Bradford wants out of Philly?

[Eielson]

Philly did put Bradford in a tough situation considering his goal is a shot at long-term starter. Drafting a QB at #2 overall is not protecting their future - he *is* the designated future. Once it's clear the Eagles are not a playoff team around mid-season, Bradford will be benched regardless of how he has played.

That's just absolutely false. Wentz is not NFL-ready, and nobody is thrusting him out onto the field unless there's no other choice. He's not playing this year unless Bradford isn't available, or the Eagles are out of playoff contention. If Bradford stays healthy and leads the Eagles to the playoffs, I doubt Wentz sees the field much until year 3. By year 3, yes, they'll probably have to move on, but if Bradford takes care of business he's headed to a contender with pockets about $20M bigger each year. That's what he should be focused on. Instead he's pouting.

[BoulderSooner79]

Philly did put Bradford in a tough situation considering his goal is a shot at long-term starter. Drafting a QB at #2 overall is not protecting their future - he *is* the designated future. Once it's clear the Eagles are not a playoff team around mid-season, Bradford will be benched regardless of how he has played.

That's just absolutely false. Wentz is not NFL-ready, and nobody is thrusting him out onto the field unless there's no other choice. He's not playing this year unless Bradford isn't available, or the Eagles are out of playoff contention. If Bradford stays healthy and leads the Eagles to the playoffs, I doubt Wentz sees the field much until year 3. By year 3, yes, they'll probably have to move on, but if Bradford takes care of business he's headed to a contender with pockets about $20M bigger each year. That's what he should be focused on. Instead he's pouting.

I think we are seriously agreeing here - I'm just assuming the Eagles will be bad and it will be clear 8-10 games in that they won't make the playoffs. That's the way it often happens with a team that picks a QB high in the draft and they stick him out there whether or not he is ready. By taking a QB high, their top pick can't help them right away and then make it even worse short-term by trading away potential talent at other positions that could help. The NFL is unpredictable and it could turn out the Eagles are good and Sam is a key figure and ends up the real starter and Wentz becomes trade bait. But I'd bet against it.

[badger]

Their new mid-major guy threw shade at Sammie:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...t-sam-bradford

"Yeah, I've seen him play a little bit," Wentz told Philly.com. "Obviously I know he was a top pick and everything, not too many years ago, and obviously I know he was with the Rams and everything, and now here.

"But you know, I haven't watched a ton of film on him," said Wentz. "I watched a lot of film on guys like (Tom) Brady and (Peyton) Manning and (Aaron) Rodgers, those types of things. So I don't know as much as some of the other guys."

This dork does not know what he's in for in Philly. I wish him nothing but whatever happened to David Carr in Houston

[Tear Down This Wall]

That's just absolutely false. Wentz is not NFL-ready, and nobody is thrusting him out onto the field unless there's no other choice. He's not playing this year unless Bradford isn't available, or the Eagles are out of playoff contention. If Bradford stays healthy and leads the Eagles to the playoffs, I doubt Wentz sees the field much until year 3. By year 3, yes, they'll probably have to move on, but if Bradford takes care of business he's headed to a contender with pockets about $20M bigger each year. That's what he should be focused on. Instead he's pouting.

This...146% this. That's why I think he's getting bad advice from his agent.

[SoonerorLater]

That's just absolutely false. Wentz is not NFL-ready, and nobody is thrusting him out onto the field unless there's no other choice. He's not playing this year unless Bradford isn't available, or the Eagles are out of playoff contention. If Bradford stays healthy and leads the Eagles to the playoffs, I doubt Wentz sees the field much until year 3. By year 3, yes, they'll probably have to move on, but if Bradford takes care of business he's headed to a contender with pockets about $20M bigger each year. That's what he should be focused on. Instead he's pouting.

He's nor pouting he's pissed. Big difference. The chance of Bradford having a long term career in Philly are close to zero. Philly management made it a near certainty when they drafted no help for Sam. No GM is going to pay what they did for Wentz and have him be an understudy to Bradford ad infinitum.

If there is any moving on to be done, then Bradford wants to do now, not later. Not throw 1-2 years away learning a new system, once again. The Eagles obfuscated their true intentions. If they would have told Bradford that they were going to give up 5 high round draft picks to get his replacement then he would never have signed the contract.

