d_wag Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 everyone seems to be talking about getting new deals for clements and fletcher, but we need to be realistic......neither of these guys are likely to be back........a talented player who just ran out his walk year is going to hit an open market flooded with dollars..........your not going to get many of those guys back..........the focus needs to be not on clements and fletcher, but on retaining young talented players BEFORE they get to their contract years........you don't need 5 years to evaluate a player and ensure they fit in with your team - the eagles, who run the best organization in the league IMO, try to lock guys up in year 2 or 3 once they see what they like, and they are very, very often successful.........in fact, they have already signed 4 players long-term from their '05 draft and extended 8 different players this season! the bills focus needs to be on: jp - in my opinion the number one priorty of the off-season is to get JP locked up long-term........for those who haven't seen enough, sorry, but the price only goes up from here........we haven't had a real QB since kelly left, and now that we finally got another we can't afford to let him go evans - true playmaker in every sense of the word........jp and him seem to have more and more chemistry every week........this team should be built for the elements from the line out, but now that we have evans we can't afford to let him go.....he does more for the run game then most of our o-linemen simply by stretching the defense! parrish - has fit in nicely as slot receiver and punt retuner......coming into next season i expect huge strides in his return awareness.......love his toughness over the middle and is just what this offense needs on 3rd downs unfortunately, due to weak drafts in '04 and '05, that is really all there is worth resigning at this time.........hopefully that will change with the '06 draft, as whitner, simpson, williams, ellison, and pennington all look like candidates for contracts next season if they stay healthy.......... it is more important then ever, given ralph's financial situation, that the bills maintain their own and avoid the need to go out in free agency to fill holes.......identifying solid young players and going hard after them for deals should be the focus....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderswr80 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 While you make great points..... I disagree about Clements & Fletcher to a point. If we lose both, Id like to see Buffalo get someone via FA, that can almost fill their voids. If we fail to ignore it, the team is not improving itself. Id love to see Buffalo keep both, they certainly have the cap space too.... Good post though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 While you make great points..... I disagree about Clements & Fletcher to a point. If we lose both, Id like to see Buffalo get someone via FA, that can almost fill their voids. If we fail to ignore it, the team is not improving itself. Id love to see Buffalo keep both, they certainly have the cap space too.... Good post though! cap space does not equate to intelligent spending. Nate may make sense sinse he is young enough to play out a 5 year deal. Fletcher is history. You don't break the bank for 32 year LBs who rely on speed and could hit the wall at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 cap space does not equate to intelligent spending. Nate may make sense sinse he is young enough to play out a 5 year deal. Fletcher is history. You don't break the bank for 32 year LBs who rely on speed and could hit the wall at any time. YEP.Love Fletch but forget about him.He has nowhere to go but down. He has maybe 2 good years left. Aaaaahhhh---age-the enemy of athletes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Cthulhu Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 cap space does not equate to intelligent spending. Nate may make sense sinse he is young enough to play out a 5 year deal. Fletcher is history. You don't break the bank for 32 year LBs who rely on speed and could hit the wall at any time. Agree 100%. What the BD&D on this board fail to realize is Clements, based on his comments, just doesn't seem to want to stay here in Buffalo, regardless of cap space and the ability of the bills to pay him. He is THE PLAYMAKER remember, he wants to go to a big market, make his chips, and "playmake" in prime time. I don't care if the bills can pay him more than Champ is making, let his B word-ass go play for greggo. Fanboys also seem to forget that clements was invisible the first half of the season and was burned repeatedly last season by the likes of Chambers, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 The more times you do early signings, then every player will want a new contract in 2 to 3 years. Agents will not let players sign unless they get this. It would drive the team into salary cap hell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgun Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 cap space does not equate to intelligent spending. Nate may make sense since he is young enough to play out a 5 year deal. Fletcher is history. You don't break the bank for 32 year LBs who rely on speed and could hit the wall at any time. Thanks obie. I hope Ralph knows he has to spend some of his $$ if he wants to remain competitive