Memo to Levy: Don't promise franchise tag to McGahee

[ghz in pittsburgh]

I still think promising not to franchise Clements was a mistake. I really don't think he's going to hold out last year. It turned out he started 2006 season slow anyway.

Do you honestly believe we could get a 2nd round pick for Clements if we franchised him? You bet. Now Marv may not be the kind of person to do this kind of things (franchise for the purpose of trading), but he's the GM, he needs to play the game a bit.

I have the distinct feeling that McGahee is in the same boat. Now McGahee is not nearly established like Clements was but in terms of offensive threats, Evans and McGahee are on top of every of our opponents list. With the new focus on run and stop run, with the way offensive line is re-shaped, and most importantly, with the way Losman is developing, I can see McGahee have his "contract year" production in 2007.

I can see that McGahee might not be viewed in this administration as a long term solution - I really don't think his personal life, his remark about Buffalo played any part of it. Rather I think his catching ability is not up to par with Steve fairchild's offense. Remember when McGahee's catch and run at the end of the Titans game? Remember Thomas' catches at the end of the Texans' game? In Marty's offense, they want you to defend everyone (including Losman in this case), and runningback needs to be a legit passing threat. Willis is not a constant passing threat.

I don't see McGahee hold out in 2007. I actually see Willis and his agent looking for a big payday in 2008 with a healthy play in 2007. I can easily see Willis demand more touches. And I can see his agent plot to have Levy promise not to franchise his client in 2008 much like Clements' case.

That's where I want Levy to learn from his mistake in handling Clements case.

[North_Coast]

I don't think it was a mistake at all.

In the cover2 defense, a shut down corner isn't necessary the way it is in other schemes that use more man-to-man coverage. Good safeties are much more important, so long-term, Nate's future in Buffalo was limited by his price.

I think that the Bills needed Nate for 2006 because they were just implementing the cover2, so they franchised him. Having Nate in camp and playing well was more important than having the right to franchise him again because they never planned on keeping him beyond 2006. If Nate was too expensive in 2006 for a cover2 CB, he would definitely be too expensive in 2007 for a cover2 CB. There's a reason that the Bills grabbed Ashton Youboty in the 2006 draft besides the fact that he was still on the board.

As for McGahee, if the newly configured OL works out, I wouldn't be surprised if he does have a great year. I also expect that the Bills made their decision about Willis' future with the Bills back when they plotted the strategy to plunge into FA signings big time, and that decision had nothing to do with Penthouse interviews or the flapping mouths of other teams' GMs.

Maybe the Bills trade him this year if somebody is willing to meet their asking price. Maybe they re-sign him or franchise him after 2007. Maybe they just let him walk. I think that one thing is pretty clear. The Bills aren't going to announce their plans before hand, although, looking back in a year or so, we might realize exactly what they were up to all along.