Greg Cosell talks about Clausen

[CRA]

Again, how do you have it both ways? The Golden Calf of Bristol's team at Florida was stacked with 5 star recruits. Bradford's team at Oklahoma had three players drafted in the top 10 last year if memory serves me. McElroy at Bama didn't lose a game in high school or college until last season. You can't simply pick and choose when it is the "player" or the "team" based on whether or not you like the person in question.

I'm not pointing this out because I believe Clausen will be a great quarterback in the NFL. Just responding to bias here from people that still don't understand why he was drafted.

you are jumping around, we were talking about Clausen stacked private school HS team (which consisted of tons of future college players) that played the equivelant of a middle school girl teams every week......which is why the score was 70-3 each week.....and actual football games weren't on display. Point being, don't talk about his joke HS career.....

The point was Clausen never beat anyone in college. The point is there are no great NFL QB who couldn't beat a good team in college every once in a blue moon (if on a bad team) and had an overall losing record. I am not picking and choosing......there are no great NFL QBs with a Clausen resume in college. Name one.

Clausen was drafted by us b/c he dropped to us at the 40 something pick. He was worth a gamble despite clearly not impressing anyone (hence the epic drop based off what the media wanted people to believe). It turns out.....everyone was right on passing on this kid. Carolina quickly moved on.

[TheRealDeal]

He was drafted because Hurney didn't do research, plain and simple.

[MaineManPanther]

Again, how do you have it both ways? The Golden Calf of Bristol's team at Florida was stacked with 5 star recruits. Bradford's team at Oklahoma had three players drafted in the top 10 last year if memory serves me. McElroy at Bama didn't lose a game in high school or college until last season. You can't simply pick and choose when it is the "player" or the "team" based on whether or not you like the person in question.

I'm not pointing this out because I believe Clausen will be a great quarterback in the NFL. Just responding to bias here from people that still don't understand why he was drafted.

I don't fault Clausen for his career losing record in college.

I understand the point your making. My only counter argument is the sheer discrepency in talent between his opponents in his high school was much higher than college. And the postive talent that sorrounded him in high school far out weighed the negative talent he was sorrounded by at Notre Dame (which was still pretty bad).

Because of this and while I disagree , I can understand how one is to dismiss high school and not college in this senario.

[Jpjr]

I don't fault Clausen for his career losing record in college.

I understand the point your making. My only counter argument is the sheer discrepency in talent between his opponents in his high school was much higher than college. And the postive talent that sorrounded him in high school far out weighed the negative talent he was sorrounded by at Notre Dame (which was still pretty bad).

Because of this and while I disagree , I can understand how one is to dismiss high school and not college in this senario.

I personally thought the production Clausen put together at ND was much more impressive than what say The Golden Calf of Bristol did with a bunch of loaded 5 star recruits. I agree that winning is a component, but there are simply too many "winning" quarterbacks that have been busts in the NFL, and vice versa, to make the blanket argument that it is what determines the success of a QB. Especially when you consider a guy like Clausen that could have easily gone to USC (or any other college as the #1 high school recruit in the nation) and won a ton of games. He still would have been the same guy the Panthers got last year, winner or not. That's the point.

[TheRealDeal]

I personally thought the production Clausen put together at ND was much more impressive than what say The Golden Calf of Bristol did with a bunch of loaded 5 star recruits. I agree that winning is a component, but there are simply too many "winning" quarterbacks that have been busts in the NFL, and vice versa, to make the blanket argument that it is what determines the success of a QB. Especially when you consider a guy like Clausen that could have easily gone to USC (or any other college as the #1 high school recruit in the nation) and won a ton of games. He still would have been the same guy the Panthers got last year, winner or not. That's the point.

He wouldn't have won a QB competition at any school that had actual competition for him, don't kid yourself.

If he went to USC, he wouldn't have played a down in college.

[Jpjr]

He wouldn't have won a QB competition at any school that had actual competition for him, don't kid yourself.

If he went to USC, he wouldn't have played a down in college.

Thank you.

[TheRealDeal]

Thank you.

I meant Clausen, not The Golden Calf of Bristol, in case you were confused.

[MaineManPanther]

I personally thought the production Clausen put together at ND was much more impressive than what say The Golden Calf of Bristol did with a bunch of loaded 5 star recruits. I agree that winning is a component, but there are simply too many "winning" quarterbacks that have been busts in the NFL, and vice versa, to make the blanket argument that it is what determines the success of a QB. Especially when you consider a guy like Clausen that could have easily gone to USC (or any other college as the #1 high school recruit in the nation) and won a ton of games. He still would have been the same guy the Panthers got last year, winner or not. That's the point.

I was speaking of dismissing the wins in HS. I agree, wins is a team stat and it's improper and out of context to use it to determine the furutre or judge there college career.

[thefuzz]

He was drafted because Hurney didn't do research, plain and simple.

He was drafted because he was the highest rated player on Hurney's board, at a position of need, not because of lack of research.

[TheRealDeal]

He was drafted because he was the highest rated player on Hurney's board, at a position of need, not because of lack of research.

False. Hurney didn't do research because he didn't think he'd be there when we picked. He had no idea about Clausen and every other team that did their research passed on him. When Clausen was dropping, Hurney googled him and the first thing that came up was Kiper's mock draft and Hurney jumped at him.

I think he's even quoted as saying such.

[MaineManPanther]

False. Hurney didn't do research because he didn't think he'd be there when we picked. He had no idea about Clausen and every other team that did their research passed on him. When Clausen was dropping, Hurney googled him and the first thing that came up was Kiper's mock draft and Hurney jumped at him.

I think he's even quoted as saying such.

Team scouts research players all year long. So I'm sure they had there share of info on Clausen.

[TheRealDeal]

Team scouts research players all year long. So I'm sure they had there share of info on Clausen.

I'm sure they did, but when it comes time to REALLY look into players, Clausen wasn't in our mind and therefor didn't get the same amount of attention or the attention he should have if we thought we were going to take him.

Hurney fuked up, no two ways around it.

[MattB]

It's always easy to say in hindsight but clearly Jimmy got overhyped because of the talent and coaching around him. He's a guy with a pretty limited skill-set so his upside is pretty low. Obviously last year he was thrown in to a team without a running game and rookie recievers so it's no surprise he looked so bad. He could eventually develop into a Delhomme type QB but obviously that's not the type of QB we want to build around. I don't blame Hurney for making the pick because clearly we were desperate for an answer there.

[vorbis]

I think with an offense that believes in putting QB's in a position to succeed and using the talents they have (instead of the talents they "should have"), rather than require them to have all the experience and instincts of a 10th year vet, Jimmy still has some sort of chance to make a career for himself. Last year's passing offense was largely stubbornly designed with long routes and predictable playcalling, so that Clausen was consistently dropping back in a position that really didn't give him many chances to succeed. Waiting for double moves against outnumbered fronts, predictably on 3rd and long when any DC worth a damn will dial up pressure, and so on.

Clausen didn't have a chance with the limitations that he has in his game, especially as a rookie. Give him an offense where he can time his reads on routes that are friendly to his strengths, and he might become a decent player. Not that I know for sure, but Chudzinski/Shula seem like they have an innate interest in putting the players they have in a position to use their skills to execute the offense.