Fisher wants Bradford back

[LesBaker]

Not on this board. But you know there are some on Post-Dispatch and another one you are familiar that do. Thinking he is injury prone is fine and accurate. But people who said he cannot read a defense, wasn't accurate, and every other possible vice a QB could have, IMO, do have an agenda. On this board it's not that way.

His accuracy is something I have called into question starting his second year.

As far as reading defenses some analysts have brought that up and since neither them or us knew what was supposed to happen that will always be up for debate.

 

[LesBaker]

Pretty much (I mean, it's obviously more complex than that). Kaeperpick's contract opened the door for those kinds of negotiations.

That is exactly what I had in mind when I said to put together a deal that has him for 2015 and 2016 with loads of incentives and the chance to cut him without ant real cap pain for 2016.

The more this gets fleshed out the more I see that happening..........unless Bradford and his agent want to try to do a Flacco (that type of move is always going to be called a Flacco LOL) and pin the Rams to the mat with a great year.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Fair enough, (Mr Motes), but dollars simply are not everything. First off, he probably would not be going to a better team.
Second, he just might like the progress he's seen first hand with the Rams.
Third, he won't have to learn a new system, or acclimate himself to 60 new guys/coaches.
He's a midwest guy. If he has a good year next year, he gets paid, here or somewhere else.
I just don't see him jumping to another team for, when all is said and done, another $5M.

If I were Bradford, this would be an important consideration.

He's played with some terrible Rams teams. If the Rams are getting close, he'd know better than anyone else how close they are.

I believe some other QB-starved team might pay him near what he is due with the Rams without any restructure.

But, it'd be a team that is probably really bad.

Given the choice of being paid less to be on a contender (assuming he believes the Rams are that) or being paid more to play on a crappy team for years (again), if I were him, I'd take the former.

 

[-X-]

That is exactly what I had in mind when I said to put together a deal that has him for 2015 and 2016 with loads of incentives and the chance to cut him without ant real cap pain for 2016.

The more this gets fleshed out the more I see that happening..........unless Bradford and his agent want to try to do a Flacco (that type of move is always going to be called a Flacco LOL) and pin the Rams to the mat with a great year.

I'd be fine with that if he won us a Super Bowl. He can Flacco the hell out of us for all I care.

 

[theduke]

This is a no brainer, there wont be any other qb available that will be better than Bradford. People can hate him all they want but he will be back and lead the rams to the playoffs!

Amen to that! I hope you all are ready to apologize to Bradford when he shows himself to be a top-5 QB next year. With a solid interior O-line upgrade, we are going to win a lot of games next year with Bradford at the helm. I just watched video of him from years past. Good god, the team sucked! On one instance, RT Jason Smith was still in his stance as the edge rusher was 3/4 of the way to Bradford! Kendricks and Brandon Gibson dropped tons of balls. He will be fine.

 

[Blue and Gold]

His accuracy is something I have called into question starting his second year.
.

It's not in question for others, though. Looking at completion percentage is one thing. Grading throws is another. I am confident that Shurmur, McD and Shotty were telling the truth. If you have receivers not getting to a spot, then the QB may appear he missed a throw, but to know true accuracy you have to know the target spot on the field, i.e. is it the hash, a yard inside the hash, one yard outside the numbers, etc. If a WR drops (2010-2011) or does not get where he's supposed to be . . .then it's an incompletion. Also, how many screens and so forth figure into that.

 

[RamFan503]

I just don't understand why so many insist they have to redo his deal. It appears that people are under the impression that Bradford somehow owes the organization a "rebate" and "should" volunteer to take less $$$ than is contractually owed to him.

My question, how many of those who seem so strong about this position, would be willing to take a "heavy pay cut" and rework the final year on the contract, without some sort of protection (extension) if they were in Bradford's position?

It's easy to say he "has made enough" and "can afford to take a reduced amount".... But why would he? Players just don't give back money without getting some guarantees that they will make it back in more years, etc. And if the Rams play hardball with him, what contingencies would they have in place that wont' cost them a similar $$$ amount? (trade for a comparable starter?)

Let's follow that line of thought for the purpose of discussion.....

What do those who want him to "rework" his deal, think would be a fair $$$ amount?

Also, lets just say he agrees to play for $6-7M with incentives. When you factor in the prorated cap hit, his "number" would still be in the $11 - 12M range. How much are you saving? At $13M, he isn't even in the upper echelon of contracts for a starting QB.

The only way to make this doable from Bradford's perspective, would be to extend him beyond the 2016 season. Given his recent injury issues, would the Rams be willing to do that?

I guess my point is, while it makes for a good discussion, IMO, it's not a slam dunk that his contract will be reduced at all prior to next year. If he comes back and shows he is healthy and capable of being the QB that Fisher and Snead think he is, then I could see them extending him and working on his SECOND contract.

I don't think it's an either or type of deal. I do expect the two sides to rework his deal. What I don't expect is that it will necessarily mean a pay cut for Sam. I think the Rams want Sam under center for 2015 and potentially beyond. I think Sam wants to be a Ram and wants to play for Fisher and with what by all accounts is a very good locker room and staff.

My thinking is that just like with a few other players on this team, they work out a restructure that more so than giving Sam a pay cut, gives some flexibility toward the cap. But what is going to add to determining the contract is what Sam could reasonably expect in FA vs what the Rams are offering via salary, system, organization, team.

I believe Sam has already been paid the $3.95 million - right? At minimum, it is guaranteed regardless. So what we are really talking about is the $13 million for 2015. Can Sam expect to garner an offer for more than that from a team that will likely not be able to tamper during any negotiations? Both sides will come in having a pretty good idea what is on the table. I can only guess by what I've seen lately from this franchise that they will figure out a way to work a deal.

But I am very doubtful the Rams would just sit back and pay the man the added $13 million to see if he remains healthy for a year while taking a $17 million cap hit. That would be giving Sam ALL the leverage this season AND going into 2016 and beyond with nothing to lose if things don't work out.

I'm not sure of dates and all and that may have some to do with leverages. The earlier a decision has to be made, likely favors Sam as it would give other teams a chance to evaluate him before signing a QB for themselves.

Either way, I don't envision this as some war of wills at the negotiating table. I think we will figure out a reasonable restructure that will pay Sam while giving the Rams greater flexibility.

 

[LesBaker]

I'd be fine with that if he won us a Super Bowl. He can Flacco the hell out of us for all I care.

Yeah for sure. But The Flacco is harder than this. Like nineteen times harder, or something

 

[RamFan503]

I'd be fine with that if he won us a Super Bowl. He can Flacco the hell out of us for all I care.

A Superbowl? Not good enough to get Flacco'd over.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Nope. I'm going with the entirety of my response and not just the part you decided to quote.

BTW, while the other QBs have made mistakes, I've also seen them plays when plays break down that I haven't seen Bradford make.

give me sure tds and smart decision making over making a few plays when things break down.

.

 

[jrry32]

My thoughts on the Bradford extension:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fyYlZ7ZDa8

 

[Memphis Ram]

give me sure tds and smart decision making over making a few plays when things break down.

Guess I'm greedy because I want both from the QB position.

BTW, now Bradford equals "Sure TDs?"

 

[kurtfaulk]

Guess I'm greedy because I want both from the QB position.

BTW, now Bradford equals "Sure TDs?"

Sure tds isn't quite accurate. Higher strike rate would be more accurate.

.

 

[CoachO]

I get the whole concept. I agree that they are likely to restructure it somehow.

My issue is with those who somehow think that means taking less $$$.

There has to be some benefit to both parties. For the Rams it means finding cap relief. For Bradford it means an additional year(s) or more guaranteed $$$.

Still haven't seen anyone quantify what they feel is a realistic number when they suggest a restructured (less) deal.

Because IMO. .... Restructured doesn't mean less $$$. It means moving it around for accounting purposes.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Restructured doesn't mean less $$$. It means moving it around for accounting purposes.

I agree, and that's what is most likely to happen, imo.

 

[Memphis Ram]

http://sports.yahoo.com/video/rapop...poport-rams-told-bradford-want-210921629.html

Rapoport also says that he was told that Bradford would not enter next season as the unquestioned starter.

 

[MrMotes]

Fair enough, (Mr Motes), but dollars simply are not everything. First off, he probably would not be going to a better team.
Second, he just might like the progress he's seen first hand with the Rams.
Third, he won't have to learn a new system, or acclimate himself to 60 new guys/coaches.
He's a midwest guy. If he has a good year next year, he gets paid, here or somewhere else.
I just don't see him jumping to another team for, when all is said and done, another $5M.

OTOH, what if Bradford got a chance to play for a more of a QB guru type coach, say Andy Reid, Bruce Arians or Chip Kelley?

I still think Bradford staying with the Rams is the most likely scenario but i'm pretty sure we'll have to cut him first. And then we'll see what happens...

 

[Ramatik]

No way in the world you will see him cut unless he can't pass a physical.

I really don't care though.

That's still a long way off.

 

[Ramathon]

I just don't understand why so many insist they have to redo his deal. It appears that people are under the impression that Bradford somehow owes the organization a "rebate" and "should" volunteer to take less $$$ than is contractually owed to him.
........

I guess my point is, while it makes for a good discussion, IMO, it's not a slam dunk that his contract will be reduced at all prior to next year. If he comes back and shows he is healthy and capable of being the QB that Fisher and Snead think he is, then I could see them extending him and working on his SECOND contract.

I'm totally clueless about how incentive laden contracts impact the cap. Just for sake of discussion, suppose Bradford's contract is re-worked for next season such that he gets $5m in base salary and $.5m for every game he plays at least 3 quarters (and I'm just using these as easy round #'s...has nothing to do with what I think should or will happen or how much I think he's worth.) In such an unlikely scenario, the potential would be there for him to earn $13m next yr if he were to play in all 16 games.

How would such a contract impact the cap? Does the team have to allow for the possibility of having to pay out the entire $13m and count every penny of it against the cap before the season even starts?

If so, I don't understand how incentive contracts benefit the team....except obviously, if the player were to go down for the year in the 4th qtr of the 4th game, then they'd save $6m on the remaining 12 games. But it wouldn't enable them to go out and spend $6m on other players that could help the team before the season starts.

What's the advant to such a contract for any team? I surely don't see the incentive portion of a contract not being counted towards the cap at all. Heck, every team would want every player to sign such a deal. And it would be just as advantageous to many players as well.

Soooooo..., how do such contracts work?

 

[Ramathon]

I have heard it from numerous sources that he loves football and loves playing the game and that he his well thought of within the organization. Bradford is already a rich young man and he is savvy enough to realize that being in the right place to achieve his goals and win a super bowl at this point in his career is more important than holding out for few extra millions bucks, which will never replace the feeling of winning super bowl. Bradford is in a better position than any outsider to know how close this team may be to making a super bowl run next year and beyond. The Rams are surging as a team and it should be a very attractive alternative for any prospective QB who is looking to prove themselves and have shot at a title, so why not Bradford who has the inside track. I do not think Bradford is all about the money at this point in his a career, so I think he agrees to a restructure with a one year extension deal that is fair for both sides. I am sure he understands that if he can stay upright and finally prove himself he will ultimately get the money.

I truly believe Bradford has the talent, drive, and ambition to take his game to the next level and that the Rams are probably the best place for him to do that. The only lingering question is will his body/health allow him to do it.

And what makes you think that?? For all any of us know, he might just be the greediest SOB that ever walked on 2 feet. Unless you personally know him, that's a whole lotta personal opinion that MAY be perfectly accurate, or just as completely inaccurate.