Why is Retaining Clements So Unrealistic?

[apuszczalowski]

I think you're wrong here for a few reasons and I have been one of Nate's strongest critics over the years on this board. This past year, for the most part, and for the majority of the season, Nate was terrific. And throw that stuff about the system and the Cover 2 and zones out the window because it simply wasn't true. The second half of the year Nate was on the best WR on the other team no matter where he lined up, and Nate basically shut him down, whomever he was. One of the major reasons, if not the major reason, that Whitner and Simpson did not get beat or look lost this year as rookies was because of how Nate took away the main threat and usually the teams main deep threat. He was terrific, and better than he ever was, regardless of the number of picks. Nate made the pass rush better, too, because QBs would look to their #1 target and then have to look to their #2. If he wasnt there the ball flies out of the QBs hands a lot easier and quicker and the Bills do not have the 7th ranked pass defense. The coaches put a lot of trust and responsibility on Nate in the second half of the year and he played his best football. And again, I have criticized him as much as anyone here.

I really wonder how much of this was actually because of Nates play, or just the fans perception/reason why.

 

You can only speculate that the reason many QB's didn't throw that way was because Nate was covering so well and not because they were trying to run on a horrible run defence all the time, or Simpson and Whitner were there too to help keep QB's from throwing (this is also only speculation and just trying to play devils advocate here)

 

I never said Nate wasn't good, but I would assume if he was an integral part of the D like so many here are saying, Marv, Jauron Fewell, and even Ralph would be bending over backwards to give him what he wants to re-sign. Instead it looks like they know that they can get someone who will be good enough for much less, or already have that person to take over and him leaving will not be a huge hit to the defence. I am trusting their judgement since so far, their judgement has been pretty good.

[2003Contenders]

I have too chuckle at those who worry about how much money Nate can command. It's not OUR money we are talking about spending -- it's Ralph's, right? Now, I suppose I could understand if we were in cap trouble and folks felt that it would be smarter to allocate the money elsewhere. However, we look to be $40 M under the cap! A team that everyone keeps saying may be a suitor is Washington. Now THAT is a team that is in serious cap trouble. Thus, there is no way that they would be able to outbid for his services if it came right down to it.

 

The truth of the matter is that Nate was a positive for this team last season. Given that we have some holes to fill -- which in my opinion are actually "fillable" -- why should we open more holes by letting someone like Nate walk. So what if he signs an over-inflated contract? It is worth more to our team to keep him, than it would be to spend the money on finding someone else to back-fill him. Has everyone forgotten how awful McGee was last season? Do you really want to imagine him as our #1 CB?

 

I keep hearing all of this media speculation that Nate may have priced himself out of Buffalo, but I wonder why that seems to be a given. During the Super Bowl years Ralph had no problem paying guys like Kelly, Thurman, Bruce, Cornelius, etc top dollar. So why should he now? In my opinion, if Nate leaves it's either because

 

1. He didn't want to come back.

 

or

 

2. The coaching staff felt like they had a better alternative.

 

From the quotes I've read, it sounds like he wants to be back. And Fewell made it a point to identify him as a strength for our defense. Thus, I do not see either of the above points as factual.

 

The reality is that Nate is excited about testing the market because this is his best shot at getting a big payday. Thus, I do not necessarily feel that the team's inability to sign him to a long contract prior to now means that he doesn't want to be back. Rather, he knows that there are LOTS of teams out there with cap space, the CB position is always in high demand -- and he is coming off a very good season. Thus, it would be foolish of him NOT to test the market. Now, maybe some team will make such a ridiculous offer that it is NOT in the Bills' best interest to meet or exceed it, but I still believe that he has a better than 50/50 shot at re-upping with the Bills, provided that he is sincere about wanting to come back.

[Kelly the Dog]

I really wonder how much of this was actually because of Nates play, or just the fans perception/reason why.

 

You can only speculate that the reason many QB's didn't throw that way was because Nate was covering so well and not because they were trying to run on a horrible run defence all the time, or Simpson and Whitner were there too to help keep QB's from throwing (this is also only speculation and just trying to play devils advocate here)

 

I never said Nate wasn't good, but I would assume if he was an integral part of the D like so many here are saying, Marv, Jauron Fewell, and even Ralph would be bending over backwards to give him what he wants to re-sign. Instead it looks like they know that they can get someone who will be good enough for much less, or already have that person to take over and him leaving will not be a huge hit to the defence. I am trusting their judgement since so far, their judgement has been pretty good.

Logic, stats, and simply watching the games close, to me, says it is. Nothing, to me, says it isn't. I was surprised to find out that, for instance, teams threw more passes against the Bills than they ran the ball. I think it was about 30 or 40 more times over the season. That says that teams were not just running so well that they didn't put up good passing numbers. It's also a fact that the Bills did not blitz all that much, especially compared to other teams. And we didn't get a lot of pressure or sacks coming from the linebackers or DBs.

 

If you watched the games close, and from your posts, I believe you do, I defy you to say in public that hardly any of the Bills pressures and sacks come from guys immediately pouncing on the QB, having no one block them, or simply beat their man in no time. Virtually all of them came when the QB dropped back, had a little time, and then got hit. A huge number came when he had a lot of time and either rolled out or stepped up into the pocket only then to be hit by Schobel or Denney or Kelsay, etc. Almost every team we played had a lot of time to throw, on average. All teams and all quarterbacks look their primary receivers the majority of their time and a lot of teams the vast majority of the time.

 

This is first hand evidence, real facts, and circumstantial evidence that tells me Nate was all over his man and helping out other members of the defense far more than any other player. Not to mention the fact that he wasn't getting beat and replays very often showed him like glue. And again, I have been all over Nate.

[2003Contenders]

Logic, stats, and simply watching the games close, to me, says it is. Nothing, to me, says it isn't. I was surprised to find out that, for instance, teams threw more passes against the Bills than they ran the ball. I think it was about 30 or 40 more times over the season. That says that teams were not just running so well that they didn't put up good passing numbers. It's also a fact that the Bills did not blitz all that much, especially compared to other teams. And we didn't get a lot of pressure or sacks coming from the linebackers or DBs.

 

If you watched the games close, and from your posts, I believe you do, I defy you to say in public that hardly any of the Bills pressures and sacks come from guys immediately pouncing on the QB, having no one block them, or simply beat their man in no time. Virtually all of them came when the QB dropped back, had a little time, and then got hit. A huge number came when he had a lot of time and either rolled out or stepped up into the pocket only then to be hit by Schobel or Denney or Kelsay, etc. Almost every team we played had a lot of time to throw, on average. All teams and all quarterbacks look their primary receivers the majority of their time and a lot of teams the vast majority of the time.

 

This is first hand evidence, real facts, and circumstantial evidence that tells me Nate was all over his man and helping out other members of the defense far more than any other player. Not to mention the fact that he wasn't getting beat and replays very often showed him like glue. And again, I have been all over Nate.

 

Agreed. And note that he excelled later in the season, when being matched up against the opponent's top receiver. Harrison, A Johnson, Coles and Chris Chambers were virtually shutdown by Nate.

[keepthefaith]

He's not interested on being with a losing team.

 

Hard to know if Nate still wants to be in Buffalo, but I would expect the Bills to offer him a competitive contract.

[Boatdrinks]

I think we'd be better off throwing money at bigger, impact players like Freeney and Briggs. I'd feel much better about investing in them than "the playmaker".

 

I agree. i know Chuck Dickerson got a bad rap in Buffalo, but he did have a great philosophy re: the draft and free agency. He always said to draft and sign "big guys" not skill position players. Unless they are truly a game breaker a la LT, Reggie Bush. They are just a tougher body type to find and hence the premium price. A 5'9 guy who's fast is easier to find than a 6'4 260 lb guy. Makes sense to me.

[Dibs]

.......Instead it looks like they know that they can get someone who will be good enough for much less, or already have that person to take over and him leaving will not be a huge hit to the defence......

This is how I feel. It's all about value for money.......particularly for a team supposedly tight with money.

 

I've now witnessed a flip-flop band wagon.

Firstly I saw post after post crying how over-rated NC is etc, etc & to 'let him go' because he is not worth the money.

After he has a good year I see post after post saying how it's worth over-paying for him because you can't just replace that sort of thing.

 

I see post after post about how we should "fix the lines"......"stop the run"......."we need OGs"....."too many DBs, not enough big guys" etc, etc, etc.....yet when faced with down-grading at the CB position, everyone is up in arms. We had the 7th ranked pass D with 2 rookies starting & McGee(who struggled in the first half of the season). A down-grading at CB is certainly appropriate if it means we use the money for OGs, LBs, DTs etc, etc, etc. I'd hate to see us in 3 years time unable to re-sign Evans, JPL, Peters, Schobel, etc, etc due to NC being on a mega-deal.

