BillsFanForever19

L.J. Shelton (Most likely) Mike Williams Bennie Anderson Trey Teague Chris Villarial Justin Bannan Ross Tucker Lawrence Smith Ben Sobieski Dylan McFarland Jason Peters Mike Gandy How many O-Lineman do we need?!

Exactly what i'm trying to say. If we're going to deal him, we'd have to do it now. Charles Woodson nipped the "Peerless Situation" in the bud when he signed the franchise sheet. Once teams realize we have to move a player, their value goes down. While everyone here is saying that TD will pay for what he's worth, everyone is failing to recognize that there will be a LOT of teams who will pay millions MORE than what he's worth. Everyone admits that what Minnesota paid AW and what San Fran paid for JJ was too much. Someone is going to be more than willing to do the same with Nate. If I were TD, i'd be talking to Nate about resigning. If he said he wants to test the market or is asking for unfair amounts, i'd move him while I could.

Again, I disagree. Losing Nate Clements is painful to our team. But not if you replace him with a veteran like Ty Law or Andre Dyson. You combine that with a draft pick in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th and a healthy Troy Vincent at FS and I think we're in the same situation we were last year; if not better. Our offense needs help. I feel that if we need to sacrifice a little defense to get it, then that's what needs to be done. J.P. is playing offense and he'll need offense to succeed. Mike Williams will NOT need 2-3 years to make significant contributions. That I can guarantee!

Antrelle Rolle or Pacman Jones? I think I could live with that. But as for your comment, i'd have disagree. We need help on offense. Our line is almost set. Moulds and Evans are good. But we need one more X-Factor to compliment J.P. and Willis because what we have just isn't cutting it.

Thank you for keeping an open mind and not responding with "ugh! trading nate = bad. keeping nate = good. you is stupid" Anyways, I don't expect it. But if there is a likelihood that trading him would get us Mike Williams, I think it should be done.

Eric Moulds is the only major re-sign of TD's regime. I feel the only reason he did do that was because if he didn't, there would be a lynch mob after him. At that point in time, Moulds was one of the top 5 WR's in the league. Everyone knew who Eric Moulds was in the Buffalo area, even if you weren't a football fan. He was (and still is) a Bill the likes of Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Bruce Smith, and Andre Reed. Yes, TD spends big money and the post you replied to commented on that. But for one reason or another, he doesn't like to re-sign people. He would rather replace them with substitutes, especially if money is an issue.

hmmmm..... I'm not so sure that works that well anymore. I think Woodson put a stop to that when he signed that Franchise sheet. It showed Franchise players that signing the sheet screws your team into A.) Having to pay top dollar and B.) Screws them capwise to the point that they MUST trade the player and that takes their trade value down.

