Sam Bradford Released

[kerouac9]

2016 Sam was better than the rest, so yes he was the BEST qb available after Cousins.

So because he had one good game, walked off the field without a limp, and then disappeared for the next 15 weeks, he was the best QB available?

Better than his backup, Case Keenum, who won more games with the same personnel, including in the playoffs?

 

[Vacard]

So because he had one good game, walked off the field without a limp, and then disappeared for the next 15 weeks, he was the best QB available?

Better than his backup, Case Keenum, who won more games with the same personnel, including in the playoffs?

He was passing for 71 percent With 20 TD and 5 picks that year, what are you talking about?

 

[kerouac9]

He was passing for 71 percent With 20 TD and 5 picks that year, what are you talking about?

Going 7-8 as a starter and leading the NFL's 23rd-ranked offense, I guess.

Fun fact, it's Week 9 and 3 QBs already have 20 TDs. Tell me how impressed I should be by Sam Bradford's 20 TDs in 15 games. Because in 2016, Bradford was 19th in TD passes and had 50% of the season leader, Aaron Rodgers. He also threw for fewer yards than Blake Bortles.

Again, in a more recent year, Case Keenum, in the same offense, with roughly the same personnel, threw for 22 TDs and 7 INTs while going 11-3.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[moklerman]

Going 7-8 as a starter and leading the NFL's 23rd-ranked offense, I guess.

Fun fact, it's Week 9 and 3 QBs already have 20 TDs. Tell me how impressed I should be by Sam Bradford's 20 TDs in 15 games. Because in 2016, Bradford was 19th in TD passes and had 50% of the season leader, Aaron Rodgers. He also threw for fewer yards than Blake Bortles.

Again, in a more recent year, Case Keenum, in the same offense, with roughly the same personnel, threw for 22 TDs and 7 INTs while going 11-3.

Shouldn't you mention that Bortles attempted 73 more passes than Bradford? Or that Bortles started 16 games compared to Bradford's 15? Or that Bradford was starting games within 2 weeks of becoming a Viking? Or that the Vikings were giving up 22 ppg after their 5-0 start compared to just 19.8 during all of 2017? Isn't Keenum's record better than Cousins with roughly the same personnel?

 

[kerouac9]

Shouldn't you mention that Bortles attempted 73 more passes than Bradford? Or that Bortles started 16 games compared to Bradford's 15? Or that Bradford was starting games within 2 weeks of becoming a Viking? Or that the Vikings were giving up 22 ppg after their 5-0 start compared to just 19.8 during all of 2017? Isn't Keenum's record better than Cousins with roughly the same personnel?

I guess. If you're argument is that Sam Bradford is just slightly better than Blake Bortles, I'll let you have it and declare victory.

If you're argument is that Sam Bradford can't score more than 22 ppg, I'll let you have it and declare victory.

I didn't want Kirk Cousins, either.

 

[moklerman]

I guess. If you're argument is that Sam Bradford is just slightly better than Blake Bortles, I'll let you have it and declare victory.

If you're argument is that Sam Bradford can't score more than 22 ppg, I'll let you have it and declare victory.

I didn't want Kirk Cousins, either.

I'm not trying to make either argument, just pointing out a misleading comparison. You keep asking why you should be impressed with Sam Bradford's 2016 numbers and I don't think anyone is asking you to be. But just because you aren't impressed with the numbers doesn't mean that he didn't have a pretty good year or that those numbers don't suggest that he can be a decent enough starter when healthy.

I really didn't realize this was anything more than conversation so claiming or conceding "victory" seems ludicrous.

But I do feel like you're being disingenuous while trying to punctuate your distaste of Bradford. All that was suggested was that Bradford was the 2nd best FA QB available last offseason and that signing him to a short, safeguarded contract was a reasonable enough thing for the Cardinals to do.

 

[kerouac9]

I'm not trying to make either argument, just pointing out a misleading comparison. You keep asking why you should be impressed with Sam Bradford's 2016 numbers and I don't think anyone is asking you to be. But just because you aren't impressed with the numbers doesn't mean that he didn't have a pretty good year or that those numbers don't suggest that he can be a decent enough starter when healthy.

I really didn't realize this was anything more than conversation so claiming or conceding "victory" seems ludicrous.

But I do feel like you're being disingenuous while trying to punctuate your distaste of Bradford. All that was suggested was that Bradford was the 2nd best FA QB available last offseason and that signing him to a short, safeguarded contract was a reasonable enough thing for the Cardinals to do.

Yes. Both of these things are wrong. And the unhinged comments from people defending this perspective have almost no evidence backing them.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Yes. Both of these things are wrong. And the unhinged comments from people defending this perspective have almost no evidence backing them.

why are you continuing to bother with this argument? You're talking to a guy who thinks Bradford is a hero and a possible savior for the Giants, while probably thinking that the Rams would be better if Bradford was their starter over Goff.

 

[Ronin]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[cardncubfan]

Going 7-8 as a starter and leading the NFL's 23rd-ranked offense, I guess.

Fun fact, it's Week 9 and 3 QBs already have 20 TDs. Tell me how impressed I should be by Sam Bradford's 20 TDs in 15 games. Because in 2016, Bradford was 19th in TD passes and had 50% of the season leader, Aaron Rodgers. He also threw for fewer yards than Blake Bortles.

Again, in a more recent year, Case Keenum, in the same offense, with roughly the same personnel, threw for 22 TDs and 7 INTs while going 11-3.

They had a terrible oline with Bradford. Several were injured iirc.

 

[wa52lz]

From Rotoworld......

Free agent Sam Bradford was unable to practice for his final five weeks on the Cardinals' roster.

The main reason Bradford was not claimed by any teams on waivers Monday was because of his massive salary. Lower down the list but still relevant is the fact that Bradford's long-bothersome knee has become "bone on bone" with no cartilage after two ACL surgeries. We'd be surprised if Bradford played again.


http://www.rotoworld.com/playernews/nfl/football/?ls=roto:nfl:morenewstop

 

[Ronin]

"Bone on Bone"

Ouch!
After reading that, I think Bradford should hang up his cleats.imo

 

[kerouac9]

But he was skiing over the winter!

 

[moklerman]

why are you continuing to bother with this argument? You're talking to a guy who thinks Bradford is a hero and a possible savior for the Giants, while probably thinking that the Rams would be better if Bradford was their starter over Goff.

I admit that I do have opinions that are biased. I don't think I have to admit that because I've always been forthright about them but you act as if I'm the one who's been misrepresenting things or basing my opinions on questionable information, much less mind-reading such as yourself.

The fact of the matter is, the Cardinals wound up paying Bradford backup money and it didn't cost them ANYTHING in the present or future. Just what is it that has some so worked up about it?

 

[THESMEL]

Going 7-8 as a starter and leading the NFL's 23rd-ranked offense, I guess.

Fun fact, it's Week 9 and 3 QBs already have 20 TDs. Tell me how impressed I should be by Sam Bradford's 20 TDs in 15 games. Because in 2016, Bradford was 19th in TD passes and had 50% of the season leader, Aaron Rodgers. He also threw for fewer yards than Blake Bortles.

Again, in a more recent year, Case Keenum, in the same offense, with roughly the same personnel, threw for 22 TDs and 7 INTs while going 11-3.

He’s gone already you can start destroying Rosen now - anti fan

 

[MadCardDisease]

The 49ers have a guy starting who not a soul has heard of before with another nobody backing him up. There are tons of teams with little depth at the QB position. Yet the amazing Bradford is still available for any team to pick up for cheap. That should be pretty telling to everyone about how the rest of the NFL values Bradford these days.

 

[Arz101]

When even Mark Sanchez has a job and Bradford doesn't

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[moklerman]

When even Mark Sanchez has a job and Bradford doesn't

I suppose it means that Bradford isn't willing to sign as a third stringer for $900,000(vet minimum?).

 

[TRW]

I suppose it means that Bradford isn't willing to sign as a third stringer for $900,000(vet minimum?).

Don’t think Sammy Checkdown needs the cash.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I suppose it means that Bradford isn't willing to sign as a third stringer for $900,000(vet minimum?).

or it means literally no one thinks he can play anymore.

 

[WisconsinCard]

I suppose it means that Bradford isn't willing to sign as a third stringer for $900,000(vet minimum?).

He is being paid 15 million for this season, so that is a bit more than Vet Min, I would say.

 

[GuernseyCard]

He is being paid 15 million for this season, so that is a bit more than Vet Min, I would say.

I believe in this hypothetical case, it's the League office that decides what would reasonable compensation given that it would be subtracted from salary received from the Cards.

 

[WisconsinCard]

I believe in this hypothetical case, it's the League office that decides what would reasonable compensation given that it would be subtracted from salary received from the Cards.

I get it, but either way he's getting 15 mil.

 

[moklerman]

He is being paid 15 million for this season, so that is a bit more than Vet Min, I would say.

That money's already his so he'd have to take what a team was willing to give, wouldn't he? He's cleared waivers so the Cardinals involvement is over isn't it?