Oh Lord...I know this is gonna be meaningless in the long run but here goes anyway.
GM Les Snead and head coach Jeff Fisher are standing by their man, Sam Bradford. The bosses have put the word out again: The Rams don’t intend to take a quarterback with the No. 2 overall pick in the 2014 draft.
Seeing that I am among the town’s leading Bradford apologists, you’d think this would make me happy.
You would be wrong about that.
I think the Rams would be shortsighted to rule out drafting a quarterback at No. 2 overall.
No, I haven’t flip-flopped on Bradford’s talent.
So you claim that you haven't flipped on Sam Bradford's talent. OK, and also admit that the Rams won't intend to pick a QB @ #2. Yet it's shortsighted to rule it out. Usually when a team takes a QB that high it's b/c of 1 and/or 2 reasons: There is no one else w/ any potential and/or the incumbent is ineffective and a detriment to team success. Which IMO Sam Bradford is neither.
Yes, I realize that Bradford has burned through four NFL seasons. At some point, even a Bradford honk will lose patience. But Bradford was coming along nicely until having his knee shredded in the seventh game of this season. The injury put Bradford down for the season. It was yet another attack of bad luck in a career that can’t gain traction.
And that’s my primary concern here.
This isn’t about ability.
It’s about durability.
My pragmatic side makes it impossible for me to ignore Bradford’s obvious difficulty in staying healthy
How can the Rams count on Bradford to lead them to consistent success when he has such an inconsistent record in being physically able to huddle up and play?
When looking at the Rams' current state and how much Sam Bradford gets creamed, his durability isn't a concern for me, but I can see why some might be concerned about this. A torn ACL is nothing to be taken lightly. But Sam wouldn't be the 1st player to go down and come back from his injury. As for the shoulder/ankle...have they been an issue since? I don't think so. The ankle was 2 years ago, the shoulder even farther back. Has he re-injured any of those? If that happened, it would become chronic and that would be a bigger concern to me.
Going back to his collegiate football days at Oklahoma, Bradford has been been fully intact for only two of the last five seasons.
Let’s review Bradford’s career since he won the Heisman Trophy at OU in 2008:
Wait why are you conveniently picking the year he injured the shoulder? You want to review his career in terms of his injury history, you need to look @ his entire college and pro career, including the 2007 and 2008 seasons in which he started and played all possible games. Starting the year he got hurt clearly twists the idea and makes his durability seem worse in order to illustrate your point.
In 2009, Bradford suffered a shoulder injury in OU’s first game and re-injured it later in the year. He started three games but only played one full game, meaning that he was healthy for only one of the Sooners’ 13 games.
Has it been an issue since? Nope.
In 2010, Bradford started all 16 games for the Rams and was named the NFL offensive rookie of the year. All good. Come on up for the rising.
Which pretty much proves the shoulder wasn't an issue.
In 2011, Bradford suffered a high ankle sprain in the Rams’ fifth game, at Green Bay. He missed six entire games and limped through five other starts. He really shouldn’t have played in them. Bottom line: Bradford was healthy for only five of the 16 games.
Meh. These things could happen to any player at any time. And as stated before, Sam wouldn't be the first to come back. Given the terrible state of the Rams that season, I don't understand why anything is to be taken seriously w/ regards to that year.
In 2012, Bradford started all 16 games and played well down the stretch. Back on track. Come on up for the rising ... again.
Shows the ankle wasn't an issue...and still isn't.
And 2013: Not so fast. Seven starts. The knee unravels. Nine games missed.
Over the past five seasons (college and pro) Bradford could have started a maximum of 77 games.
He started only 52 of the 77.
He was healthy and viable for only 45 of the 77.
Given that spotty track record, I’m not sure why the Rams’ authorities have such strong confidence in Bradford’s ability to endure.
It seems to me those you want to beat the "injury prone" drum always seem to forget: injuries are part of the game. You land awkwardly, it's gonna happen sometimes. Somehow Sam has to avoid it and "stay healthy and endure." News flash...somethings are unavoidable.
And the starting quarterback’s health is a critical factor in determining an NFL team’s success.
True.
During the 2013 regular season, NFL teams that received a minimum of 15 starts from their No. 1 quarterback posted a collective winning percentage of .600. Teams that had to rely extensively on backups paid for the instability with a losing record.
Of the 12 teams to qualify for the 2013 postseason tournament, 10 had at least 15 starts from their starting quarterback.
That continued the pattern. Bradford has been in the league for four years. Over that time, 40 of the 48 teams that made the playoffs had their starting quarterbacks in place for a minimum of 14 games in the applicable season.
All valid points. QB is important to team success. I don't think anyone is arguing that. Not sure why you want to point this out.
Considering the vital importance of having your No. 1 quarterback go the distance, the Rams would be taking a huge gamble to disregard Bradford’s injury history.
Gamble? Really? It's a risk for sure, as ACLs are nothing to be taken lightly. However you could also say w/ Sam's ability to recover they have confidence of him recovering from this.
The Rams simply can’t afford to view their No. 2 quarterback position as an afterthought. This is still a quarterback league. It’s still the most essential position on the field.
While it's important, it's just one position. But that's another argument for another day. I do agree the Rams need a backup QB that won't force them to become one-dimensional.
Do the Rams need to invest the No. 2 overall pick in a quarterback? No, they don’t. Just take a look at the two best teams in the NFC West: San Francisco drafted Colin Kaepernick in the second round; Seattle hit the lottery in landing Russell Wilson in the third round.
But if the Rams scout quarterbacks and are blown away by any of the top prospects — Teddy Bridgewater, Johnny Manziel or Blake Bortles — then they have to consider grabbing their guy at No. 2 overall. That depends on availability.
So which is it...do you want the guy w/ the 2nd pick or someone from the mid rounds?
Given Bradford’s history, it’s hardly a luxury or a frivolous action to use the No. 2 overall pick on a potential franchise quarterback. Besides, the Rams can fill another need with their 13th overall pick, and as of now they hold nine selections in May’s draft.
Actually, it is a luxury when using the #2 pick on a backup. And wouldn't it be better to hold said 9 picks on solidifying other positions? That's what most teams do...address the problems.
Even if Bradford stays upright over the next two seasons, there’s no guarantee he’ll finally become an elite quarterback.
There's no guarantee he won't become an elite QB, either. And honestly, I don't need him to be "elite." I need him to be a winning QB.
Moreover, there are no assurances of re-signing him to a reasonable contract.
Bradford has two years remaining on his original rookie deal. His salary-cap figures for the next two seasons are $17.61 million for 2014 and $16.58 million for 2015.
So I ask: What’s the bigger risk here?
Drafting a QB at No. 2 overall, or continuing to invest vast sums of money in Bradford?
It’s a legitimate question.
Wait..so now it's a money issue? And no, it's not a legitimate question. The #2 pick is still gonna get a good chunk of money. So you're investing EVEN MORE money in one spot.
Because of the major change in the rookie compensation system that went into effect in 2011, the cost of paying a young quarterback has dropped dramatically.
For example, this season Kaepernick had a salary-cap figure of just under $1.4 million; Wilson’s 2013 cap figure is just over $681,000. Those figures go up slightly in 2014, but both quarterbacks are incredible bargains.
For now. Wait until they get paid.
The Rams would save $10.42 million on the cap by cutting Bradford before next season. They would save nearly $13 million on the cap by bailing on Bradford before the 2015 season.
I’m not advocating a dump-Bradford play. But it’s silly to ignore the obvious reality here. He’s making a lot of money for a team that’s tight against the salary cap.
And how is it a detriment? Haven't the Rams been "tight against the cap" for years now? Yet they somehow managed to get a number of name FAs and resign their own guys.
The Rams could have it both ways.
Keep Bradford and still afford to pay a quarterback drafted No. 2 overall. That keeps Bradford in place for 2014 and gives the Rams an appealing quarterback option if (A) he gets hurt again, or (B) falls out of favor.
Think of Philadelphia and young quarterback Nick Foles, who was ready to take over when Michael Vick broke down again. (Related note: Over the past three seasons Bradford has started only four more games than the frequently injured Vick, 33 starts to 29.)
Whoa whoa, Nick Foles was a 5th round pick and the 3rd string behind Matt Barkley in camp. Michael Vick's problems go beyond his health, he constantly turns the ball over via INTs or fumbling when getting hit. His style of play makes him more vulnerable to injury. Michael Vick fits into my definition of a problem @ QB.
This discussion becomes irrelevant if the Rams are ambivalent over the top quarterback prospects.
IMO it's irrelevant now. Teams don't use the #2 pick on non-problem positions.
Or maybe Fisher and Snead identify a QB that they’d be excited to pull off the board in the second or third round.
Possibly, which I wouldn't have an issue with.
All I’m saying is this: One way or another, the Rams need a viable alternative.
An alternative to what, Sam or Kellen Clemens. If it's the latter, I agree. The former...not so much.
U
nless, of course, Fisher and Snead truly believe Bradford is about to suddenly morph into an iron man and become something that he hasn’t been — namely, a quarterback who will start and complete full seasons and perform at an elite level.
Sure when you ignore 2 full seasons in which he was healthy.
It pains this Bradford apologist to say it, but the evidence suggests a different outcome.
What evidence? Ignoring 2 full seasons to show how much he's been injured? Failure to show how the ankle and shoulder haven't been issues since he's come back? The amount of hits he takes?
The evidence to me is on the field, the Rams are a better team with Sam and another spot upgraded, than one wasted who is sitting on the bench.
