Bradford

[Rambos]

I see what i see and you see what you see. And when i said a fade in back of the endzone i mean a jump ball or perfectly placed ball in the corner of the endzone, in the redzone.

If you watched the game Sunday you would have seen this...

Pettis 13-Yard TD Catch

Fade to the back corner of the end zone.

[NJ Ramsfan1]

Does Sam need to get better? I don't think anyone would dispute that. But unquestionably, I think Sam Bradford will become a very good player as his surrounding cast continues to be upgraded at the receiver and offensive line positions.

At this point in time, I am very happy that Sam Bradford is our quarterback.

[Nick]

Just so I'm making sure I get my money's worth on my Pro Football Focus subscription, I'll point out that they have a signature stat looking at the deep passing of quarterbacks in the NFL.

They've generated an accuracy percentage, which represents the completion percentage, including dropped passes, where the quarterback throws the ball 20 or more yards down the field.

Of the 24 quarterbacks on their default ranking, Sam Bradford is tied for 9th most accurate on deep throws of 20+ yards. That's better than Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, Matt Schaub, for comparison's sake.

Perhaps that's just PFF seeing what they see, though.

Does Sam need to get better? I don't think anyone would dispute that. But unquestionably, I think Sam Bradford will become a very good player as his surrounding cast continues to be upgraded at the receiver and offensive line positions.

At this point in time, I am very happy that Sam Bradford is our quarterback.

Short and sweet, well said.

[CRAZYHORNS]

Blah Blah Blah

The critics can cry all they want. They sound like the same guys who cried that Warner was DONE.

Sam has proven time after time when given time he can pick any defensive apart. Just look at the redskins game for example.

Go Rams

[RamOG]

He atlast has a great coaching staff around him and a consistent offense system.

Can we set him up with a solid OL and good physical big receiver for a whole year. Before you write him off.

I have said this since the draft I will say it again. For me when I watch young QBs, only two things matter to me: the physical talent and the "it" factor. The "it" factor doesn't apply for any other position in football. However at QB, it is a huge one. He had it his first year, and hasn't ever lost it. Just the offense around him downgraded and now slowly recovering (not to mention literally no defense first 2 years). I have no question that Bradford will keep improving this year and next year will be the breakout year for him (don't worry I just knocked on wood).

And as far as him not being elite physical talent wise. What do you base this on? I see him having a lot of potential to be a top 5- 8 qb in the future. As others have said, he plays fine, and needs some improvements. But, he is definitely on track 2.5 years in to be a solid NFL QB.

NO ONE can predict who will be an elite qb or not. Of course, there are QBs you can look at and just know they aren't elite, however Bradfords no where close to one of those guys. Don't know what you are watching. But, I have no doubt in my mind he still has the potential to be elite

[svh01]

He atlast has a great coaching staff around him and a consistent offense system.

Can we set him up with a solid OL and good physical big receiver for a whole year. Before you write him off.

I have said this since the draft I will say it again. For me when I watch young QBs, only two things matter to me: the physical talent and the "it" factor. The "it" factor doesn't apply for any other position in football. However at QB, it is a huge one. He had it his first year, and hasn't ever lost it. Just the offense around him downgraded and now slowly recovering (not to mention literally no defense first 2 years). I have no question that Bradford will keep improving this year and next year will be the breakout year for him (don't worry I just knocked on wood).

And as far as him not being elite physical talent wise. What do you base this on? I see him having a lot of potential to be a top 5- 8 qb in the future. As others have said, he plays fine, and needs some improvements. But, he is definitely on track 2.5 years in to be a solid NFL QB.

NO ONE can predict who will be an elite qb or not. Of course, there are QBs you can look at and just know they aren't elite, however Bradfords no where close to one of those guys. Don't know what you are watching. But, I have no doubt in my mind he still has the potential to be elite

I agree with most of what you said, the only thing I don't see is the "it" factor. I think that's what Sam is missing. He as gifted as anyone in the league, but that little spark I think is missing. You never get that sense that we can win any game because he's there. That being said, I think he can (and will hopefully) be very good. Can beyond a shadow of a doubt be a top 10 QB. Top of the 2nd tier.

[live4ramin]

At least once a game Sam gets hit like he's crossing the interstate.

Who's riding the pine? IF you cant answer the question then you're likely in Sam's corner.

[AvengerRam]

"He's played poorly in the clutch!"

"Here are stats that show that's not accurate."

"Well, then he can't throw the deep ball!"

"Here are more stats that show that is also not accurate."

"Well, then he lacks that 'it factor'... you know... that spark!"

"Congratulations. You have now based your argument on something so subjective and nebulous that no stat can possibly prove or disprove it."

[svh01]

"Well, then he lacks that 'it factor'... you know... that spark!"

"Congratulations. You have now based your argument on something so subjective and nebulous that no stat can possibly prove or disprove it."

I have been consistant with my comments about Sam, but you are right. The "IT" factor is subjective, but you cannot deny it exist. Brady has it, Rodgers has it, Montana, Elway, Farve all had. Big Ben and Eli have "it" too. You could even see it early in their careers in their field presence. In your never ending quest to defend Sam, you are missing my message (i will not speak for others). I think Sam is very talented. Physically as gifted as any QB in the league. The QB's that I listed give/gave you that sense that the game is never out of striking distance. They can be 48 pts down with 2 minutes to go, but you still don't want the ball in their hand (see Peyton Manning against the Chargers). I don't get that vibe from Bradford. Even in his rookie season, I didn't. I don't get that from Rivers, Romo, Stafford or even Matt Ryan, but they are all VERY GOOD QB's. Bradford can be just as good as them and I would be happy. Tebow is not as gifted as Sam, but he does have the "it" factor. Before anyone says anything I WOULD NOT take Tebow over Bradford.

[Nick_Weasel]

Av, every time somebody throws up a stat - any stat - that shows Bradford as underperforming you wax eloquent about how stats don't mean anything, don't take into account all these super important variables etc etc. Then you'll turn around and use stats that shows Bradford as excelling and cite them as proof that the naysayers are all wrong. Oftentimes they're the exact same stat, e.g. QB rating.

And then when you argue against people people using the same reasoning that you yourself have used in the past, you seem completely incapable of doing so without mockery and derision. If people have the audacity to defend themselves after that, the last step is for you to stomp your feet and lock the thread while complaining that everybody else ruined the discussion.

[AvengerRam]

Av, every time somebody throws up a stat - any stat - that shows Bradford as underperforming you wax eloquent about how stats don't mean anything, don't take into account all these super important variables etc etc. Then you'll turn around and use stats that shows Bradford as excelling and cite them as proof that the naysayers are all wrong. Oftentimes they're the exact same stat, e.g. QB rating.

And then when you argue against people people using the same reasoning that you yourself have used in the past, you seem completely incapable of doing so without mockery and derision. If people have the audacity to defend themselves after that, the last step is for you to stomp your feet and lock the thread while complaining that everybody else ruined the discussion.

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!"

[svh01]

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."

Stats aren't really objective. You can twist stats to mean anything you want them to. If you don't believe watch a political debate! It is really about context. Just because you can't quantify something does not negate it. With that being said, I think most of will agree on this. Sam is not a draft bust and he's not elite. He is a solid, young QB that has not reached his ceiling yet and has had some obsticles to overcome. With the right supporting cast he can be at least a very good QB. Fair?

[AvengerRam]

Stats aren't really objective.

In fact, statistics are, by definition, objective.

Now, given that there are many statistics that might be used to evaluate a QB, certainly the choice of which statistics one might cite to is a subjective one.

But I did not strategically choose the statistics to highlight. Rather, I took what others stated (i.e. he's not "clutch," he can't throw the long ball) and pulled the statistics on point. In doing so, I demonstrated that there is a substantial gap between the subjective opinions expressed and the objective facts.

As for what Sam is and can be, I've consistently stated that I believe he is not yet playing at an elite level, but has the physical tools to reach that level in time. If you agree with that, then there's nothing left to argue about.

[svh01]

In fact, statistics are, by definition, objective.

Now, given that there are many statistics that might be used to evaluate a QB, certainly the choice of which statistics one might cite to is a subjective one.

But I did not strategically choose the statistics to highlight. Rather, I took what others stated (i.e. he's not "clutch," he can't throw the long ball) and pulled the statistics on point. In doing so, I demonstrated that there is a substantial gap between the subjective opinions expressed and the objective facts.

As for what Sam is and can be, I've consistently stated that I believe he is not yet playing at an elite level, but has the physical tools to reach that level in time. If you agree with that, then there's nothing left to argue about.

When I say stats aren't objective, the point is, for example, when does he complete his deep passes etc. That why I agree with you on context. I think overall we agree and at the end of the day, we are not looking for a new QB.

[RealRam]

Some of you guys are so naive. The WR's are open A LOT more than some of you guys give them credit for. Its VERY easy to say "they aren't open". Sam has spots to improve, as do the WR's.

Fair enough. Last part here very well applies to the OL improvement too.

Not to exonerate our boy Bradford of his mistakes but ... I'll wait till the end of this season to see a more rounded evaluation and where he stands in an impartial learning curve.