NYGPopgun10 Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 While I'm not advocating getting rid of Nate, If we can tag him then get the giants 1st rd pick, then pick up giants free agent cb Will Allen I'd consider than a pretty successful tradeoff. While Allen is a downgrade from Clements he'll solidify our corner position opposite mcgee, while we can use the giants first as well as our own to improve in the trenches. Win/Win really. Although I'd still like to see them reach a long term agreement with Clements. 561413[/snapback] You got to be kidding Kraze. I'll ship Allen off for a used jock strap!
RkFast Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Thank God those Patriots have had such a strong secondary the last few years. Imagine where they would be if they had to trot out a bunch of guys who...technically...couldnt sniff "The Playmaker's" jock.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Thank God those Patriots have had such a strong secondary the last few years. Imagine where they would be if they had to trot out a bunch of guys who...technically...couldnt sniff "The Playmaker's" jock. 561643[/snapback] Goes to show that a great defensive line can hide a lot of a secondary's flaws. Yes we should tag Nate at least for one more year, but the main goal should be to build both lines. Worrying about anything else, including Nate, is wasting time...
plenzmd1 Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Mort said on Sportscenter that it's going to drop about 3 mil this offseason. 561563[/snapback] I just find this hard to believe. How can it drop after some of the deals last year? I mean woodson was what $9m this year after being tagged. How in the world would this drop by 40%. Not saying its not true, but someone gunna half to explain to me how the number would drop so dramitically
merlin Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 I agree the Bills ought to tag him. I still think this past year was an "aberration" - he's a good (maybe not great) DB, and will "bounce back" next year. He's definitely worth the 5 mil it would cost to keep him if no one is willing to give us at least a 2nd rounder for him. If he has 2 down years in a row, then we could say "buh bye". GO BILLS!
Kelly the Dog Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 I just find this hard to believe. How can it drop after some of the deals last year? I mean woodson was what $9m this year after being tagged. How in the world would this drop by 40%. Not saying its not true, but someone gunna half to explain to me how the number would drop so dramitically 561682[/snapback] I am not sure what the real number for DBs this year is, although I thought it was 6-7 mil and not the 5.1 mil figure that is being thrown around. I do know, however, that last year it was almost 10 million, and Woodson was paid over 10 mil because he was due 110 or 120% of the DB franchise figure, as it was the second year in a row they franchised him. I also know that one of, if not the major reason for the change in the DB franchise figure is that last year's included the enormous cap figure of probably 14 million (he had a 12.8 million "bonus") that Antoine Winfield got from the Vikings. That skewed the thing for one year. If you recall, the Vikings were 25+ mil or so under the cap, and when they signed AW from the Bills, they gave all of his "bonus" money as salary, because they weren't going to spend their cap that year, and so they wouldn't have to allot 3-4 mil or so a year on future cap figures for the contract. It was a smart move by them, but it threw the franchise figure off by a couple mil when you added up the 5 top DB salaries for that season and divided by 5. So AW's figure was 14 mil or so rather than 5 mil or so.
Nostradamus Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 He was not nearly as good in 05 as in 04, but McGee is still learning and his primary contribution to the team is as a KR guy so sure he may be a bum but there is certainly a credible case that even this bum is the best CB on this team. I hope and assume that McGee will surpass him as our #1 CB, but particularly since McGee is now locked up with a contract paying Clements 5 mill. is an easy and necessary thing to do since a good D really needs 2 shut down CBs in this pass happy league. Sure you may feel bad about Clements, but is your answer if you let this "bum" go to depend on Jabari Greer guarding the other team's #2 (who for many opponents is there equivalent of Lee Evans). Tag him and he likely signs long term to get a $12 million bonus (upfront to him but prorated over the length of the contract in terms of our cap hit) instead of the $5 million tag payment. 561573[/snapback] Actually, McGee was much better in 05 then 04, and should only get better. He may have the best feet of anyone in the league, as evidenced by his returning ability. (Remember the one in New Orleans?) He is a special athlete with good speed, not great, as was shown in the fastest man contest when he got blew off the field. But, he in what looks to be a (sigh) rebuilding year, he is set to assume the no. 1 CB position. He'll take his lumps, but so will the rest of the team and with Levy at the helm, they should be a force in 07. Oh, and anyone who thinks we're getting a first for Clements is delusional. That window probably closed in San Diego, and slammed shut in Miami. A third would actually be good, remember, whatever team signs him also has to pay his salary
Orton's Arm Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 This year's draft has plenty of depth at offensive line. If you could franchise and trade Nate, get a high second round pick, and use that pick on a good offensive lineman, you'd be in good shape. The Bills should try to bring in the whole future starting offensive line THIS YEAR via the draft, so that the players will have time to gel and adjust to the pro level.
BB2004 Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 i'd hate to see marv (did i just say marv and not td?) let him walk without compensation via the franchise tag. he'd HAVE to know that he'll be in demand. Even if you get only a 3rd, that's a big deal when you're trying to rebuild again from the last rebuilding effort, which was required because of the first rebuilding effort. I'd prefer to see us keep clements, but if the negotiation breaks down, you'd think we'd HAVE to tag him. It's a cheap year for tagging DBs, too. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football...8p-323974c.html 561382[/snapback] If he doesn't get franchised look for the Bills to possibly take Jimmy Williams CB form Virgina Tech with our first pick.
Bear Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Goes to show that a great defensive line can hide a lot of a secondary's flaws. Yes we should tag Nate at least for one more year, but the main goal should be to build both lines. Worrying about anything else, including Nate, is wasting time... 561660[/snapback] People have to stop comparing individual positions on the Bills to those positions on the Pats. Unless we are going to get a coach like BB, a QB like Brady, and an entire "team" like the Pats, then stop comparing.
tennesseeboy Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 He will be tagged regardless - it'll only cost $5 mil or so to keep him if we tag him and don't trade him. That ain't bad. EDIT: at first I thought you meant Tom Clements, and I thought damn, Gilbride and Clements on the same sideline... 561387[/snapback] Sounds like a plan. I really think we'd be hurting without him next year.
Fixxxer Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 I´d franchise him and listen to any ofter available in the market. If he´s dealt for a draft pick, it has to be a first rounder or an early 2nd at worst. If not he comes back next year and see if we can work something out (new contract) 5 mil/year for Clements is reasonable, I think we can afford it.
mendezownsyou Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 If he doesn't get franchised look for the Bills to possibly take Jimmy Williams CB form Virgina Tech with our first pick. 562058[/snapback] Or possibly Michael Huff the CB/S from Texas could be an option
The Dean Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Or possibly Michael Huff the CB/S from Texas could be an option 562150[/snapback] Unless we trade down and get extra first round picks, I don't see how we end up with Huff (who I'm not entirely sold on, anyway). We certainly shouldn't pick him with the #8 pick (that's way too big of a reach...particularly in an area where we aren't desperate). And he'll likely be gone before we pick again. The idea of replacing Nate with a rookie isn't too appealing to me, I tell ya.
obie_wan Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Mort said on Sportscenter that it's going to drop about 3 mil this offseason. 561563[/snapback] that's because Winfield's $12 million cap hit drops from the equation.
Dan Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 All I know is letting good players go with no viable replacement spelss trouble. One of the biggest mistakes last year was letting Pat Williams go. How much better would our year have been if they just paid up the cash and we kept the defense solid? I want to build the lines more than anyone, but if we get rid of all the other quality players to do so, then we haven't built much. Clements - as piss average as he looked this year - is a good player, with a lot of upside. In my opinion, you do what it takes to keep him or be highly compensated if he's let go.
Fixxxer Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 All I know is letting good players go with no viable replacement spelss trouble. One of the biggest mistakes last year was letting Pat Williams go. How much better would our year have been if they just paid up the cash and we kept the defense solid? I want to build the lines more than anyone, but if we get rid of all the other quality players to do so, then we haven't built much. Clements - as piss average as he looked this year - is a good player, with a lot of upside. In my opinion, you do what it takes to keep him or be highly compensated if he's let go. 562298[/snapback] Well in the case of Clements you can only let him go if you´re seriously going to address the pass rush. Get guys that can rush the passer, situational players if you will, that can win one on one match-ups. Sure they´re hard to come by but if this defense (any defense actually) doesn´t have to send 6 guys after the QB everytime an average secondary will look like an all pro unit. Sure address the vacancy left by letting him go but that doesn´t mean you have to draft a CB in the first round.
The Jokeman Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 While I'm not advocating getting rid of Nate, If we can tag him then get the giants 1st rd pick, then pick up giants free agent cb Will Allen I'd consider than a pretty successful tradeoff. While Allen is a downgrade from Clements he'll solidify our corner position opposite mcgee, while we can use the giants first as well as our own to improve in the trenches. Win/Win really. Although I'd still like to see them reach a long term agreement with Clements. 561413[/snapback] The Giants looking at Nate should tell you how "good" they feel Allen is. Dan brings up a good point about viable options. In looking at the free agent landscape Charles Woodson might be considered as good but his health issues in recent years drop him down a notch from Nate. I think the best plan is to franchise Nate and sign him for at least a year and use one of our 3rd Rounders on a guy like Will Blackmon or Anwar Phillips to serve as nickel/dime back in 2007 and possibly replace Nate in 2007. As truth be told feel Greer and King are good backups and nothing else and McGee while a very good #2 is a questionable #1 CB.
ans4e64 Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 What a post! What insight! You are a real asset to The Wall. 561398[/snapback] yeah, and i love that you're on here too
Recommended Posts