Nick Foles?

[lockdnram21]

Excuses?

I don't buy all the excuses that are made for Bradford

 

[FRO]

I don't buy all the excuses that are made for Bradford

I don't think I have an excuse. Put Foles behind a line of Hunter, Ojinnakka, Turner, Dahl, and Richardson. Have his top WR be Brandon Gibson. Have him hand off to an aged Steven Jackson and his production will go down.

If you look at the 2013 season Bradford was on pace to do what Foles did with less talent and Brian Schottenhiemer calling plays as opposed to Kelly.

I'm not making any excuses. Bradford has been fragile. The guy had more talent and ability than Foles. In the NFL the team around you can effect your numbers. You talk about how Britt could have had 1,000 yards with better QB play. I agree with that assessment. The argument goes both ways.

 

[theduke]

I don't think I have an excuse. Put Foles behind a line of Hunter, Ojinnakka, Turner, Dahl, and Richardson. Have his top WR be Brandon Gibson. Have him hand off to an aged Steven Jackson and his production will go down.

If you look at the 2013 season Bradford was on pace to do what Foles did with less talent and Brian Schottenhiemer calling plays as opposed to Kelly.

I'm not making any excuses. Bradford has been fragile. The guy had more talent and ability than Foles. In the NFL the team around you can effect your numbers. You talk about how Britt could have had 1,000 yards with better QB play. I agree with that assessment. The argument goes both ways.

"Coming off 27 touchdowns and only two interceptions in 2013, Foles finished with 13 touchdowns and 10 interceptions in eight games last season before fracturing his collarbone, an injury that would cost him the remainder of the season."

He's a poor man's Bradford on a much better team with actual weapons, playing in an innovative offense that hurries up the tempo to keep the defense tired, guessing, and out of position.

When he played without Desean, he was exposed. Also, his offensive system is much more complex than Bradford's. His o-line was better.

13 TDs-10 INTs in 8 games. You're telling me Bradford can't do that? With our current team and the weapons we have, Bradford is the much better option. We need a line. That's what we need to do with our first round pick. It would probably behoove us to trade down for more picks. That way we can pick up more guards and/or centers.

 

[FRO]

"Coming off 27 touchdowns and only two interceptions in 2013, Foles finished with 13 touchdowns and 10 interceptions in eight games last season before fracturing his collarbone, an injury that would cost him the remainder of the season."

He's a poor man's Bradford on a much better team with actual weapons, playing in an innovative offense that hurries up the tempo to keep the defense tired, guessing, and out of position.

When he played without Desean, he was exposed. Also, his offensive system is much more complex than Bradford's. His o-line was better.

13 TDs-10 INTs in 8 games. You're telling me Bradford can't do that? With our current team and the weapons we have, Bradford is the much better option. We need a line. That's what we need to do with our first round pick. It would probably behoove us to trade down for more picks. That way we can pick up more guards and/or centers.

I agree. I would trade a second round pick for Foles. It's an over pay, but I would be ok with it.

If Bradford is healthy he would beat him out. I think a healthy Bradford can be a top QB in the league.

 

[lockdnram21]

I agree. I would trade a second round pick for Foles. It's an over pay, but I would be ok with it.

If Bradford is healthy he would beat him out. I think a healthy Bradford can be a top QB in the league.

I agree. But that's a big if . Also I think he will be out longer this time. A year would be middle of august. I don't think he sees live action before oct. But I could be wrong

 

[FRO]

I agree. But that's a big if . Also I think he will be out longer this time. A year would be middle of august. I don't think he sees live action before oct. But I could be wrong

He said he is much further along now than this time last year and it hasn't been as physically painful. I think he is ready by camp.

 

[lockdnram21]

He said he is much further along now than this time last year and it hasn't been as physically painful. I think he is ready by camp.

Even so wouldn't u want to be extra cautious and at least give him a year

 

[woofwoofmo]

Alex Smith cost the Chiefs two 2nd rounders a couple of years ago. I see similar value in Foles to Smith. It's just a fact of the current NFL game that there is an overall lack of talent at the QB position. Foles wouldn't be spectacular, probably mid-pack at best, but he'd be an upgrade over anything from this past season. I'd trade for Foles, assuming an extended contract, even if Bradford is cleared to play by training camp because there is just too much unknown what Bradford will bring to the table next season and the Rams cannot afford another season without a reliable QB.

 

[badnews]

I'm interested but my only question is how much of Foles game was a product of the Eagles system?

I'd probably swap firsts with them if they threw in a late round pick.

 

[Merlin]

Foles had a QBR of 119.2 in 2013. While I don't think he is anywhere near that in terms of his real value, the fact is that he did it. He demonstrated that with everything around him he could play at a high level and stay healthy for a season. Bradford, meanwhile, has a full season best rating of 82.6 in 2012. After that came his 2013 which had a better rating for the time he played but he had some real stinkers to include the Dallas game before he was injured for the season.

I actually agree with those who think Bradford was poised to be an elite QB this past year. He just looked different in preseason, like he had put everything together and was completely in charge. But it's still about projection with him, unfortunately. I do think that if he stays healthy the Rams are a playoff team this year. But even then what do you do after the season? Sign him again to more money when you can't trust him to stay healthy?

With Foles the obvious concern is the Kelly factor. He is such a skilled offensive mind that it's easy to think when he is removed from the occasion we are left with a QB who is not as good as his stats indicate. And I do fear that. But it could be argued that Foles is a quality young QB. His big year, for example, his sack percentage was 8.1%, which is higher than all but one of Bradford's seasons for reference purposes.

With regard to Foles' actual value, I think some are not being realistic. Rams are not going to lowball the Eagles and get a starting QB like Foles. Whether or not you think his stats are inflated by his offense (and I do), if you're talking to the Eagles to shake him loose, and compete against other teams that are starved for the most important position on the field, you are going to need to pony up something of value for him.

As to the price, I'd say it's gonna end up being a first round pick, or some combination of picks like has been mentioned for Smith where the Chiefs got him for 2 second round picks. I've already said I wouldn't pay that, but if the Rams do I will understand. This offense needs to be settled down with a QB they know they can count on. Adding Foles allows them to have a good chance of benefitting from a solid starting QB for the entire season, and maybe better than average QB play.

Lastly, I don't think Glennon is gonna come cheap either. I do agree he's gonna come at a more affordable price than Foles, which I do like. I also like that he hasn't been playing for an OC who maximizes his ability. But unless the Bucs are idiots, why would they give away a young QB who has two seasons of an 83+ rating? If the Rams get him for a 5th round pick I'd be ecstatic, but the only place that is gonna happen is in the mind of internet fans on a message board. IMO.

 

[Blue and Gold]

Example of "Journalism"


Report: Rams interested in trading for Nick Foles
Posted by Michael David Smith on January 27, 2015, 6:39 AM EST

Getty Images
Last year, the Eagles made one of the most surprising moves of the offseason when they released receiver DeSean Jackson. This year, the Eagles may again make a surprising move by getting rid of starting quarterbackNick Foles.

Multiple stories have surfaced this month indicating that Eagles coach Chip Kelly is interested in moving on from Foles, especially if Kelly could replace Foles with his old Oregon quarterback Marcus Mariota. The latest report comes from NJ.com, which says that possible suitors are beginning to emerge, and the Rams have interest in Foles.

The Rams have indicated that they would like quarterback Sam Bradford to return this year, but only at the right price. If the Rams can’t convince Bradford to take a significant pay cut from the $13 million he’s scheduled to make this year, they’ll surely release him, and then trading for Foles could make sense.

The question, however, is whether it would make sense for the Eagles. If Kelly is going to get rid of Foles, he has to be confident he can acquire someone better. Unless the Eagles are able to move up in the draft and get Mariota in three months, trading Foles feels like an odd move.

okay, Smith linked to a story that said this:


Jeff Fisher wants Sam Bradford back, at the right price
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 11, 2014, 12:20 PM EST

AP
The Rams have been playing good football lately, especially for a team that lost its franchise quarterback to a knee injury right before the season. Rams coach Jeff Fisher thinks the Rams can play even better football next year, if they have that franchise quarterback on the field.

Fisher told Albert Breer of NFL Network that he wants Bradford back next year.

There is, of course, one enormous caveat: Bradford has a year left on the enormous contract he signed as the first overall pick in the draft in 2010, before the new Collective Bargaining Agreement significantly reduced the value of rookie contracts. Bradford is scheduled to get paid $13 million in 2015, and to count a whopping $16.6 million against the Rams’ salary cap. So the Rams would like to re-do Bradford’s deal.

The question, then, becomes how much of a haircut the Rams want Bradford to take, and whether Bradford thinks he has enough leverage that he could balk at a significant reduction in his pay. If Bradford thinks he would make more in free agency than the Rams are asking him to settle for, he could tell them to either pay him the $13 million for the final year of his deal or release him.

St. Louis has a lot of the pieces in place to be a playoff team next season, if the quarterback position can get stabilized. But given Bradford’s injury history and the uncertainty surrounding his contract, that’s a big “if.”


Okay, that links to

Albert BreerVerified account‏@AlbertBreer
Will have more in my NFL Notes,
but Jeff Fisher told me he wants Bradford back.
Said Bradford/Kroenke were the 2 reasons
he took the job.

Now, where did Fisher say "at the right price"?

It was in the title of the Michael David Smith article and mentioned 'haircut'

Now, leaving aside the merits of the argument, likely all of us would like Sam to take a pay cut, and in the world of performance if you're hurt then you have not given full value for your money, but Sam and his agent are not obligated to do that, it just makes some sense.

But the journalism is really "stellar" is it not?

Now, perhaps since this was published, which was during the season, there may be some on or off the record by Demoff or Snisher . . .but that was not referenced here.

However, that is not what bugs me. Pro Football Talk, like ESPN, was all over Spygatge, then backed off . . . PFT was bought by NBC and it went from gossip blog to more of a promotion of the game (which is fine) but they gave up on Spygate at the time. So if they want ot be mainstream then follow maintream journalism and don't quote a title that has no basis in fact.

 

[Blue and Gold]

I don't buy all the excuses that are made for Bradford

excuse: attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

what is the opposite

blame: To consider responsible for a misdeed, failure,or undesirable outcome

You don't buy the excuses

I don't buy the blame

It comes down to that. And the type off accuasations were off the chart . . . there was one guy on another board who looked at sams eyes and said he didn't think Sam had good vision, that he liekyl had Duane's syndrome. His evidence? His son suffered the same affliction.

Sam can't read a defense, Sam cannot throw deep (PFF stats proved otherwise), that he's not this, not that, cannot throw someone open, and just about any cliche people heard on TV about other QBs.

So, when it is pointed out that 13 of the 20 starting olinemen for Rams from 2010-2013 are out of the NFL that is called an excuse. When your #1 outside receiver is Brandon Gibson (who would be a good slot receiver) that's an excuse. When your best receiver (Amendola) is hurt a lot . . that's an excuse.

The onyl legit criticism is that Sam has blown his knee twice in 2 years on seemingly mild hits . . . is real and a huge concern.

But the rest of the blame and false accuasations I don't buy.

 

[ausmurp]

Would love it, I'm a huge Foles fan. The dude is a good pocket QB, he reminds me of Joe Flacco and I'll take that over what we have had the past 7 years my god. Foles would immediately make us a contender.

My only concern is that he has been injured a few times in his 3 years, concussions etc. I guess with Bradford and Foles we SHOULD be able to get a full 16+ playoff games right? lol.

 

[jrry32]

Lastly, I don't think Glennon is gonna come cheap either. I do agree he's gonna come at a more affordable price than Foles, which I do like. I also like that he hasn't been playing for an OC who maximizes his ability. But unless the Bucs are idiots, why would they give away a young QB who has two seasons of an 83+ rating? If the Rams get him for a 5th round pick I'd be ecstatic, but the only place that is gonna happen is in the mind of internet fans on a message board. IMO.

Why would they start a 35 year old journeyman over a player coming off a good rookie year?

So why would they give up Glennon now? They're drafting a QB at #1...and McCown obviously fits the role of the veteran backup...especially considering their favoring him in 2014.

Issue is for them is that benching Glennon in 2014 depressed his value. It might very well take more than a 5th but I don't think it'll take a 3rd. So I'd say somewhere between the two is a realistic expectation.

If they were smart, they would have started him in 2014.

