The Dean Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Yes, good job on finding out where the tags were stored in time. 608687[/snapback] TD mixed up all the files, locked the cabinets and threw away the keys and sabatoged all the computers. What a prankster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I guess marv didn't see how horrible nate was this past season. he cost us so many big plays, and ultimately the outcome of the game. he was late on every tackle, and a step behind everything else. I can't believe that we are tagging him as our franchise player. If nate clements is the "franchise" player of this team, then I'm afraid of what is to come. 608669[/snapback] The whole D looked poor this year and Nate was asked to play a lot of "over" zone coverage all year long, which is not his forte. He's gonna be playing more man "under" (2 cover-2 safeties over the top) type of coverage this season which should get him back to his level of play from 2004, which was spectacular. He's got size, enough speed, hands, supports the run well, etc. I think you have too easily dismissed his previous 4 seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I guess marv didn't see how horrible nate was this past season. he cost us so many big plays, and ultimately the outcome of the game. he was late on every tackle, and a step behind everything else. I can't believe that we are tagging him as our franchise player. If nate clements is the "franchise" player of this team, then I'm afraid of what is to come. 608669[/snapback] You can't argue against that Nate had a down year last year but he is still one of the best playmaking corners in the league. If we did not tag him a number of teams would have offered him a lot of money. At a little more than $5MM this season Nate is a steal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 The whole D looked poor this year and Nate was asked to play a lot of "over" zone coverage all year long, which is not his forte. He's gonna be playing more man "under" type of coverage this season which should get him back to his level of play from 2004, which was spectacular. He's got size, enough speed, hands, supports the run well, etc. I think you have too easily dismissed his previous 4 seasons. 608692[/snapback] Good post...and the entire defense had a down year for a multitude of reasons.....when you have a player who is still young who had 4 very good seasons and 1 down year...I think NC has earned the benefit of the doubt to say last year was an off-year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 So that's why a search on your username only returns 743 posts... 608674[/snapback] I've learned that deleting a post does not decrement one's post total, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Mick Jaurlevy strikes! Good call, Mick. Now let's get to work on those O and D lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Good call to keep Nate, the Bills just can't afford to lose the little top notch talent they have. And even though it was a down year for Nate, some team would have paid twice as much to sign him. Any one recall if TD used the franchise tag in his regime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Any one recall if TD used the franchise tag in his regime? 608860[/snapback] Peerless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Peerless. 608861[/snapback] That was actually the Transition tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike32282 Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 That was actually the Transition tag. 608867[/snapback] i'll bet you $1000 that it wasn't. Peerless Price was tagged with the Franchise Tag. Hell, I don't even think we have the Transition tag anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 That was actually the Transition tag. 608867[/snapback] No, Franchise. There's no compensation for a transition tag, just right to match offers. We picked up Spikes when he was transition tagged by the Bengals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I respect Nate Clements and i would be pissed if he left, but do you think that the franchise tag and the $5.9 million price tag that comes along with that is worth paying for him? The main argument being, do you really want to throw all of this money to a guy who can't man up and cover a man by himself? Nate always needs safety support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I respect Nate Clements and i would be pissed if he left, but do you think that the franchise tag and the $5.9 million price tag that comes along with that is worth paying for him? The main argument being, do you really want to throw all of this money to a guy who can't man up and cover a man by himself? Nate always needs safety support. 608935[/snapback] Considering Option B would be having Eric King as our 2nd CB...and Option C is going out and signing the defensive megastars that are UFAs like...R.W. McQuarters or Terry Fair...I'm happy with the franchise move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 No, Franchise. There's no compensation for a transition tag, just right to match offers. We picked up Spikes when he was transition tagged by the Bengals. 608877[/snapback] oops sorry. Even smart guys make mistkes sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Considering Option B would be having Eric King as our 2nd CB...and Option C is going out and signing the defensive megastars that are UFAs like...R.W. McQuarters or Terry Fair...I'm happy with the franchise move. 608937[/snapback] Good point, seeing as this years corner class is anything but spectacular. I would overall have to agree with the move because there is nothing else out there. I just hope that Marv Levy doesn't make any stupid moves that would completely cripple the Bills in the future. Until Marv proves himself, i still see him as a public relations stunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I respect Nate Clements and i would be pissed if he left, but do you think that the franchise tag and the $5.9 million price tag that comes along with that is worth paying for him? The main argument being, do you really want to throw all of this money to a guy who can't man up and cover a man by himself? Nate always needs safety support. Not sure why you are listing using the franchise tag AND 5.9 million...the 2 go together like white on rice. But, yes. He is worth that. I am of the opinion Nate is not as good as Nate thinks he is. I dont think he is a top 10 corner in the league. But he is good. And in this market, he would fetch ALOT more than 5.9 mil. So we are getting a bargain here, and keep one hole in the sinking boat plugged for at least one more season. I like this move. I would like to trade him for a first rounder even more. My tune will completely change if we sign him to a Champ Bailey contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Not sure why you are listing using the franchise tag AND 5.9 million...the 2 go together like white on rice. But, yes. He is worth that. I am of the opinion Nate is not as good as Nate thinks he is. I dont think he is a top 10 corner in the league. But he is good. And in this market, he would fetch ALOT more than 5.9 mil. So we are getting a bargain here, and keep one hole in the sinking boat plugged for at least one more season. I like this move. I would like to trade him for a first rounder even more. My tune will completely change if we sign him to a Champ Bailey contract. 608946[/snapback] Well see now that is the scary part of this whole fact, and that is that every player seems to think that he is better than they actually are. Examples: Nate Clements Lawyer Milloy And finally lets not forget the completely asinine comments of one Willis McGahee. "I'm a workhorse, a fine breed! You're not going to find too many like this.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Nate Clements Tagged by the Bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I respect Nate Clements and i would be pissed if he left, but do you think that the franchise tag and the $5.9 million price tag that comes along with that is worth paying for him? The main argument being, do you really want to throw all of this money to a guy who can't man up and cover a man by himself? Nate always needs safety support. 608935[/snapback] Nate is actually a pure Man Cover guy. That is his natural role at the corner postition and when he is ALLOWED to use that technique, he has produced, big time for this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Nate is actually a pure Man Cover guy. That is his natural role at the corner postition and when he is ALLOWED to use that technique, he has produced, big time for this team. 608974[/snapback] Two words that should slap the sense back into you: Chris Chambers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts