I said at the time the Clark trade was made - the biggest issue wasn't that Clark would need to play as well as he'd played in Seattle to justify the acquisition cost and contract - its that he would have to play BETTER.

No, Clark was never as good - even at his very best - as Veach and crew publicly suggested. The skills were just never there on tape. He's always been a high-motor mauler and guys like that just aren't worth what we gave up for him and then paid for him.
[Reply]

If said player was a career backup that was paid top dollar or if a player was an aging vet clearly declining then the GM would be able to more accurately predict his trajectory. Clark does not fit either of those as he was young and playing at a high level and to blame Veach saying it's "his job" to somehow know Clark would underperform at this level is absolutely ridiculous. He has no way of knowing that and your argument stems from your dislike of the trade so you are viewing everything from that lens and it shows. To argue that Veach is average or worse based off of that is weak at best. At least Veach was smart enough to have an out in case he was wrong, which we have.
[Reply]

I couldn’t disagree more. If he had 20 sacks the last 2 years, and was on his way to 10 more, he was absolutely worth it.

You were severely underrating how good he was in Seattle then, and you still are now.

It only appears to be right because he fell off a fucking cliff.
[Reply]

Veach couldnt even hold Dorseys jock strap. The talent disparity between Dorsey guys vs Veach guys in the Cleveland game was very obvious
[Reply]

Umm what?

Who?

Myles Garrett? Was is that difficult to take the consensus #1 pick?

Baker Mayfield? He took the wrong QB. Give me Allen, Lamar, or even Darnold over that fucking loser.

Nick Chubb? Congrats on hitting on a RB.

The Browns didn’t start winning until they got the HC right and rebuilt that OL, 2 things Dorsey had absolutely nothing to do with.
[Reply]

Garrett wasn't even a Dorsey pick, right? I thought he started in 2018. Don't think it's a coincidence that both teams had to completely overhaul their defenses to be legitimate contenders too. Dorsey has a pretty good eye for talent and he's a real good jump starter when it comes to rebuilds but he seems to be at best average to below average on most other parts of the GM job, especially since he seems to want to be the head honcho instead of second in command to an established coach.
[Reply]

How many of those "Dorsey" guys were top 10-15 picks? Outside of KC trading up from 27 to 10 to get Mahomes, when was the last time KC drafted that high? His #1 pick, Mayfield, is underwhelming at best. Also if Dorsey is such a great GM why isn't he one then?
[Reply]

Nope. Garrett was drafted the same year as Mahomes.
[Reply]

You’re right.

So, other than Nick Chubb, their game manager #1 overall pick at QB, and stealing Kareem Hunt away, Dorsey has very little to do with the Browns being as good as they are today.

Obviously he had some other good picks as well (Ward), but they don’t have the impact all of those other moves that Dorsey didn’t make do.
[Reply]

A slightly above average run defender who gets 10 sacks/season isn't worth $20+ million in AAV and a 1st and 2nd round pick.

No, if he were the same player he was in Seattle, I wouldn't have thought he was worth it. Sadly - he has been FAR worse than that.

I ask exactly what I asked then - what actual skills did he demonstrate? He wasn't a good hand fighter, he wasn't a superior speed rusher, he wasn't this powerful bull rusher. He didn't go out there and layer moves unless you count that pathetically predictable spin move.

He was then and has only been at his very best, a scrapper. Those guys have value - we could badly use one right now. But they aren't worth that kind of cap space and draft capital.
[Reply]

He was arguably top 5 edge rusher over that 3 year span man. It’s like you’re talking about him as if he were a JAG.

I also don’t think all 1st round and 2nd round picks are equal. We traded the 29th pick in a weak draft. The Seahawks took LJ Collier with that pick for crying out loud.

The contract would’ve been difficult to live up to, but again, if we were talking about a guy that’s racking up 30 sacks during that span, and we’re going to and winning SBs, I’m pretty sure I could’ve lived with it.

I think it was worth it for the Super Bowl alone personally. It’s just now that that’s over, it doesn’t quite feel like it in the present moment. Gun to my head, I wouldn’t take it back not knowing what would’ve happened without it though.
[Reply]

Who you're describing is essentially Cameron Jordan. He's made about $12 million/yr in the contracts given to him after his rookie deal. Let's say he plays out the final 3 years of his deal and the Saints will have paid him roughly $120 million over 10 years. And frankly, the odds are pretty high that he takes a pay cut in there somewhere.

And Clark has never been close to the kind of player Jordan was in '17 before he signed the deal he's playing on now. Danielle Hunter has been a better player than Clark was in Seattle and he signed a 5 year deal worth $72 million.

No, Clark was NEVER worth what he was paid. Even if he played at the level he demonstrated. And that's exactly why that trade/extension was a mistake.
[Reply]

It’s just a weird move. On the surface, it’s obviously a bad trade at the end of the day.

But it was a trade that was made to win a SB, and we won a SB, and Clark’s impact during that run was big enough to say it might not have happened without him.

Again, if you go back in time and don’t make that trade, it’s entirely possible you’re in a better situation today, but with no SB ring yet.

Give me the sure thing ring.
[Reply]

He was in a tier with guys like Brandon Graham, who at his APEX was making $13 million/season and for most of his career was nearer $9-10 million.

Brett Veach paid for the guy he wanted Frank Clark to be - not the guy he'd demonstrated himself to be.
[Reply]

Graham has never had 10 sacks in a season. Clark averaged that over that 3 year span.

Again, you were underrating him a bit then, and you still are now.
[Reply]