Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, September 09, 2017

OT - 2017 NFL thread

Free agent NFL cornerback Antonio Cromartie and his wife Terricka announced the birth of baby girl Jhett Paxton, born Aug. 30.

This is the couple’s sixth child, and it is Cromartie’s fourteenth. By our count, it is his third child since (supposedly) having a vasectomy during his tenure with the New York Jets in 2013.

Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: September 09, 2017 at 12:36 AM | 2080 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nfl, off-topic

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 16 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›
   1501. McCoy Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:28 PM (#5610671)
Nope, in terms of wentz
   1502. SteveF Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:28 PM (#5610672)
I haven't followed the Eagles at all. Is there any chance that Wentz could be ready to return to the active roster in 2 weeks?

His projected recovery time is 9-12 months.

Edit: Well, 8-11 months now.
   1503. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:29 PM (#5610673)
[1498] No, torn ACL is a five month or more injury.
   1504. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:31 PM (#5610674)
I haven't followed the Eagles at all. Is there any chance that Wentz could be ready to return to the active roster in 2 weeks?

A full ACL tear in under 2 months? None whatsoever.

ETA: Several vodka & cokes.
   1505. Tony S Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:31 PM (#5610675)
If you're a Patriots fan, your team has a chance of winning its sixth super bowl, which would tie it with the Steelers for the most ever. I'd be excited, too.

The Vikings just look awful tonight, on both sides of the ball. I would not have guessed earlier this week that the Jags-Pats game would be the competitive one.
   1506. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:32 PM (#5610676)
I probably asked this last year, but I really wonder what it's like to be a Pats fan? If a team I followed won this many championships, I know I'd get bored with it. I'm sure I'd still enjoy it somewhat but there's no way it's that moving for people still. Is it?


Fans of dynastic teams are endlessly able to delude themselves into genuinely believing that this year their team is a long shot to win. Year after year. Never mind that in football (Patriots), basketball (Heat and then Warriors) and hockey (Penguins) the same team is the preseason favorite in Vegas betting to win the championship almost literally every year. And of course the same was true in baseball (Yankees) from about 1996 through 2010.
   1507. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:34 PM (#5610679)
I'll never have the luxury to find out, but I just don't think I'd be that excited still. I'm sure I'd still enjoy it, but not the same way I'd have enjoyed the first title. Or first two even.

But I guess it does suck you in. I'm a Lions fan and I remember talking to a Patriots fan who made it sound like losing the Super Bowl to go 18-1 was this uber-painful sports experience. He wasn't making it up and he isn't an overly insane person as sports fans go. It sounded like nonsense to me, but I guess I couldn't relate.
   1508. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:36 PM (#5610680)
I take it you're not also a Red Wings fan, or you'd remember exactly what it's like. :)
   1509. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:39 PM (#5610683)
I take it you're not also a Red Wings fan, or you'd remember exactly what it's like. :)


I liked following hockey when I was younger and at the beginning of their run. I guess since you point it out I certainly was less excited by the second Cup than the first. The first one felt very big, because they hadn't won a Cup in decades, and because they had been good for several years before but always came up short. That feeling wasn't there a year later. I did really stop being into hockey, though, so maybe that was happening at the same time and played into it.
   1510. zenbitz Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:52 PM (#5610690)
RAY WUZ RITE!
   1511. zenbitz Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:57 PM (#5610691)
I have been a 49ers and SF Giants fan all my life. I can tell you during the glory years of the Niners, it never got old. Surprisingly, since the Giants have won 3 WS, it becomes *much* easier to ignore their recent fails and flobbers.

Jeeze are the Eagles going to score 75 on New England?
   1512. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:58 PM (#5610692)
No beats missed tonight, at least.
   1513. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:07 PM (#5610697)
RAY WUZ RITE!

He hasn't stood this tall since the end of the 2008 ALCS, when he ruled over Vegas like a monarch.

Me, I'm glad I decided to record Absence of Malice rather than endure the second half of this farce.
   1514. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:16 PM (#5610699)
Every Super Bowl featuring New England in the Brady era has been a one possession game, including 3 where the winning score came in the last 5 seconds of the game. Doesn’t mean the trend will continue, but I expect a competitive Super Bowl.
   1515. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:49 PM (#5610713)
In retrospect, perhaps it would have been better for everyone had Marcus Williams remembered how to make a tackle.
   1516. Howie Menckel Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:57 PM (#5610716)
I'll try to remember this one the next time I say something really dumb (which should happen soon enough)

376. Howie Menckel Posted: December 10, 2017 at 09:41 PM (#5589807)
Foles once led the league in passer rating and has a career 88.2.

Eli never was higher than 7th and is at 83.8 career.

so Foles would need even less Aura and Mystique than Eli to carry the Eagles to the title.
;)

more seriously, good on the Eagles for not having as their backup a rookie from Bumfock A&M or a 32-year-old lifelong backup who hasn't taken an NFL snap in 3-4 years.
   1517. Voodoo Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:19 PM (#5610724)
Y'all wont, but y'all should give Ray Ray mad credit...
   1518. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:48 PM (#5610731)
Y'all wont, but y'all should give Ray Ray mad credit...


He played a great game, and they can never take that away from him.

And seeing Foles in the Super Bowl after Wentz went down was not high on their list.

Memory lane:

1181. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 14, 2018 at 09:43 PM (#5606489)
Pretty confident Foles can beat Keenum to go to the Super Bowl, at which point all bets are off.

Foles leading the Eagles to the championship is now within sight.



1185. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 14, 2018 at 10:58 PM (#5606495)
Patriots opening at -9.5, Vikings at -3.5

Yeah, I like both favorites. I think the Jags have a chance though, and I don't think the Steelers would have.

I really like the Vikings chances, I think the last second victory really shook loose the team from a dismal second half. I expect them to play much looser and with more confidence and to destroy the Foles and the Eagles.

The Saints are a way better team than the Eagles.


