Don't expect Sam Bradford to work miracles on offense for Eagles

LET'S FORGET about the Eagles' quarterback question, for a moment. It's a hard thing to do, given everything we know about the importance of the position. But if our goal is to take an objective look at where the Eagles stand in the NFL's Grand Scheme, then Sam Bradford is a bit of a red herring. Through three games, he has looked much as he did during his 49 starts with the Rams: tentative in the pocket, quick to get rid of the ball, hesitant to flash the arm strength that drew raves from his teammates throughout training camp.

At this point, all we can say about Bradford is that he hasn't made anybody forget about Nick Foles. That's a fair way to look at things since Chip Kelly essentially swapped one for the other this offseason. A second-round pick was involved, sure, but the value of that draft pick is another matter for another day. For our purposes, the only question that matters is whether the Eagles are a markedly worse team with Bradford than with Foles. And if you have watched Foles' performance with the Rams this season, it is difficult to project a meaningful difference. His line against the Redskins a couple of weeks ago was similar to the one Bradford posted against the Jets, with Foles completing 17 of 32 passes for 150 yards in a 24-10 loss. On Sunday against the Steelers, he was 19-for-28 for 197 yards and an awful interception in a 12-6 loss.

In short, Foles has looked like Foles in the same way Bradford has looked like Bradford. And if you are going to argue that Foles has less talent around him than Bradford had in St. Louis, then you also must concede that Bradford has less talent around him this season than Foles did in 2013 and 2014. Or, at the very least, that Bradford has gotten less help from his supporting cast than Foles received from his, particularly in 2013, when a dominant offensive line and a blazing vertical threat allowed him to stand tall in the pocket and play to his strengths.

But again, we're forgetting about the quarterback. The pertinent question was never, "Is Bradford really better than Foles?" The pertinent question was, "Is Bradford's potential in this offense, with this coach, better than Foles?"

This is why the hand-wringing over Bradford's lackluster start is misplaced. Nobody thought the Eagles were acquiring a quarterback who could turn a team into a contender on his own. If they did think that, they shouldn't have. Because all of the evidence we had at our disposal suggested Bradford wasn't that kind of quarterback. That's not a knock on the guy. How many of them are there in the game? Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Andrew Luck, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Ryan, Philip Rivers?

What the Eagles thought they were acquiring was a guy who, in a worst-case scenario, wouldn't be a liability, and, in a best-case scenario, would find that long-sought groove in the right situation. That's why we are forgetting about him. Through three games, the Eagles' offense hasn't come close to resembling the right situation. And until it does, we can't really know how Bradford will look in it.

There are three types of quarterbacks in the game. Guys who will win you games against good teams, guys who will lose you games against good teams, and everybody else. The Eagles weren't going to find a quarterback in the first category, and they'd already seen two seasons' worth of starts that led them to believe Foles was too close to the second category for comfort.

The fact is, we still don't know how Bradford will look in a high-functioning offense, because the offense has not looked high-functioning. It's difficult to tease the quarterback out of that equation, but it becomes easier when you look at the basic nature of the Eagles' struggles. It doesn't matter who the quarterback is when the running backs are going backward, and through three games, the Eagles lead the NFL in rushes that gained zero or negative yards. More than a third of their attempts - 27 of 72 - have ended at the line of scrimmage or in the backfield. In 2013 and 2014, less than a quarter of their attempts gained zero or negative yards.

The Eagles have encountered similar timing/blocking problems in their screen game. In 2013, 16.4 percent of Foles' passing yards came on screens, the highest percentage in the NFL, according to an analysis by ProFootballFocus.com. Precise numbers aren't available for this season, but the Eagles' struggles have been evident on many of their designed quick-hitters.

None of this is meant as an apologetic screed in defense of Bradford. The one thing we have learned is that it will be a long season if the blocking is not there, both in the run game and the pass game. In both facets, Kelly and the offensive line made strides Sunday against one of the toughest defensive fronts in the league. It was particularly noticeable in the passing game, where Kelly kept a running back or tight end home to help at several occasions, something he did not do in the first two games.

Against the Falcons, the Eagles used an extra blocker on only three of their 54 passing plays, DeMarco Murray twice and Zach Ertz once. Against the Cowboys, Kelly kept an extra blocker in only once on 44 passing plays. Against the Jets, he did it seven times on 31 passing plays, with Ryn Mathews in pass protection on three plays, Brent Celek and Darren Sproles in pass protection on two plays apiece.

We'll find out more over the next few weeks as the Eagles face a string of substandard defenses. For now, the question isn't the quarterback, but the production around him he clearly needs.

On Twitter: @ByDavidMurphy