If DaBrick is there at #3, how much (if anything)

[The Dean]

That Sir, is an interesting proposition!

 

Yeah Dean, I said it....the man came up with an original idea!     

666048[/snapback]

 

 

It's original, but stupid, IMO. There is NO indication the Bills are having problems signing Nate. If they do end up having trouble they have all season to make a better deal. I wouldn't trade up PERIOD. (OK, I take that back, our first round pick (#8) and Bennie Anderson. )

[Orton's Arm]

It's original, but stupid, IMO.  There is NO indication the Bills are having problems signing Nate.  If they do end up having trouble they have all season to make a better deal.  I wouldn't trade up PERIOD.  (OK, I take that back, our  first round pick (#8) and Bennie Anderson.  )

666341[/snapback]

In 2005, Nate got beaten more often than an egg at a chef school. Dean, can you promise the Bills Nate will return to 2004 form? Can you promise them Nate will sign a long-term deal? I read an article which stated the talks with Clements are "preliminary" and that there isn't as much contact between the Bills and Nate's agent as there had been a few weeks ago. Confusing this situation with a done deal is wishful thinking on your part.

 

The Bills have essentially four options for their first round pick:

1. Draft a QB

2. Trade up for an elite difference maker

3. Draft the best available non-QB at #8

4. Trade down

 

I don't want to turn this into another QB thread, so I'll ignore option 1. Option 2--trading up for an elite difference maker--could give the Bills the next Julius Peppers or Levi Jones. This team could use more elite difference makers, especially on the lines.

 

Then there's option 3--drafting the best available non-QB at #8. If the big three QBs all go in the top 7, option 3 is a good one. But if at least one of those QBs falls to Buffalo, then odds are that Bush, Williams, Ferguson, Hawk, and Davis are all off the boards. No sense in reaching for a player like Ngata at #8 when players of similar quality will be available in the middle of the first round.

 

Trading down is a viable plan, especially if the right deal was available. I wouldn't mind having extra picks in a nice, deep draft like this one. The main situation I want to avoid is one where we stay at #8, don't get a QB, and don't get one of the five best non-QBs.

[The Dean]

In 2005, Nate got beaten more often than an egg at a chef school.  Dean, can you promise the Bills Nate will return to 2004 form?  Can you promise them Nate will sign a long-term deal?  I read an article which stated the talks with Clements are "preliminary" and that there isn't as much contact between the Bills and Nate's agent as there had been a few weeks ago.  Confusing this situation with a done deal is wishful thinking on your part.

 

The Bills have essentially four options for their first round pick:

1. Draft a QB

2. Trade up for an elite difference maker

3. Draft the best available non-QB at #8

4. Trade down

 

I don't want to turn this into another QB thread, so I'll ignore option 1.  Option 2--trading up for an elite difference maker--could give the Bills the next Julius Peppers or Levi Jones.  This team could use more elite difference makers, especially on the lines.   

 

Then there's option 3--drafting the best available non-QB at #8.  If the big three QBs all go in the top 7, option 3 is a good one.  But if at least one of those QBs falls to Buffalo, then odds are that Bush, Williams, Ferguson, Hawk, and Davis are all off the boards.  No sense in reaching for a player like Ngata at #8 when players of similar quality will be available in the middle of the first round.

 

Trading down is a viable plan, especially if the right deal was available.  I wouldn't mind having extra picks in a nice, deep draft like this one.  The main situation I want to avoid is one where we stay at #8, don't get a QB, and don't get one of the five best non-QBs.

666378[/snapback]

 

 

First of all I NEVER said the Clements situation was a "done deal". I said there was no credible reason to think the deal was in trouble...and there isn't. Make no mistake about it, Nate will play for the Bills this year. Whether he plays beyond this year is up in the air.

 

Your initial reason for the trade made no mention of Nat's performance as a reason to include him in the trade, so I didn't bring that up. Now that you've introduced that into the equation, I guess I'll address it: Nate had a crappy year (not nearly the disaster some would make it out to be...but bad). But even so, his trade value has to be much higher than what you propose.

