Quote:
Originally Posted by Superturtle
Ideally you don't do either of those trades, but I'd still take Clark over Clowney even with those parameters based on the hindsight of Clark actually being a key contributor to the Super Bowl run. Clowney just seems like an even shittier DE version of Hammy Twatkins
|
I said when we made the trade (and even when he was dog-shit into November of '19) that flags fly forever and if Clark was instrumental in a SB, it's hard to call the trade a failure.
But right now, if I could trade Clark for Clowney, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Straight player for player I'd probably still take Clowney and when you factor in their respective contracts and cap hits, it's not a close question.
Last year was a wash at best. Clowney was better when he was on the field, but he wasn't on the field enough (as is his custom). Then again, I'm not sure what Clark actually provided when he was.
I mean the
only benefit Frank Clark has provided this team was a 6 week stretch (ish) at the end of 2019. We could argue just how critical he was in 'closing' wins that were largely decided by the time the sack in question happened (two of which were coverage sacks), but every play counted in the Super Bowl and he made one. So that makes the deal a 'win' in the same way Watkins deal was a win - a bad acquisition in a vacuum that was made palatable by a championship.
Clark is bad. He's been bad for awhile. Injury, motivation, diet - whatever. He's just a bad football player and there's little indication that this is going to change anytime soon.