A non sugar-coated look at Jimmy's season

[CRA]

So here's part two of the question. Did JC shoulder more for the blame for his losses in your mind than Matt Moore and BSP did for theirs?

every game was different.

Moore was imo the biggest reason we lost week 1. I would say the same for the Rams game. He made poor decisions and poor throws. A lot of his poor decisions can't be blamed on the OL despite them playing like crap. There were many people at fault for that loss....but he was the biggest reason. He and the offense were put in good position to win that game. Shoot, great position to win that game. Moore should shoulder most of the blame. Overall, team played well b/c we were put in very good position to win that game.........

just like in others. Chicago. Cincy. etc. I put those losses on Clausen. He deserves the same type blame Moore did for week 1. I understand he was a rookie. I understand he was thrust into the starting job. Put the defense put him in great position to be hero if he even brought your typical inconsistasnt rookie play. In the Chicago game and Cincy game the D set things up and made life VERY easy on the offense and it just imploded mainly b/c of horrific QB play. Being a rookie isn't an excuse for being that bad. imo.

Some games Clausen deserved more blame than others. He was painfully bad throughout the season and imo deserves the overall critcism. He did NOT play like a high draft pick. I didn't expect him to be good. He played like a bad undrafted QB. Undrafted kids have looked better in recent years. We can blame the ground attack early for losses, the OL for some, craptastic play here and there (like Goodson's horrible attempts at pass protection) but ultimately in most games it was just flat out horrible QB play as the main cause that had a trickle down effect on the rest of the team. I honestly can't say Clausen looked better than any rookie this year that saw the field and there were a lot (except for Max Hall). No matter the spin and finger pointing, that is on Clausen.

So, no I am not blaming everyone else in the games Moore lost. I have consitantly said Moore was terrible in games this year. I have consistantly said he deserves the blame for certain games Jimmy gets. Saying Moore is better doesn't also claim Moore wasn't similarly at fault in games. Clausen and Moore were completely different kinds of terrible though. Moore has shown in every season he played, (3) that he can in fact play the NFL QB position and be successful.

Jimmy could of gone 0-16 and received much less criticism than what he is getting. I don't really focus on wins/losses for a rookie QB. IMO, that isn't what starting a rookie is about. Clausen doesn't look to have the basic skills set to hope to compete.....I want him on the bench working on basics. IMO, that is his only shot. With his slow release and odd motion.......what option does he have put to check down and only throw to the sideline? We see what happens when he stay in the pocket....he can't complete passes to the middle of the field. A lot of that is b/c of his poor mechanics making his size even a bigger issue. I just don't see Clausen fixing his game while trying to learn to play in the NFL. He needs to work on his basics first and foremost....then maybe he can find success.

[CRA]

, then he missed the next few games until Moore sucked so bad against New Orleans that he had to go back in. I think that it was the Chicago game that caused a lot of people to start scapegoating him for the season, and allowed the haters to pretend that they'd had enough, when they had made up their minds about him before camp.

.

you are re-writing a little history to make Clausen look better.....or maybe w/ all the crap we watched your memory is just a little fuzzy.

In the Saints game, the score was 7-3 in the 2nd Q when Moore got injured (season ending injury). He didn't get pulled .....it was pretty obvious that Fox was ending the Jimmy experiment after the Chicago game b/c of how clueless he had proven to be.

Once Jimmy went into that game the Saints scored 27 unanswered points.

[mav1234]

Moore wasn't exactly looking spectacular when he got injured, but there is no way Clausen would have gone into that game if Moore hadn't been injured.

Also, should be noted Moore's only score came after an interception... Who knows how the game woulda gone though...

[Cyberjag]

you are re-writing a little history to make Clausen look better.....or maybe w/ all the crap we watched your memory is just a little fuzzy.

In the Saints game, the score was 7-3 in the 2nd Q when Moore got injured (season ending injury). He didn't get pulled .....it was pretty obvious that Fox was ending the Jimmy experiment after the Chicago game b/c of how clueless he had proven to be.

Once Jimmy went into that game the Saints scored 27 unanswered points.

You're right, Moore got injured. A lot like Jake got injured to lose his starting job the year before, right? If you recall through your non-Matt Moore glasses, he hadn't been playing lights-out by any stretch of the imagination in that game. When he went out, he was 3/6 for 13 ineffective yards. Here's the game page if you need to refresh your memory.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010110707/2010/REG9/saints@panthers#tab:analyze

And yeah, I have to give you that whole 27 unanswered points thing. I don't think I've never seen a quarterback play worse defense than Jimmy Clausen.

I'm not sure what you expect out of a rookie QB. I don't think you should ever ask one to put the team on his back and will them to victory. I'm looking for one who can manage the offense and just keep the mistakes to a minimum. If the rest of the offense plays well, then the QB looks great. If it doesn't, the QB doesn't. That's how Matt Ryan's entire rookie year went, Turner carried things and Ryan took the snap and tried not to screw up. And remember how great Moore looked when our running game was clicking in 2007 and 2009?

The 2010 Moore, on the other hand, was a veteran and should have been able to carry the team to victory. That's the difference between experience and a rookie. The fact that they both looked awful says a ton about their supporting cast and how it played, but it also says a lot about why Clausen is the obvious choice going forward, if those two are all you have to choose from.

[Sandy Claws]

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.

Non sugar coated and remarkedly biased. You have an opinion and then sought stats to support it rather than evaluating stats and forming an opinion. Bradford was ordained starter as soon as he was drafted and received reps with the Rams starting offense all through OTAs, training camp and pre-season and through the entire season. The Jimmay did not get the benefit of starter reps until Moore was hurt for week 3, was replaced when Moore was deemed fit following the bye, was put back in the starting lineup following another moore injury week 10, back out of the lineup due to his own injury for week 11, ans started week 12 on.That's hardly consistent quality reps with his offense.

A better comparison might be Colt McCoy. He was in and out of that offense as well. Of course, he did have more experienced folks at the receiver positions and we don't know what restrictions were put on either qb by their respective team's staff. Those could significantly affect their output. In the end, only Clausen dealt with this situation and we can see the result. It was clearly not as good as we would have liked, but it's pure speculation to project results of another QB into this situation. Discussion point? Sure. Valid conclusion? Not so much.

In conclusion, just say maybe or probably not to pickles. To draw the line and say no based on his body of work to date would be foolish.

[GoApps70]

It's kind of like you are all arguing about two bad meals and it is just a matter of which is the worst. If you win, what do you get? The knowledge that you won is about all.

I do not believe the new coaching staff will put up with bad play. They will do whatever they have to to make our team better.

[Cavscout]

I'm certain that they will bring in competition. If Jimmy plays better ...he gets the job...everyone will support whomever plays well. Whether or not any Panther fan thinks he won't play well or will play well is irrelevant.

I am hoping they bring in Gradkowski, Volek, Bulger, or Leftwich personally. I can't see them trading away valuable draft picks for a QB once the CBA is signed.

[YourMomsLover]

Everyone that is still sticking to Clausen is a fuggin retard.

Why do people continue to compare his rookie season with Manning? He will never

pan out to be anything but a 3rd stringer at best. QUIT SUCKING JIMMYS GONADS!!!

If you don't believe me yet....just watch and learn

[CRA]

You're right, Moore got injured. A lot like Jake got injured to lose his starting job the year before, right? If you recall through your non-Matt Moore glasses, he hadn't been playing lights-out by any stretch of the imagination in that game. When he went out, he was 3/6 for 13 ineffective yards. Here's the game page if you need to refresh your memory.

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2010110707/2010/REG9/saints@panthers#tab:analyze

And yeah, I have to give you that whole 27 unanswered points thing. I don't think I've never seen a quarterback play worse defense than Jimmy Clausen.

I'm not sure what you expect out of a rookie QB. I don't think you should ever ask one to put the team on his back and will them to victory. I'm looking for one who can manage the offense and just keep the mistakes to a minimum. If the rest of the offense plays well, then the QB looks great. If it doesn't, the QB doesn't. That's how Matt Ryan's entire rookie year went, Turner carried things and Ryan took the snap and tried not to screw up. And remember how great Moore looked when our running game was clicking in 2007 and 2009?

The 2010 Moore, on the other hand, was a veteran and should have been able to carry the team to victory. That's the difference between experience and a rookie. The fact that they both looked awful says a ton about their supporting cast and how it played, but it also says a lot about why Clausen is the obvious choice going forward, if those two are all you have to choose from.

Never said Moore was playing well. Moore wasn benches and it was clear after Fox benched Jimmy that Moore was the best option to finish the year. Yeah, Jimmy didnt play d against the Saints but it is an example of the trickle down effect Qb play has in games.

I didn't expect Jimmy to carry the team. As I said before, he could have not won a game and been more impressive. I don't judge a rookie on wins and losses.

Th fact is people try to use Moore' poor performance as some ultimate justification that the team around the QB was horrible. I just don't buy into that. Moore just played bad. The fact Moore played bad football in a few quarters doesn't mean the team was garbage and a Rookie couldn't show some basics and talent.

[Darth Bobo]

An interesting thread, with a lot of good comments. Good job guys.

I'll throw my two cents in.

Before the 2009/10 season began, the Rams got rid of their worst offensive lineman and replaced him with a healthy starting veteran. The Panthers lost their best (arguably) offensive lineman, and replaced him with a clearly weaker player.

The Rams division rivals won a combined 18 games, losing 30. Our division rivals won 34 games, losing 14. That means when comparing 2010 Rams to Panthers, that the statistics for 6 of our 16 (38%) games was skewed by differences in the strength of our opponents, which of course is affected by the strength of schedule, blah blah. Forget the stats though, our division had three playoff capable teams in it, while fans around the league were irritated at the idea the NFC West deserved a playoff spot on a technicality.

In some ways, I thought Clausen actually declined as the year progressed, owing to a lack of confidence, which waned with the relative success of our division rivals as it compared not only to the league, but to our chances to complete for a playoff spot. The Panthers didn't improve or appear to play with purpose until we were ridiculed across the league. The last few games were our best games. It wasn't until Beason said we played for the name on our jerseys that Jimmy was playing for an offense that wanted to win for winning's sake.

But in the first few games that Jimmy was in, while we weren't eliminated, and while D.Will was still healthy, Jimmy seemed aimed to impress, to hit the ground running. He didn't seem to be so willing to give up on plays, and he scrambled quite well and completed several shovels that were turned into first downs. I was impressed by that one skill at least. Kinda reminded me of Ben Roethlisberger or Favre, and I said as much at the time too. Unfortunately, those games were plagued by dropped snaps which were eventually coached out, but not until that initial spark was muted. Then, throughout the season we had the second to highest number of sacks, and a few of them were for significant yardage - Jimmy seemed to look for throwing the ball over the sidelines to prevent his sack yardage from going up. Did Fox/Davidson/Scherer telll him to do that? Anyone's guess.

Its probably obvious that no matter who we add to our roster, Clausen will be on the roster in 2010/2011. That means the probability of him getting a shot during the next season is high. I would say that betting on both Otah's and Wharton's reliability for health in 2011 would be a personnel error, we need to bring in more strength on the line. That is going to help any QB.

It is going to be interesting to see how Tony Fiametta fits into an offense that seems like it will rely on pass catching TE's more often. That means we are not going to play a slot receiver, or a choice gets made on each play to field Tony or another TE. We could be looking at a change to the way we've been running the ball soon. In any case, it might help to know whether which adds more to confidence for Jimmy, a pass catching TE or Tony's blocking? The difference in timing can be pretty extreme.

[panthers55]

I'm certain that they will bring in competition. If Jimmy plays better ...he gets the job...everyone will support whomever plays well. Whether or not any Panther fan thinks he won't play well or will play well is irrelevant.

I am hoping they bring in Gradkowski, Volek, Bulger, or Leftwich personally. I can't see them trading away valuable draft picks for a QB once the CBA is signed.

One of the big unknowns is whether there will be any free agency period prior to the draft. I think they definitely want to get a FA Qb for competition but it will be interesting to see what Hurney decides if he has to go into the draft with no one on the roster but Clausen and Pike. Will he take someone in the draft to make sure he has competition for Clausen or take his chances in FA later hoping to get a vet who can start.

Hurney seems pretty high on Clausen but honestly I would hate to put all my eggs in that basket.

[mav1234]

just as a note, Bradford didn't receive all the reps in camp at all and only became the starter for the regular season due to an injury to Feeley (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/08/rams-coach-steve-spagnuolo-says-injured-qb-aj-feeley-is-still-ahead-of-sam-bradford-on-depth-chart/1 )

what Bradford did was quite impressive tbh, and it is also why in his first few games he threw a ton of interceptions. He settled down until he hit a wall though.

[CRA]

just as a note, Bradford didn't receive all the reps in camp at all and only became the starter for the regular season due to an injury to Feeley (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/08/rams-coach-steve-spagnuolo-says-injured-qb-aj-feeley-is-still-ahead-of-sam-bradford-on-depth-chart/1 )

what Bradford did was quite impressive tbh, and it is also why in his first few games he threw a ton of interceptions. He settled down until he hit a wall though.

what isn't impresive is the fact we could have a long list of names of rookie QBs who have started games over the past 5 years......and how many can we honestly say Clausen looked better than??

the excuses people make for him are so absurd. Oh, well he was in a horrible situiation. Yeah, I know player X didn't look as bad but he had better coaching, or he had a better long snapper, or he played games when there was a half moon in the sky.'

Clausen just doesn't have good skills set to play in the NFL and showed....the result was poor play for a rookie.

[Sandy Claws]

just as a note, Bradford didn't receive all the reps in camp at all and only became the starter for the regular season due to an injury to Feeley (.

My mistake. I remember the hype when the Rams played the Pats in the preseason. Apparently that was his first start. That's still a lot more time with the starters than the Jimmay has had.