This is where I'm at too. Minnesota is built to contend now, and the nature of Bridgewater's injury makes it sound like he's no slam dunk to be back for next year either. Can't just go full tank for potentially two seasons. Desperate teams make desperate tradesOh that's right. It is pretty much still a fleecing, but Bridgewater sounds like at the very least he will miss some of 2017 too. So if Bradford stays healthy (ha!) he'll likely be the QB for two years.
No, that is not correct.Shaun Hill is a better QB than Sam Bradford.
What is your basis for that? Basically every statistical measure of NFL performance leans in Hill's direction. He completes a higher percentage of his passes, has a better TD/INT ratio, better in raw and adjusted Y/A, QB rating for whatever it is worth is better. He's a career backup, which is what Bradford would have been if he didn't have a crippling contract, he even performed similarly with a similar supporting cast the year he replaced Bradford in STL.No, that is not correct.
It has not been 4 hours since this deal was announced, but at this point it is looking like I will have to call a doctor.
Fair question. I will get back to you with a longer answer later on as I have a bunch to do. Amazingly short answer is that you have to compare a healthy, 28 year old Bradford to a 36 year old, healthy Shaun Hill. I adore Shaun Hill as a backup QB and I think that Bradford is, at best, a third tier starter, but for the Vikings they feel that they need the marginal improvement.What is your basis for that? Basically every statistical measure of NFL performance leans in Hill's direction. He completes a higher percentage of his passes, has a better TD/INT ratio, better in raw and adjusted Y/A, QB rating for whatever it is worth is better. He's a career backup, which is what Bradford would have been if he didn't have a crippling contract, he even performed similarly with a similar supporting cast the year he replaced Bradford in STL.
Football Outsiders greatly prefers Bradford, both in DVOA and DYAR, certainly. More precisely, Bradford had 388 DYAR in 2012, 16th amongst QBs with 100+ passes in 2012, with a -0.8% DVOA, which was 16th. In 2013, he was 19th with 304 DYAR, but upped his DVOA to 5.2%, 14th. Hill's 2014 was much worse, ranking 34th of 44 among QBs with 100+ passes, with -46 DYAR (between immortals Colt McCoy and EJ Manuel), while 32nd in DVOA at -14.1%, behind the likes of Geno Smith.What is your basis for that? Basically every statistical measure of NFL performance leans in Hill's direction.
I'm no expert on Shaun Hill but he was getting pretty roasted on the NFL Network (SiriusXM radio) yesterday. Host talked to a couple scouts who basically said Hill has lost most of his arm strength. One thing he did pretty well in the past was throw the deep ball but he can't do that anymore. Even his short passes have zero zip and the Minnesota coaches are really concerned about it. Both scouts said they'd probably make playoffs with the Shaun Hill from a few years ago (who they felt was serviceable), but not this 36 year old version.Shaun Hill is a better QB than Sam Bradford.
Age is not mostly irrelevant when Hill has apparently lost his arm strength. Hill two years ago and Hill today are not the same player and any stats comparison is going to fail accordingly.Interesting that FO is being cited when Schatz and Verhai were saying that Hill and Bradford are the same player except for salary:
I'll admit, "better" was probably hyperbole, however there is not much difference between the two, and Bradford doesn't bring some new skillset like a great deep ball or mobility. The idea that he's worth a first is crazy, it's a completely lateral move, and there is no way they should be going into next year hoping he's the QB, so age is mostly irrelevant, and given his injury history I'm not sure Bradford is the more likely QB to play 16 this year.
I have been busy and haven't checked, but apparently Vegas hasn't moved the Eagles O/U on wins or playoff odds since the trade. I am a bit more pessimistic, but that is interesting in and of itself.High fives all around for Browns fans.
How has Wentz looked? I've not seen one second of Eagles preseason ball so my statement is admittedly unsubstantiated. Surely Bradford is better than a 1st year guy from a small school, right?I have been busy and haven't checked, but apparently Vegas hasn't moved the Eagles O/U on wins or playoff odds since the trade. I am a bit more pessimistic, but that is interesting in and of itself.
Bradford wasn't the future, and even if they could have won the division--not out of the question with all the questions about the other teams in the NFCE--the Eagles weren't a threat to make a run in the playoffs. Wentz learning on the job can't really be characterized as punting the season since it pushes him closer to becoming the QB they'll need him to be to contend. Starting Daniel would have been.I can't say I don't agree with the move, but I think Bradford is a pretty good QB and I thought Philly had a pretty good shot at the division before the trade. Now I feel like it's a total punt on the season.
It's 1999 brother. Get with the program.I can't say I don't agree with the move, but I think Bradford is a pretty good QB and I thought Philly had a pretty good shot at the division before the trade. Now I feel like it's a total punt on the season.
I am not believing the hype around Wentz being the starter, just as I didn't believe it when they said that he would be inactive for the whole season. With that said, the rumors coming out of the Novacare has been that he has been ahead of schedule in terms of picking everything up, and commands the huddle very well. Whatever.How has Wentz looked? I've not seen one second of Eagles preseason ball so my statement is admittedly unsubstantiated. Surely Bradford is better than a 1st year guy from a small school, right?
In truth, I am hopeful that they have Wentz as a backup for the first half of the season at least. I don't know that our line is good enough to appropriately protect Wentz.Bradford wasn't the future, and even if they could have won the division--not out of the question with all the questions about the other teams in the NFCE--the Eagles weren't a threat to make a run in the playoffs. Wentz learning on the job can't really be characterized as punting the season since it pushes him closer to becoming the QB they'll need him to be to contend. Starting Daniel would have been.
It's true that Sam Bradford is great at football -- he's something like the 25th-best QB on the planet. If that's enough to keep an otherwise stacked Vikings' team in the hunt for a playoff spot, the trade only costs them the 20th pick, give or take.Sam Bradford is great at football.
If you exclude the first fistful of weeks of the season, where Bradford had not played for two years and was shaking off rust, he comes out as Pro Football Focus's 7th-highest graded quarterback. (He finished 12th overall.) He was third in "accuracy percentage" and first in "accuracy percentage" under "pressure."
He completed 65% of his passes despite the dropsiest receiving corps in football. Substitute a league average Iggles drop rate and he completes 67% for ~3844 yards in 14 games. Extrapolate that to a full schedule and he throws for 4393 yards....
According to Football Outsiders' "Adjusted Interceptions" metric, which takes tipped balls and DB drops into consideration, Bradford was among the least fortuitous quarterbacks in the league last year with his turnovers. Even still, he has the sixth-lowest career interception rate in league history, trailing only Rodgers, Brady, Wilson, McNabb, Garcia, and "Neil O'Donnell." He pulled that stunt with the Rams.
If I'd said any of this shit about Teddy Bridgewater, people'd be licking his loins. The hot-take sports culture skewers Bradford 'cause of his big eyes or some shit, but Shaun Hill is unfit to carry that guy's awkwardly bulbous pads. This is a lateral movement at worst for Minny.
I owed you a response on this but I think most other folks have presented the stats. The thumb that is on the Sam Bradford scale is:Interesting that FO is being cited when Schatz and Verhai were saying that Hill and Bradford are the same player except for salary:
I'll admit, "better" was probably hyperbole, however there is not much difference between the two, and Bradford doesn't bring some new skillset like a great deep ball or mobility. The idea that he's worth a first is crazy, it's a completely lateral move, and there is no way they should be going into next year hoping he's the QB, so age is mostly irrelevant, and given his injury history I'm not sure Bradford is the more likely QB to play 16 this year.
Plus a huge cap hit this year (the $11mm they're picking up for Minny, plus whatever they were on the hook for in terms of signing bonus, etc.). It's more accurate to say they bought a 1st rounder than to say they turned Bradford into a 1st rounder.But look what the Eagles in the end got wentz for. Foles and a 2nd got Bradford.
They moved up dumping a cb they didn't want. Maxwell.
The Browns got a third a fourth and a future first and sent a 4th back.
So bet the Eagles spent a third a fourth and a future first and got a fourth
Now the Eagles got back a 1st and a 4th.
So it's now foles (cut) , maxwell, and a 3rd for Wentz and a forth (and of course moving lower in the first most likely next year)
That massively lowers the gamble / investment in Wentz.
The Browns are well above anything he has seen before. I would be fine with him running a series late in the game, but I hope that this whole thing is a misdirection.I don't know what you can say about camp given he got hurt in a half of football, his only actual game action. He looked good at times but a rookie who made mistakes and needs to learn.
I don't get the rush for week 1, though it is the Browns.
Flacco?When was the last time an FCS guy started at QB as a rookie? McNair is the last one I remember, but I'm guessing I forgot someone.
Good call -- Flacco was the Week 1 starter his rookie year and never looked back, so that's a better comp than McNair, who got a few starts as a rookie but didn't nail down the starting job until his third season.Flacco?
Raise your hand if you thought the Cowboys and Eagles would be starting rookies at QB on Week 1.So apparently Wentz has been named the starter for Sunday and has taken all of the first team reps.
I'm going to the game and while I didn't want this to happen, I'm intrigued.
You guys at least have a good O-line and a decent blocking RB who can keep your rookie QB alive though. But yeah, I feel like I am at a craps table right now.Raise your hand if you thought the Cowboys and Eagles would be starting rookies at QB on Week 1.
This is gonna be a wacky season.
I didn't exactly expect it, but it's hardly surprising that (a) Tony Romo is hurt, and (b) a team with a rookie coach and no real prospect of contending this season decided to start the 2nd overall pick over two journeymen.Raise your hand if you thought the Cowboys and Eagles would be starting rookies at QB on Week 1.
This is gonna be a wacky season.
You had me with you until your final sentence (actually, I am still surprised that Wentz is starting, so I guess the last two, but the final sentence jumped out). The Giants are the dictionary definition of a 6-10 team and while I would agree that right now the Skins are probably the favorite to win the division, I would be shocked if they won 10 games (I am not a Cousins believer). We'll see though.I didn't exactly expect it, but it's hardly surprising that (a) Tony Romo is hurt, and (b) a team with a rookie coach and no real prospect of contending this season decided to start the 2nd overall pick over two journeymen.
I was surprised all along that the gambling community thought so highly of Dallas -- this division always figured to be a two-horse race between Washington and New York.