Time to pay Frank

[iigakusei]

Franchise tag, then move on. Draft and develop defense. No one defensive player is worth 20M+ in today’s game. Not enough consistent impact on winning overall.

They absolutely are worth the money, it's why they make so much now.

It's one of the main reasons why we won our SB, it's THE main reason the Broncos won their SB, and it won the Eagles their SB last year with the strip sack of Brady.

You just can't be successful in the NFL without a pass rush, as we're about to find out over the next month playing Rivers, Stafford, Goff and Rodgers.

So yeah, if we already had 2-3 young DE's that we could build our D-line around I'd agree with you guys who don't want to pay Frank............but we don't, so we will. He'll either get his monster deal, or we'll franchise him for a year or two. Which his agent said yesterday they were perfectly fine with.

Here we go again. Clark is not Donnald, he is not Watt ($16M per year through 2021!!), he is not Mack, he is not MIller.......and he's NOT worth $20 million dollars!

But that is almost irrelevant as none of them are due for a contract at the end of this year.
How much would you want to pay him? What do you think he is worth? If he finishes with 12-15 sacks what do you think he will get on the open market?

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Franchise tag, then move on. Draft and develop defense. No one defensive player is worth 20M+ in today’s game. Not enough consistent impact on winning overall.

They absolutely are worth the money, it's why they make so much now.

It's one of the main reasons why we won our SB, it's THE main reason the Broncos won their SB, and it won the Eagles their SB last year with the strip sack of Brady.

You just can't be successful in the NFL without a pass rush, as we're about to find out over the next month playing Rivers, Stafford, Goff and Rodgers.

So yeah, if we already had 2-3 young DE's that we could build our D-line around I'd agree with you guys who don't want to pay Frank............but we don't, so we will. He'll either get his monster deal, or we'll franchise him for a year or two. Which his agent said yesterday they were perfectly fine with.

Isn't this exactly how we ended up giving monster deals to Lynch and the Legion that everyone hated? "We've failed to develop any alternatives, so we have to do this."?

 

[Seymour]

^^^IIga, You'll need to catch up. I've already stated all that in this thread.

Rank Clark in his position group before you set his wage. I'd really like to hear how he is even top 10.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Franchise tag, then move on. Draft and develop defense. No one defensive player is worth 20M+ in today’s game. Not enough consistent impact on winning overall.

They absolutely are worth the money, it's why they make so much now.

It's one of the main reasons why we won our SB, it's THE main reason the Broncos won their SB, and it won the Eagles their SB last year with the strip sack of Brady.

You just can't be successful in the NFL without a pass rush, as we're about to find out over the next month playing Rivers, Stafford, Goff and Rodgers.

So yeah, if we already had 2-3 young DE's that we could build our D-line around I'd agree with you guys who don't want to pay Frank............but we don't, so we will. He'll either get his monster deal, or we'll franchise him for a year or two. Which his agent said yesterday they were perfectly fine with.

Isn't this exactly how we ended up giving monster deals to Lynch and the Legion that everyone hated? "We've failed to develop any alternatives, so we have to do this."?

Right, and the overpaying narrative can change if we draft a pass rusher next year AND guys like Green start coming on as viable DE's.

But DE is right up there with QB and LT as the most important positions on a team, so..............overpaid. As many have said, DE has even overtaken LT as the 2nd most important position because of how the league is changing into a flag football pass happy league.

And Seymour, I agree Clark isn't worth 20M, but when you have no other above average to elite pass rushers on your roster, what choice do we have? This D-line is already thin and not very good at rushing the passer. No Clark and we become downright pathetic.

 

[Seymour]

Franchise tag, then move on. Draft and develop defense. No one defensive player is worth 20M+ in today’s game. Not enough consistent impact on winning overall.

They absolutely are worth the money, it's why they make so much now.

It's one of the main reasons why we won our SB, it's THE main reason the Broncos won their SB, and it won the Eagles their SB last year with the strip sack of Brady.

