ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs The case for Nick Foles (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=270213)

Mr_Tomahawk 02-20-2013 10:10 AM

The case for Nick Foles
 
I left the GIFs out...follow the link if you want to see them.

Flame away.

_________________________________________

The case for Nick Foles: This is why the Chiefs should make the trade

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2013/2...s-trade-eagles

Why Nick Foles and not Alex Smith?

Foles makes sense for the Chiefs for a number of reasons. First and foremost is that there is a need -- the Chiefs need two new quarterbacks. The idea of drafting two new quarterbacks this off-season sounds great because we saw the Washington Redskins do that last year with Robert Griffin III and Kirk Cousins. But they knew that Griffin was going to start and they knew what kind of prospect they had on their hands. Cousins was/is an insurance policy (and a smart one).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More from BJ: The case for Geno Smith | Tyler Wilson | A safety

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other option that's been discussed quite a bit is to go after Alex Smith. Whether it's through a trade or waiting to see if he's released by San Francisco it really depends on what the Chiefs have budgeted for their quarterbacks next season. The cap is set to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $122 million next season. The Chiefs have roughly $14 million in space. Tyson Jackson is a $17.47 million cap hit as of today but only $2.5 million in dead money if he's cut.

The Chiefs would be saving $14.97 million on the cap by cutting Tyson Jackson. Matt Cassel is a $9.825 million cap hit if he's on the team next season without a restructure of his contract. But he's also $3.95 million of 'dead money' in 2013 if he's cut.

The issue with cutting Cassel and then going after Alex Smith is the money.


Mark J. Rebilas-USA TODAY Sports

Smith's current contract (which would be accompanying him if traded) shows him having a cap hit of $9.75 million next season. Add that to Cassel's 'dead money' hit of $3.95 million if cut and there's a cap hit of $13.7 million for one quarterback on your roster. The Chiefs can afford it but you don't want to be careless with your cap space or your contracts. Teams set budgets and I'd be surprised if the Chiefs want to expand their cap space that much for Alex Smith.



You'd have two young, developing QBs. I like those odds.

This is the reason I believe trading for Nick Foles is a very good plan. It wouldn't hurt you to cut Cassel and take the $3.95 million hit because Foles' is under contract through 2015 and his cap number never exceeds $816,000. Foles could be one of the two new quarterbacks that you bring in AND he has experience. You KNOW he could start right away if the other quarterback you drafted, whether it's No. 1 overall or somewhere down the line, isn't ready to play. You'd have two young, developing quarterbacks. I like those odds.



That's the longterm reasoning behind why I'd support a trade for Nick Foles. It opens up competition for two young quarterbacks and protects the Chiefs by knowing they have a guy who Reid believes in who could start right away.

Strengths: He can make all the throws



Foles has a very live arm and natural throwing ability. He can make all of the throws needed but I wouldn't call his arm-strength 'elite'. He excels on crossing patterns like slants and square-ins, plays that receivers are moving horizontally. He has the arm strength to get the ball firmly outside the numbers on out-routes. He's probably best on slant and post routes. The GIF above shows one of his slants in the Sunday Night Football game against the Cowboys. This is the first drive and first third down of the game.

I wouldn't call Foles a superb athlete at quarterback but he moves well enough to get out and around the pocket. With the Eagles offensive line as bad as it was Foles had to show an ability to maneuver around the pocket quite a bit last season. He tucks it and runs when he has to but whenever he gets outside the pocket he's still looking to throw the ball.



I wouldn't call Foles a superb athlete at QB but he moves well enough.

Foles likes to throw on the run and it's something he's very good at doing. He was very good at moving up in the pocket and delivering accurate passes across the middle of the field. Some of Foles' best plays last season were ones where initial read broke down and he had to throw on the run. He has some of that school-yard, run-around-and-make-a-play in him and it's something Chiefs fans didn't see with Matt Cassel and Brady Quinn last season.



Foles natural throwing ability is on display with the different arm angles he uses when throwing passes. He will drop-down and go almost side-arm or three quarters at times when throwing screens or in traffic under pressure. He improvises a lot when under pressure and on several cases would just flip or push it to a running back. He's very good at throwing passes to backs out of the backfield. It would seem like an obvious trait or skill that all quarterbacks should have but I never saw him once not lead a running back on a swing pass out of the backfield. Andy Reid likes to get his running backs involved in the passing game and Foles excels on those 'touch' throws. Getting the ball 'on-time and in-stride' would be beneficial to a player like Dexter McCluster for the Chiefs.



In this next clip you'll see Foles go through his first two progressions and then check to his outlet. Brent Celek across the middle is his first read, Jeremy Maclin running the post is his second and then he would automatically throw to his check down. But right after the snap you can see the outside linebacker quickly took that check down pass to LeSean McCoy away from him. Rather than just throwing the ball without looking (Cough...Cassel), which would have been an interception, Foles tucks and moves outside the pocket, keeps his eyes down field and Maclin makes a great decision to turn and get up-field. He then makes a fantastic catch on a nice ball down field on the run.

The game never looked too big or too fast for Foles. There were times he looked a little timid or that he was trying to avoid making mistakes. He was sacked 20 times in seven games and consistently had drives halted due to holding penalties on the offensive line. All of these things can pile up and affect your play but that didn't seem to be the case for Foles last season.

Weaknesses: Deep-ball accuracy, decision-making under pressure needs work

The biggest weakness I saw from Foles was on his deep-ball accuracy. Anytime he threw a Fly or Hitch-n-Go route it always seem to give him trouble. More often than not he actually overthrew his receiver on these vertical passes. The odd thing is that he actually threw Flag and Deep Post routes pretty well. It seems like he needs an angle on the routes to create some sort of depth for him when placing these balls down field.



This clip above shows an example of that deep ball accuracy that I'm talking about. Foles actually does a pretty good job of stepping around in the pocket to give him a clear lane to throw the football down the field. Jackson has a step on his defender and Foles leads him out of bounds. Saying someone isn't accurate down the field doesn't mean they're 7-8 yards off in their throw. The margin of error is so small on most plays that when you have an advantage like a receiver getting behind the defense you have to give him a chance to make a play. This is the kind of throw I consistently saw from Foles down the field on these fly routes. Just off one way or another.



Another weakness that I saw from Foles had to do with his footwork. He saw a lot of pressure in these seven games and so there were a number of plays to evaluate how he handled pressure in regards to his moving around the pocket. Foles would tend to drift while going through his progressions and manipulating the pocket at times. He would never reset his feet and that led to inaccurate passes like you see here above.

This isn't something that you'd see from Foles every time he saw pressure. This was the first game against the Washington Redskins where they came after him all game long. It was actually his first start. I can count on one hand how many times they sent less than five people after him during that game. This was on 3rd and 21.

Foles also needs to get better at going through his play-fakes. It got frustrating to watch after I noticed it the first time but he seems to just go through the motions on a running play when he'd carry out his fake. It's easy for a defender to tell when you don't have the ball and it's a little thing that could be very obvious to a defense.

Development: Consistently getting better

The most promising sign I saw from Foles was his maturation and development during the season. His first game against the Cowboys was a learning experience. The Cowboys defenders were hopping routes, jumping the snap count, showing multiple looks pre-snap. They were putting the pressure on Foles and he wasn't prepared for it. But even as Vick went down early in this game Foles showed some promise.

This game was tied 17-17 heading into the 4th quarter when the Cowboys returned a punt for a touchdown. On the very next drive an interception on a bobbled pass intended for DeSean Jackson. Brandon Carr took the tipped pass back for a touchdown. Just like that it was 31-17. Carr's interception came on a pass thrown behind Jackson and while he did have both hands on it while reaching back, it wasn't a good pass and kicked up into the air when Jackson couldn't secure it.

This is where you learn about a player's intestinal fortitude. On Foles next two drives he went 8-11 for 91 yards and one drive ended with a short rushing TD. The other drive stalled due to a 'illegal use of hands' penalty on the offensive line after having already picked up a couple of first downs.

Things were collapsing around the rookie quarterback in his first ever NFL game and he had enough fight to bounce back after a rough two minutes for the Eagles in crunch time.

The first game against Washington was about handling the blitz. The Redskins constantly sent pressure and got to Foles with four sacks in the game. He finished this game with no touchdowns and two interceptions while completing just 45 percent of his passes.

His next game against Carolina was interesting because he became very timid in throwing the ball down field. It was on Monday Night Football and his first of two primetime games in a row. I think he was expecting Carolina to blitz more often because that's what Washington had done and were successful the week before against him. He looked indecisive and would throw late to his second and third options. He completed 16-of-21 passes for just 119 yards and an interception.

By his third start, his second game against Dallas, he started to turn the corner. It was another primetime game against the Cowboys on Sunday Night Football. When Foles gets into a rhythm he's fun to watch and he got into a rhythm against the Cowboys on this night. He was calmly going through progressions in the pocket and moving around and making plays all over the field. There was a presence in the pocket that we hadn't consistently seen yet from Foles.


Howard Smith-USA TODAY Sports

His next game, his fourth start, against the Buccaneers I noticed it was the first time he'd react to defenses showing blitz by changing the play and communicating with his offensive lineman. This was at the beginning of the game and you could tell he was more comfortable with what he was doing. It was night and day different than what we had seen in that first game against the Cowboys. He was in control and 'looked the part'.

Predicting the future

I had a lot of people on twitter ask me about whether or not I feel as though Foles could be a 'Franchise QB' after having watched all of his games. It's a tough question to answer because everyone's definition of what that means is completely different. Same with the phrase 'elite QB'.



He's far from a perfect prospect right now.

Nick Foles showed development through seven games last season that was easily visible to where you'd think this guy has a chance. The game never looked too big for him and he looked very much in control of what he was doing the last three games of the season. But he's far from a perfect prospect right now. He needs to work on his footwork and accuracy on the deep ball for starters. But if you're looking for something to build on and to see enough to know someone has the opportunity to improve then you'd be happy with what you saw from Foles.



In Foles last four games he completed 61.4 percent of his passes for 1,157 yards with five touchdowns and two interceptions.

He can move around the pocket while keeping his eyes down field. Something I like about that WVU QB as well. He actually throws as accurate on the run on short/intermediate routes as he does when his feet get set. Quarterbacks must be able to throw shorter, dump-off, check-down routes from all different body angles accurately because a lot of times you're throwing those passes when you're getting blitzed with a guy in your face.



Foles will stand in the pocket and deliver a throw when it's needed. In this clip above it was 3rd and seven early in the 4th quarter against the Redskins with the Eagles trailing 27-13. They scored a touchdown two plays later to get them to within seven at 27-20. Foles next drive went 80 yards and stalled at the five yard line when time ran out. He got them in position to tie the game.

Foles can move around the pocket when a play starts to break down and make something happen. He did it several times at the most important times and gave the Eagles a chance to win in three different games they couldn't pull out.

Much has been made of his W/L record as a starter last year in Philadelphia. The Eagles had 4th quarter leads against Carolina and Dallas, were tied with Dallas in their other game and came within five yards of tying the Redskins to end their second game. Simply looking at the final score doesn't give you the whole story and context of what happened.



He bounced back and made plays.

From watching these games I can tell you that Foles did make some mistakes and those mistakes hurt the Eagles. But he also bounced back and made plays in those games to get the Eagles back into it. Many of which were on 3rd down. Those mistakes didn't define that game for him and that's a trait you can't see unless you sit down and watch the entire game. The situation never seemed to get the best of him or be too much for him and he played in some pretty big games for Philadelphia last season.




Steve Mitchell-USA TODAY Sports

The Chiefs need two new quarterbacks and if both of them are young, developing quarterbacks that Reid and company like then the Chiefs will be in a pretty good spot. Foles knows this offense and he knows the offensive coaching staff. That can't be understated.

I like that Foles struggled to start and then developed throughout the season. It shows coachability and you could see the maturation of a quarterback.

I'd be happy if he was in Kansas City next season to compete with a draft pick for the starting position.

Dayze 02-20-2013 10:17 AM

I wonder if this guy wrote an article titled 'The Case for Matt Cassel"

loochy 02-20-2013 10:19 AM

the case for saying no:

Code:

RK        PLAYER                                TEAM        COMP        ATT        PCT        YDS        YDS/A                LONG        TD        INT        SACK        RATE        YDS/G
1        Aaron Rodgers, QB                GB        371        552        67.2        4,295        7.78                73        39        8        51        108.0        268
2        Peyton Manning, QB                DEN        400        583        68.6        4,659        7.99                71        37        11        21        105.8        291
3        Robert Griffin III, QB                WSH        258        393        65.6        3,200        8.14                88        20        5        30        102.4        213
4        Russell Wilson, QB                SEA        252        393        64.1        3,118        7.93                67        26        10        33        100.0        195
5        Matt Ryan, QB                        ATL        422        615        68.6        4,719        7.67                80        32        14        28        99.1        295
6        Tom Brady, QB                        NE        401        637        63.0        4,827        7.58                83        34        8        27        98.7        302
7        Ben Roethlisberger, QB                PIT        284        449        63.3        3,265        7.27                82        26        8        30        97.0        251
8        Drew Brees, QB                        NO        422        670        63.0        5,177        7.73                80        43        19        26        96.3        324
9        Matt Schaub, QB                        HOU        350        544        64.3        4,008        7.37                60        22        12        27        90.7        251
10        Tony Romo, QB                        DAL        425        648        65.6        4,903        7.57                85        28        19        36        90.5        306
11        Philip Rivers, QB                SD        338        527        64.1        3,606        6.84                80        26        15        49        88.6        225
12        Joe Flacco, QB                        BAL        317        531        59.7        3,817        7.19                61        22        10        35        87.7        239
13        Andy Dalton, QB                        CIN        329        528        62.3        3,669        6.95                59        27        16        46        87.4        229
14        Eli Manning, QB                        NYG        321        536        59.9        3,948        7.37                80        26        15        19        87.2        247
15        Cam Newton, QB                        CAR        280        485        57.7        3,869        7.98                82        19        12        36        86.2        242
16        Carson Palmer, QB                OAK        345        565        61.1        4,018        7.11                64        22        14        26        85.3        268
17        Ryan Fitzpatrick, QB                BUF        306        505        60.6        3,400        6.73                68        24        16        30        83.3        213
18        Sam Bradford, QB                STL        328        551        59.5        3,702        6.72                80        21        13        35        82.6        231
19        Josh Freeman, QB                TB        306        558        54.8        4,065        7.29                95        27        17        26        81.6        254
20        Jay Cutler, QB                        CHI        255        434        58.8        3,033        6.99                60        19        14        38        81.3        202
21        Christian Ponder, QB                MIN        300        483        62.1        2,935        6.08                65        18        12        32        81.2        183
22        Matthew Stafford, QB                DET        435        727        59.8        4,967        6.83                57        20        17        29        79.8        310
23        Nick Foles, QB                        PHI        161        265        60.8        1,699        6.41                46        6        5        20        79.1        243
24        Michael Vick, QB                PHI        204        351        58.1        2,362        6.73                77        12        10        28        78.1        236
25        Blaine Gabbert, QB                JAC        162        278        58.3        1,662        5.98                80        9        6        22        77.4        166
26        Andrew Luck, QB                        IND        339        627        54.1        4,374        6.98                70        23        18        41        76.5        273
27        Ryan Tannehill, QB                MIA        282        484        58.3        3,294        6.81                80        12        13        35        76.1        206
28        Jake Locker, QB                        TEN        177        314        56.4        2,176        6.93                71        10        11        25        74.0        198
29        Brandon Weeden, QB                CLE        297        517        57.4        3,385        6.55                71        14        17        28        72.6        226
30        Chad Henne, QB                        JAC        166        308        53.9        2,084        6.77                81        11        11        28        72.2        208
31        Mark Sanchez, QB                NYJ        246        453        54.3        2,883        6.36                66        13        18        34        66.9        192
32        Matt Cassel, QB                        KC        161        277        58.1        1,796        6.48                46        6        12        19        66.7        200


ChiefsCountry 02-20-2013 10:21 AM

Why is this fanbase obessed with shitty backup quarterbacks? Just draft our own ****ing quarterback.

Carlota69 02-20-2013 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loochy (Post 9418558)
the case for saying no:

1 Aaron Rodgers, QB GB 371 552 67.2 4,295 7.78 73 39 8 51 108.0 268
2 Peyton Manning, QB DEN 400 583 68.6 4,659 7.99 71 37 11 21 105.8 291
3 Robert Griffin III, QB WSH 258 393 65.6 3,200 8.14 88 20 5 30 102.4 213
4 Russell Wilson, QB SEA 252 393 64.1 3,118 7.93 67 26 10 33 100.0 195
5 Matt Ryan, QB ATL 422 615 68.6 4,719 7.67 80 32 14 28 99.1 295
6 Tom Brady, QB NE 401 637 63.0 4,827 7.58 83 34 8 27 98.7 302
7 Ben Roethlisberger, QB PIT 284 449 63.3 3,265 7.27 82 26 8 30 97.0 251
8 Drew Brees, QB NO 422 670 63.0 5,177 7.73 80 43 19 26 96.3 324
9 Matt Schaub, QB HOU 350 544 64.3 4,008 7.37 60 22 12 27 90.7 251
10 Tony Romo, QB DAL 425 648 65.6 4,903 7.57 85 28 19 36 90.5 306
RK PLAYER TEAM COMP ATT PCT YDS YDS/A LONG TD INT SACK RATE YDS/G
11 Philip Rivers, QB SD 338 527 64.1 3,606 6.84 80 26 15 49 88.6 225
12 Joe Flacco, QB BAL 317 531 59.7 3,817 7.19 61 22 10 35 87.7 239
13 Andy Dalton, QB CIN 329 528 62.3 3,669 6.95 59 27 16 46 87.4 229
14 Eli Manning, QB NYG 321 536 59.9 3,948 7.37 80 26 15 19 87.2 247
15 Cam Newton, QB CAR 280 485 57.7 3,869 7.98 82 19 12 36 86.2 242
16 Carson Palmer, QB OAK 345 565 61.1 4,018 7.11 64 22 14 26 85.3 268
17 Ryan Fitzpatrick, QB BUF 306 505 60.6 3,400 6.73 68 24 16 30 83.3 213
18 Sam Bradford, QB STL 328 551 59.5 3,702 6.72 80 21 13 35 82.6 231
19 Josh Freeman, QB TB 306 558 54.8 4,065 7.29 95 27 17 26 81.6 254
20 Jay Cutler, QB CHI 255 434 58.8 3,033 6.99 60 19 14 38 81.3 202
21 Christian Ponder, QB MIN 300 483 62.1 2,935 6.08 65 18 12 32 81.2 183
22 Matthew Stafford, QB DET 435 727 59.8 4,967 6.83 57 20 17 29 79.8 310
23 Nick Foles, QB PHI 161 265 60.8 1,699 6.41 46 6 5 20 79.1 243
24 Michael Vick, QB PHI 204 351 58.1 2,362 6.73 77 12 10 28 78.1 236
25 Blaine Gabbert, QB JAC 162 278 58.3 1,662 5.98 80 9 6 22 77.4 166
26 Andrew Luck, QB IND 339 627 54.1 4,374 6.98 70 23 18 41 76.5 27327 Ryan Tannehill, QB MIA 282 484 58.3 3,294 6.81 80 12 13 35 76.1 206
28 Jake Locker, QB TEN 177 314 56.4 2,176 6.93 71 10 11 25 74.0 198
29 Brandon Weeden, QB CLE 297 517 57.4 3,385 6.55 71 14 17 28 72.6 226
30 Chad Henne, QB JAC 166 308 53.9 2,084 6.77 81 11 11 28 72.2 208
RK PLAYER TEAM COMP ATT PCT YDS YDS/A LONG TD INT SACK RATE YDS/G
31 Mark Sanchez, QB NYJ 246 453 54.3 2,883 6.36 66 13 18 34 66.9 192
32 Matt Cassel, QB KC 161 277 58.1 1,796 6.48 46 6 12 19 66.7 200

HMMM...Foles did better than Andrew Luck?

Dayze 02-20-2013 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loochy (Post 9418558)
the case for saying no:
RK PLAYER TEAM COMP ATT PCT YDS YDS/A LONG TD INT SACK RATE YDS/G
1 Aaron Rodgers, QB GB 371 552 67.2 4,295 7.78 73 39 8 51 108.0 268
2 Peyton Manning, QB DEN 400 583 68.6 4,659 7.99 71 37 11 21 105.8 291
3 Robert Griffin III, QB WSH 258 393 65.6 3,200 8.14 88 20 5 30 102.4 213
4 Russell Wilson, QB SEA 252 393 64.1 3,118 7.93 67 26 10 33 100.0 195
5 Matt Ryan, QB ATL 422 615 68.6 4,719 7.67 80 32 14 28 99.1 295
6 Tom Brady, QB NE 401 637 63.0 4,827 7.58 83 34 8 27 98.7 302
7 Ben Roethlisberger, QB PIT 284 449 63.3 3,265 7.27 82 26 8 30 97.0 251
8 Drew Brees, QB NO 422 670 63.0 5,177 7.73 80 43 19 26 96.3 324
9 Matt Schaub, QB HOU 350 544 64.3 4,008 7.37 60 22 12 27 90.7 251
10 Tony Romo, QB DAL 425 648 65.6 4,903 7.57 85 28 19 36 90.5 306
11 Philip Rivers, QB SD 338 527 64.1 3,606 6.84 80 26 15 49 88.6 225
12 Joe Flacco, QB BAL 317 531 59.7 3,817 7.19 61 22 10 35 87.7 239
13 Andy Dalton, QB CIN 329 528 62.3 3,669 6.95 59 27 16 46 87.4 229
14 Eli Manning, QB NYG 321 536 59.9 3,948 7.37 80 26 15 19 87.2 247
15 Cam Newton, QB CAR 280 485 57.7 3,869 7.98 82 19 12 36 86.2 242
16 Carson Palmer, QB OAK 345 565 61.1 4,018 7.11 64 22 14 26 85.3 268
17 Ryan Fitzpatrick, QB BUF 306 505 60.6 3,400 6.73 68 24 16 30 83.3 213
18 Sam Bradford, QB STL 328 551 59.5 3,702 6.72 80 21 13 35 82.6 231
19 Josh Freeman, QB TB 306 558 54.8 4,065 7.29 95 27 17 26 81.6 254
20 Jay Cutler, QB CHI 255 434 58.8 3,033 6.99 60 19 14 38 81.3 202
21 Christian Ponder, QB MIN 300 483 62.1 2,935 6.08 65 18 12 32 81.2 183
22 Matthew Stafford, QB DET 435 727 59.8 4,967 6.83 57 20 17 29 79.8 310
23 Nick Foles, QB PHI 161 265 60.8 1,699 6.41 46 6 5 20 79.1 243
24 Michael Vick, QB PHI 204 351 58.1 2,362 6.73 77 12 10 28 78.1 236
25 Blaine Gabbert, QB JAC 162 278 58.3 1,662 5.98 80 9 6 22 77.4 166
26 Andrew Luck, QB IND 339 627 54.1 4,374 6.98 70 23 18 41 76.5 273
27 Ryan Tannehill, QB MIA 282 484 58.3 3,294 6.81 80 12 13 35 76.1 206
28 Jake Locker, QB TEN 177 314 56.4 2,176 6.93 71 10 11 25 74.0 198
29 Brandon Weeden, QB CLE 297 517 57.4 3,385 6.55 71 14 17 28 72.6 226
30 Chad Henne, QB JAC 166 308 53.9 2,084 6.77 81 11 11 28 72.2 208
31 Mark Sanchez, QB NYJ 246 453 54.3 2,883 6.36 66 13 18 34 66.9 192
32 Matt Cassel, QB KC 161 277 58.1 1,796 6.48 46 6 12 19 66.7 200

he's better than Cassel!!

Mr_Tomahawk 02-20-2013 10:24 AM

Andrew Luck sucks.

Carlota69 02-20-2013 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk (Post 9418586)
Andrew Luck sucks.

ROFL

htismaqe 02-20-2013 10:25 AM

I would MUCH rather have Foles than Alex Smith.

Foles is essentially a rookie in terms of development/upside, but has at least some game experience.

Alex Smith is what he is. Some think that's good enough, I don't.

Part of the reason I want to draft Geno or Tyler Wilson is because I think they have high upside and lots of room to grow.

To that end, Foles is much more like THEM than he is like Alex Smith.

loochy 02-20-2013 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlota69 (Post 9418588)
ROFL

suk for luk

Carlota69 02-20-2013 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loochy (Post 9418596)
suk for luk

suk is luk

The Franchise 02-20-2013 10:28 AM

Luck was sacked 41 times? Jesus.

htismaqe 02-20-2013 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loochy (Post 9418596)
suk for luk

Luck for Suck!

htismaqe 02-20-2013 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 9418604)
Luck was sacked 41 times? Jesus.

Two words:

Bruce Arians

loochy 02-20-2013 10:33 AM

Holes for Foles?

DJ's left nut 02-20-2013 10:35 AM

Guys - read the article.

I do not like the Foles option personally, but Kissel is legit. I've been following him on Twitter for awhile and he's actually been doing a lot of homework over the last couple of weeks. He spent all weekend last weekend watching Foles games and giving updates.

I'm fairly confident saying that Kissel has spent more time studying Nick Foles than any of us has so at least give him the courtesy of reading what he has to say.

I still don't like the Foles option, but it's now no longer on my list of most hated scenarios, either. I would not, however, give up anything close to the 1st or 2nd that the Eagles are supposedly asking for. At worst I'd give a 3rd, but as I really want Rambo with that pick, I might not do that either.

Honestly, I'd have to convince myself that he's 'the man' that can lead this team and if so, I'd swap first rounders with the Eagles for Foles. If I can't convince myself of that, then I probably wouldn't make a trade for him at all.

But hey, thanks again, Pioli, for making sure we did absolutely nothing to put a young quarterback with starters potential on this roster over the last 2 years. It wouldn't have been nice to have taken a flyer on Wilson or Foles...

htismaqe 02-20-2013 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418630)
Guys - read the article.

I do not like the Foles option personally, but Kissel is legit. I've been following him on Twitter for awhile and he's actually been doing a lot of homework over the last couple of weeks. He spent all weekend last weekend watching Foles games and giving updates.

I'm fairly confident saying that Kissel has spent more time studying Nick Foles than any of us has so at least give him the courtesy of reading what he has to say.

I still don't like the Foles option, but it's now no longer on my list of most hated scenarios, either. I would not, however, give up anything close to the 1st or 2nd that the Eagles are supposedly asking for. At worst I'd give a 3rd, but as I really want Rambo with that pick, I might not do that either.

Honestly, I'd have to convince myself that he's 'the man' that can lead this team and if so, I'd swap first rounders with the Eagles for Foles. If I can't convince myself of that, then I probably wouldn't make a trade for him at all.

But hey, thanks again, *****, for making sure we did absolutely nothing to put a young quarterback with starters potential on this roster over the last 2 years. It wouldn't have been nice to have taken a flyer on Wilson or Foles...

:clap::clap::clap:

crazycoffey 02-20-2013 10:41 AM

How dare you mention any quarter backs not named GEnooooooo!!!!

ModSocks 02-20-2013 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418630)
Guys - read the article.

I do not like the Foles option personally, but Kissel is legit. I've been following him on Twitter for awhile and he's actually been doing a lot of homework over the last couple of weeks. He spent all weekend last weekend watching Foles games and giving updates.

I'm fairly confident saying that Kissel has spent more time studying Nick Foles than any of us has so at least give him the courtesy of reading what he has to say.

I still don't like the Foles option, but it's now no longer on my list of most hated scenarios, either. I would not, however, give up anything close to the 1st or 2nd that the Eagles are supposedly asking for. At worst I'd give a 3rd, but as I really want Rambo with that pick, I might not do that either.

Honestly, I'd have to convince myself that he's 'the man' that can lead this team and if so, I'd swap first rounders with the Eagles for Foles. If I can't convince myself of that, then I probably wouldn't make a trade for him at all.

But hey, thanks again, *****, for making sure we did absolutely nothing to put a young quarterback with starters potential on this roster over the last 2 years. It wouldn't have been nice to have taken a flyer on Wilson or Foles...

I agree.

I would be 100% onboard with the scenario played out in the OP.

The Franchise 02-20-2013 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418630)
Guys - read the article.

I do not like the Foles option personally, but Kissel is legit. I've been following him on Twitter for awhile and he's actually been doing a lot of homework over the last couple of weeks. He spent all weekend last weekend watching Foles games and giving updates.

I'm fairly confident saying that Kissel has spent more time studying Nick Foles than any of us has so at least give him the courtesy of reading what he has to say.

I still don't like the Foles option, but it's now no longer on my list of most hated scenarios, either. I would not, however, give up anything close to the 1st or 2nd that the Eagles are supposedly asking for. At worst I'd give a 3rd, but as I really want Rambo with that pick, I might not do that either.

Honestly, I'd have to convince myself that he's 'the man' that can lead this team and if so, I'd swap first rounders with the Eagles for Foles. If I can't convince myself of that, then I probably wouldn't make a trade for him at all.

But hey, thanks again, *****, for making sure we did absolutely nothing to put a young quarterback with starters potential on this roster over the last 2 years. It wouldn't have been nice to have taken a flyer on Wilson or Foles...

I read the article. He also mentions multiple times that he thinks the Chiefs should draft another QB as well. If you trade a 3rd for Foles.....where do we draft one?

htismaqe 02-20-2013 10:47 AM

There's only one small problem with Kissel's premise:

He too is assuming Andy Reid LIKES Nick Foles as a QB.

We've been told by our peers in the Eagles fanbase (you know the guys that actually KNOW what they're talking about :D) that Howie Roseman has been in charge of the draft for the past couple of years.

It's entirely possible that Foles was a Roseman pick and Andy Reid doesn't really like him that much at all.

DJ's left nut 02-20-2013 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 9418648)
I read the article. He also mentions multiple times that he thinks the Chiefs should draft another QB as well. If you trade a 3rd for Foles.....where do we draft one?

Like I said, I don't agree with him there. If I give up a 3rd for him, it's because I think he can be the starter.

The Chiefs honestly have too many holes for me to be that comfortable with them loading up on QBs in this draft. I know it's the 'in' thing because that's what the Skins did, but A) the Skins sure could've used another pass-rusher or guy in the secondary last year, eh? And B) With RGIII, they Skins had to have a good backup; he's an ever-present injury risk.

If you're a bad team, you have to worry about a lot of holes on your roster. Either you think Foles is capable of being a top 1/2 of the league QB or you don't. If you do, I don't think you should be drafting another QB at that point.

I like some of his analysis but disagree with his conclusions. I don't think I'd give up a 3rd for him at this point, for the reasons I stated in my first post.

The Franchise 02-20-2013 10:49 AM

The one thing I did find interesting was how much it would cost us to cut Cassel and trade for Smith. $12 million is a little much for a game manager.

ModSocks 02-20-2013 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 9418648)
I read the article. He also mentions multiple times that he thinks the Chiefs should draft another QB as well. If you trade a 3rd for Foles.....where do we draft one?

1st or 2nd.

Take Geno at #1 or take a guy like Wilson who very well might slide into the 2nd like Jimmy Clausen did.

notorious 02-20-2013 10:50 AM

He didn't pass the "eye" test IMO.

Carlota69 02-20-2013 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418659)
There's only one small problem with Kissel's premise:

He too is assuming Andy Reid LIKES Nick Foles as a QB.

We've been told by our peers in the Eagles fanbase (you know the guys that actually KNOW what they're talking about :D) that Howie Roseman has been in charge of the draft for the past couple of years.

It's entirely possible that Foles was a Roseman pick and Andy Reid doesn't really like him that much at all.

Good point. Altho I wouldnt kill myself if we traded for Foles, this is an entirely possible scenario.

Boy, Pioli really ****ed us in the QB dept.

The Franchise 02-20-2013 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418670)
Like I said, I don't agree with him there. If I give up a 3rd for him, it's because I think he can be the starter.

The Chiefs honestly have too many holes for me to be that comfortable with them loading up on QBs in this draft. I know it's the 'in' thing because that's what the Skins did, but A) the Skins sure could've used another pass-rusher or guy in the secondary last year, eh? And B) With RGIII, they Skins had to have a good backup; he's an ever-present injury risk.

If you're a bad team, you have to worry about a lot of holes on your roster. Either you think Foles is capable of being a top 1/2 of the league QB or you don't. If you do, I don't think you should be drafting another QB at that point.

I like some of his analysis but disagree with his conclusions. I don't think I'd give up a 3rd for him at this point, for the reasons I stated in my first post.

If we're trading for Foles....then I would do a conditional 4th or 5th. Wins bumps the pick up.

notorious 02-20-2013 10:51 AM

Why didn't Andy trade Foles to us for a 2037 6th rounder before he got fired?!

ModSocks 02-20-2013 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418670)
Like I said, I don't agree with him there. If I give up a 3rd for him, it's because I think he can be the starter.

The Chiefs honestly have too many holes for me to be that comfortable with them loading up on QBs in this draft. I know it's the 'in' thing because that's what the Skins did, but A) the Skins sure could've used another pass-rusher or guy in the secondary last year, eh? And B) With RGIII, they Skins had to have a good backup; he's an ever-present injury risk.

If you're a bad team, you have to worry about a lot of holes on your roster. Either you think Foles is capable of being a top 1/2 of the league QB or you don't. If you do, I don't think you should be drafting another QB at that point.

I like some of his analysis but disagree with his conclusions. I don't think I'd give up a 3rd for him at this point, for the reasons I stated in my first post.

But as the OP pointed out, we have TWO holes at QB.

The only vet i see worth bringing in would be Hasselbeck. It might suck giving up a 3rd, but we do have two 3rd round picks (or at least we should, not sure if it's been confirmed yet) so we can still pick quality players.

crazycoffey 02-20-2013 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious (Post 9418683)
Why didn't Andy trade Foles to us for a 2037 6th rounder before he got fired?!

Because in 2037 we'd be be bitching about not having a pick to draft Payton's son.

Dayze 02-20-2013 10:58 AM

I'm not sold on Peyton's son.

DJ's left nut 02-20-2013 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 9418686)
But as the OP pointed out, we have TWO holes at QB.

The only vet i see worth bringing in would be Hasselbeck. It might suck giving up a 3rd, but we do have two 3rd round picks (or at least we should, not sure if it's been confirmed yet) so we can still pick quality players.

We have a dozen holes all over this roster. If it's your position that trading a 3rd for Foles means we can't fill the 2nd QB hole, then I presume you're suggesting that the Chiefs have to use 2 of their first 3 picks on QBs this season?

That's crazy talk. Yeah, they need to use one of their first 3 on a QB, no question. The 2nd QB hole should probably be filled in some other fashion.

For instance, if they take Geno at 1.1, would you really think its wise to use the 2nd rounder, which could be our #2 corner/WR or the 3rd rounder, which could be our starting SS, on a backup QB?

No, I don't think this franchise has any business doing that right now. They need to decide who they're going to pick as their QBOTF this year and they need to aggressively pursue that option. If that's Geno Smith - get him. If it's Nick Foles, figure something out. Then from there you use the rest of your picks to fill other gaping holes on the roster and you try to be creative with the backup QB role. There's always a Henne or Orton or Moore to be had as a sound backup QB.

The fact that Scooter intentionally avoided ever having a viable backup quarterback on this roster to avoid pressuring his dipshit pet doesn't mean that they're actually that difficult to acquire.

Mr_Tomahawk 02-20-2013 11:00 AM

At least he has no problem getting the ball down the field...

crazycoffey 02-20-2013 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dayze (Post 9418706)
I'm not sold on Peyton's son.

Can we at least wait for him to be conceived before we start criticizing him?

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418670)
Like I said, I don't agree with him there. If I give up a 3rd for him, it's because I think he can be the starter.

The Chiefs honestly have too many holes for me to be that comfortable with them loading up on QBs in this draft. I know it's the 'in' thing because that's what the Skins did, but A) the Skins sure could've used another pass-rusher or guy in the secondary last year, eh? And B) With RGIII, they Skins had to have a good backup; he's an ever-present injury risk.

If you're a bad team, you have to worry about a lot of holes on your roster. Either you think Foles is capable of being a top 1/2 of the league QB or you don't. If you do, I don't think you should be drafting another QB at that point.

I like some of his analysis but disagree with his conclusions. I don't think I'd give up a 3rd for him at this point, for the reasons I stated in my first post.

ABSOLUTELY agree with this.

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 9418672)
The one thing I did find interesting was how much it would cost us to cut Cassel and trade for Smith. $12 million is a little much for a game manager.

Hopefully it's an insurmountable obstacle. I don't want Alex Smith.

HolyHat 02-20-2013 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dayze (Post 9418706)
I'm not sold on Peyton's son.

Yeah, I have to agree. Should we start a thread?

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazycoffey (Post 9418718)
Can we at least wait for him to be conceived before we start criticizing him?

Why? This is a message board, we get paid to talk about stuff like this.

And whatnot...

Frosty 02-20-2013 11:04 AM

Quote:

In Foles last four games he completed 61.4 percent of his passes for 1,157 yards with five touchdowns and two interceptions.
That's not too bad.

Foles was third string through most of training camp (moved to 2nd string after playing well in the preseason games) so it would make sense that he would improve quite a bit with some actual playing time.

Quote:

Much has been made of his W/L record as a starter last year in Philadelphia. The Eagles had 4th quarter leads against Carolina and Dallas, were tied with Dallas in their other game and came within five yards of tying the Redskins to end their second game. Simply looking at the final score doesn't give you the whole story and context of what happened.
But I read right here on CP that all of Foles stats came in blowout losses. :rolleyes:

If the Chiefs were able to get Foles and a 2nd for swapping 1sts with the Eagles, who do you take at #4? Patterson? The best remaining QB?

Hammock Parties 02-20-2013 11:07 AM

The one thing I like about all those GIFs is you can see how strong his arm is. This is a 60-65 yard throw when you account for angle, and his feet are all messed up.

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_as...787/foles2.gif

That's about all I like about Nicky Fools. He's tall and has a big arm.

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9418735)
But I read right here on CP that all of Foles stats came in blowout losses. :rolleyes:

Foles has a responsibility to win in spite of his horrendous defense.

At least that's what we've been told when it comes to Geno Smith.

Or are we just going to throw out all pretenses of objectivity and fairness? ;)

BigCatDaddy 02-20-2013 11:07 AM

Holy shit! By the time the draft rolls around the TrueFans are going to have converted 1/2 the Genoites.

Frosty 02-20-2013 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418713)
We have a dozen holes all over this roster. If it's your position that trading a 3rd for Foles means we can't fill the 2nd QB hole, then I presume you're suggesting that the Chiefs have to use 2 of their first 3 picks on QBs this season?

That's crazy talk. Yeah, they need to use one of their first 3 on a QB, no question. The 2nd QB hole should probably be filled in some other fashion.

For instance, if they take Geno at 1.1, would you really think its wise to use the 2nd rounder, which could be our #2 corner/WR or the 3rd rounder, which could be our starting SS, on a backup QB?


Absolutely, unless they can pick some extra picks. This draft looks to have a ton of talent in the 2nd through 4th rounds. I would hate to trade those away.

Dave Lane 02-20-2013 11:08 AM

Id give a next years 3 that could rise to a 2 with certain goals being met like win a playoff game.

And THEN draft a REAL QB at #1


Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418630)
Guys - read the article.

I do not like the Foles option personally, but Kissel is legit. I've been following him on Twitter for awhile and he's actually been doing a lot of homework over the last couple of weeks. He spent all weekend last weekend watching Foles games and giving updates.

I'm fairly confident saying that Kissel has spent more time studying Nick Foles than any of us has so at least give him the courtesy of reading what he has to say.

I still don't like the Foles option, but it's now no longer on my list of most hated scenarios, either. I would not, however, give up anything close to the 1st or 2nd that the Eagles are supposedly asking for. At worst I'd give a 3rd, but as I really want Rambo with that pick, I might not do that either.

Honestly, I'd have to convince myself that he's 'the man' that can lead this team and if so, I'd swap first rounders with the Eagles for Foles. If I can't convince myself of that, then I probably wouldn't make a trade for him at all.

But hey, thanks again, *****, for making sure we did absolutely nothing to put a young quarterback with starters potential on this roster over the last 2 years. It wouldn't have been nice to have taken a flyer on Wilson or Foles...


Frosty 02-20-2013 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418748)
Foles has a responsibility to win in spite of his horrendous defense.

At least that's what we've been told when it comes to Geno Smith.

Or are we just going to throw out all pretenses of objectivity and fairness? ;)

Don't lump me in with those folks. I'm all in with drafting Geno.

However, I was a big fan of Foles and pushed for him last year, so I am still good with that option. If the Chiefs aren't going to take Geno, that's my next favorite option.

DJ's left nut 02-20-2013 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Lane (Post 9418752)
Id give a next years 3 that could rise to a 2 with certain goals being met like win a playoff game.

And THEN draft a REAL QB at #1

Why would you ever trade a potential #2 for a guy you expect to be a backup?

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9418761)
Don't lump me in with those folks. I'm all in with drafting Geno.

However, I was a big fan of Foles and pushed for him last year, so I am still good with that option. If the Chiefs aren't going to take Geno, that's my next favorite option.

I know, I was just messing with you.

Dayze 02-20-2013 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazycoffey (Post 9418718)
Can we at least wait for him to be conceived before we start criticizing him?

**** that shit.

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418766)
Why would you ever trade a potential #2 for a guy you expect to be a backup?

Exactly.

If they give a 2nd or 3rd for Foles, he's coming here pretty much to start.

O.city 02-20-2013 11:13 AM

The similarity to the cassel situation is that if we give up a 2 or even our third this year for foles, he's the guy. He's your starter

ModSocks 02-20-2013 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418713)
We have a dozen holes all over this roster. If it's your position that trading a 3rd for Foles means we can't fill the 2nd QB hole, then I presume you're suggesting that the Chiefs have to use 2 of their first 3 picks on QBs this season?

That's crazy talk. Yeah, they need to use one of their first 3 on a QB, no question. The 2nd QB hole should probably be filled in some other fashion.

For instance, if they take Geno at 1.1, would you really think its wise to use the 2nd rounder, which could be our #2 corner/WR or the 3rd rounder, which could be our starting SS, on a backup QB?

No, I don't think this franchise has any business doing that right now. They need to decide who they're going to pick as their QBOTF this year and they need to aggressively pursue that option. If that's Geno Smith - get him. If it's Nick Foles, figure something out. Then from there you use the rest of your picks to fill other gaping holes on the roster and you try to be creative with the backup QB role. There's always a Henne or Orton or Moore to be had as a sound backup QB.

The fact that Scooter intentionally avoided ever having a viable backup quarterback on this roster to avoid pressuring his dipshit pet doesn't mean that they're actually that difficult to acquire.

I'd rather have two young, quality QB's than one. I understand what you mean and you have a valid point...but i guess i don't really care how the QB's are acquired as long as they are acquired. My view might be a little bit different if we only had one 3rd rounder.....but we should have two.

So Nick Foles would essentially be our compensation for losing Carr, and we would STILL have a full slate of draft picks in every round to address other issues. It wouldn't be any different than a team spending the 1st overall on a QB and then using rounds 2-7 to address every other issue (which happens every season).

Spending an early draft pick on what might amount to a back up may not be ideal to you, but it's something i would fully support if that's the direction they want to go in.

Going into camp with two young, promising QB's doesn't sound like a bad plan to me.

Messier 02-20-2013 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 9418776)
The similarity to the cassel situation is that if we give up a 2 or even our third this year for foles, he's the guy. He's your starter

What I feel won't be similar is that this regime won't stop at Foles and say QB position fixed, we're done there. My opinion, but really don't think they would pull a SP.

58-4ever 02-20-2013 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazycoffey (Post 9418700)
Because in 2037 we'd be be bitching about not having a pick to draft Payton's son.

Who is this Payton you speak of? Sean? I'd take his son as a coach....

crazycoffey 02-20-2013 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418733)
Why? This is a message board, we get paid to talk about stuff like this.

And whatnot...

But we'll know so much more in two or three years when he actually exists

Skyy God 02-20-2013 11:21 AM

If we pass on Geno or another QB at 1.1, Foles for a 3rd is the best meh option available. And the new CBA prohibits giving him a new contract, so it's not completely analogous to Pi0li's acquisition of Casshole.

Dayze 02-20-2013 11:21 AM

Peyton's son doesn't do well under pressure. he turns into the fetal position at the slightest hint of pressure.

DJ's left nut 02-20-2013 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 9418795)
I'd rather have two young, quality QB's than one. I understand what you mean and you have a valid point...but i guess i don't really care how the QB's are acquired as long as they are acquired. My view might be a little bit different if we only had one 3rd rounder.....but we should have two.

So Nick Foles would essentially be our compensation for losing Carr, and we would STILL have a full slate of draft picks in every round to address other issues. It wouldn't be any different than a team spending the 1st overall on a QB and then using rounds 2-7 to address every other issue (which happens every season).

Spending an early draft pick on what might amount to a back up may not be ideal to you, but it's something i would fully support if that's the direction they want to go in.

Going into camp with two young, promising QB's doesn't sound like a bad plan to me.

It doesn't in a vacuum, but it's all about opportunity cost.

Going into camp with a young, promising starting QB along with a young, promising SS sounds better than having a young, promising starting QB and another backup.

It's about using finite resources to cover several holes. If we could trade the comp pick, I'd be okay with trading that for Foles - but we can't. We'd have to trade 3.1 and because of the depth of the 2nd round, there are going to be same damn good players there at 3.1 Harrison Smith was a first round pick for the Vike's last year and I think Baccari Rambo is a better player than Smith and he'll likely be there for us at 3.1 but not at the comp pick.

This could be a bedrock draft and I want us to be as aggressive as possible in it. Using a high pick on a backup QB is reactive and I don't like it.

Chieftain58 02-20-2013 11:22 AM

No!!!

HolyHat 02-20-2013 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dayze (Post 9418822)
Peyton's son doesn't do well under pressure. he turns into the fetal position at the slightest hint of pressure.

Maybe give up a 6th or 7th rounder?

Dayze 02-20-2013 11:22 AM

if Reid goes the Foles route, this MF better be right; and he'd be on a short leash for me after this whole Cassel disaster. .

Rausch 02-20-2013 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 9418795)
I'd rather have two young, quality QB's than one. I understand what you mean and you have a valid point...but i guess i don't really care how the QB's are acquired as long as they are acquired. My view might be a little bit different if we only had one 3rd rounder.....but we should have two.

So Nick Foles would essentially be our compensation for losing Carr, and we would STILL have a full slate of draft picks in every round to address other issues. It wouldn't be any different than a team spending the 1st overall on a QB and then using rounds 2-7 to address every other issue (which happens every season).

Spending an early draft pick on what might amount to a back up may not be ideal to you, but it's something i would fully support if that's the direction they want to go in.

Going into camp with two young, promising QB's doesn't sound like a bad plan to me.

Exactly. Look at the Seahawks. They thought they had their franchise guy and then some rookie steps in and becomes a force...

Deberg_1990 02-20-2013 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418774)
Exactly.

If they give a 2nd or 3rd for Foles, he's coming here pretty much to start.

Theres no way id give up a #2 for Foles. Hes only started 6 games and hasnt proven anything. At least Cassel had won 10 or 11 games and kept his team in the playoff hunt.

Rausch 02-20-2013 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9418836)
Theres no way id give up a #2 for Foles. Hes only started 6 games and hasnt proven anything. At least Cassel had won 10 or 11 games and kept his team in the playoff hunt.

No way the 2.2 for Foles...

Dayze 02-20-2013 11:25 AM

Cassel can restructure to show Foles the ropes.

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418832)
Exactly. Look at the Seahawks. They thought they had their franchise guy and then some rookie steps in and becomes a force...

The problem is that what the Seahawks did almost NEVER happens. Teams just don't do that.

Of course, teams don't do what the Skins did last year either.

So maybe we're looking at the start of a new trend...

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9418836)
Theres no way id give up a #2 for Foles. Hes only started 6 games and hasnt proven anything. At least Cassel had won 10 or 11 games and kept his team in the playoff hunt.

I wouldn't give up 2.2 for him either but that is one of the rumors floating around...

Dayze 02-20-2013 11:26 AM

unfortunately, I've been indoctrinated/conditioned to believe no matter what the Chiefs decided to do...
I'll be wrong.

Mr_Tomahawk 02-20-2013 11:27 AM

I'd swap 1st and 2nd round picks and give up our 3rd for Foles...

Rausch 02-20-2013 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk (Post 9418847)
I'd swap 1st and 2nd round picks and give up our 3rd for Foles...

...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rdAv2t0oJx...ious_meme.jpeg

DJ's left nut 02-20-2013 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418832)
Exactly. Look at the Seahawks. They thought they had their franchise guy and then some rookie steps in and becomes a force...

Sure, a rookie 3rd rounder.

They dedicated a reasonable FA contract and a 3rd round pick to the position - that's it. And who the hell would complain about that?

That's not what some folks are suggesting. They're suggesting using 2 of our first 3 picks on the position. No, the Seahawks would've never done that.

And frankly, the Seahawks are an outlier. If you're going to cite them as your model, then I guess we need to draft a bunch of 3rd and 4th round QBs, right? They got lucky.

Hammock Parties 02-20-2013 11:30 AM

The 49ers traded a 2nd and a 4th for Steve Young back in the day.

I don't agree that if we give up a 3rd round pick he's automatically our starter.

That high 2nd, maybe. But not the third.

HolyHat 02-20-2013 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418851)

ROFL

ModSocks 02-20-2013 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418824)
It doesn't in a vacuum, but it's all about opportunity cost.

Going into camp with a young, promising starting QB along with a young, promising SS sounds better than having a young, promising starting QB and another backup.

It's about using finite resources to cover several holes. If we could trade the comp pick, I'd be okay with trading that for Foles - but we can't. We'd have to trade 3.1 and because of the depth of the 2nd round, there are going to be same damn good players there at 3.1 Harrison Smith was a first round pick for the Vike's last year and I think Baccari Rambo is a better player than Smith and he'll likely be there for us at 3.1 but not at the comp pick.

This could be a bedrock draft and I want us to be as aggressive as possible in it. Using a high pick on a backup QB is reactive and I don't like it.

I don't see it as reactive. I see it as very proactive. It's the beginning of a QB farm system, as well as giving yourself multiple options at the position in case one or the other doesn't work out...or in the event of an injury.

Because we have an extra 3rd, we could walk away from the draft with:

1.1 QB
2.2 WR
3.1 Nick Foles
3.whatever SS

etc.

And like you pointed out, teams have been able to find quality starters at the safety position deeper in the draft, so there is still a very good chance you could find a quality player with 3.-whatever it's going to be.

Skyy God 02-20-2013 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418832)
Exactly. Look at the Seahawks. They thought they had their franchise guy and then some rookie steps in and becomes a force...

Flynn's deal was basically for 2 years and $13M. While that's a good contract for a 2 game starter, it's hardly franchise QB money.

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/4949/matt-flynn

Rausch 02-20-2013 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 9418854)
Sure, a rookie 3rd rounder.

They dedicated a reasonable FA contract and a 3rd round pick to the position - that's it. And who the hell would complain about that?

That's not what some folks are suggesting. They're suggesting using 2 of our first 3 picks on the position. No, the Seahawks would've never done that.

And frankly, the Seahawks are an outlier. If you're going to cite them as your model, then I guess we need to draft a bunch of 3rd and 4th round QBs, right? They got lucky.

I like the idea of not just adding one guy and saying we've "addressed" the position.

I like signing a vet FA, AND drafting the best QB available, and if the damned world league wouldn't have gone tits up I'd look there as well.

The Niners didn't quit looking for QB's because they had Montana. Packers kept drafting and adding guys behind good QB's.

You should be looking to improve your starter or depth every single year at that position...

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoWalrus (Post 9418857)
The 49ers traded a 2nd and a 4th for Steve Young back in the day.

I don't agree that if we give up a 3rd round pick he's automatically our starter.

That high 2nd, maybe. But not the third.

Irrelevant. Free agency wasn't even invented yet.

ModSocks 02-20-2013 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9418842)
So maybe we're looking at the start of a new trend...

Exactly.

Especially considering the success that young QB's have had in recent years. Couple that with the increased reliance on good QB play, the restructuring of the CBA which allows teams to take QB's early and not have to pay them enormous sums, and all of a sudden you have teams attempting to stock pile talent at the position.

htismaqe 02-20-2013 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 9418872)
I like the idea of not just adding one guy and saying we've "addressed" the position.

I like signing a vet FA, AND drafting the best QB available, and if the damned world league wouldn't have gone tits up I'd look there as well.

The Niners didn't quit looking for QB's because they had Montana. Packers kept drafting and adding guys behind good QB's.

You should be looking to improve your starter or depth every single year at that position...

The reality of the modern NFL is such that if you give up a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd round pick for a guy, he's going to be "the man".

This isn't 1990.

Rausch 02-20-2013 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Detoxing (Post 9418875)
Exactly.

Especially considering the success that young QB's have had in recent years. Couple that with the increased reliance on good QB play, the restructuring of the CBA which allows teams to take QB's early and not have to pay them enormous sums, and all of a sudden you have teams attempting to stock pile talent at the position.

And do it much earlier in the draft than before...

Deberg_1990 02-20-2013 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoWalrus (Post 9418857)
The 49ers traded a 2nd and a 4th for Steve Young back in the day.

Yea, he was a #1 pick in the USFL and NFL, and had played quite a few games in both leagues by the time they traded for him. ALot larger sample size and upside than Foles.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.