Nick Foles Released **merged**

[Stash]

That's great and all but when people are defending Foles awful play in St. Louis because he didn't have talent around him, it kind of takes the wind out of their sails when Case Freaking Keenum was significantly better than Foles with the same talent and coaching.

There's no denying that fact, but we're not debating Keenum vs Foles here, but Kellen Moore vs Foles.

And Jeff Fisher may know defense, but his track record shows a guy that's not exactly been 'QB friendly'.

 

[Sydla]

There's no denying that fact, but we're not debating Keenum vs Foles here, but Kellen Moore vs Foles.

And Jeff Fisher may know defense, but his track record shows a guy that's not exactly been 'QB friendly'.

Yep and because he was so terrible in St. Louis and it might not have had anything to do with the talent around him, it's now debatable if he's even better than Moore at this point and certainly when you factor in that it would probably cost a couple of million or more to get him, yuck.............

 

[Denim Chicken]

But but but the Rams had no talent! I mean how could Foles be expected to perform in that offense?

Keenum only threw four TDs in 6 games averaging a whopping 138 yard per game. His passer rating get a bump for only having about 20 attempts per game.

He was not any better than Foles.

 

[Sydla]

Keenum only threw four TDs in 6 games averaging a whopping 138 yard per game. His passer rating get a bump for only having about 20 attempts per game.

He was not any better than Foles.

Yes he was. Foles only averaged 186 yards a game and had a terrible QB rating. So it's not like Foles was dropping 300 yards every game but just throwing a lot of picks to screw up his QB rating. He was grossly inaccurate, throwing picks and overall not very effective at moving the ball through the air.

 

[Falco78]

If we can bring him in on a vet minimum deal then why not

 

[Stash]

Yep and because he was so terrible in St. Louis and it might not have had anything to do with the talent around him, it's now debatable if he's even better than Moore at this point and certainly when you factor in that it would probably cost a couple of million or more to get him, yuck.............

I'm seeing an obvious contradiction in your reasoning.

If he was "so terrible in St. Louis", how would it "probably cost a couple of million or more to get him"?

His stick looks about as low as Brandon Weeden's was before the Cowboys signed him for next to nothing. He was just cut prior to the start of training camp after tge team couldn't get anyone to trade even a 7th round pick for him. What makes you think he would suddenly have high salary demands?

It sounds more like something you're trying to convince yourself of to go against signing him. I'm fine if you don't like the player, but not projecting salary demands that don't exist.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Yes he was. Foles only averaged 186 yards a game and had a terrible QB rating. So it's not like Foles was dropping 300 yards every game but just throwing a lot of picks to screw up his QB rating. He was grossly inaccurate, throwing picks and overall not very effective at moving the ball through the air.

I won't argue that Foles wasn't bad last year, because he was. But he had about 10 more attempts per game than Keenum who's rating drops into the 70's if you take out the 158 outlier. They were both not good.

Foles really had some stinkers though. Green Bay game (11/30; 141 yards; 1TD; 4 int)

The crazy thing, is both these QBs beat Seattle last year.

 

[Sydla]

I'm seeing an obvious contradiction in your reasoning.

If he was "so terrible in St. Louis", how would it "probably cost a couple of million or more to get him"?

His stick looks about as low as Brandon Weeden's was before the Cowboys signed him for next to nothing. He was just cut prior to the start of training camp after tge team couldn't get anyone to trade even a 7th round pick for him. What makes you think he would suddenly have high salary demands?

It sounds more like something you're trying to convince yourself of to go against signing him. I'm fine if you don't like the player, but not projecting salary demands that don't exist.

Because some team will likely pay him going backup QB rate which is a couple of million or more.

I hope we aren't that team.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

One guys has actually done something in this league while the other hasn't. In four years. Who's the bigger "waste of time"?

They are both equally a waste of time being that both have shown they can't play in this league. Once again, I'm not pro Kellen either.

 

[Stash]

Because some team will likely pay him going backup QB rate which is a couple of million or more.

I hope we aren't that team.

Who? Where? Again, I see speculation not based on the reality of the situation. He's damaged goods and a reclamation project at this point.

If somebody was willing to offer him "a couple million or more" - and I can't see that happening - it won't be us, you can rest easy there.

In all likelihood, this team will again do nothing and stick with the 'devil they know' as is their tendency, and then react when it's too late.

 

[Stash]

They are both equally a waste of time being that both have shown they can't play in this league. Once again, I'm not pro Kellen either.

One has actually shown that he can, and at a high level. The other hasn't. That's the key difference.

 

[Denim Chicken]

I would take McCown over Foles if he were available. May even through a late round pick to nab him.

McCown > Foles > Moore

 

[Denim Chicken]

Who? Where? Again, I see speculation not based on the reality of the situation. He's damaged goods and a reclamation project at this point.

If somebody was willing to offer him "a couple million or more" - and I can't see that happening - it won't be us, you can rest easy there.

In all likelihood, this team will again do nothing and stick with the 'devil they know' as is their tendency, and then react when it's too late.

He's going to get at least 2 mil per. I don't think that's even a controversial take.

 

[Stash]

He's going to get at least 2 mil per. I don't think that's even a controversial take.

Even if that's true, is that 'too much' in your mind?

 

[Denim Chicken]

Even if that's true, is that 'too much' in your mind?

Nope.

Same price as Hoyer, Moore, Weeden, Castle

 

[Sydla]

Even if that's true, is that 'too much' in your mind?

Yep.

He stinks. You can continue thinking that there's something there but there really isn't. I mean I guess I could buy it if there was a skill set that was clearly evident. Like if he was a strong armed kid or very mobile. But he's arguably one of the most immobile QBs in the entire league, he has poor pocket awareness and he has a league average arm at best.

Foles isn't winning you squat if Romo goes down. So save the $2MM and use it to overpay a bit for Freeney.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

One has actually shown that he can, and at a high level. The other hasn't. That's the key difference.

There isn't a key difference. What does it matter what he did with Chip Kelly? Chip Kelly isn't here and that was YEARS ago. Are we judging guys based on what they did last season or based on what they did 3 years ago? If that's the case we might as well keep Matt Cassell.....he showed he could be a competent QB a few years ago as well.

 

[percyhoward]

Ok......now let's put Matt Cassell and Kellen Moore on those teams and see what happens. Amazing the dumb posts coming in this thread after what we watched last year

In other words, Foles wasn't just outplayed by his backup two years in a row, Foles was outplayed by a bad team's backup two years in a row.

 

[Califan007]

He had an 81 rating in his 2nd year in Kelly's system. Hardly playing well. And he really only played "well" in the two of the 8 games he played - the Skins game in Sept and the Houston game, which was his last and he got hurt.

In the other 6 games, he ranged from average to poor.

I said he played "well enough", not "played well" lol...besides, if you're only gonna count good games as those where the QB had a rating of 100 or better, then you'll have to wait a loooooong time before you're able to sign a backup QB who has had a succession of 100+ QB rating games. Those QBs tend to be starters, not backups.

 

[Sydla]

I said he played "well enough", not "played well" lol...besides, if you're only gonna count good games as those where the QB had a rating of 100 or better, then you'll have to wait a loooooong time before you're able to sign a backup QB who has had a succession of 100+ QB rating games. Those QBs tend to be starters, not backups.

I am not only counting bad games. Just pointing out that his 2014 season is skewed by two games.

I hope we sign him at this point and then you guys get to actually watch him play and realize just how bad he is.