Koufax Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 In the spirit of keeping some focus this off season and avoiding duplicate threads and off-topic posts (as mentioned in another thread ), I'm opening this thread as a place for discussion of Nate Clements, his contract situation, his value, and our alternatives at corner. My opinion is that keeping Nate would be great all things being equal, but with the monster contract he is going to be after (and likely get), he probably does not represent value to the Bills, and we probably have to shed a tear and let him walk. If so, one option is staying with what we have, and hoping Youboty can step into those big shoes, with McGee staying at the other Corner and KT or someone new as the nickel. The worry there is that Youboty was unable to crack our lineup much this year after his slow start, and that might be more responsibility than he can handle this soon. The second option is signing another less expensive free agent corner from a list that includes: Asante Samuel UFA New England Patriots Ken Hamlin, UFA, Seattle Seahawks Roc Alexander, RFA, Denver Broncos Jordan Babineaux, RFA, Seattle Seahawks Jason David, RFA, Indianapolis Colts Randall Gay, RFA, New England Patriots Nick Harper, UFA, Indianapolis Colts David Macklin, UFA, Arizona Cardinals The third main option is drafting a corner high, which I hope we don't do unless there is really exceptional value. I would rather see the first day picks go to the lines, maybe linebacker, and other positions only if they blow us away as the best football talent available at our draft slot. Drafting a planned need can greatly reduce the value you get unless you are lucky. So the question arises what is a fair price for Nate? How high can we go before we have to forget about it? I think Marv should figure that out and make his highest offer pretty early, rather than try to get into a bidding war when Nate is closer to phone calls from Daniel Snyder, etc. I was rooting for Youboty all year, but was very disappointed that he wasn't able to get more playing time away from McGee and KT who are solid but not stellar DBs. Have at it guys, and hopefully this thread can grow long and stay on topic, and we can avoid duplicate threads about the Nate/CB situation.
Stussy109 Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 We'd be stupid to Let Nate walk, and I'll bet he doesnt. One of the best talents we have on D right now. Guy is worth every dollar. The receivers he plays have almost zero production consistently. Nate stay in BLO!
Ozymandius Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 We'd be stupid to Let Nate walk, and I'll bet he doesnt. One of the best talents we have on D right now. Guy is worth every dollar. The receivers he plays have almost zero production consistently. Nate stay in BLO! Unfortunately, it's Nate's choice and not ours. As for replacement free agent CBs, I only like Samuel and both he and Nate should get huge contracts. I feel like the possibilities are limited to either re-sign Nate or draft a CB first day. Spend a lot of money or spend nothing.
Koufax Posted January 3, 2007 Author Posted January 3, 2007 I hope we can keep Nate, but I think it would be stupider for us to tie up too many resources and ignore other needs by overpaying him in what is likely to be a crazy market with overspending owners. If he walks we are instantly a worse team, so I hope we find a way, including some pretty big money. But we have to find the best value out there, and we don't determine Nate's price...31 other owners and Nate himself determine that. We need to go as high as we can and still find value, but not go past what makes sense just because another owner decides to.
2003Contenders Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Maybe I can say this because it's Ralph's money and not mine, but maybe, just maybe this guy does deserve to be one of the highest paid corners in the league. Let's just assume that he and his agent do demand a $20 M signing bonus. Well, if the contract is done properly with representative back-loaded money and over, say 6-7 years, then the cap hit for this year could be as little as $3-4 M. That's just a small piece of the large cap space that it appears that we have headed into this season -- and it does give us plenty of room to extend the contracts of Lee Evans (and even JP) if the front office so decides. Thus, I am not sure why it is a forgone conclusion that Nate is a goner for money reasons. If I'm Marv I'd start by asking the question: "How much do you want?" and go from there. It's best NOT to ever let him even hit free agency.
Beerball Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 I find it very presumptious of you to come along and annoint this the Official Nate Clements / CB Thread. What does that say about the Clements threads that have come before yours? Is it possible that you will squash future discussions because people don't want to interfere with your Official thread? Shouldn't we promote a free flowing dialog where everyone feels enabled to post their thoughts on Clements in individual threads? Doesn't this official thread demean the unofficial ones? Did someone die and annoint you the Official thread starter? Fer gosh sakes.
BuffaloRebound Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Do everything necessary to keep him. If he is hell-bent on leaving, which it doesn't sound like, so be it. Marv and Ralph were willing to pay him $7m this year off a sub-par year. The Bills are going to be at least $15m under the cap this year even if they go on a Redskins-like spending spree - use that as his signing bonus if you are strapped for cash. I think he'd stay if we give him something close to Bailey's deal. Realistically, the Bills shot at landing any big name free agents are slim. In the unlikely event that they can land a Lance Briggs, then maybe letting Clements go is understandable. But otherwise, you gotta keep your own young talent.
MrLocke Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Who are the teams that are way over the cap this season? Any chance some good CBs with high cap numbers could be cut by their teams this year?
bizell Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 I find it very presumptious of you to come along and annoint this the Official Nate Clements / CB Thread. What does that say about the Clements threads that have come before yours? Is it possible that you will squash future discussions because people don't want to interfere with your Official thread? Shouldn't we promote a free flowing dialog where everyone feels enabled to post their thoughts on Clements in individual threads? Doesn't this official thread demean the unofficial ones? Did someone die and annoint you the Official thread starter? Fer gosh sakes. You're right - what a pompous idea to have a single thread about him instead of 100000 different ones with 3 posts each about him. Gawsh, what an idgit!
ganesh Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Let's just assume that he and his agent do demand a $20 M signing bonus. Well, if the contract is done properly with representative back-loaded money and over, say 6-7 years, then the cap hit for this year could be as little as $3-4 M. That's just a small piece of the large cap space that it appears that we have headed into this season -- I don't think the Bills are worried about the Cap Hit. They are actually worried about giving out real money, as that will tie their hands from pursuing FA for other positions of need. The Redskins actually had revenues of about 70-80M more than the Bills last season. That alone gives Dan Snyder more money to throw as signing bonus. With the new CBA, every team has sufficient cap space to add new deals. In 4-5 years teams like the Redskins will max their salary cap and will face a crisis (like last season), only to sign a new CBA that will extend the cap money tremendously and bail them out of the cap mess. If the Bills pay 20M signing bonus to Clements, then it will be impossible for them to sign any other FA like a Steinbach or Briggs or Adalius Thomas.
ganesh Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Who are the teams that are way over the cap this season? Any chance some good CBs with high cap numbers could be cut by their teams this year? If I remember, there was an article last week that mentioned that the 49ers who have more cap space and possibly more real cash will go after Nate Clements.
BuffaloRebound Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Do you really think the Bills have a shot at Briggs, Steinbach, or Thomas? At least Clements has history here and there is always the risk of going to a team whose defensive schemes won't play to his strengths. If Marv can land one of those guys then I won't be that upset if we lose Clements, but Clement is probably the only one we have a realistic shot of getting.
