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.

[Discuss Thrower]

All things considered, giving up long rushing drives with Mahomes as your QB is better than the alternative of being unable to defend even Casselian levels of passing offenses considering running the ball is almost always going to burn off more clock whereas your offense is able to score almost at will through long passes.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by -King-

How? The chiefs in Sutton's years were on average the 14th ranked defense in opponent TOP and the 9th ranked defense in scoring defense. Last year was literally the only yeah Sutton didn't field a top 10 defense in at least one of those categories if not both. That wasn't good enough but this year it is? Which is it?

Those last 2 years they bad at run defense and was rightfully shitted on for it. But this year we're worse so far at run defense but some people excuse it as being part of the plan or some other bullshit.

Your whole shit is being contrary. It gets tiring.

[T-post Tom]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Not really. But it was uncalled for.

In real life I’m consistently sarcastic. But the above was entirely due to lack of caffeine.

Oh you’re being sarcastic. Cool. I’ll catch on better once the coffee kicks in

Popular CP meme/catchphrase. All in fun.

[T-post Tom]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

At some point, I think we all have to be willing to put some of the blame at the feet of Andy Reid and decide what we're willing to put up with defensively in exchange for what he's done with the offense.

Like I said before, we all wanted change, whether it was a coaching change or player changes. We ended up getting BOTH. Time to let it play out. Week 3 doesn't seem like the best time to decide it's a failed experiment.

Yeses all the way around.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by T-post Tom

Popular CP meme/catchphrase. All in fun.

No worries. Caffeine is finally kicking in.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

Oh for pity’s sake . . . maybe this will help.

https://youtu.be/8N3Ebo_yYSU

https://lastwordonprofootball.com/20...s-city-chiefs/

Honestly no neither of those answer my question. How is it game changing when they supposedly ran 44% of their plays away from him 56% of their plays went towards him? It seems that they'd run away from him more times than not if they were scared of him. I know Stout is good at breaking down film, but he obviously hasn't looked at the trends of the Ravens.

When looking at the numbers from the 1st two weeks of the season you can easily see that the Ravens have better run blockers or like to run to the right side more than they do the left. In the 1st 2 weeks the Ravens had 56 runs that they ran to the right or to the left, but doesn't include runs up the middle. The Ravens ran to the right on 61% of those runs and to the left on 39% of those runs.

So with a little digging you can see that they weren't running away from Clark, they were just doing what they've been doing all season long. If they were running away from Clark you would think that once they moved him to the other side that they would start running the other way, but that is not what happened.

Now back to the video, Stout says that Clark was "solid", but not "exceptional". Don't you give up what we gave up for exceptional? This next statement is about the article, when I see someone say that FC was double and triple teamed against the Ravens, then I'm not going to take that source seriously. I watched him on every play that I could and not once did I see him get double teamed and he damn sure wasn't ever triple teamed.

Now please explain to me how running a play towards a player more than you went away from that player is game changing.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Lol yea that had nothing to do with having Hali, Houston, Poe, DJ, Berry etc.

Ok and we don't have players too? I'm not trying to turn this into a Sutton vs Spags situation. I'm just pointing out that the same shit people complained about with Sutton, they're ok with with Spags and this Defense so far.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Your whole shit is being contrary. It gets tiring.

You can choose to not read. Or choose to rebut what I'm saying. Free country.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's why in week 3 of his first season, Bob's defense gave up 264 yards rushing to the Eagles?

It was never my position that we were good against the run back then lol. I simply pointed out that the things we didn't like with Sutton, we're now saying it's part of the plan. When teams ran all over us in the past years it's because if how bad our run defense was. But now, people are saying it's because it's part of the game plan to allow it or something else dumb.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Contrarian King doesn't believe half the crap he spews

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by -King-

It was never my position that we were good against the run back then lol. I simply pointed out that the things we didn't like with Sutton, we're now saying it's part of the plan. When teams ran all over us in the past years it's because if how bad our run defense was. But now, people are saying it's because it's part of the game plan to allow it or something else dumb.

Sutton was well liked that first year up until the Colts playoff loss. Lots of sacks and turnovers. Defensive TDs out the wazoo. Fans liked that. He soon wore out his welcome, though.

Spags D is so far getting an average amount of sacks and turnovers, and while we still allow the huge 10+ yard gashers, we’re at least much better at stopping shit at the LOS. It has to get better, though.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by -King-

It was never my position that we were good against the run back then lol. I simply pointed out that the things we didn't like with Sutton, we're now saying it's part of the plan. When teams ran all over us in the past years it's because if how bad our run defense was. But now, people are saying it's because it's part of the game plan to allow it or something else dumb.

I wasn't bitching about Sutton in WEEK THREE of his first season. In fact, I maintained for most of last season that it was more about personnel than about Sutton anyway.

It all comes down to this - it's week 3 of the first season of a new staff and all new personnel. Everybody needs to calm the F down.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I wasn't bitching about Sutton in WEEK THREE of his first season. In fact, I maintained for most of last season that it was more about personnel than about Sutton anyway.

It all comes down to this - it's week 3 of the first season of a new staff and all new personnel. Everybody needs to calm the F down.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Sigh. So when can we start discussing games that we've watched so far? I watched game 1, I talked about game 1. I watched game 2, I talked about the first 2 games. I then watched game 3 and I talked about the first 3 games. At no time have I said the defense isn't going to be good at all this year. I'm just talking about what I've seen so far. Just like when I say I think Mahomes is going to be the MVP again and that he's the best player in football by far so far this year, I'm going off what I've seen the past 3 weeks. I don't understand why I can't give praise where I see fit and criticism where I see fit based on what I've seen so far.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by -King-

Sigh. So when can we start discussing games that we've watched so far? I watched game 1, I talked about game 1. I watched game 2, I talked about the first 2 games. I then watched game 3 and I talked about the first 3 games. At no time have I said the defense isn't going to be good at all this year. I'm just talking about what I've seen so far. Just like when I say I think Mahomes is going to be the MVP again and that he's the best player in football by far so far this year, I'm going off what I've seen the past 3 weeks. I don't understand why I can't give praise where I see fit and criticism where I see fit based on what I've seen so far.

I'm not saying it's specifically you but there's a bunch of people here that are already wringing their hands about going to New England and/or the defense not being good enough for the playoffs. That's a LONG ways off.

Furthermore, it's one thing to say that, so far, Frank Clark for example, hasn't played up to expectations. It's another thing altogether to suggest it was a waste of money/picks, he's "trash", or some of the other hyperbole I've seen here over the last couple of weeks.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by dlphg9

Honestly no neither of those answer my question. How is it game changing when they supposedly ran 44% of their plays away from him 56% of their plays went towards him? It seems that they'd run away from him more times than not if they were scared of him. I know Stout is good at breaking down film, but he obviously hasn't looked at the trends of the Ravens.

When looking at the numbers from the 1st two weeks of the season you can easily see that the Ravens have better run blockers or like to run to the right side more than they do the left. In the 1st 2 weeks the Ravens had 56 runs that they ran to the right or to the left, but doesn't include runs up the middle. The Ravens ran to the right on 61% of those runs and to the left on 39% of those runs.

So with a little digging you can see that they weren't running away from Clark, they were just doing what they've been doing all season long. If they were running away from Clark you would think that once they moved him to the other side that they would start running the other way, but that is not what happened.

Now back to the video, Stout says that Clark was "solid", but not "exceptional". Don't you give up what we gave up for exceptional? This next statement is about the article, when I see someone say that FC was double and triple teamed against the Ravens, then I'm not going to take that source seriously. I watched him on every play that I could and not once did I see him get double teamed and he damn sure wasn't ever triple teamed.

Now please explain to me how running a play towards a player more than you went away from that player is game changing.

Respectfully, this premise is incorrect. It does not follow that if 44% of plays are not run at him, therefore 56% of play must be run toward him. In fact, some of those other plays might be pass plays. Clark wasn't on the field for some of those plays. And so on. But the fact that of the plays the Ravens did run, 44% were run away from his side is statistically a huge number.


I readily admit that before listening to the podcast, I didn't know who Mr. Stout was. However, as I understand it, he gets paid to analyze film for the Chiefs. I'm going to believe him before I believe you,. No offense.

I watched the film of the Chiefs-Ravens game twice, and I don't know what you were watching, but Frank is doubled several times during the game. He is also chipped several times. I noticed that at some point during the game Frank starts lining up in different spots. I also noted that he spent some time chasing TEs. Side note: he played those MUCH better than Dee ever did.

Spags is asked about this in his presser, and he acknowledges that he wanted to move him around to try and hamper Baltimore's ability to double him. Spags says that out loud to a room full of reporters. He also says that they're asking Frank to do a lot of things besides rush the passer, and that Clark has been all in on taking up these extra responsibilities, even though they are limiting his chances to actually rush the passer.

Again, no disrespect, but I'm going to go with the word of the Defensive Coordinator over yours.

One of these guys broke down FC's effectiveness against runs to his side, and found that runs against him are averaging less than 2.2 yds/carry. That is statistically significant, and is an exceptional number. And Frank was originally pursued as a run stopper.

The consensus about FC by people that get paid to look at these things so far been that FC has played consistently solid mistake-free, smart football, but that he hasn't posted much in the way of splash plays.

And finally, as I and others have said multiple times, it's only been three weeks. Reggie White had a season when he didn't have a sack for 5 consecutive games. Derrick Thomas had multiple seasons in which he didn't post sacks for multiple games in a row. No one ever said those guys weren't performing to their contracts after three weeks.

Bottom line, Baltimore didn't run at FC more than they did away. The eye test proves that alone. No OC in his right mind would do that.

But I think the most important thing about this whole argument/conversation, is that Frank himself isn't concerned about his numbers. In his post-game locker room interview, you can tell he's happy he got the sack, especially against Lamar, but when asked about his numbers, he just smiles and says he's not interested in stats, just wins. I believe that's telling.

P.S. this week we're facing a far more traditional QB that mostly stays in the pocket, with an ability to scramble. but not run. And the most experienced proven QB we've faced this season. It should give us a better idea of what our 'base' defense should look like. If we can get stops against the run/get a two score lead, we should see FC rushing the passer more than he has up to this point. At least in theory. We'll see how the Lions address this, but we should also see how FC is doing from a physical standpoint. Will he show the power and burst he wowed everyone with last year? How healthy does he look? And so on.