that's a simpler way to answer the question...
I think if you took "today's" Bradford and instantly plugged him in to the GSOT......I think he would struggle at first. I really think it would take him time to grasp the offense. I'm not sure how long he would struggle but I do imagine him struggling.
I would eventually expect the 3rd option.
I'll answer that question by asking this one.
Would we be a better offense today, if Kurt Warner was our QB? For me it's a resounding yes, therefore I chose option 3.
I voted for #2. I don't think Sam's numbers would have been as good as Warner's, but I do think the results would have been similar.
One thing that immediately popped into my mind when thinking about this question was the sack percentages - the percentage of time the quarterback is sacked when attempting to pass.
During Warner's GSOT days, his combined sack percentage from 1999-2001 was 5.8%. Bradford's career sack percentage is 7.2%. When factoring in only the last two years specifically, it's a whopping 8.9%.
When Kurt was still in St. Louis and had a sack percentage above 8, the results weren't pretty. When Sam was a rookie, his sack percentage was down in the 5% range, and while I think his rookie season gets overrated slightly by fans, it was without a doubt a very promising rookie year that nearly got the Rams into the playoffs.
With protection, Bradford can perform at a high level. Combine that type of protection with the weapons and scheme of the GSOT, and I think Sam could have been very successful in that scenario.
Kurt had heart those rumbles with Saints were brutal. Plus Kurt would throw where receivers were going. Timing was critical. The offense was always moving and with Faulk coming out of the backfield Bradford would have to not only have accuracy but vision. I went with option 3 I dont think the results would have been same even though the offense would be good AND dominant... remember GSOT also had a lot to do with Faulk. I wish there would have been an option in between B and C.