• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Om Field: The (Sam) Bradford Files

One of many experimental iterations ...

Om

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
9,117
Reaction score
389
Points
239
Location
Montclair, VA

Virginia Tech


The Sam Bradford Files

Whether or not one thinks the Redskins should take a quarterback at the top of April's NFL Draft, or if so, whether or not Oklahoma's Sam Bradford should be that QB, one thing is certain ... the young man nicknamed "The Big Easy" is going to be a big part of the conversation around these parts for at least the next 85 days.

Given he's the clear early front-runner as the Redskins pick (at #4 overall) in the annual mock draft avalanche ... figured it was time to start sizing him up.

More...
 

Last edited:

Neophyte

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
8,561
Reaction score
190
Points
218
Location
Dallas


My big issue is that #4 seems really high to draft a guy that you plan on riding the pine for a year. With the holes this team has, I am of the mindset that whoever you draft a #4 has to play as at least a situational guy on opening day 2010 (and I don't count holding for FGs).

Add to that the idea that putting a rookie QB behind the current O-line appears to me to be a form of punishment likely covered by the Geneva Convention and I have a tough time with picking him.

However, that might be too short sighted of me. I'm just thinking of all fuss last year over 3 second round guys who reportedly couldn't get their stuff together enough to contribute at all their first year.

Just sayin'.
 
Last edited:

Om

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
9,117
Reaction score
389
Points
239
Location
Montclair, VA

Virginia Tech

Understand the thought process, brother, but would ask you this: would you start any quarterback as a rookie? If you had drafted Peyton Manning, would you have sat him a year or played him? Me, I never start a rookie QB unless all my other options have broken legs.

Not saying that's the right approach, just mine. :)

To me, then, it doesn't matter where I take said QB. If I'm convinced I have a shot at a true Franchise QB I can build around for the next 10-12 years, I'm taking him the second I'm on the clock. And then I'm sitting him for at least a full season to cook.
 

Jimbo

The Franchise Player
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
4,270
Reaction score
5
Points
68
Location
Columbia, SC


Both of you make good points. I want to win now so therefore I want OL. That said, I really don't have a problem if Shanahan wants Bradford. Mark Sanchez led the Jets to the AFC Championship Game his rookie year, with a little help from Nate Kaeding, and you could see him getting better as the season went on. I think Bradford is probably as good as Sanchez. If we take him, I sure as hell hope he is.

I'm not worried about his shoulder after hearing Brian Griese say he came back from the same surgery as strong as ever. I AM a little worried about what it will do to our QB situation. If the Skins draft Campbell's replacement, why in the world would he come back? I guess he won't have much choice in an uncapped year if the Skins offer him a first round tender. Not sure who would match that or part with a #1 pick so, while we may have leverage, is it a good idea?

If Campbell leaves via RFA or trade then who is gonna block for Bradford? Wouldn't you have to start him if Campbell leaves? No sense in getting the guy killed. With a new OL coach and new blocking schemes you KNOW there will be mistakes along the line. Our OL is not as good as the Jets and Bradford wouldn't get the protection Sanchez got so that has me worried. Hence, drafting OL might make more sense.

Lots of other things to factor in though, like grabbing a FA or two along the line or bringing in a vet QB like Garcia for a year if Campbell leaves. I trust the Shanahans have a plan and a non-capped year could put us on the fast track to getting it up and running.
 

riggins44

The Franchise Player
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
4,183
Reaction score
56
Points
78
Location
Yorktown, VA


I guess I am old school and prefer letting the rookie QB carry the clipboard at first. A case can be made to let them play with Sanchez, Ryan, and Flacco being examples.

For every example of starting a rookie QB there is a couple that went belly up under this approach.

I look at guys like Rogers as a prime example to let a rookie QB watch and learn the game. Rogers had the advantage of watching Brett Farve and learning the game from him. Rypien for years always got some wierd injury and spent season on IR until Gibbs felt he was ready.

If we take Bradford then that is direction team takes. I would like to see him watch a vet, like Campbell, for a year or two and learn how to read NFL defenses. Good things come to those that wait.
 

Om

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
9,117
Reaction score
389
Points
239
Location
Montclair, VA

Virginia Tech

Back in the day pro coaches used to say it took five years to make an NFL QB. Think about that ... five years. And that was a generation ago--the 60's, 70's--before NFL defenses made the quantuum leap they did in complexity beginning in the 80's.

With the money involved today, the idea of patiently developing ANY premium player for that long before expecting a real return is no longer an option--everyone gets that. I'd like to think that those who take the pro game even moderately seriously understand that one or even two years is just plain common sense, however, particularly for a QB.
 

Neophyte

Super Bowl MVP
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
8,561
Reaction score
190
Points
218
Location
Dallas


Understand the thought process, brother, but would ask you this: would you start any quarterback as a rookie? If you had drafted Peyton Manning, would you have sat him a year or played him? Me, I never start a rookie QB unless all my other options have broken legs.

Not saying that's the right approach, just mine. :)

To me, then, it doesn't matter where I take said QB. If I'm convinced I have a shot at a true Franchise QB I can build around for the next 10-12 years, I'm taking him the second I'm on the clock. And then I'm sitting him for at least a full season to cook.
No Om, I am not a fan of starting Rookie QBs either and that is very much at the center of my thought process about this draft. If we were in the opposite position and had something of a stockpile of picks with 4 or 5 spread out over the first 3 rounds, I wouldn't have have much problem with taking a QB in the first and only letting him off the bench for mop up duty.

The problem is we don't. Worse, with the exception of the 2008 draft, we haven't for a long time meaning this team is not only bad but way behind in the "young" talent department. With the exception of TE and SS this team isn't 2 deep anywhere and often not 1 deep in terms of a legit NFL starter.

If you are absolutely, positively sure Bradford is a franchise guy then sure. My problem is I just don't believe anyone can be that sure and a miss at #4 this year will set this team back seasons.
 
Last edited:

Jimbo

The Franchise Player
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
4,270
Reaction score
5
Points
68
Location
Columbia, SC


Back in the day pro coaches used to say it took five years to make an NFL QB. Think about that ... five years. And that was a generation ago--the 60's, 70's--before NFL defenses made the quantuum leap they did in complexity beginning in the 80's.

With the money involved today, the idea of patiently developing ANY premium player for that long before expecting a real return is no longer an option--everyone gets that. I'd like to think that those who take the pro game even moderately seriously understand that one or even two years is just plain common sense, however, particularly for a QB.
Om, while defenses have made quantum leaps so have college QB's. They watch way more film and are coached up a LOT more than their counterparts in the 60's and 70's were. I agree that some guys are just not ready to play immediately at the NFL level for a while. Bradford might be one of them.

A lot has to do with the team around them. Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez were able to come in and be successful right away because they were on good teams. Peyton Manning started right away on a crappy team and, while he struggled for a couple of years, really took off. Dan Marino sat behind David Woodley his rookie year but started his second year and the rest is history. Dan played on a pretty good team.

I know I'm talking HOF QB's here but some guys are just ready quicker than others. I guess it's up to the coach to decide how he wants to work things. Given Shanahan's history with Cutler I don't see Bradford, IF he's the guy, playing much, if at all, in 2010. The 2011 season will depend on how well Campbell, or whatever veteran QB, plays in 2010. If somehow we make the playoffs then Bradford would likely get a second year to sit. If not then 2011 would be the REAL start of the Sam Bradford era.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Private conversations
Help Users
    Top