brihs2005 Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 The Deal is Nate Clements and a 6th for their 1st and 2nd round this year. Carlos Rogers becomes a Bill. With the 44th overall pick the Bills select David Baas. (acquired from ARZ) With the 48th overall pick the Bills select OT Adam Terry. Starting O-line looks like this on Opening Day. Terry - Anderson - Teague - Villarial - Williams Starting Secondary on Opening Day. CB1 Vincent CB2 Rogers Nickel McGee Dime Thomas/Greer FS Baker SS Milloy Explanation - After listening to TD's press conference in full from Monday, i just had a feeling that he has fielded offers for Clements and may be mulling them over. I love NC, would love to see him in a Bills uni this year, and don't think it would be the smartest thing to to trade him. BUT... You want your young playmakers on the field, and i want Baker to see some serious time this year. I was impressed with him last year and think he has the potential to be a success story (UDFA - 10 yr solid starter) in the making. Now, with the selection of Rogers and movement of TV back to corner, i don't think the drop-off from NC and McGee would be detrimental to our Defense. The selection of Baas solidifies our center position for 3-4 years when we let Teague walk next year. The selection of Terry does the same thing for the LT spot. We now have the makings of a very young and very good line with AT, BA, DB, MW (none of which will be older than 28 i believe going into opening day 2006). Villarial's successor will come in a future draft or a FA signing. Overall - If these moves are made (or similar moves to select the top lineman of the second round, and one of the 2nd tier but very good CB's - Washington, Rogers, Jackson) i do honestly believe that our CURRENT roster and our FUTURE roster is improved. When i first heard the NC rumors my initial reaction was 'fine we will trade him for a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and if we feel like being nice, your 3rd rounder next year' but i really feel that if a trade goes down, this could be a very good way to improve our team (specifically our O-line) for years to come. Stay tuned... Flame away, i am curious as to if you feel such moves would improve our roster as a whole, or if this would do far more harm then good for our Bills. p.s. Shelton of course would be coming here as a Bill in the ARZ trade i mentioned above. He has potential for 6th man on the line, or starting RG after Villarial exits, or even a training camp casualty (<--- this is the most likely if the above really does pan out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 I admire your creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 I don't really want to trade Nate but I would have to strongly consider that trade. That's an interesting thought. I am not sure that Cinci would even do it. They would be forced into making Nate an enormous contract offer (otherwise there is zero chance they would make the trade and have the possibility of Nate walking), and then give away their #2 pick also. Of course, we would have to make the trade in the first round and we couldnt be sure of Baas or Terry would be available when we pick in the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis in NC Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 I like your idea. I wonder what kind of offers for Clements are out there. He's a great CB/PR, but paying those top 5 types gazillions of dollars, and then seeing them return punts.. oy vay! I think a move like this strengthens the future roster, even though it may suffer in 2005 a bit. If we can get a 1st and 2nd, or some such combo, I would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in SC Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 I could live with that scenario (although I think it is a long shot). I would not count on Shelton in the equation, however. TD has lost interest in him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 A 1 and a 2 for a guy who could be gone in one year??? Yeah, that'll happen!! How many bottles of vodka does the Bengals GM need to drink before the deal gets done? PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Even though they are the Bengals, you are high. No one trades good draft picks for players any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Flame away, i am curious as to if you feel such moves would improve our roster as a whole, or if this would do far more harm then good for our Bills. 304588[/snapback] First let me say I'm not a draft guy and have no knowledge of what is coming out of the draft this year other than what the draftniks call a less than stellar draft. But it appears to me this team is going backwards in average age, and if that is the basis for your master plan -- to build a young team to make a long-term run -- then this would be the year to do what you're suggesting. So in my mind, ultimately...more good than bad will come of your suggestion because you're talking about taking key players and turning them into multiple options. If you could take one great player and turn him into two pretty damn good players, would you do it? Absolutely, I would. One thing Bellicheck seemed to do well was turn players into options. (And I think there are worse things you could do than try to emulate or at least learn from him.) Please don't ask me to research this, but in my mind I see him giving one player for a number of picks...and another player for a number of picks. How many times did people over the past two years comment on how many picks (read that, options) the Pats had going into the draft? But if you're going to do that, I would move Tucker to the C position and let that exchange work out the bugs as well. Let Teague fight it out with Anderson. (Okay, I'm talking positions now, so I'll shut up.) Let me also say that this is a groovy thread in a happenin' kinda way, and I appreciate , as Kelly said, your creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 It's always fun to speculate. I'm sure that anyone on our roster is available for the right price. If the Bungels were dumb enough to offer a 1 and 2, we would be foolish not to take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipster19 Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Bravo. I applaud your thinking outside of the box. I can't imagine anyone who tries to think up more trade scenarios than me, but with all due respect, I have to disagree with this transaction. I don't believe Buffalo can afford taking the risk of trading a major piece of the puzzle this season. I think that it's imperative for them to not just to make the play-offs, but to go deep into the post season. Unfortunately, if they were to trade NC this season they would be jeopardizing their success. Without meaning to be critical, I see several issues with this proposal. 1) Troy Vincent is better as a FS than a CB at this stage of his career. 2) We know what we got with Clements. I'm all for drafting a bright talent at CB, but this position needs to be solidified first and then we can take a chance on a young prospect. 3) Cincy isn't just one or two players away from being a powerhouse. They are in an ideal positioning in the first two rounds of the draft. They will be able to really strengthen their roster through this draft. 4) There is no guarantee that the prospective players that you mentioned will be available when it's time to select at these slots. 5) Even if this collection of youth were to materialize, it would set be a step back not a step forward in the immediate future. If you noticed, TD has traditionally acquired veteran leadership sprinkled with youth. With the O-line already being a concern, this would be the last position that would be compromised with an unbalanced blend of youths vs veterans. I really enjoyed your post and hope that you don't take my response as a put down. I'm going to continue to forecast more draft/trade scenarios and I would appreciate your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 is washingtons pick b4 or after cincy?...out of all the owners that i can think of, washingtons owner is the only one that would overpay with 2 really high picks for a good player. given that the rumor of GW wanting NC and washingtons endlessly deep pockets, i could see this happening...though i really like NC and would hate to see him go...i think this happens only if TD knows he can snag one of the 3 best cb's available in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brihs2005 Posted April 14, 2005 Author Share Posted April 14, 2005 To the few that mentioned it, i used Cinci as an example of a team that we could trade with to get a pick in the 40-50 range of the second round (where i feel the real value of this trade would come from). I do like the idea of Washington trading us their #9 pick and getting one of the top three CB's there. I didn't think that we would be able to pull a second rounder out of them for a top ten pick, another reason i chose Cinci... as well, i saw them on a few mock draft sites taking Rogers, so i just figured we can try and slide in that spot. I have also seen other mocks that have him going as low as 14, if so, a trade with cincy does no good. Tipster: Thanks for your comments although i disagree with a few as you disagreed with some of mine. I really think a Secondary with Baker, Milloy, Vincent, Rogers, McGee is not TOO far of a drop off from Vincent, Milloy, Clements, McGee, Greer. Remember Vincent is only a few years removed from a pro-bowl at corner, and while i admit he is better suited to be a FS at this stage of his career, it doesn't mean he can't be a starting #1 corner in this league if called upon to do so. Similarly, Mularkey and Co's philosophy is to put the players that can contribute on the field as often as possible. I really believe Baker is one of these player's which made it frustrating to see TV take that spot and hinder his development. I expect big things from Baker and will hope that he is the best safety in the history of the NFL that wasn't drafted. The drop off on defense may be noticeable but not drastic, i think at worst with the changes mentioned in this thread and the loss of PW, we are still a top ten defense. Now if we can bolster our offense (and i think we have enough weapons already, if we could only have a strong O-line) and give us a top 15 offense i think the playoffs and much further are a distinct possibility this year. Another note: I know this draft seems weak, but it has been written and i firmly believe that this draft has one of the deepest 2/3rds of a second round we will see for a long time. I would love to see TD accumulate as many picks in the 30-50 range as possible as i feel there are starters on both sides of the ball to be had in that range. I don't see a glaring weakness on this team other than at the LT position. We are contenders on paper, now all we need to do is back it up in a fashion we haven't seen in a decade or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Cannot recall the last time a team gave a 1st and 2nd up for a single player. I think has been a while. I wonder if Cinnci (or anyone else) really thinks Nate is THAT good. I agree with LA -- lowering the team's average age while not significantly lower its talent level is the key to success in the future. I don't have any illusions that we have a Super Bowl team this year. Why not take a step or two back at corner in order to take four or five steps for our future. If TD could pull this off, he'd be the best GM in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brihs2005 Posted April 14, 2005 Author Share Posted April 14, 2005 After sleeping on it for about twenty minutes, realizing the offer is far fetched of a 1 and 2 for Clements and a 6th. Does it become a matter of how a choice do we give up. If we make it Clements and a 4th i still like the deal. If it is Clements and a third i am a little bit leary, but who with three picks in the top 50 compared to the two picks in the top 100 we currently have is better for our team i feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
