PDA

View Full Version : Would St. Louis Trade the No. 1 pick or Sam Bradford?


MI_Buckeye
10-26-2011, 12:35 PM
I just got to thinking about this today. St. Louis would obviously be in somewhat of an enviable pickle if they were to end up with the top pick.

Let's say Bradford's foot injury causes him to miss most of the rest of the season and the Rams go 1-15 and end up with the topi pick. Now, obviously nobody is going to be the No. 1 overall pick except for Andrew Luck. The question becomes which direction would the Rams want to go in?

I definitely think the pick would command a higher price tag, but that would mean passing on the greatest prospect in draft history. If they decided to keep the pick and draft Luck. What could they get for Bradford? Would he fetch a top 5 pick and change?

My bet would be they draft Luck and trade Bradford.

A Perfect Score
10-26-2011, 12:38 PM
I just got to thinking about this today. St. Louis would obviously be in somewhat of an enviable pickle if they were to end up with the top pick.

Let's say Bradford's foot injury causes him to miss most of the rest of the season and the Rams go 1-15 and end up with the topi pick. Now, obviously nobody is going to be the No. 1 overall pick except for Andrew Luck. The question becomes which direction would the Rams want to go in?

I definitely think the pick would command a higher price tag, but that would mean passing on the greatest prospect in draft history. If they decided to keep the pick and draft Luck. What could they get for Bradford? Would he fetch a top 5 pick and change?

My bet would be they draft Luck and trade Bradford.

...No it wouldn't.

Hurricanes25
10-26-2011, 12:38 PM
I'm pretty torn on this because I'm not a fan of Bradford. But I just can't see them giving up on him after 2 seasons, especially with all the crap he has been given to work with.

SolidGold
10-26-2011, 12:46 PM
Trade the pick. Draft a WR and some o-line help. Saffold and Smith are both garbage.

killxswitch
10-26-2011, 12:47 PM
They would trade the pick and get a huge number of picks to bring in more talent and give Bradford a better shot at succeeding. He's proven he can play in the NFL and he is still young. I would be shocked if they took Luck and then traded Bradford.

Also, "best prospect in history" is a little silly. Yes Luck looks great. But c'mon. The hype around him is getting a little out of control.

A Perfect Score
10-26-2011, 12:51 PM
Wait, is this actually a serious debate? It can't be, nobody is stupid enough to believe the Rams would actually trade Bradford...

Putting it simply, the financial implications alone would prevent the Rams from trading Bradford. They'd be on the hook for an astronomical amount of money for a player who wouldn't be on their roster. Not to mention they'd have to turn around and pay Luck a ton of cash, using up a remarkably large percentage of their salary cap in one position. It'd economically scuttle the franchise for years to come.

Moreover, Luck isn't the greatest prospect to come along in the history of the draft. Hell, Luck isn't even THAT much better then Sam Bradford, especially after the successful rookie season Bradford just had. Assuming they're in the same draft, Luck goes number 1 while Bradford goes what...Top 5? Trust me, I was riding the Luck bandwagon during his SO season saying he was better then Locker and Mallet, but the love has gotten out of hand at this point. He's a great QB prospect, no doubt. But he's not all that far ahead of a Sam Bradford or a Matt Stafford. Certainly not far enough ahead to warrant trading Bradford. It's absolutely ridiculous to even consider.

RaiderNation
10-26-2011, 12:53 PM
They either take a franchise LT in Matt Kalil or trade the pick.

Shane P. Hallam
10-26-2011, 01:07 PM
They'd trade the pick, easily, not even a question. Only chance Bradford gets traded if they clean house (coach, GM, etc), and even then, I think they trade the pick.

Scott Wright
10-26-2011, 01:07 PM
I think this is a no-brainer; it would be the pick.

St. Louis feels like they already have a franchise quarterback who is a known-quantity and has proven himself in the NFL. With that said, I would personally rather have Andrew Luck.

MI_Buckeye
10-26-2011, 01:08 PM
Wait, is this actually a serious debate? It can't be, nobody is stupid enough to believe the Rams would actually trade Bradford...

Putting it simply, the financial implications alone would prevent the Rams from trading Bradford. They'd be on the hook for an astronomical amount of money for a player who wouldn't be on their roster. Not to mention they'd have to turn around and pay Luck a ton of cash, using up a remarkably large percentage of their salary cap in one position. It'd economically scuttle the franchise for years to come.

Moreover, Luck isn't the greatest prospect to come along in the history of the draft. Hell, Luck isn't even THAT much better then Sam Bradford, especially after the successful rookie season Bradford just had. Assuming they're in the same draft, Luck goes number 1 while Bradford goes what...Top 5? Trust me, I was riding the Luck bandwagon during his SO season saying he was better then Locker and Mallet, but the love has gotten out of hand at this point. He's a great QB prospect, no doubt. But he's not all that far ahead of a Sam Bradford or a Matt Stafford. Certainly not far enough ahead to warrant trading Bradford. It's absolutely ridiculous to even consider.

Bradford would be a top 5 pick in most drafts, but I honestly don't think there is any comparison between him and Luck as prospects.

whatadai
10-26-2011, 01:37 PM
Screw trading the pick, take Kalil, even Andrew Luck wouldn't be able to pass behind that line.

Babylon
10-26-2011, 01:39 PM
Trade the pick. Draft a WR and some o-line help. Saffold and Smith are both garbage.

Trade the pick. By the way what has happened to Saffold? It's pretty clear that Smith cant get it together but what's up with Saffold?

I'm not as down on the Rams as a lot of people in here. I still think that Chris Long and Robert Quinn are going to be differance makers and Laurinaitis is more than serviceable. In that division there is always hope going forward.

Not sure what kind of package that Luck would warrant. My guess is two #1s in the same draft and besides the Bengals not sure who have that. (without looking it up)

MI_Buckeye
10-26-2011, 01:39 PM
Screw trading the pick, take Kalil, even Andrew Luck wouldn't be able to pass behind that line.

I think they might still be able to get a top 5 pick for Bradford. That would allow them to take someone like Kalil or Martin in addition to Luck.

Babylon
10-26-2011, 01:46 PM
I think they might still be able to get a top 5 pick for Bradford. That would allow them to take someone like Kalil or Martin in addition to Luck.

Good thinking there. Luck and Kalil is better than Bradford and anything else from this draft in my opinion.

Scott Wright
10-26-2011, 01:52 PM
I think they might still be able to get a top 5 pick for Bradford. That would allow them to take someone like Kalil or Martin in addition to Luck.

Oh, I think they'd be able to get more than one first rounder for Bradford.

In fact, I think two minimum with at least one in the Top 10 overall.

killxswitch
10-26-2011, 01:58 PM
Saffold was a rookie sensation at LT and Jason Smith was a top 3 pick if IIRC. What happened?

Scotty D
10-26-2011, 02:08 PM
Good thinking there. Luck and Kalil is better than Bradford and anything else from this draft in my opinion.

I'd rather have Luck than Bradford as well. Maybe Miami or Indy would trade for Bradford.

Big Bird
10-26-2011, 02:11 PM
They would trade Bradford; that's the rumor right now too.

Whoever commented and said they would be hooked to pay Bradford, I'm 99% sure they wouldn't be the ones paying it. Whoever the player plays for is who pays them.

It's as simple as this:
Bradford has a HUGE contract.

There is a new rookie wage scale.

Andrew Luck would be much cheaper and arguably, better.

So in the end, you get a cheaper and arguably better player. Bradford has been solid so far, but there is nothing to guarantee him stardom.

You trade Bradford, probably get another 1st Round pick, so then you could free up a lot of money, draft Luck, and draft either a 1st Round LT or WR to go with Luck. In the end, that improves the Rams a lot more, because the freed up money could go to a top talent Free Agent.

It's a win across the board for the Rams to trade Bradford...

Saints-Tigers
10-26-2011, 02:45 PM
I'm no economist, but if the Rams believe Luck would be a fairly big upgrade, wouldn't they make more money long term?

If you think they are similar, trade the pick, Luck has unreal value right now...

Personally, there is no way I give up Luck to keep Bradford.

Brown Leader
10-26-2011, 03:06 PM
Browns would take Bradford.

jrdrylie
10-26-2011, 03:52 PM
At first I thought it was a no-brainer that they would trade the pick. But now I think they would trade Bradford. I think we can all agree that Luck is a better prospect than Bradford. And Bradford has been decent in the NFL, but he is far from a star.

They could take Luck and trade Bradford. Because of the rookie pay scale, Luck's contract would actually be cheaper. They would still get a second first round pick this year to use on an offensive lineman. They would probably also get a 2012-2nd and then a first next year. They could use one of their seconds on another offensive lineman (Cordy Glenn?) and then the other on a receiver (Sanu?).

bucfan12
10-26-2011, 04:21 PM
I never thought much of Sam Bradford when it came to terms of being an elite QB. If they can get a 1st round pick and someone to take his contract, then deal him. I'm sure a team picking in the 20's could use a QB, or even the Redskins if they don't have a shot at a QB they want.

But then again, who would Luck be throwing to?

Rabscuttle
10-26-2011, 04:42 PM
I would rather they keep Bradford
/Niner fan

soybean
10-26-2011, 05:13 PM
Why is it a no-brainer they trade the pick...?

Would you trade away a cheaper Lebron James and a [insert basketball equivalent of Matt Kalil] and keep Yao Ming?

fenikz
10-26-2011, 05:16 PM
They wouldn't trade Bradford but they certainly should in this scenario, Luck is a better QB plain and simple

K Train
10-26-2011, 05:16 PM
you trade bradford...ive personally never ever liked him and i stil dont, hes not that good, he has like a 60 million dollar contract, luck is better and will be cheaper.

to me its a no brainer, but then again you can sell the #1 pick this year for an all time high price

WCH
10-26-2011, 05:17 PM
They'd trade the pick, easily, not even a question. Only chance Bradford gets traded if they clean house (coach, GM, etc), and even then, I think they trade the pick.

Which would be almost certain to happen if they get the #1 pick. I mean, you generally have to really screw the pooch to end up with the top pick. The Packers haven't had the #1 overall pick since the 1950's and they had some bad seasons in the years between Starr and Favre. You have to be almost completely devoid of talent at all of the crucial positions, and unlucky to boot, in order to get the #1 overall pick. Jimmy Johnson and Troy Aikman got another year to turn things around, but they were in their first year with the Cowboys. Usually the owner just cleans house.

I actually think that there's a pretty good chance that a new regime would draft Luck. I'm not sure where they go from there (trade him, trade Bradford, have them compete and trade the loser...there are plenty of options), but it's almost inconceivable that a new GM of a team with the worst record in the NFL would pass on Andrew Luck.

Lets put it this way: drafting Andrew Luck and trading him down the road for a 1st or 2nd round pick after Bradford wins a QB competition won't get you fired. Not drafting Andrew Luck and having him light up the league while Bradford is "only" a top-10 or top-15 QB would almost certainly get you fired.

A Perfect Score
10-26-2011, 05:48 PM
They would trade Bradford; that's the rumor right now too.

Whoever commented and said they would be hooked to pay Bradford, I'm 99% sure they wouldn't be the ones paying it. Whoever the player plays for is who pays them.

It's as simple as this:
Bradford has a HUGE contract.

There is a new rookie wage scale.

Andrew Luck would be much cheaper and arguably, better.

So in the end, you get a cheaper and arguably better player. Bradford has been solid so far, but there is nothing to guarantee him stardom.

You trade Bradford, probably get another 1st Round pick, so then you could free up a lot of money, draft Luck, and draft either a 1st Round LT or WR to go with Luck. In the end, that improves the Rams a lot more, because the freed up money could go to a top talent Free Agent.

It's a win across the board for the Rams to trade Bradford...

No. If I'm not mistaken, St. Louis would still be on the hook for all of the guaranteed money in his contract, while his new team would pay his yearly salary. That means St Louis would be on the hook for almost 30 million dollars GUARANTEED for a player that isn't on their roster. On top of that, they'd end up giving Luck about 30 million as a guaranteed contract as well.

So if you think Luck is 30 million dollars better then Bradford as a prospect, you make this trade. I'm willing to bet St Louis doesn't think that.

ArkyRamsFan
10-26-2011, 05:57 PM
I just got to thinking about this today. St. Louis would obviously be in somewhat of an enviable pickle if they were to end up with the top pick.

Let's say Bradford's foot injury causes him to miss most of the rest of the season and the Rams go 1-15 and end up with the topi pick. Now, obviously nobody is going to be the No. 1 overall pick except for Andrew Luck. The question becomes which direction would the Rams want to go in?

I definitely think the pick would command a higher price tag, but that would mean passing on the greatest prospect in draft history. If they decided to keep the pick and draft Luck. What could they get for Bradford? Would he fetch a top 5 pick and change?

My bet would be they draft Luck and trade Bradford.

Nice thread MI..heh...I started one on this very subject about 4 weeks ago and was criticized by many as being nuts or something because I posted that the Rams had quit after the Baltimore game in week 3. However, I understand that it is difficult for most non Rams fans to comprehend just how bad this organization is and the level of suck that they can plumb.

As you may have guessed this is starting to become a hot question among Rams fans which, of course, is not surprising. It has been asserted that the lion's share of Sam' salary has already been paid and that going forward he is not owed all that much in comparison to other starting QBs in the league. This needs to be verified as it will definitely affect any future trade negotiations.

As for me, I am in favor of doing whatever is BEST for the St. Louis Rams. While I am not opposed to drafting Luck and trading Bradford I would have to weigh that deal with what I could get by keeping Sam and trading out of the first pick.

Once the salary issue is confirmed and we can know with more certainty what a trading partner will need to acquire Brads, then I believe things will become more clear than they are now.

Also, it is HIGHLY probable that a new regime will (once again) take over and, as has been posted by others, want their "own" guy to build around. NTM there is the strong possibility that Luck will just be graded as a better prospect and that could weigh heavily with the new Rams braintrust (lol, maybe the first time those words have ever been combined in the same sentence!!)

It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out...Meanwhile, welcome NFL fans to the train wreck that is the St. Louis Rams.

jrdrylie
10-26-2011, 07:02 PM
top of that, they'd end up giving Luck about 30 million as a guaranteed contract as well.

So if you think Luck is 30 million dollars better then Bradford as a prospect, you make this trade. I'm willing to bet St Louis doesn't think that.

Cam Newton got 4 years $22 million. Does it increase by $8 million in just one year? Even if it does, Luck is worth $30 million dollar more. Most of us around here think Luck is going to be one of the best QBs in the league. So I'll ask you this... You can have Brady or Rodgers for $50 million or Joe Flacco for $20 million. Who are you taking? I'd go with the first option.

holt_bruce81
10-26-2011, 08:06 PM
Trade the pick. Draft a WR and some o-line help. Saffold and Smith are both garbage.

That's incorrect.

I would trade the #1 pick, with the rookie salary cap now in place they could get a crapload for it. I would start with a 2012 1st round pick, 2nd round pick and a 2013 first round pick

TheMorningZoo
10-26-2011, 09:06 PM
I think the majority of these threads popping up all over boards on the internet are getting ridiculous.

From my perspective, if St. Louis were to and the #1 pick-trade it! It is a no brainer for several reasons. Do you really think Luck is THAT big of an upgrade over Bradford? Bradford needs more weapons and better protection, not to mention the whole St. Louis team is probably considered one of the least talented in the league (hell maybe underachieving they do have "some" players).

Like others have mentioned, if they were to net two 1st's , a 2nd and a 3rd or something in that range, that is an immediate upgrade in several positions all over the field. Luck isn't superman people.

Not to mention , EVERY YEAR " Franchise " Quarterbacks come out of the college ranks, and Quarterbacks are taken in the first (Ponder, Freeman, Flacco, etc.) that maybe were reaches/unexpected. This brings up the value of Luck for those teams that view him as the "truth" and need an immediate QB (Dolphins, Seahawks, potentially Broncos/Chiefs/Colts, etc....)

I think you keep Bradford who is a Franchise QB, surround him with talent and start there.

onejayhawk
10-26-2011, 09:17 PM
I do not understand those that consider trading Bradford unthinkable, His contract would be an issue in negotiations, but not an insurmountable one. More importantly, it is a defined issue. As a player, the Rams would be dealing a more known commodity, assuming the medical checks out. They would be more likely to get a quality starter in return.

That does not mean I expect it to happen. It is just that I would not be shocked if it did.

J

bucfan12
10-26-2011, 09:21 PM
I would consider trading Bradford.

He was overrated as a prospect in my opinion. Never should have been the top pick. There were so many flaws when he was coming out.

First things first, the spread offense. Never had to make reads an NFL QB would go through.

2. He had trouble reading defenses and adjusting the calls. Every he broke the huddle, he always looked towards the sidelines at his coaches for any type of audible and what call to make. That's not an NFL Franchise QB.

3. Arm Strength. He's got an above average arm, but he's not accurate beyond 10 yards.

I think they should trade him and get the highest pick they can if they get the top pick.

Caulibflower
10-26-2011, 09:35 PM
Rams trade Bradford to Miami for their first round pick, draft Luck and move to Los Angeles. $$$

thegreatone
10-26-2011, 10:13 PM
I hope they do take Luck, so they can send Bradford to Baltimore.

49erNation85
10-27-2011, 12:01 AM
Keep Bradford , trade that number one pick for multiple picks.Upgrade that o line in two or three picks from 1 to 2nd round.then go after wr and maybe a te the rest of the draft.Then throw in a defense player or so mid rounds.

no bare feet
10-27-2011, 09:18 AM
Keep Bradford , trade that number one pick for multiple picks.Upgrade that o line in two or three picks from 1 to 2nd round.then go after wr and maybe a te the rest of the draft.Then throw in a defense player or so mid rounds.

Are you really an NFL GM trying to blend in?

Ozzy
10-27-2011, 09:26 AM
This is hilarious! Trade the pick? Are you insane, Andrew Luck is sooooooooooooooo much better than Sam Bradford, you take Luck, regardless of who gets the pick. If it was the Colts, different story, because Peyton Manning is a prove star in the NFL and a top 3 quarterback, Sam Bradford is NOT, thus take Luck regardless unless you are the Colts. Then you actually have a choice to make....



My seven cents.

A Perfect Score
10-27-2011, 09:29 AM
This is hilarious! Trade the pick? Are you insane, Andrew Luck is sooooooooooooooo much better than Sam Bradford, you take Luck, regardless of who gets the pick. If it was the Colts, different story, because Peyton Manning is a prove star in the NFL and a top 3 quarterback, Sam Bradford is NOT, thus take Luck regardless unless you are the Colts. Then you actually have a choice to make....



My seven cents.

Your seven cents is stupid. The Colts would be much more likely to draft Luck then the Rams.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
10-27-2011, 09:41 AM
Browns would take Bradford.

You already have him his name is Colt McCoy.

nepg
10-27-2011, 09:55 AM
They'll get an incredible return on trading the #1 pick if they end up with it (they aren't likely to - they're still the 2nd best team in the NFC West). They'll end up with an extra first in 2013, and a slew of picks in 2012 without missing out on the player they want in the first to continue the team building process in StL.

JBCX
10-27-2011, 10:14 AM
If they can find some way to turn the traded #1 pick into an elite OT such as Jonathan Martin or Matt Kalil *and* an elite WR such as Justin Blackmon or Alshon Jefferey, then I think they would be best served to do just that.

MI_Buckeye
10-27-2011, 10:19 AM
If they can find some way to turn the traded #1 pick into an elite OT such as Jonathan Martin or Matt Kalil *and* an elite WR such as Justin Blackmon or Alshon Jefferey, then I think they would be best served to do just that.

There is no way that could happen. The only way they would end up with two top ten picks would be if they traded Bradford, in which case they would certainly draft Luck with the first pick.

jth1331
10-27-2011, 10:30 AM
I would consider trading Bradford.

He was overrated as a prospect in my opinion. Never should have been the top pick. There were so many flaws when he was coming out.

First things first, the spread offense. Never had to make reads an NFL QB would go through.

2. He had trouble reading defenses and adjusting the calls. Every he broke the huddle, he always looked towards the sidelines at his coaches for any type of audible and what call to make. That's not an NFL Franchise QB.

3. Arm Strength. He's got an above average arm, but he's not accurate beyond 10 yards.

I think they should trade him and get the highest pick they can if they get the top pick.

I personally have to believe you never, ever watched Bradford play in college if you came up with this.
Like, seriously, this is the same **** pre-2010 draft many people had to debunk about him.
1. He did have to make NFL reads, OU's offense they run is actually similar to what some NFL teams run. Packers and Patriots ring a bell?
2. Trouble reading defenses and calling plays? Lol. He had no problem reading a defense. The coaches called the plays and told the offense what play to run. In fact, OU never huddled, they ran a no huddle offense with signals from coaches on the sidelines for the play.
3. Not accurate past 10 yards? Are you freakin kidding me? He can put the ball on the money almost anywhere. The thing with him is he doesn't have the elite velocity on the ball Rodgers or Cutler have, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Now, personally, I'd keep Bradford, trade the pick for at minimum 2012 1st, 2012 2nd and 2013 1st. Then take either OT(Kalil/Martin) in the 1st, take a WR in the 2nd along with maybe a RB or another OL.
That OL is horrible and needs help. I think if they can bring in a competent franchise LT, it will help a lot and then adding a playmaker WR.

bucfan12
10-27-2011, 10:46 AM
The Rams supposedly had a franchise LT in Jason Smith. Then it was Roger Saffold when they figured Smith was a RT and Saffold performed well.

This organization wants Bradford to succeed. They drafted a bust in RObert Quinn, who if you watched in college football, got pretty much 75-80% of his production against the low tier oppenents and struggled to get to the QB in ACC play.

Bradford has shown enough flash as Mark Sanchez, and that is a solid starter that needs to be surrounded by an overall good team. They have completely regressed overall as a team and haven't even shown any positives.

Young teams like that do regress a bit some times, but they show inconsistancy as they'll flash and play up to theire talent level, but sometimes show there inexperience.

The Rams have drafted poorly over the past few years, even with top 5 picks.

abaddon41_80
10-27-2011, 10:47 AM
If they have Luck as a better prospect than Bradford coming out, which I am sure they do, I could totally understand trading Bradford. Luck would be cheaper plus they could get a decent amount from somebody for Bradford.

bucfan12
10-27-2011, 10:57 AM
If they have Luck as a better prospect than Bradford coming out, which I am sure they do, I could totally understand trading Bradford. Luck would be cheaper plus they could get a decent amount from somebody for Bradford.

They'd have to find someone willing to take on Bradford's top 5 QB contract for an average QB play though.

thegreatone
10-27-2011, 11:03 AM
They'd have to find someone willing to take on Bradford's top 5 QB contract for an average QB play though.
I would take that if I was Baltimore's GM.

bucfan12
10-27-2011, 11:04 AM
I would take that if I was Baltimore's GM.

I'd hold on to Flacco, If I was Baltimores GM

MI_Buckeye
10-27-2011, 12:29 PM
They'd have to find someone willing to take on Bradford's top 5 QB contract for an average QB play though.

That shouldn't be a problem. If Bradford carries a higher grade than Landry Jones, Matt Barkley or RGIII, then the next QB needy team would gladly take him off their hands. Remember, it's a QB-driven league and price doesn't mean much when it comes to that position.

Ozzy
10-27-2011, 01:07 PM
A Perfect Score Your seven cents is stupid. The Colts would be much more likely to draft Luck then the Rams.Maybe, but you take Sam Bradford, I take Peyton Manning, let us see who wins, me. It is not even a question who is the better quarterback, thus Colts have a much harder decision than the Rams in my opinion.

thegreatone
10-27-2011, 01:40 PM
I'd hold on to Flacco, If I was Baltimores GM
Why? So you can be mediocre at QB for a decade?

SRK85
10-27-2011, 01:54 PM
Trade the pick. The rams could easily get two 1st round picks and a couple of mid-round picks for Luck. In fact they have the 1st overall pick they will select Luck and trade him.

Raiderz4Life
10-27-2011, 04:05 PM
Maybe, but you take Sam Bradford, I take Peyton Manning, let us see who wins, me. It is not even a question who is the better quarterback, thus Colts have a much harder decision than the Rams in my opinion.

Isn't Manning like 35 with like 3 neck surgeries and has like one foot out the door? And Bradford isn't a 24 yr old 2nd year player who showed promise of being good last year and is trying with a **** o-line that has done nothing but abuse him this year?

descendency
10-27-2011, 05:31 PM
Screw trading the pick, take Kalil, even Andrew Luck wouldn't be able to pass behind that line.

The difference between Kalil and Martin is marginal but the difference between the 1st pick and a very high pick isn't. If they could get a few more picks, that team could be loaded soon.

TheMorningZoo
10-27-2011, 06:51 PM
The difference between Kalil and Martin is marginal but the difference between the 1st pick and a very high pick isn't. If they could get a few more picks, that team could be loaded soon.

I agree. I even think that they could still target a player like Blackmon and take Reiff. Reiff would have been a 1st rounder last year, and still is a solid player. They need to invest talent all over the board and Luck alone won't make a difference behind that monstrosity of an O-Line

armageddon
10-27-2011, 08:49 PM
You guys are SEVERELY underating Bradford. He has all the tools and is as smart as they come. Get him some weapons and some protection and he will shine.

fenikz
10-27-2011, 09:26 PM
bradford certainly lacks quite a few tools, he will never be able to beat teams downfield and defenses know this

thegreatone
10-27-2011, 09:54 PM
bradford certainly lacks quite a few tools, he will never be able to beat teams downfield and defenses know this
Give me an average armed smart QB who is a good leader, instead someone who relies way too much on their arm.
(Flacco, Cutler)

niel89
10-27-2011, 10:01 PM
Just trade the pick for a couple of 1st's & 2nd's and just restock the entire team. Bradford is good and he could really use a couple new receivers some OL and some more defensive players.

armageddon
10-27-2011, 10:52 PM
bradford certainly lacks quite a few tools, he will never be able to beat teams downfield and defenses know this



The only tools he lacks are real NFL WR's. Lloyd will help.

fenikz
10-27-2011, 11:00 PM
Give me an average armed smart QB who is a good leader, instead someone who relies way too much on their arm.
(Flacco, Cutler)

why wouldnt you just take a QB with a good arm and who is a good leader(Luck)

nepg
10-27-2011, 11:10 PM
I think a lot of the protection issues are from Bradford not being able to make proper adjustments and read defenses at the los.

JHL6719
10-28-2011, 03:12 AM
You already have him his name is Colt McCoy.


Awesome!

(10 char)

NGSeiler
10-28-2011, 05:19 AM
I'm a Rams fan, and I'm a big Andrew Luck fan. But I don't think the Rams can use the first overall pick (should they have it) on him given their situation.

There are so many problems on this team that are of bigger priority than the quarterback. The Rams would likely get more in return for trading the draft pick than they'd get for trading Bradford, and I do believe Bradford has shown flashes of being able to be very good if he had a better team around him.

If these two were prospects in the same class and the Rams had the first pick, I'd take Luck. But since the Rams already have Bradford, and have him signed to a rather hefty deal, I think they'd opt to keep Sam and trade the pick away to try and improve the talent around the QB they have.

FUNBUNCHER
10-28-2011, 05:45 AM
No NFL GM if he values his job makes this trade.
I just don't see how an NFL GM justifies this trade to his team owner without coming across like a fan boy.

You just drafted a QB 1/1 overall a season and a half ago who played well as a rookie, and now you're ready to kick him to the curb and eat his guaranteed money??

I agree that Luck is a better prospect than Bradford, but he's not so much better that Saint Louis would dump him in a trade and select Luck.

So much about Bradford reminds me of Montana; arm strength, the way he moves, demeanor.

Bradford needs to be in a WCO( not sure what type of scheme the Rams run), a solid Oline and legit WR targets.

Very few QBs are good with inferior offensive talent around them. Roethlisgerger is the closest I can think of, and he still had an elite D to cover his back. Brady isn't playing with elite offensive talent except at TE, but he is playing in a scheme that exploits what the Pats skill players do best.

If I were the Rams GM and saving my job meant building St. Louis into a playoff contender, I'd trade the 1/1 pick for a motherload of compensation and turn the Rams into a contender every season in the NFCW.

If Luck had Mallett's arm, then he would be a generational prospect and contemplating this trade and pick would be more realistic.
Luck's arm is in the Bradford range and IMO there isn't much separation between them as prospects.

murdamal86
10-28-2011, 07:49 AM
If the Rams end up with the number 1 pick, then in a sense Sam Bradford's doing SOMETHING wrong. Looking at the remainder of the schedule, a HEALTHY (that's the key) Bradford should be able to muscle them to a few wins and out of the running for the #1 pick. Let's say he returns vs Zona and plays out the remainder of the season and they finish with the number 1 pick, you HAVE to wonder if he's the long term answer.

On the flipside though, he doesn't play D and that's been an issue too along with his O-Line.

San Diego Chicken
10-28-2011, 08:31 AM
From a value standpoint it makes more sense to trade the #1 pick to the highest bidder. The #1 overall is worth approximately 3 mid level 1st round picks according to the chart (and that's before the newest CBA). The team that wins the Luck sweepstakes could probably get a #1, #2 and #3 in '12, and a #1 and #2 in '13, plus players. You're talking about adding several (potential) new starters around Bradford.

It isn't that Bradford is a bad player, he's just the type of QB who seems to need talented guys to pass the ball to. He won't often make the jaw dropping throw that can't be defended. A guy like that, a Brady, Manning or Rodgers could have Napoleon Dynamite as his flanker and still get his team to the playoffs. Bradford clearly needs better than what he has... even if Luck is that elite guy that Bradford isn't, it doesn't necessarily mean Luck's team is closer to a Super Bowl than Bradford's is.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
10-28-2011, 08:59 AM
Isn't Manning like 35 with like 3 neck surgeries and has like one foot out the door? And Bradford isn't a 24 yr old 2nd year player who showed promise of being good last year and is trying with a **** o-line that has done nothing but abuse him this year?

bradford certainly lacks quite a few tools, he will never be able to beat teams downfield and defenses know this

Thank youuuuu. I know he may not have "weapons" around him but Bradford is still at the bottom of the league again in yards per attempt.

CMR#20
10-28-2011, 05:58 PM
Holmgren tried to trade up for Bradford in 2010. If Colts keeps letting people down and the Rams get the top pick the Browns could offer 2 first rounders for Bradford. Then the Rams would have Luck and 2 first rounders or could use those picks to move up for Kalil or Martin.

ArkyRamsFan
10-28-2011, 06:32 PM
Holmgren tried to trade up for Bradford in 2010. If Colts keeps letting people down and the Rams get the top pick the Browns could offer 2 first rounders for Bradford. Then the Rams would have Luck and 2 first rounders or could use those picks to move up for Kalil or Martin.

I've been kinda thinking about this scenario myself. Holmgren wants and NEEDS a QB in Cleveland and the Brownies do have 2 first round picks....Hmmm... this could get intetresting because I recall that Holmgren liked Brads and wanted to trade up to get him.

Mike Holmgren knows quarterbacks and if he liked Sam Bradford then I'll bet he still does today, plus his HC, Pat Shurmer, was Sam's OC last year and also would love to have him back..

This could bear watching....

WCH
10-28-2011, 08:35 PM
Mike Holmgren knows quarterbacks ....

He's a good coach, but he can't evaluate college QBs for crap. He's built his reputation as a QB-guru by "developing" guys that Bill Walsh and Ron Wolf brought into their respective organizations.

The best guys Holmgren has had who weren't Walsh/Wolf guys have been, in order:

1. Colt McCoy
2. Seneca Wallace
3. Brock Huard

I think he's one of the top half-dozen or so coaches of the past 20 years, but I wouldn't trust Mike Holmgren to pick out my franchise QB.

If the Rams end up with the number 1 pick, then in a sense Sam Bradford's doing SOMETHING wrong. Looking at the remainder of the schedule, a HEALTHY (that's the key) Bradford should be able to muscle them to a few wins and out of the running for the #1 pick.

People overlook this. Off the top of my head, Aikman is the only guy who still went on to big things after starting for the team who earned the #1 pick in the draft. When Aikman did it, he was a rookie on a team that had the #1 pick the prior season (incidentally, the Cowboys spent that #1 pick the prior year in the supplemental draft on a QB to compete with Aikman).

If you have the #1 pick in the draft, then you probably do not have a franchise QB. That's just the truth.

jrdrylie
10-28-2011, 08:52 PM
Give me an average armed smart QB who is a good leader, instead someone who relies way too much on their arm.
(Flacco, Cutler)

In three seasons, Joe Flacco has three playoff appearances. Each year he made it to the second round. His first year he made it to the AFC championship game. Jay Cutler made it to the NFC Championship game last season and has his team in playoff contention without the help of any receivers or offensive linemen. Bradford can't even win the worst division in sports.

You take Bradford. I'll take my big armed QBs.

thegreatone
10-28-2011, 09:40 PM
In three seasons, Joe Flacco has three playoff appearances. Each year he made it to the second round. His first year he made it to the AFC championship game. Jay Cutler made it to the NFC Championship game last season and has his team in playoff contention without the help of any receivers or offensive linemen. Bradford can't even win the worst division in sports.

You take Bradford. I'll take my big armed QBs.
I must admit, that was impressive from Cutler. I am beginning to come around on him. The guy just needs an o-line.

Flacco on the other hand, is just luck he plays in Baltimore.

Complex
10-29-2011, 01:38 PM
In three seasons, Joe Flacco has three playoff appearances. Each year he made it to the second round. His first year he made it to the AFC championship game. Jay Cutler made it to the NFC Championship game last season and has his team in playoff contention without the help of any receivers or offensive linemen. Bradford can't even win the worst division in sports.

You take Bradford. I'll take my big armed QBs.

Yeah cause it was Joe Flacco that carried the ravens to the playoffs. It was Joe Flacco and his 4 TDs in 7 playoff games that won the Ravens those games. Joe has had 1 decent game and 1 good game in the playoffs. It took Jay Cutler how many season to get to the playoffs? It wasn't like the broncos were awful when he played in Denver. If remember right one season they had to win 1 maybe 2 out of their last 5 games to clinch there division.

J52
10-29-2011, 01:39 PM
In three seasons, Joe Flacco has three playoff appearances. Each year he made it to the second round. His first year he made it to the AFC championship game. Jay Cutler made it to the NFC Championship game last season and has his team in playoff contention without the help of any receivers or offensive linemen. Bradford can't even win the worst division in sports.

You take Bradford. I'll take my big armed QBs.

That make so much sense given the fact that Flacco plays inside linebacker, free safety, defensive tackle and Quarterback.

Raiderz4Life
10-29-2011, 01:51 PM
Yeah cause it was Joe Flacco that carried the ravens to the playoffs. It was Joe Flacco and his 4 TDs in 7 playoff games that won the Ravens those games. Joe has had 1 decent game and 1 good game in the playoffs. It took Jay Cutler how many season to get to the playoffs? It wasn't like the broncos were awful when he played in Denver. If remember right one season they had to win 1 maybe 2 out of their last 5 games to clinch there division.

The Broncos defnese sucked ass when Cutler was there.

jrdrylie
10-29-2011, 02:02 PM
Yeah cause it was Joe Flacco that carried the ravens to the playoffs. It was Joe Flacco and his 4 TDs in 7 playoff games that won the Ravens those games. Joe has had 1 decent game and 1 good game in the playoffs. It took Jay Cutler how many season to get to the playoffs? It wasn't like the broncos were awful when he played in Denver. If remember right one season they had to win 1 maybe 2 out of their last 5 games to clinch there division.

They had to win one of their last three games. In those three games, Cutler had to throw a ton (42 times per game) because their rushing attack sucked and their defense allowed them to fall behind because they gave up an average of 37 points per game.

I'm not saying Jay Cutler and Joe Flacco are All Pro QBs. But if I have to choose between those two or Bradford, I'll take them any day of the week.

JagWired32
10-29-2011, 02:46 PM
I think they should trade the #1 if they get it. I like Bradford alot, they just need to get him weapons.

Bald_81
10-29-2011, 02:56 PM
We won't be in this position regardless because we have too many winnable games in the second half of our schedule.

However, if we somehow did pick first then we'd trade it for a gold mine of picks. I would be absolutely shocked and floored if we traded Bradford to take Luck. It's one thing if Bradford hasn't shown the ability to lead the team or produce on the field but he has done both of those things. Also factoring in the massive cap ramifications, we won't trade him. I certainly hope we pick first because it'll go a long way towards helping rebuild with the compensation we'd receive by trading the pick but I doubt that happens.

jth1331
10-29-2011, 11:55 PM
In three seasons, Joe Flacco has three playoff appearances. Each year he made it to the second round. His first year he made it to the AFC championship game. Jay Cutler made it to the NFC Championship game last season and has his team in playoff contention without the help of any receivers or offensive linemen. Bradford can't even win the worst division in sports.

You take Bradford. I'll take my big armed QBs.

lol, Flacco got carried by that awesome defense.
Cutler couldn't win in Denver for 2 years, struggled in Chicago as well to start. He needs a defense that can hold his back when he makes those idiotic turnovers.
Speaking of which....

The Broncos defnese sucked ass when Cutler was there.

Cutler made so many bonehead plays as well that killed games. His first start, the Broncos 7-5 vs Seattle in 2006, he gets pressured and flings it up in the air in the flat and Darryl Tapp picks it off for an easy pick 6. Against San Diego in 2008 with an interception in the red zone in the 4th and then the Hochuli play. Other games where he made horrible decisions. I think he had the most red zone INT's of any QB.
Yes, the defense was terrible, but Cutler also was terrible with his turnovers.

soybean
10-30-2011, 12:15 AM
29. Sam Bradford
Past 10 starts: two wins, eight losses (seven by double-digits), 4 TDs, 8 picks, 132 points scored. Anyone who brings up "Should the Rams keep Andrew Luck or Sam Bradford?" on a talking-head show should be electroshocked. There's a Bradford in the draft every year. There's a Luck in the draft every 10 years. Just stop it.
10 characters.

Ngatachance92
10-30-2011, 02:44 AM
I wouldn't do it with the position the Rams are in, they just have too many other needs. i think trading the pick and essentially Luck will give them more value to restock the team than trading Bradford would. Luck is not a sure thing as much as everyone wants to believe and at this point I would basically be taking the guy I've seen play in the NFL a little over the guy I haven't seen at all. Is Luck a rare prospect that doesn't come along that often? Yes, however they just drafted Bradford, despite Lucks notoriety as a prospect I think you give Bradford the weapons and see what he can do. It's just way too early to pull the plug on him.

holt_bruce81
10-30-2011, 03:29 AM
I'm telling you right now....

#1 pick to Cleveland for both their 2012 first rounders and their 2nd rounder and 2013 first rounder...

and then they going to pick up Justin Blackmon and Alshon Jeffery or Justin Blackmon and Trent Richardson!

I've already seen it happen, it's called the flux capacitor. Jealous much?

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
10-30-2011, 09:48 PM
STL wins against the Saints without Bradford hmmm

holt_bruce81
10-30-2011, 11:46 PM
STL wins against the Saints without Bradford hmmm

Because Steven Jackson went beast mode. And the Defense decided to play.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
10-31-2011, 09:01 AM
no no, i think it's quite clear it's because aj feeley was so good. and that sam bradford is the worst qb ever. you should totally take his word for it, too. i mean, he's probably never even watched a rams game.

Ah i love making wild asinine assumptions too. What Feeley did in this game is on par with anything Bradford has done this season.

onejayhawk
10-31-2011, 09:14 AM
With the game this week, the subject may have become moot. I was wondering if the Colts would draft Luck, with the intent of having him train under Peyton for a year or two. They might actually do it with Barkley or one of the others.

J

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
10-31-2011, 10:25 AM
you certainly do. just see above. though, i wouldn't, realistically, call that an assumption. just an absurdly horrific understanding of football in general.

Pot meet kettle. If you subbed out AJ Feeley and Sam Bradford nobody would notice a difference. Other then Feeley can win a game and against one of the top teams none the less.

49erNation85
10-31-2011, 11:37 AM
It is funny you guys still think Bradford would not have won this game,really?Just because Feeley?Bradford is still the better QB by far.I think the saints just got soft some how.But any who we don't have to worry about them with number one pick any more.

soybean
10-31-2011, 01:38 PM
I wouldn't do it with the position the Rams are in, they just have too many other needs. i think trading the pick and essentially Luck will give them more value to restock the team than trading Bradford would. Luck is not a sure thing as much as everyone wants to believe and at this point I would basically be taking the guy I've seen play in the NFL a little over the guy I haven't seen at all. Is Luck a rare prospect that doesn't come along that often? Yes, however they just drafted Bradford, despite Lucks notoriety as a prospect I think you give Bradford the weapons and see what he can do. It's just way too early to pull the plug on him.

why is that a reason to not draft luck?

just because they take a luck first they won't ever get a chance to address other needs? I don't get that line of thinking.

What it boils down to simply is... If the you see Andrew Luck as simply better than Sam Bradford, you take Andrew Luck.

You take the player you feel is better, it's as simple as that.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
10-31-2011, 02:44 PM
yup. that whole win was entirely on feeley. if sam bradford had started, steven jackson probably wouldn't have bothered running. the defense wouldn't have bothered playing. and they'd have lost by 4,012,324 points. brilliant analysis.

i mean, clearly the only reason the rams aren't literally undefeated right now is sam bradford. they're probably the single most talented team in nfl history, but their qb is so bad that he's just holding them back. it's unbelieveable that he's even in the league.

Exactly right. The whole team would have laid down and Breesus would have been himself if Bradford was there. Perhaps McDaniels would have had Bradford sling the ball 40 times instead of letting Jackson run wild, i can makeup scenarios too. I mean Bradford has clearly been such a playmaker and lead a great offense when he has played the last 10 games it is amazing the team can't seem to win.

RaiderNation
10-31-2011, 03:05 PM
The Rams need to go BPA, whether it be Kalil, Claiborne or Blackmon. They need more talent all around, but I just can't see them giving up on Bradford. They will end up tallying up some wins if Bradford can return to form, maybe end up 6-10.

D-Unit
10-31-2011, 03:11 PM
They won't get the #1 pick.

/thread.

Babylon
10-31-2011, 03:13 PM
They won't get the #1 pick. They play Seattle twice.

/thread.

Had to fix that for ya.

Thread Killer
10-31-2011, 06:23 PM
Should be a no brainer that the Rams would trade the pick.

Especially for anyone who happened to understand that moving Bradford would result in about $25 million or more in dead money against the Rams salary cap in 2012.

Thread Killed. :-)

nepg
10-31-2011, 06:33 PM
Should be a no brainer that the Rams would trade the pick.

Especially for anyone who happened to understand that moving Bradford would result in about $25 million or more in dead money against the Rams salary cap in 2012.

Thread Killed. :-)
It's weird. Draftniks on the internet used to understand the salary cap :(. The money makes it impossible for the Rams to even consider the move. If this was the NBA, it'd be a viable option and they'd even be saving money.

armageddon
11-02-2011, 04:31 PM
STL wins against the Saints without Bradford hmmm



Because the defense decided to show up and SJax decided to run for a change. Feely wasn't very good. He missed a wide open Lloyd for 2 TD's.

WCH
11-02-2011, 04:45 PM
It's weird. Draftniks on the internet used to understand the salary cap :(.

I contend that this is because those CBA's were worked out and reasonably well explained in the mainstream sports media, back in the days before Disney had fully integrated ESPN.

Blame Mickey Mouse for the decline of sports discourse.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
11-06-2011, 08:20 PM
Bradford brings the lulz again

fenikz
11-06-2011, 08:33 PM
hes not god awful or anything but to pass on Luck for him just seems dumb

MI_Buckeye
11-06-2011, 11:31 PM
It's weird. Draftniks on the internet used to understand the salary cap :(. The money makes it impossible for the Rams to even consider the move. If this was the NBA, it'd be a viable option and they'd even be saving money.

Don't take offense, but I'm not entirely confident you understand the salary cap. I'm pretty sure the Rams wouldn't be on the hook for all that much money and matters like that could be negotiated in any potential trade.

I'm certainly no cap expert, but something tells me you don't know as much as you think you do. I mean guys make six-figure salaries trying to figure this stuff out.

Iamcanadian
11-07-2011, 12:03 AM
They would definitely be torn over which way to go, Trade Bradford for 2 one's and maybe another 2nd and 3rd rounder or trade Luck for even more picks. It would come down to how high they rate each QB. If they see Luck as being substantially better QB than Bradford, then it would be a very tough call.
If I'm the GM, I trade Bradford because I believe Luck will give you a couple of Super Bowl wins for sure while Bradford might not quite get me there.

DraftSavant
11-07-2011, 12:15 AM
They would definitely be torn over which way to go, Trade Bradford for 2 one's and maybe another 2nd and 3rd rounder or trade Luck for even more picks. It would come down to how high they rate each QB. If they see Luck as being substantially better QB than Bradford, then it would be a very tough call.
If I'm the GM, I trade Bradford because I believe Luck will give you a couple of Super Bowl wins for sure while Bradford might not quite get me there.

It might not even be that extreme. It could just come down to: "is Sam Bradford $30 million better than Andrew Luck?" Unfortunately, they'd pretty much be stuck with that dead money that would be incurred by moving him.

Babylon
11-07-2011, 01:11 PM
They would definitely be torn over which way to go, Trade Bradford for 2 one's and maybe another 2nd and 3rd rounder or trade Luck for even more picks. It would come down to how high they rate each QB. If they see Luck as being substantially better QB than Bradford, then it would be a very tough call.
If I'm the GM, I trade Bradford because I believe Luck will give you a couple of Super Bowl wins for sure while Bradford might not quite get me there.

The implication of the thread is that Bradford isnt playing well and maybe isnt as good as advertised. I think a team would be extremely foolish to give up 2 #1s and either a 2nd or 3rd. Having said that there are plenty of suckers out there.

Saints-Tigers
11-07-2011, 01:14 PM
Nobody gives superbowls "for sure". PEyton Manning and John Elway are supposedly the best prospects EVER, and Peyton has one, and Elway had to hang on till he was near 40 with a dominant running game to get it...

MI_Buckeye
11-08-2011, 04:42 PM
this page (http://www.howstuffworks.com/question644.htm) took me literally 1/3 of a second to find and basically confirms nepg's post. try research next time, instead of 'submit'.

One thing, this page is over ten years old. The CBA of those times is a thing of the past. Plus, even if this was true, that would mean mean St. Louis would be taking about a $10 million cap hit for Bradford, since they wouldn't be paying his base salary. When you figure that they would also be paying Luck a much smaller base salary than Bradford over the period in which Bradford's bonus counts against the Rams, so it should end up being a slighthit on the overall cap number. It certainly would be a deal breaker.

Saints-Tigers
11-08-2011, 05:23 PM
The difference in revenue generated from going from average to bad QB to dominant, franchise QB would easily make up for the lost money in the first year, over the long run I... at least I'd think so.

That's if the gap is that big of course. Personally, I think Andrew Luck is an outstanding prospect, and I never liked Bradford much, and think he's getting "franchise QB" treatment, only because he was the first pick.

If you could go back knowing what you know now about Alex Smith, would you as the 49ers select Luck number 1 coming off of Smith's 2nd season? I sure would as an owner, it would be a big monetary risk, but I'd go for it.

armageddon
11-08-2011, 06:28 PM
Bradford played ok for not practicing in nearly a month. He moved the team, he just couldn't convert in the RZ. Bradford is MUCH better than people are giving him credit for. Remember, this is his 2nd offense he had to learn, plus no OTA's. Josh was asking him to throw with 5-7 step drops with an o-line that wasn't giving him time and WR's that couldn't get seperation. Bradford has huge potential and major athletecism. He will get it worked out in the next couple years. Getting a true #1 wr like Blackmon will help too.

Blackmon, LLoyd, Amendola, DX, Salas and Pettis looks legit.

soybean
11-08-2011, 06:35 PM
Bradford played ok for not practicing in nearly a month. He moved the team, he just couldn't convert in the RZ. Bradford is MUCH better than people are giving him credit for. Remember, this is his 2nd offense he had to learn, plus no OTA's. Josh was asking him to throw with 5-7 step drops with an o-line that wasn't giving him time and WR's that couldn't get seperation. Bradford has huge potential and major athletecism. He will get it worked out in the next couple years. Getting a true #1 wr like Blackmon will help too.

Blackmon, LLoyd, Amendola, DX, Salas and Pettis looks legit.

You know who also had no OTA's? everyone.

armageddon
11-08-2011, 07:00 PM
You know who also had no OTA's? everyone.



How many were 2nd year QB's with a new offense ?

Flyboy
11-08-2011, 07:06 PM
How many were 2nd year QB's with a new offense ?

Not sure that argument really holds credibility when one looks at the success Andy Dalton and Cam Newton are having this season.

fenikz
11-08-2011, 07:30 PM
Rams defense/Cardinals offense set the Rams offense up over and over again inside the 40 and they came away with nothing

holt_bruce81
11-08-2011, 08:23 PM
Rams defense/Cardinals offense set the Rams offense up over and over again inside the 40 and they came away with nothing

Because the playcalling gets dumber and dumber. FB dives, 3-TE set......you won't fool anyone.

Rams need to trade the pick and snag Alshon Jeffery or Justin Blackmon later in the round, Give Sam that elite receiver. IMO you can look at Schaub the same way as Sam. He's not an elite Quarterback but you give him that elite receiver and he's going to put up some very good numbers. Schaubs comp% has dropped nearly 10% since Andre was injured.

Look at what Schaub did in the redzone with Andre from 2008-2010

59.6% comp% (130/218) 51 Tds, 6 ints, 4.21 yards per pass play (9 sacks)

2011....

48.8 comp% (21/43) 7 Tds, 2 ints, 2.95 yards per pass play (3 sacks)

Saints-Tigers
11-08-2011, 08:50 PM
and all that's gotten cam one more win than the rams have. *shrug*


LMFAO, gimme a break dude.

Saints-Tigers
11-08-2011, 09:04 PM
??? yup, you're right. sam bradford is the worst qb in the history of football.


I didn't see anyone here say that, nor does that have anything to do with... well... anything.

Nice deflect? Idk, was really kinda weak.

the new jesus
11-08-2011, 09:19 PM
njx9 =

http://allfunny-stuff.com/pics/nerds/nerds-3.jpg

Saints-Tigers
11-08-2011, 09:23 PM
so which butthurt ex-user are you?

Lol, for real. I don't even get the joke. Is he saying you're a fat Falcons fan?

Complex
11-08-2011, 09:31 PM
Because the playcalling gets dumber and dumber. FB dives, 3-TE set......you won't fool anyone.

Rams need to trade the pick and snag Alshon Jeffery or Justin Blackmon later in the round, Give Sam that elite receiver. IMO you can look at Schaub the same way as Sam. He's not an elite Quarterback but you give him that elite receiver and he's going to put up some very good numbers. Schaubs comp% has dropped nearly 10% since Andre was injured.

Look at what Schaub did in the redzone with Andre from 2008-2010

59.6% comp% (130/218) 51 Tds, 6 ints, 4.21 yards per pass play (9 sacks)

2011....

48.8 comp% (21/43) 7 Tds, 2 ints, 2.95 yards per pass play (3 sacks)

Every QB needs great WR or TE. Name me one that didn't besides Phillip Rivers last year.

Saints-Tigers
11-08-2011, 09:37 PM
Every QB needs great WR or TE. Name me one that didn't besides Phillip Rivers last year.

2008 Drew Brees? 5000 yards, 34 TDs, with no 1000 yard receiver, with only Lance Moore and Devery Henderson playing 16 games (and being the leading receivers).

Now I don't expect everyone to dominate with nothing around them, but I expect great QB's to not look completely awful and useless either.

NGSeiler
11-09-2011, 06:35 AM
Bradford played ok for not practicing in nearly a month. He moved the team, he just couldn't convert in the RZ.

Which has been a problem all year, not just this week coming off of limited practice. As a Rams fan, that's a bit concerning.

But I agree with you regarding his need for a #1 receiver. Blackmon would be my ideal choice for the Rams at this point in the process.

WCH
11-09-2011, 07:35 AM
2008 Drew Brees? 5000 yards, 34 TDs, with no 1000 yard receiver, with only Lance Moore and Devery Henderson playing 16 games (and being the leading receivers).

Now I don't expect everyone to dominate with nothing around them, but I expect great QB's to not look completely awful and useless either.

Brett Favre also made Bill Schroeder look like a 1000 yard receiver. During a 4-year stretch in Green Bay, Schroeder caught 3400 of his 4500 career yards. He actually led Green Bay in receiving yards for two years during the Sherman era.

The guy wasn't very good, Favre was just taking "throwing him open" to new levels.

holt_bruce81
11-09-2011, 08:51 PM
Every QB needs great WR or TE. Name me one that didn't besides Phillip Rivers last year.

That's my point though. Unless you have an elite Quarterback who makes everyone around him better, you need that elite receiver. Bradford has never had that. People using Bradford and Trade in the same sentence are pooh brains.

Complex
11-09-2011, 11:11 PM
That's my point though. Unless you have an elite Quarterback who makes everyone around him better, you need that elite receiver. Bradford has never had that. People using Bradford and Trade in the same sentence are pooh brains.

No, I meant that even great QB need good to great WR or else they struggle see Peyton last year and he still had Wayne and Garcon.Brady didn't really struggle but he wasn't elite stat wise until he had Randy Moss.

Complex
11-09-2011, 11:18 PM
2008 Drew Brees? 5000 yards, 34 TDs, with no 1000 yard receiver, with only Lance Moore and Devery Henderson playing 16 games (and being the leading receivers).

Now I don't expect everyone to dominate with nothing around them, but I expect great QB's to not look completely awful and useless either.

Tell one QB that wouldn't struggle with Bradford supporting cast? keep in my Steven Jackson was injured when Bradford was healthy and Lloyd was in Denver. None of his WRs prior to Lloyd arriving would even be top 4 WR in NO now or 2008.

HorusKing
11-10-2011, 04:21 AM
Bradford is a good qb after his rookie season no one was even coming close to a conversation like this. The guy has 0 wr's and the offensive line sucks against the pass rush. With the rams changing from a west coast offense to the patriots offense that stupid mcdaniels put in place has slowed him down as well so the organization has made some bad choice not giving him the tools that he needs and changing an offense that he was very successful in as a rookie.