DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Foles

Did he jump out of a lake?

j/c:

I think Foles is a guy who excels in the RPO but struggles when asked to go through multiple progressions quickly. We would have to tailor our offense for him and I'm not sure I want to do that w/a rookie qb on the roster.

Secondly, it's not a given that Wentz will be ready for the start of the season. He has two tears in that knee. I'm not sure Philly will want to trade him considering that information.

Foles could be starter for multiple seasons or not.
It all depends on how he plays.

He's proven that he can work with a young QB and be part of good QB room; he's also proven that he can be a very productive QB. He's faced adversity and by all reports he's a team guy.

It was small sample size but he answered the ultimate question for a QB....can you win a superbowl with him?

Haley/Hue seem to do well with veteran QBs, and I think Foles can fit into a Steeleresque offense.

As far as the compensation...I don't have a clue.
There are a bunch of QB needy teams out there

Ah yes, the year we had the 29 game season.

we went 1-28 that year.

Foles is way too valuable to the Eagles for them to trade him. It will not happen.

Your link is missing a key component to the contract. The last three years are void ONLY if he is still a member of the Eagles. So, if he were to get traded, he would still have three years left on his contract. He would not become a free agent in 2019.

So say we trade for him, we'd get four years of Foles. We would probably be inclined to NOT draft a QB in that case, because even if we were to let one sit and learn for a year, we'd still have 3 years left on Foles contract. Either he's really good and we don't want to trade him and therefore have to keep the rookie benched ... or he's bad to the point that we want to start the rookie, and we're still on the hook for three more years of a potentially untradable contract.

If we trade for him, we may as well go all in on him. We'd have him for four years, so draft for some other positions and let Kizer learn under him.

27 touchdowns - 2 interceptions

If WE were in the Wentz position, would you want us to trade Foles?

Not me.

When did Wentz go down? Thanksgiving? First of December?

You'd think that multiple tear injury is at least a year timetable? He won't see any OTAs, Minnie's or even Camp. Hell, he might miss half the season unless they rush him back.

I say NO TRADE.

I'm not of the thought process that we need a QB to WIN NOW. We need a VET presence in the meeting room, on the field, on the sidelines. I would think differently if we didn't have our choice of Darnold or Rosen at 1.

Both these guys will be starting sooner than later. There's really no mistaking that.

I'm in the McCown, Mccarron, Daniels mode. They are what we need.

Because Darnold or Rosen will be Starting by mid year at the latest. Probably sooner. And very possibly Game One.

We already backed down on Smith because we didn't want to commit to 4 or 5 years with him. Most likely for the reason above. We're taking Darnold or Rosen. And we're NOT holding them back.

Darnold and Minkah-Fitzpatrick or Barkley is how we should roll. NO TRADING those 2 picks.

After that, move around all we want. But those 2 picks are NOT 4 SALE.

Darnold and one of those 2 are Game Changers. I believe Dorsey knows it. We need QB and TALENT.

I think right now, given Wentz situation, it would take a 1st to get Foles from the Eagles. Philly media keeps talking about requiring a 1st and a 2nd.

lol

Who was it that waited a number of years for his chance to start? Oh yeah, Aaron Rogers in Green Bay. Basically, that kinda proves your point.

I think Foles would be a fine bridge QB for us but Pederson and Frank Reich saw what Foles did well and it was stated during the Super Bowl they even went back to the season under Chip Kelly to see what he did well, then they incourperated it into thier offensive game plan which ended up being very successful, unfortunately I have not seen Hue and company be able to do this as of yet. Maybe that changes with Haley as OC. But I’d hate to trade for someone and try to fit a square peg into a round hole.

If we landed Foles there is a strong chance he becomes the future of the franchise. He is a QB who can duke it out with Tom Brady and win. I don't know what more you want from a QB. I mean perfection does not exist. You take him and build the system that makes him thrive and then you don't look back.

Has Hue, inyour opinion, shown the ability to build a system to fit what a QB does well? That’s the question that needs to be answered. He hasn’t shown me the ability to do that. Like I said maybe that changes with Haley, IDK.

Excellent point. Foles has proven that's his only safe space his entire career. Changing your offensive scheme around a "bridge QB" makes no sense whatsoever.

Well isn’t that what Pederson and Reich did when Foles went down, tailor the offense for him. Change it from what they had Wentz doing. I mean not to harp on it but that’s kinda what good coaches do, change thier offenses to the personnel.

I have yet to see anything say this other than posters on here.

It's almost like you shouldn't have an offensive scheme and you should build your offense around what your players do best. . .

Yes, it's cliche but it always holds true... you tailor your entire team around it's strengths and weaknesses. R-P-O should be more of a "wrinkle" in a successful offense in my opinion. We've gone from the Wildcat to Zone Read to, now, "R-P-O". Zone read was the new lay of the land a few years back. RG3? Kap? Where are they now? Russ Wilson and Cam Newton still thrive, but it's a part of their gameplan and they're next level athletes. I don't feel like Foles can thrive outside of it. History has shown that he can't, "27-2" was under Chip Kelly's zone read offense. You play "paper-scissors-rock" with NFL defenses week in and week out - they'll figure you out and exploit you, maybe even murder your QB.

So, if you're signing a QB to be a bridge, it shouldn't be a bridge to a totally different offensive scheme. If you're signing a QB to be a long term solution, he better be able to stand in the pocket and be an actual QB. The league has proven that to be true time and time again.

However, Hue Jackson "loves" the zone read and r-p-o type of offense. He had great success in Cincy when he put Dalton in those offensive sets... mainly because Dalton struggles in the pocket. That was also why he liked RG3 so much. If his intent is to keep that kind of scheme as a role in an offense with a young QB that can also thrive in the pocket, Nick Foles may actually be a decent choice.

Then in our case - it's back to reality... He's not available, he probably won't be available, if he is we won't be the only one knocking on the door, and he's is not leaving Philly for Cleveland for just a 2nd round pick, you can bet the farm on that. How much better would our offer have to be before the Eagles take a player that has been so loyal (in any role) AND just won them a Superbowl and say "hey bro, we're shipping you to the Browns, thanks for the memories"?

https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/842835617839026178?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.com%2Fextra-mustard%2F2017%2F03%2F17%2Fnick-foles-eagles-contract-void

Ben Volin‏Verified account
@BenVolin
Follow Follow @BenVolin
More
The final three years of Foles' deal void if he's on the Eagles' roster 23 days before the start of the 2019 league year, i.e. mid-February

j/c

For anyone worrying about what we would have to, or might, end up paying a decent QB to come here: Just Stop.

We damn near have enough cap space to BUY a team. So, if we have to throw stupid money at a guy to give us a workable solution at the position until a rookie QB is ready, then so be it. It's just money in a world that has a license to print the stuff.

yea... some are trying to make it seam there was a big change in the offense that was run with foles... truth is it did not change much at all

You do seem to be harping on it, but piling on Hue is par for the course around here.

You are forgetting that completely changing our offense while drafting a qb w/the first overall pick might not be exactly the best way to develop him. That is the biggest reason I say no to Foles.

Furthermore, and I really don't want to get into another freaking Hue debate, but Hue has adjusted his offenses in the past to utilize guy's strengths.

Sorry, but I never saw him adjust the offense to what Kizer can do best, like handing off, lol. That’s just a joke. And I don’t really want to argue it either cause I’m not trying to offend you or anyone, I don’t like Hue or how he coaches, never did, and you see it your way while I see it mine. No biggie.

Sorry, Purp. Couldn't even buy the St. Louis Blues. (I looked it up.)

Fun facts: Dan Rooney paid a couple grand for the Steelers while George Halas only paid a hundred bucks for Da Bears. Now worth $1.3 Billion. Now that's an investment.

Right. I interpret it differently. I think "Eagles" could be any other team and the contract could still be voided.

They wouldn't be able to put the clause in if they were making commitments for other teams. They couldn't just make it voided on a certain date or they would have to take the cap hit because the void is imminent. There had to be some unforeseen contingency like if he was on their roster on a certain date. If he was voided for being on any roster, they would be back to having a void imminent and would have to take a cap hit.

I don't see why the clause wouldn't transfer with teams. The contract is the contract.

The contract says "if he is on the Eagles roster", it had to to spread out the cap hit. If it said on any NFL roster, it wouldn't work.

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2018...vp-picks-rumors

I get the cap implications, they are the most compelling reasons why the Eagles should trade Nick Foles.

Also, from your link, I don't see anything different than what I've been saying.

Either way, I don't actually care about the contract. My point still stands. I wouldn't want to trade what it would take to get Nick Foles, probably at least a second round pick, because we should be wanting our rookie QB to start sooner rather than later. Use that second round pick on someone who will help the team in the long run.

I'm just curious how you can have a contract over 5 years to dissipate a signing bonus with a stipulation that causes the contract to be re-negotiated for the final 3(+?) years that presumably would come with its own signing bonus. I've seen OTC and ESPN report it that way, but I've seen CBS and others have the contract described as a poison pill only if he plays in Philly. I guess we'll see at a later date.

The part that I bolded should give a clue. If he had a void clause that applied to all teams, he would be very un-tradable.




Poison pill is a good description because it is like the contract that Steve Hutchinson signed where he would get a huge bonus only if he played enough games against a certain division. In this case, Foles only gets a void if he is on a certain roster.

Philly did this because their cap room is tight right now. They get to stretch out the cap hit of a three year contract over 5 years and don't have to take the hit for it until it voids.

If they do trade him, It will be before March 18th because he has a roster bonus that kicks in then.

From Peter King:



https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/02/13/frank-reich-indianapolis-colts-head-coach

If this is true, then it means they don't want to and aren't trading him.

Or they do want to because they seriously think there's a team out there dumb enough :cough: Browns :cough: that would trade two first rounders for their backup QB.

Two firsts? Lol, pass.

Wash your mouth out with soap LOL