Frez Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 The deadline for the Bills to designate a franchise or transition player is 4:00 p.m. ET Thursday, February 23.
Pete Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 He should already be franchised. Marv better not !@#$ this one up!
BillsGuyInMalta Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 They're probably just seeing if they can get anywhere with contract negotiations first. Pretty standard really.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Yep. Try to work out a long-term contract. If that doesn't work, franchise him. Then try and trade him. If they can't, they either keep him for the year or remove the tag and let him walk.
eball Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Marv the GM fired his first shot across the bow today. Notice was served that the Bills will not hesitate to franchise Nate.
Frez Posted February 14, 2006 Author Posted February 14, 2006 I hope he stays. I know he had a so so year last year but for some unknown reason I don't think it was all him. I think he his better than what he played last season. That said, I hope he's back next year.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Yep. Try to work out a long-term contract. If that doesn't work, franchise him. Then try and trade him. If they can't, they either keep him for the year or remove the tag and let him walk. 602432[/snapback] LET HIM WALK! He's really not all that good. It's kind of strange talking to Bills fans latley because at the end of the season everyone wanted to get rid of Clements so badly and these same people are now saying they want him back. I kind of funny really! I only want to know why the change in opinion so suddenly? Anyway, I think the Bills should let him walk and take a chance on a CB from FA.
The Dean Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 LET HIM WALK! He's really not all that good. It's kind of strange talking to Bills fans latley because at the end of the season everyone wanted to get rid of Clements so badly and these same people are now saying they want him back. I kind of funny really! Anyway, I think the Bills should let him walk and take a chance on a CB from FA. 602450[/snapback] I assume you understand how little sense that makes. Even if we don't want him on the team, why let him walk when you can get something for him?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 LET HIM WALK! He's really not all that good. It's kind of strange talking to Bills fans latley because at the end of the season everyone wanted to get rid of Clements so badly and these same people are now saying they want him back. I kind of funny really! Anyway, I think the Bills should let him walk and take a chance on a CB from FA. No way! I don't know who said they wanted to get rid of him, but they're on drugs. Most "experts" have Clements as the top CB in FA, and letting him get away for free would be dumb. The Bills will have cap room to franchise him, keep the guys they want, AND still pursue other players, so trying to get something for him would be smart. Again at worst you keep him for $5.9M or you release him.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 I assume you understand how little sense that makes. Even if we don't want him on the team, why let him walk when you can get something for him? 602453[/snapback] If we can trade him for someone or get a draft pick from him, then I'm ok with that. I'm saying in general that we should get rid of him.
cåblelady Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Even if we don't want him on the team, why let him walk when you can get something for him? 602453[/snapback] chocolate? Mmmmm.....chocolate.
The Dean Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 chocolate? Mmmmm.....chocolate. 602459[/snapback] I'm sure you'll get plenty tomorrow...and you won't have to give up Nate.
sfladave Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Yep. Try to work out a long-term contract. If that doesn't work, franchise him. Then try and trade him. If they can't, they either keep him for the year or remove the tag and let him walk. 602432[/snapback] This is where I disagree, I think the Bills will keep Nate if they franchise him. This is especially likely when you factor in Marv's comments about having 3-4 good CBs is very important.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 This is where I disagree, I think the Bills will keep Nate if they franchise him. This is especially likely when you factor in Marv's comments about having 3-4 good CBs is very important. If they get a good offer for him, i.e. a 1st rounder, I think they have to listen to that and weigh the options of paying a CB well over $5M a year on average, versus putting that money to better use on the O-line and D-line, especially in the cover-2.
