2015 Eagles: What the hell is going on here?!

[86spike]

So was the Ryan Mathews deal announced by the media prematurely or did the Eagles back out on him before signatures?
 
It will be interesting to see if Mathews' reps are upset or not.

 

[jsinger121]

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet  32s33 seconds ago
The #Eagles are working to trade G Evan Mathis, source said. More craziness.

 

[RedOctober3829]

So was the Ryan Mathews deal announced by the media prematurely or did the Eagles back out on him before signatures?
 
It will be interesting to see if Mathews' reps are upset or not.

No deal has been signed by Mathews yet.

 

[MillarTime]

 
Fair enough. But the meme that "Chip Kelly made a move; therefore it must be mocked" is getting tiresome.

 
Agree. Thought the Alonso-McCoy trade was very smart as was not paying Maclin $11m per. Paying top dollar for Maxwell is certainly defensible. But, the Bradford trade is beyond puzzling and signing Murray (or any RB really) to this deal is a questionable use of cap space....particularly when they need help on defense badly.

 

[dcmissle]

I am going to reserve judgment on everything but the riverboat gamble at QB until the cake is baked after the draft.

But I do have a question: is it possible that there has been a course correction after he determined he could not, or did not want to, trade up for Mariotta?

Or is everything done so far internally consistent? I am losing track.

 

[johnmd20]

This offseason has been insane. Huge pieces moving. HUGE.

 

[Bosoxen]

I think it's a good move to get Murray for 3 reasons.  First off, he saves money at that spot with Murray vs. McCoy while also picking up a cheap option at MLB who has a good chance at becoming a star in Alonso.  Second, Murray has experience in the system Chip runs and flourished in it at Oklahoma.  Third, it hurts a division rival.
 
Everyone who is mocking what Chip Kelly is doing needs to take a step back and look at the big picture.  He traded LeSean McCoy and his $10 million salary for Kiko Alonso on a rookie deal and DeMarco Murray at $8.4 million.  How is that bad?

 
Does it, though? Dallas wasn't going to sign Murray at anything remotely resembling those numbers - which I think we can all agree was going to be offered by someone. Everything I've seen suggests that they were moving on from Murray the moment the season ended, and rightfully so.
 
Yes, Murray is no longer a Cowboy, but that was true even before he signed with the Eagles, so I don't know how much that really "hurts" them beyond having to face him twice a year.

 

[IdiotKicker]

Everyone who is mocking what Chip Kelly is doing needs to take a step back and look at the big picture.  He traded LeSean McCoy and his $10 million salary for Kiko Alonso on a rookie deal and DeMarco Murray at $8.4 million.  How is that bad?

 
Because there is no need to pay anywhere near those amount of dollars for a running back. The marginal benefit of paying that much doesn't nearly come close to the marginal cost, because it's so easy to find capable, low-cost backs. That isn't true with position like QB and WR, where it is rare that rookies are able to produce at a high level and maintain that level for a number of years. So for those positions, when you do find the elite talent, it is worth the cost of locking it up. With RBs, it doesn't make a ton of sense to me - first because of the availability of other cheaper alternatives, and second because of the wear and tear reducing effectiveness quickly as running backs age.

 

[radsoxfan]

I'm gonna guess the Eagles give Mathews the option of walking away, otherwise they will fail him on the physical.

Mathews probably doesn't want the bad press of a failed physical, so he'll probably claim he's the one who called it off. Will be interesting to see what he gets now.

 

[theapportioner]

Chip Kelly’s transactions thus far:
 
Gone:
LeSean McCoy - Will be 27 later this year. In 2014, had 1319 rushing yards at 4.2 yards/carry, and 155 receiving yards. Both down somewhat from the previous year. Has been used heavily since entering the NFL. Would have had a cap hit of $10,250,000 in 2015, now down to $3,400,000 now that he’s gone.
Nick Foles - Cheap for this year, UFA in 2016. No idea what his true talent level is. Seems like they gave up too much in the Bradford trade. Foles is happy he's out of Philly.
 
Arrived:
Kiko Alonso - 24 year old MLB. PFW defensive rookie of the year in 2013, injured in 2014 with an ACL tear. On a rookie contract.
Demarco Murray - Just turned 27. Had a breakout season in which he ran for 1,845 yards at 4.7 per carry, and caught passes for 416 yards at 7.3 per reception. Seems to be trending upwards, and on a big contract but with a likely cheaper 2015 cap hit than McCoy (although if you include McCoy’s dead cap hit, the total cap number will probably be higher than if they kept McCoy). Hurts their division rivals, the Cowboys.
Byron Maxwell - 27 years old. Big contract but probably in line for cornerbacks at his talent level. Improves an area of weakness for the team.
Sam Bradford - 27 years old. Has not lived up to the hype, oft injured, cap hits of  $12.6 million in 2015, and $17.6 million in 2016.
Walter Thurmond - CB on a 1 year deal for cheap.
 
Retained:
Mark Sanchez - Whatever.
Brandon Graham - 26 year old OLB on a 4 year contract, cap hit of 6 million in 2015.
 
???:
Ryan Mathews - May be dumped at the altar after the Murray signing, but who knows.
 
A few other small deals as well.
 
Bottom line is that they have definitely improved their defense, and IMO have also improved their running game. They’ve also burned through a lot of their cap space. As of now, it’s going to come down to Bradford vs Foles, and what you think of the Eagles’ offseason thus far should mainly depend on your opinions on both players.

 

[MillarTime]

2nd rounder also gone.

 

[Stitch01]

Given their current roster I have Sanchez as the favorite to get the most snaps at QB this year.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Murray did run for 1845 yards last year, and only just turned 27. It's not crazy IMO, especially when your passing game has question marks.

 
His 392 carries is the most since Larry Johnson in 2006 (416 carries). 
 
Leading the league in carries fucking kills a running back. Here is how a player performs the following year after leading the lead in rushing attempts since 2002:

[tablegrid Season Rushing Leaders the year after]Year Player Carries Stats Following Year Carries Stats 2002 Ricky Williams 383 1853 yards, 16 TD's, 4.8 YPC 2003 392 1372 yards, 9 TD's, 3.5 YPC 2003 Ricky Williams 392 1372 yards, 9 TD's, 3.5 YPC 2004 168 743 yards, 6 TD's, 4.4 YPC 2004 Curtis Martin 371 1697 yards, 12 TD's, 4.6 YPC 2005 220 735 yards, 5 TD's, 3.3 YPC 2005 Shaun Alexander 370 1880 yards, 27 TD's, 5.1 YPC 2006 252 896 yards, 7 TD's, 3.6 YPC 2006 Larry Johnson 416 1789 yards, 17 TD's, 4.3 YPC 2007 158 559 yards, 3 TD's, 3.5 YPC 2007 Clinton Portis 325 1262 yards, 11 TD's, 3.9 YPC 2008 342 1487 yards, 9 TD's, 4.3 YPC 2008 Michael Turner 376 1699 yards, 17 TD's, 4.5 YPC 2009 178 871 yards, 10 TD's, 4.9 YPC 2009 Chris Johnson 358 2006 yards, 14 TD's, 5.6 YPC 2010 316 1364 yards, 11 TD's, 4.3 YPC 2010 Michael Turner 334 1371 yards, 12 TD's, 4.1 YPC 2011 301 1340 yards, 11 TD's, 4.5 YPC 2011 Maurice Jones-Drew 343 1606 yards, 8 TD's, 4.7 YPC 2012 86 414 yards, 1 TD, 4.8 YPC 2012 Arian Foster 351 1424 yards, 15 TD's, 4.1 YPC 2013 121 542 yards, 1 TD, 4.5 YPC 2013 LeSean mcCoy 314 1607 yards, 9 TD's, 5.1 YPC 2014 312 1319 yards, 5 TD's, 4.2 YPC [/tablegrid]
 
Essentially, 1 of 2 things happens to RB's that lead the NFL in rushing attempts.
 
1.) Injury the following year. Since 2002, 7 of 12 years (58%) an injury has occurred and the RB has lost significant snaps.
 
2.) Significant drop off. Since 2002, 6 of the 12 years (50%) have seen RB's lose significant production (.8 YPC or greater) the following year. 4 of those players (33%) lost greater than 1.2 YPC, essentially falling off a cliff.
 
In fact, in these 12 years, only 1 example - Michael Turner in 2010 - remains an outlier. Even still, he had an injury marred season sandwiched between the two years he lead the league in rushing, and his production had dropped so much by 2012, that he was out of the league the next year.
 
(You could also rightly point at Clinton Portis, although his 325 carries pale in comparison to nearly everyone else on the list. After rushing for 342 attempts the following season, his career was basically over).
 
Those 392 carries will have an impact on Murray. If history is any indication, at best he'll be able to string together one more solid year before falling off a cliff. At worst, his statistics will plummet or he'll run out the clock with a few more injury marred seasons. The Eagles may have traded in their used car with McCoy, but the car they got in it's place has just as much tread worn off those tires.

 

[Stitch01]

One of the first Football Outsiders conclusions, 370 carries in a season basically murders careers.

 

[Corsi]

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter  28s28 seconds ago
Ryan Mathews IS signing in Philly, per source.

 

[radsoxfan]

Interesting and expensive strategy.  Sign 2 injury prone free agent RBs, and hope for the best.  

 

[Gash Prex]

Well that makes almost no sense....

 

[Eck'sSneakyCheese]

Theapportioner, you forgot about Maclin. Chip has replaced his starting QB, his #1 RB, and I'm assuming a WR is next. Kenny Stills would be a great add. Let me get Sal on the phone.

 

[Ed Hillel]

 
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter  28s28 seconds ago
Ryan Mathews IS signing in Philly, per source.
 

 
Kelly freed up all that money and now they're probably over the cap again, which is probably why Mathis is on the block.

 

[Average Reds]

 
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter  28s28 seconds ago
Ryan Mathews IS signing in Philly, per source.
 

 
Maybe Kelly collects running backs the way Ice Cube used to collect porcelain dolls?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Murray seems to have put the ball on the ground a few times last year, including a fairly significant fumble against Green Bay in the second half.  Not sure if that's just a small sample problem, or even all that unexpected given that he touched the ball 450 times.  But turnover differential was one of the Eagles sore spots last year. 

 

[LondonSox]

McCoy's new contract is very similar to Murray s but with a little more guaranteed...

Any argument that shady was a waste or poor allocation of resources (which I thought was a reasonable argument) is now toast.
Murray as more carries, a worse injury history....

Plus add Mathews as fucking well!

Then cut one good guard and trade one excellent other guard.
Both are old and would need replacing in the end but what the hell is he doing?

Plus Murray seems to have initiated this.

Now would I rather have Mccoy or Murray and alonso? The latter I guess.

But this just seems bonkers. They still need a safety and a wr and maybe two guards and just maybe a qb

I love chip. I think he's a brilliant and he will be more successful with the same personel than the average but this is mad.

It isn't even building for the long term, when they cut all the old guys and it was a potential plan. But to go after gore and add Mathews and Murray just makes little sense.

If you belive in the system like people said post shady trade (again plausible) and went young cheap and deep no one would argue. This is like a fantasy guy drafting 4 running backs to start the draft

 

[Ed Hillel]

McCoy's new contract is very similar to Murray s but with a little more guaranteed...

 
Well, keep in mind the equation isn't just Murray vs. McCoy, it's Murray and Kiko Alonso vs. McCoy. I don't like the Murray contract, but the Alonso get could be really significant.

 

[SMU_Sox]

Mathis is scheduled to make 6.5m and 7m next year. His dead money is only 2 and 1 so he seems like a surprise cut candidate too.

Edit: he is also 33.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

I love this chip kelly era. It's bananas.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

Fast tempo on and off the field, baby.

I can't really fathom how this is all going to end well. Hope to be wrong, and open to possibly missing the brilliance of Chip in here somewhere, but I'm fucking baffled by this offseason.

 

[LondonSox]

Yup crazy.

