What happens now with Frank Clark?

April 6th, 2019 | Written by Rob Staton

Frank Clark’s market has been set by Demarcus Lawrence

With the Dallas Cowboys re-signing DeMarcus Lawrence to a five-year, $105 million extension with $65 million guaranteed — the market has been set for Frank Clark.

He has more career sacks than Lawrence (35 vs 34) and he’s younger (27 vs 25). Clark had a more productive year in 2018 with 13 sacks compared to Lawrence’s 10.5. Athletically Clark is a superior talent. There’s no realistic argument for him being awarded a cheaper contract.

So what are the Seahawks going to do?

Lawrence, Khalil Mack and Aaron Donald are the only three defensive players averaging more than $20 million per season. Mack and Donald are game-wreckers and game-winners. Lawrence is a quality pass rusher but doesn’t have the ability to take over a game like Mack and Donald. Neither, currently, does Frank Clark.

The Seahawks have to determine how much potential remains with Clark. He doesn’t turn 26 until June and with an elite physical profile — it’s possible he could become more consistent and more dominant in the coming years. He’s always had the potential to develop into one of the leagues best defensive ends. If that’s his trajectory over the next few seasons — it’d be a real shame to miss out on his prime having spent four years carefully bringing along his talent.

Last season was his first year as the main man. Previously he’d played in a rotation with Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett. Gaining 13 sacks was a nice start for Clark as the focal point of the pass rush.

The other thing to consider is the rapid growth of the salary cap and player salaries. For all the hand-wringing some members of the media do about the CBA — players have never been wealthier. The earning potential has exploded in recent seasons.

$20m a year for Clark today sounds like a kings ransom. But how will it look in two years time when Myles Garrett and Joey Bosa get paid? And when you consider Trey Flowers is on $18m a year, C.J. Mosley $17m a year and Za’Darius Smith $16.5m a year — doesn’t that put a potential Clark contract into context?

While he probably doesn’t warrant a deal similar to Aaron Donald and Khalil Mack — Clark is a better player than Flowers, Mosley and Smith.

For me there are two realistic scenarios here:

1. Pay Clark the going rate and build with a player you’ve already accepted is part of your new core

2. Let him play out the 2018 season on the tag, just as the Cowboys did with Lawrence, and see what the situation is in 12 months time

People will rightly question the first scenario because of the cost. Yet, as noted above, $20m a year might seem like a bargain in two years time if salaries continue to increase and Clark turns into a star.

The second scenario is a gamble because you run the risk of losing Clark in free agency in 2020. That could easily happen. However, the Seahawks seem to want to exhaust all possibilities with their players. They didn’t take the best offer for Earl Thomas and were happy to risk losing him in free agency. They haven’t traded Clark despite knowing it would cost a fortune to keep him long term. I think there’s a realistic chance they’ll run the risk of losing him for nothing more than a third round comp pick next year — simply to give themselves the longest possible window to tie him down.

You can make a compelling case for trading Clark now, getting more than a possible 2021 third round comp pick and being able to draft a rookie to replace him at a team-friendly price.

Sounds great, right?

But what if nobody wants to trade for Clark?

Mike Garafolo said it’d take a high first round pick. Is that what the Seahawks want — or is it what teams are actually willing to pay?

Here’s the thing — the 2019 draft class is loaded with defensive line talent. Why would anyone trade a high pick for Frank Clark to pay him $20m a year with $65-70m guaranteed when you can draft a pass rusher in round one at a fraction of the cost?

It’s not realistic. Not this year.

Perhaps a team in the late first round might consider it? There’s no guarantee though. And if teams are only talking about a second rounder at best — the Seahawks might think they’re better off keeping Clark and trying to extend his contract this summer rather than giving up for just a second rounder.

After all, who thought the offers for Earl Thomas would be so weak a year ago? Their best offer was a third round pick. It’s easy to say ‘trade a player’ — it’s a lot harder to make it happen for a fair deal.

When the Bills were being linked a few weeks ago I proposed a trade that included swapping #21 for #9 and Seattle getting Buffalo’s second rounder (#40). I think that’s about the best you could hope for. You’d have a shot at one of the top rookie defensive linemen and you make up the gaping hole in round two.

Again though — how interested are Buffalo in a deal like that? Especially now you’d have to pay Clark a mega-contract with massive guarantees.

A trade just doesn’t seem likely at this stage — because of the cost of the contract and the talent in the draft. And if that assertion is correct — the Seahawks have to make a call on whether they want to pay the market rate or wait this out.

You can now support Seahawks Draft Blog via Patreon by clicking the tab below.

Become a Patron!

151 Responses to “What happens now with Frank Clark?”

  1. RWIII says:

    Rob: Totally agree with your assessment. Why would a team trade for Clark? They would have to give up a high draft pick. Plus pay him 20+million per season. Between Russ and Clark you are looking at 55mil per season. Chances are Frank Clark is heading out of town after the 2019 season.

    • Dingbatman says:

      Why would a team trade for him now? At very least to avoid a bidding war at the end of next season perhaps. What if he has a monster year and ends up leading the league in sacks? Licking him up now at 20 might look pretty good.

      • laphroaig says:

        Not saying I’m in favor of trading Clark, but the reason other teams might be interested is that he’s proven himself as a pass rusher in the NFL, while the potential draftees are all projections who could turn out to be busts. It happens, even with first-rounders.

        Of course, that’s also the reason we should try to keep him!

        • Rob Staton says:

          $65m guaranteed vs a much much cheaper player from a legendary DL draft

          • Ashish Dhanurkar says:

            Clark is proven talent with 4 years in NFL compare to potential good prospect. Clark is top 10 DE at his prime (25 year) vs rookie played in college. There is some value in trading Frank Clark.

            • Rob Staton says:

              Too many people are fretting over Seattle paying four players premium money.

              Do you all think this is only a Seahawks problem?

              Teams in round one see an opportunity to get one of these fantastic DL prospects at an extremely cheap price for five years.

              Some of you want the Seahawks to trade Clark to be in their position because it’s more appealing!

              And you think teams will be willing to pay a high R1 and $65-70m a year? With this draft class?

              It’s not happening.

              • Ashish Dhanurkar says:

                I want on Frank on Hawks team, don’t mind he getting paid. In fact I want all 4 to get signed if later stage we ran into cap space issue than think about other options. We have lost too many top players with no draft capital return.

                • Rob Staton says:

                  I agree with the last sentence. But if nobody’s willing to make a fair trade there’s nothing you can do.

                  And the simple fact is — this is a fantastic D-line draft and teams can bring in a highly talented EDGE or DE and pay them $15-20m guaranteed on a 4-5 year arrangement with a cap hit that never tops $5-6m. However good Frank is — in this modern NFL that’s more appealing than trading your first pick for Clark and then giving him $20m a year and $65-70m guaranteed.

                  • thenameisdietrich says:

                    A realistic scenario I see is we wait out the draft. Who falls to us after our (multiple?) trades to move down and get more picks? If a quality Edge or Book-End to Clark is available mid-end of the second, I think negotiations with Clark change. If not, he will be seeing the money more quickly.

                    Also, what is the 2020 draft looking like now? I have always believed the Hawks are draft at least 2 years out, if not 3. And the draft pick who shall not be named messed up a lot of plans with his ATV crash.

              • David says:

                Yeah it is kinda only a Seahawk Problem? Name a different team that is dealing with signing 4 players at or near th top of their market?

                Wilson & Bobby trying to make the most. Reed & Clark top 3-5ish money respectively.

                We also don’t know what this means for keeping other players. How this affects the long term strategy? We talk about the cap rising but if you are leading the way of allocating your cap % to players it puts your team at a competitive disadvantage. You have to be able to flirt that line of talent acquisition, distribution and allocation. Is Clark a part of your plan or not? Do you intend on spending that money there vs a different position? There are a lot of nuances and dominoes.

                While we are all projecting what the Management will do I think its fair to have an opinion while acknowledging that the possibility exists. Trading Khalil Mac would have been impossible before it happened

                • Rob Staton says:

                  Lots of teams are dealing with this. Not necessarily needing to re-sign all four at once but certainly having the same dilemma. The Rams are a classic example. They’ve paid Cooks, Gurley and Donald and in 2020 they’ll make a call on Goff, Peters, Fowler Jr, Whitworth, Talib. Most teams have a collection of elite players who earn top dollar. Seattle’s four just happen to be reaching free agency at the same time. Their situation isn’t unique at all. They’re not the only team considering paying their best players market value.

                  I think I’m about as worn out with all this ‘can’t keep four good players’ talk as I am all the hand-wringing about the running game.

  2. SoCal12 says:

    Great article Rob. Honestly I think $21 million is a fair price for Clark. Like you said it’ll only get cheaper as the years go on. Really don’t see why people are so eager to trade away elite talent. Would rather have the bird in hand then two in the bush. The cap only grows every year so i feel like people see it as a bigger boogeyman than it really is. Yes there is a limit to who you can pay, but Clark is exactly the type of player you do pay. You’re not gonna find talent like him unless you tank for a high pick, sucker someone into a bad trade, hit a lottery ticket, or sign someone for the same amount of money anyways. All of which are very unlikely.

    • Sea Mode says:

      +1

      I can’t think of very many players I would rather pay $20m right now than Frank Clark. We can make it work.

    • Michael Matherne says:

      Here here!

      I don’t understand why everyone in Seattle seems to have this mindset that expensive = not gonna happen. Clark is exactly the kind of player you want to keep. You don’t wanna over pay, but if can keep him here at market price, do it. You’re not gonna get a bargain on every single player on your roster. That’s just not realistic. The hope should be that we save enough money on other players to pay market price for guys like Clark, Wilson, Wagner, etc.

    • DCD2 says:

      I’m with you on this as well. A proven pass rusher in his prime is exactly the guy you do spend on.

      Lawrence was reportedly looking to get $23.5M/yr. Be glad he ‘only’ got $21M. As Rob said, in 3 years time this could seem like a very reasonable contract (to those who think it’s too much right now).

  3. LLLOGOSSS says:

    Then take a 2 and a 3 for him. We cannot keep letting these players clown us and walk for free. Sherman, Thomas, had to give away Bennett, and Clark and Russell are on the verge of leveraging their own departure. Time to make the best of things and learn from the past.

    • Rob Staton says:

      What if nobody is willing to pay a R2 and a R3?

      It’s very easy for fans to say — ‘trade a player’.

      It’s a lot harder to get a satisfactory deal.

      • Hawkin says:

        A team in win now mode might be willing to consider Seahawks demands. After all, consider what we gave up for Richardson. And Clark is a much better player now than Richardson was then.

        “Why would a team give up a high pick when there’s plenty of talent in the draft”? Because not even Myles Garrett was as good as Clark is now in year 1. Again, the likely trade partner would be a team in win now mode, just as Seahawks were with Richardson.

        • Rob Staton says:

          You can’t compare the Sheldon Richardson trade. For starters, it happened right before the regular season because Seattle was desperate after the Malik McDowell accident. That was a team in extreme desperation mode. No team is in that position three weeks before the draft.

          Secondly — the Seahawks trade for Sheldon Richardson was a R2 rental with the hope it panned out and you re-signed him. If you trade for Clark aside from the high picks you’re having to pay him $65m guaranteed and $20m a year. That’s a massively different circumstance.

          • Hawkin says:

            It’s too late before the draft to work out a trade.

            But the Seahawks need to make a decision and trade someone if the case is not everyone can be kept. Which it is appearing to be. Getting a comp pick for any of the big four would be a huge blunder by the FO

          • LLLOGOSSS says:

            I don’t really buy the whole “desperation” angle re: Richardson. I know PCJS have said multiple times that McDowell’s accident directly led to the trade, by c’mon… when had the Seahawks ever before employed a premier 3-tech? As evidenced by Shamar Stephen and Tom Johnson, the team is perfectly comfortable trying to find an unheralded Tony McDaniel type. Yes, they claimed to want to re-sign him (and perhaps they did at one time, yet tried to parlay his down year[s] into a really low-ball deal), but they gave up a 2nd because they thought he was a difference maker on a team selling out for one last ride with the LOB. They wanted to get up over the hump, and they used a high pick to do it — that’s not really desperation, that’s just going for it.

            I also don’t think trading a 2nd for a “rental” and hoping it works out is somehow less sound or explainable than actually securing the “works out” part with a contract. Happens all the time, teams will know what the going rate is for a top-10 DE when they acquire one.

            • LLLOGOSSS says:

              Er, somehow *more* sound or explainable.

            • Rob Staton says:

              Well if you don’t buy the desperation angle with Sheldon Richardson you’re simply wrong.

              • LLLOGOSSS says:

                Rob, I absolutely adore your work, I am constantly telling everyone who will listen that this is the definitive place for Seahawks coverage.

                This response was not one of your more impressive takes.

                Agree or disagree, ultimately right or wrong, many times folks here make a certain degree of sense in a post and if it conflicts with the narrative you’re currently convinced of they get shut down kind of condescendingly.

                • Rob Staton says:

                  If you want to read that as condescending then fine.

                  The team themselves have openly confessed that the Richardson trade was out of desperation after McDowell’s accident. To challenge that seems bizarre to me — and yes — wrong.

      • LLLOGOSSS says:

        Fan, GM, it doesn’t really matter since we should all be able to see what’s coming. I’m not suggesting they pull picks out of thin air, but I am suggesting their posture shouldn’t be “high-first or nothing,” and I think it’s fair to assume they can secure a better return than a 3rd round comp pick in 2020 for Frank Clark if they set their mind to it now. A 2nd and a 3rd is a good place to start.

    • SoCal12 says:

      No offense, but I’m really glad fans aren’t GM’ing this team. If they were I think we’d be nothing but a team of athletic 3rd rounders with Jacoby Brissett as our QB. Cause we seem to like to demand a trade as soon as a negotiation even begins to get serious.

      • Michael Matherne says:

        Right?

        Why do so many fans have this idea that all our players are scrambling to jump ship? Was the exodus of the LOB era players so scarring? Just because a group of (older) players left on less that warm/fuzzy terms doesn’t mean that our current players aren’t hoping to continue their careers here.

        • LLLOGOSSS says:

          Hope is not a plan. Whether these players “want” to continue their careers here, and whether they’re actually providing a pathway toward continuing their careers here are different matters. The team doesn’t control Earl Thomas’, or Russell Wilson’s, or Frank Clark’s contract demands or ego’s. They do control how many options they give themselves, and when to draw a line and choose the more fruitful probability.

