Making a Case For QB Nick Foles

[Son of RedRage]

Are you feeling pangs of franchise QB envy?

It looks fairly certain that Bruce Arians and Steve Keim have decided once again to put all the eggs in QB Carson Palmer's basket for the next 2-3 years. Palmer was having perhaps his best year as a pro before his ACL tear. He was 6-0 and the team was thriving.

Palmer is tough in the pocket and any QB playing in Arians' offense has to be tough, both mentally and physically because Arians favors a number of spread formations particularly on third downs that minimizes pass protection in lieu of maximizing receiver matchups and quick strike capabilities.

Can Palmer rebound from his ACL rehab and be just as good as he was in 2014? Palmer has been through the rehab before and it seems he feels confident that he can rebound quickly.

Drew Stanton filled in adequately for Palmer, but he too was knocked out of action and he is in the last year of his contract.

Logan Thomas was so far behind in his development that Arians elected to play Ryan Lindley during the most important games of the season. That is a bummer, especially because Lindley does not figure into the present and future plans at QB and Thomas was not able to profit from gaining valuable playing time experience. This reality makes one wonder if Thomas really has any shot at all of ever playing for Arians.

Would the Cardinals be better off to try to make a trade for a younger QB with franchise type potential or should they stick with Palmer and Stanton?

My own feeling is that the Cardinals should make a move at QB. Rumors are that the Rams are very interested in trading for QB Nick Foles of the Eagles which could give the Eagles more trading chips to move up in the draft in order to select Marcus Mariota.

Should the Cardinals try to beat the Eagles to the punch for Foles?

I think they should. The Rams are a good QB away from blowing right past the Cardinals in the standings. Foles is an Arizona QB and he has the kind of size and accuracy that the Cardinals needs at the QB position. Foles led the NFL in passing in 2013. He regressed some last year as did the Eagles' offense and he wound up breaking his left collarbone. That is a lot easier for a right-handed QB to return from than a torn ACL. Foles enters his 4th year and thus can play in 2015 for a mere $660,000. The Cardinals could see how he plays and make a new contract offer accordingly---and if need be they can tag him in 2016 until a contract is signed.

If the Cardinals decide to move on from Palmer, which he himself questioned after suffering his injury, the Cardinals would lose $4M in dead money on the cap, but would save $10.5M.

Therefore, if one adds $4M to Foles' $660,000---for this year the Cardinals would be paying their starting QB essentially $4.66M and would be paying their backup Stanton $3.87M. Add in Logan Thomas' $618,000 and the QB cap total for 2015 is a highly manageable $9.15M. And now the Cardinals have an added $10.5M to add key free agents.

Therefore, my question to you is: would you prefer the younger QB Nick Foles to veteran QB Carson Palmer?

I like Foles' accuracy and touch (particularly on short, quick passes---a staple in BA's offense) over Palmer's. And it would sure feel good to have our QB in place for the next ten years like the Seahawks do, wouldn't it?

I know this will stir up angst over the last QB trade the Cardinals made with the Eagles. But, in my way of thinking, the second time could be the charm. Different head coaches. Different QBs with much different skills sets and mentalities.

Agreed. He'll have to adapt to our playbook though, right? If I recall, Chip Kelly ran more of a playbook devoted to options and such.

 

[kerouac9]

I think so, not sure myself anymore.

There is always the chance that I am missing the point.

Sometimes when K9 and I debate its like watching a shown down at the OK corall between two blind men.

Plenty of action but kinda not seeing eye to eye. LOL

Point is K9 makes great points, I just don't see the Eagles being a good playoff team. But, since it is just my opinion, I may have to eat crow at some point over the next 5 years for said statement against said team.

Yeah. You're fine to say, "This is what I think, but I'm open to evidence that disputes that." You're one poster who is able to be persuaded by data, I think.

I feel that watching Kelly's offense is a joy. I want it to work because it's so fun and I hate college football. I just don't see a ton of evidence that it's not currently working, or that somehow the NFL "figured out" the Kelly offense this season.

I think the experiment of interchangeable quarterbacks is fascinating. What if you built an NFL team around a superior offensive line and running back, with the wideouts and quarterbacks being imminently replaceable! You'd be able to get SO MUCH VALUE out of your roster, because quarterbacks and receivers are increasingly the most expensive parts of an offense.

Agreed. He'll have to adapt to our playbook though, right? If I recall, Chip Kelly ran more of a playbook devoted to options and such.

I think that Kelly runs a really remarkable offense for its simplicity--particularly in the running game. Like Andy Reid (and Bill Walsh before him), I think they run just a handful of plays out of many, many sets. They work to execute those concepts perfectly and generate structural matchups that favor them.

 

[NJCardFan]

I know someone that spoke directly with Kelly. He is not happy with Foles or Sanchez.

Yeah, we all do.

 

[SO91]

Yeah, we all do.

Maybe there was a hot tub involved?

 

[SO91]

I am not talking about Bruce Arians, and what does he have to do with the conversation ?

I am talking about Nick Foles, and how I don't believe he is ready to play QB in a NFL style offense.

Call it nonsense, call it what you will, I call it lack of reading comprehesion. For the THIRD TIME, I will tell you it is my opinion. I stated that in the initial statement, my response, and again here.

And again I will repeat myself, I understand Kelly's offense makes for great stats, but I do not believe, THUS MY OPINION, that Kelly is going to make it far in the playoffs in the NFL. So it may be productive for fantasy football but I will wait until the Eagles do something in the playoffs before I give Kelly anymore credit than people already heap on the guy.

Kelly's system is interesting, I have watched A LOT of Eagles games living in the local area. Yes, they move the ball, and produce a lot of yards, but there are also things that the NFL doesn't allow to happen that I think Kelly needs for his system to work at the highest NFL level. Not to mention Kelly will be the GM/Coach this season so his personnel abilities are going to be put to the test. THUS WE WILL SEE.

And again I will repeat myself, he has a lot of time to prove me wrong. And good for him if he does.

So, state what you want, I am not going to repeat things 3 times. Post all the stats you want, I am speaking of my beliefs and what I think about Kelly's system. No amount of stats will change that.

Not saying you don't have valid points, they most certainly are. I am just saying I am not one that thinks those stats amount to anything.

I have made some great examples, at least I think so, to try and explain what I mean, and this point, that is all I got.

So, you think Kelly can win, and IF Foles was a good prospect the fact he comes from Kelly's system makes no difference, I feel the exact opposite. And my opinion isn't based on stats, because stat wise you don't get better than Kelly's offense, that is obvious.

But it is a bit of conflict of interests that you promote Kelly's system as one of the best in the NFL. When the offensive line was healthy, Foles' stats where best in the league, yet you don't think Foles is franchise QB worthy ? I agree that Foles is not NFL material, just wonder how you like one without the other ?

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Yeah. You're fine to say, "This is what I think, but I'm open to evidence that disputes that." You're one poster who is able to be persuaded by data, I think.

Certainly! Thus why I debate, because I get A LOT out of it.

I have had many a time where I have changed my thoughts on a subject because of it.

Yet, to be fair, you and I, (Steve Smith being the classic example) have debated things that had nothing to do with stats, and it is MUCH harder to debate based on opinion and from seeing what is on the field and not on paper.

The Steve Smith example is perfect because I really started to look at him and concentrate on him after our debate, and stats be damned, that guy in his prime was a freak. If Smith was 6 feet tall or taller he may be one of the best ever.

As for the Kelly situation, looking at the stats would make you think this offense cannot be stopped, but it can be stopped......at least as it stands now.

The big question is, will a different QB get Kelly's offense in the NFL over the hump, we don't know yet.

I feel that watching Kelly's offense is a joy. I want it to work because it's so fun and I hate college football. I just don't see a ton of evidence that it's not currently working, or that somehow the NFL "figured out" the Kelly offense this season.

I think the experiment of interchangeable quarterbacks is fascinating. What if you built an NFL team around a superior offensive line and running back, with the wideouts and quarterbacks being imminently replaceable! You'd be able to get SO MUCH VALUE out of your roster, because quarterbacks and receivers are increasingly the most expensive parts of an offense.

I completely agree here.

Being in the area I get a front row seat of this offense, and a lot of the talk about it. I have really watched it, and tried to figure out the philosophy and how it works. To be honest it has a lot of rugby ties into it on how it stretches the field, and how it utilizes the backward pass or laterals as football puts it to really put pressure on the defense.

The only real way to combat it is play rugby style defense where you play man to man, keep your lanes, and rely on every defensive player to be able to make one on one tackles.

At least that is what I have gathered. Not to mention the pace of the offense is hard to combat as well.

Yet, in the NFL the refs will not allow a quick snap like in football because of substitutions, and the ridiculous TV timeouts doesn't help the cause as well.

Furthermore, the Eagles defense is on the field so much that a ball control offense that can also score, is going to be a real challenge.

Yet, as you said, it is early in the process for Kelly, can he, or will he overcome these challenges, I personally don't think so, but I am not going to be shocked if I am wrong.

That being said, it is without a doubt a fun offense to watch.

As for the QB position in Kelly's offense, again, I 100% agree. If you can find a way to produce on offense without relying on a "franchise QB" who gets paid franchise QB money, then you are, in a way, taking advantage of the current NFL model, and setup. It is a HUGE advantage to be able to not be constricted by the QB position in the NFL.

Thus if the QB is so interchangeable in this offense, is why I agree with you that Nick Foles is not a franchse, NFL QB that the Cardinals should be looking at. The physical traits are there, IMO, but mentally I think he would be like a 2nd year late round QB. Which is nothing the Cardinals should trade for.

If the Rams wanna take that chance, then let them. I would be more concerned with the Rams and a healthy Sam Bradford than with Nick Foles, JMHO.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

You must be registered for see images attach

8 year olds dude.

 

[bankybruce]

He is a FA now.

 

[kerouac9]

Lotta people looking smart on this thread.

 

[Mitch]

I still would love to know what BA could do with Nick Foles. To judge him on how he played in STL may very well be a mistake---a new OC---and a makeshift offensive line.

Foles is 2-1 versus BA's Cardinals. With the Eagles in 2013 and a W in Philly: 21/34/237/3TDs/0 int; With Rams in 2015 and a W at U of P: 16/24/171/3TDs/0 int; Rams L at STL (returning after getting benched for a few games): 15/35/146/0TDs/1 int.

Thus, BA and SK have had a good look at him---the questions are would he be a better option than Barkley and Coker? Could BA groom him for the future? Is BA's offense a good fit?

 

[wa52lz]

I still would love to know what BA could do with Nick Foles. To judge him on how he played in STL may very well be a mistake---a new OC---and a makeshift offensive line.

Foles is 2-1 versus BA's Cardinals. With the Eagles in 2013 and a W in Philly: 21/34/237/3TDs/0 int; With Rams in 2015 and a W at U of P: 16/24/171/3TDs/0 int; Rams L at STL (returning after getting benched for a few games): 15/35/146/0TDs/1 int.

Thus, BA and SK have had a good look at him---the questions are would he be a better option than Barkley and Coker? Could BA groom him for the future? Is BA's offense a good fit?

He also lost to the Cards in AZ in 2014 as an Eagle 24-20, 36/62/411/2/2

 

[Dback Jon]

I still would love to know what BA could do with Nick Foles. To judge him on how he played in STL may very well be a mistake---a new OC---and a makeshift offensive line.

Foles is 2-1 versus BA's Cardinals. With the Eagles in 2013 and a W in Philly: 21/34/237/3TDs/0 int; With Rams in 2015 and a W at U of P: 16/24/171/3TDs/0 int; Rams L at STL (returning after getting benched for a few games): 15/35/146/0TDs/1 int.

Thus, BA and SK have had a good look at him---the questions are would he be a better option than Barkley and Coker? Could BA groom him for the future? Is BA's offense a good fit?

Is he better than Stanton?

 

[bankybruce]

He'll be a Jet and Ryan FATzpatrick will keep eating.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[splitsecond]

He will start for someone this year, mark my words. I would have no issue with dumping Matt Barkley and picking up Foles because I think Foles fits the mold of a BA QB much better than Barkley but it's not going to happen.

 

[bankybruce]

He will start for someone this year, mark my words. I would have no issue with dumping Matt Barkley and picking up Foles because I think Foles fits the mold of a BA QB much better than Barkley but it's not going to happen.

Why would Foles leave a place where he might start for a place that he becomes #3. He wants to start and the Jets, Bills and Browns are his only real chance right now.

 

[splitsecond]

Why would Foles leave a place where he might start for a place that he becomes #3. He wants to start and the Jets, Bills and Browns are his only real chance right now.

That's my point. I think Foles has higher upside and potential in our system than Barkley - by a lot - but he will go get a starting job somewhere.

 

[Bodha]

This reminds me the Matt Flynn world tour.

You remember that Packers backup QB who had like 2 good games to his name, and then got big money from seattle, then Oakland, then bills, then back to Packers I think.


Brock Osweiler as well. Dude got like $72 mill right? FOOOR WHAAAT????


I don't want to hear about Nicks good games. His 7 TD performance. Hes trash who got hot.

 

[TJ]

That's my point. I think Foles has higher upside and potential in our system than Barkley - by a lot - but he will go get a starting job somewhere.

If Foles wants a starting job again, he needs to be patient and go somewhere he can learn a system for 1+ years and get some coaching. The teams that need a QB need a QB for many reasons, one of which is coaching. If he goes to the Jets, Bills, etc., it'd be more of the same that he got in STL. His mechanics are a mess right now and substandard coaching won't help.

 

[DVontel]

Would much rather trade up for a QB in the draft than sign Nick Foles.

 

[BACH]

I would rather have Clipboard Jesus