Poeticlaw Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 Did TD see those figures today and think " That's too much for us " and make some calls ? Henry will attract a 2nd or 3rd rounder, regardless of our yelling. Tomorrow may be the last chance to get anything for Clements before he walks after 2005. Forget that franchise and trade idea. That was a one time gift ( Peerless Price) with a known partner ( Atlanta). Too big a gamble. I'm tired of watching players asking for the moon and walk.. only receiving a mid round comp pick, at best, the following year. BFD. This draft has one position loaded with talent..CB. Let's see what happens. 313016[/snapback] Here I thought we were an intelligent bunch of fans. Why in the world would we trade Clements this year? Arent we trying to make a Superbowl run. If we are so concern about him walking next year theres a thing called the "Franchise Tag" then TD could do a sign and trade to the Redkins like he did for Price and the Falcons, since its apparent Clements has hinted going to Gregg Williams system. Then we would have 2 first round picks next year, much negoitating power for TD.
jad1 Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 If we can get Brian Kelly from Tampa bay i would ship Nate out. 313094[/snapback] Brian Kelly had 4 ints last year for 101 yards and no TDs. Barber had 3 for 23 yards and no TDs. Neither returned punts or kickoffs. Clements had 6 ints for 77 yards and 1 TD. He returned 35 punts for 327 yards and 1 TD. So by making a deal for either Barber or Kelly and trading Clements would weaken both the Bills secondary and punt return team. Weakening areas of strength is not a good way to make a playoff run.
McGill Bill Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 A lot of people are saying that we should get a return on our investment by trading him now, as opposed to receiving nothing next year when he walks. What you have to realize that what we DO get by not trading is a season of solid play, better than anything we could get for him. So really it's not that we're getting nothing from not trading him - we're getting a season of Nate Clements. What would you rather? A second round draft pick like the one in the Surtain trade, or 2005 with Nate?
Rico Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 Here I thought we were an intelligent bunch of fans. Why in the world would we trade Clements this year? Arent we trying to make a Superbowl run. 313102[/snapback] Exactly, yet another ridiculous thread. Nate is going nowhere.
Phlegm Alley Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 The #6 pick in this year's draft. 313117[/snapback] Do you expect TD wants to wants to pay Kellen Winslow type money at #6 this year?
CosmicBills Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 Do you expect TD wants to wants to pay Kellen Winslow type money at #6 this year? 313217[/snapback] That's the key point right there. Right now we can afford Nate. Being forced to sign a number 6 (or 9) draft pick, in a draft that is VERY weak at the top, would cripple the team's cap for 05. What happens if there's a training camp injury? Or how do they afford to sign the rest of their picks? Everything that I have heard from people leads me to believe there is no way, ZERO, that NC gets traded. Thank god.
Navy Chief Navy Pride Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 Nate is going to play balls out football this season in a BILLS uniform! Anyone who thinks otherwise might want to get a drug test ASAP. Before camp or sometime before opening day NC will have a new deal in place for a long term stay here in Buffalo. Thank you----I'll be here all week!
Mark VI Posted April 22, 2005 Author Posted April 22, 2005 Anyone who thinks otherwise might want to get a drug test ASAP.Before camp or sometime before opening day NC will have a new deal in place for a long term stay here in Buffalo. Thank you----I'll be here all week! 313244[/snapback] OMG. I'm on DRUGS !
Navy Chief Navy Pride Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 OMG. I'm on DRUGS ! 313268[/snapback] At least your not in denial.
Pac_Man Posted April 22, 2005 Posted April 22, 2005 Let's face it, the Bills aren't going to win the Super Bowl this year with a first-year starter at QB; and that's true regardless of what we do or don't do with Clements. The chances that Nate will be with us this time next year are slim, but that's when we will need a playmaker the most. That's when Losman will (hopefully) start to come into his own, and will be able to take advantage of the talent that surrounds him to hopefully do something . . . unpleasant . . . to New England. We need to think about 2006: Nate will be gone, Losman will be seasoned and ready. Drafting a playmaker this year will help Losman in 2006 a lot more than Nate's empty locker.
Bill from NYC Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 Here I thought we were an intelligent bunch of fans. Why in the world would we trade Clements this year? Arent we trying to make a Superbowl run. If we are so concern about him walking next year theres a thing called the "Franchise Tag" then TD could do a sign and trade to the Redkins like he did for Price and the Falcons, since its apparent Clements has hinted going to Gregg Williams system. Then we would have 2 first round picks next year, much negoitating power for TD. 313102[/snapback] A superbowl run? We lost our left tackle. Our starting qb has throw 5 or so passes and a couple were picks. We have no first round draft choice. Exactly when are we making this great run of which you speak? The Raiders used the Franchise Tag on Woodson. He happily signed it and now has a 10.15 million dollar no-cut contract, AND he will be a UFA after this season. The tag is not a serious option in this instance. It is far less easy than you think.
BuffBubba Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 People who think NC shouldn't be traded, are the same who said last year not to trade TH to Miami for their 2005 1st rounder because it was within the division. I think I would be pretty happy with the second pick this year instead of a possible 2 or 3rd rounder. You have to be one step ahead as a GM not like a fan living in the moment. TD rules he'll make the right decision.
34-78-83 Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 People who think NC shouldn't be traded, are the same who said last year not to trade TH to Miami for their 2005 1st rounder because it was within the division. I think I would be pretty happy with the second pick this year instead of a possible 2 or 3rd rounder. You have to be one step ahead as a GM not like a fan living in the moment. TD rules he'll make the right decision. 313306[/snapback] You're right he will make the right decision, which is to give his team a chance to win this year and not let them think he's giving away another season for a bunch of scratch off lottery tickets. It's not Super Bowl or bust at one Bills drive. I'm quite sure the Bills would like to have the opportunity to make a strong run at being IN the playoffs this year, especially considering how long it has been since they were last there. Nate will play out the season.
Poeticlaw Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 A superbowl run? We lost our left tackle. Our starting qb has throw 5 or so passes and a couple were picks. We have no first round draft choice. Exactly when are we making this great run of which you speak? The Raiders used the Franchise Tag on Woodson. He happily signed it and now has a 10.15 million dollar no-cut contract, AND he will be a UFA after this season. The tag is not a serious option in this instance. It is far less easy than you think. 313301[/snapback] Look mr pessimist teams lose players every year either to injury or free agency. Kurt Warner never threw a NFL pass was a third stringer and won the superbow his first year, same with Brady. It is not impossible to make a superbowl run. We already have a superbowl caliber defense and it would do more harm than good to get rid of clements this year when a mediocre qb at best last season fell one game shy of making the playoffs off the coattails of the defense. Also Jennings sucked, thats is why TD didnt offer the tag he was afraid to over pay for him like the 49ers a completley desperate team did. SO i completely disagree with you you will see the tag on clements if a deal is not in place.
Bill from NYC Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 Look mr pessimist teams lose players every year either to injury or free agency. Kurt Warner never threw a NFL pass was a third stringer and won the superbow his first year, same with Brady. It is not impossible to make a superbowl run. We already have a superbowl caliber defense and it would do more harm than good to get rid of clements this year when a mediocre qb at best last season fell one game shy of making the playoffs off the coattails of the defense. Also Jennings sucked, thats is why TD didnt offer the tag he was afraid to over pay for him like the 49ers a completley desperate team did. SO i completely disagree with you you will see the tag on clements if a deal is not in place. 313316[/snapback] Our defense was very good but folded too many times in the clutch. Perhaps some of it can be attributed to the fact that Gray was an inexperienced DC? I dont know. Jennings hardly sucked. It is very debateable as to whether or not he is worth what SF is paying him, and I do agree with TD on this move. As for Warner and Brady, you are correct, this did happen, but that doesn't tell the whole story. The pats are one of the best coached and most well balanced teams of all time, to say nothing of their depth. The Rams had a spectacular OL led by Orlando Pace, with great players at skill positions as well. Do you really think that the Bills are equal to these teams? As for Clements, I cannot imagine any scenario in which Mr. Wilson will give him a 15 or 20 million dollar bonus, nor would I want to tie up this kind of cap space at the cb position. I see no reason to lose him and get nothing if a good enough opportunity presents itself to continue to improve this football team. Jmo.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 It would have to be a blockbuster deal to get Nate. IMHO you keep him for a cheap rate for this year and hope he stays healthy and has a "contract year," FP him next year when every team will get a huge bump in the salary cap, and trade him when his value is at its highest. Surtain will be 29 before the start of this year, and next year Nate would be 3 months shy of 27, so he'd net the Bills a 1st rounder.
Sound_n_Fury Posted April 23, 2005 Posted April 23, 2005 Did TD see those figures today and think " That's too much for us " and make some calls ? Henry will attract a 2nd or 3rd rounder, regardless of our yelling. Tomorrow may be the last chance to get anything for Clements before he walks after 2005. Forget that franchise and trade idea. That was a one time gift ( Peerless Price) with a known partner ( Atlanta). Too big a gamble. I'm tired of watching players asking for the moon and walk.. only receiving a mid round comp pick, at best, the following year. BFD. This draft has one position loaded with talent..CB. Let's see what happens. 313016[/snapback] I was paging through the Scouts Inc. CB ratings (looking at Brian Kelly's analysis) and found their top 10 ranking interesting: 1. Ty Law grade 95 2. Chris McAlister 94 3. Champ Bailey 91 4. NATE CLEMENTS 87 5. Antoine Winfield 85 6. Samari Rolle 80 7. Patrick Surtain 79 8. Terence Newman 78 9. Dre' Bly 77 10. Charles Woodson 77 We all know what #1-3 and 5-7 are making...big $$$$. In other words, NC has won the lottery in terms of being in the right place at the right time. There's no way his agent will allow him to miss out on a big FA payday, so I'd expect him to go the route of JJ and AW and not entertain any offers from TD to renegoitate. And I don't see Nate being traded today. He'll most likely play out the season and walk after this year. My hope is all the "OL/DL" talk from OBD has been a smokescreen and somehow TD can move up to the top part of Round 2 and snag a CB like Justin Miller or Brandon Browner.
Recommended Posts