Countdown To The Top Pick In The 2014 Draft (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

 

[MAC_32]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

.I think the question is misguided and misses the point. if the giants had avoided eli manning for this rationale, that would have been a mistake, right? does two super bowls work for you? if not, how many would it take to convince you he was great... 3-4-5-more?

even if he isn't as great as peyton, he has been really, really, really good (don't know why the regression this year, but if he retires tomorrow, a two super bowl legacy, better than peyton, is pretty good). though not brothers, we could illustrate the principle by saying... if adrian peterson was jim brown's younger brother, and calvin johnson was jerry rice's younger brother, and neither was as good as their older sibling, they could still both be really, really, really good. that is all i'm saying? doesn't seem very controversial?

if you think about it, bracie, peyton might be the best QB ever. needless to say, that sets a pretty high bar for eli to be better than. but it also leaves a lot of room for him to still be great in his own right.* as i said before, how many times has their been two brothers drafted in the first round that played QB? once? if so, that seems like a small sample group to draw hard conclusions from (i throw out cases like the palmer or detmer brothers where only one or neither were first rounders, as not being analogous to carr if the younger brother is drafted in the first).

finally, if you could have eli at 21 in this draft, knowing how good his carer would be, would you not draft him given the chance (say you are HOU and don't have to pay to move up for his rights), because his career wouldn't be as luminous as peyton's? that seems unlikely.

* hypothetically, if eli plays as long as peyton and finishes #2 in all important statistical categories for a passer, that would leave him not as good as peyton, but better than every other QB that ever played the game, besides peyton. by the above criteria, would he than be an abject failure, and not worth drafting because he wasn't as good as his brother? now the carr and manning brothers aren't the same, but at least in the case of the manning brothers, i think this shows how we can put that theory to rest.

Their have only been three sets of brothers who have quarterback NFL teams, Ty and Koy Detmer, the Mannings, and Josh and Luke McCowan. Small sample size but their have been geneological studies of birth order that are much larger which provide solid numbers that indicate first-born males tend to have higher levels of testonsterone than later born males of the same parents.

Its pretty interesting stuff. Speculation is that testosterone could be seen as a threat to the body of a female so each preceeding birth of males the body of the birthing female attacks testosterone and thus each following male birth tends to have lower levels of testonsertone.

In any event, I thought the tidbit was worth passing along, probably because I was aware of other birth studies outside of the NFL.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

so you don't think it was a disadvantage to not have stacy the first month. that is your point?

 

[Bob Magaw]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

Of course it is. Hello?? That team is loaded with talent. Bradford can't win with it.

loaded with talent he didn't get to play with the first month - see stacy.

maybe you should address your history of backpedaling in post #450. the thread wants to hear your explanation?

 

[menobrown]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

Agreed. Honestly can't recall a player over the past 10 years who has shown so little that continues to get every excuse made for him. And to top it off besides being a mediocre player he also cant' stay on the field.

This latest Stacy excuse might be the worst one yet.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

Agreed. Honestly can't recall a player over the past 10 years who has shown so little that continues to get every excuse made for him. And to top it off besides being a mediocre player he also cant' stay on the field.

This latest Stacy excuse might be the worst one yet.

so it was an advantage to not have stacy?

when the RBs have 250+ yards against CHI and clemens wins, this means that he is a better QB, right?

and when they hold IND to 8 points and clemens wins, he must be a better QB?

and ryan, the first time he experiences problems with his receiving weapons (even with jones for 5 games, white for 11 and gonzales for 14, is 4-10), but still with far better weapons in part seasons than bradford had in the two seasons he went 7-8-1 and 7-9 (bradford would be crucified for going 4-10 this season).

stafford's record against winning teams in his first four seasons... 1-23. does stafford "suck".

 

[Bob Magaw]

movetrollskypager had his jollies derailing the thread, so moving along, those that want to can congregate in the bradford is the antichrist thread, i'm not going to feed the troll anymore.

 

[menobrown]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

Agreed. Honestly can't recall a player over the past 10 years who has shown so little that continues to get every excuse made for him. And to top it off besides being a mediocre player he also cant' stay on the field.

This latest Stacy excuse might be the worst one yet.

so it was an advantage to not have stacy?

You trying to twist people's words around on purpose? Because saying it was an advantage to not have Stacy is not the same thing as saying he was at a disadvantage not having Stacy.

So be clear no not playing with Stacy was not a disadvantage and I'm not sure how anyone could examine some of the RB's the elite QB's in this game have been playing and arrive at the conclusion you've arrived at.

 

[Warrior]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

so you don't think it was a disadvantage to not have stacy the first month. that is your point?

Stacy isn't anything special. You make it sound like he's Adrian Peterson. And as if Adrian Peterson turns guys like Ponder and Bradford into Peyton Manning. That's just wrong.

Just stop.

 

[MAC_32]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

so you don't think it was a disadvantage to not have stacy the first month. that is your point?

i think if Bradford were a franchise qb he would have won one of these years instead of coming out of ieach one with a new excuse.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Is it coincidence that Stacy had good numbers after Bradford went down? Seems like we could use the same pseudo-logic Bob is using here to say that having Bradford start was an excuse for Stacy's poor numbers early in the season.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

Agreed. Honestly can't recall a player over the past 10 years who has shown so little that continues to get every excuse made for him. And to top it off besides being a mediocre player he also cant' stay on the field.

This latest Stacy excuse might be the worst one yet.

so it was an advantage to not have stacy?

You trying to twist people's words around on purpose? Because saying it was an advantage to not have Stacy is not the same thing as saying he was at a disadvantage not having Stacy.

So be clear no not playing with Stacy was not a disadvantage and I'm not sure how anyone could examine some of the RB's the elite QB's in this game have been playing and arrive at the conclusion you've arrived at.

so no disadvantage relative to clemens IN THE CHI GAME, when the rams rush for 250 yards (no disrespect, but realize there is a pointy hat contingent that seizes on the CHI win to insist this should interpreted as clemens being a better QB than bradford... or any win, for any reason, like when the defense holds IND to 8 points)?

who said bradford is elite?

you said he has shown so little, what were you expecting with a bad OL and bad WRs first three seasons?

in order to have a rational conversation, we should define terms...

what kind of numbers would he need to put up next year where you would say he is better than average (because he was trending to some good numbers in 2013, before the injury)? TD/INT, completion percentage and Y/A?

and what do you think he will do, assuming they are different (in my case they overlap, so I only need one set, which i've posted in the thread).

is stafford better than average? what about 1-23 against winning teams in his first four years?

how does ryan look with injuries this year (picture if he had to deal with that in his first three years).

 

[menobrown]

how does ryan look with injuries this year (picture if he had to deal with that in his first three years.

Like a guy playing 16 games.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

so you don't think it was a disadvantage to not have stacy the first month. that is your point?

Stacy isn't anything special. You make it sound like he's Adrian Peterson. And as if Adrian Peterson turns guys like Ponder and Bradford into Peyton Manning. That's just wrong.

Just stop.

how does suggesting it didn't help bradford having stacy out equate to comparing him to peterson?

exaggerate much?

read the below article about what stacy has done, but you are taking an extreme contrarian position if you think he is some kind of nothing.

just stop.

excerpts...

"Does anyone of sound mind really believe Clemens is responsible for the Rams’ sporadic improvement over these past seven games?

Really?

Goodness. It’s time to drop some reality-check factoid bombs on this bizarre fantasy land.

In Clemens’ seven games as the starter, the Rams ...

1. Are leading the NFL in rushing, with an average of 159 yards per game.

2. Are second in the NFL with an average of 5.2 yards per rushing attempt.

3. Have a defense that leads the league with 24 sacks.

4. Have a defense that’s second in the NFL with 11 takeaways.

5. Have a defense that’s second against the run, allowing 84 yards per game and 3.4 yards per rushing attempt.


6. Have a defense that ranks seventh in points allowed, at 20 per game.

7. Have a defense that has nine interceptions while allowing eight touchdowns over this stretch.

And over the last seven games, the Rams’ starting quarterback ranks 17th in passer rating (78.7), with seven touchdown passes and five interceptions. That would be Clemens. And his completion rate of 55 percent over the last seven starts ranks 20th among regular NFL quarterbacks.

Clemens played very well in the three wins, but whatever success the Rams have had mostly stems from a powerful running game and a sack-happy, opportunistic. defense.

Before Bradford got hurt, he made three starts in the same revamped offense that we've seen Clemens operate. Bradford thrived after the change, benefiting from the renewed emphasis on the running game.

Early in the season the young Rams weren’t ready to master a wide-open offense, so coach Jeff Fisher wisely went back to his roots. He installed Zac Stacy as the lead back and turned his offensive line loose to blast opponents with a physical style of play.

Fisher’s offenses in Tennessee always could run the ball with authority. Same with Rams offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer; over his six seasons in charge of the New York Jets’ offense, the team led the NFL in rushing. And Rams offensive line coach Paul Boudreau is good at this too; the Rams’ coaches know how to scheme a running game. That’s obvious.

Here’s what Bradford did in his three games in the heavy, run-based offense: a 65.4 completion rate, seven touchdown passes, one interception and a passer rating of 111.1.

The Rams were 2-1 in those three games. And I would have liked their chances of winning two games (Seattle and Tennessee) that they lost after Bradford was sidelined.

Bradford was well on the way to his best NFL season; at the time of his injury he was ranked 11th among quarterbacks, with a 91 passer rating, and was establishing career highs in completion percentage, touchdown-pass percentage, and for his lowest interception rate."

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/miklasz-bradford-s-still-the-man-for-rams/article_b24668e2-503a-5a99-9a54-705e58771679.html

 

[Bob Magaw]

how does ryan look with injuries this year (picture if he had to deal with that in his first three years.

Like a guy playing 16 games.

to an awesome 4-10 record.

isn't bradford crucified for going 3-4 this year?

for going 7-8-1 in 2010 as a rookie (after a 1 win season, and after a five year stretch in which the team was 15-65, one of the worst stretches in league history)? for going 7-9 in 2012 (coming off a 2 win season in 2011, one for which posters have said he "sucked", though football outsiders said - "in 2011, the Rams lost 10 CBs, started gimpy D-linemen in Hall and Robbins, had to replace and/or reshuffle the entire starting OL, lost 3 different qbs to injuries, and according to Football Outsiders had the single most injured offense of the entire decade back to 2002."... must be a lame excuse, huh, most injured offense in a decade, which is what, a 1/320 chance, and i guess from the fact that all three QBs were injured behind a decimated OL reflects poorly on bradford?)...

and ryan was 4-10 with jones playing 5 games, white 11 games and gonzalez 14 games.

what would he be if he had bradord's insane clown posse of WRs from 2010-2012... 0-14?

what would he be if he had bradford's weapons for the first three years of his career. 0-48?

what about stafford? 1-23 against winning teams in his first first four seasons? is that good?

why don't you get back with the two sets of numbers, what it would take to say he is above average (lets not get confused about elite), and what you think he will do, respectively?

for me, if he improves over 16 games in 2014 to about 30/10, 63% completion percentage and 7.0 Y/A with a 90+% QBR, it will be hard to say he isn't above average. if people do, they are probably trolls.

if the rams average 40 points a game, and lose 50-40 16 games in a row, that will be on the defense, not bradford, so his projected numbers are more petty bickering-proof and better able to isolate out and compartmentalize his actual performance relative to peers than W-L record, as a tool to help answer the question next year... was he above average or not?

 

[Bob Magaw]

Is it coincidence that Stacy had good numbers after Bradford went down? Seems like we could use the same pseudo-logic Bob is using here to say that having Bradford start was an excuse for Stacy's poor numbers early in the season.

this is an actual post, so it stands.

posts that only say you are deleting my posts are going to get deleted.

posts that only have a picture of the iraqi minister of information with a cute slogan, will get deleted.

posts that say a poster is a dim captain obvious (like the one directed at another poster in the game thread) will get deleted.

an attempt to defend the indefensible positions documented in #450 won't be deleted. i think the thread is interested in how you interpreted a 65 yard run by austin against CHI as meaning clemens is a better passer than bradford?

and how when you made the horrifically wrong projection that austin would probably never amount to anything, with a central point based on him as a *PUNT RETURNER*, that was somehow negated by your clumsy, fumbling attempts to frame bradford and have him take the fall for your grotesquely bad call.

look people make mistakes. just admit you were wrong about austin, rather than try and distract, deflect, misdirect and obfuscate away from your bad call by blaming bradford. own your mistake. i already put up other posts where you were sure it was the OC, it was his lack of natural hands, it was the routes.

is a bad OC bradford's fault? bad routes bradford's fault? were you telling the truth then, when you acknowledged it was these things, or are you telling the truth now, when you blame bradford for everything? please elaborate on why the switchy changey tactics, if not trolling?

nobody can say i have been inconsistent. your opinions blow with the wind, according to whim.

* back on point...

the coaches decision to not play stacy in the first four games (one carry TOTAL, actually) might have had something to do with the slow start? do you blame bradford for that, too? he had about 160 rushing yards combined in weeks 5-6, extrapolate that to 16 weeks, that would be close to 1,300 yards, not too bad?

here is what bradford did in the three games before going down, i'm sure you will appreciate the pseudo-logic.

"Here's what Bradford did in his three games in the heavy, run-based offense: a 65.4 completion rate, seven touchdown passes, one interception and a passer rating of 111.1."

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

so you don't think it was a disadvantage to not have stacy the first month. that is your point?

i think if Bradford were a franchise qb he would have won one of these years instead of coming out of ieach one with a new excuse.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

so you don't think it was a disadvantage to not have stacy the first month. that is your point?

i think if Bradford were a franchise qb he would have won one of these years instead of coming out of ieach one with a new excuse.

first of all, who is claiming he is a franchise QB? people act like it is his fault he was the last #1 overall pick in the old CBA agreement. for ANY QB to justify that contract, nothing short of peyton manning, tom brady, drew brees or aaron rodgers-type numbers would have sufficed. is that realistic? especially with the insane clown posse at WR he had in his first three seasons?

if people will just put up their projected numbers for 2014, what bradford would need to do where they could say he was above average (see mine below*), it would head off at the pass and defuse a lot of shtick that leads to the debate degenerating.

also, if different, what is your expectation. that way, if people say 20/20, 55% and 6.4 Y/A, and he hits the below numbers, we can point back at this thread at that time and see who was right and who was wrong? but it is easier to ridicule with vapid, inane posts that stacy isn't that good, instead of backing up their criticism with hard numbers. no excuses. put up the numbers. if not, what are people afraid of?

maybe we can put it in the new bradford is the antichrist thread? so we can stop derailing this thread?

* for me, if he improves over 16 games in 2014 to about 30/10, 63% completion percentage and 7.0 Y/A with 90% QBR, it will be hard to say he isn't above average. if people do, they are probably trolls.

also, if the rams average 40 points a game in 2014, and they lose 50-40 16 games in a row, that is not on bradford, but the defense (unless he is throwing on average seven pick-sixes per game, THAT would be on bradford).

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

I was enjoying the Countdown to the Top Pick in the 2014 Draft thread. Wish we still had that one.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Maybe I just WANT Bradford to be good. He's such an enigma and always seems on the verge and it's easy to look down on the surrounding talent.

I want him to be good too. I just see it how I see it. Sometimes I'm wrong, not this time though. Imagine, a team with a first overall pick at QB. The team loads up on talent around him. They just signed another 1st overall choice and All Pro at LT. A pro bowler at C. Another good young high draft pick at G. A new big play TE. A team soaking in valuable draft picks at WR, including a guy so fast (that certain Pravda inspired people here jump all over these weird records for big plays). Not to mention another WR chosen at 9th overall, the first skill position player of the draft. People can choose to keep making excuses for this QB, sure. More rational people don't make excuses. He guided his team to the same record as a journeyman QB. That's not good production, that's a poor job at best.

"soaking in valuable draft picks at WR"? in his first three years (by which point most had already written off bradford as mediocre)? do you recommend the veal? please tip your bartender.

below are all the super awesome WR weapons bradford had "soaking" in greatness... the immortal austin pettis and brandon gibson. we tried this before, and i know how the novel ends. in the other thread, some insisted with a straight face that the STL WRs were better than GB. which was demonstrated as preposterous (at least as a position to hold) by the poll, where that position got trounced 90% to 10%. and it would have been higher, if not for four people who stubbornly, cussedly voted for STL (but were too embarrassed to defend that ridiculous position in public). maybe some in this thread?

pro bowl center... that would be wells. did you know he missed about the first half of 2012? if so, why not mention it? which good young high pick at guard? are you talking about saffold? he didn't get put on the inside until bradford was already done for the year. chris williams? the first round bust that was cut by CHI. you want to talk about austin, who elsewhere you said would never amount to anything based on brilliant punt return analysis (which has nothing to do with bradford). you either don't know what you are talking about in the case of the OL, or are actively engaged in disinformation like your whiplash-inducing, contractictory, flip flopping positions on austin. who looks more like lenin, stalin and the iraqi minister of propaganda now? put it in the bradford is the anti-christ thread.

cross-posted from another thread...

It has been said that Bradford isn't good (i think that he "sucked" in the 2011 season, for instance - see immediately above for context)...

It has also been said on that basis, that because he isn't good, we have no idea how his WRs would do.

But that isn't true. Bradford played with other WRs that are no longer with the team. How many have been great with other QBs?

Another factor not typically discussed, timing is very important between QB and WRs (unlike baseball where you can make a trade and slap a left fielder into the starting lineup the following day)... not only has there been a lack of talent, busted picks, free agents and personnel moves for most of the first few years, but nearly constant injuries and resulting roster turnover and starter churning. h-h-how was he supposed to develop chemisty and timing based on the below?

2010-11 WR Rogue's Gallery (Spagnuolo/Devaney era)

2010 top WRs... Amendola? never cracked 700 yards or 3 TDs in STL (37-412-1 in NE, missed 4 games, his problem in STL... missed 23 games last two seasons with the rams)... Brandon Gibson? never cracked 700 yards or more than 53 receptions in STL, not starting in MIA... Laurent Robinson? never really did anything before or after the 11 TD season as WR3 in DAL, parlayed that into a big contract in JAX (went 24-252-0 in 2012, now out of the league)... Mark Clayton? peaked his second year in BAL, all downhill after that, played seven games COMBINED in 2010-2011, Bradford's first two years (out of the league since)... Danario Alexander? he is actually talented, the problem is, hard for him to go two games in a row without his knee exploding, i think he had at least three ACL reconstructions before even setting foot on an NFL gridiron the first time, and may have had several more since (best year 37-658-7 in ten games last season, 0 games this year, i think he had another ACL tear)... the immortal Mardy Gilyard? whopping 8-78-0... TOTAL, in his career, played one year in STL, bounced around as a ST, could be out of the league (like Chris Givens two years later, top pick of round four, #99, two picks before TB Mike Williams, who wouldn't have fit ex-HC Steve Spagnuolo's "four pillars" philosphy - no way would he have drafted a player like LB Alec Ogletree).

2011 top WRs... Brandon "Matrix" Lloyd? talented WR, but acquired by the rams in a trade towards end of his career for a (what would turn out to be a wasted) conditional sixth that turned into a fifth, where he only played for part of one season (10 starts, went 51-683-5, would have projected to about 80-1,100-8... went to NE, where he went 74-911-4, the yardage in his last year was symbolic, despite being 32, reportedly retired)... next leading WRs Gibson and Alexander were already covered above, each had 431 yards and a combined 3 TDs... Austin Pettis? he is a nice guy, good hands and blocker, big body in the red zone, but a plodder, one of the least explosive starting WRs in the NFL (this will be a career season, currently 29-308-4)... Mike "MSW" Sims-Walker? best years were second and third in JAX, combined 106-1,431-14 (only four games and three starts in STL... 11-139-0, he was a free agent dropped after the lloyd trade, played two more games as a prodigal WR in JAX, not heard from since)... Amendola and Clayton also already covered above (combined three games and two starts, for 8-71-0), i think they had torn ACLs, as did wasted 2008 high second rounder Donnie Avery, from NFL WR factory houston (another off-the-beaten-path, risky pick partly based on measureables, like Quick - in Avery's case, because of his speed... as in the case with Quick and Jeffery discussed below, they passed on a superior prospect from a higher profile college with less level of competition concerns in DeSean Jackson, who went exactly 16 picks and a half round later) the year before, in the 2010 pre-season. he was released in sept of 2011, and in fact his career in STL never overlapped with Bradford.

2012-13 Glimmerings of Hope (Fisher/Snead era)

2012 top WRs... Brian Quick was the top pick of day two in the 2012 draft... despite needing an immediate infusion of talent, the rams took a known raw project that so far has a Jerome Simpson-like career arc, passing on the vastly more pro-ready, emerging star Alshon Jeffery, who went exactly 12 picks later... credited with four starts (of a possible 26 games), he passes the eyeball test as far as being big, strong, fast and athletic in the mold of Terrell Owens... unfortunately, he has still struggled with learning the offense and assignments nearly two full seasons into his career, and we really don't even know nearing his third season whether he has what it takes to be a future starter, or will always be a perennial tease based on "potential" and "upside" (if they had Jeffery and Austin, doubt they would contemplate taking consensus top two WRs from the class of '14, Sammy Watkins or Mike Evans)... his career totals are 27-442-4 (in a breakout soph campaign, Jeffery 70-1,109-5 in just 12 games and 10 starts)... some will say Quick is held back because Bradford "sucks"... he has the body to be a perfect complement to Givens and the admittedly smurfish Austin... some evident problems have been not looking for passes and having Bradford clang the ball off his backside, or on contested deep passes, standing around sheepishly like a passive, apathetic victim of a street mugging... when it is a COACHES DECISION to sit him, hard to blame Bradford for his lack of development (on the front office for drafting him, positional coaches for the glacial pace of "coaching up" and/or Quick himself, for possible lack of professionalism, a red flag to still goof assignments and responsibilities well into his second year)... as to Givens, it is early, far too early to make sweeping long term projections, played better last year (broke NFL record by Willie Gault that stood for nearly three decades with a 50+ yard reception in five straight games, belying the old canard routinely trotted out by Bradford detractors that he "doesn't throw a good deep ball", incidentally), not as well in a soph slump season, but it is tough to evaluate with Bradford missing nearly half the games played so far... if he was starring, they again might not think about adding Watkins or Evans, though unlike with Quick, he isn't a big WR (Watkins, and even more so Evans, would make better complements to Austin and Givens size-wise).

2013 top WRs... represents a new dawn in the Rams WR saga, as eighth overall pick Tavon Austin is the first STL first round pick at WR/TE since Torry Holt in 1999, and has already flashed in a recent two game stretch against IND and CHI with four TDs of 57+ yards previously only done by legendary hall of famers Gale Sayers and Jim Brown... Stedman Bailey will play at least a key role going forward with the talent to eventually start, imo... free agent TE Jared Cook, was signed to one of the richest contracts for his position in league history, and while he hasn't recaptured his game one magic, Bradford has been out nearly half the games played (also complicating Givens evaluation, as noted above), and he is quietly on target to break the franchise receiving records for TE)...

2010 - 2013 rams stats

http://www.pro-footb...ms/ram/2010.htm

http://www.pro-footb...ms/ram/2011.htm

http://www.pro-footb...ms/ram/2012.htm

http://www.pro-footb...ms/ram/2013.htm

 

[Bob Magaw]

I was enjoying the Countdown to the Top Pick in the 2014 Draft thread. Wish we still had that one.

sorry, i'm done with the subject, others can adjourn to the bradford is the anti-christ thread if they want to continue the hatchet job there.

 

[MAC_32]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

so you don't think it was a disadvantage to not have stacy the first month. that is your point?

i think if Bradford were a franchise qb he would have won one of these years instead of coming out of ieach one with a new excuse.

first of all, who is claiming he is a franchise QB? people act like it is his fault he was the last #1 overall pick in the old CBA agreement. for ANY QB to justify that contract, nothing short of peyton manning, tom brady, drew brees or aaron rodgers-type numbers would have sufficed. is that realistic? especially with the insane clown posse at WR he had in his first three seasons?

if people will just put up their projected numbers for 2014, what bradford would need to do where they could say he was above average (see mine below*)?

also, if different, what is your expectation. that way, if people say 20/20, 55% and 6.4 Y/A, and he hits the below numbers, we can point back at this thread at that time and see who was right and who was wrong? but it is easier to ridicule with vapid, inane posts that stacy isn't that good, instead of backing up their criticism with hard numbers. no excuses. put up the numbers. if not, what are people afraid of?

maybe we can put it in the new bradford is the antichrist thread? so we can stop derailing this thread?

* for me, if he improves over 16 games in 2014 to about 30/10, 63% completion percentage and 7.0 Y/A with 90% QBR, it will be hard to say he isn't above average. if people do, they are probably trolls.

also, if the rams average 40 points a game in 2014, and they lose 50-40 16 games in a row, that is not on bradford, but the defense (unless he is throwing on average seven pick-sixes per game, THAT would be on bradford).

the team needs to win more than seven games.

 

[Bob Magaw]

looking for TD/INT ratio, completion percentage, Y/A and QBR.

in other words, what it would take for you to say he was above average.

and a second set, for what you expect him to do.

it's like Karl Popper's theory of falsifiability or disprovability as the difference between science and religion. put your numbers out there, and in 2014, we can see who's forecast was more accurate?

what do have to be afraid of? you know he is terrible, right?

I put my numbers in the thread already.

again, if the rams average 40 points a game, and lose 16 games 50-40, you aren't going to say Bradford is terrible, though, right?

maybe put the numbers in the Bradford is the Antichrist thread, so we don't continue to derail this thread.

 

[MAC_32]

There is a lot more to winning football games and good qb play than raw data.

When your team has failed as much as his and considering the manner at which they have failed eventually you need to look in the mirror.

 

[Bob Magaw]

There is a lot more to winning football games and good qb play than raw data.

When your team has failed as much as his and considering the manner at which they have failed eventually you need to look in the mirror.

and there is a lot more to W-L than QB play.why do you continue to hide behind excuses instead of just putting down the numbers? maybe you need to look in the mirror?

please put them in the Bradford is the anti-christ thread, so we can stop derailing this one.

* if he is 64/0, 80% completion percentage, 20.0 Y/A and QBR is maxed out and they go 0-16, can we agree that wasn't on the QB. why is getting detractors to cough up numbers always like pulling teeth? what do you have to hide? don't want to risk being wrong?

 

[Donnybrook]

I'm expecting Derek Carr's draft stock to plummet in the coming weeks.

 

[lod01]

how does ryan look with injuries this year (picture if he had to deal with that in his first three years.

Like a guy playing 16 games.

to an awesome 4-10 record.

isn't bradford crucified for going 3-4 this year?

for going 7-8-1 in 2010 as a rookie (after a 1 win season, and after a five year stretch in which the team was 15-65, one of the worst stretches in league history)? for going 7-9 in 2013 (coming off a 2 win season in 2011, one for which posters have said he "sucked", though football outsiders said - "in 2011, the Rams lost 10 CBs, started gimpy D-linemen in Hall and Robbins, had to replace and/or reshuffle the entire starting OL, lost 3 different qbs to injuries, and according to Football Outsiders had the single most injured offense of the entire decade back to 2002."... must be a lame excuse, huh, most injured offense in a decade, which is what, a 1/320 chance, and i guess from the fact that all three QBs were injured behind a decimated OL reflects poorly oin bradford?)...

and ryan was 4-10 with jones 5 games, white 11 games and gonzalez 14 games.

The ATL coaching staff neutralizes all that plus their OL stinks. Lets see what happens if Mr Home Depot is as good at running the Falcons. If he is he would fire the underachieving coaching staff.

 

[MAC_32]

There is a lot more to winning football games and good qb play than raw data.

When your team has failed as much as his and considering the manner at which they have failed eventually you need to look in the mirror.

and there is a lot more to W-L than QB play.why do you continue to hide behind excuses instead of just putting down the numbers? maybe you need to look in the mirror?

please put them in the Bradford is the anti-christ thread, so we can stop derailing this one.

never opened that thread. don't plan to. Thread title like that, doomed from the beginning.If St Louis sees a possible better qb available in this draft they would be crazy to pass. At this point, difficult to imagine Sam is the answer. It will be easier to build around a cheaper rookie too.

Sam can try the Alex Smith career path.

 

[lod01]

I'm expecting Derek Carr's draft stock to plummet in the coming weeks.

Comparison: David Carr. The dude will suck bad.

 

[MAC_32]

I'm expecting Derek Carr's draft stock to plummet in the coming weeks.

Comparison: David Carr. The dude will suck bad.

this game is already old.

 

[Donnybrook]

Daniel Jeremiah‏@MoveTheSticks

Derek Carr has a lot of tools but I have concerns with his poise. Tough to coach that up.

 

[Bob Magaw]

how does ryan look with injuries this year (picture if he had to deal with that in his first three years.

Like a guy playing 16 games.

to an awesome 4-10 record.

isn't bradford crucified for going 3-4 this year?

for going 7-8-1 in 2010 as a rookie (after a 1 win season, and after a five year stretch in which the team was 15-65, one of the worst stretches in league history)? for going 7-9 in 2013 (coming off a 2 win season in 2011, one for which posters have said he "sucked", though football outsiders said - "in 2011, the Rams lost 10 CBs, started gimpy D-linemen in Hall and Robbins, had to replace and/or reshuffle the entire starting OL, lost 3 different qbs to injuries, and according to Football Outsiders had the single most injured offense of the entire decade back to 2002."... must be a lame excuse, huh, most injured offense in a decade, which is what, a 1/320 chance, and i guess from the fact that all three QBs were injured behind a decimated OL reflects poorly oin bradford?)...

and ryan was 4-10 with jones 5 games, white 11 games and gonzalez 14 games.

The ATL coaching staff neutralizes all that plus their OL stinks. Lets see what happens if Mr Home Depot is as good at running the Falcons. If he is he would fire the underachieving coaching staff.

Right, and spagnuolo was such a good HC that he got fired, than got fired again from a DC or coaching position. The STL OL wasn't bad in Bradford's first three years? only he didn't have julio jones, roddy white and tony gonzalez to throw to. not getting your point? how come when these come up with bradford, they are called excuse?

 

[Bob Magaw]

There is a lot more to winning football games and good qb play than raw data.

When your team has failed as much as his and considering the manner at which they have failed eventually you need to look in the mirror.

and there is a lot more to W-L than QB play.why do you continue to hide behind excuses instead of just putting down the numbers? maybe you need to look in the mirror?

please put them in the Bradford is the anti-christ thread, so we can stop derailing this one.

never opened that thread. don't plan to. Thread title like that, doomed from the beginning.If St Louis sees a possible better qb available in this draft they would be crazy to pass. At this point, difficult to imagine Sam is the answer. It will be easier to build around a cheaper rookie too.

Sam can try the Alex Smith career path.

you could put the numbers here. that would be preferable to derailing the threads with dozens of posts making excuses and dancing around the fact you are refusing to put up numbers. but I can understand if you don't want to risk being grossly off. there is a greater risk of that if you put up low numbers consistent with your negativity.

 

[lod01]

how does ryan look with injuries this year (picture if he had to deal with that in his first three years.

Like a guy playing 16 games.

to an awesome 4-10 record.

isn't bradford crucified for going 3-4 this year?

for going 7-8-1 in 2010 as a rookie (after a 1 win season, and after a five year stretch in which the team was 15-65, one of the worst stretches in league history)? for going 7-9 in 2013 (coming off a 2 win season in 2011, one for which posters have said he "sucked", though football outsiders said - "in 2011, the Rams lost 10 CBs, started gimpy D-linemen in Hall and Robbins, had to replace and/or reshuffle the entire starting OL, lost 3 different qbs to injuries, and according to Football Outsiders had the single most injured offense of the entire decade back to 2002."... must be a lame excuse, huh, most injured offense in a decade, which is what, a 1/320 chance, and i guess from the fact that all three QBs were injured behind a decimated OL reflects poorly oin bradford?)...

and ryan was 4-10 with jones 5 games, white 11 games and gonzalez 14 games.

The ATL coaching staff neutralizes all that plus their OL stinks. Lets see what happens if Mr Home Depot is as good at running the Falcons. If he is he would fire the underachieving coaching staff.

Right, and spagnuolo was such a good HC that he got fired, than got fired again from a DC or coaching position. The STL OL wasn't bad in Bradford's first three years? only he didn't have julio jones, roddy white and tony gonzalez to throw to. not getting your point? how come when these come up with bradford, they are called excuse?

I'm unimpressed with Bradford. He's just a guy. If he's the QB, that team is not going far.

 

[lod01]

I'm expecting Derek Carr's draft stock to plummet in the coming weeks.

Comparison: David Carr. The dude will suck bad.

this game is already old.

Wait til this turd hits the NFL scene. I'll really pick my game up.

 

[MAC_32]

There is a lot more to winning football games and good qb play than raw data.

When your team has failed as much as his and considering the manner at which they have failed eventually you need to look in the mirror.

and there is a lot more to W-L than QB play.why do you continue to hide behind excuses instead of just putting down the numbers? maybe you need to look in the mirror?

please put them in the Bradford is the anti-christ thread, so we can stop derailing this one.

never opened that thread. don't plan to. Thread title like that, doomed from the beginning.If St Louis sees a possible better qb available in this draft they would be crazy to pass. At this point, difficult to imagine Sam is the answer. It will be easier to build around a cheaper rookie too.

Sam can try the Alex Smith career path.

you could put the numbers here. that would be preferable to derailing the threads with dozens of posts making excuses and dancing around the fact you are refusing to put up numbers. but I can understand if you don't want to risk being grossly off. there is a greater risk of that if you put up low numbers consistent with your negativity.

when have I said anything about numbers?

 

[Spike]

Any chance we could talk about something OTHER THAN St Louis and Bradford?

 

[Bob Magaw]

how does ryan look with injuries this year (picture if he had to deal with that in his first three years.

Like a guy playing 16 games.

to an awesome 4-10 record.

isn't bradford crucified for going 3-4 this year?

for going 7-8-1 in 2010 as a rookie (after a 1 win season, and after a five year stretch in which the team was 15-65, one of the worst stretches in league history)? for going 7-9 in 2013 (coming off a 2 win season in 2011, one for which posters have said he "sucked", though football outsiders said - "in 2011, the Rams lost 10 CBs, started gimpy D-linemen in Hall and Robbins, had to replace and/or reshuffle the entire starting OL, lost 3 different qbs to injuries, and according to Football Outsiders had the single most injured offense of the entire decade back to 2002."... must be a lame excuse, huh, most injured offense in a decade, which is what, a 1/320 chance, and i guess from the fact that all three QBs were injured behind a decimated OL reflects poorly oin bradford?)...

and ryan was 4-10 with jones 5 games, white 11 games and gonzalez 14 games.

The ATL coaching staff neutralizes all that plus their OL stinks. Lets see what happens if Mr Home Depot is as good at running the Falcons. If he is he would fire the underachieving coaching staff.

Right, and spagnuolo was such a good HC that he got fired, than got fired again from a DC or coaching position. The STL OL wasn't bad in Bradford's first three years? only he didn't have julio jones, roddy white and tony gonzalez to throw to. not getting your point? how come when these come up with bradford, they are called excuse?

I'm unimpressed with Bradford. He's just a guy. If he's the QB, that team is not going far.

that is OK, i'm not impressed with your critique.

he was #11 in QBR this year, better than just a guy.

and he didn't have julio jones, roddy white or tony gonzalez.

feel free to put up a set of numbers that are falsifiable and disprovable (TD/INT ratio, completion percentage, Y/A and QBR) that you could admit in 2014 was evidence of being better tha just a guy. i realize it is hard, slogging work much more tedious than vague dismissals, and would take a few seconds.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Any chance we could talk about something OTHER THAN St Louis and Bradford?

why not ask a question about football, or make an observation, or link an article... bring some content.

 

[Bob Magaw]

There is a lot more to winning football games and good qb play than raw data.

When your team has failed as much as his and considering the manner at which they have failed eventually you need to look in the mirror.

and there is a lot more to W-L than QB play.why do you continue to hide behind excuses instead of just putting down the numbers? maybe you need to look in the mirror?

please put them in the Bradford is the anti-christ thread, so we can stop derailing this one.

never opened that thread. don't plan to. Thread title like that, doomed from the beginning.If St Louis sees a possible better qb available in this draft they would be crazy to pass. At this point, difficult to imagine Sam is the answer. It will be easier to build around a cheaper rookie too.

Sam can try the Alex Smith career path.[/quote

you could put the numbers here. that would be preferable to derailing the threads with dozens of posts making excuses and dancing around the fact you are refusing to put up numbers. but I can understand if you don't want to risk being grossly off. there is a greater risk of that if you put up low numbers consistent with your negativity.

when have I said anything about numbers?

REALLY? that obtuse?

I keep asking for numbers, and you keep hiding behind excuses not to put them down. Why keep dodging the request? If you don't want risk being wrong, that is understandable, but than not sure what we have to talk about, in which case please change the subject or move along.

 

[MAC_32]

I think context is much more important than raw data. They're both meaningful but one more than the other.

Analyze each of his games and seasons then tell me how he is the quarterback of a successful team.

 

[Bob Magaw]

.I think the question is misguided and misses the point. if the giants had avoided eli manning for this rationale, that would have been a mistake, right? does two super bowls work for you? if not, how many would it take to convince you he was great... 3-4-5-more?

even if he isn't as great as peyton, he has been really, really, really good (don't know why the regression this year, but if he retires tomorrow, a two super bowl legacy, better than peyton, is pretty good). though not brothers, we could illustrate the principle by saying... if adrian peterson was jim brown's younger brother, and calvin johnson was jerry rice's younger brother, and neither was as good as their older sibling, they could still both be really, really, really good. that is all i'm saying? doesn't seem very controversial?

if you think about it, bracie, peyton might be the best QB ever. needless to say, that sets a pretty high bar for eli to be better than. but it also leaves a lot of room for him to still be great in his own right.* as i said before, how many times has their been two brothers drafted in the first round that played QB? once? if so, that seems like a small sample group to draw hard conclusions from (i throw out cases like the palmer or detmer brothers where only one or neither were first rounders, as not being analogous to carr if the younger brother is drafted in the first).

finally, if you could have eli at 21 in this draft, knowing how good his carer would be, would you not draft him given the chance (say you are HOU and don't have to pay to move up for his rights), because his career wouldn't be as luminous as peyton's? that seems unlikely.

* hypothetically, if eli plays as long as peyton and finishes #2 in all important statistical categories for a passer, that would leave him not as good as peyton, but better than every other QB that ever played the game, besides peyton. by the above criteria, would he than be an abject failure, and not worth drafting because he wasn't as good as his brother? now the carr and manning brothers aren't the same, but at least in the case of the manning brothers, i think this shows how we can put that theory to rest.

Their have only been three sets of brothers who have quarterback NFL teams, Ty and Koy Detmer, the Mannings, and Josh and Luke McCowan. Small sample size but their have been geneological studies of birth order that are much larger which provide solid numbers that indicate first-born males tend to have higher levels of testonsterone than later born males of the same parents.Its pretty interesting stuff. Speculation is that testosterone could be seen as a threat to the body of a female so each preceeding birth of males the body of the birthing female attacks testosterone and thus each following male birth tends to have lower levels of testonsertone.

In any event, I thought the tidbit was worth passing along, probably because I was aware of other birth studies outside of the NFL.

also the palmer's.

try and read the last paragraph and see if you concur that IF the manning scenario unfolded, it would kind of demolish the premise.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I think context is much more important than raw data. They're both meaningful but one more than the other.

Analyze each of his games and seasons then tell me how he is the quarterback of a successful team.

you don't answer a question with a question. you just said data is meaningful. provide a set of numbers for next year where even a critic like yourself would admit he was better than average. if you refuse to do this, cool, but again, it is a reasonable request, if you are unable or unwilling to accomodate that simple request, than i'm not interested in continuing the conversation for hundreds of exchanges.* i've been doing nothing but providing context, but it falls on deaf ears. switch WRs for bradford and ryan, and bradford would be acknowledged as a star, and you would be lecturing people how ryan was a loser. give bradford jones, white and gonzalez and he does better, give ryan austin pettis and brandon gibson (or amendola the year he missed 15 games, or DX one of the years his knee exploded after playing more than two games in a row, or the year donnie avery's knee explode- you mean that kind of context, or in 2011 when their offense graded as the most injure of the decade - that kind of context?) and he does worse.

 

[MAC_32]

Projecting anything for 2014 right now would be stupid. Ask again in June.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Projecting anything for 2014 right now would be stupid. Ask again in June.

good one, only took a dozen dodges to come up with that snap. see ya in june. i'm not assuming the team will add watkins, my numbers should be even easier to reach if STL does. there could be OL changes, saffold, wells and dahl are all uncertain to return, but former OAK third round OT barksdale has been a major find and bookend with long, they have outland trophy winner barrett jones to plug in at center or guard if needed, and they are the best positioned of any team in the draft to reload at WR and OL. but i know the team well, and maybe that makes it easier for me to go out on a limb like that.

you may be confused about part of what i'm asking for. numbers that if he reached them, you would say he was better than average. I also asked for people to put up a second set based on actual expectations, assuming they are different for many (not for me, they overlap). your concern is more coherent in this second context. i still don't get how it would be stupid in the first context. I think in reality it is a lot simpler than you are making it, but again, if you don't want to participate, cool, see ya in june. in the meantime, can we please change the subject or move along?

as mr. wolf said in pulp fiction... pretty please with sugar on top.

 

[MAC_32]

So, deleting posts are common practice around here?

Cool.

 

[RaiderBones]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

new excuse every year. In the end, his teams don't win.

Agreed. Honestly can't recall a player over the past 10 years who has shown so little that continues to get every excuse made for him. And to top it off besides being a mediocre player he also cant' stay on the field.

This latest Stacy excuse might be the worst one yet.

You apparently have never visited a Raiders forum. They have thrown in every excuse in the book as to why McFadden didn't put up elite numbers. IF he wasn't always injured, IF he had a better OL, IF he had a better scheme, IF he had a better OC, or IF he had a better head coach, etc. Yet Rashad Jennings comes in this year and plays real good with the same OL, OC, HC, and scheme.

 

[Bob Magaw]

So, deleting posts are common practice around here?

Cool.

you mean ones like smell ya later, bradford?that say nothing else, offer nothing substantive, nothing football related, and are jokey, snarky, flip, responses that would be more appropriate in the FFA, and are just of a getting in the last word nature. you mean those?

or following up a deleted post with another post about deleted posts (which i'm only leaving up as an example to the thread of kinds of posts that get deleted).

you are correct, that is common practice.

keep it substantive and football related.*

your last two didn't qualify. if i left in every post like these, the thread would sprawl to unwieldy proportions (the unnecessary bradford digression is a microcosm of this).

again, pretty please with sugar on top, change the subject (and I don't mean deleted posts) or move along.

* this includes posts that say nothing but more Bradford excuses? it is tedious to have hundreds of these same posts. if you explain your rationale, that is fine.

more substance and less snark, so we can start upping the signal/noise ratio.

again, again, pretty, pretty please with extra sugar on top, change the subject (to something other than deleted posts) or move along.

 

[MAC_32]

Another offseason full of excuses for Bradford, huh?

not playing with stacy the first month is an excuse?

90% QBR is an excuse?

hmm, strange, can't find my original post. Where oh where could it be...