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!

     

What would it take?


twylyght

Recommended Posts

Clausen had 7 pass attempts.

He had 3 drives that resulted in a 3 and out (2 clearly aided in that by his poor pocket play)

He had a pick 6 on another.

i realize Clausen was horrific so improvement from horrific to bad should be easy.....but in that TINY window we saw him with so much bad mixed into it.....how are people claiming clearly improvement?!?!?!

If LaFell doesn't step out of bounds with NOBODY around him who knows where one of those three and out drives gets to. Say it went for a FG, that's 10 points in 4 drives which is pretty damn good.

I maintain that he's going to be a solid pro QB, possibly a very good one in the right system.

Sadly that won't be here 'cos everyone and their mother is infatuated with Newton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clausen had 7 pass attempts.

He had 3 drives that resulted in a 3 and out (2 clearly aided in that by his poor pocket play)

He had a pick 6 on another.

i realize Clausen was horrific so improvement from horrific to bad should be easy.....but in that TINY window we saw him with so much bad mixed into it.....how are people claiming clearly improvement?!?!?!

he threw a TD that was longer than 5 yards, that's how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If LaFell doesn't step out of bounds with NOBODY around him who knows where one of those three and out drives gets to. Say it went for a FG, that's 10 points in 4 drives which is pretty damn good.

I maintain that he's going to be a solid pro QB, possibly a very good one in the right system.

Sadly that won't be here 'cos everyone and their mother is infatuated with Newton.

If LaFell hadn't of stepped out of bounds....it still doesn't take away the high number of bad plays from him in that very small window. LaFell catching the ball also doesn't mean Jimmy wouldn't of game in directly after it and continued w/ poor play mixed in.

I don't disagree with your 2nd thought....but this ain't the system.

also if we are playing ifs.....there are way more plays on Cam's side you could say IF this went differently........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main premises of our modified "air coryelle" offense is to stretch the field or so I have read. Jimmy hasn't shown that he the desire or arm strength to do so. If he starts stretching the field and minimizing turnovers I have no problem with him being the QB. I am still jaded from last years performance but if he can turn it around I think it puts us in better shape as a franchise. However I hope everyone here can accept the fact that unless Jimmy plays like Peyton Manning(before injury), then Cam is going to be the starting QB sooner or later. Short of a Jamaracus Russell 3 year stretch or dramatic injury Cam Newton is essentially our franchise QB. Learn to love him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has less than one season, a rookie season, under his belt. The book is far from closed.

outlandish claims about his "limitations" and "inability" to do this or that are a bit premature

I don't think they are premature....

Clausen flat out lacks what NFL teams claim they look for in a starting QB. From a physical tools aspect.

I can't think of any rookie in a good or bad scenario.....that ended up being worth a poot that didnt' show a little something when given the heavy reps Clausen got as a rookie. Even ones not worth a poot showed more glimpses than Clausen.

if it looks like a duck, walks like duck and sounds like duck......it is probably a duck. Not sure why some insist Clausen still has swan potential in Carolina (not w/ the OC they brought in).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the main premises of our modified "air coryelle" offense is to stretch the field or so I have read. Jimmy hasn't shown that he the desire or arm strength to do so. If he starts stretching the field and minimizing turnovers I have no problem with him being the QB. I am still jaded from last years performance but if he can turn it around I think it puts us in better shape as a franchise. However I hope everyone here can accept the fact that unless Jimmy plays like Peyton Manning(before injury), then Cam is going to be the starting QB sooner or later. Short of a Jamaracus Russell 3 year stretch or dramatic injury Cam Newton is essentially our franchise QB. Learn to love him.

Jimmy's throws last week were long enough to stretch the field as much as this offense needs... but you are right about Cam being the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year shouldn't be, and won't be, why Newton starts over Clausen, if he does.

The future will be.

Let's wait until both guys have had a bit more of an equal competition before we really try to compare them much though.

If Clausen is overall near the same QB as last year.....that will be why Newton doesn't get anytime to sit and will start right away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...