KC from Cali Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I have ESPN Insider and this is what a writer wrote..... Bill of Goods? Mike from Lackawanna, N.Y., asked, "Do you think Nate Clements will land with his hometown team -- the Cleveland Browns?" I don't think Clements will land in Cleveland if only because the issues in the secondary last year had more to do with injuries. Leigh Bodden, Daven Holly, Brodney Pool and Sean Jones give Cleveland a very solid nucleus of young defensive backs, so there are more pressing personnel needs for Romeo Crennel and Phil Savage to address. Even if the Browns were to decide to pursue Clements, they should not break the bank for him. His performance the past four years has been quite inconsistent. Clements posted dominant yards per attempt (YPA) numbers in 2004 (5.7) and 2006 (6.1). Conversely, his numbers were decidedly mediocre in 2003 (7.3) and 2005 (8.8). His 2003 season was actually even worse than the numbers would indicate, as he benefited from a lot of dropped and inaccurate passes. He simply has not displayed the type of consistency that would be expected from one of the biggest names in the free-agent market this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 That's my only complaint with Nate...consistency. I'm sure daquixers will tell me that I need to go to the games and watch or buy the old tapes and re-watch them, but I know what I saw the last few years. When he is playing well, there isn't anyone out there not named "Champ" who I would rather have on this team. But his career here is marked with inconsistency. Most recently, he was playing GREAT football. But I don't know if that was a result of wanting the new contract. Maybe his bad play a year or so back was the result of a bad Jerry Gray scheme. I don't know why he looks absolutely dominant at times and rather pedestrian at others. But I do know that if he gets a contract on par with Bailey, he better keep up his recent play if he plans on justifying the payout. I don't know if I trust him to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I have ESPN Insider and this is what a writer wrote..... Bill of Goods? Mike from Lackawanna, N.Y., asked, "Do you think Nate Clements will land with his hometown team -- the Cleveland Browns?" I don't think Clements will land in Cleveland if only because the issues in the secondary last year had more to do with injuries. Leigh Bodden, Daven Holly, Brodney Pool and Sean Jones give Cleveland a very solid nucleus of young defensive backs, so there are more pressing personnel needs for Romeo Crennel and Phil Savage to address. Even if the Browns were to decide to pursue Clements, they should not break the bank for him. His performance the past four years has been quite inconsistent. Clements posted dominant yards per attempt (YPA) numbers in 2004 (5.7) and 2006 (6.1). Conversely, his numbers were decidedly mediocre in 2003 (7.3) and 2005 (8.8). His 2003 season was actually even worse than the numbers would indicate, as he benefited from a lot of dropped and inaccurate passes. He simply has not displayed the type of consistency that would be expected from one of the biggest names in the free-agent market this year. Very interesting, i agree that he has been inconsistent kinda like the posters on thins board (except DeLuca hes always an idiot) Remember last eyar when everyone wanted him gone? He has a good year and everybody wants him, let him walk well live Go Bills/ youboty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dual RB way to go Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Nate was very consistent this year. He was consistently bad the 1st half, and consistently good the second half. At least he's not alternating his performance from year to year, but half to half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Nate was very consistent this year. He was consistently bad the 1st half, and consistently good the second half. At least he's not alternating his performance from year to year, but half to half. He was coasting until his contract year and then turned it up a few notches. Marv knows this and that is why he isn't going to break the bank for a guy who coasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Nate was very consistent this year. He was consistently bad the 1st half, and consistently good the second half. At least he's not alternating his performance from year to year, but half to half. I have made this point several times and no one can seem to refute me on this. CLEMENTS WAS NOT BAD THE FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR! He was simply not making the plays that are seen on television that he was during the second half of the season. During the first half, he still limited his receiver to very few receptions and 0 Touchdowns. His biggest mistake was missing a few tackles. That was it. This was especially easy to see if you went to the games. He did fine the first half of the season. In the second half of the season, he simply started doing things that got him onto television, such as batting down key passes and making good INT's. That is the reason why people think he did so much better. He was SOLID all year long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 That's my only complaint with Nate...consistency. I'm sure daquixers will tell me that I need to go to the games and watch or buy the old tapes and re-watch them, but I know what I saw the last few years. When he is playing well, there isn't anyone out there not named "Champ" who I would rather have on this team. But his career here is marked with inconsistency. Most recently, he was playing GREAT football. But I don't know if that was a result of wanting the new contract. Maybe his bad play a year or so back was the result of a bad Jerry Gray scheme. I don't know why he looks absolutely dominant at times and rather pedestrian at others. But I do know that if he gets a contract on par with Bailey, he better keep up his recent play if he plans on justifying the payout. I don't know if I trust him to do that. Yes and until you take my advice and go to the games or re-view the games, then you really have no standing. I am taking this from REAL evidence. You are making a stance based on your memory of years ago and the present. Which method do you think has a smaller margin of error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Maybe his bad play a year or so back was the result of a bad Jerry Gray scheme. This is something which I am trying to understand better. Not necessarily the Gray angle, per se, but the entire scheme of things. I've been on the "Nate ain't as good as he thinks" bandwagon and the "Of course he's playing lights out in a contract year" caboose, but the more I read, the more I wonder if, from a defensive alignment standpoint, Clements was suddenly put in a better place to make plays as the year progressed. I don't know because I don't have enough time in my day to watch film. Is Nate's position a position that can excel in one scheme and not excel in another? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 This is something which I am trying to understand better. Not necessarily the Gray angle, per se, but the entire scheme of things. I've been on the "Nate ain't as good as he thinks" bandwagon and the "Of course he's playing lights out in a contract year" caboose, but the more I read, the more I wonder if, from a defensive alignment standpoint, Clements was suddenly put in a better place to make plays as the year progressed. I don't know because I don't have enough time in my day to watch film. Is Nate's position a position that can excel in one scheme and not excel in another? Gray made the CB's line up off of the WR's by about 20 yards ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I have made this point several times and no one can seem to refute me on this. CLEMENTS WAS NOT BAD THE FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR! He was simply not making the plays that are seen on television that he was during the second half of the season. During the first half, he still limited his receiver to very few receptions and 0 Touchdowns. His biggest mistake was missing a few tackles. That was it. This was especially easy to see if you went to the games. He did fine the first half of the season. In the second half of the season, he simply started doing things that got him onto television, such as batting down key passes and making good INT's. That is the reason why people think he did so much better. He was SOLID all year long. You can make your point all you want, but understand that you have no credibility as a football expert. You simply aren't one. For every non-expert opinion, there is an equal and opposite non-expert opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 You can make your point all you want, but understand that you have no credibility as a football expert. You simply aren't one. For every non-expert opinion, there is an equal and opposite non-expert opinion. So since none of us are football "experts" (BTW, what makes you an expert? A spot on ESPN? ) we might as well not post our opinions and replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Yes and until you take my advice and go to the games or re-view the games, then you really have no standing. I am taking this from REAL evidence. You are making a stance based on your memory of years ago and the present. Which method do you think has a smaller margin of error? You've been reviewing game tapes of 2004 and watching Nate Clements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 This is something which I am trying to understand better. Not necessarily the Gray angle, per se, but the entire scheme of things. I've been on the "Nate ain't as good as he thinks" bandwagon and the "Of course he's playing lights out in a contract year" caboose, but the more I read, the more I wonder if, from a defensive alignment standpoint, Clements was suddenly put in a better place to make plays as the year progressed. I don't know because I don't have enough time in my day to watch film. Is Nate's position a position that can excel in one scheme and not excel in another? I'm with you as I don't have the time (or desire) to watch film. I have never understood a scheme that puts the corners 8+ yards off of the LOS. I just remember Nate taking a lot of bad angles on tackles and generally not being near the WR when he would catch a pass. Maybe it was the scheme that was putting him a spot that prevented him from using his gifts (size, aggressiveness) and forcing him to play a way that highlighted his weaknesses. When I think of Nate in that scheme I think of Andre Johnson burning him brutally for a long TD a few years or so back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 He was coasting until his contract year and then turned it up a few notches. Marv knows this and that is why he isn't going to break the bank for a guy who coasts. I don't think its fair to accuse Nate of playing well simply because it was the season before he FA. He as due for FA after the 2005 season and he simply sucked that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 You've been reviewing game tapes of 2004 and watching Nate Clements? 2005, and yes ... I'm with you as I don't have the time (or desire) to watch film. I have never understood a scheme that puts the corners 8+ yards off of the LOS. I just remember Nate taking a lot of bad angles on tackles and generally not being near the WR when he would catch a pass. Maybe it was the scheme that was putting him a spot that prevented him from using his gifts (size, aggressiveness) and forcing him to play a way that highlighted his weaknesses. When I think of Nate in that scheme I think of Andre Johnson burning him brutally for a long TD a year or so back. That is why myself and my father were simply disgusted at the defensive system of Jerry Gray in 2005. Clements would be so far off of the WR, that he had no way to use his size to disrupt the path of the WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 just pay nate!it would be really nice to see the bills start some good will with fans and players by paying a player we drafted.if marv wants to change "the culture"of the team,it starts with signing your best cornerback that we drafted.i would rather keep our own players then sign free agents anyways.i feel you build a team through the draft.as players mature their performance also builds.every year you see some player who kicks it up 5 or 6 notches that no espn insider or nfl.com or any other football expert predicts.the longer the players play together the better the chemistry.granted if you are under the cap and you are very close to competing for a championship then you add a key free agent that puts you over the top.i would love to see nate retire a bill....go bills in"07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 2005, and yes ...That is why myself and my father were simply disgusted at the defensive system of Jerry Gray in 2005. Clements would be so far off of the WR, that he had no way to use his size to disrupt the path of the WR. Fair enough...my memory is what it is. I remember Nate sucking at various times throughout the past 3-4 years (though not so much this year). I'm not going change my mind on that because you are watching some game film. But I definitely buy the argument that Nate's struggles could have been attributed (at least in part) to a bad defensive scheme. I love Nate and I think he is a top 5 corner when he is playing well. Who knows if he will continue his 2006 form and be a shut-down corner after he cashes an $18 million bonus check? I'd be happy if we re-signed him, but I won't be too bummed if it's not us that makes him the highest paid CB in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Fair enough...my memory is what it is. I remember Nate sucking at various times throughout the past 3-4 years (though not so much this year). I'm not going change my mind on that because you are watching some game film. But I definitely buy the argument that Nate's struggles could have been attributed (at least in part) to a bad defensive scheme. I love Nate and I think he is a top 5 corner when he is playing well. Who knows if he will continue his 2006 form and be a shut-down corner after he cashes an $18 million bonus check? I'd be happy if we re-signed him, but I won't be too bummed if it's not us that makes him the highest paid CB in the league. If he does not play up to the level that we know he can, there is a solution ... a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 If he does not play up to the level that we know he can, there is a solution ... a trade. Yeah in theory, but if he we make him the highest paid CB and he underachieves, why is someone else going to want him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 So since none of us are football "experts" (BTW, what makes you an expert? A spot on ESPN? ) we might as well not post our opinions and replies. Not on this thread nor any other have I declared myself a football expert. I will say that your posts are among the more entertaining on this board. I'd say that in about 10 years you'll realize how little you know now about many things, but self confidence is a good thing. I think I read somewhere that you are studying to be a lawyer. In that profession, being able to make a point (even when untrue or unsupported by fact) with conviction is a good quality. In that regard I would say you're off to a good start. All of this of course is just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts