PDA

View Full Version : Colt McCoy vs Sam Bradford


J-Mike88
06-08-2011, 05:55 PM
Obvious, Bradford is way better right?

Well, not so fast.
Their performances, stats, record were pretty similar in college, in the same conference vs the same competition, at the same time.

Bradford is taller though, with a stronger arm. He went #1 overall, while Colt fell down to day 2 to the Browns, as we all know, already.

Rookie season, Sam gets the action right away, Colt eventually gets in there and his final 3 games were against Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Cinci, plus his first game was against Pittsburgh.

I would argue that the competition that Colt faced as a rookie was a lot better than what Sam faced in the NFC West. Both have crap receivers so that's a wash. One has Stephen Jackson, the other the gift known as Peyton Hillis.

Anyway, their passer ratings for their rookie year were:
McCoy: 74.5
Bradford: 76.5

I would call those both crappy to be honest. Now passer rating doesn't tell the whole story, but it does roundup all their passing stats. I don't know their rushing stats, but neither are Vick of course.

I just continue to be amazed at how McCoy keeps getting dis'd despite performing almost the same as Bradford step-by-step from the Big 12 until now.

How would you assess their rookie years, and their outlook going forward?

Here's another "similarity" they both have a video here:
http://www.iamsecond.com/seconds/#

Monomach
06-08-2011, 06:04 PM
Here's another "similarity" they both have a video here:
http://www.iamsecond.com/seconds/#

I've said my piece about McCoy vs. Bradford many a time and gotten flamed so much that I'm bored of it, so I'm going to sit this out.

I will, however, go vomit after looking around at that link.

AntoinCD
06-08-2011, 06:36 PM
If I had to choose one it would be Bradford quite comfortably in the long run, however that's not to say McCoy isn't a very good QB going forward for Cleveland.

My reasons are simply because Bradford is rated higher in my opinion in almost every area.

While he had major injury concerns in college he has more of an NFL-type body than McCoy and should be able to withstand more punishment, evident by McCoy having injuries already in his rookie year.

Bradford's accuracy is already on an elite level whereas McCoy is not there. He is by no means an unaccurate passer but Bradford will rival most QBs in this department, and IMO accuracy is one of the most important, yet somehow underrated, aspect in a QB's skills.

Bradford kinda got found out towards the end of the year but that was expected for a full season rookie starter. What hurts him is a lack of a deep threat in the Rams' offense. McCoy also suffers from this but on a level playing field Bradford is a much better deep ball thrower and if you cant make defense at least worry about the deep ball then everything underneath becomes so much tougher.

TACKLE
06-08-2011, 07:22 PM
One of them will be one of the better QB's in this league and one of them will always be very limited. I'll be surprised if Colt is still starting in Cleveland 3 years from now.

Shane P. Hallam
06-08-2011, 08:09 PM
Watch the games. It gives you a much better perspective than stats and reading other's opinions.

Ness
06-08-2011, 09:08 PM
I don't think it really matters at this point. Both of them didn't impress me that much in their rookie seasons. And that is to be expected. They were rookies. I don't believe either one has the edge on the other one right now.

PoopSandwich
06-08-2011, 09:41 PM
Watch the games. It gives you a much better perspective than stats and reading other's opinions.

Agreed, but Colt played pretty well in games such as the Jets but looked horrible in games against the Ravens and Steelers.

It hurts when your receivers are Massaquoi and Robiskie though...

I would take Bradford 10/10 times but I think Colt has potential.

FUNBUNCHER
06-08-2011, 09:48 PM
I always thought McCoy was a future NFL QB and still believe he's the 2nd coming of Jeff Garcia, minus the eyeliner!!lol

Besides height and a slightly stronger arm, I don't see Bradford as a dramatically better prospect than McCoy.

Matthew Jones
06-08-2011, 10:07 PM
Bradford was clearly the better of the two last year, and will be in the future as well. His numbers should skyrocket now that Josh McDaniels and his pass-wacky offense are in town. Remember, Kyle Orton put up 300+ yards in numerous games last year, and I don't think anyone would accuse him of being one of the best quarterbacks in the game.

Ness
06-08-2011, 10:22 PM
Bradford was clearly the better of the two last year, and will be in the future as well. His numbers should skyrocket now that Josh McDaniels and his pass-wacky offense are in town. Remember, Kyle Orton put up 300+ yards in numerous games last year, and I don't think anyone would accuse him of being one of the best quarterbacks in the game.

Let's not forget, the Broncos were behind in a lot of games though...and they practically had to pass the ball because their running game was not very effective. I'm surprised Orton's arm didn't fall off with what he was asked to do.

TitanHope
06-09-2011, 12:29 AM
Take Bradford for the future, and for the rookie year, even if his OROY was kinda by default since he's a QB.

Still impressed by McCoy and how he did, though.

49erNation85
06-09-2011, 12:35 AM
Tebow was better.Enough said.

Victory X
06-09-2011, 01:48 AM
Tebow was better.Enough said.

http://i348.photobucket.com/albums/q332/yoddle321/lolwut.jpg

RaiderNation
06-09-2011, 02:37 AM
I'm not going to lie, I was very surprised by the early success by both QB's. I thought McCoy would take 3 or so years to look like a starting QB, while Bradford would take maybe another year or 2. Both look to be very solid atleast.

M.O.T.H.
06-09-2011, 03:07 AM
Bradford certainly had some impressive performances and throws last season. I dont know how you can really hate on him. There were bumps in the road, but he played very well for a rookie QB, with a fairly mediocre receiving core. The future is very bright for him.

I'm not sold on Colt, but you have to be encouraged at least, by some of things he did. In that division, though...it's going to be real tough for him to be successful. Especially considering the lack of receiving talent they've surrounded him with.

Really...both teams need to add talent at WR. Neither has anything that resembles a #1. I absolutely hate when teams that have young Qbs, continue to pass on the WR position. You'd think...that the position would be near the forefront, if you really want to give your young QB the best chance to succeed. The Rams and Browns will both have a glaring need at WR entering next year's draft once again. :/

J-Mike88
06-09-2011, 05:45 AM
Watch the games. It gives you a much better perspective than stats and reading other's opinions.
I live near the Oklahoma-Texas border, and watched all their games either on TV or in person. And the results of what I saw, which is documented in W-L records as well as statistics, were quite similar. Both were very successful in college.

Nobody else had to tell me that.

As for their NFL rookie performances being similar, well, it's one year so far.....

jrdrylie
06-09-2011, 07:49 AM
I'm not going to lie, I was very surprised by the early success by both QB's. I thought McCoy would take 3 or so years to look like a starting QB, while Bradford would take maybe another year or 2. Both look to be very solid atleast.

I'm with you about McCoy. I thought he would take a few years to be a starting QB. And when he became a starter, he would be a borderline starter. But I don't know why you thought Bradford would take a while. I had no concerns about him as a player. I was just afraid of his shoulder.

Cudders
06-09-2011, 01:44 PM
As a Browns fan, it's Sam Bradford and it's not even close, as a rookie or in the future. Bradford performed at a much higher level over the course of an entire season with a similar supporting cast. McCoy had a surprisingly impressive streak of quality starts, but Bradford is the kind of quarterback that dictates what system a team runs. Bradford suffered through his inconsistencies better and carried that offense through long stretches last season as a rookie signal-caller. I'm not sold Colt can do that yet. So far, from what I've seen, McCoy needs to be surrounded with a surplus of talent at the skill positions and immersed in an offense that is specifically tailored to mask his deficiencies. Namely his much-publicized arm strength limitations.

Now, that's not to say that Colt can't succeed in the NFL. He's just going to need a stable, bruising running game at his side and more weaponry on the perimeter. In fact, I anticipate the Browns will tinker their playcalling to suit their young quarterback, much like Shurmur handled Bradford in 2010. Do little things like pass on early downs, throw out of running formations, utilize play-action, and incorporate a lot of quick-hitting, short spread concepts into the offense. But you just can't put him in the same category as Bradford right now. Bradford earned the trite 'franchise quarterback' moniker last season. McCoy still has to prove himself next season.

SickwithIt1010
06-09-2011, 02:02 PM
Tebow was better.Enough said.

Bahaha good joke.


However I take Bradford and it isnt even close. The guy has everything you look for in a Quarterback and took that team from the first overall pick to being a borderline playoff team. Im scared to death of what him and McDaniels will do together.

Iamcanadian
06-09-2011, 02:29 PM
There is no comparison between the 2. One is a legitimate franchise QB in the making while the other is still struggling to establish his place as a solid starter. Who cares what they did in college, it has nothing to do with their potential as pros?
No doubt, McCoy fell on draft day because of his injury otherwise he goes a lot higher maybe even late round 1.
McCoy is strictly a WCO QB where he isn't asked to throw a consistent deep ball in that offense.
Comparing 1st year stats is rather a complete waste of time. Peyton had somewhere around 26 interceptions as a rookie which might be a record but it had nothing to do with his potential.
McCoy's ceiling is Hasselbach, Bradford's ceiling is Peyton. End of story.

jack1077
06-10-2011, 12:14 AM
There is no comparison between the 2. One is a legitimate franchise QB in the making while the other is still struggling to establish his place as a solid starter. Who cares what they did in college, it has nothing to do with their potential as pros?
No doubt, McCoy fell on draft day because of his injury otherwise he goes a lot higher maybe even late round 1.
McCoy is strictly a WCO QB where he isn't asked to throw a consistent deep ball in that offense.
Comparing 1st year stats is rather a complete waste of time. Peyton had somewhere around 26 interceptions as a rookie which might be a record but it had nothing to do with his potential.
McCoy's ceiling is Hasselbach, Bradford's ceiling is Peyton. End of story.

Bradford's ceiling is Peyton. That is a monstrously big call. Bradford is not going to become arguably the best QB in the NFL. Bradford's ceiling is far closer to Eli than Peyton.

Roddoliver
06-10-2011, 01:00 AM
I believe playing for the Cleveland Browns means a lot of games in bad weather. The QB should have an arm that can battle the elements. Colt McCoy does not have that. He'll be limited to a short passing game and probably struggle in bad weather. Accuracy is something that he has. But we could see last season how his deeper throws had the ball sailing forever, without much zip. And it looks like his body can't take a lot of punishment, he should get stronger to absorb the hits.

descendency
06-10-2011, 01:08 AM
Tebow was better.Enough said.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/244/990/tim_tebow_golf_blog-thumb-300x464-35202_crop_340x234.jpg

Doesn't that look like a linebacker. . . yes, I'm joking

Bengalsrocket
06-10-2011, 04:03 AM
I believe playing for the Cleveland Browns means a lot of games in bad weather. The QB should have an arm that can battle the elements. Colt McCoy does not have that. He'll be limited to a short passing game and probably struggle in bad weather. Accuracy is something that he has. But we could see last season how his deeper throws had the ball sailing forever, without much zip. And it looks like his body can't take a lot of punishment, he should get stronger to absorb the hits.

I hear weather as a concern for QB's in the AFC North all the time. Sure, we have all out door stadiums and they do get cold at times. As long as he can hold onto a wet football he'll be fine though. The last time wind really had an effect on an AFC North stadium was in 2008, week three or four when Tennessee came to Cincinnati and we had like 60-70 MPH winds. It was a super fluke storm that the city had never really experienced before or since.

Also, Pittsburgh's stadium can get really muddy, but that effects receivers and defensive ends more than quarterbacks (and the Steelers aren't immune to it either, so it's basically a level playing field).

Iamcanadian
06-10-2011, 01:29 PM
Bradford's ceiling is Peyton. That is a monstrously big call. Bradford is not going to become arguably the best QB in the NFL. Bradford's ceiling is far closer to Eli than Peyton.

Bradford has an arm that is equal with Peyton's and he will go down as one of the most accurate passers of all time before he is done barring injury.
Will he reach his ceiling, that is anybodies guess but the potential of a Peyton is there.
There is always a difference between potential and accomplishment, heck when Eli was drafted as a prospect, his arm strength gave him the potential to be better than his brother but the accomplishment hasn't put him at that ceiling.

Iamcanadian
06-10-2011, 01:38 PM
I hear weather as a concern for QB's in the AFC North all the time. Sure, we have all out door stadiums and they do get cold at times. As long as he can hold onto a wet football he'll be fine though. The last time wind really had an effect on an AFC North stadium was in 2008, week three or four when Tennessee came to Cincinnati and we had like 60-70 MPH winds. It was a super fluke storm that the city had never really experienced before or since.

Also, Pittsburgh's stadium can get really muddy, but that effects receivers and defensive ends more than quarterbacks (and the Steelers aren't immune to it either, so it's basically a level playing field).

I tend to disagree, cold weather and outdoor stadiums put a premium on arm strength, it can be lessened by the offensive system, say a running team or a WCO but it certainly has its effects on a QB.
Cleveland might get away with McCoy because they play a WCO but he wouldn't fit any system in a northern outdoor team.

jack1077
06-10-2011, 01:39 PM
Bradford has an arm that is equal with Peyton's and he will go down as one of the most accurate passers of all time before he is done barring injury.
Will he reach his ceiling, that is anybodies guess but the potential of a Peyton is there.
There is always a difference between potential and accomplishment, heck when Eli was drafted as a prospect, his arm strength gave him the potential to be better than his brother but the accomplishment hasn't put him at that ceiling.

Jarmarcus Russell has a bigger arm than anyone. I guess to you he is the second coming of jesus in terms of a prospect. Bradford isn't half of Peyton off the field in terms of understanding of the game, preparation etc. Bradford does not have, or has shown anywhere near Peyton's accuracy. Bradford's pocket Presence will not be what Peyton's is. The Patriots will never go for it on 4th down inside their own half because Bradford is on the other side of the field. Bradford has had injury concerns, Peyton hasn't.

Yes, i think Peyton is the best QB in the history of the league. I am only 20, but from what i have seen over 8 years of watching football, he is the most impactful and important player to his team in the league. Peyton dictates the game like no one else and carries a bad team.

Bradford is a good prospect and their is nothing wrong with comparing him to Eli. You can win with Eli. But saying he is on par with Peyton in terms of potential is as ridiculous as saying Russell could be Peyton. You can't teach the work ethic and understanding of the game that Peyton has the same way you can't teach speed.

FUNBUNCHER
06-10-2011, 04:54 PM
Please try not to compare a QB who's completed his FIRST YEAR in the NFL to Peyton Manning.

To be honest, if you wanna look at Bradford at Peyton one-to-one, Bradford is by far the better QB based on their rookie seasons.

And how can you say Bradford's preparation and understanding of the game pale in comparison to Manning??

Bradford is a cerebral QB by anyone's definition.

Would anyone be surprised if Bradford won more SBs than Peyton??

I wouldn't.

armageddon
06-10-2011, 10:26 PM
The year is 1999

Manning had a good rookie, but do not compare him to Joe Montana.

jack1077
06-11-2011, 12:12 AM
The year is 1999

Manning had a good rookie, but do not compare him to Joe Montana.

I just don't see Bradford becoming that elite of elite. I know its early, but he does not seem to be the person that Peyton is. All football all day. My point is i don't think he is ever going to become the player that actually is the differece between 10-6 with him and 2-14 without.

I'm not hating on Bradford, just think its a crazy to even mention him in the same breath as Peyton even in terms of potential.

Saints-Tigers
06-11-2011, 12:52 AM
Bradford is mediocre, McCoy isn't that good.

I'll take Bradford.

FUNBUNCHER
06-11-2011, 06:06 AM
I just don't see Bradford becoming that elite of elite. I know its early, but he does not seem to be the person that Peyton is. All football all day. My point is i don't think he is ever going to become the player that actually is the differece between 10-6 with him and 2-14 without.

I'm not hating on Bradford, just think its a crazy to even mention him in the same breath as Peyton even in terms of potential.


It's just too early to compare them, if at all. No one suspected Peyton would become PEYTON after his rookie year, hell the guy threw 100 INTS his first five years in the pros.

As for Bradford, statistically his rookie year was on par with Matt Ryan's,(meaning one of the best ever for a rookie starting QB), and if the Rams ever give him some decent downfield weapons, I could easily see him developing into a top 5 QB.

But that's potential, not a given.

jack1077
06-11-2011, 06:44 AM
It's just too early to compare them, if at all. No one suspected Peyton would become PEYTON after his rookie year, hell the guy threw 100 INTS his first five years in the pros.

As for Bradford, statistically his rookie year was on par with Matt Ryan's,(meaning one of the best ever for a rookie starting QB), and if the Rams ever give him some decent downfield weapons, I could easily see him developing into a top 5 QB.

But that's potential, not a given.

Peyton isn't even top 5. He is top 2. IMO 1. Bradford will never be 1 in the nfl. He wouldn't have even been first overall if the draft class was at least average. Also, i can see him getting injured very very easily. IMO his potential is Eli.

FUNBUNCHER
06-11-2011, 07:03 AM
Peyton isn't even top 5. He is top 2. IMO 1. Bradford will never be 1 in the nfl. He wouldn't have even been first overall if the draft class was at least average. Also, i can see him getting injured very very easily. IMO his potential is Eli.


Because of your age, your relative youth, I don't know if you realize there are some of us who only consider Peyton the greatest regular season QB in NFL history.

There have been several NFL QBs who dust Peyton once January rolls around, which is why I simply can't consider him to be on this unattainable tier of QB.

And can we stop with this Manning binary?? It's either Peyton or Eli as the barometers of QB success??

Eli is a gamer and when he's on, he can be awesome. But game to game he's too inconsistent and IMO Bradford doesn't really compare to him.

BTW why are you hating on Bradford so much??

Peyton as a prospect didn't bring any more to the table than Bradford did coming out of Oklahoma.

Bradford had a great rookie year, but if you, I or anyone tries to seriously compare him to Peyton at this stage, they're an idiot.

Bengalsrocket
06-11-2011, 05:43 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you own a crystal ball or came from the future, doesn't every QB drafted have the potential to be Peyton Manning?

How can you possibly say, with certainty, that Sam Bradford will not have a very similar career to Manning?

jack1077
06-12-2011, 03:13 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you own a crystal ball or came from the future, doesn't every QB drafted have the potential to be Peyton Manning?

How can you possibly say, with certainty, that Sam Bradford will not have a very similar career to Manning?

Common sense says that their have been what, maybe 3 or 4 Peyton Manning's in about what 1000 or more qb's drafted or signed in the last 50 years. No, they do not all have the potential to be Peyton Manning. Your logic would essentially mean that I at 5'9 could be the next Peyton Manning. Of course, nothing is impossible but i will say without a shadow of a doubt that i will not be the next Hall of fame QB.

I should change what i said, i seriously doubt that Bradford's ceiling is Peyton's. He is not the same person as Peyton. I do not see him at any point being able to dominate opponents and change the other teams OFFENSIVE style let alone defensive. I do not see him becoming the next player who is the difference between 2-14 without and 10-6 with.

DeepThreat
06-12-2011, 10:12 AM
I love the people who look at the stats and claim they know anything about Bradford and Colt. At least half the people in this thread didn't watch more than one game played by either of them.

I watched every game Colt played and about half of Bradford's, and there is no doubt who is the better quarterback. Bradford is heads and shoulders above McCoy.

Bradford has a much stronger arm, a quicker release, a tighter spiral and a better ball in general. McCoy is better than Bradford at nothing. I am a Browns fan, and I highly doubt that McCoy is the team's starter in 3 years. His arm is just abysmal with minimal room to improve. He is the type of player who limits what an offense can do, and those guys rarely last.

Bradford, on the other hand, has the potential to be the NFL's best quarterback. I think he's similar to Drew Brees in many ways.

I would trade 10 Colt McCoys for one Sam Bradford.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
06-12-2011, 11:03 AM
Bradford hit the rookie wall pretty hard at the end of the year. Saw some flashes of greatness but i also saw some of the cons of him as a prospect toward the end of the year. He has what it takes to be a starter in the league for a bit but i would not be surprised if he only made 1 pro bowl and never touched upper echelon.

SativaDominant
06-12-2011, 01:52 PM
I love the people who look at the stats and claim they know anything about Bradford and Colt. At least half the people in this thread didn't watch more than one game played by either of them.

I watched every game Colt played and about half of Bradford's, and there is no doubt who is the better quarterback. Bradford is heads and shoulders above McCoy.

Bradford has a much stronger arm, a quicker release, a tighter spiral and a better ball in general. McCoy is better than Bradford at nothing. I am a Browns fan, and I highly doubt that McCoy is the team's starter in 3 years. His arm is just abysmal with minimal room to improve. He is the type of player who limits what an offense can do, and those guys rarely last.

Bradford, on the other hand, has the potential to be the NFL's best quarterback. I think he's similar to Drew Brees in many ways.

I would trade 10 Colt McCoys for one Sam Bradford.

And that's the kicker. McCoy will always be a guy who offensive coordinators have to manipulate their gameplan around his physical limitations.

Plus, not counting skillset, you have to consider situation. McCoy is going to be playing outdoors in Cleveland and Pittsburgh/Cincinnati/Baltimore. Good luck with that once December rolls around. Bradford, on the other hand, will be playing indoors and in SF/Seattle/Arizona. Even if you don't think there's a noticeable difference in arm strength between the two (and there is), McCoy will be playing in exponentially more difficult situations that are going to accentuate his physical shortcomings.

Rosebud
06-12-2011, 05:07 PM
Bradford's ceiling is Peyton. That is a monstrously big call. Bradford is not going to become arguably the best QB in the NFL. Bradford's ceiling is far closer to Eli than Peyton.

*shrug* Eli's potential is better than Peyton. Doesn't mean he'll ever be that good or even get the chance to prove he's that good if he does get that good. Same for Bradford, although I think you might just be confused about the definition of potential.

Buc Baller12
06-13-2011, 03:18 AM
I think Bradfords ceiling is Philip Rivers.

descendency
06-13-2011, 03:31 AM
I seriously don't get it. Philip Rivers is arguably the best QB in the NFL. He plays clutch in crunch times and the fact that he hasn't won a ring is a joke (even if I consider the championships = greatness argument silly, at best). Rivers is easily one of the best right now. He's gotten close twice to Marino's unbreakable record.

niel89
06-13-2011, 03:38 AM
Which record?

Philip Rivers won't get the respect he is due until has more post season success.

Ness
06-13-2011, 03:51 AM
I seriously don't get it. Philip Rivers is arguably the best QB in the NFL. He plays clutch in crunch times and the fact that he hasn't won a ring is a joke (even if I consider the championships = greatness argument silly, at best). Rivers is easily one of the best right now. He's gotten close twice to Marino's unbreakable record.

There are a lot of quarterbacks that have had fantastic careers, yet never won a ring. It's not that hard to fathom. The Chargers have had plenty of chances. And they'll have plenty more I'm sure. They simply haven't gotten it done. I hope Rivers gets a ring in the future though. I still think that 2006 team was his best chance. Too bad the Patriots came back and had a lot of luck on their side in that game.

descendency
06-13-2011, 03:54 AM
Which record?

Philip Rivers won't get the respect he is due until has more post season success.

The yardage one. (5084)

niel89
06-13-2011, 04:31 AM
The yardage one. (5084)
Maybe you're thinking Brees (5,069) because Rivers top in a season is 4,710.

jack1077
06-13-2011, 04:44 AM
*shrug* Eli's potential is better than Peyton. Doesn't mean he'll ever be that good or even get the chance to prove he's that good if he does get that good. Same for Bradford, although I think you might just be confused about the definition of potential.

Ok, So using your logic then a disabled kid could be the next Peyton Manning. Of course, it is minutely possible but it's never going to happen. People bandy about the word potential in this argument as though it wins it for them. Albert Haynesworth has the potential to be Peyton Manning then. So does Jarmarcus Russell. In fact so does every human every born that is currently alive. I use words like won't because they are stronger than will almost certainly not. I do not see Bradford becoming the next Manning. He was a poor first pick overall due to him being the ONLY decent qb in the class (other than Clausen who i actually like but that's for another thread) and the rams being desperate. He was injured in college the first time he faced a decent pass rush and didn't have 5 NFL OL to block for him. He also plays on the perennial loser Rams, which means he will not develop very well with no receivers and no OL. Does he have the potential to be Peyton Manning. Of course, the same way that Jamarcus, Clausen and Tim Couch have/had in my opinion. Everyone has a chance, doesn't mean i don't see the most likely answer pointing to him being average.

FUNBUNCHER
06-13-2011, 07:03 AM
Potential in this case means upside as pro prospects when these guys were coming out of college, when every player's potential is the highest.

At one point, Eli had the 'potential' coming out of Ole Miss to be as good as his brother, but I doubt anyone says that now.

Peyton now is 10x better than Peyton at Tennessee, (except both still struggle in the biggest games), so yes based on what Bradford did at Oklahoma and his rookie year for the Rams, he still has the 'potential' to be a superior NFL QB.

Which makes more sense than someone completely writing Bradford off at this early date that he will NEVER be in the same zipcode as Peyton career wise.

Again, Bradford was a more accomplished and prolific college QB than Peyton ever was, and his rookie year was IMO slightly more impressive than Manning's.

Statistically speaking, it's UNLIKELY Bradford develops into a Peyton Manning level QB, but there isn't a big enough sample set yet available to grade Bradford.

That's why I don't understand why you're jumping down his throat.

THis thread was comparing Bradford to McCoy, not to Peyton Manning.

armageddon
06-13-2011, 08:13 AM
He also plays on the perennial loser Rams, which means he will not develop very well with no receivers and no OL.


========================================

They now have the wealthiest owner in the NFL running the show. The also have some nice young talent that is starting to blossom including a soon to be superstar QB, which is something they have lacked for 6-7 years. Their QB play has been brutal for the past 6-7 years until last year. Bulger was horrible and so was their O-line. Things are changing now. Don't forget how good the Rams were from 1999-2005. 5 playoffs and 2 Super Bowls.

jack1077
06-13-2011, 08:57 AM
He also plays on the perennial loser Rams, which means he will not develop very well with no receivers and no OL.


========================================

They now have the wealthiest owner in the NFL running the show. The also have some nice young talent that is starting to blossom including a soon to be superstar QB, which is something they have lacked for 6-7 years. Their QB play has been brutal for the past 6-7 years until last year. Bulger was horrible and so was their O-line. Things are changing now. Don't forget how good the Rams were from 1999-2005. 5 playoffs and 2 Super Bowls.

And Kurt Warner. The one QB who seems to make terrible teams good (Rams and Cards)

jack1077
06-13-2011, 08:58 AM
Potential in this case means upside as pro prospects when these guys were coming out of college, when every player's potential is the highest.

At one point, Eli had the 'potential' coming out of Ole Miss to be as good as his brother, but I doubt anyone says that now.

Peyton now is 10x better than Peyton at Tennessee, (except both still struggle in the biggest games), so yes based on what Bradford did at Oklahoma and his rookie year for the Rams, he still has the 'potential' to be a superior NFL QB.

Which makes more sense than someone completely writing Bradford off at this early date that he will NEVER be in the same zipcode as Peyton career wise.

Again, Bradford was a more accomplished and prolific college QB than Peyton ever was, and his rookie year was IMO slightly more impressive than Manning's.

Statistically speaking, it's UNLIKELY Bradford develops into a Peyton Manning level QB, but there isn't a big enough sample set yet available to grade Bradford.

That's why I don't understand why you're jumping down his throat.

THis thread was comparing Bradford to McCoy, not to Peyton Manning.

Because of Iamcanadian's comment earlier in the thread.

Brown Leader
06-13-2011, 03:17 PM
Colt's feet and stamina will be more important to him in December then his arm strength. If he demonstrates the kind of running/scrambling ability he showed at Texas and flashed as a rookie, thru an entire season without getting severely hurt, I think he could see success but the issue is I doubt he could consistently do that. As early evidence, Bradford, coming in with substantial injury concerns, lasted 16 gms whereas Colt, relatively injury free collegiate, couldn't make it past 6.

bucfan12
06-13-2011, 03:23 PM
Colt McCoy is going to be the next Jeff Garcia. It's certainly not a bad thing, but he won't be an elite QB in this league, where Bradford has that potential.

McCoy does not have a strong arm and he doesn't seem like the type of QB that can take over games.

If he's going to have success, he'll have to be on a team that has talent all around him, both offense and defense.

Kind of like what Mark Sanchez has in New York.

Iamcanadian
06-14-2011, 06:42 PM
Jarmarcus Russell has a bigger arm than anyone. I guess to you he is the second coming of jesus in terms of a prospect. Bradford isn't half of Peyton off the field in terms of understanding of the game, preparation etc. Bradford does not have, or has shown anywhere near Peyton's accuracy. Bradford's pocket Presence will not be what Peyton's is. The Patriots will never go for it on 4th down inside their own half because Bradford is on the other side of the field. Bradford has had injury concerns, Peyton hasn't.

Again you are mistaking potential as the finished product, Russell's ceiling was off the charts but as an actual pro he just wasn't interested in putting in the time and energy necessary to be great in this league.

Peyton wasn't perfect as a prospect either, the were a lot of question marks when he entered the draft and many scouts and GM's had Leaf ahead of him. His arm strength wasn't elite and nobody knew how hard he would work to be successful.
He failed to win the NC on a team loaded with talent, good enough to win it the following year with Martin at QB.

Sure, after seeing him perform, we can see that he is a true franchise QB although his playoff record is rather mediocre.

How do you know what type of QB Bradford will develop into, that is pure fantasy on your part? You want to judge him off of his rookie year, well, I'm sure you would have announced Peyton a complete flop after his rookie campaign when he threw approximately 26 interceptions. Your just showing your immaturity as a draftnik to even suggest you can judge the finished product after a QB has been in the league for 1 season.

You go on and on about what Bradford will be in the future so unless you are a mind reader and can tell the future, give it a rest.

