Sam Bradford remains in Rams' plans for 2015

I’d like to know what the contract situation is
for the Rams/Bradford.
Is there any reason Bradford should/would take less money
next year?
Are there any creative-cap-answers that could be worked out?

Mainly I wanna know WHY Bradford would accept
less money next year than he is already
guaranteed by the contract he and the Rams
signed.

What leverage do the Rams have?
What leverage does Sam have?

I wonder what Rams fans would say
in a poll where they had to pick between
bringing back Sam or bringing back S.Hill ?
I’m not sure which i would say
is the priority.

w
v

wv wrote:

Is there any reason Bradford should/would take less money
next year?

In a sense, he doesn;t have to.

They can extend him, so that nominally the contract has more total money in it.

But they can work that extension in a cap friendly way that reduces the 2015 cap hit and puts a lot of the future money in things like incentives and roster bonuses. This allows the Rams to give themselves some insurance, while also on paper anyway take care of Bradford.

Any cap-smart team could easily do all that stuff.

I doubt they just flat and plain ask him to take a reduction. And they don’t have to do it that way.

On his side, he probably sees the advantages in staying with a team where he knows the system and the weapons on offense, and the defense is shaping up to be a top unit that would take a lot of pressure off him.

I have never had any trouble with the idea of the Rams having Bradford in their plans. I’ve never doubted him as a player, and I would be thrilled if his body held up through the year. If it did, I would predict Pro Bowl and maybe 11 wins.

But I repeat what I’ve said before. You can’t COUNT ON HIM as a starter. What do I mean by that?

Last year, we made 2 decisions:

A) Entrust the starting gig to Sam.

B) Support him with a top shelf backup.

Both, I think, were good decisions. I was all in on Sam and Hill has shown he’s about as good a #2 as you’re going to find.

This year, however, I submit that both decisions would be irresponsible.

A) Sam cannot be ENTRUSTED with the starting gig. His knees cannot be trusted to hold up. The chances are extremely good that he will go down again, probably early, and we’ll be missing a starting quality QB again.

B) A top shelf BACKUP would not be enough. I mean, maybe it’s all that’s available. But the overall development of the team demands a legit, starting quality QB. Hill has been pretty good this year, but he wasn’t good enough to hold off a hot Davis or win the biggest game of the year (SD). In my opinion, riding the hope that Sam will hold up and a limited, backup level guy like Hill would be irresponsible to fans and team.

So, I come back to the real challenge. Keep Sam? OK. I have little problem with that in itself, though you simply have to EXPECT that he goes down.

But whether or not Sam is here, we need an option that gives you starting quality QBing when Sam goes down. If we fail to find that other option, then our off season will be a major disappointment and will not support the team’s ascendancy to genuine competitor.

Now don’t ask me who. Draft pick? Vet FA? I dunno. As I say, maybe such a guy just isn’t available.

But my message to Snead would be simple. Leave no stone unturned looking for a genuinely promising rookie and/or a mid-table, legit starting QB. Relying on Sam and Hill again for next year would be inviting a truly crushing, 4th year disappointment.

rfl wrote:

I have never had any trouble with the idea of the Rams having Bradford in their plans
…But I repeat… You can’t COUNT ON HIM as a starter. What do I mean by that?…
…So, I come back to the real challenge. Keep Sam? OK. I have little problem with that in itself,
though you simply have to EXPECT that he goes down…

Well, from what little I’ve read, it seems
that there aren’t a lot of examples of an NFL QB
going down with 2 straight ACL tears. So, I’m
not sure any Doctor is going to be able to predict
what Sam’s future is likely to look like. How do
teams make decisions when the medical experts
are unsure?

One wonders, at what point does a QB start
looking like the old broken down Joe Namath.
I dunno.

I do know this about Fisher — he will be patient
with Bradford, if the Rams do indeed keep him.
I mean, i could see Fisher not even playing Sam
until halfway through the season next year.

Lots of possibilities. Big decisions coming
for this franchise. Lots of unknowns.
Obviously, the QB-issue will be the story
of the offseason.

The team should be complete after the draft
and free agency next year — all the ‘other’ pieces
should be in place.

w
v

TackleDummy wrote:

Bradford is not guaranteed any money for next year. If the Rams cut Bradford there will be $3,595,000 charged against there 2015 cap but this is money that has already been paid by the Rams. None of the almost $13M in his contract for his 2015 salary would be due to him if he is cut.

So the contract he has for next year would be based on what his current value to the Rams would be. It will not be based on any past contract.

TD and I are seeing a lot of this the same way…and I like the way he breaks it down.

Here is some more TD on this, from off the net.

==

TackleDummy

Les Snead said on the Jeff Fisher Show this past week that Bradford and the Rams were in contract negotiations. He also gave Bradford some very high praise then he said that the Rams could not be sentimental about it. So the Rams are not waiting until after this season is over. I think that hearing from Snead directly and Fisher through Albert Breer is an indication they want him back and that talks are progressing to the point they both feel that they can release some tidbits. Both coming at almost the same time does not seem like a coincidence to me.

I think it is highly unlikely that Bradford would have a contract that had a fixed salary. It would be more likely something like 3-5M plus some major incentive figures that might well get him to the 13M in his current contract if he plays all season.

I would also suggest that it will not be a one year contract. I doubt the Rams would want to risk finding out that Bradford can really play only to lose him in free agency.

I would not look for too much in terms of any guarantees for Bradford for 2016 & 2017. But I could see such things as a large roster bonus at the beginning of a league year. This would force the Rams to decide early if they wish to keep him.

I would also see continued incentives for starts during both of those years. I think the Rams will protect themselves but Bradford will be protected if he performs.