Another Bradford Article!

[-X-]

So was Rich Kotite. Do you take his word as gospel too?

Only if he collaborates with Marty Mornhinweg.
But Venturi did manage to get that one win in college.
So, he has that goin' for him ... which is good.

 

[moklerman]

Only if he collaborates with Marty Mornhinweg.
But Venturi did manage to get that one win in college.
So, he has that goin' for him ... which is good.

I may be too biased to vote on this issue. My high school football coach had played in the NFL for the Buccaneers as a never-was lineman so he was "obviously" qualified to coach. Idiot didn't even give us playbooks.

 

[ED_29]

Right. And? I'm in no way going to BLAME the QB for the FAILURE of that offense. In other words, it was an offense that required many moving parts to execute properly and not all of them were, so why would I blame one guy? So read it again. I'm not going to BLAME the QB for the FAILURE of that offense. And neither did Venturi. Just because I don't go out of my way to openly criticize Bradford in every post that intends to put the blame on him solely, doesn't mean I'm absolving him of everything either. I should only have to explain my problem with him once or twice at most. What I shouldn't have to do is use my critiques of him as a permanent disclaimer or qualifier in every post that talks about him (i.e., he's good at that, BUT....)

So are you now saying that I singularly blame Bradford? I mean I could repost what I said but if you actually read what I have said that is not the case. X read again I have blamed (like Venturi) everyone and included Bradford.

And sorry man I have enough trouble keeping track of what I write and my own thoughts I can't read your mind. I can only respond to what you type. So you think Sam has flaws too. Ok got it you just don't think he had anything to do with the unsuccessful deployment of that spread offense.

Venturi and I disagree <shrug>

 

[ED_29]

I may be too biased to vote on this issue. My high school football coach had played in the NFL for the Buccaneers as a never-was lineman so he was "obviously" qualified to coach. Idiot didn't even give us playbooks.

Idk....Venturi sounds pretty knowledgable to me... I actually enjoy listening to him talk football. I did notice that people starting not liking him as much once he became more critical of Sam last year.

While personality can grate me sometimes.... I try and actually listen to what people are saying rather than focussing on personality quirks that might annoy me

 

[-X-]

So are you now saying that I singularly blame Bradford? I mean I could repost what I said but if you actually read what I have said that is not the case. X read again I have blamed (like Venturi) everyone and included Bradford.

And sorry man I have enough trouble keeping track of what I write and my own thoughts I can't read your mind. I can only respond to what you type. So you think Sam has flaws too. Ok got it your just don't think he had anything to do with the unsuccessful deployment of that spread offense.

Venturi and I disagree <shrug>

You're exhausting. I made a comment, you tried to call me on it by assigning me motives, so I explained what I meant. That's all.
And even after that, you say, your[sic] just don't think he had anything to do with the unsuccessful deployment of that spread offense.

I. Didn't. Say. That. Either.

 

[moklerman]

Idk....Venturi sounds pretty knowledgable to me... I actually enjoy listening to him talk football. I did notice that people starting not liking him as much once he became more critical of Sam last year.

While personality can grate me sometimes.... I try and actually listen to what people are saying rather than focussing on personality quirks that might annoy me

I'm by no means a Venturi expert or historian but the few times I've given him a try, he doesn't give me a good listen. Brian Billick's the same for me. He may have been a coach in the NFL and had the highest level of success, but he doesn't come across well at all to me. Just because someone was in the NFL doesn't mean they're automatically smarter than everyone else.

 

[ED_29]

That we won 4 with Clemens.

They won 4 games with Clemens and 3 games with Bradford.... So now that that is settled the Rams win 7 games and Kellen Clemons was their QB for 4 of them.

Let's try it this way. The Rams actually won 7 games with Kellen friggin Clemens playing over half the season for them.

It's not a dig at Bradford. It's an acknowledgement of how talented the Rams actually are.

 

[-X-]

They won 4 games with Clemens and 3 games with Bradford.... So now that that is settled the Rams win 7 games and Kellen Clemons was their QB for 4 of them.

Let's try it this way. The Rams actually won 7 games with Kellen friggin Clemens playing over half the season for them.

It's not a dig at Bradford. It's an acknowledgement of how talented the Rams actually are.

I didn't say it was a dig at Bradford. I was just wondering why you kept saying they won 7 with Clemens.

 

[ED_29]

You're exhausting. I made a comment, you tried to call me on it by assigning me motives, so I explained what I meant. That's all.
And even after that, you say, your[sic] just don't think he had anything to do with the unsuccessful deployment of that spread offense.

I. Didn't. Say. That. Either.

I find you equally exhausting X.... I did no such thing. I attempted to have a conversation with you. An exchange. Since it's not going anywhere for either of us we can always just end here.

 

[ED_29]

I didn't say it was a dig at Bradford. I was just wondering why you kept saying they won 7 with Clemens.

Why? I think it's pretty obvious why I would say it.

 

[ED_29]

So was Rich Kotite. Do you take his word as gospel too?

Does he have his own radio show?

 

[-X-]

I find you equally exhausting X.... I did no such thing. I attempted to have a conversation with you. An exchange. Since it's not going anywhere for either of us we can always just end here.

You can try, but you just can't seem to quit me.

 

[ED_29]

I'm by no means a Venturi expert or historian but the few times I've given him a try, he doesn't give me a good listen. Brian Billick's the same for me. He may have been a coach in the NFL and had the highest level of success, but he doesn't come across well at all to me. Just because someone was in the NFL doesn't mean they're automatically smarter than everyone else.

Yep...thx for giving the example of Billick...that helps a bit. I'm not a fan of Billick either but he is dismissive and critical of the Rams so that has more to do with it than his personality for me anyhow

 

[ED_29]

You can try, but you just can't seem to quit me.

Lol omg not broke back... This is getting weird X LMAO

 

[-X-]

Why? I think it's pretty obvious why I would say it.

Let's do it this way. Visual aids are always helpful.

 

[-X-]

Call it the ultimate strawman, but IMO, if SB put up the same numbers as Wilson, we'd be up in arms that he wasnt considered great. And if he put up those numbers, the team would have to be significantly better

What if I told you that over his past 16 games (the last 9 of 2012 and first 7 of 2013), Bradford was 356 of 594 for 3797 yards (60%) with 28 TDs and 11 ints? Aside from having two more ints than Wilson over 16 games, those numbers are almost identical to Wilson's last 16 regular games.

 

[HE WITH HORNS]

What if I told you that over his past 16 games (the last 9 of 2012 and first 7 of 2013), Bradford was 356 of 594 for 3797 yards (60%) with 28 TDs and 11 ints? Aside from having two more ints than Wilson over 16 games, those numbers are almost identical to Wilson's last 16 regular games.

Then the numbers won't matter, it will only be about the "wins" each QB had. That's why I don't argue with people anymore, its just not worth it.

 

[jrry32]

you keep making excuses my friend at every turn

Holy tits, it's just absolutely mind-blowing to me that someone who watches the Rams would purposefully plead ignorance with a line like this.

If you watched the team in the first four games and then watched the team with Clemens. And you can't recognize the gigantic differences between the play of the team as a whole...I don't know what to say. I don't.

Nobody absolves Bradford of blame. There's a difference between saying, "It's everyone but Sam's fault, he'd be the GOAT if the rest of the team didn't suck" and "Bradford struggled along with the rest of the offense while they were trying to figure out their identity during the first four games but if he were placed in a better situation, he could have been much more effective". Those two things do not mean the same thing. Recognizing the effect of the team on the QB's performance does not absolve the QB of blame.

I'm sorry for spazzing on you like this but this crap just gets on my last nerve. When people completely misrepresent and exaggerate on what was said rather than take it a face value. I think it's a disrespectful way to discuss viewpoints. It drives me nuts.

Sam, like everyone else on the offense, has plenty of blame to accept for games 2 to 4. But it's also obvious that the offensive identity and personnel were not working. When we shifted to an identity that fit our talent, Sam and the rest of the offense rebounded quite nicely. And that's worth being optimistic about.

 

[jrry32]

Jackson wasnt brought there to be backup, he was brought there to compete for the starting gig. And his mediocre QB play prevented the team from winning more.
Mediocre QB play prevents the Rams from winning more games.
Its a QB driven league, and if Sam can post numbers like Wilson, I guarantee they win more than the 7 games

Tony Romo has posted excellent numbers over the past 3 years and yet his team has gone 8-8 every year. It's a TEAM driven league. The QB might be the most important player on the field...but he's still only one player.

Actually, you're incorrect. They went 7-7 with Jackson, but hey why bother with the facts.

Okay. I was talking about the season as a whole but I guess I purposefully omitted facts which BOLSTER my case. Because Jackson at a .500 record is only a 3 game improvement for Wilson. Thanks for pointing that out(seriously).