Bernie on Bradford....

[-X-]

I am glad you brought up Warner. I was going to use him as an example in my previous post, but deleted it. It is a good point that Warner, under similar circumstances (actually, more favorable) did not play well. He was also injured and too stubborn to admit that the thumb was affecting his play.

As far as trust goes, Warner had already led the team to 2 Superbowls by that point, so I think fans were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We trusted him. In the end, he was run out of town and was not effective again until he had recovered from the injury, and had Fitz, Boldin and Breaston to throw the ball to. That aside, I saw a lot of things in Warner that I just don't see in Sam. Should that surprise anyone? No. Warner is one of the best QBs of our time. But it is those intangibles that I saw in KW that I wish would surface for Bradford. Maybe they will, I just don't see it happening yet.

Man I would LOVE to see what Bradford could do with Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce and Az Hakim on the LOS with him - and behind that O-line. Along the same vein, I wouldn't wish Kurt Warner to play in the same circumstances Bradford had in 2011.

As would I. I think some of us on ROD could put up decent #'s in that offense, haha. I am not sure Sam would flourish in that system either though. That was such a precision timing aerial scheme. So far, I have not seen Sam throw as much of the pure timing, trust your man to be at a spot 15-20 yds downfield on a crossing route type stuff that was the staple of that passing offense. Much of that can and WILL be blamed on the OL and WRs.....and with good reason. I am just saying I have not seen him in that style of offense, in the pros or college. Would be fun to see how he would have performed with that roster though. It would certainly end any and all debate about him...one way or the other.

I think that precision-timing offense is exactly where Bradford would flourish. I don't know how he would fare if he had to chuck the ball fiddy yards, but those middle zone routes are right in Bradford's wheelhouse. And separation certainly wouldn't be an issue with those cats running around out there. Going right into that offense from college probably wouldn't look so good though, so I can agree on that. Martz put his QBs through a lot of punishment on those longer developing plays, and Bradford simply wouldn't be ready for that kind of an offense right away.

I've said this before, and I still believe it. I think Warner's road to the NFL is one that all QBs should take. He went from the Arena League where everything is SO fast, and your decisions have to be made SO quick, to NFL Europe where the field is SO big, and you get to see SO much right after the snap, that by the time he got his shot in the NFL, everything was slower for him. And he said as much too in his autobiography. It was an interesting road, and a great story.

I miss Kurt.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I am glad you brought up Warner. I was going to use him as an example in my previous post, but deleted it. It is a good point that Warner, under similar circumstances (actually, more favorable) did not play well. He was also injured and too stubborn to admit that the thumb was affecting his play.

As far as trust goes, Warner had already led the team to 2 Superbowls by that point, so I think fans were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We trusted him. In the end, he was run out of town and was not effective again until he had recovered from the injury, and had Fitz, Boldin and Breaston to throw the ball to. That aside, I saw a lot of things in Warner that I just don't see in Sam. Should that surprise anyone? No. Warner is one of the best QBs of our time. But it is those intangibles that I saw in KW that I wish would surface for Bradford. Maybe they will, I just don't see it happening yet.

Man I would LOVE to see what Bradford could do with Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce and Az Hakim on the LOS with him - and behind that O-line. Along the same vein, I wouldn't wish Kurt Warner to play in the same circumstances Bradford had in 2011.

As would I. I think some of us on ROD could put up decent #'s in that offense, haha. I am not sure Sam would flourish in that system either though. That was such a precision timing aerial scheme. So far, I have not seen Sam throw as much of the pure timing, trust your man to be at a spot 15-20 yds downfield on a crossing route type stuff that was the staple of that passing offense. Much of that can and WILL be blamed on the OL and WRs.....and with good reason. I am just saying I have not seen him in that style of offense, in the pros or college. Would be fun to see how he would have performed with that roster though. It would certainly end any and all debate about him...one way or the other.

I've seen him make throws like that, usually to Amendola. The rest of the receivers he probably doesn't trust and I don't blame him. It's hard to trust guys to be in the right spot when they never are.

 

[-X-]

I am glad you brought up Warner. I was going to use him as an example in my previous post, but deleted it. It is a good point that Warner, under similar circumstances (actually, more favorable) did not play well. He was also injured and too stubborn to admit that the thumb was affecting his play.

As far as trust goes, Warner had already led the team to 2 Superbowls by that point, so I think fans were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We trusted him. In the end, he was run out of town and was not effective again until he had recovered from the injury, and had Fitz, Boldin and Breaston to throw the ball to. That aside, I saw a lot of things in Warner that I just don't see in Sam. Should that surprise anyone? No. Warner is one of the best QBs of our time. But it is those intangibles that I saw in KW that I wish would surface for Bradford. Maybe they will, I just don't see it happening yet.

Man I would LOVE to see what Bradford could do with Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce and Az Hakim on the LOS with him - and behind that O-line. Along the same vein, I wouldn't wish Kurt Warner to play in the same circumstances Bradford had in 2011.

As would I. I think some of us on ROD could put up decent #'s in that offense, haha. I am not sure Sam would flourish in that system either though. That was such a precision timing aerial scheme. So far, I have not seen Sam throw as much of the pure timing, trust your man to be at a spot 15-20 yds downfield on a crossing route type stuff that was the staple of that passing offense. Much of that can and WILL be blamed on the OL and WRs.....and with good reason. I am just saying I have not seen him in that style of offense, in the pros or college. Would be fun to see how he would have performed with that roster though. It would certainly end any and all debate about him...one way or the other.

I've seen him make throws like that, usually to Amendola. The rest of the receivers he probably doesn't trust and I don't blame him. It's hard to trust guys to be in the right spot when they never are.

Let's look at that.

The guys he trusts are/were

Amendola, who was a UDFA from the Cowboys who himself was getting acclimated with the NFL.

Mark Clayton who came in and in his first game had 10 receptions for 119 yards and 2 TDs (and then went on IR 4 weeks later).

Then it was Alexander. Every single time Alexander is on the field, Bradford's stats went up.

Then it was Lloyd - who made everyone look good.

Somewhere in there he had Gibson, Robinson, Avery, Gilyard, Pettis, Salas and Sims-Walker. Of those guys, not a single one of them started every game of the season. None of them even PLAYED in 16 games in a single season. Now he's got Quick, Givens and Smith to add to the mix of whoever's left after these cuts.

That is not the principle ingredient in establishing chemistry. If he had only ONE. Just ONE receiver that he could have at his disposal at all times, things would look much different, IMO. I can't recall another QB who's had to get acclimated with a different WR1/WR2 combination nearly every single week. Call it an excuse or whatever, but I mean c'mon ... it's not an ideal situation. It's borderline negligent.

 

[Username]

You go back and watch the tape, and it's actually not all that bad. For example I hear some people bitching about the Smith throw where Bradford put it over his head. Well, on that throw his right guard got bullrushed so bad that he got pushed into Sam the moment he let go of the ball. I imagine this is why he just threw it away basically. The throw to Amendola in the redzone where we got the encroachment call and Marshall says "he could've walked into the endzone" if the ball was thrown better. Well, if you go back and watch you can clearly see the ball is tipped.

One thing that is clearly noticeable is how bad we lost the line of scrimmage on a consistent basis. It looked like Varsity vs freshman fun practice day. Except this time the "seniors" were allowed to hit the quarterback. If Ware played Sam quite possibly could have played his last game in the NFL. Seriously go back and watch every snap that the 1s had against Dallas's 1s. Fucking domination. I'm not exaggerating in the least either. Go watch.

One kind of disturbing side note (to me) here is one of Fishers post game comments where he said "again when you're not game planning for that stuff you have to be careful" in response to the looks Dallas's threw at them defensively. Hasn't he been saying all week they expect Dallas to consider this a dress rehearsal game? They expect them to come out very strong, and throw a lot of things at the offense? If our goal this year is to "protect the qb" then maybe we should start taking late preseason game planning to protect him serious.

In reality though game planning wouldn't have been enough to stop Dallas's defensive line. Now that Wells is back, I think they have to make a serious consideration in moving Harvey outside and putting Turner/Rok at one of the guard positions.

Back to Sam again here. I saw 2 (you could say 3) throws that were considerably bad throws. He didn't have his best game, but then again the whole team was miserable. Just a sloppy mess. In the future, I don't know if it's a good idea to consider these games "just another practice." Especially when the other team is taking them very, very seriously and your qb isn't wearing a red shirt.

I sure hope when this team opens the playbook up after all this "vanilla" play calling that they can execute it, cause right now, we're having a pretty hard time with the basics.

 

[-X-]

One kind of disturbing side note (to me) here is one of Fishers post game comments where he said "again when you're not game planning for that stuff you have to be careful" in response to the looks Dallas's threw at them defensively. Hasn't he been saying all week they expect Dallas to consider this a dress rehearsal game? They expect them to come out very strong, and throw a lot of things at the offense? If our goal this year is to "protect the qb" then maybe we should start taking late preseason game planning to protect him serious.

Good point/observation.

 

[bwdenverram]

That *is* the topic dujour. And will be until at least mid season.

The offensive line, that is.

It's nice that Bernie is taking this approach now about the inconsistency surrounding Bradford, but my gut tells me it won't take long before he takes a different approach. Or maybe not. I don't even remember what his stance was on Bulger - who had nearly identical circumstances in his final few years.

Now, that all said, Fisher and Snead have had how long to correct the issues surrounding Bradford? A few months? It may appear that they took a lax approach to the offensive line; but at the same time, how do we really know? We too only have a few preseason games and an assortment of camp reports to make the determination on our own. Would Kalil have been the better choice? I dunno. Would DeCastro have been a better option instead of Brockers? I dunno. Are any of us qualified to make an adequate assessment of the team's needs prior to the draft? Eh, no.

Maybe Boudreau looked at the tape of the line and said to everyone else, "Holy shyte - there's a TON of stuff I can correct on THAT line! Just give me an offseason and a couple of free agents & UDFA's, and we'll be good to go." Maybe Schottenheimer weighed in and said, "Man oh man! I can scheme the hell out of this offense and that kid will never even get touched!" We'll never know.

I do know this though. There were a lot of holes to fill and they all couldn't be addressed in one off-season. Sometimes quantity over quality works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes fence-sitting (as I am now) works. Sometimes it doesn't. I think they need a full year before an adequate evaluation of their talent can be made. So, here we go ...

Getcher popcorn ready.

He relentlessly put it all on Bulger, and would break out long stats sheets to prove he wasn't playing well. He would then also say he was suffering from battered qb syndrome.

He even did the "all teams have injuries" schtick when it was mentioned that the OL was injured.

My response to this is simple.

No one is actually criticizing the Rams starting offensive line.

Why not?

The Rams starting offense, and offensive line, did not play against Dallas.

That was Wells's first game, Dahl was out, Jackson was out, and they faced a gameplanning defense in its home owner without themselves treating the game seriously that way.

So what does the Dallas game teach me?

So far...that much adieu can be made about nothing.

The week before, they had a center who wasn't in his first start, they had Dahl, they had Jackson, and scored in 4 plays in their opening drive.

Which is truer? Neither. But the KC game at least had the starting offense on the field.

This is where I can't agree with ZN entirely. The two most sacked QB's in 2011 from the stats I found were Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady. I wouldn't agrue that Rodgers has better weapons but Tom Brady has I would say better TE's than he does great WR's. I am a Bradford supporter but even I can be realistic and say there are times he doesn't look comfortable, he does lock onto receivers too much and many times he doesn't do a good job of feeling pressure and avoiding sacks that shouldn't happen. His rookie year he did more rolling out and finding receivers or throwing the ball away. How many times has Sam had time to throw, locked onto a reciever and then tried to force a throw into coverage. Now, you can say that's lack of seperation or whatever. It's probably partially true. But, I also watched Tony Romo pick us apart with receivers I have NEVER even heard of. You're telling me Romo is that much better or those no name receivers are that much better? So at some point we can't just blame the OL. Yes, it is an issue, but we've been saying that for YEARS. There are too many QB's that have come into the league and still looked good with lack of talent. I'm certainly not pointing the finger right at Sam. But he certainly needs to improve. If you think otherwise than your just not being honest. I will say, it's really hard to guage because the KC game the OL looked fantastic and aside from Dahl and Wells (who is suposed to be an upgrade, no?) was the same starting group.I do get the SJ difference, but just from a blocking standpoint it was night and day. I would really hate to think Sam is the type of quarterback that needs a "perfect" system to be able to live up to a #1 pick, but maybe he will never be the Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre type of QB that can get past less then perfect OL play and still make things happen. Time will tell I guess.

 

[Anonymous]

That *is* the topic dujour. And will be until at least mid season.

The offensive line, that is.

It's nice that Bernie is taking this approach now about the inconsistency surrounding Bradford, but my gut tells me it won't take long before he takes a different approach. Or maybe not. I don't even remember what his stance was on Bulger - who had nearly identical circumstances in his final few years.

Now, that all said, Fisher and Snead have had how long to correct the issues surrounding Bradford? A few months? It may appear that they took a lax approach to the offensive line; but at the same time, how do we really know? We too only have a few preseason games and an assortment of camp reports to make the determination on our own. Would Kalil have been the better choice? I dunno. Would DeCastro have been a better option instead of Brockers? I dunno. Are any of us qualified to make an adequate assessment of the team's needs prior to the draft? Eh, no.

Maybe Boudreau looked at the tape of the line and said to everyone else, "Holy shyte - there's a TON of stuff I can correct on THAT line! Just give me an offseason and a couple of free agents & UDFA's, and we'll be good to go." Maybe Schottenheimer weighed in and said, "Man oh man! I can scheme the hell out of this offense and that kid will never even get touched!" We'll never know.

I do know this though. There were a lot of holes to fill and they all couldn't be addressed in one off-season. Sometimes quantity over quality works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes fence-sitting (as I am now) works. Sometimes it doesn't. I think they need a full year before an adequate evaluation of their talent can be made. So, here we go ...

Getcher popcorn ready.

He relentlessly put it all on Bulger, and would break out long stats sheets to prove he wasn't playing well. He would then also say he was suffering from battered qb syndrome.

He even did the "all teams have injuries" schtick when it was mentioned that the OL was injured.

My response to this is simple.

No one is actually criticizing the Rams starting offensive line.

Why not?

The Rams starting offense, and offensive line, did not play against Dallas.

That was Wells's first game, Dahl was out, Jackson was out, and they faced a gameplanning defense in its home owner without themselves treating the game seriously that way.

So what does the Dallas game teach me?

So far...that much adieu can be made about nothing.

The week before, they had a center who wasn't in his first start, they had Dahl, they had Jackson, and scored in 4 plays in their opening drive.

Which is truer? Neither. But the KC game at least had the starting offense on the field.

This is where I can't agree with ZN entirely. The two most sacked QB's in 2011 from the stats I found were Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady. I wouldn't agrue that Rodgers has better weapons but Tom Brady has I would say better TE's than he does great WR's. I am a Bradford supporter but even I can be realistic and say there are times he doesn't look comfortable, he does lock onto receivers too much and many times he doesn't do a good job of feeling pressure and avoiding sacks that shouldn't happen. His rookie year he did more rolling out and finding receivers or throwing the ball away. How many times has Sam had time to throw, locked onto a reciever and then tried to force a throw into coverage. Now, you can say that's lack of seperation or whatever. It's probably partially true. But, I also watched Tony Romo pick us apart with receivers I have NEVER even heard of. You're telling me Romo is that much better or those no name receivers are that much better? So at some point we can't just blame the OL. Yes, it is an issue, but we've been saying that for YEARS. There are too many QB's that have come into the league and still looked good with lack of talent. I'm certainly not pointing the finger right at Sam. But he certainly needs to improve. If you think otherwise than your just not being honest. I will say, it's really hard to guage because the KC game the OL looked fantastic and aside from Dahl and Wells (who is suposed to be an upgrade, no?) was the same starting group.I do get the SJ difference, but just from a blocking standpoint it was night and day. I would really hate to think Sam is the type of quarterback that needs a "perfect" system to be able to live up to a #1 pick, but maybe he will never be the Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre type of QB that can get past less then perfect OL play and still make things happen. Time will tell I guess.

Both Brady and Rodgers had lower sack percentages than Bradford. If Bradford played all 16 games and got sacked at his 2011 rate, he would have gone down 53 times, 9 more than the worst in the league (Alex Smith with 44).

Rodgers clearly has better weapons--namely, what most call the deepest corps in the league. Brady has weapons also, in Welker, Gronkowski, and Hernandez. That offense is designed to do what it does, since those TEs set up huge mismatch problems. The Giants knowing Gronkowski was just a big decoy playing hurt contributed to their superbowl win.

I don';t know what you mean about Bradford not looking "comfortable." I know he looked fine in 2010. But then he had a healthy line in 2010. In 2011, the entire offense started the season out of sync because they learned a complex system with no time to learn it because there was no off-season. That's the assessment of Venturi, Softli, Devaney, Snead, and Fisher, so I;m not alone in that. He was then injured and the offense was then injured--to the tune of being, according to Football Outsiders, the single most injured offense of the entire decade. So what Bradford looked to me was pressing, stressed, and harassed.

But then no qb ever DOES look any different from that under the same, or (since the Rams situation was historically unique) even close to the same circumstances. In our recent Rams experience that includes Bulger behind the broken OLs of 2007-2009, and Warner behind the broken OL of 2002. You break a line that much and the qb's effectiveness is reduced. And it's not just sacks, or even hits. There's only so much they can do at all as an offense--if you're signing guys off the street to start at OL (and the Rams were) you can't run the offense you worked on as a team during all of training camp cause the new guys can't do it.

Brady has never faced anything remotely like that (though it may get closer to it this year). Rodgers played behind a partly injured line in 2009, but the key injuries were the 2 starting tackles, and they came back and finished the season.

Now be sure you underscore this--the key issue here is the OL. Name any qb who played well with no weapons AND a massively injured OL.

You will not be able to. There will not be an example. I promise you. I know this because I have been in this discussion for years with different people. And I am wondering about your view of this cause you just said Green Bay and New England have no weapons on offense, when they emphatically do.

In other words, you are putting everything on the qb without GENUINELY factoring in the circumstances, and that, I will always argue, is a false approach that doesn't lead to any valid conclusions.

No the KC games and Dallas games were not the same starting offenses.

No qb needs a "perfect" system, though Brady and Rodgers have immense advantages (including being in the same offensive systems their entire careers). But they need the line to be coherent, and in the case of the Rams with their young qb, they need a running game (Jackson didn't play in Dallas).

 

[Speeps]

Wanna see how important an offensive line is to a QB? Go watch Tom Brady this offseason.

 

[Stranger]

Perhaps what is most depressing to me right now is the thought of living thru another season talking about the same things we fretted about last season... OL, WR & is Bradford the real deal. Ugh.

 

[bwdenverram]

That *is* the topic dujour. And will be until at least mid season.

The offensive line, that is.

It's nice that Bernie is taking this approach now about the inconsistency surrounding Bradford, but my gut tells me it won't take long before he takes a different approach. Or maybe not. I don't even remember what his stance was on Bulger - who had nearly identical circumstances in his final few years.

Now, that all said, Fisher and Snead have had how long to correct the issues surrounding Bradford? A few months? It may appear that they took a lax approach to the offensive line; but at the same time, how do we really know? We too only have a few preseason games and an assortment of camp reports to make the determination on our own. Would Kalil have been the better choice? I dunno. Would DeCastro have been a better option instead of Brockers? I dunno. Are any of us qualified to make an adequate assessment of the team's needs prior to the draft? Eh, no.

Maybe Boudreau looked at the tape of the line and said to everyone else, "Holy shyte - there's a TON of stuff I can correct on THAT line! Just give me an offseason and a couple of free agents & UDFA's, and we'll be good to go." Maybe Schottenheimer weighed in and said, "Man oh man! I can scheme the hell out of this offense and that kid will never even get touched!" We'll never know.

I do know this though. There were a lot of holes to fill and they all couldn't be addressed in one off-season. Sometimes quantity over quality works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes fence-sitting (as I am now) works. Sometimes it doesn't. I think they need a full year before an adequate evaluation of their talent can be made. So, here we go ...

Getcher popcorn ready.

He relentlessly put it all on Bulger, and would break out long stats sheets to prove he wasn't playing well. He would then also say he was suffering from battered qb syndrome.

He even did the "all teams have injuries" schtick when it was mentioned that the OL was injured.

My response to this is simple.

No one is actually criticizing the Rams starting offensive line.

Why not?

The Rams starting offense, and offensive line, did not play against Dallas.

That was Wells's first game, Dahl was out, Jackson was out, and they faced a gameplanning defense in its home owner without themselves treating the game seriously that way.

So what does the Dallas game teach me?

So far...that much adieu can be made about nothing.

The week before, they had a center who wasn't in his first start, they had Dahl, they had Jackson, and scored in 4 plays in their opening drive.

Which is truer? Neither. But the KC game at least had the starting offense on the field.

This is where I can't agree with ZN entirely. The two most sacked QB's in 2011 from the stats I found were Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady. I wouldn't agrue that Rodgers has better weapons but Tom Brady has I would say better TE's than he does great WR's. I am a Bradford supporter but even I can be realistic and say there are times he doesn't look comfortable, he does lock onto receivers too much and many times he doesn't do a good job of feeling pressure and avoiding sacks that shouldn't happen. His rookie year he did more rolling out and finding receivers or throwing the ball away. How many times has Sam had time to throw, locked onto a reciever and then tried to force a throw into coverage. Now, you can say that's lack of seperation or whatever. It's probably partially true. But, I also watched Tony Romo pick us apart with receivers I have NEVER even heard of. You're telling me Romo is that much better or those no name receivers are that much better? So at some point we can't just blame the OL. Yes, it is an issue, but we've been saying that for YEARS. There are too many QB's that have come into the league and still looked good with lack of talent. I'm certainly not pointing the finger right at Sam. But he certainly needs to improve. If you think otherwise than your just not being honest. I will say, it's really hard to guage because the KC game the OL looked fantastic and aside from Dahl and Wells (who is suposed to be an upgrade, no?) was the same starting group.I do get the SJ difference, but just from a blocking standpoint it was night and day. I would really hate to think Sam is the type of quarterback that needs a "perfect" system to be able to live up to a #1 pick, but maybe he will never be the Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre type of QB that can get past less then perfect OL play and still make things happen. Time will tell I guess.

Both Brady and Rodgers had lower sack percentages than Bradford. If Bradford played all 16 games and got sacked at his 2011 rate, he would have gone down 53 times, 9 more than the worst in the league (Alex Smith with 44).

Rodgers clearly has better weapons--namely, what most call the deepest corps in the league. Brady has weapons also, in Welker, Gronkowski, and Hernandez. That offense is designed to do what it does, since those TEs set up huge mismatch problems. The Giants knowing Gronkowski was just a big decoy playing hurt contributed to their superbowl win.

I don';t know what you mean about Bradford not looking "comfortable." I know he looked fine in 2010. But then he had a healthy line in 2010. In 2011, the entire offense started the season out of sync because they learned a complex system with no time to learn it because there was no off-season. That's the assessment of Venturi, Softli, Devaney, Snead, and Fisher, so I;m not alone in that. He was then injured and the offense was then injured--to the tune of being, according to Football Outsiders, the single most injured offense of the entire decade. So what Bradford looked to me was pressing, stressed, and harassed.

But then no qb ever DOES look any different from that under the same, or (since the Rams situation was historically unique) even close to the same circumstances. In our recent Rams experience that includes Bulger behind the broken OLs of 2007-2009, and Warner behind the broken OL of 2002. You break a line that much and the qb's effectiveness is reduced. And it's not just sacks, or even hits. There's only so much they can do at all as an offense--if you're signing guys off the street to start at OL (and the Rams were) you can't run the offense you worked on as a team during all of training camp cause the new guys can't do it.

Brady has never faced anything remotely like that (though it may get closer to it this year). Rodgers played behind a partly injured line in 2009, but the key injuries were the 2 starting tackles, and they came back and finished the season.

Now be sure you underscore this--the key issue here is the OL. Name any qb who played well with no weapons AND a massively injured OL.

You will not be able to. There will not be an example. I promise you. I know this because I have been in this discussion for years with different people. And I am wondering about your view of this cause you just said Green Bay and New England have no weapons on offense, when they emphatically do.

In other words, you are putting everything on the qb without GENUINELY factoring in the circumstances, and that, I will always argue, is a false approach that doesn't lead to any valid conclusions.

No the KC games and Dallas games were not the same starting offenses.

No qb needs a "perfect" system, though Brady and Rodgers have immense advantages (including being in the same offensive systems their entire careers). But they need the line to be coherent, and in the case of the Rams with their young qb, they need a running game (Jackson didn't play in Dallas).

ZN-

With all due respect, I have seen you tell people many times that reading is a lost art. So I will say the same to you. WHERE in my message did I say GB and NE did NOT have any weapons? Cuz that's what you just accused me of. I actually said " I WOULDN"T argue that Rodgers has better weapons" Meaning, yes I agree he does. So does Brady. I also never said the line isn't a problem, it is. My point really was that depsite whatever rate you want to argue or percentage of sacks on Bradford VS Rodgers, Rodgers was the highest sacked QB in 2011. Yet he still managed to throw 45 TD's and lead his team to 15-1. They also didn't have a very good defense either. Now, is that ony because Rodgers had better weapons on offense despite he was on his arse A LOT. OR, could it be that Rodgers is just an elite QB and he finds ways to make the players around him better. I'm sure a little of both.
But I'm sure you as a fan can watch both play and see a difference in pocket awarenesss and quite honestly, I see a confidence difference. How often do you see Bradford feel pressure move around or even take off like Rodgers does? I don't think Rodgers is THAT much more athletic than Bradford. But he does it. I'm not even saying Bradford doesn't have the ability to do so, he just doesn't. At least not very often. So when I talk about "comfort" level, I mean when I watch someone like Rodgers play, even when the pocket breaks down, he seems cool, collected and can move around and make a play happen. When I watch Bradford under the same circumstances, I see a QB that either foreces a throw into coverage, holds the ball too long and takes a sack or in some cases actually throws the ball away. Again, I would LOVE to see Bradford be able to do the same things but at this point I don't see it. Or very little of it. And as you said, there are a ton of reporters and media who have been saying it also. Even Bernie said it in his column. You don't have to agree, that's fine. I do agree withyou ZN, Bradford hasn't had the benefit of a consistent OL or a decent or even above average WR corp. But, in my view some of my concerns above are independent of all that. You either have it or you don't. I hope he has it, but up to this point he's not showing it very often. I also agree given the same system for some time to be comfortable would make a huge difference and some consistent if not just "proven" weapons around him. I do agree with a lot of what you say. BUT, just because Bradford was a #1 pick doesn't mean he's a sure thing. I hope you can at least admit tha the does have flaws. Maybe the can be improved upon If not, I don't know that he will ever be in the "elite" class, as some like to call it. As I said, time will tell. As a 28 year fan, I can only hope he will.

 

[-X-]

Bradford hasn't had the benefit of a consistent OL or a decent or even above average WR corp. But, in my view some of my concerns above are independent of all that. You either have it or you don't. I hope he has it, but up to this point he's not showing it very often. I also agree given the same system for some time to be comfortable would make a huge difference and some consistent if not just "proven" weapons around him. I do agree with a lot of what you say. BUT, just because Bradford was a #1 pick doesn't mean he's a sure thing. I hope you can at least admit tha the does have flaws. Maybe the can be improved upon If not, I don't know that he will ever be in the "elite" class, as some like to call it.

I know you're not talking to me, so I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

It looks like you're talking about improvisation, escapability and second nature instincts there. I say "it looks like" you're talking about that, so maybe I'm wrong. Bradford doesn't have a lot of that right now, but in comparison to Rodgers and Brady (the two examples you used), he absolutely shouldn't have that yet. Both of those QBs sat before starting, and both (like you said) had/have been in consistent environments with more than adequate 'weapons'.

I just don't think you can draw a comparison to those guys right now. We're talking about a QB with 26 NFL starts against future HOF QBs who have been doing it for several years under the same systems. I just think that with continuity comes confidence. I too am hopeful that Bradford will start to exude that, and one way to accomplish it is to stop fucking around with his development.

 

[RamFan503]

I suppose the one thing that bothers me about all the points here is the one thing I look at and can't argue against. If we knew Dallas was going to bring it, WHY THE HELL ARE WE NOT SCHEMING TO KEEP OUR QB ALIVE? Shit - we sit Jackson to no doubt keep him alive to fight another day. We don't do that for our QB? If you are not going to scheme to protect your self professed FRANCHISE FUCKING QB, why make a pinata out of him? I can see vanilla this and vanilla that. But really? What is this some kind of idiotic tough love crap? I'm more than a bit pissed at Fisher's responses.

 

[bwdenverram]

Bradford hasn't had the benefit of a consistent OL or a decent or even above average WR corp. But, in my view some of my concerns above are independent of all that. You either have it or you don't. I hope he has it, but up to this point he's not showing it very often. I also agree given the same system for some time to be comfortable would make a huge difference and some consistent if not just "proven" weapons around him. I do agree with a lot of what you say. BUT, just because Bradford was a #1 pick doesn't mean he's a sure thing. I hope you can at least admit tha the does have flaws. Maybe the can be improved upon If not, I don't know that he will ever be in the "elite" class, as some like to call it.

I know you're not talking to me, so I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

It looks like you're talking about improvisation, escapability and second nature instincts there. I say "it looks like" you're talking about that, so maybe I'm wrong. Bradford doesn't have a lot of that right now, but in comparison to Rodgers and Brady (the two examples you used), he absolutely shouldn't have that yet. Both of those QBs sat before starting, and both (like you said) had/have been in consistent environments with more than adequate 'weapons'.

I just don't think you can draw a comparison to those guys right now. We're talking about a QB with 26 NFL starts against future HOF QBs who have been doing it for several years under the same systems. I just think that with continuity comes confidence. I too am hopeful that Bradford will start to exude that, and one way to accomplish it is to stop freaking around with his development.

Are you talking to me? LOL JK X.

I'm probably sounding like I'm down on Sam and I'm really not. I'm sure I'm overstating things and I don't mean to. I truly want Sam to become all that we envision he can. I know he's been handed a really bad deal thus far. He came into a crappy situation with no real plan, way to many changes in the front office, systems, etc.

Just watching Luck in the Indi game, he already seemed "different" than Sam. I don't know if that makes sense or I can explain it. He had that confidnece already as a rookie. I think Sam had it more his rookie year. Maybe it is a result of two years of getting the crap beat out of him. I don't know. I do fear if they don't clean it up he may end up like Bulger's last few years and never have the chance to shine. And I wasn't trying to compare Sam to Aaron and Tom directly. I know that' s not a very fair comparison at this point.I was talking about improvising, escapability and although I don't expect him to be Cam Newton or RGIII or the like, I do think he has lacked the ability to avoid sacks that shouldn't happen. Not saying the OL hasn't caused most of them but he has caused a "few" that IMO could of been avoided just by feeling the rush, scrambling out and throwing the ball away.

Does that make sense or am I just way off base? I really believe Sam has all the raw talent but even talented guys can learn and get better. I just hope these are areas he CAN and WILL improve on. Because if he can't then that tells me he needs to have the "perfect" environment to succeed. To me, that is where the the distinction between a good and a great QB happens.

I will say this though, if we are still having the same conversation in 2-3 years from now, than we have a bigger problem.

 

[bwdenverram]

I suppose the one thing that bothers me about all the points here is the one thing I look at and can't argue against. If we knew Dallas was going to bring it, WHY THE HELL ARE WE NOT SCHEMING TO KEEP OUR QB ALIVE? shyte - we sit Jackson to no doubt keep him alive to fight another day. We don't do that for our QB? If you are not going to scheme to protect your self professed FRANCHISE freaking QB, why make a pinata out of him? I can see vanilla this and vanilla that. But really? What is this some kind of idiotic tough love crap? I'm more than a bit pissed at Fisher's responses.

This is where I agree 100% with what ZN was saying. Regardless of scheme, if you can't man on man block your guy consistently then you shouldn't be playing. So watching some of these guys get beat like they stole something is obviusly extremely frustrating for all of us. I can't recall what quarter it was, but watchiing Quinn Ojinnaka get beat to the inside like he wasn't even there was embarrasing. Or I watched another play where Richardson got pushed to the ground by the Dallas DE like he was a 120lb 12 year old.
I guess we took all the years of Orlando Pace for granted.

 

[-X-]

Bradford hasn't had the benefit of a consistent OL or a decent or even above average WR corp. But, in my view some of my concerns above are independent of all that. You either have it or you don't. I hope he has it, but up to this point he's not showing it very often. I also agree given the same system for some time to be comfortable would make a huge difference and some consistent if not just "proven" weapons around him. I do agree with a lot of what you say. BUT, just because Bradford was a #1 pick doesn't mean he's a sure thing. I hope you can at least admit tha the does have flaws. Maybe the can be improved upon If not, I don't know that he will ever be in the "elite" class, as some like to call it.

I know you're not talking to me, so I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

It looks like you're talking about improvisation, escapability and second nature instincts there. I say "it looks like" you're talking about that, so maybe I'm wrong. Bradford doesn't have a lot of that right now, but in comparison to Rodgers and Brady (the two examples you used), he absolutely shouldn't have that yet. Both of those QBs sat before starting, and both (like you said) had/have been in consistent environments with more than adequate 'weapons'.

I just don't think you can draw a comparison to those guys right now. We're talking about a QB with 26 NFL starts against future HOF QBs who have been doing it for several years under the same systems. I just think that with continuity comes confidence. I too am hopeful that Bradford will start to exude that, and one way to accomplish it is to stop freaking around with his development.

Are you talking to me? LOL JK X.

I'm probably sounding like I'm down on Sam and I'm really not. I'm sure I'm overstating things and I don't mean to. I truly want Sam to become all that we envision he can. I know he's been handed a really bad deal thus far. He came into a crappy situation with no real plan, way to many changes in the front office, systems, etc.

Just watching Luck in the Indi game, he already seemed "different" than Sam. I don't know if that makes sense or I can explain it. He had that confidnece already as a rookie. I think Sam had it more his rookie year. Maybe it is a result of two years of getting the crap beat out of him. I don't know. I do fear if they don't clean it up he may end up like Bulger's last few years and never have the chance to shine. And I wasn't trying to compare Sam to Aaron and Tom directly. I know that' s not a very fair comparison at this point.I was talking about improvising, escapability and although I don't expect him to be Cam Newton or RGIII or the like, I do think he has lacked the ability to avoid sacks that shouldn't happen. Not saying the OL hasn't caused most of them but he has caused a "few" that IMO could of been avoided just by feeling the rush, scrambling out and throwing the ball away.

Does that make sense or am I just way off base? I really believe Sam has all the raw talent but even talented guys can learn and get better. I just hope these are areas he CAN and WILL improve on. Because if he can't then that tells me he needs to have the "perfect" environment to succeed. To me, that is where the the distinction between a good and a great QB happens.

I will say this though, if we are still having the same conversation in 2-3 years from now, than we have a bigger problem.

Sure, I can agree with much of that. The way you feel is the way you feel, and it's not my place to try and convince you that you shouldn't feel that way. I agree about Luck in particular. His first game against us was phenomenal. It really did look like he was a seasoned vet, and there's nothing wrong with stating that. None of it is at Sam's expense. Of course he did look a bit more mortal against the Steelers, but then again, they tend to do that to QBs. lol.

Sam had a good rookie season; and when he has confidence and rhythm, he *looks* a lot different. I'm not sure this is a make or break season for him like others are saying. I do think he should make some strides though, and it's all of our hopes that Schottenheimer schemes for him in a way that can GET him in that rhythm so his confidence elevates.

No matter how you slice it though, all QBs tend to look terrible when they're being harassed. My earlier concerns (that's right) about the O-line are still there. Not so much in the starting 5, but more so what will happen if one or two go down to injury. Like most teams in the league, luck is going to play a part in how far they go. This team, however, needs a little more than most.

 

[bwdenverram]

Bradford hasn't had the benefit of a consistent OL or a decent or even above average WR corp. But, in my view some of my concerns above are independent of all that. You either have it or you don't. I hope he has it, but up to this point he's not showing it very often. I also agree given the same system for some time to be comfortable would make a huge difference and some consistent if not just "proven" weapons around him. I do agree with a lot of what you say. BUT, just because Bradford was a #1 pick doesn't mean he's a sure thing. I hope you can at least admit tha the does have flaws. Maybe the can be improved upon If not, I don't know that he will ever be in the "elite" class, as some like to call it.

I know you're not talking to me, so I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

It looks like you're talking about improvisation, escapability and second nature instincts there. I say "it looks like" you're talking about that, so maybe I'm wrong. Bradford doesn't have a lot of that right now, but in comparison to Rodgers and Brady (the two examples you used), he absolutely shouldn't have that yet. Both of those QBs sat before starting, and both (like you said) had/have been in consistent environments with more than adequate 'weapons'.

I just don't think you can draw a comparison to those guys right now. We're talking about a QB with 26 NFL starts against future HOF QBs who have been doing it for several years under the same systems. I just think that with continuity comes confidence. I too am hopeful that Bradford will start to exude that, and one way to accomplish it is to stop freaking around with his development.

Are you talking to me? LOL JK X.

I'm probably sounding like I'm down on Sam and I'm really not. I'm sure I'm overstating things and I don't mean to. I truly want Sam to become all that we envision he can. I know he's been handed a really bad deal thus far. He came into a crappy situation with no real plan, way to many changes in the front office, systems, etc.

Just watching Luck in the Indi game, he already seemed "different" than Sam. I don't know if that makes sense or I can explain it. He had that confidnece already as a rookie. I think Sam had it more his rookie year. Maybe it is a result of two years of getting the crap beat out of him. I don't know. I do fear if they don't clean it up he may end up like Bulger's last few years and never have the chance to shine. And I wasn't trying to compare Sam to Aaron and Tom directly. I know that' s not a very fair comparison at this point.I was talking about improvising, escapability and although I don't expect him to be Cam Newton or RGIII or the like, I do think he has lacked the ability to avoid sacks that shouldn't happen. Not saying the OL hasn't caused most of them but he has caused a "few" that IMO could of been avoided just by feeling the rush, scrambling out and throwing the ball away.

Does that make sense or am I just way off base? I really believe Sam has all the raw talent but even talented guys can learn and get better. I just hope these are areas he CAN and WILL improve on. Because if he can't then that tells me he needs to have the "perfect" environment to succeed. To me, that is where the the distinction between a good and a great QB happens.

I will say this though, if we are still having the same conversation in 2-3 years from now, than we have a bigger problem.

Sure, I can agree with much of that. The way you feel is the way you feel, and it's not my place to try and convince you that you shouldn't feel that way. I agree about Luck in particular. His first game against us was phenomenal. It really did look like he was a seasoned vet, and there's nothing wrong with stating that. None of it is at Sam's expense. Of course he did look a bit more mortal against the Steelers, but then again, they tend to do that to QBs. lol.

Sam had a good rookie season; and when he has confidence and rhythm, he *looks* a lot different. I'm not sure this is a make or break season for him like others are saying. I do think he should make some strides though, and it's all of our hopes that Schottenheimer schemes for him in a way that can GET him in that rhythm so his confidence elevates.

No matter how you slice it though, all QBs tend to look terrible when they're being harassed. My earlier concerns (that's right) about the O-line are still there. Not so much in the starting 5, but more so what will happen if one or two go down to injury. Like most teams in the league, luck is going to play a part in how far they go. This team, however, needs a little more than most.

I think we are on the same page for the most part. And I will never argue that the OL isn't the main problem.I mean I'm not blind I do see how often he is hit or how much lack of time he has in general. Maybe when we see the actual starting 5 play all the time (knock on wood) that we'll have some consistent blocking for Sam so he can do his thing. I was reading the other day that John Elway was the most sacked QB of all time. Of course he had a long career but I thought it was somewhat interesting because he was always a very mobile guy. Of course his career turned out pretty good I'm hoping in 10 years we're all talking about SB the same way.

 

[-X-]

Bradford hasn't had the benefit of a consistent OL or a decent or even above average WR corp. But, in my view some of my concerns above are independent of all that. You either have it or you don't. I hope he has it, but up to this point he's not showing it very often. I also agree given the same system for some time to be comfortable would make a huge difference and some consistent if not just "proven" weapons around him. I do agree with a lot of what you say. BUT, just because Bradford was a #1 pick doesn't mean he's a sure thing. I hope you can at least admit tha the does have flaws. Maybe the can be improved upon If not, I don't know that he will ever be in the "elite" class, as some like to call it.

I know you're not talking to me, so I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

It looks like you're talking about improvisation, escapability and second nature instincts there. I say "it looks like" you're talking about that, so maybe I'm wrong. Bradford doesn't have a lot of that right now, but in comparison to Rodgers and Brady (the two examples you used), he absolutely shouldn't have that yet. Both of those QBs sat before starting, and both (like you said) had/have been in consistent environments with more than adequate 'weapons'.

I just don't think you can draw a comparison to those guys right now. We're talking about a QB with 26 NFL starts against future HOF QBs who have been doing it for several years under the same systems. I just think that with continuity comes confidence. I too am hopeful that Bradford will start to exude that, and one way to accomplish it is to stop freaking around with his development.

Are you talking to me? LOL JK X.

I'm probably sounding like I'm down on Sam and I'm really not. I'm sure I'm overstating things and I don't mean to. I truly want Sam to become all that we envision he can. I know he's been handed a really bad deal thus far. He came into a crappy situation with no real plan, way to many changes in the front office, systems, etc.

Just watching Luck in the Indi game, he already seemed "different" than Sam. I don't know if that makes sense or I can explain it. He had that confidnece already as a rookie. I think Sam had it more his rookie year. Maybe it is a result of two years of getting the crap beat out of him. I don't know. I do fear if they don't clean it up he may end up like Bulger's last few years and never have the chance to shine. And I wasn't trying to compare Sam to Aaron and Tom directly. I know that' s not a very fair comparison at this point.I was talking about improvising, escapability and although I don't expect him to be Cam Newton or RGIII or the like, I do think he has lacked the ability to avoid sacks that shouldn't happen. Not saying the OL hasn't caused most of them but he has caused a "few" that IMO could of been avoided just by feeling the rush, scrambling out and throwing the ball away.

Does that make sense or am I just way off base? I really believe Sam has all the raw talent but even talented guys can learn and get better. I just hope these are areas he CAN and WILL improve on. Because if he can't then that tells me he needs to have the "perfect" environment to succeed. To me, that is where the the distinction between a good and a great QB happens.

I will say this though, if we are still having the same conversation in 2-3 years from now, than we have a bigger problem.

Sure, I can agree with much of that. The way you feel is the way you feel, and it's not my place to try and convince you that you shouldn't feel that way. I agree about Luck in particular. His first game against us was phenomenal. It really did look like he was a seasoned vet, and there's nothing wrong with stating that. None of it is at Sam's expense. Of course he did look a bit more mortal against the Steelers, but then again, they tend to do that to QBs. lol.

Sam had a good rookie season; and when he has confidence and rhythm, he *looks* a lot different. I'm not sure this is a make or break season for him like others are saying. I do think he should make some strides though, and it's all of our hopes that Schottenheimer schemes for him in a way that can GET him in that rhythm so his confidence elevates.

No matter how you slice it though, all QBs tend to look terrible when they're being harassed. My earlier concerns (that's right) about the O-line are still there. Not so much in the starting 5, but more so what will happen if one or two go down to injury. Like most teams in the league, luck is going to play a part in how far they go. This team, however, needs a little more than most.

I think we are on the same page for the most part. And I will never argue that the OL isn't the main problem.I mean I'm not blind I do see how often he is hit or how much lack of time he has in general. Maybe when we see the actual starting 5 play all the time (knock on wood) that we'll have some consistent blocking for Sam so he can do his thing. I was reading the other day that John Elway was the most sacked QB of all time. Of course he had a long career but I thought it was somewhat interesting because he was always a very mobile guy. Of course his career turned out pretty good I'm hoping in 10 years we're all talking about SB the same way.

:cheers:

 

[brokeu91]

Bradford hasn't had the benefit of a consistent OL or a decent or even above average WR corp. But, in my view some of my concerns above are independent of all that. You either have it or you don't. I hope he has it, but up to this point he's not showing it very often. I also agree given the same system for some time to be comfortable would make a huge difference and some consistent if not just "proven" weapons around him. I do agree with a lot of what you say. BUT, just because Bradford was a #1 pick doesn't mean he's a sure thing. I hope you can at least admit tha the does have flaws. Maybe the can be improved upon If not, I don't know that he will ever be in the "elite" class, as some like to call it.

I know you're not talking to me, so I hope you don't mind if I jump in.

It looks like you're talking about improvisation, escapability and second nature instincts there. I say "it looks like" you're talking about that, so maybe I'm wrong. Bradford doesn't have a lot of that right now, but in comparison to Rodgers and Brady (the two examples you used), he absolutely shouldn't have that yet. Both of those QBs sat before starting, and both (like you said) had/have been in consistent environments with more than adequate 'weapons'.

I just don't think you can draw a comparison to those guys right now. We're talking about a QB with 26 NFL starts against future HOF QBs who have been doing it for several years under the same systems. I just think that with continuity comes confidence. I too am hopeful that Bradford will start to exude that, and one way to accomplish it is to stop freaking around with his development.

Are you talking to me? LOL JK X.

I'm probably sounding like I'm down on Sam and I'm really not. I'm sure I'm overstating things and I don't mean to. I truly want Sam to become all that we envision he can. I know he's been handed a really bad deal thus far. He came into a crappy situation with no real plan, way to many changes in the front office, systems, etc.

Just watching Luck in the Indi game, he already seemed "different" than Sam. I don't know if that makes sense or I can explain it. He had that confidnece already as a rookie. I think Sam had it more his rookie year. Maybe it is a result of two years of getting the crap beat out of him. I don't know. I do fear if they don't clean it up he may end up like Bulger's last few years and never have the chance to shine. And I wasn't trying to compare Sam to Aaron and Tom directly. I know that' s not a very fair comparison at this point.I was talking about improvising, escapability and although I don't expect him to be Cam Newton or RGIII or the like, I do think he has lacked the ability to avoid sacks that shouldn't happen. Not saying the OL hasn't caused most of them but he has caused a "few" that IMO could of been avoided just by feeling the rush, scrambling out and throwing the ball away.

Does that make sense or am I just way off base? I really believe Sam has all the raw talent but even talented guys can learn and get better. I just hope these are areas he CAN and WILL improve on. Because if he can't then that tells me he needs to have the "perfect" environment to succeed. To me, that is where the the distinction between a good and a great QB happens.

I will say this though, if we are still having the same conversation in 2-3 years from now, than we have a bigger problem.

I agree with some of that assessment. I definitely think he needs improved "pocket presense". There are times when it seems he should be able to avoide an initial rusher to at least throw the ball away. He reminds me of Marc Bulger in that way.

 

[-X-]

I agree with some of that assessment. I definitely think he needs improved "pocket presense". There are times when it seems he should be able to avoide an initial rusher to at least throw the ball away. He reminds me of Marc Bulger in that way.

In that they're both fearless, yeah. Seems to me that they both trust that the protection will hold up long enough for them to connect with their favored read. Like youz guyz, I would like to see Bradford move around a little, and that will probably come with time.

One thing I'm encouraged about is how Fisher recently said (in that interview on KSDK) that there will be designed movement during the regular season. Not sure why we haven't seen it yet though. That's not something you should have to 'hide', and it probably could have actually helped Bradford some this preseason.

 

[brokeu91]

I agree with some of that assessment. I definitely think he needs improved "pocket presense". There are times when it seems he should be able to avoide an initial rusher to at least throw the ball away. He reminds me of Marc Bulger in that way.

In that they're both fearless, yeah. Seems to me that they both trust that the protection will hold up long enough for them to connect with their favored read. Like youz guyz, I would like to see Bradford move around a little, and that will probably come with time.

One thing I'm encouraged about is how Fisher recently said (in that interview on KSDK) that there will be designed movement during the regular season. Not sure why we haven't seen it yet though. That's not something you should have to 'hide', and it probably could have actually helped Bradford some this preseason.

The thing is Bradford is deadly accurate when throwing on the run. I know it's preseason and all vanilla, but bootlegs/rollouts should be a big part of our play book. When he gets protection he is very accurate and tends to find the open guy. I'm just concerned about his ability to "feel the rush". It's not something I can describe, but Warner (though not nearly as nimble as Sam) was able to to do it, and Bulger doesn't. That's what I meant about that. I will say Sam has balls. He is willing to take the beating. I just wished he didn't have to, and that he could side step the first rusher.