No Foles talk
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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).
-
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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. . .
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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
-
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....
-
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....
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.
-
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
Browns & Buffett: Got to go fishin, Down to rock bottom again, with just a few Friends Team Brotherhood-"It's not about You,Me or I. It's about building We"..Hue Jackson -
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...
-
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.
I wouldnt give that much.. I might throw in some cash though...
Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~ -
He skipped the Philadelphia parade to go to Disney World as SB MVP, a 31 year tradition. Woo-hoo for him and his family.
-
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....
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....
Thats 2 more than our current qbs. Ill take 2 wins!!
-
He skipped the Philadelphia parade to go to Disney World as SB MVP, a 31 year tradition. Woo-hoo for him and his family.
Where does this shite come from? The Parade in Philly is tomorrow. He went to Disney World like Monday or Tuesday.
He is back in plenty of time for the parade.
-
He skipped the Philadelphia parade to go to Disney World as SB MVP, a 31 year tradition. Woo-hoo for him and his family.
Where does this shite come from? The Parade in Philly is tomorrow. He went to Disney World like Monday or Tuesday.
He is back in plenty of time for the parade.
He skipped the Philadelphia parade to go to Disney World as SB MVP, a 31 year tradition. Woo-hoo for him and his family.
Where does this shite come from? The Parade in Philly is tomorrow. He went to Disney World like Monday or Tuesday.
He is back in plenty of time for the parade.
I first heard he was in Florida but yes he will be headed to Broad St.
-
I wouldnt give that much.. I might throw in some cash though...
You wouldn't give up #1 pick and the Eagles their 2nd round pick back for the guy that was going to be the MVP before he got hurt?
So the assumption is the Browns take a QB at 1. So you would rather have Darnold/Rosen/Mayfield/Allen over Wentz?
Yea that makes A LOT of sense. Same as others with their "GUY" in the draft that is the best thing ever and before they step on field are the best at their position
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login