So what do you prefer?

[Eagle Road]

You really think that?

16/25 for 197 and 2 tds ain't chopped liver.

Foles was pretty damn careful with ball placement, if it was a somewhat risky throw, it was put where only his rec. could get it, impressed me for a guy that has only a handful of snaps this year.

[The Duck]

He was productive for a game and a half

And he was utterly abysmal against Kansas City, bad against Denver, and was 6-14 before getting hurt today. He's gone 33-71 since his monster game against San Diego. He's thrown one touchdown in three weeks.

He flashed, then reverted to form... like he's always done.

[AnnapolisEagle]

And he was utterly abysmal against Kansas City, bad against Denver, and was 6-14 before getting hurt today. He's gone 33-71 since his monster game against San Diego. He's thrown one touchdown in three weeks.

He flashed, then reverted to form... like he's always done.

And yet he's still the starting quarterback because HE WON THE JOB.

Foles played admirably in his fill-in role. Will Vick get hurt again and Foles string together some good starts in his place at some point this year? Maybe! And then it's appropriate to have this conversation. But a pulled hammy and adequate quarterbacking from Foles against a winless team isn't enough to make him the starter. Nor should it be.

-AE

[The Duck]

We've been having the conversation all season

This isn't a new development. To many, the decision to bring Vick back was questionable. The decision to start him even more so. The team has no future with Vick, and Vick has no real future in the league. The decision to start an aging, fatally flawed, turnover-prone and injury plagued QB on a rebuilding squad is going to be debated... it's a reasonable and perfectly appropriate discussion.

My position is, the first opportunity you get to reverse the mistake of this pointless exercise, you jump at it. You see it differently. The debate continues.

[Maniac]

You really think that?

Absolutely. Foles was doing nothing and the Gnats had come back before the first Sheli pick in the second half. The Giants pretty much quit after that. AE had the same opinion.

Foles makes some nice throws and is generally fine if you can keep him clean. But I don't think that will happen.

There was a play in the second half near the goal line, not sure if it was a read option, but he could barely get back to the line of scrimmage on a run he should have scored easily. Got a serious case of the slows. Much easier to game plan than Vick. Can't run the full Kelly offense.

[slag]

I'm in the middle here.

I don't think a hamstring and strong pinch hit loses a starter his job.

On the other hand, I'm on record for the notion that Foles' methodical style is better for keeping this shitty defense off the field.

Additionally, Vick hasn't played well lately.

He sucked ass against the Chiefs and Broncos ... and, although I only heard the first half on the radio and then unjinxed the game by turning it off when the Vagiants scored 14, it seems to me he was running and not passing that well (I understand his one deep ball should have been picked).

[AnnapolisEagle]

This isn't a new development. To many, the decision to bring Vick back was questionable. The decision to start him even more so. The team has no future with Vick, and Vick has no real future in the league. The decision to start an aging, fatally flawed, turnover-prone and injury plagued QB on a rebuilding squad is going to be debated... it's a reasonable and perfectly appropriate discussion.

My position is, the first opportunity you get to reverse the mistake of this pointless exercise, you jump at it. You see it differently. The debate continues.

It's not a pointless exercise. Kelly built his entire arrival on the concept of open competition. Offered every player a clean slate to prove himself, may the best man win.

Vick is still, whether you like it or not, the better player. He played better in the preseason and, for all his flaws, ran the offense well so far this season. It would be silly for Kelly swap in Foles now.

Look, neither of these guys will be the long-term answer. The Eagles are going to draft Boyd, Manziel, Marriota, Hundley or somebody else (they're out of the Bridgewater sweepstakes unless they mortgage everything to get him and I haven't seen enough of Petty to know if his game translates). *If* Vick makes it through the season intact, the only way he's brought back is to keep the seat warm for whoever they pick in the first two rounds.

Foles had four good drives -- two of which started inside the Giants 40 -- against a winless team. He did a good job. But that's not enough to make him the starter.

-AE

[DJCon57]

He sucked ass against the Chiefs and Broncos ... and, although I only heard the first half on the radio and then unjinxed the game by turning it off when the Vagiants scored 14, it seems to me he was running and not passing that well (I understand his one deep ball should have been picked).

He was fine. Had good moments and bad.
Had 2 drops by DJax.
Disagree that the ball should have been picked. It was misplayed, but not necessarily a pick.

[The Duck]

If he's ready, Vick will start

Chip made him the starter, he's going to keep him there if he's able to go. I know that. I think Foles should start, but I think he should have started from day one and I don't think Vick should ever have been brought back, so I'll advocate making the switch regardless of the circumstances. Playing to win now at the expense of evaluating what they have makes no sense to me. Especially when you have a deteriorating one-read-and-run QB who doesn't really give you a shot at winning anything meaningful.

[The Duck]

I'm not sure what constitutes running the offense well. He's played 18 quarters. He played very well for six of them, below average to horrible the other twelve before getting hurt (yet again). He's the same guy who, in the space of five quarters, went from engineering one of the greatest comebacks in franchise history to getting his lunch eaten by Joe Webb. The same guy he's been since he came into the league.

I don't think he's running the offense well. With the exception of one stretch in 2010, I don't think he's ever run an offense well. I think he's basically a one-read-and-run QB who's never developed his game in 10+ years in the league. As far as I'm concerned, having him in there at all hinders the development of the entire offense.

As far as Foles, I have no idea what he can or will be. I know many here have reached a conclusion after six starts, but I haven't. I'd like to see more evidence before making definitive pronouncements about the kid's future.

[slag]

The Vagiants broadcasters were howling ... and everyone I know who saw the play said it should have been picked or knocked down at a minimum.

[slag]

I want to see Foles myself.

I want to see if his lack of arm strength overfucks his superior ability to find open guys and throw screens.

[slag]

yep

[slag]

Saw Boyd play Saturday in the Carrier Dome ... although he destroyed an overmatched Syracuse squad, you can clearly see he has a pro arm.

He throws a great deep ball and made some "window" throws that I wouldn't mind seeing in Kelly's offense.

[slag]

Oh, so the Vagiants let him win.

Got it.