Elsewhere in the thread (not from you, but I'll address it here), the issue came up that Bradford's numbers were inflated in 2013 due to high passing TD numbers, in order to diminish or dismiss them. This is a common critique. What isn't usually brought up is the context.
I find the critique typical in viewing this fact purely through a negative lens and in a one sided manner (it was a fluke).
Sigh... it was only a matter of time before you showed up to make excuses for Bradford. Considering he was on pace for
an NFL record for goal line passing TDs, yes, it absolutely was a fluke. Thus, Bradford's PPG last year should not be a reason for optimism this year. I'd like to believe Britt and Bradford will light it up next year, as I'm sure both can be had extremely cheaply in all formats, but I can't say I have much faith in either of them, particularly Bradford, and Britt can't do anything without a QB. However, as you said, it is encouraging that his former coach is the one that signed him.
Actually I was already in the thread (hard to project Britt while leaving out the QB) and similarly thought it was inevitable you would rear your completely one sided, unswervingly negative slant.
From that perspective, it would be consistent to dismissively label the suggestion that maybe it didn't help the QB to not have the starting RB play in the first month an "excuse". Dismissing the point in the absence of addressing it may be the best strategy if it isn't the most defensible ground to attempt to argue that the presence of Stacy from the first game couldn't have improved the offense (more sustained drives and red zone appearances) and positioned the QB to score other passing TDs in different ways than he might have otherwise.
As the custodian of flukiness, how many TDs is the QB allowed to have where the total isn't mechanically, reflexively lumped into the flukey category? The QB throwing for a historically high percentage of passing TDs in close is objective. The choice, and belief it is based on, to dismissively ignore it, mentally slap in previous numbers with absolutely no attempt to explore and examine possible CONTEXTUAL and SITUATIONAL differences between the past, present and future, and to treat it exactly the same as if it didn't happen, is your interpretation and opinion. Your "excuse" for your contextless, situationless dismissal.
While on the subject of dismissing and ignoring, the QBs low INT number could be relevant. A detractor would predictably note that as an indication of "not taking chances". This could be countered by stating the obvious that this interpretaion or opinion overlooks the fact that it facilitates an uptick of TD passes when you have the ball instead of turning it over. Who is "really right" and who is making excuses isn't that clear in this case. BTW, by all means ignore the below like you ignored the TD/INT ratio and PPG. I am as disinterested in your predictable dismissal as you are no doubt with discussing "excuses". It is for the thread, so others can make up their own mind and come to their own conclusions.
What are some CONTEXTUAL and SITUATIONAL positive factors (what you would call "excuses") to consider the possibility that the 14/4 TD/INT ration may not have been ENTIRELY flukey, and safe to completely ignore and dismiss, but evidence of the possible inflection point of an improvement arc and trajectory:
1 - Free agent LT Jake Long. While not playing at his former 4 X Pro Bowl level, he was easily the best LT in the QBs tenure.
2 - Free agent TE Jared Cook. Though not a complete TE, was easily the most explosive receiver at the position in the QBs tenure.
3 - 1.8 WR Tavon Austin. Mixed growing pains with flashes of explosiveness, the highest pedigree STL WR since Torry Holt in '99.
SITUATIONAL and CONTEXTUAL negative factors, the reversal of which could possibly point to cause for future optimism.
4 - Austin Pettis is plodding, pedestrian, one of the least explosive WRs in the league and struggles to gain separation.
5 - Brian Quick continued to miss assignments, struggle with the level of competition transition and lose the confidence of Fisher.
6 - Chris Givens failed to develop as a route runner, making him easy to defense as a one trick deep threat and no help in the red zone.
7 - Stedman Bailey, who may run the best routes and have the best hands on the team, inexplicably didn't start until very late.
8 - Kenny Britt, IF he returns to form, represents a combo of pedigree, size, physicality, talent and skill set absent last year.
9 - Dahl at guard and Saffold at OT on the right side of the OL were not as strong of a combo as Saffold at guard and Barksdale at OT.
10 - STL (1.2) could plug Greg Robinson or Jake Matthews in at LG or Sammy Watkins at starting WR, obviously unavailable in 2013.
As noted, late in the season, far too late to be of any use to the QB, Bailey (one of the most natural and talented WRs on the team) ascended the depth chart and was in the process of surpassing Pettis and Quick. His development and that of Austin, which was stunted early with horrifically unimaginitive route concepts and designs by OC Schottenheimer (he flashed his potential when used more creatively against IND and CHI), as well as the presence of a potentially motivated Britt (and possibly Watkins) COULD be some positive factors translating to differences between the first half of 2013 and what preceded it, and 2014 and beyond (or instead choose to ignore and dismiss them as "excuses").
Does all this mean I think the QB is likely to replicate a 14/4 TD/INT ratio through the first seven games of 2014 (with Jake Long, currently rehabbing a torn ACL)? No. But I also don't think it makes sense to completely dismiss and ignore clearly present and different CONTEXTUAL and SITUATIONAL positive factors just because they don't comfortably align or mesh with a negative confirmation bias.
I'm sure most of this has been covered in this thread, but the guy had the lowest catch Pct in the NFL of guys with at least 30 targets.
