Buyer Beware: The 10 riskiest 2010 draft picks

[Joaquin1119]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_...?urn=nfl,234844

[marauderswr80]

Nice article and thanks for sharing. But in the end every draft pick teams make is risky. Anyways thanks for sharing.

[Joaquin1119]

yea it was pretty good, with JC and TT having to many question marks on them. I think overall TT might be a better QB then JC, TT is working really hard to prove people wrong about him and trying his best..

[1billsfan]

I think that Bradford's frailty is more of a "risk factor" than Clausen's question marks. The only reason Bradford's going #1 is because he has a much higher ceiling than Clausen does as an NFL QB prospect. Yes, Clausen should be on the risky list, but so to should Bradford and his reconstructed arm. With Clausen at least you know he's tough enough to physically weather an NFL beating.

[Buffaloed in Pa]

OTackles and QBs scare me the most.

[Orton's Arm]

I'm not on board with their decision to list Clausen as one of the riskiest picks. The article indicated he was pro-ready; and that he played under center (as opposed to in a spread offense). These factors indicate he's significantly less risky than, for example, Bradford. The argument they made for his "riskiness" was based on "physical tools." I don't buy it. How often do you see a first round quarterback fail due to lack of physical tools? I'd argue that Clausen's physical tools are every bit as good as those of Joe Montana or Tom Brady. (Not that that's saying much; as neither of those quarterbacks was all that gifted physically.) If Clausen fails, it will be because of something other than a lack of physical tools.

[Russ 'Em]

I'm not on board with their decision to list Clausen as one of the riskiest picks. The article indicated he was pro-ready; and that he played under center (as opposed to in a spread offense). These factors indicate he's significantly less risky than, for example, Bradford. The argument they made for his "riskiness" was based on "physical tools." I don't buy it. How often do you see a first round quarterback fail due to lack of physical tools? I'd argue that Clausen's physical tools are every bit as good as those of Joe Montana or Tom Brady. (Not that that's saying much; as neither of those quarterbacks was all that gifted physically.) If Clausen fails, it will be because of something other than a lack of physical tools.

 

 

+1

 

No where in that article did it state these imaginary risks that a team will take by drafting Clausen.

[gizmo6824]

I think that Bradford's frailty is more of a "risk factor" than Clausen's question marks. The only reason Bradford's going #1 is because he has a much higher ceiling than Clausen does as an NFL QB prospect. Yes, Clausen should be on the risky list, but so to should Bradford and his reconstructed arm. With Clausen at least you know he's tough enough to physically weather an NFL beating.

See i dont understand this. everyone thinks bradford is frail and injury prone. in fact he was healthly and took plenty of hits up until last year. all it took was a blind side hit from a corner to sprain his shoulder. then like 3 weeks later decided to come back early(probably wasnt ready) and they went gunning for him. drilled him and his shoulder right into the dirt. any qb would have gone out with that hit. but in retrospect he shouldnt have tried to come back so soon. but he was not injury prone or fragile by any means.

[Malazan]

The article makes a great point about Tebow and the media.