rgdeuce wrote:Reydituto wrote:
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).
The eagles had a great offensive line regardless of their injuries and I had seen this brought up before. I double checked my go to analysis site which measured the eagles O line as best in 2013 and second best in 2014. You don't need a great o-line in Kelly's system regardless.
I'm not ripping on Foles, it is great to have a big name game at a sexy NFL position from Arizona. I just do not think he is a top 15 quarterback in the league. There was A LOT of talk saying he was much more than that. And Sanchez was not the reason the Eagles missed the playoffs. If the Seahawks were the best team in the NFC last year, the Cowboys were not that far behind. Foles wouldn't have gotten that team past the Cowboys. I pointed out the Eagles easy schedule when Foles took over in 2013. His 2014 campaign wasn't that brutal either, tough games being at Indy (win), at san fran (loss), at Arizona (loss), 6-2 record. Sanchez was 4-4 but had to finish with at Green Bay, at Dallas, Seattle, Dallas, four tough games (caught Carolina before they got hot) and he finished with a better QBR than Foles did.
And you can still not be a great fit for an offense (I said the best fit i think) and benefit from the system. Kelly has historically made quarterbacks look great during his college career, think of all the guys that absolutely beasted at Oregon (even after he left) whose success there doesn't translate to success elsewhere, or guys not even being presented the opportunity because scouts know why they had success to begin with. I don't think Mariota would be all that great in the NFL, but I think he will be a pro-bowler if he ends up w the eagles.
I think Foles will be alright with the Rams. It is certainly an upgrade over what they have had in recent years taking into account their injury issues at QB. I just dont think he will be a huge upgrade. The Rams success is based on a power running game and defense. If Foles plays his lane and the playcalling limits his throws, I can see them improving and MAYBE contending for a playoff spot with some big breaks and the Cardinals health and luck failing. Foles needs to be an Alex Smith pre-Reid, with an advantage being he isn't completely scared out of his mind to throw a pass longer than 10 yards. Manage the game, be accurate with the short balls, and be able to take advantage of a big play action play when it presents itself. I think anything else though and he is going to get eaten alive in that division.
First, I'm not buying any analytics that says Philly was a Top 2 OL in the last two seasons. What site do you use? Show me.
Second, cite all the season-long stats you want, Johnson was suspended for the first 4 of Foles 8 starts, Kelce (played the game Foles got injured) and Mathis (played the next week with Sanchez) missed all but one game of Foles' 2014 season. There is NO WAY the Eagles OL was a Top 2 OL
while Foles was healthy with those three guys out. I watched 6 of Foles 8 games in 2014, and the OL was piecemeal at best while Foles was playing, and while they may have gotten healthy and improved during Sanchez's tenure, that doesn't mean Foles was playing behind a "great" OL. Maybe Sanchez was though, by the time they all got healthy (and only missed Herremans) - that only underscores my point about Foles.
Third, I think Foles is a Top 16 QB when healthy - now maybe that's 14th, 15th or 16th - which means he's average for an NFL starter with upside due to his youth. Whoever was saying he was Top 5 or Top 10, they're wrong - at least for now - but that's not my concern.
Fourth, Sanchez was as big a reason as anyone for the Eagles missing the playoffs. Does the Washington game ring any bells? His turnovers were catastrophic in that game (Foles beat Washington BTW). Dallas was a good football team (I watched every game they played), but not a great football team, and the Eagles split with them, including a boat race on Thanksgiving. Sanchez also had Washington, Tennessee, NY Giants, and the NFC South's
Creme De la Crap, Carolina. Cite QBR, cite passer rating, cite alleged scheduling discrepancies (last I checked, Indy went as far as Green Bay in the playoffs, and that Arizona team was as good as any in the NFL before Palmer's injury, so the schedules were on par with each other as far as I'm concerned), it doesn't prove your contention that Foles isn't the QB others think he is, or that Sanchez was any sort of upgrade when he folded like a cheap tent down the stretch - especially when in the same position the year before, Foles shined.
Fifth, what Kelly did in college against college competition has NO bearing on whether his system props up NFL QBs against NFL competition. That aside, you can't say Foles benefits from a "system" for which he is not a "great fit". That logic does not compute; Any system would benefit a QB that is a great fit for that system despite average overall ability, but if he's a less-than-great fit, that system wouldn't benefit him. So again, you're trying to have it both ways. Which is it? Choose: Foles benefits from a system he fits, or Foles is a good QB despite bad fit with the system? You can't have both. I choose good QB.
Sixth, I disagree with the idea that Foles has to just be a game manager, or the idea that is all he will ever become. Alex Smith is a bad analog for Foles, they are completely different quarterbacks, from their skill set to their approach. Maybe with the Rams this year, he'll have to do some of that, because the offensive personnel isn't up to par, but I believe if you put a good OL in front of him, surround him with a reliable rushing attack and a WR corps with at least one legitimate deep threat, he can actually win games for an NFL team, not just "not lose" them.
Finally, as far as that division goes, I think its best days are behind them from a cyclical perspective. I don't expect San Fran to bounce back, and Arizona has a ton of question marks. Seattle will still be Seattle, but St. Louis was frisky in that division last year with the crap they had to line up on offense. I expect them to be even friskier with Foles and some other offensive reinforcements.
Look, I think our assessments on him aren't diametrically opposed. I remember what you said on TOS and posted my disagreement with it then just as I do now. I just don't see the need to tear him down as much as you have. I think the Rams got the far better end of this deal. But as with all things, we shall see.
