WestCoastRam
Legend
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
- Messages
- 6,254
Sources: Bills eyeing QB Sam Bradford
- Thread starter RamBill
- Start date
-
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.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Messages
- 23,283
- Name
- mojo
Bradford is a part of that bleak QB market. He's a huge injury risk and has been average at best in terms of the numbers.
I don't find any of this surprising. The market for Bradford around the league is going to be meager at best as i've said.
Condon is just doing his due diligence in finding out the truth of Sam's value. His best(and only) negotiating tactic is to use the weak FA QB class and high demand for QB around the league to bump up his client. He can't use selling terms like bargain contract, wins and losses, passing statistics, health and durability. Other than Sam's high character, potential(4 years running) and work ethic...he just isn't going to be in high demand like so many seem to think he should be. We're Rams fans. We see the best of what Sam has been and could possibly be. Other NFL teams will be far more subjective.
RamsJunkie
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,093
No he strikes me as the kind of guy that would want to stick this rebuild out and reap what he has sown with the team he started and worked so hard with. I for one hope he restructures and stays here and finally gets this team over the hump, you couldn't ask for a nicer more humble hungry young man than he is to be the face of your franchise. The kid deserves to stay healthy and deserves to win! and dammit I'm not gonna be a happy camper if he accomplishes that somewhere else.
junkman
Farewell to all!
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2014
- Messages
- 822
- Name
- junkman
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...eam-has-contacted-rams-regarding-sam-bradford
"No team has contacted Rams regarding Sam Bradford"
Despite recent reports of interest from the Buffalo Bills or Cleveland Browns, a Sam Bradford trade remains highly unlikely.
As of Tuesday, no team has contacted the St. Louis Rams about trading for their enigmatic quarterback, NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported, via sources informed of situation.
Because Bradford has missed the majority of the past two seasons and will have to compete to keep his starting job, the Rams have pressured him to accept a reduction in his $13 million salary that counts $16.6 million against the salary cap in the contract's final year.
After balking at that request, Bradford's agent was allowed to contact other teams to gauge the quarterback's value. To this point, that has not sparked movement.
While a trade is theoretically possible, Bradford's perceived value is diminished by an outsized salary no longer befitting an underperforming player coming off a twice-torn ACL.
Per Rapoport, it would take an extraordinarily desperate team to satisfy the Rams' demand for compensation (second-round draft pick?) while also taking on Bradford's bloated contract on a one-year rental.
While he's certainly a more attractive option than EJ Manuel or Johnny Manziel, Bradford has never lived up to the regard in which he's held by NFL scouts. He has too often been skittish in the pocket and scattershot with his accuracy, stifling the offense.
Bradford's agent can't be blamed for seeking a team willing to shell out the full salary, but the Ramsbelieve the best-case scenario for both sides is a pay cut to finally rebuild his value as St. Louis' franchise quarterback.
Are the Rams underestimating the level of Bills' desperation in a bleak quarterback market? That's what Bradford's camp is selling.
"No team has contacted Rams regarding Sam Bradford"
Despite recent reports of interest from the Buffalo Bills or Cleveland Browns, a Sam Bradford trade remains highly unlikely.
As of Tuesday, no team has contacted the St. Louis Rams about trading for their enigmatic quarterback, NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported, via sources informed of situation.
Because Bradford has missed the majority of the past two seasons and will have to compete to keep his starting job, the Rams have pressured him to accept a reduction in his $13 million salary that counts $16.6 million against the salary cap in the contract's final year.
After balking at that request, Bradford's agent was allowed to contact other teams to gauge the quarterback's value. To this point, that has not sparked movement.
While a trade is theoretically possible, Bradford's perceived value is diminished by an outsized salary no longer befitting an underperforming player coming off a twice-torn ACL.
Per Rapoport, it would take an extraordinarily desperate team to satisfy the Rams' demand for compensation (second-round draft pick?) while also taking on Bradford's bloated contract on a one-year rental.
While he's certainly a more attractive option than EJ Manuel or Johnny Manziel, Bradford has never lived up to the regard in which he's held by NFL scouts. He has too often been skittish in the pocket and scattershot with his accuracy, stifling the offense.
Bradford's agent can't be blamed for seeking a team willing to shell out the full salary, but the Ramsbelieve the best-case scenario for both sides is a pay cut to finally rebuild his value as St. Louis' franchise quarterback.
Are the Rams underestimating the level of Bills' desperation in a bleak quarterback market? That's what Bradford's camp is selling.
Blue and Gold
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 1,741
- Name
- B and G
Mike RodakVerified account@mikerodakRams tell me that there is no merit to report that Bills are pursuing trade with QB Sam Bradford.
Billy Baroo
How about a Fresca?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
- Messages
- 1,212
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 4,554
- Name
- Tom
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,982
- Name
- Craig
Brady moved guaranteed money around. He didn't "give back" anything.
Manning?! You mean like cashing checks for $21M a year?
- Joined
- May 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,982
- Name
- Craig
Has Chris Wesseling, whoever the freak that is, ever even watched Sam play?!
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #76
Several reasons why Sam Bradford to Browns is unrealistic
By Pat McManamon
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/p...ons-why-sam-bradford-to-browns-is-unrealistic
The Cleveland Browns need a quarterback and one option that has been floated is acquiring St. Louis’ Sam Bradford. Bradford is a former No. 1 overall pick coming off a second ACL surgery.
The idea sounds great. Bradford rides into town and solves everything. Except it’s simply not realistic at this point, and the odds of it happening are miniscule.
Here are reasons why:
Everything the Rams have done since this offseason has been tailored to keeping Bradford, and, assuming he’s healthy, making him the starter. Coach Jeff Fisher recently even said the team will add a quarterback in the offseason but it would not be about “challenging” Bradford.
The team’s new offensive coordinator came from within, as Fisher promoted quarterbacks coach Frank Cignetti. It was done with input from Bradford after the quarterback and coach sat down for what Fisher called a “lengthy discussion.” Fisher said when promoting Cignetti that continuity and stability meant the same system for Bradford, which was a plus. Fisher even admitted that had Bradford objected to Cignetti, the hire would not have been made. Cignetti’s comment on his hiring: “We’re looking forward to Sam moving forward … getting Sam back healthy will greatly increase our chances of winning.”
Bradford was also involved in the hiring of quarterback coach Chris Weinke. Prior to choosing Weinke, Fisher set up a dinner meeting between Weinke and Bradford. The Rams made their two most significant offensive hires in an inclusive way with their quarterback. Doing so then trading him is not logical. (Aside: Weinke is like Kevin O’Connell in that neither have coached. but both have worked privately with quarterbacks. Perhaps it’s time to temper the cynicism on O’Connell.)
Bradford has remained completely dedicated to the Rams. General Manager Les Snead said at the combine that he told Bradford to take time away from the team after his second -- and potentially spirit-killing -- ACL tear. Bradford returned within two weeks. Since the season ended, he has not missed a day. He wants to stay with the Rams.
A new contract is not a huge issue. Bradford’s salary-cap number for 2015 is close to $16 million, his salary $12.95 million. The Rams could hold Bradford to the number or they could sit down with agent Tom Condon and work out a deal that reduces the base but allows Bradford to make that up in incentives. An agent who recognizes where his player wants to be can make this happen.
Snead said this at the combine: “I think in our process here, let's take it in these phases. Let’s get Sam healthy. And then when he's healthy, let’s let him go compete. And I think the guy's got a chance to be a heck of a starting quarterback. Let's insure the position. And that just gives us options in case we do have bad luck.”
He also said this of the notion of trading Bradford: “I don't know that that solves our riddle. That's breaking news is what that is -- you know what I mean? Do you want to trade for Sam? Do you have a deal? He's a good player. If some team was interested I certainly don't blame them. But I'll stick to what I said earlier -- deleting him is not the answer.”
None of this sounds like a team wiling to give up on a guy.
Perhaps the only way would be if a team makes a ridiculous offer that might include two first-round picks. Is it worth the Browns giving up that much, then committing $50 million in the next four or five years? For a guy coming off his second ACL?
The Browns tried to acquire Bradford twice before, in the year he was drafted and in the year Robert Griffin III was in the draft. St. Louis stood by Bradford.
It certainly appears they are going to stand by him again.
By Pat McManamon
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/p...ons-why-sam-bradford-to-browns-is-unrealistic
The Cleveland Browns need a quarterback and one option that has been floated is acquiring St. Louis’ Sam Bradford. Bradford is a former No. 1 overall pick coming off a second ACL surgery.
The idea sounds great. Bradford rides into town and solves everything. Except it’s simply not realistic at this point, and the odds of it happening are miniscule.
Here are reasons why:
Everything the Rams have done since this offseason has been tailored to keeping Bradford, and, assuming he’s healthy, making him the starter. Coach Jeff Fisher recently even said the team will add a quarterback in the offseason but it would not be about “challenging” Bradford.
The team’s new offensive coordinator came from within, as Fisher promoted quarterbacks coach Frank Cignetti. It was done with input from Bradford after the quarterback and coach sat down for what Fisher called a “lengthy discussion.” Fisher said when promoting Cignetti that continuity and stability meant the same system for Bradford, which was a plus. Fisher even admitted that had Bradford objected to Cignetti, the hire would not have been made. Cignetti’s comment on his hiring: “We’re looking forward to Sam moving forward … getting Sam back healthy will greatly increase our chances of winning.”
Bradford was also involved in the hiring of quarterback coach Chris Weinke. Prior to choosing Weinke, Fisher set up a dinner meeting between Weinke and Bradford. The Rams made their two most significant offensive hires in an inclusive way with their quarterback. Doing so then trading him is not logical. (Aside: Weinke is like Kevin O’Connell in that neither have coached. but both have worked privately with quarterbacks. Perhaps it’s time to temper the cynicism on O’Connell.)
Bradford has remained completely dedicated to the Rams. General Manager Les Snead said at the combine that he told Bradford to take time away from the team after his second -- and potentially spirit-killing -- ACL tear. Bradford returned within two weeks. Since the season ended, he has not missed a day. He wants to stay with the Rams.
A new contract is not a huge issue. Bradford’s salary-cap number for 2015 is close to $16 million, his salary $12.95 million. The Rams could hold Bradford to the number or they could sit down with agent Tom Condon and work out a deal that reduces the base but allows Bradford to make that up in incentives. An agent who recognizes where his player wants to be can make this happen.
Snead said this at the combine: “I think in our process here, let's take it in these phases. Let’s get Sam healthy. And then when he's healthy, let’s let him go compete. And I think the guy's got a chance to be a heck of a starting quarterback. Let's insure the position. And that just gives us options in case we do have bad luck.”
He also said this of the notion of trading Bradford: “I don't know that that solves our riddle. That's breaking news is what that is -- you know what I mean? Do you want to trade for Sam? Do you have a deal? He's a good player. If some team was interested I certainly don't blame them. But I'll stick to what I said earlier -- deleting him is not the answer.”
None of this sounds like a team wiling to give up on a guy.
Perhaps the only way would be if a team makes a ridiculous offer that might include two first-round picks. Is it worth the Browns giving up that much, then committing $50 million in the next four or five years? For a guy coming off his second ACL?
The Browns tried to acquire Bradford twice before, in the year he was drafted and in the year Robert Griffin III was in the draft. St. Louis stood by Bradford.
It certainly appears they are going to stand by him again.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #77
About those daily Sam Bradford rumors
By Nick Wagoner
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16535/about-those-daily-sam-bradford-rumors
EARTH CITY, Mo. -- In the latest churn of the Sam Bradford rumor mill, reports surfaced Tuesday that the Buffalo Bills are considering making a trade offer for the St. Louis Rams quarterback.
As is becoming increasingly common in this age of social media, those reports were summarily shot down with reports that no team has actually really pursued a trade for Bradford. The Buffalo rumors came on the heels of rumors that the Cleveland Browns had similar interest in Bradford. And those rumors followed speculation that Bradford had been given permission to seek a trade.
In addition to all of that, there have been other reports that Bradford does not want to take a pay cut and instead of being traded would prefer to be outright released.
For what it's worth, Rams coach Jeff Fisher and general manager Les Snead have dismissed most of those rumors. Fisher went so far as to call the trade permission rumor as "inaccurate" at last week's NFL scouting combine.
"When we've had him, he's 5-2-1 in our division," Fisher said. "And we weren't very good when we got here, so we're counting on him. I'm betting on him and if that doesn't happen, then we'll win games with somebody else."
So what do we make of all this? It's not unusual at this time of year and in these situations for these types of rumors to run rampant.
We do know the Rams would like to bring Bradford back at a cap number below his projected $16.58 million and a base salary less than his expected $12.985 million. We also know that there isn't an agent in the league -- especially one representing a high-priced quarterback -- that would like to take a pay cut for a client.
That means it's in the best interest of Tom Condon, Bradford's agent, to do all he can to get the best deal possible out of the Rams. Rumors of other teams willing to trade or sign Bradford to big-money deals theoretically only drives the price up. It also doesn't mean that any of those possibilities are real or that an agreement won't eventually be reached.
If, indeed, some of those rumors materialized into legitimate offers then perhaps the Rams could consider it. While the Rams have repeatedly made it clear they are committed to having Bradford in 2015, it doesn't mean that a big offer wouldn't change their mind. Any player can be had for the right price, especially one coming off two consecutive torn ACLs.
But it's also worth noting that if these teams were legitimately interested in Bradford, it stands to reason the Rams would have similar interest in keeping him. It's not like the Rams have a better option waiting in the wings and the list of available quarterbacks in free agency or ones they could realistically get in the draft don't offer a clear upgrade, either.
Simply put, Bradford is every bit as valuable to the Rams, probably more so, than he would be to other teams. It's Condon's job to figure out what that happy medium is. So even if at this very moment Condon would prefer not to take a pay cut for his client, it doesn't mean he won't after he gets a chance to gauge what Bradford might get if he were to come available.
And from a Rams' perspective, there's not necessarily a pressing need to get something done with Bradford. They need cap space but have other ways to obtain it by releasing players like tackle Jake Long, center Scott Wells and/or defensive tackle Kendall Langford or converting some of end Robert Quinn's base salary to signing bonus.
People close to Bradford insist he wants to stay in St. Louis in 2015. The Rams insist they want to keep him. What shape that takes will reveal itself in time but in the meantime, don't be surprised if the rumors persist.
By Nick Wagoner
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16535/about-those-daily-sam-bradford-rumors
EARTH CITY, Mo. -- In the latest churn of the Sam Bradford rumor mill, reports surfaced Tuesday that the Buffalo Bills are considering making a trade offer for the St. Louis Rams quarterback.
As is becoming increasingly common in this age of social media, those reports were summarily shot down with reports that no team has actually really pursued a trade for Bradford. The Buffalo rumors came on the heels of rumors that the Cleveland Browns had similar interest in Bradford. And those rumors followed speculation that Bradford had been given permission to seek a trade.
In addition to all of that, there have been other reports that Bradford does not want to take a pay cut and instead of being traded would prefer to be outright released.
For what it's worth, Rams coach Jeff Fisher and general manager Les Snead have dismissed most of those rumors. Fisher went so far as to call the trade permission rumor as "inaccurate" at last week's NFL scouting combine.
"When we've had him, he's 5-2-1 in our division," Fisher said. "And we weren't very good when we got here, so we're counting on him. I'm betting on him and if that doesn't happen, then we'll win games with somebody else."
So what do we make of all this? It's not unusual at this time of year and in these situations for these types of rumors to run rampant.
We do know the Rams would like to bring Bradford back at a cap number below his projected $16.58 million and a base salary less than his expected $12.985 million. We also know that there isn't an agent in the league -- especially one representing a high-priced quarterback -- that would like to take a pay cut for a client.
That means it's in the best interest of Tom Condon, Bradford's agent, to do all he can to get the best deal possible out of the Rams. Rumors of other teams willing to trade or sign Bradford to big-money deals theoretically only drives the price up. It also doesn't mean that any of those possibilities are real or that an agreement won't eventually be reached.
If, indeed, some of those rumors materialized into legitimate offers then perhaps the Rams could consider it. While the Rams have repeatedly made it clear they are committed to having Bradford in 2015, it doesn't mean that a big offer wouldn't change their mind. Any player can be had for the right price, especially one coming off two consecutive torn ACLs.
But it's also worth noting that if these teams were legitimately interested in Bradford, it stands to reason the Rams would have similar interest in keeping him. It's not like the Rams have a better option waiting in the wings and the list of available quarterbacks in free agency or ones they could realistically get in the draft don't offer a clear upgrade, either.
Simply put, Bradford is every bit as valuable to the Rams, probably more so, than he would be to other teams. It's Condon's job to figure out what that happy medium is. So even if at this very moment Condon would prefer not to take a pay cut for his client, it doesn't mean he won't after he gets a chance to gauge what Bradford might get if he were to come available.
And from a Rams' perspective, there's not necessarily a pressing need to get something done with Bradford. They need cap space but have other ways to obtain it by releasing players like tackle Jake Long, center Scott Wells and/or defensive tackle Kendall Langford or converting some of end Robert Quinn's base salary to signing bonus.
People close to Bradford insist he wants to stay in St. Louis in 2015. The Rams insist they want to keep him. What shape that takes will reveal itself in time but in the meantime, don't be surprised if the rumors persist.
cgsuddeath
Rookie
- Joined
- May 18, 2013
- Messages
- 268
- Name
- cgsuddeath
I can't believe people are even stupid enough to buy into this nonsense
ram007
Starter
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 830
Never trust a NFL head coach. Especially Fisher. There is a reason Fisher has been a HC longer than Belichick.
Stranger
How big is infinity?
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 7,182
- Name
- Hugh
Are you trying to say that Fisher is playing both sides of this story? And that the rumors are probably true?