- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 35,576
- Name
- The Dude
Nick Foles OTA Highlights
- Thread starter -X-
- Start date
-
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.
RAGRam
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2015
- Messages
- 1,150
That and it was already posted
http://www.ramsondemand.com/threads/foles-vs-oakland-perfect-game.38065/#post-578494
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 35,576
- Name
- The Dude
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4
That and it was already posted
http://www.ramsondemand.com/threads/foles-vs-oakland-perfect-game.38065/#post-578494
Robocop
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,933
- Name
- J.
eh cheezy. I like the guy he has potential but have my reservations about some of his weaknesses on the field. I still think he should put on some more muscle tho. the dude is tall, put a little more muscle mass on him and you might have a quicker bersion of Big Ben out there. no pocket passer breaks more tackles than Ben. the Oline is gonna have its hands full so might as well strength up to take those hits when he does and probably often , run heavy offense or not.
yrba1
Mild-mannered Rams fan
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2014
- Messages
- 5,112
Hope he's still an ascending talent. I consider his 2013 season a discrepancy based on lack of tape on Chip Kelly's offense, I expect his production this year to be somewhere between 2013 and last season. Plus he'll be under center more where his footwork will be cleaner, he was quite happy feet under shotgun.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,593
.
after 25 games of clemens, hill and davis surely foles should look like a top 10 qb, even though he isn't. if he even connects on just half of the missed opportunities that the other qbs missed the rams offense should be rolling. on the flip side if he doesn't lose his cool and reduce the pick 6s and game changing/ending interceptions the other qbs inevitably threw, the rams will win alot more than they lose.
.
after 25 games of clemens, hill and davis surely foles should look like a top 10 qb, even though he isn't. if he even connects on just half of the missed opportunities that the other qbs missed the rams offense should be rolling. on the flip side if he doesn't lose his cool and reduce the pick 6s and game changing/ending interceptions the other qbs inevitably threw, the rams will win alot more than they lose.
.
RamWoodie
Legend
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,257
I'll give the guy a fair shot! Particularly knowing Philly's coach is somewhat a fickle loose cannon offensively. He may be worse than Martz.
What I remember of Foles I liked...so when he was no longer the starter, I figured they had found a heck of a QB...but it turns out Foles isn't in the mold of what he wants offensively. Philly's offense demands a very mobile QB.
What I remember of Foles I liked...so when he was no longer the starter, I figured they had found a heck of a QB...but it turns out Foles isn't in the mold of what he wants offensively. Philly's offense demands a very mobile QB.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 16,593
Zaphod
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,217
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 22,999
- Name
- Dennis
I totally disagree because if that's true Bradford is less mobile than the Statue of Liberty.
RamWoodie
Legend
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,257
Sam was more mobile than most think! The deal was his willingness to use that mobility.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 22,999
- Name
- Dennis
RamWoodie
Legend
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,257
Time will tell. Sam's on the Eagle's roster!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 22,999
- Name
- Dennis
LACHAMP46
A snazzy title
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2013
- Messages
- 11,735
http://ramblinfan.com/2015/06/27/is...n/?utm_source=FanSided+Daily&utm_medium=email
This is where I'm kinda leaning....
Oct 5, 2014; Philadelphia, PA, USA; Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Nick Foles (9) scrambles out of the pocket against the St. Louis Rams at Lincoln Financial Field. The Eagles defeated the Rams, 34-28. Mandatory Credit: Eric Hartline-USA TODAY Sports
Is Nick Foles worth a contract extension?
by Michael Condon
In what was considered the biggest splash of the offseason, the St. Louis Rams acquired quarterback Nick Foles in a trade with the Philadelphia Eagles. The Rams swapped the frustratingly talented former number one overall pick Sam Bradford to acquire Foles. In doing so, St. Louis freed up some money, about $13M for this season alone, and brought in a younger quarterback. Now the question is, do you pay Foles like a franchise quarterback, or do you make him play out the final year on his contract and risk having to pony up more or worse, lose him in free agency.
Foles is in the final year of his rookie deal. A deal that would pay him $2.7M total. The bulk of that money is paid out this year, at $1.5M. Foles is set to become an unrestricted free agent next year. That’s an issue for St.Louis. Without a capable starter in the back up ranks, Foles is more valuable to the Rams than to most teams. However, Foles has a so-so body of work and holds more potential than talent at the moment. So, do you pay for the potential and risk another three to four years of mediocrity, or do you let Foles play out his final year and earn his money. Whatever route the Rams choose, other quarterback starved teams will have a shot at Foles if the Rams don’t lock him down now.
Foles has been a capable quarterback up to this point in his career. he saw his best numbers in 2013 with almost 3,000 passing yards, 27 touchdowns and only two interceptions in 13 games. Unfortunately, his encore in 2014 saw him come crashing back down to earth. Foles would throw for 2,163 yards, 13 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. All-in-all, Foles has thrown for almost 7,000 yards, 46 touchdowns and only 17 interceptions in his three years as an NFL quarterback. Of the other starting quarterbacks from his draft class (Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, and Russell Wilson) those numbers rank him dead last.
The St. Louis Rams don’t need capable. They need spectacular. The Rams need a leader that can rally the troops and lead by example. They don’t need another middle of the road, 2,500 yards, 20 touchdowns type guy, and up to this point, that’s all Foles is. All of this is easier said than done. In today’s NFL you need a quarterback to be successful. Foles is a band-aid. A temporary fix to a much larger problem. The Rams have not invested enough time, energy or money into a franchise quarterback.
St. Louis thought they had a franchise quarterback in Bradford. He proved to be too fragile to play the part. Prior to Bradford it was Marc Bulger. Again, capable, but as years waned on, it was evident that time and injuries had taken their toll. You would need to go back 15 long years before reaching the last quarterback able to bring the Rams to a Super Bowl, Kurt Warner. Prior to Bradford, the Rams have not invested a first round pick on a quarterback since 1964 when they selected Bill Munson. They haven’t used a second round pick on a quarterback since they selected Tony Banks in 1996.
The Rams should let Foles play out his final year without an extension. Let him earn his next contract. St. Louis needs to be prepared to invest a significant draft pick in a quarterback if Foles falters. It will be tough, but getting stitches will prove to better in the long run than just another band aid.
Should be 100% improvement...which would move us from the 30th ranked offense to like 15th? Foles & Cig don't get on the same page, all this talk about re-doing a contract...We should know by the 2nd pre-season game....
This is where I'm kinda leaning....
Oct 5, 2014; Philadelphia, PA, USA; Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Nick Foles (9) scrambles out of the pocket against the St. Louis Rams at Lincoln Financial Field. The Eagles defeated the Rams, 34-28. Mandatory Credit: Eric Hartline-USA TODAY Sports
Is Nick Foles worth a contract extension?
by Michael Condon
In what was considered the biggest splash of the offseason, the St. Louis Rams acquired quarterback Nick Foles in a trade with the Philadelphia Eagles. The Rams swapped the frustratingly talented former number one overall pick Sam Bradford to acquire Foles. In doing so, St. Louis freed up some money, about $13M for this season alone, and brought in a younger quarterback. Now the question is, do you pay Foles like a franchise quarterback, or do you make him play out the final year on his contract and risk having to pony up more or worse, lose him in free agency.
Foles is in the final year of his rookie deal. A deal that would pay him $2.7M total. The bulk of that money is paid out this year, at $1.5M. Foles is set to become an unrestricted free agent next year. That’s an issue for St.Louis. Without a capable starter in the back up ranks, Foles is more valuable to the Rams than to most teams. However, Foles has a so-so body of work and holds more potential than talent at the moment. So, do you pay for the potential and risk another three to four years of mediocrity, or do you let Foles play out his final year and earn his money. Whatever route the Rams choose, other quarterback starved teams will have a shot at Foles if the Rams don’t lock him down now.
Foles has been a capable quarterback up to this point in his career. he saw his best numbers in 2013 with almost 3,000 passing yards, 27 touchdowns and only two interceptions in 13 games. Unfortunately, his encore in 2014 saw him come crashing back down to earth. Foles would throw for 2,163 yards, 13 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. All-in-all, Foles has thrown for almost 7,000 yards, 46 touchdowns and only 17 interceptions in his three years as an NFL quarterback. Of the other starting quarterbacks from his draft class (Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, and Russell Wilson) those numbers rank him dead last.
The St. Louis Rams don’t need capable. They need spectacular. The Rams need a leader that can rally the troops and lead by example. They don’t need another middle of the road, 2,500 yards, 20 touchdowns type guy, and up to this point, that’s all Foles is. All of this is easier said than done. In today’s NFL you need a quarterback to be successful. Foles is a band-aid. A temporary fix to a much larger problem. The Rams have not invested enough time, energy or money into a franchise quarterback.
St. Louis thought they had a franchise quarterback in Bradford. He proved to be too fragile to play the part. Prior to Bradford it was Marc Bulger. Again, capable, but as years waned on, it was evident that time and injuries had taken their toll. You would need to go back 15 long years before reaching the last quarterback able to bring the Rams to a Super Bowl, Kurt Warner. Prior to Bradford, the Rams have not invested a first round pick on a quarterback since 1964 when they selected Bill Munson. They haven’t used a second round pick on a quarterback since they selected Tony Banks in 1996.
The Rams should let Foles play out his final year without an extension. Let him earn his next contract. St. Louis needs to be prepared to invest a significant draft pick in a quarterback if Foles falters. It will be tough, but getting stitches will prove to better in the long run than just another band aid.
Should be 100% improvement...which would move us from the 30th ranked offense to like 15th? Foles & Cig don't get on the same page, all this talk about re-doing a contract...We should know by the 2nd pre-season game....
RamWoodie
Legend
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,257
So what's the point?
It's obviously the Eagles think Sam can get it done. Not that the Rams didn't...but we know what the Rams cap situation was...they had to make that move.
Players come back strong from ACLs in this day and age...it's not like it cripples guys like back in the day.