As a serious assertion this is one of the most foolish ideas advanced here in quite a while IMO.
That's funny. I thought the same of your endorsement of McGinn's article in your original post.
You say you advanced it to demonstrate the importance of the LT position but then call it a ridiculous proposition. That kind of contradiction makes the opposite point. And if you called it ridiculous because the trade would never be made, that's correct - because Thompson would have lost his mind to agree to such a trade. And I think it's telling you continue to "walk back" that admittedly ridiculous idea.
I referred to it as a "ridiculous proposition" because such a one-for-one swap of marquee players would never occur.
In a vacuum, I value Matthews and Thomas similarly as players and, yes, I think Thomas' value to the Packers is greater because our entire offense seems to shut down when teams get pressure on Rodgers. Although the absence of Matthews is a huge blow for the defense, I don't think it shuts down to the same degree.
You're not of the same opinion. So be it. You'll be happy to learn that I have no power over the Packers roster, much less the opportunity to act on such a ridiculous trade offer were it to come about.
Some seem to be posting as though LT is the only problem on the OL and that Newhouse is worth next to nothing. Couldn't disagree more. If the rest of the OL was solid, he'd be good enough at LT IMO. BTW, once you complete that "trade", who starts at LT? And it's not only the season-starting OL that has to pass the "adequate" test, the "reasonably expected to play" depth does too. (IOW, no team could overcome losing four starting OL.) Depth on the OL is where the Packers are falling down IMO.
Part of the reason, I called the entire Thomas-for-Matthews swap "ridiculous" was because I wasn't interested in hyper-analyzing potential outcomes for such a pie-in-the-sky idea on my part.
Although LT isn't the only problem with our offensive line, it seems like reshuffling around an elite LT would certainly boost the performance of the unit as a whole. But it probably isn't a one player solution (the same principles apply on the defensive side of the ball as well). So what if the hypothetical deal were Clay in exchange for four "solid" offensive linemen?
BTW, I agree with you about the Packers' depth issues at OL and, in reality, there's no "silver bullet" solution. It's going to take a year or two (or three) of drafts, maybe some smart FA signings...
mradtke66 has been posting good points on this thread IMO and this is the essence of the great LT vs. the great pass rusher argument. And BTW, Clay is great vs. the run as well.
He's made some good points.
As far as walking back my original statement, sure. I would not actively shop Clay if I were managing the Packers. But I think there are very few elite LTs in the NFL that can be relied upon to neutralize elite pass rushers one-on-one. Thomas is one of the few. Given the composition of our offense, where virtually everything depends on Rodgers distributing the ball to our receivers, I value such elite LTs very highly. Yes, the loss of Clay would be a major blow for the defense.
If I managed a different roster then I might come down differently on such a swap.
P.S., Clifton was a pro bowler in 2010. He was better than "good enough" in protection.