Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ThatDude

Nick Foles

Recommended Posts

It appears I've lost Wentz and need to prepare for my week 2 playoff.

 

Not many good choices at QB on waivers. I will attempt to get Aaron Rodgers back this week after I lost him earlier in the year.

 

After that it's a crap shoot, Jimmy G, Bortels, etc...

 

That leads me to Foles. Anyone think he can put of decent fantasy numbers? I've also got Alshon that I have to worry about too now...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite possible. The guy was a pretty decent stud a few years ago when he was with the Eagles. Not much with the Rams but now that he's back on a good team, I think he can put up some decent numbers. I think it'll be a we'll just have to see kind of situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have Rodgers already you're good. If you dropped him despite all signs from the get go saying he could be back Week 15 than that's on you.

 

Good luck. Jimmy G looks promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the same boat, with both Wentz and Mariota. Mariota played with a hurt knee today, and hasn't been good all year. Against a bad Giants D, is Foles a viable option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foles could be a very interesting investment.

 

And don't forget too thank seafoam if you where one of the owners that lost Wentz.

 

Darn seafoam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foles could be a very interesting investment.

 

And don't forget too thank seafoam if you where one of the owners that lost Wentz.

 

Darn seafoam.

It wasn't in god's plan?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost Wentz as well and grabbed Foles and Bortles last night. Unsure of Foles but both have juicy matchups weeks 15 and 16.

 

Foles - @NYG (4th most points v QB) and OAK (15th most points v QB)

 

Bortles - HOU (2nd most points v QB) and @SF (6th most points v QB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost Wentz as well and grabbed Foles and Bortles last night. Unsure of Foles but both have juicy matchups weeks 15 and 16.

 

Foles - @NYG (4th most points v QB) and OAK (15th most points v QB)

 

Bortles - HOU (2nd most points v QB) and @SF (6th most points v QB)

 

Debating which one to use my waiver on this week. I lost McCown and there's no way I'm trusting Mariota with his recent performances. Both Foles and Bortles have upside with those schedules but I can't make up my mind between them. Bortles is actually on fire lately and has some weapons on offense while Foles has been here before and also inherits a potent offense. What say you FFToday family?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bortles

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Debating which one to use my waiver on this week. I lost McCown and there's no way I'm trusting Mariota with his recent performances. Both Foles and Bortles have upside with those schedules but I can't make up my mind between them. Bortles is actually on fire lately and has some weapons on offense while Foles has been here before and also inherits a potent offense. What say you FFToday family?

 

I'd probably go with Bortles for that reason alone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd probably go with Bortles for that reason alone.

I think I'd go bortles too. But I agree Foles is a good pickup.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Debating which one to use my waiver on this week. I lost McCown and there's no way I'm trusting Mariota with his recent performances. Both Foles and Bortles have upside with those schedules but I can't make up my mind between them. Bortles is actually on fire lately and has some weapons on offense while Foles has been here before and also inherits a potent offense. What say you FFToday family?

 

Bortles for sure

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna try and pick up Foles (drop Hundley) and then decide whether to start Foles or Bortles ahead of Carr, who has been BAD lately. Good luck to all of you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be in the same boat. I have Alex and he has Chargers this week.....my defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just pulled the trigger to dump the completely unreliable Winston for Bortles after my starter Wentz went down.

 

If I get Bortles, I'm putting him in.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Yahoo the eagles only hope lies in Colin Kaepernick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Yahoo the eagles only hope lies in Colin Kaepernick

Eewww.

 

Plus the guy is suing the NFL for collusion. What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just pulled the trigger to dump the completely unreliable Winston for Bortles after my starter Wentz went down.

 

If I get Bortles, I'm putting him in.

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bortles makes sense over Foles but I don’t have that option.

 

I think Foles will kill it against the hapless Giants who have quit and have lost their best people due to injury.

 

My choice is Foles or Jimmy G?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eewww.

 

Plus the guy is suing the NFL for collusion. What a joke.

 

I'd agree that it won't happen because of the lawsuit. And I agree that it's a joke, in that it's ridiculous that teams (if they did) would collude to not hire a player for any reason. Particularly when the agreement says that they can't collude. You break the rules, you get sued.

 

But...the suit does mean that Kap won't see the field anymore. I'm guessing he realizes that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just dumped Winston for Bortles (I had Wentz and I also have Foles).

 

I am going with Bortles. I am not sure what the Eagles game plan will be with Foles. He hasn't been good since 2013, there is a reason he was relegated to backup status. I think he has some value but let him get a game under his belt and see how he performs. Bortles is playing well and has a good matchup, I'll take my chances with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd agree that it won't happen because of the lawsuit. And I agree that it's a joke, in that it's ridiculous that teams (if they did) would collude to not hire a player for any reason. Particularly when the agreement says that they can't collude. You break the rules, you get sued.

 

But...the suit does mean that Kap won't see the field anymore. I'm guessing he realizes that.

 

Any collusion lawsuit will be really difficult for Kap to prove unless an owner was dumb enough to put it in an email or text and send it to a whole pile of other owners.

 

What I don't get is what does Kap expect? I don't want to get political, but his girlfriend, now wife spewed a lot of vitriol on twitter comparing Ray Rice to a house you know what, and the owners as slaveowners. Nobody wants that kind of heat on their franchise or in their locker room. His career in the NFL is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just dumped Winston for Bortles (I had Wentz and I also have Foles).

 

I am going with Bortles. I am not sure what the Eagles game plan will be with Foles. He hasn't been good since 2013, there is a reason he was relegated to backup status. I think he has some value but let him get a game under his belt and see how he performs. Bortles is playing well and has a good matchup, I'll take my chances with that.

Great point.

 

If the Gmen def is going too quit it will show up in the run def also.

 

And if they can run on the Gmen they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Any collusion lawsuit will be really difficult for Kap to prove unless an owner was dumb enough to put it in an email or text and send it to a whole pile of other owners.

 

What I don't get is what does Kap expect? I don't want to get political, but his girlfriend, now wife spewed a lot of vitriol on twitter comparing Ray Rice to a house you know what, and the owners as slaveowners. Nobody wants that kind of heat on their franchise or in their locker room. His career in the NFL is done.

 

I suspect he knows his career is done. But it's also pretty clear that he thinks there are things more important than his career. He's known from the start he could be playing somewhere if he promised to stand for the anthem. Some might argue that simply demonstrating that the league owners are breaking the rules--and maybe demonstrating something about their characters in the process--is valuable as well. He might consider it a victory if they are found guilty but he gets no financial settlement.

 

It might be hard to prove. But I think recent political goings-on show that in fact a lot of people make a lot of deals and leave a lot of evidence that you think only stupid people would leave behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBA literally says that not signing a player is not collusion and one owner saying him I'm not signing him. And another saying I don't want to either is not collusion. Each owner came to the same conclusion.

 

Which is more likely. That each owner looked at a QB who was in the back half of tqbr ratings his last 2 years and had not been successful since the read option rule was changed and decided he was not worth the risk weighed against an obvious fan backlash.

 

Orrrrrrrr. Alllllllllll the teams in the NFL colluded to keep ONE black man out of a job. While still gainfully employing hundreds more.

 

If you answer the second. You need a tinfoil hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a stupid post...which is typical of yahoo...The Eagles only hope is that Foles can be a decent QB....which he can be. Why on Earth would they bring in someone who hasn't played in a year and has no experience running the offense. Foles ran a similar offense under Reid when he was with the Eagles and Pederson's offense is similar to that.

 

Back to the original topic...Inthink Bortles is the "safer" play with a higher floor but Foles has more upside potential and may surprise against an inept Giants D. I could see a 275-3-1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a stupid post...which is typical of yahoo...The Eagles only hope is that Foles can be a decent QB....which he can be. Why on Earth would they bring in someone who hasn't played in a year and has no experience running the offense. Foles ran a similar offense under Reid when he was with the Eagles and Pederson's offense is similar to that.

Back to the original topic...Inthink Bortles is the "safer" play with a higher floor but Foles has more upside potential and may surprise against an inept Giants D. I could see a 275-3-1

Playing against the Gmen should be what people should be thinking about.......I can probably throw two tds against those quitters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CBA literally says that not signing a player is not collusion and one owner saying ###### him I'm not signing him. And another saying I don't want to either is not collusion. Each owner came to the same conclusion.

 

Which is more likely. That each owner looked at a QB who was in the back half of tqbr ratings his last 2 years and had not been successful since the read option rule was changed and decided he was not worth the risk weighed against an obvious fan backlash.

 

Orrrrrrrr. Alllllllllll the teams in the NFL colluded to keep ONE black man out of a job. While still gainfully employing hundreds more.

 

If you answer the second. You need a tinfoil hat.

 

Or...you are presenting a false dichotomy.

 

Collusion doesn't have to include "Allllllllllll" the teams in the league. It only has to include "twooooooooo" or more teams. :)

 

So what's more likely: everyyyyyyyyy owner/manager making this same decision in a vacuum, without talking to else about it? Or there being two owners/managers who talked to each about about "what do you think? What should we do? and coming to an agreement that it shouldn't happen?

 

Add in guys like Jerry Jones who apparently think it's their job to tell everyone else in the league what should happen.

 

To be clear, I'm not involved in the process, I don't know what the evidence is. I'd think people much closer to the action than you and I would have the best ability to judge the likelihood of all this, don't you? All it would take for example would be Kap's agent in a meeting with Owner X, and that guy says offhand "Yeah, I talked with owner Y about this...I'm sorry, it's not going to happen". Poof--collusion case. Are you prepared to tell me that you either know that sort of thing didn't happen, or that you can even tell me the probability that it did?

 

I don't know the probability. I'm just explaining that, if it happened, I don't think it's a 'joke' to pursue action. If you think you have some evidence in the case either way that allows you to come to your conclusion that it didn't happen...I'd suggest that you get in contact with the league. They'd like to know what you know for the suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the problem is that just because they talked about it does not mean they agreed to not hire him mutually. The owners live in a bubble and that bubble includes kaepernick.and rules changes, and stadium issues. Just because Jerry says that dude. and another owner says the same thing does not prove collusion. I also think that in this environment that information would come out via a leak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the problem is that just because they talked about it does not mean they agreed to not hire him mutually. The owners live in a bubble and that bubble includes kaepernick.and rules changes, and stadium issues. Just because Jerry says ###### that dude. and another owner says the same thing does not prove collusion. I also think that in this environment that information would come out via a leak.

 

I agree--the fact alone that they talked is not proof of collusion. What exactly they said would be of interest. And for the courts, what exactly they said, and when they said it, coupled with what they then did, is how the legal system determines intent. The courts do determine intent all the time, and collusion is all about intent. And again, I don't have those facts. But I think it's entirely possible, perhaps plausible or probable, that those sort of conversations did happen. It's not hard for me to imagine two owners, concerned about the saleability of their product, helping each other come to the conclusion that this guy who's damaging their public image should not be hired. If I the owner cared about it to an extreme degree (again, someone like Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder), it seems even likely that I'd want to go talk to other owner buddies of mine and say "Hey...here's why hiring him would be bad for all of us. Capice?" And that suddenly would put me in the realm of collusion.

 

It's an interesting case to watch develop. NFL MLB owners (sorry for the significant typo there) have colluded against the players before, and been found guilty of it. I don't see it as very hard to imagine here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or...you are presenting a false dichotomy.

 

Collusion doesn't have to include "Allllllllllll" the teams in the league. It only has to include "twooooooooo" or more teams. :)

 

So what's more likely: everyyyyyyyyy owner/manager making this same decision in a vacuum, without talking to else about it? Or there being two owners/managers who talked to each about about "what do you think? What should we do? and coming to an agreement that it shouldn't happen?

 

Add in guys like Jerry Jones who apparently think it's their job to tell everyone else in the league what should happen.

 

To be clear, I'm not involved in the process, I don't know what the evidence is. I'd think people much closer to the action than you and I would have the best ability to judge the likelihood of all this, don't you? All it would take for example would be Kap's agent in a meeting with Owner X, and that guy says offhand "Yeah, I talked with owner Y about this...I'm sorry, it's not going to happen". Poof--collusion case. Are you prepared to tell me that you either know that sort of thing didn't happen, or that you can even tell me the probability that it did?

 

I don't know the probability. I'm just explaining that, if it happened, I don't think it's a 'joke' to pursue action. If you think you have some evidence in the case either way that allows you to come to your conclusion that it didn't happen...I'd suggest that you get in contact with the league. They'd like to know what you know for the suit.

 

On that basis then teams colluded against Kap without a doubt. I'm sure the owners discuss player issues all the time, or ask other owners about what they think about signing this guy or that guy. That said, if you were to sign a guy like that, with the vitriol his wife puts on twitter and not everyone shares his views about protests and such, a certain segment of your fan base is going to be turned off, for good or for bad. This is a revenue driven league, they're probably looking at the possible impact to their sales and saying you know the media circus and blowback is not worth it for a QB who has played at a pretty poor level for the past 2 seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree--the fact alone that they talked is not proof of collusion. What exactly they said would be of interest. And for the courts, what exactly they said, and when they said it, coupled with what they then did, is how the legal system determines intent. The courts do determine intent all the time, and collusion is all about intent. And again, I don't have those facts. But I think it's entirely possible, perhaps plausible or probable, that those sort of conversations did happen. It's not hard for me to imagine two owners, concerned about the saleability of their product, helping each other come to the conclusion that this guy who's damaging their public image should not be hired. If I the owner cared about it to an extreme degree (again, someone like Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder), it seems even likely that I'd want to go talk to other owner buddies of mine and say "Hey...here's why hiring him would be bad for all of us. Capice?" And that suddenly would put me in the realm of collusion.

 

It's an interesting case to watch develop. NFL owners have colluded against the players before, and been found guilty of it. I don't see it as very hard to imagine here.

 

They were found guilty of that when? Which player? Or are you speaking in terms of hiding links to playing in the NFL to CTE and such?

 

Just curious. I didn't know they had been found guilty of collusion before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just dumped Winston for Bortles (I had Wentz and I also have Foles).

 

I am going with Bortles. I am not sure what the Eagles game plan will be with Foles. He hasn't been good since 2013, there is a reason he was relegated to backup status. I think he has some value but let him get a game under his belt and see how he performs. Bortles is playing well and has a good matchup, I'll take my chances with that.

 

Same thing here. I've got Wentz on IR and have Foles/Bortles. I'm rolling with Bortles this week only because I know what I'll get from him: 250 and 2 with 20-30 yds rushing. Granted, Foles could go for 350 and 3-4 but he could also go 190 and 1 with 2 picks. This is not the week to gamble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Same thing here. I've got Wentz on IR and have Foles/Bortles. I'm rolling with Bortles this week only because I know what I'll get from him: 250 and 2 with 20-30 yds rushing. Granted, Foles could go for 350 and 3-4 but he could also go 190 and 1 with 2 picks. This is not the week to gamble.

 

Agreed, I'm looking for a high floor this week from my QB and hoping my other players come through for me. I'm less concerned about potentially missing out on a high ceiling. Foles seems like more risk/reward to me but I can't afford to get burned as they guy I'm playing has Rodgers back this week and I think he'll put up respectable points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They were found guilty of that when? Which player? Or are you speaking in terms of hiding links to playing in the NFL to CTE and such?

 

Just curious. I didn't know they had been found guilty of collusion before.

 

Sorry, that was a major typo made in a hurry. I'll adjust my original post. I intended to type "MLB", and just went to NFL by reflex. My claim there was that baseball owners have colluded, and I don't think it's very hard to imagine the same thing happening in the NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, that was a major typo made in a hurry. I'll adjust my original post. I intended to type "MLB", and just went to NFL by reflex. My claim there was that baseball owners have colluded, and I don't think it's very hard to imagine the same thing happening in the NFL.

 

I think NFL owners regularly communicate about the state of the game and players, is that collusion?

 

I think in the sense of "let's actively all blackball this guy because he's a professional liability to our team based on his on-field behavior as well as peripheral relationships" is that collusion? is it possible the owners all collectively arrived at this conclusion without a formal communication or agreement? Possibly. Was there likely some communication between owners to each other to say "don't sign this guy he hurts the NFL brand" Probably. Do I blame the owners for not wanting to sign Kap? Not at all. He would just be a huge distraction and media circus for any team that signed him, in exchange for mediocre QB play with a low ceiling. I can see why he's not worth the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think NFL owners regularly communicate about the state of the game and players, is that collusion?

 

I think in the sense of "let's actively all blackball this guy because he's a professional liability to our team based on his on-field behavior as well as peripheral relationships" is that collusion? is it possible the owners all collectively arrived at this conclusion without a formal communication or agreement? Possibly. Was there likely some communication between owners to each other to say "don't sign this guy he hurts the NFL brand" Probably. Do I blame the owners for not wanting to sign Kap? Not at all. He would just be a huge distraction and media circus for any team that signed him, in exchange for mediocre QB play with a low ceiling. I can see why he's not worth the risk.

 

No, collusion is not just communicating, any more than two criminals talking about what they had for lunch is racketeering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×