Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Bradford is far more accurate of a passer, and IMO, the better QB to build a franchise around.
    What are you basing that on?

    Bradford completed 67.9% of his passes in his last full college season, at a clip of 9.8 yards per attempt, which is really good.

    Griffin completed 72.4% of his passes last season at a clip of 10.7 yards per attempt.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Accuracy. RGIII might be able to run really fast downfield and hand it to a receiver, but Bradford can throw it even faster than RGIII can run. Bradford is far more accurate of a passer, and IMO, the better QB to build a franchise around. Give Bradford protection and some weapons, he'll produce. RGIII may not need the same level of protection or support, but he won't be great because his relative lack of accuracy will limit possessions and big plays.
    I have yet to see anything negative about his accuracy. I watched him a few times at Baylor and I never saw anything in his accuracy that concerned me. Luckily, accuracy is something that can be improved.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Accuracy. RGIII might be able to run really fast downfield and hand it to a receiver, but Bradford can throw it even faster than RGIII can run. Bradford is far more accurate of a passer, and IMO, the better QB to build a franchise around. Give Bradford protection and some weapons, he'll produce. RGIII may not need the same level of protection or support, but he won't be great because his relative lack of accuracy will limit possessions and big plays.
    When you are talking about a guy who half way through the season had more touchdowns than incompletions, I think it's pretty hard to bag on his accuracy.

    RGIII is not Michael Vick from an accuracy perspective.

    He's also not Vince Young or Colt McCoy, each of whom was VERY accurate in college, but not in the pros where they can't depend on dink and dunk passes all the way down the field.

    Watch the throws he made all year long at Baylor. He threw the best deep ball in the nation, he has the 3 step drop, he can throw when flushed, etc. etc. The only concern with RGIII will be durability. He came to the combine looking great, but he doesn't have the heft of Cam Newton or Roethlisberger by any stretch. When he improvises, is he going to get rid of the ball before getting way-layed? Can he adjust to the speed of the NFL? Can he stand up to the NYG rush? These are the questions that will determine whether he can make it. His ability to understand the playbook and his accuracy won't.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    What are you basing that on?

    Bradford completed 67.9% of his passes in his last full college season, at a clip of 9.8 yards per attempt, which is really good.

    Griffin completed 72.4% of his passes last season at a clip of 10.7 yards per attempt.
    Listening to the talking heads who have been watching him throw.

    A mobile QB is going to have a higher completion %, due to extending plays which breaks down coverage, and less intentional incompletions (unloading the ball). Hell, Andre Ware completed over 60% of his passes in college.

    Bradford can make all the throws, I don't think the argument is whether he has the tools - he completed over 60% his rookie year. The issue is whether RGIII has the tools to make it. Running really, really fast is nice, particularly when the O-line sucks. But throwing is what sets a QB apart. I'd take Bradford over RGIII.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Listening to the talking heads who have been watching him throw.
    Which ones?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by Duvall View Post
    Which ones?
    Today was the guys on NBCSports TV - whoever their NFL "experts" are. One was specifically talking about RGIII having alot of trouble with certain throws in "workouts" - so I guess he was referring to Baylor's Pro Day.

    I have for months heard on ESPN that RGIII does not (yet) have elite accuracy - the level of accuracy that would make him a higher rated prospect. This could be compared to the likes of Luck, or Stafford, or Bradford, the recent and future high QB picks.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    Listening to the talking heads who have been watching him throw.

    A mobile QB is going to have a higher completion %, due to extending plays which breaks down coverage, and less intentional incompletions (unloading the ball). Hell, Andre Ware completed over 60% of his passes in college.

    Bradford can make all the throws, I don't think the argument is whether he has the tools - he completed over 60% his rookie year. The issue is whether RGIII has the tools to make it. Running really, really fast is nice, particularly when the O-line sucks. But throwing is what sets a QB apart. I'd take Bradford over RGIII.
    Yeah. I am not sure you watched a lot of RGIII this year other than the bowl game, where he ran probably more than he did all year. He's a "mobile" QB in the sense that he can avoid the rush and improvise after the pass. He is not run first throw second like VY, Vick and Alex Smith were in college, and his rushing stats attest to that. I don' t know whether or not he'll be better than Bradford. They may be equally good and just different. But nothing I saw in college makes me believe Bradford had a better arm, accuracy or strength-wise, than RGIII did - while in college. But I will agree that if you think Bradford is going to be a solid NFL QB based on early returns, there is something to be said for a bird in hand.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by mkirsh View Post
    According to this, the teams had been warned not to do this:

    http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/ey...-loading-deals

    Best part is that this results from the Haynesworth deal - the gift that keeps on giving. Skins were in a very good position headed into Free Agency, and will not have to scramble just to fill out the roster.
    So, two stupid questions:

    1. They just added the "bad" contracts of the Skins together 21+15=$36M to get their penalty, while the Cowboys paid Austin $17M, but get a $10M penalty. What's up with that?

    2. If the warnings were verbal, the league has admitted that there were no violations, and the league office approved the contracts (which is required for ALL trades and contracts), then how in the world can they retroactively punish them? All this could have been avoided if they just hadn't approved the contracts. And hey, I'll give you Hall's contract, but how the heck did the Skins get a "competitive" advantage out of their contract with Haynesworth?

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by bjornolf View Post
    So, two stupid questions:

    1. They just added the "bad" contracts of the Skins together 21+15=$36M to get their penalty, while the Cowboys paid Austin $17M, but get a $10M penalty. What's up with that?

    2. If the warnings were verbal, the league has admitted that there were no violations, and the league office approved the contracts (which is required for ALL trades and contracts), then how in the world can they retroactively punish them? All this could have been avoided if they just hadn't approved the contracts. And hey, I'll give you Hall's contract, but how the heck did the Skins get a "competitive" advantage out of their contract with Haynesworth?
    More importantly, isn't the league admitting that the owners (who are, legally, suposed to be operating as seperate businesses) came together to limit the salaries in an ostensibly free market? I don't know anti-trust/labor law, but that sounds a lot like price fixing, which is kinda illegal.
    Last edited by Dukeface88; 03-14-2012 at 02:43 PM.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Dukeface88 View Post
    More importantly, isn't the league admitting that the owners (who are, legally, suposed to be operating as seperate businesses) came together to limit the salaries in an ostensibly free market? I don't know anti-trust/labor law, but that sounds a lot like price fixing, which is kinda illegal.
    I've heard the term "collusion" batted around the last few days. It gets deeper too. Apparently, the head of the committee that decided this and one of its members were from the Giants and Eagles, and it was never sent out for a general vote by the owners. So, the Cowboys and Redskins are the only teams punished by a committee run by their rivals in the division? Tell me that isn't fishy.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ashburn, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by bjornolf View Post
    I've heard the term "collusion" batted around the last few days. It gets deeper too. Apparently, the head of the committee that decided this and one of its members were from the Giants and Eagles, and it was never sent out for a general vote by the owners. So, the Cowboys and Redskins are the only teams punished by a committee run by their rivals in the division? Tell me that isn't fishy.
    Do they have any form of protest/objection/appeal?
    Or what if they just said "we followed the rules, and we're not giving up our $36 million - what are you going to do about it?" and challenge the NFL to take action.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdenscold View Post
    Do they have any form of protest/objection/appeal?
    Or what if they just said "we followed the rules, and we're not giving up our $36 million - what are you going to do about it?" and challenge the NFL to take action.
    A LOT of rumors floating around about a lawsuit. We'll see. Since the NFLPA approved it, supposedly there's not really anywhere to go except the courts.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by snowdenscold View Post
    what if they just said "we followed the rules, and we're not giving up our $36 million - what are you going to do about it?" and challenge the NFL to take action.
    I imagine the NFL could withhold the $36 mil (plus a penalty, perhaps?) from the TV rights check sent to the NFL which the NFL then distributes to the teams. It is a bit like telling your employer that you do not owe him $100 for an improper expense report. He just withholds it from your paycheck.

    The teams, in all sports, have ceded a great deal of power to the commissioner's office. The commissioner's ability to police the leagues and level fines is pretty much limitless. It would be interesting to see someone challenge this in court tho.

    -Jason "I would think this fine would severely handicap these teams this coming year... cap space = better players" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I imagine the NFL could withhold the $36 mil (plus a penalty, perhaps?) from the TV rights check sent to the NFL which the NFL then distributes to the teams. It is a bit like telling your employer that you do not owe him $100 for an improper expense report. He just withholds it from your paycheck.

    The teams, in all sports, have ceded a great deal of power to the commissioner's office. The commissioner's ability to police the leagues and level fines is pretty much limitless. It would be interesting to see someone challenge this in court tho.

    -Jason "I would think this fine would severely handicap these teams this coming year... cap space = better players" Evans
    It's not a fine. They're docking the Redskins' salary cap by $36M. In other words, they're saying that every other team can spend $X, but the Redskins are only allowed to spend $X-$36M. It's not like Dan Snyder NEEDS them to give him $36M to spend $36M. He's got one of the top 3 wealthiest franchises in the NFL, one of the top 5 in all professional sports. He can afford the money.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by bjornolf View Post
    It's not a fine. They're docking the Redskins' salary cap by $36M. In other words, they're saying that every other team can spend $X, but the Redskins are only allowed to spend $X-$36M. It's not like Dan Snyder NEEDS them to give him $36M to spend $36M. He's got one of the top 3 wealthiest franchises in the NFL, one of the top 5 in all professional sports. He can afford the money.
    I would guess the league could do what it should have done in the first place if it didn't like what the Redskins did in 2010 and not approve contracts that would put them over the (lowered) salary cap.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by bjornolf View Post
    If the warnings were verbal, the league has admitted that there were no violations, and the league office approved the contracts (which is required for ALL trades and contracts), then how in the world can they retroactively punish them? All this could have been avoided if they just hadn't approved the contracts.
    Just because the league office approved a contract does not necessarily absolve the team from any ramifications of entering into the contract. I have no idea of the rules in play, but would guess that this boils down to who was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the team didn't go over the cap.

    For a much simpler analogy, assume you had a checking account with $100 in it. If you withdrew $1,000, and a teller mistakenly approved the withdrawal, do you think the bank would expect you to pay back the $900?

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Just because the league office approved a contract does not necessarily absolve the team from any ramifications of entering into the contract. I have no idea of the rules in play, but would guess that this boils down to who was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the team didn't go over the cap.

    For a much simpler analogy, assume you had a checking account with $100 in it. If you withdrew $1,000, and a teller mistakenly approved the withdrawal, do you think the bank would expect you to pay back the $900?
    There...was...no...cap...to...go...over. That's the whole point. The NFL has admitted that no rules were broken. The Redskins took out $23 and the Cowboys withdrew $20 of their $100, then were penalized by the bank, who told them now they can only withdraw $15 while everyone else can get $21, because other account holders had agreed to only withdraw $17. The skins and boys had the money and there was NO rule against it, so I don't see how your analogy applies here. Since when do your bank's other customers have any right to tell you how much of your own money you can withdraw? The bank said "you probably shouldn't do that cause the other customers won't like it," but never told or wrote to them that there would be a penalty or what it would be. How would you like it if your bank did that to you?

    The thing I find ironic is that two OF the teams that broke the non-existent cap were penalized, while the EIGHT owners who spent BELOW the usual cap's FLOOR were NOT punished. So overpaying your players is frowned upon, while paying your players LESS than the usual accepted amount is fine. Gotta love collusion.

    The other irony here is that Haynesworth's contract wasn't even done that year. They did it in 2009, BEFORE the team was even sure that there would BE an uncapped year. Again, they took a calculated risk. The risk didn't work out because Haynesworth didn't play well. I find it sick that the Redskins are being punished for getting a competitive advantage for the contract on a player that hurt them on the field more than any player in decades.
    Last edited by bjornolf; 03-16-2012 at 06:20 AM.

  18. #38
    I wonder if the owners will go after the Titans for an unfair competitive advantage now:

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...162337118.html

Similar Threads

  1. NBA Pre-Draft Measurements (Draft Express)
    By slower in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-03-2010, 07:31 PM
  2. What's the deal with ... yurts?
    By Lavabe in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 03:41 PM
  3. What's the deal with Corn?
    By EarlJam in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-18-2008, 11:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •