Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A non sugar-coated look at Jimmy's season


  • Please log in to reply
243 replies to this topic

#16 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,599 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:44 PM

More like a sucky never was QB...

i was being generous, but yes.

#17 MHS831

MHS831

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,977 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:45 PM

If he were a golfer, a boxer, or a tennis player, then throw his stats out without acknowledging anything else. This is a team sport, and he did not call his own plays, block for himself, or run routes for his passes.

Again, not drinking his Kool Aid, but some of you expected him to win a war with inferior equipment. YES-- HIS STATS WERE BAD, YES, HE MAY BE BAD. But if you went to war with a dumbass general calling the shots, surrounded by inferior or untrained soldiers, you are probably getting killed. Attack mode is where we want Clausen, not in Defense mode. There is a big difference.

I guess you can't fix dumb. I am sorry your Panthers lost and you need someone to blame. But unless the road is paved and the tires are good, the trip isn't going to be good no matter who is driving. Take the mature approach and be patient. Cover your bases by bringing in Volek, and spend some time with Clausen. That is the intelligent approach. Screaming "Clausen sucks" shows a lack of football acumen.

#18 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:47 PM

i think you missed my point.

my argument is based on completion percentage and how he can't actually make easy throws.


No I didn't...

Bradford would have made either 3-4 easy throws per game more than Clausen. Which would have amounted to 15-20 yards.

If you knew that those passes were purely down to Clausen, then you would have a point, but you don't. Clausen had a higher percentage of drops per attempt, have you factored that in?

If you knew what the designed plays were for both Clausen and Bradford then you could claim that they ran the same scheme, but you don't. To most Clausen looked like he was checking down a lot, going from his first read if they weren't open. Bradford appeared to have actual play calls for it.

All you are doing is looking at a couple of averages, which are actually very similar (8% is hardly ground breaking.

#19 YoungPanthers89

YoungPanthers89

    Lucy Snorebush

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,903 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:48 PM

Team Young!!!!!


yep

#20 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,599 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:48 PM

If he were a golfer, a boxer, or a tennis player, then throw his stats out without acknowledging anything else. This is a team sport, and he did not call his own plays, block for himself, or run routes for his passes.

Again, not drinking his Kool Aid, but some of you expected him to win a war with inferior equipment. YES-- HIS STATS WERE BAD, YES, HE MAY BE BAD. But if you went to war with a dumbass general calling the shots, surrounded by inferior or untrained soldiers, you are probably getting killed. Attack mode is where we want Clausen, not in Defense mode. There is a big difference.

I guess you can't fix dumb. I am sorry your Panthers lost and you need someone to blame. But unless the road is paved and the tires are good, the trip isn't going to be good no matter who is driving. Take the mature approach and be patient. Cover your bases by bringing in Volek, and spend some time with Clausen. That is the intelligent approach. Screaming "Clausen sucks" shows a lack of football acumen.


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.

Edited by rayzor, 20 January 2011 - 03:52 PM.


#21 The Faceless

The Faceless

    Seeker of Power

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:49 PM

One also has to wonder how much the toe was affecting his play.

#22 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:49 PM

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.


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

#23 Cracka McNasty

Cracka McNasty

    WWNPHD?

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,691 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:54 PM

If he were a golfer, a boxer, or a tennis player, then throw his stats out without acknowledging anything else. This is a team sport, and he did not call his own plays, block for himself, or run routes for his passes.

Again, not drinking his Kool Aid, but some of you expected him to win a war with inferior equipment. YES-- HIS STATS WERE BAD, YES, HE MAY BE BAD. But if you went to war with a dumbass general calling the shots, surrounded by inferior or untrained soldiers, you are probably getting killed. Attack mode is where we want Clausen, not in Defense mode. There is a big difference.

I guess you can't fix dumb. I am sorry your Panthers lost and you need someone to blame. But unless the road is paved and the tires are good, the trip isn't going to be good no matter who is driving. Take the mature approach and be patient. Cover your bases by bringing in Volek, and spend some time with Clausen. That is the intelligent approach. Screaming "Clausen sucks" shows a lack of football acumen.


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.

#24 HSCBandit07

HSCBandit07

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:54 PM

lol at the toe idea

I did notice, however, that Jimmy's long throws were usually way off target and hung in the air. I'm not going to say he sucks or not because he clearly needs a few years to develop. What the travesty is, is the notion that he was an NFL ready QB coming out of college just because he was in a pro-style system. It seems more people looked at that and his "pedigree" than his actual play

#25 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,506 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:55 PM

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.

#26 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,599 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:58 PM

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.

#27 Zcustom

Zcustom

    The Irish Hammer

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,669 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:02 PM

fixed


Damn dude, did Billy Volek rape your sister?

#28 MHS831

MHS831

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,977 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:06 PM

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.

#29 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,599 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:07 PM

Damn dude, did Billy Volek rape your sister?

did he marry yours?

#30 rayzor

rayzor

    shula is who i thought he was.

  • Moderators
  • -29,599 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:10 PM

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?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com