EndZoneCrew Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 He sure wasn't a playmaker last year. In fact, he was a game-killer. 657655[/snapback] Did you even watch the Bills games last year.....this guy was a "playmaker" all year...just ask Chris Chambers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I believe Doug Heffernan could have played better CB then Nat did last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 No Franchise players signs the tender sheet until he absolutely has to, regardless of the team he plays for. 657649[/snapback] Hey, finally someone got the answer right to this latest Rudy-esque volley... The minute he signs the tender he has to start attending practices, etc, risking injury, etc, so you don't sign until you have to.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I'm hoping the Bills are trying to get a contract worked out although nothing has been said. If Nate still wants the 60 Mil contract he dreams about, you know he'll never get it here with our current financial state of affairs ( think huge signing bonus ). If so, do we deal him on Draft day for a 1st or 2nd round pick ? Then one high pick would be a CB. Huff can play both or Ty Hill of Clemson may be another option. It may be a non-issue but Clements wants his outrageous payday, like it or not. He really doesn't care who gives it to him. I know we could let him rot but if we don't intend on giving him a long term deal, what's the point ? This is a deep draft at DB and the time to get his replacement is now. Hmmm...This off-season sure isn't short on drama... 657451[/snapback] I think that is a good point. The case with Clements seems to be about money. If we don't that situation locked up in the next few weeks, it might be a wise thing to trade him for a second round pick. That way we could prepare without him and draft a CB in the first or second round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I think that is a good point. The case with Clements seems to be about money. If we don't that situation locked up in the next few weeks, it might be a wise thing to trade him for a second round pick. That way we could prepare without him and draft a CB in the first or second round. 657691[/snapback] I'm sorry but I think you're wrong on all accounts on how to handle Clements. First of all trading him at all is a poor decision, but trading him for a 2nd is downright stupid! What is the point of trading him for a 2nd? We can't replace him with a 1st, much less a 2nd. We would be creating yet another hole to fill on a team already full of holes! Even if we have to tag him for the next several years we should do so. I would prefer if we could lock him with a long term contract, but if he won't sign a resonable deal then we just keep tagging him. I think that we could actually tag him 3 years in a row. The new CBA allows for 2 years, but that doesn't go into effect until 2007, so we could tag him 06, 07 and 08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I think that is a good point. The case with Clements seems to be about money. If we don't that situation locked up in the next few weeks, it might be a wise thing to trade him for a second round pick. That way we could prepare without him and draft a CB in the first or second round. 657691[/snapback] The direct answer to the question is NO. It does not appear to serve Clements interests finacially at all to even try to force a draft day trade as he has no financial leverage to do so once the Bills put the franchise tag on him. In theory he could only ATTEMPT to force a trade by throwing such a hissy-fit that the Bills decide to move him much as they moved Moulds. However, not only are the costs of keeping NC versus his production far more reasonable for keeping NC than keeping Moulds ($7 million+ for keeping our flawed but still #1 CB in the prime of his career vs. $10 million+ for a #2 WR on the backside of his career) but Clements would have to throw such a horrible fit as to bring into serious question whether he is a worthwhile teammate and get for a team. He would be doing this relatively late in the planning process for most team's 06 season and also doing this when coming off a year which easily did not meet his previous Pro Bowl season or the expectations he set for himself. The idea of NC forcing a trade would be so disastrous for him financially and so disastrous for the Bills as they would be incredibly reluctant to embrace the option to trade him when they are not forced contractually to do this, that it makes little sense on either side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___JT___ Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 The Bills didnt know how much money they were going to spend or not spend in free agency. They didnt know exactly how the Moulds situation was going to turn out financially. They didn't know who was still going to be available late in free agency, and if any of those players were worth looking at or spending money on. So Nate waited, and the Bills waited. It was the smart thing to do for both sides. What they know now is they didnt spend a lot of money in FA. They didn't sign a CB in FA. They didnt fill a lot of holes in FA which would allow them to draft a CB high. They saved a bunch of money by not paying Moulds. There isn't a lot of good talent still left to spend on this season. So Nate is sitting sweet. His price probably just went up a touch. But the good news for the Bills is they can sign him now for a good contract but not get killed on the cap in later years. So if they planned on getting Nate signed to a long term deal, now is probably the time to start to seriously negotiate it. They could, of course, just wait and see how he plays in this new defense. 657668[/snapback] They did sign a FA CB : 'The Buffalo Bills signed four low-profile free agents with NFL experience on Wednesday. The most noteworthy were cornerback Kiwaukee Thomas and offensive guard Aaron Gibson.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 They did sign a FA CB : 'The Buffalo Bills signed four low-profile free agents with NFL experience on Wednesday. The most noteworthy were cornerback Kiwaukee Thomas and offensive guard Aaron Gibson.' 657740[/snapback] So in other words, they didnt sign a FA CB. Obviously i meant that could or was intended to replace Nate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___JT___ Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 So in other words, they didnt sign a FA CB. Obviously i meant that could or was intended to replace Nate. 657743[/snapback] Look at what the Patriots did with there corners . They won the superbowl with NO secondary . Nate is replaceable , and that person could be on the roster right now . The cover 2 will hide the flaws of a weak CB. Its our D line and safeties that that will determine the success of the Defense. Nate really didnt do anything special last year on a defense that was ranked near the bottom of the league in nearly every statistical number. So why keep him this year ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Agreed. It also is best for the team too if he doesn't sign it as that allows the Bills to pull it at any time if they wanted to. Once it's signed, the team is stuck. Think that happened a few years back, was it with Orlando Pace? Surprised the team and signed which forced team to cut players to get under that cap. I realize we're not exactly in that situation, as we can afford the $5.7 mil. Players don't like attending all these mini camps either. Even though they are voluntary, if he signs the tender, he's more obligated to attend as there's one less excuse. He also takes a chance signing the tender if he were to get hurt afterwards, goodbye to any huge deals the next year. So doesn't worry me at all, unless behind the scenes, he's still asking for huge numbers. He likley will sign a long term deal, but not before July or so. Bill's front office is probably more focused on draft these days anyway. Don't the Bill's also have a bunch of FA signings for next year? Could be they are stock piling money for then. You may see a few of these guys sign in the fall ahead for next season. No Franchise players signs the tender sheet until he absolutely has to, regardless of the team he plays for. 657649[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Don't the Bill's also have a bunch of FA signings for next year? Could be they are stock piling money for then. You may see a few of these guys sign in the fall ahead for next season. 657762[/snapback] Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 we'd be lucky to get a 2nd rounder or Nate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 Look at what the Patriots did with there corners . They won the superbowl with NO secondary . Nate is replaceable , and that person could be on the roster right now . The cover 2 will hide the flaws of a weak CB. Its our D line and safeties that that will determine the success of the Defense. Nate really didnt do anything special last year on a defense that was ranked near the bottom of the league in nearly every statistical number. So why keep him this year ? 657758[/snapback] 36 New England Eugene Wilson FS Illinois- 2nd rd 2003 120 New England Asante Samuel CB Central Florida -4th rd 2003 Not to mention they had rodney harrison at ss. and the whole thing about their very good lb's oh and just for the record DT/DE Richard Seymour- 1st rd pick De/dt- Ty Warren- 1st rd pick DT- Vince Wilfork- 1st rd pick When you have a dline full of 1st rd picks and solid lb's you can pretty much get away with an average secondary. Comparing clements situation to ne is completly invalid due to the state of our dline lb depth and well near the caliber of a qb in brady. Our whole defense was bad last year, not just clements, but just for the record 13 teams finished with worse pass defenses then us this past season, just some of the noteable corners who were on these lesser ranking pass defenses 1. Champ Bailey- denvers 29th ranked pass defense 2. Patrick Surtain- Kc's 30th ranked pass defense 3. Lito Sheppard/Sheldon Brown- Philly 21st ranked pass defense 4. Antoine Winfield/Fred Smoot- Vikings 22nd ranked pass defense If like you say our dline determines the success of our defense which btw I'm a big proponent of as of now we fall woefuly short. Good Corners are prone to bad years. Why keep clements though well for starters he's 25/26 years old and averages 4 picks a year and is far and away the best corner on this team. It will take a long time to accquire the amount of dline talent needed to protect terrence mcgee and a bunch of scrubs, where as we have solid corners in place and decent depth with king/thomas/thomas/greer but when that depth becomes a starter in place of nate clements well you're in trouble. Why add to our need list when we have the money to build around a good core? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___JT___ Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 36 New England Eugene Wilson FS Illinois- 2nd rd 2003 120 New England Asante Samuel CB Central Florida -4th rd 2003 Not to mention they had rodney harrison at ss. and the whole thing about their very good lb's oh and just for the record DT/DE Richard Seymour- 1st rd pick De/dt- Ty Warren- 1st rd pick DT- Vince Wilfork- 1st rd pick When you have a dline full of 1st rd picks and solid lb's you can pretty much get away with an average secondary. Comparing clements situation to ne is completly invalid due to the state of our dline lb depth and well near the caliber of a qb in brady. Our whole defense was bad last year, not just clements, but just for the record 13 teams finished with worse pass defenses then us this past season, just some of the noteable corners who were on these lesser ranking pass defenses 1. Champ Bailey- denvers 29th ranked pass defense 2. Patrick Surtain- Kc's 30th ranked pass defense 3. Lito Sheppard/Sheldon Brown- Philly 21st ranked pass defense 4. Antoine Winfield/Fred Smoot- Vikings 22nd ranked pass defense If like you say our dline determines the success of our defense which btw I'm a big proponent of as of now we fall woefuly short. Good Corners are prone to bad years. Why keep clements though well for starters he's 25/26 years old and averages 4 picks a year and is far and away the best corner on this team. It will take a long time to accquire the amount of dline talent needed to protect terrence mcgee and a bunch of scrubs, where as we have solid corners in place and decent depth with king/thomas/thomas/greer but when that depth becomes a starter in place of nate clements well you're in trouble. Why add to our need list when we have the money to build around a good core? 657802[/snapback] I thought that in thier last superbowl they had a bunch of injurys to there secondary ? I dont got the time to look it up , but i want to say a rookie or 2 started that game ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 I thought that in thier last superbowl they had a bunch of injurys to there secondary ? I dont got the time to look it up , but i want to say a rookie or 2 started that game ! 657820[/snapback] Yeah Ty Law was injured with a broken foot Randal Gay and Asante Samuel were the starters and they used troy brown as a nickel back, but they were still far from under talented. When you have that kind of dline you can get away with it but it's far from the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 He sure wasn't a playmaker last year. In fact, he was a game-killer. 657655[/snapback] Ahhh, thank you! If Nate is the team's best player (and I'm really not debating that at the moment), that is truly sad indeed. The guy gets burned constantly, and I think because he likes to dare QBs to throw at him because he wants to make picks, even if that means giving up more TDs than he scores. Remember Jacksonville two years ago? My feeling is the guy will not produce once he gets his big fat signing bonus, and so if we can get a first rounder for him, I would do it in a heartbeat. I am totally opposed to paying this guy what he wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 DT/DE Richard Seymour- 1st rd pick De/dt- Ty Warren- 1st rd pick DT- Vince Wilfork- 1st rd pick When you have a dline full of 1st rd picks and solid lb's you can pretty much get away with an average secondary. We have the solid LB's, and an average D-Line. This is a good reason to think that DT is our first pick, not Huff, and not Jimmy Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACTOBILLSFAN Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 He's still trying to figure out how to spell his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 Lots of money left over... we have to sign this Buckeye Corner for several years. He's our playmaker on defense (especially when Takeo is out). 657549[/snapback] You need to watch some film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogger Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I know that Nate will end up a Bill, but if for some reason they feel they have to trade him, Seattle needs a CB, and they have a very high 1st that would get him, I think they would have to add a 4th or 5th to it. another former bill corner named Nate went to seattle and was never heard of again. But we all know that he will be Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts