[O.city]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

Because it's ****ing stupid.

You could say he had a bad game if:
He was getting blown off the ball
He missed multiple tackles
He cost the team with dumb penalties
he blew assignments

None of that is true, if you watch him. The stats you want to talk about will fluctuate from game to game, as I've illustrated, and you just choose to ignore.

Nobody is saying they expect 0 sacks and 0 pressures all ****ing season. What we're saying is, he is playing at a high level and those stats will take care of themselves, because he's too ****ing good for them not to. Just like Derrick Thomas had 7 sacks in one game and then less than a sack a game the rest of the year, which was his best year. You don't look at a 2 game sample and decide what a player is. That's ****ing stupid. Clark's body of work is that he's an elite DE, and he's playing like one, and the stats will all work out just fine.

If George Brett had a couple of games in which he went 0 for 4, it didn't mean he couldn't hit.

There's nothing wrong with Clark, just like there's nothing wrong with Aaron Donald. Those stats will fluctuate, and aren't full indicators of their impact on the game.

Jesus, how many different ways do you need to be shown?

He doesn't suck.

He hasn't made impact plays yet, which is what he's getting paid to do. Paid a lot.

This isn't hard