Rams and other teams reportedly interested in Foles

I think Foles is excellent, easily a middle-of-the-league starter.

in his future.

It's the QB position.

Alex Smith with a terrible contract was worth 2 second-rounders to a desperate team. Hard to argue that Foles should go for less than that.

will flop wherever else he goes. He was awful when he played this year and while he had a very good year last year, it's probably the most QB friendly offense in the league. He doesn't do anything well

and Dalton is what I consider average in today's NFL.

Alex Smith didn't have a terrible contract. He had 2 years remaining at 8.5 million owed during the first season.

In comment 12109918 Jay on the Island said:

Quote:

Alex Smith didn't have a terrible contract. He had 2 years remaining at 8.5 million owed during the first season.

Hmm... I did remember it being worse than that.

Foles is a pretty good QB I think, but he's not going to take a team all the way. He's on the Matt Schaub level.

I don't understand why teams choose to settle for QB's like this.

In comment 12109906 CT Charlie said:

Quote:

I think Foles is excellent, easily a middle-of-the-league starter.

15th best (which is generous) doesn't scream excellence to me...

for a team like the Rams is Shaun Hill. Teams can win and be competitive with average QB's that can make some plays, with the defensive potential that the Rams have. What other options do they have? Unproven kids coming out of college that aren't world-beaters at that level?

is Plan A for Chip?

I think Bradford, another highly overrated prospect, is indeed out with the Rams. So it wouldn't surprise me to hear they are in the market for Foles. He could be a decent option, too. They are on the verge of having a top five defense for a long time to come; and have the makings, with their RB and Oline, of a formidable running game to deal with...

Add Foles, another B+ receiver, and the Rams are vying for a playoff berth...

Alex Smith is a good comparison, although he doesn't run as well. He will not really win you games, or to often lose them. He is a cog if you don't have a better option. Looking around the league - a lot of teams don't have a better option.

THIS year is very telling for Foles.

year 1 as a starter he was lights out, but it was a system that was brand new into the league and defenses were very conservative defending the Eagles.

year 2, the league caught up and his numbers reflected this. I don't think his numbers were HORRIBLE, it's just nowhere near what he put up year 1.

this year it should even out. Kelly should re-adjust and we should see what Foles is really made of.

In comment 12109928 Curtis in VA said:

Quote:

Foles is a pretty good QB I think, but he's not going to take a team all the way. He's on the Matt Schaub level. I don't understand why teams choose to settle for QB's like this.

It's not hard to understand, really. Some teams are just sick of being terrible. Some teams need an at-least-decent-ish team to avoid blackouts. Some GMs and HCs need to show improvement to keep their jobs.

A low-ceiling competent veteran QB looks pretty good to those teams. They can do what's in their short-term best interest and convince themselves that either they'll hit on a Rich-Gannon-style resurgence or get the rest of the team up to '02 Bucs or '00 Ravens levels.

Kerry Collins was. He moves better, too. Not a match for Rich Rodriguez's offense. Plus NFL defenses are catching up to it hence the big drop-off in his numbers. Maybe Bradford can sign with the Eagles?

He had a fairly long career as a "game manager" and had just taken his team to a championship game.

You don't have to look far for the best comp...his teammate Mark Sanchez. And with the same talent last year, Sanchez arguably outperformed him:

2418 vs 2163 passing yards (virtually identical # of attemps
14:11 vs 13:10 TD:INT ratio

Though Foles was much better at avoiding sacks.

So who would trade a 4th (let alone multiple 2nd's) for Sanchez?

In comment 12109980 RetroJint said:

Quote:

Kerry Collins was. He moves better, too. Not a match for Rich Rodriguez's offense. Plus NFL defenses are catching up to it hence the big drop-off in his numbers. Maybe Bradford can sign with the Eagles?

Even now, Collins still probably has a stronger arm than Foles.

Smith does not, a pretty glaring difference between the two. I don't think Foles is anything special, but atleast he isn't afraid to go deep, unlike Smith, which is why KC will never win with him or come close to winning.

In comment 12109928 Curtis in VA said:

Quote:

Foles is a pretty good QB I think, but he's not going to take a team all the way. He's on the Matt Schaub level. I don't understand why teams choose to settle for QB's like this.

It's pretty hard to find even a league average QB. Took the Giants a long time just to get from Simms to K.Collins.

In comment 12109991 UConn4523 said:

Quote:

Smith does not, a pretty glaring difference between the two. I don't think Foles is anything special, but atleast he isn't afraid to go deep, unlike Smith, which is why KC will never win with him or come close to winning.

Smith is better than Dilfer. Put him on the Cards and they win at least 1 playoff game this year.

But you pretty much need a Ravens-2000 defense to win it all with Smith.

Here are the QBs I'd take over him (in no particular order):

Romo
Eli
Petyon
Big Ben
Brady
Rodgers
Luck
Wilson
Brees
Stafford
Newton
Ryan
Flacco
Dalton
Rivers

Borderline:
Tannehill
Kaepernick
Cutler
Palmer (if you can guarantee health...)

Botles/Bridgewater/Carr (TBD)


Maybe it's Giants-bias, but I don't see a huge ceiling and a lot of untapped potential with him. So to me, while he might technically be average he's probably in the 15-20 range among current starters, to me he's in the coach killer category. He's a Matt Schaub/Kyle Orton type QB that with the right surrounding pieces can get you 8-10 wins, but he's not likely carrying you to a SB and is probably good enough to keep you from getting that top 5 pick and really getting a chance to grab a true franchise QB.

I'm not sure how many Bengals game you happen to watch, but it doesn't take many to conclude Dalton is one of the worst QBs in the NFL. I'd take Foles over him without blinking...

In comment 12110040 giants#1 said:

Quote:

Here are the QBs I'd take over him (in no particular order): Romo Eli Petyon Big Ben Brady Rodgers Luck Wilson Brees Stafford Newton Ryan Flacco Dalton Rivers Borderline: Tannehill Kaepernick Cutler Palmer (if you can guarantee health...) Botles/Bridgewater/Carr (TBD) Maybe it's Giants-bias, but I don't see a huge ceiling and a lot of untapped potential with him. So to me, while he might technically be average he's probably in the 15-20 range among current starters, to me he's in the coach killer category. He's a Matt Schaub/Kyle Orton type QB that with the right surrounding pieces can get you 8-10 wins, but he's not likely carrying you to a SB and is probably good enough to keep you from getting that top 5 pick and really getting a chance to grab a true franchise QB.

Well, how many teams are there? :)

15-20 is about league average to me. At least he's in the middle of the bell curve of QBs out there.

on a cap friendly contract while Mariota gets groomed, if that's their plan.

QB than Feely whom the Eagles foisted onto the Dolphins. The system helped Foles until teams got enough tape on him and it. That team better pray fgor health across that OL and McCoy.

I hope to got they mortgage their future like Wash did. Mariotta is a better kid and a hard worker but he's so over rated.

In comment 12110087 BeerFridge said:

Quote:

Well, how many teams are there? :) 15-20 is about league average to me. At least he's in the middle of the bell curve of QBs out there.

Yea, the point was more that for many teams you're better off with a bottom 5 QB (and the ensuing top 5-10 pick) then an "average" QB that's good enough to guide your team to 7-9 wins most years and maybe the occasional playoff appearance/win. At least with the top 5-10 pick, you can draft a guy with the potential to change your fortunes, whereas a Schaub/Orton type pretty much just guarantees you mediocrity.

There are exceptions to this for teams that have had a decade+ of futility and need something positive for their fans (talk to Bills fans about Orton this past year...), but I don't think the Eagles fall in that category.

Bradford's floor would be Eli Manning.

Please let the Eagles move up for Mariota. Please.

In comment 12109906 CT Charlie said:

Quote:

I think Foles is excellent, easily a middle-of-the-league starter.

If Foles is "excellent", how is he a mid league starter? That would make him mediocre. Just throwing that out there.

In comment 12110104 Go Terps said:

Quote:

Bradford's floor would be Eli Manning. Please let the Eagles move up for Mariota. Please.

And even more so let him be there at 9. Unrealistic I know but one can dream.

they would have been a playoff team if he hadn't gotten hurt. They were 6-2 before he went down and 4-4 after with losses to Green Bay, Dallas, Seattle, and Washington. You gotta believe he turns one of those into a W over Sanchez. Then you're looking at a 11-5 team. If the win is over Dallas, then they are in, otherwise if just over Washington that might be enough to get them past Detroit for the final spot.

Philly takes a step back if they get rid of Foles.

With quality QBs. They are hard to find so teams desperately look to guys like Foles and Dalton, praying they get lucky. This makes me so thankful we have Eli.

but if they trade him who are they replacing him with? Re-signing Sanchez? Yeah, having him worked out great for them this year.

Sanchez is fool's gold. He's not better than Foles. Mr Buttfumble will revert to his true form sooner or later.

Mariota? How exactly are the Eagles supposed to move up to get him?

is dreaming about the Rams making the playoffs most years again. Despite the overwhelming evidence of Fisher's record to the contrary.

In comment 12110303 FStubbs said:

Quote:

Sanchez is fool's gold. He's not better than Foles. Mr Buttfumble will revert to his true form sooner or later. Mariota? How exactly are the Eagles supposed to move up to get him?

The rumor is that they are trying to position themselves to draft Mariota.

It would take at least one big trade for the Eagles to get in position (top 5) for the Bucs to even consider trading out of the #1 slot. Then it would take a second big trade to move up to #1.

And if the Bucs are sold on Mariota it doesn't make any difference what the Eagles are positioning to do.

I would be shocked if the Eagles landed Mariota.

Tampa didnt draft Winston