What a Nick Foles Contract Extension Could Look Like/Wagoner

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
What a Nick Foles contract extension with the Rams could look like
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...tract-extension-with-the-rams-could-look-like

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- The St. Louis Rams have made no secret of their interest in getting a contract extension done with quarterback Nick Foles sooner than later.

Whether you agree or disagree with that intent is really not important at this point. To that end, I've already covered why the Rams' desire to make such a move makes sense and offered some reasons why it wouldn't. ESPN Insider Field Yates also offered some thoughts on the pros and cons of such a deal.

So there's plenty to chew on there in evaluating the Rams' efforts to get something done. With that in mind, let's move past that debate and focus on what Foles might cost moving forward.

-- As both Yates and I wrote, part of the reason the Rams might have interest in signing Foles now before he plays for the team is the idea that they could get him at something of a bargain. Foles is coming off an injury-plagued season in which his numbers dropped dramatically from his 2013 output. That means a potential contract would be based on a body of work with one excellent year and one so-so year that included an injury. Trying to find comparable quarterbacks with similar career performance is difficult. But what we can do is find players who have achieved about as much as Foles from a team standpoint. Cincinnati's Andy Dalton would be a good jumping off point. Dalton has led the Bengals to the playoffs four times but has yet to win a postseason contest. Dalton signed a six-year deal averaging $16 million per year in 2014 but that deal isn't nearly as daunting as it might look. Dalton received only $17 million in fully guaranteed money, all of which has already been paid out. Now, the Bengals have Dalton under contract at relatively large numbers moving forward but he's essentially operating on a year-to-year basis. For the Rams, following a similar path with Foles -- paying a good chunk up front and then going essentially year to year after -- would make a lot of sense.

-- Another way of looking at Foles' next deal is to examine his role in an offense that figures to be run-heavy and not ask him to throw the ball 40 times a game. Kansas City's Alex Smith might offer a fair comparison here. Smith signed a bigger deal than Dalton, garnering a four-year deal averaging $18 million per season with a guarantee of $45 million. But again, that guarantee is a bit misleading. Smith got an $18 million signing bonus up front and his $11 million base salary in 2015 is guaranteed. Beyond that, his $14 million base salary in 2016 is guaranteed only for injury (or if he's still on the roster on the fifth day of the 2016 league year). So after this season, the Chiefs could theoretically part ways with Smith and only owe the remainder of his prorated signing bonus for the rest of his deal against the cap. It seems unlikely the Rams would want to go as high as Smith's deal on a per-year basis but the structure would again make sense in terms of paying a big chunk upfront then having flexibility beyond the first season or two.

-- All told, it's unclear how far the Rams are willing to extend themselves for a deal with Foles. Likewise, it's unclear what Foles will want to sign a deal. For his part, Foles has already said he'd like to stay in St. Louis but he's also made it clear that business matters will be left to his agent. That makes finding a middle ground a bit more difficult but looking at the going rate for a quarterback in the NFL now should offer a reasonable guideline for what a contract might look like. The guess here is that something like a four-year deal worth an average of somewhere between $12-14 million per season with about $20 million in "true" guarantees paid out in the first year or two would make sense for both sides. It would lock Foles in while offering him another bite at the apple in a few years and allow the Rams flexibility moving forward to sign their many other players scheduled to hit the open market.
 

OnceARam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
3,332
I think it's smart to extend him asap to the terms listed above "somewhere between $12-14 million per season with about $20 million in "true" guarantees paid out in the first year or two" because what the hell else are we going to do? :D

Seriously, if he performs well, we'll be on the hook for $18 M a year easy.

If he bombs, it's probably not because of him. Or at least we won't be able to blame him completely because of our youth on the OL and brand shinny new OC (not to mention our unproved WR core).

So by extending him, under the terms above, we basically have a serviceable QB for at least 2 years. During which time we find out what his ceiling is AND pay a reasonable price to do so - so we can KEEP our D in tact.

And seriously, what the hell else are we going to do?
 

LACHAMP46

A snazzy title
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
11,735
$15 million....hmmm....for this



23. Nick Foles, St. Louis Rams
It’s hard to put a finger on Nick Foles as a quarterback, because for as brilliant as he looked in the 2013 season, Foles was almost equally poor as the Philadelphia Eagles starting quarterback in 2014 before going down with an injury. Despite playing in a QB-friendly set-up, Foles regressed to a 59.8% completion percentage and was tied for the league’s sixth-highest INT% at 3.2%. He repeatedly made poor decisions, and only six quarterbacks had a lower QB Rating than him last season.

That said, it’s easy to forget how good Foles looked in 2013 when it came to making quick decisions, and he’s got a pretty good arm on him. Foles doesn’t have the best receivers around him in the NFC West and could easily flop in a division with so many strong defenses, and that makes it even harder to buy into his amazing 2014 season and OK starts as a rookie.

Seems a lil premature to just offer a contract, when the best rookie class of QB's is coming down the pipe....I'd wait...See what happens....
 

Corbin

THIS IS MY BOOOOOMSTICK!!
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
11,099
Great those Bradford contract hounds are going to come out of the wood work now for the duration of Foles contract and I'm going to have to hear about their dumb shit for the duration of the contract...
 

OnceARam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
3,332
$15 million....hmmm....for this



23. Nick Foles, St. Louis Rams
It’s hard to put a finger on Nick Foles as a quarterback, because for as brilliant as he looked in the 2013 season, Foles was almost equally poor as the Philadelphia Eagles starting quarterback in 2014 before going down with an injury. Despite playing in a QB-friendly set-up, Foles regressed to a 59.8% completion percentage and was tied for the league’s sixth-highest INT% at 3.2%. He repeatedly made poor decisions, and only six quarterbacks had a lower QB Rating than him last season.

That said, it’s easy to forget how good Foles looked in 2013 when it came to making quick decisions, and he’s got a pretty good arm on him. Foles doesn’t have the best receivers around him in the NFC West and could easily flop in a division with so many strong defenses, and that makes it even harder to buy into his amazing 2014 season and OK starts as a rookie.

Seems a lil premature to just offer a contract, when the best rookie class of QB's is coming down the pipe....I'd wait...See what happens....

a rookie isn't going to be ready to play next year.
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,636
$15 million....hmmm....for this



23. Nick Foles, St. Louis Rams
It’s hard to put a finger on Nick Foles as a quarterback, because for as brilliant as he looked in the 2013 season, Foles was almost equally poor as the Philadelphia Eagles starting quarterback in 2014 before going down with an injury. Despite playing in a QB-friendly set-up, Foles regressed to a 59.8% completion percentage and was tied for the league’s sixth-highest INT% at 3.2%. He repeatedly made poor decisions, and only six quarterbacks had a lower QB Rating than him last season.

That said, it’s easy to forget how good Foles looked in 2013 when it came to making quick decisions, and he’s got a pretty good arm on him. Foles doesn’t have the best receivers around him in the NFC West and could easily flop in a division with so many strong defenses, and that makes it even harder to buy into his amazing 2014 season and OK starts as a rookie.

Seems a lil premature to just offer a contract, when the best rookie class of QB's is coming down the pipe....I'd wait...See what happens....
That subjective ranking means next to nothing and I'm not super impressed with next year's QB class, tbh.

I know what I've seen from Foles and I think we'd be better off in the long run signing him to a bargain now when his value might just be at it's lowest point for a while.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,918
It's a gamble signing him now of course. But the Rams have to be concerned about both having an acceptable QB for the next couple of years, AND having cap space to re-sign all or most of their free agents. Gambling is a way to achieve that. The most realistic bad result would be that the Rams would still end up with better QB play than they've had, while they hopefully develop a new QB. The best result is that they get a big bargain from a QB that fits what they need well.

It's just that any deal that makes sense for both sides in this situation is likely to leave both sides less than fully satisfied. This way Foles will be financially set for life (barring idiocy) and the Rams have cost control for the most expensive and important position.
 

FRO

Legend
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
5,308
I don't see why you wouldn't have him play out the year to see what you really have. He had a great year in 2013. One great year doesn't justify rushing to get a deal done. Let the season play out and if he earns it, pay him. If he sucks or is mediocre then dump him. Don't tie yourself down long term though without him proving himself.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,918
I don't see why you wouldn't have him play out the year to see what you really have. He had a great year in 2013. One great year doesn't justify rushing to get a deal done. Let the season play out and if he earns it, pay him. If he sucks or is mediocre then dump him. Don't tie yourself down long term though without him proving himself.

Well, they've seen him in practice, of course. As I said, it's a gamble. If they let him play out his contract and he's decent or better, it likely will cost far more to resign him, because he'll know he can go somewhere and get that large contract. That will mean that the Rams will lose at least one other player they'd rather keep, maybe several. By signing him, IF an acceptable contract can be agreed upon, the Rams will be taking on some of the risk, and Foles will be taking on some of the risk. Obviously if the Rams sign him and he just sucks, then the Rams will be worse off. However, if he is decent the Rams should be okay - and if he's good or better then the Rams will be a LOT better off.

I would rather the Rams gamble on building a championship caliber team, than to play it safe and make it less likely that the Rams will actually soar to those heights again. They have the defense, but may not be able to keep it together unless some gambles pay off. I see trying to sign the QB they want long term, even if there's a risk, is one of those gambles.
 

HometownBoy

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
3,527
Name
Aaron
I'm not ready to give 15 mil to a guy who hasn't even played a single down for us yet. If we want to play risk with wasted money we might as well have kept Bradford and hope his little legs could hold out.
 

FRO

Legend
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
5,308
Well, they've seen him in practice, of course. As I said, it's a gamble. If they let him play out his contract and he's decent or better, it likely will cost far more to resign him, because he'll know he can go somewhere and get that large contract. That will mean that the Rams will lose at least one other player they'd rather keep, maybe several. By signing him, IF an acceptable contract can be agreed upon, the Rams will be taking on some of the risk, and Foles will be taking on some of the risk. Obviously if the Rams sign him and he just sucks, then the Rams will be worse off. However, if he is decent the Rams should be okay - and if he's good or better then the Rams will be a LOT better off.

I would rather the Rams gamble on building a championship caliber team, than to play it safe and make it less likely that the Rams will actually soar to those heights again. They have the defense, but may not be able to keep it together unless some gambles pay off. I see trying to sign the QB they want long term, even if there's a risk, is one of those gambles.
You can sign him to a contract and if he plays great he can just hold out for more money too. If it were guaranteed contracts that players and teams were stuck with, then I see reason we could gamble. I say let him play out the season. If he is outstanding, then pay him. We can always use the franchise tag. We don't know if he was a one year. We don't know if he can fit in our system. I don't see the advantage in signing him now.
 

HometownBoy

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
3,527
Name
Aaron
You can sign him to a contract and if he plays great he can just hold out for more money too. If it were guaranteed contracts that players and teams were stuck with, then I see reason we could gamble. I say let him play out the season. If he is outstanding, then pay him. We can always use the franchise tag. We don't know if he was a one year. We don't know if he can fit in our system. I don't see the advantage in signing him now.
The bolded is a good point, that I hadn't thought of.

Every year there's hold outs with guys who think they deserve more money than they're getting. What's to say Foles doesn't play lights out and thinks he deserves more money and holds out and we're stuck paying him a large sum anyways?

I feel more comfortable with waiting to see if he warrants paying than being forced to pay him to either suck or sit on the bench, with all things took into consideration.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,918
You can sign him to a contract and if he plays great he can just hold out for more money too. If it were guaranteed contracts that players and teams were stuck with, then I see reason we could gamble. I say let him play out the season. If he is outstanding, then pay him. We can always use the franchise tag. We don't know if he was a one year. We don't know if he can fit in our system. I don't see the advantage in signing him now.

It's rare for a player to hold out, especially before the last year of the contract or if they've been franchise tagged. And frankly, if the Rams sign him to a 4 year contract like the article suggests and he plays lights out, they would probably WANT to sign him to an extension anyway after three years, maybe even after two years. And even then the Rams end up ahead financially, because they do have the lower dollar levels in the contract to hold over him. But if they don't sign him to an extension now and he plays well, they will either have to sign him to a huge contract right away or give him the franchise tag - and the franchise tag actually gives him much more leverage since it increases by a LOT for future years being tagged.

As I said, it's a gamble. After the Rams brought him in, they saw enough to like that they think he does fit the system and that he can be very productive for them. Yes, there is risk. But there is risk both in signing him and in not signing him. If the Rams wish to win another Super Bowl though they need to do something - finding QBs is not easy. Keeping a team together with all these high draft picks is not easy. IF he will sign a reasonable (for a starting QB) extension, that is the best chance the Rams have for a few years of having a solid QB AND keeping their core together. If he doesn't work out, well the Rams are screwed anyway in that scenario. If he becomes a huge star and they eventually have to renegotiate - well, I suspect the Rams would be happy enough at the first point that they would live with the second part.