Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wet blanket
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Zero
More good sense even if it's something the MM proponents hate to hear:
QUOTE
The Browns are one of the more dysfunctional organizations around, but Bradford could decide to take a similar stand with any club at the top of the draft. It doesn’t behoove him to sign a long-term contract with a bad team—perhaps even in Philadelphia right this moment—when he would be able to handpick his destination in 2016.

Essentially, Bradford actually has some leverage in the event the Kelly wanted to turn around and flip him for Mariota. Why would a team give up an early draft choice for a quarterback who expresses zero intention of staying?
Linc ...

This is also a sound argument for drafting a QB to develop.
JaxEagle
True. Not to mention that we can't be making him feel too wanted right now. What if he plays well for us this year and then doesn't resign with us? Then we are the ones that got screwed.
Birdwatcher
QUOTE (JaxEagle @ Apr 14 2015, 08:15 AM) *
True. Not to mention that we can't be making him feel too wanted right now. What if he plays well for us this year and then doesn't resign with us? Then we are the ones that got screwed.


Given how the first few years with a crappy team played out, if he has success with the Iggs he is likely motivated to stay. It would take a primo offer from a contender to walk away.
nephillymike
A few musings:

1. I wonder if Chip and Ed thought about this possibility when thinking about acquiring him. Knowing that CLE would offer the 19th pick,I wonder if they gave any thought to his signing an extension being a factor. Did they give any thought to him having leverage? Not a lot of confidence in their experience to have gone through the proper thought process.

2. He will be able to "hand pick" his destination? Please. He'll be able to hand pick among the Cleveland types of the league.

3. The assumption is that we wanted him more than Foles, given the 2nd we threw in the deal. However, if they didn't really want him and were just using him for trade bait, and only wanted him because he could get a 1st and Foles couldn't here's what we could do to reverse the tide:

A. Cut Bradford. This saves us $13M of cap and cash and gets our '16 2nd round pick back.
B. Trade a fifth round pick to get a decent backup for a QB competition with Sanchez.
C. Trade another pick and use the cash saved from Bradford to sign the guy we get in the trade at a position of need.
D. Bradford can now live happily ever after. He can find some other way to earn his $13M but he'll be safe in the security of knowing he can "hand pick" which team to sign with. What's the going rate for oft injured backup QB's he won't sign a long term deal?? I can tell you what the going rate is NOT. $13M and a 2nd round pick.

Someone needs to sit Sammy down and tell him how harsh realities can be for oft injured career 79 passer rating QB's , with below a 40% winning % who won't sign a long term deal.......

Where's Joe Banner when you need him to 'splain it to the players??
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 14 2015, 10:28 PM) *
A few musings:

I think your hatred for Bradford is blinding you. We're giving up our #2 next year, right? And you want to cut him? Would you want to play in Cleveland? When he essentially begs his college roommate to join him in Philly I get the sense that he'd like to stay here.
Eyrie
QUOTE (JaxEagle @ Apr 14 2015, 01:15 PM) *
True. Not to mention that we can't be making him feel too wanted right now. What if he plays well for us this year and then doesn't resign with us? Then we are the ones that got screwed.

I think the key to whether he feels wanted here is the offer (or lack of one) from the Eagles to renegotiate and extend him rather than media speculation.

But has anyone heard of any speculation that we have made him an offer? I realise that he could have turned it down, preferring to make $13m and be a FA next season.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 15 2015, 05:06 AM) *
I think your hatred for Bradford is blinding you. We're giving up our #2 next year, right? And you want to cut him? Would you want to play in Cleveland? When he essentially begs his college roommate to join him in Philly I get the sense that he'd like to stay here.



I know I've sounded harsh, and in the post for effect to say how he really doesn't hold all the cards, but I don't hate him.

I am growing a strong dislike for the situation.

If MM goes 1st or 2nd, it's all for naught.

But if he slips, past that and Bradford blocks a potential move up, yes I'd be pissed.

If he ends up in a QB battle with Sanchez and wins it fair and square, I can see him being a little better than Sanchez last year. I don't think we've improved our situation over a Foles/Sanchez competition, plus 12M plus a 2nd round pick. To justify that, he'd have to be Pro Bowl level..

I agree him recruiting Murray could get messy.
Zero
The $12 mil is this year only. If he gets a new contract I'd assume he would have earned it. If not, I fail to see what it hurt. They're using the cap this year and I'd be pissed if they cut his ass after giving up that 2016 second rounder.

I agree about him blocking a trade up but I couldn't blame him. There's a good argument that playing for a shit team with a shit OL got him the injury rep. If he gets traded to the top of the order it'll be to another shitty team that could end his career. Would you do that if it were you?
samaroo
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 16 2015, 10:04 AM) *
I agree about him blocking a trade up but I couldn't blame him. There's a good argument that playing for a shit team with a shit OL got him the injury rep. If he gets traded to the top of the order it'll be to another shitty team that could end his career. Would you do that if it were you?

I agree, even if I don't like it. But, unless he plays out of his mind awesome, like All-Pro level, there's no way he gets anywhere near the money he's getting now. Wouldn't it benefit him to sign a multi-year deal either way? If he sucks it up this year, he's gonna be begging one of those shitty teams to sign him, so it seems kind of win-win to re-up. Sure the $13M is big, but a longer-term "guaranteed" contract seems to make more financial sense, you know, long term.
Zero
QUOTE (samaroo @ Apr 15 2015, 09:27 PM) *
Sure the $13M is big, but a longer-term "guaranteed" contract seems to make more financial sense, you know, long term.

But with who. I think he's excited to be in Philadelphia in this offense with Murray.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 15 2015, 08:04 PM) *
The $12 mil is this year only. If he gets a new contract I'd assume he would have earned it. If not, I fail to see what it hurt. They're using the cap this year and I'd be pissed if they cut his ass after giving up that 2016 second rounder.

I agree about him blocking a trade up but I couldn't blame him. There's a good argument that playing for a shit team with a shit OL got him the injury rep. If he gets traded to the top of the order it'll be to another shitty team that could end his career. Would you do that if it were you?



If we cut him, we get the 2016 2nd rounder back.

Does that change your opinion any?

I wouldn't want to play for CLE, but realistically, they have a lot of talent and some good picks. It may be that they are top third in the league by 2016 season. And the money he could command will make it easier for him to make the move.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 16 2015, 06:11 AM) *
If we cut him, we get the 2016 2nd rounder back.

Does that change your opinion any?

I wouldn't want to play for CLE, but realistically, they have a lot of talent and some good picks. It may be that they are top third in the league by 2016 season. And the money he could command will make it easier for him to make the move.

If we cut him ... when? I thought the return of picks was due to injury.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 16 2015, 08:02 AM) *
If we cut him ... when? I thought the return of picks was due to injury.

I thought it was based on game played.
samaroo
The only thing I've found says it's games-played determined. I think it was assumed it was injury motivated, but I haven't found any verbage that says that. Maybe it's in the fine print of the contract somewhere, but we'll never see that. And it's been talked about a bunch, so I think it would've come out if that wasn't the case, especially with all the Bradford trade talk.
Zero
If that's true and they recover their second by trading Bradford, depending on what/who they get in return it would seem they got a pretty good deal from STL.
samaroo
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 17 2015, 09:35 AM) *
If that's true and they recover their second by trading Bradford, depending on what/who they get in return it would seem they got a pretty good deal from STL.

Exactly. If he's trade bait, it's a real good deal, assuming we make out on said trade. If it's for our QB going forward, barring a miraculous career turnaround, it seems a little overpriced.
BirdsWinBaby
Chip wont cut Bradford now. all coaches...every coach...retains plausible deniability when they screw up.

if they cut Bradford because they were too stupid to realize that they were not going to be able to trade him to the ONE TEAM that still wants him?

Chip will look like a fool. any college offers that he can run away to wont matter. He will look ridiculous

"And a man in his position can't afford to be made to look ridiculous. Now you get the hell out of here! And if that goomba tries any rough stuff, you tell him I ain't no bandleader."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.