Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Bradford Myth
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Phits
Based on his 2015 play, Sam Bradford is an average QB. He is not the saviour for the Eagles. He has a lot to prove that he is a franchise QB. All of this talk abut 'having to keep' Bradford is mainly due to the fact that we don't have another QB on the roster that is of starter quality.

I'd like to keep him, and see whether Chip's offense was holding back him back. However, in the 3 seasons Chip was HC there was a improvement in play from our QB's. Seeing what Foles was able to do in 2013 doesn't offer (me) much confidence in Bradford being our starter for the next 5-10 years. Hell, Sanchez looked like a serviceable option last season.

I wouldn't break the bank to bring Bradford back over the long term. I would advise our next HC to keep searching for a QB to hitch his wagon to. We should franchise him for next season, so that he can demonstrate whether he is a player or not.
Joegrane
That's something like $22 mil right?!

Did you read my post on the Eagles' salary cap limitations?
http://www.wingheads.com/index.php?showtop...rt=#entry281501

QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 4 2016, 05:47 PM) *
.... We should franchise him for next season, so that he can demonstrate whether he is a player or not.

samaroo
I think franchising a player should only ever be done in dire circumstances. It's a weak move, and one that will likely not bring solidarity to the team. Having disgruntled teammates is never a good thing. Having the team leader be disgruntled can be devastating.
Phits
QUOTE (samaroo @ Jan 4 2016, 06:32 PM) *
I think franchising a player should only ever be done in dire circumstances. It's a weak move, and one that will likely not bring solidarity to the team. Having disgruntled teammates is never a good thing. Having the team leader be disgruntled can be devastating.

I think that the absence of a starting QB on the roster would count as dire.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 4 2016, 05:47 PM) *
Based on his 2015 play, Sam Bradford is an average QB. He is not the saviour for the Eagles. He has a lot to prove that he is a franchise QB. All of this talk abut 'having to keep' Bradford is mainly due to the fact that we don't have another QB on the roster that is of starter quality.

I'd like to keep him, and see whether Chip's offense was holding back him back. However, in the 3 seasons Chip was HC there was a improvement in play from our QB's. Seeing what Foles was able to do in 2013 doesn't offer (me) much confidence in Bradford being our starter for the next 5-10 years. Hell, Sanchez looked like a serviceable option last season.

I wouldn't break the bank to bring Bradford back over the long term. I would advise our next HC to keep searching for a QB to hitch his wagon to. We should franchise him for next season, so that he can demonstrate whether he is a player or not.


you either let him go or sign him long term.....franchising does even more damage to your cap next year and would be the most foolish way to go.....yo eat up valuable cap space that can be freed up with a long term deal and handicap yourself from signing good FA linemen or your own players that you hope to keep....

and all the talk is coming from outside Philadelphia and it is saying he is the best QB prospect out there right now...his play over the last 6 weeks on a team that led the league in drops was very impressive......
Phits
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 4 2016, 06:45 PM) *
you either let him go or sign him long term.....franchising does even more damage to your cap next year and would be the most foolish way to go.....yo eat up valuable cap space that can be freed up with a long term deal and handicap yourself from signing good FA linemen or your own players that you hope to keep....

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you. However, with a new coaching staff we may need a stop gap, If his pedigree is as high as his draft position suggested, we could then sign him long term. If he has a great season and the offense is clicking it would help with discussions.....and at that point you can 'break the bank'.

QUOTE
and all the talk is coming from outside Philadelphia and it is saying he is the best QB prospect out there right now...his play over the last 6 weeks on a team that led the league in drops was very impressive......

I understand that he performed admirably post injury, but how much of that is a result of the Chip Kelly ....like Vick/Foles/Sanchez before him? We would need next season to tell. As mentioned previously, J. Matthews almost had a 1000 yard season and he certainly didn't look good for most of the season. We can call that the "Kelly Effect". Remember Foles, Maclin, DJax, McCoy all had career years while playing for CK.
BirdsWinBaby
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 4 2016, 08:06 PM) *
However, with a new coaching staff we may need a stop gap,



why do you think Bradford doesnt know this and refuse to sign 1-year deal to 'help out?'

the Eagles NEED a QB...Bradford does not NEED to play another year with no security. how does that land on the Eagles side of leverage? making Bradford sign a deal that doesnt give him the security he played all year for?

he knows he might go down forevermore with an injury at any time....you think he will risk 16 MORE games? why? $20-25m/1-year/done is the short game. Bradford has been playing the long game all season

the eagles' need means the Bradford's iron is hot for striking right now...not after another season
nephillymike
So am watching the last two games closely, and despite missing three TD passes, Bradford is playing pretty well.

The WR's are doing their best "We suck worst than any WR corps ever" impersonation, and Bradford with a few big exceptions, is very accurate, has command of the offense, calls a few audibles, leads us to a nice win in NYC yesterday, just like Sanchez did last year, but with a better game, and I'm thinking, well maybe??

Then I hear all of the players and Shurmur say how good of a teammate he is, and all of the pundits are saying how we need to sign him and it is pretty much a Bradford love fest.

His presser was great, seems like a real good guy.

I'm wavering a little, could it be? Should we do it? Because for me, I think this offense can be real special, but who knows.

Then near the end of the post game show, they're talking about giving him a deal or franchising him etc, all singing from the same hymnal and then............

R. Diddy says, in typical kill joy fashion something like "We'll you know, if we do sign him long term, or do franchise him, we'd be signing the 25th rated passer to be our star QB for the foreseeable future.

No need to scream "REALITY CHECK", like he did to the Gov a few years ago, but the effect was the same. sad.gif




Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 4 2016, 08:42 PM) *
So am watching the last two games closely, and despite missing three TD passes, Bradford is playing pretty well.

The WR's are doing their best "We suck worst than any WR corps ever" impersonation, and Bradford with a few big exceptions, is very accurate, has command of the offense, calls a few audibles, leads us to a nice win in NYC yesterday, just like Sanchez did last year, but with a better game, and I'm thinking, well maybe??

Then I hear all of the players and Shurmur say how good of a teammate he is, and all of the pundits are saying how we need to sign him and it is pretty much a Bradford love fest.

His presser was great, seems like a real good guy.

I'm wavering a little, could it be? Should we do it? Because for me, I think this offense can be real special, but who knows.

Then near the end of the post game show, they're talking about giving him a deal or franchising him etc, all singing from the same hymnal and then............

R. Diddy says, in typical kill joy fashion something like "We'll you know, if we do sign him long term, or do franchise him, we'd be signing the 25th rated passer to be our star QB for the foreseeable future.

No need to scream "REALITY CHECK", like he did to the Gov a few years ago, but the effect was the same. sad.gif



and someone should have asked Ray just how long he expected Bradford would need to get his feet back under him this year.....and how Ray thought he would do coming off a 2 year hiatus on a twice blown knee and how long it would take him to get his confidence on that knee back...maybe ask Ray how long it took him to get over his knee injuries...oh wait....

That is one thing that Diddy drove me nuts with....when looking at Bradford he has never acknowledged that into his equation
mcnabbulous
Assuming you believe Sam is physically capable of winning the whole thing, there is little reason to not believe he can improve enough as a QB to be a worthwhile signing.

QBs are playing well until later in their careers. Sometimes playing their best ever well into their 30's.

At this point, I'm pretty torn on Sam. I think he might be capable from a pure throwing perspective. I believe multiple years in the same system could result in very good things.

The one thing I can't get past is just how frail he looks. He was tough this year, so it's nothing more than an ascetic thing, but for some reason it just doesn't pass the eyeball test.
Phits
QUOTE (BirdsWinBaby @ Jan 4 2016, 08:04 PM) *
why do you think Bradford doesnt know this and refuse to sign 1-year deal to 'help out?'

the Eagles NEED a QB...Bradford does not NEED to play another year with no security. how does that land on the Eagles side of leverage? making Bradford sign a deal that doesnt give him the security he played all year for?

he knows he might go down forevermore with an injury at any time....you think he will risk 16 MORE games? why? $20-25m/1-year/done is the short game. Bradford has been playing the long game all season

the eagles' need means the Bradford's iron is hot for striking right now...not after another season

We don't know what the Eagles are actually capable of and whether Bradford is a product of the Chip Effect. I am sure St Louis wishes they hadn't signed Foles to the co tract that they did....but they did it based on the Chip Effect.

Bradford is free to sign anywhere he would like (next season)....unless he gets tagged.

The same risk he will be taking is the same risk that any team will be taking on him. his injuries cause him to be a risk. Remember he didn't play all 16 games this season.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jan 4 2016, 08:50 PM) *
Assuming you believe Sam is physically capable of winning the whole thing, there is little reason to not believe he can improve enough as a QB to be a worthwhile signing.

For how much?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 4 2016, 07:59 PM) *
For how much?

I suppose the Flacco range.
BirdsWinBaby
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 4 2016, 09:56 PM) *
The same risk he will be taking is the same risk that any team will be taking on him. his injuries cause him to be a risk. Remember he didn't play all 16 games this season.


the risk isnt the same.....if he takes that 'franchise tag' risk with the Eagles he has no contract, may not get big money and may be done for his career...for the tag amount

if he takes that risk with another team, its under a contract...he goes down and he has guaranteed money for whatever he was able to squeeze that team for. and it will be for a hell of a lot more than what the franchise tag was going to be for him for the eagles

and consider this...

he signs the franchise tag offer, he gets hurt and he is looking for a job

he signs a contract for several years...that team is committed to him for more than just the one year. he has a job (whether they like it or not) he will come back and hopefully play again and even if they are wary, it wont matter...he is their guy so he gets to play as the starter
samaroo
Using the franchise tag is a weak move. Period. If we're in a "dire" situation, sign the man. This is an owner's league. The team has the upper hand in all the contracts. How many times have you seen a player get cut/released before his contract is up? Happens all the time. You pay that man because we don't have our QB yet. You pay that man because he finished the season looking like he might be.

You pay that man because we don't have the luxury of not paying him.

This place is so fickle. You're worried we might overpay? For a QB? The one thing we know we need to win it all? If he wants $25M for 5 years and we say no, and he plays lights out somewhere else, you all will be the first ones grabbing pitchforks that we didn't keep him here. How many people here are pissed that we didn't sign Maclin, no matter what? This place is crazy sometimes.
Reality Fan
Here is a decent look at the Bradford situation:

http://www.csnphilly.com/blog/700-level/go...de-sam-bradford
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jan 4 2016, 08:50 PM) *
The one thing I can't get past is just how frail he looks. He was tough this year, so it's nothing more than an ascetic thing, but for some reason it just doesn't pass the eyeball test.


Don't forget.....he has not had an offseason to train for the last 2 years......he can bulk up his legs before next season....

He should be even better next year.....certainly more mobile
xsv
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 4 2016, 05:47 PM) *
Based on his 2015 play, Sam Bradford is an average QB. He is not the saviour for the Eagles. He has a lot to prove that he is a franchise QB. All of this talk abut 'having to keep' Bradford is mainly due to the fact that we don't have another QB on the roster that is of starter quality.

I'd like to keep him, and see whether Chip's offense was holding back him back. However, in the 3 seasons Chip was HC there was a improvement in play from our QB's. Seeing what Foles was able to do in 2013 doesn't offer (me) much confidence in Bradford being our starter for the next 5-10 years. Hell, Sanchez looked like a serviceable option last season.

I wouldn't break the bank to bring Bradford back over the long term. I would advise our next HC to keep searching for a QB to hitch his wagon to. We should franchise him for next season, so that he can demonstrate whether he is a player or not.


After a dreadful start, Bradford finished the season the 12th best rated QB in the NFL by PFF. Over the last 6 games, he's 7th. That's well above average, and is approaching elite territory.

No one on this board complained more about Bradford than me early on, but he's proven he can be a franchise QB. I'm still worried about his durability, but if you had said he'd be a top 12 QB or better in this league before the season started, everyone in here would have been ecstatic.

Sign him long term. It's likely going to be awhile before we someone else this good.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 5 2016, 01:49 AM) *
Don't forget.....he has not had an offseason to train for the last 2 years......he can bulk up his legs before next season....

I definitely considered this. Hopefully you're right. I can't remember thinking this when he was in college. I admittedly didn't watch much of him in St. Louis to recall if that was the case there.

QUOTE
He should be even better next year.....certainly more mobile

I would have to think so too. It's a shame for him that he'll likely be playing in a new system.
Rick
QUOTE (xsv @ Jan 5 2016, 07:51 AM) *
After a dreadful start, Bradford finished the season the 12th best rated QB in the NFL by PFF. Over the last 6 games, he's 7th. That's well above average, and is approaching elite territory.

No one on this board complained more about Bradford than me early on, but he's proven he can be a franchise QB. I'm still worried about his durability, but if you had said he'd be a top 12 QB or better in this league before the season started, everyone in here would have been ecstatic.

Sign him long term. It's likely going to be awhile before we someone else this good.

I agree but I think the reason so many of us are so gun shy are because of a guy named Nick Foles.

Although, the more I read/see, the more I think they need to pursue Bradford. But, again, who knows if he wants to stay in Philly? It may not matter whether they're willing to pay him or not, he may want to go somewhere else.
Joegrane
I hear you but Nick in 2013 had a very good O Line that was generally healthy and he had some weapons that complimented each other. For example DJax could take two defenders deep down the side line and open up "center field" for Coop to do the only thing he is good at in the passing game--catch Foles' fly balls against single coverage.

QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 5 2016, 10:27 AM) *
I agree but I think the reason so many of us are so gun shy are because of a guy named Nick Foles....

Rick
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jan 5 2016, 04:57 PM) *
I hear you but Nick in 2013 had a very good O Line that was generally healthy and he had some weapons that complimented each other. For example DJax could take two defenders deep down the side line and open up "center field" for Coop to do the only thing he is good at in the passing game--catch Foles' fly balls against single coverage.

I'm with you, all I'm saying is, Foles was certainly not as good as that incredible season but I also didn't think he was as bad as he played before he was traded (within this system anyway).

Question is, again, whether Bradford wants to stay--we don't really know--that will surely depend on whom they hire as HC among other things.
samaroo
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 6 2016, 12:27 AM) *
I agree but I think the reason so many of us are so gun shy are because of a guy named Nick Foles.

Although, the more I read/see, the more I think they need to pursue Bradford. But, again, who knows if he wants to stay in Philly? It may not matter whether they're willing to pay him or not, he may want to go somewhere else.

That 27-2 season was great, but I was apprehensive about it. I remember seeing a lot of severely underthrown balls bounce off of DBs hands for touchdowns. The kind of luck he had that season is not sustainable. Which was later proven.

We need to sign Bradford. X had a good point, we're not going to find anyone better, and if we (hopefully) draft a QB, whoever he is will need time to become the man, if he can/will.

Also, RF, good link. I pretty much agree with that article whole-heartedly. Bradford is a key piece to limiting our rebuilding time, in my opinion. I'm expecting a bigger turnover of personnel this year than most of us will like, and adding (another) new QB to the equation could be dramatically bad.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (samaroo @ Jan 5 2016, 08:46 PM) *
That 27-2 season was great, but I was apprehensive about it. I remember seeing a lot of severely underthrown balls bounce off of DBs hands for touchdowns. The kind of luck he had that season is not sustainable. Which was later proven.


I have been avoiding mentioning this very thing with Foles.....I had never seen a QB get as lucky as he did that year....so many balls were it was either tipped to our WR...the DB fell down....the WR made a amazing catch....so many lucky balls...I kept wondering when it would end....lol

samaroo
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 6 2016, 11:34 AM) *
I have been avoiding mentioning this very thing with Foles.....I had never seen a QB get as lucky as he did that year....so many balls were it was either tipped to our WR...the DB fell down....the WR made a amazing catch....so many lucky balls...I kept wondering when it would end....lol

There's 2 things I remember most when thinking of that year. How awesome it was to watch, and how nervous I was the entire time. Lady Luck was definitely wearing green that year.
nephillymike
QUOTE (samaroo @ Jan 4 2016, 10:32 PM) *
Using the franchise tag is a weak move. Period. If we're in a "dire" situation, sign the man. This is an owner's league. The team has the upper hand in all the contracts. How many times have you seen a player get cut/released before his contract is up? Happens all the time. You pay that man because we don't have our QB yet. You pay that man because he finished the season looking like he might be.

You pay that man because we don't have the luxury of not paying him.

This place is so fickle. You're worried we might overpay? For a QB? The one thing we know we need to win it all? If he wants $25M for 5 years and we say no, and he plays lights out somewhere else, you all will be the first ones grabbing pitchforks that we didn't keep him here. How many people here are pissed that we didn't sign Maclin, no matter what? This place is crazy sometimes.


I don't see it as fickle for some to want to sign Maclin and not want to sign Bradford, if you believe one was worth it and the other wasn't. I don't remember how long you've been around, but over the years, there is nobody who harped on the team to spend their money more than me.

I thought it was foolish not to resign Maclin. I would say maybe 20% felt that way, the he's asking for way too much crowd was definitely the majority. Just as I thought our remaining WR options were limited at best, I thought to US, he was worth more than to others. His avg$/year deal is 10th, his yds/game is 20th, and his avg/rec is 15th, and he dropped only 1.6% of his passes, 2, the entire year. So some could say he was slightly overpriced, getting paid top 10 while performing 15h-20th level. He made 2.7M over the 17th guy. However, when you look at the impact he would have had on this year's team, the improvement in our squad would have valued him higher than that. Also, you need to take into consideration that over the life of his deal, the avg/yr will drop as new deals for WR are made and the 10th highest will likely be 20-25 avg for the length of the deal.

The question with Bradford is, is the money and performance worth that much over what we could otherwise get from other QB's.

Aside from all my opining, I am close to being on the fence on him signing here long term. Credit to him that he made a ridiculously easy decision a few months ago to a very tough one today.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 6 2016, 10:29 PM) *
The question with Bradford is, is the money and performance worth that much over what we could otherwise get from other QB's.

I think the base question is if the Eagles decide they're in a "win now" mode or "start over."
Rick
QUOTE (Zero @ Jan 7 2016, 06:21 AM) *
I think the base question is if the Eagles decide they're in a "win now" mode or "start over."

It's more than that. What, exactly, are their options? There are no good QBs available in FA. They could possibly trade for Kapernick--something I was hoping for before Kelly was fired but now, have to wait and see what kind of offense the new HC brings in. They could draft someone (but who is available?). Or they could just take it on the chin next season and hope for the best in either FA, trade or draft the following season.

None of these are very good solutions.

The more I look into it/think about it, the more I think they must pursue Bradford. He has shown he can be competent as QB and possibly better. But, again, the thing I keep asking--that nobody has answered--not even Bradford--is whether he even wants to come back to the Eagles. If he doesn't want to come back, well, looks like a pretty bad season next season for sure. I have absolutely no faith in Sanchez being able to play and NOT turn the ball over. He's not shown he can play for more than a quarter or two without throwing interceptions.
Zero
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 7 2016, 06:30 AM) *
It's more than that. What, exactly, are their options? There are no good QBs available in FA. They could possibly trade for Kapernick--something I was hoping for before Kelly was fired but now, have to wait and see what kind of offense the new HC brings in. They could draft someone (but who is available?). Or they could just take it on the chin next season and hope for the best in either FA, trade or draft the following season.

None of these are very good solutions.

The more I look into it/think about it, the more I think they must pursue Bradford. He has shown he can be competent as QB and possibly better. But, again, the thing I keep asking--that nobody has answered--not even Bradford--is whether he even wants to come back to the Eagles. If he doesn't want to come back, well, looks like a pretty bad season next season for sure. I have absolutely no faith in Sanchez being able to play and NOT turn the ball over. He's not shown he can play for more than a quarter or two without throwing interceptions.

The team is not void of talent, but there's more than a few key players who are getting long in the tooth. For me, the question is if there are enough resources left, both talent and financial, to win now. I don't mean make the playoffs, but actually win the prize. This is what needs to be decided and the plan made on that basis.
Rick
QUOTE (Zero @ Jan 7 2016, 07:12 AM) *
The team is not void of talent, but there's more than a few key players who are getting long in the tooth. For me, the question is if there are enough resources left, both talent and financial, to win now. I don't mean make the playoffs, but actually win the prize. This is what needs to be decided and the plan made on that basis.

I don't disagree but we're talking about the QB position here, not all of the other holes they have. Currently, it looks like Bradford may be their best option.

It's very easy to look at QBs and just look at them without looking at the overall QB situation in the NFL. However, it's not practical to do so. If Bradford wants to stay, and if the Eagles decide to pursue them, they will have to pay more for him than they might have had to during other times in the NFL where QB play was much better or there were other good QBs available. We are not in one of those times. There will be no way around this if he stays in Philly.

But, as to the question of whether he should (or shouldn't) stay, well, we all know what it's like to see this team--or any other NFL team--play without a competent QB. It's plain ugly. If they are that ugly a few things happen:

-Us fans (obviously) become a bit pissed.
-They get higher draft picks because of their sucktatude. But, who knows if there's a franchise QB available? Not to mention, even drafting the, "perfect," QB from college in no way guarantees success in the NFL. Past history shows this. It's still a crap shoot at the end of the day.
-It will be harder to lure better talent because, well, players want to play for a winner.
-We get more years without the hope of a SB win in Philly.

None of these options sound like fun. This team has more holes than at QB. However, that is their biggest hole at this point. Bradford seems more than capable of being a good QB. Is he a great QB? I don't know about that. However, having a good QB is much better than having horrible QB play.
Phits
QUOTE (Zero @ Jan 7 2016, 06:21 AM) *
I think the base question is if the Eagles decide they're in a "win now" mode or "start over."

I think Mikey has it. A lot of us are infatuated with the prospect of Bradford simply because the options seem limited.....and (for now) the alternative is Sanchez.
Zero
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 7 2016, 07:37 AM) *
I don't disagree but we're talking about the QB position here, not all of the other holes they have. Currently, it looks like Bradford may be their best option.

It's very easy to look at QBs and just look at them without looking at the overall QB situation in the NFL. However, it's not practical to do so. If Bradford wants to stay, and if the Eagles decide to pursue them, they will have to pay more for him than they might have had to during other times in the NFL where QB play was much better or there were other good QBs available. We are not in one of those times. There will be no way around this if he stays in Philly.

But, as to the question of whether he should (or shouldn't) stay, well, we all know what it's like to see this team--or any other NFL team--play without a competent QB. It's plain ugly. If they are that ugly a few things happen:

-Us fans (obviously) become a bit pissed.
-They get higher draft picks because of their sucktatude. But, who knows if there's a franchise QB available? Not to mention, even drafting the, "perfect," QB from college in no way guarantees success in the NFL. Past history shows this. It's still a crap shoot at the end of the day.
-It will be harder to lure better talent because, well, players want to play for a winner.
-We get more years without the hope of a SB win in Philly.

None of these options sound like fun. This team has more holes than at QB. However, that is their biggest hole at this point. Bradford seems more than capable of being a good QB. Is he a great QB? I don't know about that. However, having a good QB is much better than having horrible QB play.

If they don't think they can win now, or within the time frame that a healthy Bradford would provide them it doesn't make sense to keep him. It would make more sense, especially if they do hire a QB guru, to part ways and start over. They don't care if we're pissed, and most probably wouldn't be if their plan makes sense.

We should have learned twice that attracting players is as much of or more of a crap shoot than the draft is. This takes us full circle to the evaluation. I'm not a cap guru, but looking at this, there are three options pertaining to the cap hit of players: pre-June cuts, post-June cuts and trades. Each has a different number - I'm not sure what the impact is but looking at that it may be possible to trade players and gain cap instead of cut the same player and take an enormous hit. Someone who understands that better than I do will have to chime in, but the point is that there are several ways team retooling can potentially be accomplished.

Howie is very good a some things that can help in the process, but I'm scared of him being the talent evaluator. This is a key component of the new coach, IMO. I also think they absolutely need to hire a better than average personnel guy who can serve as the expert there; I really don't care what they call him or if he doesn't have total control.

I'm OK bringing Bradford back if they truly believe they can put together a team that will have a legitimate chance to get the prize while he's here. If not, the money isn't worth it and they'll need to go another direction. I'm a fan of Bradford but only if he has the talent to support him, otherwise get a younger guy either through the draft or who's a backup who can grow with a rebuilding team team.
Rick
QUOTE (Zero @ Jan 7 2016, 08:33 AM) *
If they don't think they can win now, or within the time frame that a healthy Bradford would provide them it doesn't make sense to keep him. It would make more sense, especially if they do hire a QB guru, to part ways and start over. They don't care if we're pissed, and most probably wouldn't be if their plan makes sense.

We should have learned twice that attracting players is as much of or more of a crap shoot than the draft is. This takes us full circle to the evaluation. I'm not a cap guru, but looking at this, there are three options pertaining to the cap hit of players: pre-June cuts, post-June cuts and trades. Each has a different number - I'm not sure what the impact is but looking at that it may be possible to trade players and gain cap instead of cut the same player and take an enormous hit. Someone who understands that better than I do will have to chime in, but the point is that there are several ways team retooling can potentially be accomplished.

Howie is very good a some things that can help in the process, but I'm scared of him being the talent evaluator. This is a key component of the new coach, IMO. I also think they absolutely need to hire a better than average personnel guy who can serve as the expert there; I really don't care what they call him or if he doesn't have total control.

I'm OK bringing Bradford back if they truly believe they can put together a team that will have a legitimate chance to get the prize while he's here. If not, the money isn't worth it and they'll need to go another direction. I'm a fan of Bradford but only if he has the talent to support him, otherwise get a younger guy either through the draft or who's a backup who can grow with a rebuilding team team.

I can certainly see both sides of the argument. However, with how difficult it is to identify a good QB in the NFL, I'm more inclined to run with the horse we know rather than the unknown. We could be the next Cleveland with regards to QB. I don't want that.

It's much easier to build a team around a decent QB than to find a decent QB these days. If they are able to add a decent #1 WR--or one of ours steps up--and improve the OL even marginally, they are a much better team with Bradford (assuming his last 6 games of improvement are not a fluke or a result of the scheme). I firmly believe a better DC will make the defense better--maybe not a dominate defense but respectable. They should also get better in the off season just by guys coming back from injury. Of course, this doesn't take into account any other players we lose due to cap restrictions, etc.

But I wasn't sold on Bradford in any way before the season or through the first half, however, I've seen some good things from him as he got more comfortable on the field. So, I won't go so far as to say I'm sold on him but I will say I believe he's their best option with the knowledge we currently have. I'd rather see them try and make it work with him. Some of you talk like he's 35 and at the end of his career. He's only 30 (I believe) so he's old enough to know some of the things he needs to do and doesn't need to be, "developed," so to say. They can still try and draft a QB and develop him behind Bradford. Remember when that was the way the NFL used to do it?
nd9kel
Bradford is 28.
Rick
QUOTE (nd9kel @ Jan 7 2016, 09:46 AM) *
Bradford is 28.

Even better then.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Zero @ Jan 7 2016, 08:33 AM) *
If they don't think they can win now, or within the time frame that a healthy Bradford would provide them it doesn't make sense to keep him. It would make more sense, especially if they do hire a QB guru, to part ways and start over. They don't care if we're pissed, and most probably wouldn't be if their plan makes sense.


This is NFL.....there is no timetable for turning teams around...it can and does turn around in 1-2 years....

If a franchise has a plan to turn it around in 3-5 years that franchise has already given up...
samaroo
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 7 2016, 12:29 PM) *
I don't see it as fickle for some to want to sign Maclin and not want to sign Bradford, if you believe one was worth it and the other wasn't. I don't remember how long you've been around, but over the years, there is nobody who harped on the team to spend their money more than me.

I've been around long enough to know you have been mad about the team not spending money. And I know that you value the QB position. Which is why I'm shocked that you don't want to spend money on Bradford.

It is extremely rare to "find" a QB. Carson Palmer is very much the exception and not the rule. Teams don't trade good, established, no-question-this-is-a-quality-starter QBs. Teams resign them for big money. RBs, LBs, DEs, CBs...they swap teams all the time for big money. Teams let them walk so that they can sign their own QBs back. You were okay overspending on Maxwell, and wanted to for Maclin, but don't for Bradford...it just seems odd. Your argument for Maclin is that his production here would've made it worth it. You don't think that's true for Bradford?

QUOTE
I thought it was foolish not to resign Maclin. I would say maybe 20% felt that way, the he's asking for way too much crowd was definitely the majority. Just as I thought our remaining WR options were limited at best, I thought to US, he was worth more than to others. His avg$/year deal is 10th, his yds/game is 20th, and his avg/rec is 15th, and he dropped only 1.6% of his passes, 2, the entire year. So some could say he was slightly overpriced, getting paid top 10 while performing 15h-20th level. He made 2.7M over the 17th guy. However, when you look at the impact he would have had on this year's team, the improvement in our squad would have valued him higher than that. Also, you need to take into consideration that over the life of his deal, the avg/yr will drop as new deals for WR are made and the 10th highest will likely be 20-25 avg for the length of the deal.

See above.

QUOTE
The question with Bradford is, is the money and performance worth that much over what we could otherwise get from other QB's.


Yes. Where are these other QBs that you are referring to? Whatever happens to Bradford, we need to get some young blood here to develop. But develop is the key word there. We need a QB in the mean time. There are no Aaron Rodgers' out there. There are no Flacco's. There aren't even any Tannehill's or Dalton's. They all get resigned.

QUOTE
Aside from all my opining, I am close to being on the fence on him signing here long term. Credit to him that he made a ridiculously easy decision a few months ago to a very tough one today.


We need to resign him period. With average improvement this off season, what do you think our projected season is with Bradford, and without him (with Sanchez, I guess?) Seriously. Or with whoever we could reasonably get. Rebuilding a team around an established QB will be much easier and quicker than building a quarterback AND a team at the same time. And may ultimately hamstring that QB anyway.
nephillymike
QUOTE (samaroo @ Jan 7 2016, 06:34 PM) *
I've been around long enough to know you have been mad about the team not spending money. And I know that you value the QB position. Which is why I'm shocked that you don't want to spend money on Bradford.

It is extremely rare to "find" a QB. Carson Palmer is very much the exception and not the rule. Teams don't trade good, established, no-question-this-is-a-quality-starter QBs. Teams resign them for big money. RBs, LBs, DEs, CBs...they swap teams all the time for big money. Teams let them walk so that they can sign their own QBs back. You were okay overspending on Maxwell, and wanted to for Maclin, but don't for Bradford...it just seems odd. Your argument for Maclin is that his production here would've made it worth it. You don't think that's true for Bradford?


See above.



Yes. Where are these other QBs that you are referring to? Whatever happens to Bradford, we need to get some young blood here to develop. But develop is the key word there. We need a QB in the mean time. There are no Aaron Rodgers' out there. There are no Flacco's. There aren't even any Tannehill's or Dalton's. They all get resigned.



We need to resign him period. With average improvement this off season, what do you think our projected season is with Bradford, and without him (with Sanchez, I guess?) Seriously. Or with whoever we could reasonably get. Rebuilding a team around an established QB will be much easier and quicker than building a quarterback AND a team at the same time. And may ultimately hamstring that QB anyway.


I see the Sanchez option plus the goodies we buy with the extra cap room as more valuable than anyone else on this board. He didn't play well in the two games he played, but he didn't have a full deck with Peters missing time and Ertz and Mathews missing both games. Looking at what Ertz did these last few games, and how our OL fared w/o Peters, maybe Bradford would still have performed at a 6 point higher rate than Sanchez during that period, or maybe without that great target that Ertz was, he would have struggled mightily. It's not so much an endorsement of Sanchez being great, but my thinking that Bradford isn't 4 yr/$72M, $40M guaranteed very good. You, like everyone else, see no value in that route so you are more inclined to sign him.

However, with Chip gone, I don't know if Sanchez (or Bradford for that matter), get the Chip bump in stats and effectiveness. Sanchez without Chip is not as valuable as with him.

Thus my almost on the fence status.
Joegrane
Good points about the "Chip bump in stats" and the situation in the games Sanchez QB'd.

I think Sanchez was a Chip guy. I recall Chip talking about how he recruited him to Oregon. I think Sanchez is history if Bradford is signed. They need cap space. They are not a playoff team that needs a quality #2. They might get bitten by an injury to Bradford but that's the NFL. Look at the Cowgirls. I almost feel badly for them.

Unfortunately Sanchez did not play well enough to cause Bradford to keep his salary requests low to be attractive to Philly. With the situation he might prefer to go elsewhere.

I can see Bradford getting those $. I'm okay with it.

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 7 2016, 09:41 PM) *
I see the Sanchez option plus the goodies we buy with the extra cap room as more valuable than anyone else on this board. He didn't play well in the two games he played, but he didn't have a full deck with Peters missing time and Ertz and Mathews missing both games. Looking at what Ertz did these last few games, and how our OL fared w/o Peters, maybe Bradford would still have performed at a 6 point higher rate than Sanchez during that period, or maybe without that great target that Ertz was, he would have struggled mightily. It's not so much an endorsement of Sanchez being great, but my thinking that Bradford isn't 4 yr/$72M, $40M guaranteed very good. You, like everyone else, see no value in that route so you are more inclined to sign him.

However, with Chip gone, I don't know if Sanchez (or Bradford for that matter), get the Chip bump in stats and effectiveness. Sanchez without Chip is not as valuable as with him.

Thus my almost on the fence status.

Rick
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 7 2016, 09:41 PM) *
I see the Sanchez option plus the goodies we buy with the extra cap room as more valuable than anyone else on this board. He didn't play well in the two games he played, but he didn't have a full deck with Peters missing time and Ertz and Mathews missing both games. Looking at what Ertz did these last few games, and how our OL fared w/o Peters, maybe Bradford would still have performed at a 6 point higher rate than Sanchez during that period, or maybe without that great target that Ertz was, he would have struggled mightily. It's not so much an endorsement of Sanchez being great, but my thinking that Bradford isn't 4 yr/$72M, $40M guaranteed very good. You, like everyone else, see no value in that route so you are more inclined to sign him.

However, with Chip gone, I don't know if Sanchez (or Bradford for that matter), get the Chip bump in stats and effectiveness. Sanchez without Chip is not as valuable as with him.

Thus my almost on the fence status.

Sorry but you sound like those people who always thought Vick was going to be a good QB and wouldn't turn the ball over. There is enough time seeing Sanchez to know he turns the ball over. I'm sick of seeing turnover machines behind center. Sanchez just isn't a good option....period.

Also, when is the last time the Eagles--or any other team--was about to buy a team with extra cap space? It jut doesn't work.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 8 2016, 05:45 AM) *
Sorry but you sound like those people who always thought Vick was going to be a good QB and wouldn't turn the ball over. There is enough time seeing Sanchez to know he turns the ball over. I'm sick of seeing turnover machines behind center. Sanchez just isn't a good option....period.

Also, when is the last time the Eagles--or any other team--was about to buy a team with extra cap space? It jut doesn't work.



FWIW, Vick had the same passer rating as Bradford in his one year for Chip, while being better than Bradford when you added in his running results.

That's not a statement of how good Vick was, just how ordinary Bradford is.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 8 2016, 10:41 PM) *
FWIW, Vick had the same passer rating as Bradford in his one year for Chip, while being better than Bradford when you added in his running results.

That's not a statement of how good Vick was, just how ordinary Bradford is.


You amaze me....at no point to you qualify Bradford's performance as that of a guy coming off 2 years of injury absence...a guy who was not even able to practice until TC....when you compare him to other guys....but you dismiss Sanchez's performance (a guy who missed no time and was in his 2nd year in the system)....not mention that Vick had...you know..a WR to throw to and an O line that did not miss a game...if I recall correctly...and he played 6 games and had a completion rate of 54%

one thing you are good at...comparing apples to oranges...
Rick
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 8 2016, 10:41 PM) *
FWIW, Vick had the same passer rating as Bradford in his one year for Chip, while being better than Bradford when you added in his running results.

That's not a statement of how good Vick was, just how ordinary Bradford is.

And I'd guess, if we looked at the numbers, Vick started out great and continued to get worse. Bradford started out badly and continued to get better.

Not quite the same thing...
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 9 2016, 12:23 AM) *
You amaze me....at no point to you qualify Bradford's performance as that of a guy coming off 2 years of injury absence...a guy who was not even able to practice until TC....when you compare him to other guys....but you dismiss Sanchez's performance (a guy who missed no time and was in his 2nd year in the system)....not mention that Vick had...you know..a WR to throw to and an O line that did not miss a game...if I recall correctly...and he played 6 games and had a completion rate of 54%

one thing you are good at...comparing apples to oranges...


Just what was Bradford not able to do up until training camp that he would have otherwise?

Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 10 2016, 01:23 AM) *
Just what was Bradford not able to do up until training camp that he would have otherwise?



hmmm...let's see...run full speed...plant...cut.....all those pesky things that develop a QBs mechanics...but other than that he was fine....
Zero
Can the Eagles use the Franchise Tag on Bradford and trade him? Just a question, not a suggestion.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 10 2016, 02:33 AM) *
hmmm...let's see...run full speed...plant...cut.....all those pesky things that develop a QBs mechanics...but other than that he was fine....


I thought he was able to do the most important thing from mid mini camps on;

Throw the ball, and throw it as hard as he would like as often as he would like and throw it to his WR's.

Yeah, he really needed to run, it was such a big part of his game.

He was physically ready and plenty early.

It was the mental aversion to getting hit part that he had trouble getting up to speed with.

And that wouldn't have mattered if he was 100% last February or not.

For some reason, Carson Palmer was able to get back in the saddle after his second knee tear which happened later last season than Bradford's.

People want to make excuses and want to take a quarter of a preseason game, or a six game run of a season while ignoring the other half of a season, or take a splice of his pre Eagles career, while ignoring the majority of it and say that's who we're investing in. Truth is, we're investing in the Sam Bradford as represented by his entire '15 season and his entire career. Maybe we'll make that leap, but it would be foolish to ignore the whole and pay for only the splices.

Beggars can't be choosers right?
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 10 2016, 09:11 AM) *
I thought he was able to do the most important thing from mid mini camps on;

Throw the ball, and throw it as hard as he would like as often as he would like and throw it to his WR's.

Yeah, he really needed to run, it was such a big part of his game.

He was physically ready and plenty early.

It was the mental aversion to getting hit part that he had trouble getting up to speed with.

And that wouldn't have mattered if he was 100% last February or not.

For some reason, Carson Palmer was able to get back in the saddle after his second knee tear which happened later last season than Bradford's.

People want to make excuses and want to take a quarter of a preseason game, or a six game run of a season while ignoring the other half of a season, or take a splice of his pre Eagles career, while ignoring the majority of it and say that's who we're investing in. Truth is, we're investing in the Sam Bradford as represented by his entire '15 season and his entire career. Maybe we'll make that leap, but it would be foolish to ignore the whole and pay for only the splices.

Beggars can't be choosers right?


Hmmm...so a QB coming out of College takes 1-3 years to acclimate himself to the NFL game but a guy who missed 2 years should bounce right back...your right that makes sense.....and he should have been really confident in that knee right away...I mean he only tore it twice playing football....who knew?

And at least you tried by only using running but once again you do the usual and leave out the rest...but maybe to you plantng and cutting are not that important....I mean what quarterback plants to throw...or step into their follow through because that isn't important to throwing..(you must have been a QB) and Bradford was limited in OTAs and did the passing drills but did not do 7 on 7s or 11 on 11s but again...how could that hurt?...He was very limited in what he did...they took it very slow with him.....and it was very clear at what point in the season that Bradford regained confidence in that knee...but again, I am sure that after you tore your ACL for the 2nd time you bounced right back and were ready to go right away.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 10 2016, 09:40 AM) *
Hmmm...so a QB coming out of College takes 1-3 years to acclimate himself to the NFL game but a guy who missed 2 years should bounce right back...your right that makes sense.....and he should have been really confident in that knee right away...I mean he only tore it twice playing football....who knew?

And at least you tried by only using running but once again you do the usual and leave out the rest...but maybe to you plantng and cutting are not that important....I mean what quarterback plants to throw...or step into their follow through because that isn't important to throwing..(you must have been a QB) and Bradford was limited in OTAs and did the passing drills but did not do 7 on 7s or 11 on 11s but again...how could that hurt?...He was very limited in what he did...they took it very slow with him.....and it was very clear at what point in the season that Bradford regained confidence in that knee...but again, I am sure that after you tore your ACL for the 2nd time you bounced right back and were ready to go right away.



I don't know about ACL's other than to watch what a guy like Palmer did.

I know, but, but, but...............................................................

Lucky enough never to have a tear bad enough for full operation, as a pitcher in college, I had a knee scope of my lead leg and a shoulder joint slight labrum tear issue, and without question the work on my arm, while less invasive, was way more a concern and longer to recover from than my knee. Not even close. Not that the knee was nothing, try landing on an uneven mound, but the shoulder was much more of a hassle. That's why I chuckle at people not acknowledging Sanchez's arm problems. You will hear what you want to, as will I.

I'm sure your recent recovery from double ACL tear's led to different post op observations. rolleyes.gif
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 10 2016, 10:01 AM) *
I don't know about ACL's other than to watch what a guy like Palmer did.

I know, but, but, but...............................................................

Lucky enough never to have a tear bad enough for full operation, as a pitcher in college, I had a knee scope of my lead leg and a shoulder joint slight labrum tear issue, and without question the work on my arm, while less invasive, was way more a concern and longer to recover from than my knee. Not even close. Not that the knee was nothing, try landing on an uneven mound, but the shoulder was much more of a hassle. That's why I chuckle at people not acknowledging Sanchez's arm problems. You will hear what you want to, as will I.

I'm sure your recent recovery from double ACL tear's led to different post op observations. rolleyes.gif


hmmm...I learn things every day.....I did not know that Carson Palmer tore the same ACL twice in 2 consecutive years and came back from that after sitting out 2 years.....here I thought there was an 8 year window between the 2.....oh wait....there was....

and as far as my own knee injuries? I did tear my MCL....not the ACL but I am not the guy questioning the recovery time..rather I am the guy who recognizes the mental hurdle that is high enough on its own and then compounded by an immediate recurrence and the impact of the injuries and subsequent time missed.....that would be you...

on to Sanchez....I did acknowledge it with Sanchez in his first year......what was his excuse this year?

You are right...you hear what you want to hear....I know..but...but...

Your logic amazes me at times...
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.