Jeff Fisher not worried about Sam Bradford

[Rambos]

By Dan Hanzus NFL.com
Writer

The difference between the Rookie of the Year Sam Bradford in 2010 and the limping, mistake-prone 2011 version was a primary reason for the St. Louis Rams' sink to the bottom of the NFC West in 2011.


Some first-year coaches would worry which version of the quarterback would show up in 2012. Jeff Fisher is not one of them.

"You have to kind of delete last year, look back to the way he played his rookie year, under Pat Shurmur, who did a great job with him in this offense," Fisher told Jim Rome (via PFT). "We're very excited. Brian Schottenheimer's an outstanding coach and we've got a fabulous quarterbacks coach in Frank Cignetti. They're off to a real good start. It's really fun to watch him work and watch him improve."

The Rams showed their faith in Bradford by trading out of the opportunity to select Robert Griffin III. The decision to build around Bradford was spearheaded by Fisher himself.

"The reason I came here is because of Sam," Fisher said. "We've got a franchise quarterback here."

Bradford is still recovering from the high-ankle sprain he suffered last year, but he showed during his record-setting rookie year he has all the tools to be a premier NFL quarterback. Schottenheimer was unable to build Mark Sanchez into an elite QB with the New York Jets, but in Bradford, he gets the opportunity to work with a player with unlimited upside.

[HUbison]

Pat Shurmur, who did a great job with him in this offense," Fisher told Jim Rome (via PFT). "We're very excited. Brian Schottenheimer's an outstanding coach and we've got a fabulous quarterbacks coach in Frank Cignetti.

Maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there, but I can't help but hear some subtextual shots at McDaniels in this quote. Reading between the lines, here's what I'm hearing....

Pat Shurmur, who did a great job with him in this offense, (as opposed to McDaniels who sucked doughballs,)" Fisher told Jim Rome (via PFT). "We're very excited. Brian Schottenheimer's an outstanding coach (unlike that lint-licker McDaniels), and we've got a fabulous quarterbacks coach in Frank Cignetti (instead of last year's QB coach; what was his name again?).

[NJ Ramsfan1]

Maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there, but I can't help but hear some subtextual shots at McDaniels in this quote. Reading between the lines, here's what I'm hearing....

I don't know whether or not Fisher is taking an indirect shot at McDaniels, but if he is, it would be justified. McDaniels showed me absolutely nothing last year. And while there were certainly some things working against him- the lock out, injuries, the lack of playmakers- he did nothing to rise above those circumstances and get the most out of his personnel. Good riddance.

[r8rh8rmike]

I don't know whether or not Fisher is taking an indirect shot at McDaniels, but if he is, it would be justified. McDaniels showed me absolutely nothing last year. And while there were certainly some things working against him- the lock out, injuries, the lack of playmakers- he did nothing to rise above those circumstances and get the most out of his personnel. Good riddance.

Agreed. When the going got tough, McDaniels had no idea what an adjustment was, although he did know how to look completely confused on the bench with his head in his hands. There is no way Fisher would ever let that happen.

[Rambos]

The old regime made a huge mistake... with the McD hire. They had to know they where in a show me year and they could not go backwards. You could see it in the way they cut rookies in favor of older players. Why they did not stay with the WCO and hire a WCO coordinator is beyond me. They had to know the lockout was a big possibility and a new system with no offense was going to be impossible.

[NJ Ramsfan1]

The old regime made a huge mistake... with the McD hire. They had to know they where in a show me year and they could not go backwards. You could see it in the way they cut rookies in favor of older players. Why they did not stay with the WCO and hire a WCO coordinator is beyond me. They had to know the lockout was a big possibility and a new system with no offense was going to be impossible.

I think you're right, Rambos. On its face, the McDaniels hire was a good one; young, dynamic offensive coordinator hooks up with promising franchise QB, but in reality it proved to be a huge mistake indeed. I guess hindsight is 20/20, but the old regime should have known some of these variables would prevent a match made in heaven.

[laram0]

Bringing in McDaniels was DeSpags biggest mistake and it cost them their jobs.

[macrammer]

Looking at the bright side, bringing in McD and the now all too painful implosion of last year has us where we are today....a coach with an attitude and a LEGITIMATE chance for revival.

[Fortuninerhater]

While people seem to be taking shots at McDaniels, I believe they are not warranted given the pisspoor offensive roster he had to work with.

With injuries ravishing a WR corps that some would say was the poorest in the NFL at full strength, there was not really much of a chance for McDaniels or anybody else to be successful. Thus a 2-14 record.

So suffice it to say, that I place much more of the blame on who he had to work with, rather than his own ability to run the offense effectively.

And if you don't believe that, I encourage you to watch a little Patriot football this season. Guaranteed top 5 barring major injuries.

[Ram Dragoon]

Patriots have most of the pieces in place on offense and did rather well in the draft for defense. But I said before all the injuries to the Rams WR core that the spread offense Josh McDanials was running was unsound---said so after 3rd game in preseason last year--Said bradford was taking too many hits.

Now if the Pats had to rely on their second string o-line due to injuries. I'd say 6 and 10

[Rambos]

While people seem to be taking shots at McDaniels, I believe they are not warranted given the pisspoor offensive roster he had to work with.

With injuries ravishing a WR corps that some would say was the poorest in the NFL at full strength, there was not really much of a chance for McDaniels or anybody else to be successful. Thus a 2-14 record.

So suffice it to say, that I place much more of the blame on who he had to work with, rather than his own ability to run the offense effectively.

And if you don't believe that, I encourage you to watch a little Patriot football this season. Guaranteed top 5 barring major injuries.

I'm not taking a shot at McD... I'm questioning Billy and Spags not thinking it through. They just had a successful season with a rookie QB, with a lock out hanging over their heads they bring a new system for Bradford and the rest of the Offense to learn. Why not play it safe and stick with an offense that every one knows, and had success in?

[berg8309]

While people seem to be taking shots at McDaniels, I believe they are not warranted given the pisspoor offensive roster he had to work with.

With injuries ravishing a WR corps that some would say was the poorest in the NFL at full strength, there was not really much of a chance for McDaniels or anybody else to be successful. Thus a 2-14 record.

So suffice it to say, that I place much more of the blame on who he had to work with, rather than his own ability to run the offense effectively.

And if you don't believe that, I encourage you to watch a little Patriot football this season. Guaranteed top 5 barring major injuries.

On one side, I agree that McD had a poor offense to work with. One the other, he tried to take square pegs and shove them in round holes. Instead of adapting his offense to the players he had, he tried to make them work in a system they couldn't run. That's not what an offensive genius does. He tried to run long developing routes that requires receivers that could break from coverage down the field, and an offensive line that could hold long enough for that to happen. He didn't have either, and insisted on continuing to run that offense even after it was clear that the players couldn't do it.

Just because McD was and probably will be successful with Tom Brady and Wes Welker does not mean that he doesn't share a fair amount of blame for the offense last year. Seems the Pats offense ran just fine without him. I'd be willing to bet that a mediocre offensive coordinator would look pretty good running the Pats. It's hard to screw up with a QB like Brady. if Mcd wants to succeed without Tom Brady, he needs to learn to adapt his offense to his players, and use their strengths.

[Trevor]

Theres a reason McDaniels was fired by the Broncos...