Search the Community

Well a bunch of changes have been made as we have all seen. Do you all realize that last years Bills could have been 12-4? They had lost 5 games by a total of 10 points. Of course it is the offense's job to put points on the board. I believe except for Tight End and RB, all is on the offense is well. Defense is such a concern now and I think CB is the hot position. Nate was a pro-bowler in my eyes. If you look at the competition at that position in the AFC is why he did not get the nods. But to keep him at 80 Mil would have been ridiculous. Terrence McGee is ok, but not the future answer. Look for Youboty to pass him up quick. Run stuffer is the next big concern. I believe fast guys our good, but no good if 325 lb guys are pushing 295 lb guys out of the way. The final weakness is LB. If TKO goes, two will then be needed. In-experience will do no good there. I believe the Bills have a legitimate shot this year. I believe it all starts up front though, meaning the front four. So while I think CB is the hot position, it may well be DT. If this new offensive line can help keep the defense off the field, look for good things from the Bills this year.

It's interesting that you would use Deion to make that point - since each team he went to instantly got better(Redskins), or won the Superbowl(49ers, Cowboys). The only time that didn't happen was when he went to his last team(ravens back from retirement) - but he was 37 years old. How in the hell was Nate Clements our "best player" last year? Don't bother - he wasn't.

Last year they cut Milloy, Adams, Vincent, those were bigger holes to fill which they did. ( unfortunatly McCargo was injured). They wanted to upgrade and replace both Fletcher and McGahee, they could have kept them both if they so desired. The only player they had no chance at keeping was Nate. It will be interesting to see how he playes this year now that he has the $$$.

I don't think we are disagreeing much. i will say this, though... Unlike many others, I think Fletcher is still a top MLB and his stats support that (#3 in the NFL in tackles last year AND he was playing injured for awhile). It isn't like keeping Vincent, a player with severely diminished skills. I'm a little concerned this move says, "Be a top player, a great teammate and leader and we'll still let you go." Bad lesson, IMO. As for Nate we didn't "call his bluff". He was sitting with 4 aces and he took a big pot home. He was just too expensive for us, i understand that. But, we lost 2 top players (not OK players). I know what lesson you think they are being TAUGHT by these moves, i think it's just as likely the lesson they may be LEARNING is, be a great player and cash in as a free agent, because the Bills won't pay you. As for Willis, I think the lesson is clear enough.

Nate Clements...veyr good corner, never a Pro-Bowler.... London Fletcher: Tackling machine, very good LB. Willis McGahee: Self proclaimed great RB, had a great 1/2 season plus great games against the Jets, otherwise not much else. Can you all tell me just how much the Bills accomplished WITH these players???? So if you are down about Marv not bringing back NC or LF, what if they did, but yet neglected the OL YET again?? The Bills defense was poor last year with those guys, how can it get much worse without them??? Plus the offseason is NOT over yet, and we still have the NFL Draft to assess. Both sides of the ball need fixing, glad to see at least Marv and Co. took big strides into fixing the OL.

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I have a question: What does London Fletcher have to do with ANY of this? Fletch played hard ALL the time and was the epitome of a "team player". He was an FA and took a good contract from the Skins. I don't even know what the Bills offered, but I don't remember there being any contentiousness (is that a word?). Nate wanted (and deserved) big $. Hell the only lesson that teaches is you can get better deals by playing out your contract and going FA.

It is more about scapegoats, and while Milloy wasn't the Pro Bowl caliber player that he was for NE*, he wasn't completely torn apart here, either. My interpretation is basically players that flat out sucked (Bennie Anderson, Tim Anderson) failed to live to their own hype (Nate Clements), set the franchise back (Tom Donahoe, Ralphy), talked major sh-- about Buffalo (Willis MacGahee), or had sex with minors (Travis Henry)

How about Eddie "I got juked by Chad Pennington" Robinson Buffalo Billdo Larry Tripplett Nate Clements Melvin Fowler any Bills TE (minus Everett) and Tom Clements

A (franchise) tag and trade is not out of the question. In this case, both parties would be happy. Nate would go to the skins (or whoever) and make huge bucks and we would get a draft pick. No one would be offended or left bitter. This would NOT leave the bills org with a black eye or turn off future free agents.

Maybe some of you oldtimers (like me) can chime in on this - but some of the objections to the original premise of this thread was the "need" for the Bills to sign or draft another DT (preferably - big run stuffer in the ilk of Sam Adams or Ted Washington). I do not dispute the obvious assertio that the Bills run defense was terrible last year. It does sound reasonable to state that we need new (better) players inserted into the middle of the defense. But I cannot recall any 1st year DT ever making an impact. This position really seems to stand out as quite a jump from college - DT/NT play at that level is often best desribed as men against boys - the type of player who can succeed at the NFL level is usually playing against much smaller linemen at the college level. Thus, they usually have their way against all opponents or face triple teams - which sometimes can't stop them either. But in the pros - they are immediately up against behemoths as big as they are. The transition means they actually have to (egad!) WORK OUT and bulk up even more. Looking at the stats of two former Bills (Ted and Big Sam) nither did much until their 3rd or 4th year (Ted was hurt quite bit - which is why Wade had to practically BEG Marv and Jerry to sign him). Big Sam had less than 30 tackles for both of his first 2 seasons. Kyle Williams had 53 tackles in 2006. At his young age and having now an entire year to bulk up this offseason and having a full year's experience, is it unreasonable to think we might LAREADY HAVE ON THE TEAM the player we all are longing for? And what about McCargo? Do we expend another draft pick or Cap Cash (which could/should be spent on Nate) to add another player on the defensive line? So my question is this: Is it unreasonable to think that Kyle Williams can bulk up AND play at the kind of level to stuff the run? Is it too risky to assume McCargo will pick his game up enough to also be an asset ? Can these two players free up the Bills to focus on WR/OT/OG and LB while signing Nate and Kelsay? That is what I would do. -RnJ

