Sam Bradford

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

HitStick

Van Jefferson’s #1 fan
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
2,429
Those drops are why we SHOULD get another receiver. Receivers have got to make those easy catches.
 

V3

Hall of Fame
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
3,848
Just thought I'd post this, when you add in the two big drops by Givens and Quick as well as Tavon's TD being overturned on a bleh call...here's what Bradford's numbers would have looked like over the 3 game stretch before his injury:
55/81
67.9% Comp%
761 yards
9.4 YPA
10 TDs
12.3% TD%
1 Int
1.2% Int%
132.3 QB Rating

His season numbers would have been:
162/263
61.6% comp%
1854 yards
7.05 YPA
17 TDs
6.5% TD%
4 Ints
1.5% Int%
98.0 QB Rating

At this point, I'd pass on drafting a WR. I'd grab a HB to pair with Stacy, rebuild the OL, and plug a couple holes/increase the depth on defense. I'd also grab a developmental QB.

I think Bradford is our guy. If we can give him a running game and decent blocking/WR play, the guy can do some big time things for us. He was playing amazing football before the injury.

You premise your post on the failure of the WR's yet you say you don't want to get better WR's. They're probably our weakest link on offense. Austin gets a pass but the others shouldn't be dropping passes and/or looking lost out there at this stage in the game. I seriously don't see it with Quick.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #23
You premise your post on the failure of the WR's yet you say you don't want to get better WR's. They're probably our weakest link on offense. Austin gets a pass but the others shouldn't be dropping passes and/or looking lost out there at this stage in the game. I seriously don't see it with Quick.

My premise of my post is that Bradford is doing well. The WRs are still young. You just can't keep drafting WRs year after year. You gotta give them a chance. Unless you're advocating we bring in a top notch vet WR, I just don't see the value in drafting another WR highly when we don't yet know what we have with our current ones(unless one really drops into our laps).

Get the OL straight, give the WRs another year to develop and show what they have and we'll see where to go from there. It's not like Bradford can't succeed with these guys.(and that's part of my point)
 

V3

Hall of Fame
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
3,848
My premise of my post is that Bradford is doing well. The WRs are still young. You just can't keep drafting WRs year after year. You gotta give them a chance. Unless you're advocating we bring in a top notch vet WR, I just don't see the value in drafting another WR highly when we don't yet know what we have with our current ones(unless one really drops into our laps).

Get the OL straight, give the WRs another year to develop and show what they have and we'll see where to go from there. It's not like Bradford can't succeed with these guys.(and that's part of my point)

Your premise, as I read it, is that Bradford would be doing amazing if the WR's hadn't dropped those passes.

Also, you may not agree but I have a pretty good idea what Quick is and he isn't the true #1 WR that this team needs. He can fill a role but he isn't going to be the #1 that Snead built him up to be.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Accuracy% is without the drops.

Quickest time to sack means that on the plays that Bradford was sacked, only one other QB was sacked quicker. Basically...he's not taking coverage sacks.

Quickest to attempt measures how quickly the QB gets the ball out. It doesn't really correlate much to anything.

i
You premise your post on the failure of the WR's yet you say you don't want to get better WR's. They're probably our weakest link on offense. Austin gets a pass but the others shouldn't be dropping passes and/or looking lost out there at this stage in the game. I seriously don't see it with Quick.

Since he's been getting more snaps, I see it with Quick...not like that he's put it all together yet, but he's getting very close imo..i wouldn't he shocked to see him start turning it on at the end of the season, say week 13 or so...Clemens at QB is not doing him any favors either.
 

bwdenverram

Legend
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
5,497
Name
BW
Projected 16 game stats based on the Original Post: 4238 yards 39 TDs 9 Ints (Actual Projections were in the 3900 yard 32 TD 9 Int area)
Projected 16 game stats based on the Original Post: 4238 yards 39 TDs 9 Ints (Actual Projections were in the 3900 yard 32 TD 9 Int area)

I can't imagine anyone not being on board with these numbers. Well, that is anyone but a couple of the crack smoking haters on the PD anyway.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #27
Your premise, as I read it, is that Bradford would be doing amazing if the WR's hadn't dropped those passes.

Also, you may not agree but I have a pretty good idea what Quick is and he isn't the true #1 WR that this team needs. He can fill a role but he isn't going to be the #1 that Snead built him up to be.

Then we'll worry about that true #1 once the OL is set. I think that's more a luxury than the OL is. But I wouldn't be opposed to picking a WR early if the right value is there. I just don't consider it a major need.

My premise was that Bradford is doing amazing. Just a couple of bad plays by others kept his stats down.

But I think you gotta see what strides all the WRs can make. Pettis improved a lot of from Year 2 to Year 3.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
I've heard him say Bradford is not very good in his podcasts this year, and he said in the most recent one that he hasn't changed his opinion of Sam now. He has said Bradford is not good in a muddy pocket and you need to be able to do that to be a very good QB.
 

V3

Hall of Fame
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
3,848
Then we'll worry about that true #1 once the OL is set. I think that's more a luxury than the OL is. But I wouldn't be opposed to picking a WR early if the right value is there. I just don't consider it a major need.

My premise was that Bradford is doing amazing. Just a couple of bad plays by others kept his stats down.

But I think you gotta see what strides all the WRs can make. Pettis improved a lot of from Year 2 to Year 3.

I'll be shocked if Fisher takes an OL in the first round. I think Barksdale is fine and for better or worse, we're going to have to live with Long a little bit longer. The problem is with the interior and taking an interior OL high in the first round is pretty bad value, IMO. We'll see. I'd much rather they take an elite WR prospect than an elite OG prospect in the top half of the draft, though.
 

Ram Quixote

Knight Errant
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
2,923
Name
Tim
Which is odd because last year he was pretty good under pressure. Really good numbers from what I remember.
Well, his worst game of the season against SF is probably tilting those numbers. The Oline wasn't able to protect at all in that game, and Bradford also did not play well.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Well, his worst game of the season against SF is probably tilting those numbers. The Oline wasn't able to protect at all in that game, and Bradford also did not play well.
Eh? I'm talking about 2012.
 

Ram Quixote

Knight Errant
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
2,923
Name
Tim
Eh? I'm talking about 2012.
And Jerry's stat about "under pressure" was about this year. The SF game had to influence those numbers, what with Bradford having a bad game and the Oline giving up sacks.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #33
I'll be shocked if Fisher takes an OL in the first round. I think Barksdale is fine and for better or worse, we're going to have to live with Long a little bit longer. The problem is with the interior and taking an interior OL high in the first round is pretty bad value, IMO. We'll see. I'd much rather they take an elite WR prospect than an elite OG prospect in the top half of the draft, though.

You take talent where you can get it. I like Barksdale but you don't pass on a talent like Jake Matthews for him especially when Long may only be here for another year or two.

I'd rather transform this OL into a young, great unit than add more young WRs for now.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
And Jerry's stat about "under pressure" was about this year. The SF game had to influence those numbers, what with Bradford having a bad game and the Oline giving up sacks.
Oh, okay. I thought you were talking about my post relative to his good numbers under pressure in 2012.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
Up until the last three games ,I wasn't a huge Sam Bradford fan, IMO he has turned a corner the game has really "slowed down for him" and I truly believe the sky is the limit for him.
I also think he will learn even more being on the sideline or possibly in the booth,JMO but next year is his year
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
You take talent where you can get it. I like Barksdale but you don't pass on a talent like Jake Matthews for him especially when Long may only be here for another year or two.

I'd rather transform this OL into a young, great unit than add more young WRs for now.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Guards are way more glaring needs than Tackle on this team, and Jake Long signed a 4 year deal at only age 28. Tackles aren't like running backs, they have longer shelf lives.

Besides, we won't be picking high enough to get Matthews. No way he falls out of top 5, I still have him pegged at #2 or 3 to the giants
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #37
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Guards are way more glaring needs than Tackle on this team, and Jake Long signed a 4 year deal at only age 28. Tackles aren't like running backs, they have longer shelf lives

It is broke, that's why we're fixing it. :wink:

The interior is the biggest need but you still take the best talent and that's Matthews. Barksdale is perfect as a swing tackle. Hell, he might even be capable of playing OG.

You take Matthews and you address one or both guard spots(preferably both). I still think Barrett Jones can be the Center of the future.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
I'll be shocked if Fisher takes an OL in the first round. I think Barksdale is fine and for better or worse, we're going to have to live with Long a little bit longer. The problem is with the interior and taking an interior OL high in the first round is pretty bad value, IMO. We'll see. I'd much rather they take an elite WR prospect than an elite OG prospect in the top half of the draft, though.

I agree with this, improve the interior of the O line before either tackle spot, my preference is to trade down and take an interior O lineman either low first or high second.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
Well, his worst game of the season against SF is probably tilting those numbers. The Oline wasn't able to protect at all in that game, and Bradford also did not play well.

That's my biggest worry with Sam, He can play to an amazing level which he was in the last three games before going down, or he can play like he did in the 49ers game, he needs to become more consistent.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
Up until the last three games ,I wasn't a huge Sam Bradford fan, IMO he has turned a corner the game has really "slowed down for him" and I truly believe the sky is the limit for him.
I also think he will learn even more being on the sideline or possibly in the booth,JMO but next year is his year

Also agree with this after the 49ers game I threw my rattle out the pram and was just about done with him, now I'd extend him today if he was willing to sign. Which worries me as a statistician that I'm working off ridiculously small sample sizes but he just looked that much better to me.