UConn James Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 For a guy who's making $7M, Nate has nary been heard from in these two games. The only time I saw him yesterday was when he got dragged by the ballcarrier on the 3rd & 4 play. I guess the argument could be made that not hearing his name is a good thing. The D played lights-out yesterday and some credit is due, but how much? Look at McGee making plays all over the field, helping in run defense.... Nate has become our de facto #2 CB. Playing it safe to avoid injury before he hits the market? If he can't step it up a notch when he's playing for a contract, what does he do when a fat contract makes him a little complacent? If his season keeps going the way it has, he certainly won't be back here for the kind of jack it would take to sign him.
Alaska Darin Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 There's a reason the DLine had so much time to make plays...
Like A Mofo Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 There's a reason the DLine had so much time to make plays... 777656[/snapback] Bingo. Maybe in some cases, not hearing or seeing NC is an indication that he i playing well, almost like an OL, if you do not really hear his name, then he is not making mistakes, etc.
Mike formerly from Florida Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Bingo. Maybe in some cases, not hearing or seeing NC is an indication that he i playing well, almost like an OL, if you do not really hear his name, then he is not making mistakes, etc. 777659[/snapback] ...or the league still respects him, and aren't throwing his way which maybe why McGee was in on a lot of plays. With McGee stepping it up, Clements returning to his normal form, and those two sick rooks, we have the best secondary in the league...perhaps.
smokinandjokin Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 There's a reason the DLine had so much time to make plays... 777656[/snapback] I believe Simpson's sack was the one time Culpepper was bumrushed and really had no chance. On the majority of the others, he was scanning the field for a LONG time, and even rolling out to buy more time, when our DLine finally got to him. Great game by the secondary. Only an INCREDIBLE catch by Chambers spoiled what was a dominating performance.
Peter Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 There's a reason the DLine had so much time to make plays... 777656[/snapback] You are correct about that. I was at the game yesterday. The defensive backs played well. A lot of the sacks we got were because of the coverage.
JinWPB Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Only an INCREDIBLE catch by Chambers spoiled what was a dominating performance. 777674[/snapback] I do recall Nate getting beat pretty badly by M. Booker for a big 1st down. If he has such great speed and quickness why play so far off the receiver he can,t make a play on the ball? Is it by design, or is Nate just afraid of getting beat ? Seems he rarely plays a press or tries to disrupt a route and not just in this game.
bills_fan Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 I do recall Nate getting beat pretty badly by M. Booker for a big 1st down. If he has such great speed and quickness why play so far off the receiver he can,t make a play on the ball?Is it by design, or is Nate just afraid of getting beat ? Seems he rarely plays a press or tries to disrupt a route and not just in this game. Nate was on Booker most of the day and McGee was on Chambers, from my watching of the game. And yes, Booker had a couple of nice catches vs. Nate.
nick in* england Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Lets squash this thread now. Nate Clements had a good game yesterday. He did everything we asked of him and gave up very little in what was a dominant total D performance. Let's not let our feelings about his contract situation get in the way of his performance on the field.
sven233 Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 The fact is, the less I hear Clements and McGee's name, the better because that means they are doing their jobs down the field. So, not hearing his name that last 2 games is a good thing.
billsfanone Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Well if you didn't see him much, then they weren't throwing his way, which means he was playing well.
smokinandjokin Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 I do recall Nate getting beat pretty badly by M. Booker for a big 1st down. If he has such great speed and quickness why play so far off the receiver he can,t make a play on the ball? Is it by design, or is Nate just afraid of getting beat ? Seems he rarely plays a press or tries to disrupt a route and not just in this game. 777802[/snapback] Holy schit man, the guy caught a pass. Big deal. I think the only name I heard less than Clements' was Booker's.
billsfanone Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Holy schit man, the guy caught a pass. Big deal. I think the only name I heard less than Clements' was Booker's. 777869[/snapback] Some fans won't be happy if the score was 77-0.
Alaska Darin Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Some fans won't be happy if the score was 77-0. 777871[/snapback] Why didn't we score 80?
smokinandjokin Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Why didn't we score 80? 777874[/snapback] Clements let a guy get a first down on a 7-yd slant on 3rd and 5. Otherwise they would've had to punt and the Bills would've had another chance on offense.
billsfanone Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Why didn't we score 80? 777874[/snapback]
Alaska Darin Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Clements let a guy get a first down on a 7-yd slant on 3rd and 5. Otherwise they would've had to punt and the Bills would've had another chance on offense. 777875[/snapback] So? It's just one more chance for Losman to make a game changing turnover. Sincerely, Giorgass
JinWPB Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Holy schit man, the guy caught a pass. Big deal. I think the only name I heard less than Clements' was Booker's. 777869[/snapback] Heh, I never got off the wagon, it just seems like for the past season and so far this year when we get beat it badly on a pass play it's been on Nate or so it seems. Not saying it's him, just sayin.
Lurker Posted September 18, 2006 Posted September 18, 2006 Anytime you don't hear the CB's name when the opposition scores 6 points, it's a good thing...
Recommended Posts