and fill seats. The Bills sell seats with great defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 We should make a good faith run to keep NC. I don't see us breaking the bank to keep Fletcher, although I could see us re-signing him on down the road for a reasonable amount for next year if he doesn't make big bucks somewhere else (I wouldn't hold my breath on that one though). You are right that our strength is the youth of the team and it may be time to say goodbye to people like Fletcher and Spikes if there day is done. Cruel business...but it is a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 also seem to forget that clements was invisible the first half of the season and was burned repeatedly last season by the likes of Chambers, etc. He was invisible because teams were terrified to throw at him. And if you had any idea what you were actually watching you'd know that in Chambers' big game, Clements was only responsible for less than half his production. But keep poring over your stat sheets and aping your media heroes while you pretend to have a clue about what's actually happening on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I can't understand why so many are opposed to the idea of London getting the "Franchise Tag." In this scenario, we could keep him for one year, draft and develop his replacement, and then perhaps let him go. I am not making the case that he is necessarily worth the 7 million or so it would cost, but who cares? The team has 36 million in cap space. With this type of room, there is enough to re-sign Nate, Franchise Fletcher AND sign Steinbach. I say this only in an attempt to prove that money is not an issue wrt Fletch, or at least it should not be. Frankly, I think Nate is as good as gone. I can't imagine Ralph coughing up a 20 million dollar bonus, especially when Marv can waith 2 months and draft a few more defensive backs. If I am correct, why would we want to lose our best corner AND our best LB when it simply doesn't have to happen? I think that the Bills have a reasonable chance to reach the playoffs in 07. Losing London would certainly not help our chances. Keeping him for a year could only help us win, and again, buy us a season to replace him and replenish the LB position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I disagree about Clements & Fletcher to a point. If we lose both, Id like to see Buffalo get someone via FA, that can almost fill their voids. If we fail to ignore it, the team is not improving itself. Actually, if they fail to ignore it they are improving cause they aren't ignoring it. whatever it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I can't understand why so many are opposed to the idea of London getting the "Franchise Tag." In this scenario, we could keep him for one year, draft and develop his replacement, and then perhaps let him go. I am not making the case that he is necessarily worth the 7 million or so it would cost, but who cares? The team has 36 million in cap space. With this type of room, there is enough to re-sign Nate, Franchise Fletcher AND sign Steinbach. I say this only in an attempt to prove that money is not an issue wrt Fletch, or at least it should not be. Frankly, I think Nate is as good as gone. I can't imagine Ralph coughing up a 20 million dollar bonus, especially when Marv can waith 2 months and draft a few more defensive backs. If I am correct, why would we want to lose our best corner AND our best LB when it simply doesn't have to happen? I think that the Bills have a reasonable chance to reach the playoffs in 07. Losing London would certainly not help our chances. Keeping him for a year could only help us win, and again, buy us a season to replace him and replenish the LB position. Usually you have very good points here but I have to say you are a bit off on the fletcher comment about not caring that he would make 7 mil because they have the cap room. They may have the room on paper, but they still have to have that money to cover the extra cap room. With 4 games not selling out and being blacked out, there was alot of lost revenue this year. The Bills may wind up like the Sabres last year and have to play way under the cap on their own budgeted cap because they don't have the revenue to spend to the NFL cap. To a team like Washington, or Dallas, you would be correct, that figure wouldn't matter because they have the room and the finances to cover it. Now if they do franchise him, I would only do it to keep his rights and trade him to another team for whatever you could get, even if its just a 7th round pick (as long as it doesn't carry any cap hits) I will agree that losing London will hurt along with Clements but I feel both are as good as gone, although I think it would be easier to bring back Clements. Nate seems to only care about the Contract, no matter what team offers it, so he will go to the highest bidder, Fletcher just seems hurt that Buffalo didn't re-sign him earlier and seems to be looking elsewhere now because they hurt his pride. I also think the Bills don't have to worry about the LB position as much since they do have some decent ones right now, with Spikes (hopefully at 95-100%) Ellison and Crowell (at 100%) and (it hurts me to say this) Coy Wire (after a full training camp working out at LB) Draft another one in the first day and we would have a decent LB corps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts