March 12, 2015
Wonder what they're saying about the blockbuster quarterback trade between the Rams and Eagles in St. Louis? Are you sure you want to know?
The consensus from Rams land seems to be they pulled one over on the Eagles. But their arguments are weak.
Sam Bradford is always hurt. Nick Foles is younger and cheaper.
But who is the better passer? Not a lot of talk in St. Louis about that, perhaps because they know they lost a superior quarterback. Or maybe they were tired of getting their hopes up only to be let down by injury after injury.
While that's understandable, it's also shortsighted. Bradford could play the rest of his career relatively injury-free; Nick Foles could blow out his knee in the team's first minicamp. It may not be likely, but that's the nature of this game we call football.
We'll get in to more of that later, but first, let's go through some of the headlines coming out of St. Louis:
Bradford fatigue set in a long time ago here, and he wasn’t going to shake it. The Rams paid Bradford $65 million in salary and bonuses for a grand total of 18 victories scattered among his 49 starts.
There was another cost: by clinging to the belief that Bradford eventually would pay off, GM Les Snead and Fisher failed to cultivate a legitimate alternative at quarterback.
It was time to put an end to this maddening, frustrating and unfortunate cycle. Fortunately for the Rams, Kelly bailed them out by making a generous trade for what’s left of Bradford’s career.
[...]
The Rams won the deal for a simple reason. A team tight on salary-cap space wasn’t seeing a reasonable value for its investment. Another $13 million salary for 2015 wasn’t going to protect Bradford’s twice-repaired left knee and insure his viability and success. [stltoday.com]
Lots of talk about how the trade was beneficial for the Rams and Bradford, but not much about the Eagles getting better. Miklasz also pointed out that Bradford never had much help in St. Louis, but says that it wouldn't have mattered much anyway since the former Heisman winner was unable to stay healthy.
You can't win many games when you're on IR all the time.
Then again, Miklasz does mention a scenario in which the Rams could lose this trade, and in a big way. Say Bradford works in Philly -- stay with me here because I know there are a lot of skeptics out there -- and the Eagles make the playoffs this year. Maybe they even win a game or two. Meanwhile, in St. Louis, Foles regresses. He will almost certainly be playing with less talent at the skill positions than he was here. If he doesn't sign a deal with the Rams, Foles could opt to leave following the 2015 season.
There would that leave the Rams?
Rams fans should love this deal. Bradford remained a huge injury liability after still another knee operation. He was heading into the walk (limp? hobble? stagger?) year of his onerous contract paying him $13 million for the coming season. His camp resisted reworking the deal, which was crazy.
Sure, he seemed better than any of the free agent options available this year -- but Bradford was certainly less appealing than Foles. Especially playing on one good leg for $13 million.
Gordon then takes a shot at the Eagles, one that many fans have echoed over the past few days:
Still, many NFL scouts hold Foles in high regard. Why the Eagles would make this trade without getting the 10th overall pick in the draft is baffling. More amazing: The Rams came out ahead in the draft pick swap, sending a No. 5 in 2015 with Bradford for a No. 4 in '15 and a No. 2 in 2016. [stltoday.com]
I believe it was Chip Kelly who said that "you have to give up something to get something back."
Not true. People steal all the time.
All along, the Rams didn't seem that interested in trading Bradford, with the important caveat that they might if the right offer came along. As the process moved on, Philadelphia apparently sweetened the pot to finally reach something with which the Rams felt comfortable. That something included Foles, a 2015 fourth-round pick and a 2016 second-round selection, not to mention a net savings of about $11,443,000 when subtracting Foles' 2015 cap number from Bradford's.
Make no mistake, Foles has plenty to prove in his new digs, not least of which includes proving that he can perform in an offense outside of Kelly's control. But a new start certainly won't hurt in those endeavors and the Rams figure to make moves to help him along the way.
Considering that Foles comes as a younger, cheaper, healthier (though he's had health issues) option, the Rams netted valuable future picks that could potentially provide a quarterback if Foles doesn't work out, and they got some much-needed cap space to improve other areas, it's hard not to see this as a win for the Rams. [ESPN.com]
What's this, more talk about how Rams won the Bradford-for-Foles deal? Didn't see that one coming...
In another piece, outlining why the Rams must re-establish a run-first identity, Wagoner cuts right to the heart of it:
In Foles, the Rams are getting a fresh start at the game's most important position, albeit one with limitations who has yet to prove he can consistently perform in an offense outside of what Chip Kelly does in Philadelphia.
Foles should be an upgrade over Bradford by the simple act of being healthy and cost-effective. [ESPN.com]
So let me get this straight: Foles was so much of an upgrade that the team now the Rams need to prepare to utilize a run-heavy offense because he is limited as a passer? Gotcha.
The biggest reason to be excited for this deal is the difference in 2015 salaries. Foles will produce a $1.3 million cap hit in 2015 while Bradford is going to cost $12.9 million. Instead of risking Bradford staying another year and simply walking away after the season, the Rams potentially found themselves a QB for the future. While fans in St. Louis don't know where that future holds, they should be happy with Nick Foles. He could provide the same result for roughly 10-13 million dollars less. The Rams could use the extra money to find a receiver and find an offensive lineman to protect Foles.
Sam Bradford did the best he could with the conditions he was given in 2010, but in the end, a better idea or option existed elsewhere. I am not saying Nick Foles will take the Rams to the playoffs or the Super Bowl in 2015, but he will fit right into Jeff Fisher's offensive scheme, which favors the ground and pound style. [KDSK.com]
Yet another story saying that the biggest factor in this deal is the money.
I know the NFL is a business, but it's also about providing on-field results. I haven't yet found a story that say Foles the better of the two quarterbacks. It seems like it all comes down to money, age and health.
As far as age is concerned, what's the point of having a younger quarterback if you don't plan on signing him and making him your longterm answer at the position?
Foles will need a new contract after this season, and if he plays well -- like the Rams and their fans hope -- it's going to cost them almost the same as what they were paying Bradford. So you can toss the money argument out too.
In terms of health, that's always open to change. Like Chip Kelly said in his press conference on Wednesday, the injury rate in the NFL is 100 percent, it just depends on the severity. Both quarterbacks, Foles and Bradford, have been injured recently. The main difference is that one injury was worse than the other.
If Bradford stays healthy -- at least in terms of his knees -- and the Rams re-sign Foles to a long-term deal, what's the real difference between the two going forward?
Finally, some evaluation of the trade that actually has to do with the Xs and Os rather than salary cap, draft picks, etc. And what do you know, the Rams didn't kill the Eagles in this deal. In fact, Nathan Jahnke graded the trades for ESPN.com and it turns out the swap worked out slightly in favor of the Eagles.
Jahnke gave the Eagles a C-plus for the deal, while the Rams got a C-minus.
Neither parent -- in this case owners Jeffrey Lurie and Stan Kroenke -- are going to be hanging that report card on the refrigerator.
Here's what Jahnke had to say about the deal from an Eagles perspective:
The last we saw of Sam Bradford was in 2013, and at that time he was one of the most accurate quarterbacks in the league. His accuracy percentage (completion percentage adjusted for receiver drops and other factors) was 74.7 percent, which was seventh best among 41 qualifying quarterbacks. The last time he played a full season was 2012, when he was above average, grading out at a plus-8.5 in his PFF pass rating.
[...]
The move looks like an upgrade for the Eagles. While Foles played well in 2013, his play deteriorated in 2014. His accuracy percentage in 2014 was 68.6 percent, which ranked in the bottom 10 among quarterbacks.
And from the Rams side:
While the Rams are getting a quarterback with less of an injury history, they are also getting a quarterback who hasn't played as well in the NFL, despite his early statistical success.
One of Foles' biggest problems is his play under pressure. He completed just 39.8 percent of his passes under pressure and posted a 4-to-5 touchdown-to-interception ratio.
He goes to a Rams team whose offensive line had a pass blocking efficiency of 75.7, which was the fifth worst in the league. ...
In making this trade, the Rams now have less upside at the QB position for potentially a second-round pick in 2016.
Funny how the quarterback that twice tore his ACL was playing behind one of the worst offensive lines in the league. I wonder if that's a coincidence.
Furthermore, Foles' struggles under pressure will only be amplified in St. Louis, where he doesn't have a LeSean McCoy to use as a safety valve when the line inevitably collapses.
As expected, stlouisrams.com was quite upbeat about the deal. Not only did they post a video of Foles' seven-touchdown performance against the Raiders, but they also put together a 45-second highlight reel that included things like:
• Foles throwing screen passes to LeSean McCoy.
• Jeremy Maclin making a diving catch on a ball Foles overthrew.
• Foles nearly being sacked by the Rams. It cut away before you could see if he was able to escape the rush.
• Foles scrambling out of the pocket. This also cut away before you could see how the play ended, presumably with Foles awkwardly trying to slide and nearly hurting himself.
• Foles hitting Riley Cooper on a 10-yard out.
• Foles threading the needle to hitting a wide open DeSean Jackson. I mean, there's no one else anywhere close to him. I could have made that throw with my left* hand.
Not exactly the best way to get your fan base excited. Then again, maybe just having a new face under center will fire up the fans. Not sure why that isn't having the same affect here in Philly.
Despite all the positivity out of St. Louis, some are not sold entirely on the move.
As much promise as I saw in Bradford, there were flaws. The worst aspect of his game for me was his play-action fakes. Did I say bad? They were Ishtar/Show Girls/You're Shoe's Untied bad. No, really! His battering due to the lack of blocking led Bradford to kind of devolving into a check down quarterback, and in truth it may have been a blessing now that he's in Chip Kelly's fast-paced offense. His time in the pocket will diminish, or at least I hope it will...
Nick Foles been added to take Bradford's place. No offense to young Mr. Foles, but I really don't care, or at least not right now. Foles represents a quarterback his former coach didn't want, and has had his own injury bug. So for now, I'll sit back and see if he works out or not... [SBNation]
Turf Show Times also did a post where all their writers shared initial reactions to the trade. As expected, some were more positive than others, but the overall feel you get from them is that the Rams came out on top in this deal. Like this, from the site's editor Peter Dunbar:
...I almost feel the same as I did when we robbed Indy to snag Faulk back in 1999, and we all know how that worked out.
That said, I still think we need a couple more playmakers on offense, and now the OL has just jumped to the #1 need... But that's something every Ram fan already realizes.
Or this, from another one of their writers, Sean Wilkinson:
I always loved Sam's talent and defended him, but in the end talent can't do jack for a team on IR. Foles may not be as talented as Bradford, but he's proven that he can be crazy efficient in the NFL - that he can WIN in the NFL. I can't wait to see what our shiny new QB can do with Tavon, Quick and Co.
The Rams become the latest beneficiary of whatever craziness Chip Kelly is implementing in Philly. [SBNation]
So while it appears that not everyone is St. Louis is sold on the deal, the majority of people are happy to see a new quarterback get a chance in the offense, which is totally understandable.
If you'd like to get a sense of what fans in St. Louis are saying, SBNation's also got you covered there. They have a wrap-up of Twitter reactions, including some from Bradford's former teammates.
It can't be easy drafting a guy with the resume Bradford had, only to be forced to watch him watch the Rams play as he recovered from injury after injury. However, if Bradford can be healthy, or if he is used by the Eagles as a chip -- we know that you're the only Chip in town, coach -- to move up and draft Marcus Mariota, then Rams fans may no longer feel they got the best of this deal.
