Sam Bradford, Philadelphia Eagle

[hunt]

they signed him to that deal because opposing defenses have to respect his running ability.



right   

[smeags]

it's obvious that J finds sanchez as dreamy as rex ryan did, before their breakup.

[Sgt PSN]

Sanchez is kind of the perfect back up QB. If your starter goes down for a few games, Sanchez is capable of playing really well over short stretches of time. So if you need to cover like 1-3 starts, you should be just fine with him. But if your starter has to miss like half of a season, Sanchez will come crashing back to Earth and remind everyone why he isn't an actual starter. He simply can't sustain a high level of play for extended periods of time.

[PhillyPhreak54]

lololol

I don't know if I can be any clearer on this.

I know that Sanchez is what he is...I mean we saw him last year for extended time. We saw him be mobile enough to have a defense have to respect the read option. Not that he would turn into some speedster but he can do it enough to help open up the run.

I know he throws awful picks at times...but not nearly as brutal as Bradford's.

[Diomedes]

Ten more pages of this, please.

[MDS]

wait im confused i thought j had the eagles winning the super bowl

[ice grillin you]

I know he throws awful picks at times...but not nearly as brutal as Bradford's.

career td to int ratio

bradford +21
sanchez +2

[smeags]

I know he throws awful picks at times...but not nearly as brutal as Bradford's.

career td to int ratio

bradford +21
sanchez +2

yeah but I bet sanchez's stats under Kelly last year were much better.

oh wait.

[Sgt PSN]

I know he throws awful picks at times...but not nearly as brutal as Bradford's.

career td to int ratio

bradford +21
sanchez +2

yeah but I bet sanchez's stats under Kelly last year were much better.

oh wait.

+3 (14 td/11 int)

And this kind of points to what I was talking about with Sanchez being perfectly fine for a few games, but not fine for an extended period of time:

His first 3 games last year the Eagles went 2-1 vs Hou (lol), Car (lol), GB (omg!).  He threw 6 tds and 4 int.  He started 2 of them and came in to relieve Foles against Houston. 

For the final 6 games, the Eagles went 3-3 (4 of those were division games).  He threw 8 tds and 7 int. 

All in all, the Eagles were 4-4 with Sanchez as the starting QB.

So when you ask for Mark Sanchez to replace Sam Bradford, you're essentially asking for a .500 football team.....which is exactly what they have right now with Bradford.

Only difference is that Bradford can actually still play better, which will make the team as a whole much better.  He's not likely to play any worse.  So at worst with Sam Bradford you get the same results as you will with Mark Sanchez at his best. 

[Diomedes]

There may be fewer of them, but Bradford's INTs look so much worse?

[General_Failure]

I don't know if I can be any clearer on this.

There is no amount of clarification that can make a dumb thing a not dumb thing. If there was, IGY wouldn't post so often.

[smeags]

I don't know if I can be any clearer on this.

There is no amount of clarification that can make a dumb thing a not dumb thing. If there was, IGY wouldn't post so often.

haaa

[ice grillin you]

look at the crowd im dealing with

[PhillyPhreak54]

how's the air up in your stratosphere, King?

[Diomedes]

Not much oxygen, brain damage.