PDA

View Full Version : Matthew Stafford vs Sam Bradford


dregolll
08-28-2010, 04:19 PM
Both were #1 overall picks in the respective drafts, Bradford had a great game against the Patriots and Matthew Stafford has been great also. So here is the question, which young QB would you take to build your franchise around?

wonderbredd24
08-28-2010, 04:19 PM
Stafford and it's not even close for me

marshallb
08-28-2010, 04:21 PM
Stafford for me, and also not even close. I was not a big fan of Bradford, and I actually like(d) Clausen slightly more than Bradford.

Splat
08-28-2010, 04:25 PM
Stafford, and it continues to not even be close.

Michigan
08-28-2010, 04:31 PM
Stafford, AINEC. Simply the much bigger talent.

steelersfan43
08-28-2010, 04:39 PM
I used to not like stafford but after watching him last year I respect him. The kids got heart.

I also like bradford though because we stole his people's land :(

abaddon41_80
08-28-2010, 04:42 PM
Bradford. Two years ago in the game against Texas, when Bradford threw 5 touchdowns despite being on the run the whole game, I was sold on him. He may not have the strongest arm, though his arm strength is very underrated, but his accuracy and decision making are elite and he just knows how to play the QB position.

BRAVEHEART
08-28-2010, 05:26 PM
Besides for height, what does Bradford really have on Stafford? Only thing I can think of is a slightly faster release (which is negated due to the fact that Stafford get's the ball to his target quicker due to a much stronger arm).

BeerBaron
08-28-2010, 05:28 PM
I would take Stafford over Bradford 10 out of 10 times.

Stafford has what you look for when you want a franchise QB: the measurables and potential to be elite. Bradford, while a good QB, benefited from a draft class that didn't have any elite QB options and rose up thanks to the premium on QBs and a team at the top in desperate need of a new passer.

wicket
08-28-2010, 05:37 PM
if the choice was stafford vs bradford and a first round draft pick id still pick stafford

Babylon
08-28-2010, 05:39 PM
I used to not like stafford but after watching him last year I respect him. The kids got heart.

I also like bradford though because we stole his people's land :(

Bradford is 1/16th Cherokee, i think the whole native american thing has been overdone.

Mr.Regular
08-28-2010, 05:41 PM
Stafford for me, and again, it's not even close.

Brent
08-28-2010, 05:45 PM
Stafford has swag, but I will hold judgment until I see a season of Bradford.

MetSox17
08-28-2010, 06:08 PM
Eh, it's pretty unfair to Bradford to compare him to someone who we've already seen a year of. Bradford, while not having that elite arm strength that Stafford does, is very much an elite prospect nonetheless. I too, will hold judgment until we've seen enough of Bradford.

BeerBaron
08-28-2010, 06:09 PM
Stafford has swag, but I will hold judgment until I see a season of Bradford.

Eh, it's pretty unfair to Bradford to compare him to someone who we've already seen a year of. Bradford, while not having that elite arm strength that Stafford does, is very much an elite prospect nonetheless. I too, will hold judgment until we've seen enough of Bradford.

Think of them each coming out as prospects. Would you really have considered Bradford over Stafford even a little?

MetSox17
08-28-2010, 06:22 PM
Yes, cause Stafford did dick in college. Bradford dominated.

Brent
08-28-2010, 06:26 PM
if Bradford didnt go back to school, I think he goes before Stafford, without a doubt

yo123
08-28-2010, 06:26 PM
Besides for height, what does Bradford really have on Stafford? Only thing I can think of is a slightly faster release (which is negated due to the fact that Stafford get's the ball to his target quicker due to a much stronger arm).



I'd say Bradford has the edge in accuracy between the two.

descendency
08-28-2010, 06:27 PM
Besides for height, what does Bradford really have on Stafford? Only thing I can think of is a slightly faster release (which is negated due to the fact that Stafford get's the ball to his target quicker due to a much stronger arm).

Faster release, more accurate.

Stafford is a bit more of a gunslinger.

I'd take Bradford with protection and Stafford in general.

Yes, cause Stafford did dick in college. Bradford dominated.

What did David Greene do in the NFL?

BeerBaron
08-28-2010, 06:28 PM
Yes, cause Stafford did dick in college. Bradford dominated.

Bradford also got to woop up on the defensive powerhouses that reside in the Big 12 too. Not saying that Stafford was great against the SEC, but switch them places, and I think Stafford would have looked a lot better while Bradford would have been much more average against real defenses.

abaddon41_80
08-28-2010, 06:29 PM
Think of them each coming out as prospects. Would you really have considered Bradford over Stafford even a little?

If Bradford has come out in 2009 I would have taken him over Stafford

wonderbredd24
08-28-2010, 06:30 PM
If Bradford has come out in 2009 I would have taken him over Stafford
as a redshirt sophomore?

That has a high success rate... /sarcasm

P-L
08-28-2010, 06:32 PM
I liked Stafford coming out much more than I liked Bradford.

abaddon41_80
08-28-2010, 06:32 PM
Bradford also got to woop up on the defensive powerhouses that reside in the Big 12 too. Not saying that Stafford was great against the SEC, but switch them places, and I think Stafford would have looked a lot better while Bradford would have been much more average against real defenses.

Bradford's performance against the 2008 Gators wasn't bad, much better than Stafford's

BRAVEHEART
08-28-2010, 06:33 PM
Yes, cause Stafford did dick in college. Bradford dominated.

Bradford wouldn't have done **** at Georgia, he probably wouldn't have even played due to injuries. Bradford (just like McCoy's) production was overrated anyway. Landry jones will produce just like him anyway.

BeerBaron
08-28-2010, 06:37 PM
Bradford's performance against the 2008 Gators wasn't bad, much better than Stafford's

One instance doesn't really cut it for me though. He wasn't bad against Florida...but if in the following weeks he also had to go play Alabama and LSU, his stats in college wouldn't have been nearly as good.

P-L
08-28-2010, 06:38 PM
Bradford's performance against the 2008 Gators wasn't bad, much better than Stafford'sSam Bradford also had four future NFL players on his offensive line and a much more productive running game (against the Gators).

steelersfan43
08-28-2010, 06:42 PM
Bradford is 1/16th Cherokee, i think the whole native american thing has been overdone.

Hes an official member of the Cherokee Nation, and theres not many full native americans left anymore..

ATLDirtyBirds
08-28-2010, 06:51 PM
Stafford without a doubt for me.

armageddon
08-28-2010, 08:39 PM
Bradford and it's not close. Smarter, more accurate, quicker release, better reads.

Saints-Tigers
08-28-2010, 08:40 PM
Stafford easily, he's better at everything.

armageddon
08-28-2010, 08:45 PM
Give Calvin to Bradford for a year and this wouldn't even be a debate.

Brodeur
08-28-2010, 09:02 PM
if Bradford didnt go back to school, I think he goes before Stafford, without a doubt

No ******* way in hell would Mayhew have taken Bradford over Stafford.

Saints-Tigers
08-28-2010, 09:48 PM
No one with half a brain would take Bradford over Stafford.

A Perfect Score
08-28-2010, 10:00 PM
Before Bradford hurt his shoulder his senior season, I think there is a very real possibility that he goes before Stafford in that draft.

Brodeur
08-28-2010, 10:01 PM
Before Bradford hurt his shoulder his senior season, I think there is a very real possibility that he goes before Stafford in that draft.

No there isn't.

tjsunstein
08-28-2010, 10:03 PM
Stafford is definitely the elite prospect here.

wonderbredd24
08-28-2010, 10:04 PM
Before Bradford hurt his shoulder his senior season, I think there is a very real possibility that he goes before Stafford in that draft.
He was only a red shirt sophomore when he would've gone up against Stafford and I'm not convinced he would've gone before Sanchez

Complex
08-28-2010, 10:07 PM
bradford had a chance to go #1 last year

wonderbredd24
08-28-2010, 10:10 PM
bradford had a chance to go #1 last year
The overwhelming failure rate of redshirt sophomore quarterbacks in the NFL suggests otherwise.

abaddon41_80
08-28-2010, 10:10 PM
No one with half a brain would take Bradford over Stafford.

Why is that?

A Perfect Score
08-28-2010, 10:13 PM
No there isn't.

He had just won the Heisman, threw 86 TDs in 2 seasons and had all the accuracy and arm strength he had before going #1 overall this year. Yes he was a redshirt sophomore and there were concerns over how he handled pressure, but I think if Bradford had come out that year it would of been very interesting to see if Stafford still went #1 overall. It certainly isn't as clear cut as people make it out to be...Concerns over his shoulder were a huge reason for Bradford's stock not being all that high leading up towards the draft.

scottyboy
08-28-2010, 10:16 PM
whatever, neither is as good as Tom Savage.

But I actually really like both a lot, but I think Stafford is in a MUCH better position for success

wonderbredd24
08-28-2010, 10:19 PM
Every single redshirt sophomore QB drafted into the NFL has been a colossal bust save one. And the one was Michael Vick.

Beyond that, Stafford had the arm, accuracy, and not only played in the SEC, but had 3 seasons of experience in a pro style offense and was only 20 at the time of the draft. The biggest questions surrounding Stafford were decision making and people worrying he'd be too much like Favre and trust his arm too much.

wonderbredd24
08-28-2010, 10:20 PM
whatever, neither is as good as Tom Savage.

But I actually really like both a lot, but I think Stafford is in a MUCH better position for success
I'm excited to see Savage to Sanu this year.

Has Savage looked much better in spring practice and such this year?

abaddon41_80
08-28-2010, 10:20 PM
Stafford had better accuracy than Bradford? When did this happen

wonderbredd24
08-28-2010, 10:22 PM
Stafford had better accuracy than Bradford? When did this happen

Don't think anyone said he was better in the accuracy department, but Stafford was accurate going into the draft.

SickwithIt1010
08-28-2010, 10:25 PM
Stafford, i dont think this should even be a question

scottyboy
08-28-2010, 10:32 PM
I'm excited to see Savage to Sanu this year.

Has Savage looked much better in spring practice and such this year?

THREAD HI-JACK MOFOS!

Savage has looked awesome so far. He's grasping the whole playbook and their giving him really the full reign. No more conservative calls and stuff. Can't say much about his arm with just practices, but he's attitude, swagger, confidence and knowledge of the system and stuff are through the roof. nothing but raves about him from everyone

abaddon41_80
08-28-2010, 10:34 PM
Don't think anyone said he was better in the accuracy department, but Stafford was accurate going into the draft.

..Beyond that, Stafford had the arm, accuracy, and not only played in the SEC,...

That is what it sounds like you are saying

wonderbredd24
08-28-2010, 10:36 PM
That is what it sounds like you are saying

I can see why you'd get that impression. No, Bradford was the more accurate of the two, but Stafford was accurate.

abaddon41_80
08-28-2010, 10:38 PM
Stafford was reasonably accurate, when he made the right decision where to throw the ball, but compared to Bradford his accuracy paled in comparison. Coming out Stafford had,

- The cannon
- Experience

while Bradford had,

- Better accuracy
- Better decision making

BeerBaron
08-28-2010, 10:54 PM
while Bradford had,

- Better accuracy
- Better decision making

There are tons and tons of college QBs who go undrafted every year with those traits. Maybe they're too small, don't have the arm, played in a ****** program....you name it.

Stafford had Bradford (almost said Sanchez.....olllddddd memories....) beat in every other category, and his accuracy wasn't that much worse.

I'm not arguing that Bradford was a bad prospect, but Stafford was better.

abaddon41_80
08-28-2010, 10:57 PM
It is not like Bradford has a weak arm, though. I would compare his arm strength to that of Aaron Rodgers

Nalej
08-28-2010, 11:01 PM
It is not like Bradford has a weak arm, though. I would compare his arm strength to that of Aaron Rodgers

What?! You are out of your mind! Bradford's arm is nowhere near Rodgers (strength wise)

Saints-Tigers
08-28-2010, 11:02 PM
BRadford is more accurate on things like bubble screens. He's really good at those, having thrown so many in college.

abaddon41_80
08-28-2010, 11:03 PM
What?! You are out of your mind! Bradford's arm is nowhere near Rodgers (strength wise)

Rodgers' arm strength coming out of college is very similar to Bradford's, imo

BeerBaron
08-28-2010, 11:05 PM
It is not like Bradford has a weak arm, though. I would compare his arm strength to that of Aaron Rodgers

I'd call it functional arm strength, assuming the shoulder injury didn't take anything off of his college velocity.

But when arm strength becomes an asset is when it opens up the playbook more. Kyle Orton for example has made a decent career for himself with what I could classify as barely functional armstrength. A lot of people think of deep bombs and deep bombs alone when you get talking about it, but where arm strength really is key is the intermediate range throws it allows you to make. An example I always like to use is what I've seen out of Jay Cutler since he's been on my team. Sure he has his problems, but arm strength isn't one of them and I've seem him complete some amazing throws that someone like Orton just couldn't do....or wouldn't even attempt. I just saw one tonight where he fit the ball in perfectly between two defenders. Any less zip on that pass and it would have been picked.

Stafford has that "wow" arm that will open up more pages of the playbook for him. Someone like Bradford can still have a nice career and make most of the throws, but he just isn't going to make the plays that Stafford could.

armageddon
08-28-2010, 11:12 PM
If arm strength was the end all, Jeff George would be a HOF'er. Actually, Bradford has a very good arm. Way above average. What sets him apart is his accuracy and decision making. He was hitting his third read against the Pats and that was his first start EVER. He has very good mobility too. He isn't Vince Young, but he escapes the rush and rolls out very well. His throwing on the run is awesome too. The dude just has "it". I am saying this after watching Warner in his hay-day with the Rams. Bradford has way more if the "it-factor" than Warner did too. WAY more athletic than Warner too.

San Diego Chicken
08-28-2010, 11:13 PM
I think Stafford was the better prospect, but as to who is going to be better in the NFL, it's a little bit trickier.

I'll go with the cop-out answer and say it depends on the offense and personnel around each. Bradford looked good out there against NE and he seems like a Rich Gannon type that should be able to thrive off of 3 step drops and quick hitting underneath routes.

Stafford has that great arm and great potential in a vertical passing offense. His OL isn't nearly where it needs to be though.

BeerBaron
08-28-2010, 11:14 PM
If arm strength was the end all, Jeff George would be a HOF'er.

And Jamarcus Russell would be right there with him, I know. But, if you have it in addition to the other tools, you will simply be able to do so much more.

Why do you think these guys with big arms keep getting drafted if there wasn't something to it?

Michigan
08-28-2010, 11:33 PM
If arm strength was the end all, Jeff George would be a HOF'er.

I really don't get why people use this argument. If having an average arm and being accurate was the end all, Joey Harrington would currently be a pro bowler. See what I did there?

katnip
08-29-2010, 12:17 AM
I liked Stafford coming out much more than I liked Bradford.

this too 4 i

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-29-2010, 12:17 AM
I'd call it functional arm strength, assuming the shoulder injury didn't take anything off of his college velocity.

But when arm strength becomes an asset is when it opens up the playbook more. Kyle Orton for example has made a decent career for himself with what I could classify as barely functional armstrength. A lot of people think of deep bombs and deep bombs alone when you get talking about it, but where arm strength really is key is the intermediate range throws it allows you to make. An example I always like to use is what I've seen out of Jay Cutler since he's been on my team. Sure he has his problems, but arm strength isn't one of them and I've seem him complete some amazing throws that someone like Orton just couldn't do....or wouldn't even attempt. I just saw one tonight where he fit the ball in perfectly between two defenders. Any less zip on that pass and it would have been picked.

Stafford has that "wow" arm that will open up more pages of the playbook for him. Someone like Bradford can still have a nice career and make most of the throws, but he just isn't going to make the plays that Stafford could.

I also noticed the difference when the literal exact opposite of that happened on my team. Also, the most incredible Cutler throw I ever saw was a 2-yard pass into the flats.

rdjitpEOAfo

At the 2 minute mark. I remember watching that game and being like ****! Pick six... and all of a sudden I hear "Touchdown, Broncos!" and I go wtf?

yourfavestoner
08-29-2010, 12:44 AM
if Bradford didnt go back to school, I think he goes before Stafford, without a doubt

This, this, this.

I think Stafford is the better "prospect," but Bradford will end up the better pro. If that makes sense.

TACKLE
08-29-2010, 02:13 AM
I'm going to against the grain and say Bradford. I'm a more sold on his ability to become a top flight passer compared to Stafford. He has superior accuracy, ball placement, decision making, touch, anticipation, pocket presence and a bit quicker release. As a passer, the only real advantage Stafford has over Bradford his arm strength and his ability to throw the deep dig route. Though, Bradford's arm strength has been severely underrated by some. He doesn't have a cannon but he doesn't have a Orton/Pennington caliber arm. His arm strength is very comparable to guys like Rodgers, Schaub and Rivers. Its not a knock on Stafford. I am just more comfortable that Bradford's skillset will allow him to be a more effective passer.

Saints-Tigers
08-29-2010, 03:11 AM
Bradford's arm is nothing like Rodgers, WTF is this?

Joecool
08-29-2010, 03:39 AM
I would have to take bradford on this. Hes better on the run and he can by time and nail targets pretty deep. He kinda reminds me of mcnabb just not as good yet. Stafford got hurt a lot. Of coors sam needs some real time in a game to see how this plays out. But drafting wise i think i would pick bradford.

Saints-Tigers
08-29-2010, 04:09 AM
I would have to take bradford on this. Hes better on the run and he can by time and nail targets pretty deep. He kinda reminds me of mcnabb just not as good yet. Stafford got hurt a lot. Of coors sam needs some real time in a game to see how this plays out. But drafting wise i think i would pick bradford.


HAHAHAH

Stafford got hurt about the same amount of times Bradford threw a pass last year.

Nalej
08-29-2010, 09:25 AM
I'd take Stafford. I've never been sold on Bradford.
I wish him the best in the NFL... hope he makes Pro Bowls...
I just don't see him ever being more than just an adequate QB
...nothing special

While I was down on Stafford, I still liked him over Bradford.

BeerBaron
08-29-2010, 10:36 AM
I also noticed the difference when the literal exact opposite of that happened on my team. Also, the most incredible Cutler throw I ever saw was a 2-yard pass into the flats.

rdjitpEOAfo

At the 2 minute mark. I remember watching that game and being like ****! Pick six... and all of a sudden I hear "Touchdown, Broncos!" and I go wtf?

Yeah, that's exactly the type of throw I'm talking about. Orton either wouldn't have thrown that pass since it was such a tight window, or it would have been going back 100 yards for 6 points the other way since he tends to float them.

Starting at about 31 seconds is another awesome throw. He rolls right, doesn't even strain himself that much, and flings the ball beautifully 40 yards for a TD.

J-Mike88
08-29-2010, 10:51 AM
I'm going to against the grain and say Bradford.I think Bradford is smarter. Stafford has Megatron which is a big help. Both play in climate-controlled, no windy condition domes.

I still worry about Bradford's durability, but Stafford missed some time last year already.

I think a lot depends on the team surrounding them, and that favors the Lions for the next few years at least.

Michigan
08-29-2010, 11:06 AM
I think a lot depends on the team surrounding them, and that favors the Lions for the next few years at least.

You don't know how many years I've waited for this statement to be said.

BeerBaron
08-29-2010, 11:48 AM
You don't know how many years I've waited for this statement to be said.

Well.....it is the Rams as the other team here. It's like winning a "who is the smartest kid on the short bus" contest.

Geason Noceur
08-29-2010, 12:14 PM
Yes, cause Stafford did dick in college. Bradford dominated.

LOL. Stafford was 11-4 against ranked teams. That's better than Bradford's, Tebow's, Clausen's, etc., record. Stafford also led Georgia to a No. 2 national ranking, won all three of his bowl games, and was MVP of two of them. He also played in the SEC behind the youngest O-line in the country. He had three freshmen and two sophomores blocking for him.

Winning the Heisman doesn't mean much when you're playing behind the best O-line in the country, inflating your stats by dinking and dunking against weak Big 12 defenses and losing your bowl games.

King Carls 5 Year Plan
08-29-2010, 12:15 PM
Your first instinct is to jump in say Stafford. He has the big arm, the prototypical size you look for in a QB and he has a lazer rocket for a right arm. But so do alot of other QBs that have failed or underwhelmed. Some that are still currently playing **eh hem (clearing throat) Jay Cutler**

If I have learned anything watching the Colts over the past 12 years or the Saints the past 4 years is that an accurate QB that is a student of the game goes farther than anything else in the NFL. Brees and Peyton are the crown jewels of their craft and if I had to pick whether Stafford or Bradford reminded me of them, it would be Bradford.

He seems to be more apt to learn the nuances of defenses and make the correct adjustments. He definitely is the more accurate passer and will only improve upon that. Let's face it. IMO, Bradford has the much higher football IQ and I will take a high IQ QB over one with a big arm (JaMarcus Russell) any day of the week if I'm building a franchise.

armageddon
08-29-2010, 12:20 PM
Well.....it is the Rams as the other team here. It's like winning a "who is the smartest kid on the short bus" contest.



The Rams now have one of the wealthiest people in all of sports as an owner so you don't have to worry about the Rams not being competitive any longer. Plus, their last two draft have been outstanding. They are a team about to rise up.

Rams 1998- 4-12
Rams 1999 - Superbowl Champions

Never say never.

armageddon
08-29-2010, 12:22 PM
Your first instinct is to jump in say Stafford. He has the big arm, the prototypical size you look for in a QB and he has a lazer rocket for a right arm. But so do alot of other QBs that have failed or underwhelmed. Some that are still currently playing **eh hem (clearing throat) Jay Cutler**

If I have learned anything watching the Colts over the past 12 years or the Saints the past 4 years is that an accurate QB that is a student of the game goes farther than anything else in the NFL. Brees and Peyton are the crown jewels of their craft and if I had to pick whether Stafford or Bradford reminded me of them, it would be Bradford.

He seems to be more apt to learn the nuances of defenses and make the correct adjustments. He definitely is the more accurate passer and will only improve upon that. Let's face it. IMO, Bradford has the much higher football IQ and I will take a high IQ QB over one with a big arm (JaMarcus Russell) any day of the week if I'm building a franchise.



Well said. BTW, I think Bradford is actually bigger than Stafford. Bradford is listed at 6'4 235 from the combine.

jrdrylie
08-29-2010, 12:34 PM
Stafford has a much stronger arm, I think accuracy is pretty comparable, with the slight edge to Bradford. But what really sells me on Stafford is the end of last season's Detroit-Cleveland game. Go to the 3:30 of this video and you'll see the ability to gain time with his feet, swagger, and toughness that I don't think Sam Bradford has.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugA8G4rv_8g

Add to the fact that Bradford was coming off an injury, played against worse defenses, played in a spread offense, and was only a redshirt sophomore, and I would take Stafford over Bradford without even thinking twice about it.

Brodeur
08-29-2010, 12:34 PM
Your first instinct is to jump in say Stafford. He has the big arm, the prototypical size you look for in a QB and he has a lazer rocket for a right arm. But so do alot of other QBs that have failed or underwhelmed. Some that are still currently playing **eh hem (clearing throat) Jay Cutler**

If I have learned anything watching the Colts over the past 12 years or the Saints the past 4 years is that an accurate QB that is a student of the game goes farther than anything else in the NFL. Brees and Peyton are the crown jewels of their craft and if I had to pick whether Stafford or Bradford reminded me of them, it would be Bradford.

He seems to be more apt to learn the nuances of defenses and make the correct adjustments. He definitely is the more accurate passer and will only improve upon that. Let's face it. IMO, Bradford has the much higher football IQ and I will take a high IQ QB over one with a big arm (JaMarcus Russell) any day of the week if I'm building a franchise.

Stafford actually scored higher on the wonderlic, and is a high IQ QB himself but apparently the Bradford defenders like to obsess with everyone thinking that all Stafford is a guy with a big arm.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-29-2010, 12:42 PM
Stafford actually scored higher on the wonderlic, and is a high IQ QB himself but apparently the Bradford defenders like to obsess with everyone thinking that all Stafford is a guy with a big arm.

People who dislike a QB with a big arm do that all the time. They look at the big arm and say "oh he isn't accurate, he doesn't make good decisions, blah blah blah" and ignore the things that that quarterback has to compliment the arm, things like accuracy, pocket mobility, toughness, confidence, etc. You don't even need to know anything about a big armed QB to hate on him, you just need to join the line saying he's nothing but a big arm and you gain instant acceptance.

abaddon41_80
08-29-2010, 12:53 PM
Stafford actually scored higher on the wonderlic, and is a high IQ QB himself but apparently the Bradford defenders like to obsess with everyone thinking that all Stafford is a guy with a big arm.

And Stafford defenders think that all Bradford is good for is dump offs and short passes.

People who dislike a QB with a big arm do that all the time. They look at the big arm and say "oh he isn't accurate, he doesn't make good decisions, blah blah blah" and ignore the things that that quarterback has to compliment the arm, things like accuracy, pocket mobility, toughness, confidence, etc. You don't even need to know anything about a big armed QB to hate on him, you just need to join the line saying he's nothing but a big arm and you gain instant acceptance.

No one is saying that Stafford is inaccurate and makes bad decisions, just that Bradford is more accurate and makes better decisions

yourfavestoner
08-29-2010, 01:09 PM
People who dislike a QB with a big arm do that all the time. They look at the big arm and say "oh he isn't accurate, he doesn't make good decisions, blah blah blah" and ignore the things that that quarterback has to compliment the arm, things like accuracy, pocket mobility, toughness, confidence, etc. You don't even need to know anything about a big armed QB to hate on him, you just need to join the line saying he's nothing but a big arm and you gain instant acceptance.

Meh...I watched plenty of Stafford, and he never struck me as a guy who had an elite "feel" for the game, if you know what I mean. However, there would be at least two or three times a game where I'd say "holy ****, how the hell did he do that?"

Calvin & Kevin
08-29-2010, 01:11 PM
If I have learned anything watching the Colts over the past 12 years or the Saints the past 4 years is that an accurate QB that is a student of the game goes farther than anything else in the NFL. Brees and Peyton are the crown jewels of their craft and if I had to pick whether Stafford or Bradford reminded me of them, it would be Bradford.

He seems to be more apt to learn the nuances of defenses and make the correct adjustments.

Your assessment of Stafford is all wrong here. One thing Schwartz and Mayhew have said repeatedly is that the deciding factor on drafting Stafford was his deep knowledge of the game, that they went over Georgia game tapes during their interviews and before they even turned the screen on, they would ask him about certain plays he'd made in games and he rattled off to them the exact situation, the formations of both offense and defense, what he was thinking, and the decisions he ended up making. Then they'd view the play and go over it again.

If you look at Stafford and the improvement he is displaying so far this preseason, the reason for it is he spent the whole off season working every week studying Linehan's offense and going over it with his receivers. I have also read accounts of him being in touch with Peyton and Eli Manning after meeting them at some '09 off-season function, and especially Peyton mentoring him in the preparation and work habits necessary to become a great QB.

I don't know about Bradford, maybe he's got that too, but if anyone here is trying the characterize Stafford as some kind of Brett Favre gunslinger savant with limited analytical skills and not a real student of the game, that's not accurate.

Brodeur
08-29-2010, 01:12 PM
Meh...I watched plenty of Stafford, and he never struck me as a guy who had an elite "feel" for the game, if you know what I mean. However, there would be at least two or three times a game where I'd say "holy ****, how the hell did he do that?"

Apparently you haven't watched much of him lately, or the last game he was healthy last year.

yourfavestoner
08-29-2010, 01:19 PM
Apparently you haven't watched much of him lately, or the last game he was healthy last year.

I haven't seen one game of him as a Lion. I only saw him when he was at Georgia. I'm speaking about him purely as a prospect coming out of college.

Shiver
08-29-2010, 01:55 PM
Bradford sucks, will suck, from now into the immediate future.


Brittle
Weak competition
Amazing supporting cast
Too much "projection" because he didn't start many games in college
Heisman winner
Thrown into the St Louis Rams fire off of six wins in three years

He has all the QB red-flags.

armageddon
08-29-2010, 02:00 PM
Bradford sucks, will suck, from now into the immediate future.


Brittle
Weak competition
Amazing supporting cast
Too much "projection" because he didn't start many games in college
Heisman winner
Thrown into the St Louis Rams fire off of six wins in three years

He has all the QB red-flags.



Tell that to the Patriots #1 D.

Shiver
08-29-2010, 02:01 PM
Matt Leinart tore up the Bears and Broncos #1 defenses in the preseason in 2006. Jamarcus Russell had a passer rating of 96 last preseason.

619
08-29-2010, 02:15 PM
Both QBs will be all-pro caliber in a couple of years, how 'bout that? I've been very, very impressed with both of them, albeit based off preseason action. And it's not even a matter of reading recaps of the game and articulating what's already been put out there in the mass media. Not that I'm accusing of any of you of this, because this (for the most part) is a highly intellectual bunch.

I, for one, saw the first half of the Pats/Rams game, and critically evaluated Bradford from a neutral perspective; he came across as sublimely prepared for the Pats defense, and in tune with the nuances of the position - all of which has already been stated in this thread. If the Cards' brass can say that Max Hall has shown "Kurt Warner qualities" thus far, then I don't feel wrong for saying that Bradford has displayed "Peyton Manning qualities" in limited action. Of course, that doesn't really mean much.

TACKLE
08-29-2010, 02:17 PM
Bradford sucks, will suck, from now into the immediate future.


Brittle
Weak competition
Amazing supporting cast
Too much "projection" because he didn't start many games in college
Heisman winner
Thrown into the St Louis Rams fire off of six wins in three years

He has all the QB red-flags.

Yet none of that has absolutely anything to do with what he can do as a football player. You're evaluation is based off info you could find in a wikipedia search opposed to info you could find on film.

Paranoidmoonduck
08-29-2010, 02:21 PM
This is a pretty unfair discussion. Stafford didn't have a great year last year, but he had some good performances and he won a lot of fans (myself being among that group) with that unbelievable finish he managed against Cleveland. Bradford looks like he'll start all 16 games this year (if healthy), but he hasn't even had a chance to move past the ideas we have of him as a Sooner (some positive, some not so much) while Stafford had a defining rookie year.

Stafford was the better prospect, without a doubt. Let's have this discussion after this season is up though, okay?

tjsunstein
08-29-2010, 02:25 PM
I think Bradford is smarter. Stafford has Megatron which is a big help. Both play in climate-controlled, no windy condition domes.

I still worry about Bradford's durability, but Stafford missed some time last year already.

I think a lot depends on the team surrounding them, and that favors the Lions for the next few years at least.
Definitely a misconception if you're basing it off of college playmaking decisions like I think you are. Bradford's system could make Jamarcus Russell look smart.

Quetioning Stafford's durability already? After he played hurt like he did in that comeback win? Ouch, no one gets slack.

Shiver
08-29-2010, 02:50 PM
Yet none of that has absolutely anything to do with what he can do as a football player. You're evaluation is based off info you could find in a wikipedia search opposed to info you could find on film.


WRONG
BrittleToo much "projection" because he didn't start many games in college. Quarterbacks who do not have 35+ games starting experience under their belt tend to be busts. Why? Because if you give NFL scouts that much tape they will find out your flaws and tendencies, if you still pass the test then you will succeed. It is the difference between a Ryan Leaf and a Peyton Manning. The difference between Akili Smith and Donovan McNabb.
Weak competition and an amazing supporting castPlaying in that offense, with that help around you, against Big-12 defenses have artificially inflated passing statistics for an entire decade. Has he ever had to throw a well timed pass, into a window 15 yards down the field, with a 300-lbs. DT barring down on him? If so, not often. It is why Quarterbacks from ultra-successful programs rarely turn into great Quarterbacks. Look at the list of the NFL's best:

Peyton Manning (Tennessee)
Tom Brady (Michigan, splitting time with Henson)
Drew Brees (Purdue)
Aaron Rodgers (California)
Philip Rivers (NC State)
Tony Romo (Eastern Illinois)
Brett Favre (Southern Mississippi)
Eli Manning (Ole Miss)
Ben Roethlisberger (Miami Ohio)
Donovan McNabb (Syracuse)
Carson Palmer (USC, recruited prior to Carroll rebuilding the program, but I will accept this I suppose)

I could go on and on.
Heisman winner
Thrown into the St Louis Rams fire off of six wins in three yearsThese, I will grant you, are not based on his ability to play football.

TACKLE
08-29-2010, 03:27 PM
These, I will grant you, are not based on his ability to play football.

This is the problem. You are looking solely at statistical trends yet they have no bearing on Sam Bradford's ability to be a successful football player. Statistical trends have nothing to do with how well Bradford can read a defense or how well he can step up into pressure and deliver the ball downfield or how accurate he is with the football or how quickly he can go through his progressions. Yes, trends can give us some insight in predicting NFL success. But trends also have no impact on an individuals ability to become a successful player. Using trends as the primary way of evaluating a QB is the easy way out. It allows people to make judgments without actually watching that player closely and deciding how well you think their game will translate into the NFL.

Shiver
08-29-2010, 03:39 PM
This is the problem. You are looking solely at statistical trends yet they have no bearing on Sam Bradford's ability to be a successful football player. Statistical trends have nothing to do with how well Bradford can read a defense or how well he can step up into pressure and deliver the ball downfield or how accurate he is with the football or how quickly he can go through his progressions. Yes, trends can give us some insight in predicting NFL success. But trends also have no impact on an individuals ability to become a successful player. Using trends as the primary way of evaluating a QB is the easy way out. It allows people to make judgments without actually watching that player closely and deciding how well you think their game will translate into the NFL.


And I quote:

. Has he ever had to throw a well timed pass, into a window 15 yards down the field, with a 300-lbs. DT barring down on him? If so, not often. Also, it is hilarious that you assume that I didn't see him play a lot considering I live smack dab in the middle of Big 12 country. The fact he is when you are presented with observation plus statistical trends that go against your preconceived notion about how he successful he will be you simply ignore all of the first and dismiss the later.

armageddon
08-29-2010, 03:59 PM
He made every throw imaginable against the Patriots. He's the real deal. Get over your jealousy and hatred for the man.

Sniper
08-29-2010, 04:03 PM
He made every throw imaginable against the Patriots.

Pre-season: where legends are made.

Shiver
08-29-2010, 04:15 PM
He made every throw imaginable against the Patriots. He's the real deal. Get over your jealousy and hatred for the man.

http://knowyourmeme.com/i/151/original/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg


Pre-season: where legends are made.


Yes, sir. Only jealous haters would say otherwise.

Brent
08-29-2010, 04:19 PM
Pre-season: where legends are made.
Clearly, you are unaware of the legend that is Brett Ratliff.

armageddon
08-29-2010, 04:20 PM
It was the same stuff on here when comparing him to Clausen prior to the draft. The same fools ripped Bradford and praised Clausen. Some people just hate Bradford for some reason. Maybe it's because he destroyed their college team ? Not really sure. But the guy just keeps proving people wrong at every stop.

Shiver
08-29-2010, 04:22 PM
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll261/Maldavius/SuccesfulTroll.jpg

TACKLE
08-29-2010, 04:27 PM
And I quote:

Has he ever had to throw a well timed pass, into a window 15 yards down the field, with a 300-lbs. DT barring down on him? If so, not often.

Also, it is hilarious that you assume that I didn't see him play a lot considering I live smack dab in the middle of Big 12 country. The fact he is when you are presented with observation plus statistical trends that go against your preconceived notion about how he successful he will be you simply ignore all of the first and dismiss the later.

I never once said that you did not get to see him play a lot. I just said it allows people (in general) to make judgments without watching the player closely. I don't really see how you can disagree with that. Though I do find it odd that as someone who is in the middle of Big 12 country and has seen Bradford play extensively, that you only brought out one point that is related to all those games you saw Bradford play in. And is that particular question mark the one football related concern you have that leads you to believe that he will not be a successful QB?


Has he ever had to throw a well timed pass, into a window 15 yards down the field, with a 300-lbs. DT barring down on him? If so, not often.

I try to not use Youtube as a resource for things like this but there is evidence that in only 5.5 games of highlights that suggests he is capable of making those throws downfield will being hit/under pressure. There are numerous other plays that come to mind that aren't included in this particular video.

3:20-3:28

5:10-5:18

6:00-6:10

7:05-7:11

DwstGmNajh0

Shiver
08-29-2010, 04:39 PM
Show me the Youtube Lowlights video of Sam Bradford and then we will talk.

abaddon41_80
08-29-2010, 04:42 PM
Show me the Youtube Lowlights video of Sam Bradford and then we will talk.

There aren't gonna be many of those.

Shiver
08-29-2010, 04:46 PM
Give it about six months.

vidae
08-29-2010, 04:49 PM
Did Bradford run over your dog or something Shiver?

abaddon41_80
08-29-2010, 04:53 PM
Give it about six months.

Seriously man, what don't you like about him?

Arm strength - Average to good
Accuracy - Great
Decision making - Great
Mechanics - Good (great for a rookie)
Size - Good
Mobility - Good
Football IQ - Good
College Performance - Great

What else do you look for in a prospect?

Sniper
08-29-2010, 04:57 PM
Seriously man, what don't you like about him?

Arm strength - Average to good
Accuracy - Great
Decision making - Great
Mechanics - Good (great for a rookie)
Size - Good
Mobility - Good
Football IQ - Good
College Performance - Great

What else do you look for in a prospect?

Durability- Got demolished by a corner. He's a *****.

Bradford's decision-making is hard to evaluate. It's not hard to make the correct read and throw when you have 20 minutes to throw.

Paranoidmoonduck
08-29-2010, 04:58 PM
Durability- Got demolished by a corner. He's a *****.

Yeah, Steven Young was a total *****!

Wait, who are we talking about?

Sniper
08-29-2010, 04:58 PM
It was the same stuff on here when comparing him to Clausen prior to the draft. The same fools ripped Bradford and praised Clausen. Some people just hate Bradford for some reason. Maybe it's because he destroyed their college team ? Not really sure. But the guy just keeps proving people wrong at every stop.

That's because Clausen is a better QB. I love Clausen's potential.

abaddon41_80
08-29-2010, 05:00 PM
Durability- Got demolished by a corner. He's a *****.

Bradford's decision-making is hard to evaluate. It's not hard to make the correct read and throw when you have 20 minutes to throw.

A corner came in on a free blitz and drove his already injured shoulder into the ground.

Sniper
08-29-2010, 05:01 PM
A corner came in on a free blitz and drive his already injured shoulder into the ground.

Poor guy. Is he going to survive?

TACKLE
08-29-2010, 05:03 PM
Give it about six months.

Okay. So if a rookie QB on the least talented football team in the NFL with by far the worst receiving core in the NFL doesn't light it up in his rookie season, he will be a bust right? Won't I look foolish when I look back at this in six month. At that point, I'll probably look back and say "I should of known better. He didn't start 35+ games in college, he played at a top program and won the Heisman trophy. All those signs should of told me he was going to be a huge bust. Why did I even bother watching him play?"

:rolleyes:

Shiver
08-29-2010, 05:05 PM
Seriously man, what don't you like about him?

Arm strength - Average to good
Accuracy - Great
Decision making - Great
Mechanics - Good (great for a rookie)
Size - Good
Mobility - Good
Football IQ - Good
College Performance - Great

What else do you look for in a prospect?


Three of those I am not sure of, at all. College accuracy and decision making and NFL accuracy and decision making are two very different things.

As for football IQ, how would you know? Have you seen him at the chalkboard, seen him breaking down film sessions? I doubt it. Besides, his offense does not translate to the NFL. How he will process the pro game will take time, time he won't get being thrown into the lions den on the awful Rams. Even Drew Brees, who processes info as good as any QB in the league, took three years to transition from Purdue to San Diego. It took so long that people thought he was a bust and they drafted his replacement, he won "comeback player of the year" just by not sucking in '04.

The fourth, italicized, is something that needs to be seen through the lens of context and team performance.

Paranoidmoonduck
08-29-2010, 05:07 PM
Three of those I am not sure of, at all. College accuracy and decision making and NFL accuracy and decision making are two very different things.

Then what the hell are we talking about in the first place? If you're willing to admit that Bradford's performance in college has little bearing on how he adjusts and grows in the NFL, then neither positive or negative comments on him as a college player hold much bearing.

Sniper
08-29-2010, 05:09 PM
Show me the Youtube Lowlights video of Sam Bradford and then we will talk.

http://0.tqn.com/d/football/1/0/g/W/SamBradford4.jpg

http://i36.tinypic.com/28ukyhh.jpg

Where were you in this game, Sam?

Shiver
08-29-2010, 05:15 PM
Okay. So if a rookie QB on the least talented football team in the NFL with by far the worst receiving core in the NFL doesn't light it up in his rookie season, he will be a bust right? Won't I look foolish when I look back at this in six month. At that point, I'll probably look back and say "I should of known better. He didn't start 35+ games in college, he played at a top program and won the Heisman trophy. All those signs should of told me he was going to be a huge bust. Why did I even bother watching him play?"

:rolleyes:

Wrong again. How he does as a rookie is important. He has never had "lowlights," never been on a terrible team that is out-matched at every position. We have never seen him exceed expectations, excel through adversity. This will be a giant culture shock for him. I'd feel a lot better if I had seen him in those situations before, but we have no record of him overcoming poor performances. Matt Leinart, Brady Quinn, etc. all became gun-shy through their development because they didn't handle the new pressures very well.

Then what the hell are we talking about in the first place? If you're willing to admit that Bradford's performance in college has little bearing on how he adjusts and grows in the NFL, then neither positive or negative comments on him as a college player hold much bearing.

You're smarter than this, you really are. You look for those moments that do translate: the anticipation, the arm strength, the looking off of defenders, etc. Completion percentage, TD/INT ratios and Heisman trophies are what have little bearing. It isn't about the final stats on the page, but how he got those stats. That is why lack of started games is important: give scouts enough time to find the flaws and you will be exposed, unless you are truly good. Quarterbacks with under three years of starting experience, that get drafted this high, fail at an extraordinary rate.

It isn't a giant coincidence. It isn't as if Peyton Manning only succeeded and Ryan Leaf only failed through intangibles. Scouts knew what Peyton would give them, Leaf was all about spectacular college play in the short time he was on the field, incredible physical tools. Projection, not observation.

J-Mike88
08-29-2010, 05:17 PM
I'm not a huge fan of either, but having Megatron is a huge advantage for Stafford. Plus he has two good receiving tight ends there.

Bradford, obviously, needs some WR's, especially with Avery's torn ACL.
Who are the top FA WR's next year, if there is a season?

abaddon41_80
08-29-2010, 05:26 PM
http://0.tqn.com/d/football/1/0/g/W/SamBradford4.jpg

http://i36.tinypic.com/28ukyhh.jpg

Where were you in this game, Sam?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLYnnsoYT7A

Sniper
08-29-2010, 05:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLYnnsoYT7A

Am I supposed to care about a highlight video of a Georgia vs. Florida game? I posted the pictures because when the chips were down, Bradford folded. Posting a video of a game that I'm completely impartial to is a completely moronic and illogical comeback.

Paranoidmoonduck
08-29-2010, 05:34 PM
You look for those moments that do translate: the anticipation, the arm strength, the looking off of defenders, etc. Completion percentage, TD/INT ratios and Heisman trophies are what have little bearing. It isn't about the final stats on the page, but how he got those stats. That is why lack of started games is important: give scouts enough time to find the flaws and you will be exposed, unless you are truly good. Quarterbacks with under three years of starting experience, that get drafted this high, fail at an extraordinary rate.

Where did the idea that accuracy is only identifiable by completion % or that decision-making is deeply intertwined with TD-INT ratio come from? There's plenty you can deduce from game tape regarding both of those that have nothing whatsoever to do with stats.

For example, Sam Bradford is an incredibly accurate thrower. Forget his completion percentage for a second and look at the sheer number of balls he delivers either directly between the numbers or high and away from defensive backs. Despite having middling arm strength, Bradford threw one of the best back shoulder passes of any QB prospect I've seen (that's including the immensely accurate QB that Brees was leaving Purdue). Similarly, Bradford clearly went through his progressions well and read all levels of the field competently at Oklahoma. This has nothing to do with TD-INT ratio, since I think Bradford was one of the better guys at doing this since Matt Ryan, who had a terrible TD-INT ratio and who's stats looked less than great until you actually looked at the tape and saw the process he was going through.

What I am saying is that for you to disregard everything Bradford did well as a result of his favorable circumstance at Oklahoma then claim that the only things you can see on tape that are obviously transferable to the NFL are negative is either disingenuous or just flat out mistaken.

I was pretty iffy on Bradford. I completely understand why people like him and I completely understand why he gives people pause. His fragility seems like a concern, but I also have no reason to think that a team that was going to invest 50+ million in kid wouldn't look at him closely and if they saw no innate physical reason for his arm issues then we have no reason to think that his injuries were circumstantial (which almost all injuries tend to be). The whole idea that he gets hurt because he's a "*****" is bereft of any intelligent thought whatsoever and predicting injury problems is a pretty pointless exercise unless there's a medical reason to do so. Maybe Bradford will get hurt, maybe he won't. I'm not going to get into a stupid discussion about specific future events.

Are there things we have yet to find out about in regards to Bradford? Absolutely. Being on the Rams will test him like nothing in college did, but that's true for even a great quarterback coming from a ****** college team to a great NFL team. What I don't understand is your unshakable conviction that Bradford is already a lost cause, especially when your logic appears to be flat out ignoring both reason and a vast number of counterarguments to convince yourself of such. If you want to start talking about who's smarter than the argument they're making, let's start with you.

bored of education
08-29-2010, 05:34 PM
I love Staffords

bored of education
08-29-2010, 05:35 PM
I get a Stafford thinking about my team having Stafford as my QB

Babylon
08-29-2010, 05:35 PM
Hard to evaluate Bradford because he played in a conferance where other guys like Colt McCoy and Graham Harrell were equally dominant. Stafford proved it against tougher competition in more of a pro style offense. Stafford to me is tougher with a better ability to make all the throws.

Shiver
08-29-2010, 05:46 PM
What I am saying is that for you to disregard everything Bradford did well as a result of his favorable circumstance at Oklahoma then claim that the only things you can see on tape that are obviously transferable to the NFL are negative is either disingenuous or just flat out mistaken.

What I don't understand is your unshakable conviction that Bradford is already a lost cause, especially when your logic appears to be flat out ignoring both reason and a vast number of counterarguments to convince yourself of such. If you want to start talking about who's smarter than the argument they're making, let's start with you.


Since when? My argument is not so much what I saw from Bradford, but what I did not see:
Playing against equal or superior competition, handling pressure.
Making NFL type throws, not just route and accuracy but at the correct pace. The biggest adjustment is making the same pass you made in college, but doing so in half the time. Ask Peyton Manning about his rookie interceptions.
Staying healthy on a consistent basis.I didn't see those things, until I do color me unconvinced he was worth taking #1 overall. I felt the same way about Alex Smith, David Carr, and Aaron Rodgers. Smith and Carr were thrown into the fire and never had an opportunity to adjust and re-train themselves on how to be a QB. Rodgers was given time, talent, coaching in order to become the player he is today. Maybe if Bradford had come out the year previously, slipped in the draft and I knew he would be given a chance to learn the nuances of the pro game on a veteran team I would feel differently. In fact, I bet you I would. This has red flags raised all over the place.

Perfect example: Jamarcus Russell. I was one of those in Camp Jamarcus over Brady Quinn because his game translated to the NFL more. It did. But because he was drafted by the Raiders I completely changed my tune on my expectations for him. He needed to be in a more stable situation in order to reach his potential.

abaddon41_80
08-29-2010, 06:03 PM
Am I supposed to care about a highlight video of a Georgia vs. Florida game? I posted the pictures because when the chips were down, Bradford folded. Posting a video of a game that I'm completely impartial to is a completely moronic and illogical comeback.

How did he fold? He played pretty much twice as good as any other QB did against Florida in 2008 and 10 times as good as Stafford did that year.

BRAVEHEART
08-29-2010, 06:07 PM
How did he fold? He played pretty much twice as good as any other QB did against Florida in 2008 and 10 times as good as Stafford did that year.

and with a better supporting cast, and a O-line that was 10 "times" as good.

Sniper
08-29-2010, 06:19 PM
How did he fold? He played pretty much twice as good as any other QB did against Florida in 2008 and 10 times as good as Stafford did that year.

4th quarter- Florida up by three- Oklahoma ball at the 50.

Sam Bradford pass intercepted by Ahmad Black at the Fla 24, returned for no gain to the Fla 24

4th quarter- Florida up by 10 with more than three minutes left.

Sam Bradford pass incomplete.

Sam Bradford pass complete to Jermaine Gresham for 6 yards to the Okla 36.

Sam Bradford pass incomplete to Jermaine Gresham.

Sam Bradford pass incomplete to Juaquin Iglesias, broken up by Joe Haden.

abaddon41_80
08-29-2010, 06:41 PM
and with a better supporting cast, and a O-line that was 10 "times" as good.

Even with that offensive line he was still on the run as much as Stafford was and AJ Green > any receiver the Sooners had.

And a few bad plays means he folded? The Gators were just the better team, plain and simple. The fact that the Sooners kept the came close until the end is a testament that Bradfordd played well.

Sniper
08-29-2010, 06:52 PM
And a few bad plays means he folded?

Well, considering it was the biggest part of the game, I'd say so.

The fact that the Sooners kept the came close until the end is a testament that Bradfordd played well.

Oklahoma was the top-ranked team in the country. Let's not make it seem like they were Baylor. 6.2 yards per attempt and two crucial picks is a testament that he didn't play well.

Paranoidmoonduck
08-29-2010, 07:05 PM
This is so ******* stupid. Bradford is in the NFL right now. There's no need to reference anything but what he is doing in the NFL right now. Considering he just came off a performance where he looked really good against the Pats, I have no idea why this thread has gone down this road.

Brent
08-29-2010, 07:15 PM
This is so ******* stupid.
people are going to hate on players regardless of what you do, or say, to counter it.

half the people in this forum believed that Sanchez was a better choice than Stafford, yet those opinions have surely disappeared, havent they?

Or, that Clausen was the best QB prospect in this class.

Sniper
08-29-2010, 07:23 PM
people are going to hate on players regardless of what you do, or say, to counter it.

half the people in this forum believed that Sanchez was a better choice than Stafford, yet those opinions have surely disappeared, havent they?

No. Sanchez will be better.

Or, that Clausen was the best QB prospect in this class.

Well, he was.

Mr.Regular
08-29-2010, 07:25 PM
people are going to hate on players regardless of what you do, or say, to counter it.

half the people in this forum believed that Sanchez was a better choice than Stafford, yet those opinions have surely disappeared, havent they?

Or, that Clausen was the best QB prospect in this class.
I thought Clausen was the best QB in the draft. No doubt in my mind. Now maybe his interviews were really awful and his character actually is a concern, but from my standpoint he was a better prospect.

Brodeur
08-29-2010, 07:26 PM
half the people in this forum believed that Sanchez was a better choice than Stafford, yet those opinions have surely disappeared, havent they?


If by half you mean like twenty percent, then sure.

BeerBaron
08-29-2010, 07:28 PM
Were there really more than a few whack jobs that had Sanchez ahead of Stafford?

armageddon
08-29-2010, 07:37 PM
Stafford > Sanchez
Bradford > Clausen
Stafford = Bradford

End of thread. Goodnight.

BeerBaron
08-29-2010, 07:40 PM
Stafford > Sanchez
Bradford > Clausen
Stafford = Bradford

End of thread. Goodnight.

No.

Stafford > Bradford

As a prospect, there just isn't an argument. Stafford would have been selected ahead of Bradford 10 out of 10 times.

armageddon
08-29-2010, 07:46 PM
Stafford reminds me a lot of Kyle Boller with better weapons. Big arm, not very accurate.

BeerBaron
08-29-2010, 07:49 PM
Stafford reminds me a lot of Kyle Boller with better weapons. Big arm, not very accurate.

On what grounds? So he's not as accurate as Bradford....therefore he must not be accurate at all?

Brodeur
08-29-2010, 07:51 PM
Stafford reminds me a lot of Kyle Boller with better weapons. Big arm, not very accurate.

Not even close.

abaddon41_80
08-29-2010, 07:55 PM
Oklahoma was the top-ranked team in the country. Let's not make it seem like they were Baylor. 6.2 yards per attempt and two crucial picks is a testament that he didn't play well.

I think that you are missing my point that he played much better than any other QB that year did. Florida's defense in 2008 was all time great and it showed but Bradford still played well for the majority of the game.

No.

Stafford > Bradford

As a prospect, there just isn't an argument. Stafford would have been selected ahead of Bradford 10 out of 10 times.

I disagree. Even if Bradford had come out in 2008 there was plenty of talk about him getting picked first.

On what grounds? So he's not as accurate as Bradford....therefore he must not be accurate at all?

He certainly has never been praised for his accuracy, or at least consistent accuracy. Sometimes Stafford will throw a perfect pass, a bullet right on the money, but other times he would completely miss an open receiver.

armageddon
08-29-2010, 07:59 PM
This is what Belichick said to Spags after the game from post game news conference:

(On if (Bill) Belichick said anything after the game)

"On the field he just said 'nice job' or something like that. That was about it. Later, in the tunnel, he said he was impressed with Sam and that he had to keep his guys in longer than he planned, gave him a good test, something to that effect. He wished us luck. Not a lot of conversation, really."

Sniper
08-29-2010, 08:06 PM
This is what Belichick said to Spags after the game from post game news conference:

(On if (Bill) Belichick said anything after the game)

"On the field he just said 'nice job' or something like that. That was about it. Later, in the tunnel, he said he was impressed with Sam and that he had to keep his guys in longer than he planned, gave him a good test, something to that effect. He wished us luck. Not a lot of conversation, really."

Might as well enshrine him in Canton now. Everyone knows that pre-season studs are auto-HOFers.

armageddon
08-29-2010, 08:14 PM
Might as well enshrine him in Canton now. Everyone knows that pre-season studs are auto-HOFers.




It's better than sucking in the pre-season. He showed all the traits of a great qb. His decision making and accuracy were off the charts for his first start. He throws a very catch able ball and puts it in spots for lots of yac. The health of the o-line will decide his fate this year.

AntoinCD
08-30-2010, 06:39 AM
I have been very impressed with Sam Bradford and reports from training camp are he is everything and more the Rams expected. However I would take Stafford over him in pretty much any scenario.

In his two preseason games, Bradford's arm strength has looked a lot better than advertised. That being said Stafford has elite arm strength.

I have heard the 'Sam Bradford is a cerebral QB with a high football IQ' arguement. I am not saying he isn't but what is this based on? At Oklahoma he was put in a situation where he didn't have to worry about complex read progressions and also had a lot of time to hit his targets. He also played in a conference which is not really known for it's defensive strength so the fact that he could identify where his receivers should be is not a true reflection of his football knowledge. Stafford on the other hand played in a pro style offense against some of the top defenses in college football week in/week out.

Accuracy is Sam Bradford's biggest strength and for some reason a lot of people really under estimate how important this is for a QB. But it's not as though Matthew Stafford couldn't hit a barn door with a shovel. He is also accurate and has been previously mentioned by others can make some throws that Bradford can't due to his arm strength.

Right now i have no problems in saying I think ultimately Bradford will be a successful QB in the NFL if he doesn't suffer the same fate as other highly drafted QBS put into bad situations, ie David Carr, Joey Harrington etc.
However I think stafford could very easily be a top 5 QB in 3 or 4 years.

georgiafan
08-30-2010, 07:26 AM
Everyone should know I'm gonna go with Stafford, but I have to give credit to bradford who looked better then I exepcted week 3.

They are alot of stero types going on in this thread about Stafford when people think just bc he has a strong arm he isnt accurate and not smart. Also with Bradford for all the high football IQ.

Joecool
08-30-2010, 08:06 AM
Lions v Rams week 5! Should be a good game.

armageddon
08-30-2010, 05:34 PM
Some Stafford rookie stats:

Past 10 yards: 33 of 113 (29%). In the crucial medium range (11-20 yards) he was at 36.5% completions with a qb rating for that range of 43.2. Even for a rookie, that's pretty weak.

descendency
08-30-2010, 05:43 PM
I'm not knocking bradford, but I think a lot of people are jumping on his bandwagon after he had a great game against a very pedestrian Patriots pass rush unable to get near him. If you give any QB time, they will burn you, especially one as accurate as Sam Bradford.

Basileus777
08-30-2010, 06:10 PM
I was pretty impressed with Bradford's accuracy and ball placement against the Pats, but it's just one preseason game, it doesn't mean anything until he does it in a few real games.

Rosebud
08-30-2010, 09:28 PM
I was a big fan of Bradford's before this game, but I'm also a big fan of Stafford, both of these guys can be elite franchise QBs and I believe in each one. The lions have a lot of offenses pieces coming together around Staffold with a D that has a couple cornerstones in place while Bradford has a better running game and more potential on their OL even though they lack the #1 WR like Megatron. Both should be pretty awesome QBs in a few years.

georgiafan
08-31-2010, 07:24 AM
Some Stafford rookie stats:

Past 10 yards: 33 of 113 (29%). In the crucial medium range (11-20 yards) he was at 36.5% completions with a qb rating for that range of 43.2. Even for a rookie, that's pretty weak.

Cherry picking stats are we? how about his passing yards per game being one of the best of all time as a rookie behind only peyton from what they said on the radio.

princefielder28
08-31-2010, 07:39 AM
I would take Bradford over Stafford easily...give me the quarterback who has the arm strength to make the vast majority of throws and with pinpoint accuracy and consistency...for me Stafford has always been a ton of hype with little to back up, referencing performance in games, the rare physical abilitites

Joecool
08-31-2010, 07:47 AM
Stafford should play better he has more weapons. Rams really need to retool there entire team.

armageddon
08-31-2010, 10:38 PM
Stafford should play better he has more weapons. Rams really need to retool there entire team.




That's what they have been doing. Their o-line and D is really coming along well. They only lack a true #1 WR , another DE opposite Long and a #2 RB.

Joecool
09-01-2010, 12:14 AM
That's what they have been doing. Their o-line and D is really coming along well. They only lack a true #1 WR , another DE opposite Long and a #2 RB.

Well imo there only decent wide receiver is Danny Amendola. I will give Mardy Gilyard and Danario Alexander some time to improve. Other then thos guys they should cut/trade everyone else even Donnie Avery. Imo they need to get some big weapons for bradford go get 2 or 3 more tall receivers in this next draft. As far as running backs go trade for one from like dallas or something. Maybe they can trade for Calvin Johnson or Get someone in fa.

But yeah on the Offence they have no real weapons to give bradford imo stafford has much more power around him.

Me Likey Rookies
09-01-2010, 12:25 AM
Stafford will be better than Bradford.

Bradford's lack of arm strength was evident against the Pats. His first deep throw to Donnie Avery was badly underthrown and could have been a TD.

His second deep throw to Avery was also underthrown and unfortunately caused Avery to get his foot stuck and get injured.

Rosebud
09-01-2010, 02:56 AM
Well imo there only decent wide receiver is Danny Amendola. I will give Mardy Gilyard and Danario Alexander some time to improve. Other then thos guys they should cut/trade everyone else even Donnie Avery. Imo they need to get some big weapons for bradford go get 2 or 3 more tall receivers in this next draft. As far as running backs go trade for one from like dallas or something. Maybe they can trade for Calvin Johnson or Get someone in fa.

But yeah on the Offence they have no real weapons to give bradford imo stafford has much more power around him.

I hear a lot of good things about Laurent Robinson who's always had a lot of talent and I think Mardy Gilyard will be a wonderful secondary WR. They lack a go to number one like Megatron in Detroit, but they have the pieces with which to surround a #1 WR, with which next year's draft is loaded. Plus they have the NFL's best RB and best receiving RB, Mr Jackson.

His weapons are pretty decent for a team without a #1 option and I really like the piece on their OL, Brown and Bell inside means they'll always have a strong interior OL provided those two stay healthy and I do think Staffold and Smith are bookends any rebuilding team would be happy to have. And frankly an OL can be much more important for a young QB than weapons. If the young talent gels well and they find that go to #1 next year that offense is loaded up to become one of the NFL's best.

Staffold has Megatron and Best, but I'm not really sold on anything else given Pettigrew is like the Bossman, a nice solid receiver to have as a safety valve but not a legit weapon as a receiver. Plus Detroit's OL still worries me. Backus is a fine LT, but he can be upgraded and that Line needs help elsewhere as well.

Again both guys have pieces to work with and IMO Stafford has the better pieces on defense although Bradford has the makings of a good pass D, given the rams depth at corner and some talent at DE.

DrunkenLament
09-01-2010, 11:44 AM
Are we forgetting that Bradford played in the SPREAD?? It must be really hard to to have a completion percentage around 70% when you look to the sideline and wait for them to tell you what the defense is running and what play to audible to.

I'm not saying he didn't play under center or didn't throw pro routes just that he rarely read the defense himself or changed his own plays

yourfavestoner
09-01-2010, 12:00 PM
Are we forgetting that Bradford played in the SPREAD?? It must be really hard to to have a completion percentage around 70% when you look to the sideline and wait for them to tell you what the defense is running and what play to audible to.

I'm not saying he didn't play under center or didn't throw pro routes just that he rarely read the defense himself or changed his own plays

How is this different than any other college quarterback?

I don't think Bradford is the bees knees. I think he's got a decent chace to be good, but he's limited with what he can do physically (a la Leinart). If he fails, it won't be because of the offense he ran in college.

Shiver
09-01-2010, 12:06 PM
It isn't so much scheme as it is how much time/coaching you are allowed to have before you are thrown out there. If only the Rams had a veteran who could man the fort for a short while.

LizardState
09-01-2010, 12:37 PM
Cherry picking stats are we? how about his passing yards per game being one of the best of all time as a rookie behind only peyton from what they said on the radio.

If that's true then Stafford made the greater achievement over Manning when you consider the supporting cast. And Stafford was told for m day one he had to hit the ground running in Detroit, they were coming up from rock bottom.

Stafford should play better he has more weapons. Rams really need to retool there entire team.

Another case of a complete rebuilding job in St. Louis. Is it just me or did everywhere they hired Martz he set their team back 3-5 yrs?

Scotty D
09-01-2010, 12:43 PM
If that's true then Stafford made the greater achievement over Manning when you consider the supporting cast. And Stafford was told for m day one he had to hit the ground running in Detroit, they were coming up from rock bottom.



Another case of a complete rebuilding job in St. Louis. Is it just me or did everywhere they hired Martz he set their team back 3-5 yrs?

His 5 TDs against Cleveland also tied a rookie record, and broke the youngest QB to throw 5 TDs by a year (Dan Marino).

abaddon41_80
09-01-2010, 12:47 PM
I think some people are in love with Stafford because of the one game against the Browns last year and, while that does make me like him as a person a lot more, I don't think it is a good indication of how he played or how good he might be.

Look at his games last year

Saints - Awful
Vikings - Slightly less awful
Redskins - Decent
Bears - Decent
Rams - Pretty bad
Seahawks - Terrible
Browns - Great
Packers - Terrible
Bengals - Pretty bad

yourfavestoner
09-01-2010, 12:49 PM
If that's true then Stafford made the greater achievement over Manning when you consider the supporting cast. And Stafford was told for m day one he had to hit the ground running in Detroit, they were coming up from rock bottom.



Another case of a complete rebuilding job in St. Louis. Is it just me or did everywhere they hired Martz he set their team back 3-5 yrs?

I think the problem with the Rams is that they literally haven't had a boss to hold any employees accountable. Georgia was barely doing anything when she was alive, and they just now got out of ownership limbo.

georgiafan
09-01-2010, 12:51 PM
Was you really excpecting him to turn the worst team in NFL history into a playoff team in 1 year as a 21 year old? If you take his yards per game last year and add it the games he missed and he has 3,600 yards. That aint to bad with all the circumstances around him.

About the passing yards record I didnt check it out, but they said it on ESPN radio a few weeks back. I'm sure with google the answer can be found.

I think some people are in love with Stafford because of the one game against the Browns last year and, while that does make me like him as a person a lot more, I don't think it is a good indication of how he played or how good he might be.

