Jimmy's gonna get you, Kramer! Jimmy holds grudges!

Okay, I think I've let people slander Jimmy Clausen for long enough. The narrative on Clausen has taken a complete 180, from him being a QB to him being some sort of mix between Ryan Leaf and Benito Mussoulini. Let's cut through the bullshit and get to the weed.

Clausen is an arrogant prick

This is the most popular narrative on Clausen. Everybody and their mother can't point out fast how Clausen "lacks intangibles." Every draft year we have to hear about intangibles, and every draft year I want to hurl. Do people not understand what intangibles are? Intangibles are immeasurable; therefore, you can't say someone has a lot of them, or has none of them. By definition, we don't know.

Of course, when people talk about intangibles, they're really talking about stuff that can be quantified to some degree. What they're usually talking about is someone's work ethic, how someone performs under pressure, things like that. Leadership also comes into play, but leadership is truly indefinable and besides, no veteran is going to follow a rookie anyways so it's irrelevant. Leadership is earned, not given.

So does Clausen have a poor work ethic? Not that I know of; last offseason, he flew Golden Tate, Michael Floyd and Kyle Rudolph to California to work out with him. It's very possible they actually did nothing except hit the bars every night, but this is the type of story the media seems to eat up when it fits the narrative, but since the narrative on Clausen doesn't fit this story, it gets no play whatsoever. Not that I care, but the double standard is palpable. Clausen also improved greatly from his freshman to sophomore season, then even moreso from his sophomore to junior season; that's not the hallmark of someone with a poor work ethic.

If you want to know how Clausen performed under pressure, well, I can't imagine there's any more pressure on a QB than knowing that your team's defense sucks (as Notre Dame's did last season) and knowing that you have score a lot of points to win. Any failed third down is a game changer; any turnover is potentially disastrous. There was literally zero margin for error for Clausen last season, with his defense consistently giving up 30 or more points. And God bless him, he damn-neared played a flawless season, throwing only 4 INTs (only two of which were truly his fault) and fumbling a couple times.

I'm also not a fan of 4th quarter comebacks (people act as if what happens in the first 3 quarters is irrelevant, which is ridiculous; Jake Plummer should not get credit because he screwed up early and dug his team into a hole), but Clausen led Notre Dame to 4th quarter wins against Michigan State and Boston College, and an OT win over Washington that included a 4th quarter comeback. He also led a 4th quarter comeback against Michigan that was negated by his shitty defense. Basically, this is the stuff that people jizz themselves over when it's Tebow, but with Clausen it's never mentioned.

Here's the deal; Clausen has that laid back California feel to him, which turns people off, but his play does not demonstrate that. This is a kid who got the shit beat out of him as a freshman playing behind an awful offensive line, and yet got up every time. This is a kid who suffered a painful foot injury in week 3 that required surgery after the season, and yet all he missed was 2 quarters of play the following week. Basically, this is a kid who lived the Tebow-Favre tough guy narrative only he gets none of the credit for it.

Clausen is not a leader

This is a criticism that makes me laugh. For one, it's too easy for psuedo-pyschologists to fall back on this. Leadership is such a nebulous idea that anyone can float it out there and not be proven right or wrong. And secondly...well, I mentioned a paragraph ago how Clausen missed two quarters of play last season. This was the 4th game against Purdue, and a week after he suffered the turf toe-like injury. He started against Purdue, but after a couple of drives Weis pulled him because he wasn't the same player. Weis was hoping to pull out a win with Dayne Crist and let Clausen rest up for the followiing week. However, Purdue came back and took the lead in the 4th quarter, so back in went Clausen. And, trailing by 4, he led a 70 yard TD drive that culminated with a 4th down TD pass to Rudolph. I'll be honest...this game earned my undying respect for Clausen. He was in a lot of pain, the foot was obviously bothering him, he couldn't play at 100%...and yet when push came to shove and the game was on the line, he went back in and led the game-winning drive.

What does this have to do with leadership? Well, any player that can't follow a QB like that shouldn't be playing football. Leadership is about action, not words. I don't know what Clausen says on the field, and I don't care. What I know is he played hurt last season, and he was particuarly in pain a week after suffering the injury, yet he still went out and led the game-winning drive. If you can't follow that, then you're in the wrong sport.

Just for the record; Sam Bradford injured his shoulder twice last season and barely played. Clausen injured his foot and missed all of 2 quarters. I'm not saying Bradford is injury-prone, but there's no proof that he isn't (awesome logic, I know, but I'm going with it). I know Clausen will play through pain...I don't even know if Bradford can get sacked.

Clausen's not a winner

Another laughable assertion. Put Clausen on Alabama last season, and he goes undefeated. The only thing that held Clausen back last season was his own shitty defense. He threw 5 TDs against Stanford...and they lost. Clausen was great last season, and if his team had been anywhere near his level, they'd have gone to a BCS bowl last season.

Anytime people start talking about a guy being a "winner," my bullshit radar goes off like crazy. It's like talking about someone being a leader; it's a platitude that psuedo-psychologists throw out to give someone extra credit. Assigned wins and losses to individual players in football is laughable; Clausen, or any other QB, has no control on his own defense, or special teams, or whether his receivers will catch the ball or his line will protect. All the QB can do is his job, and Clausen did a damn good job last season. He was too good for his own team, quite frankly.

With all of that said...

I don't necessarily view Clausen as an elite prospect. I think he's a very accurate QB with a good but not great arm, and decent mobility in the pocket but not someone who's going to run for a lot of yards. I should probably be more excited about his pro potential, but I just don't get a "potential top-5 QB" vibe from him. That, of course, doesn't matter because it's purely subjective. What I know is he has all of the tools to be a good NFL QB, and maybe a great one. Accuracy tends to be underestimated around draft time, and Clausen is very accurate. We're not talking about bubble screens and other bullshit, either (cough, Colt McCoy, cough). We're talking out routes, comebacks, posts and corners. He can make all of the throws, which is good enough. Okay, fine: if the Raiders draft him, he'll definitely finish 3rd to Russell and Boller in a "throwing the ball off your ass for distance" competition.

I definitely think Clausen is the best QB in this draft, though, with Sam Bradford undoubtedly going #1 overall but people ignoring obvious warning signs. Does anybody care that he got immaculate protection as a redshirt sophomore when he won the Heisman? His two tackles were Phil Loadholt (2nd round pick, NFL starter) and Trent Williams (first rounder come Thursday). As soon as he got hit as a junior, he got injured, and then injured again. This may seem obvious, but you have to play in order to be worth a #1 pick, and nobody can say with certainty that Bradford is at all durable. And everything that Bradford does well (namely, throw the ball accurately), Clausen does as well. The only difference, really, is that Clausen rubs people the wrong way (which, as I explained, is totally unfair) while Bradford just feels right.

In 5 years, it's very possible that Bradford, or Tebow, or McCoy, or some late-rounder we don't even know will be the best QB out of this draft. Clausen is by no means a perfect prospect. But if my job were on the line and millions of dollars were at stake (as it is for prospective NFL teams), Clausen is the one I'd be willing to bet on. I don't say this as a Notre Dame fan, either; I'm not one to blindly tout Notre Dame players (you don't see me bragging up Golden Tate here, do you?). I say this as someone who was greatly impressed by Clausen's play last season. I think Cleveland, Oakland and Buffalo will make big mistakes if they pass on him on Thursday. And if they do, I want the Minnesota Vikings to trade up for Clausen. Hell, do it anyways; he'd be a great successor to Favre.