Just don't forget this is a contract year for Clark and he knows it.

Don't pay for the platform season, guys. We have a 3 year track record of inconsistent play and oftentimes poor effort.

Would I like to see us keep a player who's contributed to some very strong performances and is familiar with this team and this system? Sure I would - but I ain't gonna pay the guy for 1/2 a season worth of quality play when we've seen so much of it be below par.

If he wants to come back on a Sammy reduction, I'd consider it. But in all likelihood there's just not a cut he'll be willing to take that I would be willing to offer, IMO.
[Reply]

All about how you can rework the deal. You’re looking at $14M in dead money for him, either in 22 or spread over 22 and 23.

What’s better: working out a mutually beneficial deal that gives him some more security on a fair market value deal, or walking away, eating the money, and trying to improve the team with the savings?

It’s a tough call.

If you can rework it so his cap hits in 22 and 23 are lowered and his dead cap amount in 24 and 25 or 25 and 26 are similar, it becomes a much tougher call.

If his market would be similar to Carl Lawson’s, you’re taking about 15-18 AAV, roughly.

Can you get a player as good/impactful for $11M on the open market?
[Reply]

We started the season with 5 (+?) defensive starters injured/unable to play, including Clark/Ward/Gay. Mathieu contracted COVID in there as well. Thornhill, our best S outside of Mathieu, wasn't 100%. That's half the starting lineup. Name any team in any year that was without half their starting lineup for almost two months and played as well as they did in the previous year. It's not a thing.

Add in that two of our starting LBs went elsewhere and we replaced them with rookies/2nd year guys. One of whom didn't play for a few games or mental health reasons. And that we were forced to replace both starting CBs with guys that were essentially rookies.

It's not a coincidence that the defense has played much better once all the starters got healthy.

I believe that Ingram has been listed as a LB for his entire career. As for being 'undersized' not mattering, see Dee Ford.

And I'm not saying we should pay Clark. he probably is too expensive next year.

All I'm saying is that it won't be easy to replace him for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with how many sacks he gets.

Frank Clark is one of the anchors for the defense, just like Tyrann is, and to a lesser extent, just like Hitch. They are the guys with the highest football IQs, the most consistent, the most experienced and capable players at their positions.

if we were talking about the offense, we'd be talking about Mahomes/Hill/Kelce, if that makes sense.
[Reply]

If you throw Clark into the mix, we're going to have to consider whether to pay or not to pay all the following players this offseason:

1. Brown Jr.
2. Mathieu
3. Clark
4. Ward
5. Ingram
6. Reed
7. Hughes
8. Nnadi

And then the next year:

1. Hill
2. Thornhill
3. Fenton

[Reply]

Just tell me what his base salary will be - the rest of it's a sunk cost and I don't really care that much about how we deal with it. It's here whether he is or not.

Gimme a base salary of $10 million next year with some incentives that could get him to $15? Okay - I'd be willing to talk. Then we'd figure out how to structure it to make the cap a little more flexible.

But if he's hell bent on $18 million in 'new' money for next season - he can get gone. Or Even $16 million in guarantees. I'm just not willing to give him any more guaranteed money. We've finally muddled our way through the inescapable years of his deal and there's just no good cause to put yourself BACK into a pickle with him if it's not on your terms. He's not shown the consistent productivity or drive to be worth throwing more large guarantees at.
[Reply]

Would rather just give Clark's money to Ingram and a guy like Ogbah.
[Reply]

Yep, I concur. Can't realistically keep both Mathieu and Clark, unless Veach does some major magic tricks or whatever. My only point has always been that replacing Clark isn't as easy as many here seem to think it'll be. And yeah, I believe that the defense without Clark next season will probably stumble a bit for awhile. how long will depend a lot on how talented and intelligent his replacement will be, since I fully expect Mathieu to stay. Tyrann is more precious than his weight in gold to our defense.
[Reply]

I think that's fair regarding the players out, but slow starts aren't limited to this year. On Ingram I guess perhaps what we call him is less important than how we use him. Do we want him rushing more or covering? I know my preference.

It sounds like we're in violent agreement re Clark probably just being too expensive. I probably agree he won't be a simple replacement and perhaps I'll regret this next year, but I think experienced is often used to suggest intangibles that aren't there. I don't think he's been a consistent performer and I think it is absolutely worth seeing what else we can get at the position. I think Tyrann is an anchor of the defence, I don't think Clark is. But like I say, if we draft poorly at DE and bring in injury-ravaged vets, I'll probably change my tune.
[Reply]

? Spags has only been the DC for three seasons. In Year One he was the new DC, and not only did he have to install a brand-new defense, he had to bring in 8 new starters. That was going to be a work in progress from the get-go. I went on record before the season started saying that the defense would never be better than 15th, but that they would be a top-10 D in 2020. Spags made a liar out of me and turned the defense into a cohesive unit by week 11.

Last season the defense actually started well (all but one starter entered the season healthy enough to play, iirc), giving up just 20 or less points/game until running into the Raiders game. And over the season they only gave up more than 21 points 6 times, more than 24 points just 5 times.

This season again we started with nearly a half-dozen players unable to play or very limited by injury or sickness. And most of their replacements were guys that either were brand-new to the system or brand-new to the NFL, or both. Hardly surprising that they stumbled out of the gate.

As for Clark's experience, well it's a statistical fact that runs to his side when he's on the field average less than 3yds/carry (have to be specific about that as some here like to include snaps where he's on the sidelines). It's also a fact that he blows up screens and passes to the flat on a regular basis.

Hell, look at yesterday's game.

Several times Clark dropped out of the rush and placed himself in the passing lane to either a HB or a TE and you can watch Carr try to go there and then have to reverse field and try to find someone else. At least twice that forced hesitation resulted in either a negative play or a net zero yards play. And Clark does this type of thing in nearly every game. Certainly he does against the Raiders. i forget which game it was now, but when I was watching the coaches replay of a Riaders/Chiefs game last season, the Raiders called at least three plays that involved faking a screen to Clark's side, wasting a pair of blockers, and once a TE as well, just to keep Clark from rushing or otherwise becoming involved in the play.

And no other DE on the roster has shown any consistency in any of those other facets of the game.

Now to be fair our other DEs, outside of Okafor, are relatively young and inexperienced, so there is a chance they'll grow into the position. But the mere fact that Okafor is a vet player and still doesn't have that level of football sense speaks volumes about Clark's intelligence on the field.
[Reply]

You're right on the slow start point, it's fair to say that first year was an anomaly given the circumstances. Point taken.

I don't disagree that our other DEs have been poor - he's been our best performer there, and for that reason I think you're right that it might not be straightforward to replace him quickly. But doing the sort of thing you describe "every single game" is very different to doing it "every single game against the Raiders" let's be honest. He's had as many stretches being an incredibly average rusher as he has a dependable run defender. He's playing well now, he's played poorly before, that's the issue, he hasn't been consistent. For every unseen positive impact there's a whole lot of visible mediocrity.

In any case, perhaps his next contract will give a fairer indication of his value. If he keeps up his current form and he comes back cheap and with similar form, I'll happily eat crow.
[Reply]

First, for the purposes of this particular discussion, I'm not referencing Clark's pass rushing. I mean, let's be honest: he averaged just 9.5 sacks/season coming into KC anyway, so it's not like we thought we were getting Kalil Mack or something. And if we wanted a pass rusher we could've just kept Dee Ford, for crying out loud.

But obviously we wanted someone who could do a lot more than just rush the passer, but could also reliably put some pressure on opposing QBs/OCs is my guess. Clark does that, imo. Yeah, he'll get you some sacks and pressures, but his real value is everything else that he can do at least competently. It makes it much harder to guess what Clark is going to do. For opposing QBs/OCs that's a pretty big problem.

Anyways,

I used the Raiders reference due to recency; I saw the condensed version of yesterday's game last night, so the plays were a lot clearer in my mind.

However, I didn't mean to imply that Clark only gets that sort of treatment from the Raiders, because that's not true at all. Plenty of teams do something to make Clark 'stay at home,' and basically abandon the pass rush.

BAL runs fake sweeps to his side as well as divert some TE packages on fake screens.

DEN doesn't seem to be as creative; they tend to just not run or screen in his direction when he's on the field. In fact, I don't believe DEN ran a single screen at Clark in the game a couple weeks ago.

Last season during the playoffs CLE ran 4-5 times at Clark, and iirc only netted 9 yards. They rolled Baker out once in Clark's direction, and it didn't go well.

Look, I'm not saying Clark is elite at anything, because I don't see him that way. But he's very smart (on the field anyways) and he creates decision-making problems for opposing offenses, specifically their QBs. No other DE on the roster does any of that (most DEs in the league don't either), and Clark can also drop into coverage on TEs and win those matchups a decent percentage of the time.

In my book that makes him an anchor for the defense, because he effectively takes away most of the short field plays on his side of the field, even if he doesn't record a single sack in a particular game. you know he's going to limit rushes to his side and disrupt the short passing game over there as well. There's only a handful of EDGEs that can say the same.
[Reply]

oh my god the quarterback is toast

Clark's power and burst appear to be fully back, which makes his favorite countermove (a spin) much more deadly because it's built off a legit threat to win the edge. pic.twitter.com/noIVExvkIi

— Seth Keysor (@RealMNchiefsfan) December 14, 2021

[Reply]

Get that man an extension!
[Reply]

Clark isn't worth it after this year. Playing part-time year after year just doesn't work that well and people only love him now because he's actually done something for a couple of weeks. You don't pay $100m for a handful of weeks a year that aren't at $1.0m a year quality or less.

And can you replace his production with 12.7m in year one and 21m in year 2 (his actual costs for the next 2 years that aren't already paid and sunk)? I'd venture to say fuck and yes. The first 2 years of Clark's deal were 12.7 and 17.7 m each before he restructured his salary into a bonus to make more room.
[Reply]

I love Clark's play recently.

......but there's no way we extend him, unless its a vet minimum deal of some sort. And I doubt he's gonna play for that kind of money.
[Reply]