Why the Browns Need to Stay Far Away from Sam Bradford

Last week, Bleacher Report's Jason Cole reported that the Cleveland Browns will pursue St. Louis Rams quarterback Sam Bradford to help alleviate the quarterback crisis that has yet again befallen the team in the wake of Brian Hoyer's impending free agency and the team's unease with the readiness of 2014 first-round draft pick Johnny Manziel.

This came in the wake of CBS Sports' Jason La Canfora reporting that the Rams have agreed to let Bradford explore other options, citing that he was not open to reducing his $13 million base salary and nearly $16 million salary-cap hit for 2015.

However, Rams head coach Jeff Fisher denied at the scouting combine that the Rams had allowed Bradford to seek a trade and in fact has plans for Bradford to be the Rams starting quarterback for the upcoming season.

The Buffalo News' Vic Carucci got confirmation of this from an NFL source, which noted that because of the thin free agency and draft quarterback class that the Rams are not comfortable moving on at this time. In addition, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport (via Chris Wesseling) said that as of Tuesday, no team had contacted the Rams about a possible Bradford trade.

For the sake of the Browns, Fisher had better been telling the truth, and Carucci and Rapoport had better be right in their reporting. Because the Browns have no reason to get into the Bradford business this year.

Joe Robbins/Getty Images

Yes, the Browns decision-makers have made it clear that they will leave no stone unturned in their quest to solve the team's longstanding quarterback issues. That will likely result in a free-agent acquisition and perhaps another draft pick toward the position. Pursuing a trade cannot be ruled out, if only because that is among the stones worth turning during this search.

But Bradford is not an ideal trade target. It's not just the salary issues—the Browns can certainly afford the entirety of Bradford's 2015 cap hit should they so choose, given they have nearly $50 million in salary-cap space for the season, according to Spotrac. However, given what Bradford has—and hasn't—shown on the football field, Bradford is just too expensive in ways that transcend the dollar amount.

In five years in the NFL, Bradford has completed a full, 16-game season just twice—in 2010 and in 2012. His 2011 season saw him miss six games with an ankle injury, while he missed half of 2013 with a torn ACL. He re-tore the same ACL in Week 3 of the preseason against the Browns, bringing his 2014 to a close.

Year	Games	Atts.	Comp.	Comp.%	Yds.	TD	INT	Y/A	Sack
2010	16	590	354	60.0%	3,512	18	15	6.0	34
2011	10	357	191	53.5%	2,164	6	6	6.1	36
2012	16	551	328	59.5%	3,702	21	13	6.7	35
2013	7	262	159	60.7%	1,687	14	4	6.4	15
2014	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	49	1,760	1,032	58.6%	11,065	59	38	6.3	120

When Bradford has played, it's been hard to tell if he truly warranted the 2010 first-overall pick, which cost the Rams $78 million over six years because Bradford was the last No. 1 pick of the NFL's old collective bargaining agreement. Through 49 games, he's completed only 58.6 percent of his passes, has thrown 59 touchdowns to 38 interceptions, has averaged just 6.3 yards per attempt and has been sacked 120 times.

Because Bradford was alternately stuck throwing behind a porous offensive line—he was sacked over 30 times in each of his first three seasons—and throwing to a weak receiving corps, it's hard to tell just what his ceiling is. Add in his three significant injuries, and Bradford is little more than a question mark. 

Given that the Browns have a question mark already on the roster in Manziel, and could possibly re-sign Hoyer, who bears a similar career completion percentage (56.5 percent) and has too suffered a torn ACL, then there's no reason to trade for an amalgam of these two players' risks. It wouldn't matter if Bradford's cap figure was half of what it's going to be in 2015.

It's not wrong of the Browns to do their due diligence and discuss, internally, the pros and cons of going after Bradford. However, should they conclude that making a move for him would be to the Browns' benefit, they would be wrong. The risks outweigh any potential rewards. For the Browns' sake, they would be better off with Bradford remaining in St. Louis, at least through the close of his rookie contract.