Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A non sugar-coated look at Jimmy's season


  • Please log in to reply
243 replies to this topic

#31 MHS831

MHS831

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,680 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:11 PM

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.

#32 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:12 PM

http://sports.espn.g...?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.g...?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.

#33 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,459 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:13 PM

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.

#34 replive

replive

    It's a process

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 685 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:13 PM

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.

#35 thunderraiden

thunderraiden

    Thunder God Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,668 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:34 PM

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?

#36 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:37 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.


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%)

Edited by Urrymonster, 20 January 2011 - 04:43 PM.


#37 Cyberjag

Cyberjag

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,613 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:42 PM

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


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.

#38 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:44 PM

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 has the bigger learning curve? Qb or Wr?

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

#39 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,891 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:44 PM

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.



Every WR benefited from Moore by a significant margin.

Not sure why you are claiming only Smith should be disapponted.........all 3 were much more productive w/ Moore on the field by a wide margin. Also, 2 of the 3 had yet had time to adjust to the NFL speed and were better late in the year.....and were still much more productive w/ Moore than Clasuen. I mean Moore didn't even get half the passing downs Clausen did.

Clausen stunted the growth of 2 WRs.

Edited by CRA, 20 January 2011 - 04:50 PM.


#40 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:49 PM

Every WR benefited from Moore by a significant margin.

Not sure why you are claiming only Smith should be disapponted. You are too busy looking at the % that Clausen threw to guys.......all 3 were much more productive w/ Moore on the field by a wide margin.


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?

#41 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,891 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:52 PM

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.

Edited by CRA, 20 January 2011 - 04:55 PM.


#42 Cyberjag

Cyberjag

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,613 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:53 PM

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.

#43 Cyberjag

Cyberjag

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,613 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:58 PM

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?

#44 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,944 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:02 PM

http://sports.espn.g...?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.

#45 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 23,891 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:02 PM

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.