clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

The fantasy of trading down for Nick Foles

New, comments
Kim Klement-USA TODAY Sports

For some reason, I've seen a lot of the-Bucs-could-trade-for-Nick-Foles speculation. They're guaranteed a top two pick, Marcus Mariota should be available and the Philadelphia Eagles have Chip Kelly, who surely loves Mariota. He'd probably want to trade up. That would leave the Bucs without a QB, so they get Nick Foles from Philadelphia in that trade. Makes sense, right? Everyone's problem is solved!

Except no, not really. Let's start with the slightly odd assertion that the Eagles would be willing to trade up for Marcus Mariota in the first place. Yes, I'm sure Chip Kelly really likes Mariota. And I'm sure they'd be willing to give up something for him. But trading up from the 20s into the first or second overall pick is really, really expensive. Washignton gave up three first-round picks and a second-round pick to trade up just four spots for Robert Griffin III. How many picks do you think trading up 20 spots would take them? Why would they cripple their franchise to get a quarterback? This is not a team run by Dan Snyder.

Then there's the other thing: if the Eagles are convinced Mariota is a franchise quarterback and willing to give up a sizable amount to get him, they must equally be convinced that Nick Foles is not a quarterback they can win with. So....why would the Bucs then want to not select that franchise quarterback and settle for the guy who isn't liked by his own team? Trading for the equivalent of Kyle Orton is not a solution to your quarterback issues.

The Bucs may be willing to trade down if they don't like Marcus Mariota or Jameis Winston. But trading down with the Eagles? That's a fantasy: the result of playing connect-the-dots with no concern for cost or plausibility.