Bills have interest in Seattle DE Frank Clark

[teef]

19 minutes ago, Cornette's Commentary said:

The Bills won that game for two reasons.  1.) Jordy Nelson dropped a guaranteed touchdown pass early on that would have given them a lead that would have lasted the rest of the game 2.) A late injury forced JC Tretter to step in and try to block Mario, a task at which he failed spectacularly.

if i remember correctly, a bill screwed up pretty bad.  i think mckelvin dropped a guaranteed int or something along those lines.  both teams made mistakes, the bills won.

[thebandit27]

26 minutes ago, Cornette's Commentary said:

The Bills won that game for two reasons.  1.) Jordy Nelson dropped a guaranteed touchdown pass early on that would have given them a lead that would have lasted the rest of the game 2.) A late injury forced JC Tretter to step in and try to block Mario, a task at which he failed spectacularly.

 

Take 1 and throw it in the trash...because Stephon Gilmore dropped a guaranteed pick-6 earlier in the game too.  Selective memory?

 

Also, we're going to hang the game on JC Tretter because he gave up a sack at his own goal-line on 3rd down when already down 6 with 2 minutes to go?  That's, well, stupid.

 

The Bills won that game because they forced Rodgers into the worst game of his career.  He was 19/42 for 200 yards, 0 TDs and 2 INTs.

[teef]

2 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

Take 1 and throw it in the trash...because Stephon Gilmore dropped a guaranteed pick-6 earlier in the game too.  Selective memory?

 

Also, we're going to hang the game on JC Tretter because he gave up a sack at his own goal-line on 3rd down when already down 6 with 2 minutes to go?  That's, well, stupid.

 

The Bills won that game because they forced Rodgers into the worst game of his career.  He was 19/42 for 200 yards, 0 TDs and 2 INTs.

that's what it was.  i remember it was a major mistake on the bills part, yet it's always left out when describing that game.

[Alphadawg7]

58 minutes ago, Iamkrgr said:

So Frank Clark or Jadaveon Clowney assuming the acquisition cost and contract is similar?

 

Give me either tbh. 

 

Clark is a lot better than Clowney.  People still over rate Clowney off his one tackle in college.  

 

Clark is both worth the draft capital it will take to get him and contract we would pay him.  Clowney is a good player, but he is not worth the contract he wants let alone both the draft capital and contract we would have to use to get him.  In fact, Clowney has never had a single season worth the contract he wants where Clark has done it multiple times and is still only 25.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

27 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:

 

Its defintely the heel version we got here. 

Midnight Express can't be far behind

[MrEpsYtown]

Just now, 2018 Our Year For Sure said:

Midnight Express can't be far behind

 

Perhaps a Paul Heyman with a massive cordless phone? 

[thebandit27]

7 minutes ago, teef said:

that's what it was.  i remember it was a major mistake on the bills part, yet it's always left out when describing that game.

 

It was a potentially huge play that didn't get made, but Gilmore kind of gets a pass for it because it was one of the best games I've ever seen from a CB in a Bills' uniform.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Just now, MrEpsYtown said:

 

Perhaps a Paul Heyman with a massive cordless phone? 

As long as there's no tennis racket involved

[nucci]

58 minutes ago, Cornette's Commentary said:

Are you ok with paying either of them $100+ million over 4 or 5 years?

I don't care about the money...I just want better players...we as fans seem to care too much about player contracts

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, nucci said:

I don't care about the money...I just want better players...we as fans seem to care too much about player contracts

 

Hey, it’s not MY money! But the problem comes when you give away too much so you can’t afford the better players we want. There is a relationship that has to be considered. 

[ctk232]

4 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Hey, it’s not MY money! But the problem comes when you give away too much so you can’t afford the better players we want. There is a relationship that has to be considered. 

Kinda like how Seattle can't afford a team now that they paid Russell; the better players being Clark and Wagner. 

 

That being said, I wouldn't hate us making a reasonable move for Clark here, but with due consideration on player contracts the concerns on this board are justifiable when it comes to fielding a sustainable, competitive team. Especially one that still has to pay Allen should he continue to progress, in addition to Edmunds, White, Dawkins, etc.

 

Edit: it'll be interesting to see if Seattle doesn't deal Clark this year how they might look to keep him on that 5th year option while Russell's contract ends. While both sides compromised, pretty sure the 4 year mark was a max, non-negotiable on behalf of the GM to entertain the hope of retaining Clark and Wagner long term.

Edited April 16, 2019 by ctk232

[Aussie Joe]

Looking at Dee Ford’s deal, the guaranteed money is paid in the first two years..then they are paying him $16-$17M per year the last three years..Obviously he can be cut then if he is not performing to that level..

 

The Bills could do similar with Clark.,. Come 2021, $18M a year  is not going to be exorbitant for an elite DE..

 

 

[thebandit27]

8 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:

Looking at Dee Ford’s deal, the guaranteed money is paid in the first two years..then they are paying him $16-$17M per year the last three years..Obviously he can be cut then if he is not performing to that level..

 

The Bills could do similar with Clark.,. Come 2021, $18M a year  is not going to be exorbitant for an elite DE..

 

 

 

It's not all that difficult to structure a contract to have enough guaranteed money while still being "escapable" after the first two years.

 

For example, if you're trying to give Clark/Clowney a 5-year, $100M deal with $60M fully guaranteed at signing, you could do the following:

 

5 years, $100M, $20M signing bonus. 

2019 - $15M fully gtd base salary, $4M signing bonus cap hit; total cap hit = $19M; dead cap hit = $60M

2020 - $17M fully gtd base salary, $4M signing bonus cap hit; total cap hit = $21M; dead cap hit = $41M

2021 - $12M base salary (8M fully gtd), $4M signing bonus cap hit; total cap hit = $16M; dead cap hit = $12M

2022 - $18M base salary (no gtd base), $4M signing bonus cap hit; total cap hit = $22M; dead cap hit = $8M

2023 - $18M base salary (no gtd base), $4M signing bonus cap hit; total cap hit = $22M; dead cap hit = $4M

[3rdand12]

On 4/15/2019 at 2:53 PM, NewDayBills said:

I believe in magic.

and I believe in you !

[John from Riverside]

It might be the year to do this with 10 draft picks.......Seattle doesnt have many......we do.......you shore up your pass rush......still draft a DT at 9

[Tsaikotic]

3 hours ago, Iamkrgr said:

So Frank Clark or Jadaveon Clowney assuming the acquisition cost and contract is similar?

 

Give me either tbh. 

 

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Clark is a lot better than Clowney.  People still over rate Clowney off his one tackle in college.  

 

Clark is both worth the draft capital it will take to get him and contract we would pay him.  Clowney is a good player, but he is not worth the contract he wants let alone both the draft capital and contract we would have to use to get him.  In fact, Clowney has never had a single season worth the contract he wants where Clark has done it multiple times and is still only 25.

 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

 

It's not all that difficult to structure a contract to have enough guaranteed money while still being "escapable" after the first two years.

 

For example, if you're trying to give Clark/Clowney a 5-year, $100M deal with $60M fully guaranteed at signing, you could do the following:

 

5 years, $100M, $20M signing bonus. 

2019 - $15M fully gtd base salary, $4M signing bonus cap hit; total cap hit = $19M; dead cap hit = $60M

2020 - $17M fully gtd base salary, $4M signing bonus cap hit; total cap hit = $21M; dead cap hit = $41M

2021 - $12M base salary (8M fully gtd), $4M signing bonus cap hit; total cap hit = $16M; dead cap hit = $12M

2022 - $18M base salary (no gtd base), $4M signing bonus cap hit; total cap hit = $22M; dead cap hit = $8M

2023 - $18M base salary (no gtd base), $4M signing bonus cap hit; total cap hit = $22M; dead cap hit = $4M

 

 

I think "guaranteeing base salary" could remain a point of confusion here for years.............people are so accustomed to signing bonuses being the only guarantee and those being amortized evenly over the contract........but times have changed to the point where most teams have the cap flexibility to take those hits right away.

[3rdand12]

5 hours ago, Rufridr101 said:

Kansas city is also interested in Clark. Swapping 1st rounders probably not what Seattle wants.  They want to accumulate more picks, in fact the general manager said 4 more picks.  3rd 4th 5th rounders probably enough compensation for a player that needs to be resigned.  

I like that even better. we cannot put them all to good use !

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, Tsaikotic said:

 

 

 

Two things first:  I assume that both get traded for similar packages and sign similar sized deals.  

 

IMO Clark is the better player, at least their respective resumes so far.  Don't get me wrong, I would be excited to have Clowney on the opposite side of Hughes still, he is a good player.  My main issue with acquiring Clowney is that we are paying a premium for "potential" still, and that always makes me less comfortable.  He just has not played at the level Clark has, yet will both be costly to acquire.  To be fair, on the flip side, Clark has off field baggage and carries some risk there too.  

 

I would be all for it if Clowney was a FA signing and all it cost us was the contract.  But giving up quality draft capital and the contract is a lot for a guy who has averaged 7 sacks and never had a season with double digit sacks yet.  Like I said before, he still gets a lot of hype off his reputation, but quietly, Clark has been more consistently disruptive and productive.

 

Now, if we can obtain Clowney for less draft capital than Clark, then that gets way more interesting to me.  

 

My Clowney proposal:

 

Bills get Clowney and #23

Houston gets #9 and #131

 

Point wise:  #9 is worth and #131 is worth a combined 1391 points.  #23 is worth 760 points.

Thats a premium to Houston of 631 points.  Which means thats what Clowney is worth in this deal, which is the equivalent of a late first round pick (around pick #28).

 

That is a fair deal IMO and I would be all for that. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Alphadawg7

[MrEpsYtown]

44 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Two things first:  I assume that both get traded for similar packages and sign similar sized deals.  

 

IMO Clark is the better player, at least their respective resumes so far.  Don't get me wrong, I would be excited to have Clowney on the opposite side of Hughes still, he is a good player.  My main issue with acquiring Clowney is that we are paying a premium for "potential" still, and that always makes me less comfortable.  He just has not played at the level Clark has, yet will both be costly to acquire.  To be fair, on the flip side, Clark has off field baggage and carries some risk there too.  

 

I would be all for it if Clowney was a FA signing and all it cost us was the contract.  But giving up quality draft capital and the contract is a lot for a guy who has averaged 7 sacks and never had a season with double digit sacks yet.  Like I said before, he still gets a lot of hype off his reputation, but quietly, Clark has been quite a bit more consistently disruptive and productive.

 

Now, if we can obtain Clowney for less draft capital than Clark, then that gets way more interesting to me.  

 

My Clowney proposal:

 

Bills get Clowney and #21

Houston gets #9 and #131

 

Point wise:  #9 is worth and #131 is worth a combined 1391 points.  #23 is worth 760 points.

Thats a premium to Houston of 631 points.  Which means thats what Clowney is wroth in this deal, which is the equivalent of a late first round pick (around pick #28).

 

That is a fair deal IMO and I would be all for that. 

 

 

 

 

 

So with Clark there is the Morgan connection and I like Clark a lot. Heath Farwell would also know him well. 

 

With th the Texans, their general manager Brian Gaine was here with the Bills under Brandon Beane. So there is a close relationship there and negotiations can probably be made quite easily becuase there is an element of trust. We also have John Butler on staff, and while he was the DB coach with the Texans, he would obviously know Clowney very well, would know his character in the locker room and see how he worked each day in practice. I do think Clowney would have a huge breakout in a 4-3 with much less responsibility. 

 

I'd take either one in a heartbeat. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by MrEpsYtown
I meant to say there is the Morgan connection...not isn't