Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Preliminary Ratings for Madden Rookies: Clausen


Varking

Recommended Posts

Jimmy Clausen - Quarter Back

Agility: 65

Awareness: 62

Deep Throw Accuracy: 79

Medium Throw Accuracy: 78

Play Action: 69

Throw On The Run Accuracy: 79

Short Throw Accuracy: 91

Speed: 57

Throw Power: 90

Overall: 76

Comparable To:

Sam Bradford Overall: 80

Comparing the two, Madden thinks that Bradford is far superior on medium route accuracy, but Clausen is better on deep balls and has more throw power.

The Golden Calf of Bristol Overall: 70

Madden thinks that The Golden Calf of Bristol is not as good as Clausen. Clausen has higher throw power, and better accuracy on all throws. What keeps The Golden Calf of Bristol's rating high though is his speed rating.

Colt McCoy Overall: 72

McCoy has superior speed, agility, short route accuracy and accuracy on the run. Clausen is better in all the rest of the throwing categories. Something sort of funny is that McCoy has a 79 for throw power, which I imagine is the lowest among quarterbacks.

Matt Moore Overall From Madden '10: 76

Fans are allowed to vote and give input on rookie ratings and judging by the community, the average community rating for Clausen is a 79. According to their preliminary rankings, along with Matt Moore's from last year, Madden has Clausen and Moore tied overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • He’s kind of overrated to be honest. Never really felt like a true #1 or elevated his play to become a guy the defense really has to worry about. 
    • I'm going to be real, the reason that vote ended up so lop-sided by the end was directly due to my programming. So there's nothing tongue in cheek about it. Also I left PFF after the Collinsworth acquisition (didn't want to move to Cincy) but have stayed involved in analytics via backdoor channels, but I can absolutely say that the experience was eye-opening, not because those guys are unquestionable football savants and that I became one by proxy, but because the amount of information that becomes available outside of what the typical fan has access to is revelatory and also really drives home how much context is still being missed even with all of that information. You don't discover that you know everything, you discover how much you still can't know no matter how hard you try, hence my point about the NFL not being able to figure out what makes a QB good. There's a lot of AI work going into that now and even that only seems to further confuse things vs. actually enlighten the problem. In the professional realm teams don't really talk about quarterbacks as A strictly being better than B, but how A can potentially perform better than B given a specific context of C. Of course those contexts may be wider for A than B, but there's also contexts where B can outshine A, even with lesser talent surrounding them. So what good teams strive to do is ultimately define a process of how they want their entire team to operate under schematically, find players that fit that scheme, and hopefully find a guy whose skillset will be maximized running that scheme with those players. Where bad teams fall of the wagon is constantly shifting those schemes and chasing bad fits or fads vs. sticking with a core identity and developing it.
    • there is a 100 mile long list of NFL players and coaches going to bat and defending horrible play from teammates.   
×
×
  • Create New...