well after devoting the first half of their show to effusive praise for Tebow- McCoy-Bradford (mostly desrved i accept)---- but then the love fest for the irish comes to a screaching BSPN halt--LOL--- 9 and 3-- 8 and 4-- from todays BOZOS---pretty much contradicting the first three days of analysis--- coldest was the critique-- or should i say hatchet job on jimmy---- jimmy has weak arm strength--- dont expect him to throw the ball 40 yards downfield???? ( that comment pretty much invalidated the whole assesment IMO- too weak an arm to sling it 40 yards with authority--wow--have they ever looked at any tape on him??)-- anyhow it got worse-- not the kind of QB that can lead a team or elevate a team-- frightened and formless in the pocket-- very poor footwork-- just not very good i guess---the only thing they could find positive to say about jimmy is that HE"S TALL__LOL

 

i found it so brutal a critique-- its obvious that clausen is very much disliked-- and is sitting right next to charlie to be the whipping boy for any flaws---

 

Jimmy apparently has alot to prove --i guess--- monday and tueday he's off to the NFL after the year-- Today he's lucky to even have a job as a QB for a division 1 school----

 

i guess we had to expect ESPN to ventilate at some point-- but it seems jimmy really takes a lickin---- LUCKY FOR US HE KEEPS ON TICKIN!!----

 

IMO 2009 jimmy clausen-- 35 TDs--8 picks-- we'll see whose got this one right!!

didn't say I'd have a problem with that. I just said that's what I think he'll do. Honestly I think he'll always throw more picks than he should, i.e. more picks than brady quinn

 

ok. the thing is, JC takes more chances than BQ because his arm *is* so good. so he is likely to throw more picks. but he's also more likely to have the big play, i think, actually it would be good for someone to look up how many plays of 25+ yds JC had his first 2 years andhow many BQ had.

 

btw, BQ's TD/INT ratio was nuts his last 2 seasons!

ok. the thing is, JC takes more chances than BQ because his arm *is* so good. so he is likely to throw more picks. but he's also more likely to have the big play, i think, actually it would be good for someone to look up how many plays of 25+ yds JC had his first 2 years andhow many BQ had.

 

btw, BQ's TD/INT ratio was nuts his last 2 seasons!

 

not sure i completely agree but i see your point. i do get scared everytime jimmy throws the seam route to rudolph. The way he throws darts instead of lobbing it in there means if he overthrows it at all it's an easy pick for a safety (a la the BC game). I'm not sure he'll ever have the touch on that pass that BQ did.

 

He does have the accuracy advantage on his lazer throws though.

 

He does have the accuracy advantage on his lazer throws though.

 

and his long bomb go routes

and his long bomb go routes

 

which, and let's take off our rosy-colored glasses made rosier by nostalgia, BQ was NOT good at. i would assume that we could get everyone to agree that JC is a better deep ball thrower than BQ ever was...

I don't remember if it was something I read or a video I watched, but at some point leading up to the Hawaii game, one of their players commented about Jimmy's arm strength. They said something to the effect of, "He's the only guy we've seen all year that can beat you down the sideline from the opposite hash..." something like that.

 

Arm strength has not been our problem the last two years. No run game, protection, pocket presence, LOS reads and playmaking receivers have. All of those things should be strengths for at least the next three years.

I do agree with you ustacould. It seemed we had great parts ...but could not get them together puzzle wise.

oh yeah, cuz when ND was winning we had nothing but adoration from the media! puhleeze...they'll just try and tear us down if we win a NC like they did with lou, etc. the days of ND being respected and lauded nationally are over, IMO.

 

Well...at least with Lou we could argue with people and make a case. Not now. That takes a LOT fewer excuses and a LOT more wins.

ok. the thing is, JC takes more chances than BQ because his arm *is* so good. so he is likely to throw more picks. but he's also more likely to have the big play, i think, actually it would be good for someone to look up how many plays of 25+ yds JC had his first 2 years andhow many BQ had.

 

btw, BQ's TD/INT ratio was nuts his last 2 seasons!

 

25+ yard receptions won't win you a game nearly as often as throwing no turnovers. I'm speaking as we stand right now though, because I actually do think that JC is going to correct that problem. The more help he gets in the run game, the less he'll have to take those chances that you're talking about...and the fewer INT's he throws.

I don't remember if it was something I read or a video I watched, but at some point leading up to the Hawaii game, one of their players commented about Jimmy's arm strength. They said something to the effect of, "He's the only guy we've seen all year that can beat you down the sideline from the opposite hash..." something like that.

 

Arm strength has not been our problem the last two years. No run game, protection, pocket presence, LOS reads and playmaking receivers have. All of those things should be strengths for at least the next three years.

 

Completely agree. would like to see what JC can do with a decent line and a good running game.

I believe the critique is a fair assessment of Jimmy, except for the deep ball. That is the only ball he throws that does not make me cringe.

25+ yard receptions won't win you a game nearly as often as throwing no turnovers. I'm speaking as we stand right now though, because I actually do think that JC is going to correct that problem. The more help he gets in the run game, the less he'll have to take those chances that you're talking about...and the fewer INT's he throws.

 

ya know, i just read book where scientists and researchers determined that humans almost always UNDER state the benefits of risk and always OVER state the consequences of risk. in other words, we're risk adverse by nature. but the stats rarely back up our risk adverse nature.

 

now, i will grant you that TO's in football and losing do seem to correlate statistically more than in other sports, life, et al. but i also believe big plays matter and i like the risk-taker at QB.

 

but, your point is a valid one...