Here is what he said about them "The dead money isn't pretty -- more than $7 million -- but at least they save $3 million and can turn the page on an expensive backup to the backup. Cutting Goldman would provide over $6 million in savings, and he wasn't necessarily the same player from his pre-pandemic days."
I think he has a point. Goldman is a clear cut in my opinion. Saving $6 million would be huge and Eddie is not the same player. He did not make an impact on the field last season.
As for Foles, this is a more tricky one. Sure, he is still a pretty good NFL backup. However, he simply does not fits the scheme that the Bears will create around Justin Fields. In an ideal world, you would like to have a backup that plays the position in a similar fashion as your starter. Look at the example in Baltimore. When Lamar Jackson went down, Tyler Huntley, who is a similar type of QB, played excellent in his absence. Of course, it's never good to pay dead money, but at this point, saving $3 million is still saving $3 million.