BigBuff423 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 According to the Newark Star-Ledger, the Eagles GM "soured" on Nick Foles prior to his injury and said, "The organization isn't sold that he's the guy going forward. Let's just say the way things were going, he wasn't going to get a contract extension that's for sure". The report went on to say that next year Foles will be entering his final season in his Rookie contract from 2012. This is *NOT*, and I repeat *NOT*, intended to be a hijacked thread about how "EJ sucks", but rather an evaluation of improving a very important position, regardless of who mans the QB position unless it were someone of Luck, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Manning ilk. Would you be opposed or for the acquisition of Foles, assuming the report on the GM's "soured" take is true? If the Eagles were willing to trade Foles, what Draft pick and / or player would you give? If he was strictly a FA because of being cut after the season, would want to sign him and how much money would you be prepared to extend to him? Personally, assuming the Eagles didn't require more than a 4th round selection, I would certainly trade for him regardless. If he was a FA, I would be prepared to give him good to decent money, in the $10-12 million per year range for 4 to 5 years. To me, Foles is a very good QB that could be fantastic and it would certainly answer the QB position for quite some time. Please understand, I'm not suggesting the Eagles will trade him or that they will cut him, or that if they did trade him they would accept compensation in the form of a 4th Round pick. The point of this post, is that according to some real reporting, the Eagles GM may have already moved on from Foles and I send it out into the TBD cyber-sphere to discuss if he is a QB us fans would like to see in a BILLS uniform, and if so what price or compensation would you be willing to give in order to obtain his services at Quarterback.....
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 The immediate reaction to everything is funny. You struggle one game, you suck. Erase everything that happened prior. And let's switch Foles and EJ. Who is more likely to be a better player - Foles with Hackett or EJ with Kelly? Kelly runs about as QB friendly of an offense as there is in the league. When he says he needs players to fit his system, you listen because he has a great track record of offensive success. We lack that on our coaching staff. To fully evaluate any offensive player right now is silly. The entire offense has regressed.
prissythecat Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Before even considering making a play for him , would need to ask why the GM has soured on him and why the drop off in play this year .
NoSaint Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) i dont know that im diving in with a 50-60m contract for foles today. maybe if it is kaepernick style and you can opt out pretty much any time with no penalty. disclaimer: ive been leary of jumping on the foles bandwagon for awhile now - last years numbers have no chance of being true long term, meaning we have no idea what he regresses back to. being a midrounder and a guy the GM doesnt love makes me worry that floor could be lower than most think. Edited November 5, 2014 by NoSaint
buffaloboyinATL Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 I say with stick with Orton for another year or two and let EJ continue to develop behind him.
26CornerBlitz Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 According to the Newark Star-Ledger, the Eagles GM "soured" on Nick Foles prior to his injury and said, "The organization isn't sold that he's the guy going forward. Let's just say the way things were going, he wasn't going to get a contract extension that's for sure". The report went on to say that next year Foles will be entering his final season in his Rookie contract from 2012. This is *NOT*, and I repeat *NOT*, intended to be a hijacked thread about how "EJ sucks", but rather an evaluation of improving a very important position, regardless of who mans the QB position unless it were someone of Luck, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Manning ilk. Would you be opposed or for the acquisition of Foles, assuming the report on the GM's "soured" take is true? If the Eagles were willing to trade Foles, what Draft pick and / or player would you give? If he was strictly a FA because of being cut after the season, would want to sign him and how much money would you be prepared to extend to him? Personally, assuming the Eagles didn't require more than a 4th round selection, I would certainly trade for him regardless. If he was a FA, I would be prepared to give him good to decent money, in the $10-12 million per year range for 4 to 5 years. To me, Foles is a very good QB that could be fantastic and it would certainly answer the QB position for quite some time. Please understand, I'm not suggesting the Eagles will trade him or that they will cut him, or that if they did trade him they would accept compensation in the form of a 4th Round pick. The point of this post, is that according to some real reporting, the Eagles GM may have already moved on from Foles and I send it out into the TBD cyber-sphere to discuss if he is a QB us fans would like to see in a BILLS uniform, and if so what price or compensation would you be willing to give in order to obtain his services at Quarterback..... No way he's worthy of anywhere near that kind of money because he's an unproven commodity. If you have watched the Eagles at all this year, you know that Foles has been bad. Sanchez has a fair chance to remain the starting QB after Foles recovers from his injury.
bobobonators Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 NFL: Where QB's may become starters, but "Not For Long".
YoloinOhio Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 I wouldn't be surprised to see the Eagles sign Terrell Pryor at some point. Kelly recruited him hard at Oregon and has always liked him for his offense.
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 No way he's worthy of anywhere near that kind of money because he's an unproven commodity. If you have watched the Eagles at all this year, you know that Foles has been bad. Sanchez has a fair chance to remain the starting QB after Foles recovers from his injury. And Sanchez was awful before. Chip Kelly is a beast. I completely underrated him.
Dorkington Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 It's just crazy how short of a leash some guys get. We can thank Luck and Wilson for that... they both had some immediate successes, which is NOT the norm, and now, unless you put up top 5 numbers right away, consistently, you suck. Why don't QBs get time to develop anymore?
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 I wouldn't be surprised to see the Eagles sign Terrell Pryor at some point. Kelly recruited him hard at Oregon and has always liked him for his offense. He also wanted Spiller and Manuel.
bobobonators Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 It's just crazy how short of a leash some guys get. We can thank Luck and Wilson for that... they both had some immediate successes, which is NOT the norm, and now, unless you put up top 5 numbers right away, consistently, you suck. Why don't QBs get time to develop anymore? I kinda agree. NFL is mimicking current society: zero attention span; zero patience.
YoloinOhio Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 And Sanchez was awful before. Chip Kelly is a beast. I completely underrated him. Kelly's offense is kind of less dependent on great QB play than others. Sanchez's issue always seemed to be making the critical mistake. I think if he is put in the position to do what he does well, he will be successful there. He was pretty good in NJ until they changed OCs and the Tebow circus came to town, etc.
Dorkington Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 He also wanted Spiller and Manuel. I bet both would work really well in Kelly's offense, honestly. Well, if EJ was given time to develop, anyways.
C.Biscuit97 Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 Kelly's offense is kind of less dependent on great QB play than others. Sanchez's issue always seemed to be making the critical mistake. I think if he is put in the position to do what he does well, he will be successful there. He was pretty good in NJ until they changed OCs and the Tebow circus came to town, etc. The TEAM was pretty good. http://www.nfl.com/player/marksanchez/79858/profile EJ sucks to some Bills fans and he had 6 tds and 3 ints. Sanchez went to a title game completing 53% of his pass with 12 tds and 20 ints. I think Sanchez will do well. But it's why it's dumb to make rash decisions on young QBs and why coaching matters so much. Put your players in good situations and not try to force them into "your system."
26CornerBlitz Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Does anyone remember the TSW infatuation with Kirk Cousins? Report: Eagles had soured on Foles before his injury Edited November 5, 2014 by 26CornerBlitz
Kirby Jackson Posted November 5, 2014 Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) I don't think that teams are necessarily souring on guys quicker; they are just privied to so much more information that they can make decisions sooner. Between the evolution of analytics and technology the coaches and personnel people are given much more information on a player. They are giving these guys as long as they need to make a determination. It was 14 games in EJ's case, maybe 25 in Foles case, Ponder 25, Gabbert 25, 35 for Locker, 20 in Geno's, etc... Whatever the numbers are it really doesn't matter (I just made up the numbers above). As soon as they believe that a certain guy isn't the answer (at least yet) they are pulling the plug. There is no more "working through your issues." Job security is certainly a factor there but for the most part they have been right. The information is dictating that. Edited November 5, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
Recommended Posts