Jimmy Clausen criticisms [Archive]

RealSNR

02-26-2010, 02:28 PM

FTR, I'm 100% on the draft Clausen bandwagon. All I hear from posters is "Clausen's not even CLOSE to a #1 prospect"

Umm... what? I don't watch many Notre Dame games, but all the footage and highlights I've seen of Clausen this year show that he has-

A) Made some VERY impressive downfield throws
B) Has a good, sharp, quick release on the ball and great fundamentals
C) Is tough as nails (playing that many games with turf toe)

That's no guarantee of instant NFL brilliance, but it at least shows potential. He's exhibited those qualities in college more than a couple times. The reasoning would then be, he can do exactly that in pros.

We've seen that kind of high-level QB play from Clausen. Have we seen anything close to resembling that in Cassel? Maybe his toughness, but even then we're not sure about that.

So what is it? Why does Jimmy Clausen suck? Or, let's put it a different way. Let's say Matt Cassel died in a fire tomorrow. What would be the rationale behind NOT taking Jimmy Clausen with this pick?

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 02:31 PM

They will say that he sucks because he's arrogant and he takes pictures in a speedo. That's the ONLY knock that they can find on him.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 02:34 PM

RealSNR

02-26-2010, 02:37 PM

I think most of the people that don't want Clausen feel that it is still too early to throw Cassel away. We have more glaring holes other than QB (surround Cassel with talent before throwing him under the bus and see how he reacts). Clausen is not your can't miss franchise QB. If we where to take a QB at 5 he better be a for sure franchise QB like Peyton Manning. I think that is the main reason that the anti-Clausen people don't want to take him.I see shit like, "Clausen isn't close to being Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez."

That's retarded. Personally, I think Clausen looks like a BETTER prospect than Matt Stafford. Stafford had a semi-decent team around him (shakey offensive line, but still) and made bone-headed retard plays all the time. If Clausen critics are saying that just because they don't want the Chiefs to take a QB because they love Matt Cassel, that's just ****ing childish and stupid.

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 02:37 PM

I think most of the people that don't want Clausen feel that it is still too early to throw Cassel away. We have more glaring holes other than QB (surround Cassel with talent before throwing him under the bus and see how he reacts). Clausen is not your can't miss franchise QB. If we where to take a QB at 5 he better be a for sure franchise QB like Peyton Manning. I think that is the main reason that the anti-Clausen people don't want to take him.

1. There is nothing that says that if we draft Clausen that we have to throw Cassel away. Let the dude play while Clausen picks up on the speed of the game in his first year. If Cassel plays lights out then we have the option of keeping him for another year or trading him to another team.

2. When was the last "can't miss" franchise QB that's come out since Manning? Peyton Manning is the exception to the rule. The guy is a fucking beast and there isn't a whole lot of QBs that can compare to him.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-26-2010, 02:38 PM

I think most of the people that don't want Clausen feel that it is still too early to throw Cassel away. We have more glaring holes other than QB (surround Cassel with talent before throwing him under the bus and see how he reacts). Clausen is not your can't miss franchise QB. If we where to take a QB at 5 he better be a for sure franchise QB like Peyton Manning. I think that is the main reason that the anti-Clausen people don't want to take him.

I think he is a can't miss prospect. Particularly working with his old college coach right out of the gates. I'm glad this thread was started. I have a lot left to learn about Clausen, and am welcome to people pointing me to his weaknesses I may be overlooking due to the massive boner obstructing my view due to his freak accuracy and touch.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-26-2010, 02:39 PM

1. There is nothing that says that if we draft Clausen that we have to throw Cassel away. Let the dude play while Clausen picks up on the speed of the game in his first year. If Cassel plays lights out then we have the option of keeping him for another year or trading him to another team.

2. When was the last "can't miss" franchise QB that's come out since Manning? Peyton Manning is the exception to the rule. The guy is a fucking beast and there isn't a whole lot of QBs that can compare to him.

I'd love to trade Cassel to Denver and stick Croyle in there until Clausen is ready. Even if that means Guitierrez (sic) is in by week 2. If we can get our pick back, or anything relatively close let's do it. Unload that contract and go get Julius Peppers with that money.

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 02:41 PM

I'd love to trade Cassel to Denver and stick Croyle in there until Clausen is ready. Even if that means Guitierrez (sic) is in by week 2. If we can get our pick back, or anything relatively close let's do it. Unload that contract and go get Julius Peppers with that money.

And honestly I don't see it happening. Even IF Weis gets his way and Clausen is drafted by the Chiefs......Pioli won't be dumping Cassel off on another team. That would be make him look like a fucking idiot because he traded for a QB that he thought was good, paid him a shit ton of money and then got rid of him after one year. Plus he'll be worth even more next year if he plays lights out for us this year...while Clausen sits on the bench.

ToxSocks

02-26-2010, 02:43 PM

Clausen is not your can't miss franchise QB.

The same shit is said every year about every QB. The same shit was said about Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, Flacco, Roethlisberger, Rivers.....I mean.....damn.....

Do you have to be the next Payton Manning to be considered a Franchise QB or something? Even he was debatable!

Clausen has not given any reason to believe that he couldn't be a franchise QB.

I was on the Cassel bandwagon...but watching that guy throw made my eyes bleed. His best throw of the season was the one he made to Copper in the last game; who was wide open BTW.

QB's either have "it" or they dont. Cassel doesn't have "it"

keg in kc

02-26-2010, 02:44 PM

I think he'd be a far more justifiable pick than Sanchez would have been a year ago. I wouldn't have a problem with it, even if it's not necessarily my first choice. Plus we know our OC knows how to get production out of him...

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 02:46 PM

Clausen is basically already set up for the Chiefs.

Worked with current offensive coordinator? Check.
Worked in primarily the same offense? Check.
Would be able to sit on the bench for his 1st year? Check.

It's not like people are advocating that we take Sam Bradford and start him immediately. FFS.....Clausen would be stepping into the perfect situation.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 02:49 PM

I see shit like, "Clausen isn't close to being Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez."

That's retarded. Personally, I think Clausen looks like a BETTER prospect than Matt Stafford. Stafford had a semi-decent team around him (shakey offensive line, but still) and made bone-headed retard plays all the time. If Clausen critics are saying that just because they don't want the Chiefs to take a QB because they love Matt Cassel, that's just ****ing childish and stupid.

Well I won't be saying Clausen "isn't close" to being the prospect that Stafford or Sanchez was. I would actually put him above Sanchez, prospect wise. Stafford has better physical tools than Clausen and that is why I put him above Clausen. Sanchez has the mental make-up you look for in a QB, but I don't think he has the same physical tools as Clausen.

I think the main problem is that people feel like it would be a waste to pass up on Berry (if available) and select a QB and pay him a ton of money like we are going to do with Cassel next year. And if Cassel plays well next year, we are stuck with paying 2 QB's very high money and without Clausen seeing the field he doesn't have a ton of value like he will on draft day. If someone wants to take a QB high, this is probably not the year to do it. This is a very weak QB class overall. Matt Ryan and Flacco where better prospects than Bradford and Clausen. Stafford and Sanchez, overall are better prospects than the combined Bradford and Clausen. Taking a QB in the 1st does not make a lot of sense from a business standpoint and for this team. You have to look at all of our other huge holes on the team.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 02:52 PM

The same shit is said every year about every QB. The same shit was said about Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, Flacco, Roethlisberger, Rivers.....I mean.....damn.....

And all of those players with the exception of Stafford (who has not shown to be a can't miss prospect anyways) went to a very good team. Ryan, had a great RB. Sanchez #1 running game in the league. Flacco, Ben, Rivers...All of those guys had their team set up perfectly to where they could not fail. They didn't start out on a scrap Chiefs team to begin their career.

RealSNR

02-26-2010, 02:52 PM

Well I won't be saying Clausen "isn't close" to being the prospect that Stafford or Sanchez was. I would actually put him above Sanchez, prospect wise. Stafford has better physical tools than Clausen and that is why I put him above Clausen. Sanchez has the mental make-up you look for in a QB, but I don't think he has the same physical tools as Clausen.

I think the main problem is that people feel like it would be a waste to pass up on Berry (if available) and select a QB and pay him a ton of money like we are going to do with Cassel next year. And if Cassel plays well next year, we are stuck with paying 2 QB's very high money and without Clausen seeing the field he doesn't have a ton of value like he will on draft day. If someone wants to take a QB high, this is probably not the year to do it. This is a very weak QB class overall. Matt Ryan and Flacco where better prospects than Bradford and Clausen. Stafford and Sanchez, overall are better prospects than the combined Bradford and Clausen. Taking a QB in the 1st does not make a lot of sense from a business standpoint and for this team. You have to look at all of our other huge holes on the team.
Bottom line is the Chiefs are going to pay an assload of money for their 1st rounder. May as well pay Jimmy Clausen that treasure chest than Tyson fucking Jackson.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-26-2010, 02:53 PM

And honestly I don't see it happening. Even IF Weis gets his way and Clausen is drafted by the Chiefs......Pioli won't be dumping Cassel off on another team. That would be make him look like a fucking idiot because he traded for a QB that he thought was good, paid him a shit ton of money and then got rid of him after one year. Plus he'll be worth even more next year if he plays lights out for us this year...while Clausen sits on the bench.

I don't disagree with you, but I'm a firm believer that you cut your bait when you know it's lost. Don't fuck around with it, do it expeditiously. I'm with you though that it probably won't happen.

Clausen is basically already set up for the Chiefs.

Worked with current offensive coordinator? Check.
Worked in primarily the same offense? Check.
Would be able to sit on the bench for his 1st year? Check.

It's not like people are advocating that we take Sam Bradford and start him immediately. FFS.....Clausen would be stepping into the perfect situation.

Exactly. As much as I wanted Sanchez last year, this is just too perfect of a situation for everyone involved. I guarantee that Clausen is praying he ends up in KC. Who else can you say really felt that way?

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 02:54 PM

Bottom line is the Chiefs are going to pay an assload of money for their 1st rounder. May as well pay Jimmy Clausen that treasure chest than Tyson ****ing Jackson.

Your right, but they need to pay that money to a position of need. Our safeties are pathetic. That is a position of NEED. Nose Tackle, the most important position in a 3-4 defense...We don't have a NT. We need another pass rushing LB. Our LB's suck.

QB at this point is not a position of need. If we are sitting here again next year after Cassel repeats himself, then it is obvious we need a QB. But hey, guess what...Next year the QB class will be better than this year. So we might as well get somebody from a good crop of QB's. If we find a way to get Locker, it would be better than drafting Bradford or Clausen this year.

RealSNR

02-26-2010, 03:03 PM

Your right, but they need to pay that money to a position of need. Our safeties are pathetic. That is a position of NEED. Nose Tackle, the most important position in a 3-4 defense...We don't have a NT. We need another pass rushing LB. Our LB's suck.

QB at this point is not a position of need. If we are sitting here again next year after Cassel repeats himself, then it is obvious we need a QB. But hey, guess what...Next year the QB class will be better than this year. So we might as well get somebody from a good crop of QB's. If we find a way to get Locker, it would be better than drafting Bradford or Clausen this year.I'm okay with this reasoning. But again, out of those positions you listed-

S- Agreed. Berry is a fantastic player, too. This would be a great pick.

NT- I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that I'm sick to fucking death of investing millions of dollars in a set of 3 players whose job is to take up blockers. Plus, there are quite a few late 1st round/early 2nd round NT prospects this year that would be much better draft value for us than taking one at 5th overall. Again, we solve this problem by taking Raji instead of Jackson last year, but whatever.

LB- Yeah, agreed. Is Pierre-Paul worth it? He's good and all but 5th overall good? McClain?

If the Chiefs want to avoid reaching (which is the desire of most fans on this board) then it looks like our best options at this point are Eric Berry and Jimmy Clausen

doomy3

02-26-2010, 03:05 PM

keg in kc

02-26-2010, 03:06 PM

Safety is a need, but I still have trouble with the idea of spending a top-5 pick on one, even if he's a generational player. Same with McClain (who I think would do more for KC than Berry). There's no NT worth the top 5 pick.

Fritz88

02-26-2010, 03:06 PM

I wish we could draft him. But we won't.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 03:13 PM

I'm okay with this reasoning. But again, out of those positions you listed-

S- Agreed. Berry is a fantastic player, too. This would be a great pick.

NT- I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that I'm sick to ****ing death of investing millions of dollars in a set of 3 players whose job is to take up blockers. Plus, there are quite a few late 1st round/early 2nd round NT prospects this year that would be much better draft value for us than taking one at 5th overall. Again, we solve this problem by taking Raji instead of Jackson last year, but whatever.

LB- Yeah, agreed. Is Pierre-Paul worth it? He's good and all but 5th overall good? McClain?

If the Chiefs want to avoid reaching (which is the desire of most fans on this board) then it looks like our best options at this point are Eric Berry and Jimmy Clausen

I totally understand where your coming from on the Nose Tackle position. Jackson was a stupid pick to begin with, and we should have taken Raji or atleast A nose tackle at some point in that draft. I don't see Pierre-Paul as a guy who is worth #5. Too much physically gifted about him, that it reminds me of Gholston. We need a football player, not just a gym rat. McClain is great. I wouldn't be upset if we took him at #5. He is the exact player that Pioli talks about when he talks about having the right 53. He would be our immediate leader on defense.

We need an awesome Guard. But the only Guard worthy of taking in the 1st is Iupati. But not at 5. I hate the idea of Okung, especially when I see guys who will be available in the 2nd or 3rd that are just as good, if not better than Okung. Like my personal favorite Vladimir Ducasse, who was a monster at the Senior bowl.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 03:15 PM

As for the NT position, I want to see us either take Cody in the 2nd, Thomas in the 3rd, or possibly trade back and pick up Williams in the late 1st. Who would want to trade with us? I don't know, but it is a nice dream, I just don't think Williams will be available in the 2nd, and quite honestly, he would be a nice fit with Denver if they keep the 3-4.

OnTheWarpath15

02-26-2010, 03:46 PM

keg in kc

02-26-2010, 03:47 PM

Sanchez started one year. That was and will always be the reason I didn't like him in the top 5.

Now I do hate Notre Dame. With a passion. But I'd be totally fine with Clausen at 5.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 04:00 PM

If Clausen or Sanchez had gone to a B12 school, people here would have been jizzing their shorts over them.

Instead, they play at the two most hated college programs on this board.

People won't admit it, but that's the biggest reason for most.

I don't know about others, but I don't dislike the Clausen pick because he went to ND.

The only guys in this draft I don't like because of their college is KU. But even in that situation, I am honest about their players. I feel indifferent about Dezmon Briscoe though.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-26-2010, 04:00 PM

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 04:03 PM

That is preposterous. Matt Stafford is a much better prospect than Clausen.

That said, you have to understand that there are people who will never want the Chiefs to draft a QB, because they are waiting for the next Peyton Manning...Well, Peyton Manning wasn't Peyton Manning when he was coming out of Tennessee, either.

It's an excuse to never take a chance...the hallmark of a True Fan.

I think the problem with "taking a chance" is that we already have a new QB. If we didn't have a QB, or if this was last year, I would be screaming for Clausen or Bradford, but the day we traded for Cassel, I said I would give him 2 years to prove himself. I am not going to throw him away because his first year with a mary-go-round receiving corp and shitty O-line was a disaster.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-26-2010, 04:03 PM

I don't know about others, but I don't dislike the Clausen pick because he went to ND.

The only guys in this draft I don't like because of their college is KU. But even in that situation, I am honest about their players. I feel indifferent about Dezmon Briscoe though.

If Ronnie Lott incarnate were available in the 7th round of the draft, and we knew he'd be Ronnie Lott, Laz would object to selecting him because he went to USC.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 04:05 PM

If Ronnie Lott incarnate were available in the 7th round of the draft, and we knew he'd be Ronnie Lott, Laz would object to selecting him because he went to USC.

Haha. I would never be that biased.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-26-2010, 04:05 PM

I think the problem with "taking a chance" is that we already have a new QB. If we didn't have a QB, or if this was last year, I would be screaming for Clausen or Bradford, but the day we traded for Cassel, I said I would give him 2 years to prove himself. I am not going to throw him away because his first year with a mary-go-round receiving corp and shitty O-line was a disaster.

Cassel has another year to prove his two-bit ass even if we draft someone else at #5.

Aikman wasn't sent to the scrap heap because Dallas spent their #1 overall pick on Steve Walsh via a supplemental selection.

keg in kc

02-26-2010, 04:09 PM

I think the problem with "taking a chance" is that we already have a new QB. If we didn't have a QB, or if this was last year, I would be screaming for Clausen or Bradford, but the day we traded for Cassel, I said I would give him 2 years to prove himself. I am not going to throw him away because his first year with a mary-go-round receiving corp and shitty O-line was a disaster.I don't disagree with your assessment of Cassel, I've said probably dozens of times by now how difficult it is to fairly judge him because of the situation he's in, but while he's a "new QB" to us, the reality is he's a 28-year old two-year starter with a contract that can easily be torn up after 2010. If Weis thinks Clausen can be the man, you take him, and find a trade partner for Cassel in 2011.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 04:11 PM

Cassel has another year to prove his two-bit ass even if we draft someone else at #5.

Aikman wasn't sent to the scrap heap because Dallas spent their #1 overall pick on Steve Walsh via a supplemental selection.

But my problem is, if Cassel does play well and we select Clausen we are stuck in a situation where we are paying our back-up a ton of money, but our starter is great, and Clausen loses value and we can't trade him again for next years #5 selection. If we trade Cassel after his successful season because we can't pay 2 QB's starter money, we don't know what we have with Clausen in 2011 if we have FB...

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-26-2010, 04:16 PM

But my problem is, if Cassel does play well and we select Clausen we are stuck in a situation where we are paying our back-up a ton of money, but our starter is great, and Clausen loses value and we can't trade him again for next years #5 selection. If we trade Cassel after his successful season because we can't pay 2 QB's starter money, we don't know what we have with Clausen in 2011 if we have FB...

The money is not an issue right now. We spent 50+ million on a 500,000 dollar player in Tyson Jackson.

The fact of the matter is that Cassel may play "well" but his "well" will never be good enough.

Have him play well enough to recoup the pick we pissed away on trading for his worthless ass, and then hand the reigns over to Clausen.

Ultimately, this all depends on whether or not you trust Matt Cassel. I've seen him start 15 games for this team and watched several of his 15 starts for another. He's hog shit.

FWIW, the Cowboys offloaded Walsh for a number of draft picks to the Saints.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 04:20 PM

The money is not an issue right now. We spent 50+ million on a 500,000 dollar player in Tyson Jackson.

The fact of the matter is that Cassel may play "well" but his "well" will never be good enough.

Have him play well enough to recoup the pick we pissed away on trading for his worthless ass, and then hand the reigns over to Clausen.

Ultimately, this all depends on whether or not you trust Matt Cassel. I've seen him start 15 games for this team and watched several of his 15 starts for another. He's hog shit.

FWIW, the Cowboys offloaded Walsh for a number of draft picks to the Saints.

If he was to play well enough to recoup the pick we lost by getting him I would have no problem with drafting Clausen if Berry is taken. I just don't see how Cassel could ever be worth a 2nd round pick again in his career, especially considering he will be 29 next year. But I understand your point, I just feel like if we are to draft a top QB we should do it next year by taking Locker, Gabbert, or somebody else. Not Clausen or Bradford for that matter.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-26-2010, 04:23 PM

If he was to play well enough to recoup the pick we lost by getting him I would have no problem with drafting Clausen if Berry is taken. I just don't see how Cassel could ever be worth a 2nd round pick again in his career, especially considering he will be 29 next year. But I understand your point, I just feel like if we are to draft a top QB we should do it next year by taking Locker, Gabbert, or somebody else. Not Clausen or Bradford for that matter.

I don't disagree, but I don't think we'll be in that position next year. Our schedule is just too fucking easy. It's a joke, a joke.

Arizona, St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle, Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Denver twice and Oakland twice.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 04:26 PM

I don't disagree, but I don't think we'll be in that position next year. Our schedule is just too ****ing easy. It's a joke, a joke.

Arizona, St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle, Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Denver twice and Oakland twice.

So your saying it's set up for Cassel to play well? Or if he plays average that actually means he played piss poor.

I'm just curious, would you rather have Berry, Clausen, McClain, or Haden with our top pick? Who do you want most?

Archie Bunker

02-26-2010, 04:32 PM

If Clausen or Sanchez had gone to a B12 school, people here would have been jizzing their shorts over them.

Instead, they play at the two most hated college programs on this board.

People won't admit it, but that's the biggest reason for most.

I think this whole Big 12 bias is a little overblown. I don't see hardly anyone wanting Bradford, Okung, or Bryant at 5. I've yet to hear a lot of clamoring for McCoy, Stuckey, or Briscoe types later on either.

The anti-QB crowd has no conference bias IMO. They fall into 4 easily defined groups:

1. OMG WE NEED OLINE!111111111
2. Pro-Cassel
3. Scared of the risk
4. They honestly don't like them as prospects/Wait for Locker, Mallett, Gabbert

CoMoChief

02-26-2010, 04:34 PM

Cassel blows. I'd rather play Croyle.

CoMoChief

02-26-2010, 04:34 PM

I think this whole Big 12 bias is a little overblown. I don't see hardly anyone wanting Bradford, Okung, or Bryant at 5. I've yet to hear a lot of clamoring for McCoy, Stuckey, or Briscoe types later on either.

The anti-QB crowd has no conference bias IMO. They fall into 4 easily defined groups:

1. OMG WE NEED OLINE!111111111
2. Pro-Cassel
3. Scared of the risk
4. They honestly don't like them as prospects/Wait for Locker, Mallett, Gabbert

JFC people get off the Gabbert bandwagon.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-26-2010, 04:35 PM

So your saying it's set up for Cassel to play well? Or if he plays average that actually means he played piss poor.

I'm just curious, would you rather have Berry, Clausen, McClain, or Haden with our top pick? Who do you want most?

I'm not totally sold on Clausen. I think the only other realistic option (if on the board) is Berry.

I would be fine with Clausen, but I think next year's QBs are better. That said, I think we end up around 7 wins and out of the QB range.

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 04:36 PM

KCrockaholic

02-26-2010, 04:37 PM

Cassel blows. I'd rather play Croyle.

I think we all would, if he wasn't a skeleton. He's called Brokie for a reason you know.

Reaper16

02-26-2010, 04:38 PM

True Fans by year --

2008: Ryan and Flacco? Don't draft them; they're no Peyton or Big Ben or Brady.
2009: Stafford and Sanchez? Don't draft them; they're no Ryan or Flacco.
2010: Clausen? Don't draft him; he's no Stafford or Sanchez.
Etc. on into perpetuity

keg in kc

02-26-2010, 04:39 PM

I don't disagree, but I don't think we'll be in that position next year. Our schedule is just too ****ing easy. It's a joke, a joke.

Arizona, St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle, Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Denver twice and Oakland twice.The only positive is that, even if we do draft in the middle, odds are there will be a really good QB dropping into that range because it'll likely be a good draft for it.

But I have never liked the idea of targetting a player in a draft a year away. You have to take what's on the table now. You have no idea how things are going to play out over 12 months.

googlegoogle

02-26-2010, 04:43 PM

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223956&page=6

Brock

02-26-2010, 04:59 PM

Welcome to Chiefsplanet, where Matt Ryan reminds people of Todd Blackledge.

Reaper16

02-26-2010, 05:04 PM

Welcome to Chiefsplanet, where Matt Ryan reminds people of Todd Blackledge.
"Jimmy Clausen? We tried the QBotF thing already with Brodie Croyle and it didn't work!"

keg in kc

02-26-2010, 05:06 PM

"Jimmy Clausen? We tried the QBotF thing already with Brodie Croyle and it didn't work!""Jimmy Clausen? We tried the QBotF thing when we traded for Matt Cassel last year."

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 05:08 PM

I think this whole Big 12 bias is a little overblown. I don't see hardly anyone wanting Bradford, Okung, or Bryant at 5.

Have you not looked around CP in a while? I've seen plenty of people clamoring for Bradford, Okung or Bryant at 5.

BigChiefFan

02-26-2010, 05:14 PM

Have you not looked around CP in a while? I've seen plenty of people clamoring for Bradford, Okung or Bryant at 5.

It's not because of the Big 12, though. Sure, when you follow the teams closely,it's easy to see who the stand-outs are, but it's based on those guys talent level and not the conference they play in.

doomy3

02-26-2010, 05:17 PM

Have you not looked around CP in a while? I've seen plenty of people clamoring for Bradford, Okung or Bryant at 5.

Much different than Notre Dame fans who want to use our first two picks on Jimmy Clausen and Golden Tate.

OnTheWarpath15

02-26-2010, 05:20 PM

Much different than Notre Dame fans who want to use our first two picks on Jimmy Clausen and Golden Tate.

Fans?

There's one.

Pest. And IMO, they could each play for North Buttfuck State and he'd want them.

Because they are talented players, who could help this team tremendously.

doomy3

02-26-2010, 05:22 PM

Fans?

There's one.

Pest. And IMO, they could each play for North Butt**** State and he'd want them.

Because they are talented players, who could help this team tremendously.

Right, I get that.

Same could be said for the top QB in this draft (Bradford), the top WR in this draft (Bryant), and the top OT in this draft (Okung). Too bad they all played in the Big 12.

They are also all talented players, who would help this team tremendously.

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 05:29 PM

Fans?

There's one.

Pest. And IMO, they could each play for North Buttfuck State and he'd want them.

Because they are talented players, who could help this team tremendously.

This pretty much. That happens when you watch them play every Saturday.

OnTheWarpath15

02-26-2010, 05:31 PM

This pretty much. That happens when you watch them play every Saturday.

The difference is, you're objective enough to talk about their weaknesses, whereas the B12 fanboys think that Bradford, Bryant and Okung all walk on water.

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 05:33 PM

The difference is, you're objective enough to talk about their weaknesses, whereas the B12 fanboys think that Bradford, Bryant and Okung all walk on water.

Hey....I try not to be a HUGE homer. Clausen makes questionable decisions sometimes and Tate is on the smaller side....especially because he's a converted RB.

keg in kc

02-26-2010, 05:33 PM

The difference is, you're objective enough to talk about their weaknesses, whereas the B12 fanboys think that Bradford, Bryant and Okung all walk on water.Please, water doesn't stay water when they touch it it. They walk on wine.

OnTheWarpath15

02-26-2010, 05:37 PM

Please, water doesn't stay water when they touch it it. They walk on wine.

LMAO

Mecca

02-26-2010, 05:44 PM

Hey....I try not to be a HUGE homer. Clausen makes questionable decisions sometimes and Tate is on the smaller side....especially because he's a converted RB.

You're about to get the treatment I get when I talk about SC players, it's not cool that our college teams produce NFL players.

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 05:45 PM

You're about to get the treatment I get when I talk about SC players, it's not cool that our college teams produce NFL players.

That's fine. I expect Notre Dame hate.

Mecca

02-26-2010, 05:47 PM

The ONLY reason people on this forum don't clamor for McCoy is because we play 3-4, the guy is an elite level prospect.

keg in kc

02-26-2010, 05:50 PM

That's fine. I expect Notre Dame hate.I used to hate Notre Dame, but I've really enjoyed watching them the last few years. I hope they stay on NBC forever.

Saccopoo

02-26-2010, 05:55 PM

That is preposterous. Matt Stafford is a much better prospect than Clausen.

That said, you have to understand that there are people who will never want the Chiefs to draft a QB, because they are waiting for the next Peyton Manning...Well, Peyton Manning wasn't Peyton Manning when he was coming out of Tennessee, either.

It's an excuse to never take a chance...the hallmark of a True Fan.

Do you take Claussen this year and blow off any chance for Gabbert, Mallet or Locker next year? IMHO, I'd be happy to spend a first rounder on one of those guys, but I'm a little hesitant in dropping a #5 pick on a douche nozzle who wears a greek thong.

RealSNR

02-26-2010, 05:57 PM

I'm not totally sold on Clausen. I think the only other realistic option (if on the board) is Berry.

I would be fine with Clausen, but I think next year's QBs are better. That said, I think we end up around 7 wins and out of the QB range.See, that's why I started this thread. What don't you like about him?

From watching game footage, he tends to float his long balls way too much. They're almost Cassel-like in that they can sometimes be total jump balls instead of thrown to a specific spot on the field.

The other is his decision-making. Which supposedly can be fixed by NFL coaches.

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 05:57 PM

I used to hate Notre Dame, but I've really enjoyed watching them the last few years. I hope they stay on NBC forever.

Don't worry....they will. They're never giving up that contract and moving to a real conference. I wish they fucking would though.

Mecca

02-26-2010, 05:58 PM

Do you take Claussen this year and blow off any chance for Gabbert, Mallet or Locker next year? IMHO, I'd be happy to spend a first rounder on one of those guys, but I'm a little hesitant in dropping a #5 pick on a douche nozzle who wears a greek thong.

I don't really get jazzed up about those QB's, 1 guy is from the spread, Mallett is heavily inconsistent and Locker I wouldn't touch him.

Plus I'd be leaning WR next year and the Chiefs unless this front office really is the biggest turd of all will probably win 5 or 6 games next year and not pick high enough to be taking a QB.

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 05:58 PM

Mecca

02-26-2010, 05:59 PM

See, that's why I started this thread. What don't you like about him?

From watching game footage, he tends to float his long balls way too much. They're almost Cassel-like in that they can sometimes be total jump balls instead of thrown to a specific spot on the field.

The other is his decision-making. Which supposedly can be fixed by NFL coaches.

You'd think he has been well coached already, his pick total went down every year as his other numbers increased.

Also lots of guys float long balls so their WR's can either run under them or high point the ball, that's knowing who you play with. You judge the arm on things like the skinny post and deep out, look at the zip on the ball not the distance it's being thrown.

RealSNR

02-26-2010, 06:02 PM

Do you take Claussen this year and blow off any chance for Gabbert, Mallet or Locker next year? IMHO, I'd be happy to spend a first rounder on one of those guys, but I'm a little hesitant in dropping a #5 pick on a douche nozzle who wears a greek thong.Give me criticisms of Clausen's play and why he won't be a good NFL QB.

Wearing a greek thong doesn't count. The guy could drink semen for lunch, sneeze glitter, and look prettier than a hot asian chick and I wouldn't give a fucking shit as long as he won this team a Super Bowl.

RealSNR

02-26-2010, 06:02 PM

You'd think he has been well coached already, his pick total went down every year as his other numbers increased.

Also lots of guys float long balls so their WR's can either run under them or high point the ball, that's knowing who you play with. You judge the arm on things like the skinny post and deep out, look at the zip on the ball not the distance it's being thrown.Of which he's got plenty (zip on the ball, that is)

Mecca

02-26-2010, 06:04 PM

Like if you're playing with say Brandon Marshall you want to float your long balls, he's 6'4 and high points very well, there's no reason not to make it a jump ball every time.

tk13

02-26-2010, 06:06 PM

I'm just not as confident in him as I was Stafford and Sanchez. But even then you don't know, you can put guys in a bad situation and they never pan out. I do truly think Stafford was a better prospect though. He has a once in a decade arm, and he showed some 4th quarter heroics in college on a team with a bad offensive line.

But a guy like Flacco was brought onto a team that can run the ball really well and play D, he's had some success. Brady Quinn fell into a vast black hole... and I'm not sure Flacco was that much better than Quinn coming out. So you never know... but I'm not completely convinced we couldn't wait a year, see what happens with Cassel, put a better team around him... and then still have an equal or better group of QB's to go after next year. That wasn't the case last year. But I'll admit maybe I'm knocking Clausen down a bit because he's in a class with guys like Bradford who I think aren't as good..

Saccopoo

02-26-2010, 06:07 PM

That's fine. I expect Notre Dame hate.

I don't think that there's been any Notre Dame hate.

Hell, I think Jimmy is going to give us an entirely new fan base. He can be the honorary queen during KC's Gay Pride parade. And Golden Tate will show people that dwarves are useful beyond wrapping themselves in velcro and getting tossed up on a wall in a bar.

tk13

02-26-2010, 06:09 PM

But I'd say the one reason why I'd be fine is we do have Clausen's college coach. There really is no question of whether they'd have good chemistry, you'd think. I know Cassel and Pioli had a past but I'd think it's different when you're talking about the guy who is actually calling the plays.

Mecca

02-26-2010, 06:09 PM

I don't really like Golden Tate, maybe that's just me.

Saccopoo

02-26-2010, 06:10 PM

I don't really get jazzed up about those QB's, 1 guy is from the spread, Mallett is heavily inconsistent and Locker I wouldn't touch him.

Plus I'd be leaning WR next year and the Chiefs unless this front office really is the biggest turd of all will probably win 5 or 6 games next year and not pick high enough to be taking a QB.

If they all come out, you are looking at Locker, Mallet and Gabbert as QB's, and Jones, Green and Floyd as WRs. Even if the Chiefs pull a miracle 8-8 season, one of them will be most likely available when the Chiefs pick.

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 06:10 PM

I don't really like Golden Tate, maybe that's just me.

He's not a #1 WR.....but he can be a good #2 or slot receiver....and he also can return kicks and punts.

I'd compare him to Steve Smith from the Giants.

Mecca

02-26-2010, 06:12 PM

He's not a #1 WR.....but he can be a good #2 or slot receiver....and he also can return kicks and punts.

I'd compare him to Steve Smith from the Giants.

He's just shorter....see I think Damian Williams profiles out as being very similar to Smith just a bit more naturally gifted.

I think Golden Tate's upside is Hines Ward his downside is Josh Reed...the question is which one is he.

The Franchise

02-26-2010, 06:14 PM

He's just shorter....see I think Damian Williams profiles out as being very similar to Smith just a bit more naturally gifted.

I think Golden Tate's upside is Hines Ward his downside is Josh Reed...the question is which one is he.

I'd lean more towards Ward instead of Reed.

doomy3

02-26-2010, 06:18 PM

I don't really like Golden Tate, maybe that's just me.

I'd much rather have Demaryius Thomas.

Mecca

02-26-2010, 06:20 PM

I'd much rather have Demaryius Thomas.

Now I like him, I think I was the first one that pimped him on the forum, I see some Brandon Marshall in him.

doomy3

02-26-2010, 06:22 PM

Now I like him, I think I was the first one that pimped him on the forum, I see some Brandon Marshall in him.

Haven't seen you pimp him, but I agree. Brandon Marshall or Vincent Jackson is who he reminds me of. Probably faster than either though.

Mecca

02-26-2010, 06:23 PM

It was probably last month, I've been on the Thomas wagon for awhile.

keg in kc

02-26-2010, 06:25 PM

Thomas has been pimped by several people.

Fish

02-27-2010, 12:04 AM

My strongest knock on Clausen is his floater ball. He's got the arm to zip it there, but he floats them sometimes. Yet, he only had 4 INTs all season. Season before that was a different story.. 17 INTs. So which is it?

He needs experience. No sense in rushing him. So we'd have to sit our #1 pick on the bench for a while. That might be a tough pill for some to swallow with this many holes on the team. Picking Clausen would mean no immediate impact.

Douchebag factor. Is it too much? The NCAA HOF entrance is lame, that does kinda bother me. He's brimming with confidence, but can he get the respect of the rest of the team radiating that much douche?

Mecca

02-27-2010, 12:09 AM

Usually guys who are willing to play with serious injuries have the respect of their teammates.

I say his floating long ball was the way he was told to throw it, considering Floyd and Tate both did a great job at high pointing balls.

Saccopoo

02-27-2010, 12:41 AM

From the NFL combine:

Clausen did raise some eyebrows with his small hands (nine inches) and arms (30 3/4 inches). The prototype quarterback has measurements similar to Bradford -- 34½-inch arms, 9½-inch hands (although that's small compared to Tim Tebow's 10 1/8-inch mitts).

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xu_bE7g2wqM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xu_bE7g2wqM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Saccopoo

02-27-2010, 12:43 AM

Hmmm...wasn't the big crap that everybody decided to take on Alex Smith due to his purported hand size?

Maybe Clausen could challenge Dave Kreig for the smallest hands on a quarterback ever.

Hamas, what's your take on this?

http://travismurk.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/evolution-t-rex.jpg

jidar

02-27-2010, 01:29 AM

That is preposterous. Matt Stafford is a much better prospect than Clausen.

That said, you have to understand that there are people who will never want the Chiefs to draft a QB, because they are waiting for the next Peyton Manning...Well, Peyton Manning wasn't Peyton Manning when he was coming out of Tennessee, either.

It's an excuse to never take a chance...the hallmark of a True Fan.

Sorry but no. Staffords completion percentage and decision making were both issues I was concerned with when he was coming out of college.
Clausen has no such issues that I'm aware of.

Nightfyre

02-27-2010, 02:30 AM

From the NFL combine:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xu_bE7g2wqM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xu_bE7g2wqM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Hey, the lower we can draft him, the better. I hope his stock plummets. Weis knows if hes the real deal or not. I think the chiefs will draft him. Pioli's "we're not drafting a qb" talk ONLY serves to create the impression that people needn't worry about trading ahead of us for a QB. Of course, last year I hoped to draft sanchez and flip cassel. I am sad we did not.