A non sugar-coated look at Jimmy's season

[Cyberjag]

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?

[blackcatgrowl]

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, 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.

[CRA]

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.

[Urrymonster]

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.

I appreciate what you are saying, however QB is the hardest position in pro sports.

[Cyberjag]

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.

You and your eyeballs must need glasses, because the professionals don't see things the way you do.

[Urrymonster]

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.

Have you ever looked at when Moore put up yards?

44% of his yards came in the 4th, Clausen had 37% of his yards come in the 4th.

What is it next?

Your eyeball test is what is the issue, you remember the very best and the very worst, not the average play.

[CRA]

Have you ever looked at when Moore put up yards?

44% of his yards came in the 4th, Clausen had 37% of his yards come in the 4th.

What is it next?

Your eyeball test is what is the issue, you remember the very best and the very worst, not the average play.

I looked at what everyone did. The WRs were clearly more productive w/ Moore.

How many of the WRs scores were garbage time production w/ Moore?? There is a difference between 4th q plays and garbage 4th quarter yards.

Matt Moore only completed 2 4th quarters all season so it is really pointless to compare those type numbers w/ Clausen. One of those 2 was anything but garbage time as they won it in the 4th.

[mav1234]

As I said, by the end of the season the OL proved they can be an effective run blocking unit, but we still need depth. Otah may have been the only one injured at the start but by the end he wasn't. They were bad in pass protection all the way through.

I like that you call no touchdowns the "same joy," yet both of our other quarterbacks were able to find our wide receivers for at least one TD in a game. How that makes it the "same joy" is beyond me.

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 does this have to do with what I said? They caught touchdown passes from other quarterbacks, but not Jimmy. How is that the wide receivers fault??

[mav1234]

Have you ever looked at when Moore put up yards?

44% of his yards came in the 4th, Clausen had 37% of his yards come in the 4th.

What is it next?

Your eyeball test is what is the issue, you remember the very best and the very worst, not the average play.

The thing is, more of Moore's fourth quarters "mattered" compared to Clausen's fourth quarters, since we were still in many games.

Moore wasn't very good, but he did get receivers into the endzone at least.

edit: It's not "just" a few passes that ended in touchdowns, either.

It's not that it was 5 of 43 passes that ended in TDs to WRs versus zero in 71; it was that he had 5 TD passes to WRs in 5 games, compared to 0 in 10.

[Urrymonster]

I looked at what everyone did. The WRs were clearly more productive w/ Moore.

How many of the WRs scores were garbage time production w/ Moore?? There is a difference between 4th q plays and garbage 4th quarter yards.

Matt Moore only completed 2 4th quarters all season so it is really pointless to compare those type numbers w/ Clausen. One of those 2 was anything but garbage time as they won it in the 4th.

So Moore racked up 44% of his yards in the 4th AND only completed two of them, which means if he had stayed in, even more of his yards would have come from the 4th. Conversely Clausen subbed in when Moore was pulled, which should mean Clausen should have the higher proportion of yards in the 4th quarter between the two, but he didn't.

Moore won one game, so define what is garbage.

Clausen came oh so close to getting us a win against New Orleans, Cleveland and won against Arizona. The ONLY game Moore wasn't blown out against was against SF. So Clausen was playing competitively in 3 of his 11, Moore in 1 of his 4. Guess what, pretty similar ratios there (here is a hint, Clausen's is actually higher...)

It's funny how garbage time only applies to Clausen in your reasoning

[Urrymonster]

The thing is, more of Moore's fourth quarters "mattered" compared to Clausen's fourth quarters, since we were still in many games.

Moore wasn't very good, but he did get receivers into the endzone at least.

edit: It's not "just" a few passes that ended in touchdowns, either.

It's not that it was 5 of 43 passes that ended in TDs to WRs versus zero in 71; it was that he had 5 TD passes to WRs in 5 games, compared to 0 in 10.

Yup, 5 passes. Say it anyway you want, but that is the single difference (and 20 yards per receiver) between Clausen and Moore.

You could actually flip the argument and say that Moore was too reliant on the WRs, meaning defences could jump routes more effectively hence the extra interceptions. Whereas Clausen involved more people in the passing game and got production out of his H-backs and TEs.

[mav1234]

So Moore racked up 44% of his yards in the 4th AND only completed two of them, which means if he had stayed in, even more of his yards would have come from the 4th.

Moore won one game, so define what is garbage.

Clausen came oh so close to getting us a win against New Orleans, Cleveland and won against Arizona. The ONLY game Moore wasn't blown out against was against SF.

It's funny how garbage time only applies to Clausen in your reasoning

This is NOT true.

The NYG was within one score going into the fourth, we were still in it. TB we were within 9 though he got pulled in that game anyway. Against the Rams, it was 3 to 10 their favor heading into the fourth, no blowout there. Add in the SF game and those are the only 4th quarters he played in, and 4 of his 5 starts. His sixth game played was against Chicago.

Obviously, Clausen would gain another couple close games under these criteria, but I don't think 8 of his 10 starters were games into the fourth quarter. I could be mistaken though and I have to go get dinner, so no time to look

[CRA]

So Moore racked up 44% of his yards in the 4th AND only completed two of them, which means if he had stayed in, even more of his yards would have come from the 4th.

Moore won one game, so define what is garbage.

Clausen came oh so close to getting us a win against New Orleans, Cleveland and won against Arizona. The ONLY game Moore wasn't blown out against was against SF.

It's funny how garbage time only applies to Clausen in your reasoning

4th q production isn't bad thing. Dink and dunking in the 4th q when the game is over is garbage yards.

Clausen didn't come close to getting us a win. We lost b/c when it finally came down to needing just a tiny bit of QB play....he imploded. Watch Clausen after the run.......look at the time on the clock after the run and what occured.

How many Moore blowouts were there then?

[Urrymonster]

4th q production isn't bad thing. Dink and dunking in the 4th q when the game is over is garbage yards.

Clausen didn't come close to getting us a win. We lost b/c when it finally came down to needing just a tiny bit of QB play....he imploded. Watch Clausen after the run.......look at the time on the clock after the run and what occured.

How many Moore blowouts were there then?

Lol. So first you criticise Clausen for getting the lion share of his yards in the 4th quarter. Which he wasn't.

Now you criticise him for dinking and dunking in the 4th. That's a big change. Also really not true.

14-16 against NO

23-24 against CLE

12-19 against ARI

I don't care how he handled it, because that is nothing to do with what you were arguing. You just said 'garbage time, GARBAGE TIME. Clausen ONLY racked up yards when there was nothing to play for.'

See, you wouldn't even credit him for a very good 4th against Cleveland, which just kinda shows how close minded and frankly ignorant you are.

Have you ever watched Brady and Manning operate in the 4th, with time running low? They take what they can, using the sidelines and time outs to get them closer and closer to the red zone, they don't just chuck it up.

As for Moore?

His starts:

31 - 18

20 - 7

20 - 23

20 - 10 (big 4th quarter from STL)

So he won one close one and fell apart in the 4th in another.

Face it, these two performed so scarily similar. The only difference was that Moore chucked it around 10% deeper, forcing it to WRs when he shouldn;t have. Clausen at times needed that gutsy throw, but was more careful with the ball and had more 3rd down failures because of it.