Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Nick Foles
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Zero
I like Foles. I like his smarts. I like his size. I like his attitude. I like his accuracy. I like his numbers, but we all know the caveat with statistics ... ask Sam Clemons. He's better than a back-up but is he THE MAN who can change the game? Do the Eagles need a game changer at QB or, do they surround the QB with enough talent that a super star QB isn't needed?

Foles will improve because he has the desire and the work ethic. I don't see him as a super star talent but he could be a super star game manager. He has to improve on a few things. The team needs to get another good (not great) receiver to add to what they had this year and the defense needs to improve and limit the opposition scoring.

This is Kelly's first year and Foles' hasn't had an off season as starter yet. Add all those together and he has the chance to lead the team to a SB win.
QUOTE
117.9 = Nick Foles' passer rating, including the playoffs.
7-3 = His record as a starter.
3.9 = Yards per carry
$615K = 2014 base salary


Source ...

Rick
Sheesh! The kid just finished his 2nd season and tied an NFL record and had stats which were crazy good. He brought us back in some games. He made some mistakes (like any human being). Not sure what you're concerned about at this point.
Zero
Well, stats don't mean much and I didn't say I was concerned about him. In fact, I said I liked him six times. My point was if he's the guy who can change my handle to "One". And, with that, I even said I thought he could do that. Sheesh!
xsv
QUOTE (Zero @ Jan 6 2014, 07:08 AM) *
Well, stats don't mean much and I didn't say I was concerned about him. In fact, I said I liked him six times. My point was if he's the guy who can change my handle to "One". And, with that, I even said I thought he could do that. Sheesh!


I dunno, Zero. But I believe he's got a better chance than Vick ever did.
Zero
So do I, X. That's what I'm saying. But they need more players to help him.
QUOTE
But when you win the turnover battle by plus-two and still lose a playoff game at home, it wasn't because of bad breaks - it was because the other team was better.

Recognizing that unsentimental fact is Chip Kelly's first important task of the offseason.

Here ...

They did win the turnover battle and should have pulled the game out. It wasn't Foles' fault. If they had that additional receiver instead of Avant and if they had a good safety instead of Chung who knows what may have happened. And that's not even addressing the pass rush or the protection.
D Rock
Just because a guy can't run like McVick doesn't mean he's limited to game manager or "super star game manager" (seriously wtf is that nonsense).

Brees, Brady, Peyton, Montana were all equally un impressive from a pure athletic point of view.

After 15 years of pretending the likes of Supa5 and the MV7 show were actual nfl quarterbacks, I think too many eagle phans forgot what a real quarterback looks like. Quarterbacks are not defined by athleticism. They're defined by decision making, reading defenses, and football smarts (you know, actually knowing the rules for example).

How ANYONE can look at the evidence from this season and call Nick a "game manager" is beyond comprehension. And again . . . . "Super Star Game Manager." WTF is that?
Rick
QUOTE (D Rock @ Jan 6 2014, 10:36 AM) *
Just because a guy can't run like McVick doesn't mean he's limited to game manager or "super star game manager" (seriously wtf is that nonsense).

Brees, Brady, Peyton, Montana were all equally un impressive from a pure athletic point of view.

After 15 years of pretending the likes of Supa5 and the MV7 show were actual nfl quarterbacks, I think too many eagle phans forgot what a real quarterback looks like. Quarterbacks are not defined by athleticism. They're defined by decision making, reading defenses, and football smarts (you know, actually knowing the rules for example).

How ANYONE can look at the evidence from this season and call Nick a "game manager" is beyond comprehension. And again . . . . "Super Star Game Manager." WTF is that?

Very well-said...

Quite frankly, Vick was never a good QUARTERBACK. He was an INCREDIBLE athlete and did some crazy things but we all know his liabilities as a QB. It seemed to work in stretches for him but never enough to get it done in the end.

I'm not saying someone with those tools can't be great (look at that guy up in Seattle), but the decision-making has to be even better when you've got a guy running around like that.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Jan 6 2014, 10:36 AM) *
Just because a guy can't run like McVick doesn't mean he's limited to game manager or "super star game manager" (seriously wtf is that nonsense).

Brees, Brady, Peyton, Montana were all equally un impressive from a pure athletic point of view.

After 15 years of pretending the likes of Supa5 and the MV7 show were actual nfl quarterbacks, I think too many eagle phans forgot what a real quarterback looks like. Quarterbacks are not defined by athleticism. They're defined by decision making, reading defenses, and football smarts (you know, actually knowing the rules for example).

How ANYONE can look at the evidence from this season and call Nick a "game manager" is beyond comprehension. And again . . . . "Super Star Game Manager." WTF is that?

Agreed. His athleticism has nothing to do with being a game manager. His decision making will dictate if that's what his career results in.

Over the past two games, that is generally how he performed. He tried to limit mistakes and left opportunities on the field. He was good, but not great. He was conservative and took some costly sacks instead of risking a turnover.

If that continues to be the trend, then I would consider him a game manager. Most of the season, that was not the case. He allowed his receivers to make plays.

The best throw he made on Saturday was his TD to Cooper and it was anything but conservative. We needed more of that. Maybe next time...
D Rock
Wilson is 10 times the quarterback that Vick ever was or could ever dream of being.
Rick
QUOTE (D Rock @ Jan 6 2014, 10:43 AM) *
Wilson is 10 times the quarterback that Vick ever was or could ever dream of being.

Without question.

And I tend to agree Foles seemed to get overly-conservative the last two games. I love that he protects the ball but, every so often, you've got to take a chance. I'm thinking a lot of this may come from his age/experience as it seems most younger guys start that way (with a few exceptions). Hopefully, he'll grow into someone who will take chances at the right time. Judging from the bulk of his work this season, I feel confident he will. It's not like he's never shown the ability to do so.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 6 2014, 11:47 AM) *
Without question.

And I tend to agree Foles seemed to get overly-conservative the last two games. I love that he protects the ball but, every so often, you've got to take a chance. I'm thinking a lot of this may come from his age/experience as it seems most younger guys start that way (with a few exceptions). Hopefully, he'll grow into someone who will take chances at the right time. Judging from the bulk of his work this season, I feel confident he will. It's not like he's never shown the ability to do so.

Hey, if the past two games is the worst we see from Nick Foles, we are going to win a lot of games. Especially once our defense improves.

It's just that with the team we were fielding this year, we needed our offense to lead the way. Too often over the past few weeks, we put our defense's back against the wall. We didn't have the team to overcome that.

We needed our offense, specifically Foles, to play really well to make a run in the playoffs. The Saints were stacking the box and daring Foles to beat them. He simply didn't step up to do so. With the exception of the first Dallas game, he had his lowest YPA all season.

He didn't lose the game, but we needed him to go out and win the game. That's not how he played it. I expect him to get better.
Wheeljack
QUOTE (Zero @ Jan 6 2014, 06:57 AM) *
I like Foles. I like his smarts. I like his size. I like his attitude. I like his accuracy. I like his numbers, but we all know the caveat with statistics ... ask Sam Clemons. He's better than a back-up but is he THE MAN who can change the game? Do the Eagles need a game changer at QB or, do they surround the QB with enough talent that a super star QB isn't needed?

Foles will improve because he has the desire and the work ethic. I don't see him as a super star talent but he could be a super star game manager. He has to improve on a few things. The team needs to get another good (not great) receiver to add to what they had this year and the defense needs to improve and limit the opposition scoring.

This is Kelly's first year and Foles' hasn't had an off season as starter yet. Add all those together and he has the chance to lead the team to a SB win.


Source ...


he deserves a second year to see how he will improve and adapt.
you can't argue with his numbers, and for people enamoured with a certain type of QB he passes the eye test.

I'm only slightly skeptical because of how he fell back on habits that we skewered other QBs about. I'd like to see if that was because of the play design (Foles didn't appear to have anywhere to check down to) or because of his decision making.

that's all I've got about him.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jan 6 2014, 11:23 AM) *
Hey, if the past two games is the worst we see from Nick Foles, we are going to win a lot of games. Especially once our defense improves.

It's just that with the team we were fielding this year, we needed our offense to lead the way. Too often over the past few weeks, we put our defense's back against the wall. We didn't have the team to overcome that.

We needed our offense, specifically Foles, to play really well to make a run in the playoffs. The Saints were stacking the box and daring Foles to beat them. He simply didn't step up to do so. With the exception of the first Dallas game, he had his lowest YPA all season.

He didn't lose the game, but we needed him to go out and win the game. That's not how he played it. I expect him to get better.

Damn, I'm agreeing with you TWICE in one day!!?? What's the world coming to? wink.gif
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 6 2014, 03:58 PM) *
Damn, I'm agreeing with you TWICE in one day!!?? What's the world coming to? wink.gif

Because I'm super reasonable and my opinions are usually right. Glad to see you're finally coming around smile.gif
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jan 6 2014, 11:23 AM) *
Hey, if the past two games is the worst we see from Nick Foles, we are going to win a lot of games. Especially once our defense improves.

It's just that with the team we were fielding this year, we needed our offense to lead the way. Too often over the past few weeks, we put our defense's back against the wall. We didn't have the team to overcome that.

We needed our offense, specifically Foles, to play really well to make a run in the playoffs. The Saints were stacking the box and daring Foles to beat them. He simply didn't step up to do so. With the exception of the first Dallas game, he had his lowest YPA all season.

He didn't lose the game, but we needed him to go out and win the game. That's not how he played it. I expect him to get better.

Good post. I think u don't give him enough credit for coming back and playing well enough to win the game. Without the blown kickoff, he probably wins. Without the Cooper miss, he probably wins because at a minimum, Brees has three minutes less to operate, or better yet, has to score a TD and two point conversion to tie. I think if Foles got the ball back down 2 with two minutes left from his own 20,he mover us down and we win the game.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 6 2014, 07:56 PM) *
I think if Foles got the ball back down 2 with two minutes left from his own 20,he mover us down and we win the game.

That is his final test, at least for me. I haven't seen him orchestrate a late game winning drive in the dying minutes.

Interestingly enough, pro football reference has 2 fourth quarter comebacks, 2 game-winning drives. They both happened 1 year apart (almost exactly to the day) Dec. 12, 2012 (@TB) and Dec. 13, 2013 (vs.DET)Source
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 6 2014, 08:56 PM) *
Good post. I think u don't give him enough credit for coming back and playing well enough to win the game. Without the blown kickoff, he probably wins. Without the Cooper miss, he probably wins because at a minimum, Brees has three minutes less to operate, or better yet, has to score a TD and two point conversion to tie. I think if Foles got the ball back down 2 with two minutes left from his own 20,he mover us down and we win the game.


That's kind of my frustration. I don't think Nick was overwhelmed by the moment. I simply think he has bought into the "no turnover" mindset so much that he tries to be too perfect at times. When he finally threw a few deep balls and tried to stretch the defense, we had success.
I wish he had played like that all game.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jan 6 2014, 09:09 PM) *
That's kind of my frustration. I don't think Nick was overwhelmed by the moment. I simply think he has bought into the "no turnover" mindset so much that he tries to be too perfect at times. When he finally threw a few deep balls and tried to stretch the defense, we had success.
I wish he had played like that all game.


Agreed. But I think that guys who are going to criticize him for taking a six second sack, have to be able to see that without that mindset, he wouldn't have found Cooper for the six second TD.

I too don't think he is paralyzed in the pocket. He seems to have his eyes down field.

If you're him, why take risks when you're up? The deficit made him take risks he may not have taken.

He definitely does need to avoid the intentional groundings. But hey, most first year starters are trying to break themselves of the habit of throwing INT's. I'd rather have him having to break the habit of a few IG than INT"s.

I don't know where we would find this info, but I wonder what his effectiveness is in the pocket after four seconds. Is it worth it to stay in there that long?

Mikey Miss was longing for a more mobile QB like Kap, Newtown, Brees, Luck etc. I think guys like Kap and Newtown rarely get to their 3rd read because of their ability to run after the second read. I don't think that's the way to go.

As far as foles, I wish when he diecides to run, he is more decisive and just goes hard and fast (for him). Too much hesitation when he runs.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 6 2014, 10:21 PM) *
Agreed. But I think that guys who are going to criticize him for taking a six second sack, have to be able to see that without that mindset, he wouldn't have found Cooper for the six second TD.
My problem wasn't his holding the ball, although there are times he has to be smarter about that.
My problem was the lack of attempts down the field to try to stretch the defense.

QUOTE
I too don't think he is paralyzed in the pocket. He seems to have his eyes down field.

If you're him, why take risks when you're up? The deficit made him take risks he may not have taken.

Because we needed to make plays on offense. Our defense can only do so much to hold down an offense like New Orleans.
QUOTE
Mikey Miss was longing for a more mobile QB like Kap, Newtown, Brees, Luck etc. I think guys like Kap and Newtown rarely get to their 3rd read because of their ability to run after the second read. I don't think that's the way to go.

As far as foles, I wish when he diecides to run, he is more decisive and just goes hard and fast (for him). Too much hesitation when he runs.


I like Rodgers/Luck mobility, but I don't think the Kap, Cam mobility is ideal. Like you said, their natural tendency is to run instead of making it through their progressions. My mindset has been changed on that subject after a decade plus of McNabb and Vick.
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.