My response was not to an opinion, but rather to an assertion that Davis has played in the NFL. He hasn't.
What is your response to the fact that Sam Bradford outplayed Bradford in preseason? Despite Bradford playing against better quality opposition?
You seem to be missing the point. Nowhere in this article is there even the slightest hint that anyone at Rams Park (or in the media for that matter) thinks Austin can challenge Bradford for the starting position. There is no mention of it whatsoever.Quote:
The thread started with an article by B. Miklasz in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, not with some inane blog somewhere. And, the interesting situation at QB for the Rams in 2013, especially if Bradford has a hiccup or two, is going to continue to be a topic of discussion in fan forums and in the media.
You're mistaken. You're welcome.
'Bradford is secure as the starter, but it would be na´ve to dismiss the possibility of a quarterback controversy. Davis will become a popular alternative among fans who decline to embrace Bradford as the foundation quarterback. Davis fired up the fan base with his ability to run around and make plays. If Davis puts on an entertaining show during the 2013 preseason, the anti-Bradford crowd will be yelping for a change.'
Wanted to save you from reading between the lines, so read the lines if you please. Count me among the 'yelpers' if Davis lights it up in pre-season and Bradford is the Bradford of the last three years. So, in the words of B.M., (I'm sure that you read the entire article and will recognize this) don't be 'naive (enough) to dismiss the possibility of a QB controversy.' I prefer not to misquote anyone so I chose a direct quote from the article. I'll include them in the future so as not to invite misinterpretation.
Consider the source...Bernie. Must have been a slooow news day.
Dude, you don't have very strong reading comprehension skills. If you did, you'd notice that I didn't say anything about an ACTUAL QB controversy (i.e. one in which the coaching staff is unsure who should start), but rather merely a PERCEIVED controversy that will be claimed by those predisposed to oppose Bradford (i.e. YOU).Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Anyone with a brain could tell that I'm just, once again, trying to create a story where none exists.
I was bored.
So sue me.
And if you're really from Toronto then I've lost all respect for Canadians.
Seriously... Sam Bradford had a passer rating of 116.3 last preseason playing against starters. Austin Davis has a rating of 70.7 playing against guys who, right now, work at Target.
How can you not get that I was just goofing with you all when I wrote that article?
I think we should trade our 16th pick for Tebow, then put Bradford, Davis, and Tebow on the field, at the same time!! That way everybody is happy, and everybody wins! Well, everybody except for the Rams that is.
Tebow, minus B, minus W, plus ' equals Te'o.
Not sure what that means, but it must mean something.
And there's the whole point....Quote:
I'll stick with my original opinion, namely that Bernie wasn't disparaging Bradford but pointing out that a controversy could happen with some of us who aren't convinced that Bradford's the real-deal albeit an expensive non-real-deal.
...any controversy would be heralded by you yelpers (your words, not mine), not Fisher and the coaching staff.
The yelpers are free to start some kind of crusade, but it is without meaning. Same as any actual QB controversy.