Tux of Borg Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 How do you think Nate Clements is going to look in Jets green next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 aint gonna happen........we will pay nate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 I remember a time not too far ago when I was flamed for suggesting us re-signing Nate. Oh how the bandwagon is getting full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PacificCoastBillsFan Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 I remember a time not too far ago when I was flamed for suggesting us re-signing Nate. Oh how the bandwagon is getting full. 862655[/snapback] Now that you mention it, how many bandwagons have you jumped on and off Your sure to be right some of the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 What is a metrosexual ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePebble19 Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 I just hope the Jets never wear those Green on Green outfits again... Hideous. Not to mention they are like 1-5 with those outfits...they are just bad karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Now that you mention it, how many bandwagons have you jumped on and off Your sure to be right some of the time 862666[/snapback] I can think of TWO ... Doug Flutie, and Travis Henry. You probably shouldnt try to diss someone when you dont know them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 I remember a time not too far ago when I was flamed for suggesting us re-signing Nate. Oh how the bandwagon is getting full. 862655[/snapback] Dude, move you !@#$ing legs, this guy on the right of me has this bulge in his pants, and i don't want to get up because someone might take my seat on the wagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Dude, move you !@#$ing legs, this guy on the right of me has this bulge in his pants, and i don't want to get up because someone might take my seat on the wagon. 862701[/snapback] Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 I remember a time not too far ago when I was flamed for suggesting us re-signing Nate. Oh how the bandwagon is getting full. 862655[/snapback] At the time you started those posts, he wasn't playing half as good as he is now. And most people weren't against re-signing him, they were only against overpaying for him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted December 11, 2006 Author Share Posted December 11, 2006 What is a metrosexual ? 862678[/snapback] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrosexual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 I can't believe we would let Clements go with the way he is playing this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Exactly. I just don't think we can afford the guy. When we let Winfield go, I was all for it--because I wanted to spend that money on re-signing Clements rather than Winfield. But the fact is that Clements will command a monster salary (perhaps the biggest contract in the whole league). How are we going to be able to pay him that kind of money? 862923[/snapback] Yup, its not a question of wanting to re-sign clements, its a question of spending easily 50+ mil on him (if not more). If we cant re-sign him, we should at least give him the transition tag, giving us the right to match any offer that he signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 What is a metrosexual ? 862678[/snapback] a gay guy who rides the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 At the time you started those posts, he wasn't playing half as good as he is now. And most people weren't against re-signing him, they were only against overpaying for him 862837[/snapback] Thats one theory ... OR he was playing just as well as he is now except he wasnt doing all of the flashy stuff that gets the announcers/station to notice him, such as the huge hits and batdowns. If you cared to pay attention at the games late last season and earlier this season, you would see that Clements has been blanketing his receiver every since he dominated Steve Smith last year. He just wasnt having those chances for huge hits and batdowns ... mainly because the QB's havent been throwing to his side since then. In fact I cant remember him giving up more than 1 TD total in the past 17-18 games. Can you? Its tough to see how good a CB or S is doing unless your at the game, because the TV station and announcers are most likely going to be paying attention to the other, more high profile, players on the field. Im sorry to break it too you and everyone else, but Clements has been as solid as a rock since week 11 or so last year and every game this year. It's not all about that huge INT or that bone-crushing hit. It is about being consistantly solid in covering your receiver and taking that WR out of the game. Clements is probably in the top 3 in the league in that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Exactly. I just don't think we can afford the guy. When we let Winfield go, I was all for it--because I wanted to spend that money on re-signing Clements rather than Winfield. But the fact is that Clements will command a monster salary (perhaps the biggest contract in the whole league). How are we going to be able to pay him that kind of money? 862923[/snapback] Clements will probably be looking for about $50 million. The biggest contract in the league is more than double that. How do you we pay him that kind of money? Well perhaps we actually SPEND some of the nearly 30 some million we will have in un-used cap space. Its really sickening to go year after year after year dumping players because we dont want to pay them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Thats one theory ... OR he was playing just as well as he is now except he wasnt doing all of the flashy stuff that gets the announcers/station to notice him, such as the huge hits and batdowns. If you cared to pay attention at the games late last season and earlier this season, you would see that Clements has been blanketing his receiver every since he dominated Steve Smith last year. He just wasnt having those chances for huge hits and batdowns ... mainly because the QB's havent been throwing to his side since then. In fact I cant remember him giving up more than 1 TD total in the past 17-18 games. Can you? Its tough to see how good a CB or S is doing unless your at the game, because the TV station and announcers are most likely going to be paying attention to the other, more high profile, players on the field. Im sorry to break it too you and everyone else, but Clements has been as solid as a rock since week 11 or so last year and every game this year. It's not all about that huge INT or that bone-crushing hit. It is about being consistantly solid in covering your receiver and taking that WR out of the game. Clements is probably in the top 3 in the league in that category. 863144[/snapback] So Clements is assumed to have been playing well because you never heard him get his name called. That could be true, but that is not someone you OVERPAY to keep because you can get that from others. You Overpay for guys who are PLAYMAKERS, guys who get on the highlght reels and make the picks which is something Nate is doing NOW. Like I said no one was saying not to re-sign him, they were saying not to overpay for him because he wanted top CB (or even top NFL) kind of money, and for the way he was playing, he didn't deserve it. Now he deserves some big money because of his play. I'm going to try to explain this differently. Lets say you work in an office, you constantly do yor job and exactly what you are supposed to do. It comes time for a new contract. The company is going to give you the going rate for a person doing your job. Now lets say you come in and do everything your supposed too but you also have secured multiple big accounts for the company, have come up with a bunch of new money sving ideas and have helped the company out in other ways. When it comes time for your new contract, the company is going to give you a better contract just because they don't want to lose you because you bring something extra to the company. The first part of that example shows Nate in the first half of the season, playing his position and doing a good job. The next part of the example shows Nate in the second half of the season, playing well, making the big hits and key interceptions. I don't know whats worse, the constant, I told you Nate was great attitude, or the Nate clements Man love you keep posting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 So Clements is assumed to have been playing well because you never heard him get his name called. That could be true, but that is not someone you OVERPAY to keep because you can get that from others. You Overpay for guys who are PLAYMAKERS, guys who get on the highlght reels and make the picks which is something Nate is doing NOW. Like I said no one was saying not to re-sign him, they were saying not to overpay for him because he wanted top CB (or even top NFL) kind of money, and for the way he was playing, he didn't deserve it. Now he deserves some big money because of his play. I'm going to try to explain this differently. Lets say you work in an office, you constantly do yor job and exactly what you are supposed to do. It comes time for a new contract. The company is going to give you the going rate for a person doing your job. Now lets say you come in and do everything your supposed too but you also have secured multiple big accounts for the company, have come up with a bunch of new money sving ideas and have helped the company out in other ways. When it comes time for your new contract, the company is going to give you a better contract just because they don't want to lose you because you bring something extra to the company. The first part of that example shows Nate in the first half of the season, playing his position and doing a good job. The next part of the example shows Nate in the second half of the season, playing well, making the big hits and key interceptions. 863221[/snapback] Ok. So basically your saying this: Nate has always done a GOOD job at his position and has shutdown wide receivers like Steve Smith, Johnson ... etc but it was not until he past 6 games that he became a true PLAYMAKER. One that can break a game open? Correct? So now we are going to let him go to another team because we dont want to potentially "overpay" a GOOD player ALL the time and who is a PLAYMAKER some of the time? That is the type of thinking that has gotten us to no playoffs in the past 6 years. We need to stop getting rid of players because we dont want to overpay them. Think Pat Williams, Ted Washington, Antoine Winfield, Sam Cowart ... etc I don't know whats worse, the constant, I told you Nate was great attitude, or the Nate clements Man love you keep posting Find me two other times I bragged about me being right about Nate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Ok. So basically your saying this: Nate has always done a GOOD job at his position and has shutdown wide receivers like Steve Smith, Johnson ... etc but it was not until he past 6 games that he became a true PLAYMAKER. One that can break a game open? Correct? So now we are going to let him go to another team because we dont want to potentially "overpay" a GOOD player ALL the time and who is a PLAYMAKER some of the time? That is the type of thinking that has gotten us to no playoffs in the past 6 years. We need to stop getting rid of players because we dont want to overpay them. Think Pat Williams, Ted Washington, Antoine Winfield, Sam Cowart ... etc Find me two other times I bragged about me being right about Nate. 863281[/snapback] Theres a huge difference in playing like a $25 mil corner and wanting 50 mil than playing like a $40 mil corner and wanting $50. For the past 2 years, up until a few games ago, nate was playing like a $25 mil corner. Its only been the past few games that he's stepped up into the 40 mil range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Theres a huge difference in playing like a $25 mil corner and wanting 50 mil than playing like a $40 mil corner and wanting $50. For the past 2 years, up until a few games ago, nate was playing like a $25 mil corner. Its only been the past few games that he's stepped up into the 40 mil range. 863297[/snapback] I agree with you except for I think that he has been playing like a $35 mill corner the past few years and a $45 mill corner the past 6 weeks. You have to remember that Inflation is hitting the NFL hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts