Summary of the video's arguments -- some of which are argued better than others:
1. Never fully healthy.
2. This chart:
3. We ranked in the bottom 3rd in 2020 in passrush despite dropping major coin along the DL.
4. 6 sacks in 2020 -- there was a 7 game stretch where he had 1, and 2 sacks in the last 10 weeks of the season.
5. He doesn't change the run defense all that much.
6. 2020 postseason was "pedestrian" -- 9.8% pressure rate.
7. All of this despite being slotted next to Chris Jones.
8. As you can see in the above chart, Clark is rarely double teamed.
9. The Chiefs didn't restructure Clark this offseason, because they don't want to make it harder than it needs to be to cut him after 2021 -- saves $13m.
10. 2021 is a make-or-break year for Clark.
The good news is that Jarran Reed, like Chris Jones, is a beast in "sacks created," which should help our edge rush. [Reply]
Originally Posted by crayzkirk:
I would think that every team has players who are on contracts that are not performing. Three straight AFC Championship Games and Two straight Super Bowls.
How high should these guys jump?
Well, the imaginary GMs on chiefs planet do not require evidence that the Chiefs actually missed out on a player they wanted because of salary cap commitments, it is just the idea of the theoretical player not signed that drives them crazy. [Reply]
Problem...not really. He was part of winning the first SB in 50 years. The investment paid off...unless winning a SB isnt the end game.
Watkins paid off too...
It's not our money...so who cares. Chiefs were 14-1 with Mahomes last year. I fail to see a problem with that.
Drama for an off-season.....
KC lives and dies on offense...and the only problem (OL) was solved. Vegas favors them in every game next year...
Clark sucks next year...remove and replace. Chiefs arent a dominant defensive team...and never will be as long a Mahomes is QB. They dont have to be.. [Reply]
Laughable that some of you think Chiefs can do no wrong because they won a SB. Chiefs won SB, great, I enjoyed it as much as anyone else on here. That said, I have definitely moved on. That Bucs SB was embarrassing and Clark was a huge part of the problem.
Frank Clark wasn't brought here to play good in one postseason. Plenty of other dlineman can do that. He was supposed to be much more than that and he isn't. Is Veach going to get every trade or draft pick right? Of course not but to act like Frank Clark trade was good because he played good in one postseason is being a little short sighted IMO. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Laughable that some of you think Chiefs can do no wrong because they won a SB. Chiefs won SB, great, I enjoyed it as much as anyone else on here. That said, I have definitely moved on. That Bucs SB was embarrassing and Clark was a huge part of the problem.
Frank Clark wasn't brought here to play good in one postseason. Plenty of other dlineman can do that. He was supposed to be much more than that and he isn't. Is Veach going to get every trade or draft pick right? Of course not but to act like Frank Clark trade was good because he played good in one postseason is being a little short sighted IMO.
I definitely don't think the Chiefs are infallible. They've made mistakes, including re-shuffling the line right before the Super Bowl.
That being said, the only thing embarrassing here is your use of the word "embarrassing". If you were personally embarrassed by their performance in the Super Bowl, you take football WAY too seriously and should probably do some self-reflection immediately. [Reply]
Originally Posted by crayzkirk:
I would think that every team has players who are on contracts that are not performing. Three straight AFC Championship Games and Two straight Super Bowls.
How high should these guys jump?
Frank Clark counts $25M against the cap this year and it goes up to almost $27M next year.
Just to put that in perspective, it's the highest cap hit on the Chiefs and the highest cap hit of any DE in the NFL. Demarcus Lawrence at #2 has a cap hit of $800K less than Clark. Joey Bosa at #3 has a cap hit of FIVE MILLION less than Clark.
And for even more perspective, Clark has the 8th highest cap hit in the NFL among ALL players at any position. The only players with higher cap hits are ALL QB's.
At the end of the day, the cap is something teams can work around when players are paid reasonably. Frank Clark's contract is no longer reasonable, especially considering his production. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
Frank Clark counts $25M against the cap this year and it goes up to almost $27M next year.
Just to put that in perspective, it's the highest cap hit on the Chiefs and the highest cap hit of any DE in the NFL. Demarcus Lawrence at #2 has a cap hit of $800K less than Clark. Joey Bosa at #3 has a cap hit of FIVE MILLION less than Clark.
And for even more perspective, Clark has the 8th highest cap hit in the NFL among ALL players at any position. The only players with higher cap hits are ALL QB's.
At the end of the day, the cap is something teams can work around when players are paid reasonably. Frank Clark's contract is no longer reasonable, especially considering his production.
Originally Posted by jettio:
What a stupid video and commentary.
Did the video's creator even play high school football?
That video is made by a non-athlete who is mad that a kid grew up and ended up getting paid big on his first negotiated contract.
And the video's target audience is guys who also never even played high school football and are mad that a kid grew up and got paid.
If someone wanted to make a video case that Frank Clark is not doing his job, why not post some videos of actual game tape and compare what the player did on the play compared to his assignment was on the play?
Has any Frank Clark critic ever posted video of plays where he did not compete to do his assignment on a play?
Nerds who like to watch football and look at stats but do not know anything about football ought to commit to getting a job coaching football or working in football at some level.
Come on, setting the edge and stopping the run isn't important... Just ask these guys that want Dee Ford's or Houston's production in sacks and forget about the Swiss cheese run defense and lack of edge setting they brought to the table...
Is Clark living up to his contract, no, but he is far from terrible. [Reply]
Originally Posted by rabblerouser:
Don't remind me. We could've had Metcalf instead of Hardman.
There's no guarantee Metcalf breaks out here like he did in Seattle. Here, he'd still be competing with Hill and Kelce for catches. There, he pretty much immediately walked into the #1 role by default. The 2 situations aren't at all similar. [Reply]
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Come on, setting the edge and stopping the run isn't important... Just ask these guys that want Dee Ford's or Houston's production in sacks and forget about the Swiss cheese run defense and lack of edge setting they brought to the table...
Is Clark living up to his contract, no, but he is far from terrible.
Are you trying to insinuate that Justin Houston was a bad run defender or that he couldn't set edges? [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
There's no guarantee Metcalf breaks out here like he did in Seattle. Here, he'd still be competing with Hill and Kelce for catches. There, he pretty much immediately walked into the #1 role by default. The 2 situations aren't at all similar.
I mean he's still a much better player by far. Imagine if when Sammy was injured, DK was the one to step in. You think Sammy would have ever seen the #2 role? You think DK would have the same amount of targets and more snaps than DK if he were here?
Hardmans problem isn't opportunity. He's had plenty. It's that he hasn't been a good WR at all even though our #2 WR has been out or hobbled 12+ games the past two years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
There's no guarantee Metcalf breaks out here like he did in Seattle. Here, he'd still be competing with Hill and Kelce for catches. There, he pretty much immediately walked into the #1 role by default. The 2 situations aren't at all similar.
Locket is not a bad wr. But we are talking about the situation where Hardeman does not even have the #3 role on the team locked down. Hard to believe that Metcalf would not have secured that if he was on the Chiefs. [Reply]
