Search the Community

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)

Nate hasn't gotten re-signed yet and I don't think he will be. Whether we have a great secondary for years to come will still be determined by our offseason moves to compensate for his loss.

My guess is that Houston snags M Lynch at 8 after they sign Nate Clements (house in Houston) to a huge contract b/c Wash Redskins can't put up an offer like the Texans nor is his home in DC. Buffalo takes DARRELLE REVIS.

Starting with Davis and Aiken. I know they both are very good st's players however I dont see the point in keeping 2 roster spots at the same position for strictly st's play when neither contributes as a wideout. Determine which one is more valuable on st's and let go the other one. Like you and the other poster. Maybe George Wilson steps up preferably though I'd prefer a #2 wr or receiving te. A receiving te is a young qb's best friend and would do more imo for losmans confidence as he progresses then another wideout. I'm not looking for the next gates although that would be nice. Someone like Daniel Graham or Jerramy Stevens would be good. Or in the later part of the draft. Possibly someone like Martrez Milner from Georgia who might be a bit of a project due to not much playing time in playing time, but when he's played he's done well. He had some issues with drops. More of a draft on potential but for a middle round pick would not be a bad pickup. As far as free agency goes theres not much in the way of anything that good. I know everyone shouts off about Drew Bennett, but going this route and keeping with the system. Maybe someone like Kevin Curtis or Shaun McDonald from the rams who have experience in fairchilds system. I'd really prefer not to spend a lot of money for a guy like bennett when that money can go towards other areas or re-signing Nate. If McDonald or Curtis don't interest you and you're not keen on the idea of Bennett maybe Travis Taylor who would be a nice #2 if we let go of price. My biggest with this as well as the potential of losing Nate is the experience factor. You really need that guy who's been there done that and can teach the younger players. All I remember hearing is how Price became a father figure to Roscoe and took him under his wing. Which is why I dont think Price will get cut. Regardless of low ypc. Which I think is more of a reflection on how he was used and Losmans slow development over the course of the season. He was used more as a security blanket posession receiver then sent out on deeper routes. Fairchilds poor man version of Ike Bruce to Lee Evans Torry Holt. Next season I'd prefer more of a 2 te system. I believe you can do so much more out of the passing and running games and be much more effective in the redzone where we have struggled the most. Losman and company have shown the ability to move between the 20's but down in the redzone have not been nearly as effective. A 2 te system would give us more options to keep defenes honest respecting both the run and pass. It mostly gives you more options for a stronger run game as it's basically having 2 extra linemen on the field. Ne excells at the 2 te system as does indy and teams like sd and kc etc etc etc. The deph chart I'll say will end up looking like this.. WR- 1. Evans 2. Price 3. Reed 4. Parrish 5.Draft pick 6. Davis TE- 1. Robert Royal 2. FA or draft pick 3. Brad Cieslak te/h-back

Hey you brought up the Nate stuff so don't blame me for getting off topic.

WHAT ABOUT HIM?!? you think he's really gonna be that much cheaper to sign than Nate? not after putting up a good showing in the playoffs so far. at this point Asante Samuel is THE CB going into free agency. Signing Nate will be the same thing. and im pretty sure we are talking about the draft here.

2 quick observations: 1. if that "Top 5 Cornerback" list isnt enough motivation to re-sign Nate, i dont know what is! aside from Hall, there are NO major CBs coming out this year. so forget about taking one in the 1st. 2. I wonder if Samardzija isnt "playing dead" telling everyone he wants to play baseball so he slips to New England and once he's picked by the Pats he drops Baseball altogether??? i wouldnt put it past Samardzija/Weiss/Belichick

You're wrong. The play everyone is alluding to was 4th and 14. Jimmy Smith and Nate each went up for the catch and Smith came down with the ball. All Nate had to do was knock it down, instead he gave up a 45 yarder to our 21 yard line. That led to Wilford catching the TD over Reese because Reese was too stupid to turn his damn head. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Personally I agree. Nate was able to single-handedly shutdown some pretty good WRs (Harrison, A Johnson, C Chambers to name a few) this season, and he is definitely going to be better than anything that we would have on hand to replace him with. If it were up to me, I'd go ahead and pay whatever it takes to lock him up for the next 5-6 years. As you point out, given our nice cap situation, money is not necessarily the issue. Indeed, I have a feeling that politics plays a role too -- and if Nate receives the kind of payday from us that it will take to keep him in the fold, he will become the highest paid player in team history. That in and of itself is an uneasy thought with guys like Lee Evans, Willis McGahee and JP Losman not far from free agency themselves. What's more, don't forget that this is a two-sided negotiation, as Marv supposedly parted with the Franchise Tag bargaining chip that would normally be at his disposal. (Let this be a lesson not to EVER do this again, Marv!) Thus, in order for Nate to continue playing here he has to WANT to stay here -- and I've heard conflicting reports that this may not be the case. In my mind, Marv screwed the pooch on this one in many ways last season. Recall that Nate was coming off a really bad season -- and his bid for free agency hit at the worst possible time for him. Instead of working a deal to buy low at that time, Marv essentially gave Nate another try at a contract year -- and this time he made good on it. Thus, he probably allowed Nate to price himself out of our market.