The Philadelphia Eagles have signed QB Dennis Dixon off of Baltimore’s practice squad. Not long after this news broke, a report by Mike Garafolo of USA Today came out that said the Chiefs were interested in trading for Nick Foles.
The timing of Garafolo’s report seems quite auspicious, doesn’t it? Michael Vick re-signed, Dixon is on board and the general feeling that Foles doesn’t fit in Kelly’s offense all point towards trading Foles now, right?
Quite possibly, yes.
However, first I have to wonder why anyone from the Chiefs would leak word out about being interested in Foles. It doesn’t behoove them in any way to do so.
Usually, it’s the team trying to trade the player who has more incentive to leak rumors about apparent trade interest. That’s called “creating a market” for your player in hopes to get the best compensation possible.
Here is the key information from Garafolo’s report:
The Chiefs and new coach Andy Reid are interested in acquiring Foles if he becomes available, according to a person informed of the team’s thinking. The person, who spoke to USA TODAY Sports on condition of anonymity because the Chiefs haven’t discussed their thoughts publicly, said the team is working on plans to add a quarterback and considers Foles a possibility.
Kelly has said Foles and Michael Vick will compete for the starting job despite their differences in style. The person informed of the Chiefs’ plans said the Eagles have not told Kansas City that Foles is available.
It appears what the Eagles are saying publicly about Foles — that they like his skill set and believe he can run Kelly’s offense — is sincere, so it’s unlikely he’ll be made available for a trade anytime soon.
So, the source of this news is an anonymous person who is informed of the Chief’s thinking. That’s as vague as it gets.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not questioning Garafolo here, I’m questioning why anyone from the Chiefs would think it’s a good idea to let their interest in Foles be known publicly. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from that on their end.
Rather, I have to wonder if the Eagles are somehow at the root of that report.
But then again, Reuben Frank reported that “league sources” told him that “the Eagles have no plans to trade Foles, unless they’re blown away by an offer.”
So, could the Eagles be playing both sides of the fence here? Seems far-fetched, but who knows. I do think that they will certainly entertain offers for Foles and if they get something they like, he’ll be gone.
We’ve entered the time of year where teams and agents engage in games with the media in order to drum-up interest. Over the next couple of months, you will see all kinds of misinformation and smokescreens created as teams jockey for optimal positioning in regards to trades, free agency and the draft.
This is the time of year you can least trust anything you hear…but it’s also interesting, entertaining, and fodder for some good debates.
Regardless of who supplied Garafolo with the information in the report, it has now spurred some debate about whether or not we will, or should, trade Nick Foles.
I’ve written before that I do not think Foles would be the preferred choice of Chip Kelly and I have wondered if we’d trade him. However, I’ve also thought that, even though he’s not a mobile guy, he’s still a good enough player to warrant consideration to start in Philly.
The problem is getting value for him. Getting a third-round draft pick (which is what they spent on him) is feasible, but the Eagles might be hard pressed to get a second-rounder for him.
Teams that will likely be looking for a QB this offseason are Arizona, New York (Jets), Buffalo, Kansas City and possibly Cleveland, Tennessee, Jacksonville and Oakland. Not coincidentally, all of those teams have a top 10 draft pick.
Would a high third-rounder be enough for Foles? That’s certainly not being “blown away” by an offer. If Kelly thinks Foles would realistically have little value in his offense, then he could just pull the trigger on that and a third could be considered ”okay” value.
However, a high second-round pick would certainly be enough to entice the Eagles…and me. If Andy Reid offered up their second-rounder, would you do it? I’d say yes, absolutely.
Don’t get me wrong here, I don’t necessarily want to get rid of Foles and in fact, if we had a different coach looking to run a more traditional offense, there would be no scenario in which I’d want to trade him.
Given things how they are, though, I definitely think trading Foles will be a real possibility.
If we assume that Vick is going to be the starter, having Dennis Dixon on board gives Kelly flexibility in regards to the backup situation.
Dixon hasn’t had much of a career since entering the NFL in 2008, but he was successful running Kelly’s offense during his senior year in Oregon (the only year the two were together). Again, if Vick is the presumed starter (most likely), then we’d only need Dixon to manage around four games in 2013.
In regards to the idea of trading Foles, here is what we have to consider at the end of the day…
Is he the future of this franchise in the offensive scheme that Chip Kelly wants to run? Will Kelly will want to draft a quarterback better suited for his offense in next year’s draft, one that will be rich in quarterbacks who fit the bill?
If your answers are probably not and yes, then we should trade Foles this offseason. After all, he will most likely be the backup again this season so all we’d have to debate is whether or not Dixon could be just as effective as Foles in that regard.
Hell, we could argue Trent Edwards could be just as effective in a backup role.