Example of "Journalism"
Report: Rams interested in trading for Nick Foles
Posted by Michael David Smith on January 27, 2015, 6:39 AM EST
Getty Images
Last year, the Eagles made one of the most surprising moves of the offseason when they released receiver
DeSean Jackson. This year, the Eagles may again make a surprising move by getting rid of starting quarterback
Nick Foles.
Multiple stories have surfaced this month indicating that Eagles coach Chip Kelly is interested in moving on from Foles, especially if Kelly could replace Foles with his old Oregon quarterback Marcus Mariota. The latest report comes from NJ.com, which says that
possible suitors are beginning to emerge, and the Rams have interest in Foles.
The Rams have indicated that they would like quarterback
Sam Bradford to return this year,
but only at the right price. If the Rams can’t convince Bradford to take a significant pay cut from the $13 million he’s scheduled to make this year, they’ll surely release him, and then trading for Foles could make sense.
The question, however, is whether it would make sense for the Eagles. If Kelly is going to get rid of Foles, he has to be confident he can acquire someone better. Unless the Eagles are able to move up in the draft and get Mariota in three months, trading Foles feels like an odd move.
okay, Smith linked to a story that said this:
Jeff Fisher wants Sam Bradford back, at the right price
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 11, 2014, 12:20 PM EST
AP
The Rams have been playing good football lately, especially for a team that lost its franchise quarterback to a knee injury right before the season. Rams coach Jeff Fisher thinks the Rams can play even better football next year, if they have that franchise quarterback on the field.
Fisher told Albert Breer of NFL Network that
he wants Bradford back next year.
There is, of course, one enormous caveat: Bradford has a year left on the enormous contract he signed as the first overall pick in the draft in 2010, before the new Collective Bargaining Agreement significantly reduced the value of rookie contracts. Bradford is scheduled to get paid $13 million in 2015, and to count a whopping $16.6 million against the Rams’ salary cap. So the Rams would like to re-do Bradford’s deal.
The question, then, becomes how much of a haircut the Rams want Bradford to take, and whether Bradford thinks he has enough leverage that he could balk at a significant reduction in his pay. If Bradford thinks he would make more in free agency than the Rams are asking him to settle for, he could tell them to either pay him the $13 million for the final year of his deal or release him.
St. Louis has a lot of the pieces in place to be a playoff team next season, if the quarterback position can get stabilized. But given Bradford’s injury history and the uncertainty surrounding his contract, that’s a big “if.”
Okay, that links to
Albert BreerVerified account@AlbertBreer
Will have more in my NFL Notes,
but Jeff Fisher told me he wants Bradford back.
Said Bradford/Kroenke were the 2 reasons
he took the job.
Now, where did Fisher say "at the right price"?
It was in the title of the Michael David Smith article and mentioned 'haircut'
Now, leaving aside the merits of the argument, likely all of us would like Sam to take a pay cut, and in the world of performance if you're hurt then you have not given full value for your money, but Sam and his agent are not obligated to do that, it just makes some sense.
But the journalism is really "stellar" is it not?
Now, perhaps since this was published, which was during the season, there may be some on or off the record by Demoff or Snisher . . .but that was not referenced here.
However, that is not what bugs me. Pro Football Talk, like ESPN, was all over Spygatge, then backed off . . . PFT was bought by NBC and it went from gossip blog to more of a promotion of the game (which is fine) but they gave up on Spygate at the time. So if they want ot be mainstream then follow maintream journalism and don't quote a title that has no basis in fact.