That said the rb signings are great fits and if one team should be spending on rb it might be the Eagles.
I would rather they went cheaper and invested in the line, a great line and the system will make solid rb good.

Wr is scary right now, but there are waves of talented wr coming into the league and I think some of these contracts for aging ones will be bad.

Qb, the more I look at college bradford I see the fit.
If they extend him I think he's their guy. Until then...
It makes the Sanchez move more logical, if he's not right at least they have someone average or more.

The d looks good though lacking a safety. And I think we see a thurman Boykin competition for the 2nd cb and the lower gets the slot. To me shows how they value a slot cb, as they wouldn't move Boykin off.

Not sure at all what the plan at safety is.

Maybe he is a mad genius.

 

[Kull]

Qb, the more I look at college bradford I see the fit.
If they extend him I think he's their guy. Until then...

Maybe he is a mad genius.

 
It all comes down to Bradford. If he regains (and builds upon) the form shown in his first 4 NFL seasons, this is a great move and the Eagles are contenders. But yeah, injuries:
 

2007 (Fr) - Concussion (does not miss the next game)
2008 (So) - No injuries
2009 (Jr) - Right shoulder (misses 3 weeks)
2009 (Jr) - Right shoulder (season ending surgery)
2010 (NFL1) - No injuries
2011 (NFL2) - High ankle sprain (misses 6 games)
2012 (NFL3) - No injuries
2013 (NFL4) - Tears left ACL (misses last 9 games)
2014 (NFL5) - Tears left ACL again (misses entire season)

 

[Marciano490]

Wouldn't tearing the same ACL twice leave you more susceptible to a third?

 

[Kull]

Wouldn't tearing the same ACL twice leave you more susceptible to a third?

 
Caveat that "I'm not a doctor", but the replaced ACL is literally a new (albeit relocated) tendon. So in that sense, it's not like you ripped something, and repaired it and thus may have susceptibility to re injuring the repaired body part. On the other hand, is there something unique about Bradford's body structure that puts undue stress on his ACLs? Akin (in a way) to the physiological basis that makes women about 4-6x more susceptible than men? We don't know, but it seems unlikely since Bradford played competitive sports well into his 20's before suffering the first ACL tear.
 
Also, ACL repairs take time to fully integrate, and we know that Bradford's first was 7 games into the 2013 season (10/20) while his second came in the 2nd pre-season game of the following year (8/16). Odds are he just came back too soon, before the knee was ready (that is a known failure mode in this surgery). Given sufficient rehab time on this second go-round, he should be fine.

 

[LondonSox]

Did anyone see the contract the Raiders gave nate Allen????

Holy shit. This is crazy

Nate Allen Raiders deal: 4-yr, $23M, $11.8M gtd, $4M bonus, salaries $2.9M, $4.9M, $5.85M, $4.85M, 2015 base full gtd

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2394596-nate-allen-to-raiders-latest-contract-details-comments-and-reaction

 

[Norm loves Vera]

Sanchieze and the St. Tim... together again (maybe)
 
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter 6m6 minutes ago
Well, how about this: Former Broncos and Patriots QB Tim Tebow is working out today for the Philadelphia Eagles, a source confirmed.

 

[LondonSox]

Chip is the king of trolling.

 

[theapportioner]

I don't know if I'd consider Tebow a "former Patriots quarterback".

 

[radsoxfan]

 
Caveat that "I'm not a doctor", but the replaced ACL is literally a new (albeit relocated) tendon. So in that sense, it's not like you ripped something, and repaired it and thus may have susceptibility to re injuring the repaired body part. On the other hand, is there something unique about Bradford's body structure that puts undue stress on his ACLs? Akin (in a way) to the physiological basis that makes women about 4-6x more susceptible than men? We don't know, but it seems unlikely since Bradford played competitive sports well into his 20's before suffering the first ACL tear.
 
Also, ACL repairs take time to fully integrate, and we know that Bradford's first was 7 games into the 2013 season (10/20) while his second came in the 2nd pre-season game of the following year (8/16). Odds are he just came back too soon, before the knee was ready (that is a known failure mode in this surgery). Given sufficient rehab time on this second go-round, he should be fine.

 
With all due respect, I think you've stumbled upon a particularly relevant caveat in your first sentence….
 
A full discussion is beyond the scope of this forum of course, but to just mention a couple things. An ACL reconstruction is a usually a tendon harvested from somewhere else in the body (typically patella or hamstring), which then it undergoes "ligamentization" whereby is takes on ligament-like properties. This takes in the range of 6 months, though occasionally longer.  It's not simply replacing a torn ligament with something identical and then poof, good as new.
 
Furthermore, reconstructed ACLs that fail have a unique set of challenges.  Most obviously, the tendon harvest site you previously determined was "best" in that particular patient is no longer available.  The second or third best choices may have already some pathology of their own, or be associated with their own unwanted co-morbidities when harvested. Cadaver allografts are not good options for young patients, since they generally have higher failure rates.
 
The previously reconstructed knee is also very different than a normal knee.  There are bone tunnels in the distal femur and proximal tibia the surgeon created to place the prior, now failed, initial graft.  Sometimes these tunnels are not in an ideal location, have deformed with time, or are not ideally suited for placement of the second graft.  The surgeon may not have much bone to work with for the repeat operation.  It's generally felt that revised ACL reconstructions take longer to heal, and have a slightly higher failure rate than initial reconstructions. 
 
With regards to your second paragraph, I think the Rams probably have doctors that know a little bit about what they are doing.  10 months is a perfectly reasonable amount of time to be back on the field after ACL reconstruction. The two most common reasons for failure are poor femoral/tibial tunnel placement (not perfectly re-creating native ACL anatomy) and a second trauma.  I don't recall if Bradford's second tear was as a result of another hit or awkward step, but regardless, I don't think he came back too early. 

 

[Kull]

 
With all due respect, I think you've stumbled upon a particularly relevant caveat in your first sentence….
 
A full discussion is beyond the scope of this forum of course, but to just mention a couple things. An ACL reconstruction is a usually a tendon harvested from somewhere else in the body (typically patella or hamstring), which then it undergoes "ligamentization" whereby is takes on ligament-like properties. This takes in the range of 6 months, though occasionally longer.  It's not simply replacing a torn ligament with something identical and then poof, good as new.
 
Furthermore, reconstructed ACLs that fail have a unique set of challenges.  Most obviously, the tendon harvest site you previously determined was "best" in that particular patient is no longer available.  The second or third best choices may have already some pathology of their own, or be associated with their own unwanted co-morbidities when harvested. Cadaver allografts are not good options for young patients, since they generally have higher failure rates.
 
The previously reconstructed knee is also very different than a normal knee.  There are bone tunnels in the distal femur and proximal tibia the surgeon created to place the prior, now failed, initial graft.  Sometimes these tunnels are not in an ideal location, have deformed with time, or are not ideally suited for placement of the second graft.  The surgeon may not have much bone to work with for the repeat operation.  It's generally felt that revised ACL reconstructions take longer to heal, and have a slightly higher failure rate than initial reconstructions. 
 
With regards to your second paragraph, I think the Rams probably have doctors that know a little bit about what they are doing.  10 months is a perfectly reasonable amount of time to be back on the field after ACL reconstruction. The two most common reasons for failure are poor femoral/tibial tunnel placement (not perfectly re-creating native ACL anatomy) and a second trauma.  I don't recall if Bradford's second tear was as a result of another hit or awkward step, but regardless, I don't think he came back too early. 

 
I'll defer to your greater knowledge in this field, but it's not "10 months after reconstruction" - that's actually the period between injuries. Isn't ACL surgery one of those where they wait a while before having the surgery to ensure that inflammation is reduced (among other things)? If so, it's probably more like 9 months or even less. As for whether he came back too soon, well, for me the proof is in the pudding. Absent access to his medical charts, neither one of us knows for sure.
 
Edit: I was checking the game logs and it turns out he was injured early in the 3rd pre-season game (8/23) after playing a couple quarters of the 2nd game (8/16) without incident. And the injury did come after a hit. 

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

It takes a huge pair of balls for a non-medical professional to argue surgery with a surgeon.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
I'll defer to your greater knowledge in this field, but it's not "10 months after reconstruction" - that's actually the period between injuries. Isn't ACL surgery one of those where they wait a while before having the surgery to ensure that inflammation is reduced (among other things)? If so, it's probably more like 9 months or even less. As for whether he came back too soon, well, for me the proof is in the pudding. Absent access to his medical charts, neither one of us knows for sure.
 
Edit: I was checking the game logs and it turns out he was injured early in the 3rd pre-season game (8/23) after playing a couple quarters of the 2nd game (8/16) without incident. And the injury did come after a hit. 

 
Sometimes they wait a bit, but 9 months is still reasonable too. And as you said, if his injury came after a hit, its not like his ACL just fell apart out of nowhere.  Considering the Rams probably have some team docs that aren't incompetent, and his return is within a normal expected timeframe, I'd say the burden of proof it on you to say that he came back too soon. 
 
 
KFP, I'm a radiologist, not a surgeon.  But I work with the orthopedic guys (and girls) daily and we present weekly cases together in conference so I usually can speak to how they typically approach these cases.

 

[Kull]

It takes a huge pair of balls for a non-medical professional to argue surgery with a surgeon.

 
Not really. There's no disputing the surgical process portion of his post. Very informative. The question is how much time really elapsed between the surgery and when Bradford started taking reps? Unknown, but definitely less than ten months. As to whether that was "enough" time for Bradford to heal fully and completely, who knows. It seems a little odd that he broke down so soon though. It could have been due to something else, of course.

 

[Kull]

 
Sometimes they wait a bit, but 9 months is still reasonable too. And as you said, if his injury came after a hit, its not like his ACL just fell apart out of nowhere.  Considering the Rams probably have some team docs that aren't incompetent, and his return is within a normal expected timeframe, I'd say the burden of proof it on you to say that he came back too soon. 
 
 
KFP, I'm a radiologist, not a surgeon.  But I work with the orthopedic guys (and girls) daily and we present weekly cases together in conference so I usually can speak to how they typically approach these cases.

 
Fair enough! Let's consider this from a different angle. As a young guy, highly motivated to return to playing football at the start of the next season, is it possible that Bradford could have "rushed" elements of his rehab and thereby caused some underlying damage or instability? If so, that might auger well for a better result this time, as he's now been through the process twice and is perhaps more attuned to following the recovery regimen EXACTLY as prescribed this second time around.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Chip is the king of trolling.

Love that he chose to do this on 3/16.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
Fair enough! Let's consider this from a different angle. As a young guy, highly motivated to return to playing football at the start of the next season, is it possible that Bradford could have "rushed" elements of his rehab and thereby caused some underlying damage or instability? If so, that might auger well for a better result this time, as he's now been through the process twice and is perhaps more attuned to following the recovery regimen EXACTLY as prescribed this second time around.

 
To be clear, these ACL rehabs for NFL players (particularly starting NFL quarterbacks with multimillion dollar contracts) are extremely regimented.  They didn't give Bradford sheet of paper with some exercises to do for homework and say "see ya in 6-9 months".  There are lots of specific benchmarks and physical therapy goals before moving onto the next step. And its all HIGHLY supervised.  Bradford certainly wasn't riding his exercise bike on the sideline by himself saying "hey, put me in coach".
 
I suppose it would be good if he followed the recovery regimen EXACTLY this time…. but chances are, he already did.  If he learned anything, it's probably that life is unfair and reconstructed ACLs, similar to native ACLs, can tear and it sucks. 

 

[LondonSox]

Well so much for releasing Ryans. Eagles extend him a year.
So now Eagles have Kendricks, alsono and Ryans and Kendricks is a free agent after the year so they need to sign him or move him.
I think Kendricks is a star in the making so I'm lost.
They also have two solid back up MLB too so.... Wtf

Also reports everywhere say if he passes a medical the Eagles will sign him.
If it's cheap enough they need wr options so... But in a team that values special teams in its depth, including wr, Austin is a weird fit.

Conspiracy alert. Kendricks is now a possible chip for mariota. Kendricks, 20th pick, and 19th (or better) for Bradley. Could get you mariota.

 

[EricFeczko]

 
 
It all comes down to Bradford. If he regains (and builds upon) the form shown in his first 4 NFL seasons, this is a great move and the Eagles are contenders.
 

Bradford's AYPA (unadjusted for sacks) for his first four NFL seasons: 4.2,4.2,4.9,5.1. His best year was as good as Nick Foles' last year.

Having watched almost every Sam Bradford start (I use to live in St. Louis when he got drafted) I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that Sam Bradford will be a capable NFL QB starter. The Eagles traded a better, younger, QB* that was signed for 1.7 million in cap space next season and downgraded their future draft picks for a worse, older, QB that is signed for 31.5 million in cap space over the next two seasons.


*By nearly every metric, Nick Foles has been superior to Sam Bradford over the past few years.
 

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Bradford's AYPA (unadjusted for sacks) for his first four NFL seasons: 4.2,4.2,4.9,5.1. His best year was as good as Nick Foles' last year.

Having watched almost every Sam Bradford start (I use to live in St. Louis when he got drafted) I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that Sam Bradford will be a capable NFL QB starter. The Eagles traded a better, younger, QB* that was signed for 1.7 million in cap space next season and downgraded their future draft picks for a worse, older, QB that is signed for 31.5 million in cap space over the next two seasons.

*By nearly every metric, Nick Foles has been superior to Sam Bradford over the past few years.

I don't think anybody would conclude that Bradford "will" be a capable NFL starter, as this implies an unrealistic level of certainty about outcomes. Lots of people around the league, however, have clearly concluded that he has a decent chance of being a capable NFL starter if he stays healthy and is put in the right situation. Do you think Chip Kelly is not a "reasonable person?" How about Jeff Fisher? How about Rex Ryan (reportedly)? Are these all just unreasonable people who don't have your keen eye for what makes an NFL quarterback?

 

[EricFeczko]

I don't think anybody would conclude that Bradford "will" be a capable NFL starter, as this implies an unrealistic level of certainty about outcomes. Lots of people around the league, however, have clearly concluded that he has a decent chance of being a capable NFL starter if he stays healthy and is put in the right situation. Do you think Chip Kelly is a "reasonable person?" How about Jeff Fisher? How about Rex Ryan (reportedly)? Are these all just unreasonable people who don't have your keen eye for what makes an NFL quarterback?

By focusing on the definition of reasonable person, you avoid discussing the point. Sam Bradford is extremely expensive, coming off two ACL surgeries, and has not had a single good year in the NFL. Show me some evidence since 2010 that he's capable of succeeding in the NFL and we can discuss that.
Furthermore, its one thing to draft a QB that will play well in the NFL. Determining which college QBs will acheive success and which will not is really hard to do. Drafting bradford was not unreasonable.
 
Its another thing to trade for a QB that hasn't played well in the NFL for four/five years. Of course you may get lucky and figure out how to make that QB a star. Trading for a low-cost QB in the hopes that you've struck gold is also not unreasonable.
 
It is a third thing to trade down in the draft, not replace said QB, and get three first round draft picks in return. Such a trade is also not unreasonable.
 
Its yet another thing to trade for a poor, oft-injured, QB with a cap hit of 31.5 million over the next two years by giving up future draft picks and a slightly better QB who has a 1.7 million cap hit, is two years younger and less hurt. Please explain how this trade helped the Eagles at all.

 

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

By focusing on the definition of reasonable person, you avoid discussing the point.

You're the one avoiding my point, which was that your original statement was completely ridiculous. You imply that Chip Kelly and the other coaches interested in trading for Bradford simply aren't reasonable people with your amount of football knowledge. If that's what you really think, then own it.
 

Sam Bradford is extremely expensive, coming off two ACL surgeries, and has not had a single good year in the NFL. Show me some evidence since 2010 that he's capable of succeeding in the NFL and we can discuss that.
Furthermore, its one thing to draft a QB that will play well in the NFL. Determining which college QBs will acheive success and which will not is really hard to do. Drafting bradford was not unreasonable.
 
Its another thing to trade for a QB that hasn't played well in the NFL for four/five years. Of course you may get lucky and figure out how to make that QB a star. Trading for a low-cost QB in the hopes that you've struck gold is also not unreasonable.
 
It is a third thing to trade down in the draft, not replace said QB, and get three first round draft picks in return. Such a trade is also not unreasonable.
 
Its yet another thing to trade for a poor, oft-injured, QB with a cap hit of 31.5 million over the next two years by giving up future draft picks and a slightly better QB who has a 1.7 million cap hit, is two years younger and less hurt. Please explain how this trade helped the Eagles at all.

For somebody who has watched Bradford a lot, you have a really limited perspective on what substantial parts of the NFL seems to see in him, which is a guy with elite tools whose production was definitely disappointing, who certainly seems to have some limitations, but who was also dealing with a lot of adverse circumstances in terms of surrounding talent, new OC every year, and injuries. He also made genuine strides in this 3rd and 4th years in the league before essentially missing the last year and a half. There are big parts of his story that just looking at ANY/A+ will never capture. And there is a reason at least one team was willing to trade a 1st rounder for him.

I think there's a decent chance that Bradford turns out to be a total bust in Philly, either through injury or poor performance. But there is also a decent chance that he thrives in that environment, certainly rising to the level of "capable NFL starter," and to rule out that possibility seems absurd, especially given that one of the smartest coaches in the league just made a huge bet on him. Whether or not the trade overall was a good one is an entirely different question. I didn't like it, but I don't think its nearly as horrendous as many assume because I am pretty down on Foles.

 

[LondonSox]

His cap hit also won't be that high, he'll restructure. IMO the reason they aren't in a hurry on the restructure is if they trade him there is zero cap hit to the Eagles from the current deal.
If they keep him there is no way they enter the season with him on a very expensive one year deal ending in free agency. That's a lose lose. If he's bad you just gave up value for nothing, if he's good you have to pay him market rates.

The moves yesterday freed up a very good and valuable player for trade. I hate it. But it's the case.
I'm very much not ready to believe Bradford is the Kelly QB of the future until I see an extension.

If the Eagles move Bradford, their 1st pick, Kendricks and get Mariota you'd have to say it was a better price than you might expect (Foles, a 2016 2nd and Kendricks to move from 20 to Mariota is pretty good). The fact they picked up a Kendricks replacement in the form of Alonso as part of a McCoy for Murray swap makes it look even less painful.

That said I HATE losing young talent, ageing guys like Herremans, Cole etc so be it. Kenricks Mathis etc I'm much less clear on why and it makes me uncomfortable.
As does giving Austin so much money.

Oh and btw if you don't think Kelly believes in his sport science stuff to keep people healthy, just look at the injury history of his moves. Bradford, Alonso, Thurman, Murray, Mathews, Austin etc

 

[DJnVa]

Mary Kay Cabot, a Browns beat writer, said the following:
 

 
I think the Browns are fully prepared to start McCown this year, but they will continue to look for chances to upgrade the position. I think they'll try to trade up to draft Marcus Mariota, and I also think they could make another run at Sam Bradford on draft day.
 

 
http://www.cleveland.com/browns/index.ssf/2015/03/will_the_browns_make_another_r.html

 

[Super Nomario]

I think there's a decent chance that Bradford turns out to be a total bust in Philly, either through injury or poor performance. But there is also a decent chance that he thrives in that environment, certainly rising to the level of "capable NFL starter," and to rule out that possibility seems absurd, especially given that one of the smartest coaches in the league just made a huge bet on him. Whether or not the trade overall was a good one is an entirely different question. I didn't like it, but I don't think its nearly as horrendous as many assume because I am pretty down on Foles.
 

Kelly is a smart coach; whether he is a smart GM and a good talent evaluator is still in question. The other issue is that even if Bradford rises to the level of "capable NFL starter," so did Foles in that system - and they gave up a draft pick and money to make the move.