Albany,n.y. Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Say we had been able to get the same deal a year ago for Nate Clements. Well, we'd have a guy we drafted in the 3rd round, possibly a 7th rounder if he made the team, and an extra 3rd this year. Instead, we got 1 year of Nate Clements & nothing else. In hindsight, I'd prefer those extra choices to what we have now. Now, Marv realized that there's no way the Bills would pay Willis what he wants, and the only way Willis would sign another contract is if we franchised him, and he'd be pisssed & unmotivated. So he got a lot more than just 1 more year of Willis. I wonder if Marv had to do it again, would he have dealt Clements last year? I think the Clements experience made trading Willis for 3 picks, two of them day 1 picks, a no-brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Trading Nate Clements for the same package we got for mcgahee would've been terrible. Clements is a top 5 player at his position McGahee rounds out the 10-15 range at his. From that perspective would've been a terrible deal. The only thing that bugs me more about losing McGahee more so then Clements is at least with losing clements we have other corners. Granted McGee won't ever confuse anyone with a guy like Nate or Winfield, but he's adequate. We drafted Youboty last year with full intentions of seeing if he could replace Nate. I like Ashton in college, but he has a lot of ground to catch up on. With Losing willis to perceived draft value you're trading him for a throwaway 7th, and 2 3rd rounders 1 this year and 1 next. Now we could get lucky and get a back who has great value and fill another need. Making trading willis, look like a stroke of genius, but again the draft pick is an unknown quantity, and we know what we have now on the depth chart and out in free agency are some serious downgrades to mcgahee. I still feel overall that holding willis this year while drafting a lorenzeo booker, and then drafting a rb of the future next year would've been a much better option. We'll see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 That would have been great and everything, but clements was a unrestricted free agent with a franchise tag. That's a very different situation that someone with a year left on their rookie contract, who didn't really prove himself the way clements did. Say we had been able to get the same deal a year ago for Nate Clements. Well, we'd have a guy we drafted in the 3rd round, possibly a 7th rounder if he made the team, and an extra 3rd this year. Instead, we got 1 year of Nate Clements & nothing else. In hindsight, I'd prefer those extra choices to what we have now. Now, Marv realized that there's no way the Bills would pay Willis what he wants, and the only way Willis would sign another contract is if we franchised him, and he'd be pisssed & unmotivated. So he got a lot more than just 1 more year of Willis. I wonder if Marv had to do it again, would he have dealt Clements last year? I think the Clements experience made trading Willis for 3 picks, two of them day 1 picks, a no-brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsguy Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Trading Nate Clements for the same package we got for mcgahee would've been terrible. What did the Bills get for Clements? Fletcher? Nada. Zilch. At least they got a bag of pucks for Willis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts