PDA

View Full Version : Is Clausen the Draft's Most Underrated Prospect?


MenOfTroy
04-08-2010, 01:55 AM
I'd say so, and I echo the sentiment expressed by Mel Kiper -- can anyone give me a really decent reason why he's getting knocked?

Pretty much the only thing you hear is that he's cocky, and thus the suspicion that he won't be a good leader. (But supposedly everyone with knowledge of the ND program says that's not true.) He might be not be the humblest guy, but his guys always rallied behind him. Actually, the fact that's he cocky, combined with his dedication to playing the game and watching film, is encouraging if anything. That's the kind of guy you want on your team.

Probably the most troubling of all is this sentiment that "his ceiling is limited." The guy plays quarterback, not wide receiver. Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, don't you think their "ceilings were limited"? And how did JaMarcus Russell and his fellow strong-armed workout warriors fare, contrarily? It's been shown time and time again that the two most important qualities in a top-rate QB are accuracy and a good mind for the game, yet this is incessantly overlooked.

You've got a guy playing for an extremely mediocre program throwing 28 TDs and 4 INTs, carrying the team on his back despite a nagging injury. That's insane, particularly within the context of a pro style offense as opposed to the spread. Three years within a pro style offense (compared to Mark Sanchez who only had one and was a damn good prospect at that) under the tutelage of Weis. Very accurate, with an arm that's more than sufficient if you ask me.

I should mention that I don't even care at all for ND or Clausen; as you can tell by my name, I traditionally root for SC. But, as a draft enthusiast, I find his draft evaluation befuddling.

SickwithIt1010
04-08-2010, 02:02 AM
theres a difference from being cocky and having a swagger....

...you want your QB to have that swagger, that look that shows you this QB has it. Clausen just thinks hes the ****, and everyone who pays attention knows that he had great weapons to throw to and hes a whiney little girl.

While i dont like his personality and i dont like the type of person he seems to be, i do think that he has tools. While they may be tools that have topped out, they are good enough to play QB with at the next level.

I believe he will go in the top 10. Probably to the Bills, but i still dont like his personality.

RaiderNation
04-08-2010, 02:02 AM
Id say yes in a way. I believe he will never be the Peyton Manning, Tom Brady ect type of all pro QB but what QB is? I just cant see him being a bad QB in the league and should be a solid top 10 QB for a long time. Eli Manning?

MenOfTroy
04-08-2010, 02:08 AM
Id say yes in a way. I believe he will never be the Peyton Manning, Tom Brady ect type of all pro QB but what QB is? I just cant see him being a bad QB in the league and should be a solid top 10 QB for a long time. Eli Manning?

I think Clausen is both more accurate and smarter with the ball than Eli. I think he's also more ballsy, so to speak, than Eli, who is one of the less assertive guys you'll see at QB.

gpngc
04-08-2010, 02:18 AM
I'm completely with you, original poster.

It really is crazy how underrated he is.

Here's my guess:

NFL people evaluate QBs different from other positions. They want their franchise QB to be not only a good player (which Clausen clearly is) - but a face of the franchise, a guy who will not have problems with his teammates or coaches, a guy that is likeable - someone community and organization will love and adore.

Plus, everyone knows the bust rate for QBs - even guys who have looked almost or in some cases just as good as Clausen has in college.

(I'd counter to ^ by pointing to exactly what he did - statistically, improvement-wise, USC tape, etc., and point to how it was all done in a pro-style offense) In other words, he's a far better bet than other highly rated QBs that have failed in the past.

For whatever reason, Clausen is viewed as a douchebag. Whether that is fair or not, I don't know, but I have never heard someone say they liked the kid's personality.

I just think it's stupid because when he brings some bad team (Buffalo?) back to relevance by being a legit franchise QB, his cockiness and propensity to be an asshole will be overshadowed and forgotten by his play.

Plus, no one will care about cockiness and Clausen will probably be a lot more amiable when he's enjoying success in the NFL (what he dealt with at Notre Dame was a frustrated fan base and media frenzy because his defense sucked and his coach couldn't meet expectations).

thetedginnshow
04-08-2010, 02:20 AM
Everything I don't like about him has to do with his ability. I like his swagger.

hawkeye123
04-08-2010, 02:49 AM
What has Clausen done to convince everyone he is such a ****?

He seems alright to me, and he was voted captain by his teammates.

Scott Wright
04-08-2010, 03:34 AM
If he goes Top 10? No.

If he drops to late Round One? Yes.

BTW, I firmly believe people still hold the limo thing against him.

The perception has become reality when it comes to Clausen.

wicket
04-08-2010, 03:44 AM
I hope he makes some teams seriously sorry for passing up on him

PickedOffTwice
04-08-2010, 04:10 AM
Why is this such an issue?

I mean I don't like the kid. But Phillip Rivers is one of the biggest douchebags in football. If not the biggest. And nobody does ever hold that against him.

I bet a lot of other pro athletes are giant douchebags, too.

It doesn't matter as long as they are playing good. This is professionall football and not the "BFFs forever" club.

FUNBUNCHER
04-08-2010, 04:16 AM
All I know is I was very impressed to see Clausen go across the field to hug and compliment Wolverine Tate Forcier afer he beat the Irish on a last second TD.

That was a character move on Clausen's part because he didn't have to do it, I wouldn't have if it were me.

Look, I WANT a cocky QB who 'knows' how good he is/can be. I just don't want him to be a jerk, which I have yet to see or read any evidence supporting this position.

If Clausen falls out of the top 15, there will be GMs fired in 3 years or less for passing on him.

I don't think Carroll can afford to pass on him, he's 10x the QB Whitehurst is, who never impressed me as a 'special QB' at Clemson.

GoRavens
04-08-2010, 05:27 AM
I have him going to the Raiders in my new mock.
Every draft the Raiders do something unexpected & they could definitely use a talent like Jimmy Clausen.

molenguinurtle
04-08-2010, 06:41 AM
Why is this such an issue?

I mean I don't like the kid. But Phillip Rivers is one of the biggest douchebags in football. If not the biggest. And nobody does ever hold that against him.



Co-sign. Been thinking about the Rivers thing for a while now.

JFLO
04-08-2010, 07:33 AM
People have a problem with him because of the way he carries himself and the way that he was brought up throughout high school. I don't think he can help the fact that he was basically the LeBron James of football throughout high school. He obviously didn't exceed those expectations, but he is still the best quarterback in this class.

I don't find a problem with his attitude. I don't see a problem with a player having the position of quarterback and feeling like he is the ****, why wouldn't you want that.

The same thing is said for the wide receiver and cornerback position and they don't get any heat for playing well on the field, in fact, for cornerbacks it's seen as a good trait.

Clausen is a Top 5 prospect in the draft and 2-4 years from now, we'll see why he should have been the #1 pick instead of Sam Bradford, who IMO, is a bust waiting to happen.

Halsey
04-08-2010, 07:43 AM
Some team should take him in the first round, but there are legit reasons to wonder if he's got what it takes between the ears to be an above average starting QB in the NFL.

SenorGato
04-08-2010, 08:25 AM
Probably. I have no idea what's so wrong with him as a prospect.

I have 0 worries about him between the ears.

Razor
04-08-2010, 08:38 AM
Jimmy Clausen will go first overall to the Rams.

jth1331
04-08-2010, 08:56 AM
I do think Clausen is a good prospect, but I continue to get confused when people like to downgrade Bradford so much to make Clausen look that much better.
Yeah, Clausen's best year he had 28 TD's and 4 interceptions. Bradford had 50 and 8 for crying out loud. "Oh but he played in a spread." No, it isn't like Hawaii's spread or Florida's spread.
Seriously, it seems people WANT Bradford to fail for some unknown reason.

As for Clausen, I do think some teams would be stupid to pass on him, and will be a reason why they are picking top 10 again next year. If you can draft a good prospect at QB who can be a franchise QB, you take him. You don't wait and see what happens, you take him. Seattle? Take him. Buffalo? Take him. They don't, guess what, they'll be picking top 10 next year and will be looking at Locker or Mallett.

killxswitch
04-08-2010, 09:25 AM
I don't understand why people hate the guy so much. There isn't a good reason. He's a jerk? Seriously, that's your reason? Have you actually met any professional athletes? You think they're all nice guys?

As Scott said, if he falls out of the top 10 then he will have been underrated and many of the top 10 picking teams will seriously regret their decision. And one team will be unbelievably happy. In the online draft fan community, yes, I think he is seriously underrated.

Complex
04-08-2010, 10:04 AM
He is not underrated, he is overrated imo. I don't why people think he is worthy of a top ten pick. Most people on this forum think he is the next Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning and I guess most scouts think he is the next Brady Quinn or who ever because they don't see him as a Top pick.

killxswitch
04-08-2010, 10:07 AM
He is not underrated, he is overrated imo. I don't why people think he is worthy of a top ten pick. Most people on this forum think he is the next Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning and I guess most scouts think he is the next Brady Quinn or who ever because they don't see him as a Top pick.

Yes, because you've talked to most scouts and know what they think.

No one thinks he is the next Peyton Manning. A lot of people on this board think he will fall out of the top 10, but don't have a good reason other than "he's a meanie".

Complex
04-08-2010, 10:09 AM
Yes, because you've talked to most scouts and know what they think.

No one thinks he is the next Peyton Manning. A lot of people on this board think he will fall out of the top 10, but don't have a good reason other than "he's a meanie".

I never said that I talked to NFL scouts. I assume that scouts don't like him, if they did he wouldn't be falling like ESPN and NFL network are reporting.

Splat
04-08-2010, 10:11 AM
Jimmy Clausen will go first overall to the Rams.

No, but I would not be against the move.

killxswitch
04-08-2010, 10:12 AM
I never said that I talked to NFL scouts. I assume that scouts don't like him, if they did he wouldn't be falling like ESPN and NFL network are reporting.

We won't know if he fell until after the draft. ESPN and NFLN are wrong all the time.

BengalsPwn
04-08-2010, 10:26 AM
My god he is not underrated, hes probably rated just right. He came into college touted as the lebron of college football. Then got murdered behind a horrible O-Line. Finally he put it together his one and only good season last year with 28tds and 4ints. The one thing the OP fails to realize is he put these stats up against the worst secondary's in the nation. Michigan? Usc? Maybe I give Pitt, Uconn, and Msu credit for halfway decent defenses BUT he had first round NFL talent in both of his WR's and his TE. So please save the underrated talk for someone deserving like Anthony Dixon of Miss St. hes the real deal!

Halsey
04-08-2010, 10:45 AM
Criticizing a 3 year QB for only having 1 good season is for people who don't know how to evaluate QBs. First of all, if a QB is only in college for 3 years, it's not unusual that he went through growing pains his first 2 years. Numerous successful NFL QBs either weren't that good or didn't play much their first 2 or 3 years of college. Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, etc didn't do much early in their college careers. Some people will make excuses, but it's not necessarily a bad thing if a QB doesn't become a star from the moment he sets foot on a college campus. Those that think otherwise don't know what they're talking about.

Besides, Clausen's first 2 years weren't bad anyway. People just take a peek and the stats, see they weren't that pretty and jump to conclusions.

Matthew Jones
04-08-2010, 10:45 AM
I think he's considerably underrated in that Sam Bradford is a lock to go #1 and Clausen is worried about slipping out of the top 10. Up until the combine weigh-in, Clausen was considered the best QB in the draft. Sam Bradford rose on some people's boards from a top-15 draft pick to worthy of the #1 pick without having played a game. Meanwhile, Clausen has fallen from the right pick at #1 to some people saying even a team like Buffalo should pass on him? That's just ridiculous.

I feel like Bradford's rise is due to misinformation from around the league. Think about it - why would teams tip their hand about Bradford so much? I almost feel like other teams are raving about Bradford in hopes that he'll go #1, and are bad-talking Clausen in hopes that he'll fall to their pick. There's really no way someone interviews their way from #15 pick to #1 pick. If people didn't think Bradford was worth it at the end of his collegiate career, they shouldn't think so now.

Complex
04-08-2010, 11:03 AM
I think he's considerably underrated in that Sam Bradford is a lock to go #1 and Clausen is worried about slipping out of the top 10. Up until the combine weigh-in, Clausen was considered the best QB in the draft. Sam Bradford rose on some people's boards from a top-15 draft pick to worthy of the #1 pick without having played a game. Meanwhile, Clausen has fallen from the right pick at #1 to some people saying even a team like Buffalo should pass on him? That's just ridiculous.

I feel like Bradford's rise is due to misinformation from around the league. Think about it - why would teams tip their hand about Bradford so much? I almost feel like other teams are raving about Bradford in hopes that he'll go #1, and are bad-talking Clausen in hopes that he'll fall to their pick. There's really no way someone interviews their way from #15 pick to #1 pick. If people didn't think Bradford was worth it at the end of his collegiate career, they shouldn't think so now.

Bradford was considered a top 10 maybe #1 overall last year. The shoulder injury was the only reason he was rated lower at the end of this seaon.

Matthew Jones
04-08-2010, 11:06 AM
brilliant. i mean, he was only 4th in the heisman voting in 1999 and 3rd in 2000, with his best stats coming in 1998. further, he was a four year player at purdue.



really? we're going to say clausen is underrated because he has the same weakness as a 6th round draft pick? that'll help his case as a top ten pick. :rolleyes:



because this has everything to do with clausen as a prospect and nothing to do with team needs along the way.

again, bashing bradford in order to say clausen is underrated is a piss poor argument that does nothing to bring people around to your point of view.

The point I was making is that there seems to be a huge gap in some people's minds as to the stock of Bradford as compared to the stock of Clausen. It might end up being there on draft day, but I think it's a mistake. Also, quarterbacks are valued in the NFL to the point where if Clausen was valued properly, he wouldn't be worried about falling.

Babylon
04-08-2010, 11:09 AM
Hard to say where he's rated in the eyes of scouts because they arent talking. some of my most underrated would be:

Taylor Mays
Carlos Dunlap
Toby Gerhart
Jerry Hughes
Jason Fox
Riley Cooper
Tim Tebow
Jarrett Brown
Patrick Robinson

thetedginnshow
04-08-2010, 11:10 AM
Criticizing a 3 year QB for only having 1 good season is for people who don't know how to evaluate QBs. First of all, if a QB is only in college for 3 years, it's not unusual that he went through growing pains his first 2 years. Numerous successful NFL QBs either weren't that good or didn't play much their first 2 or 3 years of college. Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, etc didn't do much early in their college careers. Some people will make excuses, but it's not necessarily a bad thing if a QB doesn't become a star from the moment he sets foot on a college campus. Those that think otherwise don't know what they're talking about.

I don't really agree, but you might be right. However, if you're going to compare him to successful NFL QBs, maybe you shouldn't pick three guys that played great every year they were the unquestioned starter. I think there's a bit of a difference between a coach not knowing which guy to start and actually not performing well on the field. And, you probably shouldn't criticize people for making excuses while you make excuses.

Halsey
04-08-2010, 11:10 AM
Njx, you need to learn to read. I didn't read your whole post, because the first few words told me enough. I said Brees didn't do much early in his career because he was a backup as a freshman. Now I know you're going to want to be argumentative and nitpick this ot that or whatever. I don't care. My point was clear and accurate. If you didn't catch it, that's your problem. Go find someone else to get into a long argument over semantics with. I'm not interested.

killxswitch
04-08-2010, 11:10 AM
a lot of people don't think he's a good quarterback for a variety of reasons. dismissing their opinion by condensing it to the LCD is a dishonest way to argue your position.

The majority of opinions I've read on this site bring his attitude up more than anything having to do with his mechanics, size, build, arm strength, or decision-making. You might have legit criticisms (I haven't seen them yet) but from what I've seen you would be in the minority.

Mr.Regular
04-08-2010, 11:15 AM
WARNING! Long post ahead! This is from a blog post(link in sig) I wrote a couple weeks back.

Flash back five years ago. The San Francisco 49ers are on the clock for the first selection of the 2005 NFL Draft. The selection is going to be a Quarterback. Some people argued that the QB's in the draft that year were not worthy of going #1, but the 49ers seemed determined to grab their signal caller of the future with that pick. So after much debate the selection came down to two people... two quarterbacks.... one 6'4 220 lb player who came from an unorthodox offense, operated mainly out of the shot-gun, had a fairly good arm, with great accuracy. He was known as the smartest QB in the draft and was thought of as more of a safe pick then the other guy. That other guy was a little bit shorter and was criticized for leaving school early, perhaps only to capitalize on a great junior year. However, he had a great arm, operated under a pro style offense and had great success playing against top competition. Many still questioned him because of QB's that had come out of his school earlier had failed. Starting to sound familiar?...
The 49ers went with guy #1, and guy #2 slid into the 20's. Guy #1 is now considered one of the biggest all-time busts and guy #2 is one of the 5 best quarterbacks in the NFL today. Of course the two guys I'm talking about are Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers.

Why do I bring this up? Because not only is this years situation at the top of the draft eerily similar but you could almost interchange Smith's name with Bradford's and Rodgers' with Clausen's in the aforementioned scouting reports and no one would bat an eye.

Jimmy Clausen is an absolutely fantastic QB prospect. As mentioned before he draws favorable comparisons to Aaron Rodgers. You could also say he is similar to Matt Ryan, but with better decision making if you don't like the A-Rod comparison. Whoever you have him compared to, one must acknowledge that he is coming off of one of the best seasons of college football any junior QB has ever had. And this is with a pretty bad offensive line, a sub par running game, and playing with many of his weapons on the side-line.
In addition to all this, Clausen's accuracy is spot on, his arm is great, he takes care of the ball extremely well, he has shown improvement in a pro style offense in three straight years, he has a history of playing well in the 4th quarter, and he is physically everything you'd want from a QB.... in other words Jimmy Clausen has the makings of an NFL QB. He should be a top pick in this years draft.
Sam Bradford on the other hand is coming off some serious injuries. His arm isn't amazing (he's no Chad Pennington but you won't see him rifling lasers through the air either),he operated almost exclusively out of the shot gun, and many of his stat padding throws were quick one-read tosses that relied heavily on WR and TE play. The guy was also surrounded with a star studded offensive line. However, put some pressure on him, and what happens? Game #1 of this year, after his premier LT of 2008 is drafted, pressure gets to him...and hes hurt..... and hes out for the year. Clausen on the other hand had games where he was terrorized all game (USC anyone?!) and still put out great film without missing time.

All in all, there are a lot more question marks with Bradford as there is with Clausen, though public opinion seems to be the exact opposite. Why? Probably because of so called "character concerns". His character concerns are usually summarized with one main point: He's arrogant and cocky.
Well to me this isn't that bad. He seems like more Philip Rivers then Ryan Leaf. I want a QB with cockiness. As long as he is coachable and liked by his teammates than a little bit of cockiness is no problem. And by all accounts he seems to fit that criteria. He speaks very highly of Charlie Weis and clearly took to his coaching, as seen through his three straight years of improvement. He also apparently invited many of his Irish teammates to California the past offseason to get to know eachother better, work out, and practice their timing and route running. This doesn't seem like a bad teammate to me.

This is not a knock on Sam Bradford by any means. I did not intend to make Bradford out to be the next Alex Smith. He is a good prospect in his own right, but like Smith, he has many question marks. Regardless of my thoughts, Bradford seems destined at this point to go #1 overall. Despite this, I would not be surprised if Clausen ends up the better pro... just like Aaron Rodgers did.

CC.SD
04-08-2010, 11:24 AM
these threads are really entertaining.

'my favorite prospect X isn't everyone's favorite prospect, so he must be the most underrated prospect ever!'

cue the 'you must hate him because he went to ND' chorus.

Don't forget the rampant Rivers comparisons because he has a 'bad attitude'. Cause that makes sense.

Complex
04-08-2010, 11:28 AM
Don't forget the rampant Rivers comparisons because he has a 'bad attitude'. Cause that makes sense.

Or the Aaron Rodgers comparison because he is falling

Matthew Jones
04-08-2010, 11:29 AM
Don't forget the rampant Rivers comparisons because he has a 'bad attitude'. Cause that makes sense.

People are just giving an example of another arrogant QB who almost any football team would love to have. Clausen isn't a big baby, he just likes to talk some trash.

batsandgats
04-08-2010, 11:34 AM
What has Clausen done to convince everyone he is such a ****?

He seems alright to me, and he was voted captain by his teammates.

honestly I think its his face. He just looks like a ***** that has a bad attitude. I didn't like him at first, I kept hearing stuff about how great when he first started playing in college and though he was overrated, but after watching him play and how he does on field I do.

Mr.Regular
04-08-2010, 11:53 AM
you missed the part about rodgers being a tedford project, and that being held against him. especially because it wasn't *really* a pro-style offense as a result of the reads.

further, i'm not sure that comparing bradford and smith in any real way is accurate. the utah/urban meyer spread is a completely different offense than the oklahoma spread. and, iirc, a lot of the reason for smith having the prospect edge was his high athleticism.

the comparison seems like a massive reach, to me.
Sure, fair enough... the Tedford system isn't a perfect pro style offense but it is fairly complex. Compared to a team like Oklahoma, there is a lot more NFL style reads and routes involved.

But anyway, it was more of a comparison of situations...but both pairs of prospects do have a lot of similarities, thats for sure. They aren't perfect comparisons, but Bradford-Smith and Clausen-Rodgers are both fairly accurate.

AntoinCD
04-08-2010, 12:03 PM
I gotta be honest Im higher on Clausen than most and think he is a superior QB than Bradford and I do think he will go somewhere in the top 10. However I feel most people, no matter what way they are arguing(for or against him) always bring up his attitude. How about talking about his toughness, or his readiness to step into a pro-style offense. Or, how about his lack of top end arm strength or the fact that he floats his deep ball too high. If there are going to be arguements either way about him let it be about his football ability. With the luxury St Louis have they can take the guy who looks like a franchise QB and may not rub people wrong. Other QB needy teams in the top 10(and IMO there are 6 after STL) don't have tht luxury in this draft.

Is Clausen underrated? Absolutely...by some.
Is Clausen overrated? Absolutely...by some.

Complex
04-08-2010, 12:13 PM
Adam Schefter

"One of the reasons that Philadelphia might have traded Donovan McNabb to Washington has gotten less attention than an undrafted free agent.


Multiple NFL executives said Thursday they firmly believe that part of the Eagles strategy in trading McNabb to the Redskins was to attempt to block Washington from landing Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford. They are convinced that Philadelphia did not want a Bradford-Mike Shanahan combination in its division for the next decade.


In other words, the Eagles were on the defensive as much as they were on the offensive.

The Eagles' thinking was this: If the Redskins surrendered two draft picks to land McNabb, they would have far less of a need and considerably less ammunition to trade up for Bradford, who is regarded as the top quarterback in the upcoming draft class.

Shanahan has said his team still would consider drafting another top-ranked quarterback, but many around the league are skeptical of his claims. Until the Redskins traded for McNabb, many expected Washington to make a play for the Rams' No. 1 overall pick and the chance to draft Bradford.

Now, in addition to getting the Redskins second-round pick this year and a conditional third- or fourth-round pick next year, the Eagles have made it extremely difficult for Washington to acquire Bradford.

BTW Someone else on the forums found this
Adam is right most of the time

killxswitch
04-08-2010, 12:16 PM
i haven't made them yet. i'm not sold on his arm (accuracy or strength), but i just haven't studied it enough to lean either way. i've seen attitude, but it seems like (to me, at least) it's been a side criticism more than a main one. i'm perfectly willing to accept that it's a matter of point of view, that because i don't think clausen is a top 10 qb and you do, you're more sensitive to inane criticism and i'm more sensitive to inane defense. *shrug*


I get where you're coming from. But I think you too would get tired of bringing up facts, stats, subjective analysis, etc. in a discussion only to get a response of "yah but hez a jerk and got punched at a restaurant lol notre dame SUCKS". I'm using hyperbole here but sometimes the actual responses are pretty close to that.

Brothgar
04-08-2010, 01:20 PM
For me anyway Jimmy's long ball accuracy is lacking. Even in a highlight reel I've seen his WRs bail him out he doesn't hit his guys in stride and forces them to make adjustments often. That was the kiss of death for Brady Quinn and I could see the same thing happening to Clausen.

BigBanger
04-08-2010, 01:33 PM
Clausen holds on to the ball way too long, throws to open players far too often and is routinely bailed out by lobbing the ball 100 feet in the air and having his star WRs jump over crap defenders from Air Force or Navy for huge gainers. And with weak schedules, a great scheme, incredible talent... he won how many games as a junior? 6? It's pathetic. Only a QB from Notre Dame could go out and beat no body for entire three years, have a terrible deep ball, terrible pocket presence and be a complete and total failure, and still get first round hype. He's got a nice arm and good accuracy under 15 yards. He's a little punk that no one respects.

At least Brady Quinn, who was not nearly as talented, got to a decent Bowl Game- that team didn't deserve to go to that BCS Bowl game, but at least he won some games (and, yes, he too never beat anyone worth a lick).

Clausen is going to be overrated or underrated depending on where he goes. He is not going in the top 10. That will not happen. Teams will see that there isn't much to like, just like they did with Brady Quinn.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
04-08-2010, 01:36 PM
For me anyway Jimmy's long ball accuracy is lacking. Even in a highlight reel I've seen his WRs bail him out he doesn't hit his guys in stride and forces them to make adjustments often. That was the kiss of death for Brady Quinn and I could see the same thing happening to Clausen.

Jimmy's long ball accuracy is extraordinary. He hits his WR's in stride and hits on most of his deep balls. I don't know where you get that he has a poor long ball.

JFLO
04-08-2010, 01:42 PM
If there is one thing that I knack on Clausen, it's his long ball. I think the fact that he had Michael Floyd and Golden Tate going against some less-talented corners helped his cause out a bit. It's something he can improve upon though.

SickwithIt1010
04-08-2010, 01:43 PM
People have a problem with him because of the way he carries himself and the way that he was brought up throughout high school. I don't think he can help the fact that he was basically the LeBron James of football throughout high school. He obviously didn't exceed those expectations, but he is still the best quarterback in this class.

I don't find a problem with his attitude. I don't see a problem with a player having the position of quarterback and feeling like he is the ****, why wouldn't you want that.

The same thing is said for the wide receiver and cornerback position and they don't get any heat for playing well on the field, in fact, for cornerbacks it's seen as a good trait.


Clausen is a Top 5 prospect in the draft and 2-4 years from
now, we'll see why he should have been the #1 pick instead of Sam Bradford, who IMO, is a bust waiting to happen.


Like I said in my first post...there's a difference between being cocky and thinkig you're the ****, and having a swagger.

When I think of a guy with swagger I think Marc Sanchez, he just has that poise and attitude you look for....

When I see Clausen I just see a guy that I don't see a lot of players following because he's always down when the time gets rough. I like his tools, I like his mechanics, but i just don't like the way he carries himself

D-Unit
04-08-2010, 01:55 PM
Clausen will be the best QB to come out of this year's draft. He's been my #1 QB prospect all season long and I have never waivered on that. Said this when guys were boasting Jevan Snead even. Clausen will be a more successful NFL QB than Matt Stafford. The fact that guys don't see this makes me agree with the title of this thread. That he is underrated.

Brothgar
04-08-2010, 01:57 PM
ZdLvtOxK5Ws

KLAUS
04-08-2010, 02:15 PM
i never liked the american fantasy type players at the quarters position. like something out of a terrible film, they always turn into an ontological cancer. those are the true character concerns, not if someone wants to have a drink at the tavern - the whole family and those ricky rick claussen and jimmy jack claussen brothers - its a bad situation. we all remember marinovich - claussen is an american fantasy type and those are not the types that will consolidate a unit - look at cutler.

and on film i dont see anything extraordinary. peter tom willis was making those types of throws and look what happened to him. american fantasy 2. cade mcnown 2. just another peter tom willis. claussen will be being banned from the playboy mansion in 2 years like mcnown.

MidwayMonster31
04-08-2010, 02:16 PM
After watching that, I can say with a straight face that Golden Tate will be the best receiver in this class. He does it all.
I agree that Clausen's deep ball does float. That's something that he can improve upon. He's not going to be maxed out physically at 21.

SickwithIt1010
04-08-2010, 02:20 PM
After watching that, I can say with a straight face that Golden Tate will be the best receiver in this class. He does it all.
I agree that Clausen's deep ball does float. That's something that he can improve upon. He's not going to be maxed out physically at 21.

He's actually 23....just FYI

he's very old for his class

Addict
04-08-2010, 02:22 PM
He's actually 23....just FYI

he's very old for his class

Date of birth: September 21, 1987 (1987-09-21) (age 22)

He'll be 23 by the start of the season, but he's 22 as of now.

MidwayMonster31
04-08-2010, 02:26 PM
He's actually 23....just FYI

he's very old for his classI didn't know he started kindergarten at age 6 and repeated a grade. That makes things a lot more interesting. He still has the ability to improve though.

SickwithIt1010
04-08-2010, 02:34 PM
Date of birth: September 21, 1987 (1987-09-21) (age 22)

He'll be 23 by the start of the season, but he's 22 as of now.

Thank you for correcting that sir

jth1331
04-08-2010, 02:58 PM
Sure, fair enough... the Tedford system isn't a perfect pro style offense but it is fairly complex. Compared to a team like Oklahoma, there is a lot more NFL style reads and routes involved.

But anyway, it was more of a comparison of situations...but both pairs of prospects do have a lot of similarities, thats for sure. They aren't perfect comparisons, but Bradford-Smith and Clausen-Rodgers are both fairly accurate.

No, it isn't a fairly accurate statement.
Stop comparing Oklahoma's offense to Utah's or Florida's or any of those other type systems. Did you people knocking Bradford watch OU? My freakin goodness, he hade plenty of NFL style reads and routes. He played too much out of the shotgun? Well damn, Peyton Manning plays too much out of the shotgun then in the NFL.
Bradford makes good reads, has a good arm, amazing accuracy, he is athletic to get out of the pocket, he is smart and will be able to pick up new offenses fast. Comparing him to Smith is like comparing Brandon Marshall to Mike Williams.

FUNBUNCHER
04-08-2010, 04:06 PM
No, it isn't a fairly accurate statement.
Stop comparing Oklahoma's offense to Utah's or Florida's or any of those other type systems. Did you people knocking Bradford watch OU? My freakin goodness, he hade plenty of NFL style reads and routes. He played too much out of the shotgun? Well damn, Peyton Manning plays too much out of the shotgun then in the NFL.
Bradford makes good reads, has a good arm, amazing accuracy, he is athletic to get out of the pocket, he is smart and will be able to pick up new offenses fast. Comparing him to Smith is like comparing Brandon Marshall to Mike Williams.

Strictly based on system, Bradford is a much bigger question mark than Clausen.
Bradford threw a ton <10 passes at OU in Stoop's spread offense. His transition to the pros will be steeper than Clausen's IMO.

BTW, if Bradford really struggles to adjust to the pro game, it's going to have major impact in how those guy's are scouted.
I don't think we'll see another spread QB taken in the top 10 if Bradford falls on his face.

prock
04-08-2010, 04:08 PM
He is very underrated. I think people look over his talents because he is an asshole. Whatever, let him drop. I would LOVE him in purple.

FUNBUNCHER
04-08-2010, 04:27 PM
Adam Schefter

"One of the reasons that Philadelphia might have traded Donovan McNabb to Washington has gotten less attention than an undrafted free agent.


Multiple NFL executives said Thursday they firmly believe that part of the Eagles strategy in trading McNabb to the Redskins was to attempt to block Washington from landing Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford. They are convinced that Philadelphia did not want a Bradford-Mike Shanahan combination in its division for the next decade.


In other words, the Eagles were on the defensive as much as they were on the offensive.

The Eagles' thinking was this: If the Redskins surrendered two draft picks to land McNabb, they would have far less of a need and considerably less ammunition to trade up for Bradford, who is regarded as the top quarterback in the upcoming draft class.



This could be true, but IMO it's just wild speculation. What team in the history of the NFL traded a player to another team so that said team wouldn't draft that same position player in the upcoming draft??

What it does sound like to me though is that entities unnamed are trying to blow Bradford's draft grade through the roof so that other players will be available.

To me, it sounds like some team really wants to be in a position to take Suh and is attempting to do everything possible to make sure Spags doesn't grab him #1 overall.:rolleyes:

Saints-Tigers
04-08-2010, 04:44 PM
Clausen's accuracy downfield can be looked at in two lights. At first I was on the "he floats it too much, and doesn't hit them in stride" but after more film study, I think it's more of him getting the ball to the outside shoulder where only his guy can go up and get it. You can watch a lot of it again, and see that if his guy doesn't get it, no one will.

So he knows how to throw to NFL caliber players that can make plays on the ball... that's actually a good thing.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
04-08-2010, 05:06 PM
Clausen's accuracy downfield can be looked at in two lights. At first I was on the "he floats it too much, and doesn't hit them in stride" but after more film study, I think it's more of him getting the ball to the outside shoulder where only his guy can go up and get it. You can watch a lot of it again, and see that if his guy doesn't get it, no one will.


Exactly. I didn't get why everyone thought he floated long balls. Some he does float, but who doesn't?

wicket
04-08-2010, 05:10 PM
Exactly. I didn't get why everyone thought he floated long balls. Some he does float, but who doesn't?

especially to floyd he sometimes throws a floater but thats just smart playing iyam

JHL6719
04-09-2010, 12:17 AM
you missed the part about rodgers being a tedford project, and that being held against him. especially because it wasn't *really* a pro-style offense as a result of the reads.

further, i'm not sure that comparing bradford and smith in any real way is accurate. the utah/urban meyer spread is a completely different offense than the oklahoma spread. and, iirc, a lot of the reason for smith having the prospect edge was his high athleticism.

the comparison seems like a massive reach, to me.


Tedford's system is MUCH more condusive to producing NFL quality quarterbacks than ANY system under Bob Stoops at Oklahoma ever has....

Guys like Billy Volek, Trent Dilfer, Kyle Boller, Aaron Rodgers, etc., etc....there's many that I'm leaving off. Sure there's been some busts....but it wasn't because of the system...it's mainly due to the the QB just didn't give himself a chance because he came out as a one-year wonder (Akili Smith, etc.).

Even Tedford's WORST QB prospects and colossal busts have faired MUCH better in the NFL than any QB under Stoops ever has.

Until a Bob Stoops quarterback actually makes an NFL roster...the questions remain....as they do with Bradford and all the talent he was surrounded with along with playing against bad big 12 defenses....that every QB in the conference has managed to pile up gaudy stats against ranging anywhere from Chase Daniel to Graham Harrell to Todd Reesing.

Systems DO matter...and spread system QB's with a gazillion yards and a gazillion TD's in college have never translated to the NFL.

Oklahoma's system under Kevin Wilson is very similar to any other spread system out there....and it always has been under Stoops. Guys like Mark Mangino, Mike Leach, Kevin Sumlin, etc....have all been OC's under Stoops....and all have had quarterback after quarterback after quarterback rack up guady stats everywhere they go that can't even sniff an NFL roster....and never will.

Hell, look at Landry Jones...he came in and started in relief of Bradford and the offense never missed a beat really...passed for over 3,000 yards and 26 TD's....even set a school record with SIX touchdown passes in only his SECOND career start against Tulsa. If you don't think the system has everything to do with these QB's and their inflated stats...you're terribly mistaken.

It wasn't long ago at all that a kid by the name of Jason White was throwin 40 TD's and 8 INT's under Stoops and winning Heisman Trophies....I think he's selling furniture now...

Nate Hybl...Josh Heupel....Geezus!

Now that said....I think Bradford is the only legitimate NFL QB prospect that Stoops has ever had...and he'll end this string of decorated Oklahoma QB's that have to get real jobs when they exit college....but he's not nearly as "elite" as all this smoke around him makes him seem....he couldn't even finish a season when he wasn't playing behind a bomb shelter of an offensive line...and the best one in the country at that.

Sam Bradford would've been standing over on the sidelines in shoulder sling a lot "Sooner" had he been playing behind that swiss cheese of an offensive line at Notre Dame that Clausen had to play behind for 3 years...

Paranoidmoonduck
04-09-2010, 12:30 AM
If there is one thing that I knack on Clausen, it's his long ball. I think the fact that he had Michael Floyd and Golden Tate going against some less-talented corners helped his cause out a bit. It's something he can improve upon though.

Yeah, but his deep ball is so much better than Quinn's was at Notre Dame. Clausen's deep ball floats a bit, but I think that more of a technique thing that him not having the arm strength to be accurate at that distance. I'd liken it somewhat to Aaron Rodgers, who's deep passes in college were in even worse shape than Clausen's, but has shown marked improvement when he got more disciplined mechanically.

Halsey
04-09-2010, 12:42 AM
The elite QBs in the league right now are highly intelligent, detailed focused workaholics. Maybe the main reason it doesn't look like Clausen will go #1, or even top 5-10, is that Clausen just doesn't come across as that type of guy. I don't know that Bradford is a better prospect than Clausen, but Bradford does seem to show more of the personality traits of a Brees/Manning/Brady.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-09-2010, 12:56 AM
The elite QBs in the league right now are highly intelligent, detailed focused workaholics. Maybe the main reason it doesn't look like Clausen will go #1, or even top 5-10, is that Clausen just doesn't come across as that type of guy. I don't know that Bradford is a better prospect than Clausen, but Bradford does seem to show more of the personality traits of a Brees/Manning/Brady.

I hate to keep bringing it back to Rodgers, but when he fell in 2005, it came out that a bunch of teams had felt he was simply too much of a "big man on campus" personality and that Alex Smith's studious nature was the far safer bet. Rodgers so far hasn't proved himself to be a first tier quarterback, but given another chance, would teams let him fall out of the top 10? Not a chance in hell.

Then again, I knew Rodgers was smart and very coachable. I don't know that about Clausen.

Scott Wright
04-09-2010, 01:50 AM
I hate to keep bringing it back to Rodgers, but when he fell in 2005, it came out that a bunch of teams had felt he was simply too much of a "big man on campus" personality and that Alex Smith's studious nature was the far safer bet. Rodgers so far hasn't proved himself to be a first tier quarterback, but given another chance, would teams let him fall out of the top 10? Not a chance in hell.

Then again, I knew Rodgers was smart and very coachable. I don't know that about Clausen.

I've been comparing Clausen to Rodgers from Day 1.

And Rodgers was being knocked for many of the things people are picking on Clausen for.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-09-2010, 02:25 AM
I've been comparing Clausen to Rodgers from Day 1.

And Rodgers was being knocked for many of the things people are picking on Clausen for.

I was admittedly particularly keen on Rodgers because, being a Bay Area guy, I had seen basically every college start he made. I think he was a more accurate passer and passed with better anticipation in the short to intermediate range, but I do think they're really similar. What gives me pause is that I simply don't know much about Clausen, while I was totally convinced that Rodgers had what it took to be a good NFL quarterback.

umphrey
04-09-2010, 02:53 AM
I think Brady Quinn cost Clausen a lot of money.

thetedginnshow
04-09-2010, 03:10 AM
I hate to keep bringing it back to Rodgers, but when he fell in 2005, it came out that a bunch of teams had felt he was simply too much of a "big man on campus" personality and that Alex Smith's studious nature was the far safer bet. Rodgers so far hasn't proved himself to be a first tier quarterback, but given another chance, would teams let him fall out of the top 10? Not a chance in hell.

Then again, I knew Rodgers was smart and very coachable. I don't know that about Clausen.

See, it's easy for everyone to say all of this because of how things turned out, but how do we know Rodgers would be what he is today had he not fell, not sat behind Favre, and was instead selected first overall? Rodgers and Clausen really don't seem that similar to me, but I don't think anyone can even mildly expect the same sort of player unless Clausen takes a meteoric fall.

A Perfect Score
04-09-2010, 03:17 AM
This thread is actually pretty hilarious, reading through. Its blatantly obvious which posters reside on which QBs side, and oddly enough, most arguments which are meant to support their own QB are based in pointing out the faults of the other QB, whether it be Bradford or Clausen.

Personally, I like Bradford better, and before continuing this post, Ill come right out and say it. I understand the reg flags that are associated with him as a prospect, but I fully believe that he is worthy of the #1 pick and at worst will be a pre-injury Chad Pennington-esque QB, which you could certainly do worse then. Hes got prototypical size, arm strength, attitude and is deadly accurate to go along with it. The spread argument is vastly overstated in my opinion, and Ive no qualms about Bradford's ability to adjust to the reads required by an NFL QB. From everything Ive seen, and keep in mind thats all I can judge by, hes an astute young man with a good head on his shoulders who's ready to come in and work to be the best he can be.

Clausen, on the other hand, I do worry about. He has alot of very good qualities, some of which are even more impressive then Bradford's, but he also has some things which are really concerning. Can he walk the fine line between cocky and confident, or will that sort of attitude be his downfall? Can he throw the 15 yard out with consistency and accuracy? How will he respond to consistent media attention and scrutiny? These are the things that concern me about Clausen. Dont get me wrong, I absolutely think hes worth a top 10 pick, and anyone who gets him later then that will be getting a steal. And I absolutely believe the Bills or Jags should select him at their respective positions if hes there. But personally, I believe hes an inferior prospect to Bradford and Bradford should absolutely go #1 to St Louis.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-09-2010, 03:42 AM
See, it's easy for everyone to say all of this because of how things turned out, but how do we know Rodgers would be what he is today had he not fell, not sat behind Favre, and was instead selected first overall? Rodgers and Clausen really don't seem that similar to me, but I don't think anyone can even mildly expect the same sort of player unless Clausen takes a meteoric fall.

Certainly, although I don't buy that the only way Rodgers could have succeeded was with three years on the bench. Nor do I think that is really the case for anyone who really winds up sticking at quarterback in the NFL.

At any rate, the comparison to Rodgers is mostly a physical one (some very clear mechanical similarities and similar arm strength) and it also isn't hurt because I see a lot of the same reads in that Notre Dame offense that I saw in the pre-spread Tedford offense at Cal. It just seemed relevant now considering the symmetry in the offered reason for their fall (or potential fall, in Clausen's case).

I'm not really trying to say that simply because of these similarities, Clausen is a shoe-in to be another Rodgers. You can never seriously argue such a thing. I'm particularly high on any quarterback in this draft, but it does looks like I place Clausen much closer to Bradford than some people.

Saints-Tigers
04-09-2010, 03:49 AM
Manning
Brees
BRady
Rivers
Rodgers
Palmer
Favre
Romo
McNabb
Cutler
Big Ben
Schaub
Warner
Eli
Flacco
Campbell
Orton
Garrard
Vince Young
Alex Smith
Matt Ryan
Chad Henne
Sanchez
Stafford
Freeman
Cassel
Bulger
HAsselbeck

That's like a huge list of starters. How many of those guys have a weaker arm than Bradford? Orton? A few arguables like ancient Hasselbeck?

Question is, how can you have "prototypical" arm strength when like every starter and a **** ton of backups have a stronger arm?

Paranoidmoonduck
04-09-2010, 04:06 AM
Manning
Brees
BRady
Rivers
Rodgers
Palmer
Favre
Romo
McNabb
Cutler
Big Ben
Schaub
Warner (retired)
Eli
Flacco
Campbell
Orton
Garrard
Vince Young
Alex Smith
Matt Ryan
Chad Henne
Sanchez
Stafford
Freeman
Cassel
Bulger
HAsselbeck

That's like a huge list of starters. How many of those guys have a weaker arm than Bradford? Orton? A few arguables like ancient Hasselbeck?

Question is, how can you have "prototypical" arm strength when like every starter and a **** ton of backups have a stronger arm?

Bolded all the guys who have equal or weaker arms than Bradford. I almost threw Ryan and Sanchez in there too. Bradford's arm strength won't be the thing that keeps him from being successful in the NFL.

FUNBUNCHER
04-09-2010, 04:09 AM
Bolded all the guys who have equal or weaker arms than Bradford. I almost threw Ryan and Sanchez in there too. Bradford's arm strength won't be the thing that keeps him from being successful in the NFL.

I'd include Matt Schaub and Eli on that list of QBs who have similar arm strength to Bradford, IMO.

RaiderNation420
04-09-2010, 07:00 AM
Are the chiefs considering Clausen ? does any1 know ?

BaLLiN
04-09-2010, 07:08 AM
I'd include Matt Schaub and Eli on that list of QBs who have similar arm strength to Bradford, IMO.

are you ******* serious? please keep me from going off on you and retract Eli's name from that statement because it's not true at all.

wicket
04-09-2010, 07:12 AM
Bolded all the guys who have equal or weaker arms than Bradford. I almost threw Ryan and Sanchez in there too. Bradford's arm strength won't be the thing that keeps him from being successful in the NFL.

vince young has twice the arm strength that bradford has, bradford's arm strength is adequate but nothing more, compared to what already is around there in the nfl he has one of the worst armstrengths of the league and I dont really see how that could even be debatable, his armstrength however is sufficient to make all the normal throws that are being asked from a qb, so in that sense its sufficient

JFLO
04-09-2010, 10:48 AM
I bet McShay is hiding his face at Clausen's pro-day right now...

That would certainly be an awkward handshake.

FUNBUNCHER
04-09-2010, 11:15 AM
are you ******* serious? please keep me from going off on you and retract Eli's name from that statement because it's not true at all.

Eli has decent physical tools, but his arm is NOT elite, neither is his brother's.

They both have good, solid, NFL arms, but McNabb, Stafford, Favre, Cutler, Russell, Vick and Roethlisberger IMO have the strongest arms in the NFL.

Arm strength is nice, but let's not get bent out of shape because Eli can't throw the ball 80 yards on the fly.

EDIT: Did Clausen finish his pro day workout??

SenorGato
04-09-2010, 11:17 AM
What cocky things does Clausen do?

FrankGore
04-09-2010, 11:34 AM
I honestly think it's his looks and body language that get people thinking he's some cocky b****. The spiked blond hair and snarl he carries on his face combined with the way he just carries himself confidently, people look at him as a bad dude right off the bat.

Maybe there's more to it once you look deeper, but I think most people are just bull****ing about him and it starts with the perceptions. He just looks arrogant and he's been highly doubted from the get-go; a lot of people are bitter towards him.

Mr.Regular
04-09-2010, 11:42 AM
No, it isn't a fairly accurate statement.
Stop comparing Oklahoma's offense to Utah's or Florida's or any of those other type systems. Did you people knocking Bradford watch OU? My freakin goodness, he hade plenty of NFL style reads and routes. He played too much out of the shotgun? Well damn, Peyton Manning plays too much out of the shotgun then in the NFL.
Bradford makes good reads, has a good arm, amazing accuracy, he is athletic to get out of the pocket, he is smart and will be able to pick up new offenses fast. Comparing him to Smith is like comparing Brandon Marshall to Mike Williams.
No I dont think Oklahoma's system is a copy of Urban Meyers. Im not ********.
And yes it is a fairly accurate statement. My point was to compare the situation of 2005 to 2010. The QB dilemna at the top of the draft board is very similar in both years. No the players aren't duplicates but they do have quite a bit of similarities worth mentioning. Clausen has been compared to Rodgers a fair bit over the past year and many of Smith's and Bradford's negative and positive attributes match up. Its a comparison worth examining.

Malaka
04-09-2010, 11:58 AM
Eli may have one of the prettiest deep balls in the NFL IMO...

And now a list of QBs Bradford's arm is on par with or stronger than.

Orton
Sanchez
Ryan
Warner
Cassell
Bulger
Hasselbeck
Pennington

All these guys have been called a starter on a team in the NFL and all these guys have had at least one successful season. I am not worried about Bradford's arm its his toughness, though he had a bad line; he will be hit much worse in the NFL and I don't know if he can shrug off those hits. Thinking about it that way... Bulger the guy the Rams just cut may be a good comparison for Bradford.

Xenos
04-09-2010, 12:46 PM
Why is this such an issue?

I mean I don't like the kid. But Phillip Rivers is one of the biggest douchebags in football. If not the biggest. And nobody does ever hold that against him.

I bet a lot of other pro athletes are giant douchebags, too.

It doesn't matter as long as they are playing good. This is professionall football and not the "BFFs forever" club.
That's because he's not one of the biggest douchebags. In fact, if you were to compare him to other football players, he's probably the complete opposite. Whether or not Clausen is misunderstood in the same way as Rivers is another matter though.

FUNBUNCHER
04-09-2010, 12:52 PM
Rivers from all I've heard about him is a choir boy/family man off the field, so take that for what it's worth.

Look, some people think Favre is a world class cocky SOB, same with Roethslisberger.

If your teammates respect you and are willing to follow you through hell on game day, that's all that really matters IMO.

killxswitch
04-09-2010, 01:01 PM
That's because he's not one of the biggest douchebags. In fact, if you were to compare him to other football players, he's probably the complete opposite. Whether or not Clausen is misunderstood in the same way as Rivers is another matter though.

Oh give me a break. Yeah he's a christian and drives a minivan and loves his family, you don't have to drop a dozen f bombs or get drive drunk to be a dbag. Rivers is competitive to the point of being a prick. He's obnoxious. It's just the truth. It's not some conspiracy against him, it's just how he is and it probably is part of the reason he's a great QB. Give it a rest, you're not fooling anyone.

killxswitch
04-09-2010, 01:03 PM
That's because he's not one of the biggest douchebags. In fact, if you were to compare him to other football players, he's probably the complete opposite. Whether or not Clausen is misunderstood in the same way as Rivers is another matter though.

Oh give me a break. Yeah he's a christian and drives a minivan and loves his family, you don't have to drop a dozen f bombs or get drive drunk to be a dbag. Rivers is competitive to the point of being a prick. He's obnoxious. It's just the truth. It's not some conspiracy against him, it's just how he is and it probably is part of the reason he's a great QB. Give it a rest, you're not fooling anyone.

I want to agree with whoever said P Manning's arm strength is not elite. I love the guy and I think he's a top 5 all time QB but he lobs some ugly duck wobblers. They just happen to still fit into a tiny window for a huge play more often than not. I would call his arm better-than-average, but he's not going to outthrow Jamarcus Russell or Derek Anderson.

BaLLiN
04-09-2010, 01:13 PM
Eli has decent physical tools, but his arm is NOT elite, neither is his brother's.

They both have good, solid, NFL arms, but McNabb, Stafford, Favre, Cutler, Russell, Vick and Roethlisberger IMO have the strongest arms in the NFL.

Arm strength is nice, but let's not get bent out of shape because Eli can't throw the ball 80 yards on the fly.

the bolded statement has nothing to do with Eli versus Bradford.

I would like to direct you to Eli's scouting reports. find me ONE, just one, that doesn't have his arm strength as a positive.

Eli may not have had the prescense, the intelligence, the natural football IQ that Peyton does, but he has a stronger arm and his balls are far prettier than his brother. Don't lump the two Mannings together just because they're brothers; they're clearly different.

Like Malaka said, Eli does have one of the prettiest deep balls in the NFL. He's very accurate and strategic, at least now, when it comes to that. He throws it where his receiver gets it or no one gets it, that was his problem before, and now he has clearly progressed.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ujx7kX8P7Yw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ujx7kX8P7Yw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

here, Eli had three picks. one was incredible by cromartie, who shouldve had any position on the ball if Hixon actually went up to get the ball. the second, Eli got it batted. the third, it mightve floated a little. Eli plays in a notoriously windy stadium, i think itd be more than obvious if he didnt have a good arm, and he has not had any trouble getting distance on the ball.


Edit: Also McNabb, Russell, and Vick can't even sniff the touch and accuracy Eli has on his deep balls. Roethlisberger also IMO doesn't have the touch Eli does either.

FUNBUNCHER
04-09-2010, 01:25 PM
I'm not about to get into a pissing match with Giants fans about the strength of Eli's arm!

The reason I brought up Eli is that IMO he has similar arm strength to Bradford, which isn't to say I think Eli has a poor to adequate arm, actually I think Bradford's arm is a little bit stronger than his detractors will admit.

Why is it a sin to suggest that Eli doesn't have truly elite arm strength??
He has a good enough arm to beat an undefeated Patriots team in the SB and defeat a Favre led Packers team in Lambeau playing in sub-freezing temps.
I would think by that measure most Giants fans would leave the 'arm strength' debate on the table.

BaLLiN
04-09-2010, 01:26 PM
btw just to prove statistically peyton and eli are different:

peyton's passes by direction (http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2009&surn=Manning&playerid=327&group=2)

eli's passes by direction (http://profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2009&surn=Manning&playerid=1722&group=2)

Edit: obviously peyton is better statistically overall, but Eli's ratings get generally better in passes over 20 yards, its his strength. He also didn't have receivers like Reggie Wayne, Pierre Garcon, Anthony Gonzalez, Dallas Clark, and Austin Collie.

thetedginnshow
04-09-2010, 01:35 PM
Eli may have one of the prettiest deep balls in the NFL IMO...

And now a list of QBs Bradford's arm is on par with or stronger than.

Orton
Sanchez
Ryan
Warner
Cassell
Bulger
Hasselbeck
Pennington

All these guys have been called a starter on a team in the NFL and all these guys have had at least one successful season. I am not worried about Bradford's arm its his toughness, though he had a bad line; he will be hit much worse in the NFL and I don't know if he can shrug off those hits. Thinking about it that way... Bulger the guy the Rams just cut may be a good comparison for Bradford.

pshhhhh

Seriously though, Bradford doesn't have that close of arm strength to Ryan or Sanchez. And are we talking about pre or post-surgery Pennington? Because honestly pre-surgery Chad had a decent arm, and I don't think it really makes sense to bring him up if you're talking about post-surgery.

And Eli may have a lot of negatives, but an average-armed QB he is not.

BaLLiN
04-09-2010, 01:37 PM
The reason I brought up Eli is that IMO he has similar arm strength to Bradford, which isn't to say I think Eli has a poor to adequate arm, actually I think Bradford's arm is a little bit stronger than his detractors will admit.

Why is it a sin to suggest that Eli doesn't have truly elite arm strength??
He has a good enough arm to beat an undefeated Patriots team in the SB and defeat a Favre led Packers team in Lambeau playing in sub-freezing temps.
I would think by that measure most Giants fans would leave the 'arm strength' debate on the table.

Its because you're wrong, if its one thing that Eli has going for him, its the long ball, which has to do with arm strength and touch. I've been one to downgrade Eli and say he should not receive top 10 quarterback consideration just yet, but im not allowing a false comparison.

How the heck does arm strength tie into beating the patriots? and the whole cold weather thing should tell you that he does certainly have the strength, it takes a stronger arm to throw the ball through cold and winds, which is exactly how giants stadium is most of the season.

Say he makes poor decisions, say he takes too many risks, say he isnt mobile, i dont care because those are all arguably true. Say that he doesn't have good arm strength and youre wrong. Why do you think he was drafted #1 overall?

I agree though that Bradford's arm is being too heavily scrutinized.

IrishBrowns
04-09-2010, 02:12 PM
i can't wait til he dominates...

heres why people dont like him personally or as a prospect..

1) he's from Notre Dame

2) he used to look pretty funny (blonde spiked hair/california surfer stigma)

3) Brady Quinn hasn't lived up to potential yet

4) people think hes cocky...(and damn, hes gonna have to have that swag to bring a team like Oakland or Buffalo back to relevance)

so in reality, there is nothing relevant to why people don't like him..

NJCagefighter
04-09-2010, 02:30 PM
I'm a gynormous Clausen and ND fan and For the longest time the past two months or so, I kept hearing how JC didn't have the intangibles. No one questioned his physical ability but the intangibles kept popping up. I had no idea what they were talking about.

Then I read the Pro Football Weekly's Draft guide and they did a through analysis of JC. They mentioned about his charge of transporting someone to get beer, they talked about the punch in the bar after the CT game, about the QB coaching, how he was left behind a year to mature, etc, etc that all ND fans did know.

They mentioned how his dad bought a house for his brothers to stay in so they could see his games and that he isn't a big fan of the weight room.

The analysis really didn't question his physical ability except maybe he needed to wind up for the longer deep routes and also how his accuracy on throws deep to his right wasn't good. But nothing damning.

Positives were competitive, well coached, tough, etc.

But then in summary the Eureka moment happened they said JC was similar in character to JP Losman and Rex Grossman in that they had entitlement issues. There's your answer to why JC's stock isn't as great as Bradford's.

Xenos
04-09-2010, 03:19 PM
Oh give me a break. Yeah he's a christian and drives a minivan and loves his family, you don't have to drop a dozen f bombs or get drive drunk to be a dbag. Rivers is competitive to the point of being a prick. He's obnoxious. It's just the truth. It's not some conspiracy against him, it's just how he is and it probably is part of the reason he's a great QB. Give it a rest, you're not fooling anyone.
People give him grief because he trash talks. That's about it. One might even say it's not as bad as Peyton cussing out his oline. Or throwing them under the bus.

The whole thing got blown out of proportion because of that Cutler incident.

FUNBUNCHER
04-09-2010, 04:05 PM
Its because you're wrong, if its one thing that Eli has going for him, its the long ball, which has to do with arm strength and touch. I've been one to downgrade Eli and say he should not receive top 10 quarterback consideration just yet, but im not allowing a false comparison.

How the heck does arm strength tie into beating the patriots? and the whole cold weather thing should tell you that he does certainly have the strength, it takes a stronger arm to throw the ball through cold and winds, which is exactly how giants stadium is most of the season.

Say he makes poor decisions, say he takes too many risks, say he isnt mobile, i dont care because those are all arguably true. Say that he doesn't have good arm strength and youre wrong. Why do you think he was drafted #1 overall?

I agree though that Bradford's arm is being too heavily scrutinized.

It sure didn't hurt to have the same last name as Peyton and Archie(!!).

I've never really heard anyone describe Eli's arm as 'elite', I mean, only a handful of NFL QBs have rare arm strength.

I think the offense you feel comes from my comparing Eli's arm as being in a similar class to Bradford's, which I guess you could read as an insult if you think Bradford has a sub-par arm.

I'm not gonna argue if you believe Eli has a significantly stronger arm than Bradford, maybe he does. My indirect point was that Sam has a better arm than most give him credit for.

ViperVisor
04-09-2010, 04:08 PM
I liked what I saw when Rodgers projected confidence.

Haven't really paid a lot of attention to Clausen but my reaction is I rather him not fall to the 49ers pick.

NJCagefighter
04-09-2010, 04:18 PM
It sure didn't hurt to have the same last name as Peyton and Archie(!!).

I've never really heard anyone describe Eli's arm as 'elite', I mean, only a handful of NFL QBs have rare arm strength.

I think the offense you feel comes from my comparing Eli's arm as being in a similar class to Bradford's, which I guess you could read as an insult if you think Bradford has a sub-par arm.

I'm not gonna argue if you believe Eli has a significantly stronger arm than Bradford, maybe he does. My indirect point was that Sam has a better arm than most give him credit for.

Having watched Eli for so many years here in NJ, I'm still not sure how he was teh #1 overall pick. He has a decent but not great arm(seen some passes in the winds of the Meadowlands get the best of him), not the most accurate, inconsistent and seems to sulk when things don't go his way and is definitely not a leader of men.

If he doesn't win the SB he is borderline average imho considering his #1 overall pick status, he is no Peyton Manningor Archie for that matter.

Saints-Tigers
04-09-2010, 04:34 PM
ELi and Vince Young have stronger arms than BRadford by a lot, wtf is wrong with you people.

Sanchez, as critical as I was about him as a prospect, still has a noticeably stronger arm. Even Matt Ryan's is better.

Kurt Warner is the only "elite" QB that Bradford seems to match up with, and he didn't do **** until he was like 29 years old.

I'm sorry, if you want to take a QB number 1 because he will probably be a starter, go right ahead, I'm not taking a QB just for the sake of taking one though.

PossumBoy9
04-09-2010, 05:47 PM
Jimmy Clausen will go first overall to the Rams.

He'd be my pick.

mellojello
04-09-2010, 07:03 PM
I've wondered the same thing about Clausen being underrated for awhile now. The guy looks really impressive to me. It's odd that Tebow has gotten so much attention with his awful mechanics (I honestly don't see how he's going to be a sucessful NFL QB) and Clausen has gotten a fraction of the attension and looks infinitely better. This is from someone who was originally one of Clausen's biggest critics.

BaLLiN
04-09-2010, 08:51 PM
I'm not gonna argue if you believe Eli has a significantly stronger arm than Bradford, he does. My indirect point was that Sam has a better arm than most give him credit for.

then just say that

holt_bruce81
04-09-2010, 08:55 PM
i can't wait til he dominates...

heres why people dont like him personally or as a prospect..

1) he's from Notre Dame

2) he used to look pretty funny (blonde spiked hair/california surfer stigma)

3) Brady Quinn hasn't lived up to potential yet

4) people think hes cocky...(and damn, hes gonna have to have that swag to bring a team like Oakland or Buffalo back to relevance)

so in reality, there is nothing relevant to why people don't like him..

5. When he arrived in a stretch Hummer limo first day on campus.

yourfavestoner
04-09-2010, 09:07 PM
i don't personally disagree, however the knock on EVERY tedford qb is "well the reads are so simplified that it's not like an nfl offense at all".



i'm not sure that's an argument you can make for dilfer, boller, or, really, volek (though i'm not volek is a strong comparison here). boller's terrible (sorry ERU), dilfer was horrendous considering where he was drafted.



sure, but he's also coached far more nfl capable qbs than stoops has. i mean, was jason smith really ever going to be more than a great college player? it's like saying "all BYU qbs will suck" and pointing at their pass happy (even moreso back in the day [i hate that phrase]) offense.



again, there are massive differences between, say, todd reesing as a qb prospect and colt brennan as a qb prospect (to pick a random pass happy school). you can't boil it all down to the system, and suggest that's why there are questions.



steve young played a shotgun system at BYU.

as an aside, are you applying the same to tebow? or did you to vince young?



seriously? *everything*? that's ridiculous.



or he's OU's assistant coach. but yes, again, all spread qbs are identical prospects. there aren't reasons why guys like jason white never made it that have nothing to do with being a spread qb. and there aren't reasons why people still think bradford is a top qb prospect. it's all because we're mesmerized by stats.



so we're faulting him for getting tackled awkwardly on his shoulder?

yeah, i guess ki-jana carter really was the worst football player ever. i mean, he got hurt as soon as he got to the nfl! and adrian peterson sure never panned out after being injured in school.



yippee?

Posts like the one you just responded to make me want to bang my head against the wall.

Quarterbacks don't succeed or fail because of the system they played in college. Coming from a pro style system helps you in the pros about as much as a taking a college algebra class to prep for a career in nuclear physics. The learning curve is so incredibly steep that pretty much everybody starts from square one.

Up until now, the spread has been used by so few teams and has had so few top prospects that we don't even have a good enough sample size to truly be able to judge the effect it has on a player's development to the pros - if it even has any.

People have a really long memory for the spread quarterbacks who have failed, but seem to forget some really ******* good players who have come from spread offenses. Which brings me to two different points.

Steve Young came from a very unorthodox spread system run by Norm Chow at BYU. Everybody thinks that Chow is a pro-style coordinator, but the truth is that he didn't start running the a pro style offense until he was under Carroll at USC. Philip Rivers also played in the spread under Chow at NC State. Seems like he turned out ok, huh? Ben Roethlisberger played in a spread offense. So did Chad Pennington. Same with Joe Flacco and Kevin Kolb - two very promising young quarterbacks.

There are so many different spread offenses in college these days that it has essentially become the same thing the "West Coast Offense" was in the 90s and early 2000s: there's 4935904 vastly different versions all going under the same name. And just about every team runs it in packages or borrows some principals of it in their passing game.

I think it's pretty ignorant for people to assume that NFL scouts and draftniks alike only like a guy like Bradford because of the statistics he put up. The draft is about finding how a player's statistics relate to his physical abilities and if those PHYSICAL abilities transfer to the NFL. You're still looking for the same things you're looking for in a guy that ran a "pro style" (and I put that in quotations because there is no such thing as a pro offense in college): how is his footwork? his release? does he have a dominant arm? if he doesn't is he still able to throw the deep out and hit the honey hole between the corner and safety in cover two? If the answer is yes to these questions and said player is productive to boot - well then damn. You've got yourself a top draft prospect regardless of offensive system.

Xenos
04-09-2010, 09:39 PM
People get too hung up on the arm strength thing with QBs. Bradford has the ability to improve just like Brady and Brees. Brees, in particular, is an interesting study since before his injury in 2005, he probably had the second weakest arm after Pennington. He could not hit a deep ball at all. And when he did try it would hang forever.

FUNBUNCHER
04-09-2010, 10:26 PM
I wouldn't characterize the offensive system implemented by Chuck Amato at NC State as a spread offense, similar to those run at the U of Houston in the 90s or Texas Tech and Hawaii.

Actually, I've never heard the offense run by the Wolfpack under Amato as anything but a pro-style system, utilizing passes to the TE and more down the field routes to WRs. That wasn't a dink and dunk offense Rivers ran at NC State and it translated much more easily to the pro game.

Sure, you can classify any offensive system as a 'spread offense' that has the QB operating out of the shotgun on most snaps with wide sets between the Olineman and 3 to 5 WRs out wide, however, Rivers IMO was under center much more at NC State than Bradford was at OU, and he threw much farther downfield.
The NC State offense resembled the Buffalo Bills offense run by Jim Kelly in the late 80s/early 90s.

The knock I see against Bradford is that he throws a ton of short passes and relies on his WRs picking up huge YAC #s.
Rivers while in college had to make more downfield throws to his WRs and when he threw short, they were usually swing passes to the FB or RB.


EDIT: I had to re-watch clips of Rivers at HC State to refresh my memory banks, and wow(!) if that offense doesn't look eerily similar to OU's in many respects.
There isn't the dink and dunk aspect with the over-abundance of short passes, but many of the routes look the same.

Two things I see hurting Bradford in the evaluation process are his Oline and rarely having to make throws under duress, ( Rivers threw many times where he got rid of the ball before taking a hit), and the talent advantage he had at the skill positions over most opponents.

So, what's the difference between Rivers and Bradford as pro prospects??

Rivers is one of my favorite pro prospects in recent memory and the only college QB I felt personally was gonna be a bang-up pro. Rivers did more with less at NC State, ( Chuck Damato once said that none of the NC State players during Rivers' career could start at FSU), and appears to have a slightly stronger arm.

Other than that, based on Rivers as a comparison, I don't see a whole lot to knock Bradford down about, except for the high amount of shorter passes he threw during his career.

I still like Clausen a little more, but Bradford may be a better pro prospect than I originally thought.

WCH
04-09-2010, 11:33 PM
I'm not comparing the two in terms of God-given talent (because one guy was clearly ahead of the game), but this whole "Clausen is talented, but he's a giant troublemaker/jerk" story reminds me a lot of the "Marino is talented, but he's a giant troublemaker/jerk" story. And Marino had alleged problems far worse than Clausen. Clausen is incredibly talented, but most people agree that (not unlike Marino) he's sort of a putz.

So the question is, does this make me feel better or worse about Clausen? How much did Marino's flaws have to do with him being the greatest pocket passer to never win a Super Bowl?

I think that once you answer that question, you've gone a long way towards figuring out how high Clausen should be drafted.

SickwithIt1010
04-10-2010, 12:02 AM
The good QB prospects get hot chicks....its proven.

http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/2009/12/jimmy-clausen-ugly-chicks/

ninerfan
04-10-2010, 12:04 AM
IMO if I'm drafting in the top 10 and need a QB I'd take him in a heartbeat

jnew76
04-10-2010, 12:27 AM
I think that Clausen is fast becoming the most over-rated prospect on this board.

I will explain why I think this and must stress that this is only my opinion.

First, I believe that elite QB prospects have to have superb physical and mental capabilities. Best examples of this are Peyton Manning, John Elway, Steve Young.

The next level of prospect for me is the on who is incredibly exceptional in one area and decent in the other. (i.e. superb physically, average mentally, examples... Dan Marino, Randall Cunningham, Michael Vick... or the superbly cerebral with average physical ability... ex. Joe Montana, Drew Brees, maybe Matt Ryan)

My problem with Clausen when I look at these qualifications of mine is that Clausen is not at an elite NFL level either mentally or physically. I can't justify the use of a top 20 pick on a QB that I don't believe has elite skill in either of these areas.

Next, Clausen has a couple of things that concern me from a physical standpoint. Clausen has REALLY short arms for a 6'2-5/8" person at 30 3/4". Combined with his tendency to have a long stride and wide base when he throws makes his release point low by NFL standards.

***Note - Drew Brees had the same tendency to overstride and have too wide a base when he came out, and he has successfully fixed this in his time in the league.

Finally, there is the leadership/intangible factor... Special players have special games and defining moments that inspire people to either love them or hate them. Tim Tebow would be the quintessential example of what I would want in this category. I want the player that has led/willed his team to victories during his career. Montana, Favre, Brees, Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers are great examples of players that I want on my team when the bullets are flying, and at the same time they are the players I don't want to play against.

I just don't see anything in Clausen's career where I can say he is an elite leader that people will follow. I admit there is no way to accurately quantify this with the limited information we in the general public have, but I think we have enough information to determine for example that Tim Tebow is a better natural leader than Jimmy Clausen.

All of these points combined lead me to my final evaluation of Jimmy Clausen being over-rated on this board and by most of the on-air draftniks. I have him rated as a very late 1rst-Mid 2nd pick.

Malaka
04-10-2010, 12:45 AM
pshhhhh

Seriously though, Bradford doesn't have that close of arm strength to Ryan or Sanchez. And are we talking about pre or post-surgery Pennington? Because honestly pre-surgery Chad had a decent arm, and I don't think it really makes sense to bring him up if you're talking about post-surgery.

And Eli may have a lot of negatives, but an average-armed QB he is not.

I said on par or better than lol =P.

Sanchez has a decent arm, but so does Bradford. I do give credit to Sanchez he worked the Meadowlands pretty decently. Just for the record, I too like Clausen better than Bradford, but I don't hate Bradford, the lone QB I absolutely do not like in this class is Colt McCoy. If he played for a smaller school he'd be a late round pick at best.

FUNBUNCHER
04-10-2010, 07:01 AM
jnew76, you know who else has shortish arms for his height??

Peyton Manning. Know who else did too?? Troy Aikman.

If Clausen's arm length was a problem, you would have seen examples of it before now.

I agree Clausen didn't have a big-time win at ND, but it's not an overstatement to make the charge that ND's defense was one of the worst in college football over the last 3 years and ultimately got Charlie Weis fired.

If Clausen played with half the defensive talent at his back that either Texas or Florida had the last 3 years, it's safe to say he would have more of those precious 'signature' wins' you describe.

wicket
04-10-2010, 07:49 AM
I think that Clausen is fast becoming the most over-rated prospect on this board.

I will explain why I think this and must stress that this is only my opinion.

First, I believe that elite QB prospects have to have superb physical and mental capabilities. Best examples of this are Peyton Manning, John Elway, Steve Young.

The next level of prospect for me is the on who is incredibly exceptional in one area and decent in the other. (i.e. superb physically, average mentally, examples... Dan Marino, Randall Cunningham, Michael Vick... or the superbly cerebral with average physical ability... ex. Joe Montana, Drew Brees, maybe Matt Ryan)

My problem with Clausen when I look at these qualifications of mine is that Clausen is not at an elite NFL level either mentally or physically. I can't justify the use of a top 20 pick on a QB that I don't believe has elite skill in either of these areas.

Next, Clausen has a couple of things that concern me from a physical standpoint. Clausen has REALLY short arms for a 6'2-5/8" person at 30 3/4". Combined with his tendency to have a long stride and wide base when he throws makes his release point low by NFL standards.

***Note - Drew Brees had the same tendency to overstride and have too wide a base when he came out, and he has successfully fixed this in his time in the league.

Finally, there is the leadership/intangible factor... Special players have special games and defining moments that inspire people to either love them or hate them. Tim Tebow would be the quintessential example of what I would want in this category. I want the player that has led/willed his team to victories during his career. Montana, Favre, Brees, Matt Ryan, Phillip Rivers are great examples of players that I want on my team when the bullets are flying, and at the same time they are the players I don't want to play against.

I just don't see anything in Clausen's career where I can say he is an elite leader that people will follow. I admit there is no way to accurately quantify this with the limited information we in the general public have, but I think we have enough information to determine for example that Tim Tebow is a better natural leader than Jimmy Clausen.

All of these points combined lead me to my final evaluation of Jimmy Clausen being over-rated on this board and by most of the on-air draftniks. I have him rated as a very late 1rst-Mid 2nd pick.

this argument doesnt work that well since for one it puts montana in a subelite category.

Besides that, JC has shown that he know how to take care of the ball better than any other recent pro style QB coming out (based on completion % and the # of interceptions) Besides that JC has handled himself very well in one of the toughest places to play CFB in one of the toughest eras on the program. In that time JC has improved enormously over each year and so has the offense led by him. Even if he is judged by team performance imo it should only be based on the part of the team he actually plays in. He cant help having the very worst D in cfb

jnew76
04-10-2010, 09:08 AM
jnew76, you know who else has shortish arms for his height??

Peyton Manning. Know who else did too?? Troy Aikman.

If Clausen's arm length was a problem, you would have seen examples of it before now.

I agree Clausen didn't have a big-time win at ND, but it's not an overstatement to make the charge that ND's defense was one of the worst in college football over the last 3 years and ultimately got Charlie Weis fired.

If Clausen played with half the defensive talent at his back that either Texas or Florida had the last 3 years, it's safe to say he would have more of those precious 'signature' wins' you describe.

Brees also has very short arms... What I tried to convey was that his short arms COMBINED with his wide base on some of his passes lowers his release point. Aikman and Manning both are taller than Clausen and fundamentally threw/throw from a narrower base than Clausen, which produces a much higher release point.

As for the Defense of ND, I will point to Matt Ryan... I think the game that helped me realize that Matt Ryan was a potential franchise QB (and I am not saying Clausen is not potentially) was when he beat Virginia Tech almost by himself with a HUGE gap in talent between the two teams. Ryan won a number of these games over his career (without a Tate or Floyd on their team). He just had a tendency to not let his team lose. Phillip Rivers did the same things at NC St.

I will say that both Ryan and Rivers were both seniors when they came out, and had an extra year to be "the guy" at their schools while Clausen has a smaller body of work. But both Ryan and Rivers had those defining moments throughout their careers. Guys like Clausen, and say, Sanchez have a smaller sample size and are harder to evaluate. However, Sanchez might have had the best personal offseason last year that any prospect has ever had. Clausen has similar size and arm strength to Sanchez IMO. Probably slightly stronger arm. But everyone saw that Sanchez has natural leadership qualities that could not be coached. Clausen has just not displayed those natural leadership qualities IMO. I am not saying they are not there... But I can only go with what I have seen as we do not have the access that NFL teams have.

FUNBUNCHER
04-10-2010, 09:33 AM
BTW, jnew76, I think Matt Ryan's BC team and Rivers' NC State squad both had significantly better defensive talent than ND under Weis.

Still, I think your point is valid, in that no way that Matt Ryan led BC team should have been able to beat Va Tech his senior year.

jnew76
04-10-2010, 09:47 AM
this argument doesnt work that well since for one it puts montana in a subelite category.

Besides that, JC has shown that he know how to take care of the ball better than any other recent pro style QB coming out (based on completion % and the # of interceptions) Besides that JC has handled himself very well in one of the toughest places to play CFB in one of the toughest eras on the program. In that time JC has improved enormously over each year and so has the offense led by him. Even if he is judged by team performance imo it should only be based on the part of the team he actually plays in. He cant help having the very worst D in cfb

I will admit that I have only seen 2 college games that Montana played in. The one that stands out is the Cotton Bowl against Houston (the Chicken Soup Game), where Montana got extremely ill during the game and had to take IVs and half and came back in the 4th quater to lead ND to a come from behind 35-34 victory. I also know that Montana's first 2 appearances in his career were in the 4th quarter of games where he led ND to two come from behind victories.

Montana was overlooked by most of the NFL because of his lack of "NFL" size and arm strength. He was not selected until pick 82.

Bill Walsh is the best QB talent evaluator and coach in NFL history IMO. He saw things in Montana, Young, and even Garcia that the rest of the NFL did not, and I think that most of those things were on the mental side.

IMO, Montana is the greatest QB of all time. Montana could process information and make decisions faster than anyone I have ever seen at the position. He also had leadership qualities that are the stuff of legend. Like I said before, the intangibles are the hardest to judge, but Montana displayed at every level that his were some of the greatest ever.

As for Clausen, he has not shown me those qualities to date. He has a great completion %, and protected the ball... But it has not translated to wins, and I have not seen him be outstanding in the biggest moments. Clausen had opportunities to win some huge games against big time opponents, and as the leader of his team, I think he should have found a way to win them.

jnew76
04-10-2010, 10:01 AM
BTW, jnew76, I think Matt Ryan's BC team and Rivers' NC State squad both had significantly better defensive talent than ND under Weis.

Still, I think your point is valid, in that no way that Matt Ryan led BC team should have been able to beat Va Tech his senior year.

Funbuncher, I think that is why the draft process is so much fun. I will be the first to admit that I am often wrong on prospects... But I like to form my own opinion and explain that opinion and thought process the best I can. I will not ever criticize someone for their opinion, because I know my own are wrong so often. I appreciate that you and others have different opinions, and I think the best thing we can do is look at those opinions with an open mind. I have had many of my opinions changed signifigantly by people on this board because they have made me see another perspective. I plan to go back and watch a couple ND games after watching Clausen's workout and reading through this thread.

wicket
04-10-2010, 11:27 AM
I will admit that I have only seen 2 college games that Montana played in. The one that stands out is the Cotton Bowl against Houston (the Chicken Soup Game), where Montana got extremely ill during the game and had to take IVs and half and came back in the 4th quater to lead ND to a come from behind 35-34 victory. I also know that Montana's first 2 appearances in his career were in the 4th quarter of games where he led ND to two come from behind victories.

Montana was overlooked by most of the NFL because of his lack of "NFL" size and arm strength. He was not selected until pick 82.

Bill Walsh is the best QB talent evaluator and coach in NFL history IMO. He saw things in Montana, Young, and even Garcia that the rest of the NFL did not, and I think that most of those things were on the mental side.

IMO, Montana is the greatest QB of all time. Montana could process information and make decisions faster than anyone I have ever seen at the position. He also had leadership qualities that are the stuff of legend. Like I said before, the intangibles are the hardest to judge, but Montana displayed at every level that his were some of the greatest ever.

As for Clausen, he has not shown me those qualities to date. He has a great completion %, and protected the ball... But it has not translated to wins, and I have not seen him be outstanding in the biggest moments. Clausen had opportunities to win some huge games against big time opponents, and as the leader of his team, I think he should have found a way to win them.

He played out of his mind against SC this season, had a game winning drive in almost every game ND won and if ND had a defense that could stop a team from when up more more than a fieldgoal with a minute on the clock at the time of kickoff JC would have had 2-3 more gamewinning drives. The kid really was his best when the game was on the line. I really dont know what he couldve done. Just to illustrate, jimmies stats in the 4 biggest games for ND this season.


Date ......Opponent..... Surface Result Att Comp Pct. Yards Yards/Att Int TD Rating
09/12/09 @ Michigan.... Turf L 34-38 42 25 59.5 336 8.0 0 3 150.29
09/19/09 Michigan St... Grass W 33-30 31 22 71.0 300 9.7 0 2 173.55
10/17/09 22 Southern Cal Grass L 27-34 43 24 55.8 260 6.0 0 2 121.95
10/24/09 Boston College Grass W 20-16 39 26 66.7 246 6.3 0 2 136.58


So JC threw 0 interceptions during those games, completed somewhere about 65% during those games throwing for multiple TD's in every game and this all with his best receiver out for all those games except the michigan game. Really dont know what he couldve done more than this

contento
04-10-2010, 11:46 AM
No, Clausen isn't underrated because he's gonna be a Top 10 pick.

Maybe the fans underrate him, but NFL FO's don't.

Babylon
04-10-2010, 12:50 PM
vince young has twice the arm strength that bradford has, bradford's arm strength is adequate but nothing more, compared to what already is around there in the nfl he has one of the worst armstrengths of the league and I dont really see how that could even be debatable, his armstrength however is sufficient to make all the normal throws that are being asked from a qb, so in that sense its sufficient

I'm going to have to disagree with Young having better arm strength than Bradford. I'm not the biggest Sam Bradford supporter but Vince Young?

wicket
04-10-2010, 01:00 PM
I'm going to have to disagree with Young having better arm strength than Bradford. I'm not the biggest Sam Bradford supporter but Vince Young?

just saying that young can toss the ball further

yourfavestoner
04-10-2010, 01:29 PM
Yeah since when did Vince Young get a strong arm?

jnew76
04-10-2010, 01:48 PM
He played out of his mind against SC this season, had a game winning drive in almost every game ND won and if ND had a defense that could stop a team from when up more more than a fieldgoal with a minute on the clock at the time of kickoff JC would have had 2-3 more gamewinning drives. The kid really was his best when the game was on the line. I really dont know what he couldve done. Just to illustrate, jimmies stats in the 4 biggest games for ND this season.


Date ......Opponent..... Surface Result Att Comp Pct. Yards Yards/Att Int TD Rating
09/12/09 @ Michigan.... Turf L 34-38 42 25 59.5 336 8.0 0 3 150.29
09/19/09 Michigan St... Grass W 33-30 31 22 71.0 300 9.7 0 2 173.55
10/17/09 22 Southern Cal Grass L 27-34 43 24 55.8 260 6.0 0 2 121.95
10/24/09 Boston College Grass W 20-16 39 26 66.7 246 6.3 0 2 136.58


So JC threw 0 interceptions during those games, completed somewhere about 65% during those games throwing for multiple TD's in every game and this all with his best receiver out for all those games except the michigan game. Really dont know what he couldve done more than this

I understand your arguement, but I have to point out that these 4 games are against teams with a combined record of 28-23 and only one of them ended up ranked for the 2009 season. They are big games for ND every year, but none of these teams had any real national relevance this year and all of them had sub-par seasons as far as their standards go.

If you would like some other statistics from my perspective, here you go.

Last year vs. ranked teams -

USC - 24/32 260 2/0 75%
Pittsbrgh - 27-42 283 1/1 64%

2008 vs. Ranked Teams

USC - 11-22 41 0/2 50%
UNC - 31-48 383 2/2 69%



Now, I am going to completely remove his Freshman stats as he and Sharpley split reps and the team was a complete mess. The fact is that Clausen played games against 4 teams that were ranked in the top 25 during his last 2 years of college.

In those 4 games Clausen was 93/144 64.58%.. 967yds 241.75 YPG... 5TD/5INT

The good - High completion percentage. Showed marked improvement over between his Soph. and Junior years.

The Bad - 0-4 against ranked teams in his career. Did not perform at an elite level against elite competition. Padded his stats against some really weak competition. This can be said for every elite QB, but the fact is Clausen played against only 4 ranked teams in his last 2 years. QB's like McCoy, Bradford, Tebow, Ryan, Sanchez played 4-6 of these games per year with Bowl games on top of that.

After a 6-2 start last year he oversaw a collapse that included home losses to Navy and Connecticut. I would have liked to see Clausen step up and lead his team to a victory against at least one of those teams. He almost did against Stanford on the road in the last game and I give him due credit for that, but the home losses to both UConn and Navy are too much for me to ignore.

3pac
04-10-2010, 05:22 PM
I agree with most of the people in this thread. Personally I think a big contribution to why people don't like him is because he went to ND, which reminds people of douchey frat boy type guys instead of someone humble and collected like Drew Brees (or others).

That's why people constantly post that picture of Brady Quinn grabbing some other guy's butt (or is it balls? I forget) among other things.

I hope and think that both he and Bradford will find success in the league.

LickaMahfeetz
04-10-2010, 05:33 PM
I understand your arguement, but I have to point out that these 4 games are against teams with a combined record of 28-23 and only one of them ended up ranked for the 2009 season. They are big games for ND every year, but none of these teams had any real national relevance this year and all of them had sub-par seasons as far as their standards go.

If you would like some other statistics from my perspective, here you go.

Last year vs. ranked teams -

USC - 24/32 260 2/0 75%
Pittsbrgh - 27-42 283 1/1 64%

2008 vs. Ranked Teams

USC - 11-22 41 0/2 50%
UNC - 31-48 383 2/2 69%



Now, I am going to completely remove his Freshman stats as he and Sharpley split reps and the team was a complete mess. The fact is that Clausen played games against 4 teams that were ranked in the top 25 during his last 2 years of college.

In those 4 games Clausen was 93/144 64.58%.. 967yds 241.75 YPG... 5TD/5INT

The good - High completion percentage. Showed marked improvement over between his Soph. and Junior years.

The Bad - 0-4 against ranked teams in his career. Did not perform at an elite level against elite competition. Padded his stats against some really weak competition. This can be said for every elite QB, but the fact is Clausen played against only 4 ranked teams in his last 2 years. QB's like McCoy, Bradford, Tebow, Ryan, Sanchez played 4-6 of these games per year with Bowl games on top of that.

After a 6-2 start last year he oversaw a collapse that included home losses to Navy and Connecticut. I would have liked to see Clausen step up and lead his team to a victory against at least one of those teams. He almost did against Stanford on the road in the last game and I give him due credit for that, but the home losses to both UConn and Navy are too much for me to ignore.
I'd like to point out a couple of things regarding this real quick.

First of all Navy had a pretty successful year last year. They barely lost to Ohio St. to open the season by less than a TD and killed Missouri in their bowl game to end the year. Notre Dame lost to them by 2 points in what was a very close game. Which imo is a mioracle in and of itself considering how the game went. A game in which it seemed like Notre Dame just couldn't catch a break.

He lost a fumble going in for a score at the one yard line after a helmet to helmet hit that left him down on the ground for several minutes. He actually had made a tremendous run on the play too, it's unfortunate that it ended the way it did. Not only did he get his bell rung he was already playing with a wrist injury and a foot injury. He shook it off to lead those 4th quarter TD drives showing unbelievable toughness and leadership. Clausen directed 2 scoring drives in the 4th quarter after being down 2 TD's inside of 5 minutes. His numbers 37 of 51 for 452 yards (8.9 avg) 2 TD's 1 INT. The interception was a game defining moment imo.

If you watched the game you might remember the play in question, in which Clausen threw an INT inside the 5 yard line. This play to me defined the entire game. This interception was thrown on what looked like a timing route down to the goal line which saw WR Michael Floyd engage the CB as if he were run blocking down field. The ball subsequently hit Floyd dead square center in his back, popped up and was intercepted by a defender. That was as fluky of a play as I've ever seen and certainly not Clausen's fault. The way they were driving down the field it looked like they were about to score and get the go ahead lead. Instead it killed their drive and seemed to have taken away any momentum they were building. Even three points in that situation by kicking a FG changes the outcome of the game.

As for the USC game, I would like to remind everyone that at the time of the game, USC was still ranked very highly and playing pretty well although they would play trying to overcome a deficit in some key areas the entire season. At the time of the game, they still were exceptional in many areas, like being ranked #5 in pass defense for example and this is 6 games into the college season. Still the entire game, you could tell Notre Dame was clearly outmatched in several areas, especially on the offensive line, where Clausen was harassed the entire game, by shoddy blocking. This mirrored the 2008 season finale, where it seemed the entire Notre Dame was clearly outmatched on a position by position level. Where not only did Clausen flounder but the entire team in a functional basis. Except in 2009 he was able to overcome that.

As for the close loss to UConn. The Irish actually led most of this game until about the mid 3rd quarter when the Huskies finally caught them. The game was lost in double overtime when the defense could not hold the lead they were given yet again. Clausen was again superb going 30 of 45 for 329 (7.3 avg) 2 TD's, no INT's and also added a rushing score.

Edit: The INT in the Pittsburgh game. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/33756735/ns/sports-college_football/

It happens at about the 4:20 mark in the video. You can click ahead to it.