FluffHead Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Byrd was never going to stay here, he wanted to go to a winning team. This front office is operating like the Steelers, pay the critical positions and let the others walk. Free safety is not a critical position and should not eat up a large portion of the cap. Here's hoping Whaley can hit in the draft better than our previous GM's. But the only critical position were paying is DE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I think that everyone is disappointed we lost Byrd. But I think some are just not thinking clearly on this. Sure, the Bills had the cap space to pay him this year...but at what cost down the road? Guys like Dareus, Spiller, are going to have to be re-signed before too long. As has been said, over and over, you just can't pay everyone what they want... I get the sentiment that they should have, at the very least, tagged him, to get something for him. But, I think Whaley took a gamble that Byrd was not going to get the money he thought he would. He lost, but it was a good gamble as far as I am concerned. If the Saints, a pretty unlikely suitor by most accounts (given their cap issues) hadn't stepped up, it is very likely Byrd will still be considering the Bills offer today, and for a while to come. A friend of mine, a Saints fan, is complaining that the Saints, with all their woes, just went out and over-payed for a safety, when the market had already been set for about 1.5 million less...not a huge amount of money, but when you are cutting guys, and trading guys like Sproles, and in a contract squabble with, now, your best passing weapon (Graham), so you can work around the monster deal you signed your QB for, you really have to wonder what teams are thinking... the Byrd deal may be temporary gratification for some in New Orleans, but you really have to wonder if it closes their window of opportunity a little earlier. I guess a lot of that will hinge on what happens with Graham. Colston is getting older, and has always been erratic...Ingram is average at best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 It's not buffalo he had a problem with it's the ineptitude of the organization and the handling of his situation is just another exhibit that they don't know how to or don't want to win Exactly He got tired of waiting. They should have locked him up when he still was a good solider .He played hurt for a whole year. Never did anything bad of the field . Was an Pro - bowl player. You cant make the playoffs if good players always leave and create another hole to fill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickedface Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 i honestly don't care what the front office does as long as the team wins games. they could gut the roster like the sabres did, but if they win all will be forgiven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmalibu Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 9 million a year!! The Bills should have thrown a celebration party for Byrd. Good for Byrd. but I bet this will not be so good for the Saints when the smoke clears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbalaya Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I can't believe so many approved. This has been a fiasco since last year. Everyone must swallow the same swill when we lost Winfield, Williams, Whitner, Poz, Greer, Levitre, Peters, Lynch...the list is endless The Bills stand-by excuse that the masses continually buy into....we did our best, but could not pay that much for that position. It's lack of foresight, poor planning and fumbled execution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 YES, a $9 million safety's not going to get us another 2+ wins... he's not Ed Reed. We need offensive help and a linebacker at least ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnbillsbacker Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 You are GM Buddy Nix of the Bills in January 2013: 1. Your scouts tell you Byrd can be replaced by drafted kids. 2. You don't want to overpay for a FS, because of the position, and it's market, and because you think you're going to need $ elsewhere, and elsewhere's market 3. You know Byrd's agent is wont to play games 4. You know that your team is bad, and having a high-priced FS isn't going to change that 5. You know that the franchise tag causes chaos on the team every time it is used. You decide what? If this was the info/decision making process, I don't see what difference the franchise tag makes. If Buddy decided to keep Byrd, wouldn't that decision have been made in 2012? With a contract extension? And, what if they tried, but Byrd refused it? In all cases: I don't see what choice Whaley had, this year, to do much of anything different than what he did. Should we have paid $9 mil for a FS? No, no, and no. Just like we don't pay $9 million for a G Neither the Steelers or the Colts got to be who they are, by overpaying Gs and FSs. I would say they have invested a lot of cash on safety and their interior line. Polamalu and Pouncey being examples. The Saints are a smart franchise and they felt Byrd was worth the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Everyone is just plain silly. buftex has a point but the Bills have not handled this situation well at all - regardless of what Byrd got from the Aints. This is not about Byrd and Byrd alone. And not about the Aints at all. This is about how the Bills handled a businesses decision that produced the by product of a football team. At least IMO. And they did so horribly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I give the Bills an F. They had well over a year to get the situation resolved and ended up with nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KGUNBILLS Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I can't recall the whole interview, but Byrd went on to say that you only have so much time to leave "your stamp" on this sport. When he said that, I took it to mean that he wanted to be on an instant winner, not the BILLS. I think it was pretty obvious that he knew way back that he wasn't staying in Buffalo. I also believe the FO could have offered him 10 mil a year, and he would have refused it. We don't know for sure all the ins and outs of the situation, but one thing is for certain.... it wasn't good no matter who was to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shouldaplayedflutie99 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Though I wanted him to stay really bad, I'm glad we didn't get stuck with the contract the saints gave him. Mostly out my concerns with his feet and hips, but I also just don't think that position is worth that money. That said, I voted approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I think that everyone is disappointed we lost Byrd. But I think some are just not thinking clearly on this. Sure, the Bills had the cap space to pay him this year...but at what cost down the road? Guys like Dareus, Spiller, are going to have to be re-signed before too long. As has been said, over and over, you just can't pay everyone what they want... I get the sentiment that they should have, at the very least, tagged him, to get something for him. But, I think Whaley took a gamble that Byrd was not going to get the money he thought he would. He lost, but it was a good gamble as far as I am concerned. If the Saints, a pretty unlikely suitor by most accounts (given their cap issues) hadn't stepped up, it is very likely Byrd will still be considering the Bills offer today, and for a while to come. A friend of mine, a Saints fan, is complaining that the Saints, with all their woes, just went out and over-payed for a safety, when the market had already been set for about 1.5 million less...not a huge amount of money, but when you are cutting guys, and trading guys like Sproles, and in a contract squabble with, now, your best passing weapon (Graham), so you can work around the monster deal you signed your QB for, you really have to wonder what teams are thinking... the Byrd deal may be temporary gratification for some in New Orleans, but you really have to wonder if it closes their window of opportunity a little earlier. I guess a lot of that will hinge on what happens with Graham. Colston is getting older, and has always been erratic...Ingram is average at best... Absolutely agree. I also think it was an effort of good faith on the part of Whaley and I have no problem with that. I also believe tagging him and trading him presented more problems than some people want to believe. In the end, I it was strictly about money for Byrd and I am fine with that. However, I do not think that position is worth the money he wanted. IMHO, this was not an indictment of ineptness on the part of the FO. It is just one of those unfortunate by products of the NFL. I wish him well, but he is no longer a Buffalo Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts