PDA

View Full Version : Clausen or Bradford: Who Would You Pick?


LetsGoGiants!
02-16-2010, 10:38 PM
If you were in the situation of the Rams where you need a franchise QB or the Redskins where you have a new Head Coach, who would you pick to be your QB in this years draft? Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen?

Thumper
02-16-2010, 10:45 PM
Wrong forum, draft forum is where this goes.

And for the record I'm taking Clausen everyday of the week.

frubulubu
02-16-2010, 10:55 PM
I dont take none.

Monomach
02-16-2010, 10:57 PM
Clausen, easily. I wouldn't even consider Bradford with my first round pick right now.

GoRavens
02-16-2010, 10:59 PM
It's clearly Clausen.. Better arm, better leader, more durable, and more pro ready than Bradford.

BRAVEHEART
02-16-2010, 11:00 PM
I'd take Emu Boy.

BeerBaron
02-16-2010, 11:00 PM
Clausen, easily. I wouldn't even consider Bradford with my first round pick right now.

I agree with this. Spread QBs still scare me...especially in the first round.

And I do prefer Clausen anyway for the record.

FloridaFootball
02-16-2010, 11:15 PM
Jimmy Clausen.

-Loved him as a 5 star recruit outta high school.
-Played in charlie weiss offense.
-Improved as a QB and statistically each year in thepro style offense
-Played @ Notre Dame with a horrible offensive line and defense and still put up great numbers
-mechanically, pretty much as good as it gets.


Can't say too much on Sam Bradford until we see him throw at the combine/his proday.

MiWolves
02-17-2010, 12:04 AM
Is Jimmy Clausen really that tall..? when he stands next to Tate he looks 2 inches taller

TACKLE
02-17-2010, 12:43 AM
I see I'm in the minority here but I went with Sam Bradford. I was never a big fan of Bradford's. He's not an overly exciting player to watch and I've never like Oklahoma. But the more I watch of him the more I am becoming a fan. The three things I value most in QB's are accuracy, decision making, and work ethic/leadership/intangible. None of us can really judge the last one but as far as accuracy and decision making, Bradford is elite. QB's with big-arms a pro-style offenses com around but you have to appreciate when a player has the excellent accuracy and has the ability to make good decisions quickly.

Although operating out of the spread, he is a surgeon behind center. He has a quick release and is easily one of the most accurate QB's to come out in a while. He consistently puts the ball right where it needs to be. He release is a little low but it does allow him to get the ball out very quickly.

Bradford is very calm and poised in the pocket and always keeps his eyes down field. His toughness has been questioned because of the injuries but he always impressed me with his ability to face pressure and deliver accurate throws down the field. One thing that concerns me about Clausen is even though he does keep his eyes down field on broken plays, he has a tendency to want to to back out of the pocket and scramble opposed to stepping up in the pocket, with pressure, and deliver the ball down field.

Bradford's arm strength is underrated. Assuming his arm recovers fine, arm strength is certainly not a weakness for Bradford. He doesn't bomb the ball down the field but does a nice job a driving the ball on deeper routes and has a nice zip on his throws. Again, assuming his recovery goes right, arm strength will not limit Bradford at the next level. We know that arm strength is very overrated in the QB evaluation yet we always seem to fall into the trap of overvaluing it when the next draft comes around. People often associate the spread offense with questionable arm strength but the term "spread offense" encompasses many different styles of offenses. Some spread passing games are built around quick screens complemented by vertical routes (Florida). Some offenses such as Texas Tech rely on a passing game where almost every throw is under 10 yards. It's built on getting the ball out quickly, throwing short passes in an attempt to use the passing game as the running game. Sure OU's offense incorporates some of these elements (which offenses pro or college don't) but Oklahoma's offense is much closer to a pro-style attack than people realize. They get the ball down the field a lot more than most spread teams do. They throw a lot more deep comebacks and outs as well as posts and dig routes. They do incorporate some of the short passing concepts of Mike Leach, those throws also show Bradford's ability to get the ball out quickly to the right receiver. People talk in generalities about spread QB's but you must evaluate the individual offense before you can make a judgment on the caliber of QB's it produces.

Bradford is a guy who is probably subject to overanalysis though I've yet to here a concerning weakness of his on the field. He is not the most exciting QB but is undeniably effective. Obviously the shoulder injury is a concern and we'll have to see how he recovers. There's always that question with shoulder injuries and QB. But with that being said, with todays' medical advances and the fact that he has taken plenty of time to let his shoulder heal, I expect him to recover fully. I expect Sam Bradford to be the first QB selected and the best QB out of this class.

Sorry for the essay but I've this on the mind lately.

RaiderNation
02-17-2010, 12:49 AM
Wrong place... Clausen

Paranoidmoonduck
02-17-2010, 01:05 AM
Sam Bradord?

Geason Noceur
02-17-2010, 01:49 AM
Neither. They both look like average-at-best pro prospects with limited upside to me. Clausen looks mediocre. There's absolutely nothing special about the guy that qualifies him as a top five pick IMO. As for Bradford, he looks like an injury waiting to happen. Being a spread guy doesn't help him at all. I would cringe every time I saw him look to the sideline before he changed a play. I would take one of the other project QBs available in a lower round and spend a lot less. I don't think there would be much difference in value.

DiG
02-17-2010, 06:28 AM
Neither. They both look like average-at-best pro prospects with limited upside to me. Clausen looks mediocre. There's absolutely nothing special about the guy that qualifies him as a top five pick IMO. As for Bradford, he looks like an injury waiting to happen. Being a spread guy doesn't help him at all. I would cringe every time I saw him look to the sideline before he changed a play. I would take one of the other project QBs available in a lower round and spend a lot less. I don't think there would be much difference in value.

this is a smart man.

FUNBUNCHER
02-17-2010, 07:12 AM
The QB position is still the hardest to evaluate, and judging how a spread QB projects to the NFL is about the same as attempting to read the future by staring into a crystal ball.

ALL top notch spread QBs throw for over 67% completion, all are surgeons behind center.

I still think Bradford will be a very good pro, but I think Clausen is ready to play sooner.

If Clausen did what he did playing for the Hurricanes, he'd be a no brainer consensus #1.

I'm no flaming ND fan, but I am objective enough to recognize that Clausen has an NFL game.

ndbigdave
02-17-2010, 07:57 AM
I have written on Clausen a few times, so I will keep this some what brief.

I was able to watch nearly every Notre Dame game this year and I came away very impressed every week.

Clausen has dealt with high expectations for years, dealt with be "the man" since his soph or Junior year in high school. He went to one of a handful of schools where you are in the public eye every second of every day - and he excelled as an individual.

He has the size, arm strength, pedigree, coaching, experience and actual production to earn a top 10 selection and depending on team needs could work his way into the top 5 or even be the #1 Selection.

What I like the most, is that you can see a clear and impressive improvement from year 1 to 2 and from year 2 to 3.

The second most impressive attribute from season 3 was his ability to play from behind and lead his team to victories (or within a play of winning) this shows leadership, poise, calm under pressure and that certain "it factor" that all great QB's have - to give their team a chance to win no matter how things go on defense.

DeathbyStat
02-17-2010, 07:59 AM
If my medical people cleared Bradford I would go with him if not its Clausen but I'm more towards Clausen as its get nearer to the draft.

I was all in for Stafford right before the draft last year and then went with Sanchez

frubulubu
02-17-2010, 08:16 AM
If my medical people cleared Bradford I would go with him if not its Clausen but I'm more towards Clausen as its get nearer to the draft.

I was all in for Stafford right before the draft last year and then went with Sanchez

If your mefical cleared Bradford, you would go with him. But if not your with Clsusen, but your more with Clsusen, as the draft nears. Let me translate this, for everybody: Rubble, rubble, rubble.

Sniper
02-17-2010, 08:23 AM
Clausen every day of the week. That's coming from a huge ND hater, too. I watched nearly every ND game this year and the guy was a machine. His footwork is good, his arm strength is more than adequate, he's from a pro-style offense, and he's dealt with poor offensive lines before and come back even stronger. I really like him.

killxswitch
02-17-2010, 08:54 AM
Clausen. He is being underrated heavily right now IMO.

Nalej
02-17-2010, 08:55 AM
Clausen every day of the week. That's coming from a huge ND hater, too. I watched nearly every ND game this year and the guy was a machine. His footwork is good, his arm strength is more than adequate, he's from a pro-style offense, and he's dealt with poor offensive lines before and come back even stronger. I really like him.

My thoughts exactly. He's a baller. I think he'll be great in the next level

brat316
02-17-2010, 09:45 AM
we'll find out if either are drafted in the top 10, by seeing who is invited to New York.

Since the Brady Quinn thing, the commish has been asking teams who are in the top 10 what 5-6 players they would take if there. So if neither are invited, neither get drafted in the top 10...possibly.

yourfavestoner
02-17-2010, 09:57 AM
This is like asking me if I'd rather have hemrroids or a root canal.

I think both guys will be solid pros who may never set the world on fire. Think Tony Romo if he didn't play in Dallas.

zachsaints52
02-17-2010, 10:30 AM
Quick question: Why does it matter about the Spread when some times run the spread atleast 50% of the time? I know Saints run the spread more often then not, so a spread QB would fit here right?

LizardState
02-17-2010, 10:38 AM
This is like asking me if I'd rather have hemrroids or a root canal.

Got to agree with fave stoner here, neither is worth a 1st rd. pick in my estimation.

Bradford has the better arm from all appearances in games that I saw but is less mobile, more injury prone. If I rolled the dice on these 2 I wold prefer Bradford.

griff2213
02-17-2010, 10:58 AM
I just don't get it. When you actually objectively analyze it, Jimmy Clausen has less question marks than any quarterback prospect in recent memory...

People cite his arm strength as a question mark, but you don't need a cannon arm at all to be an elite NFL QB, and his arm strength is certainly more than adequate. Matt Ryan certainly didn't have a cannon arm coming out of college and I think Jimmy Clausen grades out higher than him in that regard. Let's look at some QBs who don't have huge arms. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Tony Romo, Philip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez.

People say he is a diva or a douchebag or immature, but that is just subjective bullsh*t. Mark Sanchez is definitely a diva. Matt Stafford is probably a douchebag. Jay Cutler is definitely a douchebag. Philip Rivers is definitely a douchebag. Brett Favre is a douchebag. Tony Romo is definitely a diva. Matter of fact basically all NFL players are either divas or douchebags, especially QBs, it's almost just inherent in their position. All that matters is that your teammates can respect you and follow you, and it seems like Clausen passes this test.

And most importantly, the fact that he was so hailed so much out of high school and was able to handle that pressure and actually meet the standards that were expected of him, actually shows an EXTREMELY high level of maturity. And also the fact that he showed such great progression from his freshman to junior years shows his high level of maturity in terms of taking advice, being coached, and being confident.

The most confusing thing to me is that most junior quarterbacks are drafted more off of potential than actual production in college (Stafford and Freeman didn't have mind-boggling stats their junior years by any means, and neither did Jake Locker, who most people think would be the slam dunk #1 pick); however, Clausen had one of the best statistical seasons EVER in a pro-style offense and he did it as a junior.

People also say that he had a great supporting cast and a lot of weapons so that then his stats might be inflated or something. First of all, this is just untrue since obviously Floyd and Rudolf were very injured, and as we all know is defense and offensive line sucked. And on top of this Golden Tate said he basically never had to adjust to a ball throw to him. Second of all, this is just a terrible argument made by people who are looking for things to knock him on. Basically every top QB recruit is going to go to a top program, which always have good supporting casts. QBs make or break his weapons more than the weapons make or break the QB. So this is just a narrow-minded and short-sighted criticism.

Then McShay goes on the say the fact that he was coached so well and brought up in a pro-style offense is actually a negative because he then has less upside?? Just after saying that Bradford and McCoys biggest question marks are the fact that they didn't play in a pro-style offense. That is just hypocrisy at its best. McShay says that since he was coached so well and in a pro-style offense he doesn't think he will get better. Well after posting 28 TDs to 4 INTs and 3700 YDS with 68% completed, I don't think he really needs to get a ton better. One of the major worries with drafting a QB is the bust factor, and by playing so well in a pro-style offense and showing a great ability to make reads, his bust factor GREATLY decreases. So who cares if his upside is less (which is a stupid comment anyway) if he can have such a ridiculous season in a system that doesn't inflate stats.

Quickly though, let's break down Clausen v. Bradford.
Size: Bradford is bigger yes but has a slight side arm release which diminishes this advantage.
Technique: both have great mechanics, a quick and pretty release, and good footwork. Though for some reason I watch Clausen and see an uncanny pocket presence.
Accuracy: this probably goes to Bradford. Though I don't think Clausen is inaccurate by any means.
Intangibles: Bradford certainly seems like a good and mature leader. People question Clausen's leadership and maturity but as I stated above I think it's ridiculous. All Clausen's teammates loved him. And he also shows great toughness by playing all year through a toe injury.
Health: Bradford's shoulder uh-oh. Injured twice in the same season, required season ending surgery. Clausen just a seeminly unfortunate toe injury.
Other notes: obviously Bradford playing in a spread offense is a huge concern. The only successful QB in the NFL that played spread in college is Drew Brees and he was only successful after 4 years of the pros. Can Bradford take snaps from under center, can he drop back effectively, can he make NFL reads and go through his progressions well, can he fit balls into pro-style windows? These are all HUGE concerns. And plus, we didn't see Bradford play nearly AT ALL this year. And in the three games he did play in this year WITHOUT Robinson, Loadholt and Gresham, he was less than impressive.

Basically, how I see it is that Jimmy Clausen is one of the best quarterback prospects of all time and is definitely one of the safest. I can't think of any QB prospects who had less question marks. Someone PLEASEEEE tell me how Sam Bradford is anywhere near as safe a pick as Clausen (or a better prospect for that matter) actually using concrete and legitimate logical example. I just can't believe how many people have such subjective and ulterior agendas when scouting a player.

zachsaints52
02-17-2010, 11:03 AM
Quickly though, let's break down Clausen v. Bradford.
Size: Bradford is bigger yes but has a slight side arm release which diminishes this advantage.
Technique: both have great mechanics, a quick and pretty release, and good footwork. Though for some reason I watch Clausen and see an uncanny pocket presence.
Accuracy: this probably goes to Bradford. Though I don't think Clausen is inaccurate by any means.
Intangibles: Bradford certainly seems like a good and mature leader. People question Clausen's leadership and maturity but as I stated above I think it's bullsh!t. All Clausen's teammates loved him. And he also shows great toughness by playing all year through a toe injury.
Health: Bradford's shoulder uh-oh. Injured twice in the same season, required season ending surgery. Clausen just a seeminly unfortunate toe injury.
Other notes: obviously Bradford playing in a spread offense is a huge concern. The only successful QB in the NFL that played spread in college is Drew Brees and he was only successful after 4 years of the pros. Can Bradford take snaps from under center, can he drop back effectively, can he make NFL reads and go through his progressions well, can he fit balls into pro-style windows? These are all HUGE concerns. And plus, we didn't see Bradford play nearly AT ALL this year. And in the three games he did play in this year WITHOUT Robinson, Loadholt and Gresham, he was less than impressive.

Basically, how I see it is that Jimmy Clausen is one of the best quarterback prospects of all time and is definitely one of the safest. I can't think of any QB prospects who had less question marks. Someone PLEASEEEE tell me how Sam Bradford is anywhere near as safe a pick as Clausen (or a better prospect for that matter) actually using concrete and legitimate logical example.

When your breakdown leans more towards Bradford I dont know what to think?

griff2213
02-17-2010, 11:06 AM
When your breakdown leans more towards Bradford I dont know what to think?

I am citing Bradford's health concerns and the fact that he played in a spread system as huge concerns

griff2213
02-17-2010, 11:08 AM
And I forgot to include arm strength in that break down. Which I would say goes to Clausen by a little bit. Though Bradford's arm seems so be adequate. However, I do question whether Bradford puts enough zip on the ball to fit it into pro-style windows.

zachsaints52
02-17-2010, 11:09 AM
I am citing Bradford's health concerns and the fact that he played in a spread system as huge concerns

So the spread offense would be a weakness if he went to say, the Broncos? They adopted the Pats offense, and when I've seen them they was in the spread alot (dunno if 50%, maybe a Broncos fan can say) And accuracy is a major need in a top QB, and with saying Bradford better makes me want him more. Would I wan either in the first? Id have to say no.

Edit- Id like to say im not doubting what you say, Im just asking questions. Ive seen games from both, but not alot to judge how good they are in certain areas.

Addict
02-17-2010, 11:36 AM
I'd take Clausen but I'm really very happy about the Lions taking Stafford next year. These two just scream "decent though completely average career" (clausen) and "bust" (bradford) to me.

vikes_28
02-17-2010, 12:05 PM
Clausen has attitude problems. Bradford please.

ThePudge
02-17-2010, 12:19 PM
First off, the sizes on the poll are off by a decent amount. I recently did scouting reports on both as NFL prospects. Bradford has the more impressive body of work in college & the better game tape, but Clausen is considerably less injury prone and more pro-ready. It's up to the GM to find the one best for them as either could work out well.

http://www.nfldraftdog.com/draftdogimages/2010%20prospects/jmmy-clausen.jpg

Jimmy Clausen - QB - Notre Dame (Jr.)
6'2 1/4e 223e 4.77e
#1 Quarterback - #5 Overall

We all heard about Clausen a few years ago, as he came out of California's Oaks Christian High School touted as one of the most college ready Quarterbacks in recent memory. While he failed to bring Notre Dame back to national glory, he did live up to his own personal hype by his Junior season. This past year, with future early round picks Golden Tate and Michael Floyd, Jimmy looked comfortable, he looked dynamic, and he looked extremely efficient. He projects as the most NFL-ready Quarterback prospect in 2010 and has a good deal of upside with a nice blend of accuracy, arm strength, and intelligence.

He may not be the tallest guy, at just around 6'2 1/4e, but he possesses a good, strong build and still makes efficient reads downfield. He displays a terrific feel for the position and has excellent mechanics. His delivery is short and his release is quick, the result is a very catchable ball. His footwork in the pocket and outside the pocket is impressive and he's able to throw well on the move. He shows a good feel for pressure and thinks on the move when the pocket collapses. Clausen is by no means a dual-threat Quarterback, but he shows good athleticism and escapability. He reads defenses well, keeps his eyes downfield and steps into his throws. His draft stock really benefits from his experience under center in a pro-style offense during his college years.

Clausen displays both a strong arm and impressive accuracy. His deep ball could use some work, as right now he often gets too much air under it and it hangs. Still, he shows terrific zip and command on his short to intermediate routes and has the arm to make any throw. He throws a tight spiral, has good touch, and throws a catchable ball. He's very accurate downfield and to the far hash, his timing with his receivers really shows. On the move, Clausen keeps his eyes downfield, displays good patience, and get drive the ball downfield accurately with that same tight spiral. He anticipates both his receivers and the defense well which has allowed him to become one of the most efficient QBs in the college football.

A big question mark some have about Jimmy Clausen is his character. Most questions seem to revolve around his maturity, how good a teammate he'll be, and how big a part the Clausen family will play for any team that drafts Jimmy. I think the maturity/teammate issues are overblown and likely go back more to high school when he was on magazine covers by his Sophomore & Junior years. At Notre Dame, I know he's taken the time and put in work with his receivers and in the weight room. This past summer, Clausen flew Golden Tate, Kyle Rudolph, & Michael Floyd out to California to work on timing and precision. He definitely earned his teammates respect this past year and I buy him more as a leader these days than an immature me-first player. How big a factor his family will be remains to be seen and I think new leaves will be turned during his Combine interviews, private workouts, and contract negotiations (if St. Louis decides to negotiate with 2 or more players).

Ultimately, with so many teams in need of a new face and franchise Quarterback, it would really surprise me to see Clausen escape the Top 9 picks. There are some questions that need to be answered about the Notre Dame product, but he has the tools to be a Franchise Quarterback for a team and appears to be a Top 5-10 value in a weak draft at the position. Expect his name to emerge as a prominent option in the #1 Pick race because of St. Louis' futility in the passing game, their lack of a fresh face, and his fit in their West Coast offense.

Pros
+ Strong football background & rare feel for the position
+ Excellent throwing mechanics, short delivery and quick, clean release
+ Very accurate, shows great timing and fits the ball into tight areas
+ Strong arm, displays great zip and the ability to make any NFL throw
+ Plays smart, very efficient, reads defenses well and anticipates coverage
+ Experience in a pro-style offense, worked under center in college and threw a complete route tree
+ Anticipates the pass rush well, is a quick decision maker
+ Has good feet, shows escapability from the pocket, and steps into his throws
+ Throws well on the move, keeps his eyes downfield, is patient
+ Breakout year in 09', big time production and great TD:INT ratio (28:4)
+ Athletic build, is not fragile
+ Durability
+ Is a leader and a new face for the team that drafts him

Cons
- Deep ball needs work, often hangs in the air
- Average height at 6'2 1/4e
- Has to answer some immaturity/teammate questions
- Uncertainty about his family and contract negotiation
- Was not a real winner in college, average record on a big stage (Probably not his fault)
- Occasionally his feet will be a bit too active

And...

http://thematadorsports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/071006_bradford_vmed_4p.widec.jpg

Sam Bradford - QB - Oklahoma
6'4e 225e 4.78e
#2 Quarterback - #11 Overall

Since the day Sam Bradford became the starting Quarterback for the Oklahoma Sooners, he was a star. In his (Redshirt) Freshman year he was the most efficient QB in the nation, and as a Sophomore he won the Heisman Trophy as the best player in college football. If he had declared for the 2009 NFL Draft, he would have likely been a Top 2 Pick perhaps to the St. Louis Rams. In the most recent example of a player making the wrong decision regarding underclassman entry into the draft, Bradford was hurt the first week when he landed on his throwing shoulder, then later re-injured it in October. It's hard to ignore his body of work on the field though and despite his serious durability question (and a few others) he's likely a Top 10 pick in this draft and perhaps the top player at his position depending on who you ask.

At 6'4e 225e, Sam Bradford has the prototypical NFL Quarterback build, he has excellent pocket presence, and he throws an accurate ball with great zip. On film I'm most impressed by Bradford in this class, though his learning curve remains higher than his competition Jimmy Clausen. In college, he may not have played in a pro-style offense, but he did an unbelievable job at surveying the field, reading defenses, and finding the open man. He's extremely smart on and off the field and has the look of a film-room junky. Even on the move, Sam can be seen surveying the field and checking his options. Though he'll have to adjust to dropping back from under center, his footwork and throwing mechanics are solid. He steps into his throws and usually throws with a high release point and a compact delivery. He finds open receivers, gets the ball out on time, and fires off his back foot.

There is some question as to how good Bradford's arm is. He has a good, but not great, NFL arm. His system didn't have him throw too many deep balls and when he did he showed the ability to put the ball downfield accurately, though it's not necessarily the prettiest all the time. He'll need a lot of reps leading up to the draft throwing 40+ yard passes and should be fine. His arm strength really shows on his intermediate throws between 10-25 yards, where he displays great command, a tight spiral, and very good zip. Bradford's capable of making most if not any NFL throw and hits receivers 20 yards downfield on the far hash, in stride, with that same velocity.

He's an extremely accurate passer with a lot of patience and confidence. He fits the ball into to tight spots and is capable squeezing throws in through traffic. Bradford shows a lot of touch on his short passes and can drop balls in downfield as well. His ball is very catchable and he commands his teammates respect on the field and in the locker room. He distributes the ball very well and shows rhythm & timing standing in the pocket. Outside the pocket, his athletic background (including Golf and Basketball) help him as he does not appear so stiff or slow when the heat is on. He's very capable of picking up yards with his feet, and can escape from pressure and throw on the move.

There's a lot of concern over Sam Bradford's injuries and his adjustment to a pro-style offense. His recurring shoulder injuries are going to be obstacle for him to climb and there is legitimate concern that durability is going to be an issue at the next level (especially now that he can't lean on the shotgun formation.) He'll need to check out medically at the Combine and show it's capable of handling reps in workouts. His inexperience in a pro-style offense is another cause for concern, as he played his college career in mostly the shotgun formation behind the nation's best Offensive Line. Bradford's a rhythm passer, and he'll need to adjust his footwork in the pocket and tweak his throwing mechanics to be a consistent player.

Is the NFL Combine and upcoming workouts more important for any player? I don't think so, as it could be the difference between Sam Bradford clearing some doubts and going in the Top 5 or not checking out properly, and falling down the board. When it's all said and done, he's a Top 10 pick in this draft that will garnish some attention from St. Louis with the #1 pick. Were it not for injuries, we may be talking about Bradford as the unanimous top pick in the draft realistically. He should catch a team's eye in the Top 9 (just like Clausen) and will be seen as Franchise Quarterback to the team that drafts him.

Pros
+ Pocket presence, is very calm, patient, and keeps his eyes active
+ Prototypical NFL Size/Athlete at 6'4e 225e with athletic background
+ Strong arm, shows great zip on intermediate passes, can make every throw
+ Very precise and accurate, developed great timing, fits the ball into tight spots
+ Footwork in/out of the pocket, steps into his throws, good escapability
+ Very intelligent, cerebral player who reads defense/sees the entire field
+ Leader and a Winner, great command of his team & won games
+ Work ethic, a blue-collar worker on the field, in the weight room, & in the classroom
+ Extremely Productive, Decorated QB, 2009 Heisman Trophy Winner
+ Likable Personality, personable guy and a well-liked/respected teammate
+ Good Throwing Mechanics, keeps the ball high and has a compact delivery
+ A young new face for the team that drafts him to play QB

Cons
- Durability a major red flag, recurring injuries to throwing shoulder sidelined him in 2009
- Played in a spread offense, saw mostly man coverage & lined up mostly shotgun
- Needs to make adjustments to his footwork to become a drop-back passer
- Was surrounded by a strong supporting cast and the nation's top OL
- Not the prettiest deep ball, not a lot of experience airing the ball out 40+ yards
- High learning curve for Top 10 pick

brat316
02-17-2010, 12:23 PM
Quick question: Why does it matter about the Spread when some times run the spread atleast 50% of the time? I know Saints run the spread more often then not, so a spread QB would fit here right?

Well in college you make 1 read or 2 reads from the spread. You usually know who your throwing to before the snap. Don't really have to change to many things up as hot routes and reads and stuff. Don't really run PA from spread/gun, can't really run from spread/gun. They don't read the defense while dropping back, no real footwork needed. Don't ever take a snap from under center. It also hides things like poor accuracy, and weak arms, and inflates stats.

In the NFL spread, they don't necessarily have to take snaps from the shotgun, they can line up 4, and have Rb in the back and take a snap under center. Giving them the option of run, pass, or PA. And in the NFL you don't have the ability to pick who you want to throw to right away, sometimes you do, other times you have to wait back and read the defense.

brat316
02-17-2010, 12:28 PM
Pudge add, needs to learn to take a snap from under center.

49erNation85
02-17-2010, 12:31 PM
Heck with both of them . I would take Tebow ! But hey that is just me lol

Addict
02-17-2010, 12:40 PM
Heck with both of them . I would take Tebow ! But hey that is just me lol

yeah that would be just you. If I were you I'd trade in that bandwagon for a bandunicycle, since I doubt anyone will join up.

touchdownrams
02-17-2010, 12:41 PM
As a Ram fan having the unfortunate opportunity to watch the Bulger, Boller, and Null disaster every week..I'll gladly take Clausen or Bradford. I prefer Clausen and I'm actually a little surprised he isn't more highly reguarded by the "draft gurus".

I'm surprised we haven't heard more things like teams falling all over themselves for a chance to get either of them. The rest of the QB class looks like hot garbage.

Tebow and Pike are the only others I'd have any interest in trying to develop but I don't think any team can be overly confident with them. Both will probably go higher than I'd want the Rams to touch them.

McCoy, Snead, Canfield, Lefevour..no thanks.

ThePudge
02-17-2010, 12:51 PM
Pudge add, needs to learn to take a snap from under center.

He pretty much is fine handling snaps under center (which he did do occasionally in college.) Bradford's a rhythm passer though so he just needs to adjust his footwork properly & get used to making different/tougher reads. He'll need a lot of reps in Training Camp, but should pick everything up pretty quick as he's plenty sound mechanically & intangibly.

AntoinCD
02-17-2010, 12:57 PM
I gotta go Clausen with this pick. Ireally think at this point there is a lot of hate out there for him. Statistically Clausen is one of the best junior QBs in the last 20 years and it's not like he was playing for Texas Tech. In a pro style offense he had extremely good numbers and that is without his number one WR for most of the season.

The size thing doesnt bother me that much either. If he was scraping 6 foot then yeah its a concern, anywhere over 6'2 is fine.

I really dont get the whole 'intangible' knock on him either, I mean yeah his family may come into question and he may have a bit of growing up to do but his leadership qualities are extremely good. He played most of the year with a bad turf toe injury and led his team. And its not like he was playing for a team making a run at the national championship so he really could have shut it down and stayed in school.

Babylon
02-17-2010, 01:08 PM
I gotta go Clausen with this pick. Ireally think at this point there is a lot of hate out there for him. Statistically Clausen is one of the best junior QBs in the last 20 years and it's not like he was playing for Texas Tech. In a pro style offense he had extremely good numbers and that is without his number one WR for most of the season.

The size thing doesnt bother me that much either. If he was scraping 6 foot then yeah its a concern, anywhere over 6'2 is fine.

I really dont get the whole 'intangible' knock on him either, I mean yeah his family may come into question and he may have a bit of growing up to do but his leadership qualities are extremely good. He played most of the year with a bad turf toe injury and led his team. And its not like he was playing for a team making a run at the national championship so he really could have shut it down and stayed in school.

I'm warming to the QB being the choice too. The only problem i see is you would be taking a player with a grade of about 9.7 as opposed to a guy with a grade of about 9.9, that is a big differance. Make an effort to trade down and you still have two pretty equal QBs to pick from.

Addict
02-17-2010, 01:11 PM
I'm warming to the QB being the choice too. The only problem i see is you would be taking a player with a grade of about 9.7 as opposed to a guy with a grade of about 9.9, that is a big differance. Make an effort to trade down and you still have two pretty equal QBs to pick from.

I sympathize, but I don't see any team trading up. Top 5 picks won't be commodities until there's a rookie cap in place.

yourfavestoner
02-17-2010, 01:38 PM
given that every single 'top qb' gets pretty trashed here, i'm surprised that anyone is surprised it's happening to clausen, too. this is what happens when we have several months to nitpick a guy, and it just gets worse when you have a couple seasons of headstart.

The problem is that fans always want other players because they're scared of the bust rate for QBs without realizing that other positions bust just as often. The problem is that it's a lot easier to hide a bust DT than a bust QB.

Another reason is because most people are incredibly short-sighted when it comes to the draft. The rewards of drafting a QB isn't usually felt until 3,4,5 years down the road and they want immediate gratification.

griff2213
02-17-2010, 01:46 PM
For people saying that Clausen isn't a first round QB, I ask, what about him makes him less of a prospect than Mark Sanchez or Matt Ryan??

touchdownrams
02-17-2010, 01:47 PM
given that every single 'top qb' gets pretty trashed here, i'm surprised that anyone is surprised it's happening to clausen, too. this is what happens when we have several months to nitpick a guy, and it just gets worse when you have a couple seasons of headstart.

Not sure if this was directed to me but I wasn't talking about people on this message board. More the ESPN, NFL network, national media types..

There are some good eyes and opinions on the board no disrespect intended, it's just that I think Clausen is being seriously under-valued as a top QB prospect in the national eye.

I think Stafford, Sanchez, and Matt Ryan were very solid prospects but I'm not sure Clausen isn't better. IMO, Clausen and Bradford actually compare favorably to any other QB taken in the top 10 the last few years.

yourfavestoner
02-17-2010, 01:55 PM
Yup, Clausen is pretty much the same player as Sanchez except with more experience. Dirty Sanchez did have that "charisma" factor going for him, though.

CC.SD
02-17-2010, 02:02 PM
Clausen and it shouldn't be close. Bradford's injury history alone would make it bizarre to choose him over Clausen.

MATTYxICE
02-17-2010, 02:06 PM
People talk about how Bradford is so accurate. CLAUSEN ONLY THREW LIKE 4 INTS!!! LOLOLOLOL! Clausen WILL be the better Pro. Bradford h/o will NOT have a Pro Career. Just because you are successful in the spread... So that means Graham Harrell.. oh um... Colt Brennan.. well... See?

Halsey
02-17-2010, 02:21 PM
Drew Brees played in a spread offense in college.

wicket
02-17-2010, 02:30 PM
Drew Brees played in a spread offense in college.

yeah and the ravens were more known for ray lewis than their QB and Campbell is black but still a pocket QB and etc etc

there is always an exception

Halsey
02-17-2010, 02:50 PM
Orton too. And didn't VY play in a spread? Alex Smith wasn't bad this past season. Yeah, they haven't been great, but I think it shows that playing in a spread offense doesn't prevent a player from developing into a quality QB. Besides, it's not like Bradford spent 4 or 5 years in a spread system. Intelligence is supposedly a strength of his, so he may be a guy who can handle learning a whole new kind of offense.

no bare feet
02-17-2010, 05:04 PM
Bradford and it's not even close. I'd rather neither. :rolleyes:

wicket
02-17-2010, 05:06 PM
Just a question for those who dislike Clausen, for how many of you is this a direct result from hating ND?

no bare feet
02-17-2010, 05:22 PM
Just a question for those who dislike Clausen, for how many of you is this a direct result from hating ND?

Not for me. I will break it down in under 40 words. Clausen has average zip and average accuracy from 10-25 yards out. His deep ball sucks. Bradford is deadly accurate in the 10-25 yard range, I like his zip, poise in the pocket and decision making more so than Clausen's. I wouldn't touch either in the top 20.

Primetime21
02-17-2010, 06:44 PM
With all the talk of Drew Brees as a reason to believe in the spread working he can also be used to argue that a severe shoulder injury should not completely turn a team off from a talented QB. Personally I feel like both will be successful but I see Bradford maturing both mentally and physically into a top QB who has the will and the talent to lead a team. Clausen I see a gym/tape rat that loves the game and is used to the pressure, and has experience coming from behind. Sadly for us most of the evaluating of these QBs will be the mental side of it in interviews and such so we will not have a very good chance to analysis what they truly offer to the Rams, Redskins, and the Seahawks.

Bradford strangely reminds me of Joe Montana but with that said I was born in the 90's so dont have the pedigree to be comparing the two

Clausen on the other hand reminds me a little of a extremely groomed Chad Henne.

LonghornsLegend
02-17-2010, 08:59 PM
I wonder if all the people saying that these QB's are just "average" felt the same about Sanchez and Matt Ryan also. Those guys were considered "solid" or "average" by alot of people also but I bet those teams wouldn't trade those QB's for another position.


Just like njx said people trash QB's here every year no matter who it is, Stafford was trashed to no end and he's leaps and bounds a better QB prospect then these 2.

DeepThreat
02-17-2010, 10:13 PM
Bradford for me and it's not close.

With Bradford, I see three question marks. His college system, his talent level, and his durability/shoulder.

He has ridiculous accuracy and his decision making/reads are uncanny. His release is extremely quick, and he is excellent throwing on the run.

I like Clausen, but not as much. He has a better arm, but I am afraid of his attitude, and am less than impressed with his accuracy. He also has the system knock.

wicket
02-18-2010, 01:53 AM
Not for me. I will break it down in under 40 words. Clausen has average zip and average accuracy from 10-25 yards out. His deep ball sucks. Bradford is deadly accurate in the 10-25 yard range, I like his zip, poise in the pocket and decision making more so than Clausen's. I wouldn't touch either in the top 20.

Did you ever watch him play?

How the hell do you think he threw for an 68% completion percentage with an 8.8 y/a out of a pro style offense with average accuracy.

Seriously, I can get the talk of his deep ball cuz he kinda floats it out there and lets the receiver make the play (which I think he can adjust if needed but it was more effective @ND) but to call him unaccurate on mid range passes is just crazy

wicket
02-18-2010, 01:55 AM
I wonder if all the people saying that these QB's are just "average" felt the same about Sanchez and Matt Ryan also. Those guys were considered "solid" or "average" by alot of people also but I bet those teams wouldn't trade those QB's for another position.


Just like njx said people trash QB's here every year no matter who it is, Stafford was trashed to no end and he's leaps and bounds a better QB prospect then these 2.

disagree with respect to clausen.
stafford has the bigger arm and is more athletic but clausen is more accurate, has better decision making and he reeds defenses better

Addict
02-18-2010, 02:40 AM
what does slightly concern me is that Mike Mayock almost never mentions Clausen in his top end draft picks mix. Considering Mayock is a great evaluator of QB's I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

Although if I recall he did like JR and Quinn. But whatever.

Abaddon
02-18-2010, 02:48 AM
Too many JP Losman/Jay Cutler comparisons. Couldn't touch Clausen personally.

Abaddon
02-18-2010, 02:55 AM
what does slightly concern me is that Mike Mayock almost never mentions Clausen in his top end draft picks mix. Considering Mayock is a great evaluator of QB's I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

Although if I recall he did like JR and Quinn. But whatever.

Can't remember his eval on Quinn, but I do recall he was no lover of JaMarcus Russell.

griff2213
02-18-2010, 08:05 AM
Bradford for me and it's not close.

With Bradford, I see three question marks. His college system, his talent level, and his durability/shoulder.

He has ridiculous accuracy and his decision making/reads are uncanny. His release is extremely quick, and he is excellent throwing on the run.

I like Clausen, but not as much. He has a better arm, but I am afraid of his attitude, and am less than impressed with his accuracy. He also has the system knock.

his accuracy is shown pretty well playing out of a pro-style offense and posting 68% completions and a YPA of almost 9. Also what system knock are you talking about..?

no bare feet
02-18-2010, 08:30 AM
I did watch him play and on film, not using what njx9 referred to as useless stats, that I have concluded that I don't like the velocity, the release point and the accuracy of that range of throws Clausen makes. In comparison to Bradford, I would say Bradford is better on all levels concerning the throws between 10-25 yeards.

Sniper
02-18-2010, 08:31 AM
Clausen on the other hand reminds me a little of a extremely groomed Chad Henne.

Clausen doesn't have the arm strength that Henne does and he's also much more accurate and consistent than Henne.

Sniper
02-18-2010, 08:32 AM
or if they were throwing to decent receivers being covered by garbage.

There you go. It seemed like ND threw deep at least 8-9 times per game (not saying that's an exact number, but you get the point) and it was either 6'3" manbeast Michael Floyd or projected 1st-2nd round pick Golden Tate catching it. He also had a very good receiving tight end in Kyle Rudolph.

FUNBUNCHER
02-18-2010, 09:01 AM
I did watch him play and on film, not using what njx9 referred to as useless stats, that I have concluded that I don't like the velocity, the release point and the accuracy of that range of throws Clausen makes. In comparison to Bradford, I would say Bradford is better on all levels concerning the throws between 10-25 yeards.

You're picking too many nits, IMO. Either Clausen has an NFL arm or he doesn't. From what I've seen, his arm strength falls right in range for the NFL.
For throws in the 10-25 yard range, both Clausen and Bradford are solid with no significant advantage between them, as are McCoy and Lefevour.

From a system standpoint, Clausen is light years ahead Bradford, and should be able to start as a rookie and hold his own. He has more experience making pro reads and throws, and he already knows how to put the ball up in a position where only his WRs have a chance to make a play, an underrated skill for many QBs.
It's difficult to project what kind of success Bradford will have if he starts the season from day one.

Sniper
02-18-2010, 09:07 AM
Drew Brees played in a spread offense in college.

So did Graham Harrell, Timmy Chang, Alex Smith, Omar Jacobs, Joey Harrington, Andre Ware, Akili Smith, Cade McNown, David Klingler, Kliff Kingsbury, Tim Couch, JaWalrus Russell (to an extent), Troy Smith (to an extent) and a whole laundry list filled with other busts.

hockey619
02-18-2010, 09:29 AM
I think its Clausen but I do like both.

To me, Clausen is the best QB to come out of college in a few years because I just dont see a whole lot of question marks unless you really nitpick. Hes similar to Ryan and Sanchez because hes very polished so people think he has little upside. People also suggested 'little upside' as a weakness to peyton manning when he came into the draft in 98 fwiw.

His arm is good enough, hes very adept at reading defenses and polished in his mechanics. Hes very consistent in his ball placement and his drops from center are very good, not quite as fast as Sanchez' were last year but still solid fundamentally. He looks off safeties, makes reads and audibles and changes protections at the line. When the game is on the line he plays great and was constantly covering (or nearly covering) for the abysmal ND defense with late game drives to pull out victories.

He did play with great weapons on offense though so his throwing windows were a little bigger at times because they created seperation. His deep ball didnt 'float' per say, it was intentional to my eyes if he had one on one he just threw it up there and let his guys get it because they were better and he knew it. cant really rip a man for being smart and taking advantage of what was given him. Can occassionally get happy feet or bolt the pocket a little early but thats really nit picking, even as a freshman he was very composed as he got trucked non stop due to a silk soft oline.

Note: I dont give a **** about his numbers, as njx pointed out they can be skewed mercylessly in college due to many reasons. Im just looking at what he brings to the table physically and what i know about him without a doubt.

cant say much about his personality cause ive never met him but from interviews he seems like a good guy and its tough to hold his college announcement against him, its been years ill hold him to something more recent.

more to come later on bradford who i also really like and think gets too much crap.

BigBanger
02-18-2010, 09:41 AM
I wonder if all the people saying that these QB's are just "average" felt the same about Sanchez and Matt Ryan also. Those guys were considered "solid" or "average" by alot of people also but I bet those teams wouldn't trade those QB's for another position.


Just like njx said people trash QB's here every year no matter who it is, Stafford was trashed to no end and he's leaps and bounds a better QB prospect then these 2.

disagree with respect to clausen.
stafford has the bigger arm and is more athletic but clausen is more accurate, has better decision making and he reeds defenses better
Clausen doesn't do **** better than Matt Stafford other than suck dick and take a punch in the face.

"Reeds" defenses better? GTFO. Stafford was far more knowledgable of reading defenses and disguises, far more accurate (his foot work led to inconsistent accuracy), ten times the leader, ten million times the arm and release, tougher and more physically impressive. Clausen had a better system with better receiving talents. And he's a loser that plays **** competition.

He is not anywhere close to Matt Stafford and he never will be. That **** deep ball is atrocious. A-*******-trocious.

Halsey
02-18-2010, 10:18 AM
So did Graham Harrell, Timmy Chang, Alex Smith, Omar Jacobs, Joey Harrington, Andre Ware, Akili Smith, Cade McNown, David Klingler, Kliff Kingsbury, Tim Couch, JaWalrus Russell (to an extent), Troy Smith (to an extent) and a whole laundry list filled with other busts.


I can make an even longer list of QBs who played in pro style offenses and busted. That doesn't mean that playing in a pro style offense prevents a QB from succeeding in the NFL, does it.

Also, if throwing to talented WR's in college is a problem then NFL teams should never Draft QB's from schools that recruit top talent. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Carson Palmer, and numerous other NFL QB's all threw to NFL caliber pass catchers in college. The best way for an NFL team to deal with a QB who had talented pass catchers in college is to surround him with talented pass catchers in the NFL.

RealityCheck
02-18-2010, 10:19 AM
If I were a Top 10 team like STL or Washington I'd take Bradford.
But if they're both there at #22 for the Pats I'd take Clausen.

Don't ask me why though.

Sniper
02-18-2010, 10:25 AM
I can make an even longer list of QBs who played in pro style offenses and busted. That doesn't mean that playing in a pro style offense prevents a QB from succeeding in the NFL, does it.

That's one of the most ******* moronic arguments you could make. Of course you could make that list. Then, after you're making that list and you feel all good and special about yourself, compare the percentage of successful pro-style QBs in the pros compared to the percentage of successful spread QBs in the pros. I guarantee you that I will win.

Also, if throwing to talented WR's in college is a problem then NFL teams should never Draft QB's from schools that recruit top talent. Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Carson Palmer, and numerous other NFL QB's all threw to NFL caliber pass catchers in college. The best way for an NFL team to deal with a QB who had talented pass catchers in college is to surround him with talented pass catchers in the NFL.

If you could point out to me where I said Clausen was only good because of Floyd/Tate/Rudolph, that'd be ******* delightful. Right, you can't. I've given Clausen his due many times before and will continue to do so, but it doesn't mean that he didn't benefit from a strong supporting cast, just like that strong supporting cast benefitted from playing with a first-round pick at QB.

ThePudge
02-18-2010, 10:30 AM
If I were a Top 10 team like STL or Washington I'd take Bradford.
But if they're both there at #22 for the Pats I'd take Clausen.

Don't ask me why though.

I can't realistically see any scenario in which both, or even one, drops out of the top 20 and down to New England. This isn't Brady Quinn/Aaron Rodgers in 2007/2005. The market for Quarterback is very hot compared to most years. In just the top 10... St. Louis, Washington, Seattle, Cleveland, Oakland, Buffalo, Denver* and/or Jacksonville* all could use a young Franchise signal caller. Ultimately, I think that's where both go... If they got out of the top 15 I'd expect Minnesota or Arizona, in particular, to make a hard push forward and trade up.

RealityCheck
02-18-2010, 10:31 AM
I can't realistically see any scenario in which both, or even one, drops out of the top 20 and down to New England. This isn't Brady Quinn/Aaron Rodgers in 2007/2005. The market for Quarterback is very hot compared to most years. In just the top 10... St. Louis, Washington, Seattle, Cleveland, Oakland, Buffalo, Denver* and/or Jacksonville* all could use a young Franchise signal caller. Ultimately, I think that's where both go... If they got out of the top 15 I'd expect Minnesota or Arizona, in particular, to make a hard push forward and trade up.
Jacksonville's QB situation is the same as New England's, if you ask me.

ThePudge
02-18-2010, 10:37 AM
Jacksonville's QB situation is the same as New England's, if you ask me.

Though I'm not sure how it changes my statement or even relates to my statement, I'd definitely be interested in learning how David Garrard an the Jaguars are the same as Tom Brady and the Pats.

RealityCheck
02-18-2010, 10:40 AM
Though I'm not sure how it changes my statement or even relates to my statement, I'd definitely be interested in learning how David Garrard an the Jaguars are the same as Tom Brady and the Pats.
Not on field, but on the draft context.

Both are 32, and their teams may or may not be interested in replacing them.

Sniper
02-18-2010, 10:40 AM
"Reeds" defenses better? GTFO. Stafford was far more knowledgable of reading defenses and disguises

How does one quantify this when trying to compare the two?

far more accurate

Except for the fact that, you know, he wasn't.

(his foot work led to inconsistent accuracy)

So you basically just contradicted yourself.

ten times the leader

His leadership really shone through when he took over a pre-season No. 1 pick and didn't even deliver an SEC title game appearance. Granted, Georgia's defense wasn't exactly Alabama '09, but...

Home against Alabama: 24/42, 274 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT in a game that was 31-0 at halftime before Stafford threw some garbage-time touchdowns.

Neutral site against Florida- 18/33, 0 TD, 3 INT, 1 lost fumble

The two biggest games of the year and Stafford combined for two touchdowns and five turnovers. Leadership at its finest, I suppose.

tougher

Clausen got the **** kicked out of him in his freshman and sophomore years. I mean, absolutely ******* destroyed. He got back up every time, didn't miss any time, and developed into a first-round pick at QB. What did Stafford do to be considered "tougher"?


more physically impressive.

That's all that matters. Ask Vernon Gholston.

Clausen had a better system

So it should be held against Clausen that he received better coaching (wow, did Charlie Weis really outcoach someone?). Ok. Peyton Manning ******* sucks because David Cutcliffe was his QB coach. Tom Brady is straight garbage because Scott Loeffler was his QB coach. Drew Brees is useless because he learned at "The Cradle of Quarterbacks". Makes sense, right?

with better receiving talents.

Nonsense. You're the biggest Golden Tate hater on this board. Remember, he's garbage. So, who's the great talent for ND? Michael Floyd? Okay. Floyd gets cancelled out by A.J Green. So, did ND really have better talent? Can't say Golden Tate sucks so much and then say that Clausen benefitted from him.

And he's a loser that plays **** competition.

Georgia Southern, Central Michigan, Arizona State and Kentucky are ******* defensive powerhouses, baby!

He is not anywhere close to Matt Stafford

A hell of a lot closer than you're making him out to be.

and he never will be.

Good to know you're Miss Cleo.

That **** deep ball is atrocious. A-*******-trocious.

It works for him.

Halsey
02-18-2010, 10:44 AM
That's one of the most ******* moronic arguments you could make.

In other words, you're mad because I made a good point. Didn't read past that. Cherry picking QBs from spread offenses, some of whom never had the raw talent to be an NFL QB, doesn't prove that playing in a spread in college prevents a QB from succeeding in the NFL.

yourfavestoner
02-18-2010, 10:50 AM
In other words, you're mad because I made a good point. Didn't read past that. Cherry picking QBs from spread offenses, some of whom never had the raw talent to be an NFL QB, doesn't prove that playing in a spread in college prevents a QB from succeeding in the NFL.

Exactly. It's not the spread offense itself that prevents these guys from being good. The spread is just so versatile you can alter it to minimize your QBs deficiencies while maximizing what he does well. If a guy is going to be good, he's gonna be good no matter what offense he ran in college. Do you think Peyton Manning wouldn't have been good if he had played for Spurrier at Florida instead of at Tennessee? Would Tim Couch or Andre Ware have been any better had they played in pro style offenses? No, it just would have been easier to see their flaws and there's no way they would have gone in the first round, let alone first overall.

Let's be honest here: there is no such thing as a pro style offense in college football. I like to call them "contemporary" offenses. The benefit that comes from working in a contemporary offense is the mechanical aspect of it - taking a snap from under center and dropping back to the proper depth with proper footwork.

P-L
02-18-2010, 10:55 AM
I can make an even longer list of QBs who played in pro style offenses and busted. That doesn't mean that playing in a pro style offense prevents a QB from succeeding in the NFL, does it.
The percentage of successful quarterbacks from a spread offense is much lower than that of quarterbacks from a pro style offense. Up until recently, a vast majority of colleges used pro style offenses.

yourfavestoner
02-18-2010, 11:11 AM
The percentage of successful quarterbacks from a spread offense is much lower than that of quarterbacks from a pro style offense. Up until recently, a vast majority of colleges used pro style offenses.

But again, I think everybody has cause and effect mixed up on this.

The spread players weren't failing because the spread prevented them from being good. They just weren't that good to begin with, and the spread masked that.

yourfavestoner
02-18-2010, 11:12 AM
Not on field, but on the draft context.

Both are 32, and their teams may or may not be interested in replacing them.

Yeah, Jacksonville is trying to replace Garrard. I highly, highly doubt the Pats are trying to actively replace Brady. Groom someone behind him? Sure. But definitely not replace.

RealityCheck
02-18-2010, 11:14 AM
Yeah, Jacksonville is trying to replace Garrard. I highly, highly doubt the Pats are trying to actively replace Brady. Groom someone behind him? Sure. But definitely not replace.
Yeah, maybe 2 years from now, Brady will be old and stale. Garrard is solid, Jax still wants him.

yourfavestoner
02-18-2010, 11:20 AM
Yeah, maybe 2 years from now, Brady will be old and stale. Garrard is solid, Jax still wants him.

Hahahahahahaha.

Solid? Sure. He's the epitome of average. And he's got a very above-average contract. That's a recipe for replacement.

WCH
02-18-2010, 11:20 AM
Not on field, but on the draft context.

Both are 32, and their teams may or may not be interested in replacing them.

One difference is that Tom Brady has already said that he wants to play 10 more years, and he might actually be talented enough to do it. The precedent for all-pro QBs playing well into their late 30's and early 40's, if they can stay healthy enough to get on the field, has already been set by Warren Moon in 1995/97 and Brett Favre in 2009. Elway, Marino, and Montana all retired at 38, and Marino was the only one who looked like his tank was empty.

The Packers drafting Rodgers made some sense, because Favre was already 35 and there was constant (apparently misguided!) retirement speculation.

The only reasons I can see for the Pats to burn a #1 on a QB is if: 1) they don't think Brady will be able to stay healthy enough to play at a high level; or 2) they don't want to pay him what he'll demand on the open market.

With Garrard, on the other hand, it's fair to question whether he's even playing at a high enough level right now, let alone 5 years from now.

And here's the part of the post where I completely contradict myself: even with all of that said, the thought of drafting Clausen and then franchising and trading Brady while his value is high totally sounds like something that the Pats would do. Like Favre always said: "if it can happen to Joe Montana, it can happen to anybody."

yourfavestoner
02-18-2010, 11:24 AM
One difference is that Tom Brady has already said that he wants to play 10 more years, and he might actually be talented enough to do it. The precedent for all-pro QBs playing well into their late 30's and early 40's, if they can stay healthy enough to get on the field, has already been set by Warren Moon in 1995/97 and Brett Favre in 2009. Elway, Marino, and Montana all retired at 38, and Marino was the only one who looked like his tank was empty.

The Packers drafting Rodgers made some sense, because Favre was already 35 and there was constant (apparently misguided!) retirement speculation.

The only reasons I can see for the Pats to burn a #1 on a QB is if: 1) they don't think Brady will be able to stay healthy enough to play at a high level; or 2) they don't want to pay him what he'll demand on the open market.

With Garrard, on the other hand, it's fair to question whether he's even playing at a high enough level right now, let alone 5 years from now.

And here's the part of the post where I completely contradict myself: even with all of that said, the thought of drafting Clausen and then franchising and trading Brady while his value is high totally sounds like something that the Pats would do. Like Favre always said: "if it can happen to Joe Montana, it can happen to anybody."

Yeah, but I just don't see the Pats spending a premium pick on a QB to do it, especially with the success they had grooming Brady and Cassell.

But Brady should definitely start feeling the pressure. How old was Bledsoe when Belichick shipped him out?

ThePudge
02-18-2010, 11:34 AM
How does one quantify this when trying to compare the two?

Except for the fact that, you know, he wasn't.

So you basically just contradicted yourself.

His leadership really shone through when he took over a pre-season No. 1 pick and didn't even deliver an SEC title game appearance. Granted, Georgia's defense wasn't exactly Alabama '09, but...

Home against Alabama: 24/42, 274 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT in a game that was 31-0 at halftime before Stafford threw some garbage-time touchdowns.

Neutral site against Florida- 18/33, 0 TD, 3 INT, 1 lost fumble

The two biggest games of the year and Stafford combined for two touchdowns and five turnovers. Leadership at its finest, I suppose.

Clausen got the **** kicked out of him in his freshman and sophomore years. I mean, absolutely ******* destroyed. He got back up every time, didn't miss any time, and developed into a first-round pick at QB. What did Stafford do to be considered "tougher"?

That's all that matters. Ask Vernon Gholston.

So it should be held against Clausen that he received better coaching (wow, did Charlie Weis really outcoach someone?). Ok. Peyton Manning ******* sucks because David Cutcliffe was his QB coach. Tom Brady is straight garbage because Scott Loeffler was his QB coach. Drew Brees is useless because he learned at "The Cradle of Quarterbacks". Makes sense, right?

Nonsense. You're the biggest Golden Tate hater on this board. Remember, he's garbage. So, who's the great talent for ND? Michael Floyd? Okay. Floyd gets cancelled out by A.J Green. So, did ND really have better talent? Can't say Golden Tate sucks so much and then say that Clausen benefitted from him.

Georgia Southern, Central Michigan, Arizona State and Kentucky are ******* defensive powerhouses, baby!

A hell of a lot closer than you're making him out to be.

Good to know you're Miss Cleo.

It works for him.

I liked this post a lot as it took a very angry, general post and really illustrated some huge flaws...

BigBanger, you should write a list of the pros and cons for both Bradford and Clausen. Now I'm not sure what the story was, if you were drunk and just going off.. or if you were offended by people here saying that future Top 10 picks Sam Bradford & Jimmy Clausen, will be Top 10 picks.

Clausen's deep ball needs some work as it tends to hang, but I'm not sure why you question his arm strength. How often do you expect St. Louis, Washington, Seattle, Buffalo to throw that far down the field? None of their offenses are really geared that way, and between the four of them only two passes went for over 60 yards in 2010. They'll all need to make more big plays, but you don't need a guy that can just bomb out two throws a game, you want a guy who's going to make the plays (95% of passing plays) in front of 25 yards. Arm strength and a great deep ball are not synonymous and you need only one to play in the NFL (I'll give you a hint, it's not a great deep ball.) Drew Brees took years to get to the level he is today throwing the deep ball.

A guy who can fire off his back foot 25 yards downfield through traffic, retaining excellent velocity, has more than adequate arm strength to me. Though his deep ball may not be in quite the same league just yet, Jimmy Clausen has a stronger arm than Tim Tebow. His footwork is NFL-ready and he's far more efficient than Matt Stafford ever was (if you feel like making that comparison.)

Sometimes, BigBanger, you bring great stuff to the table, actually taking pride in analyzing players and projecting transitions to the NFL... but other times it seems like you watch the game with a bag over your head.. then when you post, you remove the bag, you're pissed about the fact that you're short of breath and you make an angry, biased post against a player with very little facts to back up a post full of "********"s.

I'm not here bashing you, but sometimes your posts are gold, and others convey huge observer bias.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
02-18-2010, 01:54 PM
What makes Bradford a better prospect than Colt McCoy? I keep hearing Bradford has rare accuracy the 2 seasons he played in his completion percentage was 69.5(07) and 67.9(08) McCoy has been 76.7 and 70.7 and for what it is worth Peyton Manning's best in college was 64.2 in a pro style offense. Bradford is a completely unfinished product losing his offensive line and wide outs would have told a lot about him this year. I really think Jimmy Clausen is worth a top 10 pick.

wicket
02-18-2010, 01:59 PM
How does one quantify this when trying to compare the two?



Except for the fact that, you know, he wasn't.



So you basically just contradicted yourself.



His leadership really shone through when he took over a pre-season No. 1 pick and didn't even deliver an SEC title game appearance. Granted, Georgia's defense wasn't exactly Alabama '09, but...

Home against Alabama: 24/42, 274 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT in a game that was 31-0 at halftime before Stafford threw some garbage-time touchdowns.

Neutral site against Florida- 18/33, 0 TD, 3 INT, 1 lost fumble

The two biggest games of the year and Stafford combined for two touchdowns and five turnovers. Leadership at its finest, I suppose.



Clausen got the **** kicked out of him in his freshman and sophomore years. I mean, absolutely ******* destroyed. He got back up every time, didn't miss any time, and developed into a first-round pick at QB. What did Stafford do to be considered "tougher"?




That's all that matters. Ask Vernon Gholston.



So it should be held against Clausen that he received better coaching (wow, did Charlie Weis really outcoach someone?). Ok. Peyton Manning ******* sucks because David Cutcliffe was his QB coach. Tom Brady is straight garbage because Scott Loeffler was his QB coach. Drew Brees is useless because he learned at "The Cradle of Quarterbacks". Makes sense, right?



Nonsense. You're the biggest Golden Tate hater on this board. Remember, he's garbage. So, who's the great talent for ND? Michael Floyd? Okay. Floyd gets cancelled out by A.J Green. So, did ND really have better talent? Can't say Golden Tate sucks so much and then say that Clausen benefitted from him.



Georgia Southern, Central Michigan, Arizona State and Kentucky are ******* defensive powerhouses, baby!



A hell of a lot closer than you're making him out to be.



Good to know you're Miss Cleo.



It works for him.

this post made me react like this:

I liked this post a lot as it took a very angry, general post and really illustrated some huge flaws...

BigBanger, you should write a list of the pros and cons for both Bradford and Clausen. Now I'm not sure what the story was, if you were drunk and just going off.. or if you were offended by people here saying that future Top 10 picks Sam Bradford & Jimmy Clausen, will be Top 10 picks.

Clausen's deep ball needs some work as it tends to hang, but I'm not sure why you question his arm strength. How often do you expect St. Louis, Washington, Seattle, Buffalo to throw that far down the field? None of their offenses are really geared that way, and between the four of them only two passes went for over 60 yards in 2010. They'll all need to make more big plays, but you don't need a guy that can just bomb out two throws a game, you want a guy who's going to make the plays (95% of passing plays) in front of 25 yards. Arm strength and a great deep ball are not synonymous and you need only one to play in the NFL (I'll give you a hint, it's not a great deep ball.) Drew Brees took years to get to the level he is today throwing the deep ball.

A guy who can fire off his back foot 25 yards downfield through traffic, retaining excellent velocity, has more than adequate arm strength to me. Though his deep ball may not be in quite the same league just yet, Jimmy Clausen has a stronger arm than Tim Tebow. His footwork is NFL-ready and he's far more efficient than Matt Stafford ever was (if you feel like making that comparison.)

Sometimes, BigBanger, you bring great stuff to the table, actually taking pride in analyzing players and projecting transitions to the NFL... but other times it seems like you watch the game with a bag over your head.. then when you post, you remove the bag, you're pissed about the fact that you're short of breath and you make an angry, biased post against a player with very little facts to back up a post full of "********"s.

I'm not here bashing you, but sometimes your posts are gold, and others convey huge observer bias.

+rep on both

SKim172
02-18-2010, 02:34 PM
I'm in the generally "neither" camp. If my team's fortunes - and therefore my job - were hinged on bringing in a franchise QB, then I'd pick Clausen. Reluctantly. Unfortunately, the Rams have entered this territory.

Before I attract the haters and the apologists, I'm not saying they're "bad." They're correctly ranked as the top two quarterbacks. But I believe a dearth of talent is inflating their draft stock.

One poster mentioned that he can't see why people don't like Clausen. He said he was one of the best QB prospects in recent years, and his draft report has no negatives.

I agree with the last part of that. Yes, Clausen does not have any glaring negatives.

But you can't base an evaluation on that alone. It's about to what degree those positives go. Clausen, to me, seems like a guy with a relatively strong chance of becoming a solid NFL starter. However, I don't see enough in his positives to convince me that he can become anything more. Not necessarily bad, but a Top 10 pick should be a potential future elite. I don't think Clausen has a good chance of that.

That doesn't mean I don't think he absolutely can't be an elite QB. Just that I consider them long odds. The same long odds I give to him busting out of the league.

Bradford, I actually think may have a bit of a higher ceiling. The spread makes assessment difficult, but he displays a strong sense of timing and good accuracy. That's something that can be built on. However, I think Bradford also has a comparatively high chance of busting in comparison to Clausen because of his mechanics and the uncertainty caused by the spread.

Generally, though, I don't really think either QB will set the league on fire. I think they'll have their moments, but I don't think we're looking at the next Peyton-Brady rivalry here.


On spread offenses: Joe Flacco is a spread QB - a little too early to tell on that one. But Jeff Garcia and Kurt Warner, while they didn't play in the modern spread, did play in pretty different systems in the CFL and Arena League. Kurt Warner himself attributes his skill to the development he went through in Arena football. So it's not impossible.

this is a worthless stat, no matter how many times it's repeated. a lot of people could've completed 80+% of their passes for a 10+ ya if they'd been throwing swing passes to reggie bush all day. or if they were throwing to decent receivers being covered by garbage. or for a whole host of other reasons that pass occam's razor.

I'm not quite sure this is the correct usage of Occam's Razor. I wouldn't say those explanations pass Occam's Razor so much as overturn it. The simplest explanation would be that completion % is directly connected to accuracy. What you're saying is that there's innumerable contingencies that can explain completion %. That's kind of the opposite to Occam's Razor.

But I completely agree with you - completion % is very unreliable. It's something to keep in mind, but you better not hang your hat on a single general stat.

I learned that lesson when I thought Matt Ryan would do badly because of his interception average.

SKim172
02-18-2010, 02:55 PM
not at all. the simplest explanation for a high completion percentage is that he completed a lot of his passes. which doesn't tell us anything. my wording certainly could've been sloppy, i haven't had enough caffeine today.

I think we're trying to agree with each other, but you haven't had enough caffeine and I'm too much of a nitpick.

Finnegans Wake
02-18-2010, 03:06 PM
I think completion % is a valuable floor stat, rather than ceiling stat. If a college player's % < 60, that tells me he's not going to be NFL elite. OTOH, high completion % does not gaurantee success, as system players show repeatedly (i.e., the Graham Harrell syndrome).

So, not a stat to "hang your hat on," but being able to eliminate misses is an important part of the process.

umphrey
02-18-2010, 04:33 PM
Ndamukong Suh. Then Ryan Mallet or Jake Locker 2011! Bradford and Clausen aren't fit to carry their jocks.

Saints-Tigers
02-18-2010, 05:01 PM
I

I learned that lesson when I thought Matt Ryan would do badly because of his interception average.

And you may not be wrong yet. For all the cocksucking of Matt Ryan, he has shown he can keep the INTs at a reasonable level with a dominant runner, the best TE of all time, and one of the best receivers at adjusting to the ball.

That's why I never got all the jocking, if he never improves from here, he's a decent game manager. He has never shown he can play in an air it out offense where he has to carry an offense on his passing ability alone.

What happens if Matt Ryan does have to throw a lot more than he has, and downfield a lot more? His INT% and completion % aren't that great as is?

He has a lot of improvements to make, and I don't think he's that superstar that everyone else thinks he is. After not believing in Joe Flacco, he's been better as a rookie and as a sophomore, with less help on offense, and a lot less experience against top competition.

Halsey
02-18-2010, 05:17 PM
And you may not be wrong yet. For all the cocksucking of Matt Ryan, he has shown he can keep the INTs at a reasonable level with a dominant runner, the best TE of all time, and one of the best receivers at adjusting to the ball.

That's why I never got all the jocking, if he never improves from here, he's a decent game manager. He has never shown he can play in an air it out offense where he has to carry an offense on his passing ability alone.

What happens if Matt Ryan does have to throw a lot more than he has, and downfield a lot more? His INT% and completion % aren't that great as is?

He has a lot of improvements to make, and I don't think he's that superstar that everyone else thinks he is. After not believing in Joe Flacco, he's been better as a rookie and as a sophomore, with less help on offense, and a lot less experience against top competition.

Name a QB in the NFL who carries an offense alone. Drew Brees? Saints fan please.

Saints-Tigers
02-18-2010, 05:22 PM
You know exactly what I mean, but you are either very dense or very good at playing dumb.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
02-18-2010, 05:59 PM
What made Vince Young a top 3 pick? Arm strength? And on the other side what is preventing McCoy from being a first round pick?

Morton
02-18-2010, 06:01 PM
Name a QB in the NFL who carries an offense alone. Drew Brees? Saints fan please.

Peyton Manning?

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
02-18-2010, 07:15 PM
honestly? you see no difference between vince young and colt mccoy as prospects?



it's right up there with passer rating. sure, it can be totally useful when combined with other analysis. but it can also be completely worthless when referenced alone or out of context.

As a casual observer of the draft i do not. Vince carried his team to the national championship albeit with a sick defense. I know Vince also has size on him but had bad mechanics and wasnt the brightest bulb.

Saints-Tigers
02-18-2010, 07:22 PM
Vince had arm strength, he was 6'5 and 230 pounds and a super runner? He took a huge leap from his first year starting to his next.

Colt is mobile, Vince was a gamebreaker with his feet.

Malaka
02-18-2010, 07:25 PM
McCoy- 6'2 (questionable) nowhere near as fast or elusive as Young.

Positives: Very good short accuracy, smart, leader, winner, stats.
Negatives: Weird release, skinny, not a very strong arm, inaccurate throwing more than 20 yards, system offense.

Young- 6'6, 4.58 40, rocket arm

Positives: Leader, rocket arm, excellent scrambler, perfect size, winner, clutch.
Negatives: Not the sharpest tool in the shed, sidearm release, system, dumbed down playbook?

a 6'6 QB with a rocket arm that runs a 4.58 and recently led his team to National championship will always be drafted in the 1st round regardless of his flaws... .

Complex
09-26-2010, 09:45 PM
Bradford > Clausen

HawkeyeFan
09-26-2010, 10:09 PM
Boy was I wrong, and I was proudly wrong!

Saints-Tigers
09-26-2010, 10:14 PM
Well I'm glad this is settled because one was poor and one was merely below average so far.

SchizophrenicBatman
09-26-2010, 10:22 PM
yea calling this premature is an understatement

id throw clausen back into the sea right now if it gave the panthers a real chance at andrew luck but i'm also not ready to declare him a bust. he looked ok today in the 2nd half.

16/33 188yds 0td 1int vs 32/55 253yds 1td 3int through 1 game

meh

Morton
09-26-2010, 10:47 PM
QBs take a while to fully mature. You won't be able to really make any kind of judgement on Clausen and Bradford until 2011 at the very least.

PrimetimeTheDon
09-27-2010, 05:08 PM
For the record, I ranked Clausen ahead of Bradford.

I'm about 95% positive I was wrong. I'm ashamed of myself. I remember reviewing tape of Bradford before submitting my final rankings and getting butterflys in my stomach thinking - hm, maybe I got this wrong... - but I already flip-flopped once so I had to stick to my guns.

Almost positive I was wrong and it's a mistake I should not be making at this point in my "scouting career".

Scott Wright
09-27-2010, 05:15 PM
To even begin calling this one is absurd. We aren't even a month into their rookie seasons.

Remember, Peyton Manning threw more INT's than TD's as a rookie.

Time will tell but there won't be a verdict on this for three years.

LonghornsLegend
09-27-2010, 05:16 PM
You guys are silly. Obviously, 3 games of Bradford and 1 game of Clausen is enough to close the book on this argument. Let the "told you so" game begin!

PrimetimeTheDon
09-27-2010, 05:17 PM
To even begin calling this one is absurd. We aren't even a month into their rookie seasons.

Remember, Peyton Manning threw more INT's than TD's as a rookie.

Time will tell but there won't be a verdict on this for three years.


Scott, I understand what you are saying. I do, I really do. But when you watch Bradford play... for a rookie QB... he looks incredibly impressive. He looks like Manning did his rookie year.

PrimetimeTheDon
09-27-2010, 05:20 PM
You guys are silly. Obviously, 3 games of Bradford and 1 game of Clausen is enough to close the book on this argument. Let the "told you so" game begin!


Just like I said to Scott, I know exactly what you are saying. I know, I know.


But... sometimes it's like you just know... and honestly watching this kid it's hard to not get that feeling that he is something special. And I'm not talking SC highlights, I'm talking the actual games too (NFLGameday or whatever its called on DTV ftw).

San Diego Chicken
09-27-2010, 05:27 PM
Bradford looks very promising so far, playing with poise and confidence. I'm concerned that he isn't challenging defenses downfield very much - 5.6 YPA needs to get into the 7's or better. I'll be looking carefully to see if he can stretch the field more.

Complex
09-27-2010, 05:32 PM
Bradford looks very promising so far, playing with poise and confidence. I'm concerned that he isn't challenging defenses downfield very much - 5.6 YPA needs to get into the 7's or better. I'll be looking carefully to see if he can stretch the field more.

Mike Clayton, Danny Amendola,Daniel Fells, and Michael Hoomanawanui aren't exactly burners or even that good.

Scott Wright
09-27-2010, 05:35 PM
Scott, I understand what you are saying. I do, I really do. But when you watch Bradford play... for a rookie QB... he looks incredibly impressive. He looks like Manning did his rookie year.

So far Bradford looks good.

However, I still don't believe he will hold up physically. That was the biggest knock I had on him.

Halsey
09-27-2010, 05:50 PM
The Rams look pretty smart at the moment. I'm a big believer in the whole Golden Rule of the NFL Draft, but I would have taken Suh. It was gutsy for the Rams to pass on a prospect like Suh, who was likely the fan's choice, to take a risk on Bradford.

San Diego Chicken
09-27-2010, 05:58 PM
Mike Clayton, Danny Amendola,Daniel Fells, and Michael Hoomanawanui aren't exactly burners or even that good.

No one is saying they are, but for me it's been a lingering question mark for him through the draft process. We know he's a surgeon in the short area passing game. But there isn't alot of tape of him working it downfield. Avery would have helped with that some, to be sure.

yourfavestoner
09-27-2010, 07:20 PM
So far Bradford looks good.

However, I still don't believe he will hold up physically. That was the biggest knock I had on him.

I still maintain that it's silly to try and project injuries unless the guy has a fairly extensive and significant injury history (a la Brodie Croyle).

Bradford's injury was a freak accident, in the same vein as Adrian Peterson's collarbone break. If he would have just had the surgery to begin with instead of trying to come back, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Just look at Stafford. He's got a great build and never had any history of injury, and he can't stay on the field in the NFL.

Forenci
09-27-2010, 07:53 PM
I still maintain that it's silly to try and project injuries unless the guy has a fairly extensive and significant injury history (a la Brodie Croyle).

Bradford's injury was a freak accident, in the same vein as Adrian Peterson's collarbone break. If he would have just had the surgery to begin with instead of trying to come back, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Just look at Stafford. He's got a great build and never had any history of injury, and he can't stay on the field in the NFL.

I agree. I understand it to an extent with Bradford because it was a shoulder injury, but other than one fluke injury and a concussion he's never had any kind of nagging injuries through his playing career.

Personally, I thought what Bradford did yesterday was extremely impressive. Considering he has almost no weapons to speak of and a mediocre offensive line, I think he's looked damn impressive.

It's impossible to judge rookie QB's, so I really can't take what Clausen does or doesn't do with too much weight. Especially since it's just been one game.

That said, based off pre-season and what we've seen I really love Bradford. He looks so poised for a young player. I think he's going to be a stud if the Rams can get him some weapons.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-27-2010, 08:10 PM
Just look at Stafford. He's got a great build and never had any history of injury, and he can't stay on the field in the NFL.

Hell, there couldn't be a better counterpoint to Bradford than Stafford in this case. The way he won a lot of people over at Georgia was hanging tough in the pocket, being willing to take a hit to get a pass off, then popping right back up.

Bradford may get hurt, he may not. But if teams couldn't find something real enough to point to pre-draft and say "this will cause him to get injured more than an average QB", then there's nothing to base the assumption that he will get hurt beyond random incidents in college (it's not like he's a small or slight guy). I understand the temptation, because I've definitely made the tenuous connection before, but I think it's a mistake.

TACKLE
09-27-2010, 08:54 PM
Wow. I can't believe that twice as many people preferred Clausen over Bradford. I still can't see what Clausen does better than Bradford.

brat316
09-27-2010, 09:11 PM
Clausen still.


I'm hold off on the Bradford hype till he gets a few more games in. And works on his numbers a bit, and throws the ball more than 6 yards. Sure he may have the IT factor, but that'll carry him for so long.

619
09-27-2010, 09:24 PM
Clausen was a slow starter at ND, so it would be safe to assume the same in the pros. We could be looking at another Aaron Rodgers (without as much zip - where did that come from anyways?) in a few years, on the grounds that the Panthers get him the necessary targets. I still can't see this guy flopping, as he is simply too talented and he has an observable natural feel for the position that goes beyond physical measurables. Best thing for him right now is to continue getting in-game reps and going through the rookie growing pains.

Saints-Tigers
09-27-2010, 09:30 PM
If I told you a 191 pound college back with multiple injuries in a small school would take 360 carries and rush for 2000 yards, after already having a bulk of carries and catches as a rookie, you'd pimp slap me.

619
09-27-2010, 09:32 PM
If I told you a 191 pound college back with multiple injuries in a small school would take 360 carries and rush for 2000 yards, after already having a bulk of carries and catches as a rookie, you'd pimp slap me.

What does CJ have to do with anything in this thread?

Forenci
09-27-2010, 11:10 PM
Clausen still.


I'm hold off on the Bradford hype till he gets a few more games in. And works on his numbers a bit, and throws the ball more than 6 yards. Sure he may have the IT factor, but that'll carry him for so long.

Have you seen him play that much? He's actually looked really good distributing the ball (more than 6 yards, for the record). I don't know how anyone can watch him and not be impressed at what he's done for a rookie thus far. Sure, he still has a ways to go, but most rookie QB's do.

BigBanger
09-27-2010, 11:45 PM
I might have been completely wrong on Bradford (he's a much better QB than I anticipated). Is he elite? We'll see.

Clausen on the other hand?

Clausen doesn't do **** better than Matt Stafford other than suck dick and take a punch in the face.

"Reeds" defenses better? GTFO. Stafford was far more knowledgable of reading defenses and disguises, far more accurate (his foot work led to inconsistent accuracy), ten times the leader, ten million times the arm and release, tougher and more physically impressive. Clausen had a better system with better receiving talents. And he's a loser that plays **** competition.

He is not anywhere close to Matt Stafford and he never will be. That **** deep ball is atrocious. A-*******-trocious.


I don't really remember saying that, but it was all pretty much accurate... right down to the sucking ***** part. I hated Clausen more than I hated Brady Quinn, and I thought Clausen was a much better talent than Quinn. A lot of my hatred towards Clausen stemmed from people calling him the best QB in the draft or a franchise player when he simply never showed any inclination that he was any of that. He was a poor man's Chad Henne in college. That's what he was. But because he played for Notre Dame and because he was a big recruit, he was some elite player.

And just to defend the comments I made about Stafford. Stafford had pin-point accuracy. He completed throws that only two other QBs in college football ever did (from what I've seen). That was Philip Rivers and Jay Cutler. When he wouldn't set his feet, he would miss throws. But that has nothing to do with how accurate he is. That has everything to do with footwork. And, no Sniper that's contradictory, that's technical.

Footwork is correctable. Accuracy is not correctable. You can't teach a guy to throw the ball 50 yards in the air on a ******* line between a closing safety and corner underneath. You can't teach that. Bradford would never attempt that throw. Why? Because it would be picked off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EglUFT1OwKo

The throw I'm talking about takes place at 14 seconds and ends at about 22 seconds. That's a **** video with **** quality, but I watched it live when it happened. That throw... it was over for me. He was, without question, one of the best QBs I had ever seen. That's the throw I'll always point to. You can't tell, but the velocity on throw was unreal. JaMarcus Russell didn't have an arm to do that (he would throw the ball with a lot of air under it and never really showed a fastball). He had another throw against Alabama where he put a ball between two defenders that was just as amazing. There was no window at all. He had a few more throws that were just as impressive. Jay Cutler had an entire game against Florida with throws just like that. No one saw Clausen doing that or Bradford doing that. Matt Ryan has that moment (the whole 4th QT against VT, with one amazing play after another). There's moments throughout a players career that defines them. QBs have moments where you just see that jaw dropping ability that makes them special. Clausen never showed that. Bradford never showed that.


Bradford is the same player he was in college. Dump off, dump off, dump off, dump off, dump off... so far, it's worked for him and he's looked good. Can he make a career of it? We'll see.

descendency
09-28-2010, 12:28 AM
I'll wait for year 4 to admit I was wrong. Basing anything off of the first few games of a career is INSANE.

Who lead the NFL in interceptions in 1998? I bet that QB (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1998/leaders.htm) sucks.

Bald_81
09-28-2010, 01:15 AM
So far Bradford looks good.

However, I still don't believe he will hold up physically. That was the biggest knock I had on him.

I understand where you're coming from. But I also remember you talking about how Stafford never missed a game at Georgia prior to the '09 draft. You just can't predict when an injury is going to occur or what will be the cause of it. Stafford certainly took a licking in college as well but Detroit's offensive line has already caused Stafford to miss 7+ games. So despite never missing a game at Georgia, he has already missed a good portion of games in each of his first two seasons.

The most impressive thing with Bradford is he is taking a lot of hits but it just doesn't faze him. He keeps his eyes downfield (even if the Rams WRs are a sad excuse of a corps) and his poise and confidence in the pocket is just phenomenonal. The future is definitely bright in St. Louis and now we just need to surround him with better talent around him. If it weren't for Steven Jackson, I'd be scared for his life. That's another thing -- he performed well yesterday and in the clutch for much of the game without Jackson. I can't gush enough about Sam but I am definitely loving what I'm seeing so far.

ThePudge
09-28-2010, 01:22 AM
I thought Bradford was the best player available in the draft. Clausen has the ability to be a solid starter in the NFL, I think. He didn't look half bad last week against Cincinnati and was probably smart in not taking some chances deep (where he wound up running for a couple yards.) Looks like a very competitive player to me that should find some success.

I don't think it will happen this season, but I believe the Rams will have a chance to be a playoff team next season. They obviously need to add some pieces at WR and defensively, but they're a team on the rise in the weakest division in the NFL.

Paranoidmoonduck
09-28-2010, 01:33 AM
I don't really have a horse in this race.

I liked both Bradford and Clausen, but I had way more concerns about Clausen and I had no problem with the idea that Bradford was a top 5 player in the draft.

Bradford has, in no uncertain terms, been great. Not that we shouldn't give credit to that offensive line (has more talent that has been publicized) and Steven Jackson (who's still a top 3 running back), but he's taking the right gambles, making the right throws, and looks smooth out there. That offense isn't full of wrinkles, but he's going out there and making things work with a less than stellar set of receivers (put as kindly as possible).

This doesn't mean he won't get his shoulder ripped off next Sunday or that people shouldn't take his success as more than it is: a couple promising games. That said, if I were a Rams fan, I'd be very excited. You guys got a good one.

RaiderNation
09-28-2010, 01:48 AM
Not going to lie, Bradford is impressing me. No I dont he will ever he a top QB but he will be a top 10 QB in the league for a good time. I was also wrong on Stafford so far. Other than that though Ive been decent on QB scouting

Rosebud
09-28-2010, 01:59 AM
I thought Bradford was the best player available in the draft. Clausen has the ability to be a solid starter in the NFL, I think. He didn't look half bad last week against Cincinnati and was probably smart in not taking some chances deep (where he wound up running for a couple yards.) Looks like a very competitive player to me that should find some success.

I don't think it will happen this season, but I believe the Rams will have a chance to be a playoff team next season. They obviously need to add some pieces at WR and defensively, but they're a team on the rise in the weakest division in the NFL.

I actually like their receivers, they just desperately need a go to guy to take the attention off of the other guys and open things up for them. On D I want them to get more pass rushing help and a safety would be nice, but realistically they need a lot of help across the board, with CB being the lone exception as they've got 3 good guys. The offense should be sexy once they get that #1 receiver.

ThePudge
09-28-2010, 02:21 AM
I actually like their receivers, they just desperately need a go to guy to take the attention off of the other guys and open things up for them. On D I want them to get more pass rushing help and a safety would be nice, but realistically they need a lot of help across the board, with CB being the lone exception as they've got 3 good guys. The offense should be sexy once they get that #1 receiver.

Absolutely. Julio Jones or A.J. Green would look great for the Rams. Then throw in a pass-rusher and all of the sudden you could be talking about the Rams as a playoff team in 2010-2011. I think Sam Bradford will take this St. Louis franchise places, though they'll need to be fairly patient early on.

Saints-Tigers
09-28-2010, 02:27 AM
What does CJ have to do with anything in this thread?


Small discussion about being able to predict injuries.

Rosebud
09-28-2010, 02:33 AM
Absolutely. Julio Jones or A.J. Green would look great for the Rams. Then throw in a pass-rusher and all of the sudden you could be talking about the Rams as a playoff team in 2010-2011. I think Sam Bradford will take this St. Louis franchise places, though they'll need to be fairly patient early on.

That D still has a long way to go and you worry about how long SJ's going to last while the passing game and OL are going through their growing pains, but I agree that things look really bright in St. Louis moving forward. Spags is a really good coach, with pass rushers and those corners he'll craft a solid defense, but the offense will have to give them leads to defend as the run D has a lot of work ahead of it.

armageddon
09-28-2010, 09:18 PM
I am still trying to figure out why there was so much Clausen love and Bradford hate on here prior to the draft. I knew way back the Rams would have the #1 pick. So I watched a few ND games to try to like Clausen and see what he was about. Every time I watched him, I liked him less and less. I didn't see what the hype was about. I admit, I was a little worried about SB's shoulder. But I knew he had all the talent and smarts you look for. After watching 2 pre season and 3 regular season games so far, so can see SB has "it". If the Rams get VJax or an AJ Green, they will be in good shape. Clayton, Amendola and Gibson are pretty good #2 types.

PoopSandwich
09-28-2010, 09:45 PM
I'll wait for year 4 to admit I was wrong. Basing anything off of the first few games of a career is INSANE.

Who lead the NFL in interceptions in 1998? I bet that QB (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1998/leaders.htm) sucks.

Yeah but he also had 26 TDS and it wasn't like he looked horrible for a rookie.

brat316
09-28-2010, 09:51 PM
McNabb wasn't to hot in his first 6 games either.

holt_bruce81
09-28-2010, 09:55 PM
Bradford is doing very well, better than anyone expected really. People saying they are waiting to see Sam throw the ball farther than 10+ yards, you have to remember what his receiving core is. So far this season 49.5% of Bradford's passes have been 10 yards or less, to compare in 2008 64.3% of Matt Ryan's passes were 10 yards or less.

Plus what impresses me is Bradford has very good numbers against the blitz and already feels comfortable in the offense to change the play at the line of scrimmage.

robert_again
09-28-2010, 10:05 PM
Bradford looks pretty darn good to me. Never would have thought.

descendency
09-28-2010, 10:15 PM
Yeah but he also had 26 TDS and it wasn't like he looked horrible for a rookie.

Only because people didn't panic then like they do now. Manning had a horrible rookie season, only to be helped by the abortion that Ryan Leaf turned in.

edit: Fans today would have called Manning a bust and moved on after 1998, if they were GMs.

yourfavestoner
09-28-2010, 10:17 PM
I'll wait for year 4 to admit I was wrong. Basing anything off of the first few games of a career is INSANE.

Who lead the NFL in interceptions in 1998? I bet that QB (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1998/leaders.htm) sucks.

Meh, that argument is misleading because he also set the record for yards and touchdowns by a rookie.

His rookie year was not bad by any means. He already showed a good grasp of the offense and was already running the no-huddle in spurts. He had multiple games with more than one touchdown. He won an offensive player of the week award. He just threw so many picks because their defense was god awful and they had no running game yet.

armageddon
09-28-2010, 10:24 PM
BTW, Bradford is 6'4 230 , not 215

brat316
09-28-2010, 11:28 PM
Ha Matt Lieneart sucks...take that. Damn I was on his bandwagon and Jay Cutlers.

Oh well at least all three suck, well Matt more since he has can't even start.

jth1331
09-29-2010, 02:01 PM
Bradford is the same player he was in college. Dump off, dump off, dump off, dump off, dump off... so far, it's worked for him and he's looked good. Can he make a career of it? We'll see.

Why do people think Bradford can't throw down the field? There is plenty of video evidence of him throwing down the field, ACCURATELY, with enough zip on the ball.
Heck, I forget which week it was when I watched part of a Rams game, but he made a perfect pass down the sidelines in tight man coverage.

SchizophrenicBatman
09-29-2010, 02:34 PM
Only because people didn't panic then like they do now. Manning had a horrible rookie season, only to be helped by the abortion that Ryan Leaf turned in.

edit: Fans today would have called Manning a bust and moved on after 1998, if they were GMs.

peytons qb rating his rookie year was 71.2

which happens to be only a couple points lower than Eli's rating in the regular season of the Giants' Super Bowl year. And it's not like the guy was a whole lot better the first 3 years of his career either. But yea, people panic too quick today, sure...

armageddon
09-29-2010, 04:03 PM
Rick Venturi Says No QB has been better than Bradford

To this point in his career, he mentions Manning and all the other elite QBs!

Great endorsement, Venturi has been right about everything so far. Very smart football guy.

ThePudge
09-29-2010, 04:09 PM
Why do people think Bradford can't throw down the field? There is plenty of video evidence of him throwing down the field, ACCURATELY, with enough zip on the ball.
Heck, I forget which week it was when I watched part of a Rams game, but he made a perfect pass down the sidelines in tight man coverage.

Very common misconception. His offense at OU asked him to throw a lot of short passes, but he went downfield fairly often and did so very accurately. His velocity has always been great and after his shoulder injury he did a great job of showing that same arm strength. He looks stronger than ever now and is going to be a big, fearless, 6'4 QB with excellent accuracy, confidence, and an above average arm. He'll need to continue to learn the nuances of NFL defenses & his own offensive scheme.

He looks like he's going to be a great Quarterback when he comes into his own, gets a #1 receiver, and his OL continues to progress (Jason Smith/Rodger Saffold especially.) In two years time I think the Rams could possibly win the NFC West. It's a weak division and there's no team that really jumps at you.

PrimetimeTheDon
09-29-2010, 04:30 PM
Only because people didn't panic then like they do now. Manning had a horrible rookie season, only to be helped by the abortion that Ryan Leaf turned in.

edit: Fans today would have called Manning a bust and moved on after 1998, if they were GMs.

Um, no. Everyone was impressed by Manning's rookie year.

To squash your other extremely poor argument I'll ask you, what were the thoughts on Sanchez heading into this season and the Jets' prospects? Pretty positive huh? Why don't you google his stats from last years regular season.

There is a lot of misinformed posting going on in this forum.

PrimetimeTheDon
09-29-2010, 04:34 PM
Very common misconception. His offense at OU asked him to throw a lot of short passes, but he went downfield fairly often and did so very accurately.

Last April I was arguing with you about his accuracy down field (you probably have no recollection). My gripe was he didn't throw it enough downfield. You said - well show me when he attempted to do so and looked poor trying.

Not going to lie. It was kind of a foot up the ass of my argument.

yourfavestoner
09-29-2010, 04:35 PM
Um, no. Everyone was impressed by Manning's rookie year.

To squash your other extremely poor argument I'll ask you, what were the thoughts on Sanchez heading into this season and the Jets' prospects? Pretty positive huh? Why don't you google his stats from last years regular season.

There is a lot of misinformed posting going on in this forum.

Definitely not anything new around here.

ThePudge
09-29-2010, 05:24 PM
Last April I was arguing with you about his accuracy down field (you probably have no recollection). My gripe was he didn't throw it enough downfield. You said - well show me when he attempted to do so and looked poor trying.

Not going to lie. It was kind of a foot up the ass of my argument.

I do remember searching through games and youtube videos for examples of Bradford throwing deep, throwing downfield against good coverage. I thought he threw a fast, tight spiral when he did throw in the 15-25 yard range & his deep ball looked good (didn't really hang like Clausen's) with great accuracy and touch. He's a very efficient player. I think he has the ability to be an NFL star. Few realize how solidly he's built these days, he's a good, well rounded athlete, and he's got a terrific combination of mechanics, intelligence, & work ethic.

Forenci
09-29-2010, 09:15 PM
I do remember searching through games and youtube videos for examples of Bradford throwing deep, throwing downfield against good coverage. I thought he threw a fast, tight spiral when he did throw in the 15-25 yard range & his deep ball looked good (didn't really hang like Clausen's) with great accuracy and touch. He's a very efficient player. I think he has the ability to be an NFL star. Few realize how solidly he's built these days, he's a good, well rounded athlete, and he's got a terrific combination of mechanics, intelligence, & work ethic.

Speaking of being an athlete, I thought it was pretty funny when they did a pre-game bit with Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy and they played a game of Horse and Bradford just dunked it to finish off McCoy.

Dude has hops!

brat316
09-29-2010, 10:56 PM
Um, no. Everyone was impressed by Manning's rookie year.

To squash your other extremely poor argument I'll ask you, what were the thoughts on Sanchez heading into this season and the Jets' prospects? Pretty positive huh? Why don't you google his stats from last years regular season.

There is a lot of misinformed posting going on in this forum.


Its cause we have been spoiled by good rookie Qb play. Even since Ben's amazing season, followed up by VY8 just wins, then Matty Ice and Joe Flacco. Throw in there some other guys who's first year starting, not rookie, was pretty good, Jay Cutler.

SchizophrenicBatman
09-30-2010, 12:37 AM
I do have to say that I really, truly hate how Clausen throws his deep ball. However, he is 1/1 with it in NFL games so far (and he didn't even throw it to Smith!), so I'll hold off on condemning it until it proves ineffective

Rosebud
09-30-2010, 03:47 AM
I do have to say that I really, truly hate how Clausen throws his deep ball. However, he is 1/1 with it in NFL games so far (and he didn't even throw it to Smith!), so I'll hold off on condemning it until it proves ineffective

WHile I understand you're sentiment that's the same thought process that lead Cleveland fans to believe Derek Anderson was a franchise QB and quality starter.

AntoinCD
09-30-2010, 04:38 AM
I do have to say that I really, truly hate how Clausen throws his deep ball. However, he is 1/1 with it in NFL games so far (and he didn't even throw it to Smith!), so I'll hold off on condemning it until it proves ineffective

I tended to give Clausen a bit of leeway with his deep ball last year because he was throwing to Floyd and Tate and had the luxury of knowing that a 50/50 pass would 9 times out of 10 be a reception so it didn't have to be perfect. He also knew by lofting the ball more it gave his guys the opportunity to go get it. However in the NFL he will need to improve this because the CBs are so much more athletic and these types of passes will lead to costly INTs unless he can flatten out the deep ball.

BigBanger
09-30-2010, 07:01 AM
Why do people think Bradford can't throw down the field? There is plenty of video evidence of him throwing down the field, ACCURATELY, with enough zip on the ball.
Heck, I forget which week it was when I watched part of a Rams game, but he made a perfect pass down the sidelines in tight man coverage.
It was a rarity to see Bradford throw the ball more than 15 yards down field. It still is. If you want to point to one throw, then be my guest. That's one throw. He does not have a strong arm. He has an average NFL arm. Could it get stronger during his career? Yeah, but am I expecting him to have a Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers type transformation? No, not really.

Bradford was in a system, with obscene talent around him that covered up a lot of his abilities. He played pitch and catch with a bunch of players that were a lot better than the players he was going up against. Bradford was a frustrating player to watch, because his offense and supporting cast made it so easy. Watching Jermaine Gresham catch a ball in the flat and then run 40 yards with it... not impressive. The problem was, this happened ALL THE TIME. It was ridiculous.

I questioned how Bradford would react to pressure. Now I see him stand tall and play with great poise within the pocket (which means he'll take a lot of hits and that is something to worry about). That was a question mark because he simply had one of the most talented offensive lines in the country and a short, quick passing game to boot. I had to watch the Florida game again to see that he, at least, in that one game, showed that he can stand in the pocket, wait until the last second and get rid of the ball with good timing without throwing off his back foot and keeping good mechanics. That game was key for me grading him as a mid round player with a ton of question marks to a solid late first / early second round caliber player (and by far the best QB prospect in the draft).

Bradford was great at making pre-snap reads, finding the favorable matchup and getting the ball out quickly and accurately. I even underrated his this part (the best asset) of his game. Let's not fool ourselves and act like the guy was throwing the ball 20, 30, 40 yards down field all day long. Some people say, "If the Rams can get him a #1 WR like AJ Green, then..."

AJ Green would be a bad fit in St. Louis. He is a vertical player that would be best suited to play in a system that stretches the field vertically, not horizontally. It would be like buying a Ferrari and then keeping it in the garage during the summer and taking it out during the winter. It just doesn't make much sense.

Bradford is in a good system. He has a solid, young offensive line with a great RB. He needs some more talented WRs that can do a lot after the catch, but I want to see if he can push the ball down field. That will take him to the next step. Does he have the arm for it? I don't know. I wasn't sure if it would be a good idea for him to come in and be a starter right away. He hasn't played in a full year and there is a major learning curve for the QB position. He's been much better than I thought he would, much earlier in his career. Am I going to call him the next Peyton Manning? **** no. Right now he's off to a great start, but he does he what he's always done: Short, quick passes.

Rosebud
09-30-2010, 09:22 AM
That's what people are trying to tell you, that he has been throwing it further down the field and doing so pretty successfully for such a young QB. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble grasping that? 1/4th of all of his attempts so far in the league have been throws beyond 10 yards, on those throws he's hit 14 (46.7%) and is averaging 8.5 YPA 3 TDs and 5 INTs, which are certainly not great numbers, but are solid for a rookie QB in his first 3 games behind an OL that's still coming together on a team that lacks a go to receiver.

Just for comparison Drew Brees has only attempted 16 passes past 10 yards (14% of Attempts), of which he's only completed 6 (37.5 completion %) of them for 139 yards, only 1 TD and a YPA of 8.6. Tom Brady has also only thrown 16 passes past 10 yards (16.3% of Attempts) of which he has hit 4 (25 completion %) for 117 yards, 1 TD and a YPA of 7.3. Brett Favre is 11 for 24 (45.8 completion %, 24.7% of Attempts) beyond 10 yards for 232 yards, also just 1 TD and a YPA of 9.7. Aaron Rodgers? The Packers young MVP is 18 for 39 (46 completion %, 37% of Attempts) in this part of the field for 350 yards, 4 TDs, 3 picks and a YPA of 8.9.

So what you're saying is you don't like a guy who's pushing the ball down the field more often than Drew Brees, Tom Brady or Brett Favre with not even a fraction of the receiving talent for not pushing the ball down the field enough?

HawkeyeFan
09-30-2010, 10:13 AM
I don't understand people saying he doesn't throw the deep ball? He's threw the ball downfield a couple times already and is throwing it on right on target, the announcers were raving about his accuracy with the deep ball.

He also has been throwing a nice amount of mid range passes. Obviously with our playbook, and our lack of a "deep threat", he throws more slants, digs and outs, but he's been completing them impressively.

Giantsfan1080
09-30-2010, 10:22 AM
Good work Rosebud. Some real evidence to back up your point. Like NJX just said though people are still going to argue with you even though the numbers are right in front of their faces.

yourfavestoner
09-30-2010, 10:31 AM
It was a rarity to see Bradford throw the ball more than 15 yards down field. It still is. If you want to point to one throw, then be my guest. That's one throw. He does not have a strong arm. He has an average NFL arm. Could it get stronger during his career? Yeah, but am I expecting him to have a Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers type transformation? No, not really.

Bradford was in a system, with obscene talent around him that covered up a lot of his abilities. He played pitch and catch with a bunch of players that were a lot better than the players he was going up against. Bradford was a frustrating player to watch, because his offense and supporting cast made it so easy. Watching Jermaine Gresham catch a ball in the flat and then run 40 yards with it... not impressive. The problem was, this happened ALL THE TIME. It was ridiculous.

I questioned how Bradford would react to pressure. Now I see him stand tall and play with great poise within the pocket (which means he'll take a lot of hits and that is something to worry about). That was a question mark because he simply had one of the most talented offensive lines in the country and a short, quick passing game to boot. I had to watch the Florida game again to see that he, at least, in that one game, showed that he can stand in the pocket, wait until the last second and get rid of the ball with good timing without throwing off his back foot and keeping good mechanics. That game was key for me grading him as a mid round player with a ton of question marks to a solid late first / early second round caliber player (and by far the best QB prospect in the draft).

Bradford was great at making pre-snap reads, finding the favorable matchup and getting the ball out quickly and accurately. I even underrated his this part (the best asset) of his game. Let's not fool ourselves and act like the guy was throwing the ball 20, 30, 40 yards down field all day long. Some people say, "If the Rams can get him a #1 WR like AJ Green, then..."

AJ Green would be a bad fit in St. Louis. He is a vertical player that would be best suited to play in a system that stretches the field vertically, not horizontally. It would be like buying a Ferrari and then keeping it in the garage during the summer and taking it out during the winter. It just doesn't make much sense.

Bradford is in a good system. He has a solid, young offensive line with a great RB. He needs some more talented WRs that can do a lot after the catch, but I want to see if he can push the ball down field. That will take him to the next step. Does he have the arm for it? I don't know. I wasn't sure if it would be a good idea for him to come in and be a starter right away. He hasn't played in a full year and there is a major learning curve for the QB position. He's been much better than I thought he would, much earlier in his career. Am I going to call him the next Peyton Manning? **** no. Right now he's off to a great start, but he does he what he's always done: Short, quick passes.

Meh, what's your point? The intermediate passing game is the staple of the modern professional passing game. Other than the Bears and Eagles, who's running seven step drops and chucking it deep on every pass play?

From what I've seen so far this year (and I watched a pretty damn fair amount of the Redskins game and parts of the Arizona game week one), he's got more than enough zip on the ball. He's got a stronger arm than Matt Ryan, and is probably on par with Peyton early in his career.

jth1331
09-30-2010, 10:38 AM
It was a rarity to see Bradford throw the ball more than 15 yards down field. It still is. If you want to point to one throw, then be my guest. That's one throw. He does not have a strong arm. He has an average NFL arm. Could it get stronger during his career? Yeah, but am I expecting him to have a Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers type transformation? No, not really.

Bradford was in a system, with obscene talent around him that covered up a lot of his abilities. He played pitch and catch with a bunch of players that were a lot better than the players he was going up against. Bradford was a frustrating player to watch, because his offense and supporting cast made it so easy. Watching Jermaine Gresham catch a ball in the flat and then run 40 yards with it... not impressive. The problem was, this happened ALL THE TIME. It was ridiculous.

I questioned how Bradford would react to pressure. Now I see him stand tall and play with great poise within the pocket (which means he'll take a lot of hits and that is something to worry about). That was a question mark because he simply had one of the most talented offensive lines in the country and a short, quick passing game to boot. I had to watch the Florida game again to see that he, at least, in that one game, showed that he can stand in the pocket, wait until the last second and get rid of the ball with good timing without throwing off his back foot and keeping good mechanics. That game was key for me grading him as a mid round player with a ton of question marks to a solid late first / early second round caliber player (and by far the best QB prospect in the draft).

Bradford was great at making pre-snap reads, finding the favorable matchup and getting the ball out quickly and accurately. I even underrated his this part (the best asset) of his game. Let's not fool ourselves and act like the guy was throwing the ball 20, 30, 40 yards down field all day long. Some people say, "If the Rams can get him a #1 WR like AJ Green, then..."

AJ Green would be a bad fit in St. Louis. He is a vertical player that would be best suited to play in a system that stretches the field vertically, not horizontally. It would be like buying a Ferrari and then keeping it in the garage during the summer and taking it out during the winter. It just doesn't make much sense.

Bradford is in a good system. He has a solid, young offensive line with a great RB. He needs some more talented WRs that can do a lot after the catch, but I want to see if he can push the ball down field. That will take him to the next step. Does he have the arm for it? I don't know. I wasn't sure if it would be a good idea for him to come in and be a starter right away. He hasn't played in a full year and there is a major learning curve for the QB position. He's been much better than I thought he would, much earlier in his career. Am I going to call him the next Peyton Manning? **** no. Right now he's off to a great start, but he does he what he's always done: Short, quick passes.

This is pointless.
You say you watched the OU-Florida game, then I'm sure you saw Bradford's 2nd interception that was a deep pass down the middle to Iglesias, who was in tight man coverage with a CB and had a safety help. Where was Bradford's throw? Right on the money, in the hands of Iglesias who just had to not catch the pass but tip it and Florida came up with the pick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztPkDsOlGzU

Shows plenty of throws he makes of 10+ yards, accurately. You fault him because the talent, well that means jack if the fast WR's/TE's/RB's don't have the ball. He put it in their hands and got the job done amazingly well.

Like it has been stated, it is a misconception that OU's offense revolved around 3 yard passes that turned into big gains all the time.

That's what people are trying to tell you, that he has been throwing it further down the field and doing so pretty successfully for such a young QB. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble grasping that? 1/4th of all of his attempts so far in the league have been throws beyond 10 yards, on those throws he's hit 14 (46.7%) and is averaging 8.5 YPA 3 TDs and 5 INTs, which are certainly not great numbers, but are solid for a rookie QB in his first 3 games behind an OL that's still coming together on a team that lacks a go to receiver.

Just for comparison Drew Brees has only attempted 16 passes past 10 yards (14% of Attempts), of which he's only completed 6 (37.5 completion %) of them for 139 yards, only 1 TD and a YPA of 8.6. Tom Brady has also only thrown 16 passes past 10 yards (16.3% of Attempts) of which he has hit 4 (25 completion %) for 117 yards, 1 TD and a YPA of 7.3. Brett Favre is 11 for 24 (45.8 completion %, 24.7% of Attempts) beyond 10 yards for 232 yards, also just 1 TD and a YPA of 9.7. Aaron Rodgers? The Packers young MVP is 18 for 39 (46 completion %, 37% of Attempts) in this part of the field for 350 yards, 4 TDs, 3 picks and a YPA of 8.9.

So what you're saying is you don't like a guy who's pushing the ball down the field more often than Drew Brees, Tom Brady or Brett Favre with not even a fraction of the receiving talent for not pushing the ball down the field enough?

Yeah, but he can't throw deep apparently because all he did was dink and dunk it his entire time at OU

BigBanger
09-30-2010, 01:01 PM
This is pointless.
You say you watched the OU-Florida game, then I'm sure you saw Bradford's 2nd interception that was a deep pass down the middle to Iglesias, who was in tight man coverage with a CB and had a safety help. Where was Bradford's throw? Right on the money, in the hands of Iglesias who just had to not catch the pass but tip it and Florida came up with the pick.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztPkDsOlGzU

Shows plenty of throws he makes of 10+ yards, accurately. You fault him because the talent, well that means jack if the fast WR's/TE's/RB's don't have the ball. He put it in their hands and got the job done amazingly well.

Like it has been stated, it is a misconception that OU's offense revolved around 3 yard passes that turned into big gains all the time.
Yes, I know the throw you are talking about. It was a terrible decision. Very rare for Bradford. Bradford made more vertical attempts over 20 yards in that game then I saw all year long. It was his most impressive game of his career... by far.

Yeah, but he can't throw deep apparently because all he did was dink and dunk it his entire time at OU
Yeah, pretty much. A 12 yard pass is not a high level throw. Sorry, but it's not. It is a routine throw. Nothing in here is in any context. He threw the ball 60 times a ******* game. I'm pretty sure his games against Butler, Baylor and Appalachian State provided some great highlights of... at least half a dozen throws over 10 yards down field. I'm not going to watch the highlight video though.


That's what people are trying to tell you, that he has been throwing it further down the field and doing so pretty successfully for such a young QB. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble grasping that? 1/4th of all of his attempts so far in the league have been throws beyond 10 yards, on those throws he's hit 14 (46.7%) and is averaging 8.5 YPA 3 TDs and 5 INTs, which are certainly not great numbers, but are solid for a rookie QB in his first 3 games behind an OL that's still coming together on a team that lacks a go to receiver.

Just for comparison Drew Brees has only attempted 16 passes past 10 yards (14% of Attempts), of which he's only completed 6 (37.5 completion %) of them for 139 yards, only 1 TD and a YPA of 8.6. Tom Brady has also only thrown 16 passes past 10 yards (16.3% of Attempts) of which he has hit 4 (25 completion %) for 117 yards, 1 TD and a YPA of 7.3. Brett Favre is 11 for 24 (45.8 completion %, 24.7% of Attempts) beyond 10 yards for 232 yards, also just 1 TD and a YPA of 9.7. Aaron Rodgers? The Packers young MVP is 18 for 39 (46 completion %, 37% of Attempts) in this part of the field for 350 yards, 4 TDs, 3 picks and a YPA of 8.9.

So what you're saying is you don't like a guy who's pushing the ball down the field more often than Drew Brees, Tom Brady or Brett Favre with not even a fraction of the receiving talent for not pushing the ball down the field enough?
First thing... I don't know where this magic number 10 came into play. Maybe, I sarcastically said he hardly ever throws the ball 10 yards down field and you guys are taking that seriously? Vertical throws would be, at the least 17 yards, or more down field. 10+ yards? I'm not jizzing in my pants over it.

Second thing... I'm not saying anything about Drew Brees, Tom Brady or Brett Favre. I'm not positive where you got that interpretation, but it was an awful assumption to make.

Of course you can take stats and twist them into something mildly impressive at first glance, but I don't know what this proves. Other than the obvious: Tom Brady is having a pedestrian year (Moss has been nonexistent) and Drew Brees' high octane offense is... doing next to nothing (also having the worst rushing offense in the NFL, which sets up no play action -- an important part to their vertical passing offense). But, you don't need stats to tell you that. It's been apparent just watching them.

You are dropping some great stats. How about comparing him to QBs that have been pushing the ball down field this year? Philip Rivers, Peyton Manning, Kyle Orton, Matt Schaub, Tony Romo, Jay Cutler... I don't have any clue what their numbers look like, but I'd be curious to see some knowledge dropped. And then try on pass attempts over 20 yards (which is what I was referring to when I said vertical throws).


nice. though, if people stop complaining about every quarterback they don't like being 'captain checkdown' without having any vague clue what they're talking about, i'm going to blame you for the lowered entertainment value of most of these threads.



not that i expect anyone to pay attention. after all, bradford can't possibly throw it deep. it's true because he can't throw it deep. i mean, i have all the evidence i need: he can't throw it deep.

(does anyone believe me yet?)
Figures a moderator would make this kind of post. Rarity. Look up the word. Saying he can't do something is different than saying he hardly ever does something. Stick to the topic. Rosebud (terrible name) kinda did, but he's assuming that I'm impressed with passes that are 10+ yards in the air, which is not what I was referring to. You probably have 14,000 more posts as worthless as this one.

ThePudge
09-30-2010, 02:34 PM
I went back and dug up on of my March posts on Bradford's downfield capabilities. I came away plenty impressed, needless to say, as he wound up my #1 graded prospect for the 2010 Draft.

I think people need to realize that other than offenses like the Saints, the average team doesn't take more than 3-4 shots 25+ yards down the field per game. The short passing game and running game are often used to set up the big play, not so much vice versa. Now, he's not going to be rushed into throwing many 30-50 yard bombs down the field; not with 5'10 Mark Clayton and 5'11 Danny Amendola as his primary targets in the passing game. Let him settle in, gain confidence through short completions, then go deep occasionally in this, his rookie season. Then, next season, get him a receiver that is capable of stretching the field (one who excels in one-on-one situations deep.) With added confidence in his young OL, his receiving core, and himself as an NFL player, Bradford should eventually become a complete franchise Quarterback in this league.

Other quarterbacks with average-above average arm strength who gained more confidence throwing the deep ball include Peyton Manning (Tennessee) and Drew Brees (Purdue.) Neither used to toss the ball deep like they do now and it has everything to do with experience & reading coverages. When you look at those two situations you also have to mention their respective teams going out and getting some WR/TE personnel. If the Rams let him get hit too much though, who knows, Brady Quinn threw a much better deep ball in college (lost confidence in the NFL, plays scared.)

But, to refrain from rambling anymore, here was a post in which I broke apart a simple youtube video to look for examples of Bradford's intermediate-deep passes (mostly in the 15-25 range but some 30+.)

- March 18, 2010 - "Now, for this concern over his intermediate-deep passing. Because his offense didn't often ask him to do it very often doesn't mean he didn't and it doesn't mean that he didn't do a good job when he did. I thought Bradford did a great job throwing in the 15-30 yard area, albeit rarer than throwing underneath. How many WCO in the NFL throw more than 10 passes a game downfield? That's where he'll more than likely land (St. Louis).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwstGmNajh0

I just want to point out the last two throws on that highlight video againt Florida. At 9:11 Bradford steps up and fires a pass 30 yards downfield outside the hash. At 9:28 notice the velocity when going 23 yards downfield throwing into traffic with Joe Haden in coverage on Juaquin Iglesias.

Other throws over 20 Yards...
- 1:38 vs. Washington - under-center
- 1:50 vs. Washington
- 1:57 vs. Washington - under-center
- 2:39 vs. Washington - under-center
- 3:24 vs. Texas
- 3:52 vs. Texas
- 4:25 vs. Texas
- 4:58 vs. Nebraska - under-center, on the move -> 30+ yards with touch
- 5:07 vs. Nebraska
- 5:50 vs. Nebraska
- 5:59 vs. Nebraska
- 6:10 vs. Nebraska
- 6:21 vs. Nebraska
- 6:41 vs. Missouri
- 7:47 vs. Missouri
- 8:03 vs. Missouri
- 8:35 vs. Missouri
- 9:07 vs. Missouri

All in addition to the original
- 9:12 vs. Florida
and - 9:28 vs. Florida

That's one highlight video and he goes 20+ on 20 throws. The zip is there, the accuracy is great. Go back and watch all those throws, you owe it to your assessment.

His arm strength & velocity is just what you want to see in the 20-30 area and I have no doubt about his ability to make every relevant NFL throw. As I said, his 40+ passes need some work but he may only be throwing one of those a game. A West-Coast offense is largely short, underneath throws and Bradford is terrific there. He has shown the ability to survey the field and throw 25+ to the far hash or to the middle of the field both with great velocity. And thanks to the emphasis being put on bulking up and rehabbing that right shoulder, his arm should be stronger than ever.

Guy can throw the football. I'm more impressed each time I watch him. That velocity (or zip) on passes beyond 20 yards was something that stood out to me this time. Thanks for the little draft exercise." - March 18, 2010

Saints-Tigers
09-30-2010, 03:12 PM
Manning and Brees have a cannon compared to Bradford.

ThePudge
09-30-2010, 03:25 PM
Manning and Brees have a cannon compared to Bradford.

Really? Care to show me any example of Bradford's weak arm? I guess the 6'4 236 QB apparently can't lift his playbook without a lineman's help. His arm is plenty capable and he's shown that plenty throughout his college career & in pre-draft workouts. Did you hear a single scout/NFL personnel complain about the strength of his right arm/shoulder at his personal workout? Just because an offense emphasizes short-intermediate passes (which require great accuracy) doesn't mean the QB can't throw the ball downfield.

Coming out of Purdue Drew Brees' arm wasn't Mike Vick's, it was actually pretty close to the Philip Rivers/Sam Bradford range. The same could be said for Peyton. Neither Manning's have incredible arm strength. Right now those two players (Brees/Manning) have learned the game & NFL defenses to the point where they can go downfield confidently and wisely. Obviously, with three games NFL experience, Bradford's not there yet and no one is saying it's a given that he'll get to that level (of mental mastery over football.)

armageddon
09-30-2010, 03:31 PM
Manning and Brees have a cannon compared to Bradford.



Try watching him play before you say that.

A Perfect Score
09-30-2010, 04:29 PM
Peyton Manning throws one of the uglier balls in professional football. He certainly doesn't have a cannon.

Halsey
09-30-2010, 04:30 PM
I wish people would get over the black and white view that every QB prospect either has a cannon or a noodle arm. Most QB prospects fall somewhere in between, but it seems like every QB who does gets called "weak armed".

yourfavestoner
09-30-2010, 05:04 PM
If you can't understand that a twelve yard throw isn't just a high level throw - that it's the staple of the passing game in professional football, then I don't know what to say to you.

The NFL is all about being able to fit the ball in tight spots. It's that simple. The more velocity on your throw, the quicker it gets there, the less chance there is of a defender breaking on it. The deep passing game is but one small facet of arm strength. Throwing a twelve yard out against man coverage, down the seam to the tight end with two linebackers underneath and a safety over the top, on in the "honey hole" between the corner and safety in the cover two defense are all much more difficult throws to make than chucking the ball up and letting the receiver go get it.

descendency
09-30-2010, 05:07 PM
Brees "strong arm" comes from elite mechanics.

yourfavestoner
09-30-2010, 05:15 PM
If you can't understand that a twelve yard throw isn't just a high level throw - that it's the staple of the passing game in professional football, then I don't know what to say to you.

The NFL is all about being able to fit the ball in tight spots. It's that simple. The more velocity on your throw, the quicker it gets there, the less chance there is of a defender breaking on it. The deep passing game is but one small facet of arm strength. Throwing a twelve yard out against man coverage, down the seam to the tight end with two linebackers underneath and a safety over the top, on in the "honey hole" between the corner and safety in the cover two defense are all much more difficult throws to make than chucking the ball up and letting the receiver go get it.

**** getting trapped at the end of the page.

Forenci
09-30-2010, 05:16 PM
Brees "strong arm" comes from elite mechanics.

And extreme accuracy. He knows exactly where to place the ball down field. It really doesn't have much to do with arm strength, because Brees doesn't have a big arm (nor does he have a weak one, though), but with great timing and placement of the ball it's pretty much irrelevant.

Sure, if he had a "noodle" arm it would be impossible but for the most part having a big arm isn't really all that important in the NFL. Most QB's in the NFL have the arm strength to make all the throws. Timing and accuracy can make Drew Brees more effective than Jay Cutler.

Now, when you can combine elite arm strength with precision accuracy and superb decision making you usually get something rare. The idea however you need a great arm in the NFL to become a Pro Bowl QB or 'winner' is absurd.

Saints-Tigers
09-30-2010, 05:45 PM
Brees gets the ball over 40 yards down the field easily, right over the shoulder perfect. Strength and accuracy. Brees can get the ball on hail mary's over 60 yards easily on target, it's not all pure accuracy.

Bradford, once the pass is over 35-40 yards, it gets there, but it hangs horribly and the receiver has to slow down and make a leap for it. There is a big difference, and you can see how his ball floats forever when it goes up.

But sure, BRadford throwing 5-10 yards on every pass in the NFL is sure showing his elite arm strength.

ThePudge
09-30-2010, 06:23 PM
Brees gets the ball over 40 yards down the field easily, right over the shoulder perfect. Strength and accuracy. Brees can get the ball on hail mary's over 60 yards easily on target, it's not all pure accuracy.

Bradford, once the pass is over 30 yards, it gets there, but it hangs horribly and the receiver has to slow down and make a leap for it. There is a big difference, and you can see how his ball floats forever when it goes up.

When did that happen?

Also, Brees wasn't like that coming out of college. He threw a ton of passes at Purdue and the overwhelming majority of those balls were distributed in the 10-15 yard range. He certainly didn't make a large impact on the vertical passing game upon entering the NFL. His ypa in his 1st two seasons starting was 6.2 and 5.9 compared to 8.0 in 2008 & 8.5 in 2009. YPC was 10 then vs. 12 now. He wasn't attacking down-field upon entering the league, he had to build up his confidence, improve his mechanics, and add some strength to do that. I would say that Bradford is showing as much/more confidence than Brees did early on in San Diego (though he's playing as a rookie while Brees didn't.)

He's got a lot of work to do, but I think he's got the mental capacity & drive to make it. I really don't doubt him physically at all, unless he winds up hurt again. I think it was a good pick for St. Louis, a player who could play a big part in turning the Rams into a playoff team in the near future (assuming the NFC West's weakness.) I just wouldn't expect him to go down the field all too often this year as he's a young guy with receivers that do a good job getting open in the short game (but are all under 5'11.) I think he'll show some flashes deep, but for the most part he has to start off working the short game accurately.

BigBanger
09-30-2010, 06:59 PM
**** getting trapped at the end of the page.
Don't worry, I saw it. I'm not saying the 12 yard pass isn't important. I agree it is a staple of the passing game. I don't doubt that (I totally agree). Every QB needs to hit those short to intermediate throws to have any kind of substantial success, and it needs to be automatic. That is Bradford. He does that as good as any QB I have seen coming from the college ranks with the short to intermediate throws. What separates an elite / franchise QB, however, are the high difficultly throws that are more reliant on physical tools.

Peyton Manning does not have a strong arm, but its pretty damn good. Does he throw ugly passes? I think he would be the first to admit that he does, but he has a rare ability to hold a defender with his eyes and then quickly get the ball vertically and have the best ball placement possible. Those are the type of throws that separate the good QBs from the great QBs. Bradford has yet to prove that he is going to open the top off defenses. I'm not talking about him in the NFL, he has a lot of time to improve and the deep ball is usually the last thing to come.

I'm also not really talking about balls that are thrown 20 yards in the air either (when 10 yards are being counted from his depth on his drop back). The vertical throws that go over 20 or 30 yards from the LOS that push those safeties back, he had very few throws / attempts of that type while in college. And I'm not talking about the one's in the highlight video (there's a reason why they are called highlights).

Like I said, that championship game, to me, was quite a great performance. It was really the first time I saw him going through his progressions on a consistent basis (even in my Sam Bradford Sucks thread, I made a post saying, "THERE IS HOPE"). He would usually hit the first or second target to one side of the field because, against lesser competition, it was usually there. Against Florida he was going to 3rd and 4th options and reading the whole field (which did blow me away for a second year player). He also showed great patience and poise within the pocket (But really that was one of the few times he faced consistent pressure). Now he also had those throws vertically that made me say, "Franchise QB? Ball has to get there faster." One example from that game would be one of his first pass attempts -- I think it was to Iglesias down the left sideline. He hung the ball up and Major Wright came in, on a big looping, poor angle, and crushed the WR and broke up the play. If that was Stafford or Cutler? That ball would have been rifled in there before the safety got there.

I'm gonna end this on one note. Bradford is a bigger, stronger, tougher, smarter player than I ever gave credit for. I used poor wording when I said, "dump off, dump off, dump off..." That is Brady Quinn who went to his RB before his WR even came out of a break 20 yards down field. Bradford is playing within the offense and getting the ball to his receivers quickly and efficiently.

Also, his arm is good enough. It's not great, but it is good enough (Peyton Manning & Drew Brees have better arms, but they also got better / stronger as their career went on). I will say Bradford is much more likely to develop into one of top QBs in the NFL than an average player. He really does have just about everything you look for in a potential franchise player. I don't want to come off like I'm knocking him. I already made a thread that bashed him that should have never been made.

Saints-Tigers
10-01-2010, 12:59 AM
When did that happen?

Also, Brees wasn't like that coming out of college. He threw a ton of passes at Purdue and the overwhelming majority of those balls were distributed in the 10-15 yard range. He certainly didn't make a large impact on the vertical passing game upon entering the NFL. His ypa in his 1st two seasons starting was 6.2 and 5.9 compared to 8.0 in 2008 & 8.5 in 2009. YPC was 10 then vs. 12 now. He wasn't attacking down-field upon entering the league, he had to build up his confidence, improve his mechanics, and add some strength to do that. I would say that Bradford is showing as much/more confidence than Brees did early on in San Diego (though he's playing as a rookie while Brees didn't.)

He's got a lot of work to do, but I think he's got the mental capacity & drive to make it. I really don't doubt him physically at all, unless he winds up hurt again. I think it was a good pick for St. Louis, a player who could play a big part in turning the Rams into a playoff team in the near future (assuming the NFC West's weakness.) I just wouldn't expect him to go down the field all too often this year as he's a young guy with receivers that do a good job getting open in the short game (but are all under 5'11.) I think he'll show some flashes deep, but for the most part he has to start off working the short game accurately.

Brees sucked in his first few years, like a lot of guys do in the NFL.

If you are saying BRadford will be like early Brees until he makes big strides that he might never make, then I agree.

Miaoww
10-01-2010, 02:06 AM
yea calling this premature is an understatement

id throw clausen back into the sea right now if it gave the panthers a real chance at andrew luck but i'm also not ready to declare him a bust. he looked ok today in the 2nd half.

16/33 188yds 0td 1int vs 32/55 253yds 1td 3int through 1 game

meh

You really hate Clausen don't you? I guess you're going to be disappointed for a number of years then, 'cos the Panthers have found their signal caller for the next decade.

TACKLE
10-01-2010, 02:11 AM
I guess you're going to be disappointed for a number of years then, 'cos the Panthers have found their signal caller for the next decade.

Does that guy go to Washington, Stanford or Arkansas?

Miaoww
10-01-2010, 02:16 AM
No.

He doesn't go to Miami either.

SchizophrenicBatman
10-01-2010, 03:39 PM
I'm apathetic towards Clausen. He's a low investment, second round pick that could be cast aside by the next coaching staff or he could be the Panthers QB for 15 years. Hard to say

I'd throw him away now because while I see ability and potential that far surpass anything the Panthers have ever had at the position, I also don't see a top 5 QB NFL ceiling. Now, I could be wrong about that. I doubt very much that anyone thought Drew Brees' ceiling is what he became, but that's what I see. Regardless, the Panthers have had mediocrity or slightly above it at the position for far too long and I'd rather just punt everything and start over with a QB prospect that is a legitimate top 5 pick, not a guy who's stock was elevated simply because he played the position (and then fell to the 2nd round anyway)

bam bam
10-01-2010, 03:57 PM
So is Clausen going to be able to get the ball to Steve Smith next week? My fantasy lifeline depends on it.

Halsey
10-01-2010, 09:08 PM
I'm apathetic towards Clausen. He's a low investment, second round pick that could be cast aside by the next coaching staff or he could be the Panthers QB for 15 years. Hard to say

I'd throw him away now because while I see ability and potential that far surpass anything the Panthers have ever had at the position, I also don't see a top 5 QB NFL ceiling. Now, I could be wrong about that. I doubt very much that anyone thought Drew Brees' ceiling is what he became, but that's what I see. Regardless, the Panthers have had mediocrity or slightly above it at the position for far too long and I'd rather just punt everything and start over with a QB prospect that is a legitimate top 5 pick, not a guy who's stock was elevated simply because he played the position (and then fell to the 2nd round anyway)

Why throw away Clausen instead of just keeping him, or at least trading him? It's not like young QBs aren't tradeable. If the Panthers selected a QB in the first round in April, why shouldn't they either keep Clausen to compete or trade him for some sort of compensation? Would you just throw away a talented RB if you drafted another talented RB?

Saints-Tigers
10-01-2010, 09:12 PM
^ Great point.

If the Panthers do draft top 5, and they feel like they can't pass on a stud QB, Clausen can still play next season, and probably gain value if he is a decent player. recouping more than a second rounder won't be tough if they have a young QB showing potential.

SchizophrenicBatman
10-01-2010, 09:46 PM
Well I never said I was opposed to that, and it's certainly not realistic either way. Clausen is on the team whether I like or it not.

I just worry that we'll pass over on a top QB this year and/or next because we have Clausen, and then Clausen ends up being like the 12th best QB in the NFL for 8 years. I'd rather Matt Moore or whoever just suck ass all year then have a new staff come in and hand pick their QB with a high draft pick in 2011 or 2012. Instead, they're going to come in with a QB already here, hope he fits as "their guy" and Clausen is going to have a learn an entire new playbook in his 2nd year.

PrimetimeTheDon
10-02-2010, 06:08 PM
When did that happen?

Also, Brees wasn't like that coming out of college. He threw a ton of passes at Purdue and the overwhelming majority of those balls were distributed in the 10-15 yard range. He certainly didn't make a large impact on the vertical passing game upon entering the NFL. His ypa in his 1st two seasons starting was 6.2 and 5.9 compared to 8.0 in 2008 & 8.5 in 2009. YPC was 10 then vs. 12 now. He wasn't attacking down-field upon entering the league, he had to build up his confidence, improve his mechanics, and add some strength to do that. I would say that Bradford is showing as much/more confidence than Brees did early on in San Diego (though he's playing as a rookie while Brees didn't.)




I think Brees's arm has gotten stronger since that surgery he had on his shoulder. He has a rifle now that I do not remember noticing before. He can definitely sling it. On a scale of 10 I'd say it's an 8.

A Perfect Score
10-02-2010, 06:11 PM
People have this concept that arm strength is infallible, and you either have it or you don't. That isn't the way things work in the NFL. If anyone thinks that Tom Brady could throw a football coming out of Michigan the way he can now, then they need serious professional help. Bradford's arm strength was always overblown, but considering that the coaches in the NFL can actually help improve arm strength through improvements in technique and strength training, its actually really ridiculous when you sit back and realize that people tired to undersell him in that aspect.

Complex
10-03-2010, 01:23 AM
lol at the people voting for Sam Bradford now, he used to have 38 or 48 votes now 62.

BTw "7. Steve Smith's anger. Last week, Smith yelled at Jimmy Clausen on the sideline and tossed a cup of Gatorade angrily. That's the way to make a quarterback feel comfortable in his first start. This week, you can be sure the Saints will send the house at Clausen." -Peter King

Steve Smith wouldn't be yelling if Sam Bradford was his QB

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-03-2010, 08:48 AM
If you can't understand that a twelve yard throw isn't just a high level throw - that it's the staple of the passing game in professional football, then I don't know what to say to you.

The NFL is all about being able to fit the ball in tight spots. It's that simple. The more velocity on your throw, the quicker it gets there, the less chance there is of a defender breaking on it. The deep passing game is but one small facet of arm strength. Throwing a twelve yard out against man coverage, down the seam to the tight end with two linebackers underneath and a safety over the top, on in the "honey hole" between the corner and safety in the cover two defense are all much more difficult throws to make than chucking the ball up and letting the receiver go get it.

You're both wrong. Arm strength is all about how far you can throw the ball while on your knees. That's the only thing any real scouts mean when they talk about arm strength. And that's why whenever anyone talks bad about a QB with a cannon the response is "BUT HE CAN THROW 60 YARDS FROM HIS KNEES!!!!!!!" because nothing is more important than that. Arm strength is not usable in anything from the feet because really, throwing the ball on your feet isn't impressive. I could do that. Lots of people could. But not many can throw it 60 yards from their behind. It's simple economics.

PrimetimeTheDon
10-05-2010, 07:23 PM
You're both wrong. Arm strength is all about how far you can throw the ball while on your knees. That's the only thing any real scouts mean when they talk about arm strength. And that's why whenever anyone talks bad about a QB with a cannon the response is "BUT HE CAN THROW 60 YARDS FROM HIS KNEES!!!!!!!" because nothing is more important than that. Arm strength is not usable in anything from the feet because really, throwing the ball on your feet isn't impressive. I could do that. Lots of people could. But not many can throw it 60 yards from their behind. It's simple economics.

Lol who was that one FSU QB a couple years ago? Not Xavier Lee the other one with the cannon arm?

UGH WHAT IS HIS NAME!?

Anyway, not gonna lie, I was definitely intrigued by his cannon arm and speed. I drafted him in Madden (like 74 overall I believe from my custom ratings in ncaa) and he was fun to play with until his 70 accuracy became unbearable.


Adrian McPherson!!! That's it! Haha gotta love when that name on the tip of your tongue finally comes.

War McPherson and his 65 on the knees throws!!!