sam bradford

all i was trying to say is that we use the number 10 because it is a nice round number, not because it is accurate. That is around where the top of the draft class is. Where the cutoff line of the top of the draft has a small amount of variance from draft to draft and person to person, and there is no true cutoff...which is why i gave the estimated range of top vs middle vs bottom that is subject to opinion.

P.s I'm still in college, but my family is made of lawyers.

I was just having fun with you, but I'd pretty much think top talent extends through the 2nd round and maybe into the 3rd round depending on positions.

This article is obviously a little dated now, but it could be a good starting off point for this discussion

From Peyton Manning to Jake Delhomme, ESPN's John Clayton ranks the NFL's starting QBs - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview10/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=5489176)


I know it is dated but they have McNabb at 9 and Bradford at 30 and Schaub at 14; even at the time of the printing Schaub is better then DM5.

DM5 in my book is done, I totally see him as a stop gap at this point and not the guy to get us to the playoffs anymore. He has just been plain awful and honestly at this point I wish we had kept JC and looked for someone in this draft. Seriously though if bringing in DM5 only gained us one more win over 2009 I rather have those draft picks back and had watched JC17/8 play like a bum this year.

But I know water under the bridge at this point.

I think McNabb can still get it done, he needs to get better in this offense but he can still play.

Roger saffold is a rookie 2nd round pick
And he's a key member of a good OL.
Stephen Jackson is having a terrible year...the rams rushing attack averages 3.8 yards per rush, and has 7 total tds.
Are you trying to say that Stephen Jackson isn't a good RB?
Who is pat shurmur? I googled him and on the first page there is a movement to get him fired.
You don't know who he is but you're ready to claim he's not good b/c its suits you're point? Wow that's good logic.
Lets not get carried away on colt mccoy...he had 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards per game.
By the same token lets not get carried away w/ Bradord when McCoy is also having success w/ a higher QB rating (against tougher competition).

Anything can happen and it usually does.
For those of you that claim to know everything and have called McNabb over and done have every right to say whatever you want. No matter how stupid or inflexible you sound.
Just a few years ago Mike Vick was sitting in a jail cell and even as late as last year people were saying he was done. The so called experts were saying Vick had missed too much time, was too old to come back and even approach his old (Falcon's days) level of play. Well look at how well Mike Vick is doing in 2010!

By contrast today's favorite bandwagon that every front runner is jumping on (Sam Bradford) is one play or injury or playing slump from being yesterdays news. The guy does have a history of missing a lot time due to injuries. He is talented and should do well, but lets not get ahead of our selves and label him a franchise qb just yet.
It is very premature for a guy that has not played an entire season to be mixed in with the elite QB's of all time.

IMO, this is how the franchise QB landscape shapes up. (order doesn't matter)

Only the sure ones are included

NFC East
Vick, and that's it

NFC North
Cutler
Rodgers

NFC West
Bradford

NFC South
Brees
Freeman
Ryan

AFC East
Brady

AFC North
Rapistberger
Flacco

AFC West
Rivers

AFC South
Manning

12/32(or 37.5%), and I did not count guys like Eli, Romo, McNabb, Stafford, Sanchez, Cassel, or Schaub.


I know you Love Cutler but I honestly say Kyle Orton is a better QB, the guy is by far the most underrated QB in football. Denver got the better end of that deal.

And he's a key member of a good OL.

Are you trying to say that Stephen Jackson isn't a good RB?

You don't know who he is but you're ready to claim he's not good b/c its suits you're point? Wow that's good logic.

By the same token lets not get carried away w/ Bradord when McCoy is also having success w/ a higher QB rating (against tougher competition).

Not sure how key of a member Saffold is, and I'm not sure how good the O-line is. Lets get real, zero of us watch the rams games enough to know how good saffold is doing. I know I will get jumped on for saying this, but I do think it is reasonable to say he is not ideal just based on the fact that he is a rookie second rounder.

Yes, I am saying that Steven Jackson is not doing well, which is not helping bradford at all. And the other RB's are doing even worse.

I'm not saying that the oc is bad because I do not know if he is. I'm just saying that the fact that rams fans are calling for his job is indicative that he is clearly not the shining star that would cause bradfords success.

Lets get real, nobody in their right mind thinks McCoy is even close to Bradford. Bradford is carrying his team and putting up respectable numbers with nobody. I really don't care what McCoy's passer rating is when he has a 1:1 td to int ratio, 3 tds in 5 starts, and averages under 200 yards a game. Also, McCoy greatly benefits from Hillis in the same way that Ryan and Flacco benefited from their rushing attacks back in 2008. Before you jump to conclusions, I am not saying McCoy is bad, but IMO he has not impressed yet, and is not even comparable to bradford.

Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.

Honestly, people around here are so worried about getting a franchise QB that they forget how successful the franchise was with different QBs in the 80's. If I had my choice, I would rather have a solid built team in trenches, a solid defense, a workhorse RB, decent receivers rather than one good QB with a bad supporting cast. That's just me though. But, that's why our team was so good in the 80's, it had depth. If a starter went out, the back up could come in and lead the team.

While teams like St. Louis are enjoying improvement because of Bradford, they are also taking a gamble with him. If the gamble holds out long enough for St. Louis to build a good supporting cast around him, then they're great. However, if Bradford goes down with injury, this could be failure for the franchise. Look how much the Colts drop off if Manning isn't in there. Nine times out of ten, I would much rather go with an overall solid team rather than an iffy team that is made great by one player.

Dating back to the beginning of my life (1989...21 years ago), the only 3 teams that have won a superbowl without a franchise qb are the ravens (dilfer), bucs (johnson...who was a pro bowler), and redskins (Rypien....was a pro bowler). The bucs and the ravens had two of the best defenses of all time also.
The QB's that won the other 18 superbowls

Favre
Aikman
Young
Montana
Simms
Brady
P. Manning
Warner
E. Manning
Brees
Roethlesberger
Elway

All of them are either going to be in the HOF or got a contract that deemed them the "franchise" qb.

I dont get how you can include Vick, Cutler, Bradford (after not even 1 year), and Freeman (even though im personally as high on him as i am Ryan) and not include Cassel and Schaub. Although, like i think Matty72 said i think there needs to be a agreed upon defition of franchise qb....
Cassel, imo, can play great when there's talent around him, but not so great without said assistance.
Schuab, I think is prone to having dud games against great pass rushes and obviously benefits a lot from Andre Johnson. Neither would be in my top choices for a franchise trying to find its way.

Don't get me wrong, they're definitely good ones, and if the franchise QB definition was more lax, they'd be franchise qbs without debate under that kind of definition.

Cutler, I admit am a little biased towards his playmaking ability. But he does have a really shitty o-line that even P. Manning would have trouble with. Chicago's offense could be a lot worse if say, Jason Campbell was their QB.

Vick and Bradford, although they haven't not for a long time, have played really well given their respective circumstances.

Vick was tough to defend when he was just relying on his athleticism. He's now shown that he can be a pretty good damn good passer too and is now almost impossible to consistently defend. Take away Jackson, Maclin, and McCoy, and he'd still be pretty damn good.

Bradford beat a vet QB who knew the offense in the preseason, and has definitely not be "coddled" like Flacco or Sanchez. The dude has had plenty of games with 30 throws, which shows plenty of confidence in his ability even though they could be riding Steven Jackson instead. And he's shown some great poise and savvy.