Surprise rival for seahawks...

[Fitz the Ram]

Just want to point out that Bailey is not going to be one of our starters. He will probably start this year as our #5 behind Austin, Givens, Pettis and Quick. So really we are just relying on one rookie wr to contribute a lot and that is of course Austin.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I give Rams 1% chance on winning against Hawks. This year is going to be last year we see Bradford as their starter.

...Thankfully the Seahawks won't be underestimating the Rams that much. We nearly lost to them in OUR house last year. Bradford scares nobody, but their defense gave us all kinds of fits.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

QB1: 138-214 (64.5%), 1,826 yards, 14 TDs, 6 Ints., 101.5 passer rating, W/L: 6-1 (.857)
QB2: 136-218 (62.4%), 1,814 yards, 10 TDs, 3 Ints., 98.3 passer rating, W/L: 5-2 (.714)

I think we can agree that these are pretty comparable stats. However, while QB1 received a fair amount of attention, QB2 was treated like a future Hall of Famer.

QB1: Marc Bulger
QB2: Colin Kaepernick

Feel free to quote these stats to any Whiner fan who tells you that Kaepernick is a Top 10 QB in the NFL after seven starts.

Thanks, Avenger. I'll keep that one in my back pocket. It's been a lot of beers ago, so I don't fully recall, which weapons were still around from the "GSoT" for Bulger? Holt? Bruce? Faulk? I suppose that would be the 1st line of excuses for 9er fans, followed by a comparison of rushing yards for each QB.

Speaking of receiving weapons, I could see the Rams gaining on, or possibly outproducing, the 9ers this year. When the Seahawks' 5th/6th string WR castoff enters the 9ers' camp in a battle for the #2 WR spot opposite Anquan Boldin, their passing game doesn't seem so scary.

 

[Cartire]

I think the Rams are being heavily overrated this year. Mainly because a continuously mediocre team had some good games against the division last year. And they really expect Fisher to be able to make the 2010 Rookie of the Year be what everyone hoped he would be. But lets face it. The excuses for Bradford are running up short. You can only blame everyone else for so long.

This teams needs a better QB and then they can excel.

 

[AvengerRam]

QB1: 138-214 (64.5%), 1,826 yards, 14 TDs, 6 Ints., 101.5 passer rating, W/L: 6-1 (.857)
QB2: 136-218 (62.4%), 1,814 yards, 10 TDs, 3 Ints., 98.3 passer rating, W/L: 5-2 (.714)

I think we can agree that these are pretty comparable stats. However, while QB1 received a fair amount of attention, QB2 was treated like a future Hall of Famer.

QB1: Marc Bulger
QB2: Colin Kaepernick

Feel free to quote these stats to any Whiner fan who tells you that Kaepernick is a Top 10 QB in the NFL after seven starts.

Thanks, Avenger. I'll keep that one in my back pocket. It's been a lot of beers ago, so I don't fully recall, which weapons were still around from the "GSoT" for Bulger? Holt? Bruce? Faulk? I suppose that would be the 1st line of excuses for 9er fans, followed by a comparison of rushing yards for each QB.

The Rams still had great weapons, no doubt (though Faulk was starting to slow down due to knee issues). However, a good counter to that is that Alex Smith had a 100+ passer rating before Kaepernick took over last year, so its not like he was plugged into a bad offense.

 

[AvengerRam]

I think the Rams are being heavily overrated this year. Mainly because a continuously mediocre team had some good games against the division last year. And they really expect Fisher to be able to make the 2010 Rookie of the Year be what everyone hoped he would be. But lets face it. The excuses for Bradford are running up short. You can only blame everyone else for so long.

This teams needs a better QB and then they can excel.

In his first three years, Bradford had 3 offensive coordinators, a turnstile of an offensive line, and a group of WRs who (apart from Danny Amendola, who was injured half the time) was sub-par, at best. Those are facts, not excuses.

This year, he will have continuity in the scheme, a bolstered O line, and a group of WRs (and TE) who, though unproven, are talented.

If Sam's numbers don't reflect these factors, he will be rightfully criticized.

I wouldn't be so quick to bet against him, if I were you, though.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Wilson played football at a high level for 3 different teams in 3 years, from college to the NFL, and look what he did. Bradford is a bust as a #1 overall. Whether he can ever win a playoff game is debatable. Rams should draft a QB high next year.

 

[AvengerRam]

Wilson played football at a high level for 3 different teams in 3 years, from college to the NFL, and look what he did. Bradford is a bust as a #1 overall. Whether he can ever win a playoff game is debatable. Rams should draft a QB high next year.

That's nonsense. First of all, Wilson's college success is irrelevant to the discussion.

As for Sam, if you look at his numbers, they are comparable to guys like Drew Brees and Eli Manning early in their careers. There's no guarantee that he will progress like they did, but to write him off and declare that the Rams will be replacing him next year is just plain silly.

 

[pehawk]

Seems our opinions vary from that of 9er fans. Grabbed a link of a thread titled "Hawks and Rams over rated" on the webzone. pages of fun. Not every post is retarded but by in large the inmates are running the assylum.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl/1 ... overrated/

And by "inmates" you mean minorities, right? Clever.

I must admit its getting harder to pinpoint all of the racism you guys spew. Its hard work, but I remain dedicated to the cause.

There's nothing funny about racism. Really.

I do love the thread you linked us to though. Good stuff, hermano.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Don't know why people on this board underrate Bradford so much. Avenger is dead on about him, much as I hate agreeing with the enemy. It's an honest evaluation.

 

[Cartire]

I think the Rams are being heavily overrated this year. Mainly because a continuously mediocre team had some good games against the division last year. And they really expect Fisher to be able to make the 2010 Rookie of the Year be what everyone hoped he would be. But lets face it. The excuses for Bradford are running up short. You can only blame everyone else for so long.

This teams needs a better QB and then they can excel.

In his first three years, Bradford had 3 offensive coordinators, a turnstile of an offensive line, and a group of WRs who (apart from Danny Amendola, who was injured half the time) was sub-par, at best. Those are facts, not excuses.

This year, he will have continuity in the scheme, a bolstered O line, and a group of WRs (and TE) who, though unproven, are talented.

If Sam's numbers don't reflect these factors, he will be rightfully criticized.

I wouldn't be so quick to bet against him, if I were you, though.

Those are facts that you stated, but the excuse is that those facts are the reason that bradford has been mediocre. Correlation is not directly related to causation. When I say the excuses are running thin. They are. Because unless he does have a great season this year, those excuses can no longer be used.

And sub-par WR's can easily be attributed to sub-par QB play. If bradford had been better the last 2 years, this in direct relation, the WR's would have been better as well. And that couldnt be an excuse.

 

[RedAlice]

I think the Rams are being heavily overrated this year. Mainly because a continuously mediocre team had some good games against the division last year. And they really expect Fisher to be able to make the 2010 Rookie of the Year be what everyone hoped he would be. But lets face it. The excuses for Bradford are running up short. You can only blame everyone else for so long.

This teams needs a better QB and then they can excel.

In his first three years, Bradford had 3 offensive coordinators, a turnstile of an offensive line, and a group of WRs who (apart from Danny Amendola, who was injured half the time) was sub-par, at best. Those are facts, not excuses.

This year, he will have continuity in the scheme, a bolstered O line, and a group of WRs (and TE) who, though unproven, are talented.

If Sam's numbers don't reflect these factors, he will be rightfully criticized.

I wouldn't be so quick to bet against him, if I were you, though.

Those are facts that you stated, but the excuse is that those facts are the reason that bradford has been mediocre. Correlation is not directly related to causation. When I say the excuses are running thin. They are. Because unless he does have a great season this year, those excuses can no longer be used.

And sub-par WR's can easily be attributed to sub-par QB play. If bradford had been better the last 2 years, this in direct relation, the WR's would have been better as well. And that couldnt be an excuse.

Avenger didn't use any excuses for Bradford this year. Exactly the opposite.

Now that you've added the typical Bradford debate, this is a real Rams' discussion. Haha.



Here is the link for the Amendola TD requested above:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... plays-4150

 

[Smelly McUgly]

"Surprise rival?" I still hate the Rams with a passion and never stopped. I remember 2004.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Here is the link for the Amendola TD requested above:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... plays-4150

Good link, but I think the comment was about seeing how Amendola slipped out of the huddle and whatnot to get to the corner in the first place.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Avenger, I agree that college success is basically irrelevant to the NFL. What I meant was, using "oh, he has had a new offense every year" isn't a full-on legitimate excuse for mediocre play.

Here, let's look at Football Outsiders rankings for the first 3 years of the careers of the guys you mentioned.

Eli: 32nd (of 42), 9th (of 46), and 13th (of 46).
Brees: Not enough passes in the season to be ranked in his rookie year. 2nd/3rd/4th are as follows: 21st (of 47), 40th (of 47), and 7th (of 42).
Bradford: 39th (of 46), 43rd (of 47), and 16th (of 39).

He did have his best year in 2012, obviously; but you want to know why I'm still not sold on Bradford? Even when he had statistically good games, he didn't really look good. I just looked at Pro Football Focus's grades for him for 2012, and that would seem to back my assertion. He had a negative grade for 8 of his 16 games. If you think he's going to turn into an elite QB because he showed improvement in his 3rd year, keep dreaming. PFF only goes back to 2008, when they started the site, so I can't check the first 3 years of Brees or Eli, unfortunately. However, I did just look at all the 2012 starting QBs on there to count how many games they had where they had a negative grade, and Bradford had 8. Half of his games had a negative grade for him; and PFF doesn't penalize QBs for bad O-lines, and they even remote interceptions that bounce off of the hands of WRs, etc. It's a fairly good indicator of how a QB actually played. Here are the other QBs with 8 or more games that had negative grades in the regular season last year:

Dalton, Palmer, Cutler, Freeman, and Sanchez also had 8. Weeden and Fitzpatrick had 9. Ponder was by far the worst, with 12.

Not exactly great company. We'll see what happens with Bradford this year, but you should definitely be in "if he doesn't show definite improvement this year over last year, I want some real competition in camp next year to have a chance at winning the job over him" mode, in my opinion.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I think Bradford is the real deal too. Even thought he's a Lamb

 

[RedAlice]

I think if he doesn't show significant improvement this year then a new QB will be drafted high.

Fisher doesn't seem like he is just going to hope here.

 

[AvengerRam]

Avenger, I agree that college success is basically irrelevant to the NFL. What I meant was, using "oh, he has had a new offense every year" isn't a full-on legitimate excuse for mediocre play.

Here, let's look at Football Outsiders rankings for the first 3 years of the careers of the guys you mentioned.

Eli: 32nd (of 42), 9th (of 46), and 13th (of 46).
Brees: Not enough passes in the season to be ranked in his rookie year. 2nd/3rd/4th are as follows: 21st (of 47), 40th (of 47), and 7th (of 42).
Bradford: 39th (of 46), 43rd (of 47), and 16th (of 39).

He did have his best year in 2012, obviously; but you want to know why I'm still not sold on Bradford? Even when he had statistically good games, he didn't really look good. I just looked at Pro Football Focus's grades for him for 2012, and that would seem to back my assertion. He had a negative grade for 8 of his 16 games. If you think he's going to turn into an elite QB because he showed improvement in his 3rd year, keep dreaming. PFF only goes back to 2008, when they started the site, so I can't check the first 3 years of Brees or Eli, unfortunately. However, I did just look at all the 2012 starting QBs on there to count how many games they had where they had a negative grade, and Bradford had 8. Half of his games had a negative grade for him; and PFF doesn't penalize QBs for bad O-lines, and they even remote interceptions that bounce off of the hands of WRs, etc. It's a fairly good indicator of how a QB actually played. Here are the other QBs with 8 or more games that had negative grades in the regular season last year:

Dalton, Palmer, Cutler, Freeman, and Sanchez also had 8. Weeden and Fitzpatrick had 9. Ponder was by far the worst, with 12.

Not exactly great company. We'll see what happens with Bradford this year, but you should definitely be in "if he doesn't show definite improvement this year over last year, I want some real competition in camp next year to have a chance at winning the job over him" mode, in my opinion.

Don't get me started on PFF. I'll just say briefly that, by presenting their subjective opinions through numerical scores, they've convinced a lot of people that their analysis is scientific and objective, which it clearly is not.

I don't think you can overestimate the adversity Bradford has faced. He has been hit at an astonishing rate due to a porous O Line and receivers who could not get open. A lot of QBs would not have survived under those circumstances.

My expectation for him this year is a passer rating above 90. If the offense stays relatively healthy and he can't achieve that mark, I'd be concerned.

I think that his real "breakout year," though, is likely to be 2014, when the WR corps has matured and the pieces start coming together as a unit.

Don't forget, though Sam has been in the league for 3 years, he's only a year older than Wilson, and he's actually younger than Kaepernick.

 

[Cartire]

Don't get me started on PFF. I'll just say briefly that, by presenting their subjective opinions through numerical scores, they've convinced a lot of people that their analysis is scientific and objective, which it clearly is not.

Lets be completely honest now. People who dont agree with PFF's rating system usually have a team or player they like being rated low. If you actually read through their "subjective" break down of their different formulas, you'll see how little subjectiveness is actually integrated into it.

 

[AvengerRam]

Don't get me started on PFF. I'll just say briefly that, by presenting their subjective opinions through numerical scores, they've convinced a lot of people that their analysis is scientific and objective, which it clearly is not.

Lets be completely honest now. People who dont agree with PFF's rating system usually have a team or player they like being rated low. If you actually read through their "subjective" break down of their different formulas, you'll see how little subjectiveness is actually integrated into it.

No, they have rated certain Rams players (i.e. CBs) much higher than their actual play warranted. I think all of these combined objective/subjective analyses (I'd also include ESPN's "Total QBR") are pretty worthless.