Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bradford assumption

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Bradford assumption

    I have seen a few posts where there is an assumption that Bradford will be better than Marc Bulger. ( this is not a Bradford bash thread). Bulger was a probowl quarterback when he had Big "O" taking care of his blind side and Holt and Bruce to throw to. He was below average with our current line and receivers. If we take Bradford this year, can we assemble enough playmakers for him to succeed next year? I don't see how we will add enough talent to help any quarterback this year. Do we sit an 80 mil quarterback for a year until the tools are in place for him to succeed?

  • #2
    Re: The Bradford assumption

    Bradfords weapons this year may very well be better then expected. Avery is the X factor in this equation, entering his 3rd year, if he can stay injury free he could be due for a breakout season. And we do have some potential in the rest of the receiving corps, lets not forget about laurent robinson who was on pace for a 1000 yards season before he was injured. Amendola is a slot reciever and is very quick, in and out of his cuts, Gibson could be a great rotaional receiver. The real hole in our lineup is the TE and we should adress that in the draft.

    As for protection, Spags should be moving Smith over to LT this year and with Bell playing well last year, and brown really anchoring our inside line. He should have a decent line at worst.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Bradford assumption

      i would expect the o-line to be better, and hopefully the receivers to be healthy. throw in a tight end that can catch and a backup running back and he'll be in a much better situation than bulger was in this year. of course, none of that is proven and we are relying on management to bring in the right guys, but i have faith they will do a good job with this draft.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Bradford assumption

        Originally posted by fearsome foursome View Post
        I have seen a few posts where there is an assumption that Bradford will be better than Marc Bulger. ( this is not a Bradford bash thread). Bulger was a probowl quarterback when he had Big "O" taking care of his blind side and Holt and Bruce to throw to. He was below average with our current line and receivers. If we take Bradford this year, can we assemble enough playmakers for him to succeed next year? I don't see how we will add enough talent to help any quarterback this year. Do we sit an 80 mil quarterback for a year until the tools are in place for him to succeed?

        What that tells me is that Bulger was more a product of the talent around him than the talent around him was a product of Bulger. He would probably have been an average to good starter on other teams, but maybe not a pro bowl type player (maybe, it is all speculative). So I don't think you can dismiss Bradford because Bulger was only effective given enough talent. They are different players. Would you refuse to take Manning #1 overall because the QB you were replacing wasn't succeeding without talent?

        Now I am not saying Bradford is the next Manning, but let's look at what the Colts had the year before they had Manning, it is fairly similar to the Rams.

        Jim Harbaugh was at QB, a one time pro bowl QB who was starting to struggle and needed replacing. Sound familiar with Bulger?

        A dynamic running back in Marshall Faulk who found ways to produce on a terrible team.

        A group of young receivers, but none in 97 that surpassed 1000 yards or were anything yet resembling a #1 WR, even tho Marvin Harrison was already on the team.

        So they had a 34 year old QB who was faltering, a great RB, and a group of young but raw receivers. But would you tell them "Don't take Manning, you don't have the talent to help him succeed yet"?

        The perception that a QB can only be successful if he comes into a great team is ridiculous. Sure they may not have good rookie years, but that doesn't mean they won't have success. Heck, Aikman and Manning were both pick-machines in their first year (Manning had a 71.2 passer rating and 28 ints, Aikman had a GULP 55.7 passer rating and 18 ints). Something tells me those teams wouldn't go back and pick another player to try to build the team and then get a QB though. Those QBs built the team.

        It is possible to build using a QB, even if the Suh fans don't want to hear it. It is also possible for that QB to come in with little talent around him and not have a wasted career.

        Simple fact of the matter is, if you are in a position to pick a QB in the top 5 or 10, it is because your team doesn't have much talent on it. Should all teams in the top half of the first round shy away from QB's because they don't have enough talent for a QB? That argument is ridiculous. A big reason a lot of those teams are in the first part of round one is because they have a bad QB. Coincidence? Probably not.

        I am just sick of the "We don't have enough talent for Bradford, therefore he will bust" stuff, if a team is a position to draft the first QB, it is because they don't have talent. Yet somehow in some way other teams have managed to get a franchise QB or at least a good QB out of their high draft pick.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Bradford assumption

          I think the person who will be the most responsible for the development of whatever QB is back there is going to be Nolan Cromwell, our new WR coach. We have young, talented, and athletic WR's, but they are all pretty raw. If he can do a good job of coaching those guys up, our new QB might have a chance.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Bradford assumption

            Originally posted by berg8309 View Post
            What that tells me is that Bulger was more a product of the talent around him than the talent around him was a product of Bulger. He would probably have been an average to good starter on other teams, but maybe not a pro bowl type player (maybe, it is all speculative). So I don't think you can dismiss Bradford because Bulger was only effective given enough talent. They are different players. Would you refuse to take Manning #1 overall because the QB you were replacing wasn't succeeding without talent?

            Now I am not saying Bradford is the next Manning, but let's look at what the Colts had the year before they had Manning, it is fairly similar to the Rams.

            Jim Harbaugh was at QB, a one time pro bowl QB who was starting to struggle and needed replacing. Sound familiar with Bulger?

            A dynamic running back in Marshall Faulk who found ways to produce on a terrible team.

            A group of young receivers, but none in 97 that surpassed 1000 yards or were anything yet resembling a #1 WR, even tho Marvin Harrison was already on the team.

            So they had a 34 year old QB who was faltering, a great RB, and a group of young but raw receivers. But would you tell them "Don't take Manning, you don't have the talent to help him succeed yet"?

            The perception that a QB can only be successful if he comes into a great team is ridiculous. Sure they may not have good rookie years, but that doesn't mean they won't have success. Heck, Aikman and Manning were both pick-machines in their first year (Manning had a 71.2 passer rating and 28 ints, Aikman had a GULP 55.7 passer rating and 18 ints). Something tells me those teams wouldn't go back and pick another player to try to build the team and then get a QB though. Those QBs built the team.

            It is possible to build using a QB, even if the Suh fans don't want to hear it. It is also possible for that QB to come in with little talent around him and not have a wasted career.

            Simple fact of the matter is, if you are in a position to pick a QB in the top 5 or 10, it is because your team doesn't have much talent on it. Should all teams in the top half of the first round shy away from QB's because they don't have enough talent for a QB? That argument is ridiculous. A big reason a lot of those teams are in the first part of round one is because they have a bad QB. Coincidence? Probably not.

            I am just sick of the "We don't have enough talent for Bradford, therefore he will bust" stuff, if a team is a position to draft the first QB, it is because they don't have talent. Yet somehow in some way other teams have managed to get a franchise QB or at least a good QB out of their high draft pick.
            Absolutely Beautiful, perfect post and a point I've been screaming for a few weeks now. If your in position to pick a top QB in the draft in the first place, you weren't a good team. Period. We weren't a good team, but we aren't without potential and players with skill just because we weren't a good team. A good fraction of that potential was in a training facility rehabbing injuries, suffering from nagging injuries, inexperienced, or a product of lack help at other positions. You don't pass on a guy you deem is a potential great QB because "he doesn't have enough talent around him" I.E he isn't spoiled enough. Manning and Aikman rookie comparisons aside, don't expect a rookie to be a first year savior and say that he HAS to dominate in year one to be worth the pick. Patience pays dividends a lot of the time, this fan base could do well to use it sometime.

            And please let's not have the "Bradford is a bust" post after he throws his first interception because they will indeed happen, same as Suh will get stonewalled and taken out of plays.
            Last edited by Bralidore(RAMMODE); -04-08-2010, 12:40 PM.

            Comment

            Related Topics

            Collapse

            • general counsel
              Please respond to the following conern about Bradford
              by general counsel
              Forgive me if i am repeating a point thats been raised. I have been slammed at work and unable to participate as actively as i have done in this past. I have posted on this topic inside of other threads, but i thought it might be fun to deal with this topic on a stand alone basis.

              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.

              What worries me is the lack of track record of bradford under pressure. In his huge year, bradford played entire games without a pass rush getting into his area code, let alone his face. In the national title game vs florida, with guys in his face, he looked pretty mortal to me.

              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. What makes a great qb is a combination of his own skills and the weapons around him, starting with an offensive line.

              Mike Martz, like him or hate him, has had as much success with qb's as anyone alive. Martz says that leadership, accuracy, toughness and brains are the key to the qb position. There is a minimum required arm strength, but martz said time and again that arm strength is overated and i agree with that. I think the qb is like the president of the usa. He gets too much credit when things go well, and too much blame when things dont go well.

              Reasonable people can disagree on this topic, but i continue to contend that if you put peyton manning behind the rams offensive line, we would for sure improve, but i dont think we would be anywhere near a winning team because our offensive line has been a joke for years and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the offensive line will be any better pass blocking wise this year than its been in the recent past. Sure jason smith may get better, but who knows? Peyton Manning, with pass rushers in his face looks mortal and that is with ten years of pro bowl experience. Bradford has no track record in that area. This also explains why i put so little stock in his pro day performance. What does it really mean that he looks great when no one is rushing him. Ryan...
              -04-05-2010, 03:09 PM
            • Trevor
              Another thread on Bradford.
              by Trevor
              I don't know why people are hating on Bradford, you guys are expecting way to much, it's almost as if you want him to be elite right now because of all the changes the Rams have endured this year. His stats from Detroit are excellent, he looked a little shaky on the field but the camera only shows the QB from a side view and not what is happening downfield. How do you know if the WRs were covered or open? How do you know what he can and cannot see? There are so many factors that are not seen by what you see on the TV. Maybe if they placed the camera view behind the qb you would understand a little bit better.

              I don't watch only the Rams games, I have sunday ticket so I can watch other games as well. ALLL elite qbs like Brady, Brees, Rodgers and even Peyton manning make bad passes, several per game, none of them have had a perfect game or else they would all have a 100% completion rating if you don't count dropped or deflected passes, they all get sacked (Not as much as Bradford) and hurried into bad passes. They all do have one thing in common that Bradford doesn't have, protection and great talent at the WR position. This past thursday I watched the Packers vs Bears, Rodgers is an elite qb no doubt, but he had at least 4 bad passes, heck even one bad pass turned into an INT. Cutler isn't an elite QB but he isn't horrible either, his offensive line couldn't stop my grandmother. He got rocked the whole game and he was dysfunctional, he is also one of the most sacked qbs in the league and look at him. There are other factors that make a great QB, starting with the offensive line AND Wr's, we don't have ANY elite talent on either.

              In my eyes Bradford still has the potential to be great. I can foresee him as being elite in the next couple years. You guys who keep bashing him should probably go coach an NFL team because you clearly know how to evaluate talent and how to coach a qb. I know I can't.


              There is no I in team. One person cannot make it happen, that is all.
              -09-15-2012, 12:25 PM
            • NJ Ramsfan1
              Quarterback Criticism
              by NJ Ramsfan1
              There have been numerous threads pertaining to Sam Bradford since his arrival in St. Louis. Fans have many times commented passionately- some staunchly defending Bradford while others have maligned his short tenure with the Rams. I think it's important to recognize some basic facts that fair or unfair will always be present when Sam Bradford is discussed.

              1) Disenchantment with one's QB is hardly anything new. Tony Romo, Mark Sanchez and Michael Vick are among the more prominent guys who have been roasted by their team's fan base. Each has had his share of successes and failures as a player. Eli Manning, who has won two Super Bowls, was ripped for several years before his fortunes turned. For the duration of what we hope is an excellent career, Sam Bradford will endure the same questioning and the same second guessing.

              2) Feeling compelled to refute EVERY negative Bradford post is petty and a waste of energy. Recognize that fans are fickle- and that will never change. Ask Cam Newton- who was "great" last year but now "sucks and can't play".

              3) A QB will always get more credit than he deserves when they win and more blame than they deserve when they lose. As a number 1 overall pick,and as a guy many fans were sold on being "the face of the franchise for years to come" Bradford will be scrutinized heavier than most. Expect it.

              4) Stats must be taken in their proper context when defending or supporting a guy. They can be misleading in many ways and can be twisted to support your own argument or refute the other guy's. You can talk about "dropped passes" for instance, but fail to mention spectacular grabs by those same receivers. Or neglect to mention "poorly thrown incompletions to wide open receivers". Things tend to even out over the long term. And one must attempt to be balanced when assessing a guy's performance or body of work.

              5) I am truly convinced Sam Bradford is a winning player. Because he is not Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning or Ben Roethlisberger does not mean he isn't any good. He has shown me enough over the course of about two full seasons that given proper support he can be a guy ranked in the top third in the NFL at his position.

              6) CONSISTENT WINNING is the only thing that ultimately will mollify fans. The intelligent fan recognizes his team's inadequacies, but at the end of the day is uninterested in excuses or reasons why a guy can't get the job done. Shortcomings on the line or at the WR position can only be talked about for so long before we start becoming apologists for bad QB play.

              Some might not agree, but I think that the end of NEXT season would be the time to make a definitive judgment on Bradford. He will have had 2 years in the same system with the same head coach and a young and improving corps of receivers. It will be more than fair by then.
              -11-09-2012, 02:20 PM
            • 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?

              Because,

              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
            • Rambos
              Which one of these current elite QB has Bradford out played?
              by Rambos
              Comparing Bradford's first two completed seasons too current elite QB's first two completed seasons. Who did Bradford out play?

              Select as many as you think he out played.
              Aaron Rodgers
              14.81%
              8
              Drew Brees
              18.52%
              10
              Matthew Stafford
              16.67%
              9
              Michael Vick
              20.37%
              11
              Philip Rivers
              16.67%
              9
              Tony Romo
              12.96%
              7
              -08-30-2012, 08:31 AM
            Working...
            X