What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*Official 2016 Philadelphia Eagles* - The year of Change (1 Viewer)

I kind of dislike the Cardinals, but I'm not sure why. I guess it's because of all those crappy teams in the NFC "East". And because half the time they beat us with those crappy teams.

 
Tommy Lawlor posted a link to these two videos of Jim Schwartz speaking some time last year at a coaching clinic, talking about the Wide 9 and pass rush schemes. Was really interesting to hear him talk about how it evolved in Tennessee as a way of stopping the Colts outside zone running game and how different that was to what we saw here with Washburn and Babin.

http://brophyfootball.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/jim-schwartz-pressure-philosophy.html

For the first time in quite a few years, I'm feeling excitement to see the Eagles D next year, rather than trepidation and dread.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JFC.

Wonder if anybody else wants to interview McDermott now?
Apparently he burned bridges here? I wanted them to at least interview him
Does being DC under Rivera, a defensive coach, hurt him? Dunno - I think a HC can't really focus on offense or defense, without doing poorly, so he should get some credir, McDermott has been around some quality coaches now - one would think he's learned a great deal. Dunno about burned bridges here, but I imagine he'll be in HC consideration next year.

 
JFC.

Wonder if anybody else wants to interview McDermott now?
Apparently he burned bridges here? I wanted them to at least interview him
Does being DC under Rivera, a defensive coach, hurt him? Dunno - I think a HC can't really focus on offense or defense, without doing poorly, so he should get some credir, McDermott has been around some quality coaches now - one would think he's learned a great deal. Dunno about burned bridges here, but I imagine he'll be in HC consideration next year.
I'm sure he'll be the hottest name next year if the Panthers play well on D again. He might have even been ready this year, a whole other year and he'll be good. I'm sure he'll also focus on trying to watch Rivera pretty closely and learn some HC skills, because it seems unlikely he won't get a gig next year. Hell, maybe we'll even offer him something if Pederson goes 0-16

 
I think it comes down to the market for bradford. But yes I agree looking like he will be gone. Gonna be a rough couple years
I still don't see him being gone. Do you really think a new coach goes into the draft knowing that if he doesn't get a qb in round 1, that Mark Sanchez is his starting QB in year 1? No way. They are idiots if they let him go.
Depends on the goal. Sure we can win the division but with a $20+ mil QB that hinders other areas that we could spend money on. Do we have enough right now to compete with Carolina, Arizona or Seattle in the next 2 years?
I don't think we are even close to those teams.
Exactly. So why sign Bradford to a 4-5 year deal worth $80-100mil? That's an anchor.

Of the teams that are left, Brady has purposely taken less to compete for titles. He's at $9mil per year. Manning and Palmer are only the 15th and 16th highest paid QBs. Cam is the only one getting paid because he's past his rookie, he's young and he was the #1 pick who's been incredible.

I just think more often than not, once you lay the QB the big bucks, its because you won or you had no choice.
A decent QB at 20 mil in today's NFL is NOT an anchor. A bad QB, at ANY price, is a death sentence.

I'd rather pay the man

 
JFC.

Wonder if anybody else wants to interview McDermott now?
Apparently he burned bridges here? I wanted them to at least interview him
Does being DC under Rivera, a defensive coach, hurt him? Dunno - I think a HC can't really focus on offense or defense, without doing poorly, so he should get some credir, McDermott has been around some quality coaches now - one would think he's learned a great deal. Dunno about burned bridges here, but I imagine he'll be in HC consideration next year.
I'm sure he'll be the hottest name next year if the Panthers play well on D again. He might have even been ready this year, a whole other year and he'll be good. I'm sure he'll also focus on trying to watch Rivera pretty closely and learn some HC skills, because it seems unlikely he won't get a gig next year. Hell, maybe we'll even offer him something if Pederson goes 0-16
A few pieces like this one point to a 'fractured relationship' and disagreements:

http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=/philly/sports&id=365984721

Saw a Dawkins interview last week where he questioned not bringing McDermott in. As his old DC, Dawkins had good things to say about him.

 
I think it comes down to the market for bradford. But yes I agree looking like he will be gone. Gonna be a rough couple years
I still don't see him being gone. Do you really think a new coach goes into the draft knowing that if he doesn't get a qb in round 1, that Mark Sanchez is his starting QB in year 1? No way. They are idiots if they let him go.
Depends on the goal. Sure we can win the division but with a $20+ mil QB that hinders other areas that we could spend money on. Do we have enough right now to compete with Carolina, Arizona or Seattle in the next 2 years?
I don't think we are even close to those teams.
Exactly. So why sign Bradford to a 4-5 year deal worth $80-100mil? That's an anchor.Of the teams that are left, Brady has purposely taken less to compete for titles. He's at $9mil per year. Manning and Palmer are only the 15th and 16th highest paid QBs. Cam is the only one getting paid because he's past his rookie, he's young and he was the #1 pick who's been incredible.

I just think more often than not, once you lay the QB the big bucks, its because you won or you had no choice.
A decent QB at 20 mil in today's NFL is NOT an anchor. A bad QB, at ANY price, is a death sentence.I'd rather pay the man
I disagree. Brees is still a good to great QB. That team has been in a steady decline since they had to pay him. They let key players go for cap reasons like Sproles, Jenkins, Graham.

Seahawks had a steady rise during Wilson's rookie contract making it to 2 super bowls. This year was the first after he signed. Maxwell, Schofield, Unger and Malcom Smith all were let go. You can say some didn't live up to potential but that doesn't account for what they provided while there.

Rivers contract kicked in this year and while most of their woes were due to injuries, they had zero depth on the team to replace the starters.

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Kaepernick; when you have to pay the QB, that's usually the end of the run unless you have an exceptional one. Do we think Bradford is exceptional?

 
Ertz received a 5-year extension, through 2021. Pederson worked well with Kelce. I think he becomes very involved in the new offense.

 
Just saw that. Have to hope Curry and Johnson are next.
Agreed. Hope those come soon.

Re: Ertz press conference today at 1, will be curious to hear the amounts per year for the extension, cap ramifications, et al. He's 25, and just finished as the #6 TE in receptions and #7 TE in yards. He played better as the season went on and he recovered from his abdominal injury. Locking him up 6 more years, through his age 31 season.

He's our guy long term. What's his upside in the Pederson WCO? Kelce sets a comparable baseline IMO.

Kelce 2014: 16 games - 67/862/5 (87 targets)

Kelce 2015: 16 games - 72/875/5 (100 targets)

Ertz 2015: 15 games - 75/853/2 (112 targets)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just saw that. Have to hope Curry and Johnson are next.
Agreed. Hope those come soon.

Re: Ertz press conference today at 1, will be curious to hear the amounts per year for the extension, cap ramifications, et al. He's 25, and just finished as the #6 TE in receptions and #7 TE in yards. He played better as the season went on and he recovered from his abdominal injury. Locking him up 6 more years, through his age 31 season.

He's our guy long term. What's his upside in the Pederson WCO? Kelce sets a comparable baseline IMO.

Kelce 2014: 16 games - 67/862/5 (87 targets)

Kelce 2015: 16 games - 72/875/5 (100 targets)

Ertz 2015: 15 games - 75/853/2 (112 targets)
Glad we got this done before he has a monstar year this year.

 
Just saw that. Have to hope Curry and Johnson are next.
Agreed. Hope those come soon.

Re: Ertz press conference today at 1, will be curious to hear the amounts per year for the extension, cap ramifications, et al. He's 25, and just finished as the #6 TE in receptions and #7 TE in yards. He played better as the season went on and he recovered from his abdominal injury. Locking him up 6 more years, through his age 31 season.

He's our guy long term. What's his upside in the Pederson WCO? Kelce sets a comparable baseline IMO.

Kelce 2014: 16 games - 67/862/5 (87 targets)

Kelce 2015: 16 games - 72/875/5 (100 targets)

Ertz 2015: 15 games - 75/853/2 (112 targets)
Glad we got this done before he has a monstar year this year.
ehh, maybe. I don't remember a ton of great games from him this year, but I do remember quite a few drops. I think this makes him the 4th highest paid TE behind Gronk, Graham, and Julius Thomas. I don't mind it if they saw something that makes him on the same level as those guys, and it doesn't tie up a ton of money that could be used for other guys

 
Just saw that. Have to hope Curry and Johnson are next.
Agreed. Hope those come soon.

Re: Ertz press conference today at 1, will be curious to hear the amounts per year for the extension, cap ramifications, et al. He's 25, and just finished as the #6 TE in receptions and #7 TE in yards. He played better as the season went on and he recovered from his abdominal injury. Locking him up 6 more years, through his age 31 season.

He's our guy long term. What's his upside in the Pederson WCO? Kelce sets a comparable baseline IMO.

Kelce 2014: 16 games - 67/862/5 (87 targets)

Kelce 2015: 16 games - 72/875/5 (100 targets)

Ertz 2015: 15 games - 75/853/2 (112 targets)
Glad we got this done before he has a monstar year this year.
ehh, maybe. I don't remember a ton of great games from him this year, but I do remember quite a few drops. I think this makes him the 4th highest paid TE behind Gronk, Graham, and Julius Thomas. I don't mind it if they saw something that makes him on the same level as those guys, and it doesn't tie up a ton of money that could be used for other guys
With it being such a long term deal, it's good. in 2 years, he won't be the 4th highest paid TE.

 
I like checking that "Roob's 25 things" on that site. here is an interesting one about Greg Lewis:

23. Hey, don’t laugh at Greg Lewis' being named Eagles wide receivers coach. Huge upgrade over Bob Bicknell, who was never the right guy for the position. Lewis was never a great player — that seems to be a prerequsite to be on Pederson’s staff — but in his limited time as an NFL coach, he’s shown a real flair for helping young receivers improve. He’s got a great personality and really relates to his players. Look how Brandin Cooks improved last year. Look what undrafted Willie Snead did. No young wideouts ever got better under Bicknell. Look for Lewis to make an impact immediately.

 
Just saw that. Have to hope Curry and Johnson are next.
Agreed. Hope those come soon.

Re: Ertz press conference today at 1, will be curious to hear the amounts per year for the extension, cap ramifications, et al. He's 25, and just finished as the #6 TE in receptions and #7 TE in yards. He played better as the season went on and he recovered from his abdominal injury. Locking him up 6 more years, through his age 31 season.

He's our guy long term. What's his upside in the Pederson WCO? Kelce sets a comparable baseline IMO.

Kelce 2014: 16 games - 67/862/5 (87 targets)

Kelce 2015: 16 games - 72/875/5 (100 targets)

Ertz 2015: 15 games - 75/853/2 (112 targets)
Glad we got this done before he has a monstar year this year.
ehh, maybe. I don't remember a ton of great games from him this year, but I do remember quite a few drops. I think this makes him the 4th highest paid TE behind Gronk, Graham, and Julius Thomas. I don't mind it if they saw something that makes him on the same level as those guys, and it doesn't tie up a ton of money that could be used for other guys
With it being such a long term deal, it's good. in 2 years, he won't be the 4th highest paid TE.
Just saw that. Have to hope Curry and Johnson are next.
Agreed. Hope those come soon.

Re: Ertz press conference today at 1, will be curious to hear the amounts per year for the extension, cap ramifications, et al. He's 25, and just finished as the #6 TE in receptions and #7 TE in yards. He played better as the season went on and he recovered from his abdominal injury. Locking him up 6 more years, through his age 31 season.

He's our guy long term. What's his upside in the Pederson WCO? Kelce sets a comparable baseline IMO.

Kelce 2014: 16 games - 67/862/5 (87 targets)

Kelce 2015: 16 games - 72/875/5 (100 targets)

Ertz 2015: 15 games - 75/853/2 (112 targets)
Glad we got this done before he has a monstar year this year.
ehh, maybe. I don't remember a ton of great games from him this year, but I do remember quite a few drops. I think this makes him the 4th highest paid TE behind Gronk, Graham, and Julius Thomas. I don't mind it if they saw something that makes him on the same level as those guys, and it doesn't tie up a ton of money that could be used for other guys
With it being such a long term deal, it's good. in 2 years, he won't be the 4th highest paid TE.
Yea - Eifert, Kelce, Reed - lots of good TE's going to making bank shortly.

 
I think it comes down to the market for bradford. But yes I agree looking like he will be gone. Gonna be a rough couple years
I still don't see him being gone. Do you really think a new coach goes into the draft knowing that if he doesn't get a qb in round 1, that Mark Sanchez is his starting QB in year 1? No way. They are idiots if they let him go.
Depends on the goal. Sure we can win the division but with a $20+ mil QB that hinders other areas that we could spend money on. Do we have enough right now to compete with Carolina, Arizona or Seattle in the next 2 years?
I don't think we are even close to those teams.
Exactly. So why sign Bradford to a 4-5 year deal worth $80-100mil? That's an anchor.Of the teams that are left, Brady has purposely taken less to compete for titles. He's at $9mil per year. Manning and Palmer are only the 15th and 16th highest paid QBs. Cam is the only one getting paid because he's past his rookie, he's young and he was the #1 pick who's been incredible.

I just think more often than not, once you lay the QB the big bucks, its because you won or you had no choice.
A decent QB at 20 mil in today's NFL is NOT an anchor. A bad QB, at ANY price, is a death sentence.I'd rather pay the man
I disagree. Brees is still a good to great QB. That team has been in a steady decline since they had to pay him. They let key players go for cap reasons like Sproles, Jenkins, Graham.

Seahawks had a steady rise during Wilson's rookie contract making it to 2 super bowls. This year was the first after he signed. Maxwell, Schofield, Unger and Malcom Smith all were let go. You can say some didn't live up to potential but that doesn't account for what they provided while there.

Rivers contract kicked in this year and while most of their woes were due to injuries, they had zero depth on the team to replace the starters.

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Kaepernick; when you have to pay the QB, that's usually the end of the run unless you have an exceptional one. Do we think Bradford is exceptional?
kinda feel that the key component is hitting solidly on the mid-round draft prospects. You can't resign them all, but when you have key players on the team playing at a high level, making cheap rookie amounts - you get a solid team. Solid production from 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounders is huge.

 
I think it comes down to the market for bradford. But yes I agree looking like he will be gone. Gonna be a rough couple years
I still don't see him being gone. Do you really think a new coach goes into the draft knowing that if he doesn't get a qb in round 1, that Mark Sanchez is his starting QB in year 1? No way. They are idiots if they let him go.
Depends on the goal. Sure we can win the division but with a $20+ mil QB that hinders other areas that we could spend money on. Do we have enough right now to compete with Carolina, Arizona or Seattle in the next 2 years?
I don't think we are even close to those teams.
Exactly. So why sign Bradford to a 4-5 year deal worth $80-100mil? That's an anchor.Of the teams that are left, Brady has purposely taken less to compete for titles. He's at $9mil per year. Manning and Palmer are only the 15th and 16th highest paid QBs. Cam is the only one getting paid because he's past his rookie, he's young and he was the #1 pick who's been incredible.

I just think more often than not, once you lay the QB the big bucks, its because you won or you had no choice.
A decent QB at 20 mil in today's NFL is NOT an anchor. A bad QB, at ANY price, is a death sentence.I'd rather pay the man
I disagree. Brees is still a good to great QB. That team has been in a steady decline since they had to pay him. They let key players go for cap reasons like Sproles, Jenkins, Graham.Seahawks had a steady rise during Wilson's rookie contract making it to 2 super bowls. This year was the first after he signed. Maxwell, Schofield, Unger and Malcom Smith all were let go. You can say some didn't live up to potential but that doesn't account for what they provided while there.

Rivers contract kicked in this year and while most of their woes were due to injuries, they had zero depth on the team to replace the starters.

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Kaepernick; when you have to pay the QB, that's usually the end of the run unless you have an exceptional one. Do we think Bradford is exceptional?
kinda feel that the key component is hitting solidly on the mid-round draft prospects. You can't resign them all, but when you have key players on the team playing at a high level, making cheap rookie amounts - you get a solid team. Solid production from 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounders is huge.
Absolutely. Which is why winning when you have a young QB is key. Indy will be hamstrung as soon as Luck signs his big deal also. It pretty much eliminates your margin for error on the draft and injuries once the QB has been paid.

 
I think it comes down to the market for bradford. But yes I agree looking like he will be gone. Gonna be a rough couple years
I still don't see him being gone. Do you really think a new coach goes into the draft knowing that if he doesn't get a qb in round 1, that Mark Sanchez is his starting QB in year 1? No way. They are idiots if they let him go.
Depends on the goal. Sure we can win the division but with a $20+ mil QB that hinders other areas that we could spend money on. Do we have enough right now to compete with Carolina, Arizona or Seattle in the next 2 years?
I don't think we are even close to those teams.
Exactly. So why sign Bradford to a 4-5 year deal worth $80-100mil? That's an anchor.Of the teams that are left, Brady has purposely taken less to compete for titles. He's at $9mil per year. Manning and Palmer are only the 15th and 16th highest paid QBs. Cam is the only one getting paid because he's past his rookie, he's young and he was the #1 pick who's been incredible.

I just think more often than not, once you lay the QB the big bucks, its because you won or you had no choice.
A decent QB at 20 mil in today's NFL is NOT an anchor. A bad QB, at ANY price, is a death sentence.I'd rather pay the man
I disagree. Brees is still a good to great QB. That team has been in a steady decline since they had to pay him. They let key players go for cap reasons like Sproles, Jenkins, Graham.Seahawks had a steady rise during Wilson's rookie contract making it to 2 super bowls. This year was the first after he signed. Maxwell, Schofield, Unger and Malcom Smith all were let go. You can say some didn't live up to potential but that doesn't account for what they provided while there.

Rivers contract kicked in this year and while most of their woes were due to injuries, they had zero depth on the team to replace the starters.

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Kaepernick; when you have to pay the QB, that's usually the end of the run unless you have an exceptional one. Do we think Bradford is exceptional?
kinda feel that the key component is hitting solidly on the mid-round draft prospects. You can't resign them all, but when you have key players on the team playing at a high level, making cheap rookie amounts - you get a solid team. Solid production from 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounders is huge.
Absolutely. Which is why winning when you have a young QB is key. Indy will be hamstrung as soon as Luck signs his big deal also. It pretty much eliminates your margin for error on the draft and injuries once the QB has been paid.
Seems like a load of crap. Big Ben wasn't on his rookie deal last time he won. Neither was Brees, either Manning, or Brady. Was Flacco? A lot more super bowls are won with quality vets making upper half money than with kids on their first contracts.

Finding a capable QB at a discount is a huge advantage to be sure, but it's MUCH MUCH easier to overcome an extra 10-15 million spent to retain a quality veteran QB then it is to find that star young guy and have a great team around him while he's still on his rookie deal. Otherwise, teams would never sign those guys to 20 mil+ contracts to begin with!

If you have a guy already you think can be upper half, you need to pay him as upper half an KEEP him...not try to penny pinch and pray you draft another guy who becomes upper half in 2 years or less.

 
I think it comes down to the market for bradford. But yes I agree looking like he will be gone. Gonna be a rough couple years
I still don't see him being gone. Do you really think a new coach goes into the draft knowing that if he doesn't get a qb in round 1, that Mark Sanchez is his starting QB in year 1? No way. They are idiots if they let him go.
Depends on the goal. Sure we can win the division but with a $20+ mil QB that hinders other areas that we could spend money on. Do we have enough right now to compete with Carolina, Arizona or Seattle in the next 2 years?
I don't think we are even close to those teams.
Exactly. So why sign Bradford to a 4-5 year deal worth $80-100mil? That's an anchor.Of the teams that are left, Brady has purposely taken less to compete for titles. He's at $9mil per year. Manning and Palmer are only the 15th and 16th highest paid QBs. Cam is the only one getting paid because he's past his rookie, he's young and he was the #1 pick who's been incredible.

I just think more often than not, once you lay the QB the big bucks, its because you won or you had no choice.
A decent QB at 20 mil in today's NFL is NOT an anchor. A bad QB, at ANY price, is a death sentence.I'd rather pay the man
I disagree. Brees is still a good to great QB. That team has been in a steady decline since they had to pay him. They let key players go for cap reasons like Sproles, Jenkins, Graham.Seahawks had a steady rise during Wilson's rookie contract making it to 2 super bowls. This year was the first after he signed. Maxwell, Schofield, Unger and Malcom Smith all were let go. You can say some didn't live up to potential but that doesn't account for what they provided while there.

Rivers contract kicked in this year and while most of their woes were due to injuries, they had zero depth on the team to replace the starters.

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Kaepernick; when you have to pay the QB, that's usually the end of the run unless you have an exceptional one. Do we think Bradford is exceptional?
kinda feel that the key component is hitting solidly on the mid-round draft prospects. You can't resign them all, but when you have key players on the team playing at a high level, making cheap rookie amounts - you get a solid team. Solid production from 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounders is huge.
Absolutely. Which is why winning when you have a young QB is key. Indy will be hamstrung as soon as Luck signs his big deal also. It pretty much eliminates your margin for error on the draft and injuries once the QB has been paid.
Seems like a load of crap. Big Ben wasn't on his rookie deal last time he won. Neither was Brees, either Manning, or Brady. Was Flacco? A lot more super bowls are won with quality vets making upper half money than with kids on their first contracts.

Finding a capable QB at a discount is a huge advantage to be sure, but it's MUCH MUCH easier to overcome an extra 10-15 million spent to retain a quality veteran QB then it is to find that star young guy and have a great team around him while he's still on his rookie deal. Otherwise, teams would never sign those guys to 20 mil+ contracts to begin with!

If you have a guy already you think can be upper half, you need to pay him as upper half an KEEP him...not try to penny pinch and pray you draft another guy who becomes upper half in 2 years or less.
Nail on the head. When Bradford wasn't playing well it was a lot of complaining, but who did they want us to go out and sign? Brady wasn't on the market. And now yes, we all agree getting a Wilson in round 3 would be the best thing ever for our team. These things are just so rare though, and we've swung at some 4th round QB that have been misses.

The chances of this year's miracle 3rd/4th round QB (if there even is one, probably only 50/50) going to us over the other 31 teams is so incredibly rare. And the chances of a QB looking so good predraft that we want him at 13, but not looking good enough for him to go top 10, is also very rare. We're not likely going to hit a future qb in this years draft, and we have a top 10-15 qb with top 5-10 potential dangling in front of us right now. We can't let his opportunity slip and act like its a good thing if he goes. He may not be our savior but banking on a 5% chance of us hitting qb gold this draft is what could kill this team.

 
I think it comes down to the market for bradford. But yes I agree looking like he will be gone. Gonna be a rough couple years
I still don't see him being gone. Do you really think a new coach goes into the draft knowing that if he doesn't get a qb in round 1, that Mark Sanchez is his starting QB in year 1? No way. They are idiots if they let him go.
Depends on the goal. Sure we can win the division but with a $20+ mil QB that hinders other areas that we could spend money on. Do we have enough right now to compete with Carolina, Arizona or Seattle in the next 2 years?
I don't think we are even close to those teams.
Exactly. So why sign Bradford to a 4-5 year deal worth $80-100mil? That's an anchor.Of the teams that are left, Brady has purposely taken less to compete for titles. He's at $9mil per year. Manning and Palmer are only the 15th and 16th highest paid QBs. Cam is the only one getting paid because he's past his rookie, he's young and he was the #1 pick who's been incredible.

I just think more often than not, once you lay the QB the big bucks, its because you won or you had no choice.
A decent QB at 20 mil in today's NFL is NOT an anchor. A bad QB, at ANY price, is a death sentence.I'd rather pay the man
I disagree. Brees is still a good to great QB. That team has been in a steady decline since they had to pay him. They let key players go for cap reasons like Sproles, Jenkins, Graham.Seahawks had a steady rise during Wilson's rookie contract making it to 2 super bowls. This year was the first after he signed. Maxwell, Schofield, Unger and Malcom Smith all were let go. You can say some didn't live up to potential but that doesn't account for what they provided while there.

Rivers contract kicked in this year and while most of their woes were due to injuries, they had zero depth on the team to replace the starters.

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Kaepernick; when you have to pay the QB, that's usually the end of the run unless you have an exceptional one. Do we think Bradford is exceptional?
kinda feel that the key component is hitting solidly on the mid-round draft prospects. You can't resign them all, but when you have key players on the team playing at a high level, making cheap rookie amounts - you get a solid team. Solid production from 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounders is huge.
Absolutely. Which is why winning when you have a young QB is key. Indy will be hamstrung as soon as Luck signs his big deal also. It pretty much eliminates your margin for error on the draft and injuries once the QB has been paid.
Seems like a load of crap. Big Ben wasn't on his rookie deal last time he won. Neither was Brees, either Manning, or Brady. Was Flacco? A lot more super bowls are won with quality vets making upper half money than with kids on their first contracts.Finding a capable QB at a discount is a huge advantage to be sure, but it's MUCH MUCH easier to overcome an extra 10-15 million spent to retain a quality veteran QB then it is to find that star young guy and have a great team around him while he's still on his rookie deal. Otherwise, teams would never sign those guys to 20 mil+ contracts to begin with!

If you have a guy already you think can be upper half, you need to pay him as upper half an KEEP him...not try to penny pinch and pray you draft another guy who becomes upper half in 2 years or less.
The $20mil+ contract is relatively new but allocating a huge chunk of the cap to one guy is an enormous risk even if they are really good. It's only been about the last 5 years or so that the QBs have commanded a disproportionate amount for a non top tier talent (Flacco, Ryan, Kaep, Alex Smith, Tannenhill, etc). But even then, they are paying for guys that established themselves in the system or the team for a number of years. Bradford has 1 year here and ran Chips system at a bare bones level which is already different from everything else in the league. I just don't see them shelling out the bucks for a guy they literally have no idea how he'll be in Pederson s system.

 
Seems like a load of crap. Big Ben wasn't on his rookie deal last time he won. Neither was Brees, either Manning, or Brady. Was Flacco? A lot more super bowls are won with quality vets making upper half money than with kids on their first contracts.

Finding a capable QB at a discount is a huge advantage to be sure, but it's MUCH MUCH easier to overcome an extra 10-15 million spent to retain a quality veteran QB then it is to find that star young guy and have a great team around him while he's still on his rookie deal. Otherwise, teams would never sign those guys to 20 mil+ contracts to begin with!

If you have a guy already you think can be upper half, you need to pay him as upper half an KEEP him...not try to penny pinch and pray you draft another guy who becomes upper half in 2 years or less.
Nail on the head. When Bradford wasn't playing well it was a lot of complaining, but who did they want us to go out and sign? Brady wasn't on the market. And now yes, we all agree getting a Wilson in round 3 would be the best thing ever for our team. These things are just so rare though, and we've swung at some 4th round QB that have been misses.The chances of this year's miracle 3rd/4th round QB (if there even is one, probably only 50/50) going to us over the other 31 teams is so incredibly rare. And the chances of a QB looking so good predraft that we want him at 13, but not looking good enough for him to go top 10, is also very rare. We're not likely going to hit a future qb in this years draft, and we have a top 10-15 qb with top 5-10 potential dangling in front of us right now. We can't let his opportunity slip and act like its a good thing if he goes. He may not be our savior but banking on a 5% chance of us hitting qb gold this draft is what could kill this team.
Completely disagree on the last part. You draft QBs to find a good one. If you draft one and miss, that doesn't kill you because they cost relatively cheap. You move on and draft another. Locking in for a big cap number on a mediocre talent is what kills teams.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. So why sign Bradford to a 4-5 year deal worth $80-100mil? That's an anchor.Of the teams that are left, Brady has purposely taken less to compete for titles. He's at $9mil per year. Manning and Palmer are only the 15th and 16th highest paid QBs. Cam is the only one getting paid because he's past his rookie, he's young and he was the #1 pick who's been incredible.

I just think more often than not, once you lay the QB the big bucks, its because you won or you had no choice.
A decent QB at 20 mil in today's NFL is NOT an anchor. A bad QB, at ANY price, is a death sentence.I'd rather pay the man
I disagree. Brees is still a good to great QB. That team has been in a steady decline since they had to pay him. They let key players go for cap reasons like Sproles, Jenkins, Graham.Seahawks had a steady rise during Wilson's rookie contract making it to 2 super bowls. This year was the first after he signed. Maxwell, Schofield, Unger and Malcom Smith all were let go. You can say some didn't live up to potential but that doesn't account for what they provided while there.

Rivers contract kicked in this year and while most of their woes were due to injuries, they had zero depth on the team to replace the starters.

Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Kaepernick; when you have to pay the QB, that's usually the end of the run unless you have an exceptional one. Do we think Bradford is exceptional?
kinda feel that the key component is hitting solidly on the mid-round draft prospects. You can't resign them all, but when you have key players on the team playing at a high level, making cheap rookie amounts - you get a solid team. Solid production from 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounders is huge.
Absolutely. Which is why winning when you have a young QB is key. Indy will be hamstrung as soon as Luck signs his big deal also. It pretty much eliminates your margin for error on the draft and injuries once the QB has been paid.
Seems like a load of crap. Big Ben wasn't on his rookie deal last time he won. Neither was Brees, either Manning, or Brady. Was Flacco? A lot more super bowls are won with quality vets making upper half money than with kids on their first contracts.Finding a capable QB at a discount is a huge advantage to be sure, but it's MUCH MUCH easier to overcome an extra 10-15 million spent to retain a quality veteran QB then it is to find that star young guy and have a great team around him while he's still on his rookie deal. Otherwise, teams would never sign those guys to 20 mil+ contracts to begin with!

If you have a guy already you think can be upper half, you need to pay him as upper half an KEEP him...not try to penny pinch and pray you draft another guy who becomes upper half in 2 years or less.
The $20mil+ contract is relatively new but allocating a huge chunk of the cap to one guy is an enormous risk even if they are really good. It's only been about the last 5 years or so that the QBs have commanded a disproportionate amount for a non top tier talent (Flacco, Ryan, Kaep, Alex Smith, Tannenhill, etc). But even then, they are paying for guys that established themselves in the system or the team for a number of years. Bradford has 1 year here and ran Chips system at a bare bones level which is already different from everything else in the league. I just don't see them shelling out the bucks for a guy they literally have no idea how he'll be in Pederson s system.
The worst part is, he won't get to know before deciding that. I mean I guess they can talk to him, but they can't even run a single practice with him before deciding if he's their QB this year or not.

 
Seems like a load of crap. Big Ben wasn't on his rookie deal last time he won. Neither was Brees, either Manning, or Brady. Was Flacco? A lot more super bowls are won with quality vets making upper half money than with kids on their first contracts.

Finding a capable QB at a discount is a huge advantage to be sure, but it's MUCH MUCH easier to overcome an extra 10-15 million spent to retain a quality veteran QB then it is to find that star young guy and have a great team around him while he's still on his rookie deal. Otherwise, teams would never sign those guys to 20 mil+ contracts to begin with!

If you have a guy already you think can be upper half, you need to pay him as upper half an KEEP him...not try to penny pinch and pray you draft another guy who becomes upper half in 2 years or less.
Nail on the head. When Bradford wasn't playing well it was a lot of complaining, but who did they want us to go out and sign? Brady wasn't on the market. And now yes, we all agree getting a Wilson in round 3 would be the best thing ever for our team. These things are just so rare though, and we've swung at some 4th round QB that have been misses.The chances of this year's miracle 3rd/4th round QB (if there even is one, probably only 50/50) going to us over the other 31 teams is so incredibly rare. And the chances of a QB looking so good predraft that we want him at 13, but not looking good enough for him to go top 10, is also very rare. We're not likely going to hit a future qb in this years draft, and we have a top 10-15 qb with top 5-10 potential dangling in front of us right now. We can't let his opportunity slip and act like its a good thing if he goes. He may not be our savior but banking on a 5% chance of us hitting qb gold this draft is what could kill this team.
Completely disagree on the last part. You draft QBs to find a good one. If you draft one and miss, that doesn't kill you because they cost relatively cheap. You move on and draft another. Locking in for a big cap number on a mediocre talent is what kills teams.
But we've tried for how many years without it working? How great have Kafka, Foles, Barkley, Kolb, Hall, and Feely done for us? We literally have tried this many years and haven't hit on anyone since McNabb. If you go back even further, it's Detmer, Hoying, Barr, Weldon, Erickson, McPherson, Lamblotte. ONE year we got a QB that was worth calling a Franchise QB in the last 20 years. To think it's going to happen this year... or next... or even in the next 5 years is optimistic at best.

 
Re: Schwarz and where players fit in his scheme.

Regardless of where he's been, Schwartz insists there's always been one hallmark of his defenses: they attack. He seems to preach aggressiveness over anything else, and although Doug Pederson wouldn't confirm whether the Eagles would play a 4-3, the team will likely discard the 3-4.

How does the personnel fit into that? Fletcher Cox and Bennie Logan would probably be the two defensive tackles, and they'd form one of the best duos in the NFL. Schwartz likes his linemen to attack, not read and react, so Cox will likely be even better next season.

Connor Barwin told the Eagles website he'd "probably" play defensive end in a 4-3, and Brandon Graham and Vinny Curry — if he re-signs — would likely join him.

Jordan Hicks seems set to play middle linebacker, while Kiko Alonso and Mychal Kendricks would fit on either side of him. However, Alonso did play weak side linebacker in Buffalo, and Kendricks has experience as a strong side linebacker, so those appear to be natural fits.

It's unclear who will return in the Eagles secondary, but the team would probably feel fine if Nolan Carroll walked and Eric Rowe started at cornerback opposite of Byron Maxwell in his sophomore season. Walter Thurmond potentially leaving, however, may be a tough blow.

Regardless, after having a defense that regressed each year under Davis, the signs seem to point upward with Schwartz at the helm.

"I'm excited to have [schwartz], his track record and his defenses that have led the National Football League," Pederson said at his introductory press conference. "I've had a chance to coach against him and I'm glad he's on our team now."

http://www.phillymag.com/birds247/2016/01/25/all-22-jim-schwartz-philadelphia-eagles-new-defense/#TRoWp044oC0YsVI8.99
 
That LBer situation is troublesome
I think it hinges on whether Alonso is 100% and close to what he was in Buffalo, or plays like he did this past year. Hicks is a stud. And Hendricks is more than capable.
Alonso looked like he barely belonged in the league let alone starting for any team

Hicks could be a stud. Injuries were the big knock on him in college and played a part in ending his season last year

I have no idea what to make of Kendricks...I would expect him to rebound in a 4-3 though

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just saw that. Have to hope Curry and Johnson are next.
Agreed. Hope those come soon.

Re: Ertz press conference today at 1, will be curious to hear the amounts per year for the extension, cap ramifications, et al. He's 25, and just finished as the #6 TE in receptions and #7 TE in yards. He played better as the season went on and he recovered from his abdominal injury. Locking him up 6 more years, through his age 31 season.

He's our guy long term. What's his upside in the Pederson WCO? Kelce sets a comparable baseline IMO.

Kelce 2014: 16 games - 67/862/5 (87 targets)

Kelce 2015: 16 games - 72/875/5 (100 targets)

Ertz 2015: 15 games - 75/853/2 (112 targets)
Glad we got this done before he has a monstar year this year.
ehh, maybe. I don't remember a ton of great games from him this year, but I do remember quite a few drops. I think this makes him the 4th highest paid TE behind Gronk, Graham, and Julius Thomas. I don't mind it if they saw something that makes him on the same level as those guys, and it doesn't tie up a ton of money that could be used for other guys
I don't know if he'll have a monster year, not a huge fan of that system for TE's but would at least hope if they are paying a guy that much it's to throw to more than the 6 times or so a game Kelce saw a target.

I think it's actually fitting that he's the #4 paid TE because I'd rate him as the fourth best pass receiving TE in the NFL next season after Gronk, Reed and Olsen and reaching #2 is not out of the question to me. Said this a few times in the Ertz thread, the only reason he started slow this season was due to the ab surgery, he does not have that he'd have been putting up monster numbers all season and not just the final stretch.

But that was last year. In order for this deal to make sense to the Eagles and be good for Ertz's fantasy value they are going to need to utilize the TE more than the two main systems Pederson learned under, Reids and the Green Bay system. Those systems saw talented receiving TE's in Kelce and Finley max out at around 100 targets on a whole season. If they use Ertz that infrequently they won't be getting back proper return on their investment.

 
Seems like a load of crap. Big Ben wasn't on his rookie deal last time he won. Neither was Brees, either Manning, or Brady. Was Flacco? A lot more super bowls are won with quality vets making upper half money than with kids on their first contracts.

Finding a capable QB at a discount is a huge advantage to be sure, but it's MUCH MUCH easier to overcome an extra 10-15 million spent to retain a quality veteran QB then it is to find that star young guy and have a great team around him while he's still on his rookie deal. Otherwise, teams would never sign those guys to 20 mil+ contracts to begin with!

If you have a guy already you think can be upper half, you need to pay him as upper half an KEEP him...not try to penny pinch and pray you draft another guy who becomes upper half in 2 years or less.
Nail on the head. When Bradford wasn't playing well it was a lot of complaining, but who did they want us to go out and sign? Brady wasn't on the market. And now yes, we all agree getting a Wilson in round 3 would be the best thing ever for our team. These things are just so rare though, and we've swung at some 4th round QB that have been misses.The chances of this year's miracle 3rd/4th round QB (if there even is one, probably only 50/50) going to us over the other 31 teams is so incredibly rare. And the chances of a QB looking so good predraft that we want him at 13, but not looking good enough for him to go top 10, is also very rare. We're not likely going to hit a future qb in this years draft, and we have a top 10-15 qb with top 5-10 potential dangling in front of us right now. We can't let his opportunity slip and act like its a good thing if he goes. He may not be our savior but banking on a 5% chance of us hitting qb gold this draft is what could kill this team.
Completely disagree on the last part. You draft QBs to find a good one. If you draft one and miss, that doesn't kill you because they cost relatively cheap. You move on and draft another. Locking in for a big cap number on a mediocre talent is what kills teams.
But we've tried for how many years without it working? How great have Kafka, Foles, Barkley, Kolb, Hall, and Feely done for us? We literally have tried this many years and haven't hit on anyone since McNabb. If you go back even further, it's Detmer, Hoying, Barr, Weldon, Erickson, McPherson, Lamblotte. ONE year we got a QB that was worth calling a Franchise QB in the last 20 years. To think it's going to happen this year... or next... or even in the next 5 years is optimistic at best.
So then the alternative is pray Bradford is that even rarer free agent QB find that gets us to a Super Bowl? Or more than likely we become the Bears. Average QB who shows flashes of more with a huge contract and no room to improve the rest of the team. If we're paying a QB top 5 money, he better be a top 5 QB. Otherwise we'll be worse off than the keep drafting strategy. Plus, those were different GMs and coaches. Just like you can't take a trend of Eagles wins that long ago, you certainly can't say the current coach and front office won't pick a good QB.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems like a load of crap. Big Ben wasn't on his rookie deal last time he won. Neither was Brees, either Manning, or Brady. Was Flacco? A lot more super bowls are won with quality vets making upper half money than with kids on their first contracts.

Finding a capable QB at a discount is a huge advantage to be sure, but it's MUCH MUCH easier to overcome an extra 10-15 million spent to retain a quality veteran QB then it is to find that star young guy and have a great team around him while he's still on his rookie deal. Otherwise, teams would never sign those guys to 20 mil+ contracts to begin with!

If you have a guy already you think can be upper half, you need to pay him as upper half an KEEP him...not try to penny pinch and pray you draft another guy who becomes upper half in 2 years or less.
Nail on the head. When Bradford wasn't playing well it was a lot of complaining, but who did they want us to go out and sign? Brady wasn't on the market. And now yes, we all agree getting a Wilson in round 3 would be the best thing ever for our team. These things are just so rare though, and we've swung at some 4th round QB that have been misses.The chances of this year's miracle 3rd/4th round QB (if there even is one, probably only 50/50) going to us over the other 31 teams is so incredibly rare. And the chances of a QB looking so good predraft that we want him at 13, but not looking good enough for him to go top 10, is also very rare. We're not likely going to hit a future qb in this years draft, and we have a top 10-15 qb with top 5-10 potential dangling in front of us right now. We can't let his opportunity slip and act like its a good thing if he goes. He may not be our savior but banking on a 5% chance of us hitting qb gold this draft is what could kill this team.
Completely disagree on the last part. You draft QBs to find a good one. If you draft one and miss, that doesn't kill you because they cost relatively cheap. You move on and draft another. Locking in for a big cap number on a mediocre talent is what kills teams.
But we've tried for how many years without it working? How great have Kafka, Foles, Barkley, Kolb, Hall, and Feely done for us? We literally have tried this many years and haven't hit on anyone since McNabb. If you go back even further, it's Detmer, Hoying, Barr, Weldon, Erickson, McPherson, Lamblotte. ONE year we got a QB that was worth calling a Franchise QB in the last 20 years. To think it's going to happen this year... or next... or even in the next 5 years is optimistic at best.
So then the alternative is pray Bradford is that even rarer free agent QB find that gets us to a Super Bowl? Or more than likely we become the Bears. Average QB who shows flashes of more with a huge contract and no room to improve the rest of the team. If we're paying a QB top 5 money, he better be a top 5 QB. Otherwise we'll be worse off than the keep drafting strategy.Plus, those were different GMs and coaches. Just like you can't take a trend of Eagles wins that long ago, you certainly can't say the current coach and front office won't pick a good QB.
WTF are you talking about? We didn't get Bradford in free agency. More, if we let him hit FA, he'd be the best QB (under 35) to actually hit the market in at least a decade. There's a damn good reason teams don't let potential top 10 QBs hit the market!

 
Seems like a load of crap. Big Ben wasn't on his rookie deal last time he won. Neither was Brees, either Manning, or Brady. Was Flacco? A lot more super bowls are won with quality vets making upper half money than with kids on their first contracts.

Finding a capable QB at a discount is a huge advantage to be sure, but it's MUCH MUCH easier to overcome an extra 10-15 million spent to retain a quality veteran QB then it is to find that star young guy and have a great team around him while he's still on his rookie deal. Otherwise, teams would never sign those guys to 20 mil+ contracts to begin with!

If you have a guy already you think can be upper half, you need to pay him as upper half an KEEP him...not try to penny pinch and pray you draft another guy who becomes upper half in 2 years or less.
Nail on the head. When Bradford wasn't playing well it was a lot of complaining, but who did they want us to go out and sign? Brady wasn't on the market. And now yes, we all agree getting a Wilson in round 3 would be the best thing ever for our team. These things are just so rare though, and we've swung at some 4th round QB that have been misses.The chances of this year's miracle 3rd/4th round QB (if there even is one, probably only 50/50) going to us over the other 31 teams is so incredibly rare. And the chances of a QB looking so good predraft that we want him at 13, but not looking good enough for him to go top 10, is also very rare. We're not likely going to hit a future qb in this years draft, and we have a top 10-15 qb with top 5-10 potential dangling in front of us right now. We can't let his opportunity slip and act like its a good thing if he goes. He may not be our savior but banking on a 5% chance of us hitting qb gold this draft is what could kill this team.
Completely disagree on the last part. You draft QBs to find a good one. If you draft one and miss, that doesn't kill you because they cost relatively cheap. You move on and draft another. Locking in for a big cap number on a mediocre talent is what kills teams.
But we've tried for how many years without it working? How great have Kafka, Foles, Barkley, Kolb, Hall, and Feely done for us? We literally have tried this many years and haven't hit on anyone since McNabb. If you go back even further, it's Detmer, Hoying, Barr, Weldon, Erickson, McPherson, Lamblotte. ONE year we got a QB that was worth calling a Franchise QB in the last 20 years. To think it's going to happen this year... or next... or even in the next 5 years is optimistic at best.
So then the alternative is pray Bradford is that even rarer free agent QB find that gets us to a Super Bowl? Or more than likely we become the Bears. Average QB who shows flashes of more with a huge contract and no room to improve the rest of the team. If we're paying a QB top 5 money, he better be a top 5 QB. Otherwise we'll be worse off than the keep drafting strategy.Plus, those were different GMs and coaches. Just like you can't take a trend of Eagles wins that long ago, you certainly can't say the current coach and front office won't pick a good QB.
WTF are you talking about? We didn't get Bradford in free agency. More, if we let him hit FA, he'd be the best QB (under 35) to actually hit the market in at least a decade. There's a damn good reason teams don't let potential top 10 QBs hit the market!
Then we see this differently. Even though I would franchise him and be done with it, I don't see Sam as top 10.

And By free agency I meant aquisition. Cutler, Brees, Palmer, Fitzpatrick, Keenum, Foles, McCown, Hoyer, Manning, A Smith. Ten out 32 QBs by aquisition. Do we think Bradford is the exception like Manning or Brees or the rule like all the rest? The big difference is that if he's long term, he gets top 5 money before proving anything. Brees and Manning had prove it deals when they first signed with their new teams.

I'm just not confident Bradford will be anything above say Jay Cutler level in the league. That's not worth the money.

 
Looking to see more extensions in the near future.

The Philadelphia Eagles rewarded Zach Ertz with a five-year contract extension on Monday. It doesn't sound like executive vice president of football operations Howie Roseman is going to stop there. More deals are rumored to be on the way. Here's an update on some key Eagles players.

Lane Johnson

Multiple reports indicate this extension could get done very soon. In a recent interview, Johnson told PhillyVoice he's currently negotiating with the Eagles. Last week, NJ.com named Johnson as one of three players the Eagles are trying to re-sign. Now Ed Kracz of The Intelligencer is reporting on a timeline for the deal.




Sources have indicated offensive lineman Lane Johnson could have a contract extension in place by the end of the week. Johnson was the Eagles’ first-round draft pick in 2013. In the second round, the team picked Ertz.
Mark Eckel is reporting the same thing as Kracz.

By the end of the week, they should have a deal done with Lane Johnson that makes him one of the highest-paid offensive tackles in the NFL, and if Johnson stays at right tackle, he could be the highest-paid at that spot.
Fletcher Cox

What about arguably the team's most important player? Cox isn't a free agent until after the 2016 season. In the worst case scenario, the Eagles could always franchise tag him next offseason. But that might not be necessary. Kracz reports the Eagles are talking with Cox.

The Eagles are negotiating with their Pro Bowl defensive lineman, according to a source, to prevent Cox from hitting the open market.

Here's what Eckel had to say:

There will be a few more [contract extensions], too. Fletcher Cox fans, don't worry. The defensive end is going to get his share, too. Maybe not right away, but likely before the start of the season.
It's already been reported that the Eagles have had preliminary discussions with Cox. The team doesn't necessarily need to be in a rush to pay him, but locking him up for the long-term obviously has to happen at some point.

Vinny Curry

Along with Ertz and Johnson, Curry is one of the three players NJ.com named as primary targets for the Eagles to re-sign. Like Cox, it's already been reported that the Eagles have had preliminary discussions with Curry. Several reports indicate the Eagles have offered a deal to Curry and the defensive end is mulling it over. From Kracz:

There could also be an announcement soon that the Eagles and Vinny Curry have agreed to a new deal. A source has said there is a contract in place that Curry is mulling whether or not to sign.
And Eckel:

Free agent defensive end Vinny Curry is deciding whether to accept an Eagles deal or test the market.
Curry grew up an Eagles fan. The idea of potentially switching back to the 4-3 should appeal to him.

Malcolm Jenkins and Bennie Logan

These two players are also in line for extensions. From Kracz:

Defensive tackle Bennie Logan might be on the list too, and safety Malcolm Jenkins as well, although he'll likely get a shorter deal.
And Eckel:

There is also the possibility Roseman could be looking into extending the contracts of defensive tackle Bennie Logan and safety Malcolm Jenkins.
Jenkins, who was recently named to the Pro Bowl, will be an unrestricted free agent after the 2016 season. Jenkins has played well since signing with the Eagles in 2014. The team would be wise to lock up the 28-year-old safety for a few more years if possible.

As for Logan, he really excelled as a 3-4 nose tackle in Chip Kelly's preferred two-gap scheme. Now he'll likely be playing 4-3 defensive tackle. The Eagles might be able to lock him up at a team-friendly rate.

Howie Roseman is back

If it wasn't clear Roseman is back in charge of the Eagles, it certainly is now. Roseman has drawn a lot of criticism, including from myself, but even his biggest detractors can admit he's made re-signing home grown players a priority. Credit where credit is due.

Sam Bradford's future

There has been no indication the Eagles are working out a long-term with Bradford. There's still plenty of time for that to happen before free agency begins in early March, but the Eagles are going to have less and less cap space to use on Bradford as they continue to re-sign their young talent. Bradford isn't going to be cheap. He might not be worth the price tag for Philadelphia.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sam Bradford's future

There has been no indication the Eagles are working out a long-term with Bradford. There's still plenty of time for that to happen before free agency begins in early March, but the Eagles are going to have less and less cap space to use on Bradford as they continue to re-sign their young talent. Bradford isn't going to be cheap. He might not be worth the price tag for Philadelphia.
That's all I've been saying. Eagles need to pay all these other guys. Will they have enough to pay Bradford's asking price and do they want to. I don't think they do.

 
It's telling there's nothing about Bradford in the chatter. Eagles are clearly locking up key players first, and we'll see what's left and where Bradford fits in, rather then a 'sign Bradford first, and everyone else gets scraps'.

IF we don't franchise him - I think Houston's getting him. They'll cut Foster and Hoyer, and really have more space to play with then we do. That's probably a smart play for them at this point as well.

 
It's telling there's nothing about Bradford in the chatter. Eagles are clearly locking up key players first, and we'll see what's left and where Bradford fits in, rather then a 'sign Bradford first, and everyone else gets scraps'.

IF we don't franchise him - I think Houston's getting him. They'll cut Foster and Hoyer, and really have more space to play with then we do. That's probably a smart play for them at this point as well.
I don't think Houston would sign him. They have gotten burned before on FA injury risks (Tony Boselli, Ed Reed) I don't think they would want to take the risk for how much they would have to pay Bradford.

 
Celek extended...

Not sure I like it from a cap/production viewpoint. From a locker room/leadership/morale standpoint, I think it'll help. Gotta think it'll look like taking care of your own, loyalty, etc...

 
It's telling there's nothing about Bradford in the chatter. Eagles are clearly locking up key players first, and we'll see what's left and where Bradford fits in, rather then a 'sign Bradford first, and everyone else gets scraps'.

IF we don't franchise him - I think Houston's getting him. They'll cut Foster and Hoyer, and really have more space to play with then we do. That's probably a smart play for them at this point as well.
I don't think Houston would sign him. They have gotten burned before on FA injury risks (Tony Boselli, Ed Reed) I don't think they would want to take the risk for how much they would have to pay Bradford.
I think you're all going to be surprised at how in demand Bradford is. When guys like Ryan Tannehill are making over 20 million/year, Bradford is going to get it easily. I would love the see the Eagles get him with a home discount of around 18 million. Maybe push it to 20 million with injury incentives.

Houston made the playoffs with nobody at quarterback. So I'm sure they think he could get them to the next level. Bradford isn't in the Brady/Rodgers/Roethlisberger tier, but he's still a rarity- a possible franchise quarterback hitting the free agent market. His play in the second half of this season was better than most of the current 20 million dollar QBs. He is getting his money.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top