Clowney and the Texans are still far apart.

[Cornette's Commentary]

16 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

Second rounder next year and shaq. 

This isn't Madden.

[aristocrat]

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

[GunnerBill]

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. 

[The Senator]

I have a confession to make ...I am afraid of Clowneys.

.

.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

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?.............

[GunnerBill]

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".

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

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%...............

[Jobot]

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!

[NoSaint]

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)

[Jobot]

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.

[NoSaint]

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. 

[aristocrat]

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 

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

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

[Jobot]

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.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

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 April 17, 2019 by 2018 Our Year For Sure

[Jobot]

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 April 17, 2019 by Jobot

[Shaw66]

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.  

[Shaw66]

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.