Quote
David Deacon
I wonder if Houston Tags Clowney if they would take Brockers and a 1st rounder for him? That would give us the perfect compliment to Donald.
Lots of ripples result from that trade, Deacon.
Would certainly give us a solution at one edge. Big time.
Brockers’ salary savings would pay for 2/3rd of Clowney’s new salary of approx $17 million, so that’s another good thing.
Rams would present a nightmare front to any O.
However...
Trading the 1st might cost us an edge, ILB, CB, or even S that might have fallen out of the top 25 to us. A long term and low cost player for a potential 5 years at least.
It would create a hole where Brockers had been. And holes become harder to fill when one’s 1st has been traded away AND now an extra $6M per is coming out of a dwindling cap total.
We would be left with holes on DL (Brockers), other edge (unless Fowler is extended), ILB (assuming that Barron leaves), and S (Joyner gone). Not insurmountable, but would require S&M to have hits on their remaining picks AND make several shrewd 2nd tier FA acquisitions. Doable, but still a tall order.
The beauty of the Suh signing was that he didn’t cost a draft pick and was willing to settle for $14M. Seemed like a bargain at the time. Downside was that Suh was just a one year rental and he mostly coasted until the playoffs. Such would not be the case with Clowney, of course.
What to do? A case can be made both pro and con. So, I guess I’m fine with the S&M decision either way.
