I keep reading this, and every time I do, it gets worse and worse for the Eagles.Rams get Foles, 2015 4th, 2016 2ndI still have no idea what the confirmed trade is.
Eagles get Bradford, his contract, 2015 5th and could get a conditional 2016 pick back if Bradford doesn't play 50% of the snaps (It will be a 3rd if Bradford does not play at all; and a 4th if he starts less than 50 percent of plays.)
The guy who coached Nick Foles sure doesn't think the Rams are getting the better QBSo, to recap...
Rams get the better QB. Rams get the better picks. Rams save cap space. What do the Eagles get out of this again?
Sorrow.So, to recap...
Rams get the better QB. Rams get the better picks. Rams save cap space. What do the Eagles get out of this again?
Who could ever doubt his qualifications for managing NFL rosters?The guy who coached Nick Foles sure doesn't think the Rams are getting the better QBSo, to recap...
Rams get the better QB. Rams get the better picks. Rams save cap space. What do the Eagles get out of this again?
I'm in this camp.Folks who are saying Foles is a better QB than Bradford are severely overestimating how good Foles is, IMO.
Foles isn't a better QB....... he's a MUCH better QB.Folks who are saying Foles is a better QB than Bradford are severely overestimating how good Foles is, IMO.
Chip Kelly didn't like Foles a little bit. I guess he likes Bradford.Die hard Eagles fan
from outsides, can anyone give me one shred of rationale to moving Foles and ADDING to get Bradford?
Surely figured a 2nd was coming back if not a 1st round swap also
WTH
But they were able to dump Alfonso Soriano and got draft picks to boot.I'm in this camp.Folks who are saying Foles is a better QB than Bradford are severely overestimating how good Foles is, IMO.
It's like trading for a Colorado Rockies player and then wondering why they went from 43 HRS to 25 on another team.
Is he though? I don't think he's a more durable or athletic QB.Foles isn't a better QB....... he's a MUCH better QB.Folks who are saying Foles is a better QB than Bradford are severely overestimating how good Foles is, IMO.
This could be right, let's see him in a different system.I'm in this camp.Folks who are saying Foles is a better QB than Bradford are severely overestimating how good Foles is, IMO.
It's like trading for a Colorado Rockies player and then wondering why they went from 43 HRS to 25 on another team.
Bradford did look good at the beginning of 2013. He is a better fit for Chip's system than Foles but I have a hard time believing he had to give up a 2nd to get him. I expect both QB's to do well this year (assuming they stay healthy).Is he though? I don't think he's a more durable or athletic QB.Foles isn't a better QB....... he's a MUCH better QB.Folks who are saying Foles is a better QB than Bradford are severely overestimating how good Foles is, IMO.
To be fair to Bradford, it's not like his teams coaching staff has been a model of consistency. I'm sure Chip thinks he's been criminally under-utilized.
Well this doesn't bode well for my operation Mariota theory.Rich Eisen @richeisen
Believe Rams keep the 2 if this happens RT @SephDarkheart: @richeisen doesnt matter. bradford just pawn to move up the board to get Mariota
....and only shows up to play once every 5 years.I don't like the trade for the Eagles. They gave up too much. Bradford might be an upgrade from Foles, but he is also a free agent in 2016. So even if Bradford lights up the stat sheet this year. The Eagles are probably looking at having to resign him in the 20mil per season range. That is pretty high for a "system QB"
I don't know if the money's that big of a deal. It's only for one more year. Foles will be getting his next year if he's any good.The question isn't is Foles better than Bradford, it's is Bradford $10 million plus some draft picks better than Foles?
The second isn't conditional, don't think that is in question any more. It has been asked what if Bradford is traded, in which case I guessed the Rams would no longer have to part with the conditional fourth or third?Well this doesn't bode well for my operation Mariota theory.Rich Eisen @richeisen
Believe Rams keep the 2 if this happens RT @SephDarkheart: @richeisen doesnt matter. bradford just pawn to move up the board to get Mariota
Got ya. I realized that Rich's answer wasn't helpful at all seconds after I posted it. My badThe second isn't conditional, don't think that is in question any more. It has been asked what if Bradford is traded, in which case I guessed the Rams would no longer have to part with the conditional fourth or third?Well this doesn't bode well for my operation Mariota theory.Rich Eisen @richeisen
Believe Rams keep the 2 if this happens RT @SephDarkheart: @richeisen doesnt matter. bradford just pawn to move up the board to get Mariota
Would be nice, doubt it's that easy though.Bradford, 1.20 and 2016 1st for Mariota?
Is that enough to go to 2?...as IMO, that's the only place where you'd feel comfortable to get MM?Bradford, 1.20 and 2016 1st for Mariota?
If so, none of this makes sense.Why would a team want to give up a top 10 pick for gimpy Bradford and his bloated contract? I think Foles would have been better trade bait. I'm guessing chip's plan is to go into this season with Bradford as his starter.
Makes sense (in general - not sure about draft pick compensation particulars). No guarantee they would get Mariota at 1.6. Peter King noted multiple teams were interested in Bradford.Is that enough to go to 2?...as IMO, that's the only place where you'd feel comfortable to get MM?Bradford, 1.20 and 2016 1st for Mariota?
Chip likes Bradford over Foles and thinks that the league (or at least the top teams in the draft) feels the same. He makes the move and has a gentlemen's agreement with NYJ to move Bradford, 1.20 and 2016 1 for 1.6 if MM falls. If that happens...he's happy. If it doesn't (someone reaches or trades over him).....he's fine with Bradford. That's what makes the most sense because it's the simpliest.
All depends on whether the Titans want Bradford more than Mariota (I for one don't believe Mett is the answer).Is that enough to go to 2?...as IMO, that's the only place where you'd feel comfortable to get MM?Bradford, 1.20 and 2016 1st for Mariota?
Chip likes Bradford over Foles and thinks that the league (or at least the top teams in the draft) feels the same. He makes the move and has a gentlemen's agreement with NYJ to move Bradford, 1.20 and 2016 1 for 1.6 if MM falls. If that happens...he's happy. If it doesn't (someone reaches or trades over him).....he's fine with Bradford. That's what makes the most sense because it's the simpliest.
That should be enough to get you to 19, if the Browns want SamBradford, 1.20 and 2016 1st for Mariota?
and an MCL to be torn laterThe Eagles traded Nick Foles, LeSean McCoy, and Jeremy Maclin for 4 torn ACLs.
Its the Sam Hinkie (Sixers) school of roster building.The Eagles traded Nick Foles, LeSean McCoy, and Jeremy Maclin for 4 torn ACLs.
At this point the 2016 1st could 1.1.That should be enough to get you to 19, if the Browns want SamBradford, 1.20 and 2016 1st for Mariota?
bucs are taking winston.The trade up for Mariota involving Bradford makes no sense. At all. It's 6 weeks before the draft, the only team that would make sense is the Bucs. Otherwise, Chip has no idea if he'll be there or not.
Fine. The question that is obvious: Then why wouldn't the Rams just trade with whoever wanted Bradford? Because they wanted Foles over Mariota? That doesn't seem right to me.bucs are taking winston.The trade up for Mariota involving Bradford makes no sense. At all. It's 6 weeks before the draft, the only team that would make sense is the Bucs. Otherwise, Chip has no idea if he'll be there or not.
I would argue that the Rams have the talent to be a top 5 defense and all Foles will have to do is keep from turning the ball over. They could win a lot of games Seattle style.... I suspect Foles on the Rams is going to be awful.