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

[Deamon]

That was my point though. We are in agreement that Foles is not a good QB and yet he had a year that was better than anything Sam has done in his whole career. Sometimes average QBs have great moments in time and flash something better than what they are. Cousins last year. Derek Anderson 2007.  2010 version Vick. Eli in 2011 and 2007. Flacco in 2012. Average QBs get hot and play out of their minds for a year. That's what would need to happen to Sam if we were to win anything with him. But he hasn't shown he is capable of that in his whole career. 

I still don't get how you're comparing Foles' stats to Bradford's.  This seems like a very naive way of looking at it like those fans who just look at box scores.  I feel very strongly that Foles' "year that was better then anything Sam has done his whole career" is FULLY based on the system he was in (which was unknown to the nfl at the time and caught defenses off guard), and the talent he had around him.  That is such a hyperbolic statement.

You could also say that that year Foles had a better offense, far better offensive line, and far better receivers then Bradford EVER had in any year of his career too.  We need to stop bringing up Foles' one magical year as if another QB could slide in and do it with a far different team.

 

[Deamon]

Kirk Cousins was top 10 this year. Tyrod Taylor was top 10 for the time he played. Alex Smith cracked the 10 in rating. Andy Dalton was 2nd over all. Are these elite talents? Guys you don't find everyday? 

I'm not asking for Bradford to be Tom Brady or Ben Roethlesberger. I want him to be one of those guys that has a great year that can make something happen way above his norm. That's the only way we can win a super bowl with him at QB. If he plays way above the level he's currently shown. But usually even when average guys play above the norm, it's not always enough. 

If hes getting the money then he needs to show he can be that guy or this will be 2-3 more years of wasting time. Then we'll be right back where we started needing a QB.

And again you start off making excuses for him. If the Texans signed Bradford to be their guy, would they be happy with a slightly better than average QB? If SF or Cleveland even signs him to the big deal, are they hoping they have a guy that can land in the 10-15 range? So why should we be happy with it? 

You're purposely twisting my words and the numbers I used in order to create a point.  You're better then that.

8-14 range is what I said.  And yes, if you can get a free agent QB that lands in the top 1/3rd of the league then that is a MAJOR win in today's NFL.  I believe that Sam can be in that 8-14 range, like he proved he could be last year in his first year on the team.  You want a top 10 guy, are we really pulling hairs based on if the guy finishes 10th or 12th?  You're happy with 10 but not with 12 or 13?  Cmon.

 

[Insein]

I still don't get how you're comparing Foles' stats to Bradford's.  This seems like a very naive way of looking at it like those fans who just look at box scores.  I feel very strongly that Foles' "year that was better then anything Sam has done his whole career" is FULLY based on the system he was in (which was unknown to the nfl at the time and caught defenses off guard), and the talent he had around him.  That is such a hyperbolic statement.

You could also say that that year Foles had a better offense, far better offensive line, and far better receivers then Bradford EVER had in any year of his career too.  We need to stop bringing up Foles' one magical year as if another QB could slide in and do it with a far different team.

I use Foles because people here seem to have an unusual hatred for him. Therefore showing that if even the "worst QB in the history of football" can somehow flash elite talent, why hasn't Bradford done this yet? Foles, RG3 and Cousins and QBs like that have accomplished more than Bradford has.

Buy I know I know it's not his fault. Everyone around him has been awful. God forbid we demand more from Sam himself.

 

[Deamon]

I use Foles because people here seem to have an unusual hatred for him. Therefore showing that if even the "worst QB in the history of football" can somehow flash elite talent, why hasn't Bradford done this yet? Foles, RG3 and Cousins and QBs like that have accomplished more than Bradford has.

Buy I know I know it's not his fault. Everyone around him has been awful. God forbid we demand more from Sam himself.

 

 

[Insein]

You're purposely twisting my words and the numbers I used in order to create a point.  You're better then that.

8-14 range is what I said.  And yes, if you can get a free agent QB that lands in the top 1/3rd of the league then that is a MAJOR win in today's NFL.  I believe that Sam can be in that 8-14 range, like he proved he could be last year in his first year on the team.  You want a top 10 guy, are we really pulling hairs based on if the guy finishes 10th or 12th?  You're happy with 10 but not with 12 or 13?  Cmon.

You are purposely being stupid on this for some reason. You know what I mean. Did Kirk Cousins lead his team to a division title last year? When you watched Redskins games, did you feel they were winning in spite of him or because of him? He played at a top 10 level despite not being a top 10 talent. 

Did you go into Eagles games last year thinking Sam is going to win us this game today. I am confident that he will pull this one out for us no matter what. I never felt that. 

It's not a measurable. It's the "it" factor.  The swagger QBs get when they start to realize that they are better and more important than anyone on the field. That no one can touch them. That no matter what, they will lead this team down the field and score because their team needs it.  You can't tell me with a straight face that Sam gave you this feeling at any point last year that he was going to be the reason we won a game. The ONLY time we caught a glimpse of that was in the preseason against Green Bay. But of course, that's preseason.

 

[Deamon]

You are purposely being stupid on this for some reason. You know what I mean. Did Kirk Cousins lead his team to a division title last year? When you watched Redskins games, did you feel they were winning in spite of him or because of him? He played at a top 10 level despite not being a top 10 talent. 

Did you go into Eagles games last year thinking Sam is going to win us this game today. I am confident that he will pull this one out for us no matter what. I never felt that. 

It's not a measurable. It's the "it" factor.  The swagger QBs get when they start to realize that they are better and more important than anyone on the field. That no one can touch them. That no matter what, they will lead this team down the field and score because their team needs it.  You can't tell me with a straight face that Sam gave you this feeling at any point last year that he was going to be the reason we won a game. The ONLY time we caught a glimpse of that was in the preseason against Green Bay. But of course, that's preseason.

Kirk played fantastic this year.  I think he's better then most people think in here, but that irrelevant.  Again, you are a fan who sits and sees a rare occurrence and says "we should have that!".  You've thought we should maybe take a flier on a QB in the 3rd round and hope he develops into Russel Wilson because "hey if Seattle hit the jackpot, then we can".  You keep bringing up these rare things like Foles' ONE year, or Cousins' ONE year and expecting them to happen to us.  The brutal truth is, they likely won't so what are we going to do about it?  Keep hoping for the stars to align and being bitter because a couple qbs in the league struck gold while the majority of the rest of the league didn't? 

I did have the feeling that once Sam got comfortable, and started showing emotion, that he was the guy that COULD take us where we want to be once our D and OL and WR improved.  I have a much stronger feeling that Sam can have the it factor over a guy like Chase Daniels or some 3rd round rookie.

 

[Insein]

Chase Daniel is irrelevant. People keep using him for their argument. I don't remember people saying how Doug Pederson in 99 was a terrible QB to build for the future around.  If Chase comes here it's to be a Chad Henne type of stop gap. Bottom 3rd QB with maybe a chance to flash in the mid tier. The advantage? He costs probably less for his whole contract than Bradford will for one season. 

If they get a QB in the first and let him grow, I'm fine with that. Unless our defense makes one of the greatest turn arounds in history, were not winning the Super Bowl this year unless Tom Brady circa 2007 suits up the midnight green this season.  

So what exactly are we doing with Bradford?  If the goal is win 9 games and the division. Maybe get bounced in the first round at home. Well then at least you're honest. I'd like to eventually become more than that. 

 

[JuniorNB]

You are purposely being stupid on this for some reason. You know what I mean. Did Kirk Cousins lead his team to a division title last year? When you watched Redskins games, did you feel they were winning in spite of him or because of him? He played at a top 10 level despite not being a top 10 talent. 

Did you go into Eagles games last year thinking Sam is going to win us this game today. I am confident that he will pull this one out for us no matter what. I never felt that. 

It's not a measurable. It's the "it" factor.  The swagger QBs get when they start to realize that they are better and more important than anyone on the field. That no one can touch them. That no matter what, they will lead this team down the field and score because their team needs it.  You can't tell me with a straight face that Sam gave you this feeling at any point last year that he was going to be the reason we won a game. The ONLY time we caught a glimpse of that was in the preseason against Green Bay. But of course, that's preseason.

So who do you think will sign for more money, Bradford or Cousins?

 

[Insein]

So who do you think will sign for more money, Bradford or Cousins?

Whoever signs second I would guess because the agents will try to argue their guy is better than the other.

 

[Deamon]

Chase Daniel is irrelevant. People keep using him for their argument. I don't remember people saying how Doug Pederson in 99 was a terrible QB to build for the future around.  If Chase comes here it's to be a Chad Henne type of stop gap. Bottom 3rd QB with maybe a chance to flash in the mid tier. The advantage? He costs probably less for his whole contract than Bradford will for one season. 

If they get a QB in the first and let him grow, I'm fine with that. Unless our defense makes one of the greatest turn arounds in history, were not winning the Super Bowl this year unless Tom Brady circa 2007 suits up the midnight green this season.  

So what exactly are we doing with Bradford?  If the goal is win 9 games and the division. Maybe get bounced in the first round at home. Well then at least you're honest. I'd like to eventually become more than that. 

Chase comes into play because he is the only alternative... and even at that, it's far from a sure thing that he's just going to automatically land in Philly.  If we host a playoff game this year I'd be happy.  You know it only takes a team getting hot to make a run, so yes if someone offered a 9-7 record every year for the next 10 years I'd take it in a heartbeat.  Of course I want more then that too but I just don't see any possible way that a 3rd rounder or Chase even gets us to 9 wins.

I think you're overvaluing the money thing.  Again, who's to say that that money would be used elsewhere to get some miracle FA?  What if he turns out to be a bust?  Or to lock up a guy that maybe doesn't want to be here or maybe gets injured?  If there's one thing I really believe in Howie for its his ability to manipulate numbers and make the cap work.  I don't think signing Chase over Sam is going to drastically affect the supporting cast to account for the drop off at qb. 

There's too many maybe factors and the surest thing we have right now and best chance we have to win this year (and in the future in my opinion but that can be debatable) is to have Sam as our QB. 

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I don't buy the Bradford being a top 8-13 qb thing at all.  He might have the potential to be that---but to think that he probably is that because of a statistically skewing 7 game sample to finish last season is misleading.  There was lots of garbage time stats in those seven games that artificially pumped up his stats. Also--ranking him 8 last season is also skewed because of injuries to Luck, Romo, Flacco and other qb's.  Instead of using those stats--look at the starting qb's in the NFL--and tell me if you only think there are only 7-12 guys you would want starting ahead of Bradford next season:

Carson Palmer--give me Carson

Matt Ryan--give me Ryan

Joe Flacco--I'll take a healthy joe any day

Tyrod Taylor-up for debate

Cam Newton- cam all day

Jay Cutler--close call here

Andy Dalton-Dalton all day

any Browns starting qb--I'll take Bradford

Tony Romo-Give me a healthy Romo all day

Peyton Manning/Brock Osweiler-up for debate

Matthew Stafford--tough call--but I'd take stafford

Aaron Rodgers--Nothing to be said

any Texans starting qb--I'll take Bradford here

Andrew Luck-I'd take luck with a lacerated kidney over a healthy bradford

Blake Bortles--Blake is also a garbage time king--but I'd still take him over Bradford

Alex Smith--up for debate

Tannehill--pretty close for me--I'd go Tannehill by a nudge--up for debate though

Bridgewater--up for debate

Brady- nothing to be said

Bress--same as Brady

Eli--I'm probably in the minority here--but give me Eli

Fitzpatrick--up for debate--but I'd probably go fitzpatrick

Derek Carr--give me carr

Big Ben--not even close

Phillip Rivers--probably debatable--but I'd personally easily go Rivers here 

any 49ers qb--Bradford

any Rams qb-Bradford

Jameis Winston--Winston for upside alone

Mariota--like what I saw when he was healthy-

Kirk Cousins--give me cousins here

I've bolded the guys the guys that I personally think are close/questionable in regards  to Bradford.  Looking at my list--I'm personally hard pressed to find 7-10 qb's that I'd want to start less than Bradford in the landscape of the NFL.   

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Now take all those same QB's and flip them with our weapons and ask yourself again.  I'm interested to see how that plays out.

Palmer, Ryan or Dalton with our weapons versus Sam with theirs.  All day still?  Nah

Same for the Cousins debate.  Desean and Reed come back and suddenly he's awesome.  Odd how that works in todays NFL...

 

[Insein]

See and I'm not that down on the guy but that's my point. He doesn't have the intangible factor that he could get it done eventually.

Here's my list, current state of talent with no money taken in to consideration. Yes I would take over Bradford vs No I wouldn't. Push is even.

Eli - Yes, Romo - No, Cousins - No, RG3 - No

Cutler - Push, Stafford - Yes, Rodgers - Yes, Bridgewater - Yes

Brees - Yes, Cam - Yes, Winston - Yes, Ryan - Push

Wilson - Yes, Carson - No, Kaep - Push, LA - No

Brady -Yes, Tyrod - Yes, Tannenhill - Push, Fitzmagic - No

Ben - Yes, Clev - No, Dalton - Yes, Flacco - Yes

Luck - Yes, Mariota - Yes, Bortles - Yes, Hou - No

Manning - No, Osweiler - No, ASmith - No, Carr - Yes, Rivers - Yes

9 I'd take Bradford over and 4 others I'd consider even out of 34 possible QBs.  

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Now take all those same QB's and flip them with our weapons and ask yourself again.  I'm interested to see how that plays out.

Palmer, Ryan or Dalton with our weapons versus Sam with theirs.  All day still?  Nah

Same for the Cousins debate.  Desean and Reed come back and suddenly he's awesome.  Odd how that works in todays NFL...

My point is that I would hypothetically take any of those qb's that I listed above playing on/for the Eagles over Bradford.   Assuming the Eagles roster stays exactly the same--at this very moment in time--are you telling me that you would have a hard time picking 12 qb's that you think would fare better than Bradford to start on the Eagles?   Never mind how each guy did on his respective team.   If you tell me that you can comfortably say there are only 7-12 guys you'd take over Bradford in that hypothetical--you are lying to yourself. 

 

[Bigboy10182000]

My point is that I would hypothetically take any of those qb's that I listed above playing on/for the Eagles over Bradford.   Assuming the Eagles roster stays exactly the same--at this very moment in time--are you telling me that you would have a hard time picking 12 qb's that you think would fare better than Bradford to start on the Eagles?   Never mind how each guy did on his respective team.   If you tell me that you can comfortably say there are only 7-12 guys you'd take over Bradford in that hypothetical--you are lying to yourself. 

And I think that's because you're used to seeing many of those guys with something great or even elite on the same side if the ball as them. 

Looking at a guy like Dalton and his skill set for instance. If he played or last years Eagles you would be talking about him as one of th worst qbs in the league. There wouldn't even be a good 7 games to pick from. 

 

[jvdesigns2002]

And I think that's because you're used to seeing many of those guys with something great or even elite on the same side if the ball as them. 

Looking at a guy like Dalton and his skill set for instance. If he played or last years Eagles you would be talking about him as one of th worst qbs in the league. There wouldn't even be a good 7 games to pick from. 

I understand what you are saying--I really do--but do me a favor and go through the list--and tell me which qb's you think would hypothetically play better on the Eagles than Bradford next season.   I went through and made my list--so I've clearly exposed my thoughts.  I'm just curious to see which guys you personally think would fare better or worse than Bradford on the Eagles. I totally get that this is subjective--and I'm not trying to debate anybody--there is no right or wrong answer here--just opinions.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

I understand what you are saying--I really do--but do me a favor and go through the list--and tell me which qb's you think would hypothetically play better on the Eagles than Bradford next season.   I went through and made my list--so I've clearly exposed my thoughts.  I'm just curious to see which guys you personally think would fare better or worse than Bradford on the Eagles. I totally get that this is subjective--and I'm not trying to debate anybody--there is no right or wrong answer here--just opinions.

I'd say Cam, Rodgers, Luck, Brady and Ben. They're the only ones I could say for certain would be better on last years Eagles team  

They (IMO) are the only QB's who are scheme and to some extent talent proof.

This does NOT mean that I say Bradford is like the 6th best QB in the league either. Or that he's a lock to play better than those guys  not mentioned but there's a lot of muddy water. Our offense was so bad in a LOT of areas last season. For instance look at how human Rodgers looked after losing Jordy and with no running game?  Now imagine everything he has last season was just way worse, including the coaching. 

You also, for some reason, mentioned potential with a few guys. Those guys may have more upside but with last years Eagles team someone like Winston does way worse. I'll leave Mariota alone since I really don't know what he may have been with Chip. 

Its hard to look at some guys and imagine them with or without certain players. I'll use Dalton, Ryan, Palmer and even Cousins as examples of what an average QB can do when he has weapons. These are guys that people will say they'll take over Sam "easily" and I don't think it's that simple.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I'd say Cam, Rodgers, Luck, Brady and Ben. They're the only ones I could say for certain would be better on last years Eagles team  

They (IMO) are the only QB's who are scheme and to some extent talent proof.

This does NOT mean that I say Bradford is like the 6th best QB in the league either. Or that he's a lock to play better than those guys  not mentioned but there's a lot of muddy water. Our offense was so bad in a LOT of areas last season. For instance look at how human Rodgers looked after losing Jordy and with no running game?  Now imagine everything he has last season was just way worse, including the coaching. 

You also, for some reason, mentioned potential with a few guys. Those guys may have more upside but with last years Eagles team someone like Winston does way worse. I'll leave Mariota alone since I really don't know what he may have been with Chip. 

Its hard to look at some guys and imagine them with or without certain players. I'll use Dalton, Ryan, Palmer and even Cousins as examples of what an average QB can do when he has weapons. These are guys that people will say they'll take over Sam "easily" and I don't think it's that simple.

Thank you sir. I appreciate you taking the time to do this. You make some fair points.  We might differ on how many guys we agree or disagree on--but we both have valid points behind them. 

 

[Deamon]

See and I'm not that down on the guy but that's my point. He doesn't have the intangible factor that he could get it done eventually.

Here's my list, current state of talent with no money taken in to consideration. Yes I would take over Bradford vs No I wouldn't. Push is even.

Eli - Yes, Romo - No, Cousins - No, RG3 - No

Cutler - Push, Stafford - Yes, Rodgers - Yes, Bridgewater - Yes

Brees - Yes, Cam - Yes, Winston - Yes, Ryan - Push

Wilson - Yes, Carson - No, Kaep - Push, LA - No

Brady -Yes, Tyrod - Yes, Tannenhill - Push, Fitzmagic - No

Ben - Yes, Clev - No, Dalton - Yes, Flacco - Yes

Luck - Yes, Mariota - Yes, Bortles - Yes, Hou - No

Manning - No, Osweiler - No, ASmith - No, Carr - Yes, Rivers - Yes

9 I'd take Bradford over and 4 others I'd consider even out of 34 possible QBs.  

You're right.  Let's just go sign or trade for one of those Yes qbs.

 

[Deamon]

See and I'm not that down on the guy but that's my point. He doesn't have the intangible factor that he could get it done eventually.

Here's my list, current state of talent with no money taken in to consideration. Yes I would take over Bradford vs No I wouldn't. Push is even.

Eli - Yes, Romo - No, Cousins - No, RG3 - No

Cutler - Push, Stafford - Yes, Rodgers - Yes, Bridgewater - Yes

Brees - Yes, Cam - Yes, Winston - Yes, Ryan - Push

Wilson - Yes, Carson - No, Kaep - Push, LA - No

Brady -Yes, Tyrod - Yes, Tannenhill - Push, Fitzmagic - No

Ben - Yes, Clev - No, Dalton - Yes, Flacco - Yes

Luck - Yes, Mariota - Yes, Bortles - Yes, Hou - No

Manning - No, Osweiler - No, ASmith - No, Carr - Yes, Rivers - Yes

9 I'd take Bradford over and 4 others I'd consider even out of 34 possible QBs.  

So you're talking about the "it" factor it takes to win games and how key that is?  Of the 17 QBs you hand picked that you wanted over Sam, only SIX of them had better records then Sam's 7-6.   And on TOP of that, that's taking into account that he hadn't played in 2 years, his receivers led the league in drops, he had almost no help from the running game, oline, or wrs.

 

[renesauz]

I don't buy the Bradford being a top 8-13 qb thing at all.  He might have the potential to be that---but to think that he probably is that because of a statistically skewing 7 game sample to finish last season is misleading.  There was lots of garbage time stats in those seven games that artificially pumped up his stats. Also--ranking him 8 last season is also skewed because of injuries to Luck, Romo, Flacco and other qb's.  Instead of using those stats--look at the starting qb's in the NFL--and tell me if you only think there are only 7-12 guys you would want starting ahead of Bradford next season:

Carson Palmer--give me Carson

Matt Ryan--give me Ryan

Joe Flacco--I'll take a healthy joe any day

Tyrod Taylor-up for debate

Cam Newton- cam all day

Jay Cutler--close call here

Andy Dalton-Dalton all day

any Browns starting qb--I'll take Bradford

Tony Romo-Give me a healthy Romo all day

Peyton Manning/Brock Osweiler-up for debate

Matthew Stafford--tough call--but I'd take stafford

Aaron Rodgers--Nothing to be said

any Texans starting qb--I'll take Bradford here

Andrew Luck-I'd take luck with a lacerated kidney over a healthy bradford

Blake Bortles--Blake is also a garbage time king--but I'd still take him over Bradford

Alex Smith--up for debate

Tannehill--pretty close for me--I'd go Tannehill by a nudge--up for debate though

Bridgewater--up for debate

Brady- nothing to be said

Bress--same as Brady

Eli--I'm probably in the minority here--but give me Eli

Fitzpatrick--up for debate--but I'd probably go fitzpatrick

Derek Carr--give me carr

Big Ben--not even close

Phillip Rivers--probably debatable--but I'd personally easily go Rivers here 

any 49ers qb--Bradford

any Rams qb-Bradford

Jameis Winston--Winston for upside alone

Mariota--like what I saw when he was healthy-

Kirk Cousins--give me cousins here

I've bolded the guys the guys that I personally think are close/questionable in regards  to Bradford.  Looking at my list--I'm personally hard pressed to find 7-10 qb's that I'd want to start less than Bradford in the landscape of the NFL.   

This is well and good...except Brees, Romo and Brady are very late in their careers- for a season I'd take them, but for the remainder of their career? NOPE.

Oh..and I'd take Bradford over Fitzpatrick, Eli, Tannehill, Bridgewater (barely), Alex Smith. He certainly has potential similar to Ryan, Flacco, and Cousins. The jury is out on Mariota, Winston, and Taylor: I could see someone reasonable preferring any of these three to Sam.

So yeah...that puts him easily in the top half of desirable QBs, and top 10 or 12 is not a huge stretch at all. I count 10 I'd likely prefer, and 4 or 5 more that a reasonable person could argue for. Guess what...an AVERAGE starting QB in the 2016 NFL is worth18-20/yr, so it would be ludicrous to overly criticize a move that paid him in that area.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

This is well and good...except Brees, Romo and Brady are very late in their careers- for a season I'd take them, but for the remainder of their career? NOPE.

Oh..and I'd take Bradford over Fitzpatrick, Eli, Tannehill, Bridgewater (barely), Alex Smith. He certainly has potential similar to Ryan and Cousins. The jury is out on Mariota, Winston, and Taylor: I could see someone reasonable preferring any of these three to Sam.

So yeah...that puts him easily in the top half of desirable QBs, and top 10 or 12 is not a huge stretch at all.

I appreciate your reply and you bring up some good points--but I will copy and paste the last sentence in my post that you replied to in order to clear some confusion:

 "Instead of using those stats--look at the starting qb's in the NFL--and tell me if you only think there are only 7-12 guys you would want starting ahead of Bradford next season"

As you can see by that sentence--I never mentioned anything about rest of career--I only mentioned next season.  Next season--I would easily take Brees, Brady and a healthy Romo over Bradford.    I'd also personally take fitzpatrick, eli, tannehill, ryan, cousins, mariota and winston over bradford next season.  Again--this is all subjective--but my main point is that my post was only in regards to next season--which I imagine would change your parameters a bit. 

 

[renesauz]

I appreciate your reply and you bring up some good points--but I will copy and paste the last sentence in my post that you replied to in order to clear some confusion:

 "Instead of using those stats--look at the starting qb's in the NFL--and tell me if you only think there are only 7-12 guys you would want starting ahead of Bradford next season"

As you can see by that sentence--I never mentioned anything about rest of career--I only mentioned next season.  Next season--I would easily take Brees, Brady and a healthy Romo over Bradford.    I'd also personally take fitzpatrick, eli, tannehill, ryan, cousins, mariota and winston over bradford next season.  Again--this is all subjective--but my main point is that my post was only in regards to next season--which I imagine would change your parameters a bit. 

Not really...you don't sign a starter for one season except for a stopgap. Count those three and Sam comes in middle of the pack. He sits in a group of 5 or 6 QBs in the 12-18 area that are difficult to differentiate right now. If he never gets any better, he likely hangs in the 15-18 range the rest of his career, which wouldn't be disastrous for 18-20 million in today's NFL.

But there's a lot of assumptions there, like that those other 5 or 6 guys all improve and stay clearly better, and that a couple guys behind Sam now move up to replace the lost Brees/Brady/Romo. trio. Bradford supportors will point out that asusming he can't get better from here is a silly notion given the teams he's played on, the impact of his injuries, and the second half play of last year.

On balance, I don't think predicting a return of Qb10-12 with at least a decent chance (20-30%) of being better is unreasonable, while expecting bottom third return probably is. Sam is a pretty safe bet on balance.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

So you're talking about the "it" factor it takes to win games and how key that is?  Of the 17 QBs you hand picked that you wanted over Sam, only SIX of them had better records then Sam's 7-6.   And on TOP of that, that's taking into account that he hadn't played in 2 years, his receivers led the league in drops, he had almost no help from the running game, oline, or wrs.

Are you really trying to infer that Sam's 7-6 record is a barometer of "it" factor?  The NFL doesn't implement balanced schedules--and considering that the division the Eagles play in was nothing short of a dumpster fire--I think throwing out a random record as "it" factor is vastly incomplete and unfair.  Let's look at the games he won:.

Jets--he threw for 118 yards--safe to say the game wasn't won by an "it factor.  

New Orleans--they were a pretty horrid team to start the season.    I have a hard time calling this an impressive win

Giants--Eagles win with Bradford throwing 3 ints--safe to say his "it" factor didn't cause the win

Dallas--his "it" factor led the team to a win against a team with no romo, Dez, or Murray and multiple defensive injuries

New England--Bradford goes 14 for 24 for 120 passing yards. Needless to say they won in spite of a lack of Bradford "it" factor

Buffalo--solid win--I can't dog him there

Giants--a win against a mediocre team with a horrid defense--can't say that the Giants losing here required much "it factor"

Listen--I understand that you and others are bullish on Bradford-and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  You may very well be right about him doing well next season. However--throwing out stats like him going 7-6 as if every "7-6" was created equal is not a solid argument. Also--if you are going to make that argument--you can't attribute the wins to Bradford--but excuse the losses to the rest of his team being terrible.  Bradfords outlook for next season is a giant question mark at best.  There is enough information to support both sides of the fence here.   It just feels like your stance is that  "he's good when he's good--and when he's not good it's because his teammates are terrible".  

 

[Deamon]

Are you really trying to infer that Sam's 7-6 record is a barometer of "it" factor?  The NFL doesn't implement balanced schedules--and considering that the division the Eagles play in was nothing short of a dumpster fire--I think throwing out a random record as "it" factor is vastly incomplete and unfair.  Let's look at the games he won:.

Jets--he threw for 118 yards--safe to say the game wasn't won by an "it factor.  

New Orleans--they were a pretty horrid team to start the season.    I have a hard time calling this an impressive win

Giants--Eagles win with Bradford throwing 3 ints--safe to say his "it" factor didn't cause the win

Dallas--his "it" factor led the team to a win against a team with no romo, Dez, or Murray and multiple defensive injuries

New England--Bradford goes 14 for 24 for 120 passing yards. Needless to say they won in spite of a lack of Bradford "it" factor

Buffalo--solid win--I can't dog him there

Giants--a win against a mediocre team with a horrid defense--can't say that the Giants losing here required much "it factor"

Listen--I understand that you and others are bullish on Bradford-and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  You may very well be right about him doing well next season. However--throwing out stats like him going 7-6 as if every "7-6" was created equal is not a solid argument. Also--if you are going to make that argument--you can't attribute the wins to Bradford--but excuse the losses to the rest of his team being terrible.  Bradfords outlook for next season is a giant question mark at best.  There is enough information to support both sides of the fence here.   It just feels like your stance is that  "he's good when he's good--and when he's not good it's because his teammates are terrible".  

I don't think 7-6 is a great record.  The point of it was, people are building lists of QB's they'd want over him.  And this list is filled with QBs who had WORSE RECORDS then him, and I'd be hard pressed to say that a lot of them also had better talent around him.  Our RB's, OL, and WR's were bad.  Very bad.  I think its important to point out his record as a positive if others are pointing out his record as a negative.  Guys like Matt Ryan, Eli Manning, Matt Stafford, Blake Bortles, Jameis Winston, David Carr were chosen in front of Sam, but all of them had worse records then him, with better RB/WR talent around them.  So I personally put him ahead of those guys, and when you do that, you can see that Sam is above average starting QB in the NFL.

I hate the notion that we have to hit a superstar top 25% QB.  Getting a QB even in the top 10-15 range through FA or Draft is EXTREMELY rare.  Just ask the many teams that try every year and fail.  The thing some are forgetting are that these 15 or so qbs you put above sam were NOT all acquired last year.  These 15 guys were acquired over many many seasons and still only represents half the league.  The chances of getting a guy in the top 10 within 3 years or so is very rare.  Only a few starters in the NFL that are seen as better then Sam were acquired in the last few years.  So chances are it will take us 5+ years to find and secure a top 10 qb on our team.  I'd rather roll with a guy who is already (arguably) on the brink of that or has potential for that then wait it out 5 more years.  Those thinking we're drafting one this year or next year are dreaming.  And finding a FA top 10 QB for less then $20M/year is practically impossible.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I don't think 7-6 is a great record.  The point of it was, people are building lists of QB's they'd want over him.  And this list is filled with QBs who had WORSE RECORDS then him, and I'd be hard pressed to say that a lot of them also had better talent around him.  Our RB's, OL, and WR's were bad.  Very bad.  I think its important to point out his record as a positive if others are pointing out his record as a negative.  Guys like Matt Ryan, Eli Manning, Matt Stafford, Blake Bortles, Jameis Winston, David Carr were chosen in front of Sam, but all of them had worse records then him, with better RB/WR talent around them.  So I personally put him ahead of those guys, and when you do that, you can see that Sam is above average starting QB in the NFL.

I hate the notion that we have to hit a superstar top 25% QB.  Getting a QB even in the top 10-15 range through FA or Draft is EXTREMELY rare.  Just ask the many teams that try every year and fail.  The thing some are forgetting are that these 15 or so qbs you put above sam were NOT all acquired last year.  These 15 guys were acquired over many many seasons and still only represents half the league.  The chances of getting a guy in the top 10 within 3 years or so is very rare.  Only a few starters in the NFL that are seen as better then Sam were acquired in the last few years.  So chances are it will take us 5+ years to find and secure a top 10 qb on our team.  I'd rather roll with a guy who is already (arguably) on the brink of that or has potential for that then wait it out 5 more years.  Those thinking we're drafting one this year or next year are dreaming.

I understand what you are saying and why you are bullish on Bradford--but I think putting him ahead of other qb's because of record is grossly misleading.   Look at the games Bradford gets "credit" for winning.   In at least 3 of those games--the Eagles won in spite of him playing poorly--yet in your book he still gets credit for a win.   That's literally almost half of his wins.   Three of his other wins came against the Giants and the Cowboys--teams that were more void of talent than Eagles.  Just looking at wins and losses also doesn't take into account strength of schedule or strength of division.   I don't think the key is to look at only the positives or only the negatives--the key is to look at a complete picture.   The complete picture is that he's never really had ample talent around him--and has never made the playoffs. He's had a history of leading bad teams to bad to mediocre records.   He had an opportunity this year to where every team in his division was terrible--except for one--who ended up being on the brink of mediocre--and he failed to win the division (or stay healthy enough to win the division).  He's also had a history of not being able to stay healthy and thus not reliable. Objectively--even if you are bullish on Bradford and are an Eagles fan--you almost have to hope for the Eagles to get a really good backup qb because his health is even harder to trust than his game.    That's why that I personally believe that even if the Eagles want to ride Bradford out for the next year or two--they still are going to be forced to be active players in the qb market.   In any case--I respect your opinion and your loyalty to Bradford and the Eagles.   

 

[Deamon]

Are you really trying to infer that Sam's 7-6 record is a barometer of "it" factor?  The NFL doesn't implement balanced schedules--and considering that the division the Eagles play in was nothing short of a dumpster fire--I think throwing out a random record as "it" factor is vastly incomplete and unfair.  Let's look at the games he won:.

Jets--he threw for 118 yards--safe to say the game wasn't won by an "it factor.  
This game was all on our D.  Early in the season though, his 3rd game in 2 years.

New Orleans--they were a pretty horrid team to start the season.    I have a hard time calling this an impressive win.
Yes it was against a bad defense.  I would call putting up 39 points against any team impressive though.  32/45 for 333 yards and 2 tds.  The picks in the endzone hurt us for sure but overall was very accurate.

Giants--Eagles win with Bradford throwing 3 ints--safe to say his "it" factor didn't cause the win
24 for 38.  Didn't like the picks, wasn't his best game.  But happy with his performance overall.

Dallas--his "it" factor led the team to a win against a team with no romo, Dez, or Murray and multiple defensive injuries
Not sure why Dallas' offensive woes discredit anything Philly does on offense?  Dallas had a decent D and he went 25 for 36 (incredibly accurate) with 1 TD and 0 INTs.  Looked very comfortable in the pocket and took chances down the field.  Took care of the ball when he needed to, and just because we ran the ball in the red zone that shouldn't take away from him just because the play call was to run it there.  Had 2 rushing TDs both inside the red zone.

New England--Bradford goes 14 for 24 for 120 passing yards. Needless to say they won in spite of a lack of Bradford "it" factor
He did exactly what he had to do.  He threw for 2 tds and 0 ints.  Took care of the ball when we needed to.

Buffalo--solid win--I can't dog him there
Cool

Giants--a win against a mediocre team with a horrid defense--can't say that the Giants losing here required much "it factor"

Listen--I understand that you and others are bullish on Bradford-and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  You may very well be right about him doing well next season. However--throwing out stats like him going 7-6 as if every "7-6" was created equal is not a solid argument. Also--if you are going to make that argument--you can't attribute the wins to Bradford--but excuse the losses to the rest of his team being terrible.  Bradfords outlook for next season is a giant question mark at best.  There is enough information to support both sides of the fence here.   It just feels like your stance is that  "he's good when he's good--and when he's not good it's because his teammates are terrible".  

Those games weren't bad like you're saying.  I think he was a HUGE reason we won most of those games.  Look I'm not saying he's elite... I'm saying I see him as in the top 1/3rd of the NFL starters (barely) which is very hard to find.  His accuracy was his strength coming in, and it's something he struggled with early in the season.  But even with his early season struggles, he still ended up as the most accurate passer in Eagles history this year.  And that's with a lot of drops.

If we had the NFL AVERAGE for drops, Bradford would be #5 in the NFL in accuracy.  And that's not taking out his first games... which I'm willing to give a pass for since he hadn't played in 2 years.  Let's see what he can do this year, I'm confident he's a 10-15 NFL qb with 7-10 potential.  QB's come along like that via Free Agency or the draft very rarely.

 

[Deamon]

I understand what you are saying and why you are bullish on Bradford--but I think putting him ahead of other qb's because of record is grossly misleading.   Look at the games Bradford gets "credit" for winning.   In at least 3 of those games--the Eagles won in spite of him playing poorly--yet in your book he still gets credit for a win.   That's literally almost half of his wins.   Three of his other wins came against the Giants and the Cowboys--teams that were more void of talent than Eagles.  Just looking at wins and losses also doesn't take into account strength of schedule or strength of division.   I don't think the key is to look at only the positives or only the negatives--the key is to look at a complete picture.   The complete picture is that he's never really had ample talent around him--and has never made the playoffs. He's had a history of leading bad teams to bad to mediocre records.   He had an opportunity this year to where every team in his division was terrible--except for one--who ended up being on the brink of mediocre--and he failed to win the division (or stay healthy enough to win the division).  He's also had a history of not being able to stay healthy and thus not reliable. Objectively--even if you are bullish on Bradford and are an Eagles fan--you almost have to hope for the Eagles to get a really good backup qb because his health is even harder to trust than his game.    That's why that I personally believe that even if the Eagles want to ride Bradford out for the next year or two--they still are going to be forced to be active players in the qb market.   In any case--I respect your opinion and your loyalty to Bradford and the Eagles.   

You can not even remotely put this on him.  Every QB in the NFL would have missed 2.5 games with hit he took.  Him being "fragile" is both not accurate and not his fault.  We win the division if he didn't take that hit.  He played well enough this year to make the playoffs, I put us missing the playoffs on Sanchez being absolutely terrible and blowing a lead vs miami and then losing to 2 very average/below average teams that we were favoured to beat.

His health does worry me a bit, but not much worse then other Qbs in the league.  My fear of him early in the season was that he looked scared to get hurt again... it almost turned into the polar opposite in that he looked fearless in his throws where he stood strong and delivered passes even when he knew he was going to get drilled. 

I'm not throwing blind homerism at Sam.  I get he has some limitations and will never be a top 5 QB.  But I'm a realistic fan.  I know that he is our best option, I know that our chances of drafting or acquiring a QB in the next 3 years that is top 10 in the NFL is probably about 15%.  Anyone thinking its much higher then that is being totally unrealistic.  I don't want to be searching for a QB forever and we have one now that I think if he even plays as good as he did the 2nd half of the season, can be the top 10 qb that we need to make a playoff run.

 

[Kwai Chang Caine]

My neck hurts. I'm like a weathervane blowing in the wind right to left reading these arguments. I'm not sophisticated enough on the cap ramifications as many are so from a simpler point of view, I'd imagine most of us agree that if we can re-sign Bradford without hamstringing ourselves to continually build the D then great. I think we all agree that the team has a shot to build over the next year or two, a potentially ferocious defense! And we know that formula can work despite the league's drive to make the game high scoring.  

 

[roarlions]

This was posted in another thread, but should be interesting for anyone discussing the QB situation who hasn't seen it:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2617635-kirk-cousins-brock-osweiler-and-the-looming-free-agent-qb-poker-match

 

[Deamon]

My neck hurts. I'm like a weathervane blowing in the wind right to left reading these arguments. I'm not sophisticated enough on the cap ramifications as many are so from a simpler point of view, I'd imagine most of us agree that if we can re-sign Bradford without hamstringing ourselves to continually build the D then great. I think we all agree that the team has a shot to build over the next year or two, a potentially ferocious defense! And we know that formula can work despite the league's drive to make the game high scoring.  

And that's what I'm saying. I am a believer in Howies ability with the cap and I really don't think a 20/yr contract is going to hurt our ability to build a team around him. Especially not with the cap going up. In 3 yrs in the middle of Sam's potential deal, 20/yr will be average for a starting qb. Maybe even below average. 

 

[Deamon]

I know these aren't necessarily the greatest sources, but some good reads nonetheless.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/02/23/report-eagles-re-sign-bradford/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2016/02/there_isnt_much_doubt_that_sam_bradford_has_won_ov.html

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2016/02/nfl_rumors_sam_bradford_expected_to_re-sign_with_e.html

 

[JaxBill]

Yeah Jason Wood is right more often than Jason Cole.

 

[Insein]

I know these aren't necessarily the greatest sources, but some good reads nonetheless.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/02/23/report-eagles-re-sign-bradford/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2016/02/there_isnt_much_doubt_that_sam_bradford_has_won_ov.html

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2016/02/nfl_rumors_sam_bradford_expected_to_re-sign_with_e.html

Those articles don't really say much. Sure if he goes out into free agency and no one offers him anything, the Eagles could resign him. Way to go out on a limb there Cole. And guys that are on the team, what are they going to say? No I don't want him back. Then he comes back and you got to work with him after you trashed him?

Another two weeks before this is finally decided. 

 

[renesauz]

I'm not throwing blind homerism at Sam.  I get he has some limitations and will never be a top 5 QB.  But I'm a realistic fan.  I know that he is our best option, I know that our chances of drafting or acquiring a QB in the next 3 years that is top 10 in the NFL is probably about 15%.  Anyone thinking its much higher then that is being totally unrealistic.  I don't want to be searching for a QB forever and we have one now that I think if he even plays as good as he did the 2nd half of the season, can be the top 10 qb that we need to make a playoff run.

 

[roarlions]

DeMeco released

 

[babydemon90]

DeMeco released

Kind of a bummer, but expected. 

 

[JaxBill]

Romo is having another surgery on his collarbone.  Does this make the Cowboys more likely to take a QB off the board at 4? (And one less QB for the Eagles?)

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Romo is having another surgery on his collarbone.  Does this make the Cowboys more likely to take a QB off the board at 4? (And one less QB for the Eagles?)

Maybe.  Taking a QB that early when you have Romo is bad for PR. Jerry the owner may not want that even though Jerry the GM may want him to. 

Their DE situation needs addressing though....a lot more than QB at 4 IMO

I read or heard that SF's GM said they are keeping Kaep and him and Gabbert will battle for the job.  If true theyre not picking a QB

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Dave Zangaro ‏@DZangaroCSN 50m50 minutes ago

Cutting DeMeco Ryans will save the #Eagles $3.5M in cap room. His base salary of $2.5M was set to be guaranteed on March 11.

 

[Deamon]

Any chance we bring him back at a discount?

 

[Deamon]

Romo is having another surgery on his collarbone.  Does this make the Cowboys more likely to take a QB off the board at 4? (And one less QB for the Eagles?)

If Goff slips then I think Jerry takes him.  Or if Wentz really blows people away before the draft I could see them going for him too.  Think Dallas or SF takes one.  Probably not both, probably not neither.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Any chance we bring him back at a discount?

Im betting he retires.

If I have to bet now Im going with neither of them.  If the reports about Kaep are true SF moves to a 0% chance with all their needs. 

 

[Bigboy10182000]

So the quick reply sucks ### or Im stupid---I cant remove the one from Daemon unless I post it than delete the post entirely

 

[Deamon]

Im betting he retires.

If I have to bet now Im going with neither of them.  If the reports about Kaep are true SF moves to a 0% chance with all their needs. 

I wouldn't think he'd retire already.  Maybe though.  Would love to have him back on a minimum contract and help Hicks out a little and be a decent rotational guy.

 

[Deamon]

If I have to bet now Im going with neither of them.  If the reports about Kaep are true SF moves to a 0% chance with all their needs. 

Not sold on neither being taken.  However, if Wentz DOES show a ton of promise, and simply slips because no team wants a QB, then I would happily take him with our pick.  My thought though is that if he looks that good, someone will trade up or someone will take him.  We will be kind of handcuffed here though because we will have to have signed Sam before the draft.  Another reason why I want to franchise him, and then if a great QB slips we just let him play behind Sam for one year and then he's our future.  And if he doesn't, then we can work on signing him longer term. 

 

[Deamon]

Mario Williams is coming.

 

[Insein]

Mario Williams is coming.

Wishing or you hear something?

 

[Deamon]

Wishing or you hear something?

Very strong gut feeling.

 

[Insein]

Very strong gut feeling.

I wish your gut included a janitor in Buffalo or something.