sfladave Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 If they get a good offer for him, i.e. a 1st rounder, I think they have to listen to that and weigh the options of paying a CB well over $5M a year on average, versus putting that money to better use on the O-line and D-line, especially in the cover-2. 602540[/snapback] I assume then that you would suggest that we start someone currently under contract or draft a CB. The problem I have with this is that no one currently on the roster or anyone we could draft would be able to step in to play CB as well as Nate can. So we would be taking a major step back in that position that Marv himself has said is so important, and to which I happen to strongly agree. To me any 1st round pick in a trade for Nate is a downward move for the Bills. Even when you factor in the cap savings it doesn't make sense to me. We still have to pay that additional 1st rounder and do it for an unknown in terms of contribution to the team. Ultimately I would like Nate signed to a long term deal before the beginning of the season. It would more than likely lower the cap hit and give us a very good CB tandem for the next 3-5 years. BTW I think that good CBs are what is needed in a cover 2 as opposed to barely adequate ones.
RkFast Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 If they get a good offer for him, i.e. a 1st rounder, I think they have to listen to that and weigh the options of paying a CB well over $5M a year on average, versus putting that money to better use on the O-line and D-line, especially in the cover-2. 602540[/snapback] Thank Youuuuuuuu. Im perplexed as to why so much attention is being paid to keeping a CB when there are so many more important spots on the team that need help.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 I assume then that you would suggest that we start someone currently under contract or draft a CB. The problem I have with this is that no one currently on the roster or anyone we could draft would be able to step in to play CB as well as Nate can. So we would be taking a major step back in that position that Marv himself has said is so important, and to which I happen to strongly agree. To me any 1st round pick in a trade for Nate is a downward move for the Bills. Even when you factor in the cap savings it doesn't make sense to me. We still have to pay that additional 1st rounder and do it for an unknown in terms of contribution to the team. Ultimately I would like Nate signed to a long term deal before the beginning of the season. It would more than likely lower the cap hit and give us a very good CB tandem for the next 3-5 years. BTW I think that good CBs are what is needed in a cover 2 as opposed to barely adequate ones. It's cost-versus-benefit thing. I think you can get a decent CB on the market, like a Jerry Azumah, who might be wanting to be reunited with Jauron and Fewell, and be able to take the savings and use it elsewhere. Sure keeping Nate would be great, but with the salary cap, it's more a luxury they can't afford.
TDRupp Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 It's cost-versus-benefit thing. I think you can get a decent CB on the market, like a Jerry Azumah, who might be wanting to be reunited with Jauron and Fewell, and be able to take the savings and use it elsewhere. Sure keeping Nate would be great, but with the salary cap, it's more a luxury they can't afford. 602553[/snapback] Trust me. Unless Nate starts spouting off about not even wanting to play unless he makes Champ Bailey money this year or he'll sit, he will be in Buffalo this year. He should be. He had a bad year but the guy is a VERY GOOD cb. Plain and simple. He is worth the franchise $ and worth probably the same kind of money that Carolina gave Ken Lucas or Dallas gave Anthony Henry. I am guessing Nate is a top 5-7 CB and will improve with an overall better D, assuming we get better.
sfladave Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 It's cost-versus-benefit thing. I think you can get a decent CB on the market, like a Jerry Azumah, who might be wanting to be reunited with Jauron and Fewell, and be able to take the savings and use it elsewhere. Sure keeping Nate would be great, but with the salary cap, it's more a luxury they can't afford. 602553[/snapback] To me keeping Nate is an important piece of the puzzle. I think we need to agree to disagree. It's a good thing we are not the ones trying to reach a consensus at OBD, we'd be making phone calls to each other at 3am to emphasize our points.
Rico Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 I'd rather have Nate on this team than Moulds... the cap $$$ you save by cutting EM will pay for Nate's franchise, close to a wash. Then cut MW and 1-3 others to free up cap room to sign EM's cheaper replacement, the RFA's we want to keep, 1-2 FA's for the OL (maybe Hartings is one of them), 1-2 FA's for the DL, maybe 1 other FA for another area, and there you go.
(2).thumb.jpeg.6e78fe3142ec9e6bfedbf027610db26f.jpeg)
Recommended Posts