JStranger76 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 nm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tomcat Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I say they franchise him even if they don't want to keep him...someone will trade for him... I'd like to keep him however...just not at a huge contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 The other key point in this article which addresses another TSW pseudo-controversy (debates which seem to be most prompted by unprovable or unproven Internet information like the declaration that the CB franchise # was ovr $8 million) is that Jauron says the Bills are going to definitely run a 4-3 D. This actually has implications for one of the main complaints about Gray's approach in that assumably since a feature of Jauron's endorsement of more 2 deep cover means the CBs will have some help deep, they will be able to take the risk of having the CBs doing more press coverage on WRs rather than play back off the line. The Jauron plan should mean more INTs against bad or merely adequate QBs, but on the other hand good QBs playing with good WRs will have a better shot at hitting the Bills for moderate to solid gains if the WR is good enough to beat our pressing CB doing the press and the QB is good enough to fire a rope in to the WR. This actually will put an even higher premium on having a solid pass rush which can pressure the QB as if the QB is under duress it will be harder for him to throw a bullet to a WR who beats the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I think the combination of the reduced franchise tag and the proposed Bills' D scheme means we probably keep Nate for at least another year. He's a physical corner with great speed and ball-hawking ability who should thrive in a pressing scheme, knowing he'll have deep help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I gotta fess up here, when someone first posted about a month ago that this number would drop, i thought they was nuts. So, to whoever first reported that, excellant work, my bad. Now, poor Nate sure had some bad timing eh.Not great season and tag number drops by $3M. But, I also see this getting messy over the summer if he is not traded. I mean, no way is he gunna play for that number. There is also a rule out there, and I am not sure exactly how it works, but something along the lines of if he does not sign his tender by like draft day, no long term contract can be worked out until around the start of training camp. Like I said, I think this is gunna get messy, as I believe the Bills have no option but to tag him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Like I said before, at that tender it's a win-win situation for the Bills once they franchise him. Either they trade him for a 1st rounder, or keep him for the year (at least) for the "bargain" price of $5.9M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I gotta fess up here, when someone first posted about a month ago that this number would drop, i thought they was nuts. So, to whoever first reported that, excellant work, my bad.Now, poor Nate sure had some bad timing eh.Not great season and tag number drops by $3M 593256[/snapback] Not all that bad for him actually. He didnt get the inflated numbers from last year, so this year they came back to the norm, it isn't that he is getting screwed. Plus, he has a year to redeem himself after his poor season. Right now, he may not get the 15 million bonus he was looking for at the start of this season. If he plays well this year, and he almost surely will play better than last year, his stock will sky-rocket again. Of course, the Bills will be able to franchise him again, for six million if they wanted, at 110% of his last contract. But we shouldn't weep for Nate Clements. He robbed us this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tomcat Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 or we sign him for 3/4 years at 6 mil a year and be done with it. GET R DONE MARV! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Real Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060...?tbd1044853.asp The cost of putting a franchise tag on a cornerback is $5.89 million. Last year the tag for cornerbacks cost $8.8 million. Nice little drop off if you're a Bills fan. Franchise tag being that low for him it's worth it. Then work on a long term deal or a trade. I can't be the first to see this story, but I didn't see a thread on it. If there is one just squish us together. T_R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenjames716 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 nate sucks! He blew so many big plays this year, there is no way I would bring him back to this team! His head is huge, and his play doesn't back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 nate sucks! He blew so many big plays this year, there is no way I would bring him back to this team! His head is huge, and his play doesn't back it up. 593391[/snapback] So, you're saying that we should let him walk? No way. For the low franchise $, you tag him and either sign him long-term, trade him, or pay him the franchise money to play for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 So, you're saying that we should let him walk? No way. For the low franchise $, you tag him and either sign him long-term, trade him, or pay him the franchise money to play for us. 593393[/snapback] I agree. No, his play last year is not worth that money, but for a year, a year when the Bills might be able to trade him, put the tag on him. He should fetch at least a Second Round pick from whoever is willing to pay him what he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I agree. No, his play last year is not worth that money, but for a year, a year when the Bills might be able to trade him, put the tag on him. He should fetch at least a Second Round pick from whoever is willing to pay him what he wants. 593405[/snapback] I also agree....seems like once a player mouths off about how he's the best in the league, it comes back to bite him big time. That said, Nate is still a good CB. I almost want to throw out last year's performance based on the overall play of the defense (note, I said *almost*), but with a new coaching staff in place, maybe he can turn things around and be the Nate he was in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I don't like Nate all that much (hate showboaters), but I still think he's better than anybody else we have. And at that price, you can't not keep him around. That said, with such a small price tag, he sure would be a nice target for a tag and trade. I'm sure a lot of other teams would consider trading for that one-year salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I say keep him. If Spikes recovers and we get a good solid defensive tackle I'm very very optimistic about our defense. I think next year we will be looking at replacing some old timers but I have a lot of confidence in the talent we will be able to put on the field on the defensive side of the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
respk Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 What other FA CB are available for that money? If someone is available who is close in talent and might cost less I wouldn't resign Nate. He is clearly not a level 1 corner but he probably would be considered as a second tier cornerback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I gotta fess up here, when someone first posted about a month ago that this number would drop, i thought they was nuts. So, to whoever first reported that, excellant work, my bad.Now, poor Nate sure had some bad timing eh.Not great season and tag number drops by $3M. But, I also see this getting messy over the summer if he is not traded. I mean, no way is he gunna play for that number. There is also a rule out there, and I am not sure exactly how it works, but something along the lines of if he does not sign his tender by like draft day, no long term contract can be worked out until around the start of training camp. Like I said, I think this is gunna get messy, as I believe the Bills have no option but to tag him 593256[/snapback] I don't think it will be messy at all. People said the same thing about Donovan Darius in Jacksonville; they've used the FT on him for something like three years in a row. He complained about it, but still went out and performed. At the end of the day, most of these athletes know they have to give it 100% on the field. They're being paid very well. Not to mention that most of them actually do want to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Chief Navy Pride Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Bills | Cost to franchise tag Clements drops Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:58:01 -0800 Mark Gaughan, of the Buffalo News, reports Buffalo Bills CB Nate Clements is eligible to become an unrestricted free agent this offseason and could have the franchise tag used on him by the team. The cost to franchise tag a cornerback dropped by $2.91 million, from $8.8 million to $5.89 million, for the 2006 season. This seems alot more reasonable to Franchise NC. I think they would have Tagged him anyway but now I would say that it is a lock. And they save 3 Mil in cap space to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I'd want to see if we could sign him to a longer-term deal, say three or four years and save the franchise tag. If the demands are out of whack, tho (and may well be, owing that Nate is the top CB in the league in his own mind), we tag him. Think about what his cap number already is (around $2M with bonuses, etc?) and it's a very economical move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts