This x1,000. Bradford and Leinart had amazing supporting casts in college.

Bradford was nowhere close to an "inevitable" #1 overall in 2009. Stafford and even Sanchez were in the conversation.

As for being taken #1 overall in 2010, well it wasn't exactly a bumper crop on QBs.

Geno combine must face **** the combine to shut naysayer assholes up.

This seems like a passive aggressive post.

?

I wouldnt call Bradford a bust. He just doesnt seem like he has a high upside.

Hes pretty blah.....sort of like Alex Smith was at #1.

Rivers was "done" the day he was drafted.

Guys with his mental makeup will never win shit.

Great post.

I agree with you here, but he was worth being picked where he was picked at the time.

So if they are both the same guy, why was Bradford the consensus #1 when he came out and the experts have been sort of blah about Geno? I dont get it....

Smith v. Bradford

Pros for Smith:

1) Less help in college. Smith has made throws under pressure and has had to get used to getting the ball out quickly, sliding to avoid pressure, making throws with pressure in his face, etc. Bradford did not face the same challenges in college.

2) More raw arm strength. The one knock on Bradford is that his arm was just "OK" for the NFL. Smith has flashed above-average arm strength.

3) DOwnfield accuracy. Smith has shown it. Bradford lived on slants in college and wasn't the deep shot artist Geno is.

Pros for Bradford

1) Played in more multiple offenses (they spent most of their time in the spread, but especially his first season as a starter, they took a lot of snaps from center, too).

2) More success. Bradford won more games in college (you can list this if you really want, though I place little stock in it).

Just my thoughts.

Because at this point in time hindsight tells us that Bradford probably shouldn't have been the consensus #1?

1) Bradford played at a traditional power that was in the national title hunt both years he was healthy.

2) Bradford is white.