Russ Lande explains why cutting ties with Bradford is best option for Rams

Agamemnon wrote:

I think the title is a bit misleading. It should be, this is a good year to fix your offensive line and a bad year to draft a QB. imo Basically, he doesn’t believe that they can redo a favorable contract with Bradford.</span>

Not sure why he thinks that.

There’s 2 possibilities, at least, for him thinking that.

1. Bradford’s agent is circulating the news that they aren’t favorable to a team-friendly type extension

2. Lande is just randomly speculating based on nothing.

Two key postulates, IMO:

1, Bradford’s health cannot be trusted! Betting another season on him would be irresponsible.

2. There isn’t much in the draft. Maybe a developmental guy, but that would be an investment for the future, not a strategy for next year.

If you buy the above, then we need a vet who is likely to give us better than what we have seen the last 2 years with low-ceiling backups. To me, that is utterly crucial.

And, for me, Bradford’s fate with us depends on what we can get.

If they see a chance to land a mid-table or better vet starting QB, then cut Bradford. His health cannot be trusted and I can’t see maintaining the investment given a good alternative.

If they can only find decent… then keep Bradford because he provides at least the CHANCE at really good QBing.

To me, it all boils down to those 2 options.

To repeat, if they put their bet on Bradford being healthy next year and just try to back him up, then they are fools who will deserve the blame when he goes down and we watch another year of mediocrity unfold. They MUST find a viable starting alternative likely to remain healthy.

Frankly, I’ll bet Fisher knows this. He knows that he has to produce next year. And he has GOT to be weary of living through the last 2 years in QB purgatory.

I hope that the Rams don’t cut Bradford, unless they sign a higher-profile free agent (which I think very unlikely). Bradford could be the guy, or he could get hurt again. But, without him, we’re assured of being very thin at QB, no matter who this team drafts.

rfl wrote:

But, I think everyone pretty much assumes that. It’s a given.

The dominant position, on this board anyway, is go with Bradford, bring back Hill or Davis or both, draft a guy.

I don’t think one person in the entire universe assumes they put it all on Bradford alone and just hope for it.

Well, this may or may not be the dominant board position. But it doesn’t cohere with what I am saying.

See, IF YOU DON’T TRUST SAM’S HEALTH, then it would be irresponsible to go with Sam, a Hill-type backup, and a mediocre rook. That is the recipe for the film we have seen the last 2 years. Sam goes down early, and the season goes down the drain.

A back-up level QB cannot raise this long-moribund offense to competitiveness. Hill is probably as good an option as you’ll find at back-up level, and you see where that leaves us.

To keep Sam, re-sign Hill, and draft a rook would PRECISELY be a matter of putting “it all on Bradford alone and just hope for it.” That option would bet our only hope at starter quality QBing on Sam, and his health cannot be trusted. That’s what I am arguing, so whether or not “one person in the entire universe” says what sounds to me to be what you are labeling the board consensus, I am against it!

If Sam Bradford is our only proven, starter-level QB next year, then we are in serious trouble and the FO will be guilty of negligence.

As for whether Sam becomes a star somewhere else, I don’t care. This franchise is stuck in competitive hell. It needs a jolt to get it back on track. It cannot afford another year of groping along led by Clemens, Davis, or Hill.

If ever there has been an off-season in which the FO needs to do due diligence, it is this one.

And due diligence means mounting a massive effort to be sure we have a starter-level QB on the roster whose name is not Sam Bradford.

Except “not trusting his health” isn’t an objective stance, it’s a pre-decision determined by feelings.

The objective stance is, he can be good if healthy but you cannot, given the history, assume he will be.

So you set it up to have options.

“Not trusting” is you. And, you would be non-trustful of that situation.

“See what will happen and plan for different scenarios” is safe, it’s win/win, it’s prudent, it’s good policy, etc.

There’s nothing “irresponsible” about it, it’s good management.

I understand what RFL is saying.

Trust is something that one can have or not have in someone based on experience, past performance and using that to reasonable predict he near future. It’s not a feeling. To me, it’s really the same as saying Bradford can be good when healthy, RFL and I just don’t see him ever being healthy enough to have a snowball’s chance of playing without getting hurt again. He cannot run, he cannot evade rushers, he is a one-legged athlete.

For Fischer and Snead NOT to acknowledge that relying on Bradford to be the starter next year and any length of time beyond that would demonstrate to me that they are ignoring the evidence in front of them and they are making an emotional decision to stick with Sam based on – feelings or wishful thinking.

Adrian Peterson came back from a horrific knee injury, maybe Sam can too. History tells us he most likely will not and the Rams need to recognize that.

RFL and I just don’t see him ever being healthy enough to have a snowball’s chance of playing without getting hurt again. He cannot run, he cannot evade rushers, he is a one-legged athlete.

Well but that’s not really relevant. For one thing, so-called running or highly mobile qbs get sacked and hit more often on avg. than pocket passers, not less often. Bradford has a low sack percentage under Fisher compared to all 3 of the other qbs who have started in the same period. The way to beat the rush is (with the blitz) to read the D pre-snap and fire off to hot reads or audible, and otherwise drop and throw in rhythm. Bradford has a quick release so it’s a strength.

For another thing, Bradford’s 2 knees do not come from “being hit.” We saw him take huge hits in the pre-season and just shake them off. And that’s pretty much his career. As someone who has hyper-extended a knee several times, and who knows exactly what that is like, what I saw was the typical freak hyper-extension issue–plant the foot wrong with the body weight pushing the leg at an awkward angle, and you can get hurt. I’ve done it (though mercifully never to the point where I tore an ACL). And I did it doing nothing…the stories are even funny. It never had anything to do with contact.

In terms of what YOU GUYS TRUST, that’s one thing. In terms of making an objective management decision, to me, it seems obvious that you keep Bradford in the mix. If he comes through, good. If he can’t play, then, you move on. But you don’t throw away the possibility of having a good experienced pro qb if there’s a chance he can play. What you DO do, IMO, is set it up so your bases are covered. To me that’s the win/win scenario. I don’t even ask myself if I personally “trust” his odds or luck or chances…that would have more to do with how I personally relate emotionally to possible dangers than it would have to do with how I think you’re supposed to manage this kind of situation.

I personally think you manage this situation be covering your bases. That means doing everything. Give Bradford a win-win contract, have a veteran #2 around, draft a guy. IMO it doesn’t hurt you to do that and if the odds go your way you benefit.

zn wrote:

In terms of what YOU GUYS TRUST, that’s one thing. In terms of making an objective management decision, to me, it seems obvious that you keep Bradford in the mix.

I gotta say, I’m getting tired of being lectured about being emotional rather than objective.

And, you know, your posts do not show evidence of your having read what I wrote.

I have not said that Sam can’t be in the mix. I have specifically said that he can be … IF we can afford him. And I am not talking about money.

Injuries matter. Some players get injured and are bad bets for what you are calling “objective management decisions.”

Our roster is full of guys who prove this principle. Long was a bad bet with regard to injuries. Wells was. Saffold was turned away by OAK and it can be argued that they were right. He’s lost time and been substandard when playing, apparently because of his shoulder.

And Sam has been a bad bet for injuries since we drafted him. He was injured significantly in college and has been repeatedly injured in Ram helmets. You can argue this, that, and the other, but people who said 5 years ago that he would be injury prone HAVE BEEN RIGHT!

To bet the team’s year on a guy injured as often as Sam has been is to make a long shot bet.

To do this relying on him as your only starter-level QB would be an irresponsible repetition of a bet that has cost this franchise and its fans dearly.

And I have yet to see you deal with this argument.

wv wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>zn wrote:</div>

RFL and I just don’t see him ever being healthy enough to have a snowball’s chance of playing without getting hurt again. He cannot run, he cannot evade rushers, he is a one-legged athlete.

Well but that’s not really relevant. For one thing, so-called running or highly mobile qbs get sacked and hit more often on avg. than pocket passers, not less often. Bradford has a low sack percentage under Fisher compared to all 3 of the other qbs who have started in the same period. The way to beat the rush is (with the blitz) to read the D pre-snap and fire off to hot reads or audible, and otherwise drop and throw in rhythm. Bradford has a quick release so it’s a strength.

For another thing, Bradford’s 2 knees do not come from “being hit.” We saw him take huge hits in the pre-season and just shake them off. And that’s pretty much his career. As someone who has hyper-extended a knee several times, and who knows exactly what that is like, what I saw was the typical freak hyper-extension issue–plant the foot wrong with the body weight pushing the leg at an awkward angle, and you can get hurt. I’ve done it (though mercifully never to the point where I tore an ACL). And I did it doing nothing…the stories are even funny. It never had anything to do with contact.

In terms of what YOU GUYS TRUST, that’s one thing. In terms of making an objective management decision, to me, it seems obvious that you keep Bradford in the mix. If he comes through, good. If he can’t play, then, you move on. But you don’t throw away the possibility of having a good experienced pro qb if there’s a chance he can play. What you DO do, IMO, is set it up so your bases are covered. To me that’s the win/win scenario. I don’t even ask myself if I personally “trust” his odds or luck or chances…that would have more to do with how I personally relate emotionally to possible dangers than it would have to do with how I think you’re supposed to manage this kind of situation.

I personally think you manage this situation be covering your bases. That means doing everything. Give Bradford a win-win contract, have a veteran #2 around, draft a guy. IMO it doesn’t hurt you to do that and if the odds go your way you benefit.

The whole “running QBs get sacked more” is irrelevant. Cause the knee
could affect Bradford’s ability to move around and be ‘nimble’ in
the pocket. Like Marino. As you know Marino wasn’t a running QB
BUT he was awesom in the pocket — he was nimble — he could MOVE.
We dont know if Sam will be slower, or clunkier in the pocket
because of the second kneee operation.

I also dont know why its relevant that his injuries come
from planting his foot as opposed to ‘getting hit’. What
difference does it make? If his knee is weak and he gets
hurt by planting his foot, then that would be a real problem,
yes?

w
v

yup. quite frankly the way he snapped his ligament worries me more. and now with a second tear i am positive the outcomes go down. not by much but they do go down.

i think he’s done personally. although i understand the reasons for keeping him.

Like Marino. As you know Marino wasn’t a running QB
BUT he was awesom in the pocket — he was nimble — he could MOVE.
We dont know if Sam will be slower, or clunkier in the pocket
because of the second kneee operation.

Yet in the last 2 years Bradford has a lower sack percentage than any of the other 3 qbs.

That;s because, in part, he does move more in the pocket than given credit for, he has a quick release, and he was coached under Schott to get rid of the ball and in fact if anything Bradford is a highly “do as coached” kind of qb.

I don’t know about 2 surgeries. That’s an unknown. But Bradford’s knee injuries did not come from being HIT. One involved contact, one didn’t, but in both cases what we saw was a hyper-extended knee, and those are different animals from a knee being hit. A hyperextended knee happens when the knee is bent backward–the foot is planted wrong, and the leg and body weight push the wrong direction. It’s a freak thing. You can get it from anything. I have had a few myself, in fact one last fall (I still can’t sleep in certain positions because of lingering issues from what the doctor said is a bruised miniscus.) Not once in my history of knee extensions did it come from contact. It just came from planting the foot a certain way producing an awkward angle bending the knee.

So rightly or wrong I take what Bradford had as freak occurences.

Though I don’t know what it means about his play, because we don’t know what the odds are for a repeat after 2 surgeries. That;s why I always say IF Bradford can come back.

BUT because they are freak things, I never take his knee as an indication of his toughness or durability taking hits. Freak hyper-extensions just don’t indicate that.

QB Index: Which QBs will be available in 2015?

By Gregg Rosenthal

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000449237/article/qb-index-which-qbs-will-be-available-in-2015

Twenty teams hit the offseason on Monday. Far too many of them will be searching for a quarterback, with far too few options available. We decided to use this week’s QB Index to look at the potential free-agent and trade market for veteran quarterbacks.

The short version: It’s not pretty.

I rank the best free agents available later in the column, but let’s start with some bigger names who will still be under contracts.

Trade candidates

Jay Cutler: Two weeks ago, I listed which teams should be searching for a quarterback in 2015. The Chicago Bears were listed as the “X-factor” but that came before Jay Cutler’s benching. Now it’s essentially expected that Cutler will be elsewhere next season. It won’t be easy to deal Cutler because he has $15.5 million guaranteed due, but the Bears could potentially find a suitor in exchange for a late-round pick if they just want to dump salary and start over. This hinges on whether coach Marc Trestman is back in Chicago next season. If not, will the next Bears coach want to be the next man to take a swing and miss at fixing Cutler?

Geno Smith: Geno suggested that a new coach in New York could be a good thing, but there’s a chance that a new general manager and coach will look to see if Smith could fetch a mid-round pick in a trade. It’s more likely that any new regime will give Smith a chance to battle for a starting job as QB option 1B.

Mike Glennon: Lovie Smith clearly has no use for Glennon despite all the promise he’s shown in 18 career starts. Smith isn’t going anywhere, so perhaps Glennon will. We have to believe that some team out there will be intrigued by the aggressiveness Glennon has shown in two seasons. He’s better than some starters out there and might only cost a mid-to-late round pick for the last two years of his contract.

Robert Griffin III: NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport has reported that Griffin is likely to be back in Washington. The Redskins have invested so much in him, and owner Dan Snyder is determined not to start over at the position. Coach Jay Gruden seems far more ambivalent in his public comments and action. We suspect another team could pry away RGIII for the right price, but it’s hard to imagine there will be a ton of interest. Value in the NFL changes fast.

EJ Manuel: The Bills won’t even start Manuel in Week 17 to get a look at him again, even with Kyle Orton struggling badly down the stretch. That speaks volumes that they don’t see a future for the No. 16 overall pick of the 2013 draft.

Free Agents

1. Mark Sanchez: Will playing so-so in Chip Kelly’s system really rehabilitate his value that much? It would be a surprise if any free agent available got starter money. Sanchez is a 1B option.

2. Brian Hoyer: The more he played this season, the more he looked like a high quality backup.

3. Ryan Mallett: It sounds like the Texans want Mallett back, and there probably won’t be a ton of competition for him.

4. Jake Locker: He’s genuinely shown flashes of quality starter play, but his durability concerns make him a flier free-agent pickup.

5. Michael Vick: We’re nearing the end of the line here, but he should still be able to get work.

Others: Matt Moore, Shaun Hill, Colt McCoy, Tarvaris Jackson, Christian Ponder, Jimmy Clausen, Blaine Gabbert.

PA Ram wrote:

Looking at the names on the list, there is no good option this year.

Just get a fairly solid guy and build the offensive line.

To me that’s the thing to do this year–don’t trade for a Cutler and give him huge money–invest in a free agent guard or center–then draft a good one and another one.

Try to resign Hill and Bradford at a fair price–even Davis and go with that three-headed monster behind a better line.

I do want them drafting a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round.

But this is not a QB year for them. Their best hope is that Bradford suddenly becomes Iron Man and can finally claim the throne and be steady. The other options all stink.

Build the O-line.

Pretty much as I see it. I also don’t like the Cutler idea. There may be a couple of players in the “available” list that would be better than Hill or Davis. That would be up to Fisher and Snead. And I also would like a high draft choice for a qb but only if there is one that the Rams could draft without reaching too much. The best hope still seems to be Bradford.

wv wrote:

The answer is obvious — Sign Geno Smith. Draft Kevin White.
Then just start the WVU QB and the three WVU WRs.

Actually, Geno Smith is one that I think could be a good choice. Two others I like would be Mike Glennon and EJ Manuel. All three of these would have to be obtained in a trade. But all three of them would be, IMO, a significant upgrade to Hill or Davis.

Of the free agents, Mark Sanchez, Brian Hoyer, Ryan Mallett, Christian Ponder, and Blaine Gabbert are names that interest me. It just depends on what Fisher and Shotty thinks.

wv wrote:

Well, my least favorites on that list are Sanchez and Gabbert.

My main wish is that they find a couple of Healthy Studs
for the OLine.
For the love of God, can we see a topnotch OLine again
in my lifetime ?

w
v

I don’t like any single one of them. Apparently they don’t either, cause the talk from the Rams is sticking with Bradford.

Then, the issue becomes, is there a good more developmental prospect in rounds 2 or 3.

Someone like Andrew Luck, or, maybe Steve McNair.

Tipsheet: NFL quarterback market looks bleak

By Jeff Gordon

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/jeff-gordon/tipsheet-nfl-quarterback-market-looks-bleak/article_caa26bfc-2a5d-5bba-b4bc-a75609442060.html

This 2014 NFL season reminded us just difficult it is to find a consistently good quarterback at this level.

About half the teams in the league could use an upgrade and pickings will be slim in the free agent marketplace. Fans inevitably demand quarterback change, but they should be careful what they wish for this winter.

NFL.com’s Gregg Rosenthal ranked the top five:

Mark Sanchez: Will playing so-so in Chip Kelly’s system really rehabilitate his value that much? It would be a surprise if any free agent available got starter money. Sanchez is a 1B option.
Brian Hoyer: The more he played this season, the more he looked like a high quality backup.
Ryan Mallett: It sounds like the Texans want Mallett back, and there probably won’t be a ton of competition for him.
Jake Locker: He’s genuinely shown flashes of quality starter play, but his durability concerns make him a flier free-agent pickup.
Michael Vick: We’re nearing the end of the line here, but he should still be able to get work.

Rams quarterback Shaun Hill made Rosenthal’s “others” list, along with former Mizzou standout Blaine Gabbert and the likes of Colt McCoy, Christian Ponder, Matt Moore, Jimmy Clausen and Tavaris Jackson.

Rams quarterback Sam Bradford did not make Rosenthal’s “trade” list, given the current Rams’ claim that Sam is still the man here.

Players who did make that list include Jay Cutler, Geno Smith, Mike Glennon, Robert Griffin III and E.J, Manuel. Glennon and Manuel seem likely to be traded — if anybody cares — and the other three could get another shot where they are, perhaps with new coaches.

The Rams appear unlikely to draft their starting quarterback for 2015, since the franchise is overdue to actually produce a winning season. So those demanding change could be sorely disappointed with Jeff Fisher, Les Snead and Co.

Considering he not part of the Rams Scouting or Personnel department,I could care less what he thinks

• This reply was modified 9 years, 12 months ago by cgsuddeath.