2016 1st and 2nd Picks Trade Chat

Augme

Pyjamarama wrote: »

Its defo Bradfords job to lose. The Wentz pick is for the future. Signing Bradford and Daniels is basically the regimes way to develop the rookie and not get fired for having a awful results.

Its rare a team would take a qb in the top 5 and have a legit starting option. And while Sam isn't amazing he's shown he can be an effective option at qb. If not very reliable. And Doug loves Chase Daniels so he clearly thinks he can start.

Sams reaction is awful here. He knew the deal he signed was a short term one. Signing Wentz did nothing to change that. If you play lights out you get an even better deal somewhere else... I hope we hold out for a 2nd rounder for him if he does go.

More likely signing Bradford and Daniels was basically the front offices way of having a back-up plan if they couldn't trade up and get Wentz. All Wentz has to do is not look awful in training camp and he'll be the starter very quickly. Most front 1st year front offices won't get fired for awful results. What's more likely to get them fired is if they trade the house for a rookie QB and then they guy isn't even good enough to start in his first season. Unfortunately for Bradford the competition is rigged.

Braden Warm Monochrome wrote: »

But when is the last time a top 5 qb has been drafted to a team with a good nfl starter

Most teams who were drafting top 5 probably didn't bother looking to get one in free agency because they were fairly confident of drafting one.

Augme

Augme wrote: »

More likely signing Bradford and Daniels was basically the front offices way of having a back-up plan if they couldn't trade up and get Wentz. All Wentz has to do is not look awful in training camp and he'll be the starter very quickly. Most front 1st year front offices won't get fired for awful results. What's more likely to get them fired is if they trade the house for a rookie QB and then they guy isn't even good enough to start in his first season. Unfortunately for Bradford the competition is rigged.



Most teams who were drafting top 5 probably didn't bother looking to get one in free agency because they were fairly confident of drafting one.

Exactly so when you said top 5 and don't sit on the bench it was not relivant as normally they don't have a good qb to sit them behind

Pyjamarama

Paully D wrote: »

You can hardly blame Bradford for wanting out IMO. He could have an insanely good year in 2016 and he's still going to get the bullet for Wentz at the end of it considering what the Eagles have given up to take him. Also, if he has any sort of dip during the season, they'll throw Wentz in.

I also think it's very unfair to accuse him of lacking fight. This is a man who has been beaten up year after year with the Rams and come back from two ACL injuries in consecutive seasons.

He could fight all he wants in Philadelphia but the fact is they've mortgaged their future to take Wentz and there's just no way that Bradford is going to be anything more than very short term there because of it, no matter what he does. NFL teams discard players like pieces of meat and will be doing the same with Bradford in 2017 if he's still there. You can't blame players for looking after numero uno either.

He's a definite starting calibre NFL QB and if he was a hypothetical free agent he would have no shortage of suitors. He'd improve numerous teams as things stand.

Surely if he plays well then he'll get a great deal next year?!?

HigginsJ

Pyjamarama wrote: »

Surely if he plays well then he'll get a great deal next year?!?

Yea I would agree with this, go & play great this year. Someone will trade for him if he does, he would only be 29 & could get a nice long extension from somewhere. It seems like a lack of fight.

HigginsJ

HigginsJ wrote: »

Yea I would agree with this, go & play great this year. Someone will trade for him if he does, he would only be 29 & could get a nice long extension from somewhere. It seems like a lack of fight.

I wouldn't be Eli's biggest fan but had nassib been drafted in the first I can't imagine Eli doing this (perhaps complained that the pick could have been spent on a lineman or a weapon but that's a separate argument)

Foxtrol

Braden Warm Monochrome wrote: »

I wouldn't be Eli's biggest fan but had nassib been drafted in the first I can't imagine Eli doing this (perhaps complained that the pick could have been spent on a lineman or a weapon but that's a separate argument)

At that point Eli was 32, already earned good money, been injury free during his career, built up a solid body of work including two rings.

He would have been in a totally different situation than Bradford so I think that’s a terrible comparison to attempt to make.

Augme

Pyjamarama wrote: »

Surely if he plays well then he'll get a great deal next year?!?

HigginsJ wrote: »

Yea I would agree with this, go & play great this year. Someone will trade for him if he does, he would only be 29 & could get a nice long extension from somewhere. It seems like a lack of fight.

The problem is the chance of him even getting a to play would be low.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

At that point Eli was 32, already earned good money, been injury free during his career, built up a solid body of work including two rings.

He would have been in a totally different situation than Bradford so I think that’s a terrible comparison to attempt to make.

Bradford has earned plenty of money let's not go there and if Bradford is afraid of compition because he does not have a solid body of work after 6 years in the league again that says a lot about him

Foxtrol

Braden Warm Monochrome wrote: »

Bradford has earned plenty of money let's not go there and if Bradford is afraid of compition because he does not have a solid body of work after 6 years in the league again that says a lot about him

I’m not sure how you can discount money, seeing that Manning earnings at that point were about double what Bradford has made to date but I’ll let you run with that.

Bradford had to deal with two ACL injuries, which takes away a quarter of his 6 years. He also spent his time with teams and coaches who were nowhere near the level Manning was playing with.

Whether his work says a lot about him or not isn't the point, the point is that the two players you’re trying to compare were in completely different positions within their team and the league. Your hypothetical situation is simply a terrible comparison to use to try to knock Bradford’s reaction. Of course a two time SuperBowl winning QB wouldn’t react the same as a QB who is only one seasons back from career threatening two tears of his ACL.

Billy86

There aren't really many good comparisons to Brady Rd to be fair, in no small part because there aren't many QBs who would be given a chance after such a lengthy body of mediocrity.

Alex Smith perhaps, but he has been considerably better than Bradford over his career if you ask me.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

I’m not sure how you can discount money, seeing that Manning earnings at that point were about double what Bradford has made to date but I’ll let you run with that.

Bradford had to deal with two ACL injuries, which takes away a quarter of his 6 years. He also spent his time with teams and coaches who were nowhere near the level Manning was playing with.

Whether his work says a lot about him or not isn't the point, the point is that the two players you’re trying to compare were in completely different positions within their team and the league. Your hypothetical situation is simply a terrible comparison to use to try to knock Bradford’s reaction. Of course a two time SuperBowl winning QB wouldn’t react the same as a QB who is only one seasons back from career threatening two tears of his ACL.

so then why is a qb with two all injuries and limited good tape due to team and coaches demanding a trade because he has competition

the guy has been told he is the starter and has a platform to show what he can do and despite two acl injures and some great but some bad tape he's decided to get in a huff because he may not be guaranteed starter in a years time.

Jolly Red Giant

One possibility is that Bradford could be traded to the 49ers (now that both the top 2 QBs are gone) and then the 49ers will trade Kaepernick to the Broncos. Kelly signed Bradford for the Eagles and clearly wants rid of Kaepernick - all the 49ers have to do to make it happen is pick up $4.9million of Kaeperick's salary.

Realt Dearg Sec

Billy86 wrote: »

There aren't really many good comparisons to Brady Rd to be fair, in no small part because there aren't many QBs who would be given a chance after such a lengthy body of mediocrity.

This is just a magnificent typo.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

One possibility is that Bradford could be traded to the 49ers (now that both the top 2 QBs are gone) and then the 49ers will trade Kaepernick to the Broncos. Kelly signed Bradford for the Eagles and clearly wants rid of Kaepernick - all the 49ers have to do to make it happen is pick up $4.9million of Kaeperick's salary.

dont think it will happen eagles have 11 mill in dead cap if they trade bradford in order to eat that they would want to be getting a highish pick and i can't imagine to many teams doing so

Beefy78

Braden Warm Monochrome wrote: »

dont think it will happen eagles have 11 mill in dead cap if they trade bradford in order to eat that they would want to be getting a highish pick and i can't imagine to many teams doing so

If Bradford is going anywhere he has to restructure his deal and give a chunk of that bonus back. I don't see how a trade is workable otherwise.

Beefy78

Beefy78 wrote: »

If Bradford is going anywhere he has to restructure his deal and give a chunk of that bonus back. I don't see how a trade is workable otherwise.

can you give a signing bonus back after the fact?

Billy86

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

This is just a magnificent typo.

Autocorrect strikes again! :pac:

Jolly Red Giant

Braden Warm Monochrome wrote: »

can you give a signing bonus back after the fact?

If the Eagles want to trade Bradford they would have to eat the signing bonus - any team that trades for him would be on the hook for $7million this year. Bradford would probably have to renegotiate next year - I doubt anyone would be willing to commit to $17million for 2017 (certainly the Broncos wouldn't) and wouldn't agree to give up a mid-rounder for a one year player.

helimachoptor

Does he re-negotiate in order to be "the man"?

Pyjamarama

Augme wrote: »

The problem is the chance of him even getting a to play would be low.

How so? Its pretty clear that the Eagles want Wentz to sit for a year or two before starting. Which given his lack of experience is a good thing. I'd be shocked if they didn't give Sam their full backing as starter this year. I doubt they paid him all that money to not start for them.

Realt Dearg Sec

Pyjamarama wrote: »

How so? Its pretty clear that the Eagles want Wentz to sit for a year or two before starting. Which given his lack of experience is a good thing. I'd be shocked if they didn't give Sam their full backing as starter this year. I doubt they paid him all that money to not start for them.

Exactly.

The argument that he is still going to be in a place where they have already hired his replacement doesn't hold up for me, since he was always going to be on a short contract anyway, and is unlikely to be given another one elsewhere either. Whether he does it in Philadelphia or some other place, he is still going to have to prove himself worthy of a longer term contract *somewhere* during 2016. Whether the Eagles drafted Wentz or not (or Goff) that would still be the same set of circumstances. This response has sent a bad signal to other teams now though.

The argument that if he was happy to sit on the bench it would show a lack of fight doesn't hold up, because that's not what looks like happening here. Although if that's how he responds to competition, then maybe it WILL happen, but that's kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Foxtrol

Braden Warm Monochrome wrote: »

so then why is a qb with two all injuries and limited good tape due to team and coaches demanding a trade because he has competition

the guy has been told he is the starter and has a platform to show what he can do and despite two acl injures and some great but some bad tape he's decided to get in a huff because he may not be guaranteed starter in a years time.

Nothing you’ve posted there in anyway justifies the silly comparison with how Manning may have reacted in 2013 if the Giants had drafted Nassib in the first round, which is what I took issue with.

On the situation itself, I can see how Bradford could/would be annoyed by what transpired but I really don’t know what he hopes to be the end game by handing in the transfer request. Somewhat similar to Kap, I don’t see the Eagles allowing themselves to be lowballed/eat a loss so the player can get away.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

Nothing you’ve posted there in anyway justifies the silly comparison with how Manning may have reacted in 2013 if the Giants had drafted Nassib in the first round, which is what I took issue with.

On the situation itself, I can see how Bradford could/would be annoyed by what transpired but I really don’t know what he hopes to be the end game by handing in the transfer request. Somewhat similar to Kap, I don’t see the Eagles allowing themselves to be lowballed/eat a loss so the player can get away.

Cool so you partially agree with me but decided to pull out one part of what I said and ignore the rest...fun

Augme

Pyjamarama wrote: »

How so? Its pretty clear that the Eagles want Wentz to sit for a year or two before starting. Which given his lack of experience is a good thing. I'd be shocked if they didn't give Sam their full backing as starter this year. I doubt they paid him all that money to not start for them.

I don't think it's all that clear. They gave him all that money to start, but that was long before they had traded up in the draft. All bets are off now in terms of who will be starter and it most definitely won't be a straight-up competition of who is better. I can't ever imagine a scenario where a team gives up so much for a to sit for a year, let alone 2. If Wentz looks simply competent he'll get the start, because that's what will be good for development and the pressure will demand.

Augme

Augme wrote: »

I don't think it's all that clear. They gave him all that money to start, but that was long before they had traded up in the draft. All bets are off now in terms of who will be starter and it most definitely won't be a straight-up competition of who is better. I can't ever imagine a scenario where a team gives up so much for a to sit for a year, let alone 2. If Wentz looks simply competent he'll get the start, because that's what will be good for development and the pressure will demand.

would it be good for his development though? he's a relatively new qb that could do with taking a year at least to iron out the kinks. being thrown in early has been the death of a lot of qbs

Foxtrol

Braden Warm Monochrome wrote: »

Cool so you partially agree with me but decided to pull out one part of what I said and ignore the rest...fun

No I disagreed with this full post of yours – see below:

Braden Warm Monochrome wrote: »

I wouldn't be Eli's biggest fan but had nassib been drafted in the first I can't imagine Eli doing this (perhaps complained that the pick could have been spent on a lineman or a weapon but that's a separate argument)

Rather than putting your hands up and accepting that it was a stupid comparison you decided you’d try to dig your way out, and in the process actually agreed with the differences in the situations of Manning and Bradford.

Sorry that you cant accept when you’re wrong. I wont comment on anymore of your ridiculous comparisons in the furture.

Augme

Braden Warm Monochrome wrote: »

would it be good for his development though? he's a relatively new qb that could do with taking a year at least to iron out the kinks. being thrown in early has been the death of a lot of qbs

The issue in modern takes is that front offices don't have massive amounts of time for players to sit. While this front office has a bit longer because it's new they will still feel the pressure to get Wentz in after 6 games if Eagles(or Bradford) is struggling. Even if Bradford is playing well enough but the team is losing then again there'll be pressure to get Wentz in once the chances of play-offs are over.

The other interesting thing is that starting a rookie QB early will help relieve some of the pressure of losing I think. You have the rookie QB excuse to fall back on, you don't have that with Bradford. Another funny scenario would be for Bradford to play lights out and take them to the play-offs, that would be a real interesting dilemma for the Eagles next year. It will be interesting to see what happens anyway, could go a number of ways.

Jolly Red Giant

Augme wrote: »

I don't think it's all that clear. They gave him all that money to start, but that was long before they had traded up in the draft. All bets are off now in terms of who will be starter and it most definitely won't be a straight-up competition of who is better. I can't ever imagine a scenario where a team gives up so much for a to sit for a year, let alone 2. If Wentz looks simply competent he'll get the start, because that's what will be good for development and the pressure will demand.

The problems begin if Bradford stinks up a couple of games (which is distinctly possible given the shambles the Eagles appear to be) - it won't take much for the Eagles fans to demand he be benched in favour of the rookie (and Eagles fans are notorious for making their feelings known).

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

No I disagreed with this full post of yours – see below:



Rather than putting your hands up and accepting that it was a stupid comparison you decided you’d try to dig your way out, and in the process actually agreed with the differences in the situations of Manning and Bradford.

Sorry that you cant accept when you’re wrong. I wont comment on anymore of your ridiculous comparisons in the furture.

After your initial response I said ok forget about the comparison but please feel free to ignore my many ridiculous comparisons

Augme

Augme wrote: »

The issue in modern takes is that front offices don't have massive amounts of time for players to sit. While this front office has a bit longer because it's new they will still feel the pressure to get Wentz in after 6 games if Eagles(or Bradford) is struggling. Even if Bradford is playing well enough but the team is losing then again there'll be pressure to get Wentz in once the chances of play-offs are over.

The other interesting thing is that starting a rookie QB early will help relieve some of the pressure of losing I think. You have the rookie QB excuse to fall back on, you don't have that with Bradford. Another funny scenario would be for Bradford to play lights out and take them to the play-offs, that would be a real interesting dilemma for the Eagles next year. It will be interesting to see what happens anyway, could go a number of ways.

You could be right there I feel like lurie is a patient owner in general but it's really hard to say as this franchise has not had this kind of situation before. Personally I hope they don't rush wentz in I think he would be a lot better off red shirting

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The problems begin if Bradford stinks up a couple of games (which is distinctly possible given the shambles the Eagles appear to be) - it won't take much for the Eagles fans to demand he be benched in favour of the rookie (and Eagles fans are notorious for making their feelings known).

Ya we could win a few games because of our d but there are a lot of questions on the offence after this sam has painted a target on his back which is a shame because I feel like the fan base where really rooting for him

adrian522

Would it make sense for Denver to make a run at Bradford given what he is owed is about what John Elway wants to spend on a QB? I dont see too many better options for around $7m per year. That would be dependent on Philadelphia taking the big hit on the signing bonus though, which probably wouldn't happen.

I don't see any way he ends up in SF though.

Jolly Red Giant

adrian522 wrote: »

Would it make sense for Denver to make a run at Bradford given what he is owed is about what John Elway wants to spend on a QB? I dont see too many better options for around $7m per year. That would be dependent on Philadelphia taking the big hit on the signing bonus though, which probably wouldn't happen

Can't see Elway - or any GM for that matter - giving up anything other than a conditional draft pick for a player based on one year of play - and I don't see any being willing to commit what Bradford is due to make next year.

A number of QBs will be drafted and some dominos will fall shortly afterwards - the QB saga is far from over and I doubt anything happens this side of the draft.

adrian522

So you are saying nothing will happen tonight? Also conditional draft pick doesn't mean anything. I'm sure a first/second would be acceptable to Philly. Sixth/seventh less so.

Given the broncos only want to pay back up money and not give up more than a 4th or 5th rounder I don't see them doing much better to be honest.

adrian522

adrian522 wrote: »

So you are saying nothing will happen tonight? Also conditional draft pick doesn't mean anything. I'm sure a first/second would be acceptable to Philly. Sixth/seventh less so.

Given the broncos only want to pay back up money and not give up more than a 4th or 5th rounder I don't see them doing much better to be honest.

id be very surprised if anything happened

Jolly Red Giant

adrian522 wrote: »

Given the broncos only want to pay back up money and not give up more than a 4th or 5th rounder I don't see them doing much better to be honest.

There is not a single FA QB available (or a single contracted QB who might be available for trade) who can be considered even an average starter in the NFL. Every single one of them, including Bradford, would have to come to Denver and win the starting job. Why would Elway (or anyone) pay starter money for a QB who is not guaranteed to be a starter in a Broncos team that had pretty much the worst QB play of any team last season and would have to compete against the likes of Sanchez and Siemian for the job?

The reason Elway won't pay Kaepernick more than $7million (or any other QB) is that they could end up as the back-up and the Broncos will not pay starter money to have a QB sit on the bench. Elway did offer starter money to Osweiler because Os would have been the starter if he stayed in Denver.

And to answer your question - I would be very surprised if the Broncos made any move to trade for a QB before or during the draft. I could see the Broncos move up in the second round if Cook was still on the board - but I can't see Elway reaching for him in the first round. Elway has traditionally filled need through FA and taken the BPA in the draft. I do expect the Broncos to move up in the 2nd and 3rd rounds (or even in the first if someone drops because of teams reaching - especially for what is a poor crop of QBs) - they have 10 picks and will not be able to sign that many rookies.

My hope is that the Bills take Lynch and are then willing to trade Taylor for reasonable compensation.

Billy86

Personally I think Ryan Fitzpatrick makes a tonne of sense to Denver. He's very smart, a good pro and locker room influence, experienced but not over the hill at 33, and despite playing for four different teams under four different coaches in four non QB friendly systems (with the possible exception of Houston) has had a TD percentage of 5.0 (the same as Ben, so he can find the endzone which is a major bonus for a game manager), an INT percentage of 2.7 (just 0.2 more than Ben, Brees or Peyton) for an average of 230 yds a game (3,700 over 16 games). His 7.1 YPA is around middle of the pack and his 61% completion rate is a little below average, but if the price is right I really don't see how a 1-2 year deal wouldn't be highly mutually beneficial.

Beefy78

I'm no Sam Bradford fan but he's a starting calibre NFL quarterback. Fitzpatrick is as well. Certainly good enough to be paid starter money in Denver.

Kaepernick has question marks at this stage but I think his $11m(?) contract is fair

Ya I'm not sams biggest fan at the moment but particularly as the season went on he played well. Also a lot of his issues at the start of the year where actually on the receivers and he did it with little run game and brutal guard play. I think he could certainly do better than Payton did he didn't throw many deep balls last year which could be a concern but it did look like he had the arm to particularly as the season went on and he got more comfortable with his health

coco0981

Beefy78 wrote: »

I'm no Sam Bradford fan but he's a starting calibre NFL quarterback. Fitzpatrick is as well. Certainly good enough to be paid starter money in Denver.

Kaepernick has question marks at this stage but I think his $11m(?) contract is fair

Heard a stat on the around the nfl podcast that since Bradford was drafted in 2010, 20 quarterbacks have started 60 or more games. Bradford is last in every major stat except for completion % where he is 19th.

I can't get my head around the attitude from him, he's been poor when healthy which isn't that often. He surely must have known when the Eagles only offered a 2 year contract that they would be looking to build for the future. He is still the number 1, stay and fight for your place. If he got them into the playoffs it would be very hard to drop him.

Beefy78

I agree with the second paragraph. If those stats are true then that's telling but there was a marked improvement in Bradford over the course of the 2015 season. Maybe he just needed that run of games as he has so rarely had that.

I don't think anyone is saying he's top tier but my original point was that he's worth more than backup money in today's NFL.