LaCanfora: Why the Rams should explore the trade market for Sam Bradford

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...ould-at-least-test-market-for-qb-sam-bradford

[parsehtml]<div class="storyCopy"><div id="embedVideoContainer_643903129255" class="embedVideo"><iframe id="embedVideo_643903129255" name="embedVideo_643903129255" width="640" height="403" src="http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/embed?args=player_id%3D643903129255%26channel%3Dnfl%26pcid%3D226340931643%26width%3D640%26height%3D360%26autoplay%3Dfalse%26dynamic_controls%3Dfalse%26comp_ads_enabled%3Dfalse%26comp_ad_w%3D300%26comp_ad_h%3D60%26autoplay_live%3Dtrue" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true"></iframe></div>[/parsehtml]

At the risk of being inundated with phone calls from radio producers in the greater St. Louis area -- because that's what seems to happen merely by writing Sam Bradford's name in almost any context, the quarterback's very presence seemingly a hot-button issue on local sports talk -- I have a suggestion to make to the St. Louis Rams: Why not maybe see what Bradford might fetch via trade?

About a month from the draft, at a time when there are growing rumblings among scouts that the overall strength of elite players at positions other that quarterback could lead to the passers falling a bit, this might be as good a time as any to covertly gauge a market for Bradford. If it's me, I'm seeing if someone else out there would want to buy-in to Bradford's antiquated contract that's the offspring of a collective-bargaining agreement long since overhauled.

If I could opt out now -- with Bradford having two years and $27M left on his deal but all of his $50M in guaranteed money already in his pocket -- and get decent value in return, that might be too good to pass up. And several other execs I spoke with thought the Rams might be best served by taking a proactive approach to this conundrum. A team could select multiple quarterbacks in the first round of multiple drafts, for instance, and still not owe their cumulative 2014 quarterback the $14M Bradford is set to make this season.

(And, to be perfectly clear, in this era of extremely selective reading comprehension, let me state this unequivocally: I am NOT reporting the Rams are shopping Bradford. I am NOT reporting the Rams are even considering shopping Bradford. I'm not reporting anything in that regard. I am merely positing that a case could be made that based on his age, contract and Bradford's potential relative value economically and cap-wise, that dealing Bradford and finding a replacement in the draft might advance the franchise given his stunted production and injury woes to this point.)

I'm not proposing a fire sale here, where you just try to dump the contract if at all possible the way we've seen teams float guys like Julius Peppers and Chris Johnson this offseason. I'm talking about making a football trade that brings a starter at a position of need and a high pick in return, when, combined with the fact the Rams are already in a strong position with the second and 13th selections in the draft under their control, puts the team in position to capitalize on its influx of talent the past few years and propels them into playoff contention, making the kind of jump the Cardinals did in 2013.

Who could be most interested?
Could be that no one would make that sort of a trade for Bradford, but I'd want to hear it for myself, and there remain several teams in the draft that need a quarterback -- Cleveland, Minnesota, Jacksonville, Houston, perhaps Buffalo -- that may start to prefer a young veteran like Bradford to the likes of Blake Bortles, Johnny Manziel or Teddy Bridgewater at the top of this draft. It just so happens that several of those teams remain loaded with more cap space than they could ever need, and some are short on players who are worthy of imminent contract extensions. So they have money to spend and relatively few options to spend it on (and keep in mind all teams must spend at least 89 percent of the cumulative cap from 2013-2016 on its payroll).

Several front office executives I spoke with -- guys who aren't in the quarterback market one way or another and wouldn't have a dog in this fight -- believed Bradford could still fetch a strong return. They believed that some of the young GMs picking high in this draft who need quarterbacks might fancy Bradford over possibly swinging and missing on a quarterback high in the first round. They cited Bradford's lingering appeal with offensive coordinators and quarterback coaches, who first fell for him at Oklahoma and still look at him the way they did when he was selected first overall in 2010.

"They love the kid, at least the ones I've talked to about him," one NFL executive said. "He's still a pretty popular figure with them. And everyone knows he's a tremendous kid. If he was available I would expect there to be a lot of coaches in personnel meetings who would think they would be the guy to get him to fulfill his potential."

So with all of that in mind, might it make sense for the Rams -- who have been defined by bold and aggressive moves under this Jeff Fisher/Les Snead/Kevin Demoff regime -- to see what might be out there? I understand that the mere thought that a starting quarterback, even one coming off a lost season due to injury, is being shopped might send shockwaves through an organization. The reality is, as I have noted, Bradford has been compensated quite well to this point, and the idea of a contract extension or how to move forward with him long-term has no easy solution given the empirical evidence provided to this point. (The Rams maintain they are open to doing an extension for him).

img24526423.jpg

Bradford's injury history is a big part of the equation for the Rams. (USATSI)

The Rams struck gold with the trade with the Redskins (that landed Washington RG3). If they pulled off a strong return for Bradford, including a proven starter at another position and a high pick (if Trent Richardson went for a first-rounder, who not Bradford?), and then draft someone like Sammy Watkins and then one of the stud tackles at 13, and use the pick they got for Bradford to take a quarterback, could they be better set up to win right now? And, obviously, they would have considerably more cash and cap flexibility moving forward than they would if they were negotiating an extension for Bradford coming off a 2015 season in which he is scheduled to make $13M.

Bradford is the kind of kid everyone pulls for. He is a true gentleman, a wonderful kid who has had some bad luck, some even worse pass protection and a lack of reliable weapons for much of his career. There have been system changes and coordinator changes and a head coaching change already in his brief career. All of that has to be part of the equation.

Is he a fiery leader of men? Does he command a huddle and a sideline? Will he be able to stay healthy? Those are real questions that still linger after four seasons in the NFL. Bradford has completed less than 60 percent of his passes in his career (58.6), he has 59 touchdowns and 38 interceptions thus far, been sacked an astonishing 120 times in just 49 starts (that begins to take a toll, quickly, on a player who dealt with health problems in college), and has a career passer rating under 80 (79.3).

That isn't overwhelming, especially for a first-overall pick.

What to make of Bradford's 2013?
Bradford was off to a strong start through seven games last season -- 14 touchdowns to four interceptions, a rating over 90 -- though the Rams were doing much of that trying to crawl back into games as they started the season slowly. Unfortunately for Bradford, he also has to play in the best division in football, against three defenses that can humble, confound and pummel even the best quarterbacks in the NFL (ask Peyton Manning about that Seattle defense). That hasn't helped, either.

No matter where you come down on Bradford's tenure, the fact is that since he came into the league, among all quarterbacks with at least 500 attempts, Bradford ranks 29th in passer rating (just behind Kevin Kolb, Jason Campbell and Josh Freeman), he ranks 32nd in completion percentage (tucked between Campbell and Colt McCoy), he ranks 36th in yards per attempt at 6.29 (tucked between Christian Ponder and McCoy, and behind Brandon Weeden and Mark Sanchez), and he ranks 20th in TD/INT ratio (he betters guys like Jay Cutler and Cam Newton in that regard, it should be noted).

So, if the Rams are able to upgrade multiple positions via the draft and by hypothetically trading Bradford, could they find a quarterback in the second day of this draft who could better the output that Bradford has provided to this point? Even if they don't, if they did trade down out of, say, the second spot, they could possibly land a 2015 first-round pick out of that swap, which would have them primed to dabble in that quarterback class as well if need be.

And, if they stick with Bradford, absent him signing some kind of team-friendly extension, will they find themselves in this same position with him again next year, only then perhaps without all of the additional flexibility they have now to be major players in this May's draft, given that they are reaping the final remains of their fleecing of the Redskins from two years ago. Perhaps there is no better time than the present.

Things are further complicated by the fact Bradford is still working back from his November ACL surgery. And, in all likelihood, the Rams just might not see a quarterback in this draft who they think could do more for them in 2014 than a healthy Bradford could (assuming this is his breakthrough season). It would take some major guts to pull off something like this -- and I applaud the Rams for being as bold and forward thinking as they have (this concept would be a complete nonstarter to even mention in connection to some of the more conservative franchises in the league).

But as the draft keeps pulling closer, and if some quarterback-needy teams continue to seem tepid about the crop of first-round passers up for grabs in May, in a league where a perennial Pro Bowlers like Darrelle Revis and DeSean Jackson were outright released in the primes, the premise of shopping Bradford ahead of the draft should rank as anything but crazy.

Topics: Sam Bradford, St. Louis Rams, NFL
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
I think its hard for a lot of people to imagine trading Bradford. But, with that in mind, I still think it would be a good idea to gauge the market for him. It goes without saying that it needs to be gauged against what we get in return for him, and if we can find someone that would help out the team, and bring something to the table that he doesn't have.

Do we have any options like that out there? In Free agency, the answer is no. If we trade him and draft someone at 2, we might be able to squeeze into the playoffs, but will the new QB have a hard time picking up Schotty's offense?

After thinking out loud on here, there are probably too many unknowns at this point to trade him. Next year is a better year to get a franchise QB in the draft where you have guys such as Winston at the top.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
And who would you replace him with? And unless the team gets a massive upgrade around the QB in the next few years, would you seriously expect any different results? It's not like this QB class has a can't miss/star studded prospect either - I wouldn't touch any of the QB's in this draft in the first round....which definitely means i wouldn't *hope* that I hit on a 2nd round or later prospect either

Getting rid of Bradford would be the cause of further regression - not advancement.
 

RamsJunkie

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
2,070
If Bradford was in this draft he would be far and away the best QB and houston would have already made the pick just as the colts did with Luck 2 years ago... why would the rams trade bradford to reach for a guy with far less talent
 

Mojo Ram

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
22,906
Name
mojo
Never trade a player when it creates a bigger hole at that position.
JMO
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Pretty funny stuff. Looks like La Canfora has had his nuts put through a ringer in the past for his Bradford 'stories'.

At the risk of being inundated with phone calls from radio producers in the greater St. Louis area -- because that's what seems to happen merely by writing Sam Bradford's name in almost any context, the quarterback's very presence seemingly a hot-button issue on local sports talk -- I have a suggestion to make to the St. Louis Rams: Why not maybe see what Bradford might fetch via trade?
(And, to be perfectly clear, in this era of extremely selective reading comprehension, let me state this unequivocally: I am NOT reporting the Rams are shopping Bradford. I am NOT reporting the Rams are even considering shopping Bradford. I'm not reporting anything in that regard. I am merely positing that a case could be made that based on his age, contract and Bradford's potential relative value economically and cap-wise, that dealing Bradford and finding a replacement in the draft might advance the franchise given his stunted production and injury woes to this point.)
 

LumberTubs

As idle as a painted ship upon a painted ocean
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
1,424
Name
Phil
I've said this on here before but I get the impression that fans of every team expect their QB to be a Peyton Manning type but that just isn't possible. Bradford certainly isn't ever going to be the best in the league but he's capable of being very very good.

The problem is people's expectations and I fear there's a good chance that the only way some Rams fans will realise how good he is will be when he's gone.
 

A55VA6

Legend
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
8,208
I wouldn't trade Sam, personally. If he has a terrible year or gets another serious injury, then i might think about it.
 

Mojo Ram

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
22,906
Name
mojo
I wouldn't trade Sam, personally. If he has a terrible year or gets another serious injury, then i might think about it.
Yeah i don't see any scenario where Bradford OR Shotty are retained if the offense doesn't take flight this season.
 

Sum1

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,604
LaConfora is starting to have a weird Sam Bradford thing...random stories about nothing.

So Bradford would fetch good compensation but it isn't going to happen. OK? Thanks for the update, Jason.

In other news, if the AZ Cardinals wanted to trade Michael Floyd they would get something in return. Also, the trade of Luke Joekel would likely be welcomed by a trade partner.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
So he's meant to be bad enough that he's worth trading, but good enough so that other teams would rather trade for him than go with a QB from the draft?

Not sure that logic follows.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
So he's meant to be bad enough that he's worth trading, but good enough so that other teams would rather trade for him than go with a QB from the draft?

Not sure that logic follows.

lol depending on what oakland does at #5, that could be exactly what they did w/ Schaub.... they apparently like him enough to call him the starter

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...t-schaub-is-the-raiders-starting-quarterback/


Dennis Allen: Matt Schaub is the Raiders’ starting quarterback

“We brought Matt Schaub in to be our starting quarterback,” Allen said. “We feel very confident that he is going to be able to come in and function in that role and be outstanding for us. Obviously, we love having competition within the team, but right now Matt Schaub is our starting quarterback.”

The Raiders also have Terrelle Pryor, Matt McGloin and Trent Edwards on the roster, and they could draft a quarterback like Teddy Bridgewater, Blake Bortles, Johnny Manziel or Derek Carr. But Allen, who was an assistant coach in Atlanta when the Falcons drafted Schaub in 2004, says Schaub is his guy.

“This is a guy that is a two-time Pro Bowl player. When you get an opportunity to add those type of players, that’s what we’re looking to do,” Allen said.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
i wouldn't either

but when i read your post, i laughed and thought about the raiders

I think that's the typical reaction when people think of the Raiders (y).

My point was that to trade for Sam you've got to like him, you've got to like his potential and you've got to like him more than any QB in this draft or future drafts who you may have a shot at. Schaub would just be a stop gap "we hate the QBs in this draft" comment. Trading for Sam would be a comment on his ability/pottential.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
I think that's the typical reaction when people think of the Raiders (y).

My point was that to trade for Sam you've got to like him, you've got to like his potential and you've got to like him more than any QB in this draft or future drafts who you may have a shot at. Schaub would just be a stop gap "we hate the QBs in this draft" comment. Trading for Sam would be a comment on his ability/pottential.

all depends on what you'd give up for sam. it's not too different than the hawks tradin for matt flynn and then drafting wilson. If someone took Sam, they'd probably give him a shot to see what he's got, unless they really like/want him (Shurmur offered a 1st after he went to cleveland)
 

Elmgrovegnome

Legend
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
21,906
Once again La Confora displays his stupidity.

Trade Bradford and just go out to the QB oak and pick another QB of equal or better value amongst its leaves.

Anyone who suggests that any QB be traded, without a Marc Bulger, or a Steve Young waiting in the wings is a fool. Would the Pack have let go of Favre without Rodgers? Would the Rams have been willing to part ways with Trent Green without Warner?

Sam may not be a top 4 QB but he is good enough to realize that he is not so easily replaced.

The Rams are getting close to the playoffs. If they were to trade Bradford and the next man up were to bust, the rebuild would be set back until they found a decent QB, which likely would be until they go back to having top 5 picks again, unless of course they get lucky. I don't think that is a bet Fisher is willing to take.

La Confora is just another GasBag iMO.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
all depends on what you'd give up for sam. it's not too different than the hawks tradin for matt flynn and then drafting wilson. If someone took Sam, they'd probably give him a shot to see what he's got, unless they really like/want him (Shurmur offered a 1st after he went to cleveland)

That's true, I wouldn't do it for a 1st, but hypothetically it would be at least a 3rd.

Wasn't Flynn a FA?
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
He was traded to Seattle I thought

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7...agency-seattle-seahawks-matt-flynn-agree-deal

Matt Flynn, Seahawks agree to deal
Updated: March 19, 2012, 10:10 AM ET

RENTON, Wash. -- The Seattle Seahawks are hoping another Green Bay backup turns into their franchise quarterback.

The Seahawks reached agreement Sunday with Matt Flynn on a three-year deal, bringing one of the most wanted -- yet unproven -- free agents to the Pacific Northwest to try and solidify Seattle's QB position.