Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Is Nick Foles no more than a role player?
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Phits
LINK

Jump to the 2 minute mark.
koolaidluke
I'm now convinced that Foles is injured. No excuses because playing through injuries is part of the game in the NFL but it is obviously affecting his play.

The shoulder is recent and I don't think it's having much of an impact but his knee has been bothering him since preseason and that is why his footwork has gone to shit.
Zero
I like Foles. He's a tough as any player in the league. He's a quiet leader and he's respected by his teammates. He's done a great job since becoming the starter other than the one or two games where he flopped. His problems this year certainly have something to do with the OL and could be a reflection of his youth.

If we look at Kelly's history with QBs, this story is consistent. His system is QB friendly. The team still needs help on defense even though that side of the ball has been playing better.
CT_Eagle
I think it is premature to classify Foles one way or the other. This is his first season where he was the designated starter during training camp and he has only 20 games in his career. He is still very young and very green. He played poorly this past weekend but still managed to lead the team on a 90+ yard drive in the closing minutes of the game and put the Eagles in a position to win. That last sentence demonstrates the wide range of Foles' potential. He has earned the right to ride out this season. I think we will see more of last year's Foles as this season progresses. Especially when Kelce returns and the Eagles can start running the ball as well as start hitting the screens they love so much.

My personal opinion is that he is better than average, maybe even top 10, but less than a Peyton or Brady. He is good enough to win a Super Bowl.
HobbEs
Foles = Drew Bledsoe.

He's a good QB with limited mobility. (I think Bledsoe had a stronger arm). He'll be good enough to win us a lot of games but ultimately I don't know if he's the guy that can get us a Lombardi.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Sep 30 2014, 09:21 AM) *
He'll be good enough to win us a lot of games but ultimately I don't know if he's the guy that can get us a Lombardi.


How many QB's have started for us since 1960? Do I even want to know?
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Sep 30 2014, 03:09 PM) *
How many QB's have started for us since 1960? Do I even want to know?


I know that was a rhetorical question but thought it would be interesting to look back.

I cannot remember all of the guys that were just fill-ins between legit QBs. Since I have been following the Eagles there have been 3 QBs that rise above the fill in category.

Jaworski, Cunningham and McNabb

There was no space between Jaworski and Cunningham. They even played in the same games during the '86 season. There were a lot of guys between Cunningham and McNabb. Peete, McMahon, Pedderson and Vick to name a few. I am optimistic regarding Foles and I think he will make number 4 for me.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE
I am optimistic regarding Foles and I think he will make number 4 for me.


I think he could be, but part of that is definitely my faith in Chip and we have a top-3 running back when our o-line is healthy.

Looking back of course the only 3 are Jaws, Cunningham, and McNabb. But what about those we thought were 'the guy' for sure? There's a few of those, legions of fans were predicting Super Bowl 2 years ago with Vick. Some fans are still whispering 'Hoying' when talking about Foles, which is ridiculous, but unfortunately he'll have to deal with that for awhile.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Zero @ Sep 30 2014, 12:19 PM) *
I like Foles. He's a tough as any player in the league. He's a quiet leader and he's respected by his teammates. He's done a great job since becoming the starter other than the one or two games where he flopped. His problems this year certainly have something to do with the OL and could be a reflection of his youth.

If we look at Kelly's history with QBs, this story is consistent. His system is QB friendly. The team still needs help on defense even though that side of the ball has been playing better.

I rate Foles as a solid starter but that bit concerns me.

Is Foles simply a product of the system, so when the system breaks down there is nothing he can offer by way of a Plan B?
Wheeljack
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Sep 30 2014, 09:21 AM) *
Foles = Drew Bledsoe.

He's a good QB with limited mobility. (I think Bledsoe had a stronger arm). He'll be good enough to win us a lot of games but ultimately I don't know if he's the guy that can get us a Lombardi.


I was about to make the Bledsoe comparison. I was thinking about that watching him in several games this season.
Zero
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Sep 30 2014, 02:44 PM) *
Is Foles simply a product of the system, so when the system breaks down there is nothing he can offer by way of a Plan B?

Is that what we've been seeing?
Birdman420
I see Foles as just a guy who is capable or more then capable of getting the ball in the hands of the playmakers. Asking him to be a playmaker is another thing and that's what vick did for us.

I still have yet to decide if Foles is capable of being defined as 'clutch" but that 90 yard drive certainly lends to that definition.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Zero @ Oct 2 2014, 11:17 AM) *
Is that what we've been seeing?

He showed some promise in Reid's final season, but only really played well last year when Kelly's offense was outstanding. Now that the offense has stalled due to our OL woes, he's come back down to earth with a bump.

So I'm thinking that he is well suited to what Kelly wants, but can't make a difference on his own. I'd contrast that with the early McNabb years, when he carried our offense.
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.