Sam Bradford for Nick Foles TRADE ! (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers ended last night’s game with a -0.8 grade overall. This isn’t a bad game, just because the number begins with a minus, but it is an average grade very close to zero for a player who threw five touchdown passes,

 

[fred_1_15301]

Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers ended last night’s game with a -0.8 grade overall. This isn’t a bad game, just because the number begins with a minus, but it is an average grade very close to zero for a player who threw five touchdown passes,

Rodgers probably got a nice little chuckle out of it as well.

 

[JuniorNB]

Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers ended last night’s game with a -0.8 grade overall. This isn’t a bad game, just because the number begins with a minus, but it is an average grade very close to zero for a player who threw five touchdown passes,

Rodgers probably got a nice little chuckle out of it as well.

Does Stevie Wonder do those calculations?

 

[ShaHBucks]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Who's called Foles a "bum" in here? You're deliberately stirring the pot again, Shah.

The good news for the Birds (if only on a relative basis) is that from a long-range standpoint, Bradford being flat-out bad makes it easy to kick him to the curb and move on next offseason. It's painful in the short term, but I'd much prefer it to him being average with just enough flashes of brilliance to charm the organization into thinking, "well, he could be the guy!" and locking him up to a boat anchor of a long-term deal.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

 

[Insein]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Who's called Foles a "bum" in here? You're deliberately stirring the pot again, Shah.

The good news for the Birds (if only on a relative basis) is that from a long-range standpoint, Bradford being flat-out bad makes it easy to kick him to the curb and move on next offseason. It's painful in the short term, but I'd much prefer it to him being average with just enough flashes of brilliance to charm the organization into thinking, "well, he could be the guy!" and locking him up to a boat anchor of a long-term deal.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

It's a pretty bad gamble in that what he was trying to gain was only marginally better than what he had bit the loss is so much more.

 

[JuniorNB]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

So the verdict is out? After four games? When there's been improvement in each of the last two?

Yesterday, Bradford threw for 270 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. Also ran for 14 yards. He also wasn't on the field when the defense let Washington drive 90 yards for the win. So, had Maxwell gotten an interception on that drive, or the Skins failed to convert on a fourth down and the Eagles held on to win, Bradford's day would have been better? I'm pretty sure Chip didn't send him out to cover Garcon.

As of now, Bradford is getting better each game. Which is all you can ask of a guy who hasn't played in two years. And has one of the worst lines in the league. I liked that he opened up and went downfield several times yesterday. That's a sign of confidence.

I wouldn't trade Bradford to get Foles back. He was very very average last year. Probably below average. He is what he is. I wouldn't sign Bradford to a long term deal, either. I'd wait and see if the improvement continues. If this is as good as it gets, I'd let him walk. If they're going to start from scratch in their QB search, I think this offense is 10x more effective with a quarterback who's a running threat. Pre-injury RG3 would be perfect. During the offseason, I was thinking Kaepernick, but he's regressed horribly. Couldn't hit the ocean if standing on the pier. Hopefully they can find a Tyrod Taylor-type and make this offense really dynamic. That, of course, depends on Bradford's improvement.

 

[unckeyherb]

meh, his stat line looked good but was not indicative of the game he had. He looked god-awful for a majority of that game, holding the ball too long, taking sacks-at one point he literally fell to the ground and waited for a few seconds until the defender came over and tapped him. The long TD to Cooper was far more a product of busted defensive coverage than anything else, though it was a nice pass-albeit one that should be expected from an NFL starter.

I'll be honest, I drank the Kool Aid with Bradford even though I was against the trade. I was excited about his accuracy, potential etc. To me he looks like a guy that is not interested in playing football anymore. One man's opinion and I hope I am wrong.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

So the verdict is out? After four games? When there's been improvement in each of the last two?

Yesterday, Bradford threw for 270 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. Also ran for 14 yards. He also wasn't on the field when the defense let Washington drive 90 yards for the win. So, had Maxwell gotten an interception on that drive, or the Skins failed to convert on a fourth down and the Eagles held on to win, Bradford's day would have been better? I'm pretty sure Chip didn't send him out to cover Garcon.

As of now, Bradford is getting better each game. Which is all you can ask of a guy who hasn't played in two years. And has one of the worst lines in the league. I liked that he opened up and went downfield several times yesterday. That's a sign of confidence.

I wouldn't trade Bradford to get Foles back. He was very very average last year. Probably below average. He is what he is. I wouldn't sign Bradford to a long term deal, either. I'd wait and see if the improvement continues. If this is as good as it gets, I'd let him walk. If they're going to start from scratch in their QB search, I think this offense is 10x more effective with a quarterback who's a running threat. Pre-injury RG3 would be perfect. During the offseason, I was thinking Kaepernick, but he's regressed horribly. Couldn't hit the ocean if standing on the pier. Hopefully they can find a Tyrod Taylor-type and make this offense really dynamic. That, of course, depends on Bradford's improvement.

Neither would the Rams with 2 division wins http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1∑=0&y1=2015&p1=FoleNi00&y2=2015&p2=BradSa00&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

*keep in mind the 34 less attempts. That's a whole game plus some

 

[JuniorNB]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

So the verdict is out? After four games? When there's been improvement in each of the last two?

Yesterday, Bradford threw for 270 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. Also ran for 14 yards. He also wasn't on the field when the defense let Washington drive 90 yards for the win. So, had Maxwell gotten an interception on that drive, or the Skins failed to convert on a fourth down and the Eagles held on to win, Bradford's day would have been better? I'm pretty sure Chip didn't send him out to cover Garcon.

As of now, Bradford is getting better each game. Which is all you can ask of a guy who hasn't played in two years. And has one of the worst lines in the league. I liked that he opened up and went downfield several times yesterday. That's a sign of confidence.

I wouldn't trade Bradford to get Foles back. He was very very average last year. Probably below average. He is what he is. I wouldn't sign Bradford to a long term deal, either. I'd wait and see if the improvement continues. If this is as good as it gets, I'd let him walk. If they're going to start from scratch in their QB search, I think this offense is 10x more effective with a quarterback who's a running threat. Pre-injury RG3 would be perfect. During the offseason, I was thinking Kaepernick, but he's regressed horribly. Couldn't hit the ocean if standing on the pier. Hopefully they can find a Tyrod Taylor-type and make this offense really dynamic. That, of course, depends on Bradford's improvement.

Neither would the Rams with 2 division wins http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1∑=0&y1=2015&p1=FoleNi00&y2=2015&p2=BradSa00&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

Then that works out beautifully. That's what good trades are all about.

 

[ShaHBucks]

meh, his stat line looked good but was not indicative of the game he had. He looked god-awful for a majority of that game, holding the ball too long, taking sacks-at one point he literally fell to the ground and waited for a few seconds until the defender came over and tapped him. The long TD to Cooper was far more a product of busted defensive coverage than anything else, though it was a nice pass-albeit one that should be expected from an NFL starter.

I'll be honest, I drank the Kool Aid with Bradford even though I was against the trade. I was excited about his accuracy, potential etc. To me he looks like a guy that is not interested in playing football anymore. One man's opinion and I hope I am wrong.

Offense either looked "atrocious" or there was a nice bomb for a TD all game.

 

[JuniorNB]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

So the verdict is out? After four games? When there's been improvement in each of the last two?

Yesterday, Bradford threw for 270 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. Also ran for 14 yards. He also wasn't on the field when the defense let Washington drive 90 yards for the win. So, had Maxwell gotten an interception on that drive, or the Skins failed to convert on a fourth down and the Eagles held on to win, Bradford's day would have been better? I'm pretty sure Chip didn't send him out to cover Garcon.

As of now, Bradford is getting better each game. Which is all you can ask of a guy who hasn't played in two years. And has one of the worst lines in the league. I liked that he opened up and went downfield several times yesterday. That's a sign of confidence.

I wouldn't trade Bradford to get Foles back. He was very very average last year. Probably below average. He is what he is. I wouldn't sign Bradford to a long term deal, either. I'd wait and see if the improvement continues. If this is as good as it gets, I'd let him walk. If they're going to start from scratch in their QB search, I think this offense is 10x more effective with a quarterback who's a running threat. Pre-injury RG3 would be perfect. During the offseason, I was thinking Kaepernick, but he's regressed horribly. Couldn't hit the ocean if standing on the pier. Hopefully they can find a Tyrod Taylor-type and make this offense really dynamic. That, of course, depends on Bradford's improvement.

Neither would the Rams with 2 division wins http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1∑=0&y1=2015&p1=FoleNi00&y2=2015&p2=BradSa00&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

By the way, had the Eagles defense not allowed Cousins to march down the field 90 yards for a touchdown at the end of the game, Bradford has as many wins as Foles. And Foles lost to the same team that beat the Eagles yesterday. We're not talking about Ton Brady here. Foles has been every bit as average as Bradford has been.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

So the verdict is out? After four games? When there's been improvement in each of the last two?

Yesterday, Bradford threw for 270 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. Also ran for 14 yards. He also wasn't on the field when the defense let Washington drive 90 yards for the win. So, had Maxwell gotten an interception on that drive, or the Skins failed to convert on a fourth down and the Eagles held on to win, Bradford's day would have been better? I'm pretty sure Chip didn't send him out to cover Garcon.

As of now, Bradford is getting better each game. Which is all you can ask of a guy who hasn't played in two years. And has one of the worst lines in the league. I liked that he opened up and went downfield several times yesterday. That's a sign of confidence.

I wouldn't trade Bradford to get Foles back. He was very very average last year. Probably below average. He is what he is. I wouldn't sign Bradford to a long term deal, either. I'd wait and see if the improvement continues. If this is as good as it gets, I'd let him walk. If they're going to start from scratch in their QB search, I think this offense is 10x more effective with a quarterback who's a running threat. Pre-injury RG3 would be perfect. During the offseason, I was thinking Kaepernick, but he's regressed horribly. Couldn't hit the ocean if standing on the pier. Hopefully they can find a Tyrod Taylor-type and make this offense really dynamic. That, of course, depends on Bradford's improvement.

Neither would the Rams with 2 division wins http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1∑=0&y1=2015&p1=FoleNi00&y2=2015&p2=BradSa00&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

By the way, had the Eagles defense not allowed Cousins to march down the field 90 yards for a touchdown at the end of the game, Bradford has as many wins as Foles. And Foles lost to the same team that beat the Eagles yesterday. We're not talking about Ton Brady here. Foles has been every bit as average as Bradford has been.

Aside from being more accurate, throwing TDs at a higher rate, ints at a ridiculously lower rate, and borderline embarrassing himself I have to agree with you.

 

[unckeyherb]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

So the verdict is out? After four games? When there's been improvement in each of the last two?

Yesterday, Bradford threw for 270 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. Also ran for 14 yards. He also wasn't on the field when the defense let Washington drive 90 yards for the win. So, had Maxwell gotten an interception on that drive, or the Skins failed to convert on a fourth down and the Eagles held on to win, Bradford's day would have been better? I'm pretty sure Chip didn't send him out to cover Garcon.

As of now, Bradford is getting better each game. Which is all you can ask of a guy who hasn't played in two years. And has one of the worst lines in the league. I liked that he opened up and went downfield several times yesterday. That's a sign of confidence.

I wouldn't trade Bradford to get Foles back. He was very very average last year. Probably below average. He is what he is. I wouldn't sign Bradford to a long term deal, either. I'd wait and see if the improvement continues. If this is as good as it gets, I'd let him walk. If they're going to start from scratch in their QB search, I think this offense is 10x more effective with a quarterback who's a running threat. Pre-injury RG3 would be perfect. During the offseason, I was thinking Kaepernick, but he's regressed horribly. Couldn't hit the ocean if standing on the pier. Hopefully they can find a Tyrod Taylor-type and make this offense really dynamic. That, of course, depends on Bradford's improvement.

Neither would the Rams with 2 division wins http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1∑=0&y1=2015&p1=FoleNi00&y2=2015&p2=BradSa00&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

By the way, had the Eagles defense not allowed Cousins to march down the field 90 yards for a touchdown at the end of the game, Bradford has as many wins as Foles. And Foles lost to the same team that beat the Eagles yesterday. We're not talking about Ton Brady here. Foles has been every bit as average as Bradford has been.

Bradford overthrew two other TDs and couldn't convert back to back third down passes that would have put the Eagles in FG range late in the game. Expecting the defense to play up to snuff after being on the field for the entire game is tough. FWIW, the defense played most of those passes well-Garcon made numerous catches that were frankly amazing.

 

[Deamon]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

So the verdict is out? After four games? When there's been improvement in each of the last two?

Yesterday, Bradford threw for 270 yards, 3 touchdowns, and 0 interceptions. Also ran for 14 yards. He also wasn't on the field when the defense let Washington drive 90 yards for the win. So, had Maxwell gotten an interception on that drive, or the Skins failed to convert on a fourth down and the Eagles held on to win, Bradford's day would have been better? I'm pretty sure Chip didn't send him out to cover Garcon.

As of now, Bradford is getting better each game. Which is all you can ask of a guy who hasn't played in two years. And has one of the worst lines in the league. I liked that he opened up and went downfield several times yesterday. That's a sign of confidence.

I wouldn't trade Bradford to get Foles back. He was very very average last year. Probably below average. He is what he is. I wouldn't sign Bradford to a long term deal, either. I'd wait and see if the improvement continues. If this is as good as it gets, I'd let him walk. If they're going to start from scratch in their QB search, I think this offense is 10x more effective with a quarterback who's a running threat. Pre-injury RG3 would be perfect. During the offseason, I was thinking Kaepernick, but he's regressed horribly. Couldn't hit the ocean if standing on the pier. Hopefully they can find a Tyrod Taylor-type and make this offense really dynamic. That, of course, depends on Bradford's improvement.

Neither would the Rams with 2 division wins http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1∑=0&y1=2015&p1=FoleNi00&y2=2015&p2=BradSa00&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=

By the way, had the Eagles defense not allowed Cousins to march down the field 90 yards for a touchdown at the end of the game, Bradford has as many wins as Foles. And Foles lost to the same team that beat the Eagles yesterday. We're not talking about Ton Brady here. Foles has been every bit as average as Bradford has been.

 

[Deamon]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Who's called Foles a "bum" in here? You're deliberately stirring the pot again, Shah.

The good news for the Birds (if only on a relative basis) is that from a long-range standpoint, Bradford being flat-out bad makes it easy to kick him to the curb and move on next offseason. It's painful in the short term, but I'd much prefer it to him being average with just enough flashes of brilliance to charm the organization into thinking, "well, he could be the guy!" and locking him up to a boat anchor of a long-term deal.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

It's what he do.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Who's called Foles a "bum" in here? You're deliberately stirring the pot again, Shah.

The good news for the Birds (if only on a relative basis) is that from a long-range standpoint, Bradford being flat-out bad makes it easy to kick him to the curb and move on next offseason. It's painful in the short term, but I'd much prefer it to him being average with just enough flashes of brilliance to charm the organization into thinking, "well, he could be the guy!" and locking him up to a boat anchor of a long-term deal.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

It's what he do.

Well, atrocious was the word. Good catch

 

[Deamon]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Who's called Foles a "bum" in here? You're deliberately stirring the pot again, Shah.

The good news for the Birds (if only on a relative basis) is that from a long-range standpoint, Bradford being flat-out bad makes it easy to kick him to the curb and move on next offseason. It's painful in the short term, but I'd much prefer it to him being average with just enough flashes of brilliance to charm the organization into thinking, "well, he could be the guy!" and locking him up to a boat anchor of a long-term deal.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

It's what he do.

Well, atrocious was the word. Good catch

It's over man, let it go. It will feel good.

 

[Insein]

I'm still pissed about Earl Thomas and you think I'm going let go of a bad trade that happened this year?

 

[Warrior]

Both are failures. They both lost to the Washington Redskins, who feature an absolutely atrocious set of defensive backs. If neither can find success against that group, they'll both be out of the NFL in a few years.

 

[Deamon]

I'm still pissed about Earl Thomas and you think I'm going let go of a bad trade that happened this year?

Wishful thinking I guess.

 

[ShaHBucks]

I'm still pissed about Earl Thomas and you think I'm going let go of a bad trade that happened this year?

 

[ShaHBucks]

Both are failures. They both lost to the Washington Redskins, who feature an absolutely atrocious set of defensive backs. If neither can find success against that group, they'll both be out of the NFL in a few years.

Define success. Bradford just tossed 3TDs on them.

 

[Deamon]

Both are failures. They both lost to the Washington Redskins, who feature an absolutely atrocious set of defensive backs. If neither can find success against that group, they'll both be out of the NFL in a few years.

Define success. Bradford just tossed 3TDs on them.

So you're calling Bradford's game vs them successful?

 

[kOOk]

Both are failures. They both lost to the Washington Redskins, who feature an absolutely atrocious set of defensive backs. If neither can find success against that group, they'll both be out of the NFL in a few years.

Define success. Bradford just tossed 3TDs on them.

So you're calling Bradford's game vs them successful?

He prefaced it by saying "Define success", did he not? Bradford made some really nice throws and you could say the loss is on the D but again, it depends how you look at it.

 

[Deamon]

Both are failures. They both lost to the Washington Redskins, who feature an absolutely atrocious set of defensive backs. If neither can find success against that group, they'll both be out of the NFL in a few years.

Define success. Bradford just tossed 3TDs on them.

So you're calling Bradford's game vs them successful?

He prefaced it by saying "Define success", did he not? Bradford made some really nice throws and you could say the loss is on the D but again, it depends how you look at it.

Yes, that was the assumption. I was just in shock to hear that I guess.

 

[JuniorNB]

Both are failures. They both lost to the Washington Redskins, who feature an absolutely atrocious set of defensive backs. If neither can find success against that group, they'll both be out of the NFL in a few years.

Define success. Bradford just tossed 3TDs on them.

So you're calling Bradford's game vs them successful?

He prefaced it by saying "Define success", did he not? Bradford made some really nice throws and you could say the loss is on the D but again, it depends how you look at it.

Washington had way too much success against our defense. It's Kirk Cousins for crying out loud. The defense has been carrying us, but this one was on the defense. Sure, Bradford could have thrown for a fourth touchdown I suppose. But there was no excuse to let them go 90 yards with the game on the line like that.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Both are failures. They both lost to the Washington Redskins, who feature an absolutely atrocious set of defensive backs. If neither can find success against that group, they'll both be out of the NFL in a few years.

Define success. Bradford just tossed 3TDs on them.

So you're calling Bradford's game vs them successful?

He prefaced it by saying "Define success", did he not? Bradford made some really nice throws and you could say the loss is on the D but again, it depends how you look at it.

Washington had way too much success against our defense. It's Kirk Cousins for crying out loud. The defense has been carrying us, but this one was on the defense. Sure, Bradford could have thrown for a fourth touchdown I suppose. But there was no excuse to let them go 90 yards with the game on the line like that.

The defense probably wouldn't have been put in that position if not for a semi-competent kicker. Why can't the kicker be blamed for the loss?

 

[Deamon]

Both are failures. They both lost to the Washington Redskins, who feature an absolutely atrocious set of defensive backs. If neither can find success against that group, they'll both be out of the NFL in a few years.

Define success. Bradford just tossed 3TDs on them.

So you're calling Bradford's game vs them successful?

He prefaced it by saying "Define success", did he not? Bradford made some really nice throws and you could say the loss is on the D but again, it depends how you look at it.

Washington had way too much success against our defense. It's Kirk Cousins for crying out loud. The defense has been carrying us, but this one was on the defense. Sure, Bradford could have thrown for a fourth touchdown I suppose. But there was no excuse to let them go 90 yards with the game on the line like that.

The defense probably wouldn't have been put in that position if not for a semi-competent kicker. Why can't the kicker be blamed for the loss?

I agree it wasn't Sam's fault we lost. I was only implying my shock at Sha implying that Bradford had a successful game.

In order of blame for the loss I would say: Oline, Kicker, then a tie between the defense and Nelson/Sproles/Jmath drops/turnovers. D didn't play awful on the last drive, Skins just made some outstanding catches vs good coverage.

 

[kOOk]

Then why is it so shocking to say Bradford had a successful game? He played well. You just said yourself that you would pin the loss on like 4 other parts of the game. Bradford can't block, kick, play D and make sure nobody turns the ball over.....just so you know.

 

[JuniorNB]

Both are failures. They both lost to the Washington Redskins, who feature an absolutely atrocious set of defensive backs. If neither can find success against that group, they'll both be out of the NFL in a few years.

Define success. Bradford just tossed 3TDs on them.

So you're calling Bradford's game vs them successful?

He prefaced it by saying "Define success", did he not? Bradford made some really nice throws and you could say the loss is on the D but again, it depends how you look at it.

Washington had way too much success against our defense. It's Kirk Cousins for crying out loud. The defense has been carrying us, but this one was on the defense. Sure, Bradford could have thrown for a fourth touchdown I suppose. But there was no excuse to let them go 90 yards with the game on the line like that.

The defense probably wouldn't have been put in that position if not for a semi-competent kicker. Why can't the kicker be blamed for the loss?

Oh, he's definitely a huge part of it. Did they cut him yet?

 

[Deamon]

Foles: 11 for 30 - 141 yards. 1 TD, 4 INT.
Bradford 32 for 45 - 333 yards. 2 TD, 2 INT.

Ya, Foles is better.

 

[Deamon]

Wins vs Sea and an undefeated Ari team. Pretty decent for a bum.

Who's called Foles a "bum" in here? You're deliberately stirring the pot again, Shah.

The good news for the Birds (if only on a relative basis) is that from a long-range standpoint, Bradford being flat-out bad makes it easy to kick him to the curb and move on next offseason. It's painful in the short term, but I'd much prefer it to him being average with just enough flashes of brilliance to charm the organization into thinking, "well, he could be the guy!" and locking him up to a boat anchor of a long-term deal.

Chip gambled and lost. Right now, I'd put this gamble pretty far down on the list of things that's wrong with this team.

It's what he do.

Well, atrocious was the word. Good catch

I'd say he was atrocious today.

 

[Tool]

Foles: 11 for 30 - 141 yards. 1 TD, 4 INT.

Bradford 32 for 45 - 333 yards. 2 TD, 2 INT.

Ya, Foles is better.

Not sure one games statistics of two players in totally different offenses against different opponents can define who's better, but ok.

 

[JuniorNB]

Foles: 11 for 30 - 141 yards. 1 TD, 4 INT.

Bradford 32 for 45 - 333 yards. 2 TD, 2 INT.

Ya, Foles is better.

ShahBucks shockingly missing today.

 

[GoBirds]

Foles: 11 for 30 - 141 yards. 1 TD, 4 INT.

Bradford 32 for 45 - 333 yards. 2 TD, 2 INT.

Ya, Foles is better.

Not sure one games statistics of two players in totally different offenses against different opponents can define who's better, but ok.

He's s little biased if you haven't noticed.

 

[Deamon]

Foles: 11 for 30 - 141 yards. 1 TD, 4 INT.

Bradford 32 for 45 - 333 yards. 2 TD, 2 INT.

Ya, Foles is better.

Not sure one games statistics of two players in totally different offenses against different opponents can define who's better, but ok.

He's s little biased if you haven't noticed.

Guess you hadn't noticed the constant Foles stats vs Bradfords stats when Foles was doing better. Funny how its relevant when its Bradford sucking, and it's irrelevant and biased when its Foles sucking.

 

[GoBirds]

Foles: 11 for 30 - 141 yards. 1 TD, 4 INT.

Bradford 32 for 45 - 333 yards. 2 TD, 2 INT.

Ya, Foles is better.

Not sure one games statistics of two players in totally different offenses against different opponents can define who's better, but ok.

He's s little biased if you haven't noticed.

Guess you hadn't noticed the constant Foles stats vs Bradfords stats when Foles was doing better. Funny how its relevant when its Bradford sucking, and it's irrelevant and biased when its Foles sucking.

You are the one basing it on one days stats with your post. Not getting into your bs again, but one day stats don't decide a trade with picks involved and players at different ages and salary etc.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Foles: 11 for 30 - 141 yards. 1 TD, 4 INT.

Bradford 32 for 45 - 333 yards. 2 TD, 2 INT.

Ya, Foles is better.

Not sure one games statistics of two players in totally different offenses against different opponents can define who's better, but ok.

He's s little biased if you haven't noticed.

Guess you hadn't noticed the constant Foles stats vs Bradfords stats when Foles was doing better. Funny how its relevant when its Bradford sucking, and it's irrelevant and biased when its Foles sucking.

At this point it's hard to argue that Foles is better than anyone.

 

[Deamon]

Foles: 11 for 30 - 141 yards. 1 TD, 4 INT.

Bradford 32 for 45 - 333 yards. 2 TD, 2 INT.

Ya, Foles is better.

Not sure one games statistics of two players in totally different offenses against different opponents can define who's better, but ok.

He's s little biased if you haven't noticed.

Guess you hadn't noticed the constant Foles stats vs Bradfords stats when Foles was doing better. Funny how its relevant when its Bradford sucking, and it's irrelevant and biased when its Foles sucking.

You are the one basing it on one days stats with your post. Not getting into your bs again, but one day stats don't decide a trade with picks involved and players at different ages and salary etc.

I agree. I wasn't insinuating that. Just some all year have been posting one game stats comparing the two and it was okay then. Not sure why it's not now ok to post it when its against Foles. He looked atrocious today. Yep, atrocious.

 

[Josh the FunkDOC]

the draft value given up by the eagles makes this trade a clear loser for them imo

both of these guys seem like the kind of QBs you want to move on from, so it's the rest of the story that matters here

 

[ShaHBucks]

So Foles got hit 12x Sunday and what's the narrative?? Guy is getting hit and can't step into any throws on darn near all of his turnovers.

The schedule slows down after the buy, so I wouldn't beat my chest too hard for the "Nick Foles doesn't belong in the league" crowd. He can be ok-good NFL-wise after the bye. Vs any kind of good pass rush this is to be expected

 

[JuniorNB]

So Foles got hit 12x Sunday and what's the narrative?? Guy is getting hit and can't step into any throws on darn near all of his turnovers.

The schedule slows down after the buy, so I wouldn't beat my chest too hard for the "Nick Foles doesn't belong in the league" crowd. He can be ok-good NFL-wise after the bye. Vs any kind of good pass rush this is to be expected

Up until this week, this was the pressure Bradford had every single game. 4 interceptions (including a pick 6) is never acceptable. Now you see why Philly got rid of him. Never rises to the occasion against a very good team. See: New Orleans playoff game 2013.

Foles belongs in the league. He's about the 20th best QB right now. As I've said all along, he's around average. But nothing special.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

So Foles got hit 12x Sunday and what's the narrative?? Guy is getting hit and can't step into any throws on darn near all of his turnovers.

The schedule slows down after the buy, so I wouldn't beat my chest too hard for the "Nick Foles doesn't belong in the league" crowd. He can be ok-good NFL-wise after the bye. Vs any kind of good pass rush this is to be expected

He stepped into his throws, they were just very bad ones. Very bad. The one he didn't step into was vintage Foles with awful footwork and a ball that should have never left his hands

 

[ShaHBucks]

So Foles got hit 12x Sunday and what's the narrative?? Guy is getting hit and can't step into any throws on darn near all of his turnovers.

The schedule slows down after the buy, so I wouldn't beat my chest too hard for the "Nick Foles doesn't belong in the league" crowd. He can be ok-good NFL-wise after the bye. Vs any kind of good pass rush this is to be expected

He stepped into his throws, they were just very bad ones. Very bad. The one he didn't step into was vintage Foles with awful footwork and a ball that should have never left his hands

You've clearly picked a side. I won't argue with ya buddy(or anyone at this point).

His feet is not even on the ground

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2578073-packers-defenders-absolutely-destroys-rams-qb-nick-foles

 

[jurb26]

Foles was getting absolutely killed yesterday.

I'm surprised he made it thru the game.

 

[ShaHBucks]

"Ice up, son"

 

[Bigboy10182000]

So Foles got hit 12x Sunday and what's the narrative?? Guy is getting hit and can't step into any throws on darn near all of his turnovers.

The schedule slows down after the buy, so I wouldn't beat my chest too hard for the "Nick Foles doesn't belong in the league" crowd. He can be ok-good NFL-wise after the bye. Vs any kind of good pass rush this is to be expected

He stepped into his throws, they were just very bad ones. Very bad. The one he didn't step into was vintage Foles with awful footwork and a ball that should have never left his hands

You've clearly picked a side. I won't argue with ya buddy.

His feet is not even on the ground

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2578073-packers-defenders-absolutely-destroys-rams-qb-nick-foles

I clearly have picked aside. That is true. I picked the side of someone who actually watched his picks. That link you posted was great but yeah, he wasn't picked off on that throw so.......

The 2 in the redzone were God awful. The pick 6 was vintage Nick Foles...pressure, panic and a pick. That one probably had a shot to be picked off by 3 people.

The other he had room to slide up (which we know he doesn't do), instead he slide into the pressure, Gurley fell and it was picked off.

Smart phone>NFL Mobile App>Matchups>Find the game you're looking for and select it> Scroll and watch whatever you like.

 

[dhockster]

So Foles got hit 12x Sunday and what's the narrative?? Guy is getting hit and can't step into any throws on darn near all of his turnovers.

The schedule slows down after the buy, so I wouldn't beat my chest too hard for the "Nick Foles doesn't belong in the league" crowd. He can be ok-good NFL-wise after the bye. Vs any kind of good pass rush this is to be expected

Up until this week, this was the pressure Bradford had every single game. 4 interceptions (including a pick 6) is never acceptable. Now you see why Philly got rid of him. Never rises to the occasion against a very good team. See: New Orleans playoff game 2013.

Foles belongs in the league. He's about the 20th best QB right now. As I've said all along, he's around average. But nothing special.

I am not taking sides in this ridiculous argument you guys are having, but Foles was 23 of 33 for 195 yards, 2 TD's and 0 ints in the game you listed. He also drove the Eagles to the go ahead TD in the fourth quarter. I don't think they lost because Foles didn't rise to the occasion, I think they lost because the defense couldn't stop the Saints from driving down the field for the game winning FG.

 

[ShaHBucks]

So Foles got hit 12x Sunday and what's the narrative?? Guy is getting hit and can't step into any throws on darn near all of his turnovers.

The schedule slows down after the buy, so I wouldn't beat my chest too hard for the "Nick Foles doesn't belong in the league" crowd. He can be ok-good NFL-wise after the bye. Vs any kind of good pass rush this is to be expected

Up until this week, this was the pressure Bradford had every single game. 4 interceptions (including a pick 6) is never acceptable. Now you see why Philly got rid of him. Never rises to the occasion against a very good team. See: New Orleans playoff game 2013. Foles belongs in the league. He's about the 20th best QB right now. As I've said all along, he's around average. But nothing special.

I am not taking sides in this ridiculous argument you guys are having, but Foles was 23 of 33 for 195 yards, 2 TD's and 0 ints in the game you listed. He also drove the Eagles to the go ahead TD in the fourth quarter. I don't think they lost because Foles didn't rise to the occasion, I think they lost because the defense couldn't stop the Saints from driving down the field for the game winning FG.

I didn't bother