firstngoal Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Not that I thought Nate was a great cover corner but with the switch to the cover two a solid corner with cover skills is no longer a must for the team. His cap number will be alot lower this year which makes me feel he will be franchised! What do U guys think?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Not that I thought Nate was a great cover corner but with the switch to the cover two a solid corner with cover skills is no longer a must for the team. His cap number will be alot lower this year which makes me feel he will be franchised! What do U guys think?? 593925[/snapback] We haven't thought about it or talked abou it yet. It really never occured to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Not that I thought Nate was a great cover corner but with the switch to the cover two a solid corner with cover skills is no longer a must for the team. His cap number will be alot lower this year which makes me feel he will be franchised! What do U guys think?? 593925[/snapback] Actually you need a solid and physical CB, which Nate is. Nate is a young and very good CB. We should do everything within reason to sign him long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 ...with the switch to the cover two a solid corner with cover skills is no longer a must for the team. 593925[/snapback] Q: Hey, would you like a solid corner with good cover skills? A: Naw, we are playing cover two- don't need one. I would think that having a cornerback with good cover skills is "a must" regardless of what defense scheme you're playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Q: Hey, would you like a solid corner with good cover skills? A: Naw, we are playing cover two- don't need one. I would think that having a cornerback with good cover skills is essential regardless of what defense you're playing. 593956[/snapback] Not in the magical cover 2. I'm sure we can just pick someone up in the 6th or 7 round and just plug them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 We haven't thought about it or talked abou it yet. It really never occured to us. 593931[/snapback] I think you should start a new thread about this topical topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booya2 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 We used to play a version of cover 2 when TC was the d-coordinator here. NEON Keion Carpenter and Henry H-Bomb Jones played at safety... while Thomas Smith and the 'Toine Child played CB 2000 or so... we had a pretty stout D in those days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Even though I'm pretty sure I could play CB for the Bills in the cover 2 I think they might want to hang on to Nate just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 We haven't thought about it or talked abou it yet. It really never occured to us. 593931[/snapback] I think you should start a new thread about this topical topic. Isn't this getting a tad petty? We have a poster that wants to talk about a legitimate Bills topic. If it is being discussed elsewhere - why not provide him a link? I'm sure he would be appreciative of the kind gesture, it would cut off this thread from becoming a duplicate discussion, and as a bonus you get your message across in a more helpful and less snotty way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 We have a poster that wants to talk about a legitimate Bills topic. If it is being discussed elsewhere - why not provide him a link? I'm sure he would be appreciative of the kind gesture, it would cut off this thread from becoming a duplicate discussion, and as a bonus you get your message across in a more helpful and less snotty way. 594165[/snapback] You're absolutely right, here's the link. IIRC, KtD's Nate thread was still very much on the front page when this one was started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 You're absolutely right, here's the link. IIRC, KtD's Nate thread was still very much on the front page when this one was started. 594170[/snapback] If you could point me to "KtD's Nate thread" - that would be great. I see a moderate sized thread dealing with Lawyer Milloy and his position in the cover 2 and after scannning it, Nate Clements is barely mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I think you should start a new thread about this topical topic. Isn't this getting a tad petty? We have a poster that wants to talk about a legitimate Bills topic. If it is being discussed elsewhere - why not provide him a link? I'm sure he would be appreciative of the kind gesture, it would cut off this thread from becoming a duplicate discussion, and as a bonus you get your message across in a more helpful and less snotty way. 594165[/snapback] Perhaps. But, not as petty as the rebuke, IMO. GG and I are just a couple of fun loving kids out...ya. know...having some fun, the way fun loving kids do. Seriously, SDS...neither of us were mean or disrespectful, IMO My response was meant to be a good natured "wake-up" call. A call to action, if you will. This little tidbit evolved from my, oh so many, years of teaching and managing. I figure the poster would see this witty little bagatelle and think, "They've never discussed it? OH...that's a JOKE. Perhaps I should take a minute to have a look around. What EVER was I thinking" (Or maybe something a little less affected...I don't know.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 nate will be a cornerback for the buffalo bills thru the 2009 season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Perhaps. But, not as petty as the rebuke, IMO. Seriously, SDS...neither of us were mean or disrespectful, IMO My response was meant to be a good natured "wake-up" call. A call to action, if you will. This little tidbit evolved from my, oh so many, years of teaching and managing. I figure the poster would see this witty little bagatelle and think, "They've never discussed it? OH...that's a JOKE. Perhaps I should take a minute to have a look around. What EVER was I thinking" (Or maybe something a little less affected...I don't know.) 594219[/snapback] I know the purpose of sarcasm, but this was a bad time to use it IMO, since there are no threads dealing with NC and the cover 2. I assume you are alluding to the LM thread, yet there is little discussion in there about Nate, so I don't even know where the basis is for your 1st post. Now, I suppose he could attempt to hijack KtD's thread about Milloy and turn it into a thread about Nate. Perhaps you think that is a better solution? Do you think people wanting to read about Nate would naturally search in a thread that is specifically about Lawyer? Does KtD, who asked about LM and not the "secondary" in general, mind that someone is trying to take his thread in a different direction? I looked through 4 pages of posts before I made my comments, so it wasn't obvious to me that the natural place to talk about Nate Clements is in thread about Lawyer Milloy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts