St. Louis Rams: Bringing Back Bradford?

[LACHAMP46]

The NFL morning show were talking about landing places for Johnny FBall, and the Rams came up. Strahan answered something to the effect that we all believe that Sam is talented, and will be back with the Rams.

UCLA's line has been abysmal, not just not good. It really hurt Hundley this year. Yesterday, you finally got to see when they still weren't good, but played better than most games this year. Hundley was 29 for 37 with 2 TD's in the air, over 300 yds, and 2 TD's on the ground rushing. He had another throwing TD, on a fade, taken away on a horrific call, where they thought the WR pushed off, replays clearly showed he didn't. Brett worked with Philip Rivers, the Mannings, and Tim Tebow, for leadership advice, in the offseason. He has the thirst to be the best. He just broke UCLA's all-time TD record...70, and still going.

He's been working in the pocket better the last few weeks, but sometimes he gets pressured before he's set to throw. He's tough, been sacked more than any other college QB over the last three years. He's been sacked over 110 times. Let that digest a little. Of all those sacks, he's probably gotten out of a lot more, he's strong, and doesn't go down easy. He's taken a little more than he would have, because he dislocated his elbow, he played the next game, with had a huge brace on his non-throwing elbow. Yesterday, was the first game without it. He will hold the ball too long at times, his mechanics, with his feet, are not perfect, but not bad either. His throwing motion is quick, and compact. In comparison, the Rams OL is light years better than UCLA's.

Biggest knock, is that he will tuck and run at first pressure, but he has improved on that, and I think the hurt elbow may have forced him to do that.

He has a plus arm, and is extremely accurate on short/swing, to intermediate throws. He can throw with touch, and he can gun it. He's pretty accurate on deep throws, but not dead accurate on every long throw. IMO, this is attributed to the fact that UCLA plays, just about, everybody on their roster, including 6, or more different receivers in a single game. He's a quiet, even keeled QB, it's hard to rattle him, even after getting sacked multiple times in a game, or when a player makes a huge mistake at a critical time.

I don't think he's a game one ready QB in the NFL, but I believe he has a ton of upside, and the type of kid that can handle a franchise title, with smarts, and class.

Bradford, Hundley, and Davis. Sounds good to me.

Sold Me @DR RAM .....I'll take a Winston-Hundley-Petty special please....

 

[Riverumbbq]

Why in the world were they talking about landing places for Manziel? That's a waste of time.

Well, if Cleveland prefers Hoyer ...

If Hoyer takes them to the play-offs, and if Manziel has been less than impressive during practice, seems like they might test him on the trade market. Some team who perceives the need for a QB and doesn't have a high draft pick ...

I can see a possibility, slight as it may be.

 

[cgsuddeath]

OK what do you mean.

Injured a lot his first two years and paid well.See the results of patience.

 

[Rams and Gators]

The NFL morning show were talking about landing places for Johnny FBall, and the Rams came up. Strahan answered something to the effect that we all believe that Sam is talented, and will be back with the Rams.

I'd give a 5th for Johnny.

 

[DR RAM]

Why in the world were they talking about landing places for Manziel? That's a waste of time.

The networks love him, and Hoyer has played pretty good, so they don't see him taking over, any time soon. My guess.

 

[MerlinJones]

I'd give a 5th for Johnny.

And Johnny seems like the kind of guy who'd share it with you too.

 

[DR RAM]

And Johnny seems like the kind of guy who'd share it with you too.

Nope, he'd steal it, take it to the local all girls school, and share it with them. Probably be dumb enough to video tape it.

 

[LesBaker]

Injured a lot his first two years and paid well.See the results of patience.

I see what you're saying but there is a big difference in the type and severity of the injuries though.

 

[ChrisW]

Winston from the neck up scares me to death! Sorry can't fix stupid!

No, but you can fix maturity. That's his only problem.

 

[LesBaker]

Nope, he'd steal it, take it to the local all girls school, and share it with them. Probably be dumb enough to video tape it.

Or float around on a big rubber swan in a hotel lobby and drink it himself.

 

[LesBaker]

No, but you can fix maturity. That's his only problem.

Not always though, and that's a big concern. Also it may not be maturity, he may just be a jerkoff. Jeff George was said to be immature, but as it turned out he was actually an asshole.

 

[cgsuddeath]

I see what you're saying but there is a big difference in the type and severity of the injuries though.

Shoulder injuries are worse because it was his throwing shoulder.He had two of those not to mention a knee injury and the risk was worth the reward.

 

[blackbart]

I'm not sure it's possible to put together an OLine so good that the QB never has to scramble out of the pocket.
Again, I don't think you can put that first ACL injury on the line.

On the second injury I agree that Jake Long blew it, but at the same time it's not like the defender hit Bradford running full speed. He really didn't hit him at all, he grabbed at him and the fell backwards when Bradford locked his knees to avoid going down.
I don't know if it would be possible for a line to prevent the QB getting tugged at or pressured some times.

If Bradford needs the OLine to play at a level where he never has to move to avoid defenders to reach his full potential he and the Rams may both be in trouble.

I think both Bradford and Long were coming back too early. So much pressure to get off to a quick start and I understand the desire to get back in there and the money involved it is just sucks to see them both go down again.

In any case the O line has to be a priority no matter who plays QB, that unit has been a problem for a decade and it is far past time to buy in to fixing it long term. Hopefully GRob is a start and there will be more of an investment there.

 

[cgsuddeath]

I think both Bradford and Long were coming back too early. So much pressure to get off to a quick start and I understand the desire to get back in there and the money involved it is just sucks to see them both go down again.

In any case the O line has to be a priority no matter who plays QB, that unit has been a problem for a decade and it is far past time to buy in to fixing it long term. Hopefully GRob is a start and there will be more of an investment there.

My point exactly.

 

[Mike]

I think Sam comes back at full price. He does give us the best chance to win/be successful next year as opposed to bringing in a newcomer whether through the draft or a trade or free agent. I'm not sure of the cap ramifications of cutting Sam but I think we keep him.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I would say I'd give up a fourth but you already know.

I'd give up a 5th this year and a 6th next year.

 

[blackbart]

Talented at the college level, but in the NFL he's been just a middle of the pack QB.

Factor in the injuries and the fact that his cap hit next year is painful and it makes no sense to keep him on the roster. It's irresponsible because you can get two top flight starters, and one of them could even be a pro bowl type player, for the money going to Bradford. If Bradford was kicking ass these last couple of years I'd feel differently even with a potentially fragile knee. But he's been average in every way other than his arm strength and most every QB guru will tell you that's way over rated.

Right now Austin Davis is putting up better overall production than Bradford has, yes he has had a couple of bad games but Bradford and most QB's do the same thing against top 5 defenses. And Davis is doing it without Quick and for a couple of weeks with bad OL play.

IMO keeping Bradford makes the least sense unless Davis completely shits the bed for the rest of the year. If he has a couple more rough games that's fine, I think any first year starter will have a handful of games where he stinks.

I know he is a great guy, and a fan favorite, but right now he represents a massive gamble that Fisher and Snead would be foolish to take.

Bradford 14 TDs and 4 Ints last year is above average. The years before that he has had crap to play with other than SJ39.

Davis is basically a rookie and has looked like it against anything but scrubs. He has been flushing and watching the pass rush the last couple of games. Case in point the play last week when Kendricks broke wide open for what would have been an easy TD, there was no one near him when he broke out of the pocket.

And thinking Bradford is going to take a back up level contract, really?? That would just be insulting. Should he re-work it for a more team friendly contract, yes. But let's not get ridiculous.

 

[MerlinJones]

If the Rams can come up with a contract that pays him a reduced salary, on a by the game basis, with absolutely no guaranteed money and Bradford accepts it I'd be happy to have him back.

Otherwise I just don't believe the risk is worth it for the team as it stands.

 

[cgsuddeath]

If the Rams can come up with a contract that pays him a reduced salary, on a by the game basis, with absolutely no guaranteed money and Bradford accepts it I'd be happy to have him back.

Otherwise I just don't believe the risk is worth it for the team as it stands.

After watching what happened to Matt Stafford,I don't agree.And because of that I don't think Bradford would either.If he fails next year don't resign him.That would end the debate amongst everyone.

 

[Boffo97]

If the Rams can come up with a contract that pays him a reduced salary, on a by the game basis, with absolutely no guaranteed money and Bradford accepts it I'd be happy to have him back.

Otherwise I just don't believe the risk is worth it for the team as it stands.

I might be wrong here, but I don't think a "by the game basis" is an option for NFL contracts. It'd be something with lower base pay, but "unlikely to be earned incentives" instead.