Sam Bradford
by John Morgan on Apr 1, 2010 3:20 PM PDT
Email
PrintThe Oklahoma pro day fueled the final surge of Sam Bradford affirmation. It is affirmation after all, because scouts, NFL teams, want Bradford to be a franchise quarterback. The Rams want Sam Bradford to be a franchise quarterback. It's widely accepted that even if St. Louis drafted Ndamukong Suh and killed the rest of their draft, they would be a below average team because they lack a quarterback.
Let's talk about that first. I would not invest in Marc Bulger, but it is curious that Bulger is written off. Matt Hasselbeck, a year and a half older, similarly plagued by injuries, worse than Bulger each of the last two seasons, and by the same measure, adjusted yards per attempt, equal to Bulger for his career, is thought to have gas in the tank. For whatever reason, Hasselbeck is thought of as the better quarterback and better quarterback going forward. That does not make much sense, honestly. Short of prestige, I can't think of a way to rank 2010 Matt Hasselbeck ahead of 2010 Marc Bulger.
Seattle has a strong need for a franchise quarterback, but fans recognize that if the talent is not there, the Seahawks have a stopgap with some potential. The Rams are in the exact same position. Bulger is not likely to recover enough to enjoy a late-career resurgence, but neither is Hasselbeck, and both are likely better in the short term than any quarterback from the 2010 class.
The Rams have added liability. Selecting Bradford first overall locks them into the largest rookie contract in the history of the NFL. JaMarcus Russell was signed to a six-year, $61 million contract with $32 million guaranteed. Two years later, Matthew Stafford was signed to a six-year, $72 million contract with $41.75 million guaranteed. St. Louis could pay Bradford as much as $80 million with nearly $50 million guaranteed. They would agree to this contract with the possibility of a rookie salary cap looming. In other words, they could set and hold the record for largest rookie contract in the NFL, and all for Sam Bradford.
Bradford would have to be exceptional to merit that investment. Is he?
A few weeks back, the praise and criticism of Bradford was clear. Bradford had two huge seasons in Oklahoma. He did so in a weak conference for defense, in a spread attack, and surrounded by copious amounts of pro talent. Every member of the Sooners offensive line was a pro prospect. Center Jon Cooper signed with the Vikings. Guard Branden Walker was signed by the Texans, but released after two arrests. Phil Loadholt started 15 games at right tackle for the Vikings. Duke Robinson is a bit of a mystery. He slid from possible first-round pick to certain second-round pick to selected in the fifth. Whatever the reason, few doubt his talent or dominance at the college level. Right tackle Trent Williams is a possible top-15 selection.
Bradford excelled with excellent protection, good weapons and in a spread system. Scouts wondered if he had the requisite skills to make pro reads, pro reads quickly enough to avoid pressure, and specifically, if Bradford could make pro reads while adjusting to pressure. Those two skills, reading a defense and reading a pass rush, are the two essential skills of a quarterback. Bradford has no meaningful experience making pro reads. The year after four of his five linemen left for the NFL, in just 71 pass attempts, he suffered not one, but two serious injuries to his throwing shoulder. If concerns about his pocket awareness were valid before, they are blinding now. In short, Bradford could not have had a worse 2009 season, short of career ending injury, but because he spent so much of the season injured, he has been given a pass. That is maddening.
What possibly could Sam Bradford have shown in his pro day to improve scouts perception of his ability to make pro reads and read pro pass rush? I can't think of a single thing. Instead, this is further evidence that the outside media can reinforce a questionable decision by spinning a largely irrelevant event into a tipping point. After Bradford completed 49 of 50 passes, Detroit was officially-unofficially on the clock. The pick had been made. The Rams would be flogged mercilessly by the media if they dared pick another player.
This is a standing tradition. See:
While Stafford (6-foot-2 5/8, 225 pounds) chose to stand on his combine numbers, he did throw 50 passes in a scripted workout that was run at a quick pace. My sources on the ground in Athens all agreed that of the 50 passes, only three weren't thrown with accuracy. Stafford rolled out, threw deep comebacks ... he threw everything.
. . .
What did I learn from Stafford's workout? That I wouldn't be worried if I were the Lions about taking him with the No. 1 pick.
JaMarcus Russell:
JaMarcus Russell Killed It
This isn't directly Skins related, but I spoke to few people today who were at LSU's Pro Day, and from what I heard this QB did some pretty amazing stuff. His arm strength is ridiculous, he oozes athleticism and he blew away the throng of scouts watching from the sidelines, Vinny (Uncle Junior) C. included.
Alex Smith:
Utah quarterback Alex Smith followed in the footsteps of Auburn's Ronnie Brown and USC's Mike Williams by wowing team officials at his personal pro day in Salt Lake City on Wednesday.
One personnel source on hand said Smith had a "paramount" workout. Smith looked so good, he likely vaulted to the top of the 2005 draft's quarterback class a day before California's Aaron Rodgers responds with his personal pro day.
Stafford has pocket awareness problems and ended his rookie season on IR. Russell has the suite: pro read problems, excellent surrounding talent and a short tenure as a starter. He is the current model of quarterback bust. Smith played in a spread offense, took most of his snaps from shotgun, and has never developed a pro read or pro pocket awareness. Smith is entering his sixth season with most of the problems he entered the league intact. The 49ers finally accepted his inability to drop back and designed an offense around the shotgun. He may yet develop, but he has crippled his team thus far, and whatever he did last season, is still very much a bust until proven otherwise.
Any concern the Rams or any other NFL team had before the Oklahoma pro day should persist. Nothing, and I mean nothing, about playing catch with your favorite receivers tells us anything, and I mean anything, about Bradford's ability at the next level. If he could not "make all the throws", Bradford would never have been considered for the first overall pick. If he could not show accuracy in drills, he never would have made the Sooners roster. Pro day drills are less meaningful than a simple forty time.
So, why should St. Louis draft Sam Bradford? They don't lack for a short term solution at quarterback. They don't lack for alternative talents worthy the first overall pick. They don't need a quarterback anymore than a dozen teams need a quarterback. They have little pressure to draft a quarterback this year because they have little hope of escaping the top ten in the 2011 NFL draft. They won't win again until they have a top quarterback, but unless Bradford is a franchise quarterback, St. Louis is not investing in the future, but sabotaging it.
Every team needs a franchise quarterback, and every opportunity should be exhausted searching for one. However, drafting Bradford first overall will not make him a franchise quarterback. This franchise quarterback death spiral happens almost every year. Some talent emerges from the pack and every question, every neon-red flag, every alternative is cast aside. The St. Louis Rams must select Sam Bradford or prove they are not committed to winning.
So they will. If Bradford busts, it will be chalked up to quarterback roulette. Every team must try, and can not be faulted if their try does not succeed. That seems stupid to me. Very, very stupid. Unless St. Louis has answered the red flags, can see within Bradford the requisite skills and talent, not what they want Bradford to be, nor their wildest dream, but within the tape, existing pro read and pro pocket awareness, unless Bradford has proven he is not only clearly the best quarterback prospect, but a good quarterback prospect, than drafting him first overall is a mistake. It is not a commitment to winning, but a commitment to losing, but losing in a less controversial way.
36 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If he busts, glad it's the Lambs and not us.
If he’s good, they won’t have cap room to put talent around him, so the Rams bust. Glad it’s the Lambs, not us.
'TIs a gamble. Truth.
But if you believe the mantra that “it’s all about winning the Super Bowl” the Rams aren’t going to get there with Bulger. That said, I wouldn’t pick Bradford because if I was throwing that kind of money at someone that person would have to be a rock with no real injury history.
I would rather the Rams pick Tebow at the top of Round 2 so I have the opportunity to watch Tebow get sacked twice a year.
To me, Tebow is like an IQ test...
There’s only one team in the NFL that would be smart to take him. (hint: it rhymes with Paxson, Bill)
But that’s what makes the draft so fun and unpredictable— there are so many dumb moves made. (Well, fun when it isn’t your team making the head-scratching moves).
Bill Paxton?
Aw shit, game over man!
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
The people who have written off Bulger but not Hasselbeck are kidding themselves
I can think of $8 million reasons why the Rams want to move on. Considering the financial shape the Seahawks organization is in, I doubt Paul Allen is worrying too much about Matt’s salary.
At this point there truly is little difference between the two; I believe the Seahawks think they have a glimmer of a chance of competing next year (however realistic that might actually be) while the Rams are Lions-esque in their semi-permanent suckitude. I would say both teams are looking for a “franchise QB” but the Seahawks probably believe Whitehurst is that person. In a similar vein the Rams have decided to throw their lot in with Bradford (for a much much MUCH steeper price).
If the QBs were magically switched between teams I think both the Rams and Seahawks would have made similar decisions this offseason.
Some good points.
Although I thought his strong pro day was more a big deal because the Rams already wanted him as the #1 pick, but they wanted to watch the pro day to make sure there are no lingering problems due to the shoulder injury. If they were not already sold on him being a good pro QB outside of his shoulder injury, and the Pro Day changed their minds, then they really are stupid.
Sando talked in his blog today about the possibility of the Rams trading back with the Redskins for the #4, 37 and Jason Campbell. I think this is a great idea, except for the fact that they wont get a DT or CB worth drafting at 4, and they’ve addressed DE and LT in their last two drafts. If they’re really high on Clausen, then they’d probably not want Jason Campbell instead of more picks. And why spend a ton of money on Berry when you could have Atogwe for cheaper?
The only way I could see the Rams trading back with the Skins is if they’re really high on Derrick Morgan and like the idea of Morgan and Long as bookend Defensive Ends (and like Campbell of course). Then maybe they could get another WR or a TE like Gresham @33 and a DT like Price or Houston @37. That would allow them to get 3 likely starters for the price of 1.
Scouts don't get it right very often...
I looked at the draft order, college and the pro team of quarterbacks I’ve heard of since 2000, then ranked them 1-5.
Out of ten years, what one could reasonably call the best quarterback was picked first four times: 2003 (Palmer, Leftwich), 2004 (E Manning, Rivers, Roethlesfucker), 2008 (Ryan, Flacco) and 2009 (Stafford, Sanchez).
Stafford could still bust because some good quarterbacks – Pennington, maybe Quinn and Leftwich, probably Freeman, Carr, Harrington – get their careers shortened behind bad lines.
In 2000, Pennington was picked 18th, Redman 77th, Bulger 162nd and, of course, Brady 193rd.
In 2001, Vick was first, Brees was 33rd.
In 2005, Alex Smith was first and Aaron Rodgers was 24th.
Seattle picked Greene that year instead of Orton, Anderson or Cassel.
In 2006, Young and Leinart went ahead of Cutler in the first round (Tavaris Jackson went in the second round and our man Whitehurst went in the third!)
There are years with no good options: in 2002, Garrard an Carr were all there was to choose from. 2007: Kolb/Trent Edwards but you should feel pretty confident that a good quarterback is on the board somewhere. Most of the time, when there are more than two quarterbacks selected in the first, one or more busts but the top rated QB turns out to be good.
When there are two or less, the good quarterbacks most often come from the later rounds. The ability to sit for a year – as far as I can tell anyway – really helps a qb from down the board play beyond his scouted potential.
3k from TST
John, I would quibble with the conclusion of your piece, and I’ll start at comething you wrote which underlies the issue:
The St. Louis Rams must select Sam Bradford or prove they are not committed to winning.
Isn’t that the impetus here? The franchise needed a complete overhaul, and, thankfully, has accomplished most of it: new ownership, new management, new coaching staff. But I wonder if showing a superficial commitment to change and winning is more valuable to the Rams now than making the wiser decision. Full disclosure – I’ve constantly told everyone at TST that I would like the Rams to take Suh, but that I think they’d take Bradford (my position since my first mock after the season ended, assuring us of the first pick overall).
More importantly, the unpredictability of the position, and drafting players to fit a given team’s offensive tactics, often prove the most capable quarterbacks rising to the top with less spectacular resumes, for example (to be relevant to both of our teams) Marc Bulger and Matt Hasselbeck.
To me, the drawback from this pick isn’t that he won’t prove to be a franchise QB. Alex Smith’s failures haven’t prevented the 49ers from becoming a legitimate playoff contender next year. My biggest concern, which you touched on, is the salary, not coincidentally the only reason we’re going to cut Bulger.
That being the case, IMO, taking Bradford isn’t a backdoor commitment to losing, but just tightening the reins on management.
The Jets’ pick of Mark Sanchez didn’t net them incredibly successful play last year, but to me, the ancillary effects have superceded his immediate on-field effect. In taking Bradford, the Rams could catalyze a similar situation, albeit for much, much more money.
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
Great read..
I really liked this article, I have two comments.
First, as was mentioned above, it seemed that with Bradford there were concerns about his throwing shoulder and whether it had healed. These were extremely legitimate concerns, the guy injured and re-injured that right shoulder during this past season. It is certainly true that Bradford had to be able to make accurate passes to play for the Sooners, but this had not been observed in a very long time and whether he could STILL do those things witout exhibiting pain was important for scouts to see. I don’t think there was much drama surounding this, as he wouldn’t do the workout unless he knew it was going to look good.. I think we all expected it to turn out like this..
My second comment is with regards another point John has made in the past. The draft news media outlets and mocks always create the perception of heighened volatility in the NFL draft. Over the course of the year players move up and down like stocks. We tend to ultimately find that players end up getting drafted commensurate to the preseason rankings and all the hoopla during the year didn’t matter. These news outlets have to make it seem like current events are influencing NFL managers’ decisions- so that we want to watch. At the height of the Bradford injury hysteria there was talk of him not even being a first round pick in a lot of places. Nothing has changed much with respect to that injury, he has recovered in line with the timetable for his injury, but there are still durability question marks. I think the new emphasis on Bradford as the #1 after the pro-day is just the media trying to finish their story. It would seem stupid if he shot up 35 draft spots without DOING anything (or anything major happening with other prospects either. Bradford worked out, it went OK, and he is still the consensus #1, so the media protrays it as him actively locking up the #1 to make it a story. The bottom line is the true perception of Bradford (free of short term shock) has been #1 QB for well over a year. All the question marks still persist but his combo of size, accuracy, and winning pedigree make him the top qb. I think you make a great point about this being a gamble for the Rams, but I don’t think the pro day neccesarilly has all that much to do with it, despite what the media would have you believe.
His winning pedigree, though, doesn't come with him.
And in the last ten years, no Oklahoma quarterback has been successful in the NFL. People like Locker because it’s easy to separate his talent from the talent around him. People liked Leinart because you really can’t go wrong with a consensus #1 qb from USC.
We see a lot of failures picking the consensus #1 quarterback over the #2 when there are only a couple of quarterbacks available. Vick was supposedly so much better than Drew Brees that he went a full round ahead in 2000. Almost exactly the same thing happened in 2005 with Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers.
I think this looks like a year when the good qb comes from the later rounds; somebody like Lefevout, McCoy or Tebow, rather than Clausen or Bradford. Even though both of the latter have the best tools, I don’t think they’re good enough to be thrown behind an offensive line like St Louis’s, Seattle’s or Cleveland’s and be successful.
by BurtonOerney on Apr 2, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Snead and Skelton could be good risks later on
I really like Snead, he is young and probably shouldn’t have come out yet, I think he has to do more learning than unlearning like LeFevour has to do. The big knock on Skelton is that he is from a I-AA school but he has all the physical skills and kind of reminds me of Joe Flacco.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Apr 2, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I know Flacco was going to be good from draft day 2009.
No quarterback with the name Joe Flacco is going to be anything but good. Snead? I kind of like it. He sounds like just the kind of dirtbag we need at QB.
Here is a good article detailing why 1st-round QBs are significantly more successful.
Particularly the 1st or 2nd QBs selected. The ‘good QB’ very, very rarely comes from the later rounds.
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/04/drafting-qbs-2.html
There is more from John Morgan on the topic here, too: http://www.fieldgulls.com/2008/12/9/687874/number-2-604-seattle-sucks
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer
Good post.
I think Bradford can be good, but it will take him a couple of years to develop. Especially with the Rams.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan.
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad.
A couple things
Engaging write up as always John, but a few things I want to say about Bradford:
Certainly, I’d take Suh because we’ve reached that point where “you must have a QB” is almost irrespective of who the QB is. Suh is as close to a “can’t miss” as there is in this draft, and for the kind of money involved I’d want that.
Still, it’s worth noting that lots of QBs have been drafted since “spread” offenses began to proliferate in college football. It’s not clear to me that their bust rate, controlling for productivity, size, etc., is any higher than pro-style college QBs. Additionally, slowly but surely the NFL is using more “spread” looks and shotgun than has been true in the past precisely to cut down on the reads QBs must make. There may be less of a premium on pocket awareness.
As for his injuries, I’m not sure how to read that data. He went from a dominant line, where he was rarely touched, to an inexperienced line. I’m not sure those injuries say much about him at all. He went from one extreme to another practically from one snap to the next with no time to make adjustments.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Spread QBs should not be disqualified
It’s hard to remember exactly when a school ran the spread and when it didn’t but I’m pretty sure Rex Grossman (FLA 2003), Joey Harrington (Oregon 2002), Chris Simms (TX 2003), Kyle Orton (Purdue 2005), Vince Young (TX 2006), Chad Henne (Michigan 2009) and Dennis Dixon (Oregon 2008) ran the spread.
Except it wasn't that quick
It was over a couple of years, and all five went to the NFL. Injuries happened after that. So yes, his line was good and he had to adjust, but how good is his pocket awareness if he couldn’t adjust well enough to avoid injury?
by Jerikantilles on Apr 3, 2010 8:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Fantastic article
Looking forward to your book John (if it’s still going ahead, I’ve been out of the community for a while so I haven’t really kept up)
Jimmy Clausen Will Be a Great Pro
Excellent breakdown of Bradford’s game, but what about Clausen?
All your criticisms of Bradford can be turned on their head for Clausen – the dropback offense he ran, his mediocre protection and mediocre weapons, the terrible defense that constantly had him playing from behind – honestly, I believe Clausen is going to be a dominant pro. Will the Seahawks have a shot at him? Will they take him if they can? Should they?
The Odenphant is true king of the jungle.
I was impressed with Jimmy Clausen also
Watched a few games last year including the game against the Huskies. I watched some video and he seemed to have the best pocket awareness, was mobile, kept his eyes down field when evading the rush and seemed to make play’s. Acted like a leader, maybe not last year so much but this year he was pretty strong. 28 TD,s 4 Int’s 3700 yrd’s on a weak team without much of a running game or much of a defense. I cant see how people can down play those kind of numbers
Even with all the nay sayers I thought he was the best pick —-then I saw this
http://tinyurl.com/yjx9jup
yea dude
Curiously when Seattle was thought to have a chance at the top-rated QB last year, as the Rams are in now, John said this:
Seattle has an excellent shot at the best overall quarterback in the coming NFL draft. It should not have such an opportunity again for at least a decade. A good team with a backbone of talent has the opportunity to draft a great quarterback to build its future around. I’ve yet to read a compelling argument why it shouldn’t.
Maybe I’m losing context, but the whole article is here: http://www.fieldgulls.com/2008/12/9/687874/number-2-604-seattle-sucks .
Now I suppose it can be argued that St. Louis lacks the talent-base necessary, but looking back at Seattle’s season a year ago so did we.
I don’t see why the Rams would not take the best QB in the draft. Regardless of what the media says or the perception it tries to paint. Bradford is the best QB in this draft. That player in nearly any draft in history has the best chance to succeed, at least according to Brian Burke: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/04/drafting-qbs-2.html
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer
I am not saying St. Louis absolutely should not draft Bradford
I am commenting on the process by which Bradford went from best quarterback prospect in a shaky class to surefire first overall pick.
For whatever reason, Hasselbeck is thought of as the better quarterback and better quarterback going forward.
The reason is that this is Seattle and teams from Seattle are notoriously stupid when it comes to personell moves.
What? No SOUL?
I'm guessing that they at least know how to spell personnel.
;)
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
