Nick Foles...

[Mr_Tomahawk]

Since we are starting independent qb threads...

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

Are you going to take the job with Miami, Carl?

You're kindof an idiot.

You're aware that the "I'd take a RT first" was an indictment on how little I like the idea of Foles in the first, not an endorsement of taking a tackle with the first round pick, right?

Do you really think we should take a QB, regardless of who's there? You'd honestly advocate taking Nick !@#$ing Foles at 10 because Luck, Barkley, Griffen and probably Jones went off the board already?

I desperately want a quarterback, but there's no way in hell I'm going to take some guy like Foles a round+ too early just for the sake of drafting one.

Some of you folks need to use your brains here - just like voting for Obama just for the sake of 'change' was stupid; voting for Foles as a first round QB just for the sake of a first round QB is also stupid.

Draft a QB in the first because there's a first round QB available; not just for the sake of doing it.

Nick Foles isn't a first round quarterback.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

No way. The only kind of QB you want in the first is one that only throws 20 yard out routes and 40 yard ropes down the seam. Any other pass is proof that the QB won't work out in the NFL.

I'm pretty sure most of the folks that live in Big 12 territory haven't seen much of this kid or they would realize the state of that team this year.

Last year, before Foles got hurt, Arizona was highly ranked and Foles was putting up a ton of yards. Even this year, on a crap team, he put up 4300 yards at almost 400 yards a game (380).

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Frosty

I'm pretty sure most of the folks that live in Big 12 territory haven't seen much of this kid or they would realize the state of that team this year.

Last year, before Foles got hurt, Arizona was highly ranked and Foles was putting up a ton of yards. Even this year, on a crap team, he put up 4300 yards at almost 400 yards a game (380).

He threw the ball 560 ****ing times.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

You're kindof an idiot.

You're aware that the "I'd take a RT first" was an indictment on how little I like the idea of Foles in the first, not an endorsement of taking a tackle with the first round pick, right?

Do you really think we should take a QB, regardless of who's there? You'd honestly advocate taking Nick !@#$ing Foles at 10 because Luck, Barkley, Griffen and probably Jones went off the board already?

I desperately want a quarterback, but there's no way in hell I'm going to take some guy like Foles a round+ too early just for the sake of drafting one.

Some of you folks need to use your brains here - just like voting for Obama just for the sake of 'change' was stupid; voting for Foles as a first round QB just for the sake of a first round QB is also stupid.

Draft a QB in the first because there's a first round QB available; not just for the sake of doing it.

Nick Foles isn't a first round quarterback.

Good post bro.


How would you feel about trading up to get Luck?

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by jd1020

He threw the ball 560 ****ing times.

Because the Wildcats had no running game and a terrible defense. They were always behind.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Because the Wildcats had no running game and a terrible defense. They were always behind.

WTF does that have to do with his "impressive" stats?

You want to bring up his numbers but want to ignore that he was the #2 QB in passing attempts.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by jd1020

WTF does that have to do with his "impressive" stats?

I don't really understand his arguement.

They had no running game so he had to throw it more. Doesn't that mean his stats should have been better?

[Bewbies]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

You're kindof an idiot.

You're aware that the "I'd take a RT first" was an indictment on how little I like the idea of Foles in the first, not an endorsement of taking a tackle with the first round pick, right?

Do you really think we should take a QB, regardless of who's there? You'd honestly advocate taking Nick !@#$ing Foles at 10 because Luck, Barkley, Griffen and probably Jones went off the board already?

I desperately want a quarterback, but there's no way in hell I'm going to take some guy like Foles a round+ too early just for the sake of drafting one.

Some of you folks need to use your brains here - just like voting for Obama just for the sake of 'change' was stupid; voting for Foles as a first round QB just for the sake of a first round QB is also stupid.

Draft a QB in the first because there's a first round QB available; not just for the sake of doing it.

Nick Foles isn't a first round quarterback.

None of us know where he's going to get picked. Well, except you I guess.

[BossChief]

I began the year as a big fan of Foles and a reason was that he had done quite well develping as a passer.

He looks off safeties well, doesnt make mistakes that hurt his team often and is a good leader with a lot of upside. His arm can make every throw with zip and he is fairly accurate.

I was hoping to see him as a guy that put his team on his back this year and lead them to big wins.

That really didnt happen.

Not saying it was his fault, but I didnt see him take that next step I kind of expected of him.

He could be a really good pro and I would take him in the second round, but not in the first.

Flacco is a somewhat fair comparison, but I think Foles upside is higher.

Im not sure there really is a better comparison, though.

[Bewbies]

Originally Posted by O.city

I don't really understand his arguement.

They had no running game so he had to throw it more. Doesn't that mean his stats should have been better?

If he was a first round QB his coach wouldn't have been fired!!11!!!

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BossChief

I began the year as a big fan of Foles and a reason was that he had done quite well develping as a passer.

He looks off safeties well, doesnt make mistakes that hurt his team often and is a good leader with a lot of upside. His arm can make every throw with zip and he is fairly accurate.

I was hoping to see him as a guy that put his team on his back this year and lead them to big wins.

That really didnt happen.

Not saying it was his fault, but I didnt see him take that next step I kind of expected of him.

He could be a really good pro and I would take him in the second round, but not in the first.

Flacco is a somewhat fair comparison, but I think Foles upside is higher.

Im not sure there really is a better comparison, though.

Flacco does seem like a nice comparison, but even that seems a little optimistic. Then again, I guess that's the nature of comparisons. You're not going to say "he could be the next Jim Druckenmiller!"

(Though for the record, Jim Druckenmiller seems like an extremely fair historical comparison for Nick Foles)

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

None of us know where he's going to get picked. Well, except you I guess.

Wow...you just completely missed the point there, didn't you?

That's cool - we'll go ahead and mark you down as believing Nick Foles is worthy of a top 10 draft pick and as a bit of a mindless ideologue.

God help us if Foles is gone before us as well. You'll be out here screaming that we should take Tannehill.

[Bewbies]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Wow...you just completely missed the point there, didn't you?

That's cool - we'll go ahead and mark you down as believing Nick Foles is worthy of a top 10 draft pick and as a bit of a mindless ideologue.

God help us if Foles is gone before us as well. You'll be out here screaming that we should take Tannehill.

I said it will be interesting to see where he goes. I don't like Tannehill, but like Foles, I don't know where he will be drafted either.

Foles is an interesting prospect in a sense that he looked great last year, and because his team sucked nobody saw him this year. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out for him.

Dumbass.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

I said it will be interesting to see where he goes. I don't like Tannehill, but like Foles, I don't know where he will be drafted either.

Foles is an interesting prospect in a sense that he looked great last year, and because his team sucked nobody saw him this year. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out for him.

Dumbass.

Ah,

So you went off half-cocked for no good reason and started spouting random bullshit about me being a Peterson acolyte when I suggested that I think your boyfriend is a 2nd round pick rather than a top 10 overall talent, eh?

Yeah - I'm the dumbass.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Ah,

So you went off half-cocked for no good reason and started spouting random bullshit about me being a Peterson acolyte when I suggested that I think your boyfriend is a 2nd round pick rather than a top 10 overall talent, eh?

Yeah - I'm the dumbass.

Personally, I don't think anyone with a functioning brain is saying to take Foles over Luck, RGIII or Barkley. I just think that the Chiefs are going to end up with at least one more win this season and end up picking mid-pack. To me, that makes Foles a viable option in the 2nd, assuming he is still there when the Chiefs pick.

I don't think he will end up starting day 1 but I think he could develop into a Matt Ryan type of QB with some decent coaching.