Bradford: Better than Foles, but . . .

OK, thought experiment:

It's March again. A big Eagles story breaks. Berman and McLane have been working their iPhones. Glazer got the word from one of his workout pals. Schefter practically brokered the deal. Here it is: The Eagles are trading Nick Foles. Nick Foles? The 27-touchdowns-and-two-interceptions Nick Foles? The cost-effective, earning-just-$1.5 million-in-base-salary-this-season Nick Foles? Nick Foles, whom we have seen up close and are familiar with and who actually helped the Eagles reach the playoffs? Chip Kelly is trading him?

Yes, and he's getting a quarterback in return.

A quarterback. Whoa. Who?

No names yet. Remember, this is an experiment. So you get some information first. In 2013 - while Foles was lighting it up and Kelly's system was a wholly new and radical thing in the NFL - this quarterback started 16 games for his team, and his best weapon was a rookie wide receiver, and his play-caller would compile so undistinguished a resumé over eight years as an NFL offensive coordinator that the guy left this team in January to take a job as a college offensive coordinator. Still, over that 2013 season, this quarterback completed 60.7 percent of his passes and threw for 3,856 yards, 32 touchdowns, and nine interceptions. Then, he tore the ACL in his left knee the following preseason and didn't play a game in 2014.

So, question:

If those had been Sam Bradford's statistics in his final season with the St. Louis Rams, with Tavon Austin as the only skill-position player worth paying attention to, with Brian Schottenheimer running the offense, would you feel better about the Eagles' decision to trade for him then?

Would you? That's the guy Bradford might have been. Those were the statistics that through the first seven games of the 2013 season, he was on pace to put up before he tore his left ACL for the first time. That could have been Bradford, for a team with neither the talent nor the creativity on offense that the Eagles have: 60.7 percent, 32 touchdowns, nine interceptions.

That's where the thought experiment ends and reality begins, because Bradford did not play a full season in 2013. And if he had, there's no way of knowing with certainty what his statistics would have been or what the Rams' record would have been. (As it turned out, they went 3-4 with Bradford starting and 7-9 overall.) And he did not tear his ACL just that one time. He tore it twice. And now he's supposed to be the Eagles' starting quarterback, and there's so much about what might happen to him and them this season that no one can know, and isn't that the source of any and all anxiety about this Eagles team? The uncertainty?

It is with respect to Bradford, for sure. There are two overriding concerns about him, and both have merit. One, he's less likely than the average quarterback to stay healthy. Two, even if he does stay healthy, no one's quite sure how good he really is. His career completion percentage is 58.6. He didn't elevate the Rams into a playoff team while he was in St. Louis. Hell, his record as a starter is 18-30-1. As Kevin Bacon's character repeats in A Few Good Men, these are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed.

But if you have spent any time watching the Eagles' training-camp practices over the last week, there's something else that's not in much dispute, either. When it comes to the physical traits required to play quarterback, Bradford is better than Foles. His arm is stronger. His release is quicker. Despite the brace on his knee, he runs faster (a low bar to clear, one must admit). For all the concern over Kelly's apparent valuing of character and culture over talent, it's pretty clear that, at football's most important position, he put talent first. Foles was tough. Foles was humble. Foles was a team guy. And Foles plays for the Rams now, because Kelly was willing to gamble that Bradford would be all that and more.

It's that gamble, that skepticism of the calculated risk that a former No. 1 overall draft pick might stay healthy and improve the Eagles, that's driving the angst around here. Part of it is familiarity bias. Foles was the known quantity. Everyone had seen him. Everyone had reached a conclusion about him. Sports fans love that sense of knowing - especially fans in Philadelphia, because they tend to be so parochial, so focused on the teams here. But part of it, too, is the inexact science of finding a long-term starting quarterback, of recognizing the moment that a player had developed into a franchise centerpiece. It happened for Peyton Manning in his first game. It happened for Tom Brady when he won his first Super Bowl. It happened for Donovan McNabb in his second season. It happened for Drew Brees after he met Sean Payton.

That's the point of the thought experiment. That 2013 season was Sam Bradford's fourth in the NFL. He'd thrown 14 touchdowns and four interceptions through seven games when his ACL popped apart. So, two questions: What if Bradford suffered the injury just as he was coming into his own as an NFL quarterback? And if you knew for certain that he was poised to become a star, if you knew the thing that won't be known until Sept. 14 at the Georgia Dome, what would you have done if you were Chip Kelly and the Eagles?