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!

     

Lombardi: Clausen worse in practice than in games


MattB

Recommended Posts

Michael Lombardi was on Rich Eisen's podcast and he had some interesting things to say about Jimmy. Mainly that as bad as he was in games he was even worse in practice and that was a big reason Fox wouldn't name a starter until late in the week. Charles Davis is on it also and he says when was covering the team for Fox he heard from a lot of people that Jimmy "didn't get it" and that he wasn't a guy that would rally the offensive line.

Link here http://richeisen.nfl.com/2011/03/09/99-9-cba-free-podcast-blaine-gabbert-charles-davis-michael-lombardi-and-nick-bakay/

They talk about the Panthers and the number one pick around 23 minutes in. They also talk about why we need to take a QB. Well worth a listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jives with something Moose said, he said "sources" inside the Panthers (Smitty) told him the playbook was limited by Clausen's inability to grasp it.

Exactly. And Gantt said all though training camp and the preseason that in the competition for starter Moore was by far better and it wasn't even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Matt did have 2 years and a handful of starts with the playbook before he had to compete with Jimmy for the job.

Not saying that Jimmy will be better after this year but I think expecting him to be as comfortable with the playbook as a guy who has had 2 years with it is expecting a bit much.

yeah, but Matt Moore as an undrafted rookie looked signicantly better his rookie year (and he didn't have a stacked team around him in 07). Moore simply while not that good......always could function in the type offense Fox ran.

it all goes back to Clausen having David Carr syndrome.......same reason Moore as a undrafted rookie looked so much better than Carr in 07.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jives with something Moose said, he said "sources" inside the Panthers (Smitty) told him the playbook was limited by Clausen's inability to grasp it.

Or a lame duck coaching staff's inability to teach it.

Read between the lines. Clausen was not scared, because he sucked in practice where they do not hit the QB. He was confused. That is fixable. He was the #3 QB for much of camp and came into the season a 21-year-old kid not knowing if he was prepared or not. He wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, but Matt Moore as an undrafted rookie looked signicantly better his rookie year (and he didn't have a stacked team around him in 07). Moore simply while not that good......always could function in the type offense Fox ran.

Moore also sucked in 2010, worse than Clausen. His QB rating was lower, more ints in fewer games. I am telling you, the coaching staff did not care about 2011. Not one little bit. How much time do you think they dedicated to Jimmy Clausen until Moore was hurt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or a lame duck coaching staff's inability to teach it.

Read between the lines. Clausen was not scared, because he sucked in practice where they do not hit the QB. He was confused. That is fixable. He was the #3 QB for much of camp and came into the season a 21-year-old kid not knowing if he was prepared or not. He wasn't.

I thought he came from a NFL offense with similar verbiage??

And if he was confused but fixable with good coaching why wouldn't a QB we drafted that has better talent not be able to??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yeah, Darnold is basically a really high level game manager. Put him on a good team where he isn't required to provide lift and he can shine. But when you need him to do the franchise QB thing and put the team in his back here comes the INTs. He just doesn't seem to have any positions on his dial between "super conservative take whatever's there and take care of the ball" and "YOLO!!! There's a receiver down there somewhere in that sea of defenders!"
    • See, it's posts like this that show me how many of you are taking my post as an anti Dowdle post and saying he didn't have a good game, but that's the furthest thing from my intention and what I'm trying to say. Because that's the comparison you're making with Bryce, it's adding or removing a small handful of plays from their stats and saying "this is the game they could have had instead" I'm literally only talking about the play calling from the game, it's literally in the title of the thread, that we still have play calling problems. I'm saying that people are going to get stuck on the 200 yard rushing game by a player and extrapolate that to "well Canales must have called a good game" and I'm trying to say not to fall for that mirage. Because 6 big runs do not make for a well called game when we had over 60 snaps. Even beyond that, if you add in the two 20+ yard catches from T-Mac and the one XL had, and you're looking at 9 of over 60 snaps that accounted for close to 60% of our yards in the game. That's a few big plays covering up for coaching deficiencies, that's NOT a well called 60 minutes of football. Had he had the 200 yards because Canales' play calling was keeping the defense on their heels, not knowing what we were doing next, and Dowdle was ripping of 8-12 yard runs on a consistent basis, then yea, that would be something to be excited about with Canales finally calling a good game for a change. Our offense is predictable and the play design is basic, there is nothing I've seen out of Canales' offense that says he's able to scheme and call plays to outsmart the defense, which is something all the elite offensive coaches are able to do in this day and age.
    • Dante Moore is the top pick in a couple of mock drafts now. 
×
×
  • Create New...