What was a bigger problem last year?

Originally posted by BobS:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was [b]59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.
[/b]
Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

Anybody else notice the pro Smith guys remove his bad games and then remove the good games of anyone they are comparing him against?

Yeah dude. It happens. And when put I up a post showing that Bradford outperformed smith this year with facts like they ask for from us, they "don't read it."

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

But look at Bradford's circumstances.

He performed well throughout the season considering Bradford is a rookie on a horrible 1-15 team with bad coaching, whose OC is on the bubble, no WRs, thrown into the fire prematurely because he came from a spread offense and the rams had injuries all over the place. Right? All those awful circumstances. Poor fellow. He was still able to perform despite that.

And for some reason the media recognized this and crowned him Offensive rookie of the year...Probably because of that Midwest bias.

He did a hell of a lot better than 1 td and 15 ints.

[ Edited by Young2Rice on Jun 27, 2011 at 22:32:37 ]

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

But look at Bradford's circumstances.

He performed well throughout the season considering Bradford is a rookie on a horrible 1-15 team with bad coaching, whose OC is on the bubble, no WRs, thrown into the fire prematurely because he came from a spread offense and the rams had injuries all over the place. Right? All those awful circumstances. Poor fellow. He was still able to perform despite that.

And for some reason the media recognized this and crowned him Offensive rookie of the year...Probably because of that Midwest bias.

He did a hell of a lot better than 1 td and 15 ints.

For the record; Steve Spagnuolo is widely considered to be one of the brightest, most promising young coaches in the league. To say he is a "bad coach" is to display an ignorance of the true situation.

Pat Shurmur was "on the bubble?" How? I don't get what you mean. Shurmur was a highly regarded OC from the Andy Reid school who did a masterful job of protecting Bradford, bringing him along slowly and not asking him to do too much. Shurmur did such a good job he would up with a HC gig. Again, I don't get your comment on Shurmur.

Bradford was considered the most "pro-ready" QB to come out in some years. That was the main reason he was selected #1 overall and given $50 MILLION.

Yes, he did not have a lot of weapons but Danny Amendola is a very quick guy who made life a lot easier for Bradford by using his quickness and intelligence to be an available target.

Finally, I'm not making a comparison to Alex Smith or anyone else. I'm just pointing out the true circumstances around Sam Bradford.

Originally posted by BobS:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was [b]59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.
[/b]
Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

Anybody else notice the pro Smith guys remove his bad games and then remove the good games of anyone they are comparing him against?

I wasn't making a comparison. I was merely pointing out the error in the poster's position on Bradford.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by BobS:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was [b]59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.
[/b]
Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

Anybody else notice the pro Smith guys remove his bad games and then remove the good games of anyone they are comparing him against?

I wasn't making a comparison. I was merely pointing out the error in the poster's position on Bradford.

DJ, ever notice how blanket statements are used to lump large numbers of posters together under an erroneous argument? It's a lot easier to argue when you do not respond directly I guess.

You just pointed out how well respected the coaching staff is/was of the Rams after they were called incompetent by some people. I look forward to the arguments showing how bad those coaches are/were.

Bradford was taken in the draft even though there were injury concerns. That means he was pretty good. Smith was taken because he was a young, lights out performer in college...20 year old draftee. Bradford? 23? Think there is a difference? We can argue all day about who is better and compare stats but the Rams have Bradford and the 9ers Smith, so deal with it and support your team.

The bottom line, for this thread, is that the coaching on the 9ers has been really bad. The organization has been truely bad. The ownership has been so so bad. Everything from top down was so bad that analyzing player potential, based on the past few years, is impossible.

Now there has been a change in ownership guidance to Jed, GM Baalke, and HC/ACs. I look forward to next season.

[ Edited by dtg_9er on Jun 28, 2011 at 07:45:21 ]

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped and why the media is praising him. The kid was working with nothing and still made roy. Smith has alot of talent to work with and sucked ,got benched,and didnt look like a pro until we played a s**t AZ team. 10 games and people are pulling a 09saying his finishedstrong. Fk that noise he starts off like s**t. Loses his job to David Carr and then Troy Smith. Yet you would take Smith over Bradford? Pure homerism which is proved over and over again by ignoring his entire season and just cherry picking stats.


Anyone who plays FF knows all about the Rams key players like Bradford and Jackson. It was nothing but Bradford stories last year and rightfully so. He was amazing for a spread offense rookie coming into a s**t team and winning games. Smith took a team loaded with talent and promptly went 0-5 and to the bench. Which is the norm because Smith doesnt show up until the seasons lost.

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped

Excuses for some... legit reasons for others then?

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped

Excuses for some... legit reasons for others then?

If Smith lost his best receiving options id give him a pass. He didnt so unlike some he gets no passes from me anymore. Not after last season. Besides if Smith was everything you make him out to be he would have been guaranteed the starting job. He wouldnt be in a wide open competition and looking at a back ups contract that was offered. Now would he

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped

Excuses for some... legit reasons for others then?

If Smith lost his best receiving options id give him a pass. He didnt so unlike some he gets no passes from me anymore. Not after last season. Besides if Smith was everything you make him out to be he would have been guaranteed the starting job. He wouldnt be in a wide open competition and looking at a back ups contract that was offered. Now would he

5+ million.... I think that's starter money, and appropriate. Doesn't matter really... Alex already made his fortune, so he's not worried about the money. Jim couldn't officially guarantee Alex the starting gig, as Alex wasn't signed, and the league warned us multiple times not to talk about him or even to him. Aside from that, we don't really know what was discussed behind closed doors. Jim may very well have told him, "you sign, you start".

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped

Excuses for some... legit reasons for others then?

If Smith lost his best receiving options id give him a pass. He didnt so unlike some he gets no passes from me anymore. Not after last season. Besides if Smith was everything you make him out to be he would have been guaranteed the starting job. He wouldnt be in a wide open competition and looking at a back ups contract that was offered. Now would he

5+ million.... I think that's starter money, and appropriate. Doesn't matter really... Alex already made his fortune, so he's not worried about the money. Jim couldn't officially guarantee Alex the starting gig, as Alex wasn't signed, and the league warned us multiple times not to talk about him or even to him. Aside from that, we don't really know what was discussed behind closed doors. Jim may very well have told him, "you sign, you start".

For all intents and purposes, yes. The whole "If I was a betting man..." pretty much settled that.

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped

Excuses for some... legit reasons for others then?

If Smith lost his best receiving options id give him a pass. He didnt so unlike some he gets no passes from me anymore. Not after last season. Besides if Smith was everything you make him out to be he would have been guaranteed the starting job. He wouldnt be in a wide open competition and looking at a back ups contract that was offered. Now would he

5+ million.... I think that's starter money, and appropriate. Doesn't matter really... Alex already made his fortune, so he's not worried about the money. Jim couldn't officially guarantee Alex the starting gig, as Alex wasn't signed, and the league warned us multiple times not to talk about him or even to him. Aside from that, we don't really know what was discussed behind closed doors. Jim may very well have told him, "you sign, you start".

The article said up to 5 million not 5+ million. Its basically the same deal Carr got with incentives. Nothing more than back up money which is about right and all Smith really is at this point. Dont let that stop you from making things up tho.

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

The article said up to 5 million not 5+ million. Its basically the same deal Carr got with incentives. Nothing more than back up money which is about right and all Smith really is at this point. Dont let that stop you from making things up tho.

LOL, well if that makes you feel all warm inside, then go ahead. It's just a speculative offer anyway. We'll see what happens when it is official. Who cares what he makes anyway? 5 million a year (or close to) is pretty good money for anyone... much less a guy that doesn't need it.

By the way....

I read this on the front of rotoworld... which is a slight variation in the actual link.

( I didn't make the sh!t up )

Quote:
Free agent QB Alex Smith's standing one-year offer from the 49ers is believed to be for $5 million.
Smith had been playing on a two-year, $6.5 million deal from 2009-2010, so the standing offer represents a significant raise. It's highly unlikely he'd match that upfront money on the open market.

http://www.rotoworld.com/recent/nfl/3119/alex-smith

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped and why the media is praising him. The kid was working with nothing and still made roy. Smith has alot of talent to work with and sucked ,got benched,and didnt look like a pro until we played a s**t AZ team. 10 games and people are pulling a 09saying his finishedstrong. Fk that noise he starts off like s**t. Loses his job to David Carr and then Troy Smith. Yet you would take Smith over Bradford? Pure homerism which is proved over and over again by ignoring his entire season and just cherry picking stats.


Anyone who plays FF knows all about the Rams key players like Bradford and Jackson. It was nothing but Bradford stories last year and rightfully so. He was amazing for a spread offense rookie coming into a s**t team and winning games. Smith took a team loaded with talent and promptly went 0-5 and to the bench. Which is the norm because Smith doesnt show up until the seasons lost.

Danny Amendola is a better WR than anyone on the 49ers. Steven Jackson banged up was better than anyone the 49ers had after Gore went down. Pat Shurmur was such a good OC that he got a HC gig.

The Rams were far from a garbage team. They had a lot of high draft choices who began to play very well for Spagnuolo and his staff.

As I said, Bradford appears to have a great upside but he was nothing special in the second half last season. Shurmur kept thing VERY simple and opposing teams figured him out and effectively shut him down.

But I'm done here. People with only one agenda are not willing to look for anything else.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by jimmy49erfan:

Originally posted by oldman9er:

Quote:
Bradford rookie year after inheriting a 1-15 team:

60% completion, 18 TD, 15 INT, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles lost in 16 games



Alex Smith First Full season as starter:

58.1% Completion, 16TD, 16int, 35 sacks and 4 fumbles in 16 games.

Good. I am glad you are making my point for me. Both QBs have pretty similar numbers here in their first full years. Clearly, Bradford was more pro-ready... we already knew this when he was drafted.

What I have said over and over is this. "What's in the distant past doesn't excite me."

Alex had a 91.9 QBR down the stretch while under still miserable playing conditions (coaches/OL). Bradford? Well, he's around that 76 QBR... decent for a rookie, and understandably inferior to the 91 QBR veteran. While Bradford may end up the better QB in the future, I'll take the 27 year old vet with a 91 QBR over the 23 year old with a 76 QBR.

91 QBR lol Bradford was able to make scrub WRs look good throwing them open all season long. Smith didnt look like a starting QB until AZ and if it wasnt for AZ Smith #s would be hurting worse than they are now. Why would you take a 27 yr old inconsistent benched 3-7 QB. Over a 23 yr old 7-9 rookie who looked good all season long. On a offense with little talent but himself, Smith and Steven Jackson.

Bradford made their entire offense better from the start to finish. He took a poor OL and by getting the ball out quickly took alot of pressure off them. He made it easier on Jackson to keep pounding the ball up the middle. He didnt have a freak TE like Davis or 3 1st rd picks on the OL and without a 1st rd WR like Crabtree. He just made the basic passes on a consistent level every week. In the same kind of predictable run run pass/punt offense. If Smith played as consistently as Bradford we wouldnt have been 6-10. Its apples and oranges with these 2 QBs. Bradford looks like a star QB. Alex Smith looks like a bust QB.

You must not have seen or heard much of Bradford toward the end of the season. Teams figures out the very limited playbook Shurmur had given him and effectively shut him down. There was even talk beginning among Ram fans that he should be benched as it was clear he was not capable of carrying the team once the league figured him out.

In the first 8 games his QBR was 79. In the second half, if you take out the two games against the pathetic 49er secondary, his rating was 59, and that included a 113 against an even worse Denver defense. That is not a consistent performance nor does it show any improvement in the second half.

Yes, I will take the player that performed better at the end of the season than one who faded markedly.

I am not saying Smith has more upside than Bradford. I'm merely pointing out that Bradford was not quite the wunderkind that some parts of the media would have us believe.

By mid season the Rams were down to Amendola and Fells as there 1 n 2 options receiving. Plus the injuries to the OL and down the stretch Jackson got banged up and wasnt as effective up the gut anymore. Basically the entire offense was broken by the end of the season. Its no wonder his numbers dipped and why the media is praising him. The kid was working with nothing and still made roy. Smith has alot of talent to work with and sucked ,got benched,and didnt look like a pro until we played a s**t AZ team. 10 games and people are pulling a 09saying his finishedstrong. Fk that noise he starts off like s**t. Loses his job to David Carr and then Troy Smith. Yet you would take Smith over Bradford? Pure homerism which is proved over and over again by ignoring his entire season and just cherry picking stats.


Anyone who plays FF knows all about the Rams key players like Bradford and Jackson. It was nothing but Bradford stories last year and rightfully so. He was amazing for a spread offense rookie coming into a s**t team and winning games. Smith took a team loaded with talent and promptly went 0-5 and to the bench. Which is the norm because Smith doesnt show up until the seasons lost.

Danny Amendola is a better WR than anyone on the 49ers. Steven Jackson banged up was better than anyone the 49ers had after Gore went down. Pat Shurmur was such a good OC that he got a HC gig.

The Rams were far from a garbage team. They had a lot of high draft choices who began to play very well for Spagnuolo and his staff.

As I said, Bradford appears to have a great upside but he was nothing special in the second half last season. Shurmur kept thing VERY simple and opposing teams figured him out and effectively shut him down.

But I'm done here. People with only one agenda are not willing to look for anything else.

That about sums it up.....