booya2 Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Starting Secondary on Opening Day. CB1 Vincent CB2 Rogers Nickel McGee Dime Thomas/Greer FS Baker SS Milloy 304588[/snapback] Wow... talk about taking a step back. We'd go from having what looks like a very strong secondary to have a weak to mediocre secondary. This would be an awful move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 The Deal is Nate Clements and a 6th for their 1st and 2nd round this year. Carlos Rogers becomes a Bill. With the 44th overall pick the Bills select David Baas. (acquired from ARZ) With the 48th overall pick the Bills select OT Adam Terry. Starting O-line looks like this on Opening Day. Terry - Anderson - Teague - Villarial - Williams Starting Secondary on Opening Day. CB1 Vincent CB2 Rogers Nickel McGee Dime Thomas/Greer FS Baker SS Milloy I don't think it would get that far as Tom Modrak would rip the phone out of TD's hands and beat him with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brihs2005 Posted April 14, 2005 Author Share Posted April 14, 2005 Starting Secondary on Opening Day. CB1 Vincent CB2 Rogers Nickel McGee Dime Thomas/Greer FS Baker SS Milloy Wow... talk about taking a step back. We'd go from having what looks like a very strong secondary to have a weak to mediocre secondary. This would be an awful move. 304960[/snapback] Just to grade out each player and assign them a number value from 1-5 (5 being the best) i want to compare the two secondaries. I am putting emphasis on this, because i really feel there is potential in a deal like this. Current My Projection Clements 5 Vincent 4 McGee 3 Rogers 3 Greer 2 McGee 3 Thomas 2 Greer 2 Milloy 5 Milloy 5 Vincent 4 Baker 3 Totals 21 20 Of course this is all numbers and each person can assign them as they see fit. But i see Rogers as a step over McGee and McGee a step up over Greer at the Nickel and TV an acceptable step down and Baker an acceptable step down at the Corner and FS positions. Also remember this is all in an attempt to bolster our Offensive line for the current and future of the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossman Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 The Deal is Nate Clements and a 6th for their 1st and 2nd round this year. Carlos Rogers becomes a Bill. With the 44th overall pick the Bills select David Baas. (acquired from ARZ) With the 48th overall pick the Bills select OT Adam Terry. Starting O-line looks like this on Opening Day. Terry - Anderson - Teague - Villarial - Williams Starting Secondary on Opening Day. CB1 Vincent CB2 Rogers Nickel McGee Dime Thomas/Greer FS Baker SS Milloy Explanation - After listening to TD's press conference in full from Monday, i just had a feeling that he has fielded offers for Clements and may be mulling them over. I love NC, would love to see him in a Bills uni this year, and don't think it would be the smartest thing to to trade him. BUT... You want your young playmakers on the field, and i want Baker to see some serious time this year. I was impressed with him last year and think he has the potential to be a success story (UDFA - 10 yr solid starter) in the making. Now, with the selection of Rogers and movement of TV back to corner, i don't think the drop-off from NC and McGee would be detrimental to our Defense. The selection of Baas solidifies our center position for 3-4 years when we let Teague walk next year. The selection of Terry does the same thing for the LT spot. We now have the makings of a very young and very good line with AT, BA, DB, MW (none of which will be older than 28 i believe going into opening day 2006). Villarial's successor will come in a future draft or a FA signing. Overall - If these moves are made (or similar moves to select the top lineman of the second round, and one of the 2nd tier but very good CB's - Washington, Rogers, Jackson) i do honestly believe that our CURRENT roster and our FUTURE roster is improved. When i first heard the NC rumors my initial reaction was 'fine we will trade him for a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and if we feel like being nice, your 3rd rounder next year' but i really feel that if a trade goes down, this could be a very good way to improve our team (specifically our O-line) for years to come. Stay tuned... Flame away, i am curious as to if you feel such moves would improve our roster as a whole, or if this would do far more harm then good for our Bills. p.s. Shelton of course would be coming here as a Bill in the ARZ trade i mentioned above. He has potential for 6th man on the line, or starting RG after Villarial exits, or even a training camp casualty (<--- this is the most likely if the above really does pan out). 304588[/snapback] Ring Ring "Hello, the brihs2005 residence" "Hi brihs this is Tom Donahoe. I was just on two bills drive and read your post. I have one question son. Are you just dumb or are you stupid too"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 A 1st and a 2nd will never happen for Clements. Miami has been trying to trade Patrick Sutain and the best offer they have had is a 4th rounder from KC. Since we are talking about the Bungles you never know. If they did offer us that trade I would have to jump all over it if I was TD. It will be tough to sign Nate if we don't get him to extend before training camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarthur31 Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 The Deal is Nate Clements and a 6th for their 1st and 2nd round this year. 304588[/snapback] I stopped reading right there. Flip it around and see if it makes sense to you if the Bengals came calling with this very same proposal (also assuming we had a first rounder). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts