PDA

View Full Version : Stafford or Bradford?


GatorsBullsFan
12-23-2008, 03:21 PM
Do either of these guys really deserves to be a 1st overall pick?...this kinda reminds me of the Alex Smith Draft :confused:

Babylon
12-23-2008, 03:30 PM
Do either of these guys really deserves to be a 1st overall pick?...this kinda reminds me of the Alex Smith Draft :confused:

I guess Bradford would be more comparable to Smith, Stafford not at all. This draft reminds me of the 89 draft;

Aikman (Stafford)
Mandarich (Andre Smith)
Barry Sanders (Beanie Wells)
Derrick Thomas (Orakpo)
Malcolm Jenkins (Dion Sanders)

GatorsBullsFan
12-23-2008, 03:34 PM
I guess Bradford would be more comparable to Smith, Stafford not at all. This draft reminds me of the 89 draft;

Aikman (Stafford)
Mandarich (Andre Smith)
Barry Sanders (Beanie Wells)
Derrick Thomas (Orakpo)
Malcolm Jenkins (Dion Sanders)

You got some really high hopes for some of these players even comparing them to those players...Orakpo wasn't even the best OLB on Texas this year. Comparing Jenkins to Deion is crazy....and don't even get me started on comparing Beanie Wells to Barry Sanders

Habibi
12-23-2008, 03:35 PM
Matthew Stafford is worthy of a #1 overall pick...as long as it's not Detroit.

Sam Bradford is more of a mid to late first round pick.

GatorsBullsFan
12-23-2008, 03:39 PM
I think Stafford is very Overrated...I mean look at all the Weapons Georgia had and still could barely do anything this year....gotta blame that on the QB

Habibi
12-23-2008, 03:49 PM
I think Stafford is very Overrated...I mean look at all the Weapons Georgia had and still could barely do anything this year....gotta blame that on the QB

What weapons? His offensive line is young and very inconsistent. He has no TE safety valve. And while Moreno is a good RB, the team overall is 54th in the nation in rushing, which nothing to brag home about, and his go-to WR is, while promising, a spotty freshman WR.

Don't get me wrong, he has some good players around him, but they are in no way the surrounding cast of a USC or Oklahoma, and it's not even close.

georgiafan
12-23-2008, 03:52 PM
What weapons? His offensive line is young, and very inconsistent. He has no TE safety valve. And while Moreno is a good RB, the team overall is 54th in the nation in running, which nothing to brag home about, and his go-to WR is, while promising, a spotty freshman WR.

Also in the 4 biggest games of the year the defense gave up 41,38, 49, and 45 points. A few of the points was the offense or defense fault, but you get the picture.

BuddyCHRIST
12-23-2008, 04:17 PM
What weapons? His offensive line is young and very inconsistent. He has no TE safety valve. And while Moreno is a good RB, the team overall is 54th in the nation in rushing, which nothing to brag home about, and his go-to WR is, while promising, a spotty freshman WR.

Don't get me wrong, he has some good players around him, but they are in no way the surrounding cast of a USC or Oklahoma, and it's not even close.

Not to mention UGA doesn't run this short passing, QB friendly offense that everyone runs these days. Most of the time Stafford is passing from under center when teams know he is throwing. UGA was a still a top 20 team with a poor offensive line and mediocre defense with a real tough schedule.

foozball
12-23-2008, 04:42 PM
You got some really high hopes for some of these players even comparing them to those players...Orakpo wasn't even the best OLB on Texas this year. Comparing Jenkins to Deion is crazy....and don't even get me started on comparing Beanie Wells to Barry Sanders

cuz orakpo doesnt play olb?

Babylon
12-23-2008, 04:50 PM
You got some really high hopes for some of these players even comparing them to those players...Orakpo wasn't even the best OLB on Texas this year. Comparing Jenkins to Deion is crazy....and don't even get me started on comparing Beanie Wells to Barry Sanders


Not trying to compare ability as much as a pattern of taking guys by position.

HorusKing
12-23-2008, 04:55 PM
Stafford has the physical talent to be dominant in the NFL but Sam Bradford is pretty impressive as well but my question with Bradford is he mature enough to leave this early for the NFL?

JFLO
12-23-2008, 05:06 PM
I, personally, am not a big fan of either quarterback being selected #1 overall or deserving so. Bradford isn't experienced enough and needs time to develop his game more. Stafford has all the tools and plays in a pro-style offense, but his game has been inconsistent since he was a freshman at Georgia.

illmatic74
12-23-2008, 05:29 PM
Stafford is my number 1 prospect if he declares. I like him almost as much as I liked Ryan and Cutler(a lot). He is worth the #1 pick. Bradford I also like he is worth the risk of a top 10 pick.

no love
12-23-2008, 05:39 PM
The 2005 draft class is cursed... the 49ers may as well have drafted Frank Gore #1 overall... at least now they wouldn't have looked like complete idiots.

GatorsBullsFan
12-23-2008, 05:54 PM
Stafford is my number 1 prospect if he declares. I like him almost as much as I liked Ryan and Cutler(a lot). He is worth the #1 pick. Bradford I also like he is worth the risk of a top 10 pick.

Ryan wasn't anywhere near as inconsistent as Stafford....

illmatic74
12-23-2008, 05:58 PM
Ryan wasn't anywhere near as inconsistent as Stafford....He has only had one truly bad game this year.

BuddyCHRIST
12-23-2008, 06:02 PM
Ryan wasn't anywhere near as inconsistent as Stafford....

Umm yes he was, maybe not in pure stats but watch the games. Ryan threw lots of INT's and made a ton of questionable decisions, even as a senior. He is very smart with the ball in the pro's, but one of the reasons I wasn't high on him in college was because he made some really really bad decisions that he would get away with sometimes.

eazyb81
12-23-2008, 06:06 PM
I like them both a lot. At this point Stafford is at the top of my list, but I like Bradford much more than most people seemingly do. I think he has elite accuracy and poise in the pocket, and his arm isn't nearly as bad as some are attempting to make it out to be.

Both QBs are worlds better than Alex Smith.

illmatic74
12-23-2008, 06:07 PM
Umm yes he was, maybe not in pure stats but watch the games. Ryan threw lots of INT's and made a ton of questionable decisions, even as a senior. He is very smart with the ball in the pro's, but one of the reasons I wasn't high on him in college was because he made some really really bad decisions that he would get away with sometimes.He didn't throw a lot interceptions compared to the amount of passes he has thrown.

Geason Noceur
12-23-2008, 06:19 PM
I, personally, am not a big fan of either quarterback being selected #1 overall or deserving so. Bradford isn't experienced enough and needs time to develop his game more. Stafford has all the tools and plays in a pro-style offense, but his game has been inconsistent since he was a freshman at Georgia.

He was thrown into the SEC fire as a true freshman. He's also been running for his life behind offensive lines made up freshmen and sophomores. He's also one of the youngest, if not the youngest, among the starting juniors and redshirt freshmen QBs in the country. Yet he's more experienced and has more responsability at the line of scrimmage than most other QBs. I think he's done very well considering his less than ideal circumstances.

He's also nowhere near close to reaching his full potential. The upside with this guy is enormous.

Staubach12
12-23-2008, 06:23 PM
Barry Sanders (Beanie Wells)

Wait, what?

lionsfan81
12-23-2008, 06:34 PM
For all the physical tools Stafford has you would think he would be more physically built

http://bp2.blogger.com/_rBmhiLxmkN4/RrwGFiaaDcI/AAAAAAAAAEs/19q5bwRRf54/s1600-h/Stafford+takes+the+plunge.jpg

Habibi
12-23-2008, 06:35 PM
Wait, what?

...yhea...

San Diego Chicken
12-23-2008, 06:39 PM
I side with Stafford, unless unless unless he is forced to start during his rookie year. He is just not ready for that as a true junior. Nobody is.

illmatic74
12-23-2008, 06:39 PM
I like them both a lot. At this point Stafford is at the top of my list, but I like Bradford much more than most people seemingly do. I think he has elite accuracy and poise in the pocket, and his arm isn't nearly as bad as some are attempting to make it out to be.

Both QBs are worlds better than Alex Smith.Actually Sam Bradford reminds me of Alex Smith. Alex Smith story is proof that you have to be careful with young QBS. Look at his career first year he had major rookie struggles which is common. Second year with Norv Turner as offensive cordinator he made major improvements and played well down the stretch. Next year 49ers new offensive cordinator and system. Up until September 30 last year he played ok then he got injured. Mike Nolan a few weeks later forced him to play when he was clearly injured and he struggled. If Bradford is in the right situation he could have the success we though Smith would have.

Babylon
12-23-2008, 06:44 PM
Wait, what?

Need to go back and read all the responses. I was trying to point out a mind set where you take the QB 1st the OL 2nd etc. The only comparison i think that is valid across the board is Stafford to Aikman. Back to the original post.

Habibi
12-23-2008, 06:48 PM
Alex Smith was hindered by injuries, and poor development which included Mike Nolan playing him too early, and constant changes to the offense. That's a recipe for disaster to what was already a volatile prospect.

San Diego Chicken
12-23-2008, 06:48 PM
Actually Sam Bradford reminds me of Alex Smith. Alex Smith story is proof that you have to be careful with young QBS. Look at his career first year he had major rookie struggles which is common. Second year with Norv Turner as offensive cordinator he made major improvements and played well down the stretch. Next year 49ers new offensive cordinator and system. Up until September 30 last year he played ok then he got injured. Mike Nolan a few weeks later forced him to play when he was clearly injured and he struggled. If Bradford is in the right situation he could have the success we though Smith would have.

I don't think they are that similar as prospects (maybe you didn't mean to compare them directly). Smith would've been OK in a Denver style offense designed to get him outside of the pocket, which was his strength. Hiring Martz was effectively the end of Smith as a 49er.

jnew76
12-23-2008, 06:55 PM
Umm yes he was, maybe not in pure stats but watch the games. Ryan threw lots of INT's and made a ton of questionable decisions, even as a senior. He is very smart with the ball in the pro's, but one of the reasons I wasn't high on him in college was because he made some really really bad decisions that he would get away with sometimes.

Yeah, but just imagine if Ryan would have had AJ Green and Mohammed Massoquoi. For those two reasons alone, Stafford should be more efficient than he has been.

Halsey
12-23-2008, 07:04 PM
The fans that are afraid of Stafford and Bradford are the same ones who are afraid of the top QB's every year. Because of guys like Alex Smith and David Carr, you think every top QB prospect will be a bust. You thought Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were overrated last year. The reality is NFL teams don't know how good a college QB will be in the NFL and you SURE don't. You just like to think you know. If you could predict how a QB could turn out, you'd be on an NFL team's payroll.

Babylon
12-23-2008, 07:07 PM
Yeah, but just imagine if Ryan would have had AJ Green and Mohammed Massoquoi. For those two reasons alone, Stafford should be more efficient than he has been.

Ryan had a better offensive line and thus more time to throw the ball. Most of the times i've seen Stafford he has a pretty heavy pass rush in his face.Both guys were about the same in terms of accuracy and TD to int ratio. I would give Ryan the edge right now on running a team and Stafford the edge in the ability to make all the throws.

San Diego Chicken
12-23-2008, 07:20 PM
The fans that are afraid of Stafford and Bradford are the same ones who are afraid of the top QB's every year. Because of guys like Alex Smith and David Carr, you think every top QB prospect will be a bust. You thought Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco were overrated last year. The reality is NFL teams don't know how good a college QB will be in the NFL and you SURE don't. You just like to think you know. If you could predict how a QB could turn out, you'd be on an NFL team's payroll.

I think this year, people can't ignore how little experience both of the top QB's have. Stafford is a 20 year old junior. Bradford only has 2 years starting experience as a RS Soph. The one thing people have pointed out, both here and elsewhere, is that the risk factor is much higher with QB's (and any players) that come out early. Ryan and Flacco were both 5th year seniors, three full years older than Stafford or Bradford. I think both Bradford and Stafford absolutely need a year and probably two to sit and learn if they're going to be selected in the top 10.

Cigaro
12-23-2008, 07:21 PM
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06H81ZLb2e8a2/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0aSj4E936d6Kg/610x.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02dDcjE8L25wz/340x.jpg

Babylon
12-23-2008, 07:31 PM
I think this year, people can't ignore how little experience both of the top QB's have. Stafford is a 20 year old junior. Bradford only has 2 years starting experience as a RS Soph. The one thing people have pointed out, both here and elsewhere, is that the risk factor is much higher with QB's (and any players) that come out early. Ryan and Flacco were both 5th year seniors, three full years older than Stafford or Bradford. I think both Bradford and Stafford absolutely need a year and probably two to sit and learn if they're going to be selected in the top 10.


Bradford has two years of starting experience, same as Flacco at Delaware(slightly differant competition). Stafford has 3 years of starting experience, same as Ryan at BC (slightly differant competiton). I do agree with sitting any of these guys for a year.

San Diego Chicken
12-23-2008, 07:37 PM
Bradford has two years of starting experience, same as Flacco at Delaware(slightly differant competition). Stafford has 3 years of starting experience, same as Ryan at BC (slightly differant competiton). I do agree with sitting any of these guys for a year.

Right, but you can't discount the experience of playing on the scout team against your first team defense.

Zyro_1014
12-23-2008, 07:48 PM
I give the edge to Stafford based mainly on the offensive system he is in.

jnew76
12-23-2008, 07:58 PM
I expect to be absolutely crushed for this statement, but I think that Sam Bradford is a future hall of famer. I think he is the best QB prospect to come out since Carson Palmer.

619
12-23-2008, 08:18 PM
I expect to be absolutely crushed for this statement, but I think that Sam Bradford is a future hall of famer. I think he is the best QB prospect to come out since Carson Palmer.

I don't actually think that statement is all that far out of line for the potential of either QB. Bradford's the safer call of course and Stafford can also look Elway-esque at times as well. That speaks volumes for the quality at the top of the position this year which otherwise would have been one of the worst since probably the 05 class if not for these talented juniors, Bradford and Stafford in particular.

Babylon
12-23-2008, 08:19 PM
I expect to be absolutely crushed for this statement, but I think that Sam Bradford is a future hall of famer. I think he is the best QB prospect to come out since Carson Palmer.

Bro you need to go easy on the eggnog.

jnew76
12-23-2008, 08:33 PM
Bro you need to go easy on the eggnog.

Speaking of Eggnog, there is a place right up the street from me that makes eggnog daquiris. Sounds terrible, but they are so good it should be illegal.

Geason Noceur
12-23-2008, 08:49 PM
If Bradford is in the right situation he could have the success we though Smith would have.

Except for a few headcases, isn't this statement true for just about every player. Bradford is the perfect example actually, only at the college level. He's in a great situation at Oklahoma. Would people still say he was a great player if he played behind Arizona State's or Notre Dame's offensive lines? I tend to doubt it. Same concept applies at the pro level.

Babylon
12-23-2008, 08:55 PM
Except for a few headcases, isn't this statement true for just about every player. Bradford is the perfect example actually, only at the college level. He's in a great situation at Oklahoma. Would people still say he was a great player if he played behind Arizona State's or Notre Dame's offensive lines? I tend to doubt it. Same concept applies at the pro level.


I actually like Bradford but i would have liked to see him in a differant situation as far as an evaluation goes. It would have been interesting to see him behind that poor excuse of a line that they have at Georgia.

DetroitInDaHouse
12-23-2008, 09:50 PM
Bradford is a sure fire bust. His arm strength is more comparable to ken dorsey than jamarcus russell. He cant make all the throws. I am not even sure if he has the heart needed to make it in the league. His heart is in question and his physical skills are very average. Looks like a bust. Mark my words Sam bradford is not going to have success in the nfl. He just isnt impressive doesnt have the tools you look for.

illmatic74
12-23-2008, 09:57 PM
Bradford is a sure fire bust. His arm strength is more comparable to ken dorsey than jamarcus russell. He cant make all the throws. I am not even sure if he has the heart needed to make it in the league. His heart is in question and his physical skills are very average. Looks like a bust. Mark my words Sam bradford is not going to have success in the nfl. He just isnt impressive doesnt have the tools you look for.His arm strength is more comparable to Aaron Rodgers and Brady Quinn. His arm strength is not elite but it is not bad at all.

619
12-23-2008, 10:07 PM
Bradford is a sure fire bust. His arm strength is more comparable to ken dorsey than jamarcus russell. He cant make all the throws. I am not even sure if he has the heart needed to make it in the league. His heart is in question and his physical skills are very average. Looks like a bust. Mark my words Sam bradford is not going to have success in the nfl. He just isnt impressive doesnt have the tools you look for.

Arm strength is great, but it is certainly not everything. He's got a more than capable arm to succeed in the league. I'd be more worried of Bradford stepping into the right system than I probably would Stafford though and that's only because of the tools you speak of. Both QBs have the necessary intangibles (especially Bradford) you look for as well. They can each reach pro - bowl calibur status, imho, as for HOF, I wouldn't completely dismiss the idea although it is highly unlikely.

sbh15
12-23-2008, 10:09 PM
Give me Stafford. Inconsistencies and all, he's got a rocket and reminds me of Jay Cutler, who I've loved for a while now. He's decent touch to, but I think arm strength can't really be taught, while touch passes can be worked on.

DetroitInDaHouse
12-23-2008, 10:25 PM
I just dont like what Bradford brings to the table physically. I just think if you have a number one pick you want to get the guy with the best physical tools. I think everyone agrees Stafford has a better chance of going number one than Bradford for good reasons. I think Bradford is 3-4 years away from even having success in this league where as I can see Stafford coming in and making an impact right away ala Ryan.

I dont think anyone should be worried about Staffords stats in college. College stats have nothing to do with how you will turn out as a pro. To me its about physical tools mixed with average or better mental tools. We can all agree he has great elite physical tools and atleast average mental capablities

619
12-23-2008, 10:30 PM
I just dont like what Bradford brings to the table physically. I just think if you have a number one pick you want to get the guy with the best physical tools. I think everyone agrees Stafford has a better chance of going number one than Bradford for good reasons. I think Bradford is 3-4 years away from even having success in this league where as I can see Stafford coming in and making an impact right away ala Ryan.

There I must disagree. I don't think either is ready to make an instant impact next season however if I had to choose one of the QB's it would most definitely be Bradford.

illmatic74
12-23-2008, 10:34 PM
Id take Stafford if he enters he will be the best junior QB in the draft since Rothelisberger.

DetroitInDaHouse
12-23-2008, 10:39 PM
There I must disagree. I don't think either is ready to make an instant impact next season however if I had to choose one of the QB's it would most definitely be Bradford.

What do you see in bradford? Are you really going to let stats fool you? He was a great college qb sure. However hes a system qb. Put him in the georgia offense and I assure you he will struggle. That oklahoma offense is so basic so watered down that middle schoolers can run that offense. Trust me Stafford is a cant miss prospect and I would never draft bradford till the 3-4th round. I just cant draft a guy who has no physical tools I look for. You'll see come combine Stafford will rise Bradford will fall badly. I would be very surprised if Bradford goes in the first round. Bradford is such a big risk imo. Hes a project.

619
12-23-2008, 10:48 PM
What do you see in bradford? Are you really going to let stats fool you?

To be honest, I could care less about stats when evaluating a player. What I see is top notch intangibles to add onto his above average tools, which alone is enough to make for a successful QB.

SKim172
12-23-2008, 11:06 PM
Bradford could benefit from another year in college ball. Stafford, I don't know. On the one hand, he's young, so another year of college coaching could help. On the other hand, if he remains inconsistent and has a year close to '07 than '08, then he'll kiss that top 10 contract goodbye.

BTW, speaking as a fan of what I like to call a "fringe"-school (in this case, Rutgers), it really cracks me up to hear fans of big-name schools with 4 and 5 star prospects complaining about lack of talent. Aw, boohoo, Georgia's only got Knowshon Moreno and a young O-line of blue chippers who somehow are still inexperienced after two years of keeping Stafford upright?

News flash, all college teams deal with that - it's called graduation. And most manage with a lot less starpower. Let me guess, "it's not the same level of competition" - well, then, alright, so what, the rest of the SEC's got teams of fifth-year seniors bulked up on steroids? Help me out here, why can they do what you can't?

I argued against Matt Ryan pretty strongly last season - and believe me, the humble pie tastes like ashes. But I still don't buy that he could blame his team for his shortcomings and I think Stafford has even less grounds for that argument.

My guess, if both of them come out, neither will have the Matt Ryan effect. I'd put more money on Bradford. But he's a project. OU's offense isn't a system, it's not an easy offense, and he shows plenty physical tools, but that isn't a guarantee of anything but that he might not totally suck.

And Stafford is by no means a can't-miss prospect - he's only started producing at the level expected of any starting college QB this season. There's no guarantee that the improvement will be permanent.

As for the Bradford supporters, I'd place a caution by asking them to re-watch the 2008 Fiesta Bowl and try to understand just what went wrong with Bradford in that one (against a conference now officially considered worse than the Mountain West).

Namy
12-23-2008, 11:24 PM
I honestly don't like Stafford's decision making or intangibles (or lack thereof). The guy has enough players around him that if he was a #1 overall caliber QB, he definitely should have produced MUCH better.

Bradford is a project like most have said. We need to see him play in a pro style offense. I like his intangibles and ability to play under pressure. I'd pick Bradford over Stafford to be honest.

Larry121283
12-23-2008, 11:32 PM
I'd still take Stafford over Bradford, but I'd be real hesitant on spending a Top 10 pick on a QB. I'd take my time and go over each with a fine tooth come to make sure I find something I fall in love with.

I happen to love his plus-plus arm strength and ability to make every throw. He makes some terrible decisions sometimes, but it is because he has this terrific arm he thinks he can compensate for every clogged window. Jay Cutler had the same problem. Eli Manning did, too. They all had a habit of throwing off their back foot. The NFL can take care of those things quickly.

I'd take Stafford and take my chances. I don't think I'd want him playing right away, though.

With Bradford, there just isn't anything I fall in love with about him. He has a good IQ, but nothing physically stands out about him.

DetroitInDaHouse
12-24-2008, 12:16 AM
I'd still take Stafford over Bradford, but I'd be real hesitant on spending a Top 10 pick on a QB. I'd take my time and go over each with a fine tooth come to make sure I find something I fall in love with.

I happen to love his plus-plus arm strength and ability to make every throw. He makes some terrible decisions sometimes, but it is because he has this terrific arm he thinks he can compensate for every clogged window. Jay Cutler had the same problem. Eli Manning did, too. They all had a habit of throwing off their back foot. The NFL can take care of those things quickly.

I'd take Stafford and take my chances. I don't think I'd want him playing right away, though.

With Bradford, there just isn't anything I fall in love with about him. He has a good IQ, but nothing physically stands out about him.


Now heres a guy who knows what hes talking about.

Finally someone who understands the game. Thank you for being there:)

Habibi
12-24-2008, 12:38 AM
Yeah, but just imagine if Ryan would have had AJ Green and Mohammed Massoquoi. For those two reasons alone, Stafford should be more efficient than he has been.

Imagine if Matthew Stafford had Gosder Cherilus protecting his blindside and was playing against pedestrian ACC defenses. For those two reasons alone, Matt Ryan should have been more efficient than he was.

Habibi
12-24-2008, 12:51 AM
I honestly don't like Stafford's decision making or intangibles (or lack thereof). The guy has enough players around him that if he was a #1 overall caliber QB, he definitely should have produced MUCH better.

This is a ridiculous argument. How much should he have produced this year?

Peyton Manning's stats at the same point in his respective career in the same conference: 63.9%, 3287 yards, 8.69 ypa, 20 TDs and 12 INTs.

Matthew Stafford: 61.1%, 3209 yards, 9.13 ypa, 22 TDs and 9 INTs.

Geason Noceur
12-24-2008, 01:33 AM
BTW, speaking as a fan of what I like to call a "fringe"-school (in this case, Rutgers), it really cracks me up to hear fans of big-name schools with 4 and 5 star prospects complaining about lack of talent. Aw, boohoo, Georgia's only got Knowshon Moreno and a young O-line of blue chippers who somehow are still inexperienced after two years of keeping Stafford upright?

News flash, all college teams deal with that - it's called graduation. And most manage with a lot less starpower. Let me guess, "it's not the same level of competition" - well, then, alright, so what, the rest of the SEC's got teams of fifth-year seniors bulked up on steroids? Help me out here, why can they do what you can't?

In Georgia's case is not graduation. It's extremely poor OL recruiting and injuries. Stafford just seem to arrive at a bad time at UGA. They did not have any jr or sr linemen in the team... at all. That's why they had to start so many freshmen last year. This season they are down to their fourth left tackle. They lost the sophomores, last year's starting freshmen, to ACL tears. They're just plain snakebit on the O-line it seems.

the decider13
12-24-2008, 06:30 AM
Sure, Bradford is a product of where he plays, but that shouldnt take away from his positives. He has great football IQ, decent arm strength, and good accuracy.

It's gonna be tough for either quarterback to succeed in detroit. At least they have one great target. If only they could fill out the rest of the team...

georgiafan
12-24-2008, 06:54 AM
One think to think about his Stafford has never played behind a complete offense. It's obvious that Bradford has all of these year on top of the system where over 50% of his yards come after the catch. About where people say arm strength isn't important it's the #1 thing GM's look for. Atleast according to sporting news.

Freshman - Had the OL, but no running game or WR

Sophmore - Had the running game, but no WR or OL (decent OL)

Junior - Had the running game and WR, but no OL or defense

initial_flo
12-24-2008, 08:37 AM
I'd take neither, you don't want to sentence to the guy to 'death' before he plays a down.

Build the team on the lines, then it'll be actually a suitable situation for success.

You know, unless I see something really crazy out of these guys to prove otherwise.

Halsey
12-24-2008, 10:26 AM
The whole argument about Stafford having or not having help would matter if he had a bad year. He didn't. Just because UGA didn't live up to expectations doesn't mean he had a bad year. Stafford threw for 3,200 yards, 22 TD's, 9 int's and a passer rating of 153. UGA's offense was only held under 20 points 3 times. Even in 2 of UGA's 3 losses they scored a lot of points: 31 vs Bama and 42 vs GT. If you're arguing that Stafford had a bad year, you don't know what you're talking about in the first place. ;)

Babylon
12-24-2008, 01:03 PM
Would have been interesting if the roles had been reversed. Bradford in that pro style offense at Georgia would have had less time to throw and asked to get the ball down the field more. Stafford at OU would have been pretty insane but maybe they would have kept him under raps more.

illmatic74
12-24-2008, 02:02 PM
The whole argument about Stafford having or not having help would matter if he had a bad year. He didn't. Just because UGA didn't live up to expectations doesn't mean he had a bad year. Stafford threw for 3,200 yards, 22 TD's, 9 int's and a passer rating of 153. UGA's offense was only held under 20 points 3 times. Even in 2 of UGA's 3 losses they scored a lot of points: 31 vs Bama and 42 vs GT. If you're arguing that Stafford had a bad year, you don't know what you're talking about in the first place. ;)He was 15th in passing efficiency. Nate Davis and Mark Sanchez were the only QBS ahead of him that didn't run the spread.

P-L
12-24-2008, 02:28 PM
I really, really like Bradford but I don't think he's NFL ready this year. He needs to come back for one more season. Give me Stafford.

Xiomera
12-24-2008, 02:31 PM
I really, really like Bradford but I don't think he's NFL ready this year. He needs to come back for one more season. Give me Stafford.

Yeah, I share those sentiments. I prefer Bradford to Stafford in the long run, but the Lions need actuality over potentiality. Stafford is a safer pick right now because I don't trust the Lions to give Bradford the further development he needs.

TheGM
12-24-2008, 03:22 PM
Yeah, I share those sentiments. I prefer Bradford to Stafford in the long run, but the Lions need actuality over potentiality. Stafford is a safer pick right now because I don't trust the Lions to give Bradford the further development he needs.

No disrespect but I don't understand that logic. Why wouldn't you take the guy with the most upside? The draft is all about risk vs. reward if you are going to bet around 80 million on a guy I would want as much upside as possible. In the case of the Lions you can't get any worse so get the guy with the best chance of becoming a legend Bradford.

When people list the things people hate about him; arm strength, supporting cast, Oklahoma's offense, and experience. Of those things only one of them is on Bradford as a player, arm strength.

When I evaluate a player I look at his skill SET to see if it translates to the NFL. 1) Bradford is smart, Oklahoma runs a no huddle offense where the offense lines up and the QB gets the play from the sideline tells the team what to do and then executes. Teams that run this have to trust the QB to think fast, read the defense, and take care of the ball that is an NFL skill. 2) Bradford is accurate, his receivers have a lot of yards after the catch because he finds the open man and gets it to him in stride. Ball placement is a major separator of good and great QBs. 3) Bradford manipulates the secondary, he looks off safeties and uses the pump fake to manipulate the secondary.
A quarterback who is smart, accurate, and can manipulate the secondary will succeed in the NFL, I like both players but, I would take Bradford because he has a great skill set for the NFL.

Mr. Marcus
12-24-2008, 04:48 PM
His arm strength is more comparable to Aaron Rodgers and Brady Quinn. His arm strength is not elite but it is not bad at all.

Aaron Rodgers has elite arm strength.

Xiomera
12-24-2008, 05:04 PM
No disrespect but I don't understand that logic. Why wouldn't you take the guy with the most upside? The draft is all about risk vs. reward if you are going to bet around 80 million on a guy I would want as much upside as possible. In the case of the Lions you can't get any worse so get the guy with the best chance of becoming a legend Bradford.

When people list the things people hate about him; arm strength, supporting cast, Oklahoma's offense, and experience. Of those things only one of them is on Bradford as a player, arm strength.

When I evaluate a player I look at his skill SET to see if it translates to the NFL. 1) Bradford is smart, Oklahoma runs a no huddle offense where the offense lines up and the QB gets the play from the sideline tells the team what to do and then executes. Teams that run this have to trust the QB to think fast, read the defense, and take care of the ball that is an NFL skill. 2) Bradford is accurate, his receivers have a lot of yards after the catch because he finds the open man and gets it to him in stride. Ball placement is a major separator of good and great QBs. 3) Bradford manipulates the secondary, he looks off safeties and uses the pump fake to manipulate the secondary.
A quarterback who is smart, accurate, and can manipulate the secondary will succeed in the NFL, I like both players but, I would take Bradford because he has a great skill set for the NFL.

With any other team your argument would be more valid. But the Lions can't risk taking a guy who A) Is farther behind in the developmental process (Stafford has started 3 years, Bradford for 2) and B) more of an unknown due to the unconventional offense he runs at Oklahoma. If the Lions have to pick players with lower ceilings but higher floors just to avoid wasting draft picks like they've done the past decade, then so be it. It's not a strategy I would advise to other franchises, but when you're dealing the the Lions, we need a "sure thing."

I like Bradford. I like him a lot. And if the Lions had the opportunity to draft him next year, I'd probably be wholeheartedly behind it.

TheGM
12-24-2008, 07:09 PM
With any other team your argument would be more valid. But the Lions can't risk taking a guy who A) Is farther behind in the developmental process (Stafford has started 3 years, Bradford for 2) and B) more of an unknown due to the unconventional offense he runs at Oklahoma. If the Lions have to pick players with lower ceilings but higher floors just to avoid wasting draft picks like they've done the past decade, then so be it. It's not a strategy I would advise to other franchises, but when you're dealing the the Lions, we need a "sure thing."

I see what you are saying and for any other position I would agree however; the Lions can not put a rookie out there next year. The team is too bad to put a young player out there from day one. I know the Falcons and Ravens had a lot of success doing so but both teams are much better than the Lions are, if either Ryan of Flacco had been Lions it would have been a mistake to play them as well. If I'm going to sit a guy I'd rather sit a player with better developmental prospects.

If Bradford had started the same number of games would he be a better prospect than Stafford?

If Joe Flacco came out of a spread offense against less than top tier competition and turned out well, why couldn't Bradford do well at the next level?

Finally, head to head who is more accurate, who has a stronger arm, who has the faster release, who has better pocket presence, and who reads a defense/moves through their progressions better? Bradford wins in all areas except arm strength.

Habibi
12-24-2008, 07:28 PM
Finally, head to head who is more accurate, who has a stronger arm, who has the faster release, who has better pocket presence, and who reads a defense/moves through their progressions better? Bradford wins in all areas except arm strength.

Actually, Bradford loses in all of those categories except maybe accuracy, and that's hard to gauge. Arm strength is a given. Matthew Stafford has the faster release, because it's more compact and orthodox. Matthew Stafford has the better pocket presence, because he's had to operate under inconsistent protection, and Matthew Stafford reads defenses better - since he has to go through 3, 4 reads every time he drops back - Bradford has to go through 1 o 2 reads every time he drops back.

You're simply making stuff up.

TheGM
12-24-2008, 08:01 PM
Actually, Bradford loses in all of those categories except maybe accuracy, and that's hard to gauge. Arm strength is a given. Matthew Stafford has the faster release, because it's more compact and orthodox. Matthew Stafford has the better pocket presence, because he's had to operate under inconsistent protection, and Matthew Stafford reads defenses better - since he has to go through 3, 4 reads every time he drops back - Bradford has to go through 1 o 2 reads every time he drops back.

You're simply making stuff up.

"Stafford goes through 3 or 4 reads every time he drops back," earlier in this thread you argued that, and I quote, "His offensive line is young and very inconsistent," (see post 6) but he has time to go through four receivers every time he drops back to pass.

and I'm the one making things up...hmmm?

Smokey Joe
12-24-2008, 09:09 PM
gimme Sanchez.

Xiomera
12-24-2008, 09:41 PM
I see what you are saying and for any other position I would agree however; the Lions can not put a rookie out there next year. The team is too bad to put a young player out there from day one. I know the Falcons and Ravens had a lot of success doing so but both teams are much better than the Lions are, if either Ryan of Flacco had been Lions it would have been a mistake to play them as well. If I'm going to sit a guy I'd rather sit a player with better developmental prospects.

I don't want Stafford to play for us next year. Sit him the entire year.

lod01
12-25-2008, 10:31 AM
I don't want Stafford to play for us next year. Sit him the entire year.

0-16 not good enough for ya? 0-32 sounds better? Matt Ryan started from dy one because he's good. That team sucked and look at them now. Waste 1 whole year of this guys career? With Calvin Johnson at WR? No, you start him day 1.

Malaka
12-25-2008, 11:45 AM
0-16 not good enough for ya? 0-32 sounds better? Matt Ryan started from dy one because he's good. That team sucked and look at them now. Waste 1 whole year of this guys career? With Calvin Johnson at WR? No, you start him day 1.

The Lions will NOT start Matt Stafford right away, if they select him with the 1st overall pick, and there not 0-16 yet, let them play that one more game to see if they really want to not be known as the worst team in NFL history. Xiomera is 100% right here and I would do the same.

Do you understand, that Matt Ryan is one of the only rookie QBs in history to do this, he is one of a kind. Last years Falcons even with all those problems in the organization were a much better team than this years Lions, this should be obvious.

You honestly sound like an utter moron, if Matt Stafford is to start from day one we have another QB bust on our hands. He is used to playing with a bad O-line, but the Lions O-line is horrible and now he will be feeling hits from NFL players. Yes, he has Calvin Johnson, like Matt Ryan has Roddy White, but I'll say it again Matt Ryan is a special case, and the Lions need a complete over-haul for there team, every single pick counts... if they waste a top 5 pick not because Matt Stafford was a bad QB, but was sacked so many times he has David Carr syndrome. No QB should start from day one, they need time to be brought along, especially when playing with a team as bad as the Lions, look at David Carr and Alex Smith both starters from day one, on bad teams, with bad a O-line, they are considered busts, and both of these players were also 1st overall picks. Matt Ryan did start day one because he is good, but look at the alternatives... Chris Redman who was a car insurance agent... DJ Shockley... come on, the competition was tremendous I am shocked he won the starting job. :rolleyes:

Waste one year of a guys career? Seriously? Just go away right now... look Aaron Rodgers has wasted 4 years of his career behind Brett Favre, oh poor Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre did not even play his first season with the Falcons he had I think 2 pass attempts and an INT, I can go on and list all the players that have had excellent careers while never touching the field there first season in the NFL, and yes there are some exceptions like Peyton Manning and Matt Ryan but those are very very rare.

DetroitInDaHouse
12-26-2008, 01:12 AM
I dont think you can just say never ever start matt stafford from day one. I think you let them compete. If Stafford turns out to give you the best shot to win you have to start him. With Physically he has an nfl body and nfl talent so I am not against him starting if it gives us the best chance to win.

Halsey
12-26-2008, 07:13 AM
Atlanta Falcons 10 year center Todd Mcclure said on a radio interview recently that "Matt Ryan makes our offensive line better."

I don't think he's just saying that because it sounds good. A good QB makes the right reads, gets rid of the ball and knows how to move around in the pocket to buy extra seconds. That makes the O-line look better and it helps force the defense to not crowd the box. Building a talented O-line for a bad QB is a waste of time. A team that needs a QB should build the O-line at the same time they are trying to find a long term answer at QB, not before. The idea of waiting to get a QB is total nonsense.

asmitty45
12-26-2008, 09:46 AM
I like Stafford over Bradford any day. Bradford is playing in a shotgun heavy system so the transiton is going to be much tougher to an NFL system for him. He also has insane talent at every position around him, including a massive NFL-size OLine. He doesn't have a big arm either but he is extremely accurate, i think he could succeed in a west coast system. but i think he's a career backup who'll be drafted far too high.

Stafford has a huge arm, has played in a very NFL-like system so that transition should be easier. He also had more marginal talent than Bradford did, Knownshon moreno and AJ green withstanding.

Stafford to Calvin Johnson will be a nice combo. But i said that about Joey Harrington and Roy Williams/Charles Rogers/Mike Williams. So who knows.

Prowler
12-26-2008, 10:43 AM
ditto to asmitty, including the harrington/rogers.

toonsterwu
12-26-2008, 03:26 PM
Stafford, and no 2nd thoughts about it ... but I've got to say, I've lost some love for Stafford over this past year. Not the same feel I had on guys like Ryan and Cutler, and I think a team drafting Stafford will need to have some patience. I still wonder if Josh Freeman emerges as the process moves along and lands in the first, assuming Freeman declares.

Larry121283
12-26-2008, 03:39 PM
0-16 not good enough for ya? 0-32 sounds better? Matt Ryan started from dy one because he's good. That team sucked and look at them now. Waste 1 whole year of this guys career? With Calvin Johnson at WR? No, you start him day 1.
I kind of agree here. While I'm not a fan of Stafford starting early, if he goes to Detroit, he will have to.

However, what Detroit will need to do is go and get themselves some more offensive linemen. They have Gosder Cherilus at RT who I thought played pretty good this year (certainly no Long, Clady, or Otah - or Baker in limited time) but pretty good.

If the Lions go with Stafford with their first pick, I think it would be in their best interest to really start to build the offense. With their second pick in the first round, go with offensive line. Then maybe start adding some more wide outs later in the draft. If you go Stafford, for the Lions, you need to come through and start building the offense. Add defense as you go, but you need to be putting a lot of assets into that offense. You want to put Stafford into a position to succeed, not a position where he has be the highlight of the offense.

The Lions are equally inept on offense and defense, but as I said, if you are going to go Stafford, BUILD THE O.

Jeff Backus is a sub-standard left tackle, especially as a pass protector. I'd start there and maybe grab a potential left tackle. Maybe Jason Smith or the 5th rated tackle on the board would be available. Maybe grab the top guard in Duke Robinson...maybe go with Herm Johnson. Build that line.

toonsterwu
12-26-2008, 03:44 PM
Really a side note, but if I'm the Lions, my first plan is to try and trade my 2nd first round pick to the Pats and see if I can grab Matt Cassel and drafting big Andre. That said, a better QB will make their OL better, and their DL talent is just horrid. IF, and this is a big IF, but if there is a guy they feel is an impact DL talent (assuming they use the first overall on Stafford), I would have to go that route. Find a power back to pair with Kevin Smith. I wouldn't hand Stafford the job, but if he earns it, so be it. You can always play the "get to the bye week" scenario. I'd find a OL in the 2nd/3rd, and another DL guy in that area. Short of it is, spend on the lines.

DetroitInDaHouse
12-26-2008, 06:50 PM
I am not sure why everyone is so sold on Cassell. People are overrating him. Only reason this is happening is because people already assumed the patriots were done for when tom brady got hurt and that cassell was trash. Well Cassell played just okay on the best team in football and he wont be able to do that in many other offenses. Like I said before him and stafford will make the same impact next year however Stafford will only get better and the production both would make would be nothing compared to what Stafford would make during his career.

Cassell is not a long term option. He is just not. He is a nice guy to have for short term but I think you have to think long term and go for the superbowl. The bucs were known as a horrible franchise till they won a superbowl now nobody even thinks about their past. Same needs to happen with the lions.

energizerbunny
12-28-2008, 11:07 PM
Stafford and it isn't even close, I don't think Bradford has a good enough arm to be ranked higher then Matt.

dabul-master
12-29-2008, 01:20 PM
Since when do physical attributes directly translate into how well one plays the position? Would you call Tom Brady a physical specimen?

Who has better physical attributes, JaMarcus Russell, or Matt Ryan?

Strong arms are overrated, Brett Favre has a way stronger arm than Chad Pennington, and try to tell me you'd rather have Favre than Pennington

Halsey
12-29-2008, 01:48 PM
Since when do physical attributes directly translate into how well one plays the position? Would you call Tom Brady a physical specimen?

Who has better physical attributes, JaMarcus Russell, or Matt Ryan?

Strong arms are overrated, Brett Favre has a way stronger arm than Chad Pennington, and try to tell me you'd rather have Favre than Pennington

If arm strength didn't matter, anyone could play QB. A comparison of Favre at 39 to Pennington at 32 is a garbage argument. Pennington won't be in the league when he's 39. Every team wants a QB with a strong arm. If Pennington had a stronger arm, he'd be even better. It's only simple minded fans who think that a QB with a strong arm doesn't have anything else going for him. Strong armed QB's can throw the ball further and get it from point A to point B faster. The faster a ball gets to the target the better. Fans who think Stafford is nothing but a big arm don't have the sense to know that his big arm doesn't prevent him from having other strengths.

dabul-master
12-30-2008, 08:57 PM
I never said they don't matter, I just think that it's ridiculous that arm strength is the attribute most admired by everyone

The example of Pennington was to show how fans who always berated pennington for his arm strength aren't better off with a strong armed int machine like favre

Race for the Heisman
12-30-2008, 09:22 PM
I never said they don't matter, I just think that it's ridiculous that arm strength is the attribute most admired by everyone

The example of Pennington was to show how fans who always berated pennington for his arm strength aren't better off with a strong armed int machine like favre

Arm strength is nice because it is very obvious, same as size. As draftniks, we can't know how a guy will dissect a Cover 2 given a specific set of personnel by using motion or reading safeties, etc. Arm strength isn't exactly quantifiable (although I think they do RPMs at the combine), but it is pretty easy to see who can sling it.

dabul-master
12-30-2008, 09:27 PM
Yea good point

I can't help but think that whichever qb the Lions draft, it would be a mistake, No QB can play behind that line

SenorGato
12-30-2008, 09:31 PM
Stafford and it's no contest.

My only problem is that he's a junior so he's going to get maturity and experience questions. If he was a senior, I think he'd be compared to Palmer or a not as athletic Cutler. As a junior, he'll be ranked a little more conservatively...helps/doesn't help that Georgia wasn't what everyone wanted them to be this year.

Babylon
01-01-2009, 08:26 PM
I think he really elevated his game to that level of conversation today. If Bradford comes up short at all in the throws he can make when teams work these guys out i'd move Sanchez into the #2 spot.

Xiomera
01-01-2009, 08:31 PM
Yea good point

I can't help but think that whichever qb the Lions draft, it would be a mistake, No QB can play behind that line

1. The QB we take won't start from Day 1.

2. Our line isn't horrible. It's below league average, but the only reason we gave up so many sacks was because we employ a couple of statue-esque QB's in Kitna and Culpepper.

3. Stafford seems to do OK behind an equally horrible line at Georgia.


We've got time to fix the o-line, but we have to get a QB in there to develop on the meant time.

Babylon
01-01-2009, 08:38 PM
3. Stafford seems to do OK behind an equally horrible line at Georgia.

Best line i've heard all day.

bored of education
01-01-2009, 08:45 PM
3. Stafford seems to do OK behind an equally horrible line at Georgia.

Best line i've heard all day.

sarcasm or no?

PMoney18
01-01-2009, 09:26 PM
what has stafford done to make you think he is the next aikman? remember the florida game?

Babylon
01-01-2009, 10:14 PM
what has stafford done to make you think he is the next aikman? remember the florida game?

I think potentially he is in that Aikman, Elway class as a prospect but it will depend on where he goes and who he is surrounded by. These Qbs arent superman and they arent winning games by themselves. The Florida game you referance he made some mistakes and some of his teammates didnt help him on others. Bottom line Florida was the better team.

Halsey
01-01-2009, 11:25 PM
what has stafford done to make you think he is the next aikman? remember the florida game?

Remember when Matt Ryan threw 2 int's vs Army?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=272650103

Yeah, less knowledgeable fans thought that game would knock Matt Ryan down too. Just because Stafford's stat line didn't look great in some games doesn't mean he isn't a top QB prospect. Stafford was getting hit in the pocket all day vs Florida and was trying to bring his team form behind most of the day. Watch any highlights of the UGA-Flor game and see how much Stafford was getting hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r62hP7BQmRg

For all those who don't realize it yet: Stafford at this point is getting close to being a lock for #1 overall, if he declares. The only way he isn't #1 overall is someone like Bradford declaring and having a fantastic next few months, including a big time performance in the BCS title game. Otherwise, you can pencil Stafford in at #1 if he declares.

PMoney18
01-01-2009, 11:44 PM
Remember when Matt Ryan threw 2 int's vs Army?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=272650103

Yeah, less knowledgeable fans thought that game would knock Matt Ryan down too. Just because Stafford's stat line didn't look great in some games doesn't mean he isn't a top QB prospect. Stafford was getting hit in the pocket all day vs Florida and was trying to bring his team form behind most of the day. Watch any highlights of the UGA-Flor game and see how much Stafford was getting hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r62hP7BQmRg

For all those who don't realize it yet: Stafford at this point is getting close to being a lock for #1 overall, if he declares. The only way he isn't #1 overall is someone like Bradford declaring and having a fantastic next few months, including a big time performance in the BCS title game. Otherwise, you can pencil Stafford in at #1 if he declares.

I think that stafford is a good QB, all I was saying was that his three picks really hurt his team. He threw no TDs, and Ryan won while throwing 3TDs.

Halsey
01-02-2009, 12:20 AM
I think that stafford is a good QB, all I was saying was that his three picks really hurt his team. He threw no TDs, and Ryan won while throwing 3TDs.

Matt Ryan threw no TD's and 2 picks in the 2007 ACC Championship game loss to VT. Playing QB is really hard. Even the best prospects will have down games.

JFLO
01-02-2009, 11:49 AM
Colin Cowherd just destroyed Matthew Stafford today on his show, saying that he is an exact replica of Jamarcus Russell. He even attacked the kid somewhat personally saying that he is a spoiled rich kid who has had life come to easy to him.

I honestly don't think that any major hyped QB that is eligible for this years draft is going to be a great player if they were to come out this season(especially Bradford).

Cowherd was right though in saying that the NFL is still making the same mistake when it comes to choosing the "top" QB in the draft. They always go after the physical player who has a cannon of an arm and is inconsistent throughout his collegiate career.

illmatic74
01-02-2009, 12:10 PM
Colin Cowherd just destroyed Matthew Stafford today on his show, saying that he is an exact replica of Jamarcus Russell. He even attacked the kid somewhat personally saying that he is a spoiled rich kid who has had life come to easy to him.

I honestly don't think that any major hyped QB that is eligible for this years draft is going to be a great player if they were to come out this season(especially Bradford).

Cowherd was right though in saying that the NFL is still making the same mistake when it comes to choosing the "top" QB in the draft. They always go after the physical player who has a cannon of an arm and is inconsistent throughout his collegiate career.That is why you don't listen to Colin Cowherd. He uses generalizations to make all his points. The caller should have asked him about Shelden Williams and Adam Morrison.

illmatic74
01-02-2009, 12:13 PM
Matt Ryan threw no TD's and 2 picks in the 2007 ACC Championship game loss to VT. Playing QB is really hard. Even the best prospects will have down games.I remember Ben Rothelisberger threw 4 picks against Iowa his Junior Year. So it happens with even the bet prospects.

Babylon
01-02-2009, 12:14 PM
Colin Cowherd just destroyed Matthew Stafford today on his show, saying that he is an exact replica of Jamarcus Russell. He even attacked the kid somewhat personally saying that he is a spoiled rich kid who has had life come to easy to him.

I honestly don't think that any major hyped QB that is eligible for this years draft is going to be a great player if they were to come out this season(especially Bradford).

Cowherd was right though in saying that the NFL is still making the same mistake when it comes to choosing the "top" QB in the draft. They always go after the physical player who has a cannon of an arm and is inconsistent throughout his collegiate career.


I'm going to plead ignorance and say i don't know who Colin Cowherd is but he doesn't know what he's talking about.

1st off Stafford is quicker on his feet than Russell was/is and has better touch on his throws. I'll say he's more accurate than Jamarcus but let numbers decide that claim.

As for Stafford being some rich kid do we know what kind of income do QBs parents have at any level of ball and has there ever been a correlation between family wealth (or lack thereof) and success at the position.

The theory that you don't just force feed some guy at the top of the draft just beause he's a QB and you need one probably would have kept Elway from being a Bronco, Aikman from being a Cowboy and Manning from being a Colt.

I know people have to write articles, do segments on sportscenter and whatever but try to bring something to the table besides pure unadulterated drivel.

Halsey
01-02-2009, 02:41 PM
I listen to Colin a good bit, but I didn't hear him today. My first reaction to what he supposedly said about Stafford is his admittance to being a "USC homer". I have to wonder if he had an agenda to bring down Stafford in order to help pump up Sanchez. I'm gonna take a page out of Colin's book by making a comparison:

Stafford is like the hot girl who also happens to have a great personality, but many people see she's good looking and assume she doesn't have anything between the ears.


Having great physical talent doesn't stop Stafford from having other great traits. It's simple minded thinking to overlook what else Stafford brings to the table just because he has a great arm. The same people were assuming Joe Flacco was nothing but a guy with a strong arm.

Smoke944
01-02-2009, 02:50 PM
Cowherd was right though in saying that the NFL is still making the same mistake when it comes to choosing the "top" QB in the draft. They always go after the physical player who has a cannon of an arm and is inconsistent throughout his collegiate career.

Look at Matt Ryan's stats his senior year, they are bordering on what you could consider "terrible" for a top-3 pick and future franchise quarterback. Look how that worked out.
It's not as clear cut as you're making it out to be one way or the other.

illmatic74
01-02-2009, 02:51 PM
I listen to Colin a good bit, but I didn't hear him today. My first reaction to what he supposedly said about Stafford is his admittance to being a "USC homer". I have to wonder if he had an agenda to bring down Stafford in order to help pump up Sanchez. I'm gonna take a page out of Colin's book by making a comparison:

Stafford is like the hot girl who also happens to have a great personality, but many people see she's good looking and assume she doesn't have anything between the ears.


Having great physical talent doesn't stop Stafford from having other great traits. It's simple minded thinking to overlook what else Stafford brings to the table just because he has a great arm. The same people were assuming Joe Flacco was nothing but a guy with a strong arm.Stafford won't be the first or last prospect that is said about. You could also include Rothelisberger, Cutler and Russell in that situation. When people see a player rising up the boards with great physical skill they assume that is the only reason why they are considered a good prospect. Also if arm strength wasn't important Charlie Frye would be a franchise QB.

Halsey
01-03-2009, 11:50 AM
I listed to the podcast of Colin's show from yesterday and it's funny how wrong he is about Stafford. I like Colin and respect him, but he really missed the mark on this one. First of all, he said Stafford threw too many INT's. Stafford threw the same number of INT's that Mark Sanchez did this year, and Colin said he likes Sanchez. Matt Ryan threw 9 more INT's last year as a 5th year Senior than Stafford did this year. Also, he sadi Stafford's completion percentage was way low. Stafford completed 61% of his passes this year, which is higher than Ryan last year. Another thing Colin said was that big armed QB's never make it. Um, Joe Flacco. Colin is just another person who thinks Stafford is nothing but a big arm and doesn't see the whole picture.

Babylon
01-03-2009, 12:15 PM
I listed to the podcast of Colin's show from yesterday and it's funny how wrong he is about Stafford. I like Colin and respect him, but he really missed the mark on this one. First of all, he said Stafford threw too many INT's. Stafford threw the same number of INT's that Mark Sanchez did this year, and Colin said he likes Sanchez. Matt Ryan threw 9 more INT's last year as a 5th year Senior than Stafford did this year. Also, he sadi Stafford's completion percentage was way low. Stafford completed 61% of his passes this year, which is higher than Ryan last year. Another thing Colin said was that big armed QB's never make it. Um, Joe Flacco. Colin is just another person who thinks Stafford is nothing but a big arm and doesn't see the whole picture.


I respect people's opinions but they need to back it up with stats and some facts not just BS. The part about the kid coming from money, which i guess translates to a lesser prospect, takes the cake.

Saints-Tigers
01-03-2009, 12:25 PM
It does matter, you think Peyton and Eli would be this successful if they didn't grow up in the hood?

Geason Noceur
01-03-2009, 04:14 PM
I respect people's opinions but they need to back it up with stats and some facts not just BS. The part about the kid coming from money, which i guess translates to a lesser prospect, takes the cake.

That's another thing Cowherd got wrong about Stafford also. Stafford does not come from money. Just because he's from Highland Park people assume that he's rich, but that's far from the truth. Both his parents work, they don't live in mansions and Stafford has been driving the same used car he got in high school. Colin, like many others, just assume that Stafford is a spoiled, rich brat because he's from Highland Park, when in reality they don't know anything about the guy. They're just talking out of their you-know-what.

Babylon
01-03-2009, 04:22 PM
That's another thing Cowherd got wrong about Stafford also. Stafford does not come from money. Just because he's from Highland Park people assume that he's rich, but that's far from the truth. Both his parents work, they don't live in mansions and Stafford has been driving the same used car he got in high school. Colin, like many others, just assume that Stafford is a spoiled, rich brat because he's from Highland Park, when in reality they don't know anything about the guy. They're just talking out of their you-know-what.

Give him the Bill O'reilly of journalism award.

Monomach
01-03-2009, 05:02 PM
Matt Stafford = JaMarcus Russell?

I'm not seeing it here. Not at all.

keylime_5
01-03-2009, 05:11 PM
do any Oklahoma fans (or anyone at all) know which way Bradford is leaning right now regarding skipping the last 2 years at Oklahoma? It will be interesting to see what kind of debates go on if he and STafford both leave, but to me Stafford clearly is a far superior PRO prospect of a QB.

hockey619
01-03-2009, 05:19 PM
Stafford is similar to Russell in that he has a rocket arm and has some consistency issues, but enormous upside. Not an awful comparison but eh its ok i guess.

illmatic74
01-03-2009, 06:49 PM
Stafford is similar to Russell in that he has a rocket arm and has some consistency issues, but enormous upside. Not an awful comparison but eh its ok i guess.The best comparison I think is Eli Manning. Great mechanics, great arm strength and sneaky athlectic.

Scott Wright
01-03-2009, 06:50 PM
Matt Stafford is a Jay Cutler CLONE.

Bruce Banner
01-03-2009, 06:56 PM
Matt Stafford is a Jay Cutler CLONE.

which in turn means his arm is better than Elway's which in turn means he is better than Elway.

illmatic74
01-03-2009, 06:57 PM
Matt Stafford is a Jay Cutler CLONE.But I remember you didn't like Cutler that much as a prospect.

Scott Wright
01-03-2009, 07:45 PM
But I remember you didn't like Cutler that much as a prospect.

I liked Cutler, I just didn't think he was as lights-out during the Senior Bowl week as most seemed to.

Babylon
01-03-2009, 10:17 PM
which in turn means his arm is better than Elway's which in turn means he is better than Elway.

It's Cutler's claim that his arm is better than Elway's. I don't think anyone else shares that sentiment, i know i don't.

keylime_5
01-03-2009, 10:45 PM
Colin Cowherd just destroyed Matthew Stafford today on his show, saying that he is an exact replica of Jamarcus Russell. He even attacked the kid somewhat personally saying that he is a spoiled rich kid who has had life come to easy to him.

I honestly don't think that any major hyped QB that is eligible for this years draft is going to be a great player if they were to come out this season(especially Bradford).

Cowherd was right though in saying that the NFL is still making the same mistake when it comes to choosing the "top" QB in the draft. They always go after the physical player who has a cannon of an arm and is inconsistent throughout his collegiate career.

Stafford got consistently better from his freshman year to now. He makes some questionable throws from relying on his arm strength, so what, Brett Favre did and does still and he's one of the three best QBs ever at least. Stafford will make it if he gets on a team with a good offensive line and if he is a hard worker.

illmatic74
01-03-2009, 10:48 PM
Stafford got consistently better from his freshman year to now. He makes some questionable throws from relying on his arm strength, so what, Brett Favre did and does still and he's one of the three best QBs ever at least. Stafford will make it if he gets on a team with a good offensive line and if he is a hard worker.Good point until you said that. On QBS i have seen in my lifetime Brady, Manning and Young are ahead of him.

keylime_5
01-03-2009, 10:50 PM
Steve Young was my favorite QB as a kid, but he's not what Brett Favre is. I say Elway and Montana might be ahead of him. Let's not make this a Brett Favre thread now, hijacking = :(

hockey619
01-04-2009, 09:23 AM
I feel like these two are completely different except similar personalities, like Eli type leaders who are more quiet leaders. There very even to me and essentially interchangeable.

Sam Bradford= Phillip Rivers
Similar throwing motion, questions about offense whenever he comes out, sneaky athletic and mobile. Quick release and an accurate passer. A fast learner and very smart guy, similar to Alex Smith in that way. Similar in a lot of ways to Smith and Rivers as prospects.

Stafford= Cutler
Who hasnt said that at this point? Good mechanics, especially upper body mechanics. Lazer, rocket arm. Pretty mobile and a tough kid. Upside is immense. Threw downfield a lot and needs to work on timing on short routes and setting up quickly.

There very different players who grade out closely to me. I think Stafford will gain a lot at the combine/pro day because hes so impressive to watch throw the ball.

toonsterwu
01-04-2009, 10:26 AM
do any Oklahoma fans (or anyone at all) know which way Bradford is leaning right now regarding skipping the last 2 years at Oklahoma? It will be interesting to see what kind of debates go on if he and STafford both leave, but to me Stafford clearly is a far superior PRO prospect of a QB.

Rumors are suggesting Bradford is gone. I don't get it, but more and more hype is increasing that Bradford is, as of now, the top QB prospect, which I don't buy at all.

That said, I will say this about Stafford, who I thought was the top QB entering the season and is still the top QB (although not my personal favorite). A lot of folks want to make that Jay Cutler comparison for the physical reasons, but there's a different feel to them. Nothing that can really be quantified that much, but Cutler knew how to make plays, knew how to lead. Perhaps that was due to playing at a school like Vanderbilt, which forced him to step forward. I'm not sure Stafford is anywhere near as ready as Jay Cutler. Yes, Stafford has the arm. Yes, Stafford has all the physical tools to excel. I'm not sure, though, that he's near Cutler level yet, at least for me (and for those don't know or don't remember, I was a huge Cutler fan, preferred him to Leinart and Young - although I thought Young would've been a great Kubiak fit in Houston that year so I was okay with Young as the top pick that year (for those that remember me saying that - some poster, Coolrider or something, thought I hated on Young back then)).

Geo
01-04-2009, 10:35 AM
I think Bradford might be better served staying for another year, however I can definitely understand him declaring now:

- In an incredibly weak QB class, he has the opportunity to be a Top 20 pick (Tampa at #19), if not better than that. Say to the tune of Top 10 ... Top 5? even
- Playing another year at Oklahoma, given their dynamics in the conference, might not make him much better.
- He's going to lose three or four of his OL, Iglesias, Johnson, and in all likelihood, Gresham as well.
- He's already won the Heisman and played in a NCG.

I really like his accuracy, and if he could land in a dome, that might be perfect. If I was Detroit though, I'd go Stafford.

hockey619
01-04-2009, 11:01 AM
Rumors are suggesting Bradford is gone. I don't get it, but more and more hype is increasing that Bradford is, as of now, the top QB prospect, which I don't buy at all.

That said, I will say this about Stafford, who I thought was the top QB entering the season and is still the top QB (although not my personal favorite). A lot of folks want to make that Jay Cutler comparison for the physical reasons, but there's a different feel to them. Nothing that can really be quantified that much, but Cutler knew how to make plays, knew how to lead. Perhaps that was due to playing at a school like Vanderbilt, which forced him to step forward. I'm not sure Stafford is anywhere near as ready as Jay Cutler. Yes, Stafford has the arm. Yes, Stafford has all the physical tools to excel. I'm not sure, though, that he's near Cutler level yet, at least for me (and for those don't know or don't remember, I was a huge Cutler fan, preferred him to Leinart and Young - although I thought Young would've been a great Kubiak fit in Houston that year so I was okay with Young as the top pick that year (for those that remember me saying that - some poster, Coolrider or something, thought I hated on Young back then)).


With you 100% man. Hes got all the tools but for some reason i just get a bad vibe from him.

Babylon
01-04-2009, 12:37 PM
With you 100% man. Hes got all the tools but for some reason i just get a bad vibe from him.


He has all the tools? I think that is unproven because of the system they play in. Scouts are going to have to see if he can make all the throws.

jtcharger24
01-04-2009, 01:36 PM
do any Oklahoma fans (or anyone at all) know which way Bradford is leaning right now regarding skipping the last 2 years at Oklahoma? It will be interesting to see what kind of debates go on if he and STafford both leave, but to me Stafford clearly is a far superior PRO prospect of a QB.

From everything I've heard he was planning on staying. Apparently he and his family were wanting him to get his business degree. This was before the heisman though so I have to believe that swayed him towards leaving somewhat. If OU wins I think he will leave for sure otherwise I still think its up in the air.

AtariBigby
01-04-2009, 01:43 PM
Those guys are both overrated.

Stafford hasn't had the production that I would have hoped, that despite the opposing defenses worrying about stopping Knowshon Moreno first and foremost.

Bradford was handed the keys to a loaded, gassed up Ferarri. He couldn't have been given more toys to work with than he has. I mean good RBs, great OL, great TE, good WRs, and a bunch of defenses in the Big 12 who don't show up on Saturdays. They made about 5 QBs look like future Pro Bowlers.

I'm glad my team is not in the market for a QB sky high.

Someone said this draft reminds them of 2005 with Alex Smith. Well Aaron Rodgers should have been the #1 pick there not Alex. This draft with these 2 QBs reminds me more of the one from ? year that had David Carr go #1 and Joey Harrington go #3. There were a lot of GREAT players that went in that draft, including Albert Haynesworth, Julius Peppers, among others I can't recall. But teams in need of a "face of a franchise" like to take that golden boy arm. More times than not, it fails. And it sets a team back for 5 years.

Babylon
01-04-2009, 02:21 PM
Those guys are both overrated.

Stafford hasn't had the production that I would have hoped, that despite the opposing defenses worrying about stopping Knowshon Moreno first and foremost.

Bradford was handed the keys to a loaded, gassed up Ferarri. He couldn't have been given more toys to work with than he has. I mean good RBs, great OL, great TE, good WRs, and a bunch of defenses in the Big 12 who don't show up on Saturdays. They made about 5 QBs look like future Pro Bowlers.

I'm glad my team is not in the market for a QB sky high.

Someone said this draft reminds them of 2005 with Alex Smith. Well Aaron Rodgers should have been the #1 pick there not Alex. This draft with these 2 QBs reminds me more of the one from ? year that had David Carr go #1 and Joey Harrington go #3. There were a lot of GREAT players that went in that draft, including Albert Haynesworth, Julius Peppers, among others I can't recall. But teams in need of a "face of a franchise" like to take that golden boy arm. More times than not, it fails. And it sets a team back for 5 years.

I think the bottom line is don't force a pick at the top of the draft, however if your scouts tell you that Stafford or Bradford are the next Aikman, Elway or Eli Manning then you have to go with that. I don't think you can just throwup Carr and Alex Smith and say everyone is like them.

Halsey
01-04-2009, 02:22 PM
Those guys are both overrated.

Stafford hasn't had the production that I would have hoped, that despite the opposing defenses worrying about stopping Knowshon Moreno first and foremost.


Gotta love delusional fans who act like they have inside info on game plans. :D

And as far as Stafford's production. Let's make a comparison.

Stafford's production as a junior: 3,459 yards, 25TD's, 10 INT's,

Peyton Manning's production as a junior: 3,287 yards, 20 TD's, 12 INT's

http://www.peytonmanning18.com/collegestats.html
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=183518

Babylon
01-04-2009, 02:31 PM
Gotta love delusional fans who act like they have inside info on game plans. :D

And as far as Stafford's production. Let's make a comparison.

Stafford's production as a junior: 3,459 yards, 25TD's, 10 INT's,

Peyton Manning's production as a junior: 3,287 yards, 20 TD's, 12 INT's

http://www.peytonmanning18.com/collegestats.html
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/player/profile?playerId=183518


Yeah but his parents have money:)

Halsey
01-04-2009, 02:37 PM
Yeah but his parents have money:)

and he's chubby!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/3163658565_b57666c521_m.jpg

Babylon
01-04-2009, 02:44 PM
and he's chubby!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/3163658565_b57666c521_m.jpg


Keep going maybe he'll drop to my Seahawks.

Monomach
01-04-2009, 02:53 PM
The only thing wrong with Stafford is that he suffers from Brady Quinnitis. He's started so long that people have gotten all ******** and picked him apart, over and over and over. People have gone so far as to say things that are simply untrue...I remember that "Stafford is unconditioned and chubby" thing, too.

I think people are just so sick of having a guy be the #1 QB prospect for so long that they really want to move on to the next one. It's like a kid with a really awesome video game that he's had for a couple of months. He may not have beaten it, and it may be the best game in history, but he still wants to move on to the newer, shinier one that he knows nothing about. After all, the commercial looked *&^%ing great!

hockey619
01-04-2009, 03:07 PM
He has all the tools? I think that is unproven because of the system they play in. Scouts are going to have to see if he can make all the throws.


Was talking about Stafford having tools but a bad vibe to me. Shoulda clarified. And Halsey, laugh all you want, but when he came in to Georgia, he had some serious baby fat. Hes in better shape now but back in the day, the boy had a soft build.

Halsey
01-04-2009, 04:02 PM
Was talking about Stafford having tools but a bad vibe to me. Shoulda clarified. And Halsey, laugh all you want, but when he came in to Georgia, he had some serious baby fat. Hes in better shape now but back in the day, the boy had a soft build.

NFL teams won't be drafting Stafford in 2006. ;)

Race for the Heisman
01-04-2009, 04:58 PM
I don't have too many questions of Stafford. There's three years of tape on him and he's shown himself to be what he is, which in my eyes is a top 5 quarterback.

Bradford has a lot more questions. System, experience, surrounding talent. I'm thinking he's closer to a top 20 pick than a top 5 or 10. I think he's more athletic, bigger Chad Pennington (who went eighteenth overall himself).

georgiafan
01-04-2009, 05:34 PM
The stat heads talking about the interceptions on Stafford should go back and auctally watch the games. If they did they would see how many of the interceptions came on wrong routes, delected passes and other meanless stuff like that.

Babylon
01-04-2009, 05:42 PM
The stat heads talking about the interceptions on Stafford should go back and auctally watch the games. If they did they would see how many of the interceptions came on wrong routes, delected passes and other meanless stuff like that.

He seemed really limited in the bowl game, it looked like Green was hurting and they really shut Mass down. All he was left with were Michael Moore (who looked more like the other Michael Moore on some routes) and Chandler, who really hasnt seen much action this year.

georgiafan
01-04-2009, 06:00 PM
He seemed really limited in the bowl game, it looked like Green was hurting and they really shut Mass down. All he was left with were Michael Moore (who looked more like the other Michael Moore on some routes) and Chandler, who really hasnt seen much action this year.

Who was limited?

Thunder&Lightning
01-04-2009, 06:25 PM
I didnt think Stafford was until his bowl gm.

Babylon
01-04-2009, 06:26 PM
Who was limited?

I meant really limited in his options.