Frank Clark ****ing sucks

[RealSNR]

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.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Fantasy football imbeciles the industry has created

[chiefforlife]

Originally Posted by Mecca

No stat here but he killed 3 guys...

Chiefs are still working on their timing/execution of stunts, but Clark crashing inside is definitely something that causes problems. pic.twitter.com/fVW2nZdiWz

— Seth Keysor (@RealMNchiefsfan) 523712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2019

No way you can see that and say Frank Clark sucks. Come on Man!

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

I'm saying it's disappointing. Not that he sucks.

[RealSNR]

Let's say his production is about the same up until halfway through the season. 4 TFLs in 8 games, 0 sacks, 0 hurries. But a whole lot of the kind of plays where people say, "Well, if you just watched the games, you'd see he's facing chips and double teams constantly and making these heads up plays here and screens and stretches blah blah blah"

Is that good enough? For what we paid for him?

If Jacksonville and their dipshit offensive coordinator and backup tackles can stop him from making shit explode in the backfield by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him and other teams decide to do the exact same thing, will you be satisfied with that?

If he finished the year with 0 sacks, is that good enough?

Yes, that's a difference making player, but guess what? I said the exact same shit about Justin Houston, because for a time even after he got paid, he was that kind of player. I even made those exact same arguments, saying, "you're not even watching the game" to people who bitched about the contract we gave him and how he didn't show up on the stat sheet.

Hell, many of these same people who are crowing, "HUHR IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT SACKS I KNO FOOTBALL!!!" were bitching about Justin Houston's production when, guess what... he actually WAS productive. No, not all, but some are.

I can already see people furiously typing away and calling this post a stupid hypothetical, but I actually mean it. Is that good enough? And if it isn't good enough, is it good enough for two games? No, not as a team. As an individual player.

You can say Frank Clark is a good player and still say, "He hasn't done what we needed him to do in these past couple games". Maybe he'll destroy the Ravens on Sunday. Great. Then whatever. I just think some people aren't actually watching the games like they claim they are and instead opting to parrot homer talking points that they heard other people bring up in this thread and other places.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

If we give up sub 20 PPG, I doubt anyone should give a shit

[mdstu]

Originally Posted by -King-

No one is saying he's a bad player, but he hasn't made the type of impact multiple traded picks and 100M contract should demand. I expect that he has a impact game one of these days but so far he has been underwhelming. 2 games is all we have to judge off of so far so what's wrong with doing that?

I don't understand how it is that I can literally read your every thought on this board and not agree with one single thing you say.

If only Chiefsplanet held you to the same standard that you hold FC to.

Underwhelming, is how I would describe your posting style.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by mdstu

I don't understand how it is that I can literally read your every thought on this board and not agree with one single thing you say.

If only Chiefsplanet held you to the same standard that you hold FC to.

Underwhelming, is how I would describe your posting style.

Good thing I'm not getting paid 100million dollars huh?


Who really thought when we got Clark the thing we'd be bragging about was his ability to get double teamed? I don't get why holding a player who makes as much as he does and cost as much as he did to acquire to a higher standard is such a foreign concept to you guys. If we give Mahomes the biggest contract ever and he suddenly starts playing like Alex Smith, would you say he's underwhelming or would you start bragging about how well he avoids turnovers and about his hidden touchdowns?

[-King-]

From PFF so take it for what it's worth

Forgot to tweet this on Monday: LT Kolton Miller (@kolton_miller) allowed just one quarterback pressure against KC, per @PFF. No hits, no sacks allowed.

RDE Frank Clark rushed the passer 36 times vs OAK, and had zero sacks, zero hits, zero hurries.

— Scott Bair (@BairNBCS) September 18, 2019

[Iconic]

Some of you are honestly delusional. You guys keep saying as long as the defense improves he's worth the cost. How exactly do we know this defensive improvement is attributed to FC or I dunno... the entire ****ing scheme change.

As it stands, no he's not worth the price. But it's a small sample size and he's got 14 games to prove it wrong so I won't crown him the king of suckage just yet.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

Let's say his production is about the same up until halfway through the season. 4 TFLs in 8 games, 0 sacks, 0 hurries. But a whole lot of the kind of plays where people say, "Well, if you just watched the games, you'd see he's facing chips and double teams constantly and making these heads up plays here and screens and stretches blah blah blah"

Is that good enough? For what we paid for him?

If Jacksonville and their dipshit offensive coordinator and backup tackles can stop him from making shit explode in the backfield by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him and other teams decide to do the exact same thing, will you be satisfied with that?

If he finished the year with 0 sacks, is that good enough?

Yes, that's a difference making player, but guess what? I said the exact same shit about Justin Houston, because for a time even after he got paid, he was that kind of player. I even made those exact same arguments, saying, "you're not even watching the game" to people who bitched about the contract we gave him and how he didn't show up on the stat sheet.

Hell, many of these same people who are crowing, "HUHR IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT SACKS I KNO FOOTBALL!!!" were bitching about Justin Houston's production when, guess what... he actually WAS productive. No, not all, but some are.

I can already see people furiously typing away and calling this post a stupid hypothetical, but I actually mean it. Is that good enough? And if it isn't good enough, is it good enough for two games? No, not as a team. As an individual player.

You can say Frank Clark is a good player and still say, "He hasn't done what we needed him to do in these past couple games". Maybe he'll destroy the Ravens on Sunday. Great. Then whatever. I just think some people aren't actually watching the games like they claim they are and instead opting to parrot homer talking points that they heard other people bring up in this thread and other places.

Dude.

It's a TWO GAME sample size. yeah, I'd agree if we're midway through the year and he's got ZERO sacks and ZERO hurries and 4 TFL, then yeah, I'd be scratching my head.

That's not going to happen, unless he gets hurt.

What I and anyone else with eyes and a brain is telling you and King is that there's nothing wrong with his play and that the stats will come. The examples of good plays, the double teams, the excellent run defense are not meant to be the end-all. They're evidence that his play level is very high, and that there's nothing to be concerned about, the stats will come.

What we're saying is: Frank Clark's play looks like Frank Clark, and there's no reason to think he isn't going to put up numbers.

This was my purpose in putting up Mack's numbers through the same 2 games. It's an example of why freaking out over a 2 game sample size is stupid. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the 'sack stat' guys. You don't extrapolate stats like that after two games. If he has a game with 5 sacks Sunday, does that mean he's on a pace for like 28 sacks this season? Do you see how stupid that is?

If it makes you feel like you've somehow won this asinine argument, then yeah, I'll agree with you that if after 8 games, he's got ZERO sacks, ZERO hurries, and 4 TFL then I will agree that we've overpaid for him to that point. Does that make you feel better? Can we move on now?

[Chris Meck]

OR, SNR and King-

How about you put this in your pipe and smoke it:

In 1990, Derrick Thomas put up 20.0 sacks. Pretty amazing season, right?

OH BUT WAIT-7 of those sacks came in one game. So that means that he had less than one sack per game for the other 15 games.

So I guess he ****ing sucked, huh?

Do you see how dumb it is to try to project a season total after two games?

He looks fine, he looks like the same Frank Clark that put up 13 sacks last year and was a stud run defender. The numbers will come. Chill out.

[jettio]

Originally Posted by Chiefs=Good

I went and watched every snap of the 1st half concentrating on Clark. He was very good. Good tfl on a screen, another run stop in the backfield but Jacobs fell forward of the line. He was chipped, doubled and even chipped and doubled on one play. Oakland spent most of the 1st half getting the ball out very fast - im not sure what more you could ask of him? He looked pretty good to me...

I think the idea of getting the ball out fast is going to be a real difficult concept for these critics of Frank Clark to understand.

You might have to post some all-22 with stopwatches on the screen to explain the idea that QBs that throw right away are rarely sacked.

[-King-]

Frank Clark has 1 pressure this season according to PFR

https://www.pro-football-reference.c...e_advanced.htm

The guy Chris Meck keeps comparing him with leads the league with 15.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by -King-

Read the rest of the read. He admitted he had been drinking when he wrote that and walked it back.

So are you drinking now or do you not have an excuse?

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

OR, SNR and King-

How about you put this in your pipe and smoke it:

In 1990, Derrick Thomas put up 20.0 sacks. Pretty amazing season, right?

OH BUT WAIT-7 of those sacks came in one game. So that means that he had less than one sack per game for the other 15 games.

So I guess he ****ing sucked, huh?

Do you see how dumb it is to try to project a season total after two games?

He looks fine, he looks like the same Frank Clark that put up 13 sacks last year and was a stud run defender. The numbers will come. Chill out.

No one said it's all about sacks. It's really not that hard to read before you post. But he really hadn't made any impact plays. We're going to need him to be more than the guy who gets double teamed if we really want this defense to be good enough to beat Tom Brady. Like I've said a million times, when you give up what we did and give him the contract he got, expectations are going to be a lot higher than the average defensive player.