What should the Rams do now?
The sentiment around the St. Louis Rams organization was one of devastation after starting quarterback Sam Bradford was lost for the year with a torn ACL. However, let's not forget the last time the Rams were in this situation things worked out pretty well.
The chances of that happening again, though, are about as likely as referee Jeff Triplette getting through a game without interpreting the rule book in his own special way.
Rams head coach Jeff Fisher didn't exactly pull a Dick Vermeil and say "we will rally around Shaun Hill and play good football," but publicly he had to put on a brave face. Privately, the Rams are no doubt still mulling several options.
Trade for a quarterback?
Why they should do it
There are plenty of worse options out there to fall back on than Hill, but there are also some better ones. Ryan Mallett, Kirk Cousins, Christian Ponder, and Mark Sanchez could all probably be had for the right price if the Rams deem any of them as an upgrade at the position.
Sanchez, even though he reportedly wants no part of a trade, might be the most intriguing option. Rams offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer coached him in New York for three seasons, back when Sanchez actually looked like he knew what he was doing behind center.
Sanchez's value has jumped after putting NFL Blitz-like numbers in three preseason games in Philadelphia, but would he be able to keep that up outside the confines of Chip Kelly's system?
Why they shouldn't
Trading for one of the aforementioned pivots won't come without a cost. Backup quarterback is a very important position due to things like the Rams are going through right now. Teams want someone they have confidence in should the worst happen.
If St. Louis wanted to go after Cousins they would probably have to give Washington a third-round pick or at least a conditional fourth to get them interested. When it comes to Sanchez it might take a fourth and fifth. That's a fair amount to concede for a guy that may be just a one-year starter.
Not only that, but even if they did get somebody, it's going to take them a significant amount of time to get a good grasp of the offense. There's no way an outsider would be able to be effective just a week and a half away from the first game. At least Hill has had an entire offseason to learn the playbook. He's probably their best bet at this point even if this is the only thing he's done since 2010.
Tank?
Why they should do it
In arguably the league's toughest division and facing a difficult schedule without their starting quarterback, the Rams seem to be in the perfect position to tank.
With the NFL somehow still not having a draft lottery (I've often wondered why they don't make this into a weekend event in March) the Rams could tank their way into a first-overall pick. It might require conveniently removing Robert Quinn from the field on occasion when the opposing offense is facing a third and long, or curiously promoting a backup guard to starting receiver, but if St. Louis really wanted to, they could pull it off.
Next year's draft figures to be loaded with potential franchise quarterbacks like Marcus Mariota and Jameis Winston, so picking near the top of the board in 2015 would be beneficial. They could cut ties with Bradford and start fresh.
Why they shouldn't
Tanking isn't as easy as it sounds. The likelihood of Fisher keeping his job after a two or three win season is slim. Players are also not working on guaranteed contracts and will be fighting for future jobs. It won't be an easy sell to get them to throw away a season.
Not to mention the future of the team in St. Louis is tenuous at best. Reports surfaced in January that owner Stan Kroenke purchased a large portion of land in Los Angeles, where the NFL will likely eventually place a franchise. The team has struggled getting funding to make much-needed improvements to the Edward Jones Dome, so tanking comes at an inopportune time from a public relations standpoint.
Stand pat?
Why they should do it
Just how important was Bradford to the Rams anyway? In four years with Bradford as the starter they have gone 18-31 and without him they are 5-10. That's not exactly a huge difference.
Take last year for example when Bradford was lost after Week 7 with another torn ACL. They went 3-4 with Bradford and closed the season on a 4-5 stretch, including a close 14-9 loss to the eventual Super Bowl champion Seattle Seahawks.
Losing Bradford is not like losing Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, or Tom Brady. The dropoff isn't that big and you could even argue Hill and his near 62 career completion percentage is an upgrade from last year's fill in, Kellen Clemens.
The team could rely on their strong defensive front and emphasize an emerging running game that features 2013 standout Zac Stacy, Benny Cunningham, and rookie Tre Mason.
Why they shouldn't
Hill has had some moderate success when he has had a chance to start, especially in 2010 with the Detroit Lions and in 2008 in Mike Martz's pass-happy offense in San Francisco.
At 34, though, and having thrown just 16 passes since 2010, how Hill performs is anyone's guess. He's also going to be dealing with three defenses in the NFC West that finished in the top six in 2013. Facing Richard Sherman, Earl Thomas, and Patrick Peterson twice isn't a friendly welcome back to a starter's role.
Combine that with the third toughest schedule this year based on opponents' winning percentage in 2013 and if the Rams stand pat, it could be a miserable season.
As tough as it is losing your starting quarterback, the timing of the injury makes it that more difficult for the Rams to implement a contingency plan. They'll probably end up just playing the season out as is and end up 6-10, which is essentially the worst possible scenario.
Unless somehow Shaun Hill is the second coming of Kurt Warner.