Rumor: Incarcerated Bob swears that the Bills were the team offering a 2nd for Foles

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Please no.  They were openly talking about replacing him with Sudfield after the Dallas game.  Please just get a blue chip rookie for the first time in 35 years.

 

Do you think they were still saying that after the SB?  And great, it means he's replaceable to them.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Doc

[Doc Brown]

On 3/5/2018 at 7:33 PM, Mark Vader said:

Even if this were true, the Eagles will want a lot more than a 2nd round pick for Foles.

 

The Eagles hold all the cards in this situation. They will command a king's ransom for Foles.

True, but as the offseason continues and they don't receive a better offer they may eventually cave to say a 2nd and 4th/5th round pick or risk losing him next year for nothing.  It's possible because of Wentz's injury that they'd rather keep him the final year then trade him unless it's a first.  It's hard to tell what they're mindset is.

[YoloinOhio]

There has been smoke around the Bills interest in Foles going back awhile now. Still think they draft one, too. 

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

There has been smoke around the Bills interest in Foles going back awhile now. Still think they draft one, too. 

 

If they trade for Foles, I doubt they draft a QB.  He's a young 29, having barely played (49 games) over his first 6 seasons. 

 

[YoloinOhio]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

If they trade for Foles, I doubt they draft a QB.  He's a young 29, having barely played (49 games) over his first 6 seasons. 

 

He only has one year left on his deal. He’s accomplished more, but he’s older and about the same as Tyrod in terms of whether you should still draft one imo. I still consider him a bridge. If he wins the job in camp, great ... take it from there. But depending on who they draft he might not. 

[MrEpsYtown]

The Foles thing is interesting because of his contract. It is really cheap, which would allow the team to use money elsewhere, and I think he is young enough that you don't have to move up to draft a quarterback this year. I prefer jumping up and drafting Rosen, but I think the Foles thing makes sense. 

 

My question is, does that contract void next year regardless of what team he is on? Or is it a provision that is specific to the Eagles. If he is coming with that contract, he is definitely worth a second round pick and then you have a ton of flexibility in the draft. That said, I still think we want Rosen and I think Foles winds up in Arizona. 

[Yav]

I didn’t realize this guy was still alive. Hmm. 

Either way The Eagles do not hold all the cards, keep Foles and figure out how to get under the cap. 

[BuffaloRebound]

Even though Foles costs you some draft picks, he's an upgrade over Tyrod and probably saves you draft capital on a trade-up since Bills don't have to be as desperate with Foles in the mix.  Maybe the guy you want falls past the Jets and instead of spending 3 1sts, you only have to spend 2.  

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

I open up my twitter feed and the first 3 are:

 

1.Bills trading for Brees

2. Bills speaking with Colts about 3rd pick want a franchise guy

3.Bills have the best offer in to the Eagles for Foles

 

My head is going to explode!

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

He only has one year left on his deal. He’s accomplished more, but he’s older and about the same as Tyrod in terms of whether you should still draft one imo. I still consider him a bridge. If he wins the job in camp, great ... take it from there. But depending on who they draft he might not. 

 

Having 1-year left on his deal helps the Bills.  They can evaluate him for (part of) the year and see if he's worth keeping.  If not, let him walk and maybe get a comp pick in 2020. 

[YoloinOhio]

Just now, MrEpsYtown said:

The Foles thing is interesting because of his contract. It is really cheap, which would allow the team to use money elsewhere, and I think he is young enough that you don't have to move up to draft a quarterback this year. I prefer jumping up and drafting Rosen, but I think the Foles thing makes sense. 

 

My question is, does that contract void next year regardless of what team he is on? Or is it a provision that is specific to the Eagles. If he is coming with that contract, he is definitely worth a second round pick and then you have a ton of flexibility in the draft. That said, I still think we want Rosen and I think Foles winds up in Arizona. 

He comes with the contract. You would either extend him at some point or let him play it out. You are paying out draft picks though for what could essentially be one year of bridge or backup work. Hedging your bets though at the QB position though, is wise. We all love the idea of Rosen et al but nothing is a sure thing.

[Wayne Cubed]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Having 1-year left on his deal helps the Bills.  They can evaluate him for (part of) the year and see if he's worth keeping.  If not, let him walk and maybe get a comp pick in 2020. 

 

So trade a possible 2nd round pick to evaluate a QB for a year? And if he doesn’t work out dump him? That seems like an incredible waste of draft capital... if your suggesting the Bills wouldn’t also draft a QB. 

 

Still a pretty high price for a 1 year rental.

[Misterbluesky]

8 minutes ago, horned dogs said:

I open up my twitter feed and the first 3 are:

 

1.Bills trading for Brees

2. Bills speaking with Colts about 3rd pick want a franchise guy

3.Bills have the best offer in to the Eagles for Foles

 

My head is going to explode!

The Brees trade is 100% complete hogwash.

[Boatdrinks]

6 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

So trade a possible 2nd round pick to evaluate a QB for a year? And if he doesn’t work out dump him? That seems like an incredible waste of draft capital... if your suggesting the Bills wouldn’t also draft a QB. 

 

Still a pretty high price for a 1 year rental.

If the Bills offered the pick ( it appears they did) they are obviously ok with that price. A trade for Foles would likely indicate a more conservative draft strategy than say, a costly move up into the top five. I think the Bills would draft a QB in the first round, but  a player they could obtain with less draft capital . That QB would probably need a bit more development time. It looks like they are covering their bases and have a plan for multiple scenarios. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Boatdrinks

[Wayne Cubed]

6 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

If the Bills offered the pick ( it appears they did) they are obviously ok with that price. A trade for Foles would likely indicate a more conservative draft strategy than say, a costly move up into the top five. I think the Bills would draft a QB in the first round, but  a player they could obtain with less draft capital . That QB would probably need a bit more development time. It looks like they are covering their bases and have a plan for multiple scenarios. 

 

My point wasn’t really about what the price would be for Foles, more that Doc was suggesting it would be for a 1 year rental if things didn’t work out. That would mean they aren’t sure about Foles. To me, that seems like a waste of draft capital. You trade for Foles, give up a 2nd, because you believe he can be your starter. It’s why the 9ers did it.

 

I don’t like the Foles option, I think it’ll turn into the same as Flacco situation in Balt, but if the Bills brass are convinced he’s a starter then you trade and extend him. You don’t use a 2nd round pick for a one year rental, imo.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Wayne Cubed

[DCOrange]

15 minutes ago, horned dogs said:

I open up my twitter feed and the first 3 are:

 

1.Bills trading for Brees

2. Bills speaking with Colts about 3rd pick want a franchise guy

3.Bills have the best offer in to the Eagles for Foles

 

My head is going to explode!

Where did you see that Buffalo is trading for a free agent QB?

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

So trade a possible 2nd round pick to evaluate a QB for a year? And if he doesn’t work out dump him? That seems like an incredible waste of draft capital... if your suggesting the Bills wouldn’t also draft a QB. 

 

Still a pretty high price for a 1 year rental.

 

True.  Assuming he doesn't work out.  But I'd rather do that than for a, say, WR.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

18 minutes ago, horned dogs said:

I open up my twitter feed and the first 3 are:

 

1.Bills trading for Brees

2. Bills speaking with Colts about 3rd pick want a franchise guy

3.Bills have the best offer in to the Eagles for Foles

 

My head is going to explode!

Problem #1.    Twitter 

[mannc]

12 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

So trade a possible 2nd round pick to evaluate a QB for a year? And if he doesn’t work out dump him? That seems like an incredible waste of draft capital... if your suggesting the Bills wouldn’t also draft a QB. 

 

Still a pretty high price for a 1 year rental.

Remember, it's a late second round pick and there is at least some evidence that Foles could turn into a long-term solution.  And he's got a cheap contract for the duration of that 1-year rental. 

[Wayne Cubed]

Just now, mannc said:

Remember, it's a late second round pick and there is at least some evidence that Foles could turn into a long-term solution.  And he's got a cheap contract for the duration of that 1-year rental. 

 

Still a waste when you could be getting a 4 year starter out of that pick or using that pick to move up for a young QB for 5 years. 

 

If you do it, it’s because you believe he is a a long term solution. And then you extend him. 

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

True.  Assuming he doesn't work out.  But I'd rather do that than for a, say, WR.

 

A WR rental isnt so bad if you got your QB. I know your referencing Sammy, but that trade isn’t going to hurt them.

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

Still a waste when you could be getting a 4 year starter out of that pick or using that pick to move up for a young QB for 5 years. 

 

If you do it, it’s because you believe he is a a long term solution. And then you extend him. 

Or it's a way to acquire a better QB for a reasonable cost,AND have a talented rook QB on the roster to develop without sacrificing too much draft capital.  Win now AND in the future. It's hedging your bets , and not putting your proverbial eggs in one basket. Having too many QBs isn't a bad problem to have down the road. 

[Doc]

5 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

A WR rental isnt so bad if you got your QB. I know your referencing Sammy, but that trade isn’t going to hurt them.

 

But a QB trade would?

[Wayne Cubed]

9 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Or it's a way to acquire a better QB for a reasonable cost,AND have a talented rook QB on the roster to develop without sacrificing too much draft capital.  Win now AND in the future. It's hedging your bets , and not putting your proverbial eggs in one basket. Having too many QBs isn't a bad problem to have down the road. 

 

If you are going after Foles, the picks you are giving up are crippling your chances of moving up. You are giving up the very capital that may allow you to move up. Without sacrificing too much? If you go after Foles and are looking to trade up too, that’s a lot of picks given up.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

But a QB trade would?

 

Yea, if he doesn’t work out it does. It’s another year of passing on drafting one, which as we know is the only place you truly find franchise QBs. What if nexts years QB class is like 2013s? The Bills pass on drafting a QB this year, a QB rich draft class, and then are stuck with what next year? 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Wayne Cubed

[BuffaloRebound]

6 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

If you are going after Foles, the picks you are giving up are crippling your chances of moving up. You are giving up the very capital that may allow you to move up. Without sacrificing too much? If you go after Foles and are long to trade up, that’s a lot of picks given up.

 

 

 

Maybe Bills aren't that high into any one of them in particular to give up three 1st rounders but would be happy with any of the top 3 or 4, and they'd rather go with Foles and whoever falls past the Jets.  

[Boatdrinks]

13 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

If you are going after Foles, the picks you are giving up are crippling your chances of moving up. You are giving up the very capital that may allow you to move up. Without sacrificing too much? If you go after Foles and are long to trade up, that’s a lot of picks given up.

 

 

I'm sure they are considering all factors. The Foles option would probably be in lieu of a huge move up, remember that they have 21and 22. The Bills have a better idea of the cost to move into the top 5 than we fans do. If they feel the cost would cripple their ability to build through the draft ( they have few star players and very few under contract ) a Foles/ later first round QB could fit the Bill. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Boatdrinks

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

If you are going after Foles, the picks you are giving up are crippling your chances of moving up. You are giving up the very capital that may allow you to move up. Without sacrificing too much? If you go after Foles and are looking to trade up too, that’s a lot of picks given up.

 

Yea, if he doesn’t work out it does. It’s another year of passing on drafting one, which as we know is the only place you truly find franchise QBs. What if nexts years QB class is like 2013s? The Bills pass on drafting a QB this year, a QB rich draft class, and then are stuck with what next year? 

 

The Bills will have to use a lot of draft capital to move up to get a wholly unproven rookie.  If he busts then what?

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

35 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

Where did you see that Buffalo is trading for a free agent QB?

Bills Fanatics

 

[Wayne Cubed]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The Bills will have to use a lot of draft capital to move up to get a wholly unproven rookie.  If he busts then what?

 

Hes a rookie, you have him for more than the 1 year you are suggesting for Foles. You’d give him minimum 2. And by year 2 you’d recoup your picks.

11 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

I'm sure they are considering all factors. The Foles option would probably be in lieu of a huge move up, remember that they have 21and 22. The Bills have a better idea of the cost to move into the top 5 than we fans do. If they feel the cost would cripple their ability to build through the draft ( they have few star players and very few under contract ) a Foles/ later first round QB could fit the Bill. 

 

If that’s what they think is the best move than so be it. 

 

But if they like a guy that goes early and aren’t able to get there because they trade for Foles and that blows up, they be gone not long after.

[Boatdrinks]

12 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

Hes a rookie, you have him for more than the 1 year you are suggesting for Foles. You’d give him minimum 2. And by year 2 you’d recoup your picks.

 

If that’s what they think is the best move than so be it. 

 

But if they like a guy that goes early and aren’t able to get there because they trade for Foles and that blows up, they be gone not long after.

That's why they are doing their due diligence. Yes, these are the decisions that ultimately make or break careers in the NFL exec/ HC world. It's not being taken lightly. If a move were made for Foles ( and there is a limit to what they will pay) it's because the asking price for a top 5 pick is too high. They have two second round picks , AND the first pick in the 3rd from the TT trade. More than enough ammo to make such a move IF they want to. A Foles deal wouldn't stop them from a big move up, rather it's the choice they would make if they don't feel the cost is worth it. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by Boatdrinks

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

Hes a rookie, you have him for more than the 1 year you are suggesting for Foles. You’d give him minimum 2. And by year 2 you’d recoup your picks.

 

If that’s what they think is the best move than so be it. 

 

But if they like a guy that goes early and aren’t able to get there because they trade for Foles and that blows up, they be gone not long after.

 

You wouldn't recoup them.  You've still would have wasted 2-1st rounders and (likely) a 2nd rounder.  And that would get you fired.  Trading for a SB winning/MVP QB and seeing him flame-out wouldn't. 

[Wayne Cubed]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

You wouldn't recoup them.  You've still would have wasted 2-1st rounders and (likely) a 2nd rounder.  And that would get you fired.  Trading for a SB winning/MVP QB and seeing him flame-out wouldn't. 

 

Sorry, they’d have recovered from the loss of picks, better?

 

You don’t think trading/wasting picks on a trade for a QB, for 1 year, that didn’t work out, wouldn’t get a GM or Coach fired? All while by passing the draft to do so?

