Ash
Footballguy
I know exactly what you're saying, and looking at it purely logically I agree. Yet when it comes to Bradford, I'm just not feeling it. Hopefully that changes when he gets on the field.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
*Official 2015 Philadelphia Eagles* - Winning when it doesnt count (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter Insein
- Start date
Maggot Brain
Footballguy
Eagles Hate Rankings...somewhat funny
http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2015/5/12/8590751/the-hate-rankings-eagles-edition
http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2015/5/12/8590751/the-hate-rankings-eagles-edition
Last edited by a moderator:
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
Nice to hear that Agholor is taking cabs instead of the rookie shuttle so he can get started earlier.
babydemon90
Footballguy
My personal bitterness over that Tampa Bay win in 2002 puts them much higher... That was OUR year, damn it.Eagles Hate Rankings...somewhat funny
http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2015/5/12/8590751/the-hate-rankings-eagles-edition
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
We all like Bradford as a talent. I just have a brain with memory capability. He's never had a winning record and a low QB rating for his career for starters. He's also had so many injuries since college that it's sad. I've torn both of my ACL's, so I have experience here. The doctors I've dealt with said one ACL tear is OK returning to sports. Two tears on the same knee, and you're all but done playing at a high level. To have no concerns of him re-injuring or not fully rehabbing this knee is beyond me.. and biology. As for the bolded, Bradford is 10x the cap hit of Foles and has only 1 year left on his contract. Worst case is the Eagles are without a coach, because some college just offered him way more money, and Mark Sanchez is the listed starter next offseason. Best case is he beats the odds and stays healthy and play as good and win as much as Foles?? It has to be the stupidest, most expensive gamble I've ever seen. Again, I don't mind chasing the talent, but the risk management was terrible. If Bradford doesn't stay healthy and win 12-13 games then this is a borderline failed investment.
Bradford is a really good QB- don't let this get lost here. I just don't think you can bank on a player with multiple ACL/Shoulder surgeries. If he wins 14+ games and the Super Bowl then I'll be here saying how wrong I was. Or I won't say anything at all. Who knows
Last edited by a moderator:
Ash
Footballguy
We're on the same page I think. I struggled to find the right words to describe how I felt watching those games but I think I have it now. Despite all the talent in the world, his game up until now has been less than the sum of it's parts and that's not usually a good sign. When you add that to the injury issues and the price we paid to get him, I'm not in favour of the deal.
Foles has a lower ceiling, I think he can be a guy who'll sit in the 8-12 area if you're ranking QBs in the league. Good enough to win with, but not going to win games alone like the truly elite players. Bradford's ceiling is higher, but he's a lot less likely to get there IMO. Kelly's gone with the high variance option, but I wouldn't have.
Agree completely on the risk level. Because we gave up a solid player to get him, he now has all the leverage when it comes to extension negotiations. There's clearly no Plan B on the roster. Sanchez is a good backup, I'm glad he's here but he's bottom 10 as a starting QB. Let's hope it never comes to that.
Worse possible case is Bradford plays not great, but good and misses 3-4 games to a couple of injuries. How on earth do you value him then?
Not wishing for Bradford to fail at all, but this is like taking your last $1000 out of your pocket and putting it on a corner in roulette. Even if it comes up your way, doesn't mean it was a good decision.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
The bump in production is from the pace and amout of plays ran. Everyone has looked good on the surface here from volume alone.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
Im not 100% sure where it was posted but the double ACL tear was brought up and the list of people who played at a high level after was a pretty large list if Im not mistaken. And most were RB's and WR's. With advances in medicine and him not being a running QB I'm not worried at all about his ACL. If his game was like Cam's or RG3's I would be concerned. I doubt lightening strikes 3x with the same injury.
As far as comparing personal injuries to an NFL player I don't think that's fair. Im pretty sure he has top of the line across the board with his healthcare and no expense is being spared by the team and him when he's home.
The cap hit is irrelevant as well. We have the money and always have the money. I don't see why anyone cares how much he makes ESPECIALLY on a one year deal. I don't care how much money these guys make because its not basketball or baseball. Almost every football deal works out for the teams and we've been one of the best at handling the cap for a very long time now.
How on 5/28/15 can this be the stupidest gamble? We're all sitting here guessing, plain and simple. Out of the million opinions someone is bound to be right but I don't see how this can be considered a stupid gamble today.
babydemon90
Footballguy
Yea, I don't think it's that high of a price for Bradford.
Given the assumption Kelly did not see Foles as his preferred QB of the future - he was likely on his last year here regardless. As fans we obviously thought more of him then Kelly did - but putting him in the trade is almost a throw-in. So, gambling a 2nd round pick that Bradford has the capacity to be healthy and an improvement? That's not that much. It's still a gamble, but we're hardly sunk if it doesn't work out.
And you never know - another year in training camp and OTA's, we could see some improvement in Sanchez as well - enough at least where the difference between Foles/Sanchez is insignificant. Not counting on it of course, but hopeful.
Given the assumption Kelly did not see Foles as his preferred QB of the future - he was likely on his last year here regardless. As fans we obviously thought more of him then Kelly did - but putting him in the trade is almost a throw-in. So, gambling a 2nd round pick that Bradford has the capacity to be healthy and an improvement? That's not that much. It's still a gamble, but we're hardly sunk if it doesn't work out.
And you never know - another year in training camp and OTA's, we could see some improvement in Sanchez as well - enough at least where the difference between Foles/Sanchez is insignificant. Not counting on it of course, but hopeful.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
If Bradford gets hurt then we'll get the Rams 3rd round pick back next year. So the gamble really is only moving down maybe 25-30 spots.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Technically, if he blows out his ACL X 3 and misses the entire season, PHI gets the LA ( ) 3rd, if he plays, but less than 50% of the snaps, they get the LA 4th.
But overall, agree with the premise, if Foles wasn't in the picture going forward, he was sort of a throw in (he probably was worth something to somebody else, but than Chip couldn't have gotten Bradford, and Foles inclusion sounded absolutely like a non-negotiable part of the deal for Fisher and Snead), than the DIFFERENCE between a second and a third or fourth doesn't sound like a lot if Bradford turns into what Kelly envisions. PHI has to absorb the cap hit, but it seems is very adept at that.
If Bradford is hurt or underwhelms, the worst part won't be the gambled lost pick, but that you have to hit the reset button at QB. The Rams getting a 2016 second and cap relief is icing on the cake if Foles stays healthy, plays well and is re-signed long term, but if one or more of those three things don't happen, they may also have to hit the reset button at the position, which would be the overriding negative takeaway point. Hopefully both play well, and it is a win win trade for both teams.
Between an innovative, cutting edge, offensive minded HC with a scheme not unlike when he last thrived and became the #1 overall pick, being reunited with his OC when he won Rookie of the Year, and the best combination of OL/skill position supporting cast and surrounding talent he has had to date, imo he is as well positioned to succeed as he ever has been as a pro.
) 3rd, if he plays, but less than 50% of the snaps, they get the LA 4th.But overall, agree with the premise, if Foles wasn't in the picture going forward, he was sort of a throw in (he probably was worth something to somebody else, but than Chip couldn't have gotten Bradford, and Foles inclusion sounded absolutely like a non-negotiable part of the deal for Fisher and Snead), than the DIFFERENCE between a second and a third or fourth doesn't sound like a lot if Bradford turns into what Kelly envisions. PHI has to absorb the cap hit, but it seems is very adept at that.
If Bradford is hurt or underwhelms, the worst part won't be the gambled lost pick, but that you have to hit the reset button at QB. The Rams getting a 2016 second and cap relief is icing on the cake if Foles stays healthy, plays well and is re-signed long term, but if one or more of those three things don't happen, they may also have to hit the reset button at the position, which would be the overriding negative takeaway point. Hopefully both play well, and it is a win win trade for both teams.
Between an innovative, cutting edge, offensive minded HC with a scheme not unlike when he last thrived and became the #1 overall pick, being reunited with his OC when he won Rookie of the Year, and the best combination of OL/skill position supporting cast and surrounding talent he has had to date, imo he is as well positioned to succeed as he ever has been as a pro.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
You didn't post a study done on players who re-injured the same ligament. Find the statisticians, doctors who've done the quantitative research anywhere online. The ones I've read showed that an athlete in more likely to re-injure either ACL a second time than someone who hasn't ever required surgery. The ones on tearing the same ACL twice are almost career ending. You can take them with a grain of salt because of the level of treatment and rehab that was done for Bradford isn't apples to apples to a common person. Sure, he doesn't play like RG3 or Cam, but he still cuts, pivots and pushes off his legs. There's a reson he considered retiring. Mentally and physically, ACL tears are a #####. He's also had other leg injuries. This is like checking Carfax, seeing abunch of accidents and ignoring this information while paying full price for a car. My thoughts on the salary cap would require an essay. Let me just say that the cap is everything in salary based leagues. Cap space and draft picks are the only way to acquire players. The issue I wrote on is how much Bradford makes relative to the alternative. Bradford has to significantly outperform Foles to make this an even swap on the field. Why? The Eagles would have to win 13+ games for this swap to be an upgrade. Foles was already winning at a really high rate over the past two years(78.9% win rate ), along with the rest of the guys Chip was eager to get rid of. In return you get a guy who's never won, never stayed healthy and has a 75 QB rating vs one with a 94 QB rating. You gave up value with picks. You also took on 11m+ in cap that could have been used elsewhere. Yea the value given is just for this season, unlike draft picks, but giving up the value is still a hurts the team. Saying we have the money so let's spend it is just fiscally irresponsible. I wouldn't run my house that way, let alone a billion dollar franchise where I'm restricted to a budget. Those are not my opinions. That's what happened.
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
no he doesn't. not even close.
Sanchez's passer rating went up 18 points, from a career of 70% to 88% last year. His career completion percentage was just under 55% prior to coming here. last year it was 64.1%. if you prorate his 8 games across an entire season he would have thrown career highs in TD's (28 compared to 26 and a career avg of 17) and yards (4836 compared to 3474 and a career avg of 3023). He went from averaging 195 ypg to 270 ypg.
Bradford is a career 79.3 passer with a completion percentage of 58.6.
I'll give you that he is an injury risk, but this team has had back to back 10-win seasons with different starting QB's from start to finish both years. Bradford is a better qb than 2014 Vick, Nick Foles and Mark Sanchez. Putting him on a team that actually has an oline, offensive weapons and a coach that can do what Chip did with Sanchez should result in 11 wins without Bradford being the second coming of Aaron Rodgers. 11 wins in 2015, IMO would be a win as it would most likely mean a playoff berth. A playoff win would make it a slam dunk.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
From 2007-2011 the Rams were 15-65*, the worst five year mark ever in league history (.1875)? In 2011, PFF or Football Outsiders called the Rams that year the most injured offense of the decade - sounds kind of flukey, like a 1/320 chance of that happening?
Very likely if Foles is the QB in STL in 2011, he has nowhere near a 27/2 TD/INT ratio and his career winning percentage goes down.
Whether in actual or fantasy football, decisions constantly have to be based on situation and context, and factored into the analysis. Injury is a concern, but I wonder if PHI had access to his medical (had to pass the physical, or they could have voided the trade?), so maybe they are in a better position to assess what the actual risk is?
* One rejoinder was that the record was partly because of Bradford (two of the five seasons, anyways), which imo lacks perspective on how bad the team was he inherited, how much of an achievement a 7-9 rookie season was under the circumstances, and how grotesque the injury situation was in 2011.
Take away the near .500 7-9 rookie season in 2010 (and nearly HALF of the wins in that half decade), and in the other four years (2007-2009 and 2011), the Rams record was 8-56 (.125). The first three he didn't even play, and the 2011 season, was the 1/320 fluke/outlier, most injured offense of the decade season.
** If a WR other than Kenny Britt leads the Rams in receiving in 2015 (Brian Quick was leading when he went down with a season-ending shoulder injury after like six full games?), they will become just the fourth team in the past near 2/3 of a century to have eight different leading receivers in as many seasons - no team has ever had nine. That can't be good for continuity, timing and rapport in the passing game. I've actually seen people cite as "proof" Bradford wasn't good the fact that WRs like Avery did "better" when they went to other teams. The only problem with that example, Bradford and Avery never played together, the WR tore his ACL and they never overlapped (Avery, BTW, was the first WR taken from the class of '08, in the second round, I'm guessing a rare occurrence since the merger with no WR taken in the first round?). Amendola? Lloyd (since then)? Mark Clayton? Brandon Gibson? Nobody has exactly torn up the league since leaving. The light went on for Quick in year three, but too late for Bradford. I've seen the same people argue that Tavon Austin isn't very good, but than seemingly contradictorily cite Bradford not getting more out of him as proof Bradford isn't good (imo Austin was misused by Schottenheimer, and I'm interested to see if new OC Cignetti can get him more involved, which he has stated is his intention, but again, too late for Bradford). While you can also cite OL issues (which Bradford had also), look at what happened to Foles stats from 2013 to 2014, when the main material difference was taking away just one WR, DeSean Jackson?
Trivia: St. Louis Rams and Receiver Turnover by Chase Stuart on March 8, 2015
http://www.footballperspective.com/trivia-st-louis-rams-and-receiver-turnover/
"From 2000 to 2008, Torry Holt led the Rams in receiving yards in every season. But since then, St. Louis has gone to the other extreme: in 2009, the leading receiver was Donnie Avery, followed by Danny Amendola in ’10, Brandon Lloyd in ’11, Chris Givens in ’12, Jared Cook in ’13, and, believe it or not, Kenny Britt in 2014. That’s seven different leading receivers for St. Louis over the last seven years. If that continues in 2015, the Rams will become just the 4th team since 1950 to have eight different leading receivers in eight seasons.
Now, no team has ever done it in nine straight years. So, today’s trivia question: Can you guess any of the three teams to run this streak for eight seasons?"
Very likely if Foles is the QB in STL in 2011, he has nowhere near a 27/2 TD/INT ratio and his career winning percentage goes down.
Whether in actual or fantasy football, decisions constantly have to be based on situation and context, and factored into the analysis. Injury is a concern, but I wonder if PHI had access to his medical (had to pass the physical, or they could have voided the trade?), so maybe they are in a better position to assess what the actual risk is?
* One rejoinder was that the record was partly because of Bradford (two of the five seasons, anyways), which imo lacks perspective on how bad the team was he inherited, how much of an achievement a 7-9 rookie season was under the circumstances, and how grotesque the injury situation was in 2011.
Take away the near .500 7-9 rookie season in 2010 (and nearly HALF of the wins in that half decade), and in the other four years (2007-2009 and 2011), the Rams record was 8-56 (.125). The first three he didn't even play, and the 2011 season, was the 1/320 fluke/outlier, most injured offense of the decade season.
** If a WR other than Kenny Britt leads the Rams in receiving in 2015 (Brian Quick was leading when he went down with a season-ending shoulder injury after like six full games?), they will become just the fourth team in the past near 2/3 of a century to have eight different leading receivers in as many seasons - no team has ever had nine. That can't be good for continuity, timing and rapport in the passing game. I've actually seen people cite as "proof" Bradford wasn't good the fact that WRs like Avery did "better" when they went to other teams. The only problem with that example, Bradford and Avery never played together, the WR tore his ACL and they never overlapped (Avery, BTW, was the first WR taken from the class of '08, in the second round, I'm guessing a rare occurrence since the merger with no WR taken in the first round?). Amendola? Lloyd (since then)? Mark Clayton? Brandon Gibson? Nobody has exactly torn up the league since leaving. The light went on for Quick in year three, but too late for Bradford. I've seen the same people argue that Tavon Austin isn't very good, but than seemingly contradictorily cite Bradford not getting more out of him as proof Bradford isn't good (imo Austin was misused by Schottenheimer, and I'm interested to see if new OC Cignetti can get him more involved, which he has stated is his intention, but again, too late for Bradford). While you can also cite OL issues (which Bradford had also), look at what happened to Foles stats from 2013 to 2014, when the main material difference was taking away just one WR, DeSean Jackson?
Trivia: St. Louis Rams and Receiver Turnover by Chase Stuart on March 8, 2015
http://www.footballperspective.com/trivia-st-louis-rams-and-receiver-turnover/
"From 2000 to 2008, Torry Holt led the Rams in receiving yards in every season. But since then, St. Louis has gone to the other extreme: in 2009, the leading receiver was Donnie Avery, followed by Danny Amendola in ’10, Brandon Lloyd in ’11, Chris Givens in ’12, Jared Cook in ’13, and, believe it or not, Kenny Britt in 2014. That’s seven different leading receivers for St. Louis over the last seven years. If that continues in 2015, the Rams will become just the 4th team since 1950 to have eight different leading receivers in eight seasons.
Now, no team has ever done it in nine straight years. So, today’s trivia question: Can you guess any of the three teams to run this streak for eight seasons?"
Last edited by a moderator:
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
What's a win here? Joe Flacco level?
unckeyherb
Footballguy
see my modified post above. but yeah absolutely. If you apply the same thinking that Chip/Chip's system can improve a QB's numbers then yeah, no doubt. Take Flacco and drop him onto this team with the uptick in production due to the system then yeah I think we're talking deep playoff run.
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Being as good or better than Nick Foles/Mark Sanchez and/or being able to win a playoff game.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
78.9% winning record = 12-13 wins. So give up picks and 11M just to get a less ROI? You're definitely not "moneyballing" the league here. You're just being overconfident in a gamble.
If Chip can fix any QB then why not fix the one 10x cheaper and didn't require giving up future assets in return?
#Sb passer rating isn't a percentage
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Carson Palmer?
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Do you think that Nick Foles is better than Sam Bradford? Chip obviously didn't feel he could do much more with Foles. I'll eat crow in here if I'm wrong but I'd bet my mortgage that Foles has a comparatively down year now that he's in St Louis and on the flip side Bradford has a career best year. That *should* result in more wins than the last two years and a playoff run, which is what everyone wants.ShaHBucks said:
Besides, aren't we like $10 million under the cap even with Bradford's contract? And, if Bradford equals a playoff victory then I don't really give a #### about the second round 'future asset' that we burned to get him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
I don't disagree but that's not what you said. See the bolded above. He may be more likely to re-injure the ACL but that does not mean he cant play at a high level. Many have already.ShaHBucks said:
You're eventually going to have to pay a QB and Im sure that position has a certain budget. This isn't money wasted or irresponsible and you would run your house that way. If felt you needed a roof (obviously Kelly did) and only one kind was available and you had the money, you'd have it. Especially if you thought it was needed. And if you had billions, you wouldn't feel bad about 16 million
You're entire premise seems predicated on Bradford being lesser than Foles. Lets see how it plays our first
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
More so he won't be that much better. If we're not talking Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Manning, Luck, Wilson then how much of an improvement can you hope for? Is the bar set at Eli? Idk manI wouldn't consider this a missing roof situation. Cle, Jax and Tenn need new roofs. It's more of a luxury.
It is what it is though
Last edited by a moderator:
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
What if the bar was set at Romo, Big Ben or Matt Ryan? The NFL shocks me every year. If Bradford ended up living up to his potential here I wouldn't be shocked. Same can be said about him being average or injured again. Right now I just cant be down or really up on him. Im just waiting to see how he looks.
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
But the money going to Bradford (at least most of it) was going to have to go to Foles anyway at some point, unless you were going to play out his walk year, and risk losing him for nothing or being forced to tag him at a much higher rate than what Bradford is getting this year. The Tannehill and Dalton deals are just the going rate of 20-something starting QBs these days.(ETA - and I get that they're basically playing out Bradford's walk year as we speak, but I have a feeling an extension gets done between now and the start of the reg season)
Since Mariota was a pipe dream, then if Chip thinks Bradford can be better in his offense than Foles and they had the cap space to get him, then that's all that matters.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
It really doesn't. Who were his receivers? Who was blocking for him? Who were his coaches?
I'm not saying this doesn't have the chance of ending very badly (injury or otherwise), but I'm not writing him off based in his experience with a very very bad Rams either.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
I can make the same excuses for Foles if I wanted, but that wasn't what I was hinting at.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
You really think the Eagles in Foles first two seasons were as bad as the Rams in Bradford's first two seasons? You are going to have a hard time explaining that. If you can't, than it isn't an excuse, just simply a case of not completely ignoring very different situations and contexts.
Through Bradford's first two seasons, the Rams were 15-65. How about the Eagles through Foles first two years?
You can't really think that record was all on Bradford? He got nearly half of those wins as a rookie. Again, PFF or Football Outsiders crunched the numbers and came to the conclusion the 2011 Rams were the most injured offense of the decade (flukey, outlier, 1/320 shot of that happening), unclear how that could all be blamed on Bradford, or citing that is an "excuse".
Through Bradford's first two seasons, the Rams were 15-65. How about the Eagles through Foles first two years?
You can't really think that record was all on Bradford? He got nearly half of those wins as a rookie. Again, PFF or Football Outsiders crunched the numbers and came to the conclusion the 2011 Rams were the most injured offense of the decade (flukey, outlier, 1/320 shot of that happening), unclear how that could all be blamed on Bradford, or citing that is an "excuse".
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
You can make the same excuses for Foles? What does that even mean? He's had a very good to great offensive coach and system, arguably the best online over the course of the last two years, an all pro RB and probowl receivers in desean (year one) and maclin (year two). I don't get your point.ETA: without looking it up on my phone I believe Bradford has never had the same coordinator or even a similar system two years in a row.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Bradford had Schottenheimer more than one year, but I'm not sure in his case how much of a plus that was. I'm hoping new OC Cignetti can do a better job involving Austin, etc.
The Rams OL in 2015 is very young and inexperienced, which is risky, there will be some growing pains. The Rams are in the same boat, and will have to account for that in evaluating Foles, and deciding whether to extend, re-sign him beyond 2015. He should be better than the likes of backups Clemens, Hill and Davis the Rams have trotted out in 2013-2014 by default, if he can stay healthy.
But unless Foles (or Bradford, if he had been here) are under constant siege due to the OL, the skill position weapons are in a completely different and better place than 2010, 2011, 2012, even 2013 (when Bradford played a half season, missed all of 2014). Britt is probably better than any WR he worked with, Quick broke out last year and played at a higher level than he ever did in his first two seasons, Bailey was pressed into action and had 300 yards in four games at the end of last season. Cook and Kendricks are flawed in some ways, but Cook led the team in receiving in 2013, and Kendricks in receiving TDs in 2014. Now Foles can hand the ball off to a Gurley/Mason tandem. Gurley may be the best RB prospect since Peterson, with the potential, health permitting, to be the best Rams RB since Faulk and Dickerson. If the OL had done their job this upcoming season, and Bradford were still here and couldn't take advantage of the skill position weapons at his disposal, than imo it would reflect very poorly on him, in a vastly different way than the situation and context in his first few years.
* I'm sure this is a case he hopes he is dead wrong, and Kelly brings out the best in Bradford, he does better with upgraded OL and skill position weapons compared to what he had in 2010-2011-2012 (comparable to Foles first three years, at which point many already soured on him). Since then, he played in the first eight games and missed the last 24. It would be hilarious if PHI and STL/LA, Bradford and Foles meet in the NFC Championship game.
The Rams OL in 2015 is very young and inexperienced, which is risky, there will be some growing pains. The Rams are in the same boat, and will have to account for that in evaluating Foles, and deciding whether to extend, re-sign him beyond 2015. He should be better than the likes of backups Clemens, Hill and Davis the Rams have trotted out in 2013-2014 by default, if he can stay healthy.
But unless Foles (or Bradford, if he had been here) are under constant siege due to the OL, the skill position weapons are in a completely different and better place than 2010, 2011, 2012, even 2013 (when Bradford played a half season, missed all of 2014). Britt is probably better than any WR he worked with, Quick broke out last year and played at a higher level than he ever did in his first two seasons, Bailey was pressed into action and had 300 yards in four games at the end of last season. Cook and Kendricks are flawed in some ways, but Cook led the team in receiving in 2013, and Kendricks in receiving TDs in 2014. Now Foles can hand the ball off to a Gurley/Mason tandem. Gurley may be the best RB prospect since Peterson, with the potential, health permitting, to be the best Rams RB since Faulk and Dickerson. If the OL had done their job this upcoming season, and Bradford were still here and couldn't take advantage of the skill position weapons at his disposal, than imo it would reflect very poorly on him, in a vastly different way than the situation and context in his first few years.
* I'm sure this is a case he hopes he is dead wrong, and Kelly brings out the best in Bradford, he does better with upgraded OL and skill position weapons compared to what he had in 2010-2011-2012 (comparable to Foles first three years, at which point many already soured on him). Since then, he played in the first eight games and missed the last 24. It would be hilarious if PHI and STL/LA, Bradford and Foles meet in the NFC Championship game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
I don't want to do all these nested quotes, but it would seem clear that Kelly did not believe in Foles and did not want to sign him long-term. If that's the case, then what is the point of him playing this year and what is the difference if Bradford doesn't play well? (assuming they do not extend him.)
If Chip didn't believe in Foles, playing this year with him as QB would be a waste. At least this way, Chip gets a chance at something better. If it tanks, it tanks, and we're in the same boat as we would have been otherwise.
This was the best shot at upgrading (in Chip's mind) for what was realistically available.
Personally, I would have given Foles another chance and if that would have enabled them to get McCourty (seems unlikely anyway) or another FA, then maybe I can see it, but I don't know how realistic that would have been. But assuming that Chip did not want Foles, and I'm pretty sure that Chip knows what he wants and has more football acumen than any of us, then I don't know what the point of arguing against getting rid of him is.
If Chip didn't believe in Foles, playing this year with him as QB would be a waste. At least this way, Chip gets a chance at something better. If it tanks, it tanks, and we're in the same boat as we would have been otherwise.
This was the best shot at upgrading (in Chip's mind) for what was realistically available.
Personally, I would have given Foles another chance and if that would have enabled them to get McCourty (seems unlikely anyway) or another FA, then maybe I can see it, but I don't know how realistic that would have been. But assuming that Chip did not want Foles, and I'm pretty sure that Chip knows what he wants and has more football acumen than any of us, then I don't know what the point of arguing against getting rid of him is.
Insein
Footballguy
I like Foles and thought he would have done well here long term but this is very similar to the Sixers and MCW. At some point, they recognized that despite the talent and the achievement (ROTY) he wasn't their guy. So why lock him up long term when you don't like him. Move on and be done with it.
I don't like giving Foles away for nothing but if Kelly didn't like him, what is the point of keeping him then? They wouldn't have resigned him and we would have had another year will they or won't they pay him.
I don't like giving Foles away for nothing but if Kelly didn't like him, what is the point of keeping him then? They wouldn't have resigned him and we would have had another year will they or won't they pay him.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
I don't know how a team can go 15-65 in two seasons in the NFL, Bob.
It's really easy to make excuses. I'm not into that really. Brady, Manning, Rodger or whoever you consider great win and produce despite everything that's going on around them. WR/RB leave, defenses sucks, injuries occur and they still produce and win games. That's why you call them "Franchise QB's". When I was busy making excuses, no one really cared. https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/681429-how-does-matt-barkley-fit-in-philadelphia/page-2#entry16474262 https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/665215-the-nick-foles-era/page-6#entry15639032
If you throw away Foles coming in cold as a rookie in the Dallas game, and his very first start(see Andrew Luck's 1st start for a reference) then you would have noticed a really good rookie trying to emerge. Lets add context now. He was playing with Maclin, Cooper, Celek, Clay Harbor, Bryce Brown and a washed up Jason Avant as his skill players. The entire starting O-Line was hurt. Andy Reid was already looking for employment. I don't have a word for how bad the defense was. Please take a second to look at what opposing QBs were doing vs the Eagles while Foles was starting if you didn't pay the Eagles any mind until CK came aboard. I'll save you some time. They made every QB look like the best of Elway and Marino combined. End result was a 4-12 team. Foles had a historically efficient rookie season, and some type of interception streak going. You've even dug up the articles. This team to end the season was as bad as it gets.
Next season he has a new coach and has to learn a radically new offense(common excuse made for Bradford). Matt Barkley was drafted and was a better fit for "Chip Kelly's Offense". He also has to compete for a starting role(something Bradford has never done). He comes in cold, again, to take over a 1-3 football team lead by an injury prone M. Vick vs NYG. We all know how this goes. The 3 losses before he took over were vs really good teams might I add. End result is a 10-6 team and a wildcard game vs NO where he left the field after putting his team up late in the 4th(Everything fans hope for in philly supposedly). Cooper- Maclin- Ertz/Celek, Avant and McCoy are his weapons. The O-Line plays every game. Defense wasn't good. Check FO if you want to here. I'm sure they blew. Having one of the most efficient passing season in the history of the NFL is fine and all, but Nick Foles takes too many sacks is the narrative. No one like to say they were wrong, or close. Offensive MVP of the ProBowl as well.
New QB coach to start the following season. The team/coach never really commits to him(unlike Bradford). He gets a few that-a-boys and most of the credit goes to Chip Kelly and LeSean McCoy(who went from "Barry Sanders" to D. Murray being an upgrade in a flash). Neither of those guys threw one TD during his run though. CK is still looking for "His Guy". Barkley proves to be a joke(who would have guessed?). Sanchez lights up the preseason and Foles job could be Sanchez's soon. Foles has no chance but to regress, obviously. He looses his top WR in Desean Jackson because he a gang member, ala Hernandez. We don't spend the money all willy nilly, just because we have the cap space at WR. To hell with looking/keeping for top WR weapons for him like Stl tried with Bradford. Maclin- Cooper- Matthews- Celek/Ertz- McCoy/Sproles are his skill position players. Do note that Maclin, as well as DeSean, wasn't thought of as a #1 WR at the time. It was debated this in the Eagles threads. I blamed Vick for them not producing. WR production is highly dependent on QBs. You ever hear of Matt Tobin, Andrew Garner or David Molk? Well, thanks to injuries and suspensions they were the starting O-Line. Check FO here as well. Surprisingly, his sack% goes from 8.1% to 2.1%. I wonder how much this was stressed in his first off-season working with the 1's and taking all the 1st-team reps, but no one is making excuses. Lets get to the games.
Week 1- Jac actually shows up with an interesting defense lead by a defensive minded coach. Allen Hurns was a thing. After a ton of fumbles/ints from Foles while he was busy getting sacked the Eagles are down 17-0 at halftime. Sproles gets a TD, Cox gets a return and Foles throws two TDs. Eagles win 17-34. 1-0
Week 2- Andrew Luck hasn't lost 2 back to back games since college. Who was the last QB to beat Luck coming off of a loss? Spoiler(Nick Foles). Luck has the ball with 5min left up 7. He throws a pick. Eagles ball. Foles throws a short pass to Sproles that turned into a long gain, and a TD to Maclin. Luck and T. Richardson goes 3 and out. Foles completes two passes to set up a game winning FG. 2-0
Week 3- Foles was murdered by Was. I didn't think he'd make it out alive. McCoy is mia for the season so far and beyond. The defense gives up 34 points. Foles has to throw 41x to compensate for all of this. He throws for 400+ and 3 TDs still. 3-0
Week 4- This game was really odd. Foles took a ton of blame for this one. ST/DEF TDs led to the Eagles having the ball for 7min in the first half. One of the drives Foles was hit as he threw and it was intercepted. Another ended in a fumble. Idk what to expect from your offense with the "context" given. McCoy is on a milk carton. The offense has the ball for 17 min total in the game. Foles throws another int going deep vs prevent def down 5 with seconds left. Someone drops a TD pass late in this game too. I think it was Celek. Lane Johnson is coming off of suspension now. 3-1(one drop, yard from 4-0)
Week 5- Bradford is already on IR, but the defense gambles a ton and A. Davis throws 3 TD. When it mattered he was shutout just like Cousins was a few games ago. Kendricks is out and the O-Line is demolished. They didn't drink enough smoothies. This was the worst game I've ever seen Foles play(not an excuse). I've never seen him miss so many open receivers and make so many arrogant passes. He was dealing with a shoulder injury at the time, but he's usually not this careless. Apart of the beauty of 2013 is that he took the sacks vs bad decisions. Not now. He still completed 65% of his passes with 2 TD. McCoy has another game under 4ypc. 4-1
Week 6- Eagles are missing Kendricks and their O-Line.Eagles just embarrass the Giants here. Foles look good aside from 2 ints. Decisions I've never seen him force up until last week. 5-1
Week 7- Bye
Week 8- McCoy is still running below 4ypc. There is space to run, but McCoy just isn't hitting the holes. A lot of drive to date ends with Foles trying to bail the offense out of 2nd, 3rd and long situations because of the run game. The sports media writes how the ints are stacking up for Foles. Losing 2 game on the road to playoff caliber teams while having a chance to win the game late is a crime if you're Nick Foles. Ari didn't play well but scored on to bombs late iirc. 5-2(two plays from 7-0)
Week 9- Hou is missing both starting cb's. Foles was looking like himself finally. He was dicing them. He gets hurt and everyone gets what they've been waiting for because Foles throws too many ints. Nevermind he throws them at a lower rate for his career than many notable names, including Sam Bradford. Sancheeks looked better in the pre-season, so Foles was never going to get his job back(turned out to be true, but he's still starting in the NFL). The same guy that was crucified in NY and put out of favor for Geno Smith can be the QB of the future is the narrative. The offense isn't supposed to skip a beat. Just plug and play. There will be no NFL/FF ramifications. 6-2(on pace to win the div and have a home playoff game)
I don't remember posting much at this time. My thoughts were that the Eagles will have to scrap to the playoffs now, and Sanchez will get exposed eventually just like Vick and Barkley did. The city would possibly turn on Kelly while the national media mocks the offense. Sancheeks goes 3-4 and the team doesn't make the playoffs. Almost.. 10-6
Foles went 14-4 with Chip Kelly. Sancheeks, Vick and Barkley went 5-8(ignoring a meaningless week 17 game). Same team, same coach, an offense that he wasn't fit for, ect.. He was still the only one winning games in a system where any QB can succeed. Typical Eagles fans would rather have a QB that talk radio signs off on more than winning. Wtf is Bradford going to do better than winning 78% of his game as an Eagles while having a 94 QB rating? 11 wins and a playoff win is not an upgrade from what Foles was producing... at cheaper price. If Bradford plays like Ryan, Ben, Romo then you're not getting and upgrade from what Foles was producing... at a cheaper price. That's why I said Bradford has to produce like Aaron Rodgers before we even consider all else the trade involved.
I know you'll follow up with a post as long as mine. Just note that Foles first few seasons wasn't all peachy with everything handed to him like you think
Last edited by a moderator:
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
This is more like trading Iggy, another really good player that the fans didn't like, after making it to the Conference Finals for Bynum.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Two good posts above this one. At worst its a wash, at best it's new blood and potential for a qb that chip thinks can run his offense effectively.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I'm not going to NQ (nested quote) the above, ShaHBucks, and will try and keep it snappy, going against casting.
I meant through his first two seasons, 15-65 or .1875 was the trailing five year record, again, nearly half of those wins were in Bradford's Rookie of the Year season. In the the other four seasons (only one other which he played in, which was the ravaged 2011 most injured offense of the decade campaign, not my "excuse", just passing along a stat from PFF or Football Outsiders, you could probably confirm it yourself), the cumulative record was 8-56, or .125. Even the 15-65 mark, might be the worst in league history over a comparable time frame. In a four year span (?), they picked Chris Long 1.2, since retired Jason Smith 1.2 and Bradford 1.1.
How is it easy to produce a most injured offense of the decade stat, when the chance of that happening is 1/320? If you want to lump that into the any old regular season like another category, you can, but imo that is just ignoring simple situational and contextual information.
When did Manning, Brady and Rodgers pop onto the menu. That old canard always pops up in this debate. It is like if somebody said Stan Kroenke is wealthy at an estimated $6 billion (not counting his wife's $6 billion), and somebody replied, no he isn't, he is poor compared to Gates and Buffett. Invoking those hallowed names almost smacks of employing a rhetorical fluorish, trying too hard to win the "they are excuses" debate. It is like using an elephant gun to dispatch an ant, and lacks proportion and perspective. We are just discussing whether he can be an upgrade over Foles, three of the greatest QBs in league history really have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Lets put those ill-chosen comps behind us.
I'll try and read the rest later, but what was the Eagles corresponding record (trailing five years) through Foles' 2013 campaign? Did they pick 1.2, 1.2 and 1.1 in a four year span within that time? If you are trying to suggest the likes of Maclin, DeSean Jackson and LeSean McCoy weren't REALLY better than Brandon Gibson and Daryl Richardson, or he didn't have the advantage of a much beter OL in his huge 2013 seasons, than I can tell you in advance, it is hard to see how reading what you wrote is going to illuminate that for me. You can't seriously advance that premise with a straight face. Once Foles had more adversity last year than in 2013, he threw almost as many INTs as TDs, and his QBR plummeted to below 80, I think?
Again, you must hope you are dead wrong on this, right? If I'm right, and Foles was far better positioned to succeeed with Kelly than Bradford was with Fisher and Schottenheimer in the midst of a heinous half decade record of ineptitude and futility, and he goes to a team coming off consecutive 10-6 seasons, than he could have more upside than you think, which is a good thing for PHIs playoff aspirations.
* Another way to break this down - in a fantasy league, would you have traded McCoy for Daryl Richardson or Zack Stacy? Would you trade Jackson or Maclin for guys like Brandon Gibson or Chris Givens. How about for QB production stats? Would you rather your QB play for Kelly, or Fisher and Schottenheimer? If the answer to all of these is emphatically, resoundingly tilted towards the Eagles, than that makes the point simply and effectively, that you seem to be trying hard to not make.
I'd rather not get into a long and contentious debate about it. To me, it should be self-evident that Foles had better weapons at a comparable stage of his career. If you don't agree, it would be presumptuous of me to think I could be the cause of you seeing things differently through the mechanism of merely conveying words or stats. If you want to think that Bradford in any way, shape or form had a comparable opportunity, and this is the cause of pessimism for you, than it is no longer my concern. It is your perogative to think the way you do. Even if it were possible, I'm disinterested in attempting to give you further perspective, beyond what I've done already. We put our ideas out there in the thread, others can make up their own minds, which is the central purpose of exchanges like this to me.
I meant through his first two seasons, 15-65 or .1875 was the trailing five year record, again, nearly half of those wins were in Bradford's Rookie of the Year season. In the the other four seasons (only one other which he played in, which was the ravaged 2011 most injured offense of the decade campaign, not my "excuse", just passing along a stat from PFF or Football Outsiders, you could probably confirm it yourself), the cumulative record was 8-56, or .125. Even the 15-65 mark, might be the worst in league history over a comparable time frame. In a four year span (?), they picked Chris Long 1.2, since retired Jason Smith 1.2 and Bradford 1.1.
How is it easy to produce a most injured offense of the decade stat, when the chance of that happening is 1/320? If you want to lump that into the any old regular season like another category, you can, but imo that is just ignoring simple situational and contextual information.
When did Manning, Brady and Rodgers pop onto the menu.
That old canard always pops up in this debate. It is like if somebody said Stan Kroenke is wealthy at an estimated $6 billion (not counting his wife's $6 billion), and somebody replied, no he isn't, he is poor compared to Gates and Buffett. Invoking those hallowed names almost smacks of employing a rhetorical fluorish, trying too hard to win the "they are excuses" debate. It is like using an elephant gun to dispatch an ant, and lacks proportion and perspective. We are just discussing whether he can be an upgrade over Foles, three of the greatest QBs in league history really have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Lets put those ill-chosen comps behind us.I'll try and read the rest later, but what was the Eagles corresponding record (trailing five years) through Foles' 2013 campaign? Did they pick 1.2, 1.2 and 1.1 in a four year span within that time? If you are trying to suggest the likes of Maclin, DeSean Jackson and LeSean McCoy weren't REALLY better than Brandon Gibson and Daryl Richardson, or he didn't have the advantage of a much beter OL in his huge 2013 seasons, than I can tell you in advance, it is hard to see how reading what you wrote is going to illuminate that for me. You can't seriously advance that premise with a straight face.
Once Foles had more adversity last year than in 2013, he threw almost as many INTs as TDs, and his QBR plummeted to below 80, I think?Again, you must hope you are dead wrong on this, right? If I'm right, and Foles was far better positioned to succeeed with Kelly than Bradford was with Fisher and Schottenheimer in the midst of a heinous half decade record of ineptitude and futility, and he goes to a team coming off consecutive 10-6 seasons, than he could have more upside than you think, which is a good thing for PHIs playoff aspirations.
* Another way to break this down - in a fantasy league, would you have traded McCoy for Daryl Richardson or Zack Stacy? Would you trade Jackson or Maclin for guys like Brandon Gibson or Chris Givens. How about for QB production stats? Would you rather your QB play for Kelly, or Fisher and Schottenheimer? If the answer to all of these is emphatically, resoundingly tilted towards the Eagles, than that makes the point simply and effectively, that you seem to be trying hard to not make.
I'd rather not get into a long and contentious debate about it. To me, it should be self-evident that Foles had better weapons at a comparable stage of his career. If you don't agree, it would be presumptuous of me to think I could be the cause of you seeing things differently through the mechanism of merely conveying words or stats. If you want to think that Bradford in any way, shape or form had a comparable opportunity, and this is the cause of pessimism for you, than it is no longer my concern. It is your perogative to think the way you do. Even if it were possible, I'm disinterested in attempting to give you further perspective, beyond what I've done already. We put our ideas out there in the thread, others can make up their own minds, which is the central purpose of exchanges like this to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is what I don't get. Why does any Eagles fan actually WANT our coach to keep a qb he doesn't like? I don't care if someone thinks Foles is better, Kelly is the one who sees him 100 times as much as anyone on this board, and the one who probably knows what he's doing more then anyone on here. Let the guy coach his team, and it's clear he didn't want Foles.... So knowing this, I'm glad as hell that he got rid of him.
Kelly is an all in type of guy. If you're not all in on what he's doing here, then you may as well not stick around for this. It's fine to have concerns, but let him coach this team with his guys. If it fails, then we go in a new direction. Wouldn't you rather that then "what if he had gone after bradford?". There is no "what if he kept foles", because foles would have been gone after this year anyways.
The cap is irrelevant as others have mentioned, and yes, worst case with Sam we win 7-10 games, don't win any playoff games, and it's no worse then keeping Foles going forward into the future.
I thought you said you weren't going to post in here anymore? You clearly will be cheering against Bradford/Kelly's success this year and hoping Foles has a career year so you can say "i told you so". You've given pretty impossible odds saying "if bradford wins a superbowl next year i'll admit I was wrong".
No Best/Worst Cases. But Great Case Scenario: We win a playoff game next year. Not so Great case scenario, Bradford isn't the answer (we've determined that Chip wasn't going to keep foles around after this year anyways), and we are back to square one at qb, after downgrading from a mid 2nd rounder to a high 3rd rounder.
He doesn't have to be Rodgers to have this pay off. If he even makes the playoffs this year for us it has paid off greatly. Enjoy cheering against the eagles this year though.
ShaHBucks said:
"...Dr. James L. Cary, Director of the Penn Center for Advanced Cartilage Repair and Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Accordign to Dr. Cary there is no increased risk for Bradford to tear his ACL a third time, and the odds of it happening again are relatively low, around a 6 percent chance."
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Dr. Carey actually did my last ACL surgery. CoolQuantitive Research is the keyword. Here's one example. http://ojs.sagepub.com/content/1/4_suppl/2325967113S00002.full.pdf.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Assuming Bradford is healthy, I have the Eagles down for 11 wins and a home game in the wildcard looking at the schedule. "I told you so" and cheering against the Eagles would be pretty conflicting. You read my mind, as usual. Same toilet... Chip Kelly is the one who set that bar saying 14-4 isn't good enough. 13+ wins or a SB would mean the team took another step forward from the pace they were already on. I don't find that hard to comprehend. Enjoy not agreeing?? Idk
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
So which do you value more. The one specific to Bradford or the one speaking in general terms?
I think we'd all agree we'd take the person specific portion, no? 6% seems ok to me.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
I'd prefer the more thoroughly researched analysis vs someone saying in my opinion, personally, but I see your point. As I said, you can take these studies with a grain of salt. I still think Bradford is more at risk for another injury than someone hasn't had the same history of surgically repaired ligaments, making the risk of ruin a bit higher.
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Sure that would be good, but would it convince Chip? He's already seen 2013 and more and apparently made the decision that Foles is not the future. I suppose that there is a slight chance that he would change his mind, but it would seem that the odds were heavily against Foles being the QB beyond this year.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
And as I mentioned earlier regarding his healthcare, I'm sure he has had several opinions from the best specialists in the country. I would say with a pretty high degree of certainty that they were all in the same ballpark. Chip said at the presser yesterday that they were told Bradford had a 10% chance of another ACL on that knee, I can live with that.
Even when you compare the injury history of Foles and Bradford it seems like Bradford's are more fluky while the Foles injuries IMO.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
@Jeff_McLane: Forgot to include this in my practice notes from yesterday, but DE Taylor Hart told me he now weighs 305 lbs. He was listed 281 last year.
Similar threads
