Bear Down Wildcats

http://blogs.mcall.com/eagles/2014/07/l ... again.html

McCoy voiced some especially strong opinions about his quarterback, hinting that Nick Foles can actually improve upon last season's mind-boggling performace, which ended with him owning the best QB rating (101.1) and completion percentage (62.5) in team history and finishing with the finest TD to interception ratio (27-2) in NFL history.

"He’s at that peak where people know him like, `Man, this Foles, is he that good?' " McCoy said, "because you see the stats, you see the numbers. I think this is the year he blows them out like, `Yeah, I’m Nick Foles. I’m Philadelphia’s quarterback. I’m the guy.' And this is the year he blows it away."

Here's to Nick having another great year!

wyo-cat wrote:Here's to Nick having another great year!

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2014 ... _butt.html

The quarterback's Pro Bowl MVP performance capped a 27-touchdown, two-interception season and put him on the NFL map, credits his mother's influence and work ethic for shaping his career.

"My Mom, she can still kick my butt in anything," Foles admitted. "When you have your Mom kick your butt, you can't help but stay humble.

It's little surprise then that after being raised by such a strong willed, athletic woman as his mother, Foles eventually met a fellow athlete, Tori Moore, whom he met while at the University of Arizona.

Don't tell RichRod, he might off Mrs. Foles a QB scholie too.

Just threw an INT to my Bears.

I am quite conflicted about this...

Make that 2 INTs.

Maybe the Bears D is back

It's preseason

538 on Nick Foles and the Eagles: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/201 ... -nfc-east/

Alieberman wrote:Make that 2 INTs.

Maybe the Bears D is back

Seattle says "Hi!"



As for Foles, I heard he looked good vs. the Steelers.

I'm not worried about Foles.

I am worried about the Bears.

Gamer.

And as defended in TOS's thread with the same title...

Foles>>>>>>>>>Luck. Now we have the head to head to prove it.

Bear Down NICK!

Luck is a better QB...

Foles has the benefit of an excellent offensive line. He had all the time in the world and still missed several open receivers.

Foles is a very good QB. But Luck may be the best in the league.

(I am biased though, Luck is on my fantasy team!)

Foles is just unflappable, nothing seems to bother him. He seems almost like he doesn't care about the outcome sometimes. Hate to put this comparison out there, but that quality reminds me of Joe Montana.

Happy for him.

(Especially because he's on MY fantasy team! )

If you're an Arizona fan how do you not draft Foles? But he doesn't get rattled and that's probably his best quality.

As Chicat said, the board contrarian. I am not sure how the stats in the NFL prove that. So far other then Luck's record in close games (which Foles just beat him head to head with Luck being at by home) Foles has outperformed Mr. Luck

Salty wrote:Luck is a better QB...

Foles has the benefit of an excellent offensive line. He had all the time in the world and still missed several open receivers.

Foles is a very good QB. But Luck may be the best in the league.

(I am biased though, Luck is on my fantasy team!)

Horsesh*t, and I have to wake up in 5 hours so I'm not going to take the time to debunk you.

Foles has a higher QBR when adjusted for games played vs Luck last year.

But given your mentality, you'd fall for the tripe ESPN sports center serves up about Luck being the best eva.

azcat49 wrote:As Chicat said, the board contrarian. I am not sure how the stats in the NFL prove that. So far other then Luck's record in close games (which Foles just beat him head to head with Luck being at by home) Foles has outperformed Mr. Luck

This.

I had these all in the other thread. Especially when you adjust for games play, which Foles has about 5 less.

Again Salty, being Salty, which is synonymous with ignorant prick.

Foles has the better completion percentage (62.9% to 55.4%), touchdown-to-interception ratio (5.0 to 1.3), and yards per pass attempt (8.4 to 6.4) than Luck.

and this...

http://rotoviz.com/2014/04/has-nick-fol ... drew-luck/

Lastly to echo the Montana allusion...Foles is a gamer. brass balls. ice in veins. I'll take that over Luck any day.

CalStateTempe wrote:

azcat49 wrote:As Chicat said, the board contrarian. I am not sure how the stats in the NFL prove that. So far other then Luck's record in close games (which Foles just beat him head to head with Luck being at by home) Foles has outperformed Mr. Luck

This.

I had these all in the other thread. Especially when you adjust for games play, which Foles has about 5 less.

Again Salty, being Salty, which is synonymous with ignorant prick.

Seriously, Luck hasn't done anything to even be considered one of the 10 best in the NFL yet. If I needed to win a game there's at least 10 QB's I'd take before Luck right now. He has the potential, but why do his coaches run a run first offense instead of a spread like many of the other elite QB's?

Lando05 wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:

azcat49 wrote:As Chicat said, the board contrarian. I am not sure how the stats in the NFL prove that. So far other then Luck's record in close games (which Foles just beat him head to head with Luck being at by home) Foles has outperformed Mr. Luck

This.

I had these all in the other thread. Especially when you adjust for games play, which Foles has about 5 less.

Again Salty, being Salty, which is synonymous with ignorant prick.

Seriously, Luck hasn't done anything to even be considered one of the 10 best in the NFL yet. If I needed to win a game there's at least 10 QB's I'd take before Luck right now. He has the potential, but why do his coaches run a run first offense instead of a spread like many of the other elite QB's?

Statistically Foles is better but c'mon...luck has 11 game winning or comeback drives. If you want a guy that will win for you late Luck has to be up there

ASUHATER! wrote:

Lando05 wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:

azcat49 wrote:As Chicat said, the board contrarian. I am not sure how the stats in the NFL prove that. So far other then Luck's record in close games (which Foles just beat him head to head with Luck being at by home) Foles has outperformed Mr. Luck

This.

I had these all in the other thread. Especially when you adjust for games play, which Foles has about 5 less.

Again Salty, being Salty, which is synonymous with ignorant prick.

Seriously, Luck hasn't done anything to even be considered one of the 10 best in the NFL yet. If I needed to win a game there's at least 10 QB's I'd take before Luck right now. He has the potential, but why do his coaches run a run first offense instead of a spread like many of the other elite QB's?

Statistically Foles is better but c'mon...luck has 11 game winning or comeback drives. If you want a guy that will win for you late Luck has to be up there

Don't get me wrong, Luck is one of the better young QB's, but to start anointing him and saying he's in the discussion for best QB in football to me is so premature. His potential is up there, but he has yet to reach it or prove that imo. Foles has played great and comparably to Luck since he took over as the starter imo. Let's not forget how many 4th quarter comebacks Foles had U of A and he now has another tonight. I still think Luck's ceiling is higher than Foles overall, but to say he's already in the same tier as Rogers, Manning, Brady, Brees is laughable. Maybe after this season Luck will be, but he still has a lot to prove.

The issue for Luck is that he's walking in Peyton Manning's cleats.

Luckily for Foles he's not replacing a legend and can just be himself.

Luck will be remembered as a great college QB that could never quite live up to expectations.

ESPN loves them some college QB, now in the NFL, idolatry.

The sooner he gets out of philly the better:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/ ... ise-qb-nfl

Screw ESPN too.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11517 ... ns-mystery

"He's got talent," said an NFC defensive coordinator whose team will face the Eagles later this season. "He's big. He doesn't make a lot of mistakes. But for as fast as they like to run, he doesn't always make the quickest decisions."

Did nobody scout Nick Foles at Arizona? He had the same hesitance in college, all four years.

It doesn't seem like Greg Cosell did, anyway, because Nick never needed the system to help him win games at Arizona. If anything, he was held back by Stoops' system.

Foles took so many licks in this game, and he just kept his composure and led Philadelphia strong. Another 3-0 Bird Gang.

Zona_Soccer10 wrote:Foles took so many licks in this game, and he just kept his composure and led Philadelphia strong. Another 3-0 Bird Gang.

I thought his resiliency was awesome yesterday - a tough, gutty performance!!!

Buzz Bissinger looks like an even bigger saggy labia on this Monday morning.

Tim Hassellbeck was on the Herd defending Foles because Colin is a dumb ass.

I don't even know why you'd have to defend Foles. His numbers and record speak for themselves. Anyone trying to argue against what he's shown so far is just entrenched in their own stupidity.

I was about to drive off the road this am listening to mike and mike. Those guys make me so irate.

All Foles does is win. Mike stoops learned that the hard way. So will luck's cheerleaders and the espn fan boys.

What negative is being said about Foles?

And after yesterday's game?

I don't mean to pile on here, but this Foles vs. Luck debate isn't a real debate.

Rumors that Nick may be done for the season with a broken clavicle. Had one TD pass and one pick-six before he left the game.

Shit

Poor guy.

Didn't take Sanchez long but Foles has one for the highlight reel.

Sucks for Nick, but maybe this will be the turn of events that sends him to a team that I could actually root for.

CalStateTempe wrote:Sucks for Nick, but maybe this will be the turn of events that sends him to a team that I could actually root for.

Getting him out of Philly would be awesome, though losing the rest of the season to injury sure does suck.

I think you guys will probably get your wish. I don't see Chip sticking with Foles after he's done playing out his contract. I think he believes 100% that he can make his offense work with any halfway decent quarterback that can pick up the system. I also think he wants a qb who can pick up some yards with his legs if the option is there. And let's face it, when Foles takes off, he looks like he's running in clown shoes.

What the hell is Chip Kelly doing?

He knows what Foles is..

I'll keep my mouth shut after that to avoid the roasting (though I turned out to be right) I got on the TOS re: Foles.

Considering Bradford can't stay healthy that's not a smart move.

rgdeuce wrote:He knows what Foles is..

I'll keep my mouth shut after that to avoid the roasting (though I turned out to be right) I got on the TOS re: Foles.

Which is? Refresh my memory.


Thank god Foles is out of that hell hole. Now I can cheer him out without having. To root for the eagles.

rgdeuce wrote:He knows what Foles is..

I'll keep my mouth shut after that to avoid the roasting (though I turned out to be right) I got on the TOS re: Foles.

I am curious too. I don't follow the NFL, but if the Rams do move to LA I might have to watch some pro football.

Somewhat sugarcoating it (again, I know the love for this kid): Not the best man for that offense. A guy who is an average NFL quarterback and would appear as such in most of all of the other offenses in the league. His amazing run in his breakout season was largely attributed to him being a pretty accurate and competent qb in Kelly's new system, the NFL not being ready for it, and having some very nice weapons around him. He got every ball in that season just about to bounce his way and the eagles finished that season against a soft schedule in a bad division. I also don't like him in big games (Holiday bowl and the playoff loss to the saints, though I will give him the benefit of inexperience in the latter).

He wasn't brutal last year before he went down, but I watched all of his games and it was apparent the novelty was wearing off, people had watched film, and the magic run was over. I think Foles was good enough to make the Eagles playoff contenders most years, but they aren't getting the most out of that offense with him and I think there are a large amount of qb's who could do the same. Barring that end to Sanchez's season, Sanchez went from the butt of jokes to a pretty solid qb and had solid numbers. It was as good as Foles was that year, though obviously not like foles the year before. There is a reason why a guy put up those numbers and the team has not been 100 percent sold on him and was actively looking to move him and it is not just because the dude cant run.

Just my take though.

Edit: I said all that before the start of last season, so at the time people hadn't seen the "human" Foles so I could see why people thought i was nuts and ripped my balls off

rgdeuce wrote:Somewhat sugarcoating it (again, I know the love for this kid): Not the best man for that offense. A guy who is an average NFL quarterback and would appear as such in most of all of the other offenses in the league. His amazing run in his breakout season was largely attributed to him being a pretty accurate and competent qb in Kelly's new system, the NFL not being ready for it, and having some very nice weapons around him. He got every ball in that season just about to bounce his way and the eagles finished that season against a soft schedule in a bad division. I also don't like him in big games (Holiday bowl and the playoff loss to the saints, though I will give him the benefit of inexperience in the latter).

He wasn't brutal last year before he went down, but I watched all of his games and it was apparent the novelty was wearing off, people had watched film, and the magic run was over. I think Foles was good enough to make the Eagles playoff contenders most years, but they aren't getting the most out of that offense with him and I think there are a large amount of qb's who could do the same. Barring that end to Sanchez's season, Sanchez went from the butt of jokes to a pretty solid qb and had solid numbers. It was as good as Foles was that year, though obviously not like foles the year before. There is a reason why a guy put up those numbers and the team has not been 100 percent sold on him and was actively looking to move him and it is not just because the dude cant run.

Just my take though.

Edit: I said all that before the start of last season, so at the time people hadn't seen the "human" Foles so I could see why people thought i was nuts and ripped my balls off

Sanchez's stretch run was much worse than either of Foles' tenures and directly led to the Eagles missing the playoffs. I would also point out that Foles never benefitted from a healthy (or capable, some would argue) Eagles' OL.

I think in the right system, with good pieces around him, that Foles can take a team deep into the playoffs, and that he's a better QB than you think Deuce. I am not convinced the Rams provide all of that. But I find it odd that on one hand, people can say Chip Kelly's system was responsible for Foles' success, and out of the other side of their mouths say Foles wasn't a "good fit" for Kelly's system. Can't really have it both ways. Either he was a good QB despite being a bad fit, or he was a better fit for a system that amplified his skills than some would actually admit, despite not being that good a QB on the whole (which I think is a much less tenable position).

Add the fact that the Eagles' defense has been atrocious for Nick Foles' tenure. I don't know if he can flourish in the Rams' system but I thought that that team had really improved and just really needed a workable qb which is what Foles is.