In the long run, it's what should be done. Nate Clements is one of the best players on our team. But face facts, this is his last year as a Buffalo Bill. TD may be a "genius", but he doesn't re-sign ANYONE. Especially when you try and think of the type of money Nate's going to get next year. He let Peerless walk, he let Antoine Winfield walk, he let Jonas Jennings walk, he let Pat Williams walk and if you think he's going to shell out the "Top 10 CB" money; you're dillusional. So now we have to look at it like this, trade Nate for a top ten pick or keep Nate for one year and then get nothing. I feel as if a top ten pick who will be with us for many years to come is much more important than one year of Nate Clements play. TD said it himself, our defense is incredible; but our offense isn't good enough. Yes we have Willis McGahee. Yes we have Eric Moulds and Lee Evans. But that's where it ends on offense. J.P. needs another weapon. On top of that, Eric Moulds doesn't have much time left. I'm not talking contract wise, i'm talking playing wise. This will be E-Moulds' 10th season and it's starting to show (not to mention we're one slow-starting rookie QB away from him "rethinking" things again). TD is sitting on a whole bunch of money, which is very unlike him (funny how he never resigns anyone, but throws all sorts of money around for FA's). He hasn't made many moves because he's waiting for the draft. But why would you do that with only a #55? I honestly think he has something up his sleeve. Maybe not a trade involving Nate, but he's cooking something. If I were TD, i'd pull the trigger on a trade involving Nate. But only for one person...... USC WR/TE Mike Williams. Here's a guy that we were very interested in last year before "The Maurice Rule" was appealed and defunct. His size has a lot of teams looking at him to play an Antonio Gates type role as TE, along with WR. This is the perfect type of addition to our offense! And with Moulds, Evan, and Williams; along with McGahee in the backfield, J.P. is loaded with help. Now the rumor is: Nate to Washington for #9. But here's a couple scenarios I see as possibilities: Nate and Travis to Arizona for #8 and L.J. Shelton - Arizona needs two things: a RB and a CB. We've been prolifically working on a deal involving Shelton and Henry. But we just can't seem to agree on compensation. Arizona is going to draft one or the other, why not take care of both with the #8 and ship out L.J.? It makes perfect sense for both teams. The only thing is, we'd need to move up to at least #6 (in front of Minnesota) to get MW. But from #8, it shouldn't take more than a 3rd rounder to get to 6 (the same type of deal would apply if we sent Nate to Washington for a #9). Especially since they'll (Tennesee) most likely take a CB as it is. It's essentially the same deal as below, but with a #3 and L.J. Shelton (which is a fair deal to me). Nate and Travis to Tennessee for #6 - Almost the same things apply here. Tennessee needs all the help they can get. CB and RB being two huge needs and one of the two will be addressed by Tennessee with this pick. Why not take care of both? As for L.J. Shelton, this move forces Arizona to pick a RB. We'll just throw a #3 their way for L.J., i'm sure they'll bite. I know people are going to be saying "Nate Clements and Travis Henry for Mike Williams; a rookie?!" Well it's not as bad as it sounds when you look at it from this perspective; Travis Henry will NOT play for us. Even if he does, he won't see the light of day on the field and next year he's gone. Nate Clements will be amazing as always for Buffalo in 2005. But that's all we get as far as Nate goes. Nate in 05 because in 06.... he's gone. Mike Williams would give us that boost on offense we need and none of the trades I propose are unrealistic. Other teams would jump at a package like that. So what about CB with Nate gone you ask? Well, we draft a CB in the second, third, or forth round and take some of our $6.5 in cap money and sign a veteran like Ty Law or Andre Dyson. There was too much talk by EVERYONE to discount Law not being here for a visit. I do believe he at least stopped by to check out the place. But I think it was kept on the downlow for a reason. Using a pick in the top four rounds should get you a good CB to groom (ala Terrence McGee). Then if you add another veteran like Law, we're in a good position. So what about other positions of need? DT - I feel that TD addressed it last year with the drafting of Tim Anderson. Do you honestly feel that TD's going to spend a 3rd rounder on a DT from Ohio State and not use him? Combined with Ron Edwards 4 sack season and you have a couple guys who could step up. I'd be surprised if we got another DT going into the season. I think TD feels set and if ever a position to sacrifice a little defense for the offense, DT would be it. OL - Dear god, I really don't understand why everyone wants to draft an OL. Maybe if we didn't have a shot at Shelton, but it's pretty much a given. Let's say we get Shelton then our OL looks like this: L.J. Shelton (LT) Bennie Anderson (LG) Trey Teague © Chris Villarial (RG) Mike Williams (RT) - Mike Gandy Justin Bannan Ross Tucker Lawrence Smith Ben Sobieski Dylan McFarland Jason Peters HOW MANY LINEMAN DO WE NEED?! TE - With Campbell and Euhus coming back, we're back to square one and that's not all bad. But MW is being scouted as a TE as well. I think he would flourish playing TE and slot reciever. K - Oh man, the Nugent factor. I can't believe how many Bills fans this guy has. As long as we still have a 2nd after whatever trade up we make, if he's still there than definitely go for it. But I feel we're stuck with Lindell. There is no one out there on the market and we need help in other places more important than kicker. I cna't envision TD spending our top pick on a kicker. The bottom line is we're in a good position and these things are entirely possible. Do I think it will happen? Probably not. But i'd love to give it a try if I were TD. Mike Williams is one of the only good players in this draft and there are tons of teams that want him. I think if trading Nate would get us a shot at him, it should be done.

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=47133 I understand we conducted experiments with him on the line last year, but when did this official switch happen? Dude even changed his number to be more of an OL number.

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread...8280#post448280 "I would welcome Clements but not straight up for #9 and we need a 1st round pick. The Bills have nothing to offer. Maybe their second this year Clements and their first next year but not sure I would do that either."

I like how you're posting about our "3rd string QB", meanwhile you have us drafting Stefan LeFors

He may be a great player. But i'm sorry, draft trades don't work that way. You have to give up more than just Nate Clements to get a top 10 pick. Hell, Randy Moss alone didn't get the Vikings the 7th pick and you think we're going to get more than just a #9 for Clements? Honestly, if this for real it needs to get done. Face facts, TD will not resign Nate. He's going to do the same thing with him that he has done with Peerless, Antoine Winfield, Jonas Jennings, and Pat Williams before him. TD doesn't resign someone unless they come cheap and Nate will not come cheap. He's going to make more money than anyone else on the list. So pull the trigger, make a v-line for Ty Law (flame away) and draft a real playmaker on offense (like a Mike Williams) because that's where we need help!

Matt Jones was originally recruited by Arkansas as a WR! He made the switch to QB when they saw what an amazing athlete he was. It was his performance at the Senior Bowl as a WR, combined with the.... uh, combine; that has made his stock rise so much. He's not Eric Crouch. He has played WR all his life.

How the hell is Heath Miller, the top TE in the draft; going to fall to #44?! I for one DO want Matt Jones. After reviewing him at the combine, the Senior Bowl, and even some of his work at QB in Arkansas; I can tell you he is the real deal. Unfortunately, I don't see him falling to #44. If he does, we'd be stupid not to draft him.

Odds are he's going to retire. He was pretty much in retirement when we found him and stated that he'll be there after the 04 season. TD SUPPOSEDLY tried to talk him out of it to be the #2 guy, but it went no where. Sad to say; no one really cares.

This question is mostly for the Matt Jones people out there like myself. Would you be against trading up for him? According to Sports Inc. (and just a hunch), the Shelton for Henry and swaps of our 2nd's will go through. From there, i'd like to see us try and trade our 44th pick in the 2nd (from AZ), our 4th, and a late round pick in next year's draft to San Diego at #28 (who are sitting pretty with two first round picks and a lot of help needed). I think if we want Jones, it's imperative for us to get in front of Pittsburgh (at #30) and Phili (at #31). If you're not a Jones guy, then would you at least like to see a trade like that go through? And who would be your REALISTIC ideal pick?

I'd still rather see Matt Jones

I'm a little confused as to where we're going with all this, "Safety pegs Jones" talk. You should have seen the kid in the Senior Bowl. Take a look at the tapes from the link above. If you're going to make that argument with him, you can make it with everyone else too. I'd even go as far as saying that if it looks like he won't be around, trade up! There's gotta be a team out there who will take say our 2nd (AZ's 44th), 4th, and maybe a later round pick in next years draft to move up to an earlier spot in the 2nd or even one of the last 5 in the 1st.

THANK YOU!! Help a brother out on my post from yesterday: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=21691&st=0 I'm fighting the good "Matt Jones to Buffalo" fight over there.

Check out Matt Jones at: http://bears.hosttown.com/index.php?showtopic=46054

THANK YOU!! As long as we trade for Shelton, there's no need to draft another lineman.

You could say this about any of the rookies coming out. ANYBODY the Bills draft will be a risk. But the upside on this one would be too good to pass up. He's realistically the best guy to help out our offense, who might be around at our pick.

As I just said in another post..... We have Ross Tucker, Mike Gandy, Lawrence Smith, Ben Sobieski, Dylan McFarland, and everyone's favorite project; Jason Peters on top of our starting OL. We may even resign Marcus Price. How many O-Lineman do you need?! I'd feel a whole hell of a lot more comfortable with Teague at Center than someone who's never played on a pro line. And if you drafted Spencer or Bass, then what would you do with Teague? Cut him? At that point we'd only have two people on the starting line returning from the year before. Talk about throwing any chemistry that McNally created last year right out the window! Again, I completely disagree.

I don't think it's fair to compare Matt Jones to Eric Crouch. First of all, Crouch never ran a 4.3 40. Crouch wasn't 6'6". Crouch couldn't pull off any of these freakish numbers that Jones is pulling off. And most importantly, Crouch was not initially recruited to his college AS a WR like Jones was. I completely disagree. Teague isn't the best Center in the league, but he is nowhere's near the worst either. With Shelton at LT, Bennie at LG, and Gandy for some more added depth; there's no need for anymore lineman. We have Ross Tucker, Mike Gandy, Lawrence Smith, Ben Sobieski, Dylan McFarland, and everyone's favorite project; Jason Peters on top of our starting OL. We may even resign Marcus Price. How many O-Lineman do you need?! I'd feel a whole hell of a lot more comfortable with Teague at Center than someone who's never played on a pro line. And if you drafted Spencer or Bass, then what would you do with Teague? Cut him? At that point we'd only have two people on the starting line returning from the year before. Talk about throwing any chemistry that McNally created last year right out the window! Again, I completely disagree.

LMAO! After signing Bennie Anderson, Mike Gandy for depth, and trading for Shelton (it WILL happen); there's no need to draft another lineman. Teague isn't one of the top centers in the league, but he's not one of the worst either. Do you just want to cut him? Or are you going to be backup LT? Teague at LT is a SERIOUS drop-off from Jennings. So I hope you're not talking about going that route (As in not trading for Shelton).