Dual RB way to go Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Everyone knew the bills weren't going to keep nate after this season. Too much money! So you franchise him and then you trade him. Maybe for a 1st or 2nd round pick last year or this year? Keeping him meant nothing. No playoffs, no winning season, and he sucked the 1st half. So why didn't they get something of value? It seems that trades in the NFL are harder to come by, then mothers giving up their children for adoption at birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 The question that I have had is why didn't they just force his hand on the franchise tag. Why agree to not tag him this year just to get him to sign the tender last year? As far as I know, Nate's choice last year was either to sign the tender or sit. It seems to me that the Bills held all of the cards. Now the Bills have none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Everyone knew the bills weren't going to keep nate after this season. Too much money! So you franchise him and then you trade him. Maybe for a 1st or 2nd round pick last year or this year? Keeping him meant nothing. No playoffs, no winning season, and he sucked the 1st half. So why didn't they get something of value? It seems that trades in the NFL are harder to come by, then mothers giving up their children for adoption at birth. The problem is, you need 2 teams to make a trade. Maybe not many teams were interested in dealing a high pick for a UFA that was already promised not to be tagged in the offseason. I do remember tehre being rumors about Macfarland for Nate before the deadline. That would have been nice and would have filled the hole at DT on the team this season. My guess was they weren't ready to put Ashton in at CB and had no other options if they dealt him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Everyone knew the bills weren't going to keep nate after this season. Too much money! So you franchise him and then you trade him. Maybe for a 1st or 2nd round pick last year or this year? Keeping him meant nothing. No playoffs, no winning season, and he sucked the 1st half. So why didn't they get something of value? It seems that trades in the NFL are harder to come by, then mothers giving up their children for adoption at birth. You answer your own question with the statement that everybody knew the Bills weren't going to keep nate. A team would be foolish to give up anything of value for a player they knew they could sign him as an FA and not give up anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dual RB way to go Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 ... A team would be foolish to give up anything of value for a player they knew they could sign him as an FA and not give up anything. A team may have wanted nate last season to put them over the top or make them a stronger contender A team would then have the right to match any free agent offer and keep A team could have traded for him & then worked out long term deal to avoid free agency A team would try to avoid competing with the rest of the NFL when he becomes a free agent I don't think they would be foolish if they wanted nate, but proactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Actually, it seems that Nate was/is bound, set and determined to test the free agent market. Thus, he was unlikely to sign a long-term contract with ANYBODY last season. That would explain why teams were uninterested in trading away anything for a player, who was set to become a free agent at season's end. Although the Bills did hold all of the cards -- and Nate eventually would have avoided holding out -- the deal that he and Marv reached (not to re-tag him in 2007) was to ensure that he reported to training camp on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Everyone knew the bills weren't going to keep nate after this season. Too much money! So you franchise him and then you trade him. Maybe for a 1st or 2nd round pick last year or this year? Keeping him meant nothing. No playoffs, no winning season, and he sucked the 1st half. So why didn't they get something of value? It seems that trades in the NFL are harder to come by, then mothers giving up their children for adoption at birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 A team may have wanted nate last season to put them over the top or make them a stronger contenderA team would then have the right to match any free agent offer and keep A team could have traded for him & then worked out long term deal to avoid free agency A team would try to avoid competing with the rest of the NFL when he becomes a free agent I don't think they would be foolish if they wanted nate, but proactive. Its hard to be pro-active on your own when it takes two teams to make a trade. The answer to the question of why they did not trade him has to consider the strong possibility that they tried but has not takers. Even the constraints you use to describe a POTENTIAL trade partner are so woulda/coulda/shoulda that certainly without naming a specific team which meets these criteria and showing even a hint of interest in a trade to realize this potential a person would be on the thin ice of fantasy world for faulting the Bills fer not getting er done in trading NC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 It was made pretty clear by Marv: they took the shortest route to keep Nate around for a year so it was one less thing the new coaching staff had to deal with. They wanted everyone present and accounted for, with no one holding out, so the new staff could get off on the right foot. I know a lot of people think this was a bad move, but sometimes what you lose on the merry-go-round you make up on the carousel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 The question that I have had is why didn't they just force his hand on the franchise tag. Why agree to not tag him this year just to get him to sign the tender last year? As far as I know, Nate's choice last year was either to sign the tender or sit. It seems to me that the Bills held all of the cards. Now the Bills have none. I think the issue with that was that the franchise price for a CB last year was really low--and was set to go way up. The Bills probably figured they could afford to franchise him last but couldn't afford to do it this year. Sure, they could have tagged him this year and tried to trade him--but if Nate called their bluff, the Bills would have been on the hook for some huge 1-year deal they couldn't afford. Or at least that's one theory.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbfan54 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Yes, the bills should become the Pittsburgh Pirates of football trading away all their good players before they hit free agency to get young unproven talent that will leave if they ever become any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Everyone knew the bills weren't going to keep nate after this season. Too much money! So you franchise him and then you trade him. Maybe for a 1st or 2nd round pick last year or this year? Keeping him meant nothing. No playoffs, no winning season, and he sucked the 1st half. So why didn't they get something of value? It seems that trades in the NFL are harder to come by, then mothers giving up their children for adoption at birth. Sorry, I'm usually pretty level-headed, but don't you remember the feeling leading up to the Titans game? Where we were 4-point favorites? Yeah, you know now we didn't make the playoffs, but I don't think you would've posted the same thing before that game. Hindsight is not terribly useful. Who do you want to pre-emptively trade this offseason? JP? Evans? Then you can guarantee we never make the playoffs again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dual RB way to go Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 .... but I don't think you would've posted the same thing before that game. ...... Actually I felt like that BEFORE the season started. I would rather have a rookie of the future get burned then have a one year rental player take that valuable experience away from a potential long term starter; unless it's a gap to fill for a super bowl run. The couple of responses in here seemed to shed some light on the more likely reason that Nate wasn't dealt. Marv had alot of pressure on him going into this season (pssst.......bills have an 80 year old GM....LOL ). I am sure that he felt he would be place under a microscope unfairly at times because of his age; compound that with trying to stabilize a franchise ruined by a incompetent GM with 3 coaches in 6 years. Marv mayt have also figured that Nate could show some of the Draft picks a thing or two and since the team wasn't going to make the playoffs, the overall picture with Nate made more sense for Marv. Funny that Marv hasn't received alot of credit for stabilizing this franchise and the excellent Draft he had, nationally! I am certain, 100 % that this year Marv will not make the same mistake with Willis; This RB is traded before the 1st game of the season next year. You can all quote that in your signatures!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Actually I felt like that BEFORE the season started. Yeah, but that wasn't the question. Every team beside the Colts failed to some extent this season. Does that mean they should've traded away all their potenial free agents before the season? Of course not! You play to win. It's a simple as that. If you end up not winning, then you don't say, well, we shouldn't have tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I said that they should have done it last year too. We could have gotten more draft picls for him. Now it said of getting something for him, we're just letting him walk right out the door with nothing in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In space no one can hear Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I said that they should have done it last year too. We could have gotten more draft picls for him. Now it said of getting something for him, we're just letting him walk right out the door with nothing in return. Man...your hitting the ground running! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dual RB way to go Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 Yeah, but that wasn't the question. Every team beside the Colts failed to some extent this season. Does that mean they should've traded away all their potenial free agents before the season? Of course not! You play to win. It's a simple as that. If you end up not winning, then you don't say, well, we shouldn't have tried. Apples and oranges. Colts were a super bowl contender who would be willing to retain any potential free agents for their super bowl run the following season. Bills were a team that would have been hard pressed to make even .500, never mind the playoffs. Bills were also indicating at beginning of the season that financially it would be difficult. If the bills were at least a playoff team with a decent chance of making some noise in the playoffs, then of course you keep him. This wasn't the case, therefore it would have been better served for the organization to have nate leave with some kind of dividend; draft choice(s) or a young prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I'm talking about every team besides the Colts. For example, the 4-12 Jets that made te playoffs. Or the 3-13 Saints who made the conference championship. Or the Ravens. The point is just because you didn't make the playoffs does't mean you couldn't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dual RB way to go Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 I'm talking about every team besides the Colts. For example, the 4-12 Jets that made te playoffs. Or the 3-13 Saints who made the conference championship. Or the Ravens. The point is just because you didn't make the playoffs does't mean you couldn't have. Forgot the team, name me a player on that team that was a "nate" situation? If we went 8-8 and made the playoffs, then lost; would the bills have changed their mind on nate? Don't think so. They had ALL season to come up with a new contract to keep him and let him go. So, if you have players like nate they can pad your win loss record for that season, but then what? You have to pay sometime and NOW we are going to pay the price with a rookie CB; and no dividends from a nate trade of a year ago. I am not in favour of dumping players just because they will be free agents and we won't sign them, but looking at the overall picture of the team. Nate will take alot of financial resources; those that would be better spent to lock up JP and Evans in the next few years; and maybe a RB. If the bills picture was "10-6" and won a playoff game", then I would be asking "why didn't they sign him last year to a contract extension?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Everyone knew the bills weren't going to keep nate after this season. Too much money! So you franchise him and then you trade him. Maybe for a 1st or 2nd round pick last year or this year? Keeping him meant nothing. No playoffs, no winning season, and he sucked the 1st half. So why didn't they get something of value? It seems that trades in the NFL are harder to come by, then mothers giving up their children for adoption at birth. i don't think they should have traded him last year, i think they should have signed him long term last year. they paid him 7.2 million last year. if they were to franchise him again this year, it would be 8.7 million. thats 15.9 million guaranteed, where as last year, they could have gotten with a signing bonus in the 12 million range, (and used the remaining 3.9 million to sign him to a 4 year contract. yeah, through this plan they would still have to pay out 8.7 mil more this year but, that is a top player, (no...not a shut down corner...but a top player) locked up and with McGee, Witner, and Simpson signed, they would not have had to give a lot of attention to the defensive backfield for at least a few more years. potential injuries not withstanding. NOW...8.7 million is only a fraction of what he is looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts