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.

Sam Bradford - A Reevaluation (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
starting another thread because it is a different subject than the countdown to out of town premise.

i continue to see a lot of posters state bradford is "terrible".

this was exacerbated by his admittedly brutal showing on thur night against SF in week four, one of the worst of his career, in i think first national appearance in few seasons (?)...

a few things can cause mischief (on both sides, pro and con), subjectivity, forming a conclusion, and possibly ignoring later changes...

also, not being clear on whether we are talking about fantasy football or the actual NFL...

another factor is that he has played for some historically bad teams (15-65 before fisher showed up, from 2007-2011, the last two seasons of which were bradford's first two), complicating his evaluation...

some point to what luck did his rookie year... but luck was best prospect in at least a decade plus since manning (and arguably further, extending back several decades to elway - in other words, one of best prospects in league history)... that is a harsh comparison... in other words, simplistically, he could not be as good as luck and be "good" as opposed to terrible or mediocre. also, clearly the 2007-2011 colts weren't as bad as the rams (one of worst half decades in history of professional sports, not just NFL), so that sort of defeats purpose of that comparison.

he took the 2010 team (as a rookie) and 2012 team to 7-9 records (from one and two win seasons in previous years, respectively)... both in year one rebuilds... he has played on youngest team in league in 2012-2013... some would say going from 1 or 2 to 7 wins is mediocre?

i'd like to do a few things in the thread...

track him in 2013 (and going forward)...

and make a clear distinction if you are talking about him in fantasy football, or actual NFL QB sense...

i'm more interested in dynasty, but clearly this has concurrent redraft relevance.

also to set up some benchmarks or metrics, to eliminate some subjectivity (i saw him play once in past three to four years, in thur night game against SF, and he is terrible :) )...

for now, i'll focus more on fantasy, as they are youngest team in league, relatively early in fisher's massive rebuild, and i do think there will be a better sense of where he is at independent of his surroundings by next year... if others want to, that is fine, but just putting a qualifier/disclaimer in first post, highlighting why i MAY not have as much interest on actual NFL side this year (ie - if rams finish 7-9 behind SEA and SF in NFC west, maybe two of top three teams in NFL, having a conversation that this "proves" bradford is terrible or mediocre).

he is currently pacing for under 4,000 yards (was pacing for over 4,000 yards before week six, a strange game in which he threw for 3 TDs in about a 38-12 win, but only had like 100 yards, with the team getting two defensive TDs), but 34 TDs (13 TDs through six games is fifth in league, one back of a three way tie for second with 14 TDs by brees, romo and rivers).

manning is the only QB that has started every game with less picks at 2 INTs... bradford is tied for second lowest (3) with romo, ryan, luck and smith.

don't know if QB rating is key data point (some consider it outmoded and antiquated), but for what it is worth, he is 11th (90.7).

i looked in one league, and he is currently #9 QB (ahead of non-bye QBs luck, wilson, eli manning, dalton, kaepernick and brady - stewart and RGIII have had byes)...

so in fantasy terms, what are some benchmarks where you would label him above average, average and below average.

if he finishes with around 4,000 yards, 30+ TDs and in the top 10-12 QBs... he does have both games with SEA and another with SF, so no lock to do so... but if he does, imo, it will be untenable to call him a "terrible" QB, or even mediocre, IN FANTASY TERMS.

* i'm aware some will point to his low career YPA average as "proof" that he is a terrible or mediocre actual NFL QB... but again, that has no bearing on his fantasy standing.

also, conceded his career 58.4 completion percentage is underwhelming... than again, he had something like 12 different WR starters in first three seasons (half of which are out of the league), not ideal when QB/WR battery relies on timing, chemistry and rapport... this year he is at 59.5% (same as 2012, 60% as rookie), but i'm pretty sure they are leading the league in drops handily, so if they can get that straightened out, there is hope maybe he could get closer to 65% in future for first time in his career, and hopefully move more in that direction going forward...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fact that your argument basically boils down to "if we define this very certain set of terms then he's not quite completely horrible" should tell you what you need to know.

He's one of those guys that just never really gets any better after a somewhat promising start. He's the same guy now that he was as a rookie.

 
The fact that your argument basically boils down to "if we define this very certain set of terms then he's not quite completely horrible" should tell you what you need to know.

He's one of those guys that just never really gets any better after a somewhat promising start. He's the same guy now that he was as a rookie.
i'm sorry, but how did you get from if he finishes in top 10 in fantasy, it will be untenable to call him terrible or even mediocre in fantasy... to your characterization of what i said? :)

should that tell us what we need to know about your take?

your take is exactly what i was trying to avoid, that was a disappointing start... that is precisely what i was warning against causing mischief... to say he is EXACTLY the same as rookie year, blatantly ignores the trend or progression in two non-injured seasons since rookie year...

2010 - 18 TDs

2011 - 6 TDs (injury marred year, only played ten games, imo an aberration)

2012 - 21 TDs

2013 - 13 TDs (through six games - pacing for approx 34 TDs)... to put that in perspective, from 13 TDs, to reach last years 21 TDs, he would only need 8 TDs in next 10 games? he is averaging 2+ per game in 2013.

i don't know, maybe you are better than me at math, please explain how 34 TDs (or 32 or 30+) is exactly same as 18?

has he ever been on a pace like this before for TDs, in any of his previous seasons... if not, how does it make sense to state he is identical to how he was as rookie?

if he finishes with 30+ TDs and in top 10-12 QBs IN FANTASY, would it be fair to say he was above average THIS YEAR?

* i'm not "jerrymandering" or rigging the benchmarks or criteria or parameters to make a terrible QB magically into a good one? :)

it is a reasonable distinction to clarify whether we are talking about fantasy or actual NFL... it HAS caused a lot of mischief in previous incarnation bradford threads (and others like it)...

i looked at yards, TDs, INTs and QB rating... that isn't exactly examining a insignificantly small subset of data to prove a point...

top 10-12 wasn't chosen arbitrarily, it is a tradition cutoff for a #1 QB (albeit low end - but that would be an indisputable improvement over where most people graded bradford going into the 2013 season)...

30 TDs was chosen because, it is more of a round number than 29, would you agree? also, it has been a traditional, conventional benchmark of a pretty good season (ie - non-terrible or mediocre) for a QB, TD-wise... it may not be as big a deal in coming years with the way things are trending, but we could always recalibrate that in the future, if it seems appropriate (lets say if there comes a time when 15-20 QBs have 30+ TDs)...

in past half decade (not a lot of shlubs in this group)... if bradford does get to 34 TDs, by my reckoning, there will have been only eight better performances in the four seasons from 2009-2012...

2013 (?, pacing for 9) - p. manning (58), brees (37), romo (37), rivers (37), bradford (34), stafford (32), cutler (32), ryan (32) & rodgers (32)

2012 (5) - brees (43), rodgers (39), p. manning (37), brady (34) & ryan (32)

2011 (5) - brees (46), rodgers (45), stafford (41), brady (39) & romo (31)

2010 (5) - brady (36), brees (33), p. manning (33), e. manning (31) & rivers (30)

2009 (4) - brees (34), favre (33), manning (33) & rodgers (30)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The fact that your argument basically boils down to "if we define this very certain set of terms then he's not quite completely horrible" should tell you what you need to know.

He's one of those guys that just never really gets any better after a somewhat promising start. He's the same guy now that he was as a rookie.
Yet, right now in my three leagues he's QB11, QB12 & QB12.

 
He's terrible. Garbage-time stats have put him in the QB12 range, but just watching him play is disgusting.

 
The fact that your argument basically boils down to "if we define this very certain set of terms then he's not quite completely horrible" should tell you what you need to know.

He's one of those guys that just never really gets any better after a somewhat promising start. He's the same guy now that he was as a rookie.
Yet, right now in my three leagues he's QB11, QB12 & QB12.
There are 32 starting QB positions in the league. You figure nearly half of those have some change throughout the year either due to poor play or injury. Finishing 12th among those left after playing 16 games doesn't really mean much.

