Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

they got to 7-9 last year also, after being a laughing stock previous year...

yet he gets no credit for that, all to fisher...

That might have something to do with the fact that he was the QB when they were a laughingstock, and played horribly.

the point i was trying to make, obviously not well, was he gets bashed when they do poorly, but no credit the two times they got to near .500, and seemingly had no business doing so.

but maybe that seems consistent to you?

* have you considered the possibility that he wasn't in the best possible position to succeed, with bad coaching, OL, WRs and defense?

"Who gets credit for the team getting to 7-9" (or 2-3 this year) isn't really an interesting question. I'm sure if he leads the Rams to an actual good season he'll get credit for it. Last year he didn't finish in the top 10 in any QB categories except passes completed, where he finished #10 because he was #2 in pass attempts, and even with that he didn't finish in the top 10 in yardage or TDs, so it would be silly to credit him for improving the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Was week 1 not an absolute indictment of Jeff Fisher as the QB killer?  He managed to turn two #1 overall picks into fantasy and reality shyte.  Granted, Bradford suffered some injuries under Fisher,

Hey take it to the Frogs forum!  

Solid point you have going here, please expand.    

they got to 7-9 last year also, after being a laughing stock previous year...

yet he gets no credit for that, all to fisher...

That might have something to do with the fact that he was the QB when they were a laughingstock, and played horribly.

the point i was trying to make, obviously not well, was he gets bashed when they do poorly, but no credit the two times they got to near .500, and seemingly had no business doing so.

but maybe that seems consistent to you?

* have you considered the possibility that he wasn't in the best possible position to succeed, with bad coaching, OL, WRs and defense?

"Who gets credit for the team getting to 7-9" (or 2-3 this year) isn't really an interesting question. I'm sure if he leads the Rams to an actual good season he'll get credit for it. Last year he didn't finish in the top 10 in any QB categories except passes completed, where he finished #10 because he was #2 in pass attempts, and even with that he didn't finish in the top 10 in yardage or TDs, so it would be silly to credit him for improving the team.

it is a very important question to the franchise...

is your point that they treat it like everybody helps or hurts about equally, and it is just such a confusing jumble to delineate who did what, that it is fultile to even try...

again, if you are a one (2009) or two (2011) win team, getting to close to .500 is an "actual good season"... maybe not in your world, though... so he did have two pretty good seasons, all things considered... he did get more credit as a rookie, last year, not so much...

trying to be clear on this... unless you finish top 10 in all the passing stats, that is the only possible circumstance under which it would be "permitted" to get credit for improving team's record... :)

seriously? did you just make that up? if not, who made up that rule?

worse, if somebody thinks otherwise from you on this absurd, self-imposed "rule", benchmark or threshold, you are "silly"...

that sounds so way off, it just seems like you are reaching there to make your point...

again, posts that are 100% negative, lose credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a very important question to the franchise...

is your point that they treat it like everybody helps or hurts about equally, and it is just such a confusing jumble to delineate who did what, that it is fultile to even try...

again, if you are a one (2009) or two (2011) win team, getting to close to .500 is an "actual good season"... maybe not in your world, though... so he did have two pretty good seasons, all things considered... he did get more credit as a rookie, last year, not so much...

trying to be clear on this... unless you finish top 10 in all the passing stats, that is the only possible circumstance under which it would be "permitted" to get credit for improving team's record... :)

seriously? did you just make that up? if not, who made up that rule?

worse, if somebody thinks otherwise from you on this absurd, self-imposed "rule", benchmark or threshold, you are "silly"...

that sounds so way off, it just seems like you are reaching there to make your point...

again, posts that are 100% negative, lose credibility.

In 2010 and 2012, Bradford and the Rams were mediocre. In 2011, Bradford and the Rams were bad. I suppose in that sense you can give Bradford credit for whether the Rams are bad or mediocre, if you really want to. The interesting question is whether he can bring them to "good." 7-9 is better than 1-15 but it's not "good" in any sense of the word, and it's silly (or ridiculous, or illogical, or whatever term you prefer) to give Bradford "credit" for improving the team from 1-15 to 7-9 unless you also give him "credit" for cratering the team from 7-9 to 1-15. They wouldn't have been 1-15 if he hadn't sucked all year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a very important question to the franchise...

is your point that they treat it like everybody helps or hurts about equally, and it is just such a confusing jumble to delineate who did what, that it is fultile to even try...

again, if you are a one (2009) or two (2011) win team, getting to close to .500 is an "actual good season"... maybe not in your world, though... so he did have two pretty good seasons, all things considered... he did get more credit as a rookie, last year, not so much...

trying to be clear on this... unless you finish top 10 in all the passing stats, that is the only possible circumstance under which it would be "permitted" to get credit for improving team's record... :)

seriously? did you just make that up? if not, who made up that rule?

worse, if somebody thinks otherwise from you on this absurd, self-imposed "rule", benchmark or threshold, you are "silly"...

that sounds so way off, it just seems like you are reaching there to make your point...

again, posts that are 100% negative, lose credibility.

In 2010 and 2012, Bradford and the Rams were mediocre. In 2011, Bradford and the Rams were bad. I suppose in that sense you can give Bradford credit for whether the Rams are bad or mediocre, if you really want to. The interesting question is whether he can bring them to "good." 7-9 is better than 1-15 but it's not "good" in any sense of the word, and it's silly (or ridiculous, or illogical, or whatever term you prefer) to give Bradford "credit" for improving the team from 1-15 to 7-9 unless you also give him "credit" for cratering the team from 7-9 to 1-15. They wouldn't have been 1-15 if he hadn't sucked all year.

got it, think i understand now...

so when they improve from 1 win to 7 wins, that isn't improvement (and it is silly to think so in your world)...

definitely, you are building a strong case that you are being balanced and fair!

i never said he didn't have a role in rams down seasons, that is kind of putting words in my mouth and distorting/misrepresenting the exchange (how did you get from my not thinking he deserves all the blame - to my thinking he deserves no blame???)...

but maybe if you feel you don't have strong position, it sure does make it easier to win debates by knocking down straw men...

i'm trying to be balanced, you are coming off as 100% completely, totally negative... but if you think that is building your credibility, keep doing what your doing...

so, no possibility that having bad coaching, drafting, personnel, OL, WR and defense played bigger role in 1 win season...

you tend to answer questions selectively, and not answer others...

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

you also forgot about the one that bradford can only get credit for improvement IF he finishes top 10 in some passing stats (other than attempts)... again, did you make that up? where does that even come from, other than you having a transparent axe to grind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

If I were GM, I wouldn't have drafted Tavon Austin with the 8th overall pick because I don't think he's any more than a kick returner. He's two inches shorter than Desean Jackson and isn't any faster or quicker. (By the way, Jackson catches lots of balls within 5 yards of the line, though I don't see a way to find those stats).

And living in the Bay Area, I heard years and years of "Alex Smith would be good if he just had X", where X was whatever he didn't have. The goalposts kept getting moved until Alex himself was moved, seven years later. He's a mediocre QB; good QBs can win games without having X. Bradford so far has looked like a mediocre QB, and you can blame him not having X all you want, but there is plenty of evidence for him being a mediocre QB, and little for him being a good QB, and going from 7-9 to 1-15 to 7-8-1 does not count as evidence of anything above mediocrity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

If I were GM, I wouldn't have drafted Tavon Austin with the 8th overall pick because I don't think he's any more than a kick returner. He's two inches shorter than Desean Jackson and isn't any faster or quicker. (By the way, Jackson catches lots of balls within 5 yards of the line, though I don't see a way to find those stats).

And living in the Bay Area, I heard years and years of "Alex Smith would be good if he just had X", where X was whatever he didn't have. The goalposts kept getting moved until Alex himself was moved, seven years later. He's a mediocre QB; good QBs can win games without having X. Bradford so far has looked like a mediocre QB, and you can blame him not having X all you want, but there is plenty of evidence for him being a mediocre QB, and little for him being a good QB, and going from 7-9 to 1-15 to 7-8-1 does not count as evidence of anything above mediocrity.

Hmm, Alex Smith got consistency in the coaching staff for two years in a row the first time in his career and then he took the team to within a couple plays of the Super Bowl. He loses his job to Kaepernick and gets shipped to KC where he has a defense, running game and decent to good WR's and is undefeated. Sorry, but I would argue that Alex Smith is exactly proof that Bradford can be very successful as a QB.

The Rams lost their running game from last year. This bunch of undersized chumps and properly sized rookies are not Steven Jackson. The team still has no WR that has developed. Jared Cook had a flash that first game, but he has never lived up to the label of pass catching TE. He disappears for long stretches.

But to me, the worst problem right now (other than the horrendous play of the O-Line) is the play calling. Two games ago, the only passes Austin caught were button hooks where he caught the ball flat footed. That is absolutely asinine and pisses me off that they traded up for a guy they don't know how to use. It's like paying for the AMD motor on a Benz but never driving it faster than 40 mph.

Last year, the D played well and they had a running game, but no WR's. Not even Amendola. This year, the D has taken a step back, the O-line is terrible, and the WR's have not developed much. Quick is never going to be anything but unrealized potential, Givens is not being sent deep, something he did so well last year, and Austin is being used like the fat kid in the sand lot game down the street (run about 10 feet and turn around, chubby).

Only way to fix that is to get rid of the OC. Getting rid of the OC will set Bradford back again in his development. In other words, he's screwed either way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

If I were GM, I wouldn't have drafted Tavon Austin with the 8th overall pick because I don't think he's any more than a kick returner. He's two inches shorter than Desean Jackson and isn't any faster or quicker. (By the way, Jackson catches lots of balls within 5 yards of the line, though I don't see a way to find those stats).

And living in the Bay Area, I heard years and years of "Alex Smith would be good if he just had X", where X was whatever he didn't have. The goalposts kept getting moved until Alex himself was moved, seven years later. He's a mediocre QB; good QBs can win games without having X. Bradford so far has looked like a mediocre QB, and you can blame him not having X all you want, but there is plenty of evidence for him being a mediocre QB, and little for him being a good QB, and going from 7-9 to 1-15 to 7-8-1 does not count as evidence of anything above mediocrity.

Hmm, Alex Smith got consistency in the coaching staff for two years in a row the first time in his career and then he took the team to within a couple plays of the Super Bowl.

They weren't just a couple of plays from the SB. They left so many plays out there on offense, especially on 3rd down that prevented them from going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i appreciate that...

but the question wasn't what you wouldn't do, it was what you would do...

it is just more deflection and refusing to answer questions that you don't think are as defensible, i have tried to answer points you raise, but you have repeatedly been cherry picking points you want to make, in some instances about what i didn't even say or ask (you did it again here)... and i suppose that makes it easier to dig in your heels to better lock into that 100% negativiity...

if you are in the right, and your position is so defensible, why not just answer the questions? or if you can't, don't, but say so, at least, and debate in good faith.

you just shifted the parameters with the i wouldn't have drafted him part, ironic after criticizing media (edit/add... ie - alex smith X aplogists)).

i'm trying to be dispassionate, but i do think debates are an opportunity for both sides to learn... unless you think you are so smart you have nothing to learn from anybody... i don't think that way... it is also an opportunity for the board to learn if two people with opposing views make points on both sides, possibly incorporating opposing thoughts, and maybe modify their thinking... when asked a direct question and than saying i wouldn't do that, that is a missed opportunity...

i can take it as tacit agreement bradford isn't to be blamed for rams drafting austin...

you are the OC... of course you didn't draft him (typically OCs don't)... now that you you have him, it isn't an option to say i wouldn't draft him...

is it a good use to have him go out one yard and squat? is that good for bradford?

* so if you go from one win to seven, that isn't good? what is? eight wins? nine? isn't that a little arbitrary?

if a team wins 9-10 games or more for a while, 7 wins isn't "good"...

from one win, seven wins is "good" (and in two of three seasons "contributed" to lifting the team from one or two to seven wins).

we aren't talking a kinda sorta bad team, but one of the most inept teams in league history... to help elevate them to respectability, twice in three years, was an achievment... you keep repeating that it isn't, but i see no reason to think that it isn't arbitrary...

you also still haven't answered how it isn't arbitrary that he shouldn't get credit for elevating rams record (not only that, but it is silly to think so), unless he has top 10 stats... obviously it is because you can't (at least not without looking "silly"), but i'd really like to try and understand your thought process on that, and see how you would attempt to justify that as not being arbitrary...

** it is funny that you mentioned alex smith... one thing he has in common with bradford was the OC churning (even extending back to utah? jason campbell had this issue also, and wasn't a roaring success, maybe not entirely because of that, but probably didn't help)... i think his last year in SF (traded mid-season?) was first of his NFL career with same OC two years in a row...

he certainly had a good W-L percentage in 2011-12, before being traded... and that has continued in KC (5-0)... it seems like if rams have bad record, it BECAUSE of bradford, and not other factors... if 49ers did good, it was IN SPITE of smith... i take it if KC does good, it is IN SPITE of smith... that just seems like switchy-changey parameters and rationale...

on the surface, you seem to be weighing W-L record, but if rams get to respectability, but haven't won 9-10 games or more, it isn't good enough for you, and this is proof bradford is "bad"...

if 49ers/chiefs have good record, it is ignored... how can it be relevant, since you have already made up your mind that smith is bad... when 49ers did bad, it was because of smith... when they did good, it must have been for other reasons... that is arbitrary...

do i think smith is great... of course not... but when he came up, didn't 49ers have some lean years? but he did have some good metrics at end with SF... like completion percentage, low INT percentage...

your thinking seems to be very black and white, or binary...

there are good QBs, and bad QBs (OK, also maybe mediocre, average ones in middle)...

if you are a good QB, you elevate your team no matter what...

if you can't, you are bad, by definition...

have you considered the possibility that there are some QBs so good they can lift a team in dire circumstances (lets use luck as an example)... and maybe others not THAT good, but good enough that positioned to succeed (good coach, OL, WRs, defense), they can be an overall positive for the team?

this IS relevant, because some people (admittedly not you) have some questions about how bradford and his weapons are being used (like one about tavon austin you have several times failed to answer)...

*** it is also funny you mentioned desean jackson... austin is shorter... point taken... but you than said he isn't any faster or quicker... think about that... does he need to be? how is desean jackson doing this season, such as his quickness and speed are? pretty good, right? you did attempt to qualify it, but i can assure you they aren't using him like they use austin... they aren't having him one run yard and squat (if they did, they would be grossly incompetent and derelict)... but seriously, if you don't know jackson is being used differently than austin, ask somebody...

Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

If I were GM, I wouldn't have drafted Tavon Austin with the 8th overall pick because I don't think he's any more than a kick returner. He's two inches shorter than Desean Jackson and isn't any faster or quicker. (By the way, Jackson catches lots of balls within 5 yards of the line, though I don't see a way to find those stats).

And living in the Bay Area, I heard years and years of "Alex Smith would be good if he just had X", where X was whatever he didn't have. The goalposts kept getting moved until Alex himself was moved, seven years later. He's a mediocre QB; good QBs can win games without having X. Bradford so far has looked like a mediocre QB, and you can blame him not having X all you want, but there is plenty of evidence for him being a mediocre QB, and little for him being a good QB, and going from 7-9 to 1-15 to 7-8-1 does not count as evidence of anything above mediocrity.

I don't think Bradford is that bad a QB, but yeah, if you keep going down the road with a QB who can't rise above mediocrity, then you will spend several years trying to build around him and get nowhere like they did with Smith. By the time the 49ers eventually turned the team around to win in 2011, they already had stockpiled enough talent in early round picks due to years of being bad and then mediocre.

Even today, the 49ers still hadn't hit on a WR in the draft for years, outside of Crabtree, who with Kaep emerged as their #1.

Hopefully Bradford can transcend above whatever lacks on the Rams offensive side of the roster this season, but I think they should also look at a QBOTF if he doesn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they got to 7-9 last year also, after being a laughing stock previous year...

yet he gets no credit for that, all to fisher...

That might have something to do with the fact that he was the QB when they were a laughingstock, and played horribly.

Sort of. He missed 3 games, left two games early and played most of the year on a broken foot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple things about Sam that are now relevant in this conversation:

The year Same took a team from 1-15 to 7-9 was year one of a rebuild.

Last year when Sam took a team from 2-14 to 7-9 was year one of a rebuild.

The Rams are the youngest team in football in a landslide. Let's not underestimate that. It's one thing to be young in some positions, and we have all seen young PLAYERS succeed in certain situations. But when there is such a influx of inexperience across the board, as is the case on this team (28 players in their 1st or 2nd year), it will have a major impact on just how much you can throw at them. Do you think its by coincidence that Austin Pettis is actually the most consistent WR on the roster? Sam doesn't have a steady influence on the team. Not at any skill position. His offensive line vets are out or have left for extended periods in each of the last 3 games.

Now I don't want to come off as Sam's fan boy. Frankly, I believe he's a shell shocked QB with a contract that actually hurts his value. I wouldn't mind getting one of the top two QB's in this upcoming draft as a Rams fan assuming they can get someone to give up SOMETHING for Sam. I just don't believe it's as much of Bradford's fault as people want to give him credit for. Also, having his worst game of his career on national television a couple Thursdays do not help the public perception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

If I were GM, I wouldn't have drafted Tavon Austin with the 8th overall pick because I don't think he's any more than a kick returner. He's two inches shorter than Desean Jackson and isn't any faster or quicker. (By the way, Jackson catches lots of balls within 5 yards of the line, though I don't see a way to find those stats).

And living in the Bay Area, I heard years and years of "Alex Smith would be good if he just had X", where X was whatever he didn't have. The goalposts kept getting moved until Alex himself was moved, seven years later. He's a mediocre QB; good QBs can win games without having X. Bradford so far has looked like a mediocre QB, and you can blame him not having X all you want, but there is plenty of evidence for him being a mediocre QB, and little for him being a good QB, and going from 7-9 to 1-15 to 7-8-1 does not count as evidence of anything above mediocrity.

Hmm, Alex Smith got consistency in the coaching staff for two years in a row the first time in his career and then he took the team to within a couple plays of the Super Bowl.

They weren't just a couple of plays from the SB. They left so many plays out there on offense, especially on 3rd down that prevented them from going.

The game went to overtime. Don't pretend that because you don't like the guy that he didn't take the 9ers to within a whisker of the SB. And you rejoiced when they benched the guy to go with Kaepernick. And raised a toast when Alex Smith was traded. Now he's 5-0 and the 9ers are 3-2. Smith has more yards, TD's, a higher passer rating and less interceptions. And you have selective memory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

If I were GM, I wouldn't have drafted Tavon Austin with the 8th overall pick because I don't think he's any more than a kick returner. He's two inches shorter than Desean Jackson and isn't any faster or quicker. (By the way, Jackson catches lots of balls within 5 yards of the line, though I don't see a way to find those stats).

And living in the Bay Area, I heard years and years of "Alex Smith would be good if he just had X", where X was whatever he didn't have. The goalposts kept getting moved until Alex himself was moved, seven years later. He's a mediocre QB; good QBs can win games without having X. Bradford so far has looked like a mediocre QB, and you can blame him not having X all you want, but there is plenty of evidence for him being a mediocre QB, and little for him being a good QB, and going from 7-9 to 1-15 to 7-8-1 does not count as evidence of anything above mediocrity.

Hmm, Alex Smith got consistency in the coaching staff for two years in a row the first time in his career and then he took the team to within a couple plays of the Super Bowl.

They weren't just a couple of plays from the SB. They left so many plays out there on offense, especially on 3rd down that prevented them from going.

The game went to overtime. Don't pretend that because you don't like the guy that he didn't take the 9ers to within a whisker of the SB. And you rejoiced when they benched the guy to go with Kaepernick. And raised a toast when Alex Smith was traded. Now he's 5-0 and the 9ers are 3-2. Smith has more yards, TD's, a higher passer rating and less interceptions. And you have selective memory.

49ers leading scorer in 2011: David Akers. Total successful 49er 3rd down conversions in the NFFC game: 1.

I don't pretend to know everything about the Rams, but you can keep pretending you know anything about the 49ers. Selective memory is keeping you from remembering who got them to the Super Bowl the following season too.

ETA: there isn't any 49er coach that regrets the decision to move to Kaep either. Because they know the reason why they did, and other NFL coaches know that too.

Edited by drummer
Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

If I were GM, I wouldn't have drafted Tavon Austin with the 8th overall pick because I don't think he's any more than a kick returner. He's two inches shorter than Desean Jackson and isn't any faster or quicker. (By the way, Jackson catches lots of balls within 5 yards of the line, though I don't see a way to find those stats).

And living in the Bay Area, I heard years and years of "Alex Smith would be good if he just had X", where X was whatever he didn't have. The goalposts kept getting moved until Alex himself was moved, seven years later. He's a mediocre QB; good QBs can win games without having X. Bradford so far has looked like a mediocre QB, and you can blame him not having X all you want, but there is plenty of evidence for him being a mediocre QB, and little for him being a good QB, and going from 7-9 to 1-15 to 7-8-1 does not count as evidence of anything above mediocrity.

Hmm, Alex Smith got consistency in the coaching staff for two years in a row the first time in his career and then he took the team to within a couple plays of the Super Bowl.

They weren't just a couple of plays from the SB. They left so many plays out there on offense, especially on 3rd down that prevented them from going.

The game went to overtime. Don't pretend that because you don't like the guy that he didn't take the 9ers to within a whisker of the SB. And you rejoiced when they benched the guy to go with Kaepernick. And raised a toast when Alex Smith was traded. Now he's 5-0 and the 9ers are 3-2. Smith has more yards, TD's, a higher passer rating and less interceptions. And you have selective memory.

49ers leading scorer in 2011: David Akers. Total successful 49er 3rd down conversions in the NFFC game: 1.

I don't pretend to know everything about the Rams, but you can keep pretending you know anything about the 49ers. Selective memory is keeping you from remembering who got them to the Super Bowl the following season too.

ETA: there isn't any 49er coach that regrets the decision to move to Kaep either. Because they know the reason why they did, and other NFL coaches know that too.

One guy got you to within a few plays of the super bowl and the other got you to the big game. Last I checked you ended up with the same result. The Pistol is a passing fancy. Enjoy it while it lasts.... Or should I say, you should've enjoyed it while it lasted...

Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

If I were GM, I wouldn't have drafted Tavon Austin with the 8th overall pick because I don't think he's any more than a kick returner. He's two inches shorter than Desean Jackson and isn't any faster or quicker. (By the way, Jackson catches lots of balls within 5 yards of the line, though I don't see a way to find those stats).

And living in the Bay Area, I heard years and years of "Alex Smith would be good if he just had X", where X was whatever he didn't have. The goalposts kept getting moved until Alex himself was moved, seven years later. He's a mediocre QB; good QBs can win games without having X. Bradford so far has looked like a mediocre QB, and you can blame him not having X all you want, but there is plenty of evidence for him being a mediocre QB, and little for him being a good QB, and going from 7-9 to 1-15 to 7-8-1 does not count as evidence of anything above mediocrity.

Hmm, Alex Smith got consistency in the coaching staff for two years in a row the first time in his career and then he took the team to within a couple plays of the Super Bowl.

They weren't just a couple of plays from the SB. They left so many plays out there on offense, especially on 3rd down that prevented them from going.

The game went to overtime. Don't pretend that because you don't like the guy that he didn't take the 9ers to within a whisker of the SB. And you rejoiced when they benched the guy to go with Kaepernick. And raised a toast when Alex Smith was traded. Now he's 5-0 and the 9ers are 3-2. Smith has more yards, TD's, a higher passer rating and less interceptions. And you have selective memory.

49ers leading scorer in 2011: David Akers. Total successful 49er 3rd down conversions in the NFFC game: 1.

I don't pretend to know everything about the Rams, but you can keep pretending you know anything about the 49ers. Selective memory is keeping you from remembering who got them to the Super Bowl the following season too.

ETA: there isn't any 49er coach that regrets the decision to move to Kaep either. Because they know the reason why they did, and other NFL coaches know that too.

One guy got you to within a few plays of the super bowl and the other got you to the big game. Last I checked you ended up with the same result. The Pistol is a passing fancy. Enjoy it while it lasts.... Or should I say, you should've enjoyed it while it lasted...

I don't wanna gak up a Ram thread with 49er talk, so if you feel the need to scratch an itch, well, don't take it to the 49er thread either. You'll just bore us there too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

If I were GM, I wouldn't have drafted Tavon Austin with the 8th overall pick because I don't think he's any more than a kick returner. He's two inches shorter than Desean Jackson and isn't any faster or quicker. (By the way, Jackson catches lots of balls within 5 yards of the line, though I don't see a way to find those stats).

And living in the Bay Area, I heard years and years of "Alex Smith would be good if he just had X", where X was whatever he didn't have. The goalposts kept getting moved until Alex himself was moved, seven years later. He's a mediocre QB; good QBs can win games without having X. Bradford so far has looked like a mediocre QB, and you can blame him not having X all you want, but there is plenty of evidence for him being a mediocre QB, and little for him being a good QB, and going from 7-9 to 1-15 to 7-8-1 does not count as evidence of anything above mediocrity.

Hmm, Alex Smith got consistency in the coaching staff for two years in a row the first time in his career and then he took the team to within a couple plays of the Super Bowl.

They weren't just a couple of plays from the SB. They left so many plays out there on offense, especially on 3rd down that prevented them from going.

The game went to overtime. Don't pretend that because you don't like the guy that he didn't take the 9ers to within a whisker of the SB. And you rejoiced when they benched the guy to go with Kaepernick. And raised a toast when Alex Smith was traded. Now he's 5-0 and the 9ers are 3-2. Smith has more yards, TD's, a higher passer rating and less interceptions. And you have selective memory.

49ers leading scorer in 2011: David Akers. Total successful 49er 3rd down conversions in the NFFC game: 1.

I don't pretend to know everything about the Rams, but you can keep pretending you know anything about the 49ers. Selective memory is keeping you from remembering who got them to the Super Bowl the following season too.

ETA: there isn't any 49er coach that regrets the decision to move to Kaep either. Because they know the reason why they did, and other NFL coaches know that too.

One guy got you to within a few plays of the super bowl and the other got you to the big game. Last I checked you ended up with the same result. The Pistol is a passing fancy. Enjoy it while it lasts.... Or should I say, you should've enjoyed it while it lasted...

I don't wanna gak up a Ram thread with 49er talk, so if you feel the need to scratch an itch, well, don't take it to the 49er thread either. You'll just bore us there too.

Petty insults veiled in taking the high ground. Impressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so i'll ask you again... if you were OC, would you use tavon austin by having him go out one yard and than squat in middle of defense? is that best use of his talents? does using him in that way help bradford?

If I were GM, I wouldn't have drafted Tavon Austin with the 8th overall pick because I don't think he's any more than a kick returner. He's two inches shorter than Desean Jackson and isn't any faster or quicker. (By the way, Jackson catches lots of balls within 5 yards of the line, though I don't see a way to find those stats).

And living in the Bay Area, I heard years and years of "Alex Smith would be good if he just had X", where X was whatever he didn't have. The goalposts kept getting moved until Alex himself was moved, seven years later. He's a mediocre QB; good QBs can win games without having X. Bradford so far has looked like a mediocre QB, and you can blame him not having X all you want, but there is plenty of evidence for him being a mediocre QB, and little for him being a good QB, and going from 7-9 to 1-15 to 7-8-1 does not count as evidence of anything above mediocrity.

Hmm, Alex Smith got consistency in the coaching staff for two years in a row the first time in his career and then he took the team to within a couple plays of the Super Bowl.

They weren't just a couple of plays from the SB. They left so many plays out there on offense, especially on 3rd down that prevented them from going.

The game went to overtime. Don't pretend that because you don't like the guy that he didn't take the 9ers to within a whisker of the SB. And you rejoiced when they benched the guy to go with Kaepernick. And raised a toast when Alex Smith was traded. Now he's 5-0 and the 9ers are 3-2. Smith has more yards, TD's, a higher passer rating and less interceptions. And you have selective memory.

49ers leading scorer in 2011: David Akers. Total successful 49er 3rd down conversions in the NFFC game: 1.

I don't pretend to know everything about the Rams, but you can keep pretending you know anything about the 49ers. Selective memory is keeping you from remembering who got them to the Super Bowl the following season too.

ETA: there isn't any 49er coach that regrets the decision to move to Kaep either. Because they know the reason why they did, and other NFL coaches know that too.

One guy got you to within a few plays of the super bowl and the other got you to the big game. Last I checked you ended up with the same result. The Pistol is a passing fancy. Enjoy it while it lasts.... Or should I say, you should've enjoyed it while it lasted...

I don't wanna gak up a Ram thread with 49er talk, so if you feel the need to scratch an itch, well, don't take it to the 49er thread either. You'll just bore us there too.

Petty insults veiled in taking the high ground. Impressive.

Yeah I did my best. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

some points commonly raised...

bradford is a failure because he has been unable to elevate the team to the playoffs (or .500 or better record)... if he had a bad year, OK, we could excuse him for that, that might not be on him, maybe blame WRs... but if this continues for a few years, than it must be bradford's fault...

to say it is WRs, is an "excuse"... or if you have OC that thinks it is a good idea for WR to run one yard and squat, that is an "excuse" (just once i'd like to get a response from bradford detractors about maybe this not being a great idea?)...

and if the problems repeat for a few years, and causes are re-labeled as "excuses", than i could see how some would get fed up hearing about excuses for bradford...

you would get to the point where you won't even discuss "excuses" (ie - causes)... :)

i think one of the best stats about the state of the rams... and it is a definite corollary to the rams having youngest team in NFL (probably by far)... chris long is the longest tenured ram... he went in the 2008 draft... five years ago...

think about that...

that means not a single player is on the roster right now, from more than fiver years ago...

i have to think there are teams (or at least good to average ones) that have quite a few players that have more than five years tenure... just imagine WHOLE CLASSES from a given year completely eradicated...

NOBODY from 2007, 2006, 2005, etc... nada, zippo, zilch... :)

even some of the drafts SINCE long haven't been so red hot...

this will be a case of belaboring things, but since i think it is an important point, i'll provide detail... lets look at rams drafts in recent years*...

you may ask yourself (like david byrne), why does bob do this, and beat his head against the wall? good question... it is in partial response to people who think, i've heard so many excuses, i won't even discuss it any more... if bradford doesn't catch fire in a year or two, it must be excuses... it CAN'T be the fact that they drafted poorly year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year after year (all draft analysis and no play makes bob a dull boy)... that isn't POSSIBLE... it must be bradford excuses...

well i have news for you... it CAN be that bad... it can be worse than you imagined (how many other team fans suffered through 15-65 record over half decade any time recently... i mean, like in past half century or so... maybe lions, saints had some periods that tested fans about as much, but rare?)...

2013 - too early to say... austin has disappointed some, how much due to scheme is debated... ogletree looks like a keeper athletically, but he could stand to improve a lot in his understanding of the pro game... mcdonald is hurt, some people liked what they saw, i saw a player that was physical but wild at times, not as bad as taylor mays, but sometimes took bad angles and could get fooled on misdirection... bailey hasn't had a chance, i thought looked good on special teams in recent weeks, i am catiously optimistic he will be able to do something with opportunity if he gets it next year...

2012 - brockers has been inconsistent this year, based on way he finished last year, some were predicting great things... i think he has potential to be very good... quick i am starting to wonder if he was a wasted pick... which if he is, that is a shame, because that was a high second... there is something i could say here, but will see if a pattern emerges, than i'll say it if appropriate... jenkins had a very good rookie year, the team assumed a lot of risk with him... in part, rationale was that with the extra picks, they could afford to take chances... but did they take too many... and if you blow a few picks, did you really have extra picks such that you could risk blowing another one? pead, even more so than quick, increasingly looks like a bust (compounded by character issues)... ouch, they got cute and tried to trade down a few picks, get a 5th rounder, still get the guy they wanted... except they wanted bobby wagner or mychal kendricks, who were taken bang-bang by SEA and PHI... so they settle for pead... and what happened to fifth rounder... rokevious watkins had an eating disorder, and he is now out of the league... i do think trumaine johnson in third and givens in 4th (first pick in 4th) have promise (though johnson also showed character issues before draft, and has had several issues since joining rams... seems like givens had an issue last year, like one game suspension, but generally seemed more mature with more professionalism in offseason, and more dedicated to his craft - it is fair to ask were fisher and snead too cavalier in taking on multiple players with off field red flags?)... i wouldn't go much beyond that, and won't in most earlier years/drafts to follow in reverse chronological sequence, but zuerlein was good use of 6th, and richardson doesn't look like answer at RB, but he was a 7th rounder, so hopes shouldn't have been that high... if there is a pattern, in retrospect, maybe we could say lot of risk after brockers, different kinds of risks... i don't think there is hard and fast rule about being better to draft from established collge programs (polian seemed to love big 10, marvin lewis SEC) or small school gems (JPP, demarcus ware, etc.)... the rams left some higher graded WRs on board... like alshonn jeffery and randle, to name a few, who were clearly more pro ready AND look like they have higher ceilings... it looks like snisher outsmarted themselves on that one... IF jenkins proves to be a top 10-15 talent, than i could see some making case he was worth the risk (risk is a very low floor, like he is out of the league in a few years)... if not, i don't agree with pick... again, pead an unmitigated disaster so far... he may have won senior bowl MVP (?), but it isn't like cincinnati is a RB factory...

2011 - we have to acknowledge here any drafts before 2012 aren't on fisher, snead and current regime... quinn, great pick, obviously best in past three drafts so far, looks like one of best young pass rushers in game... kendricks, not that exciting for a second rounder, at least he appears to be a functional player, which is better than some of their high round picks, which we shall see later... third rounder is pettis, who probably wouldn't start on a lot of teams, he could be a serviceable possession WR, not likely to ever be a star... fourth rounder salas not on team, nor is fifth rounder jermale hines, etc... i realize the odds are stacked against rounds 5-6-7, but with 53 man roster, you think a team would occasionally hit on that late rounder, maybe at a few positions... on the rams in recent years, later rounds have been a wilderness, a barren wasteland...

2010 - that was bradford, saffold went high second round, been hurt a lot lately, after looking promising early... complicated by his preferring LT (pay grade?), he may not return in 2014, which would be another high pick blown... after that, i think only DE sims still on roster, and he is a reserve... selvie has shown flashes, but he is doing it in DAL... many players not only no longer on rams, but just plain out of league...

2009 - high 1st jason smith - ouch, free agent last i checked, so again, not only not a starter, can't even stick with a team, no complaints with laurinaitis in 2nd, but on average in some of these years, rams were lucky if they got ONE pretty good player per draft... monkey and a dartboard should do better randomly! :) again, in cases where players aren't out of the league, they are with other teams, like bradley fletcher...

2008 - long draft, he has been very good, some would say he was overdrafted or hasn't lived up to his pedigree (that was said about justin smith in CIN), but he had steadily improved over the years, not sure who they would have picked instead without looking at it, and some criticized team for not trading down, but that isn't always an option, when for instance luck and griffin III aren't in a given draft... nobody else, obviously... they seemingly overdrafted avery, cut him few years later due to injuries...

nobody from this point is on STL roster, but in the interest of thoroughly looking at their epic ineptness drafting...

2007 - first rounder carriker still in league, you could see he was better 3-4 than 4-3 DE prospect... STL ran a 4-3, naturally... bunch of nobodies after.

2006 was a doozy - 1st tye hill, 2nd joe klopfenstein, multi 3rds claude "breaking bad" wroten, jon alston and dominique byrd... we don't really need to go past third... didn't this class have a catchy phrase, like the immortal class of '96... no they didn't, thats right...

2005 - 1st alex "false start machine" barron, not starting for anybody, 2nd ron "size/speed specimen" bartell, 3rd OJ atogwe was actually a rare decent player from this era, incognito may have been pro bowler last year, of course for another team, after that, whole lotta nobody...

2004 - 1st steven jackson (was longest tenured ram as of 2012), great pick, probaly best, easily one of best in past decade, 3rd rounder hargrove had some good years, but with other teams, typically... than nothing...

that extends back a decade... to go a little further for "fun"...

2003 - 1st jimmy kennedy - oof, 2nd tinoisamoa, had some good years, deteriorated due to health issues, more bad luck than bad scouting/drafting, 3rd WRs kevin curtis (who was older rookie as i recall, possibly due to mormon mission) and 4th shaun mcdonald... meh?

2002 - 1st robert thomas - oof, 2nd travis fisher was a decent CB for a few years (possibly overdrafted due to speed), 3rd lamar gordon from NFL RB factory north dakota st... fellow 3rd eric crouch was the ingenius idea of martz, maybe most emblematic of his hubris, to convert a running QB to slot WR (it did admittedly work with bert emanuel back in the day, boldin played some QB in college, as did hines ward, but they weren't primary QBs)...

that takes us all the way to right after last super bowl appearance... so in rewind mode, you can answer for yourself the question, how do you dismantle a multi-super bowl team and one of the best offenses in the history of the league (other stuff happened, notably borderline HoFer kurt warner having hand injury, than recovering in arizona), and for the most part squander a decade+ worth of draft picks...

even in 2001, they had three 1sts, and damione lewis, archuleta and pickett were i think off the rams roster after a contract cycle... pickett had most success elsewhere (typical)... i think he is still in NFL, with GB (?)...

* http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=2510&type=team

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post Bob, but shouldn't STL still look towards drafting another QB?

thanks, we won't know until the OL stabilizes, they get RB, and OC can figure out how to use his passing weapons...

is it to point they would fire Bradford before Schotty?

consider this speculation, but imo, they may not have thought that far ahead... if things continue and they do (think that far ahead), I think it is plausible to think they might conclude they have more invested in Bradford than schotty...

for one thing, I don't think current regime views it like the clock has been ticking for four years... It is three full years, only one of which was with them...

in fisher's case, he claimed to have come to rams in large part because of bradford... they also passed on griffin III to hitch their wagon to bradford... it is unfortunate that he had an awful game in high profile and visibility thur night game... some concluded that is who he IS, as if one of worst games of his career is a microcosm of his entire career (but when he has a few good games not on national TV, that somehow isn't a microcosm of his career)? I did think some of the reactions seemed a bit knee jerk and hysterical, to the SF game...

but good question, I could be completely wrong about Bradford, and his future with rams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bob, long time fan.

If the Rams missed on everyone else, what makes you think Bradford isn't also a miss? You don't have to answer that but all that in depth analysis of everyone else they screwed up on doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. Go back in the draft and grab another young arm to develop so eventually you all can get out of this contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bob, long time fan.

If the Rams missed on everyone else, what makes you think Bradford isn't also a miss? You don't have to answer that but all that in depth analysis of everyone else they screwed up on doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. Go back in the draft and grab another young arm to develop so eventually you all can get out of this contract.

thanks, likewise, MoP...

they did make some good picks in first...

notably ex-ram Steven Jackson, DEs Long and Quinn and DT Brockers...

far too early to judge, but I think ogletree can elevate the defense eventually with his athleticism and talent...

and austin was coveted by a few teams... he is currently being misused, hard to evaluate him?

so I wouldn't endorse moving on, on basis of a they whiffed on everybody rationale...

when he has had some favorable circumstances (like same OL playing more than one game in a row), he has looked good enough at times, that I thought rams can win with him... maybe he will never be top 3-5 QB (even after manning, brady and brees retire, I mean), but I think top 10-12 with upside is possible...

I would like nothing more for OL to stabilize, OC to begin calling competent game plans, WRs mature... IF that happens, and bradford looks as bad as he did against SF, I'll be first to say get rid of him and draft, trade or get free agent for future...

you have to realize, I saw how disastrous it was when they prematurely got rid of warner, than he led ARI to super bowl... not that bradford has accomplished anything like warner...

* also MoP, let's not lose sight of an important point...

I know you know this, but I have talked about a few different things, so it is worth highlighting, thanks for the opportunity to make this clearer...

yes, quick and pead especially have been disappointing, but I didn't mean for that to be an indictment of the entire 2012-2013 classes... It is too early to tell, anyways...

my extended cataloging (like a medieval beastiary) of some of the rams draft horrors over past decade plus, tracing their fall from grace, encompasses two front offices (zygmunt/shaw and devaney) and three coaching staffs (not counting interims... martz, linehan and spagnuolo), BEFORE fisher and snead...

so of course, if martz drafted crouch, under the watch of zygmunt/shaw, that shouldn't cause us in any way to think that the judgement of fisher and snead (three HCs and two GMs later) to evaluate bradord's long term potential is in some way compromised or tainted by that fact... as they have no possible connection (even the owner is different).

Link to post
Share on other sites

i appreciate that...

but the question wasn't what you wouldn't do, it was what you would do...

it is just more deflection and refusing to answer questions that you don't think are as defensible, i have tried to answer points you raise, but you have repeatedly been cherry picking points you want to make, in some instances about what i didn't even say or ask (you did it again here)... and i suppose that makes it easier to dig in your heels to better lock into that 100% negativiity...

if you are in the right, and your position is so defensible, why not just answer the questions? or if you can't, don't, but say so, at least, and debate in good faith.

you just shifted the parameters with the i wouldn't have drafted him part, ironic after criticizing media (edit/add... ie - alex smith X aplogists)).

i'm trying to be dispassionate, but i do think debates are an opportunity for both sides to learn... unless you think you are so smart you have nothing to learn from anybody... i don't think that way... it is also an opportunity for the board to learn if two people with opposing views make points on both sides, possibly incorporating opposing thoughts, and maybe modify their thinking... when asked a direct question and than saying i wouldn't do that, that is a missed opportunity...

i can take it as tacit agreement bradford isn't to be blamed for rams drafting austin...

you are the OC... of course you didn't draft him (typically OCs don't)... now that you you have him, it isn't an option to say i wouldn't draft him...

is it a good use to have him go out one yard and squat? is that good for bradford?

* so if you go from one win to seven, that isn't good? what is? eight wins? nine? isn't that a little arbitrary?

if a team wins 9-10 games or more for a while, 7 wins isn't "good"...

from one win, seven wins is "good" (and in two of three seasons "contributed" to lifting the team from one or two to seven wins).

we aren't talking a kinda sorta bad team, but one of the most inept teams in league history... to help elevate them to respectability, twice in three years, was an achievment... you keep repeating that it isn't, but i see no reason to think that it isn't arbitrary...

you also still haven't answered how it isn't arbitrary that he shouldn't get credit for elevating rams record (not only that, but it is silly to think so), unless he has top 10 stats... obviously it is because you can't (at least not without looking "silly"), but i'd really like to try and understand your thought process on that, and see how you would attempt to justify that as not being arbitrary...

** it is funny that you mentioned alex smith... one thing he has in common with bradford was the OC churning (even extending back to utah? jason campbell had this issue also, and wasn't a roaring success, maybe not entirely because of that, but probably didn't help)... i think his last year in SF (traded mid-season?) was first of his NFL career with same OC two years in a row...

he certainly had a good W-L percentage in 2011-12, before being traded... and that has continued in KC (5-0)... it seems like if rams have bad record, it BECAUSE of bradford, and not other factors... if 49ers did good, it was IN SPITE of smith... i take it if KC does good, it is IN SPITE of smith... that just seems like switchy-changey parameters and rationale...

on the surface, you seem to be weighing W-L record, but if rams get to respectability, but haven't won 9-10 games or more, it isn't good enough for you, and this is proof bradford is "bad"...

if 49ers/chiefs have good record, it is ignored... how can it be relevant, since you have already made up your mind that smith is bad... when 49ers did bad, it was because of smith... when they did good, it must have been for other reasons... that is arbitrary...

do i think smith is great... of course not... but when he came up, didn't 49ers have some lean years? but he did have some good metrics at end with SF... like completion percentage, low INT percentage...

your thinking seems to be very black and white, or binary...

there are good QBs, and bad QBs (OK, also maybe mediocre, average ones in middle)...

if you are a good QB, you elevate your team no matter what...

if you can't, you are bad, by definition...

have you considered the possibility that there are some QBs so good they can lift a team in dire circumstances (lets use luck as an example)... and maybe others not THAT good, but good enough that positioned to succeed (good coach, OL, WRs, defense), they can be an overall positive for the team?

this IS relevant, because some people (admittedly not you) have some questions about how bradford and his weapons are being used (like one about tavon austin you have several times failed to answer)...

*** it is also funny you mentioned desean jackson... austin is shorter... point taken... but you than said he isn't any faster or quicker... think about that... does he need to be? how is desean jackson doing this season, such as his quickness and speed are? pretty good, right? you did attempt to qualify it, but i can assure you they aren't using him like they use austin... they aren't having him one run yard and squat (if they did, they would be grossly incompetent and derelict)... but seriously, if you don't know jackson is being used differently than austin, ask somebody...

Look, I'm not going to respond point by point to an 800-word screed. There is plenty of evidence that Sam Bradford has played, at best, at a mediocre level. Every single QB stat, in fact, in addition to his record. If you think he's better than mediocre, please point to a single piece of evidence that he is, and I'll examine it. The fact that the Rams went 7-8-1 in 2012 isn't evidence that Bradford played good football. The fact that the Niners went to the NFCCG despite the offense being ranked 26th in the league and 29th in passing yardage with Alex Smith at QB isn't evidence that Alex Smith is a good QB, nor is the fact that KC is 5-0 with the 20th ranked passing offense evidence that Alex Smith is a good QB. It's possible to win games with a mediocre QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll remind you with as few words as possible...

you said it is silly to attribute team improvement if bradford didn't have top 10 stats.

that seems arbitrary?

what is the thought process?

Link to post
Share on other sites

how about another one...

terse mode...

you are OC.

austin is your WR (if you say i wouldn't have drafted him you get fired).

one yard pattern and squat.

a lot.

good idea?

* both 33 word screeds (not including this), hopefully that doesn't put you out too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll remind you with as few words as possible...

you said it is silly to attribute team improvement if bradford didn't have top 10 stats.

that seems arbitrary?

what is the thought process?

The thought process is that players who are doing an above-average job at their position will have above-average stats at their position. In some stat, at least. Performance is measurable. Performance at the QB position is more measurable than most. So, the year before Bradford got there, the passing offense was ranked #28. In 2010 it was ranked #21, in 2011 #30, in 2012 #18. So far this season it's #16. So in four years he has yet to get the passing offense above the median NFL passing offense. Meanwhile, between 2009 and 2010 the defense went from #31 to #12, and then was #26 and #14. As far as I can tell Bradford doesn't play defense.

So, what evidence do you have that Bradford is better than mediocre at QB?

Link to post
Share on other sites

how about another one...

terse mode...

you are OC.

austin is your WR (if you say i wouldn't have drafted him you get fired).

one yard pattern and squat.

a lot.

good idea?

* both 33 word screeds (not including this), hopefully that doesn't put you out too much.

This thread is about Bradford, not about the Rams OC.

But:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d822f6989/Jackson-TD-catch

Good players make plays. Good QBs are more effective at screen passes because they spread the defense out more and put the ball in a more useful place for the receiver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this year, he is projecting through five games for 4,000+ yards and 32 TDs...

i think 32 TDs might make top 10?

right now, he is tied for fifth in NFL...

behind superhuman manning (20), and everybody else... rivers and romo tied second (13), brees fourth (12), than cutler, ryan and bradford (10)... not a lot of shlubs in that group...

ahead of rodgers (only four games, doesn't count), brady, stafford, luck, wilson, kaepernick, eli, newton...

is tied fifth good? but i'm sure there will be a reason to dismiss it, maybe on basis of only being five games, three TDs were against JAX, etc... after all, he just ISN'T good, because you say so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how about another one...

terse mode...

you are OC.

austin is your WR (if you say i wouldn't have drafted him you get fired).

one yard pattern and squat.

a lot.

good idea?

* both 33 word screeds (not including this), hopefully that doesn't put you out too much.

This thread is about Bradford, not about the Rams OC.

But:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d822f6989/Jackson-TD-catch

Good players make plays. Good QBs are more effective at screen passes because they spread the defense out more and put the ball in a more useful place for the receiver.

i can appreciate how you don't want to consider how the OC could be holding bradford back, because that might blunt the axe that you are grinding that he is bad, just because he is, because you say so.

if PHI threw that same play over and over and over, do you think the defense might detect a pattern and sniff that out after a few times? maybe jackson wouldn't be as successful?

is it possible PHI mixed up and ran some longer routes, to make it tougher on defense to act on tendencies, and that may have enabled the success of THIS play?

but i must be wrong, and you must be right, because players make plays...

this exchange has convinced me you don't know what you are talking about, in terms of austin's use.

no shame in not having seen rams play much, not many people watch every game... but there is no way you could have watched them (other than maybe thur night game) and continue to be schotty apologist (in sense that he isn't problem - players make plays)...

one play by jackson doesn't exonerate schotty for inexcuseable, unimaginative play calling.

* what WR has been used as stupidly as austin this year, and had success?

it can't be jackson, because his use has not at all been like austin...

that could be a rhetorical question... obviously if you are not familiar with how austin is used, that precludes an intelligible response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll remind you with as few words as possible...

you said it is silly to attribute team improvement if bradford didn't have top 10 stats.

that seems arbitrary?

what is the thought process?

The thought process is that players who are doing an above-average job at their position will have above-average stats at their position. In some stat, at least. Performance is measurable. Performance at the QB position is more measurable than most. So, the year before Bradford got there, the passing offense was ranked #28. In 2010 it was ranked #21, in 2011 #30, in 2012 #18. So far this season it's #16. So in four years he has yet to get the passing offense above the median NFL passing offense. Meanwhile, between 2009 and 2010 the defense went from #31 to #12, and then was #26 and #14. As far as I can tell Bradford doesn't play defense.

So, what evidence do you have that Bradford is better than mediocre at QB?

performance is measurable...

but not all performances and measurables are created equal...

for instance, rams/bradford fun fact...

"In his first three NFL seasons Bradford had 17 starters on the offensive line and 12 starters at wide receiver; 11 of the 17 O-linemen and 6 of the 12 wideouts are no longer in the NFL."

that doesn't look conducive to long term success to me... :)

call that evidence that he hasn't been ideally positioned for success...

but you have the players make plays mantra, so maybe you could point out my error...

there must have been LOTS of highly successful QBs that have overcome this kind of turnover in first three years, right?

i'm sure you can reel a bunch of them right off the top of your head...

* and even your above attempt doesn't address the issue of why it is "silly" to think bradford couldn't possibly have contributed to elevating the team from one and two wins in 2010 and 2012, respectively, to seven both seasons, unless he has top 10 stats, or how that isn't arbitrary...

was the platitude about better than average leading to better than average supposed to confuse me with a feint or deflection, and forget that you were asked something specific... :)

and in fairness, that wasn't a 800 word screed (just 33)...

so even in an EXTREMELY narrow, delimited and non-meandering attempt to get a clarification...

more of the same disappointing obfuscation and switchy changey tactics...

Link to post
Share on other sites

i do like kaepernick better than smith...

but if we were to just go by the stats,

KC below average passing attack was offered as proof that smith is mediocre...

they are at 240.4 YPG...

SF is second to last at 193.8 YPG...

so in the interest of being consistent, doesn't that make kaepernick mediocre to bad by your definition this year?

you could say kaepernick misses crabtree, but may not want to go there, with all the WR injuries bradford has suffered since coming into league (see stat above)...

if it is an excuse for bradford, it is an excuse for kaepernick...

and besides, players make plays... good QBs always overcome any circumstances, or by definition they aren't good QBs...

you didn't want to discuss OCs above and dismissed as irrelevant... but have you considered that if SF runs a lot, that may leave less passing plays, which will tend to depress passing numbers... if that is the case, and SF continues to have low passing numbers relative to other teams, does that by definition make kaepernick mediocre to bad... or is it the case sometimes that coaches and playcalling do have an impact on a players numbers, and conclusions about how good or bad a player is with complete disregard for coaching could be misguided?

Link to post
Share on other sites

His upside is limited by an offensive coordinator who might be better than Tony Sparano. MIGHT. Schottenheimer is that bad. If his name were Smith he'd be OC at a Division 3 school.

Yes it's a catch-22 in that he won't take a next step as long as a bad OC is at the helm, but changing OCs will sent the whole offense back to square one; if the team goes to 3-7 at the bye, consider ditching Schottenheimer and bringing in a trained circus dog to run the offense. May be more creative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how about another one...

terse mode...

you are OC.

austin is your WR (if you say i wouldn't have drafted him you get fired).

one yard pattern and squat.

a lot.

good idea?

* both 33 word screeds (not including this), hopefully that doesn't put you out too much.

This thread is about Bradford, not about the Rams OC.

But:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d822f6989/Jackson-TD-catch

Good players make plays. Good QBs are more effective at screen passes because they spread the defense out more and put the ball in a more useful place for the receiver.

i can appreciate how you don't want to consider how the OC could be holding bradford back, because that might blunt the axe that you are grinding that he is bad, just because he is, because you say so.

if PHI threw that same play over and over and over, do you think the defense might detect a pattern and sniff that out after a few times? maybe jackson wouldn't be as successful?

is it possible PHI mixed up and ran some longer routes, to make it tougher on defense to act on tendencies, and that may have enabled the success of THIS play?

but i must be wrong, and you must be right, because players make plays...

this exchange has convinced me you don't know what you are talking about, in terms of austin's use.

no shame in not having seen rams play much, not many people watch every game... but there is no way you could have watched them (other than maybe thur night game) and continue to be schotty apologist (in sense that he isn't problem - players make plays)...

one play by jackson doesn't exonerate schotty for inexcuseable, unimaginative play calling.

* what WR has been used as stupidly as austin this year, and had success?

it can't be jackson, because his use has not at all been like austin...

that could be a rhetorical question... obviously if you are not familiar with how austin is used, that precludes an intelligible response.

I don't have an axe to grind about Bradford. I don't care about him, or the Rams, or any of their rivals. I don't own him on any fantasy teams. I just see a QB that, up until now, has been mediocre at best, and I see fanboys making lots of excuses for him, and I think that is, yes, silly. Maybe he won't wind up mediocre but he's shown little reason for optimism at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bradford is tied fifth in TDs, a fact you have avoided, because it doesn't fit into the procrustean bed you have made.

citing that Bradford had 17 different starting OL (2/3 now out of the league) and 12 different starting WR (1/2 now out of the league) in first three years is not an excuse, but it doesn't show up in the performance metrics you are so fond of quoting... again, waiting patiently for you to come up with the litany of great QBs that surmounted this kind of challenge early in their career... maybe because there so many, it is taking you longer to compile the voluminous list... :)

you have demonstrated repeatedly you don't have the foggiest notion how Austin has been used... the feeble one play highlight and vapid "players make plays" slogan not only didn't trick anybody into thinking Jackson is used identically, but merely offered further proof you don't know what you are talking about. Jackson* is one of the top deep threats in the league, the complete opposite of how Austin has been used...

others are fanboys, yet you make nonsensical, baseless, subjective, biased claims that QBs out of top 10 statistically can't possibly contribute to improving a team's record... given multiple chances to clarify this, you repeatedly obfuscated and changed subject, as if that would magically make the thread forget you had said something silly.

if you have a strong case, why all the straw man arguments, putting words in people's mouth, deflection, misdirection, changing subjects...

* several clips from week one, one minute mark most representative of how jackson is actually used, and why he was a horrific choice for player that is used like austin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OJZhrgrbcQ

Link to post
Share on other sites

this year, he is projecting through five games for 4,000+ yards and 32 TDs...

i think 32 TDs might make top 10?

right now, he is tied for fifth in NFL...

behind superhuman manning (20), and everybody else... rivers and romo tied second (13), brees fourth (12), than cutler, ryan and bradford (10)... not a lot of shlubs in that group...

ahead of rodgers (only four games, doesn't count), brady, stafford, luck, wilson, kaepernick, eli, newton...

is tied fifth good? but i'm sure there will be a reason to dismiss it, maybe on basis of only being five games, three TDs were against JAX, etc... after all, he just ISN'T good, because you say so.

The pace of 32 TDs vs. 10 INTs he's on this season is pretty impressive.

However, he's still passing at a below 60% completion rate (58.3; which matches his career average) and his YPA is 6.1; tied for the lowest of his career. Last year, he finally made a little way in the YPA category (6.7), but even that is barely starter worthy.

Here's another fun fact. His 216 attempts through 5 games puts him on pace for 691 on the season; that would be the 2nd most ever. His current 1315 yards put him on pace for 4208 on the season' that would be 67th all-time.

Through four years, his numbers stack up pretty well to Eli Manning's first 4. It took Eli until year 6 to really break out and improve on all his numbers across the board. There's a chance it could happen, but I don't know how many more seasons you wait until you decide he's Byron Leftwich and isn't going to "break out" at 28-29.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's gonna get destroyed this week..

schaub has really been on fire the past four games...

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's gonna get destroyed this week..

schaub has really been on fire the past four games...

Schaub doesn't play defense last I checked. Also, Houston has played Seattle and San Francisco the last 2 weeks. Playing the Rams at home will be just what the doctor ordered for Schaub and the entire team. Bradford will get destroyed. 5 sacks, couple INT's, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this year, he is projecting through five games for 4,000+ yards and 32 TDs...

i think 32 TDs might make top 10?

right now, he is tied for fifth in NFL...

behind superhuman manning (20), and everybody else... rivers and romo tied second (13), brees fourth (12), than cutler, ryan and bradford (10)... not a lot of shlubs in that group...

ahead of rodgers (only four games, doesn't count), brady, stafford, luck, wilson, kaepernick, eli, newton...

is tied fifth good? but i'm sure there will be a reason to dismiss it, maybe on basis of only being five games, three TDs were against JAX, etc... after all, he just ISN'T good, because you say so.

The pace of 32 TDs vs. 10 INTs he's on this season is pretty impressive.

However, he's still passing at a below 60% completion rate (58.3; which matches his career average) and his YPA is 6.1; tied for the lowest of his career. Last year, he finally made a little way in the YPA category (6.7), but even that is barely starter worthy.

Here's another fun fact. His 216 attempts through 5 games puts him on pace for 691 on the season; that would be the 2nd most ever. His current 1315 yards put him on pace for 4208 on the season' that would be 67th all-time.

Through four years, his numbers stack up pretty well to Eli Manning's first 4. It took Eli until year 6 to really break out and improve on all his numbers across the board. There's a chance it could happen, but I don't know how many more seasons you wait until you decide he's Byron Leftwich and isn't going to "break out" at 28-29.

outstanding post, LAJ, i appreciate the work and thought that went into it...

does the following... "17 different starting OL (2/3 now out of the league) and 12 different starting WR (1/2 now out of the league) in first three years" trouble you at all... in other words, does that sound more like, as calbear would have it, a "fanboy excuse", or a potential mitigating circumstance? ino, timing and chemistry at these positions are so vital, and he wasn't afforded that opportunity for large swaths of his first three seasons...

just spitballing (being serious here, not mocking, i respect the tenor of your response, it gives some excellent material to further the debate and hopefully throw the different sides in sharper relief), but perhaps all the lack of cohesion and turnover at key positions for QB of WR and OL (see above) due to poor drafting, lack of talent, injuries, poor roster management, depth acquisition, etc., may have contributed specifically to two key statistical categories... if he is running for his life a lot, that may make longer, slower developing patterns less feasible, and a situation where he gets the ball out of his hands more quickly, and therefore closer to LOS... also, needless to say, being overrun by pass rush is no doubt sub-optimal for accuracy... and the bad drafting, injuries, turnover churning and lack of talent at WR could have led to higher than average rate of drops...

i think it is possible that his OLs have been so appallingly bad (another fanboy excuse as calbear would have it, like he would know with SF having best OL in league :) ), bradford has become conditioned or "trained" to get the ball out in a hurry with the thought that it is better than taking a sack? if so, this may be a hard habit to break, if and when they ever get OL stabilized, and if OC hypothetically learns how to use receiving weapons like austin, givens and cook...

to elaborate on this by quoting you... "Here's another fun fact. His 216 attempts through 5 games puts him on pace for 691 on the season; that would be the 2nd most ever. His current 1315 yards put him on pace for 4208 on the season' that would be 67th all-time." i couldn't possibly think of a more apt illustration of what MANY, MANY rams observers and commentators (like local journalist, the generally fair and balanced but not afraid to be tough and outspoken bernie miklasz ((calbear is dead wrong if he thinks miklasz, in citing incompetent offensive design and play calling execution is resorting to excuse mongering and being a "fanboy"))) have been saying about schotty's mismanagement of his resources... it makes zero sense to trade up for electric, explosive open field weapon, and repeatedly run the one yard and squat pattern.

on the fair and excellent low completion percentage point, imo it might be educational and instructive to try and line up the excessive number of drops it seems like the rams receivers (and cook) have been plagued by... if STL had a more typical (ie - league average) drop rate, would that push bradford's completion percentage into a higher and more acceptable number?

i like the eli comparison... i agree at some point the rams can't and shouldn't wait indefinitely for bradford... it might also be instructive if a giants homer could jump in and corroborate if their were similarities in his first THREE years - massive OL and WR churning and turnover due to injuries, bad drafting, poor talent, incompetent roster management and depth acquisition, etc. IF, and you may be right, manning is one of the more accurate comps in some statistical respects?

* interesting Q & A, a bit before one minute mark, fisher acknowledges they recognize austin has most receptions but lowest YPC average, and they intend to get him involved more vertically...

http://www.rams-news.com/jeff-fisher-on-tavon-austins-increased-role-stacy-video/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bradford is tied fifth in TDs, a fact you have avoided, because it doesn't fit into the procrustean bed you have made.

citing that Bradford had 17 different starting OL (2/3 now out of the league) and 12 different starting WR (1/2 now out of the league) is not an excuse, but it doesn't show up in the performance metrics you are so fond of quoting... again, waiting patiently for you to come up with the litany of great QBs that surmounted this kind of challenge early in their career... maybe because there so many, it is taking you longer to compile the voluminous list... :)

you have demonstrated repeatedly you don't have the foggiest notion how Austin has been used... the feeble one play highlight and vapid "players make plays" slogan not only didn't trick anybody into thinking Jackson is used identically, but merely offered further proof you don't know what you are talking about. Jackson* is one of the top deep threats in the league, the complete opposite of how Austin has been used...

others are fanboys, yet you make nonsensical, baseless, subjective, biased claims that QBs out of top 10 statistically can't possibly contribute to improving a team's record... given multiple chances to clarify this, you repeatedly obfuscated and changed subject, as if that would magically make the thread forget you had said something silly.

if you have a strong case, why all the straw man arguments, putting words in people's mouth, deflection, misdirection, changing subjects...

* several clips from week one, one minute mark most representative of how jackson is actually used, and why he was a horrific choice for player that is used like austin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OJZhrgrbcQ

OK, let me accept for the sake of argument that it's possible for a QB to contribute to his team's improvement without performing well relative to his peers. Could you provide some evidence that Bradford has indeed done so? Arguing that Bradford might possibly be better if a rookie smurf wide receiver were used differently is not an argument about what Bradford has done.

And, OK, Bradford has thrown for 10 TDs in 5 games this year, which is decent, not great, and on a small sample size. Three of those TDs were against one of the worst teams in NFL history, and five of them were in St. Louis losses. So, OK, he threw two TDs against Arizona which contributed to a win. Goody for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's gonna get destroyed this week..

schaub has really been on fire the past four games...

Schaub doesn't play defense last I checked. Also, Houston has played Seattle and San Francisco the last 2 weeks. Playing the Rams at home will be just what the doctor ordered for Schaub and the entire team. Bradford will get destroyed. 5 sacks, couple INT's, etc.

but it probably didn't escape your attention that it makes it a lot easier on opposing offenses when your QB has epic case of yips, is spraying the ball all over the field and losing turnover battle, and worse, handing defense points on a silver platter (who has the record for consecutive weeks with pick six at four - oh yeah, that would be schaub)... do you disagree?

as to playing the meanie opponent card :), STL and HOU have at least one common opponent... SF. did HOU do demonstrably better in terms of final scores (look it up)? why did HOU get in an insurmountable hole. schaub.

rams two bad losses were against SF and DAL... the cowboys aren't exactly dog meat, they were a late INT and gimme FG away (in 99 combined points score) from extending into OT manning and broncos, by far the greatest offense in NFL history statistically through five weeks...

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it is possible that his OLs have been so appallingly bad (another fanboy excuse as calbear would have it, like he would know with SF having best OL in league :) ), bradford has become conditioned or "trained" to get the ball out in a hurry with the thought that it is better than taking a sack? if so, this may be a hard habit to break, if and when they ever get OL stabilized, and if OC hypothetically learns how to use receiving weapons like austin, givens and cook...

I'm not a Niner fan, I just hear a lot about them because I live here.

The Niners line used to be terrible, and Alex Smith was terrible. Then the line became really good, and Alex Smith rose to mediocrity and got fired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this year, he is projecting through five games for 4,000+ yards and 32 TDs...

i think 32 TDs might make top 10?

right now, he is tied for fifth in NFL...

behind superhuman manning (20), and everybody else... rivers and romo tied second (13), brees fourth (12), than cutler, ryan and bradford (10)... not a lot of shlubs in that group...

ahead of rodgers (only four games, doesn't count), brady, stafford, luck, wilson, kaepernick, eli, newton...

is tied fifth good? but i'm sure there will be a reason to dismiss it, maybe on basis of only being five games, three TDs were against JAX, etc... after all, he just ISN'T good, because you say so.

The pace of 32 TDs vs. 10 INTs he's on this season is pretty impressive.

However, he's still passing at a below 60% completion rate (58.3; which matches his career average) and his YPA is 6.1; tied for the lowest of his career. Last year, he finally made a little way in the YPA category (6.7), but even that is barely starter worthy.

Here's another fun fact. His 216 attempts through 5 games puts him on pace for 691 on the season; that would be the 2nd most ever. His current 1315 yards put him on pace for 4208 on the season' that would be 67th all-time.

Through four years, his numbers stack up pretty well to Eli Manning's first 4. It took Eli until year 6 to really break out and improve on all his numbers across the board. There's a chance it could happen, but I don't know how many more seasons you wait until you decide he's Byron Leftwich and isn't going to "break out" at 28-29.

He's had something like 31 drops by WR's so far this year. That is on pace to shatter the record for dropped balls in a season. I would argue that if his WR's had decent hands, then we might have higher everything. His yards, high TD's and low picks seem to be inspite of the crappy hands of his WR's but the haters seem to take the opposite track that everything good that the Rams do is inspite of Bradford... He can only put the ball in places where the WR's can catch it. It's pretty hard for him to catch the ball for them....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bradford is tied fifth in TDs, a fact you have avoided, because it doesn't fit into the procrustean bed you have made.

citing that Bradford had 17 different starting OL (2/3 now out of the league) and 12 different starting WR (1/2 now out of the league) is not an excuse, but it doesn't show up in the performance metrics you are so fond of quoting... again, waiting patiently for you to come up with the litany of great QBs that surmounted this kind of challenge early in their career... maybe because there so many, it is taking you longer to compile the voluminous list... :)

you have demonstrated repeatedly you don't have the foggiest notion how Austin has been used... the feeble one play highlight and vapid "players make plays" slogan not only didn't trick anybody into thinking Jackson is used identically, but merely offered further proof you don't know what you are talking about. Jackson* is one of the top deep threats in the league, the complete opposite of how Austin has been used...

others are fanboys, yet you make nonsensical, baseless, subjective, biased claims that QBs out of top 10 statistically can't possibly contribute to improving a team's record... given multiple chances to clarify this, you repeatedly obfuscated and changed subject, as if that would magically make the thread forget you had said something silly.

if you have a strong case, why all the straw man arguments, putting words in people's mouth, deflection, misdirection, changing subjects...

* several clips from week one, one minute mark most representative of how jackson is actually used, and why he was a horrific choice for player that is used like austin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OJZhrgrbcQ

OK, let me accept for the sake of argument that it's possible for a QB to contribute to his team's improvement without performing well relative to his peers. Could you provide some evidence that Bradford has indeed done so? Arguing that Bradford might possibly be better if a rookie smurf wide receiver were used differently is not an argument about what Bradford has done.

And, OK, Bradford has thrown for 10 TDs in 5 games this year, which is decent, not great, and on a small sample size. Three of those TDs were against one of the worst teams in NFL history, and five of them were in St. Louis losses. So, OK, he threw two TDs against Arizona which contributed to a win. Goody for him.

i did... you arbitrarily dismissed them...

going from 1 to 7 wins as rookie (how many times has that happened, prior to last year?) and 2 to 7 wins in third year, which as pointed out elsewhere, were in year one of different rebuilds...

probably best to not bring up austin, you have already proven you know nothing about his use with the silly desean "calbear fanboy" jackson, players make plays reference.

tied fifth in TDs is "decent"? there are 32 teams...

at what point would you begrudgingly admit that maybe in one staistical category, he was more than decent... if he passes manning?

TDs are dismissed unless they come against good teams and in wins... that would make for complicated tracking on the QB passing TD leader board... it would have to be split off several ways...

but at least i can say you are consistent... since any talk of rams promlems on OL, WR, RB, defense and coaching are by definition fanboy excuses (because you say so), they COULDN'T have possibly contributed in some way to the losses... it must have been bradford's fault, because he is a bad QB (because you say so), therefore the INTs he threw in defeat are beneath contempt... and the loop of circularly negative logic is closed, and tied off with a neat little bow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

for the record, i didn't take LAJ to be a "hater"...

hopefully fanatic was referring to others (there are some seemingly, but he isn't one of him)...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like his TD:INT ratio but his 58.3% completions and 6.2 career YPA do not inspire confidence. In fact that YPA number is a big red flag IMO. You need a higher YPA to sustain success in the NFL. More than the team around him the YPA number IMO has to do with the mentality of the QB and I don't think Bradford has demonstrated that killer downfield confidence. Also I am not sure it is something that you can learn. His career looks closer and closer to the Tim Couch, Mark Sanchez, Joey Harrington arc than anything else right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this year, he is projecting through five games for 4,000+ yards and 32 TDs...

i think 32 TDs might make top 10?

right now, he is tied for fifth in NFL...

behind superhuman manning (20), and everybody else... rivers and romo tied second (13), brees fourth (12), than cutler, ryan and bradford (10)... not a lot of shlubs in that group...

ahead of rodgers (only four games, doesn't count), brady, stafford, luck, wilson, kaepernick, eli, newton...

is tied fifth good? but i'm sure there will be a reason to dismiss it, maybe on basis of only being five games, three TDs were against JAX, etc... after all, he just ISN'T good, because you say so.

The pace of 32 TDs vs. 10 INTs he's on this season is pretty impressive.

However, he's still passing at a below 60% completion rate (58.3; which matches his career average) and his YPA is 6.1; tied for the lowest of his career. Last year, he finally made a little way in the YPA category (6.7), but even that is barely starter worthy.

Here's another fun fact. His 216 attempts through 5 games puts him on pace for 691 on the season; that would be the 2nd most ever. His current 1315 yards put him on pace for 4208 on the season' that would be 67th all-time.

Through four years, his numbers stack up pretty well to Eli Manning's first 4. It took Eli until year 6 to really break out and improve on all his numbers across the board. There's a chance it could happen, but I don't know how many more seasons you wait until you decide he's Byron Leftwich and isn't going to "break out" at 28-29.

He's had something like 31 drops by WR's so far this year. That is on pace to shatter the record for dropped balls in a season. I would argue that if his WR's had decent hands, then we might have higher everything. His yards, high TD's and low picks seem to be inspite of the crappy hands of his WR's but the haters seem to take the opposite track that everything good that the Rams do is inspite of Bradford... He can only put the ball in places where the WR's can catch it. It's pretty hard for him to catch the ball for them....

I don't dislike Bradford, but my problem is that in today's NFL, a completion % below 60% and a YPA in the low 6's is going to put you in the bottom tier of QBs in the league, and most likely not lead to many victories. There is an article out there; can't remember where it was, but it was a study showing a much higher correlation between QB comp % and YPA vs. TDs/INTs over a long period of time. The jist of it came down to comp % and YPA are indicitaive to a greater team's time of possession and ability for a QB to get his team in scoring position and be far more succesful in the overall game of field position.

The drops stat you threw out there may be fine for this year, but he has consistently put up bad completion % and YPA numbers. As a rookie, he posted 60%/5.95; this year he's at 58.3%/6.09. Those numbers are okay for a rookie; and are often seen by some rookies that turn out to be studs (P. Manning, Brees...). However, by their 3rd-5th seasons most of those guys have progressed greatly. The ones that don't are the ones that usually turn out to be busts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it is possible that his OLs have been so appallingly bad (another fanboy excuse as calbear would have it, like he would know with SF having best OL in league :) ), bradford has become conditioned or "trained" to get the ball out in a hurry with the thought that it is better than taking a sack? if so, this may be a hard habit to break, if and when they ever get OL stabilized, and if OC hypothetically learns how to use receiving weapons like austin, givens and cook...

I'm not a Niner fan, I just hear a lot about them because I live here.

The Niners line used to be terrible, and Alex Smith was terrible. Then the line became really good, and Alex Smith rose to mediocrity and got fired.

so if alex smith has a good record (in 2011-2013), it was in spite of him, because he has bad numbers...

you don't want to discuss OCs, which is understandable, because that would lead to the uncomfortable admission that the fact that the scheme, coaching and playcalling to run the ball more than all but a handful of teams has a corollary, less pplays for passes and passing stat padding...

you use as evidence that smith is mediocre is KC is around 20th (?) in some passing stats... yet no word about what this means for kaepernick, when SF is 31st in passing... you are obviously a by the numbers guy, passing stats don't lie, so in 2013, he must be worse than mediocre?

you can't really cite crabtree's absence, because when it was pointed out the churning and turnover at WR bradford had to deal with, that was scorned and sneered at as a "fanboy excuse"... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like his TD:INT ratio but his 58.3% completions and 6.2 career YPA do not inspire confidence. In fact that YPA number is a big red flag IMO. You need a higher YPA to sustain success in the NFL. More than the team around him the YPA number IMO has to do with the mentality of the QB and I don't think Bradford has demonstrated that killer downfield confidence. Also I am not sure it is something that you can learn. His career looks closer and closer to the Tim Couch, Mark Sanchez, Joey Harrington arc than anything else right now.

lets focus on this year (since i'm pretty sure he had a lot of drops last year, too, don't recall first two seasons, but that would imo be a reasonable guess)... does the stat that he is dealing with massive numbers of drops years bear on this?

would he have higher completion percentage, more yards, possibly TDs, if the WRs were catching more and dropping less?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...