Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    fearsome foursome is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    257
    Rep Power
    11

    The Bradford assumption

    I have seen a few posts where there is an assumption that Bradford will be better than Marc Bulger. ( this is not a Bradford bash thread). Bulger was a probowl quarterback when he had Big "O" taking care of his blind side and Holt and Bruce to throw to. He was below average with our current line and receivers. If we take Bradford this year, can we assemble enough playmakers for him to succeed next year? I don't see how we will add enough talent to help any quarterback this year. Do we sit an 80 mil quarterback for a year until the tools are in place for him to succeed?


  2. #2
    01d 0rd3r's Avatar
    01d 0rd3r is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    1,259
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: The Bradford assumption

    Bradfords weapons this year may very well be better then expected. Avery is the X factor in this equation, entering his 3rd year, if he can stay injury free he could be due for a breakout season. And we do have some potential in the rest of the receiving corps, lets not forget about laurent robinson who was on pace for a 1000 yards season before he was injured. Amendola is a slot reciever and is very quick, in and out of his cuts, Gibson could be a great rotaional receiver. The real hole in our lineup is the TE and we should adress that in the draft.

    As for protection, Spags should be moving Smith over to LT this year and with Bell playing well last year, and brown really anchoring our inside line. He should have a decent line at worst.

  3. #3
    molar_pistol is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    az
    Posts
    938
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The Bradford assumption

    i would expect the o-line to be better, and hopefully the receivers to be healthy. throw in a tight end that can catch and a backup running back and he'll be in a much better situation than bulger was in this year. of course, none of that is proven and we are relying on management to bring in the right guys, but i have faith they will do a good job with this draft.

  4. #4
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,897
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: The Bradford assumption

    Quote Originally Posted by fearsome foursome View Post
    I have seen a few posts where there is an assumption that Bradford will be better than Marc Bulger. ( this is not a Bradford bash thread). Bulger was a probowl quarterback when he had Big "O" taking care of his blind side and Holt and Bruce to throw to. He was below average with our current line and receivers. If we take Bradford this year, can we assemble enough playmakers for him to succeed next year? I don't see how we will add enough talent to help any quarterback this year. Do we sit an 80 mil quarterback for a year until the tools are in place for him to succeed?

    What that tells me is that Bulger was more a product of the talent around him than the talent around him was a product of Bulger. He would probably have been an average to good starter on other teams, but maybe not a pro bowl type player (maybe, it is all speculative). So I don't think you can dismiss Bradford because Bulger was only effective given enough talent. They are different players. Would you refuse to take Manning #1 overall because the QB you were replacing wasn't succeeding without talent?

    Now I am not saying Bradford is the next Manning, but let's look at what the Colts had the year before they had Manning, it is fairly similar to the Rams.

    Jim Harbaugh was at QB, a one time pro bowl QB who was starting to struggle and needed replacing. Sound familiar with Bulger?

    A dynamic running back in Marshall Faulk who found ways to produce on a terrible team.

    A group of young receivers, but none in 97 that surpassed 1000 yards or were anything yet resembling a #1 WR, even tho Marvin Harrison was already on the team.

    So they had a 34 year old QB who was faltering, a great RB, and a group of young but raw receivers. But would you tell them "Don't take Manning, you don't have the talent to help him succeed yet"?

    The perception that a QB can only be successful if he comes into a great team is ridiculous. Sure they may not have good rookie years, but that doesn't mean they won't have success. Heck, Aikman and Manning were both pick-machines in their first year (Manning had a 71.2 passer rating and 28 ints, Aikman had a GULP 55.7 passer rating and 18 ints). Something tells me those teams wouldn't go back and pick another player to try to build the team and then get a QB though. Those QBs built the team.

    It is possible to build using a QB, even if the Suh fans don't want to hear it. It is also possible for that QB to come in with little talent around him and not have a wasted career.

    Simple fact of the matter is, if you are in a position to pick a QB in the top 5 or 10, it is because your team doesn't have much talent on it. Should all teams in the top half of the first round shy away from QB's because they don't have enough talent for a QB? That argument is ridiculous. A big reason a lot of those teams are in the first part of round one is because they have a bad QB. Coincidence? Probably not.

    I am just sick of the "We don't have enough talent for Bradford, therefore he will bust" stuff, if a team is a position to draft the first QB, it is because they don't have talent. Yet somehow in some way other teams have managed to get a franchise QB or at least a good QB out of their high draft pick.

  5. #5
    cfh128's Avatar
    cfh128 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Age
    31
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    29

    Re: The Bradford assumption

    I think the person who will be the most responsible for the development of whatever QB is back there is going to be Nolan Cromwell, our new WR coach. We have young, talented, and athletic WR's, but they are all pretty raw. If he can do a good job of coaching those guys up, our new QB might have a chance.

  6. #6
    Bralidore(RAMMODE)'s Avatar
    Bralidore(RAMMODE) is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: The Bradford assumption

    Quote Originally Posted by berg8309 View Post
    What that tells me is that Bulger was more a product of the talent around him than the talent around him was a product of Bulger. He would probably have been an average to good starter on other teams, but maybe not a pro bowl type player (maybe, it is all speculative). So I don't think you can dismiss Bradford because Bulger was only effective given enough talent. They are different players. Would you refuse to take Manning #1 overall because the QB you were replacing wasn't succeeding without talent?

    Now I am not saying Bradford is the next Manning, but let's look at what the Colts had the year before they had Manning, it is fairly similar to the Rams.

    Jim Harbaugh was at QB, a one time pro bowl QB who was starting to struggle and needed replacing. Sound familiar with Bulger?

    A dynamic running back in Marshall Faulk who found ways to produce on a terrible team.

    A group of young receivers, but none in 97 that surpassed 1000 yards or were anything yet resembling a #1 WR, even tho Marvin Harrison was already on the team.

    So they had a 34 year old QB who was faltering, a great RB, and a group of young but raw receivers. But would you tell them "Don't take Manning, you don't have the talent to help him succeed yet"?

    The perception that a QB can only be successful if he comes into a great team is ridiculous. Sure they may not have good rookie years, but that doesn't mean they won't have success. Heck, Aikman and Manning were both pick-machines in their first year (Manning had a 71.2 passer rating and 28 ints, Aikman had a GULP 55.7 passer rating and 18 ints). Something tells me those teams wouldn't go back and pick another player to try to build the team and then get a QB though. Those QBs built the team.

    It is possible to build using a QB, even if the Suh fans don't want to hear it. It is also possible for that QB to come in with little talent around him and not have a wasted career.

    Simple fact of the matter is, if you are in a position to pick a QB in the top 5 or 10, it is because your team doesn't have much talent on it. Should all teams in the top half of the first round shy away from QB's because they don't have enough talent for a QB? That argument is ridiculous. A big reason a lot of those teams are in the first part of round one is because they have a bad QB. Coincidence? Probably not.

    I am just sick of the "We don't have enough talent for Bradford, therefore he will bust" stuff, if a team is a position to draft the first QB, it is because they don't have talent. Yet somehow in some way other teams have managed to get a franchise QB or at least a good QB out of their high draft pick.
    Absolutely Beautiful, perfect post and a point I've been screaming for a few weeks now. If your in position to pick a top QB in the draft in the first place, you weren't a good team. Period. We weren't a good team, but we aren't without potential and players with skill just because we weren't a good team. A good fraction of that potential was in a training facility rehabbing injuries, suffering from nagging injuries, inexperienced, or a product of lack help at other positions. You don't pass on a guy you deem is a potential great QB because "he doesn't have enough talent around him" I.E he isn't spoiled enough. Manning and Aikman rookie comparisons aside, don't expect a rookie to be a first year savior and say that he HAS to dominate in year one to be worth the pick. Patience pays dividends a lot of the time, this fan base could do well to use it sometime.

    And please let's not have the "Bradford is a bust" post after he throws his first interception because they will indeed happen, same as Suh will get stonewalled and taken out of plays.
    Last edited by Bralidore(RAMMODE); -04-08-2010 at 03:40 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Rams Confident Bradford Is Healthy
    By r8rh8rmike in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -04-04-2010, 02:33 PM
  2. Bradford Makes Strong Case For No. 1
    By r8rh8rmike in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -03-30-2010, 11:55 PM
  3. The Daily Bernie Bytes: Why Bradford Isn't A Lock
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -03-30-2010, 06:52 PM
  4. Why I think Sam Bradford should be our guy
    By RockinRam in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: -03-30-2010, 07:45 AM
  5. Jim Thomas Live March 26 - Draft Chat
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -03-27-2010, 01:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •