Search the Community

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.

Thank you, AD. This wasn't a hail mary pass or anything remotely close to that. Brady was trying to gun the ball to Troy Brown (I think), but he was just trying to get a first down - not throw it up for grabs. McCree made a play by jumping the route and making the pick, since he was in perfect position to do so....the ball practically hit him between the numbers. I'd expect any DB to do the same thing. As for the play in 2004 by Clements, that was a jump ball between him and the WR. I vaguely remember seeing the replay, but I think it was just a case of the WR (Jimmy Smith, IIRC) out-jumping Nate. I don't remember that Nate tried for the interception, but his goal on that play would have been to knock it down, also.

True, but after the bye, the Bills assigned Nate to the opponents best WR, in man coverage. He was able to play tight (no more zone) the maority of the plays. It was part of the reason for our defensive improvement. Also, McGee, played much better after the bye. He too was allowed to play tighter. Our CBs were a bit confused by the zone and our coaches, to their credit, tweaked the system to take better advantage of the CBs individual talents.

Given the success that Marv and Co had with virtually the rest of the draft, you do have to wonder what they may have been able to do with an extra 2nd rounder -- and without giving up that 3rd to move up for McCargo. The funny thing is that the pick that looked like the biggest steal at the time (AY in the 3rd) now looks like the biggest reach, given AY's relative lack of playing time in 2006. Of course, the verdict is still out on that pick just like it is on all of the others. For example, many of our Day 2 picks were rushed into duty by necessity. Does that necessarily mean that they were great picks? Maybe. Maybe not. I think back to the 2001 draft, which was TD's first (and best) draft for us. There were a number of players that were rushed into duty that year too. Some of them have gone onto have productive careers (Schobel, Nate, Travis, Jennings), while others (Edwards, Spoon) haven't. Mort -- who was still bemoaning the departure of TD -- always claimed that there was confusion in the Bills War Room on draft day. I'm not sure where he would have received this tidbit -- and none of us will ever know if this was indeed true. Perhaps there was some indecision on the part of the front office regarding the trade offers. Maybe they spent too much time analyzing what players would be left, if they decided to move down 6-7 spots, as the Eagles and Broncos were both supposedly offering 2nd round picks to move up. I think it is fair to assess that DW would have probably been gone by 14 or 15 if the Bills had pulled the trigger on the trade. Thus, maybe management was guilty of being overly fond of DW in their refusal trade down. Yet, I did not hear criticism at the time of the Raiders and Lions -- both of whom probably had similar trade offers on the table and also refused to trade down to acquire more picks. Given that Whitner was a starter from day one -- and played quite well as a rookie (Note that I don't remember him getting beat over the top very often in the passing game, and he helped the defense wind up with a top 10 rating against the pass.) -- it is hard to really dislike that pick. The only other player taken in that range, who could have conceivably been an upgrade (to this point) would have been Ngata. We know that there was a considerable amount of disagreement amongst the coaches and front office people about whether or not Ngata was a good fit. There was some perception heading into the draft that he was known to take plays off -- and even so, he was NOT a 3-down lineman. I have always felt that Whitner was a consensus selection -- that is a pick that EVERYONE on the staff was on board with and a low-risk selection at that. From that perspective -- and considering the overall "We Are Family" vibe that was to be a season-long motif, I think the Whitner pick may have been every bit as much of a symbolic move as it was a move to acquire an impact player. That is something that was lost on most of the pundits... Even those who thought the team "reached" for Whitner at the time, acknowledged that he was a pretty good player that was definitely a first round talent. However, the McCargo selection was greeted with outright sneers at the time, as some draftniks (like Kiper) had him rated as a 3rd rounder. I would compare the move to get him to what TD did back in 2002 to get Ryan Denney. At the time, our spies had the intel that the Steelers were all set to draft Denney at the end of the second round. Instead, TD moved up from the 3rd to swipe him right from under their noses. Maybe it wasn't in our best interest to move up like that, but if the coaches and front office really wanted him, that's what they were going to have to do. The same thing happened last year with McCargo. The Bills caught wind that the Giants were prepared to draft him at the end of the 1st round, so if the Bills wanted him they were going to have to move up to get him. Obviously the verdict is still out on McCargo; we have to hope and pray that he isn't injury prone, for example. Obviously, DT was a need -- and the draft was dangerously thin at that position in 2006. (Note that there was a major gap between the McCargo pick and when the next DT was taken.) We will not know for some time whether Kiper's assessment of McCargo as a 3rd rounder was right on or not; however, McCargo was something of a late riser. Lenny P had just written an article days before suggesting that he could go as early as the 1st round. If Marv, Modrak or whomever made that call turns out to be correct, then adding a single big body (which should be available in free agency or the draft, where DTs appear to be more plentiful this year) should shore up the interior for years to come. All in all, we headed into the 2006 draft with so many holes to fill that the draft could have taken any direction imaginable. Thanks partly to some nice choices in that draft, we are in much better shape heading into 2007. Thus, I expect this draft to be far more focused than was last year's.

I wouldn't say it was the same because of the time left in the Jax game, or the fact that the ball Nate went for wasn't the easy pick that McCree got.

Isn't this the same stupidity that Nate Clements exhibited in the home opener in 2004 against the Jaguars? Simply KNOCK DOWN a 4th and forever pass attempt and go home a winner?? Forgetting down and distance in this league is nothing NEW..... Bledsoe forgetting its 4th down, Willis McGahee forgetting its 4th down.... The rule of thumb here is that "you" need a little bit of concentration to play this game well and some players don't possess this skill as some others do!!!

Gonzalez is a smart youngster...a 4.0 - type. He agonized about declaring for the pros'. To my view, he's a hard worker - sort of in the Wayne Cherbet mold. Has good speed, moves, etc., and comes back into play to help out a QB. Pittman is a decent rb. Seems to block ok, and has good wheels. I'd guess those two, and QB Smith, C Doug Datish and DT Quinn Pitcock are under good consideration by several pro clubs. Worrying about the team weakening isn't a factor - it's been common for OSU juniors to turn pro. They traditionally have a large talent base to pick replacements from. "Ohio State notebook Offense might take hit in draft; Underclassmen are considering heading to NFL BY RUSTY MILLER | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Three Buckeyes left early a year ago for the NFL, with two taken in the first round (defensive back Donte Whitner and wide receiver Santonio Holmes) and another in the third (defensive back Ashton Youboty). Twenty-two Ohio State players have left school early to be a part of the draft since 1992. The list includes some of the most productive Buckeyes in the NFL: Dan Wilkinson, Terry Glenn, Shawn Springs, Orlando Pace, Nate Clements and Chris Gamble..." http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...12160387/-1/all

I hate Belidick but but he clearly had the better coached team on the field Sunday. Sure, Rivers' numbers were not stellar - but did he lose the game? Do you really think he was audiblizing much? When players celebrate to the point of being penalized - THAT'S a coaching problem as much (or more) than a player problem. Can you imagine a Buffalo Bill headbutting an opponent after stopping them on a 4th down try? The same goes for late hits. Did the players decide to go for it on a 4th an 11 at the 31 yard line? Who made the decision against a 48-yard field goal attempt by the AFC's Pro Bowl kicker, Nate Kaeding, who hadn't missed a field goal in six weeks. I hate the raise the name of Mularkey (egad) but I think even HE would not have challenged the OBVIOUS fumble after the idiotic 4th down interception and then fumble in the 4th quarter. Maybe Schottenheimer was TRYING to lose....that almost makes more sense. The Chargers caught Mrs. Brady on an AWFUL day - at times, he loooked absolutely lost. But you simply cannot keep handing him the ball over and over again and expect to win. The Chargers GAVE the game away. period. Bad coaching was key along with moronic decision-making on the field. And by the way, why did LT only get 23 total carries - only 4 in the 4th quarter with the lead? I thought the best AFC teams were SD - Balt - Colts and then NE BUT, are any of you feeling "good" about the Colts chances this Sunday? Certainly, Dungy can coach his players but Brady is due for a good game - why not the AFC Championship game? The thought of another NE SB win is nauseating to me. Please God (not you Bruschi), help the Colts Worried in NJ..... RnJ