HawkShack.com

I can't help but think that maybe Sam Bradford's injury has something to do with this news.

Had to free up space for one, maybe two veteran QBs, you know.

Only five minutes old, this story:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11431047/michael-sam-cut-st-louis-rams

He (Sam)probably will get picked up by the Niners in a user friendly environment and be in for Smith. I just hope we dont have riots here this week and looting.

Rambo2014 wrote:He (Sam)probably will get picked up by the Niners in a user friendly environment and be in for Smith. I just hope we dont have riots here this week and looting.

It shouldn't be any surprise as the odds were stacked against a low round DE making a team that already featured one of the best front 7's in the league.

Now watch the (social) media meltdown, calling everyone up to and including Fisher and Dungy homophobes or worse, and showing:

1. Dungy looks like the smartest guy around.
2. They don't have half the class Sam himself does.

burrrton wrote:Now watch the (social) media meltdown, calling everyone up to and including Fisher and Dungy homophobes or worse, and showing:

1. Dungy looks like the smartest guy around.
2. They don't have half the class Sam himself does.

I really don't think it will amount to much. If Sam were a high draft pick and were cut, then they might make something out of it. But when you're an end of the 7th round draft pick, you're not expected to make the team anyway so the expectations had to be pretty low to begin with.

I think he gets picked up by another team soon enough. The hoopla may resume when (if) he joins another franchise, but it'd die down pretty quick, IMO.

While it should surprise nobody that a 7th. round draft choice didn't make the 53 man roster it is ironic to point out that Sam was beat out by an undrafted free agent Defensive Lineman. Sam, of course was almost a UDFA him self and probably would have been if Jeff Fisher had not drafted him. Sam, I am sure will end up on a P.S., most likely the Rams P.S.

Seahawks4Ever wrote:While it should surprise nobody that a 7th. round draft choice didn't make the 53 man roster it is ironic to point out that Sam was beat out by an undrafted free agent Defensive Lineman. Sam, of course was almost a UDFA him self and probably would have been if Jeff Fisher had not drafted him. Sam, I am sure will end up on a P.S., most likely the Rams P.S.

The 24-hour waiver deadline is done.

Sam went unclaimed.

He will most likely be on the Ram PS.

I really don't think it will amount to much.

Yeah, outside of a handful of Twitter types and ridiculous pieces like this, I'm sure you're right:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/ ... ke-history

burrrton wrote:

I really don't think it will amount to much.

Yeah, outside of a handful of Twitter types and ridiculous pieces like this, I'm sure you're right:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/ ... ke-history

Besides the fact that it's published in some cheesy, crapola, totally-out-of-touch-with-mainstream-Americans-who've-actually-gotten-dirt-under-their-nails-at-some-point-in-their-lives rag like Vanity Fair, what's "ridiculous" about that piece, burrrton?

burrrton wrote:

I really don't think it will amount to much.

Yeah, outside of a handful of Twitter types and ridiculous pieces like this, I'm sure you're right:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/ ... ke-history

I wouldn't call that piece a media meltdown. From the article:

"It seems clear that the Rams gave Sam an equal shake and a fair opportunity to make the football team, but based their decision on which players would help them win the most games."

What's wrong with that?

It would have been tough for Clowney to start on the Rams DL. He certainly wouldn't get cut, but he would have to battle either Quinn or Long to start at DE.
Sam had little chance to make the team because he isn't tall, not big, and not fast. But he does have a knack for getting to the QB which all teams want.
Maybe in a couple of years on the PS, he could turn into a solid if not spectacular player.

RiverDog wrote:

burrrton wrote:

I really don't think it will amount to much.

Yeah, outside of a handful of Twitter types and ridiculous pieces like this, I'm sure you're right:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/ ... ke-history

I wouldn't call that piece a media meltdown. From the article:

"It seems clear that the Rams gave Sam an equal shake and a fair opportunity to make the football team, but based their decision on which players would help them win the most games."

What's wrong with that?

Eh, nothing with that statement, and I agree it's no meltdown, but the author clearly tries to plant the seed that Sam was better than he was (the stuff about him being a player of the year, etc).

Again, though, I agree- the reactions seem to be mostly reasonable.

burrrton wrote:Eh, nothing with that statement, and I agree it's no meltdown, but the author clearly tries to plant the seed that Sam was better than he was (the stuff about him being a player of the year, etc).

Again, though, I agree- the reactions seem to be mostly reasonable.

Not sure I agree with that, either. It is a true statement that a POY from a major conference, especially the SEC, the top football conference in the land, usually means a fairly high draft slot, as was the statement that there was a lot of speculation that his low draft slot was not all football related, but the way I read it, the subsequent statement that he got a fair shake from the Rams and still didn't make the team was an admission that this speculation was wrong.

"Sam was an all-American defensive end and co-defensive player of the year in the Southeastern Conference, which traditionally insures a place as a top pick in the N.F.L. draft. However, Sam came out publicly in February, and many football insiders, speaking anonymously to Sports Illustrated, speculated that the announcement about his sexuality could hinder his chances."

C'mon. The author is trying to put the blame for his draft-day-plummet on his sexual orientation, rather than the fact that he was considered a terrible fit for the NFL despite his accolades- I don't remember *anybody* arguing he was anything but a long shot.

Again, I'm ceding this is no freak-out, but you really can't see this author's attempt to plant a seed that the blame for Sam's drop might be his sexuality (despite later statements)??

but the way I read it, the subsequent statement that he got a fair shake from the Rams and still didn't make the team was an admission that this speculation was wrong.

Maybe you're right, and I'm just seeing what I expected ahead of time.

burrrton wrote:"Sam was an all-American defensive end and co-defensive player of the year in the Southeastern Conference, which traditionally insures a place as a top pick in the N.F.L. draft. However, Sam came out publicly in February, and many football insiders, speaking anonymously to Sports Illustrated, speculated that the announcement about his sexuality could hinder his chances."

C'mon. The author is trying to put the blame for his draft-day-plummet on his sexual orientation, rather than the fact that he was considered a terrible fit for the NFL despite his accolades- I don't remember *anybody* arguing he was anything but a long shot.

Again, I'm ceding this is no freak-out, but you can't even see the attempt to put the blame for his drop on his sexuality??

I think the proper perspective is the writer writes for Vanity Fair. It's not usual for them to cover sports, let alone go deep into how the NFL works and what they really look for in a player.
Naturally to anyone looking from outside would consider an award winner to be a dominant player. That's not always the case as shown by Heisman winners not being All Pro's immediately or for ever in many cases.

burrrton wrote:"Sam was an all-American defensive end and co-defensive player of the year in the Southeastern Conference, which traditionally insures a place as a top pick in the N.F.L. draft. However, Sam came out publicly in February, and many football insiders, speaking anonymously to Sports Illustrated, speculated that the announcement about his sexuality could hinder his chances."

C'mon. The author is trying to put the blame for his draft-day-plummet on his sexual orientation, rather than the fact that he was considered a terrible fit for the NFL despite his accolades.

Again, I'm ceding this is no freak-out, but you can't even see the attempt to put the blame for his drop on his sexuality??

I think it is entirely fair to note that there was speculation that Sams drop in the draft was related to his admission to being a homosexual. That is a completely true statement, and fair game for any reporter, not to mention one that's writing for Vanity Fair. After stating that fact, the author went on to give her personal opinion that Sams "appeared to get a fair shake with the Rams" which is an indication to me that she was not trying to stir up something, indeed, it could be argued that she was trying to achieve the opposite and put to rest the accusation that his failure to make it in the NFL was related to his sexual orientation.

Why would she venture the opinion that Sams got a fair shake if her goal was to "plant a seed"?

I think it is entirely fair to note that there was speculation that Sams drop in the draft was related to his admission to being a homosexual.

In a serious way? Only to those trying to push that narrative, I think, and that's my point.

Why would she venture the opinion that Sams got a fair shake if her goal was to "plant a seed"?

I'll answer a question with a question:

If she ultimately felt Sam got a fair shake (and was therefore well-versed enough to know her ass from a hole in the ground), why would she detail the 'discrimination' angle in the first place if not to "plant a seed"?

It wasn't presented as "Here's what some dopes thought".

Look, I'm arguing about this far more than my feelings say I should. I don't think the article was *that* far off the reservation (can I say that anymore?). I just think it's clear that angle was included to give those predisposed to that opinion something to like about her article, and I think it's bogus. She knew there was nothing at all odd about his release and if she was honestly reporting on it, she'd have made that clear without muddying the issue with some nutty take from the perpetually butthurt.

burrrton wrote:

I think it is entirely fair to note that there was speculation that Sams drop in the draft was related to his admission to being a homosexual.

In a serious way? Only to those trying to push that narrative, I think, and that's my point.

Why would she venture the opinion that Sams got a fair shake if her goal was to "plant a seed"?

I'll answer a question with a question:

If she ultimately felt Sam got a fair shake (and was therefore well-versed enough to know her ass from a hole in the ground), why would she detail the 'discrimination' angle in the first place if not to "plant a seed"?

It wasn't presented as "Here's what some dopes thought".

Look, I'm arguing about this far more than my feelings say I should. I don't think the article was *that* far off the reservation (can I say that anymore?). I just think it's clear that angle was included to give those predisposed to that opinion something to like about her article, and I think it's bogus. She knew there was nothing at all odd about his release and if she was honestly reporting on it, she'd have made that clear without muddying the issue with some nutty take from the perpetually butthurt.

Minor points of disagreement for sure, but to answer your question, many editorial writers use the first part of their articles to "set the stage", ie a review the facts up until the current time. That's what she was doing by noting Sam's timeline from his college laurels, his "fall" in the draft and the speculation that surrounded it, and she did it in a very factual way as everything she said in the first part was 100% fact based. The last part of editorials is where the writer's opinions are borne out, as they want the reader to leave with the editorialist's opinion and end by giving the reader something to think about. That's where she puts in her 2 cents worth, ie that the Rams treated Sams fairly and that his being cut was not due to the off field controversy that surrounded him.

Had it been the other way around, had she waited until the end to "plant the seed", then I would agree with you. But being that it came in the first part of the article, I do not see it the same way you do.

I also saw that Sam cleared waivers, which would be another indication that his being cut wasn't due to the off field controversy. Much in the same way that Tebow wasn't picked up because he simply wasn't that good. I don't think this discrimination angle is going to fly very far.

It is somewhat ironic that Tim Tebow excelled in the same conference with an even more glaring and scrutinized skillset than Sam's, yet he was still drafted with the 16th overall pick, isn't it?

Futureite wrote:It is somewhat ironic that Tim Tebow excelled in the same conference with an even more glaring and scrutinized skillset than Sam's, yet he was still drafted with the 16th overall pick, isn't it?

Tebow wasn't taken with the 16th overall, it was down in the 20's. But your point is well taken.

I wonder what the story line will be if his time with the Rams was his one and only chance at playing in he NFL? I mean, that does happen to most 7th. rounders, does it not? As for those who say that he should have been drafted higher, you could argue that Russell Wilson should have been drafted higher. There are players who are drafted in the 1st. RD. but never make it and 6th. and 7th., and even UDFA who do make it so draft position is immaterial, either you are NFL material or you are not. You would think that a team desperately needing a DL. might give him a looksee but then there are several DL's who have actual NFL experience such teams may be more interested in.

Futureite wrote:It is somewhat ironic that Tim Tebow excelled in the same conference with an even more glaring and scrutinized skillset than Sam's, yet he was still drafted with the 16th overall pick, isn't it?

1. How is that ironic?
2. Only in the broadest sense are the two comparable- with TT, there were questions about whether he'd be able to get away with his mechanics, but he was one of the most successful and decorated QBs in NCAA history, while Sam was almost universally considered a poor fit to the NFL.

Sam's self aggrandizing statements and actions are a factor in him not being on a roster IMO.It started with the Oprah special that was squashed by the Rams FO. Next was his his assertion he should have been taken in the 3rd or higher, also saying things like "I can play in this league" "I'm very confident of making the roster". This was code for"I'm being discriminated against because I'm gay if I get cut".

This was a guy who had about as bad a combine as anyone ever has, and his admission of his sexual orientation put another albatross on any GM or HC who considered drafting him. 7th rounders need to be humble, keep their yap shut, and work their tail off.

From a purely football talent perspective he looks like a guy who could be useful as a rotational guy in a situational pass rushing role. Hes no pro bowler.In a way hes a little like Tebow, for diametrically opposed reasons. Tebow was about spreading the faith with his trademark celebration despite having marginal passing skills and teams have decided the circus isn't worth it for the player they are getting in return.Dittos for Sam.
But I hardly think the story is over.Fisher even seemed to be walking back the notion he was a lock for the PS saying there are lots of other guys who deserve a chance as well. We will have to see if Goodell or Obama weigh in if he stays unsigned. My guess is there will be some sort of ramifications.

Hawktawk wrote:Sam's self aggrandizing statements and actions are a factor in him not being on a roster IMO.It started with the Oprah special that was squashed by the Rams FO. Next was his his assertion he should have been taken in the 3rd or higher, also saying things like "I can play in this league" "I'm very confident of making the roster". This was code for"I'm being discriminated against because I'm gay if I get cut".

This was a guy who had about as bad a combine as anyone ever has, and his admission of his sexual orientation put another albatross on any GM or HC who considered drafting him. 7th rounders need to be humble, keep their yap shut, and work their tail off.

From a purely football talent perspective he looks like a guy who could be useful as a rotational guy in a situational pass rushing role. Hes no pro bowler.In a way hes a little like Tebow, for diametrically opposed reasons. Tebow was about spreading the faith with his trademark celebration despite having marginal passing skills and teams have decided the circus isn't worth it for the player they are getting in return.Dittos for Sam.
But I hardly think the story is over.Fisher even seemed to be walking back the notion he was a lock for the PS saying there are lots of other guys who deserve a chance as well. We will have to see if Goodell or Obama weigh in if he stays unsigned. My guess is there will be some sort of ramifications.

The Rams have filled their 10 PS roster spots and none of them were Sam.
I still think if he was on a team with a lesser defensive front 7, he could have found a role.
A situational player, like you said because he does have some pass rush ability and teams are looking for that.
He may yet end up on some teams PS, but I wonder if it's going to be after the first game when teams get a real look at how their young players perform against established NFL players.

burrrton wrote:Now watch the (social) media meltdown, calling everyone up to and including Fisher and Dungy homophobes or worse, and showing:

1. Dungy looks like the smartest guy around.
2. They don't have half the class Sam himself does.

Some of this has started, but the problem with them doing that is, it's so provably stupid.
The simple fact of the matter is, Sam was nowhere near good enough, period end of story. He's WAY, WAY too slow and stiff to play LB, way too small and weak to play on the line, and too slow to play special teams....in other words, for all the hype he's just a lousy NFL player.

Personally I don't think he has what it takes to make it in the NFL, and I never did. It annoys me that the media just CANNOT STOP talking about a guy who never should have been drafted to begin with (there's only one reason he even got drafted to begin with, and it sure wasn't talent!) and never stood a realistic chance to make the team he got drafted by, purely from a talent perspective.

Before he "came out", he was a virtual nobody, with virtually no realistic shot at making the NFL as anything more than practice squad depth, so why should anyone think that his coming out would change that?

I loathe the media in the US, rather than report the news, they invent it.

monkey wrote:

burrrton wrote:Now watch the (social) media meltdown, calling everyone up to and including Fisher and Dungy homophobes or worse, and showing:

1. Dungy looks like the smartest guy around.
2. They don't have half the class Sam himself does.

Some of this has started, but the problem with them doing that is, it's so provably stupid.
The simple fact of the matter is, Sam was nowhere near good enough, period end of story. He's WAY, WAY too slow and stiff to play LB, way too small and weak to play on the line, and too slow to play special teams....in other words, for all the hype he's just a lousy NFL player.

Personally I don't think he has what it takes to make it in the NFL, and I never did. It annoys me that the media just CANNOT STOP talking about a guy who never should have been drafted to begin with (there's only one reason he even got drafted to begin with, and it sure wasn't talent!) and never stood a realistic chance to make the team he got drafted by, purely from a talent perspective.

Before he "came out", he was a virtual nobody, with virtually no realistic shot at making the NFL as anything more than practice squad depth, so why should anyone think that his coming out would change that?

I loathe the media in the US, rather than report the news, they invent it.

That's the price we have to pay for having instant communications, the internet, 24 hours a day news, and so on. There's not enough news stories to go around.

Many people consider him a pioneer, much like a current day Jackie Robinson.
Looking at it in that light it's no wonder there is so much media attention. They want to witness history.

Regarding his play, I think he's as good as many DEs on practice squads, but he had little chance in St Louis.
He may not have the measurables, but he gets to the QB. Guys who can do that usually find a place on a team.
I believe he will be on some teams PS or 53 man roster before the year is out.

Looks like the kid may get a chance on the Cowboys' PS:

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/i ... m-physical

Good for him.

Considering how much help the Cowpokes need on defense you would have thought they would have jumped on him immediately.

If he can't make the Cowboy's PS, he might as well get his passport ready and head for Canada.

Seahawks4Ever wrote:Considering how much help the Cowpokes need on defense you would have thought they would have jumped on him immediately.

There's probably a pretty good joke in there somewhere... Rott? What say you?

Hawkstar wrote:

Seahawks4Ever wrote:Considering how much help the Cowpokes need on defense you would have thought they would have jumped on him immediately.

There's probably a pretty good joke in there somewhere... Rott? What say you?

There's the one about why Cowboys have their names on their belts.