Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Now I know why...
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
SAM I Am
an 0 - 4 team, that has been outscored 69 - 7 in the past 2 games, is giving the Birds points.

The Birds' secondary is worthless.

An 0 - 15 team would be giving points to these bums.

Run Vick Run, because evidently none of your receivers are able to get any separation.

Fucking Pathetic.



Edited to accurately reflect how bad the gnats were outscored the last two games.
Dr. Claw
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Oct 6 2013, 01:28 PM) *
an 0 - 4 team, that has been outscored 69 - 7 in the past 2 games, is giving the Birds points.

The Birds' secondary is worthless.

An 0 - 15 team would be giving points to these bums.

Run Vick Run, because evidently none of your receivers are able to get any separation.

Fucking Pathetic.



Edited to accurately reflect how bad the gnats were outscored the last two games.


Riley Pooper should be sent to purgatory (Succaneers) after this game. This lack of WRs is just... ugh. And no help from the TEs.
JeeQ
I kept saying it over and over all preseason. Our receivers are absolute trash sans Jackson. Half way through the second QTR and no WR has a catch yet. All you have to do is double Jackson and none of the other WRs can cause any separation. Completely eliminates our passing game.
Dr. Claw
QUOTE (JeeQ @ Oct 6 2013, 02:04 PM) *
I kept saying it over and over all preseason. Our receivers are absolute trash sans Jackson. Half way through the second QTR and no WR has a catch yet. All you have to do is double Jackson and none of the other WRs can cause any separation. Completely eliminates our passing game.


Pretty much reminds me of the Falcons when Vick were there. Their best WR was Brian freakin' Finneran.
JeeQ
QUOTE (Dr. Claw @ Oct 6 2013, 11:14 AM) *
Pretty much reminds me of the Falcons when Vick were there. Their best WR was Brian freakin' Finneran.


biggrin.gif

Meanwhile... Hakeem Nicks has more receiving yards in the first half than Cooper has for the entire season wink.gif
Dr. Claw
QUOTE (JeeQ @ Oct 6 2013, 02:22 PM) *
:D

Meanwhile... Hakeem Nicks has more receiving yards in the first half than Cooper has for the entire season ;)


Maybe because he's not only just tall, but actually has fundamentals befitting an NFL WR. Cooper is just tall.
JeeQ
Shady is quietly becoming one of our best WRs laugh.gif
nephillymike
In Coopers defense, he was open by two strides for a TD that our QB missed him on.

Not that he had much other than that.
D Rock
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Oct 6 2013, 05:28 PM) *
an 0 - 4 team, that has been outscored 69 - 7 in the past 2 games, is giving the Birds points.

The Birds' secondary is worthless.

An 0 - 15 team would be giving points to these bums.

Run Vick Run, because evidently none of your receivers are able to get any separation.

Fucking Pathetic.



Edited to accurately reflect how bad the gnats were outscored the last two games.

Funny how they suddenly got separation when the other qb came in.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 6 2013, 10:27 PM) *
Funny how they suddenly got separation when the other qb came in.

I think you're a little too hyped up about Foles' small sample size performance. Vick still had a significantly higher yards per completion, about the same per attempt and the running was obviously decidedly in Vick's favor.

I'm also not sure those guys were getting "separation" as much as Foles simply has more confidence in his accuracy to throw to a smaller space. I'm more than comfortable having Vick hold on to the ball and pick up 11+ yards per carry, in lieu of forcing a pass into traffic.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 04:39 PM) *
I think you're a little too hyped up about Foles' small sample size performance. Vick still had a significantly higher yards per completion, about the same per attempt and the running was obviously decidedly in Vick's favor.

I'm also not sure those guys were getting "separation" as much as Foles simply has more confidence in his accuracy to throw to a smaller space. I'm more than comfortable having Vick hold on to the ball and pick up 11+ yards per carry, in lieu of forcing a pass into traffic.

Im not "hyped up about" shit. I'm merely pointing to the fact that completion % went from 40 to 65 with the QB change. It's been suggested that receivers weren't getting open. That's simply not true.

My only want is "wins." I don't care who's playing quarterback. But folks crying about our run game seemingly disappearing when Foles came in, also have to realize that the passing game appeared just as suddenly.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 7 2013, 04:16 PM) *
It's been suggested that receivers weren't getting open. That's simply not true.

The all-22 from previous weeks backs up the suggestion that guys simply aren't getting open. At least not to a desirable level. Especially when Vick is averaging 9.3 yards per carry. I don't know why people give a shit if he does or doesn't throw the ball.

QUOTE
My only want is "wins." I don't care who's playing quarterback. But folks crying about our run game seemingly disappearing when Foles came in, also have to realize that the passing game appeared just as suddenly.

Foles was pretty mediocre for most of the second half. He was gifted 3 very short fields thanks to Eli.

His TD drives were 25 and 38 yards respectively.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 10:31 PM) *
His drives were 25

and a touchdown.
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 10:31 PM) *
and 38 yards

and a touchdown.
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 10:31 PM) *
respectively.

respectively.
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 10:31 PM) *
I don't know why people give a shit if he does or doesn't throw the ball.

I don't know why people give a shit if he goes 25 yards for a TD or 90. It's a freakin TD. I'll take that over the 4 FGs we got in the first half any day.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 10:31 PM) *
The all-22 from previous weeks backs up the suggestion that guys simply aren't getting open.

That cuts both ways. The all-22 previous weeks backs up the suggestion that the QB was missing guys that were open as often as guys weren't open (to the desired levels).
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 7 2013, 04:40 PM) *
That cuts both ways. The all-22 previous weeks backs up the suggestion that the QB was missing guys that were open as often as guys weren't open (to the desired levels).

I don't really think this is true. Most of the guys agree that Vick missed some opportunties (which is to be expected of him) but the primary issues were guys not getting open or OL failures.

Additionally, it's almost impossible to tell if someone is being missed when open, when there is no way to identify the progressions.

Admittedly, I didn't see the first quarter yesterday, so I can't speak to Vick's passing struggles. I just know that Foles didn't impress me yesterday and Vick has done so for most of the season. Even if that's more with his legs than with his arm at times.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 7 2013, 04:38 PM) *
I don't know why people give a shit if he goes 25 yards for a TD or 90. It's a freakin TD. I'll take that over the 4 FGs we got in the first half any day.

Because it's easier to put together a 25 yard drive that results in a TD than a 90 yard drive. It's really pretty simple. When Foles was forced to drive the length of the field, he didn't fare too well and he let the Giants back into the game.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 10:52 PM) *
Because it's easier to put together a 25 yard drive that results in a TD than a 90 yard drive. It's really pretty simple. When Foles was forced to drive the length of the field, he didn't fare too well and he let the Giants back into the game.

He did? Funny. I didn't see him miss a single tackle. He also drove the length of the field at the end of the half. With no practice reps and coming in cold.

I'm not saying he was great. But for yesterday, he was clearly the better of the two QBs. Vick? He was easily our best running back. At least until the non contact injury.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 7 2013, 05:00 PM) *
He also drove the length of the field at the end of the half. With no practice reps and coming in cold.

It was also before the other team had a chance to gameplan for him.
QUOTE
I'm not saying he was great. But for yesterday, he was clearly the better of the two QBs. Vick? He was easily our best running back. At least until the non contact injury.

Vick's 11.3 yards per rush count. And yards are yards. On a per play basis, they are more valuable than Foles' 7.8 yards per pass attempt.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 11:25 PM) *
It was also before the other team had a chance to gameplan for him.

Say What?!?!
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 11:25 PM) *
Vick's 11.3 yards per rush count. And yards are yards. On a per play basis, they are more valuable than Foles' 7.8 yards per pass attempt.

Yards are indeed yards.

Last I checked, they count POINTS at the end of the game however. Not yards.
koolaidluke
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 05:45 PM) *
I don't really think this is true. Most of the guys agree that Vick missed some opportunties (which is to be expected of him) but the primary issues were guys not getting open or OL failures.

Additionally, it's almost impossible to tell if someone is being missed when open, when there is no way to identify the progressions.

Admittedly, I didn't see the first quarter yesterday, so I can't speak to Vick's passing struggles. I just know that Foles didn't impress me yesterday and Vick has done so for most of the season. Even if that's more with his legs than with his arm at times.


I don't think Foles is a good fit for what Chip wants to do but he was pretty impressive yesterday. Uber efficient and no turnovers with two beautiful TD passes.

Tampa has an elite defense so next week is a really interesting matchup.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 7 2013, 05:41 PM) *
Say What?!?!
What is to be confused about here? The defensive gameplan is dramatically different for Foles vs. Vick. They hadn't planned for Foles entering the game. After halftime, they had significantly more success until Eli had his breakdown.

QUOTE
Yards are indeed yards.

Last I checked, they count POINTS at the end of the game however. Not yards.

Agreed, but until Foles can prove to me that he can consistently drive the length of the field, I'm not too sold he can produce a lot of points. A few field position gifts have yet to instill confidence in me.

I've said a number of times, I like Foles pocket presence, but I worry about his arm. Yesterday did nothing to change that.
I still like Vick more in this offense. Any small value Foles may add from a passing perspective is negated by Vick's running superiority and the value that brings to Shady's game.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 09:31 PM) *
His TD drives were 25 and 38 yards respectively.


Would it be impolite to point out that these drives did not stall in the Red Zone as we have seen so much this year with Vick?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 7 2013, 07:08 PM) *
Would it be impolite to point out that these drives did not stall in the Red Zone as we have seen so much this year with Vick?


Everyone knows that is just cause of Andy's play calling.
Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 8 2013, 01:48 AM) *
Everyone knows that is just cause of Andy's play calling.

Reid may be a super-genius but to suggest that he can influence our play calling from KC is a step too far.

Vick's failings are down to Vick being Vick.
nephillymike
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 7 2013, 07:08 PM) *
Would it be impolite to point out that these drives did not stall in the Red Zone as we have seen so much this year with Vick?



Would it be impolite to point out that Celek made a fabulous catch on a tough Foles pass for a TD and he dropped a pinpoint accurate Vick pass for what would have been a TD or to point out that Jackson held on to his nice stop and go fade TD from Foles while Casey dropped a sure TD from Vick?
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 9 2013, 01:47 AM) *
Would it be impolite to point out that Celek made a fabulous catch on a tough Foles pass for a TD and he dropped a pinpoint accurate Vick pass for what would have been a TD or to point out that Jackson held on to his nice stop and go fade TD from Foles while Casey dropped a sure TD from Vick?


Great. You covered up Vick's red zone difficulties over the past several seasons by pointing to 2 catches vs. the Giants. I am sure if you did the research you would find that if it were not for dropped passes Vick would be close to 100% in red zone efficiency.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 9 2013, 07:02 AM) *
Great. You covered up Vick's red zone difficulties over the past several seasons by pointing to 2 catches vs. the Giants. I am sure if you did the research you would find that if it were not for dropped passes Vick would be close to 100% in red zone efficiency.

Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to use Foles' extremely small sample size to prove how great he is in the red zone? Only one of the TD's on Sunday was actually even a RZ conversion.

Lets give the defense a week to actually prepare for the guy before we begin crowing him.
D Rock
Actually, the Casey drop was from weeks ago. Just sayin.

We've stank in the red zone ever since Vick got here. Coincidence?

I find it utterly ridiculous that folks want to discount Foles Tds because he had a short field. They're still Tds. What do Tds correlate to? Wins. Field goals correlate to 4&12 seasons.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 03:15 PM) *
Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to use Foles' extremely small sample size to prove how great he is in the red zone? Only one of the TD's on Sunday was actually even a RZ conversion.

Lets give the defense a week to actually prepare for the guy before we begin crowing him.

Wait.

I thought he couldn't throw anything but dinks and drop offs?

Relax man. Nobody is crowing about anything. For me, I'm simply reacting to the nonsensical dismissal of a very good outing from our backup.

To deny he outplayed Vick who got all of 3 first downs in his half of play is folly. If you remove the big play to DJax which miraculously went through the hands of the db . . . Vick had 13 yards on 11 pass attempts.

Nobody is crapping on the guy. But you can't defend those numbers from any angle. He had (another) bad day. He was able to gloss it over w his running which is great. But don't be fooled. It was a very poor performance by the qb.

Then Foles came in, cold and with little practice reps and suddenly the passing game worked. I know some think we couldn't run because Foles was in, but if you're of that mindset, take a look at kapadia's all 22 breakdown.

Foles isn't great. Vick doesn't suck.

But against the vagiants last Sunday, Foles outplayed mike by a pretty wide margin.

Just the facts.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 9 2013, 10:15 AM) *
I find it utterly ridiculous that folks want to discount Foles Tds because he had a short field. They're still Tds. What do Tds correlate to? Wins. Field goals correlate to 4&12 seasons.

Because when he wasn't given a short field, all he could come up with was field goals. Two of them to be exact.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 04:15 PM) *
Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to use Foles' extremely small sample size to prove how great he is in the red zone? Only one of the TD's on Sunday was actually even a RZ conversion.

Lets give the defense a week to actually prepare for the guy before we begin crowing him.




Who did that? I certainly didn't. I merely pointed out he looked good this weekend.

I agree with your second comment. It is what I have wanted since the beginning of the season. Let's see what Foles has over the course of the year. It is the only way to truly know if he is worth keeping around. Giving him one or two starts will not do it, regardless if they are good or poor.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 03:25 PM) *
Because when he wasn't given a short field, all he could come up with was field goals. Two of them to be exact.

As opposed to the 4 Vick "achieved."

Like I said, Foles played better last Sunday.

You're a trip. Once again, you miss the entire point of the post to play your semantic games on a single sentence. Poorly played games at that.

You used to be most agreeable on this board.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 9 2013, 10:27 AM) *
As opposed to the 4 Vick "achieved."

Like I said, Foles played better last Sunday.

You're a trip. Once again, you miss the entire point of the post to play your semantic games on a single sentence. Poorly played games at that.

You used to be most agreeable on this board.

It's not semantics. My whole point regarding Foles this past week is that it's a small sample size. Especially because his only successes were on short fields.

I agree that Vick didn't throw the ball well on Sunday, but it's only half the story. We were also up two scores when he left the game. Foles came in and that vanquished almost immediately.

I realize that our defense was largely responsible for that, but Vick led several long drives in the first half. Foles was pretty damn awful in the third quarter. His first 4 drives after the half combined for a total of 73 yards.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 03:47 PM) *
My whole point regarding Foles this past week is that it's a small sample size.

An obvious point with which no reasonable person can or has argued. I've spoken only of this single game. And in this single game, Foles outplayed Vick by a wide margin.
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 03:47 PM) *
Especially because his only successes were on short fields.

Doesn't change a thing. 2 TDs and 1 FG beats 4 FGs on the reality meter every day.
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 03:47 PM) *
I agree that Vick didn't throw the ball well on Sunday, but it's only half the story.

Agreed. The other half of that story is that Foles DID throw the ball well.
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 03:47 PM) *
We were also up two scores when he left the game. Foles came in and that vanquished almost immediately.

Vanquished? We were up 16 to 7 when Vick went out? We ended the half with 19. So too, Foles didn't miss a single tackle or allow a single point.
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 03:47 PM) *
I realize that our defense was largely responsible for that,

Correction. The defense was singularly responsible for that, unless of course you expect the quarterback to rush the passer and cover Nicks, Cruz, et al.
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 03:47 PM) *
but Vick led several long drives in the first half.

Yeah. For FIELD GOALS. Neat!
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 03:47 PM) *
Foles was pretty damn awful in the third quarter. His first 4 drives after the half combined for a total of 73 yards.

Ok. But again. Take away the lucky pass to DJax where the ball went through the DBs hands and Vick had 13 yards on 11 pass attempts.

There's really nothing to argue about here. You state yourself Vick had a poor passing day.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 9 2013, 11:21 AM) *
There's really nothing to argue about here. You state yourself Vick had a poor passing day.


Agreed, but he ran the ball really well, which has value, in my opinion. And he didn't turn the ball over. If Vick is doing those two things, he's more valuable than Foles. Foles played terribly in the 3rd quarter. You seem to have brushed over that. He had one nice pass (that required a great catch.) Other than that, he was rather mediocre for the game.

Here's the thing. I realize Vick isn't our future. But I know that Foles isn't either. And I think Vick is better for this team right now. Which is all I care about. I don't need to see Foles play all season to "see if he has what it takes." I know he doesn't. At best, he's Matt Schaub with less athleticism.

I'm the only one on this board that wanted us to draft a QB early last year. And frankly, we'd have a better long term outlook right now if we had done so. Instead, we still have no QB of the future and we have to hope we're in position to grab one this year.

But hey, at least we got that RT of the future. Am I right?
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 04:35 PM) *
Agreed, but he ran the ball really well, which has value, in my opinion. And he didn't turn the ball over. If Vick is doing those two things, he's more valuable than Foles. Foles played terribly in the 3rd quarter. You seem to have brushed over that. He had one nice pass (that required a great catch.) Other than that, he was rather mediocre for the game.

Here's the thing. I realize Vick isn't our future. But I know that Foles isn't either. And I think Vick is better for this team right now. Which is all I care about. I don't need to see Foles play all season to "see if he has what it takes." I know he doesn't. At best, he's Matt Schaub with less athleticism.

I'm the only one on this board that wanted us to draft a QB early last year. And frankly, we'd have a better long term outlook right now if we had done so. Instead, we still have no QB of the future and we have to hope we're in position to grab one this year.

But hey, at least we got that RT of the future. Am I right?

Now we're both beating dead horses, and I'll drop it after this . . .

Running for 79 yards and getting a handful of field goals does not have "more value" than passing well and getting touchdowns.

This "Win" was a Foles win not a Vick win as I see it.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 9 2013, 11:54 AM) *
This "Win" was a Foles win not a Vick win as I see it.

Okay, I'm done too. But we were leading 16-7 when Vick left the game. It's not like Foles saved us.
D Rock
You do understand how points work right?

Maybe they should have packed it up at that point because . . . you know . . . they were up by 11.

GAME OVER!!!!

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 9 2013, 02:40 PM) *
You do understand how points work right?

Maybe they should have packed it up at that point because . . . you know . . . they were up by 11.

GAME OVER!!!!

I'm not sure what point you're making. My point is that they were up 11 when Vick left the game. If he had remained in the game, it's reasonable to suspect that lead would have been sustained. Foles didn't come in and save the day.

Vick averaged more points per drive on Sunday than Foles. So that's how that worked. I prefer field goals to punts. But that's just me.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 03:04 PM) *
I'm not sure what point you're making. My point is that they were up 11 when Vick left the game. If he had remained in the game, it's reasonable to suspect that lead would have been sustained. Foles didn't come in and save the day.

Vick averaged more points per drive on Sunday than Foles. So that's how that worked. I prefer field goals to punts. But that's just me.


Points per drive seems like a pretty good indicator.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Oct 9 2013, 03:08 PM) *
Points per drive seems like a pretty good indicator.

Agreed. And that doesn't factor in the fact that two of Foles' drives started in field goal range.
xsv
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 9 2013, 12:35 PM) *
I'm the only one on this board that wanted us to draft a QB early last year.


Sorry, but this is grossly inaccurate. There are at least a DOZEN regular board members, including myself, that said we should draft a QB in the 1st or 2nd round.

I don't mind a little chest thumping, but lets try to keep at at least loosely tied to reality here.
xsv
QUOTE (xsv @ Oct 9 2013, 04:49 PM) *
Sorry, but this is grossly inaccurate. There are at least a DOZEN regular board members, including myself, that said we should draft a QB in the 1st or 2nd round.

I don't mind a little chest thumping, but lets try to keep at at least loosely tied to reality here.


And, you guys can't count. We were up by 9, not 11.
xsv
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 7 2013, 05:45 PM) *
I don't really think this is true. Most of the guys agree that Vick missed some opportunties (which is to be expected of him) but the primary issues were guys not getting open or OL failures.


Actually, What I read says that there were OL failures, and some guys were not getting open, but the primary issues were that Vick missed opportunities when he had them.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (xsv @ Oct 9 2013, 04:54 PM) *
Actually, What I read says that there were OL failures, and some guys were not getting open, but the primary issues were that Vick missed opportunities when he had them.


That is because you were reading articles you wrote!!!!

blah.gif blah.gif blah.gif
xsv
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Oct 9 2013, 05:50 PM) *
That is because you were reading articles you wrote!!!!

blah.gif blah.gif blah.gif


I may be slightly biased, I'll admit. But we were discussing the all 22. Did you read it. We're both paraphrasing essentially the last paragraph. In particular, I'd reference the sentense that starts with, "But, the bottom line..."
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.