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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Insein
- Start date
mike303
Footballguy
Look, Seattle is the team to beat until they show otherwise. NO question about it. But Philly showed it can score on GB, something it couldn't do at all last season. SF looks down, Detroit has some questions, the NFC South is up for grabs. I'm just saying that if Philly has gained ground on Dallas, which many believe they have, they have a chance to be the #2 team. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, they have to remain healthy. I just think they have improved greatly and a lot of other teams appeared to have stood idle. They are incredibly solid and deep in both running the ball and defending the run. With a modest improvement at QB and the secondary, it's only logical that would translate to between one and three wins.
Billy Bats
Footballguy
Eagles cut 12, get down to 78. Need to cut 3 more by Tuesday. Only notable name is GJ Kinne.
Marc Anthony
Brandan Bishop
Mike Coccia
Kevin Graf
Alfy Hill
Mike Johnson
G.J. Kinne
Dasman McCullum
Josh Reese
Jeremy Towns
Justin Tukes
Jared Wheeler
Marc Anthony
Brandan Bishop
Mike Coccia
Kevin Graf
Alfy Hill
Mike Johnson
G.J. Kinne
Dasman McCullum
Josh Reese
Jeremy Towns
Justin Tukes
Jared Wheeler
GoBirds
Footballguy
Ash
Footballguy
I was thinking about this too. Has a guy ever been mediocre for as long as Fisher has, and maintained a rep as an above average coach? His career record is .524 and he's had six 10 win seasons out of 20 and 9 seasons of 7 wins or less. Given this and the RG3 trade I think he's a much better salesman than coach.
So a fan of the team who spent their off season signing dope heads and women beaters and decided to replace the league's leading rusher with Darren McFadden, who hasn't stayed healthy for a whole season since Pop Warner, thinks the Eagles took a huge gamble?
Billy Bats
Footballguy
Its pretty amusing seeing other teams fans roll in here talking trash after the Eagles first teamers destroy the preseason. Me thinks a bunch of other fans are starting to get a little nervous. 
Anyone else see the professional handshake between Bradford and Sproles after his TD?? 
Anyone else see the professional handshake between Bradford and Sproles after his TD??
Kwai Chang Caine
Footballguy
There are some Dallas fans in here smoking some fine gear.
Anyway, what I'm about to say will come off like that too: I bike I've this team is now deeper and more talented then we've seen since the late '80s. O-depth is a concern and we will have to see with the secondary but my god this team is loaded up and down. This is going to be special.
Who cares about the Rams? Seriously. They will still stink. I'd be flabbergasted if they win 9 games. For all the talk about that great defense, Bishop Sankey mowed them down for Christ's sake.
Anyway, what I'm about to say will come off like that too: I bike I've this team is now deeper and more talented then we've seen since the late '80s. O-depth is a concern and we will have to see with the secondary but my god this team is loaded up and down. This is going to be special.
Who cares about the Rams? Seriously. They will still stink. I'd be flabbergasted if they win 9 games. For all the talk about that great defense, Bishop Sankey mowed them down for Christ's sake.
Deranged Hermit
Not cool & Pissed
As said above, I think the Eagles are, at worst, the third best team in the NFC. Seattle is ahead of them and I'd still put GB ahead of them as well. I honestly think they have a punchers chance against both of them as well.
As for the AFC, I wouldn't bet on them against a Brady-led NE, but that's about it. I think they can beat PIT, DEN, IND, etc.
The key is as it always was: keep your starting QB upright. This is something they haven't been able to do traditionally. If a time traveler came back in time and told me that Bradford would be healthy all year and through the playoffs, I wouldn't be surprised if his next statement was that they made the SB.
As for the AFC, I wouldn't bet on them against a Brady-led NE, but that's about it. I think they can beat PIT, DEN, IND, etc.
The key is as it always was: keep your starting QB upright. This is something they haven't been able to do traditionally. If a time traveler came back in time and told me that Bradford would be healthy all year and through the playoffs, I wouldn't be surprised if his next statement was that they made the SB.
I think the NFC East is going to be an awesome battle. Dallas was very good last year and added a healthy Cliff Lee and Greg Hardy. Plus they say Collins has been a beast and makes their great line ever better. Green Bay is going to miss Jordy, but I can't forget how badly they destroyed us last year. I have a feeling that the NFC representative is coming out of the east.
Meatwad Reloaded
Footballguy
I was in here giving you crap yesterday....it was totally in jest. As a Packers fan, I am pretty high on the eagles this year. I like almost all of their players in fantasy and I am going to try and make sure I have at least a few of them on my team this year.Billy Bats said:Its pretty amusing seeing other teams fans roll in here talking trash after the Eagles first teamers destroy the preseason. Me thinks a bunch of other fans are starting to get a little nervous.
Anyone else see the professional handshake between Bradford and Sproles after his TD??
I think a big difference will be Bradford obviously and the fact that you guys missed the playoffs last year despite winning 10, that means you are hungry. I don't think Bradford will get injured again, if he does obviously he will be done, but I think it is unlikely that he bites the dust multiple years in a row.
Manster
Footballguy
I said I get the homer optimism. The Eagles look great this preseason. The storylines for the Cowboys v. Eagles this season are huge! Cant wait.
Nah. Its a response to over-reacting to preseason......If the Cowboys thread was blowin up there'd be plenty of other fans comin in to let us know to pump the brakes.....plenty of eagles fans too, Im sure.Billy Bats said:Its pretty amusing seeing other teams fans roll in here talking trash after the Eagles first teamers destroy the preseason. Me thinks a bunch of other fans are starting to get a little nervous.
Anyone else see the professional handshake between Bradford and Sproles after his TD??
I think us Cowboys fans just want to get on with it. We stay very cautiously optimistic going into seasons these days. We've been burned before. The Cowboys have been over-hyped before. Now we know what we have, and we just wanna see how it plays out.
Bottom line is the East is most likely between the Cowboys and Eagles. Never know about those giants though. They can look like a dumpster fire and turn it around. The skins seem too dysfunctional right now.
I cant remember being more excited for a season to start. Chip Kelly's Eagles are going to formidable, I'm sure. And these aren't the same Cowboys built to fold in December. Our depth and talent is significantly better than its been in a long time.
you should have just opened with that.I said I get the homer optimism. The Eagles look great this preseason. The storylines for the Cowboys v. Eagles this season are huge! Cant wait.
Nah. Its a response to over-reacting to preseason......If the Cowboys thread was blowin up there'd be plenty of other fans comin in to let us know to pump the brakes.....plenty of eagles fans too, Im sure.Billy Bats said:Its pretty amusing seeing other teams fans roll in here talking trash after the Eagles first teamers destroy the preseason. Me thinks a bunch of other fans are starting to get a little nervous.
Anyone else see the professional handshake between Bradford and Sproles after his TD??
I think us Cowboys fans just want to get on with it. We stay very cautiously optimistic going into seasons these days. We've been burned before. The Cowboys have been over-hyped before. Now we know what we have, and we just wanna see how it plays out.
Bottom line is the East is most likely between the Cowboys and Eagles. Never know about those giants though. They can look like a dumpster fire and turn it around. The skins seem too dysfunctional right now.
I cant remember being more excited for a season to start. Chip Kelly's Eagles are going to formidable, I'm sure. And these aren't the same Cowboys built to fold in December. Our depth and talent is significantly better than its been in a long time.
CentralPA
Footballguy
CentralPA
Footballguy
It's only preseason but very hard not to get excited. When the 1st teams have been on they've scored nothing but points and the D has come up with turnovers in the secondary. Still cautiously optimistic because they're still thin on the OL and obviously Bradford/health yadda yadda yadda...but man I can't wait for Monday night week 1.
dhockster
Footballguy
Just watched the 1st half from the GB game. Jeez, not only did Bradford complete every pass, he put it in the right spot almost every time. And every running play except for a few near the goal line were gaining at least 5 yards. Even Sanchez looked decent. This offense looks scary.
Is Parkey hurt or are they just resting him so he can get his confidence back (by not missing anymore kicks in the preseason)?
Is Parkey hurt or are they just resting him so he can get his confidence back (by not missing anymore kicks in the preseason)?
Kelly said he "tweaked" his leg, nothing serious and would have played if the game counted
unckeyherb
Footballguy
They made mention of it during the broadcast too. Said that Parkey was a healthy scratch just to give the other dude some opportunities
dhockster
Footballguy
Well, the other dude kind of sucks. Every XP/FG try is an adventure. You are not sure which way it's going to go.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
The Noid
Avoid me!
Kip Smith is the back-up punter, so he's only filling in as a kicker. He's not anyone they would consider, if Parkey were to get injured.
I see the Eagles starting super fast and scoring a ton of points in the first two months ... since the first month is now the extended preseason (since there's not much hitting in training camp it takes longer for players to get fully into the physical nature of the regular season). They will win by scheme and execution but not by straight being better physically.
Then they'll drop a couple of expected win games, slowly fade, and get crushed in several games the last 6 weeks of the season (Lions, Bills, Cardinals) against teams that will win the 1 on 1's and have physical defense. Their record will be good enough for the playoffs, but they'll lose by 10 the first playoff game.
I'll be back in January to see how my prediction unfolds.
Then they'll drop a couple of expected win games, slowly fade, and get crushed in several games the last 6 weeks of the season (Lions, Bills, Cardinals) against teams that will win the 1 on 1's and have physical defense. Their record will be good enough for the playoffs, but they'll lose by 10 the first playoff game.
I'll be back in January to see how my prediction unfolds.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death
Footballguy
dhockster
Footballguy
Assuming Bradford stays healthy, The Eagles are going to have a lot less quick 3 and outs this year. First, Bradford will be more accurate which will lead to a higher completion %. Second, Murray/Mathews are going to give you a lot more 3-7 yard runs then McCoy. McCoy had a higher standard deviation on his runs meaning he had a lot of runs where he got stopped at the line or he broke through the line and had a long run. The Eagles will have much shorter 3rd downs which means they will convert more which means they will stay on the field longer. This will likely wear out those physical defenses.
A lot depends on Bradford's health, but if he is healthy, I see other teams wearing down rather than the Eagles. Just my homer opinion. My green colored glasses put the Eagles at 12-4 or 13-3 with a first round bye.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
If he stays healthy for 16 games his ceiling would be #1 rated fantasy QB.
His floor is probably 4000+ yards, 27 TDs.
Insein
Footballguy
Vick/Foles went 32-5-4106 in 2013. Foles/Sanchez went 27-21-4581 in 2014.
I think that may answer your question.
Insein
Footballguy
Those two years? I'd say Shady 2013 was better than Shady 2014 but Maclin/Matthews is better than Desean/Cooper.
And I'll take Murray and Mathews and their downhill running over McCoy's dancing any day of the week. I also have the feeling that Matthews/Agholar is going to be every bit as good if not better than Maclin/DJackson. And, of course, a healthy Bradford is head and shoulders better than Vick or Foles.
modogg
Footballguy
this is just completely inaccurate, and i'm guessing you haven't watched many games. the uptempo the Eagles play has defenses always looking exhausted in the 2nd half. you would think teams could practice for it and improve conditioning somehow, but you really see it in a lot of the games when you can just see the defense looks exhaustedPhenomena said:
Insein
Footballguy
That was one of the key instigators for Chip to overhaul his team this off season. He knows his offense is straightforward and relies on his guys being in top shape mentally and physically to outperform the other team. He couldn't do that when the offense would go 3 and out. The opposing defense wouldn't get tired fast enough.
Now he has 2 backs that tend to fall forward when hit to make sure they aren't facing 3rd and long too many times. They'll string several first downs together easy and opposing defenses will be pulling he giants routine either faking or for real with cramps and injuries.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Chip has also pointed out that if you are waiting until the week prior to practice against this uptempo offense you are too late and will be woefully unprepared.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Paraphrasing, but I think the quote was something like "don't think you can run some extra sprints for a week and be ready for us - we've been doing this since July".
According to PFR last year's stats were actually 384-621/4,356/27-21.Insein said:
Let's assume that thanks to our new high-priced backfield Bradford only manages 600 PA (it's possible if not likely). Let's assume he can manage about 7.7 Y/A, 4.8% TD, 2.4% INT ... the latter two numbers just slightly better than the NFL averages. Well, that puts him at 4,620 / 29-14. And yes, 7.7 Y/A might seem a little ambitious, but guess who finished 6th in the league last year with 7.8 Y/A passing? That would be Mark Sanchez.
The more I crunch these numbers, the more I'm kicking myself that there's actually one league so far where I haven't drafted Bradford.
Maggot Brain
Footballguy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-roman-phd/why-small-sample-size-is_b_8074016.html
Why 'Small Sample Size' is WrongDon't run from this title: it will help you win some arguments.
I spend a lot of time in Philadelphia, which, along with Boston and New York, is tops in terms of sports mania and knowledge. Philly fans may throw snowballs at Santa Claus, and they may boo their draft picks, but their passion is overwhelmingly backed by almost scholarly levels of scrutiny of their teams.
So let's take a look at what they are being told.
Philly boasts two of the highest-quality sports radio stations in America: venerable WIP and upstart WPEN. Between them they bring to the microphone an astonishing number of nationally recognizable sports commentators, led by Sal Paolantonio, Brian Baldinger, my favorites Mike Missanelli and Cuz, and an army of former players.
Lately, however, I've been hearing one phrase abused repeatedly, and it's worth a moment's reflection to consider its true meaning.
That phrase is "small sample size."
I hear this phrase in every broadcast, every hour, before every hard stop for a commercial break.
Generally, it's invoked to caution listeners who forecast future outcomes from a really small set of data. This could be a rookie's first appearances, the initial performance of an athlete returning from an injury, or a high-profile acquisition's performance in a small number of games.
These beloved sports commentators tell listeners, again and again, that small sample sizes lead to hasty, foolish judgments. Are they right? No.
Let's talk about Sam Bradford. Bradford was acquired by the Eagles in a headline-making trade with the St. Louis Rams. Bradford is a once precocious quarterback who has spent most of his career recovering from surgery.
This preseason, Bradford has appeared in two games. In the first, he looked ok, completing passes at a statistically average rate (3 of 5), but also shook off (with a snarl) a possibly dirty shot at his newly rehabilitated knees (that alone endeared him to Philly).
In the second game (the team's third of the preseason), he was a future Hall of Famer, completing all 10 of his passes, including three for touchdowns, and looked to be the next Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.
Then the cascade of fear of the small sample size rained down on the ecstatic Eagles fan base. Incorrectly.
In statistics, there are two key concepts: validity and reliability. Does your data measure what you think it measures (validity) and would additional samples from the same data yield the same result (reliability)? Here, what we really care about is validity: are the 15 preseason throws enough to forecast Sam Bradford's future?
Philly sports broadcasters have focused on the idea that 15 is a small number. However, statisticians would focus on what those 15 observations measure.
Here's the difference. Suppose Bradford's 15 throws, 13 successfully executed, occurred in an environment identical to the regular season. Then, a statistician would say, rather than a nice bell curve with a big hump in the middle, the results would look like a bell curve that has been stretched to the edge of the page and squashed in the middle. Because the bell curve is flatter and wider, it gives you less confidence Bradford's throws to date show what he can do in the regular season.
But, statistically, even though small sample sizes yield less confidence in results, it's still unlikely that what we've seen from Bradford will be different from his expected performance in the regular season. Even though Bradford has only thrown 15 times, it's a good bet his performance in the regular season will be similar to his performance in the preseason. That is, if his results in the preseason are valid.
A more important problem would occur if the observed data represent a world (the preseason) that looks nothing like the data it is being used to predict (the regular season). If that is true, if in the preseason players don't play as hard, if game plans are more simplistic, if better players are less likely to play, if the deck is effectively stacked in favor of Bradford (statisticians call this selection bias), then the data are not valid: they simply don't measure what you want them to measure, regular season effectiveness.
So, "small sample size" isn't the problem, validity is. If the data aren't valid, a larger sample size won't solve the problem. Only better (valid) data will.
Philly has great sports fans, and they deserve more precise language. And excellent quarterback play.
Why 'Small Sample Size' is WrongDon't run from this title: it will help you win some arguments.
I spend a lot of time in Philadelphia, which, along with Boston and New York, is tops in terms of sports mania and knowledge. Philly fans may throw snowballs at Santa Claus, and they may boo their draft picks, but their passion is overwhelmingly backed by almost scholarly levels of scrutiny of their teams.
So let's take a look at what they are being told.
Philly boasts two of the highest-quality sports radio stations in America: venerable WIP and upstart WPEN. Between them they bring to the microphone an astonishing number of nationally recognizable sports commentators, led by Sal Paolantonio, Brian Baldinger, my favorites Mike Missanelli and Cuz, and an army of former players.
Lately, however, I've been hearing one phrase abused repeatedly, and it's worth a moment's reflection to consider its true meaning.
That phrase is "small sample size."
I hear this phrase in every broadcast, every hour, before every hard stop for a commercial break.
Generally, it's invoked to caution listeners who forecast future outcomes from a really small set of data. This could be a rookie's first appearances, the initial performance of an athlete returning from an injury, or a high-profile acquisition's performance in a small number of games.
These beloved sports commentators tell listeners, again and again, that small sample sizes lead to hasty, foolish judgments. Are they right? No.
Let's talk about Sam Bradford. Bradford was acquired by the Eagles in a headline-making trade with the St. Louis Rams. Bradford is a once precocious quarterback who has spent most of his career recovering from surgery.
This preseason, Bradford has appeared in two games. In the first, he looked ok, completing passes at a statistically average rate (3 of 5), but also shook off (with a snarl) a possibly dirty shot at his newly rehabilitated knees (that alone endeared him to Philly).
In the second game (the team's third of the preseason), he was a future Hall of Famer, completing all 10 of his passes, including three for touchdowns, and looked to be the next Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.
Then the cascade of fear of the small sample size rained down on the ecstatic Eagles fan base. Incorrectly.
In statistics, there are two key concepts: validity and reliability. Does your data measure what you think it measures (validity) and would additional samples from the same data yield the same result (reliability)? Here, what we really care about is validity: are the 15 preseason throws enough to forecast Sam Bradford's future?
Philly sports broadcasters have focused on the idea that 15 is a small number. However, statisticians would focus on what those 15 observations measure.
Here's the difference. Suppose Bradford's 15 throws, 13 successfully executed, occurred in an environment identical to the regular season. Then, a statistician would say, rather than a nice bell curve with a big hump in the middle, the results would look like a bell curve that has been stretched to the edge of the page and squashed in the middle. Because the bell curve is flatter and wider, it gives you less confidence Bradford's throws to date show what he can do in the regular season.
But, statistically, even though small sample sizes yield less confidence in results, it's still unlikely that what we've seen from Bradford will be different from his expected performance in the regular season. Even though Bradford has only thrown 15 times, it's a good bet his performance in the regular season will be similar to his performance in the preseason. That is, if his results in the preseason are valid.
A more important problem would occur if the observed data represent a world (the preseason) that looks nothing like the data it is being used to predict (the regular season). If that is true, if in the preseason players don't play as hard, if game plans are more simplistic, if better players are less likely to play, if the deck is effectively stacked in favor of Bradford (statisticians call this selection bias), then the data are not valid: they simply don't measure what you want them to measure, regular season effectiveness.
So, "small sample size" isn't the problem, validity is. If the data aren't valid, a larger sample size won't solve the problem. Only better (valid) data will.
Philly has great sports fans, and they deserve more precise language. And excellent quarterback play.
Maggot Brain
Footballguy
An interesting read...although this excerpt has me somewhat questioning his creds
'Philly boasts two of the highest-quality sports radio stations in America: venerable WIP and upstart WPEN. Between them they bring to the microphone an astonishing number of nationally recognizable sports commentators, led by Sal Paolantonio, Brian Baldinger, my favorites Mike Missanelli and Cuz, and an army of former players.'
Insein
Footballguy
I see Foles at 2163 and Sanchez at 2418 on PFR. I also see completions as 379/620 for the two. Not major but where are you looking on PFR if we got different numbers from the same site?
Insein
Footballguy
Yea that was a really long way to say semantics.An interesting read...although this excerpt has me somewhat questioning his creds
'Philly boasts two of the highest-quality sports radio stations in America: venerable WIP and upstart WPEN. Between them they bring to the microphone an astonishing number of nationally recognizable sports commentators, led by Sal Paolantonio, Brian Baldinger, my favorites Mike Missanelli and Cuz, and an army of former players.'
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2014/
Here's the top 3 rows under 'Team Offense':
Rk Tm G PF Yds Ply Y/P TO FL 1stPy 1stD Cmp Att Yds TD Int NY/A 1stD Att Yds TD Y/A 1stD Sc% TO% EXP
1 Green Bay Packers 16 486 6178 1001 6.2 13 7 30 356 349 536 4261 38 6 7.5 222 435 1917 14 4.4 104 46.7 7.1 195.16
2 Denver Broncos 16 482 6446 1067 6.0 20 5 35 360 399 607 4661 40 15 7.5 227 443 1785 15 4.0 98 39.9 9.6 130.29
3 Philadelphia Eagles 16 474 6348 1127 5.6 36 15 29 356 384 621 4356 27 21 6.7 218 474 1992 16 4.2 109 36.9 17.2 46.41
I always expect slight differences (things like fake FGs and halfback passes), but to be 200 yards off between the individual #s and the team seems really odd.
Insein
Footballguy
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
The 4356 might be net passing yards for the team (I.e. Net of sacks)
Last edited by a moderator:
dhockster
Footballguy
That is exactly correct. Eagles QB's were sacked for a negative 225 yards.The 4356 might be net passing yards for the team (I.e. Net of sacks)
Billy Bats
Footballguy
Yea that was a really long way to say semantics.An interesting read...although this excerpt has me somewhat questioning his creds
'Philly boasts two of the highest-quality sports radio stations in America: venerable WIP and upstart WPEN. Between them they bring to the microphone an astonishing number of nationally recognizable sports commentators, led by Sal Paolantonio, Brian Baldinger, my favorites Mike Missanelli and Cuz, and an army of former players.'
Brutal.
Maggot Brain
Footballguy
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/sam-bradford-eagles-chip-kelly/?ex_cid=story-twitter&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=philadelphia-eagles
Sam’s Savior: Why Chip Kelly’s Plan to Revive Sam Bradford Just Might WorkWhy the Eagles may have finally found their QB
In the wake of Chip Kelly’s trade for Sam Bradford, there were plenty of efforts to figure out what Kelly saw that others hadn’t. To get Bradford from the Rams, the Eagles had to part with Nick Foles, a starter who was 14-4 under Kelly — with better career numbers than Bradford in nearly every area — and a pair of draft picks.1 At the time, it could have been construed as a lateral move for too high a price. But the way Kelly saw it, at least it was a move, and maybe just the sort Philadelphia needed if the team was going to take that final step toward becoming a true contender.
The Eagles also received a fifth-round pick from St. Louis.
“Ten wins … has it been fun that we took over a 4-12 team that has won 20 games in the past two years?” Kelly said in an interview with CSN’s Derrick Gunn. “We went from 4-12 to 20-12, but we still haven’t won a playoff game and we understand that. We’ve got to get better and we’re always going to strive … the one thing I can promise is that we’re not going to just sit there and hopefully in a couple of years we’re going to build this thing.”
Kelly’s approach this offseason — wheeling and dealing like few personnel people ever have — has looked insane at times. Plenty of coaches with 20 wins in two years would feel comfortable moving forward with a familiar quantity at quarterback. But the thinking behind the move for Bradford was a bold and commendable one — it seems that Kelly was projecting that both Bradford and his offense could be better than anyone imagined. It’s still (extremely) early, but the factors that could have led an optimistic person to feel good about how Bradford might translate to Kelly’s style have been on display all preseason. The inhuman accuracy from his first two college seasons — when he completed a combined 68.5 percent of his passes — has been there in both of his preseason starts. Bradford’s 10-for-10 line on Saturday was impressive, but seeing him perfectly locate throws to receivers in reasonably tight coverage was even more encouraging. If his ball placement is on, the simple decisions and quick tempo in Kelly’s offense could help turn Bradford into the point guard/distributor he was allowed to be in Norman; it’s his best chance to become what St. Louis envisioned when it selected him with the no. 1 pick five years ago.
Bradford is still a long way from proving he’s the player we’ve seen for 15 throws and not the one we saw in 49 starts with the Rams. But if he can stay healthy, his 2015 season has a chance to be the test case for two quarterback theories that other decision-makers are sure to consider moving forward. The state of quarterback play in the NFL has led to a lot of speculation about why a country of 321 million people can’t produce 32 competent starting quarterbacks. The proliferation of spread offenses has gotten much of the blame, but maybe the lack of success has as much to do with a shortage of suitable environments as it does with a dearth of talent.
The most obvious upgrade for Bradford is the coaching staff. Eagles offensive coordinator Pat Shurmur held the same position with the Rams during Bradford’s rookie season, but we have two notes there. First, Bradford was OK as a rookie! Six yards per attempt and a completion percentage of 60 are on the low end of competency, but that’s where most quarterbacks are hanging out as rookies. Second, we can call Shurmur whatever we want. This is Kelly’s offense, and it’s hard to imagine a more significant creativity gap than the one between Kelly and Brian Schottenheimer.
But Kelly’s reputation as a mad scientist isn’t what matters here. Go read anything Chris Brown has ever written about Kelly. It’s not that any individual part of what Kelly’s doing is revolutionary; it’s that when it all comes together, it combines to make the jobs of his players easier. So far, that’s what we’ve seen with Bradford, and it makes it tough to not wonder how other quarterbacks might have fared if given a second chance at life in the league. If Matt Leinart had played for Kelly — and Leinart’s knack for quick decision-making and ball placement had been considered more important than the big arm Ken Whisenhunt has always seemed to crave — could it all have been different? Going the other way, it’s possible to imagine that if Robert Griffin III hadn’t landed with a coordinator willing to completely tailor his offense to Griffin’s skills, he never would have been rookie of the year, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If Tom Brady had been asked to play the same role in the Patriots’ scheme in 2001 that he was in 2007, there’s a reasonable chance he never would’ve become the player we know now. This is the Sliding Doors principle of NFL quarterbacks.
Coaching quality and scheme are part of it, but it’s also fair to say Bradford will have more talent around him in Philadelphia than he ever had in St. Louis. Playing quarterback in the NFL — and for any quarterback drafted in the first round, likely playing as a rookie — is difficult enough, let alone having to play it without much help. It’s an incredibly steep learning curve, and providing hospitable conditions to figure this stuff out is a fragile process. David Carr — sacked a record 76 times as a rookie in 2002 — will always be the most famous example, but looking at this list of players dumped most in a single season during their first three years, you can see it’s a group filled with highly drafted disappointments. Tim Couch, Ken O’Brien, Tony Eason, and Jeff George may never have been high-quality NFL starters, but getting turned into a pile of bones before reaching quarterbacking maturity certainly didn’t help.
An epidemic of drops can have a similar, albeit less damning effect. But no matter the ailment, it isn’t difficult to trace why so many pedigreed quarterbacks fail. Most starting quarterbacks are first-round picks, and plenty of them are taken near the top of the draft. In the past 15 years, 19 of the 75 players picked in the top five are quarterbacks. That’s four more than at any other position, and it’s worth noting that historically, it’s recommended that a team play with two tackles. The commonality between teams that finish in the top five of the draft is that often they aren’t very good. That leads to young quarterbacks — highly drafted Heisman winners and physical marvels often billed as franchise saviors — walking into rough situations they’re expected to weather from day one. You can see how we got in this rut.
That brings us back to Bradford, and, by extension, back to Kelly. “If you want to play with the odds as we want to play, it’s got to be with a quarterback situation and then the only way you’re going to get a quarterback is you got to be really not very good so you finish in the top 1-2 in the draft,” Kelly told Gunn. “If we’re not very good and we finish with the top 1-2 in the draft, I don’t think I’m going to be here, so we better find another way to find a quarterback. And that’s what we did with Sam.”
There are more blueprints for long-term NFL success than there are in the NBA, but in broad terms, Kelly’s right. Quarterback so far outweighs the rest of the positions that finding a quality one is still the most important move a franchise can make, and when playing the numbers, more of those quarterbacks are found near the top of the draft than anywhere else.
Ideally, Kelly’s plan with Bradford was to break the cycle altogether, to steal a quarterback who was actually worthy of going no. 1 overall but hadn’t shown it because he’d never been given the chance. Looking at the NFL’s traditional draft value chart, the projected picks and Foles (the 88th pick) come out to about 600 points — equivalent to a late first-round pick. The deal essentially allowed Kelly to take a player of Bradford’s pedigree with the 28th pick, something he never would have been able to do five years ago.
Even after what Bradford and the Eagles offense have done this preseason, the future is unknown. The preseason is meaningless, Bradford’s injury history is undeniable, and there’s a chance that when the speed and complexity pick up next week, the same bouts of inaccuracy that plagued him in St. Louis return. But if that doesn’t happen, if Bradford plays a full season and at least some of what we’ve seen in August carries over, there’s also a chance Bradford becomes a new benchmark in quarterback acquisition and evaluation. NFL coaches already have a tendency to believe they can finally be the one to unearth the massive potential of early-drafted busts. And if Chip Kelly provides a fresh example, that certainly isn’t going to change.
Sam’s Savior: Why Chip Kelly’s Plan to Revive Sam Bradford Just Might WorkWhy the Eagles may have finally found their QB
In the wake of Chip Kelly’s trade for Sam Bradford, there were plenty of efforts to figure out what Kelly saw that others hadn’t. To get Bradford from the Rams, the Eagles had to part with Nick Foles, a starter who was 14-4 under Kelly — with better career numbers than Bradford in nearly every area — and a pair of draft picks.1 At the time, it could have been construed as a lateral move for too high a price. But the way Kelly saw it, at least it was a move, and maybe just the sort Philadelphia needed if the team was going to take that final step toward becoming a true contender.
The Eagles also received a fifth-round pick from St. Louis.
“Ten wins … has it been fun that we took over a 4-12 team that has won 20 games in the past two years?” Kelly said in an interview with CSN’s Derrick Gunn. “We went from 4-12 to 20-12, but we still haven’t won a playoff game and we understand that. We’ve got to get better and we’re always going to strive … the one thing I can promise is that we’re not going to just sit there and hopefully in a couple of years we’re going to build this thing.”
Kelly’s approach this offseason — wheeling and dealing like few personnel people ever have — has looked insane at times. Plenty of coaches with 20 wins in two years would feel comfortable moving forward with a familiar quantity at quarterback. But the thinking behind the move for Bradford was a bold and commendable one — it seems that Kelly was projecting that both Bradford and his offense could be better than anyone imagined. It’s still (extremely) early, but the factors that could have led an optimistic person to feel good about how Bradford might translate to Kelly’s style have been on display all preseason. The inhuman accuracy from his first two college seasons — when he completed a combined 68.5 percent of his passes — has been there in both of his preseason starts. Bradford’s 10-for-10 line on Saturday was impressive, but seeing him perfectly locate throws to receivers in reasonably tight coverage was even more encouraging. If his ball placement is on, the simple decisions and quick tempo in Kelly’s offense could help turn Bradford into the point guard/distributor he was allowed to be in Norman; it’s his best chance to become what St. Louis envisioned when it selected him with the no. 1 pick five years ago.
Bradford is still a long way from proving he’s the player we’ve seen for 15 throws and not the one we saw in 49 starts with the Rams. But if he can stay healthy, his 2015 season has a chance to be the test case for two quarterback theories that other decision-makers are sure to consider moving forward. The state of quarterback play in the NFL has led to a lot of speculation about why a country of 321 million people can’t produce 32 competent starting quarterbacks. The proliferation of spread offenses has gotten much of the blame, but maybe the lack of success has as much to do with a shortage of suitable environments as it does with a dearth of talent.
The most obvious upgrade for Bradford is the coaching staff. Eagles offensive coordinator Pat Shurmur held the same position with the Rams during Bradford’s rookie season, but we have two notes there. First, Bradford was OK as a rookie! Six yards per attempt and a completion percentage of 60 are on the low end of competency, but that’s where most quarterbacks are hanging out as rookies. Second, we can call Shurmur whatever we want. This is Kelly’s offense, and it’s hard to imagine a more significant creativity gap than the one between Kelly and Brian Schottenheimer.
But Kelly’s reputation as a mad scientist isn’t what matters here. Go read anything Chris Brown has ever written about Kelly. It’s not that any individual part of what Kelly’s doing is revolutionary; it’s that when it all comes together, it combines to make the jobs of his players easier. So far, that’s what we’ve seen with Bradford, and it makes it tough to not wonder how other quarterbacks might have fared if given a second chance at life in the league. If Matt Leinart had played for Kelly — and Leinart’s knack for quick decision-making and ball placement had been considered more important than the big arm Ken Whisenhunt has always seemed to crave — could it all have been different? Going the other way, it’s possible to imagine that if Robert Griffin III hadn’t landed with a coordinator willing to completely tailor his offense to Griffin’s skills, he never would have been rookie of the year, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If Tom Brady had been asked to play the same role in the Patriots’ scheme in 2001 that he was in 2007, there’s a reasonable chance he never would’ve become the player we know now. This is the Sliding Doors principle of NFL quarterbacks.
Coaching quality and scheme are part of it, but it’s also fair to say Bradford will have more talent around him in Philadelphia than he ever had in St. Louis. Playing quarterback in the NFL — and for any quarterback drafted in the first round, likely playing as a rookie — is difficult enough, let alone having to play it without much help. It’s an incredibly steep learning curve, and providing hospitable conditions to figure this stuff out is a fragile process. David Carr — sacked a record 76 times as a rookie in 2002 — will always be the most famous example, but looking at this list of players dumped most in a single season during their first three years, you can see it’s a group filled with highly drafted disappointments. Tim Couch, Ken O’Brien, Tony Eason, and Jeff George may never have been high-quality NFL starters, but getting turned into a pile of bones before reaching quarterbacking maturity certainly didn’t help.
An epidemic of drops can have a similar, albeit less damning effect. But no matter the ailment, it isn’t difficult to trace why so many pedigreed quarterbacks fail. Most starting quarterbacks are first-round picks, and plenty of them are taken near the top of the draft. In the past 15 years, 19 of the 75 players picked in the top five are quarterbacks. That’s four more than at any other position, and it’s worth noting that historically, it’s recommended that a team play with two tackles. The commonality between teams that finish in the top five of the draft is that often they aren’t very good. That leads to young quarterbacks — highly drafted Heisman winners and physical marvels often billed as franchise saviors — walking into rough situations they’re expected to weather from day one. You can see how we got in this rut.
That brings us back to Bradford, and, by extension, back to Kelly. “If you want to play with the odds as we want to play, it’s got to be with a quarterback situation and then the only way you’re going to get a quarterback is you got to be really not very good so you finish in the top 1-2 in the draft,” Kelly told Gunn. “If we’re not very good and we finish with the top 1-2 in the draft, I don’t think I’m going to be here, so we better find another way to find a quarterback. And that’s what we did with Sam.”
There are more blueprints for long-term NFL success than there are in the NBA, but in broad terms, Kelly’s right. Quarterback so far outweighs the rest of the positions that finding a quality one is still the most important move a franchise can make, and when playing the numbers, more of those quarterbacks are found near the top of the draft than anywhere else.
Ideally, Kelly’s plan with Bradford was to break the cycle altogether, to steal a quarterback who was actually worthy of going no. 1 overall but hadn’t shown it because he’d never been given the chance. Looking at the NFL’s traditional draft value chart, the projected picks and Foles (the 88th pick) come out to about 600 points — equivalent to a late first-round pick. The deal essentially allowed Kelly to take a player of Bradford’s pedigree with the 28th pick, something he never would have been able to do five years ago.
Even after what Bradford and the Eagles offense have done this preseason, the future is unknown. The preseason is meaningless, Bradford’s injury history is undeniable, and there’s a chance that when the speed and complexity pick up next week, the same bouts of inaccuracy that plagued him in St. Louis return. But if that doesn’t happen, if Bradford plays a full season and at least some of what we’ve seen in August carries over, there’s also a chance Bradford becomes a new benchmark in quarterback acquisition and evaluation. NFL coaches already have a tendency to believe they can finally be the one to unearth the massive potential of early-drafted busts. And if Chip Kelly provides a fresh example, that certainly isn’t going to change.
Similar threads
