Chip Kelly’s Trade For Sam Bradford Is Paying Off

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

thirteen28

I like pizza.
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
8,368
Name
Erik
And while we owe Folds $6M, his total of $12M needs to be compared to SB's $12M last year and his probable $18M next year.

Yes. Even if we cut Foles and eat his salary next year, we will be better off cap-wise than we would have been had we kept Sam and had him suck up $12M THIS year. I too wish they hadn't given Foles the extension, but even though they did, it's not a cap killer to cut him this offseason, particularly in light of the rise in the cap, the available money we will already have in the offseason, and the prospective gains we have with some other high-profile cuts that will likely be coming.

There was nothing wrong with that trade from our point of view. We got rid of a QB that we simply couldn't rely on to stay healthy. It would've been outright negligent of this coaching staff to have expected Bradford to stay healthy.

It's funny isn't it. Last year, in the wake of the preseason game in Cleveland, JF/LS were bashed by many for not moving one from Sam before his 2nd ACL tear, as if the second one had been a foregone conclusion. Now, a year later, with the hindsight of 2 ACL tears, two ruined seasons because of it, a QB and a WR corps whose development has been stunted because of the same, they are being bashed for not keeping Sam.

Grass, greener, fence. Some assembly required.

Look, I liked Sam and really wanted him to succeed here, and I think with better conditions (mostly a better OC and a HC with more balls on offense) he could have - until the ACL tears (tears being plural). After the second one, it would have been absolutely stupid to continue relying on Sam as our QB, particularly when he refused to take a pay cut. I have no problem with the trade whatsoever. The only thing they did wrong was giving Foles the extension, but given the math noted above, that's nowhere near the cap disaster some are making it out to be.
 

FRO

Legend
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
5,308
With all the talk of cap savings for this year by getting rid of Sam, who did we get? Maybe it allowed us to keep Kendricks, maybe it allowed us to sign Ayers and Fairly, but we aren't talking about guys who have made an impact really. So all this talk of cap savings made us marginally better at best.
 

Sleepy1711

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
618
Bradford could have put the game away and threw an int then took a terrible sack which gave buffalo better field position.
Sure he's playing better than Foles, but so is Blaine Gabbert. Point is, he has been pretty disappointing in his own right and the the Eagles have a big decision about re-signing him

Yeah, I laughed when he took the sack.. Yup, that is the Bradford we've known about for years.

Its just something about him that makes me glad he's gone from the Rams, but I still wish him the best.
 

RamDino

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
2,591
You may hate Foles, but he's a tough SOB for not getting knocked out of the Green Bay game....I don't think Bradford survives that game for us, if not injured before then.
Agreed. Can you imagine Clay Mathews drilling his helmet into Bradford's chest like he did? He might have killed him! I like Foles, but his arm is not like Bradford's. The Rams probably did ruin Bradford just like they did with Bulger. Just a sad deal all the way around. Like someone said earlier... time to move on. Good luck Sam!
 

LetsGoRams

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,327
Name
Thrasher
When a coach trades his starting QB for a guy coming off of 2 ACL surgeries, and hasn't played in almost 2 years - that tells you something of what he thought of Foles.

I just hope the 2nd round pick we get from them pans out. I wish Bradford much success. Felt bad for the guy here.
 

LACHAMP46

A snazzy title
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
11,735
As for Foles? He was benched in St. Louis for Case Keenum after eight games. The Rams are 5-8 and Foles’ numbers — 56.4 completion percentage, 2,052 yards, 7 TDs, 10 INTs, 69.0 QB rating — are far from imposing.

But you could never think a guy that had the 27td-2int season would EVER look this bad.
Kelly did.....after 2013....add his '14 & '15 season stats.....I had a bad feeling as soon as this "trade" was announced. I felt worse after the extension......
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,953
Name
Stu
You look at who are the best quarterbacks in the league and look how long they’ve played in their system.
Sure would like to see Mannion have this. Hell - even Keenum.

The Bradford trade is water under the bridge. We could argue over who got the better deal until we are blue in the face. Some will claim they knew it was a bad idea all along and use that to continue to just rail on our current regime. Some will point to the stats and say Bradford isn't doing anything to show that he was worth keeping. Some will say that Chip clearly knows QBs better than Fish.

I just want to say that I was a huge Bradford fan but understood the trade. The idea that Chip is some kind of great QB evaluator though is based on what exactly? That he got lucky with one QB in his tenure in Oregon? Because he drafted Matt Barkley when he had that juggernaut Foles and the future star Michael Vick as QBs?

Does anyone not see that by arm talent alone Bradford was the better QB in all of this? Gee - amazing ability to recognize talent. How - OH HOW - couldn't Fish see that? Fish was clearly lying when he said that Bradford was one of the main reasons he chose the Rams over the Phins.
jesus... you look like an idiot Fisher..........

Bradford could've gotten us at LEAST 3 more wins in all those close games Foles crap the bed. at least bradford wouldve checked it down rather than throwing up bullcrap right into the defenses hands just giving it away

Just stop already. It gets really old.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-12-15_11-10-40.png
    upload_2015-12-15_11-10-40.png
    14.2 KB · Views: 168

Robocop

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
1,933
Name
J.
Sure would like to see Mannion have this. Hell - even Keenum.

The Bradford trade is water under the bridge. We could argue over who got the better deal until we are blue in the face. Some will claim they knew it was a bad idea all along and use that to continue to just rail on our current regime. Some will point to the stats and say Bradford isn't doing anything to show that he was worth keeping. Some will say that Chip clearly knows QBs better than Fish.

I just want to say that I was a huge Bradford fan but understood the trade. The idea that Chip is some kind of great QB evaluator though is based on what exactly? That he got lucky with one QB in his tenure in Oregon? Because he drafted Matt Barkley when he had that juggernaut Foles and the future star Michael Vick as QBs?

Does anyone not see that by arm talent alone Bradford was the better QB in all of this? Gee - amazing ability to recognize talent. How - OH HOW - couldn't Fish see that? Fish was clearly lying when he said that Bradford was one of the main reasons he chose the Rams over the Phins.


Just stop already. It gets really old.
sorry but the topic is about Bradford and the trade so I'll talk about it if I want
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,953
Name
Stu
sorry but the topic is about Bradford and the trade so I'll talk about it if I want
Excuse me? And you think I was commenting on you "talking" about the subject - eh? Catch a clue. Or don't. It won't matter to me.
 

Debacled

Starter
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
571
This staff was not going to bet another season on Bradford's knee and another innocuous hit. Say what you want, but had he even gotten through this season he turned down a contract offering him what.....18M? a year in Philly before the season started.

After losing essentially 2 seasons (plus all the other injuries) to his knee this team had zero confidence in him staying healthy, especially if they were going to have to shell out that kinda money to keep him around. Flaccoesque type contract without the superior arm or superbowl win.....think I'll pass. Looking "better" at his production levels is not worth more than or even what they were offering him.

While I'm at it, everyone bitching about the Foles extension can step off. It would have been brilliant had he panned out (and he may still, although I wouldn't bet on it). 4m cap his this year, 9m cap hit next year....that is cheap for a QB. 3rd year is not guaranteed at all.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
There was nothing wrong with that trade from our point of view. We got rid of a QB that we simply couldn't rely on to stay healthy. It would've been outright negligent of this coaching staff to have expected Bradford to stay healthy.

We also got rid of a huge chunk of salary cap space and got a second round pick which is valuable.

The mistake we made was giving Foles a new contract before he played a single snap. That was entirely separate to the trade itself. Now obviously I'm saying this with the benefit of hindsight but the camp reports that @CoachO was posting weren't exactly glowing when it came to Foles plus would it really have done any harm to see what we had before putting a contract offer in front of him. I don't think so.
Couldn't have said it better.

This is exactly how I see it... signing Foles before one regular season snap was what made absolutely no sense. At least to me.
 

Robocop

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
1,933
Name
J.
Excuse me? And you think I was commenting on you "talking" about the subject - eh? Catch a clue. Or don't. It won't matter to me.
ok your comment was to tell me to stop talking. it's obvious for a long while you don't care for me or my thoughts because you constantly harp on me. so in the future I would appreciate it if you don't comment to me anymore unless I'm breaking some sort of rule of the forum. and I'll make sure to leave you be too. thank you
 

Mojo Ram

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 3, 2013
Messages
22,971
Name
mojo
I loved the trade. I'm a Sam Bradford fan, but the Rams got rid of an injury prone QB with a HUGE contract, got a 2nd round pick and Nick Foles to boot. Where things went awry for me is when they gave Foles that ridiculous contract extension before the season which was beyond stupid.:mad:
+1
 

MTRamsFan

Montana is God's Country
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
4,048
Name
Greg
Who is this Sam you are talking about!?

In reality, this is the bed Snead and Fisher have made, so we have to sleep in it for the time being. I honestly think they will stay the course, but maybe look for a new QB coach to work with him. As we know, Foles mechanics are horrible and need fixing desperately. I attribute this to playing in a shotgun system through college and at Philly. Our QB is under center most times, so he needs to work tirelessly on his fundamentals including his 3, 5, and 7 step drops. One thing I think would help him would be to bring back the "Kill Kurt Drill." At least it would force him to make quicker decisions and get rid of the ball on time. If Boras is our OC for 2016, another year learning the playbook will definitely help him. My fear is Snead/Fisher feel they have too much invested in Foles to give up on him after one year. They could trade Foles and go after one of the better QBs entering the draft. But I honestly think any trade involving Foles would include giving up some future high picks just so someone would bite on it.

All this PLUS the O-Line must get better.
 

bwdenverram

Legend
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
5,518
Name
BW
Kelly did.....after 2013....add his '14 & '15 season stats.....I had a bad feeling as soon as this "trade" was announced. I felt worse after the extension......
The extension is mind boggling. And just stupid IMO.
 

Ram65

Legend
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
9,628
These Bradford threads are the best. :ROFLMAO:

What I've seen watch some here in Philly.

Sam has taken a beating this year,
Dropped passes. I do think he is jinxed.
Foles stinks.

It may take a couple more years to really see where this all ends up. Sam has looked a little more comfortable lately. He has been just ok.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #57
Rams Bench Nick Foles and Look at his Contract
Posted on November 17, 2015 by Jason Fitzgerald
http://overthecap.com/rams-bench-nick-foles-and-look-at-his-contract/


Almost three months to the date of signing quarterback Nick Foles to a two year contract extension that contained over $13 million guaranteed the Rams have pulled the plug after a sluggish start in which he is completing less than 57% of his passes and has made critical mistakes to help put the Rams at 4-5 despite a strong defense and running game. There have been a few conflicting opinions on the guarantees in his contract, but Field Yates had the same info I had on the contract so I am working under the assumption that this info is accurate as I look at what may lie ahead for the Rams with Foles.

Foles carries a moderate $8.75 million cap charge next year of which $7.75 million will be paid in cash. Most of that salary is already fully guaranteed. Foles will earn a $6 million roster bonus next March regardless of whether or not he is on the Rams roster. The roster bonus is already fully guaranteed and contains no offsets meaning if released he collects that money plus whatever other money he earns from another team if released. So in terms of releasing Foles that bonus is a sunk cost. His $1.75 million base salary is currently guaranteed for injury only and becomes fully guaranteed on the 5th day of the league year. That salary does contain offsets so the Rams don’t really have to rush to make a decision on Foles because of that guarantee since the salary is low.

The reason the guarantees contain no offset is because the Rams opted to not use a big signing bonus when they signed Foles to an extension. The impact is virtually the same either way on the salary cap if released, but the fact that it hasnt been paid yet and Foles has been benched makes it look much worse than it really is. Generally when teams operate on more of a cash basis than cap basis (essentially reducing or not using signing bonuses) to make a player whole in a contract negotiation guaranteed salaries with no offset clauses have to be used to get the player to sign the contract on the terms the team desires.


If the Rams have decided that getting Foles off the roster is needed then they have a few options to try to avoid the $6 million roster bonus. One way is to release Foles in the next week or two hoping a QB hungry team is willing to claim his contract. At this point in the season all players, including veterans, are subject to waivers so a QB thin team that may see themselves as a contender would be willing to pick up his salary for this year (which is only a few hundred thousand left to pay) and next.

The risk in this strategy is if he goes unclaimed the $6 million guarantee from next year immeditely accelerates onto the Rams salary cap. The Rams do not currently have the cap space to do that, so they would need to modify another contract on the team to create anther $3-4 million in space to make it work.

The Rams could simply hold on to Foles through the offseason and attempt to trade him prior to the date his roster bonus is paid, which is the 3rd day of the League Year. While I dont believe a team would pick up the full roster bonus the Rams would simply restructure the contract to probably eat between $3 and $4 million of the bonus to facilitate the trade. That would put Foles salary in line with his market value and its better to eat $4 million than $6 million for a player you do not want.

All things considered his salary is not incredibly high and slots much closer to “open competition starter”(think Brian Hoyer) than low level starter (think Andy Dalton) on the contract scale. This is where annual values of contracts can be misleading. Because Foles contract was so low prior to the extension, the Rams virtually split up the first years “new money” salary in two equal parts across two seasons. So for a team acquiring him (or even for the Rams) we are really looking at a contract worth around $8 million, not $12 million.

Given his salary is not high I dont think it is a given the Rams move him unless they just see no purpose in having him on the roster. The cost of a reasonable backup quarterback would likely cost the team $2-3 million and the cost of a higher level backup/open competition starter is around $5 million. If they were to release him their spend at the QB position would be anywhere from $8 million to $11 million in cash and likely more on the cap if they brought in a replacement who likely would be no better or worse than Foles.

The contract will come under a lot of scrutiny because Foles went from earning $1.54 million to nearly $14 million without taking a snap for the Rams. As I said when the contract was signed this was the risk of the contract, but if Foles had a pulse there was a reward for the Rams in the relative low cost of the contract. They could have made things much more complicated by signing a long term contract such as the 49ers did with Colin Kaepernick. It was a proactive approach to a position that does not look like it will pay off.
 

Zaphod

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,217
Who is this Sam you are talking about!?

In reality, this is the bed Snead and Fisher have made, so we have to sleep in it for the time being. I honestly think they will stay the course, but maybe look for a new QB coach to work with him. As we know, Foles mechanics are horrible and need fixing desperately. I attribute this to playing in a shotgun system through college and at Philly. Our QB is under center most times, so he needs to work tirelessly on his fundamentals including his 3, 5, and 7 step drops. One thing I think would help him would be to bring back the "Kill Kurt Drill." At least it would force him to make quicker decisions and get rid of the ball on time. If Boras is our OC for 2016, another year learning the playbook will definitely help him. My fear is Snead/Fisher feel they have too much invested in Foles to give up on him after one year. They could trade Foles and go after one of the better QBs entering the draft. But I honestly think any trade involving Foles would include giving up some future high picks just so someone would bite on it.

All this PLUS the O-Line must get better.
I'm just emphasizing your last point. It's not like he was playing this bad to start off the season, and there was a lot more emphasis on passing in that game if I remember right. Maybe that Seattle game was just a fluke, I don't know.

But I do expect the line to continue to improve as our season wears on. My only point is that there is hope for the offensive line that we didn't have last year. Since we pretty much knew then that our starting left tackle, guard and center were pretty much done after the season. Not to mention, our starting right tackle was on shaky ground and eventually replaced as well.
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
Rams Bench Nick Foles and Look at his Contract
Posted on November 17, 2015 by Jason Fitzgerald
http://overthecap.com/rams-bench-nick-foles-and-look-at-his-contract/


Almost three months to the date of signing quarterback Nick Foles to a two year contract extension that contained over $13 million guaranteed the Rams have pulled the plug after a sluggish start in which he is completing less than 57% of his passes and has made critical mistakes to help put the Rams at 4-5 despite a strong defense and running game. There have been a few conflicting opinions on the guarantees in his contract, but Field Yates had the same info I had on the contract so I am working under the assumption that this info is accurate as I look at what may lie ahead for the Rams with Foles.

Foles carries a moderate $8.75 million cap charge next year of which $7.75 million will be paid in cash. Most of that salary is already fully guaranteed. Foles will earn a $6 million roster bonus next March regardless of whether or not he is on the Rams roster. The roster bonus is already fully guaranteed and contains no offsets meaning if released he collects that money plus whatever other money he earns from another team if released. So in terms of releasing Foles that bonus is a sunk cost. His $1.75 million base salary is currently guaranteed for injury only and becomes fully guaranteed on the 5th day of the league year. That salary does contain offsets so the Rams don’t really have to rush to make a decision on Foles because of that guarantee since the salary is low.

The reason the guarantees contain no offset is because the Rams opted to not use a big signing bonus when they signed Foles to an extension. The impact is virtually the same either way on the salary cap if released, but the fact that it hasnt been paid yet and Foles has been benched makes it look much worse than it really is. Generally when teams operate on more of a cash basis than cap basis (essentially reducing or not using signing bonuses) to make a player whole in a contract negotiation guaranteed salaries with no offset clauses have to be used to get the player to sign the contract on the terms the team desires.


If the Rams have decided that getting Foles off the roster is needed then they have a few options to try to avoid the $6 million roster bonus. One way is to release Foles in the next week or two hoping a QB hungry team is willing to claim his contract. At this point in the season all players, including veterans, are subject to waivers so a QB thin team that may see themselves as a contender would be willing to pick up his salary for this year (which is only a few hundred thousand left to pay) and next.

The risk in this strategy is if he goes unclaimed the $6 million guarantee from next year immeditely accelerates onto the Rams salary cap. The Rams do not currently have the cap space to do that, so they would need to modify another contract on the team to create anther $3-4 million in space to make it work.

The Rams could simply hold on to Foles through the offseason and attempt to trade him prior to the date his roster bonus is paid, which is the 3rd day of the League Year. While I dont believe a team would pick up the full roster bonus the Rams would simply restructure the contract to probably eat between $3 and $4 million of the bonus to facilitate the trade. That would put Foles salary in line with his market value and its better to eat $4 million than $6 million for a player you do not want.

All things considered his salary is not incredibly high and slots much closer to “open competition starter”(think Brian Hoyer) than low level starter (think Andy Dalton) on the contract scale. This is where annual values of contracts can be misleading. Because Foles contract was so low prior to the extension, the Rams virtually split up the first years “new money” salary in two equal parts across two seasons. So for a team acquiring him (or even for the Rams) we are really looking at a contract worth around $8 million, not $12 million.

Given his salary is not high I dont think it is a given the Rams move him unless they just see no purpose in having him on the roster. The cost of a reasonable backup quarterback would likely cost the team $2-3 million and the cost of a higher level backup/open competition starter is around $5 million. If they were to release him their spend at the QB position would be anywhere from $8 million to $11 million in cash and likely more on the cap if they brought in a replacement who likely would be no better or worse than Foles.

The contract will come under a lot of scrutiny because Foles went from earning $1.54 million to nearly $14 million without taking a snap for the Rams. As I said when the contract was signed this was the risk of the contract, but if Foles had a pulse there was a reward for the Rams in the relative low cost of the contract. They could have made things much more complicated by signing a long term contract such as the 49ers did with Colin Kaepernick. It was a proactive approach to a position that does not look like it will pay off.

Who gives a shit about Foles
MORE BRADFORD TALK!!!!