plenzmd1 Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Yeah, but do you think that is the TD plan? I simply do not see him going into the season saying, OK at CB we are going to depend on our Pro Bowl KR who was burned several times last year focusing on not getting burned as much and still being a KO threat. Further, we are going to take the player who got hurt last year and who clearly we and he visualized as a safety with his contract and squeeze another year or two out of him at CB. Further, our 7th rounder Smith looked good on PR so we are going to invest totally in him eliminating his mecuric rookie ways. I will do this because it avoids me and the Bills dealing with a potential future problem even though that same problem can be avoided if Clements were to take a cheaper long-term deal which gurantees him for life now without having to risk injury or perform again at a Pro Bowl level in order to get a big FA deal next year. The risks of moving him now seem far too high and their are simpler methods for getting to a good outcome for the future with Clements which allow the Bills to enjoy his skills this year. Why give him up at a guranteed immediate cost now when there is the potential to have our cake and eat it too. 303475[/snapback] Maybe I put the wrong smiley on, I was trying to be facetious. I agree with you, I personally do not think it will happen, but stranger things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Mark, I think that your scenario is likely. The thing is, I am not even attempting to argue that NC is/isn't a very good player. Of course he is a top corner! Historically, our corners (Smith, Winfield, Burress) tend to be drafted early and then walk, bringing no compensation for the team. Ralph is NOT Paul Allen (nor Snyder) and I cant see him handing a 15 million dollar signing bonus to a corner. If it is a given that Nate will walk after the 05 season, a trade would be in order. Would it hurt the Bills this season? Yes. Nate is one of our best players. Will it mean the difference of winning or not winning the superbowl this year? I dont think so. I WOULD however want a #1 in 06 as part of the deal. 303354[/snapback] hold your horses there re the super bowl. is it too much to ask to shoot for the playoffs?? i mean, it's not like we've made the playoffs since the last millennium. if you're going to let premier players walk for 2-years-down-the-road draft picks because you've given up on this year even before it's started, well, i have a problem with that. did anyone think the pats would win the super bowl in 01 with essentially a rookie at qb? that pitt would go 15-1 with a rookie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 But fake, the Pats start undrafted DBs for gosh sake and still win the SB 303451[/snapback] so do the chiefs and the cardinals, and they can't stop anyone. asante samuel, by the way, was a first day draft choice ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 hold your horses there re the super bowl. is it too much to ask to shoot for the playoffs?? i mean, it's not like we've made the playoffs since the last millennium. if you're going to let premier players walk for 2-years-down-the-road draft picks because you've given up on this year even before it's started, well, i have a problem with that. did anyone think the pats would win the super bowl in 01 with essentially a rookie at qb? that pitt would go 15-1 with a rookie? 303520[/snapback] You raise an excellent point. The thing is, are you willing to take the risk of letting Nate walk without getting any compensation? The franchise tag is too big of a risk imo, and I seriously doubt that RW is going to cough up a 15 million dollar signing bonus to a cornerback. Seriously, what chance do you give the Bills on keeping Nate after 05? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Assuming the Shelton Trade is dead and the Clements rumor has some merit, I'll take a stab for fun. The Skins have a brief " win now " window, much like the Cowboys, due to their HOF Coach only wanting to coach 1 or 2 more years. The Skins would prefer Vets/Free Agents over rookies. Clements saw A. Winfield get a 10 Mil bonus and a sick contract from the Vikings. He's believes he's a better player and wants his payday. Conclusion - He'll never get that here. The top 10 CB pay scale is bloated, IMO. So we keep him for a year and then he walks. The Franchise and trade idea isn't practical,unless you have a known trading partner, like the Bills did with Peerless. Otherwise, you're stuck paying Clements 10 Mil. That's poor cap management. So he walks and in 2007, we get some compensation pick for him ( Yawn ). Or we trade him to the Skins for picks this year and a day 1 pick next year. The #9 pick in Round 1 this year will be vastly overpaid in a draft lacking Blue chip prospects. Hard to seperate pick #3 from pick #30, according to most scouts. Skins don't have a 2nd Rounder. So... Trade Clements for a 3rd and 4th this year, plus a day 1 pick next year. ( the 2006 Draft is far stronger and has depth at LT ). This Draft IS deep at one position... CB. I believe the Bills are going to take one in Round 2, regardless of the Clements situation. Target the right guy to replace Clements this year, then grab some needed depth with multiple picks in round 3 and 4 at DT,OL,RB etc. Teague may be gone after 2005, so bounce him outside to LT for now. April 2006 will give us a better pool of quality LT's to chose from, according to Ourlads and Draft Insider. Tucker played well at Center, for an injured Teague, in case some didn't notice. Losman has a tendency to roll to his right, so the LT blindside worry is decreased. Plus I see the Bills running a lot of sweeps to the right this year,with a first year QB. As far as Henry is concerned, hold onto him and see what pops up on Draft day. If someone offers a 3rd, take it. If it's a conditional pick next year, so be it. If he's still here during the summer, someone will probably offer something, due to an injury and concerns about being shorthanded for opening day. We have little choice but to be patient with that situation. 303335[/snapback] I don't get it. If the draft is deep at CB and Washington needs a CB, why wouldn't they draft one rather than trade for one at the cost of multiple picks and a huge contract after just one year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I don't get it. If the draft is deep at CB and Washington needs a CB, why wouldn't they draft one rather than trade for one at the cost of multiple picks and a huge contract after just one year? 303541[/snapback] Good question. Maybe because of the GW connection, and of course the fact that Nate is a proven star, as well as a very good return man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 You raise an excellent point. The thing is, are you willing to take the risk of letting Nate walk without getting any compensation? The franchise tag is too big of a risk imo, and I seriously doubt that RW is going to cough up a 15 million dollar signing bonus to a cornerback. Seriously, what chance do you give the Bills on keeping Nate after 05? 303533[/snapback] "0" chance. I'd say keep him if we had a chance to compete for the SB. However, I don't think it's realistic. I'd entertain trading him now for the right price. No way does RW cough up what NC will want after another productive year. Too bad, too. I love NC's game. This IS todays NFL though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 You raise an excellent point. The thing is, are you willing to take the risk of letting Nate walk without getting any compensation? The franchise tag is too big of a risk imo, and I seriously doubt that RW is going to cough up a 15 million dollar signing bonus to a cornerback. Seriously, what chance do you give the Bills on keeping Nate after 05? 303533[/snapback] Yeah, I am willing to take that risk and a Bills teams which has seen Jennings and Phat Pat, and Winfield walk out the door with good wishes for them but no compensation for us show the Bills understand these are the rules and we all have to live with them. The Peerless situation was a rarity as Arthur Blank guranteed a market for us by publicly promising his fans and more importantly Vick that he would get Price who by far was the most prominent WR out there. The Bills would love to get some compensation for Clements, but as this team has gotten players like Spikes and Fletcher (and even Adams) while giving no compensation to their former teams, losing players is something to be avoided if possible but usually is not. If Clements takes an extension now at a lower rate than he would get as an FA, goo for us as we got him cheaper than for $15 million and actually good for him as he need not worry that he will suffer some Andre Reed like injury in his FA year which destroys his negotiating leverage. I think it is unlikely that he and the Bills work out a cap friendly compromise deal but that possibility strikes me as far more likely than trading him now and forgoing his contribution to the '05 team merely out of fear of the rules happening and us losing him without compnsation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I don't get it. If the draft is deep at CB and Washington needs a CB, why wouldn't they draft one rather than trade for one at the cost of multiple picks and a huge contract after just one year? 303541[/snapback] Or just call Al Davis and trade for a better CB.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djfarr00 Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 so do the chiefs and the cardinals, and they can't stop anyone. asante samuel, by the way, was a first day draft choice ... 303523[/snapback] Rudy Gay wasn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Yeah, but do you think that is the TD plan? I simply do not see him going into the season saying, OK at CB we are going to depend on our Pro Bowl KR who was burned several times last year focusing on not getting burned as much and still being a KO threat. Further, we are going to take the player who got hurt last year and who clearly we and he visualized as a safety with his contract and squeeze another year or two out of him at CB. Further, our 7th rounder Smith looked good on PR so we are going to invest totally in him eliminating his mecuric rookie ways. I will do this because it avoids me and the Bills dealing with a potential future problem even though that same problem can be avoided if Clements were to take a cheaper long-term deal which gurantees him for life now without having to risk injury or perform again at a Pro Bowl level in order to get a big FA deal next year. The risks of moving him now seem far too high and their are simpler methods for getting to a good outcome for the future with Clements which allow the Bills to enjoy his skills this year. Why give him up at a guranteed immediate cost now when there is the potential to have our cake and eat it too. 303475[/snapback] no - the Teflon Tom plan is to grossly overpay for another Patrito reject - Ty Law - to solve our CB problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Good question. Maybe because of the GW connection, and of course the fact that Nate is a proven star, as well as a very good return man. 303548[/snapback] Still, if Nate is so iffy and the CB draft class so solid that we can afford to dump him and replace him with a pick, why doesn't Washington know that? I just don't accept the logic that says he is good enough for Washington to jump off a bridge for but not good enough for us to bother keeping. Why wouldn't a "proven star" at a critical position be just as important to us as it would be to them? Frankly, I am not Nate's biggest fan. Fumbling that punt against the Steelers and blowing that pass break up against the Jags kind of soured me on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 You raise an excellent point. The thing is, are you willing to take the risk of letting Nate walk without getting any compensation? The franchise tag is too big of a risk imo, and I seriously doubt that RW is going to cough up a 15 million dollar signing bonus to a cornerback. Seriously, what chance do you give the Bills on keeping Nate after 05? 303533[/snapback] i am letting to let him walk if he has a great year this year for the bills (and it is in his interest to have one). if he walks, draft another cb or pick up a good free agent who comes cheaper. the alternative is not having a stellar cb this upcoming year. i firmly believe that football is not a great sport to think 3-4 years into the future about. there are too many coaching changes, too many postions (22 in all), and way too many injuries to predict that far ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 I don't get it. If the draft is deep at CB and Washington needs a CB, why wouldn't they draft one rather than trade for one at the cost of multiple picks and a huge contract after just one year? 303541[/snapback] Because they have a veteran coach who wants to get to the SB quickly and a Owner who wants to hire veteran players so that they can try to make the SB instantly rather than build their team through the draft.... Look at their last year....They went and got Brunell from the Jax for a 3rd round pick (even though they could have got him for free if they had waited) and then paid him 7M signing bonus. This when they had a incumbent starter in Ramsey who had played well the previous year.... They paid through their nose and draft picks to get Coles from the Jets (paying him 13M for a guy who had one good year) and a 1st round pick only to lose him back to the Jets in 2 seasons. Now with the GW connection, as he was the one to recruit NC in buffalo, there is a good possibility that Snyder might be willing to throw that kind of money to get Nate Clements Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Still, if Nate is so iffy and the CB draft class so solid that we can afford to dump him and replace him with a pick, why doesn't Washington know that? I just don't accept the logic that says he is good enough for Washington to jump off a bridge for but not good enough for us to bother keeping. Why wouldn't a "proven star" at a critical position be just as important to us as it would be to them? Frankly, I am not Nate's biggest fan. Fumbling that punt against the Steelers and blowing that pass break up against the Jags kind of soured me on him. 304987[/snapback] I think quite highly of Nate as a player, but I dont like him enough to risk a franchise tag for 9 or 10 million dollars, nor to give him a 15 million dollar signing bonus to go along with a huge salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Still, if Nate is so iffy and the CB draft class so solid that we can afford to dump him and replace him with a pick, why doesn't Washington know that? I just don't accept the logic that says he is good enough for Washington to jump off a bridge for but not good enough for us to bother keeping. 304987[/snapback] The difference is that TD is cap responsible where Snyder will put a blank check on the table and tell NC to fill in the blanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts