Schefter: Nate Clements a 'Potential' Cut This Week

Hurry up and cut Nate! This dude sucks. Thanks to his late game fumble. That loss he caused us. Put us in great position to draft a far better CB in Perterson or Prince

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
There is no free-agency right now so even there's no "testing the market" until there is a market created by the CBA.

For all those who don't like Nate, this defense is toast if we lose Nate and don't get a top end pass-rusher; even with a rookie CB. Rook CBs rarely come into the league and shutdown NFL receivers from day one. I don't think the 49ers let him go unless they have an alternative. I imagine however the priorities are QB, Pass-rush and center. You need those to play and our starters are "FA"s.

Not trying to pick a fight, but whether the CBA was tomorrow or next year, we have essentially decided to let them "test the market" as beyond March 3/4(?) they will have the ability to solicite other teams before they resign with us. Is that not true?

That's somewhat true. We're not sure if changes made in the agreement may protect teams from losing UFAs because of the CBA contracting year. They may agree change what defines (seasons played) an UFA or RFA. I think letting them "test" isn't clear. Those who were tendered today (Manny, Dashon, Ray and CJ) - just ensures under the old rules (that expires Friday), these players were "tendered" so the 49ers won't possibly lose all rights (to match the offer) to them.


As far as Nate is concerned; Nate is under contract and until the 49ers decide to cancel the contract by cutting him he's not going anywhere. I'm not sure when his money is due.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Adios Nate. You had one game changing play in ur career as a 49er and you fumbled it away to the Falcons.

THIS

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Adios Nate. You had one game changing play in ur career as a 49er and you fumbled it away to the Falcons.

I was so pissed, I know we could all see it coming a mile away when it happened...

I'm thinkin' it's gonna be Peterson/Prince with #7 overall, now.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
There is no free-agency right now so even there's no "testing the market" until there is a market created by the CBA.

For all those who don't like Nate, this defense is toast if we lose Nate and don't get a top end pass-rusher; even with a rookie CB. Rook CBs rarely come into the league and shutdown NFL receivers from day one. I don't think the 49ers let him go unless they have an alternative. I imagine however the priorities are QB, Pass-rush and center. You need those to play and our starters are "FA"s.

Not trying to pick a fight, but whether the CBA was tomorrow or next year, we have essentially decided to let them "test the market" as beyond March 3/4(?) they will have the ability to solicite other teams before they resign with us. Is that not true?

That's somewhat true. We're not sure if changes made in the agreement may protect teams who from losing all UFAs because of the CBA contracting year. They may agree change what defines (seasons played) an UFA or RFA. I think letting them "test" isn't clear. Those who were tendered today (Manny, Dashon, Ray and CJ) - just ensures under the old rules (that expires Friday), these players were "tendered" so the 49ers won't possibly lose all rights (to match the offer) to them.


As far as Nate is concerned; Nate is under contract and until the 49ers decide to cancel the contract by cutting him he's not going anywhere. I'm not sure when his money is due.

I don't know if this has been answered or not since I have not read through all the posts on this subject, but his money is due the first day of the new season. So the team can hold on to him as long as they want during the summer, OTA's, spring training, preseason.

Originally posted by kezar49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
There is no free-agency right now so even there's no "testing the market" until there is a market created by the CBA.

For all those who don't like Nate, this defense is toast if we lose Nate and don't get a top end pass-rusher; even with a rookie CB. Rook CBs rarely come into the league and shutdown NFL receivers from day one. I don't think the 49ers let him go unless they have an alternative. I imagine however the priorities are QB, Pass-rush and center. You need those to play and our starters are "FA"s.

This.

We are many players away from anything, we need to tear it down some and rebuild it. mtc

No we don't. If anything we just have to fix the outside LB's and you'll see a different secondary. Well actually I'd slide Sopoaga to back up at the Nose, and sign or draft a LE to replace Sopoaga.

Hopefully cut and signed to a new deal.

Crazy as it sounds he's one of the better DB's we have abeit in a weak secondary. He's the best run support CB we have and one of the best ones in the NFL. When he doesn't jump routes on every single play he covers pretty good. I don't know where he got the idea to jump 100% of every route all game long? But it started here in SF. If he just plays the routes honest he's not that bad. Not as bad as made out here on the WZ. At a lower salary he'd be good to keep around. At his current cap # I could understand if he is not kept. But what people don't like is his salary and cap #. It's not purely based on play.

We can be worse without him. People forget so easily the days of Mike Rumph. The secondary can be a real disaster too. Not just over paid and average. Which isn't a disaster.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Crazy as it sounds he's one of the better DB's we have abeit in a weak secondary. He's the best run support CB we have and one of the best ones in the NFL. When he doesn't jump routes on every single play he covers pretty good. I don't know where he got the idea to jump 100% of every route all game long? But it started here in SF. If he just plays the routes honest he's not that bad. Not as bad as made out here on the WZ. At a lower salary he'd be good to keep around. At his current cap # I could understand if he is not kept. But what people don't like is his salary and cap #. It's not purely based on play.

We can be worse without him. People forget so easily the days of Mike Rumph. The secondary can be a real disaster too. Not just over paid and average. Which isn't a disaster.

Wow I agree with SanDiego......AGAIN!!!!

Clements was awful this year. That fumble against Atlanta says it all.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Crazy as it sounds he's one of the better DB's we have abeit in a weak secondary. He's the best run support CB we have and one of the best ones in the NFL. When he doesn't jump routes on every single play he covers pretty good. I don't know where he got the idea to jump 100% of every route all game long? But it started here in SF. If he just plays the routes honest he's not that bad. Not as bad as made out here on the WZ. At a lower salary he'd be good to keep around. At his current cap # I could understand if he is not kept. But what people don't like is his salary and cap #. It's not purely based on play.

We can be worse without him. People forget so easily the days of Mike Rumph. The secondary can be a real disaster too. Not just over paid and average. Which isn't a disaster.

Hmmm... let's see ... Manusky? I really thought our DB coaching was horrible.

SD you're right! Wow! I agree 100%. It seemed as if he was allowed to jump routes OR play 10 yards off the LOS. That's more scheme to me than player.

I totally agree.

We better sign a starting CB in the free agency.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Crazy as it sounds he's one of the better DB's we have abeit in a weak secondary. He's the best run support CB we have and one of the best ones in the NFL. When he doesn't jump routes on every single play he covers pretty good. I don't know where he got the idea to jump 100% of every route all game long? But it started here in SF. If he just plays the routes honest he's not that bad. Not as bad as made out here on the WZ. At a lower salary he'd be good to keep around. At his current cap # I could understand if he is not kept. But what people don't like is his salary and cap #. It's not purely based on play.

We can be worse without him. People forget so easily the days of Mike Rumph. The secondary can be a real disaster too. Not just over paid and average. Which isn't a disaster.

Wow I agree with SanDiego......AGAIN!!!!

...

Nate deserved better than Manusky's 10 yard off-coverage, and definitely deserves better than the 49ers fanbase. At least he was well compensated for us wrecking what was (at the time of the signing) a good career.