Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Heard this concerning fact about Vick in Sat Game
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
I was going to reply to some of the critical Vick posts, saying he did make two bone head decisions, but only one hurt us and point out that he did find the open receiver, did throw dart strikes almost the whole night.

But then in coming home, I was listening to 97.5, the show that starts at 6PM, and they bring this tidbit out of the closet.

They said Vick dropped back 30 times and the average amount of time before he released the ball was 3.68 seconds. 19 of the 30, he held the ball for over 3 seconds. But here's the kicker, that 3.68 avg was higher than his average from any game last year!!!

Now as I was watching, it did seem like a long time he held the ball, but I was thinking that was compared to the check down Charlie stuff I was seeing from Foles and Barkley and maybe my sense of timing was off. I found myself getting antsy for him just watching, but again, it could be vs what we were used to seeing this year.

Chip has said he wants the ball out in under 2 seconds. If Vick was averaging 3.68, was that contrary to what the coach wanted, or was he OK with it? Did the coach allow it to happen purposefully, just to disguise what will happen come the regular season? Even with that 3.68 seconds, he idd ru the offense well. Guys were open and he hit them in stride for the most part. If Brown doesn't cough it up at the goal line, he puts up 24 points in just over a half.

If Chip really wanted to see 2 seconds from Vick, I would think this could be a sign that MV was struggling in his reads. He did look comfortable to me on the few check downs.

Jax and Rick, did you guys see receivers open down the field that MV didn't find soon enough?

Anyone else heard any of this?
MistahNickells
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 26 2013, 07:06 PM) *
I was going to reply to some of the critical Vick posts, saying he did make two bone head decisions, but only one hurt us and point out that he did find the open receiver, did throw dart strikes almost the whole night.

But then in coming home, I was listening to 97.5, the show that starts at 6PM, and they bring this tidbit out of the closet.

They said Vick dropped back 30 times and the average amount of time before he released the ball was 3.68 seconds. 19 of the 30, he held the ball for over 3 seconds. But here's the kicker, that 3.68 avg was higher than his average from any game last year!!!

Now as I was watching, it did seem like a long time he held the ball, but I was thinking that was compared to the check down Charlie stuff I was seeing from Foles and Barkley and maybe my sense of timing was off. I found myself getting antsy for him just watching, but again, it could be vs what we were used to seeing this year.

Chip has said he wants the ball out in under 2 seconds. If Vick was averaging 3.68, was that contrary to what the coach wanted, or was he OK with it? Did the coach allow it to happen purposefully, just to disguise what will happen come the regular season? Even with that 3.68 seconds, he idd ru the offense well. Guys were open and he hit them in stride for the most part. If Brown doesn't cough it up at the goal line, he puts up 24 points in just over a half.

If Chip really wanted to see 2 seconds from Vick, I would think this could be a sign that MV was struggling in his reads. He did look comfortable to me on the few check downs.

Jax and Rick, did you guys see receivers open down the field that MV didn't find soon enough?

Anyone else heard any of this?

I havent heard of it but I will look back at the game and do the seconds he was holding on to the ball, but nephilly did you see that jags front defensive four!!?? Those guyz are monsters I mean the jags were getting great pressure with just the dline itself it was crazy!!!
samaroo
It felt like he was looking for receivers for a while to me, too. I was surprised by the whole offensive performance, gameplan-wise. This was the first game I've really had a chance to watch, and I was surprised by the number of passes, and the time Vick spent in the pocket. A lot of the time, it seemed like the plays were designed that way.

Like I said, very different from what I was expecting.
Rick
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 26 2013, 07:06 PM) *
Jax and Rick, did you guys see receivers open down the field that MV didn't find soon enough?

I didn't notice any of the QBs missing open receivers continually. There were a few--but that's to be expected, can't always find the open receiver. It didn't look like the receivers were getting open (except Celek it seemed). I wasn't seeing much of any receivers running deep either.
mcnabbulous
I blame Andy's play calling.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 26 2013, 08:36 PM) *
I blame Andy's play calling.

Me too. He's too predictable.
Twilcox0522
hello fello eagle fans!! my 1st post here we go!!!!

I dont think that vick was purposely holding on to the ball that long. I would have to.believe ,after hearing chip talk ,that this was half game plan and half wr not getting open.im keeping an open mind with this only because its preseason so here's the time to get everything down before season starts.But the jags did do an awesome job applying pressure with just the front 4 which in case gives the secondary more options to help out etc.which also could've been the reason vick held ball so long also.
JaxEagle
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 26 2013, 07:06 PM) *
I was going to reply to some of the critical Vick posts, saying he did make two bone head decisions, but only one hurt us and point out that he did find the open receiver, did throw dart strikes almost the whole night.

But then in coming home, I was listening to 97.5, the show that starts at 6PM, and they bring this tidbit out of the closet.

They said Vick dropped back 30 times and the average amount of time before he released the ball was 3.68 seconds. 19 of the 30, he held the ball for over 3 seconds. But here's the kicker, that 3.68 avg was higher than his average from any game last year!!!

Now as I was watching, it did seem like a long time he held the ball, but I was thinking that was compared to the check down Charlie stuff I was seeing from Foles and Barkley and maybe my sense of timing was off. I found myself getting antsy for him just watching, but again, it could be vs what we were used to seeing this year.

Chip has said he wants the ball out in under 2 seconds. If Vick was averaging 3.68, was that contrary to what the coach wanted, or was he OK with it? Did the coach allow it to happen purposefully, just to disguise what will happen come the regular season? Even with that 3.68 seconds, he idd ru the offense well. Guys were open and he hit them in stride for the most part. If Brown doesn't cough it up at the goal line, he puts up 24 points in just over a half.

If Chip really wanted to see 2 seconds from Vick, I would think this could be a sign that MV was struggling in his reads. He did look comfortable to me on the few check downs.

Jax and Rick, did you guys see receivers open down the field that MV didn't find soon enough?

Anyone else heard any of this?



Absolutely! Read my posts again. One of the things I said repeatedly was that the OL did a nice job and that Vick took way too long surveying the field. Foles didn't.
koolaidluke
Vick was holding the ball for 3.6 seconds, but Foles was holding it for 3.3. This is the problem with pre season. Guys aren't forced to make quick decisions so you don't know if they can do it for real or not.
koolaidluke
By the way, Chip's "1.5 seconds" thing was in reference to the Micky Mouse offense he was running at Oregon, not the pro offense he is running here. Even Drew Brees takes over 2 seconds to get rid of the ball.
nephillymike
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Aug 26 2013, 09:06 PM) *
Vick was holding the ball for 3.6 seconds, but Foles was holding it for 3.3. This is the problem with pre season. Guys aren't forced to make quick decisions so you don't know if they can do it for real or not.


Where did you hear the 3.3 seconds for Foles. I didn't hear that. The eye test from watching the game said Vick held onto it for much longer than Foles.
koolaidluke
PFF mentioned it in their write up of the Panthers game. Foles was hanging onto the ball for 3.3 seconds and Vick 3.6. Not sure about the Jags but wouldn't be surprised if Foles number was the same given that Vicks also was.
Eyrie
Vick has always struggled to go through his progressions simply because of his athletic ability. College or Atlanta, the instructions were the same - two reads then scramble. He never had to learn how to read the coverage quickly.

So that means that if he is under instruction to look for a third or fourth option before running it will take him that bit longer than Foles, who is used to staying put and going through his options, even although Foles was looking for back up WRs.

The concerning thing here is that once the season starts Vick will be playing against defences that have planned for us rather than planning to run their own defence. That means the receivers will take longer to get open which will place a premium on him making the right read sooner. The new Vick may rise to the challenge, but the old Vick will get benched.
Rick
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Aug 27 2013, 04:35 AM) *
The concerning thing here is that once the season starts Vick will be playing against defences that have planned for us rather than planning to run their own defence. That means the receivers will take longer to get open which will place a premium on him making the right read sooner. The new Vick may rise to the challenge, but the old Vick will get benched.

And this is exactly my point about his great numbers up until the other night in the preseason. I wouldn't bet on the, "new," Vick rising to the challenge. I think the other night was evidence there is no, "new," Vick.
nephillymike
Heard Ross Tucker on WIP this AM and he said that MV was misreading the read option and at times ran when he shoul dhave handed it off and vice versa. Eskin who was hosting the call said that it made since that Vick in his press conference said he needed to do a better jobs at soething but siad when pressed that the media wouldn't understand. Eskin said he folowed up with Vick afterwards and he said it was reads at the LOS that he needed to do better on. FWIW, Tucker said Foles made the right reads on the read option.

That's concerning. The read option reads at the LOS should be second nature by now. I can see if we're talking about routes down the field but the basic reads of the read option s/b second nature.
Rick
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 27 2013, 12:33 PM) *
Heard Ross Tucker on WIP this AM and he said that MV was misreading the read option and at times ran when he shoul dhave handed it off and vice versa. Eskin who was hosting the call said that it made since that Vick in his press conference said he needed to do a better jobs at soething but siad when pressed that the media wouldn't understand. Eskin said he folowed up with Vick afterwards and he said it was reads at the LOS that he needed to do better on. FWIW, Tucker said Foles made the right reads on the read option.

That's concerning. The read option reads at the LOS should be second nature by now. I can see if we're talking about routes down the field but the basic reads of the read option s/b second nature.

We were talking about the same thing during the game...how he should have handed off, run, etc. when he did the opposite. Not surprising though.
koolaidluke
He shouldn't be running any read option stuff at all. All that shit is is a way to get your QB killed.
xsv
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Aug 27 2013, 03:08 PM) *
He shouldn't be running any read option stuff at all. All that shit is is a way to get your QB killed.


The entire offense is based on the that 'read option stuff'.
nephillymike
QUOTE (xsv @ Aug 27 2013, 03:49 PM) *
The entire offense is based on the that 'read option stuff'.



Yeah really.

KAL, what should he run , the west coast offense??
Reality Fan
On a side note one of Vick's detractors, Ray Didinger, said little about Vick and hammered the O Line after the game so for those who thought the line played well in the first half I have to kind of scratch my head. They looked terrible in the first quarter and did not play well until the 2nd half and the drive where Brown lost the ball showcased the offense.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Aug 27 2013, 04:03 PM) *
On a side note one of Vick's detractors, Ray Didinger, said little about Vick and hammered the O Line after the game so for those who thought the line played well in the first half I have to kind of scratch my head. They looked terrible in the first quarter and did not play well until the 2nd half and the drive where Brown lost the ball showcased the offense.



FWIW, R Diddy was on for a few hours on WIP yesterday and he is concerned about Vick. He was worried that Vick will try to be the hero isntead of just directing the offense. Prior to this, Ray did not criticize Vick as there was not much to criticize. He did have criticism for the OL but Vick didn't go by unscathed.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 27 2013, 05:10 PM) *
FWIW, R Diddy was on for a few hours on WIP yesterday and he is concerned about Vick. He was worried that Vick will try to be the hero isntead of just directing the offense. Prior to this, Ray did not criticize Vick as there was not much to criticize. He did have criticism for the OL but Vick didn't go by unscathed.



I was refering to the post game analysis.....and that was what I found odd because Ray hates Vick(Ray is a dog guy...does a lot of rescue work with his wife) so he always kills Vick so to focus on the O line spoke volumes. To be clear I thought Vick looked bad in the first quarter and that pick was beyond horrible but he did recover and he looked sharp on the drive in the 3rd where Brown fumbled on the 2. It is hard to argue that he adjusted. The concern that he will revert to the bad habits of the last 2 years have merit but I think for some no matter how well he plays any mistake will laways be amplified just as some who defend him will always find excuses. I think it was the right decision to start him over Foles but he is doubtful to be the QB for the next 4-5 years.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Aug 27 2013, 10:33 PM) *
I think it was the right decision to start him over Foles but he is doubtful to be the QB for the next 4-5 years.

Change "years" to "months" and I'll agree with that.
koolaidluke
The read option is just one play the Eagles use. I doubt they use it more than 25% of their snaps with Vick or 10% of their snaps with Foles.
Reality Fan
watching the Jags game again..

Just for perspective...first series.....first play Vick held the ball for 4 seconds but he should have and made a long completion to Avant....second play he held it for 4 seconds but was under pressure before 2 seconds elapsed because Lane Johnson got beat badly by Babin...third play he got rid of it around 3 but hurried the pass,,,,4th play was 3rd and long and he got rid of it quick....

2nd series....first play hand off to McCoy who makes mediocre blocking look good...2nd play fake to Mccoy QB keeper...3rd play bad snap kills a timing play and ball thrown away...4th play great play by Vick to Celek killed by holding by mathis.....last play 3rd and 18....not many great plays for that...scramble for 7 or 8.

My point is that early on the whole group looked bad....Vick did not look flwless by any means but he only had one mediocre play...the next series he had 2 great throws to start...one Celek caught and one Ertz dropped...3rd play was a scramble to beat bad blocking...The jags kept a lot of guys up on the line and pressed.....

Watch the game again and just watch Vick and he actually played pretty well except for about 3 plays...one of which was a terrible interception...
xsv
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Aug 29 2013, 06:49 PM) *
Watch the game again and just watch Vick and he actually played pretty well except for about 3 plays...one of which was a terrible interception...


Those 3 plays are the exact reason he had a shitty game.

Rick
QUOTE (xsv @ Aug 29 2013, 08:08 PM) *
Those 3 plays are the exact reason he had a shitty game.

Those 3 plays are exactly why I don't want him as the QB of the Eagles.
bwc2112
I want Donnie McPhearson clone and a Harold Carmichael. A side of Westbrook and Montgomery. Then to finish off A Reggie White,Jerome Brown, Bill Burgey. I'm not ready to leave, give me a Brian Dawkins to knock my ass out. WHO would be your best over all team?
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Rick @ Aug 29 2013, 08:27 PM) *
Those 3 plays are exactly why I don't want him as the QB of the Eagles.



then you must really hate Nick Foles right now......

there is no QB who doesn't make several bad plays in a game outside of Brady, Manning and Rodgers and we aint getting any of them.....
Reality Fan
QUOTE (xsv @ Aug 29 2013, 08:08 PM) *
Those 3 plays are the exact reason he had a shitty game.



With just mediocre line play a bad hold doesn't happen and 2 easy catches and those 3 plays never happen.....

Like I said watch the game again......

The reality of it is for some he will never be or do enough

After the first half tell me again how great Nick Foles is.........or even how good he is....c'mon...I need a good laugh.....lol
xsv
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Aug 29 2013, 08:56 PM) *
With just mediocre line play a bad hold doesn't happen and 2 easy catches and those 3 plays never happen.....

Like I said watch the game again......

The reality of it is for some he will never be or do enough

After the first half tell me again how great Nick Foles is.........or even how good he is....c'mon...I need a good laugh.....lol


I thought Vick played ok outside of those 3 plays. He made some plays, had some good throws, had some good runs.

The problem is those 3 plays. He makes boneheaded decisions with the football, over and over and over again. Jeez, 3 horrific plays in just over a half of play. How many would he have made in a full game. And, the more pressure there is, the more likely the chance of a boneheaded play.

Foles sucks, too. He's not quite as stupid as Vick with the ball, but he hasn't impressed me, either. He does though, appear to have some upside. He's young, and is still getting better. These are exactly the qualities that Vick does NOT have.

Look, I'm on record as saying Vick should be the QB right now. I'm not happy about it, but there's no better alternative.
Rick
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Aug 29 2013, 08:53 PM) *
then you must really hate Nick Foles right now......

there is no QB who doesn't make several bad plays in a game outside of Brady, Manning and Rodgers and we aint getting any of them.....

Nick Foles is in his SECOND year in the league. Oh, I also have not pledged my un-dying love for him. I don't believe he's the answer either.

However--and I'll say it yet again--Vick has been this way his WHOLE career with no signs of him changing. The reason these 3 plays make me concerned is because these are EXACTLY the kind of plays he tends to (not) make which tend to cause REALLY bad things to happen in games and (ultimately) causes losses.
Rick
QUOTE (xsv @ Aug 30 2013, 07:44 AM) *
The problem is those 3 plays. He makes boneheaded decisions with the football, over and over and over again. Jeez, 3 horrific plays in just over a half of play. How many would he have made in a full game. And, the more pressure there is, the more likely the chance of a boneheaded play.

Foles sucks, too. He's not quite as stupid as Vick with the ball, but he hasn't impressed me, either. He does though, appear to have some upside. He's young, and is still getting better. These are exactly the qualities that Vick does NOT have.

Well-said although I'm not ready to say Foles sucks just yet. Just haven't seen enough of him to know whether he does or not. My concern about him is you just don't see any kind of deep threat from him so no real hope of a big play with him back there unless someone breaks tackles and runs after the catch (or a long running play). You do need the occasional big play in a game to win consistently (I believe).
nephillymike
After watching last night, I can say that despite what Jaws said yesterday, we didn't name the starting QB too soon.

Vick deserves to be the starter.

After watching Foles last night, Vick has a longer rope than I would have given him previously based on his game 3 performance.

Here's hoping Vick is motivated and is able to play at a high level. We're going to need all the offense we can get.

However, there were some encouraging things on defense. We may have a few young LB's to hang onto. Not thrilled with the 2nd string DL's. Still too many open running lanes.
mcnabbulous
Didn't watch the game, but according to IBM on twitter, the OL and WR were awful last night. Not even giving Foles a chance.

I'd still go with Vick, and still think his bad qualities are going to come to a head, but wouldn't use Foles' performance last night as the reason. My bigger concern with Foles is the fact that he hasn't done anything down the field all preseason. Which highlights my concerns about him to begin with.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 30 2013, 11:55 AM) *
Didn't watch the game, but according to IBM on twitter, the OL and WR were awful last night. Not even giving Foles a chance.

I'd still go with Vick, and still think his bad qualities are going to come to a head, but wouldn't use Foles' performance last night as the reason. My bigger concern with Foles is the fact that he hasn't done anything down the field all preseason. Which highlights my concerns about him to begin with.


Watch the replay Sunday at 3PM. If you do, you'll make fewer excuses for Foles. He had a 65 passer rating after two preseason games, had a nice drive or two in game three, then shit the bed last night to finish an unimpressive preseason IMO.

did the OL play poorly? Yes at times. Did a few people drop passes, yep. But there were five to six passes where he was just off the mark by threee feet or so which makes a difference. And he did not learn to hold the ball w/ two hands when in the poclet under pressure resulting in yet another fumble.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Aug 30 2013, 12:12 PM) *
Watch the replay Sunday at 3PM. If you do, you'll make fewer excuses for Foles.

I'm probably the last person here who will make excuses for the guy. I'm not high on his mechanics at all. The only thing positive I could say about him last year was that his composure seemed really solid, which I do put a lot of value in. Regardless, I don't think he's anything more than a backup/low-end starter in this league.
Reality Fan
I don't really care who the starter is as long as it is the best guy...I thought Barkely would show better but such is life. That being said Foles looked like he just did not want to even play last night.
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.