Seahawk Sailor
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 22,963
- Reaction score
- 1
It was inevitable. We already have our quota of Griffins filled for the season.
E Griffen gone
- Thread starter Cyrus12
- Start date
rcaido
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2014
- Messages
- 2,215
- Reaction score
- 494
kf3339":1clho2dl said:
We were expecting 8million,if anything this drops Clowney value again. Maybe we can get Clowney for 12 million 1-year deal.
Sports Hernia
Well-known member
Very likely.Seahawk Sailor":13z943i0 said:
FlyingGreg
Active member
TheLegendOfBoom":2ip12l28 said:
Griffen is 32...hardly "old". Also the same age as our primary edge signing this off-season - Bruce Irvin.
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
Bummer for sure. Unless this pushes them to get Clowney back here.
TwistedHusky
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 6,919
- Reaction score
- 1,113
My mind is blown that we somehow allowed an NFC playoff team to get him for essentially the price of a crappy fat RB that loves Chinese food. We didn't even enter the sweepstakes just to bid him up? At least make him more expensive?
The next reaction is 'oh crap, we are going to get stuck with Matthews.'
But the more likely outcome is that we end up spending near as much bringing in an overpriced DT because of Carroll's puzzling obsession with stopping the run in a league where every advantage moves to teams that pass the ball. (Admittedly, the 49ers love to run. Stopping the run would help us against them. But we need to win more than just the 1 of 2 games we would win because of that.)
Getting Clowney sounds unlikely so Griffen would have been a great get for us.
I still think with our secondary we stand a chance at our first win of a meaningful playoff game since the SB loss. That makes me optimistic about the season having a somewhat successful ending. But with this roster now we aren't a SB contender by any stretch. Maybe with Clowney added - but Clowney is going to cost more than Griffen did.
However that giant cheer you might have heard is the 49er fans (who have a team that got better last year) excited to see their path to winning the division just got much easier. I still have the Bucs winning it all but if not, the 49ers got a much better chance to return based on this.
The next reaction is 'oh crap, we are going to get stuck with Matthews.'
But the more likely outcome is that we end up spending near as much bringing in an overpriced DT because of Carroll's puzzling obsession with stopping the run in a league where every advantage moves to teams that pass the ball. (Admittedly, the 49ers love to run. Stopping the run would help us against them. But we need to win more than just the 1 of 2 games we would win because of that.)
Getting Clowney sounds unlikely so Griffen would have been a great get for us.
I still think with our secondary we stand a chance at our first win of a meaningful playoff game since the SB loss. That makes me optimistic about the season having a somewhat successful ending. But with this roster now we aren't a SB contender by any stretch. Maybe with Clowney added - but Clowney is going to cost more than Griffen did.
However that giant cheer you might have heard is the 49er fans (who have a team that got better last year) excited to see their path to winning the division just got much easier. I still have the Bucs winning it all but if not, the 49ers got a much better chance to return based on this.
Uncle Si
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 20,596
- Reaction score
- 3
FlyingGreg":eq6os0vn said:
He's not very good though. The vikings were fine letting him go. He opted out of his contract knowing he'd be cut, then was told by the team not to expect a new offer.
Its not a big loss, unless the team loses bargaining power over another player.
FlyingGreg
Active member
Uncle Si":2ry8u2sv said:
The assessment of his play is TBD. I was just responding to the "old" comment.
Chapow
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2010
- Messages
- 5,384
- Reaction score
- 1,302
I would have liked to get Griffen too, but some of you guys are acting like we "lost" a premier pass rusher or something. We didn't. First of all, you can't lose something that you never had. Second, Griffen had 8 sacks in 848 defensive snaps last season and apparently it's a disaster that we didn't sign him. Meanwhile, Bruce Irvin had 8.5 sacks in 608 defensive snaps, but apparently signing him was a big "meh" and the front office ignored and/or didn't address the pass rush.
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
And if he was so great, why was he still available in mid-August?
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2019
- Messages
- 3,709
- Reaction score
- 1,457
"if anything this drops Clowney value again."
?
IF anything it RAISES Clowney's value, with exception that another of his proposed suitors is now supposedly out of the running. But at the same time it reduces our options. I see no upside to signing Mathews, which pretty much leaves us with no other alternatives. Or maybe our FO thinks we're all set and good to go.
?
IF anything it RAISES Clowney's value, with exception that another of his proposed suitors is now supposedly out of the running. But at the same time it reduces our options. I see no upside to signing Mathews, which pretty much leaves us with no other alternatives. Or maybe our FO thinks we're all set and good to go.
jammerhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,264
- Reaction score
- 1,867
Don't believe this much alters Clowney's market value in either direction.
His position is he needs to be paid >$20 million +/yr. His offers so far have been for significantly less than that number.
I suspect if his representatives maintain that position Clowney won't be playing this season for any team. This is unfortunate, but any situation can be priced out of market value which is greatly affected by numerous variables. Relying simply on the scarcity variable to determine his fair market price deeply discounts a serious injury history for him along with ongoing health limitations with his knees, and the fact he's not a sack master but rather a disrupter who is solid against the run. While there are others that can play that role perhaps most can't do it as well as him. Those type players have a market value, he wants to try to reset his value.
The premium $ are paid to the guys who get the sacks. The market is telling him his price is out of line with what his true worth is seen to be.
I'd for sure like to see the team come to deal with him for a few seasons but doubt they are even close to a value each side believes is the right one for his services.
To me each day that passes works against Clowney in finding his team that will pay for his services. Besides there are a lot of teams who are out of the running for cap reasons.
His position is he needs to be paid >$20 million +/yr. His offers so far have been for significantly less than that number.
I suspect if his representatives maintain that position Clowney won't be playing this season for any team. This is unfortunate, but any situation can be priced out of market value which is greatly affected by numerous variables. Relying simply on the scarcity variable to determine his fair market price deeply discounts a serious injury history for him along with ongoing health limitations with his knees, and the fact he's not a sack master but rather a disrupter who is solid against the run. While there are others that can play that role perhaps most can't do it as well as him. Those type players have a market value, he wants to try to reset his value.
The premium $ are paid to the guys who get the sacks. The market is telling him his price is out of line with what his true worth is seen to be.
I'd for sure like to see the team come to deal with him for a few seasons but doubt they are even close to a value each side believes is the right one for his services.
To me each day that passes works against Clowney in finding his team that will pay for his services. Besides there are a lot of teams who are out of the running for cap reasons.
Right now our pass rush potential scares no team. That is not to say Griffin would have made the sole difference, but he is a true DE that opposing teams would have to game plan for to some degree. Irvin and Mayowa are nice rotation pieces, but that's about it. Maybe one of them hits lightening in a bottle. I doubt it.
If our DE rotation stays as is, it will be a group by committee. In other words the sum total must do the job rather than having one or two top flight DE's that get the consistent pressure and sacks. Maybe that is the goal.
The one possible solution is to find a reliable DT who can push the pocket to flush the QB into their hands. There are a few still FA that may work. Darius is the one that comes to mind for me.
If our DE rotation stays as is, it will be a group by committee. In other words the sum total must do the job rather than having one or two top flight DE's that get the consistent pressure and sacks. Maybe that is the goal.
The one possible solution is to find a reliable DT who can push the pocket to flush the QB into their hands. There are a few still FA that may work. Darius is the one that comes to mind for me.
Bobblehead
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,251
- Reaction score
- 868
He must not have been very improtant to the Hawks plans.. they had enough time to sign him and didn't..someone was inevitably going to sign him.
Own The West
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,107
- Reaction score
- 569
The upside is this probably brings the Boys closer to cutting Antwaun Woods whom we could use.
Maulbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,650
- Reaction score
- 1,526
toffee
Well-known member
Without adding a DT or DE, where do our DL stand now as compare to pre-Clowney '19 or post-Clowney '19?
I think we may see improvement over '19 if Green improves to a 8-9 sack guy, Collier can become a 4 sacks guy, and Irvin play up to his last season standard. They will be helped by QB having to hold the ball just a sec or two longer because of our new secondary, and more nickel packages.
We had 28 sacks last year, we could improve to a 36-38 sacks team this year, still meh but better than last year. We mustn't forget that we were a few plays away from going deeper into the playoff.
Call me a homer
Sent from my IN2017 using Tapatalk
I think we may see improvement over '19 if Green improves to a 8-9 sack guy, Collier can become a 4 sacks guy, and Irvin play up to his last season standard. They will be helped by QB having to hold the ball just a sec or two longer because of our new secondary, and more nickel packages.
We had 28 sacks last year, we could improve to a 36-38 sacks team this year, still meh but better than last year. We mustn't forget that we were a few plays away from going deeper into the playoff.
Call me a homer
Sent from my IN2017 using Tapatalk
