What is Frank Clark’s price?

[A-Dog]

For those freaking out about losing Clark and about pass rushers being near impossible to replace, don't forget that the Patriots traded Chandler Jones when he was at a similar point in his career to Clark, and that didn't stop them from winning Super Bowls.

 

[Northwest Seahawk]

I think he gets the franchise tag . I don't see Seattle giving him more than 18 . I don't think he's worth more than that he's not a great run defender if he played the run at a higher level i'd say pay him whatever he wants but he's primarily an edge rusher and that's it.

 

[chris98251]

For those freaking out about losing Clark and about pass rushers being near impossible to replace, don't forget that the Patriots traded Chandler Jones when he was at a similar point in his career to Clark, and that didn't stop them from winning Super Bowls.

Umm your talking the Patriots, we are rebuilding and wanting a Core, Patriots have their Pick of Vets to sign who want to go out on top, we get good players but don't have that magnet like they do.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

For those freaking out about losing Clark and about pass rushers being near impossible to replace, don't forget that the Patriots traded Chandler Jones when he was at a similar point in his career to Clark, and that didn't stop them from winning Super Bowls.

We don't have Belichick, we have Pete...........and for all that Pete does well, and that's a lot, he NEEDS athletes and playmakers for his defensive scheme to be effective.

I honestly wish people would stop holding the Patriots up as examples for anything. Belichick's playing chess while the rest of us are playing checkers.

 

[Seymour]

For those freaking out about losing Clark and about pass rushers being near impossible to replace, don't forget that the Patriots traded Chandler Jones when he was at a similar point in his career to Clark, and that didn't stop them from winning Super Bowls.

We don't have Belichick, we have Pete...........and for all that Pete does well, and that's a lot, he NEEDS athletes and playmakers for his defensive scheme to be effective.

I honestly wish people would stop holding the Patriots up as examples for anything. Belichick's playing chess while the rest of us are playing checkers.

Who would you suggest we use as a model? The Browns? :roll:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

For those freaking out about losing Clark and about pass rushers being near impossible to replace, don't forget that the Patriots traded Chandler Jones when he was at a similar point in his career to Clark, and that didn't stop them from winning Super Bowls.

We don't have Belichick, we have Pete...........and for all that Pete does well, and that's a lot, he NEEDS athletes and playmakers for his defensive scheme to be effective.

I honestly wish people would stop holding the Patriots up as examples for anything. Belichick's playing chess while the rest of us are playing checkers.

Who would you suggest we use as a model? The Browns? :roll:

Yes, that's what I meant. Let's use the Browns. Good example.

 

[Seymour]

For those freaking out about losing Clark and about pass rushers being near impossible to replace, don't forget that the Patriots traded Chandler Jones when he was at a similar point in his career to Clark, and that didn't stop them from winning Super Bowls.

We don't have Belichick, we have Pete...........and for all that Pete does well, and that's a lot, he NEEDS athletes and playmakers for his defensive scheme to be effective.

I honestly wish people would stop holding the Patriots up as examples for anything. Belichick's playing chess while the rest of us are playing checkers.

Who would you suggest we use as a model? The Browns? :roll:

Yes, that's what I meant. Let's use the Browns. Good example.

And for equally obvious reasons, people pick the Patriots. Why fight it? You don't learn to soar like an eagle by walking with dogs.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We don't have Belichick, we have Pete...........and for all that Pete does well, and that's a lot, he NEEDS athletes and playmakers for his defensive scheme to be effective.

I honestly wish people would stop holding the Patriots up as examples for anything. Belichick's playing chess while the rest of us are playing checkers.

Who would you suggest we use as a model? The Browns? :roll:

Yes, that's what I meant. Let's use the Browns. Good example.

And for equally obvious reasons, people pick the Patriots. Why fight it? You don't learn to soar like an eagle by walking with dogs.

You also don't expect your 67 year old coach to change his core philosophies that haven't changed for 40 years.

Pete's defensive philosophy, as greatly evident during our SB runs depends on length, physicality, speed and toughness in order to be effective.

It doesn't depend on his ability to change his schemes game to game and play to play seemingly regardless of players.

So stop holding up the Patriots as an example of what we need to do, it's apples and oranges. If how Belichick coached was easy to copy, then everyone would be doing it. But it's not, cause there's only one Belichick. So knock it off.

 

[Seymour]

Who would you suggest we use as a model? The Browns? :roll:

Yes, that's what I meant. Let's use the Browns. Good example.

And for equally obvious reasons, people pick the Patriots. Why fight it? You don't learn to soar like an eagle by walking with dogs.

You also don't expect your 67 year old coach to change his core philosophies that haven't changed for 40 years.

Pete's defensive philosophy, as greatly evident during our SB runs depends on length, physicality, speed and toughness in order to be effective.

It doesn't depend on his ability to change his schemes game to game and play to play seemingly regardless of players.

So stop holding up the Patriots as an example of what we need to do, it's apples and oranges. If how Belichick coached was easy to copy, then everyone would be doing it. But it's not, cause there's only one Belichick. So knock it off.

Lighten up, you are preaching to the wrong person. Where did I do that? I didn't!! I'm telling you why others are and it's OK by me because unlike you I get it.

 

[QuahHawk]

Clark is good but he is not the franchise. In fact he can disappear against better competition. We cant afford to pay Clark at this point in the rebuild. It will derail us...... unless we find a guys as dynamic as he is to pair with him. 8 to 10 mil max

Don't bet the house on Clark

Maybe Franchise for 1 year but he is not $20M APY player. Remember only a few years ago when had Red Bryant and Chris Clemons. Total was like 8 mil per year, then we had Avril and Bennett for about $13 per year. Price may have gone up but Clark is not a game wrecker like Von Miller, Donald, or Mack

 

[HawkGA]

Who would you suggest we use as a model? The Browns? :roll:

Yes, that's what I meant. Let's use the Browns. Good example.

And for equally obvious reasons, people pick the Patriots. Why fight it? You don't learn to soar like an eagle by walking with dogs.

You also don't expect your 67 year old coach to change his core philosophies that haven't changed for 40 years.

Pete's defensive philosophy, as greatly evident during our SB runs depends on length, physicality, speed and toughness in order to be effective.

It doesn't depend on his ability to change his schemes game to game and play to play seemingly regardless of players.

So stop holding up the Patriots as an example of what we need to do, it's apples and oranges. If how Belichick coached was easy to copy, then everyone would be doing it. But it's not, cause there's only one Belichick. So knock it off.

Didn't the D change up a bit for the Minnesota game, following a blueprint from the week before when NE played MN?

 

[James in PA]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[massari]

If they can't re-sign him to an extension this off-season, don't they have to trade him ASAP? Next off-season Wilson will likely require the franchise tag and even if he doesn't, would they really be able to franchise Clark two years in a row?

Would be brutal to lose him for a 3rd round comp pick.

 

[Popeyejones]

The floor where negotiations start is about 38 million in guaranteed money over the first two years. That's the floor because that's two years of franchise tags (17.1 + 17.1*1.2 <--- the 20% increase in the second year franchise tag).

What Clark's agent is saying when he says he's happy to take the franchise tag is that this 38 million in guaranteed money in the first two years is lower (and likely significantly lower) than what they'd accept in a deal -- he's saying his player is perfectly fine with two years of franchise tags, so if you want to keep him on a longer deal it's going to cost a lot more than that.

For these types of franchise tag cases, two years and guaranteed money are the negotiating points because it's not really feasible to franchise a player more than twice, and because after the first two years (and all the non-guaranteed money) NFL contracts are basically nonsense that only benefit the team (if the team is getting value they continue to honor the contract, and if they're not, they're allowed to just make the contract not exist anymore).

 

[Sgt. Largent]

For these types of franchise tag cases, two years and guaranteed money are the negotiating points because it's not really feasible to franchise a player more than twice, and because after the first two years (and all the non-guaranteed money) NFL contracts are basically nonsense that only benefit the team (if the team is getting value they continue to honor the contract, and if they're not, they're allowed to just make the contract not exist anymore).

But after 2019 we might need the franchise tag to use on Russell, so it's imperative we get Clark extended by at least by the end of next season.

And believe me, Clark and his agent know this, which is why they want max dollars. They know the longer this goes the more pressure there is on the Hawk's to get Frank signed so they have that tag leverage to use on Russell.

 

[Jville]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/bcondotta/status/1101868233060102144[/tweet]

 

[jammerhawk]

We are all keeping our fingers crossed that the two sides can come to a deal here and avoid the tag. I find myself repeatedly checking all the regular news sites to see if a del has been made or looking for any real news on this negotiation. Frustrating that there seems to be nothing much being said.

C'mon guys, get it done!

 

[BubbaGump]

People freak out about the money way too much. These deals become bargains two years after they are signed.

The key is to not sign bad players to big money. Frank Clark is not a bad player.

Cary Williams, Luke Joeckel, Eddie Lacey, Percy Harvin, etc. Those are the deals that cripple your team in a rolling cap.

That is flushing cap space down the toilet right there.

BINGO! This says it all. You pay Clark what the market is for him.

 

[Jville]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1102632512680091648[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/1102675777068380160[/tweet]

....................... just a reminder for fan composure as these outcomes are outside of the control of fans.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Hawks just tagged Clark, announced on 710 ESPN