No more incompletes for Bradford

[-X-]

Well that's obvious... But Bradford's is 6.2 for 4 years.... When someone says his career ypa is 6.2 and everyone knows he played for 4 years obviously you aren't referring to a single year right? Last year after 4 weeks he lead the NFL in the number of attempts of 5 yards or less by a ton. Now people can blame Shurmur, McDaniels, and Shotty but the common denominator is Bradford.... And there absolutely nothing wrong with pointing that out.

What's obvious? That Brady's YPA dipped below 7 when he was relegated to having a primary threat with the skill set of Julian Edelman? I didn't think that was obvious, and that's why I pointed it out. The common denominator between Brady 2014 and Bradford 10-14 is that they've had similar receivers. And nobody's *blaming* anyone for Bradford's production to date. They're just pointing it out. And of course there's nothing wrong with pointing out that Bradford's been the common denominator throughout all of these coaching changes. Who said there was anything wrong with that?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Ok got the first part... Disagree on the TDs. 26tds TDs are two less than Manning threw in his record breaking first season and 52 over the last two seasons is more than any 2 year QB has thrown in the history of the NFL. If Bradford threw for 26tds this year I would be thrilled

RW was not some kind of place holder and any QB could have lead that team to the SB. We should stop with that for sure

Back to your point. No Wilson wasn't asked to do that and neither were they equipped for him to do it either. All we have to do is look a little further south to SF who did fall behind several times last year and for that matter over the last three years are weren't able to do come back from big deficits. Seattle I can't recall if they have yet to be in that position. The only one I can think of off the top of my head where SF can back is the SB loss to the Ravens where Kapernick lead them back from a huge deficit and almost pulled it off but failed on 4th and goal.

He threw for 14 in 7 games, that's about 32 for the year if he keeps the pace up.

 

[CGI_Ram]

 

[ED_29]

He threw for 14 in 7 games, that's about 32 for the year if he keeps the pace up.

Yeah but unfortunately we always are saying if.... It will be nice when we can drop that

 

[ED_29]

What's obvious? That Brady's YPA dipped below 7 when he was relegated to having a primary threat with the skill set of Julian Edelman? I didn't think that was obvious, and that's why I pointed it out. The common denominator between Brady 2014 and Bradford 10-14 is that they've had similar receivers. And nobody's *blaming* anyone for Bradford's production to date. They're just pointing it out. And of course there's nothing wrong with pointing out that Bradford's been the common denominator throughout all of these coaching changes. Who said there was anything wrong with that?

Ok so let me make sure I follow. Brady last year threw to Edelman, DA, and a bunch of no names and without Gronk or Hernandez, averaged 6.9 ypa, but throws for 25tds. Bradford has Cook, Austin, and Givens all vertical guys last year yet his ypa is actually lower than it was the year before when his targets were Amendola, Gibson, and Givens. Again it's obvious that a coach can influence an offense with scheme, and WRs can do the same. However, I guess what's curious to me is why you seem so eager to dismiss Bradford as being a factor. I mean you could say "yeah I could see how one might conclude Bradford is conservative ....after all his ypa year after year is extremely low ... But I think there might be other factors that are more likely contributing". But you're not doing that. Rather you seem to be dismissive of the notion even though I have presented evidence that should at least give you pause

 

[HE WITH HORNS]

This seems like a weak argument too me. His career is 6.2 not his rookie year. I don't see why people can't just accept certain things. He doesn't push the ball downfield. It's ok to say it.... Let's just hope he changes it

But that one year does effect the average. He threw more 2 yard outs and behind the LOS screens in the Shurmur "offense" than he did total passes in his 2nd and 4th seasons. I wish I could say I was exaggerating.

 

[-X-]

Ok so let me make sure I follow. Brady last year threw to Edelman, DA, and a bunch of no names and without Gronk or Hernandez, averaged 6.9 ypa, but throws for 25tds. Bradford has Cook, Austin, and Givens all vertical guys last year yet his ypa is actually lower than it was the year before when his targets were Amendola, Gibson, and Givens. Again it's obvious that a coach can influence an offense with scheme, and WRs can do the same. However, I guess what's curious to be is why you seem so eager to dismiss Bradford as being a factor. I mean you could say "yeah I could see how one might conclude Bradford is conservative ....after all his ypa year after year is extremely low ... But I think there might be other factors that are more likely contributing". But you're not doing that. Rather you to be dismissive of the notion even though I have presented evidence that should at least give you pause

Well, see, that's the problem with you being a newb on this board and not having been through our previous 250+ Bradford threads. You may only have my current involvement in this thread to go on, but that's not the only thing I'm about. I only bring up examples of other things (like Brady's YPA without his customary targets) just to illustrate points. I'm not making definitive statements about Bradford when I do that. That's the common misconception with people who have him in his sights and ARE trying to make definitive statements. I like to make people think about things. That's all. You seem to be dismissive of reasons (aka excuses), and that's equally nonconstructive.

As far as me being dismissive of the notion that Bradford's been a factor ... that's just not true. I've already listed, in the recent past, my issues with Bradford as a QB, and the things I'd like to see him improve upon. Since you've not been around for that, I'll be happy to enumerate them again.

1. A little more touch on screen passes
2. Don't try to be so surgical on sideline throws (balls tend to sail out of bounds a lot). Give the receiver a chance.
3. Don't rely so much on the pre-snap read. He tends to locate the isolation matchup and follow it instead of making another post-snap read.
4. Don't shake your head in disgust when plays don't go right. Sends the message of being beyond reproach.

The rest of the common criticisms seem (to me) to be linked to determining his motives or personality. I don't get involved in those discussions. But I don't think it's counter-productive to point out (in detail) the things that went against him during his initial development and how some of those things can't just be shaken off. It takes corrective measures through coaching to get it right. For a QB who went through two rebuilds, two head coaches and three coordinators and schemes, I tend to think he hasn't been developed right. And that's why I find the comparisons to guys who have tenure, or guys who have been developed correctly, to be a bit unfair. So again, I don't absolve him of any wrong doing. You're confusing rationalization with uninformed and unabashed defense.

 

[Username]

Ok so let me make sure I follow. Brady last year threw to Edelman, DA, and a bunch of no names and without Gronk or Hernandez, averaged 6.9 ypa, but throws for 25tds. Bradford has Cook, Austin, and Givens all vertical guys last year yet his ypa is actually lower than it was the year before when his targets were Amendola, Gibson, and Givens. Again it's obvious that a coach can influence an offense with scheme, and WRs can do the same. However, I guess what's curious to me is why you seem so eager to dismiss Bradford as being a factor. I mean you could say "yeah I could see how one might conclude Bradford is conservative ....after all his ypa year after year is extremely low ... But I think there might be other factors that are more likely contributing". But you're not doing that. Rather you seem to be dismissive of the notion even though I have presented evidence that should at least give you pause

I get what you're saying, but (first of all) fuck tom brady, and 2nd who did they even play last year? They had the 25th easiest schedule in the league. The toughest defense they faced was Carolina on the road, after a bye, and he put up numbers very similar to Sam. Unfortunately Sam got injured last year right when we changed the offensive approach, and right when he was playing his best football of the year. The problem for the Rams isn't that "Sam sucks," it's that they've never been able to have a true representation of what he's really capable of.

Regardless, I agree with @max here. This is the last year. If he plays a full season, doesn't have above average to great numbers, or gets injured, he's gone.

 

[RamFan503]

Let's just count passes beyond the LOS.

Like everyone else does? Or was there supposed to be some blue font there? I think I get that you're saying the passes that aren't are about the same as a running play but do we use the same criteria on QBs not named Bradford?

what does this mean?

I think the context explains it. If you are going to count passes behind the LOS as running plays or throw them out then you should do the same for all QBs. Then you would naturally have to look at yards after the catch on those plays. It is especially cogent if those plays resulted in fewer total yards passing for Sam than other QBs mentioned in a discussion.

I'm not saying it's valid and I didn't suggest it but you can't cherry pick.

I think as X brought up, many of us have said repeatedly that Sam needs to improve in several areas. Personally, I'm just unwilling to throw out all the surrounding facts and pin it on the QB. I think that would do a dis-service to our team because the bottom line is - if not Sam then who? If you put another QB in the same situation, he would also have to work through the same problems.

Certainly Sam needs to step up as do all these very young players around him. Does that mean make or break year? Dunno. I'm not even really sure what that means. I'd actually say that if we are winning in spite of bad QB play then why pay him huge jack for 2015? But if he is playing well and the team still doesn't win, it makes no sense to me to get rid of the guy who is playing well just because he is the QB and the TEAM is not winning.

 

[Zaphod]

and why would they do that... if Sam lights it up and does his part why would we blame him? that doesn't make any sense too me

Me either. But humans are not logical creatures

 

[max]

I think the context explains it. If you are going to count passes behind the LOS as running plays or throw them out then you should do the same for all QBs. Then you would naturally have to look at yards after the catch on those plays. It is especially cogent if those plays resulted in fewer total yards passing for Sam than other QBs mentioned in a discussion.

I'm not saying it's valid and I didn't suggest it but you can't cherry pick.

I think as X brought up, many of us have said repeatedly that Sam needs to improve in several areas. Personally, I'm just unwilling to throw out all the surrounding facts and pin it on the QB. I think that would do a dis-service to our team because the bottom line is - if not Sam then who? If you put another QB in the same situation, he would also have to work through the same problems.

Certainly Sam needs to step up as do all these very young players around him. Does that mean make or break year? Dunno. I'm not even really sure what that means. I'd actually say that if we are winning in spite of bad QB play then why pay him huge jack for 2015? But if he is playing well and the team still doesn't win, it makes no sense to me to get rid of the guy who is playing well just because he is the QB and the TEAM is not winning.

Some people said Bradford's there already. That implies he doesn't HAVE TO improve in several areas. Well, I believe he does have to improve for the Rams to be successful. And that is a big part of it being a make or break year for him. He also has to stay healthy.

But let me clarify my original premise.

My premise of "no more incompletes" for Bradford is based on the big picture.

I am assuming the following:

1. The defense under Williams, with all that talent, and the younger guys, like Brockers, Jenkins, Ogletree, and McDonald improving, and expectedly the best DL in the NFL, will do more than their share to make this a playoff team. It will not be the defense that we saw at the beginning of 2013 when Bradford was playing. He will now have the benefit of a better defense than even Clemens had later in the 2013 season.

2. The OL with the addition of Robinson and retention of Saffold in combination with Stacy, Mason and company will provide a top 10 running game. I also am assuming that the OL will not be hit with a rash of injuries to key players.

3. The Special Teams with Legatron, Hekker, Tavon, and company will be one of the leagues best.

I believe all 3 of those assumptions are highly likely and my expectations for Bradford are based on those assumptions being fulfilled.

Someone needs to tell me when was the last time a team had all 3 of the above assumptions come to fruition AND a QB that was playing lights out AND the team did not make the playoffs?

It's a simple question. And it has a simple answer. NEVER.

So I maintain, this is it for Bradford based on what I expect are highly likely 2014 performances from other aspects of the team.

 

[ED_29]

I think the context explains it. If you are going to count passes behind the LOS as running plays or throw them out then you should do the same for all QBs. Then you would naturally have to look at yards after the catch on those plays. It is especially cogent if those plays resulted in fewer total yards passing for Sam than other QBs mentioned in a discussion.

I'm not saying it's valid and I didn't suggest it but you can't cherry pick.

I think as X brought up, many of us have said repeatedly that Sam needs to improve in several areas. Personally, I'm just unwilling to throw out all the surrounding facts and pin it on the QB. I think that would do a dis-service to our team because the bottom line is - if not Sam then who? If you put another QB in the same situation, he would also have to work through the same problems.

Certainly Sam needs to step up as do all these very young players around him. Does that mean make or break year? Dunno. I'm not even really sure what that means. I'd actually say that if we are winning in spite of bad QB play then why pay him huge jack for 2015? But if he is playing well and the team still doesn't win, it makes no sense to me to get rid of the guy who is playing well just because he is the QB and the TEAM is not winning.

Thank you for the further explanation... And I do agree with your last point. If he is playing well of course he should stay.... And we will be able to determine that just like we do with other QBs and teams

 

[RamFan503]

No offense to anyone but I'm bored with this. I think we are going to talk in circles until it turns Bulger. So you guys have at it and just remain civil. It's a good discussion between all of you, I have just said everything I can about the subject.

Cheers guys.

 

[BeerOClock]

Some people said Bradford's there already. That implies he doesn't HAVE TO improve in several areas. Well, I believe he does have to improve for the Rams to be successful. And that is a big part of it being a make or break year for him. He also has to stay healthy.

But let me clarify my original premise.

My premise of "no more incompletes" for Bradford is based on the big picture.

I am assuming the following:

1. The defense under Williams, with all that talent, and the younger guys, like Brockers, Jenkins, Ogletree, and McDonald improving, and expectedly the best DL in the NFL, will do more than their share to make this a playoff team. It will not be the defense that we saw at the beginning of 2013 when Bradford was playing. He will now have the benefit of a better defense than even Clemens had later in the 2013 season.

2. The OL with the addition of Robinson and retention of Saffold in combination with Stacy, Mason and company will provide a top 10 running game. I also am assuming that the OL will not be hit with a rash of injuries to key players.

3. The Special Teams with Legatron, Hekker, Tavon, and company will be one of the leagues best.

I believe all 3 of those assumptions are highly likely and my expectations for Bradford are based on those assumptions being fulfilled.

Someone needs to tell me when was the last time a team had all 3 of the above assumptions come to fruition AND a QB that was playing lights out AND the team did not make the playoffs?

It's a simple question. And it has a simple answer. NEVER.

So I maintain, this is it for Bradford based on what I expect are highly likely 2014 performances from other aspects of the team.

I agree with the overall point but let me add one more perspective:

When did a team in a 4-team division have to compete with the Super Bowl winner, the 2nd best team in football and a 10-6 team to make the playoffs?
Add to the fact they are playing arguably the hardest schedule in football. So, my metric is a little different. If the Rams go 3-3 or better in a very tough division and lose maybe 3 games out of division (Denver, and two other playoff teams last year) and end up 10-6, I would consider their season a qualified success regardless of if they make the playoffs or not.

 

[max]

I agree with the overall point but let me add one more perspective:

When did a team in a 4-team division have to compete with the Super Bowl winner, the 2nd best team in football and a 10-6 team to make the playoffs?
Add to the fact they are playing arguably the hardest schedule in football. So, my metric is a little different. If the Rams go 3-3 or better in a very tough division and lose maybe 3 games out of division (Denver, and two other playoff teams last year) and end up 10-6, I would consider their season a qualified success regardless of if they make the playoffs or not.

If the Rams win 10 games this year, I guarantee you the other 3 teams in the West won't win at least 10 games. The Ram will have a very good shot at the playoffs if they go 10-6. That usually gets you in.

 

[BeerOClock]

The Ram will have a very good shot at the playoffs if they go 10-6. That usually gets you in.

Yeah. Tell that to Arizona.

 

[BeerOClock]

If the Rams win 10 games this year, I guarantee you the other 3 teams in the West won't win at least 10 games.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

 

[max]

Yeah. Tell that to Arizona.

Yes. It happens on occasion. But the norm is 10 wins gets you a playoff spot.

 

[ausmurp]

Bradford still has the weakest collection of pass catchers in the NFL man (based purely off of fact and stats, no bias). Had we traded for Stevie Johnson or if we trade for Andre Johnson I would agree with you. His injury history is unacceptable. But his stats are good based on his pass catching corps.

 

[max]

Bradford still has the weakest collection of pass catchers in the NFL man (based purely off of fact and stats, no bias). Had we traded for Stevie Johnson or if we trade for Andre Johnson I would agree with you. His injury history is unacceptable. But his stats are good based on his pass catching corps.

It's biased when you don't consider who is throwing them the ball. I would rather have the Rams WRs than what Brady had in NE last year.