Report: Kansas City Chiefs told Nick Foles unavailable
5


By Gregg Rosenthal
Around The League Editor
Published: Feb. 23, 2013 at 11:47 a.m. Updated: Feb. 23, 2013 at 12:44 p.m.

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles both insisted Thursday that a trade involving quarterback Nick Foles was unlikely. Eagles coach Chip Kelly said that he wanted to coach Foles, and Chiefs coach Andy Reid believed the Eagles liked Foles too much to deal him.


Behind the scenes, the Chiefs at least wanted to find out how serious the Eagles were about their Foles fever.

Mike Garafolo of USA Today reported Saturday that the two teams spoke this week about Foles, but no progress was made toward a deal. The conversation took place after Reid publicly said Foles was "not available."

It appears Reid is right. The Eagles reiterated to the Chiefs that Foles was not available at this time. That possibly could change in the coming weeks with the league year starting March 12. Either the Eagles are trying to gain leverage and not show their hand or they actually mean what they say.

Our guess: Foles is unlikely to go anywhere.

Follow Gregg Rosenthal on Twitter @greggros

Well maybe we can put this to bed now.

Which is fine. Several QBs in this draft who are at least as good.

It'd take a 3rd to get Foles. If we throw Cassel in, it would take a 2nd rounder.

It's becoming crystal clear. The Chiefs are targeting Nick Foles,


The Kansas City Star considers the Chiefs "unlikely" to use the No. 1 overall pick on a quarterback.
It's becoming crystal clear. The Chiefs are targeting Nick Foles, and Alex Smith as an apparent fallback option, and they're likely to use the No. 1 pick on free agent Branden Albert's replacement. The Star does anticipate Kansas City potentially taking a quarterback in the later rounds. Miami of Ohio's Zac Dysert and Arkansas' Tyler Wilson would fit Andy Reid's West Coast scheme. West Virginia's Geno Smith is likely to be available for Jacksonville at No. 2. Feb 23 - 12:48 PM

You know I can get over not taking a QB #1. I think they should but I could get over it.

What I couldn't get over is letting a good LT go when you have plenty of money only to spend the #1 overall pick to replace him.

We're 2-14. Have plenty of needs and the Chiefs are going to create a need and use the #1 overall pick on that need?

It just doesn't make sense... At all. That's stupid and would be bad management.

YES.

You better make sure people know that first sentence is a headline and not your own thoughts on the subject. :D

The Star is grasping at straws.

Good thing that is the Kansas City Star reporting that. Means it won't happen.

please, please, please close this ****ing garbage heap now.
Posted via Mobile Device

I like trading for Foles and drafting a QB. That means it DEFINITELY won't happen.

i remember everyone on the Lose So We Can Get Last Year's 88th Pick train last season....

Sign new HC who had success in his last job but couldn't get over the hump, draft Will Shields Jr., and acquire a backup QB to start in a single offseason?

Championship.

That would be an absolute disaster

Of course they are saying Foles isn't available. Trades don't even become possible until March 12th and you aren't technically suppose to discuss actual trade scenarios between GMs.

It would be stupid for the Eagles to say he is available this early.

Not really: