Sam Bradford was reportedly close to quitting football

[deerpathdave]

Foles was the backup qb? HMMMMMM? I recall him starting the first 8 games but I must be thinking of some other team.

Of course, Kelly will never disclose how his end of year evaluations went with the QBs, but by his actions, its clear that he loved Sanchez and didn't love Foles. I suspect that Sanchez graded out as having a better year than Foles in 2014, and if they were the QBs going into 2015, Kelly was seriously considering Sanchez as the starter. I admit its a bit of conjecture on my part but the contract given to Sanchez and the trade back this up.

 

[ctc]

Of course, Kelly will never disclose how his end of year evaluations went with the QBs, but by his actions, its clear that he loved Sanchez and didn't love Foles. I suspect that Sanchez graded out as having a better year than Foles in 2014, and if they were the QBs going into 2015, Kelly was seriously considering Sanchez as the starter. I admit its a bit of conjecture on my part but the contract given to Sanchez and the trade back this up.

It's clear? Do explain. Sanchez completed one pass over 20 yards, all season. Teams were simply squatting on our receivers. And it allows teams to play their safety closer to the line, affecting the run game as well. Sanchez isn't anyone's starting qb on a team with playoff aspirations.
Sanchez is simply someone who can execute a bit if Bradford goes down. He's no one's long term solution.

 

[deerpathdave]

It's clear? Do explain. Sanchez completed one pass over 20 yards, all season. Teams were simply squatting on our receivers. And it allows teams to play their safety closer to the line, affecting the run game as well. Sanchez isn't anyone's starting qb on a team with playoff aspirations.
Sanchez is simply someone who can execute a bit if Bradford goes down. He's no one's long term solution.

Nick Foles in 2014

59.8% completion, 2,163 yards, 13 TDs, 10 INTs, 81.4 Rating

Mark Sanchez in 2014

64.1% completion, 2418 yards, 14 TDs, 11 INTs, 88.4 rating.

I do agree (And I suspect that Kelly does too), that Sanchez is not a great solution as a starter. But I suspect that he put Foles in the same category, thus the reason for the trade.

 

[ctc]

Nick Foles in 2014

59.8% completion, 2,163 yards, 13 TDs, 10 INTs, 81.4 Rating

Mark Sanchez in 2014

64.1% completion, 2418 yards, 14 TDs, 11 INTs, 88.4 rating.

I do agree (And I suspect that Kelly does too), that Sanchez is not a great solution as a starter. But I suspect that he put Foles in the same category, thus the reason for the trade.

He put Foles in the trade because st.lou wanted a starter to replace bradford. Do you really think st.lou would have taken sanchez?

st. lou's other option was to trade Bradford for picks to Cleveland or Houston.

 

[deerpathdave]

It's clear? Do explain. Sanchez completed one pass over 20 yards, all season.

BTW, according to ESPN, Sanchez completed 11 of 27 passes over 20 yards on the season. Nick Foles completed 11 of 40.

 

[eaglesnut]

Foles was the backup qb? HMMMMMM? I recall him starting the first 8 games but I must be thinking of some other team.

dpd has been repeating that for the last 3 weeks. Sanchez sucked and Chip didn't let him throw much. But most backups suck and Sanchez will at least be in year 2 here.

 

[deerpathdave]

He put Foles in the trade because st.lou wanted a starter to replace bradford. Do you really think st.lou would have taken sanchez?

st. lou's other option was to trade Bradford for picks to Cleveland or Houston.

He put Foles in the trade because st.lou wanted a starter to replace bradford. Do you really think st.lou would have taken sanchez?

st. lou's other option was to trade Bradford for picks to Cleveland or Houston.

Obviously, Fisher thinks highly of Foles and wanted him in the trade. It may have been the smarter move on their part to trade Bradford for the first round pick, and sign Sanchez as a Free Agent.

 

[deerpathdave]

dpd has been repeating that for the last 3 weeks. Sanchez sucked and Chip didn't let him throw much. But most backups suck and Sanchez will at least be in year 2 here.

Simply so untrue. Foles attempted 311 passes on the season while Sanchez attempted 309.

 

[27mtrcougar]

Just seen a mock sending Bradford & M. Kendrick's along with the Eagles 2nd and next years 1st to Tenn for the 2nd pick in the draft. It kinda makes sense... it's known Tenn likes Bradford and Kendrick's would be a nice fit for them too. Imo I would hate this if I'm an Eagles fan because Kendrick's by himself is worth the 2nd pick in the draft. Curious on what you guys think about that?

 

[deerpathdave]

At the end of the day, there really is little question that Sanchez was better in 2014 than Foles. And that was his first year in the system. Sanchez is arguably the better athlete and the better thrower. He has had issues with his decision making, but in 2014, he was every bit as good (or bad) in the turnover department as Foles.

2013 was a long time ago, but because of that amazing season, there was a trade market for Foles. The possibility that he can come close to doing that again makes him valuable. Kelly was obviously a little frustrated by the 2014 regression and must have felt that the 2014 version was closer to the real thing.

All things considered, this was a great trade for both teams. Bradford was probably not looking forward to another year in STL. Kelly was a little down on Foles. Makes perfect sense for a swap and give both guys a clean slate, new situation going into 2015.

 

[Iggloo]

Well, you think Tim Tebow is a good NFL QB, Deerpathdave, so I guess I can begin to understand your rationale about Nick Foles being the backup to Mark Sanchez if the two had competed again this season.

But...I think that wasn't going to happen. Sanchez looked good initially before fizzling out as a starter. Foles looked bad initially but was improving before getting injured. Kind of a big difference. Foles was also winning.

 

[deerpathdave]

Well, you think Tim Tebow is a good NFL QB, Deerpathdave, so I guess I can begin to understand your rationale about Nick Foles being the backup to Mark Sanchez if the two had competed again this season.

But...I think that wasn't going to happen. Sanchez looked good initially before fizzling out as a starter. Foles looked bad initially but was improving before getting injured. Kind of a big difference. Foles was also winning.

Explain the fizzling thing to me? Looking at the stats, Sanchez played great his last two games.

 

[Iggloo]

Except for that crushing INT against Washington that ended the game?

Or the two picks against Dallas the game before in the game that effectively ended our season?

You say "there is little question" Sanchez was better and assume he would have been the starter. I am telling you, there are plenty of questions, and your assumption is conjecture on your part that is really unsupported by facts. Let's see if anyone actually agrees with your assessment of this situation, but trust me, there is a question.

 

[Iron Eagle]

So, trading for a twice-injured QB not yet recovered from an ACL tear, who has never been that great when healthy, is a lower risk than drafting a healthy rookie QB from Oregon who has run a similar offense to what Chip runs?

Well the draft hasn't happened yet so don't write anything in stone.

 

[Iggloo]

Well the draft hasn't happened yet so don't write anything in stone.

Yeah, at this point I am holding out hope that Chip does trade the farm for Mariota.

 

[deerpathdave]

Except for that crushing INT against Washington that ended the game?

Or the two picks against Dallas the game before in the game that effectively ended our season?

You say "there is little question" Sanchez was better and assume he would have been the starter. I am telling you, there are plenty of questions, and your assumption is conjecture on your part that is really unsupported by facts. Let's see if anyone actually agrees with your assessment of this situation, but trust me, there is a question.

Okay, I will give you that. It is a reasonable question who was better in 2014. Foles or Sanchez? But that really is my point. It is questionable. And given that it is questionable, the team is not necessarily worse off if Sanchez was starting rather than Foles.

This is hugely important going back to your original point about Kelly playing roulette with the franchise. If its really questionable whether your backup is any worse or better a player than your starter, your really not risking much of anything (other than a second rounder) in trading away the starter.

 

[Iggloo]

Except for one guy is young and coming of a 27 TD, 2 INT season, and the other guy is butt fumble.

 

[deerpathdave]

Yeah, at this point I am holding out hope that Chip does trade the farm for Mariota.

And this comes from the guy who complains that Kelly is risking the franchise by trading a 2nd rounder away. Not saying I wouldn't like to see Mariota in an Eagles uniform, but that sort of trade is the definition of high risk.

 

[old duke]

Just seen a mock sending Bradford & M. Kendrick's along with the Eagles 2nd and next years 1st to Tenn for the 2nd pick in the draft. It kinda makes sense... it's known Tenn likes Bradford and Kendrick's would be a nice fit for them too. Imo I would hate this if I'm an Eagles fan because Kendrick's by himself is worth the 2nd pick in the draft. Curious on what you guys think about that?

Where did you get this? I would jump all over that trade. A no-brainer. That's a steal.

 

[Iggloo]

It would take a lot more than that.