Biggest disappointment for the St. Louis Rams in 2013 was…?


Last week we covered the biggest surprise of the season, which was the Rams special teams unit. This week it’s time to identify the biggest disappointment of the Rams season.

Rather than single out specific players (Brian Quick and Chris Givens come to mind), I’m looking big picture.

Therefore, my biggest disappointment of the 2013 season is Sam Bradford’s ACL injury. This doesn’t have as much to do with “what could have been” because the Rams wouldn’t have made the playoffs no matter who started at quarterback. They dug themselves too big of a hole to start the season, and the unforgiving war zone known as the NFC West would not have allowed the Rams to climb back out.

No, the reason Bradford’s injury was so disappointing is that the Rams still don’t know whether he’s the long-term answer at quarterback.

Of course, general manager Les Snead is firmly on the record in saying Bradford is absolutely the quarterback of this team for 2014.┬áBut I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that the Rams’ brass are privately disappointed not only that Bradford has suffered yet another setback in his development but that he is now heading into his fifth year in the NFL, and nobody can definitively say whether he’s a bust, a mediocre quarterback or a legitimately good starting quarterback with a bright future.

Usually, by year five, you have some idea of a quarterback’s future. Sure, sometimes you’ll have your Josh Freemans (guys who get off to a promising start to their career then go into a tailspin in year five), Alex Smiths (late bloomers who hit rock bottom in year five after a mediocre start to their career and then have a miraculous career resurrection) or even Daunte Culpeppers (guys who peak in year five and seem destined for big things but flame out shortly thereafter instead).

But usually you have a pretty good idea what you have in your quarterback after four years of having that guy as a starter.

Not so for the Rams and Bradford. He’ll be back for 2014, but how effective will he be? Anybody who thinks they definitively know that answer is either a psychic or is full of hot air.

A very interesting feud is brewing in St. Louis.

cover32 Shield b
Make sure you follow @cover32_Stl and @cover32_NFL on Twitter for all the latest breaking news, columns, blogs and features from the Rams and the entire NFL.

Previous articleFan threw popcorn at Navorro Bowman after injury
Next articleBears could use a guy like Sherman
  • Ross

    The indisputable fact is that the Rams have not committed to getting a strong offensive line to protect Bradford. I’ve heard the ridiculous arguments that attempt to shift attention from the lousy O-line play to Bradford. How can you know about a pocket passing QB when you haven’t protected him to any reasonable degree? How can he develop the key “confidence” needed when he can’t be confident in his O-line and running back situation? Bradford is reasonably athletic and has enough escapability that blaming him for perennial O-line defalcation is laughable. When the organization invested what it invested in Bradford, it had to IMMEDIATELY and with no holds barred, get him the O-line to protect him. How far did John Elway get without a line and without an effective running back, BOTH at the same time? Tell the truth, the only reason we don’t know about Bradford, is because the organization has failed to do the most basic things, protect its investment in its QB. Very, very sad and what a tragic waste of talent. If Rams aren’t going to take care of this, they should trade him and get someone on the cheap.