Sam Bradford A Cardinal

[Phrazbit]

QBR isn't an official stat, it's an ESPN contrivance. And I'm not arguing that Bradford was twice as good as Rosen, just refuting that the offense is twice as good now. It just isn't.

I also think you're discounting just how disjointed the offense was to start the year. There's no argument that they looked anemic but by the Bears game, they were showing some progress. Granted, Bradford had the turnovers but he was also pushing the ball down the field and the offense was showing some life.

Just as Rosen isn't elevating above a lousy situation I don't think Bradford should have realistically done so. I really don't think that he deserved to be relegated to deactivated.

QBR takes into account the situation. It's why check down QBs like Bradford look bad in it. A 6 yard completion on 3rd and 8 is a good result in traditional qb rating, in QBR it's virtually worthless.

They had 2 good drives in the Bears game, then were as inept as ever, maybe more so because turnovers came along with the 3 and outs. The offense looked disjointed because it's a bad offense, it was made even more so by having timid, awful play from the quarterback.

In Bradford's 3 starts we had a grand total of THREE scoring drives. In Rosen's two we've had 6. So yes, I will say, the offense is still bad, but it's twice as good as it was when Bradford was in there going 3 and out and hiding his complete incompetence behind short, worthless completions.

Bradford at 15 million dollars for the year will probably be the most overpaid player in the NFL at the end of the year. In no way was he done wrong and there is absolutely no reason for him to see the field again barring injury emergencies.

I honestly don't see how this is a debate. Bradford, at best, is a game manager. A guy who does nothing exceptional but takes reasonable care of the ball and, usually, won't single handedly lose you a game, but he carry a team to a win either. At his best, he is a poor man's Alex Smith. A team like this cannot have any success with that kind of player, they need a QB who can pull of some dynamic plays here and there, even if it comes with risk.

 

[Cheesebeef]

QBR takes into account the situation. It's why check down QBs like Bradford look bad in it. A 6 yard completion on 3rd and 8 is a good result in traditional qb rating, in QBR it's virtually worthless.

They had 2 good drives in the Bears game, then were as inept as ever, maybe more so because turnovers came along with the 3 and outs. The offense looked disjointed because it's a bad offense, it was made even more so by having timid, awful play from the quarterback.

In Bradford's 3 starts we had a grand total of THREE scoring drives. In Rosen's two we've had 6. So yes, I will say, the offense is still bad, but it's twice as good as it was when Bradford was in there going 3 and out and hiding his complete incompetence behind short, worthless completions.

Bradford at 15 million dollars for the year will probably be the most overpaid player in the NFL at the end of the year. In no way was he done wrong and there is absolutely no reason for him to see the field again barring injury emergencies.

I honestly don't see how this is a debate. Bradford, at best, is a game manager. A guy who does nothing exceptional but takes reasonable care of the ball and, usually, won't single handedly lose you a game, but he carry a team to a win either. At his best, he is a poor man's Alex Smith. A team like this cannot have any success with that kind of player, they need a QB who can pull of some dynamic plays here and there, even if it comes with risk.

dude... don't bother. Mokler keeps saying how bradford was getting better as he got more comfortable... even though in the previous game (against what is starting to look like a VERY mediocre D) against the Rams the O set futility records and the next game, bradford had a good first quarter... and then crapped the bed the rest of the game throwing for a whopping 92 yards for the majority of the next three quarters with 2 interceptions and a Fumble.

He wasn't getting better. He had a good quarter and then looked just as bad as he had the previous two games... actually worse, because we weren't moving the ball in the last three quarters and he was turning the ball over and over and over again.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

QBR isn't an official stat, it's an ESPN contrivance. And I'm not arguing that Bradford was twice as good as Rosen, just refuting that the offense is twice as good now. It just isn't.

I also think you're discounting just how disjointed the offense was to start the year. There's no argument that they looked anemic but by the Bears game, they were showing some progress. Granted, Bradford had the turnovers but he was also pushing the ball down the field and the offense was showing some life.

Just as Rosen isn't elevating above a lousy situation I don't think Bradford should have realistically done so. I really don't think that he deserved to be relegated to deactivated.

Moklerman, I understand why it bothers you that Bradford is so vilified. Some of it seems truly mean-spirited, and you have to wonder about the character of individuals that appear to hate someone that I'm sure they don't know personally. It's kind of sad.

It's also true that Bradford led two scoring drives against CHI. Staked us to a 14-0 lead, and as I was watching the game, I thought to myself, wow, Bradford is carving them up.

But of course the wheels came of the offense after that point. Why? Could have been the play calling.

But what was not McCoy's fault, or Kirk's fault, or anybody but Bradford's fault, were the three turnovers. Bradford did not take care of the ball, and I think it cost us that game.

And if you look at Bradford's career, you have concede that he hasn't accomplished a whole lot, other than, haha, he's made a ton of money. My point here is it's not realistic to keep firing him out there, hoping for a Warner-like renaissance.

And so we come to the point where Bradford is now benched. Was it just that he was benched? Would you have benched him after the CHI game Moklerman? I guess it depends on the individual. I guess I might have tried to stick it out till the bye week. But, when viewed objectively, I think it's fair to say that, with each loss, and with each miscue, Bradford looked less and less deserving of the starting role. Starting Rosen against SEA was certainly not the worst coaching decision in history.

I think the deactivation has to be viewed in the context of all of the above sir. Part business, but also part punishment for a performance that has firmly underwhelmed.

No, it was not realistic to expect Bradford to elevate the offense to anything but average. But it was realistic to expect a 10 year veteran to be more careful with the ball when his team had a 14 or 7 point lead. That was really disappointing.

Is the offense "twice as good" with Rosen? It's a subjective question. It certainly didn't look like it against SF (save one play), but neither did Rosen turn the ball over in that game Moklerman, and an intelligent fan like you knows how important turnovers are in the NFL. Rosen's ball security against the niners gave our defense the chance to win that game, and they did. Are we sure Bradford would have done as well? If we conclude that he probably would not have taken care of the ball as well as Rosen did, then can we also conclude that the offense was "twice as good" with Rosen? It would not be the silliest thing anyone has ever written on a message board.

But again, I'm with you. Kicking Bradford while he's down is deplorable. Much of the criticism of him is over the top, and the evaluation of his performance is often laced with half-truths, and hyperbole. It's so bad, that it makes one want to come to his defense. The way anyone with common decency would want to come the defense of a person being attacked by an ignorant, unruly mob. So thank you, and have a good evening sir.

 

[Krangodnzr]

So you are saying that he should get the $4 million even if he isn't earning it? That makes no sense.

 

[daves]

Bradford's QBR, 25. Rosen's 63. As pathetic as Bradford's baseline stats were, they were actually less effective in practice. Rosen's completion percentage isn't as high because he tries passes that actually have a potential reward if completed. Bradford on the other hand consistently threw 4 yard passes on 3rd and long.

I don't even know how this is debatable. Bradford had one QUARTER on the whole where he wasn't atrocious, which he promptly followed with the worst run of play we saw from him all year, leading to his benching.

This x 1000!
...dbs

 

[moklerman]

Moklerman, I understand why it bothers you that Bradford is so vilified. Some of it seems truly mean-spirited, and you have to wonder about the character of individuals that appear to hate someone that I'm sure they don't know personally. It's kind of sad.

It's also true that Bradford led two scoring drives against CHI. Staked us to a 14-0 lead, and as I was watching the game, I thought to myself, wow, Bradford is carving them up.

But of course the wheels came of the offense after that point. Why? Could have been the play calling.

But what was not McCoy's fault, or Kirk's fault, or anybody but Bradford's fault, were the three turnovers. Bradford did not take care of the ball, and I think it cost us that game.

And if you look at Bradford's career, you have concede that he hasn't accomplished a whole lot, other than, haha, he's made a ton of money. My point here is it's not realistic to keep firing him out there, hoping for a Warner-like renaissance.

And so we come to the point where Bradford is now benched. Was it just that he was benched? Would you have benched him after the CHI game Moklerman? I guess it depends on the individual. I guess I might have tried to stick it out till the bye week. But, when viewed objectively, I think it's fair to say that, with each loss, and with each miscue, Bradford looked less and less deserving of the starting role. Starting Rosen against SEA was certainly not the worst coaching decision in history.

I think the deactivation has to be viewed in the context of all of the above sir. Part business, but also part punishment for a performance that has firmly underwhelmed.

No, it was not realistic to expect Bradford to elevate the offense to anything but average. But it was realistic to expect a 10 year veteran to be more careful with the ball when his team had a 14 or 7 point lead. That was really disappointing.

Is the offense "twice as good" with Rosen? It's a subjective question. It certainly didn't look like it against SF (save one play), but neither did Rosen turn the ball over in that game Moklerman, and an intelligent fan like you knows how important turnovers are in the NFL. Rosen's ball security against the niners gave our defense the chance to win that game, and they did. Are we sure Bradford would have done as well? If we conclude that he probably would not have taken care of the ball as well as Rosen did, then can we also conclude that the offense was "twice as good" with Rosen? It would not be the silliest thing anyone has ever written on a message board.

But again, I'm with you. Kicking Bradford while he's down is deplorable. Much of the criticism of him is over the top, and the evaluation of his performance is often laced with half-truths, and hyperbole. It's so bad, that it makes one want to come to his defense. The way anyone with common decency would want to come the defense of a person being attacked by an ignorant, unruly mob. So thank you, and have a good evening sir.

Honestly, if I was in charge, I would have started Rosen from day 1. There really wasn't any point in approaching it any other way. When a regime drafts a first round QB there isn't any other outcome and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

But, as it was, Bradford did deserve to be benched. He had a bad day. But I don't know that I would have taken away his opportunity to redeem himself that day. QB's go through those things. For Bradford to go through it was an unusual thing. So, how much leash do you give your starting QB? In a relatively meaningless game, I think any QB should get the whole game. But, what if Bradford had pulled it together enough to eek out a win? Does this staff then still bench him the following week?

I completely understand wanting to get the Rosen era started but I don't give this staff credit for knowing how to do it. Benching Bradford and making him the backup is perfectly understandable. Deactivating him is what I think is too much. It just resonates wrong on so many levels. How does a coaching staff go from "he's our unquestioned leader" to "he doesn't deserve a roster spot" like that? What does that say to the other players? Do they think everything's working well and Bradford wasn't getting it? Does Wilks gain some coaching cred for putting the hammer down on someone who performed poorly?

I don't think so. I think it all comes across as a staff that's in over their heads and doesn't really know what to do and is willing to blame a player for their own shortcomings. I've tried to think of another time that a healthy starting QB has gone from starter to inactive like this and I can't come up with an example. I'm guessing there are a couple but it's still unusual. Which brings up the bonus money. IMO, that money was health related and colors my perception of this situation. If one feels it was performance related I can see why keeping it from the player would be warranted...sort of. But, I also think that it's pretty petty to stick it to a guy like that. I don't think it's warranted for them to make an example of Bradford and to punish him. Which is how I feel it looks. Maybe he does deserve it for some reason that I'm unaware but I usually reserve that for guys who have made bad decisions or had a bad attitude.

Bradford is healthy, willing and still contributing any way that he can. He isn't a distraction or negatively impacting the team in any way. That isn't a guy you stick it to.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Bradford is healthy, willing and still contributing any way that he can. He isn't a distraction or negatively impacting the team in any way. That isn't a guy you stick it to.

You do realize that paying nonguaranteed bonuses takes up cap space? This isn't sticking it to him; if he isn't playing there is no way in hell you give up future cap space, and thus future ability to be competitive for a guy WHO ISN'T GOING TO PLAY.

As it stands, Bradford is making over $15 million to not even play. He is easily the most overpaid backup in football, and you are basically advocating that he be paid MORE.

 

[moklerman]

You do realize that paying nonguaranteed bonuses takes up cap space? This isn't sticking it to him; if he isn't playing there is no way in hell you give up future cap space, and thus future ability to be competitive for a guy WHO ISN'T GOING TO PLAY.

As it stands, Bradford is making over $15 million to not even play. He is easily the most overpaid backup in football, and you are basically advocating that he be paid MORE.

It is my understanding that the bonus was an incentive to stay healthy. It wasn't a performance based incentive(like making the pro-bowl, leading the league in TD's, etc.). To deactivate a healthy player who has a health incentive in his contract seems like a poor move to me.

As far as the future ability of the team to stay competitive, I'm not sure I understand your POV. The bonus only counts toward this year, doesn't it? Whether it's just this year or spread between this year and next, is $2.5 - $5M the difference between being competitive and not for the Cardinals? Are they even spending to the cap each year?

 

[gbrim21]

Unused cap space can be rolled over to next year.

It is my understanding that the bonus was an incentive to stay healthy. It wasn't a performance based incentive(like making the pro-bowl, leading the league in TD's, etc.). To deactivate a healthy player who has a health incentive in his contract seems like a poor move to me.

As far as the future ability of the team to stay competitive, I'm not sure I understand your POV. The bonus only counts toward this year, doesn't it? Whether it's just this year or spread between this year and next, is $2.5 - $5M the difference between being competitive and not for the Cardinals? Are they even spending to the cap each year?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[moklerman]

Unused cap space can be rolled over to next year.

So does that mean that the $4M left of his bonus would work against them next year or not be an issue either way? I'm under the impression that the Cardinals have tons of cap space next year but I don't know about this year. It seems that they are not struggling to re-sign players or free agents so I question the validity of "saving" this particular bonus money for competitive reasons.

 

[gbrim21]

So does that mean that the $4M left of his bonus would work against them next year or not be an issue either way? I'm under the impression that the Cardinals have tons of cap space next year but I don't know about this year. It seems that they are not struggling to re-sign players or free agents so I question the validity of "saving" this particular bonus money for competitive reasons.

The way I understand it, if a player signs for (in this case) up to $20M but $15M is guaranteed, they have to allocate $20M of current cap space to that contract. At the end of the year any amount not met by bonuses, in this case roughly $4M doesn't apply, and any unused cap space from the prior year can roll to the next year.

To your question, I don't think we're currently up against the cap so yeah I don't think the money savings will help this year. I guess my assumption is that since Bidwill has shown willingness to spend up to the cap with BA in town, I expect next year when they decide to actually be competitive that he will. If not and he puts it in his wallet...frankly screw this team.

Rosen's last game wasn't great but I think he'll end the season showing he's our guy. If that's the case, all that cap space can be used to fill other gaps, which is massive. It's why I think we can rebuild in a year instead of 2 or 3...as long as we hit the reset button on this coaching staff and bring in someone competent.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[moklerman]

The way I understand it, if a player signs for (in this case) up to $20M but $15M is guaranteed, they have to allocate $20M of current cap space to that contract. At the end of the year any amount not met by bonuses, in this case roughly $4M doesn't apply, and any unused cap space from the prior year can roll to the next year.

To your question, I don't think we're currently up against the cap so yeah I don't think the money savings will help this year. I guess my assumption is that since Bidwill has shown willingness to spend up to the cap with BA in town, I expect next year when they decide to actually be competitive that he will. If not and he puts it in his wallet...frankly screw this team.

Rosen's last game wasn't great but I think he'll end the season showing he's our guy. If that's the case, all that cap space can be used to fill other gaps, which is massive. It's why I think we can rebuild in a year instead of 2 or 3...as long as we hit the reset button on this coaching staff and bring in someone competent.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I agree that Rosen's future looks bright and the Rams show that 1 year can make a big difference. The Cardinals would need to make some wholesale changes just as they did but it's certainly possible. Sadly, I think of and see too many similarities between these Cardinals and Fisher's Rams. For the Cardinals to move forward, I'd clean house and give Rosen a fresh start(similar to Goff).

I don't know that there are any McVay's out there for the Cardinals to find but Wilks was a very uninspired choice this year. I doubt they'll cut ties with him after just one year though.

 

[Krangodnzr]

It is my understanding that the bonus was an incentive to stay healthy. It wasn't a performance based incentive(like making the pro-bowl, leading the league in TD's, etc.). To deactivate a healthy player who has a health incentive in his contract seems like a poor move to me.

As far as the future ability of the team to stay competitive, I'm not sure I understand your POV. The bonus only counts toward this year, doesn't it? Whether it's just this year or spread between this year and next, is $2.5 - $5M the difference between being competitive and not for the Cardinals? Are they even spending to the cap each year?

Be healthy, AND be active. And as pointed out, paying him that money effects next year's cap space. If he isn't starting, he doesn't deserve the game bonus.

This is my last response, because frankly your take is patently absurd.

 

[moklerman]

Be healthy, AND be active. And as pointed out, paying him that money effects next year's cap space. If he isn't starting, he doesn't deserve the game bonus.

This is my last response, because frankly your take is patently absurd.

Talk about absurd. You really think the cap is going to come down to that?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Talk about absurd. You really think the cap is going to come down to that?

where did he ever say the cap was going to come down to that? Absurd is giving a guy 4 million dollars for no reason whatsoever as opposed to having another 4 million to play with next that can actually help the team. I mean, we're all in agreement that this team needs A LOT more talent. Knowing that, wouldn't you set yourself up to have as much money as possible next off-season to go get that talent? Giving 4 million to Bradford literally helps no one but Bradford. It doesn't help us in the present and it takes away resources for the future.

I really don't get why any Cardinals fans continues arguing so vociferously for a guy who's literally never done anything for this franchise, isn't a part of the present and won't be part of the future.

 

[moklerman]

where did he ever say the cap was going to come down to that? Absurd is giving a guy 4 million dollars for no reason whatsoever as opposed to having another 4 million to play with next that can actually help the team. I mean, we're all in agreement that this team needs A LOT more talent. Knowing that, wouldn't you set yourself up to have as much money as possible next off-season to go get that talent? Giving 4 million to Bradford literally helps no one but Bradford. It doesn't help us in the present and it takes away resources for the future.

I really don't get why any Cardinals fans continues arguing so vociferously for a guy who's literally never done anything for this franchise, isn't a part of the present and won't be part of the future.

I think I've explained why I think it isn't right and why it may not be a good thing for the Cardinals. I really wonder how FA's will view the situation in the future. If the Cardinals are simply clinical in their decisions and will pick practical over player, I'm not sure that will serve them in the long run.

 

[Phrazbit]

I think I've explained why I think it isn't right and why it may not be a good thing for the Cardinals. I really wonder how FA's will view the situation in the future. If the Cardinals are simply clinical in their decisions and will pick practical over player, I'm not sure that will serve them in the long run.

Production vs salary; Bradford will probably be the most overpaid player in the NFL this year, and honestly, I think most players around the league view Bradford (a QB, chosen high, under the old draft salaries who has never been an impact player) with zero sympathy. We've already heard it a lot.

I am not trying to pile unnecessary hate on Bradford, but I doubt it is possible to find another QB with a resume so pedestrian who has even sniffed his career earnings.

His salary this year combined with his career earnings add up to 145 million dollars.

The return on that 145 million has produced:

0 All-Pro selections
0 Pro-Bowls
0 Playoff Apperances
0 Winning Seasons
0 Seasons as the QB of a top 10 offense, he's only been top TWENTY once.

I really doubt anyone is going to look at us paying Bradford 15 million for 3 scoring drives and think "man, they screwed the guy".

If anything I think top tier free agents will look at the Bradford signing as the move of a team who doesn't know what they're doing.

 

[moklerman]

Production vs salary; Bradford will probably be the most overpaid player in the NFL this year, and honestly, I think most players around the league view Bradford (a QB, chosen high, under the old draft salaries who has never been an impact player) with zero sympathy. We've already heard it a lot.

I am not trying to pile unnecessary hate on Bradford, but I doubt it is possible to find another QB with a resume so pedestrian who has even sniffed his career earnings.

His salary this year combined with his career earnings add up to 145 million dollars.

The return on that 145 million has produced:

0 All-Pro selections
0 Pro-Bowls
0 Playoff Apperances
0 Winning Seasons
0 Seasons as the QB of a top 10 offense, he's only been top TWENTY once.

I really doubt anyone is going to look at us paying Bradford 15 million for 3 scoring drives and think "man, they screwed the guy".

If anything I think top tier free agents will look at the Bradford signing as the move of a team who doesn't know what they're doing.

I think there's a difference between signing him and how he was treated once signed though. I agree that his resume' to contract ratio has been the topic of debate and criticism but I'm not sure why he's become the face of such criticism. Look at what Suh has (not)done, how he's moved around and how he's currently performing compared to the same type of criticism received. Has anyone ever brought up his career salary and how he hasn't transformed any of his teams into champions?

On the subject of Suh and as an addendum to what I find unusually acceptable mention and criticism of a player's contract, isn't it odd that Suh can call out and target Bradford specifically and no one blinks? I wonder if similar thoughts were expressed about Brees or Rodgers people would be as indifferent about it?

Anyway, I think if you take away the old salary structure of the draft, Bradford's contracts haven't been ridiculous. He's missed a lot of playing time and he's been on some historically bad teams. While his numbers haven't been historic by any means, I think he has shown that he's at least a capable starting caliber QB. Perhaps I lend it too much credence but when you look at what he did with the Rams and even what he did with the Eagles and Vikings under the circumstances, his play on the field was relatively commendable. Most will not accept the particular circumstances as reason but I think there is more there than just comparing the stat lines of other QB's.

This year for example. Bradford had a bad time of it and didn't even play to his normal levels. We've all seen that this offense is terrible and I think we all know that being a placeholder(at best) QB is rarely a productive outcome. A new HC, a new (terrible)OC installing a new offense with a weak WR corps, ill-used RB, etc., etc. all add up to a terrible situation for a QB. But I also suppose that most, if not all of that will be discounted and probably not even considered when discussing Bradford. None of it will matter and it'll all just be chalked up to Bradford being terrible and he's a thief and it's perfectly acceptable to deactivate him even though that is highly unusual.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to criticize Bradford for not staying healthy and not being aggressive enough at times. But to suggest that he's a thief and not even good enough to be a starter or worthy of a roster spot on this particular squad seems excessive.

 

[Paso Fino]

Another post suggests the players are not happy with how Bradford was treated. It seems to me that part of the problem is the expectations so many people had about the Cardinals at the beginning of the season. We were led to believe that with the new coaching team the Cardinals would be major contenders. But as we know, the first couple games were terrible. There then seemed to be a need to find a culprit. Bradford fit this to a tee. He is highly paid and made some mistakes. But as weeks have gone by, we've learned that, whether its the coaching staff or whatever, the Cardinals are horrible. I'm a little surprised that Johnson was not criticized as much as Bradford. His play has been awful. Here again, part of the problem with Johnson is poor play calling and poor blocking but he certainly has had his share of mistakes.

 

[azsouthendzone]

Use the money saved from not playing Bradford to buy out Wilks.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Use the money saved from not playing Bradford to buy out Wilks.

I was thinking this as well.

 

[Paso Fino]

Isn't his salary guaranteed? I think its only the roster bonuses that can be avoided.

 

[moklerman]

I'm sure everyone's pretty pissed (hopefully numb by now) so I might as well point out that this whole situation obviously will make any QB look worse than he is. I hope that is considered when the Bradford conversation goes on.

 

[NittanyCard]

I'm sure everyone's pretty pissed (hopefully numb by now) so I might as well point out that this whole situation obviously will make any QB look worse than he is. I hope that is considered when the Bradford conversation goes on.

Exactly why the players reacted how they did to Bradfords benching.

This is offense is terrible. Bradfords brain and arm didn't just become mush