Bradford

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Wow. That's not even a remotely accurate description of my posts. Not even close.

What I have said is that you have to look at stats in their proper context. Sam has had 3 OCs in three years, a sub-par offensive line and sub-par receivers throughout his career. That is context. So, if you tell me that his passer rating is below where we hoped it would be, it is entirely appropriate to point out the context.

Similarly, when Sam succeeds in spite of the issues I've described above, he should be praised for doing so.

What I've criticized in this thread are people who make broad statements that are contrary to objective facts (i.e. statistics) or who, when confronted with those facts, fall back upon entirely subjective and nebulous concepts like "it factor."

If you don't like my way of arguing (i.e. using facts) then all I can say is... "oh, well!"

---

You can live in 1 of 2 worlds. There is 1 world where NFL statistics display with 100% accuracy the performance of an individual. That is the world where statistics alone can show that Bradford is or is not performing well in the clutch or throwing the deep ball well, etc. There is another world where statistics are incomplete and can at times be misleading, where context needs to be taken into account, including the supporting cast, opposition, and just good old fashioned observation. You choose which world to live in based on which one better supports your story. In this thread, you have pulled out stats that you claim alone can show that somebody's observation about Bradford is wrong. Yet if we're talking about his QBR, say from last year, oh well QBR alone can't show his performance because we need to take into account his O-line, his WR, etc. You can't just "fact drop" and act like that's the end of the story while simultaneously saying that you have to look at things other than stats. One of those two has to give.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick_Weasel

You can live in 1 of 2 worlds. There is 1 world where NFL statistics display with 100% accuracy the performance of an individual. That is the world where statistics alone can show that Bradford is or is not performing well in the clutch or throwing the deep ball well, etc. There is another world where statistics are incomplete and can at times be misleading, where context needs to be taken into account, including the supporting cast, opposition, and just good old fashioned observation. You choose which world to live in based on which one better supports your story. In this thread, you have pulled out stats that you claim alone can show that somebody's observation about Bradford is wrong. Yet if we're talking about his QBR, say from last year, oh well QBR alone can't show his performance because we need to take into account his O-line, his WR, etc. You can't just "fact drop" and act like that's the end of the story while simultaneously saying that you have to look at things other than stats. One of those two has to give.

---

Once again, you're totally missing the point.

I have always cited the context along with the stats. The reason why doing so tends to favor Bradford is that the context he has found himself in since Day 1 has been a higher than average degree-of-difficulty.

If, on the other hand, Bradford was playing with the equivalent of what Kurt Warner had to work with, and still had a passer rating of 81.5, I'd be the first to say that Sam was under-performing.

I've been perfectly clear and perfectly consistent. I'm sorry if this is too complicated for you to follow.

Ahh, the ever elusive "it" factor.

You guys ever notice the "it" factor isn't recognized until AFTER a QB wins games?

Apparently, the "it" factor is a solid O-line, skilled backs and receivers, and a stingy defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUbison

Ahh, the ever elusive "it" factor.

You guys ever notice the "it" factor isn't recognized until AFTER a QB wins games?

Apparently, the "it" factor is a solid O-line, skilled backs and receivers, and a stingy defense.

---

I disagree. The it factor is that innate ability to take control and take over a game. It's a presence or sense of confidence that somehow spreads to the whole team and causes panic on the opposition. RGIII isn't winning a lot but he has "it". You can sense "it" when he's on the field. One day "it" will project into wins. Sam doesn't have that type of presense at least I don't see it. Sam has talent and ability and I have heard people rave about his potential. Too my recollection I have never heard any say something like, when Sam's on the field i never feel like we're out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HUbison

Ahh, the ever elusive "it" factor.

You guys ever notice the "it" factor isn't recognized until AFTER a QB wins games?

Apparently, the "it" factor is a solid O-line, skilled backs and receivers, and a stingy defense.

---

I disagree too. Everyone doesnt and cant see the "it" factor... Thats why there are so many draft bust, can we agree on that? "It" is intangible, so how can it be a solid line, skilled back, WRs, or a D? I also feel like Bradford doesnt have ALL of "it". But he is our QB, a pretty good one and he will oly get better though. And some people dont want to go through the hassle of looking up and posting every stat and vid you can find to prove a point... If you cant see the guys deepball isnt where some of us think it should be compared to just about every other qb then so be it. Stats can be misleading, film doesnt lie!!!! And that goes back to draft bust... You can be the ncaa leader of whatever stat and come into the nfl and it not just translate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by svh01

I disagree. The it factor is that innate ability to take control and take over a game. It's a presence or sense of confidence that somehow spreads to the whole team and causes panic on the opposition. RGIII isn't winning a lot but he has "it". You can sense "it" when he's on the field. One day "it" will project into wins. Sam doesn't have that type of presense at least I don't see it. Sam has talent and ability and I have heard people rave about his potential. Too my recollection I have never heard any say something like, when Sam's on the field i never feel like we're out of it.

---

Much like Cam Newton last year... oh except this year he forgot where he put "it."

I wholeheartedly agree that there are intangibles that can separate two guys of comparable physical ability. We've all watched various sports where you JUST KNOW a guy will stage a comeback, get a big hit, hit a big shot, etc. There are some guys who have that innate ability to inspire confidence in both teammates and in fans watching them play. If everything could be measured on a stat sheet, there would be no need for all of the preparation that goes into a draft. You'd simply draft the guy with the best statistics and he'd succeed. We all know it's not that easy.

With all of that said, we need to put this nonsense to rest about Bradford. A healthy debate about just how good he can be is fine. Being critical of perceived shortcomings is also more than acceptable. But saying the guy "sucks" or "will never be a big time player" is simplistic, premature and ill-informed. He has been hamstrung with a variety of personnel, injury and coaching issues for 2 1/2 seasons. There will be a time in the not-too-distant future when we can more accurately judge exactly what type of player Bradford will be. That day isn't here yet.

Quote:

---

RGIII isn't winning a lot but he has "it".

---

Oh, I see. So "it" is simply media hype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rambunctious

Much like Cam Newton last year... oh except this year he forgot where he put "it."

---

yea, that pretty much sums up the mystical "it".

You want to know what the "it" factor is? Fine, I'll tell you.

"It" is the quality that casual fans assign to some player (typically QBs) that are exciting to watch and have been hyped by the media.

There's your magical "it" factor. It's a useless term and only gets in the way of any fact-based discussion.

My take is after five years, Bradford will be but he will be. Until then he is developing every game, every week and every practice.

I have always compared Bradford to Troy Aikman as many others have. So after this week Sam is at the half way point. Two and a half years into the process. How do his numbers compare to Aikman's?

After two years and seven games here are the numbers.

Aikman

Yards 5,946
CMP% 59
TD 28
INTs 41
RAT 77

Bradford

Yards 7,268
CMP% 58.0
TD 31
INTs 27
RAT 75.6

The numbers are very close, the other interesting thing is the Cowboys made the Walker trade and the Rams made the RGIII trade. Can the Rams find some HOF talent with those extra picks to play with Bradford, like the Cowboys did for Troy.

So far Bradford is right on track IMO.

Not once did I mention scheme changes, bad O line and lack of receivers. All that stuff does not matter Bradford is performing well.

I have that "it" factor but I'm not Sharing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

I've been perfectly clear and perfectly consistent. I'm sorry if this is too complicated for you to follow.

---

I confess, I am indeed confused. Could you please explain to me what you meant in the following quotes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Okoye seems to have that "it" factor. Everyone loves his intelligence, athleticism, youth and enormous upside. May be gobbled up before the Rams select, but if he's there, he'd be hard to pass up.

---

In terms of overall style and ability, I still look at Bradford as being comparable to Kurt Warner. He has many of the same skills, as well as limitations. Whether he has that extra "it" factor that Kurt had... that I can't tell you from watching highlight films.

---

I've heard him interviewed and he has that "it" factor.

---

Just want to know why everybody referencing the blasphemous "it" factor is such an idiot when you seem to have used the idea yourself.

Just to be clear, I'm completely agnostic here about Bradford and the "it" factor or whether it's real, etc. I'm just trying to express the point that as a moderator you should be far more civil than you are, especially when you're attacking people for employing the same reasoning you yourself have used in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by svh01

Too my recollection I have never heard any say something like, when Sam's on the field i never feel like we're out of it.

---

There are what, maybe 4 or 5 QB's in the NFL you can really say that about with any confidence, and you're holding Bradford to that same standard at this point in his career with what he has around him?

Guys like Drew Brees, Eli Manning, and Aaron Rodgers all needed a few years to become that type of player, so I wouldn't write off Bradford just yet.

The "it" factor may be innate, but that doesn't mean it's going to immediately manifest itself regardless of circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Actually, you also said:

[/COLOR]

So, people weren't reacting to your opinion, they were reacting to your implication that Bradford should be replaced.

---

If you get Bradford should be replaced out of what I said fine. I could see how one would get that implicitly. But make it straight I mean something needs to change, whether it be the line, the receivers, the system, ect...... Yes the Rams are playing better than last year, but I attribute much of that to the defense.

Of course I've used the term ”it factor.” That does not change the fact that its a SUBJECTIVE concept. I have been arguing objective facts in this thread. What I have criticized is the tactic of hiding behind purely subjective terms when the objective data shows you are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bruce4life

I have that "it" factor but I'm not Sharing...

---

HATER!!! Lol...lol... (Man, is it just me or is this board getting harder to read? Seems awful dark to me anymore....)