Is Nick Foles worth a contract extension?

In what was considered the biggest splash of the offseason, the St. Louis Rams acquired quarterback  Nick Foles in a trade with the Philadelphia Eagles. The Rams swapped the frustratingly talented former number one overall pick Sam Bradford to acquire Foles. In doing so, St. Louis freed up some money, about $13M for this season alone, and brought in a younger quarterback. Now the question is, do you pay Foles like a franchise quarterback, or do you make him play out the final year on his contract and risk having to pony up more or worse, lose him in free agency.

More from Rams News

• NFL salary cap skyrockets, but will it help LA Rams this offseason?
• With 49ers potential DC opening, did Fangio just balk at Miami hire?
• LA Rams rival: Will the real 49ers QB please stand up
• Looks like Rams DC Raheem Morris won’t be the HC for this team
• 4 LA Rams villains we want to see blow it in the AFC and NFC title games

Foles is in the final year of his rookie deal. A deal that would pay him $2.7M total. The bulk of that money is paid out this year, at $1.5M. Foles is set to become an unrestricted free agent next year. That’s an issue for St.Louis. Without a capable starter in the back up ranks, Foles is more valuable to the Rams than to most teams. However, Foles has a so-so body of work and holds more potential than talent at the moment. So, do you pay for the potential and risk another three to four years of mediocrity, or do you let Foles play out his final year and earn his money. Whatever route the Rams choose, other quarterback starved teams will have a shot at Foles if the Rams don’t lock him down now.

Foles has been a capable quarterback up to this point in his career. he saw his best numbers in 2013 with almost 3,000 passing yards, 27 touchdowns and only two interceptions in 13 games. Unfortunately, his encore in 2014 saw him come crashing back down to earth. Foles would throw for 2,163 yards, 13 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. All-in-all, Foles has thrown for almost 7,000 yards, 46 touchdowns and only 17 interceptions in his three years as an NFL quarterback. Of the other starting quarterbacks from his draft class (Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, and Russell Wilson) those numbers rank him dead last.

Mar 13, 2015; St. Louis, MO, USA; St. Louis Rams quarterback Nick Foles is introduced to the media at Rams Park. Mandatory Credit: Billy Hurst-USA TODAY Sports

The St. Louis Rams don’t need capable. They need spectacular. The Rams need a leader that can rally the troops and lead by example. They don’t need another middle of the road, 2,500 yards, 20 touchdowns type guy, and up to this point, that’s all Foles is. All of this is easier said than done. In today’s NFL you need a quarterback to be successful. Foles is a band-aid. A temporary fix to a much larger problem. The Rams have not invested enough time, energy or money into a franchise quarterback.

St. Louis thought they had a franchise quarterback in Bradford. He proved to be too fragile to play the part. Prior to Bradford it was Marc Bulger. Again, capable, but as years waned on, it was evident that time and injuries had taken their toll. You would need to go back 15 long years before reaching the last quarterback able to bring the Rams to a Super Bowl, Kurt Warner. Prior to Bradford, the Rams have not invested a first round pick on a quarterback since 1964 when they selected Bill Munson. They haven’t used a second round pick on a quarterback since they selected Tony Banks in 1996.

The Rams should let Foles play out his final year without an extension. Let him earn his next contract. St. Louis needs to be prepared to invest a significant draft pick in a quarterback if Foles falters. It will be tough, but getting stitches will prove to better in the long run than just another band aid.