What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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.

Official Sam Bradford - QB (4 Viewers)

i think it is possible that his OLs have been so appallingly bad (another fanboy excuse as calbear would have it, like he would know with SF having best OL in league :) ), bradford has become conditioned or "trained" to get the ball out in a hurry with the thought that it is better than taking a sack? if so, this may be a hard habit to break, if and when they ever get OL stabilized, and if OC hypothetically learns how to use receiving weapons like austin, givens and cook...
I'm not a Niner fan, I just hear a lot about them because I live here.

The Niners line used to be terrible, and Alex Smith was terrible. Then the line became really good, and Alex Smith rose to mediocrity and got fired.
so if alex smith has a good record (in 2011-2013), it was in spite of him, because he has bad numbers...

you don't want to discuss OCs, which is understandable, because that would lead to the uncomfortable admission that the fact that the scheme, coaching and playcalling to run the ball more than all but a handful of teams has a corollary, less pplays for passes and passing stat padding...

you use as evidence that smith is mediocre is KC is around 20th (?) in some passing stats... yet no word about what this means for kaepernick, when SF is 31st in passing... you are obviously a by the numbers guy, passing stats don't lie, so in 2013, he must be worse than mediocre?

you can't really cite crabtree's absence, because when it was pointed out the churning and turnover at WR bradford had to deal with, that was scorned and sneered at as a "fanboy excuse"... :)
What I think CalBear is saying is that the 49ers won in 2011 because they didn't emphasize the QB, and weren't a passing team. Again, the leading scorer was the kicker in Akers. The 49ers were built with the run game and defense in mind, and a lot of that started with Mike Singletary, who also wanted to de-emphasize the QB's impact, mostly because he didn't trust what he had either.

 
Bob Magaw said:
this year, he is projecting through five games for 4,000+ yards and 32 TDs...

i think 32 TDs might make top 10?

right now, he is tied for fifth in NFL...

behind superhuman manning (20), and everybody else... rivers and romo tied second (13), brees fourth (12), than cutler, ryan and bradford (10)... not a lot of shlubs in that group...

ahead of rodgers (only four games, doesn't count), brady, stafford, luck, wilson, kaepernick, eli, newton...

is tied fifth good? but i'm sure there will be a reason to dismiss it, maybe on basis of only being five games, three TDs were against JAX, etc... after all, he just ISN'T good, because you say so.
The pace of 32 TDs vs. 10 INTs he's on this season is pretty impressive.

However, he's still passing at a below 60% completion rate (58.3; which matches his career average) and his YPA is 6.1; tied for the lowest of his career. Last year, he finally made a little way in the YPA category (6.7), but even that is barely starter worthy.

Here's another fun fact. His 216 attempts through 5 games puts him on pace for 691 on the season; that would be the 2nd most ever. His current 1315 yards put him on pace for 4208 on the season' that would be 67th all-time.

Through four years, his numbers stack up pretty well to Eli Manning's first 4. It took Eli until year 6 to really break out and improve on all his numbers across the board. There's a chance it could happen, but I don't know how many more seasons you wait until you decide he's Byron Leftwich and isn't going to "break out" at 28-29.
He's had something like 31 drops by WR's so far this year. That is on pace to shatter the record for dropped balls in a season. I would argue that if his WR's had decent hands, then we might have higher everything. His yards, high TD's and low picks seem to be inspite of the crappy hands of his WR's but the haters seem to take the opposite track that everything good that the Rams do is inspite of Bradford... He can only put the ball in places where the WR's can catch it. It's pretty hard for him to catch the ball for them....
I don't dislike Bradford, but my problem is that in today's NFL, a completion % below 60% and a YPA in the low 6's is going to put you in the bottom tier of QBs in the league, and most likely not lead to many victories. There is an article out there; can't remember where it was, but it was a study showing a much higher correlation between QB comp % and YPA vs. TDs/INTs over a long period of time. The jist of it came down to comp % and YPA are indicitaive to a greater team's time of possession and ability for a QB to get his team in scoring position and be far more succesful in the overall game of field position.

The drops stat you threw out there may be fine for this year, but he has consistently put up bad completion % and YPA numbers. As a rookie, he posted 60%/5.95; this year he's at 58.3%/6.09. Those numbers are okay for a rookie; and are often seen by some rookies that turn out to be studs (P. Manning, Brees...). However, by their 3rd-5th seasons most of those guys have progressed greatly. The ones that don't are the ones that usually turn out to be busts.
I agree with all points therem, and was not implying that you were a hater in the above post I made. I was referring to the folks that say the team wins in spite of him when in fact he might be doing pretty well inspite of the team.

And yes, I agree, his comp % and YPC should be higher. You cite Manning and Brees as having low numbers as a rookie like Bradford but came around eventually. That being said look at who Manning and Brees have had to work with at WR and even TE. The Rams need a playmaker besides a QB. He can't catch the balls he throws and neither can his WR's it seems...

 
i think it is possible that his OLs have been so appallingly bad (another fanboy excuse as calbear would have it, like he would know with SF having best OL in league :) ), bradford has become conditioned or "trained" to get the ball out in a hurry with the thought that it is better than taking a sack? if so, this may be a hard habit to break, if and when they ever get OL stabilized, and if OC hypothetically learns how to use receiving weapons like austin, givens and cook...
I'm not a Niner fan, I just hear a lot about them because I live here.

The Niners line used to be terrible, and Alex Smith was terrible. Then the line became really good, and Alex Smith rose to mediocrity and got fired.
so if alex smith has a good record (in 2011-2013), it was in spite of him, because he has bad numbers...

you don't want to discuss OCs, which is understandable, because that would lead to the uncomfortable admission that the fact that the scheme, coaching and playcalling to run the ball more than all but a handful of teams has a corollary, less pplays for passes and passing stat padding...

you use as evidence that smith is mediocre is KC is around 20th (?) in some passing stats... yet no word about what this means for kaepernick, when SF is 31st in passing... you are obviously a by the numbers guy, passing stats don't lie, so in 2013, he must be worse than mediocre?

you can't really cite crabtree's absence, because when it was pointed out the churning and turnover at WR bradford had to deal with, that was scorned and sneered at as a "fanboy excuse"... :)
What I think CalBear is saying is that the 49ers won in 2011 because they didn't emphasize the QB, and weren't a passing team. Again, the leading scorer was the kicker in Akers. The 49ers were built with the run game and defense in mind, and a lot of that started with Mike Singletary, who also wanted to de-emphasize the QB's impact, mostly because he didn't trust what he had either.
Wait, Mike Singletary? Awesome presense on the field. On the sideline? Not so much. Couldn't win with Vernon Davis. Ironically, VD played really well with Alex Smith. A guy like Andy Reid thinks pretty highly of the kid and has him off to a pretty good start on a new team. I'm not sure we should be looking at Singetary as validation for the ability or potential of offensive players.

 
Bob Magaw said:
this year, he is projecting through five games for 4,000+ yards and 32 TDs...

i think 32 TDs might make top 10?

right now, he is tied for fifth in NFL...

behind superhuman manning (20), and everybody else... rivers and romo tied second (13), brees fourth (12), than cutler, ryan and bradford (10)... not a lot of shlubs in that group...

ahead of rodgers (only four games, doesn't count), brady, stafford, luck, wilson, kaepernick, eli, newton...

is tied fifth good? but i'm sure there will be a reason to dismiss it, maybe on basis of only being five games, three TDs were against JAX, etc... after all, he just ISN'T good, because you say so.
The pace of 32 TDs vs. 10 INTs he's on this season is pretty impressive.However, he's still passing at a below 60% completion rate (58.3; which matches his career average) and his YPA is 6.1; tied for the lowest of his career. Last year, he finally made a little way in the YPA category (6.7), but even that is barely starter worthy.

Here's another fun fact. His 216 attempts through 5 games puts him on pace for 691 on the season; that would be the 2nd most ever. His current 1315 yards put him on pace for 4208 on the season' that would be 67th all-time.

Through four years, his numbers stack up pretty well to Eli Manning's first 4. It took Eli until year 6 to really break out and improve on all his numbers across the board. There's a chance it could happen, but I don't know how many more seasons you wait until you decide he's Byron Leftwich and isn't going to "break out" at 28-29.
He's had something like 31 drops by WR's so far this year. That is on pace to shatter the record for dropped balls in a season. I would argue that if his WR's had decent hands, then we might have higher everything. His yards, high TD's and low picks seem to be inspite of the crappy hands of his WR's but the haters seem to take the opposite track that everything good that the Rams do is inspite of Bradford... He can only put the ball in places where the WR's can catch it. It's pretty hard for him to catch the ball for them....
I don't dislike Bradford, but my problem is that in today's NFL, a completion % below 60% and a YPA in the low 6's is going to put you in the bottom tier of QBs in the league, and most likely not lead to many victories. There is an article out there; can't remember where it was, but it was a study showing a much higher correlation between QB comp % and YPA vs. TDs/INTs over a long period of time. The jist of it came down to comp % and YPA are indicitaive to a greater team's time of possession and ability for a QB to get his team in scoring position and be far more succesful in the overall game of field position.The drops stat you threw out there may be fine for this year, but he has consistently put up bad completion % and YPA numbers. As a rookie, he posted 60%/5.95; this year he's at 58.3%/6.09. Those numbers are okay for a rookie; and are often seen by some rookies that turn out to be studs (P. Manning, Brees...). However, by their 3rd-5th seasons most of those guys have progressed greatly. The ones that don't are the ones that usually turn out to be busts.
this does beg the question...

is it possible that high churning/turnover related to injuries, bad drafting, lack of talent, etc. also led to higher than average number of drops in years two and three (for obvious reasons, it might be best to leave out his rookie year, as historically many rookie QBs struggle with completion percentage), in turn leading directly to depressed completion percentage stats?

not to mention churning/turnover due to above leading to OL problems, causing bradford to get rid of ball faster, throw shorter passes, causing depressed YPA average?

in the larger picture, to not just look at the numbers, but to bring them to life, put them in context, compare and contrast, look for similarities and differences between the QBs that struggled initially and never made it, and those like eli that did...

in other words, did eli have 17 different OL (2/3 out of league) and 12 different WR (1/2 out of league), or anything remotely like that turnover?

if he didn't, is it too much of a stretch to think that might not have helped his stats...

 
i think it is possible that his OLs have been so appallingly bad (another fanboy excuse as calbear would have it, like he would know with SF having best OL in league :) ), bradford has become conditioned or "trained" to get the ball out in a hurry with the thought that it is better than taking a sack? if so, this may be a hard habit to break, if and when they ever get OL stabilized, and if OC hypothetically learns how to use receiving weapons like austin, givens and cook...
I'm not a Niner fan, I just hear a lot about them because I live here.

The Niners line used to be terrible, and Alex Smith was terrible. Then the line became really good, and Alex Smith rose to mediocrity and got fired.
so if alex smith has a good record (in 2011-2013), it was in spite of him, because he has bad numbers...

you don't want to discuss OCs, which is understandable, because that would lead to the uncomfortable admission that the fact that the scheme, coaching and playcalling to run the ball more than all but a handful of teams has a corollary, less pplays for passes and passing stat padding...

you use as evidence that smith is mediocre is KC is around 20th (?) in some passing stats... yet no word about what this means for kaepernick, when SF is 31st in passing... you are obviously a by the numbers guy, passing stats don't lie, so in 2013, he must be worse than mediocre?

you can't really cite crabtree's absence, because when it was pointed out the churning and turnover at WR bradford had to deal with, that was scorned and sneered at as a "fanboy excuse"... :)
What I think CalBear is saying is that the 49ers won in 2011 because they didn't emphasize the QB, and weren't a passing team. Again, the leading scorer was the kicker in Akers. The 49ers were built with the run game and defense in mind, and a lot of that started with Mike Singletary, who also wanted to de-emphasize the QB's impact, mostly because he didn't trust what he had either.
Wait, Mike Singletary? Awesome presense on the field. On the sideline? Not so much. Couldn't win with Vernon Davis. Ironically, VD played really well with Alex Smith. A guy like Andy Reid thinks pretty highly of the kid and has him off to a pretty good start on a new team. I'm not sure we should be looking at Singetary as validation for the ability or potential of offensive players.
What I'm saying is, that the 49ers were built despite who was behind center, to off-set who was behind center. Smith wasn't the only QB Singletary had. He won games with Shaun Hill and Mike Martz. Even though Martz didn't like Hill.

What Singletary wanted was a smash mouth football game, running the ball at will, and with a tough "physical with an F" defense as well as offense. Thus drafting Anthony Davis and Mike Iupati for the offensive line. Guess what the 49ers of today do best?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i think it is possible that his OLs have been so appallingly bad (another fanboy excuse as calbear would have it, like he would know with SF having best OL in league :) ), bradford has become conditioned or "trained" to get the ball out in a hurry with the thought that it is better than taking a sack? if so, this may be a hard habit to break, if and when they ever get OL stabilized, and if OC hypothetically learns how to use receiving weapons like austin, givens and cook...
I'm not a Niner fan, I just hear a lot about them because I live here.

The Niners line used to be terrible, and Alex Smith was terrible. Then the line became really good, and Alex Smith rose to mediocrity and got fired.
so if alex smith has a good record (in 2011-2013), it was in spite of him, because he has bad numbers...

you don't want to discuss OCs, which is understandable, because that would lead to the uncomfortable admission that the fact that the scheme, coaching and playcalling to run the ball more than all but a handful of teams has a corollary, less pplays for passes and passing stat padding...

you use as evidence that smith is mediocre is KC is around 20th (?) in some passing stats... yet no word about what this means for kaepernick, when SF is 31st in passing... you are obviously a by the numbers guy, passing stats don't lie, so in 2013, he must be worse than mediocre?

you can't really cite crabtree's absence, because when it was pointed out the churning and turnover at WR bradford had to deal with, that was scorned and sneered at as a "fanboy excuse"... :)
What I think CalBear is saying is that the 49ers won in 2011 because they didn't emphasize the QB, and weren't a passing team. Again, the leading scorer was the kicker in Akers. The 49ers were built with the run game and defense in mind, and a lot of that started with Mike Singletary, who also wanted to de-emphasize the QB's impact, mostly because he didn't trust what he had either.
i agree with the factual elements of your post...

calbear went further and stated that alex smith was mediocre, but wouldn't have a conversation about how scheme, coaching and usage may have played a role in his sub-par numbers in SF... its not too complicated to see that running more probably implies passing less...

i also don't understand how smith putting up around 20th passing numbers in KC proves he is mediocre, but than he remains silent on what that implies for kaepernick's 31st ranking?

 
i agree with the factual elements of your post...

calbear went further and stated that alex smith was mediocre, but wouldn't have a conversation about how scheme, coaching and usage may have played a role in his sub-par numbers in SF... its not too complicated to see that running more probably implies passing less...

i also don't understand how smith putting up around 20th passing numbers in KC proves he is mediocre, but than he remains silent on what that implies for kaepernick's 31st ranking?
Last season, the 49ers added a lot more plays in the passing and run schemes when they made the switch to Kaep. Like 400 more plays within a two week span. When you add that much more offense, those kinks still have to be worked out. Smith under Jimmy Raye actually threw the ball down field more in 2008 and 2009. Harbaugh de-emphasized that in 2011, and you don't see Smith doing much down field passing in KC right now either.

Kaep I think hasn't even played a full 16 game regular season. Smith is his career has only played two full 16 game seasons as well, and has been injured a lot like Bradford. Yet Smith has a lot more experience, but is also a lot more limited than Kaep. But just for a hypothetical: what if STL drafted a player with a Wilson/Kaep upside next season, to backup Bradford? Kaep and Wilson weren't first round picks. If you had that kind of physical upside waiting in the wings, what what you do?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i agree with the factual elements of your post...

calbear went further and stated that alex smith was mediocre, but wouldn't have a conversation about how scheme, coaching and usage may have played a role in his sub-par numbers in SF... its not too complicated to see that running more probably implies passing less...

i also don't understand how smith putting up around 20th passing numbers in KC proves he is mediocre, but than he remains silent on what that implies for kaepernick's 31st ranking?
What does Kaepernick have to do with anything? He obviously hasn't played very well this season.

Smith is mediocre because he has never managed to lead a good passing offense, and it's not a question of number of attempts, his rate stats are poor relative to his peers. For example, he's never finished in the top 10 in yards/attempt, partly because he never throws deep balls. The one season he had good rate stats, 2012, he got benched for someone who had even better rate stats.

And, of course OL and WR and coaching can have an effect on a QB's effectiveness. What I asked for was not a list of possible excuses for Bradford's mediocre play; I asked for evidence that Bradford, himself, personally, played at a top-10 NFL QB level at any point in his career. If your argument is that Bradford is the 16th best QB in the league, fine; that's the definition of mediocrity.

 
... of course OL and WR and coaching can have an effect on a QB's effectiveness.
so lets flip it around...

how many great QBs recently, had lousy OL, WR and coaching (OC) in first three years (and as many injuries and turnover)...

what evidence can you produce that this happens a lot...

since mentioning them is a fanboy excuse, i got the distinct impression you could come up with lots of counter-examples of QBs that had this happen and became roaring successes, like future pro bowlers and hall of famers...

your kind of being a broken record...

you - bradford isn't good

me - bradford may have mitigating circumstances...

you - that is a fanboy excuse, show evidence that he is top 10 or better...

me - well that is the point, he hasn't exactly been positioned to succeed, what do you expect...

you - that is a fanboy excuse, show me evidence, etc, etc, etc...

* to refresh your memory, you first mentioned another QB, alex smith (i've heard all this before, yada yada) in post #205, than in the very next post, fanatic brought kaepernick into the conversation.

** look, why don't we just table this until such a time as hopefully bradford gets the benefit of a bit more OL stability, better WR play and better coaching...

if that happens and he flails, i will gladly say you were right and i was wrong...

not that i'm trying to change your mind, but you are obviously pretty set in your beliefs (robot monotone - no possibility of mitigating circumstances, fanboy excuses :) )...

your continued fanboy excuse mantra isn't going to make me overlook he hasn't been ideally positioned for success, or stop thinking that we haven't seen the best of bradford yet...

and we are well past the point where this exchange could serve any educational or instructive purpose to the thread at large, and are just repeating ourselves at this point...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
... of course OL and WR and coaching can have an effect on a QB's effectiveness.
so lets flip it around...

how many great QBs recently, had lousy OL, WR and coaching in first three years (and as many injuries and turnover)...

what evidence can you produce that this happens a lot...

since mentioning them is a fanboy excuse, i got the distinct impression you could come up with lots of counter-examples of QBs that had this happen and became roaring successes, like future pro bowlers and hall of famers...

your kind of being a broken record...

you - bradford isn't good

me - bradford may have mitigating circumstances...

you - that is a fanboy excuse, show evidence that he is top 10 or better...

me - well that is the point, he hasn't exactly been positioned to succeed, what do you expect...

you - that is a fanboy excuse, show me evidence, etc, etc, etc...
So what you're saying is that you have no evidence that Bradford is above mediocre. You have a supposition that if Bradford were in a better situation, he would be better. OK, that's probably true, but it's true of every QB in the league. Alex Smith is a perfect example of a QB who was in a bad situation, who sucked, and when he got into a better situation, played better but still not very well. JaMarcus Russell, Carson Palmer, David Carr, Tim Couch...anyone taken #1 overall is going to a bad team. Andrew Luck went to a bad team and took them from 2-14 with the #27 passing offense to 11-5 with the #7 passing offense, in one year; that's what top young QB performance looks like. Luck's Y/A his rookie season was higher than anything Bradford has done. Even Cam Newton brought the Panthers from #32 passing to #13, and his Y/A is over two points higher than Bradford's, plus he can run. So, the two QBs taken #1 overall, both selected by terrible teams with terrible passing offenses, are both playing much better than Bradford.

 
MoveToSkypager said:
The broken record here is the guy that repeats that Bradford hasn't been given the team he requires to have good production. That's all I've been reading for the past 5 pages. Give it a rest. We know. Those excuses are not good enough.
I'm wondering what Ram fans like in which QB they would like in this upcoming draft, with the coach they have and the team they are assembling. Bradford aside.

 
i agree with the factual elements of your post...

calbear went further and stated that alex smith was mediocre, but wouldn't have a conversation about how scheme, coaching and usage may have played a role in his sub-par numbers in SF... its not too complicated to see that running more probably implies passing less...

i also don't understand how smith putting up around 20th passing numbers in KC proves he is mediocre, but than he remains silent on what that implies for kaepernick's 31st ranking?
Last season, the 49ers added a lot more plays in the passing and run schemes when they made the switch to Kaep. Like 400 more plays within a two week span. When you add that much more offense, those kinks still have to be worked out. Smith under Jimmy Raye actually threw the ball down field more in 2008 and 2009. Harbaugh de-emphasized that in 2011, and you don't see Smith doing much down field passing in KC right now either.

Kaep I think hasn't even played a full 16 game regular season. Smith is his career has only played two full 16 game seasons as well, and has been injured a lot like Bradford. Yet Smith has a lot more experience, but is also a lot more limited than Kaep. But just for a hypothetical: what if STL drafted a player with a Wilson/Kaep upside next season, to backup Bradford? Kaep and Wilson weren't first round picks. If you had that kind of physical upside waiting in the wings, what what you do?
drummer, that is a great question, and deserving of more thought than i am able to devote to it right now.

i will do my best to get back to you on this soon, i hope tomorrow.

 
... of course OL and WR and coaching can have an effect on a QB's effectiveness.
so lets flip it around...

how many great QBs recently, had lousy OL, WR and coaching in first three years (and as many injuries and turnover)...

what evidence can you produce that this happens a lot...

since mentioning them is a fanboy excuse, i got the distinct impression you could come up with lots of counter-examples of QBs that had this happen and became roaring successes, like future pro bowlers and hall of famers...

your kind of being a broken record...

you - bradford isn't good

me - bradford may have mitigating circumstances...

you - that is a fanboy excuse, show evidence that he is top 10 or better...

me - well that is the point, he hasn't exactly been positioned to succeed, what do you expect...

you - that is a fanboy excuse, show me evidence, etc, etc, etc...
So what you're saying is that you have no evidence that Bradford is above mediocre. You have a supposition that if Bradford were in a better situation, he would be better. OK, that's probably true, but it's true of every QB in the league. Alex Smith is a perfect example of a QB who was in a bad situation, who sucked, and when he got into a better situation, played better but still not very well. JaMarcus Russell, Carson Palmer, David Carr, Tim Couch...anyone taken #1 overall is going to a bad team. Andrew Luck went to a bad team and took them from 2-14 with the #27 passing offense to 11-5 with the #7 passing offense, in one year; that's what top young QB performance looks like. Luck's Y/A his rookie season was higher than anything Bradford has done. Even Cam Newton brought the Panthers from #32 passing to #13, and his Y/A is over two points higher than Bradford's, plus he can run. So, the two QBs taken #1 overall, both selected by terrible teams with terrible passing offenses, are both playing much better than Bradford.
was IND a bad team, or a sleeping giant...

how did they do manning's last year?

what was the difference between the 2010 and 2011 colts teams, OTHER THAN MANNING? :)

this was a team that was built around a QB, when he left abruptly, they were stuck with their pants down... and i'm not sure they tried their hardest to win in 2011, knowing they needed replacement for manning... if you were them, would you have tried to trade for a better vet to be more competitive, or lose with painter to secure #1 overall pick and get luck... if that is what they did, you have to say it worked out pretty good for them...

luck had reggie wayne and cam had steve smith, two of the better WRs of their generation...

do you not agree with that?

show me a comparable WR on rams at ANY point in bradford's tenure in STL... you can't, because there wasn't one (cue eyeroll, another fanboy excuse)...

to quote you...

"Andrew Luck went to a bad team and took them from 2-14 with the #27 passing offense to 11-5 with the #7 passing offense, in one year; that's what top young QB performance looks like."

really, that is what top young QB performance looks like...

so i guess elway and aikman weren't "top young QBs" as rookies... you probably would have concluded they didn't have very bright futures... contextual or situational issues would have been met with the monotone fanboy mantra...

* BTW, you do realize bradford could not be as good as luck and still be better than average... he was the consensus best QB prospect since manning, if not elway?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Andrew Luck went to a bad team and took them from 2-14 with the #27 passing offense to 11-5 with the #7 passing offense, in one year; that's what top young QB performance looks like."really, that is what top young QB performance looks like...

so i guess elway and aikman weren't "top young QBs" as rookies.
Bradford is in his fourth year in the league. By the end of their third years in the league, Aikman brought the Cowboys to 11-5 and the playoffs with the #8 passing offense (and he had 7.6 yards/attempt, more than a point better than Bradford, and #7 in the league). Elway took the Broncos to 9-7 in his rookie season, then 13-3 and 11-5, with the #6 passing offense by the end of his third year. Bradford is simply not making that kind of progression.

And I noticed you ignored Cam Newton. He's got a 34-year-old Steve Smith (who had 46/544/2 the year before Newton showed up), and then what? Ted Ginn Jr.?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Andrew Luck went to a bad team and took them from 2-14 with the #27 passing offense to 11-5 with the #7 passing offense, in one year; that's what top young QB performance looks like."

really, that is what top young QB performance looks like...

so i guess elway and aikman weren't "top young QBs" as rookies.
Bradford is in his fourth year in the league. By the end of their third years in the league, Aikman brought the Cowboys to 11-5 and the playoffs with the #8 passing offense (and he had 7.6 yards/attempt, more than a point better than Bradford, and #7 in the league). Elway took the Broncos to 9-7 in his rookie season, then 13-3 and 11-5, with the #6 passing offense by the end of his third year. Bradford is simply not making that kind of progression.

And I noticed you ignored Cam Newton. He's got a 34-year-old Steve Smith (who had 46/544/2 the year before Newton showed up), and then what? Ted Ginn Jr.?
please be careful how you edit things in quoting me... for the record, only the last sentence within the embedded quote was mine in the post i'm responding to...

i thought elway struggled more as rookie, i was wrong... but that needn't change the point he could be worse than elway (like luck) and be better than average...

aikman had benefit of one of the greatest OL in history, and HoF WR in irvin (not sure when they got him, but harper was great complementary WR, novacek great move TE)... point to the rams in his first three years and try and find anything remotely like that?

how is newton doing this year? by passing metrics, W-L record... is he clearly doing better than bradford in 2013?

in four games, he has 885 yards, 6 TDs & 5 INTs.

so is bradford ascending, and cam is descending?

i didn't ignore newton, you ignored that i mentioned him :) maybe because it was in part you didn't excerpt...

to quote you again...

"He's got a 34-year-old Steve Smith (who had 46/544/2 the year before Newton showed up)..."

i don't recall the specifics of smith's season prior to arrival of cam (like, who was QB, was he injured)... but it isn't like cam "made" smith?

is your point smith isn't/wasn't a good WR without cam?

are you trying to say smith wasn't that much better than WRs that bradford has had in his first three years?

his career stats are below*, so maybe you can get back to the thread on that fascinating and novel, cam made smith theory...

suffice it to say, excepting fourth year when he broke leg in first game (and rookie year when he was 10-154-0)...

2... 54-872-3

3... 88-1,110-7

5... 103-1,563-12

6... 83-1,166-8

7... 67-1,002-7

8... 78-1,421-6

9... 65-982-7

10... 46-554-2 (one you mentioned, only bad season in first decade other expected rookie and missed one)

that takes us up to cams entry...

11... 79-1,394-7

12... 73-1,174-4

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5521/

 
Citing rookies from 30 years ago is pointless anyhow. It's a different era. It used to be unheard of for a rookie QB to come in and play well right off the bat. Multiple seasons to get going was expected. Now, it's commonplace for rookie QBs to come in and excel right away, and rarely does anyone ever break out after multiple years of suckitude anymore.

We see a QBs true stripes much earlier than we used to, and Bradford's haven't been good so far.

 
I like his TD:INT ratio but his 58.3% completions and 6.2 career YPA do not inspire confidence. In fact that YPA number is a big red flag IMO. You need a higher YPA to sustain success in the NFL. More than the team around him the YPA number IMO has to do with the mentality of the QB and I don't think Bradford has demonstrated that killer downfield confidence. Also I am not sure it is something that you can learn. His career looks closer and closer to the Tim Couch, Mark Sanchez, Joey Harrington arc than anything else right now.
lets focus on this year (since i'm pretty sure he had a lot of drops last year, too, don't recall first two seasons, but that would imo be a reasonable guess)... does the stat that he is dealing with massive numbers of drops years bear on this?

would he have higher completion percentage, more yards, possibly TDs, if the WRs were catching more and dropping less?
His numbers this year are virtually identical to his career numbers. I guess his receivers could have been dropping balls for four seasons but I don't think anyone should have a reasonable expectation for that to change. Of course his % would increase and maybe TDs too and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. I also don't think improving his completion % via fewer drops would impact his pedestrian YPA.

He strikes me as a serviceable QB at best but not anything special.

 
I like his TD:INT ratio but his 58.3% completions and 6.2 career YPA do not inspire confidence. In fact that YPA number is a big red flag IMO. You need a higher YPA to sustain success in the NFL. More than the team around him the YPA number IMO has to do with the mentality of the QB and I don't think Bradford has demonstrated that killer downfield confidence. Also I am not sure it is something that you can learn. His career looks closer and closer to the Tim Couch, Mark Sanchez, Joey Harrington arc than anything else right now.
lets focus on this year (since i'm pretty sure he had a lot of drops last year, too, don't recall first two seasons, but that would imo be a reasonable guess)... does the stat that he is dealing with massive numbers of drops years bear on this?would he have higher completion percentage, more yards, possibly TDs, if the WRs were catching more and dropping less?
His numbers this year are virtually identical to his career numbers. I guess his receivers could have been dropping balls for four seasons but I don't think anyone should have a reasonable expectation for that to change. Of course his % would increase and maybe TDs too and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. I also don't think improving his completion % via fewer drops would impact his pedestrian YPA.He strikes me as a serviceable QB at best but not anything special.
if he maintains pace of 4,000 yards and 32 TDs, they will be career highs?one reason austin and givens could improve is because they have played a total of 25 games.

combined.

one way YPA could change dramatically if austin has one yard target and drops it... or instead, catches it and runs 80 yards for a TD.

that may seem unlikely, but he already had 50-60 yard return TD called back due to penalty week four against DAL.

I agree that he looks average and not special in some ways (except for breaking personal records part, being top 5 in TDs)...

I just think that some of the underlying causes were systemic...

but with a new regime, youngest roster in league, as they mature and develope, problems don't have to be permanent.

how about with two firsts next year, if an OL and one of RBs from Baylor or Wisconsin are on menu...

having competent run game would sustain more drives, get in red zone more often, have more opportunity for some passing stats... yards, TDs... consistently better down and distance situations could translate to sustaining drives, as well...

some people are talking about real football, some about fantasy...

if he finishes with 4,000+ yards and around 30 TDs (two games with SEA and one with SF remaining), that should be good for a top ten finish at his position in fantasy. I don't know if that is special, that is a subjective term, but it could be useful.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The other Bradford thread is locked for some reason, so I will add the Rotoworld updates here:

Sam Bradford's 2014 salary cap cost is $17.6 million.

For comparison across the NFC West, Carson Palmer's cap number is $10 million, while Russell Wilson's is $817,000 and Colin Kaepernick costs $1.6 million. Despite the obvious cap room St. Louis would clear by using the No. 2 overall draft pick on a quarterback, the Rams have been repeatedly, publicly committed to Bradford. Whether Bradford emerges as the franchise quarterback GM Les Snead seems to believe he'll be, adamantly, will play a major role in determining the legacy of Snead and coach Jeff Fisher in St. Louis.


Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Sam Bradford (knee) is confident he'll be ready for the start of training camp.

"Barring any major setbacks, I feel very confident for camp," Bradford said. "From everything that [Rams trainer] Reggie’s told me, he feels like that’s an attainable goal." Bradford tore his left ACL on October 20 and underwent surgery eight weeks ago. He's been throwing while sitting down on a stool recently. The Rams have said they remain committed to Bradford long-term, and there's even been talk that they may want to sign him to an extension. St. Louis needs to find some offensive weapons for Bradford to throw to.

Jan 17 - 9:04 AM

Source: St Louis Post-Dispatch
Rams GM Les Snead "again made it clear" Thursday that the franchise is committed to Sam Bradford as its 2014 quarterback.

The Rams have the No. 2 pick in May's draft -- an ideal spot to select a new signal caller -- but they seem sold on Bradford as the quarterback of the future. "As we’ve said, Sam’s our starting QB," Snead declared. "And maybe that’s too way out of the box to take a QB that high. I don't know if that's the wisest thing." Snead has dropped multiple hints that the No. 2 selection will be for sale to the highest bidder. If St. Louis can't trade out and is truly hellbent on keeping Bradford, Texas A&M OT Jake Matthews could be a "safe" fallback plan.

Jan 10 - 12:51 PM

Source: ESPN.com
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Jim Thomas does not think the Rams will use one of their 2014 first-round picks on a quarterback.

If the season ended today, the Rams would hold the Redskins' No. 2 overall pick as a result of the Robert Griffin III trade, and also hold their own No. 14 pick. By passing on a quarterback in this quarterback-rich class, they'd be throwing another vote of confidence behind Sam Bradford (IR, torn ACL). It'd be a risky decision considering Bradford's career 18-30-1 record, 58.6 completion percentage, the serious nature of his injury, and the fact that his contract is up after 2015. The decision will define GM Les Snead's tenure.

Wed, Dec 4, 2013 10:33:00 AM
Source: St Louis Post-Dispatch
 
In another thread, someone quoted the Rams GM saying they would not draft a WR.

This creates the most stable, repeated, type offseason for Bradford yet. It seems like there is no change whatsoever. Also, that said, I can't envision them drafting anything on offense other than OL then-also good for him.

 
Rotoworld:

Sam Bradford (ACL) has been cleared to run on a treadmill, and is "on schedule" in his rehab.
Bradford went under the knife 63 days ago. Bradford said last week he's "very confident" he'll be ready for the start of training camp. Despite a whopping $17.6 million salary-cap hit and four years of of thoroughly average play, it appears Bradford will be back under center for the Rams next season. They've been adamant they're sticking with Bradford despite owning the No. 2 pick in May's draft.

Source: Alex Marvez on Twitter
 
Rotoworld:

ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner believes the chances of St. Louis drafting a quarterback at No. 2 and cutting Sam Bradford are "about as close as possible to zero."
Wagoner acknowledges "things can change," but for now the Rams are heaping support behind Bradford despite his average-to-below-average play through four seasons, and persistent durability woes. The belief that Bradford is a franchise quarterback was at the time said to be among the primary reasons Jeff Fisher chose to become the head coach in St. Louis three offseasons ago. Releasing Bradford would save $10.42 million versus the cap, and highly-drafted rookie quarterbacks' cap numbers are typically in the $3-4 million range in the league's new system. Still, the Rams don't seem to even be considering going this route.

Source: ESPN.com
 
Rotoworld:

Sam Bradford (ACL) has been cleared to run on a treadmill, and is "on schedule" in his rehab.
Bradford went under the knife 63 days ago. Bradford said last week he's "very confident" he'll be ready for the start of training camp. Despite a whopping $17.6 million salary-cap hit and four years of of thoroughly average play, it appears Bradford will be back under center for the Rams next season. They've been adamant they're sticking with Bradford despite owning the No. 2 pick in May's draft.

Source: Alex Marvez on Twitter
That's good.

He's a little more mobile than Marino was so...he kind of reached his goal.

 
Rotoworld:

CBS Sports' Jason La Canfora reports the Rams have "absolutely no intention" of extending Sam Bradford's contract.
The Rams stated in September that they were willing to extend Bradford's deal. The former No. 1 overall pick has two years and $27 million left on his rookie deal, which includes no more guaranteed money. He's scheduled to count a whopping $17.6 million against the cap in 2014. The Rams could clear $10.42 million by releasing him. St. Louis is already up against the cap and has many holes to fill. Coach Jeff Fisher has stated numerous times that Bradford will be back for at least another season, and those that cover the Rams consider it an extreme long shot that the team uses the No. 2 overall pick on a quarterback. Coming back from a torn ACL, it's put up or shut up time for Bradford.

Source: CBS Sports
 
It's comical reading the perceptions of the majority. So many people ready to write Bradford off, hoping/assuming the Rams should just cut ties. Most QBs, even the good ones, take time to develop. In just his 4th season, Bradford was on pace to breakout in 2013 with 3800/32/9 (pro-rated) and a 90 QB rating. QB, of any position, takes the most time to develop. Let's not forget this guy was the #1 overall pick in 2010. It's waaaayyyyy too early to make the bust call on Bradford or to think the Rams should move on. He was just heating up before he got injured. I'm really pulling for Bradford and think he'll prove his worth in this league.

 
This article charts every pass during the 2013 season (behind LOS, short, intermediate, long - right, middle, left).

http://www.thebackyardbanter.com/the-eye-in-the-sky-the-st-louis-rams-should-commit-to-sam-bradford-for-2014.html
I saw a lot of crap like this proving how good Trent Richardson was playing last year. If there's even a small question about an offense being better with Clemens it should tell you something. That is if watching him play poorly for 4 years didn't tell you anything.

 
I'm trying to grab Bradford cheap where my QB2-3 situation isn't too great. He was a legit talent coming out of college and you can't really argue that he wasn't getting better. I'm not all in due to his injury history since college. At rock bottom prices I'll take him off your hands, stick him on my bench and see what happends.

 
Rotoworld:

Coach Jeff Fisher reiterated that Sam Bradford is "our quarterback."

"He’s our quarterback, and we’ve said that," Fisher said. "We talk about extensions with all our players under contract. Whether or not we do so with him, I don’t know where all this came from, but Sam’s our quarterback. He’s going to be under center." This all comes on the heels of a CBS Sports report Monday that originally stated the Rams had "absolutely no intention" of extending Bradford before the report was changed to say the Rams are "open to an extension." Now just because Fisher keeps insisting Bradford will be the starter in 2014 doesn't mean we have to take that at face value. Fisher has turned on his words in the past. The Rams would be wise to look long and hard at this year's quarterback draft prospects. Bradford is arguably the most overpaid player in the league.


Source: Profootballtalk on NBC Sports
 
Will Rams extend Sam Bradford’s deal?

By Chris Burke

Sam Bradford was on his way to smashing career bests across the board statistically in 2013, so perhaps if he had stayed healthy the Rams would have left the debate about his future for later.

But Bradford blew out his knee in Week 7, ending his season. Oh, and more to the point, the Rams own two first-round picks (including No. 2 overall) in a draft with several intriguing QBs and Bradford set to cost more than $17 million against the ’14 cap. So what’s a team to do?

One option potentially on the table is a contract extension to alleviate some of that cap hit. Bradford has two years and $27 million remaining on his current deal. CBSSports’ Jason La Canfora says that the Rams “are open” to adding years to Bradford’s contract in exchange for reducing the massive cost for 2014. (La Canfora concedes, though, that a longer deal would “surprise” many.) Such a move likely would be similar to the reworked deal Baltimore and Terrell Suggs agreed upon Monday, which runs through 2018 – Suggs reduced his 2014 cost by $4 million in exchange for $16 million in guaranteed money over the next couple of seasons.

Simply cutting Bradford would leave $7.2 million in dead money on the Rams’ books spread over the next two seasons, but it would save them more than $10.4 million this season.

To boil this all down to its simplest form: Is it better to keep Bradford and try to add some more talent around him with the extra first-round pick; or to move on from Bradford, replace him with one of the draft’s top QBs and put that extra spending money toward bulking up the roster elsewhere?

Bradford’s performance last season could push the Rams toward door No. 1. In six-plus games prior to his injury, Bradford threw 14 touchdowns to just four interceptions, with a 60.7 completion percentage and 90.9 QB rating. That final number was the 11th-best in the league last season, just behind San Francisco’s Colin Kaepernick and ahead of Cam Newton, Tom Brady, Andrew Luck and others.

Of course, Kaepernick’s performance — not to mention that of recent Super Bowl winner Russell Wilson — might help make the argument against keeping Bradford. Both the 49ers and Seahawks have been able to stockpile talent throughout the roster in part because of the bargain-basement prices their quarterbacks have been carrying. Though those salaries will skyrocket in the near future, the benefit of turning down that path is obvious.

The Bradford conundrum is the main reason the Rams are such an unknown variable in the 2014 draft. They could use the No. 2 overall pick on a quarterback, receiver, offensive tackle or Jadeveon Clowney, plus are in prime position to trade down should they decide to stick it out with Bradford.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bradford conundrum is the main reason the Rams are such an unknown variable in the 2014 draft. They could use the No. 2 overall pick on a quarterback, receiver, offensive tackle or Jadeveon Clowney, plus are in prime position to trade down should they decide to stick it out with Bradford.
If the Rams actually do stay at 1.02 and use that selection on a QB, it will represent one of the shrewdest disinformation campaigns ever waged by an NFL front office.

 
What would the Rams realistically want as trade compensation for Bradford? By realistic I mean he is scheduled to make 17 mil, coming off torn ACL, and hasnt really "lit it up" since coming into the league.

 
What would the Rams realistically want as trade compensation for Bradford? By realistic I mean he is scheduled to make 17 mil, coming off torn ACL, and hasnt really "lit it up" since coming into the league.
No one would trade anything of value for him considering he only has one year left on his contract, at a $$$ figure that's waaaay out of line with his overall performance thus far. If another team is interested, it would be much smarter to let the Rams pay him that huge chunk of change coming back from the injury, then make a strong play for him on a multi year deal when he hits UFA next offseason. IMO there's pretty close to zero chance that he's traded.

 
What would the Rams realistically want as trade compensation for Bradford? By realistic I mean he is scheduled to make 17 mil, coming off torn ACL, and hasnt really "lit it up" since coming into the league.
No one would trade anything of value for him considering he only has one year left on his contract, at a $$$ figure that's waaaay out of line with his overall performance thus far. If another team is interested, it would be much smarter to let the Rams pay him that huge chunk of change coming back from the injury, then make a strong play for him on a multi year deal when he hits UFA next offseason. IMO there's pretty close to zero chance that he's traded.
I was just thinking that with the talk of the Rams saying they wont extend Bradford that they might feel with their improving team that they wont be in this good of a position to draft a franchise QB again for awhile so why not do it this year and move on from Bradford. Also I noticed your location is Valparaiso, In, I graduated from Wheeler High School in Valpo. Small World.

 
Bradford is signed through 2015, so he has two years remaining on his contract. I see the lack of a restructure/extension as the Rams looking at 2014 as Bradford's prove it year. If he proves it, they can extend him in 2015 since they do not have to worry about him hitting free agency after this year. It's a shame that Bradford got injured last year, we would have a better idea of whether Bradford is the long term answer or not... and if he proved not to be in 2013, having pick 2 in 2014 would be perfect. As has been said, the Rams aren't likely in the top 10 picks for a while.

 
Bradford is signed through 2015, so he has two years remaining on his contract. I see the lack of a restructure/extension as the Rams looking at 2014 as Bradford's prove it year. If he proves it, they can extend him in 2015 since they do not have to worry about him hitting free agency after this year. It's a shame that Bradford got injured last year, we would have a better idea of whether Bradford is the long term answer or not... and if he proved not to be in 2013, having pick 2 in 2014 would be perfect. As has been said, the Rams aren't likely in the top 10 picks for a while.
Yeah, good catch. For some reason I thought 2014 was the last year of his deal. Either way though I think that huge contract on a mediocre at best player coming off an ACL tear makes him virtually untradeable.

 
Since they always changed his system and targets and so much, he could actually benefit from some time (ACL) off and observing, getting comfy with everything.

 
Since they always changed his system and targets and so much, he could actually benefit from some time (ACL) off and observing, getting comfy with everything.
Yeah, he'll need to get used to working with clipboards, Gatorade containers, holding for extra point snaps, etc.

 
Rotoworld:

Rams GM Les Snead insists Sam Bradford remains the team's quarterback, and that extension talks are "ongoing and active."

The Rams are doubling down on votes of confidence after CBS' Jason La Canfora reported Monday that the team had "absolutely no intention" of extending its quarterback. La Canfora later pulled a 180, presumably after Snead or someone in the Rams' front office reached out. Despite owning the No. 2 pick in May's draft, the Rams are going to great lengths to appear full steam ahead on their attempted franchise quarterback.


Source: Nick Wagoner on Twitter
 
Why the Rams should explore the trade market for Sam Bradford

Jason La Canfora

At the risk of being inundated with phone calls from radio producers in the greater St. Louis area -- because that's what seems to happen merely by writing Sam Bradford's name in almost any context, the quarterback's very presence seemingly a hot-button issue on local sports talk -- I have a suggestion to make to the St. Louis Rams: Why not maybe see what Bradford might fetch via trade?

About a month from the draft, at a time when there are growing rumblings among scouts that the overall strength of elite players at positions other that quarterback could lead to the passers falling a bit, this might be as good a time as any to covertly gauge a market for Bradford. If it's me, I'm seeing if someone else out there would want to buy-in to Bradford's antiquated contract that's the offspring of a collective-bargaining agreement long since overhauled.

If I could opt out now -- with Bradford having two years and $27M left on his deal but all of his $50M in guaranteed money already in his pocket -- and get decent value in return, that might be too good to pass up. And several other execs I spoke with thought the Rams might be best served by taking a proactive approach to this conundrum. A team could select multiple quarterbacks in the first round of multiple drafts, for instance, and still not owe their cumulative 2014 quarterback the $14M Bradford is set to make this season.

(And, to be perfectly clear, in this era of extremely selective reading comprehension, let me state this unequivocally: I am NOT reporting the Rams are shopping Bradford. I am NOT reporting the Rams are even considering shopping Bradford. I'm not reporting anything in that regard. I am merely positing that a case could be made that based on his age, contract and Bradford's potential relative value economically and cap-wise, that dealing Bradford and finding a replacement in the draft might advance the franchise given his stunted production and injury woes to this point.)

I'm not proposing a fire sale here, where you just try to dump the contract if at all possible the way we've seen teams float guys like Julius Peppers and Chris Johnson this offseason. I'm talking about making a football trade that brings a starter at a position of need and a high pick in return, when, combined with the fact the Rams are already in a strong position with the second and 13th selections in the draft under their control, puts the team in position to capitalize on its influx of talent the past few years and propels them into playoff contention, making the kind of jump the Cardinals did in 2013.

Who could be most interested?Could be that no one would make that sort of a trade for Bradford, but I'd want to hear it for myself, and there remain several teams in the draft that need a quarterback -- Cleveland, Minnesota, Jacksonville, Houston, perhaps Buffalo -- that may start to prefer a young veteran like Bradford to the likes of Blake Bortles, Johnny Manziel or Teddy Bridgewater at the top of this draft. It just so happens that several of those teams remain loaded with more cap space than they could ever need, and some are short on players who are worthy of imminent contract extensions. So they have money to spend and relatively few options to spend it on (and keep in mind all teams must spend at least 89 percent of the cumulative cap from 2013-2016 on its payroll).

Several front office executives I spoke with -- guys who aren't in the quarterback market one way or another and wouldn't have a dog in this fight -- believed Bradford could still fetch a strong return. They believed that some of the young GMs picking high in this draft who need quarterbacks might fancy Bradford over possibly swinging and missing on a quarterback high in the first round. They cited Bradford's lingering appeal with offensive coordinators and quarterback coaches, who first fell for him at Oklahoma and still look at him the way they did when he was selected first overall in 2010.

"They love the kid, at least the ones I've talked to about him," one NFL executive said. "He's still a pretty popular figure with them. And everyone knows he's a tremendous kid. If he was available I would expect there to be a lot of coaches in personnel meetings who would think they would be the guy to get him to fulfill his potential."

So with all of that in mind, might it make sense for the Rams -- who have been defined by bold and aggressive moves under this Jeff Fisher/Les Snead/Kevin Demoff regime -- to see what might be out there? I understand that the mere thought that a starting quarterback, even one coming off a lost season due to injury, is being shopped might send shockwaves through an organization. The reality is, as I have noted, Bradford has been compensated quite well to this point, and the idea of a contract extension or how to move forward with him long-term has no easy solution given the empirical evidence provided to this point. (The Rams maintain they are open to doing an extension for him).

The Rams struck gold with the trade with the Redskins (that landed Washington RG3). If they pulled off a strong return for Bradford, including a proven starter at another position and a high pick (if Trent Richardson went for a first-rounder, who not Bradford?), and then draft someone like Sammy Watkins and then one of the stud tackles at 13, and use the pick they got for Bradford to take a quarterback, could they be better set up to win right now? And, obviously, they would have considerably more cash and cap flexibility moving forward than they would if they were negotiating an extension for Bradford coming off a 2015 season in which he is scheduled to make $13M.

Bradford is the kind of kid everyone pulls for. He is a true gentleman, a wonderful kid who has had some bad luck, some even worse pass protection and a lack of reliable weapons for much of his career. There have been system changes and coordinator changes and a head coaching change already in his brief career. All of that has to be part of the equation.

Is he a fiery leader of men? Does he command a huddle and a sideline? Will he be able to stay healthy? Those are real questions that still linger after four seasons in the NFL. Bradford has completed less than 60 percent of his passes in his career (58.6), he has 59 touchdowns and 38 interceptions thus far, been sacked an astonishing 120 times in just 49 starts (that begins to take a toll, quickly, on a player who dealt with health problems in college), and has a career passer rating under 80 (79.3).

That isn't overwhelming, especially for a first-overall pick.

What to make of Bradford's 2013?Bradford was off to a strong start through seven games last season -- 14 touchdowns to four interceptions, a rating over 90 -- though the Rams were doing much of that trying to crawl back into games as they started the season slowly. Unfortunately for Bradford, he also has to play in the best division in football, against three defenses that can humble, confound and pummel even the best quarterbacks in the NFL (ask Peyton Manning about that Seattle defense). That hasn't helped, either.

No matter where you come down on Bradford's tenure, the fact is that since he came into the league, among all quarterbacks with at least 500 attempts, Bradford ranks 29th in passer rating (just behind Kevin Kolb, Jason Campbell and Josh Freeman), he ranks 32nd in completion percentage (tucked between Campbell and Colt McCoy), he ranks 36th in yards per attempt at 6.29 (tucked between Christian Ponder and McCoy, and behind Brandon Weeden and Mark Sanchez), and he ranks 20th in TD/INT ratio (he betters guys like Jay Cutler and Cam Newton in that regard, it should be noted).

So, if the Rams are able to upgrade multiple positions via the draft and by hypothetically trading Bradford, could they find a quarterback in the second day of this draft who could better the output that Bradford has provided to this point? Even if they don't, if they did trade down out of, say, the second spot, they could possibly land a 2015 first-round pick out of that swap, which would have them primed to dabble in that quarterback class as well if need be.

And, if they stick with Bradford, absent him signing some kind of team-friendly extension, will they find themselves in this same position with him again next year, only then perhaps without all of the additional flexibility they have now to be major players in this May's draft, given that they are reaping the final remains of their fleecing of the Redskins from two years ago. Perhaps there is no better time than the present.

Things are further complicated by the fact Bradford is still working back from his November ACL surgery. And, in all likelihood, the Rams just might not see a quarterback in this draft who they think could do more for them in 2014 than a healthy Bradford could (assuming this is his breakthrough season). It would take some major guts to pull off something like this -- and I applaud the Rams for being as bold and forward thinking as they have (this concept would be a complete nonstarter to even mention in connection to some of the more conservative franchises in the league).

But as the draft keeps pulling closer, and if some quarterback-needy teams continue to seem tepid about the crop of first-round passers up for grabs in May, in a league where a perennial Pro Bowlers like Darrelle Revis and DeSean Jackson were outright released in the primes, the premise of shopping Bradford ahead of the draft should rank as anything but crazy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Bradford facing high-stakes '14

If fifth-year QB can't stay healthy and produce, Rams should seek other solutions

By Jeffri Chadiha | ESPN.com

Regardless of whether the St. Louis Rams select a quarterback in this year's draft -- and there have been recent rumblings, specifically by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, that such a move could happen -- Sam Bradford already should know what's at stake this coming season.

There's no question he's a likable guy with obvious talent. It's also impossible to argue that tough breaks and a subpar supporting cast on offense have plagued him during his brief career. These are the variables that often arise when discussing Bradford's lack of success in St. Louis, and this is the year when it's time for his supporters to stop leaning on them.

As much as there is to appreciate about Bradford, the fact still remains that the Rams haven't enjoyed a winning season in the four years since he became their starting quarterback. That means something has to change this fall, especially since it's critical that the 26-year-old Bradford takes a major step in his development. He's gone from being impressive (he was the 2010 NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year) to inconsistent (during the one year he spent with former offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels) to injured (he sustained a torn ACL in Week 7 of last season). It's time for Bradford to produce the kind of season that makes everybody believe he's still the right man for the job.

If you probe the Rams about that possibility, they will tell you all the right things. When asked about the confidence the team has in Bradford's future, a team source said "there was no concern" while adding that Bradford "is a very good quarterback."

On the other hand, the Post-Dispatch said the Rams have met with University of Pittsburgh quarterback Tom Savage, while another meeting/workout also reportedly occurred with Fresno State's Derek Carr. The paper also floated names such as South Carolina's Connor Shaw and Georgia's Aaron Murray as talents who could interest St. Louis come draft week.

It's not surprising that the Rams would be intrigued by some of the signal-callers in this class. Once you get beyond the top three players at that position -- Blake Bortles, Teddy Bridgewater and Johnny Manziel -- there are still going to be some talents to be had in the later rounds. It's also true that drafting a quarterback doesn't mean a team is actually giving up on the one it already has under center. But in this case, should the Rams actually spend a second- or third-day pick on a signal-caller, they have to know the discussions about Bradford's future will only intensify.

Head coach Jeff Fisher and general manager Les Snead will have to deal with that fallout if that scenario actually plays out. Even if it doesn't, there are legitimate issues surrounding Bradford that have to be addressed eventually. One involves his massive contract, a deal that was signed before the NFL changed its rules about how much rookies could make coming into the league, and what it means when it's time to discuss a possible extension. Bradford already has earned all of the $50 million he was guaranteed under that contract, but he still has two years and $27 million left on that package.

That's a ton of coin for a quarterback whose numbers have been pedestrian at best. Bradford's career completion percentage (58.6) won't blow anybody away, and his career passer rating (79.3) is something that usually would be found on the résumé of a player destined to hold clipboards for a living. In fairness, Bradford regressed when the Rams changed offenses after his rookie season and tried to install a system McDaniels had used in New England and Denver. Bradford also was playing the best football of his career last fall -- he had 14 touchdowns and four interceptions through seven games -- before the knee injury sidelined him for the remainder of the year.

As encouraging as those numbers are, Bradford has grown past the point where statistics can define his value. He needs to start taking the Rams to places they haven't been in years and exciting fans in ways Kurt Warner once did. The Rams slowly have assembled a team that is dangerous enough to create headaches for some of the league's top contenders. Most of that potential has resulted from Fisher's coaching and a steadily improving defense.

If Bradford can take the next step in his development, then the Rams might actually push their way past the .500 mark and into contention. If he can't, then they legitimately should be looking for other options. St. Louis used to have the luxury of plugging along in the NFC West, a division that was once so bad that Seattle won it with a 7-9 record during Bradford's rookie season. That is far from the case anymore.

The Seattle Seahawks, fresh off their first Super Bowl victory, have a young quarterback in Russell Wilson, who has quickly become a Pro Bowler and one of the game's clutch performers. San Francisco reached the Super Bowl two years ago with Colin Kaepernick, a quarterback about to enter his fourth season with as much talent and potential as any player at his position. The Arizona Cardinals also won 10 games last season after coming out of nowhere in their first year under head coach Bruce Arians. These are the teams that stand in the way of Bradford's ascension in St. Louis.

Bradford's cause is affected even more by how quickly his peers have blossomed. Wilson and Kaepernick are dynamic talents. Andrew Luck has taken the Indianapolis Colts to the playoffs in both of his first two seasons in the league, while Cincinnati's Andy Dalton has three postseason appearances under his belt. We haven't even gotten to Carolina's Cam Newton, Washington's Robert Griffin III and Philadelphia's Nick Foles, all of whom have been to the Pro Bowl and the playoffs themselves.

Some may find it unfair to compare Bradford to those players, but that's the way this deal works. There was a point when Bradford was the hot, young quarterback on the rise, and he had worked hard to earn that hype. Now he's hardly even discussed in the same conservation as those other young stars. When he is, it almost feels as if it's done out of sympathy, as if he's simply too nice a guy to be forgotten when so many things haven't gone his way over the last three years.

Bradford's career has been so up and down thus far that it's hard to know exactly how he'll respond to the pressure that comes from this season. It's also worth noting that Snead and Fisher didn't draft him, meaning their stakes in his future only go so far. Taking that into consideration, it is quite plausible that the Rams will try to light a fire under Bradford by adding some competition in next month's draft. The bigger question is whether Bradford actually delivers on all that promise that has followed him since his arrival in the NFL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top