Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769202]all i was trying to say is that we use the number 10 because it is a nice round number, not because it is accurate. That is around where the top of the draft class is. Where the cutoff line of the top of the draft has a small amount of variance from draft to draft and person to person, and there is no true cutoff...which is why i gave the estimated range of top vs middle vs bottom that is subject to opinion.

P.s I'm still in college, but my family is made of lawyers.[/quote]

I was just having fun with you, but I'd pretty much think top talent extends through the 2nd round and maybe into the 3rd round depending on positions.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769207]This article is obviously a little dated now, but it could be a good starting off point for this discussion

[URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview10/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=5489176"]From Peyton Manning to Jake Delhomme, ESPN's John Clayton ranks the NFL's starting QBs - ESPN[/URL][/quote]


I know it is dated but they have McNabb at 9 and Bradford at 30 and Schaub at 14; even at the time of the printing Schaub is better then DM5.

DM5 in my book is done, I totally see him as a stop gap at this point and not the guy to get us to the playoffs anymore. He has just been plain awful and honestly at this point I wish we had kept JC and looked for someone in this draft. Seriously though if bringing in DM5 only gained us one more win over 2009 I rather have those draft picks back and had watched JC17/8 play like a bum this year.

But I know water under the bridge at this point.

Re: sam bradford
 

I think McNabb can still get it done, he needs to get better in this offense but he can still play.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769165] Roger saffold is a rookie 2nd round pick[/quote]
And he's a key member of a good OL.
[quote=skinster;769165]Stephen Jackson is having a terrible year...the rams rushing attack averages 3.8 yards per rush, and has 7 total tds.[/quote]
Are you trying to say that Stephen Jackson isn't a good RB?
[quote]Who is pat shurmur? I googled him and on the first page there is a movement to get him fired.[/quote]
You don't know who he is but you're ready to claim he's not good b/c its suits you're point? Wow that's good logic.
[quote]Lets not get carried away on colt mccoy...he had 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards per game.[/quote]
By the same token lets not get carried away w/ Bradord when McCoy is also having success w/ a higher QB rating (against tougher competition).

Re: sam bradford
 

Anything can happen and it usually does.
For those of you that claim to know everything and have called McNabb over and done have every right to say whatever you want. No matter how stupid or inflexible you sound.
Just a few years ago Mike Vick was sitting in a jail cell and even as late as last year people were saying he was done. The so called experts were saying Vick had missed too much time, was too old to come back and even approach his old (Falcon's days) level of play. Well look at how well Mike Vick is doing in 2010!

By contrast today's favorite bandwagon that every front runner is jumping on (Sam Bradford) is one play or injury or playing slump from being yesterdays news. The guy does have a history of missing a lot time due to injuries. He is talented and should do well, but lets not get ahead of our selves and label him a franchise qb just yet.
It is very premature for a guy that has not played an entire season to be mixed in with the elite QB's of all time.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;769132]IMO, this is how the franchise QB landscape shapes up. (order doesn't matter)

Only the [B]sure ones[/B] are included

NFC East
Vick, and that's it

NFC North
Cutler
Rodgers

NFC West
Bradford

NFC South
Brees
Freeman
Ryan

AFC East
Brady

AFC North
Rapistberger
Flacco

AFC West
Rivers

AFC South
Manning

12/32(or 37.5%), and I did not count guys like Eli, Romo, McNabb, Stafford, Sanchez, Cassel, or Schaub.[/quote]


I know you Love Cutler but I honestly say Kyle Orton is a better QB, the guy is by far the most underrated QB in football. Denver got the better end of that deal.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=30gut;769219]And he's a key member of a good OL.

Are you trying to say that Stephen Jackson isn't a good RB?

You don't know who he is but you're ready to claim he's not good b/c its suits you're point? Wow that's good logic.

By the same token lets not get carried away w/ Bradord when McCoy is also having success w/ a higher QB rating (against tougher competition).[/quote]

Not sure how key of a member Saffold is, and I'm not sure how good the O-line is. Lets get real, zero of us watch the rams games enough to know how good saffold is doing. I know I will get jumped on for saying this, but I do think it is reasonable to say he is not ideal just based on the fact that he is a rookie second rounder.

Yes, I am saying that Steven Jackson is not doing well, which is not helping bradford at all. And the other RB's are doing even worse.

I'm not saying that the oc is bad because I do not know if he is. I'm just saying that the fact that rams fans are calling for his job is indicative that he is clearly not the shining star that would cause bradfords success.

Lets get real, nobody in their right mind thinks McCoy is even close to Bradford. Bradford is carrying his team and putting up respectable numbers with nobody. I really don't care what McCoy's passer rating is when he has a 1:1 td to int ratio, 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards a game. Also, McCoy greatly benefits from Hillis in the same way that Ryan and Flacco benefited from their rushing attacks back in 2008. Before you jump to conclusions, I am not saying McCoy is bad, but IMO he has not impressed yet, and is not even comparable to bradford.

Re: sam bradford
 

Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinsguy;769231]Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.[/quote]

Dating back to the beginning of my life (1989...21 years ago), the only 3 teams that have won a superbowl without a franchise qb are the ravens (dilfer), bucs (johnson...who was a pro bowler), and redskins (Rypien....was a pro bowler). The bucs and the ravens had two of the best defenses of all time also.
The QB's that won the other 18 superbowls

Favre
Aikman
Young
Montana
Simms
Brady
P. Manning
Warner
E. Manning
Brees
Roethlesberger
Elway

All of them are either going to be in the HOF or got a contract that deemed them the "franchise" qb.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=mlmpetert;769187]I dont get how you can include Vick, Cutler, Bradford (after not even 1 year), and Freeman (even though im [I]personally[/I] as high on him as i am Ryan) and not include Cassel and Schaub. Although, like i think Matty72 said i think there needs to be a agreed upon defition of franchise qb....[/quote]
Cassel, imo, can play great when there's talent around him, but not so great without said assistance.
Schuab, I think is prone to having dud games against great pass rushes and obviously benefits a lot from Andre Johnson. Neither would be in my top choices for a franchise trying to find its way.

Don't get me wrong, they're definitely good ones, and if the franchise QB definition was more lax, they'd be franchise qbs without debate under that kind of definition.

Cutler, I admit am a little biased towards his playmaking ability. But he does have a really shitty o-line that even P. Manning would have trouble with. Chicago's offense could be a lot worse if say, Jason Campbell was their QB.

Vick and Bradford, although they haven't not for a long time, have played really well given their respective circumstances.

Vick was tough to defend when he was just relying on his athleticism. He's now shown that he can be a pretty good damn good passer too and is now almost impossible to consistently defend. Take away Jackson, Maclin, and McCoy, and he'd still be pretty damn good.

Bradford beat a vet QB who knew the offense in the preseason, and has definitely not be "coddled" like Flacco or Sanchez. The dude has had plenty of games with 30 throws, which shows plenty of confidence in his ability even though they could be riding Steven Jackson instead. And he's shown some great poise and savvy.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinsguy;769231]Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.[/quote]
Almost every transaction in football a gamble. That said, busting on a franchise qb may not be that bad because since the QB will make the team lose, the team will have higher draft picks in the subsequent years. They can then use those high draft picks to stock up the roster. Of course, this only applies if the team is just using it's normal 1st rounder and did not trade a bunch of stuff away for the pick.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769232]
Favre
Aikman
Young
Montana
Simms
Brady
P. Manning
Warner
E. Manning
Brees
Roethlesberger
Elway

All of them are either going to be in the HOF or got a contract that deemed them the "franchise" qb.[/quote]

Phil Simms? Franchise QB? He wasn't even his team's best qb (Hostetler was). And of those on the list, IMO, only Peyton, Montana and possibly Brees is better than Marino who never won a SB so more than a franchise qb is needed. And, don't forget that Elway only won a SB once he had a great running game.

Re: sam bradford
 

Hostetler better than Simms? No way.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=rypper11;769247]Phil Simms? Franchise QB? He wasn't even his team's best qb (Hostetler was). And of those on the list, IMO, only Peyton, Montana and possibly Brees is better than Marino who never won a SB so more than a franchise qb is needed. And, don't forget that Elway only won a SB once he had a great running game.[/quote]

Simms started 14 years for the giants. I'd say he was a franchise qb. But even if you disagree, the numbers are now 17 franchise sb victories to 4 non...and 3 of the 4 non and some of the best defenses of all time (I was 2 when the Giants won, but I assume that was the LT defense that I've heard so much about)

Re: sam bradford
 

Can I be the first to point out that Bradford is having a pretty poor season? If you limit your quarterbacks to all rookies, then by virtue of not being a disaster, Bradford has exceeded expectations. But we've seen Joe Flacco, Ben Roethlisberger, and Matt Ryan have better rookie years in recent times. His season looks a lot like Vince Young's rookie year, but without the long, dynamic runs.

Granted: he may have the worst supporting cast of any of those guys, and whether or not the Rams make the playoffs this year, it looks like the sky is the limit for Sam Bradford. But as a rookie, he's been a moderately below average NFL QB. It was better than Freeman, Sanchez, and Stafford from last year, but you only have to go back another year to find two rookie QBs having more success than Bradford.

The ability of Bradford to win in the future is tied more to the Rams' ability to add talent to his offense so that they can win with offense rather than Bradford himself.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Defensewins;769225]Anything can happen and it usually does.
For those of you that claim to know everything and have called McNabb over and done have every right to say whatever you want. No matter how stupid or inflexible you sound.
Just a few years ago Mike Vick was sitting in a jail cell and even as late as last year people were saying he was done. The so called experts were saying Vick had missed too much time, was too old to come back and even approach his old (Falcon's days) level of play. Well look at how well Mike Vick is doing in 2010!

By contrast today's favorite bandwagon that every front runner is jumping on (Sam Bradford) is one play or injury or playing slump from being yesterdays news. The guy does have a history of missing a lot time due to injuries. He is talented and should do well, but lets not get ahead of our selves and label him a franchise qb just yet.
It is very premature for a guy that has not played an entire season to be mixed in with the elite QB's of all time.[/quote]

All very true and in the 25 plus years I have been watching the NFL I have learned one thing: [B]everything can turn on a dime in the NFL. [/B]

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=GTripp0012;769257]Can I be the first to point out that Bradford is having a pretty poor season? If you limit your quarterbacks to all rookies, then by virtue of not being a disaster, Bradford has exceeded expectations. But we've seen Joe Flacco, Ben Roethlisberger, and Matt Ryan have better rookie years in recent times. His season looks a lot like Vince Young's rookie year, but without the long, dynamic runs.

Granted: he may have the worst supporting cast of any of those guys, and whether or not the Rams make the playoffs this year, it looks like the sky is the limit for Sam Bradford. But as a rookie, he's been a moderately below average NFL QB. It was better than Freeman, Sanchez, and Stafford from last year, but you only have to go back another year to find two rookie QBs having more success than Bradford.

The ability of Bradford to win in the future is tied more to the Rams' ability to add talent to his offense so that they can win with offense rather than Bradford himself.[/quote]

I can see your arguments for Ryan and Roethlesberger being statistically better, but definitely not Flacco. Statistically I'd say that Roethlesberger was better (I know Ryan has the higher qb rating, but I like how many TDs Bradford has thrown for) , but in reality I'd say that Bradford is doing much better considering how close their numbers are and that Roethlesberger had respectable recievers and a great rushing attack while Bradfords recievers and rushing game are poop.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769261]I can see your arguments for Ryan and Roethlesberger being statistically better, but definitely not Flacco. Statistically I'd say that Roethlesberger was better (I know Ryan has the higher qb rating, but I like how many TDs Bradford has thrown for) , but in reality I'd say that Bradford is doing much better considering how close their numbers are and that Roethlesberger had respectable recievers and a great rushing attack while Bradfords recievers and rushing game are poop.[/quote]Flacco probably had the most similar rookie season to Bradford in terms of numbers, but did considerably better in Y/A.

I think I can understand the argument that Bradford can't control his Y/A: he's throwing to people that no one has ever heard of afterall. But, you know, there's this:

[url=http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2010/passing.htm]2010 NFL Passing - Pro-Football-Reference.com[/url]

(ranked 30 out of 31 qualified QBs in YPA)

He's been excellent in the red zone, which has helped his team score a lot of points, but obviously, he's going to need to throw for better than 6.1 YPA to have a quality season.

Obviously, yards per attempt as a rookie says nothing about his future prospects, and everything else points to a guy who makes quick, smart decisions. He just isn't accomplishing much as a rookie: he's not a big reason for the Rams success. The Rams needed to improve their QB position from last season, which they have done, but this isn't a great performance as much as it's better than what they had before. That's what I'm trying to point out here.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=GTripp0012;769264]Flacco probably had the most similar rookie season to Bradford in terms of numbers, but did considerably better in Y/A.

I think I can understand the argument that Bradford can't control his Y/A: he's throwing to people that no one has ever heard of afterall. But, you know, there's this:

[URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2010/passing.htm"]2010 NFL Passing - Pro-Football-Reference.com[/URL]

(ranked 30 out of 31 qualified QBs in YPA)

He's been excellent in the red zone, which has helped his team score a lot of points, but obviously, he's going to need to throw for better than 6.1 YPA to have a quality season.

Obviously, yards per attempt as a rookie says nothing about his future prospects, and everything else points to a guy who makes quick, smart decisions. He just isn't accomplishing much as a rookie: he's not a big reason for the Rams success. The Rams needed to improve their QB position from last season, which they have done, but this isn't a great performance as much as it's better than what they had before. That's what I'm trying to point out here.[/quote]

Well that could be the coaches scheme also for a rookie QB, and lets be honest the guy is out there throwing balls to Me and You

Re: sam bradford
 

Someone is gaga for Bradford and won't hear of anything to the contrary

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=30gut;769278]Someone is gaga for Bradford and won't hear of anything to the contrary[/quote]

If you say one bad word about Chase Daniel I'll f***ing ban your ass for life!

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769230]Not sure how key of a member Saffold is, and I'm not sure how good the O-line is. Lets get real, zero of us watch the rams games enough to know how good saffold is doing. [B]I know I will get jumped on for saying this, but I do think it is reasonable to say he is not ideal just based on the fact that he is a rookie second rounder.
[/B]
Yes, I am saying that Steven Jackson is not doing well, which is not helping bradford at all. And the other RB's are doing even worse.

I'm not saying that the oc is bad because I do not know if he is. I'm just saying that the fact that rams fans are calling for his job is indicative that he is clearly not the shining star that would cause bradfords success.

Lets get real, nobody in their right mind thinks McCoy is even close to Bradford. Bradford is carrying his team and putting up respectable numbers with nobody. I really don't care what McCoy's passer rating is when he has a 1:1 td to int ratio, 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards a game. Also, McCoy greatly benefits from Hillis in the same way that Ryan and Flacco benefited from their rushing attacks back in 2008. Before you jump to conclusions, I am not saying McCoy is bad, but IMO he has not impressed yet, and is not even comparable to bradford.[/quote]

Allow me to be the one to jump first...

Saffold has given up only two sacks this year as a rookie LT.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769232]Dating back to the beginning of my life (1989...21 years ago), the only 3 teams that have won a superbowl without a franchise qb are the ravens (dilfer), bucs (johnson...who was a pro bowler), and redskins (Rypien....was a pro bowler). The bucs and the ravens had two of the best defenses of all time also.
The QB's that won the other 18 superbowls

Favre
Aikman
Young
Montana
Simms
Brady
P. Manning
Warner
E. Manning
Brees
Roethlesberger
Elway

All of them are either going to be in the HOF or got a contract that deemed them the "franchise" qb.[/quote]

Yeah, thanks for proving my point even further. Out of all of the teams that these mentioned QBs play for, I see only three that can be consistent winners without these QBs during their respective eras. Present day Pittsburgh, Montana era 49ers, and Aikman era Cowboys. And even further analysis will tell you that the Cowboys dropped off after Aikman left the game, 49ers dropped off after Young left, leaving only Pittsburgh as a consistent winner (but not Super Bowl level) without Roethlesberger. The Giants would be nothing without Eli, the Saints would be nothing without Brees, The Colts nothing without Manning, etc....

However, on the flipside, the Redskins remained consistent winners throughout the 80's (except for the '88 season) with different QBs at the helm. Joe Theismann, Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien. Why? Because the team was solid overall. So solid that Gibbs could plug just about any decent QB in and win with him. In fact, the only "franchise" QB the Redskins had in that era was Joe Theismann.

Sure, I would much rather have a complete team with a "franchise" QB who's going to be with the team for years to come, but I would be OK to know that the team was solid despite who plays QB. Those teams tend to be consistent winners no matter who is at QB.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinsguy;769294]Yeah, thanks for proving my point even further. Out of all of the teams that these mentioned QBs play for, I see only three that can be consistent winners without these QBs during their respective eras. Present day Pittsburgh, Montana era 49ers, and Aikman era Cowboys. And even further analysis will tell you that the Cowboys dropped off after Aikman left the game, 49ers dropped off after Young left, leaving only Pittsburgh as a consistent winner (but not Super Bowl level) without Roethlesberger. The Giants would be nothing without Eli, the Saints would be nothing without Brees, The Colts nothing without Manning, etc....

However, on the flipside, the Redskins remained consistent winners throughout the 80's (except for the '88 season) with different QBs at the helm. Joe Theismann, Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien. Why? Because the team was solid overall. So solid that Gibbs could plug just about any decent QB in and win with him. In fact, the only "franchise" QB the Redskins had in that era was Joe Theismann.

Sure, I would much rather have a complete team with a "franchise" QB who's going to be with the team for years to come, but I would be OK to know that the team was solid despite who plays QB. Those teams tend to be consistent winners no matter who is at QB.[/quote]

Yea well I want a superbowl, and I think to try and accomplish anything else is ludacris, and I don't really understand why you wouldn't want that either.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769111][I][U][B][COLOR="DarkRed"]He has no support on offense whatsoever[/COLOR][/B][/U][/I]. The rams arguably had the worst receiving corp in the league BEFORE 3 of his top 4 receivers got placed on IR. He has a second round rookie protecting his weak side, and a 30 year old career backup guard starting on his strong side (he has. He is not getting support from a running game that averages 3.8 yards per carry and only has 7 tds. And he has no tight end.[/quote]
I disagree he has no healthy WRs but imo he does have the two most important factors for a young QB: a good OL and good coaching.
Stehpen Jackson is consider by most savvy NFL fan's one if the best RB in the league who BTW already has a 1,000+yards @ 3.9 ypc.
He has 2 TEs but they aren't 'name' TEs but they're producing at a high level.


[quote=skinster;769230]Not sure how key of a member Saffold is, and I'm not sure how good the O-line is. Lets get real, zero of us watch the rams games enough to know how good saffold is doing. I know I will get jumped on for saying this, but I do think it is reasonable to say he is not ideal just based on the fact that he is a rookie second rounder.[/quote]
Speak for yourself my friend i watch a lot of football.
Sometimes at a bar sometimes opn RZ sometimes i even watch the NFL package 30 minute re-caps.
Saffold is playing well and the Rams have a good OL.

[quote]Yes, I am saying that Steven Jackson is not doing well, which is not helping bradford at all. And the other RB's are doing even worse.[/quote]
1,000+yards 3.9 ypc is not doing well?

[quote]I'm not saying that the oc is bad because I do not know if he is. I'm just saying that the fact that rams fans are calling for his job is indicative that he is clearly not the shining star that would cause bradfords success.[/quote]
How can you argue like this? Its not logical.
You don't know but you're gonna assume he's not doing a good job b/c somewhere that you don't quote claims Shurmur should be fired?
If you ask me nicely i'll tell you about Shurmur, but he has designed a nice offense predicated on Bradford making easy reads and getting the ball out quick.

[quote]Lets get real, nobody in their right mind thinks McCoy is even close to Bradford. Bradford is carrying his team and putting up respectable numbers with nobody. I really don't care what McCoy's passer rating is when he has a 1:1 td to int ratio, 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards a game. Also, McCoy greatly benefits from Hillis in the same way that Ryan and Flacco benefited from their rushing attacks back in 2008. Before you jump to conclusions, I am not saying McCoy is bad, but IMO he has not impressed yet, and is not even comparable to bradford.[/quote]
I'll get back to this one^^

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=30gut;769296]I disagree he has no healthy WRs but imo he does have the two most important factors for a young QB: a good OL and good coaching.
Stehpen Jackson is consider by most savvy NFL fan's one if the best RB in the league who BTW already has a 1,000+yards @ 3.9 ypc.
He has 2 TEs but they aren't 'name' TEs but they're producing at a high level.



Speak for yourself my friend i watch a lot of football.
Sometimes at a bar sometimes opn RZ sometimes i even watch the NFL package 30 minute re-caps.
Saffold is playing well and the Rams have a good OL.


1,000+yards 3.9 ypc is not doing well?


How can you argue like this? Its not logical.
You don't know but you're gonna assume he's not doing a good job b/c somewhere that you don't quote claims Shurmur should be fired?
If you ask me nicely i'll tell you about Shurmur, but he has designed a nice offense predicated on Bradford making easy reads and getting the ball out quick.


I'll get back to this one^^[/quote]

3.9 ypc is junk.

His TEs are not named tight ends because they are not good...none of them have started a full season in their career.

There is literally no way you watch enough rams games to analyze how good of a job saffold is doing week in and week out. I'm calling shenanigans on that one.

I never said shurmar was bad, I just said he's not a stud oc that carries his team. Yes I do think a team movement to get him banned does say at least that much.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769297]3.9 ypc is junk.[/quote]
How about the 1,000+ yards that goes along the with the ypc not to mention the 10th ranked yards per game that Jackson provides?

[quote]His TEs are not named tight ends because they are not good...none of them have started a full season in their career.[/quote]
There production doesn't matter b/c you haven't heard of them before?
There's literally no logic in your statement.
You realize that every player at some point has never started a full season in their career at somepoint?

[quote]There is literally no way you watch enough rams games to analyze how good of a job saffold is doing week in and week out. I'm calling shenanigans on that one.[/quote]
Just b/c you don't watch a lot of football doesn't stop the rest of us from watching other teams.
Also i never said i analyzed Saffold but you're making a blind claim about him just b/c it suits you're argument, which again is the absence of logic and another poster cleared up the question about Saffold quite nicely for us.

[quote]I never said shurmar was bad, I just said he's not a stud oc that carries his team. Yes I do think a team movement to get him banned does say at least that much.[/quote]
If you back pedal any further you're fall off a ledge.
LoL a [B][I][U]team [/U][/I][/B]movement? Really?
Care to support claims w/something? a quote a link something

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769297]3.9 ypc is junk.

His TEs are not named tight ends because they are not good...none of them have started a full season in their career.

There is literally no way you watch enough rams games to analyze how good of a job saffold is doing week in and week out. I'm calling shenanigans on that one.
[/quote]
I do watch a lot of Rams games (not all mind you because they are sometimes at the same time as the Skins) and, while I can't say anything specifically about Saffold, the OLine is good but inconsistent.
Jackson is still a stud RB if not one of the best in the league. Part of his ypc avg being below 4.0 is the 10man fronts he's facing. There is no viable deep threat to stretch the field.
When games are tied he's averaging 5.0 ypc, when the Rams are behind it's 4.5 and when ahead it's only 3.1. Against Seattle and Carolina (both wins) the whole defense knew he was getting the ball and he still was running over guys though he was being hit first in the backfield and gaining very little yardage.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769230]Lets get real, nobody in their right mind thinks McCoy is even close to Bradford.[/quote]
Only time will answer this question.
But there are some former coaches turned analyst that thought very highly of and McCoy and one who claimed that McCoy was the most pro-ready of the QBs to some out last year.

[quote]Bradford is carrying his team and putting up respectable numbers with nobody.[/quote]
Finally we agree.
[quote] I really don't care what McCoy's passer rating is when he has a 1:1 td to int ratio, 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards a game. [/quote]
How can argue with this logic when you flat out dismiss one of the main metric used to judge QB performance?

[quote]Also, McCoy greatly benefits from Hillis[/quote]
Stephen Jackson actually gives Bradford more yards per game then Hillis does for the Browns: 83.2 ypg vs 82.3 ypg
[url=http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2010&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1]NFL Stats: by Player Category[/url]

[quote]IMO he has not impressed yet, and is not even comparable to bradford.[/quote]
Of course you're not impressed by McCoy (for one you've probably never watched him play) b/c in your mind it would probably take away from Bradford's performance.
But, if you were to take an honest look at McCoy's 1st starts even statistically w/o watching the games you can see he's gone up against against some pretty good defenses like the Steelers and Jets defense that gives established NFL QBs fits he's played well.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote][QUOTE=30gut;769300]How about the 1,000+ yards that goes along the with the ypc not to mention the 10th ranked yards per game that Jackson provides?[/quote]

Jackson is the only one on that team that gets carries...that is why he is ranked so high in yards. 3.9 yds per carry is even less impressive when you have only 4 tds...indicative on not being a short yardage back.


[quote]There production doesn't matter b/c you haven't heard of them before?
There's literally no logic in your statement.
You realize that every player at some point has never started a full season in their career at somepoint[/quote]

You misinterpret me. I'm not saying that because they are not know that automatically means they are not good, I'm saying that with these guys they are not known because they are not good...look at their start totals.
Any quality TE would have started at least close to one full season.

[quote]Just b/c you don't watch a lot of football doesn't stop the rest of us from watching other teams.
Also i never said i analyzed Saffold but you're making a blind claim about him just b/c it suits you're argument, which again is the absence of logic and another poster cleared up the question about Saffold quite nicely for us.[/quote]

First of all, you did say you watch them play, and said saffold is good...you honestly can't know that about an O-lineman unless you are paying attention to him, please don't backtrack.

Second of all, there is no blind claim being made. It is a claim based on statistics. Putting ANY rookie offensive linemen in usually isn't ideal, but to have a non-first round OL really isn't ideal. Yes it's true he could be doing well. But with not having analyzed him it is not unreasonable to assume that a second round rookie OL isn't ideal.

Thirdly (is that a word?), sacks is not a statistic. The reason behind that is it is too hard to know who gave up what sack. Bradford's been sacked 27 times playing in the nfc west...someone has got to be busting some coverages on that great o-line. But 2 credited is still impressive, I might be wrong and he might be good, but even if he is I do not find it wrong for me to assume that he is not an ideal blind protector this year (just like I still don't think bellicheck made the wrong decision to go for it on 4th and 2 against the colts last year)

Lastly, I watch every football time slot on TV...which is 4 a week during most weeks. That's only 8 teams a week I can watch playing at any given time...so at most I'd only be able to have seen about 3 rams games so far if I chose to watch them over other games. That's simple math telling us that no, you most definitely have not watched enough rams games to make any statement about their left tackle.

[quote]If you back pedal any further you're fall off a ledge.
LoL a [B][I][U]team [/U][/I][/B]movement? Really?
Care to support claims w/something? a quote a link something[/quote]

I would love you to show me when I said he was bad.
And I had a typo about the "team movement" comment, I meant to say "home team movement" as in the fans not the players. But I actually just read the link I saw, and I was wrong about that too. Here's the link I saw [url=http://www.walterfootball.com/forum/showthread.php?19052-St-Louis-Please-Fire-Pat-Shurmur]St. Louis Please Fire Pat Shurmur[/url] Still the guy does not seem to have a good enough pedigree to credit bradfords success to him.

Lastly, please stop insulting my logic, trust me, there is nothing wrong with it.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote]How can argue with this logic when you flat out dismiss one of the main metric used to judge QB performance?
[/quote]
Its just what I value when evaluating qb's. I've noticed that as a trend, the quarterbacks that throw the most td passes year in and year out have a tendency to be the best....same with rookie qb's and projecting them. Not always right, but its what I've found to be the most accurate measurement of rookie qbs.
[quote]
Stephen Jackson actually gives Bradford more yards per game then Hillis does for the Browns: 83.2 ypg vs 82.3 ypg
[url=http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2010&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1]NFL Stats: by Player Category[/url]
[/quote]
Actually the browns get more yards per game than the rams. But they are close enough that it is irrelivant. What I find to be most relivant for a featured back is YPC and TDs. The fact that Jackson has significantly worse ypc, but the same yards means that the rams (bradford) completes more 3rd down conversions than the browns.

[quote]Of course you're not impressed by McCoy (for one you've probably never watched him play) b/c in your mind it would probably take away from Bradford's performance.
But, if you were to take an honest look at McCoy's 1st starts even statistically w/o watching the games you can see he's gone up against against some pretty good defenses like the Steelers and Jets defense that gives established NFL QBs fits he's played well.[/quote]

Thanks bud, your a pal. Anyways, I view McCoy as a lesser roethlesberger. Someone who is not a conventional qb, but finds a way to win. His numbers do suck though, and he has not done enough to convince me beyond doubt that he has what it takes to lead a winning ballclub. I haven't written McCoy off yet, but he still hasn't done enough to prove anything to me.

Re: sam bradford
 

Bradford is the real deal, and I thought he would end up like Leinart. He would have gotten pounded here though with this line. Look at Donovan. Statistically, he isn't that bad, but considering he doesn'thave a line to give him any kind of support, you could imagine a rook behind this line.

Re: sam bradford
 

Bradford does a good job at getting the ball out quick, he would probably be fine behind our OL.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=GTripp0012;769257]Can I be the first to point out that Bradford is having a pretty poor season? If you limit your quarterbacks to all rookies, then by virtue of not being a disaster, Bradford has exceeded expectations. But we've seen Joe Flacco, Ben Roethlisberger, and Matt Ryan have better rookie years in recent times. His season looks a lot like Vince Young's rookie year, but without the long, dynamic runs.

Granted: he may have the worst supporting cast of any of those guys, and whether or not the Rams make the playoffs this year, it looks like the sky is the limit for Sam Bradford. But as a rookie, he's been a moderately below average NFL QB. It was better than Freeman, Sanchez, and Stafford from last year, but you only have to go back another year to find two rookie QBs having more success than Bradford.

The ability of Bradford to win in the future is tied more to the Rams' ability to add talent to his offense so that they can win with offense rather than Bradford himself.[/quote]


Thank you. Always nice to read something that comes from rational thought and not glandular secretions.

Sam Bradford is a good rookie QB with loads of potential to become an outstanding QB in the NFL.

However, you can go back in the threads for the Warpath and find LOTS of folks here who were certain that Patrick Ramsey would be a great QB in the NFL because his rookie stats and his second season stats were better than those of Brett Favre and Peyton Manning - - just to name two "pretty good QBs" who had bad rookie seasons.

Before anyone incorrectly concludes that I believe Sam Bradford is destined to be the same as Patrick Ramesy, I do NOT. But I am not ready to anoint Sam Bradford as the nex incarnation of John Elway either... Give him time to show what he can do.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769320]Bradford does a good job at getting the ball out quick, he would probably be fine behind our OL.[/quote]

Minus T. Williams or with him?

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769309]Jackson is the only one on that team that gets carries...that is why he is ranked so high in yards. 3.9 yds per carry is even less impressive when you have only 4 tds...indicative on not being a short yardage back.[/quote]
Assumptions my friend assumptions and opinions.
Your discounting his yards per game.

[quote]You misinterpret me. I'm not saying that because they are not know[n] that automatically means they are not good, I'm saying that with these guys they are not known because they are not good...look at their start totals. Any quality TE would have started at least close to one full season.[/quote]
LoL, i actually get the distinction you're trying to make but it still doesn't hold water b/c these Fells and Bejema together are giving quality production from the TE spot.

[quote]First of all, you did say you watch them play, and said saffold is good...you honestly can't know that about an O-lineman unless you are paying attention to him, please don't backtrack.[/quote]
I'm not backtracking at all there's a difference between your [B][I][U][COLOR="DarkRed"]strawman[/COLOR][/U][/I][/B] which claimed i was analyzing week in and week out:
[quote=skinster;769297]There is literally no way you watch enough rams games to analyze how good of a job saffold is doing week in and week out. I'm calling shenanigans on that one.[/quote]
I like most fans don't know enough about the being a waist bender, leg kick, dip and drive to analyze OL. But i know enough to watch and see a guy not getting beat i.e a guy playing well.
[quote=30gut;769296]Speak for yourself my friend i watch a lot of football.
Sometimes at a bar sometimes opn RZ sometimes i even watch the NFL package 30 minute re-caps.
Saffold is playing well and the Rams have a good OL.[/quote]

[quote]Second of all, there is no blind claim being made. It is a claim based on statistics. Putting ANY rookie offensive linemen in usually isn't ideal, but to have a non-first round OL really isn't ideal. Yes it's true he could be doing well. But with not having analyzed him it is not unreasonable to assume that a second round rookie OL isn't ideal.[/quote]
Its unreasonable to make any assumption based on a blind hunch.
Its also unreasonable to assume that rookie OL aren't ideal or that non-1st round also aren't ideal.
Teams draft OL all through the draft w/ the expectation that they will start and play well especially in rounds 1-3.

