Sam Bradford: I'm just going to put this here.

[JohnnyLV]

11 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm not advocating for Bradford, but comparing their career QB ratings is silly. Put Fitz on the field for the WR-less Bradford Rams, instead of 3rd string holding a clipboard & running the practice squad for his first 3 seasons, and tell me with a straight face his "career QB rating" isn't lower. Particularly if you only count the first 6 (5) years of one, but the experienced veteran years of the other. Look at Fitzpatrick's QBR & other stats just through 2011 and then compare if you want to make it apples and apples. 68:65 ratio, 75 QBR, 50 fewer ypg, and an INT% some 60% higher (3.7% vs 2.3%).

That said, the ludicrous contract the Eagles gave him was on par with the tragic extension we gave Sanchez.  

Would not that argument apply equally as well to Geno vs. Fitz?

[JohnnyLV]

17 minutes ago, cant wait said:

Bradford actually has pretty good pocket presence, he doesn't get happy feet and abandon the play when his first read isn't open. The issue with Bradford is the injuries... He's got talent but he's useless if he can't get on the field. The people who think fitz is a better player have no idea what they are watching

Keep in mind that I think Fitz pretty much sucks. I think Bradford is awful, the only thing he has going for him is his former #1 pick status.

[cant wait]

8 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

So what happens next year when the Jets have a ton more cap money and sign a bunch of FA's and let Wilk walk?

They would be looking at a 5th or 6th round comp pick, not a 3rd.

The jets are in the same situation financially as Detroit was when they let suh walk, and they got a 3rd. That's what I'm basing it on

[cant wait]

10 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

Keep in mind that I think Fitz pretty much sucks. I think Bradford is awful, the only thing he has going for him is his former #1 pick status.

Bradford also hasn't played for any teams that have been nearly as good as the jets were last season. If he's healthy for a full  season in the right situation he will produce. His growth has been stunted, he hadn't played in two full seasons prior to last year and it showed. But he showed signs of progress at the end in philly, he hasn't scratched his ceiling yet as a player that's what teams are gambling on right now. I'm on board because I think he has a good of a chance at becoming a long term starter as any prospect in this draft and on a 2 year deal you can walk away if it doesn't work out

[win4ever]

The issue with Bradford, besides the injury history, is that he HAD talent.  For baseball fans, he's Mark Prior in terms of injury history and lost talent.  Bradford after 2008 was one of the best QB prospects out there, he had the size, the arm, and the ability to dissect offenses because he was accurate.  His shoulder injury has robbed him of his deep ball accuracy and arm strength, but people seem to evaluate him as if he's the same guy.  Once your fastball is gone, teams approach you differently.   To illustrate:

Mark Sanchez put up a QB rating of 88.4 and a QBR rating of 59.39 in 2014 Chip Kelly system.  Sam Bradford put up 86.4 and 41.83 last year.   If you say it's a different team thanks to Chip the GM, then Sanchez put up 80.7 QB rating and 38.85 QBR last year (in limited time).  

Sanchez with us over 4 years had roughly a 71.7 QB rating.  Two years in Philly, the rating jumps to 86.6.  That's a jump of basically 15 points.   Bradford on the other hand, jumps up 7 points, and ends up at 86.4 with them.  

Sanchez is basically a glorified backup now, but why would anyone give up anything of value for Bradford, and then pay him that kind of money?  His QBR last year was 3 points lower than the venerable Geno Smith's last full year.  This was a bad signing from the beginning, a result of a feeding frenzy in the QB market, and the Eagles didn't want to be left QB-less at the time.  They saw the folly in their way, and corrected it by trading up for a QB.  

If Bradford came out after 2008, guaranteed No. 1 pick IMO, and I loved him as a prospect.  Once he got surgery, much like Chad, he was a different football player.

[jetscrazey]

say no to Bradford.  Let the Fitz situation play out.  I don't think he will retire or hold out.

[Jet Nut]

3 hours ago, johnnysd said:

It is completely mind boggling that anyone could actually watch Bradford play and think good QB. Fitz is a JAG but he is much better than Bradford. Bradford is terrible. He is not good, and does not look good on the field and he is ultra fragile. the anti-Favre. He has a career 81 QB rating.and a very low YPA. Fitz is basically the same. There is NO upside to Bradford. None. He is a chicken in the pocket, throws a terrible long ball, is made of paper maiche and is the single most overrated and overpaid player, not just QB, in NFL history. Hard PASS

You are the one who obviously has never watched him play.  Chicken in the pocket?  You do realize he had back to back season ending knee injuries and then played in Kelly's offense that puts a QB and his body in the line of fire and handled it, never complaining.  And if I was going to compare a QB to Fitz the last thing I would cry about is the ability to throw long.  Fewest pass completions over 20 yards? Fitz, not Bradford.  

 

[Irish Jet]

Bradford would have been on IR after 3 weeks playing on last years Jets team.

[pdxgreen]

I love how ESPN automatically assumes were in for every sh*tty QB that steps on the market. ROFL. Yeah. Sadly the numbers don't work our this time guys.

[Irish Jet]

I didn't realise his contract situation. It makes him a viable option, but it would be a huge risk with his injury record. Philly's incentive to off-load him isn't really there when they've already paid $11m to the guy. 

I think we'll probably enquire, but I doubt Mac takes the risk. It would probably cost a 2nd rounder. He could be worth that for Denver though.

[32EBoozer]

24 minutes ago, Irish Jet said:

I didn't realise his contract situation. It makes him a viable option, but it would be a huge risk with his injury record. Philly's incentive to off-load him isn't really there when they've already paid $11m to the guy. 

I think we'll probably enquire, but I doubt Mac takes the risk. It would probably cost a 2nd rounder. He could be worth that for Denver though.

Report: Broncos called about Sam Bradford, but price was too high

Posted by Mike Florio on April 25, 2016, 9:31 PM EDT

AP

At one level, Eagles quarterback Sam Bradfordgoing public (through his agent) with a desire to be traded could make it harder to force a deal, since it reduces Philly’s leverage by making the whole thing a mess. At a deeper level, perhaps Bradford’s agent has decided that taking a public stand is the best way to soften things up for a trade.

Case in point: The Eagles apparently have opened negotiations by taking a hard line.

Mike Klis of 9News.com reports, citing a “prominent NFL source” (I won’t speculate on who that may be, but I can’t stop the audience from doing it) that the Broncos reached out to the Eagles about a trade for Bradford, and that the asking price was too high.

It’s important to note that the Eagles didn’t laugh and hang up the phone. They articulated a price. It was just too much.

So what’s the best way to force the price down? Back Philly into a corner by taking the fight public, perhaps.

The high road sometimes doesn’t get to the preferred destination. Eventually, the low road becomes the only option. That’s quite possibly why Condon has decided to tell the world that Bradford wants out — and it’s quite possibly why Bradford is now committed to staying away from voluntary workouts.

The question becomes whether the Eagles will stay on the high road, or whether they’ll resort to the low road, too. It may not be the smoothest way to head into the 2016 season, but it may be the best way to remind everyone in the locker room that the days of getting a one-way ticket out of town by not “buying in” are over.

[drdetroit]

10 hours ago, Tinstar said:

How is his contract too crazy . The Jets supposedly have an offer on the table to Fitzpatrick somewhere north of the 7 mil that the Jets would be responsible for next season if they traded for Bradford .

The kid is 5 years younger, has a much better arm and is way better at protecting the football than Fitzpatrick has ever been including last year his record setting year . The only issue here is the compensation . If the Jets can move Wilkerson for at least 2  2nd round picks, I make this trade in a heart beat .  

Fitzpatrick is better than Bradford.  Bradford is scheduled to make $18 million per year on a multi year deal.  That is absolutely a crazy contract for Bradford because Fitz, who is better, isn't worth half that.

[drdetroit]

6 hours ago, win4ever said:

The issue with Bradford, besides the injury history, is that he HAD talent.  For baseball fans, he's Mark Prior in terms of injury history and lost talent.  Bradford after 2008 was one of the best QB prospects out there, he had the size, the arm, and the ability to dissect offenses because he was accurate.  His shoulder injury has robbed him of his deep ball accuracy and arm strength, but people seem to evaluate him as if he's the same guy.  Once your fastball is gone, teams approach you differently.   To illustrate:

Mark Sanchez put up a QB rating of 88.4 and a QBR rating of 59.39 in 2014 Chip Kelly system.  Sam Bradford put up 86.4 and 41.83 last year.   If you say it's a different team thanks to Chip the GM, then Sanchez put up 80.7 QB rating and 38.85 QBR last year (in limited time).  

Sanchez with us over 4 years had roughly a 71.7 QB rating.  Two years in Philly, the rating jumps to 86.6.  That's a jump of basically 15 points.   Bradford on the other hand, jumps up 7 points, and ends up at 86.4 with them.  

Sanchez is basically a glorified backup now, but why would anyone give up anything of value for Bradford, and then pay him that kind of money?  His QBR last year was 3 points lower than the venerable Geno Smith's last full year.  This was a bad signing from the beginning, a result of a feeding frenzy in the QB market, and the Eagles didn't want to be left QB-less at the time.  They saw the folly in their way, and corrected it by trading up for a QB.  

If Bradford came out after 2008, guaranteed No. 1 pick IMO, and I loved him as a prospect.  Once he got surgery, much like Chad, he was a different football player.

Bradford is the ultimate might a been.  And he ain't finally becoming a superstar here.

[PatsFanTX]

Fitzpatrick is better than Bradford.

Once again, you prove you are absolutely clueless.

[drdetroit]

11 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

Once again, you prove you are absolutely clueless.

Hey let's do a side by side comparison of Fitz and Bradfords stats last season.  That will be a fun activity 

[Jetsfan80]

32 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

Once again, you prove you are absolutely clueless.

On this one he is correct.  It's rare, I know.

[Sperm Edwards]

9 hours ago, johnnysd said:

Would not that argument apply equally as well to Geno vs. Fitz?

If one cared to endeavor into that argument, sure. 

[Jetster]

36 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

Once again, you prove you are absolutely clueless.

I finally agree with you. Living in New England & having many Pats fan friends most of them hope we "don't" trade for Bradford. Their thinking is Bradford is a much better passer than Fitz & with Marshall, Decker, Enunwa, Amaro, Forte, Powell & just maybe Treadwell or Dotscen under Gailey it could be the best offense the Jets have had since the Ken Obrien hay days.

[PatsFanTX]

On this one he is correct.  It's rare, I know.

Is that a compliment or are you slamming me?

[Jetsfan80]

Just now, PatsFanTX said:

Is that a compliment or are you slamming me?

No I am saying drdetroit is correct.

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, PatsFanTX said:

Once again, you prove you are absolutely clueless.

It's really an academic question for you, since neither has officially been ruled a cheater by a federal court.

[PatsFanTX]

I finally agree with you. Living in New England & having many Pats fan friends most of them hope we "don't" trade for Bradford. Their thinking is Bradford is a much better passer than Fitz & with Marshall, Decker, Enunwa, Amaro, Forte, Powell & just maybe Treadwell or Dotscen under Gailey it could be the best offense the Jets have had since the Ken Obrien hay days.

A healthy Bradford with those WR's and RB's would be downright scary.

Trust me, there is not one Pats fan out there who would want Bradford on the Jets roster.

Please resign Fitz. Quickly!

[Big Blocker]

I think it beyond question if in fact Bradford is available in a reasonable trade from the Eagles, who despite some talk of taking a hard line will probably move Bradford, that he is the best available option at Qb for the Jets.   I think those slamming him either do not know the game or have not bothered looking at his record last season on a team with very little talent on O.

That leaves the big question mark - how risky is he going forward to have a major injury.

There are I think two kinds of injury risks.  One is where a player has a chronic problem say to one or more joints, or repeated concussions.  The other is more nebulous, based on a general perception that the player has some kind of general fragility.  Milliner is an example I think of this kind of player.

Turning to Bradford, we know he has suffered an acl injury on his left leg, twice.  One other NFL injury was a high ankle sprain, which is an annoying injury to be sure but did not seem related to his acl problems.  My understanding about the acl episodes is that the second one was not a tear.  So to be clear he has had the acl reconstructive surgery only once.

Last year I think it fair to say Bradford did not indicate any lingering problems from his left acl.  He did miss two games after a concussion and shoulder injury, but those are obviously unrelated to the acl issue.

Is Bradford at significant risk of further damage to the acl?  Hard to say, I think. 

Or is Bradford generally fragile?  I can see someone arguing he is.  But it's a relative assessment.  Remember by comparison Fitzpatrick broke his leg in 14 and went out of the Raiders game with injuries.  It's unfortunately part of the game.

Bottom line I can see the concerns about Bradford an injuries, but do not think he has a lingering problem with the left acl, and on balance is not at significantly greater risk of injury than your average player.  Somewhat more, but not materially I think.

[CrazyCarl40]

13 minutes ago, PatsFanTX said:

A healthy Bradford with those WR's and RB's would be downright scary.

Trust me, there is not one Pats fan out there who would want Bradford on the Jets roster.

Please resign Fitz. Quickly!

Well hello oxymoron!

[Sperm Edwards]

Here's the problem with the Eagles trading him. They've already coughed up $11M in signing bonus to Bradford. That's gone. But trading him has another effect: it costs them even MORE cash because Daniels becomes the starter now. Well, if Daniels is the starter, his 2016 compensation grows from $7M to $15M. 

In other words, Bradford's additional guarantees of $7M (2016) and $4M (2017) is offset by $8M additional they would then have to pay to Daniels. They only save about $3M by trading Bradford.

So they're not going to just unload him to be rid of him. If they're going to eat that $19M ($11M SB + $8M more to Daniels) they're going to want a high pick in return, which is why Denver balked at what they want. They're probably asking a 1st rounder, which is roughly the trade value placed on him a year earlier (and what Cleveland allegedly offered when they had 2 first round picks, IIRC). They're not going to get it.

[section314]

2 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Here's the problem with the Eagles trading him. They've already coughed up $11M in signing bonus to Bradford. That's gone. But trading him has another effect: it costs them even MORE cash because Daniels becomes the starter now. Well, if Daniels is the starter, his 2016 compensation grows from $7M to $15M. 

In other words, Bradford's additional guarantees of $7M (2016) and $4M (2017) is offset by $8M additional they would then have to pay to Daniels. They only save about $3M by trading Bradford.

So they're not going to just unload him to be rid of him. If they're going to eat that $19M ($11M SB + $8M more to Daniels) they're going to want a high pick in return, which is why Denver balked at what they want. They're probably asking a 1st rounder, which is roughly the trade value placed on him a year earlier (and what Cleveland allegedly offered when they had 2 first round picks, IIRC). They're not going to get it.

Wow! This guy Roseman sounds like an idiot. Eagle fans must be really psyched that they traded away so many picks to let this clown pick a QB.

[Sperm Edwards]

4 minutes ago, section314 said:

Wow! This guy Roseman sounds like an idiot. Eagle fans must be really psyched that they traded away so many picks to let this clown pick a QB.

It's $7.5M not $8M for this year. But if he gets the job and keeps it for 3 years plus the team winning 10 games/year for each of the next 3 years, he could get up to another $7.5M on top of that ($15M total added onto his current 3 year $21M base deal). But it's not all-or-none. He can earn half of it, most of it, or all of it. Here's an article outlining all of the additional incentives for Daniel:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/03/09/chase-daniel-deal-can-be-worth-up-to-36-million/

Daniel can earn up to $7.5 million in incentives based on 70 percent playing time and eight wins, nine wins, and a playoff berth with at least 10 wins. He gets the full $7.5 million if the Eagles win at least 10 games each of the next three years, and if they make the playoffs each of the next three years.

Another $3.75 million is available based on passing yards, with the magic number being 3,500. If he does it each of the next three years, he’ll make the full amount. The last $3.75 million comes from throwing at least 19 touchdown passes. Again, if Daniel does it each of the next three years, he gets the full amount.

If Daniel wins the starting job this year, and if he holds it through 2016, he has a good chance of earning the $7.5 million from passing yardage and touchdown passes. Significant team success will be required before the other $7.5 million is earned.

[Irish Jet]

If they trade Bradford then Wentz will start for sure. He'd probably start regardless but it's not even going to be a debate if there's also a significant financial incentive to do so.

Daniel will be a career backup and if he does start, I give it 4 weeks before they've made the change.

[Big Blocker]

30 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Here's the problem with the Eagles trading him. They've already coughed up $11M in signing bonus to Bradford. That's gone. But trading him has another effect: it costs them even MORE cash because Daniels becomes the starter now. Well, if Daniels is the starter, his 2016 compensation grows from $7M to $15M. 

In other words, Bradford's additional guarantees of $7M (2016) and $4M (2017) is offset by $8M additional they would then have to pay to Daniels. They only save about $3M by trading Bradford.

So they're not going to just unload him to be rid of him. If they're going to eat that $19M ($11M SB + $8M more to Daniels) they're going to want a high pick in return, which is why Denver balked at what they want. They're probably asking a 1st rounder, which is roughly the trade value placed on him a year earlier (and what Cleveland allegedly offered when they had 2 first round picks, IIRC). They're not going to get it.

to be clear while I have been saying nice things about Bradford, and do think he would be a very good fit for the Jets, and am far from confident the Jets will otherwise reach a deal with Fitzpatrick, who I think is a significantly weaker Qb than Bradford...

It will end up being something that would have to make sense for the Eagles as well as the Jets, assuming it's not Denver, which at this point I think is the more likely destination for Bradford.

And whether it makes sense to Philly is a complicated analysis. 

But it's not just the numbers in any event.  I have sensed some view among Eagles fans from some of their message boards that Bradford was not treated fairly by the FO, and that the players were behind Sam going into the off season.  If the Eagles try and force Bradford to stay with the team, that could be a real problem in the locker room. 

The $11 mil they are already on the hook for is a sunk cost.  Having maneuvered themselves into this situation, their FO has to figure out what is the best course going forward. Forget about that $11 mil that's already gone.

I  am also not sure what to make of the argument that they would not want to pay Daniels instead of Bradford.  If the Eagles feel they have to move Bradford, or even only should on balance move him, then why is it a problem to pay their backup?  They negotiated that deal precisely on the scenario that Bradford would not play.

Imo if they decide they are going to have too much of a problem forcing Bradford to stay, Daniels's contract will not overcome that.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, Big Blocker said:

to be clear while I have been saying nice things about Bradford, and do think he would be a very good fit for the Jets, and am far from confident the Jets will otherwise reach a deal with Fitzpatrick, who I think is a significantly weaker Qb than Bradford...

It will end up being something that would have to make sense for the Eagles as well as the Jets, assuming it's not Denver, which at this point I think is the more likely destination for Bradford.

And whether it makes sense to Philly is a complicated analysis. 

But it's not just the numbers in any event.  I have sensed some view among Eagles fans from some of their message boards that Bradford was not treated fairly by the FO, and that the players were behind Sam going into the off season.  If the Eagles try and force Bradford to stay with the team, that could be a real problem in the locker room. 

The $11 mil they are already on the hook for is a sunk cost.  Having maneuvered themselves into this situation, their FO has to figure out what is the best course going forward forget about that #11 mil that's already gone.

I  am also not sure what to make of the argument that they would not want to pay Daniels instead of Bradford.  If the Eagles feel they have to move Bradford, or even only should on balance move him, then why is it a problem to pay their backup?  They negotiated that deal precisely on the scenario that Bradford would not play.

Imo if they decide they are going to have too much of a problem forcing Bradford to stay, Daniels's contract will not overcome that.

Easy for you to say forget about the $11M sunk cost. It's not like it was a signing bonus from 5 years ago. It just happened. They're going to want something for their money. Plus, trading him will automatically trigger another $8M minimum by vaulting Daniel to the team's starting spot. So the $11M sunk cost in their "not-QB-of-the-future" grows to a minimum of $19M if he's traded.

They're going to want a #1 pick for their money or they're happy to just keep him. So it would seem, anyway.

[Big Blocker]

3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Easy for you to say forget about the $11M sunk cost. It's not like it was a signing bonus from 5 years ago. It just happened. They're going to want something for their money. Plus, trading him will automatically trigger another $8M minimum by vaulting Daniel to the team's starting spot. So the $11M sunk cost in their "not-QB-of-the-future" grows to a minimum of $19M if he's traded.

They're going to want a #1 pick for their money or they're happy to just keep him. So it would seem, anyway.

It's easy to say if you ignore as you do the effect this would have on the team if they force Bradford to stay.

I am not ignoring that, and the money is a sunk cost.  They can want as much as they think they should get, but they will not get it merely to have some other team relieve them of their folly in painting themselves into the corner they are in now.

In any event I WOULD offer real value for Bradford, although I don't think it would require a #1 pick.

We shall see what happens.

[Big Blocker]

1 minute ago, Big Blocker said:

double post

 

[Savage69]

2 hours ago, Jetster said:

I finally agree with you. Living in New England & having many Pats fan friends most of them hope we "don't" trade for Bradford. Their thinking is Bradford is a much better passer than Fitz & with Marshall, Decker, Enunwa, Amaro, Forte, Powell & just maybe Treadwell or Dotscen under Gailey it could be the best offense the Jets have had since the Ken Obrien hay days.

Kenny had 2 good years and neither one was as good as Vinny in 1998..

[Irish Jet]

1 hour ago, Big Blocker said:

I think it beyond question if in fact Bradford is available in a reasonable trade from the Eagles, who despite some talk of taking a hard line will probably move Bradford, that he is the best available option at Qb for the Jets.   I think those slamming him either do not know the game or have not bothered looking at his record last season on a team with very little talent on O.

That leaves the big question mark - how risky is he going forward to have a major injury.

There are I think two kinds of injury risks.  One is where a player has a chronic problem say to one or more joints, or repeated concussions.  The other is more nebulous, based on a general perception that the player has some kind of general fragility.  Milliner is an example I think of this kind of player.

Turning to Bradford, we know he has suffered an acl injury on his left leg, twice.  One other NFL injury was a high ankle sprain, which is an annoying injury to be sure but did not seem related to his acl problems.  My understanding about the acl episodes is that the second one was not a tear.  So to be clear he has had the acl reconstructive surgery only once.

Last year I think it fair to say Bradford did not indicate any lingering problems from his left acl.  He did miss two games after a concussion and shoulder injury, but those are obviously unrelated to the acl issue.

Is Bradford at significant risk of further damage to the acl?  Hard to say, I think. 

Or is Bradford generally fragile?  I can see someone arguing he is.  But it's a relative assessment.  Remember by comparison Fitzpatrick broke his leg in 14 and went out of the Raiders game with injuries.  It's unfortunately part of the game.

Bottom line I can see the concerns about Bradford an injuries, but do not think he has a lingering problem with the left acl, and on balance is not at significantly greater risk of injury than your average player.  Somewhat more, but not materially I think.

He also injured his throwing shoulder twice in his junior year at Oklahoma, eventually having season ending surgery. His susceptibility to injuries due to his slight frame and the effects of those injuries to his shoulder were basically the only big concerns with him coming out of college and they've proven to be his problem.

[Sperm Edwards]

17 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

It's easy to say if you ignore as you do the effect this would have on the team if they force Bradford to stay.

I am not ignoring that, and the money is a sunk cost.  They can want as much as they think they should get, but they will not get it merely to have some other team relieve them of their folly in painting themselves into the corner they are in now.

In any event I WOULD offer real value for Bradford, although I don't think it would require a #1 pick.

We shall see what happens.

What effect on the team? They're not winning a SB this year with or without him. That's why Bradford is upset in the first place. 

They clearly want a 1st rounder, since they turned down a 1st rounder last year when they were looking for enough ammunition to trade up for Mariota. I think the lowest they'd take is a 2nd rounder but think that's a long shot.

The reality is moving Bradford vaults Daniel into being a $15M starter. They don't want that unless he beats out Bradford for the job in a competition. THEN - if it's the result of competition not injury - I think they'd be willing to trade Bradford for just about anything.