Is Sam Bradford better than Nick Foles?

[LesBaker]

That's all true, but here's the thing. His two starting WR were Maclin and Desean Jackson, his OL was phenomenal, and he had Shady McCoy running like crazy that year. Not to mention that the system was very QB friendly. The next season when McCoy didn't do as well and Jackson left look how his numbers dropped, even in that same system

The Rams have nothing like the OL that the Eagles had, and though I do like Britt and Quick, I think both Maclin and Jackson are better than him. I see his numbers being much, much closer to 2014's numbers than 2013. In effect basically a slight upgrade over our 2nd string QB.

If Bradford had the supporting cast and system that Foles did, he would have put up at least similar numbers

The reason I won't buy into the "Bradford would have/could have" is because he hasn't, and IMO based on his somewhat conservative style of play a lot of the throws/yards/TD's Foles put up in PHIL are passes Bradford may well have never attempted.

 

[LesBaker]

#3 this reading defense stuff is all myth, Bradford was the one teaching the offense during the lockout. It was the receivers who were not up to speed. Bradford's college coach said he was great at reading defenses and making quick decisions.

Also, in 2011 Saffold didn't play well and eventually Bradford got hurt. He did struggle when he came back, he couldn't move and plant.

Regardless, Bradford is an Eagle. And I am excited to see Foles. Rams did what they had to do and were able to get a starting qb and a #2 for Bradford. And as I said those who said he had no trade value have egg on their face. And I am partially in that group. I didn't think he was worth a late #1. In my mind, I thought maybe a conditional late #2. Anyway, all of us who underestimated Bradford's value were wrong.

Teaching the O and reading a D are two totally different things. In college Bradford read the side of the field he was told to based on looking at his coaches. There is a big difference between that and the NFL.

The reason I brought up the line calls is because he was making a mess of it, and it was eventually taken away from him and given to one of the OL, I don't remember which one. He was struggling at reading what was coming, where it was coming from. If I recall he even said so himself.

The reading the D is not a myth, it's a real thing, it can be debated in degrees but it can't be dismissed.

 

[RamseyF]

The reason I won't buy into the "Bradford would have/could have" is because he hasn't, and IMO based on his somewhat conservative style of play a lot of the throws/yards/TD's Foles put up in PHIL are passes Bradford may well have never attempted.

That's the thing . . . Chip Kelly is buying it. You and I can disagree, but we are not offensive gurus. There is what fans think, then there is what the league thinks. Many of us fans said Sam couldn't be traded. I know we are all just funning around, pretending to be coaches and GMs and scouts but when the rubber meets the road all of us are full of shit.

 

[LesBaker]

That's the thing . . . Chip Kelly is buying it. You and I can disagree, but we are not offensive gurus. There is what fans think, then there is what the league thinks. Many of us fans said Sam couldn't be traded. I know we are all just funning around, pretending to be coaches and GMs and scouts but when the rubber meets the road all of us are full of crap.

So are a lot of the NFL head coaches and GM's based on turnover at those positions LOL.

They make a lot of mistakes, from the draft picks they make, to FA's they sign and lots of other things. They aren't perfect, so just because a HC or GM makes a move it doesn't mean he is smarter than people who aren't in his position. Not all of these guys are good, they just happen to be part of the good old boys club.

Our Rams are a very good example. A shining example actually.

 

[RamseyF]

Teaching the O and reading a D are two totally different things. In college Bradford read the side of the field he was told to based on looking at his coaches. There is a big difference between that and the NFL.

The reason I brought up the line calls is because he was making a mess of it, and it was eventually taken away from him and given to one of the OL, I don't remember which one. He was struggling at reading what was coming, where it was coming from. If I recall he even said so himself.

The reading the D is not a myth, it's a real thing, it can be debated in degrees but it can't be dismissed.

look. Bradford had faults. and what line call did he mess up? what defense couldn't he read? and he never said anything like that. And he was out for a few weeks, and I don't recall it being changed.

I get it, you're not a Bradford fan. But kicking on his grave with this stuff with no proof really doesn't square with the facts. So he cannot read a defense? Then, as a rookie he sets passing records, a couple of which still stand. He has (and Nick Foles, too) a very low interception percentage. I sumbit there is no way a guy can come in and do that if he cannot read a defense. There was some guy who came out in same draft, cannot remember his name who was supposed to be NFL ready, which is what Kiper said anyway. And he wasn't rookie of the year.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I'm sorry for starting another Bradford/Foles thread but I think I need to for my own sanity.
Because...

It's been absolutely wild how many people have been talking up Sam Bradford all over the place lately. The past 2-3 years our beloved Rams have been criticized for not dumping Bradford earlier and now Bradford is being talked about as if he's destined to have an All Pro year.

I think we have a better idea of who Bradford is than most people. Many of us have been hoping that it will all click and he'll be right up there with Brady, Brees, Manning, and Rivers. It's been 5 years and I think he's more like Alex Smith than those elite guys.

I think at the bare minimum Nick Foles is a solid quarterback. He's not going to be a liability for our Rams. He had a lot of pieces in place, primarily LeSean McCoy was unstoppable, in 2013. Through the 8 games Foles started the Eagles were 6-2. Of those games, the only terrible game in my opinion was the one against the 49ers. It certainly didn't help that they had no running game against the 49ers. Also, Foles was very close to leading them to 7-1. That throw to Matthews just led him out of bounds.

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

Apologies again for another Bradford/Foles thread.

I just jumped into this thread so forgive me if this has already been said.

2013 Sam and Foles were both doing very well. The thing of it is that in 2013 teams were still trying to figure out how to defend against Chip Kellys offense. Bradford didn't have that luxury. So it is more apropos to compare Sams 2013 to Foles 2014, because the NFL had time to figure out how to play against Chip Kelly. Sam is a better QB than Nick.

But is that what we really are concerned with? Sam being better than Nick?

I don't think so. What I am concerned with is this. Is Nick Foles better than Austin Davis or Sean Hill? Because really that is who the Rams QBs were most recently and with no guarantee that Sam would stay healthy, that would be who Fisher ran out there again.

Yes Nick Foles is better than Sean Hill and Austin Davis. I think Kase Keenum is also. So the Rams have improved at the QB position, got rid of a big contract for a player that didn't play much and got some extra draft picks in the process.

 

[RamseyF]

So are a lot of the NFL head coaches and GM's based on turnover at those positions LOL.

They make a lot of mistakes, from the draft picks they make, to FA's they sign and lots of other things. They aren't perfect, so just because a HC or GM makes a move it doesn't mean he is smarter than people who aren't in his position. Not all of these guys are good, they just happen to be part of the good old boys club.

Our Rams are a very good example. A shining example actually.

But there are zero examples of a fans not being full of shit. Just because a GM and head coaches make mistakes does not mean fans know what they are talking about. When you have a super competitive league some will make mistakes. It is a zero sum game.

But to say they make mistakes means that people "who are not in his position" are smart enough to do what they do.

We all like the think we are students of the game, but if any of us were to talk football with the worst GM and the worst HC we'd literally be dumb asses. And I include you AND me. Everyone.

 

[RamseyF]

I just jumped into this thread so forgive me if this has already been said.

2013 Sam and Foles were both doing very well. The thing of it is that in 2013 teams were still trying to figure out how to defend against Chip Kellys offense. Bradford didn't have that luxury. So it is more apropos to compare Sams 2013 to Foles 2014, because the NFL had time to figure out how to play against Chip Kelly. Sam is a better QB than Nick.

But is that what we really are concerned with? Sam being better than Nick?

I don't think so. What I am concerned with is this. Is Nick Foles better than Austin Davis or Sean Hill? Because really that is who the Rams QBs were most recently and with no guarantee that Sam would stay healthy, that would be who Fisher ran out there again.

Yes Nick Foles is better than Sean Hill and Austin Davis. I think Kase Keenum is also. So the Rams have improved at the QB position, got rid of a big contract for a player that didn't play much and got some extra draft picks in the process.

I think that's fair. It's Foles versus Clemens, Davis or Hill and hands down Foles is better. Excellent post.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

So are a lot of the NFL head coaches and GM's based on turnover at those positions LOL.

They make a lot of mistakes, from the draft picks they make, to FA's they sign and lots of other things. They aren't perfect, so just because a HC or GM makes a move it doesn't mean he is smarter than people who aren't in his position. Not all of these guys are good, they just happen to be part of the good old boys club.

Our Rams are a very good example. A shining example actually.

Totally agree here Les. I watch posters do better on their drafts than head coaches and Gms quite often. How does anyone know if a fan couldn't be a better GM than the actual GMs when it is such a rare and exclusive club? If there is anyway to prove it I would bet my house against anyone's that I could turn the Browns into a better team in 3 years. Ditto for the Raiders and the Redskins.

When some fans spend sooooo much of their waking hours thinking about their team they are bound to know enough about it to understand what would work and what wouldn't.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

But there are zero examples of a fans not being full of crap. Just because a GM and head coaches make mistakes does not mean fans know what they are talking about. When you have a super competitive league some will make mistakes. It is a zero sum game.

But to say they make mistakes means that people "who are not in his position" are smart enough to do what they do.

We all like the think we are students of the game, but if any of us were to talk football with the worst GM and the worst HC we'd literally be dumb asses. And I include you AND me. Everyone.

Well you have to figure that they had years to learn their trade. The idea is given the benefit of those years many of the fans could do their jobs. But the only areas that fans are exposed to is what you measure. The draft and personnel moves are the main thing and fans are experienced in and that is a big part of what GMs do. The rest? Well sure, that other stuff takes years to learn. I still don't think that their jobs are all that difficult.

 

[RamseyF]

Totally agree here Les. I watch posters do better on their drafts than head coaches and Gms quite often. How does anyone know if a fan couldn't be a better GM than the actual GMs when it is such a rare and exclusive club? If there is anyway to prove it I would bet my house against anyone's that I could turn the Browns into a better team in 3 years. Ditto for the Raiders and the Redskins.

When some fans spend sooooo much of their waking hours thinking about their team they are bound to know enough about it to understand what would work and what wouldn't.

Really? How do posters do better? They have the benefit of not being accountable. And all the draft posters crib off of scouts who did the scouting. Not for nothing but saying you could turn the Browns around in 3 years is a tad bit . . . boastful. Then you add Raiders and Redskins?

And, okay, in this scnario, how could you get in the door? How would an owner know to hire a poster from an internet board?

 

[RamseyF]

Well you have to figure that they had years to learn their trade. The idea is given the benefit of those years many of the fans could do their jobs. But the only areas that fans are exposed to is what you measure. The draft and personnel moves are the main thing and fans are experienced in and that is a big part of what GMs do. The rest? Well sure, that other stuff takes years to learn. I still don't think that their jobs are all that difficult.

saying that job is not that difficult (I am assuming you mean to other jobs) is true. It does not take a rocket scientist. But if a fan took a job as an intern, then works his way up over many years. . . .that is different than saying you or me could turn around a team. But in that case, a smart fan would have to be accountable and they would make mistakes, just like GMs.

What is so special about following a team or a draftnik. Maybe you could take someone who knows nothing about football and in a few months they would be able to post more intelligenty than us?

I really think you are overvaluing fandom and undervaluing GMs.

 

[RamseyF]

Example, if you were Rams GM now, or anyone from this board, and they didn't think Bradford had any trade value whatsoever, how could they make a good deal or any deal? Someone like that would have settled for a 7th rounder. And then, if fans found out you turned down a late 1st you'd already be fired. And I include myself, this isn't about personalities. I'd have taken maybe a 3rd or something just to get rid of the cap hit and salvage something

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Really? How do posters do better? They have the benefit of not being accountable. And all the draft posters crib off of scouts who did the scouting. Not for nothing but saying you could turn the Browns around in 3 years is a tad bit . . . boastful. Then you add Raiders and Redskins?

And, okay, in this scnario, how could you get in the door? How would an owner know to hire a poster from an internet board?

Well there in lies the problem and that is what Les meant by it being an 'Old Boys Club'. Getting in the door. You have to be committed and start at the bottom I guess but even then getting a job as a scout is not easy. There are not many of them. I guess if I went to college with Les Snead and showed him my scouting notes on past drafted players? Maybe. But most of us will never get that chance. I am not being boastful actually. I think many posters on this board would make very good NFL GMs, not just myself. But like I said most of what I am going by is drafted players over the years and FA moves. The rest? Well I don't know about that, but I could easily talk trades with GMs use my scouts reports to find out who I want to personally scout more and figure out who is good or not. It really isn't that difficult. It is more a job of privilege on most teams and the John Schneiders of the NFL are very rare. If every GM could consistently find late round Gems then that would be a different. And there is always Ozzie Smith who is the best of the best IMO. But there are 30 other GMs out there that really aren't that impressive.

Think about the turnover with that job. More GMs that finally get their shot are out the door in 3-5 years, because they simply are not that good, when they get their chance at the show.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

What is so special about following a team or a draftnik. Maybe you could take someone who knows nothing about football and in a few months they would be able to post more intelligenty than us?

Not a chance. I have been watching the NFL since I was a kid. Your talking about 40 years of experience. Some 2 year fans aren't going to have the experience of learning from GMs/teams mistakes over the years like a long time fan does. I'd say give a fan at least 5 years of extensive scrutiny of NFL moves. And yes some fans spend an inordinate amount of time study the game on and off the field.

Maybe you call it being boastful and I call it being confident in myself and other fans (not all) that I have conversed with on this and other boards.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Example, if you were Rams GM now, or anyone from this board, and they didn't think Bradford had any trade value whatsoever, how could they make a good deal or any deal? Someone like that would have settled for a 7th rounder. And then, if fans found out you turned down a late 1st you'd already be fired. And I include myself, this isn't about personalities. I'd have taken maybe a 3rd or something just to get rid of the cap hit and salvage something

No that is inaccurate. I don't think Snead even really thought Sam could bring what he did. You really don't know until teams approach with offers and then you play one off the other to get the offer that you think is the best. I really didn't think anyone would want Sams contract along with his knee. I know I didn't want it and I don't think Snead and Fisher did either, otherwise they wouldn't have offered him 5 million to play this year. That was like telling him he isn't worth what he is making. They told him to seek a trade and his agent let the word out. But they already had conversations about trading Sam before that. They just wanted to get the ball rolling. They let it unfold.

 

[RamseyF]

Not a chance. I have been watching the NFL since I was a kid. Your talking about 40 years of experience. Some 2 year fans aren't going to have the experience of learning from GMs/teams mistakes over the years like a long time fan does. I'd say give a fan at least 5 years of extensive scrutiny of NFL moves. And yes some fans spend an inordinate amount of time study the game on and off the field.

Maybe you call it being boastful and I call it being confident in myself and other fans (not all) that I have conversed with on this and other boards.

Not a chance? Is what you and I do that hard? You are making the same argument against GMs. The argument is what they do isn't that hard and could be learned by almsot anyone. And they would point to their experience and you'd say it's not that hard, I can turn arouind the Browns and the Raiders, etc. And they'd say "Not a chance".

 

[RamseyF]

I don't think Snead even really thought Sam could bring what he did. .

Well, what you or I think doesn't matter. We kind of need some proof.

Did you think Sam had trade value? Or were you one of those who said no one would give anything for him?

Anyway, you win. I know where you are coming from, it's a good discussion and you know where I am coming from.

 

[dieterbrock]

The funny thing is that when Kelly traded Shady McCoy, he was criticized. People said he should go back to college.
Now he's added a big dollar back up QB in Sanchez, signed not 1 but 2 free agent rb to more money than McCoy and traded his pro bowl qb for a high priced guy that will go 22 months between appearance in an NFL game. All the while he has done little to improve his defense which gave up almost 30 points per game in the final 4 games which at 1-3 knocked him out of the playoffs
So yeah the idea that it means something that Kelly wanted bradford? Please.
Oh and Tim Tebow has been seen working out in Philly too.....
Genius?

As for Foles vs Bradford, I'll take the actual, factual, 2013 pro bowl and top 5 QBR season over the guy who's career stats include an asterix because "If he had this or that, he MIGHT have been"

 

[Zaphod]

People over-emphasize the position.

Quarterbacks are an important part of a team, but the key word here is part.

I think Bradford may very well be a better fit in Philadelphia if he can stay healthy and I'm excited to see how he works out there. But I'm far more interested and hopeful that Foles is a better fit in St. Louis.