...And just like that highest paid no more

[section122]

You are assuming a lot here. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, and I'm not saying you're right. What I'm saying is that it is enough to go by just facts and conclude that not re-signing him was a bad move.

 

It is not a fact that:

 

1. he wasn't committed to what the bills are doing

2. the money was used to upgrade the team - if you look at the alternative of not signing those guys and franchising him

3. holding him hostage would cause problems in the locker room

4. byrd wanted to go to a winner (maybe he just wanted to get paid..all hypothetical)

5. byrd didn't want to re-sign (he stated he wanted to test FA and was open to re-signing with the bills)

 

Also, please give me some examples where a team (preferably one with a competent FO) let go of an all-pro for nothing even though they could have franchised him and didn't have a blue-chipper waiting in the wings to replace him.

 

Fact remains, this team is worse off without him, and they let him walk for nothing when they didn't have to.

Off the top of my head? Welker last year ended up taking less money from Denver, how about the Broncos cutting Dumervil last year? Or the Cowboys cutting Ware this year? Those 2 moves were with the players under contract!

 

It isn't a fact that he wasn't committed to what the Bills were doing. He did go on record about all of the changes, having to learn all new defenses each year, and not liking it.

 

We don't know now if the team was upgraded but a run stuffing lb, a better og, and a proven vet receiver were all holes that were able to be filled with the money that would have been tied up in Byrd. Whether or not they work out is unknown yet.

 

It isn't a fact that holding him hostage would have caused problems in the locker room that is why I said it could. Not that he would.

 

I thought it was a farily accepted fact that he wanted to go to a winner AND get paid. He knew Buffalo would pay him but if he could get the best of both worlds, can we blame him for wanting that?

 

I'm not saying Byrd didn't want to resign. What I am saying is he didn't want to resign for what they offered without testing the market first. He didn't want the deal they offered him at the time they offered him it. I know this because he didn't sign. I don't know if he would have signed it if things hadn't of worked out but they did so we won't know.

 

 

Bottom line to all of this is IMO losing Byrd sucked but I'm not a fan of the "they should have gotten something for him" crowd. Many players walk for nothing in the NFL. It happens every year and to every single team. On the heels of Levitre it sucks but I am very glad they didn't drop that kind of money of Levitre.

[White Linen]

true fans, support their players injured or healthy.

 

if you ever tried playing a team sport with PF I am sure you would have a different view. Myself I never played safety with PF but I did have it for 2 years it was effing brutal. Walking to a car could be tough at times.

 

What's next hang Fred for his injuries. Everyone here myself included has opinions, but again in a team spOrt when a player is dogging players know, the coach knows, and this case the FO knew Byrd was hurt. And, came back when he could. he had everyone on the teams support. if you can show something by the Bills that contradicts that by all means post it up. again I have seen nothing. Although there are some butt hurt fans complaining that he left for money. Why not? I would especially playing for a crap team for 4 straight years.

 

For some reason I believe Sean Payton can judge character too. hence the contract. We are not talking fat Albert here.

 

I think Payton and the Saints FO put themselves in another bad salary cap situation signing Byrd. They have approximately 1.6 million in cap space since they cut players and signed Byrd. They'll have to have another cleansing to deal with Graham next year. So he may be able to judge character but they most likely need Byrd to be the type of presence to put them over the top and win now or it will end up being a terrible decision.

[SmokinES3]

 

You are assuming a lot here. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, and I'm not saying you're right. What I'm saying is that it is enough to go by just facts and conclude that not re-signing him was a bad move.

 

It is not a fact that:

 

1. he wasn't committed to what the bills are doing

2. the money was used to upgrade the team - if you look at the alternative of not signing those guys and franchising him

3. holding him hostage would cause problems in the locker room

4. byrd wanted to go to a winner (maybe he just wanted to get paid..all hypothetical)

5. byrd didn't want to re-sign (he stated he wanted to test FA and was open to re-signing with the bills)

 

Also, please give me some examples where a team (preferably one with a competent FO) let go of an all-pro for nothing even though they could have franchised him and didn't have a blue-chipper waiting in the wings to replace him.

 

Fact remains, this team is worse off without him, and they let him walk for nothing when they didn't have to.

Precisely... Someone else lives in the real world. I feel better...

 

As far as people that want to see their favorite players overpaid? I don't care for Byrd one bit personally, I know nothing about him. Professionally, he's a top 5 safety that we should have got something for.

If I was criticizing a top performing FO I'd understand, but I'm criticizing what has been among the worst for 15+ years.

Edited April 30, 2014 by SmokinES3

[maryland-bills-fan]

Take it easy there buddy. Not sure why you're drunk on a Monday night/Tuesday morning but I hope you're alright.

 

I agree that there haven't been any reliable reports of how much the Bills offered him. The three year 30m offer was just a rumour that was in fact hinted at being false by Byrd's camp if I recall. I don't think the Bills offered him a better deal than the Saints did, especially not last year, but that's just reading between the lines and guessing on my part.

 

What I'm saying is that they should have franchised him. It gave them more time to work out a deal, either with him or another team, if they were inclined to do so. Regardless, you want facts...here are a couple:

 

1. Everyone is so sure he was feigning injury, yet he also wanted to play in the Cleveland game but our genius coach kept him out.

 

2. We will have more than 8.3m in cap space or could have easily made that room this year (byrds franchise number)

 

3. Byrd at that price for 5 games (which again is just conjecture on anyone's part) is still better than LETTING HIM WALK FOR NOTHING!!!! He is a really good player and could have made a difference even in those 5 games. Especially if we like to believe that the Bills are going to push for a wild card spot this year.

 

4. This so-called message it sends by keeping a player who wants to leave (which he also never stated) isn't any worse than the message it sends when you let a player dictate his future even though you hold the cards.

 

Ok, number 4 is more of an opinion not a fact. But you see my point. If you take emotion out if this and strictly look at it in black and white terms of winning football games, this was a stupid move by the Bills. Any defense of it, and you're just making excuses for them.

Sorry, but you seem to just gloss over any facts that might bother you. Byrd held out (took the entire preseason off, with a new defense being put in) and then took 6 (?) games off because his "feesises hurt" (somehow this did not heal over an entire summer offseason), and didn't come back to help the Bills when they were struggling with several other DB's out. It would take an idiot to say that we should franchise this guy and pay him nearly top money for him to do this AGAIN to out team. Get a grip, look at his agent.

[RK_BillsFan]

Um. For the person looking for what the bills offered and concrete evidence, I don't have the link right now, but i do remember reading several places that the Bills offered a contract somewhere in the 40 million over 4-5 yr range with it being 10 million-ish a yr the first 2-3 yrs. I'll report back when I find it.

 

The simple fact is, Byrd didn't want to be here. While he is a great player at his position, and yes we could have afforded to pay him the kings ransom, he wouldn't have stayed.

 

 

Update:

 

Bills Offer, while we have no idea what the final numbers would have been, was a multi-year deal, that was front loaded. Byrd would have been given 30 million a year over the first 3 years ( although this is not guaranteed money), which is actually more than he will make with the Saints over that time.

 

It seems that, and this is unofficial, the Bills offered 45 over 6 years, 30 million over the first 3. This is basically a contract where the Bills are covering themselves in case Byrd loses a step over those years or that "injury" comes back to hurt his overall play.

 

Something tells me that in 3-4 years, we will hear about how the saints have to deal with this massive contract that they used on Byrd and now have to come up with money for the rookie safety that did well last year. Doubt they will pony up 19 million a year the safety position.

Edited April 30, 2014 by RK_BillsFan

[John from Riverside]

I should really ignore this garbage, but I've been drinking and idiocy pisses me off and I feel compelled to address it. But you can prove me the idiot by answering a few questions: How much did the Bills offer Byrd, how much would they have had to pay to get him to sign before testing free agency, and did he give the Bills a chance to match the Saints offer?

 

My point isn't to defend the FO. It's just that if you can't answer these questions you're just whining like a small child. If you can answer, please do, because I'm very curious, as are many Bills fans who I'm sure will read your response. Thanks.

 

Dont lower yourself Rob....its not gonna sink in

[1B4IDie]

1.) Bryd was never the highest paid safety in the NFL

2.) Byrd clearly did not want to play in Buffalo. If you have doubt of this, you haven't been paying attention the last 2 years.

3.) Byrd will never play out the contract the Saints gave him. He might play 3 years of that 6 year contract. Maybe.

4.) Byrd has zero measurable impact to wins and losses. The Bills were 6-10 with him, I think they could be 6-10 without him.

5.) Byrd is not a Buffalo Bill anymore and will not be a Buffalo Bill any time soon. F him.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Why So Serious?

[NoSaint]

Update:

 

Bills Offer, while we have no idea what the final numbers would have been, was a multi-year deal, that was front loaded. Byrd would have been given 30 million a year over the first 3 years ( although this is not guaranteed money), which is actually more than he will make with the Saints over that time.

 

It seems that, and this is unofficial, the Bills offered 45 over 6 years, 30 million over the first 3. This is basically a contract where the Bills are covering themselves in case Byrd loses a step over those years or that "injury" comes back to hurt his overall play.

 

Something tells me that in 3-4 years, we will hear about how the saints have to deal with this massive contract that they used on Byrd and now have to come up with money for the rookie safety that did well last year. Doubt they will pony up 19 million a year the safety position.

 

thats about what ive been able to cobble together from various reports as far as numbers too.

 

and with regards to the saints, surely they will reevaluate it in 3 years. essentially they locked up byrd for about 3 years and then have some team options at that point. if vaccaro has some more concussion issues, or regresses, or decides to test free agency maybe they keep byrd, or if drew has 1-2 years left. if they have a cheaper replacement they cut him and use the money elsewhere. after year 3 the hit to cut is 4m, year 4 just 2m. that would be in line with vaccaros negotiations, who they have on the cheap for 3 years plus an option year.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

BREAKING NEWS: Saints safety Jairus Byrd is holding out.

 

LOL

 

 

CBF

[K-9]

If Byrd loses a step, we will be hard pressed to notice. He's never been fleet of foot to begin with.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Boatdrinks]

It's interesting to see the premium placed on elite safety play by a championship team...versus a team that would floor a city if it snuck into the playoffs for once since I was in Middle school.

 

I've seen plenty of Seattle games and Bills games. Thomas is a much more impressive player than Byrd. If the Bills had Thomas, I'd say pay him. I never cared if they let Byrd walk, I'd only pay him to a point. That's what they did, and he left. The guy never wanted to be here.