- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Messages
- 17,460
- Name
- Les
I know this isn't going to be very popular with a lot of people but in my opinion Hill isn't really "worse" than Bradford.
I think they are both average QB's that need lots of stuff on their side to win a lot games for you. All the things that have been put in place for Bradford are going to benefit Hill. He's never had this much talent around him in SF or DET so lets see what he does. I'm thinking the difference between the two is so minimal that it should have much of an effect on the season, so I'm not changing my expectations and I suspect the coaching staff isn't either.
Hill certainly isn't the long term answer but when we examine what each of these guys have done over their careers this is essentially a wash. I didn't consider Bradford a long term answer either of course. I know a lot of people (OK well mostly two) like to say that Bradford is a big reason that Fisher took the job with the Rams but that was a couple of years and a lot of games ago, and while I will agree Bradford is a great guy to date he has done nothing to prove he is anything but an average QB.
I guess I'm posting this in part because all over the webernet I'm reading a lot of doom and gloom and a lot of bashing the FO for not getting a QB in this past draft. Well as far as that goes if anyone thinks this team would be better off with a rookie who would still be learning the terminology and system versus Hill you're nuts. That would be reason for doom and gloom!
Now all that said I'm really wishing that Snead would have pulled off another trade down from #2 and gotten an extra first rounder next year so they had the draft capital available to make a play for a franchise QB.
I think they are both average QB's that need lots of stuff on their side to win a lot games for you. All the things that have been put in place for Bradford are going to benefit Hill. He's never had this much talent around him in SF or DET so lets see what he does. I'm thinking the difference between the two is so minimal that it should have much of an effect on the season, so I'm not changing my expectations and I suspect the coaching staff isn't either.
Hill certainly isn't the long term answer but when we examine what each of these guys have done over their careers this is essentially a wash. I didn't consider Bradford a long term answer either of course. I know a lot of people (OK well mostly two) like to say that Bradford is a big reason that Fisher took the job with the Rams but that was a couple of years and a lot of games ago, and while I will agree Bradford is a great guy to date he has done nothing to prove he is anything but an average QB.
I guess I'm posting this in part because all over the webernet I'm reading a lot of doom and gloom and a lot of bashing the FO for not getting a QB in this past draft. Well as far as that goes if anyone thinks this team would be better off with a rookie who would still be learning the terminology and system versus Hill you're nuts. That would be reason for doom and gloom!
Now all that said I'm really wishing that Snead would have pulled off another trade down from #2 and gotten an extra first rounder next year so they had the draft capital available to make a play for a franchise QB.