I have seen some compare Clausen to Aikman...

[Cyberjag]

Hey Zod, what do you think about my question regarding how Clausen was instructed regarding taking chances?

[CRA]

Yes, I got that from your first seven or eight posts in this thread. You've made your point, do you have a problem with the people on the other side actually talking about it or do you plan to keep interjecting your "But he sucks!" opinion enough to prevent it?

I have no problem w/ people talking about Clausen. Positive or negative.

I responded to your post simply b/c you said Clausen and Aikman both had up and down play as a rookie. I didn't think that statement was very accurate. Clausen was pretty consistant in the level of production he gave throughout his season.

[Jangler]

I think what is behind the Clausen hate, is wanting Hurney to be wrong.

[Zod]

Hey Zod, what do you think about my question regarding how Clausen was instructed regarding taking chances?

Every player I have ever spoken too said how absolutely cautious Fox was with the ball to a point of being paranoid a mistake would be made, sometimes to a point it hindered the offense greatly.

I can see Clausen, who was really a college senior, fully buy into that and do his best not to disappoint his head coach. Rookies need room to make long throws and make mistakes they can learn from.

Bradford had 8 INT's in his first 5 games. He only had 7 the last 11 games. I think letting a rookie go out there knowing that its ok if he throws a few picks provided he learns from it and improves. I think Fox did not have that attitude with Clausen. Throw some picks and be benched was his attitude.

[Cyberjag]

I have no problem w/ people talking about Clausen. Positive or negative.

Sure you don't, but you act like someone with a compulsion to point out how the people with anything positive to say are wrong.

I responded to your post simply b/c you said Clausen and Aikman both had up and down play as a rookie. I didn't think that statement was very accurate. Clausen was pretty consistant in the level of production he gave throughout his season.

Clausen's ratings, game to game, in games where he started and finished:

53.6, 90.6, 29.7, 75.5, 63.8, 54.7, 51.9, 107.6, 33.2, 70.5

down, up, down, meh, meh, meh/down, down, up, down, up/meh

Aikman's, for comparison. Way more erratic, but more good games.

40.2, 71.1, 4.0, 81.1, 95.6, 2.8, 97.6, 81.5, 40.7, 34.7

down, up/meh, down, up, up, down, up, up, down, down

Apparently we define consistently differently.

I'm just wondering if anyone thinks that Clausen may have had lower production because of specific instructions received from the coaching staff regarding his play style, or if they had no influence at all.

[Cyberjag]

I'm just wondering if anyone thinks that Clausen may have had lower production because of specific instructions received from the coaching staff regarding his play style, or if they had no influence at all.

Every player I have ever spoken too said how absolutely cautious Fox was with the ball to a point of being paranoid a mistake would be made, sometimes to a point it hindered the offense greatly.

I can see Clausen, who was really a college senior, fully buy into that and do his best not to disappoint his head coach. Rookies need room to make long throws and make mistakes they can learn from.

Bradford had 8 INT's in his first 5 games. He only had 7 the last 11 games. I think letting a rookie go out there knowing that its ok if he throws a few picks provided he learns from it and improves. I think Fox did not have that attitude with Clausen. Throw some picks and be benched was his attitude.

Thanks, that gives me even more reason to hope he snaps out of it and develops into something worthwhile under center.

[Punisher]

Everyone should consider the fact that Aikman's numbers which are already better, would be even better under the new passing rules.

[CRA]

Apparently we define consistently differently.

I'm just wondering if anyone thinks that Clausen may have had lower production because of specific instructions received from the coaching staff regarding his play style, or if they had no influence at all.

well, you gotta be careful when chosing only QB rating as the stat you wish to compare......b/c QB rating often tells you very little.

My point was Clausen's production was overall extremely consistant.

Without looking at this stats.....every game he would give you about 160 yards and 0 TDs. Now if he wasn't extremely consistant you could find me one game where he provided signficantly better production than that........

You can take an average of what Aikman did.....and then find days where he was signifantly better than that showing his potential. That was my point, Clausen didn't have that. Clasuen was consistant.

-----

as for your question. We have seen a rookie QB take the field under Fox before and he appeared to take more shots downfield. Now the OC was different then vs. last season. If Jimmy was told to look at option 1 and checkdown every play I don't think it would be a secret to the offense. Therefore, I don't think Smitty would get as heated when Jimmy didn't look his way. B/c under that scenario, Smitty would know not to expect the pass often as plays are one read . Smitty looked to me to be expecting plays and reads from the QB.

[Punisher]

I think what is behind the Clausen hate, is wanting Hurney to be wrong.

Hurney made the right choice. Right/wrong you have to take chances to get elite QB's in. It just turned out that Clausen is not that guy.

Off-tangent question. Does anyone know of a QB who had poor intangibles who made it well in the NFL? I can't think of one.

[Punisher]

Give it a rest, ok? We get it--you think he's a total bust and there's no need to keep repeating yourself in this thread. And if he turns out to be, goody for you for seeing it first.

Anyone who isn't so damned certain that they know more than an NFL coaching staff care to weigh in on my questions?

You ought to try out for a mod position since you want to dictate what we can and can't discuss.

[Cyberjag]

Without looking at this stats.....every game he would give you about 160 yards and 0 TDs. Now

With looking at his stats

188, 146, 61, 191, 195, 169, 107, 141, 72, 182

Makes a pretty jagged line if you graph it.

And if you just go by yards, you're missing the yards per attempt, touchdowns, and interceptions. And Chris Weinke becomes the best QB in Franchise history. I'm using rating because it gives a more complete measure of the individual QB performance, it measures yards, completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns and interceptions.

[Cyberjag]

You ought to try out for a mod position since you want to dictate what we can and can't discuss.

I don't care to dictate it, but come on, he made the same point on just about every single page in this thread already. Is enough ever enough for you?

[CRA]

With looking at his stats

188, 146, 61, 191, 195, 169, 107, 141, 72, 182

Makes a pretty jagged line if you graph it.

And if you just go by yards, you're missing the yards per attempt, touchdowns, and interceptions. And Chris Weinke becomes the best QB in Franchise history. I'm using rating because it gives a more complete measure of the individual QB performance, it measures yards, completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns and interceptions.

by NFL standards it isn't. at best it shows a range from bad to unimpressive. Clausen consistantly didn't provide much production.

Not going by just yards. Also going by TDs. On a rare day Clausen could hit a wideopen player (who wasn't a WR).

On a rare day Aikman threw for almost 400 yards. One a rare day Aikman threw for 4 TDs. That is good play mixed into the bad. Jimmy didn't have one day anyone can point to where he showed off his potential. Jimmy was consistant.

For just about every rookie QB who had gotten legit playing time there is a game you can point to (normally a couple).......you can't point to a single one w/ Clausen. That is what I find scary when people talk about him going forward.

[Punisher]

I don't care to dictate it, but come on, he made the same point on just about every single page in this thread already. Is enough ever enough for you?

It may not seem that way, but I don't think either side is saying 100% fact Clausen is a bust/boom. CRA especially, hasn't said this. As an educated guess, I think Clausen will fail. Not because he had bad stats, but because he didn't have one trait that would be over the NFL average except patience. He played long enough for everyone to see this.

About the NFL coaching staff statement, you mean like everyone saying Fox ruined Clausen? Sure sounds like they put a whole lot of stock in a NFL coaching staff right? Moore looked good as a NFL rookie and last year. And his sample size was too small this year to call him a failure, so I don't put any stock in Fox ruining QB's. If one makes it out, they all can.