No announcement yet.

A common statement I've read about Bradford that makes no sense to me.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A common statement I've read about Bradford that makes no sense to me.

    I've lost track of how many times I've read comments from commentators and fans that have expressed the idea that Bradford is worth the 4th or 5th pick in the draft, but not the 1st.


    How does that make sense?

    From the Rams perspective, if they want to take Bradford, obviously it would be advantageous to trade down, get more picks, and still get him.

    But what if that option simply is not available? I find it hard to hard to comprehend how anyone can say his combination of size/skill/college production/medical reports/interviews make him good enough to merit the 4th pick, but not the 1st.

    When I say this, I'm not talking about his value in comparison to other prospects. I have no beef with someone simply saying "he's worth the 4th pick because he's the 4th best player in the draft." That's not the analysis I'm talking about. I'm talking about those who say "he'd be a reach at No. 1" and then turn around and say "he's a good selection at No. 4."

    Again... huh?

    A QB selected with the 4th pick in the draft is expected to become the starter no later than his second or third season, and to become a successful starting QB for a decade. If you think QB prospect is good enough to do that, how is he not good enough to warrant the first pick. Isn't a 10 year successful starting QB worth the first pick in the draft?

    To me, when the Rams look at Bradford, the quesiton should be is he (1) someone they envision as being a "franchise" QB, or (2) not.

    If the answer is (1), he's worth the first pick (that's not to say he'd necessarily be the best BPA, but he would be a worthy first pick). If the answer is (2), he shouldn't be taken with the first, the third, the fifth or the eleventh pick.
    Last edited by AvengerRam_old; -02-25-2010, 06:01 PM.

  • #2
    Re: A common statement I've read about Bradford that makes no sense to me.

    I think because of his injury, it's scary to take him at #1 and have question marks about something like that when your also high on not one but two exceptionally talented DTs (which is also a need for the Rams), who weren't plagued with injuries (which is another thing I'm sure anyone associated with the Rams would be relieved to hear). However, if both of those DTs are gone at #3 or #4, it would justify us taking him a lot more because we're filling a big need without ever having to say "what if" about the other top prospects who seem like a sure-thing.
    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams


    • #3
      Re: A common statement I've read about Bradford that makes no sense to me.

      I know why people say that.

      There draft boards probably a little different then others. They give different grades.

      And if they say that the drop from the 3rd best to the 4th must be a huge drop

      Suh: 99
      McCoy: 98
      Eric Berry: 98
      Bradford: 91


      • #4
        Re: A common statement I've read about Bradford that makes no sense to me.

        Originally posted by AvengerRam View Post
        When I say this, I'm not talking about his value in comparison to other prospects.
        But that's probably EXACTLY what they're talking about. I know that's heavy on my mind when I think about drafting a quarterback first overall versus drafting one, say, third overall. It's going to depend on where you've graded the guy and where he falls on your board.

        If the Rams view Bradford as one of the top 3-5 players in this class when it's all said and done, they probably feel they can justify passing on other players to take him because of the positional value of quarterbacks. That being said, if Bradford ends up in, say, the 8-12 range on their board, maybe it's not worth reaching that far down to draft a guy, even though you think he can be a successful player at the next level.

        I mean, if you're giving a guy a first round grade, you probably think he's going to be successful at the next level. But there's nuance to those grades, and it's just a matter of where the guy is valued and, if applicable, how far a team is willing to reach.


        Related Topics


        • AvengerRam_old
          Sam Bradford is the true "Wild Card" for the Rams first choice.
          by AvengerRam_old
          Last year at about this time, I suggested that, by the time the draft rolled around, Mark Sanchez could be on the Rams short list of players to select with the second pick in the draft. Many scoffed and, truth be told, even I was a bit uncertain with my prognostication. Of course, in the end, Sanchez rose from late first round prospect and became a top 5 pick on the strength of his workouts and interviews.

          I can see a similar scenario occurring with Sam Bradford.

          Last year, before Bradford decided to return to Oklahoma, many had him rated as a potential first pick in the draft. Then, as fate would have it, his season was scuttled by a shoulder injury.

          Now, he is still considered a top 10 pick by most, but there are question marks.

          So here are the "what ifs."

          What if the doctors say he is fine and that there should be no long term impact from his shoulder injury?

          What if he impresses at the Combine and/or his individual workouts?

          What if he presents as a confident leader in his interviews?

          If these things happen, the Rams very well could decide that the time is now to take a chance at drafting a potential franchise QB.

          If that occurs, there will still be decisions to make. The Rams could, of course, simply select Bradford first. Alternatively, they could smokescreen a desire to take Ndamukong Suh and try to trade down. The logical trade partner would be Tampa, who likely would covet Suh, and would not take QB with the first choice (having spent a first round pick last year on a QB). Such a plan would not be foolproof, though. If, as some have speculated, the Redskins want Bradford, they could trade up with Detroit and take him at #2, thereby leaving the Rams to take who? (G.McCoy? Clausen?).

          I'll leave the trade issue out of the analysis for now and simply say this.

          Right now, I see Suh as being a prospect who is extremely likely (say 75%) to be an impact player at a very important position.

          Right now, I see Bradford as being a prospect who has a decent chance (say 40-50%) to be an impact player at the MOST important position.

          With those odds, I go with Suh (absent a great trade offer).

          But if Bradford's stock rises, and I start to see him as having a better than 50% chance of being a franchise QB... then the choice becomes very difficult.

          Bottom line: we're in the first lap of a multi-lap race. Its way too early to call the winner.
          -02-02-2010, 08:03 AM
        • AvengerRam_old
          I think the Rams want to want Bradford
          by AvengerRam_old
          We keep reading reports from sportswriters either predicting that the Rams will take Sam Bradford, or arguing that they should. There have also been reports (though I don't know how reliable) of Devaney speaking favorably about Bradford during an informal discussion with fans.

          Despite all this, I do not believe that the Rams know who they will take in April.

          I do think, however, that they know who they want to want to take, and that is Bradford.

          They want his arm to check out medically. They want him to have great interviews. They want him to make "all the throws" at his Pro Day.

          Essentially, the Rams want to be convinced that Bradford is a franchise QB.

          That makes sense, of course. A top QB will always be the preferred option with the first overall pick.

          The Rams must be careful, though, not to talk themselves into believing that Bradford is something that he is not.

          I'm still on the fence. By March 26th (the day after Bradford's Pro Day, there's a significant chance he'll be at the top of my draft board.

          I guess I want to want him too.
          -02-27-2010, 06:31 PM
        • Nick
          Don't count out Holmgren to make a push for No. 1
          by Nick
          Don't count out Holmgren to make a push for No. 1
          Posted on: April 13, 2010 1:51 pm
          NFL Draft Blog by Rob Rang

          As much as it would seem a lock for the Rams to just keep the first pick and fulfill their need for a young quarterback with Sam Bradford, league sources tell me that the Cleveland Browns are internally discussing making a significant offer in an attempt to get the first pick and take Bradford, themselves.

          Trading out of the No. 1 pick is rarely feasible. The financial constraints that come with having the first pick are so much that teams are usually hesitant to even consider the possibility.

          The 2010 draft, however, is unique in several ways.

          The talent in this class means that the Rams could truly rebuild their roster quickly if they were to get an offer of 3-4 high draft selections in exchange for the No. 1 pick.

          Next, you have a team president in Mike Holmgren who is looking to make a splash... and with five picks among this year's first 100 (7, 38, 71, 85 and 92) he has plenty of flexibility.

          Perhaps most importantly, while almost all talent evaluators believe that Bradford is the clear cut top QB and that there is a significant gap between he and the other QBs in this class there is talk that the Rams don't feel this way. They are thought to be quite high on a few of the other quarterbacks of this class, especially Texas' Colt McCoy.

          Mike Holmgren and his hand-picked general manager Tom Heckert, however, are thought to be exceptionally high on Bradford.

          The most realistic scenario remains the Rams staying put and taking Bradford.

          They're remaining at No. 1 is not the mortal lock, I'm told, that having this pick typically is...
          -04-13-2010, 12:50 PM
        • bruce4life
          Am I the only one who is not sold on Bradford.
          by bruce4life
          Numbers don't lie. Ya he had a solid year his junior year but he was surrounded by an all-pro NFL calubur o-line. He is a little light and doesn't take hits too well. SHoulder issues and all I feel he is not the best player for our team in the draft.

          Is Bradford that much better than Clausen if Jimmy slips or Pike or McCOy even? I do not think the talent range is that far between these players.

          Suh is the player you have to take based off our BPA need. The team needs players now not a QB that will make mistakes his first couple of years especially since we do not have the talent driven offenses that the falcons and the jets have had for Ryan and Sanchez.
          -03-04-2010, 04:59 PM
        • sjacksonrules
          by sjacksonrules
          I'm really about to stop watching nfl network due to one guy in paticular fran charles he is not even really a anaylasis. He keeps saying we have to draft bradford to make a splash because we've drafted dline and its not worked out. Well I for one am not givin up on carraiker or long cause I think they both will eventually be a good nfl talent. I really don't think it has to be bradford to be a franchise qb u don't have to pick one in the first round ie tom brady, bulger, brees and I think favre was a second rd for atlanta but not sure bout that one you get the point though. If u look at a lot of the qbs in the first round they haven't worked out lienhart, smith, carr list goes on.. any thoughts?
          -03-26-2010, 06:39 PM