- This topic has 12 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
This was from a guy named steve on the RRF board
Bringing Sam Bradford back to be the Rams starter is the definition of insanity
By Spencer Engel
January 01, 2015 10:27 am CSTYou 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?
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, 4 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by .
Agamemnonthat 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. !
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.
Agamemnonyeah, 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
vYou 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.
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 -
This reply was modified 9 years, 4 months ago by
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
