Scott Rovak-US PRESSWIRE
The St. Louis Rams' overarching badness has shielded Sam Bradford from most of the blame for their failure. Should that be the case?
The St. Louis Rams offense is ultimately reliant on what Sam Bradford can do from week to week, which makes his recent inconsistency even more maddening than it would be otherwise. When he's good, they're great; when he's not good, they get beaten up by Mark Sanchez and the New York Jets. Bernie Miklasz has a great summary of Bradford's 2012 season up at the Post-Dispatch.
There's an awkward addendum to the facts on the ground, though: When he's good, they're great, and Sam Bradford is good. When he's bad, they're bad, and Sam Bradford is--well, he's either bad or he's sabotaged by a bad team, and it's difficult to figure out just who to blame.
That was fine in 2010, when Bradford was putting up superficially solid numbers, and it was okay in 2011, when the team was clearly a disaster. But in 2012, when the team has occasionally looked very competitive, it's hard to know where, exactly, to levy the blame.
And eventually that's going to be untenable. It's probably not this year, because he's shown near-flashes of near-brilliance and the Rams aren't likely to find a better quarterback than Sam Bradford just sitting around. But at some point giving a quarterback credit for every success but a half-measure of blame for every failure just becomes too much.