dew1679666265

A tendency to throw a few picks, even if you characterize it as not to a detrimental point, doesn't really compare well with McNabb. Isn't he one of the least picked off QBs ever? I wouldn't think so. McNabb throws about 6-13 picks a year and usually has about a 2:1 or a little better TD:INT ratio. 6-13 picks isn't a lot by any means. His ratio isn't as great as some of the others because he normally has 23-27 TD's but he rarely throws picks. He was somewhat inaccurate early in his career so the Locker comparisons are pretty good. I think McNabb took six seasons to have a completion percentage over 60. I didn't say a lot of picks, but the ratio is rarely that good. I think the ratio would improve if the offense was a bit more explosive and he had better receivers.

I'd be ok with an either or there. Either get free of the entire salary or bring back some serious talent. I don't see a great need (though it'd certainly be a plus) to get both. If they just get rid of the salary they are stuck without a quality bat, if they only get back talent, they have to pay too much for it. Bradley is an asset and they need to treat him like one. Hopefully that is what Rickitts is insisting on. A sunk cost is a crappy player who you might as well cut. But even in a down year Bradley was better than what they are likely to replace him with, and he's probably going to be better next year. If they free up Bradley's salary, though, they can turn around and get a similar bat cheaper in a Mike Cameron or someone else. If they pay 70% of Bradley's salary, but get a high quality prospect or two back, that probably is less appealing but it bulks up the farm system.

A tendency to throw a few picks, even if you characterize it as not to a detrimental point, doesn't really compare well with McNabb. Isn't he one of the least picked off QBs ever? I wouldn't think so. McNabb throws about 6-13 picks a year and usually has about a 2:1 or a little better TD:INT ratio.

I actually would liken Bradford to Sanchez. Both are cerebral QBs who don't have great arms but came up in elite BCS programs. Mallett likely wouldn't have the quick success Flacco did, but those seem like good comparisons. How about Romo as a comp for Locker? Or a better version of Romo? Or maybe McNabb? Sanchez has a better skill set than Bradford though. Better arm than Bradford. I don't like the Rothlisberger comp but Locker is more Rothlisberger than Romo. McNabb is interesting though... I really liked Pike (as a first rounder, not a high first rounder) before the injury. Yeah, now that I think about it more, I see more McNabb than Romo. Big, strong and mobile with a good arm and a tendency to throw a few picks, but not to a detrimental point (assuming his junior year is more accurate than his freshman year). As for the Sanchez/Bradford debate, I apparently haven't seen enough of Bradford because I didn't think his arm was as weak as y'all seem to think.

I'd be ok with an either or there. Either get free of the entire salary or bring back some serious talent. I don't see a great need (though it'd certainly be a plus) to get both.

Free agents according to Cot's: Rick Ankiel Marlon Byrd Mike Cameron Endy Chavez Coco Crisp Johnny Damon Reed Johnson Andruw Jones Mark Kotsay Scott Podsednik Dave Roberts Cameron is the only one who would interest me.

Yeah, there's really little reason not to start Vince at this point. Kerry is still likely to be the better QB this season, but the chances of us making the playoffs are so astronomically low that the benefits (development) that Vince would reap from playing greatly outweigh trying to reach the playoffs at this point.

Bradford has the measureables too, but I guess Clausen does have the stronger arm. Playing in a pro-style offense definitely helps Clausen, but the numbers are vastly on Bradford's side. I'll agree that this is all dependent on health, though. Both Bradford and Pike could fall a bit if they don't get healthy by or before the combine.

I actually would liken Bradford to Sanchez. Both are cerebral QBs who don't have great arms but came up in elite BCS programs. Mallett likely wouldn't have the quick success Flacco did, but those seem like good comparisons. How about Romo as a comp for Locker? Or a better version of Romo? Or maybe McNabb?

I think Bud Adams does want VY to start. However, the Titans won because of Vince in 2007 as much as the Cubs won games because of Shawn Estes in 2003. In 2007, Vince put up this line: 62.3 completion % 9:17 TD:INT 71.1 rating The completion percentage is nice and his 4.2 y/c rushing helped quite a bit too, but the TD:INT ratio is not conducive to winning football games. The reason they went 10-6 that year is because of a running game that was #5 in yards and #5 in scoring and a top 10 rated defense. They won 13 games in 2008 for the same reason, with Kerry at QB. The answer to turning things around isn't Vince Young, though I still believe he can be a productive NFL QB.

I've watched a decent amount of Bradford and never thought his arm was a negative. It may not be a rocket arm, but I don't think it's a negative.

The funny thing about Pike is, he's doing this at a BCS school, but nobody seems to recognize that. Right now, if I had to order the QBs by preference, I'd probably go: Bradford Pike Clausen Locker McCoy Devlin Hiller Tebow Mallett The first two remaining there would depend on health. If both are deemed healthy, they're my best two. If not, they probably fall below Clausen/Locker. There's not much separation in that top 4 for me right now anyway, though. I'd rather have Clausen than Bradford even if Bradford was healthy. I'm not a big Colt McCoy in the NFL fan. Mallett and Locker sure could use an extra year. Mallett definitely needs another year - that's why I have him last on the list - and Locker might need another. It depends on how he finishes this season, I think. And unless it's purely because of the shoulder injury, I don't see why Clausen should be rated higher than Bradford. Bradford has been much better than Clausen throughout his career and is 6'4", while Clausen is 6'3" (not that the inch difference is significant, but it's to point out that Clausen doesn't have more of a pro-style build than Bradford). Why do you prefer Clausen?

I'm sure they don't want to pay his entire salary or give up top flight young talent, but there's no way all the interest is from the idea that the Cubs will pay 80-90% of his salary. Especially after the comments from Ricketts.

Bill Simmons made a good point about Young on his podcast this week (and Brady Quinn to a lesser extent but I think it's more applicable to Young). He rhetorically asked when Young is ever going to play if not now. If teams don't believe in these young quarterbacks enough to toss them out there in a season that's going nowhere anyway, when are they ever going to, and should they even bother holding on to them if they don't think they can cut it? Vince's salary is going to skyrocket from $4 million (roughly) this season to $14 million next year. The Titans would certainly cut him in the offseason if they don't trust him to be the QB of the future. I think the reason the Titans won't bench Collins is that they don't want to throw the towel in for this season and, thus, still believe Kerry gives them the best chance to win games now. That's probably true, but where I disagree with them is on this season being salvagable. If we go 10-0 the rest of the way and make the playoffs, I'll happily eat crow, but with the injuries this team has suffered and the poor play, I think building for next year is preferable. For what it's worth, though, I believe it was 2003 that the Titans started 1-4 and then won 11 games straight (I believe) and ended up being knocked out of the AFC championship game by the Raiders. 1-4 is very different than 0-6, though.

I'm not "reporting" anything. I have posted often that there probably would be a lot of interest in Bradley as long as the Cubs are desperate enough to trade him for cents on the dollar. I look forward to seeing some "actual" offers for Bradley. So far all we have read is there's more interest than expected and Ricketts has set a limit as to how much he will pay on Bradley's contract. I will be ecstatic to admit I was wrong if Hendry can get something of value for Bradley without paying a ton of money. If Ricketts has made it clear that Bradley won't be traded for pennies on the dollar and there is still significant interest in Bradley, wouldn't that be evidence, though? It's been reported that he set a limit, not what the limit was. If they pay half the salary it's still a huge problem unless they get a very big return of talent. I'm not saying what it or is not a good trade, but paying half the salary is not "pennies on the dollar." Ricketts has said the Cubs won't pay the vast majority of his contract in a trade and that's all Backtobanks is saying teams will be interested in.

Blast.

I'm not "reporting" anything. I have posted often that there probably would be a lot of interest in Bradley as long as the Cubs are desperate enough to trade him for cents on the dollar. I look forward to seeing some "actual" offers for Bradley. So far all we have read is there's more interest than expected and Ricketts has set a limit as to how much he will pay on Bradley's contract. I will be ecstatic to admit I was wrong if Hendry can get something of value for Bradley without paying a ton of money. If Ricketts has made it clear that Bradley won't be traded for pennies on the dollar and there is still significant interest in Bradley, wouldn't that be evidence, though?

The funny thing about Pike is, he's doing this at a BCS school, but nobody seems to recognize that. Right now, if I had to order the QBs by preference, I'd probably go: Bradford Pike Clausen Locker McCoy Devlin Hiller Tebow Mallett The first two remaining there would depend on health. If both are deemed healthy, they're my best two. If not, they probably fall below Clausen/Locker. There's not much separation in that top 4 for me right now anyway, though.

Agreed. He really could use that extra year. At this time, I'd rather have Clausen though Locker has the higher ceiling. I can see why a team would take Locker at 1. Suh is definitely my #1 guy on the board. Russell Okung, Joe Haden and Arrelious Benn should be in the top 30, imo. Man, this draft is loaded at DT. He dropped all three of those guys out after having them in it previously. Not sure I agree with the move, but I haven't watched 2 of the 3 much at all this year, so I'm probably speaking out of place. Along with the DTs, I really like the depth at QB this draft could have (if Bradford, Locker, Clausen and Devlin all enter it).

His TD:INT ratio is still a bit of a downer to me, but he's improved his completion percentage each year (47.3 to 53.8 to 57.2) and his rating has improved each year as well. His TD:INT this year is just 11:6, though, which is much better than two years ago (14:15). He has a prototypical NFL build with a strong arm and good mobility and I think some teams will fall in love with that. The scouts have to love that he plays in a pro style offense. Imagine if he were on Tennessee with actual weapons playing in the same system he is at UW, he'd be an unquestioned top prospect. The only reason he isn't a superstar is because of Willingham. Bad QB coaching combined with pretty dreadful talent around him. He really is the best athlete I've seen at QB whose throwing motion isn't all jacked up like VYs. That TD:INT ratio might have something to do with not having much talent around him. If his numbers continue to improve throughout the season, I might come around to him being the #1 QB in the draft. I still like Bradford a lot, though.

Not sure if this is precisely what you want, but here is their OBP overall in 2009 batting in the 1 and 2 spots in the order: Kosuke: .404 Bradley: .421 If you want to isolate the numbers to just when they were at the top of the order together, I'm not sure how to do that.

His TD:INT ratio is still a bit of a downer to me, but he's improved his completion percentage each year (47.3 to 53.8 to 57.2) and his rating has improved each year as well. His TD:INT this year is just 11:6, though, which is much better than two years ago (14:15). He has a prototypical NFL build with a strong arm and good mobility and I think some teams will fall in love with that.

I think Bradford definitely leaves early. If he returned for another season and got hurt, his stock would plummet that much more (since he'd have the injury prone label). I would be surprised if he goes lower than late 1st, early second since the surgery apparently will clear up his shoulder issues.

I'd think Grant could get some long TD runs this week. Though I've also heard that the Packers' plan with Ahman Green might be to use him in a goal-line role. I'd still go Grant, though. I need two receivers out of this group: Harvin @ Pit Manningham v Ari Ochocinco v Chi Leaning toward Manningham and Ocho, but I'm not sure.

Martellus Bennett or Miles Austin would be my guesses. Tashard Choice? Apparently not.