Walterfootball.com : Jimmy Clausen is an Alien Wizard

[wildbill1952]

Clausen has swagger? Cool. I wonder why?

Playing in a pro system must account for something. Name the last 5 QB's drafted who played in a pro system in college. For the life of me, I can only think of one. There's the QB before Clausen, Brady Quinn? He has swagger too. Pro style offenses + swagger have got to be worth something.

Biut not at number 4. And please not on the Redskins. I don't want a QB, but I would at least have hope left if it was Bradford. But not Clausen and not at number 4 and not for the Redskins. Please. Make it stop.

[mnb123]

Clausen is a dud. Not a proven winner. Pass.

Clausen has swagger? Cool. I wonder why?

Playing in a pro system must account for something. Name the last 5 QB's drafted who played in a pro system in college. For the life of me, I can only think of one. There's the QB before Clausen, Brady Quinn? He has swagger too. Pro style offenses + swagger have got to be worth something.

Biut not at number 4. And please not on the Redskins. I don't want a QB, but I would at least have hope left if it was Bradford. But not Clausen and not at number 4 and not for the Redskins. Please. Make it stop.

Jamarcus Russell, Alex Smith, Leinart, and countless others were big winners in college. Lotta help that did them.

Sampling of the successful and promising QB's who ran pro-style offenses in college: Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman (all three of last year's first rounders), Matt Ryan, Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers, Eli Manning (I think), Phillip Rivers (I think).

I don't feel like going back further.

Looks pretty good to me.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

the old brady quinn strawman

cute.

not even going to dignify that with a refutaton.

i guess don't draft peyton because shuler played in the same offense, or something.

[mnb123]

hit the quote button on accident

[The Tris]

Eh - Cutler hasn't been successful?

Very few QBs that get to the NFL have losing records - Clausen is a unique circumstance. It is rare that a blue-chip QB is surrounded by such terrible talent, because the blue-chip QBs go to teams that are at least decent.

Ah Cutler, I had totally forgotten about his horrible 11-35 record. He played much stiffer competition, but probably had marginally better talent. Still, that gets us 2 in 30 years, not exactly a ringing endorsement, but good to see an example from this century.

Clausen is unique in almost every regard, not simply that he is surrounded by such mediocre talent. However, this is not Miami of Ohio or Delaware we are talking about, it's Notre Dame. They recruited plenty of good players, and not all of them were busts.

But back to Clausen, he is so unique in the fact that from the moment he has been able to throw a football, he has been groomed to be a top NFL pick. Everyone know about his brothers, but not everyone knows that starting in 8th grade, he was exclusively tutored by a paid QB coach, or that he was feature in SI as a HS junior ("The Kid with the Golden Arm"). He never lost a HS game, but was on a recruited super team with multiple D-I players. Parade Player of the Year, hardware galore, with Tom Brady calling him telling him to work under Weis he was the #1 recruit and we've all seen the famous picture of him flashing his HS championship rings - that was his signing day announcement at the College FB HOF in South Bend. He arrived in a Hummer limo. Taking all that with a grain of salt, Clausen when it all boils down is a legit QB prospect, but a carefully manufactured one. Everything in his life has been a support system to get him to next months draft.

So yes he is unique that such a high profile QB so woefully underachieved in college due to an inferior surround class, but lots of NFL QB prospects have been surrounded by trash and made chicken salad out of chicken ****. But again, I will grant the posibility that he was surrounded by a historically awful collection of offensive talent. Possible, but unlikely that this was the sole reason for ND's struggles.

The latter leads to the former. From I understand, ND has a lot of talent, but it has been badly utilized, and some of their blue chip prospects are rotting on the bench.

My take on ND is that they get just as many elite guys as other perenital top, say, 25 recruiting schools, but where they fall short is in the role players and special teamers. They recruit great, they have a natural advantage with their TV deal, and they are probably the most nationally recognized college football "brand". However, with their acedemic standards, the marginal players, the not Rivals 150 guys, the guards and rotational DL and 4th LBers are not up to par with other top programs depth guys. They can cover for the stars in the classroom, and bend the rules for elite talents, but shun more troubled lower guys or sort of let them sink or swim in the classroom. The blood and guts of the team can't compete with other schools.

Still, that would be true if they played in the acedemically lax SEC or Big 12, but they are losing to service academies and PAC 10 schools that are just as tough. The talent divide should not be there with some of their competition. So maybe there is more to their defeciencies than lack of talent. Coaching is a big problem too IMO.

Better defenses than Bradford, at the very least.

Agreed, but we are splitting hairs of awful here, as both the Big 12 and ND's opponenets defenses were terrible, especially in the pass department. You can't really ding or praise either guy.

Clausen doesn't play defense. Would anyone bash Jason Campbell if he throw for 5000 yards and went 8-8? Oh wait, wasn't there a QB who did just that? And then he got a somewhat better defense and a much better run game, and now has a Super Bowl? And haven't a few random draft sites compared Clausen to that self-same QB? Fascinating.

But really, I understand the concern, and Clausen did have chances to keep his team alive on some of those games, but while scoring 14 and 17 points like, say, Jason Campbell isn't enough to win a game, scoring 27, 34, and 38 should be.

Hmm, I have not heard any Brees/Clausen comparisons. I don't really see it, and I think citing "a few random draft sites" does nothing for your postion. There are a lot of idiots out there.

Clausen got screwed by his defense a lot sure, but as I mentioned in my last post, half of his wins this year were because his defense stepped up and made a play. It's not like they were just falling over and letting teams march up and down the field every drive, every game. And even Clausen is not immune to a few stinkers under 14 pts.

That is a key concern - even throwing out that freshman year, he didn't win a lot. But then, is it "not being a winner" if your team would have potentially gone 0-12 or 1-11 with an average QB under center, and they end up 6-6? Keep in mind that every one of ND's games, except against Nevada, was decided by a TD or less, and 4 of Clausen's wins were decided by late 4th quarter scores. Because really - while those Eli Manning or Phillip Rivers or Matt Ryan teams weren't great and the QBs made them better, if you replaced them with the backup, would they be one of the worst teams in the country? I truly believe that Jimmy Clausen made them at least 4 wins better than they would have been otherwise - that is a winner in my book. To compare with Campbell, whose teams win more when he sits than when he plays, seems to be a major stretch at this point.

First, the comparison to Campbell's excuses was an observation that the exactly language was being used for both - poor line play, lack of a running game, terrible coaching - but with one very important difference being Clausen put up some gaudy numbers. As well he should have. One team eeks out wins because of their QB, the other team wins in spite of their QB.

But are we really to the point were Clausen is praise for "only" losing 6 games. Look, for all the issues with personnel and coaching, you are fricking Notre Dame. You have NO excuse for being 6-6, for losing to a service academy, and for ever missing a bowl. You have almost every advantage in the world, special TV and postseason rules, and more history than any other school in CFB. Granted, this is not Clausen's fault that ND is where they are, but let's stop crying for poor Jimmy. He has had every advantage in the world, and went to the school with every advatage in the world, and he spectuarly underwhelmed. Some is due to talent, some is due to coaching, and some has to be due to him.

Eli Manning went to cellar dweller Ole Miss and lead them to their first bowl win in 30 years his senior year - the next year they were right back to 4-9. Phillip Rivers put up historic numbers at NC State and capped his season by hanging 56 on Kansas in a bowl game - the next year they were back to second to last in the pre-expansion powerhouse (heavy sarcasm) ACC. Maybe BC didn't fall off a cliff post-Ryan, but they went from National Championship fringe team to an also ran in the, again, stellar ACC.

The point being, yeah, I could see ND being a 2 or 3 win team w/o Clausen, but it's not like he is the only QB in the world whose team would be noticable worse without him. Shoot, just because Oregon went from a National Championship team with Dennis Dixon to the Sun Bowl without him, that sure didn't make him a elite NFL guy. I'm not trying to compare DD to JC, but if one of the reasons for Clausen is "well, they were bad, but can you imagine how bad they'd be without?" then sorry, I am not buying it. There is a case to be made for him, and that is not part of the argument.

Now, it may be possible that Clausen was somehow making his teams worse - but someone would need to prove that, and it doesn't really seem possible given his production.

You know, that's not what I implied with my first post, but there might be something to that. Look, there is no why to prove, justify or defend that idea, it's almost comically illogical and completely counter intuitive, but how is it that such a great QB can have so little effect on his teammates?

I think you and I both subscribe to the idea that a great QB makes everyone around him better. Why was Clausen unable to have a bigger impact? Are we really buying into the idea that this was the WORST collection of offensive and defensive talent in college football history? Is it possible that these players will be ever worse post-Clausen? Really, is that even possible?

Look, at the end of the day, we need a new QB, and we could go with a worse guy than Clausen. If Shanny hitches his cart to him, you won't hear a peep from me. But don't we already have a QB that doesn't make his teammates better? It would be nice if there was a clear cut guy when we have the 4th pick. And if we have to go through a Leaf to get our Brees or Rivers, ultimately it will be worth it. But I just don't feel "it" from Clausen. That's why I am not sold on him. For all the polishing and manufacturing, he still comes across as a me-first guy who won't be a leader or a winner in the Pros. And if he doesn't have that, his quick release and great decision making won't matter.

And hey, Campbell won in college. Didn't help him win in the pros.

Come on man, you're really going to cheap shot me to end the post? You know where I am with Campbell, you know how I feel. Not all winners are created equal.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

You made very strong points, and I really understand that guys like Rivers and Manning took bad teams and made them into very good teams. And I am possibly underestimating the Notre Dame connection - Notre Dame has resources more due to its tradition than anything else, they haven't been national championship contenders for a while.

Also, I don't really think losing to Navy is that big a deal as it used to be - they have some real good coaching and schemes to compensate for the talent deficiency, and they have pushed good teams. Still, I can understand on a "gut" level, Notre Dame should not lose to Navy, period.

Yes, Clausen could have done more to win those games. One thing you don't see is where he hangs 56 on a good team, or goes into an opposing team's stadium and puts up 40. I think I can agree that while Clausen is very smart, reads defenses very well, and makes great decisions, he may not be a natural playmaker, which is what makes it possible for NC State to put 50+ on a FSU. Still, I can't shake the feeling that if Notre Dame makes two or three more defensive stops, then he's possibly 10-3 and we're not having this convo.

I know my defenses seem a bit like excuses, and I can understand why someone may not feel "it" from him. But he's certainly no loser, he certainly has the tools and mental capability to be a good or great QB, and the coaching aspect means he'll have a very small learning curve relative to most prospects.

Also, if we pass on him, is there anyone better? I just feel like every draft, someone's going to come along telling us that QB is too big of a risk, go with the safe pick, besides we have a nice serviceable QB who won't lose the game for us. Sure we could wait on a later, better class, but then what if we're good due to an improved defense and running game? All of a sudden, we get wedded to a mediocre QB, just like the Panthers got wedded to Delhomme even when it was clear the team needed to go in a new direction, or like the Pats got wedded to Bledsoe and needed him to get injured for them to find their QB, or like the Jets got wedded to Pennington and are just now seeming to have found their franchise guy.

[The Tris]

Also, if we pass on him, is there anyone better? I just feel like every draft, someone's going to come along telling us that QB is too big of a risk, go with the safe pick, besides we have a nice serviceable QB who won't lose the game for us. Sure we could wait on a later, better class, but then what if we're good due to an improved defense and running game? All of a sudden, we get wedded to a mediocre QB, just like the Panthers got wedded to Delhomme even when it was clear the team needed to go in a new direction, or like the Pats got wedded to Bledsoe and needed him to get injured for them to find their QB, or like the Jets got wedded to Pennington and are just now seeming to have found their franchise guy.

There is nothing I hate more than the "well wait til Player-X is a senior" routine. It literally drives me crazy.

The whole thread talking about future prospects is one of the stupidest threads on this board, closely followed by Tebow...Dynasty QB. There is not a single team in the NFL who makes personnel decisions based on future prospects. You do the best with prospects that are available today to create the best long term team. You don't concoct wild scenerios where you are able to snag some future prospect that has had one big season.

I know first hand the feeling that occurs as we get closer to the draft. I publicly stated I didn't like Ryan or Sanchez because of small issues and not wanted to take a chance on a guy. But at some freaking point, we have got to take a chance. And if its Clausen, let's see where the cards fall. I almost kinda half liked zoony's thread about taking 3 or 4 QBs. We hope that at least one of the QBs in this draft will go on to become a franchise guy, at least we are giving ourselves better odds. A good young backup isn't exactly a bad thing. I don't care if we pick a QB #1 or UDFA, but we have got to get someone to build around. You can say wait for this guy for the rest of your life and not find a perfect QB. Nobody is perfect so might as well take a chance and hope that with a good environment and good teacher that it will pay off.

[Oldskool]

Per Rotoworld:

Coach Eric Mangini said Tuesday that the Browns have not ruled out trading up to the Lions' spot at No. 2 overall.

Mangini also revealed that the Kam Wimbley trade was done to create an opportunity for another trade with the extra third-round pick. Moving up to No. 2 would enable the Browns to draft Jimmy Clausen, though president Mike Holmgren conceded that the Notre Dame QB is "a big debate" in the Browns draft room right now. Colt McCoy is another option, possibly in the second round.

Source: MLive.com

Related: Jimmy Clausen, Colt McCoy

[onnie007]

None of these QBs are top 5 material in my opinion. They are the best of this year's bunch.......but this year's QB class isn't that good. I see no Matt Ryan's in the bunch. There is much better value at the DT & OT positions. Why is it that the Redskins are in the mix to draft a QB every year? We need OL. We need a couple for the OL. Draft Okung!!!

[The Tris]

None of these QBs are top 5 material in my opinion. They are the best of this year's bunch.......but this year's QB class isn't that good. I see no Matt Ryan's in the bunch. There is much better value at the DT & OT positions. Why is it that the Redskins are in the mix to draft a QB every year? We need OL. We need a couple for the OL. Draft Okung!!!

Matt Ryan was borderline top 10 material just days before the draft in 2008. Most thought the Falcons would got safe with DT (Glenn Dorsey) and Ryan would slip, probably to the Ravens at #9. If the Ravens didn't take him, he was in for a long fall.

The local media in Atlanta was mixed on the Ryan pick, some thinking it was a reach.

Now in retrospect, people assume Ryan was a lock pick, when at the time he was far from it.

The Redskins will be in the market for a QB every year until they get a franchise one.

[Mahons21]

None of these QBs are top 5 material in my opinion. They are the best of this year's bunch.......but this year's QB class isn't that good.

-Then you believe the same could be said for last year's crop? Bradford was the consensus #1 then.

I see no Matt Ryan's in the bunch. There is much better value at the DT & OT positions. Why is it that the Redskins are in the mix to draft a QB every year? We need OL. We need a couple for the OL. Draft Okung!!!

Matty Ice was no consensus top 10 pick by any means.

We haven't been in the mix to draft a QB with a top draft pick for 5 years now, and all teams spend late round draft picks on QB's, I don't believe that notion is accurate.

We do need help along the line. However this year's crop of O-line talent, is deep, and we can still acquire a top rated tackle in the 2nd round, even if it is a RT. Adding a RT to our team would allow us to put either Heyer/Jones in there natural position and also allow us to give our LT more help via chip blocks from a TE/RB, since we would have an adequate RT in place.

[alwaysaskin]

Per Rotoworld:

Coach Eric Mangini said Tuesday that the Browns have not ruled out trading up to the Lions' spot at No. 2 overall.

Mangini also revealed that the Kam Wimbley trade was done to create an opportunity for another trade with the extra third-round pick. Moving up to No. 2 would enable the Browns to draft Jimmy Clausen, though president Mike Holmgren conceded that the Notre Dame QB is "a big debate" in the Browns draft room right now. Colt McCoy is another option, possibly in the second round.

Source: MLive.com

Related: Jimmy Clausen, Colt McCoy

Please let the Browns be dumb enough to do this, we could then have our choice of Okung/Suh/McCoy at #4 (assuming Tampa takes one of the three)

[Oldskool]

Please let the Browns be dumb enough to do this, we could then have our choice of Okung/Suh/McCoy at #4 (assuming Tampa takes one of the three)

At this point its really no doubt that TB will take Suh or McCoy. Having our pick of Okung or dangling Suh/McCoy for a trade back would be the ideal scenario.

[TotalRecall]

Meet the author...

[alwaysaskin]

At this point its really no doubt that TB will take Suh or McCoy. Having our pick of Okung or dangling Suh/McCoy for a trade back would be the ideal scenario.

IMO the biggest difficulty would be deciding between Okung and Suh, though I think both are can't miss prospects

[Oldskool]

IMO the biggest difficulty would be deciding between Okung and Suh, though I think both are can't miss prospects

As much as I think Suh is a better prospect than Okung, taking him would be a luxury over a franchise LT.

[Mahons21]

As much as I think Suh is a better prospect than Okung, taking him would be a luxury over a franchise LT.

+1... In addition if that situation falls to us I pray we can trade back. Hopefully with Oakland, and I'll keep my fingers crossed that neither SEA, or CLE takes Clausen.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Hey, remember when Elway was mentioned as a guy who didn't win at Stanford? Well, I found this little gem of info on the forums there:

These are the drafted players during the Clausen/Elway tenures.

Clausen. 2009: FS David Bruton, 4th round. 2008: TE John Carlson and DT Trevor Laws, 2nd round. S Tom Zbikowski, 3rd round. C John Sullivan, 6th round. Granted, Tate and Floyd are going to be 1st round picks. Rudolph might be, as well. But any ND running back ended up higher than the 3rd round is going to be a huge upset. Same with any offensive linemen.

Elway. 1981: OT Brian Holloway, 19th overall. WR Ken Margerum 3rd round. PK Ken Naber, 8th round (for the record, Notre Dame would kill for a draftable placekicker). 1982: RB Darrin Nelson, 7th overall. DE Doug Rogers, 2nd round. WR Andre Tyler, 6th round. C John Macauley, 11th round. 1983: TE Chris Dressel, 3rd round. DB Vincent White, 6th round. RB Mike Dotterer, 8th round. OT Chris Rose, 9th round. 1984: WR Eric Mullins, 6th round. 1985: DE Garin Veris, 2nd round. LB Tom Briehl, 4th round. WR Emile Harry, 4th round. G Jeff Deaton, 6th round. G Matt Moran, 6th round. C Brent Martin, 10th round.

And while there were more rounds, there were less teams, so the number of picks was about the same.

[demarc007]

Hey, remember when Elway was mentioned as a guy who didn't win at Stanford? Well, I found this little gem of info on the forums there:

These are the drafted players during the Clausen/Elway tenures.

And while there were more rounds, there were less teams, so the number of picks was about the same.

John Elway is an extreme case, which is why there has only been one like him (in terms of losing college QBs having success in the NFL). If you are drafting Clausen to be Jay Cutler with the #4 pick then you might as well keep Campbell.

John Elway was a ridiculous ATHLETE, two sports at high levels:

1980 and 1982 PAC 10 Player of The Year (which says alot back then)

1982 Led the nation in passing TDs

Graduated with nearly all PAC 10 and Stanford passing records

.361 9HR 50RBI

5-4 4.51 ERA

That's still more to go on than someone gambling on Clausen because of physical tools only and one year of a 28 - 4 TD ratio vs. meh competition

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Cutler has the opposite problem of Campbell - lots of big plays and TDs, but too many INTs. I'd argue also that Cutler was in a VERY similar situation to Campbell - bad (but not 2009 Skins bad) line, non-existent run game, overrated defense, and basically a John Sloop offense that was even more reliant on dumpoffs than Zorn and Ron Turner was a joke of an OC in general - they were considering Zorn as OC because he was so terrible. The good news for him is that it's easier to get the INTs down than get the TDs up.

If Clausen is Jay Cutler, then by all means draft him #4.

[Skinsinparadise]

Clausen's on Sirrius radio right now, was asked which teams he talked to, he mentioned the Redskins first.

[demarc007]

Edit for Duplication

[demarc007]

If Clausen is Jay Cutler, then by all means draft him #4.

Well that's where we disagree big time.

[dreamboater]

Well that's where we disagree big time.

Really you think Campbell will have a better NFL career than Cutler?

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Well that's where we disagree big time.

You're really selling Cutler short - he put up 27 TDs in an offensive situation that rivals that Campbell had to deal with with one of the few playcallers in the NFL that is worse than Zorn.

Imagine what he'll do with Martz.