A non sugar-coated look at Jimmy's season

[mav1234]

by the way, i have a feeling that blaine gabbert is a dog turd too.

That will depend entirely on where he ends up and just how capable a learner he is. He's going to need a lot of work but he could be great, as most smart, tall, athletic, strong quarterbacks *could* be great but few rarely turn out to be. He certainly has concerns he has to work through but they aren't unusual for rookies at all. We could continue this in one of the other Yo Gabba Gabba threads if you really want.

It didn't take long for the book to get out on Jimmy. He was a rookie that clearly wasn't ready, with an OL that was doing a poor job of protection, with a run game that had not been doing well, and rookie receivers that were still trying to figure things out themselves. Not to mention, teams got the chance to see just how Fox & co. were going to (or not) adjust and use him. But if you watched those games (and I'm sure you did), you had to recognize that Jimmy had absolutely no chemistry with the starting offense whatsoever...and with the way the year went, never developed it.

Now if he would have worked with them, would things have been different, probably to a degree, but not appreciably. He still had so much going against him, and as I have said, was not ready to be on the field. He needed a year on the bench before he should ever have seen the light of day.

But as for the difference between Clausen and Bradford, it is a ridiculous comparison. Other than the fact they were both rookie QB's, there was nothing comparable about there situations. Everything was so different, from expectations, to the performance of the team around them, to the coaching and gamplanning they received, etc. It is an apples to oranges comparison.

You are doing a good job of making my point for me. My entire point was that the time with starters in the offseason, however much it was, was not the primary reason for the difference between Bradford and Clausen. As you've articulated, it was much more than that. That is what I said. Ultimately more time with starters could have helped a slight amount but this just wasn't a good situation for him anyway.

[panthers55]

Situations were not remotely similar. Matt came in after final cuts, and only played in mop up duty (usually when we were out of the game), but he didn't get his first start until the end of the season. So by the time he was expected to lead the team, he had most of a season to sit and learn and develop, while having a vet in VT to help him out. It was also reported that they also shrunk the playbook in order to simplify the game for him and limit his mistakes. That was not the case with Jimmy.

And while reps with starters is not the be all, end all for decent QB play, pretty much every player will tell you that it is important in developing chemistry, recognizing tendencies, and simply understanding how to play as a unit. That doesn't excuse Jimmy's bad play, but it surely didn't help.

The situations were close enough to make the point that not getting first round reps in training camp had liess to do with Clausen's continued woes this year than the fact that he wasn't ready to play and practice didn't seem to help that much. He wasn't mentally ready to play at this speed which didn't slow down for him as the year continued. Every announcer that watched us talked about how scared and unprepared he looked. And the playbook was shrunk to the point where he only was making short throws and and easy to complete passes.

We ran the ball and rarely tried to throw the ball more than 30 times a game. Three times in 10 starts we attempted more than 30 passes and most of those were short passed and behind the line of scrimmage. There were no even 200 yard games. That sound pretty basic and shrunk down to me.

It isn't that practice can't help because it surely can and does. It just isn't an explanation for his poor play. It doesn't explain his struggles and isn't universal for all rookies and it isn't. Some come in and play pretty well and others struggle. Practice also doesn't keep someone from playing poorly as Moore showed particularly early.

Again, Clausen will get his turn again and perhaps sitting for a while will help him next year more than playing right away. Part of what may have helped Moore in 2007-2009 was sitting and watching. If we find a vet who can start, it may help Clausen as well. I really doubt that more practice with the ones would have helped in preseason particularly given that the receivers who played as the 1s in preseason were Jarrett and Moore not Gettis or LaFell. By playing with the 2s, Clausen got plenty of time with Gettis and Lafell for example. And of course Smitty didn't play at all in preseason.

[CRA]

It didn't take long for the book to get out on Jimmy. He was a rookie that clearly wasn't ready, with an OL that was doing a poor job of protection, with a run game that had not been doing well, and rookie receivers that were still trying to figure things out themselves. developed it.

.

but that is my problem w/ defending Clausen. You mentioned the run game.

Clausen started 10 games.

In Clausen's last 7 games as a starter....Carolina averaged 142.8 yards on the ground a game. During that time only one team held Carolina to less than 100 yards and that was the Steelers (and Carolina still rushed for more yards than they allowed on average).

Ground game was basically what it has been the past few seasons. It starts slow. Moore took some of those games.

Clausen had a very good ground attack yet people continuously claim he didn't.

[Cyberjag]

In the last six weeks of the season, Clausen came back as the starter and the games went as follows:

• Cleveland--ground game yielded 151 yards, Clausen brought us into range for a last second field goal, which missed. Peyton Hillis ate our defense's collective lunch.
  
• Seattle--Clausen engineered a 14 point first half, defense let them back in at the end of the first and then special teams basically gave it back. This was also where Clausen threw a pick six. Then the defense gave up another TD. By the time the Panthers got going in the third, they had gone from being up 14 shortly before the half to down 10. Clausen threw that pick, but the defense and special teams really laid down on the job and changed the complexion of the game.
  
• Atlanta--Yeah, we rushed for 212 yards. But only 38 came in the first half, when the Falcon defense clamped down hard. Stewart fumbled on the first drive, the Falcons scored. On the second, it was run, run, pass (Edwards, not Clausen). Then we punt, the Falcons scored. On the third possession, Clausen gets sacked, Stewart loses yardage, then Clausen throws incomplete on third and long. Falcons get the ball, we force a punt, and on the first play of the next drive Schwartz false starts. Stewart drops a short pass, then loses yardage on a run, and on 3rd and 17 Clausen throws to Rosario, who doesn't get it. And on the next drive, Clausen takes a sack again on the first play, then we actually get it going with a run and a pass for a first down. On the next third down Clausen is sacked again. And on and on. This is a game where the Falcons just killed the Panthers early, especially on the lines. It's one thing to blame Clausen, but he didn't cause all those problems in the running game that happened before the game was out of reach.
  
• Arizona--We shouldn't talk about this game because Clausen played well, and finished with a 107 rating, and we won. No good games for Jimmy shall be discussed.
  
• Pittsburgh--Their defense killed us. We got 74 rushing yards on the day, and 45 passing yards.
  
• Atlanta again--Clausen played much, much better in this game, and we rushed for 137 yards. But they were playing for top seed, and put the game away in the first half.
  

Now, in those six games, four of them were against division champs, and three of those were on the road. The other two were against bad teams, and we won the one at home and lost the other.

So yeah, Clausen had a good ground attack. And in a few of those games he played pretty well, particularly for a rookie. But the team also gave up 24, 31, 31, 12, 27, and 31. This is for a offensive coordinator who's best offense ever averaged 24 points, and that was in 2008.

So to sum up, he had good support late in the running game. And he played a brutal schedule with a porous defense. Had Kasay's kick against Cleveland gone through the uprights at the end (or if the defense hadn't given up a late FG to make it necessary), would you admit that he did well for a rookie over that stretch?

[Woodie]

That will depend entirely on where he ends up and just how capable a learner he is. He's going to need a lot of work but he could be great, as most smart, tall, athletic, strong quarterbacks *could* be great but few rarely turn out to be. He certainly has concerns he has to work through but they aren't unusual for rookies at all. We could continue this in one of the other Yo Gabba Gabba threads if you really want.

You are doing a good job of making my point for me. My entire point was that the time with starters in the offseason, however much it was, was not the primary reason for the difference between Bradford and Clausen. As you've articulated, it was much more than that. That is what I said. Ultimately more time with starters could have helped a slight amount but this just wasn't a good situation for him anyway.

The whole point in all of this is that the issue of why Jimmy had such a poor year is much more complex than some think, and while many try to use Bradford as an example of why Jimmy is so bad, it's really not a fair comparison. I think sometimes we fans try to oversimplify things to the point that we miss the actual truth of a situation.

[Woodie]

The situations were close enough to make the point that not getting first round reps in training camp had liess to do with Clausen's continued woes this year than the fact that he wasn't ready to play and practice didn't seem to help that much. He wasn't mentally ready to play at this speed which didn't slow down for him as the year continued. Every announcer that watched us talked about how scared and unprepared he looked. And the playbook was shrunk to the point where he only was making short throws and and easy to complete passes.

We ran the ball and rarely tried to throw the ball more than 30 times a game. Three times in 10 starts we attempted more than 30 passes and most of those were short passed and behind the line of scrimmage. There were no even 200 yard games. That sound pretty basic and shrunk down to me.

It isn't that practice can't help because it surely can and does. It just isn't an explanation for his poor play. It doesn't explain his struggles and isn't universal for all rookies and it isn't. Some come in and play pretty well and others struggle. Practice also doesn't keep someone from playing poorly as Moore showed particularly early.

Again, Clausen will get his turn again and perhaps sitting for a while will help him next year more than playing right away. Part of what may have helped Moore in 2007-2009 was sitting and watching. If we find a vet who can start, it may help Clausen as well. I really doubt that more practice with the ones would have helped in preseason particularly given that the receivers who played as the 1s in preseason were Jarrett and Moore not Gettis or LaFell. By playing with the 2s, Clausen got plenty of time with Gettis and Lafell for example. And of course Smitty didn't play at all in preseason.

I don't think we are disagreeing all that much. By no means do I think Clausen not getting first team reps was the reason for his poor play, but I do think it was a contributing factor. And I complely agree that he was not ready, and the speed of the game was too much for him...as well as the complexities of the defenses he faced. I also believe that by the middle of the season he had lost his confidence and never really trusted the OL and backs to keep him safe.

I do believe, however, that the coaches didn't do him any favors, and had no interest in trying to develop him. While time with the ones would not have made him even decent, it would have at least given him a chance to get some sort of chemistry with the starters. Saying the extent that it would or would not have made a difference is only guessing.

I will disagree on them modifying the gameplans for him at all, though. All through the season they still relied on the same long developing play action pass plays that they always have. In fact, one of the biggest complaints is that he checked down too much...which is where many of those short passes came from. For comparison's sake, if you looked at the Rams and us, it was obvious how much they created a gameplan to take advantage of Bradfords strengths and protect him as he adjusted to the NFL, while we continued to do more of the same and did little to take any weight off his shoulders.

In truth, I think that was also a problem for Moore. Even when it was obvious that our OL was struggling early in the year, they didn't change things up in order to help him out. I truly believe if they would have made the necessary adjustments, Moore would have gotten his feet under him and been fine all year (he may or may not have had the season ending injury with a shortened gameplan, so I'll assume for the sake of arguement that he stayed healthy).

[Woodie]

but that is my problem w/ defending Clausen. You mentioned the run game.

Clausen started 10 games.

In Clausen's last 7 games as a starter....Carolina averaged 142.8 yards on the ground a game. During that time only one team held Carolina to less than 100 yards and that was the Steelers (and Carolina still rushed for more yards than they allowed on average).

Ground game was basically what it has been the past few seasons. It starts slow. Moore took some of those games.

Clausen had a very good ground attack yet people continuously claim he didn't.

Not really, while they may have had a decent average, it wasn't consistent. And we didn't always get it when we needed it. It was also too late, the damage had been done. As the year progressed, it became clear to me that Jimmy was shell shocked and really just needed to get out of there to try and get his head straight. But since we didn't have any real vets on the team to replace him with, he had to tough it out. Unfortunately, I believe that was the worst thing for him. And I don't think he ever truly trusted his OL or backs to protect him, so teams knew that he often bailed out too soon under pressure.

So we definitely need to bring in a vet capable of starting to compete with him. But I'm also curious how he will adjust with an entire offseason to review and work on his problems. Just to make a point, while at ND he didn't have great protection or a very good run game, and he was constantly under pressure, yet he didn't panic or bail like he did here, so I believe we need to give him an opportunity to show that he can overcome those issues at the NFL level...while also hedging our bet a little.

[mav1234]

I don't think we are disagreeing all that much. By no means do I think Clausen not getting first team reps was the reason for his poor play, but I do think it was a contributing factor.

all I was saying is that it was not the main reason for what we saw, that's all.

I think system, coaching, Clausen's own readiness, mechanics, were bigger issues frankly. But everything contributed to him just not having an overall good year.

I saw some bright spots and I am hopeful, just not putting a ton of faith in it.

[Cyberjag]

How about a different spin on this?

Assume that Shula is good for QBs, which would be the diametric opposite of Scherer.

Assume that Chud puts together a good offensive strategy, featuring multiple receiver sets and a tight-end that is supposed to catch passes. Further assume that he prepares like a good OC should, and makes adjustments according to what the defense is doing. You know, pretty much the opposite of what we've had for the past couple years.

Assume that Smitty has a year left, and that LaFell and Gettis both make typical rookie-to-pro improvements.

Assume we draft AJ Green, or get a good WR free agent. Or that we get a good TE free agent who can provide a reliable, effective outlet.

Assume that the line is healthy, and as effective as it was in 2008.

Assume the running game is clicking again.

Assume that the defense is just plain evil in our opponent's eyes, and won't give up points in bunches again.

Now, given all that, how do you think Clausen will perform if he's the starter?

[CRA]

So yeah, Clausen had a good ground attack. And in a few of those games he played pretty well, particularly for a rookie. But the team also gave up 24, 31, 31, 12, 27, and 31. This is for a offensive coordinator who's best offense ever averaged 24 points, and that was in 2008.

So to sum up, he had good support late in the running game. And he played a brutal schedule with a porous defense. Had Kasay's kick against Cleveland gone through the uprights at the end (or if the defense hadn't given up a late FG to make it necessary), would you admit that he did well for a rookie over that stretch?

not just good support late from the ground game.....in the majority of his starts he had that.

Overall? No, I wouldn't say he played well during this last 6 starts. The defense was so bad b/c of what Clausen couldn't do in the 1st through 3rd quarters overall.

I will give an example. Take Seattle for example. Carolina is up 14-0 thanks to the ground attack. At that point, this what he did.

1st down - incomplete

3rd and 4 (manageable) - incomplete

next possession

2nd and 8 - complete

3rd and 1 - INT

next possession

2nd and 8 incomplete

3rd and 8 incomplete

next possession

1st and 10 - incomplete

3rd and 7 - sacked

next possession

2nd and 6 -incomplete

3rd and 6 -sack

next possession

1st and 10 - incomplete

2nd and 20 - finally a completion for 3 yards.

3rd and 17 -completion for 4 yards.

The score is now 31-14 w/ 4 minutes to go. That was 6 straight possessions after getting up 14-0 where Clausen contrubuted 7 yards passing yards and the team punted every time they touched the ball. That ain't good for a rookie. We saw that scenario often w/ Clausen.

[mav1234]

How about a different spin on this?

Assume that Shula is good for QBs, which would be the diametric opposite of Scherer.

Assume that Chud puts together a good offensive strategy, featuring multiple receiver sets and a tight-end that is supposed to catch passes. Further assume that he prepares like a good OC should, and makes adjustments according to what the defense is doing. You know, pretty much the opposite of what we've had for the past couple years.

Assume that Smitty has a year left, and that LaFell and Gettis both make typical rookie-to-pro improvements.

Assume we draft AJ Green, or get a good WR free agent. Or that we get a good TE free agent who can provide a reliable, effective outlet.

Assume that the line is healthy, and as effective as it was in 2008.

Assume the running game is clicking again.

Assume that the defense is just plain evil in our opponent's eyes, and won't give up points in bunches again.

Now, given all that, how do you think Clausen will perform if he's the starter?

He'd be better, but I don't know how much better or if the amount better makes it worth starting him over a FA or somesuch.

I've been watching some old Notre Dame games, the ones that gave me hope for Clausen when we drafted him, and I'm beginning to wonder what happened to his release. It certainly seemed faster in college. His throwing motion was always odd but he can find lanes. Still worry about his mechanics though.

Anyway, I have no doubt this situation was abysmally bad for him and I really hope the next is better, I'm just not sold on him right now.

[CRA]

How about a different spin on this?

Assume that Shula is good for QBs, which would be the diametric opposite of Scherer.

Assume that Chud puts together a good offensive strategy, featuring multiple receiver sets and a tight-end that is supposed to catch passes. Further assume that he prepares like a good OC should, and makes adjustments according to what the defense is doing. You know, pretty much the opposite of what we've had for the past couple years.

Assume that Smitty has a year left, and that LaFell and Gettis both make typical rookie-to-pro improvements.

Assume we draft AJ Green, or get a good WR free agent. Or that we get a good TE free agent who can provide a reliable, effective outlet.

Assume that the line is healthy, and as effective as it was in 2008.

Assume the running game is clicking again.

Assume that the defense is just plain evil in our opponent's eyes, and won't give up points in bunches again.

Now, given all that, how do you think Clausen will perform if he's the starter?

assuming all that.....Clausen will still be short, he will still have a slow and telegraphed delivery, he will still have an awkard throwing motion that makes the ball come out low.....all that means Clausen will face the same issues of completing or attempting throws anywhere put to the sideline and checking down.

assuming all that.....Clausen in college and in the pros has shown a tendency to scramble when not needed (killing the designed play) and panicing.

So assuming everything you said to be true.....I think Clausen needs to sit a year and work w/ Shula on his issues. The issues that have little to nothing to do w/ playcalling or play of his supporting cast.

[Cyberjag]

not just good support late from the ground game.....in the majority of his starts he had that.

Overall? No, I wouldn't say he played well during this last 6 starts. The defense was so bad b/c of what Clausen couldn't do in the 1st through 3rd quarters overall.

I will give an example. Take Seattle for example. Carolina is up 14-0 thanks to the ground attack. At that point, this what he did.

1st down - incomplete

3rd and 4 (manageable) - incomplete

next possession

2nd and 8 - complete

3rd and 1 - INT

next possession

2nd and 8 incomplete

3rd and 8 incomplete

next possession

1st and 10 - incomplete

3rd and 7 - sacked

next possession

2nd and 6 -incomplete

3rd and 6 -sack

next possession

1st and 10 - incomplete

2nd and 20 - finally a completion for 3 yards.

3rd and 17 -completion for 4 yards.

The score is now 31-14 w/ 4 minutes to go. The was 6 straight possessions after getting up 14-0 where Clausen contrubuted 7 yards passing yards and the team punted every time they touched the ball. That ain't good for a rookie. We saw that often w/ Clausen.

Against Seattle he completed over half his passes. I guess those are all the ones you forgot to list, huh?

Let's not cherry-pick things either, that first series was our last possession of the first half, and it was after the drive where he completed a long one to get us in scoring position.

The second one you note was our first in the second half. And in the second half, if you recall, the Seahawks completely changed the complexion of the game with a 96 yard drive to start the half, then they played some inspired defense with unbelievable crowd noise behind them. Now I'm not saying it was smart to throw on third and one, but that's what was called and Jimmy chose the worst possible time to throw an interception. That's the one that was run back for a TD, making the score 17-14.

And yeah, the rest of the game got worse, and louder, and no one stepped up and made a difference for the Panthers on offense. That big running game couldn't even get us into field goal range. Meanwhile, the defense allowed another touchdown after a long punt return, and then another to effectively ice the game.

And in the end a rookie QB couldn't lift the team on his shoulders and beat a division champion on their home field when they were playing for a spot in the postseason.

Shocker.

[Cyberjag]

He'd be better, but I don't know how much better or if the amount better makes it worth starting him over a FA or somesuch.

I've been watching some old Notre Dame games, the ones that gave me hope for Clausen when we drafted him, and I'm beginning to wonder what happened to his release. It certainly seemed faster in college. His throwing motion was always odd but he can find lanes. Still worry about his mechanics though.

Anyway, I have no doubt this situation was abysmally bad for him and I really hope the next is better, I'm just not sold on him right now.

You're describing the Rip Scherer effect on a quarterback's mechanics. Hopefully Shula will get Jimmy to quit thinking and just throw the damn ball again.

assuming all that.....Clausen will still be short, he will still have a slow and telegraphed delivery, he will still have an awkard throwing motion that makes the ball come out low.....all that means Clausen will face the same issues of completing or attempting throws anywhere put to the sideline and checking down.

assuming all that.....Clausen in college and in the pros has shown a tendency to scramble when not needed (killing the designed play) and panicing.

So assuming everything you said to be true.....I think Clausen needs to sit a year and work w/ Shula on his issues. The issues that have little to nothing to do w/ playcalling or play of his supporting cast.

So you think none of that will make a difference, huh? That's a pretty amazing thing to think, IMHO. Under those circumstances, it seems like most NFL quarterbacks would have to TRY to suck.

A ton depends on Shula, maybe the only place we disagree is on how long it will take JC to undo the damage that Scherer and Davidson may have caused.