 

If we do re-sign NC.....he'd better not regress to 2005 form(i.e. not worth the money he'll be getting).....the boards will melt-down.

[Kelly the Dog]

This is how I feel. It's all about value for money.......particularly for a team supposedly tight with money.

 

I've now witnessed a flip-flop band wagon.

Firstly I saw post after post crying how over-rated NC is etc, etc & to 'let him go' because he is not worth the money.

After he has a good year I see post after post saying how it's worth over-paying for him because you can't just replace that sort of thing.

 

I see post after post about how we should "fix the lines"......"stop the run"......."we need OGs"....."too many DBs, not enough big guys" etc, etc, etc.....yet when faced with down-grading at the CB position, everyone is up in arms. We had the 7th ranked pass D with 2 rookies starting & McGee(who struggled in the first half of the season). A down-grading at CB is certainly appropriate if it means we use the money for OGs, LBs, DTs etc, etc, etc. I'd hate to see us in 3 years time unable to re-sign Evans, JPL, Peters, Schobel, etc, etc due to NC being on a mega-deal.

 

If we do re-sign NC.....he'd better not regress to 2005 form(i.e. not worth the money he'll be getting).....the boards will melt-down.

I would say that when a player is under-performing and then he performs well or over-performs, that is not flip-flopping. That is what the players present level of play indicates. Otherwise, everyone that is badmouthing Willis or praising Losman and Peters is simply flip-flopping.

[Dibs]

I would say that when a player is under-performing and then he performs well or over-performs, that is not flip-flopping. That is what the players present level of play indicates. Otherwise, everyone that is badmouthing Willis or praising Losman and Peters is simply flip-flopping.

My flip-flop comment was directed towards the poster here, not a comment on players performances.....& yes.....to an extent it is similar with JPL.....maybe Willis....not Peters though(has anyone ever hated him?).

 

It's the strength of opinion changing to it's opposite with equal strength that I'm commenting on.

To go from....."NC, get rid of him!"....to......"Pay him whatever he wants!" is flip-flopping.

Not just changing opinion, but going from one extreme to the other extreme.

Flip-flopping.

 

It was not long ago D'Quixer was being constantly argued against about his views on how good NC is.

Now it's the complete opposite.

[Kelly the Dog]

My flip-flop comment was directed towards the poster here, not a comment on players performances.....& yes.....to an extent it is similar with JPL.....maybe Willis....not Peters though(has anyone ever hated him?).

 

It's the strength of opinion changing to it's opposite with equal strength that I'm commenting on.

To go from....."NC, get rid of him!"....to......"Pay him whatever he wants!" is flip-flopping.

Not just changing opinion, but going from one extreme to the other extreme.

Flip-flopping.

 

It was not long ago D'Quixer was being constantly argued against about his views on how good NC is.

Now it's the complete opposite.

Because he played great. The first 4-5 years I thought he played well but made a bunch of mental errors, missed a lot of tackles, and got beat more than a lot of posters here thought he did. This year, he had very few mental errors, was a pretty sure tackler and didn't gamble as much coming up too quick, and he didn't get beat hardly at all. That is maturity, and reaching his potential. Maybe he won't be as good next year but to me he will, he's reached his prime. Players evolve, and also, you're talking about a situation that only HAS two extremes: Get rid of him or pay him anything he wants. Those are really the only two possibilities there are right now. And a hard decision needs to be made. Last year, I would have said let him go. This year, I think he's probably worth it considering how much money we have and what we have behind him, what we need in the draft, the need to keep young star players, and what effect he has on the rest of the defense. Some players it benefits the team to overpay for.

[Dibs]

.....and also, you're talking about a situation that only HAS two extremes: Get rid of him or pay him anything he wants. Those are really the only two possibilities there are right now......

Agreed........but there are always many factors to consider & the 'band-wagon' style thinking tends to simply grab an extreme & run with it.....& in this case, flip-flop to it's opposite extreme when opinion changes.(I'm not trying to lump all in with this......it's an observation on a trend).

 

Even though there are only two final options, that doe not usually mean there is an obvious option to the decision to be made. A lot of posters here believed the decision was obvious one way........then it became obvious the other way.

