I'M the one that won't admit I'm wrong?!?! Good lord, look at this nonsense from Clay. I've conceded at least twice that Clark's had good games. And another that I saw as adequate. Clay will tell you that Clark has played well every damn game!!!

Look at the mental gymnastics he's undertaking here. Did you hear Thornhill's interview after the game? The Chiefs knew that route was coming, they'd practiced that play. Thornhill said he read it all the way and was baiting Carr in the hopes that he'd throw it. And he did - it had NOTHING to do with Frank Clark, the Chiefs saw it in tape and Thornhill tricked Carr into making the play. And we have Clay trying to put that shit on Clark's ledger.

Or Jones making a sack when Clark's being handled. But because Carr - a strict pocket passer, didn't sprint to his left then Clark not tripping over his own damn feet on the play means he deserves partial credit for Jones sack now.

I mean, I guess it's better than this:



A play we KNOW Clay would've put out there had he looked at this with even a partially objective lens. But he doesn't. Because in his world, everything Clark does is wine and roses.

But I'm the one that won't admit I'm wrong. About Frank Clark. The "DPOY Candidate" who's had 2 good games and otherwise requires that you resort to "hey, he almost made a play..." and "He's just doing his job..." to defend him. Suuuuuuure.

Originally Posted by petegz28:
Yeah, don't worry about the other team actually executing a play here and there.

Look at the over all game play, you know, where we allowed 9 points.

Defense played great. It played no worse at all when Clark wasn't on the field anymore. Clark was an afterthought yesterday. And that's exactly the point - he doesn't make a difference out there. He's just present far more often than not. And when he's actually playing well, it's OBVIOUS. Yesterday it was clear he was not going to have one of those days. Low and behold, he didn't.

Originally Posted by petegz28:
Always some sort of excuse as to why he does good ....

You call pointing out the fact that he beat a WR in a 1 on 1 situation an 'excuse'? That's a simple statement of fact, champ. When we didn't take the pass rush at face value after sacking Joe Flacco and the inept Broncos 9 times, it was with good reason. When I don't call Frank Clark some run-mauling destroyer of worlds because he tossed a wide receiver out of the way...that seems a fair point.

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
i'd say merely forcing the Raiders to run to one side of the field predominantly IS making a difference

Clark covers 1/4 of the field. You noted they ran at him 4 times, no? How the hell many times SHOULD they be running to their weak side behind their worse OL?

The Raiders ran behind their best OL and to their strong side and that's shocking...how? How is that in any way indicative of Clark being gameplanned against? Especially when there's no indication that they changed ANYTHING when he wasn't on the field?

And it's ALL just mental masturbation to pretend like this is anything APPROACHING the returns anyone expected from the guy. To even begin to make a defense of him you have to say "well hey, at least they didn't run the ball RIGHT AT HIM....well, except for that time they broke one off for 35.
[Reply]

It isn't.

They have to make up their stupid straw men arguments and defend THOSE to have any sort of valid point.

They won't address the fact that a dude that cost a 1st and 2nd to acquire and is among the most highly paid defenders in football requires you giving him credit for the plays made by rookie safeties to defend. Nope - they're gonna say "YOU WANT HIM TO HAVE 20 SACKS BY NOW!!! YOU'RE NOT BEING FAIR!!!"

It's asinine. One side of this discussion has proffered possible explanations for his struggles. They've asked what is different between last year and this year. They've asked where he can improve in technique or physical skills. They've given credit when he's had good games.

One side of this discussion will have a damn discussion. The other bats away straw men and says that pointing out when Clark beats a WR to stop a run play is just picking nits and being hypercritical.
[Reply]

Actually, I mentioned that play as a play where Clark's outside rush got stonewalled.

I'm being plenty objective.

This wasn't the disaster you think it was. It was just a guy who was mostly on the field for running plays, and the sample size on pass rush opportunity is incredibly small.

It doesn't mean much, but because he didn't look like Lawrence fucking Taylor it's a great opportunity for the knee jerk artists around here.
[Reply]

So you cherry pick a snapshot of one moment of one play???? :-)
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

Hardly.

I used that as demonstrative of what Clay could do but chooses not to. It wasn't to make my point at all - it was simply to bat away Tamba's gripe.

SNR pointed it out several posts back - Clark was taking himself out of plays on his rush. Clay will call those "not legitimate pass rush reps" or some other such nonsense in order to excuse them, but that's what he was doing. He wasn't effective off the ball, he wasn't threatening inside. He was simply running out of the play.

But again - the fact that you choose THAT to seize on (and the irony of you calling me out for 'cherry picking' in a post that is way too damn long to begin with) demonstrates what I'm talking about - you people don't have ANYTHING to address if it's not a straw man of your own creation.
[Reply]

I MENTIONED SEVERAL PLAYS HE GOT STONEWALLED

You're inventing shit now.
[Reply]

He wasn't a disaster - he simply didn't matter either way. And then got injured.

And for a dude that cost what he cost, that's wholly unacceptable. A basic rush that amounted to a draw on Jones sack and a play where he tossed aside a WR to make a run stop - that was the extend of his contributions. And it's strange to me that you so often disregard plays when they run away from him, as though it's okay when he just stops on the plays or doesn't get back into them. Those plays that are into the B gap off RG aren't plays that he can just take off. Hell, even plays to the C gap over there are plays he can contribute on. You just hand-waive them. You cite them as a STRENGTH of his somehow.

But if you're watching them in real time you can see that he's being handled on the rep. He's not contributing to team defense. He's just...there. He's not being thrown to the ground or driven into the sideline, but he's just present. He's playing at that "Yeah, that's a good use of a 3rd round pick" level that the Raiders are getting out of Maxx Crosby.

That's unacceptable for this guy and it blows my mind that you feel the need to ride to his defense all the time. He simply isn't playing at a level remotely approaching his compensation or the picks we used on him.
[Reply]

Khalil Mackish
[Reply]

You're trying to credit him for Thornhill's pick and Clark's sack.

That's complete horseshit and nothing resembling 'objective'.

No, he wasn't Lawrence Taylor. He was probably almost as good as Tanoh Kpassagnon.

But I guess that's okay for $105 million. It's "not the disaster I think it is" when the guy gives us 1 truly good game out of every 5 and otherwise needs the white knight brigade to tell us that he was better than we think he was otherwise. Well, when he can actually take the field, that is.
[Reply]

What standard do you have for Clark?
[Reply]

Really all I care about is winning and the defense getting better. I mean it's great to have pass rushing stats like we have seen the last couple years but it came at the expense of sucking at everything else.

We are 6 spots better than we were last year and would be better if not for our run defense. Although we have faced some very good rushing offenses in Baltimore (#1), Indy (#4), Houston, (#7) Ten (#9) and Oakland (#10).

We can argue all day if Clark is worth what you think he should be. All I can say is this defense is better than we had last year and getting better each week and he is a part of it.
[Reply]

Those are team accomplishments. Based on that, you have the same standard for Clark that you do Kpassignon?
[Reply]

I'm not. But he had an impact on those plays.

That flies in the face of this notion that he was "invisible."

Please stop the overreaction. This was just a very small sample size.
[Reply]

More or less, yes. I don't get caught up in all the "he cost us this" hype. It is what it is. Sometimes things take longer to work out than you would like. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes they don't work out at all. Sometimes things work out in a way you completely didn't expect but for the better.

I am not selling the guy down the river because he isn't tearing it up his first year on a new team in a new defense. We know there is an injury issue but we have no idea to what extent it is or isn't effecting his play.

I know that next year there should be marked improvement fro him as well as several others. But I will give it time as unlike Madden and these football games, sometimes these things take time to come together.
[Reply]