1214. don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all Posted: January 15, 2018 at 11:29 AM (#5606600)
Stiggles with the attempt at the reverse jinx. You know that only works if you believe it in your heart of hearts!

it's not a reverse jinx. i don't think the eagles can win.


1314. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 16, 2018 at 11:05 PM (#5607789)

The Eagles are worse with Foles at the helm. Everyone knows this


I don't. I expect him to win this weekend and while I'd obviously take Brady over Foles every time, I'd be happy to go to war with Foles even against Brady.

and the Vegas odds reflect it.


What we're seeing is that the Eagles are shooting themselves in the foot by changing the game plan with Foles as the starter. That's suboptimal to say the least but Foles can still find guys open deep if they're there and if the Eagles aren't winning as the game unfolds there's a greater chance they'll need to let Foles try to win it.


1326. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:25 AM (#5610355)
Mine:

Jaguars 21, Patriots 17
Vikings 30, Eagles 7


1327. bunyon Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:18 AM (#5610362)
Jags 27 Pats 21
Vikings 44 Eagles 2


1332. Nasty Nate Posted: January 21, 2018 at 02:47 PM (#5610421)
I predict 17-13 in the AFC Championship and Vikings beat Philly 31-10.


1464. McCoy Posted: January 21, 2018 at 06:48 PM (#5610604)
Eagles are toast


1478. McCoy Posted: January 21, 2018 at 07:57 PM (#5610637)
Credit that touchdown to the offensive line


1488. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:10 PM (#5610651)
The only thing that surprises me is that the coaching staff took the reins off of Foles and has allowed him to throw deep which has opened up the whole field for him. He's good with the deep ball.
   1519. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:06 PM (#5610737)
Nice selective quotes to make it sound like everyone was dismissing the Eagles. Figures that you didn't quote either of these:

1324. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: January 20, 2018 at 08:52 PM (#5610285)
Predictions, because why not?:

Patriots 35, Jaguars 10
Eagles 22, Vikings 20


1451. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 21, 2018 at 06:14 PM (#5610588)
Ok, I’ll bite on the predictions for this one. This will be the day Keenum’s pixie dust wears off. Eagles 21 Vikings 13


Yeah, nobody had the Eagles routing the Vikings like they did, but it's not like everyone was counting them out. But since you're a troll, facts don't matter.
   1520. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:16 PM (#5610739)
I probably asked this last year, but I really wonder what it's like to be a Pats fan? If a team I followed won this many championships, I know I'd get bored with it. I'm sure I'd still enjoy it somewhat but there's no way it's that moving for people still. Is it?


I was a 49ers fan first, then a Patriots fan, so I've seen my teams win 8 Superbowls. It doesn't get old, though you do tell yourself it doesn't matter if they lose because they've won enough already. Nevertheless, I had to turn off the game for a bit today to try and change the Pats mojo -- I turned it off right after the failure on 2nd and 18 knowing that was the only way to ensure the Patriots would convert. It worked, too!

Nothing will beat Superbowl 36, though.
   1521. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:18 PM (#5610740)
Nice selective quotes to make it sound like everyone was dismissing the Eagles.


Not everyone dismissed the Eagles but everyone other than me did dismiss Foles. They thought that if the Eagles won it would be a close game where the rest of the team essentially won the game for him. Nobody other than me thought he had this game in him.
   1522. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:54 PM (#5610741)
I was a 49ers fan first, then a Patriots fan, so I've seen my teams win 8 Superbowls.


Wow, did you used to root for the Lakers and then switch to the Warriors later, too?
   1523. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:02 AM (#5610745)
Patriots are opening as 6.5 point favorites. If I bet on sports, I'd take the points.
   1524. Voodoo Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:11 AM (#5610746)
Nice selective quotes to make it sound like everyone was dismissing the Eagles. Figures that you didn't quote either of these:


Come on. Everyone in this thread was leaving the Eagles for dead since Wentz went out. Don't be a dick and fail to recognize when the other dick was right.

   1525. zenbitz Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:40 AM (#5610747)
I actually didn't totally dismiss Foles. He *does* have a really, really good year to his credit. I would certainly rather have Foles than Blake Bortles.

He's just played really poorly prior to the playoffs this year, and really hasn't done much since the Chip Kelly Eagles Special. Possibly the PHL coaching staff kept him under wraps since they pretty handily locked up home field.

FO has already said "someone is going to go all Jeff Hostetler" on these playoffs... guess it has to be Foles.

I definitely take the Eagles and points in the SB. Mostly because f the patriots.
   1526. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 01:07 AM (#5610749)

Wow, did you used to root for the Lakers and then switch to the Warriors later, too?


No, I came to football late -- Nebraska doesn't have a team and I hated the Broncos, so I picked the 49ers as they were on national TV a lot and they had two prominent ex-Nebraska players: Roger Craig and Tom Rathman.

I moved to Boston for college when the Patriots went 1-15. They were as bad as the Browns, maybe worse -- I remember Victor Kiam, the Lisa Olsen affair; they were the saddest sack of franchises.

In short: hire me to root for your franchise.
   1527. bunyon Posted: January 22, 2018 at 06:58 AM (#5610756)
I have no problem acknowleding that I missed badly on the NFC game. I expected it to be non-competitive but in the other direction.

Figured the Jags would play the Pats closer than folks thought and thought they had a puncher's chance. Ah, well. At the point, you have to conclude the Pats are better in close games.

Hanging my hat now on the Pats being ofer against the NFC East in Super Bowls. It's a thin reed.
   1528. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 07:07 AM (#5610757)
Wow, did you used to root for the Lakers and then switch to the Warriors later, too?

No, I came to football late -- Nebraska doesn't have a team and I hated the Broncos, so I picked the 49ers as they were on national TV a lot and they had two prominent ex-Nebraska players: Roger Craig and Tom Rathman.

Once you get past those who will only root for the teams in the places they grew up in or in the places they currently live, there are a zillion reasons why people root for some teams and not for others that have little to do with just rooting for front runners.

This year's NFL is a perfect example. When the only team I really like (the Ravens) went down, it came down to wanting to see the best possible Super Bowl, but even there that was subject to change from week to week. Before yesterday's games, I wanted the Vikings to win because I thought they'd have the best chance of beating the Patriots. But after yesterday, I'm now a temporary Eagles fan, even though in the NFC East I really only like the Giants.

OTOH last year I rooted for the Patriots in the Super Bowl because I can't stand anything that comes out of the city of Atlanta, even if I don't have anything in particular against the Falcons. And I'd root for a North Korean team over the Broncos, because I blew a hundred bucks betting on the Orange Crush against Dallas 40 years ago, because I hated Elway for not signing with the Baltimore Colts,** because Peyton Manning makes those historically horrific commercials, and because they were the first team to have truly ugly uniforms.

Bottom line is that rooting interests aren't all that easy to pin down. Once you get past the basics, and once your "real" team is out of the picture in any given season, there are always going to be a certain number of Newman/Jerry alliances.

** If he'd stiffed Indianapolis I wouldn't have held it against him.
   1529. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 07:09 AM (#5610758)
Hanging my hat now on the Pats being ofer against the NFC East in Super Bowls. It's a thin reed.

They already beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl 13 years ago.
   1530. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 07:40 AM (#5610761)
Once again Ray shows that he is simply a parody account.
   1531. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 07:52 AM (#5610763)
Taking Foles out of this a second. The eagles limited the Vikings to 7 points. Their defense got three turnovers that either let directly to points for the Eagles or stopped the Vikings within the red zone. They also had 2 forth down stands that kept points of the board as well.

So yeah, the view that the eagles could have won this game with a worse QB is correct. Fortunately for the eagles and their fans they didn't have a bad QB. By my reckoning the eagles defense put 7 points on the board and kept at least 12 points off the board. They could have very well won this game 31-27 or even lost this game 34-31.

Foles played well, the eagles defense played great, and the Vikings on both sides of the ball played lousy.
   1532. Lassus Posted: January 22, 2018 at 08:02 AM (#5610765)
I wonder if there were people who really didn't care about baseball at all yet still enjoyed the Yankees winning, based on how much everyone whined about them winning.

Because that's basically me with the Patriots.
   1533. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 22, 2018 at 08:15 AM (#5610766)
   1534. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 08:26 AM (#5610767)
I wonder if there were people who really didn't care about baseball at all yet still enjoyed the Yankees winning, based on how much everyone whined about them winning.

Because that's basically me with the Patriots.


Deflategate almost made me root for the Patriots in their Super Bowl against Seattle. That had to have been the phoniest "scandal" in history.
   1535. bunyon Posted: January 22, 2018 at 08:41 AM (#5610768)
They already beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl 13 years ago.

Huh. But I can tell you all about the Super Bowls of the 70s.
   1536. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:11 AM (#5610774)
They already beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl 13 years ago.

Huh. But I can tell you all about the Super Bowls of the 70s.


Is that all?
   1537. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:11 AM (#5610775)
When Wentz still went down I wrote in this thread that, though I wouldn't bet on it, it's possible the Eagles could win two playoff games at home with Foles; they're really good even besides Wentz and home field matters. But I switched to assuming the Falcons would have a second round bye after Foles played terribly in the last two regular season games. That was a foolish mistake, not to expect Foles to play much better after having a full month of practice with the first string under his belt.

The Eagles are the Jaguars but better, in almost every way. I'm tempted to take the points but probably won't bet on this game--not super comfortable betting against Belichick. But if the Patriots aren't able to get a quick 10 point lead and make the Eagles abandon the run, they're in trouble. The Eagles kicked the Vikings' asses up front, and the Vikings are a strong team up front; the Patriots are very soft there.

The Eagles moneyline at +215 is profitable if you think they have a better than 1-in-3 chance to win. I do think they have right about a 1-in-3 chance to win, so no profit there.
   1538. Ithaca2323 Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:35 AM (#5610787)
Re: Foles

Ray's right, most of this thread was really down on Foles' ability to carry the Eagles to a win.

But in fairness, that also pretty much describes the divisional round game, where the Eagles scored 15 points, three of which were gifted to them after Keanu Neal's butchered interception—which may have also cost Atlanta points depending on the return.

At the end of the day, the Eagles defense has played well enough to make this a largely moot point, though they're obviously facing a tougher QB
   1539. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:02 AM (#5610802)
Once again Ray shows that he is simply a parody account.


Says the guy who has become such a parody that when he wrote that the Eagles were "toast" after going down 7-0 it was virtually impossible to tell he was "joking."
   1540. Nasty Nate Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:10 AM (#5610806)
There were some interesting Pats plays. Early, they did a funky little end-around to Burkhead. Later on, there was the double pass. I don't recall them ever doing this specific one before. The second toss went forward. I couldn't tell if Amendola had downfield options in addition to keeping it or throwing it back. It's a risky play, but it was the appropriate time to take chances. And then after the Jags did a flea-flicker, the Patriots also did one - and the Eagles later on.

And on the punt return, can someone confirm that there was a kind of trick play? When the punt was in the air, Amendola waved his hands around at his waist - this is what the Pats do when the returner is not going to catch the punt and he's signalling (and yelling) at his teammates to get out of the way so the bounce doesn't hit them and become a fumble. But he did catch and return it. Was the signalling intentional in order to fool the Jaguars coverage team?
   1541. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:26 AM (#5610813)
Yes, by all means assume I was serious about that comment 5 minutes into a game. Keep showing the world just how far you are on the spectrum.
   1542. jmurph Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:54 AM (#5610829)
Catching up on this thread and it's weirdly antagonistic considering most people posting aren't fans of the any of the four teams that played yesterday. Reign it in, people!
   1543. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5610836)
Yes, by all means assume I was serious about that comment 5 minutes into a game. Keep showing the world just how far you are on the spectrum.


You probably thought the Eagles were toast before the game started, so I doubt that giving up an opening TD did anything but cement that notion.

You've given Foles next to zero credit for anything good that's happened to the team with him at quarterback.

