Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Foles to KC chatter continues
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Zero
One of the teams or Foles' agent seems to want this to be in the news:
QUOTE
INDIANAPOLIS – The Kansas City Chiefs and Philadelphia Eagles spoke this week about a possible trade involving Eagles quarterback Nick Foles, but no progress has been made toward a deal, according to a person informed of the talks between the teams. The person, who spoke to USA TODAY Sports on condition of anonymity because the conversations weren't to be discussed publicly, said the Eagles conveyed to the Chiefs what they've been saying through the media – they like Foles and plan on giving him a chance to compete with Michael Vick for the starting job.
nephillymike
I heard Ruben Frank the other day say that he or someone else looked into how often the Oregan QB's ran the ball under Chip Kelly. He said it averaged 4 times per game, which INCLUDED, kneel downs and sacks.

That being said, I think even slow footed Foles can run the ball 2.5 times per game.

Also, Kelly said the other day that while at NH, he had a very good pocket passer and he threw the ball the most in the conference.

He keeps on saying he's flexible.

I believe him.

Look at it another way.

If you believe him that quick decisions are the most important thing along with accurate arm, and that INT's are the responsibility of the QB (contrary to the excuses of MV), and avoiding sacks are very important. unless they are really really stupid, there is no way you leave this offense solely in the hands of Vick and a practice squad QB.

I don't think they're stupid.

Foles stays.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 23 2013, 05:12 PM) *
INT's are the responsibility of the QB

I don't remember CK saying that about INT's. I do recall him being quoted for saying that about sacks.

If he did say that about INT's, his stock just dipped in my book. For too long I have wanted the NFL to qualify INT's for both QB and receivers (TE, WR, RB...). There are a bunch of bad passes that get picked and that is the fault of the QB. There are, however, a great deal of 'good passes' that end up being picked off because the receiver ran the wrong route, bobbled the ball, alligator arms...blah, blah, blah, etc, etc....
mcnabbulous
Geno Smith doesn't take sacks, doesn't throw picks, isn't mobile but can move a little, is accurate and makes quick decisions.

I'm just saying...
TGryn
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Feb 23 2013, 04:11 PM) *
Geno Smith doesn't take sacks, doesn't throw picks, isn't mobile but can move a little, is accurate and makes quick decisions.

Tommy Lawlor on GS:
QUOTE
Geno Smith posted phenomenal passing stats, but his team finished 7-6 this year. A lot of that was bad defense, but RG3 had an awful defense in 2011 and still managed to find a way to win 10 games. Geno did lead WVa to a 10-3 record and Orange Bowl destruction of Clemson last season. Overall he went 1-2 as a starter in bowl games. As much as you want to get excited by Geno’s passing numbers, they are largely due to coach Dana Holgorsen’s explosive system, and a lot of them came in the form of RAC yards from elite playmaker Tavon Austin. Against Kansas State this year, Smith was 21-32-143 with 2 INTs and a TD. The Mountaineers lost 55-14. Go check Luck and RG3′s stats. You won’t find a bad game like that from their final season. WVa lost 5 straight games in 2011, a couple by a single point. Is this the guy you want to spend a Top 5 pick on? There is no question that Smith is a talented passer. The question is whether he’s special enough to be the guy you take early and build your team around.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Feb 24 2013, 01:11 AM) *
Geno Smith doesn't take sacks, doesn't throw picks, isn't mobile but can move a little, is accurate and makes quick decisions.

I'm just saying...

C'Mon Man. Geno Smith Sucks.

Just saying....

tongue.gif
mcnabbulous
If Smith is a "system QB" I advise taking a look at Nick Florence's stats.

I look forward to this playing out and we can evaluate in a few years. I'll own up if I'm wrong.

I like Tommy Lawlor, but dude has worked for as many NFL teams as me.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Feb 23 2013, 06:19 PM) *
For too long I have wanted the NFL to qualify INT's for both QB and receivers (TE, WR, RB...). There are a bunch of bad passes that get picked and that is the fault of the QB. There are, however, a great deal of 'good passes' that end up being picked off because the receiver ran the wrong route, bobbled the ball, alligator arms...blah, blah, blah, etc, etc....

First, who really cares WHY a ball was picked off? It's a turnover and it's just plain bad.

Second, how, exactly, would you quantify this sort of thing? How would you know when a receiver ran the wrong route? How would you decide whether a ball was thrown perfectly or not (it's still subjective). How would you decide whether a receiver did enough to try and catch a ball or keep the defense from intercepting it?

Sorry, this stat would be more useless than many of the stats which have been invented recently.
mcnabbulous
Doesn't the espn QBR take deflections and things into account? I believe that rating is more subjective than just pure numbers.
Dreagon
QUOTE (Rick @ Feb 23 2013, 07:37 PM) *
First, who really cares WHY a ball was picked off? It's a turnover and it's just plain bad.

Second, how, exactly, would you quantify this sort of thing? How would you know when a receiver ran the wrong route? How would you decide whether a ball was thrown perfectly or not (it's still subjective). How would you decide whether a receiver did enough to try and catch a ball or keep the defense from intercepting it?

Sorry, this stat would be more useless than many of the stats which have been invented recently.



It DOES matter though.

First of all, I think if a ball hits the receiver or is deflected by the receiver, then that should definitely be a separate stat and should be counted against the receiver. An NFL receiver should be able to either catch or knock down anything he gets his hands on.

Route running is a bit more subjective, although you can usually look at a coverage and see what a receiver was supposed to go on a given route. Especially if the QB threw it there and the receiver is still chuggin in a different direction. But yeah, that would have to be a judgement call, possibly augmented by interviews after the game.

I think it IS important though to know where the problem is. Another stat I would be interested in seeing is what receiver was targeted on any given interception. One could look for a trend in that direction as well
Bez
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Feb 23 2013, 10:39 PM) *
It DOES matter though.

First of all, I think if a ball hits the receiver or is deflected by the receiver, then that should definitely be a separate stat and should be counted against the receiver. An NFL receiver should be able to either catch or knock down anything he gets his hands on.

Route running is a bit more subjective, although you can usually look at a coverage and see what a receiver was supposed to go on a given route. Especially if the QB threw it there and the receiver is still chuggin in a different direction. But yeah, that would have to be a judgement call, possibly augmented by interviews after the game.

I think it IS important though to know where the problem is. Another stat I would be interested in seeing is what receiver was targeted on any given interception. One could look for a trend in that direction as well
Yep cool.gif
nephillymike
If we're in any way referring to Vick's INT's last year, he should have had a bunch more as he threw the ball up for grabs in flocks of defenders many times. In just the opener alone, he should have had three more INT's.

It's be interesting to see what Vick has. As long as the competition is open, I'm OK with it.
Eyrie
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 23 2013, 10:12 PM) *
I heard Ruben Frank the other day say that he or someone else looked into how often the Oregan QB's ran the ball under Chip Kelly. He said it averaged 4 times per game, which INCLUDED, kneel downs and sacks.

That being said, I think even slow footed Foles can run the ball 2.5 times per game.

Also, Kelly said the other day that while at NH, he had a very good pocket passer and he threw the ball the most in the conference.

He keeps on saying he's flexible.

I believe him.

Look at it another way.

If you believe him that quick decisions are the most important thing along with accurate arm, and that INT's are the responsibility of the QB (contrary to the excuses of MV), and avoiding sacks are very important. unless they are really really stupid, there is no way you leave this offense solely in the hands of Vick and a practice squad QB.

I don't think they're stupid.

Foles stays.

This may be your best post ever.

Kelly will go with the better QB and adapt his system to suit the man under centre. Vick should start practising his burger-flipping right now.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Feb 24 2013, 02:23 AM) *
If Smith is a "system QB" I advise taking a look at Nick Florence's stats.

I look forward to this playing out and we can evaluate in a few years. I'll own up if I'm wrong.

I like Tommy Lawlor, but dude has worked for as many NFL teams as me.

Lawlor is an over rated hack. Arlington Fan with better grammar.
nephillymike
Arlington Fan.

What ever happened to him?
Rick
QUOTE (Dreagon @ Feb 23 2013, 09:39 PM) *
It DOES matter though.

First of all, I think if a ball hits the receiver or is deflected by the receiver, then that should definitely be a separate stat and should be counted against the receiver. An NFL receiver should be able to either catch or knock down anything he gets his hands on.

Route running is a bit more subjective, although you can usually look at a coverage and see what a receiver was supposed to go on a given route. Especially if the QB threw it there and the receiver is still chuggin in a different direction. But yeah, that would have to be a judgement call, possibly augmented by interviews after the game.

I think it IS important though to know where the problem is. Another stat I would be interested in seeing is what receiver was targeted on any given interception. One could look for a trend in that direction as well

But it really doesn't matter as a fan. A turnover is still a turnover. Why do I care about a stat like that? The team will know which receivers are and aren't doing their job. It's just another meaningless stat from a fans' perspective. It's also still quite subjective. So the stat won't mean much anyway.
Phits
QUOTE (Rick @ Feb 25 2013, 07:00 AM) *
But it really doesn't matter as a fan. A turnover is still a turnover. Why do I care about a stat like that? The team will know which receivers are and aren't doing their job. It's just another meaningless stat from a fans' perspective. It's also still quite subjective. So the stat won't mean much anyway.

It's far from being a meaningless stat. I think a great number of fans would be interested in knowing who is responsible for the turnover.
mcnabbulous
Dudes, you can fail to ignore me, but the ESPN Total QB rating system takes this shit into account.

So yes, people do measure it if you'd like to look at it that way. You might not see it explicitly broken down, but it's factored into their ratings.

Here you go.
Bez
QUOTE (Phits @ Feb 25 2013, 10:21 AM) *
It's far from being a meaningless stat. I think a great number of fans would be interested in knowing who is responsible for the turnover.

No shit , who wants to spend time hating on a player after the game on a message board only to find they were misinformed ?
GQSmooth
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Feb 23 2013, 08:11 PM) *
Geno Smith doesn't take sacks, doesn't throw picks, isn't mobile but can move a little, is accurate and makes quick decisions.

I'm just saying...

5.6 40 yard dash shows he is mobile. He has a little McNabb complex, does not wish to be characterized as a running "Black" QB
GQSmooth
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 24 2013, 10:12 PM) *
Arlington Fan.

What ever happened to him?

Posts in comment section at 24/7 and Lawlor's site.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (GQSmooth @ Feb 25 2013, 11:23 AM) *
5.6 40 yard dash shows he is mobile. He has a little McNabb complex, does not wish to be characterized as a running "Black" QB

That's fine with me. I want an Aaron Rodgers type QB that has a run second mindset.

Donovan's problem was that when he decided to beef up so he could better handle the punishment of running, he decided to stop running. So he became an overweight pocket passer.

Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Feb 25 2013, 10:27 AM) *
Dudes, you can fail to ignore me, but the ESPN Total QB rating system takes this shit into account.

So yes, people do measure it if you'd like to look at it that way. You might not see it explicitly broken down, but it's factored into their ratings.

Here you go.

Yes, that reflects the QB rating, but there has to be a rating stat that applies to the receiver.
nephillymike
QUOTE (GQSmooth @ Feb 25 2013, 11:39 AM) *
Posts in comment section at 24/7 and Lawlor's site.



He's a loyal fellow eh?
mcnabbulous
Side note: After looking at that Total QB rating stuff, it puts into perspective just how mediocre Foles really was last year.

D Rock
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Feb 25 2013, 08:48 PM) *
He's a loyal fellow eh?

He left here because his nonsense eventually destroyed any credibility he thought he had. The guy still thinks Matt McCoy was a decent linebacker.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Feb 25 2013, 10:27 AM) *
Dudes, you can fail to ignore me, but the ESPN Total QB rating system takes this shit into account.

So yes, people do measure it if you'd like to look at it that way. You might not see it explicitly broken down, but it's factored into their ratings.

Here you go.

And this is exactly my point. Fans don't care about it. If they did, we'd all know this stat is already out there.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Feb 25 2013, 12:01 PM) *
Yes, that reflects the QB rating, but there has to be a rating stat that applies to the receiver.

There has to be? We've got along just fine for 97 years without this stat. I'm pretty sure we can go another 97 without it.
Phits
QUOTE (Rick @ Feb 25 2013, 07:27 PM) *
There has to be? We've got along just fine for 97 years without this stat. I'm pretty sure we can go another 97 without it.

nice forward thinking.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Feb 25 2013, 08:00 PM) *
nice forward thinking.

Have we missed out on anything without this meaningless stat? I don't mind stats--I'm a big baseball fan--however, stats just for the sake of stats just make no sense. Stats which are subjective make even less sense. Making a stat to determine whether the receiver could have/should have caught a ball or did/did not run the correct route is purely subjective and totally meaningless because of that.

Forward thinking is something which helps move things into the future. A stat like this does absolutely nothing but placate a few Internet posters who want to feel better about their criticism about certain players. It does nothing to add to the experience of being a fan. And, most importantly, most fans just won't care at all about it. If they would, this would have already been a stat which has been around and discussed all of the time.
Phits
QUOTE (Rick @ Feb 26 2013, 06:53 AM) *
Have we missed out on anything without this meaningless stat? I don't mind stats--I'm a big baseball fan--however, stats just for the sake of stats just make no sense. Stats which are subjective make even less sense. Making a stat to determine whether the receiver could have/should have caught a ball or did/did not run the correct route is purely subjective and totally meaningless because of that.

Forward thinking is something which helps move things into the future. A stat like this does absolutely nothing but placate a few Internet posters who want to feel better about their criticism about certain players. It does nothing to add to the experience of being a fan. And, most importantly, most fans just won't care at all about it. If they would, this would have already been a stat which has been around and discussed all of the time.

You're simply mistaken. While all stats are meaningless and subjective, they all add to the fan experience. Based on the limited responses in this thread, you are in the minority. The rest of us would like to see these types of stats.
Rick
QUOTE (Phits @ Feb 26 2013, 09:20 AM) *
You're simply mistaken. While all stats are meaningless and subjective, they all add to the fan experience. Based on the limited responses in this thread, you are in the minority. The rest of us would like to see these types of stats.

No, you're mistaken. There.

I like your sample size, a couple of people say we want it and one says they don't so you make the assumption that I'm the minority. Maybe you need to go back and study statistics a little?

I have brought up valid points as to why it is a meaningless stat and why nobody really cares about it. You have come back with I'm mistaken and I'm the minority because a very small number of people here have posted about it. Discussions where there's a disagreement usually work where one party believes something, another believes another and the parties trade information to try and convince the other party to agree or understand where they're coming from. I've kept my part of the bargain...

I don't understand what a stat like that will do to enhance the fan experience nor do I understand what the stat will tell us about anything since it's purely subjective. And, since nobody seems to be crying out for information like this--other than a handful of people (barely) here on this board--it seems to me I'm not in the minority but in the majority.

Personally, I could care less about whether someone invented a BS stat like this, not going to affect me in the least bit. I'm just explaining why I believe it's just that--a BS stat--since I was questioned when I voiced my thoughts on it. It would not change the way I watch games or look at players in any way.

And all stats are NOT subjective. The number of games a player plays is a stat and is not subjective in any way. The kicking percentage of a kicker is not subjective. The completion percentage of a QB is not subjective. Many stats are NOT subjective...
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.