Beerball Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Nice read on the player formerly known as the Playmaker. Bills need Nate to earn his paycheck. linky
BUFFALOTONE Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Thats pretty true to form. Clements hasbt done anything great so far this year. I know its early but he needs to be the leader now that TV is gone and Spikes is sidelined. I dont think he will be a Bill next year because of our recent draft but if he wants is payday he better step up and show that hes worth it, because right now hes not.
5 Wide Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 I know one of the arguments is that people throw away from Nate Clements and what not. However, he is making over $7 Million this season, and at that price, he needs to be a difference maker on the field. He has to make plays other players are not capable of making, he needs to turn a game or momentum at some point. These are not things he is doing, he is not changing the game, he is merely proving to be a "nice" player.
R. Rich Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 A consistent pass rush (from more than one player) will go a long way toward allowing our DBs to make more plays.
Mile High Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 A consistent pass rush (from more than one player) will go a long way toward allowing our DBs to make more plays. 789200[/snapback] I think it's the other way around with this team. If sacks are going to be more abundant, it's due to coverage in the secondary.
5 Wide Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 A consistent pass rush (from more than one player) will go a long way toward allowing our DBs to make more plays. 789200[/snapback] But you can't always justify a single player because he may lack supporting pieces around him. Barry Sanders never had an o-line, Dominik Hasek never had a top flight defense etc...great playmakers need to be able to change the flow of the game based off of a great individual effort
R. Rich Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 I think it's the other way around with this team. If sacks are going to be more abundant, it's due to coverage in the secondary. 789206[/snapback] My guess (and, of course, that's all it is: a guess) is that guys like Clements, McGee, Thomas, Youboty, Simpson, Wire, and Whitner don't feel that way. I'm sure they'd love to have better support via the pass rush so that they're not in coverage as long.
R. Rich Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 But you can't always justify a single player because he may lack supporting pieces around him. Barry Sanders never had an o-line, Dominik Hasek never had a top flight defense etc...great playmakers need to be able to change the flow of the game based off of a great individual effort 789210[/snapback] True, but the pass rush sure would help. Now, if they're getting that kind of heat often and our DBs can't come up w/ the turnovers (aka Thomas Smith's Disease), then I'd really start to wonder.
Ray Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 If they're not throwing his way then he is doing his job. I don't recall him getting beat too often. He will not be worth the 16M signing bonus and whatever amount his agent demands I'm sure, but I have no problem with him making 7M this year if he keeps holding the other team's receivers to minimal catches.
Dan Gross Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 True, but the pass rush sure would help. Now, if they're getting that kind of heat often and our DBs can't come up w/ the turnovers (aka Thomas Smith's Disease), then I'd really start to wonder. 789217[/snapback] Do you mean like a 7 sack performance where no DB's have interceptions...?
RayFinkle Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 I think it's the other way around with this team. If sacks are going to be more abundant, it's due to coverage in the secondary. 789206[/snapback] You can't expect any DB in the league to be able to maintain cosistant coverage for an average of 5-7 seconds on every play. The rush needs to be there, or else it's just a matter of time.
Simon Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Sullivan's full of crap again, eh Simon? It's hard for me to tell whether or not you're being serious. I mean you have a strong enough opinion concerning a particular issue that you feel the need to call me out in your title. And your sole supporting evidence is an article by Jerry Sullivan?! When I first walked outside this morning I let a big sneeze fly. During the course of that sneeze I forgot more about corner play than Jerry Sullivan will ever know if he lives to be 300. If you want to base your opinions on the scribblings of a self-important, know-nothing, pencil-neck, yellow "journalist" like Sullivan, that's certainly your prerogative. I'll continue to base mine upon what actually happens on the field of play, thank you. Jerry Sulllivan... ........good one
pBills Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 A consistent pass rush (from more than one player) will go a long way toward allowing our DBs to make more plays. 789200[/snapback] I guess I am getting tired of blaming everything on a puss rush. After all there is such a thing called coverage sack. Let's face it, QB's do not fear Nate anymore and he's not worth the money.
pBills Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 You can't expect any DB in the league to be able to maintain cosistant coverage for an average of 5-7 seconds on every play. The rush needs to be there, or else it's just a matter of time. 789257[/snapback] Not every play... but once and while would be nice... especially from Nate's side of the field.
Simon Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Not every play... but once and while would be nice... especially from Nate's side of the field. 789287[/snapback] I see the comedians are out in full force today. I bet the Bills have racked up more coverage sacks than Clements has given up completions on the entire year.
ganesh Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 Thats pretty true to form. Clements hasbt done anything great so far this year. I know its early but he needs to be the leader now that TV is gone and Spikes is sidelined. I dont think he will be a Bill next year because of our recent draft but if he wants is payday he better step up and show that hes worth it, because right now hes not. 789189[/snapback] It doesn't matter, if Clements gets only 1 pick for the entire season...We were saying the same thing about Winfield. His last season here was anything but pro-bowl level and he still got the big change...I expect Clements to go the same route.
Peter Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 I have not read the article. Yet, to answer your question, Jerry Sullivan is full of crap. P.S. I am also convinced that he posts on TBD.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 I think the reason Clements and McGee are playing with cushion on the receivers is due to the inexperience of the safeties backing them up. As the Simpson and Whitner continue to grow the Bills will probably take more chances with their DB's...
R. Rich Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 I have not read the article. Yet, to answer your question, Jerry Sullivan is full of crap. P.S. I am also convinced that he posts on TBD. 789381[/snapback] Alright, busted! How did you know, Peter?
ganesh Posted September 28, 2006 Posted September 28, 2006 I think the reason Clements and McGee are playing with cushion on the receivers is due to the inexperience of the safeties backing them up. As the Simpson and Whitner continue to grow the Bills will probably take more chances with their DB's... 789387[/snapback] I agree...Also, until our DL can be dominating these guys are going to play back to avoid the big plays....
Recommended Posts