Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Slingin Sammy 33 · 01-28-2010, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Except that he has him in the second. And he's probably the best quarterback in the draft, with regards to Shanahan's scheme.

How is McCoy a fit for a West Coast scheme? He ran a spread in college. M & K Shanahan's scheme is actually a perfect fit for Clausen

Also, did you see the Big 12 championship game, not a good performance by McCoy.

Slingin Sammy 33 · 01-28-2010, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think we (I?) know a lot more about Clausen's mediocre ability to adjust to adverse conditions, compared to Bradford, who is an unknown from that one aspect.

Please explain Clausen's mediocre ability to adjust to adverse conditions? I know you're up in MI, but I watch ND quite a bit too, and I don't see what you're talking about.

Slingin Sammy 33 · 01-28-2010, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Dude stop lying. He threw that ball at least 8 yards

End-over-end. LOL

WaldSkins · 01-28-2010, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

How is McCoy a fit for a West Coast scheme? He ran a spread in college. M & K Shanahan's scheme is actually a perfect fit for Clausen

Also, did you see the Big 12 championship game, not a good performance by McCoy.

McCoy didn't fare well in any of the tough games he had this year(Oklahoma, Nebraska,and the little he played in the Alabama game).

itvnetop · 01-28-2010, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by backrow

And in review, the last four BCS Champions were from the SEC, and 6 of the last 10 years, yep, you guessed it, SEC!

It also helps when the SEC champ usually has an automatic entry into the MNC game. Do we really want to get into a discussion about the B(S)CS?

Dirtbag59 · 01-28-2010, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by backrow

And in review, the last four BCS Champions were from the SEC, and 6 of the last 10 years, yep, you guessed it, SEC!

Ah yes, the BCS. Easily the most accurate and storied championship system in all of sports. The BCS is perfect for the SEC because for their "year long playoff" they can select powerhouses like the Chattanoga Choo Choo's as well as the Northwest Cupids. Still so kind of them to pay schools with a lot less money to play their amazing football teams.

Also, assuming I look the other way concerning the utter stupidity of the BCS it still doesn't change the fact that one team does not make a conference. Just like USC being dominant all of these years didn't mean that up until now the PAC 10 was the best conference. Or better yet Miami when it played in the Big East. Of course those two school actually booked quality out of conference opponents.

Alabama gets cudos for booking Virginia Tech, but if you look at Florida's out of conference schedule, well quite frankly it was pathetic. FIU, Chattanoga, Charlston Southern, Troy. If they hadn't been practically forced by tradition to play FSU they would have probably played Will and Mary. By comparison USC's out of conference schedule was as follows San Jose State, Boston College, Notre Dame, and Ohio State. All FBS schools.

Keep in mind I'm not saying the SEC is a bad conference. What I am saying is that the SEC isn't nearly the Super Conference it thinks it is. It walks around calling itself an 11 when in reality it's more like a 9 on the verge of dropping towards an 8.5. Also because of the SEC's perceived dominance every other prospect seems to get downgraded because they play in an "inferior" conference and now I've finally snapped

GusFrerotte · 01-28-2010, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Classic SEC propoganda, though not on your part. I mean who could blame you, it gets hammered into your head on virtually every college football show looking to sprout off nonsense.

For some reason SEC supporters feel they have to downplay the quality of all the other conferences at the sake of talking up their own. A few years ago the SEC really was a deep conference but it now resembles the PAC-10 before this year, with one or two dominant teams and everyone else. Outside of Florida and Alabama you basically have a bunch of teams that refuse to play quality out of conference teams, not to mention the fact that Florida and Bama aren't really looking for quality out of conference opponents themselves. Say what you want about Ohio State but at least they put USC and Texas on their schedules. By the way Bama lucked out with McCoy going out of the game on the fifth play of the game.

So how does this relate to the Big XII? Well to be honest they have something that the SEC usually doesn't posses. Good QB play. Seriously most SEC offenses are run the ball 40 times a game, throw 20 passes and hope you complete 11 (believe me I'm constantly lulled to sleep by SEC games on Saturdays during the Fall). Which is fine, but it tends to make the defenses look better then they really are. In fact the only true test SEC defenses get on a yearly basis is Florida and they usually fail that test miserably. That is why the only defense I'm even prepared to acknowledge in the SEC is Alabama's.

I'm tired of Big XII QB's getting downplayed because "Oh no dey didn't dun pleh against them SEC defences no sir ree." This is top class FBS talent they're going against. It just so happens that the Big 12 has competent offensive coordinators and better QB's, so it ends up in the defenses getting downplayed.

So in short the perceived dominance of SEC defenses are a joke while many Big XII defenses are underrated. Most of the offenses SEC teams go against use gameplans that would insult an NFL preseason gameplan. All the while Big 12 defenses go against some of the most well coached offenses in college football, and get punished for it.

Anyway sorry for the rant but this had to be said.

In the meantime here's some Anti-SEC propoganda. I know it's from bleacher report but this one is backed up with facts.
Let's Face It, the SEC Is Overrated This Season | Bleacher Report

Dude I am a Big 10 guy, but I watch more Big 12 football than SEC for sure( more points=more fun). When you have even lesser powers like A&M putting up almost 60 on some Saturdays in conference play, you have to wonder about that conference in terms of defensive philosophy or the overall quality of the competition. SEC outside of Bama and Florida is just like the Big Ten if not worse in quality, but you rarely ever see a 60 point game in a SEC contest and in the Big 10 you are lucky to see 60 points scored combined. Look at Jones, Bradford's backup in the bowl game. He dominated and threw for over 300 yards. I am sure the guy is good, but damn, it obviously is just as much of the overall high level of talent at Oklahoma as it is Bradford. I want a guy who can get things done when the odds are even and his supporting cast isn't a bunch of All Americans or Pro Bowlers.

GTripp0012 · 01-28-2010, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please explain Clausen's mediocre ability to adjust to adverse conditions? I know you're up in MI, but I watch ND quite a bit too, and I don't see what you're talking about.

adverse conditions = when his team is not the decisive advantage. So, you'd throw out the Washington State game, throw out the Purdue game, the Nevada game, the 200(9) Hawaii Bowl. Specifically, I'm looking at those Boston College games and Navy games when Clausen struggles to adjust to teams that take away the deep ball and make him throw underneath. His inability to sustain drives.

Not to say that can't be adapted over time, as Peyton Manning came into the NFL with the same problem.

Freely admitting that this is something he got better with over time, Clausen has a tendency to have second half struggles against teams who can adjust to whatever Weis wanted to attack them with in the first half. I think it was a big part of ND's end-of-year swoon, personally. Not as big as the defensive woes, obviously, but Clausens efficiency certainly declined in the second half of the season.

If you want my in depth thought on Clausen/Bradford/the like, I wrote this article today:

Bradford vs. Clausen, and why McCoy is still tops in this draft class « LiveBall Sports

But basically, my concerns with him are that his 62% completion percentage doesn't really off-set the negatives you have to take when you draft him. I think if he completed 67% of his passes at ND, then yeah, he'd be franchise QB material despite a high sack rate and mediocre win percentage. At 62% and 34 college starts, that's first round quality, but not anything we haven't seen in the past.

GTripp0012 · 01-29-2010, 12:04 AM

Basically in Clausen, I see a sound prospect (more sound than Bradford) that is a medium efficiency player (like Cutler, McNabb, Campbell, Flacco) who makes a lot of bad plays (more in the past than in 2009) and isn't really tuned in to the quarterback minutae that can seperate the franchise players from the expendable players. For a team that doesn't have any sort of passing game, he's a major upgrade, and for those (like Washington) who have an efficient passing game that needs an extra boost to get over that hump, he's not the part that will get you there.

53Fan · 01-29-2010, 12:33 AM

Nicely written article GTripp! I agree that in this particular draft class, the best QB may turn out to be one taken after the top three are gone. I don't see either one being worth the risk of a #4 pick. They MAY turn out great, but IMO they have just as much chance of being the 3rd or 4th best QB's chosen in this draft.

KI Skins Fan · 01-29-2010, 10:31 AM

The debate between Clausen and Bradford as the potential first round pick of the Skins is a ho-hummer to me. That's because I'm not convinced that any QB in this draft is worth a first round pick to the Skins.

I haven't been a supporter of Jason Campbell as our starting QB but the way he handled all of the adversity that was heaped on him last season and still had his best season has made me reconsider. I now think that he might be just fine as our starting QB.

I'd prefer to see us trade down in the first round and pick up another first day pick. Then I'd like to see us take a QB in the second round. I like either Zac Robinson or Tim Tebow.

I've never seen Robinson have a bad game. He is a very accurate passer, he's got good size, and he's athletic enough for the NFL. I like him a lot.

And I love Tim Tebow as a developmental QB. He is a winner. He's an unbelieveable physical specimen and a top athlete. He reminds me a lot of Big Ben in the way he can shake off tacklers and buy time to make big plays downfield. I think Tebow could be outstanding after a couple of years as a backup. Nobody will study more or work harder than Tim Tebow.

Mattyk · 01-29-2010, 11:12 AM

I'm hoping to go o-line with our top 2 picks, and use a later round pick on a QB to groom for the future. This draft has good depth along the OL so we could easily come out of it with 2 rookie starters at the very least.

Slingin Sammy 33 · 01-29-2010, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

adverse conditions = when his team is not the decisive advantage. So, you'd throw out the Washington State game, throw out the Purdue game, the Nevada game, the 200(9) Hawaii Bowl. Specifically, I'm looking at those Boston College games and Navy games when Clausen struggles to adjust to teams that take away the deep ball and make him throw underneath. His inability to sustain drives.

I didn't get to see the BC and Navy games this year, but his numbers looked pretty good. I know in the Navy game he made a couple of key turnovers (fumble/INT), but I wouldn't discount the season he had for two bad plays in the Navy game. This certainly wasn't his trend this year.

Quote:

Freely admitting that this is something he got better with over time, Clausen has a tendency to have second half struggles against teams who can adjust to whatever Weis wanted to attack them with in the first half. I think it was a big part of ND's end-of-year swoon, personally. Not as big as the defensive woes, obviously, but Clausens efficiency certainly declined in the second half of the season.

His numbers don't show that. He had 2 INTs in the first half of the season and 2 in the second half. His Comp % was better in the second half of the year. His QB rating was 177.83 in the first half if you include the Nevada game when he threw 18 passes / 4TDs / 0 INTs. It was 152.80, not including that game. In the second half of the year his QB rating was 162.

Quote:

But basically, my concerns with him are that his 62% completion percentage doesn't really off-set the negatives you have to take when you draft him. I think if he completed 67% of his passes at ND, then yeah, he'd be franchise QB material despite a high sack rate and mediocre win percentage. At 62% and 34 college starts, that's first round quality, but not anything we haven't seen in the past.

You're looking at overall career 62% completion %, but if you look at his Junior season he completed 68% of his passes. So based on that, you agree that he's franchise QB material, correct?

Well written article, I don't agree with the assessment of Clausen, but the article was very good.

I posted these in another thread, Matt McGuire hits the nail on the head in his evaluation of Clausen IMO.

WalterFootball.com: The NFL Matt Draft - Matt McGuire's NFL Draft Blog

WalterFootball.com: 2010 NFL Draft Mailbag

SFREDSKIN · 01-29-2010, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'm hoping to go o-line with our top 2 picks, and use a later round pick on a QB to groom for the future. This draft has good depth along the OL so we could easily come out of it with 2 rookie starters at the very least.

Trade down pick a highly rated OT and then go for Iupati followed by either RB or QB.

Longtimefan · 01-29-2010, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

Trade down pick a highly rated OT and then go for Iupati followed by either RB or QB.

I'm all for trading down providing we can find a partner, unless they think Russell Okung is the man at #4. I relish the idea of the extra pick (s).

01-29-2010, 12:04 AM	#39
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Age: 25 Posts: 15,143	Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts Basically in Clausen, I see a sound prospect (more sound than Bradford) that is a medium efficiency player (like Cutler, McNabb, Campbell, Flacco) who makes a lot of bad plays (more in the past than in 2009) and isn't really tuned in to the quarterback minutae that can seperate the franchise players from the expendable players. For a team that doesn't have any sort of passing game, he's a major upgrade, and for those (like Washington) who have an efficient passing game that needs an extra boost to get over that hump, he's not the part that will get you there. __________________ Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

01-29-2010, 12:33 AM	#40
53Fan Pro Bowl Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C. Posts: 7,354	Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts Nicely written article GTripp! I agree that in this particular draft class, the best QB may turn out to be one taken after the top three are gone. I don't see either one being worth the risk of a #4 pick. They MAY turn out great, but IMO they have just as much chance of being the 3rd or 4th best QB's chosen in this draft. __________________ "Cautiously And Optimistically... Looking Forward To Change"

01-29-2010, 10:31 AM	#41
KI Skins Fan The Starter Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: MD Eastern Shore Posts: 1,297	Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts The debate between Clausen and Bradford as the potential first round pick of the Skins is a ho-hummer to me. That's because I'm not convinced that any QB in this draft is worth a first round pick to the Skins. I haven't been a supporter of Jason Campbell as our starting QB but the way he handled all of the adversity that was heaped on him last season and still had his best season has made me reconsider. I now think that he might be just fine as our starting QB. I'd prefer to see us trade down in the first round and pick up another first day pick. Then I'd like to see us take a QB in the second round. I like either Zac Robinson or Tim Tebow. I've never seen Robinson have a bad game. He is a very accurate passer, he's got good size, and he's athletic enough for the NFL. I like him a lot. And I love Tim Tebow as a developmental QB. He is a winner. He's an unbelieveable physical specimen and a top athlete. He reminds me a lot of Big Ben in the way he can shake off tacklers and buy time to make big plays downfield. I think Tebow could be outstanding after a couple of years as a backup. Nobody will study more or work harder than Tim Tebow.

01-29-2010, 11:12 AM	#42
Mattyk ‎\m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 40 Posts: 72,653	Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts I'm hoping to go o-line with our top 2 picks, and use a later round pick on a QB to groom for the future. This draft has good depth along the OL so we could easily come out of it with 2 rookie starters at the very least. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

NFL Draft Central