Sam Bradford and Matt Stafford

[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?

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?

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]

 

[dave]

Sanchez definitely belongs in this conversation.
Because he plays in New York all his negatives get magnified.
The guy only started one season in college, he needs time.

Overall, Bradford sure makes this argument seem pretty clear-cut, but it's only been four games ... but I wouldn't have bet on the Rams starting 2-2 if you gave me 100-1 odds.

 

[Buzzman]

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.



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.

Um, What? Bradford was 0-2 in bowl games.

So you just want to exclude everything he did his rookie year with Detroit where he stepped up as a leader, and go back to 2 games in college?

 

[NAHSTE]

Um, What? Bradford was 0-2 in bowl games.

So you just want to exclude everything he did his rookie year with Detroit where he stepped up as a leader, and go back to 2 games in college?

LOL...My bad on the "winning a national title" part. Turrible. He had his team playing for one...meanwhile Stafford was leading home game blowout losses to his arch rivals.


But no, the college stuff is just part of the picture. I still think Stafford is a good QB and has a chance to turn the Lions into a playoff team, but I'm not gonna forget that he had a career 57 % completion percentage or that he never threw fewer than 10 INTs in a college season...This stuff matters, especially when directly comparing him to one of his his peers. Bradford was better than Stafford at the college level, and appears to be roughly equal at the NFL level so far, in a VERY small sample size. If we're directly comparing a rookie and a second year guy who won't play again this year, I'd think college data would be the most reliable information to look at.

LOL at thinking nobody will bring up college careers when we're directly comparing a rookie and a second-year player, a month into the season. What else are we gonna look at? They've started fewer than 20 games combined in the NFL.

 

[Senser81]

Bradford was better than Stafford at the college level, and appears to be roughly equal at the NFL level so far, in a VERY small sample size. If we're directly comparing a rookie and a second year guy who won't play again this year, I'd think college data would be the most reliable information to look at.

I was a big fan of Bradford's when he was at Oklahoma, but I think we have learned a few things in retrospect. One, Knowshown Moreno kind of sucked. Two, Georgia kind of sucked in general, and Stafford was probably more important to their success than anyone realized. Three, the SEC was stacked when Stafford was at Georgia. He really played against top-notch competition. Four, the Big12 was horrible on defense when Bradford was putting up huge numbers at Oklahoma. Even guys like Chase Daniel and the short white kid at Kansas (Reesing?) were having huge passing games.

So, even if we say Bradford was better than Stafford in college, I don't think they were in similar situations.

 

[NAHSTE]

I was a big fan of Bradford's when he was at Oklahoma, but I think we have learned a few things in retrospect. One, Knowshown Moreno kind of sucked. Two, Georgia kind of sucked in general, and Stafford was probably more important to their success than anyone realized. Three, the SEC was stacked when Stafford was at Georgia. He really played against top-notch competition. Four, the Big12 was horrible on defense when Bradford was putting up huge numbers at Oklahoma. Even guys like Chase Daniel and the short white kid at Kansas (Reesing?) were having huge passing games.

So, even if we say Bradford was better than Stafford in college, I don't think they were in similar situations.

Agreed on all points, I was against Bradford winning the Heisman for the reasons you listed. But having watched Stafford closely, and the SEC my whole life, he wasn't really an accurate passer or a particularly great leader.

His completion percentage his junior year was 61%...For comparison, JaMarcus Russell's was 67 his jr. year, against the same tough teams.

Not sure how you can say Knowshon Moreno sucked either, he carried the offense more than Stafford did. Sure, he is a bust in the pros but he was the Georgia offense.

Stafford is a strong armed QB that relies on play action. He can hit the 15 yard out and the tight end in the seam, and the occasional deep ball. But if he has to win a game by himself, that game will be a loss.

Seen it happen too many times to discount.

 

[Tailback U]

I think Stafford has some really great qualities that will make him a good starting QB in this league for a long time - if his body holds up.

His concerning issues, other than durability, are accuracy and decision making. He is tough, he is charismatic, confident, and seems like a smart and humble guy. I think he just needs to get 100% healthy and get a full season under his belt before we can really get an idea of how good the kid can be.

Constantly missing games, getting thrown back in randomly, and playing through shoulder injuries has got to be tough for a young QB in terms of relaxing back there, getting comfortable, and gaining confidence.

I always knew Sanchez would develop into a good quarterback. He put together a string of good games for the Jets last season because he showed that he understood his position and ability. The Jets have put him in the best situation possible and are slowly asking him to do more and more as he gains experience and he has shown an insane amount of improvement over the last 3 games as he's gained confidence.

Remember, Sanchez has only started 20 regular season NFL games, and has already proven that he is a legitimate starting NFL quarterback. He can only get better.

 

[Fox1994]

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.

They did, but I didn't hear much about him from other people. I was surprised he came out early, in fact. Which is not to say I didn't think he could have any success, I just wasn't expecting much after one year starting in college.

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.

Bradford isn't playing out of this world. I agree. He just started a little better than was expected by most.

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

Ya, Sanchez is good. No doubt about it. I just didn't hear too much - or at least as much about him in or coming out of college.

---

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.

Maybe I was looking in the wrong places, but I heard a lot about Sanchez should've stayed in college one more year and so on and so forth. It was also my opinion... But he's done a lot better than was expected of him, I think, regardless of circumstances.

In any case, it just seemed to me like people were talking more about Bradford and Stafford being the next great NFL quarterbacks. Like SS said, they're in more comparable positions team-wise.

---

I also want it on record that I at least stated that it's far too early for prognostication... Even if I'm/we're doing it anyway.