There were more to our problems than Clausen last year

[panthers55]

Starting as a rookie usual is a factor of 3 things. You are usually playing for a poor team, there were big time injuries at the QB spot or you are playing because they spend a ton of money on you and have to play you.

You also can't compare guys from 20 years agoo because rookies didn't start as often unless you were very bad.

So if we go back and look at quarterbacks from 2000 to 2005 and see where they are so far.

Denotes they started at least 5 games thier rookie season @@

2000-Qbs in the draft.

Chad Pennington- 18th pick

Giovannni Carmazzi- 65th pick

Chris Redmon- 75th pick

Tee Martin- 163 pick

Marc Bulger- 168 pick

Spergon Wynn- 183 pick

Tom Brady- 199 pick

Tom Husak- 202 pick

Jajuan Seider- 205 pick

Tim Rattay- 212 pick

Jarious Jackson-214 pick

Joe Hamilton- 234 pick

2001

Mick Vick- pick 1 @@

Drew Brees- pick 32

Quincy Carter -53 @@

Marques Tiuiasosopo- 59th pick

Chris Weinke- 106 pick @@

Jesse Palmer- 125 Pick

Mike McMahon- 149 pick

A J Feeley- pick 155

Josh Heupel- pick 177

2002

David Carr-pick 1 @@

Patrick Ramsey- pick 32 @@

Josh McCown- pick 81

David Garrard- pick 108

Rohan Davey- pick 117

Randy Fasani- pick 137

Kurt Kittner- pick 155

Brandon Doman- pick 163

Craig Nail- pick 164

JT Sullivan- pick 186

Steve bellasari- pick 205

Seth Burford-pick 216

Jeff Kelly- 232

Wes Pate- 236

2003

Carson Palmer - pick 1

Byron Leftwich-pick 7 @@

Kyle Boller- 19 @@

Rex Grossman- 22

Daivd Ragone- 88

Chris Simm 97

Seneca Wallace- 110

Brian St Pierre- 163

Drew Henson- 192

Brooks Bollinger- 200

Kliff Kingsbury- 201

Gilbran Hamdan- 232

Ken Dorsey- 241

2004

Eli Manning- pick 1 @@

Phillip Rivers-pick 4

Roethlisberger- pick 11 @@

JP Losman- Pick 22

Luke McCown- 106

Craig Krenzel- 148

Andy Hall- 185

Josh Harris- 187

Jim Sorgi -193

Jeff Smoker - 201

Jim Navarre- 202

Cody Pickett- 217

Casey Bramlett- 218

Matt Mauck- 225

2005

Alex Smith- Pick 1 @@

Aaron Rodgers- Pick 24

Jason Campbell- pick 25

Charlie Frye- 67 @@

Andrew Walter-69

David Green - 85

Kyle Orton- 106 @@

Stefan LeFors- pick 121

Dan Orlovsky- pick 145

Adrain McPherson- 152

Derek Anderson- 213

James Killian- 229

Matt Cassel- 230

Ryaan Fitzpatrick- 250

I used this time period because it allows us to look at how they have done in the league and some idea of whether they could at least be in the hall of fame discussion.

What it shows is that 12 quartersback started at least 5 games during their rookie year. Of those guys Roethliberger and Eli Manning could possibly be in the hall of fame. Only 3 of the 12 at this point would be considered franchise guys. So Clausen starting in his rookie year and this year does not indicate he will be good or a halll of famer. if you look at the whole list you would conclude you have a better chance of being great and making it in the hall of fame is you don't start your rookie year rather than if we do.

So lets stop comparing him to a Hall of famer or saying because he started, it is a good sign.

Like usual you are taking selective facts and distorting them to your purposes. Do what I did for this five year period and extrapolate for the time you listed those quarterbacks and you will find out what I did. For every guy who put on your list who started, I can show you 5 time that many that started their rookie year and sucked.

You can disagree if you want but you are wrong on tthis one.

[Nicbsbll2]

Starting as a rookie usual is a factor of 3 things. You are usually playing for a poor team, there were big time injuries at the QB spot or you are playing because they spend a ton of money on you and have to play you.

You also can't compare guys from 20 years agoo because rookies didn't start as often unless you were very bad.

So if we go back and look at quarterbacks from 2000 to 2005 and see where they are so far.

Denotes they started at least 5 games thier rookie season @@

2000-Qbs in the draft.

Chad Pennington- 18th pick

Giovannni Carmazzi- 65th pick

Chris Redmon- 75th pick

Tee Martin- 163 pick

Marc Bulger- 168 pick

Spergon Wynn- 183 pick

Tom Brady- 199 pick

Tom Husak- 202 pick

Jajuan Seider- 205 pick

Tim Rattay- 212 pick

Jarious Jackson-214 pick

Joe Hamilton- 234 pick

2001

Mick Vick- pick 1 @@

Drew Brees- pick 32

Quincy Carter -53 @@

Marques Tiuiasosopo- 59th pick

Chris Weinke- 106 pick @@

Jesse Palmer- 125 Pick

Mike McMahon- 149 pick

A J Feeley- pick 155

Josh Heupel- pick 177

2002

David Carr-pick 1 @@

Patrick Ramsey- pick 32 @@

Josh McCown- pick 81

David Garrard- pick 108

Rohan Davey- pick 117

Randy Fasani- pick 137

Kurt Kittner- pick 155

Brandon Doman- pick 163

Craig Nail- pick 164

JT Sullivan- pick 186

Steve bellasari- pick 205

Seth Burford-pick 216

Jeff Kelly- 232

Wes Pate- 236

2003

Carson Palmer - pick 1

Byron Leftwich-pick 7 @@

Kyle Boller- 19 @@

Rex Grossman- 22

Daivd Ragone- 88

Chris Simm 97

Seneca Wallace- 110

Brian St Pierre- 163

Drew Henson- 192

Brooks Bollinger- 200

Kliff Kingsbury- 201

Gilbran Hamdan- 232

Ken Dorsey- 241

2004

Eli Manning- pick 1 @@

Phillip Rivers-pick 4

Roethlisberger- pick 11 @@

JP Losman- Pick 22

Luke McCown- 106

Craig Krenzel- 148

Andy Hall- 185

Josh Harris- 187

Jim Sorgi -193

Jeff Smoker - 201

Jim Navarre- 202

Cody Pickett- 217

Casey Bramlett- 218

Matt Mauck- 225

2005

Alex Smith- Pick 1 @@

Aaron Rodgers- Pick 24

Jason Campbell- pick 25

Charlie Frye- 67 @@

Andrew Walter-69

David Green - 85

Kyle Orton- 106 @@

Stefan LeFors- pick 121

Dan Orlovsky- pick 145

Adrain McPherson- 152

Derek Anderson- 213

James Killian- 229

Matt Cassel- 230

Ryaan Fitzpatrick- 250

I used this time period because it allows us to look at how they have done in the league and some idea of whether they could at least be in the hall of fame discussion.

What it shows is that 12 quartersback started at least 5 games during their rookie year. Of those guys Roethliberger and Eli Manning could possibly be in the hall of fame. Only 3 of the 12 at this point would be considered franchise guys. So Clausen starting in his rookie year and this year does not indicate he will be good or a halll of famer. if you look at the whole list you would conclude you have a better chance of being great and making it in the hall of fame is you don't start your rookie year rather than if we do.

So lets stop comparing him to a Hall of famer or saying because he started, it is a good sign.

Like usual you are taking selective facts and distorting them to your purposes. Do what I did for this five year period and extrapolate for the time you listed those quarterbacks and you will find out what I did. For every guy who put on your list who started, I can show you 5 time that many that started their rookie year and sucked.

You can disagree if you want but you are wrong on tthis one.

Didn't read the whole post, but Carson Palmer didn't play at all as a rookie. For a while he was considered to be the "standard" as to why you should sit rookie QBs.

[panthers55]

We're going to continue to disagree then. I still believe that NFL scouts and coaches know more than all of us. They spend more time studying film, they have more film, they have practice sessions, they have inside knowledge of what was actually supposed to happen, they're more experienced, etc... A big difference from our perspective is the short memory for who's posted what versus the long memory for what coaches have thought. How many "Davis is a bust" threads where there in Thomas Davis' first two years? No one is willing to claim one now, but there were plenty of them.

That's why I'll care more about the criticism of Clausen only after the current staff gives up on him. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying it isn't definitive.

On the other point, rookie QBs who start, I wrote what I did based on two things. First, I went to ProFootballReference.com and looked at all the modern era QBs I could think of to compare their second year to their rookie one (yes, I'm an obsessive researcher). What I found was pretty interesting.

First, starting as a rookie isn't that common, but it's not really as rare as I thought. Second, when you do start as a rookie and struggle, you better be a really high draft pick or you're not starting again in your second year (think Weinke vs. Alex Smith). Both of those are not just backed up by the stats, they're grounded in common sense.

Among QBs who struggle as rookies but continue to start, MOST make dramatic improvements. A few do not, and among those the ones that continue to start almost always end up as big stars (think Aikman as a perfect example here). Again, common sense. If you suck, you don't get another chance. If you do get another chance, and you continue to play poorly, there has to be something compelling that gives the coaches a reason to start you again, and eventually that comes through. Yes, there are some David Carrs out there. But most players who get that second chance end up playing out nice careers, many of them very good.

Here's your list of players who either started at least 8 games or attempted 200 passe in both of their first two years, along with their ratings for first and second years. Average improvement in year two was 15%. Most of the ones who really stunk it up got a lot better. But of course, we could have another Craig Welihan on our hands.

1980 - Steve Fuller, 55.85 to 76.43

1980 - Phil Simms, 65.97 to 58.89

1981 - David Woodley, 63.12 to 69.82

1982 - Neil Lomax, 59.9 to 70.11

1983 - Dave Wilson, 46.06 to 68.68

1983 - Jim McMahon, 79.88 to 77.56

1983 - Mike Pagel, 62.43 to 63.99

1984 - Tony Eason, 48.44 to 93.42

1984 - John Elway, 54.9 to 76.84

1984 - Dan Marino, 95.97 to 108.94

1985 - Boomer Esiason, 62.95 to 93.18

1985 - Warren Moon, 76.88 to 68.5

1985 - Ken O'Brien, 73.96 to 96.24

1986 - Bernie Kosar, 69.25 to 83.8

1986 - Jay Schroeder, 73.81 to 72.86

1987 - Jim Kelly, 83.27 to 83.81

1987 - Jack Trudeau, 53.49 to 75.35

1989 - Steve Beuerlein, 66.56 to 78.45

1989 - Mark Rypien, 85.22 to 88.11

1990 - Troy Aikman, 55.68 to 66.61

1990 - Rodney Peete, 67.02 to 79.79

1991 - Jeff George, 73.84 to 73.82

1992 - Neil O'Donnell, 78.76 to 83.59

1994 - Drew Bledsoe, 64.96 to 73.57

1994 - Rick Mirer, 67.01 to 70.23

1996 - Kerry Collins, 62.05 to 79.4

1997 - Tony Banks, 70.97 to 71.5

1998 - Jake Plummer, 73.07 to 75.03

1998 - Craig Whelihan, 58.29 to 47.96

1999 - Charlie Batch, 83.46 to 84.14

1999 - Peyton Manning, 71.21 to 90.69

2000 - Ryan Leaf, 38.97 to 56.21

2000 - Tim Couch, 73.17 to 77.34

2000 - Jeff Garcia, 77.91 to 97.58

2000 - Donovan McNabb, 60.11 to 77.84

2000 - Cade McNown, 66.71 to 68.54

2001 - Aaron Brooks, 85.72 to 76.4

2002 - Quincy Carter, 62.97 to 72.31

2002 - Mike McMahon, 69.87 to 52.37

2002 - Michael Vick, 62.74 to 81.62

2003 - David Carr, 62.82 to 69.5

2003 - Joey Harrington, 59.91 to 63.91

2003 - Patrick Ramsey, 71.82 to 75.85

2003 - Marc Bulger, 101.5 to 81.38

2004 - Kyle Boller, 62.35 to 70.86

2004 - Byron Leftwich, 73.05 to 82.21

2005 - Carson Palmer, 77.29 to 101.1

2005 - Ben Roethlisberger, 98.14 to 98.55

2005 - Eli Manning, 55.45 to 75.86

2006 - Alex Smith, 40.85 to 74.76

2007 - Matt Leinart, 74 to 61.87

2007 - Vince Young, 66.73 to 71.08

2007 - Jason Campbell, 76.5 to 77.62

2008 - Trent Edwards, 70.39 to 85.41

2 out of 3 in that list went on to play and start for years. I just went back to 1980, although I have data going back to the 30s. And obviously, I don't have numbers for 2009 or 2010 yet, but I'm sure Ryan and Flacco would be enough to offset Russell. :)

Basically, my point is simple. We're in a rookie starter situation that a lot of teams have seen, including this one. And in a way, the deck is stacked against Clausen. We have a coaching staff with nothing invested in him. He's not a high pick. If he busts, the repercussions will be few. So, if he does land the starting job, it will probably be even more about talent than with your average poor rookie given a second chance.

History is pretty clear on this, and I like history more than the emotion of the moment. QBs who struggle as rookies, but continue to get starts, are twice as likely to go on to successful careers than they are to bust. And in this group (probably because the rarity of that second chance), there's a better chance to be a very good player than just a decent one--what coach wants to take a risk for mediocrity?

So in that light, if Clausen does win the job there's a lot of reason for optimism. You may disagree with me on the chance he actually does win it, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from regarding the rest of it. :)

First of all you have proven very liitle.

What I got out of it is that quarterbacks who start their rookie year and start again the next year do better than guys who start their rookie year and don't start the next year. Wow what a revelation. Obviously if they start 2 years in a row they are typically not totally sucky or they would have been replaced. But it happens also so it doesn't mean Clausen is going to be good.

Most rookie quarterbacks who start in year 2 play better than their rookie year. Wow another great insight. If they don't or the team decides to upgrade like we are, the rookie doesn't start year 2.

Guys who start their first 2 years are less likely to bust than guys who start their rookie year and are replaced. Another stunner.

FWIW , I doubt Clausen starts this year unless we fail to get a free agent QB or injuries hurt us again. If he does he will be a placeholder unless he plays much better than he did last year. I am not very confident.

Try this one on for size. Quarterbacks who start their rookie year are less likely to be franchise quarterbacks than guys who don't start theiir first year, so obviously Clausen is screwed.

Since free agency has been in effect, as many quarterbacks who start their rookie year do their best work for another team than the one they were drafted by. So if Clausen does well it wiill be for someone else.

Do some research on those and tell me whether they are correct or full of crap.

[panthers55]

Didn't read the whole post, but Carson Palmer didn't play at all as a rookie. For a while he was considered to be the "standard" as to why you should sit rookie QBs.

Next time read the whole post. I used the @@ sign to show those who started their rookie year. Carson Palmer isn't one of them.

[panthers55]

Why would comparisons to greats have to stop? Are you such an expert on rookie QBs that you should proclaim to end all discussion on the matter because you have deemed-in your expert opinion-Clausen to be not worthy? Isn't that a rather arrogant and uninformed approach?

If Elway had at least one great game his rookie year, then he must have MISERABLY SUCKED WORSE THAN CLAUSEN the rest of the season. Frankly, all I am saying is, "Its too early to tell." Clausen is not the starter right now, so why not wait and see? Your negativity is for losers.

I know you will call it reality--I saw inferior play too. But I have watched enough football to tell you that the conditions in which he was asked to perform could not have been worse. Say it with me: "I don't know how he will be with coaching, support, protection, and a better supporting cast."

Maybe a second round rookie QB did not live up to your definition of leadership. There are many kinds of leadership. His may develop. Jeez.

Clausen does not fit the description of the QB for this offense, so he might not work out here. But to condemn a second round rookie with 10 starts who had to play here shows either a lack of football acumen or an attitude of negativity that I hope is not shared by our new coaches.

Did you say the same things about James Anderson? He struggled as a rookie. Jake Delhomme was on the bench in NFL Europe before he got his big break and got to play behind Aaron Brooks on a bad New Orleans team. Was he a scrub 2 years later in the Super Bowl?

My Elway point was this: The fans wanted him gone. He was a first overall pick, and they begged for him to be cut after 10 games in his rookie season. His stats were WORSE than Clausen's and his situation BETTER. I bet they felt foolish later, don't you?

WHat more reason do you need to give him another look in a better situation? Do you want him to be cut right now?

You can do what you want but for every great hall of famer who stank his rookie year, I can give you 5 times that many who just stank. Elway isn't even a great comparison because he was actually mediocre for his first 8 year based on stats. He was a hall of famer because he lasted in the league for 14 years, won 2 Superbowls and did very well his last five or 6 years.

In Elways rookie year there team went 9-7 and as a starter he went 6-4 not like Clausen's 1-10. And Elway played light years better than Clausen that year.

No one is saying cut Clausen now simply that saying he could be the next Elway becauuse they had sucky rookie years is a stupid comparison.

Since Chris Weinke had a better rookie year, than Clausen will be replaced this year and out of the league in 5 or 6 years just like Weinke. Interestingly mine is much more likely to be true versus yours.

If you argue with that statement then you know why everyone argues with your statement that he could be the next Elway.

[Lumps]

Last year has little significance when trying to predict whether Clausen will be worth starting. There are plenty of examples that prove it. What matter now is how he approaches his mistakes and if the methods he chooses to do that with are successful. Clausen will only be as good his ability to come back from his mistakes, all great, elite Qbs come back from starting off like crap, there are too many examples to name, and those were under much better circumstances than Clausen got. The difference in elite QBs is how the approach the game, game planning, time studying etc. If that is the difference than clearly we should be able to evaluate Clausen more accurately when he has a chance to prove those abilities in correcting his mistakes.

I am not against a different QB, just talking in perspective, hoping we didn't lose a second round pick. Too early to tell.

[panthers55]

Last year has little significance when trying to predict whether Clausen will be worth starting. There are plenty of examples that prove it. What matter now is how he approaches his mistakes and if the methods he chooses to do that with are successful. Clausen will only be as good his ability to come back from his mistakes, all great, elite Qbs come back from starting off like crap, there are too many examples to name, and those were under much better circumstances than Clausen got. The difference in elite QBs is how the approach the game, game planning, time studying etc. If that is the difference than clearly we should be able to evaluate Clausen more accurately when he has a chance to prove those abilities in correcting his mistakes.

I am not against a different QB, just talking in perspective, hoping we didn't lose a second round pick. Too early to tell.

If effort could make you a starter as a quarterback for the Panthers than Brett Basanez would be our franchise guy. Sure effort and his approach to work and film will make a big difference in his development. But you have to have the physical ability, the leadership and personality skills and thhe intangibles to go out and play your very best when the pressure is the highest.

Some guys can do that and others can't. Some aspects are learned but in the end you either have it or you don't. Guys who win come in all shaapes and ssizes with different skills sets but whether it is Drew Brees, or Ben Roethlisberger or Tom Brady, they all have it. It will be interresting to see if he develops it or not. So far I have see very few flashes. But who knows the flame could be buried deep.

[Cyberjag]

Starting as a rookie usual is a factor of 3 things. You are usually playing for a poor team, there were big time injuries at the QB spot or you are playing because they spend a ton of money on you and have to play you.

You also can't compare guys from 20 years agoo because rookies didn't start as often unless you were very bad.

So if we go back and look at quarterbacks from 2000 to 2005 and see where they are so far.

Denotes they started at least 5 games thier rookie season @@

2000-Qbs in the draft.

Chad Pennington- 18th pick

Giovannni Carmazzi- 65th pick

Chris Redmon- 75th pick

Tee Martin- 163 pick

Marc Bulger- 168 pick

Spergon Wynn- 183 pick

Tom Brady- 199 pick

Tom Husak- 202 pick

Jajuan Seider- 205 pick

Tim Rattay- 212 pick

Jarious Jackson-214 pick

Joe Hamilton- 234 pick

2001

Mick Vick- pick 1 @@

Drew Brees- pick 32

Quincy Carter -53 @@

Marques Tiuiasosopo- 59th pick

Chris Weinke- 106 pick @@

Jesse Palmer- 125 Pick

Mike McMahon- 149 pick

A J Feeley- pick 155

Josh Heupel- pick 177

2002

David Carr-pick 1 @@

Patrick Ramsey- pick 32 @@

Josh McCown- pick 81

David Garrard- pick 108

Rohan Davey- pick 117

Randy Fasani- pick 137

Kurt Kittner- pick 155

Brandon Doman- pick 163

Craig Nail- pick 164

JT Sullivan- pick 186

Steve bellasari- pick 205

Seth Burford-pick 216

Jeff Kelly- 232

Wes Pate- 236

2003

Carson Palmer - pick 1

Byron Leftwich-pick 7 @@

Kyle Boller- 19 @@

Rex Grossman- 22

Daivd Ragone- 88

Chris Simm 97

Seneca Wallace- 110

Brian St Pierre- 163

Drew Henson- 192

Brooks Bollinger- 200

Kliff Kingsbury- 201

Gilbran Hamdan- 232

Ken Dorsey- 241

2004

Eli Manning- pick 1 @@

Phillip Rivers-pick 4

Roethlisberger- pick 11 @@

JP Losman- Pick 22

Luke McCown- 106

Craig Krenzel- 148

Andy Hall- 185

Josh Harris- 187

Jim Sorgi -193

Jeff Smoker - 201

Jim Navarre- 202

Cody Pickett- 217

Casey Bramlett- 218

Matt Mauck- 225

2005

Alex Smith- Pick 1 @@

Aaron Rodgers- Pick 24

Jason Campbell- pick 25

Charlie Frye- 67 @@

Andrew Walter-69

David Green - 85

Kyle Orton- 106 @@

Stefan LeFors- pick 121

Dan Orlovsky- pick 145

Adrain McPherson- 152

Derek Anderson- 213

James Killian- 229

Matt Cassel- 230

Ryaan Fitzpatrick- 250

I used this time period because it allows us to look at how they have done in the league and some idea of whether they could at least be in the hall of fame discussion.

What it shows is that 12 quartersback started at least 5 games during their rookie year. Of those guys Roethliberger and Eli Manning could possibly be in the hall of fame. Only 3 of the 12 at this point would be considered franchise guys. So Clausen starting in his rookie year and this year does not indicate he will be good or a halll of famer. if you look at the whole list you would conclude you have a better chance of being great and making it in the hall of fame is you don't start your rookie year rather than if we do.

So lets stop comparing him to a Hall of famer or saying because he started, it is a good sign.

Like usual you are taking selective facts and distorting them to your purposes. Do what I did for this five year period and extrapolate for the time you listed those quarterbacks and you will find out what I did. For every guy who put on your list who started, I can show you 5 time that many that started their rookie year and sucked.

You can disagree if you want but you are wrong on tthis one.

First of all, you can go back 20 years and if you actually do you'll find that it doesn't make much of a difference. Rookies started just as often in the 80s as they did in the 00's. And they started for good teams and bad. I went back to 1980 just because of that, I actually started at 1993 the first time but when I realized that it didn't really make a difference I went back further just to gather more data. Surprised me, but there you go.

Second, reducing it to 5 games does change things a lot. I chose 8 games/200 passes because I felt that it was about half a season's worth, not a few games here and there where the coach might be seeing what a kid has, or a rookie tossed in late for throw-away games to give him experience.

Third, you completely ignored what I was saying, which is probably my fault for not being clear enough. I'm saying that if Clausen wins the job next year, that it's a very good sign. And if he does, it's twice as likely he will have a good career than it is he flames out.

If he doesn't, well then the odds are really stacked against him. Here's a list of rookie starters who didn't get much action their second year. And again, my criteria is 8 games or 200 passes as a rookie, I think five is too few.

1983, Dave Wilson, 46.06 to 68.68. Bleah career, started a few years but didn't do anything.

1984, Oliver Luck, 63.43 to 89.58. He was out of the league in two more years.

1988, Chris Chandler, 67.16 to 63.39. Had a long career as a decent, not great starter.

1989, Kelly Stouffer, 69.18 to 40.93. Started a lot as a rookie due to injuries, never did anything after that first year.

1990, Steve Walsh, 60.51 to 57.64. After leaving Dallas he had a decent career.

1995, TJ Rubley, 80.08 to no stats. Started 7 games as a rookie, never really saw action again

2002, Chris Weinke, 62.04 to 26.21. Despite Zod's pleas to management, never really saw much action after his rookie year.

2003, Chad Hutchinson, 66.33 to 60.42. Lost his job to Quincy Carter. 'nuff said.

2005, Ken Dorsey, 62.39 to 66.94. Got a lot of starts as a rookie, and that was it. Plays in the CFL now.

2007, Kyle Orton, 59.7 to 73.85. Displayed a lot of leadership on the Bears as a rookie, wasn't enough for starts as a soph. Looks like he'll end up being pretty good though.

2007, Bruce Gradkowski, 65.87 to 52.43. Looked promising enough after we took out Simms' spleen, but teams figured him out. Got a little action in his second year but was eventually waived.

2007, Matt Leinart, 74 to 61.87. Showed some promise as a rookie, stunk as a soph. Management wanted him to succeed too.

So, what these numbers suggest is that if Clausen does NOT get the starting nod, his career is probably over before it begins.

And I laughed when I saw what I highlighted in bold. I went back 30 years and explained exactly what numbers I was using (8 starts or 200 passes), and listed everyone. I think that if I used a selective set (say, the last five years), and reduced the number of starts until they made my point more (say, down to five), and maybe just neglected attempts entirely, then I could see where you might think I was distorting facts to prove a point. But I didn't, I'm not, and the point I was making was not offered as proof of anything. Just a reason why I think there's a lot of reason for optimism if Pickles wins the starting job. :)

[Cyberjag]

First of all you have proven very liitle.

What I got out of it is that quarterbacks who start their rookie year and start again the next year do better than guys who start their rookie year and don't start the next year. Wow what a revelation. Obviously if they start 2 years in a row they are typically not totally sucky or they would have been replaced. But it happens also so it doesn't mean Clausen is going to be good.

Most rookie quarterbacks who start in year 2 play better than their rookie year. Wow another great insight. If they don't or the team decides to upgrade like we are, the rookie doesn't start year 2.

Guys who start their first 2 years are less likely to bust than guys who start their rookie year and are replaced. Another stunner.

FWIW , I doubt Clausen starts this year unless we fail to get a free agent QB or injuries hurt us again. If he does he will be a placeholder unless he plays much better than he did last year. I am not very confident.

Try this one on for size. Quarterbacks who start their rookie year are less likely to be franchise quarterbacks than guys who don't start theiir first year, so obviously Clausen is screwed.

Since free agency has been in effect, as many quarterbacks who start their rookie year do their best work for another team than the one they were drafted by. So if Clausen does well it wiill be for someone else.

Do some research on those and tell me whether they are correct or full of crap.

So what you're saying is, that if Clausen starts his second year, hes probably going to be better than he was as a rookie, and the chance he goes on to have a decent career is also good.

That's what I've been saying all along! :)

Sounds like where we actually disagree is about IF he gets the start. Which is cool by me.

[mav1234]

Well who do you compare him to then? The multitude of players who started a ton of games as a rookie and then disappeared from NFL history? There are actually a lot more greats who started as rookies than there are Chris Weinkes out there.

...er, what? Did you really just say there are more all time greats that started as rookies than rookie quarterbacks who busted? o.o Well, I'll take your word for that but I kind of have a hard time believing that, since so many quarterbacks get drafted and so few end up being great... Maybe I just misunderstood you.

But why do we need to compare Clausen to someone? Why not just say "yeah, Clausen had a bad rookie year, hopefully a change in coaching staff and the playing time last year will help him improve."

EDIT: Okay, after reading back posts I see what you mean. First, I don't think Clausen's career is done. However, I doubt he'll ever be in the Hall of Fame, but sure, it's possible. I think it's more likely Clausen ends up a journeyman backup in the NFL than he does a franchise quarterback. I just don't see him winning his starting job, but I don't think we'll cut him this year and I think he'll get another chance elsewhere when his contract here expires if he can't make it into the starting lineup.

Why would comparisons to greats have to stop? Are you such an expert on rookie QBs that you should proclaim to end all discussion on the matter because you have deemed-in your expert opinion-Clausen to be not worthy? Isn't that a rather arrogant and uninformed approach?

Isn't it arrogant and uninformed to Clausen to Hall of Fame players based off of their QB ratings alone? Go look at their games. Sure, they blew quite often, but they gave glimpses of what they were capable of. Clausen's glimpses were much rarer, perhaps because he played on a worse team, or maybe because he just doesn't have it or perhaps because our situation was so bad.

My Elway point was this: The fans wanted him gone. He was a first overall pick, and they begged for him to be cut after 10 games in his rookie season. His stats were WORSE than Clausen's and his situation BETTER. I bet they felt foolish later, don't you?

WHat more reason do you need to give him another look in a better situation? Do you want him to be cut right now?

Were you in Denver at the time? Plus, very few fans want Clausen cut from here. Most of us just don't expect him to be any good. Yet other posters keep trying to force comparisons to all time greats down our throats just because both of them had bad numbers their rookie season. Woopie.

Plus, even if the fans in Denver hated Elway, the FO in Denver didn't and certainly didn't question him the way ours is questioning Clausen. It's pretty obvious why if you actually look past the QB rating and at the games.

Did you know in Elway's rookie year he threw for 284 yards with 2 touchdowns and a 66.7% completion percentage? Or how about throwing for 345 yards and three touchdowns? So sure. Yeah. He had a bad year. He also had a couple of great games that made the FO pretty damn confident in him. Not to mention, sure, his rating and completion % were lower than Clausen's, and he threw more interceptions, but he had more than twice the touchdowns and more yards on fewer throws. The Broncos were so confident in Elway they cut the other starter they had used that year, despite the fact he had a better QB rating.

I don't want Clausen cut. But you know what I wish had happened? I wish he'd had a game or two where he was really excellent. I don't mean having a high QB rating. I don't put much stock in that. I would have liked to have seen him throw some more touchdowns, maybe break 200 yards. Move the offense consistently in two halves of football. Yeah, I'm glad he didn't throw a ton of picks... but you kinda expect rookies to do that.

So basically, here's the deal: I have no reason to think Clausen is the next John Elway. The reason you believe that is that they both sucked their rookie years. I don't think Clausen's done and we should cut him, but let's be realistic here. If he was the next Aikman or Elway, we'd hardly need to be bringing in competition at the position, would we?

[Cyberjag]

I think we compare him for a few reasons. First, history is a good guide for helping set expectations. And we actually know stuff about greats. Quick! What was Oliver Luck's win/loss record? See? :)

The reason I use ratings is because where Clausen's concerned, we're full of emotion. We never really experienced Elway's bad years like Denver fans, so don't get why they would want him out. Etc...

And yeah, there's a ton of common sense at work when you look at rookies who get starts. It's not super common, but you get one or two every year. And as P55 says, it's no revelation that they improve a lot their second year (so expect it from Clausen), and that if they continue to get starts then they're likely to be decent (and all the info I dug out just underscores that).

BTW, I liked what I saw late at Cleveland a lot. I think it showed some promise. I know that puts me in the minority, but there you go...

[mav1234]

It's not that I think he's done or I don't expect improvement. I agree that looking to the past and seeing how awful rookies tend to get better suggests we should see improvement. I just think that is very different from "Elway blew, Clausen blew, Clausen may put together a Hall of Fame career!" I mean sure, anything's possible, but that seems very, very unlikely right now.

Also, I liked his Cleveland game, and yes, it also gave me a bit of hope. But not the kind of "Wow, this guy is incredible!" hope, just the "Well, at least he can run an offense!" hope. :(

edit: also I think it was probably his best game, though it didn't necessarily contain his best throws. Still moved the ball well though, if somewhat sporadically.

[panthers55]

First of all, you can go back 20 years and if you actually do you'll find that it doesn't make much of a difference. Rookies started just as often in the 80s as they did in the 00's. And they started for good teams and bad. I went back to 1980 just because of that, I actually started at 1993 the first time but when I realized that it didn't really make a difference I went back further just to gather more data. Surprised me, but there you go.

Second, reducing it to 5 games does change things a lot. I chose 8 games/200 passes because I felt that it was about half a season's worth, not a few games here and there where the coach might be seeing what a kid has, or a rookie tossed in late for throw-away games to give him experience.

Third, you completely ignored what I was saying, which is probably my fault for not being clear enough. I'm saying that if Clausen wins the job next year, that it's a very good sign. And if he does, it's twice as likely he will have a good career than it is he flames out.

If he doesn't, well then the odds are really stacked against him. Here's a list of rookie starters who didn't get much action their second year. And again, my criteria is 8 games or 200 passes as a rookie, I think five is too few.

1983, Dave Wilson, 46.06 to 68.68. Bleah career, started a few years but didn't do anything.

1984, Oliver Luck, 63.43 to 89.58. He was out of the league in two more years.

1988, Chris Chandler, 67.16 to 63.39. Had a long career as a decent, not great starter.

1989, Kelly Stouffer, 69.18 to 40.93. Started a lot as a rookie due to injuries, never did anything after that first year.

1990, Steve Walsh, 60.51 to 57.64. After leaving Dallas he had a decent career.

1995, TJ Rubley, 80.08 to no stats. Started 7 games as a rookie, never really saw action again

2002, Chris Weinke, 62.04 to 26.21. Despite Zod's pleas to management, never really saw much action after his rookie year.

2003, Chad Hutchinson, 66.33 to 60.42. Lost his job to Quincy Carter. 'nuff said.

2005, Ken Dorsey, 62.39 to 66.94. Got a lot of starts as a rookie, and that was it. Plays in the CFL now.

2007, Kyle Orton, 59.7 to 73.85. Displayed a lot of leadership on the Bears as a rookie, wasn't enough for starts as a soph. Looks like he'll end up being pretty good though.

2007, Bruce Gradkowski, 65.87 to 52.43. Looked promising enough after we took out Simms' spleen, but teams figured him out. Got a little action in his second year but was eventually waived.

2007, Matt Leinart, 74 to 61.87. Showed some promise as a rookie, stunk as a soph. Management wanted him to succeed too.

So, what these numbers suggest is that if Clausen does NOT get the starting nod, his career is probably over before it begins.

And I laughed when I saw what I highlighted in bold. I went back 30 years and explained exactly what numbers I was using (8 starts or 200 passes), and listed everyone. I think that if I used a selective set (say, the last five years), and reduced the number of starts until they made my point more (say, down to five), and maybe just neglected attempts entirely, then I could see where you might think I was distorting facts to prove a point. But I didn't, I'm not, and the point I was making was not offered as proof of anything. Just a reason why I think there's a lot of reason for optimism if Pickles wins the starting job. :)

If we distill all of that into your premise which is "a guy who starts his second year after having a bad rookie year is more likely to have a successful career than guys who don't start theiir second year"

then I would have to totally agree with you. Just like if you said that guys who start at quarterback for multiple years are more successful then guys who sucked, I would agree totally as well.

You could have said that initially and we would have all been on board. How many guys start at least 8 games their rookie year and then play less than 8 their second year and either starts down the road and goes on to have a great career? Orton comes to mind but it is hard to call him having a great career. Most don't start their second year because the team goes in a different direction. The exception would be injury which could happen but not that often.

There are aalso a bunch of guys who played very few games their first year or none and went on to have great careers. So how many guys play their rookie year and bust later versus how many guys don't play their rookie year and go one to have great careers??

We could also go down the list of all second round quarterbacks who are starting in the league and you would find Drew Brees and a bunch of backups and potentials. On that list Kevin Kolb (2007), Chad Henne (2008), Jake Plummer (1997) stand out against the Pat Whites, Brain Brohmes, and Kellen Clements. So woould we conclude that no matter how he does his first 2 years, he is destined to be average or suck for his career?

If Clausen starts for us then he either improved, we failed to pick up any good free agents, we went with Newton and Clausen is the stand in until the battle begins in earnest next year, or we decided to wait for next year. Playing the 2/3rd odds versus the 1/3 who bust is great as long as your guy in one of the 2 that made it. Given the systen we will use, Rivera's urgency, and other factors, I juust wouldn't put a bunch of money on him doing that well going forwards. Like this time last year, I said I hoped I was wrong. I hope I am wrong about him.

[panthers55]

So what you're saying is, that if Clausen starts his second year, hes probably going to be better than he was as a rookie, and the chance he goes on to have a decent career is also good.

That's what I've been saying all along! :)

Sounds like where we actually disagree is about IF he gets the start. Which is cool by me.

Like in the Bear song by Jimmy Buffett- the logic was so simple it eluded me. Of course a guy who starts his second year will have a better chance to succeed than a guy who doesn't start his second year because he is replaced or sits the bench until his rookie contract expires because he lacks talent. If you aren't playing you can't be successful.

As for will he start? Doesn't that depend on the competition? Right now we can't know who that will be other than Moore may get a chance. It is too early to tell.