Yeah, people are swinging too far the other way now on Clark. Acting like all he did in 2019 was get coverage sacks. 17 pressures that postseason, second only to Bosa, and did his job quite well in slowing the running game down.

Look who it is... Frank Clark's biggest fan boy...

Yea because I’ve overly defended Clark outside of his playoff performance…

No he wasn't. Hence the mixed reaction in the trade thread.

No you don't get points for trying for that. You gets points for achieving it. Duhhh.

Uhhhh. Wut?

He wasn’t all that good in the season but he was a ****ing manimal in the playoffs.

LMAO

How the **** does a “mixed reaction in the trade thread” prove anything? That means absolutely nothing in terms of how good Clark was in Seattle. Holy shit you’re ****ing reeruned.

“Get points for trying” implies the ultimate goal wasn’t accomplished. It was.

He was great for that post season. But we can all admit that it looks like a lucky 3 game stretch and not representative of what he really is as a player.

Im appreciative of it but I also won't act like we have him 100mil and traded a 1st for him for 3 games.

If he was THAT good, would there be a mixed reaction to it? Kinda simple.

This is ****ing CP where half the people don’t have a ****ing clue about the Chiefs, more or less the rest of the NFL. What a stupid ****ing argument to make.

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/Plaw3NKladE96m0CuU" width="480" height="480" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/chiefs-nfl-chiefs-kingdom-chiefskingdom-Plaw3NKladE96m0CuU">via GIPHY</a></p>

Ok sure. But what about when you Google "Frank Clark trade grade" and most if not all of the articles say that the Seahawks won and the very first article is "the Seahawks fleeced the chiefs"?

Or does everybody else outside of CP not count either?

LMAO

Clark had a 3 year stretch where he had 32 sacks in Seattle. He was easily one of the best edge rushers in the league at the time, but since there was a “mixed reaction” to the trade, that erases all of that.

I guess that's why Seahawks refused to trade him.... Oh wait....

The opinions of a trade, which involves many factors outside of Clark’s ability/talent, doesn’t change the fact that Clark was a great player at the time.

Some people didn’t like the trade because of compensation. Many people hate the idea of trading draft picks for players that you have to pay. That’s a philosophical thing.

Some didn’t like it because they saw it as the Chiefs getting rid of 2 pass rushers only to turn around and trade for one.

None of that has anything to do with how good Clark was in Seattle you butt****ing moron.

The Seahawks were in cap hell at the time you dumb mother****er. It had nothing to do with Clark’s play.

Don't disagree with anything here, it's right to look at the coaches primarily on the Jones switch, and I think your Reed contract point is absolutely right and fair. :thumb:

I mean it kinda does. If people immediately don't think it's a good trade and that you overpaid, and then years later, turns out they were right, maybe it's because Veach misevaluated how good Frank Clark really was?

Don't know if you guys saw this, but this site says we should trade the Canadian Doc to the Bears for a 4th rounder next year:
https://heavy.com/sports/kansas-city...roposed-trade/

Bart Varch is the General Manager of my favorite NFL team, the Kansas City Chiefs. Therefore I think he is the best General Manager in the NFL.

Before you call someone a dumb mother****er you might want to look at some of your posts. I don't think you are in a position to call anyone on this board dumb right now.

You're nothing but a homer. Veach is best GM in NFL. Lmao...

I think it's clear and nobody would argue that Clark is not living up to his contract.

I think it's also clear and nobody with a brain would argue that Clark wasn't instrumental in the SB win. He was an animal in that play-off run.

something is physically wrong with Clark; he's not been the same player since.

If you want to argue that Veach made a mistake, then you must also argue that winning the SB wasn't worth it.

personally, I think that's a dumb argument.

I'm also looking forward to cutting Clark this offseason, freeing up some cash, and moving on.

If we got the Frank Clark that was in Seattle those last 3 years, that wouldn’t be the case. His failures in Kansas City don’t change his history of success in Seattle.

It’s funny how your absolute best argument is a “mixed reaction” to the trade. You can’t point to any of the stuff that you do when talking about his failures in KC. It’s easy to prove Clark hasn’t been good in KC outside of the playoff/SB run. You can just point to the stats/tape.

Your argument against Clark in Seattle is so weak that you have to totally ignore that stuff in favor of “mixed reactions” to the trade, which includes other factors outside of Clark himself that you’re ignoring.

Clark wasn’t as terrible as it is being projected. We got a SB out of him year one and Veach structured the contract to essentially be a 3 year deal.

After this year we can get $19.5 million in cap savings from him.

This isn’t the Eric Berry deal

Again, easy to shit on this take when we’re sitting at 1-2. As if the turnovers we’ve committed the last 2 weeks are somehow Veach’s fault as a GM.

Get back to me when this team is rolling down the stretch on their way to another deep playoff run you dumb son of a bitch.

It’s amazing that people think there’s some perfect GM out there with a flawless resume that makes Veach’s first few years look awful in comparison.

Where is he? Who is he?

The truth is, every GM has their misses and warts.

Ours attacks every top need in the offseason and has shown the ability to pivot when things don’t work out (Trent Williams to Orlando Brown for example).

He rebuilt our entire defense in one offseason. He rebuilt our entire OL in one offseason. Can anybody point me to the GM they’re so sure would’ve done a better job? I, unlike 90% of this place, have a clue when it comes to the rest of the NFL, and I don’t see him.

Ok, let's take this slow...

We started it when I said Clark wasn't that good. How is that not justified by the reaction of people to the trade? If most people believed Seahawks won or fleeced the chiefs, how isnt that proof that most people didn't think he was THAT good in the first place? If he was THAT good, why would the reaction be mixed or in the Seahawks favor?

I'm not ignoring anything. Frank Clark was a good to very good player who Veach overpaid for. That player has done nothing but get worse over his time here. But he was nothing close to what he was supposed to be.

I’ve already explained to you that many people have a philosophy that you should never trade picks for a player that you then have to also turn around and pay. There are also many that felt the Chiefs got rid of two pass rushers only to turn around and make a big trade for one and pay him top dollar. None of that has anything to do with how good Clark was in Seattle.

And yes, you’re absolutely ignoring how good and productive Clark was in favor of fan reactions to try and prove that Clark wasn’t that good in Seattle. It’s honestly one of the most reeruned arguments you’ve ever tried to make. You can’t argue with the facts (32 sacks in 3 years), so you’re reaching desperately.

Clark’s body clearly broke down after those 4 years in Seattle. His disappointing career in KC doesn’t change the fact that he was THAT good in Seattle. Only a ****ing moron like you thinks otherwise.

Our problems go way beyond turnovers. Nice try though.

Our main problem is our dline which is a direct result of Veaches trades and signings. Idiot.

GMAFB.

We’d be sitting at 3-0 without them, even with a very tough schedule to start the season. This is your typical Overreaction Planet bullshit to somehow try to blame Veach for that.

How did I ignore his 32 sacks? That's good to very good which I already said he was? Again, the issue is if he was THAT good. Meaning good enough to trade and give all that money to which is what Veach did. No he wasn't. Period. Which is why people disagreed with the trade.

You called this revisionist history when I've clearly shown that a lot of people didn't like the trade when it happened then too. How is immediate reactions "revisionist history"?

I see Veach as a young GM who can identify talent but being a younger guy growing into the role. His drafts have progressively gotten better over time. I really do think this years draft is his best work + the trade for Orlando Brown on top of it.

I would caution people to simply understand expectations. Dorsey was a shit drafter after the first rd in Cleveland. Ballard has been extremely underwhelming when you take out the obvious Quinten Nelson top 10 pick. John Schneider was a God in Seattle when they drafted Russell Wilson and now look at him?
Both GM’s in GB have had the shine rust off big time.

It’s really hard to win in this league guys. Even with an elite QB.

You guys keep pointing back to Dorsey for previous success, but I think it wasn’t just him. We had an amazing team scouting for us. Dorsey, Andy, Ballard and Veach all working together.

The GM is kind of like the QB. They can be really good but won’t be successful unless their team is good.

If he had 20 sacks over the last 2 years, and was on his way to 9+ again this year, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

The problem isn’t that Clark wasn’t THAT good in Seattle, the problem is that he wasn’t THAT good anymore.

And you continue to point to reactions that don’t necessarily have anything to do with how good Clark was at the time. Holy shit you’re a special kind of stupid.

Perfect example is Mahomes.

Veach found him, pushed him on Andy. Ballard and Dorsey both watched him and shared analysis. Dorsey executed a great trade. Andy also had to have had something to do with that trade too as McDermott worked for him for years in Philly. They had to have talked about the trade as well.

Andy verified Patrick on the private visit.

Again, this is a team effort like all things in this league

Funny hearing you talk about overreaction Mr 'Veach is best GM in NFL.'

Sorry if I'm not ecstatic about what Veach has done since he has been here. What's our run D ranked again?

Yea, we all know even winning a SB and going to another isn’t enough for miserable ****s like yourself. What our run d is ranked 3 weeks into this season clearly outweighs that!

You clearly are as miserable as any poster here. Constantly calling ppl names, crying like a little bitch when someone disagrees w you about anything, getting all upset about everything and anything.

Once again, look in the mirror.

Any examples of me “crying like a little bitch when somebody disagrees” with me?

Calling morons like yourself morons doesn’t equal crying.

You can’t give me shit for being a “homer”, which is essentially just being the voice of optimism, then try and call me miserable at the same time. Miserable people aren’t optimistic/positive. It doesn’t even make sense.

First off many who were upset were the same that are upset any time this team trades a pick for a player. Second off it's his job to acquire players that better this team. If the player ends up not doing such, especially if they were young and proven at the time that is another matter. He has no way of knowing down the line that said proven player would not live up to what was paid for him.

No one is giving him excuses, the Clark move didn't turn out long term as planned, but to say he is average as a GM or not good because players like Clark underperformed and Veach somehow didn't know this years prior like he is some sort of Miss Cleo is just hating on the guy. That is what you are currently doing.

I asked earlier who is better and why? What's preventing you from answering said question besides the obvious?

If he was THAT good, the overwhelming reaction to the trade when it happened would have been that the Chiefs won the trade. I don't even know how you can argue that.

So again, your argument is:

Fans reactions >>> Production/tape

King ****ing Dumbass

That's his job...

Yeah, he was instrumental during that run. IIRC he also had 5 sacks and I know from memory at least 3 of them came in the 4th quarters of those games. Plus he talked all that shit about stopping Derrick Henry and led the charge in backing up his shit talk and holding him to something like 70 yards.

What do you think the fans and reporters and everyone else that didn't like the trade were reacting to? His "tape" showed a good player but not good enough to give up what we did for him. And that turned out to be true.

I’ve already explained that to you and you continue to ignore it. It’s a matter of philosophy and the Chiefs losing 2 pass rushers to turn around and trade for and pay another. For many, it wasn’t about Clark the player. Do you not understand that there’s a difference in philosophy with these kinds of moves in general? It’s the same reason some didn’t like the Orlando Brown trade either. The Rams have taken heat for their trades as well. Same goes for the Seahawks with Adams.

Anyways, what you’re saying is the equivalent of saying that Khalil Mack wasn’t that good in Oakland because he hasn’t quite lived up to his contract and what the Bears gave up to get him.

I said at the time the Clark trade was made - the biggest issue wasn't that Clark would need to play as well as he'd played in Seattle to justify the acquisition cost and contract - its that he would have to play BETTER.

No, Clark was never as good - even at his very best - as Veach and crew publicly suggested. The skills were just never there on tape. He's always been a high-motor mauler and guys like that just aren't worth what we gave up for him and then paid for him.

If said player was a career backup that was paid top dollar or if a player was an aging vet clearly declining then the GM would be able to more accurately predict his trajectory. Clark does not fit either of those as he was young and playing at a high level and to blame Veach saying it's "his job" to somehow know Clark would underperform at this level is absolutely ridiculous. He has no way of knowing that and your argument stems from your dislike of the trade so you are viewing everything from that lens and it shows. To argue that Veach is average or worse based off of that is weak at best. At least Veach was smart enough to have an out in case he was wrong, which we have.

I couldn’t disagree more. If he had 20 sacks the last 2 years, and was on his way to 10 more, he was absolutely worth it.

You were severely underrating how good he was in Seattle then, and you still are now.

It only appears to be right because he fell off a ****ing cliff.

Veach couldnt even hold Dorseys jock strap. The talent disparity between Dorsey guys vs Veach guys in the Cleveland game was very obvious

Umm what?

Who?

Myles Garrett? Was is that difficult to take the consensus #1 pick?

Baker Mayfield? He took the wrong QB. Give me Allen, Lamar, or even Darnold over that ****ing loser.

Nick Chubb? Congrats on hitting on a RB.

The Browns didn’t start winning until they got the HC right and rebuilt that OL, 2 things Dorsey had absolutely nothing to do with.

Garrett wasn't even a Dorsey pick, right? I thought he started in 2018. Don't think it's a coincidence that both teams had to completely overhaul their defenses to be legitimate contenders too. Dorsey has a pretty good eye for talent and he's a real good jump starter when it comes to rebuilds but he seems to be at best average to below average on most other parts of the GM job, especially since he seems to want to be the head honcho instead of second in command to an established coach.

How many of those "Dorsey" guys were top 10-15 picks? Outside of KC trading up from 27 to 10 to get Mahomes, when was the last time KC drafted that high? His #1 pick, Mayfield, is underwhelming at best. Also if Dorsey is such a great GM why isn't he one then?

Nope. Garrett was drafted the same year as Mahomes.

You’re right.

So, other than Nick Chubb, their game manager #1 overall pick at QB, and stealing Kareem Hunt away, Dorsey has very little to do with the Browns being as good as they are today.

Obviously he had some other good picks as well (Ward), but they don’t have the impact all of those other moves that Dorsey didn’t make do.

A slightly above average run defender who gets 10 sacks/season isn't worth $20+ million in AAV and a 1st and 2nd round pick.

No, if he were the same player he was in Seattle, I wouldn't have thought he was worth it. Sadly - he has been FAR worse than that.

I ask exactly what I asked then - what actual skills did he demonstrate? He wasn't a good hand fighter, he wasn't a superior speed rusher, he wasn't this powerful bull rusher. He didn't go out there and layer moves unless you count that pathetically predictable spin move.

He was then and has only been at his very best, a scrapper. Those guys have value - we could badly use one right now. But they aren't worth that kind of cap space and draft capital.

He was arguably top 5 edge rusher over that 3 year span man. It’s like you’re talking about him as if he were a JAG.

I also don’t think all 1st round and 2nd round picks are equal. We traded the 29th pick in a weak draft. The Seahawks took LJ Collier with that pick for crying out loud.

The contract would’ve been difficult to live up to, but again, if we were talking about a guy that’s racking up 30 sacks during that span, and we’re going to and winning SBs, I’m pretty sure I could’ve lived with it.

I think it was worth it for the Super Bowl alone personally. It’s just now that that’s over, it doesn’t quite feel like it in the present moment. Gun to my head, I wouldn’t take it back not knowing what would’ve happened without it though.

Who you're describing is essentially Cameron Jordan. He's made about $12 million/yr in the contracts given to him after his rookie deal. Let's say he plays out the final 3 years of his deal and the Saints will have paid him roughly $120 million over 10 years. And frankly, the odds are pretty high that he takes a pay cut in there somewhere.

And Clark has never been close to the kind of player Jordan was in '17 before he signed the deal he's playing on now. Danielle Hunter has been a better player than Clark was in Seattle and he signed a 5 year deal worth $72 million.

No, Clark was NEVER worth what he was paid. Even if he played at the level he demonstrated. And that's exactly why that trade/extension was a mistake.

It’s just a weird move. On the surface, it’s obviously a bad trade at the end of the day.

But it was a trade that was made to win a SB, and we won a SB, and Clark’s impact during that run was big enough to say it might not have happened without him.

Again, if you go back in time and don’t make that trade, it’s entirely possible you’re in a better situation today, but with no SB ring yet.

Give me the sure thing ring.

He was in a tier with guys like Brandon Graham, who at his APEX was making $13 million/season and for most of his career was nearer $9-10 million.

Brett Veach paid for the guy he wanted Frank Clark to be - not the guy he'd demonstrated himself to be.

Graham has never had 10 sacks in a season. Clark averaged that over that 3 year span.

Again, you were underrating him a bit then, and you still are now.

Hindsight being 20/20, what should we have done instead? Houston was going to be an overpaid butthurt bitch after we kicked Berry's worthless ass to the curb, Ford IMMEDIATELY became a brokedick once again after he'd secured the bag, Clowney went to replace Clark in Seattle and did absolutely **** all for them or the Titans, and the pick we traded for Clark would've probably been used on some bum like Tillery or Collier. Maybe Zadarius Smith? Maybe give him a shorter deal but even that doesn't make too much of a difference.

Why do you presume nothing in Clark's place?

Trey Flowers could've easily been who Clark was. Za'Darius Smith has been demonstrably better than Smith. Both of them cost less in cap and would've required zero draft capital.

It was a bad move. It was tunnel vision and/or Veach believing what he wanted to believe.

Hindsight being 20/20, we should’ve traded up for Montez Sweat.

Problem is, I’m pretty sure he wasn’t even on our board. TwistedChief said when he talked to Veach about the trade, that they talked about a certain prospect, and Veach said he wasn’t on their board due to medicals.

Right, figured that. We had more than a handful of top 30 visits be DL and Sweat wasn't one of them.

Considering that KC can walk away from him after this year with minimal cap impact make that deal essentially a three year one. If he played up to his contract, then it's a win for us. If he doesn't we cut bait like we almost assuredly will do.

Because that’s not how things work.

There’s no telling how things play out if they were done differently. The butterfly effect.

You can sit here with your armchair GM bullshit all you want, but if you were in charge and didn’t make that trade, there’s no guarantee we still have a SB ring. That’s just an indisputable fact.

Yes, we’d absolutely be better off now, and would’ve been last year too. That still doesn’t mean we’d have a guaranteed ring like we do now.

It's not hindsight, though.

The Frank Clark Wars are probably second only to the Matt Cassel Armageddon in living CP memory.

There were some pretty heated battles then and there's really little point in re-litigating them. I'm largely just repeating myself.

There were red flags all over that trade.

And maybe we'd have two.

We can speculate all we want - that's why we're here.

But only one of us is going whole hog into a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here...

I’m not denying that’s the case at all.

It’s just beyond the point. The fact that we don’t know is all that matters, so like I said, gun to my head, give me the guaranteed ring.

I will say this however, Clark was a big reason we won the SB, and I don’t think he was at the top of the list of reasons we lost last year.

With that said, I do think it’s more likely we win none at all than 2, but obviously that’s all speculation.

I'd really like to know how even hypothetically not trading for Clark nets us two rings.

Opportunity cost.

That's a tough sell. Because the playoff and super bowl run, he played on an mvp level in the playoffs. I agree that he and Sammy are two guys we've overpaid and didn't get much time out of them. But man, those guys were really crucial to winning a super bowl.

The Texans and Titans games were ultimately ended with Frank Clark prominently involved, but they were by no means decided by him. Both of those games were effectively over at that point.

And as I've said previously - essentially every single play counted in the SB and Frank Clark was a big part of one. So I'll tip my cap there. But I don't think he did anything even in that game that was truly remarkable. He had his patented 'clean up' sack but the guy who really controlled the LOS in that game was Chris Jones. Hell, K-Pass probably had his best game as a Chief. He's the one that forced Grapes up into Clark on that last sack and he's also the guy that came up the middle to force the overthrow on that play to Emmanuel Sanders.

The DL just played with its hair on fire that game and yes, Clark was part of that. And it could've just as easily been someone like Smith or Flowers doing the same thing.

But I'll concede that yes - that's speculation. But when the entirety of any passing grade for one of the biggest transactions in franchise history hinges on a 'but/for' sort of argument, it's fair to question that argument.

I'm going to have to disagree with at least the Texans game. 10 pressures and 3 sacks. That's some incredible production and absolutely played a massive role in that 49-7 run we had that game.

With the “premium” picks we had, he neglected the defense. 2019 took Hardman, who pretty much is a nobody. 2020 he took MEH, who pretty much is a nobody. The 2018 draft he missed on the entire draft class. Bolton looks like a keeper and Gay can’t stay healthy. Clark was paid and quit and decided to carry uzi’s in his ride.

Hardman is a nobody? He’s your average 2nd round pick. People like you just have unrealistic expectations when it comes to those picks. Sure, he wasn’t D.K. Metcalf, but he wasn’t Parris Campbell or JJ Arcega-Whiteside either.

Nnadi is a miss?

Fenton is a miss?

You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about.

Wrong. Hardman was drafted to develop into a legit #2; instead he’s a gimmick guy and that seems unlikely to change at this point. What exactly has Nnadi done on the leagues worst run defense again? Fenton is average nothing more. You’re delusional if you don’t agree with my assessments.

Just wanted to applaud this



https://i.giphy.com/media/1236TCtX5dsGEo/200w.gif

It doesn’t matter what Hardman was drafted to be. Considering where he went, and the fact that he’s at least been one of the leagues best gadget guys, he’s far from a “nobody” or a bad pick. A “nobody” doesn’t make a Pro Bowl. Bad picks don’t get 1,000+ yards and 10+ TD’s in their first 2 seasons.

Nnadi is a very good run defender. He isn’t defined by the defensive performance as a whole.

Fenton has been excellent depth at corner. That’s all you can ask for out of a late day 3 pick.

Again, you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about.