Is the 2009 Sam Bradford inferior to the 2008 Sam Bradford? | Thunderboomer's Blog

I've been watching ESPN programs of late, as many of us do. It seems the "buzz" among pro scouts is that Sam Bradford in 2009 hasn't done as well as the 2008 version. He seems to be less attractive this year than he was last year. Now I have to admit that his injuries call his durability into question - although anyone can be injured. However, I saw where someone posted his numbers re completion percentage in the red zone this year vs. last year. How meaningful is such a comparison?

Sorry, but I fail to see that this sort of straight-up numbers comparison accounts for (1) the absence of Jermaine Gresham, (2) the inexperience of his offensive line, which also relates to the threat of rushing in the red zone, (3) the inexperience of his receivers this year. If football is a team game, which it evidently seems to be, then it should be obvious that Sam Bradford's productivity in terms of quarterback statistics, isn't wholly his own responsibility. I believe that, apart from possible durability questions, Sam Bradford is essentially the same quarterback he was last year.

By this argument, you could say that his numbers last year might also be considered unrepresentative. I believe I agree with this - he had a pretty darned good supporting cast on OU's offense last year, and the numbers they put up as a unit support that contention. Sam was a part of that success, but only a part of it. Given that his supporting cast is rather less supportive this year than last year, wouldn't it make sense that his numbers would be down this year? If he had to share the responsibility for last year's successes, shouldn't his surrounding cast share that responsibility for this year's difficulties? Is the current set of statistics due entirely to Sam Bradford's abilities? Were those dazzling numbers from 2008 due entirely to his abilities? I think such an assertion would be to deny the notion that football is a team game.

There might be some reason for an NFL team to pay less for Sam Bradford after this year's performances, but I don't think this reflects some sort of fundamental change in Sam Bradford that occurred between last year and this year.

Comments (2) Add A Comment

October 23, 2009 02:21 PM ET

Report Abuse | QUOTE

Boomer,

I think the notion of Sam Bradford dropping into the 4th or 5th round of the draft (like some 'experts' have speculated) is ridiculous. Bradford will still be one of the top 5 QBs in the draft class... no question about it.

Now, once they start examining all of the factors (combine, total college performance, personal workout, etc.) Bradford's standing in the draft will be independent of OU's 3 & 3 record. Once a doctor says "He's good to go", the injury will be a moot point.

What will drive his standing in the draft are:
1) Arm strength especailly after the injury
2) Accuracy in drills
3) Ability to adapt to the pro sets.

Stats from this year will not be as relevant to the pro scouts as those factors. One scout may say "Look at his number in 2009" immediately countered by "look at his numbers in 2008 with talent and healthy. He's healthy and we have NFL talent."