Madden NFL 12 Player Ratings - Seattle Seahawks and St. Louis Rams

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by Apostle

Wait, what? He didn't do anything to prove it? How about having the third best season by a rookie QB in NFL history, on a team that won ONE game the year before he arrived?

Just because every rookie QB either sits the bench their rookie year or sucks their rookie year, doesn't mean that the first time that a rookie plays ok we should rate them as probably a top 10-15 QB in the league.

Quote: Originally Posted by Apostle

He was not outplayed by Charlie Whitehurst. I was at that game, and he wasn't. Statistically, they were close. Whitehurst was able to manage the game a little more efficiently, but that was it. The Rams' group of practice squad receivers dropped at least six or seven passes that I counted. You said he couldn't "muster up a TD" but you fail to mention the 55-yard strike that he threw to Danario Alexander who let the ball go right through his hands. On that day, Bradford was not the problem. I wonder if some of you guys even watched that game, or just looked at the box score and called it good.

1. Just because Bradford wasn't the problem, doesn't mean he played well enough to get a win. He played like a rookie QB in that game.

2. Charlie Whitehurst was making some very nice throws and did a very good job of managing the game and protecting the ball.

3. You talk about how bad the Rams WRs were (which they were), but you don't give Whitehurst any credit for playing with his ****tastic WRs.

4. Yes, Alexander dropped a deep ball. That catch wouldn't have even put them inside the redzone.

5. Bradford got caught staring his receivers down (like a rookie QB, no problem with that moving forward). He had at least 4 or 5 passes batted down at the line of scrimmage from staring his guys down and then threw an INT into double coverage because he stared his guy down.

6. Bradford led his team to two field goals, and probably would have only been one if his team hadn't stripped Marshawn Lynch in field goal range.

Quote: Originally Posted by Apostle

Bradford nearly got his team to the playoffs. Let the NFC West jokes commence, but the bottom line is that he gave that team life. A six-win turnaround in one year attests to that.

I don't even need to point out how unbelievably ****ty that division was last year. Not to mention the fact that the only team that the Rams beat this past year that was even decent was the Chargers. The other 6 wins all came against awful teams (maybe the Seahawks aren't awful, but they're pretty damn close).

Quote: Originally Posted by Apostle

And uh, I'd be willing to bet my house that all 32 GM's, if given the choice, would choose Sam Bradford over Tim Tebow. I like Tebow more than Bradford on a "fan" level, and fully believe that he will succeed, but I'm kind of at a loss on how the two could even be compared at this point in their respective careers...

I already pointed out that Bradford is a better player than Tebow. You would be crazy to pick Tebow over Bradford. But that doesn't change the fact that Tebow outplayed him in his 3 starts, and certainly doesn't change the fact that Bradford should not be rated with the likes of Eli Manning, Josh Freeman, and Tony Romo.

[infemous]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

Just because every rookie QB either sits the bench their rookie year or sucks their rookie year, doesn't mean that the first time that a rookie plays ok we should rate them as probably a top 10-15 QB in the league. 1. Just because Bradford wasn't the problem, doesn't mean he played well enough to get a win. He played like a rookie QB in that game. 2. Charlie Whitehurst was making some very nice throws and did a very good job of managing the game and protecting the ball. 3. You talk about how bad the Rams WRs were (which they were), but you don't give Whitehurst any credit for playing with his ****tastic WRs. 4. Yes, Alexander dropped a deep ball. That catch wouldn't have even put them inside the redzone. 5. Bradford got caught staring his receivers down (like a rookie QB, no problem with that moving forward). He had at least 4 or 5 passes batted down at the line of scrimmage from staring his guys down and then threw an INT into double coverage because he stared his guy down. 6. Bradford led his team to two field goals, and probably would have only been one if his team hadn't stripped Marshawn Lynch in field goal range. I don't even need to point out how unbelievably ****ty that division was last year. Not to mention the fact that the only team that the Rams beat this past year that was even decent was the Chargers. The other 6 wins all came against awful teams (maybe the Seahawks aren't awful, but they're pretty damn close). I already pointed out that Bradford is a better player than Tebow. You would be crazy to pick Tebow over Bradford. But that doesn't change the fact that Tebow outplayed him in his 3 starts, and certainly doesn't change the fact that Bradford should not be rated with the likes of Eli Manning, Josh Freeman, and Tony Romo.

LOL dude just stop, you're embarrassing yourself here.

Many props to the Seahawk fan defending Bradford, I think you're the only one I don't despise. Congrats to you for being a fair evaluator of talent and the fan of the sport these others wish they were.

Ok, now let me deal with your ridiculous argument sir, for it is too nonsensical to ignore.

Name 15 QBs in the league you'd have over Bradford. In all honesty now...

OK rookie season? Come on dude, are you playing dumb? There have only been 2 better rookie seasons STATISTICALLY, and if you watched the games, you'd see that Sam demolishes the eye test too. How many rookie QBs have you seen step into a huddle and command it like he did. How many rookie QBs have you seen immediately elevate the play of his pedestrian supporting cast?
Before you say someone like Roethlisberger or someone, look at draft position. The Rams earned that 1st ovr pick by being AWFUL. Not moving up like the Jets did for Sanchez. There was a solid Defensive core, and Steven Jackson. Sam Bradford came in and everything else improved too. That's beyond statistical greatness. Bradford didn't have an elite run game like Matt Ryan did, or a great WR in Roddy White. Definitely didn't have the Jets or Ravens defense either... So please, before you throw more crap about Sam's 'OK rookie season' at me, make sure you got your facts right.

I still wanna know 15 better QBs than Sam btw... lol

If there was logic to the ratings, I'd imagine the reasoning would be that Sam Bradford's skillset is better than the majority of starting QBs and as such, with his skills being added into a formula, equate to a high OVR.
What do you want from a QB? He's got it all.
-Leader
-Smart
-Accurate (beyond belief)
-Poised
-Athletic
-More than enough arm to make any type of throw.
-His accuracy is great on a short and intermediate level, and good (not great) on the deep level. Excellent throw on the run, decent play action fake.
-Throws a tight spiral, catchable ball.
-Quick release

Now about the Seahawks game... SMH

Bro, you're using one game to evaluate Bradford's talent? How about you analyse the San Diego game, or the Denver game or even the first Seahawks game? Or the home game vs San Fran?

You can't make a well founded argument about a player you clearly know nothing about from one game.

Firstly, Sam WAS A ROOKIE QB. You expect him to play like Peyton Manning as a rookie? Because if you compare the statistics, rookie season to rookie season, they're not far off and Sam broke several of Peyton's rookie records. He also didn't have Marvin Harrison to throw to, nor Marshall Faulk in the backfield.

2nd. Charlie Whitehurst threw tosses all game and made one nice throw that was fortunately caught. His first few drives literally consisted of him throwing swing passes and screens. Don't try and say Whitehurst outplayed Bradford.
The Seahawks as a TEAM and specifically the coaching staff outplayed the Rams.

3rd. Name a Rams receiver from last season. I dare you to. You know that the starters vs the Seahawks were Laurent Robinson (officially, according to advanced stats, the 3rd Worst WR in the entire league last year.), Brandon Gibson a 2nd year WR ex 6th round draft choice, and Danny Amendola (UDFA). Danario Alexander a rookie UDFA also made a few appearances and crucially missed two VERY catchable balls that would have put the Rams in a position to win the game.
I think most people would prefer to have ex 1st Round WR Mike Williams over any of those other guys. Or is it just me?

Alexander's dropped ball, well THAT one, would have put the Rams in field goal range. There was another DX drop, as well as Fells' crucial drops and a couple of miscues by Robinson and Gibson...

I won't excuse the staring down of his receivers, but that was the first game it was an actual issue. He did it once or twice in each other game, but it appeared playing on MNF at Qwest Field rattled him and all the other inexperienced guys out on the field. That's a rookie thing and will be a concern if it carries over into this upcoming season.

You do realise that the Rams playcalling in that game, specifically on offense, was AWFUL. Steven Jackson was carving the D, but was limited to 10 carries, and as such the playoff hopes of the Rams rested on a (can't repeat this enough) ROOKIE QB and journeymen WRs and TEs.

Normally if a team picks 1st Overall, they should get a soft schedule. It's the way the league is structured homie. No soft schedule excuses for this upcoming season. The Rams play the last 4 Superbowl champs.
Also, those 6 horrible teams the Rams beat last year, were all supposed to be better than the Rams. How can you say just because the Rams beat ****ty teams that it's less of an achievement coming off 1-15? C'mon son!

Now you're really making me laugh. Tebow OUTPLAYED Bradford in his 3 starts?
You mean the same Tebow who only registered 50% cp vs the Texans??? I don't need to explain why I mention the Texans do I?
The same 'QB' who not only had a vastly superior supporting cast in those 3 starts (besides defense and RB) but the same 'QB' who's mechanics and accuracy are so bad I'm surprised his WRs didn't give up on his throws. instead they bailed him out and took the subsequent hits.
It's quite ridiculous how you and/or anyone even tries to bring up Tebow when talking about Bradford. You're literally comparing a QB to a FB here...

The whole thing about him being rated with those QBs is down to how jacked up the rating system is.
It should be that a 70 is a useable starting player, in which I'd rate Bradford at 79, Eli at 81, Romo at 77 and Freeman at 83. For perspective, I'd have Peyton Manning at 92 as the top QB.

Don't hate on Bradford and make stupid comments about his ability because you have beef with the awfulness of the ratings system on Madden.

With this system, and this souped up OVR approach to Madden, Bradford is exactly where he should be in Madden and where he is in reality... on the cusp of elite status.

[TeixeiraFanatic]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

Honestly, based on Tebow's 3 starts, he outplayed Sam Bradford last year (obviously a small sample size). Tebow put up more yards per game, well more TDs per game, and turned the ball over at just a slightly higher rate. Meanwhile, he led as many 4th quarter comebacks in 3 games as Bradford did in 16, and Tebow rejuvenated a Broncos team that looked dead on the field up until Tebow came back. Suddenly Brandon Lloyd became a big time threat again, suddenly the defense could actually stop offenses every once in awhile, and suddenly the Broncos were scoring more points than they had the rest of the season. Meanwhile, in Bradford's biggest game of the season, he was outplayed by the Seahawks' backup QB, and couldn't muster up a TD as his team lost their chance at the playoffs. Do I think Tebow is a better QB than Bradford? Hell no. Do I think he's a better player than Bradford? Again, hell no. But did Bradford really do anything that warrants being rated at just about the same level as Eli Manning and presumably Josh Freeman, Tony Romo, and a bunch of other good-great QBs, absolutely not. They should rate him based on what he did last year, and then give him an A for potential so that he will probably develop into a great QB. He isn't there yet, and even if he is, he didn't show anything to prove it last year.

And how did Tebow outperform Bradford exactly?

He had three starts, 1 vs. Raiders (20th best passer rating against), 1 vs. Texans (worst passer rating against), 1 vs. Chargers (4th best passer rating against). Of those three, Bradford played against two, Oakland and San Diego. Let us compare the games these two played against them.

Tim Tebow stats:
OAK: 8-16, 50% comp, 138yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
SD: 16-36, 44% comp, 205yds, 2 TD, 2 INT

Sam Bradford stats:
OAK: 14-25, 56% comp, 167yds, 2 TD, 1 INT
SD: 18-31, 58.1% comp, 198yds, 1 TD, 0 INT

It seems to me, that Sam played better against the two than Tebow did.

I'm not gonna give Tebow a whole lot of recognition to his game against Houston because of awful they were at stopping the passing game. I will give him some because no matter the team you play against, it is worthy of noting he did pass for over 300 yards.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Bradford had a good rookie season. But that doesn't mean that Bradford had a good season compared to all of the other QBs in the league, which is how you're supposed to figure out these ratings. That's all I'm saying. Is Bradford a great young QB? Yes. But he's a young QB, and just because he had a good season by rookie standards, does not mean that we should rate him in the same class as guys like Tony Romo (or in your opinion, higher than Romo, which is just unbelieveable).

That's my main point. He had a great season for a rookie QB, but compared to other QBs in the league, it wasn't special, and certainly wasn't on the level of guys like Freeman, Romo, or Eli Manning. He shouldn't be given the rating based on what he can be, he should earn the rating based on what he's done, and he didn't do anything spectacular that year compared to the other starting QBs in the league.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Tebow, as I've already pointed out, in his 3 starts, he put up a little over 280 yards per game, while Bradford put up somewhere around 215-220 per game if I recall correctly. Bradford scored 19 TDs in 16 games (just barely over 1 per game). Tebow scored 8 TDs in 3 starts (almost 3 TDs per game). Bradford had 15 interceptions and 7 fumbles in 16 games, so 22 possible turnovers (obviously some fumbles weren't lost), or a little under 1.5 turnovers per game. Tebow had 3 INTs and 1 fumble in 3 starts, so they turned it over at about the same rate, with Tebow turning it over just barely less. Tebow led as many 4th quarter comebacks in 3 starts (1) as Bradford did in his 16 starts, and Tebow's team averaged around 23 points per game in his 3 starts, compared to about 18 per game for Bradford and about 20 per game from Orton before he was benched for Tebow (just pointing out that Denver's offense performed better under Tebow so it wasn't just Tebow being in a better offense, which he was). Also, for what it's worth, ESPN's new QBR gave Tebow about a 54 (just barely above average), while Bradford was below average according to QBR. Obviously it was a very small sample size for Tebow, and still a small sample size for Bradford as well (one season), but besides completion percentage, I'm not sure Bradford did anything better than Tebow in his rookie season.

And again, I do not think that Tebow is a better QB or a better player than Bradford. I believe that Bradford is a promising young QB and with time, will be one of the top 10 QBs in the league. However, right now, it's a bit premature to group him with the likes of Tony Romo, Eli Manning, or any of the other mid to high 80's.

Edit: And to your point about 15 QBs that I would take over Bradford, there aren't 15. If I were starting a team, Bradford would probably be one of the top 10 QBs at least on my list of guys that I would want. But that's because of what Bradford can be, not because of what he is right now.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by TeixeiraFanatic

And how did Tebow outperform Bradford exactly? He had three starts, 1 vs. Raiders (20th best passer rating against), 1 vs. Texans (worst passer rating against), 1 vs. Chargers (4th best passer rating against). Of those three, Bradford played against two, Oakland and San Diego. Let us compare the games these two played against them. Tim Tebow stats: OAK: 8-16, 50% comp, 138yds, 1 TD, 0 INT, 8 rushes, 78 yards, 1 TD SD: 16-36, 44% comp, 205yds, 2 TD, 2 INT, 13 rushes, 94 yards, 1 TD Sam Bradford stats: OAK: 14-25, 56% comp, 167yds, 2 TD, 1 INT SD: 18-31, 58.1% comp, 198yds, 1 TD, 0 INT, 6 rushes, 8 yards It seems to me, that Sam played better against the two than Tebow did. I'm not gonna give Tebow a whole lot of recognition to his game against Houston because of awful they were at stopping the passing game. I will give him some because no matter the team you play against, it is worthy of noting he did pass for over 300 yards.

So in these games, Tebow put up 515 yards compared to Bradford's 365. Tebow had 5 TDs compared to Bradford's 3. And Tebow had 2 turnovers compared to Bradford's 1. Tebow's offense scored 51 points compared to Bradford's 34 points. I don't really see how Bradford outplayed Tebow in those games.

[DeuceDouglas]

Quote: Originally Posted by infemous

Congrats to you for being a fair evaluator of talent and the fan of the sport these others wish they were.

Lol so you're idea of a fair evaluator of talent and fan is someone who agrees with you. Everyone else is not a fan and doesn't know anything. You're opinion throughout has been much too biased and homegrown to be even be considered.

Quote: Originally Posted by infemous

Name 15 QBs in the league you'd have over Bradford.

Quote: Originally Posted by infemous

I still wanna know 15 better QBs than Sam btw... lol

1. Tom Brady
2. Peyton Manning
3. Drew Brees
4. Aaron Rodgers
5. Philip Rivers
6. Ben Roethlisberger
7. Matt Ryan
8. Michael Vick
9. Matt Schaub
10. Joe Flacco
11. Josh Freeman
12. Matt Cassel
13. Matt Hasslebeck
14. Matthew Stafford
15. Eli Manning
16. Tony Romo
17. Kevin Kolb

There are more that are pretty borderline.

Quote: Originally Posted by infemous

-Accurate (beyond belief)

I just don't understand how if you're accurate beyond belief why the offense wouldn't stretch the field, or atleast attempt to stretch the field. Like I said before 8% of his 590 attempts (also a rookie record that could lead to a misleading STATISTICAL rookie season) were thrown more than 20 yards down the field. That's 47 passes. His completion percentage was only 60%. Were the receivers really that bad? Did they drop that many passes that would skew a completion percentage that much? 36 drops last year. That is quite a bit but 100 of his incompletions were "poor throws." When you're making that many short passes and nearly half of your incompletions are because of poor throws can you really be considered on the cusp of elite?

Just in case you need STATISTICAL confirmation.

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/playerstats.asp?id=23976

And for the record: I would rate Bradford at an 79-80 overall. There's no question that he took part in turning around a horrible team in a year. But nothing I saw convinced me that he is on the cusp of being elite. He has enormous potential but until either his coaches trust him to do more or St. Louis can get something that resembles a weapon, he will never reach that potential and will never be elite.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=9017

A good article that points out why Bradford's season was so overrated.

Note: The guy that wrote this later stated that he still thinks Bradford is a great young QB prospect, but he simply doesn't think any higher of him after his rookie season than he did when he left Oklahoma.

[therockstar2005]

Ok, so his season might be overrated, and his Madden rating might be overrated. I still think there's something to the supporting cast that needs to be considered, and I wouldn't say that statistics are everything for measuring a quarterback (a lot of what I would guess has gotten people high on Bradford is the intangibles - poise in the pocket, leadership on the field, that he actually stayed on the field for the whole season unlike some other quarterbacks, etc. - and that's not just in terms of Madden ratings), but fine, his season wasn't as glorious as some of us want to believe. If the Rams are gonna contend this year (which while hopeful I do doubt, our schedule could be really tough and the West is gonna be better than last year) they need to be able to throw downfield. It's definitely why we lost the Seattle game.

I'll still enjoy his 85 ovr Madden rating though, warranted or not. Certainly won't be the first Madden player who was somewhat overrated.