[BoulderSooner79]

If they would have told Bradford that they were going to give up 5 high round draft picks to get his replacement then he would never have signed the contract.

Everything points to this. Now you can certainly say that Bradford was naive and he should only have counted on what is laid out in the contract. I'm sure there is nothing in the contract that said he would have a fair opportunity to earn a long term contract. It could still happen if Wentz gets injured or is a total bust, but it seems clear that the Eagle's long term plan happens after Bradford is gone.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

He's nor pouting he's pissed. Big difference. The chance of Bradford having a long term career in Philly are close to zero. Philly management made it a near certainty when they drafted no help for Sam. No GM is going to pay what they did for Wentz and have him be an understudy to Bradford ad infinitum.

If there is any moving on to be done, then Bradford wants to do now, not later. Not throw 1-2 years away learning a new system, once again. The Eagles obfuscated their true intentions. If they would have told Bradford that they were going to give up 5 high round draft picks to get his replacement then he would never have signed the contract.

Exactamundo

[Eielson]

I think we are seriously agreeing here - I'm just assuming the Eagles will be bad and it will be clear 8-10 games in that they won't make the playoffs. That's the way it often happens with a team that picks a QB high in the draft and they stick him out there whether or not he is ready. By taking a QB high, their top pick can't help them right away and then make it even worse short-term by trading away potential talent at other positions that could help. The NFL is unpredictable and it could turn out the Eagles are good and Sam is a key figure and ends up the real starter and Wentz becomes trade bait. But I'd bet against it.

I think that the Eagles will be eliminated 8-10 games into the season as well, but that's going have a lot to say about Sam. The NFL is such a QB-driven league that elite QB's like Brady, Brees, Manning, etc. were never eliminated from contention 8-10 games into the season if they were healthy for many years. If Sam plays like a top 10 QB, the Eagles are going to win plenty of games, and Sam is going to stay in charge of that team. He signed a 2 year contract, and I'm willing to bet the Eagles have every intention of giving him the keys for his two years. After that, yeah, it's Wentz's team, but the contract is over.

[Eielson]

No GM is going to pay what they did for Wentz and have him be an understudy to Bradford ad infinitum.

Of course. I absolutely agree with that. He's not the long-term answer in Philly, but what exactly has he done to earn that right?

This has Drew Brees/Philip Rivers written all over it. SD spent an early 2nd round draft pick on Brees in 2001. Over the next three years he threw 28 TD's and 31 INTs with a record of 10-17. Following that, Brees didn't look like the answer, and the Chargers selected Philip Rivers with the #4 pick. Brees turned his career around with a 51/22 TD/INT ratio and led the Chargers to a 20-11 record. Rivers was entering his third year, and the Chargers couldn't afford to keep both, so they chose to move forward with Rivers. Is this a gloomy story for Brees? Of course not! He went on the New Orleans Saints, and before long he was able to tell just about any team in the league how many 0's he wanted on his contract.

So that's where I stand. Bradford has an amazing opportunity in front of him, and he better take advantage of it while he still has the chance.

[BoulderSooner79]

This played out as I expected. Bradford (and agent) tried to force a trade, but there was no situation available out there. He only stayed away during voluntary training to show he was serious, but did not hold out. I saw nothing unprofessional or whiny about it. I can see from Bradford's point of view that it would be better to get the right situation now instead of a year (or 2) from now given the dogs-years nature of the profession. But it wasn't there, so the best plan B is to play the role available in Philly with full effort. I'd bet real money it will indeed be 1 year and not 2. Bradford is not a Brady/Manning level QB to carry a team, so it's hard to believe the Eagles will be any good this year. That doesn't mean there won't be teams wanting Sam next year. At any given time, only about 10 teams in the NFL are happy with their starting QB situation and they won't be as critical about Sam's stats as the people here. But that doesn't mean he'll ever find the right situation and sometimes it just a matter of luck.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Right situation? He's an NFL quarterback; but, not a very good one. NFL QBs who are not very good have no leverage. That is Sam Bradford.

Situation. Sheesh. Play better. How about that for a situation?

[BoulderSooner79]

Right situation? He's an NFL quarterback; but, not a very good one. NFL QBs who are not very good have no leverage. That is Sam Bradford.

Situation. Sheesh. Play better. How about that for a situation?

You could be right - or wrong. I'm sure there are plenty of good QBs that never made it due to never having the right situation. Kurt Warner couldn't even get into the league for 5 years and then hit he jackpot with the Rams. The great Johny U. was picked up on waivers after the Steelers dumped him. Plenty of other guys succeeded after early failures with the wrong team or coach.

So what would be a great situation for Sam? Since he is accurate and has a quick release, but limited mobility, he has to have a team with a top quartile O-line and at least effective skill players around him. They wouldn't need to be stars, but effective by NFL standards. And of course, it has to be a team with all these pieces that are looking for a new starting QB. The last part is easy as 2/3 of the teams are not satisfied at QB, but the other aspects are a crap shoot. And as you say, even if this happens, he just may not be good enough but I'd love to see him get that chance. It's highly unlikely to happen in Philly.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Look, I love Sam Bradford for what he did here, but he's not a good NFL quarterback.

Tom Brady has had a different cast of WRs and RBs almost every season, and the Patriots still win because...for Brady it doesn't matter.

Troy Aikman had a "Triplets" set-up. Brady's whole career has been anti-Triplets. This isn't pre-1995 NFL football. Free agency made Triplets-like scenarios impossible.

So, now every QB in the NFL has to adapt to who is on the roster around him season to season. Guys like Brady are great at adapting to new faces. Guys like Bradford are not. It really is no more simple than that.

[BoulderSooner79]

I've already admitted you could be right, you just will never admit you could be wrong. I think Aikman is a good example and you could throw in Terry Bradshaw too. These guys were not Tom Brady, but are in the HOF due to being pretty good with great surrounding casts. Brady is the gold standard and there are not any more of him now, nor maybe ever. Bradford does not have Brady potential nor do I see him carrying a team. Could he thrive in the right system is the question for me. Russell Wilson is a somewhat unique example of that today; he's been to 2 SBs and I can't see him succeeding like that with other teams. He happened to fit very well with what Petey had put together up in Seattle.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I've already admitted you could be right, you just will never admit you could be wrong. I think Aikman is a good example and you could throw in Terry Bradshaw too. These guys were not Tom Brady, but are in the HOF due to being pretty good with great surrounding casts. Brady is the gold standard and there are not any more of him now, nor maybe ever. Bradford does not have Brady potential nor do I see him carrying a team. Could he thrive in the right system is the question for me. Russell Wilson is a somewhat unique example of that today; he's been to 2 SBs and I can't see him succeeding like that with other teams. He happened to fit very well with what Petey had put together up in Seattle.

Seattle's Super Bowl wins were like that of the '85 Chicago Bears and 2000 Baltimore Ravens: defensive monsters led the way.

Bradford just isn't that good in today's NFL. But, even if he played back in the day, there is no sign that he'd have been like an Aikman or Bradshaw, or even a Kenny Stabler. Those guys rarely left injured.

Plus, back then you had plenty of Archie Mannings and Joe Fegrusons and Brian Sipes who were decent QBs, but never got their teams to championship caliber.

I've argued this for years: these college spread offense do nothing to prepare QBs for the pros. Of course, Mike Leach disagrees, but...none of his QBs have ever amounted to sh*t in the pros because they don't know to play the position.

Bradford was the same way. All shotgun, all the time at OU. Little flicks of the ball five yards here and there, often times at or behind the line of scrimmage, sometimes going long, hand off to Demarco Murray.

NFL defenses - defensive backs - are too fast for that.

I'm happy with what Bradford did at OU; but, the fact of the matter is, he just isn't a good pro QB.

[BoulderSooner79]

As I said, you'll never admit you could be wrong.

[Pride1Mom]

Offensive line and great receivers are needed for success. Bradford has never been given any of this. I do not understand why the owners would pay 80 million and not have these key components in place.....

[Tear Down This Wall]

As I said, you'll never admit you could be wrong.

There's nothing to be wrong about - the record speaks for itself. If he'd had any type of leverage, Philly would have done something other than wait him out. His agent played chicken with Philly and lost; hell, Philly didn't even have to get in the car to win. Unfortunately, it made Sam look bad to a lot of pro football-watching people.

Sam was a great college quarterback. Glad he played at OU. Pro football is a business. The players on the defensive side of the ball are all fast. There are no breaks in the schedule like you get seven or eight times a season in college.

I can't remember the quarterback, but on the radio down here, a retired quarterback said the difference between college and pros is this:

-In college, the best programs (and, OU is one of them) really only have to play all out, four quarters of football three or four times a season.
-The rest of the games, the best programs can simply "out-athlete" their opponents.
-In the NFL, you can't "out-athlete" anyone, and especially not in the secondary.
-And, in the NFL, you've got LBs ad DEs who are as fast as RBs. Ask Vince Young's and Robert Griffin III's knees and ankles how trying to outrun NFL DEs and LBs went for them.

It's just an adjustment Sam hasn't made. It's no sin. Most QBs don't pan out at that level.

[BoulderSooner79]

I agree with everything you've written except for 1 thing - that the book is necessarily closed on Sam's potential. I still think if he landed with the right team/coach, he could shine. The odds of that happening are diminishing with time and they took a big hit when the Eagles decided to go with Wentz. He will get more chance(s), I have no doubt. But the odds are, they will be no better situations than he had with the Rams and Eagles -- and certainly it is due to his lack of results to date. It's going to take some good fortune along with Sam performing at a high level to take advantage.

I did a quick search and found a ranked list of all 57 QBs to start a superbowl (winners and losers). This was before the last SB, so Cam Newton would make #58. There were plenty of names on that list that makes me believe Sam could have taken that team to the SB too. And not all of those teams had dominant defenses to account for getting all the way to the SB. Sure, that had at least good defenses, but their offenses had to perform well to get there. But that's kind of what I'm talking about - these guys got into good situations and performed at an effective NFL level to get their teams to the playoffs and beyond. They didn't carry their teams, but they were contributors and not weak links. (There were a few glaring exceptions like Manning last year).

On a side note; the only thing that bothered me about Bradford requesting a trade is that he just talked about wanting to earn a long term contract. He never said anything about wanting to lead a championship team. But the communication content during this faux holdout was pretty slim and he may well have expressed that.

[SoonerorLater]

There's nothing to be wrong about - the record speaks for itself. If he'd had any type of leverage, Philly would have done something other than wait him out. His agent played chicken with Philly and lost; hell, Philly didn't even have to get in the car to win. Unfortunately, it made Sam look bad to a lot of pro football-watching people.

Sam was a great college quarterback. Glad he played at OU. Pro football is a business. The players on the defensive side of the ball are all fast. There are no breaks in the schedule like you get seven or eight times a season in college.

I can't remember the quarterback, but on the radio down here, a retired quarterback said the difference between college and pros is this:

-In college, the best programs (and, OU is one of them) really only have to play all out, four quarters of football three or four times a season.
-The rest of the games, the best programs can simply "out-athlete" their opponents.
-In the NFL, you can't "out-athlete" anyone, and especially not in the secondary.
-And, in the NFL, you've got LBs ad DEs who are as fast as RBs. Ask Vince Young's and Robert Griffin III's knees and ankles how trying to outrun NFL DEs and LBs went for them.

It's just an adjustment Sam hasn't made. It's no sin. Most QBs don't pan out at that level.

That's just incorrect. Sam has been a pretty decent NFL QB.....except for injury. ROY. He's played with some really bad teams. Never had anything close to a pro bowl receiver. He's really never had a legit number 1 type NFL receiver. Very poor O-lines. Played for what, 5 head coaches now and as many or more OC's. Had a receiving corps that led the NFL in dropped passes last year.

Below is a list of QB stats from last season. Bradford being one of them.

COMP ATT PCT YDS YDS/A LONG TD INT SACK RATE YDS/G
266 413 64.4 2,791 6.76 50 14 12 16 83.1 279
335 562 59.6 3,905 6.95 69 31 15 19 88.0 244
312 535 58.3 4,042 7.56 68 22 15 27 84.2 253
162 293 55.3 1,881 6.42 87 15 12 15 74.9 269
230 370 62.2 2,818 7.62 61 19 10 38 91.5 235
346 532 65.0 3,725 7.00 78 19 14 28 86.4 266
355 606 58.6 4,428 7.31 90 35 18 51 88.2 277

Does anybody see much of a difference in these stats taken in totality? Of all the QB's listed here the only one that seems to heavily criticized is Bradford.