Archived

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

Cracka McNasty

A non sugar-coated look at Jimmy's season

245 posts in this topic

Oh, for pity's sake! Gettis and LaFell were rookies. Since when you do expect rookie WRs to be worth anything? Especially rookies gotten in the third and sixth? They're both going to be way better next year. And that will make whatever poor slob we line up under center look good too.

I remember how everyone used to argue that Smitty made Jake look good. Now it's Jimmy making the WRs look bad?

It's a team sport. No one is as good as they look when things are going well, and no one is as bad as they look when they aren't.

Smitty did make Jake look good (2008 for example, Jake was already finished but Smitty helped disguise it for year but it was already obvious he was different. Go watch a Jake highlight real prior to blowing out his elbow and watch what Smitty was doing).

Jimmy did make the WRs look bad (again, Moore (who wasn't good) had a fraction of snaps in comparison to Jimmy and got all 3 into the endzone at least once and some multiple times). Smith was a night and day different WR when Jimmy was on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has the bigger learning curve? Qb or Wr?

Which position usually has better results for rookies? Qb or Wr?

Well now, that's a fair question. I guess we should ask Dwayne Jarrett and see what insight he can provide. :)

As far as the second question, I would say neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smitty did make Jake look good (2008 for example, Jake was already finished but Smitty helped disguise it for year but it was already obvious he was different. Go watch a Jake highlight real prior to blowing out his elbow and watch what Smitty was doing).

Jimmy did make the WRs look bad (again, Moore (who wasn't good) had a fraction of snaps in comparison to Jimmy and got all 3 into the endzone at least once and some multiple times). Smith was a night and day different WR when Jimmy was on the field.

You are un-freaking-believable. If I had an imagination like yours, I think I would be a famous author. :)

How is it that Smittt can make Jake so good but not Clausen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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, but here's what I gathered:

jimmy threw 299 passes

of those passes, 69 of those passes were thrown behind the line of scrimmage. that's roughly 23% of his attempts. of those attempts, he completed 71% of them.

of the 299 passes he attempted, 154 of them were from the line of scrimmage to 10 yards. that's roughly 51.5% of all of his pass attempts. of those attempts, he completed only 51.9% of those

in total, jimmy threw the ball either behind the line of scrimmage, or in front of the first down marker, 74.5% of all his passes for a completion percentage of 57.8% for all passes shorter than 10 yards.

It is impossible to win with QB play like that. if your QB is only tossing quick hits for less than 5 yards per attempt, and completing less than 60% of of those easy throws, then something is very very wrong with him.

it's not just the play calling guys, it's the fact that he only attempts short yardage passes, and he's not very good at completing them either. he is too inaccurate, his windup is too slow, and too many of his passes get tipped at the line.

I know you guys are going to argue that he is a rookie and all, but compare his stats with Bradford's:

590 attempts

113 attempts (19.1% of all passes) behind the LOS for completion % of 83.2%

327 attempts (55.4% of all passes) at 1-10 yards for completion % of 59.9%

74.5% of all his passes, too, were from shorter than 10 yards. Here's the interesting thing about that, Bradford managed a completion percentage of 65.9% for all passes shorter than 10 yards with over 5 yards per attempt.

Bitch all you want about the system he was in, that the coaches weren't playing to his strengths and the gameplans sucked, but davidson and fox rolled out a very similar gameplan for clausen that bradford had, in which he would throw quick, easy passes, roughly 75% of the time. The only difference is, Bradford is not inept at throwing the ball accurately.

I don't know about you guys, but I was pretty surprised when I found this out. I thought Fox and Davidson were retarded, but it turns out, they thought that giving jimmy the opportunity to throw quick easy passes 75% of the time was a good idea for a rookie QB, and normally it is, but it doesn't work when your QB sucks like clausen did.

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.

Oh, a sane post... they are gems around here these days. Rep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. No they weren't. The only difference was 3 of their passes ended in the endzone. The catch percentage and yardage percentage was EXACTLY the same. Even factoring in Smith, Clausen was only a relative 83 yards behind Moore, across the 3 receivers, so approximately 20 yards each. Hardly the significant margin you so claim.

So the big difference is 5 TDs versus the extra interceptions Moore had when targeting the WRs. On a ball control offense, which would you prefer?

pretty sure the fact Moore got all of them into the endzone is pretty big difference maker.

plus, there is a difference in the production the WRs did w/ Moore in comparison to Clausen's vintage 4th Q garbage yardage that was given to him.

I'd prefer the QB who throws downfield to WRs given it is a playaction offense. Gives you a punchers chance instead of just being a punching bag w/ Clasuen in.

stats can be twisted. Moore had a lot of bad, but the offense had a chance w/ him. Eyeball test is better than nitpicking stat sheets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now, that's a fair question. I guess we should ask Dwayne Jarrett and see what insight he can provide. :)

As far as the second question, I would say neither.

I appreciate what you are saying, however QB is the hardest position in pro sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty sure the fact Moore got all of them into the endzone is pretty big difference maker.

plus, there is a difference in the production the WRs did w/ Moore in comparison to Clausen's vintage 4th Q garbage yardage that was given to him.

I'd prefer the QB who throws downfield to WRs given it is a playaction offense. Gives you a punchers chance instead of just being a punching bag w/ Clasuen in.

stats can be twisted. Moore had a lot of bad, but the offense had a chance w/ him. Eyeball test is better than nitpicking stat sheets.

You and your eyeballs must need glasses, because the professionals don't see things the way you do. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty sure the fact Moore got all of them into the endzone is pretty big difference maker.

plus, there is a difference in the production the WRs did w/ Moore in comparison to Clausen's vintage 4th Q garbage yardage that was given to him.

I'd prefer the QB who throws downfield to WRs given it is a playaction offense. Gives you a punchers chance instead of just being a punching bag w/ Clasuen in.

stats can be twisted. Moore had a lot of bad, but the offense had a chance w/ him. Eyeball test is better than nitpicking stat sheets.

Have you ever looked at when Moore put up yards?

44% of his yards came in the 4th, Clausen had 37% of his yards come in the 4th.

What is it next?

Your eyeball test is what is the issue, you remember the very best and the very worst, not the average play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever looked at when Moore put up yards?

44% of his yards came in the 4th, Clausen had 37% of his yards come in the 4th.

What is it next?

Your eyeball test is what is the issue, you remember the very best and the very worst, not the average play.

I looked at what everyone did. The WRs were clearly more productive w/ Moore.

How many of the WRs scores were garbage time production w/ Moore?? There is a difference between 4th q plays and garbage 4th quarter yards.

Matt Moore only completed 2 4th quarters all season so it is really pointless to compare those type numbers w/ Clausen. One of those 2 was anything but garbage time as they won it in the 4th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, by the end of the season the OL proved they can be an effective run blocking unit, but we still need depth. Otah may have been the only one injured at the start but by the end he wasn't. They were bad in pass protection all the way through.

I like that you call no touchdowns the "same joy," yet both of our other quarterbacks were able to find our wide receivers for at least one TD in a game. How that makes it the "same joy" is beyond me.

Oh, for pity's sake! Gettis and LaFell were rookies. Since when you do expect rookie WRs to be worth anything? Especially rookies gotten in the third and sixth? They're both going to be way better next year. And that will make whatever poor slob we line up under center look good too.

I remember how everyone used to argue that Smitty made Jake look good. Now it's Jimmy making the WRs look bad?

It's a team sport. No one is as good as they look when things are going well, and no one is as bad as they look when they aren't.

what does this have to do with what I said? They caught touchdown passes from other quarterbacks, but not Jimmy. How is that the wide receivers fault??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites