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

[DeuceDouglas]

@ infemous

He only threw a handful of deep passes period. 8% of his 590 pass attempts were thrown 20+ yards down the field. When you consider he ranked in the bottom half of the league in completion percentage while throwing almost exclusively short "easy" throws, his numbers are rather pedestrian. His average per attempt was only higher than Jimmy Clausen's last year. Every QB is capable of making all the throws, that's why they're in the NFL to begin with. But, from what I've seen from Bradford is not worthy of an 85 rating. Anytime the Rams are behind they are going to have a tough time coming back because of how vanilla the offense is (see vs. KC, @SEA, @NO).

[TeixeiraFanatic]

What to do you want him to do? Be a type of quarterback that he isn't? That was the type of offense that we used. We played that way because he was a rookie. It gave him confidence.

I'll take you back to Week 17 against the Seahawks. I can't think of the receiver off the top of my head, but Bradford hit him in stride 30-40 yards downfield with no one in between the him and endzone and it went straight through his hands. Now if you're Sam, why would you want to keep going deep if all your wide-outs are gonna do is drop the ball.

As it's been pointed out before in this thread, we didn't have the personnel to go deep. Avery was out the entire year. Alexander, arguably the fastest guy we had last year, wasn't on the team until the second half of the season. That's like having Joe Jurevicius running streaks. Why do it if you know it isn't gonna work.

You play to a player's strength, especially a young quarterback who is the face and future of the team. Bradford has all the tools to be a great great quarterback in the NFL. All he needed was some confidence.

Now that he has last season under his belt, I expect to see him really blossom this year. Having McDaniels will surely help him and I think you will see Sam throw downfield more often this year.

Edit: It was Danario Alexander that dropped the pass Week 17. The ball traveled 55 yards in the air and went right through Danario's hands. Don't know how to embed videos so here's the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfzEv...eature=related

[infemous]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

@ infemous He only threw a handful of deep passes period. 8% of his 590 pass attempts were thrown 20+ yards down the field. When you consider he ranked in the bottom half of the league in completion percentage while throwing almost exclusively short "easy" throws, his numbers are rather pedestrian. His average per attempt was only higher than Jimmy Clausen's last year. Every QB is capable of making all the throws, that's why they're in the NFL to begin with. But, from what I've seen from Bradford is not worthy of an 85 rating. Anytime the Rams are behind they are going to have a tough time coming back because of how vanilla the offense is (see vs. KC, @SEA, @NO).

You don't know what you're talking about bro, all I can say.

Firstly, he's a rookie. Do you judge rookie QBs against 5 and 6 year pros? I don't, and Sam Bradford, statistically, had the 3rd Best Rookie season of all time, on a team that went 1-15 the year before.

Secondly, no supporting cast. Can you name a Rams receiver last year? Do you know what they're good at and what they're not?

Thirdly, play design and play calls can't be held against him. That's like criticising a punter for always giving the ball to the opposition.

Finally, Madden ratings aren't done with any degree of thought, so I don't know why you're thinking there was a method to the 85 lol.
Personally, I agree with THAT rating, one of very few I do, but if you actually WATCH a Rams game, you'll see that his accuracy is better than 70% of the league's starting quarterbacks ALREADY. That's off just a rookie season.

His poise and ball placement is damn near elite already, and his decision making, while simplified was excellent. Obviously he had lapses, but you can see the gulf between Bradford and Clausen can't you?

So stop hating. Bradford is worthy of a high madden rating purely because of what he CAN do, not what he DID in his rookie season.

Ya dig?


PS. I still think these ratings are abysmal.

[DeuceDouglas]

If everyone was rated based on what they could do then every player would be rated in the 90's. Nobody should be rated on what they CAN do, they should be rated on what they've already DONE. Since you're obviously a Rams homer maybe you should go back and watch the Chiefs-Rams game from last year. Then you can watch the Seahawks-Rams finale where he was outplayed by "Clipboard-Jesus."

Part of being quarterback in the NFL is playing with the hand you are dealt and doing the best to make chicken salad out of chicken sh**.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Honestly, based on Tebow's 3 starts, he outplayed Sam Bradford last year (obviously a small sample size). Tebow put up more yards per game, well more TDs per game, and turned the ball over at just a slightly higher rate. Meanwhile, he led as many 4th quarter comebacks in 3 games as Bradford did in 16, and Tebow rejuvenated a Broncos team that looked dead on the field up until Tebow came back. Suddenly Brandon Lloyd became a big time threat again, suddenly the defense could actually stop offenses every once in awhile, and suddenly the Broncos were scoring more points than they had the rest of the season. Meanwhile, in Bradford's biggest game of the season, he was outplayed by the Seahawks' backup QB, and couldn't muster up a TD as his team lost their chance at the playoffs.

Do I think Tebow is a better QB than Bradford? Hell no. Do I think he's a better player than Bradford? Again, hell no. But did Bradford really do anything that warrants being rated at just about the same level as Eli Manning and presumably Josh Freeman, Tony Romo, and a bunch of other good-great QBs, absolutely not. They should rate him based on what he did last year, and then give him an A for potential so that he will probably develop into a great QB. He isn't there yet, and even if he is, he didn't show anything to prove it last year.

[12]

Quote: Originally Posted by DeuceDouglas

If everyone was rated based on what they could do then every player would be rated in the 90's. Nobody should be rated on what they CAN do, they should be rated on what they've already DONE. Since you're obviously a Rams homer maybe you should go back and watch the Chiefs-Rams game from last year. Then you can watch the Seahawks-Rams finale where he was outplayed by "Clipboard-Jesus." Part of being quarterback in the NFL is playing with the hand you are dealt and doing the best to make chicken salad out of chicken sh**.

OK, honestly man, you are making yourself look ridiculous in this thread. Honestly.

I am a huge Seahawks fan, but I have no problem with Sam Bradford's rating. 85 does seem high, but people need to quit looking at overall ratings. Focus on his actual QB ratings. I do not like the Rams one bit, but there's nothing there that I disagree with. He's not elite, but soon will be. An 85 puts him anywhere in the 10-16 range as far as QB's are concerned. How can anyone really argue that?

18 TD's, 15 INT, 60 percent completion percentage. Not great numbers, but for a rookie who was on a team devoid of much talent, it's impressive as hell. He took a team that went 1-15 the year before and had them on the brink of the playoffs, albeit in an extremely weak NFC West division - but nonetheless, it was impressive.

Another poster mentioned his wide receivers... Yeah, um, I can't remember even two of his receivers last year. The talent surrounding him was not good. So, as to your quote in bold above, I'd say Bradford absolutely made "chicken salad."

Also, I was at the game when the Seahawks beat the Rams to get in the playoffs. I came away impressed. Ever heard of Daniel Fells? He was the Rams' leading receiver that day. The bottom line is that Bradford's "weapons" would have had a tough time hanging around on a third of the league's practice squad teams. It's easy to pick out a couple of bad games and try and use them as ammo, but it doesn't quite work when looking at Bradford's entire rookie season.

Like I said, I'm a huge Seattle fan, but I recognize Bradford's talent and his QB ratings look good. It pains me to say that but an 85 overall is not too high for him. If Matt Ryan was an 86 or 87 after his rookie season, Bradford is just fine. Bradford had more yards and more TD passes on a MUCH worse team than Ryan had.

[12]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

Honestly, based on Tebow's 3 starts, he outplayed Sam Bradford last year (obviously a small sample size). Tebow put up more yards per game, well more TDs per game, and turned the ball over at just a slightly higher rate. Meanwhile, he led as many 4th quarter comebacks in 3 games as Bradford did in 16, and Tebow rejuvenated a Broncos team that looked dead on the field up until Tebow came back. Suddenly Brandon Lloyd became a big time threat again, suddenly the defense could actually stop offenses every once in awhile, and suddenly the Broncos were scoring more points than they had the rest of the season. Meanwhile, in Bradford's biggest game of the season, he was outplayed by the Seahawks' backup QB, and couldn't muster up a TD as his team lost their chance at the playoffs. Do I think Tebow is a better QB than Bradford? Hell no. Do I think he's a better player than Bradford? Again, hell no. But did Bradford really do anything that warrants being rated at just about the same level as Eli Manning and presumably Josh Freeman, Tony Romo, and a bunch of other good-great QBs, absolutely not. They should rate him based on what he did last year, and then give him an A for potential so that he will probably develop into a great QB. He isn't there yet, and even if he is, he didn't show anything to prove it last year.

Wait, what?

He didn't do anything to prove it? How about having the third best season by a rookie QB in NFL history, on a team that won ONE game the year before he arrived? He was not outplayed by Charlie Whitehurst. I was at that game, and he wasn't. Statistically, they were close. Whitehurst was able to manage the game a little more efficiently, but that was it. The Rams' group of practice squad receivers dropped at least six or seven passes that I counted. You said he couldn't "muster up a TD" but you fail to mention the 55-yard strike that he threw to Danario Alexander who let the ball go right through his hands. On that day, Bradford was not the problem. I wonder if some of you guys even watched that game, or just looked at the box score and called it good.

Bradford nearly got his team to the playoffs. Let the NFC West jokes commence, but the bottom line is that he gave that team life. A six-win turnaround in one year attests to that.

And uh, I'd be willing to bet my house that all 32 GM's, if given the choice, would choose Sam Bradford over Tim Tebow. I like Tebow more than Bradford on a "fan" level, and fully believe that he will succeed, but I'm kind of at a loss on how the two could even be compared at this point in their respective careers...

I hate sticking up for a player on a team that I despise, and I'll concede that an 85 overall for Bradford is generous, but it's not over-the-top generous. I'd put him anywhere from an 81 to 85 overall.

[therockstar2005]

@ Apostle - thank you, even though you're a fan of the team that I despise

Look, if Bradford was ranked lower than 85, I would understand and I wouldn't be pissed about it. I am actually somewhat (pleasantly) surprised that he's an 85. I get that part of it is hype. But over the course of the whole season, he started every snap as a rookie, helped bring a 6 win turnaround to a team that had won only 6 games in the 3 years before. I still think the hype is deserved.

The Tom Brady comparison is funny, because Brady was still a mainly short-range passer when the receivers that he had could only do that. But once Randy Moss got onto the scene, suddenly the deep bomb came alive, and passing records were broken. Did Brady magically figure out how to go deep, or did he finally have a real weapon on offense who could? Come on. We make a big deal about the QB, and we still should, but you have to account for what the QB has around him, and the Rams receivers are still not that good. I like our receivers this year, but our best one is most likely Mike Sims-Walker...yeah. Unless Donnie Avery pulls a miracle comeback, we don't have a real deep threat.

Douglas is right about one thing - being a QB in the NFL is about making the best of what you've got. So if your receivers aren't fast, don't have good hands, and can't stay healthy, do you just say f*ck it and still throw the deep ball (ex. Rex Grossman) or do you play to what your receivers can do? I want to see the Rams go deep more this season, and hopefully with McDaniels at the helm, we might try that, but it's not just on Bradford if they don't.