Look at his games last year

Saints - Awful
Vikings - Slightly less awful
Redskins - Decent
Bears - Decent
Rams - Pretty bad
Seahawks - Terrible
Browns - Great
Packers - Terrible
Bengals - Pretty bad

abaddon41_80
09-01-2010, 12:54 PM
Was you really excpecting him to turn the worst team in NFL history into a playoff team in 1 year as a 21 year old? If you take his yards per game last year and add it the games he missed and he has 3,600 yards. That aint to bad with all the circumstances around him.

About the passing yards record I didnt check it out, but they said it on ESPN radio a few weeks back. I'm sure with google the answer can be found.

I am not saying he should have been better, just saying that people did to relax when crowning him as the next great QB but he hasn't done much to show he can be anywhere near that level.

yourfavestoner
09-01-2010, 01:01 PM
Roethlisberger, Ryan, and Flacco have set the bar for rookies so unrealistically high now that it's hard for people to figure out what to look for in a rookie quarterback.

Expecting anything other than bad QB play from play to play (let alone game to game) is just downright unrealistic. They're going to be bad, they're going to be inconsistent, they will not string drives together, they will turn the ball over, they will get sacked. For the most part, they have no idea what the **** they're doing out there. You're looking far more for flashes of talent to show through, and observe how they handle the adversity of being really unsuccessful.

georgiafan
09-01-2010, 01:18 PM
I am not saying he should have been better, just saying that people did to relax when crowning him as the next great QB but he hasn't done much to show he can be anywhere near that level.

With any young QB it's all about potential and projecting into the future. When you draw up a QB with all the tools it doesnt get much better then Stafford.

You say people are ready to crown him and thats funny bc most people on here and the "experts" on the TV didnt even want him drafted 1st overall they want Jason Smith or Aaron Curry.

In college you could easily tell the diffrence in him between his freshman and sophmore years. This year in the preseason I can tell the diffrence between this year and his rookie year. How big of a leap he makes and carrys on to the reg season nobody knows. But as long as he can keep the interceptions down he will be much improved this year.

armageddon
09-02-2010, 09:50 PM
Bradford opens up the game going 6-6, 68 yds and a TD. Then he is replaced by Null. The dude is sick. Pin point accuracy and calm as Clint Eastwood walking into a *** biker bar wearing a pink bikini.

Saints-Tigers
09-02-2010, 09:58 PM
Wasn't the backup 6-8 and Null 7/10?

Rams have 3 future pro bowlers.

armageddon
09-03-2010, 08:32 AM
Ravens coach John Harbaugh did not hold back, saying, "He's (Bradford) going to be a star, there isn't any question about it."

Michigan
09-03-2010, 08:39 AM
Ravens coach John Harbaugh did not hold back, saying, "He's (Bradford) going to be a star, there isn't any question about it."

Joey Harrington was unquestionably gonna become a star too. He's faced vanilla, half-assed defenses so far. Let's see him in a regular season game before we jump to stuff like this.

Joecool
09-03-2010, 01:32 PM
Sam will be good with some real weapons. Maybe they will sign randymoss in this next fa. O but wait staffords better clearly after i saw this....
1Gcf2qw5hp8

soybean
09-03-2010, 01:58 PM
Sam Bradford is surgical.

No way a guy that accurate doesnt become one of the league's best in due time.

Stafford has a chance to be a great qb... but I think Bradford has a chance to be Peyton Manning v.2... if he's kept upright that is...

armageddon
09-03-2010, 05:29 PM
Raven's fans giving Bradford lots of love after the game. Classy fans ( smart too )

http://www.ravens24x7.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56945

NGSeiler
09-03-2010, 06:12 PM
Bradford opens up the game going 6-6, 68 yds and a TD. Then he is replaced by Null.

...who proceeded to go 5/5 for 45 yards and a touchdown, I believe.

Look, I'm not trying to pop the Bradford balloon, but I'll join the frenzy when he starts doing this in the regular season. I'm at the point with the Rams where they've got to show me they can do it before I'll allow myself to get really get my hopes up.

stephenson86
09-03-2010, 06:42 PM
This one is hard for me as I love both QB's but something about Bradford's accuracy gives me some funny feeling inside.

armageddon
09-03-2010, 06:47 PM
...who proceeded to go 5/5 for 45 yards and a touchdown, I believe.

Look, I'm not trying to pop the Bradford balloon, but I'll join the frenzy when he starts doing this in the regular season. I'm at the point with the Rams where they've got to show me they can do it before I'll allow myself to get really get my hopes up.



Fair enough. BTW, I really like Stafford too. I am thinking of taking Stafford as my #1 QB in FF because I usually wait on a QB since it's only 4 pts passing td's. Calvin and Best are going to be fun to watch. Best is a freak. His highlights look like a video game. But, I do think Bradford is going to be the better QB. He is deadly accurate.

DrunkenLament
09-04-2010, 01:01 AM
Bradford opens up the game going 6-6, 68 yds and a TD. Then he is replaced by Null. The dude is sick. Pin point accuracy and calm as Clint Eastwood walking into a *** biker bar wearing a pink bikini.

idk what game you were watching but Bradford wasn't exactly pink point accurate. Sure he went 6-6 but I believe four of those were to the flats and the ONLY time he threw the ball further than ten yards Bradford horrendously under threw Amendola who was wide open.

armageddon
09-04-2010, 06:27 AM
idk what game you were watching but Bradford wasn't exactly pink point accurate. Sure he went 6-6 but I believe four of those were to the flats and the ONLY time he threw the ball further than ten yards Bradford horrendously under threw Amendola who was wide open.



It was not under thrown. It was thrown over Amondola's left shoulder to the sideline where only the receiver could catch it. It was a thing of beauty. Great catch too.

bigbluedefense
09-04-2010, 06:29 AM
I liked Bradford better coming out and I still like him better now. I wasn't a huge Matt Stafford fan.

I loved Bradford since his sophomore year. When I saw him play then, I thought to myself, this guy is going to be the next great qb coming out.

Bradford is going to be great. He's my favorite qb prospect since Eli Manning.

DrunkenLament
09-05-2010, 04:33 PM
It was not under thrown. It was thrown over Amondola's left shoulder to the sideline where only the receiver could catch it. It was a thing of beauty. Great catch too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efuQCTSqt-E


Does that throw look like a thing of beauty? If he leads AmEndola thats a touchdown... that a great adjustment and catch by Amendola.

armageddon
09-05-2010, 05:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efuQCTSqt-E


Does that throw look like a thing of beauty? If he leads AmEndola thats a touchdown... that a great adjustment and catch by Amendola.



There was a safety over the top. Bradford threw the ball where he knew only the receiver would catch it. That is why he is playing and you are watching.

NGSeiler
09-05-2010, 08:06 PM
There was a safety over the top. Bradford threw the ball where he knew only the receiver would catch it. That is why he is playing and you are watching.

...except Sam himself seems to agree with DL. When asked after the game if that's where he wanted to put the throw or if Amendola helped him out, Sam immediately chuckled and said...

“He definitely helped me out on that one, that was a great catch by Danny. He did a great job adjusting to the ball. I left it outside a little bit, but fortunately I put enough air under it where he's able to make an adjustment on it and make a great play.""

http://www.stlouisrams.com/multimedia/mediacenter/

(video description is "QB Sam Bradford speaks to the media after the Rams vs. Ravens game," it's a little less than halfway through the interview)


Even if he's throwing to the outside shoulder due to the deep safety, he needs to take advantage of the separation Amendola gained by leading him down the field. He didn't, as evident by Danny breaking off his sprint and having to turn to the sideline and stretch to bring in the ball and help Sam out.

This is kind of similar to his deep completion to Avery against the Patriots. Avery had his man beat and was behind the safety. If Bradford leads him down the field, it's a huge touchdown. Instead, the ball is underthrown and Avery has to slow up and jump to make the catch, getting tackled immediately.

His preseason has been impressive for a rookie, but there are definitely areas he still needs to improve upon, accuracy included.

Splat
09-05-2010, 08:14 PM
I picked Matthew because my name is Matthew and that is a good enough reason.

Flyboy
09-06-2010, 12:24 AM
I liked Stafford coming out much more than I liked Bradford.

Bingo. Same for me.

armageddon
09-12-2010, 08:21 PM
Who are the people who called Bradford injury prone ? Looks like Stafford might be the injury prone QB. Bradford was very solid in his debut today.

LOltheLions?
09-12-2010, 08:40 PM
Who are the people who called Bradford injury prone ? Looks like Stafford might be the injury prone QB. Bradford was very solid in his debut today.

yeah the Rams played a terrible Cardinals team. Dont get too excited

Complex
09-12-2010, 08:54 PM
yeah the Rams played a terrible Cardinals team. Dont get too excited

Didn't Stafford/lions fans get excited over beating a horrible browns team last year?

armageddon
09-12-2010, 08:56 PM
yeah the Rams played a terrible Cardinals team. Dont get too excited



The Cardinals D isn't terrible

nepg
09-12-2010, 09:01 PM
It's not not terrible.

nrk
09-12-2010, 09:01 PM
yeah the Rams played a terrible Cardinals team. Dont get too excited

What? How does who they're playing have to do with being injury prone? The Cardinals can't hit hard enough to injure someone?

BigBanger
09-12-2010, 09:04 PM
What? How does who they're playing have to do with being injury prone? The Cardinals can't hit hard enough to injure someone?
How does one game make Sam Bradford Brett Favre?

There's one ******** comment after another in this ******** thread full of ******* retards.

nrk
09-12-2010, 09:19 PM
How does one game make Sam Bradford Brett Favre?

There's one ******** comment after another in this ******** thread full of ******* retards.

He said he looks very solid. I didn't notice that comment when I first read his post, but that's not calling him Brett Favre.

I can't believe they made him throw so many times though. There were lots of dropped balls also, but what can you expect with no real #1. When does Avery return?

armageddon
09-12-2010, 09:34 PM
He said he looks very solid. I didn't notice that comment when I first read his post, but that's not calling him Brett Favre.

I can't believe they made him throw so many times though. There were lots of dropped balls also, but what can you expect with no real #1. When does Avery return?



Next year. Clayton was a good pick up though. He has plenty of targets, just no real deep threat. The Cardinals played 8 in the box all game and forced the Rams to throw the entire game. SJax was neutralized. That will probably be the case all year.

armageddon
09-12-2010, 09:35 PM
How does one game make Sam Bradford Brett Favre?

There's one ******** comment after another in this ******** thread full of ******* retards.



Not Brett Favre, maybe Peyton Manning.

yodabear
09-12-2010, 09:39 PM
Sam Bradford hopefully does turn into Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Kurt Warner, or hell I'd even take Tom Brady. But he played quite frankly much better than I thought he did. We lost by 4, he threw 3 picks (one was the last play of the game), and we finally were competetive. Its really nice. I defntly see a 3-13 type season for us, but I just hope Bradford can stay healthy.

