Interesting article

[CbEagle]

from a hack writer up here. It sounds workable but then we would be keeping Bradford

http://www.mcall.com/sports/football...218-story.html

[Maniac]

He's implying that the Eagles can win a Super Bowl in the next three years with Bradford.

Have to upgrade the guards but any plan that has Bradford on the opening day roster is a non-starter.

[J_Cuz31]

This team needs to get younger not older. Evan Mathis is 35 that isnt the direction this team should be heading in.

Besides, the question if whether to resign Bradford is its own, singular dilemma. To me, they should resign him and use the tag if they need to. The investment, no matter how misguided at the time, was too high, and the replacement (presumably Daniels or Sanchez) is too poor a player to justify letting a legitimate NFL starter walk.

Of course, I can understand the other side of the argument, that investing the money that goes along with a multi-year deal into a fairly average starting QB isnt a path toward immediate playoff success. But the notion that the Eagles could be cycling through bad QBs and junior varsity coaches over the course of the next five seasons is too great to risk on the hope that Pederman can develop a random young QB.

Even average starting QBs do not grow in trees in the NFL. And i dont believe that Bradfords presence as the starter the next few seasons precludes the Eagles from drafting a QB of the future in one of the next few drafts. Most quality franchises make sure they hold on to their veteran starters as they search for and groom his replacement.

[Maniac]

Agree with everything except spending 20+ million on Bradford. No point.

[CbEagle]

Then it looks like drafting a qb is a priority, daniel is NOT the answer or any of the other free agent losers out there.

[J_Cuz31]

Agree with everything except spending 20+ million on Bradford. No point.

id be stunned if bradford got 20 mill. unless he gets franchised and the deal doesnt get extended there is no way he is getting paid anywhere near 20 mill per.

[J_Cuz31]

further research suggests that Alex Smiths recent four-year 68 mill contract, with 19 mill guaranteed will be the benchmark for signing Bradford. My guess is he will want more guaranteed money at the expense of less total value while teams will want a deal more restrictive in length due to his injury history. The compromise looks to be a three year deal at around 48 with like 18 guaranteed or a four year deal at 65 with like 22 guaranteed.

There is no way his deal eclipses Cutlers awful Bears contract given how badly that worked out for chicago and cutlers deal didnt even ecliplse an average of 20 per.

This all begs the question if the eagles were so enamoured with How smith performed in KC under pederson why wouldnt they lock up bradford for a few years and see what type of production their new HC can muster out of him?

[Maniac]

id be stunned if bradford got 20 mill. unless he gets franchised and the deal doesnt get extended there is no way he is getting paid anywhere near 20 mill per.

Your,post said they should use the tag if they need to. That's 20.

[J_Cuz31]

well in that case they can choose to tag him if they want to pay a premium for not giving him a long term deal. i think they cant just let him test the market so they gotta be firm and say you either sign a three year deal today or we tag you and discussions are over until october. they have a bit of insurance if he gets hurt again he wont count at all against the cap in 2017.

[Maniac]

I want nothing more to do with Bradford. He's going to be overpriced and he's a career loser. An expensive placeholder is a waste.