Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Foles is having a bad day
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
Zero
Not accurate at all. Worrisome.
mcnabbulous
Very similar to the Dallas game. Pretty strange.
Zero
Mechanics?
SAM I Am
Foles had a bad day, but Chip had a worse one. Pathetic.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Dec 15 2013, 05:01 PM) *
Foles had a bad day, but Chip had a worse one. Pathetic.


I don't think they're mutually exclusive.
Wheeljack
QUOTE (Zero @ Dec 15 2013, 03:53 PM) *
Not accurate at all. Worrisome.


at least he's thrown some TDs, but maybe Leslie Frazier just knows how to cool off the hot hand that is driving the Eagles. Would love to hear what the "talking heads" have to say about this one
Phits
QB's have bad days. Nothing more than that. This is what they refer to as a trap game. Chicago next week. Considering the beat down CHI laid on Dallas, the team's focus may not have been all there today. Especially for a Minnesota team absent of their dangerous weapon.

This game was also a reality check. We can be a very dangerous team, but we live by the sword, we will die by the sword. Our D is banged up, we needed longer sustainable drives and not lightening quick scores. We'll get there. It's just another step in the evolution of this CHIP team.
Keenan24
QUOTE (Phits @ Dec 15 2013, 04:19 PM) *
This game was also a reality check. We can be a very dangerous team, but we live by the sword, we will die by the sword. Our D is banged up, we needed longer sustainable drives and not lightening quick scores. We'll get there. It's just another step in the evolution of this CHIP team.



I hope so...I hate these "trap games". Getting picked apart by Matt fucking Cassel is not fun to watch......
Chip Kelly
400 yards and 3tds. That's really good, but he's usually much sharper.
nephillymike
There are plenty of QB's who have gotten to the ProBowl and the HOF with numbers like Foles' bad day:


30-48 428 yds., 3TD's, 1 Int., Passer Rating of 103.7

The INT may have been avoided if DeSean gave a shit and made any effort on the play. Good to see someone got in his grill about it on the sideline.

He did miss a few throws for sure. Seemed to be short a few times and long others. Some of those though were just putting the ball where only we could catch it. Didn't like two of the sacks he took. They were avoidable.

Our D held Minn. running game to 2.4 yds./carry.

Our DB's can't cover. They allowed Cassel a nice hefty 116 rating day, WITHOUT Patterson being a factor. Did you see them playing 8 yds. off the fucking FB out wide a few times (that is when they decided to cover him at all as in early in the game when he went uncovered for an easy first down near the goal line).

These DB's ain't going to beat a quality QB without a ton of turnovers or a 40 point offensive show by us or an act from Mother Nature.
Jax
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 15 2013, 03:59 PM) *
Very similar to the Dallas game. Pretty strange.

Nothing like the Dallas game. But I agree it was a bad game by Foles. By the entire offense. And Defense. And entire organization.
D Rock
Sure he missed a few throws, but look at his numbers. He wasn't Nickfolian Dynamite today, but you don't get a 103.7 QB rating by sucking.

We let Matt Cassel and some practice squad halfback look like Montana and Craig. This one is on the defense. Nobody wins a lot of games when the opponent is putting up 48.
Reality Fan
Only in Philly can a QB throw for 428 yds, 3 TDs and a pick and have it called a bad day........he did not have a good first half but this loss was squarely on the defense.......and the coach
Zero
The loss was indeed more on the defense but Foles still had a bad day, even he stated as much. His accuracy was off and, he said at times his timing was off. I'm not jumping off a bridge but he had a bad day. So did I. So did the Cowboys.
Rick
Foles could have done better but I blame Chip for his HORRID play calling. How in the hell do you have the NFL's leading running back only get 8 carries????

More importantly, the defense totally shit the bed today. When you score 30, you should win. Giving up 48 to the Vikings (the vikings!!!!) is inexcusable. I realize they may not be as horrible as other 3-win (now 4-win) teams but they were still a 3 WIN TEAM for crying out loud!

Yes, I would have like to have seen throwing better--his accuracy yesterday was nothing like it's been/can be--but he did not lose the game yesterday. He actually played quite well when you judge him by normal standards and not the lofty standards (arguably) he set for himself by playing so well. The defense really bothers me. They went back to what they were the first half of the season where they couldn't cover anyone but I also believe that's mainly due to playing so far off receivers off the line again.

If it weren't for the joy I felt watching Dallas fall apart in the 2nd half (again), I'd be a very depressed person today.
nephillymike
See this is the problem. The kid completes 62% of his passes, throws for a shit load of yards and has a nice yds/att , 3 to 1 TD ratio and it's a bad game. Every QB has a g=bad game when your D gives up 48 points and you don't win.
mcnabbulous
If you look at his stats in a vacuum, he was fine. But he started very poorly and didn't do the defense any favors. It was a bad showing all around. He was a part of that.
Zero
Something was missing. It looked like Foles' passes but who knows if it was his accuracy or the receivers running sloppy routes. Kites and worm burners mixed with some nice throws makes me think it was maybe his mechanics out of whack.

But, it's also true that Kelly wasn't using Shady, kept giving them a short field and the defense Hoovered.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Dec 16 2013, 07:43 PM) *
See this is the problem. The kid completes 62% of his passes, throws for a shit load of yards and has a nice yds/att , 3 to 1 TD ratio and it's a bad game. Every QB has a g=bad game when your D gives up 48 points and you don't win.

McNabb used to get slammed, around here, after similar type games.
D Rock
You can count McNabb's 400 yard 3 td games on one hand.

It's a straw man argument to say he was slammed for doing something he rarely did.

In his entire career, mcnabb threw for more than 400 yards exactly 3 times. In those games he had 2, 3, & 1 total touchdowns.

So he actually reached the 400+ 3TDs once in his career. And, he had the benefit of an extremely pass oriented scheme.
Phits
"Similar type games". Games in which his performance was overshadowed by the absence of a reasonable defensive performance.

Take a look at the 2009 ARI/PHI NFCCG (375 pass..3TD). He overcame a slow start and put on a clinic in the 2nd half. Handed the D a lead and watched his comeback go to sh*t.

Regarding the "extremely pass oriented scheme", what good is that when your receivers are better at avoiding contact than catching the ball?

QUOTE (D Rock @ Dec 16 2013, 10:57 PM) *
You can count McNabb's 400 yard 3 td games on one hand.

It's a straw man argument to say he was slammed for doing something he rarely did.

In his entire career, mcnabb threw for more than 400 yards exactly 3 times. In those games he had 2, 3, & 1 total touchdowns.

So he actually reached the 400+ 3TDs once in his career. And, he had the benefit of an extremely pass oriented scheme.
D Rock
QUOTE (Phits @ Dec 17 2013, 04:24 AM) *
"Similar type games". Games in which his performance was overshadowed by the absence of a reasonable defensive performance.

Take a look at the 2009 ARI/PHI NFCCG (375 pass..3TD). He overcame a slow start and put on a clinic in the 2nd half. Handed the D a lead and watched his comeback go to sh*t.

Regarding the "extremely pass oriented scheme", what good is that when your receivers are better at avoiding contact than catching the ball?

Perfect example as it is typical of Supa5.

He shows up to play and "put on a clinic" in the 2nd half. But where was he in the first? Tossing worm burners, burning timeouts, holding the ball, taking sacks. Then in further typical mcnabbian fashion points the finger at the defense that had over achieved all season, and was facing a REAL hall of fame Quarterback and his top 5 offense. Maybe if he had showed up to play a FULL game once or twice a year, he'd have more 400 yard games in his 14 years of pass happy play than Foles has in about a dozen starts.

I get that you can't see reality because he wore the right color laundry for so long. But, Mcnabb was a fraud. So much so, that the level of fraudulence achieved by his quarterbacking is overshadowed only by his efforts as a broadcaster (take a decongestant for krissake).
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Dec 17 2013, 12:24 AM) *
"Similar type games". Games in which his performance was overshadowed by the absence of a reasonable defensive performance.

Take a look at the 2009 ARI/PHI NFCCG (375 pass..3TD). He overcame a slow start and put on a clinic in the 2nd half. Handed the D a lead and watched his comeback go to sh*t.

Regarding the "extremely pass oriented scheme", what good is that when your receivers are better at avoiding contact than catching the ball?

And he was rightly criticized, much like I'm doing to Foles, because it was an shit performance filled with empty stats.
Phits
QUOTE (D Rock @ Dec 17 2013, 02:17 AM) *
Perfect example as it is typical of Supa5.

He shows up to play and "put on a clinic" in the 2nd half. But where was he in the first? Tossing worm burners, burning timeouts, holding the ball, taking sacks. Then in further typical mcnabbian fashion points the finger at the defense that had over achieved all season, and was facing a REAL hall of fame Quarterback and his top 5 offense. Maybe if he had showed up to play a FULL game once or twice a year, he'd have more 400 yard games in his 14 years of pass happy play than Foles has in about a dozen starts.

Steve Young, John Elway, Brett Favre, Aaron Rodgers all have 3 or less 400 yard passing games. Matthew Stafford has 6, as does Carson Palmer and Drew Bledsoe. Eli Manning and Tony Romo have 5. Your "400 yard game" formula has it's flaws.

QUOTE
I get that you can't see reality because he wore the right color laundry for so long.

or maybe he was just the wrong color for you, because, something is making you irrational and willing to revise history.

You have decided to focus on your dislike for McNabb, rather than the discussion at hand. In the most recent loss, you fault the D. You stated that it falls squarely on their shoulders because Foles had a terrific statistical game (even though he had a poor first half) and the D was torched regularly. In contrast, when McNabb had a similar outing you (conveniently) lump the blame on him. Citing a poor offensive first half as the cause for the loss. When in actuality, the D didn't show up to play and allowed Fitzgerald to torch us for 3 TD's in the first half. You neglect to reference Dawkins performance, which was lackluster, and that is being kind. He looked old and out of place. It was probably a defining game in the organizations decision to low-ball Dawk in the off season and allow him to leave. McNabb helped lead the team from the hole they dug themselves. They managed to take the lead, midway through the 4th, only to see the D piss it away and give the Cards a TD and the 2 point conversion.

Bottom line, Foles shares the blame equally, for the loss to the Vikes. This was a complete team loss.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 09:40 AM) *
And he was rightly criticized, much like I'm doing to Foles, because it was an shit performance filled with empty stats.

It was not a shit performance, and the stats were not empty. Eli Manning had a shit performance on Sunday. Foles was sub par, especially from what we have come to expect. He was lackluster, but far from shit.
D Rock
QUOTE (Phits @ Dec 17 2013, 03:32 PM) *
Steve Young, John Elway, Brett Favre, Aaron Rodgers all have 3 or less 400 yard passing games. Matthew Stafford has 6, as does Carson Palmer and Drew Bledsoe. Eli Manning and Tony Romo have 5. Your "400 yard game" formula has it's flaws.


or maybe he was just the wrong color for you, because, something is making you irrational and willing to revise history.

You have decided to focus on your dislike for McNabb, rather than the discussion at hand. In the most recent loss, you fault the D. You stated that it falls squarely on their shoulders because Foles had a terrific statistical game (even though he had a poor first half) and the D was torched regularly. In contrast, when McNabb had a similar outing you (conveniently) lump the blame on him. Citing a poor offensive first half as the cause for the loss. When in actuality, the D didn't show up to play and allowed Fitzgerald to torch us for 3 TD's in the first half. You neglect to reference Dawkins performance, which was lackluster, and that is being kind. He looked old and out of place. It was probably a defining game in the organizations decision to low-ball Dawk in the off season and allow him to leave. McNabb helped lead the team from the hole they dug themselves. They managed to take the lead, midway through the 4th, only to see the D piss it away and give the Cards a TD and the 2 point conversion.

Bottom line, Foles shares the blame equally, for the loss to the Vikes. This was a complete team loss.

Typical supa5 fluffer. It can't be tha mcnabb was an over hyped fraud. It's gotta be that I'm a racist. How convenient for you.

laugh.gif
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 09:40 AM) *
And he was rightly criticized, much like I'm doing to Foles, because it was an shit performance filled with empty stats.

I guess his 2nd half stats were empty...especially when they got within 5 points...
D Rock
QUOTE (Phits @ Dec 17 2013, 03:37 PM) *
It was not a shit performance, and the stats were not empty.

Uh, yes it was. He was absolutely putrid for more than 2 quarters. You don't get to say you played well when you sucked donkey nards for more,than half the game.

It was utter dog shit and he is by FAR the largest factor for our losing that game. Same with the Super Bowl. Same with 3 of the other 4 conf championship games where he sucked out loud.

McFraud leaving philly was the greatest day in iggle land this century.
Phits
QUOTE (D Rock @ Dec 17 2013, 10:40 AM) *
Typical supa5 fluffer. It can't be tha mcnabb was an over hyped fraud. It's gotta be that I'm a racist. How convenient for you.

laugh.gif

I never called you a racist. I subtlety questioned your ability to reflect on McNabb's career without your (questionable) bias. I alluded to his race as a reason why you have this disdain for the best QB in Eagles history. Even KAL (when he was posting) had to recant and tell the entire board that McNabb was a superb QB during his playing days in Philly. He was the originator of calling McNabb a Fraud". However, it is typical of your m.o. avoiding the discussion and reverting to diversionary tactics. I wouldn't be surprised to see you start name calling, because it is your shtick.

In similar circumstances, Foles gets a pass for some reason McNabb doesn't. At least McNabbulous is willing to relent and say that both QB's were "shit" rather than being a hypocrite.
Phits
QUOTE (D Rock @ Dec 17 2013, 10:55 AM) *
Uh, yes it was. He was absolutely putrid for more than 2 quarters. You don't get to say you played well when you sucked donkey nards for more,than half the game.

Jokes on you Jack. The comment was directed at Foles.

I see your true colors shining through.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Dec 17 2013, 11:42 AM) *
I guess his 2nd half stats were empty...especially when they got within 5 points...

I watched the entire game. When his 1st half (and much of the 3rd quarter) stats resulted in 9 points and an 18 point deficit.

Given that it's well known the offense is the strength of our team, they are required to perform well for us to compete. Only showing up for 1.5 quarters of football isn't acceptable.

It wasn't for McNabb in the playoffs against the Cardinals. And it wasn't for Foles on Sunday.

Our defense didn't play well, but our defense isn't very good. That's a pretty well known thing. Banging up on bad QB's for 5 weeks doesn't change that.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Dec 17 2013, 11:59 AM) *
Jokes on you Jack. The comment was directed at Foles.

I see your true colors shining through.

Well, at least I'm consistent. I thought they were both dog shit.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 12:01 PM) *
Well, at least I'm consistent. I thought they were both dog shit.


Edit...wait:

QUOTE (Phits @ Dec 17 2013, 11:58 AM) *
At least McNabbulous is willing to relent and say that both QB's were "shit" rather than being a hypocrite.

Relent? I was one of the first on board the Foles was shit train this past week.

If your QB only shows up for a half of football, you're probably not going to fair too well.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Phits @ Dec 17 2013, 10:58 AM) *
I alluded to his race as a reason why you have this disdain for the best QB in Eagles history.


I don't think he's a racist; an irrational dbag, yes, but not a racist. I simply chalk his frothy-mouthed hatred for the best QB
we've ever had in Philly to speculation that #5 banged his wife one night back in college - or many nights.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Dec 17 2013, 12:51 PM) *
an irrational dbag, yes. I simply chalk his frothy-mouthed hatred for the best QB coach
we've ever had in Philly to speculation that #5 Andy banged his wife one night back in college - or many nights.

Ahhh, so that's why you have such angst towards Big Red. The thought of his big, red, sweaty body all over your lady love has turned you into an irrational dbag.

It all makes sense now. You've just been projecting this whole time. Thanks for clearing that up.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 11:56 AM) *
The thought of his big, red, sweaty body all over your lady love has turned you into an irrational dbag.


laugh.gif

Talk about projection. Equating someone saying 'McNabb wasn't a legit NFL QB' to 'Andy was a good coach, but not an all-time
great' is the mark of a truly irrational dbag. Go lie down.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 11:01 AM) *
I watched the entire game. When his 1st half (and much of the 3rd quarter) stats resulted in 9 points and an 18 point deficit.

Given that it's well known the offense is the strength of our team, they are required to perform well for us to compete. Only showing up for 1.5 quarters of football isn't acceptable.

It wasn't for McNabb in the playoffs against the Cardinals. And it wasn't for Foles on Sunday.

Our defense didn't play well, but our defense isn't very good. That's a pretty well known thing. Banging up on bad QB's for 5 weeks doesn't change that.

I never said he played well in the 1st half. I agree he--actually the entire offense shit the bed. In fact, why do we forget Chipper in this. His playcalling was horrid all game. How do you only give the leading rusher in the NFL only 8 friggin carries???

Bottom line, the defense cost this game. They weren't tired in the first half when they gave up a score on EVERY possession the Vikings had. Kinda putting a bit of pressure on the offense at that point aren't ya?

Giving up 48 points to the FRIGGIN VIKINGS who had THREE wins coming in is absolutely inexcusable. At least Foles got his shit together in the 2nd half (at least somewhat) in spite of questionable playcalling. Why didn't the defense step up? They're not that good but come on, it's the VIKINGS for crying out loud.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Dec 17 2013, 01:53 PM) *
I never said he played well in the 1st half. I agree he--actually the entire offense shit the bed. In fact, why do we forget Chipper in this. His playcalling was horrid all game. How do you only give the leading rusher in the NFL only 8 friggin carries???

Because the playcalling didn't cause Foles to overthrow a bunch of passes. Or prohibit our team from picking up a few inches on 4th down. Or Foles to get called for a TD reversing penalty.

QUOTE
Bottom line, the defense cost this game. They weren't tired in the first half when they gave up a score on EVERY possession the Vikings had. Kinda putting a bit of pressure on the offense at that point aren't ya?

That's the nature of our team. Our defense isn't very good. So the pressure is always on our offense, which is extremely talented and is expected to carry the load. When they don't we're going to struggle.

QUOTE
Giving up 48 points to the FRIGGIN VIKINGS who had THREE wins coming in is absolutely inexcusable. At least Foles got his shit together in the 2nd half (at least somewhat) in spite of questionable playcalling. Why didn't the defense step up? They're not that good but come on, it's the VIKINGS for crying out loud.

The Vikings are an NFL team with NFL players who made it to the NFL because they are capable of playing well at times. We didn't pressure Cassel and he's proven to be a capable QB at times in his career.

It was a bad game by our defense, but they aren't a good unit. You were harping on just how bad they were a few weeks ago. I don't get why you'd even be remotely surprised. I would argue that our decision to give them starting field position at the 40 every drive hurt our cause.

The bigger problem is that they are one of the worst defenses in football (31st in scoring) and our offense only showed up for one half. That's the unit we need to count on and they let us down.
Bocadelphia Eagles John
A "bad day" is the thing I have whenever we lose. And the "bad day" syndrome usually lasts until hump day.

What the Eagles had was a team loss, including coaching. Everything was off. And as for giving them a short field with our kicks, my head still hurts. There are other ways to keep the ball away from their returner. kick it long and out of the end zone is but one way.

Anyway. Don't bother me. It's Tuesday, and I'm having a "bad day". Now go away.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 01:17 PM) *
Because the playcalling didn't cause Foles to overthrow a bunch of passes. Or prohibit our team from picking up a few inches on 4th down. Or Foles to get called for a TD reversing penalty.

And what about the 4ish dropped passes the receivers had? I guess you've forgotten about that.

More importantly, again, why did we not run the ball more? The play calling DID have an effect on the game. Funny, even the experts have said the same thing. I guess they're all wrong and you're right.

To get on Foles for that penalty is a bit much. I have no problem with an aggressive penalty in that situation. Better than being a spectator. It didn't work out, shit happens.

And yes, the play calling DID cause us not to pick up a few inches on 4th down, in fact, it was the play before that...the really bad running play (at least they ran) on 3rd down running McCoy wide when he's run so well between the tackles. The offensive line not showing up on that play didn't help either. I guess that's all on Foles, too.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 01:17 PM) *
That's the nature of our team. Our defense isn't very good. So the pressure is always on our offense, which is extremely talented and is expected to carry the load. When they don't we're going to struggle.

Doesn't matter, the defense has been better than that. It is inexcusable to play that badly. They aren't that bad...at least not since the Broncos' game.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 01:17 PM) *
The Vikings are an NFL team with NFL players who made it to the NFL because they are capable of playing well at times. We didn't pressure Cassel and he's proven to be a capable QB at times in his career.

It was a bad game by our defense, but they aren't a good unit. You were harping on just how bad they were a few weeks ago. I don't get why you'd even be remotely surprised. I would argue that our decision to give them starting field position at the 40 every drive hurt our cause.

You're right, they are an NFL team...an NFL team which had THREE wins coming into the game. So they are a BAD NFL team.

And we are an NFL team. The defense has to show more professionalism than they did. Horrid play and horrible penalties...on the defense.

And yes, I was harping about how bad we were earlier in the season. I also have been very happy with the way they've played (and have posted about it here--again, you neglect to mention both sides of the story). I'm surprised because they have played very well as of late and, again, they were playing a BAD team which had plenty of injuries on their offense. Just no excuse for giving up 48 points to them no matter how you slice it.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 01:17 PM) *
The bigger problem is that they are one of the worst defenses in football (31st in scoring) and our offense only showed up for one half. That's the unit we need to count on and they let us down.

And the unit did (eventually) show up. I agree they can't keep having bad halfs of football but the defense has to make a stop every so often. And again, the play calling didn't help the situation. If they run the ball--like last week--it opens things for the passing game (and vice versa). But we never game our running game a chance to get going. That is the coaching staff's fault, not Foles'.

Foles is young, he's gonna make mistakes but you don't want to give him a chance to grow up. I can't say I was loving watching him miss receivers at time but at least he continued to play hard and finished strongly. That's more than you can say for quite a few NFL QBs these days. I expect ups and downs from a young player. We are spoiled by his outrageously good play he's shown.


mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Dec 17 2013, 02:34 PM) *
More importantly, again, why did we not run the ball more? The play calling DID have an effect on the game. Funny, even the experts have said the same thing. I guess they're all wrong and you're right.


Is Chip Kelly not an expert? He's the one who actually called the plays. I bet he's more knowledgable than any of the people you're citing. And he's sure as hell more knowledgeable than you.

QUOTE
To get on Foles for that penalty is a bit much. I have no problem with an aggressive penalty in that situation. Better than being a spectator. It didn't work out, shit happens.

An illegal and dangerous cut block against a defenseless player. Especially one that had no bearing on the outcome of the play and yet still resulted in four lost points. Yeah, he deserves ridicule.

QUOTE
And yes, the play calling DID cause us not to pick up a few inches on 4th down, in fact, it was the play before that...the really bad running play (at least they ran) on 3rd down running McCoy wide when he's run so well between the tackles. The offensive line not showing up on that play didn't help either. I guess that's all on Foles, too.

I didn't say that was on Foles. Our offense as a whole played poorly. Foles just happens to be the most important player on our offense.

You know that with the exception of two runs, Shady had 9 yards on 6 carries. He and the offensive line weren't getting it done on Sunday. It was a bad overall performance.

QUOTE
Doesn't matter, the defense has been better than that. It is inexcusable to play that badly. They aren't that bad...at least not since the Broncos' game.

Maybe it was a mirage against primarily bad offenses. That's largely what I've attributed it to. We have had timely plays in those games, which weren't existent on Sunday. But overall, our defense hasn't been very good. Mid 20's in the league. Which is what I've been saying all along.

QUOTE
You're right, they are an NFL team...an NFL team which had THREE wins coming into the game. So they are a BAD NFL team.

And we are an NFL team. The defense has to show more professionalism than they did. Horrid play and horrible penalties...on the defense.

Most NFL teams are pretty evenly matched with the exception of a few key positions. Primarily the QB. One team got exceptional play from their QB and the other got mediocre play from their QB for two and a half quarters. It was basically the difference in the game.

QUOTE
And yes, I was harping about how bad we were earlier in the season. I also have been very happy with the way they've played (and have posted about it here--again, you neglect to mention both sides of the story). I'm surprised because they have played very well as of late and, again, they were playing a BAD team which had plenty of injuries on their offense. Just no excuse for giving up 48 points to them no matter how you slice it.

The Vikings were consistently starting between the 35-45 yard line. That puts the defense in an incredibly vulnerable position. And they aren't very good to begin with. The other QB played a fantastic game. It was a recipe for disaster.

QUOTE
And the unit did (eventually) show up. I agree they can't keep having bad halfs of football but the defense has to make a stop every so often. And again, the play calling didn't help the situation. If they run the ball--like last week--it opens things for the passing game (and vice versa). But we never game our running game a chance to get going. That is the coaching staff's fault, not Foles'.

We didn't run in the second half and Foles was fine. You can't blame the coaches for putting Foles in a no-win situation, then praise Foles for how great he was when he was in an even more difficult run/pass ratio situation.

He simply didn't show up in the first half, against an awful defense, and we were in a huge hole as a result.

QUOTE
Foles is young, he's gonna make mistakes but you don't want to give him a chance to grow up. I can't say I was loving watching him miss receivers at time but at least he continued to play hard and finished strongly. That's more than you can say for quite a few NFL QBs these days. I expect ups and downs from a young player. We are spoiled by his outrageously good play he's shown.

I'm not the one with my panties in a twist over it. It was one game. Foles didn't play well and it put us in a vulnerable position. If we want to have a chance to win this year, our offense has to be very good. They weren't on Sunday and it cost us.

It's only one game. I'm much less concerned about it than you appear to be. I don't have high aspirations for this team, so basically everything we're doing right now is gravy. If Foles has a performance like that in January, I fully expect us to lose. If he plays lights out, then we could go on a run. It's really that simple.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 03:30 PM) *
Is Chip Kelly not an expert? He's the one who actually called the plays. I bet he's more knowledgable than any of the people you're citing. And he's sure as hell more knowledgeable than you.

Being an expert doesn't mean you're never wrong.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 03:30 PM) *
An illegal and dangerous cut block against a defenseless player. Especially one that had no bearing on the outcome of the play and yet still resulted in four lost points. Yeah, he deserves ridicule.

And no other player in the history of the game has ever made a bad decision? Also, he admitted he made a mistake. Why are you so upset over it?

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 03:30 PM) *
I didn't say that was on Foles. Our offense as a whole played poorly. Foles just happens to be the most important player on our offense.

You know that with the exception of two runs, Shady had 9 yards on 6 carries. He and the offensive line weren't getting it done on Sunday. It was a bad overall performance.

You know, with the exception of many runs, Shady wouldn't be leading the NFL in rushing. You know, they don't get big gains every time they touch the ball....

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 03:30 PM) *
Maybe it was a mirage against primarily bad offenses. That's largely what I've attributed it to. We have had timely plays in those games, which weren't existent on Sunday. But overall, our defense hasn't been very good. Mid 20's in the league. Which is what I've been saying all along.

I'd say other offenses we've played have been better than what the Vikings have. I never said this is a great defense but it should be better than 48 points against a shitty team.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 03:30 PM) *
Most NFL teams are pretty evenly matched with the exception of a few key positions. Primarily the QB. One team got exceptional play from their QB and the other got mediocre play from their QB for two and a half quarters. It was basically the difference in the game.

Yeah, nothing else matters. I forgot, you are the one who thinks nobody can do anything unless you've got a QB playing like a Hall of Famer.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 03:30 PM) *
The Vikings were consistently starting between the 35-45 yard line. That puts the defense in an incredibly vulnerable position. And they aren't very good to begin with. The other QB played a fantastic game. It was a recipe for disaster.

Yes but giving up points on EVERY drive for a while there is on the defense. Oh and, that, "expert," Chip Kelly would be a big reason they kept starting with such good field position.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 03:30 PM) *
We didn't run in the second half and Foles was fine. You can't blame the coaches for putting Foles in a no-win situation, then praise Foles for how great he was when he was in an even more difficult run/pass ratio situation.

Why put words in my mouth? We should have run in the 2nd half until they got down so far with not enough time left.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 03:30 PM) *
He simply didn't show up in the first half, against an awful defense, and we were in a huge hole as a result.

Right, again, the defense had nothing to do with the big hole. Last time I checked, Foles didn't give up any points himself.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 03:30 PM) *
I'm not the one with my panties in a twist over it. It was one game. Foles didn't play well and it put us in a vulnerable position. If we want to have a chance to win this year, our offense has to be very good. They weren't on Sunday and it cost us.

It's only one game. I'm much less concerned about it than you appear to be. I don't have high aspirations for this team, so basically everything we're doing right now is gravy. If Foles has a performance like that in January, I fully expect us to lose. If he plays lights out, then we could go on a run. It's really that simple.

Uh, I never said I was overly concerned. I merely stated the defense shit the bed and that cost us. I also stated the coaching staff shit the bed on certain issues and also the Foles played a bad half of football. You're the one claiming Foles lost the game and nothing else contributed to that.
mcnabbulous
I'm not going to continue going back and forth with you. Foles played like shit in the first half. So did the defense.

We had scored 9 points until late in the third quarter against one of the worst defenses in football.

I'm never surprised when our defense plays like shit. It's probably good that they readjusted everyone's expectations.

So you can get away with beating some shitty teams when you're QB doesn't play well, but this team, with this defense, isn't going to beat the 49ers, Saints or Seahawks under those circumstances.

So either Foles gives us consistently outstanding play over the next several weeks or our season will be over in no time. If you don't get that, you're bound to be surprised and sorely disappointed.
Jax
Settle down girls, we have a game to play this Sunday!!
nephillymike
STOP!!!!

The kid has a 103 passer rating, with 400+ yards and a 3-1 td ratio and you're saying he had a bad game???

Go look it up.

How many teams have won a regulation NFL game while allowing 48 points.

Please!!

I know Foles isn't everyone's dream QB and I realize he missed a few WR's, but he has been so good, best month in the NFL ever good, that every little mistake is magnified, when anyone who watched Manning, Brady, Brees or any other "Franchise QB" would have seen Foles "mistakes" times three in recent weeks.

All these agendas.

JHC. Get a grip
Rick
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Dec 18 2013, 12:38 AM) *
STOP!!!!

The kid has a 103 passer rating, with 400+ yards and a 3-1 td ratio and you're saying he had a bad game???

Go look it up.

How many teams have won a regulation NFL game while allowing 48 points.

Please!!

I know Foles isn't everyone's dream QB and I realize he missed a few WR's, but he has been so good, best month in the NFL ever good, that every little mistake is magnified, when anyone who watched Manning, Brady, Brees or any other "Franchise QB" would have seen Foles "mistakes" times three in recent weeks.

All these agendas.

JHC. Get a grip

Thank you. At least I know a few people understand.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Dec 17 2013, 04:51 PM) *
I'm not going to continue going back and forth with you. Foles played like shit in the first half. So did the defense.

We had scored 9 points until late in the third quarter against one of the worst defenses in football.

I'm never surprised when our defense plays like shit. It's probably good that they readjusted everyone's expectations.

So you can get away with beating some shitty teams when you're QB doesn't play well, but this team, with this defense, isn't going to beat the 49ers, Saints or Seahawks under those circumstances.

So either Foles gives us consistently outstanding play over the next several weeks or our season will be over in no time. If you don't get that, you're bound to be surprised and sorely disappointed.

You forgot to mention the coaching staff shit the bed, too. Oh wait, you are the one person out there who doesn't think so.

The QB wasn't playing well....again, I guess we should just forget about his 2nd half and how he made a few throws during their attempt to come back. I guess you don't understand how this average thing works. You see, an average takes into account the highs and lows. If you look at any one (short) stretch from anyone, you could say the same thing about their play. Kind of like a baseball player who goes 0-3 then gets two hits. Still batting .400 for that short stretch even though they batted .000 for their first 3 at bats. To take that further, they might be a .250 hitter for the season.

My point is, you don't just look at a short stretch and talk about how inconsistent someone is. Foles had a bad half of football the other day. He had a bad game against the Cowboys weeks ago. For the most part, he has been pretty damn consistent. I honestly, don't know what you want from this guy. Also, if the Eagles' receivers actually catch the 4 or 5 drops they had in the first half and, guess what? That half probably wouldn't have been so bad. At least 2 of the passes would have either given us a 1st down or a shorter 3rd down attempt. The balls were thrown perfectly--with the exception of one which was slightly behind the receiver but catchable by a below average receiver--the receivers just dropped them.

If you can't understand this, then YOU are bound to be surprised and disappointed.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Dec 18 2013, 12:38 AM) *
STOP!!!!

Please!!

JHC. Get a grip

My only point in starting this thread was that we had come to expect a lot from Nick Foles. Miracles. Perfection.

Some of the game gave me flashbacks to the Dallas game but other times he was what we've been seeing lately. That equated to a "bad day" for me. His accuracy was on and off. His decision making was flawed at times.

He watched as the Vikings marched up and down the field like a half-time band in high school. I'm sure he fell into the trap of thinking HE had to do more. He's young, he's in the HOF and he was just on the SI cover.

I was frustrated and bummed that the Eagles were losing - more on the field than on the score board. Three and out. Worm burner. Moon shots. Foles was having a bad day - sometimes. As many have said, giving the opponent mid-field on every new series sure doesn't help the defense. Playing 10 yards off of receivers doesn't help contain them either.

I'm calmer now. Foles had a bad day because he wasn't a savior, despite all the obstacles he had no control over. My guess is that he will be better because of that game. The team has already exceeded my expectations even though I thought they'd win 9.

They will win 9, maybe 10 but the way they've played some of their games is the real point, not the W-L. There's lots of missing parts still. The players are just beginning to be a "team." Kelly is still learning how to coach at this level.

My expectations for next year will be a lot higher. That's a good thing.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Dec 18 2013, 12:38 AM) *
STOP!!!!

The kid has a 103 passer rating, with 400+ yards and a 3-1 td ratio and you're saying he had a bad game???

Go look it up.

How many teams have won a regulation NFL game while allowing 48 points.

Please!!

I know Foles isn't everyone's dream QB and I realize he missed a few WR's, but he has been so good, best month in the NFL ever good, that every little mistake is magnified, when anyone who watched Manning, Brady, Brees or any other "Franchise QB" would have seen Foles "mistakes" times three in recent weeks.

All these agendas.

JHC. Get a grip

Sorry, Mikey - I can't agree with you here. Up until a drive starting with 4:43 left in the 3rd quarter, Foles had a QB rating of 59.25 (by my calculation) with several costly sacks and a penalty which wiped 4 points off the board.

He put up great numbers over the final 19 minutes, but showing up for much less than half a game is not good, no matter how you slice it.

If you want to put caveats like, "he played okay for a second year player" or "we can't expect him to be perfect" that's good and fine. But the bottom line is that he has proven himself to be much better and more capable than he showed on Sunday against a very bad defense.

He came into the game as the leading passer in the NFL and the sample size is large enough that we know what he is capable of.

Tony Romo gets blasted for coming up small in the 4th quarter and we should hold Foles to the same standard all game long.

Yes, we gave up 48 points, but if he had done some small things that he has proven capable of in the past, drives would have been extended, field position may have been different and the outcome may have changed.

He's not solely responsible for our loss, but he contributed. And when we were reeling off victories, it was largely a result of his play and I gave him due credit.
xsv
He certainly deserves some of the blame. As does Chip. As does the defense.

I don't think you can point to any one of those and say that's the sole reason.

I can say for sure though, that if that's the worst Foles plays, and he only has one game like that every 6 games, he's HOF bound (again)
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.