Take the Sam's last chance talk somewhere else

  • 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.

blackbart

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
6,207
Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #82
You make some good points but I can counter them by saying that Sam IS the reason the Rams lost in some games. If you want to break guys down there will always be numbers for the good and the bad. I am simply saying that Sam doesn't win.....period. He's had 4 years and yes some bad players around him but, he still doesn't win and is very injury prone. I don't care about stats, I care that my QB, who is supposed to be an elite talent, wins games and stays on the field. I still say we can get 7 wins with a rookie and the 2-3 other players we could get for Sam's huge salary.

I HOPE Sam blows up the league this year and I eat crow, but I doubt it. I think we might have seen all check down Sam has to offer already.
Just saying it with no examples to provide a shred of evidence does not prove jack.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
Wondering if the Hawk is short for Seahawk fan?

Looks like someone is disliking our posts, Big! Wonder if it's the Hawk?

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.
 

rhinobean

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
2,152
Name
Bob
Not on a agenda against Hawk, Prime! Just the article and the dislikes! Damn laptop not letting me do a smiley!
 

Hawk

UDFA
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
28
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:
He threw 262 passes. Only 34 of them were labeled as "deep" passes according to the play-by-play. That's roughly 13 percent. The average NFL quarterback throws "deep" passes a little over 18 percent of the time.

Bradford's average pass traveled 6.9 yards in the air. The average NFL pass travels 8.3 yards in the air.

Bradford averaged 4.6 yards per attempt on those five-and-under dinks and dunks. The NFL average is 5.2.

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:

BigRamFan

Super Bowl XXXVI was rigged!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
2,886
Name
Craig
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 is what is known as hyperbole.

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.
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!
 

Warner4Prez

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
2,265
Name
Benny
He supports his argument with facts:

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?
 

Hawk

UDFA
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
28
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?

2013 Bradford ranked 18th in completion percentage
2012 Bradford ranked 20th in completion percentage
2011 Bradford ranked 31st in completion percentage
 

PhxRam

Guest
2013 Bradford ranked 18th in completion percentage
2012 Bradford ranked 20th in completion percentage
2011 Bradford ranked 31st in completion percentage

Do those numbers support all of the drops?
 

RaminExile

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
3,065
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.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620

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
 

blackbart

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
6,207
Name
Tim
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #99
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.