This....

Even the Gameday Crew said whomever drafts Bradford will have to be patient, Bradford is going to have a HUGE learning curve, going from a spread, look to the sideline for his binky, to learning how to read a defense and call audibles...

agree... but he will not hit the ground running in the NFL. A team that chooses him will have to be patient and develop him. I think he will be successful but not right away.

The Chiefs have always sucked at developing a QB.

btw ...... Bradford won't stay in school and probably shouldn't

apparently he's gonna lose his entire offensive line and next year the sooners quarterback is gonna get raped.

Bradford will be a top 10 pick so he should bolt while the bolting is good.

Which is part of the reason he should go back to school. The only QB who has a chance to play from the get go, IMO, is Stafford because he's played a few years.

yup

No. I see an accurate as Hell QB. The MOST ACCURATE in all of college football and the FACTS, support that. I also like Stafford and Sanchez, and have said so many times on this board. I'm wondering what I stated that makes you think what I said was bogus.

In the right situation, Tebow might someday be a productive QB in the NFL.

If my team already had their franchise QB, and had the draft pick to burn, I'd love to have Tebow as my 2nd string QB. Give him a few years to develop QBing skills, and in the meantime you have a guy that can come in on select packages, and would be a nightmare for defenses in the short term role of spelling your injured starting QB.

The guy has everything that makes a pro athlete. That being said, he's nowhere close to being a pro QB.

Don't you know that's the mark of a good pro quarterback.

The ability to get gangraped and make mediocre throws is what separates the true prospects from guys that need 3 seconds to make perfect throws (mere system QBs of course).

Bradford should stay, so he can show all the scouts that he knows how to make off balanced throws while running for his life, that's what you need in an NFL QB these days.

Agree 100 percent, just no way he should be drafted highly.

But almost all of the "cons" for Bradford aren't going to be dispelled with another year at Oklahoma.

If Tebow's around in the 3rd I take him without thinking twice. He's a guy that will absolutely contribute somehow in the NFL.

However, he won't be there in the 3rd. If he gets those kinds of readings from the draft reports, he'll just return to CFB, he's a mortal lock for the Heisman next season if he does.

Rerun, standing on the shoulders of mental midgets to delve new depths of stupidity.

Playing from a spread probably won't change, but other things may. Losing the left side of his line will probably mean he will face more pressure and have to throw the ball under more durress and quicker. Maybe he gets some power to audible every so often and run a real hurry up offense.

Not many teams in the NFL have the luxary of grabbing a QB in the top 5 and waiting at least a year before the guy gets some playing time and then slowly develop him.

Some people said the same thing about Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco. A point can be made for both thoughts. I personally like Bradford, I'm not in love with him, but wouldn't be sad if he played for the Chiefs.

I just hope all three come out

Ryan and Flacco both stayed their senior years. They had a lot of starts.

I honestly don't know the answer to this question but how many successful NFL QB's started only one year and came out early (Sanchez)? Bradford has two years starting experience but is on a really short leash.

It would be a miracle for them to come out and be able to play their first year.

Draft Tebow in the 2nd round. Sign Vick out of Leavenworth (or wherever he is now). Line up those two and Thigpen in the backfield on every play and let the defenses guess which one is going to take the snap and we're golden!

Yes, it's a joke.

Laz makes a lot more sense to me. Why should Bradford care whether he's going to play from the get go or not? The only reason that would matter is if it's going to cause him to be drafted significantly lower than he could with one more year of seasoning at the college level. If he's going in the top 10 now, there's no good reason to wait. Look what happened to Matt Leinart. He left millions of dollars on the table by staying in school and if he'd have had a severe injury that last year it could have been much more.

I guess the question is, is he really going to go in the top 10? Assume you are KC and/or Detroit. Bradford comes in for a workout and displays poor foot skills because he's taken 90% of his drops from shotgun and needs a lot of work on reading defenses, adjusting, etc. You know it is very likely that he won't step on the field for 1 1/2 years. Are you going to spend that draft pick and all that money on him?

I agree that that's the question.

This. I'm not a fan of Tebow, to be sure. But, I'd be cool with this.

Things I like about Bradford:

1) Accuracy. When given time to throw, he is going to deliver the ball, and deliver it where his receivers can catch it easily. When rushed, he still puts the ball where his receiver has the best chance to get it.

2) Touch. Bradford can drop second-level throws into extremely tight windows. Best example of this was a throw last night where he fit about a 12-yard out into a postage-stamp sized area between a dropping LB and the corner for a completion. That's a throw a lot of NFL quarterbacks don't have in their arsenal... and I have seen Bradford do it consistently over the past few years.

3) Athleticism. Bradford is a good athlete with quick feet and runs very well. He has the speed to be an effective bootleg QB.

4) Footwork. Because of those quick feet, Bradford does a great job of using proper footwork, planting and throwing, and he's able to exhibit proper footwork in situations most QBs can't. This is one of the reasons he's so accurate, both when he has time and when is rolling out or on the move.

Things to knock:

1) Bradford hasn't had to do a bunch of checking down himself. All indications are that he is a bright kid, but it will take some time for him to get used to doing this himself.

2) His arm strength- while better than some give it credit for - is not elite. It's likely to improve some as he gets older and a little thicker (he's carrying what, 205 pounds on a 6-4 frame?), but it never is going to be jaw-dropping.

Well, it's comforting to read that you don't know jackshit about football, either.

Dude.

NO team is going to trade a 1st round pick for a near 30 year-old RB, let alone a RB with a history of off the field altercations (and one still pending).

Secondly, if Sanchez were to find out via scouts and advisers that he'd last into the 2nd round (which would NEVER happen anyway), he'd stay another year at USC.

Third, Rich Gannon (or any other multi-millionaire former NFL player) is NEVER going to put in 80 hours a week to earn 200k per year. Especially someone like Rich Gannon, who makes somewhere around $2 million per year broadcasting NFL games for CBS.

I personally find Tebow's act tiresome. He's pretty cheesy, and his "promises" at the press conference following the Ole Miss loss were so overplayed I wanted to shoot myself (which was made worse by how cheesy and "motivational" they were).

I think his act works OK in college football, but I don't think that's the type of guy who inspires professional football players. At least not at QB. At MLB, maybe, but I have a hard time believing pro football players would take a guy who is that much of a boy scout seriously.

"Golly jeepers, guys, this is just like the time I was spoon-feeding orphans with leprousy in Namibia... we just have to dig down and do what they would do!"

'you mean, do whatever it takes to find food, Timmy?'

Its refreshing to know that your level of expertise on this is about the size
of my turd I dumped abut 20 minutes ago. With that said, Tebow is a winner and winners are in short supply in KC.

Have a nice day.

The Mike Sweeney of football.

Good comparison.

"COme on guys, get up! We just gotta play hard and TRY! Praise Jesus!"

I've been more leaning towards Stafford for awhile now, but watching Bradford last night made me question myself. I saw a kid with great accuracy making strong throws, I saw him making throws with great touch, and I saw him stand in there and deliver a throw before taking a big hit. There are questions due to the system he is, but he's got real potential and I think anyone can see that. He looks more accurate than Stafford, that's for sure.

Also, KC is in a pretty good position to take Bradford if he needs development. We're still rebuilding and we have a QB who can get us by in the short term right now.

also, you Tebow people are in fantasy land. That kid is a great college QB, but no way that playstyle works in the NFL, just no way.

And if you try to point to Tebows stats I've got two words for you: Chris Leak

Is SF drafting 9?

If Stafford and Sanchez go 1/2, I'd absolutely consider dropping back to 8 for an extra 2nd. He's not going before then. If only Stafford or Sanchez goes before us, I'd be doubly inclined to drop down as we're almost 100% assured of getting one of the 2 remaining players.

If we can't find a partner, I'd still take him at 3. He's going to be a good one.

These aren't infants, fellas. This "he'd have to learn to drop back" thing is just bizarre. You really think a kid with the ability he has shown is going to struggle to drop back? We're not talking about a peewee leaguer here, we're talking about a Heisman winner with an elite pedigree. I think he'll manage.

Additionally, even with their respective offenses, it's not as though Stafford or Sanchez are going to be ready to give you veteran reads when they step on the field either. They'll be facing some pretty steep learning curves themselves. They'll be a little bit ahead, but if Bradford has the aptitude scouts are saying he does, he'll get there soon enough.

When he gets there, I'll take the accurate arm over the big one every time. Additionally, despite his arm being a little weaker, he throws the best deep ball of the three. It's that nice high arch that lets recievers run under it. Reminds me of Jeff Blake (who couldn't do a damn thing but throw deep passes).

Looks like someone just goosed his nuts.

I agree that he throws the best deep ball, but I don't necessarily agree that converting a spread QB to a pro style is as easily said than done. There have been a lot of spread college QB's with good completion %'s who never developed.

NONE of the above.

Love it! Call it canon, and slap that bitch RIGHT in to the CP Lexicon!
REP!

Either Detriot will take Bradford for his Manningesque type of pocket passer abilities and his crazy college numbers, or they'll take Stafford for his big arm and upside pro style. Either way we'll get one of the two and I'm not too worried because I see great things in both of them, my personal pick is Stafford though. I'm not a mindless drone who just goes off one game, especially a game that happens almost a month after the regular college season ends to judge Bradford. I think they'll both be good quarterbacks but in my personal opinion I want the big arm cool under pressure comeback play of Matt Stafford cause our Oline even after FA and the draft won't be what Bradford had in Oklahoma.

You mean he won't have the kind of time he had in OU, right? Because even though our O line isn't great, it's still an NFL O-Line

I don't see how any QB is going to "hit the ground running" in the NFL. It's a different game, different speed and surrounded by more talent on both sides of the ball on game day than any QB is used to, I don't care what kind of college offense they run.

"NFL" style of offense - WTF does that mean? a good 75% of your team will never be on an NFL roster the other 25% may not be on one for more than a couple years, and somehow Stafford is ready to start and need little to no grooming? He's that much more prepared? I call BS.

The learning curve starts over in the NFL, all the stats, scores, records are reset. He who has talent, heart, desire, and the will to learn and win will prevail. And I see why Stafford is high on the leader board, but to be disappointed if we end up with Bradford is stupid....

Matt Ryan.

I don't see how our past development of QBs is relevant with a completely new regime.

You did not just compare Bradford to Manning.

oh, but he was (and is) in a spread system, that doesn't count [/hamas, mecca, you]

He wasn't, and isn't, and I wanted to draft Ryan last year.

Not exactly words I would use to describe Matthew Stafford, but you realize this is probably what a TON of Chargers fans were saying after the 98 draft, right?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...11-2-08_12.JPG

sorry, I guess I was seeing things when he was/is always in the shotgun formation.

I liked him too, glad you wanted him, so what. Doesn't devalue my point. he went through an offseason program before his first start, correct? He is now proving that he can do it in the NFL, at least so far. Also - good for him.

Now, what was it exactly that proved he could do that when he was in college? Are those "rules" conclusive for ALL College QB's? How do the ryan leafs and tom bradys fall into that evaluation?

Atlanta runs a prostyle offense most of the time, and Ryan didn't run the spread offense at BC. A picture of Ryan in the shotgun formation doesn't mean what you think it means. Your point was that "I don't see how any QB is going to "hit the ground running" in the NFL.", which is bunk, and Ryan proves that it's bunk.

You got a hard on for me don't you?

My point is that he went through an offseason too, preseason, got to get started on his new NFL learning curve, he made adjustments and learned, right?

Why is only Stafford the one that can do that next year? I don't understand how this arguement has legs and keeps resurfacing at every point of discussion about any other QB not named Stafford. And it's got to the point where now my baises for stafford are getting mauled.....

I didn't mention Stafford, so I don't really know why you're bringing him up.

that was the point of my comparisions that you first responded too, hence the reason I say you just have a hard on for me. doesn't matter that in this thread, we both have said Bradford is underrated on this board and he even impressed us last night. You still had to try and find a way to argue with me.

whatever.

FYP.


Bud Light presents, Real Men of Genius(NON-sarcastic version):
"Real men of geeeeeniuuuus".....

"Mr. Football Fan who act-ually has-a clue"...

"It's a hard road you travel my friend, but you never travel alone".

"Always got the backup"...

"Spending your valuable time in the pursuit of educating some douche-nozzle who when faced with facts, clings to their homerism link a barnacle on the S.S. Minnow".

"Get out-ta here you douchebaaag"...

"So grab a bottle of Bud Light, crack it over the skull of that useless **** stick, and pour yourself a Black and Tan".

"Hey, that's not our produuuct"...

"Come here Michael Bolton, I've got one for you too"

"Tiiiime to hit the highwa-AARGH! OH! OUCH! OI!"

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?

Well, that clears it up.

Thin skin.

I wish I had the time to look, but I'd be willing to be that of all the guys that think Bradford is the #1 QB of the 3, that 95%+ of them are OU fans.

Trust me, I HOPE Bradford goes #1.

That all but hands us Stafford or Sanchez if the new GM wants them.

other than mecca and hamas, who are you crying about?

I haven't heard.

Has Sanchez announced a decision yet?

Nope.

If I'm him, I take right up until the deadline.

Honestly, I don't think he'll declare after watching the National Championship and not winning it.

He'd be screwing himself, IMO.

He'll be leaving some serious money on the table if he does. OU is losing a lot on offense, and he's not going to repeat these video game stats without that OL. Not to mention the risk of injury.

If the NFL tells you you're a Top 15 pick, and you pass, then you're insane.

That's exactly why Maclin broke down repeatedly during his presser yesterday. You could tell he wanted to come back, but knew that he'd be risking his future if he did.

It's also playing the odds if Sanchez comes up, odds are next year he'll be 1st QB selected in the top 3 or 5

You don't want to end up like Brohm.

THIS.

WTF are you babbling about with that last point?

The other part is that he's a "no brainer" #1 pick, yet the majority of this board acts like he's not even a 1st round pick this year. There's a disconnect here, and I'm pointing it out. Just like there was a disconnect last year when 99% of this board acted like Ryan would be the worst pick ever, and they were completely wrong.

Yeah, you surely don't have time to look it up, considering you're on here 24 hours a day. :rolleyes:

Who cares about the ranking of the three players; I'm talking about acknowledging that Bradford is a solid pro prospect. The majority on this board are simply incapable of giving him his due props.

Majority?

Embellish much?

In who's opinion? This ONE scout you reference? There's a combination of 4-5 guys that could end up being the 1st pick, and a lot of mocks reflect that.

Wow, talk about exaggeration. I've yet to see ANYONE who SERIOUSLY thinks the guy isn't a 1st round pick.

Seriously?

You don't think more than 50% of the people into the draft on this board exaggerate Bradford's weaknesses? Just go through this thread again if you don't believe me.

You never go full reerun.

Read THIS thread.

If you're smart enough to be able to sort through the guys that are making comments to get under the skin of the OU fans, and the guys that actually know a few things about football and the draft, you'd see that people ARE giving him props.

But they are also pointing out his shortcomings, just like they have with Stafford (decision making and inconsistency) and Sanchez. (only 1 full year as a starter)