Peters Press Conference in Philly

[Dawgg]

I take it NFL teams negotiate in a vacuum and should have no consideration for what the players and agents do?

 

Oh wait, we have an answer from your contradictory position.

 

It was Bills fault for agreeing to Clements' demands of no FP designation if he reported to camp, because they wanted to avoid his pending holdout and it was Bills fault for not drafting Peters' replacement because they didn't predict his pending holdout.

 

Which one is it?

Contrary to your view of the world, not all situations are created equal. Clements was a pending free agent whom the Bills clearly had no intention of keeping due to the exorbitant price tag. Thus, they should have traded him the same way the Bills traded Peerless Price when his value was at its peak.

 

Peters, on the other hand, was a building block the team wanted to build around. However, the team failed to anticipate the problems that would ensue by signing two inferior lineman for a combined $74M and leaving Peters' contract as-is. When the Bills re-signed Kelsay to a big contract, they knew Schobel would be upset -- thus, they redid his deal despite the fact that it had three years remaining. They did not show the same courtesy to Peters.

[dave mcbride]

Not sure if you were referring to Peters being injured for the last couple of games last year or not,

but if so, he definitley was not hurt, but faking the injury, come to think of it, it really doesn't matter

when it was, as I am pretty sure he was faking then to. Peters went about this thing absiloutley the wrong

way, not saying that the Bills didn't have some responsibility, but very little IMO.

I was talking about the Giants game in 2007, when he tore his groin.

[Cookiemonster]

I was talking about the Giants game in 2007, when he tore his groin.

Yeah, and he probably faked that too. He is a lazy fat assed bum. But let me tell you how I really feel

about him.

[GG]

Contrary to your view of the world, not all situations are created equal. Clements was a pending free agent whom the Bills clearly had no intention of keeping due to the exorbitant price tag. Thus, they should have traded him the same way the Bills traded Peerless Price when his value was at its peak.

 

Peters, on the other hand, was a building block they wanted to build around but the team failed to anticipate the problems that would ensue by signing two inferior lineman for a combined $74M and leaving Peters' contract as-is. When the Bills re-signed Kelsay to a big contract, they knew Schobel would be upset -- thus, they redid his deal despite the fact that it had three years remaining. They did not show the same courtesy to Peters.

 

The situations are a lot more equal than you care to admit and it's funny to see your contortions to justify your PoV.

 

There is absolutely nothing that supports your theory that they had no intention of keeping Clements. IIRC, there were talks through out 2006 and the offseason to see if a deal could be made. In the end, the team decided on keeping Kelsay and letting Clements walk, because a) they couldn't afford both and b) the CB depth was better than DE depth. (Note, this is not to say that Kelsey is a better player than Clements, but when a GM sets out to fill a roster, he looks at all positions, not just the one that is favorite of one fan) You can make a case that they were also building around a young DL, who was just about to have a break out season. But since you specialize in hindsight analysis, the retrospective call is an easy one for you to make.

 

The Bills agreed not to franchise Clements because they wanted that he would be in camp and on the field for the new coaching staff. It also gave them a year of trying to negotiate in a relatively friendly matter.

 

I like how you totally dismiss the examples of other teams agreeing to lift the FP tag. Perhaps there's a reason for that, other than "Well, they're not the idiots who work at OBD." Perhaps it's a more than subtle threat by the agents & players to weaken the FP designation. By receiving the top 5 pay in their position, FP make a lot of money for one year and can easily sit out one year to force a team's hand. In the end, you have a player who's missed 10 games and who clearly doesn't want to play for you. Try negotiating in that situation. So it makes logical reasoning why GMs will agree to remove the FP tag in Yr 2.

 

A team is certainly within its rights to go back on their word and slap the tag again. But that would effectively kill any leverage that team would have with other contract negotiations with that player's or other agents. Unless they live in your world, where you forget yesterday's deal.

 

So exactly when should have Bills traded Clements, when they were hoping through Jan/Feb '07 to still keep him on the roster?

 

Which is why hearing you bashing them for getting value for Peters now, in a very similar situation is funny indeed. Of course the Bills knew that Peters wouldn't be happy about other players getting more money. But Peters should also know that he needed to play by the team owner's rules. Which he didn't.

 

Just admit that you're a self-hating Bills fan and that your life would be easier if you followed another team. Of course some of us wouldn't get the endless broken record of how drafting Donte set this franchise back from the miserly years of Ralph Wilson's ownership.

[don_of_manhattan]

...is that he is a total douchebag. I'm sorry - but nothing he said in there stands him up as a good guy or is even a little bit grateful that the Bills took a chance on him.

 

A classless buffoon.

I have rooted for some ex-Bills when they move on - not this guy!

[Dawgg]

There is absolutely nothing that supports your theory that they had no intention of keeping Clements. IIRC, there were talks through out 2006 and the offseason to see if a deal could be made. In the end, the team decided on keeping Kelsay and letting Clements walk, because a) they couldn't afford both and b) the CB depth was better than DE depth. (Note, this is not to say that Kelsey is a better player than Clements, but when a GM sets out to fill a roster, he looks at all positions, not just the one that is favorite of one fan) You can make a case that they were also building around a young DL, who was just about to have a break out season. But since you specialize in hindsight analysis, the retrospective call is an easy one for you to make.

You can see my posting history and I spoke about all these issues when they occurred. It's convenient for you to call it hindsight analysis now that I have ultimately been proven right.

 

The team decided against re-signing Clements because they knew his price tag was astronomical. The market for #1 cornerbacks had blown through the roof in recent years and it was quite evident that the team was resigned to letting him walk. If they wanted to keep him, they would not have given up the key piece of leverage called the franchise tag. Just as the Patriots did with Samuel and the Titans did with Haynesworth, they promised not to franchise them knowing full well that their chances of retaining them would be essentially gone. That's basic common sense.

 

The Bills agreed not to franchise Clements because they wanted that he would be in camp and on the field for the new coaching staff. It also gave them a year of trying to negotiate in a relatively friendly matter.

There were no negotiations between Clements and the Bills during that season, period.

 

I like how you totally dismiss the examples of other teams agreeing to lift the FP tag.

Never dismissed it. I simply said that by removing the franchise tag designation in Year 2, they are essentially removing themselves from the bidding. New England, Tennessee, and Buffalo all had one thing in common in making that move: they had no plans to re-sign the player in question to a long-term deal.

 

A team is certainly within its rights to go back on their word and slap the tag again. But that would effectively kill any leverage that team would have with other contract negotiations with that player's or other agents. Unless they live in your world, where you forget yesterday's deal.

You think this was a handshake agreement? Clements' agent, Todd France, had the Bills assure in writing that by signing the one-year tender, they could not franchise him in Year 2. Same with New England, same with Tennessee.

 

So exactly when should have Bills traded Clements, when they were hoping through Jan/Feb '07 to still keep him on the roster?

Read up on how the Bills handled the Peerless Price situation.

 

Which is why hearing you bashing them for getting value for Peters now, in a very similar situation is funny indeed. Of course the Bills knew that Peters wouldn't be happy about other players getting more money. But Peters should also know that he needed to play by the team owner's rules. Which he didn't.

Yet another foolish presumption. Peters got exactly the money he was looking for. So he didn't have to follow the owner's rules to get what he wants. That the bumbling Bills deemed him expendable and a perennial playoff contender considered him worth the money is fairly telling. If you can't see the irony, then you are yet another delusional Bills fan who thinks that this inept front office can do no wrong.

 

Just admit that you're a self-hating Bills fan and that your life would be easier if you followed another team. Of course some of us wouldn't get the endless broken record of how drafting Donte set this franchise back from the miserly years of Ralph Wilson's ownership.

Have you checked Donte's Facebook page lately? What is he saying now?

[GG]

The team decided against re-signing Clements because they knew his price tag was astronomical. The market for #1 cornerbacks had blown through the roof in recent years and it was quite evident that the team was resigned to letting him walk. If they wanted to keep him, they would not have given up the key piece of leverage called the franchise tag. Just as the Patriots did with Samuel and the Titans did with Haynesworth, they promised not to franchise them knowing full well that their chances of retaining them would be essentially gone. That's basic common sense.

 

Again, negotiation do not occur in a VACUUM. There are usually two sides to a negotiation. That's why it's called a negotiation. When one side doesn't like the other's position, they will not negotiate.

 

When a player's agent doesn't like the FP, they will do whatever it takes to diminish its use. Players don't mind a 1-yr franchise tag because they build up a war chest with the owner's money to negotiate harder next year. The choice for a team is agreeing to a 1-yr FT and lose the player or have the guy it out.

 

Bills in '06 were confident that playoffs would be attainable, so they felt that it was better to keep Clements for the season, instead of having him miss all summer.

 

Never dismissed it. I simply said that by removing the franchise tag designation in Year 2, they are essentially removing themselves from the bidding. New England, Tennessee, and Buffalo all had one thing in common in making that move: they had no plans to re-sign the player in question to a long-term deal.

 

You think this was a handshake agreement? Clements' agent, Todd France, had the Bills assure in writing that by signing the one-year tender, they could not franchise him in Year 2. Same with New England, same with Tennessee.

 

Which is all part of the negotiation to get a key player in camp during the season when you need him.

 

Read up on how the Bills handled the Peerless Price situation.

 

Yes, they drafted Josh Reed one year before Price was set to be a FA and found the one gullible owner who took the bait.

 

Your logic is also supported by the 32 annual trades of franchise players.

 

Yet another foolish presumption. Peters got exactly the money he was looking for. So he didn't have to follow the owner's rules to get what he wants. That the bumbling Bills deemed him expendable and a perennial playoff contender considered him worth the money is fairly telling. If you can't see the irony, then you are yet another delusional Bills fan who thinks that this inept front office can do no wrong.

 

Yes, that's exactly the player I want to be rooting for on MY favorite team. That's exactly the player the other guys want around them in the locker room. That's exactly the player who should be entrusted to protect a QBs blind side from the menacing blitzing safety.

 

The difference between me and you is not that I think that the FO can do no wrong, it's that I don't need to make up excuses why the team sucks. There are many examples of ineptitude. You don't need to create your own.

 

Have you checked Donte's Facebook page lately? What is he saying now?

 

Sorry, when Facebook turns into an NFL game, maybe then I'll be interested in what Donte or anyone else has to say on it.

[Sisyphean Bills]

I like how you totally dismiss the examples of other teams agreeing to lift the FP tag.

Obviously other teams have chosen not to use the FP or TP tag at various time for various reasons. I question what the Bills motivation was in the Clements case for doing so. The stated reason was that Marv had a gentleman's agreement with Clements to "let him test free agency" because Nate wanted to do so. If that was the reason, then the Bills were fools. Marv may have been trying to build a "honest GM" image, but that was for naught as well because he was gone after only 2 off-seasons. If the reason had been that Clements hadn't played up to a FP tag or that there was some other player they needed to tag for the next year or, really, any other football-related reason, then one cannot really be overly critical. The Bills have to look out for their best interest and Clements likewise. But, to release a valuable asset to your team because for some reason Marv decided to promise him that he could leave? That's a little "non-standard" shall we say.

[Dawgg]

Obviously other teams have chosen not to use the FP or TP tag at various time for various reasons. I question what the Bills motivation was in the Clements case for doing so. The stated reason was that Marv had a gentleman's agreement with Clements to "let him test free agency" because Nate wanted to do so. If that was the reason, then the Bills were fools. Marv may have been trying to build a "honest GM" image, but that was for naught as well because he was gone after only 2 off-seasons. If the reason had been that Clements hadn't played up to a FP tag or that there was some other player they needed to tag for the next year or, really, any other football-related reason, then one cannot really be overly critical. The Bills have to look out for their best interest and Clements likewise. But, to release a valuable asset to your team because for some reason Marv decided to promise him that he could leave? That's a little "non-standard" shall we say.

Spot on.

[GG]

Obviously other teams have chosen not to use the FP or TP tag at various time for various reasons. I question what the Bills motivation was in the Clements case for doing so. The stated reason was that Marv had a gentleman's agreement with Clements to "let him test free agency" because Nate wanted to do so. If that was the reason, then the Bills were fools. Marv may have been trying to build a "honest GM" image, but that was for naught as well because he was gone after only 2 off-seasons. If the reason had been that Clements hadn't played up to a FP tag or that there was some other player they needed to tag for the next year or, really, any other football-related reason, then one cannot really be overly critical. The Bills have to look out for their best interest and Clements likewise. But, to release a valuable asset to your team because for some reason Marv decided to promise him that he could leave? That's a little "non-standard" shall we say.

 

It had nothing to do with Levy's honest GM image, and everything to do with fielding the best team for a new coach & new defensive system.

 

If Bills let him walk in his first year of free agency without slapping the FP, then maybe you'd be onto something. But in order to make sure that Clements showed up in camp to learn a brand new system and maybe help the team in '06, the FO decided that it was worth having him on the roster. He was not going to report without a guarantee of no FP in '07. Just because the Bills were among the first teams that had to agree to dropping the tag in year 2 doesn't mean it's not standard practice by players & agents.

 

As for his trade value, I don't recall many people clamoring, either. The only hot rumor was an even up swap for Booger McFarland in '06.

 

Of course, if you're in Dawwg fantasy island where you don't have to negotiate with another party, I'm guessing that you probably could have traded Clements for Manning & Harrison in 2006.

[Dawgg]

Of course, if you're in Dawwg fantasy island where you don't have to negotiate with another party, I'm guessing that you probably could have traded Clements for Manning & Harrison in 2006.

That's a figment of your imagination, not mine.

 

Could he have been had for a first day pick? Absolutely. Definitely a second rounder and probably a first rounder. Yes, his value was that high. Nobody said it's not standard practice... but to let him walk for nothing was just plain stupid. Most teams who use the franchise tag do so because they have every intention to keep the player long-term. The history of franchise tags corroborates that fact.

 

Teams that voluntarily remove that leverage the following year have pretty much resigned themselves to losing them in free agency. Again, this has proven to be universally true in the 3 instances such a move has occurred (Haynsworth, Samuel, Clements). If empirical evidence isn't enough to convince you, feel free to continue living your pipe dream. Fact is, you have very little objectivity anyway... can't blame you, for that's the typical fan mentality anyway

[Trader]

All I ask as a Bills fan is that EVERY ONE OF US VOTES for Peters to go pro bowl. Why? Because regardless of how he does this year - if the pick as advertised is conditional, that is most likely one of the conditions. So, let's get that pick in 2010 as high as it can get!

 

I like the way you think!

[Trader]

What exactly does this do for us on the field?

 

 

We are about to find out.

[Bill from NYC]

There is absolutely nothing that supports your theory that they had no intention of keeping Clements.

 

Well, there is some justification. At the very least, past practices of the organization would indicate that the Bills let their first round corners walk for nothing in return. And, some of them were pretty good. Remember, T. Smith, Burress and Winfield were not re-signed as ufas. There was an obvious history there Gerry.

 

I want to readily admit however that imo, the situations wrt Clements and Peters were not the same imo. I heard Clements on Sirius once and was surprised at just how much he wanted out of Buffalo. Trust me, he made it clear that he wanted no part of staying in town. Think about it if you will....it worked out very well for Nate. He got out of Buffalo and he got his huge contract, but 1 injury would have toppled that plan Gerry. Personally, I would never have been wiling to take this kind of risk. Lee Evans is a player who took the safe route. Imo he was smart to do so.

 

Peters was another matter as far as I can tell. He just wanted cash, and it was clear that Ralph didn't want to give it to him, probably based on his "attitude." We will find out very soon if it was a dumb move to trade him; I obviously think that it was.

 

In any event, I am still left thinking that at some point the Bills knew that Clements wanted out, and that Marv should have got the Bills something in return for him. Admittedly, much of this is speculation.

Overall, do you think that Levy handled the Clements situation well?

[BillsVet]

It had nothing to do with Levy's honest GM image, and everything to do with fielding the best team for a new coach & new defensive system.

 

If Bills let him walk in his first year of free agency without slapping the FP, then maybe you'd be onto something. But in order to make sure that Clements showed up in camp to learn a brand new system and maybe help the team in '06, the FO decided that it was worth having him on the roster. He was not going to report without a guarantee of no FP in '07. Just because the Bills were among the first teams that had to agree to dropping the tag in year 2 doesn't mean it's not standard practice by players & agents.

 

As for his trade value, I don't recall many people clamoring, either. The only hot rumor was an even up swap for Booger McFarland in '06.

 

Of course, if you're in Dawwg fantasy island where you don't have to negotiate with another party, I'm guessing that you probably could have traded Clements for Manning & Harrison in 2006.

 

A few months ago GG you wrote an emotional piece that appeared on TBD about your feelings for this franchise. I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, but at the time I felt run down by the 2-8 finish and retention of DJ as HC as well. It seemed there weren't a lot of redeeming qualities to their final months of the season.

 

We're close to the draft now, which is perhaps the one day on the NFL calendar requiring the greatest savvy and strategy. Having said that, IMO the Bills lack both qualities to put them ahead of their divisional and conference rivals.

 

I don't see a vision from the front officet to remake the on-field team into something, anything. Again, I'm not trying to say you're a hypocrite, but the current makeup of the front office does not feature the bright minds which might put this team over the hump. I myself can't see the wisdom in having so few football minds running the show. You're correct, IMO, that Guy and Modrak supply the information and someone makes the decision. But whoever makes that decision on draft picks and UFA's hasn't changed in years. I can't support the front office with a continued record of futility like this.

 

When they change the people at the top with football people, it'll change. For now, I'll remain realistic.

[GG]

Well, there is some justification. At the very least, past practices of the organization would indicate that the Bills let their first round corners walk for nothing in return. And, some of them were pretty good. Remember, T. Smith, Burress and Winfield were not re-signed as ufas. There was an obvious history there Gerry.

 

And this is precisely what I was referring to.

 

Not only do the Bills, but every single NFL franchise loses key players to free agency without getting direct compensation. There are far more cases like the ones you cite than a team trading away a player in the last year of his contract. It's just the way the NFL works. Yet if we live in Dawwg's world, it only became an issue when Levy was named GM. Somehow, we should ignore the losses of Phat Pat and Antoine, because ... poof ... they didn't happen. Or if they did, they were totally, completely and utterly different. We should forget that the team lost its best LT in history because someone gave him a novel contract that said that he would be the highest paid Wolford in the world.

 

More often than not, NFL teams choose to keep their players until the contract is up. Part of it is to get better short term performance out of the soon-to-be-departing player and the other part is managing the rest of the roster and remove potential distractions for players who may be heading into the last year of their contract. If I worked in an organization that habitually traded away players, me and my agent would certainly craft my contract commensurately with the team's regular practice. But again, in Dawwg's world that couldn't happen because every negotiation is one-sided.

 

I want to readily admit however that imo, the situations wrt Clements and Peters were not the same imo. I heard Clements on Sirius once and was surprised at just how much he wanted out of Buffalo. Trust me, he made it clear that he wanted no part of staying in town. Think about it if you will....it worked out very well for Nate. He got out of Buffalo and he got his huge contract, but 1 injury would have toppled that plan Gerry. Personally, I would never have been wiling to take this kind of risk. Lee Evans is a player who took the safe route. Imo he was smart to do so.

 

Peters was another matter as far as I can tell. He just wanted cash, and it was clear that Ralph didn't want to give it to him, probably based on his "attitude." We will find out very soon if it was a dumb move to trade him; I obviously think that it was.

 

In any event, I am still left thinking that at some point the Bills knew that Clements wanted out, and that Marv should have got the Bills something in return for him. Admittedly, much of this is speculation.

Overall, do you think that Levy handled the Clements situation well?

 

You can never really tell whether a player really wants out of a franchise or is just using that justification for more money. I'm guessing if Bills were willing to match 49ers offer, Clements would have been singing Orchard Park's prayers.

 

As for Levy's handling Clements' situation, you have to consider the alternatives. If anything Levy used the FP tag to keep Clements around for a year longer, because obviously someone thought that it would be better for him to be on the roster in '06. That's the real trade decision you have to make - do you get an extra 2nd/3rd round pick in '06, or do you hold on to the quality player for his last season with the team? Clements' draft stock probably fell out of day 1 as soon as the '06 draft ended. After that, if you consider that the McFarland rumors were true, the trade would seem as a joke in retrospect as Bucs were peddling damaged goods. Yet John Guy doesn't get credit for saying no to that one.

[GG]

A few months ago GG you wrote an emotional piece that appeared on TBD about your feelings for this franchise. I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, but at the time I felt run down by the 2-8 finish and retention of DJ as HC as well. It seemed there weren't a lot of redeeming qualities to their final months of the season.

 

We're close to the draft now, which is perhaps the one day on the NFL calendar requiring the greatest savvy and strategy. Having said that, IMO the Bills lack both qualities to put them ahead of their divisional and conference rivals.

 

I don't see a vision from the front officet to remake the on-field team into something, anything. Again, I'm not trying to say you're a hypocrite, but the current makeup of the front office does not feature the bright minds which might put this team over the hump. I myself can't see the wisdom in having so few football minds running the show. You're correct, IMO, that Guy and Modrak supply the information and someone makes the decision. But whoever makes that decision on draft picks and UFA's hasn't changed in years. I can't support the front office with a continued record of futility like this.

 

When they change the people at the top with football people, it'll change. For now, I'll remain realistic.

 

This is precisely why I said that there are plenty of reasons to be miffed with the franchise without resorting to inventing new things. There has been one constant with this franchise in 1/2 century, and the team fully reflects that. The positive is that the franchise has remained in WNY against all realistic odds of surviving there, but the downside is that it's offered a mediocre product more often than not.

[Williams+Williams+Williams]

F%$K Jason Peters, right in his earhole.

 

 

Right on

[Sisyphean Bills]

It had nothing to do with Levy's honest GM image, and everything to do with fielding the best team for a new coach & new defensive system.

 

If Bills let him walk in his first year of free agency without slapping the FP, then maybe you'd be onto something. But in order to make sure that Clements showed up in camp to learn a brand new system and maybe help the team in '06, the FO decided that it was worth having him on the roster. He was not going to report without a guarantee of no FP in '07. Just because the Bills were among the first teams that had to agree to dropping the tag in year 2 doesn't mean it's not standard practice by players & agents.

 

As for his trade value, I don't recall many people clamoring, either. The only hot rumor was an even up swap for Booger McFarland in '06.

 

Of course, if you're in Dawwg fantasy island where you don't have to negotiate with another party, I'm guessing that you probably could have traded Clements for Manning & Harrison in 2006.

Actually, the way I remember it Clements was coming off a down year and some/many people thought Levy was crazy to franchise Clements in the first place. You are suggesting above that the Bills never really had a chance to keep Clements by signing him to a second term contract. That right there is a problem; players do not want to stay and play in Buffalo. Secondly, you imply that renting Clements, unhappy as he was to be tagged, was a far better option than trading him (assuming he got tagged) or letting him go that first year as opposed to simply moving on with a new coach, new system, and new players. These two things don't exactly mesh unless the Bills/Levy did not see it that way at all and thought that they could strike a deal with Clements, they just needed more time. (And AFAIK, Levy did spend time the next year trying to negotiate with Clements, but Clements wanted his big pay day and out of Buffalo.)

 

[Edit] The trouble is the claim that the only way Clements would come to camp was if Levy offered him this guarantee that he'd be allowed to walk the next year. To be more concrete, let's say that is true and Levy did not cave in and give up his leverage. NC would, under this scenario, not report to camp and might even pull a Jason Peters and only show up until 2 days before the first game. Now, NC was coming off a down year and this holdout would not have helped him learn the new defense. His performance would, reasonably, resemble a fish out of water. Hardly a way for NC to maximize his earnings potential as he'd have two down years back to back, hypothetically. That $80M contract wouldn't have been waiting for him in SF. So, really, it was in both the Bills and NC interest that he get his rear into camp and play to the maximum of his abilities.

 

In my view, a team should only use the FP tag on someone if they really think that player is a franchise player and are fully prepared to offer the guy an eye-popping contract that is the best at the position. Let's face it, the FP tag creates a sense of animosity. But, it is there for the team to buy time to work out a new deal. And that deal is going to have to be better than the going rate for the player/position in order to close. Otherwise, the team will have to continue to re-use the FP tag or move on anyway.

 

There is just no way I can see losing Nate Clements and replacing him with Jason Webster as doing what is best or trying to put the best team on the field.

 

As far as not being able to tell if Clements wanted to stay or not, that's why you have a face to face between the parties and ask questions.

 

I think we are touching on something here that separates guys like Parcells or Belichick from other NFL front offices. They want players that want to play football, want to master their craft, and want to be there. They'll move or cut or let walk talent and/or big names, like a Jason Taylor, if they tip their hand that they are about money or whatever. Winning has a way of creating new names.

[GG]

Actually, the way I remember it Clements was coming off a down year and some/many people thought Levy was crazy to franchise Clements in the first place. You are suggesting above that the Bills never really had a chance to keep Clements by signing him to a second term contract. That right there is a problem; players do not want to stay and play in Buffalo. Secondly, you imply that renting Clements, unhappy as he was to be tagged, was a far better option than trading him (assuming he got tagged) or letting him go that first year as opposed to simply moving on with a new coach, new system, and new players. These two things don't exactly mesh unless the Bills/Levy did not see it that way at all and thought that they could strike a deal with Clements, they just needed more time. (And AFAIK, Levy did spend time the next year trying to negotiate with Clements, but Clements wanted his big pay day and out of Buffalo.)

 

[Edit] The trouble is the claim that the only way Clements would come to camp was if Levy offered him this guarantee that he'd be allowed to walk the next year. To be more concrete, let's say that is true and Levy did not cave in and give up his leverage. NC would, under this scenario, not report to camp and might even pull a Jason Peters and only show up until 2 days before the first game. Now, NC was coming off a down year and this holdout would not have helped him learn the new defense. His performance would, reasonably, resemble a fish out of water. Hardly a way for NC to maximize his earnings potential as he'd have two down years back to back, hypothetically. That $80M contract wouldn't have been waiting for him in SF. So, really, it was in both the Bills and NC interest that he get his rear into camp and play to the maximum of his abilities.

 

In my view, a team should only use the FP tag on someone if they really think that player is a franchise player and are fully prepared to offer the guy an eye-popping contract that is the best at the position. Let's face it, the FP tag creates a sense of animosity. But, it is there for the team to buy time to work out a new deal. And that deal is going to have to be better than the going rate for the player/position in order to close. Otherwise, the team will have to continue to re-use the FP tag or move on anyway.

 

There is just no way I can see losing Nate Clements and replacing him with Jason Webster as doing what is best or trying to put the best team on the field.

 

As far as not being able to tell if Clements wanted to stay or not, that's why you have a face to face between the parties and ask questions.

 

I think we are touching on something here that separates guys like Parcells or Belichick from other NFL front offices. They want players that want to play football, want to master their craft, and want to be there. They'll move or cut or let walk talent and/or big names, like a Jason Taylor, if they tip their hand that they are about money or whatever. Winning has a way of creating new names.

 

Which is a long way of saying that the Bills have not had any continuity in the front office or coaching to establish a football program that could withstand the transient nature of free agency. They had the foundation when Polian left, yet Wilson's alienation of Butler sealed the team's fate for the next decade.

 

But hey, it's more fun to argue whether Nate Clements would have been worth a 2nd or 4th round pick in 2006.