SchizophrenicBatman
09-12-2010, 11:53 PM
I was never a big Stafford fan. The injury doesn't bother me. I think the guy needs to sit and watch some more anyway.

I had no idea what to think of Bradford. Not playing football for a while + the Oklahoma system/OLine = ??? in the NFL

After watching just that last drive by Bradford I'll take him 100 out of 100 times over Stafford. Don't care about the stat line. Give him Stafford's injury and I'll do it too. The guy has what it takes. Not all good news in St Louis though, because everyone else on that team still looks awful. Spagnuolo pulled his best Andy Reid impression, as well

yourfavestoner
09-12-2010, 11:56 PM
The funny thing is Sam Bradford and Matt Leinart are basically the same guy aside from their college systems.

I just had so much of a better feeling with Bradford coming out than I did with Leinart.

Also, Stafford's injury goes to show why it's impossible to project injuries from college to the NFL. It's exactly like the AD and McFadden situation.

SchizophrenicBatman
09-12-2010, 11:59 PM
There were reasons to think McFadden would get injured, though. Not sure how you project a QB to get injured unless they're known for having weak pocket presence and/or taking unnecessary hits while scrambling

Basileus777
09-13-2010, 12:03 AM
There were reasons to think McFadden would get injured, though. Not sure how you project a QB to get injured unless they're known for having weak pocket presence and/or taking unnecessary hits while scrambling

If they're small and made of glass like Brodie Croyle? I don't think it's a surprise to anyone who saw him at Alabama that he ended up injury prone.

It doesn't always work out like you expect, but I don't think ignoring injury patterns from college is the correct approach either.

holt_bruce81
09-13-2010, 03:11 AM
Sam Bradford looked solid today, he had 3 picks but really only one of them was a bad throw on his part, the second one it was 4th and 10 and he had to throw it up, and the 3rd one was a hail mary. I just love how cool, calm and collected he seems to be.

Crazy, if you would of told me two years ago that in 2 years I would love Sam Bradford more than I love Chase Daniel, I would of told you to lay off the drugs. Don't even know how many times I cursed at my tv in the 2007 big 12 championship game saying how many weiners this dude sucked lol

BRAVEHEART
09-13-2010, 03:44 AM
Lemme get this straight, Bradford throws 3 picks and Stafford gets injured...now we're on the Bradford bandwagon?

Addict
09-13-2010, 05:14 AM
Lemme get this straight, Bradford throws 3 picks and Stafford gets injured...now we're on the Bradford bandwagon?

well to be fair for the next couple of weeks the Stafford bandwagon won't be going anywhere, so might as well I guess.

Gay Ork Wang
09-13-2010, 05:23 AM
Bradford has 2 picks, the last one was a hail mary.

but thats beside the point. the other INT was like his 2nd throw, getting used to it. its more about how he looked.

i wouldnt say he is better than stafford, but he looked impressive

georgiafan
09-13-2010, 07:36 AM
Lemme get this straight, Bradford throws 3 picks and Stafford gets injured...now we're on the Bradford bandwagon?

Yes people on here and the media seem to look for every possible reason to like stafford. Bradford did look better then i expected, but still he is in for a 20 interception and 3 win season.

Saints-Tigers
09-13-2010, 09:18 AM
Bradford dink and dunked his way to 250 yards, and everyone is slurping him now. Clear no one was watching.

NGSeiler
09-13-2010, 09:24 AM
When you consider it was his first NFL start, Bradford had a solid day. Some good & some bad, as to be expected with a rookie QB. Many of his throws were on target and he looked poised in the face of an aggressive Cardinals defense. Can't fault him for the hail mary INT, but I'd like to see better decisions on the two before that. With experience, good health, and more talent around him, I think he has a good chance of getting there.

NGSeiler
09-13-2010, 09:30 AM
Bradford dink and dunked his way to 250 yards, and everyone is slurping him now. Clear no one was watching.

That's a fair point about the type of throws. A St. Louis beat writer pointed out that 27 of Bradford's 32 completions were for 9 yards or less. Only Trent Edwards (4.09) and Kevin Kolb (2.4) had a lower yards-per-attempt average than Bradford (4.6).

Bradford had three "big play passes" ( > 25 yards) which was third best in the league in Week One. They were passes of 39, 36, and 33 yards. Take those three passes out, and Bradford was 29/52 for a mere 145 yards.

Saints-Tigers
09-13-2010, 09:37 AM
Honestly though, what is the thinking behind having Bradford throw 60 times when you have ****** receivers, a close game, and STEVEN JACKSON

abaddon41_80
09-13-2010, 11:49 AM
The funny thing is Sam Bradford and Matt Leinart are basically the same guy aside from their college systems.



Bradford's arm strength is way better than Leinart's and he is more accurate and has a quicker release.

bigbluedefense
09-13-2010, 11:52 AM
I think considering the circumstances, I was very impressed with Bradford. He has a poor oline, absolutely no WRs, and was forced to throw it 50+ times in his first start.

Bradford is gonna be a good one, as long as they don't ruin his development.

Sniper
09-13-2010, 12:27 PM
Honestly though, what is the thinking behind having Bradford throw 60 times when you have ****** receivers, a close game, and STEVEN JACKSON

Oh, you mean that 245-pound ball of muscle beast RB? **** that, let's sling it with a rookie.

Saints-Tigers
09-13-2010, 12:33 PM
Steven Jackson should touch the ball every play. He should be lined up in the slot and stared down and thrown to on passes, or he should be handed the rock.

PERIOD!

But seriously, has a top 3, arguably top RB ever been so underused?

Sniper
09-13-2010, 12:36 PM
But seriously, has a top 3, arguably top RB ever been so underused?

He had 375 touches last year.

armageddon
09-13-2010, 02:11 PM
The Rams o-line , especially the two young OT's played very well. Arizona brought pressure the entire game. Off topic, but the Rams D has made huge strides. Robbins in the middle has really helped.

San Diego Chicken
09-13-2010, 02:36 PM
I liked what I saw from Bradford. He really does remind me of Rich Gannon without the mobility. It may take some time though, you can tell he's still raw and learning the pro style offense. He goes to his first read too much.

prock
09-13-2010, 02:58 PM
But seriously, has a top 3, arguably top RB ever been so underused?

Chilly is trying really hard.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
09-13-2010, 03:38 PM
I hope Stafford's recent injury bouts are just flukes and not a sign of things to come. They REALLY need to invest in someone to protect his blindside though. I'd hate to see this debate settled by injuries.

georgiafan
09-13-2010, 03:42 PM
I hope Stafford's recent injury bouts are just flukes and not a sign of things to come. They REALLY need to invest in someone to protect his blindside though. I'd hate to see this debate settled by injuries.

his latest inj isnt serious and wont need surgery prob just miss a week or two.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/lions-qb-stafford-wont-612694.html

Shiver
09-13-2010, 09:18 PM
This could be like the Peterson/McFadden debate. The injury prone player in college isn't the one plagued by injuries in the pros. Stafford getting his throwing shoulder hurt two years in a row is a bad sign.

bigbluedefense
09-13-2010, 11:01 PM
This could be like the Peterson/McFadden debate. The injury prone player in college isn't the one plagued by injuries in the pros. Stafford getting his throwing shoulder hurt two years in a row is a bad sign.

He hurt his left shoulder last year. Still though, they need to protect him. I can't believe they passed on Oher for Pettigrew. Unbelievable. Only the Lions.

holt_bruce81
09-13-2010, 11:12 PM
Steven Jackson should touch the ball every play. He should be lined up in the slot and stared down and thrown to on passes, or he should be handed the rock.

PERIOD!

But seriously, has a top 3, arguably top RB ever been so underused?

22 Carries and targeted 8 times in the passing game. Mark Clayton was targeted 16 times, the 2nd most on the team.

Joecool
10-04-2010, 06:42 PM
So lions v rams stafford gonna show?

armageddon
10-05-2010, 10:59 AM
Listen to Billick and Mora rave about Bradford

http://www.stlouisrams.com/media-center/videos/Bradfords-Development/dfb4fce0-a45c-4538-9ba7-ef5d4903b1ad#?id=5713c7ef-d69b-4490-8ad2-dee75100e13b

Joecool
10-05-2010, 03:42 PM
Listen to Billick and Mora rave about Bradford

http://www.stlouisrams.com/media-center/videos/Bradfords-Development/dfb4fce0-a45c-4538-9ba7-ef5d4903b1ad#?id=5713c7ef-d69b-4490-8ad2-dee75100e13b

Yeah no way bradford is gonna be as good as young.

BudIce
08-15-2011, 02:45 PM
STAFFORD
TD–INT 19–21
PYards 2,802
QB Rating 67.1
years 2

BRADFORD
TD–INT 18–15
PYards 3,512
QB Rating 76.5
years 1

+1 bradford for me

Shane P. Hallam
08-15-2011, 02:49 PM
Give me Stafford if healthy. Obviously that is the big thing, but when Stafford is in, he is dynamic. Makes mistakes, sure, but that is his game and he gives the Lions a big lift.

bucfan12
08-15-2011, 02:58 PM
Stafford in a heartbeat (Again, as long as he's healthy). Honestly, Bradford was impressive in his rookie season, but I wasn't overly impressed to the fact that he was lights out fantastic. What I mean is, some people said he could be Peyton Manning, yet I don't see that at all.

CashmoneyDrew
08-15-2011, 02:58 PM
Bradford was my favorite QB prospect since I've been following the draft since around 2003 so I'll take him. Andrew Luck might test that though.

ElectricEye
08-15-2011, 03:08 PM
Bradford was my favorite QB prospect since I've been following the draft since around 2003 so I'll take him. Andrew Luck might test that though.

This is pretty much where I've been too. Luck has a chance to be the gold standard after this year.


Stafford never impressed me much in college. I just didn't see the transcendent talent that everyone else did. I thought he struggled quite a bit at times in Georgia. Since coming to the NFL, I've liked what I've seen quite a bit more. It's clear to me now that I let the bad offensive line Stafford played for much of his career get in the way of what he was actually doing there. He also really didn't have many weapons around him aside from the one year he had AJ Green. I actually learned a lot from that and it went a long way into the way I evaluated Jake Locker the past few years. With that being said, I'll still take Bradford and Luck over Stafford.

San Diego Chicken
08-15-2011, 03:16 PM
Stafford still with a clean bill of health and the pieces he has moving forward. Bradford will be a solid QB, but I doubt he becomes an elite one because he struggles to challenge the defense down the field. That's the thing that separates Brady, Rodgers, Rivers, Manning etc., from the also ran QB's in the league, they take the top off of any defense. Stafford has the arm and the confidence & willingness to stretch the defense vertically. Bradford hasn't shown it to me yet.

J-Mike88
08-15-2011, 03:22 PM
I think Bradford is smarter, and more of a winner.
I like Stafford's "tools" better though.
Tough call, but in the longrun, I bet the end result isn't so close.
One will end up accomplishing a lot more.