Eagles rumors: Sanchez, Foles, Mariota … including Foles to Rams

This topic has 23 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by Winnbrad.

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)

Author

Posts
March 9, 2015 at 8:50 am #19691

zn
Moderator

Mark Sanchez deal suggests Mariota could be horizon

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/sports/eagles/Mark-Sanchez-deal-suggests-Mariota-could-be-horizon.html#DqEcU5iZdqIwl6oI.99

Mark Sanchez is returning to the Eagles on a two-year contract that is worth $9 million and possibly $16 million if he were to hit certain incentives, an NFL source said, confirming various reports.

The deal suggests that Sanchez will have every opportunity to earn a starting spot. It also suggests what The Inquirer reported last week — that Eagles coach Chip Kelly has a plan in place to move up in the draft and select Oregon quarterback Marcus Mariota.

While the Eagles are still seven weeks out from the draft and still have to make a extraordinary move to get Mariota — jumping many spots from the No. 20 spot in the first round — all signs continue to point to Kelly trying to get his former college quarterback.

So what about Nick Foles? He could be the odd man out. He would likely net a high draft pick if Kelly were to attempt to trade the quarterback once the new league starts on Tuesday. The Sanchez signing doesn’t necessarily mean Foles is gone, but the contract is familiar to ones in which a veteran grooms the quarterback spot for a high draft pick.

———-
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/7475/nick-foles/1

The Philly Inquirer believes Nick Foles could be the “odd man out” after the Eagles’ re-signing of Mark Sanchez.

In an extremely quarterback-needy NFL, Foles could probably fetch a second-round pick. Sanchez’s two-year, $9 million contract is at the high end of backup quarterback money, and a sensible sum if the Eagles are going to view him as a “bridge” to a rookie.

March 9, 2015 at 11:24 am #19701

zn
Moderator

Is Nick Foles trade bait? Eagles were shopping him at Senior Bowl

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2015/03/is_nick_foles_trade_bait_eagles_were_shopping_him.html

The possibility of the Eagles moving on from quarterback Nick Foles seemed to increase on Sunday when the team gave backup Mark Sanchez a pretty hefty two-year contract.

In reality, the team has been exploring the idea of moving on from Foles for some time.

With head coach Chip Kelly, the coaching staff and front office executives in Mobile, Ala. for the Senior Bowl in January, the team made an effort to gauge the value of Foles with other teams in the league.

Whether the team decides to move Foles remains to be seen, but the message that they were open to moving him for the right price was made clear.

Three teams that were interested in Foles at the time, per a person with knowledge of the situation who requested anonymity, were the St. Louis Rams, Tennessee Titans and Houston Texans.

Foles was once considered the potential franchise quarterback for the Eagles after throwing for 27 touchdowns and two interceptions in 2013, leading the team to the NFC East crown. After a dreadful 2014, however, the team soured on Foles quickly, as reported by NJ Advance Media back in November.

Foles finished last season with 13 touchdowns to 10 interceptions in eight games last season before cracking his collarbone against the Houston Texans.

It has been downhill for Foles ever since as Kelly has refused to publicly commit to him as his starting quarterback, reports are flying the team is looking into moving up in the 2015 NFL Draft for Oregon quarterback Marcus Mariota and now Sanchez is set to make significantly more than he is next season.

Throughout the rumors and speculation, Foles has maintained he plans on being back in Philadelphia.

“Yeah you hear about it,” Foles said in Arizona during Super Bowl XLIX. “You are going to hear about it every single year. That’s just part of it. The main word is ‘rumor.’ You can’t put too much into it….I plan on being in Philly.”

March 9, 2015 at 1:15 pm #19709

zn
Moderator

Benjamin Allbright
@AllbrightNFL
Foles to Rams talk is legit.

Benjamin Allbright @AllbrightNFL
Several teams in talks with Eagles about Foles, #Rams are considered “leading contender” per source.

Greg Arias ‏@TNFBExaminer 3m3 minutes ago
Being told by league source that while Titans are in on trade talks with Philly for Foles, Rams are more likely to make the deal right now.

March 9, 2015 at 1:23 pm #19710

zn
Moderator

zn wrote:

Benjamin Allbright
@AllbrightNFL
Foles to Rams talk is legit.

Benjamin Allbright @AllbrightNFL
Several teams in talks with Eagles about Foles, #Rams are considered “leading contender” per source.

Greg Arias ‏@TNFBExaminer 3m3 minutes ago
Being told by league source that while Titans are in on trade talks with Philly for Foles, Rams are more likely to make the deal right now.

Is Nick Foles done with Eagles? Team soured on quarterback before the injury, sources say

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2014/11/eagles_started_to_sour_on_nick_foles_before_his_injury.html

November 04, 2014

Nick Foles’ immediate future with the Eagles is on hold after the quarterback suffered a broken collarbone Sunday in Houston.

According to people with knowledge of the Eagles’ plans, Foles’ long-term future was in doubt even before the injury.

Foles’ play during the first half of this 2014 season in stark contrast to his Pro Bowl season of 2013 has “soured” some in the organization, including general manager Howie Roseman, according to people familiar with the Eagles’ plans. The sources requested anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak about the team’s personnel.

In 10 starts in 2013 Foles threw 27 touchdown passes to just two interceptions, completed 64 percent of his passes and had a league-high quarterback rating of 119.2. This season, in eight starts Foles has thrown 13 touchdown passes and 10 interceptions and has a quarterback rating of 81.9.

“I think Howie is looking at quarterbacks,” one of the sources told NJ Advance Media. “He’s kind of soured on Foles, and I don’t think he’s alone. The organization isn’t sold that he’s the guy going forward.”

Keep in mind the people who wanted Foles in that 2012 draft are no longer with the team, one is the head coach of the Kansas City Chiefs and the other is the offensive coordinator for the New York Jets.

As previously reported by NJ Advance Media, Roseman and his scouts preferred Michigan State’s Kirk Cousins over Foles during the 2012 draft, but Andy Reid, the Eagles’ head coach at the time — with the recommendation of offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg — insisted on Foles. Cousins went the next day to the Washington Redskins early in the fourth round.

Current Eagles head coach Chip Kelly has never said a bad thing about Foles and praised him back to his days at Arizona when Kelly’s Oregon teams played against him.

Kelly’s actions, however, speak louder than his words. One of the first moves Kelly made upon being hired as the Eagles coach in 2013 was to re-sign quarterback Mike Vick to a new deal. He then traded up in the fourth round of the ’13 draft to select quarterback Matt Barkley, of USC.

Tom Gamble, the Eagles’ vice president of player personnel, also has no connection to Foles. He was in San Francisco, as the 49ers pro personnel director, when the Eagles selected the quarterback.

Now, as Mark Sanchez is ready to take over and attempt to lead the Eagles to a NFC East title, and perhaps more, Foles’ future remains in limbo.

In his third year, Foles is eligible to have his contract re-done at the end of the season. He is currently scheduled to earn $620,000 in 2015.

“Let’s just say the way things were going, he wasn’t going to get a contract extension that’s for sure,” another person who had knowledge of the Eagles’ evaluation told NJ Advance Media before Foles’ injury. “Now, if he has a big second half, that could change.”

Foles isn’t going to have any kind of a second half. His injury will keep him out anywhere from six to eight weeks, with the higher end more likely. There are only eight weeks left in the season.

And you have to start to wonder how much is left in Foles’ career with the Eagles.

=

March 9, 2015 at 1:41 pm #19713

rfl
Participant

If the Rams made a move like this, I would be immensely encouraged about the leadership of the franchise.

Look. I am not arguing for EXACTLY this solution to our QB problems. I dunno if Foles is the right guy.

What he is is what I have always expressed a desire for. A vet FA who has shown he can do at least a solid job starting in the league. A track record of competence. Doesn’t have to be a star. But more than a clipboard schlub.

The worry has been that the FO would try to “make do” eking out another year with a Hill-type and a gamble on Sam. That’s the down-side of the public statements in support of Sam. As you guys know, I really like Sam, and a healthy Sam would IMO be just fine. But I don’t trust his health.

On the other hand, the FO HAS said that it wants competition for the starting QB role. That shows a willingness to see and tackle the issue. If you think about the track record, you see an FO taking steps one year at a time:

’13: Clemens as a BUP. That’s the move of a team expecting Sam to be a horse. Result–a lost half year.

’14: the bet on Sam is renewed, but a better BUP is acquired. Result–a totally lost year.

’15: the word is they want genuine competition of a kind that neither Clemens, Hill, or Davis could provide. They still like Sam, but they no longer are willing to entrust a season to him.

I HOPE that that’s the thinking. The logical solution would be a quality FA, not necessarily a star, but a guy who can compete with Sam. The problem? The FA class is supposed to be really poor.

Well, here’s a chance to get an apparently solid FA QB, the only one around. I want to see the FO get proactive and take the chance. It would be the right roster move, and it would show an FO willing to face its problems and do what it takes to solve them.

Fingers crossed.

By virtue of the absurd ...

March 9, 2015 at 1:46 pm #19714

rfl
Participant

zn wrote:

He showed that he was an average QB in 2014. …

I’ve watched all of his tape, and he’s Average…I think he CAN be a starter somewhere but not over some of these proven guys in the NFL

And, see, that’s OK with me. Average is better than what we have had. A lot better.

Ideal solution:

Keep Sam. (Hopefully, re-negotiate to open room on the cap, but I dunno about locking him up for many more years with his injury history.)

Acquire Foles (or someone like him).

Draft Grayson.

Let competition do its work.

By virtue of the absurd ...

March 9, 2015 at 1:56 pm #19715

Zooey
Moderator

I have no objection to Foles. There may be something there. I hope it doesn’t cost a 2nd round pick, though.

March 9, 2015 at 2:07 pm #19716
rfl
Participant
Zooey wrote:

I have no objection to Foles. There may be something there. I hope it doesn’t cost a 2nd round pick, though.

Well, you raise the question of cost. Obviously, there ~~would~~ could be costs we couldn’t afford.

I just don’t know enough about many things to assess this.

I think a 2nd or 3rd in ’16 might be affordable. But not this year–we’re already short some picks.
- This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by rfl.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 9, 2015 at 2:07 pm #19717

PA Ram
Participant

Maybe Foles will thrive in an offense that isn’t “fast forward” all the time.

I don’t know what it will cost–that’s key obviously. But at the right price I’d do it. At worst he can’t be worse than the possible draft choices this year, and he has experience. He’s young. If you get him you don’t have to draft a QB this year. You can fill other areas–maybe take a WR at #10 if that’s how the draft falls.

It’s hard to say because it all has to play out.

But I would not mind Foles coming to the Rams and giving that a try. There just aren’t great options. This may be one of the better ones.

We’ll see.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

March 9, 2015 at 2:18 pm #19719

Zooey
Moderator

Well, I think what Foles has that the other available QBs don’t have is an indefinite ceiling.

All the other guys out there have pretty much exhausted their “potential upside growth.” They are what they are. They are past the point of “hopefully he’ll be better next year.”

Foles may have peaked, too. We just don’t know for sure yet.

March 9, 2015 at 2:37 pm #19720

zn
Moderator

Benjamin Allbright (@AllbrightNFL)
Can confirm #Rams have “upped their offer” for Foles from what they floated in January, do not know specifics of that offer or current one.

———
———-

from off the net

===

alyoshamucci

Foles threw up a lot of questionable balls both years and was bailed out by good receivers. He loses mechanics pretty often.

The fact that Sanchez came in and did his job pretty well means to me he was part of a system.

===========

moklerman

I don’t think he’s garbage but I don’t think he’s as good as his surprising 2013 campaign.

An unknown QB with some ability in a gimmick offense taking the league by surprise all culminated in really gaudy numbers for Foles. That, and everything bouncing his way that year. There were numerous times he made bad decisions or bad throws and not only did he not pay for the mistakes, they turned into positive plays. It was just one of those years.

Last year is probably closer to what the “real” Nick Foles plays like. Not horrible, borderline starting material but not a guy who’s going to carry an offense or excel with a poor system or no playmakers or injuries.

=======

jrry32

The point of acquiring Foles would be to keep Bradford. That would give us two QBs with season ending injuries last year. Hopefully, the pair of them could play a combined 16 games and then we could decide who we want to keep after the season.(because both are in the last year of their contract)

Foles has been a very turnover prone guy too aside from the 2013 season. In 2014, he turned it over 13 times in 8 games. In 2012 under Andy Reid, he turned it over 8 times in 7 games.

So you take the good with the bad…in Foles’s case, we’ll have to either trade down with Philly or give up a draft pick to get him but we keep Bradford. However, Foles or Bradford are going to have to get paid after the season if we want to keep them and it’s possible that neither are our QB of the future.

March 9, 2015 at 3:54 pm #19721

Dak
Participant

You make the trade with your draft picks this year if you have to, because the Rams have acquired young players, what they don’t have is any depth at QB. Foles is a very good backup Qb, which is what the Rams probably need most heading into this season.

Or, you hope some other QB shakes out, like maybe Ryan Fitzpatrick. But, then you’re just going on a hope and a prayer.

March 9, 2015 at 4:30 pm #19722

Agamemnon
Participant

This is the last year of his contract. He has been hurt. Why would they keep Sanchez over him? And I am not sure he is better than Hill. I would rather go in a different direction and keep my draft choices.

Agamemnon

March 9, 2015 at 5:09 pm #19723

Winnbrad
Participant

Go get Foles. Right now Bradford is rehabbing, and Austin Davis is the only QB on the team that can start a game. He can’t win half of them, but at least he can start.

Go get Foles. He’s at least better than Davis.

March 9, 2015 at 7:36 pm #19732

InvaderRam
Moderator

maybe the main problem in philadelphia was the fit. maybe in a ball control offense where the qb isn’t asked to do as much will help foles.

i like it. he had a very promising sophomore season. followed by an average but disappointing third season. a little bit concerned by the injury last season but nothing that required reconstructive surgery. i think there’s a lot of potential there.

plus. big hands!!! haha!

March 9, 2015 at 8:26 pm #19735

zn
Moderator

InvaderRam wrote:

maybe the main problem in philadelphia was the fit. maybe in a ball control offense where the qb isn’t asked to do as much will help foles.

i like it. he had a very promising sophomore season. followed by an average but disappointing third season. a little bit concerned by the injury last season but nothing that required reconstructive surgery. i think there’s a lot of potential there.

plus. big hands!!! haha!

It’s true that from 2013 and 2014, the Eagles went from 27th in passing attempts to 5th. How Foles fits into that will require a little math. Which I’ll do, but later.

March 9, 2015 at 9:36 pm #19741

Herzog
Participant

I like it. Get it done. Who do we need to contact to make this happen?

March 9, 2015 at 10:22 pm #19744
InvaderRam
Moderator
zn wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:
maybe the main problem in philadelphia was the fit. maybe in a ball control offense where the qb isn’t asked to do as much will help foles.

i like it. he had a very promising sophomore season. followed by an average but disappointing third season. a little bit concerned by the injury last season but nothing that required reconstructive surgery. i think there’s a lot of potential there.

plus. big hands!!! haha!

It’s true that from 2013 and 2014, the Eagles went from 27th in passing attempts to 5th. How Foles fits into that will require a little math. Which I’ll do, but later.

ok. somebody needs to get on this asap. the suspense is killing me.
- This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by InvaderRam.
March 10, 2015 at 10:06 am #19755

InvaderRam
Moderator

another consideration is that defenses started to get a book on foles. the question would then be can foles make adjustments to counteract that?

March 10, 2015 at 11:22 am #19760

Winnbrad
Participant

InvaderRam wrote:

another consideration is that defenses started to get a book on foles. the question would then be can foles make adjustments to counteract that?

I don’t know, but to me it doesn’t matter. When I try to look at this from the Rams point of view, what I see is a team that desperately needs a better QB behind Bradford.

Is Foles better than Austin Davis? IMO, yes. I feel like this team won’t get above .500 with Davis at QB. We all know the Rams, again, have a tough schedule. I can’t see Davis winning many road games against average to good teams.

I’m looking at this season as if Bradford is not on the team. Kind of a morbid outlook, I know, but I don’t trust that Bradford will be healthy.

Now comes the question of cost. How much do the Rams have to give up to get Foles? I don’t know, or even have a clue. But I know that without a decent QB this team doesn’t finish above .500.

I believe the Rams are a good football team. Unfortunately, they don’t have a QB. And in a “QB only” league, the Rams have no shot. Whatever the cost, they need to find a way to upgrade that position through FA, the draft, or whatever. Or this is gonna be just another season of beating some good teams, losing to some bad teams, and blowing playoff chances.

March 10, 2015 at 11:39 am #19765

rfl
Participant

Winnbrad wrote:

I don’t know, but to me it doesn’t matter. When I try to look at this from the Rams point of view, what I see is a team that desperately needs a better QB behind Bradford.

WB, I’m with your post all the way.

Winnbrad wrote:

I believe the Rams are a good football team. Unfortunately, they don’t have a QB. And in a “QB only” league, the Rams have no shot. Whatever the cost, they need to find a way to upgrade that position through FA, the draft, or whatever.

I’d simply add, however, that they also have no OL. They need a QB (or 2) AND they need at least 3 solid OL likely to stay healthy. (If they re-sign Barksdale, it will be 2.)

They have major challenges this off season. That’s what happens when you rebuild your roster but your quality QB is a bust due to injury and you largely fail in rebuilding the OL.

By virtue of the absurd ...

March 10, 2015 at 11:48 am #19767

wv
Participant

rfl wrote:

I’d simply add, however, that they also have no OL. They need a QB (or 2) AND they need at least 3 solid OL likely to stay healthy. (If they re-sign Barksdale, it will be 2.)

They have major challenges this off season. That’s what happens when you rebuild your roster but your quality QB is a bust due to injury and you largely fail in rebuilding the OL.

I dont know anything about Foles. Seems like
another version of S.Hill to me, but, I dunno.

The QB question is just gonna be a bit of a crap-shoot.
It just is. Its the nature of the position.

But the OLine can be fixed.
So…I expect them to fix it.

And after its fixed, I expect
a winning season even if Trent Dilfer
is taking snaps.

Let Bradford have his shot,
sign a Vet, draft a Rookie…
but add three or four solid
BEASTS to the Oline.

w
v

March 10, 2015 at 12:54 pm #19769

Herzog
Participant

I agree, but I don’t see how it’s going to happen. You can only count on a couple of great O-line prospects through the draft……and “beast through free agency” doesn’t happen very successfully, very often. Servicable is the most you can expect from free agency. If Barksdale leaves, than the situation becomes even worse. We can pony up for Barksdale, but he is more in the “servicable” category.

At some point, some of these lower round draft prospects need to earn their keep. I liked Barnes, but he’s gone, which means we don’t even have a center.

If we get Foles, I guarantee you it’ll cost of us a beast (meaning opportunity cost).

March 10, 2015 at 1:35 pm #19772

Winnbrad
Participant

Herzog wrote:

I agree, but I don’t see how it’s going to happen. You can only count on a couple of great O-line prospects through the draft……and “beast through free agency” doesn’t happen very successfully, very often. Servicable is the most you can expect from free agency. If Barksdale leaves, than the situation becomes even worse. We can pony up for Barksdale, but he is more in the “servicable” category.

At some point, some of these lower round draft prospects need to earn their keep. I liked Barnes, but he’s gone, which means we don’t even have a center.

If we get Foles, I guarantee you it’ll cost of us a beast (meaning opportunity cost).

I think we’re going after this guy. I think. Heck, who knows???

Stefen Wisniewski – C – Raiders

The Rams have “touched base” with free agent C Stefen Wisniewski.
Their only known competitors are the Bears. The Raiders have moved on after signing Rodney Hudson, and the Cardinals likely have as well after landing Mike Iupati. Wisniewski is 26 years old. He’d be an instant upgrade on outgoing Scott Wells for a Rams line in desperate need of capable bodies.
Related: Rams
Source: Jim Thomas on Twitter
Author

Posts