Brunell, Fletcher, and Clements

DaRealistJoka · Post by **DaRealistJoka** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:17 am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01286.html

Sounds okay to me but London is up there in age.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:16 am

Brunell stands to make $5.2 million in base salary in 2007. The Redskins would take a $4.6 million hit on the salary cap in 2007 if they release Brunell this month. That would save the team $2 million from his current cost to the cap. The amount the team would save would drop to $1.5 million if it waits until June to release him.

Jason has something mixed up here. Mark's base is $5.2M and the Skins would take a save $2.08M if they cut Brunell right now, here, today :lol:

However if they wait or designated him (under the new CBA) a post June 1 release his cap hit would fall to $1.515M this year not be limited to that amount. If cut after June first Nark would save the team the whole base of $5.2M but it would carry $3.3M in dead cap next year.

BTW: The current cap number for the guy that has conceded that he can only be a back up here is 2008 as it stand s is $7.9M
:shock:

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:01 am

I not sure if I'm entirely sold on Fletcher. He is almost 32 years old, 5'10 and 245 lbs.

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:41 am

I'm not sure about wiley vets.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:33 pm

Top Free Agent Linebackers:

Lance Briggs, UFA, Chicago Bears
Na'il Diggs, UFA, Carolina Panthers
Cato June, UFA, Indianapolis Colts
Adalius Thomas, UFA, Baltimore Ravens
London Fletcher UFA Buffalo Bills
Chase Blackburn, ERFA, New York Giants
Chad Brown, UFA, Pittsburgh Steelers
James Darling, UFA, Arizona Cardinals
Randall Godfrey, UFA, San Diego Chargers
Kawika Mitchell, UFA, Kansas City Chiefs
Rob Morris, UFA, Indianapolis Colts

I think we need to pick up one of these guys in free agency. Which of these guys are considered to be the best? I like Adalius Thomas, I think he is very versatile and is real good at rushing the passer. Briggs will be expensive, right?

Houligan26 · Post by **Houligan26** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:39 pm

Briggs and Adalius will both be very expensive. Word is that Baltimore is going to free up enough money to keep Adalius, why wouldnt they. Urlacher is lobbying hard to keep Briggs. I don't expect either of these players to move

Skeletor · Post by **Skeletor** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:58 pm

The other factor is that Gregggggg wants a new MLB, not an outside guy... I think Briggs and Thomas are both better suited to OLB.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:42 pm

Fletcher played for Coach Williams in Buffalo, he knows the system... and even at 5'10'' 245 he's still a lot more solid than Marshall who is about 20 pounds lighter and two inches taller.

I have fully expected this season to see the Redskins make a change at the MLB position and my only fear was that the person the coaches chose would not be able to learn the system quickly enough... seeing as how the MLB is an important player in the defense... with an experienced player like Fletcher here for a couple years and a possible young replacement coming along to learn while they wait for their chance... the defense could be shored up for a while. I would fully support the move, Fletcher is an excellent player and he had some excellent numbers with the Bills.

He's a playmaker who constantly makes well over 100 tackles for every 16 games, forces fumbles, and he made 4 interceptions last season WITH 5 fumble recoveries.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:46 pm

Also, Scouts. Inc. gave London Fletcher a 78 score and Marshal a 70 score... this coming after the excellent season had in 2005 right before rankings time.

Draft_Net101 · Post by **Draft_Net101** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:16 pm

As a bills fan I can tell you fletcher can certainly still play. He is simply put, a tackling machine. He was one of the biggest pro bowl snubs this year.

Anyway, the only reason buffalo is not retaining him is because he doesn't fit their new scheme, which requires faster LB's who can cover. In Greg Williams variation 46 scheme where the MLB has to be a tackling machine fletcher would be a great fit.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:46 pm

Draft_Net101 wrote:As a bills fan I can tell you fletcher can certainly still play. He is simply put, a tackling machine. He was one of the biggest pro bowl snubs this year.

Anyway, the only reason buffalo is not retaining him is because he doesn't fit their new scheme, which requires faster LB's who can cover. In Greg Williams variation 46 scheme where the MLB has to be a tackling machine fletcher would be a great fit.

Hey, thanks for the insight. I admit I don't know a lot about him, so hearing that makes me feel a little better. Thanks.

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:07 pm

SkinsFreak wrote:
Draft_Net101 wrote:As a bills fan I can tell you fletcher can certainly still play. He is simply put, a tackling machine. He was one of the biggest pro bowl snubs this year.

Anyway, the only reason buffalo is not retaining him is because he doesn't fit their new scheme, which requires faster LB's who can cover. In Greg Williams variation 46 scheme where the MLB has to be a tackling machine fletcher would be a great fit.

Hey, thanks for the insight. I admit I don't know a lot about him, so hearing that makes me feel a little better. Thanks.

Fletcher's a perfect guy for us in several ways. He'll be a top mlb linebacker for a few more years, allowing us to draft one later, That'll give us time to rebuild the DL. I say let's grab him and Clements and pick up a DE in the draft, then take some draft shots on DT's and CB's in later rounds. Golston will do fine next year, I think. He'll also give us time, maybe to pick up a great DT next year. Thinking down the road, if we can get a great DE now in the draft and Fletcher and Clements, we'll be able to draft a top DT next year and a top MLB the year after.

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:29 am

Is Clements worth the money it will take to get him here. Last year was a contract year for him knowing the Bills wouldn't tag him again and his numbers were no where near Samuel's numbers (another corner in his contract year.
Comparing his 2006 numbers to Rogers and you have to wonder is the who we want.

Clements had 70 tackles (54 solo 16 assist) Rogers had 79 (67/12)
Clements had 3 picks to Rogers 1 and they both defended 16 passes.
Nick Harper would be cheaper and had better numbers than Clements
Harper had 75 Tackles (58/17) 3 picks and 6 passes defended

crazyhorse1 · Post by **crazyhorse1** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:59 am

1niksder wrote:Is Clements worth the money it will take to get him here. Last year was a contract year for him knowing the Bills wouldn't tag him again and his numbers were no where near Samuel's numbers (another corner in his contract year.
Comparing his 2006 numbers to Rogers and you have to wonder is the who we want.

Clements had 70 tackles (54 solo 16 assist) Rogers had 79 (67/12)
Clements had 3 picks to Rogers 1 and they both defended 16 passes.
Nick Harper would be cheaper and had better numbers than Clements
Harper had 75 Tackles (58/17) 3 picks and 6 passes defended

That's something to think about. Thanks for info.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:56 am

1niksder wrote:Is Clements worth the money it will take to get him here. Last year was a contract year for him knowing the Bills wouldn't tag him again and his numbers were no where near Samuel's numbers (another corner in his contract year.
Comparing his 2006 numbers to Rogers and you have to wonder is the who we want.

Clements had 70 tackles (54 solo 16 assist) Rogers had 79 (67/12)
Clements had 3 picks to Rogers 1 and they both defended 16 passes.
Nick Harper would be cheaper and had better numbers than Clements
Harper had 75 Tackles (58/17) 3 picks and 6 passes defended

Food for thought, thanks.

But IMO, stats can sometimes be misleading. For example, a D's top cornerback may not get thrown at much of the time. Therefore, the stat that doesn't show up is the one that shows the opposing teams top receiver was not as productive, due to the lack of throws that came his way, because of good coverage and/or the mere threat of that top defender. Take TO for example, he has never been that productive against the Skins.

I didn't articulate that very well but I think you get what I'm trying to say.

Draft_Net101 · Post by **Draft_Net101** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:29 am

You want to know how good clements is? Look at marvin harrison's stats against the bills. Clements has the ability to shut down an opposing teams #1. I wish the bills would retain him, but its pretty obvious he will go to the highest bidder. I for one, don't know how to skins can afford him. I think he'll end up in clevelend.

redskingush · Post by **redskingush** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:21 pm

Bills decided not to spent on Clements yesterday, which means hes out there, He would be a huge addition to our ailing secondary.

redskingush · Post by **redskingush** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 12:22 pm

And if im not mistaking he was drafted by GW.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:44 pm

1niksder wrote:Is Clements worth the money it will take to get him here. Last year was a contract year for him knowing the Bills wouldn't tag him again and his numbers were no where near Samuel's numbers (another corner in his contract year.
Comparing his 2006 numbers to Rogers and you have to wonder is the who we want.

Clements had 70 tackles (54 solo 16 assist) Rogers had 79 (67/12)
Clements had 3 picks to Rogers 1 and they both defended 16 passes.
Nick Harper would be cheaper and had better numbers than Clements
Harper had 75 Tackles (58/17) 3 picks and 6 passes defended

You know better than to cite CB numbers as an example of how good they are.

Martin Mayhew would routinely get more INTs than Darrell Green...because the opposing offense would actually throw at Martin. :wink:

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:15 pm

redskingush wrote:Bills decided not to spent on Clements yesterday, which means hes out there, He would be a huge addition to our ailing secondary.

Our secondary needs "help" from the front 7 - now, if we can have an incredible front 7 AND Clements is available for a very low salary that would be great but right now Superman would not be an asset with no help in front of him.

I have a feeling that Clements wants a little more than he is worth - without "help" from the front 7 he is a waste of money.

I have nothing against Clements and I feel he would be great but he will be nothing if we do not address the players in front of him. Now if we have an incredible front 7 we would be better perhaps with Clements at a reasonable rate but we might be better off financially getting someone that can play in the secondary that is not too expensive but even better with everyone else around him than Clements.

Jeremy81 · Post by **Jeremy81** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:26 am

i really like the idea of getting fletcher and clements...i've been saying it in many past threads. it would be perfect to get fletcher for a one year deal and focus on getting a young MLB in the 08 draft. he's played in GW's system and knows the defense well and can teach, not to mention he can still play. and clements is just good. i'd pay the money to get him.

Hooligan · Post by **Hooligan** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:11 am

One of my best friends is a hardcore Bills fan, and Fletcher is definitely a machine in the middle. He's a sure-tackling football-smart vet with a few real good years left.

redskingush · Post by **redskingush** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:54 am

I live 50 miles from Orchard Park, but the story on Fletcher I always hear is yes he can taclke, if he can get to the play, too slow is what i hear from bills media.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:49 am

Good stuff, guys.

The more I hear about Fletcher and Clements, the more I like em'. I think the Skins WILL get these two, especially since they've both previously played for Williams. If Fletcher is a tackling machine, then he's perfect for Williams' defenses, because the MLB is a run stuffer in his schemes. I like the sound of that.

BTW - I keep hearing talk about certain players that will want too much money or their price tag is too high. Why are we talking about that? Since when does that matter to Snyder? He's somehow found a way to pay guys top dollar and still remain under the cap. I mean, when has a player's salary or the cap ever concerned Snyder, or stopped him from signing the guy he wants? Until we ACTUALLY get screwed by the cap, I could care less how much Snyder pays someone. Why? "Cap hell" simply hasn't happened yet. They've (you know, the so-called experts :roll:

) been predicting that for years, every year since Snyder took over the team and started spending. But where is it? Snyder seems to have found a way. And once Snyder showed Gibbs how it could be done, Gibbs then said publicly that he believes in the system as well. So, in my opinion, if Gibbs believes in it, then so do I.

Draft_Net101 · Post by **Draft_Net101** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:58 pm

Jeremy81 wrote:i really like the idea of getting fletcher and clements...i've been saying it in many past threads. it would be perfect to get fletcher for a one year deal and focus on getting a young MLB in the 08 draft. he's played in GW's system and knows the defense well and can teach, not to mention he can still play. and clements is just good. i'd pay the money to get him.

No offense, but you really don't think you're gonna get him for a one year deal do you? That's laughable. He's gonna go somewhere, and get a big, multi-million dollar, long-term deal.