1. 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.

Take the Sam's last chance talk somewhere else

Discussion in 'RAMS - NFL TALK' started by blackbart, Apr 22, 2014.

  1. rhinobean

    rhinobean Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,109
    Credit:
    $436,256.15
    Wondering if the Hawk is short for Seahawk fan?
    BigRamFan likes this.
  2. blackbart

    blackbart Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,253
    Credit:
    $2,358,150.98
    Name:
    Tim
    Just saying it with no examples to provide a shred of evidence does not prove jack.
  3. BigRamFan

    BigRamFan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,489
    Credit:
    $3,277,597.90
    Name:
    Craig
    You may be right on target there. If it is it won't take long to figure out.
    rhinobean likes this.
  4. rhinobean

    rhinobean Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,109
    Credit:
    $436,256.15
    Looks like someone is disliking our posts, Big! Wonder if it's the Hawk?
    BigRamFan likes this.
  5. BigRamFan

    BigRamFan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,489
    Credit:
    $3,277,597.90
    Name:
    Craig
    Probably! I mean, what's not to like? (y)
    rhinobean likes this.
  6. Prime Time

    Prime Time RODerator

    Messages:
    3,000
    Credit:
    $2,753,689.69
    Name:
    Peter
    Let's not go down the route of disparaging members because we don't like their opinion.

    I read the entire article and while it was a bit snarky, it wasn't all anti-Rams - just anti_rams offense. For example: "The only reason to watch a Rams game is to see their front four debilitate opposing offenses."

    And it wasn't all anti-Bradford either. For example: "The short answer to this long investigation: it is hard to feel good about any quarterback when you are watching a Brian Schottenheimer offense. The Rams need to fix their passing game. But that may not start with the quarterback."

    The main problem is that the author went into his research with an agenda: that the Rams need to draft a QB because Bradford isn't cutting it. When we start with an agenda then our research tends to look for examples to back that up instead of looking at the big picture.
    flv likes this.
  7. rhinobean

    rhinobean Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,109
    Credit:
    $436,256.15
    Not on a agenda against Hawk, Prime! Just the article and the dislikes! Damn laptop not letting me do a smiley!
  8. Prime Time

    Prime Time RODerator

    Messages:
    3,000
    Credit:
    $2,753,689.69
    Name:
    Peter
    Then mention the contents of the article only and not the member's name. :)
  9. rhinobean

    rhinobean Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,109
    Credit:
    $436,256.15
    Got it!(y)
  10. Hawk

    Hawk New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Credit:
    $12,294.64
    Sorry for the name calling. Didn't think apologists was bad. Won't happen again. Same goes for someone accusing me of being a hawks fan right?

    As to the legitimacy of the article, Tanier is spot on. Yes, he was negative towards the Rams. However, if you have watched Bradford there is no other conclusion to be drawn other than up until this point he was been bad. That isn't to say he will stay that way and that isn't to say that he isn't a product of his environment (OC, offensive talent, etc...) But to name call and denounce Tanier's argument with nothing more than name calling or pointing to some irrelevant fact is what is known as ad hominem.

    He supports his argument with facts:
    I fully understand that Bradford hasn't been surrounded with top-tier talent. However, to naysay any fact based argument showing Bradford's weaknesses can't be cast side just because it's negative. Also, since when are fans not allowed to be negative? I pay money to see games, own jerseys and what not and will be critical of the teams I root for when I feel they are failing.

    EDIT: Also, I haven't disliked anyone's post. I'm sure there is a way a mod can confirm that.
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2014
    OnceARam likes this.
  11. BigRamFan

    BigRamFan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,489
    Credit:
    $3,277,597.90
    Name:
    Craig
    No worries, Brother! Opinions are what make this place run. I, personally, do not agree with the article and did not like the viewpoint from which it was written (seemed to me more like the author had an axe to grind rather than objective reporting) but that's just my opinion.

    Welcome to ROD!
  12. Warner4Prez

    Warner4Prez Mɥɐʇ┴ɥǝHǝll¿

    Messages:
    1,100
    Credit:
    $886,966.39
    Name:
    Benny
    Facts yes, but not supporting that Bradford is bad. So what if the NFL average for deep throws is 18 percent? How about TD to INT ratios? Completion percentages?
    BigRamFan likes this.
  13. Hawk

    Hawk New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Credit:
    $12,294.64
    2013 Bradford ranked 18th in completion percentage
    2012 Bradford ranked 20th in completion percentage
    2011 Bradford ranked 31st in completion percentage
  14. PhxRam

    PhxRam The Estimated Prophet

    Messages:
    4,607
    Credit:
    $7,201,570.47
    Name:
    Bob
    Do those numbers support all of the drops?
    rhinobean likes this.
  15. flv

    flv Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,436
    Credit:
    $4,350.27
    Bradford was bad against the 49ers last year. The whole offense was bad against the Cowboys. He was way better than bad in the other 5 games and he was exceptional in pre-season. Say what you want about 2011 and 2012 but don't say he was bad in 2013.
    rhinobean likes this.
  16. RaminExile

    RaminExile Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    467
    Credit:
    $13,116.97
    I thought Schottey got it together last year after a dreadful start to be fair to him. I for one am happy to see us try one more year of his system working off a strong play action game led by Zac Stacy and Sam Bradford. We'll have to see how that works out with a full season and a healthy offense.
  17. LesBaker

    LesBaker Mr. Savant

    Messages:
    4,927
    Credit:
    $3,746,745.63
    Name:
    Les
    Looks like he's improving...... :whistle:
    Hawk and Warner4Prez like this.
  18. iced

    iced Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,765
    Credit:
    $4,007,345.30
    the whole team was terrible - defense and offensive...especially the blocking in the run game - downright dreadful.

    then again there's a reason Jared cook was brought off the field in favor of harkey starting after that game
  19. blackbart

    blackbart Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,253
    Credit:
    $2,358,150.98
    Name:
    Tim
    2013 14 TDs and 4 Ints 60.7% completions 90.9 QBR How many other QBs were that bad through 7 games last year??

    The "article" is garbage written by a hack with an axe to grind.
    rdw and OC--LeftCoast like this.
  20. PhxRam

    PhxRam The Estimated Prophet

    Messages:
    4,607
    Credit:
    $7,201,570.47
    Name:
    Bob
    Time to let this one die as well.
    Yamahopper likes this.