Bernie on Bradford....

[Faceplant]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... f6878.html


Bernie Bytes: Concern over Bradford

Good morning, and I hope you all had a pleasant weekend. Big week ahead. The Cardinals play at Pittsburgh and Washington, the Rams get their final preseason game out of the way, and it’s the start of the college football season.

Here's my take on Sam Bradford and the Rams …

Bradford didn’t look good Saturday night in Dallas. And no, I don’t care that it was a preseason game. That’s irrelevant. You want to see certain things from a quarterback, and it doesn’t matter if he’s playing in a preseason game, regular season game, postseason game or pickup game.

The partial check list:

• Is he firm in the pocket? Bradford was awfully jumpy in Dallas. This is disturbing. It’s a continuation of what we saw from Bradford in 2011, when he clearly felt the effects of the frequent pummeling he took from opponents.

• Does he make quick decisions and get the ball out before the protection gives way? Bradford was tentative in Dallas; he often squeezed the rock instead of throwing it.

• Is he instinctive and sharp in being aware of his surroundings? Can he sense the rush? Bradford at times seemed oblivious against the Cowboys. You don’t see him stepping up in the pocket to find extra time to make a throw. You don’t see him making that side move to avoid trouble.

• When the protection holds up, and the quarterback has time to make a throw, is he accurate? Bradford had one terrible miss down the left sideline. He had plenty of time to make the connection, but overthrew an all-alone wide receiver.

I’m no Bradford basher.

If anything, I’m a Bradford apologist.

This organization has done little to help him, and that realization must be a significant part of the evaluation process.

The Rams have hardly put elite talent, or above-average talent, around Sam. And that's true even now, with a new GM and coach in place.

It’s bizarre to me, how Les Snead and head coach Jeff Fisher could take over this roster, see the team’s shaky assortment of offensive tackles, and do little to upgrade the position over the offseason.

Their big move was to sign Barry Richardson, who played horribly at OT in Kansas City the past few seasons. Richardson was exposed again Saturday night in Dallas.

Snead and Fisher also brought in a journeyman guard, Quinn Ojinnaka. The Rams cut Ojinnaka last summer, which should tell us all we need to know. He couldn’t make the 2011 Rams, and now he’s the solution at left guard? Really? Well, Ojinnaka whiffed on a block Saturday and Bradford got clobbered.

It’s bizarre to me, how the Rams still don’t have an established playmaking receiver in place. Saturday night in Dallas, a couple of the series in the red zone looked like video clips pulled from 2011. Bradford dropped back to pass, and waited and waited and waited. But no receiver could gain separation, and get open. They were laughably easy to cover.

Yes, I know they have potential playmakers in rookies Brian Quick and Chris Givens. They could develop into terrific wide receivers, but I’ll have to see it first. Too many young WRs drafted early become busts in this league.

All I know for sure is this: the 2011 Rams had one of the sorriest group of receivers to ever line up for an NFL team. (That’s minus Danny Amendola, who was injured in the regular-season opener and lost for the season.) But here we are, nearly a year later, and no one has beaten out Brandon Gibson for a starting job. That may still happen; we’ll see.

But rookies Quick and Givens didn't get any time with the No. 1s Saturday. The coaches took a different approach with the rookie RBs, giving Isaiah Pead and Daryl Washington plenty of action, and with the 1st unit. So why wouldn't the coaches give the same opportunity to the rookie wide receivers?

If you have a thin group of receivers and use the No. 33 overall pick on a wide receiver, shouldn’t he be able to prevail over nondescript wideouts and quickly earn considerable playing time, or a starting job? It’s not as if Quick is being asked to edge out Torry Holt or Isaac Bruce, circa 2001, for playing time.

If the Snead-Fisher wide receivers can't displace the Billy Devaney and Steve Spagnuolo wide receivers, it's cause for disappointment. To put it mildly.

I know Quick lacks experience. I know he’s making the big leap to the NFL from Appalachian State. He needs time to develop, and all of that.

Frankly, I don’t want to hear it.

The Rams hyped Quick when they drafted him. They raised expectations. If Quick was coming here as a project, then the Rams should have told us that up front instead of acting as if they’d just discovered the new Andre Reed — the fourth-round pick from Kutztown State who became a Hall of Fame caliber receiver for the Buffalo Bills.

(By the way: I thought Quick showed real toughness in returning to Saturday's game after taking a massive hit, and pulling in a 39-yard catch. That's a positive sign. So here's an idea: PLAY HIM.)

So when I view Bradford’s play, I always try to keep in mind that he’s being asked to succeed with mediocrity at OT, and at wide receiver.

That’s a separate issue for now.

Back to Sam Bradford.

When you see Bradford display the obvious signs of Battered Quarterback Syndrome, it’s a concern. Because when a QB is rattled in the pocket, and unable to handle the oncoming pressure, you could line up Jerry Rice and Raymond Berry at WR and it wouldn't make a difference. If Bradford is going to get antsy as soon as he takes a hit, it's going to be a long year. Sure, the Rams need to do a better job of protecting him, and they're clearly going to have to rely on the running game. But this is a tough game, and QBs have to deal with a lot of adversity and pain. The best quarterbacks don't rise above it every time, but they usually maintain their composure and confidence. This is a big year for Sam. I'm not looking for negatives, but some of this stuff can't be ignored.

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Too many holes to fill Bernie

 

[-X-]

That *is* the topic dujour. And will be until at least mid season.

The offensive line, that is.

It's nice that Bernie is taking this approach now about the inconsistency surrounding Bradford, but my gut tells me it won't take long before he takes a different approach. Or maybe not. I don't even remember what his stance was on Bulger - who had nearly identical circumstances in his final few years.

Now, that all said, Fisher and Snead have had how long to correct the issues surrounding Bradford? A few months? It may appear that they took a lax approach to the offensive line; but at the same time, how do we really know? We too only have a few preseason games and an assortment of camp reports to make the determination on our own. Would Kalil have been the better choice? I dunno. Would DeCastro have been a better option instead of Brockers? I dunno. Are any of us qualified to make an adequate assessment of the team's needs prior to the draft? Eh, no.

Maybe Boudreau looked at the tape of the line and said to everyone else, "Holy shit - there's a TON of stuff I can correct on THAT line! Just give me an offseason and a couple of free agents & UDFA's, and we'll be good to go." Maybe Schottenheimer weighed in and said, "Man oh man! I can scheme the hell out of this offense and that kid will never even get touched!" We'll never know.

I do know this though. There were a lot of holes to fill and they all couldn't be addressed in one off-season. Sometimes quantity over quality works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes fence-sitting (as I am now) works. Sometimes it doesn't. I think they need a full year before an adequate evaluation of their talent can be made. So, here we go ...

Getcher popcorn ready.

 

[Thordaddy]

Even when I agree with Bernie I wish I didn't, IMO the o-line is far less a known commodity than Bradford ,I saw Bradford hold the ball and pat it enough to get anyone killed, throw the damned ball or get out of the pocket.

 

[-X-]

Even when I agree with Bernie I wish I didn't, IMO the o-line is far less a known commodity than Bradford ,I saw Bradford hold the ball and pat it enough to get anyone killed, throw the damned ball or get out of the pocket.

I saw that too. But to be fair, I've seen Brady massage a football for 23 seconds a few times. We really don't know if Bradford had a long-developing route, or if he was just waiting on someone to get open deep because he liked the matchup. He has things to clean up for sure, but like you, I don't see him as a liability.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

The thing is they're isn't a lot of O lineman out they're in the offseason or the draft it's hard to find a decent guard let alone a tackle if we drafted Decastro or Kalil then what about our run game and the extra draft picks we got like I said this team has a lot of holes to fill and you can't expect to fill them in one season

 

[-X-]

The thing is they're isn't a lot of O lineman out they're in the offseason or the draft it's hard to find a decent guard let alone a tackle if we drafted Decastro or Kalil then what about our run game and the extra draft picks we got like I said this team has a lot of holes to fill and you can't expect to fill them in one season

Yeah I agree. Too much to do and not enough time to do it.

And you never know. The Rams may have gotten the better guard in Watkins, and may even have gotten the better Richardson at the RB position. It's too early too tell, so we kinda gotta trust their instincts and evaluation skizzles right now. Benefit of the doubt and all. I guess.

 

[Yamahopper]

Bernie must have reached in his closet and pulled out his "Captain Obvious" cape today.

 

[Angry Ram]

OK, so, according to Bernie...

1. Preseason games absolutely have merit w/ the QB, but not everyone else.

2. Has 4 little blurbs asking questions that can't be answered, and according to what he saw (on tv if not a booth) he can tell what Bradford saw and sensed. Umm, ok.

3. Pointed out a grand total of one bad play from him.

4. That Snead and Fisher failed to put talent around Sam, 3 preseason games in.

5. Richardson was a "big move." Umm, I think some guy named Cortland Finnegan, Kendall Langford, and drafting Brockers/Jenkins were the big moves.

6. The 2 rookie WRs are busts until they prove otherwise, let alone time to develop. But he doesn't want to hear it, and instead will go Vancome Lady on that (start at 1:50)...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlAxLGaDbnw[/youtube]

7. They didn't hype Quick, they merely said he wowed at the workouts and could be something special. The media ran w/ it and raised expactions.

8. On the other hand, he says having HoF WRs wouldn't help Bradford. So which is it, WRs or Bradford? Adversity? Didn't Bradford play behind a practice squad OL late into the season w/ bum ankle. For a 2 win team.

 

[ScotsRam]

Typical "AAAH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONLY PRESEASON THE SKY IS FALLING" crap that you expect from the PD. I've shat better journalism. They haven't even played a fucking regular season game yet, can people not at least wait until their fears are confirmed before voicing them?

 

[Anonymous]

That *is* the topic dujour. And will be until at least mid season.

The offensive line, that is.

It's nice that Bernie is taking this approach now about the inconsistency surrounding Bradford, but my gut tells me it won't take long before he takes a different approach. Or maybe not. I don't even remember what his stance was on Bulger - who had nearly identical circumstances in his final few years.

Now, that all said, Fisher and Snead have had how long to correct the issues surrounding Bradford? A few months? It may appear that they took a lax approach to the offensive line; but at the same time, how do we really know? We too only have a few preseason games and an assortment of camp reports to make the determination on our own. Would Kalil have been the better choice? I dunno. Would DeCastro have been a better option instead of Brockers? I dunno. Are any of us qualified to make an adequate assessment of the team's needs prior to the draft? Eh, no.

Maybe Boudreau looked at the tape of the line and said to everyone else, "Holy shyte - there's a TON of stuff I can correct on THAT line! Just give me an offseason and a couple of free agents & UDFA's, and we'll be good to go." Maybe Schottenheimer weighed in and said, "Man oh man! I can scheme the hell out of this offense and that kid will never even get touched!" We'll never know.

I do know this though. There were a lot of holes to fill and they all couldn't be addressed in one off-season. Sometimes quantity over quality works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes fence-sitting (as I am now) works. Sometimes it doesn't. I think they need a full year before an adequate evaluation of their talent can be made. So, here we go ...

Getcher popcorn ready.

He relentlessly put it all on Bulger, and would break out long stats sheets to prove he wasn't playing well. He would then also say he was suffering from battered qb syndrome.

He even did the "all teams have injuries" schtick when it was mentioned that the OL was injured.

My response to this is simple.

No one is actually criticizing the Rams starting offensive line.

Why not?

The Rams starting offense, and offensive line, did not play against Dallas.

That was Wells's first game, Dahl was out, Jackson was out, and they faced a gameplanning defense in its home owner without themselves treating the game seriously that way.

So what does the Dallas game teach me?

So far...that much adieu can be made about nothing.

The week before, they had a center who wasn't in his first start, they had Dahl, they had Jackson, and scored in 4 plays in their opening drive.

Which is truer? Neither. But the KC game at least had the starting offense on the field.

 

[-X-]

That *is* the topic dujour. And will be until at least mid season.

The offensive line, that is.

It's nice that Bernie is taking this approach now about the inconsistency surrounding Bradford, but my gut tells me it won't take long before he takes a different approach. Or maybe not. I don't even remember what his stance was on Bulger - who had nearly identical circumstances in his final few years.

Now, that all said, Fisher and Snead have had how long to correct the issues surrounding Bradford? A few months? It may appear that they took a lax approach to the offensive line; but at the same time, how do we really know? We too only have a few preseason games and an assortment of camp reports to make the determination on our own. Would Kalil have been the better choice? I dunno. Would DeCastro have been a better option instead of Brockers? I dunno. Are any of us qualified to make an adequate assessment of the team's needs prior to the draft? Eh, no.

Maybe Boudreau looked at the tape of the line and said to everyone else, "Holy shyte - there's a TON of stuff I can correct on THAT line! Just give me an offseason and a couple of free agents & UDFA's, and we'll be good to go." Maybe Schottenheimer weighed in and said, "Man oh man! I can scheme the hell out of this offense and that kid will never even get touched!" We'll never know.

I do know this though. There were a lot of holes to fill and they all couldn't be addressed in one off-season. Sometimes quantity over quality works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes fence-sitting (as I am now) works. Sometimes it doesn't. I think they need a full year before an adequate evaluation of their talent can be made. So, here we go ...

Getcher popcorn ready.

He relentlessly put it all on Bulger, and would break out long stats sheets to prove he wasn't playing well. He would then also say he was suffering from battered qb syndrome.

He even did the "all teams have injuries" schtick when it was mentioned that the OL was injured.

My response to this is simple.

No one is actually criticizing the Rams starting offensive line.

Why not?

The Rams starting offense, and offensive line, did not play against Dallas.

That was Wells's first game, Dahl was out, Jackson was out, and they faced a gameplanning defense in its home owner without themselves treating the game seriously that way.

So what does the Dallas game teach me?

So far...that much adieu can be made about nothing.

The week before, they had a center who wasn't in his first start, they had Dahl, they had Jackson, and scored in 4 plays in their opening drive.

Which is truer? Neither. But the KC game at least had the starting offense on the field.

Yeah I agree with all that. It was difficult to watch, and you can get some quick impressions from that game that give you false information. I was guilty of that as it happened, and I had some residual concerns immediately afterward, but then I watched the game again on NFLN. I saw a lot of things I didn't have the chance to see while watching it online in 16 pixels.

Thanks for the update on the flowing ebbs of Bernie's tide. Confirmed my suspicions.

 

[Speeps]

I've been saying this for three weeks, and I will continue to say it, It's too early to jump to conclusions. There are many examples of "what we see in the preseason, is not what we'll see in the regular season." As Rams fans, we know this better than anybody else.

I refuse to sit here and make predictions about a team that has undergone constant personnel changes, refuses to game plan, and is stuck with a vanilla playbook. It's the classic example of jumping the gun. We have not seen the real Rams. Not in Indy, not against KC, and not in Dallas. They have yet to show up. I'll go as far as saying, they haven't given us a glimpse into what they are doing.

It is impossible for us to gauge the pulse of a team when the coaches are using games as a glorified practice.

However, there are things such as poor tackling and a QB's uncertainty in the pocket(which is completely understandable considering Sam Bradford was neglected for a year. If you thought that Fisher was going to fix that in 5 weeks, perhaps I should start questioning the IQ of some of our fans.) that we can criticize. Luckily, all of that is correctable. Extremely correctable.

I will remain patient. I'm not going to go crazy and threaten to slit my wrists because Sam Bradford missed a throw. I'm not going to go call 911 because we gave up a sack. I'll wait, and I'll join X in getting my popcorn ready.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

All I know is we haven't had this much talent on our team since 6-7 years ago we should be excited and hopeful for this season

 

[Faceplant]

Yeah, there are a multitude issues at play here, and I think we all understand that. The one thing that really bugs me is something I am not even sure I can quantify. That is, I am just not sure that I "trust" Bradford. I know about all of the obstacles he has faced. I get it. I believe that Stafford is a good example of a young QB who grew into his position as the team built around him. Who knows what Sam could do with a WR like Megatron to chuck it to. Maybe we will never know. What I DO know is that he does not inspire me the way other QBs have. That could be a chicken and egg thing though. Maybe if he had better protection and other pieces around him, he would shred secondaries to ribbons. To me, he seemed like he was pissed off when he came out against the Chefs. I was hoping he had turned that corner and was sick of being called "less than aggressive" out there. Saturday it seemed he reverted back to that slumped shoulder, Charlie Brown persona. I want to see the confident leader I saw against KC. Preseason or not. I see it from the likes of Austin Davis.....we NEED to see it from Sam. Just my humble opinion.

 

[Stranger]

I’m no Bradford basher.

If anything, I’m a Bradford apologist.

Bernie's mission is to supply food to the animals at Ramstalk.

 

[Anonymous]

That is, I am just not sure that I "trust" Bradford

To me, when I account for the factors around him, I always realize--I have never seen a qb do well under those conditions.

Warner didn't in 2002, for example.

So for me, I never even ask about the qb, in this sense. If he has performed in better conditions I assume that he will again. Since no qb does well under the conditions we saw Saturday, I don't put it on the qb at all--IF he has played well before.

When they had a more established OL and Jackson, they moved down the field in KC and scored in 4 plays.

When they didn't have an established OL (for a lot of different reasons) and couldn't run, and the OL could not handle a gameplanned D without a gameplan, I just figured--no one does what they want Bradford to do in those conditions.

Plus of course they had 8 dropped and/or muffed catches on catchable balls. How is that Bradford.

I think people just ask a qb to be a savior, yet I struggle to think of who looks good when the OL is bad and the team can't run, and my impression is that the standard some people set is not real.

 

[Faceplant]

I am glad you brought up Warner. I was going to use him as an example in my previous post, but deleted it. It is a good point that Warner, under similar circumstances (actually, more favorable) did not play well. He was also injured and too stubborn to admit that the thumb was affecting his play.

As far as trust goes, Warner had already led the team to 2 Superbowls by that point, so I think fans were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We trusted him. In the end, he was run out of town and was not effective again until he had recovered from the injury, and had Fitz, Boldin and Breaston to throw the ball to. That aside, I saw a lot of things in Warner that I just don't see in Sam. Should that surprise anyone? No. Warner is one of the best QBs of our time. But it is those intangibles that I saw in KW that I wish would surface for Bradford. Maybe they will, I just don't see it happening yet.

 

[-X-]

I am glad you brought up Warner. I was going to use him as an example in my previous post, but deleted it. It is a good point that Warner, under similar circumstances (actually, more favorable) did not play well. He was also injured and too stubborn to admit that the thumb was affecting his play.

As far as trust goes, Warner had already led the team to 2 Superbowls by that point, so I think fans were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We trusted him. In the end, he was run out of town and was not effective again until he had recovered from the injury, and had Fitz, Boldin and Breaston to throw the ball to. That aside, I saw a lot of things in Warner that I just don't see in Sam. Should that surprise anyone? No. Warner is one of the best QBs of our time. But it is those intangibles that I saw in KW that I wish would surface for Bradford. Maybe they will, I just don't see it happening yet.

Man I would LOVE to see what Bradford could do with Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce and Az Hakim on the LOS with him - and behind that O-line. Along the same vein, I wouldn't wish Kurt Warner to play in the same circumstances Bradford had in 2011.

 

[Faceplant]

I am glad you brought up Warner. I was going to use him as an example in my previous post, but deleted it. It is a good point that Warner, under similar circumstances (actually, more favorable) did not play well. He was also injured and too stubborn to admit that the thumb was affecting his play.

As far as trust goes, Warner had already led the team to 2 Superbowls by that point, so I think fans were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. We trusted him. In the end, he was run out of town and was not effective again until he had recovered from the injury, and had Fitz, Boldin and Breaston to throw the ball to. That aside, I saw a lot of things in Warner that I just don't see in Sam. Should that surprise anyone? No. Warner is one of the best QBs of our time. But it is those intangibles that I saw in KW that I wish would surface for Bradford. Maybe they will, I just don't see it happening yet.

Man I would LOVE to see what Bradford could do with Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce and Az Hakim on the LOS with him - and behind that O-line. Along the same vein, I wouldn't wish Kurt Warner to play in the same circumstances Bradford had in 2011.

As would I. I think some of us on ROD could put up decent #'s in that offense, haha. I am not sure Sam would flourish in that system either though. That was such a precision timing aerial scheme. So far, I have not seen Sam throw as much of the pure timing, trust your man to be at a spot 15-20 yds downfield on a crossing route type stuff that was the staple of that passing offense. Much of that can and WILL be blamed on the OL and WRs.....and with good reason. I am just saying I have not seen him in that style of offense, in the pros or college. Would be fun to see how he would have performed with that roster though. It would certainly end any and all debate about him...one way or the other.