d_wag Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 http://www.palmbeachpost.com/dolphins/cont...rtain_0202.html "Among the teams that an industry source said could be interested in Surtain are Buffalo, Minnesota, Kansas City and Indianapolis." i don't buy it.......we have BIGGER NEEDS and don't need to be paying surtain 6M a year.......we can get by at CB with mcgee and more depth through the draft or free agency........ i think the phins will be hard pressed to get more then a 2nd rounder out of him......for reference, look at what the pack got for mckenzie (2nd rounder and 3rd string QB).......
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 http://www.palmbeachpost.com/dolphins/cont...rtain_0202.html "Among the teams that an industry source said could be interested in Surtain are Buffalo, Minnesota, Kansas City and Indianapolis." i don't buy it.......we have BIGGER NEEDS and don't need to be paying surtain 6M a year.......we can get by at CB with mcgee and more depth through the draft or free agency........ i think the phins will be hard pressed to get more then a 2nd rounder out of him......for reference, look at what the pack got for mckenzie (2nd rounder and 3rd string QB)....... 225911[/snapback] Wonder how Eric Moulds feels about that. No spitting smilie?
Bill from NYC Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 If the team gave his agent permission to seek a trade, I would think that a renegotiation is certainly possible, no? The Bills imo are at a near crisis state at the cb position. Clements must be salivating while thinking about the big bucks paid to Winfield, an inferior player (to NC imo) and his deal is up next season. I like Magee a lot, but the fact that he returns punts makes him a huge injury risk. Obviously, the Bills need cbs, and will obtain help there one way or another. This is going to be one great offseason!
d_wag Posted February 2, 2005 Author Posted February 2, 2005 If the team gave his agent permission to seek a trade, I would think that a renegotiation is certainly possible, no? The Bills imo are at a near crisis state at the cb position. Clements must be salivating while thinking about the big bucks paid to Winfield, an inferior player (to NC imo) and his deal is up next season. I like Magee a lot, but the fact that he returns punts makes him a huge injury risk. Obviously, the Bills need cbs, and will obtain help there one way or another. This is going to be one great offseason! 225922[/snapback] i don't think it's "obvious" they need cb's -- we seemed to get by just fine with what we had last season and all of those guys are returning....... the defense wasn't the problem last year, it was the offense........if you sink money into CB your taking money away from other NEED areas...... do you want a CB over a LT? a LG? i don't.......i'd rather keep those areas steady/improve them then to tinker with what is already a top defense....... if you want to spend money at CB, spend it on nate and mcgee by extending them......
RickJames Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 http://www.palmbeachpost.com/dolphins/cont...rtain_0202.html "Among the teams that an industry source said could be interested in Surtain are Buffalo, Minnesota, Kansas City and Indianapolis." i don't buy it.......we have BIGGER NEEDS and don't need to be paying surtain 6M a year.......we can get by at CB with mcgee and more depth through the draft or free agency........ i think the phins will be hard pressed to get more then a 2nd rounder out of him......for reference, look at what the pack got for mckenzie (2nd rounder and 3rd string QB)....... 225911[/snapback] Isn't Clements a free agent next year? You can never have enough quality DBs.
Realist Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 If they sign Surtain, its a sure thing that Nate will be gone after '05.
Bill from NYC Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 i don't think it's "obvious" they need cb's -- we seemed to get by just fine with what we had last season and all of those guys are returning....... the defense wasn't the problem last year, it was the offense........if you sink money into CB your taking money away from other NEED areas...... do you want a CB over a LT? a LG? i don't.......i'd rather keep those areas steady/improve them then to tinker with what is already a top defense....... if you want to spend money at CB, spend it on nate and mcgee by extending them...... 225938[/snapback] You raise great points. Mine is that the cb position will have to be addressed. Hopefully, we can get deeper at cb AND OL. There will never be a time when I am against bringing better blocking to the Buffalo Bills.
bbfan54 Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 The Bills might be trying to trade Travis Henry for Patrick Surtain. In that case Surtain is the more valuable player but because his salary is so large it is about an even trade.
d_wag Posted February 2, 2005 Author Posted February 2, 2005 Isn't Clements a free agent next year? You can never have enough quality DBs. 225944[/snapback] ah, why not just resign clements? problem solved!
Bill from NYC Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 ah, why not just resign clements? problem solved! 225968[/snapback] Easier said than done. Nate will look at the Winfield deal and want 35-40 million or more for 6 years, with a staggering signing bonus. Remember, corners are at a premium. AW had the vikes and the jests fighting over him, and Nate is a better player imo.
Simon Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 It's an interesting proposition as adding Surtain and moving MaGee back to the nickel where he's more comfortable would give us the best secondary in the NFL. Another thing to consider is the salary situation. Remember that if miamuh were to trade him all his signing bonus would go on their cap and not on ours. So his salary would probably be considerably less than the 6million number being thrown around. And while it's an interesting proposition, I'm not all that interested because I think Surtain has some injury history, has been negatively affected by the emphasis on the 5yrd chuck and finally because I'd rather the Bills be able to make their own player choice in the draft, as opposed to taking somebody else's guy. Cya
Carmel Corn Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 Easier said than done. Nate will look at the Winfield deal and want 35-40 million or more for 6 years, with a staggering signing bonus. Remember, corners are at a premium. AW had the vikes and the jests fighting over him, and Nate is a better player imo. 225977[/snapback] I agree. Don't think for a minute that Clements won't try to leverage his new "Pro Bowl" status. Also, since he returns punts he might even command a higher price.
d_wag Posted February 2, 2005 Author Posted February 2, 2005 Easier said than done. Nate will look at the Winfield deal and want 35-40 million or more for 6 years, with a staggering signing bonus. Remember, corners are at a premium. AW had the vikes and the jests fighting over him, and Nate is a better player imo. 225977[/snapback] so in other words he wants to be paid market value? shocking! pay the man......he's earned his contract, we are in good cap shape, so what is the problem here?......other teams retain their good young talent by extending their contracts (i.e. LT, sheppard, ellis, sheldon brown).........why can't we? the longer the bills wait, the higher his price gets.........if they would have extended him last season nate wouldn't be able to use the winfield contract as a comparison........TD should have taken care of this earlier, just like the eagles do with their good young talent.........
gantrules Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 so in other words he wants to be paid market value? shocking! pay the man......he's earned his contract, we are in good cap shape, so what is the problem here?......other teams retain their good young talent by extending their contracts (i.e. LT, sheppard, ellis, sheldon brown).........why can't we? the longer the bills wait, the higher his price gets.........if they would have extended him last season nate wouldn't be able to use the winfield contract as a comparison........TD should have taken care of this earlier, just like the eagles do with their good young talent......... 226009[/snapback] I agree 100%. The guy has improved year after year. He's invaluable on PR's as well. Pay the man.
Bill from NYC Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 so in other words he wants to be paid market value? shocking! pay the man......he's earned his contract, we are in good cap shape, so what is the problem here?......other teams retain their good young talent by extending their contracts (i.e. LT, sheppard, ellis, sheldon brown).........why can't we? the longer the bills wait, the higher his price gets.........if they would have extended him last season nate wouldn't be able to use the winfield contract as a comparison........TD should have taken care of this earlier, just like the eagles do with their good young talent......... 226009[/snapback] I certainly agree that TD would have been wise to sign him earlier assuming that it was possible, which neither of us knows, right? As for now, yes, I do have a problem with making a cornerback the highest paid player on the roster. It didn't work when dallas did it, and I dont think it would work for the Bills. If this type of cash is to be spent on 1 player, I would prefer say....Walter Jones to any corner in football (sorry Simon ). How about you?
34-78-83 Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 so in other words he wants to be paid market value? shocking! pay the man......he's earned his contract, we are in good cap shape, so what is the problem here?......other teams retain their good young talent by extending their contracts (i.e. LT, sheppard, ellis, sheldon brown).........why can't we? the longer the bills wait, the higher his price gets.........if they would have extended him last season nate wouldn't be able to use the winfield contract as a comparison........TD should have taken care of this earlier, just like the eagles do with their good young talent......... 226009[/snapback] I must agree with you on this wholeheartedly d_wag. Also , as mentioned, many of the bonus $ will still be paid by Miami.... If this really turns into "Henry for Surtain" I'd do it in a heartbeat. I tend to think of it less on a position of need basis and more on a "Value for Value" basis.
gantrules Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 I must agree with you on this wholeheartedly d_wag. Also , as mentioned, many of the bonus $ will still be paid by Miami.... If this really turns into "Henry for Surtain" I'd do it in a heartbeat. I tend to think of it less on a position of need basis and more on a "Value for Value" basis. 226032[/snapback] I'm leaning that way too...but being so early in the offseason it just makes me wonder if we could get some value on O-line from Travis. But, it's hard to pass up on a 28 year old DB of Surtain's value....
Bill from NYC Posted February 2, 2005 Posted February 2, 2005 I must agree with you on this wholeheartedly d_wag. Also , as mentioned, many of the bonus $ will still be paid by Miami.... If this really turns into "Henry for Surtain" I'd do it in a heartbeat. I tend to think of it less on a position of need basis and more on a "Value for Value" basis. 226032[/snapback] In what way do you agree with d wag? He seems to be saying (or so I see it) to NOT obtain Surtain, and use the money to re-sign Clements. Is this what you are saying?
d_wag Posted February 2, 2005 Author Posted February 2, 2005 I certainly agree that TD would have been wise to sign him earlier assuming that it was possible, which neither of us knows, right? As for now, yes, I do have a problem with making a cornerback the highest paid player on the roster. It didn't work when dallas did it, and I dont think it would work for the Bills. If this type of cash is to be spent on 1 player, I would prefer say....Walter Jones to any corner in football (sorry Simon ). How about you? 226023[/snapback] i like nate, he's a great player and is young.......potentially, over the next few seasons, he could become one of the best 2 or 3 at his position.......i'm sorry, but regardless of position, i want guys like that on my team....... like i said, the longer you wait, the closer he gets to free agency, the easier his decision NOT to extend becomes........the eagles have figured it out and tear up contracts very early and show FAITH in their good young players that they will improve........i just wish the bills would do the same and show players the money earlier......... if they would have tried harder with winfield and showed faith in him, maybe he's still here....... same with jennings, who could walk out the door because TD couldn't get him extended......... and i'd hate to see nate go the same route just because we're being cheap......
d_wag Posted February 2, 2005 Author Posted February 2, 2005 In what way do you agree with d wag? He seems to be saying (or so I see it) to NOT obtain Surtain, and use the money to re-sign Clements. Is this what you are saying? 226041[/snapback] that's right........i think our current CB's are fine and that we need to spend our BIG cap dollars on retaining our key free agents and improving the o-line.......surtain would be a BIG cap hit and i don't think that is necessary........ and yes, nate should be extended.......if the bills treat him fair and show him bucks NOW he will sign.......
Recommended Posts