No announcement yet.

Is Bradford better then Mallet?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Bradford better then Mallet?

    I see the 2011 Draft Class seems to have better QBs, Mallet and Locker. Is Bradford better than Mallet?

  • #2
    Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

    There is also Andrew Luck out of Stanford... the 2011 draft class will likely rival the Manning, Rivers and Big Ben draft class in terms of QB. That's one of the reasons I'd support a trade out of 1 this year if we picked up an extra first next year, we could probably land one of the big 3 with our original pick, and grab a big WR target for him as well (there are 3 beastly WR's coming up too) with the second. Focus this draft on building a dominant defense (lots of defensive depth in this years draft) and then fix the offense next year. One (if not two) picks would definitely be in range to grab one of those quarterbacks, and the other should be in range to draft a big play WR like Michael Floyd, AJ Green or Julio Jones. We also might be able to trade S-Jax (he'd be 28 when the season started and would be 30 before this offense would start really clicking) and grab a guy like Mark Ingram... oh what an offense that would be.

    As for is one better than the other, I'm not sure. Mallet has a big time arm, but is less accurate than Bradford. We'll need to wait and see I guess.
    Last edited by rams_man13; -04-04-2010, 06:41 AM.


    • #3
      Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

      Next year's draft is always better. The only reason people think Mallet is going to be better is because the analyst have not broken his game down into pieces yet. Last years draft when Bradford didnt come out we were all excited about the next year because Bradford was extremely accurate, threw a tight spiral, and won the heisman. Now we are worried about his arm strength, his ability to preform in a pro style offense, and his shoulder.

      So the question is, what negatives come out about Mallet when he is about to come out for the draft? Will we be told that Mallet doesnt have the arm strength, or maybe that Mallet cant handle the pressure in the pocket, maybe we are told that Mallet can't transition into the NFL. What if Mallet injures his shoulder next year?

      You can't keep waiting until next year's draft to fill your need. The only reason that even seems like a good idea is because you dont know the negatives about those prospects.


      • #4
        Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

        I prefer Bradford over Mallet.

        Even though Mallet is massive, he has poor mobility, poor footwork, has lapses of judgements, is not very accurate, is very unpolished, and has very little experience.

        Kinda reminds me of a even more raw version of Joe Flacco.


        • #5
          Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

          Does it matter? We don't know where we'll be drafting next year. We could win 4 games and not be drafting in the top five.

          To answer the question directly, though, I'm not convinced that either is better than Bradford. Mallett isn't that accurate. In 2008, he completed less than half his passes. He has one decent season, and all the interest seems to be based on the player could be rather than what he has accomplished so far. Locker can run, but Bradford is probably still the better pure passer.


          • #6
            Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

            let's talk about this next year.


            • #7
              Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

              I'm fine with Bradford but it depends if he will start this year or not.


              • #8
                Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

                ya i think I'd take Bradford over Mallet


                • #9
                  Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

                  Originally posted by TheRammer View Post
                  ya i think I'd take Bradford over Mallet
                  I would, too but I need to see Bradford throw out side first.


                  • #10
                    Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

                    Bradford without taking a sec to think about it. Only thing Mallet has on Bradford is a ridiculous arm. Bradford has an above average arm, accuracy, smarts, ya da ya da ya.

                    A chick always looks better at a distance....


                    • #11
                      Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

                      Originally posted by Lesson View Post
                      I would, too but I need to see Bradford throw out side first.
                      You mean like outdoors?

                      Originally posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post

                      A chick always looks better at a distance....
                      I'd have to disagree RAMMODE, it depends how many beers you've had in ya and how focused your beer googles are lol


                      • #12
                        Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

                        Originally posted by TheRammer View Post
                        You mean like outdoors?

                        I'd have to disagree RAMMODE, it depends how many beers you've had in ya and how focused your beer googles are lol
                        You're 30 years old and say lol? No offense even my dad said that once I couldn't stop laughing (in a non-offensive manner towards him)

                        ♪ R.I.P. Nujabes ♫


                        • #13
                          Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

                          Mallett has great physical tools, but he needs to refine his game. Right now, his accuracy is sub-par. We'll have to see how he develops.

                          If Mallett were in this draft, I'd rate Bradford above him.


                          • #14
                            Re: Is Bradford better then Mallet?

                            Mallett broke his foot in conditioning drills. Out for four months....obviously he's "injury prone"...


                            Related Topics


                            • VegasRam
                              Suddely Bradford doesn't look so expensive.
                              by VegasRam
                              And he is, (and will be even more so) worth it. Romo is GUARANTEED roughly $10M a year.

                              When you look at the Super high paid QB - Brees, Manning, Brady, Romo, Flacco, Rothlesberger, Bradford makes roughly half of their salaries, let's say $10M, and plays half as well. (Don't pick on my numbers - they're for rough comparison numbers only).

                              But it's not like we're paying Flynn or Kolb or Palmer or Cassell $10m a year not to play.
                              And just about the time the Rams are extending Bradford - I hope during or at the end of this year, (assuming obviously it's warranted) - for a 10 year average of say $12-14M a year, SF and Seattle will be giving Kap and Wilson 6 year $80M guaranteed contracts.

                              Bradford suffers from cashing in undeservedly in a faulty system, without performing in line with his salary, and while not his fault, it still leaves a justfiably bad taste in everyone's mouth. The killer for the Rams is they got hit three years in a row, which they are still recovering from.

                              Bottom line, there will come a day soon when Bradford will be considered a bargain.
                              -04-02-2013, 11:25 AM
                            • chucknbob
                              We need Sam Bradford back next season
                              by chucknbob
                              I came to this realization while eating breakfast this morning....

                              Most QB prospects are busts. Even those that turn out to be good aren't great their first season. Rarely do you see a good starting caliber QB become available on the open market, so our best bet is to roll the dice on a rookie and hope we don't get one of those busts.

                              So here's my argument, Bradford has proven to be a good QB when healthy. Our team is to the point where a good QB could make us a legitimate playoff contender. We need Bradford back because he has a relatively high floor, he's proven he can play at the NFL level. We can't let a good team like the Rams be led by the next Geno Smith, Ryan Leaf, or Vince Young. We then can take our best prospect and let him develop. When/if Bradford goes down, we're in the same boat we would be in anyway.
                              -12-03-2014, 09:33 AM
                            • Nick
                              More rumblings about Bradford not signing before the draft
                              by Nick
                              Take it for what it's worth. Best case scenario, we add another name to the list of those we can chuckle at if Bradford does, in fact, sign prior to the draft. But there are some interesting points in there (ie. leverage, etc)....
                              -04-15-2010, 10:09 AM
                            • RockinRam
                              Why I think Sam Bradford should be our guy
                              by RockinRam

                              First off, I am not an Oklahoma Sooner fan. On the contrary, I am a UT (Texas) fan, which makes it quite of a surprise that I like Bradford so much.

                              Now let's get down to business.

                              In this opinionated argument, I'm not going to harp on Suh. I'm going to stay closely to Bradford.

                              Okay, first point.

                              Devaney and Spags are trying to remake this franchise into their own philosophy and dynasty. In order to do that, they need a "fresh" start. And by fresh start it means setting the future for the most important position the field. The QB. In this perspective, ignoring everything else, Sam Bradford comes in to this team giving the Rams a new identity. It's the start of a new decade, and it should be the start of a new decade of Ram's football. We ended the last decade on a horrible note, stats wise, and it's time to start anew. Bradford coming in gives us that fresh start. No matter what people say about Suh, a fresh QB gives fans and the organization a much needed rejuvinator than a DT would ever give.

                              Second point

                              We are trying to run a West Coast Offense. And by what that means, we are not going to be consistently running huge pass plays, pass plays that require 50 yard bombs. We are running a timing offense, backed by a ground and pound running game led by Steven Jackson.

                              And Sam Bradford would excel in our offense. Why you ask?


                              1) Bradford excels in the short and medium pass routes. His accuracy in these departments are spot-on elite, and he has enough zip to be solid in the WCO.

                              2) He knows how to develop timing with his receivers. That is why the 2008 Oklahoma offense was so prolific. Bradford's timing with his receivers was insane. He is an amazingly smart QB who has great touch, feel, and timing to win in the NFL.

                              That is why he would succeed in our offense. A WCO is based on timing between the QB and WR, and Bradford would wreck havoc once he gets the timing down with our young WR's.

                              Third point

                              More of why Bradford is a close to perfect fit for our scheme.

                              Bradford is not a gun-slinger. That's been determined. He has above average arm strength, but he is by no means a Derek Anderson-Jamarcus Russell type QB.

                              But that's better for Bradford. You know why?

                              Because I would take a precision QB over a gun-slinging QB anyday of the week.

                              Let's compare Bradford and other similar QB's (For example a young Marc Bulger) to a sniper. A sniper is patient, he doesn't make foolish decisions. He intelligently picks his target, and once he does, he delivers to his target with precision and timing. Snipers excel.

                              Quarterbacks like Derek Anderson and Jamarcus Russell are gun-slingers. They can be compared to a shotgun. Shotguns aren't very...
                              -03-25-2010, 08:22 PM
                            • thermobee
                              Should St.Louis stick with Bradford.... or go with RGIII?
                              by thermobee
                              By Charley Casserly,

                              With the second overall pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the St. Louis Rams are in a great trading position. They could keep Sam Bradford and trade the pick to a team that wants Robert Griffin III for multiple draft picks; or they could take Griffin and trade Bradford for draft choices. One way or another, the Rams have the potential to greatly improve their football team.

                              In thinking through this hypothetical choice, one area that has to be considered is the cost difference. Bradford has four years left on his contact which will total $48 million. Griffin will sign a four-year contract for approximately $22 million. By taking Griffin and trading Bradford, the Rams would save almost $26 million. This money could be used to bolster other areas of the team.

                              Then there's the most important question: Who is the better player? I liked both of these quarterbacks in college, even though they had different styles. I believe both can be very successful in the NFL, but I would rate Bradford the better QB off his college tape. He displayed superior accuracy than Griffin does at this stage, and he threw to more options in the passing game. In fact, in the previous 10 years before Bradford was drafted, the only two college quarterbacks I had rated higher were Eli Manning and Carson Palmer. Bradford, who struggled this past season, had a very good rookie year in 2010. I believe this year's drop off was caused by his injuries and surroundings factors that buried the Rams. I still would rate him ahead of Griffin.

                              But who would bring the most in a trade? I believe it would be Bradford, even with his higher salary. He already has two seasons in a pro-style offense in the NFL and would be ready to start and win right now. Also, some people will look at it the way I did, going back to their college evaluations and seeing Bradford rated higher.

                              If you believe in Griffin's ability to become at least as good a QB as Bradford, you trade Bradford. However, if I was making the decision, I'd stick with Bradford. I would go with the more known quantity, who already has two years experience and Pro Bowl potential.If the Rams choose to draft Griffin and trade Bradford, they might receive two first-round draft choices plus another pick or player -- and save $26 million in the process. If they keep Bradford and trade the second pick, it is possible they could still get the same draft deal. There is also the possibility that the market could disappear if Matt Flynn and Peyton Manningsign with teams in the top 10.

                              If you believe in Griffin's ability to become at least as good a QB as Bradford, you trade Bradford. However, if I was making the decision, I'd stick with Bradford. I would go with the more known quantity, who already has two years experience and Pro Bowl potential.
                              -02-18-2012, 01:17 PM