Search the Community

I did not want Nate to go either, as most here feel. He did not want to be here though, and look at the$$ he signed for just crazy. Here is a name for you, Brian Kelly of the Bucs. He is not Nate but close, and it lookes like he can be had.

A good post. But the scope of the article was to identify teams which lost more than they gained in free agency. And the article has a point. The Bills have lost the following players: - Nate Clements, Willis McGahee, London Fletcher, Mike Gandy. The Bills have added the following players: - Dockery, Langston Walker, 3rd round pick Mike Gandy > Langston Walker Dockery + 3rd round pick < Clements + McGahee + Fletcher In the short run, the Bills' offseason moves represent a step backwards. But the only loss that will create long-term pain is Clements. And on the plus side of the ledger, we've added Dockery and those picks for McGahee. In the long run, these offseason moves should make us a (somewhat) better team. And even going into 2007, the Bills could easily be a better team due to our upcoming draft picks, and to younger guys from last year's team playing better this year.

Um, yes it friggin does! The primary reason SF got off the schnide and won the SB is Deion. His contributions moved them from win a playoff game and then lose team to a SB winning team. Yeah they were good before, just like the Colts were good before this year -> the point is they weren't good ENOUGH until he got there. The same thing is true with the Cowboys. Reverse your logic -> are u telling me that adding Nate to the Patriots/Bears/Saints would have gotten them a SB? - of course not. If that's what you think then you have missed my rationale. I am not saying we shouldn't actively pursue players with upside/proven performance. I am saying that a veteran guy like Clements, who isn't even in the top 5 in his position, is not worth pursuing. Schobel is. Moorman is. We shouldn't look to spend big money on a guy with 4 INTs, who hasn't made a pro-bowl in 3 years(at least), and ain't getting any better. We should give the guys we drafted a chance, rather than "locking up" mediocrity. Btw, Schobel was 3rd in the league in the main stat for his position - sacks. Clements wasn't even in the top 30 for his - INTs. How the hell is Nate a better CB than Schobel is a DE, again?

Yes, he is a different type of player, asked to do different things AND had huge offensive lineman hanging on him do to our relative lack of talent and BEEF at DT. Fletcher is not Zach Thomas. London is still one of the top MLBs in the NFL. The guy we get to replace him probably won't be Zach Thomas either. We might be fine at LB...I EXPECT us to be fine. I'm just saying, Fletcher played hard and good. Was a team leader, called the D, played hurt and did everything you expect a veteran leader to do. He didn't hold the Bills hostage. He is not a player who's talent has severely declined. He's not a ME guy. What's not to like about the guy? Basically, I'm defending the integrity of LF-B here. I think he's been underrated and under-appreciated by many Bills fans. I also don't think he left in a negative way. To lump him in with Nate (who I would defend differently) or Willis is a mistake and unfair, IMO. Also, in response to the topic at the time, I offered up the possibility that younger players may learn a lesson here...and not the one we probably want them to learn.

The example wasn't ill advised in the least. The fact that Deon cherry picked teams that were on the verge has something to do with his winning. Deon himself didn't bring the winning to those teams, he was a big part, no doubt, but without the other pieces in place Deon on the team doens't mean squat. No player, not even a QB, can will his team to win simply because he is a "difference maker". It just doesn't happen that way in the game of football. As for your other players, Schobel was not better than Clements last year. If you want to go simply by Pro Bowl voting have at it. Nate is a better CB than Schobel is a DE (and I like Schobel a lot). Anyway, by your rational we should just dump Schobel anyway, that bum. What has he ever done for the Bills?

Just my opinion. What makes an NFL corner Pro Bowl material, or a shutdown corner? Is it tackles, sacks, interceptions, times not thrown at? Well when most people vote for the Pro Bowl they vote a name. In the AFC Nate was not the biggest name, nor had the most tackles, nor the most interceptions, you get the point. What I think made Nate look good was he was a good corner, not hreat, and Terrence McGee wasn't. If I knew faking you with a left jab 20 times got me 15 hits with the right, I'd fake you 100 times. But he is enough of a loss that I think it is a huge concern now.

And that accounts for your ill-advised Deion example how exactly? Better players than Nate: Aaron Schobel Brian Moorman Um, Pro-Bowlers.

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?