Jim Thomas: Rams are not ready to give up on Bradford Yet --Audio

[RamBill]

Jim Thomas of the St. Louis Post Dispatch joins the The Ryan Kelley Morning After Show. Topics: Chances dim for a move to Los Angeles for 2015, would be very surprised if something happened to the Rams this off-season, the league wants to “control” the market and make it an orderly process, would like to get stadium situation solved, the league needs something concrete, seems that Kroenke wants to move to Los Angeles..Sam Bradford for next season, other options to acquire a new QB, how would the Rams have done if Bradford had been healthy this season..Rams are not ready to give up on Sam Bradford yet, but not at his current contract.The Ryan Kelley Morning After

Listen to JT Talk Rams

 

[leoram]

Uh uh well... Uh um I think, uh...

Thomas should stick to writing because he's a terrible interview. If I want insight to the Rams, I think I'd rather look up X.

 

[Angry Ram]

Uh uh well... Uh um I think, uh...

Thomas should stick to writing because he's a terrible interview. If I want insight to the Rams, I think I'd rather look up X.

Right? Tho I also think his writing is dry and boring. Wish we had some enthusiasm in our beat writer.

 

[blue4]

All LA/STL stuff aside, I'm not sure how the Raiders or the Rams could be in front of the Chargers. Their stadium is in horrible shape and it's been a long time they've been talking trying for a new one. They're what 150 miles away? If you take the all the emotion out of it, and going by the NFL's own guideline with no backdoor deals, seems like to me that they would be the most logical choice from a NFL business standpoint. I just have this feeling that if you brought in a foreign businessman and told him to do what's best for the health the league, it'd take him 5 mins to point to SD.

 

[moklerman]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-chargers-stadium-lease-20141216-story.html

For years, the San Diego Chargers have been unhappy with their stadium and weighing the merits of a relocation to Los Angeles. They are free to leave their market at the conclusion of every season.

But the Chargers announced Tuesday that they will not be moving in 2015, and that's the strongest indication yet that, despite rumors and speculation to the contrary, there won't be any NFL team in the nation's second-largest market by next fall.

 

[Thordaddy]

Thomas thinks Sam would have meant only two games difference, IMO with Sam we'd have beaten AZ both times alone,I think he'd have made as much as 4 games difference. A QB competition between Sam and the guys we have now wouldn't be close,and as far as a rookie winning the job goes, Fisher sat McNair as a rookie and was elated they got him in the draft, if he plays a rookie it's because of need or the guys in front of him aren't that good.

 

[DCH]

I believe that with Bradford at QB, we would have beaten Arizona (twice), San Diego, Dallas, and San Fran the first game. I suspect we would have lost one of the games we "stole" - Denver or Seattle - but I'm 50/50 we would have beaten Philly, too.

I really think that with Bradford at the helm, right now we're sitting at 11-3.

 

[DaveFan'51]

Uh uh well... Uh um I think, uh...

Thomas should stick to writing because he's a terrible interview. If I want insight to the Rams, I think I'd rather look up X.

Between X and CoachO all the bases are covered!!

 

[lockdnram21]

I believe that with Bradford at QB, we would have beaten Arizona (twice), San Diego, Dallas, and San Fran the first game. I suspect we would have lost one of the games we "stole" - Denver or Seattle - but I'm 50/50 we would have beaten Philly, too.

I really think that with Bradford at the helm, right now we're sitting at 11-3.

What has Bradford showed u to think that because I'm not to sure we would have won more then 2 more games Bradford is still unproven.

 

[blackbart]

What has Bradford showed u to think that because I'm not to sure we would have won more then 2 more games Bradford is still unproven.

2013 6+ game 14 TDs, 4 Int, 60.7 completion %, does not fumble or throw the ball into traffic, better receivers this year and a better running game, looked excellent during preseason time he got.

11-3 might be a stretch and it is all speculation because all of the games would have played out differently but if the QBs get all the blame and all the credit there is no doubt this team would have been vastly improved with him at QB.

 

[DCH]

What has Bradford showed u to think that because I'm not to sure we would have won more then 2 more games Bradford is still unproven.

Watching him in camp and (briefly) in preseason, watching him before his injury last year, and watching how he's both synced with the WRs on the roster (esp. Quick) and evolved under Schottenheimer's offense.

Plus, look at it this way...
2014 Rams Passing Stats (14 games):
- Yards - 2916
- TDs - 18
- INTs - 13

Sam Bradford's 2013 Passing Stats (6.5 games):
- Yards - 1687
- TDs - 14
- INTs - 4

Project out over 16 games, and you're looking at

Stat -- 2014 QBs -- 2013 Bradford
Yards -- 3332 -- 3856
TDs -- 21 -- 32
INTs -- 15 -- 9

That's a big difference, plus you're looking at a stronger O-line, WR corps and running game to lean on in 2014, which should at least ensure that the good projections of Bradford are well within reason, if not a little conservative. But you're looking at potentially 66 more points (or 33 if you assume that all extra TD drives ended in FGs in 2014).

More importantly, though, look at the turnovers - 66% more interceptions, and if you factor in fumbles, Bradford put 3 on the turf and lost 1 last year, while Hill and Austin have combined for 11 fumbles with 4 lost. Project that out over the season, you're looking at 6 fumbles/2 lost vs. 14/5 lost.

In short, based on his play last year and the play of the Rams QBs this season, Bradford would very likely have scored a non-trivial amount of extra points and turned the ball over significantly fewer times. And frankly, turnovers have been the direct cause of at least a couple of losses, particularly from Hill and Davis.

 

[leoram]

Watching him in camp and (briefly) in preseason, watching him before his injury last year, and watching how he's both synced with the WRs on the roster (esp. Quick) and evolved under Schottenheimer's offense.

Plus, look at it this way...
2014 Rams Passing Stats (14 games):
- Yards - 2916
- TDs - 18
- INTs - 13

Sam Bradford's 2013 Passing Stats (6.5 games):
- Yards - 1687
- TDs - 14
- INTs - 4

Project out over 16 games, and you're looking at

Stat -- 2014 QBs -- 2013 Bradford
Yards -- 3332 -- 3856
TDs -- 21 -- 32
INTs -- 15 -- 9

That's a big difference, plus you're looking at a stronger O-line, WR corps and running game to lean on in 2014, which should at least ensure that the good projections of Bradford are well within reason, if not a little conservative. But you're looking at potentially 66 more points (or 33 if you assume that all extra TD drives ended in FGs in 2014).

More importantly, though, look at the turnovers - 66% more interceptions, and if you factor in fumbles, Bradford put 3 on the turf and lost 1 last year, while Hill and Austin have combined for 11 fumbles with 4 lost. Project that out over the season, you're looking at 6 fumbles/2 lost vs. 14/5 lost.

In short, based on his play last year and the play of the Rams QBs this season, Bradford would very likely have scored a non-trivial amount of extra points and turned the ball over significantly fewer times. And frankly, turnovers have been the direct cause of at least a couple of losses, particularly from Hill and Davis.

+100

If only we could KNOW he would stay healthy...

 

[DCH]

+100

If only we could KNOW he would stay healthy...

That's the question, to be sure.

But looking at alternatives... unless we get Winston or Mariota (which I can't imagine either of them falling to us), there's no rookie who is ready to start in the NFL in 2015, and the FAs are either reliably-healthy-but-not-that-good (Brian Hoyer, Ryan Mallett) or talented-but-as-injury-prone-as-Bradford (Vick, Locker)

 

[leoram]

Between X and CoachO all the bases are covered!!

Clever.

Xoxoxo.... Um yeah, not really...

 

[DaveFan'51]

Clever.

Xoxoxo.... Um yeah, not really...

I really hadn't thought of that when I posted. I was just trying to compliment X and CoachO! Funny accident!

 

[Legatron4]

That the one thing I really like about Sammy. He doesn't turn the ball over. In 2011 when we were basically putting a high school team on the field he still only threw 6 interceptions in 10 games. I've always thought he had the potential to throw 40+ touchdowns.

 

[Merlin]

What has Bradford showed u to think that because I'm not to sure we would have won more then 2 more games Bradford is still unproven.

I have to agree.

Bradford has never demonstrated consistency at QB, game in and game out being able to play at the level we see from him at times. IMO against that Arizona defense he probably would have been quickly rattled, and resorted to dumpoff madness play after play after play.

Just my .02 but if you want to get the most from Bradford fix the interior OL then get a new OC who can raise the bar in gameplanning, adjustments, and dictating to defenses. A guy who knows how to utilize a QB with Sam's talent, not to mention our significant WR talent. Someone who will trot out an offense that flips the script on that Az defense with different looks, motion, and focus on their weaknesses.

The Rams are DUMB on offense. Predictable. Slow to adjust. Rarely dictate matchups they want with scheme.

Rams in 3rd and 1? Oh, no problem. Just load the box, roll up man coverage tight on the WRs, and bring the house. Rams punt, rinse, repeat. Sure, Sam would improve that a bit, but fans are going overboard IMO in what his impact would have been. Our problems run deeper.

 

[Athos]

Thomas thinks Sam would have meant only two games difference, IMO with Sam we'd have beaten AZ both times alone,I think he'd have made as much as 4 games difference. A QB competition between Sam and the guys we have now wouldn't be close,and as far as a rookie winning the job goes, Fisher sat McNair as a rookie and was elated they got him in the draft, if he plays a rookie it's because of need or the guys in front of him aren't that good.

Gots to luve me dem PD writers.

Sam knows this offense like the back of his hand at this point. He has the arm to threaten you deep. What Sam detractors don't seem to get is that Ds haven't been afraid of the deep ball against the Rams all season because Davis and Hill don't possess the talent to sling it deep with any accuracy and speed. Not only does that open up the intermediate and short game more, it also greatly benefits our run game.

I'm convinced with Sam, Mason would be knocking on the door for a 1000 yard season by now. We certainly wouldn't be having those high tosses to Quick/Cookie/Britt that put them in danger.

I'm also convinced Sam would be hitting those wide open WRs downfield that Hill/Davis have missed completely.
Also think Studman would have been involved far sooner and doing better with Sam.

Mark me down for winning against AZx2, SD, DAL, SF, and hell, maybe even Vikings. (I think there was still hangover from losing Sam before that game.....everyone just seemed in a fog).

That's 5-6 wins and 11-12 wins total by now.

Sam is so superior a QB to Hill and Davis it ain't even funny.


*Not to even mention I think Sam gets us into FG range with GZ on a far more consistent basis, at the very least, than Hill/Davis. That fact alone would likely net us the ARZ, SD, DAL games for 4 wins*

 

[LetsGoRams]

At a minimum, the Rams are sitting at 8-6 right now instead of 6-8 with Bradford at QB. Probably more like 9-5.

 

[LesBaker]

Watching him in camp and (briefly) in preseason, watching him before his injury last year, and watching how he's both synced with the WRs on the roster (esp. Quick) and evolved under Schottenheimer's offense.

Plus, look at it this way...
2014 Rams Passing Stats (14 games):
- Yards - 2916
- TDs - 18
- INTs - 13

Sam Bradford's 2013 Passing Stats (6.5 games):
- Yards - 1687
- TDs - 14
- INTs - 4

Project out over 16 games, and you're looking at

Stat -- 2014 QBs -- 2013 Bradford
Yards -- 3332 -- 3856
TDs -- 21 -- 32
INTs -- 15 -- 9

That's a big difference, plus you're looking at a stronger O-line, WR corps and running game to lean on in 2014, which should at least ensure that the good projections of Bradford are well within reason, if not a little conservative. But you're looking at potentially 66 more points (or 33 if you assume that all extra TD drives ended in FGs in 2014).

More importantly, though, look at the turnovers - 66% more interceptions, and if you factor in fumbles, Bradford put 3 on the turf and lost 1 last year, while Hill and Austin have combined for 11 fumbles with 4 lost. Project that out over the season, you're looking at 6 fumbles/2 lost vs. 14/5 lost.

In short, based on his play last year and the play of the Rams QBs this season, Bradford would very likely have scored a non-trivial amount of extra points and turned the ball over significantly fewer times. And frankly, turnovers have been the direct cause of at least a couple of losses, particularly from Hill and Davis.

It cannot be viewed in a complete vacuum and one has to look at the teams Bradford put up some big numbers on. Not exactly the elite.