Clements or Fletcher: Who do you keep?

[respk]

Fletcher should not be signed. Too old for a rebuilding team and not stout enough against the run to keep without a Ted Washington or Pat Williams type up front. If this were a super bowl team next year, I might keep him. It isn't. I'm not a big fan of Clements. If there is anything reasonable out there to replace him, let him go. However his play the last few weeks makes that decision somewhat more difficult. This team has too many holes to break the bank for him though. Spikes will most likely be gone as well. I just don't think he will recover from that injury. As to replacements....that is what free agency is for.

[Mark Vader]

We must keep both of them.

I know Fletcher's on the wrong side of 30, but you can sign him for at least 3 more years.

Also Ralph Wilson really likes Fletcher, so do not be surprised if Fletcher gets a new deal.

Nate Clements is our best corner, and we must find some way to keep him. We can't break the bank but there must be a way to keep him.

[Pyrite Gal]

My sense also is that with $30 mill in cap room you attempt to sign both of them, . As far as NC goes the Bills could have offered him a deal that would have large costs but would have been cheaper than the end of the season to sign him. The choice has likely already been made to pay the big bucks for him or let him go. Really who knows what the ultimate decision is, letting him go would be consistent with the profit-making manner Ralph has usually required of his GM, yet he has occaisionally made unconventional investments for him when he smelled a winner.

 

Clements does not have the talent to merit the big bucks he would command, however, he is an essential enough part of this team, and the effort needed to train his replacement would essentially make next year another learning year for the Bills D so I would not be surprised if given Ralph's age he makes the big fiscal leap to sign NC.

 

I think the Bills likely resign Fletcher as he clearly been one of the most consistently productive Bills for the past half decade. The complaints that he is a liability in run coverage actually do not carry a lot of reality unless one considers anyone not playing at a Chris Spielman level a liability.

 

Particularly the complaints that his tackles come 5 yards down the field seem to be fairly superficial. To the extent this is a problem I think it primarily would seem to be one which indicates that our defensive linemen are easily beaten so that the first shot on them is in the second layer where the LBs play. Perhaps one wants to still find some primary fault in Fletcher's game by claiming that he fails to fill the gaps the LB is supposed to cover and he should be closer to the LOS. This interpretation is a misread of how the Bills D plays as in potential pass plays in the Tampa 2, the MLB's primary duty is actually deep pass coverage as he and the safeties divide the field into thirds. Even on running downs, our DL's first look by definition is not blitzing as the lower weight DL in the Tampa 2 is skilled at doing but they should be holding a wall at the LOS allowing Fletcher or an LB playing gap duty to attack the LOS and hit the RB at the line or in the backfield.

 

If folks want to claim that they think LF should go because he does not have the ability to bsck-up a weak DL and hits RBs 5 yards down the field this makes more sense, but the first response to this is not to try to find a replacement for Fletch that can do this, but instead to get better DL players or change our scheme to solve the DL problem.

 

Fletcher is not perfect, his lack of prototype height for a LB is occaisionally noticeable. However, he clearly has shown an ability to have and use a nose for the ball as shown by his team leading tackle numbers year after year. In addition, he demonstrates he is a smart player who has shown the ability to get both LB (and even team) leading numbers of sacks and also INTs most years he has been here.

 

Further, his INTs, fumble recoveries, TDs and even seeing a lot of use as the short kick return guy shows he has good ball handling skills.

 

The theory that he is past 30 is a reasonable one, the only problem with it as that there does not seem to be a big slide in LB-Fs tackle, sack and INT #s which indicate that the inevitable downturn has hit him.

 

The bottom line is that anyone who advocates cutting him leaves this idea incomplete unless they also say what the plan is to replace him. Jphn DiGregorio? Shift the injury recoveing Crowell back to MLB? Crickets chirping seems to typically be folks answer.

[Zulu Cthulhu]

Nate is a shut down corner, granted he has his moments and bad games, but I have NFL ticket and I've seen a ton of Champ, McCalister and all these other "shut down" guys, and they get beat every now and then too, and have bad games. Our eyes are just so much more focused on Nate we find every little thing he does wrong. He's 27 and has his best football ahead of him, can't say the same for Fletcher, finding top notch CB's is alot harder than finding good backers' like London. You have to keep Clements, and I'd love to keep Fletcher as well but, it just doesn't make sense. We can find a replacement via FA or the draft, theres no way we're finding somebody as good as Nate to replace him.

 

Really? Yeah no corner in the league NEVER gets beat, but you can't put Nate "contract year" clements in the same class as some one like Bailey, who is just a goddamn ballhawk in every sense of the word. Sure Nate looks great and seems to be the best tackler on a run defense with more leaks in it than one would care to count. But despite he recent surge in play (his eyes surely on the $$$), Nate has coverage liabilites that guys like Champ simply do not suffer from.

[frogger]

easy answer, there is a reason that nate will get a huge offer, and that Fletcher might get something good, but not near the same level. Nate Clements is a top 5 CB, Fletcher is top 5 in stats, however If you add interior linemen in there, that can stop the run, and force the ball to be bounced outside, fletcher's numbers suffer. He also gets lost and he doesn't have the greatest vision being 5'9"

 

I also will add, CB have been able to play late in their career without losing too much, ILBs don't have many years after 30.

 

now ask the question would I keep Nate if he is going to get a 20 million dollar signing bonus and a contract that could destroy the fran if he gets injured, while Fletcher's might be a safe one, and the answer might change.

 

another thing to ponder the last two rookies of the years have both been interior LBs (assuming Ryans wins this year) and IMHO we could get a future starter in the 3rd round. But for the time being Spikes-Crowell-Ellison/coy wire.....I think if he stays yet another year, he should go ahead and add the bulk. Z Thomas is not much bigger than Coy wire, it's just padding that makes the difference.

[pBills]

Sign Fletcher. One of the most productive Bills defensive players (I believe) ever. Sign him.

[CAT]

how much would it cost to franchise LF for 1 year? Maybe not much given the position. That way would could draft a MLB in the 3 round and let him play behind LF for 1 year and no long term commitment to an older player. I dont think we can/will keep NC which means we will keep KT and pick up another mid tier cb in fa FA and perhaps round 4 or 5. We will keep Kelsey and add a D tackle, OG, OT and a Rb in the draft/fa. We will move up to the middle of the pack on offense(15) and remain at the lower end on D(23) and finish 7 and 9

[JStranger76]

You keep Clements, and maybe franchise Fletch. I could deal with a LB core of Crowell, Spikes, Ellison if we beef up the DT position. Losing Nasty Nate just causes way too many problems, WAY too many............

[MDH]

I could deal with a LB core of Crowell, Spikes, Ellison if we beef up the DT position.

 

Who is playing MLB in that scenerio?

[Rico]

Nate has been here 6 years with nothing to show for it,

Fletcher has been here 5 years with nothing to show for it.

That's a long time for an NFL player in this day and age... I couldn't blame either one for wanting a fresh start somewhere else, especially if they get the $$$. Right now, I think they both will be gone... hope I'm wrong, especially about Nate.

[JStranger76]

Spikes to the middle MDH.

[coltrane34]

keep them both

[Steven in MD]

how many years in a row do we have to suck against the run until people see that fletcher is a liability? he was NEVER good enough...including when he played for the rams.

THANK YOU!!!!! I agree 100% he is a Zach Thomas type MLB. Makes loads of tackles...just 10 yds down the field. I like the MLB like Lewis, Urlacher and Hawk, make the plays at the LOS.

[jester43]

hell, i wish he was as good as zach thomas!

[Pyrite Gal]

Nate has been here 6 years with nothing to show for it,

Fletcher has been here 5 years with nothing to show for it.

That's a long time for an NFL player in this day and age... I couldn't blame either one for wanting a fresh start somewhere else, especially if they get the $$$. Right now, I think they both will be gone... hope I'm wrong, especially about Nate.

 

Do you really think that these people getting by far the largest paychecks they have ever gotten in their lives and to get this huge largesse for playing a boys game really adds up in real life or even in their minds to having "nothing to show for it"?

 

Granted their potentially (and actually probably in NC's case) greener pastures to show for their play elsewhere in terms of a big contract. In addition, one clear way of becoming a great athlete for these by definition incredibly competitive people is to constantly aspire for the next big thing and the big contract which goes with it.

 

However, the "new" reality of the NFL (which in fact has always been there), but now a single multi-year contract and certainly a second one, allows a player to focus more of their thinking and effort on their entire lives rather than just simply football.

 

I think one of the unplanned for side effects of the new CBA and the much larger and more equitable distribution of the NFL big bucks to the players is that situations like the Tiki Barber one where a player clearly has several productive years of football left, but they walk away from the game if they see other important things to them they can do may in fact become the rule rather than the exception.

 

Particularly with Fletcher-Baker who seems to be most committed to his work to graduate from school and become a minister and has made basic life moves like hyphenating his last name to honor one of his grandfather's I would not be surprised if the lead determing factor for his choice about whether to leave or stay is actually where he plans to do his ministry work rather than simply who offers the biggest contract.

 

Assuming the Bills want him (which given our lack of a quality back-up for him and actually the most talented Bill with MLB experience Crowell coming off an injury which forced him to IR I assume we will want a starting quality MLB badly) we may well have a leg up because he has built his life around being linked to this area for the last 5 years. However, I believe LF-B is attending a seminary based in Ohio and I would not be surprised if the lead factor determining FA decisions for him is that the left coast is out of the question regardless of what he is offered by a team out there and perhaps his life choices will even take him away from Buffalo.

[JAMIEBUF12]

both we r 39 million under the cap....i think if coach jauron wants these 2 players here we will open up the checkbook.i know this season isnt done yet,but i am anxious to see with a year of evaulating the talent on this team where levy and jauron go next year for new players....go bills

[Dr. Fong]

I'd keep Clements. Top shelf CBs are harder to replace than LBs. That being said I see the Bills keeping Fletcher. He'll be easier to sign and a cheaper P.R. sign than Clements.