sperry Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 52 minutes ago, Joe Pesci said: It's a great look for the Eagles if he plays well, they'll actually be able to get something for him in a trade. So it's a great look for Howie Roseman to unload multiple starters and a boatload of draft capital to get a quarterback, all while it turned out they had a really good 28 year old quarterback already on their roster? Roseman bet on Bradford not being good, and it's a bet he needs to win. A lot of people would say that is probably a good bet, but it's nonetheless the bet he made, and it makes life very awkward for him if Bradford thrives. Let's say Bradford plays well: 30 TDs, 10 INTs, Eagles go 11-5 and win the division. Now Roseman looks incompetent, because instead of shoring up the roster to build for tilte contention, he traded premium assets for a different QB. What do you do with Bradford? A bird in the hand and all, why are you letting him walk or trading him if he's a good, young QB? Especially since you are then looking at handing the reins over to a developmental prospect and likely taking a step back from being a playoff team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Pesci Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, sperry said: So it's a great look for Howie Roseman to unload multiple starters and a boatload of draft capital to get a quarterback, all while it turned out they had a really good 28 year old quarterback already on their roster? Roseman bet on Bradford not being good, and it's a bet he needs to win. A lot of people would say that is probably a good bet, but it's nonetheless the bet he made, and it makes life very awkward for him if Bradford thrives. Let's say Bradford plays well: 30 TDs, 10 INTs, Eagles go 11-5 and win the division. Now Roseman looks incompetent, because instead of shoring up the roster to build for tilte contention, he traded premium assets for a different QB. What do you do with Bradford? A bird in the hand and all, why are you letting him walk or trading him if he's a good, young QB? Especially since you are then looking at handing the reins over to a developmental prospect and likely taking a step back from being a playoff team. If they identified Wentz as their franchise guy over Bradford and think he'll better, which they obviously do, then going 11-5 with Bradford playing well and winning the division means Roseman knew what he was doing with those trades and now has a pretty good team already in place for Wentz to take over and Bradford will then bring in maybe a 1st or 2nd round pick back in a trade. Seems like a win for the Eagles to me. The following season could be a step back with Wentz, or it could be better, who knows? But that's the route Philly wants to go it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 17 minutes ago, Joe Pesci said: If they identified Wentz as their franchise guy over Bradford and think he'll better, which they obviously do, then going 11-5 with Bradford playing well and winning the division means Roseman knew what he was doing with those trades and now has a pretty good team already in place for Wentz to take over and Bradford will then bring in maybe a 1st or 2nd round pick back in a trade. Seems like a win for the Eagles to me. The following season could be a step back with Wentz, or it could be better, who knows? But that's the route Philly wants to go it seems. How does that say the trades were correct? It really says the exact opposite, in that it turns out you already had a QB. Roseman comes out of this deal looking foolish if Bradford thrives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, sperry said: How does that say the trades were correct? It really says the exact opposite, in that it turns out you already had a QB. Roseman comes out of this deal looking foolish if Bradford thrives. He only looks foolish if most people were confident that Bradford would be a quality starter. Otherwise he looks like a GM that wisely hedged his bets to ensure competence at the most critical position, because "depend on Sam Bradford" has done no one any good all these years. He does look foolish for the expensive extension they gave Bradford before the draft, though. And I don't know how highly to evaluate Roseman's political skills, since he got beat by Chip Kelly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 I'm not sure why you're so up in arms about the players the Iggles ditched, Sperry. Kiko wasn't that good last year, who knows if he was a one hit wonder. Byron Maxwell was just fucking awful, like anyone who leaves Seattle. Demarco Murray was just fucking awful, like any RB after he gets 1,500 touches in a season. A 'boatload of starters' who were shitty at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 11 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: He only looks foolish if most people were confident that Bradford would be a quality starter. Otherwise he looks like a GM that wisely hedged his bets to ensure competence at the most critical position, because "depend on Sam Bradford" has done no one any good all these years. He does look foolish for the expensive extension they gave Bradford before the draft, though. And I don't know how highly to evaluate Roseman's political skills, since he got beat by Chip Kelly. He didn't get beat by Chip Kelly. He suffered a temporary setback, then after one year got a raise, promotion, and nuked everything Chip Kelly touched from orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Pesci Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 26 minutes ago, sperry said: How does that say the trades were correct? It really says the exact opposite, in that it turns out you already had a QB. Roseman comes out of this deal looking foolish if Bradford thrives. Getting rid of 4 starters and having a better record without them kinda implies your team is better than it was with those guys, doesn't it? If you don't view a guy as your future QB (Bradford), then you want him to play well enough to get the best possible return for him in a trade to help the guy you think is your franchise QB. It's not like Bradford is going to magically turn into Tom Brady and Roseman will be dragged through the streets of Philly after they tar and feather him for trading away Bradford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Pretty awesome Billy B interview about lacrosse. What a cool dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 The Eagles too many good quarterbacks will be a very good problem to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Its much ado about nothing pondering that Philly scenario, no way in hell they go 11-5 next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 31 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said: Its much ado about nothing pondering that Philly scenario, no way in hell they go 11-5 next year. Yeah, I'd be more than a bit surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I admit this has me pretty excited, even if I have no idea if the site is legit or not. I am starting to think the Broncos just might play Lynch this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperry Posted May 16, 2016 Share Posted May 16, 2016 I think Lynch is just as good a prospect as Goff and Wentz. Still, not going to help the Broncos much this year. Still can't believe Mark Sanchez was the best QB Elway could come up with when he has a Super Bowl contending roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Pesci Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 In another spat of shitty luck for Jags 1st rounders... http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/jaguars-top-pick-ramsey-suffers-knee-injury/ar-BBtfGp9?li=BBnba9I&ocid=mailsignout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 If management cannot be trusted, gawd himself will run that team into the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay B. Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 That poor team, it never fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted May 19, 2016 Author Share Posted May 19, 2016 So now the three best prospects in this draft all have bum knees...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted May 19, 2016 Share Posted May 19, 2016 Ooh! Ooh! I came up with a better one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted May 20, 2016 Share Posted May 20, 2016 Well that injury for Ramsay is a bummer but it's only a partial MCL tear not the crushing ACL tear which is far more serious and worrisome. I'm hoping he'll bounce back well because the Jags could improve a lot with some of their up and coming talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 Can we take a moment to address one of the the most transparently evil examples of league policy? I'm not talking about the concussions (directly), or the pitiful wages, or the enabling of violence against women, or the criminal exploration of taxpayers. No, let's talk about kickoffs! So we all know a few years back the league moved the kickoff up 5 yards to 'reduce returns that result in injury', effectively neutering one of the most exciting plays in the game. But hey if it's for player safety, right? Now they've moved touchbacks up 5 yards (to the 25) to 'encourage teams to not return the ball'. All in the name of safety, right? In response to this I've seen/heard a lot of fans/pundits ask "why not just eliminate the kickoff?" It's a fair question, but also fucking stupid if you have to ask it. The league doesn't want to eliminate the kickoff because it's a free commercial break for them (before, then after), especially if it's just a touchback where they spend 20 seconds broadcasting between 3 minute breaks. That's free money. If the ball were simply placed at the 20 after a score or half, they'd lose what, between 10 to 12 commercials a game, on average? Now on the face, that's pretty shitty but nowhere near as bad as the stuff I listed above. But it gets worse. You see, now they've moved the touchback out to the 25 'for player safety'. But before the ink had even dried on that rule, coach after coach after coach after kicker after returner was already talking about how now teams will kick the ball very high and shallow, in an effort to force the returner to catch the ball inside the 5 yard line and attempt a return. We know this is gonna happen, and it's a bit of a stretch to assume no one on the competition committee brought it up. So that seems pretty fucking cut and dry. The league gets to claim they attempted to make the game safer while protecting their cash flow and increasing potential for injury. Everybody wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.