Foles To KC?

Posted: February 15th, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 91 Comments »

Late on Thursday a report surfaced saying that the Chiefs (and Andy Reid) might be interested in trading for Nick Foles.  Shortly thereafter, multiple reporters said that the Eagles are not interested in trading Foles since the team is very high on him.

Let’s go through this thoroughly.

Would KC have interest?  Sure.  Do you realize how bad the Chiefs QBs were in 2012?  As a group, they threw for 2,937 yards and 8 TDs.  In less than half a season, Foles threw for 1,699 yards and 6 TDs.  His rating was 15 points higher than Chiefs QBs.

Kansas City is desperate for a QB.  Matt Cassell, Brady Quinn, and Ricky Stanzi could all be out of the league in 2013.  The Chiefs literally have nothing.  Foles would be a major upgrade for them.  The question you have is how high Reid and Doug Pederson are on Foles.  I’m assuming they like him a lot.

With no QB being worth the top pick in the draft, KC trading for Foles makes even more sense.  Plus, he knows the system the Chiefs will run and he’s already got NFL experience.  If Reid wants to win in 2013, trading for Foles might be the smartest course of action.

Would the Eagles be willing to deal Foles?  Yes. You’ll hear lots of talk about how high the team is on him and that may be true to a certain extent, but Foles isn’t Chip Kelly’s fantasy QB.  There’s no way around that fact.

I know many people think Foles cannot play for Kelly.  I disagree with that.  Kelly can tailor his offense to the QB.  At Oregon, the QBs weren’t the best passers in the world, but were mobile.  He used them in the run game.  As Kelly himself has said, if he had Tom Brady there would be no QB running.

Clearly this isn’t meant to compare Foles and Brady.  The point is that the playbook has the read option in it, but that isn’t all Kelly can do.  He can run a conventional offense where the QB hands the ball of and throws passes.  Kelly’s preferred offense involves feeding the ball to RBs and mixing in play-action passes.  He doesn’t want his QB running.

Tim Tebow had more than 200 runs in 2 of his 3 seasons as the starting QB at Florida.  Urban Meyer’s offense was at it’s best with the QB running.  Meyer got to Ohio State this year and QB Braxton Miller had 227 carries.  Alex Smith was over 135 in his 2 years with Meyer.  Chip Kelly did not have an Oregon QB go above 127 runs in a season.  He had a couple of years where the QB had less than 90.

Kelly wants the RB to be the workhorse.  He wants the QB to distribute the ball.  Tebow would be lost in this offense.  He wants to be the workhorse.  And that’s why he’s struggled to adjust to the NFL.  You don’t want the QB keeping the ball.  He’s also a bad passer.

I can’t stress enough when trying to understand Kelly’s offense that the QB must be a good passer first and a runner second.  If you just run the ball, the defense is going to load the box.  That is going to make things difficult.  Kelly wants balance.  The QB has to be a good passer so the defense plays back and that gives room for the RB to run.  Kelly can adjust for a less mobile QB, but I think he’d be lost if the QB wasn’t an effective passer.

Foles isn’t what Kelly envisions as a QB, but Kelly does appreciate Foles ability as a passer.  I think that’s why he’s willing to keep Foles around and see what they could do together.  If Foles had not played in 2012, I bet Kelly would have little interest in keeping him.  I think Kelly saw some moments that really interested him.  Kelly’s not thinking “I can’t win without a runner.”  Kelly is thinking “What would I do with a QB who can throw like that.”

Because Foles isn’t his ideal QB and the team isn’t married to him as a franchise type player, he is available in a trade.  Kelly might like him, but you can bet Foles is available.

What is Foles value?  This is where things get tricky.  The Eagles aren’t giving Foles away.  At the very least, he’s got value as a backup QB.  We know that you need 2 QBs in the NFL.  Foles may not be universally loved, but the guy showed last year that he can play.  He’s got NFL ability.

I asked someone who is an NFL expert, but not an Eagles fan what he thought Foles value might be.  He guessed a 4th round pick.  At that point, I’d just keep Foles.  You could deal him for that pick and spend a mid-round pick on a new QB, but there is no guarantee the new guy would pan out.  Foles isn’t a proven quality starter, but he can be a backup.

If the Chiefs offered their 3rd round pick, you’d have to think long and hard about the deal.  That’s a good pick and could net you a quality player.  You would need a good backup QB to replace Foles.  If there are a couple of prospects you like and think you could get in the mid rounds, this deal would make some sense.  You’ve already gotten a season out of Foles.  You spent a 3rd to get him.  If you could get that in return and felt he was replaceable via the draft, go for it.

If the Chiefs offer their 2nd round pick…yes.  Yes.  Yes. Yes.

What would the Chiefs be willing to pay?  I have no idea.  Really depends on how much Reid likes Foles, what Reid thinks of the QB class, and the timetable he’s on.  KC has had one winning season in the last 6 years.

2012 – 2-14
2011 – 7-9
2010 – 10-6
2009 – 4-12
2008 – 2-14
2007 – 4-12

I didn’t realize just how bad things had been out there.  Does Clark Hunt tell Reid to take his time and get the team fixed?  Does he encourage Reid to be aggressive and get them back to a respectable level right away?  Remember that KC had 6 Pro Bowl players.  Adding the right QB to the mix could make a huge difference.  The Raiders are still a mess.  The Chargers are hard to believe in.  KC could be 2nd in the AFC West with the right QB and better coaching.

There will be lots of reports and rumors regarding Foles, Kelly, the Eagles, and the Chiefs.  Listen to everything, but believe nothing…unless you read it on Iggles Blitz.  That guy is never wrong.

* * * * *

Charles Woodson was cut by the Packers.  Could he be of interest?  Possible.  The Eagles have not yet finished evaluating the current roster.  Once that is done the coaches will get with the Personnel Dept and start putting together an offseason plan.  You can bet they will address Safety aggressively, whether in FA, the draft, or both.

Woodson isn’t a traditional Safety, but is good in a LB/S/CB role where he moves around and does different things.  His cover skills have slipped, but he is still a playmaker and that gives him value.  Amazing to think he’ll turn 37 in October.  Might be best suited to being a #3 Safety and Nickel/Dime LB type from this point on.

* * * * *

Jimmy Bama and I did a podcast last night.  We talked Mike Vick, Nick Foles, Dennis Dixon, Tom Gamble, and snuck in some Jon Gruden / Cowboys talk at the end.


91 Comments on “Foles To KC?”

  1. 1 Tom33 said at 1:53 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    As far as value goes – I think Foles has shown enough in some starts that he has a chance to play. A second would be reasonable, but probably not the #33 pick in the draft. I think the Eagles would want as many picks this year since they are reshaping their roster, so a pick at the top of the 3rd round wouldn’t be unthinkable. I think I’d pass if it was just a 4th round pick.

  2. 2 Iskar36 said at 3:07 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    A 4th round pick, even the Chiefs 4th which is 96th (as of right now before compensation picks are added), seems like poor value for Foles. However, anywhere from the mid to early 3rd round (or earlier) would be a good trade in my mind with the caveat that Foles does not fit the long term plans at QB under Chip Kelly. If Kelly believes he can develop Foles into the type of QB he wants long-term, no way you can trade him for anything other than a high 2nd round or earlier pick.

    I also agree that I think it is unlikely that the Chiefs would give us the 34th pick (Jacksonville picks first in the 2nd round) in exchange for Foles.

  3. 3 xeynon said at 3:24 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I think it depends on what Foles’ ceiling is as a player, not how he fits into the system – i.e., talent matters more than system at QB. If his ceiling is “Pro Bowl QB”, then trading him for a third round pick is stupid unless you have another Pro Bowl QB already on the roster who does fit the system, which we don’t. If it’s just “average starter”, dumping him isn’t such a big deal. Unless he shows a better command of the playbook and a better deep ball next year, I’m skeptical that he’ll ever be anything better than average, but those are things he could improve on. That we don’t know yet what his ceiling is is part of what makes to deal him a tough decision.

  4. 4 Iskar36 said at 3:46 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    This certainly is not an easy decision at all. That is why I added the comment “with the caveat that…”. To me, there is a lot of thought that needs to go into that aspect before you can move forward with any decision.

    Still, I don’t fully agree with your “talent matters more than system at QB” comment, at least in terms of the way I interpreted how you implied it. Regardless of scheme, I think you need to have talent in order to be successful. But I think there are plenty of examples of very talented QBs that were put into the wrong schemes and despite their talents, could not be successful. I think a “Pro Bowl QB” put into the wrong scheme will struggle.

    Looking at it from the other angle, I think every coach has certain ideas on what will make a successful offense and defense, and overall team. That will often include certain skill sets he values more than others at certain positions. While those types of things should not strictly dictate how he runs the team, I think they do have important value that you need to balance when considering keeping a player or not. Otherwise, the coach is no longer building a team he actually believes can be successful.

    As for Foles, I am not making any judgment whether or not he fits the skill sets Chip Kelly believes in. I am simply stating that IF he doesn’t, trading him is probably the best option.

  5. 5 xeynon said at 6:12 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    OK, don’t think I was totally clear with what I was trying to say.. it’s not that a talented QB will thrive in any system he plays in. It’s that the best coaches/teams, when they have a talented QB, build the offense around his skill set, rather than being married to a particular philosophy and jettisoning a good quarterback who doesn’t fit it. The Steelers used to be a ground-and-pound, ball control offense, but once they got Roethlisberger they made the downfield passing game a far bigger part of their offensive philosophy and brought in guys like Mike Wallace and Antonio Brown to provide targets for him. The Colts acquired quick, well-conditioned players who were well-suited to Peyton Manning’s audible-and-no huddle heavy style of signal calling. The Pats shifted toward the passing game once it became clear Brady was elite. And so on. I think the coaches who get into trouble tend to be the ones who are so in love with their system that they think having the right type of quarterback is more important than having a really talented quarterback. If you’re choosing between Foles the so-so starter and player X the so-so starter who fits the system better, it makes sense to choose player X. But if it’s a choice between Foles the very-good-to-excellent starter and player X the mediocre starter, it’s better to choose Foles and tweak the system rather than choose player X so you can keep the system without altering it. And since we don’t know whether Nick Foles ca. 2015 will be the guy in scenario A or the guy in scenario B, the whole situation is very risky.

  6. 6 mcud said at 1:54 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Seems like we just had this conversation… 😉

  7. 7 TommyLawlor said at 1:59 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    So true.

  8. 8 mcud said at 1:57 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I would not entertain offers that were less than a 2nd round pick. No way.

  9. 9 TommyLawlor said at 2:02 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    For me the 3rd only makes sense if there are a couple of mid-round QBs I really like or if Kelly has very little interest in Foles.

  10. 10 Tom33 said at 2:07 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Normally I’d agree, but since KC is picking at the top of the 2nd round I think the value of that pick may be a bit high.

  11. 11 mcud said at 2:10 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Having a mid-round QB you like doesn’t preclude you from keeping Foles. Edwards should have the Ryder truck reserved already, and Dixon may just be here to help the new QB adjust to the system.

  12. 12 TommyLawlor said at 2:49 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Nothing has to happen. Reason to deal him would be to replace him with guy you felt was a better fit for Kelly’s system and still have good resources for improving the overall team. 3rd round pick this year could be a potential starter at another spot.

  13. 13 GermanEagle said at 3:03 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Unless this someone is called Bryan Smith…

  14. 14 xeynon said at 3:20 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Ugh… thanks for bringing the memory of that pick back. A 24 y/o 230 pound defensive end from a tiny school in the third round? That is a draft reach.

  15. 15 yomama said at 1:58 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Somewhat related re: Gamble and Alex Smith…. Certainly, Gamble would have a strong opinion re: Smith and would also have the advantage of knowing the Niners’ plans, at least through last week. Yet, with the Vick signing and talk of Foles, the connection has been somewhat glossed over. Is it because “we” are all accepting of Smith being a scrub? What if Gamble thinks differently? What if Gamble “knows” the Niners were getting no inquiries and are prepared to dump him? I find this interesting, but maybe I need a hobby and/or I’m desperate for a QB that doesn’t rhyme with Sick.

  16. 16 TommyLawlor said at 2:03 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I think keeping Vick makes Smith irrelevant.

    Smith isn’t a player you commit to long term. With Vick, you’ve already got your stop-gap veteran QB in place.

  17. 17 Al said at 3:21 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Smith had a great year in 2011 and an even better year last year until he got hurt. He’s 28, efficient and doesn’t turn the ball over a lot. I sure hope keeping Vick doesn’t make a QB like that irrelevant. If we were to be able to get a guy like Smith, wouldn’t we then be able to move Vick for a late pick and wouldn’t that be an upgrade?

  18. 18 xeynon said at 3:25 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    My opinion is that it depends on what it would cost to get Smith. A 4th round pick or less, I’d do it in a heartbeat. Anything more than that, I’d be hesitant, and I think it might cost more than that.

  19. 19 TommyLawlor said at 3:58 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Smith didn’t have a great year in 2011. He was good, nothing more. A lot of that was the SF offensive scheme. They focused on the run and used him carefully. In the last 2 years, Smith only has 1 300-yard game. He only got above 275 yards 2 more times.

    When the run game struggled, he was exposed. In the NFC title game, he complete one pass to a WR. 1. The SF offense was terrible.

    Smith did play well this year, but the offense was still night and day with Kaepernick. Smith had 6 games of 30 or more points in 1 1/2 years. Kaep had 5 in less than a full season. Smith is solid, but nothing more.

  20. 20 holeplug said at 4:29 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Smith also takes a ton of sacks. 9% last year and 9.9% this past season which was dead last of qualified QBs. League leaders usually around 3.5%. And its not like SF has a bad offensive line.

  21. 21 Al said at 4:38 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Good response! I seem to be a little higher on Smith than I should be. The grass is always greener, I guess… but how frustrating would it be if we opened this year to a Vick performance like in Cleveland? I want to picture Vick being better under Kelly’s scheme, I’ve just seen so much bad out of the past 2 years it’s hard to do.

  22. 22 ian_no_2 said at 2:04 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    This makes perfect sense. Foles’ value is at his highest, and he wants to move away from a possible read option – keep em honest O to Andy’s WCO where he thrived at least in preseason and at times. Andy’s pickins are slim and he knows what he’s got with Foles.

  23. 23 Arby1 said at 2:33 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    “Foles’ value is at his highest”
    I don’t agree with that even if Foles doesn’t start the season, there’s a good chance he’ll start 3 or 4 games given Vick’s penchant for injury. What if he won every game he started behind a much improved O-line? If Foles doesn’t play at all, then yeah, it probably would’ve been better to part with him earlier. I just don’t see that happening.

  24. 24 Ark87 said at 2:47 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I thought the same way, but if you picked up another developmental type QB that has a tool-set that meshes better with the system, it has to be considered. This also opened up another line of thought. We’ve seen over and over cases where QB’s excel with Andy and his system, we trade them and they don’t do squat anywhere else. Truth be told, going to KC with Andy might be the best thing for Nick and his Career. If Foles can’t do squat in a non-Reid system (like every other young QB we’ve had) then we would be better for getting some value out of trading Foles. I really like Nick as a player/personality etc…but suddenly I can’t discount that a trade to KC might be the best thing for all parties.

  25. 25 Arby1 said at 5:51 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    “developmental type QB”
    Don’t see any QB’s in this year’s draft that fit that description for CK’s system which may be why we picked up Dixon.

  26. 26 Phils Goodman said at 11:03 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    EJ Manuel, Matt Scott

  27. 27 Arby1 said at 8:40 AM on February 16th, 2013:

    EJ Manuel didn’t look that good at Senior bowl practices but you never know if Kelly thinks he can work with him. I know he wanted him at Oregon. Guess I’m just assuming Foles > Manuel or Scott but it all depends on how scheme specific Kelly turns out to be. We’ll find out on draft day or if Foles is dealt beforehand.

  28. 28 ian_no_2 said at 2:55 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I should have said “Foles value is almost certainly at its highest.” If he plays like Johnny Unitas in ’13 he would have a higher value, yes. But Foles’ value comes primarily from his third round contract which ties him up for three more years, and the fact that he exceeded expectations as a rookie. If Andy likes Foles, the KC brass has been reeling from investing too much dough in Matt Cassell, making cap space too limited in other areas. Also, next offseason there will be more QB in both the draft and free agency. This is simultaneously the worst draft, and the worst FA offseason, for QBs. But yes, there’s always the Unitas scenario, which there is with someone else like Dixon.

  29. 29 Arby1 said at 5:49 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I don’t think he has to play like Unitas, he simply has to take a step up and continue what he’s achieved in his first year under difficult circumstances and I think that will happen if he gets playing time, “if” being the operative word. As I said in the previous thread, if he doesn’t fit the scheme, then maybe it’s better to move on now.

  30. 30 A_T_G said at 10:29 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    But if he exceeded expectations as a third round pick, isn’t trading him for a pick of equal value (a round higher a year later) a bad decision? At best, the player you draft also exceeds expectations, at a less important position, and you break even. At worst, the guy you draft watches Foles win from his couch next to Jaquain Jarrett.

  31. 31 ian_no_2 said at 11:47 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    A 2013 2nd is worth more than a 2012 3rd, especially since the 2012 draft is over and you can’t pick anyone in it now.

  32. 32 A_T_G said at 12:05 AM on February 16th, 2013:

    Oh, but we can. We can pick a QB with proven NFL ability.

    But despite the snark, I think the year later, round higher standard is pretty well established.

  33. 33 fran35 said at 2:22 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    No No No. Maybe a 2nd rounder, but even that scares me. I legitimately think Foles has a shot to be a good QB. I believe in him. If we allow him to go to KC and thrive with the Hamburglar there will be mass suicides in Philly. I think Foles is our best QB on the roster at this point.

  34. 34 Arby1 said at 2:25 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    “Hamburglar”! LOL.

    I agree – no way do we part with Foles for anything less than a 2nd #34.

  35. 35 TommyLawlor said at 2:51 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    If Kelly believes in Nick, he’ll keep him around unless the offer is too good to pass up. If Kelly only kinda believes in Nick, the price tag comes down quite a bit.

  36. 36 holeplug said at 4:16 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Think Kelly made it clear he only kinda believes in Foles by keeping Vick around.

  37. 37 xeynon said at 2:56 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    If they trade Foles to KC and he thrives there, the Eagles had better win and win fast with whoever’s playing QB for them. If they don’t Chip’s honeymoon will be over very, very fast.

  38. 38 Iskar36 said at 3:01 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I agree that Foles is our best QB on the roster right now, but I don’t know that that means all that much with what we currently have. It is essential for the success of this franchise that Chip Kelly finds a QB that can fit what he wants to do on offense. If Foles can be that guy, great. Keep him and build your offense with him at QB. If Kelly believes running his offense requires a different skill set though, I strongly believe the team starts with the coaches image of the team and needs to be built with that in mind. So you need to move towards that, which ultimately means moving away from Foles at some point.

  39. 39 CalSFro said at 2:42 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I still feel like we’ve got to give Chip and Howie the benefit of the doubt before we condemn or praise any decisions they’ve made, at least until games start to be won and lost. And as a first year coach with no prior NFL experience and a young up and coming GM, there are going to be some bumps and bruises and lots of little learning moments.

    But, that being said…I’ll admit to feeling a lot of trepidation at the moment. Not fear or impending doom or anything ridiculous. Just…trepidation.

    I don’t think any move he’s made so far has been wrong. I think bringing Vick back on a short term, “show me” deal was smart. I think bringing in a guy in Dennis Dixon who knows the system and would be fine as a third stringer was smart. I like where the team is at with the QB position right now.

    But the tipping point for me would be to deal Foles, unless it was for that 34th pick at the top of round 2. And even then, as much as I’d love the value in that deal, I still wouldn’t feel great about it. He showed enough last year that you’ve got to give him a chance. And to me, dealing him before he can compete would signal that Chip is a little more married to a scheme than he’d like to admit.

  40. 40 TommyLawlor said at 2:52 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Good thoughts. How he handles Foles and adding a QB in the draft will tell us a lot about Chip.

  41. 41 xeynon said at 3:00 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    My sentiments exactly. Your point about such a deal showing that Kelly is more in love with his scheme than he wants to admit is especially sharp.

    I’d think about dealing Foles for the #34 pick, but only if I had another option besides Vick and Dixon lined up already.

  42. 42 Iskar36 said at 3:21 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Good points, but I do think there is value to having a scheme. I absolutely believe Kelly can not simply bring over his offense at Oregon and be successful in the NFL, so I don’t think bringing over the scheme he had there entirely makes any sense. Still, Kelly should not be coming into the NFL and all of a sudden re-invent his offense. Instead, he needs to adapt it to his personnel and to the league. To me that means that certain things absolutely will change while other things will remain the same from a scheme standpoint. Some of the things that may or may not change are the types of skills he is looking for in a QB. We still have no idea how he will adjust to the NFL, but I’d rather him find the QB with the skill set he is looking for within his offense than for him to re-invent his offense to fit a guy we still don’t know will be successful or not long term.

    Having said that, once he has a roster in place he BELIEVES can run his offense successfully, that is where I hope he tweaks and fine tunes it further to maximize the skills of the players he has.

  43. 43 SteveH said at 2:46 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I must like Foles more than you Tommy, because a 2nd rounder makes me hesitant. We don’t know if Foles will be good in the long run, but if we trade him away we literally have an aging Mike Vick on the roster and then nothing. Literally nothing. Considering how hard it is to get a good QB in this league, I’d much rather give Foles an extended look rather than trading him away before we know if we can play, because for all we know it could be years before another good QB prospect comes down the pike, and even high end prospects flame out all the time. Imo if you’ve got a guy who could be “the guy” you have to give him a shot, because if you don’t have a QB you’ve got nothing.

  44. 44 TommyLawlor said at 2:55 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I’m not looking to run Nick out of town. All depends on what Chip truly thinks of Foles. We don’t know what his value is to the Eagles and the other 31 teams. Do they see him as a viable starter or a mystery with potential?

    Not everyone in the NFL is sold on Foles. I just can’t say if that’s 5 percent, 15 percent, or 50 percent. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

  45. 45 xeynon said at 3:17 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    If Reid really does want to trade for him, then he wasn’t blowing smoke when he said he thinks highly of him, and that says a lot to me – for all his faults, Andy has a much longer and more distinguished track record evaluating QB talent than Chip Kelly does. I’m not quite ready to go to “In Chip We Trust” levels with decisions he makes about the direction of this team myself.

  46. 46 eagles2zc said at 9:03 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I personally don’t see much of a track record. There’s McNabb and mayyybe Vick, although, Vick regressed to the mean while also on Reid’s watch. Then there’s Feeley and Kolb, who were serviceable but nothing special. Then there’s also Kafka and VY.

  47. 47 xeynon said at 9:09 AM on February 16th, 2013:

    Must also consider the QBs Reid really liked over the years but wasn’t in a position to draft – Russell Wilson, RG3, Drew Brees, etc.

  48. 48 phillyfan1987 said at 3:26 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    many people have a “the guy” when they inherit a new team..but Foles nor Vick seems like “Chip’s Guy”…Alex smith and Matt Flynn may be “the guy” for somebody just not for Harbaugh and Carrol. If he isn’t we dont need to keep him to make him feel better, get compensation now and dont set him up for failure later, the longer we keep him, if he isnt the guy, the more we lose value esp. if we are going to draft a QB.

  49. 49 aub32 said at 7:14 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I wouldn’t think twice if anyone foolishly offered up a 2nd for Foles. He showed some good things, but it’s not like he displayed RG3, Luck, Tannehill, Flacco, Big Ben, Wilson, etc. like ability. He had very little success, in terms of wins, than the previous guys mentioned in their rookie seasons. Not to mention he was in a system that featured check downs and screens and was run by a coach who made Feely, Detmer, Kolb, and Garcia look great in backup roles. Foles may just be Reid’s latest illusion.

    I do get that you need someone else on the team and for that I would look towards drafting a guy in the third. Think about it this way. The Chiefs have the 34th pick. That means your getting a guy probably with first round talent who slipped. This could be our CB, S, NT,or SOLB that we desperately need. Another QB, that will be a better fit for Kelly, can be added in the third round.

  50. 50 Iskar36 said at 2:57 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    This is the quote from PFT about the Eagles not planning on trading Foles:

    But Foles might not be so readily available despite the Eagles electing to keep Michael Vick and signing Dennis Dixon to a two-year deal on Thursday. According to, the Eagles have “no plans to trade Foles” unless they are “blown away with an offer.”

    Other articles I have read reporting the same thing have phrased it similarly in that “unless they are blown away with an offer” was an added modifier. While that modifier is fairly obvious for any player, I think the fact that it was added strongly suggests that they absolutely would be willing to trade him if they can get good compensation.

    The Eagles are obviously not going to say, “We are planning on trading Foles” because if they can’t find a good trade partner, they don’t want to ruin the relationship between Foles and the coach/FO. So to me, this message is a fairly strong indication that they want to quietly shop Foles around and determine if they like the market for him.

    As for compensation for Foles, just like how I view Graham, if Kelly believes he doesn’t fit long term as a good option in his system, he is a good player that you are better off getting value out of now than cutting later because of poor fit. Even as a backup, if Foles can’t do what Kelly wants from his QB (which I’m certainly not arguing is in fact the case), he is not a great option. If the Eagles can get a 3rd rounder in return from Foles, I think it is definitely worth the trade. I will also point out that if we are talking specifically about the Chiefs, we are talking about picks at the very beginning of each round rather than later in the round. You can absolutely get some quality players at those spots. If the Chiefs were considering their 2nd round pick, to me, that is an absolute no-brainer.

  51. 51 xeynon said at 3:15 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I think you may be reading a bit too much into what’s between the lines here. In practice, “we’re not trading player X unless we’re blown away by an offer” is what tends to be said about any player who’s considered a solid asset but not so good as to be untouchable. There are no players on this Eagles roster in that category so I’m sure they’re open to trading anybody – doesn’t mean they are actively looking to do so.

  52. 52 Iskar36 said at 3:29 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Usually when a guy is not likely to be traded, either they do not talk about that player at all or they very emphatically deny the rumors. I don’t usually remember reading the “unless we’re blown away” modifier.

    Don’t get me wrong though. I’m not saying the Eagles are looking to force a trade by any means. I think the statement is relatively factual. They are not going to trade Foles for nothing. But I also think “blown away” does not have to mean 1st or 2nd round pick. I just think that the message means that they will certainly listen to offers.

  53. 53 phillyfan1987 said at 3:34 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I will take exchanging first round picks…make sure we can get exactly who we want….i dont see them giving up a 2nd rounder…maybe third and a late rounder or just a third

  54. 54 ACViking said at 3:44 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Re: Measuring True Value


    Your value analysis of Foles makes great sense. And if Kelly sees Foles as essentially a back-up or bridge, but nothing more, than moving him for value makes sense.

    I think there’s an argument or two to be made for trading Foles for KC’s 3rd or even 4th Rd picks. And if Kelly doesn’t see Foles as the future, then swapping him for KC’s 2014 2nd rounder (equal to a 3rd rounder this year) may make sense.

    But focusing on this year . . .

    KC is choosing at the top of every odd-numbered round and drafting second in every even numbered round (I believe that’s right). The Jags were 2-14 also, but had the tougher schedule. So the Chiefs go first in the odd rounds.

    So turning to Rd. 3 . . . I think it’s fair to argue that the value of the Chiefs’ 3rd round pick — the first choice in Rd 3 — is, essentially, the same as a late 2nd round pick. Particularly the way Roseman has explained how he arrays his draft board (or as I understand how he does it).

    Would you swap Foles — who Kelly sees as a backup — for a late 2nd rounder (irrespective of the arguments that follow regarding the additional draft-day flexibility a pick like that would give the Eagles)?

    Moving to the 4th Rd, the Chiefs have the second pick with the Jags getting the first Rd 4 pick.

    If you agree the second choice in the 4th Rd is essentially a late 3rd rounder — and Foles is not the future — then you may have just picked up some sizable ammunition to move around the draft board . . . up into the heart of Rd 3 with the Eagles tossing in a lower pick of their own. Or trading KC’s 4th Rounder for a lower 4th and another pick or two. We’ve seen that kind of handiwork in the past from the Eagles.

    Adding KC’s 3rd Rd pick adds the same kind of flexibility. Even more.

    The goal I would think — whether or not Kelly’s sees Foles as more than a future back-up — is to get as many new, young players on the roster as possible. I hope that’s the goal . . . and not a bunch of 6th and 7th rounders, either.

    Finally, looking at the Chief’s 2nd Rd pick, No. 34 overall, it seems reasonable to view No. 34 as a late 1st rounder at a lower cost. (The Eagles happen to choose next at No. 35.)

    The Chiefs have all night to consider whom they want to choose and only the Jaguars select before KC. Having all night to reboot the draft board may make pick No. 34 (and No. 35) even more valuable than choices 30-32 in Rd 1.

    But I’d be shocked to see the Chief part with No. 34 even up for Foles.

    If you’re the Eagles, however, and think that those extra 12 or so hours substantially increases the ordinal value of pick No. 34, maybe you package Foles and another choice to get it.

    That would give the Eagles 3 of the first 35 picks in the draft.

    But I assume that would depend on how your draft board looks.

    Hypothetically, if Kelly and Roseman see players 25-35 on their board relatively equally rated, but a noticeable drop between 36 and 55 (which means and even bigger drop by the time the Eagles pick at No. 67 in Rd 3), then whey not jump up to No. 35. I’m not saying the Eagles should give up Foles and a 3rd to KC’s 2nd. Maybe, maybe not. That just seems awfully pricey — unless the drop in talent is huge after No. 35.

    The Eagles can use their own 3rd Rd (No. 67) to move back and recover any additional pick sent to KC. (Done last year to get back the extra pick used in the Fletcher Cox deal.)

    Just trying to throw a wrench in your arguments, T-LAW!!!

    I still think 2013 should be focused on “out with the old, in with the new.” I like Foles but if he’s not CK’s Megan Fox, the move him.

  55. 55 Iskar36 said at 3:49 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    In terms of KC’s 3rd round pick, because the Saints forfeited 2nd rounder as well as the Browns taking Josh Gordon in the 2nd round of the supplemental draft last year, KC’s 3rd round pick is actually equivalent to the 31st pick in the 2nd round.

  56. 56 ACViking said at 3:52 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Yes. I noted the Eagles 3rd round pick is No. 67, not No. 69. But I didn’t explain why.

    Thanks for making that clear. And adding some ballast to the argument!

    Damn good.

  57. 57 Phils Goodman said at 6:51 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    If the Eagles are open to moving Foles, the #62 pick would be a fair price for the Chiefs to pay. If they give you the #34 pick, that is an offer that can’t be refused.

  58. 58 D-von said at 4:38 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I’ve said this on other sites and I’ll say it here. It makes no sense to trade any of the QBs on the roster until Kelly gets a chance to personally evaluate them and that means after OTAs and Training Camp

  59. 59 Arby1 said at 6:17 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    We got Wang! (to go with Cox) Can Bush be far away?

  60. 60 xeynon said at 8:33 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    We didn’t do so well with the last Chinese player we signed (Timmy Chang). Hopefully we have better luck this time. The guy does have good genes (his parents were both members of the Chinese Olympic team).

  61. 61 Baloophi said at 9:19 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    This is a dream come true. Actually, if we could add Patrick Chung, then everybody could have fun tonight.

  62. 62 Arby1 said at 4:45 PM on February 16th, 2013:

    It took a post in the next thread to put that one together. Softballs please, sir.

  63. 63 Iskar36 said at 6:57 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    So one question I have with all the Foles to KC talk is, even if AR had serious interest, does the leaking of this news sound very AResque? I don’t know a thing about KC’s front office and maybe they are a lot more likely to let these types of rumors spread compared to the Eagles, but the original article stated that AR himself was interested in Foles. I just have a hard time believing he would let that kind of rumor get out, especially when if true (which you would never be able to prove) it could be considered tampering (something the league would unlikely be able/interested in doing anything against). Still, how likely or unlikely is it that this rumor is more a writer connecting some dots and making a reasonable guess or an agent without any real knowledge feeding this rumor?

  64. 64 NFL Philadelphia Eagles Team ProMark Iphone 4 Phone Case | Logo | Shop Here For All of Your Iphone/Ipad Extras said at 7:16 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    […] Titans Team ProMark Iphone 4 Phone CaseOrder NFL Tennessee Titans Team ProMark Iphone 4 Phone CaseIggles Blitz function breakfree() { if ( top.location != self.location ) { top.location = self.location; } […]

  65. 65 aub32 said at 7:35 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t see how a guy with one win (against the worse passing D in the league), 5 Ints (could’ve easily been double that), 8 fumbles, and only 6 TDs is untradable. Am I missing something? He has decent intangibles, but failed to win in a system tailored to hide his flaws for a coach that has made many a backup look like a starter in this league. Yet fans appear to be enamored by Foles as some sort of great commodity. In my opinion, Foles is worth maybe a 4th, but I wouldn’t trade him for less than a 3rd only because we don’t have a viable backup. However, the people who wouldn’t trade him for even a 2nd sound silly. The best thing he did was not implode. I get that he was a rookie, but this isn’t a decade ago. Rookies today are winning games, even with bad teams. Wilson, RG3, and Luck all went to teams that were worse than the Eagles in 2011. Yet they all won games and took their teams to the playoffs. I get we haven’t had a rookie QB start since McNabb, but we are judging by the wrong standards. Look at Dalton. The team he took over had the 3rd overall pick, and he took them to the playoffs. Based on what we’ve seen, Foles is more likely to be Locker and Gabbert than Russel Wilson. Someone please give me some recent names of a QB that had as little success as Foles as a rookie, that is now flourishing in the NFL. We need to judge based off of the new NFL rookie standard, and based on that, I would trade him if someone even mentioned a 3rd round pick.

  66. 66 xeynon said at 8:07 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    So you missed the posts showing that Foles’ numbers as a rookie stacked up against those of almost any quarterback you can name, including those of his fellow rookies this season? We must add that he compiled these numbers dropping back behind the worst offensive line in football and throwing to Riley Cooper, Clay Harbor, and Damaris Johnson. The team’s PPG and yardage output increased markedly with him at QB and they lost a couple of those games despite the fact that the offense put up 25-30 points because the defense stunk. Wilson went to a very good team (Seahawks’ defense and special teams were both top 10 this season), Griffin had more talent around him and a much better locker room situation, and the Colts made the playoffs mainly because they played one of the weakest schedules in memory. I’m not saying Foles is as good as any of those guy (he isn’t), but he belongs on the same field as them and comparing them in terms of W’s alone is a rather flawed metric.

    Foles was not RoY material by any stretch of the imagination but he played better than the 10 year veteran he replaced and certainly better than Locker and Gabbert (who both stink) ever have. A guy like that is worth a third round pick at the very least.

  67. 67 aub32 said at 8:21 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Once again this goes back to not judging Foles based on the numbers put up by QBs 10 to 20 years ago. This is a different NFL. Also, look at the ppg and yardage increase appropriately. BB put up the yards and points against the Panthers and Cowboys. Not to mention the punt return for a score in the Cowboy game. Foles only relative success came against the Redskins and the Bucs, two of the worst passing defenses in 2012. You also ignored my point about his turnovers. Both Griffin and Wilson were some of the best at not turning over the ball. Luck had a lot of turnovers but was asked to do much more with arguably less. My point remains that what he showed based on what I saw watching the games was nothing that can be compared to the guys mentioned, and that very few guys, if any, QBs have looked so mediocre only to rise to success.

  68. 68 xeynon said at 8:31 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    There isn’t much of a sample when you narrow things down to QBs who played a significant amount of time in their rookie seasons over the past 10 seasons and we know have subsequently gone on to be either good or bad quarterbacks. The jury is still out on guys like Bradford, Newton, and Stafford who entered the league in the last few years, and of guys who’ve been playing longer, there are plenty of guys who were mediocre as rookies but have subsequently gone on to success – including Eli and Flacco, the guys who won the last two Super Bowls.

    I also think six starts is far too small a sample size to label a guy good, bad, or mediocre, particularly when there are so many mitigating factors (injuries, etc.) involved. About all you can conclude is whether a guy has promise or not, and I think Foles showed enough to say that he does. He may not fulfill that promise – unless he improves his ability to throw the deep ball, makes better decisions, and yes, cuts down on the turnovers, he won’t be any better than mediocre. But all of those things are fairly common problems with young quarterbacks so it’s not out of the question to think that he might.

  69. 69 aub32 said at 9:35 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Both Bradford and Newton had much better rookie seasons. Eli falls into the category of a different era, having been drafted nearly a decade ago. I am not saying Foles will forever be destined for mediocrity. I am saying based on what he’s shown, there is no reason to view him as the future and not up for trade, especially for a 2nd. This draft is loaded with day two talent. We could get an immediate contributor, while still having the ability to find another young QB in the 3rd who’s closer to Kelly’s ideal QB.

  70. 70 CalSFro said at 10:39 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    But isn’t a possible (disregarding the likelihood of said possibility) franchise QB > well, any other position, really?

    I get what you’re saying though. It just boils down to what we all personally think we saw in Nick Foles and whether or not that can become something more.

  71. 71 aub32 said at 11:47 AM on February 16th, 2013:

    I couldn’t agree more. However, this isn’t RG3 or Wilson. Foles hasn’t shown anything close to being the franchise guy. I won’t say he sucked, but to say he’s a key component going forward and is beyond trading sounds ridiculous.

  72. 72 Arby1 said at 10:42 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Following up on Xeynon’s comment about Foles stats and the admittedly small sample size, Foles numbers were amazingly better than almost any rookie QB in the history of the NFL except RG3 if I remember correctly. That warrants a 2nd look and why I don’t think we’ll trade him.

  73. 73 aub32 said at 2:49 AM on February 16th, 2013:

    He threw a bazillion passes to decent to good skill players that primarily consisted of screens and check downs. AR may have many of you fooled, but I have seen this before. Kolb put up really good stats as a backup but failed to win games. Now we’ve all seen him as a starter. I don’t get why people are connecting the same dots with Foles.

  74. 74 xeynon said at 9:18 AM on February 16th, 2013:

    “Decent to good skill players”? His best receiver was Jeremy Maclin, who’s never had a 1,000 yard season despite playing in an extremely pass happy offense. The rest of his receiving corps consisted of backups and role player types (Cooper, Avant, Harbor, etc.). Brown is a talented runner, but his severe fumbling problem is a big reason A.)the offense didn’t score more points with Foles, and B.)the reason the team didn’t win more games with Foles. And his offensive line was horrendous. I think the supporting cast he had to work with makes Foles’ rookie numbers, if anything, more impressive, not less.

  75. 75 aub32 said at 11:34 AM on February 16th, 2013:

    Maclin may lack toughness but is still a talented WR. Avant is one of the better slot guys, and Cooper made plays on not the best throws to really help out Foles.

    Also, don’t get so caught up on the pieces around him that you ignore the competition he faced. His two best games were against the worst and second worst secondary in the league.

  76. 76 Arby1 said at 1:38 PM on February 16th, 2013:

    “AR may have many of you fooled..”
    Andy must have himself fooled too since he wants to trade for Foles. I think Foles is better and tougher than Kolb. He does need to work on his deep ball, no doubt.

  77. 77 aub32 said at 2:19 PM on February 16th, 2013:

    We know AR has an interest in Foles, but we don’t know how much interest. AR has no QB right now in KC. He’s going to need both a starter and a backup. Just as Kelly wanted Dixon, why wouldn’t Andy want Foles? If Andy is willing to spend a 1st or 2nd then you have a point. However, if he’s only willing to spend a 3,4, or 5 what does that say?

  78. 78 Arby1 said at 4:55 PM on February 16th, 2013:

    Andy is looking at QB’s that will be available at the top of round 2, assuming he doesn’t take Geno #1 and doesn’t drop back in the 1st to take Geno or somebody else. My guess is he’s valuing Foles against Nassib and whoever else might be available then. You and I obviously value Foles differently. If I follow you: Foles = Kolb = Dixon, and I think Foles is much better than both of them. Bottom line for me: Foles is worth more than a 3rd.

  79. 79 xeynon said at 9:34 AM on February 16th, 2013:

    As a rookie Bradford had a lower completion percentage, lower YPA number, lower QB rating, higher interception percentage, and identical TD:INT ratio. The only statistics in which he betters Foles are cumulative ones, and he started all 16 games to Foles’ 6. How is that “much better”?

    As for Newton, he was better, but not by as much as you think. The only metric by which he outranks Foles by a significant margin is YPA – in terms of QB rating, TD:INT ratio, etc. he was only slightly better, and he actually had a lower completion percentage. Obviously his running ability is an added dimension to his game and there’s no question he’s a better player than Foles, but he doesn’t blow him away as a pure passer by any means.

    Kelly’s ideal QB should be a good QB. If Foles can be that (which I acknowledge is still a significant “if”, it would be dumb to jettison him for a faster guy who’s an inferior quarterback just because he “fits the system” better. Good coaches build a system around the quarterback’s talents, not the other way around.

  80. 80 aub32 said at 11:43 AM on February 16th, 2013:

    I completely agree. I’m not saying trade Foles and pick up Dennard Robinson to play QB. I am saying that Foles hasn’t shown so much talent that he can’t be moved. I see Foles as a product of Reid’s system for backup QBs.

  81. 81 A_T_G said at 10:06 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    I think these are some of the numbers xeynon was referencing, I think you may find Foles compares pretty well to the guys you mentioned, and a lot of other guys:

    “Foles’ 60.8 percent completion percentage is fifth in NFL history among rookie QBs.” (Griffin and Wilson were better, not Luck or Newton)

    ” 243 yards passing a game ranks third all-time.” (Luck and Newton)

    “Foles is the only NFL rookie, ever, to average more than 240 yards while completing at least 60 percent of his passes.” (Well, nobody… ever)

    “Foles threw an interception once every 53 attempts. In NFL history, only one rookie QB has had a better ratio.” (So, if Griffin and Wilson were some of the best, and Foles is between them…)

  82. 82 A_T_G said at 10:11 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    (Commenting glitch). To my opinion, I think a trade is on the table, but I’m not taking a third for him. The draft is a crap shoot. I don’t trade a third rounder pick that shows potential at a (the) key position for another third. A second? Maybe, but Kelly would need to be a lot more optimistic about Vick and Dixon than I am.

    On the team he was on, with the level of balance on offense, replacing the guy he did, I think you are underselling just how impressive Foles was.

  83. 83 Iskar36 said at 10:57 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    The issue is that Foles showed potential as a third round pick for Andy Reid, not Chip Kelly. If AR was still the coach, I 100% agree with you that you can’t trade Foles for a 3rd round pick. The issue is that CK is now the coach. Keep in mind, even though Foles showed potential, our offense still was not scoring a ton of points and we only won one game with Foles. Clearly those loses are not on Foles, but the fact is the offense needs to be adjusted. We also hired CK because we believe he is a smart coach who has innovative ideas on how to run a successful offense/team. All of that means that we will be demanding different things from our offense/QB than AR demanded.

    Can Foles succeed and progress with these adjustments? Assuming Foles is not the prototypical QB that CK is looking for to run his offense, can CK adjust the offense in such a way that it utilizes Foles’ strengths while also remaining a system CK believes in and can run successfully? I just don’t think you can assume Foles progress will be linear or even positive with a change in coaches. It will be essential that CK determines if Foles can progress in the system CK wants to use (whether that is with or without Foles at QB), and IF the answer to that question is no, you can’t look at it in terms of getting a 3rd rounder for a previous 3rd round pick. You have to look at it in terms of getting a 3rd rounder for a guy who does not have a future on this team.

  84. 84 aub32 said at 2:41 AM on February 16th, 2013:

    These numbers are inflated greatly due to what Foles was asked to do. Griffin and Luck both were asked to do so much more. This is how Andy fooled Arizona into taking Kolb, who also had inflated stats but few wins.

  85. 85 holeplug said at 8:29 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Foles did not play significantly better than Locker last year. In a lot of the advanced metrics they are actually rated right next to each other.

  86. 86 bridgecoach said at 10:17 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    If we trade Foles in 2013, it will only be to better our chances to find a potential franchise QB in 2014 – which is smart. If we get KCs 2nd round pick in 2013, we can trade that easily for a first round pick next year. With two first round picks, we maximize our chances to move up in a much stronger QB draft.

    I think its a no brainer for Reid to want Nick Foles. Andy’s system is complicated, so much so that WRs usually have a steep learning curve. Having a QB who already knows the system accelerates the progression of their entire offense. Plus Nick Foles is young, tough, and smart – plenty of upside; especially compared to this weak QB draft class and poor FA pool.

    If I were Reid, I’d keep my 2013 second round pick and offer KC’s first round pick in 2014. The Eagles get what they really want, a key chip to play in the 2014 draft while KC holds onto a key draft asset in this draft and gets a QB that will help transform KCs culture right away.

  87. 87 A_T_G said at 10:36 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Okay, that is a long-term plan I could buy into. I am still hesitant; there have been a lot of top five QBs that didn’t accomplish even as much as Foles did, but planning for 2014 while experimenting in 2013 I could live with.

  88. 88 phillyfan1987 said at 10:23 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Tommy found some interesting articles on some ideas Chip might install in this offense:

  89. 89 A_T_G said at 10:32 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    Jaquain Jarrett thinks some of you might be overvaluing draft picks.

  90. 90 planetx1971 said at 11:19 PM on February 15th, 2013:

    So T-Law, ET. Al, If a 4th is a no no no. And a 2nd is a yrs yes yes, how about a 3 plus some gift horse of a player? (One that we DEFINITELY look in the mouth) would that be a maybe maybe maybe? With K.C..’S qb’s and this years college crop, you have to think big red’s king sized boxers are in a bunch.Like a steel noose. No telling what he may offer up.

  91. 91 Eagles Wake-Up Call: McCoy Could Have Been a Cowboy - Birds 24/7 said at 6:30 AM on February 18th, 2013:

    […] at, Tommy Lawlor looks into the prospect of trading […]