 

Your four options are only four options because you made them four options. You could have easily said the Bills have two options: "Pick a player at #8 or trade the pick" there is nothing intrinsic about your "four options". The Bills could also trade up and pick a bust (EVERY draft pick is a risk).

 

What I don't understand is you say the Bills can "Draft the best available non-QB at #8". (I'm not sure why QB is essential there. I would say "the Bills can draft the best available player at #8" as the best available player at #8 will NOT be a QB, IMO.

 

With that said, what it seems you mean is, the Bills should draft a player YOU LIKE at #8, or they should make a trade. That's certainly understandable. I want the Bills to draft a player I like wherever they may draft.

 

Basically, you said a lot of nothing in the post, as far as I can tell, and still made no case for the #8 and Nate for #3 trade.

 

I think we both agree it would be nice to get MORE picks in this draft...but, I wouldn't trade Nate to move up 5 places.

[Orton's Arm]

Basically, you said a lot of nothing in the post, as far as I can tell, and still made no case for the #8 and Nate for #3 trade.

 

I think we both agree it would be nice to get MORE picks in this draft...but, I wouldn't trade Nate to move up 5 places.

Your main point seems to be that Nate has more trade value than just a five place jump in the draft. If you're right, the Bills could offer Nate + 8th overall for a 3rd round pick + 3rd overall. But keep in mind that it's expensive to move up five places when you're looking at very early draft picks. The Giants, who picked 4th overall, gave up their 1st round pick in the following year's draft, plus some other stuff, to move up just three places. While moving up is expensive, it's worth it if you can get the right player.

[Dawgg]

Nate Clements is an established player who had one bad year. He had 3 solid seasons before suffering a major setback this year.

 

It happens.

 

Trading an established, young talent in exchange for a younger, uncertain (and more expensive) talent is not smart business. We would be much better off as a TEAM retaining his services for one more season and letting him go afterwards than we would if we traded him to move up in the draft.

 

The Bills have all kinds of leverage with Clements. He is forced to stick with Buffalo this season. Moreover, if he simply signs the one-year tender, he risks getting injured (like Javon Walker) and losing out on a huge paycheck.

 

So yes, this team is rebuilding and it should start, not end, with Clements if at all possible.

 

Your main point seems to be that Nate has more trade value than just a five place jump in the draft.  If you're right, the Bills could offer Nate + 8th overall for a 3rd round pick + 3rd overall.  But keep in mind that it's expensive to move up five places when you're looking at very early draft picks.  The Giants, who picked 4th overall, gave up their 1st round pick in the following year's draft, plus some other stuff, to move up just three places.  While moving up is expensive, it's worth it if you can get the right player.

666451[/snapback]

[BADOLBILZ]

For the two you mentioned, there are 2-3 times as many guys who've failed to justify their top-5 selection.  Pretty poor odds in a sport that places a premium on teamwork, scheme and coaching.

666078[/snapback]

 

After you did the research, clearly you were wrong. Those lists of highly drafted OT's prove the point that it is a position that is easier to project to the pros than most and the longevity is outstanding. Even some of the disappointing guys like Gallery and Davis are going to be good pros for a long, long time.

[Orton's Arm]

We would be much better off as a TEAM retaining his services for one more season and letting him go afterwards than we would if we traded him to move up in the draft. 

I strongly disagree with this sentiment. The Bills should be looking for long-term value, not one-and-done propositions. If Nate isn't willing to sign a fair, long-term contract, the Bills should clearly trade him. On the other hand, if the Bills sense Nate would be willing to spend his career in Buffalo, then obviously he'd be a lot more valuable to the Bills, and they should be that much less willing to trade him away.

[BADOLBILZ]

I would NOT give up next year's first.

 

How about we swap 1sts, and give up a 2nd and a 3rd in 06, and a 2nd in 07?

 

Btw, I have NO idea how this would play out on the chart. I am just trying to have friendly Bills conversation here! 

666040[/snapback]

 

Nothing. In an average draft, with a deep, talented team it would be different, but the Bills roster is shallow to say the least. Trading picks to move up and select an OT doesn't work when you also have holes at 3 other OL positions.

 

I would consider trading Nate to move up and select Mario Williams though. The reason being that the new defense is driven by the pass rush, not man coverage, and Williams is a guy who can play both DE and DT. I am a big Nate fan, but putting him in a cover 2 defense and paying him cover corner money to play zone defense is not a good use of his skills. Be that as it may, I'd hate to see this defense WITHOUT Clements and with a starting DL of Kelsay, Triplett, Anderson and Schobel. Ouch.

 

I guess I'd rather keep the #8 and still pick up Davin Joseph and/or Andrew Whitworth than just getting D'Brick.

[Bill from NYC]

Actually, TD burned the 4th overall pick in the 2002 draft on an OL.

666332[/snapback]

 

Well, there were two good Left Tackles on the board along with a fat RT who had a history of injuries. TD opted for the fat RT (the earliest RT ever selected) and the rest is history.

[John from Riverside]

I wouldn't give up a damn thing....

 

I firmly believe that Jason Peters is going to end up being our LT (maybe not this upcoming year but the year after)

[Bill from NYC]

Don't forget, playmakers win championships, while grunts like Da Brick merely support the playmakers.

666104[/snapback]

 

Thanks. I will remember that when I see film of the Redskins and the Hogs setting up a big time playmaker, Mark Rypien!

Football is won and lost in the trenches. I guess you missed the interview where Peyton Manning was badmouthing his OL after the playoff loss.

If little "skill" players made football teams win, I guess we would have been wearing our Losman or Parrish jerseys to the superbowl.

[Dawgg]

Long-term value is debatable here. What has more long-term value:

 

Keeping Clements and using the #8 Pick?

 

-or- trading Clements + pick(s) for a higher pick?

 

The answer is predicated on how successful this higher pick is (suppose it's Brick) and that is NOT a sure bet by any means! What if he's a bust? What if he's a perennial Pro Bowler??? Bottom line is that we don't know. So trading a known commodity who is one-year removed from a Pro Bowl PLUS picks for an unknown commodity is not necessarily a long-term value proposition. Could it be? Maybe. But you simply cannot make that prediction now.

 

Alternatively, you franchise Clements and keep him for the year and you can keep playing this game. If Clements came back with a monster year, then maybe it's worth signign him for the big bucks. If he comes back with another lackluster year, you can send him away... but bottom line, it gives you a year to play with to decide whether that long-term financial committment is worth it or not. And the price you pay to wait a year? You get the services of one of the best young DB's in the league.

 

 

 

I strongly disagree with this sentiment.  The Bills should be looking for long-term value, not one-and-done propositions.  If Nate isn't willing to sign a fair, long-term contract, the Bills should clearly trade him.  On the other hand, if the Bills sense Nate would be willing to spend his career in Buffalo, then obviously he'd be a lot more valuable to the Bills, and they should be that much less willing to trade him away.

666519[/snapback]

[Rico]

Thanks. I will remember that when I see film of the Redskins and the Hogs setting up a big time playmaker, Mark Rypien!

Football is won and lost in the trenches. I guess you missed the interview where Peyton Manning was badmouthing his OL after the playoff loss.

If little "skill" players made football teams win, I guess we would have been wearing our Losman or Parrish jerseys to the superbowl. 

666538[/snapback]

The Hogs were only a small part of that victory, their D won the game. If the Bills O braintrust would've made necessary adjustments, they might've won or at least kept it close.... but Pettibon & co. proved to be too much.

 

Kurt Gouveia, Charles Mann, Wilbur Marshall, Brad Edwards, Andre Collins, Gary Clark, Art Monk.... those are the playmakers who stepped up & made the difference in that game, far more than any OL grunt.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think you need a good OL to be a winner... but you need great playmakers to be a champion.

[JAMIEBUF12]

give houston our #8 and nate clements for the #1 pick overall..............i think that would be good for both side......houston still gets a great player at#8 and they get a established player in nate..............after that we draft mario williams #1...go bills in"06

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

give houston our #8 and nate clements for the #1 pick overall..............i think that would be good for both side......houston still gets a great player at#8 and they get a established player in nate..............after that we draft mario williams #1...go bills in"06

666580[/snapback]

giving up way to much you just lost a starting CB to get to pick a DE???

