Okay, where to start with Mr. Clancy? First of all on the allegation that I am not aware of his recent performance, I think one looks at a player’s entire history before making determinations. I've known too many one year wonders. There is no arguing that he had the best year of his career last season. So did Mr. Ross the previous year at Pittsburgh and did you like his performance last season?
As to his impact on the passing game, where I think he will have most of his impact, while in JUCO he had 17.5 sacks. At Mississippi he had 7 sacks in his senior year when he played in what amounted to only 8 games. He needs polish, but with his strength in penetrating and with the Cards’ defensive ends both coming in hard, I think he will meet quite a few quarterbacks stepping into the pocket. He needs to learn how to finish, but he will set a career record in sacks. I believe his 2 last seasons were his only career sacks. I look for 4 in 2006. Also, because Clancy is a penetrater, expect to see the opposing quarterback flushed more often, which should provide even better sack opportunities for the ends. When the QB is on the move, it’s hard for his blockers to know where to steer the rushers. So Joe, I have to wonder if you aren't one of those people you asked about, "if people know who Clancy is at all some times."
As to run stopping, I agree that he did have a good season last year. He had 37 total tackles. However, Davis in 2004 (his last full season), had 49 tackles. That’s 32% more tackles if you’re keeping score. Perhaps Davis saw more running plays, but he clearly played well inside. The 37 tackles represented a high for Clancy and exceeded his previous career total. Davis has had as many as 54 in his Cardinal career. Davis is more of a stay-at-home, traditional anchor tackle. I continue to think it will be hard to get a team off the field if the run right at our tackles.
As to upon what did I base may durability concern, the answer is Clancy’s career. Last year was the first time in 9 seasons that he has played a significant amount in every game. I know some will say he’s not worn down, but you just don’t know about his durability. In the 4 years previous to last year’s injury, Davis played in 15 games once and in 16 games 3 times. He average 46 tackles and was on the field for a vast majority of the plays. Based on the nature of his injury, there is a good reason to presume he will remain durable. Clancy may prove able to handle that workload, but he hasn’t proved it yet. This is not a concern about size. Hovan, who’s even smaller, did a great job against the run last season. This is about history.
Finally if Clancy was so great last year for the Giants, why didn’t they re-sign him? He was a bargain if that good. Ron Del Duca, Clancy’s agent stated, “I think the Giants are a little displeased, but I went to them with the offer and they elected not to match it.” In fact the Cards could have had him for far less in October of 2004 when he was given his outright release by the Steelers. They re-signed him after Hampton was hurt, but then let him walk at the end of the season. The Giants took a chance on him because his coach, Tim Lewis, had moved to the Giants and he liked Clancy’s attitude and hustle. Clancy rewarded him with a big year and then took the money and left. As to that major improvement the Giant's made against the run, you might want to give Tim Lewis's defensive scheme some of the credit. The brought him in from Pittsburgh for just that reason. Clancy helped, but it is simplistic to credit him as the difference maker.
Overall Clancy is a good citizen who plays hard. He played great against Seattle, which likely peaked the Cards’ interest. Switching from a steady Davis to a hard-charging Clancy may prove to be the right move, but to class it as a certain major upgrade is simply not supported by the facts.
Now as to the rest of this "stuff." I have to love Krangs', "Harry's been wrong a lot lately." Wouldn't it be boring if I was always right? It wouldn't be much fun for any of us if I always knew what would happen. I've already made my apologies for my prediction on last year's record. I was fairly accurate in saying the O-line would be the big concern. How about my obsevation that "Warner would be injured much of the season?" Then there was my note that Arrington was nothing more than a "change of pace" back. I'm sure I made as many wrong predictions, but I'll take my overall record and live with it.
As to the question about Parham, he's a tough call. He does play the run well, but is poor in coverage and does not get a deep enough drop when playing zone. He's much better going forward. Thus, he's more of a 2 down player you have to constantly keep replacing. Because of end game, shotgun formations and hurry-up offenses, teams are looking for a better speed-size combination. If he lasted until the fourth round, I'd take him, but he will probably be gone in the third. He would really strengthen the middle run defense.
As to whether I would have kept McCown, the answer is yes. Then I would have kept Davis and fixed the O-line. I think the Cards are playing to star power for the new stadium and looking ahead to 2007 when they have phenomenal cap room. I'd be okay with that if they had the guts to say it.
I think they will draft to the O-line and if they get lucky and get Gilles, then maybe it all works out in the end.
If I missed any other embedded questions, shout them back at me. Lastly, don't get me wrong on James. He's a fine back who will be fun to watch. I just believe games are still won in the trenches and the Cards look light in the offensive trench to me.
Thanks for the kind words about my being back. Hopefully this is all medical interruptions for awhile. Before I forget it, I will apologize in advance for not being in the chat room on draft day. It's great fun and I encourage you all to attend. I actually have a job on the west coast for that weekend, but I hope to get something posted by Monday or Tuesday.
? How do you know who's introverted, a leader, or sheepish? Unless you have some interaction within the team, to assume otherwise is pure guesswork.
