Sources: The #Seahawks and #Chiefs are deep in talks on a trade to send star Frank Clark to KC. The compensation would include a 1st rounder, a 2020 2nd rounder and a swap of mid-rounders. To complete it, the franchise tagged player and Chiefs must hammer out a deal.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
They got rid of damaged goods and brought in a flagship product.
Clark is better than Ford in every way. He's better than Ford + Houston in every way. It's a major upgrade, and we still have benefits coming to the front 7's play from an improved scheme and anyone we might add to the linebacker spots. I don't know why anyone would be against this.
Do people wish we had stayed at #29 and ended up with a developmental prospect, or traded down when there was nothing thrilling at #29 - ending up with a couple of special teams players who probably won't get many snaps at all? Who would be starting if not for Clark? How is that an acceptable compromise?
How can anyone be mad that we went to get a guy who is an every down impact player right now? We should have stayed there and instead bought a raffle ticket hoping we'd win someone who would turn into a Frank Clark in a few years for free?
Get out of here with that, people... (not you htis) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
Lol. So your argument is if you don't agree with the Chiefs bringing in yet another guy with domestic violence in his past you should stop being a fan?
What else can you do about it other than bitch? If you don't like their product or the message they send then don't watch, that's literally the option. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
Clark is better than Ford in every way. He's better than Ford + Houston in every way. It's a major upgrade, and we still have benefits coming to the front 7's play from an improved scheme and anyone we might add to the linebacker spots. I don't know why anyone would be against this.
Do people wish we had stayed at #29 and ended up with a developmental prospect, or traded down when there was nothing thrilling at #29 - ending up with a couple of special teams players who probably won't get many snaps at all? Who would be starting if not for Clark? How is that an acceptable compromise?
How can anyone be mad that we went to get a guy who is an every down impact player right now? We should have stayed there and instead bought a raffle ticket hoping we'd win someone who would turn into a Frank Clark in a few years for free?
Get out of here with that, people... (not you htis)
Honestly, cause hope.
That and the people that spent hundreds of hours talking draft. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
I’ll never understand why people don’t get that just because you think they should’ve gotten more for a guy means they in fact could have.
Trust me, if Veach could’ve gotten more for Peters or Ford, he would have.
Yes, another theory that makes no sense. Like we would pass up a better offer because Veach wanted to get less for a player than he really could have?
You can be angry that Peters and Ford weren't worth as much as you had hoped, but the market spoke. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
What else can you do about it other than bitch? If you don't like their product or the message they send then don't watch, that's literally the option.
Or you can still be a fan while seriously questioning why they made the move considering what happened with Hunt and what's happening with Hill. I don't give a fuck about the optics. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Munson:
Initially I was pissed, but after sleeping on it I feel better.
We can all agree that Clark will have an instant impact. Looking at his highlights, he plays with a mean streak that this team sorely needs.
But I still don't like how Veach seems to get hosed when trading draft picks. He's not very good at negotiating.
There's 2 types of negotiators. There's the guy who finds what he likes and buys it at the best deal he can and there's the guy that finds what he likes but only buys at his price point. Guy #1 gets what he wants and moves on to the next thing. Guy#2 can get what he wants eventually if the other side gives in or he ends up with a substitute that may or may not work. Veach is obviously #1 and the best example I can think of for #2 was Carl Peterson. [Reply]
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
Who are you counting on to rush the passer off the edge then? They could have put all their eggs into a rookie they traded up for maybe, sure. But if he flops, your defense is a lot weaker as a whole than it is with Clark.
There is no way they end up not giving up a 2nd round pick by Thursday night IMO either way. They would have traded up and used one just like they did for Clark.
So the dilemma is Clark with a $21M salary and moving up 8 spots in the 3rd round, or a rookie for a few million but they aren’t proven to be a good player yet (and even if they are, they won’t be great in year one probably).
We still have a lot of "who will do this?" Who will play ILB. Who besides honey Badger will run a spags scheme that relies on really smart DB's. And it also begs the question of if we could have solved this edge rush earlier in the offseason and saved ourselves the picks... Even begs the question of if we could have just used ford as a one year stopgap until we found a long term solution.
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited as hell to have Clark. I just don't get people swearing off what a 29 and 60-ish pick could do just because they won't be frank Clark calibre. A few years from now when all our contracts expire at once and we have virtually no young pipeline to fill those gaps, we're going to be asking a lot more "who will do this" questions. I hope to God we have a super bowl before then. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
Or you can still be a fan while seriously questioning why they made the move considering what happened with Hunt and what's happening with Hill. I don't give a **** about the optics.
Losing Hunt didn't end up hurting us in the end. We still got HFA, and we still couldn't stop the run against the Pats.
Losing Hill would hurt in the short term, but nobody is irreplaceable. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
We still have a lot of "who will do this?" Who will play ILB. Who besides honey Badger will run a spags scheme that relies on really smart DB's. And it also begs the question of if we could have solved this edge rush earlier in the offseason and saved ourselves the picks... Even begs the question of if we could have just used ford as a one year stopgap until we found a long term solution.
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited as hell to have Clark. I just don't get people swearing off what a 29 and 60-ish pick could do just because they won't be frank Clark calibre. A few years from now when all our contracts expire at once and we have virtually no young pipeline to fill those gaps, we're going to be asking a lot more "who will do this" questions. I hope to God we have a super bowl before then.
We already know who is going to play ILB for the most part. We may not like it but it doesn't make it less true. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
We still have a lot of "who will do this?" Who will play ILB. Who besides honey Badger will run a spags scheme that relies on really smart DB's. And it also begs the question of if we could have solved this edge rush earlier in the offseason and saved ourselves the picks... Even begs the question of if we could have just used ford as a one year stopgap until we found a long term solution.
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited as hell to have Clark. I just don't get people swearing off what a 29 and 60-ish pick could do just because they won't be frank Clark calibre. A few years from now when all our contracts expire at once and we have virtually no young pipeline to fill those gaps, we're going to be asking a lot more "who will do this" questions. I hope to God we have a super bowl before then.
This team was a 5-yard penalty away from the Super Bowl. The "young pipeline" is something we can fret about this weekend and all through this offseason and next offseason. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tmax63:
There's 2 types of negotiators. There's the guy who finds what he likes and buys it at the best deal he can and there's the guy that finds what he likes but only buys at his price point. Guy #1 gets what he wants and moves on to the next thing. Guy#2 can get what he wants eventually if the other side gives in or he ends up with a substitute that may or may not work. Veach is obviously #1 and the best example I can think of for #2 was Carl Peterson.
Carl was the guy who won't buy anything unless it's on sale. Veach seems like the guy who feels it's better to overpay and get exactly what you want than to be left with band-aid solutions.
One of those guys didn't win a Super Bowl in 20 years of trying, the other is already close. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
This team was a 5-yard penalty away from the Super Bowl. The "young pipeline" is something we can fret about this weekend and all through this offseason and next offseason.
Yep. The goal is to win a Super Bowl in 2019. Everything after this is largely immaterial until this time next year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
Or you can still be a fan while seriously questioning why they made the move considering what happened with Hunt and what's happening with Hill. I don't give a **** about the optics.
You’re just not going to have a decent defense with 25 choir boys. It’s not happening. The guy F’ed up when he was what, 21? It happens and virtually every company, including the one that you probably work for, employs guys with things in their past. [Reply]