Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

If Rams are right, the money makes sense

Posted on: July 31, 2010 12:08 am
Edited on: July 31, 2010 12:10 am
 

I hate the fact that rookies make way too much money in the NFL.

But this Sam Bradford contract with the St. Louis Rams, which included $50 million in guaranteed money, will be a bargain in three years.

That's the way it works. If you draft a player first overall, especially a quarterback, the money should end up being a bargain if you drafted the right guy.

So don't blame the kid if he busts out and this turns out to be way too much money.

Blame the team.

Is this worse than the Jacksonville Jaguars giving David Garrard $60 million after one good season? Or the Browns giving Derek Anderson a big contract after one season?

This isn't a rush job. This is paying a player you think will be the franchise quarterback.

In three years, if Bradford is who the Rams think he will be this will be a bargain.

Did Matt Ryan get too much money a couple of years ago when he was the second overall pick by the Falcons?

Right now, he's a bargain.

Pick the right guy, and the money won't matter. Pick the wrong guy, and it could ruin the franchise for a long time, the player laughing all the way to the bank.

Right, JaMarcus Russell?

Is Bradford worth more than Drew Brees right now? No, but in three years he might be.

Then again, what was Brees worth three years ago? Certainly not what he is now.

So don't hate the player. And don't get caught up in the money.

If the team did the right thing, the $50 million in guaranteed money the Rams gave to Bradford will seem like a deal.

Category: NFL
Tags: Sam Bradford
 
Comments

Since: Apr 4, 2008
Posted on: July 31, 2010 1:40 pm
 

If Rams are right, the money makes sense

Your analysis does not have history on its side, I am afraid, or at least it certainly ignores the facts. If he is a top five or top ten quarterback in three years, then he certainly would be worth the total 78 million dollar contract. If not, then he would be moved or dropped or have his contract changed to reflect where he really stands in quarterback rankings.

In addition, you are completely missing the main point of the article, which is that if he doesn't end up being worthy of the $50 million guaranteed part of the contract, it would not be his fault as much as the team's fault.







Since: Jul 31, 2010
Posted on: July 31, 2010 1:19 pm
 

If Rams are right, the money makes sense

As a die hard Rams fan, I love it when there's an article about my team because once the season starts the only discussion will be when they are on the clock with the 1st pick in 2011.

I agree with everyone's points. First the writer, your doing your job when everyone comments about your story good or bad.

The system is broken, and it's a double edge sword for the vets. As a whole the vets are getting too little because all of the money is going to the rookies, but when the good vets want a new contract the top ones at their position are paid based upon the market value and these rookie contracts help to increase that market value for their new contracts. So in one instance, they need to happy that salaries are being pushed up the drafted players.

You can't blame the player, they are asking for what has been established. I'm sure if anyone else was in their same position they would take the max dollar themselves. Who takes a job for less money in the real world when you know you could be making more? These rookies are no different, their like us except they play football.

Finally, back to my first point about being a Rams fan. I hope Bradford is the guy, and even if he is we will still be picking at the top next year as we are terrible. My team will have no one to blame but themselves for their actions, but the amount of money the team will have paid to it's previous three top drafted players- Bradford # 1 overall in 2010, Jason Smith # 2 overall pick in 2009 and Chris Long # 2 overall in 2008 will strap them financially and tie their hands on getting any good free agents (like anyone wants to go St. Louis anyways right now) so they have no choice but make the right picks as they will never get out of this cycle due to the guaranteed money they are being given by this system.



Since: Aug 22, 2006
Posted on: July 31, 2010 1:06 pm
 

50 mill guaranteed seems like a deal

+ 20 mill yeh...wow...if that does not highlight the point, I do not know what does...



Since: Mar 20, 2008
Posted on: July 31, 2010 12:22 pm
 

If Rams are right, the money makes sense

Um, I think they play in St. Loius now brother. haha
Otherwise, I totally agree.



Since: Aug 8, 2008
Posted on: July 31, 2010 12:22 pm
 

If Rams are right, the money makes sense

I will never understand why fans care how much money a rookie is being paid.  The owners split up a $3 BILLION dollar TV deal every year before selling tickets, luxury boxes, collectibles, merchandise, parking and their piece of concessions.  The owners are making money hand over fist, with literally a license to print more, and we care that this kid is getting $50 million bucks?  Why?  I'm happy for him and all the players who are drafted.  It's a one in a million chance of being drafted at all, and to get a job like this that pays such big money is incredible.  The physical risk they endure every time they step on the field easily justifies these contracts.  Don't ever feel sorry for the owners; this contract is a drop in the bucket compared to what the Rams will make this season alone. 



Since: Sep 10, 2009
Posted on: July 31, 2010 11:53 am
 

If Rams are right, the money makes sense

It never ceases to amaze me how teams are willing to shell out so much money on a player that hasn't even stepped foot on a NFL field. If LA gets burned for this rediculous contract, then they deserve every bit of it. Players in general and I don't care what your name is or what you did during your University of ???? should never get huge deals like this. There should be a minimum set and that's what they get paid until they prove themselves worthy of a big contract. Teams are just screwing themselves by paying that much out on unproven talent.



Since: Oct 11, 2006
Posted on: July 31, 2010 10:59 am
 

If Rams are right, the money makes sense

i hope that next year a rookie cap is made. Listen, i like Sam Bradford, he's a GREAT man and a great kid, perfect for a team to build around because he's not going to be like Leaf was or Russell, BUT how he will play is another question and that wont be answered for a while. The issue is though, the money these guys get is crazy. More than Brees, not fair to him. The fact that Russell is now a happily paid man is everyone's first piece of evidence to getting a rookie pay scale. I have already said if a rule for paying rookies does happen, it should be called with honor, the JaMarcus Russell rule.



Since: Apr 23, 2010
Posted on: July 31, 2010 10:35 am
 

If Rams are right, the money makes sense

ncva25~

When you say LB aren't drafted in the first round I assume you mean 4-3 scheme LBs. 3-4 LB are drafted every year in the 1st round, they just get labeled as DE sometimes in the draft...

As for the teams at the bottom 1/4 of the draft (24-32), have you noticed that it is the same teams year in and year out? Is it me or is it the same teams picking 1-10 every year for the last 6-7 years? Its easy to say the Raiders can't draft a paper bag, but there are alot of teams that have messed up in the draft for this entire last decade!

I blaim the media and fan bases of these teams in part. They put alot of pressure on weak GMs to draft guys they know better than to take that high. But its that same weak GM that pays that guy an insane amount of money and wonder what went wrong 3 years later...



Since: Mar 14, 2010
Posted on: July 31, 2010 9:22 am
 

If Rams are right, the money makes sense

Spending "too much money" on a quality draft pick is still a much better move in most cases than the same situation with a free agent. Look what P. Manning has done for Indy, and then look at what Haynesworth has done for Washington. I know there are exceptions. I know there are some holes in the argument. But look at the positives.

Drafting a Quarterback with picks 1-10 buys your coaching staff time. St Louis did this. Bradford wasn't the best raw talent in the draft. It was probably Suh or one of the Tackles. But if St. Louis goes 2-14 next year people aren't going to call for the coaches head- b/c the Quarterback is "developing in the NFL." I'm not sure if that arguement is true, but many people perceive it to be true. If you go 2-14 with N. Suh, your staff will probably get fired. Having coaching continuity and patience with an NFL fanbase is a rare item.

Certain positions are hard to come by- QB's, DE's and OL's are valued much more than LB's and WR's in the minds of NFL General Managers. DE's and OL either pressure or protect the quarterback- which is huge in a passing league. LB's and WR's are easily replaceable in free agency. Who drafts LB's in the first round? Oh right, the raiders. I even like the raiders a bit, but they make plenty of stupid draft moves.

It's hard (not impossible) to find a quality RB in free agency- Teams let RB's walk when they feel the wheels have fallen off the wagon. Look at Emmit Smith. If you want an elite RB, you have to draft them- and you might have to draft them high.

Last but not least- Teams don't trade up for these picks. A team at the 24th pick doesn't want a second mortgage just so they can pick 4th that year. The teams at the top are stuck there, so they need to make the best of it until the league decides to change things.



Since: Oct 6, 2006
Posted on: July 31, 2010 9:05 am
 

If Rams are right, the money makes sense

Yet another stupid article by Prisco...

I honestly don't know why I bother to read his articles anymore. Maybe it's just to see how many brain cells I will lose. Fact is, top draft picks get paid way more than many players that have actually played in the NFL for years and are more deserving of the money. The problem is, many teams with the top pick are FORCED to draft the top rated QB because anything else would be seen as a bad investment because of the money involved. Very few positions are valued at or near the amount that the top pick gets - QB, RB, DE are the prime positions, maybe OT. So don't tell me that a team has to "pick right". Teams have a choice whether they went to sign a free agent for ridiculous money or not, and not to mention, free agents ACTUALLY HAVE PLAYED IN THE NFL. With top draft picks, there is no choice. Why else do you think it's nearly impossible for teams to trade out of the top 3? It's not because they're valued. It's because everyone knows it's too big of a risk for too little of a reward.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com