Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › La Confora: Rams probably won't owe Eagles a 4th
- This topic has 20 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 5, 2015 at 5:09 pm #33586
znModeratorEagles unlikely to recoup pick from Rams from Sam Bradford trade
JASON LA CANFORA
The final compensation terms of the Eagles’ acquisition of Sam Bradford from the Rams are closing in, and Philadelphia’s window to recoup an additional draft pick is nearly closed. As part of the trade, culminated in March, the Eagles had the ability to garner a 2016 selection under certain conditions, which the teams did not release.
Sources said the conditions of that deal involved only Bradford’s playing time, and nothing related to his performance, and once he reaches 50 percent of the Eagles’ snaps, Philadelphia will receive no pick. If Bradford plays less than 50 percent of the team’s snaps, the Eagles would get a fourth-round pick; if he would have played no snaps the Eagles would have received a third-round pick. Bradford was still recovering from another ACL surgery at the time of the trade.
With the Eagles nearing the midpoint of their season Bradford is clearly approaching the amount of playing time necessary to close out those trade terms and coach Chip Kelly, who also controls all of Philadelphia’s personnel moves, has remained staunchly behind him and will not entertain sitting the veteran despite his considerable struggles. The Eagles already have to surrender their second-round pick in 2016 as part of the deal, which cost them quarterback Nick Foles and last year’s fourth-round pick (Philadelphia also received a fifth-round pick last year in the deal).
Sources on both sides of the trade said the component of a 2016 pick potentially going to the Eagles was done solely as a precautionary mechanism should Bradford’s knee impact his ability to play, or play regularly, in 2015 and was intended as a measure of his production. In fact, it is a concept discussed briefly between the Rams and other interested teams last winter — like the Browns — sources said, and was something they expected to include in any deal given Bradford’s health history. Talks with other teams never advanced nearly as far as the did with the Eagles however, with Kelly displaying the strongest desire to land the former first-overall pick.
With Bradford ranked among the worst quarterbacks in the NFL this season, and looking hesitant and overwhelmed at times, the Eagles could protect a future pick by going to Mark Sanchez, but barring an injury Bradford will achieve the thresholds to negate that prospect. At one point Kelly was open to a contract extension with Bradford as well — Philadelphia gave up this much in trade despite only having Bradford’s rights for one season — but sources said those talks did not advance into a deep negotiating stage and were largely philosophical with Bradford’s agent, Tom Condon, open to a short-term extension but the sides never getting deep into finances.
Given how this season has gone, that may end up being a blessing for the Eagles (and St. Louis might regret the nominal extension it reached with Foles, who has been poor as well), though the Rams still stand to reap a potential impact player from their final pick to come for Bradford while getting to keep all their picks as well.
November 5, 2015 at 6:06 pm #33590
wvParticipantI havent watched the Eagles. Why is
Bradford playing so poorly,
assuming he is ?w
vNovember 5, 2015 at 6:22 pm #33591znModeratorI havent watched the Eagles. Why is
Bradford playing so poorly,
assuming he is ?w
vHe is. IMO? Basically the same reasons as Foles. OL not holding up, out of sync for various reasons, he’s not confident in the offense and is pressing. The big difference is, Foles has the run game, and the Eagles run game is kinda up and down but mostly mediocre.
November 5, 2015 at 9:30 pm #33604
lyserParticipantHonestly Bradford has looked liked he looked most of his time with the Rams. He kinda sucks. IMO. Foles has more game, better intangibles. Rams won this trade, again. They should call about Dez Bryant or OBJ this offseason. Laff.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by
lyser.
November 5, 2015 at 9:39 pm #33606znModeratorHonestly Bradford has looked liked he looked most of his time with the Rams. He kinda sucks. IMO. Foles has more game, better intangibles. Rams won this trade, again. They should call about Dez Bryant or OBJ this offseason. Laff.
I disagree. I think Bradford looked good with the Rams, when he wasn’t playing behind extensively injured OLs. The 2015 Bradford, to me, looks like the 2011 Bradford, when injuries and other bad factors made the offense a mess.
November 5, 2015 at 9:41 pm #33607lyserParticipantHe was fair at times. IMO. Not special.
November 5, 2015 at 9:52 pm #33608znModeratorHe was fair at times. IMO. Not special.
I would say he was more than just fair. But then that leads either to a semantics debate, or quibbling over minor differences between the relative meanings of different words. One or the other.
.
November 6, 2015 at 6:30 am #33615lyserParticipantI’m Interested in your opinion. Would you rather have Bradford and his contract or Foles and his contract and the draft picks? Do you think Sam would be better than Nick under center for the Rams this year?
Given the extra picks and the smaller contract, I would definitely take Foles.
Straight up, all things being even, QB for QB I think I would still take Foles. Obviously he does not have the arm of Bradford but I like his game better. I think he is a better leader. I think he will get better too. I think Sam is what he is – just OK and fragile and not great intangibles. I like the guy, I just think he was was overpriced and not great. Plus he was a one year rental.
Foles has not played very well either though, but I like him better – he is a gamer. Sam seems scared and not really into it this year – I can’t blame him. He did have his moments. I was at the Buffalo game when he led the comeback. He was pretty good as a rook. He looked pretty good before his first ACL that year. But, he sees to have the yips early in games and throws high early, he has poor touch on screens and short stuff, and some days he is just off. He has not protected the ball well this year at all either which is surprising.
I think Foles is the overall better prospect today, but he has to get better. I think he might.
At least he does not have a cap crippling contract and does not seem to be a China doll.
The future may by our rook or maybe that kid from Michigan State, though I doubt he lasts past the top 5 and the Rams have no shot at him.
Rams ain’t gonna win a championship unless Foles gets better though, too bad because the D and teams are championship caliber.
November 6, 2015 at 7:17 am #33616znModeratorThis is going to be very dialectical because I don’t think the choices are stark ones. I think there’s a lot of gray areas here, and the differences I see are a matter of percentages, not a matter of clearcut choices.
Would you rather have Bradford and his contract or Foles and his contract and the draft picks? Do you think Sam would be better than Nick under center for the Rams this year?
Just theoretically, in terms of a pure circumstances-free comparison, I think it’s 6.5 of one and almost half a dozen of the other, but I would rather have Bradford. I think Bradford is the better pure passer and has a skill that would be very useful right now—he has a nice quick release v. Foles’s slower release. I also think that SB would be capable of attacking the longer medium range pass more effectively. I think he sees more in defenses and is quicker mentally when his primary isn’t there. I think Bradford has the much higher ceiling as a qb and had a knack for being effective in the redzone. Foles isn’t himself right now, though, IMO, and is kind of a mess since the GB game, so it’s not really a fair comparison.
I don’t care about the money. I don’t think the differences between Foles and Bradford are worth 9 M in 2015.
But then see the trade had nothing to do with their abilities as qbs. The Rams simply could not afford to see how the knee held up in 2015 with an entirely young line. Given that the trade was fair. Foles just needs to stabilize, and that can’t happen completely, IMO, until the OL stabilizes too.
I don’t believe Foles is a better leader. I think he’s a more outgoing personality, which is fine for the guys who like that. But then we don’t hear much about his leadership recently because it’s clear he’s struggling.
I never saw Bradford as a china doll. I think he had 2 freak knee injuries and that each injury had more to do with just unique circumstances. They had more to do with being off-balance with the leg at an awkward angle than they had to do with being hit. In fact he’s proving that now. He has been hit 34 times this year and sacked 13 times. So as I knew from watching him as a Ram, he takes hits. I always saw the knees as freak things. And in fact Bradford has made it through a higher percentage of HIS seasons healthy than Foles has.
BUT that’s about a theoretical choice between the 2, when the reality is, the trade was fine—the Rams didn’t want to be under the shadow of the knee, and Foles can be good in the right circumstances. (As I said, they need a stable OL). So I don’t resent the trade and I know Foles has his strengths. He can be a good qb for a play action offense and for a team with a strong defense. It’s just that right now the offense isn’t “there” yet. That’s just a matter of time.
.
November 6, 2015 at 7:38 am #33617lyserParticipantYeah, I could see how you would think all that. Maybe you rite, I dunno. In either case, I think it was a good trade for the Rams and I think both QBs kinda suck – right now, today.
pity.
November 6, 2015 at 7:45 am #33618znModeratorYeah, I could see how you would think all that. Maybe you rite, I dunno. In either case, I think it was a good trade for the Rams and I think both QBs kinda suck – right now, today.
pity.
See I don’t think either one sucks. I think they’re both in bad circumstances. I don’t know the Eagles well enough to know whether those circumstances are structural or temporary. I do think the Rams circumstances are temporary, meaning the offense will just grow and won’t always be like this.
There’s a rare handful of qbs who can transform any circumstances and be effective. Most GOOD qbs, who don’t have that ability, need at least a stable OL plus something else (strong defense, a running game, maybe both) to thrive.
That’s an old issue of mine. It started in 2007 when I kept arguing that the offense wasn’t on Bulger, but that the massively injured OL was draggin him down with it.
It’s not quite that simple because, for example, the Dallas OL is a good one, but they don’t have the qb. That’s an opposite kind of situation.
But to me, good qb + stable OL = chance at having a productive offense. And neither Bradford nor Foles have the OL right now. That’s a minimum. Other things help too, as I said (running game, and/or receiving threats, and/or strong defense).
.
November 6, 2015 at 8:09 am #33620lyserParticipantWe would win the SB with Bulger in his prime today. That Mountaineer motherfucker.
And I said kinda sucked, right now, today. Which is true for both. I think Sam is done to be honest. Would not be at all surprised to see him retire after this season if he can’t get huge money from some desperate team (which there is always is). He is a mirage, a tease. A hobbit.
Foles better get his shit together though.
I think we actually kinda agree on most of this stuff BTW. I can certainly see your perspective.
November 6, 2015 at 8:18 am #33638wvParticipantI tend to think Foles is indeed a ‘better leader’
though its just a guess on my part based
on the same incomplete, fragmented info we’ve all read.
I dont think its just an ‘outgoing guy’ vs a ‘less outgoing guy’.I think i prefer Foles, but I dunno. I kinda doubt
Bradford would have survived the hits Foles took in Green Bay.
I was surprised Foles got up after a couple of those hits.Lets hope the OLine gels and we dont have to watch
Case Keenum or Mannion behind this OLine.Without Gurley I’d bet Foles wouldnt make it
thru the season in one piece.w
vNovember 6, 2015 at 9:52 am #33652znModeratorRams can gain by Sam Bradford playing Sunday
By Nick Wagonerhttp://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/23270/rams-can-gain-by-sam-bradford-playing-sunday
EARTH CITY, Mo. — In the immediate aftermath of the trade that saw the St. Louis Rams send quarterback Sam Bradford to the Philadelphia Eagles in exchange for quarterback Nick Foles and draft compensation, there was a lot of confusion about how the draft pick part of the deal worked.
Well, now that we are more than halfway into the season, it’s never been clearer. The Rams were always going to get Philadelphia’s second-round pick in 2016 as part of the deal. The only question was which pick, if any, the Eagles would get from the Rams.
As Adam Schefter explains in this week’s pick-6 column with Chris Mortensen, we are moving very close to the point where the Rams will not need to send any draft picks to the Eagles.
The condition is that if Bradford played more than 50 percent of his team’s snaps this year, the Rams would owe Philadelphia nothing. If he played less than 50 percent, the Rams would owe a fourth-round choice and if he didn’t play at all, it would be a third-round pick.
Bradford has played every snap for the Eagles so far this season and Sunday’s game puts Philadelphia at the eight-game mark. It wouldn’t guarantee that Bradford will play more than 50 percent but it will be awfully close. One more game the following week would likely seal the deal.
Which means we’ll know soon enough the final terms of that March mega-trade.
====
Impact of Bradford trade still being feltAdam Schefter
Philadelphia’s game Sunday against the Cowboys is big for the Eagles. But in a way, it’s also big for — of all teams — the St. Louis Rams.
In the noted Eagles-Rams trade that involved QBs Sam Bradford and Nick Foles, the Eagles sent their 2016 second-round pick to St. Louis while acquiring a conditional 2016 fourth-round pick in return. The condition of the pick was simple: The Rams would hold on to their selection if Bradford played 50 percent of the Eagles’ offensive snaps in 2015.
Through seven games, Bradford has been behind center on all 477 of the Eagles’ offensive plays. If he continues that trend on Sunday, it’s very likely he’ll end up meeting the 50 percent mark, even if he were to not play the rest of the season for whatever reason.
So Bradford’s start Sunday will be designed to help the Eagles try to win the NFC East. But it will also likely benefit his former team by the time the 2016 draft rolls around. – AS
November 6, 2015 at 1:34 pm #33661
joemadParticipantit all depends on who the RAMS get for these draft picks.
I wasn’t happy when the Rams drafted Bradford, but he won me over his rookie season (ROY) and moreso in 2012. Right before he got hurt in Carolina, he was having a great season……
Only 5 starting QBs have a lower completion rate that 60% and Foles is one of them. Foles passing attempts is one of the lowest in the league, that’s why and his sack percentage is higher than Bradford’s.
I think Foles is not the long term answer….. I hope I’m wrong.
In regards to thinking if Bradford would have survived the Green Bay game, Foles certainly didn’t, I can’t remember seeing a Rams qb play that badly.
November 8, 2015 at 11:11 pm #33793znModeratorHe is. IMO? Basically the same reasons as Foles. OL not holding up, out of sync for various reasons, he’s not confident in the offense and is pressing.
I picked quite a week to say that. I just pulled on the Eagles/Dallas game, and Bradford looks good. Throwing those quick release lasers into tight spaces. So he decides to look good on a day when Foles looked bad for quite a few stretches.
November 9, 2015 at 12:26 am #33797
AgamemnonParticipantWe will draft Cook and call it even. 😉
AgamemnonNovember 16, 2015 at 3:11 pm #34222znModeratorfrom off the net
—
guinnessram
Chip: “No matter how well Sanchez plays, Sam is QB when healthy.”
As per Mort on today’s “NFL Insiders”, so it looks like our 4th rder is safe.
They said Bradford suffered a concussion and a left (non throwing) shoulder injury, the severity of both hasn’t been determined yet. Should know details as early as tomorrow.
FWIW, Kelley didn’t sound too concerned, but with injuries (especially shoulder) you just never know.
November 16, 2015 at 3:28 pm #34223lyserParticipantWe will draft Cook and call it even.
Can’t see how we would have a shot at him…
November 16, 2015 at 4:05 pm #34227znModeratorIan Rapoport @RapSheet
Based on initial tests, #Eagles QB Sam Bradford expected to miss this Sunday & potentially Thursday, I’m told. Expect Mark Sanchez to start.November 18, 2015 at 7:31 pm #34392znModeratorSources: Bradford has separated shoulder
An MRI revealed that Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Sam Bradford suffered a separated shoulder in Sunday’s loss to the Dolphins, league sources told Ed Werder of ESPN.
Bradford left the game in the third quarter after he was sacked by Miami linebacker Chris McCain and landed on his left (non-throwing) shoulder. The Eagles announced after the game that Bradford also had been diagnosed with a concussion.
Bradford, who is in the league’s concussion protocol, could miss this week’s game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, but wants to see how much improvement he experiences during the week before a decision is made on his playing status, sources told Werder.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
