Foles fucking sucks

[nerd]

This is from NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200...arned-saturday


"3. Philadelphia quarterback Nick Foles saved one of his worst games for last. Once again, his stat line (23-for-33 passing, 195 yards through the air, 2 TD passes) looks better than he played. He struggled to pull the trigger on a number of throws and held the ball too often."

This is pretty much exactly what I have been saying, I guess it isnt just me, enjoy the empty stats.

He brought them back and they took the lead.

Plus...I still want to know why he is the "white savior".

[gmen4ever]

Your out of your mind...

He is how old? 23? 24? He'll learn to improve, dump it off. He set records with his stats this year (TDs to INTs). His play in Dallas last week was like a playoff game and he played overall well yesterday. He is going to give the rest of the division fits for a while.

Ban me, I dont give a shit. He holds the ball so long and takes 10 yard sacks while having the ball 8+ seconds. He is a 3 and out machine in games that means absolutely anything. You foles felators can look at the box score all you want, you are wrong. He has ZERO clutch in him, he is a shitty Tony Romo, enjoy that. Vick is NOT the answer, neither is he.

That being said, Chung and Henery need to be cut immediately.

[EaGLeSFaN328]

Yeah, that isn't accurate, you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. He has been completely risk averse all year.

Interceptions happen, you will never be championship caliber if you cannot take risks.

Foles had a tremendous year and I'd honestly take him over any of the young qb's maybe except for luck. The kid has started, what, his 17th game. Look at Peyton's, aikmans, Brady's, etc first 16 games and they don't even come close to foles. Maybe foles is the next big thing, maybe he's not. But after this years performance I am more then willing to say he deservedly so deserves another year to improve his game.

[Loki]

Speaking of empty...

how's your head feel after the hangover?

[GroundedBird]

This is from NFL.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200...arned-saturday


"3. Philadelphia quarterback Nick Foles saved one of his worst games for last. Once again, his stat line (23-for-33 passing, 195 yards through the air, 2 TD passes) looks better than he played. He struggled to pull the trigger on a number of throws and held the ball too often."

This is pretty much exactly what I have been saying, I guess it isnt just me, enjoy the empty stats.

ok, so If I get 100, 98, 97 in my tests followed by a 95 in the final, by your argument you would point to my 95 and say I folded under the pressure because I had my worst grade in the final.

The article also said that Brees only had a "B" performance.

Your argument means nothing.

[Brandonn]

ok, so If I get 100, 98, 97 in my tests followed by a 95 in the final, by your argument you would point to my 95 and say I folded under the pressure because I had my worst grade in the final.

The article also said that Brees only had a "B" performance.

Your argument means nothing.

A score on on a test is an accurate measurement of how you did. Passer rating is a joke statistic and flawed at best. I don't even get what point you were trying to make.

[Sect 236]

A score on on a test is an accurate measurement of how you did. Passer rating is a joke statistic and flawed at best. I don't even get what point you were trying to make.

QB rating only counts when it benefits Brandonn's argument. Come on guys, you should know this!

37 qb rating speaks for itself

Source: http://igglephans.com/iggboard/showt...=253746&page=2

[slag]

With all due respect, what he's done is significantly better than ok.

And basing your assessment on his first half yesterday is silly

And speaking of silly, so is your statement that Brees showed him how to QB sneak.

What the Saints sneaks showed yesterday is that the QB has nothing to do but move forward when the line knocks the defense 1-3 yards backwards.

[Eagle Road]

So let me get this straight, I'm watching the SF/Pack game and Rodgers drives them down the field to TIE the game.

BUT the D can not stop SF, and with less than a minute to go it looks like SF will kick the FG and win, so by Brannonnnnns analogy Rodgers is a worse QB than Foles, because Rodgers only Tied the game instead of FOLES who actually gave them the lead.

Even though they both lost?

Makes sense to me.

[slag]

Obviously you meant to respond to someone else.

[Eagle Road]

Obviously you meant to respond to someone else.

Yeah, to the OP.

[Brandonn]

So let me get this straight, I'm watching the SF/Pack game and Rodgers drives them down the field to TIE the game.

BUT the D can not stop SF, and with less than a minute to go it looks like SF will kick the FG and win, so by Brannonnnnns analogy Rodgers is a worse QB than Foles, because Rodgers only Tied the game instead of FOLES who actually gave them the lead.

Even though they both lost?

Makes sense to me.

Rodgers did not have a good game. The bolded part is a figment of your imagination.

[Eagle Road]

Rodgers did not have a good game. The bolded part is a figment of your imagination.

Not my imagination, YOUR analogy, you need to stop drinking, it kills brain cells.