Above in 1531 you try to discredit him again, but since no reasonable person can dispute that he had a great game you're forced to say he played "well" -- relatively faint praise next to your next breath which is that the Eagles' defense played "great." The entire tenor of 1531 is to discredit him.

Do you think your previous posts on this matter can't be looked up?

1308. McCoy Posted: January 16, 2018 at 09:30 PM (#5607756)
Well let's not carried away here. The eagles barely beat the Giants. A 3-13 team. Barely beat the raiders at 6-10 team that lost its last for games and 5 of its last 7 games and then got shut out by the cowboys who went 9-7 because of that game. In the playoffs they fortunately had a bye and they barely squeaked by the Falcons only because the falcons did their usual carp the bed. Foles from the beginning do not get the eagles to 13-3. They probably get something like 4 to 6 wins with him at QB


1316. McCoy Posted: January 17, 2018 at 11:35 AM (#5607989)
Folks -- you can't give Foles zero credit for his 3-1 record as the Eagles starter this year including the playoff win against a Falcons team that was favored in the game despite being on the road, and at the same time say that he's only good for 4-6 wins on the season. If the Eagles carried him to 3-1 then it doesn't make sense to at the same time say that they could "only" get him 4-6 wins during the regular season. It's a logically inconsistent argument.

Sounds like the Tim Tebow argument

Week 3, 4 and 5 would probably be losses with Foles. Week 6 they beat the Redskins by 10 but Wentz throws 4 TD and the Eagles don't really have a rushing game going. Foles would probably lose this one if he puts up anything less than 23 points. You then have the blowout. They still allow 23 points and Wentz throws 4 TD. I would say Foles still wins this one. Week 11 and 12 probably go down as wins because the defense refuses to allow points. Week 14 is probably a loss.

So being most generous to the Eagles they would have gone 8-8. Like I said I think that is generous. Foles hasn't been a very good QB this year or really any other year besides his surprise year many years ago. He knows it himself. He almost retired and heading into the playoff game he readily admitted that he had to play a lot better for the Eagles and that his 3 regular season games were subpar.
   1544. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:07 AM (#5610841)
So 4 to 6 wins this year with Foles at quarterback was your estimation -- even AFTER they had already gone 3-1 with him. Then being "most generous" to the Eagles you say 8-8.

Meanwhile here's what I wrote a month ago:

503. Ray (RDP) <="" a=""> Posted: December 19, 2017 at 11:25 AM (#5594975)
Oh. So that comment about the Eagles not missing a beat referred solely to their game against the Giants, and if Foles bombs the rest of the season and the Eagles wash out early in the playoffs, you'll still have been right?

OK. I guess I just didn't understand your original statement.

Sigh. No, the phrase "not missing a beat" means that the Eagles won't feel the difference after replacing Wentz with Foles. This means that they'll go 3-1 or 4-0 in their next four games or whatever.

Look: Foles played well. If people want to dispute that -- I guess they do -- go ahead.


Turns out that the Eagles have gone 4-1 under Foles, including two playoff games in which they were underdogs at home.

But according to your learned "wisdom" they'd only have gone anywhere from 4-12 to 8-8 on the outside. Sure.
   1545. jmurph Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:25 AM (#5610853)
The Eagles are the Jaguars but better, in almost every way. I'm tempted to take the points but probably won't bet on this game--not super comfortable betting against Belichick. But if the Patriots aren't able to get a quick 10 point lead and make the Eagles abandon the run, they're in trouble. The Eagles kicked the Vikings' asses up front, and the Vikings are a strong team up front; the Patriots are very soft there.

The quibble I'd raise here is that Jacksonville had a much, much better passing defense than Philly had, on the year. Schedule, etc., but even if you adjust for those things, Football Outsiders has them as 1st and 7th, respectively, against the pass (that's through last week's games).

New England obviously struggled with a lot of things defensively this year, given the lack of a pass rush. But my sense is that they are generally successful in finding ways to gameplan around that. If they think they can key in on limiting the deep ball, for instance, they might be able to find a way to do that. The secondary has also seemed to play much better over the last half of the year than they did in the beginning.
   1546. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5610858)
What does any of that have to do with a joke post 5 minutes into the game? Take your meds. I wasn’t being serious. But again, so what? I mean do you think this is a feather in your cap if you can add one more person to the list that lined up incorrectly against your predictions? You honestly think that anybody on this board views your opinions with more authority because you’re on the right side in this particular case?

You’re like rest of us, you’ve got a coin flip of a chance of being right. Congratulations.


This game was without a doubt Foles best game of the year and he performed very well when judged against any other QB in a single game. He was also pretty mediocre to lousy in the 4 other games he played this year.

The defense in this game was truly great. They put points on the board and prevented a significant amount of points from being scored on them.
   1547. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM (#5610869)
The Eagles defense made a great play early for a pick 6. (IIRC it was after the Smith dropped a deep ball that Foles had put on the money - but it happens. Foles did make his one bad throw of the game on that same drive when he rolled to his right and missed a wide open receiver, leading the receiver too close to the sideline.)

After that, the cliche of the best defense being a good offense clicked in, as Foles led the team to score after score which then allowed the Eagles' defense to do different things and it forced the Vikings offense to change their game plan.

So to give Foles zero credit for the good Eagles defense and the bad Vikings offense just displays a lack of understanding about how games are won and lost on the NFL level.
   1548. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:14 PM (#5610892)
The vikIngs were driving numerous times only to have the eagles take the ball away from them and to keep points off the board. The Eagles would be in an entirely different game had their defense not been able to do that. But by all means keep telling me how I don’t understand how games are won and lost.
   1549. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:22 PM (#5610896)
You managed to make a substantive post without telling me I'm on the spectrum? Are you feeling ok?
   1550. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 01:16 PM (#5610970)
Didn't have access to a keyboard.
   1551. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: January 22, 2018 at 02:38 PM (#5611080)
The quibble I'd raise here is that Jacksonville had a much, much better passing defense than Philly had, on the year. Schedule, etc., but even if you adjust for those things, Football Outsiders has them as 1st and 7th, respectively, against the pass


To my unsophisticated eyes, the Eagles' D has improved as the year has progressed. Jaylen Mills has made a big step forward from the beginning of the season (his second year) and Ronald Darby looks like he has fully recovered from his early season injury. They were down to their 4th string Middle LB yesterday but the rest of the D is very healthy.

This should be a good Super Bowl. The Eagles don't have any obvious exploitable weaknesses.
   1552. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:00 PM (#5611099)
Eagles' weakness is special teams. For the regular season, converting field position to points, the Patriots were about 40 points better than average, the Eagles 4. Since then the Eagles have fallen from 16th to 22nd.
   1553. SteveF Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5611112)
The Eagles have been pretty mediocre at red zone defense as well, for whatever that's worth.
   1554. jmurph Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:14 PM (#5611123)
This should be a good Super Bowl. The Eagles don't have any obvious exploitable weaknesses.

Well there's certainly an argument that Foles is potentially an exploitable weakness. Special teams, as noted. If Gronk's brain is healthy (I know, I know), his presence creates exploitable weaknesses.

New England's weaknesses are certainly more glaring, I think that's true.
   1555. jmurph Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:15 PM (#5611126)
The Eagles have been pretty mediocre at red zone defense as well, for whatever that's worth.

I can't seem to find this now but I think New England underperformed their recent history at turning red zone appearances into TDs this year. So maybe that's a weakness vs weakness battle that will turn around for one team or the other.
   1556. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5611155)
IIRC, there is little evidence that there is anything such as 'red zone offense' (relative to ordinary offense) that doesn't regress hard as hell to the mean in the next year.
   1557. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:34 PM (#5611163)
To respond to the point above of whether winning championships gets old: No, it never does. Although of course everyone's different, and different sports are different. I'm a Pats fan and the next championship is better than the previous one. For this particular team I want to see Brady not only break every record within his grasp but blow past them.

There is an exception: the first championship (that you experience) is better than any subsequent one. But after that every next one is better than the previous one.

I've been on both sides of this as a Red Sox fan. 20 years of coming up short and then 2004 happened, with the icing on the cake being beating the Yankees in the ALCS after being down 0-3. I don't think anything can top that. But I do admit that the Red Sox finally reaching the top of the mountain caused me to care much much less in subsequent years.
   1558. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:37 PM (#5611168)
For this Super Bowl it's a win-win for me: Either Brady wins, or Foles does. There's no real downside. And the beauty is that since I can't affect the outcome anyway then I get to just sit back and enjoy the game.

Foles has already done enough to prove his critics on this board and elsewhere wrong. The Super Bowl is all icing, and a Super Bowl win would put an exclamation point on it.
   1559. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5611177)
And on the punt return, can someone confirm that there was a kind of trick play? When the punt was in the air, Amendola waved his hands around at his waist - this is what the Pats do when the returner is not going to catch the punt and he's signalling (and yelling) at his teammates to get out of the way so the bounce doesn't hit them and become a fumble. But he did catch and return it. Was the signalling intentional in order to fool the Jaguars coverage team?

He did. Though I wouldn't call it a trick play per se. Returns try and fake out the kicking team pretty regularly in various ways, because they typically cannot see where the ball actually is, until it comes down. The more typical one being perhaps setting up about 10-15 yards ahead of where the ball is going, and pretending to catch it, so that it goes over your head and bounces into the endzone, with the coverage guys too far away to down it or keep it out.
   1560. SteveF Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:47 PM (#5611180)
I can't seem to find this now but I think New England underperformed their recent history at turning red zone appearances into TDs this year.

Could be. They were 18th in TD/FG, but 3rd in points per red zone trip and 4th in red zone touchdown percentage. That's probably underperforming insofar as they weren't first in all those categories. I'd check past years but football outsiders is being mini DDoS'd and the pages take forever to load.

And yeah, the whole red zone thing might not even mean much either way.
   1561. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5611187)
You're still the only person on earth who thinks this team is as well off with Foles as they'd be with Wentz, Ray. This was the first game he's had since Wentz went down where you can point to the game and say nothing was lost on offense.
   1562. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:16 PM (#5611211)
You're still the only person on earth who thinks this team is as well off with Foles as they'd be with Wentz, Ray. This was the first game he's had since Wentz went down where you can point to the game and say nothing was lost on offense.


"Nothing was lost." Foles went 26-33, 352, 3 TD, 0 INT, 141 rating, with a number of critical and excellent reads and throws when it was still a contest. I don't think you can just automatically pencil that in for Wentz. I'm not saying Foles is better than Wentz overall but he's certainly as good. Same career QB rating (Wentz didn't do all that great last year) and Foles now has three excellent playoff games out of three (116 rating overall) including a 2-1 record (losing 26-24 to the Saints in 2013, which is no embarrassment).

At this point people are seeing what they want to see, not what's right in front of them. Foles stepped in to a starting job in December and had to shake off the rust after everyone else was in fourth gear. If the Eagles are so good that they have to "carry" Foles then they've carried Wentz also. The argument proves too much.

"But the Eagles lost 6-0 to Dallas in a meaningless game at the end of the season in 19 degree weather!!!!" Do people realize that he only threw 11 passes in that game? 4-11 for 39 yards with an INT. He was replaced by Sudfeld since it was a meaningless game; Sudfeld threw 23 passes.
   1563. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:20 PM (#5611218)
Foles was absolutely better yesterday than anyone could expect from any QB in a given game. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

The idea that Foles equals Wentz is still worthy of mockery.
   1564. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5611225)
Is there any doubt that if Wentz was magically declared healthy tomorrow, he'd be named the starter, and the line would move a couple points towards the Eagles?
   1565. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:29 PM (#5611230)
Is there any doubt that if Wentz was magically declared healthy tomorrow, he'd be named the starter, and the line would move a couple points towards the Eagles?


No, there's no doubt (*). But how is that relevant? All that tells you is what the coaches think.

(*) I guess. I mean, by the time the SB rolls around Went wouldn't have played in almost 2 months. At this point maybe you go with Foles anyway but I get the thrust of your question, which is simply "Who do the Eagles think is the better QB." But of course they think that's Wentz. He was starting over Foles.
   1566. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:32 PM (#5611235)
Foles was absolutely better yesterday than anyone could expect from any QB in a given game. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.


Fair enough.

The idea that Foles equals Wentz is still worthy of mockery.


And also fair enough. We don't have to agree. And an opinion can indeed be stupid and mockworthy. It's the "on the spectrum" type insults (from others here) that seem unnecessary. (Not that they bother me. I've seen them for years. It just shows that the person is either out of arguments or has allowed personal animosity towards me to affect his opinion on the substance.)
   1567. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:34 PM (#5611238)
Just wanted to establish that you think you know better than both the Eagles coaches and the odds makers, seemingly mostly because of his QB rating.
   1568. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 04:50 PM (#5611253)
Just wanted to establish that you think you know better than both the Eagles coaches and the odds makers, seemingly mostly because of his QB rating.


Because he can throw the deep pass, and successfully, which is what you need to do in order to be able to take over a game. He makes good reads there.

That's first and foremost. I do not think that 27 TD vs 2 INT (2013) is a fluke performance that can be put up by a mediocre QB.

Secondary is that he seems to be good at everything else as well. He completed passes above 75% yesterday, and that included throwing deep passes -- 10.6 Y/A. Some of his reads were fantastic; he threw on the run well; he threaded the needle; he put the ball exactly where he needed to (such as the TD pass that went high to the receiver). And the deep pass that McCoy bizarrely said was mainly due to the pocket holding was actually the pocket collapsing and Foles released himself from the pocket to make the difficult read and throw.

I'll grant you that the Eagles coaches know things I don't -- mainly what type of game plan they're going to go with on offense. But I thought the odds makers were basically setting the line based on how they expect people to bet so I don't see that there's much hay to be made there. I concede that the public opinion polling is that Foles sucks. (Though I'd bet that had he not had a great game last night the Pats would be favored by more. Which sort of shows you that the public is mainly going off of what they saw last.)
   1569. Nasty Nate Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:11 PM (#5611272)
He did. Though I wouldn't call it a trick play per se. Returns try and fake out the kicking team pretty regularly in various ways, because they typically cannot see where the ball actually is, until it comes down. The more typical one being perhaps setting up about 10-15 yards ahead of where the ball is going, and pretending to catch it, so that it goes over your head and bounces into the endzone, with the coverage guys too far away to down it or keep it out.
Thanks. I hadn't seen this particular fake out before. Unless I simply missed it happening before, I think Belichik probably had it stashed away for a rainy day.
   1570. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:26 PM (#5611282)
If you don't want people to think you're autistic perhaps don't act like you're autistic. Like perhaps don't keep thinking a simple post 5 minutes into a game was a serious post that proves you're right and all of your detractors are wrong.

I'm not sure how many arguments I need to have on an argument about a 4 word post and I'm not sure how personal animosity has affected my opinion on an argument over a 4 word post.

And the deep pass that McCoy bizarrely said was mainly due to the pocket holding was actually the pocket collapsing and Foles released himself from the pocket to make the difficult read and throw.


I think you need to watch that play again.
   1571. zenbitz Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:28 PM (#5611283)
Watching Foles shred the Vikings did make me wonder if perhaps Carson Wentz wasn't all that. Foles WAS really great in 2013. But so was Colin Kaepernick. And once could imagine for similar reasons (novel offensive patterns).

Also I think it's a fair point to make that what Foles and the Eagles did to the VIkings was actually completely absurd and without precedent this year. This was the best 3rd down defense in 40 years! They only gave up 300 yards passing twice - - once to the bucs in a blowout win (40 attempts) and 314 yards on 45 attempts to the Redskins (again a win, although a reasonably close game until the 3rd quarter).

   1572. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:31 PM (#5611284)
Just wanted to establish that you think you know better than both the Eagles coaches and the odds makers, seemingly mostly because of his QB rating.

The idea that Ray or any one else can predict with some precision the future is just beyond absurd. What's happening now is no different than some craps player letting it ride on an 11 bet. Sure it you got it right 3 times in a row that doesn't mean you have some edge on predicting what will happen next. Ray in a lot of ways is your classic amateur casino gambler. Happy to tell you of all the times they made money and of the times when big bets paid off but silent when they lose.

The Eagles won 15-10 against the Falcons. That game could have easily turned into a loss for the Eagles and if it had the narrative on Foles would be completely different. That the Eagles won does not actually prove that Ray is somebody one should listen to when it comes to football.
   1573. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:35 PM (#5611287)
If you don't want people to think you're autistic


I really don't care. It says more about the person making that comment than it does me.
   1574. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:39 PM (#5611288)

Also I think it's a fair point to make that what Foles and the Eagles did to the VIkings was actually completely absurd and without precedent this year. This was the best 3rd down defense in 40 years! They only gave up 300 yards passing twice - - once to the bucs in a blowout win (40 attempts) and 314 yards on 45 attempts to the Redskins (again a win, although a reasonably close game until the 3rd quarter).


It happens. The 2005 Bears were one of the best defensive teams to start the 21st century and they got absolutely torched by an 8th ranked offense in the Divisional round. They allowed 29 points which only the meaningless last game of the year against Vikings did they allow a team to score more.

In sports betting there isn't any sure things.
   1575. reech Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:44 PM (#5611296)
Always bet on Brady in the Super Bowl!
Unless he's playing Eli !
   1576. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 05:58 PM (#5611315)
Always bet on Brady in the Super Bowl!
Unless he's playing Eli


I don't recall exactly but I don't think they've covered enough to make it a profit to always bet on Brady.
   1577. SteveF Posted: January 22, 2018 at 06:15 PM (#5611325)
I think it's pretty reasonable to ask oneself where the narrative that Foles sucks comes from. (2015, Jeff Fisher)

What's the opposite of the Midas touch?
   1578. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 06:18 PM (#5611326)
New England is 3-4 ATS in the Superbowl in the Brady era.
   1579. don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all Posted: January 22, 2018 at 08:11 PM (#5611368)
I think it's pretty reasonable to ask oneself where the narrative that Foles sucks comes from. (2015, Jeff Fisher)

What's the opposite of the Midas touch?
the solomon split?
The vikIngs were driving numerous times only to have the eagles take the ball away from them and to keep points off the board. The Eagles would be in an entirely different game had their defense not been able to do that. But by all means keep telling me how I don’t understand how games are won and lost.

take away the defensive touchdown and foles' two 40+ yard TD passes and the game is back to a pickem.

it doesn't really work like that, but you're right: this game could have been a lot closer than it was.
   1580. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: January 22, 2018 at 08:29 PM (#5611374)
I'll say this about Foles - he is a deeply flawed QB running a pro-style offense, but he's the tits at the RPO. Since Pederson already had basically a college playbook installed for Wentz, Foles was a pretty easy fix, going even heavier on the RPO.
   1581. Howie Menckel Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:16 PM (#5611403)
"and 314 yards on 45 attempts to the Redskins (again a win, although a reasonably close game until the 3rd quarter)."

fwiw, I remember this game so I checked - it was 35-27 Vikings with less than 8 minutes left in the 4th quarter. final was 38-30

Redskins beat the Rams and (at) Seahawks, blew a 15-point lead with 3 minutes left (at) Saints and lost, came very close (at) Chiefs and battled the Eagles pretty well twice

they intrigue me because they are among the league's most irrelevant franchises year after year (since the early 1990s), but they always seem to play well in a handful of games. I think they beat the Ravens both times the latter won the Super Bowl, which is weird
   1582. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:35 PM (#5611420)
Is there any doubt that if Wentz was magically declared healthy tomorrow, he'd be named the starter, and the line would move a couple points towards the Eagles?


If Wentz were healthy, the Eagles would be favored.

The Eagles offense has a lot of weapons and basically no flaws. It's strong enough that it makes Nick Foles look like a good QB, and a good QB like Carson Wentz look like an MVP.
   1583. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 22, 2018 at 10:26 PM (#5611449)
If Wentz were healthy, the Eagles would be favored.

They should, but they wouldn't. It would still be NE -2/3.
   1584. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:04 PM (#5611466)

The Eagles offense has a lot of weapons and basically no flaws.


Good for a #2 DVOA at 13.9%.

New England is #1 at 33.1%.

The gap in offense between New England and Philly is the same as between Philly and Indianapolis.
   1585. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:38 PM (#5611474)
I think it's pretty reasonable to ask oneself where the narrative that Foles sucks comes from. (2015, Jeff Fisher)


Jeff Fisher can ruin any promising quarterback's career.
   1586. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:45 PM (#5611477)
The Eagles offense has a lot of weapons and basically no flaws. It's strong enough that it makes Nick Foles look like a good QB, and a good QB like Carson Wentz look like an MVP.


Uh huh. Does this mean that the game Foles had on Sunday was merely a "good" game for a QB? Not a great one, eh?

The cognitive dissonance is strong on this one.
   1587. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 11:56 PM (#5611486)
Watch out, Ray is parodying himself!
   1588. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 23, 2018 at 12:05 AM (#5611488)
Foles had a great game on Sunday. Foles' great game against Minnesota followed a good game against Atlanta, which followed a terrible game against Dallas, which followed a terrible game against Oakland, which followed a good game against the Giants. He's as likely to have a terrible game as he is a great one.

Blake Bortles had a great game against a great Ravens defense in Week 3. Blake Bortles is not a great quarterback. Deciding a quarterback is "great" based on a single game would be really dumb.

   1589. don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all Posted: January 23, 2018 at 05:15 PM (#5612062)
Foles had a great game on Sunday. Foles' great game against Minnesota followed a good game against Atlanta, which followed a terrible game against Dallas, which followed a terrible game against Oakland, which followed a good game against the Giants. He's as likely to have a terrible game as he is a great one.

Blake Bortles had a great game against a great Ravens defense in Week 3. Blake Bortles is not a great quarterback. Deciding a quarterback is "great" based on a single game would be really dumb.

counterpoint:
John Clark @JClarkNBCS 6h6 hours ago
Nick Foles

BEST IN NFL PLAYOFF HISTORY
(minimum 90 career attempts)

QB rating (116.4)
Completion% (75)

72-96, 793 yards, 5 TDs, 0 INTs

#FlyEaglesFly
#SuperBowl


i still don't think foles is good enough to win 3 games in a row, but he doesn't have to anymore.

the eagles might only have a 30% chance of beating the patriots, but 30% gives them a decent chance to pull it off.
   1590. puck Posted: January 23, 2018 at 08:13 PM (#5612150)
the eagles might only have a 30% chance of beating the patriots, but 30% gives them a decent chance to pull it off.


How does 538 do theirs, Elo? They have the Eagles at 42%.
   1591. don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all Posted: January 23, 2018 at 09:55 PM (#5612187)
How does 538 do theirs, Elo? They have the Eagles at 42%.
i don't know, but i doubt it. i wrote "30% chance of beating the patriots" based on this, from earlier in the thread, rather than any in depth analysis:
The Eagles moneyline at +215 is profitable if you think they have a better than 1-in-3 chance to win. I do think they have right about a 1-in-3 chance to win, so no profit there.

   1592. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 23, 2018 at 11:12 PM (#5612209)
How does 538 do theirs, Elo? They have the Eagles at 42%.


42%? Don't they know that Foles sucks?
   1593. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 23, 2018 at 11:32 PM (#5612213)
538:

From that drive forward, Foles was as aggressive as he was efficient, completing a remarkable 24 of 29 passes for 335 yards, three touchdowns and no interceptions. How could he complete 82.8 percent of his passes while averaging 11.6 yards per attempt?

He played with all the poise that had suddenly abandoned Keenum.

Though Foles was pressured on 11 of 34 dropbacks, time and again he stood tall in the pocket and waited patiently for his receivers’ downfield routes to develop. His patience was rewarded. Eagles pass-catchers kept getting open off of play-action fakes and well-executed double moves, helping Foles post a nearly perfect 149.3 passer rating on throws 20-plus yards downfield. Per ESPN TruMedia, the Vikings blitzed Foles 14 times, and he burned them for an average of 12.4 yards per play.

A reminder: The Vikings finished the regular season No. 1 in scoring defense and No. 1 in yardage defense, and they were No. 1 in weighted defensive DVOA coming into this game. They were far and away the NFL’s best third-down defense, allowing conversions on just 25.2 percent of third downs — the best of any team since at least 1991. But with a Super Bowl appearance on the line, the Eagles converted 10 of their 14 third downs (71.4 percent), extending drives and keeping Minnesota’s defense on the field.
   1594. Tom Nawrocki Posted: January 23, 2018 at 11:35 PM (#5612214)
They have the Eagles at 42%.


I can see that, or maybe even a little higher. If Gronkowski is out, the only real advantage the Patriots have is at quarterback (and coach) - which is a huge advantage, but surmountable if the rest of the team does what it's capable of.
   1595. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 23, 2018 at 11:48 PM (#5612215)
Barnwell:

On Sunday, with the Vikings finally possessing what most expected to be an advantage at quarterback, they were played off the field by a remarkable performance from Nick Foles. Filling in for injured MVP candidate Carson Wentz, Foles delivered the best single-game performance by any Eagles quarterback this season by both passer rating and QBR. Foles finished the game with 352 yards and three touchdowns. In the second half, he went 11-of-11 for 159 yards and 2 touchdowns, which was good for both a perfect passer rating (158.3) and QBR (99.9). That's the first time someone has done that on 10 or more attempts in the second half in more than five years.
   1596. jmurph Posted: January 24, 2018 at 09:51 AM (#5612272)
Ray is there literally anything that we can do to make this stop? Anything? It's super boring.
   1597. SoSH U at work Posted: January 24, 2018 at 09:59 AM (#5612277)

Ray is there literally anything that we can do to make this stop? Anything? It's super boring.


C'mon. It happens so infrequently, you've got to let him admire his shot when he finally knocks one out of the park.

   1598. . . . . . . . . . . Posted: January 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM (#5612321)
I find Barnwell to be just as insightful as Ray, which is to say not at all. Has anyone seen them in the same place at the same time?
   1599. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 24, 2018 at 11:09 AM (#5612338)
I find Barnwell to be just as insightful as Ray, which is to say not at all. Has anyone seen them in the same place at the same time?


Not sure what portion of Barnwell's quote in 1595 you could possibly take issue with. He's essentially reciting facts there.

I don't know how "insightful" he is overall. I read a column from him once in a blue moon and he seems to break things down fairly decently, or as decently as any of the self-proclaimed geniuses here. But I'll defer to you on that.

In any event what he thought BEFORE the game was wrong: he thought (there's a two minute ESPN video clip online if you search for it) that since the Vikings were elite at pass prevention within 15 yards and that's all Foles did against Atlanta, then Foles would have a tough time against the Vikings. But Barnwell suffered from the same limitations that people here did, namely, thinking that Foles is a poor quarterback or mediocre at best and that what we saw last is what we would see next. Foles threw short passes against Atlanta and succeeded. Which was somehow an indictment of Foles, or at best a backhanded compliment that Foles had a "good" game but was still a bad quarterback. When the Eagles next faced a team (the Vikings) that was good at preventing the short passes, the Eagles changed their strategy and turned Foles loose. And since Foles is skilled at connecting on deep passes, the strategy worked.

Bottom line, folks here thought that if the Eagles made it to the Super Bowl -- which in any event was very unlikely with the Wentz injury according to them -- it would be the rest of the team to carry Foles. Nobody other than me believed -- even after his good performance against Atlanta -- that Foles had Sunday's game in him.

   1600. jmurph Posted: January 24, 2018 at 11:16 AM (#5612348)
Flip
Page 16 of 21 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Stormy JE wanted to milk the soft power dividend
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1940 Discussion
(27 - 4:20am, Feb 20)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogJ.D. Martinez reportedly has deal with Red Sox
(15 - 3:59am, Feb 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOTP 19 February 2018: Does Buster Posey Have a Post-playing Career in Politics?
(93 - 2:30am, Feb 20)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogMLB announces pace of play initiatives | MLB.com
(51 - 1:19am, Feb 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMets General Manager Sandy Alderson Thinks Tim Tebow Will Play in the Major Leagues
(32 - 9:28pm, Feb 19)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogFor Yankees and Gleyber Torres, it’s about wins, not money | Newsday
(24 - 9:20pm, Feb 19)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Sox TherapyFor Future Considerations
(16 - 9:11pm, Feb 19)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogRays trade Odorizzi to Twins, acquire Cron from Angels, DFA All-Star Dickerson
(40 - 9:07pm, Feb 19)
Last: cercopithecus aethiops

NewsblogRob Manfred Might Have Just Made a Mistake | FanGraphs Baseball
(25 - 9:03pm, Feb 19)
Last: JRVJ

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-19-2018
(13 - 8:26pm, Feb 19)
Last: Der-K: downgraded to lurker

NewsblogOTP 12 February 2018: Jeff Samardzija explains why politics and baseball rarely mix
(2004 - 7:51pm, Feb 19)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogEric Hosmer surprised Red Sox didn't pursue him | The Kansas City Star
(20 - 7:27pm, Feb 19)
Last: Adam Starblind

NewsblogPadres, Eric Hosmer agree to terms
(46 - 2:33pm, Feb 19)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogRed Sox Speak Out Against WEEI
(12 - 2:04pm, Feb 19)
Last: QLE

NewsblogOT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition)
(36 - 1:52pm, Feb 19)
Last: tshipman

Page rendered in 1.0387 seconds
49 querie(s) executed