Jake Locker or Sam Bradford

[peramoure]

Let the debate begin. Locker is fast as hell and not bad in the pocket. Bradford, obviously the number one prospect before his injury, still is projected as a top 5. Who will our QB be next year?

YouTube - Jake Locker HD Highlights 2009

And for the record, I think our only chance of winning another game this year is this Weekend against the Bears. So.. we're 1-15 or 2-14 in my mind.

[txramsfan]

Neither are worth the #2 pick.

[39thebeast]

The answer is Jimmy Clause , but I'll play along

Locker has a better arm. Bradford is much more accurate. Both have worlds of potential, but both are risky picks. Bradford because of injury and Locker because of lack of productivity.

[shower beers]

I'm confused. I don't see Suh's name in the title, or the post.


Yes, I'm picking him to play QB

[RebelYell]

Jake Locker < Jevan Snead

Compare them physically, arm strength and play on the field against superior talent. Snead is better in most areas. Just look at the end of the season for each as an example:

Locker versus Oregon State in a blowout throws for 153 yards and 3TDs but most of his yards and TDs came after the game was largely determined. That's bad play versus a mediocre defense.

On the other hand

Snead versus LSU. 206 yards passing in a win versus a very solid SEC defense.

They both are horrible yet one is considered 4th round talent and the other worthy of a top 5 pick? Sorry no, they are both 4th round talent.

One of the arguments for Locker's poor play was that Washington was playing their tougher defenses earlier in the season and he would excel down the stretch (failed) and that the talent around him wasn't better than everyone else's. If he comes to the Rams, is his talent going to be better than everyone else he plays? Built in excuse for why he'll fail. I can understand Bradford supposedly had premier talent around him but after he left, the team fell apart. That's hard to ignore. Plus, can anyone really argue Notre Dame had premier talent behind Clausen?

[txramsfan]

Notre Dame's recruiting classes were highly ranked with Clausen there. Also, Golden Tate may be one of the best WR's in the NCAA's.

[39thebeast]

Notre Dame's recruiting classes were highly ranked with Clausen there. Also, Golden Tate may be one of the best WR's in the NCAA's.

not ranked higher than Texas, Florida, and probaly in the same range as Ole Miss. Teebow had Harvin, McCoy has had Sweed and Shipley definately isn't a slouch, Bradford had an outstanding line Malcolm Kelley and Jermaine Gresham. Besides Locker the top QBs have all had elite talent round them. In that group once again Locker's line was only better than Locker's. I would say he has better weapons than Teebow and Locker, but may be dead even with McCoy, but definately not ahead of Bradford. I would rank their teams talent wise:
1. Bradford
2. McCoy
3. Teebow
4. Claussen
5. Locker

[RebelYell]

As was said before, it's not about winning, it's about actually playing well. If not having enough talent around you is an excuse for not playing well, it will forever be Locker's excuse. Claussen doesn't win but he looks damn good when he loses. Locker isn't winning and he looks pedestrian when he loses.

Being a great athlete does not equal being a great QB. Teebow is probably the best athlete on the list but it doesn't equate to being a success in the NFL.