You just can't be successful in the NFL without a pass rush, as we're about to find out over the next month playing Rivers, Stafford, Goff and Rodgers.

So yeah, if we already had 2-3 young DE's that we could build our D-line around I'd agree with you guys who don't want to pay Frank............but we don't, so we will. He'll either get his monster deal, or we'll franchise him for a year or two. Which his agent said yesterday they were perfectly fine with.

Isn't this exactly how we ended up giving monster deals to Lynch and the Legion that everyone hated? "We've failed to develop any alternatives, so we have to do this."?

Right, and the overpaying narrative can change if we draft a pass rusher next year AND guys like Green start coming on as viable DE's.

But DE is right up there with QB and LT as the most important positions on a team, so..............overpaid. As many have said, DE has even overtaken LT as the 2nd most important position because of how the league is changing into a flag football pass happy league.

And Seymour, I agree Clark isn't worth 20M, but when you have no other above average to elite pass rushers on your roster, what choice do we have? This D-line is already thin and not very good at rushing the passer. No Clark and we become downright pathetic.

You have the choice to not pass rush as well until you find him OVER destroying your future with overbearing contracts. We are just getting out of cap hell next year, and people want to start a whole new round of cap madness. $20M Clark goes down and we are screwed as opposed to 4 1/2 Bradley McDougald type contracts where 3+ are always on the field.

My other suggestion is quit drafting McDowells and we will have an answer soon enough.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

You have the choice to not pass rush as well until you find him OVER destroying your future with overbearing contracts. We are just getting out of cap hell next year, and people want to start a whole new round of cap madness. $20M Clark goes down and we are screwed as opposed to 4 1/2 Bradley McDougald type contracts where 3+ are always on the field..

That's the problem though, there are far more McDougald's in the league than Clarks, thus why good DE's make so much.

I get what you're saying, I don't like compromising our cap either. But IMO good DE's are just too important to let Clark walk, especially on this roster with no other good pass rushers.

Again, maybe that changes next off season with the draft and more money to spend on free agency. But now? IMO gotta at least franchise him for a year if no reasonable extension can be worked out.

 

[Seymour]

You have the choice to not pass rush as well until you find him OVER destroying your future with overbearing contracts. We are just getting out of cap hell next year, and people want to start a whole new round of cap madness. $20M Clark goes down and we are screwed as opposed to 4 1/2 Bradley McDougald type contracts where 3+ are always on the field..

That's the problem though, there are far more McDougald's in the league than Clarks, thus why good DE's make so much.

I get what you're saying, I don't like compromising our cap either. But IMO good DE's are just too important to let Clark walk, especially on this roster with no other good pass rushers.

Again, maybe that changes next off season with the draft and more money to spend on free agency. But now? IMO gotta at least franchise him for a year if no reasonable extension can be worked out.

Not buying that, next man up. We had Avril and Bennett here 5 years and never had to even pay $10M per year for either one. People are freakin' and coping out IMO.

Yes, it will cost more today, No it will not cost over double.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

You have the choice to not pass rush as well until you find him OVER destroying your future with overbearing contracts. We are just getting out of cap hell next year, and people want to start a whole new round of cap madness. $20M Clark goes down and we are screwed as opposed to 4 1/2 Bradley McDougald type contracts where 3+ are always on the field..

That's the problem though, there are far more McDougald's in the league than Clarks, thus why good DE's make so much.

I get what you're saying, I don't like compromising our cap either. But IMO good DE's are just too important to let Clark walk, especially on this roster with no other good pass rushers.

Again, maybe that changes next off season with the draft and more money to spend on free agency. But now? IMO gotta at least franchise him for a year if no reasonable extension can be worked out.

Not buying that, next man up. We had Avril and Bennett here 5 years and never had to even pay $10M per year for either one. People are freakin' and coping out IMO.

Yes, it will cost more today, No it will not cost over double.

But that's the thing, at the time of their contracts they were right there with the other highest paid D-lineman in the league 4-5 years ago. So you can't compare where those guys were 4-5 years ago and now.

As the cap goes up, so do the average salaries at every position. Just so happens DE has escalated more because of where the league's at and how important the position is.

 

[Seymour]

You have the choice to not pass rush as well until you find him OVER destroying your future with overbearing contracts. We are just getting out of cap hell next year, and people want to start a whole new round of cap madness. $20M Clark goes down and we are screwed as opposed to 4 1/2 Bradley McDougald type contracts where 3+ are always on the field..

That's the problem though, there are far more McDougald's in the league than Clarks, thus why good DE's make so much.

I get what you're saying, I don't like compromising our cap either. But IMO good DE's are just too important to let Clark walk, especially on this roster with no other good pass rushers.

Again, maybe that changes next off season with the draft and more money to spend on free agency. But now? IMO gotta at least franchise him for a year if no reasonable extension can be worked out.

Not buying that, next man up. We had Avril and Bennett here 5 years and never had to even pay $10M per year for either one. People are freakin' and coping out IMO.

Yes, it will cost more today, No it will not cost over double.

But that's the thing, at the time of their contracts they were right there with the other highest paid D-lineman in the league 4-5 years ago. So you can't compare where those guys were 4-5 years ago and now.

As the cap goes up, so do the average salaries at every position. Just so happens DE has escalated more because of where the league's at and how important the position is.

You are wrong about that! Bennett when we first signed him for around $8M per year there were guys making +70% over that! Mario Williams was making around $13.5M at that time in 2012. After the first 7 top DE that all make $15M and up there are many good DE's around 10-12M still today. Suh (DT can swing to DE) just signed this year for $14M and we PASSED on him!!

Do some homework.

https://overthecap.com/position/4-3-defensive-end/

 

[Sgt. Largent]

That's the problem though, there are far more McDougald's in the league than Clarks, thus why good DE's make so much.

I get what you're saying, I don't like compromising our cap either. But IMO good DE's are just too important to let Clark walk, especially on this roster with no other good pass rushers.

Again, maybe that changes next off season with the draft and more money to spend on free agency. But now? IMO gotta at least franchise him for a year if no reasonable extension can be worked out.

Not buying that, next man up. We had Avril and Bennett here 5 years and never had to even pay $10M per year for either one. People are freakin' and coping out IMO.

Yes, it will cost more today, No it will not cost over double.

But that's the thing, at the time of their contracts they were right there with the other highest paid D-lineman in the league 4-5 years ago. So you can't compare where those guys were 4-5 years ago and now.

As the cap goes up, so do the average salaries at every position. Just so happens DE has escalated more because of where the league's at and how important the position is.

You are wrong about that! Bennett when we first signed him for around $8M per year there were guys making +70% over that! Mario Williams was making around $13.5M at that time in 2012. After the first 7 top DE that all make $15M and up there are many good DE's around 10-12M still today. Suh (DT can swing to DE) just signed this year for $14M and we PASSED on him!!

Do some homework.

https://overthecap.com/position/4-3-defensive-end/

Right, 3-4 years ago the average annual salary was around 10M for the highest paid D-lineman, now over the past 3-4 years it's up over 17M.

Thus where Clark's looking. You wanna go backwards, and I'm telling you that's not how this works. You can offer Clark 15M, but he knows he can get way more elsewhere, or force the Hawk's to franchise him for 19M.

So let's just agree to disagree, again. I think he's worth keeping and building around until the depth needed on the D-line is drafted or aquired for cheaper, and you think it's OK to suck on the D-line without Clark because you don't think he's worth that.

In essence you think 4-5M isn't worth having an average D-line with a top pass rusher vs a terrible D-line with literally no pass rushers. That's a great recipe for more losses like we saw earlier in the year against the Rams, Bears and Broncos where the QB had all day to throw. What do you think those scores would look like without Clark? Cause that's what you're saying.

 

[AgentDib]

It's good for both sides that there are still 10 games left in the season. It's simply too early for the Hawks to give Clark a huge extension, and with Clark's camp getting insurance and welcoming a franchise tag they are in no rush to get a deal done either. All of the options are still open and will depend a lot on these next 10 games. Best case scenario is that he earns the extension from the Hawks. Next best option is probably some sort of tag and trade.

As a fan with a long-term interest in the team I do not agree with overpaying players based on perceived need. I see that as a short term approach that leads to trouble down the road, whereas I have a very low discount rate as a fan and would like to see the team trying to maximize wins over the next fifty years. Competitive "windows" are self-inflicted by teams that go all-in because NFL owners are impatient and so front offices are forced to operate with high discount rates and short-term priorities to keep their jobs.

 

[Seymour]

Not buying that, next man up. We had Avril and Bennett here 5 years and never had to even pay $10M per year for either one. People are freakin' and coping out IMO.

Yes, it will cost more today, No it will not cost over double.

But that's the thing, at the time of their contracts they were right there with the other highest paid D-lineman in the league 4-5 years ago. So you can't compare where those guys were 4-5 years ago and now.

As the cap goes up, so do the average salaries at every position. Just so happens DE has escalated more because of where the league's at and how important the position is.

You are wrong about that! Bennett when we first signed him for around $8M per year there were guys making +70% over that! Mario Williams was making around $13.5M at that time in 2012. After the first 7 top DE that all make $15M and up there are many good DE's around 10-12M still today. Suh (DT can swing to DE) just signed this year for $14M and we PASSED on him!!

Do some homework.

https://overthecap.com/position/4-3-defensive-end/

Right, 3-4 years ago the average annual salary was around 10M for the highest paid D-lineman, now over the past 3-4 years it's up over 17M.

Thus where Clark's looking. You wanna go backwards, and I'm telling you that's not how this works. You can offer Clark 15M, but he knows he can get way more elsewhere, or force the Hawk's to franchise him for 19M.

So let's just agree to disagree, again. I think he's worth keeping and building around until the depth needed on the D-line is drafted or aquired for cheaper, and you think it's OK to suck on the D-line without Clark because you don't think he's worth that.

In essence you think 4-5M isn't worth having an average D-line with a top pass rusher vs a terrible D-line with literally no pass rushers. That's a great recipe for more losses like we saw earlier in the year against the Rams, Bears and Broncos where the QB had all day to throw. What do you think those scores would look like without Clark? Cause that's what you're saying.

No pass rushers is an exaggeration, Reed has 4 himself. Avril and Bennett and Clemons were other teams rejects and they worked out just fine. We have pass rushers and could blitz more as well, and Clark is just one of many 10 sack guys that can be found around the league. Clark is one of 15 players this year with 5.5 or more sacks after feasting on Cables low hanging gift fruit. He is not Miller or Mack no matter what his agent says.

Let me ask you this....you pick one.
Suh for $14M (signed this year)
Clark for $20M

 

[Sgt. Largent]

But that's the thing, at the time of their contracts they were right there with the other highest paid D-lineman in the league 4-5 years ago. So you can't compare where those guys were 4-5 years ago and now.

As the cap goes up, so do the average salaries at every position. Just so happens DE has escalated more because of where the league's at and how important the position is.

You are wrong about that! Bennett when we first signed him for around $8M per year there were guys making +70% over that! Mario Williams was making around $13.5M at that time in 2012. After the first 7 top DE that all make $15M and up there are many good DE's around 10-12M still today. Suh (DT can swing to DE) just signed this year for $14M and we PASSED on him!!

Do some homework.

https://overthecap.com/position/4-3-defensive-end/

Right, 3-4 years ago the average annual salary was around 10M for the highest paid D-lineman, now over the past 3-4 years it's up over 17M.

Thus where Clark's looking. You wanna go backwards, and I'm telling you that's not how this works. You can offer Clark 15M, but he knows he can get way more elsewhere, or force the Hawk's to franchise him for 19M.

So let's just agree to disagree, again. I think he's worth keeping and building around until the depth needed on the D-line is drafted or aquired for cheaper, and you think it's OK to suck on the D-line without Clark because you don't think he's worth that.

In essence you think 4-5M isn't worth having an average D-line with a top pass rusher vs a terrible D-line with literally no pass rushers. That's a great recipe for more losses like we saw earlier in the year against the Rams, Bears and Broncos where the QB had all day to throw. What do you think those scores would look like without Clark? Cause that's what you're saying.

No pass rushers is an exaggeration, Reed has 4 himself. Avril and Bennett and Clemons were other teams rejects and they worked out just fine. We have pass rushers and could blitz more as well, and Clark is just one of many 10 sack guys that can be found around the league. Clark is one of 15 players this year with 5.5 or more sacks after feasting on Cables low hanging gift fruit. He is not Miller or Mack no matter what his agent says.

Let me ask you this....you pick one.
Suh for $14M (signed this year)
Clark for $20M

D-line is like O-line, one link get's weakened and it affects the entire line. It's why Fluker's helped the O-line immensely, and it's why Clark has helped Reed, and vice versa. It ALL needs to work together. Doubt Reed has 4 sacks if Clark isn't on the team.

But to answer your question, I'd take a 25 year old Clark in his prime for the next 4-5 years at 20M over a 31 year old Suh who's play is already starting to diminish.

He should be dominating right now next to Donald and Brockers. What, 3 sacks, 10 tackles? Got his ass pancaked to China by Fluker. No thanks, I'll pay the extra 5-6M for Clark continuing to play well for the next 4-5 years.

 

[Seymour]

You are wrong about that! Bennett when we first signed him for around $8M per year there were guys making +70% over that! Mario Williams was making around $13.5M at that time in 2012. After the first 7 top DE that all make $15M and up there are many good DE's around 10-12M still today. Suh (DT can swing to DE) just signed this year for $14M and we PASSED on him!!

Do some homework.

https://overthecap.com/position/4-3-defensive-end/

Right, 3-4 years ago the average annual salary was around 10M for the highest paid D-lineman, now over the past 3-4 years it's up over 17M.

Thus where Clark's looking. You wanna go backwards, and I'm telling you that's not how this works. You can offer Clark 15M, but he knows he can get way more elsewhere, or force the Hawk's to franchise him for 19M.

So let's just agree to disagree, again. I think he's worth keeping and building around until the depth needed on the D-line is drafted or aquired for cheaper, and you think it's OK to suck on the D-line without Clark because you don't think he's worth that.

In essence you think 4-5M isn't worth having an average D-line with a top pass rusher vs a terrible D-line with literally no pass rushers. That's a great recipe for more losses like we saw earlier in the year against the Rams, Bears and Broncos where the QB had all day to throw. What do you think those scores would look like without Clark? Cause that's what you're saying.

No pass rushers is an exaggeration, Reed has 4 himself. Avril and Bennett and Clemons were other teams rejects and they worked out just fine. We have pass rushers and could blitz more as well, and Clark is just one of many 10 sack guys that can be found around the league. Clark is one of 15 players this year with 5.5 or more sacks after feasting on Cables low hanging gift fruit. He is not Miller or Mack no matter what his agent says.

Let me ask you this....you pick one.
Suh for $14M (signed this year)
Clark for $20M

D-line is like O-line, one link get's weakened and it affects the entire line. It's why Fluker's helped the O-line immensely, and it's why Clark has helped Reed, and vice versa. It ALL needs to work together. Doubt Reed has 4 sacks if Clark isn't on the team.

But to answer your question, I'd take a 25 year old Clark in his prime for the next 4-5 years at 20M over a 31 year old Suh who's play is already starting to diminish.

He should be dominating right now next to Donald and Brockers. What, 3 sacks, 10 tackles? Got his ass pancaked to China by Fluker. No thanks, I'll pay the extra 5-6M for Clark continuing to play well for the next 4-5 years.

And Clark has 3 also with a gift package from a backup Cable guy. Fluker on a good day can pancake anyone in the league including Watt, that means nothing.

OK....you take Clark for $20M. But I'm going to send your ass to Cleveland now..bye bye. :twisted: :snack:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

But I'm going to send your ass to Cleveland now..bye bye. :twisted: :snack:

Cruel.

 

[Coug_Hawk08]

Yeah I did not mean to say Frank isn’t a nice player or that DEs are not important. It’s just paying them 20m is difficult to get value back from, and puts us in a position to make more difficult choices at other positions. Any game that goes by without serious pressure, sack etc. is a failure to produce on that value dedicated to them. With more player protection penalties than ever, it’s harder and harder for any defensive player to not also get caught with more negative or negated plays as well, which is marginalizing players broadly.

Our own dominance on the DLine had to do with somewhat modest contracts (by comparison) at the position. If we paid Avril and Bennett each 12-15m a year, which I think would be a similar premium at the time vs 20m+ for Clark now, we would have lost guys that mattered. The obvious point being, to accumulate talent and win in games you need quite a few players to outplay their contracts. By paying Clark 20m+, there is almost no where for him to go but down (other than comparing to the next overpay). The overpay can never truly be balanced out, the money is gone/accounted for, but it can be workable assuming you have other ballers coming up on rookie deals at the same time.

 

[LudwigsDrummer]

Our FO has not dragged their feet in an attempt to sign FC.
His agent just said their camp is not in a rush to sign and if he gets the FT, it will be an expected and a positive moment.
It will take $20M+ to sign him.

 

[hawk45]

It's good for both sides that there are still 10 games left in the season. It's simply too early for the Hawks to give Clark a huge extension, and with Clark's camp getting insurance and welcoming a franchise tag they are in no rush to get a deal done either. All of the options are still open and will depend a lot on these next 10 games. Best case scenario is that he earns the extension from the Hawks. Next best option is probably some sort of tag and trade.

As a fan with a long-term interest in the team I do not agree with overpaying players based on perceived need. I see that as a short term approach that leads to trouble down the road, whereas I have a very low discount rate as a fan and would like to see the team trying to maximize wins over the next fifty years. Competitive "windows" are self-inflicted by teams that go all-in because NFL owners are impatient and so front offices are forced to operate with high discount rates and short-term priorities to keep their jobs.

Eh...for the Patriots maybe. The rest of the league definitely needs to capitalize when they find themselves in that spot where the optimization starts converging, because they lack the QB who can do it with any offensive talent and the coaches with the ability to adapt far enough to alleviate constraints. For example, the Seahawks and 49ers with QBs on rookie contracts had a small span of time where they could carry greater depth, and both teams were juggernauts for a few years. That cap flexibility wasn't the only factor, to be sure, but it was large enough to warrant being in "final touches" mode in terms of FA signings. For Seattle the window would have been several years had they not made some bad (in hindsight) decisions around Graham and Harvin, and had they evaluated Cable properly in less than 7 years.

That said, I am also not for overpaying at a position of need because even if I disagree about windows, we are not in the middle of one. Overpaying is exactly how you fail to achieve a window. Building and replenishing from within is how you build a team.

I completely agree the market for DE is nuts, but I completely disagree we have to, or should, deal from a place of temporary weakness at a position where we have a strong track record of results without having to overpay.

Clark is a nice player, but I don't want him at 20M or more than 16 really (and I'm not sure about 16). He has the ability to finish pressures, but the consistent bothering of the QB isn't there yet. Playing out this year, considering the franchise tag, all of those are preferable options (to me) to projecting a straight-line increase in production from where he is now to Mack, Watt, etc. territory and paying him for that. For a true game-changer like those, the extra mil or two to get to 20 doesn't smart nearly so much as 16M does for someone who isn't consistently disruptive.

Bennett was consistently disruptive, run, pass, whatever, blowing up plays regardless of sack numbers. That is what it looks like. If Clark at his age was that disruptive, we could talk about an upper teens contract.

 

[hawk45]

It's good for both sides that there are still 10 games left in the season. It's simply too early for the Hawks to give Clark a huge extension, and with Clark's camp getting insurance and welcoming a franchise tag they are in no rush to get a deal done either. All of the options are still open and will depend a lot on these next 10 games. Best case scenario is that he earns the extension from the Hawks. Next best option is probably some sort of tag and trade.

As a fan with a long-term interest in the team I do not agree with overpaying players based on perceived need. I see that as a short term approach that leads to trouble down the road, whereas I have a very low discount rate as a fan and would like to see the team trying to maximize wins over the next fifty years. Competitive "windows" are self-inflicted by teams that go all-in because NFL owners are impatient and so front offices are forced to operate with high discount rates and short-term priorities to keep their jobs.

Eh...for the Patriots maybe. The rest of the league definitely needs to capitalize when they find themselves in that spot where the optimization starts converging, because they lack the QB who can do it with any offensive talent and the coaches with the ability to adapt far enough to alleviate constraints. For example, the Seahawks and 49ers with QBs on rookie contracts had a small span of time where they could carry greater depth, and both teams were juggernauts for a few years. That cap flexibility wasn't the only factor, to be sure, but it was large enough to warrant being in "final touches" mode in terms of FA signings. For Seattle the window would have been several years had they not made some bad (in hindsight) decisions around Graham and Harvin, and had they evaluated Cable properly in less than 7 years.

That said, I am also not for overpaying at a position of need because even if I disagree about windows, we are not in the middle of one. Overpaying is exactly how you fail to achieve a window. Building and replenishing from within is how you build a team.

To Sgt's argument:

I completely agree the market for DE is nuts, but I completely disagree we have to, or should, deal from a place of temporary weakness at a position where we have a strong track record of results without having to overpay.

Clark is a nice player, but I don't want him at 20M or more than 16 really (and I'm not sure about 16). He has the ability to finish pressures, but the consistent bothering of the QB isn't there yet. Playing out this year, considering the franchise tag, all of those are preferable options (to me) to projecting a straight-line increase in production from where he is now to Mack, Watt, etc. territory and paying him for that. For a true game-changer like those, the extra mil or two to get to 20 doesn't smart nearly so much as 16M does for someone who isn't consistently disruptive.

Bennett was consistently disruptive, run, pass, whatever, blowing up plays regardless of sack numbers. That is what it looks like. If Clark at his age was that disruptive, we could talk about an upper teens contract.

 

[AgentDib]

For example, the Seahawks and 49ers with QBs on rookie contracts had a small span of time where they could carry greater depth, and both teams were juggernauts for a few years. That cap flexibility wasn't the only factor, to be sure, but it was large enough to warrant being in "final touches" mode in terms of FA signings.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 and all that so I am generally willing to give a good front office like ours a pass on the moves that don't work. That being said, our 2017 "slump" and 2018 "reload" were entirely self-inflicted and with moves that worked better we could have kept momentum up even after we paid Russ.

The Harvin and Graham trades were both disasters. We whiffed on our entire 2013 draft class and all but the top selections in our 2014 and 2015 draft classes. Our top pick in 2017 never played a snap, we replaced our kicker with somebody who couldn't make field goals, and we couldn't get any consistency in the running game due to OL issues and injuries along with RB injuries. We traded draft picks for band-aid solutions and restructured contracts for short term cap relief. To top it off a couple of our key defensive players couldn't get over a single bad play and became toxic.

Despite all that we still haven't had a losing season in seven years because there are plenty of ways to get value in the NFL besides rookie QB contracts. We are generating as much or more added value from our secondary in 2018 as we did in 2013 from our QB contracts.