Bernie: Make or break year for Bradford?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

GreeneCounty

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
1,121
We’ve been stewing over quarterbacks in our town since the Bidwill family moved the Chicago Cardinals here in 1960. Cardinal or Ram — you name him, and we’ve probably argued over him. Sam Etcheverry, Charley Johnson, Gary Cuozzo, Jim Hart, Steve Pisarkiewicz, Neil Lomax, Kurt Warner, Marc Bulger.

I can’t imagine that any St. Louis quarterback has been debated more than Sam Bradford, who is preparing for his fifth season as the Rams’ starter.

Bradford is only 26, but already is one of the most experienced quarterbacks in St. Louis NFL history. If you combine the Cardinals’ and Rams’ seasons here, only four quarterbacks have attempted more regular-season passes for the St. Louis franchise than Bradford: Hart, Bulger, Lomax and Johnson.

I’m sorry to go against the grain, but I don’t see 2014 as a “make or break” season for Bradford.

Instead, I see Bradford as entering a new phase in his career.

You see, I’ve adjusted my expectations.

The days of demanding that Bradford become Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees are over. Bradford isn’t the kind of quarterback that can elevate a franchise in a dramatic way.

But this doesn’t mean Sam can’t become Phil Simms or Jim Plunkett.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. Both quarterbacks played admirably and won Super Bowls later in their careers after getting curb-stomped and nearly broken in the service of rebuilding, overmatched teams.


Bradford has run the gamut in St. Louis. He was the franchise savior when he arrived as the first player picked in the 2010 NFL draft. Then he became the under-duress quarterback trapped behind a mediocre offensive line and a revolving door of owners, head coaches, general managers and offensive coordinators.

Bradford never has had a Mel Gray, Jackie Smith, Pat Tilley, Roy Green, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt or Ricky Proehl to catch his passes.

He never ran a passing game designed by Don Coryell or Mike Martz.

He never had Dan Dierdorf or Orlando Pace protecting him.

He never handed the ball off to Terry Metcalf or Marshall Faulk. (Steven Jackson already was entering the downside of his career during Bradford’s early years.)

This isn’t an excuse; it’s reality. For Bradford, it’s been a career of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A truly special quarterback might have been able to overcome all of that, but Bradford isn’t that guy.

But I’m convinced that Bradford can be effective — and a winner — with an enhanced mix of talent and coaching. That seems like faint praise, but honestly that’s not my intention.

I’ve spent four seasons hoping that Bradford could develop into the next Manning or Brady or the Warner that triggered the “Greatest Show” Rams. But at some point you just have to accept he truth. After all, how many of those guys come along?

So rather than throw a tantrum over what Bradford can’t become, I’d rather focus on what he can become.

That’s why I keep thinking about Simms and Plunkett.

My friend Randy Karraker of WXOS (101.1 FM) made the Simms-Bradford analogy, and I definitely see it. I’ll also add Plunkett to the list.

Simms was drafted in the first round by a bad Giants team in 1979 and got kicked around over his first several NFL seasons. He suffered injuries. He was called a bust, and shredded by New York media and fans. Simms was 14-23 in his first four seasons and at one point lost his starting gig to the immortal Scott Brunner.

Coach Bill Parcells changed all of that. He built a great defense. He constructed a tough offensive line. He installed a physical running game. The Giants became winners, and Simms no longer was a bum. Between 1984 and 1990, Simms had a record of 68-33 and was the Super Bowl MVP for the ’86 Giants.

Plunkett, the No. 1 pick in the 1971 draft, was chosen by a horrendous New England team that threw him to the jackals. Plunkett broke down after absorbing brutal punishment during his formative seasons.

By the time the Patriots became winners in 1976, Plunkett was damaged goods, and long gone. Plunkett was picked up by another awful team at the time (San Francisco), and the experience was just as miserable during his two seasons (1976-77) as the 49ers’ starter.

This is the same guy that went on to win two Super Bowls in five seasons for the Raiders. The difference? The Raiders knew what they were doing. They had talent, including two Hall of Fame offensive linemen (Gene Upshaw, Art Shell). They had capable receivers including wideout Cliff Branch and super tight ends such as Dave Casper and Todd Christensen. They had a Hall of Fame running back in Marcus Allen.

When Simms and Plunkett were given a legitimate chance to succeed, they came through.

Plunkett never was a stiff. He just needed smarter coaching and a stronger team to support him. Simms’ Giants never had scary-good wide receivers; his best target was tight end Mark Bavaro.

The Raiders and Giants each had a stout running game and an intimidating defense. And with few exceptions, that’s how you succeed in the NFL. It’s hard, but I constantly have to remind myself of that. Even now — in the modern-day NFL tricked up with slick passing games — the team with the superior defense usually wins the Super Bowl.

Rams coach Jeff Fisher has gone back to his roots to build a robust rushing attack. He’s beefed up the offensive line. The Rams defense – already dangerous – has a chance to be ruthlessly good in 2014. Bradford – finally – is in position to benefit from the roster improvements.

For Bradford, Manning and Brady are out of reach. But he still has a chance to follow the hard — but ultimately successful – career paths of Plunkett and Simms.

And I’d take that. Wouldn’t you?
----------------------------------------------
@GreeneCounty: Where is the link?
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
So, basically Bernie just wrote a whole article to expound on the term "game manager"?
 

CodeMonkey

Possibly the OH but cannot self-identify
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
3,449
Bernie just go away! I get so sick of the mantra "the kind of quarterback that can elevate a franchise in a dramatic way."

A whole lot of "no duh" in this article. It's a epiphany to him that it's a team sport.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
comment_ao1aUVeFNcu10KVo8I2WhbUDxpzNLfAr.gif
 

DCH

Madman with a box.
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
3,354
Name
Dewey
Bradford could be a fantastic QB still. He's young. He's got the arm, accuracy, smarts, footwork - all the raw ingredients to create a game-changing QB. However, for much of his career, those ingredients have been getting spilled by people knocking past his sous chefs and line chefs, leaving him the task of picking up the ingredients and starting from earlier points in the process.

Now his kitchen is stocked with competent folks to work with, and I expect a lovely soufflé. Or a great beef Wellington.

I need to stop watching Gordon Ramsey shows. But I disagree with Bernie in that I believe Bradford could consistently be a top-5 QB in this league given a good O-line, competent receivers and a running game. All things that he appears to have for the first time in 2014. Also all things that every QB needs to varying degrees.

Is he as good as Andrew Luck? I don't think so. Can he compete with anyone under the age of 30 to be the 2nd-best QB in the league (not including HoF shoo-ins Brady, Brees and Peyton)? I think so.
 

cracengl

Rookie
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
360
I'd like to see the standard we are using for the teams that have been "uplifted" by a quarterback. I'm guessing they are not as horrible as some of the teams Sam has played on. Does anyone have an actual example?
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,923
Well, he is right that some fans think Bradford is a failure unless he is a superstar QB. He's never going to be Peyton Manning. But he can still be a good qb. That's more than just a game manager. I think with the tools around him now he's a guy who makes few mistakes, can help the team drive down the field - and get the big play when the other team isn't expecting it. And yes, make tough throws now that he has WRs who can get a little space and won't routinely drop the ball or run the wrong route.

I'm sure RamStalk has poster's throwing hissy fits in the other direction over this article.
 

Thordaddy

Binding you with ancient logic
Joined
Apr 5, 2012
Messages
10,462
Name
Rich
Although I think he's wrong about Sams ceiling,I think he's probably right about what Fisher is going to require of him,I see him more like Bradshaw wherein at a later point in his career he can become a "mad bomber".
As for the writing , didn't have any swipes at others ,picked no fights so i won't either,I actually enjoyed the read
 

MerlinJones

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
1,020
Is there anything (other than a letter of resignation) Bernie can write that everybody doesn't complain about?

The piece does basically say that he thinks Bradford can quarterback the team to a Super Bowl doesn't it?
 

DCH

Madman with a box.
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
3,354
Name
Dewey
Is there anything (other than a letter of resignation) Bernie can write that everybody doesn't complain about?

The piece does basically say that he thinks Bradford can quarterback the team to a Super Bowl doesn't it?
I like Bernie. I disagree with him on this, and I think years of dealing with the BPB trolls has driven him borderline insane on the Bradford thing. That's why I complain about this article. Not about Bernie, who, again, I have enjoyed reading for decades.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude

Bradford never has had a Mel Gray, Jackie Smith, Pat Tilley, Roy Green, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt or Ricky Proehl to catch his passes.

He never ran a passing game designed by Don Coryell or Mike Martz.

He never had Dan Dierdorf or Orlando Pace protecting him.

He never handed the ball off to Terry Metcalf or Marshall Faulk. (Steven Jackson already was entering the downside of his career during Bradford’s early years.)

This isn’t an excuse; it’s reality. For Bradford, it’s been a career of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A truly special quarterback might have been able to overcome all of that, but Bradford isn’t that guy.


I sort of agree, but don't entirely. I've seen "so called" truly special QBs struggle under very similar circumstances that Bradford has been under early in his career. The circumstances aren't equal to not having Superstars around him as Bernie describes. The circumstances are having multiple injuries to key players on the line and in what amounted to a fairly average wide receiving corps. One only needs to look at how Bradford performs when he has a good receiver, normal protection, and an effective (by NFL standards) running game. It's been extrapolated several times and it always looks good. Now if Bernie wants to speculate that truly special QBs can thrive while throwing to rookie and/or 2nd year receivers on a constant rotating basis, then show me. If he wants to speculate that truly special QBs can thrive while throwing to rookie and/or 2nd year receivers on a constant rotating basis while having no running game, then dig REALLY deep and show me. And if he wants to speculate that truly special QBs can thrive while throwing to rookie and/or 2nd year receivers on a constant rotating basis, while having no running game, and operating behind a line with multiple injuries, then I'm just not going to listen to it. Because he can't show me that.
 

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
9,927
Name
Wil Fay
Its not so much a Bernie thing - its a Bradford thing. There are no fresh angles to take - it has been beaten into the ground.

Every single person who talks about the Rams: "Great Defense but it all depends on Bradford." There just isn't any more to say about it.

Add to that the fact that Sam is all business - he isn't flashy - he isn't going to say anything stupid in the media or get arrested at a titty bar - there really are no more words for it - there is nothing left to do but play.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
I'd like to see the standard we are using for the teams that have been "uplifted" by a quarterback. I'm guessing they are not as horrible as some of the teams Sam has played on. Does anyone have an actual example?
I've always wanted to see one of these awful teams who got elevated. No one, as yet, has been able to find one. That I'm aware of anyway. What I have seen is a ton of decent teams who needed a QB (Seattle) being wrongly used as an example.
 

cracengl

Rookie
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
360
I've always wanted to see one of these awful teams who got elevated. No one, as yet, has been able to find one. That I'm aware of anyway. What I have seen is a ton of decent teams who needed a QB (Seattle) being wrongly used as an example.

Well I know there have been examples used over the years. I just don't think you could fairly compare them to some of the teams the Rams have put on the field. But maybe we can--if so, I'll take it back. Some of the examples that come to mind off the top of my head are Brady elevating the Pats without true #1 receivers. He did a lot last year with Edelman. The team succeeded in spite of losing Hernandez and having Gronkowski and Amendola injured a lot. You can look to the years of him having Troy Brown and not much else. Manning made guys like Austin Collie look a lot better than they may have otherwise looked. But again, is elevating relative unknowns to compensate for a positional weakness the same as having an offense pretty much consisting of all UDFAs, street free agents, unproven young guys, or massively under performing and again veterans?

I feel conditioned to add the stipulation that I'm not trying to be a kool-aid drinking homer. I'm not trying to look at this through the "Bradford Mom" eyes as some would like to troll about. I just feel like this is one of the first years we can actually say Bradford has the supporting offensive cast that can allow us to judge him fairly. I truly believe that most of the guys on this offense could leave and be starters or role players on another team. I'm not so sure I would say the same about them in years past.

It is going to all come to a head sooner than later. We will either have our QB that we thought we were going to have (or something a little less, but still good) or we won't and they will have to go back to well. And while I don't feel as good about the scenario of having to break in a new QB, I feel better about it now than I have in the past. At least in the future, this team is built to last and to compete to the point that a new QB would be put into a 1000% times better scenario than SB ever was.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,132
Name
Burger man
While I would love Bradford to become the next Peyton Manning, my bar was never that high.

It is a total oversimplification of the position to expect those guys come along very often.

What I DO expect from Sam is to lead this franchise with pride and be solid on game day. That's a realistic goal... And if so he'll be putting up top 10 / top 5 performances and we'll win a lot of games.