Fan in Chicago Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 I find it very presumptious of you to come along and annoint this the Official Nate Clements / CB Thread. What does that say about the Clements threads that have come before yours? Is it possible that you will squash future discussions because people don't want to interfere with your Official thread? Shouldn't we promote a free flowing dialog where everyone feels enabled to post their thoughts on Clements in individual threads? Doesn't this official thread demean the unofficial ones? Did someone die and annoint you the Official thread starter? Fer gosh sakes. You obviously missed this thread started by our fearless leader: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=57878
BADOLBILZ Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 In the spirit of keeping some focus this off season and avoiding duplicate threads and off-topic posts (as mentioned in another thread ), I'm opening this thread as a place for discussion of Nate Clements, his contract situation, his value, and our alternatives at corner. My opinion is that keeping Nate would be great all things being equal, but with the monster contract he is going to be after (and likely get), he probably does not represent value to the Bills, and we probably have to shed a tear and let him walk. If so, one option is staying with what we have, and hoping Youboty can step into those big shoes, with McGee staying at the other Corner and KT or someone new as the nickel. The worry there is that Youboty was unable to crack our lineup much this year after his slow start, and that might be more responsibility than he can handle this soon. The second option is signing another less expensive free agent corner from a list that includes: Asante Samuel UFA New England Patriots Ken Hamlin, UFA, Seattle Seahawks Roc Alexander, RFA, Denver Broncos Jordan Babineaux, RFA, Seattle Seahawks Jason David, RFA, Indianapolis Colts Randall Gay, RFA, New England Patriots Nick Harper, UFA, Indianapolis Colts David Macklin, UFA, Arizona Cardinals The third main option is drafting a corner high, which I hope we don't do unless there is really exceptional value. I would rather see the first day picks go to the lines, maybe linebacker, and other positions only if they blow us away as the best football talent available at our draft slot. Drafting a planned need can greatly reduce the value you get unless you are lucky. So the question arises what is a fair price for Nate? How high can we go before we have to forget about it? I think Marv should figure that out and make his highest offer pretty early, rather than try to get into a bidding war when Nate is closer to phone calls from Daniel Snyder, etc. I was rooting for Youboty all year, but was very disappointed that he wasn't able to get more playing time away from McGee and KT who are solid but not stellar DBs. Have at it guys, and hopefully this thread can grow long and stay on topic, and we can avoid duplicate threads about the Nate/CB situation. IMO, this is very simple. Clements was the KEY to the Bills cover 2 defense being able to keep the Bills in games. He is more important to this defense than Pat Williams was to Jerry Gray's defense, and Clements is 6 years younger than PW was. Prior to matching him up against the opponents best WR, teams were working away from Nate and KILLING McGee and Thomas. Remember Roy Williams against Detroit? It makes no sense whatsoever to let Clements walk. To say he doesn't represent value is incorrect, nobody on this defense makes the other players around him better the way Clements does when he is matched up against the opposing teams best receiver. Paying him gives McGee, Kiwaukee Thomas, Whitner and Simpson easier assignments and makes them better. If you've got to pay Nate $7M per year or so, then consider that upgrading 4 other positions as well.
34-78-83 Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 IMO, this is very simple. Clements was the KEY to the Bills cover 2 defense being able to keep the Bills in games. He is more important to this defense than Pat Williams was to Jerry Gray's defense, and Clements is 6 years younger than PW was. Prior to matching him up against the opponents best WR, teams were working away from Nate and KILLING McGee and Thomas. Remember Roy Williams against Detroit? It makes no sense whatsoever to let Clements walk. To say he doesn't represent value is incorrect, nobody on this defense makes the other players around him better the way Clements does when he is matched up against the opposing teams best receiver. Paying him gives McGee, Kiwaukee Thomas, Whitner and Simpson easier assignments and makes them better. If you've got to pay Nate $7M per year or so, then consider that upgrading 4 other positions as well. Preach it man
