ChiefsPlanet
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3456
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Article: Chiefs Most Likely Landing Spot for Foles (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=269947)

htismaqe 02-12-2013 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396625)
If the Chiefs were to get Foles in a trade with the Eagles (for moving from 1 to 4) along with a 2nd this year and, say, a high pick next year, I could see them picking up someone like Manuel with one of the 2nds. They need to get more than one QB.
No they really don't.

I keep hearing this.

Does Denver have more than 1 QB? Does New England or New Orleans?

The solution at QB is quantity.

BossChief 02-12-2013 01:44 PM
They said on mike and mike today that Foles got told by Chip Kelly that he would be given every opportunity to start in Philly.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9396650)
They said on mike and mike today that Foles got told by Chip Kelly that he would be given every opportunity to start in Philly.
Yep.

This is all a bunch of useless chatter.

Frosty 02-12-2013 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396633)
No they really don't.

I keep hearing this.

Does Denver have more than 1 QB? Does New England or New Orleans?

The solution at QB is quantity.
Do you think they will go into next season with only 2 QBs or are you saying if you have a quality starter, it doesn't matter what's behind him?

I was going off of Dorsey's history of picking QB's and letting them sit and develop behind the starter. If you can do that and then translate them to draft picks later, that's a win. Granted, in my original post, a 2nd may be too high for that idea but I was thinking they might hedge their bets in case Foles doesn't continue to develop.

Frosty 02-12-2013 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396653)
Yep.

This is all a bunch of useless chatter.
There isn't much else to talk about at this point in the season.

The Combine can't get here soon enough.

BossChief 02-12-2013 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396633)
No they really don't.

I keep hearing this.

Does Denver have more than 1 QB? Does New England or New Orleans?

The solution at QB is quantity.
Denver's backup was drafted in the second round. NEs was drafted in the third.

I think your last line was a typo...?

htismaqe 02-12-2013 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396655)
Do you think they will go into next season with only 2 QBs or are you saying if you have a quality starter, it doesn't matter what's behind him?
Bolded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396655)
I was going off of Dorsey's history of picking QB's and letting them sit and develop behind the starter. If you can do that and then translate them to draft picks later, that's a win. Granted, in my original post, a 2nd may be too high for that idea but I was thinking they might hedge their bets in case Foles doesn't continue to develop.
Dorsey's history of picking and sitting QBs assumes you have an established veteran in place. Foles is essentially another rookie. Same for Matt Flynn. They're simply not options.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9396661)
Denver's backup was drafted in the second round. NEs was drafted in the third.
Exactly my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9396661)
I think your last line was a typo...?
:banghead:

Yes, I meant to say the solution is QUALITY, not QUANTITY.

BossChief 02-12-2013 01:49 PM
FTR, if we somehow went into training camp with Geno Smith, Nick Foles and Ricky Stanzi...that would be flat out awesome.

I have been high on all three for some time now...there was a time Foles was talked about as a top ten pick and we all know Stanzi was a second round talent. :evil:

suds79 02-12-2013 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 9396582)
If we trade for Foles......say goodbye to drafting a QB in the first 3 rounds.
I think it's the reverse of that.

Not If they trade for Foles, goodbye to drafting a QB in 1st 3 rounds.

It's..

If the Chiefs don't like this years class and decide "we're not using a top 3 round pick on this crop of QBs for the value", then they trade for Foles.

Probably semantics but I think you get what I'm saying. It will be telling of what they thing about this year's class.

Nonetheless, I think I'm with htismaqe on this one that we can get someone very similar in the 3rd in this years class so maybe we should hold off.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 01:52 PM
I just don't understand why we would give up a premium to get Foles.

You could get an IDENTICAL prospect in the 3rd or 4th round. You could get a SUPERIOR prospect in the 2nd, which is the pick some are speculating it would take to get Foles.

People don't want to draft Geno Smith because of value value blah blah blah. Yet they're willing to throw a WHOLE ROUND OF VALUE down the toilet to get an unproven guy like Foles?

Reerun_KC 02-12-2013 01:53 PM
Foles = Yes
Alex Smiff + Mediocrity wet dream for some = NO!

Frosty 02-12-2013 01:54 PM
I'm curious who we could get in the 3rd round this year that would compare? Just because Foles was a 3rd rounder last year in a very deep QB class doesn't mean he would be a 3rd rounder this year. I think Foles compares very favorably to Nassib and Glennon and those guys are considered late 1st, early 2nd guys.

suds79 02-12-2013 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396687)
I'm curious who we could get in the 3rd round this year that would compare? Just because Foles was a 3rd rounder last year in a very deep QB class doesn't mean he would be a 3rd rounder this year. I think Foles compares very favorably to Nassib and Glennon and those guys are considered late 1st, early 2nd guys.
I think Glennon is a 2nd rounder who could slip. Not sure. He's comparable.

Certainly Tyler Bray could be available in the 3rd. Nobody has his arm talent. Then there's EJ Manuel who everybody says has tools but is raw. Landy Jones? He's a 3rd or so right?

Frosty 02-12-2013 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suds79 (Post 9396699)
I think Glennon is a 2nd rounder who could slip. Not sure. He's comparable.

Certainly Tyler Bray could be available in the 3rd. Nobody has his arm talent. Then there's EJ Manuel who everybody says has tools but is raw. Landy Jones? He's a 3rd or so right?
Bray is a headcase, which Foles never was. Jones may be a fair comparison, though his biggest problem is folding under pressure.

I think Manuel will go in the 2nd. Someone will fall in love with his athleticism.

BossChief 02-12-2013 02:02 PM
Chip Kelly should draft Manuel.

RealSNR 02-12-2013 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396687)
I'm curious who we could get in the 3rd round this year that would compare? Just because Foles was a 3rd rounder last year in a very deep QB class doesn't mean he would be a 3rd rounder this year. I think Foles compares very favorably to Nassib and Glennon and those guys are considered late 1st, early 2nd guys.
I think Zac Dysert is a far better prospect than Nick Foles is. And we can probably get Dysert in the 3rd if we really want him.

Frosty 02-12-2013 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9396718)
I think Zac Dysert is a far better prospect than Nick Foles is. And we can probably get Dysert in the 3rd if we really want him.
From what I've seen, Dysert = Lindley - a very long term project.

BossChief 02-12-2013 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9396718)
I think Zac Dysert is a far better prospect than Nick Foles is. And we can probably get Dysert in the 3rd if we really want him.
Foles already has a year with Reid and his system and also has game experience.

I'd rather trade a mid rounder for Foles for those reasons, but only as a backup.

I don't think he goes anywhere, though.

RealSNR 02-12-2013 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396720)
From what I've seen, Dysert = Lindley - a very long term project.
Except Lindley didn't have Dysert's release or accuracy.

That's my take anyway. If I watch college highlights of the two QBs side by side, there's really no comparison. Lindley just seems skiddish out there to me.

Dysert looks like he's got the arm for the pros.

RealSNR 02-12-2013 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9396725)
Foles already has a year with Reid and his system and also has game experience.

I'd rather trade a mid rounder for Foles for those reasons, but only as a backup.

I don't think he goes anywhere, though.
Eh, whatever. This is all bullshit anyway. Reid already said that he's intrigued by Ricky Stanzi.

We all want a back up? There's our backup.

BossChief 02-12-2013 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9396728)
Eh, whatever. This is all bullshit anyway. Reid already said that he's intrigued by Ricky Stanzi.

We all want a back up? There's our backup.
All in all, I think Reid is more inclined to make chicken salad and not buying some.

Sure would be nice to give the kid a shot.

RealSNR 02-12-2013 02:11 PM
Draft Geno.
Sign Hasselbeck.
Keep Stanzi.
Draft a guy in the 6th/7th round.

Order them as need be on the depth chart and cut the worst guy.

Frosty 02-12-2013 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9396727)
Except Lindley didn't have Dysert's release or accuracy.

That's my take anyway. If I watch college highlights of the two QBs side by side, there's really no comparison. Lindley just seems skiddish out there to me.

Dysert looks like he's got the arm for the pros.
Dysert didn't look very accurate at the Senior Bowl and most scouting reports on him mention that he was a first-read, check down guy in college. I'm not that impressed.

I have been a fan of Foles since his first game at AZ (against my Beavers) and you hate him like he ran over your girlfriend and ****ed your dog (or maybe that's the other way around) so we probably aren't going to see this the same way. :)

RunKC 02-12-2013 02:16 PM
Idk about you guys but I loved Foles when he came out last year. He was awesome at Arizona, but people didn't know it because his coach and team sucked ass.

Arizona was a top 10 passing team in college and Foles was very accurate. The guy has a rifle too.

Hell I liked him more than Wilson, Assweiler, Weeden and Tannehill.

If there is one guy who is comparable to Joe Flacco, it's this guy. He wasn't inconsistent in college and he isn't a pussy like Glennon.

OzarksChiefsFan 02-12-2013 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9396105)
Nick Foles was an Air Raid QB with accuracy issues in college. He had absolutely no understanding of the timing and touch it requires to get that offense working correctly. He just shit crap out of his ass like Matt Cassel does when "everything was covered down field." I thought Foles was a shitty QB coming into the draft and I still think he's a shitty QB.

In the pros, behind a subpar offensive line, he put up putrid stats. Most of those 6 TDs came in garbage time action against teams like the Cowboys.

If we were meeting face-to-face, I would ask you to look me square in the eye and tell me Nick Foles could potentially be a good pro QB. And if you did that without laughing, I'D laugh at you for being a ****ing dumbass.
You clearly haven't watched tape on the guy. He threw for over 4k yards and 28 touchdowns in 2011 while completing almost 70% of his passes. If you had watched as much tape on Foles as I have you would know he is accurate and throws people open. He would have been drafted higher were it not for a poor showing at the Senior bowl. So I'd look you in the eye and tell you your full of @$%#.

HolyHat 02-12-2013 02:21 PM
speaking of Glennon. Did anyone see him in the All-star challenge at the end of Jan? He looked awful. Just awful

RealSNR 02-12-2013 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396740)
Dysert didn't look very accurate at the Senior Bowl and most scouting reports on him mention that he was a first-read, check down guy in college. I'm not that impressed.

I have been a fan of Foles since his first game at AZ (against my Beavers) and you hate him like he ran over your girlfriend and ****ed your dog (or maybe that's the other way around) so we probably aren't going to see this the same way. :)
Dysert's a developmental guy, for sure. Small school spread won't get you very far in the NFL if you're not able to learn and adapt. That's the huge question mark on the kid that nobody seems to knows about. I don't think scouts have done research on that the way they have for Geno Smith.

Arm (which includes release and accuracy) + how well the guy does under pressure are the two things that can get me to like any QB. I see those things from Dysert when I watch youtube game footage (never saw any of his games). I didn't see them from Lindley.

I think Foles has a Tebow arm when it comes to short/intermediate stuff. He DOES appear to have a bigger brain than Tebow, though. If he works through his short/mid-range game well enough, he could be a pretty good QB.

Again, though, that's like saying, "If this WR would just work on his route-running and getting separation from DBs, he'd be a FANTASTIC player." Let's see it happen first.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396687)
I'm curious who we could get in the 3rd round this year that would compare? Just because Foles was a 3rd rounder last year in a very deep QB class doesn't mean he would be a 3rd rounder this year. I think Foles compares very favorably to Nassib and Glennon and those guys are considered late 1st, early 2nd guys.
Dysert.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9396718)
I think Zac Dysert is a far better prospect than Nick Foles is. And we can probably get Dysert in the 3rd if we really want him.
Beat me to it.

As a prospect, Dysert's ceiling is much higher.

Frosty 02-12-2013 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9396768)
Again, though, that's like saying, "If this WR would just work on his route-running and getting separation from DBs, he'd be a FANTASTIC player." Let's see it happen first.
Foles has a good arm and has nice touch and accuracy on the deep passes. I did watch a lot of him with the Eagles last year but can't say I focused on watching his short to intermediate game. He was playing with a lot of back ups, which may have affected his timing.

I agree on waiting to see what happens and am not in favor of using draft picks to get him (unless you could get him by swapping 2nds or something like that) as the Chiefs just have too many needs. In this draft, those 2nds and 3rds are going to be pretty important.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9396734)
Draft Geno.
Sign Hasselbeck.
Keep Stanzi.
Draft a guy in the 6th/7th round.

Order them as need be on the depth chart and cut the worst guy.
:clap::clap::clap:

Frosty 02-12-2013 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396797)
Beat me to it.

As a prospect, Dysert's ceiling is much higher.
LMAO

No one has anyway of knowing that.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunKC (Post 9396746)
Idk about you guys but I loved Foles when he came out last year. He was awesome at Arizona, but people didn't know it because his coach and team sucked ass.

Arizona was a top 10 passing team in college and Foles was very accurate. The guy has a rifle too.

Hell I liked him more than Wilson, Assweiler, Weeden and Tannehill.

If there is one guy who is comparable to Joe Flacco, it's this guy. He wasn't inconsistent in college and he isn't a pussy like Glennon.
Awesome?

He did very well in a system that was very QB-friendly. He's limited physically for a spread QB.

I'd say Flacco is a fair comparison, although I'm not sure his upside is Flacco NOW (Super Bowl winner and all).

htismaqe 02-12-2013 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396801)
LMAO

No one has anyway of knowing that.
I think Dysert has considerably more room to grow.

Foles was a guy that seemed "maxed" coming out of college. He is what he is.

Frosty 02-12-2013 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396804)
Awesome?

He did very well in a system that was very QB-friendly. He's limited physically for a spread QB.

I'd say Flacco is a fair comparison, although I'm not sure his upside is Flacco NOW (Super Bowl winner and all).

I see Bledsoe more than Flacco.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396809)
I see Bledsoe more than Flacco.
Foles is limited athletically but he's not THAT limited. :D

htismaqe 02-12-2013 03:02 PM
I do find it rather amazing that the same arguments being used to JUSTIFY trading picks for Foles are being used AGAINST drafting Geno Smith at #1 overall.

Apparently, being a highly-accurate QB in a 1-read offense is okay as long as you are somebody else's castoff...

Frosty 02-12-2013 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396806)
I think Dysert has considerably more room to grow.

Foles was a guy that seemed "maxed" coming out of college. He is what he is.
Foles was being talked about as a possible 1st round guy before he got hurt his Jr year (he got hurt when the team was 7-1 and ranked #16). Then he came back and played on a terrible team with no defense his Sr year. That dropped his stock. The questions about him coming out were if he could play under center and if he was a check down guy. I think he showed well on those concerns during his rookie year with the Eagles.

Dysert is being talked about as a quality back up.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396829)
Dysert is being talked about as a quality back up.

As Foles should be.

Frosty 02-12-2013 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396818)
I do find it rather amazing that the same arguments being used to JUSTIFY trading picks for Foles are being used AGAINST drafting Geno Smith at #1 overall.

Apparently, being a highly-accurate QB in a 1-read offense is okay as long as you are somebody else's castoff...
I'm hoping that the Chiefs draft Geno or Wilson (not a fan of Barkley). I just think some of the anti-Foles stuff is ridiculous and largely based on bad memories of trading for Cassel.

Frosty 02-12-2013 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396838)
As Foles should be.
Personally, I believe that with quality coaching and the right system, Foles will be on a level with Matt Ryan - not elite but a step above Andy Dalton.

Time will tell who's right.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396845)
I'm hoping that the Chiefs draft Geno or Wilson (not a fan of Barkley). I just think some of the anti-Foles stuff is ridiculous and largely based on bad memories of trading for Cassel.
Oh, I'm not anti-Foles.

I just don't see the logic in spending draft picks on the guy unless you're bringing him in to be THE starter.

And at that point, I have to be asking myself "WHY"?

I just can't think of a good reason to bring Foles here when we're sitting on the #1 overall pick.

Draft a backup in the 3rd this year.

Hammock Parties 02-12-2013 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396858)
Oh, I'm not anti-Foles.

I just don't see the logic in spending draft picks on the guy unless you're bringing him in to be THE starter.
Because the QB position is important. I am absolutely not content throwing all our eggs in Geno's basket.

Quote:
Draft a backup in the 3rd this year.
What?

So it's OK to draft a QB at #65...but don't trade that pick for Foles! :spock:

Sweet Daddy Hate 02-12-2013 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9396083)
What if NFL people think Geno sucks but think Nick Foles is awesome?

What if unicorns break open my door and anally rape me with their horns?
lmao. Literally. I like the line stating that "the logic is simple". No, simple Jack, YOU are simple. Lolz...
Posted via Mobile Device

Frosty 02-12-2013 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396858)
Oh, I'm not anti-Foles.

I just don't see the logic in spending draft picks on the guy unless you're bringing him in to be THE starter.

And at that point, I have to be asking myself "WHY"?

I just can't think of a good reason to bring Foles here when we're sitting on the #1 overall pick.

Draft a backup in the 3rd this year.
Totally agree except for drafting a back up in the 3rd. That pick is too valuable to use on a 2nd QB. Draft Geno or Wilson at #1, sign a veteran back up and roll with Stanzi this year.

Draft your backup/development guy next year.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoWalrus (Post 9396865)
Because the QB position is important. I am absolutely not content throwing all our eggs in Geno's basket.
So sign a free agent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoWalrus (Post 9396865)
So it's OK to draft a QB at #65...but don't trade that pick for Foles! :spock:
I guess you've missed where most of the speculation is that getting Foles would require a SECOND round pick, not a 3rd.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosty (Post 9396875)
Totally agree except for drafting a back up in the 3rd. That pick is too valuable to use on a 2nd QB. Draft Geno or Wilson at #1, sign a veteran back up and roll with Stanzi this year.

Draft your backup/development guy next year.
Sure, whatever.

That works too.

Chris Meck 02-12-2013 03:26 PM
For my part at least, I have two scenarios in which Foles makes sense.

1)Reid loves the kid and thinks he's got 'it'. He doesn't feel like there's anyone in the draft that's any better and he's already got one year of tutelage with Foles, so it's a head start. You trade 1sts and get a 2nd/or give up a 3rd/whatever for the kid and don't look back. This is a Brett Favre to Green Bay scenario, not a Matt Cassel 2.0 scenario.

2)Reid likes the kid, thinks he's got potential but wants to stack the position, so he trades for him AND drafts the best QB available at the Chiefs highest pick. Depending on what you have to give up, that could be as high as #4 (a swap of firsts) or a 2nd. So it could still be Geno Smith/Wilson/Barkley/or Nassib/Dysert. If this happens, I think Reid's intention would be to have an open competition, best man wins. This is a less risky Seattle 2012 scenario.

And again, I still think drafting Geno and signing a crafty old vet is my preference. It IS possible, however, that Reid thinks a Nassib or the like is just as likely to work out for him as Geno/Wilson/Barkley (Ryan's numbers are good, he's got a gun for an arm and high intangibles).

It's all just speculation, anyway.

DTLB58 02-12-2013 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk (Post 9396088)
Didn't chip just state yesterday that he was going to hold an open QB competition between foles and Vick...?
NFL coaches and GM's lie all the time, especially if it will benefit them.

Heck, they were already talking on ESPN this morning that the curve ball behind all of this might be that the only reason the Eagles kept Vick was to trade HIM!

DTLB58 02-12-2013 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396858)
Oh, I'm not anti-Foles.

I just don't see the logic in spending draft picks on the guy unless you're bringing him in to be THE starter.

And at that point, I have to be asking myself "WHY"?

I just can't think of a good reason to bring Foles here when we're sitting on the #1 overall pick.

Draft a backup in the 3rd this year.
Well, maybe they aren't drafting a QB #1 overall and he really likes the guy he drafted last year and already knows?

Even if they take a QB 1 and spend a 3 on a trade for Foles, a new guy instead would only be a year younger potentially.

Coaches are creatures of habit so they like to go with what they know and what got them there. Hence, taking all the same coaches with them and the same players.

RealSNR 02-12-2013 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTLB58 (Post 9396969)
Well, maybe they aren't drafting a QB #1 overall and he really likes the guy he drafted last year and already knows?

Even if they take a QB 1 and spend a 3 on a trade for Foles, a new guy instead would only be a year younger potentially.

Coaches are creatures of habit so they like to go with what they know and what got them there. Hence, taking all the same coaches with them and the same players.
If we don't draft a QB at 1, I won't give a shit what the **** they do about the position.

My interest in the Chiefs will plummet to zero.

King_Chief_Fan 02-12-2013 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Meck (Post 9396897)
For my part at least, I have two scenarios in which Foles makes sense.

1)Reid loves the kid and thinks he's got 'it'. He doesn't feel like there's anyone in the draft that's any better and he's already got one year of tutelage with Foles, so it's a head start. You trade 1sts and get a 2nd/or give up a 3rd/whatever for the kid and don't look back. This is a Brett Favre to Green Bay scenario, not a Matt Cassel 2.0 scenario.

2)Reid likes the kid, thinks he's got potential but wants to stack the position, so he trades for him AND drafts the best QB available at the Chiefs highest pick. Depending on what you have to give up, that could be as high as #4 (a swap of firsts) or a 2nd. So it could still be Geno Smith/Wilson/Barkley/or Nassib/Dysert. If this happens, I think Reid's intention would be to have an open competition, best man wins. This is a less risky Seattle 2012 scenario.

And again, I still think drafting Geno and signing a crafty old vet is my preference. It IS possible, however, that Reid thinks a Nassib or the like is just as likely to work out for him as Geno/Wilson/Barkley (Ryan's numbers are good, he's got a gun for an arm and high intangibles).

It's all just speculation, anyway.
and any one of those three are win/win

htismaqe 02-12-2013 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTLB58 (Post 9396969)
Well, maybe they aren't drafting a QB #1 overall and he really likes the guy he drafted last year and already knows?
In that case, you're not talking about Foles as a backup anymore. You're talking about Foles as the starter. No thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTLB58 (Post 9396969)
Even if they take a QB 1 and spend a 3 on a trade for Foles, a new guy instead would only be a year younger potentially.
Why spend a 3rd rounder on Foles when you could sign a free agent for nothing? Foles has ZERO value as a mentor to a young QB. He's essentially a rookie himself. Again, no thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DTLB58 (Post 9396969)
Coaches are creatures of habit so they like to go with what they know and what got them there. Hence, taking all the same coaches with them and the same players.
Hence why they're all looking for jobs every 3 years.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan (Post 9397002)
and any one of those three are win/win
Scenario #1 is NOT a win/win.

If Foles busts, you have no contingency plan.

BossChief 02-12-2013 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396858)
Oh, I'm not anti-Foles.

I just don't see the logic in spending draft picks on the guy unless you're bringing him in to be THE starter.

And at that point, I have to be asking myself "WHY"?

I just can't think of a good reason to bring Foles here when we're sitting on the #1 overall pick.

Draft a backup in the 3rd this year.
That's a little silly. Don't ya think?

Foles was drafted by Andy Reid already and has a year of experience in his system and a half a year of playing experience, too.

I'd have no problem sending them a 4th and a late rounder for him if he is even available and Reid thinks its worth it.

In this league, you NEED 2 qbs.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9397042)
That's a little silly. Don't ya think?

Foles was drafted by Andy Reid already and has a year of experience in his system and a half a year of playing experience, too.

I'd have no problem sending them a 4th and a late rounder for him if he is even available and Reid thinks its worth it.

In this league, you NEED 2 qbs.
Again, you're saying 4th or later.

Everything I'm seeing is SECOND or THIRD.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 04:10 PM
Look, if they want to trade a 6th for Foles, I'm all for it. But we all know that's not a realistic scenario.

This isn't Madden.

RealSNR 02-12-2013 04:11 PM
Redskins used a 4th on their backup.

We would use our high 2nd or 3rd? For a guy that WAS a 4th rounder?

Idiocy.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9397063)
Redskins used a 4th on their backup.

We would use a 2nd or a 3rd? For a guy that WAS a 4th rounder?

Idiocy.
Yet we can't draft Geno at #1 because it's not good "value".

BossChief 02-12-2013 04:14 PM
If Reid wants Foles as competition/backup ...I'd have no problem sending our top pick in the third for him.

We need to get this QB situation FIXED...as I said, if it takes our first overall AND our third rounder to fix our quarterback position, so be it.

IMO, we should just sign a solid vet and draft Geno...go to camp with Stanzi, Geno and a vet...but I wouldn't be pissed if all three of our quarterbacks were young and talented.

Andy Reid has shown the ability to take kids with talent and get them to play well or trade themfor premium picks AND players.

BossChief 02-12-2013 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9397063)
Redskins used a 4th on their backup.

We would use our high 2nd or 3rd? For a guy that WAS a 4th rounder?

Idiocy.
Foles was taken in the mid third.

Psyko Tek 02-12-2013 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN (Post 9395954)
Cassel straight up?
screw THAT
cassel
winston
tj
and maybe dorsey

htismaqe 02-12-2013 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9397072)
If Reid wants Foles as competition/backup ...I'd have no problem sending our top pick in the third for him.

We need to get this QB situation FIXED...as I said, if it takes our first overall AND our third rounder to fix our quarterback position, so be it.

IMO, we should just sign a solid vet and draft Geno...go to camp with Stanzi, Geno and a vet...but I wouldn't be pissed if all three of our quarterbacks were young and talented.

Andy Reid has shown the ability to take kids with talent and get them to play well or trade themfor premium picks AND players.
The thing is, none of those scenarios you mentioned REQUIRE us to give up picks for Foles.

A guy like Foles is going to cost more than he's worth - see Matt Flynn.

ChiefsCountry 02-12-2013 04:20 PM
3rd round picks don't win Super Bowls. Draft one in the first.
Posted via Mobile Device

BossChief 02-12-2013 04:22 PM
Re-sign Bowe, Colquit, Dorsey and Albert. Try bringing Tyson Jackson back on a 1 year deal.

Sign Wilson, Canty, a vet QB and Barnett in free agency

Draft Geno in the first, a starting corner in the second and a good defensive linemen in the third.

Rain Man 02-12-2013 04:25 PM
You would think that a guy named Foles would be a good fit for the Colts.

BossChief 02-12-2013 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9397100)
The thing is, none of those scenarios you mentioned REQUIRE us to give up picks for Foles.

A guy like Foles is going to cost more than he's worth - see Matt Flynn.
Foles has talent...there was a time when he was in the conversation for being a top ten pick and fell to the mid 3rd.

Flynn was a 7th rounder.

Question: we have all this trust in Andy Reid, right?

Well,Andy Reid thought it was good enough value in the third to take Foles, even though he had just given Vick a 100 million dollar contract.

I'm not saying they SHOULD trade for him, just that I wouldn't be pissed if they did.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9397127)
Foles has talent...there was a time when he was in the conversation for being a top ten pick and fell to the mid 3rd.

Flynn was a 7th rounder.

Question: we have all this trust in Andy Reid, right?

Well,Andy Reid thought it was good enough value in the third to take Foles, even though he had just given Vick a 100 million dollar contract.

I'm not saying they SHOULD trade for him, just that I wouldn't be pissed if they did.
Taking Foles in the 3rd after signing Vick is the exact OPPOSITE of the situation we have here, though...

I'm not suggesting I'll be pissed if they bring in Foles (unless they give up a high pick for him, which is just a ****ing waste) but it's certainly going to shake my confidence in Reid a bit. It just reeks of one of those moves coaches make to be comfortable and safe.

In the end, I just don't see any reason to bring him in. There are a myriad of better options out there.

Literally.

No reason.

BossChief 02-12-2013 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9397144)
Taking Foles in the 3rd after signing Vick is the exact OPPOSITE of the situation we have here, though...

I'm not suggesting I'll be pissed if they bring in Foles (unless they give up a high pick for him, which is just a ****ing waste) but it's certainly going to shake my confidence in Reid a bit. It just reeks of one of those moves coaches make to be comfortable and safe.

In the end, I just don't see any reason to bring him in. There are a myriad of better options out there.

Literally.

No reason.
Reasons it would make sense to trade a mid round pick for Foles:

1) Andy Reid liked him enough to draft him in the third round, even though he had just committed to Vick with a 100 million dollars.

2) he just turned 24 and has the tools.

3) experience in the exact system we run and the skill set to run it.

......

Lets not act like Foles looked like trash....he played well for a rookie.

Sure-Oz 02-12-2013 05:04 PM
I've heard rumors it could take a 4th to get him...i'd be up for that probably

htismaqe 02-12-2013 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9397225)
1) Andy Reid liked him enough to draft him in the third round, even though he had just committed to Vick with a 100 million dollars.
They gave Vick 100M because he was the STARTER. They took Foles as a DEVELOPMENTAL PROSPECT. The situation here isn't even remotely close to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9397225)
2) he just turned 24 and has the tools.
MIGHT have the tools. Might.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BossChief (Post 9397225)
3) experience in the exact system we run and the skill set to run it.

......

Lets not act like Foles looked like trash....he played well for a rookie.
Funny how you want to say Foles isn't trash but by the same token think that:

1) The Eagles should dump him after his rookie season, thus making him "trash" by definition and
2) The Chiefs would bring him in to be a backup, thus making him "trash" by definition.

There's 2 distinct thought processes going on in this thread and they're not gelling.

Yes, Foles is a talent.

He's NOT COMING HERE for a 5th-round pick and he's NOT COMING HERE to compete with a rookie.

All of the things you said about him above are absolutely true. Which is why the idea of getting him AND Geno will NEVER come to fruition. Ever.

Pasta Little Brioni 02-12-2013 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9396818)
I do find it rather amazing that the same arguments being used to JUSTIFY trading picks for Foles are being used AGAINST drafting Geno Smith at #1 overall.

Apparently, being a highly-accurate QB in a 1-read offense is okay as long as you are somebody else's castoff...
:clap:

Pasta Little Brioni 02-12-2013 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9397059)
Look, if they want to trade a 6th for Foles, I'm all for it. But we all know that's not a realistic scenario.

This isn't Madden.
EXACTLY. If he was worth a shit why would the Eagles give him away. It makes no sense at all.

Hammock Parties 02-12-2013 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9397399)

He's NOT COMING HERE for a 5th-round pick and he's NOT COMING HERE to compete with a rookie.
Meh.

He could absolutely come here for #65 and be the backup.

I doubt anyone is going to give a higher pick for him, because he hasn't shown he's worth it at this point.

This isn't an Alex Smith "start me or die" situation.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoWalrus (Post 9397411)
Meh.

He could absolutely come here for #65 and be the backup.

I doubt anyone is going to give a higher pick for him, because he hasn't shown he's worth it at this point.

This isn't an Alex Smith "start me or die" situation.
Which way do you want to get picked apart on this one?

If he hasn't shown he's worth it, why are we giving up picks for him?

Or if he IS worth it, why are the Eagles shipping him out?

Face it, no matter how you slice it, there are a DOZEN or more better options out there.

Messier 02-12-2013 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9397436)
Which way do you want to get picked apart on this one?

If he hasn't shown he's worth it, why are we giving up picks for him?

Or if he IS worth it, why are the Eagles shipping him out?

Face it, no matter how you slice it, there are a DOZEN or more better options out there.
Name them.

Foles and a Rookie is my favorite scenario. Don't want old Hasselbeck for one year, don't want QBs proven to be nothing but backups. Foles and a rookie would be two QBs with promise.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messier (Post 9397451)
Name them.

Foles and a Rookie is my favorite scenario. Don't want old Hasselbeck for one year, don't want QBs proven to be nothing but backups. Foles and a rookie would be two QBs with promise.
We don't need two QBs with promise.

We need 1 starter and 1 backup.

People are obsessed with hedging their bets.

Pasta Little Brioni 02-12-2013 06:07 PM
I really don't see how anyone can think this guy is AWESOME whilst bash Geno.

htismaqe 02-12-2013 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGM (Post 9397458)
I really don't see how anyone can think this guy is AWESOME whilst bash Geno.
It's obvious nobody wants to commit.

Let's bring in 14 guys and let them battle it out!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:06 PM.
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3456
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.