Ingtar

[Devin]

what are the chances that we actually do tag and trade Clements? I dont think there will be a shortage of suiters, and as someone else put it "if Jolley brought a 1st rounder, Clements should bring like 3". While thats almost complete sarcasm, it does bear some truth to it.

Just curious if this is a pipe dream or not.

[OpIv37]

Whatever happens I hope we don't re-sign him. It's Champ Bailey money for Chris Watson play.

[THATHURMANATOR]

He did play badly last year but years prior he was great! Could his poor play last year have anything to do with no pass rush?

[THATHURMANATOR]

I say tag him and if we get something good in a trade great if not we keep him for another year.

[The King]

Its his attitude that makes me want to puke. Hes not a leader so he isnt worth that kind of money. You through Champ money at a guy who can lead you on the field and in the locker room. Nate will never be that guy.

[THATHURMANATOR]

I can agree that his attitude isn't the best.

[OpIv37]

He did play badly last year but years prior he was great! Could his poor play last year have anything to do with no pass rush?

no doubt that contributed, but Nate gambles and that's why he got burned this year. Sometimes he was trying to get the INT and got burned deep. Against Chris Chambers, he was trying to avoid the deep play and kept getting burned on the underneath routes. He takes too many chances, and when they work he ends up on Sportscenter and looks like a genius. When they don't, we blow a 21 point lead to a division rival but he doesn't take the blame.

He's just not consistent.

[THATHURMANATOR]

All corners get burned.

[OpIv37]

All corners get burned.

but not all corners get eaten alive 5 games in a row like Nate did. He also gave up 220 to Chris Chambers. As bad as Chris Watson was, I don't recall any receiver putting up 220 against him in a single game. No one who makes the mistakes that Nate does is worth Champ Bailey money.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Yes but the 4 years prior he was solid.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Champ Bailey isnt worth Champ Bailey money

[OpIv37]

What does it say about a player when he has his worst season in his contract year? And also, the Bills had excellent QB pressure for 2 1/2 of those previous 4 years- maybe Nate was never that good and was just benefitting from the rest of the team's skills.

[THATHURMANATOR]

It says that football is a team game. He possibly wasn't as good but I think he is a good corner and wouln't mind keeping him. Who is his replacement King??

[OpIv37]

if we lose him I think we'd need to find another corner via draft/FA. I like King but I don't think he's ready to start.

I'm just saying this team desperately needs OL and DL help and we're very close to the cap as it is. If we re-sign Nate, well I hope you like Justin Bannan and Bennie Anderson as starters cuz there won't be any cap space left for the lines.

[Ickybaluky]

what are the chances that we actually do tag and trade Clements? I dont think there will be a shortage of suiters, and as someone else put it "if Jolley brought a 1st rounder, Clements should bring like 3". While thats almost complete sarcasm, it does bear some truth to it.

Just curious if this is a pipe dream or not.

Doug Jolley wasn't traded for a 1st round pick. He was traded to swap positions in the draft.

The actual trade was:

Jets get Doug Jolley, 2nd (#47), 2 6ths (#182,#185)

Raiders get 1st (#26) and 7th (#230)

Of course, the Jets still got reamed because Jolley isn't that good, but to present it as his being traded for a 1st round pick is misrepresenting the deal.

The franchise-and-trade deal is dangerous for the simple reason the player could just sign the tender when offered, and he is guaranteed that money for the season. You can not remove the franchise designation once the tender is signed, it is guaranteed money. Thus, if a trade cannot be worked out, the Bills would be stuck with the player at a high cap number for 2006, limiting other things they could do under the cap. That is what happened to the Raiders last year with Charles Woodson, whom they franchised in hopes of trading.

Of course, if you can pull it off it is a big plus, since you get something back for a player you weren't going to sign anyway. However, you have to find a team willing to not only surrender draft picks in return, but also willing to meet the players demands for a large contract. That is why the Raiders could not trade Woodson, and they got stuck with him. That choked their cap for the year and prevented them from upgrading their defense.

[Earthquake Enyart]

Could always move Vincent back to corner.

[Mr. Cynical]

Could always move Vincent back to corner.

Vincent = :fogey:

The only place I'd move him is to Florida where they play shuffleboard all day.

[Mr. Miyagi]

The franchise-and-trade deal is dangerous for the simple reason the player could just sign the tender when offered, and he is guaranteed that money for the season. You can not remove the franchise designation once the tender is signed, it is guaranteed money. Thus, if a trade cannot be worked out, the Bills would be stuck with the player at a high cap number for 2006, limiting other things they could do under the cap. That is what happened to the Raiders last year with Charles Woodson, whom they franchised in hopes of trading.

Of course, if you can pull it off it is a big plus, since you get something back for a player you weren't going to sign anyway. However, you have to find a team willing to not only surrender draft picks in return, but also willing to meet the players demands for a large contract. That is why the Raiders could not trade Woodson, and they got stuck with him. That choked their cap for the year and prevented them from upgrading their defense.
With Snyder's pocketbook and Manboob's endorsement, I guarantee the Redskins will trade for Clements.

[Bert102176]

I think we could get a 1st round pick for him

[The_Philster]

What does it say about a player when he has his worst season in his contract year? .says to me that Gray shouldn't have sabotaged him by playing him 10 yards off the LOS

[tat2dmike77]

Yes but the 4 years prior he was solid.

He did for the most part. There is only one play that stands out in my mind that he just made me so friggin mad.

The home opener against jacksonville 4th and long and he goes for a pick instead of just KNOCKING THE BALL DOWN!

I know it's ancient history but that play could of gotten the bills that one win they needed. I know i'm bringing up 2 seasons ago but thats the only play that stands out in my mind about Nate.

Up until this year he did play solid. But this year he just seemed to go through the motions instead of playing big like he should of. It was a contract year for him. Maybe he is thinking the bills will release me so i don't care.

I'm sure they won't realease him. There are upsides to tagging him. If we tag himand no one goes for the trade he stays. So lets say he has a big year this year for the bills. So they tag him again and then use him as trade bait yet again. Either way it's not a bad thing to tag him.

[OpIv37]

says to me that Gray shouldn't have sabotaged him by playing him 10 yards off the LOS

I don't buy that at all. Yeah, I'm sure it didn't help Clements, but I saw him jumping routes, getting turned the wrong way, playing too far off the receiver 20 yards downfield (where Gray's cushion would have helped him) etc.

Nate is not worth our precious remaining cap space.

[Al13]

patrick surtain went for only a 2nd rounder to the chiefs last year and he is clearly better then clements, so stop dreaming of the 1st, the team that would give up the 1st also would have to sign him to a huge deal