Polian: Best fit for Bridgewater is Rams at 13

[jjab360]

When the 49ers selected Klappernick, it undermined the leadership of Smith?
When the Eagles selected Kevin Kolb, it undermined the leadership of McNabb?
When the Packers selected Aaron Rogers, it undermined the leadership of Favre?
When the Falcons selected Schaub, it undermined the leadership of Vick?

I guess I just don't get it. Are these football players or cheerleaders? If Fisher were to bring in a potentially good QB as backup (and insurance), the team would revert into a sewing circle and everyone would hate said QB and/or the coach simply by virtue of him being a good player? I wonder if everyone would feel the same way if they brought in a first round middle linebacker. Or a LT. or Clowney. Or Watkins. (We already have Jake Long, Robert Quinn and Tavon Austin).

Rodgers is the only one of those to be taken in the first round, and Favre was in his late 30's at the time. You take a QB in the first round, and that says you don't believe in Bradford. As for why it's different from other positions, it's because only one QB can be on the field at a time and you usually don't rotate them. It's not the same as an O-lineman, D-lineman, linebacker, or receiver where you can share PT amongst players.

It'd be like drafting a K or P in the 5th round. It shows you no longer have confidence in that player and are looking to move on.

 

[-X-]

Rodgers is the only one of those to be taken in the first round, and Favre was in his late 30's at the time. You take a QB in the first round, and that says you don't believe in Bradford. As for why it's different from other positions, it's because only one QB can be on the field at a time and you usually don't rotate them. It's not the same as an O-lineman, D-lineman, linebacker, or receiver where you can share PT amongst players.

It'd be like drafting a K or P in the 5th round. It shows you no longer have confidence in that player and are looking to move on.

I have over one million ROD dollars. Your argument is invalid.

 

[jrry32]

I'm okay with Bridgewater at #13.

 

[-X-]

I'm okay with Bridgewater at #13.

Well that was certainly inspired.

 

[jrry32]

Well that was certainly inspired.

_
I'd like to make a better post but I can't figure out how to post youtube videos that skip to a certain time (#t=--m---s) without the site automatically changing the link so that it removes the time I want to skip to.

 

[-X-]

_
I'd like to make a better post but I can't figure out how to post youtube videos that skip to a certain time (#t=--m---s) without the site automatically changing the link so that it removes the time I want to skip to.

Just post the link.

 

[jrry32]

Just post the link.

It automatically changes it to the media.

 

[max]

I'm okay with Bridgewater at #13.

I knew that.

But I assume you are ok with moving Bradford out if we pick Bridgewater at #13.

You do see that Sam is out if Teddy is in. Right?

 

[-X-]

It automatically changes it to the media.

Well, then I guess you're going to have to challenge everyone's technological abilities by posting the video and making them FFW to the time you want. I estimate about 99% of the board will be able to do it. Someone will have to give @Alan the play-by-play later.

 

[jrry32]

I knew that.

But I assume you are ok with moving Bradford out if we pick Bridgewater at #13.

You do see that Sam is out if Teddy is in. Right?

No. I see a Brees/Rivers situation if Bradford comes back strong. And at that point, we decide who we want to keep. If Bradford doesn't come back the same from the ACL injury and gets hurt again, we have our QB of the future.

 

[Alan]

-X- overestimating my abilities:
Someone will have to give @Alan the play-by-play later.

Good luck with that working.
Although if you catch me in the morning there's a small chance. Not before my first pot of coffee though. :coffee:

 

[Speeps]

I generally like Polian...but what a mess.

 

[wrstdude]

Ugh-I see both sides. The problem w/ selecting one of the QBs @ 13 is you lose a player that the team needs to help the QB you selected succeed. Assuming, of course, Bradford doesn't pan out. And why didn't Bradford pan out? I think most on this site would agree that it was due to improper support.

Would the Rams, by selecting a QB @ 13 be repeating the same mistakes as the past? I would say, and I think most would agree, that the QB selected would be in a better position than Bradford was drafted into. However, if Bradford doesn't pan out, is there a guarantee that Schotty sticks around? So the new QB would be potentially learning multiple offenses as well. Starting to sound eerily familiar.

 

[moklerman]

When the 49ers selected Klappernick, it undermined the leadership of Smith?
When the Eagles selected Kevin Kolb, it undermined the leadership of McNabb?
When the Packers selected Aaron Rogers, it undermined the leadership of Favre?
When the Falcons selected Schaub, it undermined the leadership of Vick?

I guess I just don't get it. Are these football players or cheerleaders? If Fisher were to bring in a potentially good QB as backup (and insurance), the team would revert into a sewing circle and everyone would hate said QB and/or the coach simply by virtue of him being a good player? I wonder if everyone would feel the same way if they brought in a first round middle linebacker. Or a LT. or Clowney. Or Watkins. (We already have Jake Long, Robert Quinn and Tavon Austin).

C'mon X, in football it always boils down to not having two roosters in the henhouse. You draft a QB near the top 10 and there's no way it isn't going to cause problems for the incumbent.

The Rams have Bradford under contract for 2 more years and have a proven, pretty effective backup in Shaun Hill. Using a high pick on a QB this year is not hedging one's bets, it's a waste of a valuable pick. He's not going to get any snaps in camp and if he does get a chance to play, the season's probably over anyway.

The smart approach for the Rams is to move forward with Bradford, use whatever resources they've got to continue building around him and if he gets hurt real bad again, decide what to do next year. They still have him under contract for next year and if worse comes to worse, he can bridge the gap for whatever QB the get next year. Maybe they don't get the #1 overall pick but if they lose Bradford and Hill like in your scenario, things will be bad enough that they'll be picking near the top 10 and they can then get whatever QB is available. Or even a FA.

 

[-X-]

C'mon X, in football it always boils down to not having two roosters in the henhouse. You draft a QB near the top 10 and there's no way it isn't going to cause problems for the incumbent.

The Rams have Bradford under contract for 2 more years and have a proven, pretty effective backup in Shaun Hill. Using a high pick on a QB this year is not hedging one's bets, it's a waste of a valuable pick. He's not going to get any snaps in camp and if he does get a chance to play, the season's probably over anyway.

The smart approach for the Rams is to move forward with Bradford, use whatever resources they've got to continue building around him and if he gets hurt real bad again, decide what to do next year. They still have him under contract for next year and if worse comes to worse, he can bridge the gap for whatever QB the get next year. Maybe they don't get the #1 overall pick but if they lose Bradford and Hill like in your scenario, things will be bad enough that they'll be picking near the top 10 and they can then get whatever QB is available. Or even a FA.

Yeah, I don't see it that way, and I've explained why.
Nothing really left to say about it, other than I want my plan B accelerated instead of searching for it.

 

[max]

No. I see a Brees/Rivers situation if Bradford comes back strong. And at that point, we decide who we want to keep. If Bradford doesn't come back the same from the ACL injury and gets hurt again, we have our QB of the future.

The Brees/Rivers situation was different.

Rivers was understood to be the future. Brees was a placeholder until Rivers was ready. Brees was bad in 2003, 11 TDs, 15 INTs, 67.5 rating. It was Brees' 3rd year and the Chargers planned on moving on from him. So the Chargers weren't even thinking about undermining Brees, they planned on shipping him out when Rivers was ready. And then Brees had a great year in 2004, so they stuck with him another year until he got hurt and then he was dumped.

It's different with Bradford. The Rams are saying Sam is our guy. If they draft Teddy at #13, not many players will believe that Sam is the guy. And that not only undermines Bradford, it tells Bradford that Fisher BSed him.

For the life of me, I have no idea why some of you guys don't get this when every ex-GM and media guy gets it. Casserly gets it, Polian gets it, Clayton gets it, Mortensen gets it, and Schefter gets it. If they draft Bridgewater at #13, Bradford is gone. But, its all a moot point. They aren't picking Bridgwater at #13, and I'll bet every ROD dollar I have on it with anyone willing to call me on it.

 

[moklerman]

Yeah, I don't see it that way, and I've explained why.
Nothing really left to say about it, other than I want my plan B accelerated instead of searching for it.

I think you were right when you said you just don't get it. Not being snarky, but you seem to think these guys are above emotion. Too many times it's been proven that QB's don't excel when they're looking over their shoulder.

 

[-X-]

They aren't picking Bridgwater at #13, and I'll bet every ROD dollar I have on it with anyone willing to call me on it.

I don't think anyone is asserting they will. It's just a discussion about the pros and cons of just such a scenario.
It's okay to be okay with the idea, right? Just like it's okay to NOT be okay with it.
Some think it would be cool. Others don't. It's board life.

 

[-X-]

I think you were right when you said you just don't get it. Not being snarky, but you seem to think these guys are above emotion. Too many times it's been proven that QB's don't excel when they're looking over their shoulder.

Yes. I do think they're above (that kind of petty) emotion. Or at the very least should be. I know it could be a tense situation, but would you prefer your starter to never be challenged by anyone? Or be a pouter and mail it in IF challenged? I wouldn't even be entertaining this if it wasn't for the half-seasons of missed time on two separate occasions. It seems others would prefer that he suffer a career-ending injury before the Rams try to get a contingency plan in place.