Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Hindsight Question: Do You?
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
The draft is over and let's say Foles and his $1.5M is still our QB and we still have our 2016 2nd round draft pick.

Bradford is still in recovery and is progressing like he is now, the thinking, like now, being that e should be ready to go full tilt by the middle of training camp.

The Rams call you and say we want Foles, and we'll trade you Sam Bradford and his $13M salary for Foles and his $1.5M salary and a 2016 2nd round pick.

Do you do the deal?

Do you think Chip does the deal?

For me, I don't do it. Too expensive, too much risk for the recovering QB with a 79.o lifetime passer rating.

For Chip, I gotta believe that the rumors for Bradford to the Browns for a potential move up for Mariota were a big part of the deal and that being a dead deal, he would not do the deal.

Would you?

do you think Chip would today?
xsv
I agree that Bradford was mainly a trade chip.

That said, I'd still do the deal, nad I think Chip would too. It was fairly obvious that Foles wasn't going to be the kind of QB Chip wanted early on. I think Chip could live with the slow footedness, I don't think he likes how long Foles took to make decisions.

There is a lot of risk, but we needed more from the position than Foles could give us .

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jun 6 2015, 08:52 PM) *
The draft is over and let's say Foles and his $1.5M is still our QB and we still have our 2016 2nd round draft pick.

Bradford is still in recovery and is progressing like he is now, the thinking, like now, being that e should be ready to go full tilt by the middle of training camp.

The Rams call you and say we want Foles, and we'll trade you Sam Bradford and his $13M salary for Foles and his $1.5M salary and a 2016 2nd round pick.

Do you do the deal?

Do you think Chip does the deal?

For me, I don't do it. Too expensive, too much risk for the recovering QB with a 79.o lifetime passer rating.

For Chip, I gotta believe that the rumors for Bradford to the Browns for a potential move up for Mariota were a big part of the deal and that being a dead deal, he would not do the deal.

Would you?

do you think Chip would today?

BirdsWinBaby
nobody does that deal IMO....perhaps it was worth the trade possibility (that never existed*) to Chip but it doesnt make sense otherwise

suppose Bradford plays well/mediocre this year...then what? sign him to a mega deal? after a single year of being healthy? a guy who has been healthy 2 years in a row....um, NEVER?

dont like that plan? ok then you cut ties with him after this year and then what? start all over again with who

the above could be said of Foles....except im not sure Bradford is an upgrade yet, and certainly not a $12m+2nd rounder upgrade. Foles sucks you throw away his salary and move on


*the reason Cleveland didnt just do a straight up trade with the Rams is because Bradford made it clear to everyone that he was never going to sign with the Browns. This was before Chip ever got into the discussion. If Chip allowed himself to be fleeced by the Rams (2nd Rd) and Bradford ($13m) because he thought he could do a Cleveland deal to move up in draft?....lol
Joegrane
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jun 6 2015, 08:52 PM) *
The draft is over and let's say Foles and his $1.5M is still our QB and we still have our 2016 2nd round draft pick.
...
The Rams call you and say we want Foles, and we'll trade you Sam Bradford and his $13M salary for Foles and his $1.5M salary and a 2016 2nd round pick.
....
do you think Chip would today?

Interesting question.

I agree with much of what Xsv and BirdsWinBaby wrote, but I think we should also add Chip's "sports science" program to the considerations. This was mentioned by D Murray recently.
http://www.wingheads.com/index.php?showtop...mp;#entry270986

The influence of O Coordinator, Shurmur, must also be a factor. He was in St Louis when Bradford had his best year. Shurmur's comments in a recent interview were interesting.
http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/news/art...68-88c57c6208ae

I like Foles so I would not have done the deal. Foles' toughness in the first Skins game was very impressive. They beat the shit out of him but he kept bouncing up and throwing strikes. I also like the chances of being able to sign him to a reasonable contract.

However after viewing the video of Bradford's throws of 15 yrds or more on youtube I warmed up to the idea of having him here with the mediocre group of WRs. I think his accuracy will allow him to complete a good percentage of passes even with small throwing windows.

I don't know if Chip would still do it but I bet he would. He had to know that the odds of getting MM were so slim.
mcnabbulous
The one big variable that most aren't considering is that Foles sucks and Chip knows it, even if he has no idea what he'll get out of Bradford.
Zero
QUOTE (BirdsWinBaby @ Jun 6 2015, 10:37 PM) *
nobody does that deal IMO....perhaps it was worth the trade possibility (that never existed*) to Chip but it doesnt make sense otherwise

suppose Bradford plays well/mediocre this year...then what? sign him to a mega deal? after a single year of being healthy? a guy who has been healthy 2 years in a row....um, NEVER?

dont like that plan? ok then you cut ties with him after this year and then what? start all over again with who

the above could be said of Foles....except im not sure Bradford is an upgrade yet, and certainly not a $12m+2nd rounder upgrade. Foles sucks you throw away his salary and move on


*the reason Cleveland didnt just do a straight up trade with the Rams is because Bradford made it clear to everyone that he was never going to sign with the Browns. This was before Chip ever got into the discussion. If Chip allowed himself to be fleeced by the Rams (2nd Rd) and Bradford ($13m) because he thought he could do a Cleveland deal to move up in draft?....lol

A team that wins 9 to 12 games a season has the odds working against them for drafting a franchise QB. If we believe the Eagles are one of those teams, the likelihood of them remaining one would seem much higher if they didn't take a risk. Trading for Bradford is an obvious risk. If he stays healthy and performs like Kelly and Shurmur think he is capable of performing the deal was worth it. If he doesn't and continues with his injury history the Eagles lost a second round pick and a QB they apparently didn't think was able to take them where they wanted to go.

The question is: do the Eagles spend a second round pick and a player they don't think fits in exchange for the possibility of jumping to the head of the class? I'd do that deal every day of the week. I don't care about the $13 million and the other possibility of Bradford being a commodity to acquire a better player, no matter how remote only adds to the wisdom of the deal because the bottom line is that Foles apparently wasn't their guy and the chances of getting a QB who can take them to the top are probably greater than the deal they did.
Eyrie
I said this time last year that I doubted Foles could repeat his 2013 form, but even so I was disappointed in his 2014 play which means I'd be relaxed about making the move.

So I'd do a straight swap, with conditional picks dependent on performance - for example if Bradford stinks then we don't give up any picks and if he makes the Pro Bowl then they get our second. Same would apply with Foles. The Rams still do well out of it because of the respective salaries.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Jun 7 2015, 07:53 AM) *
I said this time last year that I doubted Foles could repeat his 2013 form, but even so I was disappointed in his 2014 play which means I'd be relaxed about making the move.

So I'd do a straight swap, with conditional picks dependent on performance - for example if Bradford stinks then we don't give up any picks and if he makes the Pro Bowl then they get our second. Same would apply with Foles. The Rams still do well out of it because of the respective salaries.



So if I understand you, you would not do this deal unless Bradford hits the Pro Bowl which at that point you would be OK with giving up the 2nd round pick?

So if he makes the PB, then yes.

If he doesn't, then no because we gave up too much.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jun 6 2015, 10:15 PM) *
The one big variable that most aren't considering is that Foles sucks and Chip knows it, even if he has no idea what he'll get out of Bradford.



The Chip knows Foles sucks comment is interesting.

On one hand, it explains the luke warm at best forced praise he always seemed to be backed into by the media to give. "Ok, Nick Foles is our QB for the next 1,000 years" I always suspected based on that, that Foles wasn't his guy.

But you have a coach in Jeff Fisher, a very experienced NFL coach who has won plenty of playoff games and knows what McNair did for his teams, and knows what bad QB's can do to a team, who watches all of the tape on Foles, probably every play he's ever QB'd for the Eagles, who has intimate knowledge of Bradford's strengths, weaknesses and desire, or lack thereof, and he makes the decision, that yep, gimme Foles and a 2nd rounder. In that tough as hell divsion, with good defenses, HE made the decision that Foles, 11M and a 2nd was an upgrade over Bradford.

Why do you think HE did the move?
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jun 7 2015, 09:31 AM) *
HE made the decision that Foles, 11M and a 2nd was an upgrade over Bradford.

I don't know that the decision was based on Foles being an upgrade more so than a decision to move on from Bradford. He saw an opportunity to off-load his baggage to another team. I don't even think Foles' value as a QB was a strong factor in his decision. If Foles works out, they have a sustainable QB for the next few years while they draft/groom the QB of the future.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Jun 7 2015, 07:38 AM) *
A team that wins 9 to 12 games a season has the odds working against them for drafting a franchise QB. If we believe the Eagles are one of those teams, the likelihood of them remaining one would seem much higher if they didn't take a risk. Trading for Bradford is an obvious risk. If he stays healthy and performs like Kelly and Shurmur think he is capable of performing the deal was worth it. If he doesn't and continues with his injury history the Eagles lost a second round pick and a QB they apparently didn't think was able to take them where they wanted to go.

The question is: do the Eagles spend a second round pick and a player they don't think fits in exchange for the possibility of jumping to the head of the class? I'd do that deal every day of the week. I don't care about the $13 million and the other possibility of Bradford being a commodity to acquire a better player, no matter how remote only adds to the wisdom of the deal because the bottom line is that Foles apparently wasn't their guy and the chances of getting a QB who can take them to the top are probably greater than the deal they did.



I don't think the data supports the assumption that we have to be an 8-16 loss team to get in a spot to draft a top notch QB. Most years, last included, a nine win or more team drafts in spots 16-32 in a typical draft.

If I take a look at those QB's who are top 12, which is the group I think is good enough to win SB's, here is my ranking and their draft selection:

1. Rodgers - 24th
2. Brady - 199th
3. P. Manning - 1st
4. Brees - 32nd
5. Roethlisberger - 11th
6. Rivers - 4th
7. Romo - UDFA
8. Luck - 1st
9. Wilson - 75th
10. Ryan - 3rd
11. Flacco - 18th
12. E. Manning - 1st

6 of 12 are draftable in the slots 16 or lower. Also, Roethlisberger at #11 was reachable via a reasonable draft trade up, so you could add him to the list and make it 7 of 12 who are draftable by the 9 win or better team.

On the other hand, if you take a look of all the QB's drafted between 2008-2012 in the 1st - 15th spot, here's what we got:

2008 - Ryan
2009 - Stafford, Sanchez
2010 - Bradford
2011 - Newton, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder
2012 - Luck, RGIII, Tannehill

From that list, I get only two QB's that are SB worthy.

I don't think we need to be an 8 win team or lower to get a SB worthy QB.

Eyrie
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jun 7 2015, 02:24 PM) *
So if I understand you, you would not do this deal unless Bradford hits the Pro Bowl which at that point you would be OK with giving up the 2nd round pick?

So if he makes the PB, then yes.

If he doesn't, then no because we gave up too much.

Your original post has a different scenario though to what happened before the draft, with the most important part being that the Rams are approaching us so there is no need for us to give up a valuable pick as well.

As regards the actual deal that took place, I do think that a straight second was too much and there should have been a sliding scale from our second to our fourth. However Kelly was the one making the enquiry to get Bradford (whether as a QB or as a trading piece) and so we had to pay a premium. With our luck Bradford will play on a par with Sanchez all season and we won't offer him a new deal, so that will be $13m and a second wasted. Mind you, if he does play at a ProBowl level here for the next 4-5 years, it'll be a steal.

Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jun 7 2015, 12:30 PM) *
I don't think the data supports the assumption that we have to be an 8-16 loss team to get in a spot to draft a top notch QB. Most years, last included, a nine win or more team drafts in spots 16-32 in a typical draft.

If I take a look at those QB's who are top 12, which is the group I think is good enough to win SB's, here is my ranking and their draft selection:

1. Rodgers - 24th
2. Brady - 199th
3. P. Manning - 1st
4. Brees - 32nd
5. Roethlisberger - 11th
6. Rivers - 4th
7. Romo - UDFA
8. Luck - 1st
9. Wilson - 75th
10. Ryan - 3rd
11. Flacco - 18th
12. E. Manning - 1st

6 of 12 are draftable in the slots 16 or lower. Also, Roethlisberger at #11 was reachable via a reasonable draft trade up, so you could add him to the list and make it 7 of 12 who are draftable by the 9 win or better team.

On the other hand, if you take a look of all the QB's drafted between 2008-2012 in the 1st - 15th spot, here's what we got:

2008 - Ryan
2009 - Stafford, Sanchez
2010 - Bradford
2011 - Newton, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder
2012 - Luck, RGIII, Tannehill

From that list, I get only two QB's that are SB worthy.

I don't think we need to be an 8 win team or lower to get a SB worthy QB.

I think that players like Wilson, Brady, Rogers and Brees are anomoles. The odds of those kinds of players being available, counting on that caliber player being available in a given year I would think would be pretty low. Also, there's the right place right time factor. Favre was there when Rogers was drafted, Brady played behind Bledsoe, Brees didn't do well in SD, Seattle had just signed Matt Flynn before Wilson. We could waste a lot of years waiting for another franchise QB and being almost good enough. That may end up being the case with Bradford, but I applaud the taking the risk.
nephillymike
Hey Z,

Since you just copied my post, does that mean you agree with me 100%?? biggrin.gif
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jun 7 2015, 06:26 PM) *
Hey Z,

Since you just copied my post, does that mean you agree with me 100%?? biggrin.gif
Sam Adams copied it, not me. laugh.gif
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Jun 7 2015, 05:27 PM) *
Sam Adams copied it, not me. laugh.gif



I had a flight of beers at Uno's yesterday:

1. Merry Monks
2. Mad Elf
3. Duclaw Dark IPA
4., Sam Adams Honey or something along those lines.

the first two are top notch.
the 3rd was a tolerable IPA for me. Not bad for this Non IPAer.
the 4th I would avoid. It was a mead beer which I think is old fashioned style from the 1500's or something. Not for me.

I was at the Hop Angel a few days ago and I had smething I had never heard of.

Kelso Nut Brown Ale. Very good. Would recommend it. I had two pints in a hurry and they were real good!! Couldn't find it at my craft brew store and it was rated just above average but I really thought it was a good find.

I got five in the fridge left to tackle this week:

Great Lakes Edmund Fitzgerald Porter
Great Lakes Christmas Ale
Great Lakes (some other style of porter that is new, name escapes me)
Yards Farmhouse Saison
Sam Adams Summer

What have you had lately? Any good finds?
Zero
It's been a boring couple of weeks for beer. Been real busy so I settled for a case of Summer Ale.
mcnabbulous
Guys, Jeff Fisher is hot garbage. He's had 6 winning seasons in 20 years as a head coach.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Zero @ Jun 8 2015, 04:47 AM) *
It's been a boring couple of weeks for beer. Been real busy so I settled for a case of Summer Ale.



The one I forgot the name of was

Great Lakes Alberta Clipper Porter.

Excellent beer. Has chocolate and raspberry hints in it that compliment well. Not too sweet like some chocolate porters.

Just right.

I imagine it is a limited edition so pick one up if you can.
Zero
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jun 8 2015, 06:48 AM) *
Guys, Jeff Fisher is hot garbage. He's had 6 winning seasons in 20 years as a head coach.

I think that's relevant but it's also a matter of dumping $13 mil of salary for a player you don't think can stay healthy. I'm not sure how Bradford's health issues played in that locker room either. Coming to a new home he has a fairly clean slate with the other players.

I'm also not sure what QBs are on the menu for next year's draft. If there's no one there that they have a realistic chance of getting, or that could be available to Kelly that shows promise, how long do they wait? They think Bradford can be really, really good in this offense if he's healthy. They have uber faith in their sports medicine program. They're not rushing him. For me, this is a risk worth taking.
mcnabbulous
I'm just saying, Chip knew exactly what he had in Foles and knew it wasn't good enough. That information alone makes the deal worth doing. He didn't want to go into yet another season with no real shot at a title.

The unknowns surrounding Bradford at least offer hope. Foles offered no such thing.

The Fisher argument is irrelevant. Could you imagine if Chip only had 4 winning seasons in his next 18? Fisher is a mediocre coach who has a track record of not knowing how to build a winner.
D Rock
Yup!

The trade was more about shipping Foles OUT than bringing Sam, or Marcus, or anyone else in.

Chip had seen enough of Nick Folian-Dynamite and knew if was time to try another avenue.

nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jun 8 2015, 08:22 AM) *
I'm just saying, Chip knew exactly what he had in Foles and knew it wasn't good enough. That information alone makes the deal worth doing. He didn't want to go into yet another season with no real shot at a title.

The unknowns surrounding Bradford at least offer hope. Foles offered no such thing.

The Fisher argument is irrelevant. Could you imagine if Chip only had 4 winning seasons in his next 18? Fisher is a mediocre coach who has a track record of not knowing how to build a winner.



Remember that Chip said that until late in the trade talk, Foles was not in the deal and he wanted to hold onto Nick Foles. He could be lying or maybe Chip wasn't as done with Foles as thought. Also, if he saw Bradford as a necessary piece to get Mariota, then what HE thinks of Bradford is less of an issue, especially if he thought he would keep Foles, than what the BROWNS thought of Bradford.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jun 8 2015, 05:48 AM) *
Guys, Jeff Fisher is hot garbage. He's had 6 winning seasons in 20 years as a head coach.



Had to look that up.

Didn't know it.

6 winning seasons
5 .500 seasons
9 losing seasons
162-147 career record.

I wouldn't call that garbage, but wouldn't say it was impressive given the amount of losing seasons.
Joegrane
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jun 6 2015, 11:15 PM) *
The one big variable that most aren't considering is that Foles sucks and Chip knows it, even if he has no idea what he'll get out of Bradford.

How can a guy with one of the all-time highest QB ratings in a season "suck"?

I understand that he had a excellent O Line, ProBowl WR and RB, excellent offensive minded coach and solid contributors elsewhere. If he sucked, he would have screwed up such a good thing.

I used to think that Foles' numbers were exaggerated only because defenses had to play bend-but-not- break out of respect for DJax. They then took their chances with the Eagles' mediocre Red Zone weapons; however, Foles' Red Zone numbers were also terrific!
http://www.wingheads.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=270757

Foles
Year....Cmp Pct...Pa TD Pct
2013.......70.3.....43.2

Peyton Manning
Year....Cmp Pct...Pa TD Pct
2012.......57.3.....32.9
2013......71.8.....33.6
2014.......65.7.....23.8

Tony Romo
Year....Cmp Pct...Pa TD Pct
2013.......58.7.....33.3
2014.......64........38

Tom Brady
Year....Cmp Pct...Pa TD Pct
2012.......60........29.6
2013.......50........24.1

Foles's 2013 numbers make Tom Brady look mediocre!
BirdsWinBaby
what was Foles in 2014?

thanks for playing
D Rock
QUOTE (BirdsWinBaby @ Jun 9 2015, 01:35 PM) *
what was Foles in 2014?

A deer in the headlights. His devolution was striking.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Jun 9 2015, 10:03 AM) *
A deer in the headlights. His devolution was striking.

He looked just about the same as he did in our playoff performance against NO. Everyone was in denial about how indecisive and mediocre he looked in that loss. 2014 was just more of the same.

Joegrane
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jun 9 2015, 11:14 AM) *
He looked just about the same as he did in our playoff performance against NO. Everyone was in denial about how indecisive and mediocre he looked in that loss. 2014 was just more of the same.

The eagles had the lead in the 4th Qt w/ 5min remaining. His stat line was not bad. His QB rating was over 100; however honestly I don't have a strong memory of how he looked. He was not facing a great defense.
http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=340104021
nephillymike
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Jun 9 2015, 07:45 PM) *
The eagles had the lead in the 4th Qt w/ 5min remaining. His stat line was not bad. His QB rating was over 100; however honestly I don't have a strong memory of how he looked. He was not facing a great defense.
http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=340104021



If Riley Cooper catches that pass, he runs for at least 40 yds, if not a 50 yd TD. Then his rating would have been 110 but still not good enough. If Jackson came back to the ball and helped his QB, it would have been better yet. But Jackson decided to pout because Foles didn't see him open earlier in the game. I think in that game that Foles' warts were shown. Had he been able to tackle Sproles on special teams without horse collaring him, then Foles wouldn't have needed to rely on loud mouthed can't cover for shit CB's to do his ST's job the right way and save a game losing penalty. Or maybe if he could cover WR's better than our can't cover for shit loud mouthed CB, then he would have been good enough. In his defense, I heard that the CB was practicing too hard and that his head coach was severely out coached throughout his tenure here.

To blame Foles for that loss is ridiculous.
mcnabbulous
Foles played scared that game. He didn't lose it for us, but he did nothing to make sure we would win it.

Cooper may have lost it for us.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jun 9 2015, 09:51 PM) *
In his defense, I heard that the CB was practicing too hard and that his head coach was severely out coached throughout his tenure here.

To blame Foles for that loss is ridiculous.

I guess you read the same quotes I did. A mouth that runs keeps running.

Foles wasn't the reason for the loss by any stretch. He's not here anymore because he wasn't able to put the team on his back and carry them to victory. That's not a knock on him, IMO. Kelly thinks a healthy Bradford is more equipped to do that. I guess it's our job to watch and see if he does.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Zero @ Jun 10 2015, 05:54 AM) *
I guess you read the same quotes I did. A mouth that runs keeps running.

Foles wasn't the reason for the loss by any stretch. He's not here anymore because he wasn't able to put the team on his back and carry them to victory. That's not a knock on him, IMO. Kelly thinks a healthy Bradford is more equipped to do that. I guess it's our job to watch and see if he does.

I disagree. I don't think this was about him carrying the team. This was about him failing to capitalize on opportunities and not making quick decisions.

This play, in my opinion, is a microcosm for why Nick Foles is no longer an Eagle.



Knocked us out of field goal range while taking a terrible sack because he was too tentative to get the ball out of his hands.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Jun 10 2015, 09:49 AM) *
I disagree. I don't think this was about him carrying the team. This was about him failing to capitalize on opportunities and not making quick decisions.

This play, in my opinion, is a microcosm for why Nick Foles is no longer an Eagle.



Knocked us out of field goal range while taking a terrible sack because he was too tentative to get the ball out of his hands.



On this play here, the guy at the 20 yard line ran the wrong route. (Can't tell who is who)

You want to force the deep corner to make a decision between the guy running the corner and the guy who was at the 20. Problem is, the guy at the 20 didn't run the route he should have which is designed to have the route ran with no other corner help, and only safety coverage. Him stopping near the twenty made that CB's decision real easy and he went with the corner route with no repercussions. The guy at the 20 should have been at the 10. My guess is Foles saw something he wasn't expecting and never looked back to the 20 until it was too late. Should he have seen it earlier? Maybe. But if the guy runs the correct route, it's safety one on one on the corner end zone for an easy TD, or if the CB goes there, it's a nice completion at the 10.
Joegrane
Truly an ugly play.

If the receiver near the 20 on the right side does not stand there with his hands in his jock but moves outside, he'd be the obvious target since he is single covered. Foles could also safely overthrow him to avoid the sack.

If he had another second he might have gotten off the throw into the back of the end zone.
mcnabbulous
Whatever the reasons/excuses, he caught us 3 points on this drive and these types of mistakes were prevalent during his time in Chip's offense. There is value in not turning the ball over, but the expense of his conservatism was too great.
Phits
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jun 10 2015, 08:49 PM) *
On this play here, the guy at the 20 yard line ran the wrong route. (Can't tell who is who)

That would be #25 > McCoy. Knowing this, it makes me question whether it was just supposed to be a quick out to McCoy and let him "shimmy and shake" his way to the end zone. The WR in the middle of the field had the block on the defender and McCoy would have had the CB one on one.
Zero
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jun 10 2015, 08:49 PM) *
On this play here, the guy at the 20 yard line ran the wrong route. (Can't tell who is who)

He was wide open and could have had a first down if Foles had thrown the ball.
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.