Chris Clark receives $306,000 performance-based bonus

[GRWatcher]

https://247sports.com/nfl/carolina-panthers/Article/Chris-Clark-2018-performance-based-bonus-130063105/?fbclid=IwAR3n_e-fUK4BdGQ-Jd1ZrPfbCq1PIPADNbjt7qQEE4VfCVM67nkQRnExuyc

Quote

More often than not, having to find a starting left tackle off the street just after the start of the regular season is a recipe for complete disaster. But when called into service by the Carolina Panthers, Chris Clark went from his couch to playing as well as the Panthers could have hoped for. And now, he is cashing in on his past season of work. A bonus is most welcome for Clark, as his one-year contract with the Panthers was reportedly worth $915,000.

Without the benefit of an offseason training program or extensive knowledge of the Panthers' system, Clark was forced to learn on the job when he made his first start in Week Two against the Atlanta Falcons.

Considering his circumstances, Clark was a more than adequate fill-in on the left side of the offensive line. Clark would have moments where he played extremely well, and overall was reliable at his position before injuries began to take a toll on him late in the season. Clark, 33, is now a free agent.

Good for Chris. He did better than anyone had hoped for, coming "off the couch".

[Mr. Scot]

Saw the title on thought we were re-signing Clark.

Scared the hell outta me 

[Bartin]

For anyone wondering, the bonuses are not actually linked to his actual performance on the field. It's just for the snaps played over what someone at his salary would normally play.

The money is also not paid by the Panthers and doesn't count against the cap.

[GRWatcher]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Saw the title on thought we were re-signing Clark.

Scared the hell outta me 

Sorry! I just copied and pasted. 

[Mr. Scot]

8 minutes ago, Bartin said:

For anyone wondering, the bonuses are not actually linked to his actual performance on the field. It's just for the snaps played over what someone at his salary would normally play.

The money is also not paid by the Panthers and doesn't count against the cap.

Correct.

If it was for quality play, kinda doubt you'd see Chris Clark getting a bonus.

[LinvilleGorge]

26 minutes ago, stbugs said:

Cool for him. I know he definitely wore down (age - for the NFL) as the season went on (like Van Roten) and coming off the couch but he played well early when we were winning. 

This. Yeah, he was terrible down the stretch but he came in and played admirably well for awhile.

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This. Yeah, he was terrible down the stretch but he came in and played admirably well for awhile.

Clark's time of "playing well" coincided with Cam Newton's time of being healthy.

I don't think he ever really looked that good. As long as Newton was getting the ball out quickly though, he could serve as a substitute speed bump.

But good grief, his footwork and technique were just horrible.

[Bartin]

9 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This. Yeah, he was terrible down the stretch but he came in and played admirably well for awhile.

Kind of fits a theory I have and I'm sure I'm not the only one with it. A less talented replacement can come in for a few games and perform really well because there is no tape on him with that team. Then after a few games the tape gets out, weaknesses get identified and they get exposed. Ryan Delaire would have been another example of this. Once everyone realized that literally the only thing he could do was speed rush, he got shut down after a promising first 2-3 games.

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, Bartin said:

Kind of fits a theory I have and I'm sure I'm not the only one with it. A less talented replacement can come in for a few games and perform really well because there is no tape on him with that team. Then after a few games the tape gets out, weaknesses get identified and they get exposed. Ryan Delaire would have been another example of this. Once everyone realized that literally the only thing he could do was speed rush, he got shut down after a promising first 2-3 games.

Yep. It's why so many backup QBs and even hot rookie QBs have come in and looked pretty good in short stretches but those stretches are usually short. Let NFL DCs have a few game of tape or an off-season to study up on them and then you find out whether or not they're the truth.

 

[Mr. Scot]

Anyone else remember this quote?

"Rob Johnson could start for at least twenty teams!"

[BrianS]

21 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Clark's time of "playing well" coincided with Cam Newton's time of being healthy.

I don't think he ever really looked that good. As long as Newton was getting the ball out quickly though, he could serve as a substitute speed bump.

But good grief, his footwork and technique were just horrible.

I don't disagree, but doesn't that sort of mean we might want to think about bringing him back as a backup?  Obviously no one wants him to have to start another season for us, but in limited duty, subjecting him to less wear and tear / injuries . . . we could probably do a lot worse.  Yea, I'm looking at you Amini.

 

[Mr. Scot]

7 minutes ago, BrianS said:

I don't disagree, but doesn't that sort of mean we might want to think about bringing him back as a backup?  Obviously no one wants him to have to start another season for us, but in limited duty, subjecting him to less wear and tear / injuries . . . we could probably do a lot worse.  Yea, I'm looking at you Amini.

I think we could find a backup just as good by picking up a camp cut or even an undrafted player.

It's one thing to be old. It's another to be bad. But old and bad? Yikes!

[Camp Fodder]

He was better than Kalil

[My Goodness My Guinness]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

Saw the title on thought we were re-signing Clark.

Scared the hell outta me 

I'd take Clark on the same contract for another year as depth in a heartbeat.