Trading for Nick Foles

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by AdumbGuy

For the record, I don't think most people read the article. It says Draft Geno AND bring in Foles if available/possible. Then makes a decent argument for why it's not a bat shit crazy idea. If that first part is there, I've got no problem with it.

On the other hand, which world is this where "Cassel's fine as a backup?" I can't COMPREHEND how anybody would even trust cassel to test toilets because he craps his pants so often, much less be our backup.

Agreed. Even if that means bringing him in at a higher pick. But I doubt Philly would make this kind of a move.

As for Cassel as a backup, why in the world would we pay $7.5M for him to be a backup? There are more talented veterans out there. I still wonder if the Chiefs will look into Kolb (as a backup). Not saying that's a great decision, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Cards cut ties with him and there's the obvious Reid connection. I feel like he could be had at a high-priced veteran contract.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Agreed. Even if that means bringing him in at a higher pick. But I doubt Philly would make this kind of a move.

As for Cassel as a backup, why in the world would we pay $7.5M for him to be a backup? There are more talented veterans out there. I still wonder if the Chiefs will look into Kolb (as a backup). Not saying that's a great decision, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Cards cut ties with him and there's the obvious Reid connection. I feel like he could be had at a high-priced veteran contract.

Why?

Why give up a higher pick for Foles when you could potentially get the same thing out of a late round draft pick this year?

When you trade higher picks for QBs on somebody else's rosters you're creating an expectation that they won't be the BACKUP.