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...

:clap::clap::clap:

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

I agree.

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

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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