Sam Bradford Could Earn $50 Million Based On His...Potential—Huh?

Sam Bradford was the No. 1 pick in the 2010 NFL Draft by the St. Louis Rams. He is now entitled to guaranteed monies in the neighborhood of $45+ million—more than Matthew Stafford received last season from the Detroit Lions as their No. 1 pick.

My first question is, why?

Bradford sustained an injury in the first game of the 2009 college football season and, basically, missed the year.  Yet, he's guaranteed to make $45+ million as a pro player?...Wow, that's a nice gig if you can get it.

First of all, I don't blame Sam Bradford for taking the money, but I can understand a proven veteran player who will feel upset as a result. Bradford may be full of potential but, as my mother always said, "potential means you ain't done squat, yet."

Bradford will be a rookie on a team that is in rebuild mode but commanding that kind of a price tag on your skills means that your learning curve just got shorter. No matter what state the Rams are in at this time, Bradford will be looked upon as the savior and, as such, will be expected to produce big results  within the next season or two.

Is that fair to Bradford? No, but it comes with the job and the money. Just ask Reggie Bush how hefty his burden was coming into New Orleans after the tragedy of Katrina. Or, better still (and a little less dramatic), ask Matthew Stafford what he's expected to do in season two with the Lions—they expect better than eight wins in 2010.

No excuses. 

However, if there were a more reasonable system in place for paying the unproven rookie, players like Sam Bradford, Matthew Stafford, JaMarcus Russell, and Mario Williams would be less savior than table-setter. Even more, the passion and the work-ethic to prove their worth would be greater—possibly translating into more-focused play on the field.  

For example, Sam Bradford's contract would likely look like this: 3-years, $8.5 million with around $4 million guaranteed—sounds like a bargain, right? Perhaps Bradford's agent wouldn't be nearly as happy with his cut, but in my opinion, it's high time the agents stopped becoming the focal point of the negotiation.

Let's get back to the dollars and sense of it all: if it doesn't make sense, don't spend the dollars. Period.

Some might say, well, what if Bradford comes in and blows people out of the water (leading the Rams to the playoffs in his first two years as a starter)? At that point, you have a situation where the Rams will be placed into a bidding war for his services—they could lose him to a team with deeper pockets.

Look at what happened in Cleveland with LeBron James!

That's a good point, but, you have to take into account your relationship with that player as well. If he sees the opportunity to continue with the franchise that drafted him as a positive thing (i.e. they are bringing in the right personnel and making the proper adjustments around him to help him maintain his success), then the likelihood of him bolting is minimal.

It's a calculated risk but it's a risk worth taking when you consider the sheer number of players selected in the Top 10 who don't pan out.

The downside of this is that as the picks get higher, the guys outside of the Top 15 will stand to make even less money than they do now. However, that also means that some early-entry players from the NCAA ranks could decide to stick around a little longer to increase their draft stock.

As a college football, fan, I see little wrong with that scenario. One more year of Knowshon Moreno and Matthew Stafford would have been nice for Georgia in 2009—just saying.

In the end, though, there is plenty to be discussed and lots to consider when making a change as big as this one would be. However, the fact remains, it's time for a NFL Rookie Wage scale to be put into place—pay needs to start reflecting play instead of potential.

Nuff' said.