Sam Bradford

The St. Louis Rams-The Perils of Betting on the Wrong Quarterback

The St. Louis Rams have stuck to the dogged belief that by surrounding Quarterback Sam Bradford with lots of talent that he could lead them to the same kind of success they enjoyed when Kurt Warner was leading the “Greatest Show on Turf”.  They were wrong. On Sunday the Rams learned that Bradford has suffered a torn ACL, the same ACL he has surgically repaired last year. The Rams should have known better and now they’re paying the price.

Sam Bradford has never been able to stay injury free. When the Rams made him the 1^st Pick in the 2010 NFL Draft he was coming off of shoulder surgery. This didn’t concern the Rams who gave him a six-year contract worth $78 million. The contract had $50 million of guarantees and had a maximum value of $86 million making it the largest contract ever for an NFL rookie. It looked like a good investment because he was the Offensive Rookie Year and the Rams almost made the playoffs that year. They lost a win and in game to the Seattle Seahawks for NFC Western Division title. That’s the closest they have been in the Sam Bradford era. The following season in a harbinger of things to come as Bradford got injured and missed 6 games. The team struggled and finished the year 2-14. As result the Rams had the #2 in that years’ NFL Draft which they traded to the Redskins in the RGIII deal. Again this looked like a good decision when they went 7-8-1 and Bradford threw for 3702 yards to go along with 21 touchdowns vs. 13 interceptions. He was off to good start last year 14 touchdowns vs. 4 interceptions when he torn his ACL. Despite losing Bradford in the 7^th game of last season the Rams managed to finish the year 7-9. The Rams again had the #2 pick in last year draft (thanks to RGIII trade) to go along with their own 1^st round pick. You would think at this point with their starting quarterback only a few years removed from shoulder surgery on his throwing shoulder and having had his ACL surgically repaired the Rams would invest an early round pick (say late 1^st round or  2^nd-4^th round) in a promising rookie quarterback or maybe trade for a young quarterback to groom as a potential starter. You would be wrong. The Rams did neither and the qb who had helped to that decent record (Kellen Davis) was allowed to leave as free agent. They signed Shaun Hill who was older than guy he replaced (he’s 34, Davis is 31) as the back-up, kept Austin Davis who they got as an undrafted free agent, and when they did draft a qb it was in the 6^th round (Garrett Gilbert). Its not as if the Rams have to look very far to see the importance of having a good back-up qb. The reason the Packers made the playoffs last season after losing Aaron Rodgers for the bulk of the season is because of the play of their back-up quarterback (Matt Flynn).  Add to this the Rams play in the most competitive division in the NFL (the NFC West) where all the teams outside of the Rams had a winning record last season. And each of these team has a starting qb who have better credentials than Sam Bradford even if he was healthy. Plus all those teams seem to have noticed the importance of having a good back-up qb. So the Rams who have one of the deepest and talented rosters in the NFL outside of the quarterback will most likely miss the playoffs this season and will have to invest a high round pick (most likely the 1^st round) on a quarterback all because the front office and coaching staffs thought that an injury prone quarterback could lead the team to glory because the team had talent everywhere else.    

Trent Richardson

The Danger of Rushing to Judgment on Trent Richardson

The talk that if Trent Richardson doesn’t have a productive season this year than he is a bust is baffling. How can someone who had a productive rookie season (950 yards rushing, 11 touchdowns, 51 receptions, 367 yards receiving, 1 touchdown) be a bust? NFL history has shown its not wise to give up on a player who has enjoyed this kind of production too early. There are two players both at running back who come to mind that best prove this-Jerome Bettis and Marshall Faulk.
They came into the league at about the same time (Bettis the year before) and both enjoyed immediate success-they were both the offensive rookie of year-Bettis in 1993 and Faulk in 1994. They both dipped in their third year. Its at this point their careers diverge. After his third year Bettis was offered a chance to stay with his current team (St. Louis Rams) or he could agree to a trade. He opted for the trade and that was best thing that could have happened to him. He made an immediate impact with the Steelers and through he didn't get as many individual honors that Faulk did, he still did well making the Pro Bowl 6 times. More importantly he got do something that few productive, loved athletes get to, he got to go out on top. In his last game the Steelers won the Super Bowl and if that wasn't enough it was in his hometown of Detroit.  Faulk as his stats indicate was much more versatile, he was both a threat as a runner and a receiver. He got traded to St. Louis because as he put it over a misunderstanding. The misunderstanding? Money His was vastly different situation than Jerome Bettis with the Steelers, the Rams were terrible before he got there. He proved to be the vital piece in one of the greatest offenses in NFL history-"The Greatest Show on Turf." His contributions were so important to this offense he was the NFL's Offensive Player of the Year 3 years in a row and he was NFL MVP in 2000. What made his MVP year really special was the Rams were without the their starting quarterback-Kurt Warner-for most of the year. He had been the NFL MVP and Super Bowl MVP the year before. Because of Faulk efforts the Rams made the playoffs in 2000. He too got to enjoy a Super Bowl victory in 1999. Unlike Bettis his career ended due to injury. These players show why teams are reluctant to give up on a player who has been productive and they show why fans/sport writers shouldn't.  

Jerome Bettis Stats-

Year	Team	Games	Rushing Attempts	Rushing Yards	Yards per Carry	Longest Carry	Rushing Touchdowns	First Downs	Fumbles	Fumbles Lost
1993	LOS	16	294	1,429	4.9	71	7	79	3	1
1994	LOS	16	319	1,025	3.2	19	3	53	5	3
1995	STL	15	183	637	3.5	41	3	24	4	2
1996	PIT	16	320	1,431	4.5	50	11	76	6	4
1997	PIT	15	375	1,665	4.4	34	7	94	6	6
1998	PIT	15	316	1,185	3.8	42	3	58	2	1
1999	PIT	16	299	1,091	3.6	35	7	64	2	1
2000	PIT	16	355	1,341	3.8	30	8	71	1	0
2001	PIT	11	225	1,072	4.8	48	4	46	3	0
2002	PIT	13	187	666	3.6	41	9	42	1	1
2003	PIT	16	246	811	3.3	21	7	43	4	4
2004	PIT	15	250	941	3.8	29	13	50	1	0
2005	PIT	12	110	368	3.3	39	9	30	0	0
Career		192	3,479	13,662	3.9	71	91	730	38	23

Marshall Faulk's Stats-
Rushing Stats

Year	Team	G	GS	Att	Yards	AVG	LG	TD	20+	FD
1994	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	314	1282	4.1	52	11	12	58
1995	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	289	1078	3.7	40	11	6	68
1996	Indianapolis Colts	13	13	198	587	3.0	43	7	1	41
1997	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	264	1054	4.0	45	7	7	65
1998	Indianapolis Colts	16	15	324	1319	4.1	68	6	5	62
1999	St. Louis Rams	16	16	253	1381	5.5	58	7	9	65
2000	St. Louis Rams	14	14	253	1359	5.4	36	18	6	78
2001	St. Louis Rams	14	14	260	1382	5.3	71	12	8	70
2002	St. Louis Rams	14	10	212	953	4.5	44	8	5	51
2003	St. Louis Rams	11	11	209	818	3.9	52	10	5	49
2004	St. Louis Rams	14	14	195	774	4.0	40	3	2	45
2005	St. Louis Rams	16	1	65	292	4.5	20	0	1	15
2006	St. Louis Rams	0	0	0	0	0.0	0	0	0	0
TOTAL		176	156	2836	12280	4.3	71	100	67	667

Receiving Stats

Year	Team	G	GS	Rec	Yards	AVG	LG	TD	20+	40+	FD
1994	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	52	522	10.0	85	1	3	2	22
1995	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	56	475	8.5	34	3	4	0	118 not 118
1996	Indianapolis Colts	13	13	56	428	7.6	30	0	3	0	18
1997	Indianapolis Colts	16	16	47	471	10.0	58	1	3	2	15
1998	Indianapolis Colts	16	15	86	908	10.6	78	4	12	1	44
1999	St. Louis Rams	16	16	87	1048	12.0	57	5	14	4	40
2000	St. Louis Rams	14	14	81	830	10.2	72	8	6	2	42
2001	St. Louis Rams	14	14	83	765	9.2	65	9	5	1	40
2002	St. Louis Rams	14	10	80	537	6.7	40	2	3	1	23
2003	St. Louis Rams	11	11	45	290	6.4	30	1	3	0	11
2004	St. Louis Rams	14	14	50	310	6.2	25	1	2	0	12
2005	St. Louis Rams	16	1	44	291	6.6	18	1	0	0	18
2006	St. Louis Rams	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
TOTAL		176	156	767	6875	9.0	85	36	58	13	303

Rory

Is Rory Golf’s New King?

Now that Rory McIlroy has won this year’s PGA Championship as well as the British Open Championship there is talk that he is new King of Golf. While that makes sense let’s not be so quick to crown him because there have been other players who have enjoyed similar success who did not go onto become King. Let’s take a look at these players & the reasons why they didn’t go onto become King.


First up is Lee Trevino. He had the most sustained period of success (1968-1984) & won the most majors (6) than the other golfers that will be talked about. What’s really impressive is his first win was a major (1968 US Open). In 1971 he became the first golfer to win the US, Canadian, & British Open(s). The only other golfer to accomplish this is Tiger Woods. What makes this achievement really noteworthy is he did it in the span of 20 days! He would defend his British Open Championship in 1972 & won the PGA Championship in 1974. He won his last major in 1984 (PGA) at the age of 44. Unlike a lot of other golfers he had a great sense of humor & he was unique in that he was a minority (Mexican, this inspired his nicknames-the Merry Mex & Super Mex). The reason he didn’t become the King is Jack Nicklaus was still in his prime & Tom Watson would emerge a few year later.

Up next is Nick Price (you probably thought I was going to write Nick Faldo).  His dominant period was during a really weird period for golf Nicklaus & Watson hadn’t won a major for a while (Nicklaus hadn’t won one since 1986 & Watson hadn’t won one since 1983) and it didn’t appear that a dominant golfer was on the horizon. He won his 1^st major in 1992 (PGA Championship). His best year was 1994 (he won the British Open & PGA Championship sound familiar). The reason he didn’t become the King is a combination of things his age (he was 37 during his best year) and timing as you can see it was only a few years before Tiger would emerge.

 



The final golfer is Padraig Harrington. His dominant period occurred when Tiger was out due to injury. He won his 1^st major in 2007 (the British Open). His best year was 2008 (he won the British Open & the PGA Championship sensing a theme!) He’s unique in that he was the first Irish golf to win the British Open in 60 years and the first from the Republic of Ireland. His PGA Championship win is noteworthy because he was the first European to win in 78 years and he was the first from Ireland. The reason he didn’t become the King is similar to Nick Price (he was 36 in his best year) and a younger player would soon emerge (Rory McIlroy.)
These golfers show that just because a player is somewhat young (Trevino was 28 when he won his first major) and wins multiple majors in a year or many in short period of time doesn’t mean he’ll become the King of Golf.   

 

Cavs

Cavs Actions undermining LeBron's Words

When LeBron James made his return to the Cavaliers known via his letter to Sport Illustrated he tried to cautioned the teams fans against the team immediately contending for the NBA championship. While this was well intentioned the teams actions after he re-signed say otherwise. In addition to the recently completed trade for Kevin Love, the Cavs have signed Mike Miller & James Jones. There are reports that the team will soon be adding Shawn Marion & Ray Allen. Let’s look at the reasons for the team’s actions. The biggest reason is because of LeBron's age/years in the league. Through he is isn't quite 30 (his birthday is December 30) his teams have had the good fortune of making the NBA Finals five of the ten years he's been in the league. That has added additional wear & tear to his body. Than there is the success factor, in addition to those five finals appearance, four of those have been in the last four years. If your in a team sport where you are sports best player and you have had had that kind of success won't you expect to that success to continue? It's in the teams and the league's best interest to have its best player be in a successful position for commercial reasons. The best reason of all and one that I don't think has been commented on is what it would mean to the city of Cleveland. The city of Cleveland is the midst of 50 year drought when it comes to its professional teams winning league championships. There's a good chance that is going to extend to 51 years. When a city like Cleveland with its passionate sports fans has to endure this kind of drought it takes some of the enjoyment out of life. A big reason for the public display of anger that was seen in Cleveland when LeBron left to go Miami was because the fans realized that the city best chance for a championship had left. But the beauty of sports is the hope is around the corner. This was realized in Cleveland when LeBron returned. What better way to fully realize that hope than with championship? So despite LeBron's stated intention not to expect a championship it isn't surprising that the team is going after one because a team, a town, a player never knows when a chance at a championship will come again.