Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Sorry, but it *is* Vicks Fault.
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
xsv
The people that keep saying that you can't blame Vick for this are simply wrong. You absolutely have to hold him accountable for turning the ball over as much as he does. He's fumbled the ball over 80 times in his career.. 8 times this season. He has a fumbling problem. Not to mention his INTs. Not to mention he seems to have trouble trouble hitting wide open receivers deep.

I don't know if Foles will be better, but I'm ready to try something else.

Yes, I also blame Reid. But I blame him mostly for not benching Vick. Ryan Mattews got benched for fumble issues. That had less to do with his backup, Battle, and more to do with sending a message to Matthews. Just like it would here with Foles. And look how Matthews responded. Time to do the same with Vick.
GQSmooth
Reid is quick to bench and even cut a young RB when he fumbles. I would not have been opposed to Reid sitting Vick for a few drives. I can't understand the blame on the defense because the fact is when a defense holds an offense to under 17 points in today's NFL it has done its job.

If Vick does not turn the ball over this team will not lose.
Mr. Bonko
QUOTE (GQSmooth @ Oct 8 2012, 10:28 AM) *
Reid is quick to bench and even cut a young RB when he fumbles. I would not have been opposed to Reid sitting Vick for a few drives. I can't understand the blame on the defense because the fact is when a defense holds an offense to under 17 points in today's NFL it has done its job.

If Vick does not turn the ball over this team will not lose.


How can you blame Vick? He is simply is not capable of not throwing INTs and/or fumbling. He doesn't have the mental or physical capacity to stop it. He has proven it over and over his entire career. To expect that to change is lunacy. I am beyond getting angry with him over it. If anything, I feel sympathy for him. He keeps getting put in a position where he cannot succeed (on the field of an NFL game).

Andy is the one putting him there, so he is to blame.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (xsv @ Oct 8 2012, 10:19 AM) *
The people that keep saying that you can't blame Vick for this are simply wrong.

Yes, I also blame Reid. But I blame him mostly for not benching Vick.


Of course when Vick fumbles it's his fault. The whole point is, if you stop putting the entire offense's success on his shoulders, he does much better. He tries to do too much and is reckless with how he runs the ball, resulting in all of those fumbles. When our offense has 1st and goal on the 3, the absolute last thing on earth we should be calling is a QB draw - especially against the Steelers. For christ's sakes, in that situation we might actually fool someone by running a quick play action pass - well, maybe.
Bocadelphia Eagles John
QUOTE (GQSmooth @ Oct 8 2012, 10:28 AM) *
I can't understand the blame on the defense because the fact is when a defense holds an offense to under 17 points in today's NFL it has done its job.

If Vick does not turn the ball over this team will not lose.


Done it's job ? Are you shittin' me ? The job at hand was to hold the lead, and D did NOT do it's job.

If you can't understand this, then you can't understand the GAME that was played yesterday. This 17 points nonsense is NOT a hard and fast rule. It's nothing more than a GENERALITY which does NOT apply during certain game circumstances and yesterday was a picture perfect example of one of them.
Mr. Bonko
QUOTE (Bocadelphia Eagles John @ Oct 8 2012, 11:27 AM) *
Done it's job ? Are you shittin' me ? The job at hand was to hold the lead, and D did NOT do it's job.

If you can't understand this, then you can't understand the GAME that was played yesterday. This 17 points nonsense is NOT a hard and fast rule. It's nothing more than a GENERALITY which does NOT apply during certain game circumstances and yesterday was a picture perfect example of one of them.


0.0 sacks. 0.0 TOs. Dean Wormer would be proud.
JeeQ
The best solution would be to erase the QB Draw from the playbook, and I don't know, give that carry to the best RB in the NFL? Or if not him, one of the other 3 RBs we have? Or maybe the FB? On a team with 5 Backs we're letting a fumble-prone QB run Draw plays.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (JeeQ @ Oct 8 2012, 12:59 PM) *
The best solution would be to erase the QB Draw from the playbook, and I don't know, give that carry to the best RB in the NFL? Or if not him, one of the other 3 RBs we have? Or maybe the FB? On a team with 5 Backs we're letting a fumble-prone QB run Draw plays.


cheers.gif
Dreagon
QUOTE (GQSmooth @ Oct 8 2012, 09:28 AM) *
Reid is quick to bench and even cut a young RB when he fumbles. I would not have been opposed to Reid sitting Vick for a few drives.


Benching your starting QB is not something ANY coach is going to do lightly. There are a lot of considerations that go into it, and it's something most coaches wouldn't even consider unless they are pretty confident they have a future starter on deck.

First of all, the coach knows he's delivering a body punch to the QB's career when he does that, and many QBs never come back from it. Not to mention, if they DO come back there are often "financial apologies" that have to be made because the coach went out on a limb with a guy who wasn't ready for prime time and now his own fortunes, along with the teams, rest on mollifying the starting caliber QB and getting him back on the field top form.

And it doesn't really help things with the fans either. The ones howling for the QB's head aren't going to be the ones to take the blame if the backup tanks, but they will definitely be the ones turning up the volume when they see the QB they are angry at get that financial apology and come back out on the field. So there really is no percentage in a coach benching a QB unless he things he's actually improving things...and he knows what he's got behind the starter.
Eyrie
Oddly, and despite my anger at Vick playing like he's still the fraud from Atlanta that I didn't want here on football grounds (the criminal stuff goes without saying), I'd stick with Vick for now.

Vick has shown that he can get the job done in the fourth quarter, even if he is the guy that puts us in the hole in the first place.

We can in theory still make the playoffs, and IF Vick can cut out the turnovers he represents a better chance of doing so than Foles.

Foles is a rookie, and playing behind our patchwork OL is not going to make it easy for him to adjust. The OL needs a few more games to gel properly before he should be exposed.

If Foles starts, then we can expect an improved gameplan from Reid that places less reliance on the QB, but I'd prefer Brown to improve his protection before that happens as McCoy will need spelled.

If Foles struggles, we still have to stick with him for a few games to see how he settles and at that point it's very difficult to go back to Vick. Much easier if it's the last 4-5 games of the season.

I'd give Vick another few games before starting Foles, but I wouldn't be averse to sitting Vick for one series every time he fumbles.
Rick
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Oct 8 2012, 01:42 PM) *
Benching your starting QB is not something ANY coach is going to do lightly. There are a lot of considerations that go into it, and it's something most coaches wouldn't even consider unless they are pretty confident they have a future starter on deck.

First of all, the coach knows he's delivering a body punch to the QB's career when he does that, and many QBs never come back from it. Not to mention, if they DO come back there are often "financial apologies" that have to be made because the coach went out on a limb with a guy who wasn't ready for prime time and now his own fortunes, along with the teams, rest on mollifying the starting caliber QB and getting him back on the field top form.

And it doesn't really help things with the fans either. The ones howling for the QB's head aren't going to be the ones to take the blame if the backup tanks, but they will definitely be the ones turning up the volume when they see the QB they are angry at get that financial apology and come back out on the field. So there really is no percentage in a coach benching a QB unless he things he's actually improving things...and he knows what he's got behind the starter.

So we should stick with Vick so we don't hurt his feelings or his wallet!!?? That makes no sense.

The man isn't getting it done (for us anyway). He needs to sit and bring in someone else who might get it done. He's too stupid to learn he has to protect the ball better. He's too stupid to read a defense. He's just not a good QB...NEVER has been. Enough with this guy already! I've been saying this about him forever.
Rick
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Oct 8 2012, 02:23 PM) *
Oddly, and despite my anger at Vick playing like he's still the fraud from Atlanta that I didn't want here on football grounds (the criminal stuff goes without saying), I'd stick with Vick for now.

Vick has shown that he can get the job done in the fourth quarter, even if he is the guy that puts us in the hole in the first place.

We can in theory still make the playoffs, and IF Vick can cut out the turnovers he represents a better chance of doing so than Foles.

Foles is a rookie, and playing behind our patchwork OL is not going to make it easy for him to adjust. The OL needs a few more games to gel properly before he should be exposed.

If Foles starts, then we can expect an improved gameplan from Reid that places less reliance on the QB, but I'd prefer Brown to improve his protection before that happens as McCoy will need spelled.

If Foles struggles, we still have to stick with him for a few games to see how he settles and at that point it's very difficult to go back to Vick. Much easier if it's the last 4-5 games of the season.

I'd give Vick another few games before starting Foles, but I wouldn't be averse to sitting Vick for one series every time he fumbles.


What!!? This isn't punishing a child. You don't put him in timeout when he makes a mistake. A professional will make mistakes. The problem is, he is incapable of learning how to stop making the SAME mistake(s) over and over and over and over...

The guy is a turnover machine. Obviously, this team is going to have difficulty overcoming his belief that the ball just doesn't matter when he's got it. If we had a defense which could buy a turnover or a sack, maybe you give him more time. He's had MORE than enough time to correct his mistakes. He needs to sit.
Dreagon
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 8 2012, 02:45 PM) *
So we should stick with Vick so we don't hurt his feelings or his wallet!!?? That makes no sense.

The man isn't getting it done (for us anyway). He needs to sit and bring in someone else who might get it done. He's too stupid to learn he has to protect the ball better. He's too stupid to read a defense. He's just not a good QB...NEVER has been. Enough with this guy already! I've been saying this about him forever.


What I'm saying is that most coaches won't bench a starting QB unless they think there is a real chance they are going to stay benched. There is no percentage in just benching them for punishment purposes for a little while. It is more likely to end badly than not.

I think a lot of fans forget (including Dallas fans) that there are actually less true starting caliber QB's in the NFL than there are teams. But I assure you that Reid and other coaches know that, and that's why they are certainly unhappy with Vick's turnovers but are willing to endure them...especially while they are sitting at 3-2 and in first place in the division. That is a boat no coach is going to rock.
Phits
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 8 2012, 03:48 PM) *
What!!? This isn't punishing a child. You don't put him in timeout when he makes a mistake. A professional will make mistakes. The problem is, he is incapable of learning how to stop making the SAME mistake(s) over and over and over and over...

You could say the same about the coach. Maybe that's why he has such patience with Vick.
Rick
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Oct 8 2012, 04:51 PM) *
What I'm saying is that most coaches won't bench a starting QB unless they think there is a real chance they are going to stay benched. There is no percentage in just benching them for punishment purposes for a little while. It is more likely to end badly than not.

I think a lot of fans forget (including Dallas fans) that there are actually less true starting caliber QB's in the NFL than there are teams. But I assure you that Reid and other coaches know that, and that's why they are certainly unhappy with Vick's turnovers but are willing to endure them...especially while they are sitting at 3-2 and in first place in the division. That is a boat no coach is going to rock.

I understand what you're saying, however, this isn't like it's something which came out of nowhere. He's ALWAYS had these problems and they've gotten WORSE instead of better. At what point do you finally throw in the towel and move in? IMO, we've moved WAY past that point. It does no good to do what they're doing now. We all know he's not going to figure it out all of a sudden. If he was going to, he would have YEARS ago.

Let the youngsters play. Can't be much worse than what we're looking at now and it may even be better. They didn't get to 3-2 because of Vick, they got to 3-2 in spite of Vick.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Oct 8 2012, 07:25 PM) *
You could say the same about the coach. Maybe that's why he has such patience with Vick.

You won't get an argument from me on that subject...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.