There are 69 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Schefter: Nate Clements a 'Potential' Cut This Week

Originally posted by NinerBuff:
Originally posted by ritchie:
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Originally posted by CoachingMatters:
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Originally posted by CoachingMatters:
So if he isnt cut today do we have to pay his whole salary for 2011? Or can we still cut him after the draft? Anyone know how that works?

Whats the difference in cutting him today or in June? Whats the advantage/disadvantage if you will.

No difference.

TY then I expect we wont do anything till after the draft. I love schefter but he is off on this one. Absolutely no reason to cut him unless he wants out. If so, so be it.

Yup. The 49ers hold all the cards here and can release/waive Clements at any time with no negative impact to their 2011 books. In fact, it frees up a ton of payroll.

This is great. Now we can sign Alex Smith to a multi-year deal.


You don't agree? Maybe we can franchise tag him instead. Let's wait for the Manning situation to play out first though.
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
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.

I actually read somewhere that the DBs are often given a choice of whether to line up in press or off coverage.

-9fA

And I think there in lies the problem - DBs are given a choice? Shouldn't the DC be making that decision given the scheme? Sounds like a coaching/scheme issue to me.
i only hope cutting nate means 2 things: 1)we make a strong push for Asomugha 2)we find a way to draft Peterson. Signing Asomugha would be most beneficial then our cards are easier to play come draft time
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
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.

I actually read somewhere that the DBs are often given a choice of whether to line up in press or off coverage.

-9fA

And I think there in lies the problem - DBs are given a choice? Shouldn't the DC be making that decision given the scheme? Sounds like a coaching/scheme issue to me.

But then again, you don't want to force your players to play in a manner in which they're not comfortable. It's a balance.

-9fA
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
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.

I actually read somewhere that the DBs are often given a choice of whether to line up in press or off coverage.

-9fA

And I think there in lies the problem - DBs are given a choice? Shouldn't the DC be making that decision given the scheme? Sounds like a coaching/scheme issue to me.

But then again, you don't want to force your players to play in a manner in which they're not comfortable. It's a balance.

-9fA

I swear I've seen Nate play 15 yards off the los. Thats safety territory. There's comfortable, then there's playing not to get beat. Im not sure what scheme that is. It's quick out/hitch heaven for any opposing OC.
[ Edited by AXEGRINDER on Mar 3, 2011 at 5:55 PM ]
Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
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.

I actually read somewhere that the DBs are often given a choice of whether to line up in press or off coverage.

-9fA

And I think there in lies the problem - DBs are given a choice? Shouldn't the DC be making that decision given the scheme? Sounds like a coaching/scheme issue to me.

But then again, you don't want to force your players to play in a manner in which they're not comfortable. It's a balance.

-9fA

I swear I've seen Nate play 15 yards off the los. Thats safety territory. There's comfortable, then there's playing not to get beat. Im not sure what scheme that is. It's quick out/hitch heaven for any opposing OC.

Yeah, I remember that occurring. I think it was in the preseason against the Raiders last season or the season before. I believe when Nate was asked about it by the media, he said "not to worry" or something along that lines since he was trying out a technique.

-9fA
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by AXEGRINDER:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
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.

I actually read somewhere that the DBs are often given a choice of whether to line up in press or off coverage.

-9fA

And I think there in lies the problem - DBs are given a choice? Shouldn't the DC be making that decision given the scheme? Sounds like a coaching/scheme issue to me.

But then again, you don't want to force your players to play in a manner in which they're not comfortable. It's a balance.

-9fA

I swear I've seen Nate play 15 yards off the los. Thats safety territory. There's comfortable, then there's playing not to get beat. Im not sure what scheme that is. It's quick out/hitch heaven for any opposing OC.

Yeah, I remember that occurring. I think it was in the preseason against the Raiders last season or the season before. I believe when Nate was asked about it by the media, he said "not to worry" or something along that lines since he was trying out a technique.

-9fA

Probably a lack of speed/confidence issue. I think the best thing for his career as well as the 49ers is for him to give SS a shot. I could see him being a pro bowler at the safety position.
[ Edited by AXEGRINDER on Mar 3, 2011 at 6:15 PM ]
I can't believe he lead the team in stuffs. He is the opposite of what we wanted.
f**k it, we don't need him.... in fact...we dont need....a QB, CB, C, OLB, Saftey, quality depth or anything. We got Carr, Spencer & Brown, maybe Heitman or maybe Wragge, Haralson/Brooks/some guy named Giddeon, Mays/Reggie/Curtis Taylor...........

Let's say it together "Championship!!!"
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,659
If our defense was fully built and Clements was one of the factors we rank so low on defense, then I could see a reason for cutting him. People forget the finger pointing at Manusky, Lawson, Haralson, Goldson, Clements is the least of our troubles on defense. I'd rather see what Clements can do with a new DC and what is supposed to be a more aggressive approach.
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
Originally posted by oldman9er:
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.

I actually read somewhere that the DBs are often given a choice of whether to line up in press or off coverage.

-9fA

And I think there in lies the problem - DBs are given a choice? Shouldn't the DC be making that decision given the scheme? Sounds like a coaching/scheme issue to me.

But then again, you don't want to force your players to play in a manner in which they're not comfortable. It's a balance.

-9fA

ITA. However, I'm hoping Fangio/Donatell can get more out of him in terms of coverage than Manusky/Joseph. In any event, he's better than most FA outside of Asomougha. I'm all in favor of upgrading but only if there's a plan in place for an upgrade. IMHO, a rookie in the secondary without an impact player generating pass-rush is not an upgrade to me.

The balance I see that needs to be achieved is between the defensive LOS or backfield; if you're going to pick at OLB at lower rounds, then I recommend not cutting Nate (or bringing in an equivalent or better FA). Keeping Nate, IMHO keeps draft options open. Creating a DIRE need at CB I think isn't the best thing to do in a shortened off-season.
I can't understand why the 49ers haven't done anything about Nate Clements' contract yet? Either restructure it, or cut him loose.
[ Edited by PTulini on Mar 3, 2011 at 9:12 PM ]
Not a big deal. A cornerback can be targeted in the first or second round.
Originally posted by RishikeshA:
Not a big deal. A cornerback can be targeted in the first or second round.

yup and that SAME rookie cornerback will be targeted by opposing QBs our whole season.

I'm not saying we shouldn't draft a CB, but imo Terrell Brown is HORRIBLE and has been Horrible for awhile now...even though Sing and company tried to force feed him to us, by moving Nate to special teams a couple of years ago... Most of the time he is always beat.

if we go into the season with Spencer and Brown as our starting cbs..then we will have trouble from the beginning of the season. So unless they have some other proven vet who can step in, I would rather stick with Nate.
Originally posted by PTulini:
I can't understand why the 49ers haven't done anything about Nate Clements' contract yet? Either restructure it, or cut him loose.

Why they have until the begining of the season? I would keep him at least until after the draft. That we can keep teams guessing.
...