uticaclub Posted August 29 Posted August 29 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 6 5 1 Quote
Maynard Posted August 29 Posted August 29 I think Parsons made that a possibility. Otherwise I don’t think they were shopping him, nor wanted to. 3 8 1 3 Quote
rusty shackleford Posted August 29 Posted August 29 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. 3 Quote
HardyBoy Posted August 30 Posted August 30 Sounds like there are questions/ evidence he might already be in decline fwiw 1 1 Quote
Snappysnackcakes Posted August 30 Posted August 30 Jeez…do some of us not know what trades accomplish? 1 Quote
Thrivefourfive Posted August 30 Posted August 30 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
Coach Tuesday Posted August 30 Posted August 30 3 hours ago, Snappysnackcakes said: Jeez…do some of us not know what trades accomplish? Um, I thought I did know that? But now I’m not so sure… Quote
GunnerBill Posted August 30 Posted August 30 5 hours ago, HardyBoy said: Sounds like there are questions/ evidence he might already be in decline fwiw He definitely is. He can still play, I wouldn't call him washed. But dominant is not a word I'd use to describe him any more either. 1 Quote
dave mcbride Posted August 30 Posted August 30 4 hours ago, GunnerBill said: He definitely is. He can still play, I wouldn't call him washed. But dominant is not a word I'd use to describe him any more either. He played with an injury all year last year, but that appears to be in the past now. He is only 29, and big DTs often play well into their 30s: https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/kenny-clark-plans-to-prove-what-kind-of-player-he-is-after-playing-through-injury-in-2024 1 Quote
SoTier Posted August 30 Posted August 30 11 hours ago, uticaclub said: 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? As others have said, Clark was only available because the Packers wanted Parsons. If the Packers had been interested in trading Clark before they had a chance at Parsons, they would have traded him months or weeks ago. How do you know that Clark would be better than any of the Bills current DTs -- or even fit the Bills defense? I've heard him described as a nose tackle while the Bills use 1-tech and 3-tech DTs. Today's defenses are much more complex than in the past, so an excellent player in one type of defense might not do so well in another. Oh, yeah, and stop using every opportunity to instruct Brandon Beane on how to do his job. 2 2 Quote
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 30 Posted August 30 10 hours ago, Thrivefourfive said: 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?! With this regime? Never. If at first you don't succeed, try try try try try try again 1 1 Quote
GunnerBill Posted August 30 Posted August 30 1 hour ago, dave mcbride said: He played with an injury all year last year, but that appears to be in the past now. He is only 29, and big DTs often play well into their 30s: https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/kenny-clark-plans-to-prove-what-kind-of-player-he-is-after-playing-through-injury-in-2024 It is more than just last year. He hasn't been truly dominant for 2 or 3 years. He isn't washed. He can start. He can be an above average starter. I am not sure he can dominate games anymore. Or if he can I wonder where it has been the last couple of years. 3 Quote
chris heff Posted August 30 Posted August 30 11 hours ago, Thrivefourfive said: 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?! When the 53 comprises Josh Allen and 52 defensive linemen. 2 1 Quote
Augie Posted August 30 Posted August 30 1 hour ago, SoTier said: As others have said, Clark was only available because the Packers wanted Parsons. If the Packers had been interested in trading Clark before they had a chance at Parsons, they would have traded him months or weeks ago. How do you know that Clark would be better than any of the Bills current DTs -- or even fit the Bills defense? I've heard him described as a nose tackle while the Bills use 1-tech and 3-tech DTs. Today's defenses are much more complex than in the past, so an excellent player in one type of defense might not do so well in another. Oh, yeah, and stop using every opportunity to instruct Brandon Beane on how to do his job. Have we run out of actual things to complain about? Now we are apparently on to hypothetical complaints? 2 1 5 1 Quote
HOUSE Posted August 30 Posted August 30 Well, we need to play the young kids than hope Josh can score 35. By mid season maybe only 30 1 2 Quote
Buffalo Junction Posted August 30 Posted August 30 1 hour ago, SoTier said: As others have said, Clark was only available because the Packers wanted Parsons. If the Packers had been interested in trading Clark before they had a chance at Parsons, they would have traded him months or weeks ago. How do you know that Clark would be better than any of the Bills current DTs -- or even fit the Bills defense? I've heard him described as a nose tackle while the Bills use 1-tech and 3-tech DTs. Today's defenses are much more complex than in the past, so an excellent player in one type of defense might not do so well in another. Oh, yeah, and stop using every opportunity to instruct Brandon Beane on how to do his job. He’s played NT, 1T, 3T, and 5T for GB over the years, although I doubt he has the juice for that anymore. The Packers were probably going to part ways with Clark after this season so they included him in the deal to sweeten the pot and unload his contract before signing Parsons. Completely agree that GB wasn’t going to trade him without need. That said, he might be available mid year if The Cowgirls tank and Jerruh decides to unload guys for draft capital. 1 Quote
BarleyNY Posted August 30 Posted August 30 14 hours ago, uticaclub said: 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? Honestly, it looks like Clark was an addition to the Parsons trade to make Dallas’ return look better than it really was. Clark was an outstanding DT - and he got paid like one. Then he had a poor 2024. GB ate most of his compensation this season so Dallas only owes him $3M. But starting in 2026 he’s on the books for over $20M each season. Either he returns to form or Dallas cuts him next offseason. So Dallas can say that they got two firsts and a Pro Bowl DT. But in reality they’re really only likely to get two late firsts and a one year rental on a DT who may not be what he was. Jerry can pretend to save face and GB gets a great deal on an All Pro pass rusher. 1 3 1 Quote
uticaclub Posted August 30 Author Posted August 30 2 hours ago, SoTier said: As others have said, Clark was only available because the Packers wanted Parsons. If the Packers had been interested in trading Clark before they had a chance at Parsons, they would have traded him months or weeks ago. How do you know that Clark would be better than any of the Bills current DTs -- or even fit the Bills defense? I've heard him described as a nose tackle while the Bills use 1-tech and 3-tech DTs. Today's defenses are much more complex than in the past, so an excellent player in one type of defense might not do so well in another. Oh, yeah, and stop using every opportunity to instruct Brandon Beane on how to do his job. I don’t but after 8 years of busting on free agents and draft picks at the position, why not trade for a guy? 1 Quote
JerseyBills Posted August 30 Posted August 30 I'm optimistic with our DTs , that the rookies will have an impact and Oliver/Jones will rebound from a down season 3 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.