Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Official Seahawks Forum, for the 12th man, by the 12th man.

Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby kalibane » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:32 pm

They are reportedly about to trade him for Nick Foles.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... nick-foles

On the one hand I'll miss Bradford completely screwing up the Rams cap. On the other hand, it's going to be fun watching Foles get exposed outside that Chip Kelly system.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby NorthHawk » Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:34 pm

Wow.
Lots of big names moving around this year.
I guess it's the result of the current CBA and salary slotting freeing up money.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 11323
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby obiken » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:24 pm

Does this make sense? you are taking a pocket passer in Chips offense. Has to be trading bait.
obiken
Legacy
 
Posts: 3962
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:50 pm
Location: Wilsonville, Oregon 97070

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby NorthHawk » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:29 pm

Kelly has said he doesn't require a specific type of player for QB in his Offense. He thinks it can adapt to any athletic strengths or limitations a QB might have.
It'll be interesting to see how it works out.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 11323
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby RiverDog » Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:51 pm

If it wasn't for the injuries, Bradford would have been a pretty good fit for Kelly's offense as he was a heck of a spread option quarterback in college. But that's a big if.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby Hawktawk » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:21 pm

Kelly is a blithering idiot. Foles can play, has a big arm and is a humongous upgrade for a team that always gives Seattle a tough game. I hate it.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby Zorn76 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:44 pm

The Rams had to turn the page, and Foles doesn't scare me a bit.
User avatar
Zorn76
Legacy
 
Posts: 1894
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:33 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby Steady_Hawk » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:11 pm

Hawktawk wrote:Kelly is a blithering idiot. Foles can play, has a big arm and is a humongous upgrade for a team that always gives Seattle a tough game. I hate it.


Yeah, we have our work cut out for us. The Rams might have just become lethal.
Steady_Hawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby kalibane » Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:07 pm

It's only an upgrade in the sense that usually Bradford is on the bench injured. I am not worried about Foles at all.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:25 pm

Zorn76 wrote:The Rams had to turn the page, and Foles doesn't scare me a bit.


Glad someone else agrees. Foles has some skill, but I'm not entirely sure he is an "upgrade" over Bradford ( other than he costs about a tenth of Bradford) honestly IMHO it's a "push" and if Foles plays the way he did last season, I would say that STL may be in the QB market much sooner than later.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby SalmonBB » Tue Mar 10, 2015 8:27 pm

Rams seem the clear winners on that deal. Foles has got some receiving weapons in Saint Louis ... I think he is a good fit there.

Only thing I see working for the Eagles is they get some draft picks back if Bradford doesn't start. With all the action going on in Philly, I can see them trading up still for Mariota, and either having Bradford start and give Mariotta some time - or have a quality back-up in Bradford.

GO SEAHAWKS!!!
User avatar
SalmonBB
Legacy
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:05 am

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby HumanCockroach » Tue Mar 10, 2015 9:51 pm

SalmonBB wrote:Rams seem the clear winners on that deal. Foles has got some receiving weapons in Saint Louis ... I think he is a good fit there.

Only thing I see working for the Eagles is they get some draft picks back if Bradford doesn't start. With all the action going on in Philly, I can see them trading up still for Mariota, and either having Bradford start and give Mariotta some time - or have a quality back-up in Bradford.

GO SEAHAWKS!!!


Only thing that confuses me really is the money Philly sacrificed in order to pretty much swap players that are "on par" arguably. 1.5 for Foles, 13 for Bradford, allows quite a bit of flexability for STL, especially with some of the cuts they have also made ( Long).

Wouldn't be shocked for them to make a BIG splash somewhere ( Revis? Murrray? Peterson? etc)...
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby kalibane » Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:31 am

What confuses me is that they gave up a potential 2nd round pick in addition to Foles. They at least got some injury protection so if Bradford doesn't start 8 games they keep the pick.

Still... as much as Foles doesn't scare me I wouldn't have given up a 2nd round pick for Bradford alone, much less throw in a QB to boot.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby RiverDog » Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:40 am

kalibane wrote:What confuses me is that they gave up a potential 2nd round pick in addition to Foles. They at least got some injury protection so if Bradford doesn't start 8 games they keep the pick.

Still... as much as Foles doesn't scare me I wouldn't have given up a 2nd round pick for Bradford alone, much less throw in a QB to boot.


Plus you've gotta consider the type of offense Bradford is going to be expected to run in Philly. I would have thought that Kelly would have preferred a quarterback that is at least semi mobile that fast paced college style offense. With two knee surgeries on the same knee in two years, Bradford's going to be so gun shy he'll hit the deck at the first hint of trouble.

I tend to lean towards ObS's explanation, that Kelly might be using Bradford as trade bait to move up and snatch Mariotta. But even that doesn't figure as they're giving up more trade bait than they're gaining.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby Hawktawk » Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:10 pm

kalibane wrote:It's only an upgrade in the sense that usually Bradford is on the bench injured. I am not worried about Foles at all.


Hang on a minute there Kal.Foles is 16-12 as an NFL starter with 46 TD passes and 17 interceptions in parts of 3 years. He started the last 7 games his rookie year due to injuries to others and understandably struggled winning only one of them. Since the beginning of 2013 he is 14-6 with a career QBR over 90 and well in excess of 7 yards per pass attempt. In his only playoff game he completed 23 of 33 for 2 TD's, no picks, and a QBR of over 100.Oh yeah then there was the 7 TD game, an NFL record.In other words he has more productivity in parts of 3 seasons than Bradford had in 6 years. Foles is a big strapping kid with a big arm and is a proven winner in the NFL.The 2 most overlooked QBs from the 2012 draft are going to be knocking heads for a while.
IMO Chip Kelly is on drugs for making this deal and he isn't going to be in the league much longer with moves like this.

Look I'm a fan of the LOB so nobody really terrifies me but this development worries me, especially since Fisher matches up so well with Carroll. The NFC West may not be the thoroughfare I was anticipating a few weeks ago.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby RiverDog » Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:08 am

I gotta side with Hawktalk on this one. Yea, Nick Foles doesn't strike fear into my heart in the same way a lot of other quarterbacks do. But the Rams definitely got the long end of the stick in this trade. They got themselves a quarterback with considerable starting experience and cleared a whole bunch of cap space in doing so. Even when the Rams were deploying no name journeyman quarterbacks, they still gave us fits. Not only have they stabilized the quarterback position, they have given themselves an opportunity to improve their team through free agency, they have a top 10 pick in this year's draft, and they will be playing a last place schedule. This is a team on the rise, and Nick Foles makes them better.

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what the heck Chip Kelly is up to.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby NorthHawk » Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:50 am

I can't figure out Chip Kelly, either but weren't we confused when Pete and John started making a lot of roster moves, too?
I remember a lot of discussion about what they were doing and their plan. I'm not sure we all understand it yet.
It's a lot more relaxing watching another team do something outside the box than our own.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 11323
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby HumanCockroach » Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:11 am

RiverDog wrote:I gotta side with Hawktalk on this one. Yea, Nick Foles doesn't strike fear into my heart in the same way a lot of other quarterbacks do. But the Rams definitely got the long end of the stick in this trade. They got themselves a quarterback with considerable starting experience and cleared a whole bunch of cap space in doing so. Even when the Rams were deploying no name journeyman quarterbacks, they still gave us fits. Not only have they stabilized the quarterback position, they have given themselves an opportunity to improve their team through free agency, they have a top 10 pick in this year's draft, and they will be playing a last place schedule. This is a team on the rise, and Nick Foles makes them better.

I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what the heck Chip Kelly is up to.


Is it coincidence that Foles went from a QB that threw 27 TD's to 2 Picks one season, to one that threw 13 and 10 the following? seems to me that Foles while a decent QB, doesn't really elevate the level of play of others. The loss of Jackson ( though still flush with MULTIPLE weapons) and injuries to a few lineman made Foles look not just mortal, but average. I don't ultimately know how it will play out, but the truth is, that Foles is still very far from a "proven" commodity, and no one in their right mind is going to claim STL has the amount of talent in the receiving core or backs that Foles had the luxury of playing with last season. Two years ago I pointed out that Foles was similar to Eli in that he often times just threw the ball up in the air, into heavy coverage, only to have Macklin, Cooper, Jackson, etc go up and fight for, and win the ball.

He has a strong arm, is somewhat mobile, and really played out of his mind two seasons ago, but something tells me, last season is "closer" to the real Nick Foles, than the one prior, especially if STL doesn't surround him with some impressive talent. None of their receivers have made any real contributions, they may indeed do so ( as it usually takes at least a couple seasons for a receiver to hit their stride) but to date, there isn't anyone that impresses me all that much. Britt is their most "polished" receiver as of this moment, and that is saying something.

I DO feel like the Rams "won" this trade, and that ultimately Foles is an upgrade ( if for no other reason than he has a stronger arm, and a shorter injury list) but than again I was never enamored with Bradford, really at any point in his professional career, the injury issues simply added to that.
Last edited by HumanCockroach on Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HumanCockroach
Legacy
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:41 pm
Location: Woodinville, Wa

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby kalibane » Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:19 am

Getting that 2nd round pick pretty much insures that there is no debate who got the best of this trade on paper. To me this was like one level up from replacing Rex Grossman with Kyle Orton. In the year where Foles "played out of his mind" he was insanely lucky. Bill Barnwell broke it down when Foles started getting MVP whispers he had a ton of balls that should have been intercepted and a lot more 50/50 balls that his receivers just won all the time even though they normally didn't. Add that into the fact that no one had film on Chip Kelly's offense OR Nick Foles and didn't know what to expect and you get an incredibly impressive statistical year but it didn't hold up once you actually looked at the film.

Remember they were shopping Nick Foles after that year and couldn't get a 2nd round pick so there aren't too many believers in him out there.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Rams finally give up on Sam Bradford

Postby savvyman » Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:48 am

"If" Bradford can stay healthy (Big If) then this will have been a great trade by Chip & The Eagles.

I love what Chip Kelly is doing over in Philadelphia.
User avatar
savvyman
Legacy
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:17 pm


Return to Seahawks Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests