Foles is a top ten option if he remains starter

[richig07]

This has nothing to do with me thinking he's an outstanding QB or anything, but I just looked at his schedule and couldn't believe how easy it looked from a fantasy standpoint.

DAL - 32nd vs QB's
NYG - 31st vs QB's
@OAK - 21st vs QB's
@GB - 26th vs QB's
WSH - 25th vs QB's
ARI - 16th vs QB's
DET - 10th vs QB's
@MIN - 27th vs QB's
CHI - 14th vs QB's
@DAL - 32nd vs QB's

Every defense is in the bottom half against QB's besides CHI and DET. The only reason CHI isn't in the bottom half is because they've had a pretty weak schedule against QB's, their pass rush is awful. And even Detroit who is 10th has a shaky secondary at best.

He sees the dead last defense against QB's twice, and the 31st defense, the 26th, 27th, 25th, and 21st.

I just bought low on Foles. I'm stacked at WR, and needed a TE. Gave Wayne for Gates. Included E. Sanders in the deal, so I could get Foles. I think the Sanders for Foles part of the deal could really pay off down the line.

 

[JDM]

As a waiver wire, maybe, but giving up a decent option for a guy who is fairly likely to not start and is only a matchup play (even if he has those matchups most of the rest of the season) is stupid IMO.

 

[Sam Sportboy]

I was able to pick him up in 2 leagues and am starting him over Kapps in both. Here's the thing: There is still that Mike Vick guy lurking.....................are we looking at an Alex Smith/Colon Crappernck situation or will Vick get his starting gig back................

 

[Chef99]

That is a pretty enticing schedule, isn't it?

 

[averagejoe]

That schedule is an eye-opener in Foles favor.

But does everything go as planned in FF? Do the best matchups always work out?

 

[wilwhite]

No, Joe. Ergo: don't plan.

 

[tlance]

This has nothing to do with me thinking he's an outstanding QB or anything, but I just looked at his schedule and couldn't believe how easy it looked from a fantasy standpoint.

DAL - 32nd vs QB's
NYG - 31st vs QB's
@OAK - 21st vs QB's
@GB - 26th vs QB's
WSH - 25th vs QB's
ARI - 16th vs QB's
DET - 10th vs QB's
@MIN - 27th vs QB's
CHI - 14th vs QB's
@DAL - 32nd vs QB's

Every defense is in the bottom half against QB's besides CHI and DET. The only reason CHI isn't in the bottom half is because they've had a pretty weak schedule against QB's, their pass rush is awful. And even Detroit who is 10th has a shaky secondary at best.

He sees the dead last defense against QB's twice, and the 31st defense, the 26th, 27th, 25th, and 21st.

I just bought low on Foles. I'm stacked at WR, and needed a TE. Gave Wayne for Gates. Included E. Sanders in the deal, so I could get Foles. I think the Sanders for Foles part of the deal could really pay off down the line.

You are not buying low on Foles. His value has never been higher. He had no value before the Giants' game where Vick was injured. Had you acquired him then, you would have been buying low.

It is possible that Foles runs away with the job and that his fantasy value continues to shoot up, but it is just as likely that this is the absolute apex for his value. If Foles struggles against Dallas this week, Vick will be under center once he proves ready.

Now, if you were to acquire a struggling player like Doug Martin, you would be buying low.

 

[Microwahevo]

It's a good thing he doesn't play for the Bears.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Foles has only played a game and a half... why is so many people on his bandwagon?? Its not like they played anyone good for those 2 games...

 

[richig07]

You are not buying low on Foles. His value has never been higher. He had no value before the Giants' game where Vick was injured. Had you acquired him then, you would have been buying low.

It is possible that Foles runs away with the job and that his fantasy value continues to shoot up, but it is just as likely that this is the absolute apex for his value. If Foles struggles against Dallas this week, Vick will be under center once he proves ready.

Now, if you were to acquire a struggling player like Doug Martin, you would be buying low.

I never said I was buying low. I also have Matt Ryan, who was the #6 QB before his bye week. So I don't need Foles.

I gave E. Sanders for Foles. Not even a top 40 WR right now. He was my 5th WR. I essentially got him for free. Foles is my backup.

 

[richig07]

Foles has only played a game and a half... why is so many people on his bandwagon?? Its not like they played anyone good for those 2 games...

That's the point... and he will continue to play poor opponents.

Also, please state where I said he's a good QB.

Re-read the OP... the first thing I said was that I don't think this has anything to do with his ability. Just his schedule.

 

[richig07]

It's a good thing he doesn't play for the Bears.

Perhaps if Cutler doesn't earn a new contract, and Philly decides not to go with Foles for the future. He will be. Although, I doubt it, it's not impossible.

If we're not keeping Cutler (which I hope he performs well enough so we do), I would much rather see a deal made for Kirk Cousins. I don't now his contract situation, but if he is under contract for next season. It's possible he could be had for a 2nd round pick.

 

[Microwahevo]

Perhaps if Cutler doesn't earn a new contract, and Philly decides not to go with Foles for the future. He will be. Although, I doubt it, it's not impossible.

If we're not keeping Cutler (which I hope he performs well enough so we do), I would much rather see a deal made for Kirk Cousins. I don't now his contract situation, but if he is under contract for next season. It's possible he could be had for a 2nd round pick.

That's not what I was joking about. It was to your past refernece of not owning Bears players on your roster.

 

[Microwahevo]

I never said I was buying low.

Oooook?

I just bought low on Foles.

 

[richig07]

Oooook?

Eh... well... oops. I did say that.

Point is, I feel like I gave a borderline roster worthy player for a QB who will be borderline starter worthy in a couple of weeks.

 

[tlance]

Eh... well... oops. I did say that.

Point is, I feel like I gave a borderline roster worthy player for a QB who will be borderline starter worthy in a couple of weeks.

Maybe, the jury is still out though as far as who the starter will be in Philly.

Matt Ryan's value just took a huge hit. Although it is usually a terrible idea to waste 3 roster spots on the QB position, it might not be a bad idea to make a low ball offer for Vick if you have the roster space. Teams with 5, or even 6 bench spots should not do this.

I waited until the end of 1 draft to address the QB position and ended up with Vick and Cutler. Although I am OK with Cutler most weeks (and he has put up pretty stellar numbers lately), I feel that the Eagles' QB has more upside due to schedule and scheme. Because that league has pretty deep benches, I put in a decent FAAB bid to lock Foles up too. Now I own all 3 (Cutler, Vick, Foles).

I don't know which QB I would rather own between Cutler and Ryan (probably Cutler to be honest), but they seem to be of similar low-end value at the moment.

Anyone who is hoping to take advantage of the Eagles' schedule should really own both QBs if possible. While the cloud of doubt surrounding the long term starter still exists, they are both pretty affordable.

 

[Microwahevo]

Although it is usually a terrible idea to waste 3 roster spots on the QB
position, it might not be a bad idea to make a low ball offer for Vick if you
have the roster space. Teams with 5, or even 6 bench spots should not do this.

Got this going on in the Barbarian League, but only b/c A)I have enough "good" starters that I can afford to, and B)b/c I am waiting to see what happens when Vick gets healthy. One of them will get the job and then I can drop the other. Well, hopefully it works out that way. I always still have Stafford as my starter but it's good to have a decent back-up.

 

[Chef99]

Got this going on in the Barbarian League, but only b/c A)I have enough "good" starters that I can afford to, and B)b/c I am waiting to see what happens when Vick gets healthy. One of them will get the job and then I can drop the other. Well, hopefully it works out that way. I always still have Stafford as my starter but it's good to have a decent back-up.

In the case of Matt Ryan, I think that Foles might be a good substitute right now...

 

[Chef99]

In the case of Matt Ryan, I think that Foles might be a good substitute right now...

On the other hand, maybe not...

 

[Microwahevo]

Don't u love arguments with yourself?