PDA

View Full Version : Sam Bradford to Turn Pro?


DI
01-07-2009, 12:19 PM
Courtesy of rotoworld.com:

Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford will reportedly enter the 2009 NFL Draft barring a knee injury in Thursday night's BCS title game against Florida.

By letting this get out, Bradford is putting even more pressure on himself heading into Thursday. Bradford (6'4/218) is only a third-year sophomore and other than Ben Roethlisberger -- a fourth-year junior early entrant -- there is no recent history of success among underclassmen quarterbacks. It's a big risk, but Bradford already won the Heisman and if he can put on a show tomorrow night he'll be the favorite to go No. 1 in April. Jan. 7 - 12:14 pm et

wonderbredd24
01-07-2009, 12:35 PM
If this is how it works out, I think it's a big mistake for Bradford.

Not only is there a possibility of him being the 3rd QB taken, what is the success rate for Sophomores in the NFL? I imagine it's practically zero.

Experience is invaluable and he wouldn't be going into the NFL with a ton of it.

BeerBaron
01-07-2009, 12:40 PM
If this is how it works out, I think it's a big mistake for Bradford.

Not only is there a possibility of him being the 3rd QB taken, what is the success rate for Sophomores in the NFL? I imagine it's practically zero.

Experience is invaluable and he wouldn't be going into the NFL with a ton of it.

I think the only ones to have ever done it are Vick and Tommy Maddox....yeah.

I also agree that its a bit of a mistake. With Stafford in for sure now, Bradford is already the 2nd QB in my mind.

Stafford has the big arm and is coming out of a more pro-style offense so he should be able to see the field a little quicker which would be nice for a team picking at the very top.

Bradford however, I feel that he will need to sit for at least a year to get the spread attack out of his head and learn to do more from under center and such. Something a team picking at the very top just can't afford to wait on imo. I could see him having a Quinn/Rodgers type of fall to middle of the first where a team like Seattle or someone like that who passed on him earlier in the round could trade back up and nab him to sit for a year.

If Sanchez enters (maybe he already has declared, i haven't heard) then Bradford could really be dropping.

Splat
01-07-2009, 12:43 PM
This sucks I really hope the Chiefs don't take him.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender
01-07-2009, 12:43 PM
WOW. Yeah I cant help but feel this is a mistake. Its pretty common knowledge that experience is numero uno when evaluating QBs. Scouts always look at number of snaps above anything..this could really hurt him. that said...

Sam Bradford will be a Chicago Bear. And he will bust.

Geo
01-07-2009, 01:04 PM
I don't think this is a bad move for Bradford.

He's better off spending '09 in the NFL than back at Oklahoma, I think. OU will be losing 3, maybe 4 depending on Trent Williams, offensive lineman to the NFL this offseason. Both senior wide-outs, and quite likely their playmaking tight end Gresham as well. He'd still have the RBs, but those are huge losses regardless.

His stock will never be higher than it is now, unless maybe Sanchez declares this year and next year is incredibly barren so by default he might get drafted higher. He might also fall next year with overanalysis, and/or a new CBA puts a new rookie salary cap structure into place.

More importantly, another year at Oklahoma, with their coaches, won't do anything. It won't compare to spending a year with pro coaches, and possibly getting a jump on '10 as a starter in that particular offense he's studying. The kid isn't physically nor mentally matured enough for the NFL yet, he can't be rushed though.

Matt Stafford might not be physically nor mentally ready either. We're talking about young juniors (or RS soph in Bradford's case). Not five-year seniors like Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, or Joe Flacco.

keylime_5
01-07-2009, 01:06 PM
There's a lot of things about Bradford that kind of turn me off to him as an elite, top 5 pick. His throwing motion is kinda weird, his arm is average compared to most other starting NFL QBs, and he plays in that shotgun spread offense that requires no dropsbacks from center and a lot of his accuracy is overblown from the short passes that Oklahoma's offense relies on. There is plenty to like about him, but I have Stafford a clearcut #1 on my QB rankings.

Geo
01-07-2009, 01:10 PM
ESPN putting Bradford at #1 is a joke, McShay is a twit.

BeerBaron
01-07-2009, 01:11 PM
ESPN putting Bradford at #1 is a joke, McShay is a twit.

Agreed. ESPN is just appealing to popularity....Heisman winner who will be in a national title game. gotta be a #1 pick right? lol

Zyro_1014
01-07-2009, 01:17 PM
ESPN putting Bradford at #1 is a joke, McShay is a twit.

im 100% with you, McShay is a frickin joke.

bitonti
01-07-2009, 01:21 PM
If this is how it works out, I think it's a big mistake for Bradford.

Not only is there a possibility of him being the 3rd QB taken, what is the success rate for Sophomores in the NFL? I imagine it's practically zero.

Experience is invaluable and he wouldn't be going into the NFL with a ton of it.

the same is true of junior QBs. the only one I can think of in the last 10 years with any success was Big Ben, and he was a RS Junior who stayed 4 years.

every draft site in the universe has Bradford and Stafford going real high... sorry but If it were my money I'd pass.

BBIB
01-07-2009, 01:21 PM
so he sits for a year. ZOMG he won't be matt ryan. neither were/are 99% of the other qbs in the nfl.

geo's dead-on, much better for him to spend a year on the bench learning an nfl offense, than to spend another year wasting time in a spread offense.

It's not a matter of not being Matt Ryan. It's just the incredible fail rate of QBs with as few starts as Bradford has

People will say, "well look at Matt Cassell he didn't start ANY years". BUt he also sat behind Brady for like 3-4 years and got to throw to Welker and Moss in that Pats system.

Dam8610
01-07-2009, 01:22 PM
Seattle seems like a perfect fit to me. Hasselbeck is getting older and spent most of this season hurt, so why not get the kid in there and have him ready to step right in in a year or 2?

CroomDawgs
01-07-2009, 01:24 PM
I wouldn't be shocked if Seattle took him. Rumors are flying that Hasselbeck may be cut, and Bradford would prolly work out well in a WCO, if Mora chooses to keep it.

CashmoneyDrew
01-07-2009, 01:24 PM
It's not a matter of not being Matt Ryan. It's just the incredible fail rate of QBs with as few starts as Bradford has

People will say, "well look at Matt Cassell he didn't start ANY years". BUt he also sat behind Brady for like 3-4 years and got to throw to Welker and Moss in that Pats system.

So Bradford will sit a year and eventually get to throw to either Calvin Johnson or Dwayne Bowe. I'm with njx here. Better for him to go now and learn an NFL style offense for a year on the bench than spend another year in the spread.

Also, Sam Bradford will have had like 28 starts in college which isn't bad at all.

BBIB
01-07-2009, 01:28 PM
the same is true of junior QBs. the only one I can think of in the last 10 years with any success was Big Ben, and he was a RS Junior who stayed 4 years.

every draft site in the universe has Bradford and Stafford going real high... sorry but If it were my money I'd pass.

Yeah check this out:

QBs with Below 35 starts

1. Kyle Boller- 31 starts 48%
2. Ryan Leaf- 24 starts 53%
3. Joey Harrington- 26 starts 55%
4. Mike Vick- 21 starts 56%
5. JP Losman- 29 starts 57%
6. Akili Smith- 11 starts 58%
7. Tim Couch- 27 starts 67%
8. Alex Smith- 22 starts 66%
9. David Carr- 26 starts 62%
10.Drew Brees- 26 starts 61%
11. Rex Grossman- 32 starts 61%
12. Vince Young- 32 starts 61%
13.Aaron Rodgers- 25 starts 64%


10 out of 13 QBs drafted between 1998-2005 with less than 30 starts are arguably BUSTS

Vick, Brees, and Rodgers are only exceptions.

CashmoneyDrew
01-07-2009, 01:30 PM
It's still too early to call VY a bust. I like that he's sitting this year and I think it will do wonders for his future.

BBIB
01-07-2009, 01:31 PM
It's still too early to call VY a bust. I like that he's sitting this year and I think it will do wonders for his future.

Of course, but still even 9 out of 13 is still a very scary number.

cc360
01-07-2009, 01:32 PM
Matt Hasselbeck is banged up with a pretty serious injury. He is not a long term option AT ALL.

"The term sciatica describes the symptoms of leg pain and possibly tingling, numbness or weakness that travels from the low back through the buttock and down the large sciatic nerve in the back of the leg."

That's Hasselbeck's injury. He'll be 34 next season and these injuries he has suffered over his career just take a toll on him. Seattle needs a long term replacement, not too mention a whole new roster, because their current roster is horse ****.

wonderbredd24
01-07-2009, 01:32 PM
It's still too early to call VY a bust. I like that he's sitting this year and I think it will do wonders for his future.

Not unless he grows up and learns how to throw

cc360
01-07-2009, 01:33 PM
Yeah check this out:

QBs with Below 35 starts

1. Kyle Boller- 31 starts 48%
2. Ryan Leaf- 24 starts 53%
3. Joey Harrington- 26 starts 55%
4. Mike Vick- 21 starts 56%
5. JP Losman- 29 starts 57%
6. Akili Smith- 11 starts 58%
7. Tim Couch- 27 starts 67%
8. Alex Smith- 22 starts 66%
9. David Carr- 26 starts 62%
10.Drew Brees- 26 starts 61%
11. Rex Grossman- 32 starts 61%
12. Vince Young- 32 starts 61%
13.Aaron Rodgers- 25 starts 64%


10 out of 13 QBs drafted between 1998-2005 with less than 30 starts are arguably BUSTS

Vick, Brees, and Rodgers are only exceptions.

Matt Cassel?

lance uppercut
01-07-2009, 01:33 PM
great news, let the OU exodus begin. Bradford, McCoy, Gresham, & Williams would make the first-day talent available even more impressive.

CashmoneyDrew
01-07-2009, 01:34 PM
Of course, but still even 9 out of 13 is still a very scary number.

The success rate for senior quarterbacks isn't probably too far from that. It's all about whether or not these guys are put in decent positions to succeed and if they are willing to succeed. Those are probably the two biggest factors into whether or not a qb can succeed at the nfl level IMO.

CroomDawgs
01-07-2009, 01:35 PM
Matt Hasselbeck is banged up with a pretty serious injury. He is not a long term option AT ALL.

"The term sciatica describes the symptoms of leg pain and possibly tingling, numbness or weakness that travels from the low back through the buttock and down the large sciatic nerve in the back of the leg."

That's Hasselbeck's injury. He'll be 34 next season and these injuries he has suffered over his career just take a toll on him. Seattle needs a long term replacement, not too mention a whole new roster, because their current roster is horse ****.

Seattle really lacks a star on offense. Hasselbecks injury is pretty bad and he's not likely to be the same ever again. If you looked at Seattle during their superbowl run though could have foreseen this coming. Their stars on offense were all old (Jones, Hasselbeck, ALexander, Engram) and it was bound to come crashing down. Defensively they have some good players though.

OneToughGame
01-07-2009, 01:38 PM
I wouldn't be shocked if Seattle took him. Rumors are flying that Hasselbeck may be cut, and Bradford would prolly work out well in a WCO, if Mora chooses to keep it.

That's just a rumor. Mora's only bringing in new coordinators and assistants he isn't getting rid of Hasselbeck. Why would he cut the veteren leader of the offense after a 4 - 11 season especially if the team planned on drafting a QB with the first pick. Sure it would hurt the cap but it would help the team in the future to keep Hasselbeck for at least another 2 seasons to help the young QB learn, if they are to go in that direction. Besides, who knows what KC's new GM will be thinking of doing come draft time anyway. I still hate Mora though. Never liked the idea of him as our HC but it looks like I'll have to get used to it for at least a couple seasons.

Bigburt63
01-07-2009, 01:40 PM
Matt Cassel?

is the exception not the rule



nevermind the fact that he sat for 3 years, learning the same system...don't get me wrong, I really like cassell, he can make all of the throws and can make plays happen, but his situation was very unique

BBIB
01-07-2009, 01:41 PM
The success rate for senior quarterbacks isn't probably too far from that. It's all about whether or not these guys are put in decent positions to succeed and if they are willing to succeed. Those are probably the two biggest factors into whether or not a qb can succeed at the nfl level IMO.

Actually from 1998-2005

QBs with 57% completion percentage and 35+ starts

Jay Cutler- 43 starts 57%
Carson Palmer- 45 starts 59%
Brady Quinn- 46 starts 58%
Ben Roethlisberger 38 starts 65%
Byron Leftwich 36 starts 65%
Matt Leinart 39 starts 65%
Philip Rivers 49 starts 64%
Daunte Culpepper 43 starts 64%
Donovan McNabb 45 starts 63%
Peyton Manning 45 starts 63%
Eli Manning 37 starts 61%
Chad Pennington 35 starts 63%

1 out of 12 busts (Leinart)
1.5 out of 12 dissapointments (Culpepper and Leftwich)


-

So let's see 1 out of 12 busts vs 9 out of 13. IOW, it's pretty much the complete opposite.

CroomDawgs
01-07-2009, 01:43 PM
That's just a rumor. Mora's only bringing in new coordinators and assistants he isn't getting rid of Hasselbeck. Why would he cut the veteren leader of the offense after a 4 - 11 season especially if the team planned on drafting a QB with the first pick. Sure it would hurt the cap but it would help the team in the future to keep Hasselbeck for at least another 2 seasons to help the young QB learn, if they are to go in that direction. Besides, who knows what KC's new GM will be thinking of doing come draft time anyway. I still hate Mora though. Never liked the idea of him as our HC but it looks like I'll have to get used to it for at least a couple seasons.

I don't think Hass will be cut either its really a FWIW scenario but his injury is bad so I think Bradford coming out would be a serious possibility for you. Thats is of course unless you want Seneca Wallace to take over as full time starter :D.

I never understood making mora HC in waiting at the beginning of this year. He wasn't special in Atlanta and he took a secondary last year that allowed the fewest passing TDs to one of the worst in the NFL.

Babylon
01-07-2009, 01:45 PM
Seattle really lacks a star on offense. Hasselbecks injury is pretty bad and he's not likely to be the same ever again. If you looked at Seattle during their superbowl run though could have foreseen this coming. Their stars on offense were all old (Jones, Hasselbeck, ALexander, Engram) and it was bound to come crashing down. Defensively they have some good players though.


I think Bradford coming from that system at OU is too much of a risk for Seattle. I would rather they target Stafford and Sanchez if they want to pull the trigger on a QB.

Bradford better have a great game against Florida or he might drop a ways on draft day. He might be a good fit for a playoff caliber team like a Minnesota or Tampa.

wicket
01-07-2009, 01:47 PM
I think he is worried about his line and targets leaving but as a scout I'd be really interested how he performed under a bunch more pressure. The total lack of pass protection actually helped me like stafford a bit more. Might be a weird way of putting it but you get my point.

SenorGato
01-07-2009, 01:54 PM
I don't think this is a bad move for Bradford.

He's better off spending '09 in the NFL than back at Oklahoma, I think. OU will be losing 3, maybe 4 depending on Trent Williams, offensive lineman to the NFL this offseason. Both senior wide-outs, and quite likely their playmaking tight end Gresham as well. He'd still have the RBs, but those are huge losses regardless.

His stock will never be higher than it is now, unless maybe Sanchez declares this year and next year is incredibly barren so by default he might get drafted higher. He might also fall next year with overanalysis, and/or a new CBA puts a new rookie salary cap structure into place.

More importantly, another year at Oklahoma, with their coaches, won't do anything. It won't compare to spending a year with pro coaches, and possibly getting a jump on '10 as a starter in that particular offense he's studying. The kid isn't physically nor mentally matured enough for the NFL yet, he can't be rushed though.

Matt Stafford might not be physically nor mentally ready either. We're talking about young juniors (or RS soph in Bradford's case). Not five-year seniors like Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, or Joe Flacco.

Exactly.

Seems the new thing in the NFL is internal development anyway. He's a great prospect to develop IMO, you just can't expect him to be a starter from Day 1.

With his resume and his physical tools he'll be worth a first round pick or a high second...it's just a matter of a team being smart enough to develop him.

Babylon
01-07-2009, 01:54 PM
I think he is worried about his line and targets leaving but as a scout I'd be really interested how he performed under a bunch more pressure. The total lack of pass protection actually helped me like stafford a bit more. Might be a weird way of putting it but you get my point.


No doubt, Stafford was under pressure all season with that O-line he had, plays in a pro style offense and has a much better arm than Bradford. The one game that Sam saw some legit pressure (Texas) i think he showed some negatives. That whole OU system is pretty much a run and shoot and guys like Andre Ware and David Klingler were crucified for it, maybe rightly so.

OneToughGame
01-07-2009, 01:59 PM
I don't think Hass will be cut either its really a FWIW scenario but his injury is bad so I think Bradford coming out would be a serious possibility for you. Thats is of course unless you want Seneca Wallace to take over as full time starter :D.

I never understood making mora HC in waiting at the beginning of this year. He wasn't special in Atlanta and he took a secondary last year that allowed the fewest passing TDs to one of the worst in the NFL.

Mora helped the secondary a lot in 07. It was just the Seahawks defense had a lot more playing time this season because of the offense. Matts injury isn't as bad as people think, He didn't play much at the end of the season because there was no point lol. Why not let him heal and rest him for next season ya know? Wallace isn't a bad BACK UP lol :P

cc360
01-07-2009, 02:06 PM
The Seahawks defense sucked because they couldn't cover anyone. Brian Russell is terrible and Jennings/Wilson get beat up on too easily. Ad without Kerney, the Seahawks DE's are Tapp, Atkins and Jackson. Not good.

Lofa also played about 80% of what he really is this season. Wasn't a great year for him.

Seahawks need some new faces on D.

Babylon
01-07-2009, 02:09 PM
The Seahawks defense sucked because they couldn't cover anyone. Brian Russell is terrible and Jennings/Wilson get beat up on too easily. Ad without Kerney, the Seahawks DE's are Tapp, Atkins and Jackson. Not good.

Lofa also played about 80% of what he really is this season. Wasn't a great year for him.

Seahawks need some new faces on D.

If they want to swallow some money Taylor Mays probably does wonders for that secondary, smart money probably would be on Malcolm Jenkins.

cc360
01-07-2009, 02:10 PM
sure. and i think in the vast majority of cases, this would be a big deal. and i think if the, say, lions, took bradford expecting him to be the savior from day one, he would most likely fail. on the other hand, if he's picked by a team who can wait a year (or, in the case of rodgers, more than a year), i think it's vastly better for him as a player to get the experience of playing in an NFL offense, and to get the nfl coaching.

Letting Bradford sit behind Hasselbeck a year or two would be a good situation for Bradford imo. Sit and learn the playbook, and learn it from a QB that was pretty good in this league. Hasselbeck has said before that he wouldn't mind being a coach after his playing days I believe. I think Hass could help Bradford a lot.

narf029
01-07-2009, 02:33 PM
Wouldn't the ideal situation for Bradford be the Lions? They have Culpepper under contract for another year, and they could just bury Bradford on the depth chart. They have another first round pick which could presumably be used on a franchise left tackle, he'd break into the league throwing to the most talented receiver in the NFL. I personally believe Stafford is the #1 pick, but if the Lions go with Andre Smith, then pick up Bradford with their next first rounder, or even trade up to 9 or so to get him, wouldn't that work out better for him than going to Seattle and potentially having to play early in his career if Hasselbeck breaks again?

AtariBigby
01-07-2009, 02:49 PM
im 100% with you, McShay is a frickin joke.
McShay had Fili Moaola as a top-5 pick at one point in 2008.

giantsfan
01-07-2009, 02:54 PM
WOW. Yeah I cant help but feel this is a mistake. Its pretty common knowledge that experience is numero uno when evaluating QBs. Scouts always look at number of snaps above anything..this could really hurt him. that said...

Sam Bradford will be a Chicago Bear. And he will bust.

I actually think chicago would be a good spot for him, sit behind Orton for a little as he adjusts to working under center and then come into a team that's building a good oline, not there yet btu they're working on it, with a very good running back and some talented receivers.

Menardo75
01-07-2009, 02:54 PM
This is the right move. He really had nothing to gain from another year, and his stock will never be this high again.

Babylon
01-07-2009, 03:17 PM
McShay had Fili Moaola as a top-5 pick at one point in 2008.


Top pick overall as a matter of fact. Some of these guys change their rankings quite a bit though.

HeavyLeggedWaistBender
01-07-2009, 04:02 PM
Yeah, a lot of people had Moala going number 1...

BBIB
01-07-2009, 04:09 PM
This is the right move. He really had nothing to gain from another year, and his stock will never be this high again.

His stock would be just as high next year and he could gain more experience which could help his success rate.



sure. and i think in the vast majority of cases, this would be a big deal. and i think if the, say, lions, took bradford expecting him to be the savior from day one, he would most likely fail. on the other hand, if he's picked by a team who can wait a year (or, in the case of rodgers, more than a year), i think it's vastly better for him as a player to get the experience of playing in an NFL offense, and to get the nfl coaching.

Yeah I guess the closest situation to something like that would be the Seahawks behind Hasselbeck. But he's not guaranteed to end up in a situation like that.

If he's asked to take snaps in his first couple of years with that little experience, I don't like his chances

Race for the Heisman
01-07-2009, 04:19 PM
I actually think chicago would be a good spot for him, sit behind Orton for a little as he adjusts to working under center and then come into a team that's building a good oline, not there yet btu they're working on it, with a very good running back and some talented receivers.

I don't really want Bradford with our first pick, but I actually agree with this. Orton would start and Lovie is stubborn enough that he can just say "Orton is our quarterback," and Bradford wouldn't see the field. The problem is how well Bradford can be self-taught, because I just don't have much confidence in our offensive coaching staff.

Malaka
01-07-2009, 04:28 PM
Well if this is true, somewhere in California Mark Sanchez is smiling...

With Bradford going in the 2009 draft, that means Mark Sanchez will most definitely stay for his senior season and will be a top 5 pick next year in 2010. I really like Sanchez, and I already like him more than Bradford and Stafford, but this just makes him a lock as the first QB taken next year.

I think Bradford is being stupid here, I really think he should go back at least for another year. Experience is very important for QBs in the NFL, and he does not have much. I also do not understand this at all especially right after Stafford declared he is right now the 2nd best QB in the draft why come out now when next year he can challenge Sanchez to be the first QB drafted, maybe Sanchez would have came out if Bradford stayed... who knows... but I think he should have stayed, w/e Bradford is a great guy, and an excellent QB I wish him the best of luck.

Menardo75
01-07-2009, 04:29 PM
His stock would be just as high next year and he could gain more experience which could help his success rate.

Doubt it he wouldn't have as good a year statistically next year has he did this year. So no matter what it wouldn,t look like he improved.

Babylon
01-07-2009, 04:37 PM
Well if this is true, somewhere in California Mark Sanchez is smiling...

With Bradford going in the 2009 draft, that means Mark Sanchez will most definitely stay for his senior season and will be a top 5 pick next year in 2010. I really like Sanchez, and I already like him more than Bradford and Stafford, but this just makes him a lock as the first QB taken next year.

I think Bradford is being stupid here, I really think he should go back at least for another year. Experience is very important for QBs in the NFL, and he does not have much. I also do not understand this at all especially right after Stafford declared he is right now the 2nd best QB in the draft why come out now when next year he can challenge Sanchez to be the first QB drafted, maybe Sanchez would have came out if Bradford stayed... who knows... but I think he should have stayed, w/e Bradford is a great guy, and an excellent QB I wish him the best of luck.


I dont know if this move on Bradford's part changes Sanchez's approach. I'm not sure that either can say for sure that coming back for another season helps or hurts their stock. Injury concerns would scare me. In the end i think they both come out.

Malaka
01-07-2009, 04:46 PM
I dont know if this move on Bradford's part changes Sanchez's approach. I'm not sure that either can say for sure that coming back for another season helps or hurts their stock. Injury concerns would scare me. In the end i think they both come out.

If Sanchez stays and Bradford does come out, Sanchez is easily the best QB in the next draft, he is far and away the best IMO, who else are some QBs who could challenge him next year, I cannot think of any can you? I am curious...

Menardo75
01-07-2009, 04:47 PM
If Sanchez stays and Bradford does come out, Sanchez is easily the best QB in the next draft, he is far and away the best IMO, who else are some QBs who could challenge him next year, I cannot think of any can you? I am curious...

Tony Pike obviously.

Malaka
01-07-2009, 04:51 PM
Tony Pike obviously.

My sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

Babylon
01-07-2009, 04:53 PM
If Sanchez stays and Bradford does come out, Sanchez is easily the best QB in the next draft, he is far and away the best IMO, who else are some QBs who could challenge him next year, I cannot think of any can you? I am curious...

Jevan Snead at Ole Miss and Colt McCoy would be the only two i could imagine and Sanchez would be rated higher than them. He could probably go as high as 3 to KC this year so from that standpoint you dont gain much by coming back. I think another thing that might weigh on his mind is the struggle he had with that dislocated knee which sort of was with him for the whole season.

OneToughGame
01-07-2009, 04:53 PM
If Sanchez stays and Bradford does come out, Sanchez is easily the best QB in the next draft, he is far and away the best IMO, who else are some QBs who could challenge him next year, I cannot think of any can you? I am curious...

Jake Locker




J/K! Even though I think he'll do well with Sarkisian.

Malaka
01-07-2009, 04:56 PM
Jevan Snead at Ole Miss and Colt McCoy would be the only two i could imagine and Sanchez would be rated higher than them. He could probably go as high as 3 to KC this year so from that standpoint you dont gain much by coming back. I think another thing that might weigh on his mind is the struggle he had with that dislocated knee which sort of was with him for the whole season.

I do not like Colt McCoy at all as a prospect, I think he will be a third or late 2nd rounder next year.

Jevan Snead is interesting however a good year from him could raise his stock a lot, but I still think Sanchez would be a lot higher in the end.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-07-2009, 05:22 PM
I think making generalization about how early players come out doesn't say much. If Bradford fails, it won't be because he's a third year sophomore.

I wanted him to go back to school because I wanted to see how he'd produce with less of an offensive line and less widespread top notch weapons. It would have been much easier to scout him for the NFL. Right now we have a guy who might as well have been playing 7-on-7 football really well. It'll be interesting to see how NFL scouts feel about the kid, because I really don't know what to make of him.

summond822
01-07-2009, 05:22 PM
Ultimately this is about making as much money as possible. Bradford has probably received an evaluation saying he is going to be a top 10 pick. I think that there are legitamate questions about Bradford, and if Sanchez for some ungodly reason comes out then I see Bradford's stock plummeting. Two quarterbacks with experience in a pro-style offense in Stafford and Sanchez would definately make his stock plummet.

That said, it would probably be best case scenario for the lions, because then they could take Andre Smith 1st and plan on one of the three to fall to them.

As for Bradford to Seattle...that just makes me sick. I agree that Seattle needs to draft their QB of the future, but don't spend that pick on a first rounder this year. Bradford has little experience in high pressure situations that actually challenge him, or rely on him to make a game-winning play. Now if he had stayed at school another year and showed that he could be the corner stone of that offense, without a ton of experienced talent around him, then we could honestly see what type of player he is. If Sanchez declares, I'll gladly take him. If not, then either Hasslebeck bounces back and we forget we ever had this "who is his replacement" conversation for a year or two, or he goes down again and next year they take Sanchez.

I think Bradford is smarter than we give him credit for. This is a career move that prevents scouts from truly getting a good read on him and perhaps causing his stock to plummet. Ultimately, this is the wisest decision for Bradford (unless Sanchez declares) before his flaws are truly exposed to pro scouts.

Babylon
01-07-2009, 05:28 PM
I think making generalization about how early players come out doesn't say much. If Bradford fails, it won't be because he's a third year sophomore.

I wanted him to go back to school because I wanted to see how he'd produce with less of an offensive line and less widespread top notch weapons. It would have been much easier to scout him for the NFL. Right now we have a guy who might as well have been playing 7-on-7 football really well. It'll be interesting to see how NFL scouts feel about the kid, because I really don't know what to make of him.

He'll have to get to the combine or have private workouts where scouts can breakdown his ability to make all the throws. If it get's to be a beauty contest next to Stafford and Sanchez i think he probably loses that battle. My prediciton right now would be Bradford ends up with a Detroit (pick 20), Tampa or Minnesota.

RaiderNation
01-07-2009, 05:29 PM
He will be my number 1 QB unless Sanchez declares. I think Bradford should return to college though, but its hard to pass up all the money he can get

Paranoidmoonduck
01-07-2009, 05:31 PM
He'll have to get to the combine or have private workouts where scouts can breakdown his ability to make all the throws. If it get's to be a beauty contest next to Stafford and Sanchez i think he probably loses that battle. My prediciton right now would be Bradford ends up with a Detroit (pick 20), Tampa or Minnesota.

I'm not really talking about the throwing contests that are Pro Days. All that says is how great he'll look in practice, not how he'll do on Sundays. I think Bradford has a good enough arm to do decently there.

I'm more talking about how scouts fall once they start looking over every snap he took this year and what they can pick out about his ability to function in a more professional-style offense.

summond822
01-07-2009, 05:34 PM
I'm not really talking about the throwing contests that are Pro Days. All that says is how great he'll look in practice, not how he'll do on Sundays. I think Bradford has a good enough arm to do decently there.

I'm more talking about how scouts fall once they start looking over every snap he took this year and what they can pick out about his ability to function in a more professional-style offense.

I think he was talking about teams setting up private workouts to check out his footwork and his acurracy throwing to receivers running professional routes, not spread/run-and-gun routes.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-07-2009, 05:39 PM
I think he was talking about teams setting up private workouts to check out his footwork and his acurracy throwing to receivers running professional routes, not spread/run-and-gun routes.

And I'm talking about having to view the whole field and deal with defensive pressure, which is something Bradford was rarely asked to do for the Sooners.

eazyb81
01-07-2009, 05:43 PM
So Bradford will sit a year and eventually get to throw to either Calvin Johnson or Dwayne Bowe. I'm with njx here. Better for him to go now and learn an NFL style offense for a year on the bench than spend another year in the spread.

Also, Sam Bradford will have had like 28 starts in college which isn't bad at all.

Exactly, this is what I've said all along. People keep saying Bradford needs a few years to sit and is so unexperienced, but he'll have 28 starts - more than Flacco had and just a few less than Ryan.

The questions about the system he plays in won't go away by staying another year, so I think it's a good decision for him to go.

LonghornsLegend
01-07-2009, 05:44 PM
I'm very interested to see what Sanchez does now, should he wait until next year to be the #1 QB or go with the momentum that he has built for himself now.


If Sanchez declares Bradford could be sitting around after the teens.

jnew76
01-07-2009, 06:12 PM
I am a little sad to say that I completely agree with Todd McShay on this. I have a complete Man-Crush on Bradford. I have not seen a guy at the college level disect defenses like Bradford since Peyton Manning. I have never seen the icy-cool demeanor in the pocket that Bradford has. Very similar to Tom Brady in the pocket in terms of demeanor. He has unparralled accuracy in the short to medium range passing game. Best I have seen in years.

Does he have things to work on? Of course. He needs to feel backside pressure better. He will need a lot of work on his footwork and drops.

I seriously dispute the arm strength as a negative. Looking at the difference in his arm-strength from his Freshman to RS-Soph year you can see that as his body fills out, he is greatly improving his arm.

Should he stay? I am split 50/50... Do I see him starting as a 21 year old rookie? Probably not until week 6-7 at earliest.

Is he the #1 prospect in this draft. ABSOLUTELY... IMO

Geo
01-07-2009, 06:14 PM
Of the three big school guys (Stafford/Bradford/Sanchez), to me Sanchez is by far the one who needs to stay another year. Nevermind as a prospect, he needs another year to develop as a collegiate player, and he can do that with the talent remaining at Southern Cal.

Crimson79
01-07-2009, 06:18 PM
Do you guys think the day before the biggest game of the year that Bradford will have let it slip that he is declaring?

I think someone is throwing sh!t against a wall and hoping it sticks.

Babylon
01-07-2009, 06:19 PM
I am a little sad to say that I completely agree with Todd McShay on this. I have a complete Man-Crush on Bradford. I have not seen a guy at the college level disect defenses like Bradford since Peyton Manning. I have never seen the icy-cool demeanor in the pocket that Bradford has. Very similar to Tom Brady in the pocket in terms of demeanor. He has unparralled accuracy in the short to medium range passing game. Best I have seen in years.

Does he have things to work on? Of course. He needs to feel backside pressure better. He will need a lot of work on his footwork and drops.

I seriously dispute the arm strength as a negative. Looking at the difference in his arm-strength from his Freshman to RS-Soph year you can see that as his body fills out, he is greatly improving his arm.

Should he have stayed? I am split 50/50... Do I see him starting as a 21 year old rookie? Probably not until week 6-7 at earliest.

Is he the #1 prospect in this draft. ABSOLUTELY... IMO

As a Seattle fan i'm pulling for McShay to be right also. I think the differance is a WCO guy in Bradford to a more verticle Aikman type in Stafford. I can live with either guy for Seattle if they go that direction but have to admit i'm buying a jersey if it's Stafford.

SuperKevin
01-07-2009, 06:21 PM
I think if he declares then the Sam Bradford look alike Rusty Smith from Florida Atlantic willemerge as one of the most attractive QBs in 2010.

Race for the Heisman
01-07-2009, 06:41 PM
Colin Kaepernick has the size, arm, and athleticism to get Andre Woodson hype going into next year. Don't forget Nate Davis. Rusty Smith got his shout out. I really like Thaddeus Lewis from Duke. Juice Williams, if he puts it all together, could have a late JaMarcus Russell-like rise. I'm also a fan of Riley Skinner. Clausen is eligible, too. ;)

Scott Wright
01-07-2009, 08:26 PM
Bradford isn't ready yet but it's probably gotten to the point where he has to come out. The money is just too good. Worst-case scenario we're talkings tens of millions.

Not to mention he is losing 80% of his offensive line (100% if Williams bolts), his top two receivers, his tight end...

Babylon
01-07-2009, 08:34 PM
Bradford isn't ready yet but it's probably gotten to the point where he has to come out. The money is just too good. Worst-case scenario we're talkings tens of millions.

Not to mention he is losing 80% of his offensive line (100% if Williams bolts), his top two receivers, his tight end...

Doesnt he know we want to see how he does with a crappy offensive line?

SuperKevin
01-07-2009, 09:07 PM
Doesnt he know we want to see how he does with a crappy offensive line?

Odds are we'll get that opportunity when he goes to Detroit or Kansas City

Zyro_1014
01-07-2009, 09:13 PM
Doesnt he know we want to see how he does with a crappy offensive line?

i dont think he wants to know how well he does.

illmatic74
01-07-2009, 09:14 PM
Colin Kaepernick has the size, arm, and athleticism to get Andre Woodson hype going into next year. Don't forget Nate Davis. Rusty Smith got his shout out. I really like Thaddeus Lewis from Duke. Juice Williams, if he puts it all together, could have a late JaMarcus Russell-like rise. I'm also a fan of Riley Skinner. Clausen is eligible, too. ;)Juice Williams is a Tavarris Jackson clone. Riley Skinner is a poor man's Colt Mccoy. Rusty Smith slow release scares me. I don't like this upcoming class that much except maybe Sanchez.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
01-07-2009, 09:18 PM
Yeah check this out:

QBs with Below 35 starts

1. Kyle Boller- 31 starts 48%
2. Ryan Leaf- 24 starts 53%
3. Joey Harrington- 26 starts 55%
4. Mike Vick- 21 starts 56%
5. JP Losman- 29 starts 57%
6. Akili Smith- 11 starts 58%
7. Tim Couch- 27 starts 67%
8. Alex Smith- 22 starts 66%
9. David Carr- 26 starts 62%
10.Drew Brees- 26 starts 61%
11. Rex Grossman- 32 starts 61%
12. Vince Young- 32 starts 61%
13.Aaron Rodgers- 25 starts 64%


10 out of 13 QBs drafted between 1998-2005 with less than 30 starts are arguably BUSTS

Vick, Brees, and Rodgers are only exceptions.

And how many of those QB's were rushed into action? I can't remember Vick, but Brees and Rodgers didn't start their rookie years. They learned an NFL offense and were ready before being put out there. All the other guys were just thrown to the wolves unready. That's the reason for the busts, which also entails leaving early because if they stayed more years than they may be more pro-ready.

Buttered toast sonic
01-07-2009, 09:22 PM
Exactly.

Seems the new thing in the NFL is internal development anyway. He's a great prospect to develop IMO, you just can't expect him to be a starter from Day 1.

With his resume and his physical tools he'll be worth a first round pick or a high second...it's just a matter of a team being smart enough to develop him.

well gato, if all that is true, then whats the real difference between Bradford and Tebow? both spread QB's, both with their fair share of problems, yet Bradford is killing Tebow in rankings around the country

P-L
01-07-2009, 09:31 PM
35 starts is just an arbitrary line that someone drew because their argument fit around it. You mean to tell me that if Rex Grossman and Vince Young started 3 more games in college they'd have a much better chance at success in the pros? Nothing magical happens at 35 starts. Of course guys with with 11 or 22 are going to struggle more than someone with 35 or 39. But there isn't a magical line. Bradford has 28 starts so, let's draw the line at 28. Only 5 of 16 players with 28 or more starts have been busts. That's a 69% success rate.

illmatic74
01-07-2009, 09:36 PM
well gato, if all that is true, then whats the real difference between Bradford and Tebow? both spread QB's, both with their fair share of problems, yet Bradford is killing Tebow in rankings around the countryBecause Olahoma throws a lot more NFL Style interediate routes. Also Bradford has a lot more play action experience. Also because Bradford is a better passer in every facet.

Mouse
01-07-2009, 09:48 PM
Because Olahoma throws a lot more NFL Style interediate routes. Also Bradford has a lot more play action experience. Also because Bradford is a better passer in every facet.

but how well can he perform a circumcision :)

Staubach12
01-07-2009, 11:37 PM
I wish he would have stayed for his Junior year, at the least.

toonsterwu
01-08-2009, 02:27 AM
I honestly, honestly don't get the huge love surrounding Bradford. I like him, but I think he needs time. That said, he's almost a lock to go in the first round, and there are increasing suggestions that he could be the top QB of the board.

To be real honest, I don't love any of the top options (Stafford/Bradford/Sanchez if he comes out) at QB. Stafford's still my top QB, but my intrigue with him as died down a bit in the past year.

Menardo75
01-08-2009, 02:32 AM
Nate Davis or Mark Sanchez will be the top Qb next year.

CashmoneyDrew
01-08-2009, 02:35 AM
Nate Davis or Mark Sanchez will be the top Qb next year.

Nate Davis looked straight up terrible against Tulsa from what I saw of his stat line.

Menardo75
01-08-2009, 02:41 AM
Nate Davis looked straight up terrible against Tulsa from what I saw of his stat line.

That much is true he played very poor down the stretch this year.

Scott Wright
01-08-2009, 02:43 AM
Nate Davis is overrated and it showed in the GMAC Bowl.

Doesn't have great height, lazy with the ball and he has a learning disability that will make it difficult for him to master a playbook. I'm not saying he can't do it, but it will take him a while.

I think he is a fringe Day One pick, whether it be this year or next.

Menardo75
01-08-2009, 02:44 AM
I agree with what someone else said about Jevan Sneed possibly making a splash next year.

Shiver
01-08-2009, 05:20 AM
I feel sorry for the team that drafts him. There is a strong statistical correlation between starting experience in college and NFL success; Juniors are risky enough, Sophomores are even more so. And I haven't even delved into 'system' issues. I would avoid him like the plague.

SuperKevin
01-08-2009, 07:53 AM
Why do people assume just because Bradford is a sophomore that he doesn't have enough starting experience. He started from Day 1 asa RS Freshman. That's 2 full years as a starter. I wonder if people would still make the argument if he was a Senior who didn't start until his Junior year.

ThEvIcTR
01-08-2009, 11:20 AM
Bradford to Calvin Johnson all day.

illmatic74
01-08-2009, 11:26 AM
And how many of those QB's were rushed into action? I can't remember Vick, but Brees and Rodgers didn't start their rookie years. They learned an NFL offense and were ready before being put out there. All the other guys were just thrown to the wolves unready. That's the reason for the busts, which also entails leaving early because if they stayed more years than they may be more pro-ready.The reason why it seems like players with a not a lot of starting experiencefail at a higher rate is the more film they get on players the better idea scouts and GMS have on them.The less film on them the less chinks in the armour they see.

P-L
01-08-2009, 11:35 AM
Bradford will actually have the same or more starts then Mark Sanchez will have after next season. Let's see if Sanchez's experience is questioned come this time next year.

illmatic74
01-08-2009, 11:43 AM
I agree with what someone else said about Jevan Sneed possibly making a splash next year.If Bradford comes out and Sanchez stays Snead would definitely be the #2 QB prospect.

illmatic74
01-08-2009, 11:46 AM
of course it won't be. for the same reason no one cared about leinart's (26).Matt Leinart had 39 career starts. I still agree with your Sanchez point though.

Brent
01-08-2009, 12:00 PM
I agree with what someone else said about Jevan Sneed possibly making a splash next year.
On one of the Colt McCoy threads a while back, me and MetSox were talking about how Snead has so much talent. He looked great in the Cotton Bowl.

619
01-08-2009, 12:14 PM
On one of the Colt McCoy threads a while back, me and MetSox were talking about how Snead has so much talent. He looked great in the Cotton Bowl.

He's caught my eye a few times this season as well. That whole team Ole Miss team is a joy to watch with all their first round talent, not to mention the Wild Rebel!

Iamcanadian
01-08-2009, 12:52 PM
I think the only ones to have ever done it are Vick and Tommy Maddox....yeah.

I also agree that its a bit of a mistake. With Stafford in for sure now, Bradford is already the 2nd QB in my mind.

