Until I see Bradford or his agent go on record as validating this assertion I will not believe it. Also, your quote..."and actually help our team for once in his freaking life" isn't helping sell your opinion. In fact, this is why I posted my somewhat sarcastic response. I wasn't trying to make an excuse for Bradford as much I was trying to point out how over the top your point was regarding Bradford.
Bradford's time with the Rams goes back to 2010, before Snisher. Between 2010 and 2013, the Rams drafted 5 D-lineman and 3 O-lineman. Of those 3 O-lineman, only Saffold has ever made it to the playing field. They paid some FA's to come to St Louis, but they have been mediocre at best. I also think what you say has been a benefit at receiver is debatable. Quick took a season or two to become effective and reliable. Bailey hardly gets on the field....who's fault is that? Britt was just acquired this past off season and hasn't even played a game yet with Bradford.
I will finish by saying that when Bradford has had reliable receivers, he throws the ball down field. He makes the money he does due to the old system ; not his fault, not the Rams fault. It's just business. If he is asked to restructure and declines, I will not hold it against him. He owes the Rams nothing and vice versa.
Oh, he may not owe the Rams anything, but Snisher and Demoff and Kroenke have defended him for
years. Oh, and out of those five defensive linemen? Sims, Quinn, and Brockers were three of them. Not to mention Donald. That team needed help
everywhere. The fact that they drafted one receiver in the top ten, signed a former first round pick with arguably the best talent/production we've had since Holt left, drafted Quick with the very first pick in the second round, double-dipped two years in a row with Bailey and Givens, signed Cook to a lucrative four-year deal, drafted Kendricks in the second round, drafted guys like Mason, Stacy, and Pead highly (even though they didn't work out), signed guys like Wells and Long to long-term contracts (even if they didn't work out, it at least showed effort on the front office's part). And you neglect to mention that they drafted a left tackle of the future with the number two overall pick in last year's draft.
It
isn't Bradford's fault that he makes money via the old system. It
is his fault that he has not restructured that contract to help with our cap, especially since he hasn't played a full season since 2012.
If he declines to restructure, then if we
do hold him to his original contract, we could easily lose key players like Brockers, three other starters on defense (Jenkins, Johnson, and Barron), one of our cogs on the defensive line (Hayes), a starting receiver (Quick), our number two running back (Cunningham), and a key special teams player and backup (Bates). And that's just talking about unrestricted free agency. We would likely have to cut players as well to keep Bradford on board with his current contract. If he declines to restructure, then I will happily trade him to a team in the AFC, against his wishes. After all,
it's only business.
wow.
relax man. go outside and take a few deep breaths of fresh air.
nobody knows what is true and what is false. if you're relying on the clowns from the media to peddle rumours for information best of luck to you. i'll wait until i see some real news. even then i won't get worked up like that.
.
If you see real news about Bradford refusing to restructure, why
wouldn't you be absolutely furious? He is sticking it to our team while holding us in a barrel with a shotgun over our heads. I find that incredibly insulting after everything this team has done to publicly support him.
To take and drastically alter a quote from Tyrion Lannister in GoT in the fourth season? I will
not go into this season with Bradford as my only option at quarterback, and I know that this team will not make the playoffs with an injured starting quarterback, so I will let the front office decide our fate. ...I demand a trade.
