Sam Bradford's best game

[Speed]

You're literally describing magic or powers not of this earth.

QBs cannot make their receivers run better routes or catch the ball better. They can't make OLmen block better. It is literally impossible.

What they can do is play better than someone else at the position. The resulting optical illusion is em that everyone else is playing better. Therefore the QB "elevated" them. Logic, physics & science, however, rule & dictate that this is not true. No matter how many times your favorite tv analyst utters the cliché.

Wow... that's crazy. Some QBs get rid of the ball quicker than others (fast/quick release... I assume you have heard of that?). Other QBs read defenses better. They can diagnose what a defense is trying to do better than others. Why does this need to be explained? You can't see how that makes an offensive line look better? A QB that is nimble or mobile in or out of the pocket doesn't make an offensive line better? Some QB also throw their WRs open when there is tight coverage. They will deliver a ball to a WR even when he appears to be covered... they throw it to a place only the WR can get to it.

Its literally impossible? Really? A QB that throws a ball with touch rather that firing a bullet is not making a pass potentially easier for a receiver to catch it?

Seriously what is going on here?

 

[Speed]

Illegal formation thanks to Brandon "stupid" Gibson. lol

I thought it was a ticky tack call.... and it was so late

Remember Amendola went crazy in that game. He had a 80 yard punt return called aback in addition to that 80 yard pass by Bradford

 

[NJRamsFan]

I dont care about the bradford debate right now. All I can focus on is the rams got A LOT better yesterday getting two of the top 5 prospects and now have a dominant dline and a potentially dominant oline

 

[wrstdude]

Wow... that's crazy. Some QBs get rid of the ball quicker than others (fast/quick release... I assume you have heard of that?). Other QBs read defenses better. They can diagnose what a defense is trying to do better than others. Why does this need to be explained? You can't see how that makes an offensive line look better? A QB that is nimble or mobile in or out of the pocket doesn't make an offensive line better? Some QB also throw their WRs open when there is tight coverage. They will deliver a ball to a WR even when he appears to be covered... they throw it to a place only the WR can get to it.

Its literally impossible? Really? A QB that throws a ball with touch rather that firing a bullet is not making a pass potentially easier for a receiver to catch it?

Seriously what is going on here?

Nothing what you described is a QB making other players better.
You've only highlighted good QB play.

What is going on here is your inability to understand the difference. We're not playing Quidditch. This isn't Hogwarts. Magic isn't real.

 

[Barrison]

I thought it was a ticky tack call.... and it was so late

Remember Amendola went crazy in that game. He had a 80 yard punt return called aback in addition to that 80 yard pass by Bradford

Little man was a beast...

 

[Speed]

Little man was a beast...

yep both plays were called back by penalties (suspect ones too)

 

[wrstdude]

No whats going on here is you don't know what your talking about. Clearly a QB playing better elevates players around them. This conversation is over

Lol

Ok...

 

[Barrison]

This whole elevate thing is just one way to put it the way. I like to think is that a QB can't be successful without the players around him being able to win their 1 on 1 match-ups. Why didn't Brady elevate Amendola last year and why did he seem to have a better game with Bradford at the helm, you could say Bradford elevated him but truth of the matter is how comfortable a player is in the scheme and the players he's playing with has a big effect on the play of the QB. Not Bradford making chicken salad out of chicken shit...

 

[RamEERS]

5-2-1 in our division... think that speaks for itself

 

[scifiman]

How about we take 2012 as a measuring stick as he played the whole year. 3700 yds, 21td, 13 int. Sacked 35 times. Comp% 59%. YPA 6.7. QB rating 82.6. Currently Bradford is rated about the 24th qb in the nfl by the experts.
I dont know about anyone else but this is a put up or shut up year for Bradford. He is not sacked as much as everyone says as the stats show. QB's like Rodgers get sacked far more often but have better stats. His YPA is one of the lowest in the league.
The question is could any of the other starting qb's in the league have done better? No one will ever know as it would just be opinion. He has all the tools but I think Spags messed him up with the dump off the pass at 2.5 second rule. Very few times will Bradford air it out in a game. All I know is that Sam has never had any qb competition to see if it is him or? We need some real qb competition and let the chips fall where they will. The other thing I know is Bradford has not been worth what he has been paid compared to the other elite qb's in the league. I fully support Bradford if he can produce. I just have not seen it game in and game out.
Fans should quit being homers on this and be objective. We as fans should want the best at all positions. This is about the team not 1 player.
I remember when everyone said we should not let Steven Jackson go even though it was clear he was not starting material anymore and had lost a step or 2. Loyalty and liking a player only goes so far. This is a business and the business is winning. Go Rams.

 

[-X-]

Wow... that's crazy. Some QBs get rid of the ball quicker than others (fast/quick release... I assume you have heard of that?). Other QBs read defenses better. They can diagnose what a defense is trying to do better than others. Why does this need to be explained? You can't see how that makes an offensive line look better? A QB that is nimble or mobile in or out of the pocket doesn't make an offensive line better? Some QB also throw their WRs open when there is tight coverage. They will deliver a ball to a WR even when he appears to be covered... they throw it to a place only the WR can get to it.

Its literally impossible? Really? A QB that throws a ball with touch rather that firing a bullet is not making a pass potentially easier for a receiver to catch it?

Seriously what is going on here?

What's going on here is differing opinions (I assume you have heard of those?). Some QBs get rid of the ball quicker than others, and that explains elevation? That only explains that some QBs are better than others. That's not a revelation or anything. Clemens and Bradford played with the same team and Bradford did better. Brady or Manning might do better than Bradford. One isn't a better elevator than the other. One is just a better QB. All of the other moving parts are the same, and they don't get better depending on who the QB is. They just get more opportunities. The counterpoint to your argument is a valid one whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. I myself have made videos demonstrating how QBs (GOOD QBs) can be on the business end of a team loss, but that didn't prove that they failed to elevate anyone in the process either. For instance. When the Rams lost to the Lions in the 2012 opener, Bradford elevated the whole team all the way to the Lions' final drive, but couldn't seem to elevate the defense because they let Stafford drive 80 yards in a minute forty. Brady and Manning would have lost the same game because the ball wasn't in their hands.

When Cook gets the ball swatted away as he's walking into the endzone, is that lack of elevation?
When Gibson lines up wrong and an 80 yard reception is negated that could have sealed a win, is that lack of elevation?
When Jake Long trips someone and takes points off the board, is that lack of elevation?

If all of those ^ plays are just touchdowns, is that elevation?

When a team suffers numerous injuries and the QB's production dips, is that lack of elevation? If a team adds more talent to the offense and the QB's production spikes, is that elevation?

Seriously. It's a catch-phrase that means nothing.

 

[jrry32]

There are a lot of games. I'd say his best game was the Houston game. He was nearly perfect. But when taking into account competition, his best game in 2013 was the Carolina game. Guy made some unbelievable throws in that game and we were moving the ball at will...until we shot ourselves in the foot(Tavon fumble, Stacy blown blitz pick-up leading to INT TD, Long tripping, Quick dropped TD).

That SF game last year where he threw that bomb to Amendola that was called back, he was magnificent in that game too when you consider the competition. It was the one that ended in a tie.

 

[jrry32]

He is not sacked as much as everyone says as the stats show. QB's like Rodgers get sacked far more often but have better stats. His YPA is one of the lowest in the league.

That's because Rodgers is a scrambler that takes more deep shots and is more willing to hold onto the football and take sacks. You're talking about two different types of QBs.

Bradford was 15th among starting QBs in pressure faced per drop-back in 2013. Which was improvement by the OL considering he was top 10 in most pressure faced in both 2012 and 2011. But that's still average(and, of course, Bradford responded by being the 10th best starting QB in the NFL in passer rating in 2013). I think Greg Robinson should make a big difference as will Saffold at OG and Stacy.

Aaron Rodgers was 30th(aka 3rd best) among starting QBs in pressure faced per drop-back in 2013. And yet he took more sacks per pass attempt(7.2%) than Bradford did(5.7%). Which means despite being pressured far less(36.3% for Bradford vs. 28.7% for Rodgers), Rodgers took more sacks. Which is why sacks don't really tell you much.

 

[Speed]

What's going on here is differing opinions (I assume you have heard of those?). Some QBs get rid of the ball quicker than others, and that explains elevation? That only explains that some QBs are better than others. That's not a revelation or anything. Clemens and Bradford played with the same team and Bradford did better. Brady or Manning might do better than Bradford. One isn't a better elevator than the other. One is just a better QB. All of the other moving parts are the same, and they don't get better depending on who the QB is. They just get more opportunities. The counterpoint to your argument is a valid one whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. I myself have made videos demonstrating how QBs (GOOD QBs) can be on the business end of a team loss, but that didn't prove that they failed to elevate anyone in the process either. For instance. When the Rams lost to the Lions in the 2012 opener, Bradford elevated the whole team all the way to the Lions' final drive, but couldn't seem to elevate the defense because they let Stafford drive 80 yards in a minute forty. Brady and Manning would have lost the same game because the ball wasn't in their hands.

When Cook gets the ball swatted away as he's walking into the endzone, is that lack of elevation?
When Gibson lines up wrong and an 80 yard reception is negated that could have sealed a win, is that lack of elevation?
When Jake Long trips someone and takes points off the board, is that lack of elevation?

If all of those ^ plays are just touchdowns, is that elevation?

When a team suffers numerous injuries and the QB's production dips, is that lack of elevation? If a team adds more talent to the offense and the QB's production spikes, is that elevation?

Seriously. It's a catch-phrase that means nothing.

Well it doesn't mean anything to you

And there certainly is nothing wrong with having a different opinion. But when you say stuff like this "Seriously. It's a catch-phrase that means nothing" it's hard to believe that you actually mean that.

Anyhow I have very clearly laid out how QBs elevate their teams. IMO it's pretty obvious how that happens. I will briefly go into it again. Brady and Manning clearly operate at a much higher rate mentally than most QBs. Their quick releases and ability to read and quickly diagnose how a defense is attempting to attack them elevates their team in spite of other weaknesses the offense might have like a poor offensive line or WR that aren't that good. I also clearly mentioned a QB who was nimble in the pocket or even mobile that helps a oline that is stressed. Also a QB that can make throws while moving athletically can also make plays when the design of the play breaks down. Aaron Rogers and Drew Brees are examples of QBs who also do this. Kurt Warner played behind one of the worst offensive lines any SB or playoff team ever has.... Yet despite that because of his ability to dissect defenses, and recognize coverages designed specifically to stop him he made the line look better than it actually was. We know this because before him the Cardinals were garbage and giving up record numbers of sacks and after him they were garbage and giving up record numbers of sacks. Peyton Manning leaves the Colts and they go 1-15. They add Andrew Luck and they are a playoff team. Manning joins the Broncos and they become a SB contending juggernaut.

Sure, have a different opinion all you want. However, a QB having a quick release vs a slow one, willing to throw WRs open who are tightly covered, that can make a play when pressured rather than checking it down as soon as he feels pressure obviously is an example of elevating the team around him.

I would love to Bradford start doing those things.

And honestly this conversation seems so odd given the Rams drafted Robinson with the clear intent that his addition will elevate Bradford, Zack Stacy, and the rest of the offensive line. I have no idea why anyone believes that QBs don't have similar impacts on their football teams. IMO that is just a strange argument to make. <shrug>

 

[Da-Rock]

I see a lot of talk about QBs "ability" and instincts....how they can or can't elevate a teammates play. I think some are dancing around the subject and others are forgetting almost the two biggest traits of a great football player.............Leadership and passion

You look at the examples above in Manning and Brady and you can go round and round about what they do and how they do it.....I see leadership and passion from those examples. People often hate on Brady because.....well, he's a stinking rotten Patriot, ( ) but look at his passion for the game, his leadership and the influence both of those have on the other players.

This is what many refer to as the, "It factor". It's not as tangible as the standard mental and physical traits that the NFL measures with numbers. This all leads me to say this,

"I too am not on the Sam Bradford Train as others have stated", but not because he isn't a "Good" football player capable of winning. He has the stats and can get W's by managing the games. What "I" think he lacks is a true passion for the game and the elite level of leadership it takes to be a "Great" player.

I really hope that he comes back and shows these traits and proves me wrong.

 

[bwdenverram]

Again why would this have to be explained to you? Honestly if I have to explain to you how QBs elevate teams and players around them then why the heck did the Rams draft Bradford #1 in 2010... because they thought he was cute? Of course not they drafted him number one because they believed he was a rare talent. If QBs don't elevate then the Rams should have kept Clemens

If QBs don't elevate then why did the Broncos go from potential playoff team to SB contenders with Manning. Brady played last year with a worst group of WRs than Clemens was throwing to... yet passed for over 4,300 yards and 25tds. You don't believe he elevated his offense? C'mon. Pick and choose your battles man and at least if your going to try and debate something like that be prepared to talk intelligently about it.

In fairness, Trent Dilfer didn't "elevate" anyone but still won a superbowl with the Ravens? Why is that? Well, he had the #1 D in football for one and did enough of a job to not hurt the team. There are only a handful of QB's that actually do this "elevation" as stated. Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Brady are about the only ones that I would consider above the rest.
There are a handful of really good QB's but most of them that have won have either had a ridiculous running game or a hell of a defense behind them (or both).
Manning is a great example. Ever think about why he hasn't won more SB's? IMO a great offense only takes you so far. He's never had an elite D or running game to support him.
It's not luck, it's reality. You think Russell Wilson wins a SB without that running game and the #1 D? I sincerely doubt it.

Watch this year as the RAMS put out a top 5 D and an improved mauling run game. I promise you Sam will be that much better when he has a dominant run game and an improved OL.
I would bet my next paycheck on it.

 

[mr.stlouis]

With all the crap Sam has taken over his career, nobody on this team deserves a ring more than him. I compare it to Steve Young filling in for Montana, STL bases his performances on a Kurt Warner scale. It's so jacked up. He'll only be fully accepted when we win the big one.

 

[Speed]

In fairness, Trent Dilfer didn't "elevate" anyone but still won a superbowl with the Ravens? Why is that? Well, he had the #1 D in football for one and did enough of a job to not hurt the team. There are only a handful of QB's that actually do this "elevation" as stated. Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Brady are about the only ones that I would consider above the rest.
There are a handful of really good QB's but most of them that have won have either had a ridiculous running game or a hell of a defense behind them (or both).
Manning is a great example. Ever think about why he hasn't won more SB's? IMO a great offense only takes you so far. He's never had an elite D or running game to support him.
It's not luck, it's reality. You think Russell Wilson wins a SB without that running game and the #1 D? I sincerely doubt it.

Watch this year as the RAMS put out a top 5 D and an improved mauling run game. I promise you Sam will be that much better when he has a dominant run game and an improved OL.
I would bet my next paycheck on it.

Don't disagree with that. Obviously Dilfer didn't elevate. I also think the 2000 Ravens are an obvious exception where a below average QB won a SB. I certainly hope Bradford will not be a Dilfer. I want him to be the difference and be the reason we win.... Not just along for the ride

 

[Speed]

With all the crap Sam has taken over his career, nobody on this team deserves a ring more than him. I compare it to Steve Young filling in for Montana, STL bases his performances on a Kurt Warner scale. It's so jacked up. He'll only be fully accepted when we win the big one.

Nah that's not it. Just win a couple of close games for them. On 4th and goal throw the winning TD pass... Watch how things change. MO is the show me state

On the road with the Niners or Hawks are up by 4 and the Rams need a TD to win.... Kill it there. That's when everyone will be on board

 

[-X-]

Well it doesn't mean anything to you

And there certainly is nothing wrong with having a different opinion. But when you say stuff like this "Seriously. It's a catch-phrase that means nothing" it's hard to believe that you actually mean that.

Anyhow I have very clearly laid out how QBs elevate their teams. IMO it's pretty obvious how that happens. I will briefly go into it again. Brady and Manning clearly operate at a much higher rate mentally than most QBs. Their quick releases and ability to read and quickly diagnose how a defense is attempting to attack them elevates their team in spite of other weaknesses the offense might have like a poor offensive line or WR that aren't that good. I also clearly mentioned a QB who was nimble in the pocket or even mobile that helps a oline that is stressed. Also a QB that can make throws while moving athletically can also make plays when the design of the play breaks down. Aaron Rogers and Drew Brees are examples of QBs who also do this. Kurt Warner played behind one of the worst offensive lines any SB or playoff team ever has.... Yet despite that because of his ability to dissect defenses, and recognize coverages designed specifically to stop him he made the line look better than it actually was. We know this because before him the Cardinals were garbage and giving up record numbers of sacks and after him they were garbage and giving up record numbers of sacks. Peyton Manning leaves the Colts and they go 1-15. They add Andrew Luck and they are a playoff team. Manning joins the Broncos and they become a SB contending juggernaut.

Sure, have a different opinion all you want. However, a QB having a quick release vs a slow one, willing to throw WRs open who are tightly covered, that can make a play when pressured rather than checking it down as soon as he feels pressure obviously is an example of elevating the team around him.

I would love to Bradford start doing those things

True. It doesn't mean anything to me. I should have clarified it that way, because it clearly means something to you. Which is fine.

For every example you provide, I can counter it with examples using the same players. For example. Kurt Warner had a 2-8 record his first year with the Cardinals, and Josh McCown had a 3-3 record. Who was the better elevator? He was 1-4 as a starter the next year and Matt Freaking Leinart was 4-7. Year after that he was 5-6 and Leinart was 3-2. As far as winning percentages go, both are better than Warner at elevating players. Right? Besides that, why would Warner wait 3 years to elevate everyone? That seems kind of odd. Why not do it right away?

And the worst offensive line in SB history? Hardly. They were ranked 9th in pass protection. They just couldn't run block very well. And if you tell me that Warner did that, then why didn't he do it the other years? When he left, they simply had no one even remotely close to being a backup, masquerading as their starters. Anderson, Skelton, Hall, Kolb, Lindley, Hoyer? lol. Same with the Colts. You're probably better than Curtis Painter. Where are any of these guys now? Why isn't it just as easy to say that the bad QBs drag down a good team, and that a better QB benefits from that same team? Reverse-elevation, if you will.

But let's use your argument again. If the Rams are trotting out a beat up Bulger, a washed up Boller, and a never was in Keith Null, and that team won exactly one game, then Bradford coming in and winning 7 (I don't subscribe to QB wins, btw), clearly makes him an elevator of men, yeah? That's what you're telling me, anyway. And what a magnificent supporting cast HE had at the time too, huh? So, if you claim elevation is a "thing", then Bradford has it. I claim it's not a thing, but it's instead a team sport with varying degrees of talent at 22 different positions, and the production of the QB can be directly proportional to the support he has at the time + a myriad of other factors. That's not to say all QBs are created equal. Merely that good ones need help too. Elite ones can get by with less. Shitty ones are always going to be shitty. Like I said, we can do this all day. We're always going to disagree on this thing though, so let's at least agree on that.