It's too easy, but I don't care

I know commenting on things written on the internet is shooting fish in a barrel, but I just had to post this to show the level of idiocy we're dealing with.

(in a post about prospects the Seattle Seahawks should pass on)

" Clausen isn't a leader. I love Matt Hasselbeck because he is the face and leader of the offense. You won't get that from Clausen."

Anything that starts with the nebulous force of "leadership" automatically gets my spidey senses tingling. Talking about a college player's leadership qualities is beyond ridiculous, since leadership at the pro level is earned and not given, but okay go on.

"Clausen also throws side-armed; man it's going to be annoying when the ball gets batted down six to seven times a game. He really reminds me of David Carr...how's Carr's career going, anyways?"

Clausen doesn't throw that side-arm, but he does drop the ball down a little bit, so maybe this is a valid point. But what I really love is the David Carr comparison with nothing to back it up. They both throw a little side-arm...oh okay, I guess they're one in the same. No mention of arm strength, accuracy, field awareness...just their throwing motion. Beautiful.

"Clausen also didn't win in college. Yes, Notre Dame's defense was horrible, but college is a talent league. Manning didn't have much talent surrounding him but he won."

You may think I love this quote because it attributes winning to a single player in which 22 players, plus two kickers and numerous special teamers, all have a significant effect on the game...but no. You may think I love this quote because he readily admits what Notre Dame's biggest problem was, therein refuting his own argument. He's essentially saying that Notre Dame lacked talent on defense in a talent league (we'll ignore the fact that college football is not a league), which would seemingly be a point in Clausen's favor for carrying such a team, but to this guy it's a detriment. But no...that's not why I love it either.

I love this quote because of the final sentence. Apparently unaware that there are two Mannings currently starting at QB in the NFL today, he claims that Manning didn't have much surrounding talent but won anyways. I'm going to assume he means Peyton, but the fact that he's unaware of both of them really increases his crediblity. And just for the record, I looked up 1997 Tennessee's roster and they had plenty of talent. 3 first round picks including Manning, plus several others who played in the NFL.

"Also, Clausen's arm strength is suspect. I'll be honest, all things considered, Clausen is the best West Coast Offense QB in this year's draft. You will just never hear him say, "Give us the ball and we're gonna score.""

Just when I thought things couldn't get any better, he goes and gives me something like this. Clausen's arm strength is suspect...proof given, none. The fact that Clausen played for Charlie Weis, who's offense had West Coast elements but was not a pure West Coast offense...apparently meaningless.

Okay, I loved when he mentioned "Manning" without specifying which one, but this last sentence takes the cake. Do you know why? Because after Matt Hasselbeck told the referee "We'll take the ball and we're gonna score," oh man this is great, you see umm...he threw an interception that was returned for a TD and lost a playoff game. In other words, and I'm just going to go ahead and assume this gentleman doesn't have a functioning brain because this is definitely not a moment you want to point out when speaking of Hasselbeck's moxie, he's downgrading Clausen because he'll never say that and then throw an INT that loses a playoff game. Oh the horror!

---

Okay, I know, it was too easy, but sometimes you have to knock out a few softballs before taking on some breaking pitches. I will post about Clausen myself eventually, but I want to make sure I've got my thoughts all lined up, unlike this gentleman who rues the fact that Clausen won't say he'll take the ball and score, and subsuquently lose the game.