IMO the decision is faaaaaaar from obvious. There are many, many factors involved which all need to be analysed & weighed up to hopefully make the best decision for the long-term benefit of the team.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe NC was useless & a waste of space......and now(10 weeks later) he is worth one of the bigger contracts in the league(regardless of how we are situated in regards to other factors beyond his basic talent).

Maybe the majority here is correct in assessing things so bipolarly.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

He's asking for too much money. Were never going to pay him.

[RuntheDamnBall]

He's asking for too much money. Were never going to pay him.

How much is he asking for?! How do you know this!? ARRRGH.

 

*head explodes*

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

How much is he asking for?! How do you know this!? ARRRGH.

 

*head explodes*

 

top cornerback money. It's been said for the past 2 years now. Why am I explaining this to you? ARRRGH

 

*head explodes*

[RuntheDamnBall]

top cornerback money. It's been said for the past 2 years now. Why am I explaining this to you? ARRRGH

 

*head explodes*

Seriously, you and I know that can be a big range. Is it more than Ken Lucas money (yes, probably)? Would less than Champ Bailey money be enough? Who knows? And will Marv and co. offer that kind of money? All signs point to 'no,' but the fact is no one has heard that from the horse's mouth. And that's what I ask "how do you know this?" Because you don't. None of us do.

 

We will all know in a few months and this is good enough for me.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

Seriously, you and I know that can be a big range. Is it more than Ken Lucas money (yes, probably)? Would less than Champ Bailey money be enough? Who knows? And will Marv and co. offer that kind of money? All signs point to 'no,' but the fact is no one has heard that from the horse's mouth. And that's what I ask "how do you know this?" Because you don't. None of us do.

 

We will all know in a few months and this is good enough for me.

 

I see your arguement. You're right that we haven't heard from him since September, but I can help thinking that he's waiting for the right moment to say he doesn't want to be with the team anymore.

[keepthefaith]

Seriously, you and I know that can be a big range. Is it more than Ken Lucas money (yes, probably)? Would less than Champ Bailey money be enough? Who knows? And will Marv and co. offer that kind of money? All signs point to 'no,' but the fact is no one has heard that from the horse's mouth. And that's what I ask "how do you know this?" Because you don't. None of us do.

 

We will all know in a few months and this is good enough for me.

 

Why do all signs point to no? I don't think Bills have said anything publically about their positon on Nate other than they'd like to have him back.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Why do all signs point to no? I don't think Bills have said anything publically about their positon on Nate other than they'd like to have him back.

Mostly because of the way Ralph has been talking about the team having financial struggles (I believe this to be posturing, but even so), and the team's penchant historically for not paying top dollar, when it's clear that this is precisely what Nate wants. I also wonder to an extent what the loss of Fletcher will mean. I think from a personnel standpoint an upgrade should probably be made. From a locker-room standpoint I can see guys thinking, "London's given this team his all and didn't even get offered an extension." That could not sit well.

 

This is not to say that they have no chance at him.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

Mostly because of the way Ralph has been talking about the team having financial struggles (I believe this to be posturing, but even so), and the team's penchant historically for not paying top dollar, when it's clear that this is precisely what Nate wants. I also wonder to an extent what the loss of Fletcher will mean. I think from a personnel standpoint an upgrade should probably be made. From a locker-room standpoint I can see guys thinking, "London's given this team his all and didn't even get offered an extension." That could not sit well.

 

This is not to say that they have no chance at him.

 

Correct.

[Koufax]

Right, this is EXACTLY why we can't pay a player more than his value. Nate is worth a bunch, and is a very good player, but he might not be worth what the market will make him cost, and if not we have to be smart and find other ways to improve our team by getting more value for our free agent dollars. If Nate is the best value we can get, sign him. But I don't think that the drop off from Nate to Ashton (while definitely significant) is as big as the upgrade from Preston to Steinbach on the line, and probably there are much less glamorous options to improve like the Patriots do every year (although hopefully not the Tutan Reyes-type stuff).

 

So I hope Nate stays, but not if he costs more than his value, which is very probable.

 

We always hear that the team just "needs to fill a few holes" to be a contender. What's frustrating is that if you lose guys like Clements and Fletcher...you will be darn lucky to get guys to replace them and then you STILL need to fill those "holes" with quality upgrades. It's a vicious circle and the Bills are constantly chasing their tails so to speak. They need to keep the quality guys and release the dead wood. Buffalo cannot convince the superstars to come here nor will they pay them. It's vital for the Bills to keep the stars that they have.