Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Eagles should let Sam Bradford go,
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Phits
QUOTE
The "Bradford should stay" people often ask the "Bradford should go" people something to the effect of, "If Bradford isn't the starter, who are the Eagles going to get who is going to be better than him next season?" The answer is probably nobody, but it really doesn't matter. Because, again, I'll repeat...

The Eagles aren't going to be Super Bowl contenders in 2016. And really, they're not even close. A self-realization of that reality should be the starting point to this upcoming offseason.
______________

Sam Bradford is going to get paid by some team this offseason. Cap experts mostly seem to be in agreement that Bradford's deal is going to net him somewhere in the ballpark of $18 million to $20 million per season. With the 2016 salary cap reportedly falling somewhere between $150 million and $153.4 million, Bradford is going to eat up somewhere around 12% of a team's cap.
______________

The Eagles should franchise tag Bradford
The franchise tag for quarterbacks in 2016 will likely be a shade over $20 million. The Eagles should use their tag on Bradford, and then let Bradford's camp work out a long-term contract with some other team.


Linc,,
Reality Fan
Not a fan of the writer but the question he misses is simple....when do they plan to compete again?

The Eagles, for all the bluster, are not in horrible shape.....they may not be SB contenders next year, that is an easy assumption, but going young...with the current crop of QBs who are not even close to ready to start in the pros and those still in school for the next draft after this one means that you now retard your chances for even longer....

If there were a Luck et al then maybe, and only maybe, do I go that route.....but the guys in this draft are just ok.....and none are game ready and the best of the bunch will both be gone by the time the Eagles pick at 13.......and the Eagles will trade down to get more picks, you can bet on that.

Bradford is just a good QB, not great right now, but there is literally nothing out there even close to him for this year and next year......unless a dark horse comes out of nowhere like a Brady story....

Phits
What's wrong with drafting and grooming a young talent before throwing him to the wolves, especially with 2 former NFL QB's as coaches.

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 19 2016, 01:30 PM) *
Not a fan of the writer but the question he misses is simple....when do they plan to compete again?

The Eagles, for all the bluster, are not in horrible shape.....they may not be SB contenders next year, that is an easy assumption, but going young...with the current crop of QBs who are not even close to ready to start in the pros and those still in school for the next draft after this one means that you now retard your chances for even longer....

If there were a Luck et al then maybe, and only maybe, do I go that route.....but the guys in this draft are just ok.....and none are game ready and the best of the bunch will both be gone by the time the Eagles pick at 13.......and the Eagles will trade down to get more picks, you can bet on that.

Bradford is just a good QB, not great right now, but there is literally nothing out there even close to him for this year and next year......unless a dark horse comes out of nowhere like a Brady story....

Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 19 2016, 04:34 PM) *
What's wrong with drafting and grooming a young talent before throwing him to the wolves, especially with 2 former NFL QB's as coaches.


Not against that at all but the pickings are slim.....there just are not guys coming out of college for this year and next that are guys who will be ready in 2 years....
Rick
I read this article last night. By this writer's reasoning, if a team isn't ready to compete for a SB, they should just forget about trying to compete. A stupid argument to let Bradford go.

First, Bradford still has some up side. We don't know whether he'll ever realize this up side but, if he does, well, you've got an elite QB.

Second, as you guys pointed out, he's very good either way. Without him the Eagles have nothing and absolutely WON'T compete for a SB based on what we currently know about the available QB environment in the NFL.

Third, as has been pointed out as well, why not keep him as starter and try and find someone worth drafting/grooming? You could do much worse...

I thought the idea of tagging him and trading him was somewhat interesting. However, this draft doesn't look terribly-exciting so not sure what they'd really get in return.
Dreagon
QUOTE
Sam Bradford is going to get paid by some team this offseason. Cap experts mostly seem to be in agreement that Bradford's deal is going to net him somewhere in the ballpark of $18 million to $20 million per season. With the 2016 salary cap reportedly falling somewhere between $150 million and $153.4 million, Bradford is going to eat up somewhere around 12% of a team's cap.


20 million a year? That's what Aaron Rogers makes. Bradford is good, but I don't see a team shelling out Aaron Rogers money for him.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Jan 19 2016, 06:46 PM) *
20 million a year? That's what Aaron Rogers makes. Bradford is good, but I don't see a team shelling out Aaron Rogers money for him.


I am interested in what he gets....it is so hard to determine who is in the pocket of the agent and what is real......

If he is so bad or even mediocre than he does not get that money...teams, even the bad ones, need to see something...

I will be surprised to see 18 million per......but my guess is that the Eagles will let the market set the price...having the right to match
Pila
QUOTE (Phits @ Jan 19 2016, 05:16 PM) *

I strongly believe he should stay. I think he's the real deal and we'd be much poorer trying to get lucky elsewhere.
Joegrane
I agree with you and Pederson agrees with you but at what price? They will have to get rid of useful players to find $18 mil for Bradford. How many others will have to go to get to 20$mil free cap space? I posted details on this subject a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.wingheads.com/index.php?showtop...st&p=281501

QUOTE (Pila @ Jan 20 2016, 01:55 PM) *
I strongly believe he should stay. I think he's the real deal and we'd be much poorer trying to get lucky elsewhere.


QUOTE
...when do they plan to compete again? The Eagles, for all the bluster, are not in horrible shape.....they may not be SB contenders next year, that is an easy assumption, but going young...with the current crop of QBs....means that you now retard your chances for even longer....


Sadly the hire of Reich says to me that they don't expect Bradford to be back. I suppose they'll have to draft a QB or plan on using Sanchez for a few years.

I have a rather wild scenario. They loose Bradford, pencil in Sanchez as QB, trade their first round pick for a first round pick next year plus whatever they'll get in picks this year--2nd & 3rd?

This will give them a feel for what Sanchez will be able to do for them. Then next year when there is supposed to be a better crop of QBs in the draft, they'll have two 1st round picks to use to go up and get one of the top QBs.

If Sanchez is miraculously improved, they'll just need to draft a future #2 QB.
Pila
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jan 20 2016, 10:44 PM) *
I agree with you and Pederson agrees with you but at what price? They will have to get rid of useful players to find $18 mil for Bradford. How many others will have to go to get to 20$mil free cap space?

A ligit, franchise QB is not as easy replaced as with any other position. If it were, most teams would have one.

If Dougie feels Bradford is a Franchise QB, I'd imagine they wouldn't let him go and would make whatever sacrifice necessary elsewhere. But that is where perennial playoff teams start, I think.
Zero
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jan 20 2016, 04:44 PM) *
Sadly the hire of Reich says to me that they don't expect Bradford to be back. I suppose they'll have to draft a QB or plan on using Sanchez for a few years.

The other possibility is to sign a FA QB as a placeholder for a draftee. I'd be disappointed if they let Bradford walk. They already let DJax and Mathis go for nothing. Franchise him and get something for him. If Pederson doesn't like Sanchez, trade him too and sign a FA ... Chase Daniel. Certainly not the guy to drive the bus to the promised land, but he can be to Pederson who Pederson was to Reid.
Rick
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jan 20 2016, 04:44 PM) *
This will give them a feel for what Sanchez will be able to do for them.

We all know what Sanchez brings to the table...turnovers. I'm done with Sanchez as a starter. I'm about done with him as a backup.

I have no idea why people still think something will change with Sanchez. He's thrown almost as many interceptions as he has TDs in his career. Not a 2 or 3 year career. Not as a backup. As a starter for most of his long career. He is what he is.
Joegrane
I hear you but Bradford has proven so little. Part of what he has proven is that he's not the most durable guy.

If his agent was asking $25mil maybe they were thinking they'd end up with 22mil. The difference between the Eagles alleged offer of $18 mil and $22mil is roughly V Curry's entire salary. That's your best pass rusher.

We've seen what has been happening in Dallas the past couple of years. They have a playoff contending team when Romo is healthy and a below average team when he is not.

That supports your point about the value of a QB in the upper third of QBs in the league but it also puts pressure on you to keep him healthy. Even with one of the best O Lines in the league they have not been able to do that. They have suffered disappointing seasons due to it.

I don't know the answer to the problem. Bradford can make the decision easy if he really wants to play for the playoff caliber Texans 300 miles from home.

Fortunately the Eagles have a backup that has gone to the playoffs with a team that had a great defense.

At least the Eagles don't become irrelevant if Bradford walks. With Schwarts at DC I like their chances to sign Curry and other FAs on D. They should have $ to sign FAs-- a #2 caliber WR to replace Coop and Austin, and a veteran OG. Maybe veterans on an above average D can convince Sanchez to be more careful with the ball.

I don't think the above scenario is a recipe for a deep run in the playoffs but at least it would keep them from slipping into the bottom third in the league. After the Kelly debacle and with the questions about the front office, that's a reasonable result for me.


QUOTE (Pila @ Jan 20 2016, 04:50 PM) *
A ligit, franchise QB is not as easy replaced as with any other position. If it were, most teams would have one.

If Dougie feels Bradford is a Franchise QB, I'd imagine they wouldn't let him go and would make whatever sacrifice necessary elsewhere. But that is where perennial playoff teams start, I think.

Rick
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jan 20 2016, 07:51 PM) *
I hear you but Bradford has proven so little. Part of what he has proven is that he's not the most durable guy.

While I hear you on this, knee injuries can happy to anyone at any time. It's not a durability issue. I'm much less concerned about his durability after this season.

QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jan 20 2016, 07:51 PM) *
Fortunately the Eagles have a backup that has gone to the playoffs with a team that had a great defense.

At least the Eagles don't become irrelevant if Bradford walks. With Schwarts at DC I like their chances to sign Curry and other FAs on D. They should have $ to sign FAs-- a #2 caliber WR to replace Coop and Austin, and a veteran OG. Maybe veterans on an above average D can convince Sanchez to be more careful with the ball.

He went to the playoffs with the Jets before he morphed into his current turnover machine. I just don't understand why people hold out hope he'll be anything other than that. The Eagles aren't going to be a playoff contender with Sanchez running the show. With Bradford, and improvements on defense, they will absolutely contend to make the playoffs. Not saying they'd win a SB without some other help but at least they'd be in the show.

QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jan 20 2016, 07:51 PM) *
I don't think the above scenario is a recipe for a deep run in the playoffs but at least it would keep them from slipping into the bottom third in the league. After the Kelly debacle and with the questions about the front office, that's a reasonable result for me.

With Sanchec at QB, they will be in the bottom third of the league. You just can't keep turning the ball over like he does (86TD and 84INT).
Joegrane
Didn't M Vick have lots of TOs but still had them in playoff contention around 2010?

An above average defense can have important effects on the psyche of players on O. The vets on D can keep reminding the players on O to take care of the ball. I vaguely remember hearing such things from Dawk during the last time the Eagles' D was better than the O.

Recall the difference between Foles in the years he had banged up O Lines and in 2013 when he had one of the best O Lines in the league. i bet Sanchez would also benefit from a more solid line, especially with all of the RBs on this team.

I'm not suggesting that Sanchez is a franchise QB, just that along with an above average D and decent weapons around him, he can keep them from being a bad team. They could even be playoff contenders.

I think Bradford is gone. The only question remaining is whether the Eagles can get some compensation for him. Recovering that second rounder would be okay. I would expect a team in the Texans' situation to be glad to pay a mere second rounder.

QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 21 2016, 06:22 AM) *
He went to the playoffs with the Jets before he morphed into his current turnover machine. I just don't understand why people hold out hope he'll be anything other than that. The Eagles aren't going to be a playoff contender with Sanchez running the show. With Bradford, and improvements on defense, they will absolutely contend to make the playoffs. Not saying they'd win a SB without some other help but at least they'd be in the show.

With Sanchec at QB, they will be in the bottom third of the league. You just can't keep turning the ball over like he does (86TD and 84INT).

Eagle2720
I would like to sign Bradford, but not signing him would leave all that money to be used in other places and that may be what we need more. Though I'm not a fan of Sanchez.. Or Sanchez being able to take us to the playoffs, but when he did take the Jets to the playoffs those year, he had a great D (we don't have that as of right now, but hopefully with Schwartz and a better scheme fit we can get closer) and an unbelievable running game with LT and Thomas Jones.. We have three very capable running backs still, maybe if we put all the load on them to carry us, Sanchez could do just enough to keep us afloat. I'm expecting our run game to be much better than it was this year, even with minimal O-line depth, I think a change in O and scheme will be big. Having those three players play to their strengths too.
Joegrane
Maybe the Eagles are thinking like you are. The QB coach they hired was Sanchez' QB coach during his rookie year!


QUOTE (Eagle2720 @ Jan 21 2016, 01:20 PM) *
I would like to sign Bradford, but not signing him would leave all that money to be used in other places and that may be what we need more. Though I'm not a fan of Sanchez.. Or Sanchez being able to take us to the playoffs, but when he did take the Jets to the playoffs those year, he had a great D (we don't have that as of right now, but hopefully with Schwartz and a better scheme fit we can get closer) and an unbelievable running game with LT and Thomas Jones.. We have three very capable running backs still, maybe if we put all the load on them to carry us, Sanchez could do just enough to keep us afloat. I'm expecting our run game to be much better than it was this year, even with minimal O-line depth, I think a change in O and scheme will be big. Having those three players play to their strengths too.

Eagle2720
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jan 21 2016, 04:02 PM) *
Maybe the Eagles are thinking like you are. The QB coach they hired was Sanchez' QB coach during his rookie year!


If so.. If anyone with connections wants to let them know I'm available for that player personnel position!
samaroo
Eagles trade 2nd for Bradford: "No way he's worth a 2nd! This is crazy!"

Bradford is a FA:
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jan 22 2016, 12:52 AM) *
I think Bradford is gone. The only question remaining is whether the Eagles can get some compensation for him. Recovering that second rounder would be okay. I would expect a team in the Texans' situation to be glad to pay a mere second rounder.


We are awesome GMs... rolleyes.gif
Rick
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jan 21 2016, 10:52 AM) *
Didn't M Vick have lots of TOs but still had them in playoff contention around 2010?

An above average defense can have important effects on the psyche of players on O. The vets on D can keep reminding the players on O to take care of the ball. I vaguely remember hearing such things from Dawk during the last time the Eagles' D was better than the O.

Recall the difference between Foles in the years he had banged up O Lines and in 2013 when he had one of the best O Lines in the league. i bet Sanchez would also benefit from a more solid line, especially with all of the RBs on this team.

I'm not suggesting that Sanchez is a franchise QB, just that along with an above average D and decent weapons around him, he can keep them from being a bad team. They could even be playoff contenders.

I think Bradford is gone. The only question remaining is whether the Eagles can get some compensation for him. Recovering that second rounder would be okay. I would expect a team in the Texans' situation to be glad to pay a mere second rounder.

I didn't want Vick before they got him and never wanted him once they had him. He, too, was a turnover machine. I'm tired of seeing Eagle's QBs throwing interceptions.

Sanchez is a turnover machine. I do not want to see him starting for the Eagles. It will be beyond painful. I don't care who is blocking for him. He still--inevitably--makes bad decisions.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 21 2016, 06:30 PM) *
I didn't want Vick before they got him and never wanted him once they had him. He, too, was a turnover machine. I'm tired of seeing Eagle's QBs throwing interceptions.

Sanchez is a turnover machine. I do not want to see him starting for the Eagles. It will be beyond painful. I don't care who is blocking for him. He still--inevitably--makes bad decisions.


It is hard to argue that he was not a stud in 2010....

Vick threw for 21 TDs and ran for 9 in 11 games....he had 6 picks and 7 fumbles lost but he had some serious production for 11 games...

After that he just could not stay healthy...
Rick
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 21 2016, 09:05 PM) *
It is hard to argue that he was not a stud in 2010....

Vick threw for 21 TDs and ran for 9 in 11 games....he had 6 picks and 7 fumbles lost but he had some serious production for 11 games...

After that he just could not stay healthy...

Most of that came in about a 5-game stretch. After that, he was on his way to turning into the turnover machine he became.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 22 2016, 10:25 AM) *
Most of that came in about a 5-game stretch. After that, he was on his way to turning into the turnover machine he became.


Your Memory is a bit fuzzy.....check his game logs....his last 5 games he was 3-2 with one game with a rating of less that 90...They scored under 26 points once in his last 6....I get that you don't like him but he was good that year....he was often injured though and the next year those injuries became chronic....still throws the prettiest ball I have seen outside of Cunningham...
Pila
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 22 2016, 04:05 PM) *
Your Memory is a bit fuzzy.....check his game logs....his last 5 games he was 3-2 with one game with a rating of less that 90...They scored under 26 points once in his last 6....I get that you don't like him but he was good that year....he was often injured though and the next year those injuries became chronic....still throws the prettiest ball I have seen outside of Cunningham...


That effortless flick of the wrist and the ball carrying on for 60 yards was amazing.

In addition to injuries, defenses began to catch on to the fact that Vick was limited to premature reads of the defense, and it became very easy to goad him into bad reads, I think. That's why his turnovers began to increase and he began to hold on to the ball again and take sacks.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Pila @ Jan 22 2016, 12:02 PM) *
That effortless flick of the wrist and the ball carrying on for 60 yards was amazing.

In addition to injuries, defenses began to catch on to the fact that Vick was limited to premature reads of the defense, and it became very easy to goad him into bad reads, I think. That's why his turnovers began to increase and he began to hold on to the ball again and take sacks.


that and his diminished ability to make guys miss with his legs....while he was still faster than most, his quickness was less and that is a big deal......
Rick
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 22 2016, 11:05 AM) *
Your Memory is a bit fuzzy.....check his game logs....his last 5 games he was 3-2 with one game with a rating of less that 90...They scored under 26 points once in his last 6....I get that you don't like him but he was good that year....he was often injured though and the next year those injuries became chronic....still throws the prettiest ball I have seen outside of Cunningham...

You may be correct on that. However, as pretty as his ball is, it's ugly when he's busy throwing it to the opposing team...something he does/did WAY too often.

I was never overly-impressed with Vick as a QB. As an athlete, however, he was amazing.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 22 2016, 01:16 PM) *
You may be correct on that. However, as pretty as his ball is, it's ugly when he's busy throwing it to the opposing team...something he does/did WAY too often.

I was never overly-impressed with Vick as a QB. As an athlete, however, he was amazing.


I agree he certainly did that in other years but more infuriating were his fumbles....that was his proble....in 2010 he only had 6 picks vs. 21 TDs......but he had 11 fumbles of which he lost 7...
Rick
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Jan 22 2016, 02:27 PM) *
I agree he certainly did that in other years but more infuriating were his fumbles....that was his proble....in 2010 he only had 6 picks vs. 21 TDs......but he had 11 fumbles of which he lost 7...

Another good point.

I'm just glad he's gone. I don't want to relive the frustration with Sanchez.
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.