Quote:
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?