Notice that Whaley said Byrd was a Good NFL player in the past and current. If you listen to his recent talk, he said Good with a little hesitation, in the sense that I think he thought about using the word "Great" but did not come out that way.
There are other instances when he was pressed about building defense and he said he'd rather starts with DEs and CBs, which is surprising to me a bit because I'd build defense around great players, regardless position -- Steelers got Polamalu and shifted schemes to maximize his talent.
NFL.com also reported that the Bills thought there is a market for Byrd, explored it, found none, which helped making the decision of not tagging him. That is consistent with local media reports as well.
As it stands, the Bills are expecting to get a 3rd round comp. pick from Byrd if they don't make a big splash in signing some big name free agents.
I'm not discounting the fact they do want to sign him to a deal they want, like making Byrd the highest paid safty in the next couple of years. After all, Byrd is a player between Good to Great by most people. But the Bills do have A. Williams which ideally plays the same position as Byrd and is in fact has better physical attributes than Byrd. Byrd is more instinctive though. But again A. Williams was playing the wrong position until last year, you don't know how much growth he may have had should he started FS to begin with; probabaly not as good as Byrd (who was sensational in his 1st year), but maybe close?
As far as SS, the Bills have a number of options, Searcy, Duke, and a few others they drafted in recent years. Overall, I think the Bills are not in a bad position when they lose Byrd -- make no mistake Byrd is gone despite the not closing the door remarks. This is not Levitre II where they had no viable alternative on hand.
I'm not trying to looking at the glass half full in this situation -- they deserved criticism for the single biggest mis-management on LG last year. I just don't see the Byrd case creating a similar hole. Signing Byrd is like adding luxury which they can surely enjoy; but the biggest needs this off season remain LG/ILB, RT, and TE in that order.
There are other instances when he was pressed about building defense and he said he'd rather starts with DEs and CBs, which is surprising to me a bit because I'd build defense around great players, regardless position -- Steelers got Polamalu and shifted schemes to maximize his talent.
NFL.com also reported that the Bills thought there is a market for Byrd, explored it, found none, which helped making the decision of not tagging him. That is consistent with local media reports as well.
As it stands, the Bills are expecting to get a 3rd round comp. pick from Byrd if they don't make a big splash in signing some big name free agents.
I'm not discounting the fact they do want to sign him to a deal they want, like making Byrd the highest paid safty in the next couple of years. After all, Byrd is a player between Good to Great by most people. But the Bills do have A. Williams which ideally plays the same position as Byrd and is in fact has better physical attributes than Byrd. Byrd is more instinctive though. But again A. Williams was playing the wrong position until last year, you don't know how much growth he may have had should he started FS to begin with; probabaly not as good as Byrd (who was sensational in his 1st year), but maybe close?
As far as SS, the Bills have a number of options, Searcy, Duke, and a few others they drafted in recent years. Overall, I think the Bills are not in a bad position when they lose Byrd -- make no mistake Byrd is gone despite the not closing the door remarks. This is not Levitre II where they had no viable alternative on hand.
I'm not trying to looking at the glass half full in this situation -- they deserved criticism for the single biggest mis-management on LG last year. I just don't see the Byrd case creating a similar hole. Signing Byrd is like adding luxury which they can surely enjoy; but the biggest needs this off season remain LG/ILB, RT, and TE in that order.
Comment