Sam Bradford and Matt Stafford

[mgoblue2290]

I still think Stafford can be better than Bradford. I know it is only pre-season but I saw a much calmer and better decision making Stafford this August. Who knows if that would've transferred to the regular season but it seemed like the game was slowing down for him.

As far as actual production goes, yes Bradford is better. I just think Stafford has the potential to be better and, at this point in time, will end up the better quarterback.

However, that could change by the end of this year depending on how things go.

[MvP]

It must be mentioned that both of them have incredible quarterback names.

[red33]

Bradford and its not even close.

[BigBucs]

Have to go with the obvious answer... Josh Freeman

[Tailback U]

This reminds me of the Flacco/Ryan discussions.

Everyone seems to flip flop and go with whoever is hot right now, but I will always go with the more polished and fundamentally sound QB.

I think Matt Ryan will be better than Joe Flacco in the long run, and I think Sam Bradford will be better than Stafford in the long run.

[j.hen]

Matt Stafford will forever have my heart after that game against Cleveland last season.

[NAHSTE]

This reminds me of the Flacco/Ryan discussions.

Everyone seems to flip flop and go with whoever is hot right now, but I will always go with the more polished and fundamentally sound QB.

I think Matt Ryan will be better than Joe Flacco in the long run, and I think Sam Bradford will be better than Stafford in the long run.

I like this parallel, and vote the same as you both times.

I like Stafford, he's got a strong arm, but is too reliant on a run game to be effective. Bradford is more accurate, and frankly, was the better of the two in college as well.

Out of 10, Stafford is an 8 arm, 7 accuracy and 6 leadership, while Bradford is a 7, 9, 9.

[Golden Taters]

Why isn't Sanchez included in these discussions, if you don't mind me asking? :P

Is this nigga serious?

[Fox1994]

Is this nigga serious?

Ya, I think so.

Why isn't Sanchez included in these discussions, if you don't mind me asking? :P

Because Sanchez wasn't expected to be the end-all, be-all of quarterbacks. That's what's being expected of Bradford and Stafford. From the time they entered college until their respective exits they've been talked about as pro quarterback messiahs.

Ryan and Flacco have done more than was expected of them. They both came in their rookie seasons and looked like they knew what they were doing, to a large extent. That's why people are so impressed by them.

Sanchez and Freeman were expected to fail by most, so their legacies are going to be built - so far as I can tell - by proving they can do better than their critics expect.

[Senser81]

Is this nigga serious?

I'm not a big fan of Sanchez, but to ignore Sanchez while building up Stafford and Bradford is ridiculous. Sanchez was a #5 overall pick, so I think the Jets thought of him as an end-all, be-all QB. I don't think teams use #5 overall picks on backup QBs.

Bradford has started better than most people expected, but come on. He averages 6 yards per attempt, which is awful, he's thrown as many INTs as TDs, which is expected, he's completing less than 60% of his passes, which is expected, and his rating is 72.3, which is awful and expected. Stafford has played part of 1 game this year.

Meanwhile, Sanchez is 4th in the NFL with a 105 QB rating and has thrown 8 TDs versus 0 INTs.

[ralaw]

Ya, I think so.



Because Sanchez wasn't expected to be the end-all, be-all of quarterbacks. That's what's being expected of Bradford and Stafford. From the time they entered college until their respective exits they've been talked about as pro quarterback messiahs.

Ryan and Flacco have done more than was expected of them. They both came in their rookie seasons and looked like they knew what they were doing, to a large extent. That's why people are so impressed by them.

Sanchez and Freeman were expected to fail by most, so their legacies are going to be built - so far as I can tell - by proving they can do better than their critics expect.

Coming into the league Sanchez wasn't expected to fail. Everything I heard was that he has all of the tools to be a successful QB, but it was just a matter of time, because he came out as a Jr. The only other issue was that people felt he may be a bit too hollywood" which he doesn't appear to be.

Freeman was the player most people expected to fail.

[mgoblue2290]

Sanchez definitely was given one of the best situations a rookie QB could've asked for. I think he sucks and he's proving me wrong so far this season. But lets see how he does down the stretch.

[Buzzman]

I like this parallel, and vote the same as you both times.

I like Stafford, he's got a strong arm, but is too reliant on a run game to be effective. Bradford is more accurate, and frankly, was the better of the two in college as well.

Out of 10, Stafford is an 8 arm, 7 accuracy and 6 leadership, while Bradford is a 7, 9, 9.

Where do you get that Stafford isn't a leader? He's always the one pumping up the offense, always blames himself for the team losses, and never has a problem getting into someones face. I have no idea where you get the idea that he's not a leader.

[NAHSTE]

I'm not a big fan of Sanchez, but to ignore Sanchez while building up Stafford and Bradford is ridiculous. Sanchez was a #5 overall pick, so I think the Jets thought of him as an end-all, be-all QB. I don't think teams use #5 overall picks on backup QBs.

Bradford has started better than most people expected, but come on. He averages 6 yards per attempt, which is awful, he's thrown as many INTs as TDs, which is expected, he's completing less than 60% of his passes, which is expected, and his rating is 72.3, which is awful and expected. Stafford has played part of 1 game this year.

Meanwhile, Sanchez is 4th in the NFL with a 105 QB rating and has thrown 8 TDs versus 0 INTs.

Good post. I can only speak for myself, but I didn't include Sanchez in this discussion because I thought it was a given he was better. Not just that, but Stafford and Bradford are in more comparable situations, team wise. You can't judge how Bradford or Stafford in those terms, because they are on rebuilding teams while the Jets are a playoff team. I measure Sanchez in different terms just based on where he is in his career and where is team is at.

He's obviously ahead of those two guys.

Where do you get that Stafford isn't a leader? He's always the one pumping up the offense, always blames himself for the team losses, and never has a problem getting into someones face. I have no idea where you get the idea that he's not a leader.

How about the fact Georgia only went 10-3 with him as a third-year starter? With Stafford as their leader, the preseason-number-1 Bulldogs lost at home to Alabama (41-30, down 31-0 at half) and Florida (49-10) by huge margins. He had fucking Knowshon Moreno and AJ Green on his team, and couldn't even avoid 3 losses, 2 of them at home.



Meanwhile, Bradford was winning a national title as a redshirt freshman. EDIT < Clearly being a dumb ass with this statement, as has been pointed out. Either way, Chief Redcorn's college resume was far superior to Stafford's from an accuracy and leadership standpoint.

[j.hen]