I'm not sure what the cap ramifications are if STL cut Bradford but he sucks so they could be looking at a QB since they have two picks in the 1st this year.
fisher said he went to STL because of bradford and the 1.2 pick (likely given more operational and personnel control than he would have gotten in MIA, as well). i think he is realistic and realized he had one of the worst OL and WR situations in the first few years. in other threads, you had people insisting STL WRs were just as good as GB, than we had a poll, and that left this position in ruins and in full reteat (about 4 out of 44 voted for STL, but oddly, each of the four was too embarrassed to defend their position in public
).
matt ryan has been held up as a bullet proof QB that "elevates his weapons and makes them better", yet even with julio jones for five games, roddy white for about 10 and tony gonzalez for 14, they were 3-10 before narrowly beating a reeling WAS that had *SEVEN* turnovers, and that may have been because shanahan oddly went for a two point conversion instead of sending the game into OT.
in staffords first four seasons, his record against winning teams (look it up)... 1-23. does that "suck"?
back to fisher, he was already high on bradford, and in many ways, he was having a career season (14/4 TD/INT ratio through part of seven games - rodgers was like 15/4 through eight or part of eight, for perspective)... not sure exactly what people were looking for as evidence of improvement, through six full games... 20/0, 30/0? when i would ask people in the threads, nobody would committ to a number? people would point to the 1-3 start, but didn't want to hear that stacy had one carry in the first month. everything is always about bradford being 100% responsible for the rams challenges. people say, its only seven games, but that is a copout. obviously when people have made up their minds, even if he was 30/10 over 16 games, what would the predictable refrain be according to the law of floating boundaries and shifting demarcations. it was only one SEASON. another favorite point trotted out is that he hasn't had a .500 season. but that is similar, if he had a few times, the critique would shift to, he has never had a winning season before. if he did that a few times, the critique would shift to, he has never made the playoffs before. and so on.
when the defense holds IND to 8 points, that is evidence that bradford is terrible. when they get 250+ rushing yards against CHI, of course this is conclusive proof that bradford is terrible. when austin had a 65 yard TD against the bears, of course the same goofy poster lunged at his keyboard to fire off a clemens is better for austin than bradford. the only problem? laughably, it was a run. what possible better evidence could there be of a troll agenda? but this same person a few weeks before had posted that austin was one of the worst NFL players in history, based on comparitive PUNT RETURN STATS, that he would NEVER be able to elude NFL defenders. so seizing on the opportunity of the QB change to cover this singularly, stupefyingly bad projection, he framed bradford as the bad guy and scape goat. oh, but he forgot one thing. his hatchet job on austin, was on the basis of his PUNT RETURN EXPLOITS. what does that have to do with bradford?
some people get really creative with this stuff, and are extremely determined. it could be in a bob waterfield historical post. a favorite snacks in the st. louis stadium thread. an FFA thread about St. Louis tourist spots... must post... bradford sucks, bradford sucks, bradford sucks wherever possible. or it will crop up in even stranger places. threads on macedonian battle tactics? post-structuralism of jacques derrida and michel foucault? must post... bradford sucks, bradford sucks, bradford sucks!
instead of taking a QB, they could maybe use the two picks on some kind of combo like sammy watkins and auburn LT greg robinson... or jake matthews and mike evans. than he would be throwing to maybe watkins, austin, bailey (one of their best WRs, will start next year, bradford didn't have the benefit of throwing to him) and cook.
so no, i don't see fisher, in year three of a carefully orchestrated, methodically organized, meticulous planned multi-year rebuild, making a panic move and doing the equivalent of yanking on the emergency brake and locking the car up during rush hour. what if they get a rookie and they bust. OOPS. 2-3 year setback. try another rookie? another bust? OOPS? another 2-3 year setback?
most STL observers (jim thomas, bernie miklasz, brian burwell, nick wagoner, et al) don't expect the rams to take a first round QB, for what its worth.
