Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: AP names Sam Bradford offensive rookie of the year « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31636
Offline
#15 : February 04, 2011, 11:02:10 PM

why does he deserve 1 vote if no voter felt he was the best rookie?

Whoever voted for Pouncey over Bradford, Williams, or Blount should have their voting privileges revoked.


jerseybucsfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 13695
Online
#16 : February 04, 2011, 11:51:12 PM

1. It's not the Best Rookie Compared to the Worst Guys on the Team Award. Rams QBs were so bad in 2009 that anything Bradford would have done would have been better than that. Since the Rams had the worst record, it's giving him an automatic advantage using that logic.
2. When he had to pass long (see the Seattle game in Week 17), he failed. Other rookie QBs (like Freeman) didn't have ratings that high, but also didn't play nearly as conservatively. In fact, Freeman, who didn't have the benefit of offseason coaching, didn't get the reps when the season began, still wound up with a higher YPA (6.4).
3. The whole 'he led his team into contention' angle is hilarious. They finished second in the second-worst division in NFL history. They were 10th in the conference in point differential. They were 26th in total offense. And guess what they ranked in yards per play: 30th. The Bucs were 11th in this category BTW.
4. Here's the one that gets me. The Rams were sixth in passing attempts in the NFL, but only 21st in passing yardage. That means that they showcased Bradford nicely, but he really didn't do as much as one would think.

Williams had the most TDs by a rookie WR since Randy Moss (with 11). That's fourth in the NFL. He's ranked 11th among all wideouts on the profootball-reference.com scale. Bradford is ranked 25th among QBs. Taking into account that quarterback is a more important position, the vote should have been a lot closer, if not in favor of Williams.

In Verner We Trust

CyberDilemma

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8248
Offline
#17 : February 05, 2011, 01:02:03 AM

I would have named Suh offensive rookie of the year, too. He spent as much time in the backfield as the rest of those guys.

Boid Fink

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 54579
Offline
#18 : February 05, 2011, 01:40:53 AM

why does he deserve 1 vote if no voter felt he was the best rookie?

Whoever voted for Pouncey over Bradford, Williams, or Blount should have their voting privileges revoked.
Obviously a Steeler media homer...

Pouncey had some awful games.  Downright awful.

Not sure how he got a single vote.

Bradford deserved the award, IMO.  He worked with two swinging tires and a garbage can as his wideouts. 


watson

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 5177
Offline
#19 : February 05, 2011, 04:38:45 AM

Who gives a D***?!   Just another "fluff" award.  Once upon a time a certain RB for the Bucs was ROY and now many on here want him gone!! .

Truths:
1.  Never have an argument with an idiot.  They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience.
2.  For some it would be better if they remained silent and be thought a fool than to speak and erase all doubt.

JDog

User is on moderator watch listWatched
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2571
Offline
#20 : February 05, 2011, 08:53:58 AM

I don't think there is even any question that Bradford was the offensive rookie of the year.   There shouldn't even be a debate on this one.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46231
Offline
#21 : February 05, 2011, 09:10:06 AM

I don't think there is even any question that Bradford was the offensive rookie of the year.   There shouldn't even be a debate on this one.
Bradford with Suh as only possible competitor from the defensive side of the ball

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

JDog

User is on moderator watch listWatched
******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2571
Offline
#22 : February 05, 2011, 09:16:30 AM

Suh was defensive rookie of the year.    Unfortunately, McCoy wasn't even close to Suh this season.   Doesn't mean he won't improve, but it looks like the "experts" who had McCoy rated higher than Suh were wrong.


ShotCaller

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1330
Offline
#23 : February 05, 2011, 09:37:31 AM


gilbert gottfried was a shoo-in .. for those calling for blount, he wasn't even OROY on his team .. how could he be OROY for the league?

Blaze688

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3103
Offline
#24 : February 05, 2011, 10:03:26 AM

Dalbuc, your assessment is shortsighted and erroneous. In fact, it was the improvement of the St. Louis defense more than the offense that had to do with St. Louis' six-game improvement. Look at Bradford's YPA (5.9). He was at the very bottom of the league, 31st. Furthermore, his QB rating was 25th, hardly impressive. Competition? The worst division in the NFL and second-worst since the merger. Three wins vs. NFC West and one vs. Carolina.
My voting would have gone: 1. Pouncey, 2. MW, 3. Blount, 4. Bradford. Anyone who can't outplay Charlie Whitehurst with a division on the line is hardly impressive.

Pouncey at #1?  That's ridiculous.  I like Pouncey, but his play has been greatly exaggerated.  He's been very good for a rookie, but not this phenomenal player that the media has made him out to be.

Anyway, any rookie QB who wins more games for his team than they have in the last three seasons combined while throwing for 60% and over 3,500 yards is going to win the ROY.  Quit being homers, for god's sake.

I'm so glad somebody said it.  The fact that Pouncey's ankle has been the story in the two weeks before the Super Bowl is a joke.  The only thing Pouncey has on Legursky is athleticism and experience.  Definitely important, and he's definitely BETTER than the backup, but I hate the fact that people act like Pouncey's absence is a fifteen point swing or something.  Legursky is strong and stout as hell.  I doubt we even notice a difference on Sunday.


jerseybucsfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 13695
Online
#25 : February 05, 2011, 12:40:15 PM

So whoever has the most yardage is the most excellent? Then Jon Kitna should be in the Hall of Fame.
60 percent? Real nice except he was the ultimate short yardage passer in the league. 6.0 yards per attempt, 31st in the league. Think you could complete 60 percent standing a couple of feet away from someone all day. Yes. It means little.
In fact, Bradford's short stuff may have hurt St. Louis' offense more than it helped. Stephen Jackson's yards per attempt went down. Think opposing defenses put extra guys in the box more often and knew Bradford wouldn't throw it down the field?
More wins than the last three years combined? That's a great stat except when you ignore what their defense was ranked in those three seasons:21st, 28th, 29th. This year? 19th. Points allowed is more dramatic: 12th after being 31st all three years. Think all those high picks other than Bradford had something to do with their defensive improvement?
How about the competition? NFC West was historically bad this year, going from bad to worse: Teams other than the Rams in 2007: 23-25, then 20-28, then 23-25. This year: 18-30. The Rams didn't improve; the rest of the West came back to THEM.
Bradford couldn't beat Charlie Whitehurst, the 40th best quarterback in the NFL, with a division title on the line.
So the Rams' improvement is greatly overstated and Bradford's effect has been minimal.

In Verner We Trust

Blaze688

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3103
Offline
#26 : February 05, 2011, 12:46:57 PM

Mike Williams is a better receiver than Bradford is a quarterback.  But it's a passer's league.  Them's the breaks.


Boid Fink

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 54579
Offline
#27 : February 05, 2011, 01:08:47 PM

Dalbuc, your assessment is shortsighted and erroneous. In fact, it was the improvement of the St. Louis defense more than the offense that had to do with St. Louis' six-game improvement. Look at Bradford's YPA (5.9). He was at the very bottom of the league, 31st. Furthermore, his QB rating was 25th, hardly impressive. Competition? The worst division in the NFL and second-worst since the merger. Three wins vs. NFC West and one vs. Carolina.
My voting would have gone: 1. Pouncey, 2. MW, 3. Blount, 4. Bradford. Anyone who can't outplay Charlie Whitehurst with a division on the line is hardly impressive.

Pouncey at #1?  That's ridiculous.  I like Pouncey, but his play has been greatly exaggerated.  He's been very good for a rookie, but not this phenomenal player that the media has made him out to be.

Anyway, any rookie QB who wins more games for his team than they have in the last three seasons combined while throwing for 60% and over 3,500 yards is going to win the ROY.  Quit being homers, for god's sake.

I'm so glad somebody said it.  The fact that Pouncey's ankle has been the story in the two weeks before the Super Bowl is a joke.  The only thing Pouncey has on Legursky is athleticism and experience.  Definitely important, and he's definitely BETTER than the backup, but I hate the fact that people act like Pouncey's absence is a fifteen point swing or something.  Legursky is strong and stout as hell.  I doubt we even notice a difference on Sunday.
http://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,430096.msg430282.html#msg430282

I agree.  I have always thought Legursky is an OX...


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31636
Offline
#28 : February 05, 2011, 01:22:40 PM

So whoever has the most yardage is the most excellent? Then Jon Kitna should be in the Hall of Fame.
60 percent? Real nice except he was the ultimate short yardage passer in the league. 6.0 yards per attempt, 31st in the league. Think you could complete 60 percent standing a couple of feet away from someone all day. Yes. It means little.
In fact, Bradford's short stuff may have hurt St. Louis' offense more than it helped. Stephen Jackson's yards per attempt went down. Think opposing defenses put extra guys in the box more often and knew Bradford wouldn't throw it down the field?
More wins than the last three years combined? That's a great stat except when you ignore what their defense was ranked in those three seasons:21st, 28th, 29th. This year? 19th. Points allowed is more dramatic: 12th after being 31st all three years. Think all those high picks other than Bradford had something to do with their defensive improvement?
How about the competition? NFC West was historically bad this year, going from bad to worse: Teams other than the Rams in 2007: 23-25, then 20-28, then 23-25. This year: 18-30. The Rams didn't improve; the rest of the West came back to THEM.
Bradford couldn't beat Charlie Whitehurst, the 40th best quarterback in the NFL, with a division title on the line.
So the Rams' improvement is greatly overstated and Bradford's effect has been minimal.

Do you have any idea how many rookie QB's have thrown for over 3500 yards and 18+ TD's in the last 20 years?  You clearly don't, because you're not comprehending how rare it is to see a rookie QB play like Bradford did.

Just to help you out, there have been only 2 rookie QB's to put up those numbers in the last 20 years:  Peyton Manning and Sam Bradford.  There's one every 10-15 years.  The guy deserves the award.


notabucsfan

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3147
Offline
#29 : February 05, 2011, 01:32:02 PM

I don't agree with it. The media wanted Bradford to win so he did. To met he wasn't the best Rookie and I would think Blount and Williams were more deserving because they put up numbers that were in the top half of the league. Bradford showed a lot of promise this year but there was nothing impressive to me about his 75% qb rating, and 60% comp rate. Put it in comparison Blount and Williams were closer to make the pro bowl then Bradford was.
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: AP names Sam Bradford offensive rookie of the year « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools