Oh joy, a QB rankings list!

[NAHSTE]

Let's examine the stupidity more in depth ...

29. Sam Bradford

It's bad enough that he lists Bradford beneath Donovan McNabb. (Bradford should be higher for the simple fact that, unlike McNabb, he is not currently useless.) But this is also five spots under Bryan Hoyer.

Past 10 starts: two wins, eight losses (seven by double-digits)

Did not realize Sam Bradford was also the Rams GM, and head coach, and defensive coordinator, and the other 51 guys on the roster not named Stephen Jackson who kind of blow. LOL at knocking Bradford on his W-L record.

4 TDs, 8 picks, 132 points scored. Anyone who brings up "Should the Rams keep Andrew Luck or Sam Bradford?" on a talking-head show should be electroshocked.

I agree, because it's nearly impossible for them to get rid of Bradford anyway so they would just trade out of that pick if they got it.

There's a Bradford in the draft every year. There's a Luck in the draft every 10 years.

There may not be an Andrew Luck every year, but there's a Cam Newton, or a Matt Stafford, or a Matt Ryan, or an Aaron Rodgers or a Ben Roethlisberger or a ... oh wait all these guys were drafted in the last 10 years! That's the part of the Suck for Luck discussion that is being overstated. Andrew Luck is being put on this pedestal as a ONCE IN A GENERATION prospect, but there is no such thing as a once in a generation prospect. We get them every year. Not to mention Bradford was once labeled as such himself. The Rams don't need a QB.

Anyway, this is a huge slight on Bradford and an insult to our intelligence.

[Primetime]

Not really sure how running makes you a better quarterback. Just because you rush for yardage doesn't mean you're better than a guy who can't run. I'd rather have pocket presence and mobility :batman:

Rodgers is getting better at it, but three years ago when he ran for 315 yards he was also sacked 50 times to Tom Brady's 16. This year he's been sacked 16 to Brady's 11. If it were college and you factored in rushing yards for sacks, I wonder what the difference would be for the last three years.

That said, can't go wrong with either Rodgers or Brady in a debate this year.

Mobility is obviously a factor and an advantage for Rodgers, but the way Simmons tried to prove his point is beyond retarded.

[Houston]

I lul'd at the Matt Schaub write up.

[Warner2BruceTD]

Nothing against Luck, but I wonder how many Stanford games Simmons has watched this season.

I bet the answer is zero.

Look, I have no idea what Bradford is going to become. The biggest concern for me is not his ability, or his play. My biggest concern is having the confidence beat out of him by getting beat up on this bad offense. Think David Carr.

But the idea that the Rams should give up on a 23 year old QB barely 20 starts into his career is absurd. He could very well end up better than Luck. Not to mention what would be the biggest potential cap hit in NFL history if they traded him.

Bad, bad stuff by Simmons.

[Villain]

Eli > Matt Ryan? :stupid:

[mgoblue2290]

An exchange between Simmons and his editor:

Editor: "Cam and Eli in the top 10? I don't even know what that means!"

Simmons: "Nobody knows what it means, but its provocative, gets the people going!"

[NAHSTE]

The Hoyer thing comes completely on the heels of his podcast with Mike Lombardi. Lombardi said the only thing he would have done differently had he landed the 49ers job was sign Hoyer to play QB.

Simmons notoriously just takes what Lombardi says and adds it to his football lexicon. He started calling players "red chippers" or "blue chippers" because of the system Lombardi supposedly created.

This would all be well and good if Lombardi were any kind of football Oracle himself but he's not even the best former NFL GM that the NFL Network employs, let alone a shining football mind in the league.

Just another example of Simmons repackaging other people's analysis into one of his many paint by numbers columns.

Haha. Thanks, I stopped listening to the podcasts but that makes sense.

[Senser81]

An exchange between Simmons and his editor:

dave: "Cam and Eli in the top 10? I don't even know what that means!"

Simmons: "Nobody knows what it means, but its provocative, gets the people going!"

dave: "Couldn't you add something that attacks US politics, the US economy, or Americans in general?"

Simmons: "I'm on deadline!"

[ZoneBlitz]

There may not be an Andrew Luck every year, but there's a Cam Newton, or a Matt Stafford, or a Matt Ryan, or an Aaron Rodgers or a Ben Roethlisberger or a ... oh wait all these guys were drafted in the last 10 years! That's the part of the Suck for Luck discussion that is being overstated. Andrew Luck is being put on this pedestal as a ONCE IN A GENERATION prospect, but there is no such thing as a once in a generation prospect. We get them every year. Not to mention Bradford was once labeled as such himself. The Rams don't need a QB.

Andrew Luck is a once in a decade prospect. Luck is very likely to be on the same level as Peyton Manning, and except for Aaron Rodgers, none of those players you mentioned are on the same level.

[NAHSTE]

Andrew Luck is a once in a decade prospect. Luck is very likely to be on the same level as Peyton Manning, and except for Aaron Rodgers, none of those players you mentioned are on the same level.

So he is a once in a decade prospect just like that other prospect from this decade? Makes sense.

[nflman2033]

There may not be an Andrew Luck every year, but there's a Cam Newton, or a Matt Stafford, or a Matt Ryan, or an Aaron Rodgers or a Ben Roethlisberger or a ... oh wait all these guys were drafted in the last 10 years! That's the part of the Suck for Luck discussion that is being overstated. Andrew Luck is being put on this pedestal as a ONCE IN A GENERATION prospect, but there is no such thing as a once in a generation prospect. We get them every year. Not to mention Bradford was once labeled as such himself. The Rams don't need a QB.

Anyway, this is a huge slight on Bradford and an insult to our intelligence.

But you do have to watch out for the JaMarcus Russell, Alex Smith, David Carr, and Tim Couch types.

[Houston]

So he is a once in a decade prospect just like that other prospect from this decade? Makes sense.

Peyton Manning was a 90's prospect, Luck a '10s.

[Senser81]

Andrew Luck is a once in a decade prospect. Luck is very likely to be on the same level as Peyton Manning, and except for Aaron Rodgers, none of those players you mentioned are on the same level.

Manning was considered by many to be the 2nd best QB in his class, behind Ryan Leaf. Ick.

[NAHSTE]

Peyton Manning was a 90's prospect, Luck a '10s.

And this third guy that ZB mentioned, to whom I was referring, what decade he come out?

Andrew Luckis a once in a decade prospect. Luck is very likely to be on the same level as Peyton Manning, and except for Aaron Rodgers, none of those players you mentioned are on the same level.

[EmpireWF]

Still, Rodgers came out in the 2000s. Luck will in the 2010s.