Results 1 to 15 of 20
Thread: If we cant sign Bradford..
-
-04-06-2010 #1
If we cant sign Bradford..
IMO if Bradford and his agent are going to be difficult when it comes to signing him, i think we should take Suh and trade for Jason Campbell. This would also save us money and we would have a known solid starter at QB not a rookie with some questions. Personally i would rather go this route than drafting Bradford because we get two for sure starters day one
:1:PLAY EVER SNAP LIKE IT YOUR LAST!!!:1:
-
-04-06-2010 #2
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
How is Suh "for sure" while Bradford is not? Neither one has played a down yet.
-
-04-06-2010 #3
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
why do we rehash the same old debate and keep talking about Suh as if he is a "sure thing" while go on to Bradford and say that he isn't.....
-
-04-06-2010 #4
-
-04-06-2010 #5
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
And what if Campbell doesnt want to play for the Rams? Lets be realistic, if we draft Bradford and he refuses to play for our team, then his only option is to wait until next year's draft. Do you think a guy that hasnt played a significant amount of football in two years, and has an apperant attitude(if he refuses to sign) is going to be re-drafted anywhere higher then the 3rd round?
This isn't even a real factor, Bradford has already said he would like to play for St. Louis.
-
-04-06-2010 #6
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
correct me if im wrong but do QBs not have the highest bust rate of any position drafted?
:1:PLAY EVER SNAP LIKE IT YOUR LAST!!!:1:
-
-04-06-2010 #7
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
and punters have the lowest bust rate....that`s it never mind Bradford or Suh..with the 1st overall pick in the 2010 draft the St.louis Rams select......
Punter Zolton Mesko out of Michigan.
hooray ,we`ve picked a player who plays a position with the lowest bust rate..
-
-04-06-2010 #8
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
Because a DT's success or failure is a lot less team-dependent than a QB's. Suh can pretty much do his own thing and not be terribly affected by the lack of quality elsewhere on defense. Bradford, no matter how talented he is, is in a lot of trouble if our wideouts and linemen continue to suck.
-
-04-06-2010 #9
-
-04-06-2010 #10
-
-04-06-2010 #11
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
I don't know... Mesko had some suspect kicks.. and he had alot of Special teams talent surrounding him
-
-04-06-2010 #12
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
Ah never mind his accuracy ...if we wanted that we would draft that Bradford dude....
Zolton`s 4.75 time in the 40 for a player at his position is outstanding..
he`s got more bulk than Bradford at 6 `4 240 lbs, so he must be less fragile..and his time in the 40 is quicker than Suh, so he`s got more burst.
like already stated ..plays at a position with the least bust rate..infact theres a 100% non-bust rate with Punters taken in the 1st round.
played for a college program with a good record at producing NFL calibre players...
i`m surprised Mayock aint all over this like a rash already!!!
Zolton,Zolton,Zolton,Zolton....Last edited by Ramblin` Ram; -04-06-2010 at 06:50 PM.
-
-04-06-2010 #13
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
Don't mess with da Zolton. Maybe our special teams coach can incorporate him in some trick plays...
-
-04-06-2010 #14
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
youve sold me on Zolton..lets start contract negotiations now!!
but really all im tryin to say is that in the state that we're in we have to take players that can contribute immediately and have the least chance to be a bust.
if we take bradford, do you really want him to start from day one as a rookie or would you rather have suh start as a rookie, and IMO suh would make a bigger impact than bradford.
:1:PLAY EVER SNAP LIKE IT YOUR LAST!!!:1:
-
-04-06-2010 #15
Re: If we cant sign Bradford..
Still wondering why you guys seem to think they have to come and be elite immediately....
If it takes him a year or two and he comes in a dominates i think the year we had to wait for him to get his legs was worth it...
At some frekin point you have to take a QB, so why not do it with a guy with Bradfords makeup and talent.
I guess if Colt Mccoy came in a bombed or Franchise would somehow be less affected by it. Correct me if im wrong, but he still plays QB, and according to Peoria, he's still playing at a position that is very team dependent so if he fails that still puts the rams in a rut. When picking delicate, premium positions you take the best guy, not the second hander.
Still not seeing how Suh would make a bigger impact if both were good. Really think people are overvaluing the defensive tackle position now...
Similar Threads
-
Prediction: The Rams Will Sign Bradford By April 20
By AvengerRam in forum DRAFT & FAReplies: 31Last Post: -04-06-2010, 08:11 PM -
Talk mounts that Bradford won't sign a pre-draft contract
By Varg6 in forum DRAFT & FAReplies: 39Last Post: -04-01-2010, 01:51 PM -
The Daily Bernie Bytes: Why Bradford Isn't A Lock
By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALKReplies: 3Last Post: -03-30-2010, 06:52 PM -
Jim Thomas Live March 26 - Draft Chat
By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALKReplies: 0Last Post: -03-27-2010, 01:02 PM -
NFC West Offseason Ticker
By AvengerRam in forum RAM TALKReplies: 36Last Post: -07-13-2007, 09:49 PM




LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote


A 240lb. punter named Zolton...hot dang.

Bookmarks