Article: Chiefs Most Likely Landing Spot for Foles

[RyFo18]

Now that Vick has re-signed with Philly, it makes sense that this stuff would start coming out given the Reid/Foles connection.

Chiefs a logical landing spot if Nick Foles is dealt

By Dan Hanzus
Around the League Writer
Published: Feb. 11, 2013 at 08:12 p.m. Updated: Feb. 12, 2013 at 12:06 a.m.

Chip Kelly said Monday it was his "hope" the Philadelphia Eagles will have both Michael Vick and Nick Foles on the roster come Week 1.

Kelly called it an "open competition" at quarterback and stressed that Foles was kept in the loop on the Eagles' thinking in restructuring Vick's deal. It certainly doesn't sound like the Eagles are about to ship Foles out of town.

That said, Kelly didn't rule out a possible trade. Around The League checked in with NFL.com's Daniel Jeremiah, who served as the Eagles' west coast scout from 2010-12. Jeremiah doesn't know the Eagles' internal thinking on the matter, but he pointed to the Kansas City Chiefs as a potential trade fit.

The logic is simple: Andy Reid took over as head coach of the Chiefs last month after 14 seasons in Philadelphia. His staff includes Doug Pederson, the former Eagles' quarterbacks coach who now serves as the Chiefs' offensive coordinator. Foles' skill-set is ideally suited for the West Coast offense, and he spent his rookie season learning the Reid playbook in Philadelphia.

"I know both Andy Reid and Doug Pederson were very high on Nick Foles and his future," Jeremiah said. "They were huge supporters through the entire process and believe in him greatly.

"I would think they would explore that opportunity if it presented itself."

Reid and Pederson love Foles' size and accuracy, two traits they covet at the position. And while we don't imagine the Eagles would bend over backwards to help Reid, it certainly helps that the divorce between coach and team was largely amicable. That Reid now operates in a different conference doesn't hurt, either.

Kelly said Monday that every NFL team needs two quarterbacks. There's logic to that, especially when Vick is one of them. But if Reid wanted Foles enough, the Eagles would have to at least listen.

Follow Dan Hanzus on Twitter @DanHanzus.

[HotCarl]

There's no reason to have any interest whatever in Foles when Alex Smith is available.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by HotCarl

There's no reason to have any interest whatever in Foles when Alex Smith is available.

I refuse to be trolled by this blockhead. Somebody take out the trash.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by tyler360

That high 3rd is gonna be a pretty good starter. We really shouldn't be trading it for Foles

Exactly.

We could get a DL there, or an ILB, or a starting S, all of which are bigger needs than some "faux" competition at QB.

Geno Smith/Nick Foles is an either/or proposition.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Messier

Almost no one is all in on any rookie QB, and I can't blame them.

Yeah, the Rams traded a high draft pick to give Sam Bradford competition, didn't they?

That's what the Panthers did with Cam, right?

And Detroit did that with Stafford too, right?

If we draft a QB, we're bringing in a vet, or keeping Matt Cassel.

If we're bringing in Foles, we won't be drafting a QB high. Foles will be the starter.

[PGM]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Yeah, the Rams traded a high draft pick to give Sam Bradford competition, didn't they?

That's what the Panthers did with Cam, right?

And Detroit did that with Stafford too, right?

If we draft a QB, we're bringing in a vet, or keeping Matt Cassel.

If we're bringing in Foles, we won't be drafting a QB high. Foles will be the starter.

[HotCarl]

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

I refuse to be trolled by this blockhead. Somebody take out the trash.

What's wrong with that statement? If we're going to acquire a veteran QB, there's no reason to start over with Foles. There's someone who has played better, has experience starting in the league, has won playoff games, etc.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Yeah, the Rams traded a high draft pick to give Sam Bradford competition, didn't they?

That's what the Panthers did with Cam, right?

And Detroit did that with Stafford too, right?

If we draft a QB, we're bringing in a vet, or keeping Matt Cassel.

If we're bringing in Foles, we won't be drafting a QB high. Foles will be the starter.

No they didn't, and I'm not a fan of those situations either.

[PGM]

Originally Posted by HotCarl

What's wrong with that statement? If we're going to acquire a veteran QB, there's no reason to start over with Foles. There's someone who has played better, has experience starting in the league, has won playoff games, etc.

Reveal yourself. Ncarlscorner?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Messier

No they didn't, and I'm not a fan of those situations either.

How about Joe Flacco then? Or Andy Dalton?

Or Matt Ryan?

When you draft a guy that high, you commit to him, like it or not.

[htismaqe]

Furthermore, when you make a decisive move for a QB (like trade a 2nd for Matt Cassel), you're committing to him too.

The Matt Flynn/Russell Wilson scenario in Seattle last year is like winning the lottery - it NEVER happens to you.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

How about Joe Flacco then? Or Andy Dalton?

Or Matt Ryan?

When you draft a guy that high, you commit to him, like it or not.

Are you all in for any QB, Wilson, Barkley, Glennon? Or is it Smith or bust for you?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Messier

Are you all in for any QB, Wilson, Barkley, Glennon? Or is it Smith or bust for you?

Wilson, absolutely. Barkley, sure, I guess if that's who they decide is best.

Big NO on Glennon.

[mcaj22]

that high 3rd pick will beat out Jon Baldwin and Dexter McCluster on the depth chart so dont trade it

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by mcaj22

that high 3rd pick will beat out Jon Baldwin and Dexter McCluster on the depth chart so dont trade it

Funny.

And yet sad.

[mcaj22]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Funny.

And yet sad.

and yet true!