If nothing else, the plan is realistic. The Bills probably only have enough money for ONE big name free agent signing, and if it's Nate with a $20 million dollar bonus, then the rest of team will be filled like that. BUT, it is rumored that Ralph really wants to address the o-line, and we know for a fact that Marv wants to address the d-line from his show, so I doubt they are going to splurge on Nate.

i can't recall---did marv say he said it, or did nate or nates people say he said it. there's a lot of posturing in these negotiations, always. if marv said he wouldn't, he won't, but it seems like a strange thing to say to a marquis player when millions are at stake. and, assuming at the time nc had a big season, they'd have to want to pay him, or let him test the waters (or tag him and buy them some bargaining room).

Marv said he would not use the Franchise tag on Nate again. To my knowledge, nothing was said about the Transition tag.

But nothing was written into a contract that states this, it was just an agreement he had with Marv, basically a gentlemens agreement, they probably shook hands and made the deal, then Nate signed the Franchise deal. Its not going against any contract if Marv pretended to be senile and forget what he said last year and did it again, but Marv is a stand up guy who has values and principles and probably prides himself on being a man of his word so going back on it would make him a weasel and not trustworthy

According to sources Marv "promised" Nate he wouldnt use the tag on him...... If its in writting its one thing if its not then you do whats best for your team. But we all know Marv is the type of guy that dont go back on his word!

Actually - I could see LFB being given the Transition Tag... assuming Nate gets a deal done or doesn't walk straight away. In which case, despite what ML said last time, you have to franchise Nate again.

They stipulated last season that if Nate signed his franchise tender last season that they would not franchise him again this year

I have yet to here an official comment from the Bills Brass that within Nate Clements' contract, that it states we cant reuse the franchise tag on him. As far as I know it has all been hear say. Can anyone confirm?

For what it's worth, Sportsline has Whitner rated as the 148th best DB in the NFL. Interestingly, Ko Simpson was the 63rd best DB (according to them), and Nate Clements the 18th best DB. But what's really, really frustrating is the #2 DB on that list.

New England is smart. It seems they always get something for their unhappy holdout types. They got our first for Bledsoe, a masterful move on their part. It seems that each year they have plenty of extra picks. Why on earth we promised Nate Clements free agency is beyond me. We could have gotten at least an extra first. At least Donahoe got us an extra pick for Peerless. I would be really surprised if the Pats let Samuel get away for nothing in return. He will either be re-signed, tagged, or tagged and traded.

I don't think the Panthers will give up Lucas for a 4th, but I do think he would be a good addition. Not as good as keeping our 4th round pick and resigning Nate, though. No way in heel would I blow a 4th round pick on Ramirez, he can't even cover left field any more, but he can hit, so draft him in the six and convert him to LB.

One thing being missed by some of the Willis haters out there is that, coming off the sub-1000-yard season, WM's stock is lower than it will ever be. Thus, he has little in the way of bargaining power and can be had at a cheaper price (even with his overzealous agent) than would otherwise be the case. Marv missed this opportunity last season, when Nate was coming off a bad year -- and shouldn't make the same mistake twice.

I have a hard time believing that Marv and Co. don't want to sign Nate, London and Kelsay, as well as keeping TK and extending Willis. But the fact of the matter is that you really can't live one year at a time...Nate, Kelsay and Willis will want long-term deals (at least five years) and so will London (figure at least three years). TK is under contract (more then one year remaining) of course, but his value ($$$ vs. impact) needs to be evaluated. My feeling is that Nate will be allowed to walk, and London and Kelsay will be made respectable offers. Whether they want to stay or try for a few extra bucks elsewhere is left to be seen. Willis will have to suck it up and get into camp under his current deal. The Bills will then work with his dickhead agent to get something done by midseason that will extend him for at least five more years. Face it...when he's on his game, he can be a top 10 back. Lastly...TK stays and has a much better year next year.

OK but I'm going to tweak it a little- add Anthony Thomas, Daniel Graham TE,Andre Gurode OC/OG Boss Baily LB and Ernest Wilford WR to the free agents. 1st Marshawn Lynch RB 2nd Aaron Sears OG/OT 3a Aaron Ross CB 3b Josh Wilson CB 4 to Jacksonville for Wilford WR 5 for Hargrove DE/DT 6 Nate Ilaoa RB Hawaii 7 Henry Tolbert WR Grambling University

i do agree with you a lot as far as philosophy of the game and how players should act go. but how we think and how they actually act are 2 very different things. also, mcgahee isnt even making a mil per year yet(nor should he). i would be happy pounding the rock for $100,000/year. but if someone said to you "hey, youre making $50k/yr now, if you have a killer year youll end up making $200k for the next 5 years" you know you'd work that much harder too. so contract year does end up being a lot of motivation for these guys. and we drafted that CB in the 3rd round. if we take tony hunt in the 2nd(or 3rd) id be very happy with that too. with the life expectancy of RBs being 3 years, im just not for picking a RB in the 1st right now. if we let mcgahee walk next year, then grab one in next years draft when we need to, like we need to get Defensive help now. (edit: i dont know if we drafted yobouty "with every intention" of letting nate go. im pretty sure thats a "just in case" pick. i guess we'll see how serious they are about keeping nate in the next couple months)