These Seahawks fans need to avoid “Anti-Clowney” trade argument

It appears we are at the end of the Jadeveon Clowney saga as reports are indicating a trade is imminent. One of the teams connected to the former number 1 overall pick is your Seahawks.

Now if you are an average fan of the NFL, you probably have an opinion on the Seahawks trading for Jadeveon Clowney. There are some nice pros and some very obvious cons. But one argument against trading for Clowney doesn’t hold much water and if you have been using it, you should stop.

The argument with the thinnest veil of truth? I’m sure you’ve heard it or read it at least once or twice. It is the old “if they are going to trade for Clowney, they should have just kept Frank Clark“. It is an idea that sounds logical in a vacuum. But transactions don’t happen in a vacuum. Circumstances matter.

Consider where the Seahawks were when they traded Frank Clark. Russell Wilson had just signed his mega extension and the team still didn’t know what the cost of Bobby Wagner and Jarran Reed would be. Since the trade of Clark, Wagner has signed his deal for a bit less than originally thought, and Reed’s off-the-field issues cast a shadow on his future in Seattle.

So, just on that point alone – the Seahawks have more clarity on their cap situation now – the two situations are not apples to apples. But let’s think back even more. When the Seahawks traded Frank Clark, they had just 4 draft picks in the upcoming draft. FOUR!

Seattle desperately needed picks and the Kansas City Chiefs walked into the conversation with a nice haul of high picks ready to hand Seattle, as well as a fat contract to sign Clark to his extension. Seattle was able to use the extra first-round pick to select L.J. Collier and the newfound freedom to trade their original first-round pick.

The trade of Clark help facilitate several others and can be directly linked to the acquisition of Marquise Blair, D.K. Metcalf, Ugo Amadi, Ben Burr-Kirven, Gary Jennings and Cody Barton, in addition to the second-round pick they could, in theory, exchange for Clowney.

Trading Clark for the package they got was a must regardless of whether or not they were willing to give Clark $20+ million AAV (and they weren’t). The simple truth is, the Seahawks are in a much better position to make an aggressive play on an edge rusher now than they were 5 months ago.

They are deeper, acquired more draft capital, and cap space since they traded Clark, putting them in a significantly better position now than when they were trying to keep Clark around. And let’s not forget, Clowney isn’t going to demand the same price tag as Clark because he isn’t as good.

So let me ask you this: Would you rather have Clark? Or Clowney, Blair, Metcalf, Amadi, BBK, Jennings and Barton? The choice is pretty obvious. And even if Clowney is just a rental, you are improving your greatest weakness in a year where your elite QB, MLB, WR, and RB are all in their primes.

So stop saying they aren’t interested in Clowney because “if they were, they should have just paid Clark.” Things change quickly and the Seahawks were in a spot where trading Clark made the most sense. Clark is better than Clowney, no doubt. But the franchise is in significantly better health now than if they had paid Clark the $20 million AAV (Average Auction Value in fantasy football) required to retain him.