Trading Nate a Good Idea?

[BillsFanForever19]

In the long run, it's what should be done.

 

Nate Clements is one of the best players on our team. But face facts, this is his last year as a Buffalo Bill. TD may be a "genius", but he doesn't re-sign ANYONE. Especially when you try and think of the type of money Nate's going to get next year. He let Peerless walk, he let Antoine Winfield walk, he let Jonas Jennings walk, he let Pat Williams walk and if you think he's going to shell out the "Top 10 CB" money; you're dillusional.

 

So now we have to look at it like this, trade Nate for a top ten pick or keep Nate for one year and then get nothing. I feel as if a top ten pick who will be with us for many years to come is much more important than one year of Nate Clements play.

 

TD said it himself, our defense is incredible; but our offense isn't good enough. Yes we have Willis McGahee. Yes we have Eric Moulds and Lee Evans. But that's where it ends on offense. J.P. needs another weapon. On top of that, Eric Moulds doesn't have much time left. I'm not talking contract wise, i'm talking playing wise. This will be E-Moulds' 10th season and it's starting to show (not to mention we're one slow-starting rookie QB away from him "rethinking" things again).

 

TD is sitting on a whole bunch of money, which is very unlike him (funny how he never resigns anyone, but throws all sorts of money around for FA's). He hasn't made many moves because he's waiting for the draft. But why would you do that with only a #55? I honestly think he has something up his sleeve. Maybe not a trade involving Nate, but he's cooking something.

 

If I were TD, i'd pull the trigger on a trade involving Nate. But only for one person...... USC WR/TE Mike Williams. Here's a guy that we were very interested in last year before "The Maurice Rule" was appealed and defunct. His size has a lot of teams looking at him to play an Antonio Gates type role as TE, along with WR. This is the perfect type of addition to our offense! And with Moulds, Evan, and Williams; along with McGahee in the backfield, J.P. is loaded with help.

 

Now the rumor is: Nate to Washington for #9. But here's a couple scenarios I see as possibilities:

 

Nate and Travis to Arizona for #8 and L.J. Shelton - Arizona needs two things: a RB and a CB. We've been prolifically working on a deal involving Shelton and Henry. But we just can't seem to agree on compensation. Arizona is going to draft one or the other, why not take care of both with the #8 and ship out L.J.? It makes perfect sense for both teams. The only thing is, we'd need to move up to at least #6 (in front of Minnesota) to get MW. But from #8, it shouldn't take more than a 3rd rounder to get to 6 (the same type of deal would apply if we sent Nate to Washington for a #9). Especially since they'll (Tennesee) most likely take a CB as it is. It's essentially the same deal as below, but with a #3 and L.J. Shelton (which is a fair deal to me).

 

Nate and Travis to Tennessee for #6 - Almost the same things apply here. Tennessee needs all the help they can get. CB and RB being two huge needs and one of the two will be addressed by Tennessee with this pick. Why not take care of both? As for L.J. Shelton, this move forces Arizona to pick a RB. We'll just throw a #3 their way for L.J., i'm sure they'll bite.

 

I know people are going to be saying "Nate Clements and Travis Henry for Mike Williams; a rookie?!" Well it's not as bad as it sounds when you look at it from this perspective; Travis Henry will NOT play for us. Even if he does, he won't see the light of day on the field and next year he's gone. Nate Clements will be amazing as always for Buffalo in 2005. But that's all we get as far as Nate goes. Nate in 05 because in 06.... he's gone.

 

Mike Williams would give us that boost on offense we need and none of the trades I propose are unrealistic. Other teams would jump at a package like that. So what about CB with Nate gone you ask? Well, we draft a CB in the second, third, or forth round and take some of our $6.5 in cap money and sign a veteran like Ty Law or Andre Dyson. There was too much talk by EVERYONE to discount Law not being here for a visit. I do believe he at least stopped by to check out the place. But I think it was kept on the downlow for a reason. Using a pick in the top four rounds should get you a good CB to groom (ala Terrence McGee). Then if you add another veteran like Law, we're in a good position. So what about other positions of need?

 

DT - I feel that TD addressed it last year with the drafting of Tim Anderson. Do you honestly feel that TD's going to spend a 3rd rounder on a DT from Ohio State and not use him? Combined with Ron Edwards 4 sack season and you have a couple guys who could step up. I'd be surprised if we got another DT going into the season. I think TD feels set and if ever a position to sacrifice a little defense for the offense, DT would be it.

 

OL - Dear god, I really don't understand why everyone wants to draft an OL. Maybe if we didn't have a shot at Shelton, but it's pretty much a given. Let's say we get Shelton then our OL looks like this:

 

L.J. Shelton (LT)

Bennie Anderson (LG)

Trey Teague ©

Chris Villarial (RG)

Mike Williams (RT)

-

Mike Gandy

Justin Bannan

Ross Tucker

Lawrence Smith

Ben Sobieski

Dylan McFarland

Jason Peters

 

HOW MANY LINEMAN DO WE NEED?!

 

TE - With Campbell and Euhus coming back, we're back to square one and that's not all bad. But MW is being scouted as a TE as well. I think he would flourish playing TE and slot reciever.

 

K - Oh man, the Nugent factor. I can't believe how many Bills fans this guy has. As long as we still have a 2nd after whatever trade up we make, if he's still there than definitely go for it. But I feel we're stuck with Lindell. There is no one out there on the market and we need help in other places more important than kicker. I cna't envision TD spending our top pick on a kicker.

 

 

The bottom line is we're in a good position and these things are entirely possible. Do I think it will happen? Probably not. But i'd love to give it a try if I were TD. Mike Williams is one of the only good players in this draft and there are tons of teams that want him. I think if trading Nate would get us a shot at him, it should be done.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

I thought so initially, now I'm not so sure. The reason being the Bills could squeeze another year out of Nate, franchise him next year, and THEN trade him for a 1st rounder, in what should be a better draft. With the mad money being thrown around this past off-season to CB's, trading him, even for a 1st, might not be so hard. And before anyone brings up Woodson, Nate has been healthy since entering the league and has no off-field issues. He's also not represented by the Postons.

[BillsFanForever19]

I thought so initially, now I'm not so sure.  The reason being the Bills could squeeze another year out of Nate, franchise him next year, and THEN trade him for a 1st rounder, in what should be a better draft.  With the mad money being thrown around this past off-season to CB's, trading him, even for a 1st, might not be so hard.  And before anyone brings up Woodson, Nate has been healthy since entering the league and has no off-field issues.  He's also not represented by the Postons.

304331[/snapback]

 

hmmmm.....

 

I'm not so sure that works that well anymore. I think Woodson put a stop to that when he signed that Franchise sheet.

 

It showed Franchise players that signing the sheet screws your team into A.) Having to pay top dollar and B.) Screws them capwise to the point that they MUST trade the player and that takes their trade value down.

[Chilly]

In the long run, it's what should be done.

 

Nate Clements is one of the best players on our team. But face facts, this is his last year as a Buffalo Bill. TD may be a "genius", but he doesn't re-sign ANYONE. Especially when you try and think of the type of money Nate's going to get next year. He let Peerless walk, he let Antoine Winfield walk, he let Jonas Jennings walk, he let Pat Williams walk and if you think he's going to shell out the "Top 10 CB" money; you're dillusional.

304329[/snapback]

 

 

Didn't he sign Eric Moulds to a huge contract? Didn't he sign a bunch of players in Free Agency like Spikes to big contracts?

 

He signs people to big money where he sees fit, and doesn't where he doesn't.

[Bill from NYC]

In the long run, it's what should be done.

 

Nate Clements is one of the best players on our team. But face facts, this is his last year as a Buffalo Bill. TD may be a "genius", but he doesn't re-sign ANYONE. Especially when you try and think of the type of money Nate's going to get next year. He let Peerless walk, he let Antoine Winfield walk, he let Jonas Jennings walk, he let Pat Williams walk and if you think he's going to shell out the "Top 10 CB" money; you're dillusional.

 

So now we have to look at it like this, trade Nate for a top ten pick or keep Nate for one year and then get nothing. I feel as if a top ten pick who will be with us for many years to come is much more important than one year of Nate Clements play.

 

TD said it himself, our defense is incredible; but our offense isn't good enough. Yes we have Willis McGahee. Yes we have Eric Moulds and Lee Evans. But that's where it ends on offense. J.P. needs another weapon. On top of that, Eric Moulds doesn't have much time left. I'm not talking contract wise, i'm talking playing wise. This will be E-Moulds' 10th season and it's starting to show (not to mention we're one slow-starting rookie QB away from him "rethinking" things again).

 

TD is sitting on a whole bunch of money, which is very unlike him (funny how he never resigns anyone, but throws all sorts of money around for FA's). He hasn't made many moves because he's waiting for the draft. But why would you do that with only a #55? I honestly think he has something up his sleeve. Maybe not a trade involving Nate, but he's cooking something.

 

If I were TD, i'd pull the trigger on a trade involving Nate. But only for one person...... USC WR/TE Mike Williams. Here's a guy that we were very interested in last year before "The Maurice Rule" was appealed and defunct. His size has a lot of teams looking at him to play an Antonio Gates type role as TE, along with WR. This is the perfect type of addition to our offense! And with Moulds, Evan, and Williams; along with McGahee in the backfield, J.P. is loaded with help. 

 

Now the rumor is: Nate to Washington for #9. But here's a couple scenarios I see as possibilities:

 

Nate and Travis to Arizona for #8 and L.J. Shelton - Arizona needs two things: a RB and a CB. We've been prolifically working on a deal involving Shelton and Henry. But we just can't seem to agree on compensation. Arizona is going to draft one or the other, why not take care of both with the #8 and ship out L.J.? It makes perfect sense for both teams. The only thing is, we'd need to move up to at least #6 (in front of Minnesota) to get MW. But from #8, it shouldn't take more than a 3rd rounder to get to 6 (the same type of deal would apply if we sent Nate to Washington for a #9). Especially since they'll (Tennesee) most likely take a CB as it is. It's essentially the same deal as below, but with a #3 and L.J. Shelton (which is a fair deal to me).

 

Nate and Travis to Tennessee for #6 - Almost the same things apply here. Tennessee needs all the help they can get. CB and RB being two huge needs and one of the two will be addressed by Tennessee with this pick. Why not take care of both? As for L.J. Shelton, this move forces Arizona to pick a RB. We'll just throw a #3 their way for L.J., i'm sure they'll bite.

 

I know people are going to be saying "Nate Clements and Travis Henry for Mike Williams; a rookie?!" Well it's not as bad as it sounds when you look at it from this perspective; Travis Henry will NOT play for us. Even if he does, he won't see the light of day on the field and next year he's gone. Nate Clements will be amazing as always for Buffalo in 2005. But that's all we get as far as Nate goes. Nate in 05 because in 06.... he's gone.

 

Mike Williams would give us that boost on offense we need and none of the trades I propose are unrealistic. Other teams would jump at a package like that. So what about CB with Nate gone you ask? Well, we draft a CB in the second, third, or forth round and take some of our $6.5 in cap money and sign a veteran like Ty Law or Andre Dyson. There was too much talk by EVERYONE to discount Law not being here for a visit. I do believe he at least stopped by to check out the place. But I think it was kept on the downlow for a reason. Using a pick in the top four rounds should get you a good CB to groom (ala Terrence McGee). Then if you add another veteran like Law, we're in a good position. So what about other positions of need?

 

DT - I feel that TD addressed it last year with the drafting of Tim Anderson. Do you honestly feel that TD's going to spend a 3rd rounder on a DT from Ohio State and not use him? Combined with Ron Edwards 4 sack season and you have a couple guys who could step up. I'd be surprised if we got another DT going into the season. I think TD feels set and if ever a position to sacrifice a little defense for the offense, DT would be it.

 

OL - Dear god, I really don't understand why everyone wants to draft an OL. Maybe if we didn't have a shot at Shelton, but it's pretty much a given. Let's say we get Shelton then our OL looks like this:

 

L.J. Shelton (LT)

Bennie Anderson (LG)

Trey Teague ©

Chris Villarial (RG)

Mike Williams (RT)

-

Mike Gandy

Justin Bannan

Ross Tucker

Lawrence Smith

Ben Sobieski

Dylan McFarland

Jason Peters

 

HOW MANY LINEMAN DO WE NEED?!

 

TE - With Campbell and Euhus coming back, we're back to square one and that's not all bad. But MW is being scouted as a TE as well. I think he would flourish playing TE and slot reciever.

 

K - Oh man, the Nugent factor. I can't believe how many Bills fans this guy has. As long as we still have a 2nd after whatever trade up we make, if he's still there than definitely go for it. But I feel we're stuck with Lindell. There is no one out there on the market and we need help in other places more important than kicker. I cna't envision TD spending our top pick on a kicker.

The bottom line is we're in a good position and these things are entirely possible. Do I think it will happen? Probably not. But i'd love to give it a try if I were TD. Mike Williams is one of the only good players in this draft and there are tons of teams that want him. I think if trading Nate would get us a shot at him, it should be done.

304329[/snapback]

Thank you for a well thought post.

It is hard to say exactly what we would get in exchange for NC. My feeling is that if there is little likelihood of keeping him after 05, a trade is in order. I am thinking that if JP can play (not a given), losing NC will not necessarily impede the Bills from being a playoff team.

Additionally, the Bills have a history of signing cbs in round 1 and losing them with no compensation. Imo, TD will break that trend. I expect NC to be traded to the Redskins on draft day.

We shall see.

[BillsFanForever19]

Didn't he sign Eric Moulds to a huge contract?  Didn't he sign a bunch of players in Free Agency like Spikes to big contracts?

 

He signs people to big money where he sees fit, and doesn't where he doesn't.

304345[/snapback]

 

Eric Moulds is the only major re-sign of TD's regime. I feel the only reason he did do that was because if he didn't, there would be a lynch mob after him.

 

At that point in time, Moulds was one of the top 5 WR's in the league. Everyone knew who Eric Moulds was in the Buffalo area, even if you weren't a football fan. He was (and still is) a Bill the likes of Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Bruce Smith, and Andre Reed.

 

Yes, TD spends big money and the post you replied to commented on that. But for one reason or another, he doesn't like to re-sign people. He would rather replace them with substitutes, especially if money is an issue.

[silvermike]

I don't think I want to spend a top 10 pick, if we get one, on a WR this year. It'll be a need once Moulds leaves, yeah, but I think there's usually good enoungh #2 guys in Free agency every year. I'd much rather take a CB - we'd be left without one altogether if Nate's gone, and if we can snag Rolle or Jones, we'd have a bookend for, well, the next five years.

[BillsFanForever19]

Thank you for a well thought post.

It is hard to say exactly what we would get in exchange for NC. My feeling is that if there is little likelihood of keeping him after 05, a trade is in order. I am thinking that if JP can play (not a given), losing NC will not necessarily impede the Bills from being a playoff team.

Additionally, the Bills have a history of signing cbs in round 1 and losing them with no compensation. Imo, TD will break that trend. I expect NC to be traded to the Redskins on draft day.

We shall see.

304348[/snapback]

 

Thank you for keeping an open mind and not responding with "ugh! trading nate = bad. keeping nate = good. you is stupid"

 

Anyways, I don't expect it. But if there is a likelihood that trading him would get us Mike Williams, I think it should be done.

[BillsFanForever19]

I don't think I want to spend a top 10 pick, if we get one, on a WR this year.  It'll be a need once Moulds leaves, yeah, but I think there's usually good enoungh #2 guys in Free agency every year.  I'd much rather take a CB - we'd be left without one altogether if Nate's gone, and if we can snag Rolle or Jones, we'd have a bookend for, well, the next five years.

304368[/snapback]

 

Antrelle Rolle or Pacman Jones? I think I could live with that.

 

But as for your comment, i'd have disagree. We need help on offense. Our line is almost set. Moulds and Evans are good. But we need one more X-Factor to compliment J.P. and Willis because what we have just isn't cutting it.

[Bill from NYC]

Eric Moulds is the only major re-sign of TD's regime. I feel the only reason he did do that was because if he didn't, there would be a lynch mob after him.

 

At that point in time, Moulds was one of the top 5 WR's in the league. Everyone knew who Eric Moulds was in the Buffalo area, even if you weren't a football fan. He was (and still is) a Bill the likes of Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Bruce Smith, and Andre Reed.

 

Yes, TD spends big money and the post you replied to commented on that. But for one reason or another, he doesn't like to re-sign people. He would rather replace them with substitutes, especially if money is an issue.

304363[/snapback]

 

He was the same in Pittsburgh. TD is accustomed to working for not so wealthy owners, which is to our advantage.

One thing he also does is surprise us. This is another reason why I think that a deal will go down, as unlikely as it may seem right now.

[34-78-83]

If you really look at our defense , player for player including the loss of PW, an '05 trade of NC would basically be forgoing any chances the bills might have this season (IMO). I believe this mainly because we really need our defense to be as good as it can be in order to help JP, and because draft picks 99% of the time take 2 to 3 years to make significant contributions.

[BillsFanForever19]

If you really look at our defense , player for player including the loss of PW, an '05 trade of NC would basically be forgoing any chances the bills might have this season (IMO). I believe this mainly because we really need our defense to be as good as it can be in order to help JP, and because draft picks 99% of the time take 2 to 3 years to make significant contributions.

304378[/snapback]

 

Again, I disagree.

 

Losing Nate Clements is painful to our team. But not if you replace him with a veteran like Ty Law or Andre Dyson. You combine that with a draft pick in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th and a healthy Troy Vincent at FS and I think we're in the same situation we were last year; if not better.

 

Our offense needs help. I feel that if we need to sacrifice a little defense to get it, then that's what needs to be done. J.P. is playing offense and he'll need offense to succeed.

 

Mike Williams will NOT need 2-3 years to make significant contributions. That I can guarantee!

[Bill from NYC]

Thank you for keeping an open mind and not responding with "ugh! trading nate = bad. keeping nate = good. you is stupid"

 

Anyways, I don't expect it. But if there is a likelihood that trading him would get us Mike Williams, I think it should be done.

304369[/snapback]

 

Well, my mind is even more open than merely Mike Williams.

Possibilities are virtually unlimited. We could get a 1st in 06 AND a first day pick in 05. Some of our players (SA, LF, CV) are not young.

A trade such as this could be a chance to replenish this football team with young talent. This type of chance does not seem to come often.

[Kelly the Dog]

For those thinking that TD will never shell out the money to a top 5 or top 10 player at a position, name one player that TD has ever let go since he's been here that fit that description.

 

In my eyes, and the facts say, he's 100% in keeping star players, not letting them go.

[LabattBlue]

For those thinking that TD will never shell out the money to a top 5 or top 10 player at a position, name one player that TD has ever let go since he's been here that fit that description.

 

In my eyes, and the facts say, he's 100% in keeping star players, not letting them go.

304391[/snapback]

This is debatable, but Antoine Winfield would have to be considered top 10 or close to it, at the CB position.

[stuckincincy]

Unless the team somehow discovers an ability to have a consistent pass rush this year, NC needs to stay and take some heat off of that extra second savvy qb's have against the defense. He'll either walk next year, or they sign him to the inflated cb figures these days and stab themselves elswhere. Not good.

 

No trades - they don't have anything on deck this year. Wish they did but building cb depth has not been a feature of this current regime.

[Bill from NYC]

This is debatable, but Antoine Winfield would have to be considered top 10 or close to it, at the CB position.

304396[/snapback]

 

Good point. His record at Pitt. should also be considered.

[Kelly the Dog]

This is debatable, but Antoine Winfield would have to be considered top 10 or close to it, at the CB position.

304396[/snapback]

Close to it. Fans throw around those numbers, especially Top 5 way too easily. Top five is basically starting on the first team All-Pro. He was my favorite Bill. But his lack of INTs certainly would keep him from the top five in the entire league. I have been as hard on Clements as anyone here but if Clements ups his game this year the same amount he upped it each of the last three years, he will be a top 10 (equaling pro bowl) and maybe top 5 for sure.

 

Furthermore, very few if any of even the most diehard Antoine fans, myself included, thought he should have been signed for what he signed for. And with the way the defense played last year, I think it was proven to be true.

[LabattBlue]

Furthermore, very few if any of even the most diehard Antoine fans, myself included, thought he should have been signed for what he signed for. And with the way the defense played last year, I think it was proven to be true.

304413[/snapback]

I also was a huge AW fan and prior to seeing what Minnesota gave him, I was all for the Bills re-signing him and letting NC walk after the 2005 season.

 

As far as NC's future with the Bills goes, I get the impression that he is one of those players who is going to want to test the waters regardless of the amount of money TD puts on the table.

[Bill from NYC]

Close to it. Fans throw around those numbers, especially Top 5 way too easily. Top five is basically starting on the first team All-Pro. He was my favorite Bill. But his lack of INTs certainly would keep him from the top five in the entire league. I have been as hard on Clements as anyone here but if Clements ups his game this year the same amount he upped it each of the last three years, he will be a top 10 (equaling pro bowl) and maybe top 5 for sure.

 

Furthermore, very few if any of even the most diehard Antoine fans, myself included, thought he should have been signed for what he signed for. And with the way the defense played last year, I think it was proven to be true.

304413[/snapback]

 

Sorry, but this post is confusing.

Do you put it forth as evidence that TD does or does not re-sign star players?

Also, when speaking of TD, do you count his record of re-signing top players at Pittsburgh?