sam bradford

[MTK]

This article is obviously a little dated now, but it could be a good starting off point for this discussion

From Peyton Manning to Jake Delhomme, ESPN's John Clayton ranks the NFL's starting QBs - ESPN

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

This article is obviously a little dated now, but it could be a good starting off point for this discussion

From Peyton Manning to Jake Delhomme, ESPN's John Clayton ranks the NFL's starting QBs - ESPN

I know it is dated but they have McNabb at 9 and Bradford at 30 and Schaub at 14; even at the time of the printing Schaub is better then DM5.

DM5 in my book is done, I totally see him as a stop gap at this point and not the guy to get us to the playoffs anymore. He has just been plain awful and honestly at this point I wish we had kept JC and looked for someone in this draft. Seriously though if bringing in DM5 only gained us one more win over 2009 I rather have those draft picks back and had watched JC17/8 play like a bum this year.

But I know water under the bridge at this point.

[MTK]

I think McNabb can still get it done, he needs to get better in this offense but he can still play.

[Defensewins]

Anything can happen and it usually does.
For those of you that claim to know everything and have called McNabb over and done have every right to say whatever you want. No matter how stupid or inflexible you sound.
Just a few years ago Mike Vick was sitting in a jail cell and even as late as last year people were saying he was done. The so called experts were saying Vick had missed too much time, was too old to come back and even approach his old (Falcon's days) level of play. Well look at how well Mike Vick is doing in 2010!

By contrast today's favorite bandwagon that every front runner is jumping on (Sam Bradford) is one play or injury or playing slump from being yesterdays news. The guy does have a history of missing a lot time due to injuries. He is talented and should do well, but lets not get ahead of our selves and label him a franchise qb just yet.
It is very premature for a guy that has not played an entire season to be mixed in with the elite QB's of all time.

[skinsguy]

Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.

Dating back to the beginning of my life (1989...21 years ago), the only 3 teams that have won a superbowl without a franchise qb are the ravens (dilfer), bucs (johnson...who was a pro bowler), and redskins (Rypien....was a pro bowler). The bucs and the ravens had two of the best defenses of all time also.
The QB's that won the other 18 superbowls

Favre
Aikman
Young
Montana
Simms
Brady
P. Manning
Warner
E. Manning
Brees
Roethlesberger
Elway

All of them are either going to be in the HOF or got a contract that deemed them the "franchise" qb.

[rypper11]

Originally Posted by skinster

Favre
Aikman
Young
Montana
Simms
Brady
P. Manning
Warner
E. Manning
Brees
Roethlesberger
Elway

All of them are either going to be in the HOF or got a contract that deemed them the "franchise" qb.

Phil Simms? Franchise QB? He wasn't even his team's best qb (Hostetler was). And of those on the list, IMO, only Peyton, Montana and possibly Brees is better than Marino who never won a SB so more than a franchise qb is needed. And, don't forget that Elway only won a SB once he had a great running game.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by rypper11

Phil Simms? Franchise QB? He wasn't even his team's best qb (Hostetler was). And of those on the list, IMO, only Peyton, Montana and possibly Brees is better than Marino who never won a SB so more than a franchise qb is needed. And, don't forget that Elway only won a SB once he had a great running game.

Simms started 14 years for the giants. I'd say he was a franchise qb. But even if you disagree, the numbers are now 17 franchise sb victories to 4 non...and 3 of the 4 non and some of the best defenses of all time (I was 2 when the Giants won, but I assume that was the LT defense that I've heard so much about)

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by skinster

Dating back to the beginning of my life (1989...21 years ago), the only 3 teams that have won a superbowl without a franchise qb are the ravens (dilfer), bucs (johnson...who was a pro bowler), and redskins (Rypien....was a pro bowler). The bucs and the ravens had two of the best defenses of all time also.
The QB's that won the other 18 superbowls

Favre
Aikman
Young
Montana
Simms
Brady
P. Manning
Warner
E. Manning
Brees
Roethlesberger
Elway

All of them are either going to be in the HOF or got a contract that deemed them the "franchise" qb.

Yeah, thanks for proving my point even further. Out of all of the teams that these mentioned QBs play for, I see only three that can be consistent winners without these QBs during their respective eras. Present day Pittsburgh, Montana era 49ers, and Aikman era Cowboys. And even further analysis will tell you that the Cowboys dropped off after Aikman left the game, 49ers dropped off after Young left, leaving only Pittsburgh as a consistent winner (but not Super Bowl level) without Roethlesberger. The Giants would be nothing without Eli, the Saints would be nothing without Brees, The Colts nothing without Manning, etc....

However, on the flipside, the Redskins remained consistent winners throughout the 80's (except for the '88 season) with different QBs at the helm. Joe Theismann, Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien. Why? Because the team was solid overall. So solid that Gibbs could plug just about any decent QB in and win with him. In fact, the only "franchise" QB the Redskins had in that era was Joe Theismann.

Sure, I would much rather have a complete team with a "franchise" QB who's going to be with the team for years to come, but I would be OK to know that the team was solid despite who plays QB. Those teams tend to be consistent winners no matter who is at QB.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Yeah, thanks for proving my point even further. Out of all of the teams that these mentioned QBs play for, I see only three that can be consistent winners without these QBs during their respective eras. Present day Pittsburgh, Montana era 49ers, and Aikman era Cowboys. And even further analysis will tell you that the Cowboys dropped off after Aikman left the game, 49ers dropped off after Young left, leaving only Pittsburgh as a consistent winner (but not Super Bowl level) without Roethlesberger. The Giants would be nothing without Eli, the Saints would be nothing without Brees, The Colts nothing without Manning, etc....

However, on the flipside, the Redskins remained consistent winners throughout the 80's (except for the '88 season) with different QBs at the helm. Joe Theismann, Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, and Mark Rypien. Why? Because the team was solid overall. So solid that Gibbs could plug just about any decent QB in and win with him. In fact, the only "franchise" QB the Redskins had in that era was Joe Theismann.

Sure, I would much rather have a complete team with a "franchise" QB who's going to be with the team for years to come, but I would be OK to know that the team was solid despite who plays QB. Those teams tend to be consistent winners no matter who is at QB.

Yea well I want a superbowl, and I think to try and accomplish anything else is ludacris, and I don't really understand why you wouldn't want that either.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.

Almost every transaction in football a gamble. That said, busting on a franchise qb may not be that bad because since the QB will make the team lose, the team will have higher draft picks in the subsequent years. They can then use those high draft picks to stock up the roster. Of course, this only applies if the team is just using it's normal 1st rounder and did not trade a bunch of stuff away for the pick.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Anything can happen and it usually does.
For those of you that claim to know everything and have called McNabb over and done have every right to say whatever you want. No matter how stupid or inflexible you sound.
Just a few years ago Mike Vick was sitting in a jail cell and even as late as last year people were saying he was done. The so called experts were saying Vick had missed too much time, was too old to come back and even approach his old (Falcon's days) level of play. Well look at how well Mike Vick is doing in 2010!

By contrast today's favorite bandwagon that every front runner is jumping on (Sam Bradford) is one play or injury or playing slump from being yesterdays news. The guy does have a history of missing a lot time due to injuries. He is talented and should do well, but lets not get ahead of our selves and label him a franchise qb just yet.
It is very premature for a guy that has not played an entire season to be mixed in with the elite QB's of all time.

All very true and in the 25 plus years I have been watching the NFL I have learned one thing: everything can turn on a dime in the NFL.

[MTK]

Hostetler better than Simms? No way.

[GTripp0012]

Can I be the first to point out that Bradford is having a pretty poor season? If you limit your quarterbacks to all rookies, then by virtue of not being a disaster, Bradford has exceeded expectations. But we've seen Joe Flacco, Ben Roethlisberger, and Matt Ryan have better rookie years in recent times. His season looks a lot like Vince Young's rookie year, but without the long, dynamic runs.

Granted: he may have the worst supporting cast of any of those guys, and whether or not the Rams make the playoffs this year, it looks like the sky is the limit for Sam Bradford. But as a rookie, he's been a moderately below average NFL QB. It was better than Freeman, Sanchez, and Stafford from last year, but you only have to go back another year to find two rookie QBs having more success than Bradford.

The ability of Bradford to win in the future is tied more to the Rams' ability to add talent to his offense so that they can win with offense rather than Bradford himself.

[skinster]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Can I be the first to point out that Bradford is having a pretty poor season? If you limit your quarterbacks to all rookies, then by virtue of not being a disaster, Bradford has exceeded expectations. But we've seen Joe Flacco, Ben Roethlisberger, and Matt Ryan have better rookie years in recent times. His season looks a lot like Vince Young's rookie year, but without the long, dynamic runs.

Granted: he may have the worst supporting cast of any of those guys, and whether or not the Rams make the playoffs this year, it looks like the sky is the limit for Sam Bradford. But as a rookie, he's been a moderately below average NFL QB. It was better than Freeman, Sanchez, and Stafford from last year, but you only have to go back another year to find two rookie QBs having more success than Bradford.

The ability of Bradford to win in the future is tied more to the Rams' ability to add talent to his offense so that they can win with offense rather than Bradford himself.

I can see your arguments for Ryan and Roethlesberger being statistically better, but definitely not Flacco. Statistically I'd say that Roethlesberger was better (I know Ryan has the higher qb rating, but I like how many TDs Bradford has thrown for) , but in reality I'd say that Bradford is doing much better considering how close their numbers are and that Roethlesberger had respectable recievers and a great rushing attack while Bradfords recievers and rushing game are poop.