Next time you get the urge to bash the Bills front office

[Saint Doug]

The genius who drew that conclusion up neglected to mention that the 2006 run defense was also awful.

 

Actually...

 

San Fran rushing defense:

 

2006: rank=19, YRDs/game=121.0, YRDs/attempt ave=4.1, rushing TDs given up=18

 

2007: rank=22, YRDs/game=118.5, YRDs/attempt ave=3.8, rushing TDs given up=9

 

However, just for fun, let's just imagine you actually knew what you were talking about. If San Fran's rushing defense stunk so much, why would a team dish out 80 million to one player who mostly defends the pass?

[Saint Doug]

More like wishful thinking.

 

Looking at the pass defense ranking differential between 2006 and 2007 and drawing a conclusion on Clements' value is as stupid an analysis as it is hollow. The fact that he managed to take out the #1 receiver at a higher percentage than any corner in the NFL is far more indicative of his play than the overall ranking of the defense.

 

However, football is a team sport. How much your #1 corner can shut out the opponents #1 receiver is great for individual stats and PB appearences, but apparently had little impact on San Fran's defense. If shutting down the #1 receiver is not winning you games, then how have you improved your defense as a whole unit?

 

Now, look at the winners of the SB the last 5 years: TB, NE, NE, Steelers, Colts, NYG. High paid CBs were not the centerpieces of these teams.

 

Look at NFLs highest CB salaries (2007 numbers):

 

Clements, San Fran: 11.1 mil/year

McAlister, Saints: 9.4

Surtain, Chiefs: 9.3

Jammer, SD: 8.5

Samuel, NE: 7.7

Springs, Redskins: 7.3

Baxter, Browns: 6.9

Bailey, Broncos: 5.9

Henry, Cowboys: 5.6

David, Saints: 5.5

 

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/footbal...on.aspx?pos=127

 

Paying top dollar for a CB clearly does not equate to winning SBs (nor to even making the playoffs, in some cases). The one exception would be NE and it is entirely clear that Samuel was not the driving force behind the NE SB wins. Now, the CB is a very important position, but I don't think it is the position you "build around" or throw the most money at. Great CBs will probably get you into the playoffs, but there not going to win you a SB - you need the ultimate team balance (i.e. a true "team") to do this.

[Saint Doug]

Funny -- you call me "stupid" for simply commenting on the overall 49er defensive stats for 06 and 07, yet rely on one particular (and very vague) individual statistic to support your argument Clements is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

I've never said Clements isn't a top-flight CB. It's amusing how that presumption is automatically assigned to anyone who dares critique his contract and the wisdom of the 49ers in paying it.

 

Spin it however you want -- the 49ers with Clements were a statistically similar defense to the 49ers without Clements. In my apparently warped and narrow mind, that means he didn't make a huge difference for them. If your argument is that he DID make a huge difference in a way that doesn't show up in the stats, then the rest of the defense really stunk it up -- implying the 49ers wasted too many resources on their CB while failing to address the rest of the D.

 

[VOR]

Then again, when's the last time a highly regarded CB reached the market?

This past off-season: Asante Samuel.

[Sisyphean Bills]

This past off-season: Asante Samuel.

Of course, it wasn't like the Patriots were significantly under the cap and had no other elite FAs they wanted to keep.

[Dawgg]

Spin it however you want -- the 49ers with Clements were a statistically similar defense to the 49ers without Clements. In my apparently warped and narrow mind, that means he didn't make a huge difference for them.

 

It's a basic concept that you failed to grasp in high school (my apologies if you haven't gotten there yet): to accurately determine the effect of a single variable, you keep the others constant.

 

Your "analysis" assumes that the 49ers team was identical from 2006 to 2007 and the ONLY thing that changed was the addition of Clements.

 

The Broncos acquired Champ Bailey in 2004 and signed him to a huge contract extension. Using your method of analysis, their pass defense ranking remained unchanged from 2003, at 27th overall in the league. This despite the fact that he played at a Pro Bowl level and established himself as one of the best corners in the AFC. By your measure, he didn't make much of a difference. However, if you ask anyone who watched the games or knows football, he DID.

[Dawgg]

I'd prefer Pat Williams and Antowain Winfield. I haven't liked Clements since he went for the interception instead of the win against the Jags

 

 

A number of fans feel that way.

 

To me, it was an important lesson learned by a young player. There was a similar situation a year or two later against Houston -- when Clements saw the ball on 4th down and he batted it down. He learned from his mistakes and I have no problem with that.

[shibuya]

Nate Clements is one of the game's best corners and played great last season. And the defense took a big step back without him. His contract was huge... but then again, so was Derrick Dockery's. I'd rather have Clements, who ranks among the best at this position.

 

 

thats a fools move... because the game is won and lost in the trenches. The Bills OL was 100x's more desperate for the addition of Dockery then the loss of clements IMO.

 

You Build the trenches 1st, and that is the mindset that Marv set before he left and current FO still embaraces, and a main reason why Donahue was huge failure here.

[VOR]

Of course, it wasn't like the Patriots were significantly under the cap and had no other elite FAs they wanted to keep.

The Patriots are currently $10M under their adjusted cap.

[VOR]

Your "analysis" assumes that the 49ers team was identical from 2006 to 2007 and the ONLY thing that changed was the addition of Clements.

So what changed between 2006 and 2007 on defense for the 49'ers, to make them worse and thus negate Clements' presence? How about the Bills?

[Sisyphean Bills]

thats a fools move... because the game is won and lost in the trenches. The Bills OL was 100x's more desperate for the addition of Dockery then the loss of clements IMO.

 

You Build the trenches 1st, and that is the mindset that Marv set before he left and current FO still embaraces, and a main reason why Donahue was huge failure here.

Marv arrived before the 06 campaign. I guess you could spin the addition of Tripplett, Fowler, and Reyes and the drafting of McCargo as "building the lines first"...

 

But then many might say 3/4 of the top draft picks were on defensive backs, while 2/4 names above are no longer on the team and the other 2 are suspect at best.

 

Well, at least, the Bills have gotten something out of Butler and Williams.

[Sisyphean Bills]

The Patriots are currently $10M under their adjusted cap.

The Bills had very little cap space when Tom Donahoe took the job of Pres./GM.

[Dawgg]

thats a fools move... because the game is won and lost in the trenches. The Bills OL was 100x's more desperate for the addition of Dockery then the loss of clements IMO.

 

You Build the trenches 1st, and that is the mindset that Marv set before he left and current FO still embaraces, and a main reason why Donahue was huge failure here.

 

When you build from the trenches, you DRAFT in the trenches. You don't overpay for talent.

 

Instead, the Bills chose to start their rebuilding with a strong safety when a very good defensive tackle was staring them in the face.

[VOR]

The Bills had very little cap space when Tom Donahoe took the job of Pres./GM.

Yes, I agree. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Pyrite Gal]

How about Ty Law?

 

The Bills certainly don't think CB is an overrated position given the draft resources they have spent on the position the past few years.

 

Bottom line: you pay your elite talents and let mediocre players walk, drafting their replacements IRRESPECTIVE of position. Nate Clements was an elite player that should have been kept in the fold. Dockery, while a big piece of the O-Line's resurgence is not an elite player... but the Bills certainly gave him elite money!

I think the bottom line on this as demonstrated by NC signing the biggest contract ever given to a defensive player to go to SF is that Clements would have been a financial fool to sign an extension with the Bills for anything they could have offered him with the cap constraints they had when he hit FA.

 

Perhaps one could argue that at that point (they tagged him after the 05 season) Clements might have placed more value in extending for the cap constrained Bills rather than simply play for the tag in 06 and cut a deal to guarantee he would hit the free market after 06. However, one thing this playmaker has never lacked was confidence in himself and I think it is a reasonable bet that Clements would have insisted on hitting the market rather than taking the smaller contract the Bills could offer as an extension.

 

In addition to it being fairly unlikely NC would have taken the highest extension offer the Bills could make, once again it did not serve the Bills interests to extend NC:

 

1. Once the Bills decided to use the Cover 2 as their base D they made a decision that they would not use NC in his highest and best role in a Bills D. One of the strongest parts of Nate's game is that he is in fact a "playmaker" capable of covering opposing WRs all over the field. NC played a valuable role in the Bills Cover 2 in 06, but he was valuable mostly because McGee took a year (like many players) to master the Cover 2 and its reads and having NC allowed the Bills to assign him to the other team's best WR whatever side of the field he took. However, as the CB in the Cover 2 generally release the WR to the Safeties or MLB on deep routes we simply were not going to use NC as a playmaker all the time. if we chose th Cover 2 it was the correct move not to pay NC the playmaker salary he commanded in the free market.

 

2. In making an agreement with NC that he would not pull a Joey Gallowayesque holdout when they tagged him in 06 in exchange for the Bill agreeing not to tag him in 07 it is true that NC gave them nothing for this deal in that under the CBA once tagged NC was bound to the Bills for 06.

 

However, though we got nothing for the deal besides NC living up to his contract we really gave up nothing for this deal. The Bills had decided to go Cover 2 and NC was gone in terms of value for us and in terms of what we could afford to pay him. Perhaps we gave up the ability to threaten to tag NC again and thus we might be able to trade him instead of him walking away with no compensation for us. However, other teams no the CBA as well and another team would have to be stupid to trade anything to us for Nate as it was clear it did not pay for him to extend with us and it did not pay for us, so one really would have to make a clear case that we could have gotten any compensation for NC going FA. We were owed nothing according to the rules and just as we paid nothing beyond his contract to get TKO other teams owed us nothing for NC.

 

3. Also, do not forget the year NC produced in the 05 season before one waxes so poetically about saying the Bills should have opened the vault for NC when he hit FA after that season (not that NC would have been enough of an economic fool to accept any extension we were by rule limiting the amount we could offer. The '05 season ended with Nate joining Lindall (who missed a chipshot), Bledsoe (who failed to lead the team to a rally), and the D (who let then back-up to the back-up Willie Parker peel off a 100+) in failing utterly against Pitts. NC layed a PR on the carpet which pretty much capped a season in which our shutdown CB had been badly burned several times (virtually all CBs get burned sometime but it was even arguable at the time that McGee was playing better CB than NC). Even though the limited CB market virtually guaranteed that NC would either get the best offer the cash-strapped before the new CBA the Bills could offer or play the market to get a good deal even for a good but not great CB after NC's somewhat embarassing 05 (afterall this was a guy who due to injury had made the Pro Bowl the year before.

 

It simply is amazing that folks who have demonstrated great football knowledge in previous posts continue to moan about the Bills FO not showing NC the money, when:

 

1. NC even at his best for the Bills was a very good but not great CB. He arguably has not been in the top 6 CBs in the league ever!!! (an argument which has been made in every Pro Bowl of NCs career- sure one can make a case for him as being great, but one needs to acknowledge the reality that many also make the argument that he is not a great CB and certainly did not get the biggest D contract ever due to a lot more than him hitting the market at the right time when the better CBs were locked up contractually.

 

2. NC would have taken a huge financial loss over what the market might have and in fact did give him so it is questionable whether he would have even signed for the amount a cap constrained Bills FO could even offer him before the new CBA. Nate may gave been frightened by the prospect of injury or bad play that he would have taken the bird in the hand of a lesser Bill offer. However, a lack of self-confidence has never been an NC problem and I doubt seriously he would have taken what the Bills could offer,

 

3. The Bills in choosing the Cover 2 as their base D were not going to run a D that got the highest and best use of a playmaker like NC (read only the comments of Dre Bly who announced publicly when he hit FA that there was no amount of money that would get him to re-sign with Detroit to be a CB in their Cover 2 (which ironically was designed by Jauron). Jauron's approach to D is one that strikes the balance which must be struck under the CBA of not paying top dollar at all positions. Just like Indy after they let their CBs go for higher offers, a team which uses a Cover 2 as their base D generally is not going to spend their limited cap dollars getting the best of the CBs. If one wants to advocate us showing NC the money the market dictates is necessary to keep him then it is up to that advocate to lay out the fantasy world of how you would have built a team around NC's talents and skills.

 

He is a very good player and occaisionally even shows flashes of greatness, but I do not see a team building themselves around NC. A CB can in fact be good enough to do this but he needs to be Deion Sanders great. NC is very good but no one would mistake him for one of the best CBs ever and you would build a winner around him. In fact, the coaches. peers, and fans who vote for the Pro Bowl do not even see him as one of the best CBs in the NFL.

[BADOLBILZ]

I just showed you that the effect that Clements' absence had on the Bills passing defense was negligible at best

 

Statistically, the Bills pass defense went from very good to awful without Clements. That despite bad defensive schemes that lead to a series of huge blowouts early in 2006, prior to Fewell's brilliant decision to lock Clements to the opponents best instead of letting offenses scheme away from #22.

 

But those stats don't tell the story either. McGee and Greer weren't bad, they just aren't impact players. Without Nate, the Bills had to play much less aggressively in the secondary and that lead to TONS of incredibly long drives and a lack of production from Schobel and Kelsay, who no longer had that extra second that Clements provided by taking the #1 receiver out of the equation. Drives that would have ended with sacks, pass break-ups or even fumbles in 2006 just would not end. This in turn hurt the Bills offense, which took the fewest snaps of any offense in the NFL. Clements has always been a very good corner, but when he was given more responsibility he showed his true worth. His 2006 season was awesome, and when he went to SF, he didn't get that same opportunity, but he still played great. He was their team MVP and worth every penny to SF, but as often is the case with FA's, losing Nate hurt the Bills a lot more than it helped the team he went to.

 

IMO, the Bills made a big mistake letting Clements go. But hopefully, McKelvin becomes a great player as well. You don't have to make the best decision every time to be successful. A good example is the Colts trading Marshall Faulk for a 2nd rounder, then having to use the #2 pick in the draft on Edgerrin James. Faulk became the NFL MVP, and played in the next two Super Bowls and became a HOF'er. The Colts lost that trade, big time. They basically traded Faulk and the #2 overall pick for James and a #2. But they had struck it rich with Peyton Manning already, and James was a real good player too and the Colts have been good for a very long time anyway and eventually won their SB, albeit without James. With any luck, maybe acquiring guys like Trent Edwards and Jason Peters without having to use top picks on them will make up for other mistakes.

[Adam]

A number of fans feel that way.

 

To me, it was an important lesson learned by a young player. There was a similar situation a year or two later against Houston -- when Clements saw the ball on 4th down and he batted it down. He learned from his mistakes and I have no problem with that.

Lindell and Bledsoe were demonized for the Pittsburgh game that season, but Clements pretty much got a free pass for costing us the Jacksonville game.

[justnzane]

We traded McGahee and a 5th for Trent Edwards, Marcus Stroud, and a 7th. We are far better off without him.

Well we traded Price for McBadknee, so really we traded Peerless and for TE, Stroud, and ah You... somehow the son of satan still looks good in this light

 

BADOL, I disagree with your argument based on the fact the Bills pass D was hurt immensely by injuries. Losing Ko Simpson was the biggest loss on that D last year

[BillsWatch]

How smart does Baltimore look now giving up two #3's for Willis McDoofus? How about San Fran breaking the bank for Clements? I can recall how certain posters here declared the Earth would spin off its axis if the Bills didn't keep these two "irreplaceable" players.

 

PTR

 

 

Some posters have more fun bashing the Bills than watching the Bills and I do not expect that to change no matter how well they do.

[Dan]

When you build from the trenches, you DRAFT in the trenches. You don't overpay for talent.

 

Instead, the Bills chose to start their rebuilding with a strong safety when a very good defensive tackle was staring them in the face.

I'm not sure I would agree with this. In today's era, you build a team through the draft and through free agency. The Bills have drafted some and signed more FA linemen the last few years. Whether they overpaid for these free agents or not is inconsequential to the point. And the point is... the Bills needed to address the lines and in the last couple of off seasons they have. Now, as some may suggest...

 

Marv arrived before the 06 campaign. I guess you could spin the addition of Tripplett, Fowler, and Reyes and the drafting of McCargo as "building the lines first"...

 

But then many might say 3/4 of the top draft picks were on defensive backs, while 2/4 names above are no longer on the team and the other 2 are suspect at best.

 

Well, at least, the Bills have gotten something out of Butler and Williams.

 

So obviously, the FO has had mixed results. You could argue that they've brought in some poor choices. And, yes, that they paid some too much. However, again, the point is... they needed to address the lines. And they have each off season. The additions of Stroud and Johnson, for example, are yet a continuance of attempting to solidify the lines.

 

It appears many posters just disagree with the manner in which the FO has addressed the lines. But that should be a different debate... is it better to draft linemen or sign FA linemen? I would suggest the Bills think FAs are the better option. Of course, many disagree with the personnel they've brought in as well. And that's certainly understandable in some instances. However, once again, I say you have to at least acknowledge the effort. Without taking the time to do the research (because its late and I'm tired), I would guess we've brought in more linemen (Draftees and FAs) over they last 3 off seasons, then TD brought in, in 5 years.

 

Hence, I'd suggest that bashing the FO for not building the lines is inappropriate. Certainly there's something else we could bash them about... being sexists? racists? encouraging the mowing down of Canadians? something.