sam bradford

How can argue with this logic when you flat out dismiss one of the main metric used to judge QB performance?

Its just what I value when evaluating qb's. I've noticed that as a trend, the quarterbacks that throw the most td passes year in and year out have a tendency to be the best....same with rookie qb's and projecting them. Not always right, but its what I've found to be the most accurate measurement of rookie qbs.

Stephen Jackson actually gives Bradford more yards per game then Hillis does for the Browns: 83.2 ypg vs 82.3 ypg
NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2010&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1)

Actually the browns get more yards per game than the rams. But they are close enough that it is irrelivant. What I find to be most relivant for a featured back is YPC and TDs. The fact that Jackson has significantly worse ypc, but the same yards means that the rams (bradford) completes more 3rd down conversions than the browns.

Of course you're not impressed by McCoy (for one you've probably never watched him play) b/c in your mind it would probably take away from Bradford's performance.
But, if you were to take an honest look at McCoy's 1st starts even statistically w/o watching the games you can see he's gone up against against some pretty good defenses like the Steelers and Jets defense that gives established NFL QBs fits he's played well.

Thanks bud, your a pal. Anyways, I view McCoy as a lesser roethlesberger. Someone who is not a conventional qb, but finds a way to win. His numbers do suck though, and he has not done enough to convince me beyond doubt that he has what it takes to lead a winning ballclub. I haven't written McCoy off yet, but he still hasn't done enough to prove anything to me.

Bradford is the real deal, and I thought he would end up like Leinart. He would have gotten pounded here though with this line. Look at Donovan. Statistically, he isn't that bad, but considering he doesn'thave a line to give him any kind of support, you could imagine a rook behind this line.

Bradford does a good job at getting the ball out quick, he would probably be fine behind our OL.

Can I be the first to point out that Bradford is having a pretty poor season? If you limit your quarterbacks to all rookies, then by virtue of not being a disaster, Bradford has exceeded expectations. But we've seen Joe Flacco, Ben Roethlisberger, and Matt Ryan have better rookie years in recent times. His season looks a lot like Vince Young's rookie year, but without the long, dynamic runs.

Granted: he may have the worst supporting cast of any of those guys, and whether or not the Rams make the playoffs this year, it looks like the sky is the limit for Sam Bradford. But as a rookie, he's been a moderately below average NFL QB. It was better than Freeman, Sanchez, and Stafford from last year, but you only have to go back another year to find two rookie QBs having more success than Bradford.

The ability of Bradford to win in the future is tied more to the Rams' ability to add talent to his offense so that they can win with offense rather than Bradford himself.


Thank you. Always nice to read something that comes from rational thought and not glandular secretions.

Sam Bradford is a good rookie QB with loads of potential to become an outstanding QB in the NFL.

However, you can go back in the threads for the Warpath and find LOTS of folks here who were certain that Patrick Ramsey would be a great QB in the NFL because his rookie stats and his second season stats were better than those of Brett Favre and Peyton Manning - - just to name two "pretty good QBs" who had bad rookie seasons.

Before anyone incorrectly concludes that I believe Sam Bradford is destined to be the same as Patrick Ramesy, I do NOT. But I am not ready to anoint Sam Bradford as the nex incarnation of John Elway either... Give him time to show what he can do.

Bradford does a good job at getting the ball out quick, he would probably be fine behind our OL.

Minus T. Williams or with him?

Jackson is the only one on that team that gets carries...that is why he is ranked so high in yards. 3.9 yds per carry is even less impressive when you have only 4 tds...indicative on not being a short yardage back.
Assumptions my friend assumptions and opinions.
Your discounting his yards per game.

You misinterpret me. I'm not saying that because they are not know[n] that automatically means they are not good, I'm saying that with these guys they are not known because they are not good...look at their start totals. Any quality TE would have started at least close to one full season.
LoL, i actually get the distinction you're trying to make but it still doesn't hold water b/c these Fells and Bejema together are giving quality production from the TE spot.

First of all, you did say you watch them play, and said saffold is good...you honestly can't know that about an O-lineman unless you are paying attention to him, please don't backtrack.
I'm not backtracking at all there's a difference between your strawman which claimed i was analyzing week in and week out:
There is literally no way you watch enough rams games to analyze how good of a job saffold is doing week in and week out. I'm calling shenanigans on that one.
I like most fans don't know enough about the being a waist bender, leg kick, dip and drive to analyze OL. But i know enough to watch and see a guy not getting beat i.e a guy playing well.
Speak for yourself my friend i watch a lot of football.
Sometimes at a bar sometimes opn RZ sometimes i even watch the NFL package 30 minute re-caps.
Saffold is playing well and the Rams have a good OL.

Second of all, there is no blind claim being made. It is a claim based on statistics. Putting ANY rookie offensive linemen in usually isn't ideal, but to have a non-first round OL really isn't ideal. Yes it's true he could be doing well. But with not having analyzed him it is not unreasonable to assume that a second round rookie OL isn't ideal.
Its unreasonable to make any assumption based on a blind hunch.
Its also unreasonable to assume that rookie OL aren't ideal or that non-1st round also aren't ideal.
Teams draft OL all through the draft w/ the expectation that they will start and play well especially in rounds 1-3.

Thirdly (is that a word?), sacks is not a statistic.... But 2 credited is still impressive, I might be wrong and he might be good, but even if he is I do not find it wrong for me to assume that he is not an ideal blind protector this year (just like I still don't think bellicheck made the wrong decision to go for it on 4th and 2 against the colts last year)
I believe the word you're looking for is tertiary.
Again your logic is very fuzzy here even though you know the truth to be contrary to your assumption you still assert your assumption?
*I agree w/ that Bellicheck made the right call.

That's simple math telling us that no, you most definitely have not watched enough rams games to make any statement about their left tackle.
I've already addressed this question earlier.
And you can look at the number of starts and the number of sacks allowed and the general consensus about Saffold and know that he's playing well.
They less you hear negative about a LT the better.
E.g did you hear anything negative about Saffold when the Rams played the Skins?
Do you hear anything negative the Rams OL or about the Saffold on ESPN or NFLN?
Home much of Joe Thomas if at all do you have to watch to know that he's playing well?

And I had a typo about the "team movement" comment, I meant to say "home team movement" as in the fans not the players. But I actually just read the link I saw, and I was wrong about that too. Here's the link I saw St. Louis Please Fire Pat Shurmur (http://www.walterfootball.com/forum/showthread.php?19052-St-Louis-Please-Fire-Pat-Shurmur)
That's a big difference from "team movement" to "home team movement" but hey we all make mistakes.
A link to a draft blog?
BTW Be careful w/ Maguire at walters draft site he can get very unprofessional w/ his draft info but i digress.

Still the guy does not seem to have a good enough pedigree to credit bradfords success to him.
Of course not b/c you don't want to give credit to anyone except Bradford.
Not the OL not the RB not the coaching.
But here's some enough about Shurmur's not good enough pedigree:

"Pat has done a heck of job," Reid said. "It's not easy filling in for Brad Childress. I know Donovan (McNabb) has a lot of respect for Pat."
It's not a huge surprise Shurmur is where he is. Coaching is in the family. His uncle, Fritz Shurmur, was Green Bay's defensive coordinator when Reid was an offensive assistant for the Packers. In the early '90s, Shurmur coached the offensive line, tight ends at special teams at Michigan State. When the family visited Fritz in Green Bay, Shurmur stopped by Reid's office.

In the film room and practice, Shurmur will tell McNabb what to look for and what to do in certain situations.

If a cornerback or safety does this, McNabb should look for that. If a linebacker does this, McNabb should watch for that.

"From a psychological standpoint, he does a great job of making all of us quarterbacks, particularly Donovan, relaxed about the game plan and all the different situations that could come up in a game," Detmer said. "He doesn't get all worked about whether it's good or bad. You're going to have highs and lows. Lots of things are going on, and you've got to be able to stay calm."
USATODAY.com - West Coast pedigree makes Shurmur a sure thing (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/zillgitt/2005-02-02-zillgitt_x.htm)

No. 1, Shurmur is keeping rookie quarterback Sam Bradford out of harm's way most of the time. Only 5.5 percent of the Rams' attempts to pass end in a sack. That's among the lowest sack rates in the NFL this season. That's also the lowest sack rate by a Rams offense since the team moved to St. Louis in 1995. Reducing sacks not only minimizes the number of hits on Bradford, it also helps the Rams avoid drive-killing negative plays. A passing game that gets rid of the ball quickly also gives young offensive tackles Rodger Saffold and Jason Smith a chance to develop under more reasonable circumstances. Saffold and Smith have allowed only three sacks (combined) this season.

No. 2, Bradford is developing a rhythm and confidence in the West Coast offense. This has been a superb experience for Bradford to learn how to master the shorter pass routes that form the foundation of the West Coast offense. Bradford has put his surprisingly deft mobility into action with rollout passes. Bradford has distributed the ball to many receivers; even if the passes are short, it helps to keep the defense off guard about knowing where the ball will go. Establishing the discipline required to run this offense is a valuable component to a quarterback's development. Bradford is nailing down the fundamentals; he'll be more prepared to take the St. Louis passing game to the next level in 2011.

No. 3, the Shurmur concept of going methodical is setting the Rams up on some long and fruitful scoring drives. They rank seventh in the NFL in 10-play drives. They're 11th in the league in points produced (50) from 10-play scoring drives. They are tied for ninth for the largest number of possessions that last five minutes or longer. Their average scoring drive lasts 8.8 plays and 3 minutes, 57 seconds; only four NFL teams are going on longer marches to secure points.

Bradford is a crucial factor in the success. He's been special on third-down plays, keeping drives going with timely completions. Bradford has connected on 60 percent of his third-down throws. He has six touchdowns and no interceptions on third down. Bradford's third-down passer rating of 101.2 is the league's sixth best. And the Rams are 11th in the NFL in converting third downs.
Shurmur gets the most out of Rams' offense (http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_2c7442a0-6f23-5b2e-8c18-e799bd6766a8.html)

^^Great article about Shurmur and the Rams offense

Lastly, please stop insulting my logic, trust me, there is nothing wrong with it.
I'm not "insulting" your logic either i'm questioning the validity of some of your logic.

Actually the browns get more yards per game than the rams. But they are close enough that it is irrelivant.
Right.
But you said this:
Also, McCoy greatly benefits from Hillis
Which is why i pointed out that in fact Stephen Jackson gives Bradford more YPG then Hillis gives the Browns:
Stephen Jackson actually gives Bradford more yards per game then Hillis does for the Browns: 83.2 ypg vs 82.3 ypg
NFL Stats: by Player Category (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?season=2010&seasonType=REG&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=RUSHING&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=RUSHING_YARDS_PER_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1)

What I find to be most relivant for a featured back is YPC and TDs. The fact that Jackson has significantly worse ypc, but the same yards means that the rams (bradford) completes more 3rd down conversions than the browns.
This is a unsupported blanket assumption/opinion/speculation the lower ypc could have any number of meanings.


Anyways, I view McCoy as a lesser roethlesberger. Someone who is not a conventional qb, but finds a way to win. His numbers do suck though, and he has not done enough to convince me beyond doubt that he has what it takes to lead a winning ballclub. I haven't written McCoy off yet, but he still hasn't done enough to prove anything to me.
Colts numbers sucks? But Bradford's are the best you've ever seen for a rookie QB?
81/127---63.8 comp %
975 yards
7.7 YPA
3 TDs/ 3 INTs
85.3 QB Rating

I view McCoy kinda like a cross between a more disciplined version of Romo and a bigger stronger armed Jeff Garcia.
Anyway here's some McCoy highlights:
nlIpohoRdGM
9WSJ2xmYoMw
5Jp2hxZrih0

Right.
But you said this:

Which is why i pointed out that in fact Stephen Jackson gives Bradford more YPG then Hillis gives the Browns:



This is a unsupported blanket assumption/opinion/speculation the lower ypc could have any number of meanings.



Colts numbers sucks? But Bradford's are the best you've ever seen for a rookie QB?
81/127---63.8 comp %
975 yards
7.7 YPA
3 TDs/ 3 INTs
85.3 QB Rating

I view McCoy kinda like a cross between a more disciplined version of Romo and a bigger stronger armed Jeff Garcia.
Anyway here's some McCoy highlights:
nlIpohoRdGM
9WSJ2xmYoMw
5Jp2hxZrih0


I do have responses for your posts, but I'm craming for finals now. I'm not going to respond, but don't think this means I'm done...I'll be back (hopefully I'll remember to be back).

Yea well I want a superbowl, and I think to try and accomplish anything else is ludacris, and I don't really understand why you wouldn't want that either.


Where did I EVER state that I didn't want the Redskins to win a Super Bowl? And where does it STATE that in order to win a Super Bowl, you must have a franchise QB? Obviously, that isn't true, because the Redskins, Bucs, Ravens, and Giants have all proved that an overall solid team with depth is going to win you Super Bowls.

On the contrary, there have been several teams with franchise QBs that didn't win Super Bowls with those Franchise QBs. Oh, Dan Marino comes to mind. And Elway didn't when his Super Bowls until he had a great supporting cast around him. So, don't tell me that the only way a team wins it all is if they have a franchise QB, because that isn't the case.

I do have responses for your posts, but I'm craming for finals now. I'm not going to respond, but don't think this means I'm done...I'll be back (hopefully I'll remember to be back).

I hear yah bro, just finished last week.
I got all the time in the world.
But, when you post keep in mind that i don't disagree that Bradford is playing well.
However the notion that he's basically the best rookie QB ever while playing in vacuum without help isn't true.
And some of the assertions you've made to support that he's succeeding without help have already been disproven i.e.-
1) he doesn't have a running game
2) he doesn't have a good OL
3) he doesn't have a good OC

Good Luck on your finals try and get a good night sleep before the exam
If you're old enough to drink:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2008/12/09/470_beers.jpg
My initial point wasn't that Bradford wasn't playing well it contained what i thought most non-casual fans would already know and my opinion about Colt McCoy's performance:
C-Jason Brown
LT-Smith
RT-Rogers Saffold

RB-Stephen Jackson

Plus Pat Shurmur at OC guiding a young QB

Then you also have to look at Colt McCoy also he's playing quite well in his limited starts

Bradford and the Rams have some of the basic essentials needed to support a QB especially a young QB.
In short a bad team especially at certain key areas within a bad franchise cannot support a franchise QB.
Eg. the Buccs they had Steve Young and Doug Williams (although Doug took them to the playoffs both struggled their and won SB elsewhere)
A QBs success is largely situation dependent.