Hump Day is now also Legendary Poll Day

[Ram Quixote]

The real benchmark will be getting to the playoffs every year, and then performing once we get there. I'd love to start this year, and I think it's possible, not probable, but the future appears to be very bright with the roster that we currently have going forward.

To RQ, I guess we'll have to throw out Sam's 2011 season, if we start down that slippery slope.

Not really. Bradford played in 10 games. It wasn't my intent to throw out seasons; just acknowledging that Warner's 12-season career had some serious down-time. Some of it wasn't even because of his health.

Because of his Draft status, Bradford will have an advantage over Warner in PT. Bradford will be the starter as long as he remains healthy. Warner had to prove himself to get PT--in St Louis and Phoenix. In NY, he was a placeholder for Eli.

That 12-year average? Bradford will beat that by year 10--a 3234 average.

Those SBs are another matter. That's the depends part.

 

[DR RAM]

The real benchmark will be getting to the playoffs every year, and then performing once we get there. I'd love to start this year, and I think it's possible, not probable, but the future appears to be very bright with the roster that we currently have going forward.

To RQ, I guess we'll have to throw out Sam's 2011 season, if we start down that slippery slope.

Not really. Bradford played in 10 games. It wasn't my intent to throw out seasons; just acknowledging that Warner's 12-season career had some serious down-time. Some of it wasn't even because of his health.

Because of his Draft status, Bradford will have an advantage over Warner in PT. Bradford will be the starter as long as he remains healthy. Warner had to prove himself to get PT--in St Louis and Phoenix. In NY, he was a placeholder for Eli.

That 12-year average? Bradford will beat that by year 10--a 3234 average.

Those SBs are another matter. That's the depends part.

10 games, but half of those games he played with a severely injured ankle. We could split hairs all day, but in the end, Sam will probably continue to have his share of ups and downs, as Warner did, as most QB's do.

Now, I hope, and I wish that Bradford will be relevant, healthy, happy, and productive over the next 10 years....for the Rams.

 

[libertadrocks]

I voted that you're high and sent you a PM asking if you would share some of that with me. :thbbt:

Warner's stats include his years dealing with the thumb injury and playing with crappy teams.
Can Sam match those stats? Probably.

Can Sam ever match the stats that Warner had over 3+ years? No.

Can Sam ever take two teams to the SB (with one of them a perennially dysfunctional team like the Cards)? No.

And Sam's stats include games he was injured and all of his games have been played on crappy teams(or at least on bad offenses).

Im on board with Dr.

 

[RamsSince1969]

I love Sam, but Kurt was some wild X-factor QB from another planet. I hope that Sam can be that good, but in my heart, I just don't know. If he was that good (Kurt Warner good), he already would have won more games a season regardless of the talent around him. I want him to be that good, don't get me wrong, he may have a ceiling on his talent level. I hope this year he gets on the cover of S.I. with the caption "Sling'n Sam Bradford taking the Rams to the top"

A "Next Day" addition to my post. What is interesting, on the "get Sam some talent and see what happens" horizon, line up his 2012 stats with Andrew Lucks' stats. Sam actually out performed Luck or nearly matched him in many categories. The less interceptions thrown (Sam 13, Luck 18) and less fumbles are nice to see for Sam's growth/maturity. Sam had less total passing yards, and 2 less TD's, but, pretty decent performance overall given the new system and no name receivers he had to work with. If Sam did that last year with virtually nobody (no Megatron nickname to throw to), this new receiving corps could be and should be an amazing breakthrough year for Sam. Chris Long has been saying whenever he gets a chance, that we have a damn good QB. This could be something special as long as a RB breaks out and gives us a running threat for a 1-2 punch. I know this is a Warner thread, but I had to mention Luck as he is one of the current media darlings. Sam recently getting the number 22 rating by Jaws, I hope this time next year, Jaws has Sam in the top 10.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

I went with you're high, not because I think it's totally unattainable, but I'd just think it's extremely unlikely. Not because I don't think Sam can be very good, but that's rarified air man.

 

[Ram Quixote]

I love Sam, but Kurt was some wild X-factor QB from another planet. I hope that Sam can be that good, but in my heart, I just don't know. If he was that good (Kurt Warner good), he already would have won more games a season regardless of the talent around him. I want him to be that good, don't get me wrong, he may have a ceiling on his talent level. I hope this year he gets on the cover of S.I. with the caption "Sling'n Sam Bradford taking the Rams to the top"

You're talking as if Warner did it all by himself. There was also Faulk, an Oline that didn't miss a start, Martz, the 4 receivers. The stats that team compiled are unreal. Bugs Bunny numbers. No one will ever top them.

So. Let's dream that the Rams of Bradford can outscore what our defense allows the other team's offense to score. Perhaps we'll be on the right side of a blowout or 2.

 

[Mojo Ram]

My vote(regrettably)

 

[Mojo Ram]

I think that he could become a more mobile Troy Aikman-type...which would be great.

Aikman was a very good QB but Warner had "it"...whatever "it" is.

 

[ramsince62]

I love Sam, but Kurt was some wild X-factor QB from another planet. I hope that Sam can be that good, but in my heart, I just don't know. If he was that good (Kurt Warner good), he already would have won more games a season regardless of the talent around him. I want him to be that good, don't get me wrong, he may have a ceiling on his talent level. I hope this year he gets on the cover of S.I. with the caption "Sling'n Sam Bradford taking the Rams to the top"

A "Next Day" addition to my post. What is interesting, on the "get Sam some talent and see what happens" horizon, line up his 2012 stats with Andrew Lucks' stats. Sam actually out performed Luck or nearly matched him in many categories. The less interceptions thrown (Sam 13, Luck 18) and less fumbles are nice to see for Sam's growth/maturity. Sam had less total passing yards, and 2 less TD's, but, pretty decent performance overall given the new system and no name receivers he had to work with. If Sam did that last year with virtually nobody (no Megatron nickname to throw to), this new receiving corps could be and should be an amazing breakthrough year for Sam. Chris Long has been saying whenever he gets a chance, that we have a damn good QB. This could be something special as long as a RB breaks out and gives us a running threat for a 1-2 punch. I know this is a Warner thread, but I had to mention Luck as he is one of the current media darlings. Sam recently getting the number 22 rating by Jaws, I hope this time next year, Jaws has Sam in the top 10.

If he was that good (Kurt Warner good), he already would have won more games a season regardless of the talent around him.

Exactly. I voted "too high"....as for Faulk, did he play in Arizona?

 

[The Rammer]

I think Bradford's success all hinges on his supporting cast. He has not doubt the abilities to win and take us to glory but I don't believe he as of yet as the intangibles that Warner had to just take over a game and make it happen. With some winning seasons and playoff appearances I see Sam developing some of those intangibles.

 

[RamFan503]

I voted "You're High". Not because Sam can't be a great QB and possibly even a HOFer. My reasoning is that Warner is a completely different animal - wobbly passes and all. Without those hand issues, who knows what kind of numbers he would have put up and how many less "mistakes" would have come out of his hand. Also, I know people think he had this great O-line in front of him but Martz got Kurt killed on a regular basis and he still managed to get the passes away.

I expect great things will come from Sam. I just don't know that he will be the phenom that IMO was Kurt Warner.

 

[LesBaker]

I am hoping that Bradford lives up to everyones expectations too but IMO other than having a stronger arm he has nothing else in his toolbox that is the equal of Warner.

I want Bradford to be that good but if he had any chance of it we would have seen some flashes already.

When we think about Warner what kind of things come to mind?

He wasn't accurate, he was precise and there is a big, big difference. He read defenses as well as anyone. His speed of release was second only to Marino according to a lot of experts. You cannot name a QB that was braver in the pocket, in that regard he had no equal. When he was on the field there was never, ever any question about who "the man" was. He made every WR playing with him better. If a defense blitzed him he almost always punished them for it.

I think people are forgetting how unusually special Warner really was.

 

[-X-]

He made every WR playing with him better.

See, I don't know about that. I think it's the opposite actually. Take Sir Isaac the Bruce, for instance. Did Tony Banks, Chris Miller, Kurt Warner AND Marc Bulger all make Bruce a better receiver? Because his best seasons were with Miller and Banks.

 

[LesBaker]

He made every WR playing with him better.

See, I don't know about that. I think it's the opposite actually. Take Sir Isaac the Bruce, for instance. Did Tony Banks, Chris Miller, Kurt Warner AND Marc Bulger all make Bruce a better receiver? Because his best seasons were with Miller and Banks.

If you look only at most yards in one season then yes but remember Bruce was essentially the only option so like Holt in 2004 (I think) he got all the passes thrown his way. Plus Holt was getting more opportunities after 1999. When did Bruce go to the Pro Bowl? Once when he led the NFL in yards, in mid 90s, and then never again other than the three straight times from 99-01.

Fitz and Boldin put up crazy numbers with Warner. So did Faulk for a RB. Fitz and Boldin had their best years with Warner throwing them the ball and got all but one of their several Pro Bowl visit when he was there. One year they both topped 1400 yards and over 100 receptions which has never been done. Fitz is on record saying Warner was why he blossomed as a WR.

Faulk copped over 2600 yards in the three years Warner was tossing him the ball and he never got that close to those kind of numbers in his 5 years in Indy or after Warner was removed from the starting lineup.

This goes back to the precision thing I mentioned. Warner got those guys the ball in perfect position and with perfect timing a whole lot. They had chances to make plays because they got the ball in just the right spot and in stride so often.

A lot of guys had their best years when Warner was throwing them the ball. He made guys more productive and successful IMO.

 

[-X-]

He made every WR playing with him better.

See, I don't know about that. I think it's the opposite actually. Take Sir Isaac the Bruce, for instance. Did Tony Banks, Chris Miller, Kurt Warner AND Marc Bulger all make Bruce a better receiver? Because his best seasons were with Miller and Banks.

If you look only at most yards in one season then yes but remember Bruce was essentially the only option so like Holt in 2004 (I think) he got all the passes thrown his way. Plus Holt was getting more opportunities after 1999. When did Bruce go to the Pro Bowl? Once when he led the NFL in yards, in mid 90s, and then never again other than the three straight times from 99-01.

Fitz and Boldin put up crazy numbers with Warner. So did Faulk for a RB. Fitz and Boldin had their best years with Warner throwing them the ball and got all but one of their several Pro Bowl visit when he was there. One year they both topped 1400 yards and over 100 receptions which has never been done. Fitz is on record saying Warner was why he blossomed as a WR.

Faulk copped over 2600 yards in the three years Warner was tossing him the ball and he never got that close to those kind of numbers in his 5 years in Indy or after Warner was removed from the starting lineup.

This goes back to the precision thing I mentioned. Warner got those guys the ball in perfect position and with perfect timing a whole lot. They had chances to make plays because they got the ball in just the right spot and in stride so often.

A lot of guys had their best years when Warner was throwing them the ball. He made guys more productive and successful IMO.

I feel ya, but I still don't know. With that cast, Warner amassed 10,000 yards faster than anyone in the league (36 games). You know who was second? Bulger - in 38 games (tied with Marino).

And Faulk's numbers in his last year with Indy were almost identical to his first with St Louis. Faulk just changed the dynamic of an offense - no matter who was under center. He had to be accounted for in the run game and the passing game, and he was very difficult to scheme against. Said Bill Parcells, "Trying to tackle Marshall Faulk in the open field is like trying to drink coffee with a fork."

Now I'm not trying to downgrade Warner's achievements by any means. To me, this was more about whether or not Bradford could ever enjoy that kind of success. But since we're on it, that offense (99-01), with all of those weapons (including returners who gave us phenomenal field position), is the reason why I'm so obsessed with Bradford being given the latitude to prove himself with SOME kind of talent. Even if the collective worth of his supporting cast is half what Warner had, I think Bradford could make a name for himself.

 

[RamFan503]

He made every WR playing with him better.

See, I don't know about that. I think it's the opposite actually. Take Sir Isaac the Bruce, for instance. Did Tony Banks, Chris Miller, Kurt Warner AND Marc Bulger all make Bruce a better receiver? Because his best seasons were with Miller and Banks.

See - there's the thing though. With Miller and Banks, if Isaac is on the field, that's pretty much where the passes are going. Aside from one good year by Kennison (sp?), when Bruce's stats also went down, the tunnel vision by our QBs was maddening. Warner's ability to read and think with the ball in his hand meant the player with the best chance at making a play, got the ball. And the player got the ball in the right position for YAK.

 

[-X-]

He made every WR playing with him better.

See, I don't know about that. I think it's the opposite actually. Take Sir Isaac the Bruce, for instance. Did Tony Banks, Chris Miller, Kurt Warner AND Marc Bulger all make Bruce a better receiver? Because his best seasons were with Miller and Banks.

See - there's the thing though. With Miller and Banks, if Isaac is on the field, that's pretty much where the passes are going. Aside from one good year by Kennison (sp?), when Bruce's stats also went down, the tunnel vision by our QBs was maddening. Warner's ability to read and think with the ball in his hand meant the player with the best chance at making a play, got the ball. And the player got the ball in the right position for YAK.

I have to defer to what Warner actually said about those receivers he had though. He said all he had to do was find the one-on-one matchup and throw the ball that way. It's (relatively speaking) easier for a QB to throw the ball to the isolation matchup when he's got guys like Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Hakim and Proehl on the field all at the same time. Any one of those guys is going to win their individual matchups. The fact that Bruce was the only option, makes his achievements that much more great early on in his career.

 

[RamFan503]

I have to defer to what Warner actually said about those receivers he had though. He said all he had to do was find the one-on-one matchup and throw the ball that way. It's (relatively speaking) easier for a QB to throw the ball to the isolation matchup when he's got guys like Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Hakim and Proehl on the field all at the same time. Any one of those guys is going to win their individual matchups. The fact that Bruce was the only option, makes his achievements that much more great early on in his career.

Kind of a catch 22. Great QBs find that one on one match up early and put the ball where the best play can be made. Yeah the receiver has to win the match-up but the QB has to be able to recognize the win early. That's probably going to be the thing Sam improves on the most this year.

 

[DR RAM]

I have to defer to what Warner actually said about those receivers he had though. He said all he had to do was find the one-on-one matchup and throw the ball that way. It's (relatively speaking) easier for a QB to throw the ball to the isolation matchup when he's got guys like Holt, Bruce, Faulk, Hakim and Proehl on the field all at the same time. Any one of those guys is going to win their individual matchups. The fact that Bruce was the only option, makes his achievements that much more great early on in his career.

Kind of a catch 22. Great QBs find that one on one match up early and put the ball where the best play can be made. Yeah the receiver has to win the match-up but the QB has to be able to recognize the win early. That's probably going to be the thing Sam improves on the most this year.

Ah, but does he improve, or does the receiver get open sooner????

Catch 22.

 

[LesBaker]

X if Bradford ends up 80% of Warner we are going to be very happy Rams fans because it'll mean winning seasons, playoffs and probably a SB win before he retires.

And I'm not talking about yards and TDs per se I mean courage in the pocket, vision, reading defenses, precise passing and leadership. Gimme 80% of a Warner and I know I can win.