WHY I DON’T LIKE MATTHEW STAFFORD

Quarterback A: 406 of 685 (59.3 percent) 4,426 yards, 32 TDs, 23 INTs.
Quarterback B: 329 of 604 (54.5 percent) 4,272 yards, 26 TDs, 23 INTs.

You’d rather have quarterback A, right?

Quarterback A: Jimmy Clausen
ncf_u_clausen_3001


Quarterback B: Matthew Stafford
matt-stafford

Stats courtesy of ESPN Insider, which points out that as much as Jimmy Clausen hasn’t lived up to the hype machine that came with him (and that he helped create), he is positioned to become a very prolific quarterback in college football this year, and one of the reasons why I’m really high on the Irish this season.

It’s also a big reason why I wasn’t that high on Stafford and the “consensus” that he was the #1 pick in the draft. For all the tools that Stafford reportedly has, he certainly has been lacking in the toolbox. Sure, SEC defenses are awfully tough, but a 26/23 TD/INT ratio isn’t befitting of $50 million guaranteed. And it wasn’t like he was throwing to terrible WRs or had no running game to support him. At least Clausen can point to the inept Notre Dame offensive line and one of the most feeble rushing attacks in college football.

As much as I’m still on the fence about Clausen as a leader and as a quarterback, he could finally become the quarterback that his coach/propaganda-ist Steve Clarkson made him out to be. The entire Clausen family and its quarterback aspirations are counting on him…

5 Responses

  1. The comparison statistics you cite are for the first two years of Stafford and Claussen. Stafford wasn’t drafted after his second year. Stafford was drafted after one more year when his TD/INT ratio was 25/10 with significantly more yardage (900) and a 153 rating. He improved yearly.
    Stafford’s first two years where statistically close to what the Manning brothers did their first two years in the SEC. Stafford’s offensive line woes are well-documented with season ending injuries at key positions. On the otherhand, he didn’t have the guidance of offensive “genius” Charlie Weiss. ;) We’ll just have to wait and see if Stafford was worth the bucks paid.


  2. I’d like to see what Stafford would have done against some of the power house football teams Clausen has faced: San Diego State, Stanford, Navy, Air Force, Duke, Washington, and Purdue to name a few.


  3. Your a dumbass. The failed to compare the defenses that Stafford faced to those of Clausen’s. Did you ever think as to why baby clausen went to ND instead of coming to an SEC school. He looked at what his brothers did. Once a year (maybe) clausen faces a defense close to what Stafford faces almost every week. As for the O line. If you had done your home work you would have noticed that Stafford’s left tackle was 4th string (a converted guard), and that this year saw UGA use 2 true freshmen consistantly due to injuries. It’s ok to be dumb, but to be dumb and proud of it it pitiful.


  4. Your a dumbass. You failed to compare the defenses that Stafford faced to those of Clausen’s. Did you ever think as to why baby clausen went to ND instead of coming to an SEC school. He looked at what his brothers did. Once a year (maybe) clausen faces a defense close to what Stafford faces almost every week. As for the O line. If you had done your home work you would have noticed that Stafford’s left tackle was 4th string (a converted guard), and that this year saw UGA use 2 true freshmen consistantly due to injuries. It’s ok to be dumb, but to be dumb and proud of it it pitiful.


  5. Since this actually got some comments, I’m following up on it.


Leave a Reply