(03-05-2019, 11:00 AM)PF* Wrote:

(03-05-2019, 10:35 AM)Bullseye Wrote: I think even if we sign Foles, We should use one of those picks for Rosen.

Bullseye- is the reverse true as well? Would you still sign Foles if we dealt a #3 for Rosen today?

Good question.

There are arguments for both possibilities.

Yes we should still sign Foles because he is a more experienced QB and knows our offense. He has made a Pro Bowl, won a Super Bowl, and has learned under some of the best QB gurus (Andy Reid, Mike Pederson, Frank Reich) the league has seen.  Considering the defense is still good enough to rank in the top five, an experienced QB like Foles could be what it takes to take this team to the first Super Bowl.  Given that Rosen is in the second year of his rookie contract and his signing bonus has already been paid, his cap figure for the remainder of his rookie contract would be miniscule for an experienced backup, especially one with his abilities.  If we spent a 3rd round pick one one of the QBs in this draft, Rosen would be considered a better prospect by far than anyone we would get at that point in the draft.  Besides acquiring both is a hedge against one or both being a bust, and if we hit on both, the position is set for years and maybe we trade one.

On the other hand, given the salary he is going to command and its impact on the salary cap, it might be more harmful longer term to the overall success of the team to sign Foles under those circumstances.  Maybe it makes it more difficult to re-sign one of our younger defensive stalwarts.  Maybe another high salaried defender like Bouye has to be jettisoned to keep Ramsey, Jack and Ngakoue.  Maybe signing Foles and starting him hinders the development of Rosen, who certainly has the physical talent to be a special QB.

For some reason, the thought I had this morning was that if we somehow did not sign Foles, we would lose some leverage in any trade for Rosen.

---