Is Sam Bradford better than Nick Foles?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
thirteen28 said:
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.
Click to expand...

They don't tell the full story, but they tell you a heck of a lot. Hopefully Foles is far better than Davis, Fisher/Snead clearly think so, but he wasn't last year. Truth is Foles is probably somewhere between 2013 and 2014, but if his true level is 2014 then it was an awful trade, time will tell.
 
dieterbrock said:
Got it. So we knew they were going to trade Sam as well?
Hard to keep up with what we know.
You know?
Click to expand...
I don't think even they knew that until the offers started coming in.

"We'll give you a first."
"Nah."

"We'll give you a first and third."
"Nah."

"We'll give you our QB and a 2nd and a 5th."
"Hmmmmm."

Seriously though, I think they knew they couldn't afford to go into the next year with Bradford as the primary option in year 4 of their tenure, and it was more than likely because of the injury - not because they thought he wasn't capable of winning. They were probably looking for a decent free agent and were planning on maneuvering in the draft to get the best QB they scouted before Kelly came in and rocked their world. I mean, they called us. It wasn't the other way around. And I haven't heard any stories of the Rams putting out feelers for other teams' QBs either, so....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rmfnlt
-X- said:
I don't think even they knew that until the offers started coming in.

"We'll give you a first."
"Nah."

"We'll give you a first and third."
"Nah."

"We'll give you our QB and a 2nd and a 5th."
"Hmmmmm."

Seriously though, I think they knew they couldn't afford to go into the next year with Bradford as the primary option in year 4 of their tenure, and it was more than likely because of the injury - not because they thought he wasn't capable of winning. They were probably looking for a decent free agent and were planning on maneuvering in the draft to get the best QB they scouted before Kelly came in and rocked their world. I mean, they called us. It wasn't the other way around. And I haven't heard any stories of the Rams putting out feelers for other teams' QBs either, so....
Click to expand...

Other than the rumors that they were interested in Foles back during the combine

Of course back then we didnt believe it.

On the field, in live NFL games, Nick Foles has played at a higher level then Sam Bradford ever has. I'm not sure how that's not an agreeable statement.
So for me, I'm giving the nod on upside to Nick.

And of course, he's also our QB which pretty much puts me in his corner. But I'm an admitted homer so that's obviously with a grain of salt
 
  • Like
Reactions: LazyWinker and ReddingRam
dieterbrock said:
On the field, in live NFL games, Nick Foles has played at a higher level then Sam Bradford ever has. I'm not sure how that's not an agreeable statement.
Click to expand...
Well, I didn't disagree with that, so...
That said, 2014 was more of an example of what he can do on a consistent basis.

I'm just saying it's kind of common sense that his injury status was an enormous gamble going into next year for Fisher, and there isn't a single soul on the internet who didn't have the same exact opinion. Fisher also stated that they weren't going to take a first rounder in exchange. It was only until someone gave him a viable option to replace Bradford that he entertained the offer. All JMO.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: Rmfnlt, Mojo Ram and ReddingRam
RAGRam said:
They don't tell the full story, but they tell you a heck of a lot. Hopefully Foles is far better than Davis, Fisher/Snead clearly think so, but he wasn't last year. Truth is Foles is probably somewhere between 2013 and 2014, but if his true level is 2014 then it was an awful trade, time will tell.
Click to expand...
Welcome to ROD RAGRam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RAGRam
RamseyF said:
if you go by market value, Foles is worth a 2nd rounder. Sam was worth a late first-rounder and hasn't played in 2 years.

I talked to a Ram fan in San Diego a few weeks back. He said Sam had no trade value. I said he had some value, but I didn't think it was a QB plus a 2nd . Now we find out the net-net for Sam was a 1st rounder. And I guess, but I don't know that Snead said more than one team offered a late 1st for Sam.

Health is only thing holding Sam back. I hope he does well, but I hope Foles does better and when he play tat Foles beats him
Click to expand...

In which case Foles would be worth a late first rounder and a second rounder since that is how you are valuing Bradford who was traded for Foles as part of a package.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dieterbrock
LesBaker said:
In which case Foles would be worth a late first rounder and a second rounder since that is how you are valuing Bradford who was traded for Foles as part of a package.
Click to expand...
except Foles' value is established as a 2nd round pick because that's the only way you can get to a 1st round value for Sam. And we know Bradford's value was a late 1st round by maybe a couple or a few teams. So, to get to late 1st round you have to give Foles a 2nd round value.

I don't think you can then go back and say he's worth. it would be like solving for x twice, or x has two different values. If you did that yu could plug in that 1st and 2nd round value again and eventually it becomes exponential.

I get where you are coming from, as I said a friend of ine sad Sam had no trade value and he got teased for that. I thought Sam had value, but not 1st round value . . . I was wrong. But the facts as we find them is Sam is worth a laste 1st and Foles is worth a 2nd . . that's all I am saying, I was putting a different twist to an answer to the question of the thread.
 
RamseyF said:
except Foles' value is established as a 2nd round pick because that's the only way you can get to a 1st round value for Sam. And we know Bradford's value was a late 1st round by maybe a couple or a few teams. So, to get to late 1st round you have to give Foles a 2nd round value.

I don't think you can then go back and say he's worth. it would be like solving for x twice, or x has two different values. If you did that yu could plug in that 1st and 2nd round value again and eventually it becomes exponential.

I get where you are coming from, as I said a friend of ine sad Sam had no trade value and he got teased for that. I thought Sam had value, but not 1st round value . . . I was wrong. But the facts as we find them is Sam is worth a laste 1st and Foles is worth a 2nd . . that's all I am saying, I was putting a different twist to an answer to the question of the thread.
Click to expand...

Foles was traded for a guy you value at a late first rounder and a second rouner.

What does that make him worth? :ROFLMAO:
 
LesBaker said:
Foles was traded for a guy you value at a late first rounder and a second rouner.

What does that make him worth? :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
First, I don't value Sam as a late first-rounder. That's what has been said by Kelly and Fisher. So that value is established by the market. Foles is worth a 2nd round pick because that is the only way to get to late-1st for Bradford.

I don't know what bur you have under your saddle, but I am not knocking Foles in anyway. Nor am I praising Bradford. It's just an analysis. But it's based on the established value based on public statements by two coaches who are in the know.

I know the draft value chart is not exact. It's kind of a guideline.
 
iced said:
Foles injury history:

IR'ed week 17 of 2012 w/ a hand injury
Missed a game in 2013 with Concussion (his first start was week 4)
Collarbone last year (week 9)
Click to expand...
Now ... compare that to Bradford's ... then decide the term "injury prone"......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back