[quote]Thirdly (is that a word?), sacks is not a statistic.... But 2 credited is still impressive, I might be wrong and he might be good, but even if he is I do not find it wrong for me to assume that he is not an ideal blind protector this year (just like I still don't think bellicheck made the wrong decision to go for it on 4th and 2 against the colts last year)[/quote]
I believe the word you're looking for is [I]tertiary[/I].
Again your logic is very fuzzy here even though you know the truth to be contrary to your assumption you still assert your assumption?
*I agree w/ that Bellicheck made the right call.

[quote]That's simple math telling us that no, you most definitely have not watched enough rams games to make any statement about their left tackle. [/quote]
I've already addressed this question earlier.
And you can look at the number of starts and the number of sacks allowed and the general consensus about Saffold and know that he's playing well.
They less you hear negative about a LT the better.
E.g did you hear anything negative about Saffold when the Rams played the Skins?
Do you hear anything negative the Rams OL or about the Saffold on ESPN or NFLN?
Home much of Joe Thomas if at all do you have to watch to know that he's playing well?

[quote]And I had a typo about the "team movement" comment, I meant to say "home team movement" as in the fans not the players. But I actually just read the link I saw, and I was wrong about that too. Here's the link I saw [url=http://www.walterfootball.com/forum/showthread.php?19052-St-Louis-Please-Fire-Pat-Shurmur]St. Louis Please Fire Pat Shurmur[/url][/quote]
That's a big difference from "team movement" to "home team movement" but hey we all make mistakes.
A link to a draft blog?
BTW Be careful w/ Maguire at walters draft site he can get very unprofessional w/ his draft info but i digress.

[quote]Still the guy does not seem to have a good enough pedigree to credit bradfords success to him.[/quote]
Of course not b/c you don't want to give credit to anyone except Bradford.
Not the OL not the RB not the coaching.
But here's some enough about Shurmur's not good enough pedigree:

[quote=West Coast pedigree makes Shurmur a sure thing]"Pat has done a heck of job," Reid said. "It's not easy filling in for Brad Childress. I know Donovan (McNabb) has a lot of respect for Pat."
It's not a huge surprise Shurmur is where he is. Coaching is in the family. His uncle, Fritz Shurmur, was Green Bay's defensive coordinator when Reid was an offensive assistant for the Packers. In the early '90s, Shurmur coached the offensive line, tight ends at special teams at Michigan State. When the family visited Fritz in Green Bay, Shurmur stopped by Reid's office.

In the film room and practice, Shurmur will tell McNabb what to look for and what to do in certain situations.

If a cornerback or safety does this, McNabb should look for that. If a linebacker does this, McNabb should watch for that.

"From a psychological standpoint, he does a great job of making all of us quarterbacks, particularly Donovan, relaxed about the game plan and all the different situations that could come up in a game," Detmer said. "He doesn't get all worked about whether it's good or bad. You're going to have highs and lows. Lots of things are going on, and you've got to be able to stay calm."[/quote]
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/zillgitt/2005-02-02-zillgitt_x.htm]USATODAY.com - West Coast pedigree makes Shurmur a sure thing[/url]

[quote=BY BERNIE MIKLASZ, Post-Dispatch Sports]No. 1, Shurmur is keeping rookie quarterback Sam Bradford out of harm's way most of the time. Only 5.5 percent of the Rams' attempts to pass end in a sack. That's among the lowest sack rates in the NFL this season. That's also the lowest sack rate by a Rams offense since the team moved to St. Louis in 1995. Reducing sacks not only minimizes the number of hits on Bradford, it also helps the Rams avoid drive-killing negative plays. A passing game that gets rid of the ball quickly also gives young offensive tackles Rodger Saffold and Jason Smith a chance to develop under more reasonable circumstances. Saffold and Smith have allowed only three sacks (combined) this season.

No. 2, Bradford is developing a rhythm and confidence in the West Coast offense. This has been a superb experience for Bradford to learn how to master the shorter pass routes that form the foundation of the West Coast offense. Bradford has put his surprisingly deft mobility into action with rollout passes. Bradford has distributed the ball to many receivers; even if the passes are short, it helps to keep the defense off guard about knowing where the ball will go. Establishing the discipline required to run this offense is a valuable component to a quarterback's development. Bradford is nailing down the fundamentals; he'll be more prepared to take the St. Louis passing game to the next level in 2011.

No. 3, the Shurmur concept of going methodical is setting the Rams up on some long and fruitful scoring drives. They rank seventh in the NFL in 10-play drives. They're 11th in the league in points produced (50) from 10-play scoring drives. They are tied for ninth for the largest number of possessions that last five minutes or longer. Their average scoring drive lasts 8.8 plays and 3 minutes, 57 seconds; only four NFL teams are going on longer marches to secure points.

Bradford is a crucial factor in the success. He's been special on third-down plays, keeping drives going with timely completions. Bradford has connected on 60 percent of his third-down throws. He has six touchdowns and no interceptions on third down. Bradford's third-down passer rating of 101.2 is the league's sixth best. And the Rams are 11th in the NFL in converting third downs.[/quote]
[url=http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_2c7442a0-6f23-5b2e-8c18-e799bd6766a8.html]Shurmur gets the most out of Rams' offense[/url]

^^Great article about Shurmur and the Rams offense

[quote]Lastly, please stop insulting my logic, trust me, there is nothing wrong with it.[/quote]
I'm not "insulting" your logic either i'm questioning the validity of some of your logic.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769315]Actually the browns get more yards per game than the rams. But they are close enough that it is irrelivant.[/quote]
Right.
But you said this:
[quote]Also, McCoy greatly benefits from Hillis[/quote]
Which is why i pointed out that in fact Stephen Jackson gives Bradford more YPG then Hillis gives the Browns:
[quote=30gut;769306]Stephen Jackson actually gives Bradford more yards per game then Hillis does for the Browns: 83.2 ypg vs 82.3 ypg
[url=http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2010&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1]NFL Stats: by Player Category[/url][/quote]

[quote]What I find to be most relivant for a featured back is YPC and TDs. The fact that Jackson has significantly worse ypc, but the same yards means that the rams (bradford) completes more 3rd down conversions than the browns.[/quote]
This is a unsupported blanket assumption/opinion/speculation the lower ypc could have any number of meanings.


[quote]Anyways, I view McCoy as a lesser roethlesberger. Someone who is not a conventional qb, but finds a way to win. [I][B][U]His numbers do suck though[/U][/B][/I], and he has not done enough to convince me beyond doubt that he has what it takes to lead a winning ballclub. I haven't written McCoy off yet, but he still hasn't done enough to prove anything to me.[/quote]
Colts numbers sucks? But Bradford's are the best you've ever seen for a rookie QB?
81/127---63.8 comp %
975 yards
7.7 YPA
3 TDs/ 3 INTs
85.3 QB Rating

I view McCoy kinda like a cross between a more disciplined version of Romo and a bigger stronger armed Jeff Garcia.
Anyway here's some McCoy highlights:
[YT]nlIpohoRdGM[/YT]
[YT]9WSJ2xmYoMw[/YT]
[YT]5Jp2hxZrih0[/YT]

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=30gut;769344]Right.
But you said this:

Which is why i pointed out that in fact Stephen Jackson gives Bradford more YPG then Hillis gives the Browns:



This is a unsupported blanket assumption/opinion/speculation the lower ypc could have any number of meanings.



Colts numbers sucks? But Bradford's are the best you've ever seen for a rookie QB?
81/127---63.8 comp %
975 yards
7.7 YPA
3 TDs/ 3 INTs
85.3 QB Rating

I view McCoy kinda like a cross between a more disciplined version of Romo and a bigger stronger armed Jeff Garcia.
Anyway here's some McCoy highlights:
[YT]nlIpohoRdGM[/YT]
[YT]9WSJ2xmYoMw[/YT]
[YT]5Jp2hxZrih0[/YT][/quote]


I do have responses for your posts, but I'm craming for finals now. I'm not going to respond, but don't think this means I'm done...I'll be back (hopefully I'll remember to be back).

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769295]Yea well I want a superbowl, and I think to try and accomplish anything else is ludacris, and I don't really understand why you wouldn't want that either.[/quote]


Where did I EVER state that I didn't want the Redskins to win a Super Bowl? And where does it STATE that in order to win a Super Bowl, you must have a franchise QB? Obviously, that isn't true, because the Redskins, Bucs, Ravens, and Giants have all proved that an overall solid team with depth is going to win you Super Bowls.

On the contrary, there have been several teams with franchise QBs that didn't win Super Bowls with those Franchise QBs. Oh, Dan Marino comes to mind. And Elway didn't when his Super Bowls until he had a great supporting cast around him. So, don't tell me that the only way a team wins it all is if they have a franchise QB, because that isn't the case.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769355]I do have responses for your posts, but I'm craming for finals now. I'm not going to respond, but don't think this means I'm done...I'll be back (hopefully I'll remember to be back).[/quote]

I hear yah bro, just finished last week.
I got all the time in the world.
But, when you post keep in mind that i don't disagree that Bradford is playing well.
However the notion that he's basically the best rookie QB ever while playing in vacuum without help isn't true.
And some of the assertions you've made to support that he's succeeding without help have already been disproven i.e.-
1) he doesn't have a running game
2) he doesn't have a good OL
3) he doesn't have a good OC

Good Luck on your finals try and get a good night sleep before the exam
If you're old enough to drink:
[IMG]http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2008/12/09/470_beers.jpg[/IMG]
My initial point wasn't that Bradford wasn't playing well it contained what i thought most non-casual fans would already know and my opinion about Colt McCoy's performance:
[quote=30gut;769155]C-Jason Brown
LT-Smith
RT-Rogers Saffold

RB-Stephen Jackson

Plus Pat Shurmur at OC guiding a young QB

Then you also have to look at Colt McCoy also he's playing quite well in his limited starts[/quote]

Bradford and the Rams have some of the basic essentials needed to support a QB especially a young QB.
In short a bad team especially at certain key areas within a bad franchise cannot support a franchise QB.
Eg. the Buccs they had Steve Young and Doug Williams (although Doug took them to the playoffs both struggled their and won SB elsewhere)
A QBs success is largely situation dependent.