At what point would you Trade Up to get Jimmy Clausen?

[backrow]

Originally Posted by geichidanman

I think clausen will not help the redskins. He's a bust in the making. We should see if we can get tebow in the 2nd round or lefevour later. Great upside on those two at a lower price. Both of those guys can beat you with their wheels and arms. We must get a top OLT with the 4th pick...period.

I echo RedskinsJim, Welcome new guy! You're buying! Surprise!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

GTripp, I don't follow your logic of taking Colt McCoy over Jimmy Clausen. At least the part about saving picks. It makes no difference unless you flat out believe that McCoy is plainly a better quarterback than Clausen. And if you do, then you're certainly in the minority on this one, which is fine too. But saving picks for the sake of "saving picks", yet drafting an inferior quarterback accomplishes nothing. You draft a quarterback with the intention that he'll someday lead your franchise and lead it well.

Either Colt McCoy is better than Clausen and deserves to be drafted higher or he isn't. Adding picks to the equation does nothing for me when you're drafting a quarterback. It's a make or break position.

Yes, Colt McCoy is a better quarterback than Clausen and deserves to be drafted higher.

But you can also play the perception of the league and leverage the fact that one is probably going to go before the other into getting the other later in the draft. Which is, the further Clausen falls, the less one would need to consider a trade up for McCoy, and could probably even start considering a trade down.

Again, if the target is Clausen, this point is moot. It's not relevant when McCoy will go if the idea is to draft Clausen. But if the idea is to draft McCoy, when Clausen goes is quite relevant, because if the market determines where McCoy will be drafted, Clausen's stock is a major determinant in setting that market.

[PHazard]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Yes, Colt McCoy is a better quarterback than Clausen and deserves to be drafted higher.

I'm not saying Clausen should be the pick at #4. But Clausen IS BETTER than McCoy. Maybe not from a college standpoint but from an NFL standpoint. Clausen just finished the season with some of the best stats of ANY Junior QB EVER. AND HE RAN A PRO OFFENSE! He had to READ defenses!!!! Colt McCoy read route combinations. With Notre Dame's shitty OLine and an even shittier defense, Clausen was able to keep his team in games that they otherwise wouldnt have been close in. Notre Dame's record would be far worse if Colt McCoy played for them this year.

Clausen doesnt have the biggest arm strength but he can read 1 on 1 coverage and puts it up for his reciever to make a play on it. And his short and intermediate passes have real good zip on them. And if you watch the tape, Colt McCoy relied on his legs a good amount of the time. He's not terribly fast so it isnt going to cut it in the NFL against superior athletes. Clausen has good pocket awareness, n moves around to create more time to THROW.....like a QUARTERBACK lol. Jimmy Clausen played all year on a bad toe that ended up needing surgery. He went out of the game against Purdue but came back in to lead his team to victory when they needed him most. Colt McCoy played against NFL sized lineman against Alabama and what happened? Injury. Fluke? Prolly. But i digress. i would rather trade for Flozell Adams and have him play QB then to have Colt McCoy.

Clausen is NFL ready now, McCoy could take years, if he ever develops at all (and if that happens, that'll just be a wasted 2nd round pick that could have been used on someone who could have strongly contributed all season long with all our problem areas).

Unfortunately, i doubt the Redskins will go Oline in the 1st AND 2nd round (wish they would). So EVERYONE, if you take Clausen in the 1st, and an OT in the 2nd, then you have two opening day starters (caliber). As opposed to getting a OT (Williams, Bulaga, or Davis) in the 1st and then a pet project McCoy in the 2nd. A pick which may or may not pan out, then we dont pick again till the 4th, then after that its project guys as well unless we strike a gem. We have too many needs to miss with our 1st and 2nd round pick.

If we got Clausen we could get sum kind of trade for Campbell, and Grossman still makes for a good backup. I'm not saying Clausen SHOULD be the pick at 4, but its a better idea then taking McCoy at 37 and if shanahan thinks Clausen is his guy, then ill support it. Does Clausen offer more than Campbell would as an opening day starter? Who knows? But it would be a change in the winds, a breath of fresh air. As Bruce Allen said, the status quo (Campbell) is unacceptable.

[over the mountain]

Options are:

-I would not be willing to use the 37th overall pick on Jimmy Clausen
-I would be willing to spend the 37th overall pick on Clausen, but not trade up for him
-I would be willing to trade our fourth round pick to move up 2-6 spots and ensure that we get him, even if it looks like we can get him at 37.
-I would be willing to trade up about 10 picks into the back end of the first round (ahead of, say, Arizona), at the cost of the 2011 2nd rounder.
-If Jimmy Clausen is available after the 16th pick in the first round, we should trade our 2011 first rounder to ensure we get him.

Note: in all situations, you would be using the second round pick in part of the trade/selection process.

-----------------------------------------------------


Honestly, this all depends on what our draft grade of him is. The higher I have him graded, the more willing id be to move into a position to draft him. If i had him as a top 5 pick, id just pick him with the 4th overall.

I guess (if i had to under the parameters you laid out) id:

1) of course draft him at 37
2) if i had him as a top 10 grade; id also be willing to part with the 37th and next years 2nd rounder.
3) if i was convinced he is going to be the best qb prospect in this years and next years draft; id trade the 37th and next years first to land him.

[warpaint]

COLT MCCOYS STATS
Stats Overview Passing
YEAR CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT
2006 217 318 2570 68.2 8.08 72 29 7 14 161.82
2007 276 424 3303 65.1 7.79 62 22 18 24 139.16
2008 332 433 3859 76.7 8.91 91 34 8 24 173.75
2009 332 470 3521 70.6 7.49 88 27 12 30 147.41

JIMMY CLAUSEN
Stats Overview Passing
YEAR CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT
2007 138 245 1254 56.3 5.12 44 7 6 35 103.85
2008 268 440 3172 60.9 7.21 69 25 17 21 132.49
2009 289 425 3722 68.0 8.76 88 28 4 24 161.43

TIM TEBOWS
Stats Overview Passing
YEAR CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT
2006 22 33 358 66.7 10.85 55 5 1 0 201.73
2007 234 350 3286 66.9 9.39 66 32 6 13 172.47
2008 192 298 2746 64.4 9.22 70 30 4 15 172.37
2009 213 314 2895 67.8 9.22 80 21 5 29 164.17

I would go McCoy Tebow Clausen. I dont understand why you would take a proven loser over proven winners. But I dont know that much about him Just that he has questions about his real charactor.

I tried to get the stats straight so they wouldnt look so crowed but it didnt work.

[murphy196]

Originally Posted by warpaint

COLT MCCOYS STATS
Stats Overview Passing
YEAR CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT
2006 217 318 2570 68.2 8.08 72 29 7 14 161.82
2007 276 424 3303 65.1 7.79 62 22 18 24 139.16
2008 332 433 3859 76.7 8.91 91 34 8 24 173.75
2009 332 470 3521 70.6 7.49 88 27 12 30 147.41

JIMMY CLAUSEN
Stats Overview Passing
YEAR CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT
2007 138 245 1254 56.3 5.12 44 7 6 35 103.85
2008 268 440 3172 60.9 7.21 69 25 17 21 132.49
2009 289 425 3722 68.0 8.76 88 28 4 24 161.43

TIM TEBOWS
Stats Overview Passing
YEAR CMP ATT YDS CMP% YPA LNG TD INT SACK RAT
2006 22 33 358 66.7 10.85 55 5 1 0 201.73
2007 234 350 3286 66.9 9.39 66 32 6 13 172.47
2008 192 298 2746 64.4 9.22 70 30 4 15 172.37
2009 213 314 2895 67.8 9.22 80 21 5 29 164.17

I would go McCoy Tebow Clausen. I dont understand why you would take a proven loser over proven winners. But I dont know that much about him Just that he has questions about his real charactor.

I tried to get the stats straight so they wouldnt look so crowed but it didnt work.

^^^^^
You are a complete idiot, thank God you aren't making any decisions for the Skins! Although I would love it if you got a job in the Cowboys front office.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by murphy196

^^^^^
You are a complete idiot, thank God you aren't making any decisions for the Skins! Although I would love it if you got a job in the Cowboys front office.

Uncalled for. Too many people here calling others idiots for no reason.

[warpaint]

Originally Posted by murphy196

^^^^^
You are a complete idiot, thank God you aren't making any decisions for the Skins! Although I would love it if you got a job in the Cowboys front office.

Way to go big guy thats how you stay on topic. Keep up your insightful comments and you'll gain everyones respect here and in life.

[murphy196]

Originally Posted by warpaint

Way to go big guy thats how you stay on topic. Keep up your insightful comments and you'll gain everyones respect here and in life.

Your thoughts on taking McCoy and Tebow over Clausen based on Stats are just absurd. Granted my tone was that of an a-hole, I'm just tired of people that aren't well informed on these guys.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by murphy196

Your thoughts on taking McCoy and Tebow over Clausen based on Stats are just absurd. Granted my tone was that of an a-hole, I'm just tired of people that aren't well informed on these guys.

I agree with you that Clausen is the better prospect. There are plenty of people who think McCoy will be better though. To each his own. It doesn't necessarily mean that someone who doesn't agree is not as "well informed" as you. And actually since none of us have, met with, worked out or viewed all the coaches tape on these prospects we are all not well informed to some extent.

[warpaint]

Originally Posted by murphy196

Your thoughts on taking McCoy and Tebow over Clausen based on Stats are just absurd. Granted my tone was that of an a-hole, I'm just tired of people that aren't well informed on these guys.

I seen McCoy throughout his college career since I live in The Big 12 Country. McCoy throws a better pass than Clausen. He hits his WR in stride more often the Clausen. I was watching some of Jimmys highlights. The passes he completes makes his WR stop and comeback. The others would get picked by any starting secondary in the league and just cuase he plays from under center more often than most makes him ready to start, doesn't sell me on him. On Tebow I feel they way he changed his delivery in such a short time and WOWED all the scouts shows his commitment to being the best, and with his body of work proves he will bust his but off to acheiving excellence. Hell even Shanny and Allen had to go take a look at him to see what the hype was about.

I know there are hundreds of guys here who can disect this apart and make a case for me being wrong. But this is just my opinion.

[Defensewins]

With the relatively high amount of Superbowl winning QB's that that were not drafted high or were on their second or third team when they won it. Drafting a rookie QB high or expending future draft picks to get one does not seem smart. In the last 11 years FIVE of the SB Winning QB's (Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer and Kurt Warner) all fit into this category.
That combined with large amount of bust QB's taken high in the draft year after year.
Plus throw in the high failure rate of weak teams that drafted QB's high before building their O-line (Lions, Bengals, Browns) doing it over and over again. I do not want my Redskins to included with those teams anymore.
It is already embarrassing enough seeing the Redskins are already included with them as the worst teams in the NFL this decade 2000-2009. During that time (2000-2009) we have already spent two first round picks on QB's Patrick Ramsey (2002) and Jason Campbell (2005). Not to mention the ton of WR's and skill position busts.
It is funny during the time Vinny was being shown the door there was a relative consensus that we needed to build our lines after years of ignoring them in favor of skill position players. I realize we live in an QB drive league since the rules were changed to increase passing. So that is why so many have their Panties in a bunch to get a QB right away. Resist the temptation.
We have a ton of holes to fill. We can get a proven NFL QB in future FA markets or a trade.
OK, I am off my soap box.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

With the relatively high amount of Superbowl winning QB's that that were not drafted high or were on their second or third team when they won it. Drafting a rookie QB high or expending future draft picks to get one does not seem smart. In the last 11 years FIVE of the SB Winning QB's (Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer and Kurt Warner) all fit into this category.
That combined with large amount of bust QB's taken high in the draft year after year.
Plus throw in the high failure rate of weak teams that drafted QB's high before building their O-line (Lions, Bengals, Browns) doing it over and over again. I do not want my Redskins to included with those teams anymore.
It is already embarrassing enough seeing the Redskins are already included with them as the worst teams in the NFL this decade 2000-2009. During that time (2000-2009) we have already spent two first round picks on QB's Patrick Ramsey (2002) and Jason Campbell (2005). Not to mention the ton of WR's and skill position busts.
It is funny during the time Vinny was being shown the door there was a relative consensus that we needed to build our lines after years of ignoring them in favor of skill position players. I realize we live in an QB drive league since the rules were changed to increase passing. So that is why so many have their Panties in a bunch to get a QB right away. Resist the temptation.
We have a ton of holes to fill. We can get a proven NFL QB in future FA markets or a trade.
OK, I am off my soap box.

Ultimately, I'm on the side of your soapbox rant. This question is more to address the question of "what is Jimmy Clausen's true value" than to cheer-lead his arrival.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ultimately, I'm on the side of your soapbox rant. This question is more to address the question of "what is Jimmy Clausen's true value" than to cheer-lead his arrival.

trade value? Oh, ok...then yes Jimmy Clausen is a douchebag.
Kidding. I have no idea if 'Jimmy' is any good with vaginal hygiene.
But due to the current condition of the Redskins roster and the horrid talent level we have at OL, and given that this draft is strong in OL and RB, and the best OLT might land in our lap, I would not trade up or down for Jimmy Clausen.

[skinsfaninok]

Well I don't think we will have to trade up to get Clausen, He'll be there at 4. I think we could actually move down a few spots and still get him. Bradford is number 1 on our board I presume but he's going to be The Top pick.