Madden NFL 12 Player Ratings - Seattle Seahawks and St. Louis Rams

[TeixeiraFanatic]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

So in these games, Tebow put up 515 yards compared to Bradford's 365. Tebow had 5 TDs compared to Bradford's 3. And Tebow had 2 turnovers compared to Bradford's 1. Tebow's offense scored 51 points compared to Bradford's 34 points. I don't really see how Bradford outplayed Tebow in those games.

I see you're including Tim Tebow's rushing stats. Bradford doesn't run, so I don't use those stats for him. I'm not discrediting those stats for Tebow, because it is a part of his game, a huge part actually, but for arguments' sake let's stick to just passing stats.

In the two games each played against said teams, Bradford put up more passing yards 365 to Tebow's 343, the same amount of passing TDs (3), less interceptions (1) to (2), and a 57% comp to Tim's 46%.

Since the Rams did not play Houston last year, the worst pass defense Sam faced was the Washington Redskins (going by yards per game). Let's include Sam's stats against Washington and Tebow's stats against Houston.

Sam Bradford vs. Washington:
23-37, 62.2% comp, 235 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT

Tim Tebow vs. Houston:
16-29, 55.2% comp, 308 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT

With both of those games included their three game stats look like this.

Bradford
55-93, 59% comp, 600 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT

Tebow
40-81, 49% comp, 651 yards, 4 TD, 3 INT

As you can see, Tebow had 51 more yards in 15 less completions. That, in itself, is a pretty good yards per completion rating. Tebow played well in his three starts. I'm not debating that. And now that I have read up on these, it may look to a lot of people that Tebow had played better than Bradford. I'll be the first to say that I didn't know he did the well in his starts. But I'm the type of guy that likes high completion ratings because it means that you, as a quarterback, are putting the ball into the hands of your receivers and gaining yards. That might not mean that you're the best quarterback but you're doing what you need to do to win and at the end of the day winning is all that matters to these guys (for the most part). We'll have to wait until Tebow plays a whole year to really judge him as these three games maybe are not an indication of what kind of a player he will be. And I think we will see what Sam is made of in these first 6-8 games of the season this year.

Now I know that what started this whole thing was Sam's rating. It may seem a little high but how many of these stats are perfect? None. If you don't like it, change it when you get the game. That's why it's there.

[PolkHigh33]

Blah blah blah .. you guys are beating a dead horse ..

Ratings are subjective, change them if you don't agree ..

[12]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

Just because every rookie QB either sits the bench their rookie year or sucks their rookie year, doesn't mean that the first time that a rookie plays ok we should rate them as probably a top 10-15 QB in the league.

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

1. Just because Bradford wasn't the problem, doesn't mean he played well enough to get a win. He played like a rookie QB in that game.

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

2. Charlie Whitehurst was making some very nice throws and did a very good job of managing the game and protecting the ball.

No argument there. Clipboard Jesus stepped up and got the job done.

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

3. You talk about how bad the Rams WRs were (which they were), but you don't give Whitehurst any credit for playing with his ****tastic WRs.

When did I not give Whitehurst credit? Not sure where I said that.

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

4. Yes, Alexander dropped a deep ball. That catch wouldn't have even put them inside the redzone.

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

5. Bradford got caught staring his receivers down (like a rookie QB, no problem with that moving forward). He had at least 4 or 5 passes batted down at the line of scrimmage from staring his guys down and then threw an INT into double coverage because he stared his guy down.

Yeah, he made mistakes... He'll obviously get better at that.

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

6. Bradford led his team to two field goals, and probably would have only been one if his team hadn't stripped Marshawn Lynch in field goal range.

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

I don't even need to point out how unbelievably ****ty that division was last year. Not to mention the fact that the only team that the Rams beat this past year that was even decent was the Chargers. The other 6 wins all came against awful teams (maybe the Seahawks aren't awful, but they're pretty damn close).

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

I already pointed out that Bradford is a better player than Tebow. You would be crazy to pick Tebow over Bradford. But that doesn't change the fact that Tebow outplayed him in his 3 starts, and certainly doesn't change the fact that Bradford should not be rated with the likes of Eli Manning, Josh Freeman, and Tony Romo.

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.

[12]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

1. Tom Brady 2. Peyton Manning 3. Drew Brees 4. Aaron Rodgers 5. Philip Rivers 6. Ben Roethlisberger 7. Matt Ryan 8. Michael Vick 9. Matt Schaub 10. Joe Flacco 11. Josh Freeman 12. Matt Cassel 13. Matt Hasslebeck 14. Matthew Stafford 15. Eli Manning 16. Tony Romo 17. Kevin Kolb

The QB's in bold above are laughable. It's 'Hasselbeck,' and for as much as I love Matt, Bradford is a much better QB than him right now.

Stafford? You might as well put Tarvaris Jackson on your list too, because their numbers are pretty similar. Seriously though, I think Stafford will end up with Bradford in the upper echelon of NFL QB's in the very near future, but Bradford accomplished more last season than Stafford has in his entire (young) career so far.

Kolb? Um, no. He has to show me more than 11 career TD's and 14 picks.

I can understand why people are hesitant to put Bradford too high, but some of the stuff being said in this thread really has me scratching my head.

[12]

Quote: Originally Posted by PolkHigh33

Blah blah blah .. you guys are beating a dead horse .. Ratings are subjective, change them if you don't agree ..

There's nothing wrong with having a respectful debate.

Move along if you don't like it or want to read it.

[12]

Serious question:

Why was Matt Ryan not considered overrated entering his second season when EA gave him an 85 as well. It seems that 85 is the magic number for EA when doling out ratings to second year quarterbacks who had 'good' rookie seasons. The thing is, Ryan had much more talent surrounding him. Maybe I just don't remember people hammering EA for Ryan's rating. Statistically, Ryan was better, but the talent disparities can't be ignored.

I might see a Mizzou fan in here who just has an axe to grind with a former OU QB...

(just kidding, Deuce)

[SoonerSports]

Quote: Originally Posted by Apostle

Serious question: Why was Matt Ryan not considered overrated entering his second season when EA gave him an 85 as well. It seems that 85 is the magic number for EA when doling out ratings to second year quarterbacks who had 'good' rookie seasons. The thing is, Ryan had much more talent surrounding him. Maybe I just don't remember people hammering EA for Ryan's rating. Statistically, Ryan was better, but the talent disparities can't be ignored. I might see a Mizzou fan in here who just has an axe to grind with a former OU QB... (just kidding, Deuce)

Well Bradford did always kick Mizzou's a$$

[DeuceDouglas]

Quote: Originally Posted by Apostle

I love Matt, Bradford is a much better QB than him right now.

If I was to pick a QB that I had to go into a must-win game with right now I would take Hasselbeck. Obviously if I were building for the future I would take Bradford simply based on age and potential. To compare Tarvaris Jackson with Kevin Kolb and Matthew Stafford is an insult to them both. They've atleast proven they can run an offense in the time they've had to show it.

Maybe it's the Rams playcalling that's clouding my perception of him, I don't know. Maybe it's the fact that the Rams leading receiver was Danny Amendola. I still don't know but for me, the jury's still out on Bradford.

Quote: Originally Posted by Apostle

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.

Just out of curiosity, did you happen to be at the Chiefs-Seahawks game? Cause I was . And I know on my way out the last thing I was hearing was how impressed people were with Cassel, Bowe, and Charles. That was the quietest I've ever heard that stadium other than maybe when the Hawks fell down 17-0 to the Lions a couple years back.