Jump to content

Replacing Charles Clay: All-22 Review, Cap implications, Roster, FA and draft options


YoloinOhio

Recommended Posts

I've never been a fan of cutting a guy when we don't have someone better to replace him with.  It would be a different story if we needed that cap space to make another move or he was an issue in the locker room but neither of those appear to be the case.  No question we need to upgrade the TE position but cutting Clay before we've done that doesn't make the team better. 

 

Who knows, he could end up being a solid #2 TE this year.  Maybe he could actually stay healthy if he's not counted on the play every snap with the 1s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the upside of cutting him?  They have more than enough cap room to sign any players they want. They won't use all the cap room in one off-season.  He is still the best TE on the roster. 

That being said, other than the interior OL, TE is the worst positon group on the team. They need a high end FA acquisition and a day 1 or day 2 draft pick before they should move on from Clay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Well he has a contract with the Bills.  That is a big reason.  There is literally no downfall to seeing if he can turn it around. 

A lost roster spot for an ineffective player is the downfall. He hasn’t lived up to the billing, injuries or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Beane and McDermott value two things that Clay doesn't offer: Bang for your buck (his production does not match his cap number), and consistent availability (he almost never practices and is questionable most weeks). Because of these two factors, I expect Clay to be a goner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Which harkens back to my original point, which is unless there is some player more talented then him (which there is not) you keep him.  

In my opinion, if he is ineffective (he is), then you try to bring someone in who will be an improvement. Sticking with the same is counterintuitive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TroutDog said:

In my opinion, if he is ineffective (he is), then you try to bring someone in who will be an improvement. Sticking with the same is counterintuitive. 

But its not.  Players have up and down years.  He has literally led this team in receiving in past years.  One down year does not constitute being "ineffective" and "sticking with the same" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

But its not.  Players have up and down years.  He has literally led this team in receiving in past years.  One down year does not constitute being "ineffective" and "sticking with the same" 

His highest average per game in the last three years is 42.9. That’s terrible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IgotBILLStopay said:

If possible, I would like to retain Clay unless it is a trade that brings us something else. This is a contract year for him and I expect him to up his game quite a bit. 

 

That's a good point you bring up.  I'm not a fan of Clay but until they get someone better I don't think they cut him.

 

2 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

I think Daboll will have a lot of say in whether he returns. He’s a former TE coach and may have a strong opinion on either he wants him on the field. If I’m not mistaken, he coached him in Miami too early in clay’s career. 

 

I think it could go either way. At minimum I think they will bring in a presumed upgrade either in FA or the draft. Whether they keep him too is fluid but I have a gut feeling they will not. I too get the impression that McDermott doesn’t consider him to fulfill his “availability” requirement and his reliability was very questionable when he did play. 

 

I also think Daboll will have a lot more to say about the roster this year.

Agree about it going either way.

 

 

Having Clay go to camp with the other TEs won't hurt anything.

If he get's cut before Day 1 of camp or is cut the 1st of September doesn't affect his cap hit.

I think he goes to camp unless he part of a trade (which seems unlikely) or Beane finds another quality TE in the offseason.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

I don’t disagree, but it’s better than 90% of nfl TEs and any other player on our roster. It’s not a given that we would be able to find a huge improvement. 

My point is that for what he’s making, production should be at least somewhat commensurate. 

 

I’ve vacillated on whether I’d keep him or not. I’m (obviously) of the mind now that I believe they should allow others an opportunity. I hear your point, however. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TroutDog said:

My point is that for what he’s making, production should be at least somewhat commensurate. 

 

I’ve vacillated on whether I’d keep him or not. I’m (obviously) of the mind now that I believe they should allow others an opportunity. I hear your point, however. 

 

Well, thats probably as good as it gets on a message board! haha

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TroutDog said:

My point is that for what he’s making, production should be at least somewhat commensurate. 

 

I’ve vacillated on whether I’d keep him or not. I’m (obviously) of the mind now that I believe they should allow others an opportunity. I hear your point, however. 

I try to avoid this "for what he's making" approach.   FOr a couple of reasons.

 

First, it's really hard to know exactly what someone's value is.   In theory you could figure out the value of every player on the roster relative to all the other players on the team and in the league and do some sophisticated math to figure values, but that's in theory only. 

 

More importantly, though is that what you're paying him is just a value that was put on him at the point in time when he signed.  Even then, there were a lot of things that went into the determination, but whatever went into it, it's just history now.   You have him on the team, and the important question is not whether he's worth it but whether he makes your team better.  I suppose you can consider whether he's worth it in terms of whether you could get the same production for less money, or get better production for the same money.   The answer to that question is pretty much impossible to figure out, because there aren't a lot of tight ends on the market.  The rookies you can get certainly will be less money, but they are less likely, on an individual basis, to produce better than Clay, even given his meagre numbers last season.   You're not likely to get a rookie with equal production who blocks better, for example.   Maybe, but not likely. 

 

The Bills have Clay.  Can they do better?  In the short-term, maybe not.  In the long term, I certainly hope so, but that will take a few years to develop someone.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We shouldn't be cutting players just for the hell of it or 4.5 mil in cap savings. They're gonna have zero issues with the cap.

 

Give him a shot to have a bounce back year as he was pretty solid the previous 3 seasons. Obviously going to address the position, but I could definitely see Clay back and relatively productive as the QB progresses. Health will likely play a major role in their decision.

Edited by LSHMEAB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...