uticaclub Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago A dominant DT would have been exactly what we needed, and if he was available, Beane should have pursued a trade. It seems he may have only been available in exchange for acquiring Parsons. Does anyone know if there were any rumors about his availability before the trade for Parsons? 1 1 Quote
Maynard Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago I think Parsons made that a possibility. Otherwise I don’t think they were shopping him, nor wanted to. 3 1 1 Quote
rusty shackleford Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago I agree that we could use a dominant DT, but I don’t think GB was looking to part with Clark just to trade him. I think they knew the Cowboys would want a D line player back in addition to picks and he had value. Similar to if the Bills made a move to ship off Oliver with picks. Not looking to active ship off that player, just trying to put an attractive package together. 1 Quote
HardyBoy Posted 26 minutes ago Posted 26 minutes ago Sounds like there are questions/ evidence he might already be in decline fwiw Quote
Snappysnackcakes Posted 12 minutes ago Posted 12 minutes ago Jeez…do some of us not know what trades accomplish? Quote
Thrivefourfive Posted 11 minutes ago Posted 11 minutes ago Not sure it makes sense to trade for yet another d lineman when you’ve already drafted (heavy!) and sign free agents. When would it stop?! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.