Originally Posted by RunKC:
Honestly it doesn’t make it very much harder next year bc we traded Tyreek and cashed in on draft picks. The last 2 drafts have helped us gain significant leverage. And we have 12 draft picks next year with $25 million cap space (11th in NFL per OTC).
And hell Clyde and Danna stepping up has made this an ever better situation too thus far.
You guys are acting like this Frank Clark restructure is a giant anchor that is disabling us from doing anything….it’s not.
So far Karlaftis has 9 pressures, Danna has 8, Jones has 12 and Dunlap has 7. Frank has 5. He’s a rotational player at this point. I’m not his biggest fan but fuck man. We are a top unit pressuring the QB so far this season.
And again - Frank Clark has no part in any of that.
Meanwhile next season when we're trying to figure out what to do with Juan Thornhill and have $9 million less in cap space, come see me. Or hell, maybe the fact that we DON'T presently have a young DE from the 2nd round because we drafted Bryan Cook instead is because they knew they had to plan for life without Thornhill.
Frank Clark's mere existence on this roster will make things harder for this organization next season. And that's why he shouldn't be on it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Yeah DJ is making me out to be a Frank Clark defender. I’ve been frustrated with him for a few years now.
We won a SB in part due to him IMO and then he just fell off significantly. If anything I’m defending the teams plan this offseason (so far) bc it’s actually worked.
Now we have started phase 2. And goddamn man. Our HC is elite, our ST’s is elite, our front office is elite, our secondary coaching and talent identification is elite. Now Joe Cullen looks like he’s got our pass rush turned around looking like Dave Merritt and these corners.
I’m excited that our coaching staff looks better. We have the best staff in football and it’s showing.
That sure hides mistakes like Frank Clark
You are PRESENTLY defending Frank Clark. And that's after shouting from the rooftops how great he was initially.
Telling us all that we should be ignoring his awfulness because of things that have nothing to do with him that AREN'T awful is absolutely being a Frank Clark defender.
The aspect of the plan being discussed - again, in the thread expressly designed to address it - has NOT worked. Frank Clark is not any better than he's been for 2+ years now. He still Fucking Sucks.
You wanna talk about how we have the best coaching staff in the NFL? Sure - do that. Make a thread about it. There's a good case to be made in that regard and it should generate some interesting dialogue. You wanna talk about the development of the secondary and how Spags/Merritt have routinely gotten more out of less with some of these guys? Again - have at it. Excellent thread idea.
But what the hell does ANY of that have to do with the price of tea in China? Any of those things can be true. ALL of those things can be true. And JJSS can have been fairly disappointing thus far. And Brown can have been solid and Smith a little below where we expected and Bolton amazing and Gay got rat fucked and on and on and on and on.
And NONE of that changes the fact that Frank Clark Fucking Sucks. He sucked when you wouldn't admit he sucked. He sucks now. His return was foolish and unnecessary and it will impact our cap next season. It's all relevant discussion and most importantly it's all accurate.
So deflect all you want, but I'm not sure what your end game is here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
It isn’t really a discussion though. He sucks. Not much to discuss there. Veach brought him back anyway and we are stuck with him. Not much to discuss there either. The Frank Clark discussion ran its course about the same time he did.
Oh I don't necessarily disagree.
Like I said earlier - this thread has gone from WWIII to just about everyone openly mocking what a worthless faux 'dawg' he's become at this point.
It didn't pivot back into a discussion on the merits of the presence on his roster until someone decided that really, it doesn't matter fellas...
They made it pretty obvious what they thought of Thornhill long-term when it took Sorenson completely blowing it in multiple games for him to get any playing time at all. They don't see him here long term and that's why we took Cook. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
They made it pretty obvious what they thought of Thornhill long-term when it took Sorenson completely blowing it in multiple games for him to get any playing time at all. They don't see him here long term and that's why we took Cook.
Originally Posted by Superturtle:
They made it pretty obvious what they thought of Thornhill long-term when it took Sorenson completely blowing it in multiple games for him to get any playing time at all. They don't see him here long term and that's why we took Cook.
I don’t think they’re done with Thornhill. They better not be. He’s yet to be targeted in pass defense. He’s quietly one of the best DB’s on the roster over the first two weeks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
And again - Frank Clark has no part in any of that.
Meanwhile next season when we're trying to figure out what to do with Juan Thornhill and have $9 million less in cap space, come see me. Or hell, maybe the fact that we DON'T presently have a young DE from the 2nd round because we drafted Bryan Cook instead is because they knew they had to plan for life without Thornhill.
Frank Clark's mere existence on this roster will make things harder for this organization next season. And that's why he shouldn't be on it.
See this is my point. You guys are acting like this is a huge problem prohibiting us from doing things like keep players. It’s really not.
We’ve got $25 million next year. After Frank is released it’s $35 million. That’s before any other cuts.
And you know extending Thornhill will not be a problem. His first year cap hit will be minimal and Frank will be completely off the books when his big cap hits set in.
I also wasn’t high on the Bryan Cook pick but you’re forgetting Mike Danna. Dude is a 5th rd pick. And Karlaftis was the 30th. We’re paying them both next to nothing.
Every team has a player like this. When you draft and coach we’ll it minimizes problems like this. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Oh I don't necessarily disagree.
Like I said earlier - this thread has gone from WWIII to just about everyone openly mocking what a worthless faux 'dawg' he's become at this point.
It didn't pivot back into a discussion on the merits of the presence on his roster until someone decided that really, it doesn't matter fellas...
It does. And that's exactly the point.
On a good not we should all be happy that Brown Jr wanted more money guaranteed in the last part of his contract and Veach kindly told him and his agent to fuck off.
It looks like she’s learned from that Frank Clark contract. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
See this is my point. You guys are acting like this is a huge problem prohibiting us from doing things like keep players. It’s really not.
We’ve got $25 million next year. After Frank is released it’s $35 million. That’s before any other cuts.
And you know extending Thornhill will not be a problem. His first year cap hit will be minimal and Frank will be completely off the books when his big cap hits set in.
I also wasn’t high on the Bryan Cook pick but you’re forgetting Mike Danna. Dude is a 5th rd pick. And Karlaftis was the 30th. We’re paying them both next to nothing.
Every team has a player like this. When you draft and coach we’ll it minimizes problems like this.
I feel like you're trying play both sides here.
If 'extending Thornhill will not be a problem' because of low 1st year cap hits, then doesn't that make the impact Clark would have on additions to the roster all the greater? I mean at that point you're talking about $9 million or so that could get us TWO starting caliber guys. At least that's the case if you're gonna play the "but low year 1 cap hit" game.
I think that's a hard game to play so I don't typically do it. Instead I just try to discuss the AAV of the 'effective guarantees' on a guy as a proxy for the damage done. Afterall, that's really the reality of it in the rollover era.
As I said in one of those Buffalo threads - our cap is in better shape next year than many will have. At the same time, that's without a LT or RT, without a starting DT2, without a viable starting DE2, without CB3, without S2, with about 1/2 of a WR room, etc...
It's gonna get tight faster than you realize and a point will be here where we REALLY wish we had 5% of our salary cap back.
I mean the idea what we, who are presently about the middle of the NFL in available cap space while having fewer players under contract next season than literally everyone ahead of us, are going to find ourselves so flush in cap space that missing $9 million of it (or roughly an additional 50% over what we have NOW) won't matter.
There's just no way to polish that turd, man. It's gonna hurt. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
He’s here for the rest of this season and then he’s gone. Can’t believe this is still a discussion.
Me neither but here we are. Then we get we should have signed Justin Houston crowd. He wasn't ever coming back to the chiefs besides he was an out of shape play taken off turd in his final years here.
In short, be patient and this will soon be over. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RunKC:
Carlos Dunlap played 17 snaps last week. The fewest of any DL that played. He’s a backup rotational player at this point. That’s his role and he knows it.
And you know why? Probably bc this is his 14th year playing professional football. He’s 33 dude. He ain’t what he used to be. He’s beat up. Hell his Achilles bothered him before he played and he missed the first week of camp.
These older guys shouldn’t be playing 55-65 snaps a game as a starter. It’s a 17 game season. It’s foolish to burn them out in a long season.
Originally Posted by O.city:
Whistling past the graveyard aboit 10 million in dead cap so we could see Frank have a sit down with Andy and give up booze for a month
Yippee
Dude, we were always going to eat that money. You can complain all you want about the situation now (because yeah, it sucks) but this was all set in motion the minute they traded for him and gave him that ridiculous contract. We didn’t save any money by re-signing him but we wouldn’t have saved any money by cutting him either. That dead cap hit was always going to be there because we never should have gave him that contract in the first place. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Dude, we were always going to eat that money. You can complain all you want about the situation now (because yeah, it sucks) but this was all set in motion the minute they traded for him and gave him that ridiculous contract. We didn’t save any money by re-signing him but we wouldn’t have saved any money by cutting him either. That dead cap hit was always going to be there because we never should have gave him that contract in the first place.
The money in 2023 wasn't there until we re-signed him. He would have been off the books. [Reply]