I have also read about all the protections AB gives you, like stall over g etc. But nobody has mentioned it also limits roll rate and pitch rate. So say for instance the hypothetical flock of birds is dead ahead. A pilot given enough time might try to sharply turn to avoid. The airbus will turn just fine, but only at a certain roll rate, you want more? too bad. Is that a major concern? heck no, but its there, and that IMO is one of the reasons why the stick and rudder pilots are less happy with the AB FBW compared to the Boeing FBW.
You should get more information before you write something that's so patently wrong : The roll rate of a 737 is nowhere near what can be achieved with an A320.
As for avoidance, have a look into the BEA reports on a collision that was avoided near Montpellier between an A320 and a glider. The conditions were : The 320 under autopilot, descending toward the MPL pattern and suddenly a glider fills the windscreen ; the captain just punched the side-stick to the right to full deflection...roll rate achieved over 60°/s...the tip of the glider's fin nicked the outer underside of the A320 left wing and the glider pilot didn't even realise that he was millimeters from certain death.
Now put another type of airliner in the same situation, think of the effort needed to get out of A/P and the inertia of control cables, rods (you name it)...That exercise has been simulated and the result is exactly the opposite of your assertion.
The beauty of that set-up on the 'Bus is that the pilot can have a totally care-free handling of his aircraft
within the limits of maximum performance, in the case above 67° of bank, without the hindrance of "increased yoke effort" some advocate as being the best solution.
Having flown both types, I certainly know where my preference is.