COLUMN: What's Really Going on With Rams' Matthew Stafford?

He plays the game and he plays it well. He answers questions, but he doesn’t give the house away. So when he states that Matthew Stafford, a player who was only supposed to miss a week of practice, is now out for another week, that's a point of concern.

• “No, do not anticipate that, but I don't have any more concerns," stated McVay. "The goal in mind is Houston and I do think that this is the best plan for him and I wanted to let you guys know about that. I’m not a doctor, so I’m giving you the information that I know. It does not worry me. What I probably should have done is say we're taking it a week at a time, but I don't have any reason to be concerned based on the information that's been given."

• "With that being said, I don't think we can be smart enough with somebody like Matthew, and I think it's best for him, best for our football team. That's the plan that we'll have moving forward. I know that will surprise people, but I did want to at least let you guys know, as we're being fluid with this, but I don't have any reason for concern. I do think it's the smart thing, just based on September 7th or whenever the date of our opener is, with that being the main goal in mind for us.”

Based on my conversations within the facility at Loyola Marymount and from what I’ve witnessed on the practice field, there is no reason to press the alarm…yet. However, when McVay jumps from saying that Stafford is set to miss four days to then saying he’s going to miss two weeks, and then he starts talking about making sure Stafford is ready for Houston, a game that is over a month away, that’s concerning.

What about joint practices? Shouldn’t getting him ready for that be the goal? But the Rams are set to have their first joint practice in under two weeks, and now that Stafford is listed as week to week, what does that mean?

McVay was pressed for more info, with him stating this when asked about the slow nature of Stafford's recovery process.

• “No, I wouldn't say that. I would just say that you get the different opinions on what is the best way to allow him to be as healthy as possible for 17 games, and then hopefully you earn the right to be able to do that thereafter. You're really saying, ‘Okay, let's really gain all of the information and we'll take it a week at a time,’ is the approach that we're going to take. We do have some target goals in mind, but similar to last week, what I don't want to do is get ahead of myself."

• "I think we have to be fluid and flexible, and ultimately this is what's best for Matthew and for our football team. We have to be ready to adjust and adapt. I don't have any reason to be concerned. It's just going to be a little bit longer in terms of you guys seeing him out on the field than maybe what I had originally anticipated, but that's going to be okay, and we'll handle it the right way.”

That's all great, but here's the problem. McVay's initial report said four days. Now, is this a fluid situation? What caused such fluidity? What aren't we being told?

At this point, I have no doubt Stafford will play in the season opener, but what about everything leading up to the game? Will Stafford have enough time to get reacquainted with the offense, especially if Alaric Jackson is out? Will this be a lingering problem throughout the season? What caused this problem?

We've been searching for answers and come next week, the Rams, having had the opportunity to regroup, should have more information.

The Rams can not afford to get off to a fourth straight slow start to a season. It can not happen. They play Houston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Baltimore within the first six weeks of the season.

So what is really going on, and how close are we to hitting the panic button? Stay tuned for more info.