with his camp then would swapping our 1st rd picks with Cleveland and also their first 4th rd pick be reasonable? I only suggest this if the Bills were highly interested in drafting one of these players, OT Greg Robinson, OT Jake Matthews or WR Sammy Watkins, and felt that they wouldn't be there at #9 when we would pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 FWIW, this was Ralph's concern when he voted against that CBA years ago. He said that the rate at which the non shared revenues would grow because of new stadiums in (NY, Arizona, etc...) would drive the cap past a point that small market teams can compete. The example was that the NY stadium generates $50M in suite revenue every year moving the cap by like a million and a half a year. The Bills maximum suite revenue is something like $7-$8M. There will come a point where that suite revenue is in the red compared to the cap. Suite revenue is just a portion but local sponsorships and any other non shared revenues would do this. It's been a long time since I studied that stuff so it may have changed. At the time the reason that suite revenue was not shared is because Arizona did not have suite revenue. The big market owners fought to keep that $50M or whatever while the Bills wanted it shared like TV money or ticket revenue (which is done as a %). Another fully legitimate business concern expressed by Mr. Wilson at the time. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Another fully legitimate business concern expressed by Mr. Wilson at the time. GO BILLS!!! He was widely criticized for not "understanding" at the time. In hindsight he was more than a little prophetic. It was only he and Wayne Weaver (I think that is who it was) that voted against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 He was widely criticized for not "understanding" at the time. In hindsight he was more than a little prophetic. It was only he and Wayne Weaver (I think that is who it was) that voted against it. It was like a Congressional bill being passed when nobody bothers to read it. The other owners rushed through just to avoid a delay in passing the CBA. Mr. Wilson took his time and had legitimate questions about the ramifications of how non-shared revenue would increase the percentage of revenue shared with the players. And he was vilified. Only to be lauded later on. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLFan Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 If it's about more than money then Cleveland and Buffalo don't stand a chance. The only way Byrd would end up in Cleveland would be if the payday mattered more than winning. And it does. Don't kid yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playman Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 If it's about more than money then Cleveland and Buffalo don't stand a chance. The only way Byrd would end up in Cleveland would be if the payday mattered more than winning. and that is exacly how it goes. players of any sport claim about playing for a winner. and then they take the highest offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) It was like a Congressional bill being passed when nobody bothers to read it. The other owners rushed through just to avoid a delay in passing the CBA. Mr. Wilson took his time and had legitimate questions about the ramifications of how non-shared revenue would increase the percentage of revenue shared with the players. And he was vilified. Only to be lauded later on. GO BILLS!!! Really well put K-9. On that note I never liked the Toronto series but I certainly understood the "why." The revenue from the game plus the opportunity to secure sponsorship revenue from Southern Ontario was a brilliant response to the revenue gaps created. The Canadian marketing revenue used to stop at the border and it was a part of "NFL Canada" which was divided evenly. The Bills fought hard to be able to market in that area because it was within their 75 mile radius (or whatever it is). It is always a touchy subject with me when people criticize different business decisions that the Bills make. It is always easy to criticize in a vacuum but everything is connected. Sometimes decisions are made that are not independently popular but may be in the best interest of the franchise. The greater good if you will. Edited February 26, 2014 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Really well put K-9. On that note I never liked the Toronto series but I certainly understood the "why." The revenue from the game plus the opportunity to secure sponsorship revenue from Southern Ontario was a brilliant response to the revenue gaps created. The Canadian marketing revenue used to stop at the border and it was a part of "NFL Canada" which was divided evenly. The Bills fought hard to be able to market in that area because it was within their 75 mile radius (or whatever it is). It is always a touchy subject with me when people criticize different business decisions that the Bills make. It is always easy to criticize in a vacuum but everything is connected. Sometimes decisions are made that are not independently popular but may be in the best interest of the franchise. The greater good if you will. The general fan doesn't have enough info to make all the connections... but you are 100% right. Winning solves everything... if this team makes the playoffs, no one will care whether they played a game in Toronto or on the moon, or whether Littman, Overdorf or the guy working at the concession stand approves player contracts. BTW, jairus byrd @jairusbyrd 55m Hope everyone is having a great day so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) To answer your question I don't know when it would be okay. I think that it is easier to find a good safety than say a good push rusher. Saftey is a position much like OG and Levitre that I would put a number to (maybe it is 7% of the cap) and then I wouldn't exceed it. To use the Levitre example last year if they would have signed Brandon Moore for example at $4M it would have been the right decision. Levitre is not worth double what Moore is. NoSaint brought up Delmas. If you got Delmas for half of Byrd and then a starting G, LB, RT or TE with the other $5M and a 2nd-3rd are the Bills better off?It is a question that has to be asked. You make some strong points and I don't necessarily disagree. There is a point to where it will be too much. I thought of this 7% number today when I saw the PFT speculation, as I think several are pretty close to that number as a rough cutoff. Just tossing out that if the 135m cap rumor came true that'd be 9.45m per year. If you look at it as a 7% annually factoring in even a slight cap rise (as there was some speculation De Smith might be borrowing from future years in order to keep his job, which would prevent big jumps the next few years but make him look good at elections)... a 3% annual increase would leave year 5 at 10.6m and an average pretty close to 10m for the life of it. Obviously structure wouldn't match that simple layout but 5 year 50m might be pretty close to 7% Last year I liked mid 8s which would've been right about 7% of the 123m. Just throwing some figures around - which frankly made 10m a little more palatable to me than it was before should the rumors hold true. Edited February 26, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) Ryan @RyanTalbotBills 1h #BillsMafia, @AnthonyBialy weighs in on the @jairusbyrd situation: Nothing Different About Change http://billsmafia.co...hange/ … via @TheBillsMafia Interesting point of view, but I think it is oversimplifying things greatly. Edited February 26, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) ESPN - Eagles agree with Pro Bowl LT Jason Peters on 4-year extension, bringing overall value of deal to $51.3M Parker got Philideplphia to extend Peters before his contract was up. And for a pretty good rate. I don't know a thing about Philis front office but that say something to me. I'm not sure good or bad. And for who. But it tells me that Parker answers when there is money on the line. Edited February 26, 2014 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simpleman Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I just read the article about the combine and Byrd posted on TBD. http://www.wgr550.com/two-bills-drive/18464850 It discusses how there does not seem to be any confidence in Searcy and discusses the fact that the Bills would not be likely to pay both Alan Williams and Byrd big bucks. If it is really going to be an issue of loosing AW, I would definitely lean to a tag & trade on Byrd and bring in a quality free agent at a more reasonable cost that would allow us to keep AW as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) I just read the article about the combine and Byrd posted on TBD. http://www.wgr550.co...-drive/18464850 It discusses how there does not seem to be any confidence in Searcy and discusses the fact that the Bills would not be likely to pay both Alan Williams and Byrd big bucks. If it is really going to be an issue of loosing AW, I would definitely lean to a tag & trade on Byrd and bring in a quality free agent at a more reasonable cost that would allow us to keep AW as well. I don't have confidence in Searcy as a starter either (especially in coverage) and most teams can't/won't pony up big contracts for two safeties. I don't know how much AW would warrant though. Edited February 26, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts