Rayzer32 Posted November 19, 2006 Posted November 19, 2006 Jus figured I would start the Nate Clements to be resigned thread for this week ... flame away. 841225[/snapback] You start some sort of NC thread every week. Does Nate know about your man crush on him? Side note: He did play extremely well today.
Typical TBD Guy Posted November 19, 2006 Posted November 19, 2006 People forget that Clements and McGee were originally drafted to play man in the 46-D. Now, in their first season playing in the Tampa cover-2, they have had their share of struggles but also have looked great for stretches of plays this season. I expect them to only get better as the D unit around them gets better with experience (rookie safeties), health (TKO) and new players (DT's). Daquixers is 100% dead-on with his analysis of Clements. Re-sign him for whatever the free agent market says he is worth. We will have over $30 million in cap space, and there is no way we will be able to spend anywhere close to that much, especially if we aren't able to sign Eric Steinbach. Might as well not open up MORE holes on this roster; we already have enough.
Ramius Posted November 19, 2006 Posted November 19, 2006 You start some sort of NC thread every week. Does Nate know about your man crush on him? Side note: He did play extremely well today. 842142[/snapback] No, daquix is waaaay past man crush. He's got a full fledged Bromance with Nate clements. I'd be for re-signing him, but not resigning him. Why would nate want to resign? his contract is up anyway, so technically he doesnt need to resign.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 19, 2006 Author Posted November 19, 2006 This thread is retarded...how !@#$ing hard is it to distinguish between RE-SIGN and RESIGN 842126[/snapback] Is it really that big of a deal bro? Im sure you know what we all mean.
Dibs Posted November 19, 2006 Posted November 19, 2006 Jus figured I would start the Nate Clements to be re-signed thread for this week ... flame away. ** edited to appease people who couldnt figure out that I meant "re-sign" instead of "resign" 841225[/snapback] It looks like NC is working his way to the big contract.....i.e. his level of play is getting back towards where it was a few years back. This is a good thing....a very good thing. My only problem with re-signing NC was over-paying him. If he produces at probowl level regularly then I don't mind us paying him exactly what he would be worth. The only reservation I have is Youboty. If he can show something special in the next 6 I think NC will be gone.....simple capanomics......not likely to happen though.....but possible.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 19, 2006 Author Posted November 19, 2006 It looks like NC is working his way to the big contract.....i.e. his level of play is getting back towards where it was a few years back. This is a good thing....a very good thing. My only problem with re-signing NC was over-paying him. If he produces at probowl level regularly then I don't mind us paying him exactly what he would be worth. The only reservation I have is Youboty. If he can show something special in the next 6 I think NC will be gone.....simple capanomics......not likely to happen though.....but possible. 842314[/snapback] Here is what I think people are getting caught up on. People just dont want to pay him HUGE money ... well dude ... whether or not you *think* he is worth it shouldnt matter. This team is bad as it is and we should let good players go. Build around the good players for goodness sakes.
Dibs Posted November 19, 2006 Posted November 19, 2006 Here is what I think people are getting caught up on. People just dont want to pay him HUGE money ... well dude ... whether or not you *think* he is worth it shouldnt matter. This team is bad as it is and we should let good players go. Build around the good players for goodness sakes. 842382[/snapback] I didn't say otherwise. NC really had a poor year last year. I would have been very upset if we signed him to a long term contract when he was 'at the crossroads' so to speak. His marked improvement means that he is elevating into value for the HUGE money. As I said, I don't have a problem paying.....just a problem over-paying What you don't really seem to understand is that there is a salary cap. That means if you over-pay a few players by a lot.....& then you build your team to be good.....you lose some of your 'really' good players because your 'quite' good players are getting their money. Each team can only afford to pay so many stars. It is bad capenomics to pay a 'good' player 'star' money. Hopefully, NC keeps up his 'star' play & this won't be an issue.
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 19, 2006 Posted November 19, 2006 Nate has really picked up his game the past few weeks. I'm really impressed and I've kind of changed my mind on the idea of re-signing him. As long as he wants to come and play, he is one of the best. When his head is not in the game, it shows.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 19, 2006 Author Posted November 19, 2006 I didn't say otherwise.NC really had a poor year last year. I would have been very upset if we signed him to a long term contract when he was 'at the crossroads' so to speak. His marked improvement means that he is elevating into value for the HUGE money. As I said, I don't have a problem paying.....just a problem over-paying What you don't really seem to understand is that there is a salary cap. That means if you over-pay a few players by a lot.....& then you build your team to be good.....you lose some of your 'really' good players because your 'quite' good players are getting their money. Each team can only afford to pay so many stars. It is bad capenomics to pay a 'good' player 'star' money. Hopefully, NC keeps up his 'star' play & this won't be an issue. 842399[/snapback] Whether its bad "capenomics" to pay a good player star money he is the closest thing we will get to a star and *wait for it* WE CANT KEEP LETTING GOOD PLAYERS GO BECAUSE WE WONT PAY THEM! Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet.
Dibs Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 Whethere its bad "capenomics" to pay a good player star money he is the closest thing we will get to a star and *wait for it* WE CANT KEEP LETTING GOOD PLAYERS GO BECAUSE WE WONT PAY THEM! Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet. 842411[/snapback] It is bad capenomics to pay a 'good' player 'star' money. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. If player 'A' is a 'star' player, it is good to pay him 'star' money.....if he is only a 'good' player, it's bad to pay him 'star' money. I don't see why you had a problem with this concept.....I even finished with.....& on purpose so you wouldn't take it the wrong way & assume I meant that NC was not playing like a star...... Hopefully, NC keeps up his 'star' play & this won't be an issue.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 20, 2006 Author Posted November 20, 2006 It is bad capenomics to pay a 'good' player 'star' money.It's not a difficult concept to grasp. If player 'A' is a 'star' player, it is good to pay him 'star' money.....if he is only a 'good' player, it's bad to pay him 'star' money. I don't see why you had a problem with this concept.....I even finished with.....& on purpose so you wouldn't take it the wrong way & assume I meant that NC was not playing like a star...... 842833[/snapback] I never said I had a problem with it ... I only said we need to break that concept or rule.
Dibs Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 I never said I had a problem with it ... I only said we need to break that concept or rule. 842838[/snapback] Why? Where is the logic in doing that? I went through the scenario earlier(post 27) of what happens when you over-pay players & start getting good enough to compete. What is your reasoning that it is OK to over-pay players that are 'good' but not 'great'?
Fla Bills Fan Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 I think this will be an exciting off season, as we watch Marv work his magic. NC is definately playing for the big $ next year, the question is if he wants to stay here or not. I hope he is happy with this team and wants to stay.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 20, 2006 Author Posted November 20, 2006 daquix,you seem to like Nate a lot. 842839[/snapback] Why?Where is the logic in doing that? I went through the scenario earlier(post 27) of what happens when you over-pay players & start getting good enough to compete. What is your reasoning that it is OK to over-pay players that are 'good' but not 'great'? 842842[/snapback] 98% of the time I would completely agree with you ... but on THIS occasion (the rare 2%, I disagree). I believe we NEED to keep him. This isnt a 2nd or 3rd WR, this isnt a backup RB, this isnt just some random NT ... this is a very good (probaby top 5) defensive back. He doesnt make a ton of INT's, but he shut downs good WR. He shut down Harrison, limited Johnson, shutdown Steve Smith ... etc. I cant even remember the last time he was beat for a long TD. Anyway. All that aside. I believe we really need to keep Clements. Finding good DB's isnt exactly the easiest thing to do. Thats evident by the plethora of teams who have horrid secondaries. We can over-pay for Clements, and STILL have a ton of money THIS year, and for years to come ... especially if we front load the contract. Us overpaying for Clements is not going to be hurting us at all ... probably EVER! If it does then we could ask him to re-do his contract or we could cut him (which wouldnt be needed for probably 3-4 years). Let him train the new DB's on our team and let the rookies/new players talent level rise before we let Nate go. As I said. Usually I would agree with you ... but with nearly 30 million of probable cap-space and not many quality FA's its not going to hurt us to over-pay for Clements. Period.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 It won't happen. I think he'll be asking for too much money.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 20, 2006 Author Posted November 20, 2006 It won't happen. I think he'll be asking for too much money. 842990[/snapback] Sorry, I think your lost. The JP Losman sucks thread is a few threads over my man.
Dibs Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 98% of the time I would completely agree with you ... As I said. Usually I would agree with you ... 842947[/snapback] But you totally agree with me. You consider NC a 'star' player & therefore(according to what I said re:'star' players) we should pay him. I said I don't have any problem paying a star player top dollars. I even said that I considered him(NC) playing at 'star' level myself......though I did try to keep him(as a specific case) out of the conceptual point.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 20, 2006 Author Posted November 20, 2006 But you totally agree with me. You consider NC a 'star' player & therefore(according to what I said re:'star' players) we should pay him. I said I don't have any problem paying a star player top dollars. I even said that I considered him(NC) playing at 'star' level myself......though I did try to keep him(as a specific case) out of the conceptual point. 843003[/snapback] In that case then ... great!
Dibs Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 In that case then ... great! 843004[/snapback] I think in general after NCs performance today(& of the last few weeks), you will get far less resistance with your.....um.....crusade(?).......to get people on side to re-sign him. I agree with what somebody said earlier.....it will probably all come down to whether NC wants to be re-signed by us.
Recommended Posts