sam bradford

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Someone is gaga for Bradford and won't hear of anything to the contrary

If you say one bad word about Chase Daniel I'll f***ing ban your ass for life!

[NYCSkin]

Originally Posted by skinster

Not sure how key of a member Saffold is, and I'm not sure how good the O-line is. Lets get real, zero of us watch the rams games enough to know how good saffold is doing. I know I will get jumped on for saying this, but I do think it is reasonable to say he is not ideal just based on the fact that he is a rookie second rounder.

Yes, I am saying that Steven Jackson is not doing well, which is not helping bradford at all. And the other RB's are doing even worse.

I'm not saying that the oc is bad because I do not know if he is. I'm just saying that the fact that rams fans are calling for his job is indicative that he is clearly not the shining star that would cause bradfords success.

Lets get real, nobody in their right mind thinks McCoy is even close to Bradford. Bradford is carrying his team and putting up respectable numbers with nobody. I really don't care what McCoy's passer rating is when he has a 1:1 td to int ratio, 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards a game. Also, McCoy greatly benefits from Hillis in the same way that Ryan and Flacco benefited from their rushing attacks back in 2008. Before you jump to conclusions, I am not saying McCoy is bad, but IMO he has not impressed yet, and is not even comparable to bradford.

Allow me to be the one to jump first...

Saffold has given up only two sacks this year as a rookie LT.

[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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by skinster

He has no support on offense whatsoever. The rams arguably had the worst receiving corp in the league BEFORE 3 of his top 4 receivers got placed on IR. He has a second round rookie protecting his weak side, and a 30 year old career backup guard starting on his strong side (he has. He is not getting support from a running game that averages 3.8 yards per carry and only has 7 tds. And he has no tight end.

I disagree he has no healthy WRs but imo he does have the two most important factors for a young QB: a good OL and good coaching.
Stehpen Jackson is consider by most savvy NFL fan's one if the best RB in the league who BTW already has a 1,000+yards @ 3.9 ypc.
He has 2 TEs but they aren't 'name' TEs but they're producing at a high level.

Originally Posted by skinster

Not sure how key of a member Saffold is, and I'm not sure how good the O-line is. Lets get real, zero of us watch the rams games enough to know how good saffold is doing. I know I will get jumped on for saying this, but I do think it is reasonable to say he is not ideal just based on the fact that he is a rookie second rounder.

Speak for yourself my friend i watch a lot of football.
Sometimes at a bar sometimes opn RZ sometimes i even watch the NFL package 30 minute re-caps.
Saffold is playing well and the Rams have a good OL.

Yes, I am saying that Steven Jackson is not doing well, which is not helping bradford at all. And the other RB's are doing even worse.

1,000+yards 3.9 ypc is not doing well?

I'm not saying that the oc is bad because I do not know if he is. I'm just saying that the fact that rams fans are calling for his job is indicative that he is clearly not the shining star that would cause bradfords success.

How can you argue like this? Its not logical.
You don't know but you're gonna assume he's not doing a good job b/c somewhere that you don't quote claims Shurmur should be fired?
If you ask me nicely i'll tell you about Shurmur, but he has designed a nice offense predicated on Bradford making easy reads and getting the ball out quick.

Lets get real, nobody in their right mind thinks McCoy is even close to Bradford. Bradford is carrying his team and putting up respectable numbers with nobody. I really don't care what McCoy's passer rating is when he has a 1:1 td to int ratio, 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards a game. Also, McCoy greatly benefits from Hillis in the same way that Ryan and Flacco benefited from their rushing attacks back in 2008. Before you jump to conclusions, I am not saying McCoy is bad, but IMO he has not impressed yet, and is not even comparable to bradford.

I'll get back to this one^^

[skinster]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I disagree he has no healthy WRs but imo he does have the two most important factors for a young QB: a good OL and good coaching.
Stehpen Jackson is consider by most savvy NFL fan's one if the best RB in the league who BTW already has a 1,000+yards @ 3.9 ypc.
He has 2 TEs but they aren't 'name' TEs but they're producing at a high level.



Speak for yourself my friend i watch a lot of football.
Sometimes at a bar sometimes opn RZ sometimes i even watch the NFL package 30 minute re-caps.
Saffold is playing well and the Rams have a good OL.


1,000+yards 3.9 ypc is not doing well?


How can you argue like this? Its not logical.
You don't know but you're gonna assume he's not doing a good job b/c somewhere that you don't quote claims Shurmur should be fired?
If you ask me nicely i'll tell you about Shurmur, but he has designed a nice offense predicated on Bradford making easy reads and getting the ball out quick.


I'll get back to this one^^

3.9 ypc is junk.

His TEs are not named tight ends because they are not good...none of them have started a full season in their career.

There is literally no way you watch enough rams games to analyze how good of a job saffold is doing week in and week out. I'm calling shenanigans on that one.

I never said shurmar was bad, I just said he's not a stud oc that carries his team. Yes I do think a team movement to get him banned does say at least that much.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by skinster

3.9 ypc is junk.

How about the 1,000+ yards that goes along the with the ypc not to mention the 10th ranked yards per game that Jackson provides?

His TEs are not named tight ends because they are not good...none of them have started a full season in their career.

There production doesn't matter b/c you haven't heard of them before?
There's literally no logic in your statement.
You realize that every player at some point has never started a full season in their career at somepoint?

There is literally no way you watch enough rams games to analyze how good of a job saffold is doing week in and week out. I'm calling shenanigans on that one.

Just b/c you don't watch a lot of football doesn't stop the rest of us from watching other teams.
Also i never said i analyzed Saffold but you're making a blind claim about him just b/c it suits you're argument, which again is the absence of logic and another poster cleared up the question about Saffold quite nicely for us.

I never said shurmar was bad, I just said he's not a stud oc that carries his team. Yes I do think a team movement to get him banned does say at least that much.

If you back pedal any further you're fall off a ledge.
LoL a team movement? Really?
Care to support claims w/something? a quote a link something

[rypper11]

Originally Posted by skinster

3.9 ypc is junk.

His TEs are not named tight ends because they are not good...none of them have started a full season in their career.

There is literally no way you watch enough rams games to analyze how good of a job saffold is doing week in and week out. I'm calling shenanigans on that one.

I do watch a lot of Rams games (not all mind you because they are sometimes at the same time as the Skins) and, while I can't say anything specifically about Saffold, the OLine is good but inconsistent.
Jackson is still a stud RB if not one of the best in the league. Part of his ypc avg being below 4.0 is the 10man fronts he's facing. There is no viable deep threat to stretch the field.
When games are tied he's averaging 5.0 ypc, when the Rams are behind it's 4.5 and when ahead it's only 3.1. Against Seattle and Carolina (both wins) the whole defense knew he was getting the ball and he still was running over guys though he was being hit first in the backfield and gaining very little yardage.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by skinster

Lets get real, nobody in their right mind thinks McCoy is even close to Bradford.

Only time will answer this question.
But there are some former coaches turned analyst that thought very highly of and McCoy and one who claimed that McCoy was the most pro-ready of the QBs to some out last year.

Bradford is carrying his team and putting up respectable numbers with nobody.

Finally we agree.

I really don't care what McCoy's passer rating is when he has a 1:1 td to int ratio, 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards a game.

How can argue with this logic when you flat out dismiss one of the main metric used to judge QB performance?

Also, McCoy greatly benefits from Hillis

Stephen Jackson actually gives Bradford more yards per game then Hillis does for the Browns: 83.2 ypg vs 82.3 ypg
NFL Stats: by Player Category

IMO he has not impressed yet, and is not even comparable to bradford.

Of course you're not impressed by McCoy (for one you've probably never watched him play) b/c in your mind it would probably take away from Bradford's performance.
But, if you were to take an honest look at McCoy's 1st starts even statistically w/o watching the games you can see he's gone up against against some pretty good defenses like the Steelers and Jets defense that gives established NFL QBs fits he's played well.

[skinster]

[quote]

Originally Posted by 30gut

How about the 1,000+ yards that goes along the with the ypc not to mention the 10th ranked yards per game that Jackson provides?

Jackson is the only one on that team that gets carries...that is why he is ranked so high in yards. 3.9 yds per carry is even less impressive when you have only 4 tds...indicative on not being a short yardage back.

There production doesn't matter b/c you haven't heard of them before?
There's literally no logic in your statement.
You realize that every player at some point has never started a full season in their career at somepoint

You misinterpret me. I'm not saying that because they are not know that automatically means they are not good, I'm saying that with these guys they are not known because they are not good...look at their start totals.
Any quality TE would have started at least close to one full season.

Just b/c you don't watch a lot of football doesn't stop the rest of us from watching other teams.
Also i never said i analyzed Saffold but you're making a blind claim about him just b/c it suits you're argument, which again is the absence of logic and another poster cleared up the question about Saffold quite nicely for us.

First of all, you did say you watch them play, and said saffold is good...you honestly can't know that about an O-lineman unless you are paying attention to him, please don't backtrack.

Second of all, there is no blind claim being made. It is a claim based on statistics. Putting ANY rookie offensive linemen in usually isn't ideal, but to have a non-first round OL really isn't ideal. Yes it's true he could be doing well. But with not having analyzed him it is not unreasonable to assume that a second round rookie OL isn't ideal.

Thirdly (is that a word?), sacks is not a statistic. The reason behind that is it is too hard to know who gave up what sack. Bradford's been sacked 27 times playing in the nfc west...someone has got to be busting some coverages on that great o-line. But 2 credited is still impressive, I might be wrong and he might be good, but even if he is I do not find it wrong for me to assume that he is not an ideal blind protector this year (just like I still don't think bellicheck made the wrong decision to go for it on 4th and 2 against the colts last year)

Lastly, I watch every football time slot on TV...which is 4 a week during most weeks. That's only 8 teams a week I can watch playing at any given time...so at most I'd only be able to have seen about 3 rams games so far if I chose to watch them over other games. That's simple math telling us that no, you most definitely have not watched enough rams games to make any statement about their left tackle.

If you back pedal any further you're fall off a ledge.
LoL a team movement? Really?
Care to support claims w/something? a quote a link something

I would love you to show me when I said he was bad.
And I had a typo about the "team movement" comment, I meant to say "home team movement" as in the fans not the players. But I actually just read the link I saw, and I was wrong about that too. Here's the link I saw St. Louis Please Fire Pat Shurmur Still the guy does not seem to have a good enough pedigree to credit bradfords success to him.

Lastly, please stop insulting my logic, trust me, there is nothing wrong with it.

[skinster]

How can argue with this logic when you flat out dismiss one of the main metric used to judge QB performance?

Its just what I value when evaluating qb's. I've noticed that as a trend, the quarterbacks that throw the most td passes year in and year out have a tendency to be the best....same with rookie qb's and projecting them. Not always right, but its what I've found to be the most accurate measurement of rookie qbs.

Stephen Jackson actually gives Bradford more yards per game then Hillis does for the Browns: 83.2 ypg vs 82.3 ypg
NFL Stats: by Player Category

Actually the browns get more yards per game than the rams. But they are close enough that it is irrelivant. What I find to be most relivant for a featured back is YPC and TDs. The fact that Jackson has significantly worse ypc, but the same yards means that the rams (bradford) completes more 3rd down conversions than the browns.

Of course you're not impressed by McCoy (for one you've probably never watched him play) b/c in your mind it would probably take away from Bradford's performance.
But, if you were to take an honest look at McCoy's 1st starts even statistically w/o watching the games you can see he's gone up against against some pretty good defenses like the Steelers and Jets defense that gives established NFL QBs fits he's played well.

Thanks bud, your a pal. Anyways, I view McCoy as a lesser roethlesberger. Someone who is not a conventional qb, but finds a way to win. His numbers do suck though, and he has not done enough to convince me beyond doubt that he has what it takes to lead a winning ballclub. I haven't written McCoy off yet, but he still hasn't done enough to prove anything to me.

[GusFrerotte]

Bradford is the real deal, and I thought he would end up like Leinart. He would have gotten pounded here though with this line. Look at Donovan. Statistically, he isn't that bad, but considering he doesn'thave a line to give him any kind of support, you could imagine a rook behind this line.

[MTK]

Bradford does a good job at getting the ball out quick, he would probably be fine behind our OL.

[sportscurmudgeon]

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.

Thank you. Always nice to read something that comes from rational thought and not glandular secretions.

Sam Bradford is a good rookie QB with loads of potential to become an outstanding QB in the NFL.

However, you can go back in the threads for the Warpath and find LOTS of folks here who were certain that Patrick Ramsey would be a great QB in the NFL because his rookie stats and his second season stats were better than those of Brett Favre and Peyton Manning - - just to name two "pretty good QBs" who had bad rookie seasons.

Before anyone incorrectly concludes that I believe Sam Bradford is destined to be the same as Patrick Ramesy, I do NOT. But I am not ready to anoint Sam Bradford as the nex incarnation of John Elway either... Give him time to show what he can do.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Bradford does a good job at getting the ball out quick, he would probably be fine behind our OL.

Minus T. Williams or with him?