Stafford is likely the only one to be able to do it next year because he has started for 3 years in a pro style sytem. That gives him a short term advantage over Bradford (2 years starter in a spread on a short leash) and Sanchez (1 year starter in a pro system).

There is a lot of data that NFL QB success dramatically increases when the player has 30-35+ starts in college (I forget the exact number), but I'm sure you can search for it.

Whatever, indeed. That was my exact thought when you inaccurately included me in your tag about hamas and mecca.

Finally read through this thread, and I have a couple of points.

I see that people are saying that the two ints that Bradford threw weren't his fault, and I would disagree.

The first pick was a bad decision, for two reasons.

He threw that ball into a crowd, and bad things often happen when a QB does that.

He also threw that ball short of the goal line in a situation that demanded he get that ball into the end zone.

The second pick, while not a bad throw, was a little high and it gave the DB the opportunity to make a play on the ball.

That being said, this was the first game that Bradford really faced consistent pressure, and while he did make a couple of questionable decisions, overall, I thought he showed a lot of things to build on.

Are you ****ing kidding? You can't put that 2nd one on him. Questionable if you could the 1st, but the 2nd? Bull shit, I don't think a QB that isn't "someones guy" could ever live up to expectations around here.

Stafford sucked for a whole half, but you point out that Bradford threw a ball that his receiver had in his hands might have been a couple inches off.............

You think that second pick was right on the money?

Let me see, he had it in his hands before the defender took it away, it was a good throw that should have been caught.

It was a decent throw, but it wasn't right on the money, and Iglecius(?) had to stretch for it.

It hit his hands, but because he did have to extend himself, he didn't get the chance to pull it in before the defender had the opportunity to make a play.

It was an outstanding play, but if that ball is right on the money, he doesn't get that opportunity.

Spitting hairs, not only did it hit him in the hands, he had the ball. He heard the defender coming and pulled up. Should have been caught, no question.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

But, as I said, I saw a lot to like from Bradford in that game.

He showed more in his worst statistical game that he ever did in all those pinball games he played.

Cool, I agree he showed me what I wanted to see, still the 3rd best though if all 3 come out.

It's hilarious seeing the vitriol on this board whenever the great QB discussion surfaces. The outright hatred of Bradford reminds me of the hatred of Ryan last year - you'd think some would be a bit more humble after that whiff.

Interesting piece from the NY Times on Bradford:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/sp...r=2&ref=sports

Gil Brandt says he's an easy top ten pick, and a scout says he's a "no brainer" #1 pick and compares him to Aikman.

It's interesting how people can watch the same tape and come away with such different conclusions.

I'm not sure where you're getting all this supposed "hate" for Bradford.

Because people think he's the 3rd prospect behind Sanchez and Stafford?

Almost universally, people have said that he has the physical tools it will take to be successful, but is going to have to learn playing from under center, learning to drop properly, and reading defenses - something the other two have a huge head start on.

If that is what you consider hate, then you have really thin skin.

And regarding Brandt, he thinks Tebow is a late 1st round pick, so forgive me if I'm not fawning over his opinion. And I noticed the Times piece didn't say a word about his question marks.

If you've watched ANY sports programming over the course of the past 48 hours, almost universally, the talking heads have talked about there being a huge learning curve for Bradford because of the system he plays in - something the other two hold a huge advantage over Bradford.

I'm not sure why this is so ****ing complicated for people.

Bradford's supposed to be off the charts intelligent. I'm not concerned about his learning curve. I'd be more concerned about his Croyle-like physique.

Really? Read through the whole thread, and read through past threads. People highly exaggerate his weaknesses, anyone that says they like him is attacked, people make fun of the way he looks, etc.

The rational discussions on him are few and far between.

Read above. People on here also claim he has a noodle arm, does bubble screens all day, shit on him for the spread even though OU runs more of a pro-style spread than what Tech or Mizzou runs. The arguments against him are fair on the surface, but the exaggerations are just hysterically ridiculous.

So who's viewpoint would you "fawn" over? Not Kiper or McShay. Mayock? Or would you pull this argument out on anyone who favored Bradford?

Sorry if I don't listen to Herbstreit and Corso for draft analysis.

"Oklahoma’s offense has kept him from facing much pass-rush pressure. "


um, this is exactly what this board has been saying forever....and now it is confirmed....

what's really funny is that there are people on this board who believe that Aikman was only a "game manager" and not a franchise QB...I wonder if any of those idiots are Bradford fans?