If you're wondering how little it would mean, I point you to last year's fantasy QB12 after 6 weeks......Christian Ponder.

2011's QB12? Ryan Fitzpatrick.

Just for kicks, QB10 that year was Mark Sanchez.

 
I'll take garbage time points--we're talking fantasy value here. :shrug:

Other than the ragged year in 2011 (injury?) he has gone from 16.31ppg in his rookie year, to 19.9 in 2012 and 23.78 this year. I keep looking to deal him but fortunately have picked a couple good games to play matchups between him and Kaepernick instead. Considering how late I picked either one of them up it's been a good QBBC, and at this point I'm likely to keep him.

 
The fact that your argument basically boils down to "if we define this very certain set of terms then he's not quite completely horrible" should tell you what you need to know.

He's one of those guys that just never really gets any better after a somewhat promising start. He's the same guy now that he was as a rookie.
Yet, right now in my three leagues he's QB11, QB12 & QB12.
There are 32 starting QB positions in the league. You figure nearly half of those have some change throughout the year either due to poor play or injury. Finishing 12th among those left after playing 16 games doesn't really mean much.

If you're wondering how little it would mean, I point you to last year's fantasy QB12 after 6 weeks......Christian Ponder.

2011's QB12? Ryan Fitzpatrick.

Just for kicks, QB10 that year was Mark Sanchez.
so what kind of finish would it take over 16 games to grudgingly concede he was better than terrible or mediocre?

you didn't address it, but you said he is exactly same as rookie...

if he gets 34 TDs and finishes top 10, will you persist in saying he is exactly same as rookie?

 
He's terrible. Garbage-time stats have put him in the QB12 range, but just watching him play is disgusting.
this is the kind of hard hitting statistical analysis I value the SP for!

so if he finishes with a garbage point fueled finish of #12, that constitutes a terrible FANTASY QB?

* you realize they are 3-3, right? it isn't like they have been blown out in all six games, which you seem to be implying... :)

 
Went in expecting 4000/30/15, pacing for 3800/35/8. :shrug:

To me, it's a win.

People who have watched him have always said naysayers ought to give him a break until he has a decent system and some decent targets to work with. This year he has them, and he's doing well. Excellent value for where I selected him, and with his young WR's getting more and more comfy by the week (and no running game on the horizon), I don't see any reason he shouldn't at least keep up the current pace.

He's throwing well, accurately, in the red zone, and is not making mistakes.

 
so what kind of finish would it take over 16 games to grudgingly concede he was better than terrible or mediocre?you didn't address it, but you said he is exactly same as rookie...

if he gets 34 TDs and finishes top 10, will you persist in saying he is exactly same as rookie?
The comment about him not taking the next step was as a player.

From a fantasy standpoint, if he flukes his way into 34 TDs (which I don't think he will), without his efficiency numbers improving at all then it won't mean that much to me other than he had some flukey TD totals that made him somewhat relevant for one season in the same way that Ryan Fitzpatrick and Mark Sanchez were. Obviously, if his other metrics come up then my opinion will change.

Outside of that, his fantasy relevance is forever hindered by his horrid YPA and bad completion percentage. He's 31st in the league right now in YPA and that's not at all out of the ordinary for him. He has to be at the top of the league in attempts just to only get blown off the map, and not blown off the planet, in total yardage by his peers.

If he throws for 34 TDs this year it just means some sucker will draft him as their QB1 next year and be left holding the bag when his TD percentage regresses to the mean the same way it did for Fitzgerald and Sanchez and a million other guys. When a guy relies on a high number of attempts and high TD percentage just to be kind of mediocre that's not something you want to hedge on, because both of those things are likely to come down to earth and then what are you left with.

You keep holding onto "what if he finishes top 10". Mark Sanchez finished top 10 just two years ago. It's not some huge sign from the heavens. If your argument is that he could potentially fluke his way into being as valuable a fantasy asset as Mark Sanchez was for one year then sure, I'm right there with you.

 
He's terrible. Garbage-time stats have put him in the QB12 range, but just watching him play is disgusting.
I don't know if I'd call him garbage, but he definitely doesn't look as good as his stats would indicate; his poor YPA is one indicator of this, and a QBR (despite being a somewhat flawed stat) of less than 50 is another. In other words, he is a better fantasy QB this year than he is a real NFL QB.

 
He's terrible. Garbage-time stats have put him in the QB12 range, but just watching him play is disgusting.
I don't know if I'd call him garbage, but he definitely doesn't look as good as his stats would indicate; his poor YPA is one indicator of this, and a QBR (despite being a somewhat flawed stat) of less than 50 is another. In other words, he is a better fantasy QB this year than he is a real NFL QB.
He didn't call Bradford "garbage." He referred to garbage-time stats. Those are different things.

 
He's terrible. Garbage-time stats have put him in the QB12 range, but just watching him play is disgusting.
I don't know if I'd call him garbage, but he definitely doesn't look as good as his stats would indicate; his poor YPA is one indicator of this, and a QBR (despite being a somewhat flawed stat) of less than 50 is another. In other words, he is a better fantasy QB this year than he is a real NFL QB.
I think the last sentence is fair and reasonable (not that the rest wasn't, but I just want to focus on that)...

my main point in first post was that if bradford continues on 34 TD and top 10-12 pace, it will be increasingly untenable and baseless to label him a terrible/ mediocre FANTASY QB.

 
He's terrible. Garbage-time stats have put him in the QB12 range, but just watching him play is disgusting.
I don't know if I'd call him garbage, but he definitely doesn't look as good as his stats would indicate; his poor YPA is one indicator of this, and a QBR (despite being a somewhat flawed stat) of less than 50 is another. In other words, he is a better fantasy QB this year than he is a real NFL QB.
He didn't call Bradford "garbage." He referred to garbage-time stats. Those are different things.
he also called his play disgusting...also minimalized his stats by chalking them up to garbage time (again, it isn't like the rams have been blown out in all six games, they are 3-3?)...

not a stretch to infer warrior isn't a huge fan of his skills or body of work... :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He does seem to have a tough schedule through the rest of the season. It'll be interesting to see if he can keep it up.

 
so what kind of finish would it take over 16 games to grudgingly concede he was better than terrible or mediocre?

you didn't address it, but you said he is exactly same as rookie...

if he gets 34 TDs and finishes top 10, will you persist in saying he is exactly same as rookie?
The comment about him not taking the next step was as a player.

From a fantasy standpoint, if he flukes his way into 34 TDs (which I don't think he will), without his efficiency numbers improving at all then it won't mean that much to me other than he had some flukey TD totals that made him somewhat relevant for one season in the same way that Ryan Fitzpatrick and Mark Sanchez were. Obviously, if his other metrics come up then my opinion will change.

Outside of that, his fantasy relevance is forever hindered by his horrid YPA and bad completion percentage. He's 31st in the league right now in YPA and that's not at all out of the ordinary for him. He has to be at the top of the league in attempts just to only get blown off the map, and not blown off the planet, in total yardage by his peers.

If he throws for 34 TDs this year it just means some sucker will draft him as their QB1 next year and be left holding the bag when his TD percentage regresses to the mean the same way it did for Fitzgerald and Sanchez and a million other guys. When a guy relies on a high number of attempts and high TD percentage just to be kind of mediocre that's not something you want to hedge on, because both of those things are likely to come down to earth and then what are you left with.

You keep holding onto "what if he finishes top 10". Mark Sanchez finished top 10 just two years ago. It's not some huge sign from the heavens. If your argument is that he could potentially fluke his way into being as valuable a fantasy asset as Mark Sanchez was for one year then sure, I'm right there with you.
I'll address more of your points, but couldn't let a few of those go by unchecked...sanchez and fitzpatrick career highs in TDs were 26 and 24, respectively...

we will have to agree to disagree 24 does not equal 34...

the onus is on you to elaborate on your point that millions of guys "regressed to the mean"... how many after 34 TDs... any as mediocre as sanchez and fitzpatrick... if not, than they are spurious comp*....

how many in last decade have had 34 TD seasons and were later mediocre for rest of their careers?

* take sanchez... before 2011, his career high in TDs was 17... bradford's 18 as a rookie were more than any other year by sanchez other than his aberration/outlier year... doubly problematic trying to link sanchez past failed career arc to one you posit for bradford in future, by noting 2011... he also had an aberrant/outlier 6 rushing TDs that season (previous high - 3 TDs)...

you missed that... but if you had noticed it or thought to point it out, I would have concurred that would be unlikely to be replicated...

but bradford isn't scoring like that, never has, and there is no reason to think in the future he would get a one time rushing TD-related spike in his scoring, from which his overall scoring would be doomed to "regress to the mean" in future seasons.

he is scoring through the air... that should prove to be more replicatable than scoring 6 rushing TDs.

to pin this down a bit further, there seem to be some assumptions on your part...if they are sound, they should hold up under scrutiny... :)

if he gets 34 TDs, and that is fluky, and he is doomed to regress to mean, are you implying he is unlikely to ever return to the 30-32 TD neighborhood??? or am I misunderstanding your use of words like fluke, concepts like regress to mean, and comps like sanchez and fitzpatrick?

bradford has experienced a lot of churning at WR... that is undeniable, and can be verified by anybody who chooses to take even a cursory look at the facts... things may be stabilizing as far as receiving weapons (early, but two games in, stacy has shown promise at RB)... BUT, austin has only played six games... givens five more than his rookie season... this is bradford's first season throwing to austin and cook... the connection between WR/TE and QB is very dependent on timing and chemistry... by all the fluke and regression to the mean references, you seem to have a "hardwired" presupposition that his supporting cast won't improve and is incapable of improving? or did I miss something, and if they somehow become better WRs and TEs, he will inexplicably regress, and will make worse use of them?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll address more of your points, but couldn't let a few of those go by unchecked...

sanchez and fitzpatrick career highs in TDs were 26 and 24, respectively...

we will have to agree to disagree 24 does not equal 34...
Bradford hasn't thrown for 34 TDs. He's thrown for 13 TDs in 6 games. Sanchez threw for 12 in his last 6 games of 2011, and rushed for 3 more. Fitzpatrick threw for 14 from weeks 5-10 in 2010, and 12 in the first 6 games of 2012.

 
This is great analysis. I have watched a few Rams games, to evaluate DRich mostly, but have not been impressed with Bradford at all. Don't think he is an elite or even above average talent.

But the numbers don't lie. That pace is crazy.

I guess for me the test is...would you ever start the guy?

 
Most leagues are a 12 team, start 1 QB. He's at the bottom end of the starters, which doesn't have much value. I think people from a fantasy perspective view him as a replaceable player because there are several QBs just like him from a ppg standpoint. He's the 12th QB in my league in ppg. The next bunch are all within 2 ppg of that: Luck, Wilson, R-burger, Pryor, and even Jake Locker and Tannehill are just barely over 2 ppg less than Bradford. Being around top 10 in fantasy points doesn't mean much to me since there are so many that are in the neighborhood.

I also think he's a better fantasy QB than a real one because of the massive passing volume the Rams employ. He still has poor efficiency numbers, less than 60% comp and 6.2 y/a. Lots of contributing factors here, but it's undeniable that something in the passing game isn't working well.

They need a new OC, I know that for sure.

 
so what kind of finish would it take over 16 games to grudgingly concede he was better than terrible or mediocre?

you didn't address it, but you said he is exactly same as rookie...

if he gets 34 TDs and finishes top 10, will you persist in saying he is exactly same as rookie?
The comment about him not taking the next step was as a player.

From a fantasy standpoint, if he flukes his way into 34 TDs (which I don't think he will), without his efficiency numbers improving at all then it won't mean that much to me other than he had some flukey TD totals that made him somewhat relevant for one season in the same way that Ryan Fitzpatrick and Mark Sanchez were. Obviously, if his other metrics come up then my opinion will change.

Outside of that, his fantasy relevance is forever hindered by his horrid YPA and bad completion percentage. He's 31st in the league right now in YPA and that's not at all out of the ordinary for him. He has to be at the top of the league in attempts just to only get blown off the map, and not blown off the planet, in total yardage by his peers.

If he throws for 34 TDs this year it just means some sucker will draft him as their QB1 next year and be left holding the bag when his TD percentage regresses to the mean the same way it did for Fitzgerald and Sanchez and a million other guys. When a guy relies on a high number of attempts and high TD percentage just to be kind of mediocre that's not something you want to hedge on, because both of those things are likely to come down to earth and then what are you left with.

You keep holding onto "what if he finishes top 10". Mark Sanchez finished top 10 just two years ago. It's not some huge sign from the heavens. If your argument is that he could potentially fluke his way into being as valuable a fantasy asset as Mark Sanchez was for one year then sure, I'm right there with you.
I'll address more of your points, but couldn't let a few of those go by unchecked...sanchez and fitzpatrick career highs in TDs were 26 and 24, respectively...

we will have to agree to disagree 24 does not equal 34...

the onus is on you to elaborate on your point that millions of guys "regressed to the mean"... how many after 34 TDs... any as mediocre as sanchez and fitzpatrick... if not, than they are spurious comp*....

how many in last decade have had 34 TD seasons and were later mediocre for rest of their careers?

* take sanchez... before 2011, his career high in TDs was 17... bradford's 18 as a rookie were more than any other year by sanchez other than his aberration/outlier year... doubly problematic trying to link sanchez past failed career arc to one you posit for bradford in future, by noting 2011... he also had an aberrant/outlier 6 rushing TDs that season (previous high - 3 TDs)...

you missed that... but if you had noticed it or thought to point it out, I would have concurred that would be unlikely to be replicated...

but bradford isn't scoring like that, never has, and there is no reason to think in the future he would get a one time rushing TD-related spike in his scoring, from which his overall scoring would be doomed to "regress to the mean" in future seasons.

he is scoring through the air... that should prove to be more replicatable than scoring 6 rushing TDs.

to pin this down a bit further, there seem to be some assumptions on your part...if they are sound, they should hold up under scrutiny... :)

if he gets 34 TDs, and that is fluky, and he is doomed to regress to mean, are you implying he is unlikely to ever return to the 30-32 TD neighborhood??? or am I misunderstanding your use of words like fluke, concepts like regress to mean, and comps like sanchez and fitzpatrick?

bradford has experienced a lot of churning at WR... that is undeniable, and can be verified by anybody who chooses to take even a cursory look at the facts... things may be stabilizing as far as receiving weapons (early, but two games in, stacy has shown promise at RB)... BUT, austin has only played six games... givens five more than his rookie season... this is bradford's first season throwing to austin and cook... the connection between WR/TE and QB is very dependent on timing and chemistry... by all the fluke and regression to the mean references, you seem to have a "hardwired" presupposition that his supporting cast won't improve and is incapable of improving? or did I miss something, and if they somehow become better WRs and TEs, he will inexplicably regress, and will make worse use of them?
Bradford is also on pace to throw about 100 more balls than Sanchez threw that year. Even discounting Sanchez's rushing TDs (and really, we shouldn't discount all of them as he did run for TDs fairly often for a QB) his TD per attempt ratio that year was just behind Bradford's this year.

Bradford's TD/attempt ratio right now is a TD every 18 attempts. His other career bests are one TD every 27 attempts and one every 32 attempts. Similar numbers to Sanchez in all three of those.

What's more likely, that he suddenly got better at throwing TDs while at the same time not improving in any other statistical category of note (completion percentage, ypa, etc are right on his career averages), or that TDs in a small sample size of games are a pretty variable stat?

 
sanchez dropped from ninth in attempts in 2011 to 22nd in 2012 (15 games - i checked, he still would have finished about same with a 16th game).

bradford was 11th in attempts in 2012 (first in fisher era*), seventh so far, but with ryan, RGIII and rothliesberger all on bye, he might be more like 10th or 11th this year (pacing for about same as last year?)... so it is unclear why regression to mean would take place based on attempts (not saying you said that, just pointing out not a good basis to think that)...

imo, bradford's WR corp of givens, austin, pettis, quick and bailey, along with TEs cook and kendricks, are the most talent he has had to work with at any point in his career... many said he was due for a career year... so far, he is projecting for that... is it more reasonable to think that he will do in the future what he did as a rookie... or in his second year, when he played ten games and was hurt and ineffective in other games... or last year when givens and quick were rookies, and austin and cook weren't on the team yet? seasons in which he didn't have the weapons he has now? how do we know a higher TD/attempt ratio than he had in first three years isn't increased in liklihood through upgraded weapons?

* there could be some problems with blurring stats from fisher and spagnuolo's regimes... does it make sense if they used different offensive systems, and not only almost completely different WRs, but even OL?

** kind of a controversial, going out on a limb stance, but maybe if at some point in the future the rams stop leading the league in drops, bradford's completion percentage will go up, this could also lead to more, not less TDs.

*** IF he does maintain the 34 TD pace in 2013, a reminder on this question above...

"the onus is on you to elaborate on your point that millions of guys "regressed to the mean"... how many after 34 TDs... any as mediocre as sanchez and fitzpatrick... if not, than they are spurious comps....

how many QBs in last decade have had 34 TD seasons, and were later mediocre for rest of their careers?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll address more of your points, but couldn't let a few of those go by unchecked...

sanchez and fitzpatrick career highs in TDs were 26 and 24, respectively...

we will have to agree to disagree 24 does not equal 34...
Bradford hasn't thrown for 34 TDs. He's thrown for 13 TDs in 6 games. Sanchez threw for 12 in his last 6 games of 2011, and rushed for 3 more. Fitzpatrick threw for 14 from weeks 5-10 in 2010, and 12 in the first 6 games of 2012.
that was in response to a post in which it was stipulated IF he has 34 TDs this year, he was still doomed to fall back to the level of sanchez and fitzpatrick...

you beg the question... is your point you think bradford will do no better than 24-26 TDs in 2013... that will in turn be his career high?

if he repeats 13 TDs in next six games, he could have zero TDs in the last quarter of the season, and still match sanchez's career high...

in four years from 2009-2012, four-five QBs on average tossed 30+ TDs, nine are pacing to do so this year, so its not a stretch to think with passing numbers trending up in general, we may see more QBs hitting 30 TD plateau on a percentage basis...

how many TDs (and yards) were you projecting before 2013 season started... have those numbers shifted up with a career best start?

if he gets 30-32 TDs (i've consciously lowered this from current pace) this year, are you predicting he is doomed to a regression of the mean in 2014?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most leagues are a 12 team, start 1 QB. He's at the bottom end of the starters, which doesn't have much value. I think people from a fantasy perspective view him as a replaceable player because there are several QBs just like him from a ppg standpoint. He's the 12th QB in my league in ppg. The next bunch are all within 2 ppg of that: Luck, Wilson, R-burger, Pryor, and even Jake Locker and Tannehill are just barely over 2 ppg less than Bradford. Being around top 10 in fantasy points doesn't mean much to me since there are so many that are in the neighborhood.

I also think he's a better fantasy QB than a real one because of the massive passing volume the Rams employ. He still has poor efficiency numbers, less than 60% comp and 6.2 y/a. Lots of contributing factors here, but it's undeniable that something in the passing game isn't working well.

They need a new OC, I know that for sure.
in a 12 team league, point taken a low end QB1 isn't as valuable as a high end or even middling QB1... but lets be clear...

detractors aren't saying he is terrible or mediocre... among QB1s... :) they are saying, he is terrible or mediocre, period (sometimes in actual NFL sense, but sometimes in fantasy sense, which we're more concerned with here).

that is an important difference... since you are probably drafting more than one QB in these leagues, a low end QB1 has some value... if that is what you would call not much value, you may have a different interpretation than others...

for one thing, i don't assume the top 12 QBs statistically are neatly distributed where everybody gets one...

very possible two or three teams have two top 12 QBs (in the two redraft leagues i'm in, exactly three teams had two top 12 QBs - i didn't factor in for byes), that leaves six others among nine remaining teams... so sure, if you are one of 8-10 teams with better QB, you might not value him as much as 2-4 teams that don't.

you said luck and wilson are a few PPG average behind bradford... considering where they were probably taken in most 2013 redrafts, hasn't bradford presented far better value this year?

massive volume could be a misnomer addressed above... he was third in attempts as rookie (590), but he was 11th last year, and projecting to about same this year (factoring in byes - ryan, RGIII and rothliesberger have all played just five games)... we normally are in the habit of thinking of volume as a good thing at QB (think manning, brees, brady, rodgers), and really no different from RB, WR and TE?

also already addressed, but easily leading league in drops, with a young WR squad, could realistically be corrected... i've asked for clear communication when we are speaking in redraft or dynasty terms... in this case, i am even more hopeful in the dynasty context... that said, i think improvement this year is still possible...

and i agree with you the scheme has held them back... i just think in the long term, they will find a better way to use austin and cook... the investment of draft capital and free agent salary cap in them is a head scratcher, if they only intend to throw to them 2-3 times a game long term, going forward...

it is worth pointing out bradford is on pace for a career year, close to 4,000 yards and 34 TDs, IN SPITE OF THE HINDRANCES outlined above...

while some say he is doomed to regress (career best TD/attempt ratio unsustainable), imo there are at least as many or more counterbalancing factors pointing towards upside in more optimistic projections, and even less optimistically, this could be the new normal or status quo for him...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He does seem to have a tough schedule through the rest of the season. It'll be interesting to see if he can keep it up.
7 - STL @ CAR (battle of former #1 overall QBs)

8 - SEA @ STL (split with them in 2012, first divisional tilt with SEA at home, where they beat them last year... will harvin debut?)

9 - TEN @ STL (fisher might have rams up against his former team, will fitzpatrick be QB?)

10 - STL @ IND (see week 7)

11 - BYE

12 - CHI @ STL (scheduling luck to get potentially strong opponent at home coming off bye)

13 - STL @ SF (crushed rams in week four, but STL matched up better in 2012, with win and tie)

14 - STL @ ARI (see week 7 & 10, rams swept in 2012, already beat 27-24 opening week, albeit without ILB washington)

15 - NO @ STL (like weeks 8 & 12, fortunate to get strong opponent at home, not an elite defense)

16 - TB @ STL (probably better than 0-5 record, but rookie QB, HC under siege)

17 - STL @ SEA (likely toughest game of the year, SEA could be playing for HFA in playoffs)

toughest games of the remaining 10...

two games against SEA, and SF, NO and CHI (one SEA, and the NO and CHI games at home, which helps).

most winnable...

TB, ARI, CAR, TEN (fitzpatrick QB?) and IND (not a great defense)... ARI, CAR (this week) and IND on road.

it is a tougher schedule than last year... they could play better, and it could still be a challenge to match 7-9 record of 2012... being such a young team, with two first round picks in 2014 (i still think top RB like seastrunk or gordon would look great in blue and gold, and fisher seemed to not be averse to using relatively high draft picks on RBs at times during his TEN tenure - eddie george and chris johnson first rounders, lendale white and chris henry in second), they could still be a year away from being more competitive in the NFC West and for possible wild card spot if needed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To make conclusions on basis of what he is on the pace for seems to go against what I think is the aim for this thread, real analysis of the FF status of Sam Bradford.

Can he contribute as a top ten/twelve ppg QB?

For that I think we have to look at his body of work. And yes I realize that there are variables that make drawing conclusions from the whole career difficult (OL, changing OCs, WR talent etc) yet we do that all the time for Brady, Brees, Ryan, the Mannings and others.

I think CalBears comment is a valid one, a six game stretch isn't really enough to draw conclusions from, it's more in the realm of reason for optimism.

The comparisons with Sanchez and Fitzpatrick are, imho, valid for now. Neither is considered to reach mediocrity, yet have (at least in stretches) comparable numbers to the benchmark you set for being 'not terrible'. Likely that analysis is tainted with "NFL QB" metrics (or fan frustration) rather than FF QB metrics, but that is hard to avoid without threads such as this.

So, thanks for taking the time to make this thread, would hope we can look at objective numbers rather than snapshot projections (it doesn't take much of an outlier game to change the trend line dramatically)

 
You are putting a lot of Bradford's problems at the feet of his WRs (completion % & YPA) can you back that up with where the Rams are ranked in dropped passes and yards after catch?

And while I think his current pace is nice I would only put your projected 30+ TDs in pencil.

There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.

 
To make conclusions on basis of what he is on the pace for seems to go against what I think is the aim for this thread, real analysis of the FF status of Sam Bradford.

Can he contribute as a top ten/twelve ppg QB?

For that I think we have to look at his body of work. And yes I realize that there are variables that make drawing conclusions from the whole career difficult (OL, changing OCs, WR talent etc) yet we do that all the time for Brady, Brees, Ryan, the Mannings and others.

I think CalBears comment is a valid one, a six game stretch isn't really enough to draw conclusions from, it's more in the realm of reason for optimism.

The comparisons with Sanchez and Fitzpatrick are, imho, valid for now. Neither is considered to reach mediocrity, yet have (at least in stretches) comparable numbers to the benchmark you set for being 'not terrible'. Likely that analysis is tainted with "NFL QB" metrics (or fan frustration) rather than FF QB metrics, but that is hard to avoid without threads such as this.

So, thanks for taking the time to make this thread, would hope we can look at objective numbers rather than snapshot projections (it doesn't take much of an outlier game to change the trend line dramatically)
since they were brought up, in context of changing weapons...

brady - did some of his best work with randy moss and welker... bradford has never really been lucky enough to even have one WR that good.

brees - colston is better than any WR on STL, jimmy graham in recent years a tremendous weapon, as is sproles out of backfield...

ryan - roddy white for his whole tenure, this is julio jones third year, tony gonzalez one of best TEs in NFL history?

p. manning - had harrison and/or wayne plus dallas clark in IND, now thomas, welker, decker and julius thomas in DEN?

e. manning - for several years has had nicks and cruz?

i just don't see how any of these situations are comparable to bradford's weapons, at any point in his career (brady now, i get what you mean, but for large chunks of these QBs respective careers, no).

just to clarify, i do think bradford gets in the 30+ neighborhood... i wouldn't bet the farm on it, but i think he has a reasonable shot... but calbears comment is somewhat beside the point of my overarching theme to start the thread...

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

[sorry to hammer point home, more for the thread, as this point has been missed several times already]

he gets 30-32 plus TDs this year, and finishes in top 10-12 QBs FANTASY-wise, it will be increasingly untenable to call bradford a terrible/mediocre QB FANTASY-wise. sanchez and fitzpatrick have never done that over the course of a season (they have had good six game stretches, as was pointed out)...

are sanchez and fitzpatrick good comps? imo, bradford is a superior pure passing prospect... i'm going to mingle the worlds of actual NFL and fantasy for a moment, to make another point...

this is a hypothetical...

take all 32 teams, they are starting with zero players, they can all take their pick among the three QBs... no consideration given to salary cap...

my guess is the results would look something like 32 for bradford, 0 for sanchez and fitzpatrick... no way to prove this, i could be way off, but imo bradford would dominate over other two... part of my take is shaped by scouting... and i just think that bradford has far greater raw materials to work with as a pure passer than either of the other two... he has a superior arm, and he makes better decisions...

and thanks, i appreciate it... i agree, we are at point where an outlier game could swing things in either direction... i just think that as we work our way towards the end of the season, the two or more TD games are going to be viewed as less of an outlier going forward (with 2 TD average being the magic number for 32 in 16 games)... and the 0-1 TD games will be the outliers going forward...

* directed to the thread as a whole...

for myself, it would be instructive if others posting in the thread could give an estimate of how many games they have seen this year (and in future seasons, where applicable)...

it isn't always feasible, even those who have sunday ticket (i really like value of NFL rewind package for $40, you just have to wait until game is over for availability, but good for scouting purposes), may have no interest in the rams...

which is fine... and i'm also not saying opinions aren't welcomed from those who have never seen him play... there is no doubt much to be gleaned from stats... but by actually watching him play, it is a little easier to make an informed decision on how much his supporting cast is helping or hurting him, and if in fact he is looking good with not good numbers to show for it or the opposite... you don't to infer things...

this is just a theory, but i suspect some of the biggest detractors may have only seen the one game all year, probably his worst, against SF... that isn't the best indicator of how he has played this year as a whole...

for instance, i just got done watching the texans game in condensed mode (30 minutes) AFTER starting thread (in first quarter of previous week's JAX game and have it on pause)... it was a weird game, bradford had a poor looking 100+ yard box score, but 3 TDs... the texans imploded, but going into the game, most people probably thought they would win easily and going away at home, even with schaub's struggles... JJ watt is the best DL in football and it isn't really close, and the rams have had OL issues this year at times (pretty much for most of bradford's ram tenure)...

so it was just one game... but for myself, in answer to the question, is he trending up, down, sideways? i can answer in a different way than i could if i had not seen the game, and was looking at just the numbers in the box score...

what would i have missed? bradford just missed a potential 80 yard TD to givens by inches, that was probably catchable, but just went off his fingertips... that would have raised his yardage and YPA average (TDs seemingly not impacted, he got one later on same drive)... on another incompletion, he zipped a several yard slant off of quick's helmet who didn't turn around on time... if givens and quick catch those passes, bradford would have been 14 of 16 (north of 85% completion percentage)... he was as accurate as i've ever seen him... he was putting the ball right on the numbers, and for the most part, hitting his receivers in stride... when he has time, bradford can be extrenely accurate, at his best... and he was pressured at times, but handled it very well (hit right after delivering a downfield strike to cook, who rumbled 34 yards to around 5-10 of texans, setting up a TD to quick)... i'll look for a small article on it, but i think he was blitzed eight times, was eight for eight, and had all three TDs...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are putting a lot of Bradford's problems at the feet of his WRs (completion % & YPA) can you back that up with where the Rams are ranked in dropped passes and yards after catch?

And while I think his current pace is nice I would only put your projected 30+ TDs in pencil.

There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.
here is individual drop tracking... austin leads the league with 7... richardson is way down list, next ram with 3... NE stands out, with THREE WRs in top six in drops... dobson, thompkins and edelman have combined 17 between them.

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=nfl&type=receiving&rank=232

drop stats BY TEAM... when i last heard some of the drop stats referenced, it probably was a few weeks ago... NE is indeed first at 23, DET is second at 20, STL third with 18...

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232

BAL and ATL were at around 16th and 17th, with around 9 and 8 drops...

what if STL had more middle of pack drop rate, and bradford had 10 more completions (also keep in mind, some of those drops may have been drive killers, if not for which, he might have had additional yards/TDs that way, as well (accounting not just for the dropped pass yardage/TDs, but the loss of potential yardage/TDs from passes that were never made because drives were killed)... bradford is 138 of 232, so 148 of 232 would lift his completion percentage from his current 59.5% to closer to 64%...

low YPA does get into usage (especially of cook and austin)... in another thread, calbear was adamant that austin is used identically to jackson (another two long TDs passes sunday)... i assume he hasn't seen many rams games, but i would be interested in finding out... i have to think if you polled 100 people who had actually seen austin's usage, you would have 99 that could confirm that they aren't in fact being used exactly the same.

team YAC stats below, STL 12th? not sure how to interpret that, other than to suggest maybe it is related to volume, since bradford does have such a low YPA (bradford 7th in attempts, would be about 10th or 11th accounting for byes)? DEN is #1 in this stat, manning #1 in YPA...

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=231

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is great analysis. I have watched a few Rams games, to evaluate DRich mostly, but have not been impressed with Bradford at all. Don't think he is an elite or even above average talent.

But the numbers don't lie. That pace is crazy.

I guess for me the test is...would you ever start the guy?
I 'finally' started him week 5 over Kaepernick with good results, and have looked at ROS for matchup play--initially had come into the season thinking Kaep was an every week play but after weeks of Bradford being ahead of him in avg ppg had to reconsider. Now snagged Foles so it's all up in the air. 10 team league so the market isn't screaming for a starting QB but I'd be happy trading either one off if Foles holds onto the starting gig. .

 
At what point do St. L/Bradford fans begin to worry about him being replaced? Yeah, he's on pace for a decent fantasy year and that's all well and good. The problem is, he just doesn't look very good and hasn't progressed in real NFL terms much, if at all, since his rookie year. He is in his 4th year now and while there have certainly been some hard circumstances at some point you just have to run out of excuses. On top of that, St. L is sitting on 2 1st round picks in the upcoming draft. At least one of those picks could potentially be a high one, top 10 or even top 5. This looking to be a QB rich draft and St. L may just feel its time for a change. I mean really are the weapons and support around Bradford any worse than what RG3 has? I say no. In dynasty I worry about the longevity of Bradford at this point.

 
i just don't see how any of these situations are comparable to bradford's weapons, at any point in his career (brady now, i get what you mean, but for large chunks of these QBs respective careers, no).
I wasn't making a comparison to their situations but as to how we evaluate them, ie. on the basis of their body of work with differing situations. Writing off everything prior to this year because of what has changed imho is cherrypicking.

Sam Bradford to me is still in the 'show me' territory in terms of FF. I would not be comfortable (yet) with having him as part of a FF QBBC although he is currently QB9 and QB8 in the two leagues I play. That does give me reason for optimism on his behalf

 
His OC definitely sucks. Despite that, he may finish top 12 in fantasy. In real life, he's closer to QB20 which means he's not terrible. He would also start for at least a handful of other NFL teams, not just the Rams.

 
I mean really are the weapons and support around Bradford any worse than what RG3 has? I say no. In dynasty I worry about the longevity of Bradford at this point.
:confused:

I suppose I'd say "no" to that, too. But then, of course, Bradford is light years ahead of RG3 right now in on-field production, too. RG3, now that his knee is a wasteland, is in fact terrible. As are the Skins with him at the commands. :shrug:

 
*** IF he does maintain the 34 TD pace in 2013, a reminder on this question above...

"the onus is on you to elaborate on your point that millions of guys "regressed to the mean"... how many after 34 TDs... any as mediocre as sanchez and fitzpatrick... if not, than they are spurious comps....

how many QBs in last decade have had 34 TD seasons, and were later mediocre for rest of their careers?
As I pointed out, Sanchez/Fitzpatrick were similar to Bradford in their outlier year of TD pass per attempt ratio. Sanchez's is almost identical. If Bradford keeps this pace and finishes with 34 TDs (again, unlikely) then he will have went from career bests of a TD pass every 27 and 32 attempts to one every 18 attempts. Sanchez had career bests of a TD every 28 and 29 attempts to an outlier year where he threw one every 19 attempts.

Additionally, as you pointed out Sanchez actually had 32 TDs that year when you factor in rushing TDs. I know you want to discount those but Sanchez did run for TDs often for a QB so you can't really do that, at least not by more than a couple. His increase in rushing TDs that year wouldn't really be much more of an outlier than Bradford suddenly increasing his career best in pass TDs by 75%.

It's kind of moot anyway because I'm not counting on Bradford reaching 34 TDs. He's thrown 13 in 6 games, it happens. Heck, Billy Volek once threw 15 TDs in 5 games. Billy Volek.

** kind of a controversial, going out on a limb stance, but maybe if at some point in the future the rams stop leading the league in drops, bradford's completion percentage will go up, this could also lead to more, not less TDs.
As you pointed out, the Rams are 3rd in the league in drops. Who's 4th in the league in drops? The Denver Broncos. Peyton Manning's completion percentage is 74.2%. A few drops aren't the end-all be-all of completion percentage. That's just who Bradford is. A guy who throws for a low completion percentage despite not throwing downfield often.

massive volume could be a misnomer addressed above... he was third in attempts as rookie (590), but he was 11th last year, and projecting to about same this year (factoring in byes - ryan, RGIII and rothliesberger have all played just five games)... we normally are in the habit of thinking of volume as a good thing at QB (think manning, brees, brady, rodgers), and really no different from RB, WR and TE?
Bradford is currently on pace to throw 150 more passes than any QB has ever thrown under Jeff Fisher. I think it's fair to predict that when he's able to get the running game on track even a little bit, those attempts are going to come down.

Heck, since they switched to Zac Stacy two games ago and actually started running decently this year, Bradford has had his two games with the fewest attempts on the season. Tiny sample size, but in the games Stacy has started, where they've run well, Bradford's attempts project out to 400 for a full season.

Yes, if Bradford somehow reaches 34 TDs this year then he will not have been a terrible fantasy QB this year. I don't think anyone is arguing that. If he does it the same way he got to 13, he'll still be no better than a mediocre/bad option going forward, however, because it will likely not be repeatable and he doesn't have the ability to get those points anywhere else. He's a guy that relies on a lot of things to get there. An outlier TD/attempt ratio on top of a high volume approach with a coach that doesn't like high volume pass attempts and only falls back on it when the run game is absurdly horrid are difficult things to repeat. We see it all the time. The real problem with Bradford though is that, usually when all the stars align for these things all piling up on the same year it results in an off the charts fantasy experience. Matt Stafford is a good example of this. Sure, his 2011 was unsustainable, but at least when the unsustainable happened you got a standout fantasy QB and when he came back down to earth he came back down to mediocre. Bradford's problem is that he needs all the magical stars to align just to get to mediocre in the first place. So when the stars don't align, which they usually won't, he's just bad and a borderline useless fantasy asset. Pile that on top of Jurb's point that he could very well end up being replaced in the near future and you're left with a guy that doesn't bring much value to a fantasy team.

If he does wind up with 34 TDs this year on the same pace he has now with everything else, then the shark move is to sell him in dynasty while he has some value and in redraft, relish in the fact that some poor sap is going to draft him as a QB1 next year while a more legitimate option falls further in the draft for you.

 
so what kind of finish would it take over 16 games to grudgingly concede he was better than terrible or mediocre?you didn't address it, but you said he is exactly same as rookie...

if he gets 34 TDs and finishes top 10, will you persist in saying he is exactly same as rookie?
The comment about him not taking the next step was as a player.

From a fantasy standpoint, if he flukes his way into 34 TDs (which I don't think he will), without his efficiency numbers improving at all then it won't mean that much to me other than he had some flukey TD totals that made him somewhat relevant for one season in the same way that Ryan Fitzpatrick and Mark Sanchez were. Obviously, if his other metrics come up then my opinion will change.

Outside of that, his fantasy relevance is forever hindered by his horrid YPA and bad completion percentage. He's 31st in the league right now in YPA and that's not at all out of the ordinary for him. He has to be at the top of the league in attempts just to only get blown off the map, and not blown off the planet, in total yardage by his peers.

If he throws for 34 TDs this year it just means some sucker will draft him as their QB1 next year and be left holding the bag when his TD percentage regresses to the mean the same way it did for Fitzgerald and Sanchez and a million other guys. When a guy relies on a high number of attempts and high TD percentage just to be kind of mediocre that's not something you want to hedge on, because both of those things are likely to come down to earth and then what are you left with.

You keep holding onto "what if he finishes top 10". Mark Sanchez finished top 10 just two years ago. It's not some huge sign from the heavens. If your argument is that he could potentially fluke his way into being as valuable a fantasy asset as Mark Sanchez was for one year then sure, I'm right there with you.
:goodposting:

 
I mean really are the weapons and support around Bradford any worse than what RG3 has? I say no. In dynasty I worry about the longevity of Bradford at this point.
:confused:

I suppose I'd say "no" to that, too. But then, of course, Bradford is light years ahead of RG3 right now in on-field production, too. RG3, now that his knee is a wasteland, is in fact terrible. As are the Skins with him at the commands. :shrug:
Fantasy points per game..

Bradford: 17.5

RG3: 16.5

That's kind of the point here. With Bradford's low YPA, completion percentage, and his ability to run, he doesn't have the ability to get points elsewhere. TD passes are the flukiest category out there other than TD rushes for a QB, and Bradford's are an outlier right now. They're extremely likely to come down and when they do, he doesn't have the ability to get points anywhere else like virtually every other fantasy relevant QB in the league does.

Meanwhile, RG3's TD passes are flukey low right now and likely to come up (unless we're going to argue that he's going to average 1 TD/game for the rest of his career), yet even with that he's still basically even with Bradford in fantasy.

From a fantasy standpoint, RG3's worst stretch of his career has put together basically the same fantasy points as Bradford's best stretch of his career. Given that the main difference really is the number of TD passes, which is a highly variable stat, once that balances out some RG3 will blow by him, as will every QB that has the ability to get points elsewhere.

 
At this point into his career, he is on parallel with where Eli Manning was at this point, statistically and perception-wise, although Eli having the name Manning tended to have a bit more favor. But in fantasy football, Manning was and Bradford is that "QB14 or so that isn't awesome and is kind of pedestrian."

Similarly, they both started out on teams that din't do well initially and, as Eli is showing now, they tend to rise and fall with the tide of talent on their teams.

So, when Bradford's team becomes better, he will satisfy fantasy owners with his production. When they aren't as good, he will not. So, he isn't a Brady or Brees or some quarterback who will be great, regardless. Instead, he is more reactive to his environment.§

 
What's a guy with low end QB1 upside worth? Nothing IMO. It's more a commentary on the QB position in general than on Bradford, specifically, as I haven't watched him enough to form a firm opinion.

Because defenders can't even sneeze on a QB IMO we're going to see more QBs playing into their mid / late 30s -- so the established stud QBs are going to hang around for years. This, combined with the influx of dynamic young two way threat QBs has made the Andy Dalton / Sam Bradford / Jay Cutler / Eli Manning guys pretty worthless. 4000 / 30 without any rushing points puts you at a weekly disadvantage against most of your opponents, assuming 10 - 12 teams and start 1 QB. Anyone tried to move one of those guys in a PPR dynasty lately? There's literally zero market for them, and that's not super likely to change in the next few years, IMO. I'd rather use the roster spot to churn RB / WR / TE -- IMO the chances of finding something viable are greater than the chances of one of the QBs taking the next step up to 4500 / 35 and becoming a viable FF option.

 
if he gets 30-32 TDs (i've consciously lowered this from current pace) this year, are you predicting he is doomed to a regression of the mean in 2014?
If he scores 30-32 TDs, it will show that he might be better than Mark Sanchez, and maybe will be in a position to not be replaced by a rookie in 2014.

 
What's a guy with low end QB1 upside worth? Nothing IMO. It's more a commentary on the QB position in general than on Bradford, specifically, as I haven't watched him enough to form a firm opinion.

Because defenders can't even sneeze on a QB IMO we're going to see more QBs playing into their mid / late 30s -- so the established stud QBs are going to hang around for years. This, combined with the influx of dynamic young two way threat QBs has made the Andy Dalton / Sam Bradford / Jay Cutler / Eli Manning guys pretty worthless. 4000 / 30 without any rushing points puts you at a weekly disadvantage against most of your opponents, assuming 10 - 12 teams and start 1 QB. Anyone tried to move one of those guys in a PPR dynasty lately? There's literally zero market for them, and that's not super likely to change in the next few years, IMO. I'd rather use the roster spot to churn RB / WR / TE -- IMO the chances of finding something viable are greater than the chances of one of the QBs taking the next step up to 4500 / 35 and becoming a viable FF option.
I don't know what year you're watching football, but it isn't this year. The NFL moved on from the "influx of two way QB's" while some people were busy listening to 8-track tapes.

4000/30 in the era (read: this year) since DC's decided to put out the APB that they'll kill your QB if you decide to run the read-option with regularity, has pretty much in the matter of a single offseason ended the relevance of that strain of QB, and has made the 4000/30 QB relative gold. You only need to look far enough to see that 10 of the top 11 fantasy QB's are traditional pocket passers, and the other one is a Chip Kelly guy (and whatever you want to call that offense, Vick is about to become a dinosaur there, as well), to see the truth staring us all baldly in the face.

The read-option wasn't just about the running stats. It guaranteed, mathematically, that if DC's tried to account for all the possibilities via their regular schemes, there were literally so many options available to a QB that defenses were unable to cope with them. It was an unwinnable numbers game. It made the QB's who were running it successfully LOOK like capable passers, when the reality was simply that they were able to hit a wide open guy.

Now that it's been taken off the menu by and large with the "open season on read-option QB's" dictum, the four guys who defined the genre -- who were four of the six top QB's during their healthy stretches last year -- Cam, Wilson, RG3, and Kaepernick, are now completely irrelevant as fantasy producers, sitting at FF QB's #12, 13, 17, and 19 in bog-standard scoring, with zero sign of any of them turning it around. Not a one of these guys has proven to be a capable QB producer outside that scheme, and only Wilson shows any signs of life at all, since he does seem to have what it takes to be a game manager.

If you'd take any of those guys over a guy you thought was a legit 4000/30 pocket passer in today's up-to-date NFL, you'd be pissing away your QB slot. Bradford's better than any of them moving forward, now, and for years down the road. :shrug:

 
You are putting a lot of Bradford's problems at the feet of his WRs (completion % & YPA) can you back that up with where the Rams are ranked in dropped passes and yards after catch?

And while I think his current pace is nice I would only put your projected 30+ TDs in pencil.

There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.
here is individual drop tracking... austin leads the league with 7... richardson is way down list, next ram with 3... NE stands out, with THREE WRs in top six in drops... dobson, thompkins and edelman have combined 17 between them.

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=nfl&type=receiving&rank=232

drop stats BY TEAM... when i last heard some of the drop stats referenced, it probably was a few weeks ago... NE is indeed first at 23, DET is second at 20, STL third with 18...

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232

BAL and ATL were at around 16th and 17th, with around 9 and 8 drops...

what if STL had more middle of pack drop rate, and bradford had 10 more completions (also keep in mind, some of those drops may have been drive killers, if not for which, he might have had additional yards/TDs that way, as well (accounting not just for the dropped pass yardage/TDs, but the loss of potential yardage/TDs from passes that were never made because drives were killed)... bradford is 138 of 232, so 148 of 232 would lift his completion percentage from his current 59.5% to closer to 64%...

low YPA does get into usage (especially of cook and austin)... in another thread, calbear was adamant that austin is used identically to jackson (another two long TDs passes sunday)... i assume he hasn't seen many rams games, but i would be interested in finding out... i have to think if you polled 100 people who had actually seen austin's usage, you would have 99 that could confirm that they aren't in fact being used exactly the same.

team YAC stats below, STL 12th? not sure how to interpret that, other than to suggest maybe it is related to volume, since bradford does have such a low YPA (bradford 7th in attempts, would be about 10th or 11th accounting for byes)? DEN is #1 in this stat, manning #1 in YPA...

http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=231
I have no problem laying a good part of the blame for his low completion % at the feet of his WRs who have 18 drops (Tom Brady is completing 56.5% of his passes and his WRs lead the league in drops with 22). Then again Peyton Manning leads the league in completion % and his WRs have dropped 16 passes. Stafford (20 drops) is over 3% in completions and 1.2 YPA better so it's not impossible to overcome drops.

But his team YAC is top 12, which is the benchmark you are using for being a viable #1 fantasy QB yet it feels like you are trying to lay the responsibility for his low YPA anywhere but on Bradford. His low INT number is nice but I would suggest that he is being too careful with the ball and taking only the dink and dunk passes instead of challenging defenses. He has been a decent fantasy QB this season, and if he finishes with the 30+ TDs you are projecting (far from a lock btw) it will have been a successful fantasy year, but he doesn't appear to be much more than a middling NFL QB prospect.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most leagues are a 12 team, start 1 QB. He's at the bottom end of the starters, which doesn't have much value. I think people from a fantasy perspective view him as a replaceable player because there are several QBs just like him from a ppg standpoint. He's the 12th QB in my league in ppg. The next bunch are all within 2 ppg of that: Luck, Wilson, R-burger, Pryor, and even Jake Locker and Tannehill are just barely over 2 ppg less than Bradford. Being around top 10 in fantasy points doesn't mean much to me since there are so many that are in the neighborhood.

I also think he's a better fantasy QB than a real one because of the massive passing volume the Rams employ. He still has poor efficiency numbers, less than 60% comp and 6.2 y/a. Lots of contributing factors here, but it's undeniable that something in the passing game isn't working well.

They need a new OC, I know that for sure.
in a 12 team league, point taken a low end QB1 isn't as valuable as a high end or even middling QB1... but lets be clear...

detractors aren't saying he is terrible or mediocre... among QB1s... :) they are saying, he is terrible or mediocre, period (sometimes in actual NFL sense, but sometimes in fantasy sense, which we're more concerned with here).

that is an important difference... since you are probably drafting more than one QB in these leagues, a low end QB1 has some value... if that is what you would call not much value, you may have a different interpretation than others...

for one thing, i don't assume the top 12 QBs statistically are neatly distributed where everybody gets one...

very possible two or three teams have two top 12 QBs (in the two redraft leagues i'm in, exactly three teams had two top 12 QBs - i didn't factor in for byes), that leaves six others among nine remaining teams... so sure, if you are one of 8-10 teams with better QB, you might not value him as much as 2-4 teams that don't.

you said luck and wilson are a few PPG average behind bradford... considering where they were probably taken in most 2013 redrafts, hasn't bradford presented far better value this year?

massive volume could be a misnomer addressed above... he was third in attempts as rookie (590), but he was 11th last year, and projecting to about same this year (factoring in byes - ryan, RGIII and rothliesberger have all played just five games)... we normally are in the habit of thinking of volume as a good thing at QB (think manning, brees, brady, rodgers), and really no different from RB, WR and TE?

also already addressed, but easily leading league in drops, with a young WR squad, could realistically be corrected... i've asked for clear communication when we are speaking in redraft or dynasty terms... in this case, i am even more hopeful in the dynasty context... that said, i think improvement this year is still possible...

and i agree with you the scheme has held them back... i just think in the long term, they will find a better way to use austin and cook... the investment of draft capital and free agent salary cap in them is a head scratcher, if they only intend to throw to them 2-3 times a game long term, going forward...

it is worth pointing out bradford is on pace for a career year, close to 4,000 yards and 34 TDs, IN SPITE OF THE HINDRANCES outlined above...

while some say he is doomed to regress (career best TD/attempt ratio unsustainable), imo there are at least as many or more counterbalancing factors pointing towards upside in more optimistic projections, and even less optimistically, this could be the new normal or status quo for him...
You certainly have bigger fish to fry than me. Please understand that not all Bradford critics are cut from the same cloth. I don't think you'll find me saying he's a terrible QB, and I don't agree with the people that do. He may prove to be a terrible QB one day, but I'm not ready to make the conclusion yet.

Are fantasy QBs distributed equally? Almost never. But please refer to my last point on that, that there are a bunch of guys just like him in the fantasy production standpoint, that it doesn't matter if you get Bradford because you could just as easily have another guy. He's quite replaceable in typical fantasy formats. I also don't think that he might have been a better deal in August draft days than a few other QBs in the same tier as him is a good basis for Bradford = good QB claim (if that's what you are saying) since there are so many other QBs, some of which could have been had cheaper than Bradford. If there werea 6 QB logjam at QB11-16, and all of them but Bradford were expected to play like round 6 QBs and Bradford was going round 11, then I think you'd have a splendid point there. But Pryor was an end of draft/WW selection. Wilson and Luck, round 5. R-burger, round 10. Tannehill, round 13. Locker, round 16. Bradford is in the middle. So even if QBs aren't equally distributed, you still have a good shot QB1-18. If you consider Bradford to have a particular value, then you have increased your pool of QBs with value by 50% to 18. Now whether your QBs are evenly distributed or not, getting 1 out of those 18 is very, very easy.

You'll have to further explain how volume is a misnomer if you want me to respond because I don't understand what you are getting to there.

I know his situation is far from ideal. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that a player will improve as his situation improves. What if it doesn't? It's possible. Matt Schaub's situation improved from last year. He isn't doing too well.

Anyway, like I said you have bigger fish to fry in this thread because I'm hardly the most ardent Bradford detractor. Just making my point about his fantasy value, he just isn't special at all.

 
What's a guy with low end QB1 upside worth? Nothing IMO. It's more a commentary on the QB position in general than on Bradford, specifically, as I haven't watched him enough to form a firm opinion.

Because defenders can't even sneeze on a QB IMO we're going to see more QBs playing into their mid / late 30s -- so the established stud QBs are going to hang around for years. This, combined with the influx of dynamic young two way threat QBs has made the Andy Dalton / Sam Bradford / Jay Cutler / Eli Manning guys pretty worthless. 4000 / 30 without any rushing points puts you at a weekly disadvantage against most of your opponents, assuming 10 - 12 teams and start 1 QB. Anyone tried to move one of those guys in a PPR dynasty lately? There's literally zero market for them, and that's not super likely to change in the next few years, IMO. I'd rather use the roster spot to churn RB / WR / TE -- IMO the chances of finding something viable are greater than the chances of one of the QBs taking the next step up to 4500 / 35 and becoming a viable FF option.
I don't know what year you're watching football, but it isn't this year. The NFL moved on from the "influx of two way QB's" while some people were busy listening to 8-track tapes.4000/30 in the era (read: this year) since DC's decided to put out the APB that they'll kill your QB if you decide to run the read-option with regularity, has pretty much in the matter of a single offseason ended the relevance of that strain of QB, and has made the 4000/30 QB relative gold. You only need to look far enough to see that 10 of the top 11 fantasy QB's are traditional pocket passers, and the other one is a Chip Kelly guy (and whatever you want to call that offense, Vick is about to become a dinosaur there, as well), to see the truth staring us all baldly in the face.

The read-option wasn't just about the running stats. It guaranteed, mathematically, that if DC's tried to account for all the possibilities via their regular schemes, there were literally so many options available to a QB that defenses were unable to cope with them. It was an unwinnable numbers game. It made the QB's who were running it successfully LOOK like capable passers, when the reality was simply that they were able to hit a wide open guy.

Now that it's been taken off the menu by and large with the "open season on read-option QB's" dictum, the four guys who defined the genre -- who were four of the six top QB's during their healthy stretches last year -- Cam, Wilson, RG3, and Kaepernick, are now completely irrelevant as fantasy producers, sitting at FF QB's #12, 13, 17, and 19 in bog-standard scoring, with zero sign of any of them turning it around. Not a one of these guys has proven to be a capable QB producer outside that scheme, and only Wilson shows any signs of life at all, since he does seem to have what it takes to be a game manager.

If you'd take any of those guys over a guy you thought was a legit 4000/30 pocket passer in today's up-to-date NFL, you'd be pissing away your QB slot. Bradford's better than any of them moving forward, now, and for years down the road. :shrug:
Right, because six games this year close the book on Cam, Kaep, Wilson, and RGIII and we can assume that they totally lack the ability to develop into better passers than Sam effing Bradford. And because a steady diet of read option is the only way for a QB to add value on the ground at all. Oh yeah, it's also safe to assume that Bradford will be a 4000 / 30 guy moving forward. Brilliant!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top