Kvoethe Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 I see articles saying the Browns should be blowing up the eagles phone to try to land Foles. Hes a FA after next season. I think the Eagles have to pay him. I have heard Wentz’ recovery lagging behind and he may not be ready for next season. Do we overpay for Foles now? Or still take a shot at the cheaper cousins? Suprised there are no threads already.
The Cysko Kid Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 He'd be a solid choice to lead the team while whatever rookie we draft and kizer continue to develop.
Gunz41 Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 Cousins wouldn't be anywhere close to cheaper. Foles looked GREAT and is still relatively young, so IF he could keep up close to that level of play, there would be no need for the rookie
The Cysko Kid Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 There's always need to draft a QB. They should draft one every year without fail until the point they have a franchise player and then continue to draft and move them if need be.
Gunz41 Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Cysko Kid said: There's always need to draft a QB. They should draft one every year without fail until the point they have a franchise player and then continue to draft and move them if need be. IF they got Foles and he was as good as last night, then the QB drafted wouldn't see the field. I'm not saying you don't need to draft one, but the need to get THE guy at the top of draft isn't there. Even if they got Foles, you don't know that he will keep up with how he played, so still get that guy, but if Foles is in Cleveland and becomes a top Franchise QB, then it would end up as a wasted pick. You just never know, but IF that happened, Foles is still relatively young and the drafted QB could leave before taking a snap.
jiggins7919 Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 Is Foles an unrestricted free agent, or restricted? There's a large part of me that says there's no way the Eagles will let Foles go because Wentz was severely injured towards the end of the season, and he won't fully be ready to go until September, right? That means they won't have any established QB to run the team's offense during minicamp, OTA's, and probably all of training camp. And ACL injuries are funny things. Sure, most of the time they heal just fine, but there's always that chance Wentz could have a setback, and if they didn't have Foles, they'd be up the creek big time. Let me do some research on his contract status because that's going to determine a lot.
jiggins7919 Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 Guys, Foles is under contract with the Eagles for $7.6 million in 2018. He's not coming to Cleveland. If the Eagles DO decide to move Foles, it won't be until much later in the year when they've had a chance to monitor Wentz's progress and get a better understanding of his return timetable. I don't have a date on when Wentz is supposed to return, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be late summer. Eagles will still need an experienced QB for the offseason, and I really don't see anything happening with Foles for quite some time.
jrb12711 Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 1 minute ago, jiggins7919 said: Is Foles an unrestricted free agent, or restricted? There's a large part of me that says there's no way the Eagles will let Foles go because Wentz was severely injured towards the end of the season, and he won't fully be ready to go until September, right? That means they won't have any established QB to run the team's offense during minicamp, OTA's, and probably all of training camp. And ACL injuries are funny things. Sure, most of the time they heal just fine, but there's always that chance Wentz could have a setback, and if they didn't have Foles, they'd be up the creek big time. Let me do some research on his contract status because that's going to determine a lot. None of that, he's fully under contract until 2019. We would have to trade to get him, and you know they will be circling around a 1st round pick to send him away. Thing is though, the Eagles just won the whole dang thing and can afford to keep him. They also has the talent coming back to be just as strong as they were this year. Wentz is coming off a recoverable but serious injury, so to me it makes very little sense that they'd trade him away. It goes without saying how much the guy was worth to the team this year. The only incentive the Eagles would have is that they are over the cap for 2018, with a good highlight here: http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2018/02/eagles_2018_cap_space_amount_potential_cuts_trades.html. $7.6 million is definitely a ton to pay a back-up, but considering Wentz is still on his rookie deal the position itself is only tied up in about $15 million for next year, which is markedly low for two very capable (and one franchise) players at the most important position on the field. Put simply, unless they reallllllly feel like the cost savings from Foles is worth trading away, I doubt he'll move anywhere.
Browns1216 Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 Foles is great, but I don't think even Foles would be able to carry the Browns to victory on his own so no sense in throwing everything they have to try to land him here. Don't underestimate the Eagle's receivers. There were a few throws where it looked like it would be overthrown, but the Eagles receivers were able to jump up and grab it. Can't say the same would happen on the Browns. There were also a few floaters that I thought for sure would get picked off, but the Eagles receivers actually went towards the ball and fought for it. Plus, that Eagle's O-line and run game are no joke and defense did their job in putting pressure on the GOAT. Nice job by the Eagles all around, was a much better game than I thought it would be. I think the Eagles will hold on to Foles until they know for sure Wentz is 100%, no way he's going anywhere especially after last night's performance.
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 Foles would be in a wheelchair by game 3, and philly isn't going to let him leave.
nickers Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 Just now, DieHardBrownsFan said: Foles would be in a wheelchair by game 3, and philly isn't going to let him leave. I think we have a better shot at making a play for Wentz...
The Gipper Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 I was always a Foles fan. If you were to look back at posts of mine in year's past you would see where I would have like the Browns to have drafted him....and to have picked him up when he became a FA.
hx214 Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 Listening to the radio this morning on 92.3 They talked about Foles contract. And if what they say is correct, it's crazy good deal for any team if the Eagles decided to trade him. The Eagles control his contract through next season. Then he is free to opt out. However, if they trade him to another team he is locked in for 5 years at a very cheap rate for a QB. Seems like they made the deal on this contract making it really enticing for another team to trade for him. Watching some of those throws he pulled off last night, If I'm Doresy, I'm on the phone offering one of the 2nd rounders today. But as some of you have pointed too, if Wentz is really behind the 8 ball, then I don't see Philly giving up on him for just a 2nd rounder.
Flugel Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Kvoethe said: I see articles saying the Browns should be blowing up the eagles phone to try to land Foles. Hes a FA after next season. I think the Eagles have to pay him. I have heard Wentz’ recovery lagging behind and he may not be ready for next season. Do we overpay for Foles now? Or still take a shot at the cheaper cousins? Suprised there are no threads already. According to ESPN's scroll today, the Washington Redskins are considering putting a franchise tag of Kirk Cousins again this year. This would mean any team interested in pursuing him would now need to trade for him and part with a draft pick or player or both.
The Gipper Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Flugel said: According to ESPN's scroll today, the Washington Redskins are considering putting a franchise tag of Kirk Cousins again this year. This would mean any team interested in pursuing him would now need to trade for him and part with a draft pick or player or both. AND pay the 34 million or whatever franchise tag rate. I say: NYET I would rather make a deal for Foles. As I have said...I have always liked him better as a QB.
Flugel Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 45 minutes ago, The Gipper said: AND pay the 34 million or whatever franchise tag rate. I say: NYET I would rather make a deal for Foles. As I have said...I have always liked him better as a QB. I know. It would be nice if we could offer Foles or whoever we end up with a WR Corps like Philly had for their QBs and a system compatible to his wiring/strengths. With over 100 million $ of spending money and only 1 Win to show for our last 32 outings - it's about time our FO goes Alpha Dawg on bringing in some play makers here.
The Gipper Posted February 5, 2018 Report Posted February 5, 2018 22 minutes ago, Flugel said: I know. It would be nice if we could offer Foles or whoever we end up with a WR Corps like Philly had for their QBs and a system compatible to his wiring/strengths. With over 100 million $ of spending money and only 1 Win to show for our last 32 outings - it's about time our FO goes Alpha Dawg on bringing in some play makers here. I also thought that we should have grabbed Nelson Agholor in the 2015 draft. Instead....one pick ahead of him the Browns took freeking Cam Erving. Talk about another effup.
TexasAg1969 Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 12 hours ago, The Gipper said: I also thought that we should have grabbed Nelson Agholor in the 2015 draft. Instead....one pick ahead of him the Browns took freeking Cam Erving. Talk about another effup. Now I am sick (insert throw-up icon from the Browns Tavern).
TexasAg1969 Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 52 minutes ago, 7moses7 said: 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮 Thanks. I feel better now.
mjp28 Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 He skipped the Philadelphia parade to go to Disney World as SB MVP, a 31 year tradition. Woo-hoo for him and his family.
jiggins7919 Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 21 hours ago, Flugel said: According to ESPN's scroll today, the Washington Redskins are considering putting a franchise tag of Kirk Cousins again this year. This would mean any team interested in pursuing him would now need to trade for him and part with a draft pick or player or both. Couldn't teams just call their bluff and make them eat the $34 million in addition to paying Alex Smith? I'm assuming it wouldn't ever happen because there are teams that are desperate for a competent QB, but it sure'd be funny to see nobody trade with the Skins and watch them struggle with the cap after signing Smith. Hahaha. As I look through the teams in the NFL, I actually don't see too many that absolutely don't have a starting QB. About the only ones I see are the Broncos, Cardinals, Jets, and POSSIBLY Fins, right? There are a few other teams with starting QB's who will be retiring soon (Bolts, Giants, etc), but I only counted 4 teams that must have someone immediately. So if the Redskins DO franchise Cousins, that could possibly change things big time. I just wonder how greedy the Redskins would be with their trade demands, ya know? I'm struggling to think of a comparable situation in recent league history, and I'm not really coming up with any. What if Washington asks for our #4 pick? Before you say that's insane, let me ask you this: What would be the difference in drafting an unproven, rookie QB at #1 or #4, versus trading the #4 pick for a proven QB and someone who would be starting right away? Now, to me, our first rounders are off the table, but I'm not sure why I feel that way considering we'd be getting a QB we KNOW can play. We trade the #4 for Cousins (contingent on contract extension, obviously) and we still get to draft the #1 overall player on our board. So we get our starting QB, the best prospect in the entire draft, we still have THREE second rounders, and we still have enough money to go after other free agents.
Canton Dawg Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 23 hours ago, Flugel said: According to ESPN's scroll today, the Washington Redskins are considering putting a franchise tag of Kirk Cousins again this year. This would mean any team interested in pursuing him would now need to trade for him and part with a draft pick or player or both. Shame on ESPN, I would call BS on Washington putting the franchise tag on Kirk Cousins after they paid a boatload of money for Alex Smith. Look at their cap space WITHOUT Cousins' salary figured in. . .
jrb12711 Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 1 hour ago, jiggins7919 said: Couldn't teams just call their bluff and make them eat the $34 million in addition to paying Alex Smith? I'm assuming it wouldn't ever happen because there are teams that are desperate for a competent QB, but it sure'd be funny to see nobody trade with the Skins and watch them struggle with the cap after signing Smith. Hahaha. As I look through the teams in the NFL, I actually don't see too many that absolutely don't have a starting QB. About the only ones I see are the Broncos, Cardinals, Jets, and POSSIBLY Fins, right? There are a few other teams with starting QB's who will be retiring soon (Bolts, Giants, etc), but I only counted 4 teams that must have someone immediately. So if the Redskins DO franchise Cousins, that could possibly change things big time. I just wonder how greedy the Redskins would be with their trade demands, ya know? I'm struggling to think of a comparable situation in recent league history, and I'm not really coming up with any. What if Washington asks for our #4 pick? Before you say that's insane, let me ask you this: What would be the difference in drafting an unproven, rookie QB at #1 or #4, versus trading the #4 pick for a proven QB and someone who would be starting right away? Now, to me, our first rounders are off the table, but I'm not sure why I feel that way considering we'd be getting a QB we KNOW can play. We trade the #4 for Cousins (contingent on contract extension, obviously) and we still get to draft the #1 overall player on our board. So we get our starting QB, the best prospect in the entire draft, we still have THREE second rounders, and we still have enough money to go after other free agents. I mean A LOT of NFL deals are done on "hand-shake" agreement basis. The Redskins would never in a million years pay Kirk that type of money unless they had such an agreement. While of course a team COULD back out of such an arrangement, that team/GM would literally have no credibility left to any NFL franchise. No team would ever do that on this scale. In that regard, it's not "irresponsible" to report they might do that-it's a very real possibility.
Gunz41 Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 1 hour ago, jiggins7919 said: Couldn't teams just call their bluff and make them eat the $34 million in addition to paying Alex Smith? I'm assuming it wouldn't ever happen because there are teams that are desperate for a competent QB, but it sure'd be funny to see nobody trade with the Skins and watch them struggle with the cap after signing Smith. Hahaha. As I look through the teams in the NFL, I actually don't see too many that absolutely don't have a starting QB. About the only ones I see are the Broncos, Cardinals, Jets, and POSSIBLY Fins, right? There are a few other teams with starting QB's who will be retiring soon (Bolts, Giants, etc), but I only counted 4 teams that must have someone immediately. So if the Redskins DO franchise Cousins, that could possibly change things big time. I just wonder how greedy the Redskins would be with their trade demands, ya know? I'm struggling to think of a comparable situation in recent league history, and I'm not really coming up with any. What if Washington asks for our #4 pick? Before you say that's insane, let me ask you this: What would be the difference in drafting an unproven, rookie QB at #1 or #4, versus trading the #4 pick for a proven QB and someone who would be starting right away? Now, to me, our first rounders are off the table, but I'm not sure why I feel that way considering we'd be getting a QB we KNOW can play. We trade the #4 for Cousins (contingent on contract extension, obviously) and we still get to draft the #1 overall player on our board. So we get our starting QB, the best prospect in the entire draft, we still have THREE second rounders, and we still have enough money to go after other free agents. One major difference is the money you pay a rookie vs Cousins
wargograw Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 Guy had two good games and you guys want to anoint him. Just like you anointed Wentz. They clearly have something there other than a QB....
The Gipper Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 8 minutes ago, wargograw said: Guy had two good games and you guys want to anoint him. Just like you anointed Wentz. They clearly have something there other than a QB.... See above....I had said that I always liked Foles. I had wanted the Browns to draft him. And I had thought that they should pick him up when he was bouncing around the league. Why? Accuracy.
syd Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 i think he would be a solid dude and would embrace the opportunity to help turn are team around (unlike alex smith) there is no way they are letting him go due to Wentz time table to return to play
gumby73 Posted February 6, 2018 Report Posted February 6, 2018 Eagles won't let Foles go cause it makes no sense..Your paying Wentz a rookie contract of 6.6M. Than Foles 5.5M..In this league your lucky to get a starting QB at 12.1M..Knowing Peterson, he's not going to hold Foles back from making money. That conversation may happen? But holding a clipboard as the hero in Philly may end up with Foles waiting another year.Nick was a FA & Philly came back & got him.Eagles are -minus 4.6M in cap hole as we speak
jcam222 Posted February 7, 2018 Report Posted February 7, 2018 On 2/5/2018 at 12:28 PM, nickers said: I think we have a better shot at making a play for Wentz... Same thing I've said. Bank on their fresh Super Bowl love for Foles and give them #1 for Wentz. Hell I'd give them #1 and a low #2 for him.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.