Les Snead: We Can’t Make An Emotional Decision on Bradford's Contract

  • 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.

rhinobean

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
2,152
Name
Bob
I'm pretty pleased with Donald who has been arguably the best player at his position AS A ROOKIE. I also don't like Martin as an OT and without Robinson, the LT position would look very bleak.

It didn't work out this season but a rookie QB behind a worse OL wouldn't have changed that. I feel better about our draft haul despite the uncertainty surrounding the QB position.
I agree with you! QB was not the priority it is now and the team is better off now with the first rounders they got! If the Rams can't figure out who to play on the o line this year, I doubt they'll figure it out next year! Time for the back ups to show they're worth keeping/starting!
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
22,894
I singled Wells and Long out because they had the highest cap numbers in 2015. Others like Langford will probably need to restructure or will get cut. Overall, I think the point is moot because I believe some kind of adjustment will be made to Sam's agreement (extension of time with less money, reduction for 2015, re-structure of 1 year deal with bonuses based on playing time and/or roster bonuses).
Include 5-8 mill cap savings on Sam and we have a deal
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,810
Name
Stu
The only QB that would be available IMO would be Matt Schaub and he always seemed to have the propensity to kill you with turnovers.
This ^ BUT Would he do so in Schotty/Fish's offense? Or would he give us a back-up/Option B that would be able to stretch the field on occasion and have a strong enough arm to push defenses? I don't really know but I think Schaub may be the best QB that becomes available to us in FA.
 

RamWoodie

Legend
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
5,030
Translation: They will do some type of restructure, and Sam will be the QB next year! That doesn't mean they don't think about a future QB though.

What I do think, is that there will be a new offense next year, because I believe Schotty's system doesn't do well with the talent on this team...IT'S TIME TO OPEN IT UP.

You can't have Quick, Britt, TA, Bailey, Cook and Kendricks...and be anemic offensively.
 

Elmgrovegnome

Legend
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
21,604
Except Bradford tore the acl again after the draft.
Surely had they known how it was going to play out they would have done different

True but I brought up in another post how the Packers took Aaron Rogers even though they had Favre. There is some wisdom to the idea that if you have a chance to take a franchise QB then you should. Favre was getting older but he was durable hen the Pack took Rogers. Many questioned the pick. Three years later they look like geniuses.

Now if the Rams thought Bortles was a franchise QB they should have considered taking him....because of Bradfords injury. The injury puts uncertainty in Bradford's future, just like Favres age. The argument falls apart if the Rams didn't feel any of last years QBs could be franchise QBs. Maybe they didn't like any of them.

However, if you consider ho difficult it is to come by a top QB, then nearly every team that has a shot at on should take him if there is a question about their QBs age or injury history, and let's face it, Bradford has an injury history with the Rams.

(I was not advocating a QB in the last draft. Although I did think about it. The QB is tougher to acquire Than an OLT or DT but in his instance they still could have had the DT and played Saffold at OLT another season.)
 

StevenG-BR

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
333
1. Extend Bradford a year. Set contract at 20 million with 10 million guaranteed for those 2 years.

2. Re-sign Hill

3. Keep developing Keenum. He has an arm and had some decent games for Houston.

4. Draft O-line! This is important. You want Bradford healthy, he needs protection.

5. Don't draft QB just because you you think you have too! If there's no one they like keep upgrading the roster else where (O-Line!)

6. ???

7. SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!

That's pretty much the same QB group from this year. It didn't work this time, why would it work next year?

And don't say because Bradford will be back and 100%. You don't base your season on the assumption that a miracle will happen, with no contingency plan.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
22,894
True but I brought up in another post how the Packers took Aaron Rogers even though they had Favre. There is some wisdom to the idea that if you have a chance to take a franchise QB then you should. Favre was getting older but he was durable hen the Pack took Rogers. Many questioned the pick. Three years later they look like geniuses.

Now if the Rams thought Bortles was a franchise QB they should have considered taking him....because of Bradfords injury. The injury puts uncertainty in Bradford's future, just like Favres age. The argument falls apart if the Rams didn't feel any of last years QBs could be franchise QBs. Maybe they didn't like any of them.

However, if you consider ho difficult it is to come by a top QB, then nearly every team that has a shot at on should take him if there is a question about their QBs age or injury history, and let's face it, Bradford has an injury history with the Rams.

(I was not advocating a QB in the last draft. Although I did think about it. The QB is tougher to acquire Than an OLT or DT but in his instance they still could have had the DT and played Saffold at OLT another season.)

Favre turned 36 the year they drafted Rodgers, and they picked him with the 24th pick. Its really not comparable. There may have been some uncertainty with Bradford knee, but at 26 years old its nothing compared to the certainty that Favre was going to be old, it was 100% certain

What I do think was reasonable would have been to trade back in to the end of the first round and have grabbed Bridgewater or Carr.
 

Elmgrovegnome

Legend
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
21,604
Favre turned 36 the year they drafted Rodgers, and they picked him with the 24th pick. Its really not comparable. There may have been some uncertainty with Bradford knee, but at 26 years old its nothing compared to the certainty that Favre was going to be old, it was 100% certain

What I do think was reasonable would have been to trade back in to the end of the first round and have grabbed Bridgewater or Carr.

Well of course. Any of the top QBs would have done. They could have traded back up especially since everyone agreed that they needed insurance after another injury, albeit a different one. Maybe they really didn't feel like they saw any potential starters in the lot. I don't know. But if they did I would gladly have traded the second rounder and another pick to move up and take Teddy or Derrick.

I am not trying to be critical and point fingers. Just making an observation and maybe even altering my philosophy a bit. If you have an opportunity to take a top QB and there is ANY question at all about the QB you have, then maybe you should because they are difficult to come by. It may be reaching but QB is the one position that is most frequently reached on because it is so important. These backups always prove to be tradeable if they are any good anyway, or even if they aren't any good in some cases. (ie. Kolb, Flynn, Cassell)

Devanney said he would like to take at least one QB in every draft. I agree with him to an extent. If there is one that you feel has some potential then you grab him in the appropriate round. A good backup can be the difference between sitting at home and making a playoff run. As we all know too well.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
22,894
These backups always prove to be tradeable if they are any good anyway, or even if they aren't any good in some cases. (ie. Kolb, Flynn, Cassell)
.
Yup, tradable when they are taken from the 2nd round on for sure. Not when you're talking #2 overall though
I agree we should have taken a qb, just cant 2nd guess the 1st pick
 

Young Ram

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
2,493
That's pretty much the same QB group from this year. It didn't work this time, why would it work next year?

And don't say because Bradford will be back and 100%. You don't base your season on the assumption that a miracle will happen, with no contingency plan.

Because nobody will survive with this O-line. We need to fix that FIRST!
 

StevenG-BR

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
333
Because nobody will survive with this O-line. We need to fix that FIRST!

I disagree. The line has had some bad games this year, but they've had good games as well. I think o-line is definitely a need, but I think it's being blown out of proportion. This isn't the 2009 o-line we're talking about.

Sometimes even great offenses face dominant defenses and get manhandled. It happens. Look at the '99 NFC championship against the Bucs... even the GSOT got smacked around up front at times. Those game just happen. Even if we have an All Pro line, there are still gonna be games like the Arizona game.

Robinson entering next year with a season's worth of experience under his belt, and a chance to focus only on LT in camp, will be a huge upgrade by itself. Beyond that, I think you go after a FA center, draft a G during Day 2 of the draft, and that's about it.

We're going to remain a .500 team if we enter next season with the same quarterbacks. We just are. To ignore the most important position and our biggest need, just because the line isn't perfect & had a bad day, is a horrible call IMO.
 

Young Ram

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
2,493
I disagree. The line has had some bad games this year, but they've had good games as well. I think o-line is definitely a need, but I think it's being blown out of proportion. This isn't the 2009 o-line we're talking about.

Sometimes even great offenses face dominant defenses and get manhandled. It happens. Look at the '99 NFC championship against the Bucs... even the GSOT got smacked around up front at times. Those game just happen. Even if we have an All Pro line, there are still gonna be games like the Arizona game.

Robinson entering next year with a season's worth of experience under his belt, and a chance to focus only on LT in camp, will be a huge upgrade by itself. Beyond that, I think you go after a FA center, draft a G during Day 2 of the draft, and that's about it.

We're going to remain a .500 team if we enter next season with the same quarterbacks. We just are. To ignore the most important position and our biggest need, just because the line isn't perfect & had a bad day, is a horrible call IMO.

So you're saying you want to draft a Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert, or Jake locker?

Sorry I disagree with that. The QB class of this draft is weak. I'd rather build a strong O-line than to reach for a QB just because we need one.
 

StevenG-BR

Rookie
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
333
So you're saying you want to draft a Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert, or Jake locker?

Sorry I disagree with that. The QB class of this draft is weak. I'd rather build a strong O-line than to reach for a QB just because we need one.
No, I don't believe those guys are available in the upcoming draft.

I could just as easily accuse you of wanting to draft another Jason Smith, Robert Gallery or Alex Barron, while pointing out the good QBs drafted outside of the top 10.

I'm not saying we should reach. Im saying we should find the QB we want and get him at all costs. It's our biggest need by far, and it's the primary thing keeping us out of the playoffs.

The o-line doesn't need a total revamp. We can survive with a FA center and a mid-round guard. But we can't survive another year of Bradford on IR and a #2 leading the offense.
 

Young Ram

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
2,493
No, I don't believe those guys are available in the upcoming draft.

I could just as easily accuse you of wanting to draft another Jason Smith, Robert Gallery or Alex Barron, while pointing out the good QBs drafted outside of the top 10.

I'm not saying we should reach. Im saying we should find the QB we want and get him at all costs. It's our biggest need by far, and it's the primary thing keeping us out of the playoffs.

The o-line doesn't need a total revamp. We can survive with a FA center and a mid-round guard. But we can't survive another year of Bradford on IR and a #2 leading the offense.


QB's are harder to find. If it was that easy everyone would have good QB's. Also, a rookie QB is rarely the difference between making the playoffs or not. I'd rather have a strong running game and great defense. That formula worked good for Seattle and Pittsburgh on their Superbowl run.

Don't get me wrong. I want a QB, we all do and I hope they find him in this draft, but like I said if there is no one the team likes its better to upgrade the roster elsewhere rather than to reach for a QB just because we NEED one.
 

blackbart

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
6,211
Name
Tim
His play dropped when the oline got beat up. He also played behind that line against some of the toughest D's in the league.
We saw what Hill could do against a good D and little protection against AZ. It certainly wasn't better than Davis was doing in similar situations.
Davis gave the ball away too much in those tough situations, not only did he give it away the majority of them ended up in defensive scores. Hill has been WAY better in that sense.