daquixers_is_back Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Yeah in theory, but if he we make him the highest paid CB and he underachieves, why is someone else going to want him? For the same reason the Buccaneers received a 2nd round draft pick for underachieving Anthony McFarland. Put it this way. If we don't sign him, we get nothing in return. If we do sign him, and then decide to trade him, atleast we will get something in return. 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. I would agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 For the same reason the Buccaneers received a 2nd round draft pick for underachieving Anthony McFarland. #1 Booger was underacheiving after only 5 games? Baloney #2 He was traded because Tampa was 1-4 and already out of the playoff hunt and didn't want to pay his contract when they weren't even competing for the postseason #3 There's no similarity between his and Clements' situations because if you give Nate a 15+million signing bonus he instantly becomes untradeable because that huge bonus would hit your cap all at once the minute you traded him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo 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. Flat out not true. Nate did not give up a touchdown all season. Mcgee was the one who was flat out horrible. When The coaching staff decided to play more man to man and have Nate consistently on teams #1 receiver he was lock down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 #1 Booger was underacheiving after only 5 games? Baloney#2 He was traded because Tampa was 1-4 and already out of the playoff hunt and didn't want to pay his contract when they weren't even competing for the postseason #3 There's no similarity between his and Clements' situations because if you give Nate a 15+million signing bonus he instantly becomes untradeable because that huge bonus would hit your cap all at once the minute you traded him. #1. Five games? No after about 100 games. Here is an excerpt from an ESPN article: "Last week, Tampa Bay coach Jon Gruden criticized McFarland and the Bucs' other defensive linemen, saying he expected more from them and some in Tampa thought McFarland was underachieving." #2. True. #3. Honestly, I do not know much about the cap situation. So if you trade a player, his bonus (over his entire contract) hits you all at once? How exactly was Bailey traded with a monster contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Flat out not true. Nate did not give up a touchdown all season. Mcgee was the one who was flat out horrible. When The coaching staff decided to play more man to man and have Nate consistently on teams #1 receiver he was lock down. Right ... and its amazing how some people seem to think Nate was bad the first 8 games ... yet can not give any proof to back that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts