Quarterback Debate:
Sam Bradford vs. Jimmy Clausen 1/06/10
Sam Bradford vs. Jimmy Clausen 1/06/10
The 2010 NFL Draft is steadily approaching. Off-season moves have begun and the much anticipated draft analysis and
discussions have begun. One of the more heated debates surrounding this years draft, per usual, is the debate of
prospective quarterbacks. The 2010 draft class boasts some of the most productive (statistically) quarterbacks to ever
play the game. The exclusive group includes marquee names such as: Sam Bradford, Jimmy Clausen, Colt McCoy, and
Tim Tebow - all quarterbacks that have left a lifelong legacy at their respective schools. By popular analyst and fan
opinion, the two leading candidates among the group are without a doubt Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen. This by no
means ignores or diminishes the efforts of McCoy and Tebow, but expert opinions have concluded that Bradford and
Clausen are the most "NFL ready" at this stage.
Distinguishing the differences between Bradford and Clausen is somewhat tedious. Drafthuddle.com has broken down
each players on a statistical basis and divided each into measurable categories to provide the best overall picture of who
is the better prospect.
Physical Attributes:
Based on the each quarterbacks stature, they are both physically similar and showcase the size of a prototype NFL
quarterback. Our analysis indicates that size will not hinder either quarterbacks draft stock or NFL performance. (=)
Statistics:
The graph below displays each quarterbacks statistics from 2007-2009. It is important to note that for the 2009 season,
Sam Bradford played in only 5 full quarters due to a season ending shoulder injury. Regardless, we will analyze all three
seasons and compare accordingly:
Jimmy Clausen:
Sam Bradford:
Based on each quarterbacks career statistics, we can decipher that Sam Bradford has had the superior collegiate career.
Bradford supersedes Clausen in every major statistical category: Completion percentage, Average yards per pass, Total
Touchdowns, Total Interceptions, and Quarterback Rating. Our situational analysis will take place later, as the above
comparison is based strictly on career statistics. Bradford (+)
Performance vs. Ranked Opponents:
Both quarterbacks have accumulated impressive career stats. Now we take a look at the level of competition in which they
were able to obtain such stats. We examined each quarterbacks record (W/L) vs. ranked opponents and how each
performed against tougher/ranked competition. We also took into consideration the point differential and margin of
victory. Below is each quarterbacks schedule(s) from 2007-2009:
Based on games played from the 2007-2009 season, we can conclude that Oklahoma faced more ranked opponents,
thus having the more difficult schedule(s). In two seasons, Oklahoma and Sam Bradford faced 11 top 25 teams, with 4
teams being ranked in the top 5. In three seasons, Notre Dame and Clausen faced a total of 10 top 25 teams, with 1
being ranked in the top 5. It is also important to mention that Bradford was able to lead the Sooners to two consecutive
BCS Bowl games, with one being the National Championship. Although both were eventually lost, the accomplishment is
still evident.
The individual record for both quarterbacks vs ranked opponents is eye-opening. Clausen is 0-10 vs. ranked
opponents while Bradford is 8-3 vs ranked opponents.
In addition to playing more ranked opponents, the average margin of victory over ranked opponents is 23 points for
Oklahoma. In addition to this statistic, in 2008, Oklahoma went on a three game stretch scoring over 60+ points vs. the
#2, #12, and #13 teams in the NCAA. Clausen and Notre Dame's average loss to ranked opponents is: 15.8 points.
Bradford (+)
Opponent Defensive Rankings:
In an effort to put wins vs. ranked opponents into perspective, we will also look at each ranked opponents overall
defensive ranking and passing defense. "Ranked opponents" does not automatically equate to "good defensive teams."
This will provide a proper gauge of how the offensive passing game performed and give more credibility to a teams
national ranking. Below are the overall defensive rankings and pass defensive rankings of each teams respective ranked
opponents:
Based on the opponent defensive rankings, Clausen faced the tougher "ranked" opponents, defensively throughout his
tenure with Notre Dame. Clausen faced a top-25 rated defense six times vs. ranked opponents. Bradford faced only
three (3) top-25 defenses while with Oklahoma. In addition to overall defensive rankings, Clausen's opponents were
ranked higher in pass-defense, with an average ranking of: 45 and no opponent with a ranking over 88. Bradford faced
pass-defenses averaging a ranking of 79, with four opponents having a pass-defense ranking over 100+ - Clausen (+)
Of the categories drafthuddle.com analyzed, we will conclude that Sam Bradford is the better prospect, based on statistics
only. Drafthuddle.com did/can not take into consideration individual quarterback mechanics, intangibles, combine
performance, or other performance measures used. We can only conclude that Bradford had the better career in college
based on career stats and his individual performance against ranked opponents. Given that, we are able to make
interpretations based on the statistical evidence, such as Bradford was more accurate boasting a 64.63 average
completion percentage; and more accurate at a farther distance with a 9.03 average per attempt. The wide margin
between touchdowns and interceptions speaks for itself as Bradford threw 28 more touchdowns and 11 less interceptions.
This was also accomplished with ten (10) less games played (Bradford injured all of 2009). As we approach the 2010
draft, we will have a better understanding/analysis of who is indeed the better prospect. But at this time, we can and will
rely on statistical data to decipher who is the better quarterback.
- Draft Huddle
discussions have begun. One of the more heated debates surrounding this years draft, per usual, is the debate of
prospective quarterbacks. The 2010 draft class boasts some of the most productive (statistically) quarterbacks to ever
play the game. The exclusive group includes marquee names such as: Sam Bradford, Jimmy Clausen, Colt McCoy, and
Tim Tebow - all quarterbacks that have left a lifelong legacy at their respective schools. By popular analyst and fan
opinion, the two leading candidates among the group are without a doubt Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen. This by no
means ignores or diminishes the efforts of McCoy and Tebow, but expert opinions have concluded that Bradford and
Clausen are the most "NFL ready" at this stage.
Distinguishing the differences between Bradford and Clausen is somewhat tedious. Drafthuddle.com has broken down
each players on a statistical basis and divided each into measurable categories to provide the best overall picture of who
is the better prospect.
Physical Attributes:
Based on the each quarterbacks stature, they are both physically similar and showcase the size of a prototype NFL
quarterback. Our analysis indicates that size will not hinder either quarterbacks draft stock or NFL performance. (=)
Statistics:
The graph below displays each quarterbacks statistics from 2007-2009. It is important to note that for the 2009 season,
Sam Bradford played in only 5 full quarters due to a season ending shoulder injury. Regardless, we will analyze all three
seasons and compare accordingly:
Jimmy Clausen:
Sam Bradford:
Based on each quarterbacks career statistics, we can decipher that Sam Bradford has had the superior collegiate career.
Bradford supersedes Clausen in every major statistical category: Completion percentage, Average yards per pass, Total
Touchdowns, Total Interceptions, and Quarterback Rating. Our situational analysis will take place later, as the above
comparison is based strictly on career statistics. Bradford (+)
Performance vs. Ranked Opponents:
Both quarterbacks have accumulated impressive career stats. Now we take a look at the level of competition in which they
were able to obtain such stats. We examined each quarterbacks record (W/L) vs. ranked opponents and how each
performed against tougher/ranked competition. We also took into consideration the point differential and margin of
victory. Below is each quarterbacks schedule(s) from 2007-2009:
Based on games played from the 2007-2009 season, we can conclude that Oklahoma faced more ranked opponents,
thus having the more difficult schedule(s). In two seasons, Oklahoma and Sam Bradford faced 11 top 25 teams, with 4
teams being ranked in the top 5. In three seasons, Notre Dame and Clausen faced a total of 10 top 25 teams, with 1
being ranked in the top 5. It is also important to mention that Bradford was able to lead the Sooners to two consecutive
BCS Bowl games, with one being the National Championship. Although both were eventually lost, the accomplishment is
still evident.
The individual record for both quarterbacks vs ranked opponents is eye-opening. Clausen is 0-10 vs. ranked
opponents while Bradford is 8-3 vs ranked opponents.
In addition to playing more ranked opponents, the average margin of victory over ranked opponents is 23 points for
Oklahoma. In addition to this statistic, in 2008, Oklahoma went on a three game stretch scoring over 60+ points vs. the
#2, #12, and #13 teams in the NCAA. Clausen and Notre Dame's average loss to ranked opponents is: 15.8 points.
Bradford (+)
Opponent Defensive Rankings:
In an effort to put wins vs. ranked opponents into perspective, we will also look at each ranked opponents overall
defensive ranking and passing defense. "Ranked opponents" does not automatically equate to "good defensive teams."
This will provide a proper gauge of how the offensive passing game performed and give more credibility to a teams
national ranking. Below are the overall defensive rankings and pass defensive rankings of each teams respective ranked
opponents:
Based on the opponent defensive rankings, Clausen faced the tougher "ranked" opponents, defensively throughout his
tenure with Notre Dame. Clausen faced a top-25 rated defense six times vs. ranked opponents. Bradford faced only
three (3) top-25 defenses while with Oklahoma. In addition to overall defensive rankings, Clausen's opponents were
ranked higher in pass-defense, with an average ranking of: 45 and no opponent with a ranking over 88. Bradford faced
pass-defenses averaging a ranking of 79, with four opponents having a pass-defense ranking over 100+ - Clausen (+)
Of the categories drafthuddle.com analyzed, we will conclude that Sam Bradford is the better prospect, based on statistics
only. Drafthuddle.com did/can not take into consideration individual quarterback mechanics, intangibles, combine
performance, or other performance measures used. We can only conclude that Bradford had the better career in college
based on career stats and his individual performance against ranked opponents. Given that, we are able to make
interpretations based on the statistical evidence, such as Bradford was more accurate boasting a 64.63 average
completion percentage; and more accurate at a farther distance with a 9.03 average per attempt. The wide margin
between touchdowns and interceptions speaks for itself as Bradford threw 28 more touchdowns and 11 less interceptions.
This was also accomplished with ten (10) less games played (Bradford injured all of 2009). As we approach the 2010
draft, we will have a better understanding/analysis of who is indeed the better prospect. But at this time, we can and will
rely on statistical data to decipher who is the better quarterback.
- Draft Huddle
| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |