Sam Bradford

[smizzhfx]

That is unacceptable for his contract. Bradford stands to make $30 million more than Manning did in his rookie deal. For that kind of money, he must play from Week 1.

(Also, did Dallas and Indy suffer 4 QB injuries in the season prior to drafting Aikman and Manning? Improving line my *****.)

Are we going to let history dictate who we select in the draft??

Is there some kind of formula or natural law that exists that guarantees NFL success and dictates when and at what stage of a 5 year rebuilding process a franchise is supposed to select their franchise quarterback?

Can you enlighten us Peoria?

[Dominating D]

That is unacceptable for his contract. Bradford stands to make $30 million more than Manning did in his rookie deal. For that kind of money, he must play from Week 1.

(Also, did Dallas and Indy suffer 4 QB injuries in the season prior to drafting Aikman and Manning? Improving line my *****.)

Your comment only proves you have no long term vision. Selecting Bradford is an investment in the future and not right now.

If winning a few games next year is your goal then by all means stay away from Bradford. If your building a team that will be competitive for the future then you may want to select Bradford give him time to learn the game and hope he is the franchise QB.

Go Rams

[ludairv]

Yes. But it still takes more than a QB to score TDs. If we burn $80 million on Bradford, we are forced to burn our 2nd and 3rd rounders on offensive skill players because our current offensive supporting cast is that subpar, leaving us to take only a smattering of low talent defenders on Day 3 to fix a unit that is qualitatively in the bottom 3rd of the league at the moment.

This organization is not in a position to draft a 1st Round quarterback and hope to succeed.

then i guess we'll be seeing you hop on the Suh/Mccoy bandwagon after the draft ....!!!! take it easyi

[PeoriaRam]

Your comment only proves you have no long term vision. Selecting Bradford is an investment in the future and not right now.

If winning a few games next year is your goal then by all means stay away from Bradford. If your building a team that will be competitive for the future then you may want to select Bradford give him time to learn the game and hope he is the franchise QB.

Go Rams

$80 million "franchise" players should be good to go from Day 1. I don't see any real benefit keeping a guy on ice on the bench to "learn" for that kind of money. We can draft someone equally "hopeful" later on for a lot less money that it would cost to get Bradford.

Of course, there's not a whole lot of point in learning the offense from Shurmur anyway as he will be rightfully fired after this season.

Then again, if this front office is so hell bent on drafting a QB because the card says so, and then sitting their mint condition toy to avoid scratching it, Devaney and Spagnuolo's services can be Pro Bono until Bradford plays, with their salaries used to defray the expenses on Bradford's up keep.

[PeoriaRam]

Are we going to let history dictate who we select in the draft??

Is there some kind of formula or natural law that exists that guarantees NFL success and dictates when and at what stage of a 5 year rebuilding process a franchise is supposed to select their franchise quarterback?

Can you enlighten us Peoria?

Well, I'm pretty sure taking one the offseason after a season where your line got 4 QBs hurt, your defense resembled the Polish Cavalry attacking German Panzers in 1939, and your base offense consisted of 3 yard slants and Tailback SMASH!es, is not recommended.

[sosa39rams]

Bradford is amazing and deserves first pick easily.

[Nick]

I think the best thing we could do this draft is to get Sam Bradford. I have been watching him all through his college career. He can throw all over the feild wether it is a deep pass or a short pass and be very accurate. Also he is a very big leader on and off the feild.

Welcome to the board. I'm looking forward to many productive debates between you and TakeSuh over the next three weeks.

The questions are:

- Can he take a hit (because, if he plays for the Rams, he will...often)?
- Can he remain healthy?
- Can he handle A LOT of pressure (he had great protection in college)?

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, given the questions about ALL of the QBs in this draft, I think it is definately "reaching" to take any of them as #1 in the draft.

I tend to agree. If durability wasn't an issue with Bradford, I'd be much more on board with the selection. But I'm really nervous about how he's going to hold up to NFL punishment, and that's a big question mark when you're investing $80 million in a guy to be the face of your franchise for the next decade or more.

How come our receivers don't get any credit

Maybe its that you don't have a clue what you're even talking about nor any insight to what Shurmur's offensive scheme is. Nor do know the talent level of our current crop of receivers. How about you give Gibson some credit. Came in midseason and was an impact player against arguably the best team in the NFC at the time in the Saints. Seeing as just about every Ram's player went down last year Im not ready to credit Robinson as fragile just yet.

Because they really haven't done much of anything.

Avery was unable to emerge as a #1 receiver after Holt was cut, and may not be a good fit for this offensive scheme.

Robinson came to the team with an injury label and didn't do anything to shake it after getting injured three weeks into the season.

Gibson showed flashes against a Saints team that was missing starters Sharper and Greer and then proceeded to lose another starter in Tracy Porter a minute into the game! He was largely inconsistent at best the rest of the season.

Burton has yet to take advantage of any of his opportunities on the field.

Amendola would be at best a #4 guy on good teams around the league.

When this unit actually plays well and forces defenses to think about them because they're dangerous week in and week out on a consistent basis, then they'll get some credit and consideration, from fans and opponents alike.

But right now, there's not a lot there to feel great about, and there's a reason teams consistently load eight or even nine defenders in the box, and it's not just the QB situation.

Yes, they'll likely improve to some degree from 2009 to 2010 as they become more familiar with the offense and grow individually as players. But what's their ceiling? Let's keep in mind that the Rams didn't do much to improve the receiving corps from 2008 to 2009, aside from adding Robinson, likely for similar reasons - they thought their young guys could emerge. They didn't.

Will they in 2010? They could, but there are more than a few that think it's awfully risky to forgo other improvements by banking on them doing so.

So very true. I've been saying the same thing but most of the fans expect instant gradification. They lack the vision that it took some time for TO, Austin Miles, Marshall, and many more to develop into dominating Wide Recievers.

Go Rams

Brandon Marshall was a 100-catch, 1300-yard receiver his second year in the league. Adding him to a list of receivers who needed time to develop isn't that accurate.

As for guys like T.O. and Miles Austin, it helps a player's development when he goes to a strong team that is already successful and isn't depending on a faster return. When Austin joined the Cowboys in 2006, they were coming off of a nine win season in 2005. Ahead of Austin in Dallas were two 1000-yard receivers in TO and Terry Glenn, Patrick Crayton in the #3 spot, and Jason Witten at tight end. Owens in San Francisco joined a team in 1996 who hadn't had a losing season in over a decade, and he was able to play across from one of the all-time greats in Jerry Rice for a number of seasons.

Unfortunately, the current Rams' coaching staff doesn't have the luxury of waiting 3-4 years to see if one of these guys might potentially develop, nor do they have a great situation at receiver to allow these guys a couple of seasons to be groomed and grow.

Now overall, I agree that you don't draft a guy for the immediate impact but rather the impact over a period of time. But if some fans have more of a short term mindset rather than a long term one, it's likely because that's representative of the current climate in the league. Maybe that's unfair, but that seems to be how things work. You just can't pay a guy $70-80 million to sit on your bench and learn for a year. At least that seems to be how NFL teams feel.

All I have to say is that people were saying practically the same thing about Matt Ryan

Two points...

1) Matt Ryan wasn't drafted first overall, so it's kind of a different discussion.

2) Matt Ryan did not have the medical issues coming into the league that Bradford does now. So people weren't saying the same thing in that regard.

As far as the "we're not in position" idea. Not a good argument at all imo. Its debatable whether our line is competent or not because quite frankly we don't know who will improve, what another year as a cohesive unit will do for us, and what additions to be made and that have already been made to this line will produce for us. I for one am horrified of the idea of passing on a piece of gold because i'm missing a few silver pieces. But you don't think Bradford is gold. I do. Not because every GM and scout who studies Qbs for a a living have, but because I see everything I want in a QB, in Bradford.

And lets stop with "We've been passing on franchise qb" mess already. We were in no position to take either because we had even more holes then than we do now. In 2008 Long was widely considered to be our pick and it was considered the best pick for us. I don't regret it at all. Last year the Jets at five reached for Sanchez. I like Sanchez but im also glad we didn't pick him. We needed a tackle in the worst way. We're in better position to take a QB this year, especially when he's a Sam Bradford.

Agree with you entirely on the second paragraph. Ryan wasn't even a consideration in 2008 because of Bulger's contract extension that wasn't even a year old. Sanchez would have gotten crushed on the Rams and it's very debatable as to whether or not he would have been good value at the two-spot.

But regarding the first, specifically the bolded statement, the Rams' line is likely not going to have much cohesion going into 2010. The only parts that appear to have any cohesion at this point are between the left guard and center, as it's likely they'll remain unchanged. But if Jason Smith takes over at left tackle, that's a brand new piece not just on the left side, but on the right side replacing him. Plus, the Rams will start a new right guard, different from whom they started last year.

In order to have cohesion on the line, things have to remain the same and they have to have time to grow and develop together. Ultimately we won't know for sure if that's going to describe the Rams' line, but it appears there will be at least some shake-ups that will negate much of any potential cohesion from 2009 to 2010.

Do you guys really want to be the team that passes on the next great QB? Can our collective self-esteem (already at an all-time low) as Rams fans handle this? We could have had Matt Ryan. Mark Sanchez.

Are we going to let history dictate who we select in the draft??

Why are you criticizing someone for using history to support their opinion, when you clearly seemed to use the Rams' draft history - specifically their passing on Ryan and Sanchez - to support your own?