Originally Posted by Megatron96:
probably not what Clark was doing. Probably you possess little if any analytical skills. That's kind of a mental coinflip at this point. But probably almost definitely you're trolling.
But you're not interesting about it anymore, so probably not going to continue responding to your trolling efforts until you become interesting again.:-)
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
Well, they basically didn't run at Clark when he was on the field, and I also figured it had something to do with the back-up LT in there. Made sense to run behind the strength of you OL anyway.
But I even posted my observation about them doubling/chipping Frank during the gdt, after I watched them do it 3-4 times in a row.
Of course, it wasn't surprising that Stefanski would do that to Frank. And it sure looked like Spags game-planned with that in mind.
And since no one else seems to have caught on to it, the other thing forcing CLE to chip Frank with Hunt or Chubb did was ruin the timing of their backs coming out of the backfield. Frank ran wide and upfield a lot, forcing their backs to have to actually retreat several yards to get outside leverage to execute their chips. That added at least an extra 1.5-2 seconds to their eventual routes. I had to go back and watch some of the highlight clips on YT last night because Frank's route to Baker seemed extra circuitous, compared to his normal rush.
Some of them appeared to be simply to take away the roll out to the left, but then I noticed just how far Hunt had to run just to get his chip on Frank twice in a row in the 3rd quarter, iirc. He had to run at least 5 yards behind where he started, and it probably added an extra 15 yards total to his route.
I'm pretty sure those extra wide rushes were pre-planned by Spags/Daly. Frank's never tried to rush from 7 yards wide and basically straight downfield before to my knowledge, so why would he suddenly do it last night? Unless it was scripted, like the simulated rush to take away the roll out. Becaue he for damned sure doesn't have the raw speed to cover that much ground against Baker, who we all knew was going to try and get rid of the ball in under 3 seconds.
Excellent couple of posts, thanks. Don't know how you manage to be disciplined enough to watch that stuff during the game. I'm always tunnel vision on the QB. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jerryaldini:
Excellent couple of posts, thanks. Don't know how you manage to be disciplined enough to watch that stuff during the game. I'm always tunnel vision on the QB.
Ha, mostly I don't in-game, other than the instant replays. I'm like every other Chiefs fan; I watch the game and mostly only notice the splash plays, offensively and defensively.
Yesterday was easier because CLE kept repeating the same things over and over, so you could see the similarities from snap to snap. After seeing the chip on Frank three times in a row early in the game I started focusing on Clark. But if he mush rushed, I knew what he was doing and where he was going (or not going), so I usually tried to find Jones or Mathieu.
Clark's play to erase the HB screen was easy, because in the first replay he was basically in the middle of the TV screen to begin with. The ball is snapped, you see Clark start to rush, but right as he engages, he drops back and puts himself right next to Chubb about 5-6 yards behind and to his left a little. Baker sees that, and throws the ball into the ground about halfway between himself and Clark.
You know Clark is probably dropping into coverage if he stands up before the snap. You'll see him get down into his usual four-point stance, look into the backfield, check the receiver(s) to his side, and then sometimes he'll stand up. At least half the time it seems like the play is some kind of screen or pass into the flat, and he'll run to cover the receiver (usually the HB/TE). This is also how some teams try to scheme him out of rushing. They'll fake a screen to his side, and he'll jump it, which takes him out of the rush. So Spags will sometimes send a delayed blitz behind Clark, because he knows teams are scheming Clark away from the OL.
But usually i have to go back and watch highlight reels on YT or actually rewatch the game on NFL.com's GamePass to see details. Slow the playback and zoom in, etc. Multiple times for each snap to actually see everything.
Well, not everything, but as much as I can figure out. [Reply]
Two pressures on the stat sheet against a second string tackle then a third string tackle that had been on the roster a week. That would be a shitty day for K-Pass much less Clark. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Two pressures on the stat sheet against a second string tackle then a third string tackle that had been on the roster a week. That would be a shitty day for K-Pass much less Clark.
How does that stat sheet define "pressure"? How many times did Clark actually rush the passer?
Also, in general, stat sheets have a certain degree of error. But that's another conversation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Two pressures on the stat sheet against a second string tackle then a third string tackle that had been on the roster a week. That would be a shitty day for K-Pass much less Clark.
Again, Dee Ford had lots of sacks, but he absolutely never set the edge and was terrible against the run. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96: :-)
wrong. Go rewatch the game.
What am I wrong about? He held edge contain all game long. He didn't bust through for big plays in the backfield and didn't bring heat on the QB to make any sort of enormous impact. What he did, he did well and I don't have a problem with what he was tasked with doing. That said, I'm far from wrong. There were opportunities for him to make those big plays when he didn't' need to just hold the fort and he didn't'. I think someone else needs to rewatch the game. [Reply]
Clark isn't getting paid to do just the little things you can't see on the stat sheet or on gameday upon first viewing.
All you weirdo defenders know this deep down. You started with, "He'll show up in the playoffs just like last year!" Well, the playoffs are here, and he didn't show up. Now people are just grasping at the old, "It's not all about sacks" argument again.
He's getting paid to make Jim Nantz and/or Tony Romo call his name on gameday for a big play that benefits the Chiefs. Period. That could be a great tackle or a sack or a TFL or a fucking redirect of the blocker that allows someone else to get free and make a big play or whatever. Hell, or fucking drop in coverage and do something there.
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
Clark isn't getting paid to do just the little things you can't see on the stat sheet or on gameday upon first viewing.
All you weirdo defenders know this deep down. You started with, "He'll show up in the playoffs just like last year!" Well, the playoffs are here, and he didn't show up. Now people are just grasping at the old, "It's not all about sacks" argument again.
He's getting paid to make Jim Nantz and/or Tony Romo call his name on gameday for a big play that benefits the Chiefs. Period. That could be a great tackle or a sack or a TFL or a ****ing redirect of the blocker that allows someone else to get free and make a big play or whatever. Hell, or ****ing drop in coverage and do something there.
Do SOMETHING. For ****'s sake.
I disagree. He didn't disappear. He's the one 10 yards behind the quarterback running lateral while the qb is moving vertical.
The problem with Clark the Shark is he ain't swimming where the people are. [Reply]
The reality: Clark hasn't been great. Clark arguably hasn't even been that good. He hasn't lived up to the money we've paid him. He does some things pretty well but he's hardly set the tone in any game we've played this season. I think it's pretty easy to argue that Sneed has been a more valuable player than Clark and Hitchens has performed almost as well. That's not a super high bar.
If you want, blame Veach. Sometimes these things work and they don't for a variety of reasons. Clark helped us win the SB and I'm forever grateful. I love his attitude and love his swagger. I'd still like to see some more consistent performance on the field. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
The reality: Clark hasn't been great. Clark arguably hasn't even been that good. He hasn't lived up to the money we've paid him. He does some things pretty well but he's hardly set the tone in any game we've played this season. I think it's pretty easy to argue that Sneed has been a more valuable player than Clark and Hitchens has performed almost as well. That's not a super high bar.
If you want, blame Veach. Sometimes these things work and they don't for a variety of reasons. Clark helped us win the SB and I'm forever grateful. I love his attitude and love his swagger. I'd still like to see some more consistent performance on the field.
I wasn't upset with the move. I wasn't sold on his play last year, however, the playoffs got me thinking, well he turned the corner. This year, I'm sure hasn't been easy, a whole lot of offseason just gone. That being said, it's time to get it on. If he can't the final 2 (hopefully) games then it's time to go. [Reply]
While he certainly needs to do more than set the edge, in fairness to him, setting the edge is far better than a FUCKTON of other playmakers we've paid at the top of the market.
GOD FUCK we've made some shit big ass contracts. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Two pressures on the stat sheet against a second string tackle then a third string tackle that had been on the roster a week. That would be a shitty day for K-Pass much less Clark.
Originally Posted by kccrow:
What am I wrong about? He held edge contain all game long. He didn't bust through for big plays in the backfield and didn't bring heat on the QB to make any sort of enormous impact. What he did, he did well and I don't have a problem with what he was tasked with doing. That said, I'm far from wrong. There were opportunities for him to make those big plays when he didn't' need to just hold the fort and he didn't'. I think someone else needs to rewatch the game.
Originally Posted by RealSNR:
Clark isn't getting paid to do just the little things you can't see on the stat sheet or on gameday upon first viewing.
All you weirdo defenders know this deep down. You started with, "He'll show up in the playoffs just like last year!" Well, the playoffs are here, and he didn't show up. Now people are just grasping at the old, "It's not all about sacks" argument again.
He's getting paid to make Jim Nantz and/or Tony Romo call his name on gameday for a big play that benefits the Chiefs. Period. That could be a great tackle or a sack or a TFL or a fucking redirect of the blocker that allows someone else to get free and make a big play or whatever. Hell, or fucking drop in coverage and do something there.
Do SOMETHING. For fuck's sake.
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
he got close!
I swear. And honestly I know some of you guys are smarter than this.
How many sacks did PIT get vs. CLE two weeks ago?
With the no. 1 sack-producing defense in the league? And arguably the best edge rusher? C'mon, I know you guys know the answer to this.
ZERO
How many 'pressures' did they get?
QB knock downs?
Did any of you pay attention watching that game?
Does this maybe ring a bell? "Baker Mayfield gets rid of the ball on average in about 2.2 seconds." Some guy, commenting on the game, maybe you had your sound on? Can any of you even name 3 DLs that can get to the QB in under 2.2 seconds? RSNR, I know you're smarter than I am when it comes to individual players' abilities, can you name 3 DLs that can consistently beat the OL in 2.1 seconds? I'm not sure I can name 2. Or even 1.
One of the things I commented on almost a week before the game was that I hoped Spags wouldn't send our best pass-rushers on blitz after blitz trying to get to Baker throughout the game, because it would be a waste of resources. That to have success we'd have to win 1st and 2nd down, and only send Clark in specific situations, AND EVEN THEN OUR DL HAD TO BE VERY DISCIPLINED IN THEIR RUSHES.
Otherwise, defend the run, protect against Baker rolling out to his left, where he's been the most dangerous this season, Don't allow your edge rushers to rush too deep and allow Baker to escape behind the rush, and guard against WR/HB/TE screens.
And how did Spags try to blitz? Oh yeah, he sent CBs. In fact, the only sack we got on Baker was by sending two CBs from either side, and Sneed got home, right?
So, based on what you could clearly see on the field on Sunday, is it reasonable to assume that Spags learned valuable lessons from reviewing the CLE/PIT game? That he didn't even try PIT's attempted solution of sending Watt on his rush, and trailing a LB/S/CB behind TJ to try and keep Baker from leaking out of the pocket, which didn't work for shit?
So when you watched Clark faking rushes, lining up wider than he's really ever lined up, Rushing at an angle that would never actually bring him to the QB, etc., what? You thought Clark was freelancing all of that? That he'd just lost his mind?
You really think Spags would've kept him on the field if any of that were true?
Clark did exactly what he was supposed to do in that game. Exactly what Spags wanted him to do.
What we saw from Clark was disciplined football. Set the edge. Defend the screens. Drop into coverage if necessary. Keep Baker from rolling left. Keep Baker from escaping behind the rush. Check, check, check, check, and CHECK.
JC. Did you guys really think that Jones and Clark were going to get a handful of sacks vs. an OL/QB that just stoned the best pass-rushing DL in football? Especially when the QB gets rid of the ball in 2.2 seconds?
