Without a doubt, as clueless as it gets, (thread-wise).
Edit - not you Vinnie.
I'm sure they know what they're doing, afterall they are the superbowl champs. That must count for something. And if they don't, why would I care?
My point was, Joe Flacco has earned his contract by virtue of his play, and IMO Bradford has not.
Food for thought: You say SB hasn't earned his money but Flacco has. Flacco's play was fairly pedestrian on a team that has always been indisputably better on paper than Sam's Rams, getting so far & no further & with many critics/fans blaming Flacco for the same sins as Sam, then this year, The Ravens shuffled their O-line after a weak regular season showing & radically stabilized their pass pro. And then ...whoooosh.....turns out, maybe it wasn't all about Flacco being flaccid in the playoffs, after all....Of course it wasn't that simple,either; years of adding weapons & building depth, staying with the same system and a good defense all contributed.
But let's not dwell on the complexities of reality. In that spirit,I hope you're not going to be predictable & suggest Sam should simply void his remaining money. I want something fun like a "lack of fiery leadership" tax, a "just cuz he isn't.....(fill in the blank; RGIII, Cam, whoever) tax or dollar amounts per INT, loss,games missed due to injury,sacks & hits taken, key players injured while playing with him or otherwise turning out to be useless most of the time,etc . Those are always the QB's fault, easy to define, & therefore should be easy to calculate & an utterly sensible approach to the situation, I'm sure you'll agree.
PS: the irony of this may well be that The Rams FO hasn't even hinted that the only viable restructure they might be able to do do with SB at this point is even a possibility because they,too, are waiting to see if he breaks out this coming year now that a quite a few of the obstacles most of us argue have limited SB's impact on overall Ram success are at least theoretically being addressed. You'd only create a huge bulge for the last two years of the deal if you were certain that you were going to extend.I think their support of SB is genuine but not unconditional. Heck, the guy has to play 45% of the snaps,iirc, in any given remaining year to get his full salary But even a salary-2-pro-ratable bonus for one year relief may not be possible; iirc, the new CBA limits the amount of bonus money that a team can have on their cap-hit every year. I think that's why they converted that bonus last year but I haven't confirmed this, to be fair.
I, too, don't have a problem with someone making a lot of money, but there comes a point when the greed and gluttony involved with a contract becomes distasteful. Alex Rodriguez in baseball is a perfect example of the lunacy of exorbitant contracts. Guy signed a ten year deal, played very well for about 7 of them, got busted for PED use, sucked last year, got hurt and won't play this year until at least July. The Yanks are on the hook for EVERY DIME over the next 3 years because it's guaranteed money in baseball. In football, it simply hamstrings you each season.
It's rare that both ends of the QB credit/blame dichotomy converge in the same thread. But here we have it. The QB gets too much credit when the team wins, and too much blame when the team loses.
Ok, so to start, I looked up the CBA, even if Bradford's contract is under the CBA, he was eligible to re-negotiate after the end of the season, not start of new league year.
Also, when you hear about these deals of players restructuring their contract to make them more cap friendly, look at the key word. Restructuring. This is not the same word as pay cut. This means paying the money in different ways at different times to manipulate the cap hit, not taking less money. Often times it involved extending the contract so that certain cap hits are spread over multiple years, while leaving it so the team can cut the player after a few years without significant cap implications. Sometimes they will leave in a "poison pill" which ensures the team will cut the player or face a significant cap hit at some point.
Usually the only time you see a player take less is when it's clear he's going to be cut if he doesn't accept less pay, not just because.
I can't look at this thread title without thinking of the movie, "Waiting to Exhale."
And that's about as serious as I can get about this thread.
But by virtue of being named Superbowl MVP after leading his team to the playoffs in every season he's been in the league, all those sins you name, and the fairly pedestrian numbers Joe Flacco has put up, have been forgiven.
Though I wouldn't make light of those seemingly pedestrian numbers, as they put him in position to set post-season records that no other QB in league history have been able to achieve.
No, I don't believe he's the best QB in football, probably not even top 5, but I certainly understand the Ravens point of view.
And if Sam were to somehow duplicate Flacco's feat before his contract runs out, all of his sins and pedestrian play would be forgiven too.
OK Nick, now you can exhale.
NFL = Entertainment
Sam Bradford = Entertainer
Price of Admission to NFL game = Extremely Overpriced!
Bradford Entertainment Value to Price of Admission = Not Friendly to the Fan's Wallet!
The Good Economic News:
Directv's Sunday Ticket will lower your entertainment costs and give you the best seat in your house to watch a bunch of overpaid, non productive bums, play a game.
I'm thinking Bradford restructures just as soon as he marries the next super model with a quarter billion dollar bank account.;)