[Elvis]

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/06/25/nfl-sam-b ... a-eagles/#

The Curious Case of Sam Bradford’s Contract
The Eagles had a chance to leverage an extension when they traded for him, but didn’t. What does it mean for the future?

By
Andrew Brandt

No team was more active this offseason than the Eagles. Once he became armed with the power to reshape the roster fully in his image, Chip Kelly went to work with abandon, replacing most of his skill players and jettisoning some who didn’t fully “buy in” to the culture. Like him or not, Kelly is a refreshing change agent in a profession that sorely needed one. In his world, there is no time to dawdle. He talks fast, walks fast, coaches fast and now, having been in the role for less than six months, general-manages fast.

No trade contingency?

In the midst of this frenzied offseason, however, the Eagles’ inactivity relating to their biggest move is what I find most curious. It has been almost four months since the Eagles acquired Sam Bradford, their quarterback of the present and (presumably) the future. Considering the terms of the trade—the Eagles sent Nick Foles and a 2016 second-round pick to the Rams—it seemed natural that Philly wouldn’t just add a player who only has 16 games left on his contract. Yet Bradford’s contract status remains unchanged: one remaining season, at roughly $13 million.

Before shipping him to Philadelphia, the Rams had unsuccessfully tried to reduce Bradford’s salary in exchange for playing time and performance incentives to make up the difference. Bradford and his agent, Tom Condon, rejected those advances, forcing the Rams to 1) honor the existing $13 million, or 2) pursue an exit strategy. They obviously chose the latter.

As for a parallel contract extension, I am told there was some loose conversation between the two sides about “doing something” upon the trade transaction, but it was never a trade contingency. Since that time, limited talks between the Eagles and Bradford’s camp have produced little toward an extension.

The lack of an extension accompanying the trade has given Bradford some leverage going forward, assuming he stays healthy. While I have agreed with most of the moves made by the Eagles, an extension for Bradford could have been negotiated as a trade contingency. The Eagles could have given themselves leverage, but that opportunity was lost.

Let’s examine the pros and cons for each side about extending or not extending.

The Eagles

Why extend?

In recent years the Eagles have been as proactive as any team in extending the contracts of quarterbacks, albeit under different leadership. After trading Donovan McNabb in 2010, they added a contract year and approximately $10 million (much of it upfront) to presumed starter Kevin Kolb. The next year Michael Vick, who had replaced Kolb with great production, received a $100 million extension after receiving a Franchise Tag designation. Now, with significant trade compensation given up for Bradford, logic would suggest they want the same.

As noted already, the Eagles could have negotiated extension terms while using the leverage of the trade acquisition. Now, if Bradford stays healthy and thrives in Kelly’s system, he would present as the most rare commodity in free agency: a proven and successful quarterback who is still young enough to have years of production ahead of him. What the Eagles could have paid already would pale in comparison to what they would be forced to pay in the future, including a potential $20 million Franchise Tag next year.

Why not extend?

Although the moment has passed for the Eagles to acquire the object of Chip Kelly’s infatuation (Marcus Mariota), there’s still a lingering (albeit remote) chance that Bradford could still be moved. The lack of an extension for Bradford may indicate the Eagles have not completely closed the door on possible advances from teams such as the Browns.

Alternatively, the Eagles may simply want to see what happens with the injury-plagued Bradford, who is now benefiting from the Eagles’ unique sports science training division. It’s a risk, but perhaps one worth taking.

Bradford

Why extend?

Players usually want what every employee wants: a long-term commitment from their employer. Bradford has been a regular presence at the Eagles’ facility since being traded, working with the conditioning staff and training staff to continue rehabilitating his knee. He is projected to steer a high-flying offense in which predecessor Nick Foles produced a 14-4 record as a starter. Bradford will have a superior offensive line to what he had in St. Louis; he’ll have longtime pal DeMarco Murray as part of a strong running back rotation; and he’ll also have perhaps the most innovative offensive mind in football coaching him on what is expected to be a contending team. What’s not to like being in Philadelphia?

Further, there is the still the possibility of a trade, albeit remote. Kelly is also known to value backup Mark Sanchez, who was re-signed immediately after last season. While low, there is still some risk for Bradford in not securing a longer commitment from the Eagles.

Why not extend?

The upper echelon quarterback market is soon to have another uptick. After Cam Newton’s recent extension, more are on the horizon for Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson, Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and others. While many might argue that Bradford doesn’t present the same way as those quarterbacks, he could be the lone player in this group reaching free agency, and he could negotiate in a new and improved marketplace.

Thus, Bradford could make $13 million this season while setting himself up for a long-term contract from the Eagles or another team in 2016. There is risk, but there is potential for greater reward.

What will happen?

My sense is the Eagles want to secure Bradford at a similar or perhaps even lower rate than his scheduled $13 million, at least in the short term. They probably would have been able to leverage that deal as a trade contingency, but that opportunity has passed.

My best guess is that nothing happens contractually with Bradford, at least through the early part of the season, which puts him in prime negotiating position with either the Eagles or several other teams should he be set free into the marketplace in March (assuming, of course, if he stays healthy).

But as always with the Eagles, don’t blink—you could miss something.

[max]

I'm just glad Bradford isn't the Rams problem anymore. I'm tired of rolling the dice with the guy.

[moklerman]

I agree that the Rams had to move on but don't agree that I was tired of Bradford. I wanted them to build around Bradford and Spagnuolo and Fisher were the WORST possible coaches to do it.

Just goes down as a totally inept move by the team. Should have just drafted Suh.

[Hacksaw]

I agree that the Rams had to move on but don't agree that I was tired of Bradford. I wanted them to build around Bradford and Spagnuolo and Fisher were the WORST possible coaches to do it.

Just goes down as a totally inept move by the team. Should have just drafted Suh.

I 2nd that emotion.

[dieterbrock]

I think he was over drafted and both he and the Rams have had a bad rush of luck. They have drafted lineman, and signed many free agents. Just didn't work out.
As for his abilities, I think he was just missing that little something that would make him special. At some point you'd have like to have seen him throw the team on his back and carry them. Never did anything close to it.
There's no way to quantify this, but I think the stud QB of today would have been had they played for the Rams while Sam would have struggled in other environments.

[moklerman]

I think he was over drafted and both he and the Rams have had a bad rush of luck. They have drafted lineman, and signed many free agents. Just didn't work out.
As for his abilities, I think he was just missing that little something that would make him special. At some point you'd have like to have seen him throw the team on his back and carry them. Never did anything close to it.
There's no way to quantify this, but I think the stud QB of today would have been had they played for the Rams while Sam would have struggled in other environments.

Let's refrain from even broaching the mystical "it" factor or personality trait with Bradford. There's nothing to suggest he was incapable of doing something on the field. Conversely there is plenty to examine in terms of the Rams not putting him(any QB) in a position to consistently succeed.

Add Bradford's injuries into the mix and there were far too many moving parts to come to a consensus on what Bradford himself could or couldn't do.

[dieterbrock]

That's what you take out of my post? Wow.
All we have to work with as it pertains to Bradford are semantics. Because the results (wins/stats) don't present anything close to a franchise QB.
I was as big a supporter of the guy as any. But outside of his great preseason stats I kept finding myself "hoping" he'd take the next step each year. And it never happened. For the most part IMO he peaked in his rookie year

[moklerman]

Then I don't think you were watching very closely. Bradford should be commended for all the turmoil that he had to endure while still improving statistically. From 76.5 as a rookie to 90.9 in 2013. How many different coaches? How many different coordinators? How many different WR's, RB's, TE's, OL?

There were glimpses of Bradford shining through too. Maybe not often enough for some tastes but they were there. The 80 yard completion to Amendola in overtime was a huge play. A QB defining play IMO but it was called back. The last time we saw him on the field it was more of the same. A TD to Tavon called back. Another TD by Quick dropped in the end zone. A third straight 3-TD game(or more) reduced to a 1TD game on the stat sheet. If those plays count, maybe later in the game, the same play isn't called when Bradford is hurt.

[dieterbrock]

Glimpses is all we got from Bradford.
I've seen glimpses of greatness from Jason Campbell too but overall his career says what he is.
The best defense of Bradford essentially comes down to a 2 game stretch vs 2 of the worst teams in football. Ignoring the crap sandwich he put up against Dallas (a horrible d that year) and San Fran the week after cant be ignored.
When he showed a glimpse it was all Sam and when he sucked it was all the teams fault.
I'll never understand the love affair with Bradford, the level of impunity he gets with some.
I'm glad it's in the past, he's Phillys problem now. And by the post you originally made its pretty obvious they aren't old that sold on him either.
Sanchez still has a ton of support around here. I'm not predicting he'll win the job over Sam but I wouldn't be surprised if he did either.

[max]

One game sums up Bradford for me. It was the 2012 game in SF that ended in a tie.

In many respects he looked great, making some amazing throws. He was super accurate. And he wasn't the reason the Rams didn't win that game.

But there was something missing that kept him from being special. After he made that great throw to Amendola in OT that should have won the game, Bradford seemed to get down. He took a horrible sack from Aldon Smith that was the closest thing to Jim Everett's phantom sack against the Niners many years ago.

I think Bradford has amazing arm talent. And he's a smart high character guy. Those are his only positive attribute, though they are important ones.

Unfortunately, he has some prohibitively bad attributes. He's extremely fragile. And he's a linear athlete, who can't avoid people either in the pocket or outside the pocket. He doesn't inspire teammates to play like they know they are gonna win the game because they have #8 back there.

To me, Bradford is similar to Alex Smith but only much more injury prone. IMHO, getting Foles and a 2nd rounder for Bradford was a shockingly good trade for the Rams. Foles doesn't have Bradford's arm talent but he is at least as good or better everywhere else.