Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's a shame it took a Foles injury

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's a shame it took a Foles injury

    For Chip to balance the play calling. Foles had the ball in his hand entirely too long and too often this year. Polk started getting more touches and the whole attack was more balanced.

    Also, the team looked crisp rallying around The Chez. I'm optimistic offensively right now
    I'm not the hill you want to die on

  • #2
    When I noticed Polk getting carries my first thought was omg is McCoy hurt.

    Comment


    • #3
      It truly was FF-esque.

      Comment


      • #4
        Reminded me of when Garcia took over for McNabb.
        "Listen to McCarthy" - Art Vandelay

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 91EaglesD View Post
          For Chip to balance the play calling. Foles had the ball in his hand entirely too long and too often this year. Polk started getting more touches and the whole attack was more balanced.

          Also, the team looked crisp rallying around The Chez. I'm optimistic offensively right now
          I think Johnston made a comment about Sanchez vs. Foles with the read-option and the QB's choice for it to be run or pass.

          I really have no idea, but perhaps Foles was calling for passes more often whereas Sanchez went with the run option.
          --
          Your Retarded

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm excited to see what Sanchez can do. Is it fair to draw a Randall comparison and say he suffered from having a coach who didn't give a crap about the offense in NY?
            -Slizz of Wangnutz

            Comment


            • #7
              A hybrid of Randall going to Minnesota and re-inventing himself mixed with 2006 Jeff Garcia Birds' playcalling might be the winning combo. I will take it.

              Now we just need Fredo to steal his brother's HGH.
              I'm not the hill you want to die on

              Comment


              • #8
                Agreed that it's a shame. But I'll be interested to see if it was Sanchez's skillset that opened up the running game yesterday. If it were as simple as committing I think Chip would do it every week. But it could be similar to when Garcia was just a much better fit for the WCO than McNabb.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BigSlizz View Post
                  I'm excited to see what Sanchez can do. Is it fair to draw a Randall comparison and say he suffered from having a coach who didn't give a crap about the offense in NY?
                  I think he is a slightly better fit in the way that he can keep the defense honest with his feet. Turnovers are my concern, but then again Foles was pretty bad in that regard so far this season.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My thing with keeping a defense honest is that I really don't think that's what Chip has designed his offense around. If it were that simple Vick would have started last season and Kelly would have drafted a mobile QB to start. Foles also wouldn't have had his great games if mobility were all that important. I don't think any great offense in the NFL revolves around a QB's threat to run.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Kelce coming back had nothing to do with it, right?
                      John Erlichman, one of President Richard Nixon's closest aides, has admitted America's "War on Drugs" was a hoax designed to vilify and disrupt "the antiwar left and black people" when it was launched in 1971.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Loki View Post
                        Kelce coming back had nothing to do with it, right?
                        Kelce played the entire game.

                        The Eagles ran 4 times with Foles under center, including a Foles run.

                        They ran a 36 times over the next 3 quarters, 31 of which were by running backs.

                        So clearly, Kelce wasn't the only difference.
                        --
                        Your Retarded

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How much did they run in the 4th quarter?
                          Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by slag View Post
                            How much did they run in the 4th quarter?
                            Quick study of the play by play shows:

                            ~11 RB runs in the 2nd.

                            ~9 RB runs in the 3rd.

                            ~12 RB runs in the 4th.

                            Edit.

                            So I probably over counted somewhere or I included a Sanchez run that wasn't a kneel down.
                            Last edited by TerpEagle; 11-03-2014, 06:52 PM.
                            --
                            Your Retarded

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Loki View Post
                              Kelce coming back had nothing to do with it, right?
                              Did you watch the game leading up to the injury?
                              I'm not the hill you want to die on

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X