Re: sam bradford
 

Sad thing is that we couldn't end up getting him even though we tried endlessly. The whole reason McNabb was even brought in was to facilitate a trade to the Rams (packaged with the #4) which they pulled out of. (and hence why McNabb is really here)

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=NC_Skins;769518]Sad thing is that we couldn't end up getting him even though we tried endlessly. The whole reason McNabb was even brought in was to facilitate a trade to the Rams (packaged with the #4) which they pulled out of. (and hence why McNabb is really here)[/quote]

Interesting theory

Re: sam bradford
 

Yeah I was going to say and he knows this how...?

Re: sam bradford
 

^ he knows it from bleacher report probably SMH, because they are always reliable. They also reported that we were getting cutler through a 3 team trade that had Cooley going to Cleveland lol

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=NC_Skins;769518]Sad thing is that we couldn't end up getting him even though we tried endlessly. The whole reason McNabb was even brought in was to facilitate a trade to the Rams (packaged with the #4) which they pulled out of. (and hence why McNabb is really here)[/quote]

The government also carried out controlled demolitions for 9/11 and the masons secretly run the banks while planning the creation of a NWO using suggestions provided by the aliens that landed in Roswell during the 50's. The aliens also taught us how to make a moon landing look real.

Re: sam bradford
 

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/12/16/2010-nfl-draft-redux/index.html?eref=sihp]2010 NFL Draft redux has Dez Bryant to Raiders - Don Banks - SI.com[/url]

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;769584]The government also carried out controlled demolitions for 9/11 and the masons secretly run the banks while planning the creation of a NWO using suggestions provided by the aliens that landed in Roswell during the 50's. The aliens also taught us how to make a moon landing look real.[/quote]

Oh this is old news! AND....when you're in the NWO, you're in the NWO for llllllliiiiiiiffffffeeeeeee........!!!!!

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;769586][url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/12/16/2010-nfl-draft-redux/index.html?eref=sihp]2010 NFL Draft redux has Dez Bryant to Raiders - Don Banks - SI.com[/url][/quote]

Is Saffold really better or has he been a really good rookie tackle thats been fortunate enough to only face a fraction of the elite pass rushers Williams has had to take on? Still I thought Saffold would be good, but not better then Williams/Okung good.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;769586][url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/12/16/2010-nfl-draft-redux/index.html?eref=sihp]2010 NFL Draft redux has Dez Bryant to Raiders - Don Banks - SI.com[/url][/quote]

Thanks for the link.
Interesting stuff especially picks No.4 and No.7

Re: sam bradford
 

Remember that Pat Shurmur guy?
He's about to become a HC.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=30gut;777430]Remember that Pat Shurmur guy?
He's about to become a HC.[/quote]It's a fantastic pick for the Browns, who could be right up with the Ravens and Steelers as soon as 2012.

Re: sam bradford
 

I dont know if this has been posted in this thnread already,and this is not a knock against bradford,I think he's a good player,but I read a stat that said liike 89% of his passes were in the 10 yard range to limit the time he has to get sacked

Re: sam bradford
 

^ well when he has me and you at WR it makes it hard to throw down field lol plus their line isn't that good

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=htownskinfan;777442]I dont know if this has been posted in this thnread already,and this is not a knock against bradford,I think he's a good player,but I read a stat that said liike 89% of his passes were in the 10 yard range to limit the time he has to get sacked[/quote]

That is actually a pretty smart offensive idea. What better way to not only build a young QB's confidence and keep him healthy. That is what the OC for the Texans should have done for Dave Carr, and who knows, maybe Carr could have been something better...

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=htownskinfan;777442]I dont know if this has been posted in this thnread already,and this is not a knock against bradford,I think he's a good player,but I read a stat that said liike 89% of his passes were in the 10 yard range to limit the time he has to get sacked[/quote]

Offset it by the fact that he had the absolute worse receiving corps in the league. Now personally I think that receivers impact in general is extremely overestimated, but his receiving corps was a different type of bad. All I can say is it's very unfortunate that the Rams saw the light before draft day.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=htownskinfan;777442]I dont know if this has been posted in this thnread already,and this is not a knock against bradford,I think he's a good player,but I read a stat that said liike 89% of his passes were in the 10 yard range to limit the time he has to get sacked[/quote]

74%
[url=http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/article_459dc7d1-9892-5d2d-a215-9981047f3d18.html]Bradford: Coming up short[/url]

Brady was around 72%

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;777443]^ well when he has me and you at wr it makes it hard to throw down field lol [/quote]

lololololol!!!!! Qft

Re: sam bradford
 

From what I remember of Joe Montana and Steve Young they did the same thing. Rarely did you see them go deep, even though they were accurate when throwing the deep ball. That just wasn't their style of play. I can't count all of times when you saw everyone was covered, then you see them hit their check down receiver, either Craig, Rathman/Waters for a 10+ yard gain.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Shadowbyte;777458]From what I remember of Joe Montana and Steve Young they did the same thing. Rarely did you see them go deep, even though they were accurate when throwing the deep ball. That just wasn't their style of play. I can't count all of times when you saw everyone was covered, then you see them hit their check down receiver, either Craig, Rathman/Waters for a 10+ yard gain.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure the Bill Walsh deliberately called it that way. Stretch the field [I]horizontally[/I] in an age of unathletic LBs and the like. Use high percentage passes and methodically drive down the field. Before then, it was bombs away or nothing combined with a great running game.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;777461]I'm pretty sure the Bill Walsh deliberately called it that way. Stretch the field [I]horizontally[/I] in an age of unathletic LBs and the like. Use high percentage passes and methodically drive down the field. Before then, it was bombs away or nothing combined with a great running game.[/quote]

The spread offense isn't much different, except now coaches are trying to figure out different ways to use various shotgun formations, particularly as it relates to the running game.

Re: sam bradford
 

I think you guys are generalizing quite a bit in regards to Bill Walsh's WCO w/ Montana and Young.
Walsh WCO was a complete passing game 3-5-7 step drops they went deep quite often.
There WCO wasn't a 3 step heavy variety like Jon Gruden favors or like the Rams ran for Bradford.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=SmootSmack;777453]74%
[url=http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/article_459dc7d1-9892-5d2d-a215-9981047f3d18.html]Bradford: Coming up short[/url]

Brady was around 72%[/quote]

Didn't read the article yet, but most passing offense get their efficiency by throwing short: screens, hitches, flat routes and drags.
They key is to also mix in intermediate and deep stuff.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=30gut;777464]I think you guys are generalizing quite a bit in regards to Bill Walsh's WCO w/ Montana and Young.
Walsh WCO was a complete passing game 3-5-7 step drops they went deep quite often.
There WCO wasn't a 3 step heavy variety like Jon Gruden favors or like the Rams ran for Bradford.[/quote]I know Walsh had a use for all of those drop lengths. But the guy was just going by his imperfect memory, which was steeped with "short pass and YAC" with Young and Montana.

I just meant to say that it wasn't the QB's "style" or habits that made them appear to check down every time, but rather it was because Walsh called designed short passing plays.

I never saw those 49ers play in the time period, but I have read Walsh's playbooks and writings.

Re: sam bradford
 

One year in the league and he's already as system qb ... rams offense is 75% quick slants ... Bradford isn't as good as most of u think... but he is going to get better IMO and develop to be a better all around qb

Re: sam bradford
 

The Rams did a lot to protect Bradford, but that's the smart thing to do with a rookie. I think next year we'll see their offense open up a lot more.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=SmootSmack;777453]74%
[url=http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/article_459dc7d1-9892-5d2d-a215-9981047f3d18.html]Bradford: Coming up short[/url]

Brady was around 72%[/quote]

ok thanks,thats what happens to a memory when you get old.Thats not the article I read and I didnt do the math but I didnt see anything about 74%.Yes it was a smart thing to do with Bradford.But when you see he attempted throws over 20 yards only 36 times in 590 attempts it seems kind of shocking to me,but its probably like that across the board

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=htownskinfan;777502]ok thanks,thats what happens to a memory when you get old.Thats not the article I read and I didnt do the math but I didnt see anything about 74%.Yes it was a smart thing to do with Bradford.But when you see he attempted throws over 20 yards only 36 times in 590 attempts it seems kind of shocking to me,but its probably like that across the board[/quote]

Maybe you saw 79%? 79% of his completions (not attempts) were within 10 yards

Re: sam bradford
 

I'm a bit of a Bill Walsh and WCO buff myself, and if you didn't see his 49ers offenses you might believe that they were a strictly short passing offense but they were a complete passing offense:

[quote=Bill Walsh][COLOR=lime][COLOR=lime]A fully dimensional passing game should include, in varying degrees, several types of passes. Not only does having several forms of passing in the passing scheme give a team a variety of offensive weapons, it also enhances the ability of the team to handle each contingency condition and situationsd it occurs.
[COLOR=green]"....the coaching staff should guard against being "seduced" by the relative ease of completing 3-step drop passes"[/COLOR]
[COLOR=green]"A key factor to consider when using the 3 step drop pass is how much yardage is gained relative to the number of times the play is run. An offensive scheme using 3-step drop passes which doesn't produce relatively significant yardage, despite numerous opportunities, may be serving the defense more than the offense."[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000080]-Bill Walsh[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000080]'Finding the winning edge'[/COLOR]
[/COLOR][/quote]
Here's a vid that shows a glimpse of there 7 step game
[YT]MmhI6NNR088[/YT]

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=30gut;777510]I'm a bit of a Bill Walsh and WCO buff myself, and if you didn't see his 49ers offenses you might believe that they were a strictly short passing offense but they were a complete passing offense:


Here's a vid that shows a glimpse of there 7 step game
[YT]MmhI6NNR088[/YT][/quote]

I've read some of his stuff(wikipedia links to some of his coaching documents at Stanford, etc) months ago. What you said is true. I'm not trying to disagree with you.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;777589]I've read some of his stuff(wikipedia links to some of his coaching documents at Stanford, etc) months ago. What you said is true. I'm not trying to disagree with you.[/quote]

Another case of lost in translation.
Just passing along info, no disagreement here.
Cheers-

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;777487]The Rams did a lot to protect Bradford, but that's the smart thing to do with a rookie. I think next year we'll see their offense open up a lot more.[/quote]

Their best move was sending Richie Incognito and Alex Barron out of town.

Was their a worse O-line duo in the history of the NFL? :D

Re: sam bradford
 

Josh McDaniels might be a lot of things, but the dude can coach the passing game.
I think this is a great move for Bradford and the Rams. (maybe not so much for Jackson though)
I think the trade off of changing systems is worth the benefit of marrying up McDaniels knowledge of the spread w/ Bradford's proficiency executing the spread.

Re: sam bradford
 

Perhaps there is hardly any talk because .... HE'S A RAM!
But if your going to start a thread about all the recent rookie QB's then yeah he's good as well as Sanchez and Stafford.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769230]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]Just thought I'd pass along that both Football Outsiders and ESPN's new QBR have Colt McCoy's rookie season ahead or Sam Bradford.

So you can add them to the list of people not in their right minds.

Re: sam bradford
 

seeing this thread reminded me;
I was listening to ESPN 980 the other day, and I heard I think it was steve czaban, saying that he heard from a high ranking redskins official, that last year Mike Shanahan wanted Bradford badly. He decided to trade for McNabb, in hopes that Trading McNabb and the fourth overall pick that that would be good enough to get the number one overall pick and get Sam Bradford. He had even talked to the Rams front office and asked them if they wanted McNabb, they said they would definitely consider it and that it was a good possibility they would take that trade offer, but a few weeks later after he had his pro day and met with the rams, the rams felt that he was too good to pass up on and that they needed to get younger. Shanahan even told Bradford that when they met for a workout and dining experience that he said 'theres a good chance that you will be on our team this fall.' Rams called a few days later saying, 'sorry we want him, no trade.' Shanahan, Kyle and Mike, didn't really want McNabb, they just wanted a better chance at getting Bradford, which ended up being a gamble that didn't turn out.

Re: sam bradford
 

Not true. They went for McNabb after it was clear Bradford was no longer an option

Re: sam bradford
 

Sam is the next Peyton Manning and they don't come around very often. STL will be pretty
damn good for a LONG TIME

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;823373][B]Sam is the next Peyton Manning[/B] and they don't come around very often. STL will be pretty
damn good for a LONG TIME[/quote]

I thought that was Andrew Luck's job? ;)

Anyway, I agree Bradford is the truth. The Rams will probably be a contender sooner rather than later with him at the helm.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;823366]seeing this thread reminded me;
I was listening to ESPN 980 the other day, and I heard I think it was steve czaban, saying that he heard from a high ranking redskins official, that last year Mike Shanahan wanted Bradford badly. He decided to trade for McNabb, in hopes that Trading McNabb and the fourth overall pick that that would be good enough to get the number one overall pick and get Sam Bradford. He had even talked to the Rams front office and asked them if they wanted McNabb, they said they would definitely consider it and that it was a good possibility they would take that trade offer, but a few weeks later after he had his pro day and met with the rams, the rams felt that he was too good to pass up on and that they needed to get younger. Shanahan even told Bradford that when they met for a workout and dining experience that he said 'theres a good chance that you will be on our team this fall.' Rams called a few days later saying, 'sorry we want him, no trade.' Shanahan, Kyle and Mike, didn't really want McNabb, they just wanted a better chance at getting Bradford, which ended up being a gamble that didn't turn out.[/quote]


Why go through all that when you could just offer your 1st & 2nd. I think SS story sounds more beleiveable.

Re: sam bradford
 

Or you just work a 3 team deal. Taking the risk of trading for someone in hopes of being able to turn around and trade him right away doesn't make much sense at all.