Originally Posted by mcaj22:
I thought a report came out the Texans cane to the Chiefs about Clowney and the Chiefs wanted no part of him. They were absolutely locked in on Clark to the point they overbid against themselves.
I would be really curious what evaluation factors the Chiefs use...old school eye talent/tape or full blown analytics. It certainly isnt moneyball I know that and nobody anymore can say Clark is cheap. This group has gotten ownership to constantly overpay for players more than I have ever seen. Most of them have backfired terribly.
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Clowney couldn’t get double-digit sacks playing with Watt and Mercilus for 4 years. He’s on pace for like 5 sacks this year.
He’s been a bust if you compare the hype he got coming out of college.
You didnt watch that game last night did you?
The guys been great this year and destroyed the 9ers yesterday. You're just not watching him if you insist on banging this drum. He does so much more than just rush the passer and if that's all you wanted then you should've loved Dee Ford. [Reply]
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Houston wasn't trading Clowney to an AFC team... Stop with the we should have Clowney instead of Clark...it never would have happened.
That's not what's been reported.
He would've cost more than the 3rd Seattle gave up but a 2nd likely gets it done.
Yes, it absolutely could have happened. Veach locked in and overpaid. As is his custom. [Reply]
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Houston wasn't trading Clowney to an AFC team... Stop with the we should have Clowney instead of Clark...it never would have happened.
That's not true. The Texans did inquire about trading Clowney to the Chiefs, but the Chiefs were not interested because they were already very much dialed in on Frank Clark. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Bullshit. Frank Clark has been an average run defender and system rusher his whole career.
The Texans built schemes around Clowneys versatility and his ability to dominate was on clear display last night against an undefeated football team. Clark was a situational rusher who the Seahawks ditched the moment it was time to pay him.
Again - find me a 3 time pro bowler who's worse than a direct contemporary with ZERO honors from the league. Clark's excellence is a myth manufactured on CP to justify a ****ing terrible decision by Veach and had the Raiders made that decision you'd have laughed your ass off.
Then stop paying these guys big money. Seriously. Not Clark, not Clowney, not Jones.
How many huge contracts to defensive players have produced the ROI in your lifetime?
Houston’s knee, Berry’s Achilles, Clark’s nerve damage, Honey Badger being lazy. Jesus I’m so sick and tired of putting everything into these guys and see why the Patriots don’t do it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Then stop paying these guys big money. Seriously. Not Clark, not Clowney, not Jones.
How many huge contracts to defensive players have produced the ROI in your lifetime?
Houston’s knee, Berry’s Achilles, Clark’s nerve damage, Honey Badger being lazy. Jesus I’m so sick and tired of putting everything into these guys and see why the Patriots don’t do it.
I'm on board with this. Pick and choose wisely if you do and keep it to a minimum. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TEX:
I'm on board with this. Pick and choose wisely if you do and keep it to a minimum.
Problem we had this offseason is the defense was soooo bad last year and then add a scheme change to the mix, we had to sign some FA guys to improve for a real SB run.
Safety was a HUGE need, and we weren't keeping Houston at his salary so cutting him opened a bunch of $ available to spend on defense and needed a pass rusher.
The results have been hit and miss really. I know the last loss makes it look bad but the defense is better and has shown flashes of real improvement but its been a 2 steps forward one step back kind of season so far.
People wanted a middle of the road defense, well we have one. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Aspengc8:
It's not an option, its inside zone down blocking and a double on the playside 3 tech. Tannehill is handing off regardless, its the play call. Later on they did come back and run bootleg and even waggle by pulling a lineman across. Jones is just too slow to scrape down and then still recover on a boot. He's great if teams are running more outside zone as he can hold point of attack vs TE's, but when teams run away you need to be able to read/scrape and recover.
The actual play call is not the point. In that moment in time Chris Jones didnt know what the play call was. All he knows is that his responsibility is to make sure no one gets around the edge. Hes not supposed to crash down because he knows that Tannehill could still have that ball. If the Titans see him crashing down, then they are going to call a boot leg and have a big play because Jones isn't doing his job. That is not his responsibility. How is this such a hard concept to follow? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Aspengc8:
It's not an option, its inside zone down blocking and a double on the playside 3 tech. Tannehill is handing off regardless, its the play call. Later on they did come back and run bootleg and even waggle by pulling a lineman across. Jones is just too slow to scrape down and then still recover on a boot. He's great if teams are running more outside zone as he can hold point of attack vs TE's, but when teams run away you need to be able to read/scrape and recover.
I don’t think there are many DEs in the league who could have kept contain on the bootleg and still been able to collapse on the running back. It’s just too much ground to cover with the DT getting washed so thoroughly.
Hilariously, Clowney is probably one of a handful that actually could cover that much ground. [Reply]
If this is true then JFC what in the ****?! Absolutely no excuse for this at all
Yup. Saw this in real time. Frank Clark was late getting onto the field. Ran on and then ran back out. Henry walked right in. Brendan Daly lit into him on the sidelines. https://t.co/tiw3bHYVtx