This team isnt as bad as it seems

[slag]

Warning

[The Ref]

We dont know what Foles can be or not be. He played well for a rookie last season

Foles didn't play well last season. He sometimes didn't suck. That's a far different thing. Not saying he can't but I saw nothing that indicated he's definitely a championship caliber NFL QB.

Personally I'm becoming more interested in Barkley. He's the real unknown.

At this point Vick is still the best QB on the team. But we don't know how good or bad Barkley can be. Would be a shame to dismiss the guy without even taking a look at him.

[Eagle Road]

Honestly, I don't love, or hate Vick, he is what he's always been, a big play QB, problem is that as he gets older and Defenses get faster his mobility becomes a liability.

Yes, he had some nice runs in that game, but most of them didn't result in a scoring drive, nor a W at the end of the day. This is not to say I am putting it all on Vick, the whole team played badly, they were tired, beat up, and beaten.

This is probably as bad of a schedule as you could have come up with for a new team that was bad last year, change of almost all coaches this year, with new schemes on both sides of the ball, that is a lot to ask of ANY team.

With that said, Foles IMO would have been a better choice, no he isn't as mobile, no he doesn't have Vicks arm (who does)?

But I think he would bring to the table what would be best for this team overall, that is, LONG SUSTAINED DRIVES.

It keeps your Defense fresh, and it keeps their Offense OFF the field, with VICK, we have just the EXACT OPPOSITE!

[art vandelay]

i don't think vick is great, but does anyone think foles could have led the offense the way that vick did in the first two games? i don't think vick and the offense are getting enough credit for the way that they played in a game that the defense lost. i'll go on record saying that i don't think foles will ever throw for 422 with 3 total TDs and no turnovers.

[slag]

Nick Foles had a shitty rookie year - Ref has spoken

From a Ruben Franks article last year:

Foles started six games and played in seven overall in relief of Michael Vick, and not only did he break most Eagles rookie passing records despite playing less than half a season, but he also put up numbers that stack up pretty well against most rookies in NFL history.

The final numbers: Foles completed 161 of 265 pass attempts (60.8 percent) for 1,699 yards with six touchdowns and five interceptions.

What does it all mean? Welcome to Nick Foles By the Numbers!

• Of the 116 quarterbacks in NFL history who threw 200 or more passes as rookies, Foles’ 60.8 completion percentage is fifth-highest, behind only Ben Roethlisberger of the Steelers in 2004 (66.44 percent), Robert Griffin III of the Redskins (66.40 percent) so far this year, Russell Wilson of the Seahawks (63.4 percent) so far this year and Matt Ryan of the Falcons in 2008 (61.1 percent).

• With just five interceptions in 265 pass attempts, Foles averaged one interception every 53 pass attempts. That’s the second-best figure in NFL history by a rookie, behind only RG3’s one INT every 63 pass attempts. Griffin would probably have to be picked off at least three times by the Cowboys Sunday for Foles to pass him for the best interception ratio in NFL history by a rookie quarterback.

• Foles' average of 243 passing yards per game is third-highest in NFL history by a rookie, behind only another current rookie, Andrew Luck (279) and a rookie last year, Cam Newton of the Panthers (253).

• Foles' 60.8 completion percentage is fourth-best in Eagles history, again based on a minimum of 200 pass attempts. The only more accurate seasons were turned in by Donovan McNabb (64.0 percent in 2004, 61.5 percent in 2007) and Michael Vick (62.6 percent in 2010).

• Foles’ 1,699 passing yards are the second-most in NFL history by a quarterback who played seven or fewer games. Brian Griese threw for 1,803 in seven games for the Bears in 2007.

• Foles is only the third rookie QB in NFL history to throw for more than 1,600 yards with five or fewer interceptions. The others are Hall of Famer Otto Graham (1,834 yards, five interceptions) for the Browns in 1946 and, once again, RG3 so far this year.

• Foles is the first rookie in history with two games of 340 or more passing yards and a 62 percent completion percentage. Jeff Garcia had two such games for the 49ers in 1999, but because he had played in the CFL, he wasn’t technically a rookie.

• In just six starts, Foles had four games in which he completed at least 65 percent of his passes (on 20 or more attempts). Only eight rookies have had more such games in an entire season.

• Foles is the second rookie in history with two games of 340 or more passing yards within his first seven starts. Newton did it last year.

• Foles is only the 17th quarterback in NFL history to have a season with at least 250 pass attempts, a completion percentage of at least 60 percent and five or fewer interceptions.

• From 1933 through 2011, there were only five games in which a rookie quarterback had a passer rating of 85 in a game for the Eagles (with 20 or more attempts). One each by 1987 replacement QB Scott Tinsley, plus one by Koy Detmer, Donovan McNabb, Mike Boryla and John Reaves. This year alone, Foles had five such games in just seven appearances.

• Foles had three games in six starts with 45 or more pass attempts. Only Luck (six games) has had more games as a rookie in NFL history with 45 or more pass attempts.

• Foles’ 265 pass attempts are the most in NFL history by a quarterback playing seven or fewer games. The previous high was Griese’s 262 in 2007 and Steve Grogan’s 261 in 1989.

• Of the 116 rookie quarterbacks who’ve attempted 200 or more passes, Foles’ passer rating of 79.1 is 12th-highest and higher than 21 of 23 Hall of Famers (all but Dan Marino 96.0 and Y.A. Tittle).

[slag]

PS

You don't think he could ever do what Vick did in the SD game?

Well, last year Foles beat the Bucs on the road on a last second drive 23-21 with a 1-yard pass to Jeremy Maclin ... he was 32 of 51 passes for 381 yards and two touchdowns - both coming in the final four minutes ... he also had 27 rushing yards and a touchdown.

Now how long before someone else throws a strawman and suggests I consider him already a hall of famer?

He may not be the long term guy, but he doesn't suck and I'd rather see what he can do than keep this 20 minutes a game offense with Vick.

[Eagle Road]

Absolutely agree, Foles can ONLY get better, I only see Vick as getting worst, and I truly don't think he can stay healthy.

Also, all of those stats that Slag posted, Foles had a shit line and at that point in the year, MOST of those players really didn't care.

Something else about Vicks numbers, a lot of yards doesn't mean anything if you can't put points on the board, as far as the D "losing" that game? No way, they must have played 75% of the minutes in that game.

How many OPEN receivers did Vick miss? How many times did he lock on a rec. early and never even check his progressions, the answer in both cases is , way too many for a VETERAN QB.

Vick and special teams turning that ball over is what LOST that game.

[J_Cuz31]

He may not be the long term guy, but he doesn't suck and I'd rather see what he can do than keep this 20 minutes a game offense with Vick.

20 Minutes a game is due to the pace with which kelly runs his offense. When the team is turning the ball over like the Eagles did Thursday, that is what you're going to get.

As for the comparison to brady, it neds to be noted that the Patriots have a couple read option plays in their playbook but it is not even close to their base offensive set. Most of what Belichick adopted from Kelly's approach was playcalling efficiency and pace of gameplay. When you factor in that the primary read option sets the Patriots do run are centered on the bubble screen element of the offense the whole idea that brady runs the read option is kind of ludicrous.

[Maniac]

All those stats show is that rookie QBs havent played that often or that well. I dont think you can extrapolate anything from them.

No rip on Foles but Kelly prefers Vick. Vick had a shaky game against KC but they have a very good defense. They were able to get pressure with four, they put the safety over the top on DJax. The linebackers handled the tight ends and Cooper/Avant couldn't beat man coverage. No reason to believe Foles would have fared any better. Probably worse because he lacks the wheels. I think the quick turnaround was also a factor.

As far as time of possession, Kelly has stated that he doesn't care about it at all. Personally I disagree but that's the coach's philosophy.

[slag]

What they show is that saying "Foles didn't play well last season" is a load of shit.

As for extrapolation, I'd rather see what Foles can do than watch Vick lock on one guy and take too long to get the ball out.

Foles reads and pulls the trigger better than Vick.

[Maniac]

Like I said, I dont think those stats mean shit. Bobby Hoying, anybody? Foles didn't suck but was also not impressive last season.

I'm not going to make a switch based on one game. Vick was third rated in the league after the first two. Lets see if he bounces back. Although I can't see how they win in Denver.

Odds are he gets hurt eventually and you'll get Foles. But ultimately I want to see them draft a qb suited for the offense.

Sounds like what you really want is a coaching change. You don't agree with Kelly's philosophy that time of possession doesn't matter and two point conversions make sense in the first quarter.

[slag]

No, what I want is a quarterback change.

This defense is so putrid that Vick is a waste of time.

Foles may be also, but I'd rather see what he has than what I know Vick doesn't.

[Maniac]

Not a big Foles fan here. I think Vick is slightly better but I'm mostly indifferent. Like you said, they could use a Russell Wilson.

[slag]

I'm not completely sold on Foles either but I actually would like to see if his more methodical style works with Kelly's offense.

I'd be pleasantly flabbergasted if it was different, but I'm not holding out much for winning this year after what I've seen on defense, so why not?

[Wolfpack]

The statement, "this team isn't as bad as it seems" got me to thinking. This statement is only true if we win the East, cause no team has shown it is any good yet.