Shane,
You're about to learn WHY there are these intense debates about Bradford across the internet.
Some still have questions about Bradford and his ability to not just improve as his talent level increases, but to seemingly raise the play of those around him. For example, some wonder why the likes of Donnie Avery, Laurent Robinson and Danario Alexander posted their most productive campaigns after leaving the Gateway City.
First, "raising the play of those around him" is a myth. It doesn't happen. I've posted a video of Aaron Rodgers in a 4th quarter situation - in the final seconds - and he failed to do that 'magic elevation' thing. Even WITH the talent he had at his disposal. It. just. doesn't. exist.
Secondly, Avery never played with Bradford. So you can blame Bulger for holding him back.
Danario Alexander had a successful year with Bradford, and then an even better one with Rivers. Why? Because he actually stayed on the field. Laurent Robinson was sandwiched between Austin, Bryant and Witten. OF COURSE he's going to have more targets and receptions. And what else? He, too, stayed healthy for once in his life. What did he do when he left
that situation?
In fact, the Rams signal caller led four fourth quarter comebacks, tying for second in the league. To put that into perspective, New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady has never bettered that number and Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers has yet to construct more than two such comebacks in a campaign.
That's another reason why there are so many debates. It's admirable what you pointed out there, and partially valid, but when you name Bradford in the same paragraph with those two, and expect it to mean something, people are going to flip their lids. That stat will stay on topic for all of 5 seconds before the numbnuts around the net begin to point out how much better those two are at everything else. And then the opposite side gets drawn into it trying to debunk their success (in those other areas) as relative to their longevity and support. After 10 minutes it's just a bitch fest full of
bitchassness.
The article, in and of itself is solid. You make a lot of points that the more rational St Louis Rams fans try to make with regard to Bradford and the Rams. But just like any other rational, objective, and quantified view, this one is also going to be torn apart by the more "emotionally invested in being right" crowd. And you can take that to the bank.
Finally, this.
There is still an avenue to becoming a top-tier NFL team in this offensive era without an elite QB. The question is, will the Rams become an elite squad with an elite Sam Bradford, or will they have to attempt to get there the hard way, without a true franchise quarterback leading the way?
I don't think you're giving much latitude to Fisher's Rams here. You're making this QB-centric. The Rams have other options, as did MANY other Superbowl Winning teams. 3 solid phases of play (Offense, Defense, Special Teams) will produce just as much (if not more) than a team reliant upon the QB for their respective success. Bradford only needs to be very good. That's his job. The rest of the team ALSO needs to be very good. As would be THEIR jobs.
Again, good work. And thanks!
