I would pay him 15 mil per year. The guy was a little bitch for turning us down last year, but it was evident he made a huge impact on games last year in Seattle, even when he wasn't getting sacks he was affecting the pocket on almost every play.I would totally bring him in for 10 mill he’sa good run defender who gets his hands in passing lanes but he definitely overvalued himself
I'm not sure we know this is a long term rebuilding plan.Most likely Clowney's agent told him he was worth $20mm and Clowney bought it. Agents out to be required to pay the difference.
In any case, I'm much happier with the current FAs than Clowney. I'm not a fan of elite players for a rebuilding team
Only disagreement is the definition of "long term." Miami is certainly not in 'win now' mode. Target is likely '22. Clowney on a 3-year deal (I made that up) doesn't help long termI'm not sure we know this is a long term rebuilding plan.
We signed a LOT of FAs to be in a true "build through the draft" rebuild. Especially considering we have 14 draft picks. There was no need to sign all of those FAs if we were content taking the draft approach.
I will not be shocked if we are positioning for a huge trade up. And we will use the back end of the draft to cover holes created by lack of picks in the top end.
There were so many holes, all couldn't be filled in the draft. HAD to sign FAs. Otherwise the rebuild would have been peaking about the time this rookie class deserved new deals.I'm not sure why some believe we are not building through draft because we signed so many FAs. However outside of a Jones pretty much all the other deals were 2 year out with karras a 1 year deal. Most of these guys will be here to push all the rookies.
I mean even van noy is really a 2 year deal.
The day I posted that, I'd seen a lot of things, but the guy right before it typed, ". . .they will out you in the best Laotian for you to succeed. . ."They are fine people who invariably can't spell or comprehend/desire to apply proper grammar.
Juust as bad as 'would of' or 'could of.' I would think the 've' in could've would give it away.The day I posted that, I'd seen a lot of things, but the guy right before it typed, ". . .they will out you in the best Laotian for you to succeed. . ."
Okay, part of that is likely a typo, and the punctuation was bad, but Laotian instead of what I'm guessing was supposed to be position?