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

[Bob Magaw]

Bradford post from elsewhere (not my research), on his last seven starts, nearly a half season:

"his avg. qb rating was 98.5 (with only 1 game below 91) (across 16 games this would have ranked him 8th in the league)

he threw 10 TDs & 4 INTs

He had a 68.1% completion rate (which across 16 games would have tied him for 3rd with Wilson).

He got 7.98 YPA (which across 16 games would have ranked him 6th).

IMO that's strong by any definition.

A lot of it is probably Kelly, whose system is very qb friendly.

There's other things.

PFF ranked him 1st among 2015 qbs in accuracy under pressure, and that's in spite of being 2nd in most drops by receivers when throwing under pressure: [www.profootballfocus.com]

He also had a decent sack percentage when throwing under pressure (ranked 13th) which means that he wasn't taking sacks or showing a lack of pocket presence---he was throwing the ball well under pressure. He sort of buried that old "no pocket presence" thing. And that's with mediocre WRs and a shaky OL."

 

 

[renesauz]

Bradford post from elsewhere (not my research), on his last seven starts, nearly a half season:

"his avg. qb rating was 98.5 (with only 1 game below 91) (across 16 games this would have ranked him 8th in the league)

he threw 10 TDs & 4 INTs

He had a 68.1% completion rate (which across 16 games would have tied him for 3rd with Wilson).

He got 7.98 YPA (which across 16 games would have ranked him 6th).

IMO that's strong by any definition.

A lot of it is probably Kelly, whose system is very qb friendly.

There's other things.

PFF ranked him 1st among 2015 qbs in accuracy under pressure, and that's in spite of being 2nd in most drops by receivers when throwing under pressure: [www.profootballfocus.com]

He also had a decent sack percentage when throwing under pressure (ranked 13th) which means that he wasn't taking sacks or showing a lack of pocket presence---he was throwing the ball well under pressure. He sort of buried that old "no pocket presence" thing. And that's with mediocre WRs and a shaky OL."

 

Nothing surprising here to me. During the second half of the season he was more the adequate or average...he was GOOD. More than good enough to win with.

 

[Deamon]

Bradford post from elsewhere (not my research), on his last seven starts, nearly a half season:

"his avg. qb rating was 98.5 (with only 1 game below 91) (across 16 games this would have ranked him 8th in the league)

he threw 10 TDs & 4 INTs

He had a 68.1% completion rate (which across 16 games would have tied him for 3rd with Wilson).

He got 7.98 YPA (which across 16 games would have ranked him 6th).

IMO that's strong by any definition.

A lot of it is probably Kelly, whose system is very qb friendly.

There's other things.

PFF ranked him 1st among 2015 qbs in accuracy under pressure, and that's in spite of being 2nd in most drops by receivers when throwing under pressure: [www.profootballfocus.com]

He also had a decent sack percentage when throwing under pressure (ranked 13th) which means that he wasn't taking sacks or showing a lack of pocket presence---he was throwing the ball well under pressure. He sort of buried that old "no pocket presence" thing. And that's with mediocre WRs and a shaky OL."

 

Your logic isn't welcome here.  Please join the angry mob or move on.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

Bradford post from elsewhere (not my research), on his last seven starts, nearly a half season:

"his avg. qb rating was 98.5 (with only 1 game below 91) (across 16 games this would have ranked him 8th in the league)

he threw 10 TDs & 4 INTs

He had a 68.1% completion rate (which across 16 games would have tied him for 3rd with Wilson).

He got 7.98 YPA (which across 16 games would have ranked him 6th).

IMO that's strong by any definition.

A lot of it is probably Kelly, whose system is very qb friendly.

There's other things.

PFF ranked him 1st among 2015 qbs in accuracy under pressure, and that's in spite of being 2nd in most drops by receivers when throwing under pressure: [www.profootballfocus.com]

He also had a decent sack percentage when throwing under pressure (ranked 13th) which means that he wasn't taking sacks or showing a lack of pocket presence---he was throwing the ball well under pressure. He sort of buried that old "no pocket presence" thing. And that's with mediocre WRs and a shaky OL."

 

I don't know if I agree that these stats paint a really pretty picture.  Even picking the second half of the season where he happened to play better than he did the first half--he only threw 10 tds in 7 games--less than 1.5 td's per game. I'm sorry--but that's not very good especially considering that stretch of games included games against the Giants, Redskins and Cowboys.  Not to mention that at least 2 of those 10 td's were irrelevant garbage time tds (one 78 yarder in the Arizona game when his team was down 37-10, and another garbage time td late in the 4th when they were getting blown out by Washington).   In that same seven game stretch--he fumbled the ball SIX times (and lost two of those fumbles).In reality--in that "solid" seven great stretch--he really only threw 8 meaningful tds and turned the ball over 6 times.   Also--I've copied and pasted a couple snippets from a couple articles that recently came out below.  They go to show that his completion percentage actually misleads people into believing he's more productive than he actually is.  I'm not saying Bradford is garbage--but he's also far from great.  In my opinion he's a slightly below average qb. 

Failed Completions - Football Outsiders
[Ed. note: Sam Bradford ranks 29th out of 37. Nick Foles is dead last at 37 out of 37.] ... The Super Bowl is over, which means it is time to start cranking out stat studies from the previous season. One of the quickest categories we can analyze from the play-by-play data is failed completions. These are any complete passes that fail to gain 45 percent of needed yards on first down; 60 percent on second down; or 100 percent on third or fourth down. Not every failed completion is created equally, but for this article we make things binary, summing up successes and failures. For the purposes of DVOA, there are fractional points involved where a 10-yard completion on third-and-12 would generate some partial success.

Putting Sam Bradford's completion percentage into context - PhillyVoice
Only 17.3 percent of Bradford's completions traveled 10 or more yards past the line of scrimmage. That tied him with Eli Manning and Alex Smith (shocker) for the lowest percentage in the NFL. To note, drops do not factor in here, as we are talking about passes that were actually completed.

 

[Bob Magaw]

It would have been interesting to see what Bradford could have done with WRs like Maclin and Jackson and a better OL, presumably better, but I'm not sure if some of the advanced metrics account for that.

Not controversial to suggest he wasn't great last year, no argument there. 

IMO the stink of breaking in with one of the worst teams in NFL history (his STL tenure partly overlapped with a 15-65 stretch that was maybe not only the worst half decade span winning percentage in NFL history, but possibly American professional sports period) may never come off. Unsympathetic critics will say that was BECAUSE of Bradford. Not directed at the above but just a general observation, I'm not a big advocate and proponent of the one-on-one basketball school of QB evaluation (W/L record is dictated in a lot of ways by the rest of the combined 22 members of offense/defense, as well as ST and coaching). I'm guessing if you asked millions of NFL fans to name all or even most of Bradford's receivers in his first few years as a Ram, very few could come close, which imo is telling. He wasn't exactly positioned to succeed early. The consecutive torn ACLs were unfortunate, but I have no idea if they prove he is "brittle" or were flukey? 

A few thoughts about garbage time. What would the other QBs look like if you subtracted out all 32 starters similar scores? He can't be alone as the only one with several over an approx. half season. It also seems like a catch 22. Why were they in garbage time? No doubt he could have played better. But perhaps part was also due to failures from the supporting cast and lack of surrounding talent. So while it may seem like an unfair advantage to get "garbage points", if he had the benefit of a better supporting cast and surrounding talent, even if he had fewer "garbage points", that could have been more than compensated for (as has been pointed out up-thread) by more sustained drives, red zone and scoring chances, opportunities for more completions, yards and TDs. It is one thing to suggest drops don't factor into a specific isolated and abstracted stat. But in real terms, drops absolutely matter, if they prevented what otherwise could have been multiple scoring drives. Again, unsympathetic critics would point out every QB deals with drops, but it sounds like PHI led the NFL in that dubious distinction (by somewhat of a wide margin, on a percentage basis).

But you could be right. Regardless of supporting cast/surrounding talent observations, QB as THE highest profile position invariably receives an undue proportion of praise or blame (as the case may be), it's just the nature of the beast. So certainly until/unless he has his first winning season and proves able to string together a few healthy seasons, the rumblings will persist that he is mediocre, that is completely understandable.            

 

[Insein]

Look, Bradford is not the worst QB in the world. He's also not anywhere near the top tier either. He's average as his career has shown. Yes he's had below average talent most of his career but he hasn't exactly made them any better. He's perfectly average in every way. Not too hot, not too cold. Never has had a stretch where you said that guy is playing awesome nor a stretch where he was Jamarcus Russell bad. 

The bottom line is that he's going into his 7th season and he's played average his whole career. He's going to be playing with the same receivers and relatively the same OL that "stunk" for him last year. He's going to be learning his 5th different offense, something he hasn't seemed to adjust well to as we always had to give him time to get used to the changes. So why then should we sign him to a 4 or 5 year deal where he's taking up $16-20m of the cap each season? If this was a 25 year old going into his 4th year that's shown incremental improvement each year and had some games where he's shown dominance, OK take the shot. But he's going to be 29 this season and has never had any stretch where he's looked like a top tier QB. Do we really want to pay on the hope that he gets better than what his first 6 seasons have shown?

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I am responding to Bob's above post here.   

I think you bring up some great points and I don't disagree with lots  of them. While I agree that Bradford certainly wasn't surrounded by elite talent--but I do think that he wasn't surrounded by scrubs either.   If you look at the offense as a whole (RB's included)---there is talent there. In fact--I would be hard pressed to find a more talented trio than Murray, Matthews and Sproles in the backfield.  Obviously this talent can't be fully recognized with the OL being so terrible--so as you can see I do understand your point.   I also agree with your point that the QB position is the highest profile position that tends to receive the majority of praise for success and the blunt of the blame for failure--that is true.  However--I also think that it is true that the game favors qb's--and that a great qb can find ways to be successful with average or even sub-par talent around him.    Look at the division the Eagles played in last season.   A Dallas team that was completely decimated by injuries.   A Giants team with no defense and such clock management issues that they literally gave multiple games away.   A division where defenses were so bad that a team with a backup qb (Kirk Cousins)  wins the division--while he puts up numbers towards the end of the season that make him look like Drew Brees---all with a record of barely over .500 (9-7).   My point is that even with the argument of a lack of talent (including a weak OL)--I think any good to great qb would have at least led his team to a winning record in this division.   

I also understand your garbage time concerns--but I only brought up those stats because when somebody cherry picks a qb's final seven starts to paint a picture of how "great" that qb has played--primarily through stats like qb rating, completion percentage, and int's thrown--I think that picture is fully incomplete when nearly 1/4 of those tds were complete garbage.   I also think that not mentioning that he put the ball on the ground SIX times in those seven games (two of them being lost fumbles) also doesn't paint a full picture.   Keep in mind--we're talking about his best seven game stretch from last season.  Basically speaking in his best seven game stretch--he had 10 tds and 6 turnovers playing in one of the worst divisions in football.   He was also the starting qb for who was supposed to be one of the most dynamic offensive coaches of all time.

In any case--I understand and respect your point.   I don't think the dude is horrid--but I also don't think he's the type of guy that is a difference maker.  I don't think Chip Kelly has left this team in a better long term position in regards to QB than he did when he got the job.   He might be good enough to where the Eagles can focus on developing (drafting) some talent at OL for a season or two before looking for a long term qb solution.   

 

[Deamon]

To say our team was talented on the offensive side of the ball is a stretch.  It was awful.  And there's reasons for his struggles in the first half of the season that keep getting ignored over and over.  It seems like we're just rehashing the same arguments over and over.  I know its a boring week, but if I have to hear Insein talk about how "sam is average, he always has been, he will be next year, lets move on" one more time...

We aren't going to get "elite" out of Chase Daniels, or out of a rookie QB this year at 13.  What he showed with an awful oline and awful receivers once he settled into the offense last year was far better then 'average' in my opinion.  We have the money. 

Regardless of rehashing everything over and over that's been said a million times, it's not going to change what they do.  I'll hope Doug makes the right decision and we should find out fairly soon.

 

[Insein]

Yes the right decision to move on. 

 

[Bob Magaw]

JVD02,

As I said, you could be right. I'm not wedded to the idea Bradford is great, he could prove average or worse for the rest of his career, I don't find that too far fetched. You made some good points, too. As is usually the case, the truth may lie somewhere in between our views. Putting the ball on the ground 6 X in that span wasn't good (albeit losing it twice). 

RB Murray certainly flashed talent in DAL. I had high hopes on his being reunited with Bradford (roommates at Oklahoma), but everything turned to dust. In his case, Kelly's scheme seemed to be a mismatch for his skill set. He thrived and flourished in DAL running out of a power I and with heavy volume. Last year, he looked like a fish out of water (reflected in his 3.6 yard per carry average, well down the list). This critique is a separate issue from OL cuts/injuries/general struggles and ineffectiveness. Mathews is talented when healthy, which I think he was for the most part last year. He only had about 100 carries though, so hard to do much given the low volume. He looked a lot better than Murray and probably deserved the ball a lot more accordingly, but sometimes it is hard for coaches to admit mistakes until it is too late.

Bradford hasn't shown the potential for greatness yet, so no argument there, either (since the post I copied/pasted highlighted some on the surface above average metrics, there could be some "by implication" confusion and misunderstanding on this point, just to be clear on my stance and spell it out explicitly). Before his multiple torn ACLs a few years ago, I was mainly suggesting he could be better than he appears statistically. There were some anomalous data points in his background. From 2007-2011 the Rams were 15-65. The worst half decade stretch in the NFL. EVER. That isn't normal (what are the odds of that, how many teams X various half decade spans at different junctures/timelines throughout their respective histories have there been?). In three of those initial epic ineptitude preceding seasons (a death spiral-like downward progression of 3-13, 2-14 & 1-15 - from 2008 to 2010, they drafted Chris Long #2 overall, bust OT Jason Smith #2 overall and Bradford #1), he wasn't even on the team. Than as a rookie he wins ROY*, finishes 7-9 and nearly makes the playoffs. Many in hindsight look back and say he has never had a winning record, ergo he is simply a loser. PERIOD. I'd say, in context, under the circumstances, that was a near heroic, herculean improvement.  Than he was hurt in 2011 (10 starts due to high ankle sprain, and he may have aggravated it and been limited in some of those starts?), and the team regressed to their pre-2010 form with a 2-14 record. Which was going in the wrong direction. Digging a little deeper, that was the season in which PFF or Outsiders (same?) stated the Rams were the most injured team of the decade. Again, what are the chances Bradford inherits one of the worst teams in league history based on their trailing five (and especially three) year record, than in a soph slump season his team is the most injured of the decade. It has to be astronomical. Than in year three, Fisher/Snead hit the reset button and blew up the team. Probably not a bad idea given the Rams combined 8-56 record in four of the previous five seasons (.125 for those playing at home - only one of which featured Bradford), but sub-optimal in terms of skill position continuity, as factors such as rapport, chemistry and timing in the passing game are built over TIME. Despite this handicap, he again nearly reaches .500 for the second time coming off a season with 1-2 wins (and the only two of three times the Rams weren't the most injured team of the decade). He was off to a career best start in 2013 (14/4 TD/INT ratio in seven starts would prorate to 32/9 over a full season - which I get is a questionable extrapolation since he has been frequently hurt, only playing 16 games in his first and third campaigns, essentially 40% of the seasons he has played, not counting his preseason second torn ACL preempted 2014 season - we could at least note he was statistically productive while playing in 2013, if not reflected in a winning record, perhaps in part for systemic reasons not entirely in his control, and he was also saddled with young, inexperienced WRs such as raw rookie Tavon Austin and uber-raw soph Brian Quick, as well as flawed TE Jared Cook who was just released by the team). One critique that this TD/INT ratio was unsustainable due to a historically improbable pass/run ratio around the goal line may well have had merit. My counter was that even if they threw instead of ran for a seemingly highly unlikely percentage of TDs in the span in question, he should still have received SOME level of credit for helping put them in position to score in the first place. Dunno? Than he had a torn ACL (same one) in consecutive seasons. Again, I don't now if that means he is fragile, or was just flukey and chalked up to bad luck? I will say, I can't see an obvious connection between his shoulder or collarbone injury at Oklahoma, high ankle sprain in 2011 and the ACL injuries. Clearly there was increased risk for the second torn ACL after the first (I think I read the risk would have been markedly diminished if he could have waited like 18 instead of 12 months, which would have been more ideal medically speaking, but that isn't SOP in the NFL, and Bradford and Fisher were under the gun to perform and start winning - I also think Kelly, who seemed well informed on football-related injury risk percentages, stated the risk for Bradford to suffer ANOTHER torn ACL was in the neighborhood of 10%, give or take a few?). So back to the consecutive torn ACLs, how often has that happened, to a QB? Ever, to a starter, since the merger?

So in answer to the post immediately above yours, I can appreciate and understand how Bradford has an average or worse stigma attached to him (and appears on the surface to have earned it, deservedly), based on his individual performance and his team's records in general during his career. What I've tried to show above is that there is very little about his career that is *AVERAGE* when you dig deeper in terms of contextual and situational factors (TL/DR summation - inherits arguably worst team ever as a rookie, most injured team of decade as soph, roster blown up by new HC/GM in third year, torn ACL scuttles next season and a half, his fourth and fifth, year six he goes to a new team with a highly passing game-friendly HC but that decimated his WR weapons by cutting Desean Jackson in 2014 and allowing Jeremy Maclin to walk in 2015 off-season). It is as if a handyman or construction worker inherited property smack in the middle of the San Andreas fault during a historically freakish confluence of violent activity, his house keeps falling down yesar after year, and neighbors observe, "Wow, that dude must not be very handy or a competent construction worker, since his house keeps getting repeatedly destroyed."

More on garbage time, since that seems to be one thrust of your argument and important enough for you to warrant highlighting again, so I'll address it again, a little differently. While you are focusing on the presumed end game statistical padding advantages (point taken, as far as that goes), try and view it from the flip side perspective, and ways in which so called "garbage time" ISN'T good. It makes an offense one dimensional and easier to defend. You can't keep a defense off balance when they don't have to defend the run. They can stack defenders against the pass. Particularly explosive, over the top, chunk yardage big plays (see the notorious "prevent" defense). They concede short passes. Which tends to reduce things like Y/C average, which is precisely one of the biggest critiques leveled against him.    

IMO, where we appear to differ primarily is I seem to have a higher degree of confidence that if he ever finds himself in better surroundings and with an upgraded supporting cast, he has the ability to eventually be better than average (without necessarily being great). 

* In the interest of balance and proportion, FBGs Chase Stuart wrote what turned out to be a prescient post in rigorously putting Bradford's ROY campaign in context by placing it under the statistical microscope, counterbalancing the obvious point that he inherited a terrible team and receiving weapons by noting he was favored by one of the easiest schedules (personally, not sure how to interpret/weight the meaning of those contrasting and even opposed respective factors, but appreciate that he shed light on alternate perspectives?)  

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=9017  

 

[Insein]

Yes if Bradford has some incredible weapons and a better OL he could probably be better. Like say if he goes to Houston. He has a solid OL and DeAndre Hopkins to throw to. Combine that with a top 5 defense and he should be able to easily get 9-10 wins. But then again, Brian Hoyer and Ryan Mallet got them 9 wins, so the expectation would be that Bradford should get them to the 11 mark. Can he do that? 

On the Eagles though, everyone complains about the supporting cast of receivers and OL and he's going to be playing with those same guys again.  So what will improve? Add in him learning a new offense again and a defense that was ranked 30th last season. While I think the defense will improve a lot this year, they won't be a dominant top 5 defense right away. So is Sam capable of leading the Eagles with what we have to a division title and a playoff win next year or ultimately get us headed towards a super bowl? If not then IMO we're just spinning our wheels and wasting our cap space.  So move on to find someone who can. 

 

[Deamon]

Yes if Bradford has some incredible weapons and a better OL he could probably be better. Like say if he goes to Houston. He has a solid OL and DeAndre Hopkins to throw to. Combine that with a top 5 defense and he should be able to easily get 9-10 wins. But then again, Brian Hoyer and Ryan Mallet got them 9 wins, so the expectation would be that Bradford should get them to the 11 mark. Can he do that? 

On the Eagles though, everyone complains about the supporting cast of receivers and OL and he's going to be playing with those same guys again.  So what will improve? Add in him learning a new offense again and a defense that was ranked 30th last season. While I think the defense will improve a lot this year, they won't be a dominant top 5 defense right away. So is Sam capable of leading the Eagles with what we have to a division title and a playoff win next year or ultimately get us headed towards a super bowl? If not then IMO we're just spinning our wheels and wasting our cap space.  So move on to find someone who can. 

- Our Oline will improve next year if we take one in the first round.
- Our receivers will improve next year as they'll have had an extra year to improve, and Ertz is getting really good.  Nelson also should be better this year and if Mathews fixed his drops then he will be better.
- Our run game should also improve this year if Doug uses Murray from under center or gives the ball to Matthews more.
- Our defense should be greatly improved

Those are things that will improve, so yes I think he can improve on his 6-3 record (with all three losses being to division winners) after his first 4 rusty games after 2 years out of football.  Bradford didn't lose to a non division-winning team since week 2.

 

[Insein]

non division winning team. 

 

[Ash]

It was the combo of Chip's offense wearing on the defense over the course of a season and Billy Davis scheming then into bad positions. 

I also think the stubborn insistence on both staying in base D as much as possible using a S as a slot CB, and the two gap front along with that is a big factor.  A lot of the players everybody is high on aren't used to best effect in the scheme, eg Fletcher Cox, Vinny Curry.

 

[modogg]

I also think the stubborn insistence on both staying in base D as much as possible using a S as a slot CB, and the two gap front along with that is a big factor.  A lot of the players everybody is high on aren't used to best effect in the scheme, eg Fletcher Cox, Vinny Curry.

i also wonder if you take out the atrocity of the Tampa and Detroit games you might have a different story on stats for the year. I still think those 2  games were the biggest reasons why Lurie moved on from Chip. 

 

[Deamon]

non division winning team. 

Yes, his only losses were to Washington, Carolina, and Arizona. 

It's okay, a month ago you wanted to franchise him.  With the amount you change your mind on how you feel about it you'll be his biggest fan in a week.

 

[Insein]

Yes, his only losses were to Washington, Carolina, and Arizona. 

It's okay, a month ago you wanted to franchise him.  With the amount you change your mind on how you feel about it you'll be his biggest fan in a week.

If he's our QB, come week 1, I'll be rooting for him for sure. Doesn't mean I have to root for them to keep him. Franchise is over now. They've made that clear that they don't want to do that as it's been almost a week that they could have slapped it on him. They want him at a discount and sure why not. The point of trying to win with an average QB is to not overpay him. So if we can sign him to a cap number below $15m then sure let's keep him. I still won't be expecting him to turn into Montana anytime soon but at least at a lower cap number, maybe that's one more defensive guy we bring in here or one more draft pick we lock up long term in a season or two. And if Sam isn't the answer, a lower cap hit makes it easier to move on from him. The Eagles on banking on no one offering Bradford a big deal and for him to come crawling back for less.  Not really sure I see that happening.

 

[JetMaxx]

JVD02,

As I said, you could be right. I'm not wedded to the idea Bradford is great, he could prove average or worse for the rest of his career, I don't find that too far fetched. You made some good points, too. As is usually the case, the truth may lie somewhere in between our views. Putting the ball on the ground 6 X in that span wasn't good (albeit losing it twice). 

RB Murray certainly flashed talent in DAL. I had high hopes on his being reunited with Bradford (roommates at Oklahoma), but everything turned to dust. In his case, Kelly's scheme seemed to be a mismatch for his skill set. He thrived and flourished in DAL running out of a power I and with heavy volume. Last year, he looked like a fish out of water (reflected in his 3.6 yard per carry average, well down the list). This critique is a separate issue from OL cuts/injuries/general struggles and ineffectiveness. Mathews is talented when healthy, which I think he was for the most part last year. He only had about 100 carries though, so hard to do much given the low volume. He looked a lot better than Murray and probably deserved the ball a lot more accordingly, but sometimes it is hard for coaches to admit mistakes until it is too late.

Bradford hasn't shown the potential for greatness yet, so no argument there, either (since the post I copied/pasted highlighted some on the surface above average metrics, there could be some "by implication" confusion and misunderstanding on this point, just to be clear on my stance and spell it out explicitly). Before his multiple torn ACLs a few years ago, I was mainly suggesting he could be better than he appears statistically. There were some anomalous data points in his background. From 2007-2011 the Rams were 15-65. The worst half decade stretch in the NFL. EVER. That isn't normal (what are the odds of that, how many teams X various half decade spans at different junctures/timelines throughout their respective histories have there been?). In three of those initial epic ineptitude preceding seasons (a death spiral-like downward progression of 3-13, 2-14 & 1-15 - from 2008 to 2010, they drafted Chris Long #2 overall, bust OT Jason Smith #2 overall and Bradford #1), he wasn't even on the team. Than as a rookie he wins ROY*, finishes 7-9 and nearly makes the playoffs. Many in hindsight look back and say he has never had a winning record, ergo he is simply a loser. PERIOD. I'd say, in context, under the circumstances, that was a near heroic, herculean improvement.  Than he was hurt in 2011 (10 starts due to high ankle sprain, and he may have aggravated it and been limited in some of those starts?), and the team regressed to their pre-2010 form with a 2-14 record. Which was going in the wrong direction. Digging a little deeper, that was the season in which PFF or Outsiders (same?) stated the Rams were the most injured team of the decade. Again, what are the chances Bradford inherits one of the worst teams in league history based on their trailing five (and especially three) year record, than in a soph slump season his team is the most injured of the decade. It has to be astronomical. Than in year three, Fisher/Snead hit the reset button and blew up the team. Probably not a bad idea given the Rams combined 8-56 record in four of the previous five seasons (.125 for those playing at home - only one of which featured Bradford), but sub-optimal in terms of skill position continuity, as factors such as rapport, chemistry and timing in the passing game are built over TIME. Despite this handicap, he again nearly reaches .500 for the second time coming off a season with 1-2 wins (and the only two of three times the Rams weren't the most injured team of the decade). He was off to a career best start in 2013 (14/4 TD/INT ratio in seven starts would prorate to 32/9 over a full season - which I get is a questionable extrapolation since he has been frequently hurt, only playing 16 games in his first and third campaigns, essentially 40% of the seasons he has played, not counting his preseason second torn ACL preempted 2014 season - we could at least note he was statistically productive while playing in 2013, if not reflected in a winning record, perhaps in part for systemic reasons not entirely in his control, and he was also saddled with young, inexperienced WRs such as raw rookie Tavon Austin and uber-raw soph Brian Quick, as well as flawed TE Jared Cook who was just released by the team). One critique that this TD/INT ratio was unsustainable due to a historically improbable pass/run ratio around the goal line may well have had merit. My counter was that even if they threw instead of ran for a seemingly highly unlikely percentage of TDs in the span in question, he should still have received SOME level of credit for helping put them in position to score in the first place. Dunno? Than he had a torn ACL (same one) in consecutive seasons. Again, I don't now if that means he is fragile, or was just flukey and chalked up to bad luck? I will say, I can't see an obvious connection between his shoulder or collarbone injury at Oklahoma, high ankle sprain in 2011 and the ACL injuries. Clearly there was increased risk for the second torn ACL after the first (I think I read the risk would have been markedly diminished if he could have waited like 18 instead of 12 months, which would have been more ideal medically speaking, but that isn't SOP in the NFL, and Bradford and Fisher were under the gun to perform and start winning - I also think Kelly, who seemed well informed on football-related injury risk percentages, stated the risk for Bradford to suffer ANOTHER torn ACL was in the neighborhood of 10%, give or take a few?). So back to the consecutive torn ACLs, how often has that happened, to a QB? Ever, to a starter, since the merger?

So in answer to the post immediately above yours, I can appreciate and understand how Bradford has an average or worse stigma attached to him (and appears on the surface to have earned it, deservedly), based on his individual performance and his team's records in general during his career. What I've tried to show above is that there is very little about his career that is *AVERAGE* when you dig deeper in terms of contextual and situational factors (TL/DR summation - inherits arguably worst team ever as a rookie, most injured team of decade as soph, roster blown up by new HC/GM in third year, torn ACL scuttles next season and a half, his fourth and fifth, year six he goes to a new team with a highly passing game-friendly HC but that decimated his WR weapons by cutting Desean Jackson in 2014 and allowing Jeremy Maclin to walk in 2015 off-season). It is as if a handyman or construction worker inherited property smack in the middle of the San Andreas fault during a historically freakish confluence of violent activity, his house keeps falling down year after year, and neighbors observe, "Wow, that dude must not be very handy or a competent construction worker, since his house keeps getting repeatedly destroyed."

More on garbage time, since that seems to be one thrust of your argument and important enough for you to warrant highlighting again, so I'll address it again, a little differently. While you are focusing on the presumed end game statistical padding advantages (point taken, as far as that goes), try and view it from the flip side perspective, and ways in which so called "garbage time" ISN'T good. It makes an offense one dimensional and easier to defend. You can't keep a defense off balance when they don't have to defend the run. They can stack defenders against the pass. Particularly explosive, over the top, chunk yardage big plays (see the notorious "prevent" defense). They concede short passes. Which tends to reduce things like Y/C average, which is precisely one of the biggest critiques leveled against him.    

IMO, where we appear to differ primarily is I seem to have a higher degree of confidence that if he ever finds himself in better surroundings and with an upgraded supporting cast, he has the ability to eventually be better than average (without necessarily being great). 

* In the interest of balance and proportion, FBGs Chase Stuart wrote what turned out to be a prescient post in rigorously putting Bradford's ROY campaign in context by placing it under the statistical microscope, counterbalancing the obvious point that he inherited a terrible team and receiving weapons by noting he was favored by one of the easiest schedules (personally, not sure how to interpret/weight the meaning of those contrasting and even opposed respective factors, but appreciate that he shed light on alternate perspectives?)  

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=9017  

Anyone reading this in its entirety has earned extra points.

 

[renesauz]

Anyone reading this in its entirety has earned extra points.

I did. The TLDR version is simple: Sam may not be great, but anyone claiming he CAN'T be very good aren't giving the circumstances surrounding his first 5 years in the league enough credit. There's ample evidence to suggest that we he could be very good.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Thanks for the clarification. This is a TL/DR summation effort from above, but since it was embedded, it probably defeated the purpose (should have prefaced it with this):

So in answer to the post immediately above yours, I can appreciate and understand how Bradford has an average or worse stigma attached to him (and appears on the surface to have earned it, deservedly), based on his individual performance and his team's records in general during his career. What I've tried to show above is that there is very little about his career that is *AVERAGE* when you dig deeper in terms of contextual and situational factors (TL/DR summation - inherits arguably worst team ever as a rookie, most injured team of decade as soph, roster blown up by new HC/GM in third year, torn ACL scuttles next season and a half, his fourth and fifth, year six he goes to a new team with a highly passing game-friendly HC but that decimated his WR weapons by cutting Desean Jackson in 2014 and allowing Jeremy Maclin to walk in 2015 off-season). It is as if a handyman or construction worker inherited property smack in the middle of the San Andreas fault during a historically freakish confluence of violent activity, his house keeps falling down year after year, and neighbors observe, "Wow, that dude must not be very handy or a competent construction worker, since his house keeps getting repeatedly destroyed."

 

[JuniorNB]

Bradford post from elsewhere (not my research), on his last seven starts, nearly a half season:

"his avg. qb rating was 98.5 (with only 1 game below 91) (across 16 games this would have ranked him 8th in the league)

he threw 10 TDs & 4 INTs

He had a 68.1% completion rate (which across 16 games would have tied him for 3rd with Wilson).

He got 7.98 YPA (which across 16 games would have ranked him 6th).

IMO that's strong by any definition.

A lot of it is probably Kelly, whose system is very qb friendly.

There's other things.

PFF ranked him 1st among 2015 qbs in accuracy under pressure, and that's in spite of being 2nd in most drops by receivers when throwing under pressure: [www.profootballfocus.com]

He also had a decent sack percentage when throwing under pressure (ranked 13th) which means that he wasn't taking sacks or showing a lack of pocket presence---he was throwing the ball well under pressure. He sort of buried that old "no pocket presence" thing. And that's with mediocre WRs and a shaky OL."

 

8th best QB in the league if prorated to a 16 game schedule. This is exactly what my eyes were telling me as I watched him play.

Of course, ignoring the first half of his season is cherry picking and all QB's would look better if you took their better half and prorated it over the season.  It holds a bit more weight to me with Bradford because he was coming off the two knee injuries coming into the season and you could see him getting more comfortable as each game came and went.

 

[Deamon]

#Eagles and safety Malcolm Jenkins agree to terms on a new five-year contract through 2020.

Jenkins carried a $7.166m cap number (final year of his deal).

ICYMI: #Eagles would be smart to extend Malcolm Jenkins. Safety will be key in Jim Schwartz defense.

Love this.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

You need leaders like him on your team.  Im sure this powers his cap # a decent amount this year as well.

 

[Insein]

Solid. Need to satisfy Cox now.

 

[JaxBill]

According to Joel Corry, Jenkins cap hits next 5 years are

2016   5.7 Mil

2017   7.5 Mil

2018   10 mil

2019   9.75 Mil

2020   9.25 Mil

So 2 year deal, really?

 

[massraider]

According to Joel Corry, Jenkins cap hits next 5 years are

2016   5.7 Mil

2017   7.5 Mil

2018   10 mil

2019   9.75 Mil

2020   9.25 Mil

So 2 year deal, really?

He was due 5.5 mill this year,  doesn't make sense to give 16 or 17 fully guaranteed unless it added more than one year to the deal. Have to believe they are planning on three.  

My wild guess is Philly is expecting contracts to get silly next couple years.  10 mill in 2018 might seem like a bargain next year. 

 

[Bigboy10182000]

The cap went up 12 million just this year.  Honestly, I have no clue how we got some of these guys to even start negotiating with us.

Also, remember when we had to have Jarius Byrd?  Is that still playing?

 

[Deamon]

Solid. Need to satisfy Cox now.

 

[Ash]

The point of trying to win with an average QB is to not overpay him. So if we can sign him to a cap number below $15m then sure let's keep him.

This is where I think your argument kind of comes apart.  At under $15m / yr average salary for QBs we have Foles, Brady (#### the Pats for this deal), guys still on their rookie deals, then fringe starter/backup types like Sanchez, McCown, Henne and Hoyer.

There's just no middle ground in QB salaries like there is in most positions.  For any other position, I think you're right.  QB has a different supply equation though.  If a guy is seen by his team as an above average starter, the floor on current deals is $16-17m / year.  18 QBs have a deal that averages $16m or higher.  That's only going up each year the cap does.

If you're paying anything less than this, you either have a rookie and hopefully he's good.  Or you have somebody who is not average, but actively sucks and needs to be replaced.  I think Bradford is worth a longer look and you don't, that's fine.  But you're not getting an average QB for under $15m.  You'll get a bad one.

 

[Ash]

Solid. Need to satisfy Cox now.

It's a good signing, but I'm not that happy about it.

:X

ETA:  Sorry, softball.  Couldn't leave it hanging.

 

[Ash]

#Eagles and safety Malcolm Jenkins agree to terms on a new five-year contract through 2020.

Jenkins carried a $7.166m cap number (final year of his deal).

ICYMI: #Eagles would be smart to extend Malcolm Jenkins. Safety will be key in Jim Schwartz defense.

Love this.

I like this, because Jenkins is so versatile it leaves them a lot of flexibility in filling the other spot, and I'm assuming Thurmond won't be back.  They can bring in anyone they like either in FA or the draft, it doesn't matter if he's a coverage or a box player because Jenkins can handle whatever he can't.

No brainers so far, but Howie's doing his job.

 

[Insein]

This is where I think your argument kind of comes apart.  At under $15m / yr average salary for QBs we have Foles, Brady (#### the Pats for this deal), guys still on their rookie deals, then fringe starter/backup types like Sanchez, McCown, Henne and Hoyer.

There's just no middle ground in QB salaries like there is in most positions.  For any other position, I think you're right.  QB has a different supply equation though.  If a guy is seen by his team as an above average starter, the floor on current deals is $16-17m / year.  18 QBs have a deal that averages $16m or higher.  That's only going up each year the cap does.

If you're paying anything less than this, you either have a rookie and hopefully he's good.  Or you have somebody who is not average, but actively sucks and needs to be replaced.  I think Bradford is worth a longer look and you don't, that's fine.  But you're not getting an average QB for under $15m.  You'll get a bad one.

That is my point though. What philosophy are we going with here? Are we trying to build a top 5 defense and minimize Bradfords defencies enough for us to win it all? Or are we building an above average defense (top15) hoping that Bradford plays at a higher level and can carry us at times to get to the Super Bowl?

If we want to mininize Bradfords impact which is what it sounds like some want ( improve running game, improve OL, improve defense, improve receivers) than we treat him like that lower tier and pay accordingly.  The Jets almost made the playoffs this year with Fitz and a top 5 defense. The Texans won a division with a below average QB and a top 5 defense.  KC made the playoffs with Alex Smith making $17m and the #3 scoring defense.  Denver of course won it all with Peyton being less than himself and Osweiler but that was with the #1 defense.  

If we don't think we can get that top 5 defense though, then Bradford HAS to improve. He HAS to be a top 10 QB with the potential to carry the team for periods of a season.  As great as people say he played the 2nd half, I don't see it. 

People knock Foles but he had a stretch of play that was Hall of Fame calibur. Still waiting for Bradford to show he can win a stretch of games, meaningful or not, with his arm and brain. Still waiting for his "Wow, that dude is special" moment.  All Great Qbs have them. Average QBs have had them occasionally (Eli, Flacco). Even below average QBs have them (Foles, Hostetler, McCown). If we invest in that position long term and with a big cap hit, he can't be just a game manager. He needs to be a difference maker at least some of the time. I just don't see it.

 

[Deamon]

That is my point though. What philosophy are we going with here? Are we trying to build a top 5 defense and minimize Bradfords defencies enough for us to win it all? Or are we building an above average defense (top15) hoping that Bradford plays at a higher level and can carry us at times to get to the Super Bowl?

If we want to mininize Bradfords impact which is what it sounds like some want ( improve running game, improve OL, improve defense, improve receivers) than we treat him like that lower tier and pay accordingly.  The Jets almost made the playoffs this year with Fitz and a top 5 defense. The Texans won a division with a below average QB and a top 5 defense.  KC made the playoffs with Alex Smith making $17m and the #3 scoring defense.  Denver of course won it all with Peyton being less than himself and Osweiler but that was with the #1 defense.  

If we don't think we can get that top 5 defense though, then Bradford HAS to improve. He HAS to be a top 10 QB with the potential to carry the team for periods of a season.  As great as people say he played the 2nd half, I don't see it. 

People knock Foles but he had a stretch of play that was Hall of Fame calibur. Still waiting for Bradford to show he can win a stretch of games, meaningful or not, with his arm and brain. Still waiting for his "Wow, that dude is special" moment.  All Great Qbs have them. Average QBs have had them occasionally (Eli, Flacco). Even below average QBs have them (Foles, Hostetler, McCown). If we invest in that position long term and with a big cap hit, he can't be just a game manager. He needs to be a difference maker at least some of the time. I just don't see it.

You've decided that you don't see it early in the season... and at this point come across as if you'd rather it not happen.  At this point your benchmark for him has become over inflated.  If he sucks you'll say he sucks... if he does good you'll say its not enough.  You say top 10 but I think anything in the 8-14 range would be quite good and im confident that with a better oline, and some growth by his receivers, he will be in that 8-12 range.  Given how he played for most of this season once the rust was off, there's no reason to think that he can't/won't be 8-14 in the NFL.  Preconceived opinions or wanting to be right are the 2 biggest things against Bradford being seen as a top 8-14 qb this year.  I hope if we do sign him,  you give him a chance to hit a realistic goal.

 

[Insein]

You've decided that you don't see it early in the season... and at this point come across as if you'd rather it not happen.  At this point your benchmark for him has become over inflated.  If he sucks you'll say he sucks... if he does good you'll say its not enough.  You say top 10 but I think anything in the 8-14 range would be quite good and im confident that with a better oline, and some growth by his receivers, he will be in that 8-12 range.  Given how he played for most of this season once the rust was off, there's no reason to think that he can't/won't be 8-14 in the NFL.  Preconceived opinions or wanting to be right are the 2 biggest things against Bradford being seen as a top 8-14 qb this year.  I hope if we do sign him,  you give him a chance to hit a realistic goal.

This is a realistic goal. Is it too much to ask for him to be in the top 10? I'm not even asking him to be an elite QB but can he crack the top ten?  The only stat he was close to that in last year was yard per game where he got 11th. The rest he was solidly in the mid to high 20's including passer rating (26th) and QBR (33rd). Both again are not true measures of a QBs value but it is an aggregate measure of their stats for the season. 

If he throws for 100 yds and hands the ball off to Murray  for 4 TDs that's obviously great if we're winning. But we all know, there are multiple points in a season where you need the QB to go above and beyond. I've seen Sam do it one time, for one play against Dallas. Then he withered twice against Washington. Can he get it done in those moments to even get us to the playoffs let alone showing up in the dance? 

If he's getting paid the big bucks, he damn well better be able to perform or were just wasting time and CAP space. I don't think that's unreasonable at all for a guy if he's getting paid top 10 money to perform like a top 10 QB.  

 

[Deamon]

This is a realistic goal. Is it too much to ask for him to be in the top 10? I'm not even asking him to be an elite QB but can he crack the top ten?  The only stat he was close to that in last year was yard per game where he got 11th. The rest he was solidly in the mid to high 20's including passer rating (26th) and QBR (33rd). Both again are not true measures of a QBs value but it is an aggregate measure of their stats for the season. 

If he throws for 100 yds and hands the ball off to Murray  for 4 TDs that's obviously great if we're winning. But we all know, there are multiple points in a season where you need the QB to go above and beyond. I've seen Sam do it one time, for one play against Dallas. Then he withered twice against Washington. Can he get it done in those moments to even get us to the playoffs let alone showing up in the dance? 

If he's getting paid the big bucks, he damn well better be able to perform or were just wasting time and CAP space. I don't think that's unreasonable at all for a guy if he's getting paid top 10 money to perform like a top 10 QB.  

Yes Top 10 is too much to ask.  He needs to be better then average (average being 14-18th best).  If he lands in as a top 12 QB, there is absolutely no reason to ##### and complain.  Wishing for top 10 just gives you an out to say "i told you so" even if he lands in the top 1/3rd of the entire NFL.  Given the fact that elite franchise QB's don't grow on trees and the odds of us getting one in the draft/FA are extremely low, we should be very happy if we have our position of weakness be better then 2/3rds of the QBs in the NFL.   Yet if he hits 12th you'll say that's not good enough and we should have tried to hit the lottery with Chase Daniels or some 3rd Round QB.

You keep talking about "Sam getting it done".  You yourself say that the QB gets irrational blame for a team's loss.  It's the rest of our team that needs to step up.  Sam was good enough to go 6-3 once he banged the rust off.... with those 3 loses going against good teams (yes we could argue about washington, but the other 2 were elite teams). 

The top 10 money thing is a joke.  It's supply and demand, and players get paid more and more every year.  If Sam signs a 5 year 100 million dollar deal, in 4 years he'll be a BOTTOM 10 paid QB.  But I bet you'd have a lot to say if our bottom 10 starter money qb wasn't playing better then bottom 10.  Every argument you make is setting yourself up for a situation where Sam is either incredible and you get to cheer for wins, or where he's above average but that isn't good enough for you based on your expectations that he is a top 10 qb next year.  The Ghost of Shahbucks lives on.

 

[Deamon]

Luckily for you and your arguments, you've built yourself a nice out whatever happens.  Sam does pretty good but we don't win a playoff game and you can say we should have gone with Chase, he wouldn't have done worse.  Sam sucks, and you'll say we made the wrong choice to keep him.  Sam doesn't re-sign here, and he doesn't get the opportunity to show he can be very good.  You'll quote stats of his from his one year here that doesn't take into account how good he was after his first few games.   The guy played like a top 10 qb for most of the season which is exactly what you wanted.  Let's hope he's back and that you drop your expectations by the time the season starts and we can all cheer for the guy to be what he can become:  A top 8-12 QB in a league where even finding a top 8-12 QB is rare and better then 2/3rds of the NFL teams can get.

 

[Deamon]

- Malcolm Jenkins on Sam Bradford: "I think everybody in the building wants Sam as our quarterback."

- Sam Bradford finished 4th in Accuracy Percentage at 78.1%, and no QB had a higher percentage of passes dropped than his 7.9%

- Heath Evans on Sam/Chip:
"Chip is so close in a lot of ways," Evans said, "(but) his tempo -- it's quarterback killer, it's an offense killer and it's defensive suicide."

Evans argued that the Eagles have enough talent on defense to win now, but that the offensive scheme made it almost impossible for them to succeed.  

"I feel bad for Malcolm (Jenkins), I feel bad for (Byron) Maxwell, I feel bad for Fletcher (Cox)," Evans said. "Those guys laid it on the line and were dead before they even touched the field because of the offense. Not the players on offense, but the system."

As for the offense, Evans was very complementary of Sam Bradford, saying the quarterback that Kelly acquired last offseason is absolutely the "answer" for the Eagles.

"The crap that Chip put him in, down-in and down-out, for him to produce what he produced this year was spectacular," Evans said. "I don't know what your opinion of Jeff Fisher is, but Jeff Fisher took that (Los Angeles) Rams job because of Bradford. You won't find a general manager in this league who knows what he's talking about that doesn't want Bradford as their quarterback."

Evans felt that Bradford's numbers could have been even better last season if it weren't the tempo Kelly made him play at.

"He processes information quick, he sees the field accurately," Evans said. "If Chip would have given Sam an extra five seconds at the line of scrimmage this year, just five seconds, and let him digest what he was seeing out there, they might have won ten games."

 

[JaxBill]

- Malcolm Jenkins on Sam Bradford: "I think everybody in the building wants Sam as our quarterback."

- Sam Bradford finished 4th in Accuracy Percentage at 78.1%, and no QB had a higher percentage of passes dropped than his 7.9%

- Heath Evans on Sam/Chip:
"Chip is so close in a lot of ways," Evans said, "(but) his tempo -- it's quarterback killer, it's an offense killer and it's defensive suicide."

Evans argued that the Eagles have enough talent on defense to win now, but that the offensive scheme made it almost impossible for them to succeed.  

"I feel bad for Malcolm (Jenkins), I feel bad for (Byron) Maxwell, I feel bad for Fletcher (Cox)," Evans said. "Those guys laid it on the line and were dead before they even touched the field because of the offense. Not the players on offense, but the system."

As for the offense, Evans was very complementary of Sam Bradford, saying the quarterback that Kelly acquired last offseason is absolutely the "answer" for the Eagles.

"The crap that Chip put him in, down-in and down-out, for him to produce what he produced this year was spectacular," Evans said. "I don't know what your opinion of Jeff Fisher is, but Jeff Fisher took that (Los Angeles) Rams job because of Bradford. You won't find a general manager in this league who knows what he's talking about that doesn't want Bradford as their quarterback."

Evans felt that Bradford's numbers could have been even better last season if it weren't the tempo Kelly made him play at.

"He processes information quick, he sees the field accurately," Evans said. "If Chip would have given Sam an extra five seconds at the line of scrimmage this year, just five seconds, and let him digest what he was seeing out there, they might have won ten games."

There may be some truth to what he's saying about the system but, overall, Heath Evans is one of the worst NFLN analysts out there.

Jeff Fisher does some things well as a head coach, I'm not sure evaluating a QB is one of them. Fisher is looking for a QB that won't kill him with turnovers so he can hand off 30+ times and play defense.

 

[JaxBill]

It's safe to say Evan Mathis won't be on the 49ers' radar this offseason.

Although the former Eagle now has a Super Bowl Championship with the Denver Broncos and is a free agent this offseason, some remarks he made today to a Denver-area news outlet make it less likely he'll be following former Eagles head coach Chip Kelly to San Francisco.

In an email-interview with Mike Klis of 9News in Denver, Mathis offered his evaluation of Kelly's coaching performance in Philly:

“There were many things that Chip had done that showed me he wasn’t building a championship team,” Mathis wrote. “Two of the main issues that concerned me were: 1. A never-evolving, vanilla offense that forced our own defense to play higher than normal play counts. 2. His impatience with certain personality types even when they were blue-chip talents. The Broncos team I was on would have eaten Chip alive. I don’t think he could have handled the plethora of large personalities.”

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Evan-Mathis-blasts-Chip-Kellys-time-in-Philly-.html#uwqidfuFrSUcKb4k.99

 

[Insein]

Luckily for you and your arguments, you've built yourself a nice out whatever happens.  Sam does pretty good but we don't win a playoff game and you can say we should have gone with Chase, he wouldn't have done worse.  Sam sucks, and you'll say we made the wrong choice to keep him.  Sam doesn't re-sign here, and he doesn't get the opportunity to show he can be very good.  You'll quote stats of his from his one year here that doesn't take into account how good he was after his first few games.   The guy played like a top 10 qb for most of the season which is exactly what you wanted.  Let's hope he's back and that you drop your expectations by the time the season starts and we can all cheer for the guy to be what he can become:  A top 8-12 QB in a league where even finding a top 8-12 QB is rare and better then 2/3rds of the NFL teams can get.

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? 

 

[JuniorNB]

I've seen Sam do it one time, for one play against Dallas. Then he withered twice against Washington.

Withered? You should have watched the game. The defense withered. He was 36 for 57 for 380 yards and a TD.  No interceptions. He couldn't get us 38 points. Only 24. That's hardly withering. They were right there in that game until Murray dropped that pitch. Your predetermined hatred for Bradford made you blind all season.  You just saw stats saying that if hios last seven games were prorated, he was the #8 QB in the league last year. And you claim he had one good throw against Dallas.  That was it.  LOL  You are teetering into ShawBucks territory now.

 

[Insein]

Withered? You should have watched the game. The defense withered. He was 36 for 57 for 380 yards and a TD.  No interceptions. He couldn't get us 38 points. Only 24. That's hardly withering. They were right there in that game until Murray dropped that pitch. Your predetermined hatred for Bradford made you blind all season.  You just saw stats saying that if hios last seven games were prorated, he was the #8 QB in the league last year. And you claim he had one good throw against Dallas.  That was it.  LOL  You are teetering into ShawBucks territory now.

Yea the Fumble that put us down 30-17 with 3 mins left in the 3rd quarter.  When did we score again? With 4 mins left in the game down 38-17 to make it 38-24. Don't even try to tell me he played good in that game. He completely missed 2 TDs in the first half with bad throws. You know who played good? Kirk Cousins. Is Kirk Cousins a great QB? Not a chance but he was a big reason his team won a division last year.  

If we sign Sam long term, I pray he can be at least as good as Cousins or Foles were at some point during his career.

 

[JuniorNB]

Yea the Fumble that put us down 30-17 with 3 mins left in the 3rd quarter.  When did we score again? With 4 mins left in the game down 38-17 to make it 38-24. Don't even try to tell me he played good in that game. He completely missed 2 TDs in the first half with bad throws. You know who played good? Kirk Cousins. Is Kirk Cousins a great QB? Not a chance but he was a big reason his team won a division last year.  

If we sign Sam long term, I pray he can be at least as good as Cousins or Foles were at some point during his career.

Foles!  Bwahahaha   The guy who might get cut and be bagging groceries?  Ryan Leaf would have played well that year. Took the league one year to out think Chip.

 

[Insein]

Foles!  Bwahahaha   The guy who might get cut and be bagging groceries?  Ryan Leaf would have played well that year. Took the league one year to out think Chip.

Yes one could only hope Sam plays anywhere close to Foles 2013 stretch. We might actually win sonething. My point is that average QBs play way above their head sometimes yet Sam hasn't at any point. If we are paying him the big bucks he better play better or what are we even doing?

 

[Insein]

Let's put it this way, if they decided to keep Foles and pay him a 4 year deal worth $18-20m per year and then he was middle of the road, never really wins us any games but puts up enough stats to be average while the defense and running game carries the team to an 8-8 or 9-7 record, would that be acceptable?

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Yea the Fumble that put us down 30-17 with 3 mins left in the 3rd quarter.  When did we score again? With 4 mins left in the game down 38-17 to make it 38-24. Don't even try to tell me he played good in that game. He completely missed 2 TDs in the first half with bad throws. You know who played good? Kirk Cousins. Is Kirk Cousins a great QB? Not a chance but he was a big reason his team won a division last year.  

If we sign Sam long term, I pray he can be at least as good as Cousins or Foles were at some point during his career.

FWIW, my view on this is closer to yours than to most of the rest of the folks here. I want no part of a massive long-term Bradford extension and am fine with getting up from the table if a team like the Texans drops 5/$100M in front of him, and taking our chances in FA and the draft.

But the Foles talk is just silly. I was living in the DC area when Brady Anderson came out of nowhere to belt 50 HR. Two years later he was back to being his .236/18/51 self.

Foles will go down as the Brady Anderson of the NFL. It's pro sports, crazy #### happens sometimes.

 

[JaxBill]

FWIW, my view on this is closer to yours than to most of the rest of the folks here. I want no part of a massive long-term Bradford extension and am fine with getting up from the table if a team like the Texans drops 5/$100M in front of him, and taking our chances in FA and the draft.

But the Foles talk is just silly. I was living in the DC area when Brady Anderson came out of nowhere to belt 50 HR. Two years later he was back to being his .236/18/51 self.

Foles will go down as the Brady Anderson of the NFL. It's pro sports, crazy #### happens sometimes.

Foles was using steroids?

 

[Insein]

FWIW, my view on this is closer to yours than to most of the rest of the folks here. I want no part of a massive long-term Bradford extension and am fine with getting up from the table if a team like the Texans drops 5/$100M in front of him, and taking our chances in FA and the draft.

But the Foles talk is just silly. I was living in the DC area when Brady Anderson came out of nowhere to belt 50 HR. Two years later he was back to being his .236/18/51 self.

Foles will go down as the Brady Anderson of the NFL. It's pro sports, crazy #### happens sometimes.

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. 

 

[renesauz]

- Malcolm Jenkins on Sam Bradford: "I think everybody in the building wants Sam as our quarterback."

- Sam Bradford finished 4th in Accuracy Percentage at 78.1%, and no QB had a higher percentage of passes dropped than his 7.9%

- Heath Evans on Sam/Chip:
"Chip is so close in a lot of ways," Evans said, "(but) his tempo -- it's quarterback killer, it's an offense killer and it's defensive suicide."

Evans argued that the Eagles have enough talent on defense to win now, but that the offensive scheme made it almost impossible for them to succeed.  

"I feel bad for Malcolm (Jenkins), I feel bad for (Byron) Maxwell, I feel bad for Fletcher (Cox)," Evans said. "Those guys laid it on the line and were dead before they even touched the field because of the offense. Not the players on offense, but the system."

As for the offense, Evans was very complementary of Sam Bradford, saying the quarterback that Kelly acquired last offseason is absolutely the "answer" for the Eagles.

"The crap that Chip put him in, down-in and down-out, for him to produce what he produced this year was spectacular," Evans said. "I don't know what your opinion of Jeff Fisher is, but Jeff Fisher took that (Los Angeles) Rams job because of Bradford. You won't find a general manager in this league who knows what he's talking about that doesn't want Bradford as their quarterback."

Evans felt that Bradford's numbers could have been even better last season if it weren't the tempo Kelly made him play at.

"He processes information quick, he sees the field accurately," Evans said. "If Chip would have given Sam an extra five seconds at the line of scrimmage this year, just five seconds, and let him digest what he was seeing out there, they might have won ten games."

Well....if nothing else it's obvious what Evans thought about Chip!

 

[renesauz]

Withered? You should have watched the game. The defense withered. He was 36 for 57 for 380 yards and a TD.  No interceptions. He couldn't get us 38 points. Only 24. That's hardly withering. They were right there in that game until Murray dropped that pitch. Your predetermined hatred for Bradford made you blind all season.  You just saw stats saying that if hios last seven games were prorated, he was the #8 QB in the league last year. And you claim he had one good throw against Dallas.  That was it.  LOL  You are teetering into ShawBucks territory now.

The Bradford hate is irrational