Originally Posted by O.city:
I don't think it's wrong to expect a guy making that kinda coin to produce all the time.
It's dumb to care once we see him do it when it matters tho.
No pass rushers are productive in every game. Go back and look at the statsheets for Reggie White, Charles Haley, Bruce Smith, even Derrick Thomas; all of them had hot and cold streaks. Some of the guys I just mentioned went nearly whole seasons without picking up a sack. Frank's production is no different. Except for the fact that when the lights are brightest, on the biggest stages he tends to find another level and perform like a Reggie White or a Charles Haley. Something that definitely wasn't the case with Justin Houston or Dee Ford.
Call me "reckless," but I'll always take the guy that makes it happen when it matters most over the guy that sprinkles me with "splash plays" here and there during the regular season and then disappears in the playoffs. [Reply]
Yep, sacks are important because they can result in a big loss but pressures are almost just as valuable. Id rather have a guy with 40 pressures and 8 sacks over a guy with 25 pressures and 15 sacks.
Also I really hate using pace for sacks. Through 4 games Frank was on pace for 12 sacks. 2 games later with no sacks and he's on pace for 8. So I'm not gonna put much stock into pace.
Right now Chris Jones is tied for 5th in pressures with 19 and Frank Clark is tied for 17th with 15. 4 pressure separate Clark from being top 5. I'm not too worried. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
True. Let's just not get carried away.
Do we WANT to see more from Frank Clark? Absolutely.
Is it absolutely necessary if this team is going to repeat? No, not really.
There's a middle ground between "he sucks" and "he's fine". The reality is that he needs to improve but right now, the team is fine if he doesn't.
I think I'm being reasonable. I don't think he sucks. Clearly he's very good. I just don't think anyone's out of line for expecting more from a player we gave up so much draft capital and millions to bring in.
Right now he's got a Watkins type of thing going where he's just kinda blah during the season then turns up in the playoffs. Obviously it's great to have a guy who shows up when it matters most, but where I can easily attribute a lot of Watkins' lack of production to injury/being the third or fourth option/ etc, I can't make similar excuses for Clark. Why does he have so few sacks, pressures, and QB hits when we're basically in the lead like 90% of the time?
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
We ha a guy that had a lot of sacks and splash plays. His name was Dee. Remember?
I honestly don't care about splash plays, because that's what they are; fireworks, but not necessarily effective. If I wanted splash plays, I'd have been banging the table to keep Ford.
And more importantly Veach didn't get Clark to get a bunch of splash plays. He got him for a variety of reasons, including his consistency, run defense, and leadership. Which we've been getting in spades.
And most of you complainers haven't really been watching Clark play except during the live broadcast or at all, or you'd already know that he's taking care of a lot of business that doesn't necessarily make it onto the statsheet.
Or that he has more than two moves, including his favorite move which none of the bitchers have even mentioned, so I'm pretty sure that those of you haven't really been paying attention to Frank play since he got to KC.
I think you guys need to go back and actually watch Frank play, then come back and make comments that are based in reality.
Blah blah blah.
Right now we've got one DE getting paid $100m and a bunch of replacement level DEs opposite him. Clark is not producing at a level commensurate with his pay. He really doesn't look much better than guys like Taco and Okafor.
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
receivers being 10 yards open was the main problem against Las Vegas...
That had a lot to do with the lack of pass rush. Frank's whopping 1 tackle and 0 sacks didn't contribute much. Ruggs and Agholor don't end up so wide open downfield if someone on the D line could get home on the rush. We had to send the house far too many times which left the CBs on islands.
Originally Posted by KChiefs1:
He had a better game than Chris Jones.
Wharton put them both to shame.
I'm not gonna bash Frank Clark, but I'm also not gonna let people tell lies. Chris Jones was a beast yesterday and played much better than Clark. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
I think I'm being reasonable. I don't think he sucks. Clearly he's very good. I just don't think anyone's out of line for expecting more from a player we gave up so much draft capital and millions to bring in.
Right now he's got a Watkins type of thing going where he's just kinda blah during the season then turns up in the playoffs. Obviously it's great to have a guy who shows up when it matters most, but where I can easily attribute a lot of Watkins' lack of production to injury/being the third or fourth option/ etc, I can't make similar excuses for Clark. Why does he have so few sacks, pressures, and QB hits when we're basically in the lead like 90% of the time?
Blah blah blah.
Right now we've got one DE getting paid $100m and a bunch of replacement level DEs opposite him. Clark is not producing at a level commensurate with his pay. He really doesn't look much better than guys like Taco and Okafor.
That had a lot to do with the lack of pass rush. Frank's whopping 1 tackle and 0 sacks didn't contribute much. Ruggs and Agholor don't end up so wide open downfield if someone on the D line could get home on the rush. We had to send the house far too many times which left the CBs on islands.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Great, you want "more." Of course, you're going to have to be specific as to what "more" is. On which plays, specifically, would you have preferred he did "more"? On those plays, what should he have done differently to arrive at "more"?
Saying "more sacks" or "more pressures" means absolutely nothing without specific contest. But you know that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Even Chris Jones has lapses in his game, particularly against the run.
Everyone has lapses in their game, but that doesn't mean he's not consistently wrecking shit. Everyone outside of Patrick Mahomes has bad games.
Chris Jones is a lot better at run defending than people give him credit for. He's not blowing his assignments or cheating and leaving gaps wide open. He's become an elite all around DT. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
That had a lot to do with the lack of pass rush. Frank's whopping 1 tackle and 0 sacks didn't contribute much. Ruggs and Agholor don't end up so wide open downfield if someone on the D line could get home on the rush. We had to send the house far too many times which left the CBs on islands.
Rushing the house and leaving the CB's on islands was a big part of the game plan.
That has been the blueprint to beat Carr for going on 4 years now.
Spags dialed up his typical Raiders defense and it backfired on him because Carr actually dared to throw the ball deep.
The weren't blitzing because they couldn't get there with 4, they were blitzing because that's what they've always done to the Raiders and it didn't work this time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Great, you want "more." Of course, you're going to have to be specific as to what "more" is. On which plays, specifically, would you have preferred he did "more"? On those plays, what should he have done differently to arrive at "more"?
Saying "more sacks" or "more pressures" means absolutely nothing without specific contest. But you know that.
What? Why does saying he needs to get more pressure need context? Okay, here's some context, he needs to get more pressure on the downs when he is rushing the passer? Or how about this, he needs to beat the guy pass blocking him more often? [Reply]
One thing that is contributing to lower pass rush numbers for this team is they have been involved in three absolute blowouts where the starters are being rotated out by the fourth quarter.
Also, Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson must have escaped at least 5 or 6 sacks combined.
Clark will have a couple big games down the stretch and everyone will forget about this. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Rushing the house and leaving the CB's on islands was a big part of the game plan.
That has been the blueprint to beat Carr for going on 4 years now.
Spags dialed up his typical Raiders defense and it backfired on him because Carr actually dared to throw the ball deep.
The weren't blitzing because they couldn't get there with 4, they were blitzing because that's what they've always done to the Raiders and it didn't work this time.
The Raiders O line absolutely stonewalled the Chiefs D Line, it was embarrassing. Not that it bears full responsibility for the loss, the secondary absolutely fell apart as well. [Reply]