A non sugar-coated look at Jimmy's season

[rayzor]

Damn dude, did Billy Volek rape your sister?

did he marry yours?

[rayzor]

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?

[MHS831]

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.

[twylyght]

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,

.........

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.go.com/nfl/players/splits?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.

[panthers55]

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.

[replive]

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.

[thunderraiden]

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?

[Urrymonster]

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%)

[Cyberjag]

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.

[Urrymonster]

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?

[CRA]

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.

[Urrymonster]

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?

[CRA]

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.

[Cyberjag]

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.