PDA

View Full Version : Tag and Trade: Clements for Freeney


casdhf
12-06-2006, 06:10 PM
Why not? :handball:
Crisis
12-06-2006, 06:18 PM
A franchise corner for a one dimensional DE, neither of which are signed btw...

No thanks.

Besides, Freeney + Schobel as our ends and we're still the worst run defense in the league.
SABURZFAN
12-06-2006, 06:19 PM
they'll both end up in a Redskins uniform.
The last buffalo fan
12-06-2006, 06:21 PM
I would love to have him here, he is an excellent player, but DE is not our problem, or mayor need here, DT is what we need.

But, if this deal is only to get something out of nothing, I'll give it a try.
SABURZFAN
12-06-2006, 06:22 PM
I would love to have him here, he is an excellent player, but DE is not our problem, DT is what we need.




and a QB. :up:
The last buffalo fan
12-06-2006, 06:27 PM
and a QB. :up:

Sab, what do think about Losman??
clumping platelets
12-07-2006, 12:17 AM
We cannot tag Clements per agreement between the Bills and Nate
gr8slayer
12-07-2006, 01:02 AM
No thanks.
jamze132
12-07-2006, 04:19 AM
We cannot tag Clements per agreement between the Bills and Nate
Well we can if we really want to, but they have a handshake agreement that we won't tag him.
YardRat
12-07-2006, 04:42 AM
The downgrade at CB would outweigh the upgrade at DE, IMO. No thanks.
Saratoga Slim
12-07-2006, 08:32 AM
sounded good at first, but I think I'm a nay too. Kelsey/Denney aren't pro-bowlers, but just like I don't think it's the right time to let McGahee walk, I think that if we're going to trade a corner like nate for anyone, it should be for a position of true need. like DT.

But, if it was a case of either lose nate for nothing, or get Freeney, that's a no brainer.
emslave
12-07-2006, 08:34 AM
i dont think the colts would do that....freeney is an elite elite TE....Clemens is probowl caliber but not on the same level.
BillsNick
12-07-2006, 08:51 AM
NO WAY. But, I would trade Fletcher for Freeney.
SABURZFAN
12-07-2006, 05:28 PM
Sab, what do think about Losman??


i'll tell you at the end of the season. :up:
BillsFever21
12-07-2006, 08:04 PM
Why not? :handball:

The Colts would never do it. It's a nice dream though.

Anyway, Kelsay is doing decent this year. He has 5 sacks and if you can believe it or not he even has more sacks then Freeney.

I'm not saying Kelsay is better. Not even close but he is doing a decent job and Youboty certaintly isn't ready to take over for Clements. He hasn't even been able to crack the roster for any playing time this season.

If we can get another real DT alongside of Tripplet and a reliable backup him and Schobel will improve even more.
HHURRICANE
12-07-2006, 08:39 PM
People we can't tag him again. If we tried to do that Clements would file a grievance and probably win. Marv was a moron for promising not to tag him again. I like what Marv had done but this and the trade up for McCargo look incredibly stupid.
Marvelous
12-08-2006, 03:21 AM
Kelsay is not a problem.. I wonder if those who think he sucks even watch him play. The guy isn't elite but he is explosive. Total high energy, motor LE..
DT/NT is the problem..I dunno if McGargo will ever be worth squat..Tim Anderson is toast.. Triplett and Kyle Williams have a future with us..Kelsay is hardly a problem atm.. Watch him closer against the Jets....I'm not a Super Kelsay fan..No jersey here or anything, but i'm just confused by the negativity... Do fans just want a elite DE on both sides? Sounds like a luxery..GO BILLS!! I

suck.suck.suck! I hate Jet week!
casdhf
12-08-2006, 11:39 AM
People we can't tag him again. If we tried to do that Clements would file a grievance and probably win. Marv was a moron for promising not to tag him again. I like what Marv had done but this and the trade up for McCargo look incredibly stupid.

I doubt he would win any grievance.
HHURRICANE
12-08-2006, 11:47 AM
I doubt he would win any grievance.

Why would you doubt that?

Marv got Nate to sign the tender by promising not to tag him the next year. I'm 100% sure that he would not only win in a grievance case but he would also win in court.

Let me make this easy. Marv is NOT GOING TO RE-TAG Nate unless Nate somehow okays it as part of a bigger deal.
casdhf
12-08-2006, 11:49 AM
Well the clause would have to be written into the contract to be effective. I'm not sure if it was without actually looking at the deal.
ICE74129
12-08-2006, 11:50 AM
and a QB. :up:Our QB is fine and is getting better. too bad we still have morons that still can't see that.
HHURRICANE
12-08-2006, 11:54 AM
Well the clause would have to be written into the contract to be effective. I'm not sure if it was without actually looking at the deal.

If you are an attorney I will apologize now. But considering that I have more than one that I work with I can tell you a verbal agreement is just as legal as long as you have witness. Considering that there are about 100 different papers that quoted Marv I'd say that he's more than covered.
Ickybaluky
12-08-2006, 11:59 AM
Well the clause would have to be written into the contract to be effective. I'm not sure if it was without actually looking at the deal.

The CBA specifies "verbal and written" agreements between the team and player. Because of that, the only question is whether it can be proven a promise was actually made to Clements. Considering how highly-publicized the agreement was, that seems like a slam-dunk.

That said, the franchise prohibition is likely written into the contract if they agreed to it. There have been other NFL contracts with such a prohibition written in.
HHURRICANE
12-08-2006, 12:01 PM
The CBA specifies "verbal and written" agreements between the team and player. Because of that, the only question is whether it can be proven a promise was actually made to Clements. Considering how highly-publicized the agreement was, that seems like a slam-dunk.

That said, the franchise prohibition is likely written into the contract if they agreed to it. There have been other NFL contracts with such a prohibition written in.

Thanks dude. That's what I said. :jam:
clumping platelets
12-08-2006, 11:29 PM
The CBA specifies "verbal and written" agreements between the team and player. Because of that, the only question is whether it can be proven a promise was actually made to Clements. Considering how highly-publicized the agreement was, that seems like a slam-dunk.

That said, the franchise prohibition is likely written into the contract if they agreed to it. There have been other NFL contracts with such a prohibition written in.

It was announced that the Bills would not franchise Nate again...I cannot imagine his agent not including this language when Nate signed the franchise tender.......

Clements already has his bags packed.......
kernowboy
12-09-2006, 04:46 AM
I'm not so sure ... ultimately if we offer him a strong enough deal he might stay .. he has seen that the team is on the up, having the growing problems of any team. I think he will also want to look at what we can or are able to do in Free Agency .... if Fletcher goes but is replaced by a young MLB like EJ Henderson he will be curious, if Villarial is replaced with a Vince Manuwai or a David Diehl, if we get a new NT and a LE to help the DL it will look good. Clements has the potential to be the No1 star on the D, so why go to a team where he is one amongst many?