Originally Posted by RealSNR:
Dude, you're either choosing to not acknowledge the point or you're actually not seeing it.
When you get a $100 million contract as a pass rusher, the expectation is that you disrupt some shit to benefit the defense. A coverage sack is cleaning up the brilliant work done by the secondary. Yes, the best pass rushers still get coverage sacks, and getting the coverage sack is better than just letting the QB sit back there for 20 seconds until something finally busts open. But if that's ALL you ever get as an edge rusher, you're not elite. You're not worth the $100 million contract. Hell, you're probably not worth half of that depending on the other parts of the position you either do well or don't do well.
Or, if I may put it differently... a guy who only gets coverage sacks is like an Alex Smith when it comes to rushing the passer. If you've got good "protection" and your secondary is giving you time then you can usually make the play. But if you can't from time to time beat your blocker and actually DISRUPT THE DAMN PLAY instead of waiting for it to just slowly collapse thanks to excellent coverage, then all you're doing is managing the pass rush... taking what you're given instead of being the catalyst for the rest of the defense to have success.
Frank Clark hasn't been a catalyst for this defense's success very often this year. If at all. If I'm being generous, he's been an Alex Smith as a pass rusher. If I'm being truthful, he just ****ing sucks.
How many defenders that were on this team last year have played as well or better this season?
Hitchens? Maybe Breeland?
Seems like everyone has played worse and our highly paid stars aren’t earning their pay. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Actually, no they don't.
All of them lose yardage occasionally and all of them gain yardage occasionally. Even Tyreek Hill gets caught backing up and loses yards once in a while.
That being said, that's not even the point. It really doesn't matter if Robinson doesn't have the ability or not. It has to be COACHED out of him.
And as you can see from the fact that they ALL do it, Andy Reid has no intention of coaching them to do anything else.
The only issue I have with going backwards is sometimes Kelce takes more damage than he needs to.
DeAndre Hopkins is the master at just knifing his way to the turf, giving himself up when he knows that one more yard isn't worth getting blasted. Marcus Allen was also great at avoiding big hits. When Kelce goes backwards, more players, usually linebackers, are able to get to Kelce to put a hit on him, and if he doesn't get hit, ends up with 3 guys falling on him.
An extra yard isn't worth losing Kelce to an injury.
I would really like to know if they work on hook & laterals in practice. That play with Kelce to Shady in Detroit was nice, but improvised.
With our team speed, I bet we could house some of those plays. I remember watching the Kellen Winslow game (everyone knows the game I'm talking about) and seeing the "hook & ladder" play for the first time in my life. It was quite the play.
Is it public knowledge or he talked about having Chron’s disease? Maybe he’s dealing with the side effects this season? Trying to play through? [Reply]
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
Dude, you're either choosing to not acknowledge the point or you're actually not seeing it.
When you get a $100 million contract as a pass rusher, the expectation is that you disrupt some shit to benefit the defense. A coverage sack is cleaning up the brilliant work done by the secondary. Yes, the best pass rushers still get coverage sacks, and getting the coverage sack is better than just letting the QB sit back there for 20 seconds until something finally busts open. But if that's ALL you ever get as an edge rusher, you're not elite. You're not worth the $100 million contract. Hell, you're probably not worth half of that depending on the other parts of the position you either do well or don't do well.
Or, if I may put it differently... a guy who only gets coverage sacks is like an Alex Smith when it comes to rushing the passer. If you've got good "protection" and your secondary is giving you time then you can usually make the play. But if you can't from time to time beat your blocker and actually DISRUPT THE DAMN PLAY instead of waiting for it to just slowly collapse thanks to excellent coverage, then all you're doing is managing the pass rush... taking what you're given instead of being the catalyst for the rest of the defense to have success.
Frank Clark hasn't been a catalyst for this defense's success very often this year. If at all. If I'm being generous, he's been an Alex Smith as a pass rusher. If I'm being truthful, he just fucking sucks.
Let's be clear: I never said there was no such thing as a "coverage sack."
What I said was "show me where I can find the stat listed "coverage sacks." Because that dip I was responding to kept asking the question, "how many of Frank's sacks have been coverage sacks this season?" Well, I don't know about you, RSNR, but the only way to find the actual number of "coverage sacks" for a player would be to go back through every sack by that player over the asked for range of games. And I'm not doing that. So I told him to stop asking that question because it's dumb.
Now if I'm wrong, and there is a site that separates out "coverage sacks" then I'm happy to apologize to all and sundry. But I have never seen any site that does this, have you?
As for the rest, as I've stated numerous times, I don't give a flying you-know-what how much they're paying Clark. Doesn't mean a thing to me, since I'm not the one writing the checks. I don't really get the preoccupation with trying to equate game to game performance in one particular stat column with a multi-year contract. It's nonsensical. And even if I did, Clark Hunt isn't paying Frank to sack QBs. He's not a sack artist. We had two of those, and we know how that worked out.
Frank is not a sack specialist. Everyone knew he got about 10 sacks a season when they signed him. 10 sacks is not an elite level number. Frank is a Swiss Army knife. He does things well/serviceably that Dee Ford and Justin Houston could or would not. And since we've enumerated those things before, I won't bother to again here. But watching Dee Ford run around in coverage like a literal chicken with its head chopped off springs to mind right now. Did he ever find the RB on that play? Is he still trying to find that guy?
The same can be said of Tyrann. He's not a prototypical safety, anymore than Frank is a pass-rush specialist. He's too short, he's not fast enough, he doesn't have great length, etc. But he's another Swiss Army knife. You can insert him just about anywhere, ask him to do just about anything, and he'll make plays.
Frank makes plays, and Spags can insert him all over the place, even in coverage and get a decent performance out of him. Sometimes they aren't flashy, sometimes they are. But who gives a rat's ass if Frank gives us a sack to "ooh," and "aah," over, so long as he makes the plays he needs to make, and just as importantly doesn't screw up a bunch of plays, like he did last night at the end of the game?
This is exactly why the "great" defenses we had back in 2014 or whatever pissed me off so bad. Because they had all the flashy stats, "the most sacks, the best 3rd down conversion rate, blahblahblah" and all that other stuff everyone loves to point at and giggle over. Because when we needed those stats to jump off the paper and do something on the field, nothing happened. They were useless. And those great defenses got smoked.
This defense as constructed will never be those defenses. Maybe never be 75% of those defenses. But this defense plays well together under Spags, they make adjustments, and they play well situationally on a fairly consistent basis. In other words, they are a better TEAM than those "great" Chiefs defenses of the past.
And Frank helps make those things happen, by doing whatever Spags asks him to do, even if it means spending fewer snaps chasing QBs. Which sometimes happens. Or has happened, to be more accurate. So whatever they're paying him, as long as Spags and the rest of the defense love him, great by me. I'd rather my team have the rings than the stats all day long.
Though i notice no one in this thread seems willing to give credit when credit is due either. Frank put the heat on Brady that forced TB to throw those two errant passes for INTs, but no one mentions it. Why? Because "QB pressure" isn't an accepted stat? Even though anyone's that followed the game for more than a season has heard the term a hundred times? Or that anyone that's played the game knows that pressuring the QB is a real thing? That the QB can be pressured into making bad decisions, throwing bad balls, etc. just by a defender getting close enough to him? Oh, PFF began using the term as a stat column, so now we don't care to recognize it? Okay. Whatever.
But I also realize that you and others just aren't happy unless those boxes get filled in with satisfactory numbers. I do get it. I wanted to try and get people to see another way of looking at the defense and Frank Clark in this thread. But it's a waste of my time.
Not your fault. Mine for trying to fix something no one wants to be fixed.
You don't pay someone 100mil to be a Swiss army knife who can't get sacks :-).
Sacks aren't even a "flashy" stat for a defensive end. It's literally their primary responsibility. They're supposed to get after the qb on pass plays.
I don't give a fuck if frank clark is the best coverage defensive end that has ever existed if he's not getting after QBs with regularity.
The funniest thing is that the same people who acts like sacks aren't as important as we make them out to be are the same people who cite how legendary Clark's 5 sacks were last post season. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
You don't pay someone 100mil to be a Swiss army knife who can't get sacks :-).
Sacks aren't even a "flashy" stat for a defensive end. It's literally their primary responsibility. They're supposed to get after the qb on pass plays.
I don't give a fuck if frank clark is the best coverage defensive end that has ever existed if he's not getting after QBs with regularity.
The funniest thing is that the same people who acts like sacks aren't as important as we make them out to be are the same people who cite how legendary Clark's 5 sacks were last post season.
Chiefs sack total 2014: 46, Houston 22, Poe, 6, Hali 6, Bailey 5
Chiefs sacks total 2015: 47
Chiefs sack total 2018: 52, Jones 15.5, Dee Ford 13, Houston 9
No rings.
Yay, and there was much rejoicing.:-) At least we got them sacks though, am I right?
Sacks are not a reliable indicator of how good a defense is. And as we've seen, especially in the playoffs.
But you keep thinking that sacks are the be-all end-all of playing DE. That's what good ole Bob Sutton thought as well. For all the good it did him or the Chiefs.
Fuck sacks. Pressure the QB and force the SOB to make mistakes, or get scared. Like Frank did last night, generating two INTs. Not his fault the offense didn't convert them into points. And Spags doesn't seem terribly worried about it either.
Who is the person that matters, not you or me. If Spags cared about Clark and Jones getting more sacks he'd send them upfield more often, and they'd never be in coverage. or playing the run. Spags wants to create pressure and confusion, period. Getting sacks just helps that along. But they aren't the end-game. They are just a tool in the toolbox. And unlike Sutton, Spags has lots of tools in his box, and he's not worried about stat totals. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Chiefs sack total 2014: 46, Houston 22, Poe, 6, Hali 6, Bailey 5
Chiefs sacks total 2015: 47
Chiefs sack total 2018: 52, Jones 15.5, Dee Ford 13, Houston 9
No rings.
Yay, and there was much rejoicing.:-) At least we got them sacks though, am I right?
Sacks are not a reliable indicator of how good a defense is. And as we've seen, especially in the playoffs.
But you keep thinking that sacks are the be-all end-all of playing DE. That's what good ole Bob Sutton thought as well. For all the good it did him or the Chiefs.
Fuck sacks. Pressure the QB and force the SOB to make mistakes, or get scared. Like Frank did last night, generating two INTs. Not his fault the offense didn't convert them into points. And Spags doesn't seem terribly worried about it either.
Who is the person that matters, not you or me. If Spags cared about Clark and Jones getting more sacks he'd send them upfield more often, and they'd never be in coverage. or playing the run. Spags wants to create pressure and confusion, period. Getting sacks just helps that along. But they aren't the end-game. They are just a tool in the toolbox. And unlike Sutton, Spags has lots of tools in his box, and he's not worried about stat totals.
I think the difference in those years were Patrick Mahomes vs. Alex Smith. But that's just me though. :-) I guess in your mind Frank Clark was the difference between us winning the superbowl those years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
Yeah that ben neimann sure is a good player
Every team has bad players.
But nothing about this team as a whole is bad. Why find something to bitch about every week? You’re the same person that was bitching about Hardman until your attention turned to Clark. Why are you so miserable? [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Every team has bad players.
But nothing about this team as a whole is bad. Why find something to bitch about every week? You’re the same person that was bitching about Hardman until your attention turned to Clark. Why are you so miserable?
When did I ever say the team as a whole was bad? Are you making up shit in your head again? Stop it Stay. [Reply]
