The latest on Jadeveon Clowney and trade partners.

[chris98251]

All the "one year rental" talk, can't we just franchise him next year? That's the beauty of the Russ and Wags deals already being done. Worst case scenario, we risk losing Reed, who probably tanked his own value anyway. This would be getting a premiere talent in his prime.

Premier when not injured talent, can't forget that, he is not Derrick Thomas in his prime who was healthy almost always.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Why couldn't we franchise him next year? At least then, IF he doesn't want to sign a deal with the Hawks or doesn't like their offer, a team can offer something up that the Hawks like.

 

[chris98251]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/1166446897466183680[/tweet]

So the Texans have to say it is ok for us to talk to him or the league? I would think the Texans would welcome any NFC team over an AFC team.

 

[McGruff]

All the "one year rental" talk, can't we just franchise him next year? That's the beauty of the Russ and Wags deals already being done. Worst case scenario, we risk losing Reed, who probably tanked his own value anyway. This would be getting a premiere talent in his prime.

Premier when not injured talent, can't forget that, he is not Derrick Thomas in his prime who was healthy almost always.

You're old. We get it.

 

[McGruff]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/1166446897466183680[/tweet]

So the Texans have to say it is ok for us to talk to him or the league? I would think the Texans would welcome any NFC team over an AFC team.

Unless the Texans know we wont give them what they want.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

All the "one year rental" talk, can't we just franchise him next year? That's the beauty of the Russ and Wags deals already being done. Worst case scenario, we risk losing Reed, who probably tanked his own value anyway. This would be getting a premiere talent in his prime.

Yeah franchise him at 18M next year, of which we'll be in the same situation Houston is now, a pissed off Clowney that refuses to sign his franchise tender.

The reason Houston hasn't extended him is because he wants Frank Clark money, or close to it. So why would we risk the same scenario as Houston's trying to get out of right now, AND give up picks and possibly a player in return for a one year rental player before he hits UFA?

To me this is strictly a one year rental player, so we need to treat any trade scenarios as such. Which is why I'm not down to give up anything more than a 2nd or 3rd.

I'd love to have Clowney long term, but if we weren't willing to give Clark the massive contract he got in KC, then we're certainly not willing to give it to Clowney.........and someone else always does.

 

[chris98251]

All the "one year rental" talk, can't we just franchise him next year? That's the beauty of the Russ and Wags deals already being done. Worst case scenario, we risk losing Reed, who probably tanked his own value anyway. This would be getting a premiere talent in his prime.

Premier when not injured talent, can't forget that, he is not Derrick Thomas in his prime who was healthy almost always.

You're old. We get it.

When one talks premier I think of Thomas and Bruce Smith and others of that ability. Sustained success at a ridiculous high level.

There are very few these days that reach that level.

 

[chris98251]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/1166446897466183680[/tweet]

So the Texans have to say it is ok for us to talk to him or the league? I would think the Texans would welcome any NFC team over an AFC team.

Unless the Texans know we wont give them what they want.

That's the issue, we are one of the few teams that have extra players that could help them at a position of need in WR and RB, why would they block us ? What does Miami have as depth at those positions ? The Eagles also have a pretty deep roster as well at WR I think.

 

[Seymour]

Pretty good updated article from Condotta about our chances of landing him.

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports...red-destinations-but-miami-may-be-the-leader/

 

[McGruff]

I suspect it comes down to picks.

And who do we have of value that Houston would want?

Prosise? THEY have a better and more reliable version of him already.

Moore? Brown? There are equivalent talent receivers walking the streets right now.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I'd love to have Clowney long term, but if we weren't willing to give Clark the massive contract he got in KC, then we're certainly not willing to give it to Clowney.........and someone else always does.

Our pass rush was healthier, possessed of far more options, and less suspended when we traded Clark. Ansah would give us one sack artist up on that situation. We need, like, probably three.

 

[chris98251]

I suspect it comes down to picks.

And who do we have of value that Houston would want?

Prosise? THEY have a better and more reliable version of him already.

Moore? Brown? There are equivalent talent receivers walking the streets right now.

Duane Brown...…………….


lol may be why we don't have permission.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'd love to have Clowney long term, but if we weren't willing to give Clark the massive contract he got in KC, then we're certainly not willing to give it to Clowney.........and someone else always does.

Our pass rush was healthier, possessed of far more options, and less suspended when we traded Clark. Ansah would give us one sack artist up on that situation. We need, like, probably three.

So you'd give Clowney 20M+ per year on a long term deal?

 

[Kinger95]

All comes down to the cost.

I’m sure Houston would like to get a 1st or 2 -2nds like what we got for Clark.

If that’s the case I say we’re out. Clark was a headache and clowney is an injury risk and his contract status is too questionable

 

[AgentDib]

I don't see why people devalue comp picks because of one bad off-season in which we threw them away. That was a mistake and an anomaly, and if anything should reinforce their value. We can absolutely take advantage of them with proper planning.

Right now we are slated to have a ton of UFA's next off-season. Players like Ansah, Kendricks, Hunt, Vannett, Mingo, Fant, Brown, Iupati, Woods, Ifedi, QJeff, and Marsh. We could sign 5 UFAs before the comp pick threshold and probably still qualify for 3 comp picks.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Also, the team has two picks in the 2nd round, so getting rid of the later of the two would be worth it.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I'd love to have Clowney long term, but if we weren't willing to give Clark the massive contract he got in KC, then we're certainly not willing to give it to Clowney.........and someone else always does.

Our pass rush was healthier, possessed of far more options, and less suspended when we traded Clark. Ansah would give us one sack artist up on that situation. We need, like, probably three.

So you'd give Clowney 20M+ per year on a long term deal?

Yep. You know my position on this. We need to start talking about DL's like we do QB's. They're ridiculously financially damaging, but what else are you going to do? You need these guys. There's no way around it. If you don't like what's happened with their contracts, take it up with the league. They're the ones who made QB's so damn important; their natural predators, edge rushers, just followed suit.

You yourself appealed to this logic when discussing Clark. You sided against paying him, but I also remember you mentioning that we weren't going to be better without players of his caliber, and he had the leverage because this is just where the market was going: upwards, on an Apollo rocket.

If you won't pay Lawrence and Clark, you're electing to forever decline second contracts on anyone worthy of them, because someone ACTUALLY worth Lawrence and Clark money won't be asking for Lawrence and Clark money. He'll be asking $5 million north of that. The alternative is signing Clarks and Lawrences or relying 100% on rookies and reclamation projects. Scrounging through Pete's beloved bargain bin might not be hopeless as holding out for a late-round QB who blossoms into a superstar, but it isn't likely, either. Seattle threw all kinds of resources at DL in the last few years and it hasn't notched us anything but a wagonload of two-sack projects.

If we're going to do cost-benefit analysis, let's not forget the "benefit" part. We can penny-pinch our way into wasting Wilson's career if we're not careful. I was probably less correct about Jimmy Graham in that matter, and there are other positions I wouldn't break the bank for, but pass rusher is another story. Especially going into a year where we have the draft collateral.

 

[toffee]

Mingo + brown or Moore + 4th


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'd love to have Clowney long term, but if we weren't willing to give Clark the massive contract he got in KC, then we're certainly not willing to give it to Clowney.........and someone else always does.

Our pass rush was healthier, possessed of far more options, and less suspended when we traded Clark. Ansah would give us one sack artist up on that situation. We need, like, probably three.

So you'd give Clowney 20M+ per year on a long term deal?

Yep. You know my position on this. We need to start talking about DL's like we do QB's. They're ridiculously financially damaging, but what else are you going to do? You need these guys. There's no way around it. If you don't like what's happened with their contracts, take it up with the league. They're the ones who made QB's so damn important; their natural predators, edge rushers, just followed suit.

You yourself appealed to this logic when discussing Clark. You sided against paying him, but I also remember you mentioning that we weren't going to be better without players of his caliber, and he had the leverage because this is just where the market was going: upwards, on an Apollo rocket.

If you won't pay Lawrence and Clark, you're electing to forever decline second contracts on anyone worthy of them, because someone ACTUALLY worth Lawrence and Clark money won't be asking for Lawrence and Clark money. He'll be asking $5 million north of that. The alternative is signing Clarks and Lawrences or relying 100% on rookies and reclamation projects. Scrounging through Pete's beloved bargain bin might not be hopeless as holding out for a late-round QB who blossoms into a superstar, but it isn't likely, either. Seattle threw all kinds of resources at DL in the last few years and it hasn't notched us anything but a wagonload of two-sack projects.

If we're going to do cost-benefit analysis, let's not forget the "benefit" part. We can penny-pinch our way into wasting Wilson's career if we're not careful. I was probably less correct about Jimmy Graham in that matter, and there are other positions I wouldn't break the bank for, but pass rusher is another story. Especially going into a year where we have the draft collateral.

You are correct, and for all those reasons. The difference is two told;

1. We weren't giving up picks and/or starters for Clark.

2. Clark was a proven home grown player that'd run through a wall for us and loved Seattle. He also had zero health issues.

So while some of us would pay Clowney, if you're Pete and John, why didn't it make sense to give Clark 20+M a year and now it makes sense for Clowney when you addressed part of the need with the Ansah signing and drafting of Collier?

Even if you think the need is still there, this is a worse way of addressing the need than just signing Clark. Which is why I don't think it's happening without it just being a one year rental for a 2nd or whatever.

 

[jammerhawk]

The only reason I can think of is the team now is aware their pass rush is going to be dreadful and they need help.

However, I can't help but think that JS learned not to do this type of deal after the Shelon Richardson fiasco.