Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Sanchez is scaring me
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Birdwatcher
He's been lucky so far
mcnabbulous
And unlucky. Never easy being a backup they comes in without lots of first team reps. He's making quick decisions, which is my biggest gripe with Foles right now.
SAM I Am
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 2 2014, 04:08 PM) *
And unlucky. Never easy being a backup they comes in without lots of first team reps. He's making quick decisions, which is my biggest gripe with Foles right now.

You can gripe all you want. If Nick Foles is healthy enough to go next week, he is the starter. There is no controversy here. Sanchez came in and did his job. We have a dependable backup in Sanchez.

Foles is the starter and will remain so throughout the season, barring further injury.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Nov 2 2014, 03:14 PM) *
You can gripe all you want. If Nick Foles is healthy enough to go next week, he is the starter. There is no controversy here. Sanchez came in and did his job. We have a dependable backup in Sanchez.

Foles is the starter and will remain so throughout the season, barring further injury.

You're assuming Chip is a stubborn, illogical coach. He thinks outside the box. If Foles doesn't perform, I wouldn't be surprised to see Chip bench him.

If Sanchez lights it up while Foles is hurt, I can see him sticking with him.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 2 2014, 04:08 PM) *
He's making quick decisions, which is my biggest gripe with Foles right now.

He was being decisive at first but then started taking more time. Towards the end of the third he was holding the ball.
Dreagon
I didn't get to see the game myself, (nor the Dallas game either, thank god) but never forget that it isn't unusual for backups to come in and look really good against a defense that had spent the week scheming against a different qb.
mcnabbulous
His two TD throws were as good as any Foles has had all season. There were a couple of throws where he seemed out of sync with his wide receivers, which is natural for a guy that doesn't get first team reps.

Overall, he looked more accurate/comfortable on screen throws than Foles has looked all season.

To be honest, based on Foles' numbers through the first half of the season, it would be difficult for Sanchez to be much worse. Foles has been below average in every single category this season. If you don't believe me, take a look at his advanced passing stats:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FoleNi00.htm
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (SAM I Am @ Nov 2 2014, 04:14 PM) *
You can gripe all you want. If Nick Foles is healthy enough to go next week, he is the starter. There is no controversy here. Sanchez came in and did his job. We have a dependable backup in Sanchez.

Foles is the starter and will remain so throughout the season, barring further injury.


Agreed. Honestly, for the life of me, I will never understand why this concept is so hard for some to understand. You have a struggling QB and an All-Pro RB.....so you start out with 4 shotgun pass calls, and bitch when it doesn't go well? Foles played poorly - again - but left a 7-7 tie, with 16 passes and 3 runs being called. (That's 84% passes for you Reid apologists).

Sanchez came in, and played poorly as well - except for him, 29 passes were called, and 31 runs were. And *gasp* - when utilizing your All-Pro RB, your other dangerous RB's, and playing to your strengths and weaknesses, we can beat good teams with bad QB's!!!!!

If anything this game should reinforce the fact that we can win games when our coach simply isn't being a dumbass.....
mcnabbulous
I'll leave this here without comment for the idiots on the board:
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/passing-play-pct
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 3 2014, 12:18 PM) *
I'll leave this here without comment for the idiots on the board:
http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/passing-play-pct


Thanks for the link (which proves my point). Very nice of you. Didn't McCoy look totally overworked yesterday? Must be from last year.
mcnabbulous
Proves that you've basically been wrong for a decade. Reid gets accurate, consistent QB. Reid's team is one of most balanced in football.

When you have a QB that struggles to capitalize on opportunities, you are forced to throw more often because you find yourself in one of two different situations.

1) Either you are in long passing downs more regularly
2) You attempt more passes because you are statistically less likely to convert on fewer chances.

Foles has been bad this year. As a result, our offense is in passing downs far more often. That leads us to pass more.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE
Reid's team is one of most balanced in football.


Absolutely - god only knows how Pederson is holding his leash over there, I have a hard time believing he actually realizes the importance of utilizing an All-Pro RB after watching him here for so many years. The 3 times he's gone 'full-Reid' in KC this year have resulted in losses. When they call a balanced game, they're likely to win.

QUOTE
When you have a QB that struggles to capitalize on opportunities, you are forced to throw more often because you find yourself in one of two different situations.

1) Either you are in long passing downs more regularly
2) You attempt more passes because you are statistically less likely to convert on fewer chances.

Foles has been bad this year. As a result, our offense is in passing downs far more often. That leads us to pass more.


Interesting. So you're suggesting that calling 16 out of 19 plays to start the game as passes was because we were in passing downs more regularly? What constitutes a 'running down' to you? The link you showed, why is it that nobody else in the league seems to realize what you have figured out? Are you suggesting that every other QB in the league is playing well, which is why we're the only team that gets 84% pass plays called?

Further, did Sanchez coming in automatically change the dynamics of passing and running downs? Or is it possible that calling a balanced attack with an All-Pro RB actually does change things, even when having a poor QB under center?
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Nov 3 2014, 12:25 PM) *
Absolutely - god only knows how Pederson is holding his leash over there, I have a hard time believing he actually realizes the importance of utilizing an All-Pro RB after watching him here for so many years. The 3 times he's gone 'full-Reid' in KC this year have resulted in losses. When they call a balanced game, they're likely to win.


I'm not sure if you're just dumb or deliberately obtuse (I have a pretty good theory though) but I'll spell it out pretty clearly for you. I predicted this exactly as it happened. Andy got an accurate QB that plays his desired style and he's running one of the best and most balanced offenses in football.

They go "full-Reid" when they are struggling offensively. As almost every team in football seems to do. You can keep denying it all you want. Reid's offense is exactly what I predicted it would be. It's exactly what I said he always wanted to run here. He simply never had a QB that could execute as desired. And for that reason, he modified it to fit his personnel.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Aug 12 2013, 10:18 AM) *
Like I said, I think you're going to see a very 2006 Garcia-led Eagles offense, where Smith will throw the ball between 25-40 times a game, they will use lots of different targets in the middle of the field. I also think you'll see Charles used extensively in the screen game.

We became a big play, deep passing team because both McNabb and Vick are much better going down the field (and our weapons were better utilized in that capacity.)

The early McNabb-led Eagles (pre-2004) were much more similar to that mold as well, when Donnie had the ability to burn defenses with his legs. Once that well dried up, moving the chains became more and more difficult, thus we became more of a quick strike offense.


In their 5 wins, KC has thrown the ball 25, 26, 28, 29, and 31 times -- With Smith completing 67%+ throws in each game. In their losses, he has completed 54%, 61%, and 53% of his throws respectively. So you see, when Smith plays well and throws the ball accurately, they throw the ball infrequently and they win games.

QUOTE
Interesting. So you're suggesting that calling 16 out of 19 plays to start the game as passes was because we were in passing downs more regularly? What constitutes a 'running down' to you?

When did I use the term "running down." I said that we end up in passing downs because of poor QB play. When you're playing shitty, the majority of downs are passing downs. It's why the the top-5 teams in that link I provided are 7-34. Because they're not good offensive teams. The only team that has a statistically successful QB is Atlanta, and that's deceiving because he had 2 really great games and a bunch of mediocre to bad games.

QUOTE
The link you showed, why is it that nobody else in the league seems to realize what you have figured out? Are you suggesting that every other QB in the league is playing well, which is why we're the only team that gets 84% pass plays called?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. We pass 59.76% of the time. It's pretty clear.

QUOTE
Further, did Sanchez coming in automatically change the dynamics of passing and running downs?

Yes, because Chip had more confidence in his accuracy and ability to move the chains.

QUOTE
Or is it possible that calling a balanced attack with an All-Pro RB actually does change things, even when having a poor QB under center?

It's possible, but not likely. Because it's been proven time and time again that balance is the result of quality QB play, not the other way around.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 3 2014, 04:37 PM) *
I predicted this exactly as it happened.


laugh.gif
Phits
You are misrepresenting the stats. The Eagles average a 60/40 pass/run ratio. That's right around the league average.

QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Nov 3 2014, 01:15 PM) *
Agreed. Honestly, for the life of me, I will never understand why this concept is so hard for some to understand. You have a struggling QB and an All-Pro RB.....so you start out with 4 shotgun pass calls, and bitch when it doesn't go well? Foles played poorly - again - but left a 7-7 tie, with 16 passes and 3 runs being called. (That's 84% passes for you Reid apologists).

Sanchez came in, and played poorly as well - except for him, 29 passes were called, and 31 runs were. And *gasp* - when utilizing your All-Pro RB, your other dangerous RB's, and playing to your strengths and weaknesses, we can beat good teams with bad QB's!!!!!

If anything this game should reinforce the fact that we can win games when our coach simply isn't being a dumbass.....

fyi- 4 of the first 6 plays called for Sanchez were pass plays....including the TD on his first possession. He finished that drive 3/3. You see, it's common knowledge that if you get the defense to respect the pass and it helps to open up the run. On his next possession, 7 of the next 12 plays were runs.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE
You are misrepresenting the stats. The Eagles average a 60/40 pass/run ratio. That's right around the league average.


I'm representing the stats perfectly. In our 2 losses, we passed 75-80% of the time. Before Foles went down, we passed over 80% of the time.

When you run with this team, you win - there is no end to the indisputable evidence regarding this, dating back to The Walrus's tenure. The fact that Sanchez played like shit and we still easily won reinforces that.
koolaidluke
McCoy is so clearly not the same player it isn't even funny. Why do you insist on bringing attention back to a point on which you were so demonstrably wrong? Do you get some sort of perverse pleasure in people seeing how much of an idiot you are or are you so stupid that you actually don't even realize how stupid you come off?

In fact, are you even for real or are you some sort of performance art, meme-account?
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.