I'M the one that won't admit I'm wrong?!?! Good lord, look at this nonsense from Clay. I've conceded at least twice that Clark's had good games. And another that I saw as adequate. Clay will tell you that Clark has played well every damn game!!!
Look at the mental gymnastics he's undertaking here. Did you hear Thornhill's interview after the game? The Chiefs knew that route was coming, they'd practiced that play. Thornhill said he read it all the way and was baiting Carr in the hopes that he'd throw it. And he did - it had NOTHING to do with Frank Clark, the Chiefs saw it in tape and Thornhill tricked Carr into making the play. And we have Clay trying to put that shit on Clark's ledger.
Or Jones making a sack when Clark's being handled. But because Carr - a strict pocket passer, didn't sprint to his left then Clark not tripping over his own damn feet on the play means he deserves partial credit for Jones sack now.
I mean, I guess it's better than this:
A play we KNOW Clay would've put out there had he looked at this with even a partially objective lens. But he doesn't. Because in his world, everything Clark does is wine and roses.
But I'm the one that won't admit I'm wrong. About Frank Clark. The "DPOY Candidate" who's had 2 good games and otherwise requires that you resort to "hey, he almost made a play..." and "He's just doing his job..." to defend him. Suuuuuuure.
Defense played great. It played no worse at all when Clark wasn't on the field anymore. Clark was an afterthought yesterday. And that's exactly the point - he doesn't make a difference out there. He's just present far more often than not. And when he's actually playing well, it's OBVIOUS. Yesterday it was clear he was not going to have one of those days. Low and behold, he didn't.
You call pointing out the fact that he beat a WR in a 1 on 1 situation an 'excuse'? That's a simple statement of fact, champ. When we didn't take the pass rush at face value after sacking Joe Flacco and the inept Broncos 9 times, it was with good reason. When I don't call Frank Clark some run-mauling destroyer of worlds because he tossed a
wide receiver out of the way...that seems a fair point.
Clark covers 1/4 of the field. You noted they ran at him 4 times, no? How the hell many times SHOULD they be running to their weak side behind their worse OL?
The Raiders ran behind their best OL and to their strong side and that's shocking...how? How is that in any way indicative of Clark being gameplanned against? Especially when there's no indication that they changed ANYTHING when he wasn't on the field?
And it's ALL just mental masturbation to pretend like this is anything APPROACHING the returns anyone expected from the guy. To even begin to make a defense of him you have to say "well hey, at least they didn't run the ball RIGHT AT HIM....well, except for that time they broke one off for 35.