LabattBlue Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 As I stated in another thread on this subject, trading NC before this season leaves the Bills VERY thin at CB. You would be left with McGee who seemed to struggle mightily at times(despite being a very good ball hawk) and a draft pick or Kevin Thomas/Jabari Greer at the other corner. The other option would be to move TV back to corner, but then that leaves Rashad Baker as your starting FS. Don't get me wrong, I am convinced that NC is gone after this year as he strikes me as the kind of guy who wants to break the bank. Therefore, if some team wants to be generous with day one draft picks in a trade for NC, I'd consider it. It's just that there could be some struggles in the secondary for the 2005 season, if he is traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 1- This is not my area of expertise, but he certainly would be worth a top 10 cb salary and bonus. 2- I think he'll probably be looking for top 5 cb money 3- A healthy Chris Samuels and a lower draft pick would do 4- Yes.. thus is the nature of the game these days. 301481[/snapback] I sense that NC saw what was paid to Winfield and has been drooling ever since. Btw, I do not blame him one iota. As for Samuels, I think he was renegotiated very recently and is not an option. I admire your courage for being ready to take the risk of losing NC with no compensation. He IS an extremely good player. I just hate the thought of letting him go for nothing, and can see why TD might want to at least explore all options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 If the Redskins were offering their 1st and 2nd rounders this year then I'd let Clements go and have Vincent move back to corner. If not, I'd keep Clements and franchise him next season if he doesn't sign an extension. I know he'd be about a 10 million dollar cap hit, but cornerback is perhaps the most important defensive position in todays NFL. We'd be overpaying him by about 4 million dollars, however at least he'd be a player who'd pay dividends with his play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 I sense that NC saw what was paid to Winfield and has been drooling ever since. Btw, I do not blame him one iota. As for Samuels, I think he was renegotiated very recently and is not an option. I admire your courage for being ready to take the risk of losing NC with no compensation. He IS an extremely good player. I just hate the thought of letting him go for nothing, and can see why TD might want to at least explore all options. 301503[/snapback] Yeah Bill, I've got the same feeling as you do re: Nate and his drooling over potential compensation. I can only hold out hope that he continues to mature as he has and that we have a team that he would want to come back to, ie. a playoff team. I know Chris Samuels is not an option realisticly but that was my best analogy at the time I'd prefer a proven player over pure draft picks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeBill Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Without Pat Williams, the secondary is going to be tested a bit next season... 301264[/snapback] I don't see anything changing with PW gone. Ron Edwards will fill in his role, without a hic-up. For some reason, people can't see that. You will in 6 months though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeBill Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 It would break my heart to lose Clements. Just like it broke my heart when we lost Winfield. Clements is the playmaker... the type of guy who can make that one play that wins the game for us. Even with our amazing defense, there are few MAJOR play makers. (TKO is one however). Clements is very valuable to us, but knowing TD, I would be shocked to see him as a Bill for the '06 season. He won't be worth what other teams will be willing to pay for him. Breaks my heart, but it's gonna happen. If we somehow DO keep NC, then that will prove me that TD thinks that we are ready to make our Superbowl run. Obviously, with our key losses this year, he doesn't think our run will be THIS year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 i say if we trade clements for a 1st rounder, (probubly a mid 1st rounder), and we draft a CB with that pick. i say there will be a 30% chance he will be as good as clements is, and a 5% chance he will be a shut down CB for the first 4 years with the bills. then his contract will be up, right when hes becoming a great CB, (if that ever happens). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 I don't see anything changing with PW gone. Ron Edwards will fill in his role, without a hic-up. For some reason, people can't see that. You will in 6 months though. 301519[/snapback] I hold out hope for Edwards as well but as it stands based on what we've all seen until now, He cannot play the run very well and will not command double teams. What we WILL see is improved pass rush from the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 One thing to remember about Woodson's contract is that it was inflated in 2005 for two reasons... 1. Last year when the Raiders tagged him, they did so as an Exclusive Rights Frnachise Player, which somes with a larger price tag than the Non-exclsuive Rights tender. 2. This year, when they opted to tag him again, they had to pay him 120% over last year's salary, which is how he wound up with the $10 M number this year. Although Woodson's own number will play a role in inflating the franchise tag number next year --as it will undoubtedly be the top salary amongst the top 5 to be averaged -- the franchise number figures to be significantly less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 One thing to remember about Woodson's contract is that it was inflated in 2005 for two reasons... 1. Last year when the Raiders tagged him, they did so as an Exclusive Rights Frnachise Player, which somes with a larger price tag than the Non-exclsuive Rights tender. 2. This year, when they opted to tag him again, they had to pay him 120% over last year's salary, which is how he wound up with the $10 M number this year. Although Woodson's own number will play a role in inflating the franchise tag number next year --as it will undoubtedly be the top salary amongst the top 5 to be averaged -- the franchise number figures to be significantly less. 301794[/snapback] The number IS less, but not by much. Franchise Players are paid either an average of the top 5 at their position, OR 120% of their salary, but whichever is GREATER. It was posted here that the number would be 8.86 million as I recall. CP, are you out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Who would give us a first rounder for someone they know we can't afford in 2006 and could sign for free? Additionally, they'd likely be unable to resign him also, so is a 1st round pick worth a year of Nate Clements to any team in the league? I'm not so sure. 301210[/snapback] I never did understand the logic that says that a player is not worth us signing but is so good that other teams will trade a boat load of top picks for him. The only time a player is worth a lot to one team and not another is because the teams have different cap problems or teams have more pressing needs at other positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts