PDA

View Full Version : Jimmy Clausen underrated


wicket
01-24-2010, 02:21 PM
Im writing this, partially inspired by an article I cant find anymore.

First of all I am a domer fan but that is not the reason I was writing this article. I saw skins fans saying things in the line of Jimmy not being a top10 talent. To look at this objectively one can best look at the simple facts.

as of now Clausen has had better stats than any other recent pro style qb in recent history (dont feel like finding them again but if you doubt me, JC was compared to the junior years of sanchez, stafford, cutler, rodgers, roethlisberger, palmer, leinart and a few others and had the best completion%, yards/attempts and the most TD's/least intereceptions). He did this in probably the most complex system in college football with great receiver support but a terrible offensive line.

To boot Clausen has plenty of experience in the national spotlight doing arguably the toughest job in college football. He also had a great improvement every year and good intellegence.

Now i'll get into the more subjective part.
Pros:
- Great deep ball
- Gets better with the game on the line.
- Plenty arm strength (less than stafford, better than sanchez)
- Great student of the game
- Ridiculous accuracy

Cons
- Personality might rub people the wrong way
- Lack of wins (who is to blame)
- lack of mobility/pocket presence

Overall I dont get how people would regard him as a lesser prospect than Sanchez for instance. Statwise he is the best pro style prospect in recent history, I would actually get Clausen number 1 overall but I dont think he should fall beyond the skins.

Imo Clausen really suffers from people just hating ND and projecting that hate onto him as a prospect
Overall I dont get how one would rate him lower than

tjsunstein
01-24-2010, 02:25 PM
Personality should never be a con for a prospect. He has no character issues as far as trouble. His teammates seemed to like him. That being said, give me Jimmy Clausen over Mark Sanchez.

Rob S
01-24-2010, 02:28 PM
I would be quite happy if the Bills took him in rd.1

Babylon
01-24-2010, 02:29 PM
I would disagree with a couple of points there, i think his pocket presence is good and his deep throws are questionable. He wants to throw it up there and let his receivers go up for it. May get him in trouble at the next level.

Do agree he is underrated.

hockey619
01-24-2010, 02:34 PM
Clausen is an extremely underrated prospect. Hes a lot like Sanchez just with more experience really but a little less mobility.

Theyre the same size, great fundamentals. Sanchez has better feet but Clausen has proven more carrying his team especially late in games.

I dont understand it either. Im completely nuetral to ND but Clausen to me is a legit top 5 prospect. Hes a little like Matt Ryan too in that people will question the upside because he seems like a finished product. One of the big question marks for Peyton Manning was his upside.

tjsunstein
01-24-2010, 02:35 PM
I think he could very welll be the number one pick. I don't see him getting out the top 10, however. The Rams, Redskins, Seahawks, Bills could all use him. I wouldn't count out a team trading up either.

TheSlinger
01-24-2010, 02:35 PM
his deep throws are questionable. He wants to throw it up there and let his receivers go up for it. May get him in trouble at the next level.

I agree with this, he tends to just throw a pop fly in the general vicinity of Tate or Floyd, and because they're so much better than the defenders they face it works out often enough. Clausen is unlikely to have that luxury in the NFL.

Nalej
01-24-2010, 02:36 PM
I would disagree with a couple of points there, i think his pocket presence is good and his deep throws are questionable. He wants to throw it up there and let his receivers go up for it. May get him in trouble at the next level.

Do agree he is underrated.

That depends on who his receivers are.
If its to D.Avery then I agree.
If its Megatron then I don't. He had the weapons to do that in ND so I don't knock him for taking advantage of it

wicket
01-24-2010, 02:47 PM
I agree with this, he tends to just throw a pop fly in the general vicinity of Tate or Floyd, and because they're so much better than the defenders they face it works out often enough. Clausen is unlikely to have that luxury in the NFL.

he throws way cleaner deep balls on the other receivers though, the reason he throws them a bit floppy to Floyd and Tate is that they usually are able to make the adjustments to the ball so that the floppy balls have a higher chance of being completed.

Its just enabling his receivers to make the plays, to see that he can also throw them clean check out the pass he threw deep to tate in the 08 season, clean as a whistle.

FloridaSkinzFan
01-24-2010, 03:08 PM
Im a skins fan and I love clausen. Just to commment on some of your thoughts, his deep ball isn't great, it tends to float and hang in the air a little bit. And on his negative, for his lack of wins thats sorely on the notre dame defense. Clausen threw 5 TD and 0 INT against stanford and they still lost..

That said, Im all for clausen being taken by the skins

WMD
01-24-2010, 03:32 PM
I'd take Clausen over Sanchez.. and possibly over Stafford too if they were in the same class.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-24-2010, 03:35 PM
I would heavily challenge the idea that Notre Dame's offensive scheme is "the most complex" in the country. I think Weiss actually whittled a lot down for his quarterbacks at Notre Dame, making that offense a whole lot more like Jeff Tedford's (single-side reads, etc).

Beyond that, Clausen looks pretty good. He really reminds me of Aaron Rodgers, although his release is a little slower. That said, Clausen definitely has more experience throwing the long ball than Rodgers had coming out of Cal. That said, he doesn't blow me away. Is he worth a top 10 pick? In this draft: yes. Is he an amazing quarterback prospect? I don't really think so.

edit - for the record, Clausen rates higher for me than Sanchez did mostly because of experience, but he isn't much higher. Both would be clearly behind Stafford for me.

prock
01-24-2010, 03:38 PM
i agree, i just got in a heated draft discussion with a friend of mine and i was telling him how clausen should be the first pick, pointing out everything you just said. good job.

Unbiased
01-24-2010, 03:41 PM
He's widely considered a top 10 talent and a lot of people think he'll be the #1 pick. He's not underrated.

When your dissent is Todd McShay and Redskins fans, I think you're okay.

Babylon
01-24-2010, 03:43 PM
i agree, i just got in a heated draft discussion with a friend of mine and i was telling him how clausen should be the first pick, pointing out everything you just said. good job.

If he's the 1st pick it's totally based on need. There are other guys with higher grades.

yourfavestoner
01-24-2010, 04:53 PM
How does he compare to Brady Quinn coming out?

wicket
01-24-2010, 04:58 PM
How does he compare to Brady Quinn coming out?

better arm, overall talent, lesser intangibles

FUNBUNCHER
01-24-2010, 05:21 PM
For Broncos fans familiar with Shanahan and his QBs, who do you think he looks at and thinks is the better long term prospect; Clausen or Bradford??

I'm hearing the Clausen/Aaron Rodgers comparison more often lately, and if he's got that type of upside, in my mind the Skins should take Clausen if he's still there at 4.
For some reason I think someone is going to try to trade into the top 3 to pick either Bradford or Clausen.

Halsey
01-24-2010, 05:26 PM
If I was a decision maker in the Rams organization, I would definitely take Clausen into consideration with the #1 overall pick. He may have questions, but there's a lot to like too.

tjsunstein
01-24-2010, 05:31 PM
If I was a decision maker in the Rams organization, I would definitely take Clausen into consideration with the #1 overall pick. He may have questions, but there's a lot to like too.

I'm sure they've been weighing Suh vs Clausen for a while.

Halsey
01-24-2010, 05:39 PM
I'm sure they've been weighing Suh vs Clausen for a while.

They should really make it Suh vs Clausen vs Bradford vs G McCoy vs Berry.

WMD
01-24-2010, 05:41 PM
The Rams will draft Suh, trade Steven Jackson and their Round 2 to move up for whatever QB, and then draft a RB in Round 3. I guarantee it!

Halsey
01-24-2010, 05:55 PM
This won't happen for various reasons, but the Rams should honestly talk to the Eagles about a certain QB...and I'm not talking about the QB you think. I mean they should talk to the Eagles about Donovan Mcnabb. The Rams would get a QB who should be solid for another 3-5 years and The Eagles could start the 'Kolb era'.. Mcnabb might be happy and energized to get a fresh start away from Philly. There are a variety of ways they might work out a trade

toddmlazarchick
01-24-2010, 05:58 PM
He's widely considered a top 10 talent and a lot of people think he'll be the #1 pick. He's not underrated.

When your dissent is Todd McShay and Redskins fans, I think you're okay.

The skins fan comment was a little unnecessary but ill just take that as your arrogance or stupidity. Clausen is who I want at #4. Campbell will be tenured a one year contract but its not secret that he isnt the answer at QB. Whether its Bradford or Clausen, either are going to sit for a year, Bradford probably more. People who hate on Jimmy are hating on him because of his school. If he was a USC QB everyone would be drooling over him. He is a fantastic prospect and has only gotten better every year he plays. Im hoping STL takes Suh at #1 because Clausen will make Skins fans very happy.

toddmlazarchick
01-24-2010, 06:04 PM
For Broncos fans familiar with Shanahan and his QBs, who do you think he looks at and thinks is the better long term prospect; Clausen or Bradford??

I'm hearing the Clausen/Aaron Rodgers comparison more often lately, and he's got that type of upside, in my mind the Skins should take Clausen if he's still there at 4.
For some reason I think someone is going to try to trade into the top 3 to pick either Bradford or Clausen.

Perhaps someone will try to trade up above the skins but I dont see it happening. STL, DET and TB all have major needs that they can fill by staying put. DET needs help every where as does TB. Neither benefit by moving back for an additional second round pick so to speak.

FloridaSkinzFan
01-24-2010, 06:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGHzJo8Bc5k

MiWolves
01-24-2010, 06:14 PM
is he really 6'3? he looks like 6'1 to me.

Babylon
01-24-2010, 06:27 PM
is he really 6'3? he looks like 6'1 to me.

Sanchez was about 6-2 1/4 at the combine, that seems about right for Clausen.

Geason Noceur
01-24-2010, 06:31 PM
Personality should never be a con for a prospect. He has no character issues as far as trouble. His teammates seemed to like him. That being said, give me Jimmy Clausen over Mark Sanchez.

I don't know about that. Ryan Leaf might disagree with that statement.

Geason Noceur
01-24-2010, 06:35 PM
I doubt Clausen'soffensive line was worse than what Stafford had his last two years at UGA. Stafford had nothing but true freshmen and sophomores two years straight, with about five different LTs because they kept tearing their ACLs. And Stafford had to go against SEC defenses, not the service academies, with that O-line in front of him.

DiG
01-24-2010, 06:53 PM
i stopped reading when you started with the fact that you are a notre dame fan...

DiG
01-24-2010, 06:58 PM
Beyond that, Clausen looks pretty good. He really reminds me of Aaron Rodgers, although his release is a little slower.

I agree that his physical tangibles do compare similarly to Aaron Rodgers (as a prospect coming out of Cal) and remember where Aaron Rodgers was drafted. The biggest difference between Clausen and Rodgers is the intangibles. ie Clausens cockiness and often questioned attitude problems.

RealityCheck
01-24-2010, 07:05 PM
If anything he's overrated.

frubulubu
01-24-2010, 07:14 PM
This won't happen for various reasons, but the Rams should honestly talk to the Eagles about a certain QB...and I'm not talking about the QB you think. I mean they should talk to the Eagles about Donovan Mcnabb. The Rams would get a QB who should be solid for another 3-5 years and The Eagles could start the 'Kolb era'.. Mcnabb might be happy and energized to get a fresh start away from Philly. There are a variety of ways they might work out a trade

What would the rams give the Eagles? Picks? players? both?

DT35
01-24-2010, 07:18 PM
If anyones underrated its Bradford. If his shoulder is fine then I legitimately think he's better then Clausen.

HawkeyeFan
01-24-2010, 08:20 PM
Check my signature.

I love Clausens game, and think he'll help the Rams Offense a lot, including a face for the future, leadership, great skill, excellent WCO QB.

RealityCheck
01-24-2010, 08:27 PM
This won't happen for various reasons, but the Rams should honestly talk to the Eagles about a certain QB...
Stop here.

The Eagles have 3 starting caliber QBs. They'll likely deal two. And they won't deal McNabb.

I can see Kolb going to the Rams and Vick to the Redskins.

Brothgar
01-24-2010, 09:51 PM
If anything he's overrated.

This this and more this.

Brothgar
01-24-2010, 09:53 PM
This won't happen for various reasons, but the Rams should honestly talk to the Eagles about a certain QB...and I'm not talking about the QB you think. I mean they should talk to the Eagles about Donovan Mcnabb. The Rams would get a QB who should be solid for another 3-5 years and The Eagles could start the 'Kolb era'.. Mcnabb might be happy and energized to get a fresh start away from Philly. There are a variety of ways they might work out a trade

Why they aren't even close yet. If anyone should be tradeing for McNabb it should be the Vikings assuming Favre retires.

SenorGato
01-24-2010, 10:10 PM
Yes, he definitely is.

descendency
01-24-2010, 10:37 PM
In my opinion, he is the IDEAL QB for the Rams. His arm strength questions are stupid in a dome. His accuracy will go up. He'll ge a 10 game winner in 3 years in St Louis.

edit: His annoying character is part of him being a kid.

brat316
01-24-2010, 10:49 PM
I like Jimmy, but some things that concern me are his pocket presence, and foot work in the pocket and it looks like he gets happy feet. He stays and looks for the throw but doesn't want to always hang in that pocket even if he feels a little heat. For a guy with such a bad line, he looked to have some clean pockets and time to throw.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-25-2010, 12:36 AM
I agree that his physical tangibles do compare similarly to Aaron Rodgers (as a prospect coming out of Cal) and remember where Aaron Rodgers was drafted. The biggest difference between Clausen and Rodgers is the intangibles. ie Clausens cockiness and often questioned attitude problems.

Well, personally, I thought the Niners should have taken Rodgers over Smith if they wanted to go QB and, similarly, I think that Clausen would be fine as a top pick. Obviously, I don't have the access to make any sort of real judgement on his attitude or work ethic, but he easily has the skills to become a great quarterback in the NFL.

Mr. Offseason
01-25-2010, 02:30 AM
One thing that no one seems to mention when they talk about Clausen is intangibles. Personally I don't think he is a very good leader, and I think he has questionable intangibles. It's not a popular opinion, but that is why I can't fathom preferring Clausen to Sanchez or Ryan.

Mr. Offseason
01-25-2010, 02:32 AM
This this and more this.

I'm with you on this.

Brothgar
01-25-2010, 09:07 AM
In my opinion, he is the IDEAL QB for the Rams. His arm strength questions are stupid in a dome. His accuracy will go up. He'll ge a 10 game winner in 3 years in St Louis.

edit: His annoying character is part of him being a kid.

10 game winner in 3 years I could go with that

3 games in year 1
3 games in year 2
4 games in year 3.

DiG
01-25-2010, 09:25 AM
edit: His annoying character is part of him being a kid.

so wait then why isnt every college qb in the nation cocky and arrogant? your saying you give college qbs a pass on character because they are just kids??? that is absurd.

hockey619
01-25-2010, 09:34 AM
Clausen was cocky coming out of high school, we all know he rubbed people the wrong way like a novice hooker when he made his announcement at the college football hall of fame.

He seems good now after a couple years in college but who am I to judge ive only seen the interviews while apparently everyone else here knows him on a personal level or have all at least met him and had extended conversations with him.

Oh, wait a second, no one has. So how the hell can anyone say they know he has bad intangibles?!?!?!?!????

Here's what we do know: with the game on the line, he led his team down to win the game or put his team in a postion to win a number of times this year. Hes proven that hes a cool customer when you need him to be. That is all the majority of us can tell without a doubt based on what we know of him.

FUNBUNCHER
01-25-2010, 09:35 AM
There's no evidence other than fans interpretation of Clausen's onfield demeanor that he has poor leadership skills.

Clue - EVERY starting QB is a little/a lot cocky once you scratch beneath the surface. It's a part of the job description, IMO. It doesn't give you a pass to be a jerk, but it does allow a QB to think he's the baddest SOB on the football field, true or not.

The hug he gave to the Michigan QB this past season after the Wolverines beat ND on a last second TD pass tells me that Clausen has more than enough humility to be a good presence in the lockerroom and is capable of leading a football team.

brat316
01-25-2010, 10:29 AM
Tim Tebow is cocky

HawkeyeFan
01-26-2010, 08:16 AM
Tim Tebow is cocky
Oh my, your going to hell now! I'm sorry.

prock
01-26-2010, 10:36 AM
I agree that his physical tangibles do compare similarly to Aaron Rodgers (as a prospect coming out of Cal) and remember where Aaron Rodgers was drafted. The biggest difference between Clausen and Rodgers is the intangibles. ie Clausens cockiness and often questioned attitude problems.

pretty sure if most teams could do it again, there is no way rodgers would fall that far. the way he has performed, i wouldhave taken him number 1

DiG
01-26-2010, 10:41 AM
pretty sure if most teams could do it again, there is no way rodgers would fall that far. the way he has performed, i wouldhave taken him number 1

well yea after sitting for 3 years and learning from brett favre then getting to throw to driver, jennings, finley, etc. not to take away from rodgers but that is an ideal situation for any young qb. what made rodgers fall into the 20s are a lot of the same things that should get jimmy clausen drafted in the 20s and id still put clausen behind rodgers as a prospect given similar tangibles but more questionable intangibles.

ElectricEye
01-26-2010, 10:49 AM
I really like Clausen. The one thing that scares me off on him is that he was basically a one year wonder. He really struggled badly at times up until this year. His sophomore campaign was less than stellar. He lit up some of the weaker defenses, but it really just came together for him this year. Granted, that's the way it's supposed to go for most quarterback prospects, but still. Physically, he has the arm you look for and is underrated as an athlete. He doesn't have the stone feet people seem to think he has. Might not run better than 4.8 in the forty, but he's had more than enough experience making plays without a pocket due to Notre Dame's horrible offensive line play. Pretty sure I was one of the first people who started the Rogers' comparison, and from a physical perspective, it holds true. Still my favorite quarterback from this class.

prock
01-26-2010, 10:50 AM
well yea after sitting for 3 years and learning from brett favre then getting to throw to driver, jennings, finley, etc. not to take away from rodgers but that is an ideal situation for any young qb. what made rodgers fall into the 20s are a lot of the same things that should get jimmy clausen drafted in the 20s and id still put clausen behind rodgers as a prospect given similar tangibles but more questionable intangibles.

what intangibles are different between the two besides the fact clausen is a ******* jackass? i agree that they are very similar physically though.

Favre4ever
01-26-2010, 11:27 AM
well yea after sitting for 3 years and learning from brett favre then getting to throw to driver, jennings, finley, etc. not to take away from rodgers but that is an ideal situation for any young qb. what made rodgers fall into the 20s are a lot of the same things that should get jimmy clausen drafted in the 20s and id still put clausen behind rodgers as a prospect given similar tangibles but more questionable intangibles.


The reason why Rodgers fell was because people missjudged his abilities bigtime. They questioned his arm strength, his athleticism, his size and QB IQ. Turns out hes pretty much one of the most complete QB in the NFL. Clausen seems to have the same body type but i dont think hes as talented as Rodgers. He doesnt have the Arm strength or the athletiscism of Rodgers. I use to think they were similar but not anymore, the more i look at it...

FUNBUNCHER
01-26-2010, 11:46 AM
There's so little difference in arm strength between Aaron Rodgers and Clausen, if any, that it's a very minor point of argument.

What hurt Rodgers more in the mind of many talent evaluators is that he played under Jeff Tedford, a coach whose previous proteges at QB were, in order, Trent Dilfer, Akili Smith, David Carr, Joey Harrington and Kyle Boller.

Not exactly a murderer's row of pro bowl QBs.

Rodgers broke the streak of Tedford system QBs busting in the pros, but strictly as pro prospects, I still like the Aaron Rodgers/ Jimmy Clausen comparison.

descendency
01-26-2010, 11:49 AM
so wait then why isnt every college qb in the nation cocky and arrogant? your saying you give college qbs a pass on character because they are just kids??? that is absurd.

Because they've grown up. I mean he seems mentally younger, hence the term kid.

iworshipbender
01-26-2010, 11:58 AM
He's 24, isn't he? He's hardly a kid.

ElectricEye
01-26-2010, 12:00 PM
He's 24, isn't he? He's hardly a kid.

23 right now, but he'll be 24 at the start of the next season. That's one thing I don't like with prospects for whatever reason, but he should be fine.

descendency
01-26-2010, 12:03 PM
He's 24, isn't he? He's hardly a kid.

There is a difference between being mentally one age and physically. His "being annoying" seems more of something he will grow out of. Then again, it could be another warning sign like a Ryan Leaf...

NDfootball
01-26-2010, 04:24 PM
First off, Clausen is 22, look it up.

As for the underrated question, I disagree, I would say hes "rated," roughly a top 10-15 pick. I wouldn't take him #1 with Berry and Suh on the board, but if I was Buffalo at #9, it would be tough to pass over him.

I've seen most of his games the last 3 years and I would say he's progressed considerably more than Brady Quinn during his ND tenure, and should be a higher pick than Quinn was.

Clausen's arm strength is definitely above average. He was slowed by an elbow injury freshman year, where he lost some zip on his ball, but he seems to be fine now. Accuracy is his best attribute, he rarely missed his target this year. I would say he is the most accurate passer in the draft. Throwing motion is a little slow, but fundamentally sound. His ability to read defenses has seemed to improve considerably from Sophomore to Junior year, I think that is due to the improvement of ND's O-line. He was running for his life freshman year, and it carried over to his sophomore season, but he settled down this year. His intangibles are fine, no major issues off the field, tough guy on the field, he'll be fine in the NFL.

As for the Rodgers comparison, Rodgers main issues going into the draft were his height (which was cleared up by the combine) and his throwing motion which was funky. I would say Clausen is more polished than Rodgers coming out, but they seem to have similar skill sets. Rodgers probably dropped because of the throwing motion and the lack of a need for a QB, Clausen shouldn't have those problems. I would say Clausen gets drafted by the Bills at 9.

Favre4ever
01-26-2010, 08:46 PM
There's so little difference in arm strength between Aaron Rodgers and Clausen, if any, that it's a very minor point of argument.

What hurt Rodgers more in the mind of many talent evaluators is that he played under Jeff Tedford, a coach whose previous proteges at QB were, in order, Trent Dilfer, Akili Smith, David Carr, Joey Harrington and Kyle Boller.

Not exactly a murderer's row of pro bowl QBs.

Rodgers broke the streak of Tedford system QBs busting in the pros, but strictly as pro prospects, I still like the Aaron Rodgers/ Jimmy Clausen comparison.
I dont see Clausen being able to throw 70 yard bombs like Rodgers did on thanksgiving or outrunning DBs like Rodgers can. Clausen is simply not the athlete Aaron Rodgers is and the difference in arm strength is bigger than you think.

DiG
01-26-2010, 08:47 PM
I dont see Clausen being able to throw 70 yard bombs like Rodgers did on thanksgiving or outrunning DBs like Rodgers can. Clausen is simply not the athlete Aaron Rodgers is and the difference in arm strength is bigger than you think.

http://fast1.onesite.com/community.allhiphop.com/user/native2philly/cosign-1.jpg

this couldnt be more true

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
01-26-2010, 10:16 PM
Clausen was throwing 60 yard bombs to Tate and Floyd in college, what are you talking about?

SRogers92
01-27-2010, 02:51 PM
What worries me about Clausen ... for all of the "intangibles" the ND fans want me to believe he has ... what's his winning % while at ND? What was his level of competition?

Answer: 1) Winning % is not good ... especially at a big time program ...
2) He has never beaten a team he wasn't supposed to beat ... his schedule/competition was always crap.


So -- I'm not buying this whole intangibles crap ... infact -- that's one thing that worries me ... he's not a "winner" ... Not to mention ... he has two 1st Round talents at WR(maybe 2nd Rounder for Tate), a top TE prospect(maybe Round 1, probably 2), and a decent RB group, too ... With all of that talent, he can put up great #'s and still not win ...

Okay -- big deal -- he came back in to win a game winning drive against the powerhouse Boilermakers ... color me not impressed ... I still think he's a 2nd Round QB with a LOT of upside ... but -- more downside ... he will get taken a lot higher though and - IMO - bust ...

prock
01-27-2010, 03:29 PM
What worries me about Clausen ... for all of the "intangibles" the ND fans want me to believe he has ... what's his winning % while at ND? What was his level of competition?

Answer: 1) Winning % is not good ... especially at a big time program ...
2) He has never beaten a team he wasn't supposed to beat ... his schedule/competition was always crap.


So -- I'm not buying this whole intangibles crap ... infact -- that's one thing that worries me ... he's not a "winner" ... Not to mention ... he has two 1st Round talents at WR(maybe 2nd Rounder for Tate), a top TE prospect(maybe Round 1, probably 2), and a decent RB group, too ... With all of that talent, he can put up great #'s and still not win ...

Okay -- big deal -- he came back in to win a game winning drive against the powerhouse Boilermakers ... color me not impressed ... I still think he's a 2nd Round QB with a LOT of upside ... but -- more downside ... he will get taken a lot higher though and - IMO - bust ...

jimmy clausen only plays on offense. thats one phase of the game. the notre dame defense is putrid. they didnt win because of a lack of jimmy clausen making plays, they lost because their defense is ******* horrible.

brat316
01-27-2010, 03:39 PM
I hate the he is a winner argument. It makes no sense whats so ever, Matt Lineart should be tearing it up according to that argument.

I don't think Jimmy gave up all those points against opposing teams. Evaluate him as a Qb and not as a team. He is probably a late first round qb, but with such a weak draft class at qb he gets pushed up. Also he is the only qb in this class that is coming from a pro style offense.

descendency
01-27-2010, 04:01 PM
I hate the he is a winner argument. It makes no sense whats so ever, Matt Lineart should be tearing it up according to that argument.

I don't think Jimmy gave up all those points against opposing teams. Evaluate him as a Qb and not as a team. He is probably a late first round qb, but with such a weak draft class at qb he gets pushed up. Also he is the only qb in this class that is coming from a pro style offense.

David Greene anyone?

prock
01-27-2010, 04:18 PM
another thing that is wrong is when people compare him to someone, get stuck on the comparison, and he goes down because of it. jimmy clausen is jimmy clausen, not anyone else. just because he has a similar skill set to another player doesnt mean he is that player. it really annoys me when people get hung up on comparisons rather than evaluting each prospect individually.

Babylon
01-27-2010, 04:31 PM
I dont see Clausen being able to throw 70 yard bombs like Rodgers did on thanksgiving or outrunning DBs like Rodgers can. Clausen is simply not the athlete Aaron Rodgers is and the difference in arm strength is bigger than you think.

Rodgers is throwing the ball 70 yds and outrunning DBs?, not sure about that.

nicker
01-27-2010, 05:19 PM
I don't think the Rodgers and Clausen are all that similar. Rodgers is a much better athlete and has much better zip on his short to intermediate passes. Clausen's arm is good enough but he doesn't have that type of zip. Clausen compares more to Rex Grossman (pro career aside). If you watch tapes of Grossman and Clausen they both are a bit under sized (6'1 and 6'2) and throw good accurate deep balls. But their short and intermediate routes, especially sideline throws, tend to get there a little slower than the QB's with strong arms (rodgers, Cutler, Favre) not to say his arm isn't good enough to get the job done. They both also had similar athletic ability coming out, although clausen is maybe a bit faster. I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else make this comparison. Look at the tapes.

Favre4ever
01-27-2010, 05:27 PM
Rodgers is throwing the ball 70 yds and outrunning DBs?, not sure about that.

Go watch the highlights of the thanksgiving game at Detroit this year and the highlights of Favre's return in GB and then get back to me.

Iamcanadian
01-27-2010, 07:24 PM
Mayock is down on Clausen and he is pretty famous for being right on about QB's. Clausen will really have to flourish at the combine otherwise, he will be at best the #2 QB in the draft. I don't think he is even close to Sanchez as a prospect at this point.

CC.SD
01-27-2010, 08:12 PM
All I know is Clausen is a way better prospect than Brady Quinn...but that doesn't mean as much as it used to.

Powerhouse22112
01-27-2010, 08:50 PM
I don't think you can compare Clausen to Rodgers right now because of the time Rodgers had to sit and learn and develop all of his skills. If Clausen has the 3 years of waiting like Rodgers had, he could be just as good, maybe better. As far as the cockiness part, it's in a QB's nature. Tom Brady told Robert Kraft after he drafted him that he was the best decision Kraft ever made. Look how that's turned out.

wogitalia
01-27-2010, 09:40 PM
I quite like Clausen as a prospect, especially in such a weak class.

I'm not a Bradford fan at all, I don't know what it is, but he just doesn't have "it" when I have watched him. Bradford just feels like a 3rd round guy when I look at him and not a franchise QB.

When watching Clausen he reminds me in ways of Peyton Manning. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think he is on the same level, but he has that same cocky, unlikableness to him when he is on the field, his balls don't always look the prettiest but they seem to get to his receivers.

I don't think he has close to the same pocket presence as Manning and that is a huge part of why Manning is so good, but it is also something that he will get better at, I think a large factor to his pocket presence is how bad that OL was his first couple of years, he looked a considerable amount better this year than the previous two.

I quite like him as a prospect though and think that in the right situation with good coaching he has every chance to be successful. I think the ideal scenario would be somewhere he can sit a year or a place like the Jets this year that he can be protected. I think a team like Minny would be ideal, but I also can't see him lasting until our pick. Jags may be another team he would fit with nicely depending whether they feel they need to replace Garrard or not. Going to be tough on him if he goes to one of the really bad teams and is expected to help from the get go.

Brothgar
01-28-2010, 10:18 AM
This is really the worst QB class in years. I think since Russel/Quinn draft class.

yourfavestoner
01-28-2010, 10:44 AM
I quite like Clausen as a prospect, especially in such a weak class.

I'm not a Bradford fan at all, I don't know what it is, but he just doesn't have "it" when I have watched him. Bradford just feels like a 3rd round guy when I look at him and not a franchise QB.

When watching Clausen he reminds me in ways of Peyton Manning. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think he is on the same level, but he has that same cocky, unlikableness to him when he is on the field, his balls don't always look the prettiest but they seem to get to his receivers.

I don't think he has close to the same pocket presence as Manning and that is a huge part of why Manning is so good, but it is also something that he will get better at, I think a large factor to his pocket presence is how bad that OL was his first couple of years, he looked a considerable amount better this year than the previous two.

I quite like him as a prospect though and think that in the right situation with good coaching he has every chance to be successful. I think the ideal scenario would be somewhere he can sit a year or a place like the Jets this year that he can be protected. I think a team like Minny would be ideal, but I also can't see him lasting until our pick. Jags may be another team he would fit with nicely depending whether they feel they need to replace Garrard or not. Going to be tough on him if he goes to one of the really bad teams and is expected to help from the get go.

I almost guarantee if Clausen or Bradford fall to the Jags, they'd pick him in a heatbeat. Garrard is the definition of mediocre quarterback and he's in his 30s now.

ojjuiceman
01-31-2010, 05:27 PM
http://walterfootball.com/images/juniorqbs.jpg

wicket
01-31-2010, 05:37 PM
oh, goodie. stats.

does that mean that matt stafford was a better qb prospect than peyton manning?

nope its to show people that are bitching about JC not producing enough that Jimmy did his part and did it well.

TACKLE
01-31-2010, 05:44 PM
oh, goodie. stats.

does that mean that matt stafford was a better qb prospect than peyton manning?

No it means that Colt Brennan and Graham Harrell are better prospects than Peyton.

Though I must say, I am very impressed with Clausen TD/INT ratio.

descendency
01-31-2010, 05:47 PM
This is really the worst QB class in years. I think since Russel/Quinn draft class.

I kind of agree, but I think Clausen could be another great QB while the rest will be backups and injury risks.

soybean
01-31-2010, 05:48 PM
Clausen had one of the softest schedule in cfb last season. Stats never work unless it's with common opponent or equal competition.

prock
01-31-2010, 05:49 PM
oh, goodie. stats.

does that mean that matt stafford was a better qb prospect than peyton manning?

no. it means you cant knock clausen for not producing. stats arent the whole picture, but they definitely matter. stats are only part of the equation, and clausen dominates other top prospects in years past in terms of production. doesnt mean he is better, but it means something.

descendency
01-31-2010, 05:52 PM
oh, goodie. stats.

does that mean that matt stafford was a better qb prospect than peyton manning?

You're missing the point. Everyone's numbers are fairly similar, but Clausen beats out most of them handily. However, no one is giving Clausen that kind of respect.

Clausen is the 4th most 'accurate' QB in spite of playing in a Pro-Style offense.

RealityCheck
01-31-2010, 06:04 PM
This is really the worst QB class in years. I think since Russel/Quinn draft class.
Hey, I brought some guys who want to talk to you.

http://i668.photobucket.com/albums/vv41/LilUno411/LeviBrown.pnghttp://blog.oregonlive.com/behindbeaversbeat/2007/08/medium_sean%20canfield.jpghttp://www.vegasexperts.com/images/frontpage/cfb/2008/CMU-Lefevour-1.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kKUkKjXM6Do/SpQ1IJBfWkI/AAAAAAAAATk/dPSxptpgbAk/s320/skelton_2.jpghttp://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/11/07/sports/photos_stories/Cropped/051_tony_pike--300x400.jpg

Unbiased
01-31-2010, 06:13 PM
oh, goodie. stats.

does that mean that matt stafford was a better qb prospect than peyton manning?

What are you talking about? It's to show the people who say Clausen didn't put up good numbers that they're wrong.

JFLO
01-31-2010, 06:16 PM
I've got to agree with Broth on this being the worst quarterback class being drafted. Neither Clausen or Bradford are "franchise" caliber quarterbacks coming out of college and everyone else, plain and simple, are project quarterbacks who will take at least 3-5 years to fully develop.

I don't think Clausen is underrated. I think he is rated about where he should be, which is in the 10-15 range. He definitely isn't an elite prospect, but he is the closest thing to it, in terms of quarterbacks.

I don't think people pay enough attention to the fact that he is coming from a pro-style offense though. This is a huge dividend and it will pay off for him, especially in the beginning.

I don't think Bradford is going to have the amount of trouble where it leads him to being a bust or inconsitent talent, but Clausen's transition is going to be a lot easier, especially from the get-go.

Brothgar
01-31-2010, 06:32 PM
Hey, I brought some guys who want to talk to you.

http://i668.photobucket.com/albums/vv41/LilUno411/LeviBrown.pnghttp://blog.oregonlive.com/behindbeaversbeat/2007/08/medium_sean%20canfield.jpghttp://www.vegasexperts.com/images/frontpage/cfb/2008/CMU-Lefevour-1.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kKUkKjXM6Do/SpQ1IJBfWkI/AAAAAAAAATk/dPSxptpgbAk/s320/skelton_2.jpghttp://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2009/11/07/sports/photos_stories/Cropped/051_tony_pike--300x400.jpg

Oh hi guys I'm not drafting any of you in the first two rounds. Oh and Dan good luck in Buffalo.

Brothgar
01-31-2010, 07:05 PM
http://walterfootball.com/images/juniorqbs.jpg

Oh wow. You mean Jimmy Claussen put up great stats against crappy teams with amazing offensive talent around them? Here is a nice stat line I like to look at.

Jimmy v. #6 USC
Clausen 24 Comp/43 ATT 260 Yards 2 TD 0 INTs

Jimmy v. #12 Pitt
Clausen 27 Comp /42 Att 283 Yards 1 TDs 1 Int

These are the only two ranked teams they played this season.

Very pedestrian against real teams that's all I gotta say.

Brothgar
01-31-2010, 07:51 PM
I kind of agree, but I think Clausen could be another great QB while the rest will be backups and injury risks.

I guess I'm stuck on people puting him in at #4 overall. When you take a QB top 5 or even top 10 you think to be successful he has to be Peyton or Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford. Matt Ryan is the one guy who surprised EVERYONE and now we go through every year looking at that top QB prospect and say well he's the best QB in the class so instant top 10. I just don't see it with Clausen or Bradford (whom I like better). I agree with a previous post Clausen is the 14-15th best prospect in this draft and I can't wrap my mind around a team with as many needs as any of the top 10 teams taking the 14th best player over say maybe the 3rd or 4th best player that also fills a major need. Thus is why I find Clausen over rated.

wogitalia
01-31-2010, 08:26 PM
Jimmy v. #6 USC
Clausen 24 Comp/43 ATT 260 Yards 2 TD 0 INTs

Jimmy v. #12 Pitt
Clausen 27 Comp /42 Att 283 Yards 1 TDs 1 Int

That is two solid performances against two good teams. You want to act like any of the guys on that list didn't also play weak teams or unranked teams and hold it against Clausen?

Fact is Clausen and ND did not play any genuine cup cakes. They played a lot of solid teams, yeah they aren't great, but they are solid and he put up pretty outstanding numbers, he also did that without his best receiver for a large part of the season.

He may or may not be elite, I think he compares favourably to any QB in recent drafts, he doesn't have the arm strength of Stafford but he also doesn't have the accuracy issues. The prospect he is closest to is probably Matt Ryan in the last couple of years, in that he has shown quite a lot but he still has a lot of questions also.

I think he is going to be a good one if he lands in a decent situation with the chance to be a great one in a very good situation. I like him as much as any QB prospect in the last few years, I haven't been all that sold on any QB in the last few years, so take from that what you will.

With all that said, I think that Clausen as a prospect is probably in the 10-20 range but he is by far the best QB prospect(imo) and that will push him upwards because of the value placed on the position. I also think he is a guy who would have actually gained from going back for one more year and could have certainly garnered an elite grade next year. He is just very good grade this year.

wogitalia
01-31-2010, 08:35 PM
I agree with a previous post Clausen is the 14-15th best prospect in this draft and I can't wrap my mind around a team with as many needs as any of the top 10 teams taking the 14th best player over say maybe the 3rd or 4th best player that also fills a major need. Thus is why I find Clausen over rated.

Laughing at 3 straight posts with a Ryan mention but he is very relevant to this point here. Most people felt Ryan was a reach at 3, there was no doubt he was the best QB but most had him outside the top 10 as a prospect. The thing is though is that position does matter.

Look at the top prospects this year and it becomes a question of value. You have two DTs, 2 S, WR and a couple of LBs as the top prospects. None of the OTs or QBs are sure things and it is very arguable if any of them are actually in the top 10 talents without position consideration, yet you can bet that there will be at least 3 or 4 of them taken in that top 10. Thing is that most teams would rather pay the big money and get an average or better tackle or QB than take the chance on a safety, DT, WR or LB busting and being close to the highest paid at their positions. Top 10 tackles or QBs are on pretty much the average league salary for a starter at their position, the other positions are amongst the very top.

Whether that is the right approach or not is a whole different topic but in recent years it has certainly been the common approach. Just looking at Scott's Mock he currently has 3 OT and 2 QBs in his top 10. I personally wouldn't rate Bradford in the top 25 players but he is by far the 2nd safest QB prospect so a team with a need at QB is going to take a long look at him and Okung is the only tackle I would value as a top 10 guy and even then I'm not sold on him but that is how it works...

Brothgar
01-31-2010, 08:44 PM
That is two solid performances against two good teams. You want to act like any of the guys on that list didn't also play weak teams or unranked teams and hold it against Clausen?

Fact is Clausen and ND did not play any genuine cup cakes. They played a lot of solid teams, yeah they aren't great, but they are solid and he put up pretty outstanding numbers, he also did that without his best receiver for a large part of the season.

He may or may not be elite, I think he compares favourably to any QB in recent drafts, he doesn't have the arm strength of Stafford but he also doesn't have the accuracy issues. The prospect he is closest to is probably Matt Ryan in the last couple of years, in that he has shown quite a lot but he still has a lot of questions also.

I think he is going to be a good one if he lands in a decent situation with the chance to be a great one in a very good situation. I like him as much as any QB prospect in the last few years, I haven't been all that sold on any QB in the last few years, so take from that what you will.

With all that said, I think that Clausen as a prospect is probably in the 10-20 range but he is by far the best QB prospect(imo) and that will push him upwards because of the value placed on the position. I also think he is a guy who would have actually gained from going back for one more year and could have certainly garnered an elite grade next year. He is just very good grade this year.

I don't see the accuracy that everyone is talking about . Well, at least not down the field. Many passes that go down the field require the WRs to make adjustments to make the catch. So if Claussen goes to a WCO then he will be greatly successful. Matt Ryan is the best comparison to Claussen that said I didn't like Matt Ryan that much coming out either and neither did anyone else and there is a reason for that. As for that being good numbers near 50% - 55% completeion % is not going to cut it in the pros or at least isn't going to put you in the conversation as anything other than an average NFL QB. Another good comparison to Claussen is Mark Sanchez who in spite of going deep in the playoffs didn't do all that well for all the tools he had.

prock
01-31-2010, 08:59 PM
I don't see the accuracy that everyone is talking about . Well, at least not down the field. Many passes that go down the field require the WRs to make adjustments to make the catch. So if Claussen goes to a WCO then he will be greatly successful. Matt Ryan is the best comparison to Claussen that said I didn't like Matt Ryan that much coming out either and neither did anyone else and there is a reason for that. As for that being good numbers near 50% - 55% completeion % is not going to cut it in the pros or at least isn't going to put you in the conversation as anything other than an average NFL QB. Another good comparison to Claussen is Mark Sanchez who in spite of going deep in the playoffs didn't do all that well for all the tools he had.

well what do you expect out of a rookie quarterback man? sanchez did very well for what he was expected to do. rookie quarterbacks are supposed to manage games. if clausen is compared favorably to ryan and sanchez, id take him in the top 5.

Brothgar
01-31-2010, 09:22 PM
well what do you expect out of a rookie quarterback man? sanchez did very well for what he was expected to do. rookie quarterbacks are supposed to manage games. if clausen is compared favorably to ryan and sanchez, id take him in the top 5.

I'd say poor man's Matt Ryan. Sanchez was the QB of one of the worst passing games in the league. If I spent a top 5 (er 6) pick on a guy and gave him all the tools he needed I'd expect him to do alot better than (30th?) in the league. I don't know maybe I'm weird.

prock
01-31-2010, 09:30 PM
I'd say poor man's Matt Ryan. Sanchez was the QB of one of the worst passing games in the league. If I spent a top 5 (er 6) pick on a guy and gave him all the tools he needed I'd expect him to do alot better than (30th?) in the league. I don't know maybe I'm weird.

i think sanchez showed good potential and will continue to improve. he will be a stud in 2-3 years.

also, when your top receiver is bralyon edwards, id say not being last is an accomplishment :)

Saints-Tigers
01-31-2010, 09:58 PM
I wasn't as big on Clausen, but the more I watched his deep throws, the more I shifted from thinking his accuracy was off to noticing that he was usually putting the ball where only his guy could get to it.

HawkeyeFan
01-31-2010, 10:28 PM
Jimmy Clausen will rise a lot, he's a bonafied star and will excel in the right offense. Say, if he comes in from Notre Dame to a WCO St. Louis, or Washington team, he'll have a great career.

CLong4Heisman
01-31-2010, 11:22 PM
. If Washington doesnt pick him it's a big mistake. The one thing you can't argue about clausen is toughness and he would provide some leadership and confidence that has been lacking for a while. Plus I don't trust shoulder injuries especially because we don't know how Bradford is going to be affected long term

descendency
01-31-2010, 11:40 PM
. If Washington doesnt pick him it's a big mistake. The one thing you can't argue about clausen is toughness and he would provide some leadership and confidence that has been lacking for a while. Plus I don't trust shoulder injuries especially because we don't know how Bradford is going to be affected long term

Keep in mind that Sam Bradford's doctor works for Washington and rumors are that if the shoulder checks out ok, Bradford could be their pick. Granted, I wouldn't think I would be getting Clausen because the Rams would be insane to pass on him.

prock
02-01-2010, 12:39 AM
Keep in mind that Sam Bradford's doctor works for Washington and rumors are that if the shoulder checks out ok, Bradford could be their pick. Granted, I wouldn't think I would be getting Clausen because the Rams would be insane to pass on him.

i agree. suh is a hell of a prospect, but they need to take a step back and look at positional value. quarterback is by far the most important position on the field. clausen may not be the best prospect as far as quarterback goes, but seriously, if they want to win any time soon, they need a quarterback. please, st louis, take clausen for christs sake

Mr. Offseason
02-01-2010, 02:21 AM
What worries me about Clausen ... for all of the "intangibles" the ND fans want me to believe he has ... what's his winning % while at ND? What was his level of competition?

Answer: 1) Winning % is not good ... especially at a big time program ...
2) He has never beaten a team he wasn't supposed to beat ... his schedule/competition was always crap.


So -- I'm not buying this whole intangibles crap ... infact -- that's one thing that worries me ... he's not a "winner" ... Not to mention ... he has two 1st Round talents at WR(maybe 2nd Rounder for Tate), a top TE prospect(maybe Round 1, probably 2), and a decent RB group, too ... With all of that talent, he can put up great #'s and still not win ...

Okay -- big deal -- he came back in to win a game winning drive against the powerhouse Boilermakers ... color me not impressed ... I still think he's a 2nd Round QB with a LOT of upside ... but -- more downside ... he will get taken a lot higher though and - IMO - bust ...

This is my point of contention as well. I just don't think he has the intangibles to be a great leader in the NFL and to make the players around him better. What in his career at Notre Dame would make anyone think that he made the guys around him better? He played with a great supporting cast with the exception of a woefully bad offensive line that improved enough to be a below-average/average offensive line when he was a junior.

I don't think he is a winner either, and I say that even though I realize that ND's defense this year (and during his career in general) did not help him in many respects to win games. But this past season he had his chances to win games late and aside from the Michigan game (in games I saw, I saw him against Michigan, USC, UCONN and in one or two more live) he did not come through for the big, game-winning play when his team needed it most. He especially had his chances to do it against USC, but he just didn't come through.

That makes me think that he can be a quality QB in the NFL, a good QB. But I think he will be as good as the players around him. If he goes to a team that needs him to make guys around him better I think he will struggle, but as the team improves I think his numbers will improve as well.

He's not a bad QB by any means, but I really just don't buy his intangibles as a great leader, and I don't think he is a top 5 prospect. He will likely go in the top 10-15, and while I personally think of him as more of a top 20 prospect I think the value, considering it is the QB position, would be alright in that area. I just don't think he will vastly change the fortunes of a team more than any quality QB would.