Bradford vs. Suh

[MauiRam]

If the Rams see Suh as a guy who can and will take over games, they should take him. Regardless of whether we take Suh or Bradford #1 overall, we in all likelihood will not be playing in the next Super Bowl. It is hard for me to see Bradford as a "can't miss" guy. Maybe he'll be a star, and maybe he won't. If his durability is in question, I don't think he'd fare to well with our current O-line. If we must draft a QB this year, why not in rd #2 or #3? There is a strong possibility we'll have a top ten pick in next year's draft as well. I'm for taking Suh over any QB this year .. Unless another team is willing to give up the farm in a trade, I hope we pick Suh ...

[RebelYell]

I don't think he'd fare to well with our current O-line. .

This is one of those things I wonder when people make claims of who the Rams should choose: Do you make the decision for the Rams next 2-3 years or the Rams roster for the next 5-6?

I think the Rams would probably win more in 2010 with Suh over Bradford but Spags showed last year, they are building a franchise for the future. Do you build that with a DT or a franchise QB?

(note that I'm just taking a contrary point to spur debate, I haven't decided who they should pick and will be happy with whichever direction they go because I have faith in the new front office)

[HUbison]

It's internet talk and rumors.

How do you know Suh won't be the next Glen Dorsey? Or Carriker?

Other than internet banter, how can we predict Gerald McCoy isn't going to be ranked higher than Suh in the end?

And banter is great. I'm all for it, of course.

My question is not so much with the fans, but with the folks that have more exposure.........the Pete Priscos and Adam Schefters of the world. The only thing Bradford has done is weigh-in and talk to some folks. Why are these insiders so ready to anoint him simply for that?

[RebelYell]

And banter is great. I'm all for it, of course.

My question is not so much with the fans, but with the folks that have more exposure.........the Pete Priscos and Adam Schefters of the world. The only thing Bradford has done is weigh-in and talk to some folks. Why are these insiders so ready to anoint him simply for that?

You don't think they are taking into account the fact he was projected as a top draft choice prior to his injury? Or the fact the Rams need a QB for the future? Or the fact he's going to throw at his pro-day? Or the simple fact guys like Schefter are all about getting ratings?

If Bradford had thrown very well at the combine, would it change your opinion dramatically? JaMarcus Russell threw really well at his combine. Being a great QB is more than just playing catch.

[HUbison]

You don't think they are taking into account the fact he was projected as a top draft choice prior to his injury? Or the fact the Rams need a QB for the future? Or the fact he's going to throw at his pro-day? Or the simple fact guys like Schefter are all about getting ratings?

That one I can buy. It's just that IMO, he hasn't done anything to move up the food chain.

If Bradford had thrown very well at the combine, would it change your opinion dramatically?

No.....but that's just me.

JaMarcus Russell threw really well at his combine. Being a great QB is more than just playing catch.

Exactly my point, RY. Bradford has taken zero meaningful snaps since shutting down his season; yet somehow, these insiders feel HE is now the top pick?

I just wonder if that is going to stick until April.

[MauiRam]

This is one of those things I wonder when people make claims of who the Rams should choose: Do you make the decision for the Rams next 2-3 years or the Rams roster for the next 5-6?

I'm not sure what you mean here .. Either guy hopefully would have a 10 year career for us, rather than 2 or 3 years.

I think the Rams would probably win more in 2010 with Suh over Bradford but Spags showed last year, they are building a franchise for the future. Do you build that with a DT or a franchise QB?

Both! I am not convinced Bradford is a franchise guy though. Suh however, could be that once in a decade DT ...

[BrokenWing]

This debate is one that keeps me confounded at all possible hours.

I don't know which direction to go...and the more the debate is hammered out on the forum the more I think people support drafting one or the other on an almost pure basis of bias.

Those around here who typically look to the defense before the offense in any given situation support Suh, while the opposite is true with Bradford.

I am by far an offensive minded person, but as someone who has studied strategy I also like to see a good defensive unit. That's why I'm having this problem, I can't decide which player is more important to have (assuming of course Bradford is healthy).

I wouldn't be completely against a second round quarterback (any later than that though...) but I would worry that we would be basically drafting a guy to sit on the bench for a few years behind (insert qb that sucks here) and then get released when we draft our real franchise qb.

I also know that a bad offense is the first step to a bad defense and that showed *very* clearly last season, so I worry that ultimately if we draft Suh it won't matter for this coming season because our offense will still have all the problems it had going into the offseason, the team will still suck and people we need in place will get fired. All because there was a really good defensive tackle and no one wanted to draft a qb in the first round.

Or of course, Bradford could suck...and then the problem remains the same but with more money.

[eldfan]

Hub, I think Bradford's pro day will make or break whether or not he's the first pick of the draft.

I would disagree on that. The rams will reach on Bradford because the team needs a QB no matter what they see on pro day. The only way they don’t take him now if his shoulder doesn’t check out. IMO they will talk themselves into believing he is the best player.

[RebelYell]

Both! I am not convinced Bradford is a franchise guy though. Suh however, could be that once in a decade DT ...

But why are you not convinced of that?

My point on the next 10 years, you can't just pass on a QB because the team doesn't have a great WR corp or offensive line right NOW. That can all change in 2 years. And how can you discount that the offensive line's problems aren't really just a Marc Bulger problem. Isn't it odd that he missed a lot of time this year yet the offensive line played pretty well compared to the previous 2 seasons? Jackson had another great year also.

[sonnyjames]

I'm with Rammiser's earlier post on this. It feels a little like some are getting caught up with the positions rather than the men. Just how good is this QB pool vs Suh (or McCoy)?

QB vs DT, which wins you the most games? Well, all being equal, you have to say the QB is your man. But if the QB pool is only average vs a pretty superb DT pool, then isn't that the bigger issue?

I'm not convinced enough that there's a guy in the QB pool who everyone's gonna be talking about for the next 10 years. Given we're on a slow-building programme, my vote would go to picking the BPA and picking up a QB NEXT year / in FA, even if that means reducing the number of games we might win in the short term.

Still Suh for me. Or multiple trades for our no1 pick, anyway.

[PeoriaRam]

If the Rams see Suh as a guy who can and will take over games, they should take him. Regardless of whether we take Suh or Bradford #1 overall, we in all likelihood will not be playing in the next Super Bowl. It is hard for me to see Bradford as a "can't miss" guy. Maybe he'll be a star, and maybe he won't. If his durability is in question, I don't think he'd fare to well with our current O-line. If we must draft a QB this year, why not in rd #2 or #3? There is a strong possibility we'll have a top ten pick in next year's draft as well. I'm for taking Suh over any QB this year .. Unless another team is willing to give up the farm in a trade, I hope we pick Suh ...

This is a very good point. How many QBs in the 2011 Draft project better than Bradford? If the answer is "2 or 3" at least, why don't we take a crack at the 1st Round QB next season? We'll have had another season to assemble a good supporting cast for the QB, and have secured a better QB in the bargain. We would have a much rookie QB-friendlier team in a year if we show patience.

[Azul e Oro]

Let's assume that both Bradford and Suh are ahead (and will stay ahead) of their positional counterparts, Clausen and McCoy.

With that assumption in place, the decision comes down to: will Bradford be the better QB, or will Suh be the better DT? And by how much, relatively speaking?

So I think we have to look not at where they are, but where they will be. Here's how I see it:

Bradford's floor is Chad Pennington; his ceiling is Kurt Warner. Most likely......Matt Schaub

Suh's floor is LaRoi Glover; his ceiling is John Randle. Most likely.....Warren Sapp.



It just seems to me, when looking at that scale of potential/probability, the choice is Suh. Not scientific at all, of course, but just what I'm seein'.

I'm gonna irritate all of you & say that I think, IF you're going to base your projection of their NFL careers primarily on what they did & how they did it in college, both McCoy and Clausen project better than Suh and Bradford.

I've watched more tape of these guys over the last two weeks-whole games, not just highlights- & Mccoy ,to my amateur eyes, is a more technically complete player than Suh. There is more variety in what he does & the explosive quickness is scary. Suh isn't just a bull but power is a bigger part of his game,imo. Bodes better for McCoy's ability to figure out a way to defeat whatever is thrown at him.

Btw, am I the only one who thinks Suh looks 'roided? That bad skin & puffy face?

Leaving aside the character issues which seem to me to be based on some pretty weak grounds, anyway, Clausen's performances as far back as the '08 season, look remarkably professional. He makes all the throws from the pocket, the gun, & on the run. Wickedly mobile,too, before the toe injury. Looks Romo-like, pirouetting out of trouble & always has the ball high & cocked. Reads defenses insanely fast & audibles into TD plays repeatedly. And a real field general,imo; you can see him commanding the huddle & directing traffic as he moves around & when he scored a TD with his legs in one game, there was no ego dance. Just an intense guy who turned to his teammates to share the moment.Didn't look like an immature diva to me.

Bradford also looks good but it's more like watching drills than a game. He has hours back there & his receivers are often wide open.

Neither strikes me as particularly charismatic or intellectual in interviews but it's really hard to convince me that Clausen didn't do more with less & under greater duress.

Of course, none of these superficial amateur impressions even scratches the surface of the multifaceted & in-depth dossiers the pros surely generate on these guys but neither does trying to project their futures by comparing them to other players whose profiles are equally complex,imo.

I'm not even sure the thumbnail sketches you used,Hub, are even in the ballpark. Pennington never had serious injury issues in college,did he? That all happened when he got to NY & his arm was always considered suspect,no? I assume that's what you're getting at with the comparison. Maybe Sam compares in accuracy & smarts but I haven't seen anything to suggest he has Kurt's lightning quick release in the face of a blitz which , imo, is what lifted him into the elite QB club..

And having Glover as the floor for Suh is mindbogglingly optimistic to me. That guy was a 5-6 time PBer & I think just named to the all-decade team.How about dorsey? Didn't Haslett call Dorsey the kind of player who only comes along every 10 years ?
I also think Randle compares more to McCoy, if I'm to play the game. I remember him as smaller & quicker, attributes that were especially useful on The Vikes artificial turf. Even Favre couldn't get away from him; remember that hilarious chicken commercial ?