they got to 7-9 last year also, after being a laughing stock previous year...
yet he gets no credit for that, all to fisher...
That might have something to do with the fact that he was the QB when they were a laughingstock, and played horribly.
the point i was trying to make, obviously not well, was he gets bashed when they do poorly, but no credit the two times they got to near .500, and seemingly had no business doing so.
but maybe that seems consistent to you?
if you are being consistent, when they approached .500 twice (and we are talking about a team that was 15-65 BEFORE fisher... the rams were one of the most horrifically bad teams in league history for that half decade stretch, three of those years before bradford... so they weren't just bad, they were putrid before bradford... that is what he is inherited... and it isn't like they were unlucky and caught some bad breaks in 30 or 40 of those losses
), do you give him any credit for those seasons, or none?
i can certainly think of no shortage of reasons where bradford made mistakes and failed in the laughing stock years... but again, i do think there may have been some mitigating circumstances... when they are deemphasized or suppressed, i just think that posts that are purely, 100% negative without any attempt at balance or proportion, lose credibility...
* have you considered the possibility that he wasn't in the best possible position to succeed, with bad coaching, OL, WRs and defense?
** another way to frame this debate... YOU ARE THE OC!
are you going to take tavon austin and have him go out one yard and squat while defenders converge on him and neutralize his best attribute (quickness and elusiveness in space)?
in your opinion, what does using austin in this way do for bradford...
is that good or bad for him...
if that is the OCs scheme, is it bradford's fault for implementing it?