Stafford has the big arm and is coming out of a more pro-style offense so he should be able to see the field a little quicker which would be nice for a team picking at the very top.

Bradford however, I feel that he will need to sit for at least a year to get the spread attack out of his head and learn to do more from under center and such. Something a team picking at the very top just can't afford to wait on imo. I could see him having a Quinn/Rodgers type of fall to middle of the first where a team like Seattle or someone like that who passed on him earlier in the round could trade back up and nab him to sit for a year.

If Sanchez enters (maybe he already has declared, i haven't heard) then Bradford could really be dropping.

I see no way Stafford or Bradford see the field next year. They will have to sit for a year. It is hard enough for a senior QB to adjust to the NFL quickly, a junior QB would have no chance. If Sanchez also declares he too will have to sit a year.
However if this is the new trend in the NFL draft where the top QB's all declare, a losing team had better jump in because next year could be a miserable year for QB and if your team isn't prepared to take the risk, you might as well get a jersey that says 'last place forever' because that will be your future until your team finally takes the plunge.

SuperKevin
01-08-2009, 12:54 PM
I see no way Stafford or Bradford see the field next year. They will have to sit for a year. It is hard enough for a senior QB to adjust to the NFL quickly, a junior QB would have no chance. If Sanchez also declares he too will have to sit a year.
However if this is the new trend in the NFL draft where the top QB's all declare, a losing team had better jump in because next year could be a miserable year for QB and if your team isn't prepared to take the risk, you might as well get a jersey that says 'last place forever' because that will be your future until your team finally takes the plunge.

Ben Roethlisberger begs to differ

Babylon
01-08-2009, 12:54 PM
Why do people assume just because Bradford is a sophomore that he doesn't have enough starting experience. He started from Day 1 asa RS Freshman. That's 2 full years as a starter. I wonder if people would still make the argument if he was a Senior who didn't start until his Junior year.

I don't think scouts are as concerned with Bradford's experience as they are with him playing in a run and shoot offense.

SuperKevin
01-08-2009, 12:56 PM
I don't think scouts are as concerned with Bradford's experience as they are with him playing in a run and shoot offense.

And I agree. It was more of commenting about how people here are questioning his experience

illmatic74
01-08-2009, 12:59 PM
I see no way Stafford or Bradford see the field next year. They will have to sit for a year. It is hard enough for a senior QB to adjust to the NFL quickly, a junior QB would have no chance. If Sanchez also declares he too will have to sit a year.
However if this is the new trend in the NFL draft where the top QB's all declare, a losing team had better jump in because next year could be a miserable year for QB and if your team isn't prepared to take the risk, you might as well get a jersey that says 'last place forever' because that will be your future until your team finally takes the plunge.You never know if they end up on bad teams and they lose earlythey will get their chance or through injuries like Flacco.

the decider13
01-08-2009, 01:01 PM
of course not, because it's a lazy, thoughtless argument that they only think they can get away with because of the word 'sophomore'.

I've been wondering about that. I almost want to ask people if they think it is his first year starting. He will have around 28 starts, which is a good amount.

From the way people talk about "experience" you would think he is a first year starter. People would never rank a first year starter ahead of a two year starter because of a lack of "experience". OH WAIT...everyone is on the Mark Sanchez bandwagon, and totally ignoring his one year of starting.

CashmoneyDrew
01-08-2009, 01:03 PM
From the way people talk about "experience" you would think he is a first year starter. People would never rank a first year starter ahead of a two year starter because of a lack of "experience". OH WAIT...everyone is on the Mark Sanchez bandwagon, and totally ignoring his one year of starting.

But Sanchez is a RS Junior, therefore he has more experience sitting the bench and thus, more experience overall!!!

/sarcasm.

illmatic74
01-08-2009, 01:07 PM
I don't think scouts are as concerned with Bradford's experience as they are with him playing in a run and shoot offense.He plays in a shotgun spread. He also doesn't play in a shotgun spread. Okahoma runs enough intermediate routes and play action for scouts to get a good read on him. He will have same concerns that Flacco had last year.

Babylon
01-08-2009, 01:32 PM
He plays in a shotgun spread. He also doesn't play in a shotgun spread. Okahoma runs enough intermediate routes and play action for scouts to get a good read on him. He will have same concerns that Flacco had last year.


I agree, but Flacco answered all those concerns with his arm strength, that is to be determined with Bradford.

P-L
01-08-2009, 01:35 PM
Ben Roethlisberger begs to differ
Roethlisberger is definitely the exception to the rule. He fell into the perfect situation with enough talent around him to succeed. I really doubt that 2004 Ben Roethlisberger would have very much success on the 2009 Lion or Cheifs.

Rush23Hester
01-08-2009, 01:52 PM
I saw this coming from a mile away

SuperKevin
01-08-2009, 01:56 PM
I saw this coming from a mile away

Wow. That's some eyesight

Quagmire
01-08-2009, 02:54 PM
Its probably a good move for him because he should get set up for the rest of his life cash-wise. But, I think whoever drafts him is making a big mistake. This guy is a system guy w/o the big arm. Much rather have Stafford or Sanchez........

CashmoneyDrew
01-08-2009, 02:58 PM
Its probably a good move for him because he should get set up for the rest of his life cash-wise. But, I think whoever drafts him is making a big mistake. This guy is a system guy w/o the big arm. Much rather have Stafford or Sanchez........

Bradford may not have a rocket attached to his shoulder like Stafford, but his arm strength is more than enough for him to make all of the throws.

Babylon
01-08-2009, 03:03 PM
Bradford may not have a rocket attached to his shoulder like Stafford, but his arm strength is more than enough for him to make all of the throws.


I think he's perfect for the WCO and arm strength can be worked on. The thing that will get people's attention is how he performs tonight. I thought it was a little strange to commit before the big game.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-08-2009, 03:05 PM
I am happy that Florida is the team Bradford's facing tonight. That defense should test him about as effectively as any in college football. I'll be glued to the television tonight.

CashmoneyDrew
01-08-2009, 03:10 PM
I think he's perfect for the WCO and arm strength can be worked on. The thing that will get people's attention is how he performs tonight. I thought it was a little strange to commit before the big game.

Well, he hasn't officially. I've just read that people close to him are saying he's going to.

illmatic74
01-08-2009, 07:43 PM
I think he's perfect for the WCO and arm strength can be worked on. The thing that will get people's attention is how he performs tonight. I thought it was a little strange to commit before the big game.Also as his body fills out his arm will get stronger. Brady, Manning and Ryan arms got stronger as they filled out too.

nyqua
01-08-2009, 07:48 PM
Wow really nice throw down the sideline. Damn you penalty.

Babylon
01-08-2009, 10:58 PM
Not ready and he'll probably slide if he does come out. Needs more polish in the pocket when pressured and needs more arm strength.

keylime_5
01-08-2009, 11:01 PM
I was actually quite impressed with Bradford tonight. Statistically it wasn't his best game, but he threw to the right receivers, made deadly accurate throws, and displayed enough zip on his throws to the sidelines. Now let's just see how he does dropping back from under center and having to use pocket presence to avoid a pass rush and not just a shotgun snap.

Scott Wright
01-08-2009, 11:02 PM
Bradford played better than I expected tonight...

Of all the underclassmen his decision the one I am most eager for.

AtariBigby
01-08-2009, 11:07 PM
Bradford played better than I expected tonight...
You expected fewer than 14 points for the Sooners?
I assume you had the under then tonight, for 5 or 6 dimes.

derza222
01-08-2009, 11:09 PM
Bradford played better than I expected tonight...

Of all the underclassmen his decision the one I am most eager for.

Any idea where you'd have him among QB's Scott or are you unsure/going to keep it close to the vest for now?

bernbabybern820
01-08-2009, 11:10 PM
You expected fewer than 14 points for the Sooners?
I assume you had the under then tonight, for 5 or 6 dimes.

Stats without looking at actual qb play FTL...

RaiderNation
01-08-2009, 11:10 PM
I think Bradford should stay. He played pretty good, but I think another year will make him a sure fire top 10 pick.

As for Tebow, I think he deserves to be atleast a 2nd round pick for a team. He is so versitle, and if he could sit and learn for a year or 2 I think he could be good

Babylon
01-08-2009, 11:11 PM
I think what scouts wanted to see is how long those deep passes stayed in the air against a good defense. Needs work in that area.

CashmoneyDrew
01-08-2009, 11:13 PM
I just don't see him declaring after this. The fact that Tebow has to think about his decision makes me think he'll go pro.

princefielder28
01-08-2009, 11:16 PM
Bradford played pretty well tonight

It wasn't his strongest performance but he continued to show pinpoint accuracy under pressure and showed good poise.

ShutDwn
01-08-2009, 11:23 PM
Bradford played pretty well tonight

It wasn't his strongest performance but he continued to show pinpoint accuracy under pressure and showed good poise.

Two huge throws were put in the perfect place but his receivers didn't come through. I'm talking about the drop by Iglasias and then the interception on the long pass.

The INT at the goalline was not really his fault, but he shouldn't have thrown it there if he wanted to have time for a field goal.

I would like to see him sit on the bench a while and develop before letting him play. He could be very good.

619
01-08-2009, 11:31 PM
He played as well of a game as he could've under the circumstances. Poor overall effort by most of the Oklahoma offense around him. I don't know if an extra year is going to do him any good in that system and he'd be better served sitting for a year or two at the next level. He is a first rounder, just not someone I'd take all that early.

Brent
01-08-2009, 11:45 PM
He played as well of a game as he could've under the circumstances. Poor overall effort by most of the Oklahoma offense around him. I don't know if an extra year is going to do him any good in that system and he'd be better served sitting for a year or two at the next level. He is a first rounder, just not someone I'd take all that early.
During the game, I was trying to think of places he would be able to do that. Seattle and SF came to mind but I doubt, at this point, the Niners take him.

NGSeiler
01-08-2009, 11:54 PM
The INT at the goalline was not really his fault, but he shouldn't have thrown it there if he wanted to have time for a field goal.

It seemed to me like he was really staring down that receiver before the throw; I wasn't surprised to see that result in an interception. In fact, I felt like he was fixated on his primary target a number of times tonight, though I didn't record the game to go back and confirm.

That's probably the only glaring criticism I'd have of him in this game, because I felt he was pretty accurate and showed good pocket awareness for the most part (took a bad sack early on a bootleg though).

Menardo75
01-08-2009, 11:56 PM
My opinion about him really didn't change after this game. He is a solid first round prospect, might have to let him sit for a year but who knows. I have him going to Minnesota.

Race for the Heisman
01-08-2009, 11:59 PM
It seemed to me like he was really staring down that receiver before the throw; I wasn't surprised to see that result in an interception. In fact, I felt like he was fixated on his primary target a number of times tonight, though I didn't record the game to go back and confirm.

That's probably the only glaring criticism I'd have of him in this game, because I felt he was pretty accurate and showed good pocket awareness for the most part (took a bad sack early on a bootleg though).

I noticed that a couple of times that he waited on his number one to come open. Not necessarily a bad thing since it got him the long completion once or twice, but something that needs to be done when appropriate and not all the time.

The other thing is that I have often seen someone like Stafford make his own checks at the line; Bradford seemed heavily dependent on the sideline. I suppose it is college but still, makes me a little bit more doubtful.

Scott Wright
01-09-2009, 12:05 AM
Any idea where you'd have him among QB's Scott or are you unsure/going to keep it close to the vest for now?

Definitely behind Stafford but battling Sanchez for the #2 spot in the quarterback rankings (assuming they both came out). Not really sure on where he'd fit in my overall rankings yet.

Scott Wright
01-09-2009, 12:07 AM
Honestly, my opinion of Bradford went up tonight.

I thought he would really struggle against the speed and athleticism of the Gators defense but he handled it well.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-09-2009, 12:09 AM
My opinion of Bradford stayed much the same. He was still really accurate, especially in the intermediate game, which was nice to see, but you could see that the pressure Florida brought caused him to rush things a bit too much. Overall a decent performance.

I still think that Sanchez is my #2 quarterback if he comes out.

nyqua
01-09-2009, 12:10 AM
I heard he was accurate, but he really impressed me with how accurate he was. Every throw I saw was right there.

NGSeiler
01-09-2009, 12:26 AM
I noticed that a couple of times that he waited on his number one to come open. Not necessarily a bad thing since it got him the long completion once or twice, but something that needs to be done when appropriate and not all the time.

The other thing is that I have often seen someone like Stafford make his own checks at the line; Bradford seemed heavily dependent on the sideline. I suppose it is college but still, makes me a little bit more doubtful.

I would agree on both points.

Babylon
01-09-2009, 12:33 AM
^
I wouldn't be concerned about checking with the sidelines at the line of scrimmage because the whole Big-12 does that.

The thing with Bradford that i would've like to have seen and didnt was the zip on the 30-40 yard pass down the field. You can get away with some of those throws in the defenseless Big-12 but not against Florida and not in the NFL either.

will99890
01-09-2009, 12:52 AM
I think Bradford played good tonight. Neither interception was really his fault. One was a lucky deflection and the other was just an amazing play. He was very accurate and showed decent pocket presence and movement. I think the two drives that stalled inside the ten were more Stoops' fault for the play calling than anything.

I have no doubt that Bradford will a good NFL quarterback. I love his accuracy and poise, and with experience in a pro style offense he will only get better. My only question is where will he get the oppurtunity? I really don't see a lot of places he could end up. Barring somebody trading up to grab him I could see an Aaron Rodgers type drop for him. It just seems not that many teams need a QB this year. Usually there are at least 5 teams that are in dire need a QB in the top 10, but this year I only think the Lions are the only guarantee. With the Rams and possibly Seahawks contemplating it.

3. Kansas City - Tyler Thigpen appears to be the answer.
5. Cleveland is trying to get rid of a QB so they're out.
6. Cincinatti - Carson Palmer
7. Oakland - Jamarcus
8. Jacksonville - Garrard
9. Green Bay - Aaron Rodgers
10. San Fran - Shaun Hill or Alex Smith, as a niner fan I'm in favor of going into the season with Shaun and Alex Smith going into healthy and competing for the job. Health has been a major issue for Smith the last 2 years but it was downplayed because of the idiot calling the shots. I won't give up on him yet... until next season.

NGSeiler
01-09-2009, 12:53 AM
^
I wouldn't be concerned about checking with the sidelines at the line of scrimmage because the whole Big-12 does that.

Then that's an adjustment the whole Big 12 is going to have to make as well. I don't view it as a major issue, but I also don't think other QBs doing it makes it any less concerning. Doesn't change the fact that Bradford does it, and he'll have to adjust in the NFL. See what I mean?

Babylon
01-09-2009, 12:58 AM
Then that's an adjustment the whole Big 12 is going to have to make as well. I don't view it as a major issue, but I also don't think other QBs doing it makes it any less concerning. Doesn't change the fact that Bradford does it, and he'll have to adjust in the NFL. See what I mean?


There's a lot about his game that he'll have to adjust for the NFL

Scott Wright
01-09-2009, 01:02 AM
I wouldn't be concerned about checking with the sidelines at the line of scrimmage because the whole Big-12 does that.

Don't worry about intelligence with Bradford, he is as smart as they come.

Paranoidmoonduck
01-09-2009, 01:04 AM
I have to say, I wasn't overly impressed with Bradford's deep ball tonight. He put way too much air under most of them. Not that I expected him to come out and sling it on a rope 40 yards down the field, but his arm seems to lose a lot of punch in the deep game.

detroit4life
01-09-2009, 01:08 AM
i think he rly is only a fit for a WCO. most of his throws were short the few he did go long seemed to have a lot of air under them. He laid his one WR out to dry in the 1st quarter by lofting the pass down the sideline.

I agree he has great accuracy but i think he will struggle throwing balls past 20 yards in the pros because those soft balls he lofts up will either get picked or get his WR killed.

I have him as my third behind Stafford and Sanchez and he needs some time to sit if he has a shot IMO

NGSeiler
01-09-2009, 01:13 AM
There's a lot about his game that he'll have to adjust for the NFL

Agreed, just pointing out that not relying on the sideline as much is going to be one of those things.

foozball
01-09-2009, 01:28 AM
why does he need to stay for another year? what's that going to prove? he's already dominated for 2 straight years. i dont think another year of going against big 12 defense will develop him any further

Habibi
01-09-2009, 01:28 AM
Sam Bradford definitely improved his stock tonight.

Smokey Joe
01-09-2009, 08:06 AM
I was really impressed with his accuracy. Even that second pick which sealed the game for Florida was almost a perfect throw, while getting hit. The defender made a nice play on it, but he did put it right on the hands/fingertips of the WR.

His short to intermediate throws were dead on for the most part, and showed good accuracy on the move. I had him slipping to my no. 3 QB behind Sanchez, but after last night, I think he's 2 again, and a potential top 5 pick. Seattle is a good possibility, IMO.

plashgv525
01-09-2009, 08:46 AM
What are you're guys opinions on how Tebow played last night relative to the NFL? Is it just me or did Bradford look very uncomfortable and almost awkward when he has to roll out and drop back last night? His footwork didnt impress me but I'm sure he can work on that with a year in the pros.

Iamcanadian
01-09-2009, 09:03 AM
I was really impressed with his accuracy. Even that second pick which sealed the game for Florida was almost a perfect throw, while getting hit. The defender made a nice play on it, but he did put it right on the hands/fingertips of the WR.

His short to intermediate throws were dead on for the most part, and showed good accuracy on the move. I had him slipping to my no. 3 QB behind Sanchez, but after last night, I think he's 2 again, and a potential top 5 pick. Seattle is a good possibility, IMO.


I agree, I doubt he gets by Seattle. If Sanchez declares, there will be 3 solid QB's in the draft. Unfortunately we aren't likely to see any of them play as pros next year. Being juniors, smart teams will let them ride the bench for a season.
I doubt Sanchez falls below the top 10 either. These QB's could cause quit a few trades within the top 10 before all is said and done.

ToldLikeItIs
01-09-2009, 09:16 AM
Neither Bradford or Stafford can hold a candle to Sanchez.

1. Sanchez
2. Nate Davis
3. Stafford
4. Bradford
5. Freeman

Bradford = Chad Pennington.

A first rounder, definitely, Minnesota would be a great team for him.

SuperKevin
01-09-2009, 12:23 PM
Neither Bradford or Stafford can hold a candle to Sanchez.

1. Sanchez
2. Nate Davis
3. Stafford
4. Bradford
5. Freeman

Bradford = Chad Pennington.

A first rounder, definitely, Minnesota would be a great team for him.

Nate Davis' late collapse this year is pretty scary for his NFL stock. He played like 3 straight horrible games down the stretch when they needed him the most. Couple that with his height(which I think will officially come in around 6'1.5") and I think you're looking at a 3rd round pick at best.

You mean the same Chad Pennington that ranks as one of the most accurate QBs of all time that has twice won the NFL Comeback player of the year? The same Chad Pennington that will have 10-12 years of starting experience by the time he hangs it up? If I could draft a player like that I'd be jumping for joy.

AtariBigby
01-09-2009, 12:27 PM
What are you're guys opinions on how Tebow played last night relative to the NFL? Is it just me or did Bradford look very uncomfortable and almost awkward when he has to roll out and drop back last night? His footwork didnt impress me but I'm sure he can work on that with a year in the pros.
I agree with you. Bradford looked ordinary. He's used to WRs being wide open and used to having nobody touch him back there.

Tebow.... his arm obviously isn't a rocket. But neither was Young's. And Young had a long slow delivery, no quick cannon like Marino.
Sometimes you never know with a QB projected at the next level. Ryan Leaf, David Carr, Tim Couch, etc. are proof of that as is Brady and Montana and Romo and Warner. If any of the genius scouts, GMs, and US knew for sure 100%, we'd be rich in Las Vegas betting all the time.

All I know is I wouldn't write Tebow off. He's been a winner and special all his life. I saw him make some throws last night that were very impressive. Sure he made 2 bad throws for picks too, but every QB has some terrible Ints.

OneToughGame
01-09-2009, 12:58 PM
I agree with you. Bradford looked ordinary. He's used to WRs being wide open and used to having nobody touch him back there.

Tebow.... his arm obviously isn't a rocket. But neither was Young's. And Young had a long slow delivery, no quick cannon like Marino.
Sometimes you never know with a QB projected at the next level. Ryan Leaf, David Carr, Tim Couch, etc. are proof of that as is Brady and Montana and Romo and Warner. If any of the genius scouts, GMs, and US knew for sure 100%, we'd be rich in Las Vegas betting all the time.

All I know is I wouldn't write Tebow off. He's been a winner and special all his life. I saw him make some throws last night that were very impressive. Sure he made 2 bad throws for picks too, but every QB has some terrible Ints.

I think GM's would like to win in the months after November so I'd take Romo out of your list. :P

TheGM
01-09-2009, 02:07 PM
I know that I can't change minds that are already made up but Bradford made enough pro throws against Florida to remove all doubt that that kid can play, well, in the NFL. I would be shocked if he wasn't the first QB off the board based on what I have seen. For months on this forum people have been saying that he couldn't make plays without his receivers getting separation, while throwing from under center, or against a top flight defense. He did all three. As far as arm strength, Florida kept seven in the box even when Chris Brown was gashing them in the run game, clearly they respected his ability to stretch the field.

Zyro_1014
01-09-2009, 02:09 PM
Neither Bradford or Stafford can hold a candle to Sanchez.

1. Sanchez
2. Nate Davis
3. Stafford
4. Bradford
5. Freeman

Bradford = Chad Pennington.

A first rounder, definitely, Minnesota would be a great team for him.

oh god, i love Sanchez but thats a god awful list.

Babylon
01-09-2009, 02:20 PM
I know that I can't change minds that are already made up but Bradford made enough pro throws against Florida to remove all doubt that that kid can play, well, in the NFL.I would be shocked if he wasnt the first QB off the board based on what i've seen. For months on this forum people have been saying that he couldn't make plays without his receivers getting separation, while throwing from under center, or against a top flight defense. He did all three. As far as arm strength, Florida kept seven in the box even when Chris Brown was gashing them in the run game, clearly they respected his ability to stretch the field.

Stafford and Sancez have the advantage of playing in pro style offenses and i think they make better down the field throws (i know Stafford does). Bradford i think probably ends up in a good situation, maybe to a Minnesota or a Tampa.

keylime_5
01-09-2009, 02:41 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/sports/ncaafootball/10pros.html?_r=1&ref=sports

Read this. Some good stuff in there.

Babylon
01-09-2009, 03:00 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/sports/ncaafootball/10pros.html?_r=1&ref=sports

Read this. Some good stuff in there.

The two lines i liked best was the scout comparing Bradford to Aikman(who had a much stronger arm and threw a lot of vertical passes down the field). Also the same scout saying Bradford throws the deep passes as well as anyone he's ever see. No wonder the guy wanted to stay anonymous.

SuperKevin
01-09-2009, 03:02 PM
The thing that I love most about Bradford is that he always seems to be perfectly balanced when he makes this throws. Even when he's on the move he seems to have his feet exactly where they should be. That's usually one of the biggest issues a college quarterback can have, especially one who plays in a spread offense.

keylime_5
01-09-2009, 03:05 PM
The two lines i liked best was the scout comparing Bradford to Aikman(who had a much stronger arm and threw a lot of vertical passes down the field). Also the same scout saying Bradford throws the deep passes as well as anyone he's ever see. No wonder the guy wanted to stay anonymous.

doesn't it seem like every time a scout is quoted in an interview there is no gray area with them? They either really hate a prospect or really love a prospect. Bradford is no Aikman, but he thinks he's a no-brainer #1 overall pick type QB like Aikman was.

Babylon
01-09-2009, 03:10 PM
doesn't it seem like every time a scout is quoted in an interview there is no gray area with them? They either really hate a prospect or really love a prospect. Bradford is no Aikman, but he thinks he's a no-brainer #1 overall pick type QB like Aikman was.


I like Bradford but i wouldnt compare him to Troy Aikman as far as styles go. Stafford, for those that actually take time to watch games ,throws the ball downfield more. Some of his throws this year to AJ Green were vintage Aikman to Irvin. Bradford throwing late into coverage or throwing 5 yard bubble screens don't envoke memories of Troy Aikman, sorry.

TheGM
01-09-2009, 03:12 PM
Stafford and Sancez have the advantage of playing in pro style offenses and i think they make better down the field throws (i know Stafford does). Bradford i think probably ends up in a good situation, maybe to a Minnesota or a Tampa.

I was hoping someone would bring up his offense. While it is by no means a pure pro-offense it is a pro-style spread. Oklahoma's offense reminds me of the Patriots, a lot of shotgun multiple wide receiver and single back sets with the occasional jumbo package when they decide to run.
From the second quarter on Oklahoma ran a pretty contemporary offense. They ran the ball out of a singleback or I formation on first and second down and, like most NFL teams threw the ball out of the Shotgun on third down. I'm not saying his offense is traditional but it isn't as far from pro as Texas Tech or Texas.

Babylon
01-09-2009, 03:23 PM
I was hoping someone would bring up his offense. While it is by no means a pure pro-offense it is a pro-style spread. Oklahoma's offense reminds me of the Patriots, a lot of shotgun multiple wide receiver and single back sets with the occasional jumbo package when they decide to run.
From the second quarter on Oklahoma ran a pretty contemporary offense. They ran the ball out of a singleback or I formation on first and second down and, like most NFL teams threw the ball out of the Shotgun on third down. I'm not saying his offense is traditional but it isn't as far from pro as Texas Tech or Texas.

I will give you that their offense last night looked more pro style than i remember from earlier games. Sort of New England without Brady, Welker and Moss.

illmatic74
01-09-2009, 06:06 PM
I agree with you. Bradford looked ordinary. He's used to WRs being wide open and used to having nobody touch him back there.

Tebow.... his arm obviously isn't a rocket. But neither was Young's. And Young had a long slow delivery, no quick cannon like Marino.
Sometimes you never know with a QB projected at the next level. Ryan Leaf, David Carr, Tim Couch, etc. are proof of that as is Brady and Montana and Romo and Warner. If any of the genius scouts, GMs, and US knew for sure 100%, we'd be rich in Las Vegas betting all the time.

All I know is I wouldn't write Tebow off. He's been a winner and special all his life. I saw him make some throws last night that were very impressive. Sure he made 2 bad throws for picks too, but every QB has some terrible Ints.First of all only thing Young and Tebow is they are lefties who can run. Two yes they are a lot of players who slip through the cracks but it is pnever QBS who were great college players on great teams. Because chances are they have seen them play more than most prospects they have better reads on them. There are QBS who will slip through the cracks who will become starters but chances are it is no one anyone expects. Can any one tell me they knew Romo and Cassel will be good NFL QBS?

georgiafan
01-09-2009, 07:07 PM
I don't see how you can say Bradford only has minor concerns.

TheGM
01-09-2009, 10:53 PM
I don't see how you can say Bradford only has minor concerns.

name the major ones.

hagy34
01-09-2009, 11:08 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/sports/ncaafootball/10pros.html?_r=1&ref=sports

Read this. Some good stuff in there.

That is a good read. I really can't understand how Tebow could go in the first though. There is just no way...

ElectricEye
01-09-2009, 11:11 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/sports/ncaafootball/10pros.html?_r=1&ref=sports

Read this. Some good stuff in there.

That's good stuff. Extremely fair. Bradford does not have a problem with arm strength. He has as much of a problem as Matt Ryan has. Everyone is just looking to say that because he plays in a spread and is more known for his accuracy. Matt Stafford doesn't do him any favors in terms of people judging his arm either.

illmatic74
01-09-2009, 11:15 PM
That is a good read. I really can't understand how Tebow could go in the first though. There is just no way...Remember Gil Brandt a few months ago said "If Hall of Fame general manager Tex Schramm and I were still running the Cowboys, we'd be in Jamaica right now waiting for Bolt's plane to land".

MenOfTroy
01-10-2009, 12:09 AM
I don't see how you can say Bradford only has minor concerns.

I agree.

- Spread offense
- Passes almost excusively from the shotgun... footwork, decision-making while dropping back
- Anticipating throws isn't as important in OU's offense because WRs are open
- Pre-snap reads (coaches relay it from the sideline, from what I've seen)
- Best offensive line in college football--haven't seen enough of him under pressure

I like Bradford's accuracy and quick release... and I think his two years of experience are sufficient... but he's much more of a project than pro-style QBs like Stafford or Sanchez (or Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco... see the trend), and my clear #3 QB behind them.

Babylon
01-10-2009, 12:17 AM
I agree.

- Spread offense
- Passes almost excusively from the shotgun... footwork, decision-making while dropping back
- Pre-snap reads (coaches relay it from the sideline, from what I've seen)
- Best offensive line in college football--haven't seen enough of him under pressure

I like Bradford's accuracy and quick release... and I think his two years of experience are sufficient... but he's much more of a project than guys like Stafford or Sanchez, and my clear #3 QB behind them.

Those concerns can be overcome, i dont think they are real problem areas but they are there. The big question i had going into the Texas game and the Florida game was could he hold up under a pass rush and also could he make the throw into coverage down the field. I think the jury is still out on both questions.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
01-10-2009, 07:44 PM
Is it possible for Stafford or Bradford to slip to the texans?

Cigaro
01-10-2009, 07:49 PM
I agree.

- Spread offense
- Passes almost excusively from the shotgun... footwork, decision-making while dropping back
- Anticipating throws isn't as important in OU's offense because WRs are open
- Pre-snap reads (coaches relay it from the sideline, from what I've seen)
- Best offensive line in college football--haven't seen enough of him under pressure

I like Bradford's accuracy and quick release... and I think his two years of experience are sufficient... but he's much more of a project than pro-style QBs like Stafford or Sanchez (or Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco... see the trend), and my clear #3 QB behind them.

Oklahoma takes quite a few under center snaps.

illmatic74
01-10-2009, 08:06 PM
I agree.

- Spread offense
- Passes almost excusively from the shotgun... footwork, decision-making while dropping back
- Anticipating throws isn't as important in OU's offense because WRs are open
- Pre-snap reads (coaches relay it from the sideline, from what I've seen)
- Best offensive line in college football--haven't seen enough of him under pressure

I like Bradford's accuracy and quick release... and I think his two years of experience are sufficient... but he's much more of a project than pro-style QBs like Stafford or Sanchez (or Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco... see the trend), and my clear #3 QB behind them.Joe Flacco also took majority of his snaps out of the shotgun.

etk
01-11-2009, 11:38 AM
of course not, because it's a lazy, thoughtless argument that they only think they can get away with because of the word 'sophomore'.

It's a lazy and thoughtless argument, but that doesn't mean it's not effective and real. Regardless of what class he's in, there's a VERY strong correlation between lack of starting experience (2 yrs or less) and NFL failure. PFW did extensive research on it a few years ago and the results were shocking to say the least.

But that's only one of about a dozen reasons why I'd also avoid Bradford like the plague.

eazyb81
01-11-2009, 12:06 PM
It's a lazy and thoughtless argument, but that doesn't mean it's not effective and real. Regardless of what class he's in, there's a VERY strong correlation between lack of starting experience (2 yrs or less) and NFL failure. PFW did extensive research on it a few years ago and the results were shocking to say the least.

But that's only one of about a dozen reasons why I'd also avoid Bradford like the plague.

But that's what myself and others are saying: Bradford does NOT have a lack of starting experience. 28 starts in college is not insignificant; it's more than Flacco had last year, and just a couple less than what Ryan had, even though Ryan was hailed for his experience.

Simply looking at the "sophomore" next to Bradford's name and deducing that he lacks experience IS lazy; but when you dig a bit more, you can see that he is not lacking in true game experience.

TheGM
01-11-2009, 12:45 PM
It's a lazy and thoughtless argument, but that doesn't mean it's not effective and real. Regardless of what class he's in, there's a VERY strong correlation between lack of starting experience (2 yrs or less) and NFL failure. PFW did extensive research on it a few years ago and the results were shocking to say the least.

But that's only one of about a dozen reasons why I'd also avoid Bradford like the plague.

No offense but, it doesn't matter where a player came from. If he can play, he can play...bottom line. I hate this kind of argument, because it isn't based in reality. guys fail for a lot of reasons lack of a skill set that translates to the NFL, poor work ethic, a system that doesn't fit them, poor coaching. Correlation doesn't equal cause. Starting experience certainly doesn't ensure success, Eli Manning took longer to find his way in the NFL than Rothlesberger despite his experience advantage (including a father and brother who played the same position in the NFL)

Solomon
01-11-2009, 01:01 PM
Those concerns can be overcome, i dont think they are real problem areas but they are there. The big question i had going into the Texas game and the Florida game was could he hold up under a pass rush and also could he make the throw into coverage down the field. I think the jury is still out on both questions.

Personally I think he answered both questions adequately. I felt that neither of his interceptions were solely his fault. He didn't misread the coverage, wasn't horribly inaccurate or used poor decision making. It wasn't so much an example of him messing up rather the defense made the play. On the first pick the throw was nearly perfect but the coverage by Joe Haden was incredible and Haden jumped the route and deflected the pass. On the second int his pass hit the intended receiver in the hands (although it should have been closer to his body) but the DB just ripped the ball from the WR.

Despite being consistantly pressured he maintained his composure and marched the Sooners down the field on several impressive drives. Went through his reads well (hardly ever seems to stare down his intended target) and he knows when to put zip on his throws and when to finesse them.

I have been a big Bradford since last season and I really think he is a legit top 5 pick.

Babylon
01-11-2009, 01:08 PM
Personally I think he answered both questions adequately. I felt that neither of his interceptions were solely his fault. He didn't misread the coverage, wasn't horribly inaccurate or used poor decision making. It wasn't so much an example of him messing up rather the defense made the play. On the first pick the throw was nearly perfect but the coverage by Joe Haden was incredible and Haden jumped the route and deflected the pass. On the second int his pass hit the intended receiver in the hands (although it should have been closer to his body) but the DB just ripped the ball from the WR.

Despite being consistantly pressured he maintained his composure and marched the Sooners down the field on several impressive drives. Went through his reads well (hardly ever seems to stare down his intended target) and he knows when to put zip on his throws and when to finesse them.

I have been a big Bradford since last season and I really think he is a legit top 5 pick.

I dont think he did anything to hurt his stock but when you have a window with the coverage to get the ball in there you need to get it there. If the ball stays in the air just a split second too long defenders have a chance to make plays. Really his only negative would be lack of that heater.

princefielder28
01-11-2009, 01:11 PM
I dont think he did anything to hurt his stock but when you have a window with the coverage to get the ball in there you need to get it there. If the ball stays in the air just a split second too long defenders have a chance to make plays. Really his only negative would be lack of that heater.

Do you see Stafford or Bradford as the better QB prospect?

SimonRath
01-11-2009, 01:18 PM
I agree.

- Spread offense
- Passes almost excusively from the shotgun... footwork, decision-making while dropping back
- Anticipating throws isn't as important in OU's offense because WRs are open
- Pre-snap reads (coaches relay it from the sideline, from what I've seen)
- Best offensive line in college football--haven't seen enough of him under pressure

I like Bradford's accuracy and quick release... and I think his two years of experience are sufficient... but he's much more of a project than pro-style QBs like Stafford or Sanchez (or Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco... see the trend), and my clear #3 QB behind them.

I don't see how you can say Joe Flacco was a pro style QB coming out of college. I remember everyone saying he never took snaps under center and he's a a project Qb who might take a couple years to develop.

Babylon
01-11-2009, 01:54 PM
Do you see Stafford or Bradford as the better QB prospect?


Clearly Stafford for me. However if i'm a diehard WCO team i would have a hard time i guess. I think the debate is Sanchez or Bradford for the #2 signal caller.

BBIB
01-11-2009, 06:00 PM
When is the deadline to announce?

JaxJag_1
01-11-2009, 06:05 PM
Thursday the 15th

BBIB
01-11-2009, 06:26 PM
Thursday the 15th

Thanks. You think Bradford is really leaning towards coming out even as raw as he is as a redshirt Sophmore?

TheGM
01-11-2009, 06:34 PM
would you pass on 79 million dollars?

BBIB
01-11-2009, 06:54 PM
would you pass on 79 million dollars?

Point taken LOL

What about Sanchez? Any word on him? He could probably get 1st round money right now but he's probably not a lock for a top 5 pick like he would be if he came back

Smokey Joe
01-11-2009, 07:20 PM
With all indications pointing towards Bradford declaring, I'm thinking Sanchez will definitely stay. If he came out now, he's probably looking at the top 10, at best. Next year being the undisputed no. 1, most likely, he'd have a real great shot at the no. 1 pick.

etk
01-11-2009, 07:37 PM
But that's what myself and others are saying: Bradford does NOT have a lack of starting experience. 28 starts in college is not insignificant; it's more than Flacco had last year, and just a couple less than what Ryan had, even though Ryan was hailed for his experience.

Simply looking at the "sophomore" next to Bradford's name and deducing that he lacks experience IS lazy; but when you dig a bit more, you can see that he is not lacking in true game experience.

2 years is 2 years. I don't care what his class is, or how many games he started in those 2 years. That's a different argument.

You can bring up examples of guys who started more than 2 years and had success...maybe you'll even find examples of those with less than 2 years who performed well. Those are the anomalies, unfortunately.

No offense but, it doesn't matter where a player came from. If he can play, he can play...bottom line. I hate this kind of argument, because it isn't based in reality. guys fail for a lot of reasons lack of a skill set that translates to the NFL, poor work ethic, a system that doesn't fit them, poor coaching. Correlation doesn't equal cause. Starting experience certainly doesn't ensure success, Eli Manning took longer to find his way in the NFL than Rothlesberger despite his experience advantage (including a father and brother who played the same position in the NFL)


I don't care about the other factors. Calm down there. It's a statistic. The statistic says there's a direct correlation between starting experience and NFL success. You can take it and analyze it all you want, but when it comes down to it, I'll take the experienced player every time if I have a choice. That's just the way things work out.

You can try to bring in other factors to reduce the risk, but I'd rather not take my chances with an inexperienced kid.

Horrible example btw. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Success is success, even if it takes 1-2 years waiting in the wings.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
01-11-2009, 07:54 PM
I don't care about the other factors. Calm down there. It's a statistic. The statistic says there's a direct correlation between starting experience and NFL success. You can take it and analyze it all you want, but when it comes down to it, I'll take the experienced player every time if I have a choice. That's just the way things work out.

You can try to bring in other factors to reduce the risk, but I'd rather not take my chances with an inexperienced kid.

Horrible example btw. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Success is success, even if it takes 1-2 years waiting in the wings.

Like the other dude said, correlation does not imply causation. Just because there is a correlation, it doesn't mean one causes the other. Basic statistics.

etk
01-11-2009, 08:00 PM
Like the other dude said, correlation does not imply causation. Just because there is a correlation, it doesn't mean one causes the other. Basic statistics.

So you're telling me that, of the 100s or more of data compiled by those who did the research, over 90% of the cases happened for common cause factors or other separate circumstances?

Sorry, not gonna buy that. That's a low ******* probability. We're not talking small sample size here.

Don't talk to me about basic statistics. I got a 94 in data management.

When you have a strong correlation over a large amount of data....something's going on. Unless there's a common cause factor or an error in the research methods...it's pretty clear.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
01-11-2009, 08:24 PM
So you're telling me that, of the 100s or more of data compiled by those who did the research, over 90% of the cases happened for common cause factors or other separate circumstances?

Sorry, not gonna buy that. That's a low ******* probability. We're not talking small sample size here.

Don't talk to me about basic statistics. I got a 94 in data management.

When you have a strong correlation over a large amount of data....something's going on. Unless there's a common cause factor or an error in the research methods...it's pretty clear.

Strong correlation points towards a possible cause, I know, which in this case is # of starts, or eligibility. I believe that a greater statistic is # of starts or games played in the rookie year. Here are the QB's with less than 35 starts drafted between 98 and 05 as listed earlier;

1. Kyle Boller- 31 starts
2. Ryan Leaf- 24 starts
3. Joey Harrington- 26 starts
4. Mike Vick- 21 starts
5. JP Losman- 29 starts
6. Akili Smith- 11 starts
7. Tim Couch- 27 starts
8. Alex Smith- 22 starts
9. David Carr- 26 starts
10.Drew Brees- 26 starts
11. Rex Grossman- 32 starts
12. Vince Young- 32 starts
13.Aaron Rodgers- 25 starts

Now, of the 13 listed above, 10 were busts and look to be busts(Smith, Young) and 3 weren't, Rodgers, Vick, Brees.

Now, looking at the QB's that didn't bust, what was the reason for this? None of them played in much in their rookie season. Vick had 2 starts while the other three had none. Now of the busts, only J.P. Losman and Rex Grossman had under 2 starts(0 and 1 respectively). The rest each had many starts, or games played.

The learning curve for the NFL is steep, especially for a position like QB. The learning curve is even greater if there are fewer starts or years in college like the thirteen above. The 3 who did succeed had limited time in their first year so they could sit back and learn the game. The ones thrown to the wolves, they busted.

illmatic74
01-12-2009, 01:22 AM
Strong correlation points towards a possible cause, I know, which in this case is # of starts, or eligibility. I believe that a greater statistic is # of starts or games played in the rookie year. Here are the QB's with less than 35 starts drafted between 98 and 05 as listed earlier;

1. Kyle Boller- 31 starts
2. Ryan Leaf- 24 starts
3. Joey Harrington- 26 starts
4. Mike Vick- 21 starts
5. JP Losman- 29 starts
6. Akili Smith- 11 starts
7. Tim Couch- 27 starts
8. Alex Smith- 22 starts
9. David Carr- 26 starts
10.Drew Brees- 26 starts
11. Rex Grossman- 32 starts
12. Vince Young- 32 starts
13.Aaron Rodgers- 25 starts

Now, of the 13 listed above, 10 were busts and look to be busts(Smith, Young) and 3 weren't, Rodgers, Vick, Brees.

