McCoy for Foles.

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, matter2003 said:

Then they will lose him for nothing next year...dumb move by Philly...when a player has a perceived value so much higher than his actual value at some point in time(ie fresh off winning a super bowl and being MVP), you trade him...

 

Roseman has done a masterful job putting the Eagles roster togther. It's rather obvious that he knows what he's doing.  

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Roseman has done a masterful job putting the Eagles roster togther. It's rather obvious that he knows what he's doing.  

 

So did Napoleon and the German armies in WWIi...doesnt mean they don't make mistakes.

 

Not trading a guy who is a backup on your team when you could get significant value far above his actual worth is simply dumb. There is no real rational argument to the contrary...unless they are going to try and hold out til Wentz comes back and then trade him at the deadline...

 

Then they risk he loses value with his play.

Edited February 14, 2018 by matter2003

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, matter2003 said:

 

So did Napoleon and the German armies in WWIi...doesnt mean they don't make mistakes.

 

Not trading a gut who is a backup on your team when you coukd get significant value far above his actual worth is simply dumb. There is no real rational argument to the contrary.

 

Trading Foles before they know the staus of Wentz?  Now that would be dumb. 

[Jobot]

10 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

So did Napoleon and the German armies in WWIi...doesnt mean they don't make mistakes.

 

Not trading a guy who is a backup on your team when you could get significant value far above his actual worth is simply dumb. There is no real rational argument to the contrary...unless they are going to try and hold out til Wentz comes back and then trade him at the deadline...

 

Then they risk he loses value with his play.

 

I'd say Foles as a backup has higher value to Philly then whatever Mccoy brings to Philly.

If Wentz goes down again, I don't think Mccoy is gonna lead them to a super bowl.

 

*Also this is football, not world war...

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Jobot

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

 Getting a credible qb who can make plays is not something to lament, it is something to celebrate. 

 

Great. Let's get one of those. Not Nick Foles.

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Gunner....I am going to put you down for a "no".  With that said, I disagree with you.  Shady can run up and down the field all day long, but he isn't getting any younger, and the chance of this team returning the playoffs with the same running back/quarterback combo are less than slim.  While I would hate to see Shady go, and while I doubt the Philly would make the trade, I would much rather draft a stud running back and pair him up with Foles, than stick with an aging running back and pair him up with the fifth or sixth quarterback taken in the draft.

 

I still just do not think Nick Foles is any good. He is just so, so average. If they would swap him man for man for Tyrod count me in. I think you can get similar production out of McCown or Fitz for nothing than what you get out of Nick Foles. 2 and a half good games in the playoffs not withstanding. 

 

He really, really, really, is not that good. It's like Cowherd always says about QBs and his right... throw out their best few games or season and throw out their worst few games or season. What you are left with is what he is. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by GunnerBill

[JohnC]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Great. Let's get one of those. Not Nick Foles.

 

I still just do not think Nick Foles is any good. He is just so, so average. If they would swap him man for man for Tyrod count me in. I think you can get similar production out of McCown or Fitz for nothing than what you get out of Nick Foles. 2 and a half good games in the playoffs not withstanding. 

 

He really, really, really, is not that good. It's like Cowherd always says about QBs and his right... throw out their best few games or season and throw out their worst few games or season. What you are left with is what he is. 

The reason why the Eagles would not trade Foles for McCoy is that it would be a losing proposition for them. Or in other words it would be more beneficial for us. I intensely disagree with you that Foles would be a lesser player than either McCown or Fitz. The mistake you and others are making is that you are assuming that he would be ensconced as our long term franchise qb. I am not suggesting that. However, in my view he would not only be an acceptable bridge qb but also a dramatic upgrade at that position until the next high end qb prospect is ready to play. 

[Jobot]

16 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

I still just do not think Nick Foles is any good. He is just so, so average. If they would swap him man for man for Tyrod count me in.

 

I would expect the same number of wins in 2018 regardless if Tyrod or Foles were the starter.

[26CornerBlitz]

Is Wentz's Season Opener Return Goal Unrealistic? (1:54)
 Dan Graziano and Tedy Bruschi weigh in on the likelihood that QB Carson Wentz will be ready to start Week 1 of the 2018 season after tearing his ACL and LCL.

[Kirby Jackson]

38 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You are twisting this argument into a something that is outlandish.  Who is suggesting that he should be given a $100 M contract? I hope you  don't take this in a negative way but you are being zany with your assumption that he is going to be given a gilded contract. Just stop with this foolishness. He currently has a two year contract that if traded will probably be upgraded. If it is at what Taylor is currently making then it would be a very reasonable contract. 

 

I am absolutely comfortable trading a 30 yr old back who without question is on the downside of his career. The carries he is going to have next year are for sure going to be less than what he had this year. You ask the question if Foles is good. My response is that he is a qb who has demonstrated that he can run a pro offense and can not only make all the throws but do it well. He is not elite. No one stated that. Is he a franchise qb? I won't either make that claim. What I can say is that he is capable and can be a dramatic upgrade at qb. 

 

Getting Foles doesn't necessarily mean that the Bills still can't draft a high end qb prospect. What having Foles would do is allow time for the prospect to be prepared to take over when he is ready. Would Foles be agreeable to such a situation? Why wouldn't he? He would be getting a raise and an opportunity to start. That is a better situation for him than being the backup in Philly. 

 

Aren't you tired of the hideous qb play that you have been subjected to over the past few years? If you are not, I am. If you want to make a change then you have to make a change. The status quo is not only acceptable but it is disgusting to watch. Tipster's proposal was not only reasonable but it would be a smart thing to do. 

I think pretty much everyone expects $100M deal after this season. That’s a conservative estimate of the going rate. That’s what average QBs get when they hit FA. Cousins is going to get $150M!! That’s the market.  Foles has 1 year left on his contract. You are either paying him $100M in a year because he is great (then it will be more), $100M because he’s who you have, or you let him walk because he isn’t worth it. You would have traded your best player for a year of Nick Foles in that case. Nothing is being twisted. That’s the market and situation. 

 

I still am am not sure that Foles is good. He’s played great for great offensive minds. I think he’s at least an adequate starter but I’m not prepared to say anything beyond that. He has run an offense TAILORED to his skill set. It’s a college offense with a ton of RPOs. It works in the NFL. Andy Reid, Chip Kelly, Pederson and others have lit up scoreboards with that scheme.

 

Foles doesn’t have to agree. He would be traded. He will be a FA in a year. If you are drafting a guy are you re-signing Foles? If so, why draft a guy if Foles is your plan? If you think Foles will take a short-term deal as a bridge guy, why would he? He will take his chances in FA. A small raise isn’t something he’s doing when he has 1 big contract left. So are you paying Foles to be the long-term starter and drafting a guy to sit behind him for his whole rookie contract? 

 

I’m a realist. I don’t create situations that aren’t practical. You pick a guy and invest in him. That is what every good team ever has done. You don’t trade assets for Foles and draft a guy early!! You do one or the other and I much prefer the draft route. It is more economical with higher upside. I don’t care about QB play, I care about wins and losses. I care about the Bills play. I will take 10-7 if it’s a W. This team has a lot of holes. I want them to win. That is all. Put the best possible 22 on the field and let’s roll. 

[wppete]

No way. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think pretty much everyone expects $100M deal after this season. That’s a conservative estimate of the going rate. That’s what average QBs get when they hit FA. Cousins is going to get $150M!! That’s the market.  Foles has 1 year left on his contract. You are either paying him $100M in a year because he is great (then it will be more), $100M because he’s who you have, or you let him walk because he isn’t worth it. You would have traded your best player for a year of Nick Foles in that case. Nothing is being twisted. That’s the market and situation. 

 

I still am am not sure that Foles is good. He’s played great for great offensive minds. I think he’s at least an adequate starter but I’m not prepared to say anything beyond that. He has run an offense TAILORED to his skill set. It’s a college offense with a ton of RPOs. It works in the NFL. Andy Reid, Chip Kelly, Pederson and others have lit up scoreboards with that scheme.

 

Foles doesn’t have to agree. He would be traded. He will be a FA in a year. If you are drafting a guy are you re-signing Foles? If so, why draft a guy if Foles is your plan? If you think Foles will take a short-term deal as a bridge guy, why would he? He will take his chances in FA. A small raise isn’t something he’s doing when he has 1 big contract left. So are you paying Foles to be the long-term starter and drafting a guy to sit behind him for his whole rookie contract? 

 

I’m a realist. I don’t create situations that aren’t practical. You pick a guy and invest in him. That is what every good team ever has done. You don’t trade assets for Foles and draft a guy early!! You do one or the other and I much prefer the draft route. It is more economical with higher upside. I don’t care about QB play, I care about wins and losses. I care about the Bills play. I will take 10-7 if it’s a W. This team has a lot of holes. I want them to win. That is all. Put the best possible 22 on the field and let’s roll. 

You don't have an understanding of what I have been posting. Please stop with the ludicrous claim that you will have to pay him in the range of $100 M. I realize that for lent you gave up some things but I didn't know it was going to be your common sense. In my mind he would be a bridge qb for a year or so. If he walks after two year or even one year then so be it. At least you got some utility out of him. He would simply be a short-term bridge qb who is capable of running a pro offense and passing at a respectable level. That in itself would be a dramatic upgrade of what we have now at qb. 

 

You act as if I am foreclosing the option to take a high end qb prospect. That is not the case. By having a qb such as Foles at the expense of a dealt McCoy you will give your young qb time to develop and still in the bargain have better qb play than you had before. Let's assume that the Giants draft Rosen with their pick. Is he going to start right away with Eli still on the roster? Probably not. So why wouldn't the same situation be appropriate here if Foles was brought in. 

 

There is a good reason why this proposed deal would not materialize. It would not be a good deal for the Eagles. That is an indication that it would benefit the Bills more than the Eagles. You might complain about getting a better deal from a trade but not I.

 

A

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

You are twisting this argument into a something that is outlandish.  Who is suggesting that he should be given a $100 M contract? I hope you  don't take this in a negative way but you are being zany with your assumption that he is going to be given a gilded contract. Just stop with this foolishness. He currently has a two year contract that if traded will probably be upgraded. If it is at what Taylor is currently making then it would be a very reasonable contract. 

 

I am absolutely comfortable trading a 30 yr old back who without question is on the downside of his career. The carries he is going to have next year are for sure going to be less than what he had this year. You ask the question if Foles is good. My response is that he is a qb who has demonstrated that he can run a pro offense and can not only make all the throws but do it well. He is not elite. No one stated that. Is he a franchise qb? I won't either make that claim. What I can say is that he is capable and can be a dramatic upgrade at qb. 

 

Getting Foles doesn't necessarily mean that the Bills still can't draft a high end qb prospect. What having Foles would do is allow time for the prospect to be prepared to take over when he is ready. Would Foles be agreeable to such a situation? Why wouldn't he? He would be getting a raise and an opportunity to start. That is a better situation for him than being the backup in Philly. 

 

Aren't you tired of the hideous qb play that you have been subjected to over the past few years? If you are not, I am. If you want to make a change then you have to make a change. The status quo is not only acceptable but it is disgusting to watch. Tipster's proposal was not only reasonable but it would be a smart thing to do. 

 

Foles is NOT the answer.  This notion to just replace Tyrod with anyone is getting out of hand.  In 6 years Foles has:

1. Never passed for 3000 yards.
2. Has one good PARTIAL season 4 years ago that he followed up with multiple terrible seasons as the full time starter on 2 different teams.
3. Had 2 teams who needed a QB give up on him while he was young with a good partial season already on his resume.
4. Played 6 games this year, in 3 of them he had 10 TDs and 1 INT...the other 3 he combined for ZERO TD's, 2 ints and 149 yards per game average.
5. Had the luxury of playing with a great offense minded coach behind the NFLs number 1 offensive line this year.

 

I have seen this rant by you many times now, where you seem to just think anyone is worth getting just to not have Tyrod.  Foles is FAR from a certainty to be a good starting QB and his body of work points more towards the fact that he probably isn't anything more than a veteran stop gap.  

 

Foles is going into to the final year of his 2 year deal, so you saying "2 year contract" is misleading, because he would ONLY be under contract by Bills for 1 year if we traded for him.  So if the Bills traded for him, they have to decide if they are going all in on him and NOT drafting a QB this year, meaning that they also need to resign after this year.  Or they need to trade for him and STILL draft a high rookie to develop with Foles being the Vet for him.  NO WAY Foles resigns with Bills to be the backup next year as a FA, so he would be a ONE YEAR RENTAL if we did that.

 

So why on earth should the Bills give any kind of an asset for a 1 year rental?  Foles IS NOT good enough to bet the farm on, so if the Bills traded for him they would be stupid to not still draft a high rookie.  There are already FA QB's this year that WONT cost the Bills any assets like McCoy or draft picks that can keep the seat warm for some rookie we draft, including TT if need be.  

 

There is literally no logical reason of any kind to trade for Foles UNLESS the Bills feel he is the long term guy and are going to gamble on focusing on him and bypassing all together a top QB prospect this draft.  And Foles resume does not warrant that kind of confidence from anyone at this point, its more bad than good.  

 

Sick of this retread nonsense...time to go sign Cousins or draft a top prospect to find a LONG TERM solution.  We dont need to waste assets on bandaids again.  

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[BringBackOrton]

3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

You could but if he isn’t worth $100M in today’s climate where are you? He’s either earned it by being elite, got paid it because he’s okay and that’s what okay QBs get it he wasn’t worth it at all and you are looking for a new QB. 

Foles won't get $100M like Flacco.  Veeeeeery different situations.

9 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Foles is NOT the answer.  This notion to just replace Tyrod with anyone is getting out of hand.  In 6 years Foles has:

1. Never passed for 3000 yards.
2. Has one good PARTIAL season 4 years ago that he followed up with multiple terrible seasons as the full time starter on 2 different teams.
3. Had 2 teams who needed a QB give up on him while he was young with a good partial season already on his resume.
4. Played 6 games this year, in 3 of them he had 10 TDs and 1 INT...the other 3 he combined for ZERO TD's, 2 ints and 149 yards per game average.
5. Had the luxury of playing with a great offense minded coach behind the NFLs number 1 offensive line this year.

 

I have seen this rant by you many times now, where you seem to just think anyone is worth getting just to not have Tyrod.  Foles is FAR from a certainty to be a good starting QB and his body of work points more towards the fact that he probably isn't anything more than a veteran stop gap.  

 

Foles is going into to the final year of his 2 year deal, so you saying "2 year contract" is misleading, because he would ONLY be under contract by Bills for 1 year if we traded for him.  So if the Bills traded for him, they have to decide if they are going all in on him and NOT drafting a QB this year, meaning that they also need to resign after this year.  Or they need to trade for him and STILL draft a high rookie to develop with Foles being the Vet for him.  NO WAY Foles resigns with Bills to be the backup next year as a FA, so he would be a ONE YEAR RENTAL if we did that.

 

So why on earth should the Bills give any kind of an asset for a 1 year rental?  Foles IS NOT good enough to bet the farm on, so if the Bills traded for him they would be stupid to not still draft a high rookie.  There are already FA QB's this year that WONT cost the Bills any assets like McCoy or draft picks that can keep the seat warm for some rookie we draft, including TT if need be.  

 

There is literally no logical reason of any kind to trade for Foles UNLESS the Bills feel he is the long term guy and are going to gamble on focusing on him and bypassing all together a top QB prospect this draft.  And Foles resume does not warrant that kind of confidence from anyone at this point, its more bad than good.  

 

Sick of this retread nonsense...time to go sign Cousins or draft a top prospect to find a LONG TERM solution.  We dont need to waste assets on bandaids again.  

 

He came in as relief and you count his low yard totals against him?  For shame.

 

Also, he never passed for 3k yards but he passed for 27 TD's once.

Edited February 14, 2018 by jmc12290

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You don't have an understanding of what I have been posting. Please stop with the ludicrous claim that you will have to pay him in the range of $100 M. I realize that for lent you gave up some things but I didn't know it was going to be your common sense. In my mind he would be a bridge qb for a year or so. If he walks after two year or even one year then so be it. At least you got some utility out of him. He would simply be a short-term bridge qb who is capable of running a pro offense and passing at a respectable level. That in itself would be a dramatic upgrade of what we have now at qb. 

 

You act as if I am foreclosing the option to take a high end qb prospect. That is not the case. By having a qb such as Foles at the expense of a dealt McCoy you will give your young qb time to develop and still in the bargain have better qb play than you had before. Let's assume that the Giants draft Rosen with their pick. Is he going to start right away with Eli still on the roster? Probably not. So why wouldn't the same situation be appropriate here if Foles was brought in. 

 

There is a good reason why this proposed deal would not materialize. It would not be a good deal for the Eagles. That is an indication that it would benefit the Bills more than the Eagles. You might complain about getting a better deal from a trade but not I.

 

A

It’s 1 year. That is his contract. If you want to trade your best player for 1 year of Foles, we disagree (strongly). That is an awful idea. 

 

The Giants aren’t getting rid of OBJ to keep Rosen on the bench for a year!! That’s why it’s different. You are literally, talking about subtracting the best football player on your team for 1 year of Nick Foles!!  That’s insanity!!

 

Anyone saying that it is a bad trade for the Eagles is an idiot. The Eagles issues are FINANCIAL. That is why it won’t happen. They may try to squeeze a pick out of Foles. A cost-controlled asset. The cost-controlled is the part that you always skip when discussing football. It is as important as the player. $100M for Foles or $15M for Baker? There’s a huge difference.

2 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Foles won't get $100M like Flacco.  Veeeeeery different situations.

He came in as relief and you count his low yard totals against him?  For shame.

What do you anticipate for a contract next year? Look at Smith, Jimmy G, Cousins and Ryan (next). $100M is the going rate

[stinky finger]

Why the hell would Philly do this?

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It’s 1 year. That is his contract. If you want to trade your best player for 1 year of Foles, we disagree (strongly). That is an awful idea. 

 

The Giants aren’t getting rid of OBJ to keep Rosen on the bench for a year!! That’s why it’s different. You are literally, talking about subtracting the best football player on your team for 1 year of Nick Foles!!  That’s insanity!!

 

Anyone saying that it is a bad trade for the Eagles is an idiot. The Eagles issues are FINANCIAL. That is why it won’t happen. They may try to squeeze a pick out of Foles. A cost-controlled asset. The cost-controlled is the part that you always skip when discussing football. It is as important as the player. $100M for Foles or $15M for Baker? There’s a huge difference.

What do you anticipate for a contract next year? Look at Smith, Jimmy G, Cousins and Ryan (next). $100M is the going rate

I expect Foles to get a 4 year, $40M GTD deal.

Edited February 14, 2018 by jmc12290

[Kirby Jackson]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

I expect Foles to get a 4 year, $60M GTD deal.

That’s fair, then add the 1st couple years of the contract and you are paying him $100M (maybe $88M or something minimum). 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Foles is NOT the answer.  This notion to just replace Tyrod with anyone is getting out of hand.  In 6 years Foles has:

1. Never passed for 3000 yards.
2. Has one good PARTIAL season 4 years ago that he followed up with consistent terrible seasons as the full time starter.
3. Had 2 teams who needed a QB give up on him while he was young with a good partial season already on his resume.
4. Played 6 games this year, in 3 of them he had 10 TDs and 1 INT...the other 3 he combined for ZERO TD's, 2 ints and 149 yards per game average.
5. Had the luxury of playing with a great offense minded coach behind the NFLs number 1 offensive line this year.

I have seen this rant by you many times now, where you seem to just think anyone is worth getting just to not have Tyrod.  Foles is FAR from a certainty to be a good starting QB and his body of work points more towards the fact that he probably isn't anything more than a veteran stop gap.  

 

Foles is going into to the final year of his 2 year deal, so you saying "2 year contract" is misleading, because he would ONLY be under contract by Bills for 1 year if we traded for him.  So if the Bills traded for him, they have to decide if they are going all in on him and NOT drafting a QB this year, meaning that they also need to resign after this year.  Or they need to trade for him and STILL draft a high rookie to develop with Foles being the Vet for him.  NO WAY Foles resigns with Bills to be the backup next year as a FA, so he would be a ONE YEAR RENTAL if we did that.

 

So why on earth should the Bills give any kind of an asset for a 1 year rental?  Foles IS NOT good enough to bet the farm on, so if the Bills traded for him they would be stupid to not still draft a high rookie.  There are already FA QB's this year that WONT cost the Bills any assets like McCoy or draft picks that can keep the seat warm for some rookie we draft, including TT if need be.  

 

There is literally no logical reason of any kind to trade for Foles UNLESS the Bills feel he is the long term guy and are going to gamble on focusing on him and bypassing all together a top QB prospect this draft.  And Foles resume does not warrant that kind of confidence from anyone at this point, its more bad than good.  

 

Sick of this retread nonsense...time to go sign Cousins or draft a top prospect to find a LONG TERM solution.  We dont need to waste assets on bandaids again.  

 

Do you want to know what is worse than this retread nonsense? Having Tyrod Taylor as your starting qb next year. Are you going to keep boosting him when he is let go? Did you not watch the playoff game in which we scored three points? 

 

You and others are distorting the issue. If I could get Foles for a one year or two year deal I would not be adverse to it. If after one year he departs then so what? You still have the ability to take your high end prospect this year and you have given him an opportunity to be acclimated. That's what basically happened in the Goff situation. In his first year he mostly sat until he played at the end of the season. It's obvious that he wasn't ready his rookie year so grooming a young qb is a better approach then throwing him into the fire when he isn't ready. 

 

What you can't accept is that the Tyrod era is over with. It has run its course. If you can't accept that obvious reality then it is your problem. Giving up a 30 yr back who can still play but is diminishing for a starting qb would be an advantageous deal for us. Even if the qb plays for a short term it still would be beneficial because you would then have an opportunity to run a pro offense instead of a pop warner offense. 

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

That’s fair, then add the 1st couple years of the contract and you are paying him $100M (maybe $88M or something minimum). 

That doesn't matter.  The GTD money matters.  His deal and Jimmy G's/Alex Smith's won't be in the same ballpark.

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

That doesn't matter.  The GTD money matters.  His deal and Jimmy G's/Alex Smith's won't be in the same ballpark.

Alex Smith got $71M guaranteed. That’s the same ballpark and will get closer if Foles plays well (which would make him more deserving). FWIW, if he gets 4 years $60M guaranteed and is there 2-3 years it is $100M. The guaranteed money only matters when you get out of the deal. The guaranteed money combined with the actual earnings while he is there is the number. The guaranteed is the minimum and the total is the maximum. The actual falls somewhere in between. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Kirby Jackson