Agreed, but I'm not even saying that. Not every QB is Sam Bradford and had the success that he had in college. He threw 36 touchdown passes in his freshman season at Oklahoma and won the Heisman as a Sophomore. He backed up his ridiculous stats and accolades from college with a highly impressive rookie season. In my opinion, there's not 10 quarterbacks that I'd take over Bradford RIGHT now, let alone 15. I personally think he's going to have a huge second year, because all the guy does is have success wherever he plays. He was not your run of the mill rookie QB and I think that's fairly obvious.
Like I said, I was there, and no, he didn't. The Rams rushed for a paultry 47 yards so he was pretty much on his own. He did not have a 'great' game and I've already admitted as much. Could he have played better? Sure, but he was not the problem for the Rams on the offensive side of the ball that day. There were a handful of dropped passes, so his numbers were not nearly as bad as the box score would indicate. Sure, if I wasn't there, or hadn't watched the game, I would have looked at his line and thought he played pretty poor, but he didn't. He stepped up in a huge game, a game that could have sent his team to the playoffs, and he did enough to win. It was his teammates who let him down. End of story.
No argument there. Clipboard Jesus stepped up and got the job done.
When did I not give Whitehurst credit? Not sure where I said that.
Not really the point. We can speculate all we want, but that catch would have been absolutely huge and the ball was perfectly thrown. So while it might not have put the Rams in the red zone, what it did do was kill a very significant drive.
Yeah, he made mistakes... He'll obviously get better at that.
OK, I get all of that, but the facts are that the Rams could not run the ball, his receivers dropped multiple passes... Bradford made mistakes, as I've already admitted to several times in this thread, but if the worst thing that can be said about him on that day was that Charlie Whitehurst outplayed him on the road, then there is really nothing else to discuss. The Seahawks were at home, and a playoff spot was on the line, and Qwest was rocking. All things considered, Bradford was pretty decent. I came away impressed with him, as did thousands of Seahawks fans as well. I can't tell you how many times I heard guys talking about how good Bradford had been that year, and how bad he'd probably torch us in the future. That is why I respect him. He's a great talent, and by all accounts, a great kid. I wish I could hate the guy due to him being the quarterback of one of our biggest rivals, but I can't.
You didn't need to point it out, but you did.
That's why I preface my posts with that simple acknowledgement. Our division was dog crap last year; but bro, we're going to have to disagree with the Rams beating awful teams. A rookie QB winning games in the NFL is impressive. It's not like he came to a team that was set in other areas and he just had to manage games. In their wins, Bradford played pretty well. I don't care who you're playing, on any given Sunday you better work your *** off if you want a win.
People argue about ratings all day long. It doesn't matter. I don't think it's an exact science and a lot of opinion comes in, obviously. Call me nuts, but I'm taking Bradford THIS year over Manning and Romo. Not Freeman, but as far as being a better QB, I think Bradford has those other two beat. Put him on a team with some talent and weapons and he'd be a monster.
Now, I officially hate you, and need to take a shower, for defending the damn Rams and Sam Bradford.
We disagree, and it's cool. Good discussion, man. I see your points and logic, but hopefully you can see mine as well. Again, I am not homering nothing up here as it's common knowledge that I'm a Seattle fan. I just call it like I see it.