daquixers_is_back

This is ridiculous but firstngoal already got to it before I did. The Colts have an amazing offensive line so they can simply plug in a new RB. They have two all-star wide receivers. They have a top 3 all-time QB. They also traded mid-year for McFarland to help their run defense.

Pro Bowl = Popularity Yet I was thinking more about Pat Williams, Sam Cowart, Antoine Winfield ... etc ... I know atleast Williams and Winfield are doing well for their new teams. Let me guess ... you were done with Kelly after he lost 2 Super Bowls. If you were a Colts fan, Manning would have been gone after four seasons? Give me a break. You will be taking and throwing out four guys who did not get it done, and replacing them with four guys who are WORSE. What don't you get?

... and to throw salt in a wound, I could see Clements, Fletcher, and Spikes all having terrific years with their new teams next year. Thats the way it usually works with the Bills luck.

Then that clearly shows the intelligence of your section. Either that or they couldn't tell the difference between the number 22 and 24. If you taped the games, go back and watch them again. If you did not, then buy the tapes, and watch them again. Nate's worst game of the season, was giving up something around 7 reception(s) (can anyone confirm this?) to the oppositions receiver. He had a bad game early in the season where he missed a couple of tackles. That is all! I believe he gave up (maybe) ONE score all season. ONE score. I believe Champ Bailey gave up more than one TD all season. Please post your section number here, so I know not to buy tickets anywhere near there.

Cars going around in a circle never appealed to me ... especially when some of the drivers on the actual roads seem to think they are on the track.

So those real cases I attend live, and the casebooks that I study are actually in a different universe? Not in the real world, you speak of? You say you took the same classes ... did you get your bachelors in Business and then attend law school? There is a different between being "beaten" and being "burned." Yes, even the best of the best of the best are beaten every game. As in their receiver may get past them by a yard or so, or might juke them in another direction. Yet being "burned" (to me anyhow) is being absolutely torched by the receiver. As in the receiver out ran you by 10 yards.

He wasn't really 'better' persay. Most of us were just paying more attention to him. He still shut down his receivers in the first 8 games as he did in the last 8 games. He simply started batting down a few balls in the latter half of the season, which gave him TV credibility. Television has ruined some peoples perception of a good player.

So your basically saying you either 1. Did not watch the games or 2. Were completely drunk through all of the games I can not remember ONE time all season that Nate was "burned." In fact I can not remember more than one time all season that Nate was even scored upon. Was Nate even scored on more than once all season? That is darn impressive. For some reason some posters, have not figured out what "shutdown CB" means. It does not mean the same thing as "playmaker CB" and shutdown CBs deserve to be paid just as much. Playmaker CBs do a good job against their receiver and make an awesome play every other game or so. Shutdown CBs limit their receivers EACH AND EVERY GAME to 2-3 maybe 4 catches. That is what Nate is. Nate is simply a shutdown CB. Very, very, very rarely will you ever see him give up a big day against a receiver. In fact the last time he did was to the Miami receiver over 19 games ago. Heck, ill let him have 1 bad game ever 20 or so games. I challenged people to do this last year. Go to the games and try to focus on NC a good amount of the time. You will see he is just all over his receiver and limits them all game. The reason people don't give him enough credit is that the networks dont aknowledge this, unless he is intercepting the ball. They are focusing on how bad McGee is doing, or how bad the run D is, and how strapping Brett Favre is. They dont show the fact that NC is absolutely dominating his receiver. So once again. I have NO idea where you are getting these "burned" comments from and P.S. a "non-factor" at the CB position is usually a good thing.

The logic above is exactly what got us to where we are now. We have been letting very good players go for years, because they just are not "worth" the amount of money they are asking for. And thus, we have not been in the playoffs for 7+ years now. We let P. Williams, Winfield, Cowart... etc all go because of this philosophy. It is growing very old. Clements is a top 5 player at his position. If you're saying that Clements is not worth it due to the cash-to-cap scenario that Marv and co. have us in, than you have to question the Bills front office on the decision to do the newly constructed cash-to-cap sytem rather than question the decision to keep Clements. This is getting absolutely ridiculous. How many years will it take for the Bills to realize that you have to pay good players? The SB champions shell out a ton of money. The Patriots just tagged their CB, which guarantees them paying him atleast 7.2 mill + this year. And P.S. - STOP using the Cover 2 scheme excuse everyone! It does not hold water. The Colts run the same defense and yet their defensive production went up TREMENDOUSLY when CB, Bob Sanders came back onto the team. Guess what! He is just a CB in a Cover 2 system, and yet the whole defense seemed to play better once that ONE CB was back. Please stop using the Cover 2 scheme excuse. Pyrite Girl - you asked for specific plays. Clements saved the day, by tipping the goal-line pass of Brett Favre in the Packers game in Buffalo, that was intercepted and essentially iced the game. Clements saved the day, by batting down a big pass play by David Carr, in the Houston game with less than 3 minutes to go, I believe. Clements also made a huge INT return for a TD in the Jets game in NY, which dampened the Jets spirits right before halftime and gave us a comfortable lead. Not to mention the fact that Clements simply shut-down good receivers ALL YEAR LONG!

Huh? Samuel and Clements are in all senses the same type of CB. They average about the same ammount of INT's per year and deflections per year. Clements just has 3 more TD's. So giving QB A, 7+ mill for the year, and giving identical QB A(2) 7+ mill is different huh? Has me confused also.

Cover 2? I thought we ran Cover 2 last year? The same defense that Clements was the leading contributor of 2-3 of our wins. Perhaps you will have to piece the variables together for me, DIBS. I for one don't seem to be able to see them, apparently. If I remember correctly, McGee was being torched for most of the season, and Youboty barely played which led to speculation that he was under-achieving. Whitner seemed to be the only one showing some promise. If I remember right, Clements was the leading contributor in about three of our wins. Greenbay (he tipped the game-winning, goal-line stop, interception into another players hands), NY Jets (the game would have been much closer without his TD returning INT), and another game which seems to leave my mind at the moment. He also played extremely well in Houston, and very good in (for the most part) every other game of the season. So please piece the variables together for me. I am not yet an attorney. I am a business and law student. Some day I will be an attorney. Secondly, a verbal contract is very simple. Offer, consideration, acceptance. All three variables have been publicly stated. It does not need to be referred to as a contract. It is a contract simply due to the three variables. For example: when you purchase a piece of furniture, and work out a payment plan, most people do not see that as a contract. Yet it is. Something does not have to be referred to as a contract, to in fact, be a contract. ... and no, I am not stating that he WOULD take legal action. Only that he would have the option.

Oh. Sorry. I thought it was a joke. The problem with letting NC go is that there is NO other first class FA at his position. He is a top 5, CB in this league, and the rest of our secondary is porous at best.

Ill play along. What?

Ithe Bills WERE to somehow pull this off and the court took too long to act, then Nate could sue the Buffalo Bills for damages caused by breaking a verbal contract. He could argue that he would have received much more had they not franchised him, and the fact that A. Samuel was just tagged by the Patriots, would further his argument as he is now the ONLY quality CB free agent on the market. Instead of replying to this, PLEASE crack open a casebook and read verbal contract cases that WERE upheld, and the damages that the defendant had to pay due to breaking that contract.

Courts seem to rely very heavily on a persons income. By promising a player that he will not be tagged next year, you are assuring him that he will be available to search a job in another market. I'm pretty sure that would hold up in court. You want to talk about the real world? In the real world of the NFL that complaint would go to TWO places. 1 - The Players Association and 2 - an NFL Arbitrator. So I guess in a way I agree with you ... I don't think it would reach court. It would be settled long before that. Stop being so Bills biased and realize that if the Bills were to pull this stunt, there could be some serious ramifications from the league, the players association, and in the end, Clements would probably win anyway. Go read up on verbal contracts my friend.

The Patriots just payed A. Samuel 7 + million dollars for the 2007 season. I guess they are not a good franchise in your opinion.

Actually DIBS is 100% correct, and that probably WOULD hold up in court. Really all you need for a verbal contract is an offer, and acceptance. Then you have to prove it. Considering that Marv Levy has publicly noted that this was the case, then the proof part is easy. The offer was made, and Nate accepted it.

Are you really not understanding this?

Agreed. Put it this way. 5 of the 10, HIGHEST paid salary cap teams made the playoffs last year. 2 of the 10, LOWEST paid salary cap teams made the playoffs last year. 8 of the 10, HIGHEST paid salary cap teams have made the playoffs in the past 2 years.

Hey I completely agree with you my friend. I was just responding to the others on this board, who believe that money=being a real fan. Side note: yes I am back in fashion with the 2nd semester, yet the real reason you probably have not seen me much is that my use was suspended for a month because I was annoying a mod on the Titans game thread. Don't go there. It really is not worth it.

Mark my words. We will not being into the season with any less than 15 million in cap space. First of all, how can you amortize bonuses over 10 years, if the player has a 4 year contract? They are basically saying we are going to count every dollar we spend, against the cap, even though the league does not count it against the cap. So when we sign a player with a 6 million dollar bonus, instead of counting it only 1 mill against the cap over the 6 years (as the league does), the team will count it the full 6 million. Do that with 5 players (as Chris Bown said), with each having a 6 year contract, the league will only count that as 5 million against the cap for this year (1 mill per player). Yet we will have spent 6 million per player, for 5 players is 30 million. AKA: The league says we are 20 or so million under the cap after signing those players and we say we are AT the cap, because we are counting CASH instead of the amortized deal.

While this may be true, it is usually years after the good drafts that the team does well. Look at Indi. It took 9 years after Manning, 11 years after Harrison, 6 years after Wayne, 6 years after harper, and 3 years after Sanders.

Be prepared to be called a fair-weather fan.

AKA ... we will be entering the season with 20+ mill in cap space.

One of the funnier parts of the press-conference: "... at their final meeting, and I said 'fellas, our objective isn't to go to the super bowl. its to win the super bowl.' And uhm ... maybe those aren't very good words coming from a guy who has gone and hasnt ... uh ... hasnt had that result" (laughs)