The Jokeman Posted January 15, 2006 Posted January 15, 2006 Thank You very much, Jokeman. Finally I get some support on this board! 568284[/snapback] If read further, I don't agree with the thought of trading Nate. That said at least you're realistic in what we could get for compensation and how we should replace him.
Max Fischer Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 How does that trade NOT make sense.... Another TBD jerko. 568845[/snapback] Regardless if I think it's a good idea (I'm ambivilent) I have no patience for scenarios that hinge largely on things that are totally out of the control of the team. First, I don't think Cincy would give up their #1 for a franchised cornerback. Why would they? Second, what if no team takes Clements for less than a #2 or #3? Then what? How does that change the entire complex of your "plan?" You may as well have started the plan by saying: "Ok, first we'll get Julius Peppers . . ." It's just as realistic -- or at the very least, not within the control of the team.
loadofmularkey Posted January 16, 2006 Posted January 16, 2006 How does that trade NOT make sense.... Another TBD jerko. 568845[/snapback] Lord...of course it makes sense for the Bills. So does trading Tim Anderson for Dwight Freeney. It doesn't mean the other team will be all that willing to do it. I think teams have been hesitant to swap first-rounders for decent players since Donahoe burned Atlanta back in 2003. Travis Henry was a 1,000-yard rusher more than once and the Bills were finally able to get a third-round pick for him. I mean, your ideas look great on paper but I don't see anyone trading a first-rounder for Clements. And you still haven't made it clear how Buffalo would go about landing D'Brickshaw with either the #8 pick or the ficitional first-rounder received from Cincy. Ferguson is more than likely going in the top five.
Recommended Posts