Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Is Nick Foles Done With The Eagles? Howie Already Looking To Replace Foles
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
JeeQ
Just rumors... so obviously should be taken with a grain... but as always where there's smoke there's fire...

===========================
QUOTE
Nick Foles' immediate future with the Eagles is on hold after the quarterback suffered a broken collarbone Sunday in Houston.

According to people with knowledge of the Eagles' plans, Foles' long-term future was in doubt even before the injury.

Foles' play during the first half of this 2014 season in stark contrast to his Pro Bowl season of 2013 has "soured'' some in the organization, including general manager Howie Roseman, according to sources.

In 10 starts in 2013 Foles threw 27 touchdown passes to just two interceptions, completed 64 percent of his passes and had a league-high quarterback rating of 119.2. This season, in eight starts Foles has thrown 13 touchdown passes and 10 interceptions and has a quarterback rating of 81.9.

"I think Howie is looking at quarterbacks,'' a league source told NJ.com. "He's kind of soured on Foles, and I don't think he's alone. The organization isn't sold that he's the guy going forward.''

Keep in mind the people who wanted Foles in that 2012 draft are no longer with the team, one is the head coach of the Kansas City Chiefs and the other is the offensive coordinator for the New York Jets.

As previously reported by NJ Advance Media, Roseman and his scouts preferred Michigan State's Kirk Cousins over Foles during the 2012 draft, but that then head coach Andy Reid, and with the recommendation of offensive coordinator Marty Mornhinweg, insisted on Foles. Cousins went the next day to the Washington Redskins early in the fourth round.

Current Eagles head coach Chip Kelly has never said a bad thing about Foles and praised him back to his days at Arizona when Kelly's Oregon teams played against him.

Kelly's actions, however, speak louder than his words. One of the first moves Kelly did upon being hired as the Eagles coach in 2013 was to re-sign quarterback Mike Vick to a new deal. He then traded up in the fourth round of the '13 draft to select quarterback Matt Barkley, of USC.

Tom Gamble, the Eagles' vice president of player personnel also has no connection to Foles. He was in San Francisco, as the 49ers pro personnel director, when the Eagles selected the quarterback.

Now, as Mark Sanchez is ready to take over and attempt to lead the Eagles to a NFC East title, and perhaps more, Foles' future remains in limbo.

In his third year, Foles is eligible to have his contract re-done at the end of the season. He is currently scheduled to earn $620,000 in 2015.

"Let's just say the way things were going, he wasn't going to get a contract extension that's for sure,'' another source told NJ.com before Foles' injury. "Now, if he has a big second half, that could change.''

Foles isn't going to have any kind of a second half. His injury will keep him out anywhere from six to eight weeks, with the higher end more likely. There are only eight weeks left in the season.

And you have to start to wonder how much is left in Foles' career with the Eagles.
JeeQ
NFL.com is running with the story now...

===========================

QUOTE
mcnabbulous
Foles, Ryans, and Herremans have likely all played their last games in Eagles uniforms.
nephillymike


"Let's just say the way things were going, he wasn't going to get a contract extension that's for sure,'' another source told NJ.com before Foles' injury. "Now, if he has a big second half, that could change.''

The way things were going was 26th best in the NFL. If they extended him under those circumstances, they would need their heads examined.

The shame of it is he won't have the chance of a second half. Someone said his poor play combined with the injury could have cost him $50M. Can you imagine trying to sleep at night knowing you had a legit shot at $50M and blew it?

I hope he gets well and comes back healthy and clear headed and helps us this year or next year.

If Sanchez of 2014 is anything like Sanchez of the past, we will be praying for a quick Foles return.

I think Sanchez can be average in this offense. He'll get his shot. We'll see.
Zero
If Sanchez can do in Philadelphia what Smith has done in KC, are you OK with him staying?
Dreagon
If Foles leaves, and Sanchez takes his place, then I think at BEST it would be like the situation with Vick. He would be your starter for a year or two but you guys would soon be hunting another QB. Personally, I think if you guys decide not to go with Foles, then yall's front office needs to plotting trades in order to target that franchise quarterback of the future in the draft.
HobbEs
I think Marcus Mariotta is (and always was) their target.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (HobbEs @ Nov 5 2014, 09:38 AM) *
I think Marcus Mariotta is (and always was) their target.


Highly likely. If the Philadelphia Ducks can repeat the same success that Oregon has had, fine with me. Of course, we'd have to mortgage our franchise the way Washington did for RGII to get Mariotta.....

As has been shown time and time again for years, and again on Sunday, utilizing Shady will make up for mediocre/bad QB play. If Buttfumble can get through the season getting us to the playoffs that would be great, but Foles should still start once he's healthy. As mike points out, if history is any indicator those salivating over Foles being injured will quickly change their minds.....
make_it_rain
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Nov 5 2014, 10:54 AM) *
salivating over Foles being injured will quickly change their minds.....


No one is salivating or excited that Foles got injured, at least I'm not. I see it as a kind of guarded optimism, because for most teams (Dallas, I'm looking at you) having the starting QB go down would be a death sentence for the season.

The Eagles are unique however, in that they managed to get to 6-2 (5-2 pre injury) largely with inconsistent to flat out bad QB play. In many ways, they've been winning in spite of Foles. The Foles apologists can trot out any of the excuses they want..... injured line, playcalling, ineffective running game (which, when you think about it all sort of meld together), but the fact remains that 8 games into the 2014 season, Foles has been mediocre or bad in basically every statistical measure.

It's certainly possible with the re-emergence of the run game and the return of the line that Foles could have returned to form, (pick six aside he did look good in the limited action at Houston) but we can only go with what we've seen so far this season. We may never know sadly.

The reason for the guarded optimism then, is that this injury doesnt appear the death sentence it would be for so many teams, largely because I don't think the quarterback play could get that much worse. This isn't to discount Sanchez's spotty past though, hence the term "guarded" optimism. It's not exactly like we're going from Romo to Weeden here.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (make_it_rain @ Nov 5 2014, 12:15 PM) *
No one is salivating or excited that Foles got injured, at least I'm not.


I wasn't referring to you - nor am I a 'Foles apologist' - as always, I just point out statistical and logical facts as it relates to our playcalling and results. I predicted 9-7 after all, same as you. It's ludicrous to think Sanchez is an upgrade, regardless of how Foles has played - but I'm cautiously optimistic as well that we can continue to win games with any remotely competent QB, provided.....you know the rest. wink.gif

mcnabbulous
Sanchez will perform better than Foles through the remainder of the season. I suspect a rating in the 90's. That number will vary based on luck (e.g. Huff's hands)

As it relates to stupid run/pass ratio, I'll just leave this here:
Correlation does not equal causation

I would hope it would finally settle this stupid debate, but it won't. Because...

QUOTE
Rushing is definitely an important part of football, but don’t fool yourself into thinking there is some magic number of rushing attempts that guarantees victory. Winning teams have more rushing attempts mostly because they’re trying to run the clock out while the losing team has to throw to catch up. So spread the awareness, lest we have to listen to more fans who think they know more than coaches yelling, “Our team is undefeated when they run the ball at least 30 times. Somebody tell the coaches to run the ball more!!!”


But yeah, our village idiot is smarter than not one, but two of the most respected coaches in all of football. If only they would bring him in as a consultant.
koolaidluke
Marcus Mariota is terrible.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Nov 5 2014, 07:36 AM) *
If Sanchez can do in Philadelphia what Smith has done in KC, are you OK with him staying?



That's a real tough question Z.

I think of Smith as average, kind of like Dalton.

I had aspirations of Foles being a tier above average, so first reaction is no.

However, is it possible that average with our pluses in other areas is good enough to win the SB?

I don't think so, so I'd say no. He needs to show he's above that level to stay long term. Pat of the reason being that I don't think the team will go all out to bolster the defense enough to make it at the level that is SB winning caliber.

HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 5 2014, 08:01 PM) *
I would hope it would finally settle this stupid debate, but it won't. Because...


.....using an intellectually dishonest statistical analysis done by a delta male who's never played touch football is completely irrelevant.

The Minitab blog?! Seriously, that's the best you can do? Not even Football Outsiders? Anyways, I'm very familiar with Minitab, and the first thing that jumps out at me is that the author uses a specific number of attempts in his analysis, and not a percentage of total attempts. Also, he focuses on the 4th quarter in part of the article, which is a straw man argument, along with his simple thesis that teams run more when they win because they're 'running the clock out.' One of the comments at the bottom, from someone who no doubt has watched football before, went like this:

Any chance you can add passing attempts to the data set? Another approach would be rushing attempts as a % of total attempts. Would you still use binary logistic regression if your variable is a % rather than discrete #?

Agreed. The author responds:

Sorry the late response Eric. I only collected data on rushing attempts, so I don't have the numbers on passing attempts or rushing attempts as a total % of attempts. However, we would still use binary logistic regression if we were using a percentage. The key is the response variable, and in this case that would be whether a team won or lost (binary means there are only 2 outcomes). Our predictor variable can be any type of variable, be it continuous (%), discrete (# of carries), or even categorical (was the game home, away, or neutral)

In other words, "no I didn't do an intellectually honest study, but if I did, yes, we would use the same regression model."

Be honest, are you Kevin Rudy? I clicked on his name and he has a pic up, that's pretty much how I picture you.....but feel free to post one that has % of attempts and how that correlates to victory, and we'll chat.
JaxEagle
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Nov 6 2014, 01:05 PM) *
Be honest, are you Kevin Rudy? I clicked on his name and he has a pic up, that's pretty much how I picture you.....but feel free to post one that has % of attempts and how that correlates to victory, and we'll chat.

More like this pete prisco
JaxEagle
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Nov 5 2014, 09:26 PM) *
Marcus Mariota is terrible.

Relatively speaking, I agree. I will be pissed if Chip goes Duck crazy and we mortgage the future for the Mamula of QB's.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (JaxEagle @ Nov 6 2014, 03:05 PM) *
More like this pete prisco


laugh.gif
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Nov 6 2014, 12:05 PM) *
.....using an intellectually dishonest statistical analysis done by a delta male who's never played touch football is completely irrelevant.


There is nothing intellectual or honest about anything you've ever posted:
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Nov 19 2012, 11:39 AM) *
Reid has certainly ran the ball enough at times for us to have a sample size of results when he does and when he doesn't - that's the most infuriating thing. Besides the mentioned 10-1 record with McCoy running 20 times, we used to have some insane stat with Westbrook too, I forget what but it was similar except over a longer period of time. I'll look it up when I'm bored one day (during the next Eagles game).


All you care about is some stupid 20 carries number you've been spewing for the past several years. That blog clearly points out how stupid that arbitrary number is.

The bottom line is this, when a QB plays poorly, it often results in more throws. If you throw an incompletion on 2nd down, you're likely going to be in a situation where you have to throw again on 3rd down. If you complete that 2nd down pass, you have the flexibility to run or throw on the next down.

It's why a guy completing 67% of his throws is likely going to have fewer attempts than a guy that is only completing 59% of his throws. Fewer third and longs, more first downs, etc...

As that blog pointed out, every fanbase has some idiot that thinks they are smarter than the coach and spews a meaningless stat about running the ball more. You're ours.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 6 2014, 03:16 PM) *
All you care about is some stupid 20 carries number you've been spewing for the past several years. That blog clearly points out how stupid that arbitrary number is.


I always tried to keep things simple for you, to no avail - over the course of an NFL game, a team will have roughly 65 offensive plays per game, obviously that fluctuates. McCoy getting the ball 20+ times a game translates to a balanced percentage of pass/run calls, factoring in backup RB's getting a handful of carries and a couple designed QB sneaks. You can keep searching back and you'll see me explain this at some point, backed up by countless amounts of evidence dating back to The Walrus. This guy (and you) simply used the arbitrary number in order to create an intellectually dishonest study that advances the point he's desperately trying to prove. It's full of holes, as I pointed out - I can use Minitab too, and from the looks of it, more effectively than others.

As it relates to stupid run/pass ratio, I'll just leave this here:
Correlation does not equal causation


In fact, since the study was based on an arbitrary and discrete number, I can safely say that you don't even know what a ratio is (or you didn't read the study). A 'ratio' would've included passing attempt data, or more effectively, percentages. It's pretty sloppy posting a study like this without anticipating the obvious flaws in it (pointed out in the comment section no less), but pseudo-intellectuals often make such mistakes. We'll revisit this on Tuesday.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Nov 6 2014, 02:51 PM) *
This guy (and you) simply used the arbitrary number in order to create an intellectually dishonest study


No -- You did. I actually quoted you directly. And you did it countless times. If you want to find this new, make believe claim, you can do your own research.

And the Eagles are currently running 72.4 plays per game. But regardless, almost every team -- when playing poorly, has a disproportionate number of passing to running plays. It's not specific to coaches, or philosophies. It's about game flow. It wasn't unique to Andy. It's not some aberration by Chip. It's every. single. coach.

When your QB can't connect on routine passes, you end up having to pass the ball more often.

It's why a guy who you all thought was some pass starved devil is now running one of the most balanced offenses in football. Because he has a QB that is consistently completing routine passes (67.74% of them, to be exact).
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 6 2014, 06:05 PM) *
It's why a guy who you all thought was some pass starved devil is now running one of the most balanced offenses in football. Because he has a QB that is consistently completing routine passes (67.74% of them, to be exact).

My issue with AR was not that he passed too often, he was unable (unwilling?) to adjust his game plan to accommodate a QB that wasn't able to consistently complete the high percentage game plan. Foles doesn't appear to have that issue. In Foles we have a QB that makes bad decisions in key moments, for no apparent reason. Why he has regressed to this degree could be a combination of issues. The fact remains the same, he's not nearly the guy he was last season.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 6 2014, 05:01 PM) *
My issue with AR was not that he passed too often, he was unable (unwilling?) to adjust his game plan to accommodate a QB that wasn't able to consistently complete the high percentage game plan.

The consistency was the problem. It's nearly impossible to gameplan when you have no idea what you're going to get on a half-to-half basis. Donovan simply wasn't consistent enough, so Andy gave him more throwing opportunities because those were required to more consistently move the chains.

Shanahan was forced to do the same exact thing. You're seeing that Chip is forced to do so with Foles. You're seeing that AR doesn't have that need with Alex Smith.

It's really not that hard. When you're getting bad or inconsistent QB play, you're going to end up throwing the ball more as a result of the circumstances (and long situations, 2nd half deficits, etc...). It's not unique to Andy -- as we're seeing with Chip. The testament is to the coaches that are capable of winning despite those inconsistencies. We were luck to have had Andy and we're lucky to have Chip.

Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 6 2014, 08:08 PM) *
The consistency was the problem. It's nearly impossible to gameplan when you have no idea what you're going to get on a half-to-half basis. Donovan simply wasn't consistent enough, so Andy gave him more throwing opportunities because those were required to more consistently move the chains.

Shanahan was forced to do the same exact thing. You're seeing that Chip is forced to do so with Foles. You're seeing that AR doesn't have that need with Alex Smith.

It's really not that hard. When you're getting bad or inconsistent QB play, you're going to end up throwing the ball more as a result of the circumstances (and long situations, 2nd half deficits, etc...). It's not unique to Andy -- as we're seeing with Chip. The testament is to the coaches that are capable of winning despite those inconsistencies. We were luck to have had Andy and we're lucky to have Chip.

I agree with your sentiment, but let's not re-write history. AR was pass happy before the league adopted that playing style. The AR run game was almost non-existent with Philly, which was maddening because we had a very good RB. If the franchise QB is an inconsistent passer you should modify the game plan to make better use of his talent. If he doesn't fit your system, and you are unwilling to change your game plan...send him packing, especially if the team isn't willing to provide him with the necessary talent to excel.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 6 2014, 07:56 PM) *
I agree with your sentiment, but let's not re-write history. AR was pass happy before the league adopted that playing style.

I think that's a testament to Andy, not a negative.

QUOTE
The AR run game was almost non-existent with Philly, which was maddening because we had a very good RB.

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. We were very successful offensive teams while Andy was our coach. There were games where it was exacerbated, but those stand out because they were likely losses, which gets back into the causation/correlation thing.

QUOTE
If the franchise QB is an inconsistent passer you should modify the game plan to make better use of his talent.

You'll have to be more specific. I really think he did modify his coaching style while Donnie was our QB. We went from very ball control to very quick scoring/deep ball through Donnie's career. Now, he's gone back to being ball control (which I think is his preference) in KC.

QUOTE
If he doesn't fit your system, and you are unwilling to change your game plan...send him packing, especially if the team isn't willing to provide him with the necessary talent to excel.

From a timing perspective, he kind of did. I think McNabb was very similar (albeit a bit less accurate) to Reid's ideal QB. I think he wants mobile with low turnovers. It wasn't until about 2006 when Donnie's mobility was clearly shot. We drafted Kolb in 2007 (who fit that criteria on paper). Kolb just turned out to be a bust.

I just think the evidence is pretty clear, based on what is happening in KC right now, that Andy's passing ways were a product of the situation and not nearly as "by design" as you all assumed.

Just to put some numbers behind it, Donnie completed 63.3% of his passes in playoff wins, but only 54.5% of passes in his playoff losses.

That 63.3% is on par with his best season and would have put him #10 in 2004. 54.5% would have ranked 31st in 2004. He just didn't play well enough in those losses. It's hard to coach for that.
Zero
mcnabbulous, you make good points but maybe you forget some AR points.

Reid had a good running game with substandard WRs and the three-headed monster. After he brought in TOO his philosophy seems to have changed to favor the pass. The frustrating windy game (Cardinals?) where he passed 62% or something despite the weather which was not an anomaly. Plus, his propensity to pass consistently on first downs frequently put the offense in third and long which forced more passing. How often did he pass on third and one? I seem to recall reading that he believed the NFL rule changes favored the pass and was intent on taking advantage of that.

You point to the current KC offense as support for your position - maybe he's either learned from his previous mistakes or maybe it could have something to do with the fact that he's no longer King of Football and answers to a GM.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Zero @ Nov 7 2014, 09:17 AM) *
You point to the current KC offense as support for your position - maybe he's either learned from his previous mistakes or maybe it could have something to do with the fact that he's no longer King of Football and answers to a GM.


Plus he's known for blowing leads because he refuses to run the clock down, such as in last year's playoff debacle. Pederson is holding his leash, as did Childress here for awhile. Morningwood and Reid running the offense together was like two AA members going to a bar after getting divorced - Pederson is acting as his sponsor now.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Zero @ Nov 7 2014, 08:17 AM) *
Reid had a good running game with substandard WRs and the three-headed monster.

And our running attack was ranked pretty solid in 2002 and 2003 as a result. His best player/weapon was also McNabb though. It's not unreasonable to put the ball in his hands simply because of both his run and pass threat.

QUOTE
After he brought in TOO his philosophy seems to have changed to favor the pass.

This also corresponded with Donovan running far and far less. I think that contributed to his philosophical change as much as anything else.

QUOTE
The frustrating windy game (Cardinals?) where he passed 62% or something despite the weather which was not an anomaly.

I'm not sure exactly which game you're referring to. I'll assume the 2011 game with Vick, but I'm pretty certain Andy wasn't calling the plays at that point. I think it's well established that Marty was doing so.

Either way, Andy coached 230 or so games here. There are inevitably going to be some duds. He coached lots of great ones too.

QUOTE
Plus, his propensity to pass consistently on first downs frequently put the offense in third and long which forced more passing.

I can't say whether or not his philosophy on first downs is good or bad. I suspect it doesn't stray too much for the league norms. What I will say that it's pretty well established that success on first down is one of the most critical things to team success. I suspect that our struggles came when we didn't execute on first down consistently:
First Down Means Everything

QUOTE
How often did he pass on third and one?

I bet you remember when it didn't work more often than when it did. Much like people bitching about Chip running out of the shotgun on 3rd down against Arizona, despite all the success we've had running out of the shotgun in short yardage. If you don't execute, it doesn't matter what play is called.

QUOTE
I seem to recall reading that he believed the NFL rule changes favored the pass and was intent on taking advantage of that.

I very much believe that was his philosophy, and it's hard to argue otherwise. Most of the league has followed.

QUOTE
You point to the current KC offense as support for your position - maybe he's either learned from his previous mistakes or maybe it could have something to do with the fact that he's no longer King of Football and answers to a GM.

It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. I think the biggest difference is that Andy's back to being a full time coach, which is what I wanted all along.

Andy has gone to the playoffs with 4 or 5 different QBs (depending on if you count Feeley). I suspect you won't find too many guys in NFL history who have done the same with more than 2.

He's a damn good coach. I can't believe it's even up for debate.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Nov 7 2014, 09:31 AM) *
Plus he's known for blowing leads because he refuses to run the clock down, such as in last year's playoff debacle. Pederson is holding his leash, as did Childress here for awhile. Morningwood and Reid running the offense together was like two AA members going to a bar after getting divorced - Pederson is acting as his sponsor now.

His best player/running back went down on the first series. His #2, who happened to be a rookie, broke his leg at the beginning of the fourth quarter. They were down to their third running back, who Andy inevitably trusted less than his QB -- who happened to be having a career day.

Despite all that, they put up 40+ points.

The defense lost that game, not Andy.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 7 2014, 12:24 PM) *
He's a damn good coach. I can't believe it's even up for debate.

I don't think anybody (with the exception of HoP) suggests otherwise. I have always said he wore out his welcome, not that he wasn't a good coach. He has a great coaching characteristics with a few fatal flaws. He seems to have worked them out in KC. However, he inherited a talented squad, let's see how they fare when his mark is more obvious.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 7 2014, 11:13 AM) *
I don't think anybody (with the exception of HoP) suggests otherwise. I have always said he wore out his welcome, not that he wasn't a good coach. He has a great coaching characteristics with a few fatal flaws. He seems to have worked them out in KC. However, he inherited a talented squad, let's see how they fare when his mark is more obvious.

I think is mark is obvious. Assuming he stays out of the personnel shit, which he should have here, he'll do well.

I think the debate is whether his flaws are truly fatal. I simply don't think so. As we see with Chip, if your QB doesn't play well, the passing numbers can get out of whack.

But some people here likely think the Bengals lost last night cause they didn't run as much as the Browns.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 7 2014, 12:13 PM) *
I don't think anybody (with the exception of HoP) suggests otherwise. I have always said he wore out his welcome, not that he wasn't a good coach. He has a great coaching characteristics with a few fatal flaws. He seems to have worked them out in KC. However, he inherited a talented squad, let's see how they fare when his mark is more obvious.


He's a good coach, specifically as it relates to admin, preparation, 'mon-sat' if you will - his record after the bye backs that up. I don't think I've ever said he's a 'bad' coach, other than hyperbole.

He's also not a very good gameday coach. He doesn't adjust from the gameplan, he still has no idea how a clock works, he wastes timeouts and does stupid challenges/non-challenges, and unless someone is holding his leash, he passes way too much. You're right that he wore out his welcome, as it became clear he was incapable of winning a Super Bowl (his fatal flaws as you say). I've pointed out his record against above average teams, which is below .500 (or was not too long ago, I'm not checking). He puts you at a strategic disadvantage, which makes it impossible to win 3-4 games in a row against other contenders in January.

He also hasn't won a playoff game since JJ was his d coordinator, and #5 was his QB. His 2 best moves ever were hiring those two, and he made a pretty damn good career out of it.
mcnabbulous
That he will go down as a top-10 winningest coach in NFL history either says something about the importance of being a good "gameday coach" or most every other coach in football. You're probably smarter than all of them though too.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 7 2014, 03:26 PM) *
That he will go down as a top-10 winningest coach in NFL history


Sure - and he's young enough to perhaps even crack the top 5, with over 200 wins. But he'll be remembered for this instead. Not to mention how many more regular season wins he could've had. And it's because of his fatal flaws.
nephillymike
In reading this thread and the back and forth with some good points on both sides I will summarize my view as concisely as possible.

1. As far as that tendencies to run go, the only unbiased run % tendencies you can look at are

a. 1st and 10
b. 3rd and 1, 2 or 3.

and only those instances that the score is within 10 points up thru the third quarter, or within 7 points the during the first 10 minutes of the 4th quarter. All other stats are score situated influenced.

Does anyone want to argue that Andy Reid's tendency to run in those situations was anywhere close to Chip's?

2. While McNabb had some flaws, his inaccuracy was no where near historic lows. He wasn't perfect but he was a decently accurate thrower. By the end of his tenure here, Reid had the highest percentage of pass plays of any coach in the history of the NFL with over X amount of games. How does one reconcile those two facts?

3. On a talent level, for most of his tenure here, our RB's were more talented than our Wr's. Also our OL with Runyan, Jackson, Mayberry and most others except Tra, were better run blockers. Seemed like we had talent to run the ball more than we did.

4. Nobody ever defensed the Eagles as a running team. They knew they would pass and we would oblige. Chip's passing was because of stacking against the run.

I see chip as more flexible and Andy as too much square peg round hole. Overall a good coach despite of it though. give the passoholic his due
koolaidluke
For most of Reid's tenure I was a real fan of the power running game and even though I liked Reid I remember wanting the Eagles to a) establish more of a running game and cool.gif noticing that after a terrible performance, the following game Reid would go run heavy and the offense would be dramatically improved.

I think that Reid and McNabb had a tendency to bring out both the best and the worst in each other. I also think that a lot, but definitely not all, of Reid's non-running was due to the inconsistency of McNabb.

The thing is, the Chiefs are running A LOT this season and I have a hard time believing it is because Reid has changed because one thing I have learned after watching Reid's Eagles for 14 years is that Reid is incapable of change.
nephillymike
One other thing that had some bearing for Reid in KC.

I remember them reporting that when Reid asked Childress to join him in KC, that Childress and he had a long talk about the run game taking a bigger role than it did in PHI. I remember thinking, good luck with that, but we were more balanced when Childress was here so maybe Brad is an effective leash on Reid.
koolaidluke
I think maybe there is something to that. Supposedly Childress is screaming at Andy to run all game every game and Reid seems to really value Childress's input so maybe that while Reid can't change, Childress can still bring out the best in him.

Marty and Andy, on the other hand, brought out the absolute worst in each other. Marty is a great offensive coordinator, but not when teamed up with Andy. Awful tandem.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 8 2014, 10:47 AM) *
2. While McNabb had some flaws, his inaccuracy was no where near historic lows. He wasn't perfect but he was a decently accurate thrower. By the end of his tenure here, Reid had the highest percentage of pass plays of any coach in the history of the NFL with over X amount of games. How does one reconcile those two facts?

I would reconcile it by pointing out that Andy won an insane amount of games here. And as was stated elsewhere, he will likely go down as top-5 all time in wins.

How do you reconcile thinking that's not successful?
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 8 2014, 11:02 PM) *
I would reconcile it by pointing out that Andy won an insane amount of games here. And as was stated elsewhere, he will likely go down as top-5 all time in wins.

How do you reconcile thinking that's not successful?

Are we debating whether or not AR was a good coach or whether he was pass happy? I was debating his pass happiness.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 8 2014, 11:02 PM) *
Are we debating whether or not AR was a good coach or whether he was pass happy? I was debating his pass happiness.

In this case, I think they go hand in hand. Because he had an inconsistent passer, he was required to be pass happy in order to be successful.

Sure, there were more inconsistent passers, but not many of them last as long as Donnie. And few head coaches have success when they don't get good QB play.

There are games where it didn't work out, but big picture, he got the numbers right.
Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 9 2014, 04:02 AM) *
I would reconcile it by pointing out that Andy won an insane amount of games here. And as was stated elsewhere, he will likely go down as top-5 all time in wins.

How do you reconcile thinking that's not successful?

I'd counter by saying we could have been even more successful if we'd had a better balance in our offensive play calling.

Of course, since neither of us can change history, we'll never know and just have to disagree.
nephillymike
While Andy may accumulate win totals that put him in the top 10 or 5 or whatever, until he has years of changing this dynamic I will never call him a great coach:

Through 2012;

Winning % vs teams below .500 = 83%
Winning % vs teams above .500 = 44%
Winning vs playoff teams = 37.5%

So while we think of his teams in good light because of playoff appearances, he lost roughly two out of three times in his career when he went up against a playoff team and lost 55% of the time against teams above 500 but was very impressive against those under 500.

Why? Adjustments.

I know this from coaching basketball. Against the weaker teams, you put your lineup and shifts together ahead of time and you have only minor adjustments if any in an easy game. Against better teams, you have to always change up defenses and plans on the fly because things are so tight, or you are losing and need to mount comebacks. Planning ahead? That's Andy. In game adjustments needed? He'll lose most of the time.

Good coach, not great. I think that McNabb would have been one of the elite had Reid armed him with a running game and allowed play action to be honestly defended. Imagine if opposing defenses needed to worry about the run? I think he would have eaten that up. And to me, although Reid's record is impressive, sometimes you judge people with what might have been had they changed a little. I think that gap with Reid is huge.


http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/andy-rei...eams.452678821/
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Nov 9 2014, 07:14 AM) *
While Andy may accumulate win totals that put him in the top 10 or 5 or whatever, until he has years of changing this dynamic I will never call him a great coach:

Through 2012;

Winning % vs teams below .500 = 83%
Winning % vs teams above .500 = 44%
Winning vs playoff teams = 37.5%

Good coach, not great. I think that McNabb would have been one of the elite had Reid armed him with a running game and allowed play action to be honestly defended. Imagine if opposing defenses needed to worry about the run? I think he would have eaten that up. And to me, although Reid's record is impressive, sometimes you judge people with what might have been had they changed a little. I think that gap with Reid is huge.


We've done this time and time again, and it's indisputable. It's still fun to watch facts get denied, it's called dogma.

McNabb was the problem, yet the Walrus hasn't won a playoff game since he was his QB. AJ Feeley and Jeff Garcia could win games with a balanced attack using Westbrook, yet somehow the guy who went to six Pro Bowls was just too inconsistent, and Reid had to pass 50 times into the wind (using the inconsistent guy of course, makes sense), adding poor in-game decisions to the mix as well.

Reid owes his existence as an NFL coach to McNabb and Jim Johnson. He gets credit for hiring them of course, but without them he's in charge of a couple Five Guys restaurants right now.
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.