PDA

View Full Version : Stafford vs Bradford vs Newton vs Luck


dregolll
09-23-2011, 11:01 AM
I would like to know if you guys were Gms and was starting a team from scratch which QB would you start your team with? We have Stafford vs Bradford vs Newton vs Luck. I'm assuming Luck will go #1. Also, this is knowing what we know now. Who would you pick and why.

bigbluedefense
09-23-2011, 11:17 AM
Well, I was 50/50 on Stafford coming out. I loved the tools, but he was inconsistent and that bugged me a little.

I loved Bradford coming out. Thought he'd be a stud.

Cam I was 50/50 on. Meh...let's say 38/62 to be honest. I liked his potential, and thought if I had to choose a qb in that draft class, I'd go Locker then Cam. But I just didn't like how raw he was. And I questioned his desire, which so far he's proven me wrong.

Luck is a stud. I'm not as enamored with Luck as most on here, but he's such a safe qb prospect. Probably the safest qb prospect since Peyton. That's why everyone loves him so much. At the very worst, you're getting a future top 10 qb in the league.

So I'd probably go

1. Luck
2. Bradford
3. Stafford
4. Cam

Based on what I knew before Stafford, Cam, and Bradford came out.

Shane P. Hallam
09-23-2011, 11:40 AM
I was really high on Stafford coming out. I'd put him in the same category with Luck. Tough to pass on Luck's athleticism, but loved Stafford's arm. I guess I'll be a rebel and go:

1. Stafford
2. Luck
3. Bradford
4. Cam

Wasn't high on Bradford and Cam. Not that they were bad prospects, but too many "unknowns" for me to take the chance.

CashmoneyDrew
09-23-2011, 11:42 AM
Based purely on how I feel/felt about them as prospects I would go in an order like this...

Luck>Bradford>>Stafford>>>Newton

jrdrylie
09-23-2011, 11:44 AM
I thought Stafford was going to be fantastic. Even not knowing what we know now, I think I would still put Stafford at number one. I don't see how Stafford can't be number one on this list. He is proving right now he is going to be a great QB. As good as Luck is, there is no guarantee that he won't bust. As for Newton and Bradford, I wasn't high on either of them coming out.

1. Stafford
2. Luck
3. Newton
4. Bradord.

keylime_5
09-23-2011, 12:23 PM
Stafford has proven the most so far. If you were to base it solely on his 2 career games gotta go Newton. Bradford is gonna be great, but I still don't think he has the ceiling of the other three guys. Luck is totally unproven, he could be the next Manning or a totally average starting QB for all we know. I like to take risks though, so I would go: 1-Luck, 2-Stafford, 3-Newton, 4-Bradford.

FUNBUNCHER
09-23-2011, 12:36 PM
The Rams need to build a wall for Bradford to play behind so he can develop.

Stafford is at the top of this list, Bradford has done it longer than Newton, but Cam has superior tools.

I don't see any downside with Luck, but he still needs to show it in the pros.

Other than Rodgers, Pac 12 QBs haven't really been dominant in the league recently.

Babylon
09-23-2011, 12:43 PM
Not sure why we have to limit this to #1 overrall picks otherwise i'm going with:

Luck
Stafford
Locker
Bradford

BuddyCHRIST
09-23-2011, 03:03 PM
Stafford
Luck
Bradford
Newton

Loved Stafford coming out.

JaxJag_1
09-23-2011, 03:32 PM
Luck
Stafford
Bradford
Newton

Saints-Tigers
09-23-2011, 03:37 PM
I'd take Stafford right now, but I'd probably take Luck without seeing Stafford at the NFL level.

I do think going forward that Luck and Stafford will be the two best QBs in the league at some point.

I wasn't that high on Cam, but he's sure off to a tremendous start, that said, I liked him more than Bradford.

Still not seeing it with Bradford, I mean, he's not bad, I just don't see him as a dominant figure at all.

Big Bird
09-23-2011, 03:37 PM
1. Luck
2. Stafford



3. Bradford























































































4. Newton

drowe
09-23-2011, 03:41 PM
Luck is getting more hype already than any other presumptive top QB since Peyton. and, rightfully so. Seems to be the full package.

I really liked Stafford. big arm. battle tested in the SEC.

didn't like Bradford as much.injuries. ate up bad big 12 defenses.

hated Newton for the same reasons everybody hear hated Newton.

As prospects:

1-Luck
2-Stafford
3-Bradford
4-Newton

marshallb
09-23-2011, 03:49 PM
Not going to quote him, but I agree with Big Bird. I hated Newton as a prospect.

ElectricEye
09-23-2011, 03:55 PM
1. Luck
2. Bradford
3. Stafford
4. Newton


Luck is still probably the class of all of this, but I could see Bradford panning out better as well. I'm still really high on Bradford. He isn't there yet, but I still see the makings of a top of the league guy with him. Still reminds me a lot of Tom Brady in the way he moves and throws.

Stafford really surprised me so far. I really wasn't a big fan of his coming out. I didn't see a guy who made the right reads on a consistent basis or a guy who put the ball where it needed to be all the time. He's made a dramatic leap this year so far. They've done a real good job of finding targets for him to throw to and fitting them into their offense.

Hurricanes25
09-23-2011, 03:57 PM
Luck
Stafford

Bradford

Newton

This based on them coming out as prospects.

ChiFan24
09-23-2011, 03:58 PM
I honestly liked all of them; I think teams have gotten a lot better and determining what makes a good QB. I'd probably have ranked them:

1. Stafford
2. Newton
3. Luck
4. Bradford

And Sanchez probably above Bradford too. Again, I liked all of them.

Also, just so I don't too much crap for ranking Newton over Luck, it's mainly because I've seen a lot more of Cam. Though it's entirely possibly it stays this way, I'm a big Cam guy.

Complex
09-23-2011, 04:00 PM
Bradford
Luck
Newton


Stafford

A Perfect Score
09-23-2011, 04:29 PM
I thought if Bradford had come out the first year he was eligible he would have gone before Stafford. After going back and hurting his shoulder, I can understand the hesitation some had, but I still thought he'd by dynamite in the pros. I think my issues with Cam Newton are well documented around these parts, but he's certainly doing all he can to make me look foolish in that regard. Obviously we haven't seen the finished product in Luck, but I imagine my rankings would have looked something like

1) Stafford
2) Luck
3) Bradford
4) Newton

Stafford, Luck and Bradford would all be very close, with a noticeable gap between Bradford and Newton.

TACKLE
09-23-2011, 04:49 PM
1. Bradford
2. Newton
3. Luck
4. Stafford

This is a little tricky because more work still needs to be done on Luck though I'm not as high on him as most. In hindsight, I should of liked Stafford a lot more than I did. I evaluate QB prospects quite a bit differently and more thoroughly now than I did back then and if Stafford (coming out of UGA) was in this draft, he'd be my #1 QB and player overall. But admittedly, I wasn't overly high on him at the time and I have to factor that in.

Rashaan Salaam
09-23-2011, 04:59 PM
Time To Start Questioning Credibility Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jTx7KjrT28)

RaiderNation
09-23-2011, 05:12 PM
Stafford as of now is the most developed of the 4 but he does have injury concerns. I'd probably go

Luck
Stafford
Newton
Bradford

Keep in mind I'm a huge Newton fan

Raiderz4Life
09-23-2011, 05:30 PM
For me itd be:

Luck
Stafford
Bradford
Newton

Newton's 4th only because IDK if we're allowed to put in other QBs like Locker

Caulibflower
09-23-2011, 05:33 PM
I thought Stafford looked a bit inconsistent at Georgia, and while he puts up some big numbers when he's healthy enough to play, he always seems to have an interception or two a game, and that trend has continued now into his 3th season. Career he's thrown 23 interceptions in his 15 games. And I know you can say that because of the lack of game time, he's not entirely used to NFL Ds, or something, but he's had three years with the team, three training camps. I dunno. I think he's going to turn out well, but QBs who have to throw a pick a game to feel like they're pushing the defense aren't what I look for.

I thought Bradford was going to be Alex Smith 2.0 the year he was drafted, but by the time his first game had ended, he'd changed my mind. I don't know if he'll ever be any better than Matt Ryan, but I do think he's going to be a starter for a long time. He doesn't really do anything really special, but he's good.

Newton is better than anyone expected. While I mentioned my annoyance of interceptions with Stafford, Newton's 4 in his first two games aren't terribly concerning to me in light of the other things he's doing. I think after a few weeks those are going to go away as the Panthers get their run game going (they are NOT going to average 2.2, or whatever it is, through the whole season), and then he won't have to always try to make a play. He can throw the bad ones away instead of forcing them. Not as necessary to take risks. I like the way he's aggressive with his throws, and that he already seems to have a really good sense for when he ought to run. I liked him a lot before the draft, and he's looking pretty close to a best-case scenario after two games. We'll see.

I think Luck is kind of like a more athletic version of Bradford. They both are known for their poise and accuracy and command of their respective offenses. Difference being Luck has a couple things going for him: A) Stanford QB, so you know he's smart B) Pro Style QB, always a plus, and C) he occasionally breaks off a long run, or throws a nice block to make the TV announcers squeal, "OOOOH, I tell you what! Andrew Luck is a FOOTBALL PLAYER." He's reputed to throw a better deep ball than Bradford, and apart from being a bit better of a pure athlete than Bradford, I think a lot of the Luck hype is just because everything about him is protoypical. And that doesn't mean he's perfect, it just means that he embodies a lot of the things people associate with being perfect. He may just be a decent NFL quarterback. I mean, why do we have to compare him to Elway? (Well, I know. It's obvious.) I'd probably take him first overall if I was the Seahawks, but it's because he's a really safe #1, because everyone expects him to do well. I don't like that some of his intermediate throws are kind of knobby.

I'd take 1. Newton, because he could be something no one's really seen before.
Then 2. Luck, because I think he'd require the least coaching to be good,
3. Stafford, because despite the interceptions, my QB has to throw a nice deep ball
and 4. Bradford, because I like him least.

ChiFan24
09-23-2011, 06:17 PM
Just realized I didn't see the actual question.....I thought it was how I ranked them coming out. In this case, based on what I've seen, I'd bump Newton up to #1 (and Sanchez down to #5).

49erNation85
09-23-2011, 07:06 PM
Tebow should be in this discussion!

descendency
09-23-2011, 07:28 PM
Luck
Stafford
Bradford
Newton

No major gap between any of them really. I've always said all of them have the tools to be great NFL QBs (even Newton, who I continuously defended because of his scary elite tools)

GaMeTiMe
09-23-2011, 09:23 PM
The thread asked if I was a GM who i'd take..gotta go for ceiling. Luck first because he has Rodgers-like potential. Then Newton, who I hated as a prospect but is proving to be a dynamic weapon. Then Stafford with Bradford close behind.

FUNBUNCHER
09-23-2011, 10:21 PM
Time To Start Questioning Credibility Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jTx7KjrT28)

Damn@@!!
That vid literally blew me away. I almost forgot how down people were on Cam coming into the draft.
He's outperformed everyone's expectations even his supporters, but some people talked about him like he had no business being drafted.

Charley Casserly looks like the biggest idiot on this vid. Totally clueless.

GaMeTiMe
09-23-2011, 11:48 PM
Damn@@!!
That vid literally blew me away. I almost forgot how down people were on Cam coming into the draft.

That's what youve gotta love about the draft. We all analyze every aspect of the kids lives and once they get to the NFL and do whatever they do we all forget about what we said about them before they were drafted and see everything in hindsight and for what the now-clear result is as we watch on Sundays. I HATED Cam, and that fake personality and scripted "this isn't really me" attitude still shines through to me. However it simply seems his physical attributes outweigh the perceived inability to run a pro offense. I guess we'll see if defenses are eventually able to scheme around him. I can't wait until he plays the Pats.

BigBanger
09-24-2011, 12:38 AM
BASED ON WHAT I KNOW NOW ...


There are only two other players I've rated higher than Matt Stafford as NFL prospects: Ndamukong Suh and Philip Rivers. That's it. In that order.

It's really not even close in my eyes. Stafford was pretty much the perfect prospect. If I'm an expansion team and I have the #1 pick and those guys are on the board, then Stafford is my guy without any hesitation. He had everything you could look for in a prospect and he has a better arm than every guy in this grouping. He can make throws that none of them can. His tools are so elite, its pretty gaudy. Only Jay Cutler, Cam Newton and Josh Freeman have similar arm strength to his that have come out in recent years. To see Stafford develop the way he has and throw for the kind of yards and TDs he has had in year three ... then it shouldn't even be a debate since there is no projection involved with Stafford. We can clearly see that he is the best QB right now among this group. And he's surrounded by Calvin Johnson and ... well, that's about it. He is a great QB on a mediocre offense making a mediocre offense an explosive one. That's the mark of a great player and I think while in college, Knoshown Moreno got more credit for carrying the team than he deserved. Everything was downplayed with Stafford ... toughness, intangibles, leadership, football IQ (probably the smartest QB that I've ever scouted), accuracy, decision making ... everything was made out to be less than elite because of "consistency" problems. He played in a vanilla offense that was pretty easy to defend. Stafford made more throws into double and triple coverage than any QB I've ever scouted, and it was because that was the only option he had; not because he was making a bad decisions but because he had two receiving options and was throwing against 7 men in coverage. Over his last 5 games (over the last two years because of injury shortened season) he's thrown for 13 TDs against 3 INTs. Someone said he throws an INT every game due to a high career INT number ... no he doesn't. He's playing like a Top 5 QB in the NFL RIGHT NOW ... none of these guys can say that.


My #2 guy would be Andrew Luck ... at this point in time. It's still early and some holes in his game could prove to be more glaring than most people are giving credit for. I think he's got a good shot at being one of the best QB prospects I have ever seen. The other guys are in the NFL so this would be a risky pick since you already know what you might be getting with those guys. His tools aren't elite, but he's such a smart QB that he's hard for me to pass up on. He manages the game and makes positive plays on every down. I think his potential is through the roof. He'll probably end up being the second best prospect from this group in my eyes. He doesn't have the arm strength to pass Stafford.


My #3 guy would be Cam Newton. I will say that Newton was the worst of the prospects in my eyes and I only graded him as a 3rd round prospect. His arm strength and physical tools are hard to ignore. He's already proven to have some great poise in the pocket and the ability to escape sacks. He's surrounded by some good talent, but he's exploded onto the scene unlike any rookie QB ever has. He's proven that he's going to be a starting QB for a long time. The speed of the game and the transition has not been difficult at all. I'd take him before Bradford based purely on potential. If I was simply ranking these player as prospects when they came out, then Newton would be dead last ... and by a wide margin. His mechanics and footwork still suck and he's missed throws that he should be making, but he's shown a dedication to the game that I questioned as a prospect. I thought he was closer to a boom or bust prospect and with his "character concerns" I leaned towards bust. I think he's proven his biggest doubters (me) wrong. It's still early and this could be just short term success where he never significantly improves, but I'm done doubting him. I think he's going to be very good. He will struggle handling the blitz and he will force some throws and make bad decisions. It will not be roses for the rest of the season. He might continue putting up a ton of yards, but he is going to make quite a few mistakes. Hopefully he improves in years 2, 3 and 4 with turnovers. Because that will be the only thing that holds him back.


#4 would be Sam Bradford. It's like splitting hairs with Cam Netwon here. Bradford was a guy that I initially did not like as I thought there were just too many question marks surrounding his stint at OU. He had major injury concerns, production that inflated due to a system, insane talent around him and all day to throw the football. He was difficult to scout because it was simply too easy. The more and more I watched, the more and more the positives started to peak through and the less and less I could deny them. Accuracy, leadership, intangibles, high football IQ, poise in the pocket, great decision maker, capable of going through progressions and making complex reads ... he had almost everything you could look for. His arm strength is conducive for west coast systems and I don't think he has a ton of potential. The injury issues will follow him for another two or three years until he proves it was just a freak occurrence. I think he's going to be a fringe Top 10 QB within the next 2 years, but I don't know if he has the physical tools to be an elite player.




BASED ON PRE-NFL EXPERIENCE AND NOT KNOWING ANYTHING ...


1. Stafford



2. Luck






3. Bradford































4. Newton

Halsey
09-24-2011, 02:10 AM
Newton really does have the potential to make the general consensus of him as a prospect look laughable. Right now, he looks to me like he should have been the unquestioned top prospect in the 2011 Draft.

SRogers92
09-26-2011, 10:52 AM
I thought Stafford looked a bit inconsistent at Georgia, and while he puts up some big numbers when he's healthy enough to play, he always seems to have an interception or two a game, and that trend has continued now into his 3th season. Career he's thrown 23 interceptions in his 15 games. And I know you can say that because of the lack of game time, he's not entirely used to NFL Ds, or something, but he's had three years with the team, three training camps. I dunno. I think he's going to turn out well, but QBs who have to throw a pick a game to feel like they're pushing the defense aren't what I look for.

I thought Bradford was going to be Alex Smith 2.0 the year he was drafted, but by the time his first game had ended, he'd changed my mind. I don't know if he'll ever be any better than Matt Ryan, but I do think he's going to be a starter for a long time. He doesn't really do anything really special, but he's good.

Newton is better than anyone expected. While I mentioned my annoyance of interceptions with Stafford, Newton's 4 in his first two games aren't terribly concerning to me in light of the other things he's doing. I think after a few weeks those are going to go away as the Panthers get their run game going (they are NOT going to average 2.2, or whatever it is, through the whole season), and then he won't have to always try to make a play. He can throw the bad ones away instead of forcing them. Not as necessary to take risks. I like the way he's aggressive with his throws, and that he already seems to have a really good sense for when he ought to run. I liked him a lot before the draft, and he's looking pretty close to a best-case scenario after two games. We'll see.

I think Luck is kind of like a more athletic version of Bradford. They both are known for their poise and accuracy and command of their respective offenses. Difference being Luck has a couple things going for him: A) Stanford QB, so you know he's smart B) Pro Style QB, always a plus, and C) he occasionally breaks off a long run, or throws a nice block to make the TV announcers squeal, "OOOOH, I tell you what! Andrew Luck is a FOOTBALL PLAYER." He's reputed to throw a better deep ball than Bradford, and apart from being a bit better of a pure athlete than Bradford, I think a lot of the Luck hype is just because everything about him is protoypical. And that doesn't mean he's perfect, it just means that he embodies a lot of the things people associate with being perfect. He may just be a decent NFL quarterback. I mean, why do we have to compare him to Elway? (Well, I know. It's obvious.) I'd probably take him first overall if I was the Seahawks, but it's because he's a really safe #1, because everyone expects him to do well. I don't like that some of his intermediate throws are kind of knobby.

I'd take 1. Newton, because he could be something no one's really seen before.
Then 2. Luck, because I think he'd require the least coaching to be good,
3. Stafford, because despite the interceptions, my QB has to throw a nice deep ball
and 4. Bradford, because I like him least.



What are you talking about? He threw a lot of picks as a ROOKIE coming off a team that was 0-16. He didn't have much help, of course he was pushing things.

Last year, in limited time he had 6 TDs with 1 INT. This year? 9 TDs with 2 INTs. One of those INTs was a throw away pass with a LB draped all over him and he just didn't get it far enough away. He has only had 16 career starts and he's looking like a Pro Bowler out there.

Excluding his rookie year his TDs to INTs is 15 to 3. With 63% completion. That trend has been broken, you need to get over his rookie year or his Georgia days, my friend.

K Train
09-26-2011, 11:08 AM
i love stafford, i think luck will be a better prospect but i love seeing stafford come out this year and dominate so far.

imo stafford was always and will always be a better prospect/player/QB whatever than bradford in any league at any level.

and newton was barely a top 20 prospect imo, love his potential but sometimes thats just not enough

georgiafan
09-26-2011, 11:41 AM
based on them coming out as prospects

1. stafford
2. luck

3. bradford
4. newton

JHL6719
09-26-2011, 02:08 PM
I'm going to be 100% honest here about exactly how I felt about all of these guys.


Stafford - I was sold on his physical tools, but not sold on him as the #1 overall pick. He was too inconsistent in big games at UGA, even downright dominated by Bama's defense. We're talking Jake Locker vs. Nebraska in the first matchup last year type of bad. He was also typically a slow starter in games. Never really got going until Mike Bobo could make the adjustments for him after half-time it seemed. I didn't even think the gap was that big between Stafford and Sanchez, I had Sanchez higher than Stafford on my board.


Bradford - I had him as a top 20 prospect, but not sold on him as a franchise quarterback. Still not sold. I questioned whether or not he really LOVED the game of football. I felt like he should've come out to begin with rather than going back and getting injured. Looked like another in a long line of Bob Stoops quarterbacks who "just win", and put up gaudy Heisman type numbers against bad defenses in the Big-12. I thought he was helped tremendously by the amount of talent he was surrounded by at Oklahoma.


Newton - Wow. Kid had more red flags than a communist round-table discussion. Looked completely out of place at the combine. Couldn't even call a play in the huddle when asked by Gruden. Questionable character, system, football IQ, lack of starting experience, etc., etc. I had him as a 2nd rounder because of his immense bust potential. I still don't think you'll make a living drafting QB's like Cam Newton, that come with Cam Newton's profile, and Cam Newton's question marks. We'll see how it pans out in the long run.



Luck - As sold on a QB as I can possibly be. Only way that changes is if he were to return to school and take basket weaving classes rather than declare for the NFL draft.




1. Luck

2. Stafford

3. Bradford

4. Newton

CashmoneyDrew
09-26-2011, 02:28 PM
Why did you make a point to question Bradford's love of the game by going back to school an extra year but not Luck?

JHL6719
09-26-2011, 02:51 PM
Why did you make a point to question Bradford's love of the game by going back to school an extra year but not Luck?


Well that's why I made the comment about the only way my perception of Luck changes is if he dodges the draft and goes back to school for another season.

Bradford already had a Heisman Trophy after his sophomore season, and didn't feel like it benefited him to go back and play another season in that offense. I didn't feel like another season in that offense would prepare him anymore for the NFL than he already was.

In Luck's case, I think going back and playing his Junior season in Stanford's pro style offense makes a ton more sense in preparing him for the NFL. I think Luck realized he needed to go back and polish up on some things for another year. Plus, he has a legitimate shot at the Heisman Trophy (perhaps even a shot at a national title) as he entered the season at the favorite.

I think Luck obviously intended on graduating from the day he stepped foot on campus in Palo Alto no matter what... and he'll have accomplished that.

I sorta questioned Bradford's LOVE of the game when they decided to take out the insurance policy on him, rather than just go to the NFL. He had nothing else left to play for or prove.

tuan33
09-26-2011, 03:13 PM
And he's surrounded by Calvin Johnson and ... well, that's about it.

hahahahaha this comment hand me cracking up. It's analogous to saying he's not rich, he only has a billion dollars. Did you see that play yesterday when Stafford just lobbed up an air ball as he was falling down. There are a handful of WR who would have been able to catch that ball. Having Calvin is a huge advantage. If Bradford had anything close to Calvin, I'd be willing to bet he'd be the best out of the bunch atm.

OSUGiants17
09-26-2011, 03:14 PM
As prospects: Luck > Stafford > Bradford > Cam

Knowing what I know now: Luck > Cam > Stafford > Bradford

LonghornsLegend
09-26-2011, 03:45 PM
I thought Stafford looked a bit inconsistent at Georgia, and while he puts up some big numbers when he's healthy enough to play, he always seems to have an interception or two a game, and that trend has continued now into his 3th season. Career he's thrown 23 interceptions in his 15 games. And I know you can say that because of the lack of game time, he's not entirely used to NFL Ds, or something, but he's had three years with the team, three training camps. I dunno. I think he's going to turn out well, but QBs who have to throw a pick a game to feel like they're pushing the defense aren't what I look for.

None of this makes sense to me. How has this "trend" continued into his 3rd season? You bring up he has 23 career INT's but fail to mention how 20 of them were in his rookie season. If that's shown us anything it's that he threw picks as a rookie, not sure how we could base his play then, on a terrible team, into what he'll be for his career.


I don't think anyone is gonna complain over 1 pick per game is your throwing 3-4 TD's, 300+ yards, a completion percentage in the high 60's and a QB rating well over 100.


He threw the ball nearly 50 times last week with a 70 completion percentage, and no INT's.


You keep bringing up 3 years, 3 training camps, etc, like he's came out and been throwing a ton of picks all 3 seasons. Put it into some context. All those picks were as a rookie for the most part. He played 3 games last year, only throwing a pick in 1.


It's been a long time since he's had a multi-INT game. Really don't know what your abusing his career totals on the INT's and making it seem like he's making the same mistakes season after season when it couldn't be further from the truth.

murdamal86
09-26-2011, 03:53 PM
I guess we are rating them when they came out of college and how we felt they'd turn out in the pros, right? Well...

1. Stafford
2. Newton
3. Bradford
4. Luck

CC.SD
09-26-2011, 04:28 PM
I honestly have trouble believing anyone didn't have Newton at the bottom fo their list, with some notable exceptions. And this is coming from someone extremely aware of Bradford's supposed glass shoulder.

fenikz
09-26-2011, 04:43 PM
i certainly never liked Bradford me and Rams fans always had this joke that they were gonna pass on Suh for him, they didn't think it was funny

:)

TheFinisher
09-26-2011, 05:04 PM
1. Newton

2. Luck
3. Stafford


4. Bradford

IDK why, but I just feel Newton has an "it" factor that the other 3 don't have. He was just so dominant at the college level that I bought into the hype. His upside is on another planet IMO.

Luck has been labeled the chosen one since last season, and I think he'll be a good NFL QB and worthy of a #1 selection, but not the next Peyton Manning like some are saying.

Stafford was kind of meh for me, I wouldn't have batted an eye if he wasn't picked first but at the same time I wasn't surprised he was the pick. Then again, I payed the least attention to him out of the 4 so it probably has something to do with that.

Bradford is JAG to me. He never wowed me at Oklahoma and there's something about his personality that kind of turned me off to him, kind of the same vibe I get from Eli Manning. I always questioned his leadership ability.

DcmRulz
09-26-2011, 06:43 PM
Stafford
Luck
Bradford
Newton

I was lukewarm on Bradford (and colder on Newton), and I thought (still think) that Stafford has the highest potential of all these QBs.

DeepThreat
09-26-2011, 07:04 PM
1. Bradford - I loved his accuracy and intelligence. Didn't care about the scheme or shoulder.
2. Luck - He's very good but not as accurate as Bradford.
3. Stafford - Was just getting into the draft then.
4. Newton - Was not a fan at all.

CashmoneyDrew
09-26-2011, 09:00 PM
I sorta questioned Bradford's LOVE of the game when they decided to take out the insurance policy on him, rather than just go to the NFL. He had nothing else left to play for or prove.

Bradford was trying to win a national title as well. It made sense for him to go back another year IMO.

FUNBUNCHER
09-26-2011, 09:10 PM
I love Cam, but if all four of these guys came out the same year, at best he would have been my third favorite QB after Luck and Stafford.

It's too hard to see Newton's game easily translating to the pros after his one season at Auburn.

wicket
09-27-2011, 06:02 PM
1 luck
2 stafford

huge gap

3 bradford

huge gap

4 newton

DcmRulz
09-27-2011, 07:35 PM
It's weird. Luck is being considered a once-in-a-decade prospect, and a lot of us don't even have him as the best coming out in the last 4 years...

LonghornsLegend
09-27-2011, 08:05 PM
It's weird. Luck is being considered a once-in-a-decade prospect, and a lot of us don't even have him as the best coming out in the last 4 years...

Because were trying to compare a prospect to a proven commodity just for the hell of it. The elite proven commodity would win out with that every time. If you could start up a franchise and you could start your team with Stafford, or Luck who has yet to throw a pass, majority people are going to take Stafford. He's already looking like he can be a top 5 QB, if you already know your getting that I don't care how good someone else could be.


Now if were comparing prospects all around that's different, but the OP I believe asked to rate knowing what we know now.

bucfan12
09-28-2011, 09:47 AM
1. Stafford (when Healthy and because he's proven )
2. Luck
3. Newtom




















4. Bradford. Honestly, he's in the Chad Pennington division for me. Good QB, but doesn't have the ceiling that Cam Newton, Stafford, and Luck have. Honestly, I'd probably , well definately would take Flacco and Freeman over him. I don't see Bradford being more than an above average starting QB.

descendency
09-28-2011, 01:12 PM
The real question for Luck is whether he's Graham Harrell or Peyton Manning. Or where in between.

SolidGold
09-28-2011, 02:21 PM
The real question for Luck is whether he's Graham Harrell or Peyton Manning. Or where in between.

I would say he is alot closer to Peyton. Not sure you should even mention Harrell in the same sentence as Luck in terms of comparing them as QB prospects.

Raiderz4Life
09-28-2011, 02:25 PM
Because were trying to compare a prospect to a proven commodity just for the hell of it. The elite proven commodity would win out with that every time. If you could start up a franchise and you could start your team with Stafford, or Luck who has yet to throw a pass, majority people are going to take Stafford. He's already looking like he can be a top 5 QB, if you already know your getting that I don't care how good someone else could be.


Now if were comparing prospects all around that's different, but the OP I believe asked to rate knowing what we know now.

Bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush :)

Been dying to use that lol

DraftSavant
09-28-2011, 02:26 PM
The real question for Luck is whether he's Graham Harrell or Peyton Manning. Or where in between.

In terms of skillset and playing style, my comparison has and always will be the Raider version of Rich Gannon.

Rosebud
09-28-2011, 02:33 PM
1. Stafford (when Healthy and because he's proven )
2. Luck
3. Newtom




















4. Bradford. Honestly, he's in the Chad Pennington division for me. Good QB, but doesn't have the ceiling that Cam Newton, Stafford, and Luck have. Honestly, I'd probably , well definately would take Flacco and Freeman over him. I don't see Bradford being more than an above average starting QB.

So what exactly gives Luck any more potential than Bradford? It's not like he's got Stafford's arm strength or Newton's athleticism to at least be able to point to an area where he just has superior tools to Bradford. As is they have comparable arms, comparable athleticism, comparable accuracy, although Bradford's quite a bit better going deep, and poise. I've got Bradford, Luck, Stafford and Newton in that order if we're judging them as prospects.

TACKLE
09-28-2011, 02:37 PM
In terms of skillset and playing style, my comparison has and always will be the Raider version of Rich Gannon.

This is the best one I've heard yet.

Saints-Tigers
09-28-2011, 02:38 PM
Bradford's arm and his mobility or power isn't comparable to Luck's.

This site has been really bad on both overrating Bradford's arm, and underrating Luck's.

Not only that, Bradford is a short pass and checkdown king.

CashmoneyDrew
09-28-2011, 03:03 PM
Bradford's arm and his mobility or power isn't comparable to Luck's.

This site has been really bad on both overrating Bradford's arm, and underrating Luck's.

Not only that, Bradford is a short pass and checkdown king.

A lot of posters on this site underrate Bradford's arm as well in fairness. Many would have you believe it's on a 30 year old Chad Pennington, or Kellen Moore level when it's really not.

Also, looking at the Rams O-line and receivers I'd check down a lot too.

holt_bruce81
09-28-2011, 04:15 PM
A lot of posters on this site underrate Bradford's arm as well in fairness. Many would have you believe it's on a 30 year old Chad Pennington, or Kellen Moore level when it's really not.

Also, looking at the Rams O-line and receivers I'd check down a lot too.

I know it's dumb. Bradford doesn't have the arm of a Matt Stafford but it is above average, he can easily make all the throws.

People are so fixated with Arm Strength on this site. "Like omg he threw the ball 70 yards in the air.....greatness".........yeah who ******* cares.

FUNBUNCHER
09-28-2011, 04:32 PM
I know it's dumb. Bradford doesn't have the arm of a Matt Stafford but it is above average, he can easily make all the throws.

People are so fixated with Arm Strength on this site. "Like omg he threw the ball 70 yards in the air.....greatness".........yeah who ******* cares.

Elite arm strength is like 4.3 speed for a WR. Sure it's not a prerequisite for the position, but if a player is already a good QB and you give him a cannon, that player almost can't be defended against in the passing game if he gets protection.

I remember one of the first comments I heard about Brett Favre when he played for the Packers; even when he threw the ball late he could throw with such velocity that defenders simply could not react in time to break up the pass.

There are passes Bradford simply will not attempt when he's under pressure because of his average arm strength.

Ozzy
09-28-2011, 04:36 PM
I am surprised how many people have Stafford over Luck. I liked Stafford as much as the next guy coming out, and had him always over Bradford in all of those Bradford or Stafford debates.


Bigger question is why are Mark Sanchez and Josh Freeman not in this conversation??? They were drafted the same year Stafford was....


But with this group right now I would go like this...


Andrew Luck
Matthew Stafford
Cam Newton
Mark Sanchez
Josh Freeman
Sam Bradford

CashmoneyDrew
09-28-2011, 04:42 PM
Because Sanchez and Freeman couldn't touch the other 4 as prospects. Plus these guys were/will be #1 overall picks.

Also, you don't need crazy arm strength to make passes in tight windows. Remember that pass Aaron Rodgers made in the Super Bowl against Polamalu at the goal line? That was elite accuracy, release and mechanics more than arm strength. Sam Bradford also has elite accuracy and release. He just really does not have the horses around him to win the races yet.

holt_bruce81
09-28-2011, 04:48 PM
You could make an argument for Freeman being in the top 5 but Mark Sanchez? get the **** out of here. Sanchez is one of, if not THE most overrated player in the NFL today.

Complex
09-28-2011, 04:52 PM
Sam Bradford doesn't have a "average" arm even the scouts said he had a B+ arm. He is not JaMarcus Russell but definitely does not have a Chad Pennington or Kellen Moore, He is a pretty good athlete he was a pretty good basketball player after all even Blake Griffin said he was a good basketball player.

I don't know why you guys are QQ about him not throwing it deep, have you seen his WRs? He has bunch of slow but quick slot/3rd WRs besides Danario Alexander who is always hurt. He doesn't have Calvin Johnson, Mike Williams or Benn who is fast at least.

Jason Smith is terrible what a waste of a #2 pick.

holt_bruce81
09-28-2011, 04:55 PM
Sam Bradford doesn't have a "average" arm even the scouts said he had a B+ arm. He is not JaMarcus Russell but definitely does not have a Chad Pennington or Kellen Moore, He is a pretty good athlete he was a pretty good basketball player after all even Blake Griffin said he was a good basketball player.

I don't know why you guys are QQ about him not throwing it deep, have you seen his WRs? He has bunch of slow but quick slot/3rd WRs besides Danario Alexander who is always hurt. He doesn't have Calvin Johnson, Mike Williams or Benn who is fast at least.

Jason Smith is terrible what a waste of a #2 pick.

**** now I'll be wasting more time staring at your Sig.

Complex
09-28-2011, 04:58 PM
One more thing when Danny Amendola is your best WR there is something wrong.

bucfan12
09-28-2011, 08:04 PM
I don't see Elite Accuracy at all right now with Sam Bradford. Last year, a TON of his success came against the NFC West, where every team has bottom 5 secondaries pretty much. You see him this year in out of division games and he's not very accurate at all. His offensive line is better than most think. Jason Smith was not a very good LT, but he's been decent at RT. Not up to his number 2 overall pick, but he's better fit for the right side.

Sure, you can argue that he doesn't have the talent around him. Look at Freeman this year. Guys who stepped up last year in Benn, Briscoe and Stroughther that complimented Mike Williams are dropping passes and not getting open, so there is struggle. Yeah, I know it's homerism using Freeman as an example.

But when I watched Bradford last year, he was a different QB when it came to division and then non division games. You want to talk about WR corps? New England does not have 1 elite WR on there team. They have solid route runners who get open and thats all a QB needs.

Same thing with Aaron Rodgers. He's got an elite guy in Greg Jennings, yes. But not all of these guys were top draft picks.

holt_bruce81
09-28-2011, 08:46 PM
I don't see Elite Accuracy at all right now with Sam Bradford. Last year, a TON of his success came against the NFC West, where every team has bottom 5 secondaries pretty much. You see him this year in out of division games and he's not very accurate at all. His offensive line is better than most think. Jason Smith was not a very good LT, but he's been decent at RT. Not up to his number 2 overall pick, but he's better fit for the right side.

Sure, you can argue that he doesn't have the talent around him. Look at Freeman this year. Guys who stepped up last year in Benn, Briscoe and Stroughther that complimented Mike Williams are dropping passes and not getting open, so there is struggle. Yeah, I know it's homerism using Freeman as an example.

But when I watched Bradford last year, he was a different QB when it came to division and then non division games. You want to talk about WR corps? New England does not have 1 elite WR on there team. They have solid route runners who get open and thats all a QB needs.

Same thing with Aaron Rodgers. He's got an elite guy in Greg Jennings, yes. But not all of these guys were top draft picks.

So far this season Jason Smith has been benched in two games for Adam Goldberg because his play has been so bad.

and last year Bradford vs non-NFC West teams....

10 games:

204/350 58.2 cmp% 2,085 passing yards (208.6 ypg) 13 tds, 9 ints

dannyz
09-28-2011, 09:09 PM
Elite arm strength is like 4.3 speed for a WR. Sure it's not a prerequisite for the position, but if a player is already a good QB and you give him a cannon, that player almost can't be defended against in the passing game if he gets protection.

I remember one of the first comments I heard about Brett Favre when he played for the Packers; even when he threw the ball late he could throw with such velocity that defenders simply could not react in time to break up the pass.

There are passes Bradford simply will not attempt when he's under pressure because of his average arm strength.

Not trying to be a Dick but you say Arm Strength is like Speed for a WR, If the WR can't catch the ball or run routes the speed won't matter. If a QB has an Arm but is not Accurate and can't read Defenses the Arm does not matter.

ChiFan24
09-28-2011, 09:31 PM
Not trying to be a Dick but you say Arm Strength is like Speed for a WR, If the WR can't catch the ball or run routes the speed won't matter. If a QB has an Arm but is not Accurate and can't read Defenses the Arm does not matter.

...isn't that exactly what he said?

niel89
09-28-2011, 09:36 PM
As prospects at the time before their draft I had them as:

Luck
Stafford
Bradford
Newton

-I think that Luck has it all from top to bottom. There is no part of his game that I hate.
-I liked Staffords tools but he was too inconsistent for me.
-I thought that Bradford was in a great system for him but I also thought that he exhibited skills that were beyond the spread offense. At the time I also had concerns about his durability, not a major concern now but at the time the guy had just come off missing an entire season because of injury.
-I didn't really like that much about Newton overall. He had really strong tools but I wasn't confident in his offense, character, mechanics, and he was only one year wonder. Early returns look pretty good but over time we'll see. He just wasn't a guy who I believe would be the leader of my franchise.

At this point right now I would go:

Stafford
Luck
Bradford
Newton

Stafford is a legit good NFL QB. Luck looks like he will do just fine. Bradford played well as a rookie but I didn't think he was amazing by any stretch. Give him some weapons and then I would reevaluate him. Newton has been great so far but my concerns over him aren't gone at all. 3 games don't suddenly make a player legit, just like Bradford playing well doesn't bust the spread offense QB prejudice.

CashmoneyDrew
09-28-2011, 10:02 PM
You want to talk about WR corps? New England does not have 1 elite WR on there team. They have solid route runners who get open and thats all a QB needs.

Same thing with Aaron Rodgers. He's got an elite guy in Greg Jennings, yes. But not all of these guys were top draft picks.

C'mon man. Brady has Welker, Hernandez and Gronk at least and is an established veteran. Rodgers has Jennings, Driver, Nelson, Cobb, Finley...

Any of those guys would be Bradford's number 1.

niel89
09-28-2011, 10:35 PM
C'mon man. Brady has Welker, Hernandez and Gronk at least and is an established veteran. Rodgers has Jennings, Driver, Nelson, Cobb, Finley...

Any of those guys would be Bradford's number 1.

I think that Brady and Rodgers help to make some of those guy look better then they would on other teams, but everyone of those guys would be easily starting for Bradford. It really sucks that he has no real threat on offense to throw to. I think that once he gets some really WR's, we can really see what he can actually do. I thought Avery could have been that guy but he messed his knee up.

Complex
09-28-2011, 10:40 PM
C'mon man. Brady has Welker, Hernandez and Gronk at least and is an established veteran. Rodgers has Jennings, Driver, Nelson, Cobb, Finley...

Any of those guys would be Bradford's number 1.

James Jones would start for the rams and he barely sees the field for the packers.

Chad Johnson and maybe Deion Branch would start for the Rams.

Mike Williams and K2 would start for the rams.

bucfan12
09-28-2011, 11:40 PM
Thing is, Bradford has a very good RB in Steven Jackson.

My thing is, why didn't the Rams make an effort to get a weapon for Bradford? I mean, guys like Sidney Rice, Braylon Edwards, and Plaxico Burress were all better than the supposedly "garbage" they have at WR. Instead, they went after Sims-Walker, who was alright, but would be better with a deep threat on the other side of the field.

holt_bruce81
09-29-2011, 02:56 PM
Thing is, Bradford has a very good RB in Steven Jackson.

My thing is, why didn't the Rams make an effort to get a weapon for Bradford? I mean, guys like Sidney Rice, Braylon Edwards, and Plaxico Burress were all better than the supposedly "garbage" they have at WR. Instead, they went after Sims-Walker, who was alright, but would be better with a deep threat on the other side of the field.

Steven Jackson has been hurt all year.

And the Rams were after Sidney Rice in the offseason, just because They didn't sign him doesn't mean they didn't try to. Anyways, Sims-walker has been better than all three of the receivers you listed this season.

Saints-Tigers
09-30-2011, 11:38 AM
Gronkowski might be the most dangerous red zone TE we've seen in a while(ever?) and Hernandez is probably top 5 as a receiving TE. That's a ridiculous mismatch that teams aren't equipped to handle.

edgrenade
10-20-2011, 12:38 AM
Am I the only one who notices the amount of hot chick gifs in this thread?

Just thought I'd put that out there

BigBanger
10-20-2011, 08:09 AM
I don't see Elite Accuracy at all right now with Sam Bradford. Last year, a TON of his success came against the NFC West, where every team has bottom 5 secondaries pretty much. You see him this year in out of division games and he's not very accurate at all. His offensive line is better than most think. Jason Smith was not a very good LT, but he's been decent at RT. Not up to his number 2 overall pick, but he's better fit for the right side.
Jason Smith has been downright awful. Complete bust.

Andre Smith >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason Smith

And he's surrounded by Calvin Johnson and ... well, that's about it.

hahahahaha this comment hand me cracking up. It's analogous to saying he's not rich, he only has a billion dollars.
37OWL7AzvHo&feature=related

Did you see that play yesterday when Stafford just lobbed up an air ball as he was falling down. There are a handful of WR who would have been able to catch that ball. Having Calvin is a huge advantage. If Bradford had anything close to Calvin, I'd be willing to bet he'd be the best out of the bunch atm.
I'm well aware that it is a huge advantage. I'm also aware that one great WR does not make an offense go.

I also was not comparing Bradford's supporting cast to Safford's supporting cast. If Sam Bradford had Calvin Johnson he'd still have a QB rating in the 70s. Calvin Johnson also wouldn't be Calvin Johnson.

I don't think Sam Bradford fits the vertical passing game of Josh McDaniels. They just brought in Lloyd, who had a career year in that system, so we'll see how well that works, but I just don't think he has the arm strength for that system, which tends to play to his weaknesses. Hovering around a 50% completion percentage? That's ******* awful. I don't care what kind of talent you have around you. That tells me it has to do with the system because I know its not the player. The system he was in last year played to his strengths -- short to intermediate throws, getting the ball out quickly. This system plays to the 2nd and 3rd levels of the defense with long developing plays down field. Linemen have to hold their blocks longer, they look worse in pass protection because Bradford is no longer getting the ball out quickly and the offense is basically a giant piece of **** to watch. I don't think he's necessarily regressed, I just don't think he fits the scheme.