Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: History shows not much to worry about in trading QB
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
I can't get the link to copy, but check out Jimmy Kempski article on Philly voice.com.

QB traded by us have a rough time.

I don't remember us having Kelly Holcomb, do you?

Also interesting that we only got a 2 and 4 for McNabb vs 1 and 4 for Bradford.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 5 2016, 09:23 AM) *
I can't get the link to copy, but check out Jimmy Kempski article on Philly voice.com.

QB traded by us have a rough time.

I don't remember us having Kelly Holcomb, do you?

Also interesting that we only got a 2 and 4 for McNabb vs 1 and 4 for Bradford.

Linc ..
(Brought to you courtesy of the link police.)
Joegrane
"QB traded by us have a rough time"

That is a ridiculous, meaningless statement.

There are too few cases.

The situations vary GREATLY!

For example, you can't compare trading #5 at the end of his career to the hapless Skins to the Bradford situation.

Sam's performance in the second half of last season was not that of a below average QB and he was not playing with an average supporting cast.

How many of the others were playing well when traded, maybe just K Kolb? Kolb's failure was due to injuries, especially the strange tendency to suffer concussions.

Sam is going to a playoff caliber team.

I expect him to make them an even better team in the second half of this season.

If Sam stays healthy, this will be a win-win trade for both teams.

I won't be surprised if they end up in the NFC Championship game and we get their 3rd rounder in '18.

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 5 2016, 09:23 AM) *
I can't get the link to copy, but check out Jimmy Kempski article on Philly voice.com.

QB traded by us have a rough time.

I don't remember us having Kelly Holcomb, do you?

Also interesting that we only got a 2 and 4 for McNabb vs 1 and 4 for Bradford.

Zero
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Sep 5 2016, 11:00 AM) *
If Sam stays healthy, this will be a win-win trade for both teams.

On the other hand, if he doesn't stay healthy it's a win/win for the Eagles. His history would suggest the odds are in the Eagles favor.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Sep 5 2016, 11:00 AM) *
"QB traded by us have a rough time"

That is a ridiculous, meaningless statement.

There are too few cases.

The situations vary GREATLY!

For example, you can't compare trading #5 at the end of his career to the hapless Skins to the Bradford situation.

Sam's performance in the second half of last season was not that of a below average QB and he was not playing with an average supporting cast.

How many of the others were playing well when traded, maybe just K Kolb? Kolb's failure was due to injuries, especially the strange tendency to suffer concussions.

Sam is going to a playoff caliber team.

I expect him to make them an even better team in the second half of this season.

If Sam stays healthy, this will be a win-win trade for both teams.

I won't be surprised if they end up in the NFC Championship game and we get their 3rd rounder in '18.



Thank you....I was thinking the same thing...truly silly article.
nephillymike
Tough crowd!

We traded 9 qb's, some of them starters or decent backups.

Not that we expected the world out of them when we traded them, but the results were horrendous.

9 for 9 is worth noting.

Not that it has bearing on Sam, but I thought it interesting and proof that the sky will not likely fall.!
samaroo
I have every expectation that Sammy B will not have a good year this year. I don't hate the guy, he has just never looked like THE guy.

I'll say this, too: Wentz is a hope. All high-pick QBs are. You get one and hope he's THE one. But even if Bradford lights it up in Minny, this trade was worth it. Regardless of whether Wentz works out or not.
The Franchise
I saw the article. Instead of this being a positive (honestly, who cares how Bradford does this year), doesn't this just show how completely hapless our management is in terms of getting quality QB's here? And as mentioned, sending 34-year old McNabb to a terrible Redskins team doesn't really count.....
Zero
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 5 2016, 06:22 PM) *
I saw the article. Instead of this being a positive (honestly, who cares how Bradford does this year), doesn't this just show how completely hapless our management is in terms of getting quality QB's here? And as mentioned, sending 34-year old McNabb to a terrible Redskins team doesn't really count.....

We should all care. If Sleeves sucks and the Vikings suck the Eagles pick earlier.
mcnabbulous
What franchise is consistently good at getting quality QBs? The Packers? The Colts lucked into two generational talents at the position.

Beyond that, it's a crapshoot and you either have one or you don't.
samaroo
Which is why good teams keep drafting QBs. Even when you don't "need" one.
Joegrane
That is a topic for another day. However it is my impression that the good teams become good because they have their franchise QB and can use draft picks and FA$ to build around the QB.

QUOTE (samaroo @ Sep 5 2016, 10:07 PM) *
Which is why good teams keep drafting QBs. Even when you don't "need" one.

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.