Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
"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...
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.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.
got it, think i understand now...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.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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Sort of. He missed 3 games, left two games early and played most of the year on a broken foot.
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.
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.
again, in cases where players aren't out of the league, they are with other teams, like bradley fletcher...
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?
thanks, likewise, MoP...they did make some good picks in first...
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.
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.
This thread is about Bradford, not about the Rams OC.
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?
performance is measurable...
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.
The pace of 32 TDs vs. 10 INTs he's on this season is pretty impressive.Bob Magaw said:
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.
outstanding post, LAJ, i appreciate the work and thought that went into it...
), 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...
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.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
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?
, 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.
I'm not a Niner fan, I just hear a lot about them because I live here.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
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 did... you arbitrarily dismissed them...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.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
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 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.
so if alex smith has a good record (in 2011-2013), it was in spite of him, because he has bad numbers...I'm not a Niner fan, I just hear a lot about them because I live here.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
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.
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?
