Do it now or wait and see? (Foles contract)

  • 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.
He can be had for a "cheap" price now, as opposed to the deal Cam Newton got. A 4 year deal deal full of incentives and a salary averaging in the $6 -10 million range would be great. For example. A four year deal valued at $40 million with $17 million guaranteed and base salaries of $2.5 million, $4.5 million, $6.5 million and $9.5 million would allow them to get a former pro bowler and give them money to keep a bunch of the their 2016 UFAs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alan
I've got to at least see what he does in live game action, not work outs, not preseason. Regular season action against an opponent trying to beat the Rams. He is coming off an injury too.

What do they see in Mannion? Is long term 3 years? I sure would not go longer than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alan
If it's cheap, like $10M a year, and easy to get out of, maybe with low guarantees and high incentives, I'm all for it. If Foles proves himself he can get plenty of money, but we can't give him franchise QB money and guarantees when he hasn't even played for us yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rmfnlt and Alan
This is a hard one but you might as well bet big that he will do at least average this year and sign him for a 3-4 extension with little guaranteed and a ton in incentives to obtain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alan and Stranger
I like that. I have a strong feeling Foles' value might not be lower than it is right now for a long time. Even an average season next year could make him a highly sought after FA and that would be bad news for the Rams, just take the gamble and lock him up right now. Especially if you like what you're seeing in OTAs.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions: Merlin, Faceplant, Corbin and 2 others
Rams want to sign Nick Foles to long-term extension

By Dan Hanzus


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...want-to-sign-nick-foles-to-longterm-extension

Nick Foles has yet to take a snap for the Rams, but the team is ready to do business with their new quarterback.

NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport reported on Monday's edition of NFL Total Access that the Rams have made it an offseason priority to lock up Foles to a long-term deal before the start of the season. The team has reached out to Foles' camp and the two sides have had some initial discussions, according to Rapoport.

Foles, who was acquired from the Eagles in the Sam Bradford trade this offseason, is entering the final year of his rookie contract. He is due to make $1.5 million in 2015.

According to Rapoport, the Rams would like to avoid Foles playing out the final year of his deal, which they believe would put them in a financially difficult position if Foles' performance increases his market value. The Rams would also like to avoid having to use the franchise tag.

This can be seen as wishful thinking for a team clearly looking for some stability at quarterback after two years of Sam Bradford knee injuries. Foles enjoyed a breakout season under Chip Kelly in 2013, but his 2014 performance was uneven at best before he sustained a season-ending clavicle injury.

Foles strikes us as one of the league's starting quarterbacks with the most to prove in 2015. The Rams, surprisingly, appear willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yamahopper and Alan
I'd like to wait and see. But then again, signing him now doesn't preclude us from taking a top guy coming out next year. If he sucks and we go 0-16 we'll be picking a QB #1 overall anyway regardless of the contract he signs so it doesn't matter. But - of course that's not going to happen. He's going to be good, so signing him now before he "proves" it gives us a potentially lower cap hit?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alan and shovelpass
I think you have to sign him now but you can't give him a Bradford type deal . Heck, that's why I liked the trade to begin with because he came cheap and we got out from under Bradford's contract. Of course, he's not signing too cheap now but like already stated, a mediocre performance this year will still get him paid as much so might as well do it now and hope he sets this bitch on fire this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alan
We must sign him before we see anything...
YpjFzmB.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDYVKX and Alan
Big Willie said:
He can be had for a "cheap" price now, as opposed to the deal Cam Newton got. A 4 year deal deal full of incentives and a salary averaging in the $6 -10 million range would be great. For example. A four year deal valued at $40 million with $17 million guaranteed and base salaries of $2.5 million, $4.5 million, $6.5 million and $9.5 million would allow them to get a former pro bowler and give them money to keep a bunch of the their 2016 UFAs.
Click to expand...
I just can't imagine Foles signing such a contract.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: Dodgersrf, TheDYVKX and Alan
Look. There's just no way Foles is going accept anything under 13 million. That's the going rate for a starting QB.

We talk about Bradford restructuring, but that 13 million he was owed is exactly right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScotsRam
How do you answer anything but wait? The guy was pedestrian last year and pedestrian before 2013. As of today his 2013 season looks like a fluke. You pay them based on what they've done recently, not on what they did before.

You don't lock him up until he's proved something to you, how can you even consider paying a guy long term when he hasn't even played down of football for you? In that case we should have just kept Bradford.
 
Whatever they pay him is a bargain compared to watching the Austin Davis's of the league flop around the field like a fish.

25 Mil. guaranteed 85 mil.over 6. He makes the Pro Bowl even more. Rams don't want to pay it the Browns, Zona, Bears are waiting to write that check.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OnceARam
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back