Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42
  1. #31
    ram1906's Avatar
    ram1906 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ca
    Posts
    134
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    Marc Bulger has been sacked 144 times over 4 years. Chronic or not, its a major concern with the amount that we would invest in Bradford. And something to note. He "re-injured" the shoulder on Oct 17. Something that is not significant taking more than 5 months- sounds fishy to me. And we are still considering investing the #1 pick on this guy.


  2. #32
    thickandthin Guest

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    All of our QB's were sacked a total of 44 times this past season (which on average is 2.75 sacks a game) I think he will be okay if we pick him...

  3. #33
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,874
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    Quote Originally Posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
    That's my point, those injuries weren't really a result of being beaten up like bruises and torn muscles are, they were more the result of bad luck.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
    My point is you can't really tie injuries together and call a guy injury prone if the injuries were so freak and hard to defend against and not even occuring in the same part of the body.
    It's not that I'm missing your point; it's that I don't agree with it. IMO, a guy doesn't have to injure just the same part of his body to have injury concerns. If a guy gets injured every season for three years and never finishes a season without suffering something beyond the standard wear and tear of a football player, you don't just brush that off because they happened to different parts of his body.

    At that point, I think it's only logical to start wondering if his body as a whole can hold up to the pounding he's going to take at the next level. Not whether or not his shoulder can hold up, whether or not his ankle can hold up, whether or not his ribs can hold up.. but rather or not he can hold up.

    Just look at Marc Bulger, a guy whom I like. He suffered three compression fractures to his spine in 2002, missed time with a sprained right shoulder in 2004, injured his AC joint in 2005, and then suffered a concussion while reinjuring it. Broke two ribs and suffered a concussion on two separate occasions in 2007, missed four games with those injuries. He missed the preseason of 2009 after injuring his right pinkie, suffered a rotator cuff injury in Week 3, and then was finally shut down for the season with a broken tibia.

    Now, are you going to tell me that there aren't any concerns about Bulger's durability because these injuries can't be tied together or didn't happen to the same parts of his body? I highly doubt it. I just don't understand this mindset that, even though Bradford spent the vast majority of his college career behind a relatively good offensive line, played in a spread offense, and was only sacked 25 times in 31 games, the three injuries he sustained shouldn't prompt concerns about how his durability translates to the next level because they happened to different parts of his body.

    Legitimate concerns about durability simply do not only include repeated injuries to the same area, in my opinion. When a guy can't take the punishment of college football without sustaining multiple injuries that go beyond typical wear-and-tear, it's perfectly reasonable to question how he's going to hold up at the next level, when the hits are harder and more frequent. Maybe Bradford proves me wrong and breaks the consecutive start record, but to argue that the concern isn't valid or present because the injuries happened to different areas of his body, I just don't understand at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by RebelYell View Post
    If you want to find a trend, you'll find one. Three injuries to three completely different parts of the body spread out over three years, under three completely different scenarios and the trend is obvious?
    The problem with your insinuation that I'm finding what I want to find is that I don't want to find anything. I'm simply looking at the body of evidence and drawing a conclusion. And it's not like I'm the only one doing so.

    It's the same concern shared by Scott Wright of NFL Draft Countdown when he says of Bradford in his scouting report that, "Durability is a huge concern."

    It's the same concern shared by Rob Rang of NFL Draft Scout (used as CBS Sports and NFL.com's source for prospect profiles for a while now) when he says of Bradford that, "Lack of bulk and durability are major questions."

    It's the same concern shared by ESPN's Scouts Inc when they grade Bradford's Durability as a 4, which on their scale equates to "Below Average."

    Are all of these sources just finding a trend because they want to? Of course not. So I'm not sure the implication of there being some kind of motive behind my conclusion is particularly necessary or appropriate.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  4. #34
    Bralidore(RAMMODE) Guest

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    First off Nick, jsut because a those guys says his durability is a huge concern, doesn't mean it is. They are going off the same evidence that you are going off of. Bradford had a concussion one season (happens all the time and his was the result of slamming his head on the turf, who wouldn't get some form of concussion from that, and that fact he came back the very next game and hasn't experienced any ill effects tells me that this shouldn't even be considered significant and is only being added because it fits your theory of *he has been injured every season*.

    throwing Bulger out there is an unfair comparison. Bulger has been injured far more frequently than Bradford and has significant *body injuries* that has started to accumulate all over his body. Bradford had a negligible, average concussion that he didn't miss time for, a hand injury that has not affected his play remotely, and the shoulder injury which was the first significant injury he sustained, and though he did miss time, he suffered a clean injury and did no damage to the rotator cuff.

    If you discount the concussion (as i think you can due to its lack of seriousness on him or his play), your left with the hand and the shoulder with a year to seperate them both. Not average injuries but can happen to anybody.

    I just don't think he is any more injury prone than the next guy and simply doesn't deserve that label. With the improved offensive line play and the added 12 pounds of bulk by Bradford, i don't think he be any worse off than the enxt guy.

    We can just agree to disagree on this one.

  5. #35
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    Quote Originally Posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
    First off Nick, jsut because a those guys says his durability is a huge concern, doesn't mean it is. They are going off the same evidence that you are going off of. Bradford had a concussion one season (happens all the time and his was the result of slamming his head on the turf, who wouldn't get some form of concussion from that, and that fact he came back the very next game and hasn't experienced any ill effects tells me that this shouldn't even be considered significant and is only being added because it fits your theory of *he has been injured every season*.
    Concussions are significant. Just because Bradford played the next week doesn't make him fine. We are only just now realizing the magnitude of these injuries and their long term effects and reacting accordingly.

    throwing Bulger out there is an unfair comparison. Bulger has been injured far more frequently than Bradford and has significant *body injuries* that has started to accumulate all over his body. Bradford had a negligible, average concussion that he didn't miss time for, a hand injury that has not affected his play remotely, and the shoulder injury which was the first significant injury he sustained, and though he did miss time, he suffered a clean injury and did no damage to the rotator cuff.
    The same line that got Bulger killed is responsible for "protecting" Bradford. The point stands-Bradford is going to be in for a ton of abuse behind the five matadors we have up front.


    I don't think he is any more injury prone than the next guy and simply doesn't deserve that label. With the improved offensive line play and the added 12 pounds of bulk by Bradford, i don't think he be any worse off than the enxt guy.

    We can just agree to disagree on this one.
    The injury ratio compared to the number of hits he's taken is alarming. He'll likely take as many hits as he took in his college career by Week 9. From guys who are much stronger and tougher than what he sees in the Big 12.

  6. #36
    tmbkb8 Guest

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    Great analysis Av, I agree with pretty much everything you said. Although I am insanely high on Suh, as with pretty much everyone else, I am beginning to see the greatness that could be Sam Bradford. 2010 could be a great year for Rams fans (relative to what we have been used to).

  7. #37
    Bralidore(RAMMODE) Guest

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    Peoria, Bradford's particular concussion happened 3 years ago and he hasn't (as far as we know) experienced any ill effects or even missed game time, not like Jason Smith's concussion, that being said, i consider it negligible.

    The line that we have now is actually not at all the same line that got Bulger killed. In fact, it's completely different damn near rofl. Smith, Bell, Brown, Greco?, Barron?. bell has played two seasons with Bulger and did a fair job. Brown was a pro bowl alternate. Smith was promising before he went down. Greco hasn't been in with Bulger that much at all. We don't even know who's going to be playing at right tackle for sure, but it looks like Barron will be the guy.

    Only one guy was really a part of that terrible offensive line that we supposedly had/have and that's Barron, who is fairly solid despite his false starts and can be pretty good when he's on. Bulger had his lowest sack total EVER this past year and the sacks on our Qbs in general only went up when basically our entire offensive line went down. And please, lets not assume our roster will be static and we won't upgrade it. We just added a solid starter/backup in Hank Fraley, completely new line minus Barron from 2007 and prior, the years bulger took the most damage.

    to be honest however, Bulger came into the starting job injury prone and way back in 2002 he was being bittne by the injury bug.

    do you have a compilation of the number of accumulated hits he's taken in practice and in games?

    Maybe you have sack totals, but do you have hits? which are just as significant as actualy sacks...

    even if you did find them what what it be?

    injured his hand, injured his shoulder..then what? 25:2 ratio assuming he got sacked 25 times and injured twice. Again the concussion that he did to himself by slamming his head on the turf and didn't miss time for and is facing no ill effects after having it 3 years ago, i consider negligible...
    Last edited by Bralidore(RAMMODE); -03-14-2010 at 10:01 PM.

  8. #38
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    He didn't miss time because 3 years ago the true neurological damage and recovery time from even a mild concussion was not well publicized and known. If Bradford had sustained the same injury today, even without a previous history, he would have missed at least one game.

    You and I have vastly different opinions about Bell. Smith remains an unproven quantity, Barron is a human wasteland who is probably playing Mass Effect 2 as we speak rather than working out or studying the playbook, and we still have a hole at the other guard thank you very much.

    As you said, Bulger came in injury prone. So is Bradford.

  9. #39
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,874
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    Quote Originally Posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
    First off Nick, jsut because a those guys says his durability is a huge concern, doesn't mean it is.
    I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I didn't cite three other sources to try and prove my opinion is right. I cited three other sources to counter the allegation that I was simply finding the trend I wanted to find. Obviously I'm not, because I'm not the only one talking about it.

    My opinion is simply that, an opinion. Just like your opinion is just an opinion. No one is right or wrong at this point, but I've seen enough to be concerned about whether or not Bradford can hold up to the punishment of a sixteen game season year after year. And I'm not alone in that opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
    Bradford had a concussion one season (happens all the time and his was the result of slamming his head on the turf, who wouldn't get some form of concussion from that, and that fact he came back the very next game and hasn't experienced any ill effects tells me that this shouldn't even be considered significant and is only being added because it fits your theory of *he has been injured every season*.
    A few things.

    One, concussions do not (or at least should not) happen all the time. There's a reason the NFL is trying to put a heightened emphasis on preventing concussions rather than shrugging them off as you seem to be doing.

    Secondly, I don't believe I referred to his concussion as being significant in its severity, but I did refer to it as more significant than typical wear-and-tear. Even you would have to agree that's an accurate description. It's not as if it's comparable to a bruised forearm or something.

    Third, you make it sound like someone getting their head slammed on the turf is some random freak incident. Quarterbacks getting slammed to the turf isn't exactly uncommon in pro football, especially behind questionable offensive lines with multiple defenders rushing to sack them. It's very fair to speculate whether or not a player is going to be able to hold up to that kind of punishment when he's been injured multiple times in the past at the college level.

    And finally, I bring up his concussion because it's an injury he sustained, and when talking about his durability, it's relevant to talk about his injury history. Not just some of it, all of it. The "He has been injured every season" line isn't a theory; it is a fact. He played three seasons for Oklahoma, and sustained an injury in all three of them. There is nothing theoretical about that statement. It's not as if I'm bringing up a hangnail; I'm talking about a concussion and two injuries that required surgery. Again, hardly normal wear-and-tear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
    throwing Bulger out there is an unfair comparison. Bulger has been injured far more frequently than Bradford and has significant *body injuries* that has started to accumulate all over his body. Bradford had a negligible, average concussion that he didn't miss time for, a hand injury that has not affected his play remotely, and the shoulder injury which was the first significant injury he sustained, and though he did miss time, he suffered a clean injury and did no damage to the rotator cuff.
    It looks to me like you missed the point here. Bulger is not a comparison, but an example meant to counter your position that a guy shouldn't be considered an injury risk or have his durability questioned without multiple and repeated injuries to the same body part.

    Obviously Bulger has more injuries than Bradford, as he played a lot more football at both the pro and college level. But clearly total number of injuries between college Bradford and 10-year pro Bulger wasn't the point. The point was that Marc Bulger is an example of a guy who has sustained multiple injuries to different parts of his body and whose durability is questioned because of that.

    His example illustrates that a player doesn't have to injure and reinjure the same part over and over again in order to draw questions about how well he holds up or how durable he is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
    If you discount the concussion (as i think you can due to its lack of seriousness on him or his play), your left with the hand and the shoulder with a year to seperate them both. Not average injuries but can happen to anybody.
    Why in the world would we simply discount an injury that forced Bradford out of a game, especially when engaged in a debate about his durability? Earlier in this very response of yours, you told me that I was only bringing up his concussion because including it supported my position. Now, I'm struggling to figure out a reason we'd disregard the concussion, except that doing so would strengthen your position.

    Simply put, you have to look at the entire body of evidence when forming your opinion, and the concussion is part of that picture regarding his durability and injury history. You can't just pick and choose which of Bradford's injuries (and again, by injuries I mean issues that exceed the normal wear-and-tear of football) are relevant and which aren't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bralidore(RAMMODE) View Post
    I just don't think he is any more injury prone than the next guy and simply doesn't deserve that label. With the improved offensive line play and the added 12 pounds of bulk by Bradford, i don't think he be any worse off than the enxt guy.

    We can just agree to disagree on this one.
    We're going to have to, because I definitely don't agree that he's no more likely to get injured than the next guy.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  10. #40
    ludairv's Avatar
    ludairv is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    277
    Rep Power
    6

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    dont get it tho...if he does check out medically doens tit mean hes just as likely to be injured just like any other QB in hte league? or player...(Suh) infact Suh or mccoy being a DT endure more stress on their bodies then a QB ever will...in the case of Suh ....ya hes done amazing since his surgeries...but this the nfl now....the intensity is gunna be even higher...the guys are gunna b bigger....u can make the same case for bradford...but a DT is being pounded or given a pounding almost every darn play...as compared to a QB who will be sacked or hit like 3 times? ...

  11. #41
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    40

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    Quote Originally Posted by ludairv View Post
    dont get it tho...if he does check out medically doens tit mean hes just as likely to be injured just like any other QB in hte league? or player...(Suh) infact Suh or mccoy being a DT endure more stress on their bodies then a QB ever will...in the case of Suh ....ya hes done amazing since his surgeries...but this the nfl now....the intensity is gunna be even higher...the guys are gunna b bigger....u can make the same case for bradford...but a DT is being pounded or given a pounding almost every darn play...as compared to a QB who will be sacked or hit like 3 times? ...
    You forgot "in a single possession."

  12. #42
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,874
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Film Review: Sam Bradford

    Quote Originally Posted by ludairv View Post
    dont get it tho...if he does check out medically doens tit mean hes just as likely to be injured just like any other QB in hte league?
    There's a difference between being healthy now and demonstrating that you can stay healthy during the course of a season. Bradford hasn't been able to do the latter at the college level, which I believe suggests he may be more likely to become injured at the pro level than your average player. Not saying he will, because no one knows. Maybe he challenges Favre's record for starts and never misses a game. But I think his history suggests it's a very legitimate concern, one that is shared by more than just myself.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: -03-07-2010, 03:00 AM
  2. Top QBs are on Rams' radar
    By eldfan in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-28-2010, 06:15 PM
  3. Scott Wright: Rams pick QB Sam Bradford #1
    By viper in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: -01-22-2010, 02:46 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: -01-11-2009, 05:39 PM
  5. NFL Security
    By Mustaffa in forum NFL TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-06-2006, 04:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •