The case for Nick Foles

[DJ's left nut]

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]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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...

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

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]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

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.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

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.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

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...

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

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.

[Dave Lane]

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

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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...