Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 http://www.rnews.com/Sports/Story_2004.cfm...e=39&category=3 He's lucky in my opinion. But now we have to focus on keeping Moulds in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 http://www.rnews.com/Sports/Story_2004.cfm...e=39&category=3He's lucky in my opinion. But at least now all we have to worry about is trying to keep Moulds in Buffalo. 607248[/snapback] Yeah, that's ALL we have to worry about. Bring back Moulds and we're Super Bowl bound, I tell ya. Super Bowl "C," that is. C means hundred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 That article was a simple regurgitation of the NY Post article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 That article was a simple regurgitation of the NY Post article. 607259[/snapback] No, it's true, he will be tagged. I just saw Marv stalking his way through Orchard Park with a tranquilizer gun.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 http://www.rnews.com/Sports/Story_2004.cfm...e=39&category=3He's lucky in my opinion. But now we have to focus on keeping Moulds in Buffalo. 607248[/snapback] That's right, and hopefully we will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 No, it's true, he will be tagged. I just saw Marv stalking his way through Orchard Park with a tranquilizer gun.... 607261[/snapback] oh cool, now they can track him with GPS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 oh cool, now they can track him with GPS! 607263[/snapback] But honestly, I really feel the Clements is not the real deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Chipper Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 all that does is give the Bills one more season to try and extend his contract. If they dont work out a deal then he walks next year for nothing in return. Its kind of a double edged sword. He will play is but off this season to get big money with another team nexy year. So we get a good year from him but he's gone in 07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 all that does is give the Bills one more season to try and extend his contract. If they dont work out a deal then he walks next year for nothing in return. Its kind of a double edged sword. He will play is but off this season to get big money with another team nexy year. So we get a good year from him but he's gone in 07. 607269[/snapback] well you can franchise him again next season as well.............didnt seattle franchise a player 3 seasons straight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 all that does is give the Bills one more season to try and extend his contract. If they dont work out a deal then he walks next year for nothing in return. Its kind of a double edged sword. He will play is but off this season to get big money with another team nexy year. So we get a good year from him but he's gone in 07. 607269[/snapback] ...and on the other hand it gives him one more "contract year." Do you expect him to get #1 $$$ based on last year's performance? Or maybe he just expected to be tagged after the season, so he didn't worry about "auditioning..." (or perhaps he "tried too hard."). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 .didnt seattle franchise a player 3 seasons straight? 607296[/snapback] Yeah...but hell Dan McGwire put up some good numbers at QB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risin Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 well you can franchise him again next season as well.............didnt seattle franchise a player 3 seasons straight? 607296[/snapback] Yep, Walter Jones. It was either two, or three straight years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Yep, Walter Jones. It was either two, or three straight years. 607417[/snapback] Similar situation with Pace, no? Teams simply won't give these guys up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 well you can franchise him again next season as well.............didnt seattle franchise a player 3 seasons straight? 607296[/snapback] You can continue to franchise him year after year, but there may be some sort of escalation clause...and there's always the risk that the top 5 average for the position goes way up (like last year, for example). So...you can do it, but there are risks involved. Much better to get a long term deal worked out if possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 You can continue to franchise him year after year, but there may be some sort of escalation clause...and there's always the risk that the top 5 average for the position goes way up (like last year, for example). So...you can do it, but there are risks involved. Much better to get a long term deal worked out if possible. 607429[/snapback] I believe that a player getss a 20% raise over their salary the previous year or the average of the top 5, which ever is higher. Therfore if Nate gets $5.8 million this year he will get at least $6.9 million next year if he is tagged again. A long term deal rather than tagging each year is definately better for cap purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risin Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Similar situation with Pace, no? Teams simply won't give these guys up. 607418[/snapback] Exactly. A stud left tackle, is something that doesn't come around often enough, to warrant letting these guys get away, at any price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Exactly. A stud left tackle, is something that doesn't come around often enough, to warrant letting these guys get away, at any price. 607453[/snapback] I would not have paid Jennings the money he got from SF, especially given his history of injury problems. Then again he was never in the same class as Jones or Pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I would not have paid Jennings the money he got from SF, especially given his history of injury problems. 607488[/snapback] It all depends on how you look at Jennings. As a football player, he's clearly not worth what San Francisco paid him. But think outside the box a little here. Don't think of Jennings as a football player, so much as a really strange work of modern art. Just as the savannah is the proper setting in which to display a lion, the bench is the proper setting in which to display Jennings. Learn to look at Jennings, not through the eyes of a football fan, but through those of a modern art critic. By learning to look at Jennings as a piece of non-functional, non-aesthetic art, it will be easier to understand the price paid for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 It all depends on how you look at Jennings. As a football player, he's clearly not worth what San Francisco paid him. But think outside the box a little here. Don't think of Jennings as a football player, so much as a really strange work of modern art. Just as the savannah is the proper setting in which to display a lion, the bench is the proper setting in which to display Jennings. Learn to look at Jennings, not through the eyes of a football fan, but through those of a modern art critic. By learning to look at Jennings as a piece of non-functional, non-aesthetic art, it will be easier to understand the price paid for him. 607529[/snapback] Jennings has now played in pobably about 65 % of his possible starts. I really liked him when healthy. It just wasn't the case that he was healthy often enough to justify over-paying to keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibuya Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 But honestly, I really feel the Clements is not the real deal. 607266[/snapback] How could you feel that way, one off season surrounded by players who were more off then he was. Clements is a rock solid CB, and if the Bills won't pay him 5 mil this year there will be a dozen teams that would. More then likely Clements wil re-find his game right along with the Bills D in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts