BillsFanForever19 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I really think Nate Clements will be tagged and traded for a late-1st. I see no reason why that is ridiculous. If you can't get a late-1st for a top flight CB (top of the FA market) who can you get one for? I think Nate Clements is worth more than Peerless Price or an old, damaged Edgerrin James. RB's are a dime a dozen these days, but a good CB is hard to come by. I think Buffalo will tag him and that's when it's going to get messy. Nate wants more than what that tag will get him. He'll want out and there's a number of team's low in Round 1 that would want him (I.E. Jax and NYG). Interestingly enough, i've read a lot of rumors (yes, I know; they're just rumors) that say Denver is looking for a young QB. Jake Plummer is the same age as E-Moulds and his performance in the AFC championship game was upsetting to say the least. Jay Cutler would be their guy. But to do it, they'll have to jump ahead of Detroit at 9. Denver has the 22nd pick overall (from Washington) and the 29th pick overall. According to the NFL Draft Value Chart, those two picks combined share the same amount of points as the 8th overall pick! So if we're looking to trade down, I think this is the IDEAL situation. At where we are, we can hope for D'Brickashaw Ferguson at OL and Mario Williams or Haloti Ngata at DL. Anyone besides those three would be a reach at 8. But in the late-1st, you can justifiably (sp?) draft guys like: Marcus McNeil, OT Auburn Jonathan Scott, OT Texas Max-Jean Gilles, OG Georgia Gabe Watson, DT Michigan Brodrick Bunkley, DT Florida State Mathias Kiwanuka, DE Boston College Antonio Cromartie, CB Florida State Tye Hill, CB Clemson Marcedes Lewis, TE UCLA Dominique Byrd, TE USC Chad Jackson, WR Florida I'd rather have two guys in the late-1st then one guy like Haloti Ngata at 8. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I'd rather stay put or moveup- we need some studs to help rebuild the team. quality over quantity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I'd rather stay put or moveup- we need some studs to help rebuild the team. quality over quantity 598636[/snapback] i disagree. this team has too many holes. i say get as many picks as possible. three in the first however possible, is a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I'd rather stay put or moveup- we need some studs to help rebuild the team. quality over quantity 598636[/snapback] If we only have one or two holes to fill, we should trade up. But this is not the case, we should trade down and get more picks unless a stud drops to #8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I'd rather stay put or moveup- we need some studs to help rebuild the team. quality over quantity 598636[/snapback] I think that also depends on how the Bills do in the FA market. If the Bills are unable to land high quality talent, then I think quantity over quality is the way to go...if the Bills are able to land a lot of solid FA's...then trading up for a possible stud player might be the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 If we only have one or two holes to fill, we should trade up. But this is not the case, we should trade down and get more picks unless a stud drops to #8. 598644[/snapback] The only way I trade down, is if we have two guys rated as being wrth our pick, and we still can get one. We need top flight players, not a plan to win the superbowl this year (and I dont mean that you said we should try to do that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 If someone before us picks a player we wanted (Ngata, Williams), then we can trade down. Else we stay put. As for another 1st for NC, that will certainly help. But we will have to either expend FA $s or another pick to replace NC and that changes the dynamics. As we are going to a Cover-2, we better have a damn good secondary and some half-way decent depth at those positions. Don't let NC get away just to save a few dollars and get a #1 pick. A bird in hand .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I'd rather stay put or moveup- we need some studs to help rebuild the team. quality over quantity 598636[/snapback] I would say this is a good argument, except were conjecturing here about 3 1st rounders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Denver has the 22nd pick overall (from Washington) and the 29th pick overall. According to the NFL Draft Value Chart, those two picks combined share the same amount of points as the 8th overall pick!... I'd rather have two guys in the late-1st then one guy like Haloti Ngata at 8. What do you guys think? 598631[/snapback] I realized this is only a scenario and sure it would be nice, but there seems to be a major flaw in your plan. Why would Denver want the number 8 overall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanForever19 Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 I'd rather stay put or moveup- we need some studs to help rebuild the team. quality over quantity 598636[/snapback] Studs like Mike Williams? Or Leonard Davis? Or maybe studs like Tim Couch? Just because they're top-10 picks doesn't guarantee they're studs. Don't get me wrong, if D'Brickasahw Ferguson is there; you take him. If Mario Williams is there, you take him. Hell, if Reggie Bush, Vince Young, or Matt Leinart is there; you take him. But if it's Haloti Ngata or Marcus McNeil/Max-Jean Gilles AND Gabe Watson, you gotta make the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanForever19 Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 I realized this is only a scenario and sure it would be nice, but there seems to be a major flaw in your plan. Why would Denver want the number 8 overall? 598715[/snapback] See prior paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 What do you guys think? 598631[/snapback] Hammering out three 1st round contracts and paying for same would be an interesting thing to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I think the fact that Jauron has stated that we are going to a cover 2 almost certainly means Nate will be a Bill next year. We are not going to trade Nate for a 1st and then draft a replacement. Furthermore we are not going to trade Nate for a 1st and then go out and pay for a vet to come in here to replace him. I think that the Bills will offer Nate a contract before FA begins. If Nate doesn't sign the Bills will franchise him. I think before preseason starts the Bills will work out a long term contract with him. edit: BillsFanForever19 I think that the other scenerio you mentioned with a team like Denver is always possible. If we are at 8 and the brick, ngata, and mario are all gone then it makes sense to look to trade. The last thing we should do is reach for someone at 8, instead we should trade down to aquire some additional picks. That being said, I suspect that we will find an excellent DL at the number 8 spot waiting for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Very Interesting Scenario. You wonder if that happened whether we would trade up to guarantee us DaBrick, or (if we missed on Ngata and Brick) even trade our #8 for some more picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Studs like Mike Williams? Or Leonard Davis? Or maybe studs like Tim Couch? Just because they're top-10 picks doesn't guarantee they're studs. Don't get me wrong, if D'Brickasahw Ferguson is there; you take him. If Mario Williams is there, you take him. Hell, if Reggie Bush, Vince Young, or Matt Leinart is there; you take him. But if it's Haloti Ngata or Marcus McNeil/Max-Jean Gilles AND Gabe Watson, you gotta make the trade. 598724[/snapback] I know defending WIlliams isnt popular right now, but how can he be expected to perform at a high level on a terrible line. If ther rest of the line was good, thats another thing. Couch did well early on, but never got adequate protection, and took too many hits. He beat Pittsburgh in 2 of his first 3 chances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaBills Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I know defending WIlliams isnt popular right now, but how can he be expected to perform at a high level on a terrible line. If ther rest of the line was good, thats another thing. Couch did well early on, but never got adequate protection, and took too many hits. He beat Pittsburgh in 2 of his first 3 chances 598785[/snapback] When was Williams ever "Good"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 When was Williams ever "Good"? 598791[/snapback] Williams played very well for most of the 2004 season, that is why I was so disappointed in the major step back he took in 2005. When he is healthy he seems to be a dominating force. Unfortunately he is hurt more than Jennings was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanForever19 Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 I think the fact that Jauron has stated that we are going to a cover 2 almost certainly means Nate will be a Bill next year. We are not going to trade Nate for a 1st and then draft a replacement. Furthermore we are not going to trade Nate for a 1st and then go out and pay for a vet to come in here to replace him. I think that the Bills will offer Nate a contract before FA begins. If Nate doesn't sign the Bills will franchise him. I think before preseason starts the Bills will work out a long term contract with him. edit: BillsFanForever19 I think that the other scenerio you mentioned with a team like Denver is always possible. If we are at 8 and the brick, ngata, and mario are all gone then it makes sense to look to trade. The last thing we should do is reach for someone at 8, instead we should trade down to aquire some additional picks. That being said, I suspect that we will find an excellent DL at the number 8 spot waiting for us. 598741[/snapback] Oh I agree with you..... to an extent. If Nate can be brought back, by all means we bring him back! But Nate has said that he wants to be paid like Champ Bailey. He wants to be the highest paid CB in the league. He doesn't deserve it, but he thinks he does. We'll offer him a deal for what he's worth and he'll reject it. Then we'll franchise him and he'll get pissed. It's going to get messy because he won't want to sign the franchise offer sheet of 5.98 million. Someone will overpay him and it won't be us. That's why we make a deal. I would MUCH rather have Nate Clements than a late-1st. But to think that we can just tag him and that will be that is naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I know defending WIlliams isnt popular right now, but how can he be expected to perform at a high level on a terrible line. If ther rest of the line was good, thats another thing. 598785[/snapback] Did you miss a sarcasm smiley on that sentence ? He was part of the line and hence part of the problem.... I know the line has to work together, but my feeling is that he pulled down their performance rather than pushed it up (which is what would classify him as 'good') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 We'll offer him a deal for what he's worth and he'll reject it. Then we'll franchise him and he'll get pissed. It's going to get messy because he won't want to sign the franchise offer sheet of 5.98 million. Someone will overpay him and it won't be us. That's why we make a deal. I would MUCH rather have Nate Clements than a late-1st. But to think that we can just tag him and that will be that is naive. 599310[/snapback] Are you suggesting that he would hold out for the majority of the year rather than sign the franchise tag offer? As I posted earlier, I agree that Nate would probably turn down the 1st offer from the Bills, they'll then tag him, and I think that they would work out a long term deal before preseason even begins. Even if they didn't I would be willing to bet Nate would sign the tag offer if the Bills refuse to look at trade proposals. He is worth a lot more to this team than a mid to late 1st round pick. The Bills should not let him go as easily as they did the PP trade. Everyone says that Nate wants Bailey money or else! Well I for one think Bailey was a little overpaid, but I also think that Nate is just as good as Bailey is. I think that we'll wind up paying Nate a nice but fair contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts