Mistake to rush Bradford back last year?

[-X-]

[textarea]http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sam-bradford-still-dealing-soreness-184507781--nfl.html
Sam Bradford is quickly getting a grasp of the offense being installed by the St. Louis Rams, one he is more comfortable with than last year’s Josh McDaniels’ version.

But one thing he can’t shake yet is soreness in his ankle that was badly sprained last season. According to Kathleen Nelson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Bradford is still battling the injury more than seven months later.

Originally, Bradford suffered a high-ankle sprain on Oct. 16. It knocked him out of six games, and he went through an offseason rehabilitation process that carried through March. He’s still not all the way there.

“It's getting there," Bradford said. "It seems to feel better every week. There's less soreness, more things I can do. I think it's definitely on the right track."

It’s just soreness and the belief has to be Bradford will be 100 percent before training camp gets going. Coach Jeff Fisher says about 70 percent of the offense has been installed, so everyone is making progress.[/textarea]
I say yes - it was a mistake. What was there to gain? I mean, I understand the pressure to win and all, but that seemed a little negligent.

 

[Sum1]

From a Rams perspective, perhaps. From a Spags perspective...probably not.

 

[-X-]

From a Rams perspective, perhaps. From a Spags perspective...probably not.

That's true. You always want to put your best personnel on the field (talent-wise), but that ankle really affected the way Bradford threw. Took away his mobility almost entirely too. As such, I don't know that he was the best guy to put in if you were hoping to employ the full array of your playbook.

 

[steferfootball]

From a Rams perspective, perhaps. From a Spags perspective...probably not.

This, I said I didn't want him playing back then, but Spags was on the hot seat.

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

not a single completion looked easy for him. his confidence must have taken a big blow during the season. it must be difficult making a throw when you can't plant your foot properly every single throw.

of course it doesn't help when a qb sneak is called when you're trying to play with a sprained ankle.

.

 

[Ram Quixote]

I said, back when they started him against AZ (his first game back), that he didn't get enough/any reps in practice that week and his rustiness showed. It's one thing to push a veteran starter back into an offense he's familiar with, quite another to hurry a second year QB back into an offense he's still learning. And make no mistake, Bradford was trying learn how to play on that bad ankle.

Whatever momentum they had gained from beating NO the week before was lost by playing Bradford before he was ready. Ironic that they played him feeling the pressure to win games and it just led to more losses.

 

[Thordaddy]

For me it was THE turning point in my decision process on Spags. as Sum1 says it was a place where the interests of the Rams and the interests of Spags came into conflict.

IMO at that point Spags chose to attempt to enhance his employment chances at great risk to the franchises highest value asset.

From an owners perspective,mine as an owner of a company I viewed it as not the type of risk I would want taken considering what there was to gain for the org.

Owners view things in the prism of risk vs. reward,there was just nothing substantial to gain that could not have been gained by giving Sam another two weeks to mend and THEN ripped off some wins for team moral.

If we allow mind reading in this thread ,IMO Kroenke thought as I did , as an owner of an asset and was appalled at the recklessness of the decision, even the self serving nature as Sum1 says.To me Spags PUT himself on the opposite side of a divide from the best interests of the Rams that day and lit the fuse in Stans head that culminated in a trip to the locker room, a short private meeting with the coach and an apology to the fan base.
Had I been Stan Kroenke I think I'd have proceeded exactly that way and in that short meeting I'd have told Spags,"I see nothing matters more to you than winning the rest of these games,since that's the way you see it, that's how I see it,but you will do it without further endangering Sam Bradford,if I see him on the field again this year you will be fired immediately,good luck".

The injuries the Rams had this year were unfortunate and IF Spags had proven himself otherwise it would have been worth giving him a mulligan. But IMO if Stan was looking for "his guy" ,this decision eliminated Spags from contention,it certainly did for me.