Scouts take on Nick Foles

[Elmgrovegnome]

A scout's take on Nick Foles

March, 12, 2015
Mar 12

6:30

PM ET


By Nick Wagoner | ESPN.com




EARTH CITY, Mo. -- The St. Louis Rams will officially introduce quarterback Nick Foles to the media at a press conference set for noon ET on Friday.

It's probably a safe bet that there will be some gushing from coach Jeff Fisher and general manager Les Snead about their new quarterback. While Sam Bradford might be the player in the entire NFL with the most to prove, Foles has his share of doubters as well.

I shot an email to ESPN NFL Insider scout Matt Williamson, who is a former Cleveland Browns scout, asking him to give me a quick run down on Foles and what he brings to the table in St. Louis.

Here's what he had to say:

"I am not a huge Foles fan, but he has some ability. He is a big passer who is a decent athlete with an above average arm. By looking at his TD/INT numbers from 2013, you would think he values and protects the football extremely well. He does show those traits at times, but Foles was also about the “luckiest” QB in the NFL in 2013. By that, I mean that KC Joyner has a QB Bad Decision Metric and in 2013, Foles made plenty of bad decisions/throws that he didn’t pay for with an INT or turnover.

In 2014, that started to even out in a big way. The Eagles Chip Kelly offense also wasn’t as unfamiliar to the rest of the league in 2014 and Foles didn’t have an awesome OL to protect him, as he did in 2013. During last season, his pocket presence/poise began to be a red flag and the pressure disrupted him and he perceived pressure that wasn’t there at times."

Foles, of course, had a rough 2014 after a breakthrough 2013 in which many thought he was developing into a possible franchise answer in Philadelphia. He suffered a broken clavicle that limited him to eight games and he had his share of struggles, though the Eagles were 6-2 at the time of his injury.

As Williamson points out, one of the biggest questions for Foles will be how he can transition to the Rams offense. It's unlikely the Rams are going to drastically alter what they do, which means Foles will be asked to be on target and on time with a lot of play action passes spun off the run game. Foles' primary job will be to protect the ball and make good decisions. His career numbers indicate that hasn't been a huge issue but as Williamson mentioned, there have been some notable warning signs.

Foles will also have to prove he can stay healthy for the entire season. His injury history is nowhere near what Bradford's is but durability is going to be paramount if Foles hopes to evolve into a long-term solution in St. Louis.http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/

 

[Username]

I got through his first 2 games last night on rewind, and saw his game against the Rams obviously. I saw most of the Eagles games on nfl net last year, but not enough to form a full opinion. I'm going to watch the rest of his snaps before the injury then go back to the year before. His first game this year was awful. Literately terrible. The only reason they barely managed to win that game is because it was the Jags. Some improvement in the 2nd, but not a lot.

He needs time. He takes forever to get rid of the ball in situations. Lucky is a very good word to describe him as well in the turnover situation. There was 2 huge drops by the defenders in the Indy game that kept getting referred to as the game went on. Don't think Seattle drops those. We need to get going on the line before we go with anything else in FA. Seriously, this kid needs to be protected, and he needs time.

He's got some scrappiness to him though. He wants to win and plays like it. That's half the reason he doesn't give up on many plays. We're gonna have to get on him about getting the ball out faster against some teams though. Especially under pressure. A ball control, defensive team can't afford sacks and turnovers.

He was starting to grow on me a bit in the Indy game but just too inconsistent to keep any confidence. Then again this was suppose to be a very slow start for him and the whole team in general this year. Looking forward to watching more film on him. Can't wait to see him at camp in horns.

 

[FRO]

That's uplifting

Foles won't be a star, but I think he should be solid for us. That's all we need.

 

[FRO]

I got through his first 2 games last night on rewind, and saw his game against the Rams obviously. I saw most of the Eagles games on nfl net last year, but not enough to form a full opinion. I'm going to watch the rest of his snaps before the injury then go back to the year before. His first game this year was awful. Literately terrible. The only reason they barely managed to win that game is because it was the Jags. Some improvement in the 2nd, but not a lot.

He needs time. He takes forever to get rid of the ball in situations. Lucky is a very good word to describe him as well in the turnover situation. There was 2 huge drops by the defenders in the Indy game that kept getting referred to as the game went on. Don't think Seattle drops those. We need to get going on the line before we go with anything else in FA. Seriously, this kid needs to be protected, and he needs time.

He's got some scrappiness to him though. He wants to win and plays like it. That's half the reason he doesn't give up on many plays. We're gonna have to get on him about getting the ball out faster against some teams though. Especially under pressure. A ball control, defensive team can't afford sacks and turnovers.

He was starting to grow on me a bit in the Indy game but just too inconsistent to keep any confidence. Then again this was suppose to be a very slow start for him and the whole team in general this year. Looking forward to watching more film on him. Can't wait to see him at camp in horns.

I remember him getting away with some terrible decisions and passes in the Rams game. I was hoping that was an anomaly.

 

[snackdaddy]

Almost sounds like a taller, stronger armed version of Austin Davis. I hope he works out. If Bradford has an awesome year and Foles gets demoted because of poor play, that can cost people their jobs.

 

[FRO]

Almost sounds like a taller, stronger armed version of Austin Davis. I hope he works out. If Bradford has an awesome year and Foles gets demoted because of poor play, that can cost people their jobs.

This year is do or die for a lot of people. It's a winning record or bust.

 

[RaminExile]

Almost sounds like a taller, stronger armed version of Austin Davis. I hope he works out. If Bradford has an awesome year and Foles gets demoted because of poor play, that can cost people their jobs.

But if Sam got hurt again and Snead and Fisher hadn't made a move to address that then that'd have cost them their jobs probably...

If Foles gets "demoted" (by which I guess we mean Austin Davis or Case Keenum take over at starter for any amount of time) then I don't think its as big of a deal. At least we tried to address the position - he's on a 1 year contract anyway so if it doesn't work out what the hey, and we address the position (hopefully) in the draft or FA next year. The FO have been proactive at least in trying to move the team forwards.

 

[mr.stlouis]

That's uplifting

Foles won't be a star, but I think he should be solid for us. That's all we need.

STL may very well be a better fit for him too, scheme wise. He's a tall QB that will have no problem spotting Cook breaking over the middle or seeing Tavon over the rush. He seems to have a lofty deep ball that bolds very well for Britt and Quick. Not so much for Maclin and D-Jax.

Bradford on the other hand is at his best in the hurry up. He is a better fit over there. Great trade both ways, really. Sam is better but we did get compensated for that, as we should, but on par to popular belief.

 

[Fatbot]

Sorry to go all Lewis Black, but referencing a "bad-decision metric"?? You gotta be shitting me!

Let me guess, this is probably one of the components of ESPN's amazingly awesome QBR crap, so Wagoner is forced to be a sell out and shill it?

Let's just test out "KC Joyner's metrics" on another fan-favorite QB: "Kaepernick is among the few quarterbacks who produce big ... while still expertly protecting the ball (1.6 percent bad-decision rate)"... "the metrics show us that Kaepernick has the ability to once again put this team into a conference championship game or Super Bowl".

So this schmuck (probably while jacking it with Jaworski) felt Krapperdouche was all smarts and destined for greatness, but Foles just lucky.

Uh, no, your metric shows that it isn't worth squat. I'm willing to bet there's zero predictive value or year-to-year correlation to it, it's just a random result of somebody's subjective opinion. And sorry but a QB "bad decision" is most often a product of a hundred other factors, like the opponent, his teammates, his coaches, his offensive scheme, etc. etc. etc.

Obviously Foles was lucky in 2013, you don't need some bogus made up "metric"... Leave that to Pro Football Focus please.

It certainly isn't going to convince me Foles sucks without giving him a chance with the Rams first.

 

[Marq]

But if Sam got hurt again and Snead and Fisher hadn't made a move to address that then that'd have cost them their jobs probably...

If Foles gets "demoted" (by which I guess we mean Austin Davis or Case Keenum take over at starter for any amount of time) then I don't think its as big of a deal. At least we tried to address the position - he's on a 1 year contract anyway so if it doesn't work out what the hey, and we address the position (hopefully) in the draft or FA next year. The FO have been proactive at least in trying to move the team forwards.

And don't forget he is next to free compared to Sam.

 

[Username]

Almost sounds like a taller, stronger armed version of Austin Davis. I hope he works out. If Bradford has an awesome year and Foles gets demoted because of poor play, that can cost people their jobs.

He's got Shurmur again, and we all know how well he can run a no huddle offense. Problem is even if he doesn't get hurt this year, what about next? Are we to believe that he's just going to go injury free the rest of his career? And if it is this year, then you've blown this opportunity, and swallowed his cap. I love Sam and his would've love to see his talent materialize here, but it just didn't happen. It's sad as fuck, because we had finally surrounded him with talent, and continuity to the point of this crescendo, then he got re-injured in the fucking preseason of all things. There just comes a time that you have to move on.

You can also look at it this way. Even if Foles doesn't pan out to be a future player on this team, if he AT LEAST finishes the season, he'll provide us with more than Sam has in the past 2 seasons. Hurts to say, but it's true.

You can also look at it this way... The team will probably be in Los Angles next year. So none of this is probably relevant to me anyway.

 

[BatteringRambo]

I don't have the time or knowledge of some of you that have either or both abilities but.... as I recall how many of his KEY o - line was out? Stud center Kelce 6-8 weeks sports hernia, Mathis several weeks, Lane Johnson 4 game suspension, Allen Barber season ending...just from memory this was mid September. I rest my case.

Where was Ertz last season when Foles did play? I remember Celek eventually supplanting him.

On final point, how in the hell does Pat Shumur " West Coast", the titled o - coordinator fit in with Chip's spread offense.

I think we hit fuckin gold with Foles. I love it and this was epic to change where we need to go as a team!

 

[FRO]

I don't have the time or knowledge of some of you that have either or both abilities but.... as I recall how many of his KEY o - line was out? Stud center Kelce 6-8 weeks sports hernia, Mathis several weeks, Lane Johnson 4 game suspension, Allen Barber season ending...just from memory this was mid September. I rest my case.

Where was Ertz last season when Foles did play? I remember Celek eventually supplanting him.

On final point, how in the hell does Pat Shumur " West Coast", the titled o - coordinator fit in with Chip's spread offense.

I think we hit freakin gold with Foles. I love it and this was epic to change where we need to go as a team!

Well to be fair our line could be equally bad as the one he had last year.

 

[Mojo Ram]

He does show those traits at times, but Foles was also about the “luckiest” QB in the NFL in 2013.

I'll take that over having the unluckiest QB in the league.

 

[shaunpinney]

I've not seen much of him TBH, but form the bits I've watched recently, most come with WR's out in the open, so I'm not sure yet, whether he was good because his WRs gave him easy targets? I've seen Sam throw into traffic and small windows, I've yet to see that from Foles (in what I've seen) So my judgement is still out there and until I see him play in horns, I'm going to reserve judgement, but at the moment I'm pessimistic about it all.

I still see him as an upgrade on our 2nd stringers and not necessarily a #1 - please prove wrong Foles...

 

[Mojo Ram]

I still see him as an upgrade on our 2nd stringers and not necessarily a #1

Agreed. If he plays 16 games and doesn't lose games like Davis and Hill did last season then we've got our stop-gap solution. If he plays very well we look to extend him.

Would rather have a healthy Sam because at this point he's a better QB, but this defense is ready to win a playoff game or two NOW. We just need Foles to come in strong, confident and healthy and make some plays and not lose games.

 

[brokeu91]

I still see him as an upgrade on our 2nd stringers and not necessarily a #1 - please prove wrong Foles...

This is the only way that I feel this trade was a good one. If the Rams feel that Bradford wouldn't stay healthy and we'd have to play our #2 QB anyway, then I see this as a plus. But in no way, shape, or form, does Foles have the arm talent that Bradford has.

 

[FRO]

This is the only way that I feel this trade was a good one. If the Rams feel that Bradford wouldn't stay healthy and we'd have to play our #2 QB anyway, then I see this as a plus. But in no way, shape, or form, does Foles have the arm talent that Bradford has.

We don't need him to. We need solid QB play. Let's hope Foles can provide that. He is coming from a system that made Mark Sanchez look competent.

 

[Stranger]

He is coming from a system that made Mark Sanchez look competent

I really didn't need to hear this right now

 

[shaunpinney]

Agreed. If he plays 16 games and doesn't lose games like Davis and Hill did last season then we've got our stop-gap solution. If he plays very well we look to extend him.

Would rather have a healthy Sam because at this point he's a better QB, but this defense is ready to win a playoff game or two NOW. We just need Foles to come in strong, confident and healthy and make some plays and not lose games.

Thats the key... BUT... I also think that our D needs to be awake on Week 1. and not make it an uphill struggle for whoever it is at QB. I guess I'm just melancholic because I was hoping for a stellar year this year from Sam - FOR the Rams.

This is the only way that I feel this trade was a good one. If the Rams feel that Bradford wouldn't stay healthy and we'd have to play our #2 QB anyway, then I see this as a plus. But in no way, shape, or form, does Foles have the arm talent that Bradford has.

This right here is the truth I think, I think they lost the faith in the physicality and durability of Sam. Foles is an upgrade of our #2 from last year, that I have faith in.