The gamble on Nick Files didn't pay off.

[Maniac]

CBS Sports rates the Eagles in the middle of the pack.

13. Eagles: The gamble on Nick Foles didn't pay off and now the Eagles are hoping that younger potential replacements can finally right the ship for them at the quarterback position. But until that happens, the Eagles won't be a Super Bowl contender. Overall, this is a talented team that does a good job keeping its key players and drafts well, but top 2014 pick Marcus Smith is a bust and they need to find a replacement soon for LeSean McCoy. In other words, things remain far from perfect in Philly.

[Melchior]

What exactly was the gamble with Foles? He was a 3rd round pick who they gave the job to over Vick. They weren't going to tank anyway.

These same guys would blow the Cardinals as SB contenders. There's no consistency.

Also, why do they need to replace a 1300 yard RB "soon?"

[Maniac]

Its pissing me off that auto correct keeps changing Foles to Files.

[wynnron123]

and drafts well, ???????

What a bunch of idiots,

[Pete]

Sure was a gamble

What exactly was the gamble with Foles? He was a 3rd round pick who they gave the job to over Vick. They weren't going to tank anyway.

These same guys would blow the Cardinals as SB contenders. There's no consistency.

Also, why do they need to replace a 1300 yard RB "soon?"

Kelly re-signed Vick to run the offense and Foles was too much of an unknown to just trash outright. Vick inevitably was hurt and therefore they didn't "give" the job to Foles over Vick.

The gamble was that Foles would:

1) Be closer to the 2013 Foles in 2014
2) Stay healthy

He didn't do either, and the Eagles have been left with Matt Barkley. That's a gamble.

I believe that going for Mariota (or another more affordable rookie QB), signing Locker, and/or trading Foles would be less of a gamble than what they did last year.

[slag]

The big gamble for the Eagles was gambling that shitbag secondary could cover people.

As for gambling on Foles, I suppose it was a gamble that he would play well and stay healthy when the offensive line went kablooie ... but they really didn't have a choice there.

[harls]

CBS Sports rates the Eagles in the middle of the pack.

I got shit on (rightfully so). For my Vick hate. But everyone knows why I hated Vick. I am curious why you hate foles with such a passion. He has pretty much always said the right things. I haven't heard of any off field issues. The worst I think you can say about him is he played poor in 2014 after having an incredible 2013.

That hardly seems like something to post 20 times a day hating on foles. So is there another reason?

[Maniac]

Wanting a different quarterback does not equal "hating Foles with a passion". In my opinion, a mobile quarterback could greatly improve the offense.

I'd much rather be bashing Maclin. I really do dislike him. Fortunately, he'll likely be skipping town for more money soon.

Bottom line, all the press lately has been about Foles. Blame the media.

[JuTMSY4]

I guess

Wanting a different quarterback does not equal "hating Foles with a passion". In my opinion, a mobile quarterback could greatly improve the offense.

I'd much rather be bashing Maclin. I really do dislike him. Fortunately, he'll likely be skipping town for more money soon.

Bottom line, all the press lately has been about Foles. Blame the media.

How would you have handled 2014? Drafted Manziel?

[Maniac]

How would you have handled 2014? Drafted Manziel?

Drafting Barkley was the screw-up. He's a wasted QB slot.

[slag]

Disagree ... that's simply 20/20 hindsight.

They got a guy who would likely have been a top ten pick the year before and then got hurt and dropped ... so he was there in the 4th.

Not a bad gamble even if it didn't pan out.

[JuTMSY4]

ok

Drafting Barkley was the screw-up. He's a wasted QB slot.

what would you have done in 2013?

Edited to Add: I agree with slag - Taking a 4th round flyer on Barkley, particularly because Kelly had some familiarity with him, was a low-risk/high-reward move.

Besides, it's not like Barkley wasn't cuttable in the right scenario or that they had to sign Sanchez if they had another starter. No one would be against Foles as a backup.

[Maniac]

Whatever the round they committed the roster spot, now they have no alternative to Foles on the team. Two years of potential QB development down the drain. I don't think Barkley was realistically cuttable before this season. Nobody likes to admit mistakes.

Evaluating the results of a pick isn't hindsight. Or are you giving them a free pass on Marcus Smith and any other poor talent evaluation? But for me to name a better pick now would be hindsight. All you can say is they blew it.

You would have thought Kelly would have known better from having a history facing Barkley. I don't know if it was a bad gamble but it certainly turned out to be a loser.

[AnnapolisEagle]

CBS Sports rates the Eagles in the middle of the pack.

There was no gamble with Foles. The alternatives last offseason were to trade up and draft Manziel or stay put and draft Bridgewater (or Carr).

And that would have been taking a first-round QB after Foles put up totally unreal numbers the previous year.

Frankly, Kelly is slightly a victim of his own success. Most 4-12 teams don't go 10-6 in a rookie coach's first year. If he'd gone 7-9 or 8-8 and drafted a QB last year, nobody would bat an eye.

Mariota would be an awesome get if he falls within reasonable trading reach. But this team put up 29 ppg last year (2 more per game than they did the year before, helped by special teams no doubt). If you can improve the defense a little, you can go a long way.

(For the record, I think they go LB, DB or OL in the first and trade up in the second for Hundley)

-AE

[harls]

Whatever the round they committed the roster spot, now they have no alternative to Foles on the team. Two years of potential QB development down the drain. I don't think Barkley was realistically cuttable before this season. Nobody likes to admit mistakes.

Evaluating the results of a pick isn't hindsight. Or are you giving them a free pass on Marcus Smith and any other poor talent evaluation? But for me to name a better pick now would be hindsight. All you can say is they blew it.

You would have thought Kelly would have known better from having a history facing Barkley. I don't know if it was a bad gamble but it certainly turned out to be a loser.

How many teams have a true alternative to their starting QB? Last year there was no real options in the draft to bring in a starting QB. Plus they had no reason to. When your QB has the type of season as Foles did in 13 you do not look at QB as a needed upgrade when your team is filled with holes on defense.