Koufax Posted January 4, 2007 Author Posted January 4, 2007 IMO, this is very simple. Clements was the KEY to the Bills cover 2 defense being able to keep the Bills in games. He is more important to this defense than Pat Williams was to Jerry Gray's defense, and Clements is 6 years younger than PW was. Prior to matching him up against the opponents best WR, teams were working away from Nate and KILLING McGee and Thomas. Remember Roy Williams against Detroit? It makes no sense whatsoever to let Clements walk. To say he doesn't represent value is incorrect, nobody on this defense makes the other players around him better the way Clements does when he is matched up against the opposing teams best receiver. Paying him gives McGee, Kiwaukee Thomas, Whitner and Simpson easier assignments and makes them better. If you've got to pay Nate $7M per year or so, then consider that upgrading 4 other positions as well. Yeah, I think the ripple effect is VERY important to consider. We saw how much better it worked when Nate lined up on the #1 receiver in the second half (we would have won the Detroit game if they thought of that sooner). If we bring Nate back and Ashton develops, we move McGee to nickel and he has fresher legs for kickoff returns. I don't think we will have cheaper alternatives to Nate that don't cost us elsewhere. Spending a top pick means one more position that we have to address in free agency rather than the draft. Using dollars on another player still puts us in the crazy market and loses any hometown discount we might have. I think the key here is to make Nate a big agressive offer early. I think if we sign him it should be before he gets flown to Washington on Snyder's jet, etc. This market is going to move fast, and what seemed like overpaying Nate early might seem like a bargain a few months later. The other half of that is not letting the market force us to overspend IF we can get better value in other ways (upgrading another positions more and accepting a downgrade at corner), but I think Nate is good enough, and the free agent spending is going to be crazy enough that we would overpay less to keep Nate (and draft a top guard) than to sign Steinbach, lose Nate, and have to draft a top corner. For quick reference, Champ Bailey signed a 7/$63m, and McAlister was 6/$48m, Winfield was 6/$35m a couple years back. I think that we are looking at a number closer to Champ, but in this market and changing caps might be more of a bargain than it seems.
MRW Posted January 4, 2007 Posted January 4, 2007 For quick reference, Champ Bailey signed a 7/$63m, and McAlister was 6/$48m, Winfield was 6/$35m a couple years back. I think that we are looking at a number closer to Champ, but in this market and changing caps might be more of a bargain than it seems. I think they should make Nate the top-paid corner in the league. I don't think anything less would keep him around, and while I don't think it will ever be considered a "bargain", in a year or two with the cap increasing it will be eclipsed by new contracts. I don't know about anyone else, but potentially going into next season with McGee and Thomas/Youboty as our starting corners scares the crap out of me.
Koufax Posted January 7, 2007 Author Posted January 7, 2007 I think they should make Nate the top-paid corner in the league. I don't think anything less would keep him around, and while I don't think it will ever be considered a "bargain", in a year or two with the cap increasing it will be eclipsed by new contracts. I don't know about anyone else, but potentially going into next season with McGee and Thomas/Youboty as our starting corners scares the crap out of me. I'm not as scared by McGee/Youboty, although it is clearly a downgrade. It is a downgrade that might not be as big as people think if Ashton develops, and it is a downgrade that would free resources to improve this team in other positions. I was also wondering how Clements compares to Asante Samuel both in terms of playing ability and contract expectations. Samuel has the side benefit of taking him away from the Pats (although he might be leaving anyway), and if he is cheaper he might be a better value and fit. I still want us to re-sign Nate before he hits the open market, but I don't think we are a team to be in a bidding war for a top-paid free agent CB, even if he happened to wear our jersey in 2006. If we can't sign him before the open market I think we have to consider him lost and move on.
The Jokeman Posted January 7, 2007 Posted January 7, 2007 I think they should make Nate the top-paid corner in the league. I don't think anything less would keep him around, and while I don't think it will ever be considered a "bargain", in a year or two with the cap increasing it will be eclipsed by new contracts. I don't know about anyone else, but potentially going into next season with McGee and Thomas/Youboty as our starting corners scares the crap out of me. It definately scares me as McGee wasn't good enough to start this year and there's no guaranteeing Thomas be back either being he's also an UFA. In terms of Youboty all I have to say is he wasn't good enough to play dime CB to ask him to replace a Pro Bowl caliber CB like Nate is asking for trouble. If Nate is lost, and I hope to God he isn't, we had better draft someone in Round 1 to replace him or sign a veteran. The more and more I look at things a guy like Nick Harper might be a suitable replacement being he's been in the cover 2 and seems to be a strong tackler in looking at his stats.
Recommended Posts