Wagoner On Bradford

[OnceARam]

I think clarification of that statement has to be established before I say yes or no. The problem in analyzing Bradford is that there really hasn't been a constant in any facet of his circumstances. Multiple HC's, OC's, systems, o-line, receivers, rb's...that he's as productive as he's been is basically praise-worthy in itself.

That's a good point. But I could take your point and say that the one consistency out of all of those categories is Bradford himself. (He is the dependent variable.) Doesn't that say something in and of itself? The Rams front office has brought him system after system, player after player, and nothing has worked.

I think we'd all agree that our current FO is good. Snead, Fischer & Co. know what they are doing - outside of falling in love with a few guys in the 2nd round. So if our current FO is good and our current QB is not producing W's - what does that mean????

You could argue that the current sample size isn't large enough to jump to any conclusions - because of the injury. I would counter by saying that he is a QB that gets injured - like RG3, for different reasons.

So what I"m saying is that you have to include the games that Bradford missed in the sample size. It is what it is.

It's not like he had his knee chopped in half while sitting in the pocket. He, basically, hurt himself while running out of bounds. The same way RG3 hurts himself by putting himself in harm's way - the dude does not know how to take a hit.

 

[OnceARam]

Which QBs?

If they are better QBs, like Brady, nobody is comparing Bradford to the top QBs. Otherwise, curious who you have in mind?

Few QBs could have played with WRs as bad as Bradford had in the first three years, and guessing the few that did, probably didn't set the league on fire. We should also factor in how bad the OLs were in his first three years.

Who would you compare Bradford to? Above or below Andy Dalton? Seriously. Above or below Andy Dalton?

That's the line.

 

[Ramifications]

Who would you compare Bradford to? Above or below Andy Dalton? Seriously. Above or below Andy Dalton?

That's the line.

I was responding to this point of yours...

"Other QB's are able to play with inferior talent. Shouldn't Bradford be able to as well?"

And you come back with Dalton? Really?

You may have heard of this WR called AJ Green, this is from memory, so correct me if wrong, but I believe he actually has the best numbers for a WR in NFL history through the first three years of his career. I think you would agree if you rethink this, the descriptive phrase "inferior talent" and A.J. Green do not belong in the same sentence. He was a 1.4 overall pick, arguably the best prospect at his position since Calvin Johnson (1.2), and I think indisputably the best with Julio Jones (1.6). That pedigree existed before he ever played a down with Dalton.

In fact, if you were going out of your way to use an example among active players that would best make the complete opposite point of the one you stated, the only way you could have done better is mention Stafford and Calvin Johnson. Please don't tell us you think he is an inferior WR talent?

* The above doesn't even include Jermaine Gresham, coincidentally Bradford's main receiving weapon in his Heisman winning campaign at Oklahoma. He is a two time Pro Bowler and only the third TE in NFL history, with Ditka and fellow Sooner alum Keith Jackson, to have 50+ receptions in his first three seasons (just missed a fourth with 46 receptions in 2013).

With all due respect, arguing poor Andy Dalton had to "muddle along" with inferior receiving weapons like Green and Gresham = EPIC FAIL.

 

[OnceARam]

I was responding to this point of yours...

"Other QB's are able to play with inferior talent. Shouldn't Bradford be able to as well?"

And you come back with Dalton? Really?

You may have heard of this WR called AJ Green, this is from memory, so correct me if wrong, but I believe he actually has the best numbers for a WR in NFL history through the first three years of his career. I think you would agree if you rethink this, the descriptive phrase "inferior talent" and A.J. Green do not belong in the same sentence. He was a 1.4 overall pick, arguably the best prospect at his position since Calvin Johnson (1.2), and I think indisputably the best with Julio Jones (1.6). That pedigree existed before he ever played a down with Dalton.

In fact, if you were going out of your way to use an example among active players that would best make the complete opposite point of the one you stated, the only way you could have done better is mention Stafford and Calvin Johnson. Please don't tell us you think he is an inferior WR talent?

* The above doesn't even include Jermaine Gresham, coincidentally Bradford's main receiving weapon in his Heisman winning campaign at Oklahoma. He is a two time Pro Bowler and only the third TE in NFL history, with Ditka and fellow Sooner alum Keith Jackson, to have 50+ receptions in his first three seasons (just missed a fourth with 46 receptions in 2013).

With all due respect, arguing poor Andy Dalton had to "muddle along" with inferior receiving weapons like Green and Gresham = EPIC FAIL.

Hilarious. I have moved off the inferior talent point. But that was well done. Touche.

 

[Ramifications]

Hilarious. I have moved off the inferior talent point. But that was well done. Touche.

Thanks for not escalating things, OnceARam.

I admire and respect somebody who can acknowledge oversights, I'll try and reciprocate on the board. Please correct me if the roles are reversed. I didn't mean to be a jerk or disrespectful, I guess Bradford is kind of a hard-wired issue deep in my limbic system, and I have kind of a droll, sardonic sense of humor, as you can maybe tell. ;^)

Peace.

 

[iced]

I'm with you.

Tavon and Cook are part of the equation.

Quick, we don't know.

Bailey, with all his potential, isn't likely to be that #1 type.

This is why I keep he door open for a player like Watkins. This offense is getting close.

add watkins to our offense with stacy in the backfield and i think we're dangerous

 

[Ramifications]

Hilarious. I have moved off the inferior talent point. But that was well done. Touche.

I realized I didn't answer your question if you moved off the inferior weapons point. I actually tried, but the site ate it last night (lost in the matrix).

Everybody probably has the same top four... Manning, Brady, Brees and Rodgers. Than there are QBs, mostly younger, like Stafford, Ryan, Newton and Romo (Eli took a tumble this year, we have to respect the two rings, but he looked awful).

That takes us through eight. This is off the top of my head, so I may be forgetting somebody. I think of Bradford as better than average, so say around top 12. I think there are some mitigating circumstances to his first three seasons (combination of lack of talent, poor play, injuries at OL and WR, etc.). So if he is surrounded by superior talent to what he had, he could do better. He was in fact on a career high pace in 2013 before the season was cut short. So maybe Bradford has top 8-12 potential, if he can stay healthy (maybe higher?). For now it is hard to put him higher than Stafford or Ryan (I can't), but hypothetically, if he had Calvin Johnson or Roddy White/Julio Jones/Tony Gonzalez, and they had to deal with Bradford's churning and turnover at the position (hard to develop all important timing and rapport under those circumstances), Bradford might already be a consensus top 5-8 QB, and Stafford and Ryan might be on the outside looking in.

Stafford, before this season, was 1-23 against winning teams, yet Bradford's has the rep of not being a "winner". Many don't seem to factor in that he inherited a team in the process of nosediving to a 15-65 half decade record (Millen's seven year tenure in DET something like .270 or .277 supposedly the third worst ever in a comparable seven year stretch, and the Rams five year record was sub-.200, so just an abomination by any measure), yet is ridiculed (not directed at you, just many critics I've experienced) for the otherwise heroic job of getting to seven wins twice, despite the handicap of two separate COMPLETE rebuilds in his first three years.

But I digress. :^) Dalton is coming off a career year with 32-33 TDs (incidentally, Bradford was pacing for this through less than seven complete games). I wouldn't have rated him as high this time last year. I'd say he belongs in that 8-12 range, probably closer to the top. He is hard to evaluate, because of the disparity between regular season and playoffs, but Peyton Manning and Ryan also lost their first three playoff games, so maybe there is hope.

Interestingly, both could be viewed as being on the hot seat for different reasons. Bradford needs to stay healthy and lead the team to a winning record for the first time in his career, the talent has been upgraded and the time is now to start proving the doubters wrong. Dalton needs to win a playoff game if they advance that far.

* We could break this down by straight up resume, in which case Romo is far more accomplished than Bradford. But if we account for age, like if we were actual GMs, than I think Bradford has more upside than a 32-33 (?) year old player coming off herniated disc surgery.

 

[moklerman]

I think we'd all agree that our current FO is good. Snead, Fischer & Co. know what they are doing - outside of falling in love with a few guys in the 2nd round. So if our current FO is good and our current QB is not producing W's - what does that mean????

It means that if one is attributing wins and losses to the QB, they're on the wrong track. Let's just stop at your first point. We all agree that the current FO is good.

I agree. The current FO has also repeatedly and emphatically backed Bradford as the current and future QB.

 

[OnceARam]

Thanks for not escalating things, OnceARam.

I admire and respect somebody who can acknowledge oversights, I'll try and reciprocate on the board. Please correct me if the roles are reversed. I didn't mean to be a jerk or disrespectful, I guess Bradford is kind of a hard-wired issue deep in my limbic system, and I have kind of a droll, sardonic sense of humor, as you can maybe tell. ;^)

Peace.

I feel you bro. Bradford is a polarizing figure. I had been a supporter of his until this season. His performance against Dallas and SF combined with the way he went down killed it for me. I just do not see him as the long term answer. My biggest fear is that we sign him to some $100 million deal.

And I'm the type that believes that the second you identify something as not the long term answer you walk out the door. Job. Girl. QB.

I realize there is a place for sentimentality, honor, history, etc. But to me, that's just dust in the wind.

 

[OnceARam]

I realized I didn't answer your question if you moved off the inferior weapons point. I actually tried, but the site ate it last night (lost in the matrix).

Everybody probably has the same top four... Manning, Brady, Brees and Rodgers. Than there are QBs, mostly younger, like Stafford, Ryan, Newton and Romo (Eli took a tumble this year, we have to respect the two rings, but he looked awful).

That takes us through eight. This is off the top of my head, so I may be forgetting somebody. I think of Bradford as better than average, so say around top 12. I think there are some mitigating circumstances to his first three seasons (combination of lack of talent, poor play, injuries at OL and WR, etc.). So if he is surrounded by superior talent to what he had, he could do better. He was in fact on a career high pace in 2013 before the season was cut short. So maybe Bradford has top 8-12 potential, if he can stay healthy (maybe higher?). For now it is hard to put him higher than Stafford or Ryan (I can't), but hypothetically, if he had Calvin Johnson or Roddy White/Julio Jones/Tony Gonzalez, and they had to deal with Bradford's churning and turnover at the position (hard to develop all important timing and rapport under those circumstances), Bradford might already be a consensus top 5-8 QB, and Stafford and Ryan might be on the outside looking in.

Stafford, before this season, was 1-23 against winning teams, yet Bradford's has the rep of not being a "winner". Many don't seem to factor in that he inherited a team in the process of nosediving to a 15-65 half decade record (Millen's seven year tenure in DET something like .270 or .277 supposedly the third worst ever in a comparable seven year stretch, and the Rams five year record was sub-.200, so just an abomination by any measure), yet is ridiculed (not directed at you, just many critics I've experienced) for the otherwise heroic job of getting to seven wins twice, despite the handicap of two separate COMPLETE rebuilds in his first three years.

But I digress. :^) Dalton is coming off a career year with 32-33 TDs (incidentally, Bradford was pacing for this through less than seven complete games). I wouldn't have rated him as high this time last year. I'd say he belongs in that 8-12 range, probably closer to the top. He is hard to evaluate, because of the disparity between regular season and playoffs, but Peyton Manning and Ryan also lost their first three playoff games, so maybe there is hope.

Interestingly, both could be viewed as being on the hot seat for different reasons. Bradford needs to stay healthy and lead the team to a winning record for the first time in his career, the talent has been upgraded and the time is now to start proving the doubters wrong. Dalton needs to win a playoff game if they advance that far.

* We could break this down by straight up resume, in which case Romo is far more accomplished than Bradford. But if we account for age, like if we were actual GMs, than I think Bradford has more upside than a 32-33 (?) year old player coming off herniated disc surgery.

This is great analysis. The only thing you've overlooked is the rise of the new breed of QB. These guys are winning games. These guys are making plays when the pocket breaks down. These guys are cheap.

Q: Why are SF and SEA so thoroughly dominated the NFL?
A: They spend a disproportionate amount of money on players that don't wear a red jersey.

Guys coming out of college now are more prepared than in the past. Elite level training is starting at an early age.

The new model in the NFL will result in a devaluation of the QB position - mark my words - in terms of salary cap allocation.

My theory will be tested this off season. Will SF sign Kap to a $100 million deal? They don't need to. They guy is replaceable.

 

[OnceARam]

It means that if one is attributing wins and losses to the QB, they're on the wrong track. Let's just stop at your first point. We all agree that the current FO is good.

I agree. The current FO has also repeatedly and emphatically backed Bradford as the current and future QB.

I hope they keep their crystal ball polished because that's all they're going off of when it comes to assessing what kind of QB Bradford will be next season.

You can never believe what a FO says. All you can believe is what they do (how they draft and where they spend money).

So far they've drafted well - overall. FA has been a disappointment - as it normally is for all teams.

Some big decisions coming up. Big career making or destroying decisions.

If you trade/cut/bench Bradford and draft a young QB what's your upside/downside risk?

If you keep Bradford and pass on the next crop of talented QB's what's your upside/downside risk?

The questions are further complicated when you factor in the consideration that we have the #2 pick overall and won't see that high of a pick for the foreseeable future (i.e., 2-3 years).

 

[Ramifications]

This is great analysis. The only thing you've overlooked is the rise of the new breed of QB. These guys are winning games. These guys are making plays when the pocket breaks down. These guys are cheap.

Q: Why are SF and SEA so thoroughly dominated the NFL?
A: They spend a disproportionate amount of money on players that don't wear a red jersey.

Guys coming out of college now are more prepared than in the past. Elite level training is starting at an early age.

The new model in the NFL will result in a devaluation of the QB position - mark my words - in terms of salary cap allocation.

My theory will be tested this off season. Will SF sign Kap to a $100 million deal? They don't need to. They guy is replaceable.

I forgot a Super Bowl QB! :^)

And a lot of others, thanks for the reminder. Wilson, Luck, Kaepernick need to be slotted pretty high, and RGIII deserves mention.

I wouldn't grade Luck that high on a three year window, but if I was starting a franchise, Luck would be my first pick in the league, probably. Wilson has probably surpassed Stafford and Ryan. I like Kaepernick a lot, he has rushed for 95+ yards (including about 180 and 130 efforts) three times in the playoffs... all the other QBs in NFL history have combined for two others (Vick and McNabb). He is a work in progress as a passer, but his upside is tantalizing. I would sign him to a big extension, but I think he could use another WR. Maybe he is around where Dalton and Bradford are. RGIII would be very high, top 6, if not for the ACL injury, and questions about will he be as effective if he doesn't run as much to preserve himself and that appreciably alters part of his game that made him rare and special (on track to be an Olympic caliber hurdler). He had a historically good rookie year for a QB (in terms of Y/A and low INT percentage). There might be others that are escaping my attention, but that is of course some of the new breed that comes immediately to mind.

Interesting theory, I'll file that away into the deeper memory banks for possible later retrieval.

 

[moklerman]

I hope they keep their crystal ball polished because that's all they're going off of when it comes to assessing what kind of QB Bradford will be next season.

Your statements sure aren't lining up. How can you think this is a good front office if you think they're basing their decision of Bradford on a guess? I'd like to think that you're just playing devil's advocate but it sure seems like you're just sugar-coating your Bradford bashing.

 

[OnceARam]

Your statements sure aren't lining up. How can you think this is a good front office if you think they're basing their decision of Bradford on a guess? I'd like to think that you're just playing devil's advocate but it sure seems like you're just sugar-coating your Bradford bashing.

I'm not sugar coating anything. I no longer believe Bradford to be the long-term solution. I hope that is clear enough for you.

 

[iced]

This is great analysis. The only thing you've overlooked is the rise of the new breed of QB. These guys are winning games. These guys are making plays when the pocket breaks down. These guys are cheap.

Q: Why are SF and SEA so thoroughly dominated the NFL?
A: They spend a disproportionate amount of money on players that don't wear a red jersey.

Guys coming out of college now are more prepared than in the past. Elite level training is starting at an early age.

The new model in the NFL will result in a devaluation of the QB position - mark my words - in terms of salary cap allocation.

My theory will be tested this off season. Will SF sign Kap to a $100 million deal? They don't need to. They guy is replaceable.

These teams are carried by their defenses and by allowing less points, it helps your offense stay balanced...not to mention win games.

and it's not all about the qb position - last i checked aldon smith, eric reid, richard sherman, browner, and other members of the legion of boom are making peanuts too

 

[OnceARam]

These teams are carried by their defenses and by allowing less points, it helps your offense stay balanced...not to mention win games.

and it's not all about the qb position - last i checked aldon smith, eric reid, richard sherman, browner, and other members of the legion of boom are making peanuts too

Good point. There are a number of guys still playing on rookie contracts. I might have to do a detailed breakdown to see exactly where their salary cap numbers are going vs. ours. Would probably be interesting.

 

[bskrilla]

I had been a supporter of his until this season. His performance against Dallas and SF combined with the way he went down killed it for me. I just do not see him as the long term answer.

I find it surprising that you decided he was bad THIS season. He was on pace to easily put up his best numbers to date. Numbers that would have placed him in the top 10.

As for the Dallas and SF games. Yes, they were bad. All QB's have bad games. And lots of QB's have bad games against the 49ers. Good lord look at Andrew Lucks game against us this year (and we were one of the worst passing D's in the league). It happens.

I'm not trying to say those games don't count, but when you look at his overall stat line before getting hurt I just find it hard to believe that THIS is the year where his performance was disappointing.

 

[iced]

Good point. There are a number of guys still playing on rookie contracts. I might have to do a detailed breakdown to see exactly where their salary cap numbers are going vs. ours. Would probably be interesting.

Just guessing

Sea - LT, Percy harvin, lynch, sidney rice, d-line.

SF - Justin Smith, Carlos Rogers, LT, Gore, Willis, Boldin

 

[moklerman]

I'm not sugar coating anything. I no longer believe Bradford to be the long-term solution. I hope that is clear enough for you.

Well, you've made one thing clear. I certainly hope there isn't too much more of it popping up around here.

 

[F. Mulder]

I put myself in the "prove it to me" category. I personally think SB can be elite/special. With that said, I worry about his tendency to check down or throw it away when I'd rather he take a shot downfield. I think his pocket presence is better but he tends to 'panic" early IMO. I think he has improved his touch passes. I don't think he trusts his WRs IMO. This is a make or break season for him. He needs to win games the team has no business winning and show he can overcome bad starts (the team or him) and FINISH strong. If he does that I'm all in if not let's re-evaulate the contract and upside.