The Claussen Pickle

[John Cocktosten]

Define disinformation.

 

Facts stated (or inferred) in my argument:

 

1. QB is team leader (synonymous with "field general" from Synonym.com)

2. Claussen was ND QB for three years (ND Football website)

3. Clausen won 16 out of 35 (or 45% win pct) games ND played in last three years (source CBS Sportsline)

4. ND lost this year to UConn at home, Navy at home, had to come from behind at home to beat a 5-7 UWash team (source ESPN)

5. Loser - a person who failed at a particular activity (Dictionary.com)

6. Clausen 45% wins, 55% losses - mathematically qualifies as a negative/loss (trust me on this one or use your calculator)

 

Therefore, based on facts 1 through 6, Clausen is by definition a loser.

 

So please explain where the disinformation is?

Ya figure after "50 years" of watching football you'd pick up something.

1. Is not true (Baltimore, NE, Philly to name a few have leaderS)

2. Solid point.

3. Clausen is not a pitcher

4. UConn beat South Carolina in a bowl game this year. If you actually watched CFB, you'd know that they had a great season. Navy beat the snot out of Mizzou in a bowl game and nearly beat Ohio St. at the shoe and had a great year. Good points though, you obviously keep up on CFB.

5. Clausen's combined stats the last 2 seasons. 7000yds-53Td's- 21 ints- 65% com. He is obviously a failure at his "activity". Are you sure that you've been watching football for 50 years?

6. Again, he's a Qb right?

So there you have it, when you break it all down scientifically, you've wasted a lot of time watching football over the last 50 years because you don't know sh*t. Try Wikipedia-ing American football.

[/dev/null]

I go out of my way to avoid watching ND. Same with PSU and OSU. Our local tv affiliates, and ESPN feed, seem to think that I won't live another day unless I get their entire seasons shoved in front of me.

 

You're dead to me

 

Has the fact that you live in Ohio maybe crossed your mind as to why you get alot of Ohio State and Big 10 games?

 

Living in Virginia Beach, I get lots of Virginia Tech and ACC games. I wonder why

[stuckincincy]

You're dead to me

 

Has the fact that you live in Ohio maybe crossed your mind as to why you get alot of Ohio State and Big 10 games?

 

Living in Virginia Beach, I get lots of Virginia Tech and ACC games. I wonder why

 

The Happy Valley Irregulars have left The Beaver and are on the march again!

 

 

 

 

Yes dev...I know where I live.

 

Yes dev...on my cable, I also get the Big Ten network, and pay for it even though I don't give a rat's patoot about the OSU Buckeyes.

[Orton's Arm]

Leadership is an intangible....either you have it or you don't.

 

Some of you have replied to my previous post and asked for specific examples of where Clausen showed a lack of leadership. Well since football is a team sport, and the QB is the face of the team, I'll start by citing the fact that ND lost its last 4 straight. That tells me that Clausen didn't put the team on his shoulders and will them to win at least one of those last 4 games. There was no shame in losing at Pitt or at Stanford. But there is no excuse for losing at home to Connecticut and at home to Navy. ND also had to come back late at home to beat a mediocre Washington team. The only thing close to a "quality" win this year was against a Boston College team that finished 8-5.

 

For those of you that will now respond with, "well Notre Dame had a down year/bad team", aren't the two most prominent figures in the making of a bad team the coach and QB (see Buffalo Bills 2000-2009). We've been saying for years we need the Bills to get a QB who can put the team on his shoulders and make the players around him better. Clausen did not do that. ND's record the last three years were 3-9, 7-6 and 6-6. As Bill Parcells says - "you are what your record says you are".

 

I've watched football for almost 50 years. The intangible that the great quarterbacks almost universally have is that aura around them that they can bring their team back no matter what the score. They get their teammates to believe that as well. Clausen has not demonstrated that trait.

 

So count me among those who has made up his mind and won't change it. I hope Clausen is gone by No. 9 so the Bills don't have to make the decision. If I'm wrong and Clausen becomes the next Peyton Manning, I will live with the comfort that "real football men" in the past have passed on the likes of John Unitas, Dan Marino, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, and Dree Brees over can't miss prospects who went in the 1st round like Ryan Leaf, Akili Smith, Todd Blackledge, David Klingler, Rick Mirer and Kelly Stouffer. (And please don't call me an ND basher. I've been following ND since 1970 and I still get a lump in my throat every time Rudy makes that damn tackle!).

 

"Da Bills - they're an ugly mutt, but their MY MUTT!"

This is a well thought-out, well-expressed post. But I'm not 100% sold on the conclusion you've reached. Good leadership requires not just a good leader, but also followers capable of being led. You could take the best leaders in human history and, if you surround them with people who just aren't motivated to do what they're supposed to be doing, don't have passion, etc., those leaders would be helpless.

 

Clausen very clearly played well himself. Given that his team never lost a game by more than 7 points, and given that the defense was lousy, the offensive line was chopped liver, and the skill players were often hurt, that says something about the level of play that team was getting from the QB position. For some players, knowing that your QB will do a good job, game after game, playing through injuries, etc., is motivation enough.

 

Perhaps Clausen wasn't surrounded by very many of those types of players. Maybe the guys he was surrounded with needed more leadership than that--from him, from the coaches, from someone. Assuming, of course, that any amount of leadership would have been enough to have gotten them to play good, solid, motivated football on a consistent basis.

 

An anti-Clausen article I read stated that there were times when he tried to motivate the offensive line, but that the offensive linemen came away unmotivated. Was that his fault, or was it theirs?

 

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that this criticism of Clausen is valid: that he isn't good at convincing the players around him to play their best. And that no amount of coaching or outside learning/training can help him overcome that limitation. Might we consider drafting him anyway on the basis of his own, very strong individual play, with the idea of assigning the task of player motivation to someone else? The coaching staff, a few veteran locker room leaders, people like that?

 

Edit: the fact that several of Clausen's classmates have come to his defense, and have defended his leadership, significantly lessens (but does not eliminate) my concern over that portion of the package he brings to the table. From what I know about him, I think he'd be a very good selection for the Bills. (Though my knowledge is incomplete.)

[Orton's Arm]

OK. I will say it (well paraphrase it).

 

I watched Clausen play and he was ok but definitely not great. Therefore I wouldn't spend the No 9 pick on him. If he's there at 41, then go ahead and take a shot.

 

I've seen him on TV, and I watched him live against Pitt this year. Now as a Bills fan, don't you think I had in the back of my mind that I thought maybe he would be on the Bills radar. I left the game unimpressed. Tate was the story of the game, and the reason the Irish had a shot at the end. Not Clausen.

 

The Pro-Clausen movement on this Board has a "Clausen or bust" mentality. Well too many 1st round qbs end up being busts. That sets the franchise back another 5 years. Bills have too many needs to take a shot on anyone at any position with question marks, but especially at QB. I've been in the "OT/LT at No 9" camp from day 1, and that's where I'm staying.

I'd like to address your bolded text. Especially in today's pass-friendly NFL, teams that have franchise QBs have a very strong advantage over teams that don't. Typically, when you invest a first round pick in a QB, you give him a several year chance to prove that he's the man. If at the end of that time he's blown his chance, your team has been set back because 1) it does not have a franchise QB, and 2) it does not have some first round QB on the roster in the process of becoming that franchise QB.

 

The problem with taking a first round QB and having him bust isn't just the loss of the first round pick. It's the loss of the opportunity/incentive you otherwise would have had to address the QB position.

 

To give an example, the Bills had the 8th overall pick in the 2006 draft. They could have used that pick on a QB like Cutler. But they still had thoughts that maybe Losman might be the answer, and in any case they felt they had to have a strong safety right away, and that he had to be taken early. In that situation, we ended up squandering the 8th overall pick on Donte Whitner, plus we delayed addressing the QB position for another year. Then in the 2007 draft we tried to address QB on the cheap, using a 3rd rounder on Trent Edwards. (Because, of course, finding your starting QB is far less important than a defensive back. Obviously.) The Trent Edwards experiment delayed the search for our starting QB by another two years (2008 and 2009).

 

To make a long post short: losing an early draft pick on a QB/bust is, in itself, no worse than losing an early pick on a bust at any other position. The real harm comes from the delay in the search for your franchise QB. But a QB chosen in later rounds can also delay your search for a franchise QB, as Trent Edwards has shown us. Because that delay is so harmful, you really, really want a QB who's likely to be the answer, as opposed to a guy who looks like he might be the answer for a while but ultimately proves he isn't. Your odds of finding a real answer at franchise QB (as opposed to another mirage) are the best in the first ten picks of the draft.

[Buffaloed in Pa]

Another Cally Dude. No thanks. Just don`t work out here. Questions about his leadership qualities and being spoiled. Dude looks like the kid in that old Bonny and Clyde movie with Faye Dunaway. Yeah I`m old.

[Thurman#1]

Nice rebuttal. Solid points to back up your argument.

 

That said. I still don't think he's the answer. He might end up being a good to great quarterback. And if the Bills take him, I'll drink the Clausen Kool-Aid and hope like hell I'm wrong. But until they do, I'm not going to be convinced he's the guy they should use their 1st round pick on.

 

And I did see him play in person against Pitt (as well as a number of TV games). I thought he made some nice throws, but his long throws were wounded ducks. He was fortunate Golden Tate had the speed to outrun Pitts banged up secondary and run under them (as well as run a kickoff back for a TD). But it was Tate that got ND back in the game, not Clausen.

 

I'm all for them taking him with their 2nd round pick

 

 

The throws were wounded ducks? Yet only Tate had the speed to outrun Pitt's secondary to the spot? Sounds to me like a perfect pass, put in exactly the right spot where the reciever could get it, in other words, Clausen knew his reciever's capabilities and threw it to exactly the right spot.

 

If you don't want to believe in Clausen, that's your right. But giving credit to a reciever for having the speed to reach a ball and denying credit to the QB for knowing the reciever's speed and putting it in the right place ... just doesn't make sense.

 

And Clausen won't be there in the second, I'm sure you know there's about a one in 500 chance of that happening, probably less because somebody would trade up to get him far before that.

[Thurman#1]

I'll start by citing the fact that ND lost its last 4 straight. That tells me that Clausen didn't put the team on his shoulders and will them to win at least one of those last 4 games. There was no shame in losing at Pitt or at Stanford. But there is no excuse for losing at home to Connecticut and at home to Navy. ND also had to come back late at home to beat a mediocre Washington team. The only thing close to a "quality" win this year was against a Boston College team that finished 8-5.

 

 

In those last four games, the Notre Dame defense allowed 23, 27, 33 and 45 points. How is Clausen responsible for that? Clausen himself had excellent games all four times, never completing less than 64% and throwing for 10 TDs and 2 INTs.

 

 

ND's record the last three years were 3-9, 7-6 and 6-6. As Bill Parcells says - "you are what your record says you are".

 

 

Parcells said that about teams, not specific guys on football teams. If you hold ND's performance against Clausen, then you have to say that Archie Manning wasn't anyone you'd want on your team. Overall team talent is a huge factor in team win loss records, and Notre Dame's defense and offensive lines were genuinely bad.

 

Put Truman Capote at left tackle and I don't care how good the team leader is, the team is likely to lose, Not to say that anybody like Capote was on that team, but bad players hurt teams badly, leadership or not.

[Thurman#1]

Another Cally Dude. No thanks.

 

 

Yeah, no Joe Montanas on our team. I'm sure that if we'd gotten Montana here, he would've been a bust.

[Bufcomments]

If, and that's a big if, he is there I think the Bills have to take him.

 

I don't care what the mock draft guys says the tape does not lie.

 

All the kid did each year was get better. Coached in a pro style O 4 yrs. at ND under Weis. I saw a couple of ND game last fall bell to bell and I was impressed.

Plus the talent at OT is deep, they could trade back into the first to get a LT to protect him.

 

Now having said that the only way he falls to us if there is a run on OT's early in the first round, which may happen.

Look at St. Louis, they passed on QB's last year and they are still looking for one.

 

Clausen, Fitz and Brohm, I for one can live with that.

[John Cocktosten]

Yeah, no Joe Montanas on our team. I'm sure that if we'd gotten Montana here, he would've been a bust.

I believe Montana was born in PA. The notion of no Cali QB's coming here is what people say when they know nothing about football. Let's not critique his QB play, let's critique his neighborhood. That is such a Buffalo myopian attitude.

 

Tom Brady, John Elway, Cunningham, Palmer and Aaron Rodgers all suck. This is the dumbest argument ever.

[H2o]

<---------

[Buffaloed in Pa]

I believe Montana was born in PA. The notion of no Cali QB's coming here is what people say when they know nothing about football. Let's not critique his QB play, let's critique his neighborhood. That is such a Buffalo myopian attitude.

 

Tom Brady, John Elway, Cunningham, Palmer and Aaron Rodgers all suck. This is the dumbest argument ever.

Spoken like a true Californian. Yeah me and Kelly who knows nothing about football think alike on this . The Cally guys have been just great in Buff.

[John Cocktosten]

Spoken like a true Californian. Yeah me and Kelly who knows nothing about football think alike on this . The Cally guys have been just great in Buff.

Is it just California? How about QB's from Texas, Florida, Oklahoma or Arkansas? They're warm, even warmer than Cali! Is it just warm weather QB's that shouldn't be drafted by Buffalo, or all other teams with similar weather to Buffalo should not draft cali QB's? How about if they have long hair and are from Cali? Is this a double whammy?

 

Did you ever think that JP, Trent and RJ all suck? None of them have gone on to do anything right? I think it comes down to poor drafting, poor coaching and a complete lack of talent from these 3. If you said that you don't want Clausen because he sucks, I'm fine with it. But the fact that he's from California and that is why you don't want him is silly. It's Buffalo Bills myiopia.

 

Some of the best QB's have come from Cali to play in cold weather cities. At the end of the day a great football player will be great regardless of the weather.

[Thurman#1]

I believe Montana was born in PA. The notion of no Cali QB's coming here is what people say when they know nothing about football. Let's not critique his QB play, let's critique his neighborhood. That is such a Buffalo myopian attitude.

 

Tom Brady, John Elway, Cunningham, Palmer and Aaron Rodgers all suck. This is the dumbest argument ever.

 

 

 

Um, exactly, I was agreeing with you.

 

EDIT: Oh, I see what you're getting at. I meant Rodgers, not Montana. Sorry.

[Thurman#1]

Spoken like a true Californian. Yeah me and Kelly who knows nothing about football think alike on this . The Cally guys have been just great in Buff.

 

 

 

There's also never been a good blonde QB for the Bills. So let's definitely stay away from blondes and redheads.

 

The point isn't whether they're from California. The point is whether they're good.

[Thurman#1]

If, and that's a big if, he is there I think the Bills have to take him.

 

I don't care what the mock draft guys says the tape does not lie.

 

All the kid did each year was get better. Coached in a pro style O 4 yrs. at ND under Weis. I saw a couple of ND game last fall bell to bell and I was impressed.

Plus the talent at OT is deep, they could trade back into the first to get a LT to protect him.

 

Now having said that the only way he falls to us if there is a run on OT's early in the first round, which may happen.

Look at St. Louis, they passed on QB's last year and they are still looking for one.

 

Clausen, Fitz and Brohm, I for one can live with that.

 

 

 

I'd expect Clausen, Trent and Brohm, but I hear you.

[spartacus]

I'd like to address your bolded text. Especially in today's pass-friendly NFL, teams that have franchise QBs have a very strong advantage over teams that don't. Typically, when you invest a first round pick in a QB, you give him a several year chance to prove that he's the man. If at the end of that time he's blown his chance, your team has been set back because 1) it does not have a franchise QB, and 2) it does not have some first round QB on the roster in the process of becoming that franchise QB.

 

The problem with taking a first round QB and having him bust isn't just the loss of the first round pick. It's the loss of the opportunity/incentive you otherwise would have had to address the QB position.

 

To give an example, the Bills had the 8th overall pick in the 2006 draft. They could have used that pick on a QB like Cutler. But they still had thoughts that maybe Losman might be the answer, and in any case they felt they had to have a strong safety right away, and that he had to be taken early. In that situation, we ended up squandering the 8th overall pick on Donte Whitner, plus we delayed addressing the QB position for another year. Then in the 2007 draft we tried to address QB on the cheap, using a 3rd rounder on Trent Edwards. (Because, of course, finding your starting QB is far less important than a defensive back. Obviously.) The Trent Edwards experiment delayed the search for our starting QB by another two years (2008 and 2009).

 

To make a long post short: losing an early draft pick on a QB/bust is, in itself, no worse than losing an early pick on a bust at any other position. The real harm comes from the delay in the search for your franchise QB. But a QB chosen in later rounds can also delay your search for a franchise QB, as Trent Edwards has shown us. Because that delay is so harmful, you really, really want a QB who's likely to be the answer, as opposed to a guy who looks like he might be the answer for a while but ultimately proves he isn't. Your odds of finding a real answer at franchise QB (as opposed to another mirage) are the best in the first ten picks of the draft.

or trading for one who has proven to be a real live NFL QB that can play from game 1 in 2010

[SawchukBills]

New coach, new GM, trio of unexciting QBs...I say if Claussen is there. Take him! I don't see how we can't...Nix drafted Brees, Eli (traded for Rivers), and Whitehurst...pretty good track record

[Orton's Arm]

or trading for one who has proven to be a real live NFL QB that can play from game 1 in 2010

If a guy's as proven as all that, why would his prior team want to trade him away?

 

You can show me a few examples of guys who got drafted by one team, maybe even rode the bench for a while, got traded, and went on to success. Elway. Favre. Guys like that. But those trades all happened before the players in question had proven themselves on an NFL field.

 

How often does a QB a) prove himself with one team, b) get traded to another team, and c) turn out to be the long-term answer for that second team? The most recent example I can think of where all three things occurred was in 1967. That was the year the Bills traded away Lamonica to the Raiders. Even then, Lamonica had only been Kemp's backup while in Buffalo, but played while Kemp was hurt or ineffective. So it's not like he was as proven as a full-time starter would have been.

 

A QB you acquire in the first round of the draft might be the long-term answer for which you're looking. A field-tested NFL QB acquired by trade isn't going to be. Period, end of story.