With Foles the obvious concern is the Kelly factor. He is such a skilled offensive mind that it's easy to think when he is removed from the occasion we are left with a QB who is not as good as his stats indicate. And I do fear that. But it could be argued that Foles is a quality young QB. His big year, for example, his sack percentage was 8.1%, which is higher than all but one of Bradford's seasons for reference purposes.

With regard to Foles' actual value, I think some are not being realistic. Rams are not going to lowball the Eagles and get a starting QB like Foles. Whether or not you think his stats are inflated by his offense (and I do), if you're talking to the Eagles to shake him loose, and compete against other teams that are starved for the most important position on the field, you are going to need to pony up something of value for him.

As to the price, I'd say it's gonna end up being a first round pick, or some combination of picks like has been mentioned for Smith where the Chiefs got him for 2 second round picks. I've already said I wouldn't pay that, but if the Rams do I will understand. This offense needs to be settled down with a QB they know they can count on. Adding Foles allows them to have a good chance of benefitting from a solid starting QB for the entire season, and maybe better than average QB play.

I think some are being plenty realistic in believing the Rams shouldn't overpay for a guy simply because he's a QB.

The fact that his sack% was that high is one of my big issues with the guy. He was behind very arguably the best OL in the NFL in 2013...with some of the best weapons in the NFL and a revolutionary offense that nobody had seen before. And yet his sack rate was that high.

And look at how he played this year. He came crashing back down to earth.

In 2013, he had 27 TDs to 2 Ints. In 2012 and 2014 combined, he had 19 TDs to 15 Ints.

So the question becomes, is he closer to the QB from 2013 or the QB from 2012 and 2014? IMO, it's the latter.

Because I didn't think he looked special even when he was putting up those big numbers in 2013.

So then, do we really want to give up that sort of compensation for the latter player? I don't think it's a wise move.

I think the latter player is pretty much what you're getting with Glennon. And I don't think there's a chance in hell Glennon goes for that sort of value.

And that's my issue with Foles. I think you're buying high(or relatively high) rather than buying low on a guy like Glennon...when physically, they offer nearly the same skill-set and Foles played just like Glennon did in 2014.

Plus, Glennon hasn't had durability issues like Foles. So you can argue that 2013 is what makes Foles worth more...but my counter would be that value is negated by the durability concerns with him that Glennon has not yet had.

Regardless, I think it would be a mistake for this team to buy high on Foles. If they get him for a fair value...fine, I think he's good insurance behind Sam.

 

[jrry32]

excuse: attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

what is the opposite

blame: To consider responsible for a misdeed, failure,or undesirable outcome

You don't buy the excuses

I don't buy the blame

It comes down to that. And the type off accuasations were off the chart . . . there was one guy on another board who looked at sams eyes and said he didn't think Sam had good vision, that he liekyl had Duane's syndrome. His evidence? His son suffered the same affliction.

Sam can't read a defense, Sam cannot throw deep (PFF stats proved otherwise), that he's not this, not that, cannot throw someone open, and just about any cliche people heard on TV about other QBs.

So, when it is pointed out that 13 of the 20 starting olinemen for Rams from 2010-2013 are out of the NFL that is called an excuse. When your #1 outside receiver is Brandon Gibson (who would be a good slot receiver) that's an excuse. When your best receiver (Amendola) is hurt a lot . . that's an excuse.

The onyl legit criticism is that Sam has blown his knee twice in 2 years on seemingly mild hits . . . is real and a huge concern.

But the rest of the blame and false accuasations I don't buy.

By the way, since excuses are being brought up, anyone chuckle at this when they read the Foles article...

Foles inability to escape pressure was highlighted last season as the offensive line suffered through a season of injuries and poor play. The dropoff in the offensive line play from 2013 to 2014 left Foles running for his life at times, which proved to be a problem, especially when he got into the open field.

 

[dieterbrock]

Nick Foles has accounted for 50 td's in 28 career games on 893 pass attempts
Bradford has accounted for 61 td's in 49 career games on 1,760 pass attempts
And Foles career QBR of 94.2 exceeds Bradford's "career" season when he was at 90.9

I get all the stuff about better weapons, system etc etc. But the difference in production is mind boggling. And to think that the Eagles want better from the QB position while we want to pump up Sam's stats?
I'd love to get Foles but I imagine that only happens if they can re-sign Sanchez

 

[Blue and Gold]

Nick Foles has accounted for 50 td's in 28 career games on 893 pass attempts
Bradford has accounted for 61 td's in 49 career games on 1,760 pass attempts
And Foles career QBR of 94.2 exceeds Bradford's "career" season when he was at 90.9

I get all the stuff about better weapons, system etc etc. But the difference in production is mind boggling. And to think that the Eagles want better from the QB position while we want to pump up Sam's stats?
I'd love to get Foles but I imagine that only happens if they can re-sign Sanchez

If you get all the "stuff" about better weapons, system etc etc then you could say that it's mind boggling the talent levels of each offense and so on. Saffold is only Rams starter that has been around since 2010 . . . and he's been the best. But he's not a pro bowler ny any means,

Okay, Eagles . . . their right tackle was a top 10 pick . . left guard is a solid type guy, not a pro bowler . . maybe on same level as Saffold

Then you have Kelse and PFF All-pro in 2013. Evan Mathis, First team All-Pro, Jason Peters First-team All-pro.

Know who the last Pro Bowler Rams had on oline? Orlando Pace in 2005. Last All-Pro? Pace in 2004.

Last Rams WR in Pro Bowl? Holt in 2007

Sam did have one Pro Bowler . .. S-Jax in Sam's rookie season.

Foles walked into a pretty good situation, not exactly, but not completely unlike Kurt walked into in 1999.

All-Pro RB Shady McCoy, 3 All-pro o-linemen with two other solid startes, Pro Bowl WR in D-Jax . . . fancy new scheme

I wouldn't mind getting Foles but Eagles would be stupid to trade him, even if the get Mariotta . .. But Foles would not instantly beat out Sam . . . Sam's drawback is his injuries.

 

[jrry32]

If you get all the "stuff" about better weapons, system etc etc then you could say that it's mind boggling the talent levels of each offense and so on. Saffold is only Rams starter that has been around since 2010 . . . and he's been the best. But he's not a pro bowler ny any means,

Okay, Eagles . . . their right tackle was a top 10 pick . . left guard is a solid type guy, not a pro bowler . . maybe on same level as Saffold

Then you have Kelse and PFF All-pro in 2013. Evan Mathis, First team All-Pro, Jason Peters First-team All-pro.

Know who the last Pro Bowler Rams had on oline? Orlando Pace in 2005. Last All-Pro? Pace in 2004.

Last Rams WR in Pro Bowl? Holt in 2007

Sam did have one Pro Bowler . .. S-Jax in Sam's rookie season.

Foles walked into a pretty good situation, not exactly, but not completely unlike Kurt walked into in 1999.

All-Pro RB Shady McCoy, 3 All-pro o-linemen with two other solid startes, Pro Bowl WR in D-Jax . . . fancy new scheme

I wouldn't mind getting Foles but Eagles would be stupid to trade him, even if the get Mariotta . .. But Foles would not instantly beat out Sam . . . Sam's drawback is his injuries.

I think another interesting point is that so much of Foles's production is from one season. He had 27 TDs to 2 Ints in 2013. In 2012 and 2014 combined, he had 19 TDs to 15 Ints. As I said before, one pretty major determination is...which stat-line is Foles, as a player, closer to?

I don't know that the Eagles would be stupid to trade him if they think Mariota can be great in their system...

 

[dieterbrock]

Yeah sure, lets just throw out that 2013 season....

 

[Blue and Gold]

I think another interesting point is that so much of Foles's production is from one season. He had 27 TDs to 2 Ints in 2013. In 2012 and 2014 combined, he had 19 TDs to 15 Ints. As I said before, one pretty major determination is...which stat-line is Foles, as a player, closer to?

I don't know that the Eagles would be stupid to trade him if they think Mariota can be great in their system...

Well, I should have been clearer, the Eagles would be stupid yo get rid of him now, even if they get Mariotta. Most don't think Mariotta is a day 1 or even year 1 starter (of course "they" could be wrong). All I meant was you need a starter for 2015 and if it were me it would be Foles over Sanchez for 2015 then open competition between Foles and Mariota in 2016.

That's really what I was saying.