Yes, i think Peyton is the best QB in the history of the league. I am only 20, but from what i have seen over 8 years of watching football, he is the most impactful and important player to his team in the league. Peyton dictates the game like no one else and carries a bad team.

Putting aside his woeful playoff record, who says he plays on a bad team??? For most of his career he played on an excellent offensive team but disappeared in the playoffs with one exception. He will not go down as the greatest QB of all time no matter what you believe.

Bradford is a good prospect and their is nothing wrong with comparing him to Eli. You can win with Eli. But saying he is on par with Peyton in terms of potential is as ridiculous as saying Russell could be Peyton. You can't teach the work ethic and understanding of the game that Peyton has the same way you can't teach speed.

Again, nobody can gauge the work ethic and understanding of the game when a player is still considered a prospect, that is something you can only tell after a player has been in the league for at least 4 or 5 years when they reach their ceiling.
What is ridiculous is your insistence that everybody knew exactly what Peyton would become when he was a rookie. Unlike you, I'm 67 and have followed the game intensely for over 55 years and seen them all come and go, and nobody can state emphatically what you are claiming this early in Bradford's career. The potential is there, whether he reaches it or not is a completely different matter. Russell also had the potential to be another Elway(I'll use Elway because Russell had that kind of arm strength) but we can all see he failed to work at his abilities, so they never developed.

SativaDominant
06-14-2011, 06:56 PM
I hear weather as a concern for QB's in the AFC North all the time. Sure, we have all out door stadiums and they do get cold at times. As long as he can hold onto a wet football he'll be fine though. The last time wind really had an effect on an AFC North stadium was in 2008, week three or four when Tennessee came to Cincinnati and we had like 60-70 MPH winds. It was a super fluke storm that the city had never really experienced before or since.

Also, Pittsburgh's stadium can get really muddy, but that effects receivers and defensive ends more than quarterbacks (and the Steelers aren't immune to it either, so it's basically a level playing field).

Wind isn't the only bad weather factor in which you need arm strength to overcome.

When the weather is poor and/or the field is sloppy, it really limits the amount of horizontal route running that you can do. You're forced to run more vertical routes where the receiver is less likely to have to make a hard cut and losing his footing, resulting in a wasted route.

Iamcanadian
06-14-2011, 07:28 PM
Ok, So using your logic then a disabled kid could be the next Peyton Manning. Of course, it is minutely possible but it's never going to happen. People bandy about the word potential in this argument as though it wins it for them. Albert Haynesworth has the potential to be Peyton Manning then. So does Jarmarcus Russell. In fact so does every human every born that is currently alive. I use words like won't because they are stronger than will almost certainly not. I do not see Bradford becoming the next Manning. He was a poor first pick overall due to him being the ONLY decent qb in the class (other than Clausen who i actually like but that's for another thread) and the rams being desperate. He was injured in college the first time he faced a decent pass rush and didn't have 5 NFL OL to block for him. He also plays on the perennial loser Rams, which means he will not develop very well with no receivers and no OL. Does he have the potential to be Peyton Manning. Of course, the same way that Jamarcus, Clausen and Tim Couch have/had in my opinion. Everyone has a chance, doesn't mean i don't see the most likely answer pointing to him being average.

Do you understand logic, you throw the word around but I don't get the impression you have any understanding of it.
We are talking about QB's drafted #1 overall in the NFL who GM's, HC's and scouts gave a rating to as prospects, not some disabled kid or Haynesworth. We are talking about prospect's ceiling and not what they became as pros, you don't seem to grasp the difference.
Now, with your descriptions, you are suddenly able to judge a QB class with ridiculous statements to explain why he went 1st overall, Peyton barely went ahead of Leaf so your logic is again off tilter, oh yeah, Peyton went to the Colts in a weak QB draft who were just as desperate as St.Louis. Simply no logic there.
The FACT Bradford went #1 overall after missing a season screams out that he was considered a very top rated prospect as a QB, hardly a poor talent. He turned the Rams around in his rookie season and almost took them to the playoffs, Peyton never came close in his rookie year, in fact he looked very inconsistent for a # of years before he became very accurate while cutting down on his interceptions.

jack1077
06-14-2011, 08:08 PM
Do you understand logic, you throw the word around but I don't get the impression you have any understanding of it.
We are talking about QB's drafted #1 overall in the NFL who GM's, HC's and scouts gave a rating to as prospects, not some disabled kid or Haynesworth. We are talking about prospect's ceiling and not what they became as pros, you don't seem to grasp the difference.
Now, with your descriptions, you are suddenly able to judge a QB class with ridiculous statements to explain why he went 1st overall, Peyton barely went ahead of Leaf so your logic is again off tilter, oh yeah, Peyton went to the Colts in a weak QB draft who were just as desperate as St.Louis. Simply no logic there.
The FACT Bradford went #1 overall after missing a season screams out that he was considered a very top rated prospect as a QB, hardly a poor talent. He turned the Rams around in his rookie season and almost took them to the playoffs, Peyton never came close in his rookie year, in fact he looked very inconsistent for a # of years before he became very accurate while cutting down on his interceptions.

Dude, i don't agree with you that Bradford has a ceiling as high as Peyton. It's opinion vs opinion.

You say that Bradford almost led his team to the playoffs last season in the powerhouse nfc west. True. Although usually you have to have a winning record to do that. I guess his team would have come in 3rd in every other division in football, but i'll give it too you. You say he turned around the Rams. With his 76.5 qb rating. being the 25th most efficient passer in the league. In the weakest division in football. Yeah ok.

The same HC's OC's scouts and whomever that thought Bradford would be special also said the same about Leaf and Jamarcus, so forgive me for voicing my opinion on the most exact of sciences.

At the end of the day the proof of the pudding is in the eating and if Bradford becomes a player that single handedly changes the other teams OFFENSIVE style of play, i'll admit i'm wrong. Till then, i'll continue to have the same opinion of Bradford despite whatever logic you seem to think i lack.

EricCartmann
06-14-2011, 08:18 PM
Based on history, I have to say Bradford will be the better QB when it is all said and done.

Based on my personal feelings, I think McCoy will be the better QB when it is all said and done.

Reason I pick McCoy is I don't think it's a good idea to measure physical attributes to gauge a QB, but I will admit, history has shown that you should take your chances with height and arm strength over "intangibles". Manning, Elway, Marino, Kelly, Aikman are a few examples of big guys with big arms.

Not too many short guys of say around 6' succeed in the NFL and become Hall of Famers. Only exception of course is Montana and Brees (that I know of, off the top of my head). Like Colt, Montana was not a great prospect, his height and lankiness dropped him to the third round despite proving to be a winner, and in a way, he was lucky to be drafted that high.

Drew Brees is not in the HOF yet, but he will be. We have to remember his first 3 years with SD were horrid, and only after drafting Rivers, did Brees show his good stuff.

Michael Vick, another short QB, is decent but he needs 3 more solid years, and even then, he will still be a questionable HOFer (unless he gets a SuperBowl).

It's too early to accurately predict how things will turn out for Colt or Bradford, but history has shown that you should take your chances with Bradford.

However, I am going to take Colt. Bradford never really impressed me at OU, and though he has had a decent Pro Career so far, I still think McCoy will have a better career when it is all said and done. In HS, Colt was a 2 wayer and played Strong Safety. This I think is where his toughness comes from. Colt also use to punt. At UT Colt proved to be a great runner, which is something he can't do in the NFL, but when the situation is needed for him to scramble, count on him to get the job done. When Colt drops back in the pocket, he reminds me a lot of Drew Brees. Not saying he is a Drew Brees, just that they both look the same when they are in the pocket.

jack1077
06-14-2011, 08:19 PM
Based on history, I have to say Bradford will be the better QB when it is all said and done.

Based on my personal feelings, I think McCoy will be the better QB when it is all said and done.

Reason I pick McCoy is I don't think it's a good idea to measure physical attributes to gauge a QB, but I will admit, history has shown that you should take your chances with height and arm strength over "intangibles". Manning, Elway, Marino, Kelly, Aikman are a few examples of big guys with big arms.

Not too many short guys of say around 6' succeed in the NFL and become Hall of Famers. Only exception of course is Montana and Brees (that I know of, off the top of my head). Like Colt, Montana was not a great prospect, his height and lankiness dropped him to the third round despite proving to be a winner, and in a way, he was lucky to be drafted that high.

Drew Brees is not in the HOF yet, but he will be. We have to remember his first 3 years with SD were horrid, and only after drafting Rivers, did Brees show his good stuff.

Michael Vick, another short QB, is decent but he needs 3 more solid years, and even then, he will still be a questionable HOFer (unless he gets a SuperBowl).

It's too early to accurately predict how things will turn out for Colt or Bradford, but history has shown that you should take your chances with Bradford.

However, I am going to take Colt. Bradford never really impressed me at OU, and though he has had a decent Pro Career so far, I still think McCoy will have a better career when it is all said and done. In HS, Colt was a 2 wayer and played Strong Safety. This I think is where his toughness comes from. Colt also use to punt. At UT Colt proved to be a great runner, which is something he can't do in the NFL, but when the situation is needed for him to scramble, count on him to get the job done. When Colt drops back in the pocket, he reminds me a lot of Drew Brees. Not saying he is a Drew Brees, just that they both look the same when they are in the pocket.

Eric, i think i might agree with some of those points? What has happened to the world!!!!

EricCartmann
06-14-2011, 10:37 PM
Eric, i think i might agree with some of those points? What has happened to the world!!!!


What if I said I don't really care if one of them, or both of them used PEDs to get to where they are at now? Would you agree with me then?

jack1077
06-14-2011, 10:50 PM
What if I said I don't really care if one of them, or both of them used PEDs to get to where they are at now? Would you agree with me then?

I'd say you're an idiot who condones cheating.

EricCartmann
06-14-2011, 10:57 PM
I'd say you're an idiot who condones cheating.

I don't know enough about it to declare a cheater. It's not up to me, an outsider to determine what is morally right or what is dangerous to a free man who can think for himself.

EricCartmann
06-14-2011, 10:58 PM
Once again the world is normal! hahahahaaha

jack1077
06-14-2011, 11:21 PM
I don't know enough about it to declare a cheater. It's not up to me, an outsider to determine what is morally right or what is dangerous to a free man who can think for himself.

No, your example earlier of saying that you don't know if whole milk is a steroid shows that you really don't know enough about it to even be commenting. Those who don't believe me, check the steroids thread.

EricCartmann
06-14-2011, 11:43 PM
No, your example earlier of saying that you don't know if whole milk is a steroid shows that you really don't know enough about it to even be commenting. Those who don't believe me, check the steroids thread.

Whole Milk as we know it is not natural. Go back and read the thread, that is all I said. Whole Milk is a vitamin right? If that is the case then why don't we just declare everything a Vitamin. Problem solved!

Cudders
06-14-2011, 11:49 PM
Based on history, I have to say Bradford will be the better QB when it is all said and done.

Based on my personal feelings, I think McCoy will be the better QB when it is all said and done.

Reason I pick McCoy is I don't think it's a good idea to measure physical attributes to gauge a QB, but I will admit, history has shown that you should take your chances with height and arm strength over "intangibles". Manning, Elway, Marino, Kelly, Aikman are a few examples of big guys with big arms.

Not too many short guys of say around 6' succeed in the NFL and become Hall of Famers. Only exception of course is Montana and Brees (that I know of, off the top of my head). Like Colt, Montana was not a great prospect, his height and lankiness dropped him to the third round despite proving to be a winner, and in a way, he was lucky to be drafted that high.

Drew Brees is not in the HOF yet, but he will be. We have to remember his first 3 years with SD were horrid, and only after drafting Rivers, did Brees show his good stuff.

Michael Vick, another short QB, is decent but he needs 3 more solid years, and even then, he will still be a questionable HOFer (unless he gets a SuperBowl).

It's too early to accurately predict how things will turn out for Colt or Bradford, but history has shown that you should take your chances with Bradford.

However, I am going to take Colt. Bradford never really impressed me at OU, and though he has had a decent Pro Career so far, I still think McCoy will have a better career when it is all said and done. In HS, Colt was a 2 wayer and played Strong Safety. This I think is where his toughness comes from. Colt also use to punt. At UT Colt proved to be a great runner, which is something he can't do in the NFL, but when the situation is needed for him to scramble, count on him to get the job done. When Colt drops back in the pocket, he reminds me a lot of Drew Brees. Not saying he is a Drew Brees, just that they both look the same when they are in the pocket.

If I'm an NFL general manager, and I have the chance to choose between Colt and Bradford, I'm taking Bradford and not thinking twice.

Look, I get what you're saying. Colt is tough. He's a leader. A gritty gamer. And intangibles are great. They really are. But, at the end of the day, if you can't play, you can't consistently start under center in such a quarterback-driven league. I've watched all of Colt's games as a Brown. He had a much nicer start to his career than I ever imagined and his showing earned him the job going into this season. That said, he doesn't have much room for error or the Browns will begin to look elsewhere for a quarterback. As impressive as his first few starts were, he also had a string of marginal outings to cap his rookie season. Outings where his (arm strength) limitations were painfully clear. Not exactly ideal for a notoriously cold city either.

If the Browns surround Colt with premium, top-of-the-line talent throughout the offense and build a capable defense as well, then I could see him sticking with Cleveland long-term. Meaning maintaining one of the better offensive lines in football, keeping their punch on the ground, AND upgrading his toys in the passing game by A LOT. Accomplishing all of that is no easy task, but Colt needs all of that to succeed for more than short stretches. He isn't the type of guy that can compensate for or mask the weak areas of an offense. He's the type of guy that offensive coordinators need to insulate and protect with an outstanding supporting cast and a perfect system. Right now, as it appears, Bradford isn't. That's the difference.

EricCartmann
06-14-2011, 11:54 PM
If I'm an NFL general manager, and I have the chance to choose between Colt and Bradford, I'm taking Bradford and not thinking twice.

Look, I get what you're saying. Colt is tough. He's a leader. A gritty gamer. And intangibles are great. They really are. But, at the end of the day, if you can't play, you can't consistently start under center in such a quarterback-driven league. I've watched all of Colt's games as a Brown. He had a much nicer start to his career than I ever imagined and his showing earned him the job going into this season. That said, he doesn't have much room for error or the Browns will begin to look elsewhere for a quarterback. As impressive as his first few starts were, he also had a string of marginal outings to cap his rookie season. Outings where his (arm strength) limitations were painfully clear. Not exactly ideal for a notoriously cold city either.

If the Browns surround Colt with premium, top-of-the-line talent throughout the offense and build a capable defense as well, then I could see him sticking with Cleveland long-term. Meaning maintaining one of the better offensive lines in football, keeping their punch on the ground, AND upgrading his toys in the passing game by A LOT. Accomplishing all of that is no easy task, but Colt needs all of that to succeed for more than short stretches. He isn't the type of guy that can compensate for or mask the weak areas of an offense. He's the type of guy that offensive coordinators need to insulate and protect with an outstanding supporting cast and a perfect system. Right now, as it appears, Bradford isn't. That's the difference.


Don't blame you one bit for taking that stance. History is on your side!

jack1077
06-15-2011, 12:37 AM
Whole Milk as we know it is not natural. Go back and read the thread, that is all I said. Whole Milk is a vitamin right? If that is the case then why don't we just declare everything a Vitamin. Problem solved!

Whole milk is food. So are, cheetoes. Should we ban cheetoes? They are not natural? What a ridiculous point.

EricCartmann
06-15-2011, 12:40 AM
Whole milk is food. So are, cheetoes. Should we ban cheetoes? They are not natural? What a ridiculous point.

I don't know should we ban them? You are the moral Police Officer, not me.

What if we stuffed PEDs in bacon, then that would no longer make them PEDs right? and make them food?

jack1077
06-15-2011, 12:43 AM
I don't know should we ban them? You are the moral Police Officer, not me.

What if we stuffed PEDs in bacon, then that would no longer make them PEDs right? and make them food?

No, they would be PED's, in food. What is your point? That you don't know where the line is? Well WADA does and i think most people have enough common sense to know that whole milk and PED's are different.

EricCartmann
06-15-2011, 01:02 AM
No, they would be PED's, in food. What is your point? That you don't know where the line is? Well WADA does and i think most people have enough common sense to know that whole milk and PED's are different.

This site right here below, says that American Whole Milk has unnatural growth hormones in it. It's not just this site either that says this either, it is accepted from many reputable sources that American Whole Milk as we know it is not natural.

I am not sure if Growth Hormone is a PED or not.. so it's good to have Moral Police Officers such as yourself to explain it to me.

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

jack1077
06-15-2011, 01:06 AM
This site right here below, says that American Whole Milk has unnatural growth hormones in it. It's not just this site either that says this either, it is accepted from many reputable sources that American Whole Milk as we know it is not natural.

I am not sure if Growth Hormone is a PED or not.. so it's good to have Moral Police Officers such as yourself to explain it to me.

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

Glad to have you admit that you need to be taught. :) Maybe next time you will keep your opinion which as far as i can make out is "i don't know enough to comment, but..." out of the forums.

STsACE
06-19-2011, 10:56 AM
As a Browns fan, I admit I didn't watch much of Bradford. I'll also admit, I thought Colt would really tank when he did get time to play, he was pleasantly surprising and showed some promise. Colt's long ball is weak, I'll admit that, his short to medium passes are pretty accurate, which should only improve his stats since we're moving to a WCO.

Robiskie fits the WCO better from what little has been seen of him in the NFL so far, IMO. Little, who we just drafted, is considered a WCO receiver. Hillis has tremendous receiving abilities for someone his size and his punch mouth running style. Our TEs are receiving TEs outside of Watson who is an all-around TE, but he can still catch very well.

I don't think Colt's arm strength will hinder him much with our offense changing from what is was last year. Although, it's been reported his shoulder is better, something like it was at 80%-85% last year, and he feels it's stronger. I also like his leadership abilities, he's very verbal and took command of the huddle when he did get to play last year, something that's very hard for a 3rd string Rookie QB to do when thrust into the lineup.

I can't give a good read on Bradford, so for now I pick McCoy going forward for our team. Biggest downside to Colt, this will be his 2nd OC in as many years with Shurmur taking double duties and I don't neccessarily think Shurmur stays the OC next year, instead relegating it to someone else, so it's looking like Colt will have 3 OCs in 3 years. Only thing to negate that will be getting someone with Shurmurs philosophies.

EricCartmann
06-19-2011, 04:13 PM
Glad to have you admit that you need to be taught. :) Maybe next time you will keep your opinion which as far as i can make out is "i don't know enough to comment, but..." out of the forums.

I will do my best. You are so cool, Can I follow you around?

ellsy82
06-21-2011, 12:43 AM
As a Browns fan, I admit I didn't watch much of Bradford. I'll also admit, I thought Colt would really tank when he did get time to play, he was pleasantly surprising and showed some promise. Colt's long ball is weak, I'll admit that, his short to medium passes are pretty accurate, which should only improve his stats since we're moving to a WCO.

Robiskie fits the WCO better from what little has been seen of him in the NFL so far, IMO. Little, who we just drafted, is considered a WCO receiver. Hillis has tremendous receiving abilities for someone his size and his punch mouth running style. Our TEs are receiving TEs outside of Watson who is an all-around TE, but he can still catch very well.

I don't think Colt's arm strength will hinder him much with our offense changing from what is was last year. Although, it's been reported his shoulder is better, something like it was at 80%-85% last year, and he feels it's stronger. I also like his leadership abilities, he's very verbal and took command of the huddle when he did get to play last year, something that's very hard for a 3rd string Rookie QB to do when thrust into the lineup.

I can't give a good read on Bradford, so for now I pick McCoy going forward for our team. Biggest downside to Colt, this will be his 2nd OC in as many years with Shurmur taking double duties and I don't neccessarily think Shurmur stays the OC next year, instead relegating it to someone else, so it's looking like Colt will have 3 OCs in 3 years. Only thing to negate that will be getting someone with Shurmurs philosophies.

Thanks...that was a good read. I can say, that with more weapons Bradford will be a good one. Not saying Montanta/Marino type talent, but he's got enough there to make some pro bowls and win a few playoff games.

Colt is just in the WRONG division. He could be good against NFCW opponents, but against the pass rushers of the AFCN, I have to imagine this kid is gonna get hurt more sooner than later.

STsACE
06-21-2011, 01:06 AM
Thanks...that was a good read. I can say, that with more weapons Bradford will be a good one. Not saying Montanta/Marino type talent, but he's got enough there to make some pro bowls and win a few playoff games.

Colt is just in the WRONG division. He could be good against NFCW opponents, but against the pass rushers of the AFCN, I have to imagine this kid is gonna get hurt more sooner than later.

I'm still going back and forth on this one regarding Colt getting injured in our division.

Colt's ankle injury last year happened on a scramble when he was 15 yards down the field. If he doesn't learn to throw it away instead or slide, he's gonna have a short career no doubt.

On the other hand, we have one of the top LTs in the league if not the best who's young. We have one of the top young upcoming Cs in the league. We got Steiny to handle the LG spot and a couple of youngsters to try out at RG and RT, our 2 weakest spots. If those 2 spots or at least the RT spot is fixed this season, Colt may actually stand a chance for a long career.

Toolwise, Bradford is better equipped to have a stellar career. Colt depends on too much of surrounding him with talent. I do believe (and hope) that Colt turns out to be a good NFL QB for us. If Colt is nothing more than a backup at the most, I hope we really suck it this season (if there is one) so we can get LUCK-y and get the QB position locked down.

SativaDominant
06-21-2011, 12:14 PM
No, they would be PED's, in food. What is your point? That you don't know where the line is? Well WADA does and i think most people have enough common sense to know that whole milk and PED's are different.

I don't know why you keep bringing WADA up. They're a ******* joke and one of the most corrupt entities in sports.

J-Mike88
06-21-2011, 04:19 PM
Bradford is mediocre, McCoy isn't that good
And Brees was let go by the Chargers after about 4 years because he was mediocre and didn't have the arm strength or height of a guy like Rivers.

Many QB's rookie year's aren't indicative of their whole career.

See Aikman, Elway, Young, Favre, Peyton.

J255979-11nine
06-21-2011, 07:42 PM
And Brees was let go by the Chargers after about 4 years because he was mediocre and didn't have the arm strength or height of a guy like Rivers.

Many QB's rookie year's aren't indicative of their whole career.

See Aikman, Elway, Young, Favre, Peyton.

.....

He was let go because the Chargers made a serious investment by drafting Rivers 4th overrall two years prior. Brees played at a high level for two years before having his shoulder destroyed on a sack.

keylime_5
06-21-2011, 07:50 PM
Brees had a great season before the Chargers let him go.......and while his arm was definitely below average, Philip Rivers' arm strength is below average as well. Brees hurt his shoulder and the risk of resigning him to a big contract like he got in New Orleans was too great when they had Rivers on the team already.

But back to the point, yeah, Brees wasn't very good his first couple seasons. McCoy was pretty decent his rookie year until the last 2 games (against Pittsburgh and Baltimore mind you). Bradford shown flashes the whole season. I think both of these guys will be starters in the NFL for a long period of time. McCoy benefits from having the WCO to take advantage of his strengths as a passer, he could have a Jeff Garcia type career.

FUNBUNCHER
06-21-2011, 11:40 PM
I don't know why you keep bringing WADA up. They're a ******* joke and one of the most corrupt entities in sports.

WADA isn't a 'joke' or corrupt. The entities they conduct drug testing for however tend to be.

WADA catches nearly all the dirty athletes at the Olympics for example, but it's the IOC who decides whether or not that athlete is disqualified.

So if WADA tests both SB participants prior to the game and ten players come up dirty, it's Goodell's decision whether or not to suspend them, not WADA.

Thread 'jacking done.

J-Mike88
06-22-2011, 04:01 PM
Name Colt McCoy's top 3 receivers last year with the Browns.
Non-Browns fans, give it some time and let the rest of us come up with them.

Of course, Bradford's are/were even worse.

STsACE
06-22-2011, 04:12 PM
Name Colt McCoy's top 3 receivers last year with the Browns.
Non-Browns fans, give it some time and let the rest of us come up with them.

Of course, Bradford's are/were even worse.

If anyone wants a hint only 1 is a WR, the other is an E that starts with a T and the other was a 6th round pick.

cmarq83
06-22-2011, 07:24 PM
Name Colt McCoy's top 3 receivers last year with the Browns.
Non-Browns fans, give it some time and let the rest of us come up with them.

Of course, Bradford's are/were even worse.

The fact that their leading receiver was Ben Watson is a horrifying stat.

niel89
06-22-2011, 07:39 PM
I knew the Browns receivers were bad but wow. Their top WR didnt even break 500.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/statistics?team=CLE

J-Mike88
06-23-2011, 03:30 PM
I knew the Browns receivers were bad but wow. Their top WR didnt even break 500.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/statistics?team=CLE
Exactly.
They should bring in TO & Randy Moss. Turn back the clock 5 years.
Seriously, if they could add some instant WR threats (Moss isn't anymore), they'd be so much better right away.

I don't want to lose him, but they should make a big play for James Jones.

LonghornsLegend
06-23-2011, 03:38 PM
James Jones and Greg Hill would be a nice upgrade to their WR corps. Jones is gonna get alot more money then he is gonna be good for(as do most FA's) but he fits a WCO very nicely, and even though he has had some huge mental lapses catching the ball he has very good hands.

K Train
06-23-2011, 03:40 PM
i think greg little will make an impact pretty quick 1) they need him too and 2) hes versatile enough to get involved early and often

Cudders
06-24-2011, 04:15 PM
i think greg little will make an impact pretty quick 1) they need him too and 2) hes versatile enough to get involved early and often

This.

For as much flak as the Browns got for passing on Julio Jones, it never gets mentioned that Greg Little is also perfect for this offense and came at a much cheaper price. His skill set is tailor-made for a West Coast system and he's sure to get a bunch of reps early given the dearth of talent the Browns have outside. Little's a big target and capable route-runner at this stage in his development with strong hands and has shown he can be a tough runner to bring down after the catch. He's not a deep threat by any means, but his game as is already plays to McCoy's strengths as a passer. He was a tremendous value late in the second and it's plausible he could have elevated his stock if he was able to ignore the allure of some diamond earrings or a trip to the Caribbean while at North Carolina.

My worries for Little's production this year are two-fold, however; 1.) After being out of football since last September, he's going to need some time to get back in playing shape. And, 2.) Given the exigent circumstances in the NFL right now, will some sort of chemistry be able to blossom in a short amount of time between him and McCoy?

J-Mike88
06-25-2011, 09:54 AM
Speaking of the Greg Little, who is talented has hell. But rules of society do not apply to him.

North Carolina has identified eight football players who accumulated 317 parking tickets that were uncovered in documents requested by media outlets covering the ongoing NCAA probe.

The school released a chart Friday that links those players' names to their license plate numbers on vehicles that included a Land Rover, BMW and an Acura.

A week ago, the school released records that showed some players combined for 395 citations totaling more than $13,000 between March 2007 and August 2010.

The newest release showed receiver Greg Little had 93 tickets on multiple vehicles with nine different license plates.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/06/24/north.carolina.ap/index.html#ixzz1QIdifZhp

Put the CPD on alert.

LonghornsLegend
06-25-2011, 10:08 AM
This.

For as much flak as the Browns got for passing on Julio Jones, it never gets mentioned that Greg Little is also perfect for this offense and came at a much cheaper price. His skill set is tailor-made for a West Coast system and he's sure to get a bunch of reps early given the dearth of talent the Browns have outside. Little's a big target and capable route-runner at this stage in his development with strong hands and has shown he can be a tough runner to bring down after the catch. He's not a deep threat by any means, but his game as is already plays to McCoy's strengths as a passer. He was a tremendous value late in the second and it's plausible he could have elevated his stock if he was able to ignore the allure of some diamond earrings or a trip to the Caribbean while at North Carolina.

My worries for Little's production this year are two-fold, however; 1.) After being out of football since last September, he's going to need some time to get back in playing shape. And, 2.) Given the exigent circumstances in the NFL right now, will some sort of chemistry be able to blossom in a short amount of time between him and McCoy?



He came at a cheaper price then Julio for good reason. He hasn't really played WR that long, and is more of an athlete then he is a natural at 1 position. He missed a year of football due to off the field issues, you don't have any idea if he's going to put in the work needed to become any good either.


I'm a very big Little fan, but he comes with a ton of risk IMO. Classic case of high risk high upside, but he is still a project. I don't think he carried that good of value in the 2nd, it was about on par because he is extremely talented and Cleveland needs play-makers. Facts are that alot of things have to go right for Little to hit his potential, Julio doesn't carry nearly that risk and has a higher ceiling if were looking at a best case scenario for both.

STsACE
06-25-2011, 09:52 PM
This.



My worries for Little's production this year are two-fold, however; 1.) After being out of football since last September, he's going to need some time to get back in playing shape. And, 2.) Given the exigent circumstances in the NFL right now, will some sort of chemistry be able to blossom in a short amount of time between him and McCoy?

If there's no season, then the playing field is evened a little bit. According to reports, he's in terrific shape. And this coincides with 2, Little has been attending camp McCoy (organized player workouts).

Of course though, number 1 really stands out as there is only so much that uncoached workouts can do for being in football shape.

soybean
08-19-2011, 08:52 PM
I don't want to jump the gun but Colt Mccoy looks pretty good...

J-Mike88
08-19-2011, 08:53 PM
I don't want to jump the gun but Colt Mccoy looks pretty good...
HaHa.... he looked good in college in the great state of Texas.
He looked good at college, for a great team in a great conference.

Too bad he's too short.

Unbiased
08-19-2011, 09:06 PM
Guess we can't **** on Big 12 QBs anymore.