Rams, Browns lead worst-to-first candidates for 2015 NFL season

[LetsGoRams]

I don't know about worst to first, but I definitely see playoffs next year.

 

[cvramsfan]

I agree with that completely, but that being said, I also don't think we would have seen 6 "Pick 6" INTs from him either. He just doesn't force the ball unless and until he has to. (4th quarter when behind)

Love me some CoachO. You always bring a breath of fresh air and positive vibes. I for one always look forward to reading what you post. Thanks and have a Great New Year.

 

[CoachO]

I took it as meaning he knows how to read a defense, and he has been criticized for that.

As far as the INT's versus the checking down, Bradford's last full 16 game season he threw 13 INT's, this year Hill/Davis threw 16. That's a really small difference. You can point to the fumbles but a strip sack isn't something someone "recognizes" IMO. Also Hill/Davis threw 20 TD's this year versus Bradford's career best full season of 21.

In an age where we are seeing YPA increase annually Bradford's is still underwhelming. As a point of reference Hill/Davis averaged a full yard over Bradford's career average and half a yard higher than he ever did. So the check down label does have some validity.

It's not my desire to turn this thread into yet another Bradford thread, but....... at no time will you see Bradford being the cause of EIGHT turnovers for TD's.

Quoting extrapolated stats, from PAST seasons means nothing to me. What would Bradford have done with THIS receiving corp? If you honestly think that HIS YPA would not have been better than Hill/Davis, then we will agree to disagree. You are quoting stats from past seasons without Bradford having the benefit of Britt, Quick (the one with the light bulb finally coming on), Bailey and Austin (beyond their first 7 games of a rookie season).

All the "talk" throughout the off season from BRADFORD and Schottenheimer was that they would push the ball down field more this year. To think that Bradford would not have been better at it than Hill/Davis just doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[tonyl711]

I took it as meaning he knows how to read a defense, and he has been criticized for that.

As far as the INT's versus the checking down, Bradford's last full 16 game season he threw 13 INT's, this year Hill/Davis threw 16. That's a really small difference. You can point to the fumbles but a strip sack isn't something someone "recognizes" IMO. Also Hill/Davis threw 20 TD's this year versus Bradford's career best full season of 21.

In an age where we are seeing YPA increase annually Bradford's is still underwhelming. As a point of reference Hill/Davis averaged a full yard over Bradford's career average and half a yard higher than he ever did. So the check down label does have some validity.

Hill and Davis also played with WRs who were all experienced, they got Quick when he finally started getting it, they had Britt to throw too. Sam with Quick playing this way and Britt would have put up way better numbers, Sam has never had a WR corp like the one we had this year.

 

[Athos]

As far as the INT's versus the checking down, Bradford's last full 16 game season he threw 13 INT's, this year Hill/Davis threw 16. That's a really small difference. You can point to the fumbles but a strip sack isn't something someone "recognizes" IMO. Also Hill/Davis threw 20 TD's this year versus Bradford's career best full season of 21.

That's more of just how good a skill players we have NOW versus Bradford's best full season.

You just can't compare a full season of:

SJ39
DRich (bleh)

Givens
Gibson
Danny A
Pettis
Quick (rookie doing nothing)

Kendricks

to


Mason
Stacy
BamBam
Austin

Britt
Bailey
Quick
Austin (again)

Cook
Kendricks

So the check down label does have some validity.

I'm really tired of this argument. Look at all the top QBs in the league and how often the ball is actually in the air for plays. I did this awhile ago. Brady, in his best seasons, was Captain Checkdown. Manning is captain checkdown. Rodgers can be captain checkdown.

The difference is, YAC. Those QBs have had players with far more ability to pick up yards after catch, thus inflating their YPA.

 

[MrMotes]

To go from worst to first you first have to finish last in your division, check.

Of those 8 teams, 3 are looking for a new HC and two others were 2-14 leaving the 3 teams Brandt lists...

 

[-X-]

The difference is, YAC. Those QBs have had players with far more ability to pick up yards after catch, thus inflating their YPA.

Absolutely dead on balls accurate (it's an industry term). Unless people think Clemens' 15.44 YPA against Indy last year is indicative of his career numbers. I wish I had the data I put together a year ago, but I went through all of Bradford's games where he had what one would consider a "true #1" receiver at his disposal (Alexander, Clayton, Lloyd) and calculated his YPA in games with those guys, and it was well above his career average.

 

[LesBaker]

It's not my desire to turn this thread into yet another Bradford thread, but....... at no time will you see Bradford being the cause of EIGHT turnovers for TD's.

Quoting extrapolated stats, from PAST seasons means nothing to me. What would Bradford have done with THIS receiving corp? If you honestly think that HIS YPA would not have been better than Hill/Davis, then we will agree to disagree. You are quoting stats from past seasons without Bradford having the benefit of Britt, Quick (the one with the light bulb finally coming on), Bailey and Austin (beyond their first 7 games of a rookie season).

All the "talk" throughout the off season from BRADFORD and Schottenheimer was that they would push the ball down field more this year. To think that Bradford would not have been better at it than Hill/Davis just doesn't make much sense to me.

There is way to much supposition in your response to continue very far.

I'll just say you can't accuse me of using extrapolated fact that means nothing when you offer imaginary stats or stats that simply do not exist based on "talk". What's a fairer point of discussion? I think a reasonable person in a debate would say my argument is valid. Factual as in an absolute certainty? Maybe not, but certainly valid, and especially in comparison to "talk"

 

[dieterbrock]

I agree with that completely, but that being said, I also don't think we would have seen 6 "Pick 6" INTs from him either. He just doesn't force the ball unless and until he has to. (4th quarter when behind)

Well, Sam did have 2 pick 6's in his first 2 games of 2013 so I dont know why that's such a given?

I really like Sam Bradford. And I believe that he is a good QB.
But it sorta seems that me that he may have gotten better all the sudden without even playing.

Well said.

 

[CoachO]

There is way to much supposition in your response to continue very far.

I'll just say you can't accuse me of using extrapolated fact that means nothing when you offer imaginary stats or stats that simply do not exist based on "talk". What's a fairer point of discussion? I think a reasonable person in a debate would say my argument is valid. Factual as in an absolute certainty? Maybe not, but certainly valid, and especially in comparison to "talk"

Except that they IN FACT did push the ball down field more THIS year even without Bradford. So one could make the logical assumption that if both the QB and the OC were saying they were going to do that, and based on what they were doing in training camp AND the Preseason before Bradford got hurt, I choose to believe the "talk".

Your point of me saying your use of extrapolated stats while not being able to back up my POV is fair. But I know what I saw with my own eyes, support what was "talked" about. Also, IMO, it's a safe assumption to think that if they were asking Hill/Davis to push the ball down field, Bradford would have as well. And would have been better at it.

 

[CoachO]

Well, Sam did have 2 pick 6's in his first 2 games of 2013 so I dont know why that's such a given?

Well said.

And how many did he have overall, in the 6+ games he actually played in?

And as long as "we" are gonna use past stats, lets look at his OVERALL career numbers when it comes to turnovers. No way he has EVER been that careless with the football.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

And how many did he have overall, in the 6+ games he actually played in?

And as long as "we" are gonna use past stats, lets look at his OVERALL career numbers when it comes to turnovers. No way he has EVER been that careless with the football.

Passing TDs - 59
Int - 38

Rushing TDs - 2
Fumbles - 27

 

[CoachO]

Passing TDs - 59
Int - 38

Rushing TDs - 2
Fumbles - 27

not sure what these are meant to demonstrate. And while you are looking up his past stats, how many of those 38 INT have been "pick 6's" and how many of those 27 fumbles have been LOST?

And why in the world are rushing TDs even a part of this discussion?

 

[dieterbrock]

And how many did he have overall, in the 6+ games he actually played in?

And as long as "we" are gonna use past stats, lets look at his OVERALL career numbers when it comes to turnovers. No way he has EVER been that careless with the football.

Seems like you want to pick and choose stats.
In the Fisher offense in his last full season he had 2 ugly pick 6 in his first 6 games. So the assertion that he wouldnt have 6, should not be labeled as any type of guarantee.
Sam's INT % is a chicken and egg deal. He's conservative with the ball, taking less risk so he throws less INT. But if he takes more chances throwing downfield? Well, its an unknown as to what his INT rate would be then.

In any event, if there was any level of certainty that he could play 15,16 games per season for the next 3-5 years, I'd be all for him being the best option. But knowing the liklihood of another injury costing him PT is very high, I say move away.

 

[CoachO]

Seems like you want to pick and choose stats.
In the Fisher offense in his last full season he had 2 ugly pick 6 in his first 6 games. So the assertion that he wouldnt have 6, should not be labeled as any type of guarantee.
Sam's INT % is a chicken and egg deal. He's conservative with the ball, taking less risk so he throws less INT. But if he takes more chances throwing downfield? Well, its an unknown as to what his INT rate would be then.

In any event, if there was any level of certainty that he could play 15,16 games per season for the next 3-5 years, I'd be all for him being the best option. But knowing the liklihood of another injury costing him PT is very high, I say move away.

REALLY? I would never have guessed that was your position?

 

[LosAngelesRams]

not sure what these are meant to demonstrate. And while you are looking up his past stats, how many of those 38 INT have been "pick 6's" and how many of those 27 fumbles have been LOST?

And why in the world are rushing TDs even a part of this discussion?

Well i posted them because i was enjoying the conversation and you asked for them. I included the rushing stats because you asked about his turnovers and fumbles are considered in the turnover category right?

 

[-X-]

REALLY? I would never have guessed that was your position?

You can do better than that. Argue with the post, not the poster.

Lotta people are wary of going with Bradford as the primary option next year because of his injury history. Whether or not all 3 of them were fluke injuries and he'll never suffer another one again is banking on bad odds. I don't think there's anyone on this board who wouldn't love it if Bradford turned the league on its ear and he stayed healthy for the next 15 years either. There are just legitimate concerns, and some speculative debates tied to him right now that are worth discussing.

As for his 2 pick-6's last year. lol. Those had nothing to do with bad decisions, and bad decisions are what we had too much of from the QB position this year.

 

[dieterbrock]

REALLY? I would never have guessed that was your position?

Yup. Call me crazy but I prefer a QB that can play a full 16 games vs a guy who has watched his team play from the sidelines in street clothes in 4 of his last 6 seasons, or 3 of his last 4

 

[-X-]

In the Fisher offense in his last full season he had 2 ugly pick 6 in his first 6 games. So the assertion that he wouldnt have 6, should not be labeled as any type of guarantee.

Going off of my previous post, please tell me you saw the difference between those two pick 6's by Bradford, and the ones created by Hill and Davis. I have video evidence of how markedly different they are, but I'm pretty sure you don't need to see it. Could he have had 6 all year due to similar flukes? Sure. But I don't think that's what he was talking about.

 

[Lesson]

As for his 2 pick-6's last year. lol. Those had nothing to do with bad decisions, and bad decisions are what we had too much of from the QB position this year.

I just watched his pick 6 vs Carolina. I can't remember what happened with the WR, but there was no Ram near the defender. Wrong route or bad communication?