NFL 2017
-
I can't see Philly keeping Foles if he's off contract now. He'll join Cousins as a top QB on the free market and at 28 years old and a SB winner I'd say he's quite attractive up against the guy who hasn't won anything
I can't see Philly keeping Foles if he's off contract now. He'll join Cousins as a top QB on the free market and at 28 years old and a SB winner I'd say he's quite attractive up against the guy who hasn't won anything
Definitely moves ahead of Cousins. What a game although both secondaries never turned up to the game.
-
I can't see Philly keeping Foles if he's off contract now. He'll join Cousins as a top QB on the free market and at 28 years old and a SB winner I'd say he's quite attractive up against the guy who hasn't won anything
Definitely moves ahead of Cousins. What a game although both secondaries never turned up to the game.
@sneakdefreak said in NFL 2017:
I can't see Philly keeping Foles if he's off contract now. He'll join Cousins as a top QB on the free market and at 28 years old and a SB winner I'd say he's quite attractive up against the guy who hasn't won anything
Definitely moves ahead of Cousins. What a game although both secondaries never turned up to the game.
One Monday morning Nick rings his agent and says
-
-
Whoop! Never in doubt
-
I can't see Philly keeping Foles if he's off contract now. He'll join Cousins as a top QB on the free market and at 28 years old and a SB winner I'd say he's quite attractive up against the guy who hasn't won anything
@canefan Foles is actually not off contract, but he's expected to get traded by the Eagles this offseason. The one big thing that's appealing about trading for Foles is the fact that he's cheap for the next 4 years, so even though he might be a bit of a trade risk, at least he's not tied to a massive unmovable contract.
The Redskins actually should've waited on trading for Alex Smith and tried trading for the cheaper and younger Nick Foles instead. The Redskins run the West Coast offense, as do the Eagles(Eagles throw in a bit more college concepts in their offense), and it's an offense that Foles seems comfortable in, and also one of the few places outside of Philly where you can see a carry over of success for Foles.
-
@canefan Foles is actually not off contract, but he's expected to get traded by the Eagles this offseason. The one big thing that's appealing about trading for Foles is the fact that he's cheap for the next 4 years, so even though he might be a bit of a trade risk, at least he's not tied to a massive unmovable contract.
The Redskins actually should've waited on trading for Alex Smith and tried trading for the cheaper and younger Nick Foles instead. The Redskins run the West Coast offense, as do the Eagles(Eagles throw in a bit more college concepts in their offense), and it's an offense that Foles seems comfortable in, and also one of the few places outside of Philly where you can see a carry over of success for Foles.
@canefan The one big thing that's appealing about trading for Foles is the fact that he's cheap for the next 4 years, so even though he might be a bit of a trade risk, at least he's not tied to a massive unmovable contract.
4 years? Isn't he only under contract for one more year?
-
@canefan The one big thing that's appealing about trading for Foles is the fact that he's cheap for the next 4 years, so even though he might be a bit of a trade risk, at least he's not tied to a massive unmovable contract.
4 years? Isn't he only under contract for one more year?
@kiwimurph said in NFL 2017:
@canefan The one big thing that's appealing about trading for Foles is the fact that he's cheap for the next 4 years, so even though he might be a bit of a trade risk, at least he's not tied to a massive unmovable contract.
4 years? Isn't he only under contract for one more year?
He's technically under contract for 4 more years, but if he's still on the Eagles roster by February 2019, he can get out of the last 3 years. But I think if he's traded before then, he can't get out of those last 3 years on another team.
-
@kiwimurph said in NFL 2017:
@canefan The one big thing that's appealing about trading for Foles is the fact that he's cheap for the next 4 years, so even though he might be a bit of a trade risk, at least he's not tied to a massive unmovable contract.
4 years? Isn't he only under contract for one more year?
He's technically under contract for 4 more years, but if he's still on the Eagles roster by February 2019, he can get out of the last 3 years. But I think if he's traded before then, he can't get out of those last 3 years on another team.
@kiwimurph said in NFL 2017:
@canefan The one big thing that's appealing about trading for Foles is the fact that he's cheap for the next 4 years, so even though he might be a bit of a trade risk, at least he's not tied to a massive unmovable contract.
4 years? Isn't he only under contract for one more year?
He's technically under contract for 4 more years, but if he's still on the Eagles roster by February 2019, he can get out of the last 3 years. But I think if he's traded before then, he can't get out of those last 3 years on another team.
Someone is going to bite and offer a first or a second for him. My money would be on Miami.
-
Want to experience Superbowl celebrations? Listen to the Philadelphia Police scanner. One cop just got run over by a guy on a quad.
-
@kiwimurph said in NFL 2017:
@canefan The one big thing that's appealing about trading for Foles is the fact that he's cheap for the next 4 years, so even though he might be a bit of a trade risk, at least he's not tied to a massive unmovable contract.
4 years? Isn't he only under contract for one more year?
He's technically under contract for 4 more years, but if he's still on the Eagles roster by February 2019, he can get out of the last 3 years. But I think if he's traded before then, he can't get out of those last 3 years on another team.
Someone is going to bite and offer a first or a second for him. My money would be on Miami.
@sneakdefreak said in NFL 2017:
@kiwimurph said in NFL 2017:
@canefan The one big thing that's appealing about trading for Foles is the fact that he's cheap for the next 4 years, so even though he might be a bit of a trade risk, at least he's not tied to a massive unmovable contract.
4 years? Isn't he only under contract for one more year?
He's technically under contract for 4 more years, but if he's still on the Eagles roster by February 2019, he can get out of the last 3 years. But I think if he's traded before then, he can't get out of those last 3 years on another team.
Someone is going to bite and offer a first or a second for him. My money would be on Miami.
Or maybe JAX?
-
Man I really enjoyed that game. I watch about 1 game of NFL a year and that was brilliant from start to finish. I'm more of a baseball fan than a football fan really, but I might have a bit more of a look at the NFL next year if that is what it can deliver. Right to the last play I still thought NE could force extra time.
Am I right in thinking that game was an example of a "tackling optional" type of game? Purists in the States might be calling it 'basketball NFL' and lamenting the poor standard etc??
-
Wow, well, so that was that. Thought the Evil Empire crushing the life out of some poor flightless birds in teh 4th quarter was inevitable. Guess this is why we watch sport - to see the changeups. Magnificent game by Foles, aggressive play calling by Pedersen.
Brady was insanely good. 500 yards, no INT and yet you still lose ... letting Foles put 40 up was unexpected. Guess Bill's coaching finally ran out with the D. They were so bad at the start of the season, go good (down to good coaching), and in the wash did almost enough for another Superbowl win.
Looking forward to watching this game uninterrupted
-
Now the big talking point is what happens to this NE Patriots. Was this their Lakers V Pistons 2004 where it all finally falls apart? Malcolm Butler is definitely leaving for free agency, he seems pissed at being benched and all the talkback is now suggesting that McDaniels is going reject the head coaching role at the Colts because the Pats might need one soon.
-
Now the big talking point is what happens to this NE Patriots. Was this their Lakers V Pistons 2004 where it all finally falls apart? Malcolm Butler is definitely leaving for free agency, he seems pissed at being benched and all the talkback is now suggesting that McDaniels is going reject the head coaching role at the Colts because the Pats might need one soon.
@sneakdefreak said in NFL 2017:
Now the big talking point is what happens to this NE Patriots. Was this their Lakers V Pistons 2004 where it all finally falls apart? Malcolm Butler is definitely leaving for free agency, he seems pissed at being benched and all the talkback is now suggesting that McDaniels is going reject the head coaching role at the Colts because the Pats might need one soon.
I don't buy it. The more recent reports are stating McDaniels to Colts is happening.
-
@kiwimurph He could ruin his future head coaching chances if he bombs again here.
Taking the Colts job is a big risk for him, because the Colts have such a bad roster and Luck has still not recovered from his shoulder injury, which he got surgery for over a year ago.
-
Man I really enjoyed that game. I watch about 1 game of NFL a year and that was brilliant from start to finish. I'm more of a baseball fan than a football fan really, but I might have a bit more of a look at the NFL next year if that is what it can deliver. Right to the last play I still thought NE could force extra time.
Am I right in thinking that game was an example of a "tackling optional" type of game? Purists in the States might be calling it 'basketball NFL' and lamenting the poor standard etc??
Man I really enjoyed that game. I watch about 1 game of NFL a year and that was brilliant from start to finish. I'm more of a baseball fan than a football fan really, but I might have a bit more of a look at the NFL next year if that is what it can deliver. Right to the last play I still thought NE could force extra time.
Am I right in thinking that game was an example of a "tackling optional" type of game? Purists in the States might be calling it 'basketball NFL' and lamenting the poor standard etc??
That was a good game for a neutral. The Pats lost and it was a shootout.
Tackling and covering was a bit optional in the game, but at the same time, the Patriots and Eagles both have elite offenses, so defending them is quite hard for most teams.
If you want to watch more games next season, I suggest watching teams with good offenses just to get more into it. Teams like the Eagles, Rams, Steelers, Packers, Chiefs, Saint and maybe Patriots(just to see if they lose) would be a good start.