          I’m hugely grateful for the way this team was built and kept together over the years. By all means, I’ll wait with bated breath for John to work his magic, but there can and may come a time when trading these players is the smartest play, and those deadlines might be closer than any of us are actually wanting to entertain. That window can also pass you by, as we saw with Earl and Sherman.

          What would the Patriots do? One thing I can’t see them doing is losing ET, Clark, Wilson, et al. for a comp pick.

          • Rob Staton says:

            Fan says trade player.

            Fan has no idea what teams are actually willing to offer.

            Fan ‘assumes’ deals are out there.

            Fan criticises team.

            Fan makes reference to the Patriots.

            And repeat.

            • LLLOGOSSS says:

              How about we talk about the substance of the dialogue, and not just undermine the credibility of being a “fan.”

              • Rob Staton says:

                Because I’m a bit weary of reading people saying players should be traded without ever acknowledging that it might be easier said than done.

                • mr peapants says:

                  “What’s wrong with people coming up with projections to kill time before the draft?”

                  • Rob Staton says:

                    People are not projecting.

                    They’re criticising the team, assuming it’s easy to trade Clark and failing to acknowledge why a trade is unlikely given the draft class.

                    Massive difference between that and someone doing a mock where the Seahawks gain a few picks by trading down, which is where you’ve taken my quote from.

              • Hawkin says:

                That’s fair to ask. Your argument makes sense. A decision has to be made at some juncture. We as fans don’t know where that is simply because we aren’t the GM and have a pulse on these decisions. But the point is this, if a 3rd round comp pick is as good as any offer, then you risk nothing of letting it play out. And if more, then we are debating at what point that would be. We hope that the opportunity doesn’t pass by as it did with other players. But all we can do is trust their process and speculate

                • Rob Staton says:

                  That’s not what is happening Hawkin.

                  People are starting to criticise the team for not trading him. They’re considering worse case scenarios (Frank leaves in a year in FA) and not considering that this situation just needs time. They’re not considering the draft and how teams will almost certainly prefer to spend $15-20m for five years of a talented rookie vs $65-70m on Clark.

                  This is a place where we deal in perspective but increasingly fewer people want to hear it.

                  • Hawkin says:

                    I agree that the offers may not be there. But I think that we agree not taking an offer greater than a comp would be down right frustrating. Obviously under the circumstance FO knows all four signings won’t be possible.

                    Anyways, we’re going to have to live with a lot of speculating and people’s opinions for at least the next year. And I hope you’re right. Everyone gets resigned, we trade back, and continue building/developing. Some have their doubts about how easy that will be to do, so we give our opinion on what is a very complicated and time sensitive problem that will affect the team greatly over next several seasons

                  • Rob Staton says:

                    I don’t agree that anything better than a R3 is frustrating. I’m not trading Clark for a R2. And the reason is simple. There’s still plenty of time to strike a deal and keep him. Trading him now for crappy value just because it’s better than a R3 comp would be ridiculous. You’re just creating another hole on the team and you’re not acquiring a pick that will help you sufficiently fill it.

                    And I’ve never said everyone gets signed. I’m simply pointing out facts about the draft class, how it’s easier said than done to trade Clark and that we’re in a process with these players that doesn’t end when the draft begins.

      • Kenny Sloth says:

        +1 fs

  4. AndrewP says:

    Sea gets: 2019 2/5, 2020 1
    Indy (a team with loads of cap room) gets: A dynamic piece to add to a young, talented core
    Frank Clark gets: A contract that slightly surpasses D. Lawrence’s in a town close-ish to where he grew up then went to college.

    Any takers?

    • Rob Staton says:

      The Colts have made it very clear they are building through the draft. They had $100m in cap space and were calculated and measured in free agency.

      Trading three picks for Frank Clark just to pay him $20m a year doesn’t seem realistic.

      • AndrewP says:

        You may be correct.

        Or, they might look at the potential to add a piece like Frank Clark- without giving up a first round pick, as the formula to become the favorites in the AFC

        • Rob Staton says:

          Just doesn’t feel like a Chris Ballard type of move.

          He’s big for building through the draft and rewarding the players they have. Not bringing in from the outside.

      • Trevor says:

        They were willing to pay up for Justin Houston and Frank is a far more dynamic player at This stage of his career. They have the cap space and the draft capital.

        • Rob Staton says:

          They paid Justin Houston a modest amount of money after he was cut.

          There’s a big difference between that and paying picks for Frank Clark and then $20m a year and $65m guaranteed.

      • Hawkin says:

        I could see The browns possibly look to make an offer

    • Trevor says:

      That is funny I just posted the same thing.

    • Troy says:

      I would take that in a heart beat, we get much needed draft picks, frank gets out of the NFC, makes sense for Indy as they are up and coming and have lots of cap space. Smart Andrew.

  5. Trevor says:

    If the Hawks don’t plan to pay Clark market rate $20 mil APY/ 5 years and don’t have a market to trade him then why bother tagging him in the first place.

    If he is worth $20 mil per year there will be a market for him. Look at what Oakland gave up for Mack. People will say Clark is not Mack and I agree but he wants to be paid like that. I think a team like Indy with cap space and a legit SB contending roster are the type of team that would trade for Clark to put them over the top.

    • Rob Staton says:

      We need to consider the decision makers at each team. Chris Ballard is a notch down from Ted Thompson when it comes to conservative free agency and building through the draft.

      They tagged Frank because it gives them more time to get a deal done and at least another season with him. I don’t know why people are so impatient these days. Half of you have traded Russell and Frank before you’ve even had a chance to take your trousers off.

  6. drewdawg11 says:

    This is the first year that I thought he played more consistently. Before, I felt like he was getting a lot of cheap sacks on stunts and by scheme, not necessarily on his own merit. He would disappear for long stretches. In 2018, I felt like he took a large step forward. Now, is he maxed out, or is there more in the shed? If the latter is true, lock him up now. If you’re still unsure, let him play it out and tag him again next season and THEN sign him up long term. If the cap keeps going up, keep him. I wonder, however, if they’re even talking since Russell Wilson has set a “deadline” for which to negotiate. Get Russ signed, get Frank signed, and you had better stop trading picks away for nothing.

  7. Hawksince77 says:

    There’s a better argument for paying Clark top dollar than doing so with Wilson.

    First of all, Clark is exactly what PC wants in order to build his dominant defense. Secondly, no matter what you could get for Clark now (say a low 1 and a 3) it’s a lateral move at best. And that’s if your picks pan out, always a question.

    Sure, trading him could save cap space, but Clark is the kind of player you are saving cap space to acquire (or keep).

    They should negotiate their best deal now, and lock him up as a Seahawk for as many years as makes sense.

  8. Saxon says:

    Having a top heavy roster is a bad idea. It impacts Seattle’s ability to sign value-free agents. I would rather they remained cap-flexible and sign two 4 star players instead of one 5 star. Depth wins over a rugged NFL season. We need to get back to bargain shopping.

    People really need to analyze the way the Patriots do it. They don’t pay. Anybody. Ever. Use spotrac.com and look at their historical cap spending. Then look at Seattle’s.

    Frank Clark is not a $20 million player and even if he were we can sign 3 really good players for that price. Plus, if Frank decides to coast after signing his big deal the salary cap ramifications for cutting him are harrowing. Not so with value contracts.

    The Pats have let good players go for middling compensation rather than overpay. We should adopt the philosophy of the greatest dynasty in NFL/sports history.

    • Rob Staton says:

      1. The Patriots have Brady and Belichick

      2. They paid for Stephon Gilmore

      3. They paid top dollar for Gronk

      4. They’re paying top dollar for Shaq Mason

      5. They’re paying Devin McCourty $10m a year

      6. You say Frank Clark isn’t a $20m player. But he is a $20m player. That’s what the market dictates. You’ve got to move with the times. Otherwise you will literally never re-sign anyone good — including your QB. And in two years time a $20m pass rusher will be a $23m pass rusher. In five years you might be paying $30m for a good pass rusher.

      7. Any argument that starts and ends with ‘just do what the Patriots need to do’ might as well say, ‘just do what Justin Timberlake does’ when you enter a dance floor at a wedding

      • bv eburg says:

        To Rob,
        You have repeated this mantra in other threads;

        1. The Patriots have Brady and Belichick
        Are you saying Wilson and Carroll aren’t as good? What are you implying?

        Saxon, I’m all for not reinventing the wheel and if there is a better mouse trap I’m going to look at it and see how it fit’s our needs. I would not blanket dismiss it. Nice points on Patriots roster and they have history to back it up.

        Personally I think we have the perfect roster to do similar to Patriots because;
        1. It starts with Wilson and Carroll

        • Rob Staton says:

          I’m implying that Belichick and Brady are the greatest HC and QB combo that has ever existed, will ever exist and it’s pointless thinking that you can mimic the Patriots because they are as successful as they are because of Brady and Belichick.

          Not sure why I even have to keep explaining that.

          • Duceyq says:

            Rob, they’re successful because of Brady and B.B. but that’s not the only reason why. They’re a shrewd organization.

            Yes, I agree with everything you’ve said thus far, even though I’ve been in the trade Clark camp too, but for different reasons. That’s not the point I’m trying to make though.

            You highlighted the Pats paying Gronk top dollar but that’s only partly true. They were way ahead of the curve. They identified Gronk as a core player and signed him to 6 year $54 mil extension with 2 years still left on his rookie deal. That’s a huge discrepancy. Gronk has been grossly underpaid for the bulk of his career and B.B. got a bargain by signing him early and long term for the bulk of his prime years. BB let Trey Flowers walk this year but before that traded Chandler Jones a year before he was set to hit Free Agency. Same can be said for Jamie Collins too. The Pats are shrewd. Let Flowers walk and then trade for Bennett with better production and no guarantees paid by them.

            Seattle’s window to sign Clark should’ve been right after they traded Bennett off a 9 sack season where they could negotiate a 9 sack type long term deal. They did this with Kam (part of the reason he held out) and got bargain production before lesser safeties reset the market. Minnesota did it with Everton Griffin. Waiting longer will only cost Seattle more with escalating pay scales. BB does not tie himself to players with large guaranteed contracts, it’s what gives him the most flexibility and not accruing dead money contracts.

            Seattle has lost all leverage in this negotiation and though a lot of the comments here about a “trade” are misguided, the overall frustration may be more with how Seattle has mismanaged a long term deal for Clark then real trade scenarios.

            • Rob Staton says:

              They’re a shrewd organisation mainly because of BB. They let him run the entire show. They don’t even have a proper GM.

              The point on Gronk still stands. People act like the Pats never pay anyone but they do. They paid to keep Gronk — whether the structure was savvy or not. They pay others guy too. They don’t just let everyone walk. They let the guys walk they think they can easily replace. Is Frank Clark easy to replace? Not at all. And people love to praise the Pats for their trades but dealing Chandler Jones for a R2 was not a good return for an elite pass rusher and people thought the Browns got a bargain for Jamie Collins. Imagine if Seattle traded Frank for a R3 now. People would go nuts.

              I’m just growing increasingly weary of being a Seahawks fan. Everyone seems to know more than PCJS these days. Whether it’s the way the offense runs, team building or contract negotiations. Just enjoy the ride guys.

              • Duceyq says:

                Rob, I’m there with you and it’s nauseating the criticism this front office gets even in a “rebuild” that netted a playoff appearance. The entitlement is growing among Seahawks fans who were not around during the Zorrilla era. But I’m objective in the only mischaracterization I see in your argument.

                Yes, the Pats pay players but they spread the weatlth a lot more then tying it to one or two players. They don’t tie themselves to long term contracts that they have high guarantees in. They trade for players whose guarantees have been paid by other organizations. See Revis, Gilmore, Cooks, Bennett…not too many teams let 2 starting LT’s go like the Pats did and still win and when Seattle did, in Okung, it cost them at least another SB appearance.

                Whether B.B. got good compensation is besides the point, the hamstringing that a long term deal like “Clark’s” could do to an organization for instance, is the type of deal they steer clear from so the compensation is only secondary to cap flexibility. Chandler Jones netted the Pats a 2nd Rd pick which was still better than the Comp 3rd they would’ve received had they just let him walk. Once they identified that Jones was out of their price range they took the better deal.

                You mention BB and Brady a lot in the defense of your standpoint and you are definitely right in that POV but hasn’t Seattle now moved their team into that phase with PC and Russ? Shouldn’t Seattle now be in that same consideration or in the midst of the early stages of it? Clark May be hard to replace but that could be said about Sherman, Kam, Avril, Bennett, and ET, all at once. Seattle still managed to go 10-6 w/o them. Why? I would argue PC and Russ.

                The prudent move for Seattle would be to sign Reed to the long term deal. Numerically DT’s with 10+ sacks in their first 3 seasons are rarer than HOF QB’s and DE’s with 13. Seattle should offer Reed the “Gronk” like deal or the first Kam like deal they did.

                Personally, I think Clark has priced himself out of Seattle’s market and the franchise tag is appropriate to use whether they make a deal with him or not. But, my POV on this matter really, and why I chimed in, was to only highlight that the Pats do operate differently than other organizations due to B.B. and Brady, like you said, and it might be time for Seattle to follow suit.

                • Rob Staton says:

                  I will maintain though that the main reason New England can be as picky about their re-signings is purely because of BB and Brady. Their philosophy is born out of their ability to win whatever the other pieces. We’re talking about the greatest coach and QB combo that we’ll ever see. Everyone on here knows how much I respect PC and RW but they’re not on the same level —- nobody is.

                  • Duceyq says:

                    Rob, I value your opinion you make very good points.

                    I think the only thing that has held PC/RW, back, by comparison, from winning more is luck and a tough NFC West. A overall weak AFC over the last 20 years and a division that New England has been able to feast on guarantees them a #1 or #2 Seed. That’s the true secret to making the SB and has been their “secret” formula since Brady took over.

                    NE went 11-5 this year and yet Seattle went 10-6 and had another WC road playoff game while NE got a bye and hosted a playoff game. Those are drastically different circumstances and mathematically likely different outcomes. Seattle splits with the Rams and possibly a different story.

                    At no time has NE had another SB contender in there division for a sustained number of years except for the Jets 150 years ago while Seattle has had the Harbaugh 9ers, Arian Cards, and now the McVAy Rams. Basically what I”m saying is there is also just plain luck that has inflated the BB/Brady aura around their era.

                    Seattle’s run has been 2nd best to them during this era of football and though I can site reasons for Seattle to sign Clark, I think they’ve reached an impasse where tagging him for a year is probably best in everyone involved. $60 mil+ in guarantees exposes Seattle to too much risk..the same they just faced with Avril, Kam, ET, and Sherman all missing time to injury…and Beast before them.

                    Overall, great discussion and I think your point is very valid but your point actually supports the notion, by some, to apply the same blueprint. But I get your point about trusting the process too. Some are missing that also.

    • SoCal12 says:

      Honestly I’m kind of sick of people using the Patriots as some sort of defining blueprint on how to do things. It’s like the managers who try and copy everything Steve Jobs did and write his quotes up on the board for ‘inspiration’.

      There’s a huge perfect storm of things going on in NE that trying to copy it is a fool’s errand. BB’s operation there has gears clicking at every level of the FO and an insanely dedicated QB doing whatever it takes to win. Their machine can manage without big money. That’s their once-in-a-lifetime machine though. You can win with other machines too. If you want to replicate theirs then you’d have to tear down the organization completely and rebuild it from scratch. Otherwise you’re just trying to slap Ferrari parts onto a Chevy and calling it a sports car.

      • Trevor says:

        If not the Patriots what blue print should teams follow or try to get ideas from?

        No one is saying they need to do things exactly like NE all most people are saying is they don’t overpay for free agents.

        Rob hilighted Gilmore and Mason but both make less than $10 mil per and Gronk was making $8 mil + an additional $4mil in incentives.

        None of them was even close to $15 mil per much less $20 mil.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Gilmore’s on $13m a year and comfortably one of the highest paid CB’s in the league and was a prize, big time free agent signing when the Pats brought him in. The only reason other cornerbacks earned more than him in 2017 when he signed is because they agreed deals AFTER his signing. For example — Trufant, Rhodes, Norman all signed after Gilmore. Patrick Peterson and Richard Sherman were the only two players earning more than Gilmore who didn’t sign a contract in 2017 and within a year Sherman had been cut.

          Gronk was easily the highest paid TE in the league when they signed him to his last deal.

          They paid Shaq Mason — an interior OL — $9m a year.

          Being on $15m a year isn’t the point. It’s the fact they DO pay players at the highest rate for their position. Anyone who says the Pats never pay anyone is flat out wrong.

          They’re simply very selective and back themselves to draft/develop replacements for players who are good not great.

          And SoCal12 is spot on. Loads of teams try and mimic the Pats. And they fail, badly. Why?

          Brady. Belichick.

          • God of Thunder says:

            And Gronk the elite pass catching TE also doubled as Gronk the excellent blocking TE, so very much worth paying.

        • Saxon says:

          Thanks for pointing that out, Trevor. I did not have time to mention individual players but, again, look at the historical method they use to deploy cap dollars and you notice they generally spread them out more evenly across the roster rather than pay a handful of guys the lion’s share of the budget.

          I live in southern New England and am bombarded with irritating Pat’s chat all day. I don’t like them but there’s a reason they’ve been dominant and it’s worth studying. I would still not sign Clark to 20m and nothing I’ve read here convinces me that it’s a wise idea.

          • Saxon says:

            Rob, Seattle has 5 guys in the top 100 of NFL salaries and the Patriots have 2. This is what I mean by top heavy. It’s a concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. The 1% vs the 99%, if you will. A situation like this is problematic because if one of those players, say Kam Chancellor, can’t or won’t live up to his contract it hamstrings the rest of the roster for years. It creates opportunity costs, as I believe it did in our failed pursuit of Suh last season.

            Look at our depth. Consider whom we were forced to play at times. Yes, poor drafts affected this but so did poor cap management. The Seahawks FO paid out too many bad contracts. Frank Clark will command a salary that could pay for 3 really good players. I’d rather have the depth and the flexibility to sign a Suh when such opportunities arise.

            • Rob Staton says:

              How good is New England’s depth?

              I’ll tell you, it sucks.

              But they have Brady and Belichick.

              People get so hung up on what the Patriots do and they forget the bleeding obvious and it’s annoying.

              Brady + Belichick.

              That’s it.

          • Rob Staton says:

            And nothing I’ve read here convinces me that people truly know why the Pats are successful even though it’s quite obvious.

        • JohnH says:

          Considering that a big part of the Pat’s blueprint is having a QB they pay under the table via the TB12 store at their stadium, I’m not sure it’s a sustainable model.

    • AlaskaHawk says:

      The one flaw I can see in this argument is that the Patriots thrive on a great offense, while the Seahawks thrive on a great defense.

      So the Patriots don’t need a huge pass rush because they are going to outscore you. They just need their defense to be decent and slow the other team down.

      The Seahawks need a great defense to overcome their meager scoring. Also they were lucky for a while in picking up free agents Bennett and Avril for low prices. That is one great move that the SEahawks made. But those guys don’t come along often, especially at a cheap price. Even though Clark is expensive , it is the market setting that price. So I think they should keep him and work on drafting the next great defensive end for the other side of the line.

  9. Alex Higgins says:

    Rob’s analysis is good. I agree. What’s the rush?
    – Like most of us, Clark plays best when highly motivated. Not a terrible idea to keep him on a franchise tag for a year.
    – Clark plays better at home and against weaker opponents. Benefits greatly from the CLink noise. He’s not dominant against everybody. But we play half the games at home and need to take advantage of the home field — Avril and Bennett were huge reasons for our success in prior years. Without a real plan to replace him (please don’t talk to me about unproven rookies), what is the hurry to trade him? (Mind you, I’m in no rush to sign him to a mega-deal either. This is exactly what the franchise tag is for.

    • LLLOGOSSS says:

      What’s the rush? Seriously? If you can’t get a contract or a trade done before the draft in a couple weeks you’ll end up with one franchise tag for Russell Wilson, Frank Clark, Jarran Reed, and Bobby Wagner in 2020. We should all by now understand who the tag will be needed for at that time, unless a meteor strikes down Mark Rodgers before April 15. That means you have no way to keep Frank Clark from entering the open market, whereby some desperate team will pay him “market value,” which amounts to overpaying as the market is always set by bad teams with no one else to pay, and he’ll be gone. Then you can have a sandwich pick after round 3 in 2021. If they were going to cave and give him 2019 “market value,” then they should go ahead and do so before they lose all their leverage via the ability to tag him in subsequent seasons. If not, they need to tap into this deep draft class and not wait until 2021 to draft at the end of the 3rd round for their trouble.

  10. Trevor says:

    I used to think the way to win in the NFL was Draft your guys, build a roster and culture then pay the guys that perform. The Hawks did this with the LOB but except for Bobby and KJ all those contracts and players started to become issues within a year or two of signing. Instead of buying in even more once they got paid it was the opposite.

    Frank was a guy whom a lot of teams would not even touch in the draft. The Hawks took him in Rd 2 not as a UDFA or something and by all accounts have put a support system in place to let him succeed on and off the field.

    Does this mean he should give them the home team discount? Not in today’s NFL they players want to maximize their value and I don’t blame them but there is zero loyalty anymore. So the Hawks need to adapt and start acting in a way that reflects this. It is almost like Pete thinks if he just has enough time he can talk these guys into staying for less. Not happening in today’s NFL.

    If you know you are hot going to pay Frank the $ he wants and thinks he can get keeping him for one year on the tag makes zero sense to me. Unless he gets hurt or has a bad year the price is not going down and do you want to pay $17 mil for that this year?

    The Hawks had last off season and this off season to work out a long term deal with Clark if it is not done before this season he is gone baby gone and the Hawks get thier 2021 comp pick for the $17 mil investment this year.

    • Rob Staton says:

      But Trevor — the point in the article is this…

      What if a team isn’t willing to make you a worthy trade offer?

      Trading Clark for peanuts makes less sense than keeping Clark.

      Again — there’s a process here. You have to let it play out. A deal today might not be possible. A deal in June might be. Things change.

      For some reason people in this comments section are so panicked at the moment. It’s as if there’s some kind of negotiating window that slams shut on April 25th. People do realise that negotiations shift and change, right? That these things take time, right? That sometimes you have to go through a process?

      Heck — they let Michael Bennett reach free agency in 2014! And still re-signed him. That might happen for Frank, Jarran Reed, Bobby.

      I want to ban the phrase ‘if you know you can’t get a deal done’. Because even if you think that way today — things can change tomorrow. Just look at Dallas and Demarcus Lawrence. He was going to holdout two weeks ago.

    • cha says:

      “The Hawks had last off season and this off season to work out a long term deal with Clark”

      That’s the same logic as the “trade him for a first round pick” folks. Clark has to want to sign. You can’t make him sign a contract.

  11. RWIII says:

    Yes. There still is a possibility a deal can get done with
    Clark. Right now I say it is about 50-50. Maybe even 60-40. But then between Russell Wilson/Clark 25% of your cap space will go to just two players.

    • Rob Staton says:

      So what?

      Draft well. Develop talent.

      I’m tired of all this talk about not being able to keep good players because OMG they take up a lot of your cap room.

      So what? Everyone’s in the same boat.

      The cap’s going to keep rising.

      It might explode in the new CBA and go up massively.

    • Sea Mode says:

      And those two players are at the most important positions on the field and are the leaders of our team (along with Bobby and Doug)… money well spent.

  12. Sea Mode says:

    Had an idea for a little bit different direction than I’ve been going and I like the consideration:

    Trade down to 29 and then to 40 as usual.

    R2P40: DT Jeffery Simmons, Miss. St.

    Yes, the Seahawks have never taken a redshirt with their first pick before. But have the redshirts they have passed on ever been top 10 talent?

    Nobody complains when we mock guys like Trysten Hill and Christian Miller with our top pick, but the reality is both of them as well are going to take a year of development to really be able to contribute much more than occasionally in a rotation. I think getting a guy back for next year (possibly even for a playoff run this year) that could have a similar trajectory to Ndamukong Suh is worth it.

    We make the same argument if they were to spend their first pick on a QB, who wouldn’t contribute on the field (hopefully): one rookie pick will not make or break the Seahawks’ chances this season. Simmons would also be a hedge for Reed if he ends up the odd man out of the “big 4” we need to resign.

    R3P84: OL Dru Samia, Oklahoma

    While our season doesn’t depend on one rookie, we are entirely dependent on our run game to have any chance. Fluker can be expected to miss a couple games, and Iupati on the other side at 32 years old and with his injury history doesn’t exactly inspire confidence either. Simmons played well, but can he stay healthy? Pocic, well…

    R3P92: RB Damien Harris, Alabama

    Speaking of the run game… If Carson has to miss a couple games, it’s Penny and who else to tote the rock? This guy fell out of the spotlight after being considered a borderline R1 talent last year, but fits our profile perfectly. RB shelf life is short; take a good one whenever they become available.

    R4P112: S Marvell Tell, USC

    Here comes our outside CB convert, versatile enough to slide in at other spots as well in certain matchups as he learns the kick-step. Extremely long (6020, 198, 33 3/8 arm, 80 wing), incredibly agile (4.01 SS, 6.63 3C) and explosive (42 vert, 11’4″ broad). Remember that stat about the Seahawks having targeted or added almost all of the prospects with +32″ arms and sub 4-second SS? He’s right there.

    Showed great feet in Combine drills and good aggressive tackling on tape. Same thing we saw with Tre Flowers last year. Why does he last? The same reason Flowers lasted: few teams are looking for a long, lanky safety. And Flowers ran 4.45 and still didn’t get picked until R5. Tell ran 4.57. There is also a good list of fast safeties in front of him in the R2-R3 range.

    R4P124: TE Trevon Wesco, WVU

    Seattle gets its TE/FB to save a roster spot. He’s unique, and PC/JS like unique.

    R4P131: WR Gary Jennings, WVU

    And so continues the run on WVU guys. Jennings is an outstanding athletic specimen who recorded one the fastest on-field speeds at the Senior Bowl along with McLaurin. Needs development, but he can win in several ways. Had around 1,000 yds in each of the past two seasons and scored 13 (!) TDs last season.

    R5P159: CB David Long, Michigan

    What can you say? Saw some ups and some downs on tape, but the athleticism is nothing short of incredible and he’s from a program that we like to take guys from.

    5105, 196, 30.88 arm, 76.125 wing, 4.45 40yd, 3.97 SS, 6.45 3C, 39.5 vert, 10’0 broad

    Competition at the nickel spot and ST contributor.

    R5P167: DT Michael Dogbe, Temple

    Guys with his freakish strength and athleticism don’t come around that often, and wouldn’t otherwise be around in R5 if the draft weren’t so deep in DL. We would be wise to double up on the strength of the draft, as we have in the past. The search for the penetrating 3T continues…

    R6P214: WR Scotty Miller, Bowling Green

    Field stretcher. Ran high 4.2s- low 4.3s, and it shows on tape.
    2018: 71rec/1148yds/9TD
    Highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIbpt8iOvIQ

    • AlaskaHawk says:

      I like your draft. Doubling up on DT and WR is smart. I really like Damien Harris last year, and I doubt his talent is any less. Just a nice hard runner. The only thing missing is a backup quarterback. Guess you will go UDFA for him??

      • Sea Mode says:

        I think Will Grier goes at the end of R1 and I don’t really think anyone else offers more potential than Paxton Lynch for now, so I’m rolling with him as backup this year and seeing if next year’s class is better (it should be).

        Damien Harris also has the added benefit of having less wear on the tires than most other RBs because he shared the load. He had around 150 carries in each of the last 3 seasons, whereas someone like David Montgomery at Iowa had over 250 in each of his two years as a starter.

        Will be interesting to see if Rodney Anderson lasts or not as well…

        • Volume12 says:

          Gardner Minshaw is a really cool dude though. 😎

          • JimQ says:

            What about the same draft with the DT-Simmons pick replaced by a QB-Grier pick instead? This to accommodate the “RW hedge factor” & of course assumes Grier will be there at pick 40 (possible).

            Of course, they would then probably have to go with an EDGE or DT with their round 3 pick. The big nickel position with all those speedy safety prospects would be hard to avoid as well, but by pick 159 they are all maybe gone, so David Long as a projected slot-CB selection makes some sense.

            • David Ashton says:

              Whilst I would have no qualms in drafting Jeffery Simmons in that spot, I do believe Pete’s “always compete” mantra may preclude it. They want people to come in and compete for a spot on Day 1.

