A month ago I wrote a post that describes one trait 90% of SB winning QBs have share and the one trait that the losing QB in the SB share. That one trait is the 6'4" mark and taller which 90% of SB winning QBs have in common the last 20 years.
I also stated that more QBs are under that threshold than over it and that the shorter QBs have an equal chance of getting to the SB.
If you look at the championship games today this model held true; three of four QBs were under 6'4" and one Ben Rothelisbergier was above that threshold. So in this year's game we again have one QB of each trait in the game.
Unless you believe lightning will strike twice,twice then Pittsburgh and Ben will be holding another SB trophy in two weeks. Why did I say twice,twice ,because it has happened only twice in the last 20 years. Last year Brees did and Favre did it in '97. So whats the odds of breaking a model in back to back years and then...whats the odds of the Packers doing it twice. Packers twice and it happening twice in back to back years. I'd think the odds of that happening are slim. Not that it can't happen.
But what does this have to do with the Panthers? Well a lot really.
Clausen is 6'2" and I have seen nothing from him to indicate he is in the same area code as Favre, Brees, Warner or even Rodgers if he pulls a Favre and beats the Steelers.
Trade him for something. I don't want to invest emotional energy into a QB that in all probability (90%) will never bring a SB trophy to Carolina. Bring in a vet and draft another QB if not in the 1st then Devlin in the 3rd or TJ Yates in the 5th-6th rd. Yates is 6'4" played in a pro offense, been coached by former NFL coaches and who won more games than he lost against better competition than the Jimmy did.
Before you dismiss Yares out of hand consider this: there are 4 former ACC QBs in the NFL today, Ryan, Schaub, Whitehurse, and Rivers and Yates is 2nd only to Rivers in career stats and that was despite missing 10 games in the '08 season.
Break down my theory all you want but time will tell and in two weeks either a statstical anamoly will occur which of course doesn't re write history or the model will be shown to be predictable. I vote for the latter.