Anyone up for a Frank Clark Reunion?

[kidhawk]

Oh, I listed 3 reasons, all posted above.
Either you did not read my 3 reasons already listed, or you don't have the reading comprehension to understand them.

I know you aren't 12, but you certainly are posting like you are. your list of reasons were given as to why you don't want him. None of which have anything to do with your perception of how he "turned his back on the Seahawks" Here's your list:

Reasons why I do not want to see DE Frank Clark in a Seahawk's uniform ever again.

• After the Hawks spent 3 to 4 years in developing him, Frank Clark turned his back on the organization.
• Frank Clark has not appeared in 16 games since he left Seattle after 2018 (5 years ago).
• Frank Clark has worked his way onto the field for all of 2 games this year (pathetic).

You really have two options here, you can either explain what makes you believe he turned his back on the Seahawks after we developed him, or you can just leave it be. Attacking me with your immature insults will do you no good.

 

[Dvl Dug]

I know you aren't 12, but you certainly are posting like you are. your list of reasons were given as to why you don't want him. None of which have anything to do with your perception of how he "turned his back on the Seahawks" Here's your list:



You really have two options here, you can either explain what makes you believe he turned his back on the Seahawks after we developed him, or you can just leave it be. Attacking me with your immature insults will do you no good.

First of all, it was you kidhwawk that attacked me, and you still have not apologized for your transgression.
I've already explained myself, and you have not yet said anything that backs up your own (oblivious) point.

You are correct when you say that, I am not 12.
I'm in my 50's.

But you are completely acting like you are a 12 year old.
Want to stop your hate filled belligerence yet?

 

[Raifers]

Oh, I listed 3 reasons, all posted above.
Either you did not read my 3 reasons already listed, or you don't have the reading comprehension to understand them.

Lol, you listed 3 reasons why you didn't want him back. You haven't listed 3 reasons on how he turned his back on the organization.

 

[kidhawk]

First of all, it was you kidhwawk that attacked me, and you still have not apologized for your transgression.
I've already explained myself, and you have not yet said anything that backs up your own (oblivious) point.

You are correct when you say that, I am not 12.
I'm in my 50's.

But you are completely acting like you are a 12 year old.
Want to stop your hate filled belligerence yet?

Hold your horses pal...I never once attacked you. I simply questioned your opinion that he turned his back on us. I stated why I believe that to be wrong. You disagree, yet you have not once said why you disagree or why you believe he turned his back on the Seahawks. You have called me a nutcase at least twice. Either state why you feel he turned his back or not, but it's useless to continue a conversation where all you do is go after me and not actually discuss the actual football related stuff we are supposed to be here for

 

[Dvl Dug]

Read it - I'm not going to re-post just for you.

 

[Dvl Dug]

Lol, you listed 3 reasons why you didn't want him back. You haven't listed 3 reasons on how he turned his back on the organization.

It's the same 3 things isn't it?
If not, tell me how they differ?

 

[kidhawk]

It's the same 3 things isn't it?
If not, tell me how they differ?

How he played after he left has nothing to do with "turning his back on the Seahawks".

Look, I can understand why people don't want him back, but if someone wants to claim he turned his back on the Seahawks specifically, then they either need to back it up with something or leave it be

 

[Lagartixa]

Frank Clark did turn against his own team. Kidhawk, you are a nutball.
You just locked yourself into a position that you can't defend, on either side.

A position he can't defend? How so, if he's right?

The Seahawks traded Clark to the Chiefs. They got the Chiefs' 2019 first-round pick and the Chiefs' 2020 second-round pick. The teams also swapped their 2019 third-round picks.

How can you say that Clark "turn[ed] against" the team when it was the team that applied the franchise tag to him and traded him away rather than paying him what he was able to get from the Chiefs (a post-trade renegotiation to a five-year, $104M contract, which he ended up paying him $63.5M over three years)?

Mind you, I think the Seahawks made the right move there, because I don't think Clark was worth $20M+ per year to the Seahawks at that point, but it was the Seahawks who didn't want to pay Clark what he could get in the market, and so made the decision to franchise him and trade him. Clark didn't "turn against his own team."

Also, for what it's worth, I agree with you in not wanting Clark back now, even at the vet minimum.

Oh, I listed 3 reasons, all posted above.
Either you did not read my 3 reasons already listed, or you don't have the reading comprehension to understand them.

The only thing I could find in this thread written by you that involves three of something is the comment in which you give three reasons you don't want Clark back on the Seahawks, the first one being the unsupported assertion that Clark "turned his back on" the team, followed by two things about his career after the Seahawks had traded him away. So if you did in fact post any kind of evidence supporting your claim that Clark "did turn against his own team" in this thread I couldn't find it. So please point it out to me if it actually exists. [Spoiler: I don't think it does, but I'll admit I'm wrong about that if you can point it out]

 

[hedgehawk]

I’m good with getting a guy cheap that can give us 10-15 snaps and possibly be disruptive.

 

[toffee]

I’m good with getting a guy cheap that can give us 10-15 snaps and possibly be disruptive.

This, but doubt that Clark is going for vet minimum?

 

[Raifers]

It's the same 3 things isn't it?
If not, tell me how they differ?

Well it differs because.
#2 states he didn’t play the full 16/17 games in a season after he left. That is actually helping the Seahawks cuz he did that for another team. So I believe this definitely differs from turning his back on the Seahawks. It’s more like he turned his back on the team he didn’t play a full season for.

#3 states he’s only worked his way back to playing 2 games this season. So it seems he has turned his back on the Broncos and gave up on them (probably why he got released).

I’ve explained, now tell me why you think the 3 reasons you stated do not differ and are all about him turning his back on the Seahawks.

 

[Rat]

Sure. I have about as much faith that Darrell Taylor will prove to be useful in any way whatsoever as I do that Dee Eskridge will become the NFC's answer to Tyreek Hill. Clark can have his snaps for all I care. If he's terrible, we're not any worse off.

 

[hedgehawk]

This, but doubt that Clark is going for vet minimum?

I don’t know how it works per cap. The Broncos need to pay the majority of what is owed I’m pretty sure. He signed a pretty small contract if I remember correctly.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Yes. I will take anyone that can rush the passer.

You can have any political stance, engage in any illegal behavior (as long as somehow you can still make your way onto the field), have or promote any noxious viewpoint you want. Just pressure and sack QBs.

Clark hasn't gotten nailed for some terrible league crime, DV issue, horrible social media take, or anything similar. And even if he did, I would still want him because I know he can sometimes pressure/sack QBs. Something we desperately need.

If you are going to pee away cap space, might as well be for someone that gets sacks and forces punts.

He isn't a bad guy. He is a strong pass rusher. And even if neither of those were true, he would still be better than what we have.

 

[knownone]

For those who want Frank, who does he replace in the rotation? Some might say Taylor, but Taylor has been a better pass rusher in almost every category over the past two seasons. Do you want Frank taking snaps away from Hall?

I don't see a fit unless Frank is coming on a vet minimum to be a situational rusher.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Taylor is very good at running at guys. Not at all actually tackling them.
I'd swap Clark for Taylor in almost any situation.

Not at all a hard call. I'd switch Clark out for 2 Taylors.

 

[toffee]

Don't think Clark is ready to play for vetmin or close to. If he is willing to, we can consider.

 

[Hawkspeed]

It might be ok to sign him if necessary.
But as a fan...he lost me when he "sucker punched" Ifedi during training camp. I looked for a supporting video, but maybe you remember.
So really... for Jalen Carter type reasons...I say NO!

 

[NoGain]

He's really not what we need now.

 

[SeaChat]

If I’m not mistaken Frank was part of a Seahawks trade deal. For what time he was with the Seahawks he was one of the most fan friendly players on our rosters, not to mention being “All That” on our defensive line.

Don’t take my word for it, check his stats. He’s stayed in touch with a lot of 12’s and his Seahawks teammates since leaving us.

Frank’s obsession with guns stems from an earlier time in his life, where many of his peers were compelled to carry firearms as a means of survival.

While that may seem irrational to many, I assure you that it seems completely rational to just as many others, who have shared his existence.

Kansas City Chiefs have nothing to do with Frank’s NFL future, the Denver Bronco’s owned his paper contractually and they just released him.

Meaning the Seahawks could get Frank for pretty much whatever terms they could reach with him. Anyone believes that Frank is over, wouldn’t after facing him for a few snaps. Pete has a real knack for helping players like Frank find the best in themselves and in their game.