JavaScript must be enabled to use this chat software. Please respond to the following conern about Bradford - Page 3

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31
    ManofGod's Avatar
    ManofGod is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Rep Power

    Re: Please respond to the following conern about Bradford

    Quote Originally Posted by PeoriaRam View Post
    I believe he is a possible "franchise" QB. One of that second tier who can be very successful in the right situation, but sub par anywhere else. Compare with Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Hasselbeck, Joe Flacco, Jay Cutler, and Donovan McNabb.

    This is team is not the right situation.
    Exactly, when I think about this move I think about Troy Aikman when he first came to the Cowboys, now althought that story had a pretty good ending, it took years for the story to begin to take form(Troy took a tremendous beating).

    Currently you have:
    -The prospect of drafting a potential "franchise" QB coming off of a major injury, who will be learning a new offense while adjusting to the speed of the NFL. (and at the same time)
    -A offense who lacks quality weapons for any QB to have success.
    - A severly talent challenged O-line who has a question mark at LT and an even bigger question mark at RT especially when said QB is currently damaged goods, and no one knows how he'll recover psychologically especially if he takes the kind of hits Bulger did (and I see no reason w/ our O-line to think that Bradford won't).

    With that being said I remain in the Suh-McCoy camp (even if we have to trade back into the 1st round to get him. You win in the NFL w/ defense regardless of how the media loves star power at the QB position. As I've said before, let's follow the blue print from the Patriots, Saints, Jets, etc. and build the team from the inside out starting w/ strong O-line & D-lines before moving on to the more high profile positions.

    I mean seriously guys how many years have we watched & complained while our Defense gave up 300+ yards passing and 100+ yards rushing time after time...we have a chance to draft a guy who can be a brick wall & the center piece of our defense for the next 10yrs. In one fail swoop, we can improve both phases of our Defense w/ one pick!

    Quote Originally Posted by punahou View Post
    Let us not forget all the other great QBs that led Stoops' Sooners to stellar records and performances throughout their college careers-- namely Josh Huepel and the

    HEISMAN WINNING QB named Josh White-- who put up similar numbers to Bradford.

    I am still shocked by the Bradwagon that is taking the Rams by storm.

    How you pass up what many say is the best DT to come out in the last generation for a QB that is a product of Stoops' system? is beyond me.

    This guy is another Colt Brennan, Josh Heupel, and Jason White.

    For gods sake we pass up trading a 2nd round pick this year for a proven NFL commondity and signed AJ Feeley? This team has a penchant for signing ex giants and eagles, and why we pass on McNabb-- who has
    better stats than John Elway BTW-- and end up with Danny Amendola, that Gibson Guy, Fred Baskin Robbins, and AJ Feely- Good.

    And for Gods sake-- McNabb grets traded to an in game rival? hows that make any sense at all?

    Suh 1st round
    Mcnabb in lieu of 2nd round and 3rd round next year

    that sounds great. Then next year we can take the fan boy hyped QB that will be just as good as Bradford.

    HELP US!! Where is Dick Vermeil and Ray Malavasi when we need them?!
    As I've said before he has the "look" (arm strength, ideal height, etc.), but the system he ran has alot to do w/ his success.

  2. #32
    shower beers's Avatar
    shower beers is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Rep Power

    Re: Please respond to the following conern about Bradford

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post

    As all of you know from listing to my ranting over the last two years in defense of marc bulger, my mantra of the qb position is that no matter how good you are, you cant throw from flat on your ass, which is where marc bulger has been time and time and time again.
    general counsel
    Jamarcus Russell can throw a ball 50 yards while sitting on his ass.


  3. #33
    npow81 Guest

    Re: Please respond to the following conern about Bradford

    I'm jumping in late I know...but what you said originally is my primary concern with Bradford.

    With Bradford it's not that I don't think he can do something, its that I don't know if he can do something.

    And the unknown, in my mind makes $80 mil too big of a risk, especially with a couple of premium DT prospects on the board.

    So very much agree with you.

  4. #34
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Morgantown, WV
    Rep Power

    Re: Please respond to the following conern about Bradford

    Apologies for multi-quoting a bunch of people in this response, but I figured it was better than making a dozen individual responses...

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    This is not a knock on bradford. He has the physical tools to be an excellent nfl qb. Many have questioned his durability. I am not going to debate that point because i think that before the rams invest over 40 million, they are going to satisfy themselves that he is healthy and no more likely to reinjure his shoulder than if he hadnt been hurt the first time. As an aside, a family member of mine practiced with Dr James Andrews and has educated me on injuries of this type. He tells me that these surgeries have a very high rate of success in most cases and there is every reason to believe that bradford will be as good as new. Thats not a guarantee of course, its just a matter of the odds from an objective and educated third party.
    I know you said you weren't going to debate this, and I'm not trying to egg on a debate. I would simply point out that my concerns with his durability are less about reoccurances of his shoulder injury but simply whether or not he's going to be able to take an NFL beating without injuring something. He sustained some kind of injury beyond the normal wear and tear of football every year he played at Oklahoma, despite only being sacked 25 career times. It's really not so much the shoulder that worries me - I've always expected it would heal and be okay - but it's how the overall package is going to hold up.

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    In short, i think a motivating factor behind the bradford pick is that no matter how good suh is, the defensive lineman is going to sell a lot less tickets than the flashy qb. The rams need a long term qb and i understand that. However, with the weapons (or lack thereof) that we have on the current roster, i am greatly concerned about passing on suh to take bradford. I remain in the suh-colt mccoy camp, although i acknowledge that there is no guarantee that mccoy will be available at 33 (and my gut tells me that he wont, that we will need to trade up to get mccoy if we want him).

    In short, i think that the rams are so badly broken that we are not going to be competitive this year no matter who we pick. I dont see bradford as a lock franchise qb and if we screw this pick up, we will pay the price for about five years. i would prefer to be more risk averse, take suh and get a qb either in round 2 or next year.

    If the Rams take bradford (which is looking more and more like a given) i will not be really upset. Again, i think he is an excellent prospect. My concerns are not just bradford, but a strong pro Suh view. I will disagree with the pick, but pray for sure that i am wrong. If the rams get an offensive line around bradford, i think he will have an excellent chance to be successful. WIth our current line and receivers, i think its going to be very rough going.
    Very good points, you bring up some fair concerns I believe. And like you, I hope that I'm wrong about my own concerns if Bradford becomes the pick. I'd much rather be wrong in my assessment and see the Rams make a turnaround than be right at the expense of their success.

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    My answer to that is simple. What QB doesn't look mortal when under constant pressure?

    Tom Brady has won 3 Super Bowls and was at the helm of an undefeated a couple of years ago, but under a heavy rush from the Giants, he looked pretty mortal.

    Rich Gannon was the league MVP when his Raiders played the Bucs in the Super Bowl. He threw 5 interceptions in the game.

    The great Jim Kelly, when faced with the Giants' defense in Super Bowl 25, was outplayed by Jeff Hostetler.

    There are countless examples I could give.

    The bottom line is, NO QB is immune to pressure.
    I don't think GC's point was to say Bradford should be immune to pressure. Rather, the concern seemed to be that Bradford did not experience much pressure in college, he will at the NFL level as part of the Rams, and we have no idea how he's going to respond.

    While Tom Brady did falter against the Giants when pressured, he and his team were able to achieve what they did in part because he wasn't constantly pressured in that manner during the season - Brady was sacked only 21 times in 2007.

    Any quarterback is going to look mortal under constant pressure, yes. The key is to keep that pressure off of them as best you can so that the well protected times far outnumber the pressured times, and the Rams have struggled to do that for years now.

    If we don't want Bradford to become the next David Carr, then the Rams are going to have to protect him much better than they have other passers over the last, well, decade. Can they? Only time will tell.

    Even if the Rams' protection improves and St. Louis allows only, say, 30 sacks in 2010 - a whopping improvement on their five-year average of 46 sacks per year - that's still more than twice as many sacks in a season as Bradford ever experienced as a collegiate player. That doesn't include the likely increased number of hits and hurries as well. Even improved protection from the Rams will be a big adjustment from what Bradford faced in college. How is he going to respond?

    Obviously there are questions and unknowns with every prospect, but I think this is a fair one for Sam.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockinRam View Post
    Offensive line point:

    With our current offensive line, Bradford might struggle sometimes. Our current O-Line right now isn't dominant, but is very solid at times when given time to gel, and when all the starters were in.

    People forget that when we had all our starters in last year, Bulger was getting ample time to throw the ball, but he still had trouble due to our WRs, not because of our o-line.

    Our o-line had one healthy starter playing by the end of the season, which most people base our o-line off of. Our line really isn't that bad. It may not be as good as the 2008 Oklahoma O-line, but it is good enough to give Bradford his time.

    We are also going to add a starter before next season, which should solidify our line even more.
    And when was the last time our offensive line was able to stay completely healthy for a full season? 2003 maybe?

    It's great that they show signs of coming together and being solid when they're all healthy, but if they're rarely if ever all healthy at the same time, what good does that do us?

    Quote Originally Posted by RockinRam View Post
    Throwing Under Pressure point:

    True, Bradford hasn't played with much pressure his career. But, I think even if he did play against pressure, he knows how to get the ball out so fast, so efficiently, it doesn't really matter too much. He has good awareness and feel for the game, and I'm sure he can adjust to the pressure around him. His release is lightning quick, which should benefit him from the rush.
    Marc Bulger had a notoriously quick release as well, but that didn't stop him from taking a beating for years behind the Rams' OL.

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    As to the comment that it doesnt matter whether he has played under pressure because he gets the ball out so quickly, i just dont buy that at all. Great at oklahoma with tons of throwing lanes and no pressure at all. A lot different at the nfl level.
    This is a fair point. Look at Oklahoma this year - Landry Jones as an inexperienced redshirt freshman was sacked only 12 times in 2009. Exactly the same number as Bradford in his first year, though Jones threw 100+ more attempts and played behind a line with more question marks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Varg6 View Post
    Fortunately for him, he'll have Steven Jackson to carry the load as a rookie. Plus, we aren't going to be a pass-happy offense anyways, we're a run first team now.
    Until the Rams find a capable #2 back and a defense that can keep the games closer, they're probably not going to be able to field the kind of protective running game that other young QBs (Flacco, Sanchez) have been able to enjoy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
    Somehow i feel like if Bradford had the exact same stats next year with less sacks than Stafford or Sanchez did, he would be called a bust...
    I don't know that he'd be called a bust by anyone other than the fringe group of fans that make snap judgments on anything when they don't work out immediately.

    But that being said, if he completes less than 54% of his passes, throws 20+ interceptions to only 12-13 touchdowns, and has a QB rating in the low 60s, I don't think he'll have really earned the "franchise QB" label either.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockinRam View Post
    You guys are acting as if we can draft Suh this year, and come back next year and draft the number 1 QB.

    WAIT did I just hear that correctly?

    So what is this implying?

    That Suh won't make a significant enough impact on this team that we would still be in position to take the number 1 QB next year?

    Hmmm. Interesting...

    Maybe Suh isn't a savior...
    No one is a savior. There isn't a rookie who is going to come to this team and completely turn it around. That applies to both Suh and Bradford.

    That being said, the Rams very well may have a shot at one of the top two quarterbacks in next years class. Maybe not the highest rated one, but the second one isn't out of the question. Over the last five years, the second quarterback in the first round has been picked 5th, 18th, 22nd, 10th, and 24th. Keep in mind that if the Rams win five more games in 2010 than they did in 2009 and finish the season with six wins, they're still probably picking in the top ten of the 2011 draft.

    Meanwhile, the Rams are in position right now to take a player who is widely considered not only truly elite (despite not playing at a high profile position like QB) but also one of the best prospects at that position in a long, long time. When is the next time the Rams will have a chance at a prospect like that? Over the last ten drafts, a quarterback has been selected first overall 70% of the time. During that same span, there have been 25 quarterbacks drafted in the first round, all of whom were likely viewed by their team as being their franchise's "QB of the future." Simply put, there really is no shortage of good, first round, potential "franchise" QB prospects from year to year. But players like Suh do not come around very often at all.

    It's probably a moot point at this time though, because all signs point to the Rams taking their QB now. Which is understandable - he's a very good prospect, the Rams have a huge hole at the position, and they need to try and spark this team and fan base. I understand the reasoning. It's not as if I think the Rams are crazy for possibly making this decision.

    I'm just very nervous about a few qualities in the guy they're likely selecting. I'll be the first to tell you that I hope I'm wrong about the concerns I have, but concerns they remain nonetheless. And it's tough for me to get fully behind someone with those concerns when I look around and see another prospect who also plays at a position of need who is so highly regarded and so outstanding at his position that some people who do this for a living think he's the best to come along in a long time.

    As GC said earlier, if the Rams take Bradford, I'm not going to be upset. I recognize and understand the reasoning, and I think he has a lot of tools that you need to be successful at the next level. But combine some of the concerns about him with the current state of our team, and I also see a real possibility for disaster. I hope as much as anyone that it works out for the best, trust me.

  5. #35
    10m39s80i81t's Avatar
    10m39s80i81t is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    fresno, ca
    Rep Power

    Re: Please respond to the following conern about Bradford

    It's simple, anyone that thinks that replacing the QB will get us in any better position, is insane. We just have to hope/expect that the money saved will be used to better the entire stucture of the team. We will be worse before we get better (if there is any worse). Just hope Bradford lasts. Note: should've been done a long time ago, about 6 years ago. Sorry Bulger.

  6. #36
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Rep Power

    Re: Please respond to the following conern about Bradford

    Quote Originally Posted by 10m39s80i81t View Post
    It's simple, anyone that thinks that replacing the QB will get us in any better position, is insane. We just have to hope/expect that the money saved will be used to better the entire stucture of the team. We will be worse before we get better (if there is any worse). Just hope Bradford lasts. Note: should've been done a long time ago, about 6 years ago. Sorry Bulger.
    You mean the offseason after we went 12-4 and won the division?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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


Posting Permissions

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