Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: A Few Odds and Ends & Rambling Thoughts
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
If nothing else, this is interesting.

A few ramblings since you guys did so well in covering the other angles:

1. I think Howie is making a mistake if he believes that he won't trade Sam and that Sam is definitely the starter. Just as we over invested in RB and had to get out of it, we just over invested in QB and would be wise to get out of it, IMO. I can't imagine how it would not be in the Eagles best interests given the recent events, that if a team was willing to give us a decent pick (2nd or 3rd, or maybe a 4th& 5th) to take the remaining $7M of Sam's salary plus future guarantees. $7M plus a pick is not onerous for a team in need of a QB (CLE, DEN, NYJ)

2. After listening to Howie's press conference and his in studio interview with Spads, I am comfortable with the thought process that went into it. He said he thinks history has shown that they needed to be near the top of the draft to get a franchise QB and it was unlikely they could get one in the 3rd, 4th or 5th rounds. He said that they Eagles rarely pick in the top 10 and would need the confluence of a top 10 pick, good QB's worthy of that draft range and teams who need QB's not being in the top of the draft or if they were, to be willing to trade out of the spot so we could get one. This was extremely important. I agree with the thought process, but it doesn't mean it isn't extremely risky.

3. If you fast forward to around the 5:00 mark of his press conference, you will hear that this specific move wasn't planned out with the foresight you might have suspected. He said it was once they got in the top ten, then they started looking closely at the QB's and planning a potential move up. It seemed like the move into the top ten was more compensation to shed assets as opposed to a grand design to get to the top two for a QB. It was after they got up there and then thoroughly researched the QB's that they tried to move up. It also explains why they signed Sam first, then Daniels because they didn't have it figured out ahead of time. When you hear how much the new staff was involved, it makes sense. That reality may end up costing them millions, but given the events it is understandable.

4. How does Sam Bradford feel? I know he's a pro but if you believe one ounce of what he said when he signed here, then he has to be bummed. He's dead man walking and it isn't going to be easy. I wonder if they asked him if he would like to be traded, what he would say?

5. As I said before, the great majority of the time, trading down is the better option. That probably will ring true here, EXCEPT, IMO, if you want a franchise QB, I don't think trading down was an option that would yield dividend. If I was the Eagles and I didn't go this route, I would have made a strategy to draft a QB two years in a row, if not three in an appropriate round based on the talent pool of the prospects. For instance, if the Eagles couldn't do this, then it would be too early for Lynch at #8, they could trade down to a spot where the next QB that they wanted would be properly valued. Maybe Lynch wasn't their guy but Cook was. If they thin Cook is a worthy high 2nd round gamble, trade down, get extra picks, get to that spot and draft him. Do the same thing next year, and maybe even get another QB in one of these two years, so that you have three to chose from. So you roster four for a year (Bradford OR Daniel plus three) and let the best survive. It's a lot of draft resources, but a lot cheaper than we just did. It's the Nabby theory. I like the route we took as we're banking on one, but I could see if we banked on three different guys in a two year span and hope some cream rose to the top.

6. As many know, I work on a draft compilation every year. Well, we had intrigue at #8, #77, #79 and #100 turn into just #77. Takes the wind out of a draft compilation in a hurry. I'm bummed as I like the guessing that goes on.

7. When you take the reality of the draft value board being over valued, this trade is probably a bad deal. (I'm willing to give it the franchise QB exception). But even if you go by the over valued draft trade chart, we got fleeced. I have to look at my other post, but I think this is the third highest premium given up in the years I studied, behind the Rams fleecing of the Skins and the Bill's trade up for Watkins:

We got:

#2 = 2600
'17 4th = 66
Total Haul = 2666 (not crazy about that 666 number)

Gave up

#8 = 1400
#77 = 205
#100 = 100
'17 1st = 1000
'18 2nd = 430
Total Cost = 3135

Net premium = 469 = Pick #43 = upper mid 2nd. Ouch, that really really hurts.

#8 I have a hunch that there is a strong likelihood that we trade a current player or two to get draft picks this year. Not saying we'll get a 2nd or a 3rd, but maybe a 4th or 5th we can package to move up into early 4th late 3rd. Also, look for the Eagles to sign two more reasonably priced free agents to make up for the lost picks. Don't know who or where, but look for it.

Other than that, not much to talk about today!! rolleyes.gif
Joegrane
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 20 2016, 10:09 PM) *
...
1. I think Howie is making a mistake if he believes that he won't trade Sam and that Sam is definitely the starter. Just as we over invested in RB and had to get out of it, we just over invested in QB and would be wise to get out of it, ...


This is not just a $ issue but how much practice time does the #3 QB get. Having Bradford on the roster will likely hinder the development of the rookie.

QUOTE
3. If you fast forward to around the 5:00 mark of his press conference, you will hear that this specific move wasn't planned out with the foresight you might have suspected. He said it was once they got in the top ten, then they started looking closely at the QB's and planning a potential move up. ...


Maybe but I bet he was hoping to trade up for a QB. The signing of so many modest priced FAs to fill holes looked suspicious to me. It seemed that the Eagles were well prepared to trade away their current draft.

Now they can use the 3rd rounder to add depth and talent to one of a few positions of moderate need--RB, S, OL, LB

QUOTE
4. How does Sam Bradford feel? ...


He is essentially in another contract year but this year he has good health and a rapport with some of the most important receivers he'll be working with.

I think there is more than 50% chance that he'll be traded before the season because the SB champs are in big need, but after learning about the $ implications of trading him after the season, I would not be surprised if he is the starter this year. He won't be traded before the season without surprisingly good compensation. The $ situation for the receiving team is just too good.

....

QUOTE
7. When you take the reality of the draft value board being over valued, this trade is probably a bad deal. (I'm willing to give it the franchise QB exception). But even if you go by the over valued draft trade chart, we got fleeced. I have to look at my other post, but I think this is the third highest premium given up in the years I studied, behind the Rams fleecing of the Skins and the Bill's trade up for Watkins:

We got:

#2 = 2600
'17 4th = 66
Total Haul = 2666 (not crazy about that 666 number)

Gave up

#8 = 1400
#77 = 205
#100 = 100
'17 1st = 1000
'18 2nd = 430
Total Cost = 3135

Net premium = 469 = Pick #43 = upper mid 2nd. Ouch, that really really hurts.


I'm not convinced about your 2017 and 18 #s. Remember one of our 3rds this year came from trading our 4th last year.

QUOTE
#8 I have a hunch that there is a strong likelihood that we trade a current player or two to get draft picks this year. Not saying we'll get a 2nd or a 3rd, but maybe a 4th or 5th we can package to move up into early 4th late 3rd.


I don't see that except Cox as a long shot. I think he'll be perfect for compensating for the weakness in the Wide 9 against the off-tackle run.

QUOTE
Also, look for the Eagles to sign two more reasonably priced free agents to make up for the lost picks. ...


I could see that if Bradford is traded, but who is out there worth signing at this point?

D Rock
It'd be harder to trade Sam next year. Everyone will know the Eagles are done with him. They wont pay him that money to be a backup. And it strikes me as unlikely they'd be want to sit Wentz in year 2 as well. So teams will wait for his release. At the very least, the potential for that scenario would drive his costs down.

If the plan is to trade him, they have to do it now. Let Daniels carry the water until Carson is ready.

Phits
We got a 2nd round pick and Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie for Kevin Kolb.
D Rock
I'd love that kind of return. Don't see it happening. But, I'd love it.
mcnabbulous
If Sam is as good as some of our board members think, teams will be throwing draft picks at us.

Joegrane
Thaks for pointing that out. Do you remember how many years he still had on his rookie deal? My guess is that he was in the final year of it. That is another example of a good team that was desperate for a QB.

I don't know what they will get for Sam but would not be surprised to get a 2nd or 3rd out of a desperate Denver team. That could be the 3rd down RB of the future.

QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 21 2016, 11:53 AM) *
We got a 2nd round pick and Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie for Kevin Kolb.

Eyrie
If we get incredibly lucky then we'll get a conditional second or third in 2017 for Bradford before June. After those mini-camps his value will decline because he'll have less time in the new system with new players.

Our best hope is that he plays well and Wentz/Goff develops nicely behind him, allowing us to offload Bradford next year for that second or third.

Mostly likely we'll get a conditional third/fourth in 2018 next March because he's been average in 2016.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 21 2016, 05:18 PM) *
If Sam is as good as some of our board members think, teams will be throwing draft picks at us.

Not when they know our motivation to get Wentz on the field.
D Rock
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 21 2016, 08:28 PM) *
If we get incredibly lucky then we'll get a conditional second or third in 2017 for Bradford before June. After those mini-camps his value will decline because he'll have less time in the new system with new players.

Our best hope is that he plays well and Wentz/Goff develops nicely behind him, allowing us to offload Bradford next year for that second or third.

Mostly likely we'll get a conditional third/fourth in 2018 next March because he's been average in 2016.

You guys are missing the point. This time NEXT year, we will have exactly ZERO bargaining power. IF he's going to be traded at all, it has to happen now. Next year, all will know that he's in Wentz's way and we're not likely to be want to pay Sam's salary as a backup. Thus any leverage we might have will be gone.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 21 2016, 04:46 PM) *
You guys are missing the point. This time NEXT year, we will have exactly ZERO bargaining power. IF he's going to be traded at all, it has to happen now. Next year, all will know that he's in Wentz's way and we're not likely to be want to pay Sam's salary as a backup. Thus any leverage we might have will be gone.

But if he is good, our bargaining power is the fact that we have a good QB that other teams should want. The asset is the power.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 21 2016, 10:47 PM) *
But if he is good, our bargaining power is the fact that we have a good QB that other teams should want. The asset is the power.

So then what? Trade away a good quarterback for one who's thrown 600 passes in the NCAAs and maybe 60 in NFL preseason? That makes even less sense.
Reality Fan
That is if they can get that far....already there are rumors of Bradford wanting a trade now....

What a mess
mcnabbulous
Fuck Bradford's entitled ass. Dude hasn't done shit in his career, signs what is clearly a contract that is clearly not a big commitment, and is complaining?

Obviously he needs a new agent that can explain reality to the guy.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 21 2016, 05:47 PM) *
But if he is good, our bargaining power is the fact that we have a good QB that other teams should want. The asset is the power.

Hopefully, our FO is seeking greatness at the QB position and not just doing things for the hell of it. Bradford is an average QB that will have good moments. That should help (trick) some QB desperate team into donating a draft pick or two to our cause.
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 21 2016, 04:46 PM) *
You guys are missing the point. This time NEXT year, we will have exactly ZERO bargaining power. IF he's going to be traded at all, it has to happen now. Next year, all will know that he's in Wentz's way and we're not likely to be want to pay Sam's salary as a backup. Thus any leverage we might have will be gone.



I think I agree with this.


But, Sam coming off of an overall year where he was bottom tier, but with an encouraging last seven games

VS.

Sam coming off of an above average entire season.

I hear you on the lost leverage, but question is, any chance option B nets us more, even with the lost leverage?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 21 2016, 05:15 PM) *
That is if they can get that far....already there are rumors of Bradford wanting a trade now....

What a mess


I'd like to believe that Howie and Dougie knew this was going to happen (Bradford's reaction), thus the big contract for Daniel, as opposed to believing what Howie said in his presser about Sam being able to be OK with it.

I'd favor deceit over naivete.

Gun to my head, I'd guess naivete.

Zero
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 21 2016, 06:15 PM) *
That is if they can get that far....already there are rumors of Bradford wanting a trade now....

What a mess

I like Bradford, but why should we care if he has his panties in a bunch? What has he done that entitles him to an uncontested coronation? If he's pissed, then he should prove Howie to be an asshole who blew it. Play lights out and make them regret underestimating him. Stay healthy and lead a team to the playoffs and win. That would be a first for him, right? If he does that the Eagles will either have him for another year or have value to trade. They will have had a year to know if the rookie can play.

But what are the odds of him staying healthy and playing lights out? I've been a fan of Bradford, but what are the odds? This trade may turn out to be the biggest bungle job the Eagles have ever perpetrated, but I can't believe anyone thinks the team wasn't in a corner. If Bradford stays true to his past and they don't have a fall back, they're screwed. If the rookie sucks balls, they're screwed. So which is better: status quo, hope and Chase or sticking your neck out and taking a risk?

I get the pit-in-the-stomach reaction, I'm there. Taking a risk like this can spell disaster, but if you never take risk you never succeed.
D Rock
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 22 2016, 12:45 AM) *
I think I agree with this.


But, Sam coming off of an overall year where he was bottom tier, but with an encouraging last seven games

VS.

Sam coming off of an above average entire season.

I hear you on the lost leverage, but question is, any chance option B nets us more, even with the lost leverage?

I frame the distinction differently....

Sam, having proved his knee sound, and ready to fulfill the promise that was universally seen coming into the league, took a few weeks to shake off the rust of 2 YEARS OFF and learn a new team, scheme, city... Set franchise records for completions and completion % while playing good football on a team with zero protection and a crop of stone handed receivers that led the league in drops.

VS

Sam coming off a good season, but with a youngster nipping at his heels to get on the field.

To your question, I'd say very little chance he nets us more with the lost leverage. When the league knows, you're not going to pay him starter money, and you're chomping at the bit to put the shiny new youngster you mortgaged the future for, they'll just wait for you to release him. You might get a conditional 6th/7th from some desperate team wanting first crack at him.

The only knock on him was health, and he crossed that bridge last year. Now is the time to move him if you ever want any kind of a return. I'd think we could get a 2nd or 3rd from Denver.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 22 2016, 11:14 AM) *
The only knock on him was health

That's not entirely true. He has had pedestrian YPA and TD numbers throughout his career. He didn't do anything to shake those perceptions last year.

Additionally, despite the criticisms, QB's did tend to play well in Chip's offense. It's hard to say how that did or did not impact him last year.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 22 2016, 04:25 PM) *
That's not entirely true.

Says you.

Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 22 2016, 12:25 PM) *
That's not entirely true. He has had pedestrian YPA and TD numbers throughout his career. He didn't do anything to shake those perceptions last year.

Additionally, despite the criticisms, QB's did tend to play well in Chip's offense. It's hard to say how that did or did not impact him last year.



And what was an important component of Chip Kelly's offense in both those years that was glaringly absent in year 3?

You guessed it.....

A stud WR.....shocking.....lol
D Rock
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 22 2016, 04:57 PM) *
And what was an important component of Chip Kelly's offense in both those years that was glaringly absent in year 3?

You guessed it.....

A stud WR.....shocking.....lol

....and a top tier offensive line. More shocking......lol
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 22 2016, 11:57 AM) *
And what was an important component of Chip Kelly's offense in both those years that was glaringly absent in year 3?

You guessed it.....

A stud WR.....shocking.....lol

Don't blame me. I wanted Allen Robinson smile.gif
Phits
Maclin is your definition of a stud WR?

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 22 2016, 12:57 PM) *
And what was an important component of Chip Kelly's offense in both those years that was glaringly absent in year 3?

You guessed it.....

A stud WR.....shocking.....lol

Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 22 2016, 01:00 PM) *
Don't blame me. I wanted Allen Robinson smile.gif


Yes you did...no question
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Phits @ Apr 22 2016, 03:45 PM) *
Maclin is your definition of a stud WR?


He is certainly a top 20 guy...so yes....and he had 1300 yards for them in 2014...and he can catch...a big thing missing this year...
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 22 2016, 12:25 PM) *
That's not entirely true. He has had pedestrian YPA and TD numbers throughout his career. He didn't do anything to shake those perceptions last year.

Additionally, despite the criticisms, QB's did tend to play well in Chip's offense. It's hard to say how that did or did not impact him last year.


You do realize that this comes back to our apparently circular argument....you can't have a high YPA without WRs who can A) beat coverage and cool.gif catch the ball........something he has really not had much of....a situation made worse with Kelly's regimented "you will throw the ball here" philosophy. Sadly, Kelly had gutted his WR ranks prior to Bradford's arrival...maybe he is cursed...lol
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 22 2016, 03:22 PM) *
You do realize that this comes back to our apparently circular argument....you can't have a high YPA without WRs who can A) beat coverage and cool.gif catch the ball........something he has really not had much of....a situation made worse with Kelly's regimented "you will throw the ball here" philosophy. Sadly, Kelly had gutted his WR ranks prior to Bradford's arrival...maybe he is cursed...lol

Sure I'm not denying it. But it's still a real question mark about his game that he is yet to answer. Even in his magical 7 game stretch where he had his whopping 10 TDs.
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 22 2016, 11:55 AM) *
Says you.



And the fans of St. Louis.

And many NFL pundits.

And most importantly, ME!!
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 22 2016, 08:01 PM) *
And the fans of St. Louis.

And many NFL pundits.

And most importantly, ME!!


and can you believe that some idiots here think that other teams will trade us picks for him?


Oh wait....that's you....oops...sorry

Is it hard talking out of both sides of your mouth? Do you drink like that?
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 22 2016, 09:49 PM) *
and can you believe that some idiots here think that other teams will trade us picks for him?


Oh wait....that's you....oops...sorry

Is it hard talking out of both sides of your mouth? Do you drink like that?


And can you believe that some idiots don't think there's any fucking way we trade up to get a QB in the draft

Oh wait......that's you........oops........sorry

Reality hits hard (no pun intended) when you realize that the Eagles really aren't sold on Bradford as much as his excuse card carrying fan club

duel.gif

And I don't think assuming a $7M salary and giving up a 4th round pick is a ringing endorsement of his stature around the league. When you are DEN and have Sanchez (and not in Chip's system), or NYJ and have Geno fucking Smith, or CLE and have RG 3, or SF and have Blaine Fucking Gabbert and the guy he beat out, Kaepernick who doesn't want to be there, it ain't like the QB your dating is all that hot. Bradford looks like a step up from that crowd. And compared to Fitz, they're about the same only Fitz is more costly and older.
Zero
Is that a bet I smell? biggrin.gif



Notice one Miller Lite and one expensive craft beer. The Miller lite gets the head. laugh.gif
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 23 2016, 06:06 AM) *
Is that a bet I smell? biggrin.gif



Notice one Miller Lite and one expensive craft beer. The Miller lite gets the head. laugh.gif



Is it wrong to like a little head?

devil03.gif
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 22 2016, 11:26 PM) *
And can you believe that some idiots don't think there's any fucking way we trade up to get a QB in the draft

Oh wait......that's you........oops........sorry

Reality hits hard (no pun intended) when you realize that the Eagles really aren't sold on Bradford as much as his excuse card carrying fan club

duel.gif

And I don't think assuming a $7M salary and giving up a 4th round pick is a ringing endorsement of his stature around the league. When you are DEN and have Sanchez (and not in Chip's system), or NYJ and have Geno fucking Smith, or CLE and have RG 3, or SF and have Blaine Fucking Gabbert and the guy he beat out, Kaepernick who doesn't want to be there, it ain't like the QB your dating is all that hot. Bradford looks like a step up from that crowd. And compared to Fitz, they're about the same only Fitz is more costly and older.


Yes...some idiot here thought there was no way the Eagles would pay more to go from 13 to 2 than the Rams would pay to go from 15 to 1....imagine that....

It is not so much about the Eagles commitment to Bradford, that is not shocking...the 2 year deal showed that they were not totally committed......it is the assets they exhausted AFTER signing him.

and somehow you fail to realize that the teams you have mentioned did not want to spend on the QB position BEFORE the Eagles made this move so I have no clue why you find it relevant now. Bradford is not a guy who will settle for 10 million and every team knows it.....so why would a team looking for a cheap QB trade for him? The Jets don't even want to pay a guy who set their franchise TD record 10 million and the Broncos did not want to pay their heir apparent 16.....not sure how you keep overlooking those simple facts...
Zero
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 23 2016, 11:13 AM) *
Is it wrong to like a little head? devil03.gif

Exactly my point.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 23 2016, 10:20 AM) *
Yes...some idiot here thought there was no way the Eagles would pay more to go from 13 to 2 than the Rams would pay to go from 15 to 1....imagine that....

It is not so much about the Eagles commitment to Bradford, that is not shocking...the 2 year deal showed that they were not totally committed......it is the assets they exhausted AFTER signing him.

and somehow you fail to realize that the teams you have mentioned did not want to spend on the QB position BEFORE the Eagles made this move so I have no clue why you find it relevant now. Bradford is not a guy who will settle for 10 million and every team knows it.....so why would a team looking for a cheap QB trade for him? The Jets don't even want to pay a guy who set their franchise TD record 10 million and the Broncos did not want to pay their heir apparent 16.....not sure how you keep overlooking those simple facts...



No you said they wouldn't trade up to the top. no mention of the comp. I believe you may have thrown in some derisive comments to guys like me who thought they would but c'est la vie.

$7M for a look see is not a lot of money. We footed the bill for $11M, they aren't on the hook this year for more than that. After this year, they can make their own decision and like us can cut him if not happy or re-sign him to a longer term deal more cap friendly if they are. How many starting QB's who are not on rookie deals cost only $7M. Even if he is below average 18-24 range, that's no expensive at all.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 23 2016, 02:32 PM) *
No you said they wouldn't trade up to the top. no mention of the comp. I believe you may have thrown in some derisive comments to guys like me who thought they would but c'est la vie.

$7M for a look see is not a lot of money. We footed the bill for $11M, they aren't on the hook this year for more than that. After this year, they can make their own decision and like us can cut him if not happy or re-sign him to a longer term deal more cap friendly if they are. How many starting QB's who are not on rookie deals cost only $7M. Even if he is below average 18-24 range, that's no expensive at all.


What world do you live in? There is still the 4 million dollar roster bonus guaranteed next year or does that just vanish? someone pays that...if they trade him the new team is on the hook for that next year even if they cut him...22 million is guaranteed....I think that means he is guaranteed 22 million no matter what which means someone has to pay it....am I wrong? And do you think he settles for cheap? Because if the answer is no then his price tag goes through the roof and they clearly have no stomach for paying their next QB big money on a team that wins with defense.....

It appears you think all teams are as careless with assets as Howie....
Zero
I think the QB market right now is more about cap space and who the QBs are than it is about what teams are willing to pay for the position. Apparently the Jets either don't think Fitzpatrick is worth starter money or they don't know of a way to negotiate their cap issues. Also, apparently the Broncos don't think Kaepernick is worth the almost $16 mil cap hit vs their own cap issues. A one-year $7 mil deal for Bradford would be much easier for either team to manage.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 23 2016, 03:52 PM) *
I think the QB market right now is more about cap space and who the QBs are than it is about what teams are willing to pay for the position. Apparently the Jets either don't think Fitzpatrick is worth starter money or they don't know of a way to negotiate their cap issues. Also, apparently the Broncos don't think Kaepernick is worth the almost $16 mil cap hit vs their own cap issues. A one-year $7 mil deal for Bradford would be much easier for either team to manage.


again...what is it about teams not wanting to go with a one year band aid that is so hard to understand? WHoever trades for Bradford would have to be happy with just one year because he is set to make 17 million next year and 4 million of dead cap if they cut him.....and he is not going to negotiate a new contract for 10 million....this is an ugly situation...
Zero
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 23 2016, 04:42 PM) *
again...what is it about teams not wanting to go with a one year band aid that is so hard to understand? WHoever trades for Bradford would have to be happy with just one year because he is set to make 17 million next year and 4 million of dead cap if they cut him.....and he is not going to negotiate a new contract for 10 million....this is an ugly situation...

Why do you fail to consider that maybe some team(s) don't consider it a one-year rental but rather, a one-year audition with the best available QB at a below market price?
Eyrie
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 23 2016, 09:42 PM) *
again...what is it about teams not wanting to go with a one year band aid that is so hard to understand? WHoever trades for Bradford would have to be happy with just one year because he is set to make 17 million next year and 4 million of dead cap if they cut him.....and he is not going to negotiate a new contract for 10 million....this is an ugly situation...

Look how much we paid Bradford for a one year audition last season.

It's possible that another team will pay the $7m this year and be willing to take the $4m hit in year two if he works out, because they'll be extending him anyway.

What is unlikely is that another team now has a genuine interest that wasn't there when Bradford was a FA.
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.