If we extend Clements

[Mikie2times]

In 2005 Nate was entering his 5th year, a contract year in which most expected the Bills to franchise him. His play really seemed to drop off in 2005. Given his age you would expect a progression which made his regression all the more noticeable. It wasn't injury related, and while the coaching was poor his play declined when compared to 2004 which he had the same coaches and system. To me what separates good and great players in the NFL is effort and motivation. With other factors disqualified I really can't find anything else to explain Nates decline in play from 2005 and the start of 2006.

 

As we all know Nate is now playing lights out football since the bye week. We promised to not use the franchise tag, and he's well aware of his future payday. It's not shocking to see a potential contract influence a player’s play, but in our case Nate will command pay that could make him one of the highest paid CB's in football. To me a contract so large is only worth it if it's going to a motivated Clements, otherwise your getting top 10 material and not top 3.

[jester43]

so what you're saying is that we're !@#$ed either way...

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

I understand what you're saying but I'll propose this question if we dont re-sign nate clements would you really want terrence mcgee as your #1 cb?

[Mikie2times]

I understand what you're saying but I'll propose this question if we dont re-sign nate clements would you really want terrence mcgee as your #1 cb? 

867497[/snapback]

It's a big dilemma. Teams are used to being in this situation but the contract size makes it more magnified. My belief is his motivation will once again decline. Even if that ends up being the case it still makes this a borderline decision with no correct answer. Also McGee wouldn't necessarily be the number 1 guy. I would think Marv would bring in additional help if Nate leaves.

[daquixers_is_back]

In 2005 Nate was entering his 5th year, a contract year in which most expected the Bills to franchise him. His play really seemed to drop off in 2005. Given his age you would expect a progression which made his regression all the more noticeable. It wasn't injury related, and while the coaching was poor his play declined when compared to 2004 which he had the same coaches and system.  To me what separates good and great players in the NFL is effort and motivation. With other factors disqualified I really can't find anything else to explain Nates decline in play from 2005 and the start of 2006.

 

As we all know Nate is now playing lights out football since the bye week. We promised to not use the franchise tag, and he's well aware of his future payday. It's not shocking to see a potential contract influence a player’s play, but in our case Nate will command pay that could make him one of the highest paid CB's in football. To me a contract so large is only worth it if it's going to a motivated Clements, otherwise your getting top 10 material and not top 3.

867489[/snapback]

 

Im not sure what people mean by the drop-off in play in 2005 and early 2006. He did have a few missed tackles but that is all you can really bag him for. He only really had ONE bad game last season, which was against Chambers. The other games he shutdown a lot of coners, including STEVE SMITH. The only thing I can think of is that he was not getting INT's. Other than that I thought he played good. Heck even Champ Bailey didnt have more than 3 INT's for FOUR straight years.

[Mikie2times]

Im not sure what people mean by the drop-off in play in 2005 and early 2006. He did have a few missed tackles but that is all you can really bag him for. He only really had ONE bad game last season, which was against Chambers. The other games he shutdown a lot of coners, including STEVE SMITH. The only thing I can think of is that he was not getting INT's. Other than that I thought he played good. Heck even Champ Bailey didnt have more than 3 INT's for FOUR straight years.

867518[/snapback]

Nates had good and bad games against great WR's over the last couple years. He played well against Johnson and Smith in 2005. Played horrible against Chambers in the 2nd Miami game in 2005, and in this year’s game against the Lions he was owned by Roy Williams. Regardless if you perceived his play to have gone down or not, it's fairly easy to see his current play going up. That being the case it really doesn't change the fact that something has improved his play. Is that something a 6th year veteran getting it, coaching, contract, or all of the above? This post is about it being more about contract, and if that's the case the original question becomes very important in our decision to bring him back or not.

[Max997]

when are people going to realize that Nate will not be in a Bills uniform next year

[ExWNYer]

when are people going to realize that Nate will not be in a Bills uniform next year

867545[/snapback]

 

When he officially signs with someone else, Nostradamus.

[HurlyBurly51]

when are people going to realize that Nate will not be in a Bills uniform next year

867545[/snapback]

 

No sh--, and the thing is we'll be wasting valuable time at the beginning of free agency trying to get him while all the other top targets go elsewhere. Get him done before he hits the market, or just say goodbye. All he wants is the highest bidder, and it won't happen 'til he hits the market, and it won't end up being the Bills.

[34-78-83]

Nates had good and bad games against great WR's over the last couple years. He played well against Johnson and Smith in 2005. Played horrible against Chambers in the 2nd Miami game in 2005, and in this year’s game against the Lions he was owned by Roy Williams. Regardless if you perceived his play to have gone down or not, it's fairly easy to see his current play going up. That being the case it really doesn't change the fact that something has improved his play. Is that something a 6th year veteran getting it, coaching, contract, or all of the above? This post is about it being more about contract, and if that's the case the original question becomes very important in our decision to bring him back or not.

867526[/snapback]

McGee was on Roy Williams at least as much as Nate in that game.

[daquixers_is_back]

Nates had good and bad games against great WR's over the last couple years. He played well against Johnson and Smith in 2005. Played horrible against Chambers in the 2nd Miami game in 2005, and in this year’s game against the Lions he was owned by Roy Williams. Regardless if you perceived his play to have gone down or not, it's fairly easy to see his current play going up. That being the case it really doesn't change the fact that something has improved his play. Is that something a 6th year veteran getting it, coaching, contract, or all of the above? This post is about it being more about contract, and if that's the case the original question becomes very important in our decision to bring him back or not.

867526[/snapback]

 

Uhm ... Nate wasnt covering Roy Williams all day. That was McGee who got owned by Williams.

[2003Contenders]

Nates had good and bad games against great WR's over the last couple years. He played well against Johnson and Smith in 2005. Played horrible against Chambers in the 2nd Miami game in 2005, and in this year’s game against the Lions he was owned by Roy Williams. Regardless if you perceived his play to have gone down or not, it's fairly easy to see his current play going up. That being the case it really doesn't change the fact that something has improved his play. Is that something a 6th year veteran getting it, coaching, contract, or all of the above? This post is about it being more about contract, and if that's the case the original question becomes very important in our decision to bring him back or not.

867526[/snapback]

 

I'm not exactly sure I understand your point. 2005 was a contract year for Nate, right? If he had an extra incentive to play well wouldn't it have been during that season -- the same one in which you indicated that you felt he played poorly? (For the record, Nate was not locked up on Chambers. He gave up a few catches here and there, but so did McGee and Greer!) As it turns out, Marv elected to franchise him this year -- and promised not to do the same next season. Thus, this season is now a contract year for him.

 

I don't know whether or not he is the top CB in the NFL, but he is certainly one of the best. What's more, he will undoubtedly be the top one on the market, which is what REALLY matters. Suffice to say that if he ever does hit the market, he will receive many enticing offers, and it will be hard to woo him back.

 

I'm not sure why the team has this philosophy about not negotiating during the regular season. I can appreciate the fact that it may cause a distraction -- but it can also serve to secure guys for the long haul. I still miss Big Pat...

[Last Guy on the Bench]

I think Nate is worth it even if he doesn't match his great play of recent weeks. Pay him as if he's the best CB in the NFL (he's pretty damn close right now). Even if he drops off a bit, the contract won't be all that big in a couple of years time, since prices just go up and up.

 

I also think it's possible that coaching is a big part of his recent upsurge. It seems to have coincided with Fewell's decision to stick him on the number one receiver for most of the game rather than keeping him on a particular side.

 

That being said, while I myself would pretty much break the bank to keep him, I don't think the Bills (i.e., Ralph) will. I agree that Ralph can't fork out 15+ million dollar bonuses while he's busy crying poor.

 

The only good thing about letting Nate go is that it increases the possibility we will take another DB relatively high in the draft thus ensuring a steady supply of apoplectic and entertaining posts from Bill in NYC. I always enjoy those. I just hope he doesn't spontaneously combust.

