Jimmy Clausen or Sam Bradford?

[GenMgr]

LINK: http://www.kffl.com/article.php/117766/160

[Hail Gibbs]

I'm not going to pretend that Clausen played SEC defenses, but who did Joe Flacco play at Delaware? How many of those teams put guys into the NFL? I don't think level of competition is always the best metric. You need to evaluate the individual and the plays he makes (accuracy, reads, etc.)

Maybe it isn't the best metric, but I don't think you can ignore it. If stats are going to be used to make an argument to compare players, as they commonly are and have been in this thread, I think it is useful to keep in perspective who those stats came against. There have been plenty of college QBs who have racked up huge stats against mediocre opposition and couldn't cut it in the NFL. Having watched plenty of ND games I know they faced a lot of suspect defenses who had major matchup problems with players like Tate and Floyd.

Since there is such a huge gap in the talent level from college to the NFL I would think it is much easier for a scout to evaluate how a player will translate if they regularly faced top opposition in college as opposed to average and/or inferior opposition.

I personally don't like using stats to compare players b/c there are too many variables which affect stat lines in football that are unknown when you just look at the stats, many of which are out of an individual player's control. I like to base my opinions of players on what I've actually seen. From what I have seen of the two (more of Clausen) Bradford has been far more impressive and against better opposition as well.

[Laron Burgundy]

So from 2007 to 2008, Notre Dame gave up 35 then 21 sacks. I think his release may have helped, but was it significantly quicker to make up a 14 sack differential, or do you think the offensive line played better?

Consider this, Notre Dame had 3 new starters (Duncan, Turkovich, Wenger) on the line in 2007 and returned 4 starters in 2008 (Duncan, Turkovich, Wenger, Young). Seems to me, they probably gelled better as a unit, though Clausen's performance probably helped.

Conclusion: His line in 2008 and 2009 is not as terrible as people on this board make it out to be.

Thank you! Absolutely! I can't stand the Clausen supporters who try to pretend he was the one shining star on a horrible offense. His o-line was NOT bad, his receivers and tight end were elite caliber players, his rb was good. Yes, Clausen did some impressive things this year, but let's not pretend he played great competition or that he carried his team.

The difference between him playing at notre dame, facing bad competition, and Flacco at Delaware facing even worse competition is that Flacco wasn't surrounded by an all-star cast. Maybe it is just me, but who was the last great qb who played with a 1st round receiver in college? It seems to me great receiver play often inflates qb draft position (I seem to recall Jamarcus Russell having 2 great receivers as well). And let's not forget that Clausen is a loser. He puts up good stats, but Campbell puts up decent stats as well, and we all know he still ends up losing a lot of games.

Honestly I'm conflicted about this whole debate. I think I would rather we just take an OT or I'd even rather we trade down and grab a few defensive pieces rather than go after Bradford or Clausen. There's just so much indecision about those two. Some analysts believe Clausen is a top 5 talent and Bradford is barely top 20 and others believe the exact opposite. There just isn't much consensus.

[mistertim]

Picking Bradford if available will be a ballsy move for Shanahan in his first major move with Washington.

The 'safe' pick is Okung at LT at #4.

If he goes Bradford at #4 you can bet the Redskins have already used free agency and perhaps a trade to secure help for the OL.

I think the safest (and smartest) thing for Shanny to do would be hope for someone to fall to you , trade back a bit while fleecing someone else for picks and then stockpiling OL.

[BruinSkin]

Maybe it isn't the best metric, but I don't think you can ignore it. If stats are going to be used to make an argument to compare players, as they commonly are and have been in this thread, I think it is useful to keep in perspective who those stats came against. There have been plenty of college QBs who have racked up huge stats against mediocre opposition and couldn't cut it in the NFL. Having watched plenty of ND games I know they faced a lot of suspect defenses who had major matchup problems with players like Tate and Floyd.

Since there is such a huge gap in the talent level from college to the NFL I would think it is much easier for a scout to evaluate how a player will translate if they regularly faced top opposition in college as opposed to average and/or inferior opposition.

I personally don't like using stats to compare players b/c there are too many variables which affect stat lines in football that are unknown when you just look at the stats, many of which are out of an individual player's control. I like to base my opinions of players on what I've actually seen. From what I have seen of the two (more of Clausen) Bradford has been far more impressive and against better opposition as well.

I'm still unconvinced that who you play in college is going to be an indicator of future success. Ben Roethlisberger, Steve McNair, Brett Favre and Kurt Warner didn't exactly play world beaters back in college. Plenty of busts emerge from the SEC, PAC 10, and Big 12. The opposite is also true. I really think it depends on the individual.

[gunslinger5]

In my Madden 10 Redskins franchise I drafted Bradford over Clausen. Bradford has a 98 throwing power rating and is more accurate than Clausen. Based on that anecdote alone, Shanahan should choose Bradford. I can vouch for him.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Thank you! Absolutely! I can't stand the Clausen supporters who try to pretend he was the one shining star on a horrible offense. His o-line was NOT bad, his receivers and tight end were elite caliber players, his rb was good. Yes, Clausen did some impressive things this year, but let's not pretend he played great competition or that he carried his team.

WRs, yes, but Kyle Rudolph wasn't very good at all.

The difference between him playing at notre dame, facing bad competition, and Flacco at Delaware facing even worse competition is that Flacco wasn't surrounded by an all-star cast

The competition argument is laughable. Why don't you look at ND's schedule? All but one game against BCS teams, and Navy makes and wins bowls regularly. Navy had some freak losses, but they also BARELY lost to Ohio State.

A SOS of 50 is not that bad - not dominating, but not the cupcake schedule you seem to be portraying it as. And that SOS is a lot stronger if Navy pulls the upset against OSU, or if USC doesn't have a freakishly down year.

Maybe it is just me, but who was the last great qb who played with a 1st round receiver in college? It seems to me great receiver play often inflates qb draft position (I seem to recall Jamarcus Russell having 2 great receivers as well).

This pretty much disqualifies every major-college QB who ever played. Did Mike Williams' dominance in college hurt Carson Palmer? Did the stacked Michigan teams hurt Tom Brady?

And let's not forget that Clausen is a loser. He puts up good stats, but Campbell puts up decent stats as well, and we all know he still ends up losing a lot of games.

4 4th quarter comebacks. /discussion

[Hail Gibbs]

I'm still unconvinced that who you play in college is going to be an indicator of future success. Ben Roethlisberger, Steve McNair, Brett Favre and Kurt Warner didn't exactly play world beaters back in college. Plenty of busts emerge from the SEC, PAC 10, and Big 12. The opposite is also true. I really think it depends on the individual.

It always depends on the individual, and no strength of opposition it isn't an infallible indicator, or the end all be all, but I think it is foolish to dismiss it because it is easier to evaluate how a player will project to the NFL when they face other teams with several NFL prospects rather than teams that have few to none. Sure you can find instances for any scenario like busts from top conferences and players who emerge from obscurity or lesser competition, but the odds of finding and projecting players from obscurity or lesser competition is much more difficult because it is hard to tell if it was just man against boys, and/or how they will adjust when surrounded by other great players.

Now I am in no way trying to say Clausen is coming from obscurity, as that is impossible when you play at ND and are hyped as much as he was....but in his case, from what I saw, he was surrounded with good talent on offense and his defense was crap. The majority of defenses he faced were also crap, and many of those defenses, like the ones I listed previously, couldn't stop much worse WRs than Golden Tate and Michael Floyd. IMO USC is really the only top notch D that Clausen faced and he didn't impress me much at all in those games. IMO he hasn't come close to living up to his hype so I really don't expect him to at the next level when he will face quality defenses every week. Just my opinion.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

The majority of defenses he faced were also crap, and many of those

Wrong.

Pittsburgh: 19th in scoring defense

USC: 22nd in scoring defense

Navy: 18th in scoring defense (yes their schedule is not good but it's not like they're playing a D-II schedule)

Boston College: 19th (tied with Pitt)

UConn was also solid defensively playing a TOUGH schedule as well.

He played no more crap defenses than, say, Bradford (though Texas is probably better than any defense Clausen's played)

[texasthunder]

In my Madden 10 Redskins franchise I drafted Bradford over Clausen. Bradford has a 98 throwing power rating and is more accurate than Clausen. Based on that anecdote alone, Shanahan should choose Bradford. I can vouch for him.

Not bad. :pfft:

But how about we do like the Pro Bowl.

All members of ES (official Redskins site) get to vote on who should be drafted. One vote per person per draft slot.

That should make for some heated conversations............

[Hail Gibbs]

The competition argument is laughable. Why don't you look at ND's schedule? All but one game against BCS teams, and Navy makes and wins bowls regularly. Navy had some freak losses, but they also BARELY lost to Ohio State.

The competition argument is in no way laughable. I realize NFL to college is apples to oranges, but all you have to do is look at fantasy football to realize the impact quality defenses can have on statistical output. This year it was much easier to pile up stats against teams like Detroit and STL as opposed to teams like say the Jets or Ravens. The same goes for college, except I think it is magnified, with the difference being that the talent level isn't spread near as evenly in college as it is in the NFL.

Back to college, if you think teams like Navy and Air Force had near the athletes that ND has I don't know what to say. Maybe they are solid "teams" but that is mainly down to execution, because to a man they are smaller, slower, weaker than the athletes at ND or other colleges that get 4 and 5 star players. Navy is tough to beat b/c their rushing scheme is hard to stop, and that has little to do with how Clausen and the ND offense matches up against their D.

As for them playing all but one BCS team. There are plenty of average to bad teams from BCS conferences and ND played several. Lets break down NDs schedule this season.

-Nevada--8-5 (2nd in WAC at 7-1) Weak schedule, best win probably Utah State. Hawaii Bowl. (Ranked 119th out of 120 in pass yds allowed/game)

-Michigan--5-7 (Tied for last in Big Ten at 1-7) Not very good at all the past few years. No Bowl. (Ranked 69th out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

-MSU-- 6-7 (Tied for 6th in Big Ten at 4-4) Stuggled to get to 6 Ws. No Bowl. (Ranked 103 out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

-Purdue--5-7 (Tied for 6th in Big Ten at 4-4) No Bowl.

(Ranked 41st out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

-Washington--5-7 (7th out of 10 in PAC 10 at 4-5) PAC 10 was weak this year. No Bowl. (Ranked 90th out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

-USC--9-4 (5th out 10 in PAC 10 at 5-4) Down year for USC. Emerald Bowl. (Ranked 53rd out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

-Boston College--8-5 (2nd out 6 in ACC Atlantic at 5-3) Well coached D. (Ranked 55th out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

Emerald Bowl.

-WSU--1-11 (Last in PAC 10 at 0-9) One of the worst teams in the FBS. No Bowl. (Ranked 116th out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

-Navy-- 10-4 (Independent) Already discussed above. Texas Bowl

(Ranked 48th out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

-Pitt--10-3 (3rd in Big East at 5-2) Solid team, very well coached D. Meineke Car Care Bowl. (Ranked 56th out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

-UCONN--8-5 (5th in Big East at 3-4) Only basketball mattered until a few years ago. Papa Johns Bowl. (Ranked 94th out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

-Stanford-- 8-5 (4th in PAC 10 at 6-3) Great year for them. Sun Bowl.

(Ranked 105th out of 120 in pass yds. allowed/game)

So the top rated pass defense ND faced in terms of yards allowed per game was Navy at 48 out of 120, and Navy ranking that high is likely attributed more to the fact they usually dominate TOP as opposed to being a good coverage team. The best secondaries talent wise they faced were USC, Pitt and BC. Still a very tame schedule overall I would say, especially for a QB to face. Looking up the stats pretty much helped me to reinforce what I saw throughout the season.

Edit: Took stats from here..link

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I think my point still stands, though the emphasis on pass defense as opposed to scoring defense definitely bolsters your argument. I think it's a stretch to say he played crap teams through and through, but the pass defenses he played were surely not world-beating.

However, if you take a look at Pass efficiency defense, you get USC at 16, Purdue at 32, BC at 39 and Pitt at 42, with some below-average and bad ones there too. Not strong enough evidence to refute your point, but it makes it more even.

Keep in mind though, the difference between Clausen and say, Campbell for us, is that the former put up incredible stats against an average defensive schedule, while the latter put up pedestrian stats against an average defensive schedule.

[Morneblade]

That was pure ownage. People forget how much talent ND had and when you go against a bad Defense, it does make it pretty easy.

Clausen will probably bust like Mirer/Quinn

[Hunter_R]

That was pure ownage. People forget how much talent ND had and when you go against a bad Defense, it does make it pretty easy.

Clausen will probably bust like Mirer/Quinn

How's Bradford going to be any different than any other college qb from the spread? They all put up gaudy numbers, and we even drafted an accurate one that fell from grace.

[Morneblade]

How's Bradford going to be any different than any other college qb from the spread? They all put up gaudy numbers, and we even drafted an accurate one that fell from grace.

How do I think he will be different? Actually if you look at my history, I dont want him either. Best case senario for me is to trade DOWN. Next best is to take the Best LT avaliable. But when it comes to strictly between Clausen and Bradford, I think Bradford will be a better QB. Even though being in the Spread is a major reason I DONT want him at #4. I just think Clausen will will a huge bust.

[Hail Gibbs]

I think my point still stands, though the emphasis on pass defense as opposed to scoring defense definitely bolsters your argument. I think it's a stretch to say he played crap teams through and through, but the pass defenses he played were surely not world-beating.

However, if you take a look at Pass efficiency defense, you get USC at 16, Purdue at 32, BC at 39 and Pitt at 42, with some below-average and bad ones there too. Not strong enough evidence to refute your point, but it makes it more even.

Keep in mind though, the difference between Clausen and say, Campbell for us, is that the former put up incredible stats against an average defensive schedule, while the latter put up pedestrian stats against an average defensive schedule.

Maybe... but the solid defenses Clausen faced like Pitt, USC, BC don't even come close to comparing to the talent level on the worst NFL defenses. Now when comparing Clausen to Bradford, as was the purpose of this thread, I am not going to argue that Bradford consistently played against the best defenses either, but I think he has a stronger resume as he has played in many more big games and IMO looked more impressive despite facing tougher competition.

I am not trying to argue that Clausen sucks, even though I have major doubts on him being a good NFL player, rather that he is over-hyped based off his stats (the same argument can be made against Bradford too) and that I don't think he projects nearly as well to the NFL as Bradford does as long as Bradford's shoulder checks out.

Edit: Not that Bradford comes w/out concerns either.

-Shoulder

-Transition from spread

[Laron Burgundy]

Keep in mind though, the difference between Clausen and say, Campbell for us, is that the former put up incredible stats against an average defensive schedule, while the latter put up pedestrian stats against an average defensive schedule.

If you'll remember Campbell put up good stats against SEC defenses in college. His offense, like Clausen's, was stacked, but he at least won games back then. Yes, Mike Williams played with Carson Palmer, but Mike Williams was also a colossal bust. His stock was inflated because of Palmer, not the other way around. Almost always happens, if a team has a few playmakers on one side of the ball, normally only one of them will end up great in the nfl. Proof in point:

2007 LSU- Jamarcus Russell, Dwayne Bowe, Craig Davis.

2006 NC State- Mario Williams, Manny Lawson, John McCargo

2006 Ohio State- AJ Hawk, Donte Whitner, Bobby Carpenter

2005 Auburn- Ronnie Brown, Cadillac Williams, Jason Campbell

And these are just counting when players get drafted in the same year from a school. Sometimes you get the 2006 USC class where all the top players from a school flop. Even rarer you get the 2004 Miami class where you get multiple stars. So I guess the question is, do you think this Notre Dame class is going to have 3 stud players come from it, or is it more likely they have one great player who made the other 2 look better than they are? Makes it even more mindboggling when you try to debate which player it was. It could very well have been Clausen, but I think in 3 or 4 years only one of these ND players is going to be any good.

[skinsfan190]

If you'll remember Campbell put up good stats against SEC defenses in college. His offense, like Clausen's, was stacked, but he at least won games back then. Yes, Mike Williams played with Carson Palmer, but Mike Williams was also a colossal bust. His stock was inflated because of Palmer, not the other way around. Almost always happens, if a team has a few playmakers on one side of the ball, normally only one of them will end up great in the nfl. Proof in point:

Are you crazy. :doh:

How was Clausen's offense stacked. They had no run game and no offensive line. That offense was all jimmy clausen, Golden Tate, and Michael Floyd. (who missed 5 games) To say they were stacked is just stupid. Clausen made plays. Don't say he was a product of good recievers because he made those recievers also. He had great chemistry with both their timing was perfect expecially with is deep ball. Unlike Bradford's GREAT oline in 2008, Clausen did not have that luxury. He made plays scrambling and on the run.

[BruinSkin]

Are you crazy. :doh:

How was Clausen's offense stacked. They had no run game and no offensive line.

Yards Per Carry:

Armando Allen 4.9

Robert Hughes 4.7

Golden Tate 7.4

Theo Riddick 5.5

Jonas Gray 3.5

Those are the top 5 rushers on Notre Dame, all with at least 25 carries or more. If you get rid of Clausens attempts (59 for -95 yards) which comprise of sacks, qb sneaks, etc., Notre Dame rushed 342 times for 1634 yards, a 4.77 average. Not what I'd call "no run game." Their 2009 sack total (24) is about average with some of the better teams listed on the previous page (McCoy-30, Tebow-29, Canfield-29, Pryor-22).

[Laron Burgundy]

Are you crazy. :doh:

How was Clausen's offense stacked. They had no run game and no offensive line. That offense was all jimmy clausen, Golden Tate, and Michael Floyd. (who missed 5 games) To say they were stacked is just stupid. Clausen made plays. Don't say he was a product of good recievers because he made those recievers also. He had great chemistry with both their timing was perfect expecially with is deep ball. Unlike Bradford's GREAT oline in 2008, Clausen did not have that luxury. He made plays scrambling and on the run.

The previous poster pretty much nailed it. As far as Bradford's line, yes they were much bally-hooed but all of them are taking huge hits before draft day. Perhaps scouts are seeing that Bradford made them look better than they were. But I'll agree with you, Bradford did come from a stacked team as well. It turns out, for one reason or another, that the best qb's seem to come from schools with much less talent.

[skinsfan190]

Yards Per Carry:

Armando Allen 4.9

Robert Hughes 4.7

Golden Tate 7.4

Theo Riddick 5.5

Jonas Gray 3.5

Those are the top 5 rushers on Notre Dame, all with at least 25 carries or more. If you get rid of Clausens attempts (59 for -95 yards) which comprise of sacks, qb sneaks, etc., Notre Dame rushed 342 times for 1634 yards, a 4.77 average. Not what I'd call "no run game." Their 2009 sack total (24) is about average with some of the better teams listed on the previous page (McCoy-30, Tebow-29, Canfield-29, Pryor-22).

You can throw out all the nice pretty stats you want, but If you watched ND's games this season you would know ND was all Jimmy Clausen and Golden Tate. Floyd too when he played. Their running game was no factor in anything.

Nice try tho

[BruinSkin]

You can throw out all the nice pretty stats you want, but If you watched ND's games this season you would know ND was all Jimmy Clausen and Golden Tate. Floyd too when he played. Their running game was no factor in anything.

Nice try tho

There's a difference between favoring the pass versus not being able to run the ball. Notre Dame could clearly run the ball with some success, but why keep it on the ground when you can air it out with as much success as Clausen had? Averaging 128 yards a game on the ground is nothing to sneeze at, but when you're averaging 323 yards in the air, the choice is pretty clear.

[lavarisgone]

NIETHER! You forgot that option.

[Hail Gibbs]

There's a difference between favoring the pass versus not being able to run the ball. Notre Dame could clearly run the ball with some success, but why keep it on the ground when you can air it out with as much success as Clausen had? Averaging 128 yards a game on the ground is nothing to sneeze at, but when you're averaging 323 yards in the air, the choice is pretty clear.

Yes, plus Weis has always liked to pass more than run.

[bowhunter]

Well, after watching each set of highlight reels, I can say that I'm unsure

Bradford had a ton of time behind a superior offensive line and always seemed to look straight at his intended target the whole time. But his release and accuracy were uncanny.

Clausen had to scramble for his life but could sling it towards his receivers even if they were double covered, simply because his receivers far outclassed the defenders.

So this should be an easy decision.

-if we have a superior O-line, draft Bradford

-if our receivers are head and shoulders better than any defense, draft Clausen

Oh wait......................