Bringing Sam Bradford back to be the Rams starter is the definition of insanity

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Rams Huddle Bringing Sam Bradford back to be the Rams starter is the definition of insanity

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #15306
    JackPMiller
    Participant

    This was from a guy named steve on the RRF board

    http://cover32.com/rams/2015/01/01/bringing-sam-bradford-back-to-be-the-rams-starter-is-the-definition-of-insanity/

    Bringing Sam Bradford back to be the Rams starter is the definition of insanity
    By Spencer Engel
    January 01, 2015 10:27 am CST

    You know the cliche about the definition of insanity, right? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

    That definition is directly applicable to the Rams and Sam Bradford. The Rams have already paid more than $60 million to Bradford. That ungodly amount of money has netted the Rams a career record of 18-30-1 from Bradford and a career 79.3 passer rating.

    More distressing than Bradford’s mediocre play is the fact that he’s torn the same ACL in his knee twice in the past 15 months. He hasn’t played a regular season NFL game since October 2013.

    I tried to do some research on quarterbacks who have undergone back-to-back catastrophic knee injuries like Bradford has. Unfortunately, the NFL doesn’t keep such a database. From what I can tell, however, no starting quarterback in recent history has torn his ACL twice in a year, so there if no case study for such a situation. I did find this abstract to a study that proclaimed most NFL quarterbacks are able to return to football after a torn ACL with little to no difference in performance.

    But Bradford isn’t most quarterbacks. He’s clearly injury prone at this point. In the past six years, Bradford missed most of his last year in college with a shoulder injury, much of his second season due to a high ankle sprain and of course lost nearly all of his fourth and fifth seasons due to the ACL.

    Bringing back Bradford to be the Rams starter would be an exercise in futility. This is where some may counter that the Rams will bring in outside competition to push Bradford. That may be the case, but Bradford’s due $16.58 million next season. Even if the Rams are able to renegotiate that unseemly figure, Bradford will still be receiving a significant sum of money, and organizations don’t pay players millions of dollars to sit on the bench.

    Which is to say: If the Rams bring back Bradford, they are planning on him being the starter. Anything else the organization says is a lie.

    As you can tell, Bradford’s fragility is a huge reason why I’m against him coming back. But there’s a statistical case to be made against Bradford too.

    Grantland’s Bill Barnwell did a good job breaking down Bradford’s inability/unwillingness[/url] to throw deep back in August (just before he tore his ACL again), so that link is a good place to start.

    More interesting to me is looking at a couple of historical comparisons, which I found thanks to Pro Football Reference.

    The first chart is a list of quarterbacks in the modern era (post-1970) who started at least 40 games in their first six seasons yet failed to accumulate 20 wins.

    Yuck. Those nine quarterbacks made a combined five Pro Bowls, and none even sniffed a Super Bowl. Most of those guys became decent backups that stuck around for a while, but none made a lasting impact for a team.

    The second chart here is a list of quarterbacks who have started at least 40 games while putting up a quarterback rating less than 80. I did this chart from the year 2000 on to account for the quarterback-friendly rules that have gone into place since the start of the century.

    Take a long look at that list. Would you be comfortable with any of those guys as the Rams’ starting quarterback, including Bradford?

    • This topic was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by JackPMiller.
    #15310
    SunTzu_vs_Camus
    Participant

    Bradford was safe with the football…maybe too safe if that’s possible(…and it IS).
    However, as we saw with Davis & Hill….turnovers kill!!!

    That being said, during the pre-season, ALL 3 QBs threw downfield far more than ever before. It’s clear
    there was a deliberate attempt from Schotty/Fisher…to push the ball farther down field. I think the development of our WRs was a factor. Britt was a revelation…and Quick looked like a beast until injured. Quick took 2 years to step up and looked like he was ready. Tavon is lightening in a bottle and I suspect he will be utilized downfield also – along with his gimmick motion- jet sweep stuff.

    I think Bradford beats out any QB they bring in. NOT cuz they paid him money and really want him to be the starter…but cuz Bradford EARNED it and is better than other QBs. Tho injured, I don’t think Bradford is injury prone with chronic re-injuries…sans the ACL. The shoulder and ankle have not been issues…and ACLs are “wrong place wrong time” injuries…in that they happen to ANYONE in the same situation. imo

    Palmer tore his ACL once and came back and played great for the Cards until tearing it again. IF Bradford is brought back, I think that in our run-oriented offense and PA passing…Bradford will thrive in 2015. Fisher has made this team better every year – talentwise….and I think their record in 2015 will reflect that if there is even avg/conservative QB play.

    "I should have been a pair of ragged claws...
    Scuttling across the floors of silent seas."
    #15312
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    You can’t call Bradford injury prone. Not if you believe in “The Gambler’s Fallacy”. I don’t exactly believe it myself, but the proof of that will not fit the margins of this post. 😉 For Bradford you can say it is true. imo

    Bradford is your probably you best play, if for no other reason than it is your only play to field a QB cabable of winning a Superbowl. imo But, you don’t have to go all in on the salary. You can add protection by finding the next best thing at QB and getting insurance on Bradford’s salary.

    Bringing back Bradford is the definition of sanity. imo

    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.
    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.
    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photoAgamemnon.

    Agamemnon

    #15313
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    that being said, during the pre-season, ALL 3 QBs threw downfield far more than ever before. It’s clear
    there was a deliberate attempt from Schotty/Fisher…to push the ball farther down field.

    THat, AND, in fact, they weren’t as shy about doing that before than some apparently think they were.

    In 2014 they had the receivers. How do you push the ball downfield when your main WRs are Amendola and Gibson? AND YET…they did it. In 2012, according to PFF, Bradford was 7th in the league in attempts over 20 yards.

    In 2014, if you combine Davis and Hill, the Rams were … drumroll… 7th.

    I think this thing about Bradford being shy about throwing long is just simply myth. Really. The numbers don’t back it.

    BUT I absolutely DO think that if Bradford had played this year there would have been even more of that. And certainly more completions.

    Oh and good to see you Sun. !

    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photozn.
    #15317
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    Spencer Engel is the managing editor here: http://cover32.com/rams/ He seems to do fine. Although, I would have differences with him. I have that with everyone. 😉 It is good to see interested fans express themselves.

    Agamemnon

    #15321
    SunTzu_vs_Camus
    Participant

    yeah, zn…and you!
    …and all the other great guys here!

    I hope to frequent RH more often leading up to the draft.
    My brother Alyo still lingers at the HERD and so I hover there….sometimes too much.
    I’m a little more hopeful/positive about the team’s direction than most posters there
    and have been labelled/dismissed as an idealist/glass half-full/too positive kinda fan.
    Probably true….but I just know from being in a huddle that the QB has to be the most absurdly optimistic
    player for 60 minutes
    …in order to get others to play hard and believe they can win.

    Anyway, glad to read ya’ll again and I’m thankful RH is still here.
    I miss the rational vibe. 😉

    "I should have been a pair of ragged claws...
    Scuttling across the floors of silent seas."
    #15324
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    yeah, zn…and you!
    …and all the other great guys here!

    I hope to frequent RH more often leading up to the draft.
    My brother Alyo still lingers at the HERD and so I hover there….sometimes too much.
    I’m a little more hopeful/positive about the team’s direction than most posters there
    and have been labelled/dismissed as an idealist/glass half-full/too positive kinda fan.
    Probably true….but I just know from being in a huddle that the QB has to be the most absurdly optimistic
    player for 60 minutes
    …in order to get others to play hard and believe they can win.

    Anyway, glad to read ya’ll again and I’m thankful RH is still here.
    I miss the rational vibe. ;)

    Yeah good to see you ; I always
    read you and yer brother’s stuff
    on the herd.
    This is a small board,
    but we like it ::

    How ya feeling these days?

    w
    v

    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photowv.
    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photowv.
    #15330
    SunTzu_vs_Camus
    Participant

    Hangin in there…thanx for asking, wv!

    "I should have been a pair of ragged claws...
    Scuttling across the floors of silent seas."
    #15341
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    Bringing back Bradford is the definition of sanity.

    I agree. Besides, Bradford isn’t being brought back to “be the starter”. He’s being brought back to “compete for the starting job” with a QB that, according to Fisher, is not yet on the roster. That’s not the same thing. It’s not being handed to him this time. However, I have little doubt that Bradford will win the starting job if healthy because he was a pretty good QB when he got hurt, despite his 79.3 career passer rating. Citing his career passer rating is misleading because it includes his numbers from when he was young working behind a patchwork o-line with lousy receivers. I’m more interested in how he was playing most recently, that is the way he was playing before his injuries. He was easily having his best season (94 passer rating?) when he tore up his knee against Carolina and everything looked like he was gonna be even better this year prior to re-injuring his knee.

    #15343
    Avatar photowv
    Participant



    Joe Strauss — rams talk starts at 7:20

    “…if you can beat Denver and Seattle, why are you
    overmatched against the Giants and Vikings…”

    I know, I know,
    simplistic, non-analytical
    but thats what he said.

    w
    v

    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photowv.
    #15354
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    You can’t call Bradford injury prone. Not if you believe in “The Gambler’s Fallacy”. I don’t exactly believe it myself, but the proof of that will not fit the margins of this post. For Bradford you can say it is true.

    Bradford is your probably you best play, if for no other reason than it is your only play to field a QB cabable of winning a Superbowl. imo But, you don’t have to go all in on the salary. You can add protection by finding the next best thing at QB and getting insurance on Bradford’s salary.

    Bringing back Bradford is the definition of sanity.

    i’m not sure that applies to bradford. i think he is injury prone.

    however. i agree that the rams best shot at winning next year is bringing bradford back. because while it’s only a small chance that bradford stays healthy next year. there’s still a chance. and if he’s healthy, i’m almost positive the rams have a winning season.

    if, however, they have to play a new quarterback, i’m almost positive they have a losing season. it’ll be almost like starting from scratch, especially if he’s a rookie.

    i think that makes sense. they’re better off drafting a rookie and hoping bradford can stay healthy for a season or two and then developing that quarterback in the meantime.

    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photoInvaderRam.
    #15357
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    i’m not sure that applies to bradford. i think he is injury prone.

    however. i agree that the rams best shot at winning next year is bringing bradford back. because while it’s only a small chance that bradford stays healthy next year. there’s still a chance. and if he’s healthy, i’m almost positive the rams have a winning season.

    if, however, they have to play a new quarterback, i’m almost positive they have a losing season. it’ll be almost like starting from scratch, especially if he’s a rookie.

    i think that makes sense. they’re better off drafting a rookie and hoping bradford can stay healthy for a season or two and then developing that quarterback in the meantime.

    I think Bradford has long arms and big hands and big feet and a big dog. 😉

    Agamemnon

    #15361
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    haha!

    can’t wait for the combine! just waiting for that 37″ armed quarterback with 11″ hands!

    draft him!

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.