Nate Clements - Inside the numbers - Best CB in league?

[Crisis]

I posted the #1 receiver stats of WRs that Nate Clements before.

Week 1 - Jimmy Smith - 4 recepts, 83 yards. (INT)
Week 2 - Joey Porter - 3 recepts, 45 yards.
Week 4 - David Givens - 4 recepts, 86 yards.
Week 5 - Santana Moss - 2 recepts, 62 yards. (FF)
Week 6 - Chris Chambers - 3 recepts, 23 yards.
Week 7 - Travis Taylor - 2 recepts, 52 yards.
Week 8 - Anquain Boldin - 4 recepts, 50 yards. (SACK)
Week 9 - Santana Moss - 6 recepts, 157 yards. (McGee was covering Moss when he broke a big score to inflate his yard total, and Clements covered McCaries for part of the game, who was 2-27.
Week 10 - David Givens - 5 recepts, 66 yards. (INT)
Week 11 - Torry Holt - 8 recepts, 90 yards. (FF, Punt return TD) - A decent game for Clements, but Bulger also had 45 attempts in the game.
Week 12 - D. Jackson - 4 recepts, 45 yards.
Week 13 - Chris Chambers - 5 recepts, 49 yards. (INT)
Week 14 - Antonio Bryant - 4 recepts, 37 yards. (INT) Most of Bryant's yardage came in garbage time, the Browns had negative offensive yards until late in the 4th quarter.
Week 15 - Chad Johnson - 2 recepts, 10 yards. (FF) Clements shuts down the league's leader in receptions (at the time) to 2 receptions for 10 yards.
Week 16 - Brandon Lloyd - 2 recepts, 25 yards. (INT)
Week 17 - Hines Ward - 2 recepts, 11 yards. (INT for TD)

Here are Champ Bailey's numbers

Week 1 - Eddie Kennison - 6 recepts, 101 yards. (INT)
Week 2 - Jimmy Smith - 3 recepts, 69 yards.
Week 3 - R. Caldwell - 3 recepts, 39 yards.
Week 4 - M. Clayton - 4 recepts, 91 yards.
Week 5 - M. Muhammed - 1 recept, 9 yards.
Week 6 - J. Porter - 3 recepts, 21 yards.
Week 7 - C. Johnson - 7 recepts, 141 yards. (INT)
Week 8 - P. Price - 2 recepts, 59 yards.
Week 9 - A. Johnson - 3 recepts, 28 yards.
Week 11 - J. Horn - 5 recepts, 81 yards. (INT)
Week 12 - J. Porter - 6 recepts, 135 yards.
Week 13 - R. Smith - 4 recepts, 76 yards.
Week 14 - C. Chambers - 5 recepts, 47 yards.
Week 15 - E. Kennison - 7 recepts, 101 yards.
Week 16 - D. Mason - 4 recepts, 65 yards.
Week 17 - M. Harrison - 5 recepts, 33 yards.

For the sake of arguement, here's Chris McAlister's.

Week 1 - Q. Morgan - 1 recept, 51 yards.
Week 2 - H. Ward - 6 recepts, 151 yards. (INT)
Week 3 - C. Johnson - 8 recepts, 99 yards.
Week 4 - J. Morton - 5 recepts, 64 yards. (Eddie Kennison injured)
Week 5 - L. Coles - 3 recepts, 25 yards.
Week 7 - E. Moulds - 6 recepts, 96 yards.
Week 8 - T. Owens - 8 recepts, 101 yards.
Week 9 - A. Bryant - 4 recepts, 43 yards.
Week 10 - S. Moss - 3 recepts, 75 yards.
Week 11 - DNP
Week 12 - D. Branch - 4 recepts, 51 yards.
Week 13 - C. Johnson - 10 recepts, 161 yards.
Week 14 - A. Toomer - 2 recepts, 53 yards.
Week 15 - M. Harrison - 5 recepts, 73 yards.
Week 16 - H. Ward - 3 recepts, 21 yards.
Week 17 - C. Chambers - 4 recepts, 146 yards.


Let's average these numbers out.

Nate Clements stats/game - 3.75 recepts against, 52.875 yards against. (including Santana Moss' inflated yards)
Champ Bailey stats/game - 4.25 recepts against, 68.5 yards against.
Chris McAlister stats/game - 4.8 recepts against, 80.7 yards against.

Add on that Nate Clements had 6 INTs, compared to Champ's 3 and McAlister's 1. Nate Clements also had more sacks and FFs than both. The guy's a playmaker. Bottom-line!

Obviously there is a margin of error in these numbers, but for the most part Nate Clements out-performed the two "top" corners in the league last year.

My conclusion: Give the man his money! I don't like overpaying for players but this guy is an elite corner and still younger than Bailey and McAlister.

[Bert102176]

yeah the numbers are ther and we need him badly

[Bill Brasky]

good post. nobody's responded cuz they all realize how wrong they were.

[Captain Obvious]

One thing to consider is Champ Bailey is always in man coverage, even against top tier Wrs. Is this the case for Nate as well? Or does he often get help from a safety when going against a top tier Wr?

[L.A. Playa]

SHOW HIM THE MONEY

[Patrick76777]

I also know that Clements has more INT's and TD's in his first 4 years then Deion, Charles Woodson and Champ Bailey did! Not too bad.

[elltrain22]

Nate also is a damn good punt returner. Pay him. please

[BillsFever21]

He's one of the core players that a team needs to keep.

[The Seahag]

does he often get help from a safety when going against a top tier Wr?
No he does not. In fact Nate gives more help to his backfield 'mates than he ever gets on gameday. It's even more impressive when you consider the Bills rarely if ever get an interior pass rush on 3rddown.
With all due respect to McCallister, Tory James, Ronde Barber, Samari Rolle etc. Nate Clements is the best cornerback on the planet Earth. We can debate who is second, but we can also debate whether or not it's even a close second.
I'd say it's Ronde Barber, and not it's not even close.

[Schobel94]

Yeah, I agree. Rarely does he ever give up a big play. We can talk about what, one or two bad plays he made this year? The 4th down pass to Jimmy Smith is the only one that comes to my mind. He is lockdown, playmaker, run supporter, and litteraly the cornerstone of the backfield, without him this defense would take a HUUUUUUGE hit.

[BillsOwnAll]

Wow i knew he was top 3 at least...that really proves hes #1. Thanks, Good job crisis.

[FlyingDutchman]

I dont know about this whole Nate doesnt get burned or give up big plays...sure hes a playmaker, but he gives up his share of plays (ex. aginst Jacksonville last year). I also believe his head got a little inflated with makin the pro bowl last year, but lets not forget he was originally an alternate. He is a very good player and I like him, I just dont know if hes worth not being able to sign other players bc of lack of $....

[The Seahag]

I dont know about this whole Nate doesnt get burned or give up big plays...sure hes a playmaker, but he gives up his share of plays (ex. aginst Jacksonville last year).

The guy plays 16 games, taking 50+ snaps a game often against opponents' premier receivers. And in all that high pressure action, among all those plays you're able to provide exactly one example of him getting beat. And that's your definition of "giving up his share of plays"?

[Meathead]

Don't you think you could have been more specific? lol. Nice job.

It would be interesting to see how that analysis looks for the prior 2 and 3 year period. Got a few more hours to burn?

Pretty convincing numbers for 2005, though.

[camelcowboy]

Pay him what he needs to sign the contract. We need to lock him up. He's only 24 he hasn't hit his prime yet. He is going to be the best in the league in 2 years.

[FlyingDutchman]

I remember that one specifically bc it ended up costing us the game. There was plenty of times where i remember screaming about how Nate got smoked. You wonder why he has so many INT's? bc he had soooo balls thrown his way and anyone can catch the occasional bad throw. I noticed a lot of teams would almost go at Nate, almost picking on him. Not to say he didnt make some good INT's, but if you watch closely, a lot are from tipped balls, the reciever falling down, or just bad throws. He also has some of the shakiest hands while returning punts last. Most memorable was against PITT on our own 20 which turned into a touchdown for Pitt. Now some will argue that he made up for it later by returning that INT for a touchdown...well to you I say...the ball was thrown right at him and my mother could have made the play, thunder thighs and all. Dont get on my case that this is one example, he fumbled multiple times on punts so im happy to see Roscoe get the job. Yes I also remember the nice returns he had, Im not anti-Nate or anything. I just hope TD is careful about how much $ he gives him. I dont want a CB taking up half of our cap room. I know his stats and all, but I dont think he is the top CB in the league.

[MTBillsFan]

Yeah, I agree. Rarely does he ever give up a big play. We can talk about what, one or two bad plays he made this year? The 4th down pass to Jimmy Smith is the only one that comes to my mind. He is lockdown, playmaker, run supporter, and litteraly the cornerstone of the backfield, without him this defense would take a HUUUUUUGE hit.

The ONLY reason why that play even happened was because SMITH got away with offensive interference.

[Throne Logic]

One thing to consider is Champ Bailey is always in man coverage, even against top tier Wrs. Is this the case for Nate as well? Or does he often get help from a safety when going against a top tier Wr?

Buffalo blitzes all the time in this defense. That tends to leave DB's one-on-one. Nate is one of the big reasons they are able to play this defense.

That said, I want him to stay in Buffalo, but not for Champ Bailey numbers. No single player, outside of the QB position, is worth that much money. I could even make an argument for the QB position not being worth that, but not here.

As far as most positions go, I'd rather sign two very good players than one great one. Call it hedging my bets.

May Nate be sensible and TD be fair.

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Superb post. Very revealing.

Even though a team does not necessarily need a top shutdown CB of Clements' caliber to win a SB, it certainly does help. The problem is how much of the team's salary cap will have to go to securing the services of one--if you have or can get one--these days.

While I didn't support re-signing Winfield at the kind of money he was looking for and eventually got from Minny, Clements is another story. While he does get beat sometimes, so does every CB, even the great ones. And, even though he isn't huge, at 6' Clements is big enough to cover the big receivers that have become the vogue around the league. Say what you want about his ego or his hands, etc., the Bills simply do not have another CB on their roster who can do that, let alone do it as well as Clements. And, it would take at least a full season for them to develop a rookie from next year's draft to replace him.
So, whatever it takes, the Bills are going to have to keep Clements whether they re-sign him to a contract extension or franchise him--letting him go and signing someone else really isn't an option because it will likely cost nearly as much to sign an inferior substitute on the free agent market. Franchising Clements would be cheaper in the short run, but would still cost a lot, leave him unhappy and still leave the team in a position where they would have to draft a CB and hope that he could develop into an adequate replacement for Clements in one season of part-time play. So, it would be best for everybody if the Bills could sign Clements to a long-term deal that will keep him with the team for the next 5 years or so.

The question is whether Nate and his agent will be reasonable in the kind of money that they are seeking in a long-term deal. The Bills know what the market is and obviously they would like to see if they can work out some kind of deal within the parameters of that market if possible. If Clements really wants to stay in Buffalo, it should be possible for his agent to work out a deal that will pay Nate the kind of money that he is looking for and that other top CBs have gotten. It's going to come down to whether they can structure a deal that will give Clements that kind of money without destroying the team's salary cap structure or creating a cash-flow problem for the club (one of the issues that the large- vs small-market owners are arguing about). In that sense, "the devil" will be in the details moreso than in the amount of money involved.

From a competitive standpoint, the Bills should and probably will try to do everything that they can to keep Clements. From a total money perspective, signing Clements probably won't be more that much more expensive in the short-term than signing a lesser CB as a FA, so that shouldn't be that much of an issue. The difficulty will be in whether they can structure a deal that will deliver that money to Clements in a way that the team can afford. If Nate really wants to stay in Buffalo, they should be able to find a way to do that, but, given the nature of the franchise and its salary structure, the Bills are probably going to be somewhat limited, in comparison to some other teams, in how they are going to be able to structure a contract and Clements is going to have to be willing to accept a contract that fits within those limitations.

As this story unfolds, it will be important to keep in mind that it's not always just about the money: there are other aspects of contracts and contract negotiations that fans may not always be aware of that go beyond the money and that determine whether a deal is possible or not.

[colin]

the only thing I, or any sane bills fan, am torn on is exactly how much and how do we want to pay him?

i need to know the specifics of the baily contract, but with incentives i'd pay clements that much for sure.

our weakness on third downs has been going up against the most efficient passing games in the NFL (pats and jests) 4 times a year and our GARBAGE safeties (not the starters, the back ups last year -- Coy). we need to be stouter vs the run, and we seem to be getting there. a true all world shut down corner is HUGE for a team, and corners in the NFL who can play like that are harder to find than pass rushing DEs.

if nate scored 2TDs, 4 INTs, and 80 tackles and held his opponents to about 70% of their normal yards, HE'D BE DISSAPOINTED BECAUSE HE ROUTINELY DOES BETTER THAN THAT!!

in his first 2 years here he stood out as a big time play maker in a very bad D. last 2 years here he stands out as one of the best on a very good D, we know he is good, we should keep him.

only possible question: what can we get if we don't sign him? if we can get Walter Jones and Shaun rogers, obviously we dump clements, but exactly who out there are we going to sign for how much instead of clements?

when we ditched wiley, antoine, williams, price, travis, drew, cowart, flutie, and rob johnson we had or went out and got equal or better players at a better value. if there isn't anyone comperable to clements, we just lose.

salary cap room doesn't mean great players, you can't sign them if they aren't available.

[Stewie]

The ONLY reason why that play even happened was because SMITH got away with offensive interference.

No way, the only reason that play happened was because Clements went for the pick (and the $$$ that come with them.) All he had to do was bat it down.

[Tatonka]

good post. nobody's responded cuz they all realize how wrong they were.

i dont think that people realize their wrong.. i dont think that anyone is really debating that nate is a premier corner..

i will say that i didnt know he was THAT good, which really is impressive..

but my point is.. this team can not afford to invest 60 million dollars into a corner back.. especially when our front office obviously does a good job picking them.. winfield, clements, mcgee, with thomas, greer, king, as other good examples.. the bills front office has never picked a corner that looked below average..

if you spend that much money on one guy, i think you kill the whole team.. indy will suffer serious consequences for paying manning all the money they did.. it will erode the rest of the team..

the good teams (ie. NE, Philly, ect) replace the losses with strong drafts.. and who is to say there isnt another superstar corner out there in next years draft?

i am not down on clements.. if we could get a home town discount like aaron schobel gave us.. then hey.. i am all for it.. because he is obviously, at a minimum, a top 3 cb right now, and for the forseeable future.. but paying out 18-20 MILLION DOLLARS in signing bonuses.. thats crazy.. then TKO will say he wants more money.. and fletcher will demand more.. ect..

[mysticsoto]

i dont think that people realize their wrong.. i dont think that anyone is really debating that nate is a premier corner..

i will say that i didnt know he was THAT good, which really is impressive..

but my point is.. this team can not afford to invest 60 million dollars into a corner back.. especially when our front office obviously does a good job picking them.. winfield, clements, mcgee, with thomas, greer, king, as other good examples.. the bills front office has never picked a corner that looked below average..

if you spend that much money on one guy, i think you kill the whole team.. indy will suffer serious consequences for paying manning all the money they did.. it will erode the rest of the team..

the good teams (ie. NE, Philly, ect) replace the losses with strong drafts.. and who is to say there isnt another superstar corner out there in next years draft?

i am not down on clements.. if we could get a home town discount like aaron schobel gave us.. then hey.. i am all for it.. because he is obviously, at a minimum, a top 3 cb right now, and for the forseeable future.. but paying out 18-20 MILLION DOLLARS in signing bonuses.. thats crazy.. then TKO will say he wants more money.. and fletcher will demand more.. ect.. And unfortunately, Tatonka hits the problem on the head. If we pay the vast amt of money to Nate, do we risk later losing WM, JP or both? Do we risk becoming like the Colts who paid everything to Manning and don't have money for anything else and have to hope to hit gold with rookies???

In truth, Tatonka makes a good point. We have great depth at CB - no, nobody on our roster is going to replace Nate and be just like him, but are they good enough? Everybody is eager to just pay, pay, pay. But if that risks losing our best offense players, then you have to carefully sit down and measure the overall effect to the team. I completely understand and agree that losing Nate will cause our secondary coverage to drop. But...with our depth, would it cause the defense overall to drop as much as our offense would drop if were were to lose WM or JP in a few years??? Do we have a defense without Nate? Yes. Do we have an offense without WM or JP? I'd say no...

This is tricky. I want Nate to stay, but I guess I have an upper limit on that. How much that is...I don't know yet.

I'd probably be interested in hearing Clumps pt of view on what he thinks we can afford to pay Nate and still (in the future) have money for Willis and/or JP.

[lordofgun]

This had better at least get nominated for thread of the week. :couch:

[The Seahag]

Most memorable was against PITT on our own 20 which turned into a touchdown for Pitt.
That's not true. It was only a FG and happened about two minutes into the game so in the grand scheme it was pretty meaningless.
Most memorable to me is the fact that Clements caused 4 Steeler turnovers in that game, had like 7-8 tackles all over the field and scored the TD that gave the Bills the lead in the 2ndhalf.
But if you want to ignore all that and the fact that Clements was the best player on the field in the biggest game we played all year, feel free to explore the old ignorance is bliss theory.


There was plenty of times where i remember screaming about how Nate got smoked. You wonder why he has so many INT's? bc he had soooo balls thrown his way and anyone can catch the occasional bad throw. I noticed a lot of teams would almost go at Nate, almost picking on him. Not to say he didnt make some good INT's, but if you watch closely, a lot are from tipped balls, the reciever falling down, or just bad throws......well to you I say...the ball was thrown right at him and my mother could have made the play, thunder thighs and all.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I apologize for picking on your earlier post. If I had realized at the time that you were just a kid who had yet to gain any understanding about what is really happening on the field, I wouldn't have responded. When you grow up and learn a little more about the nuances of the game, get back to me.
And for the record, when you just make stuff like that up in an effort to make yourself look right or look knowledgable, there are too many people around here who know better and you just end up making yourself look like a fool.

[Tatonka]

wow.. there was no need to get nasty, hag.

[The Seahag]

wow.. there was no need to get nasty, hag.

Hell, that was nothing.
I have little tolerance with those who choose to abuse the truth so actually I thought I was being rather honest and polite.
Just trying to edumucate the boy a little before he makes himself look any sillier.

[Crisis]

i dont think that people realize their wrong.. i dont think that anyone is really debating that nate is a premier corner..

i will say that i didnt know he was THAT good, which really is impressive..

but my point is.. this team can not afford to invest 60 million dollars into a corner back.. especially when our front office obviously does a good job picking them.. winfield, clements, mcgee, with thomas, greer, king, as other good examples.. the bills front office has never picked a corner that looked below average..

if you spend that much money on one guy, i think you kill the whole team.. indy will suffer serious consequences for paying manning all the money they did.. it will erode the rest of the team..

the good teams (ie. NE, Philly, ect) replace the losses with strong drafts.. and who is to say there isnt another superstar corner out there in next years draft?

i am not down on clements.. if we could get a home town discount like aaron schobel gave us.. then hey.. i am all for it.. because he is obviously, at a minimum, a top 3 cb right now, and for the forseeable future.. but paying out 18-20 MILLION DOLLARS in signing bonuses.. thats crazy.. then TKO will say he wants more money.. and fletcher will demand more.. ect..
First of all, with the team "picking" good corners. McGee hasn't show he's a good CB yet. He showed improvement, but for the most part got burned last year. Thomas? He's a nickel/dime corner at best, same with Greer IMO. King is a rookie so who knows. We have NO ONE to replace Clements. Look at the Pats, Ty Law was the reason for their first SB win and the reason they got to their 2nd superbowl. You can't underestimate the value of a great corner.

The Patriots gave Tom Brady ridiculous money. The Eagles gave TO ridiculous money (even though he's too stupid to realise it). Clements is the kind of player that can shut down elite receivers. Our defense won't be the same without him.

That's the most ridiculous thing with other players wanting more money. Did Jake Plummer want more money when Champ Bailey signed? Did Al Wilson? Did John Lynch?

[Crisis]

Look at the last superbowl winners.

2005 - Pats - They're the exception to the rule, but Law gave them 2 superbowls.
2004 - Pats - Ty Law
2003 - Bucs - Barber
2002 - Pats - Ty Law
2001 - Ravens - McAlister
2000 - Rams - None

So 2/3 of the last SB winners had a great corner. Unless we get Belichik or turn into the Greatest Show On Turf we need Clements.

[Tatonka]

the pats proved last year that you can win a superbowl with a good defense and WRs in their mid 30s at corner.

move moulds to CB.. we will be fine. :D

[Crisis]

the pats proved last year that you can win a superbowl with a good defense and WRs in their mid 30s at corner.

move moulds to CB.. we will be fine. :D
The Pats secondary got burned against the Eagles. A 50% TO did it at that. Not to mention Todd Stinkston even beat them deep. If the Eagles knew how to operate a 2 minute drill this wouldn't even be a discussion.

[Tatonka]

nates a great corner.

nate wont be a bill after the year is over.

so we mine as well start more threads about next years CB class.

it is what it is.

[Crisis]

nates a great corner.

nate wont be a bill after the year is over.

so we mine as well start more threads about next years CB class.

it is what it is.
People said the same thing about Schobel and Moulds.

[Tatonka]

schobel and moulds never came out and said they wanted to be the highest paid players at their position..

either nate is full of ****.. which i dont think he is.. i mean.. by your numbers.. apparently he is the best cb.. or nate really wants more money than champ.. which will never ever ever happy as long as TD is running this team. period.

[Crisis]

schobel and moulds never came out and said they wanted to be the highest paid players at their position..

either nate is full of ****.. which i dont think he is.. i mean.. by your numbers.. apparently he is the best cb.. or nate really wants more money than champ.. which will never ever ever happy as long as TD is running this team. period. I don't believe anything the Buffalo media says anymore. But if it is true we could always back-load it and have a Mike Williams situation in a few years, but Nate Clements would probably be living up to the money.