RG III vs Sam Bradford

[WazzuRC]

Build around Bradford and you have a Top 10 QB in my opinion. Any QB would be injury prone in the garbage offense McDaniels put together last year.

[TracerBullet]

It's just an easy choice for me to say they shouldn't even consider trading Bradford unless some team matched what they will get for the #2 pick. They need weapons around Bradford as I think he can be a good QB. Griffin is a good prospect, but i don't think Bradford is some slouch. If I'm St. Louis, I'm hoping Cleveland pulls out all stops for that #2 spot. They could get a good haul of picks, and only move back 2 spots.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by WazzuRC

Build around Bradford and you have a Top 10 QB in my opinion. Any QB would be injury prone in the garbage offense McDaniels put together last year.

Bradford had injury issues before McDaniels got there, and honestly an OC would have trouble with all of the oline and WR issues the Rams had. With that said, I agree with you (don't want to put a number on it like "Top 10" but Bradford has all the potential in the world).

Quote: Originally Posted by TracerBullet

It's just an easy choice for me to say they shouldn't even consider trading Bradford unless some team matched what they will get for the #2 pick. They need weapons around Bradford as I think he can be a good QB. Griffin is a good prospect, but i don't think Bradford is some slouch. If I'm St. Louis, I'm hoping Cleveland pulls out all stops for that #2 spot. They could get a good haul of picks, and only move back 2 spots.

So what if they could get the same amount for Bradford as they would for the #2 pick? That would mean they could draft RG III and build around him in the same way... would it then make sense (again, assuming the monetary difference doesn't exist)?

I think what I'm trying to wrap my head around is the value of a player that was expected to be very good (drafted #1 overall) that we've seen in the pros have a moderate level of success (not enough to say he'll be great but definitely not looking like a bust) vs a player expected to be very good that we haven't seen at the pro level at all. I think I'd still stick with Bradford. Seems like a lot agree, but maybe weren't looking at it quite like that.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Bradford had injury issues before McDaniels got there, and honestly an OC would have trouble with all of the oline and WR issues the Rams had. With that said, I agree with you (don't want to put a number on it like "Top 10" but Bradford has all the potential in the world). So what if they could get the same amount for Bradford as they would for the #2 pick? That would mean they could draft RG III and build around him in the same way... would it then make sense (again, assuming the monetary difference doesn't exist)? I think what I'm trying to wrap my head around is the value of a player that was expected to be very good (drafted #1 overall) that we've seen in the pros have a moderate level of success (not enough to say he'll be great but definitely not looking like a bust) vs a player expected to be very good that we haven't seen at the pro level at all. I think I'd still stick with Bradford. Seems like a lot agree, but maybe weren't looking at it quite like that.

If they could get the same exact package for Bradford, I think they'd do that one in a heartbeat. 1. RGIII will be significantly cheaper than Bradford financially. 2. I just haven't seen anything from Bradford so far to suggest that he'll ever be a great QB. He's looked ok so far in his career, but nothing that I would say is even good in my opinion. Meanwhile, RGIII is a freak of a prospect. 4.4, borderline 4.3 speed, great arm, great accuracy on the deep ball, and pretty much a certified genius. You don't see that come around very often.

[CM Hooe]

Regardless of the answer to the question, I think the Rams are financially tied to Bradford beyond all recourse, at least in the short-term. Wasn't he the last number one draft choice before rookie contract slotting came into effect?

I don't know if you can give up on Bradford yet, either. It's not like he's stunk up the joint like Jimmy Clausen.

[TracerBullet]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

So what if they could get the same amount for Bradford as they would for the #2 pick? That would mean they could draft RG III and build around him in the same way... would it then make sense (again, assuming the monetary difference doesn't exist)? I think what I'm trying to wrap my head around is the value of a player that was expected to be very good (drafted #1 overall) that we've seen in the pros have a moderate level of success (not enough to say he'll be great but definitely not looking like a bust) vs a player expected to be very good that we haven't seen at the pro level at all. I think I'd still stick with Bradford. Seems like a lot agree, but maybe weren't looking at it quite like that.

I think it could make sense then just because it would allow them to not be shackled by Bradford's contract. I would have a hard time trading a #1 pick within 2 years though. However, I would probably end up doing it at this point.

[BlueNGold]

Bradford hasn't even truly gotten a fair shot yet IMO. At least give him some talent before considering shipping him out. Hell, his best receiver has probably been Steven Jackson.

[Stroehms]

Quote: Originally Posted by BlueNGold

Bradford hasn't even truly gotten a fair shot yet IMO. At least give him some talent before considering shipping him out. Hell, his best receiver has probably been Steven Jackson.

Not only is this a sad but true statement but you could also make the case that SJax is his best blocker too.

I read a rumor the other day about the Redskins potentially offering up their 1st (no. 6 ovr), 2nd, 3rd and next years 1st round pick for the no. 2 overall pick this year. Which in my opinion, would be a slam dunk for us/The Rams.