ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 279 of 367
« First < 179229269275276277278279 280281282283289329 > Last »
The Lounge>Frank Clark fucking sucks
RealSNR 02:33 PM 09-15-2019
Guy has done NOTHING in two games. Barely any pressures to speak of against trash OTs.

Yeah, I'm in bitchy gameday mode. Don't care. I'm tired of paying out the ass for defensive players who don't make plays.

At least Justin Houston could dominate against bad teams after we paid him.
[Reply]
ThaVirus 06:42 PM 01-19-2021
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
That twit thing was written in SEPT. 2019.
Yeah, back when Clark was also not getting sacks and generally producing well under his pay rate.
[Reply]
Megatron96 06:45 PM 01-19-2021
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
Yeah, back when Clark was also not getting sacks and generally producing well under his pay rate.
:-)

What are you, my ex-wife? Why do you insist on bringing up shit from over a year ago?

"No! I don't remember what color socks you were wearing the day before we got married! GTFOH!"
[Reply]
ThaVirus 06:50 PM 01-19-2021
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
I have not problem with that, but if he was just concentrating on sacks vs. the Browns, we would have probably lost. Baker gets rid of the ball fast and we had limited pressure up the middle if he lingered in the pocket. My point being, it appears Spags is coaching them to be deliberate in their responsibilities, and we prefer to get pressure more from intermittent blitzes from our LB's and DB's. The stats aren't going to get Frank another big contract, I agree, but he is playing fairly well within the scope of the defense and what Spags is asking of our D. Dee Ford would be far less effective, let alone be on the field, and if he was healthy he would probably have quite a few sacks, but our D would be worse for having him. I wish Frank was both for the amount of his contract, I get it, but he is way better than Dee Ford...
You're still misrepresenting the argument here which is a big part of the issue. Frank Clark is getting paid like an elite DE. An elite DE absolutely should be able to cover all of the normal responsibilities of the position while also being a consistent nightmare in pass rush. You keep talking about it as if it's gotta be one or the other and that's simply not the case.

I think the bolded is bullshit, by the way. No D.C. would prefer to get pressure from a blitzer over their down linemen. We send blitzes because we're unable to generate a consistent pass rush from the front four.
[Reply]
-King- 07:17 PM 01-19-2021
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
That twit thing was written in SEPT. 2019.
So you think a year later he thinks that he got paid $100mil to set the edge and that doubling/chipping is a good excuse?

Btw, he got doubled like once or twice and only because we rushed 3 and a lineman went to find work.
[Reply]
Megatron96 06:21 PM 01-20-2021
Originally Posted by -King-:
So you think a year later he thinks that he got paid $100mil to set the edge and that doubling/chipping is a good excuse?

Btw, he got doubled like once or twice and only because we rushed 3 and a lineman went to find work.
When? Vs. CLE? No. He was also chipped constantly. Just between both Hunt and Chubb, I watched them wheel around the end to put a shoulder on him probably more than half a dozen times. Watched Hooper chip him as well, iirc. Not sure how many times.

And I think I don't know what Clark thinks. Don't know the man. I guess you do? But even if you did, you think that people don't change their minds, or evolve their thinking in 16 months?

Are you really that dumb?

what I do know for a fact though, is that last season I reviewed/logged every Frank Clark snap in a game (don't remember exactly which one now, but I might bother to look it up), and out of 24 possible pass-rushing snaps, Clark only actually rushed the passer 9-10 times. And out of those 9-10 times, he only had a realistic chance at getting to the QB 7-8 times.

Of course that's just one game. I actually did that for two games, but that's still an extremely small sample size to accurately judge anything. And I fully believe that his actual pass rushes probably vary from game to game for a variety of reasons.

But as for what I really think, I think that Clark, Jones, and Mathieu bought into Spags' scheme 100% at some point last season, and now they do what they're asked. When you watch the KC defense during the BAL game, the discipline for the DL is about as high and consistent as I've ever seen, by any DL unit, period. This season we've seen Clark and Jones drop into coverage as edge rushers on the same play. We've seen Clark chase/cover TEs during games. Khalen Saunders play MLB.

Do i think that Clark would have more sacks if he simply rushed the QB on every passing play? probably. But that's not how Spags is using him, obviously. Instead, we've actually seen Clark drop into coverage on obvious passing downs. Seen him play contain on other obvious passing downs. And so on. So at least several times he's had fewer potential opportunities to try to get to the passer per game.

i know that frustrates you and those that crave sacks so badly. Even bothers me a little, tbh. But it also obviously works. Certainly there's no reasonable argument that the defense was better when we had two the the league's most prolific sack artists. In fact, these past two seasons
in all areas and statistical columns the defense is significantly better than whenever we've had a top-10 sack total, correct?
[Reply]
-King- 07:14 PM 01-20-2021
I find it funny that according to you not only do opponents game plan to keep Clark from getting sacks, but Spags game plan also keeps him from getting sacks.

Also RBs go out of their way to chip him. But he also makes a circular path to the QB in order to bump the RB off his route and slow him down.

He also has a realistic chance at a sack 80% of the time he rushes the QB, but it's not in the game plan to do so. It's so convenient how no matter what happens, good or bad, you have an excuse for it.
















Btw, he also might be dealing with an injury or have crohn's.
[Reply]
stevieray 07:16 PM 01-20-2021
Get another SB Ring Frank, won't bother me a bit.
[Reply]
-King- 07:24 PM 01-20-2021
Btw, I counted 3 times where he was chipped in the game.

"More than a half dozen times" :-)
[Reply]
Megatron96 07:33 PM 01-20-2021
Originally Posted by -King-:
I find it funny that according to you not only do opponents game plan to keep Clark from getting sacks, but Spags game plan also keeps him from getting sacks.

Also RBs go out of their way to chip him. But he also makes a circular path to the QB in order to bump the RB off his route and slow him down.

He also has a realistic chance at a sack 80% of the time he rushes the QB, but it's not in the game plan to do so. It's so convenient how no matter what happens, good or bad, you have an excuse for it.

Btw, he also might be dealing with an injury or have crohn's.
I've never seen a single post/tweet/article from a reliable team source that's supported the Crohn's disease theory. If there is one I'd like to see it.

Moving on . . .

When did I ever give a number like "80%" chance to do anything? By anyone? Please show me that post.

I have no idea off the top of my head what a pass-rushers' odds are of getting to the QB. I'd guess that the NFL average is less than 20%. For Aaron Donald maybe it's 35%. Give or take whatever.

And what's pretty funny to me is that you still refuse to just take a look for yourself. You just post whatever your feelings are about it, with no data/evidence and we're supposed to just believe that you know what you're talking about.

At least what I post is based in facts. When I'm guessing, I make it clear that I'm guessing. If I guess, I at least try to use the evidence available to formulate a reasonable theory. And if I'm proven wrong, I own that.

You sit there and post "he gets paid $100 million. He should get more sacks!
He's not getting enough sacks, so he must not be worth $100 million. Maybe the blue-sky idea that he has Crohn's might have something to do with it!"

Great, buddy. Really informative. I'm amazed by your deductive capabilities.
[Reply]
-King- 07:52 PM 01-20-2021
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
I've never seen a single post/tweet/article from a reliable team source that's supported the Crohn's disease theory. If there is one I'd like to see it.

Moving on . . .

When did I ever give a number like "80%" chance to do anything? By anyone? Please show me that post.

I have no idea off the top of my head what a pass-rushers' odds are of getting to the QB. I'd guess that the NFL average is less than 20%. For Aaron Donald maybe it's 35%. Give or take whatever.

And what's pretty funny to me is that you still refuse to just take a look for yourself. You just post whatever your feelings are about it, with no data/evidence and we're supposed to just believe that you know what you're talking about.

At least what I post is based in facts. When I'm guessing, I make it clear that I'm guessing. If I guess, I at least try to use the evidence available to formulate a reasonable theory. And if I'm proven wrong, I own that.

You sit there and post "he gets paid $100 million. He should get more sacks!
He's not getting enough sacks, so he must not be worth $100 million. Maybe the blue-sky idea that he has Crohn's might have something to do with it!"

Great, buddy. Really informative. I'm amazed by your deductive capabilities.
You said he rushes the passer 9-10 and out of those times he gets close 7-8 times. Thats 80%.

And I did take a look for myself. Here's all the pass plays Clark was in on





Let me see how many chips/doubles you see. Maybe I'm wrong on my count. Also remember that they had their 3rd(?) string LT out there.
[Reply]
Megatron96 09:36 PM 01-20-2021
So here's condensed run down of the first two drives by CLE.

play no:

1) Clark lined up over the LT. Play is a off-tackle sweep to the w/Chubb. Clark schemed out of the play.

2) Clark-LT. Quick pass to Baker's R. to 85. Clark obviously playing contain or a mush rush.

3) Clark-LT. Quick pass Left. CLE runs fake sweep-R w/Chubb. Clark obligated to play the fake screen, schemed out of play

4)Clark-RT. Baker 5-step drop, pass to his right INC. Clark Chipped by Chubb

5) Clark-RT. 5 step drop-Baker, Clark chipped by Chubb

6) Clark replaced by 51.

7) Clark replaced by 51

8) Clark-RT. Baker-SG, QB run to the right, Clark blocked by 82, kind of a crack back

9) Clark-LT. Jet sweep/Right, Landry. Frank basically crashes inside and takes on the LG, never had a chance at making a play. Probably wouldn't have matter if he had rushed the T. Probably wasn't' going to catch Landry. Could call this being schemed out, but we won't for this exercise.

10) Clark-LT. SG-Baker, sacked by Sneed.

11) Clark-RT. SG-Baker. Quick pass to Baker's Left, Landry. Clark schemed out of the play.

12) 51 replaces Clark for snaps 12 thru 15

16) Clark-LT. Doubled by CLE OL 70+75

17) Clark-LT. SG-BAker, screen to Chubb

18) Clark-LT. Baker's throw deflected, catches his own pass. Clark makes TFL.


In the first 18 CLE offensive plays, Clark actually plays 12. He is schemed out of 3 plays. Doubled twice. Chipped twice. Gets blocked in the back (actually kind of his shoulder, from his blind side). And cleans up a play after a deflection.

Number of legitimate snaps Clark rushed the passer: 3

Leaving this here for safe keeping, until NFL.com comes back up for me, so I can finish this.
[Reply]
dlphg9 10:10 PM 01-20-2021
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
So here's condensed run down of the first two drives by CLE.

play no:

1) Clark lined up over the LT. Play is a off-tackle sweep to the w/Chubb. Clark schemed out of the play.

2) Clark-LT. Quick pass to Baker's R. to 85. Clark obviously playing contain or a mush rush.

3) Clark-LT. Quick pass Left. CLE runs fake sweep-R w/Chubb. Clark obligated to play the fake screen, schemed out of play

4)Clark-RT. Baker 5-step drop, pass to his right INC. Clark Chipped by Chubb

5) Clark-RT. 5 step drop-Baker, Clark chipped by Chubb

6) Clark replaced by 51.

7) Clark replaced by 51

8) Clark-RT. Baker-SG, QB run to the right, Clark blocked by 82, kind of a crack back

9) Clark-LT. Jet sweep/Right, Landry. Frank basically crashes inside and takes on the LG, never had a chance at making a play. Probably wouldn't have matter if he had rushed the T. Probably wasn't' going to catch Landry. Could call this being schemed out, but we won't for this exercise.

10) Clark-LT. SG-Baker, sacked by Sneed.

11) Clark-RT. SG-Baker. Quick pass to Baker's Left, Landry. Clark schemed out of the play.

12) 51 replaces Clark for snaps 12 thru 15

16) Clark-LT. Doubled by CLE OL 70+75

17) Clark-LT. SG-BAker, screen to Chubb

18) Clark-LT. Baker's throw deflected, catches his own pass. Clark makes TFL.


In the first 18 CLE offensive plays, Clark actually plays 12. He is schemed out of 3 plays. Doubled twice. Chipped twice. Gets blocked in the back (actually kind of his shoulder, from his blind side). And cleans up a play after a deflection.

Number of legitimate snaps Clark rushed the passer: 3

Leaving this here for safe keeping, until NFL.com comes back up for me, so I can finish this.
I just watched play 4 and 5 and those are two of the worst "chip blocks" I've ever seen. Chubb literally reaches out and taps Clark on his shoulder on number 4 and Hunt grazes Clark with his elbow. Clark was in no way hampered by those lousy attempts and was already being handled by the OT.
[Reply]
Megatron96 10:11 PM 01-20-2021
Really wish I could figure out how to embed those clips. Though not being able to slow down the replay is inconvenient.

In the first video:
1) schemed out of play.
2) schemed out of play by fake sweep
3) Chip/Chubb
4) Chip/Chubb
5) Jet Sweep
6) Sneed gets sack
7) RUSH. Baker gets rid of ball in less than 3 seconds, throws to his left
8) RUSH. Baker bounces twice and passes right, again away from 55
9) screen pass middle left of field.
10) Baker deflection to himself. 55 TFL
11) RUSH.
12) CHIP/27
13) DOUBLE
14) RUSH. 55 twist, Baker misfires deep right, may have felt the pressure from either 55 or Okafor?
15) RUSH. CLE LT simply blocks up well.
16) 55 jams TE (Njoku?) at the snap.
17) MUSHNRUSH
18) contain
[Reply]
Megatron96 10:20 PM 01-20-2021
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
I just watched play 4 and 5 and those are two of the worst "chip blocks" I've ever seen. Chubb literally reaches out and taps Clark on his shoulder on number 4 and Hunt grazes Clark with his elbow. Clark was in no way hampered by those lousy attempts and was already being handled by the OT.
You do get that by the time the chip is delivered the ball is out a split second later, right? And that all the chip really has to do is either force the pass-rusher back the other way/prevent him from rushing more downfield, protecting the Tackle's outside shoulder? A chip doesn't have to be devastating. All it has to do is force the rusher to change direction or slow him down. Baker got the ball out in under 3 seconds anyway. DT couldn't get a sack on those snaps.
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 10:57 PM 01-20-2021
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
You're still misrepresenting the argument here which is a big part of the issue. Frank Clark is getting paid like an elite DE. An elite DE absolutely should be able to cover all of the normal responsibilities of the position while also being a consistent nightmare in pass rush. You keep talking about it as if it's gotta be one or the other and that's simply not the case.

I think the bolded is bullshit, by the way. No D.C. would prefer to get pressure from a blitzer over their down linemen. We send blitzes because we're unable to generate a consistent pass rush from the front four.
you must have missed this from my post:

The stats aren't going to get Frank another big contract, I agree, but he is playing fairly well within the scope of the defense and what Spags is asking of our D.
[Reply]
Page 279 of 367
« First < 179229269275276277278279 280281282283289329 > Last »
Up