Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 6,721 through 6,750 (of 6,872 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: How good is S. Hill ? #4954
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    yeah. you don’t need a great qb for this team to do well. just a competent one. so there’s that.

    in reply to: Sanchez does not want to be a Ram #4952
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    good. i hope the rams wouldn’t want him either. hill’s better than he is…

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    maybe we could get jeff hostetler? hehe.

    in reply to: Do/Should the Rams Cut Bradford? #4946
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    it does sound cold. from what tackledummy says it sounds like he can’t be cut this year. but i wasn’t thinking about this year anyway. i think they owe him this year.

    i’m wondering about next year. would they save any cap space cutting him for 2015? cuz he’s not coming back for awhile.

    if they do care about his career. he takes more than a year to come back. look at what happened to danario. and i understand that it’s a different position and different stresses are put on the joints. but that’s two tears in less than a year.

    cut him for 2015. i’d even bring him back as a backup qb if he was willing. he might not be. but it’s in his best interests to start out as a backup. if i’m his family, i’m telling him to take a job as a backup qb with an eye toward maybe getting a starting gig in the future.

    in reply to: Fisher, 8-24 – transcript #4927
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i think more than anything you feel bad for sam. he worked hard to come back and then that happens.

    as far as the rams. well as far as offenses go. i’d have to think this is one of the more qb-friendly offenses. rams can still be competitive. well. maybe not. that secondary looks awful right now… sigh.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4910
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    yeah. we could very likely re-sign him for cheap. and truthfully. the rams would be the best option for him. he knows the team. he knows the coaches. the offense. the players. trying to come back from a second injury AND going to a new team and a new offense? that’s a lot.

    i keep thinking danario alexander and what he went through. no. bradford’s a huge risk at this point.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4898
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i think the year recovery period is due to a second injury. which makes sense to me. a second injury to the same ligament is going to be harder to overcome.

    but then you take into account a pre-surgery rehab process which he’ll likely have to go through. you don’t just continually repair the same ligament and expect it to get easier. this will take longer than the previous one. i mean he tore it twice in a span of what? 10 months? just looking at articles on the internet. the risk of failure doubles on a second repair. so you better believe they’re gonna take longer to make sure that it’s good. obviously we don’t know the extent of the tear. so it’s just guessing. i’m probably a little bit more negative due to the fact that we just found out about this.

    but the more i think about it. the rams might just have to cut him. i don’t know. i don’t know what makes more financial sense at this point.

    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i say go with what you have and reevaluate in the offseason. hill should be fine. i thought he looked alright in the few times i’ve seen him. draft a quarterback next year.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4885
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i didn’t even realize this but one year?? he won’t even be ready by next year. or it’d really be pushing it. my guess is he’ll be ready by game 4 or game 5.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4884
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    Just saw some doctor a little while ago on ESPN talking about it. He said should be a longer recovery time(a year) and arthritis could be a problem. He said Sam could come back but it’s going to be a long road. I know this doesn’t matter in terms of how the Rams approach this but it was just some general comments on this type of injury.

    yeah. i’m no expert. but anytime you operate on the same site twice. the chances of recovering from the second operation plummet. just a guess. and i think that’s true with anything. rebuild something two times. it’s just not the same.

    honestly, i’m disappointed but not crushed. rams will survive this. whatever qb goes in there is going into a great situation. but i feel bad for bradford. this is going to be one helluva climb back for him.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4878
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    but even plunkett was able to play more than 1 season in a row.

    for me. he’s the next sam bowie. some promise. wasn’t gonna live up to his draft status but still alright. except he couldn’t stay healthy.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4868
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    yeah. i can’t think of another starting qb with the injury history this guy has had who’s made it.

    alex smith?

    he had a shoulder injury which they chose not to do surgery on. they finally decided to have surgery on it when they realized it wouldn’t heal on its own.

    then he had to have a second shoulder surgery. mind you this was not necessarily contact related rather it was related to a wire they had left from the first surgery.

    besides that he blew out his knee.

    bradford has had three major ligament injuries. he had an ankle injury which still hadn’t healed going into the next season i believe.

    and i’m just taking a guess at this. but my guess is one ligament tear is bad enough. the prognosis for a SECOND tear on the SAME ligament. my guess is the prognosis takes a huge dip.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4831
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i don’t care if he’s taken big hits. big hits is not what i’m talking about. shoot i can get in a car crash and walk away from it. stress is put on the knees and joints all the time in football. his ligaments. the ones that hold his shoulders, knees, ankles, and whatever else together. they just can’t take the stress of an nfl game. it’s not about awkward hits anymore. four times in five years? it’s not just about bad luck anymore. he’s injury prone. it might not happen on the next hit or the hit after that. but at some point. he’s gonna break something again.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4828
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i didn’t see anything out of the ordinary with that hit. i think most qbs don’t injure themselves on a play like that because most qbs aren’t injury prone like sam is.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4821
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    the guy barely got hit. i mean. no ill will toward sam. these things happen. but he’s just not durable. i don’t see how the rams give him another contract at all.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4819
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    well yeah. they’ll keep him for that last year. i didn’t mean literally drop him from the team. but he’s done. next season should be his farewell season.

    i don’t care if he even has a good season. he’s just an injury waiting to happen at this point. draft a quarterback in 2015. don’t look back. hopefully, he can catch on somewhere else.

    in reply to: the Rams offense & the longer passing game #4815
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    no yeah. i agree. even with bradford out. i expect the rams to go downfield more than even 2012 if quick and britt are legit. rules or not. very similar to when they had danario. having a big target like those two going up for those balls should be effective.

    in reply to: Bradford is done for the year #4814
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i don’t think they can rely on him at all. they gotta let him go. this is the worst rams news i’ve heard in awhile.

    in reply to: the Rams offense & the longer passing game #4793
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    good point wv. things should open up more for everyone.

    in reply to: the Rams offense & the longer passing game #4779
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i was very encouraged by britt and quick.

    that could change things for sure.

    in reply to: Rams Team Value from Forbes & other "Rams to LA?" posts #4770
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    well. if we’re to hear anything more at all about this, it wouldn’t be until next year according to farmer.

    the only worry would be that as much as the owners were against the rams moving to st. louis, i think they would be that much in favor of them moving back. i think it all depends on what kroenke wants to do. i don’t think san diego will be able to stop any move back into la.

    but i don’t think it’s all about getting into the top 15 of sports franchises necessarily. he does want to raise the value of the rams franchise for sure. but that could also be done by staying in st. louis and getting a new stadium. it doesn’t have to be just moving to los angeles.

    in reply to: Tru Johnson out 6 weeks #4767
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    oh dear. this secondary is gonna be bad. i had doubts about it even with tru healthy.

    i’m not even sure how good a healthy janoris jenkins is gonna be.

    in reply to: the Rams offense & the longer passing game #4746
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i kind of agree with that. i think they’ll pick their spots. they won’t be wide open, but they’ll certainly pick their spots to go downfield. i don’t know if that means they’ll be an aggressive downfield offense.

    on the nfl spectrum of offenses, they will tend to be on the conservative side whatever that means. they’ll be more seahawks than packers.

    in reply to: Geez Bradford is a china doll. #4744
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    Even if the future becomes Robot football, some robots will be more reliable than others. And whether it’s Chaos Theory, bad karma, a jinx, the baby Jesus or something else at work, I think it’s pretty safe to say that it’s NOT that Sam Bradford is brittle and breaks easily.

    well i’m not sure what this means then. or is it that using the words “brittle” and “breaks easily” is inflammatory?

    in reply to: Geez Bradford is a china doll. #4731
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    i think the best they can do is keep drafting qbs. well. i guess that’d be true regardless.

    at this point what can you do anyway? bradford is clearly a talented quarterback. he was throwing some lasers out there. and the rams don’t have a clear cut plan for another starting qb at this point. a heavy run based offense is necessary i think. to limit the exposure to sam for more hits.

    trumaine johnson injury is more scary at this point. does joyner become the other starting cb if johnson is out?

    in reply to: Geez Bradford is a china doll. #4729
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    sorry, mack. i gotta go with grits on this. bradford is not proving to be a durable guy. maybe his ligaments are just not that durable. i’m beginning to think it’s just a matter of when not if his next big injury comes.

    hope i’m wrong.

    in reply to: reports on the injuries #4711
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    tru’s injury looked bad.

    as far as sam. well. just gotta push forward. but i get this feeling that the guy is fragile.

    in reply to: Geez Bradford is a china doll. #4709
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    gulp.

    in reply to: What do you need to see against the Browns? #4669
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    yes. oline. i want to see a healthy oline dominate in the running game today.

    in reply to: Williams happy to wait for season to unveil his defense? #4426
    Avatar photoInvaderRam
    Moderator

    could it be that coaches are evaluating what the players are good at and what they aren’t good at. what good is constant blitzing when they want to figure out how good this team is in coverage? and figuring that out, they can adjust their scheme accordingly.

    my only point is we don’t know what the coaches are trying to get out of these games. whether they do good or bad. i don’t think it means anything. i mean if they showed the whole defense in preseason and shut offenses out, i’m not sure that would even translate to success in the regular season.

Viewing 30 posts - 6,721 through 6,750 (of 6,872 total)