Nate Clements Touted #3 Top Free Agent ...

[daquixers_is_back]

very funny.

 

But Clements as far as I've seen has not live up to expectations.  I'll give him that he's proved this year that he's a better cornerback than McGee, but it seems like at the most critcal moments of a game, he blows his coverage.

822682[/snapback]

 

Oh really? Tell me when he has blown his coverage late in the game?

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

Oh really? Tell me when he has blown his coverage late in the game?

822683[/snapback]

 

You could say the game against the Lions. It's not really from this year, but for the past couple of years. This year I think he's playing the same as he does each year which is ok, but I think what making him look good right now is the fact the McGee isn't playing well. Qbs have been passing more towards McGee because his confidence is shaken, not really, in my opinion, that Clements is a standout corner. We haven't seen a lot from Clements LATELY since the ball hasn't been thrown in that direction for the reason stated above.

[daquixers_is_back]

You could say the game against the Lions.  It's not really from this year, but for the past couple of years.  This year I think he's playing the same as he does each year which is ok, but I think what making him look good right now is the fact the McGee isn't playing well.  Qbs have been passing more towards McGee because his confidence is shaken, not really, in my opinion, that Clements is a standout corner.  We have seen a lot from Clements LATELY since the ball hasn't been thrown in that direction for the reason stated above.

822686[/snapback]

 

I cant say I agree with you, but atleast your explaining your answers. Good job bro.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

I cant say I agree with you, but atleast your explaining your answers. Good job bro.

822687[/snapback]

Thank you.

[Lori]

.... please someone take him off our hands right now!!!! 

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=ApRz...=yhoo&type=lgns

822460[/snapback]

If you were actually being serious, there's one small problem with that idea.

 

Trading deadline: October 17th.

[The Senator]

If you were actually being serious, there's one small problem with that idea.

 

Trading deadline: October 17th.

822700[/snapback]

Ya beat me to it, Lori, but what will our compensation be when we lose him next year (besides the extra $7M in cap room)? Don't we get a compensatory draft pick or something?

[RayFinkle]

Interesting top 10 list. Maybe they could have done a top 100 list so we could have seen some of the guys the Bills might sign.

[stuckincincy]

Once again...McGee was a very well-regarded safety in college. He played a season as a cornerback, and was so-so at that position according to the scouts. And was a great kick returner.

 

Bills draft him, don't use him as a KR his first year, then installs him as a starting cb.

 

Odd.

[1billsfan]

Sometimes I wish you would. Every topic on Nate Clements you always say "get rid of him" or something like that but give absolutely no reason as to why. I post about 15 points as to why we should keep him and you respond with "get rid of him."

 

Because the Bills shouldn't be overpaying millions upon millions of cap dollars on a guy that has produced just 2 interceptions in the last 23 games when that cap money would be put to much better use on quality offensive and defenve lineman.

[bills_fan]

Oh really? Tell me when he has blown his coverage late in the game?

 

Game 1, 2004 season vs. Jax. The game actually cost us a playoff spot. Next question.

 

Once again...McGee was a very well-regarded safety in college. He played a season as a cornerback, and was so-so at that position according to the scouts. And was a great kick returner.

 

Bills draft him, don't use him as a KR his first year, then installs him as a starting cb.

 

Odd.

 

Ya know, I really think this scheme is not well-suited to either McGee or Nate. I think McGee will be a very good CB and hope we re-sign Nate.

 

But, if we do that, I think Fewell has to tweak the Tampa Cover 2 a bit to fit the personnel. Both McGee and Nate are aggressive man-to-man CBs, who play the ball. Forcing them to give up the catch and then tackle the guy is damn near emasculating. When we played very good D (in 04), the CBs were aggressive and made big plays on the ball. Sure, they got burned a few times, but I'll take it for the big plays that an aggressive style produces.

 

This Tampa Cover 2 is too passive for my tastes.

[ganesh]

The good thing is we will have a gazillion dollars under the cap to throw at some of these FAs.

822492[/snapback]

 

We might have a "gazillion" dollars under the cap to throw, but Ralph has only limited "real" cash to throw at FAs.

[5 Wide]

Game 1, 2004 season vs. Jax.  The game actually cost us a playoff spot.  Next question.

Ya know, I really think this scheme is not well-suited to either McGee or Nate.  I think McGee will be a very good CB and hope we re-sign Nate. 

 

But, if we do that, I think Fewell has to tweak the Tampa Cover 2 a bit to fit the personnel.  Both McGee and Nate are aggressive man-to-man CBs, who play the ball.  Forcing them to give up the catch and then tackle the guy is damn near emasculating.  When we played very good D (in 04), the CBs were aggressive and made big plays on the ball.  Sure, they got burned a few times, but I'll take it for the big plays that an aggressive style produces. 

 

This Tampa Cover 2 is too passive for my tastes.

822915[/snapback]

 

It does seem very passive but I'm still not sure what to think as far as:

 

Is it the scheme that is causing the problems for the players

 

Is it the players causing the problems for the scheme

 

Or have the players just not grasped the full purpose and intricacies to fully run the Tampa 2

[Gordio]

Those FAs could change us.....the problem is there are 31 other teams that will be vying for their services.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if we land a FA OLB.  Thomas, Briggs & June are all tops with Briggs & June already playing in an equivalent system to us.

The dream FA at this point would have to be OG Steinbach.  Even if we over-payed for him I would be as happy as something that is happy in something that it likes to be in.

With luck, CB Samuel will be available at a reasonable price & we can let Clemments be over-payed elsewhere.  The good thing is we will have a gazillion dollars under the cap to throw at some of these FAs.

822492[/snapback]

 

Good point, however remember this, alot of teams have money under the cap now. It is not like it was 3-5 years ago with only a handfull of teams having money under the cap to play around with.

 

My opinion about clements is he is as good as gone. I would like to have him if we could sign him to 2nd tier fa cornerback contract. But when guys like Ken Lucas are getting 14 mill signing bonuses, you better believe the playmakers agent is going to be seeking a bonus somewhere north of that neighborhood. That is why it is vital to get Youboty into the lineup the last 9 games. See if this kid could handle the 2nd corner position. if he can great, then we could bump Mghee back to nickle & try to get a decent corner after the 1st wave of free agency ends.

[bills_fan]

It does seem very passive but I'm still not sure what to think as far as:

 

Is it the scheme that is causing the problems for the players

 

Is it the players causing the problems for the scheme

 

Or have the players just not grasped the full purpose and intricacies to fully run the Tampa 2

 

It is a passive defense in its stated objectives. The Cover 2 is predicated on the theory that the offense will make mistakes over the course of a long drive and that multiple 10-15 play drives will not happen (Not a very good assumption when you play Brady/Pennington 4xs a year, IMHO). Give up the small completion and tackle the guy immediately for no YAC. Have all of the smaller quicker DL penetrate and try to stop the run via shooting the gap.

 

Contrast this with the Gray/Greggo D that we used to play which forced the action. Blitz on every down from somewhere, let the CBs play tight man and break on the ball b/c the pressure forced the action. As for the run, let two big anchors in the middle tie up the OL so the LBs could make the tackle. Worked very well in 03/04.

 

TD did not recognize the true value of PW in this type of scheme. Hence you have the disaster that was the 05 season.

[5 Wide]

It is a passive defense in its stated objectives.  The Cover 2 is predicated on the theory that the offense will make mistakes over the course of a long drive and that multiple 10-15 play drives will not happen (Not a very good assumption when you play Brady/Pennington 4xs a year, IMHO).  Give up the small completion and tackle the guy immediately for no YAC.  Have all of the smaller quicker DL penetrate and try to stop the run via shooting the gap.

 

Contrast this with the Gray/Greggo D that we used to play which forced the action.  Blitz on every down from somewhere, let the CBs play tight man and break on the ball b/c the pressure forced the action.  As for the run, let two big anchors in the middle tie up the OL so the LBs could make the tackle.  Worked very well in 03/04. 

 

TD did not recognize the true value of PW in this type of scheme.  Hence you have the disaster that was the 05 season.

822929[/snapback]

 

That's a great post

 

With Indy ranked dead last in Run defense and Tampa ranked 3rd worst, it doesn't play well into the run and stop the run theory. Of course you also have Chicago who implements the same style that ruins my thought train.

 

However if you look at the top 5 teams in run defense:

 

Baltimore: Greg is 310, Ngata is 340

Minnesota: Williams is 325, Williams is 310

Dallas: Runs a 3-4, Ferguson is 320

Miami: Traylor is 340, Holliday is 290

New England: Runs a 3-4, Wilfork is 330

 

There is a trend that if you want to stop the run, get some hogs in the middle

[bills_fan]

With Indy ranked dead last in Run defense and Tampa ranked 3rd worst, it doesn't play well into the run and stop the run theory. Of course you also have Chicago who implements the same style that ruins my thought train.

 

However if you look at the top 5 teams in run defense:

 

Baltimore: Greg is 310, Ngata is 340

Minnesota: Williams is 325, Williams is 310

Dallas: Runs a 3-4, Ferguson is 320

Miami: Traylor is 340, Holliday is 290

New England: Runs a 3-4, Wilfork is 330

 

There is a trend that if you want to stop the run, get some hogs in the middle

 

True, but Tampa had a great D last year.

 

I think the thing to do is tweak it a bit, to play to the strengths of Nate and McGee. Lose the cushion. Let Nate & McGee ballhawk and if they give up the 20-30 yard play, well thats why you have safties deep. A corner like Antoine Winfield would be ideal for this system (plays the man, sure tackler etc.). I fear this may be a case of Fewell not conforming his sytem to the players he has, rather expecting the players to conform to the system.

 

I just wonder how different our team would be if we had Jim Bates as DC.

[Fan in Chicago]

Because the Bills shouldn't be overpaying millions upon millions of cap dollars on a guy that has produced just 2 interceptions in the last 23 games when that cap money would be put to much better use on quality offensive and defenve lineman.

822914[/snapback]

Pressure on a QB will allow more hurried throws and more INTs.

I think the front office should be negotiating with NC NOW and getting him to sign up long term when his value (as judged by this season's production) is low.

[apuszczalowski]

Structure +  Signing Bonus lowers what would be a huge salary cap number.

822678[/snapback]

Seeing as how he is on a one year deal, isn't his cap hit for this year the full amount? That would be $7 mil? Seeing as how it is a Franchise contract, I don't think there is a signing bonus involved in it, its all salary

 

Next year Nate will want atleast the same, maybe more, with multiple years and a huge signing bonus (he is the 3rd best FA and top CB on the market ) So you are going to see a cap hit of probably 7-10 mil a year for him. He is no where near worth that kind of money, especially after the last 2 "contract" years he has had. He has not been the "Playmaker" he thinks he is. In that case, why don't we give another huge contract to McGahee because he had a good first year and has been average the rest of the time, but says he is the best and wants to be payed like the best?

[MRW]

Next year Nate will want atleast the same, maybe more, with multiple years and a huge signing bonus (he is the 3rd best FA and top CB on the market    ) So you are going to see a cap hit of probably 7-10 mil a year for him. He is no where near worth that kind of money, especially after the last 2 "contract" years he has had. He has not been the "Playmaker" he thinks he is. In that case, why don't we give another huge contract to McGahee because he had a good first year and has been average the rest of the time, but says he is the best and wants to be payed like the best?

822986[/snapback]

I agree with you IF we end up using that cap space to bring help at other positions where we desperately need it. If we can bring in 2 good guys for the O-line (Steinbach + ?) and a big body at DT then I'd agree it's not worth it to keep Clements. But if we're going to have another offseason like this one where we only bring in second-tier free agents, I'd rather see us "waste" the space on Clements. We could even front-load a deal like Minnesota did with Winfield. I will be absolutely sick if we go into next season $10, 15, 20 million under the cap and rely on McGee & Youboty as our corners.

[daquixers_is_back]

Because the Bills shouldn't be overpaying millions upon millions of cap dollars on a guy that has produced just 2 interceptions in the last 23 games when that cap money would be put to much better use on quality offensive and defenve lineman.

822914[/snapback]

 

I love how people keep saying that and dont seem to realize that their wont be any quality offensive/defensive lineman available to sign .

 

Game 1, 2004 season vs. Jax.  The game actually cost us a playoff spot.  Next question.

 

Yeah and Tom Brady threw an interception 3 years ago. You know a player is doing decent when someone has to go back 3 years to find a game that they actually lost.

 

 

Seeing as how he is on a one year deal, isn't his cap hit for this year the full amount? That would be $7 mil? Seeing as how it is a Franchise contract, I don't think there is a signing bonus involved in it, its all salary

 

Next year Nate will want atleast the same, maybe more, with multiple years and a huge signing bonus (he is the 3rd best FA and top CB on the market    ) So you are going to see a cap hit of probably 7-10 mil a year for him. He is no where near worth that kind of money, especially after the last 2 "contract" years he has had. He has not been the "Playmaker" he thinks he is. In that case, why don't we give another huge contract to McGahee because he had a good first year and has been average the rest of the time, but says he is the best and wants to be payed like the best?

822986[/snapback]

 

Yes. THIS year would be a cap hit for the full ammount. I was talking about when we re-signed him (if we do).

 

Also. It wouldnt cost us 7 million against the cap if it was worked out right ... it could cost us as little as 4-5 mill/year.