[dieterbrock]

It is what it is, as they say. Are you more comfortable just chalking it up to coincidence? If anything, your example of the Eagles playing better in Dallas makes it more confusing. I agree, it doesn't make any sense for the Eagles to struggle at home vs. the Cowboys but there it is. Not only that, it coincides with Kelly becoming HC. I mean, wouldn't most people assume the Eagles would play better at home than at Dallas in these matchups?

It doesn't prove anything but IMO, it has to be something more than just coincidence. Especially considering the success the Eagles had against Dallas in Dallas in the same years.

Im really struggling to understand your point. Kelly has had a weird career where he lost his first 4 home games (Including that Foles game) but since has won 10 of his next 12.

How does this relate? I dont know.

What I do know is that Sam was terrible against the Cowboys and call it coincidence or not, but the last team to be held to 21 yards in the first half in a game walso had Bradford at the healm.

You're a stand up guy, call it like it is. He was terrible against Dallas and but for a 4th Q of padded stats, the game was much worse than what the stats show. And as a former fan of the guy, that's my impression of Sam pretty much in his career.
If he starts slow, hes got to hit the bench. Kelly cant sacrifice the betterment of the team to try and give 1 guy a chance.

[dieterbrock]

As for the 50% of sanps conversation, I dont know how they can differentiate between injury and poor performance. Everything I've read said he needs to take 50% of the snaps for the Rams to keep that pick. If his play sufferes, whats to keep Philly from pulling a Tom Brady and listing him on the injury report. Like anyone would doubt Bradford is hurt? He makes Rodger Saffold look like Cal Ripken

[aeneas1]

This is an interesting point. Is there any way to get clarification on the 50% snaps obligation? If that pick is in Philly's control by benching Sam and either they think that there is no drop off by playing Sanchez or they are out of the playoff hunt, no way they give up another pick. That second round pick might already sting enough for Philly in the 2016 Draft. They are probably going to look to draft a QB.

The best scenario for us, clearly is for the 4th round pick to be health based(SB to remain healthy and no made up injury) and for Philly to implode so we can get a high second round pick.

it's hard to imagine any team would guarantee the level of play of a traded player, a player they no longer had control over in terms of success or failure, which is what it would boil down to if the conditional wasn't health-based... it seems clear sam's health, specifically his 2 acl, were the reason for the trade stipulations, so i would find it very surprising if benching was treated the same as injury in terms of the 50% threshold .

who have pined for the moment when they can say "aha!

You mean like exactly what you're doing?

actually, for years, i've pointed out that sam was an ineffective nfl qb, his play in philly is nothing new, hardly an "aha!" moment for me, just the same-o same-o, altho i am surprised sam hasn't been able to at least match sanchez's level of play in chip's system, a system where the qb's decision making responsibility is reduced considerably, then again i never really thought sam was a better qb than sanchez... nope, it was those who were convinced that sam had the goods, but was stifled by the inept rams, who have been pining for that "aha!" moment, a moment they were certain chip & philly would provide, but instead it couldn't have possibly gone any worse. the good news is it's tough to imagine that sam's horrible play in philly can continue indefinitely, the laws of probability alone would suggest he'll have some average outings and some good outings before it's all said and done, assuming chip can wait it out, assuming chip doesn't bench him first.

But the biggest thing that's worked against Bradford in his career is lack of continuity. That hasn't been removed as an issue.

there it is.

[aeneas1]

As for the 50% of sanps conversation, I dont know how they can differentiate between injury and poor performance. Everything I've read said he needs to take 50% of the snaps for the Rams to keep that pick. If his play sufferes, whats to keep Philly from pulling a Tom Brady and listing him on the injury report. Like anyone would doubt Bradford is hurt? He makes Rodger Saffold look like Cal Ripken

claiming sam is hurt when he isn't in order to ensure he doesn't see 50%+ of the snaps is certainly one way they can ensure they get the rams' 4th round pick, but wouldn't sam have to be complicit, to something that would surely impact his future value? getting benched is bad enough if you're trying to get max dollars on the open market, confirmed as injured yet again is worse imo.

[dieterbrock]

As for the 50% of sanps conversation, I dont know how they can differentiate between injury and poor performance. Everything I've read said he needs to take 50% of the snaps for the Rams to keep that pick. If his play sufferes, whats to keep Philly from pulling a Tom Brady and listing him on the injury report. Like anyone would doubt Bradford is hurt? He makes Rodger Saffold look like Cal Ripken

claiming sam is hurt when he isn't in order to ensure he doesn't see 50%+ of the snaps is certainly one way they can ensure they get the rams' 4th round pick, but wouldn't sam have to be complicit, to something that would surely impact his future value? getting benched is bad enough if you're trying to get max dollars on the open market, confirmed as injured yet again is worse imo.

I suppose, but more importantly I havent seen any indication that the snaps were related to injury, just 50% of snaps

[aeneas1]

I suppose, but more importantly I havent seen any indication that the snaps were related to injury, just 50% of snaps

i hear ya, but i don't think any of that language would have been put into the trade deal had it not been for sam's injury history, which is what makes me think it's health based, not performance based... whatever the case, i guess we'll find out if sam continues to struggle and is benched.

[moklerman]

It is what it is, as they say. Are you more comfortable just chalking it up to coincidence? If anything, your example of the Eagles playing better in Dallas makes it more confusing. I agree, it doesn't make any sense for the Eagles to struggle at home vs. the Cowboys but there it is. Not only that, it coincides with Kelly becoming HC. I mean, wouldn't most people assume the Eagles would play better at home than at Dallas in these matchups?

It doesn't prove anything but IMO, it has to be something more than just coincidence. Especially considering the success the Eagles had against Dallas in Dallas in the same years.

Im really struggling to understand your point. Kelly has had a weird career where he lost his first 4 home games (Including that Foles game) but since has won 10 of his next 12.

How does this relate? I dont know.

What I do know is that Sam was terrible against the Cowboys and call it coincidence or not, but the last team to be held to 21 yards in the first half in a game walso had Bradford at the healm.

You're a stand up guy, call it like it is. He was terrible against Dallas and but for a 4th Q of padded stats, the game was much worse than what the stats show. And as a former fan of the guy, that's my impression of Sam pretty much in his career.
If he starts slow, hes got to hit the bench. Kelly cant sacrifice the betterment of the team to try and give 1 guy a chance.

I don't know that I have a point, because I can't explain the weirdness. I'm just showing this particular weirdness.

But I guess it does lean toward the point that 3 different QB's have struggled in consecutive home games against Dallas. I don't know if that's coincidence or meaningful but it's there.

What I don't agree with is benching Bradford. I would if the Eagles offense was everything(or most) of what it was last year and he was just not up to speed or just not getting it. But Maclin, McCoy and the two guards are gone, Austin is new, Aghilor is new. Peters is dinged up...well, I think you'd agree that Bradford isn't just being substituted for Sanchez and all else is equal.

If Bradford and offense are still sputtering at the bye(week 8) then maybe they need to make a change just for change's sake. But, I'm confident their offense will continue to gel and by next week, will be functioning more normally. I think the Jets D is tough enough that it'll be tough to get well this week. But, by next week they'll be coming together.