[Orton's Arm]

Long-term value is debatable here.  What has more long-term value:

 

Keeping Clements and using the #8 Pick?

 

-or- trading Clements + pick(s) for a higher pick?

 

You sound more convincing this time around. If the only option is to go one-and-done with Nate, the Bills should trade him instead. But if it's a disagreement about contract numbers, you're right in saying the Bills could use the 2006 season to evaluate whether Nate is worth the kind of money he's asking for. Having said that, the potential of locking Nate up long-term, while useful, isn't as good as a long-term deal would be. Let's say Nate has an outstanding season for 2006. There's a chance he could start up that, "I'm the best CB in the NFL and expect to be paid accordingly" routine again. I think that it becomes more expensive to franchise a player two years in a row. If so, Nate's bargaining position would become more powerful after the 2006 season. He'd have an incentive to be difficult to negotiate with, knowing that some team with unused salary cap space would throw crazy money at a good, young CB like him.

[PatPatPatSack]

You wrote that just to get a response didn't you???

 

#4 1983 Chris Hinton 7 pro bowls

#2 1984 Dean Steinkuhler 5 pro bowls

#2 1995 Tony Boselli 5 pro bowls

#4 1996 Jonathan Ogden 9 pro bowls

#1 1997 Orlando Pace 7 pro bowls

666084[/snapback]

 

 

yeah, but that was all in the past...

[Bill from NYC]

The Hogs were only a small part of that victory, their D won the game. If the Bills O braintrust would've made necessary adjustments, they might've won or at least kept it close.... but Pettibon & co. proved to be too much. 

 

Kurt Gouveia, Charles Mann, Wilbur Marshall, Brad Edwards, Andre Collins, Gary Clark, Art Monk.... those are the playmakers who stepped up & made the difference in that game, far more than any OL grunt.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think you need a good OL to be a winner... but you need great playmakers to be a champion.

666577[/snapback]

 

You are friggin nuts, but also fun to talk football with.

[Lurker]

The Hogs were only a small part of that victory, their D won the game. If the Bills O braintrust would've made necessary adjustments, they might've won or at least kept it close.... but Pettibon & co. proved to be too much. 

 

Kurt Gouveia, Charles Mann, Wilbur Marshall, Brad Edwards, Andre Collins, Gary Clark, Art Monk.... those are the playmakers who stepped up & made the difference in that game, far more than any OL grunt.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think you need a good OL to be a winner... but you need great playmakers to be a champion.

666577[/snapback]

 

Rypien played the game of his life that day.

 

SB XXVI Recap:

 

Mark Rypien passed for 292 yards and two touchdowns as the Redskins overwhelmed the Bills to win their third Super Bowl in the past 10 years.

 

Rypien, the game's most valuable player, completed 18 of 33 passes, including a 10-yard scoring strike to Earnest Byner and a 30-yard touchdown to Gary Clark. The latter came late in the third quarter after Buffalo had trimmed a 24-0 deficit to 24-10, and effectively put the game out of reach.

 

Washington went on to lead by as much as 37-10 before the Bills made it close wih a pair of touchdowns in the final six minutes.

 

Though the Redskins struggled early, converting their first three drives inside the Bills' 20-yard line into only three points, they built a 17-0 halftime lead. And they made it 24-0 just 16 seconds into the second half, after Kurt Gouveia intercepted Buffalo quarterback Jim Kelly's pass on the first play of the third quarter and returned it 23 yards to the Bills' 2.

 

One play later, Gerald Riggs scored his second touchdown of the game to make it 24-0. Kelly, forced to bring Buffalo from behind, completed 28 of a Super Bowl-record 58 passes for 275 yards and two touchdowns, but was intercepted four tlmes.

 

Bills running back Thurman Thomas, who had an AFC-high 1,407 yards rushing and an NFL-best 2,038 total yards from scrimmage during the regular season, ran for only 13 yards on 10 carries and was limited to 27 yards on four receptions.

 

Clark had seven catches for 114 yards and Art Monk added seven for 113 for the Redskins, who amassed 417 yards of total offense while limiting the explosive Bills to 283.

 

Washington's Joe Gibbs became only the third head coach to win three Super Bowls.