Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Seems like everybody else has signed a QB, and almost all the bridge QBs are now taken. Are we the last team that could want Foles?

 

Pretty sure the Eagles have to get his contract off their books. If we're the only bidder, I could see a 3rd getting it done.

Posted (edited)

IN

 

Yes a third could get it done, especially since they already turned down a 2. 

 

This usually works, just keep offering worse compensation. They'll probably give him to us for a 7th if we keep it up.

Edited by ndirish1978
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 3
Posted

I'd be very happy with Foles for a 3rd.

 

Eagles may just hold onto him until they see if Wentz is ready to go.

 

Or they may just wait and see if a team has an injury at the QB position and gives up the 1st + that they want for him... 

 

And I have zero interest in Foles for a 1st. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted

Eagles rejected a 2nd when there were 5+ teams that needed a vet QB. My point is that is just became a buyers' market in the past 2 hours.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, dollars 2 donuts said:

how can we want Foles when all indications are we are trying to draft a top tier QB?

Do you want a rookie QB to be gradually eased in or thrown in forcefully?

Posted

Who cares?

 

If the option is to trade into the top 5 for one of the top 3 QBs in this draft OR trade for Foles, why would anyone choose the latter????

 

As long as McDermott and Beane don't think Allen is worthy of a top 5 pick, ignore Foles, get a QB like Savage/Moor/Anderson and draft Mayfield/Darnold/Rosen and just let him roll under center from the start of the season.

Posted

The fact that Foles is still on the Eagles Roster probably indicates that they are unsure about Wentz's condition moving into next season.  I think he is more likely to be moved during training camp if at all at this point, unless there is a major improvement in Wentz's injury.

Posted (edited)

They don't need to trade him and they prefer to keep him. You're manufacturing wish scenarios based on an incarcerated Bob tweet. 

Edited by ndirish1978
Posted

They don't need to trade him either.. He has significant value to the organization, and his contract isn't killer.  He and Wentz combined make less than 1/2 of the starting QBs in the league.

 

Posted
Just now, vorpma said:

Do you want a rookie QB to be gradually eased in or thrown in forcefully?

 

vopra, I hear you, but we are going to have to give up what we would use to move up to get the QB of the future just to get Foles.  

 

If Foles and Rudolph vs Darnold/Rosen and McCown our my options, I am taking the one that gets me the better rookie QB option.

Posted

I was on the fence about if they would trade him or not, now it seems highly unlikely. The only way I see him being moved before August now is if a team (Like Miami) doesn't get their guy in the draft and want's to make a splash. I doubt that'll happen though. More than likely it'll be whatever team ends up without a week one starter due to injury. I still have a little nugget in my head that says to watch out for the colts if Luck is not truly ready to go. (though Brissett Does show promise) 

Posted
1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Who cares?

 

If the option is to trade into the top 5 for one of the top 3 QBs in this draft OR trade for Foles, why would anyone choose the latter????

 

As long as McDermott and Beane don't think Allen is worthy of a top 5 pick, ignore Foles, get a QB like Savage/Moor/Anderson and draft Mayfield/Darnold/Rosen and just let him roll under center from the start of the season.

Yeah, screw any type of backup plans...

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted

Let's not forget that Howie Roseman seems to be the next great mind in football. If he was ready to move Foles, I think he would have known exactly how to do it to get maximum value. 

×
×
  • Create New...