MavBavButav Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 say what you want about clements, but he has been turning it up lately (probably because its his contract year) and we need to sign him. LETS SPEND RALPH'S MONEY!
bud8andbills Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 say what you want about clements, but he has been turning it up lately (probably because its his contract year) and we need to sign him. LETS SPEND RALPH'S MONEY! 855891[/snapback] I say re-sign him. But with options, meaning a heavily incentive laden contract. So much per tackle, interception, knockdown sack, etc. Make him do more than just want an easy payday, kinda like Willis.
MavBavButav Posted December 4, 2006 Author Posted December 4, 2006 I say re-sign him. But with options, meaning a heavily incentive laden contract. So much per tackle, interception, knockdown sack, etc. Make him do more than just want an easy payday, kinda like Willis. 855894[/snapback] whatever puts him buffalo blue next season...
Fewell733 Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 From his comments over the last week, it's clear that he really was unhappy last year. We've got to try hard and resign him. Otherwise we're just going to have to spend a good chunk of change for a starting caliber CB anyway.
keepthefaith Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I say re-sign him. But with options, meaning a heavily incentive laden contract. So much per tackle, interception, knockdown sack, etc. Make him do more than just want an easy payday, kinda like Willis. 855894[/snapback] I'd like to see him re-signed, but I don't expect it. I'm sure Nate will sign with the highest bidder. period! No way he'll sign a heavy incentive-laden agreement because I think several teams will offer him plenty of up-front money and a top salary without the risk (on his part) of many incentives. I just don't see much loyalty from players, agents or GMs. Money talks.
MavBavButav Posted December 4, 2006 Author Posted December 4, 2006 From his comments over the last week, it's clear that he really was unhappy last year. We've got to try hard and resign him. Otherwise we're just going to have to spend a good chunk of change for a starting caliber CB anyway. 855896[/snapback] you'd think he'd be able to see the progress this team is making and want to be a part of it. i think if we make him a decent offer (i have no idea about the numbers) then he'll stay. he appears to be having fun out there (is that naive?). -- At least more than willis appears to be having.
daquixers_is_back Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 This board was anti-Clements just a month ago ... jee DaQuix knows nothing huh Oh well. GREAT hit early in the game by Nate.
bluv Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I just don't see much loyalty from players, agents or GMs. Money talks. 855900[/snapback] Can't fault him or any other player for there is no loyalty from the team or fans from that matter. It is all about either potential for a high paid rookie or what have you done for me lately for a veteran.
East Brady Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 This board was anti-Clements just a month ago ... jee DaQuix knows nothing huh Oh well. GREAT hit early in the game by Nate. 855992[/snapback] That hit was huge and after going to the game last week I'd have to agree,........pay the boy!! I watched nate all day last week, there just wasn't any light there for those other guys.... The coaching staff seems to have made some changes since the bye, plus the play of the rookies seems to be allowing him to do his thing now.....
Bills Fan888 Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 This board was anti-Clements just a month ago ... jee DaQuix knows nothing huh Oh well. GREAT hit early in the game by Nate. 855992[/snapback] That hit was HUGE
Rico Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 This board was anti-Clements just a month ago ... jee DaQuix knows nothing huh 855992[/snapback] I've been saying extend Nate since before the first time you were banned.
daquixers_is_back Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I've been saying extend Nate since before the first time you were banned. 856017[/snapback] When was I banned?
Rico Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 When was I banned? 856025[/snapback] Oh...Well, at least before you added "is back"
daquixers_is_back Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Oh...Well, at least before you added "is back" 856033[/snapback] I guess you know more than I do. I can still log into (and as far as I can remember I could always log into) my other accounts.
Rico Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I guess you know more than I do. I can still log into (and as far as I can remember I could always log into) my other accounts. 856106[/snapback] My bad, I thought you got bounced when you disappeared.... happened to a lot of people back then.
daquixers_is_back Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 My bad, I thought you got bounced when you disappeared.... happened to a lot of people back then. 856232[/snapback] Someone else said that too so maybe it is true ... I just didnt know about it.
Recommended Posts