Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Official Sam Bradford - QB (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter voiceofunreason
- Start date
Kelly likes/respects/admires something about the Sooners offense though. 4th string QB Kinne is probably cut, but Tulsa is like OU's minor league team. I swear they have(or had) the same plays and games against them looked like 1st string versus third string. Kinne had like no pro prospects. Something a bit curious here. Minor minor minor, a footnote at most, but interesting.
Something about transitioning the Oregon O to the NFL, can't do it this way NFL LBs are too fast? Safeties are too quick? Oh OK so we do it like the Sooners did. I don't know, throwing junk ideas out there no doubt, but I'm curious.
Sorry to take this thread off track, just a whimsical thought at best.
If Landry Jones gets cut, probably will, and the Eagles sign him-some of you Oregon fans need to sit down and think about this though
Last edited by a moderator:
cr8f
Footballguy
Exactly my sentiments!! He will have a great offensive line and better weapons at RB and WR than he had on the Rams.
Faust
MVP
Sam Bradford no lock to open season as Eagles' QB:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000494629/article/sam-bradford-no-lock-to-open-season-as-eagles-qb
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000494629/article/sam-bradford-no-lock-to-open-season-as-eagles-qb
Faust
MVP
Eagles' Sam Bradford on schedule with rehab:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000494463/article/eagles-sam-bradford-on-schedule-with-rehab
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000494463/article/eagles-sam-bradford-on-schedule-with-rehab
Faust
MVP
Will Bradford be ready? For now, Sanchez is the man
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20150529_Will_Bradford_be_ready__For_now__Sanchez_is_the_man.html#R42jW1PPSyXoB5Sy.99
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20150529_Will_Bradford_be_ready__For_now__Sanchez_is_the_man.html#R42jW1PPSyXoB5Sy.99
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
CentralPA
Footballguy
Not going to lie. If you saw some tape of what he was doing yesterday his legs looked like pegs. Still a little under two months but he's going to have to really work hard to build up leg strength and with the ACL thing I don't know if that is possible.
KellysHeroes
Footballguy
get those sanchez jerseys ready
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Shark play by Philly. Hold Bradford back this year, get the conditional third next year, re-sign him to a bargain contract, profit.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
Don't put much weight on stuff by Jeff McClane...
CentralPA
Footballguy
Eh, I am no doctor (sumthing sumthing, Holiday Inn Express) but his legs just looked small to me but it could mean absolutely nothing at all.
Good call, other than John Gonzalez or Angelo Cataldi he's the worst beat reporter of them all.
I can't imagine the Eagles not making every attempt to get Bradford on the field as soon as possible. Sanchez is a very average QB who can help a great defense win games like he did early in his career. Bradford though could still turn in to an above average NFL QB and would be night and day versus sanchez likely.
I couldn't stand Sanchez late in his time with the Jets, but he was pretty good last year. There were definitely some impressive games.
I think that is his ceiling, like he is there right now. I don't think time in Chip's offense or anything will elevate it.
The Eagles can afford to bring Sam back when he's ready. If they want the long prolific career he was supposed to have, then there's no reason to rush him.
They have a good to very good D and the potential to have the best rushing attack. Sure it's ideal for Sam to roll through camp with the team and all, but establishing those two facets of the game before he returns could work out beautifully for them. Also sometimes Chip needs to go classic NFL style and ground and pound. His cute offense could use the occasional tweak.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
There isn't a huge difference between Sanchez' career numbers and Bradford's. Not as much as you would think there would be anyway. Neither of them had a great group of guys to throw to on average. Mark has thrown more ints, but has a considerably higher career YPA and slightly higher TD percentage as well.
All in all, with one dude coming off of surgery, and with the other guy having a year in the system - I think this race is a lot closer than it is being made out to be. I understand Sanchez seemed to collapse last year, but he looked pretty good at times too.
All in all, with one dude coming off of surgery, and with the other guy having a year in the system - I think this race is a lot closer than it is being made out to be. I understand Sanchez seemed to collapse last year, but he looked pretty good at times too.
ILUVBEER99
Footballguy
Bradford is still highly coveted by NFL teams. PHI gave up Foles/2nd/4th to get him. Cleveland offered the 19 pick for him before the PHI trade.
Sanchez could have signed anywhere but there was very little interest in him on the FA market.
it's pretty clear this is bradfords job when he's healthy, there isn't a real competition for the job.
Sanchez could have signed anywhere but there was very little interest in him on the FA market.
it's pretty clear this is bradfords job when he's healthy, there isn't a real competition for the job.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
They've both had way below average targets. Kerley and Schilens were top two WRs in 2012. Holmes was #1 in 2011 with 654 yards. Edwards and Holmes in 2010. Cotchery in 2010. Not really a legit #1 in the bunch. Holmes was good once, but not with NY - he had quit by then. Was that group better than the guys Bradford has been throwing to? Maybe, but if so, not by enough to make a huge difference.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Sanchez signed a 2 year 9M deal as a FA. If nobody was interested in him, that wouldn't have happened. Did he have less value than Bradford? Yep. 4.5/year isn't big starter money, but it's more than most backups make. Philly really wanted to make sure they retained him.
I agree that Bradford was brought in to be the starter. But I think he has to earn it because in Chip's mind, the other guy is capable. If Bradford doesn't look healthy and good over the next couple of months, this will be Sanchez' job I think. It's a stacked competition in favor of Bradford, but it IS a competition IMO.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Where would you put the odds on Sanchez starting starting over a healthy(meaning on the field, maybe not 100% if that's what you think will be the case) Bradford this year? These two are the last of the overpaid rookie QBs before the payscale. I find that interesting.
Maclin, Matthews, Ertz, Celek, Dustin Keller, Cotchery in his prime was solid
Stephen Hill, Braylon Edwards, probably in line with Rams under-performers
Holmes at 50 catches is still better than a bunch of Rams Wideouts
Also, younger Leon and Sproles were good receiving backs
The top line isn't bad at all and I think that's why Sanchez had his best year.
Well...opinions, I disagree and think Sanchez' were better. I do agree they left plenty to be desired except some in the top line.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
Yeah I was thinking more of his Jets days, not last year. Those receivers were at least average. But those stats are much better too obviously. But for most of his career, he's had bad receivers. So has Bradford. All I was saying there is that to me it isn't a big differentiation between them in that area that would make you re-look at the stats overall.
lod01
Footballguy
When you look at his 2012 season and the trash he had to throw to you should change your mind. He is far superior.
Chaka
Footballguy
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
I don't blame people for forgetting because it's been practically 2 years, but Bradford was really starting to turn the corner the first year he went out. Not looking right now, but off memory I believe he played the first full 4 games, and was an impressive 14/4 TD/INT ratio.
Chaka
Footballguy
He was decent in 2013, the TD:INT ratios were great but his completion % and YPA were mediocre at best (60.7% & 6.4 ypa).
If you want to look at half season numbers Sanchez killed it last year in Philly 64.1% completions, 14 TDs (11 INTs is disappointing however) and a 7.8 YPA. Aside from the INT % those numbers destroy anything Bradford has ever done.
Now, TO BE VERY CLEAR, I am not saying Sanchez >>>>>>>>>> Bradford. In Kelly's system I expect Bradford to improve on his career numbers just like Sanchez did but I think people are just being way too forgiving of Bradford's overall mediocrity (to this point in his career) and way too critical of Sanchez for the same. I am guessing it has something to do with the infamous "butt fumble" (which wasn't nearly as horrible as people try to make it seem) that unfortunately people seem to judge his entire career by that one play (and to a lesser extend I think it has to do with him being in the New York media market and I don't think him being a USC guy helps much either). But regardless of why people don't like him Sanchez has been a very effective QB in both college and the NFL. You can't deny that he has bee a winning QB. And you also can't deny that he played his best NFL football in the playoffs improving on every statistical measurable when it counted most.
AGAIN, TO BE VERY CLEAR, I AM NOT SAYING SANCHEZ>>>>>>>>BRADFORD it's just that Bradford has done nothing at any level that Sanchez hasn't done comparably or even better.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
That is a bit high, it would project to 56 TDs in a full season. He tore his ACL (first time) during the CAR game, game 7 or 8 in 2013. I think he was pacing for more like 33/13 (also without looking it up). The counter was that the high TD numbers were comprised of a historical outlier (read - unsustainable) percentage of pass vs. run TDs for the team. The counter to that counter, he was starting to get better weapons, so doing better shouldn't have come as a complete surprise, also, he deserved some credit for putting the team in position to score, even if it is true, typically we would have expected more scores to come by rushing.
There is enough variance and diversity in his body of work (he won Rookie of the Year, but on terrible Y/A average, he couldn't even muster a .500 record in 2010-2011, though he came within a game and a half, he inherited a heinous team that was 15-65 from 2007-2011 [[worst in NFL history?]], but he was part of that the last two seasons, but PFF or Football Outsiders stated the 2011 Rams were the most injured offense of the DECADE, etc., etc., etc., BLAH, BLAH, BLAH) that basically he is the fantasy football equivalent of a Rorshach blot. The evidence can always be ordered in a way that supports the original premise. He is good. He is bad. He is average.
For whatever reason, he is a player who's numbers don't speak unequivocally for themselves. More importantly, his biggest problem he is currently faced with are the consecutive torn ACLs. If that happens again, all this is moot. If he stays healthy, imo he will put up pretty good numbers in PHI. Maybe surprisingly good, in a way that will finally speak for themselves, and he will cease to be such a polarizing and divisive figure. Though of course than some would say he was merely a product of Chip Kelly, and he would be average to bad on any other team (odd, because he received 100% of the blame for not winning more games after inheriting a historically bad team).
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
I don't disagree but I still don't get what Bradford has done or Sanchez has not done that makes most people think that.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Here is the non-homer translation of that sentence:
Hold Bradford this year = waste 13 million that could carry over to next season
get the conditional third next year = by letting him go in free agency and hope he signs a monster contract. They already gave St Louis a 2nd rounder so they lose no matter what.
re-sign him to a bargain contract = No compensation and he could retire a rich man rather than sign for cheap.
profit = use another pick on a QB next year.
Bradford's looked pretty good at times. Sanchez never really has to me. Played a bit up and down last year but hard to gage in Kelly's offense. I think Sanchez's upside is what we saw last year, maybe a bit better with more time in the offense. I think the thinking is Bradford + health + Kelly's offense could be gold. Whether all comes to fruition remains to be seen.Chaka said:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Cue the hackneyed, cliched, he did it on volume with an ultra-low Y/A average refrain.
There is nothing anybody can say that is going to change minds, until Bradford stays healthy, has an unambiguously good season, improves his completion percentage, raises his Y/A average and WINS. Than it won't be necessary to talk about it, changed minds will happen spontaneously.
Though we (ie - collectively) did previously disabuse people of the notion that the Rams had better WRs than the Packers (Nelson and Cobb were both like top 5-10 last year, what a laugh).
There is nothing anybody can say that is going to change minds, until Bradford stays healthy, has an unambiguously good season, improves his completion percentage, raises his Y/A average and WINS. Than it won't be necessary to talk about it, changed minds will happen spontaneously.
Though we (ie - collectively) did previously disabuse people of the notion that the Rams had better WRs than the Packers (Nelson and Cobb were both like top 5-10 last year, what a laugh).
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
Chaka
Footballguy
Nothing cliche about facts. He set the record for most completions by a rookie by also setting the record for most pass attempts by a rookie and he had a 6.0 YPA while doing it. Those are facts, nothing hackneyed or cliched about them.
And if I mention that Sanchez led the Jets to consecutive AFC Championship games what do you think the "hackneyed, cliched" responses will be?
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Cliche doesn't mean non-factual or untrue, just common or repetitive.
You kind of made my point by repeating it (and by using a yawn smiley yourself above).
Kelly's opinion matters most with Sanchez, and imo if he didn't think Bradford was superior (maybe he doesn't break it down by things like rookie Y/A average on a historically bad team, it could be a thousand things, like what subconsciously informs and cues a world class museum-caliber authentication/forgery expert on their judgements and decisions, and similarly the trade end result is a kind of proxy for or crystalization of that knowledge), he probably doesn't make that move. You could be right. You could be wrong. But I find Kelly's tacit backing more compelling.
* BTW, I wasn't addressing you specifically, but that may be confusing as I was responding to a post addressed to you. I was addressing it to the thread at large. Needless to say, others have said that, too (a big part of the reason it is a cliche). But a cliche would be less likely to be a cliche if it was not factual or true. That is how I define it, if you define it differently, I see no point in debating semantics about it.
You kind of made my point by repeating it (and by using a yawn smiley yourself above).
Kelly's opinion matters most with Sanchez, and imo if he didn't think Bradford was superior (maybe he doesn't break it down by things like rookie Y/A average on a historically bad team, it could be a thousand things, like what subconsciously informs and cues a world class museum-caliber authentication/forgery expert on their judgements and decisions, and similarly the trade end result is a kind of proxy for or crystalization of that knowledge), he probably doesn't make that move. You could be right. You could be wrong. But I find Kelly's tacit backing more compelling.
* BTW, I wasn't addressing you specifically, but that may be confusing as I was responding to a post addressed to you. I was addressing it to the thread at large. Needless to say, others have said that, too (a big part of the reason it is a cliche). But a cliche would be less likely to be a cliche if it was not factual or true. That is how I define it, if you define it differently, I see no point in debating semantics about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I don't know where or in which direction individual molecules move, but gather that Brownian motion occurs in general.
If he does better (healthy, higher completion precentage and Y/A average, wins more) in better circumstances, he will predictably be better thought of, independently of the better circumstances in many cases. Converesely, if he doesn't, he won't. Not a controversial suggestion to the thread.
* Some people may not have changed their mind that the Rams don't have better WRs than the Packers, but that is such a fringe position that it is irrelevant.
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear
Footballguy
Re-read your sentence. You are implying that Bradford is good, and that the people who don't think he is good will only change their minds when he stops having crappy seasons.
How mediocre will Bradford have to be to make the people who think Bradford is good change their minds?
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Until/if?
If Bradford has another torn ACL and retires, he would be unable to meet the conditions set forth by which people might think differently or change their minds. I wasn't assuming anything to the contrary, that he will absolutely, positively, definitely do it. That is what the word in the reponse post *IF* was intended to convey, it is a conditional. If he does better, many people will probably think he is better. If he does worse, they will probably think he is worse. If he does the same, they will probably think about the same. Again, not a really edgy, controversial, avant garde position.
To answer your question, if he does worse than Sanchez or Foles in 2014, being close to a direct comparison (Maclin in KC and McCoy in BUF, so not exact, but they added the rookie WR from USC and vet RBs Murray/Mathews to compensate), IMO that will be a serious indictment of his future, and almost certainly change some minds. Just as if he finishes top 10 (on a per game basis, don't know if he starts week one, contingent on the ACL rehab status), that will likely change minds, too. Some.
If Bradford has another torn ACL and retires, he would be unable to meet the conditions set forth by which people might think differently or change their minds. I wasn't assuming anything to the contrary, that he will absolutely, positively, definitely do it. That is what the word in the reponse post *IF* was intended to convey, it is a conditional. If he does better, many people will probably think he is better. If he does worse, they will probably think he is worse. If he does the same, they will probably think about the same. Again, not a really edgy, controversial, avant garde position.
To answer your question, if he does worse than Sanchez or Foles in 2014, being close to a direct comparison (Maclin in KC and McCoy in BUF, so not exact, but they added the rookie WR from USC and vet RBs Murray/Mathews to compensate), IMO that will be a serious indictment of his future, and almost certainly change some minds. Just as if he finishes top 10 (on a per game basis, don't know if he starts week one, contingent on the ACL rehab status), that will likely change minds, too. Some.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
Sanchez improved on all of his career numbers in Phili but is still not better thought of (except for some of his playoff metrics which he gets little credit for too).
Similar threads
