Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Clausen not part of the team...


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
94 replies to this topic

#85 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,262
  • Reputation: 5,361
Moderators

Posted 13 December 2010 - 07:41 PM

I did NOT bring up Moore. I'm tired of people rewriting our early game history. We blew when Moore was at QB against everyone but San Fran. Seriously. Get over it. He was bad, the entire offense was bad.

Clausen has undoubtedly been a worse quarterback, but the offense as a whole has been at the same level of terribleness under both. If you look at games they started and pretty close to finished (so excluding Chicago, since that was a poo show for both of them, and NO since Moore got hurt, and Baltimore since Clausen was injured), they are literally at like 14 points per game average each. Yes, Moore had more TDs than Clausen himself, but his overall number of drives he had, time of possession, etc, was all pretty even until recently. I actually did the math on this before Moore got injured... and yeah. I was wrong about Clausen in terms of him being better than Moore, but the numbers show Moore wasn't any good, either.

Take home message: Both have sucked. Clausen has more to work with from the running game and still can't do it. That doesn't make Moore's numbers good at all and only look better in comparison to Clausen, not in comparison to any other team.

edit: as to the above, I now think Fox should have sat Moore against TB, and then brought him back in against Cincy, but either way, it's not like Moore was benched in the later portion of the season, he was put on IR...


well that isn't true. Run game was doing nothing early in the season. Clausen currently has a run game. Last 5 weeks they look like Carolina again in that department. Moore overall had to put up the little offense we got. The little offense we get now is when Clausen is taken out of the picture.

#86 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,155
  • Reputation: 2,343
HUDDLER

Posted 13 December 2010 - 07:49 PM

edit: nevermind, tired of arguing over Moore. There are plenty of numbers that show the offense blew just as much under Moore in the early going as it did under Clausen. Yes, Clausen hasn't done anything recently despite a rushing game, which I never disagreed with, just stressing that Moore did NOT look good earlier.

Edited by mav1234, 13 December 2010 - 07:53 PM.


#87 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,262
  • Reputation: 5,361
Moderators

Posted 13 December 2010 - 07:58 PM

edit: nevermind, tired of arguing over Moore. There are plenty of numbers that show the offense blew just as much under Moore in the early going as it did under Clausen. Yes, Clausen hasn't done anything recently despite a rushing game, which I never disagreed with, just stressing that Moore did NOT look good earlier.


but it isn't apples to apples. Moore was the offense. It wasn't much of an offense and he made tons of errors....but he made some plays in the mess.


Carolina has found the run game. The pass game is now 100% mess w/ nothing coming from Jimmy.

#88 Cavscout

Cavscout

    HUDDLER

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,498
  • Reputation: 19
HUDDLER

Posted 13 December 2010 - 10:58 PM

Neither Moore nor Clausen are likely to be our starting QB next year

Hopefully next year we will either have Luck or a FA at QB

#89 Carl Spackler

Carl Spackler

    Cinderella story

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,322
  • Reputation: 1,188
HUDDLER

Posted 13 December 2010 - 11:05 PM

We've only found the run game in garbage time for the most part. To say Clausen has a run game when we had 38 yds on 11 carries in the first half is stupid.

Hey, we scored a TD when we were down 17-0! Doesn't mean we've "found" the run game. When we score a TD before we commit a turnover and/or fall behind by more than 14, then we'll see.

#90 MHS831

MHS831

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 08-June 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,399
  • Reputation: 3,077
HUDDLER

Posted 14 December 2010 - 10:00 AM

If I were Arizona I would double Smith, man up on the other WR, and step 8 into the box. I would blitz every play. I would shoot gaps up front. I would play the game in Clausen's face.

#91 Icege

Icege

    (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

  • Joined: 28-December 09
  • posts: 2,112
  • Reputation: 819
SUPPORTER

Posted 14 December 2010 - 10:23 AM

edit: nevermind, tired of arguing over Moore. There are plenty of numbers that show the offense blew just as much under Moore in the early going as it did under Clausen. Yes, Clausen hasn't done anything recently despite a rushing game, which I never disagreed with, just stressing that Moore did NOT look good earlier.


Good luck with that one.

I've been saying that I support drafting Andrew Luck but don't buy into the hype and there are many variables for this season being so terrible, not just Clausen's performance (which hasn't helped at all).

Unfortunately, on message boards, where people take off their mental filters, that translates to, "I APOLOGIZE FOR CLAUSEN N HATE LUCK LOL"

Saying Moore didn't look good earlier, in their eyes, will be, "omg you think Clausen > Moore"

I can't wait until training camp. I'm terrified at the garbage that's going to be plastered all over the place when a coach is signed and the draft is over.

#92 TheRealDeal

TheRealDeal

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 12-January 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,418
  • Reputation: -3
TROLLOLOL

Posted 14 December 2010 - 11:32 AM

We've only found the run game in garbage time for the most part. To say Clausen has a run game when we had 38 yds on 11 carries in the first half is stupid.

Hey, we scored a TD when we were down 17-0! Doesn't mean we've "found" the run game. When we score a TD before we commit a turnover and/or fall behind by more than 14, then we'll see.


How about the week before?

#93 Carl Spackler

Carl Spackler

    Cinderella story

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,322
  • Reputation: 1,188
HUDDLER

Posted 14 December 2010 - 11:34 AM

How about the week before?


How about the one before that? Or the 10 before that? Three good halves of running the ball in 13 games.

#94 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,262
  • Reputation: 5,361
Moderators

Posted 14 December 2010 - 11:56 AM

How about the one before that? Or the 10 before that? Three good halves of running the ball in 13 games.


Not true.

Jez, what are you Clausen's brother? You are taking this Clausen defense too far.

#95 TheRealDeal

TheRealDeal

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 12-January 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,418
  • Reputation: -3
TROLLOLOL

Posted 14 December 2010 - 12:00 PM

How about the one before that? Or the 10 before that? Three good halves of running the ball in 13 games.


This is why you look dumb. You can't see what everyone else sees. Clausen has had a good rushing attack in the NO game and in the last 5-6. Your argument earlier in the year was that when Clausen had a 90 yard rusher he had above a 90 QB rating (NO game). But now all of the sudden that isn't a good rushing game just because he's gotten a lot more good rushing performances and has played worse and worse.

Give it a rest Casey.