Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Wagoner mailbag, part 2
- This topic has 1 reply, 1 voice, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by
zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 14, 2015 at 1:58 pm #26262
znModeratorTaking a look at what QB Nick Foles could command as a free agent
Nick Wagoner, ESPN Staff Writer
EARTH CITY, Mo. — The St. Louis Rams have one more week of organized team activities before calling it an offseason. But there is no shortage of questions that need to be answered between now and the season.
We’ll let the Rams sort out their questions but in this space, we devote our time to answering your queries.
As always, if you’d like to participate in the mailbag, you can find me on Twitter @nwagoner. Please use the hashtag #RamsMail and I’ll answer every weekend.
Matt Stroehmer @MStroehmer
Foles is a free agent after this year, if I’m not mistaken. What kind of contract could he demand with a decent ’15?@nwagoner: You are not mistaken. Nick Foles is indeed scheduled to be an unrestricted free agent after the season. And the question you ask is one of the most important the Rams will face during and after the season.
To start, I tend to think the Rams will let the season play out before making any sort of decision on Foles’ long-term future. In other words, I tend to doubt an extension will happen before or during the season. What happens from there will largely depend on how he performs. The nature of this offense will likely prevent Foles from posting monster numbers like he did in 2013, but let’s say he has a solid season with something like 24 touchdowns and 10 interceptions while staying healthy and the Rams win nine or 10 games. One would think that would put Foles in line for a pretty nice deal.
I don’t think he’d be in that upper echelon, but let’s put him more in line with someone like Kansas City’s Alex Smith. Smith got four years at an average of about $17 million a season with $19 million guaranteed upfront (and more guarantees to take it closer to $45 million in guarantees upon simply sticking around for a year or two).
Kelton Brooks @BrooksWeekly
Is there truth to EJ Gaines over Tru Johnson in the starting lineup? If so, where does that leave Joyner? Tru in FA?@nwagoner: Yeah, I didn’t report that Gaines is in the mix there because it’s not true. In fact, he was getting first crack with the first-team defense opposite Janoris Jenkins in last week’s OTAs. Jeff Fisher said back in March the two would be competing for the job and Johnson is still getting reps with the first unit as well. But I tend to think that Gaines will win the job on the outside with Jenkins on the other side.
The real question would then become whether the Rams want to move Gaines inside with Johnson outside in the nickel or just leave Gaines outside with Joyner in the slot. I tend to think the team prefers to have Gaines and Jenkins outside with Joyner in the slot and Johnson offering depth. We’ll see how it plays out when the pads come on.
Derek Atkinson @Son_DeeRRF
I know you’re limited by Rams but are the “changes” to the O significant, hyperbole, or just the amount of new faces@nwagoner: Honestly, it’s way too early to say what the extent of the changes are going to be. I’ve written about some of the wrinkles, including the possibility of more zone blocking. But as I wrote then, it seems they want to be able to mix those schemes in with some of the power stuff they run rather than some sort of overarching change. And for what it’s worth, the offense already did mix power and zone, I just get the impression they want to do it a bit more now with Cignetti in charge. From talking to different guys on offense, it doesn’t sound like it’s going to be some drastic change, just some new wrinkles. And like you say, with so many new faces, especially a new coordinator, part of that is to be expected.
Jared Shipley @shipsbedown
How has Mo Alexander looked? I know he got 1st team reps with TJ McDonald and Barron hurt Think he plays outside of special teams?@nwagoner: Again, I must add the caveat that these are OTAs and the players aren’t in pads or playing real football, but Alexander hasn’t looked lost when he’s been in there for McDonald and Barron. I get the impression the Rams are pleased with how he’s progressed. Remember, Alexander had almost no experience even using a backpedal before last season; he came in quite raw when it came to playing defensive back. So the Rams didn’t seem to have big expectations for him right away. Barring further, more serious injuries to McDonald or Barron, I wouldn’t expect Alexander’s role to rise above special teams this year, but the reps with the first-team defense certainly don’t hurt.
Justin Koski @koski_justin
What’s going to be the #Rams biggest hurdle to finally break .500?@nwagoner: I suppose saying the offense as a whole is too general. The defense and special teams should be good. The offense just has so many question marks among a new coordinator, new quarterback and three new offensive linemen. The offensive line, in particular, is the biggest question to me. Whether it’s the two rookies projected to start, a new center, Rodger Saffold’s injury history or Greg Robinson’s learning curve, there’s not really one spot that is completely settled at the moment. Paul Boudreau has his work cut out for him. He’s done more with less in the past, but will need to do it again this time around.
June 14, 2015 at 2:28 pm #26266znModeratorOne would think that would put Foles in line for a pretty nice deal.
I don’t think he’d be in that upper echelon, but let’s put him more in line with someone like Kansas City’s Alex Smith. Smith got four years at an average of about $17 million a season with $19 million guaranteed upfront (and more guarantees to take it closer to $45 million in guarantees upon simply sticking around for a year or two).
This is what I have been seeing with contracts. Starting qbs up for their 2nd deals are getting roughly the same money. Smith, for example, is not in Foles’s “group” when it comes to that. Smith’s deal was not a 2nd contract. It belongs more to the category of a 3rd or 4th contract with a new team. His cohort includes people like Palmer.
Foles is in the same cohort as Wilson and Kaepernick and Newton. Those guys WERE getting around 18 M, with some guys below the avg. (Dalton, 16 M) and some guys above it (Flacco, 20 M). The operative market logic seems to be that IF he is your starting qb AND you want him back and tied up contractually, you pay around the market avg. give or take. It’s either that or someone else pays it; OR no one sees him as starting caliber, in which case he is in a different category (like McCoy).
Different deals can be structured differently, so I am just talking about the avg. amount per year.
The avg. WAS 18 M, give or take, but Newton may have pushed the avg. up (every few years it goes up). Wilson will probably get more like Newton money. So there is a very good chance the avg. will soon be 19 M, with 17 M at the low end and 21 M at the high end. Luck may raise it even more, unless Luck just gets taken as an exception whose deal will not fall within market parameters.
I should stress that if you look at the deals, this has nothing to do with what we think a guy is “worth.” There’s no calculation out there saying if you’re Flacco you aren’t “worth as much” as Rodgers. Performance is a factor when it comes to the “more or less the avg.” calculations, but the driving thing is the market.
It really is simple, IMO. If the Rams see Foles as their starting qb, or to be more accurate but roundabout, as A starting caliber qb they are willing to keep (rather than risk starting over), then he gets the market avg. It’s either that or he’s someone else’s qb. So it really is more like this: do they see him as A starting caliber qb, and are they therefore willing to commit to him at that price OR do they have or want alternatives.
There’s no such thing as paying him less if he doesn’t make your TD quota. If
you want to keep him as your starting qb, you pay him the market avg. (give or take), or you move on. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
