2006 Franchise and Transition Players

[Guest]

Quarterback
Franchise $8,789,000
Transition $8,327,000

Defensive end
Franchise $8,332,000
Transition $7,075,000

Cornerback
Franchise $5,893,000
Transition $4,774,000

Linebacker
Franchise $7,169,000
Transition $6,144,000

Offensive line
Franchise $6,983,000
Transition $6,391,000

Wide receiver
Franchise $6,172,000
Transition $5,160,000

Running back
Franchise $6,085,000
Transition $5,153,000

Defensive tackle
Franchise $5,656,000
Transition $4,463,000

Safety
Franchise $4,109,000
Transition $3,592,000

Tight end
Franchise $3,327,000
Transition $2,718,000

Punter/kicker
Franchise $2,468,000
Transition $2,045,000

[Ebenezer]

Re: 2006 Franchise and Transition Players

Cornerback
Franchise $5,893,000
Transition $4,774,000

Well...that puts tagging Clements in a whole new light.

[clumping platelets]

Re: 2006 Franchise and Transition Players

I believe it's a foregone conclusion

[Ebenezer]

Re: 2006 Franchise and Transition Players

I believe it's a foregone conclusion

which way?? I think he gets tagged.

[clumping platelets]

Re: 2006 Franchise and Transition Players

I agree

[G. Host]

Re: 2006 Franchise and Transition Players

They need to do it early before a lot of CBs get signed.

[Goobylal]

Re: 2006 Franchise and Transition Players

Any reason why the price for CB's dropped so much? And with it being just $5.9M, there is NO WAY that the Bills DON'T tag Clements. And in either case, they win. If they keep him for a year, it's just $5.9M. And if they look to trade him, other teams will see that $5.9M and say "that's reasonable," not to mention knowing that the Bills can well afford it and thus they won't have any leverage in discussions.

[clumping platelets]

Re: 2006 Franchise and Transition Players

They need to do it early before a lot of CBs get signed.

These numbers do not change until after the draft and that's only if the Bills were to put the exclusive franchise tag on him

[Dr. Lecter]

Re: 2006 Franchise and Transition Players

Tag him. This might help get the Bills a later first and could help them draft a guy like Winston or Justice as their 2nd 1st round pick.

[clumping platelets]

Re: 2006 Franchise and Transition Players

If you tag Clements, the Bills must be willing to allow him to play at the tender amt for 2006...is he worth $5.893 million for a season?? Absolutely!

Tag him, let him sign the tender, and then if he chooses not to sign a long term deal, so be it and deal with it after 2006. Win/Win especially with the uncertainty with the CBA

[LifetimeBillsFan]

Re: 2006 Franchise and Transition Players

Any reason why the price for CB's dropped so much? And with it being just $5.9M, there is NO WAY that the Bills DON'T tag Clements. And in either case, they win. If they keep him for a year, it's just $5.9M. And if they look to trade him, other teams will see that $5.9M and say "that's reasonable," not to mention knowing that the Bills can well afford it and thus they won't have any leverage in discussions.

Rules changes and the success and wider use of the Cover 2 defense are certainly contributing factors.

I read an article right after they changed the rules interpretations on defensive holding and pass interference in the secondary where an unnamed NFL GM predicted that, if the rules changes were enforced (which they have been), the result would be that the value of having a "shutdown cornerback" would go down because defensive coaches would have to adapt to the rules changes taking away a lot of the techniques that the better CBs use to contain WRs (sorry, no link because it was so long ago I forgot exactly which publication I read it in--possibly NFL.com or the NY Daily News, but I can't remember which or precisely when). The quote from this source continued on to say that, while there would still be a couple of top shutdown CBs who would continue to be extremely effective and prosper, the rules changes would make the difference in effectiveness between most of the "shutdown CBs" in the league and the average CB so much less than it had been to that point that teams might decide that they had less of a need for a "shutdown CB" than in the past and put their money into other areas, like getting a better pass-rushing defensive linemen, rather than paying the going rate for a "shutdown CB". As I recall it, the article talked about CBs like Champ Bailey, Ty Law and Charles Woodson and other CBs like Antoine Winfield, Chris Gamble, etc. (The more I think about it as I am writing this, the more I think it was an article in the NY Daily News because Law, Woodson and Winfield were all players the Jets had recently played against and the Jets had been interested in drafting Gamble and those players were familiar to NYC area fans.)

While I really didn't think enough of the article to post it because it was all just speculation at the time, I made a mental note of this prediction because I wanted to see if it would turn out to be accurate or not (IMO one way to know if a sports writer is worth reading is to see if his sources and analysis have a high degree of accuracy). And, it is interesting to note that, since then, a number of highly-touted "shutdown CBs" or potential "shutdown CBs", like Woodson, Clements, Newman, Smoot, etc. (even to a certain extent Trufant, Law and Gamble) have all either struggled a lot, had at least one bad season or been very inconsistent in coverage.

Additionally, while I don't know if it is a trend based on the fact that teams that play Cover 2 defenses, like Tampa Bay and Indy, have been successful (the NFL is nothing if not a copy-cat league!) or a result of these rules changes, a number of teams have begun to incorporate or go over entirely to the Cover 2 coverage schemes in the last couple of years. The CBs in a Cover 2 defense get a lot of help from the safeties deep and do not have to be as good overall in coverage as those CBs who play in defenses that use a lot of man coverage and leave the CBs out on an island. While every team would love to have CBs with "shutdown CB" skills, teams that rely exclusively or very heavily on Cover 2 coverage schemes do not need to have a "shutdown CB" to the same extent as having a "shutdown CB" is required in some other defenses--like versions of the "46" defense, etc.

Because they don't absolutely need to have a top-flight "shutdown CB", teams that rely on the Cover 2 don't have to get into the bidding war for a FA "shutdown CB" or pay as much to keep the CBs that they draft because a somewhat lesser talent isn't that much less effective in their defensive scheme (fast safeties with coverage skills are). As with all commodities, the price that players in the NFL can command is governed by the laws of supply and demand: if there are fewer teams running defenses that require a top-flight "shutdown CB" and the rules changes mentioned above have had more of an impact on the effectiveness of many of the "shutdown CBs" than on the effectiveness of the average CB or a CB who can be effective in a Cover 2 scheme, the demand--and therefore the price--for all except the very best and most exceptional CBs would naturally go down.

With less of a need for top-flight "shutdown CBs" around the league and the recent influx of a huge number of young CBs entering the league--there were something like 17 CBs taken in the first three rounds of last year's draft--perhaps it is not that surprising that the price for CBs has gone down. While there will always be teams willing to pay top dollar for the very top of the line players at the position, the guys who are on the Top 10 or Top 5 may not see the kind of money come their way that was being thrown at players, like Winfield, who were in a similar position a couple of years ago. For example, Patrick Surtain and Ty Law both got good contracts last year, but neither got quite the kind of money they and their agents were expecting. There aren't that many CBs out there that teams are willing to pay "Champ Bailey-type" money at this point--prior to this season, even Bronco fans were questioning whether Champ Bailey was worth "Champ Bailey-type" money! (do you think that the Vikings would like to re-do Fred Smoot's contract at this point?)

So, while I was initially surprised to read that the franchise tag money for cornerbacks in 2006 was as low as it is, on second thought, perhaps it really shouldn't have been that surprising. While I'm sure that Nate Clements probably won't be happy with franchise tag money next year, if this is the trend, after the season that Clements had this year, he might be better off getting an extension from the Bills based on the amount of the franchise tag this year than he would be if he were to force the Bills to use the tag on him this year and were to hit the free agent market next year.

For the Bills, though, using the franchise tag on Clements this year, if he doesn't re-sign with them, makes sense. Even if they go over to a Cover 2 scheme, this is going to be a transition year for their defense and, with all of the young players that they have, it will help for them to have an experienced CB with the skills that Clements has playing for them during this transition. The tag money isn't going to bust the salary cap and franchising Clements will give them another year to find a replacement that they can, then, plug into a system that the other players will, at that point, be familiar with.