Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 More good news following the McGee extension. Bills | Clements Could be FranchisedFri, 28 Oct 2005 11:15:36 -0700 ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reports the Buffalo Bills will probably use their franchise tag on CB Nate Clements following the season, as he is eligible to become an unrestricted free agent.
Blue Chipper Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 thats fine with me- it will give us another year to work out a contract and if someone offers him a deal I think we get a 1st rd pick right or is it two first rd picks, I forget.
drnykterstein Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 thats fine with me- it will give us another year to work out a contract and if someone offers him a deal I think we get a 1st rd pick right or is it two first rd picks, I forget. 488840[/snapback] 2. unless we lower our requirements or something.
duey Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 Honestly, I think this kind of "leak" will be used by the Bills as a bargaining ploy to get Nate to sign up for a long-term deal within the next few months. A good move, IMHO.
stuckincincy Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 Honestly, I think this kind of "leak" will be used by the Bills as a bargaining ploy to get Nate to sign up for a long-term deal within the next few months. A good move, IMHO. 488845[/snapback] They can't afford the contract in the same way they couldn't afford Winfield's offer from Minnie. The Bills have their share of roster question marks and paying a large contract and cap space for one player won't help the big picture IMO. His leaving could land them a mid 3rd round pick in compensation depending on other FA signings.
syhuang Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 thats fine with me- it will give us another year to work out a contract and if someone offers him a deal I think we get a 1st rd pick right or is it two first rd picks, I forget. 488840[/snapback] IT depends on which kind of franchise tag Bills will use on Clements. With exclusive franchise tag, Clements can not talk to other teams and will remain in Bills next season . With non-exclusive franchise tag, Bills have the right of first refusal or get two first round choices if Clements signed with another team.
jarthur31 Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 Franchising Nate doesn't surprise many of us here. The question is whether we use our first round pick on a CB, DT, or LT.
AKC Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 More good news following the McGee extension. 488833[/snapback] I'll go along with the "ploy" strategy since he's on pace for 2.1 INTs, the lowest in his career and hardly the type of number the biggest CB contracts are awarded for. Playing in a declining D can also decrease the free market value of a cornerback. At this point it appears his value int he offseason will have dropped by a substantial margin and the idea of a one-year contract could very well be the leverage the team wants to actually negotiate a new long-term deal with him under these circumstances. I'd like to know something about his agent- is he the same Todd France who kicked for Philly a couple games this year?
John from Riverside Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 I personally think it would be foolish NOT to franchize Nate..... If we can work out a deal with him.....great he is a top corner in this league.... If we can't FINE....he is going to be one of the more sought after DB's in next years free agence.....someone will pony up a 1st rounder.....and we can go to work in the draft. This is a draft where I would like us to be picking a D linmen high 1st round.....a OL low first round....draft a corner in the 2nd....and bring in a veteran cb to play till our 2nd rounder gets the kinks worked out..... I really dont consider this a lose lose proposition.
BADOLBILZ Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 They can't afford the contract in the same way they couldn't afford Winfield's offer from Minnie. The Bills have their share of roster question marks and paying a large contract and cap space for one player won't help the big picture IMO. His leaving could land them a mid 3rd round pick in compensation depending on other FA signings. 488882[/snapback] They can afford it, the cap is expected to be around $100M per season in two years and rising. He's precisely the type of player a team should invest in.
Frez Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 Moulds is history..................let's keep Nate around for another 3-5 years.
Coach Tuesday Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 Not complaining, but, what happened to, "We don't negotiate during the season?"
Kelly the Dog Posted October 28, 2005 Author Posted October 28, 2005 I personally think it would be foolish NOT to franchize Nate..... If we can work out a deal with him.....great he is a top corner in this league.... If we can't FINE....he is going to be one of the more sought after DB's in next years free agence.....someone will pony up a 1st rounder.....and we can go to work in the draft. This is a draft where I would like us to be picking a D linmen high 1st round.....a OL low first round....draft a corner in the 2nd....and bring in a veteran cb to play till our 2nd rounder gets the kinks worked out..... I really dont consider this a lose lose proposition. 489059[/snapback] I agree, John. I actually think we should just franchise him and plan to keep him for a year at that 9 mil or so price. If he agrees to a reasonable extension, which he won't, fine. If someone offers us a blockbuster trade, take it for him. But it might just be good timing for next year to just see if we are going upwards or completely rebuilding, plus to see if our defense is aging and needs a makeover, plus to see if McGee can be a shutdown corner, plus to see if King or Greer or Thomas can actually be a #2, or decent nickel back. It may be worth it to keep Nate to see if the offense starts to click and we are a contender or pretender as it appears now. But a lot can happen in a year and a half. I don't think we need to let him go and I don't think we need to give him 60 mil.
Gambler Posted October 28, 2005 Posted October 28, 2005 thats fine with me- it will give us another year to work out a contract and if someone offers him a deal I think we get a 1st rd pick right or is it two first rd picks, I forget. 488840[/snapback] The Bills won't re-sign Nate. The franchise tag will give them another year to find his replacement. No way the Bills cough up top dollar to keep him. It really isn't much different than Antoine Winfield or Jonas Jennings. Both were smart moves by the Bills.
Mark VI Posted October 29, 2005 Posted October 29, 2005 We seem to have multiple positions needing an upgrade. Giving Nate an outrageous 1 year contract would just delay the inevitable, if you're convinced you can't sign him long term. Meanwhile, we could use that $$ to sign 2 or 3 quality starters for the OL or DL this spring ( our biggest needs ) . The Bills could have taken care of this a year or 2 ago, when they decided Winfield would be allowed to walk. Since then, other CB's have received insane contracts, pushing the Franchise number out of orbit for that position. I certainly do NOT think Denvers' Champ Bailey is worth his 60 + Mil contract. That's why the Broncos had to sign all the bad Browns castoffs to play DL. No $$ left for quality. It's about timing. McGee was nailed at the perfect time. Too Late For Nate. Turn the page.
ExWNYer Posted October 29, 2005 Posted October 29, 2005 The Bills won't re-sign Nate. It really isn't much different than Antoine Winfield or Jonas Jennings. It's a lot different. Winfield had hands of stone, couldn't catch a cold and couldn't return punts. Jennings couldn't keep himself on the field due to injuries. Bad analysis on your part to try and make your point.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted October 29, 2005 Posted October 29, 2005 The Bills won't re-sign Nate. The franchise tag will give them another year to find his replacement. No way the Bills cough up top dollar to keep him. It really isn't much different than Antoine Winfield or Jonas Jennings. Both were smart moves by the Bills. 489074[/snapback] Tehy may well resign him because under the CBA the Bills will have to increase the amount they pay to the players by a lot. The increased salary cap actually will make it quite easy to tag him, but if the Bills are instead want to control how they spend their money by distributing a large paycheck to him over the life of his contract they actually will have more money to spend acquiring players than if they simply tagged him and all of his pay (the average pf the top 5 CB salaries) all counts against he 2006 cap. I think the potential of tagging Nate actually ends up forcing him to sign a new (even reasonable deal with the Bills figuring in proration over the cap) as Nate would get more money up front from a pro-rated reasonable deal ( current @1 CB contract for Chump Bailey got him a bonus of $16 million or so in his pocket but the current average of the top 5 is well Below $10 million). The Bills will have the cap room to tag him if necessary but Clements will get more money immediately from signing and the Bills will get a lower cap hit and more control by re-signing him. I'm pretty sure this one gets done when there is a new cap. When this happens we will be locked in at #1 and #2 CB. We will have a choice between current starter Greer, the injured Thomas, the improving after a dismal start King at the nickel and even former Pro Bowler Vincent in a pinch. i do not see CB as a problem and safety is the big issue in the secondary as both milloy and Vincent are well into the backsides of their careers. Wire has demonstrated he has a lot more to offer on ST than at safety, Baker is a youngster who has not built on an OK UDFA start last year and UDFA Leonhard shows potential but this unproven player has a lot to prove and show before we can be confident we have the back-ups of old players we have at safety. We have two of our younger players who both made the Pro Bowl last year at CB, a choice of 3 players next year for the nickel and even one of the former Pro Bowlers hanging around as long as he lasts.
Kelly the Dog Posted October 29, 2005 Author Posted October 29, 2005 It's a lot different. Winfield had hands of stone, couldn't catch a cold and couldn't return punts. Jennings couldn't keep himself on the field due to injuries. Bad analysis on your part to try and make your point. 489161[/snapback] I think his point was that they are set to be free agents, are going to demand more money than they are worth (even if they are good players) and we aren't likely to pay what another team will offer him. Even though Nate doesnt have the liabilities those two had, he still may not be worth it to the Bills to sign him for what another team will almost surely offer him. Like 60 million. In that respect, it's not a bad comparison at all.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted October 29, 2005 Posted October 29, 2005 I think his point was that they are set to be free agents, are going to demand more money than they are worth (even if they are good players) and we aren't likely to pay what another team will offer him. Even though Nate doesnt have the liabilities those two had, he still may not be worth it to the Bills to sign him for what another team will almost surely offer him. Like 60 million. In that respect, it's not a bad comparison at all. 489185[/snapback] The irony here is the generally non-stat sheet non ESPn highlight year Nate is having right now within a struggling Bills D. He only has 1 INT as teams are willing to pick on the still learning McGee at CB and since you can run effectively on this team why throw anyway. He has been supplanted at PR as why risk your starting CB as we did last year when we needed gamebreakers desperately and we had little else on PR. Fast Freddy has clearly improved as a player and now poses a threat as a position player in addition to handling PR so get him some touches. Add to that the acquisition and recovery of Roscoe Parrish and NC loses a contribution to this team and a spot on the highlights. I do like his tackling and given his debacles last year and an ability to still produce some bonehead plays he can be beaten at CB sometimes (though actually I do not fault him for getting beat by Moss who is still probably the most dangerous WR in the game and even though he was clearly injured he still had the ability through moxie and cortisone to strap it on an play like the #1 he is a few times last game so NC needed to give him space or he could be beat for a TD as he was on a perfectly thrown ball by Collins Sunday. Still he is a talent and only now reaching his prime. If his output continues at this level the market for him (pariticular if the Bills tag him and allow a team to sign him at a huge cost) may not be that strong and likely by tagging him the Bills will force him to benefit himself (and our cap situation as the tag avg. will be a larger cap hit than a prorated salary cap hit). Again I think he signs even if this year's performance is like the one that got him into the Pro Bowl last year and if he continues at his current level of production I think he signs a pretty reasonable contract we can easily reach under a greatly expanded cap.
Tux of Borg Posted October 29, 2005 Posted October 29, 2005 Franchising him is a no brainier. Some team out there will gladly overpay for his services. He certainly did not play like an all pro corner last week; and lets not forget the Jacksonville game from last season. I hope they can work something out with Moulds so he can retire a Bill.
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts