Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
voiceofunreason

Official Sam Bradford - QB

Recommended Posts

So rest of season question

Bradford or kapernick

Bradford or Fitzpatrick

Bradford or manziel

Bradford or Carr

Bradford or Kirk cousins

Kaepernick just had a huge game. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So rest of season question

Bradford or kapernick

Bradford or Fitzpatrick

Bradford or manziel

Bradford or Carr

Bradford or Kirk cousins

Kaepernick just had a huge game. :confused:

so do you like him better ROS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So rest of season question

Bradford or kapernick

Bradford or Fitzpatrick

Bradford or manziel

Bradford or Carr

Bradford or Kirk cousins

Kaepernick just had a huge game. :confused:

so do you like him better ROS?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So rest of season question

Bradford or kapernick

Bradford or Fitzpatrick

Bradford or manziel

Bradford or Carr

Bradford or Kirk cousins

Kaepernick just had a huge game. :confused:

so do you like him better ROS?

Yes.
he looked horrible most of the game until garbage time. Id take my chances on Bradford and Kelly figuring it out than 6 games of kap vs Seattle, stl, and Arizona
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, reading some of my posts in this thread is embarrassing. Really thought he was a lock top 10 FF QB when healthy.

Major miss, he looks completely lost.

Yeah some of your earlier posts were classic but it's only 2 games in. And hopefully you still have Rodgers :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So rest of season question

Bradford or kapernick

Bradford or Fitzpatrick

Bradford or manziel

Bradford or Carr

Bradford or Kirk cousins

Kaepernick just had a huge game. :confused:

so do you like him better ROS?

Yes.
he looked horrible most of the game until garbage time. Id take my chances on Bradford and Kelly figuring it out than 6 games of kap vs Seattle, stl, and Arizona

I already own Bradford and Kap. Bradford is going to the bench. I would rather take my chances with Kap. Something is wrong in Philly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is minimal guard play, Peters looks like a shell of himself and Kelce had probably the worst game of his career. There is no pocket, no protection and on run plays demarco is getting hit at the hand off. This is exacerbated by Chips insistance of running out of the shotgun. If you think this oline looked bad against Atlanta and dallas, just wait till next week. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if you see Gardner and/or Barbre replaced very soon.

I'm not making excuses, but this offense misses Herremans and Mathis. And to be clear, that's all on Chip Kelly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so how longs the leash? they do a have a halfway decent backup

5 games of below average play.

2 games if they look the same as yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck has 3 TDs, 5 INTs. It's week two. When there's no running game, it can get ugly.

I didn't draft Bradford without a quality backup but I'm thinking they figure it out in a few weeks. If not, oh well.

He wasn't all horrible in St. Louis for those that keep saying that. Has shown enough to make it a logical move for Kelly to get him. Can't just expect perfection from the start.

Edited by ryno1980

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck has 3 TDs, 5 INTs. It's week two. When there's no running game, it can get ugly.

I didn't draft Bradford without a quality backup but I'm thinking they figure it out in a few weeks. If not, oh well.

He wasn't all horrible in St. Louis for those that keep saying that. Has shown enough to make it a logical move for Kelly to get him. Can't just expect perfection from the start.

McGaw and I had a long back and forth about Bradford's time in StL early in this thread. I have been as critical of Bradford as anyone but I never said that he was terrible in StL. What he was is terribly mediocre at pretty much everything, yes even in 2013 with the ridiculously skewed TD numbers all his metrics were mediocre. Whether that was his fault or his supporting casts fault can be debated (truth likely falls in between as it always does) but the results cannot.

However I do think people are abandoning ship way too quickly this season. His YPA is every bit as mediocre as it was in StL but his completion % has significantly improved and that is a big deal if it holds. Kelly put The Sanchize in position to drastically improve his career #s so I wouldn't slam the door on his ability to help Bradford do the same.

I consider him to be a solid buy low candidate (but I would probably roster Sanchez if I did acquire Bradford).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing people do during a stock market crash is sell right after the market crashes, thus locking in their loses. With Bradford right now, keep him on your bench if you have another good alternative, and wait a few weeks. If he turns it around, start to play him again. If he continues to flounder, cut him at that point. Cutting him now just gives someone else the opportunity for his turnaround if it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McGaw and I had a long back and forth about Bradford's time in StL early in this thread. I have been as critical of Bradford as anyone but I never said that he was terrible in StL. What he was is terribly mediocre at pretty much everything, yes even in 2013 with the ridiculously skewed TD numbers all his metrics were mediocre. Whether that was his fault or his supporting casts fault can be debated (truth likely falls in between as it always does) but the results cannot.

However I do think people are abandoning ship way too quickly this season. His YPA is every bit as mediocre as it was in StL but his completion % has significantly improved and that is a big deal if it holds. Kelly put The Sanchize in position to drastically improve his career #s so I wouldn't slam the door on his ability to help Bradford do the same.

I consider him to be a solid buy low candidate (but I would probably roster Sanchez if I did acquire Bradford).

What do you hope for in buying low on Bradford, for him to emerge as a boom/bust qb2 like Sanchez? I agree with you that Sammy will at least improve his numbers, but I think you'll agree he won't emerge as a reliable qb1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McGaw and I had a long back and forth about Bradford's time in StL early in this thread. I have been as critical of Bradford as anyone but I never said that he was terrible in StL. What he was is terribly mediocre at pretty much everything, yes even in 2013 with the ridiculously skewed TD numbers all his metrics were mediocre. Whether that was his fault or his supporting casts fault can be debated (truth likely falls in between as it always does) but the results cannot.

However I do think people are abandoning ship way too quickly this season. His YPA is every bit as mediocre as it was in StL but his completion % has significantly improved and that is a big deal if it holds. Kelly put The Sanchize in position to drastically improve his career #s so I wouldn't slam the door on his ability to help Bradford do the same.

I consider him to be a solid buy low candidate (but I would probably roster Sanchez if I did acquire Bradford).

What do you hope for in buying low on Bradford, for him to emerge as a boom/bust qb2 like Sanchez? I agree with you that Sammy will at least improve his numbers, but I think you'll agree he won't emerge as a reliable qb1.

I don't agree with that at all. Kelly's offense can be very favorable for QBs and if it can turn Mark Sanchez into a legitimate QB1 then I see no reason why it can't do the same for Bradford.

Declaring him a complete bust and cutting him after two games feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with that at all. Kelly's offense can be very favorable for QBs and if it can turn Mark Sanchez into a legitimate QB1 then I see no reason why it can't do the same for Bradford.

Declaring him a complete bust and cutting him after two games feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

At qb, our purposes differ an NFL team's. We have 12 starting, the NFL has 32. A middle of the road guy has very little use for us. A bust in our fantasy draft often is an 'ok' NFL qb.

You're probably right that calling him terrible has taken it too far. He's easily about an average player like Alex Smith. But Bradford has had an early career of mediocrity in St Louis, and now he's Kelly's first quarterback who didn't light it up his first two games. The book is almost finished.

Edited by cloppbeast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that at all. Kelly's offense can be very favorable for QBs and if it can turn Mark Sanchez into a legitimate QB1 then I see no reason why it can't do the same for Bradford.

Declaring him a complete bust and cutting him after two games feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

At qb, our purposes differ an NFL team's. We have 12 starting, the NFL has 32. A middle of the road guy has very little use for us. A bust in our fantasy draft often is an 'ok' NFL qb.

You're probably right that calling him terrible has taken it too far. He's easily about an average player like Alex Smith. But Bradford has had an early career of mediocrity in St Louis, and now he's Kelly's first quarterback who didn't light it up his first two games. The book is almost finished.

I don't play in start 1QB leagues. I hate the way they marginalize QBs.

I agree that there is reason for concern but Bradford missed the entire offseason program while rehabbing his knee. He has the arm talent to excel and he may simply be knocking the rust off. Either way it's too early to tell, which is unfortunate for the Eagles and fantasy players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck has 3 TDs, 5 INTs. It's week two. When there's no running game, it can get ugly.

I didn't draft Bradford without a quality backup but I'm thinking they figure it out in a few weeks. If not, oh well.

He wasn't all horrible in St. Louis for those that keep saying that. Has shown enough to make it a logical move for Kelly to get him. Can't just expect perfection from the start.

McGaw and I had a long back and forth about Bradford's time in StL early in this thread. I have been as critical of Bradford as anyone but I never said that he was terrible in StL. What he was is terribly mediocre at pretty much everything, yes even in 2013 with the ridiculously skewed TD numbers all his metrics were mediocre. Whether that was his fault or his supporting casts fault can be debated (truth likely falls in between as it always does) but the results cannot.

However I do think people are abandoning ship way too quickly this season. His YPA is every bit as mediocre as it was in StL but his completion % has significantly improved and that is a big deal if it holds. Kelly put The Sanchize in position to drastically improve his career #s so I wouldn't slam the door on his ability to help Bradford do the same.

I consider him to be a solid buy low candidate (but I would probably roster Sanchez if I did acquire Bradford).

I agree here. Up-thread I wasn't intending to paint a picture of Bradford as awful, just taking exception to the one guy who called him "real good." He was, and is, mediocre IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't play in start 1QB leagues. I hate the way they marginalize QBs.

I agree that there is reason for concern but Bradford missed the entire offseason program while rehabbing his knee. He has the arm talent to excel and he may simply be knocking the rust off. Either way it's too early to tell, which is unfortunate for the Eagles and fantasy players.

Strong arm, but still lacking in the subtle things. He's always lacked in the subtle things.

Chip can generate some magic though, I'm sure Bradford will have some big games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McGaw and I had a long back and forth about Bradford's time in StL early in this thread. I have been as critical of Bradford as anyone but I never said that he was terrible in StL. What he was is terribly mediocre at pretty much everything, yes even in 2013 with the ridiculously skewed TD numbers all his metrics were mediocre. Whether that was his fault or his supporting casts fault can be debated (truth likely falls in between as it always does) but the results cannot.

However I do think people are abandoning ship way too quickly this season. His YPA is every bit as mediocre as it was in StL but his completion % has significantly improved and that is a big deal if it holds. Kelly put The Sanchize in position to drastically improve his career #s so I wouldn't slam the door on his ability to help Bradford do the same.

I consider him to be a solid buy low candidate (but I would probably roster Sanchez if I did acquire Bradford).

What do you hope for in buying low on Bradford, for him to emerge as a boom/bust qb2 like Sanchez? I agree with you that Sammy will at least improve his numbers, but I think you'll agree he won't emerge as a reliable qb1.

Nah, I think if they get this thing worked out Bradford will be a QB1, no question. This team was averaging 30 points per game last year. Sanchez is not as good as Bradford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McGaw and I had a long back and forth about Bradford's time in StL early in this thread. I have been as critical of Bradford as anyone but I never said that he was terrible in StL. What he was is terribly mediocre at pretty much everything, yes even in 2013 with the ridiculously skewed TD numbers all his metrics were mediocre. Whether that was his fault or his supporting casts fault can be debated (truth likely falls in between as it always does) but the results cannot.

However I do think people are abandoning ship way too quickly this season. His YPA is every bit as mediocre as it was in StL but his completion % has significantly improved and that is a big deal if it holds. Kelly put The Sanchize in position to drastically improve his career #s so I wouldn't slam the door on his ability to help Bradford do the same.

I consider him to be a solid buy low candidate (but I would probably roster Sanchez if I did acquire Bradford).

What do you hope for in buying low on Bradford, for him to emerge as a boom/bust qb2 like Sanchez? I agree with you that Sammy will at least improve his numbers, but I think you'll agree he won't emerge as a reliable qb1.

Nah, I think if they get this thing worked out Bradford will be a QB1, no question. This team was averaging 30 points per game last year. Sanchez is not as good as Bradford.

Actually we averaged 25 ppg if you take away the DST TDs. Still good enough for TOP 10 though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with that at all. Kelly's offense can be very favorable for QBs and if it can turn Mark Sanchez into a legitimate QB1 then I see no reason why it can't do the same for Bradford.

Declaring him a complete bust and cutting him after two games feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

At qb, our purposes differ an NFL team's. We have 12 starting, the NFL has 32. A middle of the road guy has very little use for us. A bust in our fantasy draft often is an 'ok' NFL qb.

You're probably right that calling him terrible has taken it too far. He's easily about an average player like Alex Smith. But Bradford has had an early career of mediocrity in St Louis, and now he's Kelly's first quarterback who didn't light it up his first two games. The book is almost finished.

wow, so he didn't blow up after two games and the book is almost closed? I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with that at all. Kelly's offense can be very favorable for QBs and if it can turn Mark Sanchez into a legitimate QB1 then I see no reason why it can't do the same for Bradford.

Declaring him a complete bust and cutting him after two games feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

At qb, our purposes differ an NFL team's. We have 12 starting, the NFL has 32. A middle of the road guy has very little use for us. A bust in our fantasy draft often is an 'ok' NFL qb.

You're probably right that calling him terrible has taken it too far. He's easily about an average player like Alex Smith. But Bradford has had an early career of mediocrity in St Louis, and now he's Kelly's first quarterback who didn't light it up his first two games. The book is almost finished.

wow, so he didn't blow up after two games and the book is almost closed? I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.

We actually have 51 games worth of Bradford from which to draw a conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that at all. Kelly's offense can be very favorable for QBs and if it can turn Mark Sanchez into a legitimate QB1 then I see no reason why it can't do the same for Bradford.

Declaring him a complete bust and cutting him after two games feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

At qb, our purposes differ an NFL team's. We have 12 starting, the NFL has 32. A middle of the road guy has very little use for us. A bust in our fantasy draft often is an 'ok' NFL qb.

You're probably right that calling him terrible has taken it too far. He's easily about an average player like Alex Smith. But Bradford has had an early career of mediocrity in St Louis, and now he's Kelly's first quarterback who didn't light it up his first two games. The book is almost finished.

wow, so he didn't blow up after two games and the book is almost closed? I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.

We actually have 51 games worth of Bradford from which to draw a conclusion.
And we had 62 games worth of Sanchez before Chip got him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you I also disagree with those saying that Bradford is so much better than Sanchez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't agree with that at all. Kelly's offense can be very favorable for QBs and if it can turn Mark Sanchez into a legitimate QB1 then I see no reason why it can't do the same for Bradford.

Declaring him a complete bust and cutting him after two games feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

At qb, our purposes differ an NFL team's. We have 12 starting, the NFL has 32. A middle of the road guy has very little use for us. A bust in our fantasy draft often is an 'ok' NFL qb.

You're probably right that calling him terrible has taken it too far. He's easily about an average player like Alex Smith. But Bradford has had an early career of mediocrity in St Louis, and now he's Kelly's first quarterback who didn't light it up his first two games. The book is almost finished.

wow, so he didn't blow up after two games and the book is almost closed? I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.

We actually have 51 games worth of Bradford from which to draw a conclusion.

not really. at least, not if you haven't already made up your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that at all. Kelly's offense can be very favorable for QBs and if it can turn Mark Sanchez into a legitimate QB1 then I see no reason why it can't do the same for Bradford.

Declaring him a complete bust and cutting him after two games feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

At qb, our purposes differ an NFL team's. We have 12 starting, the NFL has 32. A middle of the road guy has very little use for us. A bust in our fantasy draft often is an 'ok' NFL qb.

You're probably right that calling him terrible has taken it too far. He's easily about an average player like Alex Smith. But Bradford has had an early career of mediocrity in St Louis, and now he's Kelly's first quarterback who didn't light it up his first two games. The book is almost finished.

wow, so he didn't blow up after two games and the book is almost closed? I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.

We actually have 51 games worth of Bradford from which to draw a conclusion.

not really. at least, not if you haven't already made up your mind.

Not sure what you mean here. It is actually a fact that Sam Bradford played in 49 games with the Rams and has played in two games with the Eagles. His time in STL is relevant, although there's a wide range of reasonable opinions on how relevant and what exactly were the reasons for his subpar performance there.

My opinion is that Bradford is still showing the same flaws in Philly that he did with the Rams -- he doesn't like pressure and takes the check down far too easily rather than hanging in to get the ball downfield. Can he improve? Yes, of course. But IMO we're rapidly approaching the "he is what he is" point, and IMO that's not an unreasonable opinion. I also don't think Bradford has the huge leash that others seem to believe he has. Sanchez isn't great by any stretch, but Chip can win with him -- another few games like the last two out of Bradford and I think he's done, and Chip will be looking again next offseason. And IMO that wouldn't be a huge fail either because he obviously didn't see Foles as a long term solution either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that at all. Kelly's offense can be very favorable for QBs and if it can turn Mark Sanchez into a legitimate QB1 then I see no reason why it can't do the same for Bradford.

Declaring him a complete bust and cutting him after two games feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

At qb, our purposes differ an NFL team's. We have 12 starting, the NFL has 32. A middle of the road guy has very little use for us. A bust in our fantasy draft often is an 'ok' NFL qb.

You're probably right that calling him terrible has taken it too far. He's easily about an average player like Alex Smith. But Bradford has had an early career of mediocrity in St Louis, and now he's Kelly's first quarterback who didn't light it up his first two games. The book is almost finished.

wow, so he didn't blow up after two games and the book is almost closed? I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.

We actually have 51 games worth of Bradford from which to draw a conclusion.

not really. at least, not if you haven't already made up your mind.

Not sure what you mean here. It is actually a fact that Sam Bradford played in 49 games with the Rams and has played in two games with the Eagles. His time in STL is relevant, although there's a wide range of reasonable opinions on how relevant and what exactly were the reasons for his subpar performance there.

My opinion is that Bradford is still showing the same flaws in Philly that he did with the Rams -- he doesn't like pressure and takes the check down far too easily rather than hanging in to get the ball downfield. Can he improve? Yes, of course. But IMO we're rapidly approaching the "he is what he is" point, and IMO that's not an unreasonable opinion. I also don't think Bradford has the huge leash that others seem to believe he has. Sanchez isn't great by any stretch, but Chip can win with him -- another few games like the last two out of Bradford and I think he's done, and Chip will be looking again next offseason. And IMO that wouldn't be a huge fail either because he obviously didn't see Foles as a long term solution either.

What I mean is that he has played, like you said, 2 games in this offense. I really don't care too much what he did on a crappy team devoid of oline and offensive weapons, with a different Offensive coordinator every year and defensive minded coaches.

Saying that we are approaching "he is what he is" territory after 2 games IS unreasonable. I'm as pissed off about this team as anyone, but its 2 games. 2 games. Every year there are teams/players that start slow, fans go chicken little and then things get figured out. Eddie lacy, at this point last year, looked like a train wreck. I was eating #### from everyone in my league for keeping him. fast forward to the end of the year and the guy was a key component to me winning everything. The current amount of over reaction about the birds is crazy. Let Chip do his job and adjust. This is reminiscent of Chip's first year.

Crushing back to back losses to Dallas and NY put us at 3-5 and the world was ending. They then ripped off 7 wins over the last 8 games.

Edited by unckeyherb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you I also disagree with those saying that Bradford is so much better than Sanchez.

And we had 62 games worth of Sanchez before Chip got him.

Possibly Carlos Sanchez is at least a better fit for Kelly's offense. The Dirty Sanchez didn't record 6.2 ypa, nor look as bad as Bradford over any two game stretch for the Eagles. He only had 1 bad game in 8; Bradford is 0/2 batting .000.

(Bradford got 330 yards Week 1, but needed 52 attempts to do it. Stats good, performance bad.)

Edited by cloppbeast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that at all. Kelly's offense can be very favorable for QBs and if it can turn Mark Sanchez into a legitimate QB1 then I see no reason why it can't do the same for Bradford.

Declaring him a complete bust and cutting him after two games feels like a knee-jerk reaction.

At qb, our purposes differ an NFL team's. We have 12 starting, the NFL has 32. A middle of the road guy has very little use for us. A bust in our fantasy draft often is an 'ok' NFL qb.

You're probably right that calling him terrible has taken it too far. He's easily about an average player like Alex Smith. But Bradford has had an early career of mediocrity in St Louis, and now he's Kelly's first quarterback who didn't light it up his first two games. The book is almost finished.

wow, so he didn't blow up after two games and the book is almost closed? I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.

We actually have 51 games worth of Bradford from which to draw a conclusion.

not really. at least, not if you haven't already made up your mind.

Not sure what you mean here. It is actually a fact that Sam Bradford played in 49 games with the Rams and has played in two games with the Eagles. His time in STL is relevant, although there's a wide range of reasonable opinions on how relevant and what exactly were the reasons for his subpar performance there.

My opinion is that Bradford is still showing the same flaws in Philly that he did with the Rams -- he doesn't like pressure and takes the check down far too easily rather than hanging in to get the ball downfield. Can he improve? Yes, of course. But IMO we're rapidly approaching the "he is what he is" point, and IMO that's not an unreasonable opinion. I also don't think Bradford has the huge leash that others seem to believe he has. Sanchez isn't great by any stretch, but Chip can win with him -- another few games like the last two out of Bradford and I think he's done, and Chip will be looking again next offseason. And IMO that wouldn't be a huge fail either because he obviously didn't see Foles as a long term solution either.

What I mean is that he has played, like you said, 2 games in this offense. I really don't care too much what he did on a crappy team devoid of oline and offensive weapons, with a different Offensive coordinator every year and defensive minded coaches.

Saying that we are approaching "he is what he is" territory after 2 games IS unreasonable. I'm as pissed off about this team as anyone, but its 2 games. 2 games. Every year there are teams/players that start slow, fans go chicken little and then things get figured out. Eddie lacy, at this point last year, looked like a train wreck. I was eating #### from everyone in my league for keeping him. fast forward to the end of the year and the guy was a key component to me winning everything. The current amount of over reaction about the birds is crazy. Let Chip do his job and adjust. This is reminiscent of Chip's first year.

Crushing back to back losses to Dallas and NY put us at 3-5 and the world was ending. They then ripped off 7 wins over the last 8 games.

Yeah, I think that Philly will probably be fine too -- I'm just not sure whether it will be with Bradford or Sanchez under center. I'm not suggesting that it's time to give up on Bradford right now, just saying that he is showing the same flaws in 2015 that held him back with St. Louis, and pointing out that he has been far worse than any other QB that Chip has trotted out there from 2013-now. And with a competent backup on the bench, I'll be shocked if Bradford is still out there a month from now if he doesn't improve significantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you I also disagree with those saying that Bradford is so much better than Sanchez.

And we had 62 games worth of Sanchez before Chip got him.

Possibly Carlos Sanchez is at least a better fit for Kelly's offense. The Dirty Sanchez didn't record 6.2 ypa, nor look as bad as Bradford over any two game stretch for the Eagles. He only had 1 bad game in 8; Bradford is 0/2 batting .000.

(Bradford got 330 yards Week 1, but needed 52 attempts to do it. Stats good, performance bad.)

Bradford was bad in the first half, excellent in the second half of the Atlanta game. Which is why Sunday's performance was so disappointing. He had such control over the offense in that second half. Methodically taking them up and down the field. I don't think any of us Eagle fans had a doubt that he was taking us to a victory before that pass went through Matthews' hands. Then against Dallas, he looked totally lost. Makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you I also disagree with those saying that Bradford is so much better than Sanchez.

And we had 62 games worth of Sanchez before Chip got him.

Possibly Carlos Sanchez is at least a better fit for Kelly's offense. The Dirty Sanchez didn't record 6.2 ypa, nor look as bad as Bradford over any two game stretch for the Eagles. He only had 1 bad game in 8; Bradford is 0/2 batting .000.

(Bradford got 330 yards Week 1, but needed 52 attempts to do it. Stats good, performance bad.)

Bradford was bad in the first half, excellent in the second half of the Atlanta game. Which is why Sunday's performance was so disappointing. He had such control over the offense in that second half. Methodically taking them up and down the field. I don't think any of us Eagle fans had a doubt that he was taking us to a victory before that pass went through Matthews' hands. Then against Dallas, he looked totally lost. Makes no sense.

no run game hurts too. Dallas is the #1 rush D in the nfl. With a bit more time, he would have done much better. Jets aren't gonna be any easier, but I see him improving immensely throughout the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm holding for now but after watching last nights game there is no way I'm starting him this week. This thread will be even more talked about I'm guessing after he puts up another clunker..

I hope I'm wrong though as I also thought he was going to have a good year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luck has 3 TDs, 5 INTs. It's week two. When there's no running game, it can get ugly.

I didn't draft Bradford without a quality backup but I'm thinking they figure it out in a few weeks. If not, oh well.

He wasn't all horrible in St. Louis for those that keep saying that. Has shown enough to make it a logical move for Kelly to get him. Can't just expect perfection from the start.

Since Philly traded for him when they already had a perfectly good QB in Foles, you do expect Bradford to be much better from the start (not perfection like you say, but definitely not this either). It might not be fair to Bradford to expect him to catch on so quickly, but it is fair to be extremely critical of the team and their current situation. Philly is a team that was supposed to be able to contend, and Bradford was supposed to make them better, it would be a different story if they were in rebuilding mode, as patience would be warranted then. However, it looks like they may be heading into a rebuilding period due to Chump's offseason moves.

Edited by GreenNGold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you I also disagree with those saying that Bradford is so much better than Sanchez.

And we had 62 games worth of Sanchez before Chip got him.

Possibly Carlos Sanchez is at least a better fit for Kelly's offense. The Dirty Sanchez didn't record 6.2 ypa, nor look as bad as Bradford over any two game stretch for the Eagles. He only had 1 bad game in 8; Bradford is 0/2 batting .000.

(Bradford got 330 yards Week 1, but needed 52 attempts to do it. Stats good, performance bad.)

Bradford was bad in the first half, excellent in the second half of the Atlanta game. Which is why Sunday's performance was so disappointing. He had such control over the offense in that second half. Methodically taking them up and down the field. I don't think any of us Eagle fans had a doubt that he was taking us to a victory before that pass went through Matthews' hands. Then against Dallas, he looked totally lost. Makes no sense.

no run game hurts too. Dallas is the #1 rush D in the nfl. With a bit more time, he would have done much better. Jets aren't gonna be any easier, but I see him improving immensely throughout the season.

they are only #1 because they played the Eagles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you I also disagree with those saying that Bradford is so much better than Sanchez.

Really, given the same blocking Sanchez got Bradford is a lot more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you I also disagree with those saying that Bradford is so much better than Sanchez.

Really, given the same blocking Sanchez got Bradford is a lot more accurate.
Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam Bradfords career completion percentage is 59% after two games with the Eagles Bradford has completed 66.3% of his passes 280 yards per game 6.3 yards per attempt 2TD and 4INT.

Sancheeze career completion percentage is 56.3% in his nine games with the Eagles Sanchez completed 64% of his passes 269 yards per game 7.83 yards per attempt 14TD and 11INT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.