The latest on Jadeveon Clowney and trade partners.

[Chawker]

NBC sports is reporting that Jadeveon Clowney wants Seattle. :snack:

 

[Rat]

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.

I'm not concerned about upsetting him with the franchise tag if a long term deal can't be reached. I wouldn't hesitate to give Clowney what he's looking for though.

We have our franchise QB and defensive leader locked up, we have other pieces in place, we've managed the cap well... I think getting Clowney is a championship move. He's a HOF talent who is only 26, and plays a premiere position that might be the only thing standing between us and a Lombardi right now. I might be higher on his talent than most, but honestly, if I could add any player in the league to this current team, I'm taking Khalil Mack first, Aaron Donald second, and then Clowney third.

And I wouldn't let what happened with Clark play into it any. Clark is an excellent player, but I think he's more of a B/B+ type guy who Kansas City is paying like an All-Pro. I never saw him as essential, and I thought the trade was too good to pass up. If we had given Clark the deal the Chiefs gave him, I would have been accepting of it, because he plays a vital position and that's what the market is, but I wouldn't have been excited about it. Clowney excites me.

 

[Shanegotyou11]

Id love to see clowney here.

 

[chris98251]

Clowney has to sign his tender I believe to be able to be moved, if he wants Seattle then the Texans are over a barrel and pretty much have to take what we offer, they can claim and play the chess game granted, but in the end they have needs and also without Clowney playing have an additional hole and no back up plan.

This is a waiting game where the Texans need something before next week and we can wait.

 

[Chawker]

The window of opportunity is open at this moment, if the Seahawks are interested in getting him they need to make a move before the window closes. Even if its a low ball offer.

Jazz Freguson :3-1:

 

[LudwigsDrummer]

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.

 

[iigakusei]

Mingo + brown or Moore + 4th


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hahahahahaha now that is funny.

 

[Chawker]

I've heard that, with Clowney firing his agent he can't sign with a new agent for 5 days. This is just a whisper in the wind and I'm not sure of the true facts about this, but I doubt we'll be hearing any signing until Clowney has a new agent confirmed.

 

[McGruff]

Clowney has no need since he cant sign a contract.

 

[Chawker]

He has to sign the tender offer for the trade to go though.

 

[McGruff]

Pretty cut and dry. Doesnt require an agent at all.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

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?

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.

 

[uncle fester]

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.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

If he's trying to showcase for his big contract coming up, he will get a LOT more opportunities in Seattle than he would in Philly. Just sayin

 

[Tical21]

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.

Ding ding ding. We're not a player away.

 

[Seymour]

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:

 

[HawkFan72]

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:

This gets my vote.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I'm in the for the trade camp.

1. His age is about perfect. Should be entering the most productive period of his career.

2. His health concerns are almost exclusively the byproduct of his injuries incurred before his rookie season and his second season. In the last three seasons, he's played as many games as KJ Wright did in his first three seasons. He's been available.

3. On the 'one year rental' concerns. These are valid. But they aren't a fait accompli. We traded for Richardson under very different circumstances. The team was entering cap hell and everyone that paid close attention to that side of the game could foresee it. We added him with no real ability or intention of resigning him. In addition, we were in full on blow up the defense mode following that year. It made little to no sense to resign him.

Our circumstances now are completely different. We are flush with cash now. And we're going to be far more flush in the next year. We also have the advantage (if one can call it that), of not really having players worthy of a franchise cap type of salary coming due in UFA in 2020 outside of Reed. So where we didn't have the realistic ability to retain Richardson after acquiring him -- we have that in spades for a Clowney sized deal next year.

4. He is a productive talent. And he's the kind of talent that fits what Seattle covets. An incredibly strong two way player. Unlike a patently obvious mismatch of talent as Graham was. It's a gross mistake to prop up the Graham and Richardson results and think that those deals' failures necessarily apply to a potential Clowney deal. Circumstance and player fit were paramount factors in those failures.

5. Where are we as a franchise? We're already in the prime of Wilson's career. No telling how long that may last. But it's definitely finite. What is the value of a 2nd round pick in 2020? Or really even a 1st round pick in the hands of Pete and John? Assume for a second that they miraculously manage to not get players like Penny/Green/McDowell/Pocic. Those are the last two years worth of top 2 picks we have managed to acquire -- at least on record.

If they do get a good player, it's likely they aren't going to be even good until 2022.


I believe there are plenty of differences between the bad trades we've historically entered into, versus the kind of deal this one presents. I don't see those failures tainting future deals. Any more than I necessarily think that our pick failures in 2017/18 necessarily color the outlook of 2019s head of the class. Judging this deal on it's own merits -- I think this deal makes a lot of sense and makes our team better. Potentially even more so in the next few years.

I don't have a problem sending a 1st for Clowney. If I can conditionally protect that pick that would be preferred. Circumstance robbed the team of burning the 21st pick on a rookie DE. So it's kind of safe to assume we'd be willing to use next years' first on a DE. And then watch him take a couple years to blossom as most DEs entering the league require. So that you get an expected good 3rd and 4th year before you have to sign him to approximate franchise tag type money.

I think it's preferable to use that pick on a young DE who has already matured. But also a player who is still 4 years shy of 30. And one that fits what we want. And one that has undeniable upside even among his critics. It's easily arguable that Clowney's best football is still to come. And he's already in the top ten of TFLs in the league.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

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.

We also have gobs gimpy and green on the O-line, especially depth wise with most of our backups injured right now......and that's really what Houston is looking for, a quality starting O-lineman. That's why they're asking for Tunsil from Miami.

You guys keep throwing out these trade scenarios that make no sense for Houston. "Hey let's give them Prosise and a 4th!" "Hey let's give the a hurt Moore, Jennings and a 3rd!"

That's not how this works. Houston wants a serious starter AND a draft pick.........and I'm not willing to do that, not with what their needs are (O-line/WR), and not for a one year rental player.

Also probably why we haven't been given permission to talk to Clowney, because we haven't given Houston's GM any viable serious trade offers for them to allow that line of communication to be opened up.

 

[Chawker]

I'd love to have the opportunity to sign a player of Clowney's caliber to a 4 or 5 year deal with what originally was what we going to pay Clark around 17.5 per year.

The key word was "opportunity". Now what if? We had signed Clark? How good would you view this team?

We all know what kind of a disruptive force Clownery can be, I'm sure he want us because Clownery can play in a competitive atmosphere with less media pressure. One year show us what you got with the "opportunity" to do a long term deal. I don't know about you, but we are looking at a gift horse in the mouth.

OPPORTUNITY !!!
DO IT ! :drool: