Blog Entry

Rams have to take Bradford

Posted on: March 29, 2010 6:02 pm
Edited on: March 29, 2010 6:04 pm


Best pro-day workout ever.

That's what some NFL scouts were saying after Sam Bradford threw Monday. The University of Oklahoma quarterback proved that he's over his shoulder troubles and should be the No. 1 overall pick in next month's draft.

But the pro-day workout shouldn't be the reason the St. Louis Rams take him first overall.

What should be is that he's an accurate, big, strong passer who understands the passing game.

Watch his tape.

He's precision-sharp and reads the field.

If Tim Tebow could read the field half as well as Bradford does, he'd be a sure-fire first-round pick -- even in my book.

One personnel director told me Bradford is the most-accurate passer to come into the draft in the past 10 years. At the scouting combine in February, some were debating whether he should be the top pick.

I never did. There was no debate. Quarterbacks win Super Bowls. Not defensive tackles.

What Bradford did Monday was prove that his surgically repaired shoulder isn't an issue.

What he proved on the playing field is that he will be a great NFL passer. Yes, I said great.



Category: NFL
Tags: Sam Bradford

Since: Oct 7, 2006
Posted on: March 30, 2010 6:32 am

Rams have to take Bradford

Excellent insights; I would tend to agree. The game is won and lost at the point of attack.

Since: Feb 11, 2009
Posted on: March 30, 2010 4:46 am

Rams have to take Bradford

Agree 100%.  I can still remember the picture of Y. A. Tittle sitting on the sidelines with a split scalp.  No crying or whining, just pure acceptance of the fact that being quarterback did not grant him more grace than anyone esle on the field.

Since: Dec 5, 2006
Posted on: March 30, 2010 12:21 am

Rams have to take Bradford

Geez... could Mattp1 be any more clueless? Do you wanna backtrack on anymore idiotic statements or fuzzy facts, Matt? Hey maybe the Vikings shouldn't have drafted AD cause Billy Sims got hurt four years into his career (nice logic). By the way... pro bowler until his injury. The fact is ... talent is talent... I remember watching Peterson his freshman year and telling my pop... He could play in the pros right now. He was bigger, stronger, and faster than anyone on the field... Even as a freshman. I had the same thoughts about Bradford his Sophmore year. His touch, accuracy, leadership, and brains were just light years above any other QB. Whatever team takes Sammy, enjoy. But, I have to agree with many other posters..  like any QB... you have to protect him and give him time to cut up the D. And Sam is a surgeon. 

Since: Oct 24, 2006
Posted on: March 30, 2010 12:09 am

Rams have to take Bradford

"Quarterbacks win Super Bowls. Not defensive tackles."

Unfortunately, I lost about 90 seconds of my life reading this clown today.  The thing is, his articles are like a train wreck.....they are horrific, but you can't help taking a peek to see the gore.

Let's see, regarding that above statement..........

Dan Marino
John Brodie
Fran Tarkenton
Jim Kelly
John Hadl
Dan Fouts

TONS of Super Bowl titles there, too many too count.

But defensive tackles don't win them, right?...........tell that to Sam Adams in 2000 and Steve McMichael in 1986, jackoff........

Since: Apr 28, 2007
Posted on: March 30, 2010 12:01 am

Rams have to take Bradford

Exactly my point mu_groupie

Since: Oct 8, 2006
Posted on: March 30, 2010 12:00 am

Rams have to take Bradford

Think of which teams have won a Superbowl with a great defense and without a "franchise QB".  Let's see, the Bucs in '03, the Ravens in '01, then you have to go back to maybe '92 with Rypien and the 'Skins.  Teams who won the Superbowl with a franchise QB:  '10-Saints, '09-Steelers, '08-Giants, '07-Colts, '06-Steelers, '05, '04, '02-Patriots, '00-Rams.  Do I need to continue?  Now, all of these teams had serviceable defenses, and some of these teams (like the Steelers) had great defenses, but they all had "franchise QB's".  You can go back farther to Elway, Favre, Aikman, Young, and Montana in the '90's to see more proof.  While the Rams have a lot of work to do, they need a signal caller and if they think Bradford is going to be great, then they have to pull the trigger.  I know you're saying they SHOULD take him #1, and I strongly agree, but I just had to contradict you on the defense comments.

Since: Apr 28, 2007
Posted on: March 30, 2010 12:00 am

Rams have to take Bradford

Believe it or not, the old adage "Defense wins championships" is a myth.  Interestingly enough, this topic was brought up on the Mike and Mike show one time and they used Super Bowl History to prove it.  It's totally opposite of what you said.  Defense is a major factor but QB is the biggest factor.  More teams have won Super Bowls with great QB play and mediocre defense than mediocre QB play and great defenses.  As a Pats fan, you should know.  From the first Super Bowl they won with Brady, it was his play that won it.  When Brady got hurt, they didn't even make the playoffs. 

The Vikings Defense has been very good for a long time but Tavaris Jackson couldn't even get them to the playoffs.

I used to believe it too..."Defense Wins Championships"...until Mike and Mike proved me wrong.  It's okay if you don't want to let go of it but history proves it. 

The goal of football is to get the ball into the endzone and since the QB touches the ball on EVERY offensive play, he controls everything.

QBs win championships...a great defense MIGHT win you one.

Since: Mar 27, 2010
Posted on: March 29, 2010 11:51 pm

Rams have to take Bradford

Amen, i can't believe how many people actually think a team can win "CONSISTENTLY" without a bonafide #1 QB. I am beside myself. Sure Dilfer got one, but did he make it back for two??? Nope, unbelieveable.

Since: Jan 6, 2010
Posted on: March 29, 2010 11:36 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Feb 1, 2010
Posted on: March 29, 2010 11:19 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or