Sam Bradford

[jjigga3000]

Hey fellow Ram Nation, I've been away for awhile. I've been around but haven't posted. Last season was rough for me. Anyhow I wanted to weigh in on the whole Sam Bradford thing. I for one hope we don't sign him, I think he's a injury prone player and I don't think he'll pan out that well, my opinion come from watching him play agains my favorite college team USC. Does he have talent? Yes, but not as much as a Colt McCoy. More over the problem for me is none of the QB's we pick will make much of a difference this year. I think we'll pick Suh, and move up to take McCoy. We'll aslo probably pick up Jason Cambell as a stop gap until McCoy is ready. Just my opinion, what say ye Ram Nation.

[Judaxi]

Re: Sam Bradford

Trading up for McCoy means losing draft picks which is something we can't do. Same with Jason Campbell. If we do what you say then we have 4 QB's on the roster. AJ Feely is our "stop gap" to teach Bradford and Null the system and help them progress, Bradford more than Null. The pieces are in place for Bradford to be taken first overall.

[MACD]

Re: Sam Bradford

Sam Bradford never played against USC...

[PeoriaRam]

Re: Sam Bradford

Trading up for McCoy means losing draft picks which is something we can't do. Same with Jason Campbell. If we do what you say then we have 4 QB's on the roster. AJ Feely is our "stop gap" to teach Bradford and Null the system and help them progress, Bradford more than Null. The pieces are in place for Bradford to be taken first overall.

Look at our 4th Rounders over the last decade. We don't do anything with that pick anyway; dealing it won't hurt.

[berg8309]

Re: Sam Bradford

Hey fellow Ram Nation, I've been away for awhile. I've been around but haven't posted. Last season was rough for me. Anyhow I wanted to weigh in on the whole Sam Bradford thing. I for one hope we don't sign him, I think he's a injury prone player and I don't think he'll pan out that well, my opinion come from watching him play agains my favorite college team USC. Does he have talent? Yes, but not as much as a Colt McCoy. More over the problem for me is none of the QB's we pick will make much of a difference this year. I think we'll pick Suh, and move up to take McCoy. We'll aslo probably pick up Jason Cambell as a stop gap until McCoy is ready. Just my opinion, what say ye Ram Nation.

I disagree with you on Colt being more talented. He is a limited WCO QB with little to no downfield ability. He will be a game manager and that is about it. I saw nothing in any of his games that suggested otherwise. Bradford no real recent example, but from his previous years he has more talent than Colt.

I don't see Colt as comparable to Drew Brees (for being short) or Joe Montana (Accuracy with no arm strength). I see him as comparable to guys like Dilfer and Orton. They won't lose it for you, but they aren't going to win it either. And if people pull up the Plummer/Garcia comparisons, same thing. Average at best. I don't want an average QB who kind of gets by but needs a super strong supporting cast or we have no chance. I want a great QB who makes everyone better. Is Bradford that? Beats the heck out of me, but from what I've seen he has more a chance to be than McCoy. But that is my opinion, and there are those who differ.

Also, I personally do not see them getting Jason Campbell. He has not shown to be anything but a mediocre quarterback, and if a 4 win team doesn't want him, do you really expect him to do anything more here? Campbell seems like the pipe dream of people who want anyone at QB except Bradford as long as it gets Suh here. Sorry, I just don't see the brass going for him. He is nothing special in the least, he's mediocre, and we just cut a mediocre QB.

Also, Bradford did not play against USC, either Cali or Carolina, so please excuse me when I doubt you watched him play your team. McCoy didn't either.

[jjigga3000]

Re: Sam Bradford

Sam Bradford never played against USC...

Bradford did his freshmen year. and He was horrible but that is my opinion.

[Nick]

Re: Sam Bradford

Bradford did his freshmen year. and He was horrible but that is my opinion.

Bradford's freshman year schedule from 2007...

09/01/07 North Texas
09/08/07 Miami (Fla.)
09/15/07 Utah St.
09/21/07 @ Tulsa Turf
09/29/07 @ Colorado
10/06/07 + 10 Texas
10/13/07 4 Missouri
10/20/07 @ Iowa St.
11/03/07 Texas A&M
11/10/07 Baylor
11/17/07 @ 22 Texas Tech
11/24/07 Oklahoma St.
12/01/07 + 4 Missouri
01/02/08 + 6 West Virginia


Unless I'm missing something, the last time Oklahoma played USC was in 2004, when Jason White was the QB.

[PeoriaRam]

Re: Sam Bradford

Unless I'm missing something, the last time Oklahoma played USC was in 2004, when Jason White was the QB.

Oklahoma QBs in the Stoops era do seem to be pretty much interchangeable.;)

[PeoriaRam]

Re: Sam Bradford

I disagree with you on Colt being more talented. He is a limited WCO QB with little to no downfield ability. He will be a game manager and that is about it. I saw nothing in any of his games that suggested otherwise. Bradford no real recent example, but from his previous years he has more talent than Colt.

My....he sounds tailor-made for our offense. Serious question, why are we blowing $80 million on Bradford and inflicting A.J. Feeley on the fanbase again when we can get this guy with much less of an apparent learning curve to deal with? If all we need is the Honda, why the heck are we getting the Hummer?

[ludairv]

Re: Sam Bradford

My....he sounds tailor-made for our offense. Serious question, why are we blowing $80 million on Bradford and inflicting A.J. Feeley on the fanbase again when we can get this guy with much less of an apparent learning curve to deal with? If all we need is the Honda, why the heck are we getting the Hummer?

i want the hummer....lol

[Flippin' Ram]

Re: Sam Bradford

My....he sounds tailor-made for our offense. Serious question, why are we blowing $80 million on Bradford and inflicting A.J. Feeley on the fanbase again when we can get this guy with much less of an apparent learning curve to deal with? If all we need is the Honda, why the heck are we getting the Hummer?

More like a Ferrari or Lamborghini.

[berg8309]

Re: Sam Bradford

My....he sounds tailor-made for our offense. Serious question, why are we blowing $80 million on Bradford and inflicting A.J. Feeley on the fanbase again when we can get this guy with much less of an apparent learning curve to deal with? If all we need is the Honda, why the heck are we getting the Hummer?

Because people won't admit that a WCO does actually require more than a game-manager to be a good offense as opposed to an average one. You need to be able to make downfield throws still, even if you don't make them on every play. It's not as simple as 4 and 5 yard routes on every play.

McNabb was certainly better than a lot of his backups, but his backups did alright as game managers...but that was all they did. They managed the clock, the Philly offense was much better with McNabb than it was with his backups. The Hummer scored a lot more points and won a lot more games than the Honda, even though the Honda still managed to run. In addition, this isn't the same as cars, a car just needs to go from point A to point B and as long as it runs it does that. In the NFL, it isn't as simple. A QB who can run a WCO doesn't mean he runs it well or is as effective as another more talented QB. McNabb and Philly proved that by losing a large chunk of their offense with McNabb even though they had a QB that still could run it.

I think you are severely over-simplifying the equation from "How does this QB change the game" to "Can he not screw it up?" and we need more than a QB who just won't screw up.

[PeoriaRam]

Re: Sam Bradford

Because people won't admit that a WCO does actually require more than a game-manager to be a good offense as opposed to an average one. You need to be able to make downfield throws still, even if you don't make them on every play. It's not as simple as 4 and 5 yard routes on every play.

Tell you what, the second we get a couple viable downfield threats, (no, Avery is not one until he learns how to be more consistent at anything besides inconsistency) I may change my tune. It takes two to tango and our receiving corps is completely unsuited to anything beyond dink and dunk.

McNabb was certainly better than a lot of his backups, but his backups did alright as game managers...but that was all they did. They managed the clock, the Philly offense was much better with McNabb than it was with his backups. The Hummer scored a lot more points and won a lot more games than the Honda, even though the Honda still managed to run.

That's great.

We're not built to win games with the offense. In the case of this team, all the Hummer is is a gas hog that slowly bankrupts you whilst you try to make basic payments on food and electricity. In this case, the Honda is more economical and actually allows you to survive, nay thrive, as opposed to the overrated status symbol that a Hummer is.

I remember last year during the Draft Crabtree "Yay or Nay?" debate, somebody compared drafting him to a homeless man buying a jet ski. I suspect drafting Bradford would be similar to that as well.

In addition, this isn't the same as cars, a car just needs to go from point A to point B and as long as it runs it does that. In the NFL, it isn't as simple. A QB who can run a WCO doesn't mean he runs it well or is as effective as another more talented QB. McNabb and Philly proved that by losing a large chunk of their offense with McNabb even though they had a QB that still could run it.

My jury would be out on the Kolb thing. Reportedly he has a much better rapport with Philly's receivers than McNabb, so there might not be quite the dropoff that you think there will be. Additionally, we don't know if Bradford can run the WCO effectively, whilst McCoy had Texas' offense clicking nearly as well as Oklahoma's spread and has less of a learning curve anyway.

I think you are severely over-simplifying the equation from "How does this QB change the game" to "Can he not screw it up?" and we need more than a QB who just won't screw up.

Such as receivers, an offensive line, a defensive tackle, at least one OLB, some secondary help....

I'm rather risk-averse at the moment after 3 consecutive years of rolling snake-eyes, if you will, so really "QB who won't screw it up" is rather exciting to me. Especially with all those other holes.

[jjigga3000]

Re: Sam Bradford

Bradford's freshman year schedule from 2007...

09/01/07 North Texas
09/08/07 Miami (Fla.)
09/15/07 Utah St.
09/21/07 @ Tulsa Turf
09/29/07 @ Colorado
10/06/07 + 10 Texas
10/13/07 4 Missouri
10/20/07 @ Iowa St.
11/03/07 Texas A&M
11/10/07 Baylor
11/17/07 @ 22 Texas Tech
11/24/07 Oklahoma St.
12/01/07 + 4 Missouri
01/02/08 + 6 West Virginia


Unless I'm missing something, the last time Oklahoma played USC was in 2004, when Jason White was the QB.

I stand corrected, I'm mistaken. Huge mistake on my part. anyway I still think it would be a mistake to draft him. History says its a crap shoot. of the three I would rather have mccoy

[berg8309]

Re: Sam Bradford

I posted in another thread about the ridiculousness of the "we don't have enough talent for a good qb" argument. Long and short of it is, good teams are (generally) built on good qb's, not average ones, and if you are in a position to take a top qb it is usually because you have no talent. How long do we have to wait to assemble the talent for a QB? And once we do, won't some of it be breaking down, so we have to wait even longer because we need to replace those parts? It will be a continuous cycle where we never have enough talent for the QB to succeed.

Would you tell the Colts not to take Peyton because they didn't have much talent at the time, or the Chargers not to get Rivers (Or take Eli, whatever) because they didn't have enough talent for their qb to be good? Both of those teams were picking first overall, so don't tell me they had oodles of talent, they had very little, and the talent they did have was pretty raw. Teams don't pick #1 if they are laden with talent, not unless they trade up.

Sorry, I just don't buy the "Get by with an average qb until you have tons of talent" argument. By the time you improve your team, you won't be in a position to take a top QB, and you might get stuck in the cycle of averageness where you team doesn't get much worse, but it doesn't get better either.

Great teams are built on great QB's. Teams that aren't are the exception, not the rule. Post-first round qb's have a much lower success rate, mainly because if teams determine a qb will be successful, they don't wait around for them to drop in their lap, they take them because of how important they are.

Now if the Rams determine McCoy is that good and he will last, that's great. I'm not an expert like them, and my opinion comes with no credentials what-so-ever, except that I am a better draft predictor than my cat. You wouldn't BELIEVE who he has going 1st. Anyway, if the Rams go with that I will certainly be happy with Suh and hope I was wrong about McCoy. I will gladly eat my words if we take him and he goes the Pro Bowl and Bradford busts. I will sit down with a nice bowl of crow and eat it with a smile.