Suh or Clausen/Bradford?

The main debate for the upcoming draft is if the Rams will take Suh or a QB, with Clausen currently having the edge over Bradford. Although Suh would improve the defense, you can't win in this league without a solid or elite QB. Here are the top teams from 2009 and their QB's.

1) Indianapolis - Peyton Manning
2) New Orleans - Drew Brees
3) San Diego - Phillip Rivers
4) Minnesota - Brett Favre
5) Dallas - Tony Romo
6) Green Bay - Aaron Rodgers
7) Philadelphia - Donovan McNabb
8) Arizona - Kurt Warner
9) Cincinnati - Carson Palmer
10) New England - Tom Brady

As you can see, the top 10 teams have arguably the top 10 Quarterback's in the league. As it has been posted before, our defense can compete in this league. However, our offense can't. If we take Suh, we will be looking at another top 5 pick again next year. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the Rams have a player like Suh. But if we grab him, we would lose a shot at a franchise QB like Clausen. Having Clausen would take a lot of pressure off of Jackson as teams wouldn't be able to consistantly stack the box against him. Not only that, but Clausen spent three years in a pro-style offense under Charlie Weiss, who has been a successful OC in the NFL.

If you look at the numbers that Clausen put up, they are spectacular. He finished the year with a 68% completion percentage, 3722 yards, 28 touchdowns and 4 interceptions. He did all of that with a terrible offensive line (he's already starting to fit in!) and virtually no running game (which he will have with the Rams).

The two biggest flaws that people seem to pick out in him are his attitude and his carrer record (13-18). when you look at the win loss record, it is no fault of his own. During his time in Notre Dame, he was playing with no defense. With the points he put up and the level he played at, the losses were not his fault. His character is the other issue. Although he is cocky and abrassive, can't the same be said in Phillip Rivers?

IMO, Spags and Devaney need to take Clausen to move this team forward. In the NFL you can't win without a QB, and I guarantee you that the front office is aware of it (they did spend a year with Bulger, Boller and Null* starting at QB).

*This isn't a shot at Null, I realize that he was a rookie, and I have high hopes for him as the future backup of the Rams.

I love Suh but I am a fan of going quarterback.

Mainly because of the time it takes to develop.

Even if we draft Clausen or Bradford the odds are they will need a year under someone to develop so they can be ready to start in 2011.

If we wait and draft Locker or Mallet next year I think they will need a year under someone to develop so they wouldn't be ready to start until 2012.

If we go middle round quarterback this year I think the odds are they wouldn't develop until 2012 or beyond. Yes there have been exceptions but in this day and age I don't think Spags and Devany can bank on exceptions.

IMHO

Quote:

---

The main debate for the upcoming draft is if the Rams will take Suh or a QB, with Clausen currently having the edge over Bradford. Although Suh would improve the defense, you can't win in this league without a solid or elite QB. Here are the top teams from 2009 and their QB's.

1) Indianapolis - Peyton Manning
2) New Orleans - Drew Brees
3) San Diego - Phillip Rivers
4) Minnesota - Brett Favre
5) Dallas - Tony Romo
6) Green Bay - Aaron Rodgers
7) Philadelphia - Donovan McNabb
8) Arizona - Kurt Warner
9) Cincinnati - Carson Palmer
10) New England - Tom Brady

---

I'd draft Suh, because I don't see Bradford/Clausen as turning out better than any of those mentioned QBs.

so you would rather take clausen or bradford and blood them in for a season on the bench rather than letting them asap and see how they fair ala ryan,sanchez,stafford. Or better yet pick a DT coming into the draft and have a defence in place for the future. We took O.Pace high as an o-line and im damn sure people would of made same fuss not a line man ra ra ra. But if Suh turns out to be a pro-bowl dt for years and years to come I for one feel we would have made a mistake. Solid D and RUN game is good for young qbs

I agree you need a good QB but how do you know clausen or bradford will be a good QB I would take suh without a doubt and if a QB doesn't fall to us then go with bulger and look next year for a QB

Of the 10 QBs you've listed, only 5 were selected in the first round, so who's to say that the Rams wouldn't be better off with Suh and a QB who will fall past the first 32 picks (i.e. Colt McCoy, Tony Pike, Dan LeFevour, Levi Brown or Sean Canfield).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramstiles

I agree you need a good QB but how do you know clausen or bradford will be a good QB

---

[/QUOTE] I have my doubts about Bradford, and I would take Suh over him. The thing is, how do we know Suh will be a good DT? Sure, he dominated in college, but there are no guarantees in the NFL. But lets say that both Clausen and Suh turn into pro bowl players – wouldn’t you rather have a pro bowl QB over a pro bowl DT?

Also, I believe that Clausen will be ready to step in and start in his first year. There’s a great article here that exemplifies this:
http://walterfootball.com/mattblog091229.php

Quote:

---

But lets say that both Clausen and Suh turn into pro bowl players

---

That's a pretty big assumption to walk on though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUbison

That's a pretty big assumption to walk on though.

---

True, but both players have a good chance of playing at that level, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them as potential fist overall picks.

If we pass on a franchise quarterback this year, we will once again be picking in the top 5, because our offense will be putting up the same points per game as this year, and you can't win with scores that low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sakl18

True, but both players have a good chance of playing at that level, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them as potential fist overall picks.

If we pass on a franchise quarterback this year, we will once again be picking in the top 5, because our offense will be putting up the same points per game as this year, and you can't win with scores that low.

---

Every QB that rates as the best in his draft class is not necessarily a "franchise" QB. Given his record of performance over his college career, and the finishing record of his team during that time, I would be hestitant to label Claussen as a "franchise" type QB. He may be one, and if drafted high may end of being "the franchises QB", but Suh's performance and projections ......... more solid and sure, IMO.

I think you original post list is misleading. How many of those teams have pretty good defenses? Can the case be made that the defense was more responsible to their records than the QB? Case in point, NYJ's are on to the next round of the playoffs, and certainly not on the strength of their QB, but on the strength of their defense and running game. The QB isn't the only reason these teams are good.

That said, I want the base of this team solid before bringing in the "franchise" QB, whoever he'll be. The NYJ's are good even without Sanchez mastering his position. Seems pretty smart to me.

Brees had 29 tds to 31 ints in his first three years. I don't think he had his breakout until his 4th season.

Romo didn't start a game until his 4th season.

Warner had 2 years in the AFL, a stint in NFL Europe and a year as backup for the Rams before he got his start in 1999.

Favre and Brady remain the exceptions but both still had a year on the bench before they started.

After several posts I want to clear up that I am not opposed to going with Suh and drafting developmental quarterback... but I am a patient fan. A first round qb could probably make a difference in 2011 but I think it would be 2012 before anyone like Pike, LeFevour, etc would pay dividends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sakl18

If we pass on a franchise quarterback this year, we will once again be picking in the top 5, because our offense will be putting up the same points per game as this year, and you can't win with scores that low.

---

I want a quarterback this year but seriously doubt they will contribute until 2011. Our offense needs a lot more help to get on the board in 2010.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richbert88

Can the case be made that the defense was more responsible to their records than the QB? Case in point, NYJ's are on to the next round of the playoffs, and certainly not on the strength of their QB, but on the strength of their defense and running game. The QB isn't the only reason these teams are good.

---

I Posted this in another thread.

"Defense wind Championships" is a little outdated. It should be "Defense helps to win Championships."

Yes it is awesome to see Minnesota hold a really good Dallas team to 3 points but throughout the season five of the Viking's victories came against teams that put up 20 or more points. If their offense wasn't able to put the numbers on the scoreboard they could have been 7 and 9.

In fact the 3 times this year the Vikings couldn't score 20 they lost all 3 games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sakl18

If you look at the numbers that Clausen put up, they are spectacular. He finished the year with a 68% completion percentage, 3722 yards, 28 touchdowns and 4 interceptions. He did all of that with a terrible offensive line (he's already starting to fit in!) and virtually no running game (which he will have with the Rams).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sakl18

The thing is, how do we know Suh will be a good DT? Sure, he dominated in college, but there are no guarantees in the NFL.

---

So Clausen can use his college production and performances on his résumé, but Suh can't? If you're going to argue in favor of Clausen by using his college numbers, I don't think you can argue against Suh because of the uncertainty as to whether his college performances will translate.

Sorry, I should have clarified this earlier - I wouldn't expect Clausen to come in and put up huge numbers. History has shown that most rookie QB's don't play very well in their rookie season. A QB like Clausen would be able to start, and he wouldn't be terrible, but also wouldn't b great. However, I think that he will develop faster than other rookie QB's have in the past due to his knowledge of the west coast offence. If we go with a QB in a later round, we are only postponing or return to success for several more years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richbert88

Every QB that rates as the best in his draft class is not necessarily a "franchise" QB. Given his record of performance over his college career, and the finishing record of his team during that time, I would be hestitant to label Claussen as a "franchise" type QB. He may be one, and if drafted high may end of being "the franchises QB", but Suh's performance and projections ......... more solid and sure, IMO.

I think you original post list is misleading. How many of those teams have pretty good defenses? Can the case be made that the defense was more responsible to their records than the QB? Case in point, NYJ's are on to the next round of the playoffs, and certainly not on the strength of their QB, but on the strength of their defense and running game. The QB isn't the only reason these teams are good.

That said, I want the base of this team solid before bringing in the "franchise" QB, whoever he'll be. The NYJ's are good even without Sanchez mastering his position. Seems pretty smart to me.

---

No, the QB’s are not the only reasons for their successes. Yes, defence plays an important part in said successes. And yes, the Jets are doing well without a stellar quarterback. However, the majority of the top teams have a better offense than defence. I don’t disagree with the Jets philosophy, but most of the times it is the offense that wins championships.
And I would label Jimmy Clausen as a franchise QB. His win-loss record is misleading, as Notre Dame’s defence couldn’t stop anyone. He was the reason that they got as many wins as they did. If the win-loss record of a QB determined his status as a franchise QB, then Jake Locker also wouldn’t be considered one.
As for waiting until the Rams are as dominant defensively as the Jets, it will take a long time before we get to that level. Although that would be nice, I just don’t see it as realistic as we should be trying to improve as quickly as possible (without sacrificing the future).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

So Clausen can use his college production and performances on his résumé, but Suh can't? If you're going to argue in favor of Clausen by using his college numbers, I don't think you can argue against Suh because of the uncertainty as to whether his college performances will translate.

---

I haven't said that Clausen is a sure thing. Like I said, no one is. I'm just saying that he has more upside than peope realize. Yes, Suh has also put up sensational numbers, and I would love to see him in a Rams uniform, but Clausen's numbers have been just as good for his position, and we have a much larger need at QB than DT. And QB's carry teams to Supebowls, not Defensive Tackles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sakl18

I haven't said that Clausen is a sure thing. Like I said, no one is. I'm just saying that he has more upside than peope realize. Yes, Suh has also put up sensational numbers, and I would love to see him in a Rams uniform, but Clausen's numbers have been just as good for his position, and we have a much larger need at QB than DT. And QB's carry teams to Supebowls, not Defensive Tackles.

---

The issue I was responding to wasn't whether or not you said he was a sure thing. The issue was how you could use college stats/production to argue in favor of Clausen, only to then downplay Suh's college stats/production by questioning whether he can be just as dominant at the next level. How collegiate performance will translate to the NFL is an issue with every prospect, not just Suh.