The biggest headline surrounding the Philadelphia Eagles is who will be the head coach to succeed Chip Kelly, and rumors have been flying, everyone from former Super Bowl winning coach Jon Gruden to recently fired Giants coach Tom Coughlin to former Eagles quarterback Doug Pederson.
But after the Eagles hire their head coach, which should be in the next week or two, they’ll be faced with an equally important decision.
What does this franchise do regarding quarterback Sam Bradford, who is a free agent? Do they hand him a hefty contract extension to keep him in Philadelphia for several seasons? Will they franchise tag the former number one overall pick? Or do they allow Bradford to walk in free agency, essentially guaranteeing the team a fourth straight season with a different Week 1 starting quarterback?
Below I will highlight the pros and cons of signing Bradford to a long-term deal before ultimately making my conclusion.
The Pros:
Sam Bradford provided enough for the Philadelphia Eagles to think they may have found their franchise quarterback. The former number one pick in the 2010 draft played in 14 games, missing just two but showing no ill-effects from a pair of back-to-back ACL tears. He clearly improved as the season went on, and you could make a legitimate argument that Bradford was the best player on the Eagles’ offense in the second half of the season.
In fact, over his final seven games, the former Heisman winner threw for 10 touchdowns against just four interceptions. He finished the season with Eagles’ single-season records in completions (346) and completion percentage (65.0 percent), despite a ridiculous 41 dropped passes, the most in the NFL. He was the most accurate quarterback in the NFL under pressure, completing 74.6 percent of his passes, per Pro Football Focus. He was the fourth-most accurate quarterback overall, with more than 78 percent of passes on target.
Considering everything, Bradford turned in probably the best season of his six-year NFL career. He led the Eagles to seven wins in 14 starts, the first time in his career he didn’t finish with a losing record as a starter. At just 28 years old with wide receivers who will likely improve in 2016 (after all, they can’t be worse), there’s plenty of reason to believe Bradford can be the Eagles’ starter at the game’s most important position for the next several seasons.
The Cons:
Sam Bradford was a disappointment this season. He wasn’t as effective as the Eagles hoped, Bradford hoped, you the fan hoped. You know it deep down, even if you’re a Bradford supporter. Think back to your expectations after hearing Jason Peters compare his accuracy to Aaron Rodgers or after watching him complete all 10 passes for three touchdowns against Green Bay in the third preseason game. Yeah, that was in the preseason, but it was pretty incredible to see.
Now take a look at Bradford’s season statistics. He played in 14 games, missing two with a concussion. So while he successfully rebounded from his two ACL tears, he didn’t shed the injury reputation that he’s developed throughout his six-year career. More than half of the NFL’s quarterbacks (17 of 32) played in every game this season. Some of them had bad offensive lines too. Can the Eagles ever trust Sam Bradford to play all 16 games when he’s now done it in two of his six seasons?
On the field, Bradford simply took too long to hit his stride. Missing the last year and a half only goes so far as an excuse, and then why was he so efficient during the preseason? A lack of communication with his receiving weapons was obvious, and after five years of Bradford’s receivers struggling to catch his passes in St. Louis, one has to wonder if he is at least part of the problem.
A final point regarding Bradford’s 2015 season is that he continues to show how low his ceiling really is. What was his best game this year? Did he have one? He was good in many games, very good in one or two. He’s never great. It’s been like that throughout his entire career. He’s never thrown four touchdown passes in a game. He’s never topped 350 passing yards. He’s had a passer rating above 120 in one game. He’s never led an offense to 40 points in a game. He’s never earned Offensive Player of the Week in 64 career starts, an award won by Brock Osweiler and Josh McCown this season. His biggest strength in St. Louis was his ability to avoid interceptions, with the fourth-best interception percentage in NFL history, but he threw 14 in 14 games in 2015, for the worst interception rate in his career.
The Verdict:
Sam Bradford wasn’t good enough in 2015. He didn’t make enough big plays, threw the most interceptions of his career and was one of just two quarterbacks to start 14 games and throw fewer than 20 touchdown passes. There’s always an excuse when it comes to Sam Bradford – always has been and always will be – and the built-in excuse this year was the dropped passes. Yes, they were awful, but with an average quarterback suffering from 30 drops, Bradford’s 41 drops equate to fewer than one pass per game. There were plenty of opportunities for Bradford to show that he can be a different quarterback than the one he was in St. Louis.
The unfortunate aspect is that the jury is still out on Bradford, even at this point in his career. You can make a legitimate argument for Bradford turning in the best season of his career in 2016, especially if the Eagles keep Pat Shurmur as the offensive coordinator (or promote him to head coach), giving their quarterback stability instead of having to learn an entirely new system yet again. There’s also reason to believe that Bradford, like backup Mark Sanchez, is who he is at this point. He’s an adequate quarterback who could probably lead a team to the playoffs with the right supporting pieces, but will never be a top 10 quarterback and has a ceiling that basically prohibits any chance of a run at a Super Bowl title.
Bradford’s agent Tom Condon has a reputation for very unfriendly team contracts for his quarterbacks. He helped Jay Cutler ink a seven-year, $126 million deal with $54 million guaranteed, while Alex Smith signed a four-year, $68 million deal with $45 million guaranteed. Each of those quarterbacks falls in the mediocre category, although realistically each is a step above Bradford. It’s hard to know what to expect for Bradford’s next deal. As the top free-agent quarterback in several years to hit the open market, it’s not out of the question to think Condon and Bradford could come away with a deal worth $100 million with at least half in guaranteed money. If that’s the case, the Eagles simply have to pass. They can’t mortgage the future on a starter who has never posted a winning record and consistently shows that he can’t elevate his teammates or a take a team to the next level.
If the Eagles can find a way to bring back Bradford on a deal similar to Smith’s, although preferably with less guaranteed money, they should do it. The ideal scenario is a contract similar to Andy Dalton’s or Colin Kaepernick’s, each of which is basically a pay-as-you-go deal. Bradford hasn’t done enough in his career or even last season to warrant anything more than two years fully guaranteed. It’s worth mentioning that Bradford reportedly turned down a four-year, $72 million deal before the season, although he and the Eagles both denied the report. Personally, I don’t think Bradford played well enough to earn more than $72 million, but with the demand for quarterbacks around the league, it’s not unlikely to see a team like Houston or Cleveland overpaying for a quarterback like Bradford. If the Eagles can bring back Bradford for $72 million on four years, with half guaranteed, that’s a situation they can’t pass up.
The problem is that if the Eagles let him walk in free agency, they’re likely stuck with Mark Sanchez or a rookie as their quarterback in 2016. It’s a frustrating scenario. While Bradford hasn’t been quite good enough, the alternative option is a nightmare. That’s why the Eagles need to do everything they can to bring him back on a multi-year deal, even if they have to overpay a bit.
