Two year extension for Bradford

[Funk]

A low ceiling and a floor below sea level.

Every time I see that helmet in your avatar I just wish it to be true.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Very rarely do you see teams win the Superbowl without a really good D ... great QB or not. It's easier to build a really good D than find a dominant Franchise QB some of you guys are chasing. And again, having Bradford does not prevent us from looking at other options at QB ... if Goff finds a way to drop to 13 there's nothing preventing us from taking him.

I don't know about that... I mean, by the time you get to the playoffs, you've basically written off the bad QB's. So you are left with good QB's with a good D or good QB's without a good D. Not every single time, but quite often, and the outliers are always changing.

And to get the good D you have to get quite a few positions right, and keep them. It isn't one player you have to hit on, keep healthy, and re-sign but half a dozen. And the QB usually ages better and injuries don't take away from his game as much.




I believe there is a reason Ben, Brady, and Peyton have been the AFC rep in 12 of the past 13 SB's.

Here's the QB's to win a playoff game in the past 4 years. Wilson, Brady, Flacco, Peyton, Kaep, Luck, Cam, Rodgers, Brees, Palmer, Rivers, Ben, Romo, Ryan (this group won 42 of the 44 playoff games), Schaub, and Smith.

I know a stat like QBR isn't the end all, but there are 35 qualifying QB's last year. Of the bottom 22, you had zero double digit winners, in the top 13 you had all 9. You can almost rank a teams record by QB performance. There is no good franchise QB with a losing record, they may have a down year here and there, where the team around them is crap, but Brees is still 30 games over .500 and Josh McCown is still 20 under.

I think without a great QB you can slip in now and then, maybe even get deep in the post-season, but you can't be great with any consistency without that. And without winning consistently, you don't have consistency in the coaches/FO, and lose consistency with the roster...


The past decade the top 10 winningest teams are NE, Indy, GB, Pit, Bal, Denver, NO, SD, Dal, Sea.

That is...

Brady
Manning/Luck (7-17 in games not started by those two)
Favre/Rodgers
Big Ben
Flacco
Peyton (45-12 with Peyton, 49-54 without)
Brees (5 double digit win seasons in the first 39 years for NO. 5 in the past 10 with Brees)
Rivers
Romo (on place for 5th in games Romo played)
Wilson/Hasselbeck (23-41 in the years between Hasselbeck's last good year and Wilsons rookie year, on pace for 2nd best record of the decade outside of those 4 years. )


I do agree that a great D is a huge help at getting to the SB, but only because when you hit the playoffs, almost everyone has a good QB already.

 

[Rey]

The thing that people don't seem to be getting is that there is no long term commitment to Bradford here. Nobody is disagreeing that if you have a chance to land a Franchise type QB you do it. Of course you have a better shot at a Super Bowl with one of those guys behind Center ... no debate there. But that doesn't mean you stop trying to win games until you have that QB ... Bradford imo gives you a better shot of winning games right now than any other option available this year. The Eagles essentially gave him 2 mil more than the Franchise tender to retain his rights for a 2nd season in case he fulfills his potential in 2016. Bradford has the talent, he's just had bad luck with injuries and bad supporting casts on the Offensive side. If he falls flat on his face the Eagles can part ways with him for simply 2 million bux more than it would have cost to simply Franchise him. Again, there's no long term commitment with him and re-signing him does nothing to prevent us looking for another QB in the draft.

 

[WIZ]

People don't understand Bradford. He won a national championship and was the #1 pick in the draft. I heard on the Fan he could have played pro baseball or hockey too. He's also a scratch golfer. He can make every throw and is liked by his teammates. By all accounts he's extremely professional.

I think he absolutely lights it up in this O when we solidify the line. His acl's (and being in St Louis) screwed up his game but he's going to be two years removed from surgery and they apparently fixed it right this time. If he stays healthy (which I think he will) you'll see a top 7 QB or better.

 

[Rey]

People don't understand Bradford. He won a national championship and was the #1 pick in the draft. I heard on the Fan he could have played pro baseball or hockey too. He's also a scratch golfer. He can make every throw and is liked by his teammates. By all accounts he's extremely professional.

I think he absolutely lights it up in this O when we solidify the line. His acl's (and being in St Louis) screwed up his game but he's going to be two years removed from surgery and they apparently fixed it right this time. If he stays healthy (which I think he will) you'll see a top 7 QB or better.

That's another thing that people tend to forget ... early on this past season Bradford was readjusting to the speed of the game after having to sit out the previous season. That on top of a new system and adjusting to players he had never thrown to before. As the year wore on and he adjusted to all these factors he started getting the ball out much quicker and throws were much more on the money. While Pederson is bringing in a new system, Bradford will be as healthy as he's been in a long time and he has a full year with players like Mathews, Ertz and co.

 

[WIZ]

Yep. I'm in the camp that he has top 5 tools and just needs a good O. He now has one of the most QB friendly ones. I'll put all the history on the back burner and treat him like a second year player. If he tears up a knee I'm done and it's a sad story. I'm betting he does very well.

 

[Birds4life81]

Tools are nice. Jay Cutler, Matt Stafford, RG3, Colin Kaepernick (and more) all have great tools as well. Look, I don't think Bradford sucks, I just don't think he's "good enough". He'll be in the best situation he's ever been in his career this year so he'll have another chance to prove his doubters wrong, but the clock is ticking.

 

[Iggloo]

Maybe someone can help stop him from underthrowing everything.

 

[Deano]

People don't understand Bradford. He won a national championship and was the #1 pick in the draft. I heard on the Fan he could have played pro baseball or hockey too. He's also a scratch golfer. He can make every throw and is liked by his teammates. By all accounts he's extremely professional.

I think he absolutely lights it up in this O when we solidify the line. His acl's (and being in St Louis) screwed up his game but he's going to be two years removed from surgery and they apparently fixed it right this time. If he stays healthy (which I think he will) you'll see a top 7 QB or better.

Tebow was arguably a great college QB too. Doesn't always translate. After eight of doing nothing, assuming Bradford will finally put it all together seems foolish to me.

 

[northeastphillyguy]

Some good comments have been made recently. I have decided to agree with those who think the two year
deal with Bradford makes sense. A healthy Bradford gives the Eagles a fair chance for a winning season.
The next step is to get rid of Sanchez and draft a QB along with an offensive lineman.

 

[WIZ]

Tebow was arguably a great college QB too. Doesn't always translate. After eight of doing nothing, assuming Bradford will finally put it all together seems foolish to me.

So you take one guy and make a comparison? How about Gannon who toiled around the league then went to a wco and lit it up? That's a better comparison.

 

[Deano]

So you take one guy and make a comparison? How about Gannon who toiled around the league then went to a wco and lit it up? That's a better comparison.

More like a miracle. I think if your strategy is based on an underachieving veteran QB finally putting it all together, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Seriously, I just think we have a better chance with a young guy and more cash for an OL.

 

[Rey]

Watch how much Brock friggin' Osweiler ends up signing for after throwing 10 TD's and 6 Int's last season. Bradford is only 28 and due to injuries (which he is now over) has few NFL miles on him. QB's get paid in today's NFL ... period. It's not just the top few.

 

[WIZ]

More like a miracle. I think if your strategy is based on an underachieving veteran QB finally putting it all together, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

Seriously, I just think we have a better chance with a young guy and more cash for an OL.

I think you're wrong but we'll see.

 

[eaglesnut]

Seriously, I just think we have a better chance with a young guy and more cash for an OL.

A young guy like EJ Manuel was once? Or maybe you like a Josh Freeman or Kyle Boller type? Jake Locker more your speed? Brady Quinn? Patrick Ramsey? Christian Ponder, Byron Leftwich...

 

[Birds4life81]

Watch how much Brock friggin' Osweiler ends up signing for after throwing 10 TD's and 6 Int's last season. Bradford is only 28 and due to injuries (which he is now over) has few NFL miles on him. QB's get paid in today's NFL ... period. It's not just the top few.

How exactly is Sam Bradford over injuries now? He may not currently have any injuries, and is years removed from his last ACL, but I wouldn't feel all that confident that he can remain healthy. Some players are more prone to injuries, Sam's history would say he's one of them.

 

[deerpathdave]

I am not disagreeing with the Bradford signing, but I do believe it is inaccurate to focus on the $12.5M cap hit. Its a two year $35M deal with an $11M signing bonus, $7M salary in 2016 and $4M fully guaranteed for next year. So it works out to be either $22M for one year or $35M for two in practicality.

The smaller cap hit for a larger contract simply means that they are pushing more of the cap hit into 2017 which is really just poor cap management for a team that hasn't been competitive. They should be carrying cap forward (like they once did regularly) rather than spending future year's cap. And if you really think they are a year or two away, then this is cap space that they will probably wish they had in a year or two.

As far as the two year deal (as opposed to a longer one), this is not good news either. What you prefer to do when you guarantee over $20M to a player is get a couple of additional years of player commitment out of the deal (without the corresponding team commitment) as the 49ers did with Cap. The length and structure of this contract is more to Bradford's benefit than the Eagles. The Eagles did not get any sort of hometown or injury risk sort of discount out of Bradford. They paid market value or above for a player who has proven very little...and didn't even get the potential for future price breaks.

 

[WIZ]

It's a show me deal. If he lights it up he's extended or he teaches the next guy some things. It's a franchise tag deal for two years at a discount and without the hard feelings.

 

[Rey]

The 2nd year of Bradford's deal is simply a way to retain the rights ... if he works out the Birds will sign him to a longer term contract after the 2016 season ... then the cap hit for year two will end up being between 16-18. If he doesn't work out then you end up paying him 2 mil more than if you would have franchised him (22 total as opposed to 20 for the tag). Simply keeping him year two and taking a the huge cap hit is not a very likely scenario ... they either cut him or rework a long term deal.

 

[Rey]

How exactly is Sam Bradford over injuries now? He may not currently have any injuries, and is years removed from his last ACL, but I wouldn't feel all that confident that he can remain healthy. Some players are more prone to injuries, Sam's history would say he's one of them.

I meant that he's fully healthy going into the 2017 season; nothing lingering.