The 2010 Draft QB Class could be Historically Awful

[celts32]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

He's basically been JaMarcus Russell through two seasons.

I'm not saying that better times aren't in the future for Sam Bradford. He does a lot of "NFL things" really well already. But Bradford, at his best, has a long way to go to even be competent. He's going to need a lot of help really fast. Which is something that the Rams (and to be fair, the Redskins) vastly underestimated on draft day.

Jamarcus Russell? So your comparing him to one of the top 2 or 3 QB busts of all time? That's flat out rediculous. Look at his rookie season. He played well last year...Russell never played well. Maybe he never pans out like me and some others think but he is already 1000 times better then Russell.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by celts32

Jamarcus Russell? So your comparing him to one of the top 2 or 3 QB busts of all time? That's flat out rediculous. Look at his rookie season. He played well last year...Russell never played well. Maybe he never pans out like me and some others think but he is already 1000 times better then Russell.

Wait, who can honestly say that it's definitely going to get better from here? Bradford played well last year? I suppose he did when you consider he was a rookie, but their second years are basically identical. And that would seem to negate the idea that he performed great under the circumstances.

I'm not saying young players don't improve, and I had Bradford projected to be really good coming out of Oklahoma, but if he keeps playing like this, he's going to bust. Bradford needs to get a lot better. And it's unclear at this point whether his organization is going to be able to provide him much help.

The Rams should definitely give him more weapons/another year. But we shouldn't avoid being cautiously pessimistic here.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Wait, who can honestly say that it's definitely going to get better from here? Bradford played well last year? I suppose he did when you consider he was a rookie, but their second years are basically identical. And that would seem to negate the idea that he performed great under the circumstances.

I'm not saying young players don't improve, and I had Bradford projected to be really good coming out of Oklahoma, but if he keeps playing like this, he's going to bust. Bradford needs to get a lot better. And it's unclear at this point whether his organization is going to be able to provide him much help.

The Rams should definitely give him more weapons/another year. But we shouldn't avoid being cautiously pessimistic here.

Bradford could eventually be a bust but the Russell analogy was a poor choice. Russell looked out of shape, lost and ill prepared in every game he ever played in. Bradford has already had a better career then Russell did.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by celts32

Bradford could eventually be a bust but the Russell analogy was a poor choice. Russell looked out of shape, lost and ill prepared in every game he ever played in. Bradford has already had a better career then Russell did.

As judged by talent scouts? Perhaps you're right. As judged by statistics, division titles, playoff wins, comeback victories? Not so much.

Look, I thought Bradford would be a solid starter coming out of OU. I thought Russell would be a bust coming out of LSU. Was I right on Russell? Probably. Was I right on Bradford? It's not looking good, but there's still a shot that I was. Point is, I have no reason to root against Sam Bradford, but when in two seasons, the only two names who have performed worse than you are a rookie Jimmy Clausen and a rookie Blaine Gabbert, and a horrible Curtis Painter, well, that's definitely not worth ignoring, right?