Clements to Tampa Bay?

[BoondckCL]

807476[/snapback]

 

Doesn't that just work both sides of the fence perfectly? On one hand we take care of your concern for cap space, while on the other we get to keep Clements.

 

 

 

Boondock, you rule. That's right, i referred to myself in the third person.

[daquixers_is_back]

I've been to two home games so far this season, the others I have to admit I just couldn't see flying to see.  I suspect you watched those same ones on TV that I did.

 

With Nate the Great, I ain't impressed either live or on TV.  He ain't worth half the salary their paying him this year.

 

BTW, a crapload of used cap space on a so-so player is far worse.  That money isn't free.  It comes out of the team one way or the other.  And in a long-term deal, that cap space is tied up for much longer than just the current year.  Nate wants to tie up that cap space for 4 or more years.

 

Why do you think Marv agreed to pay him franchise tag money just this year?  Because they had some space and could afford to overpay him in the short-term (i.e. for ONE year).  He wasn't about to tie up cap space for this year and forseeable future years on a guy who is simply not performing at that level.  Better to commit that money to a player who's worth it.

807467[/snapback]

 

To not use the cap space is foolish IMO .. in fact the last time we went to the playoffs was when we were in cap trouble ... remember that? Coincidence. I think not.

 

In fact according to the projected 2006 salary cap space for each team the top 5 teams with most space currently have a record of 9-16 (.360 pct) ... the top 10 teams record is 27-25 (.519 pct) ... the top 15 teams record is 43-38 (.530 pct)

 

OK. Now do you want to hear the record of the teams who have LESS than 10 million in free space ... 21-12 (.636 pct)

 

How about teams with LESS than 9 million in free space? 20-7 (.740 pct)

 

And the only 2 teams in the league with 0 cap space you might ask? The NE Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts with a combined record of 9-1 (.900 pct)

 

Looks like the teams who use their cap space do quite well huh?

 

Speaking of contracts, the Islanders gave their goalie Rick DiPietro a 15 year, guaranteed 67.5 million dollar contract. Holy crap ... and the guy is 'average' at best the article says. Jeez.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

If the Bills are 10 mil under the cap next year too I'm going to feel like stabbing myself in the eye with a fork.  I'm about to that point right now since the Bills should be using the additional cap space this year to front load some contracts (like Clements or McGahee) and still have space in the future.

807028[/snapback]

 

 

why would you stab yourself in the eye with a fork? you could use a spoon to actually pop your eye out, leave it there dangling by the bloody strings for effect, and still have it popped back in if they spend the other $10m. you'd hate to have those four fork holes in your eyeball if they surprised you by coughing up the rest of the money. you're bound to mess up your vision doing something like that.

 

i think clements is going to go. there's the money part, and there's the "why stay on the team that's struggling when i can get the same coin and go elsewhere" philosophy. nate strikes me as a guy who might want it all.

 

you need to have a guy who wants to be here.

[daquixers_is_back]

why would you stab yourself in the eye with a fork?  you could use a spoon to actually pop your eye out, leave it there dangling by the bloody strings for effect, and still have it popped back in if they spend the other $10m.  you'd hate to have those four fork holes in your eyeball if they surprised you by coughing up the rest of the money.  you're bound to mess up your vision doing something like that. 

 

i think clements is going to go.  there's the money part, and there's the "why stay on the team that's struggling when i can get the same coin and go elsewhere" philosophy.  nate strikes me as a guy who might want it all. 

 

you need to have a guy who wants to be here.

807892[/snapback]

 

If nate is gone then you will be stabbing your eye because we will be about 25 mill under the cap and with only other teams scraps and draftees to sign.

[Fan in Chicago]

To not use the cap space is foolish IMO .. in fact the last time we went to the playoffs was when we were in cap trouble ... remember that? Coincidence. I think not.

 

807495[/snapback]

 

I see your point about maximizing the use of cap dollars. But except for Hutchinson and Bentley, there weren't really any good offensive lineman to spend the money on. I am pretty sure we will spend to acquire what we need on both lines.

This year, with the new coaches and new schemes, the only way to staff up was to look at past performance of the FAs and evaluate who would do well here or not. Same goes for our own players. Marv did a great job in keeping Nate for one more year to see how he fits. It is eminently obvious now that he does not.

So in this coming off-season, we know exactly which of the existing players are not performing well in the schemes. Thus the needs list becomes more clear than it was this past offseason. I expect us to load up on the linemen this offseason and prepare for a REAL playoff push next year.

We will probably end up dumping players such as Clements, Gandy, Tim Anderson and get their replacements + a real center. I wouldnt be surprised if Spikes is let go also.

[Chilly]

To not use the cap space is foolish IMO .. in fact the last time we went to the playoffs was when we were in cap trouble ... remember that? Coincidence. I think not.

 

In fact according to the projected 2006 salary cap space for each team the top 5 teams with most space currently have a record of 9-16 (.360 pct) ... the top 10 teams record is 27-25 (.519 pct) ... the top 15 teams record is  43-38 (.530 pct)

 

OK. Now do you want to hear the record of the teams who have LESS than 10 million in free space ... 21-12 (.636 pct)

 

How about teams with LESS than 9 million in free space? 20-7 (.740 pct)

 

And the only 2 teams in the league with 0 cap space you might ask? The NE Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts with a combined record of 9-1 (.900 pct)

 

Looks like the teams who use their cap space do quite well huh?

 

Speaking of contracts, the Islanders gave their goalie Rick DiPietro a 15 year, guaranteed 67.5 million dollar contract. Holy crap ... and the guy is 'average' at best the article says. Jeez.

807495[/snapback]

 

No. Teams who use their cap space on the right players to build a solid football team do well. Teams who don't use the cap space typically haven't found these players yet.

 

And if the Bills pulled a DiPietro, I'd go to OBD and stab them all in the eye with a fork myself.

[nobody]

With 25 Mil in cap space the Bills will be able to sign a couple of actual o-line men.

[bills4bowl21]

i used to think nate was the best in the league up to about 1/2 way through last season--before that i was a huge clements fan....i dont know what happned to him...he started playing soft

[BoondckCL]

i used to think nate was the best in the league up to about 1/2 way through last season--before that i was a huge clements fan....i dont know what happned to him...he started playing soft

808276[/snapback]

 

He started playing for a contract.

[ajzepp]

He started playing for a contract.

808381[/snapback]

 

I think there's probably something to that....maybe the guy is playing soft because he's not been locked up for the past two seasons. All I know is that when Nate is on his game, he's a damn good CB....one worth keeping around, IMO.

[BoondckCL]

I think there's probably something to that....maybe the guy is playing soft because he's not been locked up for the past two seasons. All I know is that when Nate is on his game, he's a damn good CB....one worth keeping around, IMO.

808394[/snapback]

 

I think he is worth keeping around, i just think that he stopped playing like the player we drafted and started looking for highlight plays so that he could be recognized. Had he stuck to what he did best, covering receivers straight up, he certainly would be worth the money we are dishing out right now.

[ajzepp]

I think he is worth keeping around, i just think that he stopped playing like the player we drafted and started looking for highlight plays so that he could be recognized. Had he stuck to what he did best, covering receivers  straight up, he certainly would be worth the money we are dishing out right now.

808398[/snapback]

 

I agree. People who just look at his game over the past season and a half have good reason to feel he's not worth it. But if you take what he's done since we drafted him in 2001, I don't see how anyone can say they don't want him here. Give the guy some financial security, keep a coach in his face, and I think he'll be back to form.

[daquixers_is_back]

I see your point about maximizing the use of cap dollars. But except for Hutchinson and Bentley, there weren't really any good offensive lineman to spend the money on. I am pretty sure we will spend to acquire what we need on both lines.

This year, with the new coaches and new schemes, the only way to staff up was to look at past performance of the FAs and evaluate who would do well here or not. Same goes for our own players. Marv did a  great job in keeping Nate for one more year to see how he fits. It is eminently obvious now that he does not.

So in this coming off-season, we know exactly which of the existing players are not performing well in the schemes. Thus the needs list becomes more clear than it was this past offseason. I expect us to load up on the linemen this offseason and prepare for a REAL playoff push next year.

We will probably end up dumping players such as Clements, Gandy, Tim Anderson and get their replacements + a real center. I wouldnt be surprised if Spikes is let go also.

808198[/snapback]

 

Thats the whole point! We will have enough money to sign Clements AND sign our draft picks AND sign a few OL/DL to improve. We have the money so why not sign Clements instead of having to waste a draft one? Think about that.

 

I think there's probably something to that....maybe the guy is playing soft because he's not been locked up for the past two seasons. All I know is that when Nate is on his game, he's a damn good CB....one worth keeping around, IMO.

808394[/snapback]

 

Thats another view at it. Maybe he is not going to play to full potention until he gets the contract he thinks he deserves? probably not, but an interesting theory ...

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

Any truth to the rumor that Clements being shipped to Tampa Bay for Booger MacFarland?  Please, can we get rid of this guy!!!

806088[/snapback]

 

I want to get rid of him too.

[daquixers_is_back]

I want to get rid of him too.

808480[/snapback]

 

And I doubt you have any reason to ... were you watching Clements his entire time as a Bill? Did you play football in highschool in highschool or college? Or are you one of those guys who watch it on TV, hear the announcers say Clements missed a tackle and then jump on him for it? Or are you one of those guys who think Clements wasnt covering Roy Williams because the coaches dont think he could, not knowing football knowledge enough to know that a CB plays his SIDE, not his player? Or are you one of those guys who dont realize that we have NO ONE even close to his caliber to replace him and will most likely have to waste a draft pick to get another CB even though we have more than enough money to re-sign him?

 

Just wondering.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

And I doubt you have any reason to ... were you watching Clements his entire time as a Bill? Did you play football in highschool in highschool or college? Or are you one of those guys who watch it on TV, hear the announcers say Clements missed a tackle and then jump on him for it? Or are you one of those guys who think Clements wasnt covering Roy Williams because the coaches dont think he could, not knowing football knowledge enough to know that a CB plays his SIDE, not his player? Or are you one of those guys who dont realize that we have NO ONE even close to his caliber to replace him and will most likely have to waste a draft pick to get another CB even though we have more than enough money to re-sign him?

 

Just wondering.

808524[/snapback]

 

He's just not worth the money in my opinion. We could use that money to get someone in FA. Clements is an ok cornerback I think. And yes I was watching the game. Who wouldn't.

[Fan in Chicago]

Thats the whole point! We will have enough money to sign Clements AND sign our draft picks AND sign a few OL/DL to improve. We have the money so why not sign Clements instead of having to waste a draft one? Think about that.

 

808456[/snapback]

 

I don't disagree with you when we talk about next season. But, I was referring to last season when there just weren't enough quality players to spend the money on.

And if Marv wants to keep Nate, he should negotiate now when NC is missing tackles. If Nate starts playing well in the last few games simply to get his market value up, we lose in the offseason - whether we pay him to stay or let him go.

But stepping back, I think the oft-repeated item about our DL being the primary problem rings true. I find it tough to believe that the performance of both NC and McGee suddenly dropped off for no apparent reason. One player I can understand but two in the same part of the field is kinda tough to swallow. Extending that logic, maybe Whitner too will shine much brighter with a better DL.

[daquixers_is_back]

He's just not worth the money in my opinion.  We could use that money to get someone in FA.  Clements is an ok cornerback I think.  And yes I was watching the game.  Who wouldn't.

808554[/snapback]

 

Ok well go do your homework. Find me a good FA who wont be re-signed by their current team. You wont find any, because looking at the FA list this year, nearly all of the good ones will be signed by the time the free agency signing period starts. Thats the whole point ... we are letting go of a good CB to get money that we DONT need to get a FA that is not very good, just to waste a draft pick on a CB that we dont know how good he will be instead of just signing Clements.

[daquixers_is_back]

I don't disagree with you when we talk about next season. But, I was referring to last season when there just weren't enough quality players to spend the money on.

And if Marv wants to keep Nate, he should negotiate now when NC is missing tackles. If Nate starts playing well in the last few games simply to get his market value up, we lose in the offseason - whether we pay him to stay or let him go.

But stepping back, I think the oft-repeated item about our DL being the primary problem rings true. I find it tough to believe that the performance of both NC and McGee suddenly dropped off for no apparent reason. One player I can understand but two in the same part of the field is kinda tough to swallow. Extending that logic, maybe Whitner too will shine much brighter with a better DL.

808557[/snapback]

 

Well yeah its no doubt that a good DL will make CB's look better and a bad DL make CB's look worse.

[TDRupp]

I posted this is another thread but here we go again

 

I COMPLETELY disagree. In fact I believe that Clements for McFarland is not fair to the Bills. Tell us all what McFarland has done. He is the same size as our current D-lineman so were not even adding any beef. I dont know the whole story but it seems to be injury prone as he has only had 2 complete seasons out of his 7 year career. He only averages 30 tackles a season, not to mention his best year was 6 years ago and he will be 30 this December.

 

Clements on the other hand turns 28 in December, his best season was only 2 seasons ago, he has 5 straight complete seasons without being injured. He averages 70 tackles, 4 INT's, 9 pass deflections per year, and has scored a defensive TD in 4 of his 5 years in the NFL. He is also a threat at punt returner. Not to mention that he is on pace to have his best season with pass deflections this year ...

 

Talk all you want about how he misses tackles, Clements is an overall better player and a straight up trade is not fair to the Bills.

806559[/snapback]

 

No. He is 26 now and will turn 27 in Dec.