Evan Silva: "bradford Not Worth Half Of What He Makes"

[A55VA6]

I've always thought Silva was an idiot, so I don't even bother listening to the guy.

 

[max]

How long should they stick with Bradford, you mean.
Until they don't want to anymore, is your answer.

Well, I don't see it that way.

How long should they stick with him is not the same as how long will they stick with him. They aren't perfect decision makers, nobody is.

Is he unlucky with the injuries or is he prone to them? You can make arguments either way. But if he can't hold up for 2014, I think the right answer is not to stick with him in 2015.

I don't think he's a bad QB at all. Right now it's been a range from frustrating to a big tease. Ups and downs, and injuries. And performances muddled with a subpar supporting cast. That's Sam Bradford.

 

[Barrison]

So how long should the Rams stick with potential without seeing results?

For this post I'll define results as wins in both the regular and post season.

Wins? So the ultimate team game in all of sports, and you want to hold one player, albeit the most important one, to whether we win or lose. His play has not been the direct result of us winning or losing, the OL doesn't block, Sam gets sacked, come on Sam you gotta get rid of it sooner. Brian Quick open for a beautiful touchdown...oh nevermind he dropped it, gotta throw a better pass Sam to get those wins. The QB position relies on the rest of the team more than any other position IMHO.

 

[-X-]

Well, I don't see it that way.

How long should they stick with him is not the same as how long will they stick with him. They aren't perfect decision makers, nobody is.

Is he unlucky with the injuries or is he prone to them? You can make arguments either way. But if he can't hold up for 2014, I think the right answer is not to stick with him in 2015.

I don't think he's a bad QB at all. Right now it's been a range from frustrating to a big tease. Ups and downs, and injuries. And performances muddled with a subpar supporting cast. That's Sam Bradford.

Well, the point I was making is that they'll do what they deem beneficial to the team as a whole. What *we* feel about that is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Some think the Rams *should* get rid of him today. Others think they *should* keep him until his contract is up, while others think they *should* extend him now. What we feel won't impact any decisions that take place, though it is good for conversation.

 

[Thordaddy]

Well see that's exactly the point. If he played for Jacksonville, you'd likely only have seen a microcosm of his work and would possess very little knowledge of what the entire Franchise was going through over the course of the past few years. You'd essentially have the same exact opinion of these guys in the media who only see the box scores, a handful of games, and the stat sheets on their monitors. So to answer your question ... no. I wouldn't think very highly of him. But since I do watch him very closely (and have seen every game live, on replay, and on coaches film), I've got enough information to think that he is a very good QB who still has room for improvement. I KNOW what a bad QB looks like, and I know when that QB has hit his ceiling. That's not the case with Bradford.

Well X that's accepting that Sam would not have done better for Jax than the guys they have had and I don't accept that,and I don't think you REALLY accept that either

 

[max]

Well, the point I was making is that they'll do what they deem beneficial to the team as a whole. What *we* feel about that is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Some think the Rams *should* get rid of him today. Others think they *should* keep him until his contract is up, while others think they *should* extend him now. What we feel won't impact any decisions that take place, though it is good for conversation.

My point is that what they do may not be beneficial to the team. They can get it wrong.

And while it's true that what we think is the right to do has zero impact on what happens, I have always found it interesting how some professional football people make worse decisions than some amateur fans.

I'm not saying that applies to the current regime, but I'm sure there is a good argument that it applies to former regimes.

And we have posters right here who felt Jeffery ahead of Quick was a no brainer. So this regime can get things wrong too.

 

[MerlinJones]

Wins? So the ultimate team game in all of sports, and you want to hold one player, albeit the most important one, to whether we win or lose. His play has not been the direct result of us winning or losing, the OL doesn't block, Sam gets sacked, come on Sam you gotta get rid of it sooner. Brian Quick open for a beautiful touchdown...oh nevermind he dropped it, gotta throw a better pass Sam to get those wins. The QB position relies on the rest of the team more than any other position IMHO.

So why is football the "ultimate" team game in all of sports in your opinion?

 

[-X-]

Well X that's accepting that Sam would not have done better for Jax than the guys they have had and I don't accept that,and I don't think you REALLY accept that either

Except that wasn't my contention. I said I wouldn't think very highly of him if I had just a cursory look at his achievements while in Jacksonville. And that's predicated on the idea that I have nothing invested in Jacksonville, so my opinion wouldn't be formed by anything of substance.

 

[Barrison]

So why is football the "ultimate" team game in all of sports in your opinion?

No matter how good the individual is, it takes a true team performance for wins to come together, honestly if Sam was playing lights out football but everyone else around him was failing would it still be the QB's fault that we aren't winning?

 

[max]

From now until the draft there will be rants of draft a new QB.

From the draft until the season starts, there will be rants of Bradford is on the hot seat this year.

Then the season will start and it all comes to a head.

Yup. 2014 is gonna be exciting around here.

 

[Thordaddy]

Except that wasn't my contention. I said I wouldn't think very highly of him if I had just a cursory look at his achievements while in Jacksonville. And that's predicated on the idea that I have nothing invested in Jacksonville, so my opinion wouldn't be formed by anything of substance.

Again he "achievements in Jacksonville" WHAT WOULD they be? and your view of him would be dependent upon WHAT they in fact were ,so since you SAY your opinion WOULD be less,it would be predicated upon an assumed level of production.
So WOULD that level be the same against the division Jax plays in instead of against the West?
IMO if Bradford had played for Jax they would have won a lot more games and all our opinions of him might well be higher.
He would have had MJD in his semi prime ,how productive would Justin Blackmon have been with Sam throwing to him? to say anything definitive you have to accept some assumptions which I think is speculative

 

[-X-]

Again he "achievements in Jacksonville" WHAT WOULD they be? and your view of him would be dependent upon WHAT they in fact were ,so since you SAY your opinion WOULD be less,it would be predicated upon an assumed level of production.
So WOULD that level be the same against the division Jax plays in instead of against the West?
IMO if Bradford had played for Jax they would have won a lot more games and all our opinions of him might well be higher.
He would have had MJD in his semi prime ,how productive would Justin Blackmon have been with Sam throwing to him? to say anything definitive you have to accept some assumptions which I think is speculative

I think you're missing my point and trying to pigeon hole me into offering an opinion of Bradford in the parallel world of him being a Jaguar. The point is, I wouldn't care about him if he was a Jaguar, and any opinion I had of him would be formed by not knowing anything but stat sheet numbers, their cumulative record with him at the helm, and maybe having seen one or two games over four years with him playing QB. I'm not offering an opinion of HOW he would have fared. I'm just fortifying my original assertion that Silva hasn't seen Bradford play that often, and his opinion (IMO) is formed the same way I'd form an opinion of him if he was playing for some team I don't follow. But since I DO have a vested interested in the Rams and their QB, my opinions are formed intelligently.

 

[Thordaddy]

I think you're missing my point and trying to pigeon hole me into offering an opinion of Bradford in the parallel world of him being a Jaguar. The point is, I wouldn't care about him if he was a Jaguar, and any opinion I had of him would be formed by not knowing anything but stat sheet numbers, their cumulative record with him at the helm, and maybe having seen one or two games over four years with him playing QB. I'm not offering an opinion of HOW he would have fared. I'm just fortifying my original assertion that Silva hasn't seen Bradford play that often, and his opinion (IMO) is formed the same way I'd form an opinion of him if he was playing for some team I don't follow. But since I DO have a vested interested in the Rams and their QB, my opinions are formed intelligently.

Actually X I thought Merlins question was the pigeon hole and my whole contention is that even if you did pay attention the evidence would be different so the conclusion would be too.
I'm asking you to NOT answer but somehow I'm not getting that across.

 

[MerlinJones]

No matter how good the individual is, it takes a true team performance for wins to come together, honestly if Sam was playing lights out football but everyone else around him was failing would it still be the QB's fault that we aren't winning?

No, that wouldn't be Bradford's fault, but that's not what I was asking you.

Fans of all team sports can probably make a case for their sport of choice being the most reliant on overall team. I was curious why you think football is the sport most reliant on overall group performance. Off topic I know, but I'm curious why football trumps all other team sports.

 

[MerlinJones]

Basically 98% of online postings are nothing but opinion and conjecture (hyperbole, not fact. I don't want anyone to get their undies in a bunch) but somehow my playing "what if" about Bradford being perceived the same way by Rams fans if he played for another team is ridiculous.

You guys win. I'll leave.

 

[-X-]

No, that wouldn't be Bradford's fault, but that's not what I was asking you.

Fans of all team sports can probably make a case for their sport of choice being the most reliant on overall team. I was curious why you think football is the sport most reliant on overall group performance. Off topic I know, but I'm curious why football trumps all other team sports.

I would say because there are 3 phases and 46 players during football games. If any one of those phases fails, the team could lose. You could have a good offense, but if your defense or special teams fails, you could easily lose. You could have a good defense, but if your offense or special teams can't score, you could easily lose. You could have the best kicking and coverage teams in the league, but if you can't score or stop another team from scoring, then you could easily lose. Football is easily the most reliant on the team playing cohesively to win, and less reliant on individual matchups (in a vacuum) to shape the outcome. It's about multiple individual matchups all happening at the same time, and winning a majority of those matchups, that dictates how successful you can be as a team.

 

[Barrison]

I would say because there are 3 phases and 46 players during football games. If any one of those phases fails, the team could lose. You could have a good offense, but if your defense or special teams fails, you could easily lose. You could have a good defense, but if your offense or special teams can't score, you could easily lose. You could have the best kicking and coverage teams in the league, but if you can't score or stop another team from scoring, then you could easily lose. Football is easily the most reliant on the team playing cohesively to win, and less reliant on individual matchups (in a vacuum) to shape the outcome. It's about multiple individual matchups all happening at the same time, and winning a majority of those matchups, that dictates how successful you can be as a team.

Well you just made my life a little easier ha.

 

[Barrison]

No, that wouldn't be Bradford's fault, but that's not what I was asking you.

Fans of all team sports can probably make a case for their sport of choice being the most reliant on overall team. I was curious why you think football is the sport most reliant on overall group performance. Off topic I know, but I'm curious why football trumps all other team sports.

I know what you were asking me...
[hl]No matter how good the individual is, it takes a true team performance for wins to come together[/hl], honestly if Sam was playing lights out football but everyone else around him was failing would it still be the QB's fault that we aren't winning?
That was my answer, by team performance I mean execution in all three phases of the game.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I got it!

Let's forget the past. We've seen him at at a high level when given a chance. He's not gonna elude many tacklers like other QB's in this division but when given some time he is the best pocket passer in the NFCW. That's not a popular statement but it's true. He has a bigger, more accurate, arm than Wilson and is a better decision maker than Kaep. That's all we really need to know from the past.

Every QB needs a running game and a stable OL. Last week the Patriots were playing Manning to throw the ball all game. Peyton audibled to runs several times, including on a BIG 3rd and long, to great avail. Not even the great Peyton Manning wanted to test the stout coverages of NE. NE had the answer for Manning but those surprise runs put the nail in their coffin. The runs also opened up the passing lanes, as well.

Guess who Sam had early on... Daryl "NO YAC" Richardson. The dude did nothing and Sam had no luxury of anyone sharing the load in over in over half his games last year. Teams just knew they needed to eliminate the intermediate and deep passes and they had us. This resulted in CHECK DOWNS. Then we'd try to run... for 2-3 yards every time. Four yards felt like 12 in the early season.

Our passing game is set. We have some very dynamic weapons that are locked and ready to explode like dynamit on a mountain side. But to maximize their ability we have to take care of the running game. The Rams will have/have had games where they made it look easy (HOU-before they sucked-, CHI, and IND.)

Sam was on the verge of a career year last year (14 TD's 4 INT's (which three weren't true picks) and a 90 QBR. He had a solid running 2 of those six games.

Just wait, fellas. Sam will have the talking heads saying "he's finally playing up to expectations." In reality, this team is finally getting back on track.

His injury history cannot be ignored. We need to draft a raw back up that has more upside than Clemens, for sure. But I wouldn't mind to keep Clemens because he's a great team player and mentor.

 

[iced]

Guess who Sam had early on... Daryl "NO YAC" Richardson. The dude did nothing and Sam had no luxury of anyone sharing the load in over in over half his games last year. Teams just knew they needed to eliminate the intermediate and deep passes and they had us. This resulted in CHECK DOWNS. Then we'd try to run... for 2-3 yards every time. Four yards felt like 12 in the early season.

Yep - a lot of us point to Drich carrying the ball early on and we saw how ineffective the run game was... it's not that there just wasn't a running game - Bradford did what a lot of haters expect good qb's to do - he carried the offense, especially in the first 2 games, particularly against arizona.