No more incompletes for Bradford

[ED_29]

That EXACTLY what I'm talking about in reference to FM's post. Wilson was asked to make plays under duress in critical situations. He was not asked to bring his team back from a big deficit like Andrew Luck did against KC last year in the playoffs. And 26 TDs isn't a whole lot nowadays, certainly not top tier QB numbers.

Ok got the first part... Disagree on the TDs. 26tds TDs are two less than Manning threw in his record breaking first season and 52 over the last two seasons is more than any 2 year QB has thrown in the history of the NFL. If Bradford threw for 26tds this year I would be thrilled

RW was not some kind of place holder and any QB could have lead that team to the SB. We should stop with that for sure

Back to your point. No Wilson wasn't asked to do that and neither were they equipped for him to do it either. All we have to do is look a little further south to SF who did fall behind several times last year and for that matter over the last three years are weren't able to do come back from big deficits. Seattle I can't recall if they have yet to be in that position. The only one I can think of off the top of my head where SF can back is the SB loss to the Ravens where Kapernick lead them back from a huge deficit and almost pulled it off but failed on 4th and goal.

 

[ED_29]

Like everyone else does? Or was there supposed to be some blue font there? I think I get that you're saying the passes that aren't are about the same as a running play but do we use the same criteria on QBs not named Bradford?

what does this mean?

 

[F. Mulder]

I agree. But what kind of quarterback should Bradford be? Does his draft position still figure in it? that was years ago. What's his salary have to do with it? No matter what player was picked at that spot was getting similar money, if the Rams took Josh Hull #1 he would have been paid close to that because that's what that slot payed under the old system. Bradford salary is a strawman argument.
Do people expect him to be Peyton Manning cause he was #1 ? (Love this one) This is what separates the causal fan from the hard core fans. Bradford will never be Manning, He doesn't have the same skill set. But who else does? Think Rivers. Rams needed a QB that year and he was the best one.

Bradford like every other player is a product of the scheme. He runs the plays he's given with the teammates he's given. Bradford might want to throw 60 times a game, he might want to take more risks, care less about interceptions, go for 400 yard games etc. But he is a team player and follows the scheme. Win and lose as a team.

I see your points.
But the Rams didn't have to draft him but they did, they could have let him go and they didn't, nope didn't cut his pay either.
So for better or worse he's it in the judgement of the FO. And that's what they get payed for.

I get the overall draft position and the outdated (now) salary slots and agree with all that. Regardless, being THE pick overall in ANY draft means that you think he's either the best player available or the best player at a needed position (at his point QB). He doesn't have to be Manning, or Marino, or maybe even Aikman for that matter but he does need to be somewhat, if not significantly, above average given the place his was taken in an entire draft. Teams don't take a player #1 overall in a draft and say they are satisfied with average performance/outcome----especially when players taken later often produce at higher levels. I think ANY #1 pick should be held to an above average standard. If not, why bother..

 

[Yamahopper]

I get the overall draft position and the outdated (now) salary slots and agree with all that. Regardless, being THE pick overall in ANY draft means that you think he's either the best player available or the best player at a needed position (at his point QB). He doesn't have to be Manning, or Marino, or maybe even Aikman for that matter but he does need to be somewhat, if not significantly, above average given the place his was taken in an entire draft. Teams don't take a player #1 overall in a draft and say they are satisfied with average performance/outcome----especially when players taken later often produce at higher levels. I think ANY #1 pick should be held to an above average standard. If not, why bother..

Looking at it this way, if Bradford wasn't in that draft class then Jimmy Clausen would have been the highest rated QB. Or Tebow. Yes they could have paid a DT or Safety 70+mil.
But the best player on their board was Bradford. they took him. It's how the draft works. You pick and take a chance.

Okay you sight avg. performance. Name me one QB just one that the Rams could have got since the Bradford pick that would have been a better QB for the RAMS?

 

[CGI_Ram]

 

[-X-]

There's a reason a guy who throws for over 4600 yards and only has a rating of 84.2 is mediocre. It's because he's throwing too many picks in relation to TDs. 29 TDs and 19 INTs is not lighting it up by any stretch. And X, you're too smart not to look at the INTs. And you know as well as I do that they aren't impressive. Also, I would guess that you've seen the Lions play this year. And if you did you'd see an inconsistent QB who forced the ball and made many bad decisions.

I expect with our DL and and STs and running game that we won't have to ask Bradford to light it up to have a winning season. That's a key point in all of this. He will actually be asked to do LESS than Stafford. Can he do that? I expect the Rams D and STs to prevent Bradford from having to do any more than what Russell Wilson was required to do last year. The Rams are probably gonna run the ball at least 35 times a game, and pass less than 20 times.

I didn't include the interceptions because I'm trying to figure out what the benchmark is for Bradford, in terms of what he should do statistically, before people to get off his jock. Is 4600 yards and a 7.3 YPA sufficient? You know what? It doesn't matter. I'm exhausted typing this. It really is like Groundhog day. If the team doesn't do better while he's the QB, that's enough for people to drive him to the airport. If the team does do well and he doesn't, it'll still be enough to get rid of him. If he gets hurt and the team doesn't do well, get rid of him. If he gets hurt and the team does well anyway, get rid of him. But if the team does well and he does well, then erry ting gon be alright.

That about cover it?

 

[HE WITH HORNS]

Bradford has a career 6.2 ypa... that is not good...

I love when people bring up his career YPA average. He threw over 600 passes in the Shurmur offense his rookie year. Shurmur didn't have a single route that was over 6 yards.

 

[F. Mulder]

Okay you sight avg. performance. Name me one QB just one that the Rams could have got since the Bradford pick that would have been a better QB for the RAMS?

Luck? if you are referring to any QB.

If you are insinuating that Bradford is/was the best pick for the Rams then I agree but would argue, as a Devil's Advocate, that there have been many QBs who could MANAGE a team, including the Rams. I will look them up for you if you wish but my overall point is that Bradford was picked, based on his position and opinion of the Rams, as a top-tier QB. I (and most other Ram fans and certainly FO types) expect him to be that and nothing less. IF he is less than that then I would argue there were better options lower in the draft to hand the ball off and complete low pressure plays.

Look, I don't think you get me (or Max, if I can take the presumption of speaking for him). I LOVE Bradford and want him to succeed but it really is time to put up or shut up as far as who he is at THIS point in his career. I'm not going to debate variables; I think an above average QB can work with what Sam is being given as far as coaches and players. Only a fool would chase windmills forever waiting for everything to align. For me, it is what it is. IF Bradford is an above average QB (and I believe he can be), then he will show it. IF he is what he has been (a somewhat injured QB with mediocre results) then I would think most Ram FANS would want more from that position.

 

[max]

I didn't include the interceptions because I'm trying to figure out what the benchmark is for Bradford, in terms of what he should do statistically, before people to get off his jock. Is 4600 yards and a 7.3 YPA sufficient? You know what? It doesn't matter. I'm exhausted typing this. It really is like Groundhog day. If the team doesn't do better while he's the QB, that's enough for people to drive him to the airport. If the team does do well and he doesn't, it'll still be enough to get rid of him. If he gets hurt and the team doesn't do well, get rid of him. If he gets hurt and the team does well anyway, get rid of him. But if the team does well and he does well, then erry ting gon be alright.

That about cover it?

Not quite. It's simpler that that though.

If the team has a winning season, Bradford stays.

If the team has another losing season, Bradford goes. (because I believe the defense will be good enough to win)

 

[ED_29]

I love when people bring up his career YPA average. He threw over 600 passes in the Shurmur offense his rookie year. Shurmur didn't have a single route that was over 6 yards.

This seems like a weak argument too me. His career is 6.2 not his rookie year. I don't see why people can't just accept certain things. He doesn't push the ball downfield. It's ok to say it.... Let's just hope he changes it

 

[ED_29]

I didn't include the interceptions because I'm trying to figure out what the benchmark is for Bradford, in terms of what he should do statistically, before people to get off his jock. Is 4600 yards and a 7.3 YPA sufficient? You know what? It doesn't matter. I'm exhausted typing this. It really is like Groundhog day. If the team doesn't do better while he's the QB, that's enough for people to drive him to the airport. If the team does do well and he doesn't, it'll still be enough to get rid of him. If he gets hurt and the team doesn't do well, get rid of him. If he gets hurt and the team does well anyway, get rid of him. But if the team does well and he does well, then erry ting gon be alright.

That about cover it?

Why is this so complex? It's seems so cloudy or confusing for some. IS Bradford the first QB ever to be evaluated? It will be his 5th season. Usually in a QBs 5th year you have a pretty good idea of who and what they are. I think Max has been very articulate in making his case.... I mean I'm not trying to be rude or anything I just don't get the benchmark stuff. We are going to know when we see it. I mean he just mentioned Russell Wilson's stats and doing the things that RW does for the Hawks. Why isn't that good enough for your benchmark? I think you are making it more confusing than it has to be.

 

[Yamahopper]

Luck? if you are referring to any QB.

If you are insinuating that Bradford is/was the best pick for the Rams then I agree but would argue, as a Devil's Advocate, that there have been many QBs who could MANAGE a team, including the Rams. I will look them up for you if you wish but my overall point is that Bradford was picked, based on his position and opinion of the Rams, as a top-tier QB. I (and most other Ram fans and certainly FO types) expect him to be that and nothing less. IF he is less than that then I would argue there were better options lower in the draft to hand the ball off and complete low pressure plays.

Look, I don't think you get me (or Max, if I can take the presumption of speaking for him). I LOVE Bradford and want him to succeed but it really is time to put up or shut up as far as who he is at THIS point in his career. I'm not going to debate variables; I think an above average QB can work with what Sam is being given as far as coaches and players. Only a fool would chase windmills forever waiting for everything to align. For me, it is what it is. IF Bradford is an above average QB (and I believe he can be), then he will show it. IF he is what he has been (a somewhat injured QB with mediocre results) then I would think most Ram FANS would want more from that position.

Way the draft order shook out Luck wasn't there when the Rams picked, neither was Cam Newton. So You're still on the clock.
I get what your saying, but then again I not sure totally get what I and others are saying. That in this scheme there is no better QB the Rams could have gotten that would have preformed better than Bradford. And when one is found.
It's nice to have high expectations of a player and hope to see him succeed and even ponder his failures. But to critique without offering a realistic solution...........

 

[-X-]

This seems like a weak argument too me. His career is 6.2 not his rookie year. I don't see why people can't just accept certain things. He doesn't push the ball downfield. It's ok to say it.... Let's just hope he changes it

Because it does bear pointing out who his coaches have been and what he had to work with. That's all.
Even Brady's YPA dropped below a 7 when Julian Edelman became his primary target.

 

[-X-]

Why is this so complex? It's seems so cloudy or confusing for some. IS Bradford the first QB ever to be evaluated? It will be his 5th season. Usually in a QBs 5th year you have a pretty good idea of who and what they are. I think Max has been very articulate in making his case.... I mean I'm not trying to be rude or anything I just don't get the benchmark stuff. We are going to know when we see it. I mean he just mentioned Russell Wilson's stats and doing the things that RW does for the Hawks. Why isn't that good enough for your benchmark? I think you are making it more confusing than it has to be.

N/M

 

[bluesjoc]

I am going to love digging these old post back up in the next coming seasons

 

[F. Mulder]

Way the draft order shook out Luck wasn't there when the Rams picked, neither was Cam Newton. So You're still on the clock.
I get what your saying, but then again I not sure totally get what I and others are saying. That in this scheme there is no better QB the Rams could have gotten that would have preformed better than Bradford. And when one is found.
It's nice to have high expectations of a player and hope to see him succeed and even ponder his failures. But to critique without offering a realistic solution...........

I get what you are saying. It seems you want me to offer "realistic" solutions and I will attempt to do so, but not right now. I can assure you however that there are numerous mid/lower 1st round and second round QBs who were available when the Rams picked AFTER the Bradford pick that one could argue could fill the role of game manager and offer similar stats. I will try to get back to this ASAP (but not tonight).

I've enjoyed the logical and rational discussion we (and others) have had on a very volatile topic. Like I said, I'm on his side and the Rams side overall. Just trying to set the bar of expectations at the appropriate level. Until tomorrow.....

 

[cgsuddeath]

Just for fun, here's an interesting stat.

Aaron Rodgers has been sacked a total of 139 times over the past 4 years. Bradford has been sacked 120 times over that same time period.

The difference being Rodgers has better receivers.

 

[Yamahopper]

I get what you are saying. It seems you want me to offer "realistic" solutions and I will attempt to do so, but not right now. I can assure you however that there are numerous mid/lower 1st round and second round QBs who were available when the Rams picked AFTER the Bradford pick that one could argue could fill the role of game manager and offer similar stats. I will try to get back to this ASAP (but not tonight).

I've enjoyed the logical and rational discussion we (and others) have had on a very volatile topic. Like I said, I'm on his side and the Rams side overall. Just trying to set the bar of expectations at the appropriate level. Until tomorrow.....

Frank I have really enjoyed this debate, Thanks.

 

[ED_29]

Because it does bear pointing out who his coaches have been and what he had to work with. That's all.
Even Brady's YPA dropped below a 7 when Julian Edelman became his primary target.

Well that's obvious... But Bradford's is 6.2 for 4 years.... When someone says his career ypa is 6.2 and everyone knows he played for 4 years obviously you aren't referring to a single year right? Last year after 4 weeks he lead the NFL in the number of attempts of 5 yards or less by a ton. Now people can blame Shurmur, McDaniels, and Shotty but the common denominator is Bradford.... And there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing that out.

 

[ED_29]

I get what you are saying. It seems you want me to offer "realistic" solutions and I will attempt to do so, but not right now. I can assure you however that there are numerous mid/lower 1st round and second round QBs who were available when the Rams picked AFTER the Bradford pick that one could argue could fill the role of game manager and offer similar stats. I will try to get back to this ASAP (but not tonight).

I've enjoyed the logical and rational discussion we (and others) have had on a very volatile topic. Like I said, I'm on his side and the Rams side overall. Just trying to set the bar of expectations at the appropriate level. Until tomorrow.....

Classy response