K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Well Byrd is lost. Oh well, got to find someone to replace him! And move onward to the draft! They did. His name is Aaron Williams. As to who replaces Aaron Williams, that'll be one of Searcy, D Williams, or Meeks. I feel a lot better about our FS situation vs. our SS situation. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 They did. His name is Aaron Williams. As to who replaces Aaron Williams, that'll be one of Searcy, D Williams, or Meeks. I feel a lot better about our FS situation vs. our SS situation. GO BILLS!!! I've got to ask- at one point I believe I recall you arguing that SS was the more demanding position and Byrd played FS so it was even more of a reason not to pay him.... If you felt that way why not keep AW at SS in your projections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I've got to ask- at one point I believe I recall you arguing that SS was the more demanding position and Byrd played FS so it was even more of a reason not to pay him.... If you felt that way why not keep AW at SS in your projections? SS is the more demanding position. I think A Williams, given his size and range, is better suited to the FS position. There is a strong argument to be made that his overall athleticism may lend itself to SS and perhaps they'll end up putting him there. I'd prefer him to add a few pounds though. But there is no one else on the team at the moment who can play center field like him. If I'm a DC, I want him back there, especially in cover-1. I think my argument regarding Byrd getting paid was in the context of being paid like Polamalu and Berry, two SSs who both happen to possess superior athleticism and I objected to Parker not making the distinction in the two positions. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Byrd needed to sign his tag in order to be traded. If no trade could be arranged with a team he wanted to go to, why would Byrd agree to a sign and trade? The Bills and Parker explored trade opportunities last year right up until he signed his tag in August and the best offer was a 4th from Minny. I don't think Byrd wanted to go there. Best case scenario was to tag him and then have a repeat of last year's farce. Of course Byrd has trade value, just not as a designated franchise tagged free agent. In retrospect, the best time to trade him was in 2012 before his deal expired. But the Bills wanted to re-sign him and I can understand why they didn't purse offers back then. GO BILLS!!! I'm aware of those factors. I don't think a sign and trade would have been an obstacle. How was last year a farce? I thought he played pretty darn good. Perhaps we were watching different games. I mentioned in one of the other Byrd threads... yes, his trade value is impacted negatively by placing the franchise tag on him. Different scenario than Sproles. Of course it's a different scenario. Sproles is an over the hill RB who was traded and promptly signed to a 2 year extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I'm aware of those factors. I don't think a sign and trade would have been an obstacle. How was last year a farce? I thought he played pretty darn good. Perhaps we were watching different games. Of course it's a different scenario. Sproles is an over the hill RB who was traded and promptly signed to a 2 year extension. Byrd played well last year. The "farce" was all that occurred before he got out on the field. Perhaps we were watching different off-seasons and the first 5 games last year. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drifting929 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I'm happy with the way FA worked out, but there was no reason to lose Byrd. He could have been kept for less than 9M and either be traded or play the season out. But, as Bills fans we have to settle. You can't have what you want, so instead we'll give you X, Y & Z. Settling hasn't done much for the team, has it? Why does it always have to be A or B? Why can't I have both? The Bills could have thrown 100 million at Byrd and I believe he would have said NO anyway. He wants to win, can't fault the guy. IDK about his personal life but if he is not married, no kids, etc....his priority is winning. The guy is a competitor and that is part of what makes him so good. I think the OBD is addressing needs and at the very least they are signings that could provide depth....something they lack greatly. Let's face it....this is more movement we have seen out of the FO since Mario came to town. They tried on Byrdy but he flew the coop.......adapt and overcome!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I'm aware of those factors. I don't think a sign and trade would have been an obstacle. How was last year a farce? I thought he played pretty darn good. Perhaps we were watching different games. Of course it's a different scenario. Sproles is an over the hill RB who was traded and promptly signed to a 2 year extension. Not sure if you are just being facetious here, I assume so. The different scenario of course, is that Sproles was not a FA who was placed under the franchise tag. The trade possibilities for a player like Sproles are much different than a player like Byrd for that reason. Sproles still had 1 year left on his deal when the Eagles acquired him and was only scheduled to make $1mill in 2014. Byrd had no contract, and under the tag would be making over $8mill in 2014. I know I mentioned in at least one of the many other Byrd threads, but just to reiterate because the info makes a difference when you look at this situation. I have a relative who works in an NFL FO. Byrd was virtually untradeable under the tag. He had only a select group of teams he was open to signing an extension with, which is a critical part of the trade being able to be executed because he has to sign his tag first in order to be traded. Teams are wary to give up a draft pick for a guy who will only play with them one year before becoming a FA again and the issue with playing under a 1-year tag is exactly the problem we saw last year with Byrd, and why I completely agree with them not tagging in the first place. He was more interested in staying healthy than anything else. That is not good for a team, yet it is human nature. Can't blame him, but no team wants a player who is more concerned with his upcoming FA than winning. That group of teams he was willing to play for beyond one year became even smaller when only certain ones had the need for a FS, or the cap room to absorb even FS tag amount. Anyone insisting that NO would have traded for him is simply making assumptions unless they personally spoke to Mickey Loomis and provided him with truth serum and know this to be a fact. The franchise tag is not intended to force a player to stay with a team for a year. Teams can use it that way, but shouldn't if they want to attract future FAs or don't want to reputation around the league that they play games with their players. Fans have a right to be upset about the Byrd situation, but laying blame on any party - Parker, Byrd, or the Bills is misplaced IMO. The situation did not bear itself out for Byrd to be here because he chose to want to be elsewhere, he could make more on the market than the Bills had him valued at for their team, and the tag is a poor option with those factors in mind. Much like other FAs who made the same decisions last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 After he signed with NO he said he was sick of losing, isn't that saying he was sick of being a Bill? better get used to it. If NO finishes better then .500 the next 3 years combined it'll only be by a few games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Byrd played well last year. The "farce" was all that occurred before he got out on the field. Perhaps we were watching different off-seasons and the first 5 games last year. GO BILLS!!! He was hurt, he didn't play. Farcical apparently has different meanings for you and I. The Bills could have thrown 100 million at Byrd and I believe he would have said NO anyway. He wants to win, can't fault the guy. IDK about his personal life but if he is not married, no kids, etc....his priority is winning. The guy is a competitor and that is part of what makes him so good. I think the OBD is addressing needs and at the very least they are signings that could provide depth....something they lack greatly. Let's face it....this is more movement we have seen out of the FO since Mario came to town. They tried on Byrdy but he flew the coop.......adapt and overcome!! It would have cost less than $9M to keep Byrd. That would have bought the team 1 more year to better itself and they would have benefited from his presence on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 better get used to it. If NO finishes better then .500 the next 3 years combined it'll only be by a few games. I have the same feeling about the Saints. I fully understand that with Brees at the helm, anything is possible for them. But that fact aside, there has been a certain amount of rapid transition on that roster and more than a little disgruntlement from their 2nd best offensive player. Just doesn't bode well. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Not sure if you are just being facetious here, I assume so. The different scenario of course, is that Sproles was not a FA who was placed under the franchise tag. The trade possibilities for a player like Sproles are much different than a player like Byrd for that reason. Sproles still had 1 year left on his deal when the Eagles acquired him and was only scheduled to make $1mill in 2014. Byrd had no contract, and under the tag would be making over $8mill in 2014. I know I mentioned in at least one of the many other Byrd threads, but just to reiterate because the info makes a difference when you look at this situation. I have a relative who works in an NFL FO. Byrd was virtually untradeable under the tag. He had only a select group of teams he was open to signing an extension with, which is a critical part of the trade being able to be executed because he has to sign his tag first in order to be traded. Teams are wary to give up a draft pick for a guy who will only play with them one year before becoming a FA again and the issue with playing under a 1-year tag is exactly the problem we saw last year with Byrd, and why I completely agree with them not tagging in the first place. He was more interested in staying healthy than anything else. That is not good for a team, yet it is human nature. Can't blame him, but no team wants a player who is more concerned with his upcoming FA than winning. That group of teams he was willing to play for beyond one year became even smaller when only certain ones had the need for a FS, or the cap room to absorb even FS tag amount. Anyone insisting that NO would have traded for him is simply making assumptions unless they personally spoke to Mickey Loomis and provided him with truth serum and know this to be a fact. The franchise tag is not intended to force a player to stay with a team for a year. Teams can use it that way, but shouldn't if they want to attract future FAs or don't want to reputation around the league that they play games with their players. Fans have a right to be upset about the Byrd situation, but laying blame on any party - Parker, Byrd, or the Bills is misplaced IMO. The situation did not bear itself out for Byrd to be here because he chose to want to be elsewhere, he could make more on the market than the Bills had him valued at for their team, and the tag is a poor option with those factors in mind. Much like other FAs who made the same decisions last week. Not being facetious (I believe). A less worthy player was traded and quickly resigned. The Bills announced BEFORE the deadline that they had exhausted all trade possibilities. That is patently false. You don't exhaust all options, especially when you're talking about trading a star professional player, until 5 seconds before midnight. Your last couple sentences speak the truth. Byrd chose. The sad thing is that the Bills did not need to afford him the option of choosing. better get used to it. If NO finishes better then .500 the next 3 years combined it'll only be by a few games. OK, so now we've shifted into ridiculing the team he signed with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 He was hurt, he didn't play. Farcical apparently has different meanings for you and I. It would have cost less than $9M to keep Byrd. That would have bought the team 1 more year to better itself and they would have benefited from his presence on the field. Apparently so. Just to be clear, I'm not alluding to his time with PF and waiting to be "100%" before playing, although that didn't help matters. It was the entire off-season leading up to him reporting at the last minute as a form of protest against being tagged. Missing EVERY off-season team event at a time when an entirely new staff and scheme are being implemented, etc. Not a desired situation, particularly when it involves one of your best players and veteran leaders. While that was certainly Byrd's right as he wasn't under any obligation to do anything differently, pardon me if I think it helped create a farcical situation. Minus the comedic aspect of the definition. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 I have the same feeling about the Saints. I fully understand that with Brees at the helm, anything is possible for them. But that fact aside, there has been a certain amount of rapid transition on that roster and more than a little disgruntlement from their 2nd best offensive player. Just doesn't bode well. GO BILLS!!! ive said it several times - its not near as rapid as most casual fans think. several of the guys gone barely played last year, and several that people penciled in as gone 2 weeks ago (including myself with strief and pierre thomas) ended up staying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Apparently so. Just to be clear, I'm not alluding to his time with PF and waiting to be "100%" before playing, although that didn't help matters. It was the entire off-season leading up to him reporting at the last minute as a form of protest against being tagged. Missing EVERY off-season team event at a time when an entirely new staff and scheme are being implemented, etc. Not a desired situation, particularly when it involves one of your best players and veteran leaders. While that was certainly Byrd's right as he wasn't under any obligation to do anything differently, pardon me if I think it helped create a farcical situation. Minus the comedic aspect of the definition. GO BILLS!!! You're right. Byrd spoke his mind and did not attend voluntary workouts. What a cad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 ive said it several times - its not near as rapid as most casual fans think. several of the guys gone barely played last year, and several that people penciled in as gone 2 weeks ago (including myself with strief and pierre thomas) ended up staying. Well you'd certainly know better than I given your better proximity to the situation, so I can appreciate your point of view. GO BILLS!!! You're right. Byrd spoke his mind and did not attend voluntary workouts. What a cad! Never mind. You trying to put words in my mouth makes this discussion moot. Enjoy your day. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Not being facetious (I believe). A less worthy player was traded and quickly resigned. The Bills announced BEFORE the deadline that they had exhausted all trade possibilities. That is patently false. You don't exhaust all options, especially when you're talking about trading a star professional player, until 5 seconds before midnight. Your last couple sentences speak the truth. Byrd chose. The sad thing is that the Bills did not need to afford him the option of choosing. OK, so now we've shifted into ridiculing the team he signed with? Not in this case. Byrd's trade value was well-known as far back as the combine as he limited it himself. 20 teams could have come calling 5 seconds before midnight, and it wouldn't have mattered because he was not open to signing an extension beyond one year with anyone who wasn't an immediate SB contender. He was actually open to returning to the Bills under a long-term contract if the right team didn't come through with a FA deal. I don't have any contacts with the Bills currently, but from how it played out that is one of many reasons why they didn't tag him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Not in this case. Byrd's trade value was well-known as far back as the combine as he limited it himself. 20 teams could have come calling 5 seconds before midnight, and it wouldn't have mattered because he was not open to signing an extension beyond one year with anyone who wasn't an immediate SB contender. He was actually open to returning to the Bills under a long-term contract if the right team didn't come through with a FA deal. I don't have any contacts with the Bills currently, but from how it played out that is one of many reasons why they didn't tag him. Good post. I think your take is right on and the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced Whaley did the right thing both in terms of Byrd and with future ramifications in free agency. I was surprised at how quickly all the teams strongly rumored to be suitors dropped out of the running and signed other safeties. If the Saints hadn't met his demands, I believe he would have re-signed with the Bills. After the draft, I'm gonna start pestering some people for information along those lines. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 You're right. Byrd spoke his mind and did not attend voluntary workouts. What a cad! When did Training camp and Pre Season become voluntary? I don't have a dog in this fight but let's not pretend Byrd didn't play games until October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 When did Training camp and Pre Season become voluntary? I don't have a dog in this fight but let's not pretend Byrd didn't play games until October. Byrd was more concerned with staying healthy because he was on a one year deal with an eye on his pending FA than he was with winning. I don't blame him for this. There are some players who wouldleave it all on the field no matter what, but I don't fault guys who don't. This is is one chance to get the huge contract, set him and his family up for life after football, and to play for a team he feels is close to winning a SB. He had it all in front of him and the Bills 2013 season was just in the way. Playing under the franchise tag is the worst case scenario for a player unless both sides have each other in their long-term plans. Bills wanted Byrd long-term, but he had better options (in his mind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Not being facetious (I believe). A less worthy player was traded and quickly resigned. The Bills announced BEFORE the deadline that they had exhausted all trade possibilities. That is patently false. You don't exhaust all options, especially when you're talking about trading a star professional player, until 5 seconds before midnight. Your last couple sentences speak the truth. Byrd chose. The sad thing is that the Bills did not need to afford him the option of choosing. OK, so now we've shifted into ridiculing the team he signed with? not ridiculing. Just saying that NO is poised to have difficulty committing such high $$$ to just a few players. I wish them success because I enjoy the rivalry with Carolina but i am having a hard time seeing how this signing parlays in to future success with out getting good drafts in - and the circle back ti Byrd is that if he wants a true contender its hard to look at NO for that in such a tough division with a lot of issues. Granted they're better then us but we do have an upside...somewhere...maybe...at least..we hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts