Chawker
Well-known member
NBC sports is reporting that Jadeveon Clowney wants Seattle. :snack:
Sgt. Largent":3j678f59 said:Rat":3j678f59 said: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.
Trading Frank Clark saved our 2019 draft. We are in a stellar position next draft. Different scenario can get different intent.Sgt. Largent":3jezyshl said:Rat":3jezyshl said: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.
toffee":3uuot5un said:Mingo + brown or Moore + 4th
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sgt. Largent":dfy5w37n said:MontanaHawk05":dfy5w37n said:Sgt. Largent":dfy5w37n said:MontanaHawk05":dfy5w37n said: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?
Ding ding ding. We're not a player away.uncle fester":1wbrn2tt said:When did throwing away 2nd round picks on a one year rental become sensible business practice?
Clowney is a talent, but he's not worth that level of recklessness.
Seymour":xtkaujti said:We won it all by drafting (or UDFA) 5 all pro's and having them on rookie deals. It was NOT just Wilson as some here want to allude to. It was Sherman, Wagner, Wilson, Chancellor, Baldwin all on rookie deals and playing at a VERY high level (not just average starters like Griffin, Moore, Penny)
You want back in?? IMO then repeat that or close by great drafting. You don't draft great by trading picks away and repeating the same mistakes that caused you to miss the playoffs! :roll: Forget the comp pick, that is 50/50 at best and not money in the bank!
Just say no to Clowney, save the $20M and use it next year to make your big push along with great drafting. Don't get great drafting??....then we are screwed no matter what anyway, we aren't "buying our way in".
:snack:
MontanaHawk05":3nuewcdo said:Because, like I said earlier, we were in an entirely different position then.
When a historically deep DL draft was two days away, viable options existed in free agency, and Jarran Reed was coming off a double-digit sack year, it made some sense to avoid a megadeal and trade Clark.
When it's two weeks away from the regular season, no more tantalizing gobs of talent are just hanging from the branches of free agency to be grabbed on the cheap, and ALL your projected sack artists are likely to be gimpy, green, or barred from the VMAC long enough to hurt our playoff chances with September attrition, it makes less sense to just sit on your hands.
Pete probably didn't imagine that the RB situation of 2017, which saw them address the position with a waterfall of signings only for circumstance to nonchalantly go "nah" and whittle it all down to Mike Davis by October, would repeat itself at DE. But it has, and something should be done unless we're just going to call it another development year.