Quote:
Originally Posted by -King-
Why do you keep forgetting about me saying I would draft a first round DE? How convenient?
And what were your plans to replace Clark? You were for it until we brought him back.
|
Because FACTS happened. I don't know why you don't understand that.
The difference between keeping Clark and cutting his is like $1.2m. You can't replace even his very pedestrian production for anywhere near that. And it makes cutting him next year if you want more palatable too.
You wanted to line up a rookie first rounder and a bunch of UDFA scrubs. That's a recipe for disaster. I don't know about you, but I'm really tired of watching the likes of Sorensen and Niemann taking meaningful snaps.
You wanted to restructure everyone and push all the money forward; and the bill comes due, ya know. Then you're screwed, and your stars walk and you've got nothing. Welcome to Seattle.
It's a matter of short term view vs. long term view.
And the short term view is: Look, it's been two years of not good enough. Why are we tripling down on this? Everyone else went all in and loaded up to beat WASP. Now THEY will all be forced to make difficult decisions a couple of years down the road, when we'll be cruising on a bunch of young talent.
The long view is that trading Hill gives us a real chance to BE that dynasty. Keeping Hill...probably not. We're already in diminishing returns. Not because Hill isn't great-but because we can't field enough quality players all around him. What's the point? There isn't one.
I was against it until I realized 1)just what a haul we'd get and 2)Just what keeping him was going to mean in the future.
this is the smart play.
Rip the band-aid off.