2023 5th Round Pick #149 QB Sean Clifford

[run pMc]

As general manager Brian Gutekunst put it, a run of quarterbacks they liked less than Clifford occurred just before Clifford’s selection. For a point of reference, Jack Haener, Stetson Bennett, Aidan O’Connell, Clayton Tune and Dorian Thompson-Robinson were all drafted at the position in a 14-pick run.

They picked hiim because they thought he wouldn't last much longer.
Apparently he aced his interview with them and think he's a good fit. He's athletic, but if all he does is hold a clipboard I'm fine with it. Arm strength can be improved to an extent in the weight room, it's the accuracy, poise, and reading defenses/progressions that I'm more concerned about. Purdy didn't have a cannon arm before he needed Tommy John surgery.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Out of the guys in this draft, Clifford reminds me the most of Brock Purdy. I was not high on Purdy last year. They both started for 4 years. They were both multi-year captains. They both had good first years and kind of stagnated after that—frustrating their fans. They both started a lot of games, dealt with a lot of adversity. They are similar in size. Neither has good arm strength, but they are both pretty accurate with good pocket presence and mobility. Both were projected to go undrafted. They were drafted by teams with similar offensive schemes to back up a first year starting, former first round QB.

[Sparkey]

They really don't have much of a choice. Their cap is so tight that I don't see them being able to add a veteran salary at backup qb. The upside is that if he is the backup and Love gets hurt, we will pick really high in 2024.

[Bretsky]

I don't buy into the criticism of this pick at all. They drafted him to be an adequate backup. As a QB that is about what you want in round 5. Gute noted he was the last QB on the draft board they had rated in the next tier. Would you have rather had Stetson Bennett in round 4 ? Probably not, but that shows one can value a backup QB at a higher level. He was getting drafted. The media morons, some of them, said they could could have just singed him after he went undrafted. That is bunk. And you have to consider, if we don't draft him late round 5, what consequences are there if somebody takes him before we pick in round 6. Gute thought that was too much of a negative. Did we reach a bit ? Maybe, maybe not. But he has the tools to be a backup, he's a high IQ quarterback, and anybody who listened to his 1st interview after the draft could see why an organization would fall in love with his character. If he's a solid backup for several years, he was worth a 5th round draft pick.

[texaspackerbacker]

Finally some good sense. Clifford is smart, experienced against high level competition, fairly athletic, decently accurate, and not hopeless in terms of arm strength. We could do a lot worse.

[Fritz]

Out of the guys in this draft, Clifford reminds me the most of Brock Purdy. I was not high on Purdy last year. They both started for 4 years. They were both multi-year captains. They both had good first years and kind of stagnated after that—frustrating their fans. They both started a lot of games, dealt with a lot of adversity. They are similar in size. Neither has good arm strength, but they are both pretty accurate with good pocket presence and mobility. Both were projected to go undrafted. They were drafted by teams with similar offensive schemes to back up a first year starting, former first round QB.

Well, if The Flower is trying to turn Green Bay into San Fran East, I'm fine with that - as long as he follows through on the defensive side of the ball. San Fran's success if predicated in large part on that defense.

I dunno. I put up a picture of a turd in this thread, partly in jest, but I suppose if you're really just looking for a backup QB - a questionable decision to make for a draft pick when you can get a cheap journeyman for the same job and still use that fifth rounder for someone with more upside - then I guess it's understandable, at least.

[Joemailman]

With their cap situation, even signing a journeyman QB was going to be tough to do.

[Fritz]

Do you think that's true after they re-negotiated Love and Savage? If so, then it makes that choice more understandable. I'm not as against the pick as I originally was - you all have convinced me that it's not a horrible pick. It's an understandable one.

But they better be pretty sure he's worthy of being the backup. If he can't really be that, then it was a wasted pick.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Do you think that's true after they re-negotiated Love and Savage? If so, then it makes that choice more understandable. I'm not as against the pick as I originally was - you all have convinced me that it's not a horrible pick. It's an understandable one.

But they better be pretty sure he's worthy of being the backup. If he can't really be that, then it was a wasted pick.

We don't have enough to sign a decent vet QB (like Bridgewater). I doubt the moves freed up much cap space--maybe enough to resign Marcedes Lewis and/or Adrian Amos on affordable deals.

[Fritz]

We don't have enough to sign a decent vet QB (like Bridgewater). I doubt the moves freed up much cap space--maybe enough to resign Marcedes Lewis and/or Adrian Amos on affordable deals.

But . . . but . . . but if Tex (and others on this topic of the sal cap) is right, as he insists he is, then can't they just cook up the cap and sign anyone they want????

Tex?

[texaspackerbacker]

I mentioned that in a different thread. It ain't unlimited, but yes, what needs to be done, can be done. I for one absolutely would not want Bridgewater or some other washed up vet as the back up. Clifford will not only be cheaper but better.

I also don't think they have any plan to bring back Lewis, given the two high TE picks plus a couple of UDFAs.

I'd like to see them bring back Amos, and I'm sure they could make it work cap-wise. If they have a bigger role planned for Savage, though, that might mean a no on Amos. I guess we'll see.

[Fritz]

I mentioned that in a different thread. It ain't unlimited, but yes, what needs to be done, can be done. I for one absolutely would not want Bridgewater or some other washed up vet as the back up. Clifford will not only be cheaper but better.

I also don't think they have any plan to bring back Lewis, given the two high TE picks plus a couple of UDFAs.

I'd like to see them bring back Amos, and I'm sure they could make it work cap-wise. If they have a bigger role planned for Savage, though, that might mean a no on Amos. I guess we'll see.

Oh . . . So it’s NOT unlimited. Oh. Okay.

[texaspackerbacker]

Nobody's talking about going hog wild and signing a whole team full of expensive free agents, but the cap definitely isn't something to stress over. Anything that's a good idea quality-wise can get done, and assuming they're smart, will get done.

[sharpe1027]

Nobody's talking about going hog wild and signing a whole team full of expensive free agents, but the cap definitely isn't something to stress over. Anything that's a good idea quality-wise can get done, and assuming they're smart, will get done.

I am sure hardly anyone disagrees with this rationale position. Welcome to the normal crowd.

[MadScientist]

Even if he doesn't develop into something special, having the next Doug Peterson as backup QB has value.