Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tipster19

Clowney and the Texans are still far apart.

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I tend to agree about your Clark/Clowney comparison.

 

One thing that you have to think about as a team builder.........if you believe in your ability to evaluate.........is already having 3 first rounders to renew over a two year period in 2021-2022.    3 guys that might cost you about $70M per year in cap space if they meet expectations.

 

So do you want to just plug and "pay" a double digit sack guy into the program for the next 4-5 years and try to accelerate your program.......or do you want to draft one at #9........very likely wait 2-3 years to get him up to that kind of speed.....and hopefully get a good year or two of top production from him and then have to sign a 4th 1st rounder to a fat contract over a 3 year span between 2021-2023?

 

Personally I think Clark and Clowney probably won't bring more than a second rounder in trade at this point............the contracts and the influx of pass rush prospects factor in the equation.........but to me the timing of acquiring and paying a vet NOW makes sense.    

 

We are very precisely in the window where we should add 1-2 splashy moves at game breaking positions that would normally seem silly but today are practical for being an instant contender. A high end pash rusher is a great example. Then hopefully josh Allen’s pay raise is absorbed as he transitions off the team but by then Allen is good enough to carry extra 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 1:37 AM, Freddie's Dead said:

N'Keal, kids, N'Keal.  Enough with the K'Neal.  How can you love a guy when you can't spell his name correctly?

 

I have a hard time myself with kids that are cursed with unusual names by their parents.

 

Is it N’Keal, K’Neal, or Captain Tenille?

 

Remember Peerless Price?  His momma named him after a laundry truck that happened to drive by.

 

Anyway, I’d prefer the Bills go O-line/D-line, or D-line/O-line,  in rounds 1/2, and wait for Kelvin Harmon in round 3.

 

JMO

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

He’s never even had double digit sacks.  He’s still living on hype from one tackle in college.  He’s a good player, but he’s not once played to the level people are making him out to be.  I can’t even fathom how you say he’s better than Clark to be honest.  I understand if you like him better as he doesn’t have the off field baggage, but Clark is not only a better player, he’s significantly better.

 

Im all for bringing Clowney to the Bills, not like the dude is a bust, he’s a solid to good player.  But I don’t want to over pay for mediocre to decent production.  

 

Clark on the other hand (in terms of football) is worth the money it would take and has played at that level for multiple years while still being just 25.  Clowney has never played at a level worthy of the contract he wants.  Not once.

 

I don’t know if Clark or Clowney will be of interest to Beane, but I do know this...only one is worth giving up both draft capital and paying the huge contract size...and it’s not Clowney. 

 

If Beane can Jedi mind trick Houston to trading us Clowney relatively cheap, then I don’t hate it.  But if we gave up important draft capital for a guy whose never had double digit sacks despite playing next to Watt most his career and then payed him a gazillion dollars on top of that, then I would be pretty disappointed.

Hes a legitimate impact defender.  He lives in the backfield whether its run or pass.  There is more to defense than accumulating sacks.  Over the past year and 1/2 alot of Watts sacks are do to Clowney.  I think you put him on the most favorable matchup on third down and he gets well over double digits.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mat68 said:

Hes a legitimate impact defender.  He lives in the backfield whether its run or pass.  There is more to defense than accumulating sacks.  Over the past year and 1/2 alot of Watts sacks are do to Clowney.  I think you put him on the most favorable matchup on third down and he gets well over double digits.  

 

Im not calling him a bust, said repeatedly he's a good player and I fully agree with you that there is more than "sacks".  But IMO Clark has been better and more consistent.  I just dont want to over pay for Clowney is all.  He's been good but not Elite...so paying elite money and premium picks for him seems too rich.  I dont want this to be another Sammy Watkins where we have to constantly make up reasons why he is one the highest paid and doesn't have the production to match.  

 

Now, if we can get Clowney for LESS than we can get Clark, I am all for it.  For instance I am all for swapping first round picks with Houston and even throwing in a day 3 pick or 2020 pick.  Where as I think its going to take a lot more to get Clark as Seattle wants to accumulate multiple picks in this draft. 

 

All my Clowney points are in direct comparison to Clark and the expected trade value of each.  I just dont want to pay premium draft capital and big dollars to a guy whose production you have to explain for not being higher.  But if the biggest cost to us is a swap of firsts, then I am all for trading for Clowney.

 

And despite my criticisms of his resume, I do still think Clowney is a good player and I would be quite excited to get him.  But I am being extra critical in comparison to Clark who I think has just been more consistently disruptive.  

Edited by Alphadawg7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cornette's Commentary said:

This isn't Madden.

 

Its not far off his value. The only difference is they probably get a second this year. They’re not getting more than a second or maybe a swap of first rounders. Something like that. It’s not the Nhl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NoSaint said:

If you wipe clowneys first year Clark has 6 more sacks but Clowney has 29 more tackles for loss. And has played on and off the ball a bunch. More tackles, more pass breakups. It’s not like he’s a slouch or mediocre. 

 

That is the key point. When Clark is on the field he is Quarterback hunting pretty much every snap. When Clowney is on the field he has been asked to do a bit of everything.

 

It is the point I made earlier in the offseason when Arizona was linked with Bosa at #1 in this draft. The Cardinals have said they are going to a 3-4 and if you line Bosa up as an OLB in a 3-4 he will still be an outstanding player. But you are not going to get the benefit of his exceptional pass rushing as often - because the scheme dictates there will be plays where you need him to do other things. That is what has been Clowney's career in Houston. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

That is the key point. When Clark is on the field he is Quarterback hunting pretty much every snap. When Clowney is on the field he has been asked to do a bit of everything.

 

It is the point I made earlier in the offseason when Arizona was linked with Bosa at #1 in this draft. The Cardinals have said they are going to a 3-4 and if you line Bosa up as an OLB in a 3-4 he will still be an outstanding player. But you are not going to get the benefit of his exceptional pass rushing as often - because the scheme dictates there will be plays where you need him to do other things. That is what has been Clowney's career in Houston. 

 

...can you see McBeane doling out megabucks to Clowney or Clark versus drafting ad developing?.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...can you see McBeane doling out megabucks to Clowney or Clark versus drafting ad developing?.............

 

I'm not sure. I still think my preference would be draft and develop but I can see the argument for Clowney and/or Clark. To me the Bills are still a year away from being in a position where I would say "definitely make this move".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I'm not sure. I still think my preference would be draft and develop but I can see the argument for Clowney and/or Clark. To me the Bills are still a year away from being in a position where I would say "definitely make this move".

 

 

good assessment GB and I agree 100%...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NoSaint said:

 

We are very precisely in the window where we should add 1-2 splashy moves at game breaking positions that would normally seem silly but today are practical for being an instant contender. A high end pash rusher is a great example. Then hopefully josh Allen’s pay raise is absorbed as he transitions off the team but by then Allen is good enough to carry extra 

 

This is the logic that was employed for so many years and failed in Buffalo... why would you want to go back to this model??

 

You put so much pressure on whatever new player to not only match his previous play (from a totally different system).. AND to also stay healthy!

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jobot said:

 

This is the logic that was employed for so many years and failed in Buffalo... why would you want to go back to this model??

 

You put so much pressure on whatever new player to not only match his previous play (from a totally different system).. AND to also stay healthy!

 

Because this is what wins in the nfl and having a qb on a rookie deal removes all that pressure. We are truly in the window where we get 1-2 guys for free essentially.

 

we can build our legion of boom and still pay a rb and it’s not the end of the world if adding harvin flops, or get the weapons Mahomes has or (so many examples)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

 

Because this is what wins in the nfl and having a qb on a rookie deal removes all that pressure. We are truly in the window where we get 1-2 guys for free essentially.

 

we can build our legion of boom and still pay a rb and it’s not the end of the world if adding harvin flops, or get the weapons Mahomes has or (so many examples)

 

I disagree that, "that's what wins in the NFL"

 

Name the last super bowl winning team that can justify a FA splash signing was what possibly got them over the hump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jobot said:

 

I disagree that, "that's what wins in the NFL"

 

Name the last super bowl winning team that can justify a FA splash signing was what possibly got them over the hump.

Ignoring Brady has 3 of the past 5 wins... I named Seattle very specifically in there (9ers didn’t win but were the same boat as far as structure and winning a ton), the rams this year got there and chiefs were in the AFCCG..... unless your plan is to trade for Brady/Belichick I’d argue a many/most of the really strong teams lately have been young qbs with overloaded rosters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jobot said:

 

I disagree that, "that's what wins in the NFL"

 

Name the last super bowl winning team that can justify a FA splash signing was what possibly got them over the hump.

 

Pats stephon Gilmore 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jobot said:

 

I disagree that, "that's what wins in the NFL"

 

Name the last super bowl winning team that can justify a FA splash signing was what possibly got them over the hump.

Bears traded for Mack at a similar point in their cycle that we're talking about here, it worked well for them. Clowney isn't Mack but neither is the trade cost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aristocrat said:

 

Pats stephon Gilmore 


This was the one I was actually thinking too.  But I don't think the Bills are currently in the same 'state' as the Patriots were when they signed Gilmore.

1 hour ago, 2018 Our Year For Sure said:

Bears traded for Mack at a similar point in their cycle that we're talking about here, it worked well for them. Clowney isn't Mack but neither is the trade cost

 

Bears bounced in round 1, but time will tell I suppose for this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jobot said:


This was the one I was actually thinking too.  But I don't think the Bills are currently in the same 'state' as the Patriots were when they signed Gilmore.

 

Bears bounced in round 1, but time will tell I suppose for this one.

Mack worked out well and made a huge impact in my opinion, they need Trubisky to take a step.

 

edit- that playoff was loss was a score of 16-15.

Edited by 2018 Our Year For Sure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, 2018 Our Year For Sure said:

Mack worked out well and made a huge impact in my opinion, they need Trubisky to take a step.

 

edit- that playoff was loss was a score of 16-15.

 

Agreed, a lot falls on Trubisky at this point.  But don't forget, there's not much money or 1st round draft picks that they will be able to add who can help him out anymore.  They basically set out to sail, and won't be able to course correct for years.  Risky move to make without an established quarterback IMO.

 

To your original point, you're right that we need to know what actual cost to get Clowny would be to make it worth it obviously.  I'm assuming he would be coming in at an inflated premium.

 

....Good thing we traded up for Sammy Watkins and when we could have taken Mack ☹️

 

Edited by Jobot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jobot and Our Year -

 

It's a very interesting discussion you've been having.  It's a question that's torn at me a lot as we all have watched the Bills rebuild and rebuild and rebuild.   

 

My personal bias is against the big free agent move.   I think that players are rarely worth teams pay for them, and players rarely have the impact that fans imagined they would.  I'll admit, however, that there are exceptions.  Gilmore, for example, but Belichick is, as always, a special case.  The shut down corner is a critical part of Belichick's defense, because Beleichick knows that if he can neutralize the opponent's best receiver, his collection really well-trained good but not great football players can outplay the opponent 10 on 10.   So when Belichick writes the big check, it's a very well calculated move.   It isn't just that the guy is an impact player; it's because the guy is close to essential to the overall scheme.   I'd guess that Belichick looks at Clowney and thinks "well, he'd be nice to have, but that position doesn't drive my defensive philosophy, so I'm not paying big bucks for him."   Contrast that decision with a Mario Williams, who was among the very best at his position (arguably a guy whose talent level, compared to others at his position, was similar to Gilmore's at his position) and was, even in Buffalo, something of an impact player.  He nevertheless was just a random piece who improved the total talent on the team, but he wasn't the key piece to a scheme that could win only with a player of his caliber at his position.  

 

We have a pretty good idea of what Beane thinks:   He's filling holes in free agency and building through the draft EXCEPT that when an extraordinary becomes available he will take a long hard look at the guy.   He said so after his run at Antonio Brown.  

 

Pardon my ignorance about Clark.  I really don't know him, but I gather he's ferocious on the edge.  And I think I read here somewhere that he's been franchised but the Hawks might deal him, or his contract's coming up or whatever.   

 

IF Beane has an interest in doing a deal for an edge rusher, the really big question is whether either or both fit their character model.  Are they intense workers, fierce competitors, team players willing to commit to something bigger than themselves?  Beane said that from watching AB on the field, they knew he was one of those guys.   Are Clark and Clowney?   My personal impression about Clowney, which may be unfair, is that he doesn't have the ferocious drive that his teammate Watt has.  He has extraordinary ability, but it doesn't seem to me that all of that ability gets dedicated to the team every day, every week, every year.   The very little bit I've heard about Clark is that he is the kind of the player McBeane like.  But that's all conjecture. 

 

Then you have to weigh that against Beane's strong preference to build through the draft.  He wants this team to be powerful for years to come, and his plan to do that is to build the talent slowly, not because slow is better than fast, but because if you're constantly upgrading through the draft you can afford, under the cap, to keep your team talented.   One of you will disagree, but that's Beane's vision.   When he's looking at a draft that apparently offers several opportunities to get an edge rusher in the early rounds, his preference is going to be, I think, to avoid writing a big check for a free agent and stick to his long-term plan.  

 

Maybe another way to look at it is whether Clark or Clowney is a difference maker like AB has been.   Not whether they have the potential - if Beane is acquiring potential, he's going do that in the draft.  Clowney still is potential; I don't think that Clowney has been a difference maker on his team in anything like AB was with the Steelers.  I don't know about Clark.  

 

Bottom line, speaking from a position of ignorance about the players, I'd guess the most likely outcome is Beane goes after neither, and if he's going to go after either, I'd guess Clark.   

 

Personally, my confidence level in Beane is quite high these days.  I like what I understand about his strategy and philosophy.  My only concern is whether I'll live long enough to see it pay off.  Other than that, I'm happy to sit and watch this all unfold.    I think, for example, that it's going to be very interesting to see what he does in the draft.  I'm am sure that there will be one or more moves or picks that will leave some people dumbfounded.  I'll just wait for his post-draft press conference, when he'll tell us what he was thinking.   It won't necessarily make the dumbfounded any happier, but it'll give us more information about how he approaches this whole process.  

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2018 Our Year For Sure said:

Mack worked out well and made a huge impact in my opinion, they need Trubisky to take a step.

 

edit- that playoff was loss was a score of 16-15.

You make a good point about Mack, and given McD's determination to get pressure with the front four, an outstanding edge rusher may be viewed by McBeane as essential to the long-term plan. 

 

However, as I've often said, I think McD is a closet Belichick disciple, and Belichick is willing to scheme with his front seven and to get pressure not so much with overwhelming talent in the front four as with the uncertainty of which four or five or six are coming.   McD's defense is definitely about scheme, and if he would come on here and talk to us, I would guess that he would say that pressure up the middle is more important than edge pressure.  I'd guess that he's thinking if he has a stud DT, he can make the rest work.  If he doesn't have a stud tackle, he'll force the QB to deal with the threat of Edmunds shooting an inside gap.  

 

All just suspicions on my part.  

  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×