fancents86
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2013
- Messages
- 997
You might think it's semantics, but he was signed as a UDFA in 2002 by the Vikings - 12 years ago.
OK then other than arm strength, accuracy, ability to zip balls by the defender in tight coverage, average of 12 starts per season vs. 2, coming into year three in this system with many of the same receivers, consistently practicing with the starters, and age what advantage did we have with Bradford over Hill?.
I like Hill, but i also like to believe we didn't pay 50 mil for a back up qb talent.
There - I fixed it for you.
And I guess I'd have to answer - not a damn thing... well.... maybe a quicker release.
Wel
Unfortunately all that still equaled about the same stats.
Of all the things that went through my mind when word of his torn ACL arrived, the first thing was that now Bradford couldn't show his detractors that he could live up to his Draft position. Pisses me off that he won't be able to show YOU that he could have been the long term solution. Whether you saw it or not, it's there.I don't agree because if Bradford doesn't have a big year this season is he "long term"? I would say he wouldn't be. Before the knee injury a few days ago, just a few days ago, the jury was still out on Bradford after 4 years, and that's not a good sign for a QB. So there is absolutely no assurance he was the long term answer.
In an earlier post you said Bradford had 3 good games last year. Actually, it was 4: Arizona, Jacksonville, Houston and Carolina. He was 4 yards shy of 300 against AZ, the difference between Cook scoring instead of fumbling. While I'm at it, of the 4 INTs Bradford had last year, only one of them was not of tipped variety.Bradford without 2011 is still a very average QB, he's done exactly nothing noteworthy since being drafted. I'm not beating him up about it, I'm more telling the fans who think the season is lost that the guy who is next man up is as capable as Bradford. And if some posters don't like that I'm fine with it.......but prove me wrong because the facts and history are on my side.
And you lost me here. Statistics are facts, not truth.Potential isn't production, and while Bradford has/had more upside than Hill he hasn't shown it or produced like it and that's the truth.
There. I fixed that one for you too. Yer welcome.
...
Of all the things that went through my mind when word of his torn ACL arrived, the first thing was that now Bradford couldn't show his detractors that he could live up to his Draft position. Pisses me off that he won't be able to show YOU that he could have been the long term solution. Whether you saw it or not, it's there.
In an earlier post you said Bradford had 3 good games last year. Actually, it was 4: Arizona, Jacksonville, Houston and Carolina. He was 4 yards shy of 300 against AZ, the difference between Cook scoring instead of fumbling. While I'm at it, of the 4 INTs Bradford had last year, only one of them was not of tipped variety.
I DO NOT believe the season is lost. However, I have much more faith in Bradford than you obviously do.
And you lost me here. Statistics are facts, not truth.
Which is my point. Opinion will rule.Trust me, I would much prefer Bradford with a perfectly healthy knee and tearing up secondaries for 16 games and the playoffs. But we do not know if he would have, or if he would have been the same up and down QB he has been for these past few years. There is just no way to know.
I respect your opinion Les, and i'm not saying i entirely disagree with you...but i have a question to pose to you:I don't agree because if Bradford doesn't have a big year this season is he "long term"? I would say he wouldn't be. Before the knee injury a few days ago, just a few days ago, the jury was still out on Bradford after 4 years, and that's not a good sign for a QB. So there is absolutely no assurance he was the long term answer.
Bradford without 2011 is still a very average QB, he's done exactly nothing noteworthy since being drafted. I'm not beating him up about it, I'm more telling the fans who think the season is lost that the guy who is next man up is as capable as Bradford. And if some posters don't like that I'm fine with it.......but prove me wrong because the facts and history are on my side.
Potential isn't production, and while Bradford has/had more upside than Hill he hasn't shown it or produced like it and that's the truth.
I respect your opinion Les, and i'm not saying i entirely disagree with you...but i have a question to pose to you:
Do you think hypothetically that Shaun Hill could have put up Bradford's numbers and won 3 games through the first 7 games last season under the same circumstances?
159 for 262
1,687 yards
60.7%
14 TD's
2 INT
2 lost fumbles
90.9 rate
Versus the same opponents:
vs AZ
@ ATL
@ DAL
vs SF
vs JAX
@HOU
@ CAR
With a running game that avg'd 70 yards/game and a bad defense?
---------------------------------------
There is no right or wrong answer, obviously. Just curious of your take.
IMO there's no way we win more than 2 of those games with Shaun Hill. Sam only won 3 but i think if he doesn't go down @ Carolina we win that one.
We don't beat AZ in week one with Shaun Hill.
I'm pretty confident with Hill at QB this year against the Minnesota's, the Washington's and the Oakland's of the league, but against upper echelon defenses is where i think Bradford's abilities and experience vs the division opponents will be missed.
yeah but Bradford has been less than accurate for most of his career
Yet new players (Cook, Britt) and NFL evaluators/media say otherwise.
Then again:
Over the years the star studded, experienced WR core the Rams have enjoyed have run every route perfectly, were always where they were supposed to be, never missed a check down, beat coverage consistently, and had hands of glue. Calvin Johnson, Vernon Davis, Michael Crabtree can't even tie the shoes of Brandon Gibson, Chris Givens, Brian Quick, & the 9 of 32 healthy game starts Amendola gave him his last couple of seasons with the team.
Bradford's lack of accuracy is the only reason his completion percentage has been what is is throughout his career. And everyone knows completion percentage is soley on the QB anyway.
There has been no improvement in his game since his rookie season. And you can't count that nice stretch of games last year. Bradford can't improve from year to year. He just got lucky.
So he rode the pine for 4 years.No worries.....
I didn't know he rode the pine for a few years so you're right about that.
I'm right about everything else though.
His accuracy has been a subject widely discussed on message boards and by the media. It's easy to place blame on everything but Bradford I guess.
His accuracy HAS been an issue. Britt said he was the most accurate QB "he" played with. Look at the guys he has played with......JLocker, VYoung and an aging KCollins. Not much to brag about there.
Anyway I'm done with this topic.......it's no longer a fun and interesting discussion and I've grown bored with it.
Hill won ROTY where you sit? Its unfair to compare the two because
1. Bradford has never been in a regular season game with as much talent as Hill had in SF and DET. That is sad to say but true.
2. Now in 2014 when Bradford would have had NFL level talent around him, Hill is going to get to play with his toys. All Hill has to do is not cause turnovers and he will be favorably compared to Bradfords career.
That said, I share your faith in Hill. A veteran presence may actually be what the doctor ordered. Who knows. I just hope we don't give up the farm for a high desperation draft pick next year.