My Final Word on the Bradford-Clausen Debate

if we’re geeky enough to fill up 2 days, and then get to sit back and wait for Thursday night to come.

I only differ in that I think the two biggest flags on Bradford are the pocket presence, and the coaches reading the defense for him. And I had no idea of the history and the Rhett Bomar stuff, so thanks for the backdrop.

as a added benefit I wouldn’t have to hear about Locker anymore..

What about all of our other holes? And Whitehurst and all the money that would tie up at QB?

Hurry we need a decoy! Decoy!

If we select Clausen at #6?

nobody is talking about us taking Clausen at 6 anymore is because our front office finally did something smart and diverted attention elsewhere. Now, nobody thinks they will have to jump us to get Clausen.

I guess the question is do we pull the trigger on Clausen? I don’t think it is a bad move, especially if Berry and McCoy are gone. If we do we need to protect him and let him sit.

Bradford interviews look a lot like Whitehurst’s, and I don’t think Whitehurst will ever be anything special. And from every interview I’ve seen, Clausen hasn’t looked all that arrogant. Ok, maybe a little arrogant, but not dickish or anywhere near Leaf territory. If he’s there 6, and I think he will be now, I think it’s the perfect pick for Seattle. I’m really really really hoping Seattle does. Signing Whitehurst to only two years, and Matt’s having only one more year, makes me think it’s possible.

Also, to clarify, Clausen actually played with two torn tendons in his foot, which was misdiagnosed as turf toe. I don’t know if that’s better or worse. Just think if he had surgery and sat out all year? Or just think if he got hurt worse because of the misdiagnoses? Yikes.

Clausen played the final nine games this past season with two torn tendons in his right foot, which he said were misdiagnosed as turf toe. He said he has been told by doctors he should have had surgery the day after he was injured against Michigan State on Sept. 19 and sat out the rest of the season.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story?id=09000d5d8176d1fb&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

would be if Philly traded their 1 and both 2s to move up to 6. Then we take Claus at 14 and Brown at 26, while having 3 2nd round picks to stock up with. Realistically, Philly probably wouldn’t trade that high despite rumors, Claus wouldn’t be there at 14, and Brown could be gone by 26. Otherwise, I may be on to something.

I also would be good with taking Claus at 6, trading back to the twenties and taking Brown and getting an extra 2nd or a 3rd in the process.

Not by the Chiefs but by the team that trades into that spot?

New England Midwest would trade down in a heartbeat.. Two teams with terrible QB play draft after them in Seattle and Cleveland.

*Buf has new management/coaching, Trent Edwards, and only needs to bump 4 spots.
*SF has slightly better QB play and would only need a little bump in value to get there—Having two 1st rounders makes giving up a 2nd/3rd easier.
*Cleveland might see Seattle as a likely landing spot and offer a 3rd for two spots.
*Kansas City might even take him, wait for the draft to play out and trade him for the pick that Bulaga/McClain/etc.. go at.

Long story short… Seattle might not even get a chance at Clausen.

That was a horribly one-sided piece. Where are the red flags on Clausen? What, he has none? (or just the schedule?)

The only valid comparison between the two QBs comes down to the strength of the teams they played for? Isn’t that an over-simplification? What about their basic physical tools? Is playing on a strong team a QB-prospect killer? Since when?

It’s down to yard after catch? Uh, ok, so where’s the statistical or even incidental evidence that Bradford relies on YAC more than Clausen? Is this something I’m supposed to chew and regurgitate in good mock draft style or is this a provable fact?

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Clausen other than that he’s a douche who I’d have a hard time cheering, but this article really isn’t up to any kind of spec. It leaves me, the reader, with more questions than answers.

Ask yourself who is forming the objective opinion

…there is another possibility that no one has brought up, one that may be unlikely but not impossible.

The Rams pass on Bradford at 1, mostly due to the immense contract that will go with a QB taken #1 overall, a record-setting contract that will likely never be broken. Given the inherent risk of ANY player, the Rams may choose to reduce the risk by drafting Suh and taking Colt McCoy at 33.

If that happens, how does that effect the top of the draft? Do other teams scamble to trade up with Detroit to take Bradford? Or do both QBs fall to 6?

In any case, I have argued previously that Seattle is unlikely to get this close to a franchise-potential QB any time soon, and if Clausen or Bradford grades out at that level, they should do whatever necessary to obtain one, even trading up.

John makes a persuasive argument that Clausen DOES grade out accordingly, so given the possibility of taking an elite playmaker at he most important position on the team, if Clausen is there at 6 (something VERY likely to be the case) they shouldn’t hesitate to draft him. Having an elite talent at QB is worth magnitudes more than at any other position – including LT, DT, safety or RB, if that is the trade off.

Don’t wait for 14: pull the trigger at 6, if Clausen is all that.

Bradford v. Clausen

I’ve never been a Clausen supporter, but I’ve been a Bradford-to-the-Hawks detractor for some time. I don’t even think that John hit Bradford as hard as he should.

When was the last time a Big-12 spread QB played to even a modicum of success in the NFL? And Vince Young is not an answer… not because of his “success” but because of how absolutely ludicrous the comparison of Vince Young v. Sam Bradford is.

I don’t see Carroll picking Clausen. It seems as though future qbs will need to be fairly mobile and able to make plays with their feet if need be. From what I have seen that doesn’t appear to be Clausens game. The only thing that bothered me in the gruden piece was the four timeouts he took in that one game and how quick he was to place blame on everyone else.

Draft the bratty little towhead!

A career football guy. It’s what he loves to do for practically his whole life. Bradford wanted to go into Hockey before OSU. Hockey for christsakes!

Instead of Bradford?

It might not mean anything, but Bradford claims there haven’t been any talks between him or his agent and the Rams. The last time I read about it, and this could be old information, the Rams were evaluating Bradford, Suh McCoy and Clausen.

It’s a possibility, and I haven’t heard the Rams take a stance on Bradford versus Clausen. Is there anything concrete that suggests (other than talking heads) that the Rams will take Bradford over Clausen?

I think it’s a possibility.

I think Bradford has the better physical tools, based on his size and arm, but he is going to have a tough time transitioning his decision making into the NFL. The spread, with the coaches doing most of the reading, is a crutch that he will miss. He may be a smart guy who can pick up a new offense, but he hasn’t had to read a defense on the run at the same level as a QB in a system like Clausen. If I was the Rams, this would scare me.
I think Clausen has average at best tools and a good basis for decision making at the NFL level. The talent around him, line and RB in particular, made his tools look worse, but he was very good at the short pass to get out of trouble. Tate and Floyd made his numbers look really good based on a crazy amount of yards after the catch. Seriously, scout Tate, he will be a steal in the second round for someone. We won’t go after him because of his size, but he is going to be a playmaker for someone next year. Clausen made a high percentage of high percentage throws. Its not a knock on him, exactly, because he made short throws based on the read and the time available. The probem is that when he had to make the longer throws or had time for things to develop his tools started to show weakness. His long throws, on average, were thrown on a wing and a prayer.
In the transition I think Clausen has an inherent advantage. My fear is that he will never have the tools necessary to be a premier starting QB. Bradford may have those tools, but he is going to have a rough few years developing what should have already been developed. How he comes out of that will be the important thing. For my money, everyone else can have these guys, I don’t really want either.

I know it is camp and no pads but that is a good sign.

This piece argues for Clausen pretty well.

The article was written to ‘right-size’ the FEVERISH hype ever rising Bradford to near God-like status, and the increased focus on Clausen’s so called red flags and college mediocrity. And for good reason.

The hype as of late has been focusing nearly entirely on upside. It’s hard to argue that Bradford doesn’t have more upside. But what’s being ignored is both QB’s ability to first get acclimated to the NFL and establish, first, some level of success as an NFL QB.

John’s article, and more specifically the enumerated points, give insight into why Clausen is more likely to get successfully acclimated to being a NFL QB and have some level of success as a NFL QB (the points he enumerated: performed well w/o star talent, led multiple come-from-behind wins, mastered a pro-style offense, tough schedule, etc).

Many of these enumerated points will directly relate to most rookie QB experiences in the NFL: they’ll likely play on a bad team (because they were drafted high), they’ll play against talent likely better than his own team, they’ll have to pick up a playbook likely far more complex than the average college program’s, they’ll likely often play from behind / under pressure, etc.

Clausen has shown ability to succeed in many of those situations / with some of those aspects.

Bradford isn’t the opposite, but many questions arise:

How does he play under pressure / from behind?
How does he perform when his team is over-matched?
Can he pick up and understand a pro-style offense?
etc.

Those type of questions cannot be sufficiently answered from his college experience due to the type of offense in which he played, the overall strength of his team, etc.

Plus I don’t think that we will be a really good team for a few years.
I also think that there will be a couple of QBs next year who are better than either of these guys and unfortunately we will be in a position to get one of them. No I’m not saying a specific name, I’m just saying in general.