The "IT" factor..

[Gomotron]

What I particularly like about Bradford, even during his OU days, is his quick decision making. If he feels pressure, he'll check down quickly or throw it away. If he feels that he has time, he'll look downfield at the single-coverage receiver and get the ball there.

The only concern I have is his adaptation to the speed of the safeties in the NFL. They are smart, fast, and can lure a rookie QB into making a deep throw into apparent single-coverage. The good thing I see is that all opposing defenses will have to respect SJax which will hopefully allow for more passing opportunities off of play-action in the early downs. If the Rams can get to routine 3rd and 5 situations, I think the conversion percentages will be > 50%.

[VegasRam]

I hate to say it, but Sanchez lit it up in the preseason last year. He looked like Joe Namath.

27 for 34, 347 yards, 9.4 YPA, 3 TD's, 1 INT for Sanchez vs.
33 for 55, 338 yards, 6.0 YPA, 3 TD's, 0 INT for Bradford, so...

Yes, Sanchez did play better, but I would also add with an established line, good running game and more talented receivers.

I stand by my original point, which wasn't really so much bashing Sanchez as wondering why no mention of Bradford.

[berg8309]

Sanchez was a rookie last year. He was overhyped because he came from USC and plays in New York. He certainly had his struggles. But labeling him as 'terrible" is incredibly shortsighted. If Bradford has the same type of year statistically that Sanchez had last year (very possible given our lack of weapons offensively), I hardly think the fans on this board will say 'the guy is overrated".

No, they wouldn't. Be he also wouldn't be talked about in the media as one of the "elite" quarterbacks who can take his team to the superbowl. If the Jets made it there last year, it would not have been because Sanchez was at the helm. A backup QB on almost every team could replicate the season Sanchez had.

He did not have the worst rookie year ever, but if a veteran had that kind of year, the team would have been looking for better options. That isn't to say he won't get better, but you don't post a 63 passer rating with 20 INTs and become an elite quarterback, but some (Emphasis on some, others have pointed out what I did) in the media bestowed the title upon him anyway. That's what I hate, he didn't do anything but have a below average season for a QB, which often happens as a rookie, and I object to the idea that he "led" the Jets to the championship game. He didn't. Not with his play at least.

Stafford by the way had a very similar rookie campaign, and no one is calling him a bust, but no one is talking about him in conjunction with the other great QBs of the league. That is the kind of treatment I would assume Bradford would get for posting similar numbers.