I implied no intelligence behind the move, just stated a fact when looking at the totality of the situation. And your assertion we could have squeezed a first or second rd out of Seattle is what's asinine. Popular sentiment at the time was you keep him and play it out, recouping at minimum a 3rd comp pick when he left subsequently. That would have been a poor move as he wouldn't have moved the needle last season, and now would have likely cost you some of that precious draft capital everyone speaks about.
He was a pro bowler in 2018. The lack of demand this year after a so so season bears little relevance on what we could (should) have gotten in return, don’t you think?
I don't think teams were bending over backwards to try and acquire Clowney in the midst of a FA year. Partly because if any team truly wanted him, they knew they'd be able to get him now without risking assets. The fact that he's still jobless and not going to be getting elite money IS an indictment of what teams consider to be his true value. At this point, Mario Williams made more pro bowls, and money in his career... and is basically a blip on the radar in terms of being considered a force in NFL history.
Matt Schaub was a pro bowler once. And that's not even the worst comparison I could draw. Don't let anger cloud your judgement. Clowney was never going to get the contract he wanted, nor was he ever going to deliver a return on trade you wanted. He's not as good a player as either of you think.
No. You under the assumption the 31 other NFL teams are not looking at the SAME tape the Texans are. The ONE stat that hurt Clowney's value: No double digit sack seasons for a so-called ELITE pass rusher. He is a glorified run-stopping DT and the league knows it.
Still a sht trade regardless. Trading a first round pick player for jack sht, cap space (that we didn't even use well), and to top it off we paid half the salary for him to play somewhere else.
If Clowney could lose 10 pounds and model Lawrence Taylor. He has the range and obviously the explosiveness.
Part of the rationale for the trade was that Clowney was going to cost to much to resign, so I don't understand how him signing for less makes it look better for the pro-trade argument.
Or you could have resigned him at the lower figure? Or once again franchises him, instead of paying top dollar to a cavalcade of has-beens and never-was's. The point is, he wasnt bank brakingly expensive as we were told was the justification for trading him.
Or you don't know what he would have been offered. Now you wanna criticize for not knowing future or everyone else's valuation. Relax
You guys were the ones projecting valuation, not me. You made a series of suppositions that events have shown to be false. It's not a huge deal to me, just that you are crowing about it as if it somehow makes your position look better when it does exactly the opposite.
And you still apparently dont understand. You guys were saying the value way out of line with the money. Now that the money is a huge amount less, but he is still the same player, you are ****talking like it validates what you've been saying all along, as the mo eye is closer to perceived value. Even if you think he is worth league minimum, it is at best for you a nonfactor. Not somehow evidence on your behalf.
Really don't give a **** about your point. Nobody is paying him. So do your little stupid analysis All I ever said is he isn't that valuable.
My argument is percieved value vs cost. Do you actually read what I'm writing? YOU were the one who responded to MY post on the subject.