By John Turney
Colin Cowherd took a strong position today concerning Sam Bradford's desire to be traded and to sit out the Eagles voluntary off-season program. And Bradford is fair game, it does appear unseemly to sign a two-year deal months ago and because the Eagles are going to likely take Carson Wentz this upcoming Thurday in the NFL Draft to then become upset about it.
Because of that, Bradford is taking a lot of heat from the sports media.
And that is an interesting theory. Except no proof or sourcing was offered by Cowherd. While it is likely that Denver did call Bradford's agent, but there are zero media reports about any such conversation, if one did occur. If Cowherd has that information due to his own investigation, he should enlighten his listeners.
As far as we know Bradford is under contract and the terms are set. Perhaps Cowherd is speculating that if Bradford would take less money then Denver would deal for him, but if that is the case, Cowherd didn't
What has been reported is that Denver contacted Philadelphia and Denver balked because the Eagles asking price was too high. That is a theme that is found in (at the moment) 316 stories on the Web. We do not know what the Eagles are asking, but since they want to keep him and since they paid a net #1 for him last year (#2 and Nick Foles, who carried a second-round price according to
Is it possible that Cowherd made an error in his show preparation? Or is it possible he's twisting the knife with glee?
So, whatever abuse Bradford takes in the media is completely fair game, but using a conversation that Condon and the Broncos had in which you have zero information to further a thesis of "money skews perception" is off-the-mark.
Cowherd also said Bradford
Additionally, Cowherd mentioned fumbles. Fumbles are an odd stat for quarterbacks because for years, until recently, the quarterback was credited with a fumble on a bad snap, for example. And there are other oddities, too, but they pretty esoteric and perhaps we will explain them at some point. But fumbles for quarterbacks can he hard to read, and really, recovered fumbles should count as part of the mix. But Cowherd just listed Bradford gross total for fumbles along with his interceptions to make the case that part of the reason Bradford is a bust and he is "plagued" with turnovers.
Well, let's do this: Let's count all quarterback fumbles and then credit them for
Then, let's look at that number as a percentage passing attempts plus sacks plus rushing attempts which give you a "touches" number for quarterbacks.
Where would Bradford rank All-time?
Chart by PFJ, search engine data credit: Pro Football Reference.
Touches is passes attempted, rushes and sacks.
So, when going after someone like a Bradford, with the kind of vitriol Cowherd did, it serves everyone, including the issue of fairness, to be as accurate as possible. No?