EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IN HAWKS

[RiverDog]

I dunno, the more I study this one the more I can understand Clarks reaction. The man was struck and then BIT IN THE NOSE. Man it hurts just thinking about that. He would be well within his right to separate her from him physically at that point IMO, even if it was physical. A reaction like that hardly makes a man an abuser. I have personally been struck by an escort radar detector, a blender, a block of WIC cheese, dinner plates, and the bill of a baseball cap which cut my cheek over 30 years in 2 marriages. Most of it was in the first rocky marriage. I never struck a woman but the primal instinct was lurking beneath the surface for sure.Nobody of either gender enjoys getting struck, having stuff thrown at them, or being bitten.

If that's how it happened, I can see a person being justified in striking a woman out of an instinctual reaction or in self defense. It's a good example why Schneider was foolish to agree to an essentially zero tolerance policy regarding the striking of a woman as it does not leave any room for exceptional circumstances such as the one you noted.

But Clark, and the Seahawks that believe his claim, says he didn't hit her AT All. That's where the rub is.

[Oly]

But Clark, and the Seahawks that believe his claim, says he didn't hit her [b]AT All. That's where the rub is.

True, but as Clintonian as this will sound, it probably is about what the definition of "hit" is. I'll preface this by saying I haven't read the full police report, but here is a guess as to what could have happened: he's holding her on the bed, she bites his nose, he instinctively pushes her face away with an open palm. But his hand is already moving fast when it makes contact with her face, and he's a big enough guy that his open-palm "push" leaves more of a mark than most of our punches. If he thinks a "hit" is when you have a clenched fist and your goal is just to hurt someone, then he is honest in thinking he didn't hit her, even though his hand was responsible for some pretty serious damage to her face.

Again, I have no idea if this is what happened, or if it fits the timeline of what happened and the police investigation. All I know is that there is some middle ground between not touching someone and "hitting" them, and what happened might fall into that category, at least in Clark's mind.

[RiverDog]

True, but as Clintonian as this will sound, it probably is about what the definition of "hit" is. I'll preface this by saying I haven't read the full police report, but here is a guess as to what could have happened: he's holding her on the bed, she bites his nose, he instinctively pushes her face away with an open palm. But his hand is already moving fast when it makes contact with her face, and he's a big enough guy that his open-palm "push" leaves more of a mark than most of our punches. If he thinks a "hit" is when you have a clenched fist and your goal is just to hurt someone, then he is honest in thinking he didn't hit her, even though his hand was responsible for some pretty serious damage to her face.

Again, I have no idea if this is what happened, or if it fits the timeline of what happened and the police investigation. All I know is that there is some middle ground between not touching someone and "hitting" them, and what happened might fall into that category, at least in Clark's mind.

You might want to read it then, as there is some information in there that would enlighten you. Here's a link:

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/colle ... /19157491/

Some key excerpts:

After initially engaging Clark in the parking lot, Curran (arresting officer) patted him down and assessed that Clark was intoxicated before placing him in the back of the patrol car with the other officer waiting with him.

That's when Curran entered the hotel and assessed the remnants of the disturbance and began interviewing witnesses.
When Curran approached the room, Hurt (the GF) was awake.

"We went up the room, there was a damaged lamp on the table, a damaged lamp on the wall and she's got a large welt on the side of her cheek, she's got marks on her neck," Curran said. "She had what looked like rug burn on her one thigh. We have pictures of everything."

Her two juvenile brothers offered more graphic accounts to Curran, pinning more blame on Clark. One of the brothers told police that Clark drank at least a fifth of Hennessy. Hurt underwent a portable breath test that measured .000%.

The brothers said they saw Clark hitting their sister and one said Clark had her against a wall, grabbing her by the throat, picking her off the ground and slamming her down.

On the day after, once she had time to reflect on the seriousness of the charge and possible repercussions to her boyfriend, the GF claimed that she sustained the injury to her cheek by falling on an end table, but she also claimed that Clark didn't grab her by the throat, only by her shirt, which does not account for the red marks the police noted on her neck. It's pretty hard to get those from anything else but someone grabbing her.

Based on the inconsistencies of the accounts given by the GF, I am more likely to believe the original, first hand eyewitness accounts of the two brothers given to the police and that match the injuries that were observed and photographed than I am the day after account of the GF.

[savvyman]

Edit - Wrong Thread

[Hawk Sista]

Schneider's insistence that they "investigated" Clark thoroughly and that the Hawks have a "ZERO tolerance" policy with Domestic Violence are part of the problem. While I believe (perhaps naively so) that JS and PC have scruples and that they believe Frank was in the wrong place at the wrong time, the whole thing has been handled poorly.

Yes, the Seahawks thoroughly back-grounded Frank Clark more than any other draft pick because his behavior warranted it. But the Seahawks did not "investigate" the crime, nor should they. It is not the role of an NFL team to investigate crimes. During the time Schneider and Co. were building their draft boards, the Clark case was still an open investigation. NFL franchises, including the Hawks, should not monkey around with ongoing investigations as it would most certainly taint the process and perhaps put even more pressure on alleged victims.

Schneider has used clumsy language around this issue a few times. This has, in a sense, added gasoline to the fire rather than water. He alluded to a thorough investigation leading fans to believe that Hawk brass left no stone unturned on Frank Clark's criminal past only to find out that the team did not speak to the victim or witnesses to learn their perspective. It felt like a lie, but really was just unclear language. I believe he used unclear language as a tool and it back-fired on him. This is the information age, man. Any booger eating moron can get a copy of the police report in about 5 seconds...it is not 1987 when Schneider's handling of the issue would have worked well. As was stated by Danny O'Neal, Schneider used language that was sloppy. As a high level executive representing a major organization, he should have been more thoughtful in what he elected to say and how he said it.

I think we fans would have tolerated this move a little better had Schneider said something along the lines of "from our extensive background work on Mr. Clark, we find him to be a great athlete/football player as well as an exemplary leader and teammate. We have visited with him, his coaches, & teammates and concluded that he will be a good addition to our team. With respect to his off the field issues, we have deduced that Frank made very poor choices. Based on the reduction of the crime to a misdemeanor based on strong opinions from the DA involved in his more recent arrest, we are comfortable drafting him and brining him into the program. He understands he is on thin ice." Instead, he lead us to believe the team was in Michigan interviewing witnesses for 4 days.

He further stated that the Hawks would never have someone on their team with DV records, which also is an overstatement of the facts. This further confuses fans and leads to questioning the morals of the leadership; again, it felt like a lie. Was it? I cannot say, but it did feel like there was an attempt to obfuscate the truth. As I've also said, I was very quick to judge a complex situation; DV is a hot button issue for me and I think far too many people accept "the alleged victim doesn't want to press charges" or she said he didn't hit her far too often. More often than not, the victim is protecting herself, her children and even her abuser...but I digress. I have zero evidence of what occurred. Over time I have moved to a wait and see position and feel like JS could have been a better communicator and leader through this process.

[NorthHawk]

No question our Front Office made mistakes with this selection (edit: How they handled it). It seems they might have been blinded by Clark's potential.
Whether or not any off field issues turns out to affect the ON FIELD performance only time will tell, but they didn't get off on the right foot.

I continue to believe that Lockett was the better choice with our first pick. They gave up a boatload of potential to move up to get him, so why not select Lockett first and take a chance on Clark being there later. Surely if as reported a number of teams had removed Clark from their board it was worth the risk to wait until the 3rd round.

In any event, it's done and we will have to see if Clark will be worth the investment and leap of faith.
I hope so if only for his sake and any girlfriend or wife he ends up with.

[savvyman]

Once Clark gets his first sack he will be universally embraced by the 12th man and all will be forgotten.......

Interesting to review this Thread after the game that Frank Clark played last night - and note the various insights that different people offered......

One thing for sure - Frank Clark showed he can play at an NFL quality level right out of the gate.

[RiverDog]

Thanks for bumping this thread, Savvy. I haven't seen the game yet (had to work last night), but plan on watching it piece by piece this week. I'm not too much of a fan of preseason football. But as you say, it will be interesting to see if our opinions change depending on how Clark plays. I doubt if mine will.

[savvyman]

Thanks for bumping this thread, Savvy. I haven't seen the game yet (had to work last night), but plan on watching it piece by piece this week. I'm not too much of a fan of preseason football. But as you say, it will be interesting to see if our opinions change depending on how Clark plays. I doubt if mine will.

You will be very impressed with how Dominant Frank Clark looked on the field last night.

I feel fairly comfortable - even with this admittedly small sample size - in forecasting that our Prime Time Money pass rush will consist across the line of Avril - Bennett - Clark - Irvin.

God help the opposing team QB on obvious passing plays this season.

[Hawktawk]

I wonder if Frank Clark being drafted had anything to do with Bennett not holding out. He does look phenomenal.Hopefully he keeps his nose clean he may be another one of JS's steals.

[RiverDog]

You will be very impressed with how Dominant Frank Clark looked on the field last night.

I feel fairly comfortable - even with this admittedly small sample size - in forecasting that our Prime Time Money pass rush will consist across the line of Avril - Bennett - Clark - Irvin.

God help the opposing team QB on obvious passing plays this season.

I've heard that from several people. I'm anxious to watch the replay. I start my workout in about 10 minutes and will be watching him very closely.

It still won't change my opinion of how they handled the fallout. It was JS's worst moment since he was hired.

[NorthHawk]

Denver's OL was playing fairly well, and Clark did get some good pressure and made some very good plays.
I didn't see much reason for taking him so high in the replays of the games he played last year that were shown on the Big10 Network.
It seems that Michigan had him playing a read and react role and the Seahawks want him to penetrate.
I think he made more plays last night than in the games that were shown from last year that I saw.

[jshawaii22]

I wonder if Frank Clark being drafted had anything to do with Bennett not holding out. He does look phenomenal.Hopefully he keeps his nose clean he may be another one of JS's steals.

I don't know if any second round pick could be described as a "steal"... unless he's the second coming of Reggie White, but I'm glad he's stayed off the map this summer and obviously really is out there with a good attitude.

I read that Irvin gained 20 lbs this offseason. Did anyone notice if he looked the part and maybe won't get pushed off the rush so often?

js

[HumanCockroach]

I don't know, I would call guys Like Favre, Brees, Wagner etc "steals" , if they outplay guys drafted ahead of them significantly, I think they could be called "steals". I doubt there is a "cutoff" , just depends on how many guys were selected in front of the player. Seattle's has had a disproportionate amount of those, Hell I would consider at this point Earl a steal based on where and who was drafted ahead of him in the first round, much less the second.

[jshawaii22]

Steal... I'll stick to it being more like Sherman, Kam, etc etc... down at about 4th round or lower. I don't think the draft is enough of a science to say that anyone who outplays anyone is a steal. After the first 100 or so, that makes it for me. Wagner was the opposite, predicted at a 3rd round pick, we reached for him. Doesn't seem like a steal, seems more like a genius pick.

[RiverDog]

Generally speaking, you can't get a "steal" in the first round of the draft anymore than you can get a "bust" from a 3rd rounder or lower.

[HumanCockroach]

Sorry, but my opinion on what constitutes a "steal" in the draft will never change, no matter the general thinking or perception, when a team drafts a better player after several of the same position players have been drafted, it will always be a steal in my eyes, especially when all teams pass on a HOF talent, at least once, and sometimes twice.

[obiken]

Generally speaking, you can't get a "steal" in the first round of the draft anymore than you can get a "bust" from a 3rd rounder or lower.

Pretty much on the money River as usual!

[Hawktawk]

If Clark is a pro bowler or DROY would that make him a steal? I think it would. Follow my logic. He has said himself he didn't expect to be taken that high. Nobody else jumped. Seattle did. I understand it was one preseason game but the guy was freakish. We will see what happens with some film of him available to opponents.But if that guy was the Frank Clark we are going to see every Sunday hes a steal.

[savvyman]

Grades are in for the game and Frank Clark receives an "A".


https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/08/15/grades-for-broncos-seahawks/

[jshawaii22]

If Clark is a pro bowler or DROY would that make him a steal? I think it would. Follow my logic. He has said himself he didn't expect to be taken that high. Nobody else jumped. Seattle did. I understand it was one preseason game but the guy was freakish. We will see what happens with some film of him available to opponents.But if that guy was the Frank Clark we are going to see every Sunday hes a steal.

Hawktawk,

Frank was a second round pick by the Seahawks not because he was or is a 'steal' but because of what happened off the field, like fighting and beating up women. I just can't view that as making the pick a 'steal', but go ahead.

js

[RiverDog]

Hawktawk,

Frank was a second round pick by the Seahawks not because he was or is a 'steal' but because of what happened off the field, like fighting and beating up women. I just can't view that as making the pick a 'steal', but go ahead.

js

"Women" as in more than one? Who else did he beat up besides his one GF?

[Hawktawk]

[\

Hawktawk,

Frank was a second round pick by the Seahawks not because he was or is a 'steal' but because of what happened off the field, like fighting and beating up women. I just can't view that as making the pick a 'steal', but go ahead.

js

"Women" as in more than one? Who else did he beat up besides his one GF?[/quote]

Yeah and actually the charges were amended. The dude had a bite mark on his nose for chrissakes. The only witnesses were her relatives. Really???There was no history, no track record with Clark but in the political post Ray Rice climate he was a goner. I get the sense hes a good dude and we will enjoy watching him play lights out for a long time...And that folks is a STEAL.....

[Vegaseahawk]

I read everything I could lay my eyes on regarding his arrest, & history relating to personal conduct when we drafted Clark. There was some pretty detailed stuff about how the situation unfolded in the various police, press & security reports. Lots of photographs too. I came away with the conclusion that, while hardly excusable, his actions that day were an isolated incident influenced by liquor. I'd be surprised if he's involved in anything like that ever again.