*Official 2016 Philadelphia Eagles* - The year of Change (2 Viewers)

[Deamon]

ETA: My ideal situation would be to use #13 on a G who can slide over to RT to replace Lane Johnson in a year or two when he moves to LT. Assuming Peters rebounds thanks to decreased tempo and DP giving him some rest days during the week - something Chip refused to do - he has another season in him.

I wonder if Jack Conklin could fit this bill.

I keep seeing him falling to the end of the first. Too bad we don't have a 2nd. Sigh

we get it.

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

I think the "this trade killed us" act is pretty stale. We heard enough of it early in the season when the team/Bradford struggled and wasn't comfortable yet. Then Bradford showed a lot of promise and took us on a pretty good streak. Most fans during the 2nd half of the season got over the trade and started to think it was a good one. Especially once Foles looked so terrible. It's easy to be an armchair GM and go back and criticize it again now that the season is over.

Bradford made our team better, he was far from the reason we weren't in the post season, and he is EASILY worth that 2nd round pick if he sticks around. And if not, I'm still glad Chip took the risk and improved our team.

 

[Deamon]

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

Didn't improve our offense? Yes, because our offense was the same. Let's say the offense got less worse then it would have with Foles then. It was a good trade at the time, stop slamming every decision after you see how it plays out.

This is like if we sign Cox, and in 4 years are still without a Super Bowl and saying it was a bad decision to sign him as we threw a lot of money at a player who didn't get us to the playoffs or win a SB. The point is to win games and Bradford won us more games then Foles would have.

 

[JuniorNB]

ETA: My ideal situation would be to use #13 on a G who can slide over to RT to replace Lane Johnson in a year or two when he moves to LT. Assuming Peters rebounds thanks to decreased tempo and DP giving him some rest days during the week - something Chip refused to do - he has another season in him.

I wonder if Jack Conklin could fit this bill.

I keep seeing him falling to the end of the first. Too bad we don't have a 2nd. Sigh

we get it.

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

Again, if this regime let's Bradford walk, that's on them. Bradford played well in the second half of the season. After coming off of two knee surgeries, it should have been expected that it would take time for him to feel comfortable. His second half QB rating was right between Eli Manning and Aaron Rodgers at #12 in the league. You'd trade a first rounder for a top ten QB. So a second round pick for a #12 QB (and improving week to week), is a great deal. And if Philly decides not to pay Bradford market value (he's definitely worth as much or more than 20 million dollar guys like Jay Cutler and Ryan Tannehill), then someone else gladly will. And it won't even cost them a second rounder. Had Nick Foles not been revealed to be the worst starting QB in the league (ok, maybe second to worst behind Kaepernick), then you might have a leg to stand on. He was a total non-factor in the deal.

 

[Insein]

ETA: My ideal situation would be to use #13 on a G who can slide over to RT to replace Lane Johnson in a year or two when he moves to LT. Assuming Peters rebounds thanks to decreased tempo and DP giving him some rest days during the week - something Chip refused to do - he has another season in him.

I wonder if Jack Conklin could fit this bill.

I keep seeing him falling to the end of the first. Too bad we don't have a 2nd. Sigh

we get it.

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

Again, if this regime let's Bradford walk, that's on them. Bradford played well in the second half of the season. After coming off of two knee surgeries, it should have been expected that it would take time for him to feel comfortable. His second half QB rating was right between Eli Manning and Aaron Rodgers at #12 in the league. You'd trade a first rounder for a top ten QB. So a second round pick for a #12 QB (and improving week to week), is a great deal. And if Philly decides not to pay Bradford market value (he's definitely worth as much or more than 20 million dollar guys like Jay Cutler and Ryan Tannehill), then someone else gladly will. And it won't even cost them a second rounder. Had Nick Foles not been revealed to be the worst starting QB in the league (ok, maybe second to worst behind Kaepernick), then you might have a leg to stand on. He was a total non-factor in the deal.

Didn't mention Nick at all. We're sitting here a year later deciding if we want to resign a mediocre QB (and that's all he is, despite you wanting to ignore the mountain of evidence from last year and his previous 5 seasons) to a $20m per year deal and lamenting the fact that we don't have a 2nd round pick to use on an OL or whatever else.

Just accept that it was a risk and yea if we struck gold it was worth it. But trades are measured on results and Sam went 7-7 for us and now we have to pay $20m+ to see if he can get any better than that.

 

[Insein]

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

Didn't improve our offense? Yes, because our offense was the same. Let's say the offense got less worse then it would have with Foles then. It was a good trade at the time, stop slamming every decision after you see how it plays out. This is like if we sign Cox, and in 4 years are still without a Super Bowl and saying it was a bad decision to sign him as we threw a lot of money at a player who didn't get us to the playoffs or win a SB. The point is to win games and Bradford won us more games then Foles would have.

No he didn't or would have. I saw Foles win 16 games and lost 5 for Chip. What evidence do you have other than his collapse with another coach, on another team in another offense with different players that could possibly point to him not winning at least 7 games with this Eagles team?

At least if Foles collapsed for us, we'd have a 2nd round pick and a better draft spot Which is what I said all along with Nick. Let him play it out. If he's great, good. If he's mediocre, then we know. If he sucks, we get a high draft pick to get a better QB. But at least we didn't hamstring ourselves in future seasons.

 

[Deamon]

ETA: My ideal situation would be to use #13 on a G who can slide over to RT to replace Lane Johnson in a year or two when he moves to LT. Assuming Peters rebounds thanks to decreased tempo and DP giving him some rest days during the week - something Chip refused to do - he has another season in him.

I wonder if Jack Conklin could fit this bill.

I keep seeing him falling to the end of the first. Too bad we don't have a 2nd. Sigh

we get it.

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

Again, if this regime let's Bradford walk, that's on them. Bradford played well in the second half of the season. After coming off of two knee surgeries, it should have been expected that it would take time for him to feel comfortable. His second half QB rating was right between Eli Manning and Aaron Rodgers at #12 in the league. You'd trade a first rounder for a top ten QB. So a second round pick for a #12 QB (and improving week to week), is a great deal. And if Philly decides not to pay Bradford market value (he's definitely worth as much or more than 20 million dollar guys like Jay Cutler and Ryan Tannehill), then someone else gladly will. And it won't even cost them a second rounder. Had Nick Foles not been revealed to be the worst starting QB in the league (ok, maybe second to worst behind Kaepernick), then you might have a leg to stand on. He was a total non-factor in the deal.

Didn't mention Nick at all. We're sitting here a year later deciding if we want to resign a mediocre QB (and that's all he is, despite you wanting to ignore the mountain of evidence from last year and his previous 5 seasons) to a $20m per year deal and lamenting the fact that we don't have a 2nd round pick to use on an OL or whatever else.

Just accept that it was a risk and yea if we struck gold it was worth it. But trades are measured on results and Sam went 7-7 for us and now we have to pay $20m+ to see if he can get any better than that.

The results were unknown at the time though. So Sam/the team has a bad start and you scream bad decision... we go on a run and its 'ok maybe the trade was good",... we miss the playoffs and its 'bad decision'.... he re-signs and takes us on a playoff run and its 'ok it was a good decision again'. The decision is a past event that cannot be changed based on future results. Sitting here scrutinizing a decision made by a former coach, a year ago, when things change so quickly is ridiculous.

Based on the fact that we don't have a 2nd rounder, you also want us to likely really reach on a qb in the first when we could take a great OL there and keep Sam.

Even you said the QB's get unnecessary praise/hate for how their team does. It's not Sam that 'got us 7-7'.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Bradford made our team better,

He did?

 

[Deamon]

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

Didn't improve our offense? Yes, because our offense was the same. Let's say the offense got less worse then it would have with Foles then. It was a good trade at the time, stop slamming every decision after you see how it plays out. This is like if we sign Cox, and in 4 years are still without a Super Bowl and saying it was a bad decision to sign him as we threw a lot of money at a player who didn't get us to the playoffs or win a SB. The point is to win games and Bradford won us more games then Foles would have.

No he didn't or would have. I saw Foles win 16 games and lost 5 for Chip. What evidence do you have other than his collapse with another coach, on another team in another offense with different players that could possibly point to him not winning at least 7 games with this Eagles team?

At least if Foles collapsed for us, we'd have a 2nd round pick and a better draft spot Which is what I said all along with Nick. Let him play it out. If he's great, good. If he's mediocre, then we know. If he sucks, we get a high draft pick to get a better QB. But at least we didn't hamstring ourselves in future seasons.

C'mon we could go on all day about this. Give it up with saying Foles was good in this system before so he would have again. This years team was totally different from the other teams. Everything went right for Foles that year.... offensive talent was way better.... Chip's offense was new and people couldn't stop it.... WR's didn't drop so many balls. The list goes on and on, stop comparing Foles' one good season saying that because he did it before he'll do it again despite the drastic fall off in other factors around him. That argument is tired and lazy.

 

[JuniorNB]

ETA: My ideal situation would be to use #13 on a G who can slide over to RT to replace Lane Johnson in a year or two when he moves to LT. Assuming Peters rebounds thanks to decreased tempo and DP giving him some rest days during the week - something Chip refused to do - he has another season in him.

I wonder if Jack Conklin could fit this bill.

I keep seeing him falling to the end of the first. Too bad we don't have a 2nd. Sigh

we get it.

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

Again, if this regime let's Bradford walk, that's on them. Bradford played well in the second half of the season. After coming off of two knee surgeries, it should have been expected that it would take time for him to feel comfortable. His second half QB rating was right between Eli Manning and Aaron Rodgers at #12 in the league. You'd trade a first rounder for a top ten QB. So a second round pick for a #12 QB (and improving week to week), is a great deal. And if Philly decides not to pay Bradford market value (he's definitely worth as much or more than 20 million dollar guys like Jay Cutler and Ryan Tannehill), then someone else gladly will. And it won't even cost them a second rounder. Had Nick Foles not been revealed to be the worst starting QB in the league (ok, maybe second to worst behind Kaepernick), then you might have a leg to stand on. He was a total non-factor in the deal.

Didn't mention Nick at all. We're sitting here a year later deciding if we want to resign a mediocre QB (and that's all he is, despite you wanting to ignore the mountain of evidence from last year and his previous 5 seasons) to a $20m per year deal and lamenting the fact that we don't have a 2nd round pick to use on an OL or whatever else.

Just accept that it was a risk and yea if we struck gold it was worth it. But trades are measured on results and Sam went 7-7 for us and now we have to pay $20m+ to see if he can get any better than that.

It's still undetermined if the team that owns Bradford will have struck gold or not. He was mediocre in the first half of the season. And understandably so. Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers? Because that's the level Bradford played at in his last eight games. Do you think they would be worth a second round pick right now if they were 28 years old? I'm glad they made the trade. I was glad at the time, and when I saw the difference play between Bradford and Foles, I was even more glad. I've said all along that the Eagles should resign Bradford. Right now, he's in the top 12-15 of the league's quarterbacks. With potential to be top 8. Yes, that costs money. If they choose to go the cheap route and sign a guy like Daniels or ride Sanchez until they develop a young guy, then they better hope the defense improves to a top five unit. Because that's the only way you can win with a bottom 1/3rd guy behind center.

 

[Deamon]

Bradford made our team better,

He did?

better then it would have been with foles or sanchez running the show? Yes, he did.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Bradford made our team better,

He did?

better then it would have been with foles or sanchez running the show? Yes, he did.

Yeah, they were 10-6 the two seasons before Bradford arrived and went 7-7 in games that he started. That doesn't seem "better" but maybe we define that word differently.

 

[JuniorNB]

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

Didn't improve our offense? Yes, because our offense was the same. Let's say the offense got less worse then it would have with Foles then. It was a good trade at the time, stop slamming every decision after you see how it plays out. This is like if we sign Cox, and in 4 years are still without a Super Bowl and saying it was a bad decision to sign him as we threw a lot of money at a player who didn't get us to the playoffs or win a SB. The point is to win games and Bradford won us more games then Foles would have.

No he didn't or would have. I saw Foles win 16 games and lost 5 for Chip. What evidence do you have other than his collapse with another coach, on another team in another offense with different players that could possibly point to him not winning at least 7 games with this Eagles team?

At least if Foles collapsed for us, we'd have a 2nd round pick and a better draft spot Which is what I said all along with Nick. Let him play it out. If he's great, good. If he's mediocre, then we know. If he sucks, we get a high draft pick to get a better QB. But at least we didn't hamstring ourselves in future seasons.

I respect everyone's opinion, but as an Eagles fan, you are a helluva lot smarter than to not have figured out by now that Chip's offense took everyone by surprise in 2013. Foles was hitting wide open receivers all year. Cooper looked like the next Steve Largeant. By 2014, everyone's numbers went down. Are you upset that they waived Cooper? You should be. He was really good one year.

 

[renesauz]

ETA: My ideal situation would be to use #13 on a G who can slide over to RT to replace Lane Johnson in a year or two when he moves to LT. Assuming Peters rebounds thanks to decreased tempo and DP giving him some rest days during the week - something Chip refused to do - he has another season in him.

I wonder if Jack Conklin could fit this bill.

I keep seeing him falling to the end of the first. Too bad we don't have a 2nd. Sigh

we get it.

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

What an AWFUL analogy! The QB is far and away the most important player on the team...there is no equivalent in baseball or basketball (one could argue starting pitcher, but he only plays every fifth game!)

Bradford is a solid NFL QB with an unknown ceiling....EASILY worth a 2nd round pick.

 

[Deamon]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

He also happened to have a flawed first 5 games being in a new system, 2 years out of football, coming off of injury, with awful WRs. It seems more then fair to discount the start of the season. If you've followed the thread you'd know that even the biggest Bradford supporters are not arguing that he is elite. It's that the chances of us acquiring an elite qb are extremely low and Sam is our best chance to win. You don't need an elite QB to win in this league (see Peyton Manning)

 

[JuniorNB]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

 

[Deamon]

Bradford made our team better,

He did?

better then it would have been with foles or sanchez running the show? Yes, he did.

Yeah, they were 10-6 the two seasons before Bradford arrived and went 7-7 in games that he started. That doesn't seem "better" but maybe we define that word differently.

you're comparing the offensive lines and rbs and wrs from those 2 seasons to the ones we had this season. Maybe you don't actually follow this team much and just look at box scores.

 

[Insein]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

He also happened to have a flawed first 5 games being in a new system, 2 years out of football, coming off of injury, with awful WRs. It seems more then fair to discount the start of the season. If you've followed the thread you'd know that even the biggest Bradford supporters are not arguing that he is elite. It's that the chances of us acquiring an elite qb are extremely low and Sam is our best chance to win. You don't need an elite QB to win in this league (see Peyton Manning)

So this year he'll be 1 year removed from injury, in a new system with the same crappy WRs. How games do we spot him to get into form? 3? 4? It's not his fault after all.

And if we don't need an elite QB to win the super bowl, why would we spend the cap space like we have one?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

Didn't improve our offense? Yes, because our offense was the same. Let's say the offense got less worse then it would have with Foles then. It was a good trade at the time, stop slamming every decision after you see how it plays out. This is like if we sign Cox, and in 4 years are still without a Super Bowl and saying it was a bad decision to sign him as we threw a lot of money at a player who didn't get us to the playoffs or win a SB. The point is to win games and Bradford won us more games then Foles would have.

No he didn't or would have. I saw Foles win 16 games and lost 5 for Chip. What evidence do you have other than his collapse with another coach, on another team in another offense with different players that could possibly point to him not winning at least 7 games with this Eagles team?

At least if Foles collapsed for us, we'd have a 2nd round pick and a better draft spot Which is what I said all along with Nick. Let him play it out. If he's great, good. If he's mediocre, then we know. If he sucks, we get a high draft pick to get a better QB. But at least we didn't hamstring ourselves in future seasons.

I respect everyone's opinion, but as an Eagles fan, you are a helluva lot smarter than to not have figured out by now that Chip's offense took everyone by surprise in 2013. Foles was hitting wide open receivers all year. Cooper looked like the next Steve Largeant. By 2014, everyone's numbers went down. Are you upset that they waived Cooper? You should be. He was really good one year.

Cooper was never "really good" but he did put up decent stats for a few seasons. Maybe the offense went downhill because Bradford and Murray didn't execute it as well as Foles and McCoy? That's surely a possibility, isn't it. There wasn't exactly anything for the league to "figure out" it was a fast paced offense that a few teams had already adopted (Pats) and still are using it effectively.

Anyway, I don't want to really bash Bradford or upset this thread any further - I guess I just get a little perplexed by the fact that Bradford has always seemed to be bulletproof for some reason - and I have fallen into it as well, always wanting to believe. Truth be told I actually took him as part of a package onto my team in a dynasty league this offseason (wasn't the main piece) so I'll still be hoping he finally turns his career around I guess.

 

[Deamon]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

He also happened to have a flawed first 5 games being in a new system, 2 years out of football, coming off of injury, with awful WRs. It seems more then fair to discount the start of the season. If you've followed the thread you'd know that even the biggest Bradford supporters are not arguing that he is elite. It's that the chances of us acquiring an elite qb are extremely low and Sam is our best chance to win. You don't need an elite QB to win in this league (see Peyton Manning)

So this year he'll be 1 year removed from injury, in a new system with the same crappy WRs. How games do we spot him to get into form? 3? 4? It's not his fault after all.

And if we don't need an elite QB to win the super bowl, why would we spend the cap space like we have one?

Because the other options are likely below average. I would take slightly above average can win a SB. Below average has less of a chance of winning a SB. So you can have below average, or slightly above average and a 1st round OL. Again, the money isn't a huge issue, we can make it work.

 

[renesauz]

Another thing...half of second rounders fail....it's not a sacrosanct pick. That pick alone is hardly enough to turn around a franchise without some extraordinary luck

 

[Dr. Octopus]

it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

Yeah that's tough to figure out why.

 

[renesauz]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

He also happened to have a flawed first 5 games being in a new system, 2 years out of football, coming off of injury, with awful WRs. It seems more then fair to discount the start of the season. If you've followed the thread you'd know that even the biggest Bradford supporters are not arguing that he is elite. It's that the chances of us acquiring an elite qb are extremely low and Sam is our best chance to win. You don't need an elite QB to win in this league (see Peyton Manning)

So this year he'll be 1 year removed from injury, in a new system with the same crappy WRs. How games do we spot him to get into form? 3? 4? It's not his fault after all.

And if we don't need an elite QB to win the super bowl, why would we spend the cap space like we have one?

Because 20 million is NOT the going price for elite anymore. Step way from 2010 and join us in 2016

 

[Insein]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).

Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

 

[Deamon]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).

Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

And an OL in the first is far better for us than a QB in the first. Our biggest problem last year was Offensive Line and our running game

 

[Insein]

I'm just tired of Bradford and will be happy when he signs in Houston or wherever. He's not taking us anywhere. Whether he's paid $10m or $40m. He's average. And the arguments of winning with a stud defense and an average QB don't apply because at some point, the QB had to make plays.

Eli had 2 good playoff runs. Flacco had an all time playoff run. Wilson was a 2nd year guy just starting to turn a corner. Bradford is past the halfway point of most NFL careers. What has he done besides been average or hurt?

 

[JuniorNB]

Not your fault. Chips fault. He took a chance on a mediocre QB that he knew would cost a fortune to keep but gave up a draft pick to get him anyway.

It was a good trade. They got rid of a QB who played so poorly that he got benched for Case Keenum. Whether or not this regime chooses to resign Bradford, has nothing to do with Kelly and the trade he made. Since Foles is cutable and a non-factor, he traded a second round pick for Bradford. I'd do that any day.

He was a poor trade. He traded a 2nd round pick for a QB that did not improve his offense from the previous two seasons and was only a 50/50 shot to stay due to the money he would command. In the NBA or Baseball if you give up value for a 1 year player who doesn't resign and you didn't ein anything during that period, its a failure. This was a bad trade plain and simple.

Didn't improve our offense? Yes, because our offense was the same. Let's say the offense got less worse then it would have with Foles then. It was a good trade at the time, stop slamming every decision after you see how it plays out. This is like if we sign Cox, and in 4 years are still without a Super Bowl and saying it was a bad decision to sign him as we threw a lot of money at a player who didn't get us to the playoffs or win a SB. The point is to win games and Bradford won us more games then Foles would have.

No he didn't or would have. I saw Foles win 16 games and lost 5 for Chip. What evidence do you have other than his collapse with another coach, on another team in another offense with different players that could possibly point to him not winning at least 7 games with this Eagles team?

At least if Foles collapsed for us, we'd have a 2nd round pick and a better draft spot Which is what I said all along with Nick. Let him play it out. If he's great, good. If he's mediocre, then we know. If he sucks, we get a high draft pick to get a better QB. But at least we didn't hamstring ourselves in future seasons.

I respect everyone's opinion, but as an Eagles fan, you are a helluva lot smarter than to not have figured out by now that Chip's offense took everyone by surprise in 2013. Foles was hitting wide open receivers all year. Cooper looked like the next Steve Largeant. By 2014, everyone's numbers went down. Are you upset that they waived Cooper? You should be. He was really good one year.

Cooper was never "really good" but he did put up decent stats for a few seasons. Maybe the offense went downhill because Bradford and Murray didn't execute it as well as Foles and McCoy? That's surely a possibility, isn't it. There wasn't exactly anything for the league to "figure out" it was a fast paced offense that a few teams had already adopted (Pats) and still are using it effectively.

Anyway, I don't want to really bash Bradford or upset this thread any further - I guess I just get a little perplexed by the fact that Bradford has always seemed to be bulletproof for some reason - and I have fallen into it as well, always wanting to believe. Truth be told I actually took him as part of a package onto my team in a dynasty league this offseason (wasn't the main piece) so I'll still be hoping he finally turns his career around I guess.

They went downhill from 2013 to 2014 too. Foles went from the mirage of being great to being average. Then in 2015, went from average to worst in the league.

Hey, if Philly want to go with Chase Daniels or Mark Sanchez or a rookie this year, I will become that guy's biggest fan. That's who I am. I'm not like ShaBucks who will dedicate the whole season to bashing my supposed-team. I'm just going on record as saying that Bradford is a potential top 5-8 QB in this league and you have to pay for that. Because there aren't many people on this earth that have that chance. I would resign him. And if I turned back the clock, I'd definitely trade a second rounder for him.

 

[Insein]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

And an OL in the first is far better for us than a QB in the first. Our biggest problem last year was Offensive Line and our running game

I agree. But Bradford is not the answer. Even if we franchise him, what are we doing? Holding a spot with a disgruntled, highly paid, average QB to see if he can get better.

 

[JuniorNB]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).

Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

Past is past. Second half of 2015, Bradford played equal to them. Deny it all you want to try to make your argument seem less week.

 

[Insein]

What has Bradford done to ever show he can be a top 8 QB? Seriously what?

 

[Deamon]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

And an OL in the first is far better for us than a QB in the first. Our biggest problem last year was Offensive Line and our running game

I agree. But Bradford is not the answer. Even if we franchise him, what are we doing? Holding a spot with a disgruntled, highly paid, average QB to see if he can get better.

Yes because he showed he can be better. He had some great games which are quickly forgotten once you get in an anti-Sam mood. He doesn't need to get much better then he was over the last half of the season. We need an Oline that can give him time, and WR's that don't drop his passes.

 

[Insein]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

Past is past. Second half of 2015, Bradford played equal to them. Deny it all you want to try to make your argument seem less week.

Listen to yourself. In his supposed better part if the year, he played equal to Rodgers and Eli in bad years? That's what we're shooting for?

 

[Insein]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

And an OL in the first is far better for us than a QB in the first. Our biggest problem last year was Offensive Line and our running game

I agree. But Bradford is not the answer. Even if we franchise him, what are we doing? Holding a spot with a disgruntled, highly paid, average QB to see if he can get better.

Yes because he showed he can be better. He had some great games which are quickly forgotten once you get in an anti-Sam mood. He doesn't need to get much better then he was over the last half of the season. We need an Oline that can give him time, and WR's that don't drop his passes.

He had some good games mixed with mediocre ones. Point out 1 great game to me?

 

[JuniorNB]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

And an OL in the first is far better for us than a QB in the first. Our biggest problem last year was Offensive Line and our running game

I agree. But Bradford is not the answer. Even if we franchise him, what are we doing? Holding a spot with a disgruntled, highly paid, average QB to see if he can get better.

What are we doing? We're seeing if the upward trajectory of his 2015 improvement levels off or continues to rise. We're seeing if we have the guy with all the potential that was picked #1 overall a few years back. We're seeing if we finally have a franchise quarterback. We're not deciding to rebuild.

 

[Deamon]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

Past is past. Second half of 2015, Bradford played equal to them. Deny it all you want to try to make your argument seem less week.

Listen to yourself. In his supposed better part if the year, he played equal to Rodgers and Eli in bad years? That's what we're shooting for?

We are shooting for a QB who is top 8-14 range in the NFL. Yes Sam showed that. You're forgetting the praise he got once he got comfortable in the offense.

 

[JuniorNB]

What has Bradford done to ever show he can be a top 8 QB? Seriously what?

Well, he was top 12 in the second half of the season. And improving. Basic math tells you that 11, 10, 9, and 8 would be next.

 

[Deamon]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

And an OL in the first is far better for us than a QB in the first. Our biggest problem last year was Offensive Line and our running game

I agree. But Bradford is not the answer. Even if we franchise him, what are we doing? Holding a spot with a disgruntled, highly paid, average QB to see if he can get better.

Yes because he showed he can be better. He had some great games which are quickly forgotten once you get in an anti-Sam mood. He doesn't need to get much better then he was over the last half of the season. We need an Oline that can give him time, and WR's that don't drop his passes.

He had some good games mixed with mediocre ones. Point out 1 great game to me?

The Dallas game.

 

[Insein]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

Past is past. Second half of 2015, Bradford played equal to them. Deny it all you want to try to make your argument seem less week.

Listen to yourself. In his supposed better part if the year, he played equal to Rodgers and Eli in bad years? That's what we're shooting for?

We are shooting for a QB who is top 8-14 range in the NFL. Yes Sam showed that. You're forgetting the praise he got once he got comfortable in the offense.

Uh huh. Chip Kellys offense that even when he got comfortable, still looked worse than the previous two seasons. Now he learns another offense... again. I just don't want to wait 3-4 weeks for him to get comfortable again or have him be the preseason HOFamer he's always been just to see him faceplate in September. Because the line isn't going to be instantly better and these are the receivers were most likely riding with. So he has to make them better.

 

[Deamon]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

Past is past. Second half of 2015, Bradford played equal to them. Deny it all you want to try to make your argument seem less week.

Listen to yourself. In his supposed better part if the year, he played equal to Rodgers and Eli in bad years? That's what we're shooting for?

We are shooting for a QB who is top 8-14 range in the NFL. Yes Sam showed that. You're forgetting the praise he got once he got comfortable in the offense.

Uh huh. Chip Kellys offense that even when he got comfortable, still looked worse than the previous two seasons. Now he learns another offense... again. I just don't want to wait 3-4 weeks for him to get comfortable again or have him be the preseason HOFamer he's always been just to see him faceplate in September. Because the line isn't going to be instantly better and these are the receivers were most likely riding with. So he has to make them better.

You don't want to wait 3-4 for him to get comfortable but want to wait 10+ weeks for Chase or Lynch to get comfortable.

 

[Deamon]

I almost want us to let Sam walk so I don't have to hear you complain about a trade from 2 years ago every incompletion he has next year.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Bradford made our team better,

He did?

better then it would have been with foles or sanchez running the show? Yes, he did.

Yeah, they were 10-6 the two seasons before Bradford arrived and went 7-7 in games that he started. That doesn't seem "better" but maybe we define that word differently.

Basing it solely on record is unfair. The record is more on an indication of team and coaching. Both were worse this year than the previous 2....hence why Chip is now in SF

Seeing Foles' final year here and seeing him in STL compared to watching Sam (especially in the second half) makes this deal without question better for us. A second round pick is being discussed as gold in here for some reason. Foles also signed a deal in STL too...they set their franchise back a decent amount of time by accepting this deal. In order to salvage ANYTHING they have to hit a HR with a second round pick....odd say it wont happen

 

[Insein]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

And an OL in the first is far better for us than a QB in the first. Our biggest problem last year was Offensive Line and our running game

I agree. But Bradford is not the answer. Even if we franchise him, what are we doing? Holding a spot with a disgruntled, highly paid, average QB to see if he can get better.

Yes because he showed he can be better. He had some great games which are quickly forgotten once you get in an anti-Sam mood. He doesn't need to get much better then he was over the last half of the season. We need an Oline that can give him time, and WR's that don't drop his passes.

He had some good games mixed with mediocre ones. Point out 1 great game to me?

The Dallas game.

I give him the one play. But outside of that, he was 24/35 for 254, 0 TDs, 0 ints. Perfectly average. You remember that game. We could have put it away in regulation with a couple of drives. He got it done 1 time against the worst team in the NFC this year.

 

[Insein]

I almost want us to let Sam walk so I don't have to hear you complain about a trade from 2 years ago every incompletion he has next year.

I will gladly welcome that.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

What has Bradford done to ever show he can be a top 8 QB? Seriously what?

Prior to people having a breakout year that line can be filled in with tons of names every year....

Take that same line and replace Bradford with Cam prior to this season....The ones who saw that coming were Jesus and Cam''s family

 

[JuniorNB]

I almost want us to let Sam walk so I don't have to hear you complain about a trade from 2 years ago every incompletion he has next year.

He'll move on to whining about the new guy. That's all he does.

 

[Deamon]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

And an OL in the first is far better for us than a QB in the first. Our biggest problem last year was Offensive Line and our running game

I agree. But Bradford is not the answer. Even if we franchise him, what are we doing? Holding a spot with a disgruntled, highly paid, average QB to see if he can get better.

Yes because he showed he can be better. He had some great games which are quickly forgotten once you get in an anti-Sam mood. He doesn't need to get much better then he was over the last half of the season. We need an Oline that can give him time, and WR's that don't drop his passes.

He had some good games mixed with mediocre ones. Point out 1 great game to me?

The Dallas game.

I give him the one play. But outside of that, he was 24/35 for 254, 0 TDs, 0 ints. Perfectly average. You remember that game. We could have put it away in regulation with a couple of drives. He got it done 1 time against the worst team in the NFC this year.

"besides the one play" haha. And I think 24/35 for 254 and no turnovers is better then average in the NFL personally. We had 2 rushing TD's. Jeez, you want us to get the running game going and we do and you take that away from Sam's praise because we handed it off in the red zone rather then Sam throwing it. You're better then that.

 

[Mighty Mice]

Bradford made our team better,

He did?

better then it would have been with foles or sanchez running the show? Yes, he did.

Yeah, they were 10-6 the two seasons before Bradford arrived and went 7-7 in games that he started. That doesn't seem "better" but maybe we define that word differently.

Basing it solely on record is unfair. The record is more on an indication of team and coaching. Both were worse this year than the previous 2....hence shy Chip is now in SF

Seeing Foles' final year here and seeing him in STL compared to watching Sam (especially in the second half) makes this deal without question better for us. A second round pick is being discussed as gold in here for some reason. Foles also signed a deal in STL too...they set their franchise back a decent amount of time by accepting this deal. In order to salvage ANYTHING they have to hit a HR with a second round pick....odd say it wont happen

The Eagles clearly 'won' the trade, FWIW. They merely shot themselves in the foot, while the Rams cut their leg off giving Foles a $25M extension.

IMO, looking at Foles and Sanchez going into 2015, they didn't have an 'average' starting QB on the roster. In a vacuum, Chip addressed this and acquired an average starting QB for a mid-2nd round pick. That's fair value. If Chip had stayed, Bradford would have as well. So it wasn't a rental in their minds, FWIW. New plans now, right?

An average QB is worth ~$20M in 2016. Howie's call, along with DP. Let's see what they do, as IMO keeping him versus going with a cheap FA/Rookie is an arguable point. I lean towards letting him walk and using ~$20M elsewhere. That being said, they could very well keep him and do well.

 

[Insein]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

Past is past. Second half of 2015, Bradford played equal to them. Deny it all you want to try to make your argument seem less week.

Listen to yourself. In his supposed better part if the year, he played equal to Rodgers and Eli in bad years? That's what we're shooting for?

We are shooting for a QB who is top 8-14 range in the NFL. Yes Sam showed that. You're forgetting the praise he got once he got comfortable in the offense.

Uh huh. Chip Kellys offense that even when he got comfortable, still looked worse than the previous two seasons. Now he learns another offense... again. I just don't want to wait 3-4 weeks for him to get comfortable again or have him be the preseason HOFamer he's always been just to see him faceplate in September. Because the line isn't going to be instantly better and these are the receivers were most likely riding with. So he has to make them better.

You don't want to wait 3-4 for him to get comfortable but want to wait 10+ weeks for Chase or Lynch to get comfortable.

With Chase, who cares? Who cares about the stop gap guy. It's all about getting a rookie ready to play in the NFL. If that takes 4 weeks or a whole season, so be it. I want to see something develop and have that hope again. I don't want to try to take a fully grown racehorse who's never won a race and try to win the derby with him.

 

[Deamon]

Do you think the Giants and Packers think they've struck gold with Eli and Rodgers?

Personally, I would stop making the argument that Bradford is anything other than a league average QB because he happened to have a five game stretch where his QB rating (a flawed measuring tool) was better than Aaron Rodgers during the worst season of his career.

I don't think he's as good as Rodgers. But when Bradford's QB rating was low early in the season, his detractors loved throwing the number around. So if that's their gauge, it's getting thrown back at them when it was as good as Rodgers and Eli. And I didn't hear their fans saying they didn't want them back.

You really make the worst arguments. The fans of the teams that drafted and groomed their QBs, who have won super bowls for them already, are going to collectively yell that they don't want their QBs back because of a down year (which for Rodgers was still a playoff win).Despite the fact that they're are actually Giant fans that would be happy that Eli is gone, this is a terrible argument. If we drafted Bradford and he had won us a Super Bowl already, would any of us be calling for him to go? Rams drafted him and they laughed all the way to the bank when they stole a 2nd and a starting QB at the time for him.

Past is past. Second half of 2015, Bradford played equal to them. Deny it all you want to try to make your argument seem less week.

Listen to yourself. In his supposed better part if the year, he played equal to Rodgers and Eli in bad years? That's what we're shooting for?

We are shooting for a QB who is top 8-14 range in the NFL. Yes Sam showed that. You're forgetting the praise he got once he got comfortable in the offense.

Uh huh. Chip Kellys offense that even when he got comfortable, still looked worse than the previous two seasons. Now he learns another offense... again. I just don't want to wait 3-4 weeks for him to get comfortable again or have him be the preseason HOFamer he's always been just to see him faceplate in September. Because the line isn't going to be instantly better and these are the receivers were most likely riding with. So he has to make them better.

You don't want to wait 3-4 for him to get comfortable but want to wait 10+ weeks for Chase or Lynch to get comfortable.

With Chase, who cares? Who cares about the stop gap guy. It's all about getting a rookie ready to play in the NFL. If that takes 4 weeks or a whole season, so be it. I want to see something develop and have that hope again. I don't want to try to take a fully grown racehorse who's never won a race and try to win the derby with him.

Again, you're wanting us to go OL in round 1, no round 2 pick (which complaining about won't change), and reach into a hat and pull a 3rd round pick out and hope he turns into R Wilson. About a 1% chance of that happening, but hey if that's your strategy.

 

[Deamon]

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/723722-official-2015-philadelphia-eagles-winning-when-it-doesnt-count/?p=18734193