Kurt Warner discusses Sam Bradford/Nick Foles trade/Wags

  • 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.

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Kurt Warner discusses Sam Bradford/Nick Foles trade
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...warner-discusses-sam-bradfordnick-foles-trade

PHOENIX -- Perhaps no quarterback in NFL history can speak to the power of a fresh start than Kurt Warner.

After Warner's meteoric rise to NFL stardom in 1999 and the supernova that followed in the two years after, Warner found himself essentially starting over. First in New York where things didn't work out so well. But when he landed here in Arizona, Warner was healthy and able to get rolling again.

Warner, of course, went on to lead the Cardinals to a Super Bowl appearance and cement his place as one of the most efficient quarterbacks in league history.

All of which makes Warner something of an expert when it comes to quarterbacks benefiting from starting over. On Tuesday at these NFL owners meetings, Warner took some time to promote Super Bowl 50 and in the process also offered some thoughts on the quarterback trade involving the St. Louis Rams and Philadelphia Eagles.

There were other considerations involved but the heart of the deal was a swap of Sam Bradford to the Eagles in exchange for Nick Foles.

"It's an interesting one from both standpoints because you kind of thought St. Louis would stay behind Sam and you thought Philly would think maybe this could be our guy for the future because of some of the success," Warner said. "It just kind of makes you wonder what was the driving factor behind it."

From the Philadelphia standpoint, Warner said perhaps the Eagles considered Mark Sanchez a solid option if things don't work out with Bradford, but they're willing to roll the dice on Bradford's upside.

"Physically, he's got all the ability to be a top-notch quarterback," Warner said. "He's a young kid that has the right attitude, a guy that can lead your franchise. I think all of that stuff is in place. ... It's one of those where, yeah, we've got a backup plan but if this can be an upside for us and a guy we can build around, then let's make this move and see if we can make it work."

From the St. Louis standpoint, Warner pointed to landing a guy who has had success but also doesn't have the injury history Bradford has. He does, however, have some concerns.

"I like Nick," Warner said. "One of the things I've always worried about with Nick is just the speed by which he plays. I've always believed that you have to be able to see and react very quickly. I felt in Philly's system, he thrived because things transpired a little bit slower. A lot of the stuff was down the field where he could take his time to get through reads and he was very good in that system. But I also wondered 'How does that translate to another system?'

"But definitely when you can go 27 [touchdowns] and two [interceptions], I don't care who you are, that stuff doesn't just happen. You've got to be able to play. You've got to be able to eliminate mistakes and make big plays down the field. So that's the upside that you've seen with him. We just don't have a very big sample size on what he's going to be."

Either way, Warner sees the chance for both quarterbacks to start anew as a positive.

"A lot of times you get a new situation and you can step away from the pressure sometimes," Warner said. "Whether it's Foles living up to that great season he had a couple of years ago or with Sam everybody around there going, 'Oh, is he going to stay healthy and reach his potential?' I think sometimes you can get kind of a new slate. The people in Philly don't remember all of that stuff and he'll get a chance to get out there and get healthy and start anew and I think Nick, too. There's definitely some bonuses to that. ... Generally it's a new excitement that there's something new here, there's something that's a little bit of an unknown and we're excited to see how this plays out."
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,012
"Warner said perhaps the Eagles considered Mark Sanchez a solid option if things don't work out with Bradford, but they're willing to roll the dice on Bradford's upside."
Something to consider here, if Bradford struggles, Philly may not hesitate to get Sanchez in there. There is a slight incentive for them to keep Bradford under 50% of the snaps. If he's playing good, no worries. But if there is any struggle? Sam hasn't had to look over his shoulder at his backup in a decade. That will something new as well
 

CodeMonkey

Possibly the OH but cannot self-identify
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
3,449
"Warner said perhaps the Eagles considered Mark Sanchez a solid option if things don't work out with Bradford, but they're willing to roll the dice on Bradford's upside."
Something to consider here, if Bradford struggles, Philly may not hesitate to get Sanchez in there. There is a slight incentive for them to keep Bradford under 50% of the snaps. If he's playing good, no worries. But if there is any struggle? Sam hasn't had to look over his shoulder at his backup in a decade. That will something new as well
A little fire under his ass has got to help his game...humans being human.
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
15,986
"Warner said perhaps the Eagles considered Mark Sanchez a solid option if things don't work out with Bradford, but they're willing to roll the dice on Bradford's upside."
Something to consider here, if Bradford struggles, Philly may not hesitate to get Sanchez in there. There is a slight incentive for them to keep Bradford under 50% of the snaps. If he's playing good, no worries. But if there is any struggle? Sam hasn't had to look over his shoulder at his backup in a decade. That will something new as well

i thought the 50% condition was only due to injury, not performance.

.
 

Jorgeh0605

You had me at meat tornado.
2023 ROD Fantasy Champion
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
1,787
i thought the 50% condition was only due to injury, not performance.

.
Nope. The thought is just that if he is able stay healthy there is likely no reason to bench him. He is a good quarterback whose biggest issue is that he hasn't been on the field.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,012
i thought the 50% condition was only due to injury, not performance.

.
I thought there were 2 conditions, if he missed the 2015 season for injury, there is one draft pick and if he takes less than 50% of the snaps another. Dont know how they clarify how those snaps are missed?
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
I thought there were 2 conditions, if he missed the 2015 season for injury, there is one draft pick and if he takes less than 50% of the snaps another. Dont know how they clarify how those snaps are missed?
injured reserve and % of snaps are the conditions
 

LACHAMP46

A snazzy title
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
11,735
Still sucks IMO to have Foles over Bradford...All the positives point to Philly...Dumping a guy that couldn't get er done, was going to be benched for Sanchez, for all the potential in the world...If Sam was a wr or rb, I'd get this...Foles can't move, and has injury issues as well...
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
15,986
Nope. The thought is just that if he is able stay healthy there is likely no reason to bench him. He is a good quarterback whose biggest issue is that he hasn't been on the field.

well that's a given isn't it. my bad.

.
 

Faceplant

Still celebrating Superbowl LVI
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2023 ROD Pick'em Champion
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
9,618
Still sucks IMO to have Foles over Bradford...All the positives point to Philly...Dumping a guy that couldn't get er done, was going to be benched for Sanchez, for all the potential in the world...If Sam was a wr or rb, I'd get this...Foles can't move, and has injury issues as well...
Can't agree with this. Foles "got it done" more in his time as a starter than Sam did. Also, Foles moves better than Bradford or Sanchize, so not sure where that comes from. I really like Sam too, and think he can be amazing, but that doesn't mean this trade didn't make sense for the Rams.
 

Faceplant

Still celebrating Superbowl LVI
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2023 ROD Pick'em Champion
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
9,618
F
Still sucks IMO to have Foles over Bradford...All the positives point to Philly...Dumping a guy that couldn't get er done, was going to be benched for Sanchez, for all the potential in the world...If Sam was a wr or rb, I'd get this...Foles can't move, and has injury issues as well...
Can't agree with this. Foles "got it done" more in his time as a starter than Sam did. Also, Foles moves better than Bradford or Sanchize, so not sure where that comes from. I really like Sam too, and think he can be amazing, but that doesn't mean this trade didn't make sense for the Rams.
 

LACHAMP46

A snazzy title
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
11,735
F

Can't agree with this. Foles "got it done" more in his time as a starter than Sam did. Also, Foles moves better than Bradford or Sanchize, so not sure where that comes from. I really like Sam too, and think he can be amazing, but that doesn't mean this trade didn't make sense for the Rams.
You liked what you said so much you repeated it....
lets see if I can find some....STATS
http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/nick-foles?id=2532842

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/Sam-Bradford?id=497095

nothing concrete on Sam...Lets just agree that Foles isn't an elite athlete & doesn't move very well (see comments & numbers). While Sam was a better athlete than he was really given credit for, until his lower body injuries...That's my story and I'm sticking to it...I bet Sam still moves better than Foles...

Wins are the ultimate team stat...and individual numbers display a lot about the team...Foles 2014 numbers weren't as good as his 2013, but he won more (greater %)....His wins and numbers are better, but I believe it reflects his team & system he played in...Sam's numbers (wins, yards, etc.) show the same thing...Of a guy who joined a completely disastrous franchise, and has tried to bring them back to relevance...
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
I think we're overlooking one very important aspect of this article.
Apparently RamBill feels cool enough with Nick Wagoner that he can call him "Wags."
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
Still sucks IMO to have Foles over Bradford...All the positives point to Philly...Dumping a guy that couldn't get er done, was going to be benched for Sanchez, for all the potential in the world...If Sam was a wr or rb, I'd get this...Foles can't move, and has injury issues as well...

Just remember what potential means much of the time.

That is, not worth a fuck yet.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
You liked what you said so much you repeated it....
lets see if I can find some....STATS
http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/nick-foles?id=2532842

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/Sam-Bradford?id=497095

nothing concrete on Sam...Lets just agree that Foles isn't an elite athlete & doesn't move very well (see comments & numbers). While Sam was a better athlete than he was really given credit for, until his lower body injuries...That's my story and I'm sticking to it...I bet Sam still moves better than Foles...

Wins are the ultimate team stat...and individual numbers display a lot about the team...Foles 2014 numbers weren't as good as his 2013, but he won more (greater %)....His wins and numbers are better, but I believe it reflects his team & system he played in...Sam's numbers (wins, yards, etc.) show the same thing...Of a guy who joined a completely disastrous franchise, and has tried to bring them back to relevance...

Foles was a star HS basketball player and was recruited by major college teams. He is a way better athlete than people give him credit for and IMO is better in the pocket and as mobile than Bradford.

He moves really well, especially for a guy his size.
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,650
You liked what you said so much you repeated it....
lets see if I can find some....STATS
http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/nick-foles?id=2532842

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/Sam-Bradford?id=497095

nothing concrete on Sam...Lets just agree that Foles isn't an elite athlete & doesn't move very well (see comments & numbers). While Sam was a better athlete than he was really given credit for, until his lower body injuries...That's my story and I'm sticking to it...I bet Sam still moves better than Foles...

Wins are the ultimate team stat...and individual numbers display a lot about the team...Foles 2014 numbers weren't as good as his 2013, but he won more (greater %)....His wins and numbers are better, but I believe it reflects his team & system he played in...Sam's numbers (wins, yards, etc.) show the same thing...Of a guy who joined a completely disastrous franchise, and has tried to bring them back to relevance...
Eagles the past 2 years with Foles starting: 14-4
The past 2 years without Foles starting: 6-8

I'm a Bradford fan, and I'm too lazy to go back and look at the numbers over such a long timespan, but I remember reading a while back that we have virtually the same record with him as without him.

I think Bradford is more talented, but Foles is more willing to take risks and much more of a playmaker. Maybe that's what this team needs to win football games, not just a guy who plays smart and doesn't turn the ball over, but doesn't make the big play when it counts.
 

LACHAMP46

A snazzy title
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
11,735
@jjab360
I'm gonna state right now, Foles is a Ram, so I'm a Foles guy now...I see all his positives, but I see how we put a better QB in a lot worse situation than what Foles is about to experience, and I will hope he can handle it...In fact, I'll be praying for it....But my initial feeling is, if we were gonna trade Sam, why not get as much as possible, and that to me would have been a first round pick...
There was a guy named Bulger, man he looked GOOD....Hell, I figured he was just as good as the injured guy he replaced...he kept fumbling snaps, whiffing throws...well, when the fumbler left, I sure was sorry to see him go, as that ole Bulger kept trying to deal with the heat of a pass rush bent on separating him from the ball....and definitely didn't want him locating wr's downfield...Remember Bulgers first couple years stats? He sure looked good...
I also remember a couple of thrown away QB's one was Plunkett, the other was a little fast gut from KC, Gannon....sometimes you gotta just stay the course...just keep digging...there's oil down there...
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,924
It's been said before, but it's not Bradford vs Foles in a vacuum. It's a healthier Foles vs Bradford coming off of the same crippling injury two years running. It's $11 million or so of cap space. It's a minor trade up in the draft this year, and a 2nd round pick next year - and if the Rams owe a pick back to the Eagles, that likely means the 2nd will be fairly high.

Basically, Foles has to bomb and Bradford has to star for the Eagles to win the trade - and even then the Eagles will be faced with either losing Sam, or signing him to a multi-year contract despite his history of injuries.

In a vacuum - both healthy etc - I'd rather have Bradford, but that's not reality. As much as I'd love for Bradford to be the Rams' franchise QB for a decade or more, he has to stay on the field to do that. And he just hasn't - and a repeated injury makes it less likely that he will.
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,650
@jjab360
I'm gonna state right now, Foles is a Ram, so I'm a Foles guy now...I see all his positives, but I see how we put a better QB in a lot worse situation than what Foles is about to experience, and I will hope he can handle it...In fact, I'll be praying for it....But my initial feeling is, if we were gonna trade Sam, why not get as much as possible, and that to me would have been a first round pick...
I'd take a 2nd and Nick Foles over a late 1st and a big gaping hole under center any day of the week and a million times on Sunday, personally.

This is a weak draft anyway, I'm not that impressed with any of the prospects we would've gotten at 19 overall and certainly not any of the QB prospects. You trade Bradford for just a first and you're looking at a terrible QB situation. Forget Warner and Bulger, you'll be pining for the days of Shaun Hill to be back lol.