Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Something Doesn't Add Up in Us wanting a QB
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
nephillymike
Why would the Eagles sign Sam Bradford, to what is essentially a 1 year deal, but with $22M guaranteed on March 1st.

(on 3/9 they do the trades with MIA and TEN to move up)

And then, Sign an upper tier BACKUP QB, to a deal with $12M guaranteed on March 10th

And then, finalize the jettisoning of a former upper tier backup QB who was due to make $4.5M this year on March 11th

the sum of these three moves resulting in almost $30M in new guaranteed financial commitments for the QB position.

And then, if we are to believe this is true, have a high interest in at least one or two of the QB's in this year's draft in the 1st round, and if true, the likelihood of having to use picks to trade up to get that QB.

Now how could it be that one organization do all four of the above?

Wouldn't the signing of Bradford and the signing of Daniel deem the pursuing of a 1st round QB pretty fucking dumb?

I mean they paid Chase Daniel $6.5M more in guarantees than Sanchez new deal which was after Sanchez played well in meaningful NFL games the year prior to his signing.

How can this possibly be? Is it THE PLAN or smoke and mirrors?

I think it was not THE PLAN, but instead the plan as you go plan.

1. I don't think the scouting department, including Roseman and Pederson, were prepared for what they thought of this year's QB class. No fault of theirs, they just weren't ready. Too much to do with a new coaching hire, staff hires and supposed personnel search, not enough time.

2. Everyone agreed that we are in win now mode. As such, we need to make a strong foray into free agency. Problem is, nobody decent would likely sign here for the chance to play with Daniel or Sanchez. Action plan, sign Bradford. Don't make a long term commitment, but make it look longer term than a one year franchise. It's a success because we get guys we wanted in FA.

3. Next, the new coach wanted his guy to compete with the career below average QB to ensure they have a better shot at getting decent play out of one of the QB's this year to help in their win now quest. With Bradford, you don't need Daniel to teach HIM the offense, but to push him. An extremely expensive motivational plan.

4. Then, when they get the move up trades and then get into their draft research, they realize that at least on QB prospect is a hell of a lot better than they heard. They realize that we are in striking distance for a top two QB. But so does everyone else.

So here we sit, $30M of newly guaranteed QB money to a below average starter and a career backup with 2, two, dos, deux career starts in the NFL, and we find ourselves trying to limit the bill for moving up to get the QB of the future because we couldn't buy one with $30M fucking dollars for two QB's with 80 and 81 career passer ratings!!

The $30M is sunk costs. Jeffrey's money. Maybe the tips for my guys take a hit. Oh well, we have a SB to win!!

Fuck it.

Me and Wheezie, moving on up to #1 (for a previously defined reasonable price that is).

That is why I think we're where we are. I wouldn't envy the guy who has to explain this to Bradford as I'm sure he and his agent may be pretty pissed.

======================================================================
On another note, supposed you're TEN sitting there at #1, with more come hither looks than the ovulating fat girl at closing time on a Friday night, and you realize that there is a way that you can get an extra 1st round pick more from one team than any other team will offer you, and that first round pick will likely be top 10 next year. Would you:

Trade Mariota to SF, keep your #1 pick and select your QB of choice at #1, get SF's #7 1st this year, 1st round next year (s/b top 10) and a 2nd round pick. So you would be getting two firsts and a second for Mariota and pick your QB of the future at #1. It is saying that SF is getting 3,000 points (Mariota = a #1 overall), giving up the #7 and next year's 1st to even it out and a 2nd rounder as premium as there is less risk for SF and thus it's more valuable because they already know MM can play.

Would you? You know Chip would.

That would be interesting on one hand, but would screw any play we had for a top two QB this year.

Anyone?

Eagle2720
If I was TN I would definitely do that. You get your cornerstone LT in Tunsil, most likely get Goff because most mocks have him going 7th to the Niners anyways. And even though I like Mariota, sooner or later he's gonna get hurt from being a dual threat like most end up doing, this way you get a pocket passer in Goff, and you can go back to a pro style offense, under center and let Murray carry most of that pressure why he develops.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 6 2016, 09:41 PM) *
I think it was not THE PLAN, but instead the plan as you go plan.

1. I don't think the scouting department, including Roseman and Pederson, were prepared for what they thought of this year's QB class. No fault of theirs, they just weren't ready. Too much to do with a new coaching hire, staff hires and supposed personnel search, not enough time.

2. Everyone agreed that we are in win now mode. As such, we need to make a strong foray into free agency. Problem is, nobody decent would likely sign here for the chance to play with Daniel or Sanchez. Action plan, sign Bradford. Don't make a long term commitment, but make it look longer term than a one year franchise. It's a success because we get guys we wanted in FA.

3. Next, the new coach wanted his guy to compete with the career below average QB to ensure they have a better shot at getting decent play out of one of the QB's this year to help in their win now quest. With Bradford, you don't need Daniel to teach HIM the offense, but to push him. An extremely expensive motivational plan.

4. Then, when they get the move up trades and then get into their draft research, they realize that at least on QB prospect is a hell of a lot better than they heard. They realize that we are in striking distance for a top two QB. But so does everyone else.

So here we sit, $30M of newly guaranteed QB money to a below average starter and a career backup with 2, two, dos, deux career starts in the NFL, and we find ourselves trying to limit the bill for moving up to get the QB of the future because we couldn't buy one with $30M fucking dollars for two QB's with 80 and 81 career passer ratings!!

The $30M is sunk costs. Jeffrey's money. Maybe the tips for my guys take a hit. Oh well, we have a SB to win!!

Fuck it.

Me and Wheezie, moving on up to #1 (for a previously defined reasonable price that is).

That is why I think we're where we are. I wouldn't envy the guy who has to explain this to Bradford as I'm sure he and his agent may be pretty pissed.

======================================================================
On another note, supposed you're TEN sitting there at #1, with more come hither looks than the ovulating fat girl at closing time on a Friday night, and you realize that there is a way that you can get an extra 1st round pick more from one team than any other team will offer you, and that first round pick will likely be top 10 next year. Would you:

Trade Mariota to SF, keep your #1 pick and select your QB of choice at #1, get SF's #7 1st this year, 1st round next year (s/b top 10) and a 2nd round pick. So you would be getting two firsts and a second for Mariota and pick your QB of the future at #1. It is saying that SF is getting 3,000 points (Mariota = a #1 overall), giving up the #7 and next year's 1st to even it out and a 2nd rounder as premium as there is less risk for SF and thus it's more valuable because they already know MM can play.

Would you? You know Chip would.

That would be interesting on one hand, but would screw any play we had for a top two QB this year.

Anyone?


Have you already forgotten that little post I did on the scouting department and how they ARE ALL STILL HERE?

Why do you insist on ignoring that and trotting out this silliness that they are all new guys?

You make it seem like everyone in the organization was in in a Soviet Gulag and were only released a month ago....

Next...Do you honestly believe...especially since you feel that Bradford is terrible...that FAs came here because he is the QB? If that is the case than they would appear to value him far more than you do which says a lot all by itself.

Please...deal with the facts...not fantasy...

SHeesh...
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 6 2016, 09:45 PM) *
Have you already forgotten that little post I did on the scouting department and how they ARE ALL STILL HERE?

Why do you insist on ignoring that and trotting out this silliness that they are all new guys?

You make it seem like everyone in the organization was in in a Soviet Gulag and were only released a month ago....

Next...Do you honestly believe...especially since you feel that Bradford is terrible...that FAs came here because he is the QB? If that is the case than they would appear to value him far more than you do which says a lot all by itself.

Please...deal with the facts...not fantasy...

SHeesh...


The two people who needed to be up to speed were Howie and Pedey.

They were frying other fish.

Even if Bradford is somewhere between the 18th-22nd best QB in the league, he would be far more attractive then the other two alternatives we were offering.

So IF the Eagles pick a QB in round 1, I will not be the one in fantasy land!!
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 6 2016, 11:38 PM) *
The two people who needed to be up to speed were Howie and Pedey.

They were frying other fish.

Even if Bradford is somewhere between the 18th-22nd best QB in the league, he would be far more attractive then the other two alternatives we were offering.

So IF the Eagles pick a QB in round 1, I will not be the one in fantasy land!!

Howie never left the kitchen, he wasn't frying other fish he was working on a new menu for a year. And, even though Bradford may be historically a below average QB the extenuating circumstances of his career make his history at least questionable. How much difference is there between Bradford and Goff? Wentz has measurables, but he's started only 22 games against weak competition.

I get that Howie can be construed as a personnel prestidigitator this time of year, but I'm not sure there's evidence to support that. Then we have Pederson who is so raw when it comes to this I'm inclined to just believe what he says. And he says he likes Bradford.

Picking a QB in round 1 isn't out of the question, but I can't see them trading the farm, the tractor and the chickens to move up. If a guy they think is BPA is a QB and is better than what they think Bradford is then they need to draft him.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 7 2016, 06:46 AM) *
Howie never left the kitchen, he wasn't frying other fish he was working on a new menu for a year. And, even though Bradford may be historically a below average QB the extenuating circumstances of his career make his history at least questionable. How much difference is there between Bradford and Goff? Wentz has measurables, but he's started only 22 games against weak competition.

I get that Howie can be construed as a personnel prestidigitator this time of year, but I'm not sure there's evidence to support that. Then we have Pederson who is so raw when it comes to this I'm inclined to just believe what he says. And he says he likes Bradford.

Picking a QB in round 1 isn't out of the question, but I can't see them trading the farm, the tractor and the chickens to move up. If a guy they think is BPA is a QB and is better than what they think Bradford is then they need to draft him.


Thank you for this perfect reply...sometimes I think Mikey makes up these fantasies to make me lose my appetite so his bill will be smaller...lol
Phits
Yep. Something doesn't make sense.

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 6 2016, 09:41 PM) *
Why would the Eagles sign Sam Bradford, to what is essentially a 1 year deal, but with $22M guaranteed on March 1st.

(on 3/9 they do the trades with MIA and TEN to move up)

And then, Sign an upper tier BACKUP QB, to a deal with $12M guaranteed on March 10th

And then, finalize the jettisoning of a former upper tier backup QB who was due to make $4.5M this year on March 11th

the sum of these three moves resulting in almost $30M in new guaranteed financial commitments for the QB position.

And then, if we are to believe this is true, have a high interest in at least one or two of the QB's in this year's draft in the 1st round, and if true, the likelihood of having to use picks to trade up to get that QB.

Now how could it be that one organization do all four of the above?

Wouldn't the signing of Bradford and the signing of Daniel deem the pursuing of a 1st round QB pretty fucking dumb?

I mean they paid Chase Daniel $6.5M more in guarantees than Sanchez new deal which was after Sanchez played well in meaningful NFL games the year prior to his signing.

How can this possibly be? Is it THE PLAN or smoke and mirrors?

I think it was not THE PLAN, but instead the plan as you go plan.

1. I don't think the scouting department, including Roseman and Pederson, were prepared for what they thought of this year's QB class. No fault of theirs, they just weren't ready. Too much to do with a new coaching hire, staff hires and supposed personnel search, not enough time.

2. Everyone agreed that we are in win now mode. As such, we need to make a strong foray into free agency. Problem is, nobody decent would likely sign here for the chance to play with Daniel or Sanchez. Action plan, sign Bradford. Don't make a long term commitment, but make it look longer term than a one year franchise. It's a success because we get guys we wanted in FA.

3. Next, the new coach wanted his guy to compete with the career below average QB to ensure they have a better shot at getting decent play out of one of the QB's this year to help in their win now quest. With Bradford, you don't need Daniel to teach HIM the offense, but to push him. An extremely expensive motivational plan.

4. Then, when they get the move up trades and then get into their draft research, they realize that at least on QB prospect is a hell of a lot better than they heard. They realize that we are in striking distance for a top two QB. But so does everyone else.

So here we sit, $30M of newly guaranteed QB money to a below average starter and a career backup with 2, two, dos, deux career starts in the NFL, and we find ourselves trying to limit the bill for moving up to get the QB of the future because we couldn't buy one with $30M fucking dollars for two QB's with 80 and 81 career passer ratings!!

The $30M is sunk costs. Jeffrey's money. Maybe the tips for my guys take a hit. Oh well, we have a SB to win!!

Fuck it.

Me and Wheezie, moving on up to #1 (for a previously defined reasonable price that is).

That is why I think we're where we are. I wouldn't envy the guy who has to explain this to Bradford as I'm sure he and his agent may be pretty pissed.

======================================================================
On another note, supposed you're TEN sitting there at #1, with more come hither looks than the ovulating fat girl at closing time on a Friday night, and you realize that there is a way that you can get an extra 1st round pick more from one team than any other team will offer you, and that first round pick will likely be top 10 next year. Would you:

Trade Mariota to SF, keep your #1 pick and select your QB of choice at #1, get SF's #7 1st this year, 1st round next year (s/b top 10) and a 2nd round pick. So you would be getting two firsts and a second for Mariota and pick your QB of the future at #1. It is saying that SF is getting 3,000 points (Mariota = a #1 overall), giving up the #7 and next year's 1st to even it out and a 2nd rounder as premium as there is less risk for SF and thus it's more valuable because they already know MM can play.

Would you? You know Chip would.

That would be interesting on one hand, but would screw any play we had for a top two QB this year.

Anyone?

nephillymike
First things first:

WTF is a personnel prestidigitator?

Since when has Z gone "high brow"?

And for my other thorn;

What is the RF wings & beers odds of the Eagles drafting a QB in round 1?

I mean as absolutely silly as that is, it must be something like 25 wings to 1, 10-1 beer ratio, no??

Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 7 2016, 08:08 PM) *
First things first:

WTF is a personnel prestidigitator?

Since when has Z gone "high brow"?

And for my other thorn;

What is the RF wings & beers odds of the Eagles drafting a QB in round 1?

I mean as absolutely silly as that is, it must be something like 25 wings to 1, 10-1 beer ratio, no??

Hahaha ... high brow. "Smoke and mirrors", magician ... I just get tired of saying things the same way all the time. biggrin.gif
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 7 2016, 08:08 PM) *
First things first:

WTF is a personnel prestidigitator?

Since when has Z gone "high brow"?

And for my other thorn;

What is the RF wings & beers odds of the Eagles drafting a QB in round 1?

I mean as absolutely silly as that is, it must be something like 25 wings to 1, 10-1 beer ratio, no??


It is completely dependent on who is there when they draft. I do not think they will move up for a QB.....I think they are going to take Hogan later in the draft.

I would not wager on them not taking a QB because some draft day craziness could happen and suddenly Wentz or Goff are there at * and the Eagles have not traded down yet and they grab one of them...I would be surprised but it could happen.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 7 2016, 07:32 PM) *
It is completely dependent on who is there when they draft. I do not think they will move up for a QB.....I think they are going to take Hogan later in the draft.

I would not wager on them not taking a QB because some draft day craziness could happen and suddenly Wentz or Goff are there at * and the Eagles have not traded down yet and they grab one of them...I would be surprised but it could happen.



It sound like a roundabout way of saying it may not be fantasy, or at least the level of fantasy you expressed!!
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 7 2016, 08:35 PM) *
It sound like a roundabout way of saying it may not be fantasy, or at least the level of fantasy you expressed!!


It is fantasy to think that their plan is to move up to draft one of these guys.....that is fantasy....or to assume that Howie did nothing to prepare for this offseason until February....that is fantasy...or to think that the scouting department looks any different with Chip gone.....that is fantasy.

The Eagles said they think there are 10 difference makers in this draft...they moved up to 8. If both QBs are there, or just one, it may mean that the guys they valued are gone and either one could be who they see as the BPA. In that scenario it would not be a shock to see them take one. I do not think they will but I could be wrong about all of it. I don't think I am but one never knows. I have merely pointed out how far fetched it is to think they will trade up to get a QB based on their actions.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 7 2016, 09:50 PM) *
It is fantasy to think that their plan is to move up to draft one of these guys.....that is fantasy....or to assume that Howie did nothing to prepare for this offseason until February....that is fantasy...or to think that the scouting department looks any different with Chip gone.....that is fantasy.


Not fantasy to think they will move up

Never said Howie did nothing, just said he took them as they came, Free Agency first, and draft next. I don't think it's a stretch that given the firing of Chip, change of Howie's duties, coaching search, head of personnel search that there would be a lack of coordinated thought between free agency and the draft.

Department mostly the same as you've shown,except for the coordinator's spot, which I liken to an accounting department without the controller. Basics get done, but not the overall coordination. But I'll concede that point. From the time Marynowitz left to Pedey was hired, they were looking for a leader. Howie was on the find a coach tour.

I don't know, still haven't heard the wing/beers odds on this one.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 7 2016, 11:23 PM) *
Not fantasy to think they will move up

Never said Howie did nothing, just said he took them as they came, Free Agency first, and draft next. I don't think it's a stretch that given the firing of Chip, change of Howie's duties, coaching search, head of personnel search that there would be a lack of coordinated thought between free agency and the draft.

Department mostly the same as you've shown,except for the coordinator's spot, which I liken to an accounting department without the controller. Basics get done, but not the overall coordination. But I'll concede that point. From the time Marynowitz left to Pedey was hired, they were looking for a leader. Howie was on the find a coach tour.

I don't know, still haven't heard the wing/beers odds on this one.


I am amazed that you think that A) Howie was not preparing for this the entire year.....it has been reported that he basically went back to GM school at Lurie's bequest yet you think it was a surprise to him that he was back in the seat...truly odd.
cool.gif You feel they stumbled blindly without a plan....that they approached FA and when they were done they suddenly remembered there was a draft....if that is the case than we are in far greater trouble.

I submit that Howie was likely planning for this all year....certainly since October. I think he never stopped thinking like a GM and I would wager that Lurie, as they sipped cognac together, told him that his time would come again and that he needed tolearn a little more. I would wager that Howie has a book on every draft pick and every FA or potential FA.

He had a plan and as soon as he hit the seat he had his minions attacking that plan.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 7 2016, 11:23 PM) *
Not fantasy to think they will move up

Looking at the team's needs, both long and short term I'd hope moving up is a fantasy.

Short term: OL, RB and LB; long term: S, CB, LB, OL, QB, RB. Using resources to move up for a player who won't contribute this year defines 2016 as "throw-away" and "rebuilding." There could be an immediate need at OT, RB and MLB depending on the health of injury plagued players.

Moving up to take a QB that is not a slam dunk will use up that transcendental pick plus cost them at least two additional premium picks. That will set back realistic chances of competing for a championship by at least two years, probably more. If the QB is a Leinert, Harrington or Couch we're screwed and dumped naked in the front yard filled with rabid skunks.

Everyone who trusts the personnel acumen of New York born Howard Roseman to not miss on this, please add your name below.
Phits
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 8 2016, 06:42 AM) *
Short term: OL, RB and LB; long term: S, CB, LB, OL, QB, RB. Using resources to move up for a player who won't contribute this year defines 2016 as "throw-away" and "rebuilding." There could be an immediate need at OT, RB and MLB depending on the health of injury plagued players.

There's the rub. Our $35m is injury plagued, unless you feel that our D is the same calibre of Denver's (or on the cusp) this is a rebuilding year. With the holes remaining, expecting a new draft pick to contribute positively from day one is fool's play.

QUOTE
Moving up to take a QB that is not a slam dunk will use up that transcendental pick plus cost them at least two additional premium picks. That will set back realistic chances of competing for a championship by at least two years, probably more. If the QB is a Leinert, Harrington or Couch we're screwed and dumped naked in the front yard filled with rabid skunks.

Outside of Andrew Luck, how many slam dunk QB's have there been in the last draft decade?

QUOTE
Everyone who trusts the personnel acumen of New York born Howard Roseman to not miss on this, please add your name below.

I don't trust their acumen at all, and that goes beyond the selection of a QB.
HobbEs
So, quick question here...

If a QB needy team jumps up to #1 there's a good chance both Goff and Wentz go 1 & 2 respectively. If that happens what are the chances Tunsil drops to us at #8?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Apr 8 2016, 08:08 AM) *
So, quick question here...

If a QB needy team jumps up to #1 there's a good chance both Goff and Wentz go 1 & 2 respectively. If that happens what are the chances Tunsil drops to us at #8?

I'd say zero. Would think there is no way he gets past the Ravens at 6. And I doubt he gets there.
Zero
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 8 2016, 08:19 AM) *
Outside of Andrew Luck, how many slam dunk QB's have there been in the last draft decade?

Probably none and that's my point.
Phits
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 8 2016, 03:53 PM) *
Probably none and that's my point.

Your point is that you don't draft a QB with a high pick because they may not be a slam dunk? or that you don't risk multiple picks on the most important position on your team?

My point is .. those idiots in our front office can't be trusted and using multiple picks to get a QB is likely they only way we find the right player to replace our current QB (a high ranking member of the glass squad).
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 8 2016, 09:48 PM) *
Your point is that you don't draft a QB with a high pick because they may not be a slam dunk? or that you don't risk multiple picks on the most important position on your team?

My point is .. those idiots in our front office can't be trusted and using multiple picks to get a QB is likely they only way we find the right player to replace our current QB (a high ranking member of the glass squad).


The Broncos clearly proved the QB spot is not as important with a great defense......I love Manning but he was mediocre at best (which he readily admitted) and they won the SB.

I would much rather see an incredible defense.....

I can't believe the Wilkerson trade to the Eagles rumor was not followed by Bradford is the trade bait....you guys are slacking
Eyrie
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 9 2016, 02:48 AM) *
Your point is that you don't draft a QB with a high pick because they may not be a slam dunk? or that you don't risk multiple picks on the most important position on your team?

My point is .. those idiots in our front office can't be trusted and using multiple picks to get a QB is likely they only way we find the right player to replace our current QB (a high ranking member of the glass squad).

I'd counter by asking why you'd trust them to make the right pick at QB when you regard them as idiots that can't be trusted.

If Wentz or Goff falls to #8 then I have no problem with taking them there, but I'm not willing to move up to get either of them. We don't have a second this year, so the cost of moving up will weaken both this year (a third) and next (a decent first) which will create more problems than it solves.

I'm also firmly on board with the obvious conclusion that we're not looking to trade up for a QB because, if we were, we wouldn't have spent big on both Bradford and Daniels. It would have been one of the two (mostly likely Bradford) to start with Sanchez or another cheap veteran to compete with the rookie for the #2 job.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 8 2016, 10:40 PM) *
The Broncos clearly proved the QB spot is not as important with a great defense......I love Manning but he was mediocre at best (which he readily admitted) and they won the SB.

I would much rather see an incredible defense.....

The problem with this logic is that building one of these all time great defenses is extremely hard. And rest assured, that's what it takes to win a championship when you're getting league average QB play.

The teams that have done it in the recent past have been the Broncos, Ravens and Bucs. Two of those examples are over a decade old. And in those two examples, those teams didn't really sniff another championship.

The best way to consistently give yourself a chance to compete for a championship is by finding a QB. You can luck into a SB a few other ways, but that's generally how it happens.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 9 2016, 06:54 AM) *
The problem with this logic is that building one of these all time great defenses is extremely hard. And rest assured, that's what it takes to win a championship when you're getting league average QB play.

The teams that have done it in the recent past have been the Broncos, Ravens and Bucs. Two of those examples are over a decade old. And in those two examples, those teams didn't really sniff another championship.

The best way to consistently give yourself a chance to compete for a championship is by finding a QB. You can luck into a SB a few other ways, but that's generally how it happens.


Of course it is hard....but using your logic you make it seem like hitting on a franchise QB is easy.....

With your defense, with the right DC you can build a great defense...the Eagles did that...they just could not get over the hump with their defense in the big game.

By the way...both Giants wins over the Pats were defensive victories....particularly 2008

Manning may be a good QB but their defense was the real MVP
Phits
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 9 2016, 06:02 AM) *
I'd counter by asking why you'd trust them to make the right pick at QB when you regard them as idiots that can't be trusted.

I don't. I am merely trying to follow what I believe to be their logic.

QUOTE
I'm also firmly on board with the obvious conclusion that we're not looking to trade up for a QB because, if we were, we wouldn't have spent big on both Bradford and Daniels. It would have been one of the two (mostly likely Bradford) to start with Sanchez or another cheap veteran to compete with the rookie for the #2 job.

Can you honestly say that either of the off-season QB signings is logical? We have a mediocre injury prone (starter) getting franchise QB level $$ and an unproven backup getting quality $$ for the 77 passes he has attempted in 6 years of regular season play.

I believe:
- they want to draft a QB high and pencil him in the #3 spot and treat this upcoming season as a learning experience
- they hope Bradford has a decent season and then pawn him off onto another team for a couple of good picks
- they expect Chase Daniels to help mentor the rookie QB and be the starter to begin the season in year 2.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 9 2016, 12:27 PM) *
I don't. I am merely trying to follow what I believe to be their logic.


Can you honestly say that either of the off-season QB signings is logical? We have a mediocre injury prone (starter) getting franchise QB level $$ and an unproven backup getting quality $$ for the 77 passes he has attempted in 6 years of regular season play.

I believe:
- they want to draft a QB high and pencil him in the #3 spot and treat this upcoming season as a learning experience
- they hope Bradford has a decent season and then pawn him off onto another team for a couple of good picks
- they expect Chase Daniels to help mentor the rookie QB and be the starter to begin the season in year 2.


Here is where you lose me. Why would you spend 22 million on a "learning experience"?

I don't necessarily disagree that Bradford is not a long term answer but having Pederson here and his experience with Alex Smith I think it is logical that they think that he may be the guy Pederson wants or feels might do the job. They beefed up their O line to protect him...something he has never really had.

I can only assume that the Daniels deal is paying forward the same favor he got from Reid, that and he wanted a guy to come in and teach his system to Bradford. I think it was foolish money but it also was a way to protect himself if Bradford does indeed get hurt.
Phits
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 9 2016, 01:02 PM) *
Here is where you lose me. Why would you spend 22 million on a "learning experience"?

Here's one for you, why spend $22m on a QB that has done nothing his entire career? The brass is giving the impression that they are all in, so they signed and re-signed the best (according to their standards) QB options in a bad QB market. It's the best way to try and demonstrate a quick turn around.

That's just my feeling.


nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 9 2016, 12:02 PM) *
Here is where you lose me. Why would you spend 22 million on a "learning experience"?

I don't necessarily disagree that Bradford is not a long term answer but having Pederson here and his experience with Alex Smith I think it is logical that they think that he may be the guy Pederson wants or feels might do the job. They beefed up their O line to protect him...something he has never really had.

I can only assume that the Daniels deal is paying forward the same favor he got from Reid, that and he wanted a guy to come in and teach his system to Bradford. I think it was foolish money but it also was a way to protect himself if Bradford does indeed get hurt.



If he's paying forward what Reid did for him, then we're drafting a QB in the 1st round. Reid didn't bring Pedey in here to teach his system to R. Peete, but to a highly drafted rookie.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 9 2016, 01:22 PM) *
Here's one for you, why spend $22m on a QB that has done nothing his entire career? The brass is giving the impression that they are all in, so they signed and re-signed the best (according to their standards) QB options in a bad QB market. It's the best way to try and demonstrate a quick turn around.

That's just my feeling.



I agree with this.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 9 2016, 07:22 PM) *
Here's one for you, why spend $22m on a QB that has done nothing his entire career? The brass is giving the impression that they are all in, so they signed and re-signed the best (according to their standards) QB options in a bad QB market. It's the best way to try and demonstrate a quick turn around.

That's just my feeling.

Maybe they think that a decent OL will help Bradford play at a better level. Or maybe they're just trying to convince us that this isn't a rebuilding year. But why bother with that? We're Eagles fans so the Linc will still sell out, and we're smart enough to understand that the first year of a new head coach usually means rebuilding anyway. But let's say that Bradford is just a smokescreen and they really want Wentz or Goff.

That then raises the question of why, having flung $22m at a career-below-average QB, they would then throw $7m at an achieved-nothing-as-a-back-up QB? If Daniel is here to help teach the system, then I see $15m reasons why he would be the only signing and mentoring the rookie.

There is no logic to signing both AND then taking a QB at #8. There is a clear logic to signing one of them (probably Daniel) and then making that pick.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 9 2016, 02:22 PM) *
Here's one for you, why spend $22m on a QB that has done nothing his entire career? The brass is giving the impression that they are all in, so they signed and re-signed the best (according to their standards) QB options in a bad QB market. It's the best way to try and demonstrate a quick turn around.

That's just my feeling.


That is easy....Pederson watch his tape and thinks he is the real deal to be another, perhaps better version of Alex Smith. I am not saying that is the right conclusion but that is why they did what they did. They gave him real starter money and protected themselves with a 2 year contract. They took a risk but mitigated that risk with a short term so if they are wrong it does not sink them for the next 3 seasons. It is hard to argue that Bradford, when finally comfortable with his legs, was a good QB who looked downfield. The last 8 games he was clearly a different QB and that was with crap at the WR position. WIth Randle, a hige upgrade from Cooper, and a deep threat with Givens(sadly that is about all he can do) the WR position has been upgraded. They beefed up their line to protect him. If he goes 30+ Tds with less than 15 picks and throws for 4000 yards he is your guy for the next 3-4 years. I accept that he may be a disaster, I don't think he will be but it is a possibility. They, however, have rolled the dice while insuring they do not lose the whole bankroll.

You don't identify the market as all poor QBs and then decide you are going to blow 22 million just because there is no one good. Then you sign a placeholder for 8-10 million, draft a guy and give him the reins after a year in the system.
Phits
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 9 2016, 06:44 PM) *
If he goes 30+ Tds with less than 15 picks and throws for 4000 yards he is your guy for the next 3-4 years.

That sounds like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Would you trust Ryan Fitzpatrick as your QB for the next 3-4 seasons?

QUOTE
You don't identify the market as all poor QBs and then decide you are going to blow 22 million just because there is no one good. Then you sign a placeholder for 8-10 million, draft a guy and give him the reins after a year in the system.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I see this as an investment in a QB that they hope can be good enough to impress a few of the QB desperate teams out there. I wouldn't be surprised by a draft day trade. As it stands right now, I would take a second round pick for Bradford, perhaps throw in a conditional second round pick for next year (based on the amount of games played and performance). He's got to be worth that much?

Zero
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 10 2016, 12:47 AM) *
I would take a second round pick for Bradford, perhaps throw in a conditional second round pick for next year (based on the amount of games played and performance). He's got to be worth that much?

This sounds like a viable starter to me. A player a team believes can take them deep into the postseason.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 10 2016, 05:47 AM) *
That sounds like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Would you trust Ryan Fitzpatrick as your QB for the next 3-4 seasons?


We'll have to agree to disagree. I see this as an investment in a QB that they hope can be good enough to impress a few of the QB desperate teams out there. I wouldn't be surprised by a draft day trade. As it stands right now, I would take a second round pick for Bradford, perhaps throw in a conditional second round pick for next year (based on the amount of games played and performance). He's got to be worth that much?

As Zero says, you would only make that trade for a player who is worth $22m in the first place. But why would a team trade for Bradford when they could have signed him as a free agent?
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 10 2016, 05:58 AM) *
As Zero says, you would only make that trade for a player who is worth $22m in the first place. But why would a team trade for Bradford when they could have signed him as a free agent?


Debating this with Phits is an exercise in futility at this point. He and Mikey are convinced the Eagles are completely incompetent and inexperienced lunkheads and they accidentally signed a guy to a guaranteed 22 million dollar contract with the idea either to smokescreen other teams or to trade him after he plays well....oh wait...I missed one....they signed him because they forgot there was a draft....that is a great one by Mikey....
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 10 2016, 05:58 AM) *
As Zero says, you would only make that trade for a player who is worth $22m in the first place. But why would a team trade for Bradford when they could have signed him as a free agent?


Debating this with Phits is an exercise in futility at this point. He and Mikey are convinced the Eagles are completely incompetent and inexperienced lunkheads and they accidentally signed a guy to a guaranteed 22 million dollar contract with the idea either to smokescreen other teams or to trade him after he plays well....oh wait...I missed one....they signed him because they forgot there was a draft....that is a great one by Mikey....
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 10 2016, 12:47 AM) *
That sounds like Ryan Fitzpatrick. Would you trust Ryan Fitzpatrick as your QB for the next 3-4 seasons?


We'll have to agree to disagree. I see this as an investment in a QB that they hope can be good enough to impress a few of the QB desperate teams out there. I wouldn't be surprised by a draft day trade. As it stands right now, I would take a second round pick for Bradford, perhaps throw in a conditional second round pick for next year (based on the amount of games played and performance). He's got to be worth that much?


If you want to nit pick I suggest you reread the part about "less than"....but I also remind you that the Jets are still trying to resign Fitzpatrick but are having trouble because of that non issue thing...the cap....

And now you think they signed him just to trade him? I surrender......there is no common sense at all.....just conspiracy theory type silliness....
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 10 2016, 07:49 AM) *
Debating this with Phits is an exercise in futility at this point. He and Mikey are convinced the Eagles are completely incompetent and inexperienced lunkheads and they accidentally signed a guy to a guaranteed 22 million dollar contract with the idea either to smokescreen other teams or to trade him after he plays well....oh wait...I missed one....they signed him because they forgot there was a draft....that is a great one by Mikey....



While I don't have much faith in Bradford, I don't think they are lunkheads. They needed some credibility in the FA market, so they signed him to a short but lucrative deal to make us more attractive to FA's then Sanchez or Daniel would be. The Daniel signing (for that amount), was lunheadish if you believe your reasoning for signing him. Yep, he's here to teach a six year vet the system. rolleyes.gif That's more believable then my story!

It is good to know that if the Eagles sign a QB in the 1st round then that is admission by you of their incompetence and inexperience.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 10 2016, 09:50 AM) *
While I don't have much faith in Bradford, I don't think they are lunkheads. They needed some credibility in the FA market, so they signed him to a short but lucrative deal to make us more attractive to FA's then Sanchez or Daniel would be. The Daniel signing (for that amount), was lunheadish if you believe your reasoning for signing him. Yep, he's here to teach a six year vet the system. rolleyes.gif That's more believable then my story!

It is good to know that if the Eagles sign a QB in the 1st round then that is admission by you of their incompetence and inexperience.


Signing him to teach their offense is not only for Bradford so he can hit the ground running but also important, and I guess you keep missing this point regardless of how many times I have pointed it out, because they are HEDGING THEIR BET with Bradford. They will draft a QB at some point in this draft.....Daniels will be mentoring/teaching that guy the offense. I think they grossly overpaid the guy...they could have had him for Sanchez money but it is what it is.

If one of the top 2 QBs falls to them at 8 and he is the BPA then how is that incompetence?

What is amusing is that on one hand you think Bradford stinks but on the other he is being used to attract FAs...because he stinks? I can see the allure....or are NFL FAs just so damn dumb that they don't see that either Bradford stinks or that he is just bait for them to sign?....are their agents equally dumb? Is everyone involved in their decision process equally dumb/blind to this? So the Eagles are just trying to trick FAs and apparently their own players with a 22 million dollar smokescreen? How could I miss that? SIlly me....lol
Joegrane
Maybe they consider finding the franchise QB a HUGE priority, worth the strange investment in both Bradford and Daniel. If this is true, I would not be surprised if they drafted a QB in round 1.

Then depending on who gets a QB and who makes the best deal, Bradford or Kaep ends up in Denver.

I think it is more likely they end up with a developmental QB and keep both Bradford and Daniel. Then depending on the progress with the young QB, they might move Bradford at the end of the year. Daniel becomes the interim and mentor QB for a year or two.

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 10 2016, 09:50 AM) *
While I don't have much faith in Bradford, I don't think they are lunkheads. They needed some credibility in the FA market, so they signed him to a short but lucrative deal to make us more attractive to FA's then Sanchez or Daniel would be. The Daniel signing (for that amount), was lunheadish if you believe your reasoning for signing him. Yep, he's here to teach a six year vet the system. rolleyes.gif That's more believable then my story!

It is good to know that if the Eagles sign a QB in the 1st round then that is admission by you of their incompetence and inexperience.

nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 10 2016, 09:25 AM) *
Signing him to teach their offense is not only for Bradford so he can hit the ground running but also important, and I guess you keep missing this point regardless of how many times I have pointed it out, because they are HEDGING THEIR BET with Bradford. They will draft a QB at some point in this draft.....Daniels will be mentoring/teaching that guy the offense. I think they grossly overpaid the guy...they could have had him for Sanchez money but it is what it is.

If one of the top 2 QBs falls to them at 8 and he is the BPA then how is that incompetence?

What is amusing is that on one hand you think Bradford stinks but on the other he is being used to attract FAs...because he stinks? I can see the allure....or are NFL FAs just so damn dumb that they don't see that either Bradford stinks or that he is just bait for them to sign?....are their agents equally dumb? Is everyone involved in their decision process equally dumb/blind to this? So the Eagles are just trying to trick FAs and apparently their own players with a 22 million dollar smokescreen? How could I miss that? SIlly me....lol


Is Sam Bradford on a two year deal seen as a better QB option by FA's, and more importantly, is his $22M guarantee seen as a bigger commitment to winning now then Sanchez on a one year contract, or Daniel on a four year contract for $12M guarantee? There is no doubt that the appearance of what they did with Bradford is more of a win now look than the other two options were. And most FA's want to play for good teams, unless you are someone like Nate Allen who walks into an OAK team that had to spend some serious cap last year to avoid the floor penalties. They want to win now. I, the aging guy who has never seen an Eagles championship am all for that. However, I don't take that move as reason not to draft a QB in round 1.

If they strongly suspected that they could get their future QB at #8, is their off season QB moves the way to go?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 9 2016, 09:29 AM) *
Of course it is hard....but using your logic you make it seem like hitting on a franchise QB is easy.....

Nope. Haven't suggested that at all. My opinion on the matter is pretty well documented. Keep acquiring QBs until one pans out. Even if you think you might have one, acquire more. Doing so isn't easy, but the upside is worth the risk.
QUOTE
With your defense, with the right DC you can build a great defense...the Eagles did that...they just could not get over the hump with their defense in the big game.

Building a great defense is an awesome concept. I'm all for it! But building one of the all timers that leads a team to a championship is tough and unlikely. Then you have to keep it together. I'd rather hitch my wagon to the franchise changing QB train.

QUOTE
By the way...both Giants wins over the Pats were defensive victories....particularly 2008

Manning may be a good QB but their defense was the real MVP

I agree. They were a more balanced team though. Eli is good. The defense was very good. Things worked out. I'd be happy to have that type of team.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Apr 10 2016, 09:51 AM) *
Maybe they consider finding the franchise QB a HUGE priority, worth the strange investment in both Bradford and Daniel. If this is true, I would not be surprised if they drafted a QB in round 1.


This could be true, although an expensive one. And really, it's not the Bradford part that makes it overly expensive, it's the Daniel part.

I differ from most.

We can't wait to #77 or later to get a QB. That is overwhelmingly a waste of time, if you intend to get a future top 15 guy.

Give me a QB in round one or not at all this year.

Unlike most others, I would move up to get one this year if they think the guys are good enough. If we have any success at all this year, then the cost to go up again next year would be prohibitive and you could not have the luxury of the team with the first and third pick not needing a QB.

If they like either of them, give up the 8, next year's one and this years second 3rd round pick and get him. Also OK with giving up Cox in lieu of next year's 1st if the Eagles have decided that DT is too expensive an investment long term. Would not prefer that as I'd prefer to win this year or next and we could still get two years of Fletch before we part ways.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Apr 10 2016, 10:51 AM) *
Maybe they consider finding the franchise QB a HUGE priority, worth the strange investment in both Bradford and Daniel. If this is true, I would not be surprised if they drafted a QB in round 1.

Then depending on who gets a QB and who makes the best deal, Bradford or Kaep ends up in Denver.

I think it is more likely they end up with a developmental QB and keep both Bradford and Daniel. Then depending on the progress with the young QB, they might move Bradford at the end of the year. Daniel becomes the interim and mentor QB for a year or two.


You keep talking about this trade scenario but that makes little sense....Bradford's big salary nut is next year...any trade partner would have to renegotiate with him and the question is why would they? The Eagles would be cornered into paying and cutting him and any team could sign him. For him to be an attractive trade commodity he would need to play well and if he does then why trade him?

If they consider finding the franchise QB a HUGE priority then they don't waste money on Bradford, they trade up to get their guy and spend that cap money on other guys to strengthen their team so the rookie can get to the field faster with a better cast. Signing Daniels would make sense but not Bradford.....that would merely be wasting money AND drat picks. You do one, not both.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 10 2016, 10:54 AM) *
Is Sam Bradford on a two year deal seen as a better QB option by FA's, and more importantly, is his $22M guarantee seen as a bigger commitment to winning now then Sanchez on a one year contract, or Daniel on a four year contract for $12M guarantee? There is no doubt that the appearance of what they did with Bradford is more of a win now look than the other two options were. And most FA's want to play for good teams, unless you are someone like Nate Allen who walks into an OAK team that had to spend some serious cap last year to avoid the floor penalties. They want to win now. I, the aging guy who has never seen an Eagles championship am all for that. However, I don't take that move as reason not to draft a QB in round 1.

If they strongly suspected that they could get their future QB at #8, is their off season QB moves the way to go?


Again you ignore your assumption that Bradford stinks but the FAs don't know that. How do you reconcile those 2 things?

If they want to play for a good team then they look for teams with QBs THEY think are good and I trust their opinions then those of mooks like us. Beyond that, FAs look for money and the Eagles paid them well. The Eagles drafting a QB in the first round if one of them falls to them is not a stretch if that guy is the BPA.

Braford's contract is a simple exercise in safe betting. They have him here and if he does what they think he will do he will be here for a long time. If he falls on his face which I concede is a very real possibility then they have not locked themselves to a huge contract.
Zero
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 10 2016, 11:44 AM) *
Again you ignore your assumption that Bradford stinks but the FAs don't know that. How do you reconcile those 2 things?

If they want to play for a good team then they look for teams with QBs THEY think are good and I trust their opinions then those of mooks like us. Beyond that, FAs look for money and the Eagles paid them well. The Eagles drafting a QB in the first round if one of them falls to them is not a stretch if that guy is the BPA.

Braford's contract is a simple exercise in safe betting. They have him here and if he does what they think he will do he will be here for a long time. If he falls on his face which I concede is a very real possibility then they have not locked themselves to a huge contract.

I'm getting tired of agreeing with you. That said, there is some logic to mikey's move up concept. It all depends on what the team thinks of a given player as compared to what they have. If they think Wentz is the next great QB and Bradford wins the bet and plays lights out they can trade him next year for a nice return. If Bradford is average or worse they have the young guy to groom. Bradford and the rookie may both suck, but this is Philadelphia so what would we expect. laugh.gif
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 10 2016, 11:56 AM) *
I'm getting tired of agreeing with you. That said, there is some logic to mikey's move up concept. It all depends on what the team thinks of a given player as compared to what they have. If they think Wentz is the next great QB and Bradford wins the bet and plays lights out they can trade him next year for a nice return. If Bradford is average or worse they have the young guy to groom. Bradford and the rookie may both suck, but this is Philadelphia so what would we expect. laugh.gif


One small flaw with the "trade a great Bradford" theory.....he is on a 2 year contract....with a high draft pick behind him and only one year left on his contract what trade value does he have? He can hold out for an extension or a trade but then he is devalued because the Eagles have a gun to their head.....or he doesn't hold out but every team knows the Eagles need to get rid of him, again, devalued or he plays out the contract and becomes a FA.....which scenario do you think his agent advises him to take?

Oddly enough.....if the conspiracy theory is wrong and they do not trade up for Wentz I would wager they don't want him to fall...lol...it would put them in a pickle.

I think this is all moot.....Wentz and Goff will be gone early, the Eagles will draft a defensive player for Schwartz or trade back and take an OL.....get your popcorn ready....lol
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 10 2016, 10:44 AM) *
Again you ignore your assumption that Bradford stinks but the FAs don't know that. How do you reconcile those 2 things?

If they want to play for a good team then they look for teams with QBs THEY think are good and I trust their opinions then those of mooks like us. Beyond that, FAs look for money and the Eagles paid them well. The Eagles drafting a QB in the first round if one of them falls to them is not a stretch if that guy is the BPA.

Braford's contract is a simple exercise in safe betting. They have him here and if he does what they think he will do he will be here for a long time. If he falls on his face which I concede is a very real possibility then they have not locked themselves to a huge contract.


Define ".stink"

I think Bradford playing in this offense will be a below average QB, some where in the 17-24 range. Not expected to be bad, but not staying power quality either. That level combined with an optimistic view shared by most, is plenty enough to give a FA hope and reason to sign here if the price is right. I don't see that as something needing reconciling.

As far as safe betting, drafting a QB at #8 could be construed as such, even with the other two QB's here.

Moving up, would be doubling down to get a "safe" bet. (admitting not as safe as staying put).

If they think that getting a upper level QB is the be all end all, it's an easy justification. It's likely more expensive to do it next year.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 10 2016, 11:02 AM) *
We can't wait to #77 or later to get a QB. That is overwhelmingly a waste of time, if you intend to get a future top 15 guy.

Give me a QB in round one or not at all this year.

Yep

QUOTE
Unlike most others, I would move up to get one this year if they think the guys are good enough. If we have any success at all this year, then the cost to go up again next year would be prohibitive and you could not have the luxury of the team with the first and third pick not needing a QB.

Yep

QUOTE
If they like either of them, give up the 8, next year's one and this years second 3rd round pick and get him. Also OK with giving up Cox in lieu of next year's 1st if the Eagles have decided that DT is too expensive an investment long term.

and Yep

Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 10 2016, 03:56 PM) *
Nope. Haven't suggested that at all. My opinion on the matter is pretty well documented. Keep acquiring QBs until one pans out. Even if you think you might have one, acquire more. Doing so isn't easy, but the upside is worth the risk.

We've just acquired two QBs. Either we back our judgement in signing them, or we spend big on a third guy. I'd rather take a mid-round gamble instead.

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 10 2016, 04:02 PM) *
If they like either of them, give up the 8, next year's one and this years second 3rd round pick and get him. Also OK with giving up Cox in lieu of next year's 1st if the Eagles have decided that DT is too expensive an investment long term. Would not prefer that as I'd prefer to win this year or next and we could still get two years of Fletch before we part ways.

You'd essentially make this year's draft all about one player, so if you miss you've set us back another couple of years.

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 10 2016, 05:15 PM) *
Oddly enough.....if the conspiracy theory is wrong and they do not trade up for Wentz I would wager they don't want him to fall...lol...it would put them in a pickle.

I think this is all moot.....Wentz and Goff will be gone early, the Eagles will draft a defensive player for Schwartz or trade back and take an OL.....get your popcorn ready....lol

I'd be happy if Wentz or Goff falls to us for two reasons. I don't mind taking them at #8 if they are the BPA, and I suspect we'll be made a good enough offer to drop back that we'll be able to cash in instead. Might have to give up our fourth but we'll get a second as well as a mid-teens first.
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.