[Sen. John Blutarsky]

Uhm ... Nate wasnt covering Roy Williams all day. That was McGee who got owned by Williams.

867990[/snapback]

Yeah but it WAS Nate who got owned about 400 times more by Chris Chambers last year.

 

I say pay him, he's good when he's motivated but he's shown that he stinks out loud when he's on a team going nowhere. he was at his best the second half of '04 when the whole team was fired up, he's been better the second half of this season than the first. he's a front runner. Gamble that we're on an uptick. The only arguement against this would be our defesive scheme. IF we can pick up a Rnde Barber for much less than Nate that migt make sense, you need a different CB in Cover 2, we played a lot of man before, not so much now. Different skill sets and Cover 2 corners can be cheaper because they don't have to run a 4.2. It's similar to 3-4 OLB compared to 4-3 OLB, different guys, different price tags.

[Bill from NYC]

The only good thing about letting Nate go is that it increases the possibility we will take another DB relatively high in the draft thus ensuring a steady supply of apoplectic and entertaining posts from Bill in NYC. I always enjoy those. I just hope he doesn't spontaneously combust.

868045[/snapback]

 

 

Thanks, I suppose.

Btw, if my life depended on guessing right, I am predicting that we let Nate walk (be it because he wants to, or Ralph refuses to pay him), and we draft a 1st round corner.

 

If he waits until round 2, I promise to not get SO mad. How's that?

[Last Guy on the Bench]

       

 

Thanks, I suppose.   

Btw, if my life depended on guessing right, I am predicting that we let Nate walk (be it because he wants to, or Ralph refuses to pay him), and we draft a 1st round corner. 

 

If he waits until round 2, I promise to not get SO mad. How's that? 

868054[/snapback]

 

 

I agree. I don't think he'll be here next year. But I think that will be a big mistake.

 

I definitely agree that a 1st round DB is not the way to go next year, with or without Nate. If he's gone, though, I do think they'll have to look at one in rounds 2-4.

 

For me, though, round two is linebacker round - you can always get good-to-great LBs down there.

 

I think next year round 1 for the Bills has to be OL or DT unless there is a TE or LB that you just can't pass on.

 

My worst nightmare would be blowing a 1st rounder on a WR. I love Lee Evans, but I really don't like spending 1st round picks on WRs. They're too hit-and-miss, too slow to develop, and too available in later rounds. We got lucky with Lee.

[Bill from NYC]

I agree. I don't think he'll be here next year. But I think that will be a big mistake.

 

I definitely agree that a 1st round DB is not the way to go next year, with or without Nate. If he's gone, though, I do think they'll have to look at one in rounds 2-4.

 

For me, though, round two is linebacker round - you can always get good-to-great LBs down there.

 

I think next year round 1 for the Bills has to be OL or DT unless there is a TE or LB that you just can't pass on.

 

My worst nightmare would be blowing a 1st rounder on a WR. I love Lee Evans, but I really don't like spending 1st round picks on WRs. They're too hit-and-miss, too slow to develop, and too available in later rounds. We got lucky with Lee.

868102[/snapback]

 

You may or may not like this, but we are on exactly the same page.

[jdubs]

I think round 1 next year should be a good tall receiver to complement Evans.

[Last Guy on the Bench]

You may or may not like this, but we are on exactly the same page. 

868105[/snapback]

 

Cheers.

 

Happy to be on such a distinguished page.

[Bills_Chick]

I thought it was against league rules to negotiate with Nate until the end of the season since he is a tagged player.

[daquixers_is_back]

Yeah but it WAS Nate who got owned about 400 times more by Chris Chambers last year.

868051[/snapback]

 

Yeah and Champ Bailey has been owned in 1 out of his past 20 games too. So I dont quite see your point. Clements has been "owned" literally only ONCE in his past 20-25 games.

[Captain Hindsight]

If we dont sign nate watch for a major drop off in our pass defense and the # of big plays we give up. Nate is good and needs to be resigned