Is Sam Bradford better than Nick Foles?

[dieterbrock]

I hear what you are saying. I am in the camp Bradford has more upside but its more the eye ball test. I agree 2013 was off the charts, almost fantasy footballish. A poster posted a thread about Foles' 2013 campaign and pointed to a lot of luck. Many INT that were dropped etc. I have to be honest I didn't see one game he played in 2013, but I did see him twice last year. Its a small sample but I thought he was ok. Not great, not bad but a good QB.

Some think also that his 2013 was due to catching teams off guard. Once they there was some tape teams made adjustments and it resulted in 2014.

Maybe as a Ram fan my expectations are tempered some. I remember back about 20 years ago this QB from Canada was supposed to come in and light it up for us......do you remember who I am talking about lol?

And there were those who thought Kurt Warner 1st year was a fluke too, especially after his 2nd year starting was a significant drop off.
Here's the thing, Foles actually put up those numbers, against real NFL defenses. No hypothetical, no data massaging.
Doubt he'll ever come close again but its in the books as his upside.

Yeah, I vaguely remember that CFL QB, in his rookie year he took the Rams to the NFC championship game....
I'll never hear the term "Kidney Stones" without thinking of him

 

[kurtfaulk]

I look forward to seeing Foles in action this year and I don't believe anyone accidentally throws 7 touchdown passes in a game.

c'mon man, that was against the freakin raiders. alex smith threw 5 tds against them that year. 4 of them went to jamaal charles. how do you let a rb get 4 receiving tds against you? and they weren't tricky plays near the endzone, 3 of them were for 50+ yards. that may have been the worst d in history.

.

 

[thirteen28]

I really wish I could understand why people think that.
Nick Foles "upside"
203/317 2891 yards, 27 td, 2 int, 119.2 QB rating
Sam?

Because statistics don't tell the whole story is why people can think like that.

Foles 2013 season was played under an offensive minded head coach with an excellent supporting cast around him. Bradford to this point of his career has played for two defensive minded head coaches and, with the exception of 2011, for two offensive coordinators that ran very pedestrian (at best) offenses with much less of a supporting cast around him.

(and please don't bring up Shurmer being the "OC" in Philly ... it's Chip's offense and Chip's playcalls ... Shurmer is the OC in Philly in the same way Queen Elizabeth is the ruler of England ... a figurehead and nothing more).

hey were pretty much identical to Austin Davis
Davis: 180-284 (63.4%) 2001 yards (7.0 ypa) 12 TDs (4.2%) 9 INTs (3.2%) 85.1 rating.
Foles: 186-311 (59.8%) 2163 yards (7.0 ypa) 13 TD (4.2%) 10 INTs (3.2%) 81.4 rating.

Davis vs the NFC West: 68-116 (58.6%) 712 (6.14 ypa) 5 TDs (4.3%) 5 INTs (4.3%) 72.9 rating.
Foles vs the NFC West: 81-142 (57.0%) 813 (5.73 ypa) 4 TDs (2.8%) 5 INTs (3.5%) 68.2 rating.

See above point regarding stats not telling the whole story. But if you want to make a case that we'd be just as well off rolling with Austin Davis as with Nick Foles, feel free to make your case.

 

[dieterbrock]

Because statistics don't tell the whole story is why people can think like that.

Foles 2013 season was played under an offensive minded head coach with an excellent supporting cast around him. Bradford to this point of his career has played for two defensive minded head coaches and, with the exception of 2011, for two offensive coordinators that ran very pedestrian (at best) offenses with much less of a supporting cast around him.

(and please don't bring up Shurmer being the "OC" in Philly ... it's Chip's offense and Chip's playcalls ... Shurmer is the OC in Philly in the same way Queen Elizabeth is the ruler of England ... a figurehead and nothing more).



See above point regarding stats not telling the whole story. But if you want to make a case that we'd be just as well off rolling with Austin Davis as with Nick Foles, feel free to make your case.

I call BS on anyone that claims they watched Foles play in 2013 and thought it was just stats
Like I said above, same things were said about Warner after his incredible breakout year and subsequent let down the year following

 

[kurtfaulk]

And there were those who thought Kurt Warner 1st year was a fluke too, especially after his 2nd year starting was a significant drop off.

are you kidding me? the rams started the 2000 season like a house on fire. kurt was playing lights out until he got injured. came back maybe one game too early and paid the price with 4 ints against the panthers but then it was business as usual. absolutely torched the bucs on mnf. his ypa for the season was 10. that's not a drop off, that's taking it up a notch.

.

 

[Boston Ram]

And there were those who thought Kurt Warner 1st year was a fluke too, especially after his 2nd year starting was a significant drop off.
Here's the thing, Foles actually put up those numbers, against real NFL defenses. No hypothetical, no data massaging.
Doubt he'll ever come close again but its in the books as his upside.

Yeah, I vaguely remember that CFL QB, in his rookie year he took the Rams to the NFC championship game....
I'll never hear the term "Kidney Stones" without thinking of him

Good point about Warner and people thinking he could of been a fluke. I would take middle ground with Foles, if he could get to 30 TD's and 10 INT's I would be good with that

 

[Penguin.]

