But let’s make our pitch anyway while tipping a cap to sportstalk in general, and WIP’s Josh Innes and his cohorts in particular for getting the mentally challenged juices here flowing a bit Thursday on this …
With former Eagles quarterback Nick Foles having been released, as per his request, by the Los Angeles Rams on Wednesday and incumbent starter Sam Bradford still having to win over the masses in Philly, you got a classic case of “who ya got” brewing in fantasy land.
As in … hey, if the city’s NFL franchise brought back Foles, a year after, ironically enough, being traded for Bradford, who would you rather have as the starter? Or, one step further, who would you rather have on the roster?
Always been an obvious choice for me – Foles.
Without any hesitation. Without any doubt.
Having been predisposed to Bradford in a way most in our pro sports-centric, never-bother-with-college-stuff town were not, never liked his game, his grid-related demeanor, his knack for getting injured or his “just saw a UFO” eyes even when he was winning a Heisman Trophy back at Oklahoma University.
So, unlike seemingly everyone else with a valid or completely distorted opinion of him, never was so taken with Bradford going No. 1 in the 2010 draft that it should merit him receiving a lifetime supply of opportunities and excuses to be instinctively handed the keys to any offense on any team for any coach as if, hah, no one else could be better.
Total joke … and Bradford has had the laugh on all.
Put it this way, had he not been chosen where he was, nobody would be making a case for him in any debate, including this one.
No matter how bad they profess Foles to suck.
Not for nothing, but even with the Blonde Bomber having a cataclysmically bad 2015, he still trumps Sammy Sleeves in just about every tangibly relevant individual-based stat as a pro – TD-to-INT ratio, yards per passing attempt, completion percentage, passer rating. Not to mention that he, unlike Mister 25-37-1, has winning record in his career and the only playoff appearance between the two.
Besides, if Bradford is gonna get a pass for his career-worst 2011 campaign, it’s only fair to let Foles walk on last year … since their numbers for each are incredibly comparable, with the latter’s record (4-7) and completion percentage (56.4) actually better than the former’s (1-9 and 53.5).
For me, never just about numbers anyway. The eye and attitude tests fall significantly in Foles’ favor here. Not only he is bigger, sturdier and blessed with a stronger arm, but he has shown the balls to take shots on passes downfield that Bradford never would – which plays as well with teammates as it does with fans. As does not showing up others with the types of comments or “your fault” looks that Bradford struggled to avoid last season.
It’s funny how everyone is so quick to dismiss Foles’ brilliant 2013 season as a fluke, or some kind of stupendous four-months-long exercise of saving his ass by fellow Eagles to make him look good, too. Reality is, he was the best player on a 10-6 team, a team that was destined for a losing record had he not taken the reins, that year.
The fall-off since? Honestly believe Chip Kelly and his staff initially screwed that one up by having the guy make unnecessarily spastically quick decisions on where to go with the ball – a year after he tossed 27 TDs and just 2 INTs while posting the third-best passer rating in the NFL of all time – and then last year was just a colossal mess.
One that would have been avoided had the Birds just not dealt Foles for Bradford.