I could make the case I DISAGREE, but I will let the Rams do it for me.
Shaun Hill is making 1.75 mil/year, (but has incentives to go up to 2.5 mm)
Bradford is being paid 78 million over 6 years, call it 12 million per year.
Clearly, THE RAMS disagree and think Bradford is 10 million/year better than Hill.
Obviously, there is the ancillary hit that if Hill goes down, then they are really screwed...........
BUT...........IMO the wrong answer is the ole "The market over reacts" to these injuries........
I gave out Rams UNDER 7.5 wins and Vikings +6 bets 1/2 an hour after he limped off the field, knowing I was getting a decent 2 bets, or 2 great bets.........
The Rams are -4 now hosting the CLEAR CUT WORST TEAM IN THE NFC.
Four days ago, they were a sleeper team looking to make noise
Have we forgotten GB??
Ok, Bradford ain't Rogers, but we constantly heard how the market had over-reacted by 8 points to the injury.
Never mind, that with that extra 8 points these ass clowns went 1-7 ATS (lol they beat Dallas).
In retrospect, the obscene value was betting Chicago @GB live wagering when Rodgers left..........and then betting against GB over and over.
Back to the Rams, LOSERS 10/28 vs. the Rams with Bruce Springsteen and his main man Clemens, winning the 1st down battle 23-7.......yet losing the game.
THAT is what backup qbs do:
scores.espn.go.com/.../boxscore