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

Sorry, they’d have recovered from the loss of picks, better?

 

You don’t think trading/wasting picks on a trade for a QB, for 1 year, that didn’t work out, wouldn’t get a GM or Coach fired? All while by passing the draft to do so?

 

A late 2nd for a SB winning/MVP QB?  No. 

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

If they trade for Foles, I doubt they draft a QB.  He's a young 29, having barely played (49 games) over his first 6 seasons. 

 

 

I think if they get Foles they still draft a QB with one of their original 1st or 2nd round picks. McDermott wants to win now so I'm sure would love to use all his picks on different positions. I'm starting to think this is their plan A, but if Foles doesn't work our a trade up would be plan B.

1 hour ago, Wayne Cubed said:

 

So trade a possible 2nd round pick to evaluate a QB for a year? And if he doesn’t work out dump him? That seems like an incredible waste of draft capital... if your suggesting the Bills wouldn’t also draft a QB. 

 

Still a pretty high price for a 1 year rental.

 

This is exactly what the Rams did with Sammy. For a QB it is more than worth it.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Super Bowl MVP.   

 

One a 1 year deal.    

 

Now why would we ever think of bringing him in?  

 

? ? 

[Doc]

54 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

I think if they get Foles they still draft a QB with one of their original 1st or 2nd round picks. McDermott wants to win now so I'm sure would love to use all his picks on different positions. I'm starting to think this is their plan A, but if Foles doesn't work our a trade up would be plan B.

 

I would instead use the first rounders and other pics to improve the offense and give Foles what he needs to excel.   Taking a QB early would send the wrong message. 

[GrizzReaper]

No sure what's going on here... but wasn't this Bob clown right about Mario Williams coming to the Bills? Idk I recall him being right about that... He has been wayyy off on a few of his scoops I've read too though. I suppose him being correct is the exception not the norm.

 

I'd be happy to have Foles but not if the pick traded away negates our ability to move up the board to draft whomever it is all this draft capital was amassed for...

 

[greeneblitz]

This obsession with Nick Foles is just dumb, he's done nothing his entire career and happens to be on a team that finished with the best record in the NFL without him. Foles is a average QB plain and simple, and played a awesome game when it counted.

[BillsFan4]

8 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Having 1-year left on his deal helps the Bills.  They can evaluate him for (part of) the year and see if he's worth keeping.  If not, let him walk and maybe get a comp pick in 2020. 

 

8 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

He only has one year left on his deal. He’s accomplished more, but he’s older and about the same as Tyrod in terms of whether you should still draft one imo. I still consider him a bridge. If he wins the job in camp, great ... take it from there. But depending on who they draft he might not. 

 

Does he for sure only have 1 year left on his deal? 

 

I thought so too, but then I looked into it a bit and now I'm not so sure. 

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/nick-foles-9898/

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nick-foles-contract-would-make-him-a-free-agent-if-hes-on-the-eagles-in-february-2019/

 

 

It looks like he actually has 4 years left on his deal. But it voids after the 2018 season if he's still on the Eagles roster. 

 

So, would it still void after this year if he's traded? Or do those additional 3 years kick in since he's not in the Eagles roster? 

[cba fan]

9 minutes ago, BillsFan4 said:

 

 

Does he for sure only have 1 year left on his deal? 

 

I thought so too, but then I looked into it a bit and now I'm not so sure. 

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/philadelphia-eagles/nick-foles-9898/

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nick-foles-contract-would-make-him-a-free-agent-if-hes-on-the-eagles-in-february-2019/

 

 

It looks like he actually has 4 years left on his deal. But it voids after the 2018 season if he's still on the Eagles roster. 

 

So, would it still void after this year if he's traded? Or do those additional 3 years kick in since he's not in the Eagles roster? 

I know confusing as hell. Media even has reported it wrong thinking you get Foles with 4 yr low deal. It voids after next year. The extra years are added to manipulate the salary cap just like the extra years on Tyrods contract. Can not see details of Tyrods original deal as it has been updated as he was traded. 

 

Foles contract voids 23 days prior to league year 2019 if still on "roster".  When contract is traded the team in question in regards to "roster" is now the new team and not the old team(eagles) as the new team as new team owns the contract.

Edited March 12, 2018 by cba fan

[BillsFan4]

6 minutes ago, cba fan said:

I know confusing as hell. It voids after next year. The extra years are added to manipulate the salary cap just like the extra years on Tyrods contract. Can not see details of Tyrods original deal as it has been updated as he was traded. 

Not sure if that (Tyrod) was a typo but I'm asking about Nick Foles contract. 

 

It says it voids if he is on the Eagles roster for 2019. 

 

 

 

But it does it still void if he's traded? 

Edited March 12, 2018 by BillsFan4