![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
2. That has nothing to do with a tag and trade. I’m saying if they could’ve gotten more back for him, they would have done just that. Clark was clearly seen as a 1st round value. Flowers value wasn’t seen as “slightly” less than that. Do you get my point yet? |
It’s pretty obvious that Flowers and Ford had similar value. Just like Clark is significantly better than Ford, he’s significantly better than Flowers who’s never had more than 7.5 sacks in a season and nowhere near the level of pass rusher.
|
Quote:
Hitchens and Speaks seemed to be playing out of position...Veach gets one more year. The Berry, Amerson, Scanderick, Parker fiasco was not a good start though...almost criminally negligent and it cost KC a SB. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Damn ... Terez is one persistent mother ...
He was the dude who anointed Ragland as the second coming of DJ and he's still carrying holy water for the guy. Incredible. Are they related or something? FAX |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It's a lot of money to pay for a talented player with baggage. But he fits the scheme, and Houston and Ford were not going to be part of the picture. I would've been fully erect if the Pats got a player of this ability. As for Flowers, the same way Brady makes average WRs look better, Belichick makes average players look better. Even great players (e.g. Richard Seymour) don't shine as bright once they leave. So, no, Flowers is no Clark.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I have gone to a lot of Seahawk games down the I-5 and I can tell you he’s pretty impressive. Very disruptive borderline unblockable. He’s a stud and on top of that he feels disrespected. This will be a lethal combo
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.