Bradford Please

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Who glosses over Stafford and Sanchez' question marks?

It's been discussed to death around here.

Bradford - lack of experience in pro-style offense, making reads for himself, taking snaps under center, will need to learn 3, 5 and 7 step drops.

Stafford - inconsistent, questionable decision making, seems to play lights out against weak competition, and struggles against top competition.

Sanchez - only has one year of starting experience.

The two biggest issues I have are people making a big deal out of Bradford's arm and the system he plays in.

Bradford's arm is good. I think it's getting knocked excessively this year because he's being compared to Stafford, and anyone's arm will look weak when you put them next to Stafford. His arm is right there with what Matt Ryan showed last year. His arm strength improved dramatically this year from last, and once he fills out his arm will improve, just like it did for Manning and Brady. Also, pure arm strength is probably the least important aspect of grading a QB prospect, IMO. Bradford has excellent accuracy in the short/medium range, and great poise and pocket presence.

The system argument works on the surface, but if you look closer the system is more of a pro-style spread that has been used by the Pats, Steelers, etc. the last year or so. The NFL has quietly moved to a hybrid spread offense recently, and this is almost exactly the offense Bradford plays in. It's a balanced spread, not a passy-happy spread or a run-happy spread.

The main arguments that I agree with are that he rarely looks off his first or second read, just because he doesn't have to due to the surrounding talent. Also, he doesn't have experience reading a defense in the game and making changes based on what he sees. However, he's an extremely smart guy and no one knows what he could do in that area if given the opportunity. Finally, the talent on OU's offense probably helped make him look better than he is (just like Sanchez), because he had an extra second or two to throw the ball and great skill players to make things happen and get YAC.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

The two biggest issues I have are people making a big deal out of Bradford's arm and the system he plays in.

Bradford's arm is good. I think it's getting knocked excessively this year because he's being compared to Stafford, and anyone's arm will look weak when you put them next to Stafford. His arm is right there with what Matt Ryan showed last year. His arm strength improved dramatically this year from last, and once he fills out his arm will improve, just like it did for Manning and Brady. Also, pure arm strength is probably the least important aspect of grading a QB prospect, IMO. Bradford has excellent accuracy in the short/medium range, and great poise and pocket presence.

The system argument works on the surface, but if you look closer the system is more of a pro-style spread that has been used by the Pats, Steelers, etc. the last year or so. The NFL has quietly moved to a hybrid spread offense recently, and this is almost exactly the offense Bradford plays in. It's a balanced spread, not a passy-happy spread or a run-happy spread.

The main arguments that I agree with are that he rarely looks off his first or second read, just because he doesn't have to due to the surrounding talent. Also, he doesn't have experience reading a defense in the game and making changes based on what he sees. However, he's an extremely smart guy and no one knows what he could do in that area if given the opportunity. Finally, the talent on OU's offense probably helped make him look better than he is (just like Sanchez), because he had an extra second or two to throw the ball and great skill players to make things happen and get YAC.

-We're in total agreement regarding his arm strength. It will be more than sufficient at the NFL level.

-Being in a balanced spread doesn't help his causes considering few teams operate in a system like that, even occasionally. Again, it comes back to footwork and reads, which you cover in your third point.

I'll go one further on the footwork/drops issue: I don't think people are taking this issue as serious as it really is.

People think that a 3, 5, or 7 step drop is just that - a certain amount of steps.

It's much, much more than that. It has to be precise, the timing has to be consistent. There are college QB's that come out every year, who DO play in a pro-system in college, who struggle with the drops they are expected to take in the NFL, and then deliver the ball on time, and on target.

In Bradford's case, he's going to have to learn that basically from scratch, while also learning to make post-snap reads WHILE making that drop.

I'm not saying he won't be able to do it, he will, IMO.

But as I mentioned earlier in this thread, if I'm a GM, I'm hesitant to give a $60M contract to a kid that isn't going to help your team for 2-3 years. He'll need some good coaching at the next level.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

The two biggest issues I have are people making a big deal out of Bradford's arm and the system he plays in.

Bradford's arm is good. I think it's getting knocked excessively this year because he's being compared to Stafford, and anyone's arm will look weak when you put them next to Stafford. His arm is right there with what Matt Ryan showed last year. His arm strength improved dramatically this year from last, and once he fills out his arm will improve, just like it did for Manning and Brady. Also, pure arm strength is probably the least important aspect of grading a QB prospect, IMO. Bradford has excellent accuracy in the short/medium range, and great poise and pocket presence.

The system argument works on the surface, but if you look closer the system is more of a pro-style spread that has been used by the Pats, Steelers, etc. the last year or so. The NFL has quietly moved to a hybrid spread offense recently, and this is almost exactly the offense Bradford plays in. It's a balanced spread, not a passy-happy spread or a run-happy spread.

The main arguments that I agree with are that he rarely looks off his first or second read, just because he doesn't have to due to the surrounding talent. Also, he doesn't have experience reading a defense in the game and making changes based on what he sees. However, he's an extremely smart guy and no one knows what he could do in that area if given the opportunity. Finally, the talent on OU's offense probably helped make him look better than he is (just like Sanchez), because he had an extra second or two to throw the ball and great skill players to make things happen and get YAC.

I'm not sure how you could argue that he has great poise and pocket presence when he played behind a line that gave him such outstanding protection.

Now he showed something in the game against Florida, but that's not a lot to work with to really make an evaluation.

As for Sanchez, he didn't get the same kind of time that Bradford had, and he did show a lot of poise in the face of pressure all year long.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by milkman

I'm not sure how you could argue that he has great poise and pocket presence when he played behind a line that gave him such outstanding protection.

Now he showed something in the game against Florida, but that's not a lot to work with to really make an evaluation.

As for Sanchez, he didn't get the same kind of time that Bradford had, and he did show a lot of poise in the face of pressure all year long.

I'm guessing very few people watched USC this year, Sanchez was pressured and was hit a lot this year, and more often than not, delivered a strike in the face of that pressure.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm guessing very few people watched USC this year, Sanchez was pressured and was hit a lot this year, and more often than not, delivered a strike in the face of that pressure.

The overwhelming majority of those begging for Bradford live in Big 12 country. They see Oklahoma almost weekly.

What they didn't see weekly was Matt Stafford and Georgia or Mark Sanchez and USC (much like Matt Ryan last year).

The debate is worthless when the person you're debating doesn't have all of the facts.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

The overwhelming majority of those begging for Bradford live in Big 12 country. They see Oklahoma almost weekly.

What they didn't see weekly was Matt Stafford and Georgia or Mark Sanchez and USC (much like Matt Ryan last year).

The debate is worthless when the person you're debating doesn't have all of the facts.

Very true. It's also why people go apeshit when a player has a good/bad bowl game, because in most instances, it's the only time they've seen that player.

Luckily, I live in an area that gets an SEC game every week, and the majority of them were Georgia games.

And USC is always on here, for some reason. If the ABC affiliate has a game, it's likely USC.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by milkman

I'm not sure how you could argue that he has great poise and pocket presence when he played behind a line that gave him such outstanding protection.

Now he showed something in the game against Florida, but that's not a lot to work with to really make an evaluation.

As for Sanchez, he didn't get the same kind of time that Bradford had, and he did show a lot of poise in the face of pressure all year long.

I don't think poise and pocket presence are affected by o-line play. Bradford always knows where he's at, where D-linemen are, and is not scared of holding the ball until the very last second to make that perfect pass. All great QBs have that sixth sense. He really can sense pressure extremely well, but again, we don't know for sure if that confidence will always be with him or if it's due to the star studded o-line.

Sanchez didn't have Bradford's line, but it's still one of the better lines in terms of pure talent in the country. They certainly dominated the majority of Pac 10 opponents they faced. Also, Sanchez has McKnight, Gable, Turner, etc. to dump the ball off too. You don't have to be perfect when you have those guys on your side.