Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

A non sugar-coated look at Jimmy's season

245 posts in this topic

Posted

Our O-Line will be bolstered as it returns from injuries. It needs depth, but it proved to still be an effective run blocking unit at the end of the year.

Our WRs were involved in games Jimmy didn't play in, so I think they are fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So do we also just find someone else at WR & OLine?

WR isn't in all that bad shape. gettis and lafell showed a lot of improvement during the season despite poor play from clausen and por coaching. smith is still a great WR. those guys should be enough for any QB to do well with. give them a better QB and you will have them all with better production.

oline was hurt but it will get healthy again. only upgrade we need is RG and that can easily be addressed in FA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

fixed

Damn dude, did Billy Volek rape your sister?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

i expected to see some improvement. some glimpse of being...not even greatness, but just something that could make be believe that he has the potential to be good.

it wasn't his stats that i looked at. i don't even consider those much. what i saw was a guy who looked lost out there. he was a deer caught in headlights and i saw nothing to make me think he could be more than that. he was in over his head from the beginning and showed nothing to make me think he could be better than he was.

he wasn't the only problem by any means, but he was a huge part of the problem and the best solution is to find someone else.

you said "some of you expected him to win a war with inferior equipment", but here's the problem. he was part of the inferior equipment. he was an inferior QB to EVERY STARTING QB in the league and many backups. you could as much blame him for being the reason for the 2 in season as you could the blame the coaching staff for his struggles. it was a monumental screw up by a lot of parties and he was part of the problem that needs to be fixed/replaced.

Very good points, and every word is true or could turn out to be. However, if you want to evaluate a rookie QB, give him a fighting chance-something he never had. There is a difference between running from and chasing, which is my point. If we don't address QB in the offseason, I will be pissed.

I think the QB should be the last piece of the puzzle. Clausen came in with no real WR corps (they are better now), three scrubs offensive linemen that were moved midseason (Bernadeau to LG, Schwartz from RT to RG, and Wiliams to RT from LT/bench), Stewart and Williams were hurt, etc.

I look at the draft this way: Draft a QB in the second round in 2010, do not expect him to be ready until 2012 at the earliest. Nobody got on Hardy and he was once considered a high first rounder. DE takes 2 years or more; WR takes 2 years or more.

Good points/I am just saying that if he is handled correctly, and the team gains experience at WR and heals on the OL and in the backfield, and the offense is made QB friendly, I expect to see a huge improvement in Clausen. Bring in Volek to start, work with Clausen, Pike, and even a late draft pick project. We should always have 4 qbs--one on the PS--after this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Damn dude, did Billy Volek rape your sister?
did he marry yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Good points/I am just saying that if he is handled correctly, and the team gains experience at WR and heals on the OL and in the backfield, and the offense is made QB friendly, I expect to see a huge improvement in Clausen. Bring in Volek to start, work with Clausen, Pike, and even a late draft pick project. We should always have 4 qbs--one on the PS--after this season.
here's the problem with that plan. we use some lame stop gap option like volek for a couple years while we HOPE that clausen (or pike) grow into a franchise QB. what if that doesn't work? what if clausen or pike never grow to that job (again, which i have no confidence in their being able to do)? what do we do then? start all over doing the same futile thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The thing is, a lot of people around here were giving fox and davidson a hell of a lot of flack for the performance of the offense on the field. what surprised me was the fact that their gameplan was not to different than the one the rams drew up for Bradford in St. Louis. when they wanted to throw the ball, they would call a short pass in order for the rookie QB to gain confidence, and at the same time, not give him a whole lot to screw up. just hit your receivers on a short route. well it seems what they didn't account for was Jimmy not being able to throw the simplest of passes to any of his receivers. if your young QB can't make the easiest passes in the NFL, his future in the NFL does not look all that bright.

I was never on the clausen bandwagon so i am not jumping off of it. i did not clausen before the draft, and i was furious that we took him. from what i saw of him in college, I didn't want anything to do with him in the pros. saying he will suck now is no different than me saying he will suck before he was even drafted. I do not like pickles flavored kool-aid, and I probably never will.

You might very well be absolutely right. But the experiment/development is not over, and a new system, experience, better supporting cast may improve him. I am not on his bandwagon either, but I am not ready to throw him under it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=13198

those are all his stats broken down to a t. read them and come to your own conclusions if you'd like,

.........

I know it's one year, his rookie year and all, but I have to say, I am not impressed the more I look into his stats and find out that his own shortcomings were the cause of his poor play on the field.

In conclusion, just say no to pickles.

I'm glad you posted the link. I think a more complete picture would have included something indicative of pressure and how it affected his play.

Not surprisingly, when playing from behind, his passer rating drops precipitously and his sacks taken total skyrockets.

Compare that to Bradford:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=13197

...and you see contrasting stories. While Bradford takes more sacks when playing ahead, his passer rating is more erratic while Clausen's is more consistent. When playing from behind, Bradford's passer rating is markedly less that Clausen's while taking fewer sacks.

Red zone passer ratings tell a radically different story as well.

Bradford peaked at the middle of his season, while Clausen plateaued and then got markedly better by December.

When comparing opponents? Unsurprisingly, Bradford and Clausen fared FAR better against weaker opponents while struggling terribly against more formidable ones. Key difference is the sheer number of differences between who they collectively faced. For the 5 games against eventual playoff teams (including Seattle) that Bradford faced, his passer rating showed 1 decent outing (~85), a pair of mediocre outings (avg ~69) and 2 horrible outings (avg ~47). None of those tougher opponents are still playing.

For Clausen, in his 7 games against eventual playoff teams (including Seattle) he had 4 mediocre outings (avg ~61) and 3 horrible outings (avg ~39). It could be argued that the defenses he faced were superior in Pittsburg and Chicago (both of whome are still in the playoffs).

Going with that logic, when you compare schedules' faces removing their opponents' respective wins-losses for games faced off, Bradford faced a collective 44% win rate opponents vs Clausen's 55% win rate opponents.

So which came first? Did Clausen's poor play cause his own pressures or vice versa? A statistician could argue it either way. Someone watching the games with an intellectually honest eye will say that there were signs of both.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So do we also just find someone else at WR & OLine?

You have to factor in injuries as well. At receiver Wright was put on IR and on the Oline several guys missed a number of games including Otah for the whole season. Plus it is hard to evaluate the receivers without putting in the quarterback's performance as a caveat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The thing I hate about this situation is that it feels like we are wasting the truly talented players on our team. They don't have forever and I would love for Beason, Williams, Stewart, etc. to get a ring with us. I don't think we will ever get a ring with Clausen at QB, so why waste our time even trying? The odds are already against us.

Who knows? Maybe I am completely wrong about Clausen but I don't think he will ever turn into a quarterback that will allow us to win a championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Cracka McNasty, Aren't you the one that said we should give up draft picks to trade for Tyler Thigpen because he had what it took to become a franchise QB?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Our O-Line will be bolstered as it returns from injuries. It needs depth, but it proved to still be an effective run blocking unit at the end of the year.

Our WRs were involved in games Jimmy didn't play in, so I think they are fine.

Only guy missing at the beginning of the season was Otah.

Our receivers as shown below, got the same joy from both QBs, except for Smith.

Moore is often listed as getting more from his wide receivers, where in reality the only guy who should be disappointed is Smith. This isn't a perfect representation, because I would have had to go through each play by play to work it all out. However this is who threw to what and the percentage of catches/yards from the two QBs.

Moore - 164 passing snaps (32%)

Clausen - 360 passing snaps (68%)

Gettis with Moore - 10 catches (29%) for 121 yards (29%), 2 TD

Gettis with Clausen - 24 catches (71%) for 295 yards (71%)

LaFell with Moore - 13 catches (34%) for 157 yards (34%), 1 TD

LaFell with Clausen - 25 catches (66%) for 311 yards (66%)

Smith with Moore - 20 catches (48%) for 268 yards (53%), 2 TDs

Smith with Clausen - 22 catches (52%) for 240 yards (47%)

Gettis had more percentage with Clausen throwing the ball, LaFell slightly Moore. It seems pretty obvious that Clausen struggled (or didn't want to risk) getting the ball to Smith. One thing I noticed whilst looking this up, Moore obviously had more TDs to the WRs, but he also had significantly more INTs when aiming at the WRs.

Overall:

Moore to receivers: 43 catches (38%) for 546 yards (39%)

Clausen to receivers: 71 catches (62%) for 846 yards (61%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites