Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
An insensitive way to say he's not too smart. No pocket awareness, doesn't go through progressions, predetermines his target, locks onto his receiver, can't hold onto the ball. Whatever "it" is, that thing which makes some qbs good and other not, he doesn't have it. Looks the part in shorts, but that's it.
My comment wasn't about special needs kids, it was about Sam Bradford. And volunteering at the special Olympics will not change my opinion of him.
So your reference to a window licker was just to compare him to the many random people who lick windows for no reason. Not to compare him to any group in particular. Gotcha.
Eagles put up huge points with Sanchez. With Bradford they have not. QB is the most important position.
Is he? He got rid of one guy he felt wasn't the answer for another guy that he felt might be. Given his success overall in Philly, I don't think he has any remote chance of having his job ties to Sam Bradford's success. Two weeks is likely too quick to pull the trigger, sure, but if Bradford lays another egg or two I would bet we'll see Sanchez.
Not sure why a bunch of window lickers can't understand this and blame Bradford for the mess. Is Bradford the reason that DeMarco Murray is averaging under 1 yard per carry also? I mean he does hand the ball to Murray.
Murray has proven himself before coming to Philadelphia; even before his monstrous last season he's proven clearly a decent running back. He's doing poorly now because he can hardly get a clean hand off without defenders in his face.
I was at the game yesterday. Last year's line was twice as good.
The OL is to blame for Murrray's suckage but not for Bradford's. That is ####### awesome.
Was it everybody else's fault that Bradford did bad in St Louis?
Look, I am not defending Bradford at all (he has sucked so far) but didn't he have a terrible line and bad receivers in St. Louis? If you can name me any reasonably good starters for St. Louis in that area, I am all ears.Was it everybody else's fault that Bradford did bad in St Louis?
Plus, you just have to watch the game and decipher for yourself. Even when Bradford had time to throw, and an open receiver, he still threw an interception in the red zone, throwing it to the blanketed receiver.
Murray though, when he has room to run looks pretty good.
He got rid of a QB that went 15-4 for Bradford. He was chasing something. I think so.
Bradford has gotten unlucky in his surroundings so far, but he also hasn't done them any favors. If he had five seconds to throw and open receivers every play, he'd blow it up like the Big 12. He's in the NFL now, not Division 1.
Bradford looked real good in 2013 before injury. He was on pace for over 30 TDs. Yeah he was AWFUL while throwing to Hall Of Famers Chris Givens, Austin Pettis and Lance Kendricks.Look, I am not defending Bradford at all (he has sucked so far) but didn't he have a terrible line and bad receivers in St. Louis? If you can name me any reasonably good starters for St. Louis in that area, I am all ears.Was it everybody else's fault that Bradford did bad in St Louis?
Plus, you just have to watch the game and decipher for yourself. Even when Bradford had time to throw, and an open receiver, he still threw an interception in the red zone, throwing it to the blanketed receiver.
Murray though, when he has room to run looks pretty good.
He definitely had a below average supporting cast in STL -- but truly good QBs have also done more with less. I've watched most of both Philly games thus far and it looks to me like the same issues that he had with the Rams (bad under pressure, doesn't get the ball downfield) are present today. At some point, it's gotta be on Bradford himself. Yes, it's only two weeks -- but how much crappy play will it take before it's obvious that Bradford just isn't the answer? Does he get all season? I'd say definitely not, personally. Foles was MUCH better in the same system. Sanchez was better also, and I'm pretty sure he isn't very good at all. What does that say about Sam Bradford?Look, I am not defending Bradford at all (he has sucked so far) but didn't he have a terrible line and bad receivers in St. Louis? If you can name me any reasonably good starters for St. Louis in that area, I am all ears.Was it everybody else's fault that Bradford did bad in St Louis?
Plus, you just have to watch the game and decipher for yourself. Even when Bradford had time to throw, and an open receiver, he still threw an interception in the red zone, throwing it to the blanketed receiver.
Murray though, when he has room to run looks pretty good.
Terrible line play and multiple drops (mostly by Matthews) are why I'm willing to see if Bradford can turn things around. Plus the fact that he hasn't really played in two years. The most troubling thing I saw so far was yesterday's interception in the end zone. I was watching it develop live and I have no idea what he saw that made him make that throw. Sean Lee was right there the entire time. You throw that away. High school quarterbacks know better.He definitely had a below average supporting cast in STL -- but truly good QBs have also done more with less. I've watched most of both Philly games thus far and it looks to me like the same issues that he had with the Rams (bad under pressure, doesn't get the ball downfield) are present today. At some point, it's gotta be on Bradford himself. Yes, it's only two weeks -- but how much crappy play will it take before it's obvious that Bradford just isn't the answer? Does he get all season? I'd say definitely not, personally. Foles was MUCH better in the same system. Sanchez was better also, and I'm pretty sure he isn't very good at all. What does that say about Sam Bradford?Look, I am not defending Bradford at all (he has sucked so far) but didn't he have a terrible line and bad receivers in St. Louis? If you can name me any reasonably good starters for St. Louis in that area, I am all ears.Was it everybody else's fault that Bradford did bad in St Louis?
Plus, you just have to watch the game and decipher for yourself. Even when Bradford had time to throw, and an open receiver, he still threw an interception in the red zone, throwing it to the blanketed receiver.
Murray though, when he has room to run looks pretty good.
No, he didn't. He threw a lot of short TDs, so you probably loved him in FF, but he was below average by pretty much any other metric. He was far from "real good" as an NFL QB that year.Bradford looked real good in 2013 before injury. He was on pace for over 30 TDs. Yeah he was AWFUL while throwing to Hall Of Famers Chris Givens, Austin Pettis and Lance Kendricks.Look, I am not defending Bradford at all (he has sucked so far) but didn't he have a terrible line and bad receivers in St. Louis? If you can name me any reasonably good starters for St. Louis in that area, I am all ears.Was it everybody else's fault that Bradford did bad in St Louis?
Plus, you just have to watch the game and decipher for yourself. Even when Bradford had time to throw, and an open receiver, he still threw an interception in the red zone, throwing it to the blanketed receiver.
Murray though, when he has room to run looks pretty good.
Dude, Matt Barkley was even better.He definitely had a below average supporting cast in STL -- but truly good QBs have also done more with less. I've watched most of both Philly games thus far and it looks to me like the same issues that he had with the Rams (bad under pressure, doesn't get the ball downfield) are present today. At some point, it's gotta be on Bradford himself. Yes, it's only two weeks -- but how much crappy play will it take before it's obvious that Bradford just isn't the answer? Does he get all season? I'd say definitely not, personally. Foles was MUCH better in the same system. Sanchez was better also, and I'm pretty sure he isn't very good at all. What does that say about Sam Bradford?Look, I am not defending Bradford at all (he has sucked so far) but didn't he have a terrible line and bad receivers in St. Louis? If you can name me any reasonably good starters for St. Louis in that area, I am all ears.Was it everybody else's fault that Bradford did bad in St Louis?
Plus, you just have to watch the game and decipher for yourself. Even when Bradford had time to throw, and an open receiver, he still threw an interception in the red zone, throwing it to the blanketed receiver.
Murray though, when he has room to run looks pretty good.
Agree with you that he certainly needs (and gets) a longer leash than two games. But I'm not sure how much longer, personally, when Bradford has been worse (and much, much worse) than every other QB that Chip has trotted out there to take snaps since he showed up. Making fans yearn for Mark Sanchez is pretty freaking damning IMO.Terrible line play and multiple drops (mostly by Matthews) are why I'm willing to see if Bradford can turn things around. Plus the fact that he hasn't really played in two years. The most troubling thing I saw so far was yesterday's interception in the end zone. I was watching it develop live and I have no idea what he saw that made him make that throw. Sean Lee was right there the entire time. You throw that away. High school quarterbacks know better.He definitely had a below average supporting cast in STL -- but truly good QBs have also done more with less. I've watched most of both Philly games thus far and it looks to me like the same issues that he had with the Rams (bad under pressure, doesn't get the ball downfield) are present today. At some point, it's gotta be on Bradford himself. Yes, it's only two weeks -- but how much crappy play will it take before it's obvious that Bradford just isn't the answer? Does he get all season? I'd say definitely not, personally. Foles was MUCH better in the same system. Sanchez was better also, and I'm pretty sure he isn't very good at all. What does that say about Sam Bradford?Look, I am not defending Bradford at all (he has sucked so far) but didn't he have a terrible line and bad receivers in St. Louis? If you can name me any reasonably good starters for St. Louis in that area, I am all ears.Was it everybody else's fault that Bradford did bad in St Louis?
Plus, you just have to watch the game and decipher for yourself. Even when Bradford had time to throw, and an open receiver, he still threw an interception in the red zone, throwing it to the blanketed receiver.
Murray though, when he has room to run looks pretty good.
No, I agree. But him sucking and the players around him sucking are not mutual exclusive.
Sure he did but in 2012, his best full year he had quite few long TDs. That just destroyed your short TD theory. The only thing you have on Bradford is that his YPC is low.Coeur de Lion said:No, he didn't. He threw a lot of short TDs, so you probably loved him in FF, but he was below average by pretty much any other metric. He was far from "real good" as an NFL QB that year.lod01 said:Bradford looked real good in 2013 before injury. He was on pace for over 30 TDs. Yeah he was AWFUL while throwing to Hall Of Famers Chris Givens, Austin Pettis and Lance Kendricks.dhockster said:Look, I am not defending Bradford at all (he has sucked so far) but didn't he have a terrible line and bad receivers in St. Louis? If you can name me any reasonably good starters for St. Louis in that area, I am all ears.cloppbeast said:Was it everybody else's fault that Bradford did bad in St Louis?lod01 said:
Plus, you just have to watch the game and decipher for yourself. Even when Bradford had time to throw, and an open receiver, he still threw an interception in the red zone, throwing it to the blanketed receiver.
Murray though, when he has room to run looks pretty good.
These are the same things he did in St Louis. How are you not seeing a trend? If he hasn't corrected these problems yet, I highly doubt he will this week in practice.dhockster said:
And I believe there was a WR going from the left corner of the EZ towards the middle of the EZ that was open. Instead he threw it into Lee's chest. The defender was in front of his TE. Not sure how you miss that.JuniorNB said:Terrible line play and multiple drops (mostly by Matthews) are why I'm willing to see if Bradford can turn things around. Plus the fact that he hasn't really played in two years. The most troubling thing I saw so far was yesterday's interception in the end zone. I was watching it develop live and I have no idea what he saw that made him make that throw. Sean Lee was right there the entire time. You throw that away. High school quarterbacks know better.Coeur de Lion said:He definitely had a below average supporting cast in STL -- but truly good QBs have also done more with less. I've watched most of both Philly games thus far and it looks to me like the same issues that he had with the Rams (bad under pressure, doesn't get the ball downfield) are present today. At some point, it's gotta be on Bradford himself. Yes, it's only two weeks -- but how much crappy play will it take before it's obvious that Bradford just isn't the answer? Does he get all season? I'd say definitely not, personally. Foles was MUCH better in the same system. Sanchez was better also, and I'm pretty sure he isn't very good at all. What does that say about Sam Bradford?dhockster said:Look, I am not defending Bradford at all (he has sucked so far) but didn't he have a terrible line and bad receivers in St. Louis? If you can name me any reasonably good starters for St. Louis in that area, I am all ears.cloppbeast said:Was it everybody else's fault that Bradford did bad in St Louis?lod01 said:
Plus, you just have to watch the game and decipher for yourself. Even when Bradford had time to throw, and an open receiver, he still threw an interception in the red zone, throwing it to the blanketed receiver.
Murray though, when he has room to run looks pretty good.
This is where my hang up is -- yes, the line has been bad, and no, he isn't getting a ton of help from the receivers, but Bradford himself is still showing the same negatives that he displayed for FIVE YEARS in St. Louis -- IMO we're getting to the point where he just is what he is -- a limited game manager type who probably can't win you games with his arm.
i have no disdain for bradford, he just (imo) has no reliable weapons running routes while chips scheme is slowly being figured out. both picks yesterday were on ertz (exp TE comes back towards los and catches that td), the fumble was on the center, the pick against atl was on matthews.
How is a stat like this even measured when you have guys like Brady who have the ball out in 2 seconds every single play?
It does not mean philly has a good line; it means Bradford holds onto the ball too long.
He's only been sacked once so far. And Falcons and Cowboys are bottom 3rd in QB hurries so far.
Yes.so do you like him better ROS?Kaepernick just had a huge game.
