sam bradford
 

I really just don't get how there is not more talk about this kid. I know its recognized that he's good, but I really don't think he gets credit for just how good he is. IMO he is having the best rookie season for a qb since I've been alive. The kid had mark Clayton on pace for 1200 yards, 88 rec, and 8 tds before he got hurt. He has no support on offense whatsoever. 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.

Even when facing all this adversity, he still has the best rookie numbers I have witnessed during my lifetime I know you could argue matt ryan's were better, but I have to disagree because I believe Ryan's low td total is indicative of him not being relied upon to carry the team. Plus matt ryan had roddy white, mike jenkins, michael turner's best year ever, and the same O-line he has now plus todd weiner.
I'd even go as far as to say that his year is comparable to Brady's 2001 year, and if the rams can put a talented team around him (which I don't think they will), they will win multiple superbowls.

Re: sam bradford
 

Sam Bradford makes me want to cry over and over agian, when I think of the could have beens if he had on burgandy and gold.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=mredskins;769113]Sam Bradford makes me want to cry over and over agian, when I think of the could have beens if he had on burgandy and gold.[/quote]

Bradford is proof that it is indeed sometimes worth it to tank a season, because that was the only way we were going to get him at a reasonable price. Of course, the trio of Danny, Vinny, and Zorn all bought into their own optimism and thought they could win it all [again]. And then in damage control, they had absolutely no foresight.

Subjective valuations of players a be a bitch. Tashard Choice could go for a 4th rounder, but Jerruh wouldn't give him up unless he gets a 1st in return. Bradford probably would have required our entire draft to trade up, and even then the Rams may not have budged.

Re: sam bradford
 

Sam Bradford's had a pretty good year but let's see how the sophomore slump treats him. But woulda, coulda, shoulda ... no point crying over spilled milk. Question is should we draft a QB with one of our high picks?

Re: sam bradford
 

Bradford has been impressive, wish we could have landed him but that's water under the bridge now.

I seem to recall a lot of people that were very leary of his shoulder and didn't want to sell the farm to trade up for him.

Still don't think he's been as impressive as Marino was in year 1 though.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=rbanerjee23;769118]Sam Bradford's had a pretty good year but let's see how the sophomore slump treats him. But woulda, coulda, shoulda ... no point crying over spilled milk. Question is should we draft a QB with one of our high picks?[/quote]

We're slowly pushing ourselves into a corner in which we have to. Not to mention that the recent first round QBs have all been at least adequate for their drafters. We better grab one before it's too late.

Then again, maybe Slingin' Sammy Baugh is destined to be our only first round stud QB, and hence we shouldn't bother even then.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;769120]We're slowly pushing ourselves into a corner in which we have to. Not to mention that the recent first round QBs have all been at least adequate for their drafters. [B]We better grab one before it's too late. [/B]

Then again, maybe Slingin' Sammy Baugh is destined to be our only first round stud QB, and hence we shouldn't bother even then.[/quote]

Before it's too late? Is the supply of franchise QBs out there running out? :cheeky-sm

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;769117][B]Bradford is proof that it is indeed sometimes worth it to tank a season, [/B]because that was the only way we were going to get him at a reasonable price. Of course, the trio of Danny, Vinny, and Zorn all bought into their own optimism and thought they could win it all [again]. And then in damage control, they had absolutely no foresight.

Subjective valuations of players a be a bitch. Tashard Choice could go for a 4th rounder, but Jerruh wouldn't give him up unless he gets a 1st in return. Bradford probably would have required our entire draft to trade up, and even then the Rams may not have budged.[/quote]

x 2. But who is the next guy coming out that is as good as Bradford? Is there a total pure passer out there in the 11 draft?

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769121]Before it's too late? Is the supply of franchise QBs out there running out? :cheeky-sm[/quote]

I'd say there's only a little more than a third of the league has a "franchise" qb, so I would say they are hard to get. How much longer can we be bad enough to consistantly be a top 10 pick team? I'd say time is running out untill we reach a consistent state of mediocrity that prevents us from gaining a franchise qb for a long time.

Re: sam bradford
 

LOL...he was the #1 pick overall and he picked us apart without his best WR and RB. SamB is a true baller...a football genius and he hasn't even gotten started yet.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769121]Before it's too late? Is the supply of franchise QBs out there running out? :cheeky-sm[/quote]

Nope, they won't run out but they've been more "common" since 2008. Ryan, Stafford, Flacco, Sanchez, Freeman, and Bradford are all 1st rounders who have panned out. There's no way this is going to keep up. Knowing us, we'll choose one in a "bad year" like 2007(Jamarcus and Quinn) or or a so-so year like 2005(Alex Smith, JC, or Rodgers)

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769125]I'd say there's only a little more than a third of the league has a "franchise" qb, so I would say they are hard to get. How much longer can we be bad enough to consistantly be a top 10 pick team? I'd say time is running out untill we reach a consistent state of mediocrity that prevents us from gaining a franchise qb for a long time.[/quote]

There are always plenty of quality QBs available outside of the top 10.

1/3 of the league has a franchise guy? I think we need to define franchise QB.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769125]I'd say there's only a little more than a third of the league has a "franchise" qb, so I would say they are hard to get. How much longer can we be bad enough to consistantly be a top 10 pick team? I'd say time is running out untill we reach a consistent state of mediocrity that prevents us from gaining a franchise qb for a long time.[/quote]

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.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769128]There are always plenty of quality QBs available outside of the top 10.

1/3 of the league has a franchise guy? [B]I think we need to define franchise QB.[/B][/quote]

Agreed, because I'm not sure I would really classify Flacco and Cutler as franchise QBs

And Dirtbag can't understand why Whitehurst isn't on the list

I think I said it a few weeks back. I believe Bradford vs. Ryan could be the Manning vs. Brady of the next decade.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769128]There are always plenty of quality QBs available outside of the top 10.

1/3 of the league has a franchise guy? I think we need to define franchise QB.[/quote]

A guy that can get you into the playoffs year in year out. How "franchisy" you are depends from year to year. Matt Hasselbeck and Carson Palmer use to be a franchise QBs, now they be trash.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=SmootSmack;769133]Agreed, because I'm not sure I would really classify Flacco and Cutler as franchise QBs

And Dirtbag can't understand why Whitehurst isn't on the list

I think I said it a few weeks back. [B]I believe Bradford vs. Ryan could be the Manning vs. Brady of the next decade[/B].[/quote]

Definitely could go that way

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769128]There are always plenty of quality QBs available outside of the top 10[/quote]

true, but odds are that those guys don't hit as often. Since 2004 the only two franchise qbs I see not drafted in the top 11 are schaub, cassel, and rogers (no I dont count flacco or freeman...franchise qbs win games, not manage them)
The franchise qbs I see taken in the top 11 are roethesberger, manning, rivers, bradford, ryan, cutler (the guy gets hate, but had one bad year...he belongs), and possibly stafford (sanchez does not belong...he does not have what it takes).

I'd say having a top 10 pick is pretty important to getting a franchise qb...especially because Id say schaub and cassel are the two qbs on this list that I'd want least to be my franchise qb.

Re: sam bradford
 

I already know what is going to happen. Bet the farm for Andrew Luck. Watch.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769138]true, but odds are that those guys don't hit as often. Since 2004 the only two franchise qbs I see not drafted in the top 11 are schaub, cassel, and rogers (no I dont count flacco or freeman...franchise qbs win games, not manage them)
The franchise qbs I see taken in the top 11 are roethesberger, manning, rivers, bradford, ryan, cutler (the guy gets hate, but had one bad year...he belongs), and possibly stafford (sanchez does not belong...he does not have what it takes).

I'd say having a top 10 pick is pretty important to getting a franchise qb...especially because Id say schaub and cassel are the two qbs on this list that I'd want least to be my franchise qb.[/quote]

Well, you're dishing out a lot of subjective opinion here, and why is top 11 the cutoff, I thought we were talking top 10? Any why the small sample size of only going back to 2004?

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769138]true, but odds are that those guys don't hit as often. Since 2004 the only two franchise qbs I see not drafted in the top 11 are schaub, cassel, and rogers (no I dont count flacco or freeman...franchise qbs win games, not manage them)
The franchise qbs I see taken in the top 11 are roethesberger, manning, rivers, bradford, ryan, cutler (the guy gets hate, but had one bad year...he belongs), and possibly stafford (sanchez does not belong...he does not have what it takes).

I'd say having a top 10 pick is pretty important to getting a franchise qb...especially because Id say schaub and cassel are the two qbs on this list that I'd want least to be my franchise qb.[/quote]
Freeman has developed quite a reputation of being a 4th quarter comeback guy, and he also came close to put the Bucs in prime position for a comeback Atlanta a couple weeks ago, only to be stuffed because they couldn't punch it in with Blount.

This was in October:
[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/24/josh-freeman-pulls-off-another-fourth-quarter-comeback/]Josh Freeman pulls off another fourth quarter comeback | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: sam bradford
 

I have No comment

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769142]Well, you're dishing out a lot of subjective opinion here, and why is top 11 the cutoff, I thought we were talking top 10? Any why the small sample size of only going back to 2004?[/quote]

I made it 11 because 11 is close enough to 10 and roethlessberger and cutler were 11 while all the rest were top 5.
The small sample size is because the league is constantly evolving. I can't quantify how much the talent evaluation process of quarterbacks and the types that fit into what systems has evolved in the last 10 years, but I assume it is too much to accurately use a sample size any larger than 6-7 years.

Re: sam bradford
 

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

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769138]true, but odds are that those guys don't hit as often. Since 2004 the only two franchise qbs I see not drafted in the top 11 are schaub, cassel, and rogers (no I dont count flacco or freeman...franchise qbs win games, not manage them)
The franchise qbs I see taken in the top 11 are roethesberger, manning, rivers, bradford, ryan, cutler (the guy gets hate, but had one bad year...he belongs), and possibly stafford (sanchez does not belong...he does not have what it takes).

I'd say having a top 10 pick is pretty important to getting a franchise qb...especially because Id say schaub and cassel are the two qbs on this list that I'd want least to be my franchise qb.[/quote]

I would not call Cassel or Stafford a franchise QB just yet. Not enough of a sample of great play.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769154][B]I made it 11 because 11 is close enough to 10 and roethlessberger and cutler were 11 while all the rest were top 5.[/B]
The small sample size is because the league is constantly evolving. I can't quantify how much the talent evaluation process of quarterbacks and the types that fit into what systems has evolved in the last 10 years, but I assume it is too much to accurately use a sample size any larger than 6-7 years.[/quote]

lol how convenient for your argument

Re: sam bradford
 

[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]

Roger saffold is a rookie 2nd round pick

Stephen Jackson is having a terrible year...the rams rushing attack averages 3.8 yards per rush, and has 7 total tds.

Who is pat shurmur? I googled him and on the first page there is a movement to get him fired.

Lets not get carried away on colt mccoy...he had 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards per game.

Re: sam bradford
 

I'm pretty sure Jason Smith is their right tackle and Saffold their left tackle.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769160]lol how convenient for your argument[/quote]

"Top 10" is an estimated term. Its only used to indicate a high pick. 11 I'd consider a high pick while the next highest picked "franchise qb" was aaron rogers at 24. I'd say that's a pretty big gap that proves my point.

But just for the record, now that you have me thinking about it, I'd have to say the top third is high, the middle third is middle, and the last third is last. I'd say that close enough can count for either, so I'll say the cutoffs are roughly at 10-12 and at 20-22.

Re: sam bradford
 

Heard a stat the other day, if things hold up, 10 of the 12 QBs in the playoffs were first rounders, with the exception of Drew Brees (I believe the first pick in the 2nd round) and Tom Brady.

Although there are a fair share of scrubs that haven't panned out, there's something to be said about drafting a QB with your first pick.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769121]Before it's too late? Is the supply of franchise QBs out there running out? :cheeky-sm[/quote]

You didn't hear that there is only two years left for QB's. Who knows what will happen after that.

Re: sam bradford
 

Dan Marino was good also.

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 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....

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=SBXVII;769178]Dan Marino was good also.[/quote]

yea i figured there was probably a rook that had a better year than bradford, that's why I said "that has been drafted in my lifetime (I'm 21)" to cover ignorant my ass. Marino's numbers are unreal. I really hate how superbowls define the great qb's because from what I understand, marino had no talent around him and had no defenses to work with. If I had to guess marino was probably the best qb ever by doing so much with so little, but I can't say that with conviction.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769190]yea i figured there was probably a rook that had a better year than bradford, that's why I said "that has been drafted in my lifetime (I'm 21)" to cover ignorant my ass. Marino's numbers are unreal. I really hate how superbowls define the great qb's because from what I understand, marino had no talent around him and had no defenses to work with. If I had to guess marino was probably the best qb ever by doing so much with so little, but I can't say that with conviction.[/quote]

Nice comment. My original comment was supposed to be somewhat sarcastic in nature meaning Bradford could be awsome but had we drafted him and gave him the "lack of talented OL" we have now .... we probably wouldn't be talking about him and in the end people would be talking about him like Marino.

I won't lie... I was one who thought we should move up and get him but I can imagine what the Rams wanted for their spot.

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=skinster;769174][B]"Top 10" is an estimated term.[/B] Its only used to indicate a high pick. 11 I'd consider a high pick while the next highest picked "franchise qb" was aaron rogers at 24. I'd say that's a pretty big gap that proves my point.

But just for the record, now that you have me thinking about it, I'd have to say the top third is high, the middle third is middle, and the last third is last. I'd say that close enough can count for either, so I'll say the cutoffs are roughly at 10-12 and at 20-22.[/quote]

lol some of you guys should be attorneys, I swear

Re: sam bradford
 

[quote=Mattyk;769196]lol some of you guys should be attorneys, I swear[/quote]

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.

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

Shocker... do you tap dance too?

;)

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 [B]Matty72 [/B]said i think there needs to be a agreed upon defition of franchise qb....[/quote]

Don't ever use his full name in public!


Anywho; any one who thinks Flacco is a franchise QB has not really watched in the past two years. they don't lose becasue of him but they surely don't win becasue of him either. The guy is Switzerland.

IMO: A franchise QB is someone who can do this; "Joe Q is hurt and so is Ray Rice we need a TD in the last minute go out and get it for us." He can't do it and I believe he has only one winning drive in his career in his career when they have been down in the 4th.

Basically if Flacco goes down for the year the Ravens are still alive if Brady and/or Manning go down their teams are sunk; more so IND.

Re: sam bradford
 

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]

Re: sam bradford
 

[QUOTE=skinster;769174]"Top 10" is an estimated term. Its only used to indicate a high pick. 11 I'd consider a high pick while the next highest picked "franchise qb" was aaron rogers at 24. I'd say that's a pretty big gap that proves my point.

But just for the record, now that you have me thinking about it, [B]I'd have to say the top third is high, the middle third is middle, and the last third is last. I'd say that close enough can count for either, so I'll say the cutoffs are roughly at 10-12 and at 20-22.[/[/B]QUOTE]

Great arguement, but I thougth there were 32 picks in the first round? you broke your thirds down leaving out the last 10 picks. Secondly what if I broke it down into fourth's instead of thirds? Clearly that would narrow down the area in which a good QB could be drafted right? But if you really didn't want to narrow it down and wanted to be more broad you could simply break it down in half. Lastly is there any way the middle third might be in the last third considering you left out almost another third? Which might be why breaking it down into fourths is better.

Also what if there is no need for a Franchise QB in the top third and the best QB is picked in the middle third? Does that mean he is not a franchise QB? What about Tom Brady?