Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What's the difference?
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
D Rock
Both QBs are running the offense with success. So what are the primary differences? Not in skill set. We all know that as it's easily apparent.

But what's the difference in results?

As I see it, there are three main differences from a results based point of view and they are significant.

in no particular order . . .

1. RedZone efficiency. Foles has a gotten us the TD 60% of the time the team has gotten to the red zone. Vick is a full 30% lower getting us TDs on just 30% of his trips into the red zone (that's 30th in the league).

2. Completion %. Foles is completing 68% of his passes to Vick's 54%.

3. TD to turn over ratio. Although a much smaller sample size with Foles . . . both QBs have scored 7 TDs this season. Vick has 2 INTs and 2 fumbles while Foles has yet to turn the ball over.

Personally, I find it striking that Foles has as many TDs in 3 halves of football as Vick has in more than twice the playing time (7 halves).

Bottom line: Turn overs and settling for Field Goals is a recipe for losing football. As stated in another thread, a healthy Vick should get the nod. Foles will not take the job from Mike. But Mike could lose it if he can't iron out these (career long) issues.

GO EAGLES!!!!
mcnabbulous
Good post. The TD element is pretty interesting (although Shady has accounted for a pretty healthy amount with Vick on the field. Not so much for Foles.)

Ultimately, if Vick isn't turning the ball over, I would agree that he'll likely keep the starting job. His INTs both happened in one game, and his one lost fumble was a bullshit call. Otherwise, he's been pretty good in that regard.

The big difference is definitely the red zone success thus far. It's pretty apparent that's where Foles is clearly better. Even prior to this week, there was talk about actually bringing Foles into the game during red zone opportunities. I had thought it was absurd before, but now it might actually be a viable strategy.

I do think Vick is better between the 20's, and Foles is proving to be better in the red zone.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 14 2013, 07:18 PM) *
Good post. The TD element is pretty interesting (although Shady has accounted for a pretty healthy amount with Vick on the field. Not so much for Foles.)

The red zone efficiency ratings account for the offense as a whole. That includes shady's output in both situations.


CT_Eagle
It comes down to points per game. Both QBs have their good and bad but in the end the question is who produces more points per game. Right now Foles is leading that category but he has only a single game to base that on. If he gets a few more starts and continues to out produce Vick in PPG then Chip is going to have a very tough decision to make.

For me, my mind is made up. I would give Foles the remainder of the season to evaluate what Foles has and base my off season plan on that evaluation.


mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 14 2013, 03:13 PM) *
The red zone efficiency ratings account for the offense as a whole. That includes shady's output in both situations.


I was talking about this stat:

3. TD to turn over ratio. Although a much smaller sample size with Foles . . . both QBs have scored 7 TDs this season.

I believe backs have accounted for a handful of scores with Vick on the field. Not sure about Foles. In the red zone, Foles has clearly been superior.
D Rock
I fail to see how that has any relevance for a QBs TD to turn over ratio.

Bottom line: Vick has to do a better job in the red zone. He's 30th in the league. No running back has any effect on his quarterbacks TD to turn over ratio. It's completely irrelevant. However, a back's effectiveness and scoring will have some effect on red zone % but in this case, it's still not elevating Vick beyond bottom 3 in the league.

You and I touched on this after the VaGiants game where you were want to dismiss Foles TDs because he was the beneficiary of a short field. My point then was that they were still TDs. I'll take 2 TDs over 4 FGs any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Last I checked, 14 points beats 12.
Rick
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 14 2013, 04:47 PM) *
It comes down to points per game. Both QBs have their good and bad but in the end the question is who produces more points per game. Right now Foles is leading that category but he has only a single game to base that on. If he gets a few more starts and continues to out produce Vick in PPG then Chip is going to have a very tough decision to make.

For me, my mind is made up. I would give Foles the remainder of the season to evaluate what Foles has and base my off season plan on that evaluation.

Actually, it comes down to wins and losses. Right now, Foles is leading in that stat this season.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 14 2013, 04:23 PM) *
I fail to see how that has any relevance for a QBs TD to turn over ratio.

Bottom line: Vick has to do a better job in the red zone. He's 30th in the league. No running back has any effect on his quarterbacks TD to turn over ratio. It's completely irrelevant. However, a back's effectiveness and scoring will have some effect on red zone % but in this case, it's still not elevating Vick beyond bottom 3 in the league.

You and I touched on this after the VaGiants game where you were want to dismiss Foles TDs because he was the beneficiary of a short field. My point then was that they were still TDs. I'll take 2 TDs over 4 FGs any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Last I checked, 14 points beats 12.
You are still talking about red zone stuff. I'm talking about scoring TD's as a whole. My point is simply that the offense has generated a handful of rushing TD's with Vick on the field. Nothing more, nothing less.
As for Foles, I've stated several times that he's clearly superior to Vick in the red zone. It's been pretty clear for several years that Vick isn't good in that area of the field. It requires a skillset that Vick (and previously McNabb) simply doesn't have.
On a side note, only one of Foles scores against the Giants was a red zone score.


CT_Eagle
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 14 2013, 09:29 PM) *
Actually, it comes down to wins and losses. Right now, Foles is leading in that stat this season.


I agree with what you are saying but the discussion was a comparison of the effectiveness of Foles vs. Vick, not the Eagles over all.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 14 2013, 09:36 PM) *
You are still talking about red zone stuff. I'm talking about scoring TD's as a whole. My point is simply that the offense has generated a handful of rushing TD's with Vick on the field. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ok. I get your point. It just has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

And not to pick nits, but you quoted in your reply the portion of my post that referenced the TD to turn over ratio, so forgive me for thinking you were referring to that in your reply.
JeeQ
I have to look at all of Foles stats this season with a grain of salt until he plays a real football team. So far the teams he's faced have a combined win total of Zero. He beat two teams that everyone has beat. Two teams that are unable to win a single game. If his numbers weren't good over these two games it'd stand to reason that Foles and the Eagles are even worse than we imagined.

Vick's stats on the other hand come against teams like the undefeated Kansas City Chiefs, and the undefeated Denver Bronocos. Team's who combined loss total is Zero. Vick came out and did what every other team has done against them, lost.

Which brings us to Sunday, a 3-3 Dallas team with severe ramifications on the line. We're going to find out a lot about him after this game. Dallas will be planning for Foles and Foles only this week. They'll be ready for him, and I hope he can give us the huge W. Sitting us soundly on top of the division, and breaking our 8 home game losing streak.
D Rock
That was the 4th ranked defense he beat soundly on Sunday. The offense is a joke, but they had not allowed a team to get more than 3 ypc in the run game or score more than 17 points all season.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 14 2013, 04:39 PM) *
Ok. I get your point. It just has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

And not to pick nits, but you quoted in your reply the portion of my post that referenced the TD to turn over ratio, so forgive me for thinking you were referring to that in your reply.

I was talking about the TD/turnover ratio portion of your post. Just not the red zone portion of your post.

My point was simply that the offense has generated additional points, not directly attributed to Vick, but (in my opinion) a result of his presence, through the run game.

Vick has generated 7 scores (5 passing/2 rushing) and Foles has generated 7 scores (6 passing/1 rushing.) I was just pointing out that the Eagles offense has generated an additional 4 TD's with Vick on the field.

To be clear. I'm simply talking about TD's generated. Certainly it's becoming clear that the run game simply goes a bit better with Vick on the field. While, alternatively, Foles is clearly a better red zone QB. They both have pluses and minuses.
D Rock
Shady went for over 5 yards per carry against a d that hadn't given more than 3 ypc so far this year. I'm not buying the idea that the run game suffers by Vicks absence. It's been well documented that the trouble vs the vagiants was more about Kelce than Vick, Foles or shady.

In fact, I'd argue the run game was in some ways better w Foles. We hadn't run a successful 4 min offense all year until this Sunday. They ran 11 consecutive rush plays in the 4th quarter against that #4 defense when everyone in the stadium knew it was coming. We've not been able to do that for whatever reason against even a lousy skins defense w late leads.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 14 2013, 08:42 PM) *
Shady went for over 5 yards per carry against a d that hadn't given more than 3 ypc so far this year. I'm not buying the idea that the run game suffers by Vicks absence. It's been well documented that the trouble vs the vagiants was more about Kelce than Vick, Foles or shady.

In fact, I'd argue the run game was in some ways better w Foles. We hadn't run a successful 4 min offense all year until this Sunday. They ran 11 consecutive rush plays in the 4th quarter against that #4 defense when everyone in the stadium knew it was coming. We've not been able to do that for whatever reason against even a lousy skins defense w late leads.


Some good points. I suspect time will tell. Shady busting through holes hasn't happened to the extent it was early in the season. Hopefully we will see more of that.
D Rock
I'll grant you the double-wide holes are not there in Vicks absence, but they were a luxury, not a requisite.
Rick
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 14 2013, 05:38 PM) *
I agree with what you are saying but the discussion was a comparison of the effectiveness of Foles vs. Vick, not the Eagles over all.

So you're saying the QB running the team has nothing to do with the wins/losses? :::scratching head::::
Rick
QUOTE (JeeQ @ Oct 14 2013, 06:29 PM) *
I have to look at all of Foles stats this season with a grain of salt until he plays a real football team. So far the teams he's faced have a combined win total of Zero. He beat two teams that everyone has beat. Two teams that are unable to win a single game. If his numbers weren't good over these two games it'd stand to reason that Foles and the Eagles are even worse than we imagined.

Vick's stats on the other hand come against teams like the undefeated Kansas City Chiefs, and the undefeated Denver Bronocos. Team's who combined loss total is Zero. Vick came out and did what every other team has done against them, lost.

Which brings us to Sunday, a 3-3 Dallas team with severe ramifications on the line. We're going to find out a lot about him after this game. Dallas will be planning for Foles and Foles only this week. They'll be ready for him, and I hope he can give us the huge W. Sitting us soundly on top of the division, and breaking our 8 home game losing streak.

I sort of agree with you, however, you cannot punish the guy for doing what he's supposed to do--beat inferior teams. If he hadn't beat them, people would say, "He couldn't even beat teams with zero wins!" You can't have it both ways.

Also, Tampa does have a reasonably-good defense and they had all week to prepare for him. And he did quite a good job against them.

This Eagles team (as a whole) isn't really good enough (IM)) to regularly beat good teams so you can't really knock Foles if he cannot.

And, quite frankly, I don't think the Cowboys are a very good team either--at least not on defense. They're about as bad on defense as we are.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 14 2013, 09:49 PM) *
Some good points. I suspect time will tell. Shady busting through holes hasn't happened to the extent it was early in the season. Hopefully we will see more of that.

Much of that could be attributed to teams scouting and adjusting to what we're doing as well.
CT_Eagle
Dude, this is not difficult.

The topic of this conversation is a comparison between the QBs. I was opining that when comparing QBs the most important thing is how many points they produce per game and that I favor the QB that produces more PPG.

That should lead to what you are talking about, more wins. However, there are other factors that contribute to wins and losses, such as the defense and special teams play. Those other factors have little to do with the effectiveness of the QB but they obviously impact wins and losses.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Oct 15 2013, 09:26 AM) *
Dude, this is not difficult.

The topic of this conversation is a comparison between the QBs. I was opining that when comparing QBs the most important thing is how many points they produce per game and that I favor the QB that produces more PPG.

That should lead to what you are talking about, more wins. However, there are other factors that contribute to wins and losses, such as the defense and special teams play. Those other factors have little to do with the effectiveness of the QB but they obviously impact wins and losses.

Rationalizing with him doesn't usually work.

Sure, the teams Vick have lost to are a combined 15-3, while Foles is having success against teams that are a combined 0-11, but it's all about wins and losses!
D Rock
QUOTE (Rick @ Oct 15 2013, 11:09 AM) *
I sort of agree with you, however, you cannot punish the guy for doing what he's supposed to do--beat inferior teams. If he hadn't beat them, people would say, "He couldn't even beat teams with zero wins!" You can't have it both ways.

Also, Tampa does have a reasonably-good defense and they had all week to prepare for him. And he did quite a good job against them.

This Eagles team (as a whole) isn't really good enough (IM)) to regularly beat good teams so you can't really knock Foles if he cannot.

And, quite frankly, I don't think the Cowboys are a very good team either--at least not on defense. They're about as bad on defense as we are.

The offense doesn't play the entire team. The offense plays against the defense. That defense was #4 in the league. They held drew Brees saints to 16 points. To discount ANYTHING about the offensive output because the team was winless is going full retard. I'll temper enthusiasm for our defense looking nearly serviceable, because, yes . . . that offense blows donkey dorks. But their d is simply legit. Easily and by far the best d we've faced this season save possibly KC.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 15 2013, 02:35 PM) *
Rationalizing with him doesn't usually work.

Sure, the teams Vick have lost to are a combined 15-3, while Foles is having success against teams that are a combined 0-11, but it's all about wins and losses!

Nobody can fault the qb for losing to the Denver Mannings when he's forced to play w our defense.

But the Kc game was an example of a very winnable game where the offense, specifically the qb, couldn't get it going. And it was the same old story from Vick: turn overs, and settling for FGs in the red zone.

Nobody can deny there's a pattern with him.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 15 2013, 09:54 AM) *
Easily and by far the best d we've faced this season save possibly KC.

KC is absolutely better on defense than Tampa.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 15 2013, 10:00 AM) *
turn overs, and settling for FGs in the red zone.

Nobody can deny there's a pattern with him.

He's been pretty good regarding the turnovers this year with the exception of the KC game.

KC was the first team to give us fits on offense this year, and we've subsequently made some adjustments to deal with the things they did. With that said, they have a lot of talent on that side of the ball, and Andy was able to exploit some of our known weaknesses. Especially as it relates to Vick and Desean.

After last night, his performance vs. the Chargers looks way more impressive. That's not a bad team that he absolutely lit up.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 15 2013, 10:35 AM) *
Sure, the teams Vick have lost to are a combined 15-3, while Foles is having success against teams that are a combined 0-11, but it's all about wins and losses!


laugh.gif

Is this a good time to bring up Andy's career record against sub-.500 teams, as opposed to playoff contenders?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Oct 15 2013, 10:06 AM) *
laugh.gif

Is this a good time to bring up Andy's career record against sub-.500 teams, as opposed to playoff contenders?

Is this a good time to bring up Chip's record against sub-.500 teams, as opposed to playoff contenders?

Or is absolutely every coach in football (save the guys that are fortunate enough to have Tom Brady's and Peyton Mannings) likely to have similar numbers in that regard.

Geez you're dumb sometimes.

How's that signature coming along? You know what you're going to change it to?
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 15 2013, 03:03 PM) *
KC is absolutely better on defense than Tampa.

Granted.

But would u deny that was a very winnable game but for the QB sucking? It was full on 2012 Vick. Again.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Oct 15 2013, 03:05 PM) *
KC was the first team to give us fits on offense this year, and we've subsequently made some adjustments to deal with the things they did. With that said, they have a lot of talent on that side of the ball, and Andy was able to exploit some of our known weaknesses. Especially as it relates to Vick and Desean.

After last night, his performance vs. the Chargers looks way more impressive. That's not a bad team that he absolutely lit up.

Pffffft.

Andy didn't exploit shit. Vick pooped his pants. End of story. We've all seen the all22 by now.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Oct 15 2013, 10:12 AM) *
Granted.

But would u deny that was a very winnable game but for the QB sucking? It was full on 2012 Vick. Again.

Ultimately, sure. But I can name 6 QB's that have been pretty mediocre against the Chiefs this year.

Tony Romo was the best, and his team put up just as many points against KC as we did.

I don't know why you would disregard the prospects of Andy having a significant advantage in coaching against Vick. Every day, he saw the things that gave Vick the most trouble.


D Rock
I don't deny it. I just characterize it differently than you. I don't thin Andy did or could to anything to exploit his former team from an X's and O's stand point that any other nominally capable coach could/would do.

But I do believe Vick stank that day because Andy was in his head. It's more about Vick than Andy IMO.
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.