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

[T with T]

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.

looks like dilfer is a moron hmm we all knew that though

 

[T with T]

Bradford continues to play spectacularly, and Dilfer meanwhile continues to sit there with egg on his face, saying absolutely nothing. On NFL Live today, when showing highlights of the Rams/Broncos game, Trey Wingo even commented on how quickly Bradford has evolved into a really good NFL QB, and the normally mouthy Trent Dilfer - ya know, the guy who never shuts up about anything - sat there not saying a word. Hilarious.

In Dilfer's defense, he was on Doug Gottlieb's show on ESPN radio today and he admitted he totally blew it with Bradford. He owned it big time.And for the record....



RN: oVVning MOP in the prediction business since 2003.

Let's not talk 45 year old divorced twice housewife crazy here.

yea he was big time wrong bradford looks great to me

 

[Raider Nation]

LOL @ you guys who are clowning Dilfer. He is one of the two or three best NFL analysts out there.

 

[Ghost Rider]

In Dilfer's defense, he was on Doug Gottlieb's show on ESPN radio today and he admitted he totally blew it with Bradford. He owned it big time.

Admitting it on live television will be owning it, not on some radio show that almost no one listens to.

LOL @ you guys who are clowning Dilfer. He is one of the two or three best NFL analysts out there.

I usually agree with you, RN, but not this time. Dilfer is not good.

 

[Choke]

I usually agree with you, RN, but not this time. Dilfer is not good.

Correct, he is excellent.

 

[Raider Nation]

In Dilfer's defense, he was on Doug Gottlieb's show on ESPN radio today and he admitted he totally blew it with Bradford. He owned it big time.

Admitting it on live television will be owning it, not on some radio show that almost no one listens to.

It's ESPN Radio. Not WSUK out of Des Moines, IA.

 

[Raider Nation]

I usually agree with you, RN, but not this time. Dilfer is not good.

Correct, he is excellent.

 

[Hellfire Snail]

I usually agree with you, RN, but not this time. Dilfer is not good.

Correct, he is excellent.

Gotta say, I think he's not terrible, which makes him 10X better than just about every other talking head. It's not about being right or wrong IMO. Be articulate, insightful, support your opinions reasonably, you can be decent. It's incredible that so few can even pretend to do it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

In Dilfer's defense, he was on Doug Gottlieb's show on ESPN radio today and he admitted he totally blew it with Bradford. He owned it big time.

Admitting it on live television will be owning it, not on some radio show that almost no one listens to.

It's ESPN Radio. Not WSUK out of Des Moines, IA.

Is that a real radio station in Des Moines? Either way, we'll have to agree to disagree. I liked Dilfer at first, but he has gotten more loud and more obnoxious over time, to the point where he just comes off like an ex-player blowhard now, at least to me.

 

[T with T]

In Dilfer's defense, he was on Doug Gottlieb's show on ESPN radio today and he admitted he totally blew it with Bradford. He owned it big time.

Admitting it on live television will be owning it, not on some radio show that almost no one listens to.

It's ESPN Radio. Not WSUK out of Des Moines, IA.

Is that a real radio station in Des Moines? Either way, we'll have to agree to disagree. I liked Dilfer at first, but he has gotten more loud and more obnoxious over time, to the point where he just comes off like an ex-player blowhard now, at least to me.

no espn analysts are good.... they are all media crap

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Dilfer is great on the radio. On TV he knows a lot more people are watching but on the radio he seems to forget that anyone is listening at all.

 

[shader]

I know it's crazy-talk to suggest that Bradford will be anything other than a superstar QB right now...but I wouldn't close the book on McCoy being better than Bradford. McCoy has been extremely impressive and I have been impressed.

 

[Phlash]

I know it's crazy-talk to suggest that Bradford will be anything other than a superstar QB right now...but I wouldn't close the book on McCoy being better than Bradford. McCoy has been extremely impressive and I have been impressed.

McCoy has played way tougher defenses and has the better efficiency numbers of the two. His completion % and YPA are both excellent for even a veteran starting QB (63%+ and 7.7 ypa are both great). I agree with you. He's looked quite special in the games he's played.

 

[davearm]

Random thoughts:

The folks bringing up Dilfer's ability (or lack thereof) as a player are completely missing the point in this discussion. It's 100% irrelevant.

Better to go out on a limb with a well-reasoned and informed counterposition and be wrong, than just regurgitate the same conventional wisdom that everyone else is spewing and be right. The former is at least thought-provoking; the latter adds nothing to the dialogue.

Dilfer's biggest miss appears to be on Jimmy Clausen, not Bradford, McCoy or Suh.

 

[duaneok66]

maybe Dilfer has gotten better (I havent watched ESPN studio shows or listened to ESPN radio in the longest time outside of NFL Matchup) but whenever I heard Dilfer in the past he didnt say anything other than information that was patently obvious . . .

kudos for him for not sitting on the fence with Bradford (like most analysts so with most players) even if he was wrong . . .

 

[plyka]

Not to "stick up" for Dilfer, but he went on a limb (albeit a thicker limb) and really praised Colt McCoy after McCoy's fall in the draft. While I believe Bradford will be a better QB than McCoy, McCoy currently has a higher QB rating than Bradford (85 vs 82).

Yes, let's be a little fair to Diilfer, his projection on Bradford was obviously wrong since Bradford looks like a stud and definitely worth the #1 pick in hindsight. However, this is only 1/2 of what Dilfer prognosticated. He said that the Rams should take Suh and then trade up to pickup Colt Mccoy. So the best way to judge Dilfer is to say:which side would you rather have with hindsight?Sam Bradford + (hypothetical asset used to trade up to get Mccoy) orSuh + MccoyObviously if it was just Bradford vs Mccoy, i think that the decision would be clear, but it is not. Mccoy + Suh is a different situation altogether. I'm not saying that i would rather have the Suh combo, but Dilfer's call on Mccoy has come very close, he is a lot better than most of us thought he would be.

You are being more than a little fair. He didn't just say that the combo of Suh and McCoy would be better than Bradford. Lots of people thought Suh was the best player in the draft. He said Bradford "is not even close to the best player in this draft." And that the pick could be a "catastrophic mistake." The hyperbole is what made his opinion stick out like a sore thumb. Throw in the fact that he holds himself out as an expert on QBs (using a "template" he developed, one which obviously needs to be refined) and he deserves a little ribbing for the absolute whiff he made.

I tend to discount hyperbole since these "analysts" only use it for entertainment purposes it seems. I mean, c'mon, "catastrophic mistake?" That's not even possible. First off, i refuse to believe that a NFL franchise can make a catastrophic mistake, perhaps Obama if he decides to spend his way out of a mess or have the FED print catastrophic quantities of monies, but an NFL franchise? Then again, even if we assume that a decision on draft day by an NFL franchise could be catastrophic, it still really wouldn't be now would it? If it is truly bad, then they will likely be the worst team in the NFL again the next year and have the first pick again, so it's like a do-over.

 

[ttea]

Trent Dilfer would trade his wife for Brett Favre

 

[Jason Wood]

He was obviously wrong about Bradford...the kid needs only stay healthy to be a star at this point. But I still find Dilfer's take worthy of praise. Too much of the media today is soundbites and regurgitation without actually making a call on anything or anyone.

 

[Your Mom]

Dilfer again admitted he was 100% wrong on Bradford on Sportscenter around halftime of tonights game.

 

[candymanvandyfan]

Dilfer again admitted he was 100% wrong on Bradford on Sportscenter around halftime of tonights game.

Dilfer's a talentless lump.

 

[NeverEnough]

Dilfer again admitted he was 100% wrong on Bradford on Sportscenter around halftime of tonights game.

Dilfer's a talentless lump.

How many SB rings do you have?

 

[Das Boot]

maybe Dilfer has gotten better (I havent watched ESPN studio shows or listened to ESPN radio in the longest time outside of NFL Matchup) but whenever I heard Dilfer in the past he didnt say anything other than information that was patently obvious . . . kudos for him for not sitting on the fence with Bradford (like most analysts so with most players) even if he was wrong . . .

It is good to go out on a limb and break from the herd, but it's stupid to be highly negative of a player's potential and ability unless you feel very very strongly you are correct.Dilfer is (3/4ths of the way into Bradford's rookie season anyway) dead wrong in his assessment of Bradford.That never looks good if you're supposed to be an expert.Had he dialed down the hyperbole and instead expressed reasonable doubts about Bradford, rather than dead certainty, he would be looking a lot less worse right now.

Dilfer again admitted he was 100% wrong on Bradford on Sportscenter around halftime of tonights game.

Props to Dilfer for this.100% wrong is a lot to miss by.

 

[RamMan]

Dilfer again admitted he was 100% wrong on Bradford on Sportscenter around halftime of tonights game.

Dilfer's a talentless lump.

How many SB rings do you have?

None, but how many avatars does Dilfer have?

 

[Choke]

Dilfer again admitted he was 100% wrong on Bradford on Sportscenter around halftime of tonights game.

Dilfer's a talentless lump.

As a football commentator, what does that make Steve Young? Anti-matter.

 

[YouthofToday]

Trent Dilfer is one of the worst "analysts" on TV today regarding the NFL. Clearly he is not a talent scout, as his colossal FAIL on Bradford was truly of epic proportions. This one misstep is hardly his undoing however. Even calling the Falcons the most overrated team in the NFL on September 27 can even be slightly forgiven. http://espn.go.com/espnradio/player?rd=1#/...lsign=ESPNRADIO

However, his recent list of the top 5 QBs in football was simply remarkable. Mark Sanchez as the 4th best QB in football?!?! ... and his rationale was the team was winning games? Seriously? He had Peyton, Rivers and Brady as the only QBs in the NFL that were better than Sanchez.

Look Trent, I know you had a litany of concussions in the NFL as your mental acumen has taken a tumble because of that. However, please use some common sense beyond the standings and a few solid two minute drills before claiming you would take Sanchez over Michael Vick, Matt Ryan, Drew Brees and at least 10 other QBs over the Sanchize.

Trent Dilfer is an idiot. That is the simple truth of the matter. He's like a baseball analyst who uses batting average and RBI's to claim a player is great.

 

[cobalt_27]

maybe Dilfer has gotten better (I havent watched ESPN studio shows or listened to ESPN radio in the longest time outside of NFL Matchup) but whenever I heard Dilfer in the past he didnt say anything other than information that was patently obvious . . . kudos for him for not sitting on the fence with Bradford (like most analysts so with most players) even if he was wrong . . .

 

[Johnny Ice]

He was obviously wrong about Bradford...the kid needs only stay healthy to be a star at this point. But I still find Dilfer's take worthy of praise. Too much of the media today is soundbites and regurgitation without actually making a call on anything or anyone.

But what about when you're dead wrong and don't own up to it. That's my problem. If you want to continue to grace the football audience with your high IQ, admit you missed it instead of trying to cover up your gaff with silence as if no one remembers.

 

[ThePittbully]

dilfer is great, and him whiffing on this doesnt change my opinion at all. its way better hearing someones true opinion rather than some manufactured groupthink baloney that the rest of these TV "experts" spew out.

cheers trent

Me either, I never listened to anything he said and I still won't

 

[Uruk-Hai]

He was obviously wrong about Bradford...the kid needs only stay healthy to be a star at this point. But I still find Dilfer's take worthy of praise. Too much of the media today is soundbites and regurgitation without actually making a call on anything or anyone.

But what about when you're dead wrong and don't own up to it. That's my problem. If you want to continue to grace the football audience with your high IQ, admit you missed it instead of trying to cover up your gaff with silence as if no one remembers.

There are two posts on this page relating how he admitted he was wrong - on Gottleib's radio show and on Sportscenter.

 

[Jason Wood]

He was obviously wrong about Bradford...the kid needs only stay healthy to be a star at this point. But I still find Dilfer's take worthy of praise. Too much of the media today is soundbites and regurgitation without actually making a call on anything or anyone.

But what about when you're dead wrong and don't own up to it. That's my problem. If you want to continue to grace the football audience with your high IQ, admit you missed it instead of trying to cover up your gaff with silence as if no one remembers.

He's admitted he was wrong, and has outright made fun of himself for how awful his call was.

 

[Christo]

But what about when you're dead wrong and don't own up to it. That's my problem. If you want to continue to grace the football audience with your high IQ, admit you missed it instead of trying to cover up your gaff with silence as if no one remembers.

There are two posts on this page relating how he admitted he was wrong - on Gottleib's radio show and on Sportscenter.

He's admitted he was wrong, and has outright made fun of himself for how awful his call was.

Sure. But the admission came after Week 12, after Sam had started all 12 games, after Sam did something no rookie has ever done and after he'd pretty much locked up offensive rookie of the year. Bradshaw recognized Sam had something going weeks ago. And Bradshaw doesn't have a "template" he developed with the help of other QB gurus.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

But what about when you're dead wrong and don't own up to it. That's my problem. If you want to continue to grace the football audience with your high IQ, admit you missed it instead of trying to cover up your gaff with silence as if no one remembers.

There are two posts on this page relating how he admitted he was wrong - on Gottleib's radio show and on Sportscenter.

He's admitted he was wrong, and has outright made fun of himself for how awful his call was.

Sure. But the admission came after Week 12, after Sam had started all 12 games, after Sam did something no rookie has ever done and after he'd pretty much locked up offensive rookie of the year. Bradshaw recognized Sam had something going weeks ago. And Bradshaw doesn't have a "template" he developed with the help of other QB gurus.

The quoted OP didn't say "But what about when you're dead wrong and don't own up to it until week 12". All I was correcting was that Dilfer did own up in case those posts got buried. I wasn't making a judgment one way or the other on whether it was timely or not.

 

[The Westin]

I don't see the big deal. Every year tons of "experts" miss on players. More often than not they miss on a "sure thing" that turns into a bust. The NFL draft is not s science. Calm down folks.

Oh....I will add his Top 5 QB's list is just awful though

 

[Christo]

I don't see the big deal. Every year tons of "experts" miss on players. More often than not they miss on a "sure thing" that turns into a bust. The NFL draft is not s science. Calm down folks.

I don't see why people keep making this point. The whole idea behind FBGs is to be a compendium of information about NFL players. One of the relevant sub-issues is who is providing that information and how accurate they have been. One of the so-called experts blew it big-time on the No. 1 player in the draft. Calling him an idiot certainly isn't helpful. But Dilfer's whiff is certainly a relevant point of discussion.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

He did say McCoy would be better. While it's obvious Bradford isn't going to bust, it's still possible McCoy turns out better.

 

[Masked Vigilante]

Not to "stick up" for Dilfer, but he went on a limb (albeit a thicker limb) and really praised Colt McCoy after McCoy's fall in the draft. While I believe Bradford will be a better QB than McCoy, McCoy currently has a higher QB rating than Bradford (85 vs 82).

Yes, let's be a little fair to Diilfer, his projection on Bradford was obviously wrong since Bradford looks like a stud and definitely worth the #1 pick in hindsight. However, this is only 1/2 of what Dilfer prognosticated. He said that the Rams should take Suh and then trade up to pickup Colt Mccoy. So the best way to judge Dilfer is to say:which side would you rather have with hindsight?Sam Bradford + (hypothetical asset used to trade up to get Mccoy) orSuh + MccoyObviously if it was just Bradford vs Mccoy, i think that the decision would be clear, but it is not. Mccoy + Suh is a different situation altogether. I'm not saying that i would rather have the Suh combo, but Dilfer's call on Mccoy has come very close, he is a lot better than most of us thought he would be.

McCoy has looked sharp but his role has been much more limited compared to what Bradford is being asked to do.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

But what about when you're dead wrong and don't own up to it. That's my problem. If you want to continue to grace the football audience with your high IQ, admit you missed it instead of trying to cover up your gaff with silence as if no one remembers.

There are two posts on this page relating how he admitted he was wrong - on Gottleib's radio show and on Sportscenter.

He's admitted he was wrong, and has outright made fun of himself for how awful his call was.

Sure. But the admission came after Week 12, after Sam had started all 12 games, after Sam did something no rookie has ever done and after he'd pretty much locked up offensive rookie of the year. Bradshaw recognized Sam had something going weeks ago. And Bradshaw doesn't have a "template" he developed with the help of other QB gurus.

Should he have said he was wrong after one week? Let's face it - when we have an opinion it takes all of us a bit longer than indecisive folk to admit we were wrong. He didn't wait until Bradford was in year 5. He didn't even wait until the season was over. He waited until the season was 75% over - more than enough time to realize his true level of play you were expecting isn't going to come out. Then he said "I was wrong".

 

[Txns8]

I know it's crazy-talk to suggest that Bradford will be anything other than a superstar QB right now...but I wouldn't close the book on McCoy being better than Bradford. McCoy has been extremely impressive and I have been impressed.

The McCoy/Suh combo could be huge for years to come.

 

[coachjim]

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.

Dilfer is a no talent dude that lucked out with the circumstances that he inherited. He is a bust as an announcer and was a bust as a QB. Take his comments with a grain of salt and a lot of jealousy.

 

[Choke]

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.

Dilfer is a no talent dude that lucked out with the circumstances that he inherited. He is a bust as an announcer and was a bust as a QB. Take his comments with a grain of salt and a lot of jealousy.

C'mon man. He was the 6th overall pick of his draft. And at that he "lucked" into being drafted by the Buccaneers who hadnt had a winning season in 12 previous years.

His next stop was the Ravens and he won a super bowl.

 

[Football Jones]

Bradford has the ability to be the best QB the NFL has seen in quite some time. What he's doing in his rookie year is nothing short of amazing.

What I don't get is how a supposed expert could miss on Bradford by that much after studying him. Like many dynasty leaguers, I evaluated Bradford & there was virtually nothing I didn't like. The kid has it all. That's why I put some credence into Dilfer maybe having an agenda of some sort (like having the same agent as McCoy).

Yeah, there was some injury risk, but people tend to put a little too much emphasis on injury history. Maybe that's what scared Dilfer, not sure. I don't see how it could've been Bradford's arm, intelligence, athleticism, or many of the intangibles you look for when scouting QBs. I'm not sure what he was looking at, LOL.

That said, I share Dilfer's view of McCoy for the most part (although, I believe he's got virtually no chance of being better than Bradford). McCoy is going to be one helluva QB, IMO.

 

[Routilla]

I for one admit I was wrong about Sam. After his injuries at ou I figured he would not be able to make it through an NFL season without more of the same. He is really getting rid of the ball though and not taking big hits. Meanwhile supposed veterans can't seem to figure it out. Giving Sam full credit for his performance.

 

[39407]

He was obviously wrong about Bradford...the kid needs only stay healthy to be a star at this point. But I still find Dilfer's take worthy of praise. Too much of the media today is soundbites and regurgitation without actually making a call on anything or anyone.

And boneheads that runs around deleting posts if they get called out on something.

 

[Raider Nation]

Trent Dilfer's interview with 101ESPN St. Louis is worth a listen for those interested in a different take on quarterbacks.He sees McCoy as the player most likely to develop into the best quarterback from this draft.

While Dilfer clearly fell flat on his face regarding Bradford, McCoy certainly looks like a different QB this preseason.

 

[Bri]

Trent Dilfer's interview with 101ESPN St. Louis is worth a listen for those interested in a different take on quarterbacks.He sees McCoy as the player most likely to develop into the best quarterback from this draft.

While Dilfer clearly fell flat on his face regarding Bradford, McCoy certainly looks like a different QB this preseason.

I have always thought McCoy was impressive- college, rook...doesn't matter. He and Bradford were in the press so much during college and handled it so very well. Granted I was in OK then, but those guys were constantly in the papers or on the news. Their play was good enough to get em' both to New York for the Heisman and....I never understood why there was such a large dividing line between the two once they hit the pros. A simple google might refresh some memories:http://www.google.com/search?q=mccoy+and+bradford&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a