            • Volume12 says:

              That was just me getting a inside joke with Sea Mode in.

              Not a fan of Grier.

    • bigten says:

      I really like where your thought process is here. And I agree that Lynch has more potential than people are giving him credit, especially considering Grier will probably go earlier than we like. Along with your thought on Simmons, Rodney Anderson would be awesome to get, both are perennial first-round picks when healthy that we could get and groom. If we replaced Anderson in the fourth for Wesco (though I do like Wesco), we could grab Walker, or Christian Miller (who may drop due to poor drills) or Hill in the third where you have Haris (I think teams aren’t as high on Hill as we are on the forum and as high as we think PCJS are on him) then we could grab a TE in the fifth instead of dogbe (though I also like dogbe). I really like this thought process.

    • bv eburg says:

      Like this Sea Mode,
      Really sets us up for following year run towards SB.

  13. Volume12 says:

    A lot of y’all are future tripping man.

    Do you know how much the cap will go up with this gambling revenue?

    Ya gotta pay the cost to be the boss as cheesy as it sounds. This is gonna be a problem every year for Seattle if they hit on as many premium draft picks as everyone wants them to. And that’s a good thing.

  14. Volume12 says:

    I saw someone say this wish I could remember who, but it popped me.

    ‘Wish Seattle would draft Terry McLaurin so we could have a Scary Terry to go with Angry Doug’ lmao

  15. Coleslaw says:

    If DEs are going to start making 20M+ per year then I think it’s just the way the market is going to go. If you can sign him to a contract like Lawrence’s for 5 years, you’ll likely be getting a discount by the 3rd or 4th year

  16. Victor says:

    Frank played last year with tears in both elbows and had 13 sacks.. He is worth it and only 25. We have been wishing for years for a pass rusher and now we have him we need a bookend rusher to go along with him. Go Frank.

  17. GauxGaux says:

    I want the Seahawks to be a blue collar team…
    Frank Clark is a blue collar beast…
    Pay Frank. Pay Reed. Pay Wags.
    Try to get creative with RW.

    • GauxGaux says:

      …one thought on RW: when he gets hit hard he pops up and jumps back into the huddle.
      He leads by example. He doesn’t get up slowly and look for attention (see Rogers).
      RW irks me off the fields – but no question, he leads his team on the field. R. E. S. P. E. C. T.

      • Trevor says:

        +1000 as tough and durable as any player in the game. I agree about the off field stuff but his toughness, consistency and durability are legendary.

  18. RWIII says:

    Folks. I think we have some pretty good GMs. Seattle starts off with only four picks before that NFL 2019 Draft. But somehow through trades the Hawks are ending up with 9 or 10 picks. WOW

  19. MyChestIsBeastMode says:

    “Pay the man his money” in my Malkovich Russian accent.

    Frank has been nothing but an exemplary Seahawk. He’s young and likely just scratching the surface of his prime. If he’s not worth the going rate then I don’t know who is.

  20. SeahawkeyezSubj80 says:

    Frankie is a Seahawk…per Pete. Two most important people in the building are the Coach and the QB…per out GM JS. Im stealing from Aaron Rodgers…RELAX. I feel the signing of D.Lawrence as a good thing sets the market for Clark, now there is a precedent in place for a deal to be done and have until up to July. Next will be B.Wags extention. J.Reed if he continues will get paid next year along with Russell Wilson. Over the Cap has Seattle with 95 million in cap space next year. Signing the big 4 is absolutely doable. Question is do PC/JS going to go that route…time will tell.

  21. GerryG says:

    Seattle may not even have a problem with that size of contract, they just needed the Cowboys to go first

  22. “What if nobody is offering a R1?

    This is a fantastic D-line draft.

    A lot of teams might think drafting a rookie DL in this great class >>>>>> trading for Clark and paying him $20m a year”

    Well then we are ..”**cked up”.

    I think every top 45 pick >>>>> play on tag and let him go…

    45-65 = one more year of frank clark ( I dont know what i would do)

    65+ pick <<<< one more year with great team mate and most importan tguy for locker room

    And i see everyone speaks about same contract as Lawrence…at start it should be 3-4 mil.less because price.of.tag for 2019 for both of them…

  23. One more thought on this situation about big 4…very positive thing for seahawks is that for 2020 there isnt any player to pay huge money (exept maybe Ifedi but we have Fant and Jones)…

    And by 2021 salary cap should be increased for at least 20mil…

    So we can pay all four for 35+20+17+15 APY and play with same team+ draftees+ cheap additions in 2019 and 2020…than we will have more money for 2017 draft class + some expensive FA additions…

  24. 35+20+17+15=87 and that would be 41% of 210mil salary cap.

    And.I think they can make a deal like 35+19+15+13=82=39% of 210mil.

    And SC could be even higher than 210mil for 2021.

    Right now most teams with non rookie QB’s are at 35% of SC with top 4 players.

    So as you see it wont be so difficult to pay all four of them especially with so much players on rookie contracts for 2019 and 2020.

  25. charlietheunicorn says:

    The Seahawks should say they are rebuilding like the Mariners….. and just go all in on who they have on the roster. Play with the chip on the shoulder and prove the doubters wrong. They aren’t expected to be a SB winner, but they are much closer than they have been 2-3 years ago.

    I’ve got no problem with Frank playing on a tag this season. This is the way the modern NFL works.
    Should he get paid, sure. Will he get paid, sure. I think the fanbase is over complicating the situation. Frank has been a truly remarkable story. Starting out with a ton of questions about his play and character. He has lived up to the expectations 100%. One of the 5 or 6 most successful picks under PC/JS regime.

  26. Sea Mode says:

    So DK (Metcalf) stands for DeKaylin. Huh.

  27. Sea Mode says:

    Jerry Tillery had a staring contest at the Combine. We all know what that means…

    http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2019/story/_/id/26440136/nfl-draft-south-bend-south-africa-jerry-tillery-ready-next

    • H says:

      Love that

    • Volume12 says:

      He’s the one guy in the draft who could probably tell a team everything about Nelson Mandela, not just who he is.

      Surprised they didn’t ask him the intellectual, galaxy brain trick question they think is good.

      ‘Would you rather be Super Bowl MVP or win a Super Bowl?’

  28. SamL says:

    Rob, I’m really liking what I’m seeing from Anthony Nelson. 6’7″ with 34 7/8″ arms and 271 pounds. Not to mention his quick short shuttle 4.23.

    He looks like a good guy to grab to compete for the spot opposite of Clark and be a good Dion Jordan replacement. He should flashes of pass rush ability and was pretty consistent against the run. What round do you think he’ll go in? He seems like a round 3 or 4 guy to me.

  29. Hughz says:

    Do you thinks it’s possible in the new CBA that the teams could be protected from injuries? In other words a season ending injury would not count against the salary cap. Seems like this would allow teams to feel better about giving more guaranteed money.

    • Rob Staton says:

      How would that work though? Because surely the cap hit would count for the current season so unless a player gets hurt between Jan-Aug you’re not going to be able to put that money to use.

      • Sea Mode says:

        Plus, you’d have players getting put on IR for stubbing their toe by teams who want to save money.

  30. Sea Mode says:

    Still looking for big WR…

    Aaron Wilson
    @AaronWilson_NFL

    Denver Broncos free agent wide receiver Jordan Taylor (6-5, 210, Rice) visits the Minnesota Vikings on Monday and the Seattle Seahawks on Wednesday, according to a league source #NFL

    9:57 AM – 7 Apr 2019

    • Frank says:

      I really hope we find a way to keep Clark. This seems like the perfect explanation for why teams can’t afford to have a franchise QB. If Clark and Wagner together are the same price as Wilson, I would argue those two are more critical than a “franchise” Qb. The defense is only a few role players away from being truly terrifying again, and our plan on offense is too be smash mouth football we wouldn’t doing too bad without Wilson. Wilson is a good QB, but that doesn’t seem to mean much in today’s NFL. I’m still holding out for a draft day surprise of him being shipped elsewhere for a couple first round picks, and getting to keep Wagner, Reed, and Clark. I hope the Franchise has the grit to make a decision that the talking heads will melt down over, but gives us another Super Bowl window. Just imagine being able to keep those three and have a shot at Grier, Thornhill, and Hill:). I doubt anyone is willing to trade two first and sign the contract Wilson wants, but it’s nice too dream hahaha.

      • Bigten says:

        I think any team would be willing to trade 2firsts plus and pay Russell. But the more it’s discussed, the more I’m against it. Don’t get me wrong, I would love to have the draft capital to get a bunch of guys I like in the draft. And we can think they are going to be stars and would be worth it, but if you look at past drafts, you can see that the draft really is a crap shoot. Take 2015 for instance, since most are coming off there rookie contracts now. Looking at that draft, there are not many guys you look back and wish you had capital to draft. Clark is the star. We can think that Grier and Thornhill and hill are going to be stars, but it’s not a guarantee. Whereas RW and Clark are proven. The whole point in building through the draft is to find Clarks and RWs. Yes having more chances is great, but you don’t spend 15 dollars for 4 chances to win 5 dollars on one. You could win 20 yes, but that is highly unlikely, and you will most likely lose all 15. We need to figure a way to pay for our proven talent, as Rob has mentioned we can figure out how to do, turn our 4 picks into 6-8, and in the future not put ourselves in a situation of only having 4 picks to build in the draft.

      • Coleslaw says:

        Chicago traded 2 firsts, 3 2nds and 3 3rds for a defensive end. 31 teams would rub Geoff Schwartz feet for a chance to give up 2 1sts and a contract for Russell Wilson.

        RW could net 4 1sts if the Hawks played hardball.

        • DCD2 says:

          Bears gave up a 1st and 6th in 2019 and a 1st and 3rd in 2020. They got back a 2nd and (conditional) 5th in 2020.

          That compensation looks like the Herschel Walker haul, not Mack.

  31. Sea Mode says:

    ‘nother one

    Aaron Wilson
    @AaronWilson_NFL

    New England Patriots free agent offensive tackle Ulrick John visits the Seattle Seahawks on Friday, according to a league source #SeattleSeahawks #NewEnglandPatriots

    9:59 AM – 7 Apr 2019

  32. Bigten says:

    I know you have mentioned it before, but what about jalen Hurd? Big bodied ex running back that had a productive season at Baylor. I like him and D. Thomas, but curious what the negatives for Hurd are again.

    • Jujus says:

      Well jalen tanked his stock even more running a 4.66 as a wr.

      Probably 6-7th rd

      • Bigten says:

        Saw that, and was disappointing. But does that have anything to do with him coming back to soon from a knee injury? Since he was reportedly supposed to run low 4.4 high 4.3? Or is there no excuse for that speed. Not saying he’s a home run, but already was under the impression he was a later round pick. Big hands, long arms, good frame. Just seems interesting to me. But I don’t remember the red flags, prior to his 40.

  33. BruceN says:

    I like to keep Frank. He’s a very good player. But at $20-$21M a year I am not sure he is a good value considering you’re approaching QB salaries. Donald and Mack are game deciders and offenses have to scheme specifically to neutralize them. Frank is not there yet (as stated in the article). I would consider a trade for a lower 1st plus a 3rd or 4th. Use the picks and draft a couple of promising edge rushers and use the savings to sign 1-2 players in the $10M range instead. I would also use the savings and lock up Russell and Wagner. Russell at $35M a year is a much better value than Frank at $21M.

    • Rob Staton says:

      So what is good value for Clark?

      Because while he might not deserve Khalil Mack money — he deserves more than Trey Flowers and CJ Mosley.

      We need to face facts that the market is what the market is. If you ever want to keep good players at premium positions you’re going to have to pay a premium price. And next year someone else re-sets the market. That’s the modern NFL.

      And I feel like we’ve gone over this already with the trades. It’s very easy to say you’d trade him for a first and a third. Very difficult to actually find someone willing to give up a first and a third and $65m guaranteed.

      • BruceN says:

        Frankly, outside of Mack or Donald who single handedly can cause havoc for an offense I wouldn’t spend near $20M on a very good rusher. I understand that is the market. I look at it from a roster construction perspective. I rather us pay two good player at $10M each than a very good player at $20M Whois not a game wrecker. NE follows the same blue print. They actually have few very highly paid players.

        I see your point about trades requiring a partner. There are other teams who may think they are a player or two away from making the playoffs or being a SB contender. Jets just paid $52M ($35M guaranteed) to a running back, granted an elite RB. You think no one will offer a lower first for a very good edge rusher who is a more premium position?

  34. Jujus says:

    Had an amazing mock

    Your Picks:
    Round 2 Pick 22 (HOU): Terry McLaurin, WR, Ohio St. (A)
    Round 2 Pick 23 (HOU): LJ Collier, DE, TCU (A-)
    Round 3 Pick 22 (HOU): Darnell Savage, FS, Maryland (A+)
    Round 3 Pick 34 (JAX): Christian Miller, OLB, Alabama (A)
    Round 4 Pick 4 (OAK): Trysten Hill, DT, UCF (B-)
    Round 4 Pick 22: Dru Samia, OG, Oklahoma (A)
    Round 5 Pick 2 (OAK): Isaiah Johnson, CB, Houston (A+)
    Round 5 Pick 21: Ben Banogu, DE, TCU (A+)
    Round 7 Pick 4 (OAK): Jamal Peters, CB, Miss. State (A+)

  35. jb9 says:

    Clark isn’t as good at stopping the run as Lawrence and is only one year younger….is that enough to be paid the same amount as him?

    I’d like the Colts’ #26th overall or #34+#90 for Clark.

    • jb9 says:

      Then sign Ansah.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I’d like an Aston Martin.

      • jb9 says:

        Wait, you literally wrote in your piece about a late 1st rd pick for Clark lol. What do you mean ?

        • Rob Staton says:

          I suggested a team in the late first might consider it but I said there were no guarantees and immediately moved to the thought that the offers might be capped in round two.

          I’ve also since mentioned a few times in the comments section already why I think the Colts are an unlikely trade partner.

          • jb9 says:

            From SI: “When things looked bleakest, Canter (Lawrence agent) was working with two AFC teams on potentially trading for Lawrence. He says he believes one of the two was ready to pull the trigger. One important piece of movement that prevented it from ever coming to that: the Cowboys’ willingness to go to a five-year structure.”

            I wonder what the mystery AFC team would’ve been willing to part with and if they’re still in the market for a big salary DE?