I would be surprised if the Rams don’t have Bradford entering 2015 as the probable starter at a reduced salary. He’s the best QB on the Rams, and he isn’t going to get money on the market. Both sides are going to want Bradford to be a Ram.

There are six games to go, but unless Hill gets a serious injury and plays badly, the Rams will want him back.

Davis…I don’t know. They may think he can grow into a spot starter, #2 guy, and they may not.

Nobody has any idea what’s happening with Keenum or Gilbert.

IMO, they draft a QB every year until Bradford’s successor is established.

zn wrote:

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>from off the net…controversial post, just throwing it out there to add to discussion…</span>

===

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: #BF0000″><strong class=”d4pbbc-bold”>XXXIVwin </span>

Lots of “ifs” here, but….

IF Shaun Hill keeps playing at a high level (as he did against the Broncos), do you all think he is truly “too old” to consider as our QB for 2015 and 2016?

Shaun Hill is “only” 34.

Peyton is 38. Brady is 37. Brees is 35. Romo is 34.

This is a good point, and I have also noticed that some posters are writing off Hill as a possibility for the future. They shouldn’t. Hill is viable until he isn’t. And that could easily be a couple of seasons.

However, that doesn’t mean you don’t get the QB of the Future now. The QB of the Future is probably not the starter next year.

If I was the Rams, I’d be drafting a QB somewhere every year until they have a long term answer. I don’t want to see the Rams repeat the 70s: a great defense held back by a limited QB.

jimiramsboy wrote:

Not having been on here very much since training camp forgive me what point about Bradford are you referring to?

For the record I think they should move on even if he is open to a much lesser cap number

And do what?

I don’t see any better options out there at any price.

• The Rams failed to adequately address the QB position before the season. Even with Sam Bradford coming off knee surgery that cut short his 2013 season — and with Bradford entering the final two years of his Rams’ contract — the team didn’t use an early-round draft choice to select a developmental QB that could be groomed to take over. The Rams waited until the sixth round to draft SMU’s Garrett Gilbert, a wasted pick. And when Bradford’s knee blew up again during the preseason, putting him out for the year, the Rams’ choice came down to Hill and Davis.

• And that’s the more prominent issue. It isn’t a matter of Hill vs. Davis; it’s more about not having a more attractive, forward-thinking alternative in place. Unless the Rams bring Bradford back in 2015 to attempt another comeback in what would be the final year of his contract, the team doesn’t have a viable quarterback lined up for next season.

• Some would argue — with abundant merit — that the Rams already have lost the Bradford gamble, so they should cut their losses instead of stubbornly staying the course with Bradford as their designated No. 1 QB for a sixth consecutive year. Bradford is due $16.58 million in 2015. By releasing him, the Rams would save more than $12 million against the ’15 cap.

You know, a bright side to a Rams’ move out of St. Louis would be no more Bernie.

It’s my fault.

I’m the one who said to keep Davis a bit longer.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:
Right, they don’t need an elite QB, but even most of the elite QBs took years. That’s my point. Okay, so, they might draft a Flacco or Wilson who is adequate or better from game one. It’s possible. I never said it was impossible.

I said we COULD be in for a QB drought that lasts years. Unfortunately, statistically, that is more likely than drafting Flacco.

But, hey, maybe it’s Gilbert.

Granting that this is all just opinions from observation and not divinely inspired clairvoyance….

in the recent world?

QBs take years if they go to teams that are building around the qb. So they build while he learns. The Mannning at Indy model.

QBs don’t take years if you give them the initially much more limited task of managing an already built team. Seattle model with Wilson.

The Flacco Ravens, for example, were in the playoffs right away. Flacco was drafted in 2008, and they were in the playoffs for 5 straight years, from 2008-2012. And it wasn’t cause of Flacco.

That is, ASSUMING the qb in question is at least good, “development” is not a product of the qb’s presumably inherent learning curve. It’s a product of the quality of team he lands on.

You not only DON’T need an elite qb, the WORST model is building a team around a young elite qb. That kind of team, far more often than not, crashes and burns in the post-season. That is, building your wins around the passing skills of an elite qb will always make you competitive IN the regular season but unless you have the defense or a very well-rounded, complete offense, then, the post-season just crushes those teams. Add up the superbowl wins for Manning, Fouts, Marino, Elway before Davis (after Davis being different), and so on.

So if this holds…and it seems to be the wave of the present…if the Rams have the pieces on offense and a growing defense, they can add a qb and be there sooner not later.

So…you’re predicting the Rams go to the Super Bowl next year?

Okay. Noted.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:
I think we all need to keep sage burning at our Bradford shrines because – for sure – if it isn’t Bradford, it’s another long stretch without a quality QB. There won’t be a starter for next year in the draft, and possibly no future starter at all by preliminary reports. If Bradford can’t play well, we could be in for a significant drought at QB. Years.

Why years?

Interesting, isn’t it? This whole qb thing. For years and years the Rams had no qb–just Ferragamo, who had limitations. Then Everett, then the drought again. And then, wham, in a period of 3 years, had Green (who didn’t play but was still quality), Warner, and Bulger.

I think “years” because there aren’t many Mannings or Lucks ever. And the other guys – including Rodgers, Brees, and so on – took years.

There is always the possibility of a Trent Green. But in addition to Green, I can think only of Chris Miller and John Hadl who came from somewhere else and were worth having. Don’t make me list the names of QBs who came from somewhere else who didn’t work out. I can do that, and it won’t be pretty.

But they don’t have to be Manning, Brees, & company.

They can be Wilson, Flacco, or Foles.

Wilson is a lower draft pick who was starting as a rookie and was a perfect complement to a running/defense team.

Foles was a system fit who complemented a running team.

Flacco went straight to a winning team and was in the playoffs virtually every year because of the team.

Then there’s Manning, the FA Denver signed, or Palmer, the veteran Arz acquired.

And we don;t know how much Bradford has left in him. You can’t count on it, but if you keep him, he adds to the mix.

You can strike gold with a Wilson AND keep Bradford.

Bradford btw always was a “takes years” type…that’s one of the reasons I argued against drafting him in 2010. He was a frontrunner on a loaded college spread team and his adjustments were going to take time. EVERYTHING was going to be different for him, from the start.

Right, they don’t need an elite QB, but even most of the elite QBs took years. That’s my point. Okay, so, they might draft a Flacco or Wilson who is adequate or better from game one. It’s possible. I never said it was impossible.

I said we COULD be in for a QB drought that lasts years. Unfortunately, statistically, that is more likely than drafting Flacco.

But, hey, maybe it’s Gilbert.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:
I think we all need to keep sage burning at our Bradford shrines because – for sure – if it isn’t Bradford, it’s another long stretch without a quality QB. There won’t be a starter for next year in the draft, and possibly no future starter at all by preliminary reports. If Bradford can’t play well, we could be in for a significant drought at QB. Years.

Why years?

Interesting, isn’t it? This whole qb thing. For years and years the Rams had no qb–just Ferragamo, who had limitations. Then Everett, then the drought again. And then, wham, in a period of 3 years, had Green (who didn’t play but was still quality), Warner, and Bulger.

I think “years” because there aren’t many Mannings or Lucks ever. And the other guys – including Rodgers, Brees, and so on – took years.

There is always the possibility of a Trent Green. But in addition to Green, I can think only of Chris Miller and John Hadl who came from somewhere else and were worth having. Don’t make me list the names of QBs who came from somewhere else who didn’t work out. I can do that, and it won’t be pretty.

I think we all need to keep sage burning at our Bradford shrines because – for sure – if it isn’t Bradford, it’s another long stretch without a quality QB. There won’t be a starter for next year in the draft, and possibly no future starter at all by preliminary reports. If Bradford can’t play well, we could be in for a significant drought at QB. Years.

I will predict that the Rams lose in a blowout.

Hey, it worked last week.

wv wrote:

I glanced at that and thot it said ‘
“hey sarcasm”.
And i thot, do we have a
sarcasm-ram now?

w
v

Yeah, that’s REAL likely.

I completely agree with that. The wins and losses feel the same to me. Very erratic play. And in the losses, those erratic plays + penalties = fewer points/loss.

In the wins, erratic plays + penalties = more points/win.

You know, right now there is a bit of hope and optimism dawning in Ramland. But if Kaepernick doesn’t bobble that snap on the last play, the 9ers may very well have won.

And we would all be fitting Williams’s neck for the chopping block again.

Seems like a coin flip on about 5 or 6 plays per game. You know…heads or tails…best out of 7 flips.

I stay with Davis for now. I agree with PA; we don’t know if Davis has hit his ceiling, and I don’t think we know that for a few more games. Defenses have had time to adjust to him, and make him look worse. Let’s give him time to see if he can adjust to those defensive adjustments.

I think it sends a very bad message to the team to waffle on the starting QB. That just isn’t a position you get to mess with like that. What if Hill starts, and produces no better than Davis? Then what? Go back to Davis and see if he learned anything holding a clipboard? You can’t do it. You can’t say “Hill is our starter. Hill is our starter. Oh, Davis is our starter from here on out. Davis is the guy. Hill is our starter again….”

The issue has to be crystal clear to everybody in the locker room. A switch back to Hill has to have consensus. I don’t think we’ve seen enough poor play on Davis’ part to warrant giving him the shepherd’s hook yet. And Davis hasn’t been good for a while, and I’m not even sure he was ever good. IMO, the best that can be said about him is that he wasn’t the reason the Rams lost those games. But he damn near WAS the reason for losing yesterday. Still, I think Davis is not hopeless yet. Moving in that direction, but not there. I give him 3 or 4 more games to prove he belongs, or doesn’t belong.

Regardless, the Rams have to be looking QB HIGH in the draft.

Yes, congratulations.

wv wrote:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000419401/article/buccaneers-trade-mark-barron-to-rams?campaign=twitter_atn_sessler

Vid on the trade

“barron will play the R.Harper role with the rams”

w
v

First of all…any relation to Alex?

Secondly, what is the R.Harper role? The only Harper I know was a point guard for the Bulls in the 90s, and I may be wrong, but I don’t think the Rams really need a point guard.