The Case Against Sam Bradford

[Faceplant]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 0f31a.html

By Jeff Gordon

Is Rams poster boy Sam Bradford really the worst starting quarterback in the NFL?

Tipsheet thinks not, but we concede the statistics to this point of his career aren’t pretty. His won-loss record as a starter is gruesome, too.

On ESPN.com, the Football Outsiders took a withering look at Bradford and ranked him among the league’s most overrated players. Those analysts crunched the numbers and disputed Bradford’s ESPN Insider ranking as the league’s 17th-best quarterback.

Wrote Vince Verhei:

Public perception is that Bradford regressed following his rookie campaign. In reality, Bradford has put up lousy numbers now for two seasons in a row, ranking 39th or lower in DYAR (Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement) both seasons.

You could make a strong case that Bradford is the worst starting quarterback in the league. Of the 30 quarterbacks with at least 500 passes in the past two seasons, Bradford ranks last in yards per completion, yards per pass attempt, yards per pass play (including sacks), touchdowns per pass and NFL passer rating. Obviously, his receiving corps is about as bad as any in the league, but there has been little on-field evidence to justify Bradford's 17th-place ranking.

On the other hand, Rams linebacker James Laurinaitis ranked among the NFL’s most underrated players. His numbers suggest he deserves better than the No. 25 linebacker rating he got from ESPN Insider.

Wrote Verhei:

It's difficult to separate the performances of offensive players from their teammates, but it's even harder to do it for defenders. The responsibilities for two players at the same position can vary radically from team to team, or even from play to play. Still, however you want to measure defenders, Laurinaitis' name shows up at the top of our list of undervalued players. Play-by-play stats show that Laurinaitis made 148 plays (the sum of tackles, passes defensed, interceptions and fumbles forced and recovered) in 2011. Only five other players were more active. Laurinaitis also tied for fifth in the league with 30 Defeats (plays that result in a turnover, loss of yardage or third- or fourth-down stop), and he was the only man in the league with at least 15 Defeats against both run and pass. So he made the little plays and the big ones. Our game-charting project shows Laurinaitis to be elite in both tackling (only two broken tackles in 2011) and pass coverage (fourth at his position in Success Rate). In other words, the numbers don't bear out that there are 24 linebackers better than Laurinaitis in the league.

Plenty of food for thought there. Consume it as you wish.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/jeff-gordon/tipsheet-the-case-against-sam-bradford/article_1d3737b2-ed14-11e1-9759-0019bb30f31a.html

By Jeff Gordon

Is Rams poster boy Sam Bradford really the worst starting quarterback in the NFL?

Tipsheet thinks not, but we concede the statistics to this point of his career aren’t pretty. His won-loss record as a starter is gruesome, too.

On ESPN.com, the Football Outsiders took a withering look at Bradford and ranked him among the league’s most overrated players. Those analysts crunched the numbers and disputed Bradford’s ESPN Insider ranking as the league’s 17th-best quarterback.

Wrote Vince Verhei:

Public perception is that Bradford regressed following his rookie campaign. In reality, Bradford has put up lousy numbers now for two seasons in a row, ranking 39th or lower in DYAR (Defense-adjusted Yards Above Replacement) both seasons.

You could make a strong case that Bradford is the worst starting quarterback in the league. Of the 30 quarterbacks with at least 500 passes in the past two seasons, Bradford ranks last in yards per completion, yards per pass attempt, yards per pass play (including sacks), touchdowns per pass and NFL passer rating. Obviously, his receiving corps is about as bad as any in the league, but there has been little on-field evidence to justify Bradford's 17th-place ranking.

On the other hand, Rams linebacker James Laurinaitis ranked among the NFL’s most underrated players. His numbers suggest he deserves better than the No. 25 linebacker rating he got from ESPN Insider.

Wrote Verhei:

It's difficult to separate the performances of offensive players from their teammates, but it's even harder to do it for defenders. The responsibilities for two players at the same position can vary radically from team to team, or even from play to play. Still, however you want to measure defenders, Laurinaitis' name shows up at the top of our list of undervalued players. Play-by-play stats show that Laurinaitis made 148 plays (the sum of tackles, passes defensed, interceptions and fumbles forced and recovered) in 2011. Only five other players were more active. Laurinaitis also tied for fifth in the league with 30 Defeats (plays that result in a turnover, loss of yardage or third- or fourth-down stop), and he was the only man in the league with at least 15 Defeats against both run and pass. So he made the little plays and the big ones. Our game-charting project shows Laurinaitis to be elite in both tackling (only two broken tackles in 2011) and pass coverage (fourth at his position in Success Rate). In other words, the numbers don't bear out that there are 24 linebackers better than Laurinaitis in the league.

Plenty of food for thought there. Consume it as you wish.

Reading that article, and Verhei's comments, I feel like I am on a numbers desert lacking context just as a real desert lacks water.

I like stats. But you have to put them in a context. That means you have to know the context.

Bradford himself says there are things he is working on to keep steadily improving his game as a pro.

But this guy? Jeesh.

It would be as if he went to a dating site online and only paid attention to x-rays of women's skeletal structure.

Well. You miss a lot when you do that.

 

[Angry Ram]

LMAO.

QB rating? The stupidest stat in the world that doesn't take into account how passes were TDs/INTs etc.

But Cam Newton is a stud b/c he threw for over 2000 yards in 10 losses, right?

No one cares about your "analysts crunching numbers." This aint baseball, numbers don't mean shit.

SMH, BSPN you never fail 2 look stupid.

 

[Faceplant]

Thought the article would make for interesting discussion so I posted it. I like Sam, and obviously want him to prove that he is capable of being our QB for the future. I do have some doubts of course. I found Iron Lions comments about Joey Harrington interesting about how he was just good enough to fool the front office into keeping him around longer than they should have. Hope that isn't the situation here. Sam has had a lot going against him his first 2 years, but I don't think we can make excuses for him forever. The WRs are capable and lord willing, the OL will hold up this year. If we continue to see bottom of the league stats this season, will you still call them just "numbers"?

 

[-X-]

Yeah, I don't see why we can't have a conversation about it. There are no agendas here.

Like a lot of people, I don't put much stock into stats because they often lack context. I'm a big fan of context as I'm sure many people can attest; and in this particular article, there is none. There is, however, some hyperbole. You actually *can't* make a case that he's the worst starting QB in the league. You'd have to eliminate a TON of other just flat out shitty passers to do that. PASSERS being the operative word. When you see NFL experts saying Bradford is the best QB in the division, it's because they don't look at numbers. They look at the tangibles and the INtangibles. They also frequently make mention of the somewhat putrid position he was put in as it relates to supporting cast. They do that to qualify their statement and to make you aware that we haven't seen all that he has to offer.

Could he be Joey Harrington? I don't know. Maybe. He could also end up on the other end of the spectrum. It's largely dependent on how he's developed and how he's supported. Which, to this point, has been less than exemplary. That's not an opinion either. Everyone's aware of that. He just has too much talent, too much intelligence, and too much desire to bust out. THAT is my opinion.

To further illustrate my disdain for statistics being used as indicators, I'll leave you with this.

Who is that?

Spoiler

That's 6 years of Brett Favre.

 

[Angry Ram]

Thought the article would make for interesting discussion so I posted it. I like Sam, and obviously want him to prove that he is capable of being our QB for the future. I do have some doubts of course. I found Iron Lions comments about Joey Harrington interesting about how he was just good enough to fool the front office into keeping him around longer than they should have. Hope that isn't the situation here. Sam has had a lot going against him his first 2 years, but I don't think we can make excuses for him forever. The WRs are capable and lord willing, the OL will hold up this year. If we continue to see bottom of the league stats this season, will you still call them just "numbers"?

Yup, just numbers. Numbers are skewed and almost aways lie. Did INTs come during the final hail mary? Did the WR tip it out of his own hands into the defender, did the pass get batted down into a DL hands? Does a 63 yard pass actuall go in the air more than 10 yards or just a little dump screen? Did the stats get padded during catch up time or garbage time when the opposing D is playing prevent?

Smart fans shouldn't just look at numbers and say "oh look he sucks! His average YPCDSDDSF (whatever the hell you want to call it) is this!" See other factors and then determine how a player is.

 

[Speeps]

I am a huge Sam Bradford fan. I like stats, but you have to put the stats into context. There are many factor that can help, or hinder a players stats, especially the quarterback position.

I expect a huge year for Sam Bradford. How do we quantify a huge year? Is it wins, completions, TD passes, or victories?
I think it's a combination of those. I expect the Rams to be a .500 team or better. He's been the most accurate QB in the preseason, and because of that accuracy and his WR's and TE's ability to gain YAC, I think his numbers (yards) will double, and I see him in the 25-30 TD category with 10-15 INT's.

 

[Username]

You could make a strong case that Bradford is the worst starting quarterback in the league.

No I couldn't Jeff, because I'm not a dumb shit. Why don't you try actually backing an opinion yourself? Instead of trying to slip this "consume as you wish" stir the pot bullshit. It would maybe make me give an ounce of respect for this worthless pos article.

 

[-X-]

You could make a strong case that Bradford is the worst starting quarterback in the league.

No I couldn't Jeff, because I'm not a dumb shit. Why don't you try actually backing an opinion yourself instead of trying to slip this "consume as you wish" stir the pot bullshit. It would maybe make me give an ounce of respect for this worthless pos article.

Preach. What he's doing is no different than what regular posters do when trying to make a point.

"See!?!? (this guy or that guy) said this!"

Yeah. Great. Now what is it that YOU think? Maybe articulate THAT next time.

 

[Username]

I cannot stand the "You can make a case" bullshit. It's poor journalism too. Any dumb shit can make a case for anything. I'm just glad that article only got 9 comments, even though I fell into the trap of commenting on Ram stalk.

 

[Faceplant]

You could make a strong case that Bradford is the worst starting quarterback in the league.

No I couldn't Jeff, because I'm not a dumb shyte. Why don't you try actually backing an opinion yourself? Instead of trying to slip this "consume as you wish" stir the pot BS. It would maybe make me give an ounce of respect for this worthless pos article.

Agreed. Jeff comes off as a cynical, snyde, know it all who rarely, if ever will take a firm stand on anything. Rather, he writes this kind of vaguely veiled "opinion piece" that he won't even stand behind. I think someone called it "hedging your bets" in a recent thread. That would be Gordon...the perpetual fence sitter.

As far as this discussion goes, I hope no one thinks I agree with the "worst QB in the league" notion. Even if his numbers are/were the worst, my own eyes tell me he is FAR from the likes of Kevin Kolb, Rex Grossman, Matt Moore, etc. My only point is that we need to see results at some point. He gets a pass for last year, as he should. Assuming the WRs and OL stay healthy and perform this season, I expect to see him thrive and begin his ascension to what we all believed him to become when we drafted him. If he falters in that same scenario, well....Jeff will say he told us so....even though he never really told us anything. :tooth:

 

[bluecoconuts]

NFL.com also says that Jim Harbaugh is among the "top shelf" NFL coaches along with Bill Bilicheat and Mike Tomlin.

Yes, he's above Mike McCarthy, Asshole Face, Andy Reid and Tom Coughlin, three of whom have won Super Bowls.

Jim Harbaugh is apparently a top 3 coach in the NFL after coaching a team that was incredibly talented for one season. And winning a single playoff game.


This is why I don't listen to anyone about anything now days. NFL, ESPN, they're all dumb.

 

[JdashSTL]

So Bradford goes from having a good rookie season, really bright future, to overrated? On top of that, he missed some games his 2nd season, and now in his 3rd season he will have a 3rd OC. These are factors that must be brought up, because im pretty sure a lot of young QBs would struggle going through that lack of consistency around them.

 

[Memento]

This is one of the many reasons why ESPN sucks. The only thing that they're good for is hyping up athletes and calling them "overrated" when they struggle. Like you guys said, this guy isn't looking into the context of things. None of them ever do.

They'll be back on the bandwagon after this season.

 

[Iron Lion]

You could make a strong case that Bradford is the worst starting quarterback in the league.

No I couldn't Jeff, because I'm not a dumb shyte. Why don't you try actually backing an opinion yourself? Instead of trying to slip this "consume as you wish" stir the pot BS. It would maybe make me give an ounce of respect for this worthless pos article.

Agreed. Jeff comes off as a cynical, snyde, know it all who rarely, if ever will take a firm stand on anything. Rather, he writes this kind of vaguely veiled "opinion piece" that he won't even stand behind. I think someone called it "hedging your bets" in a recent thread. That would be Gordon...the perpetual fence sitter.

As far as this discussion goes, I hope no one thinks I agree with the "worst QB in the league" notion. Even if his numbers are/were the worst, my own eyes tell me he is FAR from the likes of Kevin Kolb, Rex Grossman, Matt Moore, etc. My only point is that we need to see results at some point. He gets a pass for last year, as he should. Assuming the WRs and OL stay healthy and perform this season, I expect to see him thrive and begin his ascension to what we all believed him to become when we drafted him. If he falters in that same scenario, well....Jeff will say he told us so....even though he never really told us anything. :tooth:

I have to disagree with lumping Moore into that category. Moore is a good QB. Not elite, not saying that... but he is good. In fact, despite being an UDFA he was the best QB in his draft. But I digress.


I do agree 100% with the disdain you all have over the issue of numbers. I've seen offenses averaging 20 points/game that are better than a hyped up offense putting up 25 points/game. How is this? Well, if you're the type of offense that can grind the clock and limit the game to fewer possessions, you actually might score more points per possession than the 25 points/game team. As you all said--context.

Looking just at a QB's rating, or TDs vs INTs, or whatever, does not tell you anything. In a particular game that I won't mention directly, Romo gave away a 27-3 lead by throwing INTs and yet his QB rating was 14.5 points higher than that of the other guy.

 

[Yamahopper]

Football is a team sport unlike baseball which is a game of individualism. It is impossible to quantify individual performance in a sport that requires 10 other players to preform a single task.
Go ahead and try it. I dare you.

 

[RamFan503]

Who is that?

Spoiler

That's 6 years of Brett Favre.

Hey... I got it right. Where's my cigar?

 

[Anonymous]

I think you guys are all in complete denial.

That article makes perfect sense.

Lauranaitis IS under-rated.

I didn't read the rest of it yet though so not sure what he says about Bradford.

 

[RamFan503]

I think you guys are all in complete denial.

That article makes perfect sense.

Lauranaitis IS under-rated.

I didn't read the rest of it yet though so not sure what he says about Bradford.

I think he says something like Manning only wishes he finishes his career with Bradford type numbers. :sly:

 

[Anonymous]

I think you guys are all in complete denial.

That article makes perfect sense.

Lauranaitis IS under-rated.

I didn't read the rest of it yet though so not sure what he says about Bradford.

I think he says something like Manning only wishes he finishes his career with Bradford type numbers. :sly:

Oh well...there you go.

Sounds a bit exaggerated but...you know, that's okay.