ganesh Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 i think that at week 17's end Clements was the best CB going into FA. and samuels was very close behind him. now after the showcasing of the playoff stage and the very good performance, samuels may have jumped him in value. teams know that when they hit the big stage, samuels will perform. no one can say that for nate(whether its his fault or not). that says a lot for someone's value. edit: and i agree, we are stupid and not serious about putting a winning team together, if we let nate walk. Samuel also plays in a "System", where they can plug in over-achievers and get big results as they are better coached.....Nate might not have got that kind of coaching in his 5 year tenure with the Bills and might be definitely more talented as a pure CB than Samuels....Both will get the big deals.
ganesh Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 I think it's not hard to make the case that Nate Clements is a better cornerback than Asante Samuel. On the other hand, there have been a heck of a lot more people watching Asante play while Nate toils on regional coverage. That means that Snyder knows he can sell a lot more Samuel jerseys than Clements jerseys next year, and that will drive up the price in a hurry. That is an insane argument....Like many people nationwide knew about Brandon Lloyd, Andre Carter and Adam Archuleta.....How many Jersey's did Snyder sell using their names....At least Randal El threw that beautiful TD pass in superbowl XL to make a name for himself.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 Samuel also plays in a "System", where they can plug in over-achievers and get big results as they are better coached.....Nate might not have got that kind of coaching in his 5 year tenure with the Bills and might be definitely more talented as a pure CB than Samuels....Both will get the big deals. sure, and some could argue that nate played for some very strong defenses and had a lot of help. i think Nate is the more talented CB, hands down. all i was saying is that this post-season performance definitely raised Samuels' stock value. and given the situation, he could get more money than Nate, if he/his agent are smart about it. and it might be easier to re-sign Nate becasue of it. i also wouldnt discredit the defensive coaching staff that Nate has played under. Jerry Gray and Gregg Williams and Dick Jauron and Dick Labaeu and even Fewell. but in rereading the post title, i disagree that Nate's value DROPPED at all. he'll still get big money.
silvermike Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 That is an insane argument....Like many people nationwide knew about Brandon Lloyd, Andre Carter and Adam Archuleta.....How many Jersey's did Snyder sell using their names....At least Randal El threw that beautiful TD pass in superbowl XL to make a name for himself. You're saying that Snyder has never been tempted to throw more money at a bigger name over a better player? Randle-El was a marginal wide receiver that never topped 50 catches and got a top-flight deal. Adam Archuleta is a relatively big name safety. The man hired Steve Spurrier and then fired him for Joe Gibbs. And, lest we forget his earlier days, Bruce Smith and Deion Sanders long after they were relevant. I'm not saying that he'll definitely sign Samuel over Clements, not with Greggo there anyway. But he's always prone to throwing money at a name instead of relying on football analysis.
Captain Hindsight Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 that doesnt mean that clements stock has dropped it just means he won't be the top choice, somebody will pay him
Dibs Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 We are stupid if we let Clements walk. NE will either put the tag on Samuels, or re-sign him to a nice contract. He is one of their best defensive players and is still getting better. I totally agree with your thoughts on what NE will do with Samuels. The situation is very different than what they had with Law. Law was old & missed the final 9 games with the Pats due to injury. Signing him to a long term, BIG money deal was a totally different proposition than signing the young/healthy Samuels. I don't see that they have any problem spending money on their 'star' players. They paid Law after his 1st contract......I can see them paying Samuels likewise. I disagree however with your first line. I don't think we will be stupid at all to let Clements walk. Apart from that the general feeling after last 2 seasons was he was just 'above average' & it was only into this season that he has shown his abilities again(read: there is a consistency concern with him).....he is a top cover-corner. We us the Tampa 2 D which requires less man-cover ability than most defenses. It makes little sense to pay a player above what they might be worth.....particularly if their best attributes(the attributes that make him cost sooooo much) will be under utilized on your team. I certainly won't be upset if we sign him though........just not too upset if we don't either.
Mark Long Beach Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 They'll judge Nate over the last 5 years rather than just the one year by samuals... Hmmm.... Asante Samuals has more interceptions in just this year than Nate has had over the last FOUR years COMBINED. Who's the real "Playmaker"? Now, Nate will get his money, somebody's always willing to overpay, especially with enlarged cap. Don't worry, he'll get to feed his family.
Bill from NYC Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 I disagree however with your first line. I don't think we will be stupid at all to let Clements walk. Apart from that the general feeling after last 2 seasons was he was just 'above average' & it was only into this season that he has shown his abilities again(read: there is a consistency concern with him).....he is a top cover-corner. We us the Tampa 2 D which requires less man-cover ability than most defenses. It makes little sense to pay a player above what they might be worth.....particularly if their best attributes(the attributes that make him cost sooooo much) will be under utilized on your team.I certainly won't be upset if we sign him though........just not too upset if we don't either. Normally I would agree with this outlook, but at 36 million under the cap, where DO we spend this money, or even 1/2 of it? There is a lack of quailty UFAs to choose from, and I suspect that many of them will be kept by their previous teams, shrinking the list yet further. Also, a question if you don't mind.....if the secondary (as you describe above) plays less of a role in terms of coverage, does this go directly against the grain of your "Whitner was a great pick" theory? Hey, just asking..........
Dibs Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 Normally I would agree with this outlook, but at 36 million under the cap, where DO we spend this money, or even 1/2 of it? There is a lack of quailty UFAs to choose from, and I suspect that many of them will be kept by their previous teams, shrinking the list yet further. Also, a question if you don't mind.....if the secondary (as you describe above) plays less of a role in terms of coverage, does this go directly against the grain of your "Whitner was a great pick" theory? Hey, just asking.......... Hopefully we spend the money on one/two OGs in FA.....a LB(simply reusing Fletchers money).....a decent CB(not megga buck decent).....re-working a contract or two. The money soon goes....plus, even though our young up&comers are under contract, in a few years we will need space so early re-working of players like JPL or Evans would make sense to me. Re: your Q. I never said the secondary plays less of a role in terms of coverage.....I said the CBs are not required to man-cover as much as other defences...unlike Greys blitz D which required 2 CBs which could survive on islands. The safeties become more important & versatile in this D(as far as I'm aware.....I'm no expert). Has there been a top flight cover-corner in any of the Cover 2 Ds? I remember the safeties.....Lynch, M.Brown....the Colts D is a different animal with Sanders back. My point on NC is that he is worth sooooo much because he can blanket a WR. Since we require our CBs to do this less than most teams, it makes sense that we would value the ability less than teams using other defensive schemes. Assuming this is correct, it should give you more hope that we won't actually go for a CB in the 1st to replace him since a good zone guy will suffice in this D.
Steven in MD Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 Samuels and Clements will each get big FA contracts from other clubs...and will be solid but not stellar performers on their new teams.
ganesh Posted January 23, 2007 Posted January 23, 2007 You're saying that Snyder has never been tempted to throw more money at a bigger name over a better player? Randle-El was a marginal wide receiver that never topped 50 catches and got a top-flight deal. Adam Archuleta is a relatively big name safety. The man hired Steve Spurrier and then fired him for Joe Gibbs. And, lest we forget his earlier days, Bruce Smith and Deion Sanders long after they were relevant. I'm not saying that he'll definitely sign Samuel over Clements, not with Greggo there anyway. But he's always prone to throwing money at a name instead of relying on football analysis. No my point was that Snyder doesn't need a big name to sign to sell their Jerseys. He has money pouring in and is unwisely spending it. My original point was that people like Snyder way overpay for average talent like Lloyd and Carter thereby bumping up the price on top notch players like Clements. It was Snyder who ended up paying 2M a year for a Defensive Coordinator...Now teams are starting to throw that kind of money at other coordinators....Where is Owners like Wilson going to get that kind of money to hire good OC or DCs.
Recommended Posts