Bradford is a better player.

Foles has guts and isn't injury prone.

 

[thirteen28]

I call BS on anyone that claims they watched Foles play in 2013 and thought it was just stats
Like I said above, same things were said about Warner after his incredible breakout year and subsequent let down the year following

Your argument is based on stats, which don't tell the whole story. I'm not knocking Foles, he played great that year and statistically put together a season better than Sam ever has. But I have little doubt that a healthy Sam in Kelly's offense with the Eagles in 2013 could have put up impressive numbers as well.

And I don't recall anyone in 2000 saying Warner's 1999 was a fluke. If they were, they sure had no statistical basis on which to rest their argument. He missed some time with a hand injury, but overall he put up excellent numbers again and the Rams offense was rolling most of the time he was on the field. A quick glance at the stats from 2000 shows he was completing 67.7% of his passes (vs. 65.1% in 1999) and averaging a phenomenal 9.9 yards/att (vs. 8.8 per in 1999). The only stat that was noticeably worse was INT's, which most people chalked up to the high risk, high reward nature of the offense at the time.

 

[Rmfnlt]

And I don't recall anyone in 2000 saying Warner's 1999 was a fluke.

I don't remember that, either.

BUT, I am old.

 

[A55VA6]

Bradford probably has the better arm talent, but I'd take Foles because Bradford just can't stay on the field. He had the shoulder in college, the ankle in like 2011(?) and then the ACL's in 13' and 14'. If Bradford can get the injuries behind him and have weapons around him, I think he could be one of the better QB's in the game.

 

[thirteen28]

I don't remember that, either.

BUT, I am old.

Hell, I'm 50 and I've forgotten a lot. But most of the talk I remember about Warner in 2000 was more along the lines of "no, last year was definitely not a fluke."

 

[kurtfaulk]

I really wish I could understand why people think that.
Nick Foles "upside"
203/317 2891 yards, 27 td, 2 int, 119.2 QB rating
Sam?

you do realise his old coach just traded him and a 2nd rounder for sam? that tells us all we need to know.

.

 

[jrry32]

Is Sam Bradford better than Nick Foles? Yes, when he's on the field.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Hell, I'm 50 and I've forgotten a lot. But most of the talk I remember about Warner in 2000 was more along the lines of "no, last year was definitely not a fluke."

I remember some chatter, I suppose... but I don't recall it being a major topic of discussion.

 

[LazyWinker]

c'mon man, that was against the freakin raiders. alex smith threw 5 tds against them that year. 4 of them went to jamaal charles. how do you let a rb get 4 receiving tds against you? and they weren't tricky plays near the endzone, 3 of them were for 50+ yards. that may have been the worst d in history.

.

I'm not disputing that it was against the Raiders. 7 touchdown passes is still 7 touchdown passes. I believe the Saints were the worst defense that year and the worst in NFL history.

I think all of 8 people have ever thrown 7 TD's in a game. It's still an amazing feat, even if it's against the Raiders.

 

[thirteen28]

I remember some chatter, I suppose... but I don't recall it being a major topic of discussion.

Probably just some bitter personnel from other teams pissed off that they missed the boat on him and were jealous of the Rams insanely good luck in finding him. There really wasn't any firm basis in 2000 for saying his 1999 season was a fluke, as the Rams were scoring more than Brad Pitt in a house full of drunken sorority sisters. The problem with the Rams in 2000 was the defense, which was historically bad and couldn't stop a Girl Scout troop.

 

[RaminExile]

Bradford is better than Foles but he's had 2 ACLs in a row. There was a great fear that he'd suffer again with an unlucky injury of some form. He just didn't seem to have a good deal of luck here. If he went down again - Snisher would have been fired at the end of the season. So it made sense for them to move on.

Sam Bradford has got insane upside. I'd pick him ahead of Luck if the two were coming out of college today - its his health that's the question. Nothing else. And someone saying he doesn't "have guts?" Come on man. You must have seen him stand in there tons of times knowing he'd get hit and delivering a strike.

There's been chatter amongst Rams fans for years that "Sam isn't the guy" for one reason or another. I never doubted his ability. Basically it came down to him not being on the field enough. I don't blame anyone for wanting a more reliable option at QB.

As that article RamBill posted earlier stated - even if Sam has a year that his ability says he's capable of, and leads Philadelphia to the playoffs, and we go 9-7 with Foles, it was probably the right choice AT THE TIME. You cant look at anything with hindsight and judge people, because people don't have hindsight - they have foresight.

 

[ZigZagRam]

In response to the original post, I think Sam Bradford is the more talented QB and we haven't come close to seeing his best.

But, because of the fact that we may never have gotten to see his best given his injury issues, Nick Foles is the better QB for us in 2015 and potentially beyond.

 

[dieterbrock]

you do realise his old coach just traded him and a 2nd rounder for sam? that tells us all we need to know.

.

You realize that Sam's old coach traded him for Nick Foles? See how that works?

 

[kurtfaulk]

You realize that Sam's old coach traded him for Nick Foles? See how that works?

Yes I do. But the rams only traded him because he couldn't stay in the field, not because they think Foles is the better qb.

.