nodnarb Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 i'd hate to see marv (did i just say marv and not td?) let him walk without compensation via the franchise tag. he'd HAVE to know that he'll be in demand. Even if you get only a 3rd, that's a big deal when you're trying to rebuild again from the last rebuilding effort, which was required because of the first rebuilding effort. I'd prefer to see us keep clements, but if the negotiation breaks down, you'd think we'd HAVE to tag him. It's a cheap year for tagging DBs, too. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football...8p-323974c.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 He will be tagged regardless - it'll only cost $5 mil or so to keep him if we tag him and don't trade him. That ain't bad. EDIT: at first I thought you meant Tom Clements, and I thought damn, Gilbride and Clements on the same sideline... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOPRANO 3695 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 He is a bum. Let him go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 He is a bum. Let him go. 561396[/snapback] What a post! What insight! You are a real asset to The Wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 What a post! What insight! You are a real asset to The Wall. Accent on the "ass" part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 While I'm not advocating getting rid of Nate, If we can tag him then get the giants 1st rd pick, then pick up giants free agent cb Will Allen I'd consider than a pretty successful tradeoff. While Allen is a downgrade from Clements he'll solidify our corner position opposite mcgee, while we can use the giants first as well as our own to improve in the trenches. Win/Win really. Although I'd still like to see them reach a long term agreement with Clements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I think this is almost a non-issue at this point because its SO obvious the Bills are going to tag him. If he were say a LT or a QB then we'd have something to talk about because the numbers would be insanely high to franchise him, but being a CB it only costs us 5.1 million on the cap if we go into next season with him on our squad. For a starting "elite" CB (although that is definitely up for debate...I wouldnt even have Nate in the Top 10 CB category) its almost nothing. Nate definitely gets franchised and probably whored off to the highest bidder...I like some of the vet CBs on the market actually and think if we trade Nate, we could replace his production with some decent FA additions. Plus, we might even snag another first rounder...hell, we managed to do it with Peerless *snicker* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Nate definitely gets franchised and probably whored off to the highest bidder...I like some of the vet CBs on the market actually and think if we trade Nate, we could replace his production with some decent FA additions. Plus, we might even snag another first rounder...hell, we managed to do it with Peerless *snicker* 561420[/snapback] Ya, agreed, trade him for picks or keep him for peanuts. If we trade him, we could sign Plummer, Will Allen, Brian Kelly, to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Tag him if you must, and keep him. Too much talent to let go just yet, this year was an aberration IMO. Look at Champ Bailey, he got torched several times in 2004 & came back strong this year. Fix the DL & Nate will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 While I'm not advocating getting rid of Nate, If we can tag him then get the giants 1st rd pick, then pick up giants free agent cb Will Allen I'd consider than a pretty successful tradeoff. While Allen is a downgrade from Clements he'll solidify our corner position opposite mcgee, while we can use the giants first as well as our own to improve in the trenches. Win/Win really. Although I'd still like to see them reach a long term agreement with Clements. 561413[/snapback] tag and keep. he had a down year, but he's a great talent and they have no replacement. losing clements with no one in line means bad things. bad things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I think this is almost a non-issue at this point because its SO obvious the Bills are going to tag him. If he were say a LT or a QB then we'd have something to talk about because the numbers would be insanely high to franchise him, but being a CB it only costs us 5.1 million on the cap if we go into next season with him on our squad. For a starting "elite" CB (although that is definitely up for debate...I wouldnt even have Nate in the Top 10 CB category) its almost nothing. Nate definitely gets franchised and probably whored off to the highest bidder...I like some of the vet CBs on the market actually and think if we trade Nate, we could replace his production with some decent FA additions. Plus, we might even snag another first rounder...hell, we managed to do it with Peerless *snicker* 561420[/snapback] peerless price is no nate clements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 No surprise - Lord knows the Giants need a LOT of secondary help right now. (Well, not exactly right now; the performance of their defense on Sunday helped take care of that. You know what I meant, though.....) i'd hate to see marv (did i just say marv and not td?) let him walk without compensation via the franchise tag. he'd HAVE to know that he'll be in demand. Even if you get only a 3rd, that's a big deal when you're trying to rebuild again from the last rebuilding effort, which was required because of the first rebuilding effort. I'd prefer to see us keep clements, but if the negotiation breaks down, you'd think we'd HAVE to tag him. It's a cheap year for tagging DBs, too. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football...8p-323974c.html 561382[/snapback] Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bflojohn Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 One important point in defense of Nate is that next year he'd look MUCH better IF we sign Grady Jackson and draft Mario Williams or Haloti Ngata. Suddenly, pressure up front provides less time for his man to break free. Also keeping teams in third and long after stopping the running game might help. Just a thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 The franchise tag deflation for CB's is a huge strategic win for us...we are still pretty free to shop around for line help while we explore strategic options with Nate. He had a subpar to terrible year--but his position coach and Gray seemed to have issues with one another...who knows the consequences of that in scheme and direction...I still consider him a top 10 CB and one we should not let get away easily or without compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 One important point in defense of Nate is that next year he'd look MUCH better IF we sign Grady Jackson and draft Mario Williams or Haloti Ngata. Suddenly, pressure up front provides less time for his man to break free. Also keeping teams in third and long after stopping the running game might help. Just a thought! 561475[/snapback] But WAIT WAIT!!..we have SCHOBEL!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 nate aint going anywhere! he had a "offyear" we will franchise nate and a player of nates pride will come back next season with his new contract and have a monster year !go nate in"06 and go bills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExWNYer Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 He will be tagged regardless - it'll only cost $5 mil or so to keep him if we tag him and don't trade him. That ain't bad.561387[/snapback] Agreed. I don't even think that this is open for debate. It's a no-brainer for Marv and the FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_wag Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 where are people getting this 5M franchise number from? isn't the current number for CB's around 9M...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 where are people getting this 5M franchise number from? isn't the current number for CB's around 9M...... 561559[/snapback] Mort said on Sportscenter that it's going to drop about 3 mil this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 He is a bum. Let him go. 561396[/snapback] He was not nearly as good in 05 as in 04, but McGee is still learning and his primary contribution to the team is as a KR guy so sure he may be a bum but there is certainly a credible case that even this bum is the best CB on this team. I hope and assume that McGee will surpass him as our #1 CB, but particularly since McGee is now locked up with a contract paying Clements 5 mill. is an easy and necessary thing to do since a good D really needs 2 shut down CBs in this pass happy league. Sure you may feel bad about Clements, but is your answer if you let this "bum" go to depend on Jabari Greer guarding the other team's #2 (who for many opponents is there equivalent of Lee Evans). Tag him and he likely signs long term to get a $12 million bonus (upfront to him but prorated over the length of the contract in terms of our cap hit) instead of the $5 million tag payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts