Sam Bradford could be "catastrophic" says Dilfer (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

It's rare to see a talking head come out on ESPN with such a contrarian and openly negative viewpoint on someone likely to be one of the NFL's new poster boys. I have to hand it to Dilfer. Even if you don't agree with him (and many I'm sure don't), he's sticking his neck out in a way that few do these days on the network (including Kiper and McShay, the guys who are SUPPOSED to make decisive calls like this).

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/...on-catastrophic

Trent Dilfer's interview with 101ESPN St. Louis is worth a listen for those interested in a different take on quarterbacks.

Tim Heitman/US Presswire

Quarterback Sam Bradford is an extremely raw prospect according to ESPN's Trent Dilfer.

Dilfer thinks the Rams would be best off taking defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh first overall, then trading up from the 33rd pick to select Colt McCoy as their quarterback. He thinks Jimmy Clausen is by far the best college quarterback right now. He thinks Sam Bradford faces a tough transition. He sees McCoy as the player most likely to develop into the best quarterback from this draft.

What does Dilfer know? Well, he's played the position and studied the players. Dilfer said he has watched every 2009 snap from all three quarterbacks -- two and three times in some cases -- using a template he developed with input from Mike Holmgren, Brian Billick, Jim Zorn and others.

"This is my passion," Dilfer said during the interview.

Dilfer attributes Bradford's perceived rise to hype and misinformation from personnel people with agendas.

"In my opinion," Dilfer said of Bradford, "he is not even close to the best player in this draft."

Dilfer sees Bradford as extremely raw and a player who hasn't performed in a system even remotely close to the ones preferred by NFL teams. He thinks Bradford's accuracy falls off as the Oklahoma quarterback goes through his reads.

Further, drafting Bradford could be a "catastrophic mistake" for the Rams if they did not handle him properly.

"Bradford is a talented guy," Dilfer said. "I understand why the perception has become what it is -- because he looks good in shorts. But that is the way he has played football, too. He has played in a 7-on-7 environment, not an 11-on-11 environment."

McCoy's competitiveness, leadership and athletic ability to extend plays will set him apart over time, Dilfer predicted.

I'll be saving the link from this item for future reference.

Note: As Lori indicates via Facebook and as Dilfer mentioned in the interview, he has worked out with McCoy. They share the same agent, David Dunn.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Doesn't M.Hodge "stick his neck out" too? He is just as qualified as Dilfer is.

 

[Honda]

I'd like to see a cage match between Dilfer and McShay involving sharp objects and a badger or two.

 

[Jason Wood]

Doesn't M.Hodge "stick his neck out" too? He is just as qualified as Dilfer is.

I think you mean Merrill Hoge? Yes, he does take different positions. I guess I've seen him be dead wrong enough though that I discount them.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Does Dilfer working with Colt McCoy affect his opinion of Bradford?

 

[Comfortable Shoes]

Doesn't M.Hodge "stick his neck out" too? He is just as qualified as Dilfer is.

Poor comparison. Dilfer is known for being a smart, analytical guy and also of course having played the QB position with the benefit of a lot of good coaches in his career. Hoge doesn't have a neck . . . or all of his marbles either.

 

[Jason Wood]

Does Dilfer working with Colt McCoy affect his opinion of Bradford?

I don't get that either. I'm assuming the ESPN blogger felt compelled to mention it to cover up any sense of impropriety, as though Dilfer was somehow doing his agent a solid by suggesting the Rams should draft McCoy. It's funny you mentioned that last line because when I copied and pasted the article, I ALMOST left out that line but then figured someone might say, "Wood, why didn't you mention the part where it said Dilfer has the same agent as McCoy." Ultimately I think Dilfer's comments about Bradford should be taken on their own.

 

[Futz]

They share the same agent, David Dunn.

If this had been in the first sentence, I wouldn't have had to read the whole article.Can you say agenda?

 

[identikit]

Trent Dilfer denies conflict of interest regarding Colt McCoy

Posted by Mike Florio on April 7, 2010 10:43 PM ET

Former NFL quarterback and ESPN analyst Trent Dilfer recently gave a candid assessment of former Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford, saying that Bradford "is not even close to the best player in the draft." In the same interview, on ESPN Radio's St. Louis affiliate, Dilfer said that former Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen is the best prepared to play right away, and that former Texas quarterback Colt McCoy eventually could be the best of the trio.

The assessment of McCoy raised eyebrows, given that McCoy and Dilfer are both clients of Athletes First -- and that Peter King recently said that Dilfer "works with" McCoy. Several blogs, such as JoeBucsFan.com and TheBigLead.com, openly have questioned whether Dilfer has a conflict of interest.

So we reached out to ESPN for an opportunity to talk to Dilfer, and before I could even get his number, Trent called me.

He denied strongly the suggestion that he was compensated to work out with or to endorse McCoy. "Dave Dunn pays me nothing," Dilfer said. "Athletes First pays me nothing."

Dilfer candidly acknowledged that, from time to time, Dunn will ask him to talk to potential clients -- and Dilfer will do so. He said he doesn't get paid for this, and he said that many former players do the same thing.

Dilfer's right. We've been hearing about this practice for years. The problem arises if/when the former player is getting paid to make a recommendation -- especially if the former player is also employed as an on-air analyst.

Dilfer told me that he has limited such efforts since being hired by ESPN, because he wants to be sure to avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest. And he explained that he completed his evaluation of the top three quarterbacks (Bradford, Clausen, and McCoy) before any of them hired agents.

"I'm gonna to speak the way I see it regardless of who Dave represents," Dilfer said. "I'm only gonna tell the truth."

During the 10-minute conversation, Dilfer was passionate, candid, and credible. And he made no attempt to hide the relationship with Dunn. Still, while we believe that Dilfer has handled the situation appropriately, the safest approach for any on-air analyst would be to secure representation from a firm that does not represent the players that the analyst will be evaluating.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ing-colt-mccoy/

 

[Comfortable Shoes]

They share the same agent, David Dunn.

If this had been in the first sentence, I wouldn't have had to read the whole article.Can you say agenda?

It's a red flag, but this is a small community too - there are only so many agents out there. Also, it's not like he was saying that McCoy's a first round talent - he said explicitly he's a second rounder which is consistent with everything else I've heard about McCoy, and it's not like Dilfer's evaluation will be so influential that a team will dump its own evaluation in favor of his.

 

[Sinrman]

I agree with Dilfer in most of what he says. I think Bradford is a bit better than he makes him out to be, but I personally think the Rams would be better served taking Suh and then trading up to get McCoy (which I have the feeling a team will have to do that in order to get him now). I've said that all along...

Now as a Lions fan, I PRAY they take Bradford so we can have Suh...

 

[Jason Wood]

And there, apparently, is why the Blogger felt the need to mention they shared the same agent.

 

[Christo]

What does Dilfer know? Well, he's played the position and studied the players. Dilfer said he has watched every 2009 snap from all three quarterbacks -- two and three times in some cases -- using a template he developed with input from Mike Holmgren, Brian Billick, Jim Zorn and others.

So what's that? The equivalent of one game for Bradford? I guess Trent couldn't be bothered with looking at 2008.ETA - Trent's never struck me as being very smart. Maybe he was watching Landry Jones without knowing it.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I wouldn't use the words catastrohpic but I don't think Bradford's going to become a STUD in the NFL. When the season ended, when we first started talking about the draft the idea of a QB going No. 1 overall was almost a longshot possibility. That it seemed to be a slam dunk that it would be Suh.

Over some time, it looked as if Alabama's McCoy was making ground up on Suh and that he was some guys top pick and then Suh No. 2. Then came the workouts and Bradford shot way up the list to almost this sure thing No. 1 and then of course the idea that the Lions made take Okung etc...the possibilities are endless.

Now, this guy comes out and says Bradord isn't all that and tha the Rams should take Suh. To be honest, that is what they should do and I've said that since Day 1.

However, as a Detroit native I want Suh in year badly and cringed when I read what I read in this article. I'll be bummed if the Rams take Suh.

 

[Honda]

I think there's two different things to be said about Bradford vs. Clausen vs. McCoy.

Clausen is the one most likely to see instant success. But Bradford has superior physical tools. McCoy is somewhere in between.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I think there's two different things to be said about Bradford vs. Clausen vs. McCoy.Clausen is the one most likely to see instant success. But Bradford has superior physical tools. McCoy is somewhere in between.

I personally don't think Colt McCoy will be a quality starter in the NFL, I see him as a slightly better professional QB than Tim Tebow. I could be way off this year on these QB's but I just don't see McCoy and Tebow as NFL passers, I like both guys so I hope I'm wrong.I think Bradford has a shot and I think Clausen will be decent (better than Quinn) but I can see a lot of busts at QB in this class.

 

[mcintyre1]

I'm just kind of chuckling about having Suh and McCoy on the same team after that Big 12 championship game.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Trent was lucky enough to play for a SB winner that had one of the best defense/running game combos ever.

From Wiki: "the first and only Super Bowl winning quarterback ever released the following year."

 

[Jason Wood]

FWIW, I don't have much confidence that Colt McCoy is going to be a great pro either. But I AM surprised at how many have just slotted Bradford at the one spot now because his shoulder checked out medically. Even if he were the consensus pick among scouting circles, I would think there are plenty of amateur scouts on the web, etc..., that would be more critical of his risks. Maybe I'm just not looking at all the right places, but it seems to me like there's a lot of consensus that Bradford should be the guy. Surprises me.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I'd like to see a cage match between Dilfer and McShay involving sharp objects and a badger or two.

They don't need no stinkin' badgers.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I agree that Bradford has more red flags than most are willing to admit. I think it's easy to compare him to a guy like Leinart or Tebow -- was he any better as a college QB? He may have a stronger arm than those guys, but I don't think Leinart's failing in the NFL because his arm isn't strong enough. How many times has Bradford had to make quick decisions under pressure? How many times has he made pre-snap reads and audibled to the correct play? How many times has he run a 3rd and 8 out of a pro set and fired a laser strike into coverage?

Now just because he hasn't done those things often doesn't mean he'll be a bad QB. But I think it raises the uncertainty factor with Bradford. In the NFL, he's not going to be running plays out of a spread offense where his OL are worlds better than the opposing DL and he's got four stud WRs running simple routes where his coaches make all the reads. So how much do we really know about him?

Players like Warner, Roethlisberger, Pennington, Cutler, Flacco, Ryan, Rivers, Brees, Romo and many other played college ball without many elite players on their team. They went up against better defenses than their team's offense. I think that sort of training is a very good thing. Now the number of QBs who play for non-elite schools is much, much larger than the number of QBs who play for elite programs, so you would expect that the overwhelming majority of good NFL QBs didn't play for Oklahoma, USC, Texas, Florida, LSU, Ohio State, etc. But I think it's very hard to grade these guys in these sorts of programs -- going from Oklahoma to St. Louis is going to be quite a change for Bradford, and I think it's crazy to feel that you know with any certainty how good he'll be. Lots of guys have had good arms and good accuracy. To ignore that there were close to 15 future NFL players on the '08 Sooners offense alone is silly.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And just to present the other side, as I wrote in another thread, I don't know if present day Peyton Manning would have made the 08 Sooners much better in 11 of their 13 games. Oklahoma went on an absurd streak in the second half of the season where Bradford played like the best QB on the planet, college or pro. I mean, would Manning or Brees on the '08 Sooners score 80 points in a game? I just don't know how you top the sort of production Bradford's offense had.

 

[Honda]

I agree that Bradford has more red flags than most are willing to admit. I think it's easy to compare him to a guy like Leinart or Tebow -- was he any better as a college QB? He may have a stronger arm than those guys, but I don't think Leinart's failing in the NFL because his arm isn't strong enough. How many times has Bradford had to make quick decisions under pressure? How many times has he made pre-snap reads and audibled to the correct play? How many times has he run a 3rd and 8 out of a pro set and fired a laser strike into coverage?

How many college QBs do this period?I'm really asking. I don't know.

 

[IDrinkyourMilkshake]

Sam Bradford is better than Trent Dilfer. And Trent will never catch him.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I spoke candidly about Bradford when I did a two round mock a month or so ago, you can search for it. I think St Louis will set the franchise back another 5 years by taking Bradford at #1...they aren't even smart enough to squeeze some blood from Tampa to move up and take Suh who is the best player in this entire draft IMHO.

Bradford just happens to have very little competition for a QB job this year. I don't ever see him in game footage ever make completions under pressure, always throwing to wide open WRs with no pass rush on him, he is going ot struggle mightily when he gets to the NFL. I would not put him on Stafford's level at all. None of the Oklahoma QBs have ever amounted to anything int he Stoops era, mostly system guys if you ask me, and I really am stunned Bradford is a slam dunk #1.

 

[LittlePhatty]

I don't think Bradford will be "catastrophic".

But I think Suh is a better #1 pick.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I'd like to see a cage match between Dilfer and McShay involving sharp objects and a badger or two.

They don't need no stinkin' badgers.

But they could still hold the match in Wisconson.

 

[Jason Wood]

I spoke candidly about Bradford when I did a two round mock a month or so ago, you can search for it. I think St Louis will set the franchise back another 5 years by taking Bradford at #1...they aren't even smart enough to squeeze some blood from Tampa to move up and take Suh who is the best player in this entire draft IMHO. Bradford just happens to have very little competition for a QB job this year. I don't ever see him in game footage ever make completions under pressure, always throwing to wide open WRs with no pass rush on him, he is going ot struggle mightily when he gets to the NFL. I would not put him on Stafford's level at all. None of the Oklahoma QBs have ever amounted to anything int he Stoops era, mostly system guys if you ask me, and I really am stunned Bradford is a slam dunk #1.

This is where I disagree a bit Sean. I'm more in the Matt Waldman/Trent Dilfer camp in thinking highly of Clausen. Much of what Chase just discussed re: Bradford isn't a risk factor for Clausen. He's played in a pro system (one that won some Super Bowls), he played under duress, he made pre-snap reads, he suffered through some tough years. I get that Clausen has a rep for being douchey (whether that's fair or not I can't say), but to me in a draft where people are defending Dez Bryant as being TOO GOOD to pass up, I can't fathom how Clausen shouldn't be worth a serious look. If Clausen falls into Buffalo or Jacksonville's laps, it could really set those franchise back in the right direction IMHO.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I agree that Bradford has more red flags than most are willing to admit. I think it's easy to compare him to a guy like Leinart or Tebow -- was he any better as a college QB? He may have a stronger arm than those guys, but I don't think Leinart's failing in the NFL because his arm isn't strong enough. How many times has Bradford had to make quick decisions under pressure? How many times has he made pre-snap reads and audibled to the correct play? How many times has he run a 3rd and 8 out of a pro set and fired a laser strike into coverage?

How many college QBs do this period?I'm really asking. I don't know.

I think if you're a QB in a strong defensive conference, or for a mid-level (or worse) team, then you see a lot of these things. Obviously if you play for Mike Leach or June Jones or Urban Meyer or Gus Malzahn or for Houston or any other team with a spread offense that likes to run up the score, you need to be wary of the numbers. But if you're in one of the big 6 conferences but not on the top couple of teams, or in a non-AQ conference where you're not the best team and it's a relatively solid defensive conference (i.e., not the WAC or the Sun Belt), I think you're exposed to a good number of different teams/defenses/looks. If you're 11-1 running a spread offense playing weak defenses where your team has a talent and coaching advantage over the other team, what does that really tell you about the QB?There's obviously a catch-22 here, in that the very best prospects go to the very best schools at the best conferences. It's not a coincidence that Vince Young ended up at Texas, or any of the QBs at USC. And, at least in theory, those guys might be the very best college QBs. So it's more an issue of what training do they go under; would Vince Young or Matt Leinart have become a better pro QB had they gone to Boston College and Ole Miss? On the other hand, there are a bunch of college coordinators who can kill a QB because they're just not very good. There's no perfect answer here, that's for sure. I'm sure many Arkansas and Ole Miss fans will tell you that Houston Nutt is a QB killer and that Jevan Snead could have developed into a much better QB somewhere else. And sure, if Snead played under Mike Leach, he'd probably have crazy passing numbers, but then you'd have the same issues you have with someone like Bradford. It's a very tricky thing.

 

[Donnybrook]

Dilfer sees Bradford as extremely raw and a player who hasn't performed in a system even remotely close to the ones preferred by NFL teams.

Doesn't this applies to almost all QBs in the draft except Clausen? It makes it sound like it is an impossible transition. How many QBs currently playing in NFL were not in a pro style offense in college?

 

[Honda]

I guess the thing that always impressed me is that Bradford never appeared to be the "one (as in read) and run" type spread option QB like a Tebow or Graham Harrell.

Yes he had a first option that was quite often open and he was on the money more often than not. But contrary to a lot of spread QBs, Bradford didn't tuck and run but rather kept the play alive with his feet and kept his options open always looking downfield. And he seemed very, very accurate to me when throwing on the run. That's huge from what I can tell (which isn't much!).

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

FWIW, I don't have much confidence that Colt McCoy is going to be a great pro either. But I AM surprised at how many have just slotted Bradford at the one spot now because his shoulder checked out medically. Even if he were the consensus pick among scouting circles, I would think there are plenty of amateur scouts on the web, etc..., that would be more critical of his risks. Maybe I'm just not looking at all the right places, but it seems to me like there's a lot of consensus that Bradford should be the guy. Surprises me.

Don't worry, in four years everyone here will be able to tell you that they knew Bradford would be a bust and that only the Rams were stupid enough to think he was first-pick worthy.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I guess the thing that always impressed me is that Bradford never appeared to be the "one (as in read) and run" type spread option QB like a Tebow or Graham Harrell. Yes he had a first option that was quite often open and he was on the money more often than not. But contrary to a lot of spread QBs, Bradford didn't tuck and run but rather kept the play alive with his feet and kept his options open always looking downfield. And he seemed very, very accurate to me when throwing on the run. That's huge from what I can tell (which isn't much!).

Graham Harrell wasn't a runner; in '08, he had 5,111 yards and 45 TDs on 626 attempts, against just 9 INTs; he had 41 rushes for -15 yards (sacks count as rushes in college football).Bradford had 4,720 yards and 50 TDs on 483 passes, against just 8 INTs; he had 42 rushes for 47 yards. Neither guy was sacked very often, but Bradford did run more often (sometimes designed) than Harrell at least in '08.

 

[finito]

Any QB taken with a top pick could be catastrophic. They are simply paid too much money. If they bust they set the franchise back, and many simply don't pan out.

I would never take a QB with one of the 1st few picks, I'd much rather taken one a bit later so the rookie contract isn't so ridiculous. Also, when a QB is taken a bit later there isn't as much pressure to start him right away because he isn't being paid as astronomically as a high 1st rounder; you can groom him a bit.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Any QB taken with a top pick could be catastrophic. They are simply paid too much money. If they bust they set the franchise back, and many simply don't pan out. I would never take a QB with one of the 1st few picks, I'd much rather taken one a bit later so the rookie contract isn't so ridiculous. Also, when a QB is taken a bit later there isn't as much pressure to start him right away because he isn't being paid as astronomically as a high 1st rounder; you can groom him a bit.

Not to mention that going #1 by definition means going to a crappy team.

 

[Honda]

I guess the thing that always impressed me is that Bradford never appeared to be the "one (as in read) and run" type spread option QB like a Tebow or Graham Harrell. Yes he had a first option that was quite often open and he was on the money more often than not. But contrary to a lot of spread QBs, Bradford didn't tuck and run but rather kept the play alive with his feet and kept his options open always looking downfield. And he seemed very, very accurate to me when throwing on the run. That's huge from what I can tell (which isn't much!).

Graham Harrell wasn't a runner; in '08, he had 5,111 yards and 45 TDs on 626 attempts, against just 9 INTs; he had 41 rushes for -15 yards (sacks count as rushes in college football).Bradford had 4,720 yards and 50 TDs on 483 passes, against just 8 INTs; he had 42 rushes for 47 yards. Neither guy was sacked very often, but Bradford did run more often (sometimes designed) than Harrell at least in '08.

Harrell wasn't the best comparison. My bigger point is that it looked to me like Bradford was much more aware of what was going on when a play breaks down than your typical spread QB.

 

[Christo]

I guess the thing that always impressed me is that Bradford never appeared to be the "one (as in read) and run" type spread option QB like a Tebow or Graham Harrell. Yes he had a first option that was quite often open and he was on the money more often than not. But contrary to a lot of spread QBs, Bradford didn't tuck and run but rather kept the play alive with his feet and kept his options open always looking downfield. And he seemed very, very accurate to me when throwing on the run. That's huge from what I can tell (which isn't much!).

Graham Harrell wasn't a runner; in '08, he had 5,111 yards and 45 TDs on 626 attempts, against just 9 INTs; he had 41 rushes for -15 yards (sacks count as rushes in college football).Bradford had 4,720 yards and 50 TDs on 483 passes, against just 8 INTs; he had 42 rushes for 47 yards. Neither guy was sacked very often, but Bradford did run more often (sometimes designed) than Harrell at least in '08.

Harrell wasn't the best comparison. My bigger point is that it looked to me like Bradford was much more aware of what was going on when a play breaks down than your typical spread QB.

He isn't a typical spread QB. OU doesn't exclusively run a spread offense. It runs many power formations: I-formation, 3 TEs. He was under center alot. They rolled him out some.

 

[gandalas]

It's a red flag, but this is a small community too - there are only so many agents out there.

Also, it's not like he was saying that McCoy's a first round talent - he said explicitly he's a second rounder which is consistent with everything else I've heard about McCoy, and it's not like Dilfer's evaluation will be so influential that a team will dump its own evaluation in favor of his.

Actually, he said that he IS a first round talent. Or at least that is what I took from the part which said they should take Suh first, and then TRADE UP from the #33 pick for McCoy. Being as the 33rd pick is the first pick of the second round, they would only be trading up into the first round for him.

 

[Tau837]

Ultimately I think Dilfer's comments about Bradford should be taken on their own.

I agree with this.I heard Dilfer on the Cowherd show during college football season after Bradford was hurt, and he made the same kind of strong comments then. He said then that even before the injury he viewed him as a prospect with a lot to prove. He mentioned in that interview that he felt Bradford's reads were suspect. He also said that a big question mark entering last season was whether or not Bradford could duplicate his previous great performance behind a less talented offensive line... I don't follow Oklahoma, but I assumed from his comments that they had a much better offensive line in Bradford's huge season. He went on to say that Bradford didn't get much opportunity to address that issue, and what was shown was that he may have a tendency to (a) get hurt if he gets hit a lot and (b) not play well in the face of a pass rush. IIRC he said he did not view him as first round material at that time.I don't know when he worked out with McCoy, so I'm not sure if he had any bias at the time. I would guess that his workouts with McCoy may have been since this past college football season, in which case his comments on the Cowherd show could not have been biased.

 

[Tau837]

What does Dilfer know? Well, he's played the position and studied the players. Dilfer said he has watched every 2009 snap from all three quarterbacks -- two and three times in some cases -- using a template he developed with input from Mike Holmgren, Brian Billick, Jim Zorn and others.

So what's that? The equivalent of one game for Bradford? I guess Trent couldn't be bothered with looking at 2008.ETA - Trent's never struck me as being very smart. Maybe he was watching Landry Jones without knowing it.

In my previous post, I mentioned that Dilfer discussed this on Cowherd the week after Bradford's injury. IIRC he said then that he had looked at film of every one of Bradford's 2008 snaps. I think you are way off base on this.

 

[Tau837]

How many QBs currently playing in NFL were not in a pro style offense in college?

This would be interesting information.

 

[Wadsworth]

I spoke candidly about Bradford when I did a two round mock a month or so ago, you can search for it. I think St Louis will set the franchise back another 5 years by taking Bradford at #1...they aren't even smart enough to squeeze some blood from Tampa to move up and take Suh who is the best player in this entire draft IMHO.

Bradford just happens to have very little competition for a QB job this year. I don't ever see him in game footage ever make completions under pressure, always throwing to wide open WRs with no pass rush on him, he is going ot struggle mightily when he gets to the NFL. I would not put him on Stafford's level at all. None of the Oklahoma QBs have ever amounted to anything int he Stoops era, mostly system guys if you ask me, and I really am stunned Bradford is a slam dunk #1.

This is where I disagree a bit Sean. I'm more in the Matt Waldman/Trent Dilfer camp in thinking highly of Clausen. Much of what Chase just discussed re: Bradford isn't a risk factor for Clausen. He's played in a pro system (one that won some Super Bowls), he played under duress, he made pre-snap reads, he suffered through some tough years. I get that Clausen has a rep for being douchey (whether that's fair or not I can't say), but to me in a draft where people are defending Dez Bryant as being TOO GOOD to pass up, I can't fathom how Clausen shouldn't be worth a serious look. If Clausen falls into Buffalo or Jacksonville's laps, it could really set those franchise back in the right direction IMHO.

I'm not as impressed with Clausen as you seem to be, but that point aside the fallout from the Jaguars selecting QB not named Tebow with the #10 pick would be extreme in Jacksonville. We already had a local sports radio/TV reporter threaten to show up at the stadium opening day wearing his Tebow jersey(for whatever team drafts him) and burn his season tickets if the Jags draft Clausen. It's really ugly around here right now.

 

[Comfortable Shoes]

FWIW, I don't have much confidence that Colt McCoy is going to be a great pro either. But I AM surprised at how many have just slotted Bradford at the one spot now because his shoulder checked out medically. Even if he were the consensus pick among scouting circles, I would think there are plenty of amateur scouts on the web, etc..., that would be more critical of his risks. Maybe I'm just not looking at all the right places, but it seems to me like there's a lot of consensus that Bradford should be the guy. Surprises me.

I don't think this is that big of a mystery as to why Bradford's the consensus 1.1. He has all the tools physically and he comes from a major program in a major conference. He's at a premium position and most seem to think that he's the top QB talent and a top-five pick. I've seen very few people say that she shouldn't be top 5 if healthy. He had an apparently great - maybe all-time great according to some veteran scouts - pro day workout that assured people his shoulder is fine, a shoulder which BTW suffered one acute injury rather than a chronic set of problems. In addition, the team at 1.1, the Rams, is in dire need of a QB; if it was the Lions, I don't think Bradford would be the consensus there at all. I think the aggregate of all of these things leads to that consensus.

 

[thevidon]

I wouldn't use the words catastrohpic but I don't think Bradford's going to become a STUD in the NFL. When the season ended, when we first started talking about the draft the idea of a QB going No. 1 overall was almost a longshot possibility. That it seemed to be a slam dunk that it would be Suh.Over some time, it looked as if Alabama's McCoy was making ground up on Suh and that he was some guys top pick and then Suh No. 2. Then came the workouts and Bradford shot way up the list to almost this sure thing No. 1 and then of course the idea that the Lions made take Okung etc...the possibilities are endless.Now, this guy comes out and says Bradord isn't all that and tha the Rams should take Suh. To be honest, that is what they should do and I've said that since Day 1.However, as a Detroit native I want Suh in year badly and cringed when I read what I read in this article. I'll be bummed if the Rams take Suh.

Lions fans should be praying that the Rams DO take Suh, effectively removing the temptation for the Lions and allowing them to draft a starting OT to protect their investment in Stafford.

 

[Tau837]

It's not like other scouting reports don't see some major issues with Bradford:

NFL Draft Dog - written after the 2008 season

The Concerns

Most of the passes in the Sooner playbook are out of the shotgun formation. That brings us to perhaps the biggest concern that GMs have about not only Bradford but almost all of the college spread formation quarterbacks—what about his footwork? The QB is under center for nearly all plays in the NFL.

Traditionally, shotgun or spread offense rookie QBs struggle with the 3, 5 and 7 step drops fundamental to the NFL passing game. Many high pick shotgun/spread formation QBs have failed. Nearly always their downfall has been due to footwork/accuracy problems. It is nearly impossible to have NFL level accuracy by a quarterback that lacks consistent footwork. The passing windows are microscopic compared to those in college even in good conferences. Timing of the throw is critical and timing is determined by footwork.

A second and nearly equally significant concern is the ability of Bradford to make pre-snap reads. An NFL quarterback must be able to read the defense before the snap to determine if the play needs to be changed or not. The Oklahoma system involves the team looking to the sideline to get the play. The reading of the D is done by the coaching staff in the booth, relayed to the sideline and given to the QB.

In the NFL, the QB must make the reads. Is the opponent going to blitz? Are they in zone, man or a combination coverage? Each of these possibilities requires different patterns and play calls. Many of the Big 12 QBs have never been responsible for making those reads. The problem is made more significant by the multiple defenses the NFL uses. While he had NFL quality receivers, they were not facing NFL quality defensive backs. These guys are bigger, faster, smarter, and hit a lot harder than any college conference defenses.

Yet another major question the NFL will have is Bradford's ability to anticipate the player coming open and hitting the spot where he will be when the ball gets there. Often that ability is what separates the very good quarterback from the Hall of Fame one. The Sooner offense is not built to require that. Almost all the patterns require a WR to stop in the open area because the Big 12 plays so much zone. In cases where he has faced man coverage, he has at least convinced me that he can anticipate the open receiver.

Draft Countdown

Weaknesses:

Durability is a huge concern --- Just average arm strength --- Mechanics are not textbook and drops down to three-quarters at times --- Will have to adjust to working from under center --- Must learn to read defenses and go through progressions in a pro style offense --- Does not have a good feel for pressure --- Won't make a lot of plays with his feet --- Limited experience --- Stats were inflated by a spread system.

Notes:

...Certainly has plenty of positive traits to get excited about but there are also a lot of unknowns and major question marks, including: 1) How will his arm respond after being surgically repaired? 2) Can his body hold up to the pounding it will have to endure at the next level? 3) Will he be able to adapt to a pro style offense or was he simply a product of Oklahoma's system that enabled other quarterbacks like Josh Heupel, Nate Hybl and Jason White to put up huge numbers as well? --- A highly-decorated, prolific signal caller with adequate physical tools and first-rate intangibles --- Could very easily emerge as a successful starter in the NFL but there are also serveral ominous warning signs that indicate a considerable bust factor.

National Football Post

...he played in a "check with me" offense at Oklahoma, where all the audibles come from the sideline. He will need to learn to make his own pre-snap adjustments at the next level...

Takes the majority of his snaps from the gun and looks confident quickly scanning the field and going through his reads. But he doesn't showcase the same type of effectiveness when asked to go through his progressions from under center and lacks ideal footwork in his drop. Gets a bit high and narrow with his base when he sets in the pocket. He doesn't generate much power from his legs... Possesses average NFL arm strength and lacks the ability to fit passes into tight areas when he's late with a read.

Needs to do a better job being patient with the ball in the red zone and throwing it away when nothing is there... he can get rattled when hit often, and he could stand to add a bit more muscle to his frame. Needs to answer the durability questions and prove he can handle to rigors of a 16-game NFL season...

Obviously, he has plenty of positives also, and almost all QBs have issues entering the NFL. But there are a number of valid concerns about Bradford. I think he is overrated as a prospect.

 

[Honda]

Lions fans should be praying that the Rams DO take Suh, effectively removing the temptation for the Lions and allowing them to draft a starting OT to protect their investment in Stafford.

I think the Lions' acquisition of Rob Sims precludes them taking a tackle.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

You can talk about "building from the trenches" forever but if the Rams draft Suh they will win 2 or 3 games again and still have no QB.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Fun post, first of all.

One might wonder just how much Dilfer is being "candid" or is this just a new way for ESPN to manufacture news with a willing employee. Hard to say.

On thing that separates Bradford from Tebow and McCoy is that OU let Bradford actually throw passes where he took snaps from under center. This is where Bradford and LeFevour differed from the likes of Tebow and McCoy. At least 3-5 times per game Bradford and LeFevour demonstrated 3,5,or 7-step drops from center and threw passes. Rarely (if ever) did you see Tebow or McCoy do the same. So in this sense, I believe the spread offense argument for Bradford and LeFevour is not as big of a deal. It's still going to be an adjustment, but not nearly as much as mentioned.

Bradford has average NFL arm strength. That's good enough!!! He's not Matt Leinart who has below average NFL arm strength. Matt Ryan in my opinion has average to slightly above average NFL arm strength, but no one makes a big deal about him. Bradford won't make off balance throws and nail 15 yards outs with guys draped to him like Stafford did in college, but neither did Matt Ryan. Drew Brees has average arm strength.

Average NFL arm strength is not a weakness folks, even if someone at the National Football Post, Draft Countdown, or Draft Dog (or the RSP) mentions it as a weakness. It simply means if he's going to be a special player he's not going to do it by breaking the rules of good QB technique and get away with it (like Favre, Elway, etc.).

I don't think this is a great QB class this year. Bradford might be the first QB off this board, but if he were going last year I'd have him third behind Stafford and Sanchez. Nate Davis might have more upside, but Bradford has more short-term appeal.

Not a big-time defensive guy compared to the time I put into offensive players, but I play IDP and I watch that side of the ball with interest and I can think of players on defense I'd rather have than Bradford:

Suh

Berry

McCoy

Pierre-Paul

Morgan

Graham

If I'm St. Louis, I'd much rather take Suh, turn a potential strength into a clear-cut strength, and hope I strike gold with LeFevour or Crompton. Maybe dig real deep and look at really raw players like Williams or Paulus. If it doesn't work out, then I still have good defensive potential and the opportunity to draft a Locker, Luck, or McElroy next year (or trade for a Nate Davis who will by that point be ready to play, but likely languishing on the bench if Smith stays healthy and plays halfway decently).

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I spoke candidly about Bradford when I did a two round mock a month or so ago, you can search for it. I think St Louis will set the franchise back another 5 years by taking Bradford at #1...they aren't even smart enough to squeeze some blood from Tampa to move up and take Suh who is the best player in this entire draft IMHO. Bradford just happens to have very little competition for a QB job this year. I don't ever see him in game footage ever make completions under pressure, always throwing to wide open WRs with no pass rush on him, he is going ot struggle mightily when he gets to the NFL. I would not put him on Stafford's level at all. None of the Oklahoma QBs have ever amounted to anything int he Stoops era, mostly system guys if you ask me, and I really am stunned Bradford is a slam dunk #1.

This is where I disagree a bit Sean. I'm more in the Matt Waldman/Trent Dilfer camp in thinking highly of Clausen. Much of what Chase just discussed re: Bradford isn't a risk factor for Clausen. He's played in a pro system (one that won some Super Bowls), he played under duress, he made pre-snap reads, he suffered through some tough years. I get that Clausen has a rep for being douchey (whether that's fair or not I can't say), but to me in a draft where people are defending Dez Bryant as being TOO GOOD to pass up, I can't fathom how Clausen shouldn't be worth a serious look. If Clausen falls into Buffalo or Jacksonville's laps, it could really set those franchise back in the right direction IMHO.

I haven't posted much about Clausen and I guess I am on the fence. How is this guy so much better than Quinn at this stage of his career? But as to Bradford, are you saying he's worth the #1 selection?

 

[Bob Magaw]

here is a 2007 highlight package...

http://sooners.fandome.com/video/103052/Sam-Bradford-2007/

perhaps the team wasn't as dominant that year...

a few things stood out...

1 - he didn't always have ten seconds to throw here, and was hit on some plays, still delivering strikes downfield in the face of a rush at times, always keeping his eyes downfield.

2 - the WRs aren't always running crazy free in the secondary... some of the plays have tight coverage, and are thrown between several converging defenders.

3 - very decisive and quick delivery... i take it he didn't have to work through a progression of reads as in a more pro style offense... but there are still questions of timing and delivery to said read... when he sees it, bang, it is out of his hands.

4 - i see nothing wrong with his arm strength... looks like he can make all the throws, including to the sidelines, downfield, putting heat on his fastball when he needs to.

5 - nice touch... he can mix speeds, throwing with more touch as needed... he throws a very catchable ball (aikman, who brandt compared bradford's work to as one of the two best he has ever seen, was one of the best i ever saw at this)

6 - RIDICULOUS accuracy (brandt, again, said he is reminiscent of peyton manning for this reason... russ lande of sporting news said he is the most accurate QB his staff graded, EVER! )... it is preternatural, almost spooky good... it is his degree of accuracy that separates him... usually right on the button, in nearly perfect position for the receiver to run THROUGH the ball and do more damage after the catch (rarely, behind, too far in front, high or low)... on those plays with tighter coverage, he also seems to have an uncanny sense for placing the ball where his receiver can make a play, but away from defenders.

7 - in limited opportunity, he flashed the athleticism and footwork to make plays on the move (see play starting at 5:09 mark).

i may add to this later... but think what stands out on this highlight (in addition to his intangibles, which we can't speak to here) are...

1 - his decisiveness (within the scope of his admittedly more rudimentary reads)

2 - quick delivery that is rare and special

3 - god given timing and accuracy - either you have this or you don't. he is one of the most accurate college QBs i've ever seen.

to add to what chase alluded to in the 2008 heisman season...

i think they were first team in almost 90 years to score 60+ in five straight games(2008 heisman season)... there have been other QBs with the double advantage of a great supporting cast/surrounding talent AND a weak schedule, that didn't approach this level of dominance.

there is concern that bradford will get broken quickly behind a bad rams OL, but in just two years from NOW, they will have THREE drafts, free agent cycles and opportunity for trades, to surround bradford with upgraded talent on the OL and at TE/WR (not to mention defense, which will help with field position)... if devaney/spags (or their successors?) draft better than their predecessors (no crouch, wroten, byrd, incognito), and i think a monkey and a dart board could, the team should be drastically reshaped, transformed and more competitive by that time. they have some pieces in place (jason smith and brown on OL, a #2 overall LT and the prize interior OL of the '09 free agent class, steven jackson, i haven't written off avery yet, long and laurinaitis on defense, etc.)...

* i have seen a tendency to dichotomize this choice...

if bradford and suh fulfill their potential (QBs bust, but so do DTs - if suh is as good as advertised, he would face routine double teams on a rams DL without a lot of playmakers), it is very possibly a win-win either way... IF they take bradford and he does elevate the franchise out of the NFC west gutter, it is possible they would have done equally well with suh, if they secured a QB like locker or mallet next year, etc.

sometimes lower pedigree or undrafted QBs hit the jackpot (warner, romo, brady & bulger were 6ths, favre & brees were 2nds)... but for every story like this, there is also one at DT... HoFers & pro bowlers like randle & pat williams were UFAs, ratliff a 7th, kris jenkins a 2nd (44th overall) & wilfork a non-premium 1st (1.21)... sapp and haloti ngata taken out of the top 10... kevin williams out of the top 5 (where the rams may be drafting next year...

a key for me, is i have seen a lot of teams with good QBs but a cobbled together interior DL (helped by playmakers at other positions on defense - you don't need to spend premium picks, as in top 5-10, on positions like DT, LB & DB to radically upgrade the defense in next few years, with or without suh... see ray lewis and derrick brooks, ed reed, troy polamalu, bob sanders, brian dawkins, etc.) be successful at a high level, go to the playoffs and even win super bowls... while average QBs like dilfer and grossman have also led teams to super bowls, the rams defense is nowhere close to that level, even with suh. in general, it is very hard to be competitive with a bad QB.

i am also not convinced that even if a few QBs separate themselves next year (locker, mallett?), the rams will definitely be in position to take them... STL has been terrible, but what if they end up being the 5th worst team, and those QBs go in top 4 picks? and what if in 2012, their isn't an elite prospect... but by 2013, the rams are better, and now also not in position to take a franchise QB? this could stretch out for years... almost universally, people agree in retrospect that STL erred in not just passing on ryan, but sanchez... some scouts think bradford is in their class, or better (i realize not a consensus on this)... these QBs had questions at the time, too. bradford appears more accurate than ryan, and even with the lost season in 2009, has more starts than sanchez (albeit not in a pro style offense and passing attack.