IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 considering that my family and i have been season ticket holders for over 20 years(my grandfather since the franchise started), id say that a good chunk of Nate's contract would be MY money. maybe you should ask ralph that... So when you paid for your season tickets, you told Ralph to use the money on Nate? Was that part of your contract with him? Look. I get it. You pay good money for a good product. But just because Ralph is sitting on a ton of cash doesn't mean he owes it to anyone to spend it all. If you don't like the product, stop buying tickets. But for people to say Ralph should spend the money just because he has it always perplexes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 id say that a good chunk of Nate's contract would be MY money. Thats !@#$ing hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 So when you paid for your season tickets, you told Ralph to use the money on Nate? Was that part of your contract with him? Look. I get it. You pay good money for a good product. But just because Ralph is sitting on a ton of cash doesn't mean he owes it to anyone to spend it all. If you don't like the product, stop buying tickets. But for people to say Ralph should spend the money just because he has it always perplexes me. Stop making so much sense. You're deflating the real politique zealotry of the OP and no one will want to post in such a reasonably milquetoast thread any longer. Don't you know you can't be a true Bills fan if you employ such things as "logic" and "common sense" when articulating a point? Besides, everyone knows that the person who throws the most money at a situation always ends up solving that problem in the most complete and efficient manner. It is also a fact that welshing on standing business agreements for a short term boost is always the best way to expand and grow said business because, like it or not, all business entities do exist in their own respective fishbowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 was i completely serious? no but there is a big difference between throwing money at a problem and knowing when to spend money to keep a winning team on the field. and NOT spending money is only going to make this team worse. im not asking Ralph to empty his grandchildren's trust funds to keep a player. but if its SO HARD for him to stay competitive with other owners then maybe he shouldnt be in the business anymore. as fans and consumers, we should expect the best possible product. not the best product ralph is willing to supply. and as of this year, my father is the only one left with season tickets. and he brought his down from 4 to 2. i moved to Atlanta last year and kept them for last season, but there's no sense in keeping them anymore for me. the people of buffalo(at least my family) is not extremely rich. my uncle has been driving the same crappy truck which has been on its last leg for the past 5 years. he could be driving a nice, new, comfortable, no hassle truck. but that $10k went to the bills over the past 5 years. we all make sacrifices for this team. its about time it made one for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 considering that my family and i have been season ticket holders for over 20 years(my grandfather since the franchise started), id say that a good chunk of Nate's contract would be MY money. maybe you should ask ralph that... Hell ya! I've been paying my dang satellite dish bill for years now. I should own part of Dish network. With my new found power, no blackouts for anyone, ever. Oh wait, that's an NFL policy? Well I've been paying for their channel so I own part of them too. I'll make a few phone calls and see if my name carries any weight around the HQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 So when you paid for your season tickets, you told Ralph to use the money on Nate? Was that part of your contract with him? Look. I get it. You pay good money for a good product. But just because Ralph is sitting on a ton of cash doesn't mean he owes it to anyone to spend it all. If you don't like the product, stop buying tickets. But for people to say Ralph should spend the money just because he has it always perplexes me. and its not "just cause he has it" its because you have to be wiling to keep your talent, and keeping that talent takes one thing: MONEY! the real sad part is, im not asking him to spend money so we become a big powerhouse dynasty. im hoping he spends some cash just so we can become COMPETITVE with the good teams. something we havent been for over 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Personally, Id love a team of top flite corners and safeties. Especially with those stalwarts on the DL and at LB the Bills have right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Personally, Id love a team of top flite corners and safeties. Especially with those stalwarts on the DL and at LB the Bills have right now. your sarcastic comment is actually only more reason we should sign nate. the fact that the secondary was the ONLY bright spot on our defense, and our ONLY number 1 corner is Nate Clements, is all the reason needed to give him his contract. if he leaves we are back to rebuilding the whole defense this off season, as opposed to just one phase of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenews Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Man, I'm glad I don't work for you. Break your word and you lose credibility with anyone else you hope to negotiate with in the future. It's just that simple. .......and players can hold out for a new contract, hold the team hostage and them either get paid or traded!! Clinton Portis Ashlee Lelie Bruce Smith and the list goes on.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 ...keeping that talent takes one thing: MONEY! It's not that simple. What few people know is "how much is Ralph willing to spend?" Forget what he CAN spend. Tell me what he WILL spend. I have this memory of TD going after Milloy, convincing Ralph to pony up to get him in a last-minute "gimme the okay and I'll go get him" deal, and Ralph saying "Okay, go get him," followed by a crappy season that culminated with a three-game losing streak. Believe me, when you're the one paying the bills, you remember getting your ass kicked, which naturally makes you a little skiddish to go throwing $20M contracts at people. Plus, while I wouldn't mind keeping Nate, anyone who thinks inking him to a big deal is the answer to our problems is fooling themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 it's a business for god's sake...the NFL is hardly a honorable business...it is cut-throat and the Bills should be cut-throat. We cannot compete if we develop talent and let them walk away without compensation. Particularly, if we do things "on the cheap" as Ralph is prone to do. Clubs lie to players and players lie to clubs. Join the friggin' real world and play the game. Franchise clements. If another club wants to pay him big bucks, god bless. We get draft choices at least. The NFL has the franchise tag to give the clubs more power in negotiations with players, and to keep the playing field equal between teams...USE it for god's sake. That's not the way you deal with business. There is a right way of doing things and the wrong way. I think this idea is the wrong one. I think the best solution would be to resign Clements for a hefty contract and keep him a Buffalo Bill for many more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 It's not that simple. What few people know is "how much is Ralph willing to spend?" Forget what he CAN spend. Tell me what he WILL spend. I have this memory of TD going after Milloy, convincing Ralph to pony up to get him in a last-minute "gimme the okay and I'll go get him" deal, and Ralph saying "Okay, go get him," followed by a crappy season that culminated with a three-game losing streak. Believe me, when you're the one paying the bills, you remember getting your ass kicked, which naturally makes you a little skiddish to go throwing $20M contracts at people. Plus, while I wouldn't mind keeping Nate, anyone who thinks inking him to a big deal is the answer to our problems is fooling themselves. he alone is not the answer to any problem. keeping him doesnt answer any of our existing problem. LETTING HIM GO, on the other hand, just creates ANOTHER big problem. one that wont be answered til we're having this conversation about how bad we need to draft a CB NEXT YEAR after another sub-.500 season. how do you not see that this is one big cycle? now we'll bring in people to solve our run defense problem, but at what cost? oh yeah, letting our pass defense fall. we spent big fee agency money bringing in Troy Vincent and Spikes, both were worth the money. heck, Milloy was worth the money we gave him too(remember the dropoff when Wire had to come in?). Milloy was one of the bright spots that season, it was our OFFENSE that sucked it up. how is that any different than spending money on Nate? just because he's played for us for cheap (until last year)?? we're not going to spend money on our OWN guys? thats the real problem. and if Ralph is not WILLING to spend whatever he CAN, then he is not serious about putting a winning team on the field and everyone paying for tickets is getting scammed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE GASH STATION Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 it's a business for god's sake...the NFL is hardly a honorable business...it is cut-throat and the Bills should be cut-throat. We cannot compete if we develop talent and let them walk away without compensation. Particularly, if we do things "on the cheap" as Ralph is prone to do. Clubs lie to players and players lie to clubs. Join the friggin' real world and play the game. Franchise clements. If another club wants to pay him big bucks, god bless. We get draft choices at least. The NFL has the franchise tag to give the clubs more power in negotiations with players, and to keep the playing field equal between teams...USE it for god's sake. I'm with you, think Dan Snyder, Bob Kraft, J Jones would think twice about letting Clements walk..its a business..and the rules of honor are out the window when it comes to $'s and winning in the new NFL. Only thing is, Marv made this promise..if he lives up to it..he will be skewered for being stupid...if he breaks the promise..he will be skewered for being stupid.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 First- under the Bills version of the cover-2, CBs are expected to play soft zone coverage and don't need the skills to play press coverage. So it seems the cover -2 defense as designed for Buffalo does not need to have a CB as the most highly paid player on the team. Thus, the Bills knew last year that they would not be able to afford Nate. (Bill Parcells also devalued CBs in his system)Second, although TD did use the tag to get a pick for Price, the NFLPA was not happy about using the tag with no intention of negotiating with the player. As part of the new CBA negotiations, it is just possible that the NFLPA and NFL have told teams that they will frown on using the cap strictly as a trade tool when there is no intention of negotiating in good faith. Just a thought Except that's not how the Bills play the cover-2. When they moved Nate to only cover the best receiver, that's when he and the defense and the team started to excel. Just a thought. Furthermore, one of the only reasons that TD was able to tag Peerless and get away with it was because he was known to be crazy, and he told everyone if no one pays we'll just keep him and pay him and be happy about it. Even though he had no intention of that. And they couldn't call his bluff because TD, although the devil, really was a good cold hard poker player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Dude,.. Nate had it written into his one year contract that he signed. End of story. Bring in guy from Major League- he knew what to do with a contract he didn't like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 First- under the Bills version of the cover-2, CBs are expected to play soft zone coverage and don't need the skills to play press coverage. So it seems the cover -2 defense as designed for Buffalo does not need to have a CB as the most highly paid player on the team. Thus, the Bills knew last year that they would not be able to afford Nate. (Bill Parcells also devalued CBs in his system)Second, although TD did use the tag to get a pick for Price, the NFLPA was not happy about using the tag with no intention of negotiating with the player. As part of the new CBA negotiations, it is just possible that the NFLPA and NFL have told teams that they will frown on using the cap strictly as a trade tool when there is no intention of negotiating in good faith. Just a thought This is not what I saw on lots of different plays. Its hard to say for sure as if there is simply one way you always run your coverage, even an idiot opponent figures this out and simply figures out a way to exploit it. Though i think it is accurate to describe the Bills coverage style generally as being more loose or more press coverage, there are always particular plays where they in fact might fake using their normal style and then go the other way so as not to be predictable. However, with that caveat being said, I think one can more accurately describe the coverage used by the Bills CBs as a press coverage. I can see how one might be fooled into labeling it as soft due to a couple of wrinkles, namely it is basically a zone coverage with a player initially assigned a section of field, but in terms of actual work, the CB is required to read the play and choose a receiver he judges to be coming into his area and then to launch press coverage on that receiver. I could see how an observer might be fooled into thinking its a soft coverage as the CB might not line up right in the face of a particular receiver if the down and distance is such that he is willing to give the receiver a couple of yard for a quick pass, but given that he would be on the receiver quickly as he presses this is not a problem to give up a short pass on a second and long as I am immediately headed in for the tackle on this quick opener. An observer almost may be fooled into thinking it is soft coverage if the CB has not gotten right into the face of a receiver because he judges that either of two receivers may enter his zone, In this case he waits for their first step or max two and then attacks with the press the receiver he feels is more likely coming his way. However, in general I think you can most accurately describe our CV use as a press coverage. A number of stats indicate this is true actually: 1. The leading INT guy on our team was an LB Fletcher rather than the typical CB leaders. I think this was true because in our D the way we used it it actually is best described as the version of the Cover 2 known as the Tampa 2 where the MLB plays deep zone coverage more similar to what a safety normally plays while the CB plays a press coverage on the WRs and actually releases them to the safeties who have the outside deep zones when the WR goes 10 or more yards down the field. The zone actually produces more INTs than the press coverage as when you press well the QB decides to not even throw it to that receiver because he is tightly covered. When you zone up you are more free to read the QBs eyes and when you are good at this jump the route and also you are freer to get tipped or misthrown balls. When you press a lot as I felt our CBs did in short coverage, there are fewer misthrown balls to pick because the passes are short, it is harder to pick off balls as they are thrown with speed and pace unlike the lofts sent deep, and also you are usually locked in a hand fight with a WR and there are fewer INTs. The fact that F-B got more INTs than either corner I think is a good indicator of short press coverage by the CBa (again stats are rarely a conclusive demonstrator but they are often good indicators). 2. A second indicator is the problems our pass coverage had as we approached the middle of the season. McGee even got benched to force him to get a handle on problems that led to long bombs to WRs like MN Robinson of a fly and a Chad Jackson TD which was blamed on McGee but I think Simpson getting there late was the bigger problem. The coverage problems were actually simply McGee getting beat deep by a series of receivers even though he was playing the soft coverage you describe when actually he was getting beat deep wwhen he let the receiver go and did not realize that the rookie safety was not there in the deep zone. He was beaten head to head by better WRs like Detroit\s Roy Williams, but actually if he was playing as soft as you say and was repetitively 5 yards off the receiver he would not be getting left in the dust for receptions but instead would have to give up TDs by failing to make tackles after the reception. 3. Another potentially good indicator is examining the strengths and weaknesses of the players they picked and in particular look at what Youbouty brings to the game. In fact with his body and a rep for being competitive and a good hand fighter he was built and trained for press coverage. In fact, one of the big complaints about his game is that when he has to run deep hip to hip with a WR though he has OK speed he has trouble with his back to the ball. Youbouty is a press guy. At any rate, I think historically you are correct that the Bills have generally been a soft coverage team with bend do not break Walt Corey in charge and the emphasis on the zone blitz with LeBeau then Grau. However, I think you are incorrect to say that the Bills generally run a soft coverage with our Cover 2 for the CBs like Clements because a key to the CB game now in our D is to be good at press coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 ugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud8andbills Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 This is a touchy situation. All avenues have to be pursued for the best bottom line. Now I think Nate is a great shut down corner. Towards the end of the season he was in Pro Bowl form. He knew he was becoming a free agent. My hope is Buffalo re-signs him and he can teach an up and coming Youboty. Sign him long term. If he does good it was worth it. If he doesn't trade him. If anything you get your cap back and shouldn't take a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cantankerous Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Pyrite Gal...Great post, I read the whole thing! I wish I had the games on DVR as I only have the Chicago and 2nd Miami game to look back on. I hope we re-sign Clements...if not then...f*@k. I hope Youboty comes in ready to roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts