Jared Goff-SamBradford: Rams Franchise QB Comparison

[FrankenRam]

This is a good topic for those who are willing to take it seriously.

If you're talking strictly *before* the draft, then they both have/had glowing reviews, and Bradford's pro day was flawless. Both were/are renowned for their accuracy, arm, ball placement, and intelligence. Where Goff separates from Bradford is his experience in making reads and going through progressions, whereas Bradford had his plays called in from the sidelines in a hurry-up offense. So in that sense, Goff is better prepared than Bradford was for the NFL. You wouldn't be able to make a clear distinction of who would be the better prospect if Bradford was entering the draft this year. It would be Goff/Bradford or Bradford/Goff going 1-2, and the decision would be very difficult IMO. Goff would get the edge due to medicals though.

The one difference between Bradford & Goff/Wentz that I find intriguing is that there were a number of so called experts/pundits referring to Bradford as a 'once every 10yr ' quality QB. I heard nobody.....I mean NObody outside this forum say anything remotely similar about either Goff or Wentz this year. The general consensus seemed to be they were definitely the cream of this year's QB crop, but that's not the same as 'once every........whatever'.

That may not mean diddly squat in the long run. Goff may turn out to be the next Peyton. But as of today, he's nothing more than a drafted suspect just like SB8 was when he came out. The big problem in trying to compare SB8 & Goff at this point is that we now have college and multiple NFL years of history on Bradford. And while everyone is busy telling us why Goff may not have some of SB8's weaknesses because of the teams they played on, all that is pertinent ONLY to what he did in college. Those strengths in college may be strengths in the NFL, but it's certainly not a given.

I know all the LA fans want to wear some seriously rose colored glasses at this point, but the laundry list oif QB's selected #1 overall is longer than those who turned into Pro Bowl players...forgetting HOF'ers for the moment.

IMO, selecting Goff was as much a splash publicity move to excite the LA fans as it was a football move.

 

[gabriel18]

You have no idea what Sam Bradford's "true colors" are.

Well I think he's an overpaid Diva that has been an underachiever his whole career and should keep his mouth shut .

 

[Mikey Ram]

The one difference between Bradford & Goff/Wentz that I find intriguing is that there were a number of so called experts/pundits referring to Bradford as a 'once every 10yr ' quality QB. I heard nobody.....I mean NObody outside this forum say anything remotely similar about either Goff or Wentz this year. The general consensus seemed to be they were definitely the cream of this year's QB crop, but that's not the same as 'once every........whatever'.

That may not mean diddly squat in the long run. Goff may turn out to be the next Peyton. But as of today, he's nothing more than a drafted suspect just like SB8 was when he came out. The big problem in trying to compare SB8 & Goff at this point is that we now have college and multiple NFL years of history on Bradford. And while everyone is busy telling us why Goff may not have some of SB8's weaknesses because of the teams they played on, all that is pertinent ONLY to what he did in college. Those strengths in college may be strengths in the NFL, but it's certainly not a given.

I know all the LA fans want to wear some seriously rose colored glasses at this point, but the laundry list oif QB's selected #1 overall is longer than those who turned into Pro Bowl players...forgetting HOF'ers for the moment.

IMO, selecting Goff was as much a splash publicity move to excite the LA fans as it was a football move.

The problem I have with the "once every whatever" is how easily it's thrown around...Eample: Gurley was a once in a generation guy, now 1 year year later, the Cowboys have the next Adrian Peterson...

 

[FrantikRam]

I agree with FrankenRam and was coming here to post something similar..

The year Bradford came out, the only player I remember "them" saying was maybe better than Sam was Suh. Yet Goff was the 6th or 7th best player in this draft to some...with many saying he is significantly below Winston and Mariota.

IMO, Goff is a better prospect than Bradford. Maybe I'm saying that with my current opinion of Bradford, but it is what it is. Goff has better mobility in the pocket and awareness, while possessing unique touch and accuracy, playing against the same level of competition (more of less), surrounded by worse players.

Aside from maybe arm strength, I struggle to find one thing Sam had over Goff in college.

 

[jrry32]

A lot of you are taking into account Bfords pro career in what you're saying, seems like you are having trouble separating him as a prospect, and as a pro. The thread is about Bford BEFORE he was a pro, as only a prospect, and how he compared to Goff. Bford and Goff do compare closely as pre-pro prospects. Similar pros and cons list, the primary difference being the question in pocket awareness and injury history. Bfords touch and accuracy were praised over and over in scouting reports. Quoted even as 'deadly' and 'best ever seen' by some scouts. Very similar quotes about Goff.

Bottom line, Bford was an amazing prospect before he went pro, as is Goff. Many ppl were certain even after his first yr Bford was a much better prospect than Newton. So yeah...lol. Goff is no better a prospect than Bford was. Now let's pray he is a MUCH BETTER PRO.

Go Rams go Goff.

The pro game gives you a perspective you didn't necessarily have back then. It shows you what you missed.

Did I have Bradford graded higher as a prospect than Goff? Yes. However, that's because I got tunnel vision and missed/discounted some very important things.(namely, his lack of pocket movement and snaps under pressure)

 

[jrry32]

I agree with FrankenRam and was coming here to post something similar..

The year Bradford came out, the only player I remember "them" saying was maybe better than Sam was Suh. Yet Goff was the 6th or 7th best player in this draft to some...with many saying he is significantly below Winston and Mariota.

IMO, Goff is a better prospect than Bradford. Maybe I'm saying that with my current opinion of Bradford, but it is what it is. Goff has better mobility in the pocket and awareness, while possessing unique touch and accuracy, playing against the same level of competition (more of less), surrounded by worse players.

Aside from maybe arm strength, I struggle to find one thing Sam had over Goff in college.

Goff was the #1 ranked player in the Draft for me. And he's on Winston's level. Better than Mariota.

IMO, Goff's lack of hype came from two things: 1) his offensive system and 2) his career win-loss record. If Goff were the exact same player but he was coming out of a pro style system and had a great college win-loss record, he'd have been compared to Andrew Luck.

IMO, selecting Goff was as much a splash publicity move to excite the LA fans as it was a football move.

This wasn't a publicity move. This was the Rams recognizing a major problem and a rare opportunity to solve that problem. A #1 overall QB is very very very very very very rarely attainable for a team picking in the mid-first round. The special circumstances we had this year gave us an opportunity to solve our biggest problem in a way we may not have gotten another chance at. This was a football move. And a brilliant one at that.

 

[kurtfaulk]

IMO, selecting Goff was as much a splash publicity move to excite the LA fans as it was a football move.

What football move did you want them to make? Stick with keenum? I can see the pros and cons with both directions but now that it's done it gives me hope for the future.

.

 

[-X-]

I know all the LA fans want to wear some seriously rose colored glasses at this point

Well, consider the alternative.

but the laundry list oif QB's selected #1 overall is longer than those who turned into Pro Bowl players...forgetting HOF'ers for the moment.

This is true, but we weren't getting Goff at 15. Or 12. Or 9. Or even 2.
So, I don't know that where he was drafted matters much in that context. You know?

 

[FrankenRam]

The pro game gives you a perspective you didn't necessarily have back then. It shows you what you missed.

Did I have Bradford graded higher as a prospect than Goff? Yes. However, that's because I got tunnel vision and missed/discounted some very important things.(namely, his lack of pocket movement and snaps under pressure)

And Goff may well be every bit the prospect you say he his....today. But maybe you've got some sort of tunnel vision for what you perceive to be his strong points that 5 yr down the road won't appear to be so strong.

 

[FrankenRam]

Goff was the #1 ranked player in the Draft for me. And he's on Winston's level. Better than Mariota.

IMO, Goff's lack of hype came from two things: 1) his offensive system and 2) his career win-loss record. If Goff were the exact same player but he was coming out of a pro style system and had a great college win-loss record, he'd have been compared to Andrew Luck.



This wasn't a publicity move. This was the Rams recognizing a major problem and a rare opportunity to solve that problem. A #1 overall QB is very very very very very very rarely attainable for a team picking in the mid-first round. The special circumstances we had this year gave us an opportunity to solve our biggest problem in a way we may not have gotten another chance at. This was a football move. And a brilliant one at that.

Each to their own.

 

[FrankenRam]

Well, consider the alternative.

This is true, but we weren't getting Goff at 15. Or 12. Or 9. Or even 2.
So, I don't know that where he was drafted matters much in that context. You know?

It matters because of the draft capital they had to expend to get him. It may well turn out to be worth it, but it's a mighty big risk.

 

[-X-]

It matters because of the draft capital they had to expend to get him. It may well turn out to be worth it, but it's a mighty big risk.

Agree. I don't know if you remember, but I was a proponent of using nearly all of our draft picks this year on playmakers for the offense. That, in my mind, would make the transition to another QB more seamless. But it turns out that maybe they were able to do both. Next year's gonna sting a little without a first, but I can't put it past Snead to find a way to claw his way back into that round somehow.

 

[FrankenRam]

What football move did you want them to make? Stick with keenum? I can see the pros and cons with both directions but now that it's done it gives me hope for the future.
.

It would have been a tough choice, for sure. There's certainly nothing to make one believe Keenum was in the Matt Ryan/Joe Flacco class.....let alone Manning/Brady. 'But'.......with an O line that continually improved throughout last yr and hopefully can be counted on to continue to progress, Gurley w/ a yr under his belt and playing the entire season next yr, and possibly an improved WR corps if a pick or 2 from this draft turn into the prospects some here have proclaimed them to be, Keenum *might* have added up to a Trent Dilfer level QB. While that certainly would not be a long term answer, it was good enough for 1 SB win. And would have left them the ability to possibly fill a couple of the holes on D that are yet to be answered.

 

[jrry32]

And Goff may well be every bit the prospect you say he his....today. But maybe you've got some sort of tunnel vision for what you perceive to be his strong points that 5 yr down the road won't appear to be so strong.

I probably do. But as a consequence of learning from my past mistakes, my tunnel vision has expanded some and now focuses me right off the bat on the things that tend to make or break a QB at the NFL level.

But my tunnel vision wasn't really an issue with Bradford's strong points. It was an issue with his weak points.

 

[FrankenRam]

Agree. I don't know if you remember, but I was a proponent of using nearly all of our draft picks this year on playmakers for the offense. That, in my mind, would make the transition to another QB more seamless. But it turns out that maybe they were able to do both. Next year's gonna sting a little without a first, but I can't put it past Snead to find a way to claw his way back into that round somehow.

Comprende. I'm just not a fan of these mega moves to climb the draft board regardless of the player. I wouldn't have expended this kind of draft capital on Peyton....which obviously would have been a dumb decision.......in retrospect. But NObody has declared Goff to be the 2nd coming of PM.

Overall, these kind of moves produce pretty sketchy results. If Snisher had a better record of finding solid FA's to fill some holes, my shorts would be a little less bunched, but I just wouldn't have done it.

 

[FrankenRam]

I probably do. But as a consequence of learning from my past mistakes, my tunnel vision has expanded some and now focuses me right off the bat on the things that tend to make or break a QB at the NFL level.

But my tunnel vision wasn't really an issue with Bradford's strong points. It was an issue with his weak points.

And you may well turn out to be the talent guru of the century, but I'm inclined to think you still shit & pee like everyone else doing talent evaluation.

 

[jrry32]

And you may well turn out to be the talent guru of the century, but I'm inclined to think you still crap & pee like everyone else doing talent evaluation.

Getting a #1 overall pick right doesn't exactly make me a guru. Those are the easy ones.

 

[thirteen28]

It matters because of the draft capital they had to expend to get him. It may well turn out to be worth it, but it's a mighty big risk.

Standing pat without getting a top flight QB was, at minimum, equally risky.

 

[Angry Ram]

he had a mammoth Oline with NFL players on it. I dismissed this point but it actually was valid.

Only Trent Williams and Phil Loadholt are starting NFL linemen from Sam Brandford's time in college. Sure, Duke Robinson and Donald Stephenson were/are in the NFL but they are either out of football or backup players.

Bradford isn't a terrible QB even still but he can't lead a team to wins like he did as a rookie.

That's not true. His rookie season wasn't he apart of a team that went 1-15 to 7-9? Granted, not a winning record but shouldn't it count from something? And I always wonder what his career would'v been like if Brandon Gibson wasn't called for illegal formation or Jake Long called for tripping.

Freaking Bradford played hard ball as well,which shows his person,because he was already breaking the bank.He was coming off shoulder surgery at the time.Dr.Anderson did wonders,& then Drew Bree's was playing amazing football.He also had had the same type surgery.
Bradford had not played in awhile as well.He got hurt 2 times on the shoulder.I remember both hits.One was against Boise St. The LB just came straight at him,& Sam foot work was horrible.He saw it coming right in front of him & didn't know how to take the hit(the fall).
--When Bradford threw so great at Oklahoma he had one of the best OLines in NCAA history.

That's the way it was. Before the new rookie salary system, the price for the 1st picks was getting higher each season. Also, I don't remember 2 shoulder injuries. The main one coming out of college was against BYU, which is the one I'm talking about.

Also, again, OL was it the best in college? Absolutely. But again, it's not like it was full of NFL starters. Speaking of OL, how would Sam done if he had the luxury of having even an average OL?

Well I think he's an overpaid Diva that has been an underachiever his whole career and should keep his mouth shut .

OK. As someone who went to school at OU the same time Sam Bradford did, I know first hand this statement is false.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Only Trent Williams and Phil Loadholt are starting NFL linemen from Sam Brandford's time in college. Sure, Duke Robinson and Donald Stephenson were/are in the NFL but they are either out of football or backup players.



That's not true. His rookie season wasn't he apart of a team that went 1-15 to 7-9? Granted, not a winning record but shouldn't it count from something? And I always wonder what his career would'v been like if Brandon Gibson wasn't called for illegal formation or Jake Long called for tripping.



That's the way it was. Before the new rookie salary system, the price for the 1st picks was getting higher each season. Also, I don't remember 2 shoulder injuries. The main one coming out of college was against BYU, which is the one I'm talking about.

Also, again, OL was it the best in college? Absolutely. But again, it's not like it was full of NFL starters. Speaking of OL, how would Sam done if he had the luxury of having even an average OL?



OK. As someone who went to school at OU the same time Sam Bradford did, I know first hand this statement is false.

We are talking about college football. If you have two NFL starting OTs and two that played in the NFL, you had an excellent OLine. Most good college OLines only have one or two NFL caliber starters. Sam faced little pressure in college.