Why Trading for Nick Foles Won't Solve Chiefs' QB Woes

Gary DavenportNFL AnalystFebruary 14, 2013

PHILADELPHIA, PA - DECEMBER 23: Nick Foles #9 of the Philadelphia Eagles throws a pass during the first half against the Washington Redskins at Lincoln Financial Field on December 23, 2012 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Patrick McDermott/Getty Images)
Patrick McDermott/Getty Images

After a horrific 2-14 season, the Kansas City Chiefs are starting over with a new head coach in Andy Reid and a new general manager in John Dorsey.

Given the dismal state of the Chiefs' quarterbacks in 2012, it's hardly surprising that the team is looking to upgrade under center.

What is surprising is where the Chiefs may be looking for that upgrade.

According to a report by Mike Garafalo of USA Today, the Chiefs could look to Reid's old team for a quarterback, with a team source stating that the Chiefs could have interest in second-year pro Nick Foles.

The Chiefs and new coach Andy Reid are interested in acquiring Foles if he becomes available, according to a person informed of the team's thinking. The person, who spoke to USA TODAY Sports on condition of anonymity because the Chiefs haven't discussed their thoughts publicly, said the team is working on plans to add a quarterback and considers Foles a possibility.

Now of course, this is where things get wildly speculative, since Foles isn't available and could be the Eagles' opening day starter in 2013 for all we know.

However, the Eagles just signed Dennis Dixon (who played for Philadelphia head coach Chip Kelly at Oregon), and it's possible that Kelly grows to believe that Foles is not a good fit for his spread-option offense.

Because, you know, he isn't.

Foles also isn't the answer to Kansas City's issues at quarterback.

I get that the Chiefs are desperate. Matt Cassel was horrible last season and is set to make $7.5 million in 2013. After fleecing the Chiefs to the tune of a $63 million contract in 2009, the gravy train has derailed for Cassel in KC.

It's not a matter of if Cassel will be released. It's just a matter of when.

Unfortunately for the Chiefs, they garnered the No. 1 overall pick in a class where the crop of talent at quarterback is somewhat less than inspiring.

Which is the kind of thing that leaves you seriously considering trading for the likes of Nick Foles.

This isn't meant to be a knock on Foles necessarily. After being pressed into action in Philadelphia in 2012, Foles showed some signs of promise as a rookie, ending the year with almost 1,700 passing yards and six touchdown passes.

However, Foles also turned the ball over eight times in seven games, was wildly erratic and actually had fewer yards per attempt and a worse accuracy rating (per Pro Football Focus) than Cassel.

Some folks will say that I'm jumping the gun and that we haven't seen enough of Nick Foles to say whether he can develop into an effective starter in the National Football League.

I'd retort that we've seen enough to know that's about the best you can hope for with Foles. Effective. Certainly not great, and probably not even really good.

If the Chiefs, in this hypothetical exercise, can get Foles for a fourth-round pick or less, then fine. Foles has a reasonable contract. With the consensus being that the odds of a franchise quarterback coming out of this draft aren't especially good, Foles can serve as a stopgap starter and future backup.

The price would probably be higher than that, however. If that's the case, then the Chiefs are better off passing, looking to free agency for that stopgap, and hoping that they can find the gem of this year's class of signal-callers.

Because giving up anything of real value for Nick Foles is just overpaying for a shiny rock that you already know isn't a diamond.