Nate Clements

[H2o]

With Nate Clement our franchised player for the 2006 season not saying much or the Bills not saying much, I don't know what we should do. I know that he's young and a GOOD corner in this league. I'd hate to see us lose another GOOD corner for nothing in return though, like we did with Winifield to Minnesota What should the Bills do? Personally, I would try to get a long-term deal done until a couple of weeks before the trading deadline. If it didn't work out to where we could atleast lock him in for another 3 years, I'd seriously explore the options of moving him. I'd hate to see him go believe me, but the possibility of getting nothing in return is discouraging. It's an extremely tough situation. But if he's talking like he's going to bolt on Buffalo, I'd trade him and let Youboty start learning and taking his lumps at starting corner early. What do the rest of you guys think?

[Dibs]

With Nate Clement our franchised player for the 2006 season not saying much or the Bills not saying much, I don't know what we should do. I know that he's young and a GOOD corner in this league. I'd hate to see us lose another GOOD corner for nothing in return though, like we did with Winifield to Minnesota What should the Bills do? Personally, I would try to get a long-term deal done until a couple of weeks before the trading deadline. If it didn't work out to where we could atleast lock him in for another 3 years, I'd seriously explore the options of moving him. I'd hate to see him go believe me, but the possibility of getting nothing in return is discouraging. It's an extremely tough situation. But if he's talking like he's going to bolt on Buffalo, I'd trade him and let Youboty start learning and taking his lumps at starting corner early. What do the rest of you guys think?

719023[/snapback]

I have a feeling the reason why we did not sign him up long term already was because Marv & Co. were not going to lock up BIG dollars long-term on a guy who had just had a very bad(for him) year. I tend to think that if NC was coming off back to back pro bowl type years we would have him locked up for top dollar.

Hopefully he will play his a$$ off this year. If he does, he tests the FA market, we Transition tag him(assuming they have fixed it) & we retain him for what he is worth....big bucks hopefully.

If he is worth keeping...i.e. he has a pro bowl type season...& he is let go, we will probably get a 3rd round compensation pick because of the loss. Not good...but better than nothing.

[Bill from NYC]

  If he does, he tests the FA market, we Transition tag him(assuming they have fixed it) & we retain him for what he is worth....big bucks hopefully.

719027[/snapback]

 

I am pretty sure that the Bills used the transition tag years ago (Jeff Wright?) and no longer have it.

 

Also, it is written into his contract that the Bills will NOT use the Franchise Tag on him in 07.

[scribo]

I agree with Water that keeping Nate around until shortly before the trading deadline seems like a good plan, especially if Nate is having a good season AND Youboty is showing the ability to step in as the #2 corner at least by the '07-'08 season. If Nate is playing less than stellar D in the new system, he may be willing to re-sign for a reasonable price. If he is playing well, and I predict he will be, then the Bills should be able to get a first for him from an NFC team in the playoff hunt. But reality, in my humble view, is that I expect Marv to make a stong push to keep him around. And there may be a shortage of teams willing to part with a first round pick for a player in the middle of the season because Nate would have to learn the new team's system right then.

[scribo]

I am pretty sure that the Bills used the transition tag years ago (Jeff Wright?) and no longer have it.

 

Also, it is written into his contract that the Bills will NOT use the Franchise Tag on him in 07.

719033[/snapback]

Bill, I know we went through this a couple of months ago. The transition tag is not a use-only-once-ever kind of thing. Nonetheless, it would be very underhanded and not wise to tag Nate with anything next year after telling him what they apparently told him.

[ch19079]

we cant franchise him so after this year we will have to either sign him or let him walk.

 

its to late to trade him now.

 

i say, if he plays like a top 5 CB, then pay him. if not, then let him go.

[scribo]

we cant franchise him so after this year we will have to either sign him or let him walk.

 

its to late to trade him now.

 

i say, if he plays like a top 5 CB, then pay him. if not, then let him go.

719047[/snapback]

How do you figure it's too late to trade him? The Bills still have the rights to him. The one problem the Bills could run into is that a trade partner would likel require Nate agree to a new contract with the new team before pulling the trigger on the trade. At this point, the only teams that would likely want to part with a first-round pick would be teams that feel they are "one player away." In which case, Bate would likely want to go play there.

 

By the way, as for the transition tag, here is a good link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Tag

The transition tag can be used once a year by each club unless they elect to use a franchise tag instead. Transition tags can be rescinded, however, teams that rescind a transition tag cannot use it again until the next season.

 

If a player signs a contract after receiving the transition tag, his original team can not use the tag again on any player until the contract has expired. The exception is if the player first signs a transition offer sheet, which is a one-year contract equal to the average salary of the top ten players in the league at the player's position, or a twenty percent salary increase, whichever is greater.

[Ramius]

I am pretty sure that the Bills used the transition tag years ago (Jeff Wright?) and no longer have it.

 

Also, it is written into his contract that the Bills will NOT use the Franchise Tag on him in 07.

719033[/snapback]

 

The system has changed along with the times. This used ot be the case, but not any more. Here's a quote from wikipedia...

 

The transition tag was born in 1993, following the advent of free agency in the NFL. Teams were afraid of losing their best players to free agency, which was not a concern previously. The NFL granted each team two transition tags, each of which they could only use once and never again. The system has been since changed to allow each team to use a transition tag each year it is available to them.

[OnTheRocks]

I don't think Nate will be back next season.

 

It will depend on the confidence level the coaches have with Youboty by the end of the seaon. If he turns out to be totally lost out on the field, the Bills may have to dig deep in their pockets and pay the man. The other option is to find a mid-range priced vet to cover them until Youboty gets his feet wet.

[Bill from NYC]

The system has changed along with the times. This used ot be the case, but not any more. Here's a quote from wikipedia...

719065[/snapback]

 

Do you know when this was changed?

I wonder if the Bills could have tried to use it on Winfield?

[Ramius]

Do you know when this was changed?

I wonder if the Bills could have tried to use it on Winfield?

719072[/snapback]

 

I'm not sure when it was changed. Woudl we have used it on winfield tho, assuming we had it? All the transition tag does is allow us to match any offer, and if we let them walk, there's no compensation. And i highly doubt TD would have matched the 35 mil offer from the vikes.

[Bill from NYC]

I'm not sure when it was changed. Woudl we have used it on winfield tho, assuming we had it? All the transition tag does is allow us to match any offer, and if we let them walk, there's no compensation. And i highly doubt TD would have matched the 35 mil offer from the vikes.

719074[/snapback]

 

Probably not, when we can always take yet another db in the 1st round.

(just breakin' your shoes)

 

I don't remember the specifics of the Winfield deal, but I have a feeling that in a year or 2 it will not look so expensive.

And btw no, I don't think TD would have matched an offer like that.

[JAMIEBUF12]

even though we promised nate that we wouldnt lay the francise tag on him if he signed a contract with us we would be foolish to not put a transisition tag on him...i cant see letting nate walk and then the nfl awarding us a 5th round pick for our loss and the jets or patsies will let some player walk they drafted in the 5th round walk and probably coup a 3rd round extra pick from the nfl "for their significant loss" lol lol ....go jp and go bills in"06

[Orton's Arm]

The Bills need to have a clear idea in their heads as to whether they're going to match whatever offers Clements might receive. It's a pretty safe assumption that the better he plays, the higher the offers will be. So are the Bills fully and completely prepared to match these offers? If there's hesitation or doubt about the point, he should be traded. The last thing this team needs is another Antoine Winfield.

 

As for the supposition that the Bills would receive a compensatory pick if he was signed away, that's not something they should count on at all. Apparently, the compensatory pick system is very complicated--the Donahone/Mularkey regime openly admitted to not understanding it. But roughly, the formula compares the overall value of the free agents a team has acquired, to that of those lost. If, based on draft position, salary, etc., the overall value of the subtractions is deemed higher than the additions, compensatory picks are awarded. The best possible compensatory pick is one at the end of the third round. I doubt we'll get that for Nate, because he's likely to be the only significant free agent subtraction, and because the Bills are likely to sign Triplett-like free agents which will have an offsetting effect.

[Mickey]

I have a feeling the reason why we did not sign him up long term already was because Marv & Co. were not going to lock up BIG dollars long-term on a guy who had just had a very bad(for him) year.  I tend to think that if NC was coming off back to back pro bowl type years we would have him locked up for top dollar.

Hopefully he will play his a$$ off this year.  If he does, he tests the FA market, we Transition tag him(assuming they have fixed it) & we retain him for what he is worth....big bucks hopefully.

If he is worth keeping...i.e. he has a pro bowl type season...& he is let go, we will probably get a 3rd round compensation pick because of the loss.  Not good...but better than nothing.

719027[/snapback]

I thought part of the deal was not not tag him next year as either a franchise or transitional player, no?

 

In any event I agree with your take on why Marv didn't sign him. He did not have a good year and paying a ton to a guy who was pretty shaky makes no sense at all. For my money, I don't think Nate is a premier corner. The Patriots have a pretty good coach and back when we had Winfield, the Pats threw at Clements all day. They especially liked naked WR screens where Nate was man to man, if he missed the tackle, it was a big gain and that was often the case. I give some weight to BB's judgment on Clements which was plain to see when we played the Patsies.

[JAMIEBUF12]

i also see no reason why we shouldnt pay nate..the salary cap just increased significantly...we should keep the players we drafted if we are able to do so.....unless we plan on buying more expensive players for the o-line or d-line we should pay nate.....

[Ramius]

Probably not, when we can always take yet another db in the 1st round. 

(just breakin' your shoes) 

 

I don't remember the specifics of the Winfield deal, but I have a feeling that in a year or 2 it will not look so expensive.

And btw no, I don't think TD would have matched an offer like that.

719078[/snapback]

 

I remember the vikes did something like front loaded AW's contract, and took the cap hit for the entire bonus is year 1 instead of spreading it out. AW cost something crazy like 15 mil against the cap in year , but every subsequent year he only cost around 3 million. I'd love to see the Bills do that this season with the cap space we have, and lock up some young talent, but i dont forsee that happening.

 

Theoretically, youboty (or king) should be ready to step into that no. 2 corner role next year when we let clements walk. Therefore there shoudl really be NO need to draft a round 1 corner next draft. As of right now, if we draft a DB in round 1 next year, i'll be

[H2o]

I have a feeling the reason why we did not sign him up long term already was because Marv & Co. were not going to lock up BIG dollars long-term on a guy who had just had a very bad(for him) year.  I tend to think that if NC was coming off back to back pro bowl type years we would have him locked up for top dollar.

Hopefully he will play his a$$ off this year.  If he does, he tests the FA market, we Transition tag him(assuming they have fixed it) & we retain him for what he is worth....big bucks hopefully.

If he is worth keeping...i.e. he has a pro bowl type season...& he is let go, we will probably get a 3rd round compensation pick because of the loss.  Not good...but better than nothing.

719027[/snapback]

 

Good point. His year was less than stellar for a Pro-Bowler's standards. I think he was effected by the whole attitude that surrounded our team last year too. I hope that the new scheme and regime atleast brings in a change of attitude with them.

 

As far as my feelings on Nate goes, I just hope we get something in return for him if we're not going to keep him. I think teams would jump on a corner with his ability in the middle of the season though. Corners are usually out on an island playing man to man for the most part. The only thing Nate would have to get down would be the terminology, zone packages, and blitzes. Shouldn't take a player of his caliber long to do that.

[John from Riverside]

It is amazing what winning can do for a situation like this.....

 

Lets see how the season pans out....

[syhuang]

I remember the vikes did something like front loaded AW's contract, and took the cap hit for the entire bonus is year 1 instead of spreading it out. AW cost something crazy like 15 mil against the cap in year , but every subsequent year he only cost around 3 million. I'd love to see the Bills do that this season with the cap space we have, and lock up some young talent, but i dont forsee that happening.

719094[/snapback]

 

You're right, all of the bonus money in AW's contract is roster bonus and not signing bonus and, thus, counted only to year 1.

 

Vikings received 10+ million extra cap room in that year because lots of their players didn't achieve their LTBE money in the previous season. Vikings then used this additional 10+ million cap to sign AW and make the contract cap friendly.