Now, looking at the QB's that didn't bust, what was the reason for this? None of them played in much in their rookie season. Vick had 2 starts while the other three had none. Now of the busts, only J.P. Losman and Rex Grossman had under 2 starts(0 and 1 respectively). The rest each had many starts, or games played.

The learning curve for the NFL is steep, especially for a position like QB. The learning curve is even greater if there are fewer starts or years in college like the thirteen above. The 3 who did succeed had limited time in their first year so they could sit back and learn the game. The ones thrown to the wolves, they busted.It also has a lot to do with scouting. If scouts had more film on Akli Smith I doubt he would have been a first rounder.

bitonti
01-12-2009, 08:32 AM
JMO bradford is a better player than stafford. he's taller, throws a more accurate ball, and he plays better in bigger games.

so what if Stafford comes from a more pro-ready offense?

we all forget the draft is about the future, not the immediate present

Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco are NOT the norm...

a smarter move is to take Bradford and develop him, rather than throw Stafford out there right away. Im sure others will disagree...

TheGM
01-12-2009, 09:11 AM
2 years is 2 years. I don't care what his class is, or how many games he started in those 2 years. That's a different argument.

You can bring up examples of guys who started more than 2 years and had success...maybe you'll even find examples of those with less than 2 years who performed well. Those are the anomalies, unfortunately.




I don't care about the other factors. Calm down there. It's a statistic. The statistic says there's a direct correlation between starting experience and NFL success. You can take it and analyze it all you want, but when it comes down to it, I'll take the experienced player every time if I have a choice. That's just the way things work out.

You can try to bring in other factors to reduce the risk, but I'd rather not take my chances with an inexperienced kid.

Horrible example btw. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Success is success, even if it takes 1-2 years waiting in the wings.

I agree with the last part, success is success, that is my point you pick the player that you think will be most successful in your system. I strongly disagree with your experience rule and here is an example why; lets compare the percentage of the QBs in the 13 player sample that were successfull, 3 of 13 equals 23%, to the percentage of all QBs selected from 2003 to 2007 (I didn't go farther since the later round players have not had a chance to start) year by year:
2003: 1 of 13 players selected, only Carson Palmer is a legit starter
2004 4 of 16 players selected, only Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, and Matt Schaub
2005: 4 of 14 players selected, only Aaron Rodgers, Jason Campbell, Matt Cassell, and (reluctantly) Kyle Orton (Derek Anderson was left out)
2006: 1 of 12 players selected, only Jay Cutler
2007: 4 of 11 players selected, only Jamarcus Russell, Tyler Thigpen, Trent Edwards, and Brady Quinn (none of these guys has cemented their role as a starter)
Do the math and 14 of 66 players drafted made it which makes for a fantastic 21% success rate. I know I didn't count Derek Anderson so lets add him in to the mix and we get a success rate of 23% the same percentage you see from the "inexperienced" group. There are other factors, many far more important, to success than how many games that a player started there is no better example than Matt Cassell and Matt Leinart.

FloridaSkinzFan
01-12-2009, 09:19 AM
Strong correlation points towards a possible cause, I know, which in this case is # of starts, or eligibility. I believe that a greater statistic is # of starts or games played in the rookie year. Here are the QB's with less than 35 starts drafted between 98 and 05 as listed earlier;

1. Kyle Boller- 31 starts
2. Ryan Leaf- 24 starts
3. Joey Harrington- 26 starts
4. Mike Vick- 21 starts
5. JP Losman- 29 starts
6. Akili Smith- 11 starts
7. Tim Couch- 27 starts
8. Alex Smith- 22 starts
9. David Carr- 26 starts
10.Drew Brees- 26 starts
11. Rex Grossman- 32 starts
12. Vince Young- 32 starts
13.Aaron Rodgers- 25 starts

Now, of the 13 listed above, 10 were busts and look to be busts(Smith, Young) and 3 weren't, Rodgers, Vick, Brees.

Now, looking at the QB's that didn't bust, what was the reason for this? None of them played in much in their rookie season. Vick had 2 starts while the other three had none. Now of the busts, only J.P. Losman and Rex Grossman had under 2 starts(0 and 1 respectively). The rest each had many starts, or games played.

The learning curve for the NFL is steep, especially for a position like QB. The learning curve is even greater if there are fewer starts or years in college like the thirteen above. The 3 who did succeed had limited time in their first year so they could sit back and learn the game. The ones thrown to the wolves, they busted.

Jason Campbell? 2005 25th overall...i dont think he has more than 35 starts

SuperKevin
01-12-2009, 09:20 AM
Jason Campbell? 2005 25th overall...i dont think he has more than 35 starts

He had more than 35 starts in college. That's what the debate is.

BBIB
01-12-2009, 10:23 AM
When you have a strong correlation over a large amount of data....something's going on. Unless there's a common cause factor or an error in the research methods...it's pretty clear.



Exactly. We're not just talking a number like 51-55%. We're talking an incredible 70% bust rate for QBs below 30 starts in college that were taken during that span.

And conversely incredibly a less than 10% bust rate for QBs with 35+ starts. (Arguably 0% depending on how you feel about Leftwich and Culpepper being busts)

How could such unbelievable contrasts be ignored? And it's not over one or two years, it's over the course of nearly a decade.

And intuitively it makes sense. The Qbs with below 30 starts are the guys who don't have 3 years of starting experience. Just like the guys who are underclassmen.

The QB position is the most difficult one to play in the NFL as is admitted which is why it's probably incredibly important to get all the reps one can at the college level before making that huge jump in level of competiton.

TheGM
01-12-2009, 12:32 PM
Exactly. We're not just talking a number like 51-55%. We're talking an incredible 70% bust rate for QBs below 30 starts in college that were taken during that span.

And conversely incredibly a less than 10% bust rate for QBs with 35+ starts. (Arguably 0% depending on how you feel about Leftwich and Culpepper being busts)

How could such unbelievable contrasts be ignored? And it's not over one or two years, it's over the course of nearly a decade.

And intuitively it makes sense. The Qbs with below 30 starts are the guys who don't have 3 years of starting experience. Just like the guys who are underclassmen.

The QB position is the most difficult one to play in the NFL as is admitted which is why it's probably incredibly important to get all the reps one can at the college level before making that huge jump in level of competiton.

There has been a 70% failure rate for all QBs drafted regardless of round taken or starts in college. The 10 of 13 bust rate is a sham stat and a manipulation of the truth. I posted it once and I'll keep putting it out there 23% of those bellow 30 plus starts succeeded and 23% percent of all QBs taken have succeeded since 2003!

Here is the post I put up, double check it, then stop spreading this lie:

I strongly disagree with your experience rule and here is an example why; lets compare the percentage of the QBs in the 13 player sample that were successfull, 3 of 13 equals 23%, to the percentage of all QBs selected from 2003 to 2007 (I didn't go farther since the later round players have not had a chance to start) year by year:
2003: 1 of 13 players selected, only Carson Palmer is a legit starter
2004 4 of 16 players selected, only Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, and Matt Schaub
2005: 4 of 14 players selected, only Aaron Rodgers, Jason Campbell, Matt Cassell, and (reluctantly) Kyle Orton (Derek Anderson was left out)
2006: 1 of 12 players selected, only Jay Cutler
2007: 4 of 11 players selected, only Jamarcus Russell, Tyler Thigpen, Trent Edwards, and Brady Quinn (none of these guys has cemented their role as a starter)
Do the math and 14 of 66 players drafted made it which makes for a fantastic 21% success rate. I know I didn't count Derek Anderson so lets add him in to the mix and we get a success rate of 23% the same percentage you see from the "inexperienced" group. There are other factors, many far more important, to success than how many games that a player started there is no better example than Matt Cassell and Matt Leinart.

bitonti
01-12-2009, 01:14 PM
just to play devils advocate

imagine a team needs a QB... badly

what are they supposed to do? wait until the right Qb comes down the road? the 2010 class looks shabbier than the 2009 class. statistics be damned someone has to play QB in the NFL.

etk
01-12-2009, 03:49 PM
I agree with the last part, success is success, that is my point you pick the player that you think will be most successful in your system. I strongly disagree with your experience rule and here is an example why;

There's nothing to disagree about. It's a statistic, not an opinion. You either factor the statistic into evaluations or not. It's definitely hard to go against your tape evaluation and gut feeling, but the odds are against you.

CC.SD
01-12-2009, 04:23 PM
Bradford's upside is low and he's been protected by talent; in that sense I see a lot of Leinart in him. However, he has shown a real grasp of the position and has such statistical success I'm sure he'll end up being a first rounder, and probably a very high one. I don't think he will be a truly great NFL qb, but he will probably be the type that can win games for you, especially with a decent ground game. That's enough these days.

Fuzzy Dunlop
01-12-2009, 04:45 PM
I don't see how being a Redshirt Sophomore is being talked about as such a negative for Bradford (and not Stafford). Stafford and Bradford went to college the same year; Bradford is actually older than Stafford. Yeah, Stafford started his freshman year; he's also been sacked a lot more than Bradford. (I'm not discounting the fact that Stafford came in and started at Georgia as a Fr, just a point) Bradford started his first eligible year and put up ridiculous numbers 69.5%, 36:8. Isn't that what he's going to be asked to do at the next level?

It just seems that people are turning a lot of positives into negatives for Bradford: he had a lot of offensive weapons, had a lot of time in the pocket, etc. Name one QB that thrives on not having time to throw. Why would he return to school to get knocked around and have less talented personnel to throw to? To impress draft analysts? It doesn't make any sense.

Bradford is far from a perfect prospect; his footwork inside the pocket is not very good. Stafford has the better tools as a prospect in my opinion, but if I'm building a franchise, I'd go with Bradford. He has that gamer quality that I'm not sure of with Stafford, is about as smart as they come, and the kid is a ridiculous athlete.

katnip
01-12-2009, 05:24 PM
I like him, accurate, but, if he does come out I'd always take Stafford over Bradford... Stafford can stretch the field.

Strawdog
01-12-2009, 07:08 PM
The argument for quarterback experience and accuracy is being misrepresented. The Lewin Career Forecast only applies to rounds 1 and 2 and it shows a significant statistical difference between players with over 60% accuracy and 37 career starts. The reason is with 37 starts, the 60% accuracy is gained over a longer time frame so it should better represent the player's accuracy. Also, with 37 starts there is enough game film for scouts to accurately evaluate the quarterback and decide if he is worthy of a first or second round pick. I don't have the percentages for success and failure, but Pro Football Prospectus 2008 says Eli Manning is the worst quarterback to pass the LCF test in the last 6 years (doesn't say how it decided that though).

The LCF analysis also says that picking a quarterback with fewer than 37 starts or 60% accuracy is expected to have the same success as any quarterback taken in the draft. TheGM's example above actually fits with the original study in this regard.

Again, the experience question has nothing to do with preparing the player for NFL. It has to do with NFL scouts having enough tape to make accurate evaluations of the player.

TheGM
01-12-2009, 07:58 PM
The argument for quarterback experience and accuracy is being misrepresented. The Lewin Career Forecast only applies to rounds 1 and 2 and it shows a significant statistical difference between players with over 60% accuracy and 37 career starts. The reason is with 37 starts, the 60% accuracy is gained over a longer time frame so it should better represent the player's accuracy. Also, with 37 starts there is enough game film for scouts to accurately evaluate the quarterback and decide if he is worthy of a first or second round pick. I don't have the percentages for success and failure, but Pro Football Prospectus 2008 says Eli Manning is the worst quarterback to pass the LCF test in the last 6 years (doesn't say how it decided that though).

The LCF analysis also says that picking a quarterback with fewer than 37 starts or 60% accuracy is expected to have the same success as any quarterback taken in the draft. TheGM's example above actually fits with the original study in this regard.

Again, the experience question has nothing to do with preparing the player for NFL. It has to do with NFL scouts having enough tape to make accurate evaluations of the player.

Thank you. Neither Stafford or Bradford meet the LCF requirements for assured greatness, 37 starts and a completion percentage of 60% or greater so the experience argument doesn't apply. Stafford is two starts away from 37 (close enough) and has a career completion percentage of 57% (NOT close enough). Bradford only has 28 starts but his completion percentage is 68% well above the 60% line.

In my opinion they are both great prospects, Stafford reminds me of McNabb because of his frame, running ability, and inconsistency. Bradford execution in that offense reminds me of Tom Brady. Both players have great potential.

BBIB
01-13-2009, 10:25 AM
There has been a 70% failure rate for all QBs drafted regardless of round taken or starts in college. The 10 of 13 bust rate is a sham stat and a manipulation of the truth. I posted it once and I'll keep putting it out there 23% of those bellow 30 plus starts succeeded and 23% percent of all QBs taken have succeeded since 2003!

Here is the post I put up, double check it, then stop spreading this lie:

I strongly disagree with your experience rule and here is an example why; lets compare the percentage of the QBs in the 13 player sample that were successfull, 3 of 13 equals 23%, to the percentage of all QBs selected from 2003 to 2007 (I didn't go farther since the later round players have not had a chance to start) year by year:
2003: 1 of 13 players selected, only Carson Palmer is a legit starter
2004 4 of 16 players selected, only Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, and Matt Schaub
2005: 4 of 14 players selected, only Aaron Rodgers, Jason Campbell, Matt Cassell, and (reluctantly) Kyle Orton (Derek Anderson was left out)
2006: 1 of 12 players selected, only Jay Cutler
2007: 4 of 11 players selected, only Jamarcus Russell, Tyler Thigpen, Trent Edwards, and Brady Quinn (none of these guys has cemented their role as a starter)
Do the math and 14 of 66 players drafted made it which makes for a fantastic 21% success rate. I know I didn't count Derek Anderson so lets add him in to the mix and we get a success rate of 23% the same percentage you see from the "inexperienced" group. There are other factors, many far more important, to success than how many games that a player started there is no better example than Matt Cassell and Matt Leinart.

You missed the entire mark. The stat was about QBs taken in the FIRST ROUND

IOW, among QBs highly regarded enough to merit a 1st round grade, those with the most starts had the most success.

BBIB
01-13-2009, 10:41 AM
Basically here is the breakdown, again this is about FIRST ROUND QBS

1st round QBs drafted from 1998-2005 (26 Quarterbacks)
1. Peyton Manning
2. Donovan McNabb
3. Drew Brees
4. Ben Roethlisberger
5. Philip Rivers
6. Carson Palmer
7. Eli Manning
8. Michael Vick
9. Daunte Culpepper
10. Jay Cutler
11. Chad Pennington
12. Aaron Rodgers
13. Rex Grossman
14. Byron Leftwich
15. JP Losman
16. Vince Young
17. Matt Leinart
18. Joey Harrington
19. Patrick Ramsey
20. David Carr
21. Akili Smith
22. Cade McNown
23. Kyle Boller
24. Alex Smith
25. Tim Couch
26. Ryan Leaf

==

QBs with 35+ starts
1. Jay Cutler- 43 starts 57%
2. Carson Palmer- 45 starts 59%
3. Brady Quinn- 46 starts 58%
4. Ben Roethlisberger 38 starts 65%
5. Byron Leftwich 36 starts 65%
6. Matt Leinart 39 starts 65%
7. Philip Rivers 49 starts 64%
8. Daunte Culpepper 43 starts 64%
9. Donovan McNabb 45 starts 63%
10. Peyton Manning 45 starts 63%
11. Eli Manning 37 starts 61%
12. Chad Pennington 35 starts 63%
13. Cade McNown 42 starts 55%

2 out of 13 busts (Leinart and McNown)
3.5 out of 13 dissapointments (Leinart, Leftwich, McNown and Culpepper (half a disappointment))

QBs with Below 35 starts
1. Kyle Boller- 31 starts 48%
2. Ryan Leaf- 24 starts 53%
3. Joey Harrington- 26 starts 55%
4. Mike Vick- 21 starts 56%
5. JP Losman- 29 starts 57%
6. Akili Smith- 11 starts 58%
7. Tim Couch- 27 starts 67%
8. Alex Smith- 22 starts 66%
9. David Carr- 26 starts 62%
10. Drew Brees- 26 starts 61% (Senior)
11. Rex Grossman- 32 starts 61%
12. Vince Young- 32 starts 61%
13. Aaron Rodgers- 25 starts 64%

10 out of 13 busts


To summarize:

10 out of 13 QBs drafted in the 1st round between 1998-2005 with less than 35 starts are BUSTS
76.9 % fail rate
23.1 % success rate

2 out of the 13 QBs drafted in the 1st round between 1998-2005 with 35 or more starts are BUSTS
15.3% fail rate
84.7% success rate


That is far too significant a difference in rate of failure and success to be considered statistically insignificant. Not to mention it's not some random stat like people who have a mustache or the letter "C" in their name. It's about experience. Which makes a helluva lot of sense considering the typical learning curve of the QB position

Even if Vince Young made his way into the success category and Brady Quinn made his way into the failure category, the percentages would still be highly skewed in favor of those with the most starts.

CC.SD
01-13-2009, 11:48 AM
Nice compilation, great info.

Saints-Tigers
01-13-2009, 02:31 PM
It's really a hit or miss listing though, Culpepper was a terrific success until he started piling up injuries, how is that related to his college starts? Matt Leinart is still too early to call a bust too.

MenOfTroy
01-13-2009, 10:10 PM
2 out of 13 busts (Leinart and McNown)

It's a little bit premature to call Leinart a bust... especially considering that he had a good rookie season and is backing up a future HoFer.

keylime_5
01-13-2009, 10:12 PM
yeah, Leinart needs to wait another year at least before they put him out there, they got a good thing going with Kurt Warner starting. I actually think Leinart will be a pretty good player once he gets the starting job again.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
01-13-2009, 10:13 PM
yeah, Leinart needs to wait another year at least before they put him out there, they got a good thing going with Kurt Warner starting. I actually think Leinart will be a pretty good player once he gets the starting job again.

So would you three who said that Leinart's not a bust -yet- say that Vince Young's not a bust -yet-?

Saints-Tigers
01-13-2009, 10:22 PM
I would say so.

TheGM
01-14-2009, 02:50 AM
Basically here is the breakdown, again this is about FIRST ROUND QBS

1st round QBs drafted from 1998-2005 (26 Quarterbacks)
1. Peyton Manning
2. Donovan McNabb
3. Drew Brees
4. Ben Roethlisberger
5. Philip Rivers
6. Carson Palmer
7. Eli Manning
8. Michael Vick
9. Daunte Culpepper
10. Jay Cutler
11. Chad Pennington
12. Aaron Rodgers
13. Rex Grossman
14. Byron Leftwich
15. JP Losman
16. Vince Young
17. Matt Leinart
18. Joey Harrington
19. Patrick Ramsey
20. David Carr
21. Akili Smith
22. Cade McNown
23. Kyle Boller
24. Alex Smith
25. Tim Couch
26. Ryan Leaf

==

QBs with 35+ starts
1. Jay Cutler- 43 starts 57%
2. Carson Palmer- 45 starts 59%
3. Brady Quinn- 46 starts 58%
4. Ben Roethlisberger 38 starts 65%
5. Byron Leftwich 36 starts 65%
6. Matt Leinart 39 starts 65%
7. Philip Rivers 49 starts 64%
8. Daunte Culpepper 43 starts 64%
9. Donovan McNabb 45 starts 63%
10. Peyton Manning 45 starts 63%
11. Eli Manning 37 starts 61%
12. Chad Pennington 35 starts 63%
13. Cade McNown 42 starts 55%

2 out of 13 busts (Leinart and McNown)
3.5 out of 13 dissapointments (Leinart, Leftwich, McNown and Culpepper (half a disappointment))

QBs with Below 35 starts
1. Kyle Boller- 31 starts 48%
2. Ryan Leaf- 24 starts 53%
3. Joey Harrington- 26 starts 55%
4. Mike Vick- 21 starts 56%
5. JP Losman- 29 starts 57%
6. Akili Smith- 11 starts 58%
7. Tim Couch- 27 starts 67%
8. Alex Smith- 22 starts 66%
9. David Carr- 26 starts 62%
10. Drew Brees- 26 starts 61% (Senior)
11. Rex Grossman- 32 starts 61%
12. Vince Young- 32 starts 61%
13. Aaron Rodgers- 25 starts 64%

10 out of 13 busts


To summarize:

10 out of 13 QBs drafted in the 1st round between 1998-2005 with less than 35 starts are BUSTS
76.9 % fail rate
23.1 % success rate

2 out of the 13 QBs drafted in the 1st round between 1998-2005 with 35 or more starts are BUSTS
15.3% fail rate
84.7% success rate


That is far too significant a difference in rate of failure and success to be considered statistically insignificant. Not to mention it's not some random stat like people who have a mustache or the letter "C" in their name. It's about experience. Which makes a helluva lot of sense considering the typical learning curve of the QB position

Even if Vince Young made his way into the success category and Brady Quinn made his way into the failure category, the percentages would still be highly skewed in favor of those with the most starts.

First things first, Drew Brees was a second round pick(2001), Brady Quinn was drafted in 2007 so he can't be on a list that stops in 2005, and you forgot Jason Campbell(2005). I'll adjust for these errors going forward.

The logic of your argument is flawed. First, your dividing line of 35 starts isn't fair as it is based around Stafford. If the failure rate for first rounders with more than 35 starts is 25% (3/12), what is it for first rounders with 28 starts or more like Bradford? 44% (7/16) seems like the chances of failure almost doubled but, that isn't true. 7 of those first rounders were four year starters. That means that they were all stud athletes who chose to stay for their senior seasons, all of them were considered pro ready after three years so, you can't be sure that the extra starts made a difference, therefore you can't use them in your comparison of Stafford and Bradford, which is what this is all about.
The second problem I have with your theory is that is implies that players get more talented once they cross an imaginary line of 35 starts. Take away the four year studs and drop players with 28 or fewer starts and you get a failure rate of 80% (4/5) for QBs with between 28 and 35 starts. Why is this end of the pool is so murky? More starts go to more talented players because they beat out their competition on the team, the extra years didn't make them more gifted. a less talented QB can get well over 35 starts in four years. With the average collegiate season being 13 games long; a true junior would have 39 chances to start, a senior 52, look at the start percentage for the studs on this list compared to mid level and bust players:

Jay Cutler- 43 of 52 83%
Carson Palmer- 45 of 52 87%
Ben Roethlisberger 38 of 39 97%
Philip Rivers 49 of 52 94%
Daunte Culpepper 43 of 52 83%
Donovan McNabb 45 of 52 87%
Peyton Manning 45 of 52 87%

Mid-level
Eli Manning 37 of 52 71%
Byron Leftwich 36 of 52 69%
Matt Leinart 39 of 52 75%
Chad Pennington 35 of 52 67%
Mike Vick- 21 of 26 80%
Rex Grossman- 32 of 39 82%
Vince Young- 32 of 39 82%
Aaron Rodgers- 25 of 39 64%
Kyle Boller- 31 of 39 79%
Jason Campbell 46 of 59 78%

Busts:
David Carr- 26 of 39 66.6%
Cade McNown 42 of 52 80%
Ryan Leaf- 24 of 39 62%
Joey Harrington- 26 of 52 50%
JP Losman- 29 of 52 56%
Akili Smith- 11 of 52 21%
Tim Couch- 27 of 39 69%
Alex Smith- 22 of 39 56%

When you look deeper you see that start percentage is a better barometer of talent than simply looking at starts. If a player has first round grade and a percentage of 83% or higher it is a sure sign of NFL success. Rex Grossman and Vince Young both came in at an 82% rate, one led his team to a supperbowl and the other was rookie of the year.

In case you are wondering:
Stafford 35 of 39 89%
Bradford 28 of 28 100% (I doubt his chances of success are this high but Big Ben came in at a 97

keylime_5
01-14-2009, 08:35 AM
So would you three who said that Leinart's not a bust -yet- say that Vince Young's not a bust -yet-?

vince is in the same boat, he was rookie of the year and then had a sophomore slump and then sat behind Collins. His problems are very much psychological though, so he's closer to a bust than Leinart considering he almost retired.

P-L
01-14-2009, 03:20 PM
Basically here is the breakdown, again this is about FIRST ROUND QBS

1st round QBs drafted from 1998-2005 (26 Quarterbacks)
1. Peyton Manning
2. Donovan McNabb
3. Drew Brees
4. Ben Roethlisberger
5. Philip Rivers
6. Carson Palmer
7. Eli Manning
8. Michael Vick
9. Daunte Culpepper
10. Jay Cutler
11. Chad Pennington
12. Aaron Rodgers
13. Rex Grossman
14. Byron Leftwich
15. JP Losman
16. Vince Young
17. Matt Leinart
18. Joey Harrington
19. Patrick Ramsey
20. David Carr
21. Akili Smith
22. Cade McNown
23. Kyle Boller
24. Alex Smith
25. Tim Couch
26. Ryan Leaf

==

QBs with 35+ starts
1. Jay Cutler- 43 starts 57%
2. Carson Palmer- 45 starts 59%
3. Brady Quinn- 46 starts 58%
4. Ben Roethlisberger 38 starts 65%
5. Byron Leftwich 36 starts 65%
6. Matt Leinart 39 starts 65%
7. Philip Rivers 49 starts 64%
8. Daunte Culpepper 43 starts 64%
9. Donovan McNabb 45 starts 63%
10. Peyton Manning 45 starts 63%
11. Eli Manning 37 starts 61%
12. Chad Pennington 35 starts 63%
13. Cade McNown 42 starts 55%

2 out of 13 busts (Leinart and McNown)
3.5 out of 13 dissapointments (Leinart, Leftwich, McNown and Culpepper (half a disappointment))

QBs with Below 35 starts
1. Kyle Boller- 31 starts 48%
2. Ryan Leaf- 24 starts 53%
3. Joey Harrington- 26 starts 55%
4. Mike Vick- 21 starts 56%
5. JP Losman- 29 starts 57%
6. Akili Smith- 11 starts 58%
7. Tim Couch- 27 starts 67%
8. Alex Smith- 22 starts 66%
9. David Carr- 26 starts 62%
10. Drew Brees- 26 starts 61% (Senior)
11. Rex Grossman- 32 starts 61%
12. Vince Young- 32 starts 61%
13. Aaron Rodgers- 25 starts 64%

10 out of 13 busts


To summarize:

10 out of 13 QBs drafted in the 1st round between 1998-2005 with less than 35 starts are BUSTS
76.9 % fail rate
23.1 % success rate

2 out of the 13 QBs drafted in the 1st round between 1998-2005 with 35 or more starts are BUSTS
15.3% fail rate
84.7% success rate


That is far too significant a difference in rate of failure and success to be considered statistically insignificant. Not to mention it's not some random stat like people who have a mustache or the letter "C" in their name. It's about experience. Which makes a helluva lot of sense considering the typical learning curve of the QB position

Even if Vince Young made his way into the success category and Brady Quinn made his way into the failure category, the percentages would still be highly skewed in favor of those with the most starts.
The problem with the data is that the ranges are too big and the variables are too insignificant. The only thing that changes is the physical numbers of games started. The amount a quarterback gets better over each start is an insignificant amount. Sure, it adds up over time but not from one start to the next start. If you wanted more accurate data you'd have to separate them into smaller ranges.

Under 35 starts doesn't really work because you have two extremes on the opposite end of the spectrum.

How can you include Akili Smith and Young/Grossman in the same category? Young and Grossman started pretty much three full years of games while Smith started only one year. You're going to sit there and tell me that the difference between 28 starts and 35 starts (enough to separate them into different categories) but there isn't a big difference between 11 starts and 32 starts?

P. Manning/Palmer/Quinn all had 43+ starts, essentially four full seasons. Guys like Roethlisberger/E. Manning/Pennington barely started three seasons. In reality a full season of experience is a significant difference, but according to your post it's basically the same thing.