Sam Bradford vs Matt Stafford (1 Viewer)

[Native]

These two guys seem to be the top two consensus QB's in the draft and legit candidates for the #1 pick. Curious to see who you guys think will be the better pro player.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If both have to play right out of the gate, I think Stafford is more ready to handle it.

If he can sit and learn for a year, I think Bradford is the better bet.

 

[MAC_32]

Bradford > Nate Davis > Stafford

 

[TLEF316]

bradford is probably gonna run away with this. The prevailing theory seems to be that Stafford is a rocket arm and not much else. Bradford seems to have better intangibles. However, his college system is probably more quirky, which could slow his transition a bit.

 

[Enforcer]

The prevailing theory seems to be that Stafford is a rocket arm and not much else. Bradford seems to have better intangibles.

Intangibles? I don't buy it. Given what you've said here, I take the rocket arm every time. I know its not the most popular thing, but to be successful at a high level year after year you've got be able to sling it. For every QB in the HOF that had intangibles, there's five other QBs that could dot the field with lasers. I think this is even truer now in the modern passing age.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'll never understand why people dog Bradford for his arm strength. It's at least on par with guys like E. Manning, Hasselbeck, and Rivers.

 

[TLEF316]

I'll never understand why people dog Bradford for his arm strength. It's at least on par with guys like E. Manning, Hasselbeck, and Rivers.

I'm not saying Bradford has a bad arm. Just saying that Stafford's is thought to be all world.

 

[FavreCo]

The one that gets to throw the ball to Calvin Johnson.

 

[MAC_32]

The one that gets to throw the ball to Calvin Johnson.

...may be a better fantasy QB but won't have much of a chance to claim their stake at being a solid NFL QB until he changes teams.

 

[Enforcer]

I'll never understand why people dog Bradford for his arm strength. It's at least on par with guys like E. Manning, Hasselbeck, and Rivers.

Who's the trying to "dog" Bradford's arm in this thead? Me? By saying that Stafford has a world class arm it doesn't necessarily have to follow that Bradford's arm sucks.For me this is about probability. Guys who can throw lasers have a greater chance of being successful. Sure, the number of guys with big arms that failed is long, but the list of guys with intangibles that failed is much longer.

 

[Peter Lemonjello]

The prevailing theory seems to be that Stafford is a rocket arm and not much else. Bradford seems to have better intangibles.

Intangibles? I don't buy it. Given what you've said here, I take the rocket arm every time. I know its not the most popular thing, but to be successful at a high level year after year you've got be able to sling it. For every QB in the HOF that had intangibles, there's five other QBs that could dot the field with lasers. I think this is even truer now in the modern passing age.

Not sure I agree with this assessment. I'm too lazy to do the research but I'd guess the guys in the HOF had a healthy dose of intangibles. When I think big arm, guys like Vick and Jeff George come to mind. Million dollar arm, ten cent head. Not saying that Stafford necessarily falls into that category, but I've watched him enough to know that he's got one speed and he thinks his arm can bail him out all the time.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

The prevailing theory seems to be that Stafford is a rocket arm and not much else. Bradford seems to have better intangibles.

Intangibles? I don't buy it. Given what you've said here, I take the rocket arm every time. I know its not the most popular thing, but to be successful at a high level year after year you've got be able to sling it. For every QB in the HOF that had intangibles, there's five other QBs that could dot the field with lasers. I think this is even truer now in the modern passing age.

Not sure I agree with this assessment. I'm too lazy to do the research but I'd guess the guys in the HOF had a healthy dose of intangibles. When I think big arm, guys like Vick and Jeff George come to mind. Million dollar arm, ten cent head. Not saying that Stafford necessarily falls into that category, but I've watched him enough to know that he's got one speed and he thinks his arm can bail him out all the time.

Isn't this what a lot of people were saying about Flacco a year ago? How would you compare Stafford to Flacco?

 

[Native]

I'll never understand why people dog Bradford for his arm strength. It's at least on par with guys like E. Manning, Hasselbeck, and Rivers.

Interesting point. I would make the same argument about Stafford and his decision making. Many people drastically underestimate both Stafford's accuracy and his decision-making abilities. He had a passer rating of 153 this year and threw 23 TD and only 9 Int's against arguably the toughest defensive schedule in the country. His completion percentage was 61%. And its not like he was playing in a spread offense either; he was in a typical pro style, I formation scheme with NFL-type routes and progressions.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'll never understand why people dog Bradford for his arm strength. It's at least on par with guys like E. Manning, Hasselbeck, and Rivers.

Interesting point. I would make the same argument about Stafford and his decision making. Many people drastically underestimate both Stafford's accuracy and his decision-making abilities. He had a passer rating of 153 this year and threw 23 TD and only 9 Int's against arguably the toughest defensive schedule in the country. His completion percentage was 61%. And its not like he was playing in a spread offense either; he was in a typical pro style, I formation scheme with NFL-type routes and progressions.

I like both guys and think both have a good chance of making very good pro QBs.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'll never understand why people dog Bradford for his arm strength. It's at least on par with guys like E. Manning, Hasselbeck, and Rivers.

Who's the trying to "dog" Bradford's arm in this thead? Me? By saying that Stafford has a world class arm it doesn't necessarily have to follow that Bradford's arm sucks.For me this is about probability. Guys who can throw lasers have a greater chance of being successful. Sure, the number of guys with big arms that failed is long, but the list of guys with intangibles that failed is much longer.

It seemed like you were but now I get where you're coming from.A guy must have at least an adequate arm to make it in the NFL. A guy can't make it on intangibles alone. I think I'd agree that I'd rather have a guy with a strong arm that lacks in the intangibles than a guy with a weak arm but loaded with intangibles.

 

[Enforcer]

I'll never understand why people dog Bradford for his arm strength. It's at least on par with guys like E. Manning, Hasselbeck, and Rivers.

Who's the trying to "dog" Bradford's arm in this thead? Me? By saying that Stafford has a world class arm it doesn't necessarily have to follow that Bradford's arm sucks.For me this is about probability. Guys who can throw lasers have a greater chance of being successful. Sure, the number of guys with big arms that failed is long, but the list of guys with intangibles that failed is much longer.

It seemed like you were but now I get where you're coming from.A guy must have at least an adequate arm to make it in the NFL. A guy can't make it on intangibles alone. I think I'd agree that I'd rather have a guy with a strong arm that lacks in the intangibles than a guy with a weak arm but loaded with intangibles.

 

[DawnBTVS]

I think it would help if there was some way to describe intangibles...

Are we talking ability to make smart decisions in the face of pressure? Ability to improvise in the pocket and make the throw/avoid the rush (i.e. escapability)? Just a general "pick up the team" aura?

I actually favor the guys who make smart decisions but may not have the howitzer arm (i.e. a Chad Pennington/Jeff Garcia type) because they know they don't have a strong arm, so they almost have to rely on making smart decisions and not turn the ball over to survive in the league. They may not throw 25 TD a year, but they also probably won't throw 16 INT either because they don't try to throw in double coverage.

Maybe it's me (?) but it seems like there's always several top tier QBs in the drafts with "adequate" or "just good" arm strength and yet they seem to perform well in the NFL. I think part of the issue of arm strength might also be the lack of conditioning/strength training. In the NFL, these guys can weight train 24/7 to improve their arm strength a bit.

 

[Native]

I think it would help if there was some way to describe intangibles...Are we talking ability to make smart decisions in the face of pressure? Ability to improvise in the pocket and make the throw/avoid the rush (i.e. escapability)? Just a general "pick up the team" aura?I actually favor the guys who make smart decisions but may not have the howitzer arm (i.e. a Chad Pennington/Jeff Garcia type) because they know they don't have a strong arm, so they almost have to rely on making smart decisions and not turn the ball over to survive in the league. They may not throw 25 TD a year, but they also probably won't throw 16 INT either because they don't try to throw in double coverage.Maybe it's me (?) but it seems like there's always several top tier QBs in the drafts with "adequate" or "just good" arm strength and yet they seem to perform well in the NFL. I think part of the issue of arm strength might also be the lack of conditioning/strength training. In the NFL, these guys can weight train 24/7 to improve their arm strength a bit.

I tend to agree with this. Look at film of Tom Brady during his rookie year compared to film from last season. His arm seems twice as strong now.

 

[Mr Capicollo]

I think it would help if there was some way to describe intangibles...

Are we talking ability to make smart decisions in the face of pressure? Ability to improvise in the pocket and make the throw/avoid the rush (i.e. escapability)? Just a general "pick up the team" aura?

I actually favor the guys who make smart decisions but may not have the howitzer arm (i.e. a Chad Pennington/Jeff Garcia type) because they know they don't have a strong arm, so they almost have to rely on making smart decisions and not turn the ball over to survive in the league. They may not throw 25 TD a year, but they also probably won't throw 16 INT either because they don't try to throw in double coverage.

Maybe it's me (?) but it seems like there's always several top tier QBs in the drafts with "adequate" or "just good" arm strength and yet they seem to perform well in the NFL. I think part of the issue of arm strength might also be the lack of conditioning/strength training. In the NFL, these guys can weight train 24/7 to improve their arm strength a bit.

I tend to agree with this. Look at film of Tom Brady during his rookie year compared to film from last season. His arm seems twice as strong now.

Jim Zorn yesterday noted that Colt Brennan's arm strength has improved too. I'm not comparing him with anyone else mentioned other than to point out that yes, you can improve your throwing arm.

 

[brutha]

The prevailing theory seems to be that Stafford is a rocket arm and not much else. Bradford seems to have better intangibles.

Intangibles? I don't buy it. Given what you've said here, I take the rocket arm every time. I know its not the most popular thing, but to be successful at a high level year after year you've got be able to sling it. For every QB in the HOF that had intangibles, there's five other QBs that could dot the field with lasers. I think this is even truer now in the modern passing age.

Hardly. It is more true today but not generally. Actually the best QBs tend to have both nowdays but intangibles are far more important (see: Ryan vs Russell for current examples). Basically with rare exception you can't be totally lacking in either area (ie a moron or a noodle arm) but all things being equal, intangibles are far more important as you don't win most games with "rocket arm" throws but with accuracy, poise, and intelligence.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Stafford.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I know that college success has no real relation to NFL success, but Stafford's lack of success in college stills worries me. He was a top prospect (possibly THE top prospect) coming out, and ended up on a team with a great running game, a pair of stud WRs, and a bad defense. That's the perfect recipe for a quarterback to blow up. Given the scenario, the guy should've had Bradford/Brennan type numbers. Yet, he was never anything more than mediocre in college.

I know people like to say you can't teach arm strength, but you can teach all the other stuff. But I think that with some guys, you just can't teach the other stuff. There are plenty of Kyle Boller's and David Carr's out there that had all the measurables but never could learn how to read the field or put the right touch on their passes, and this is who Stafford reminds me of. Some NFL team will think they can teach him that stuff, but I'm sure Georgia thought they could do the same with him when he came out of high school.

 

[CowboyFan]

I know that college success has no real relation to NFL success, but Stafford's lack of success in college stills worries me. He was a top prospect (possibly THE top prospect) coming out, and ended up on a team with a great running game, a pair of stud WRs, and a bad defense. That's the perfect recipe for a quarterback to blow up. Given the scenario, the guy should've had Bradford/Brennan type numbers. Yet, he was never anything more than mediocre in college.I know people like to say you can't teach arm strength, but you can teach all the other stuff. But I think that with some guys, you just can't teach the other stuff. There are plenty of Kyle Boller's and David Carr's out there that had all the measurables but never could learn how to read the field or put the right touch on their passes, and this is who Stafford reminds me of. Some NFL team will think they can teach him that stuff, but I'm sure Georgia thought they could do the same with him when he came out of high school.

You forgot swiss cheese o-line due to several injuries. Bobo was also too in love with Stafford's arm and didn't adapt the play calling to cover for the problems with protection (Quick hit short passes instead of downfield plays that often didn't have time to develop). Bradford with have to fill out (not just arm strength) and may be a decent QB at the next level, but smart money is on Stafford to be the cream of the crop this year.

 

[-OZ-]

The prevailing theory seems to be that Stafford is a rocket arm and not much else. Bradford seems to have better intangibles.

Intangibles? I don't buy it. Given what you've said here, I take the rocket arm every time. I know its not the most popular thing, but to be successful at a high level year after year you've got be able to sling it. For every QB in the HOF that had intangibles, there's five other QBs that could dot the field with lasers. I think this is even truer now in the modern passing age.

Hardly. It is more true today but not generally. Actually the best QBs tend to have both nowdays but intangibles are far more important (see: Ryan vs Russell for current examples). Basically with rare exception you can't be totally lacking in either area (ie a moron or a noodle arm) but all things being equal, intangibles are far more important as you don't win most games with "rocket arm" throws but with accuracy, poise, and intelligence.

Intangibles + noodle arm = Chad PennningtonLack intangibles, but have an arm = David Carr, Ryan Leaf or Jeff GeorgeA rocket arm will get you a job, intangibles will get you a win once you have a job.

 

[Native]

I know that college success has no real relation to NFL success, but Stafford's lack of success in college stills worries me. He was a top prospect (possibly THE top prospect) coming out, and ended up on a team with a great running game, a pair of stud WRs, and a bad defense. That's the perfect recipe for a quarterback to blow up. Given the scenario, the guy should've had Bradford/Brennan type numbers. Yet, he was never anything more than mediocre in college.I know people like to say you can't teach arm strength, but you can teach all the other stuff. But I think that with some guys, you just can't teach the other stuff. There are plenty of Kyle Boller's and David Carr's out there that had all the measurables but never could learn how to read the field or put the right touch on their passes, and this is who Stafford reminds me of. Some NFL team will think they can teach him that stuff, but I'm sure Georgia thought they could do the same with him when he came out of high school.

I think this is just a case of expectations being way too high for a high profile player. Last year Georgia finished number two in the AP polls and Stafford outplayed Tebow, Andre Woodson and Colt Brennan head-to-head. This year, the Bulldog defense was dreadful (they lost two games when the offense scored 42 and 31 points, respectively) which took the air out of UGA's title hopes. That said, its not like Stafford sucked it up - he had a 150+ passing rating, 3000+ yards, 23 touchdowns and completed 61% of his passes. The way you describe it, anything short of a national championship or a Heisman should be considered a disappointment. Maybe you're right and the season was a disappointment - but that doesnt take away the fact that this guys skill-set AND performance warrants serious consideration to be top pick in the draft.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The prevailing theory seems to be that Stafford is a rocket arm and not much else. Bradford seems to have better intangibles.

Intangibles? I don't buy it. Given what you've said here, I take the rocket arm every time. I know its not the most popular thing, but to be successful at a high level year after year you've got be able to sling it. For every QB in the HOF that had intangibles, there's five other QBs that could dot the field with lasers. I think this is even truer now in the modern passing age.

Hardly. It is more true today but not generally. Actually the best QBs tend to have both nowdays but intangibles are far more important (see: Ryan vs Russell for current examples). Basically with rare exception you can't be totally lacking in either area (ie a moron or a noodle arm) but all things being equal, intangibles are far more important as you don't win most games with "rocket arm" throws but with accuracy, poise, and intelligence.

Intangibles + noodle arm = Chad PennningtonLack intangibles, but have an arm = David Carr, Ryan Leaf or Jeff GeorgeA rocket arm will get you a job, intangibles will get you a win once you have a job.

I don't know how you can put Jeff George, David Carr and Ryan Leaf on the same level. What's next, Chad Pennington, Joe Montana and Tom Brady?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Matt Stafford is Alex Smith all over again. Book it.

 

[Raider Nation]

Heard something interesting about Bradford. Wish I could remember who said it. Some NFL scouting service guy, I believe.

The main questions about Bradford aren't about his arm or his intelligence or his mechanics. It's about how he'll react under pressure. At Oklahoma, he sits back there all day as if he's leading 7-on-7 drills in practice. He rarely gets pressured or touched. Scouts have NO clue how he'll react in a hostile pocket when he's forced to make quick decisions.

 

[MaddHatter]

Matt Stafford is Alex Smith all over again. Book it.

For the record, I do not think we have any potential Eli's, Matt Ryan's, or Big Ben's in this QB class.With that said, Matt Stafford contrasts more to Alex Smith than he compares.Matt Stafford - Plays behind center more often, handled pressure decently, good footwork.Alex Smith - One read offense with spread formations, happy feet, one trick pony.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I know that college success has no real relation to NFL success, but Stafford's lack of success in college stills worries me. He was a top prospect (possibly THE top prospect) coming out, and ended up on a team with a great running game, a pair of stud WRs, and a bad defense. That's the perfect recipe for a quarterback to blow up. Given the scenario, the guy should've had Bradford/Brennan type numbers. Yet, he was never anything more than mediocre in college.I know people like to say you can't teach arm strength, but you can teach all the other stuff. But I think that with some guys, you just can't teach the other stuff. There are plenty of Kyle Boller's and David Carr's out there that had all the measurables but never could learn how to read the field or put the right touch on their passes, and this is who Stafford reminds me of. Some NFL team will think they can teach him that stuff, but I'm sure Georgia thought they could do the same with him when he came out of high school.

I think this is just a case of expectations being way too high for a high profile player. Last year Georgia finished number two in the AP polls and Stafford outplayed Tebow, Andre Woodson and Colt Brennan head-to-head. This year, the Bulldog defense was dreadful (they lost two games when the offense scored 42 and 31 points, respectively) which took the air out of UGA's title hopes. That said, its not like Stafford sucked it up - he had a 150+ passing rating, 3000+ yards, 23 touchdowns and completed 61% of his passes. The way you describe it, anything short of a national championship or a Heisman should be considered a disappointment. Maybe you're right and the season was a disappointment - but that doesnt take away the fact that this guys skill-set AND performance warrants serious consideration to be top pick in the draft.

Stafford didn't outplay any of those guys in 2007 (ok, except Brennan, who I always said was no good), he just had better players around him.In college, those numbers you presented aren't anything special. With the situation he was in (studs all around him and a bad defense to let the offense keep scoring), they're certainly not great nor even good. Tebow's 2007 situation mirrors Stafford's 2008 situation pretty closely. Talented players around him on offense at the skill positions, a bad offensive line (Stafford apologists should go back and watch some of Florida's 2007 games if they think they had a bad line this year, Florida CONSISTENTLY allowed guys to come in completely untouched against only a 5 man rush all year long), and a bad defense to let the offense keep scoring. We saw what Tebow did given that situation, 50+ TDs and a heisman. We saw what Bradford and McCoy did in similar situations (albeit with better linemen). Stafford was seen as a better prospect than all these guys, and was placed into a situation that mirrored them all, yet numbers-wise they all left him in the dust.Again, I'm not trying to use that solely as a projection of his future NFL success, just to expand on the point that given the situation he was in and the talent he supposedly has the actual performance he put forward was mediocre at best.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Heard something interesting about Bradford. Wish I could remember who said it. Some NFL scouting service guy, I believe.The main questions about Bradford aren't about his arm or his intelligence or his mechanics. It's about how he'll react under pressure. At Oklahoma, he sits back there all day as if he's leading 7-on-7 drills in practice. He rarely gets pressured or touched. Scouts have NO clue how he'll react in a hostile pocket when he's forced to make quick decisions.

From what I've seen of Bradford he seems pretty good at finding the holes in blitzes. Teams have tried blitzing him and he just picks them apart. What will be interesting to see is how he'll handle it when someone is able to get some pressure on him without blitzing. We saw how that made Graham Harrell fall apart, and we haven't really seen Bradford face it yet.

 

[Mr. Pink]

Guys, Stafford is the better, more pro-ready QB. He was a better prospect going into college and I believe he still is today. Bradford has had a heck of a career in college, but I see too much of a Danny Weurfel, system-style=amazing stats result from him.

For my money, I take Stafford if I want a franchise QB. But that is one man's opinion.

 

[Loopdog]

count me in the Stafford camp. I really for a long time have felt he will be a tremendous pro QB. Felt the same way about Matt Ryan last year and people were dogging the crap out of him on these boards for all the INT's he threw at BC his senior season. Seemed to work out pretty well for the Falcons. If I were a Lions fan, I'd be thrilled with Stafford.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Matt Stafford is Alex Smith all over again. Book it.

If you're looking for a negative comparison IMO it's more accurate to say that Matt Stafford is Kyle Boller all over again.(I don't think that's the case, just that it'd be a closer comparison.)

 

[-OZ-]

The prevailing theory seems to be that Stafford is a rocket arm and not much else. Bradford seems to have better intangibles.

Intangibles? I don't buy it. Given what you've said here, I take the rocket arm every time. I know its not the most popular thing, but to be successful at a high level year after year you've got be able to sling it. For every QB in the HOF that had intangibles, there's five other QBs that could dot the field with lasers. I think this is even truer now in the modern passing age.

Hardly. It is more true today but not generally. Actually the best QBs tend to have both nowdays but intangibles are far more important (see: Ryan vs Russell for current examples). Basically with rare exception you can't be totally lacking in either area (ie a moron or a noodle arm) but all things being equal, intangibles are far more important as you don't win most games with "rocket arm" throws but with accuracy, poise, and intelligence.

Intangibles + noodle arm = Chad PennningtonLack intangibles, but have an arm = David Carr, Ryan Leaf or Jeff GeorgeA rocket arm will get you a job, intangibles will get you a win once you have a job.

I don't know how you can put Jeff George, David Carr and Ryan Leaf on the same level. What's next, Chad Pennington, Joe Montana and Tom Brady?

I'm not saying they were the same in the pros, I'm saying they're an example of what you get with a cannon but not the best intangibles. George could have been a HOF caliber QB if he had "intangibles".

 

[Enforcer]

I keep reading this word "intangibles". No matter what someone's gut tells them, I won't believe there's any way to predict how these intangibles will transfer to the NFL. Hence, I'll take the laser rocket arm and hope for the best.

 

[Foosball God]

count me in the Stafford camp. I really for a long time have felt he will be a tremendous pro QB. Felt the same way about Matt Ryan last year and people were dogging the crap out of him on these boards for all the INT's he threw at BC his senior season. Seemed to work out pretty well for the Falcons. If I were a Lions fan, I'd be thrilled with Stafford.

Rest assured, the Lions will pick which ever one turns out to be a bust.

 

[Irish]

Heard something interesting about Bradford. Wish I could remember who said it. Some NFL scouting service guy, I believe.

The main questions about Bradford aren't about his arm or his intelligence or his mechanics. It's about how he'll react under pressure. At Oklahoma, he sits back there all day as if he's leading 7-on-7 drills in practice. He rarely gets pressured or touched. Scouts have NO clue how he'll react in a hostile pocket when he's forced to make quick decisions.

Mel Kiper

 

[Irish]

Heard something interesting about Bradford. Wish I could remember who said it. Some NFL scouting service guy, I believe.The main questions about Bradford aren't about his arm or his intelligence or his mechanics. It's about how he'll react under pressure. At Oklahoma, he sits back there all day as if he's leading 7-on-7 drills in practice. He rarely gets pressured or touched. Scouts have NO clue how he'll react in a hostile pocket when he's forced to make quick decisions.

From what I've seen of Bradford he seems pretty good at finding the holes in blitzes. Teams have tried blitzing him and he just picks them apart. What will be interesting to see is how he'll handle it when someone is able to get some pressure on him without blitzing. We saw how that made Graham Harrell fall apart, and we haven't really seen Bradford face it yet.

It helps that Oklahoma probably has the best OL in the country too. His stats are impressive, but they are over-inflated due to Stoops running up the score down the stretch. He looks more fluid than Jason White, but White also put up great numbers in that system.

 

[golfguy]

i'll take stafford as well. bradford is a system qb, playing against weaker defenses in the big 10 this year. i think the match-up with florida will show whether this kid really has "it".

stafford has been great down the stretch something like 10 tds and 1 pick in the last few games.

you can teach certain things, but you can't teach having a great arm, just like you can't teach speed.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Stafford without a doubt. I can't believe people are so hyped up on Bradford.

 

[Andy Herron]

The prevailing theory seems to be that Stafford is a rocket arm and not much else. Bradford seems to have better intangibles.

Intangibles? I don't buy it. Given what you've said here, I take the rocket arm every time. I know its not the most popular thing, but to be successful at a high level year after year you've got be able to sling it. For every QB in the HOF that had intangibles, there's five other QBs that could dot the field with lasers. I think this is even truer now in the modern passing age.

Absolutely.All the more reason Cutler (arm) is finding success and Leinart/Young (intangibles) are merely observers 3 years in.

 

[dparker713]

Heard something interesting about Bradford. Wish I could remember who said it. Some NFL scouting service guy, I believe.The main questions about Bradford aren't about his arm or his intelligence or his mechanics. It's about how he'll react under pressure. At Oklahoma, he sits back there all day as if he's leading 7-on-7 drills in practice. He rarely gets pressured or touched. Scouts have NO clue how he'll react in a hostile pocket when he's forced to make quick decisions.

From what I've seen of Bradford he seems pretty good at finding the holes in blitzes. Teams have tried blitzing him and he just picks them apart. What will be interesting to see is how he'll handle it when someone is able to get some pressure on him without blitzing. We saw how that made Graham Harrell fall apart, and we haven't really seen Bradford face it yet.

It helps that Oklahoma probably has the best OL in the country too. His stats are impressive, but they are over-inflated due to Stoops running up the score down the stretch. He looks more fluid than Jason White, but White also put up great numbers in that system.

Only game they really ran up the score was the BigXII championship game. They essentially shut it down in the 4th all year long. Now, there were plenty of 3rd quarters they didnt need to play, but Im generally ok with playing the starters through 3 regardless of score. The thing that scares me is he's been playing on an offense similar to Matt Leinart - people run wide open all the time and he's hardly pressured. Now, if he's projected in the top 5 he's got ot come out, 20 million guarenteed is hard to ignore. But I think his best bet for long term pro success is to play through his eligibility at OU.As for Stafford, I'll go on record as saying Im not impressed. I havent seen too much of him, but over the past couple of seasons Georgia's most valuable player on offense has been Knowshon Moreano.

 

[dparker713]

The prevailing theory seems to be that Stafford is a rocket arm and not much else. Bradford seems to have better intangibles.

Intangibles? I don't buy it. Given what you've said here, I take the rocket arm every time. I know its not the most popular thing, but to be successful at a high level year after year you've got be able to sling it. For every QB in the HOF that had intangibles, there's five other QBs that could dot the field with lasers. I think this is even truer now in the modern passing age.

Absolutely.All the more reason Cutler (arm) is finding success and Leinart/Young (intangibles) are merely observers 3 years in.

Accuracy and anticipation are the biggest factors for a QB, not arm strength. At Vandy, Cutler had to make stick throws into tight windows because his receivers weren't 'open' by college standards. I think Leinart can safely be labled a bust at this point, but VY might still have the ability to develop into a top QB as long as his legs extend plays and burn defenses his reads and accuracy can be significantly worse than other successful QBs in the league. Not saying its likely, but he still has a chance.

 

[TakiToki]

Heard something interesting about Bradford. Wish I could remember who said it. Some NFL scouting service guy, I believe.The main questions about Bradford aren't about his arm or his intelligence or his mechanics. It's about how he'll react under pressure. At Oklahoma, he sits back there all day as if he's leading 7-on-7 drills in practice. He rarely gets pressured or touched. Scouts have NO clue how he'll react in a hostile pocket when he's forced to make quick decisions.

From what I've seen of Bradford he seems pretty good at finding the holes in blitzes. Teams have tried blitzing him and he just picks them apart. What will be interesting to see is how he'll handle it when someone is able to get some pressure on him without blitzing. We saw how that made Graham Harrell fall apart, and we haven't really seen Bradford face it yet.

It helps that Oklahoma probably has the best OL in the country too. His stats are impressive, but they are over-inflated due to Stoops running up the score down the stretch. He looks more fluid than Jason White, but White also put up great numbers in that system.

Oklahoma outscored its opponents by a whopping 8 points in the 4th quarter this year, and runs a different offense from when Jason White was there.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Watching this Georgia game today I'm convinced more than ever that there are just some things Stafford won't be able to learn. He can't put touch on a pass. He just can't do it. Watching him attempt to do it is borderline hilarious, because the ball ends up nowhere NEAR where he was trying to put it. He just tried to put some touch on a little corner route to a wide open WR and the ball ended up 8 yards wide of him and 7 yards short. It's been like that all game. Anytime he does anything other than rifle it in there, it's a horrible throw.

 

[identikit]

Watching this Georgia game today I'm convinced more than ever that there are just some things Stafford won't be able to learn. He can't put touch on a pass. He just can't do it. Watching him attempt to do it is borderline hilarious, because the ball ends up nowhere NEAR where he was trying to put it. He just tried to put some touch on a little corner route to a wide open WR and the ball ended up 8 yards wide of him and 7 yards short. It's been like that all game. Anytime he does anything other than rifle it in there, it's a horrible throw.

I'm seeing the same failing...

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think Stafford looks brutal.

 

[MAC_32]

I've finally pinpointed which recent QB Stafford reminds me of.

Derek Anderson.

 

[bcr8f]

Stafford looks awful today.