Kaepernick, RGIII, or Manziel in STL in 2016?

[RamzFanz]

So you look at what Foles did in Philly with a better supporting cast

TLDR, but yes, that is what I was saying.

Hey, we know you are irrationally and venomously anti-Foles in any discussion, you don't have to prove it every time.

It's boring, especially since you claim he failed in a season where he won 5-2 and was benched just on a coach's opinion where they went on to have a 5-4 season after. Just stop.

Here is my point, Foles is a better fit for the 2014 Eagles. There is nothing you could possibly say that counters that. Nothing. He was a winner there. A big winner. Period. He is not here. No dispute, he's not.

You: Mr. Person, was he a winner there even after they were gutted?

Mr. Person: Yes.

You: Is he a winner here?

Mr. Person: No.

Case closed

 

[dieterbrock]

Foles didn't play as badly as he did this year...but he was playing poorly with the Eagles. Which is why Kelly dumped him.

The Eagles didn't really cover his weaknesses. They just had enough talent and a good enough scheme that Foles looked mediocre in 2014 instead of downright awful like in 2015.

Foles played poorly compared to 2013 but in reality he played the equivilant to what Bradford is doing this year

 

[jrry32]

Hey, we know you are irrationally and venomously anti-Foles in any discussion, you don't have to prove it every time.

Nothing irrational about it. I like good QB play. I don't like crappy QBs. You'll find that I am also anti-Kellen Clemens, anti-Keith Null, and anti-Jamie Martin. Why? Because I hate watching terrible QBs play for this team.

It's boring, especially since you claim he failed in a season where he won 5-2 and was benched just on a coach's opinion where they went on to have a 5-4 season after. Just stop.

He was mediocre as hell. Foles didn't go 5-2. The Eagles did. Odd how it's not suddenly a team sport. The Rams failures apparently aren't on Foles but the Eagles successes were. That seems a bit hypocritical.

Yes, Foles helped them go 5-2. But his level of play still wasn't satisfactory.

And yes, they did worse with his backup. But is that really saying much? Yea, Foles is better than Mark Sanchez. Awesome?

Here is my point, Foles is a better fit for the 2014 Eagles. There is nothing you could possibly say that counters that. Nothing. He was a winner there. A big winner. Period. He is not here. No dispute, he's not.

Awesome. He's a better fit on a more talented team that simplified the offense and didn't ask nearly as much of him. What's the point here? The Eagles didn't want him. Because 2014 Foles was mediocre. They knew what he was.

 

[jrry32]

Foles played poorly compared to 2013 but in reality he played the equivilant to what Bradford is doing this year

Statistically, that's true. And let's be frank, Bradford isn't getting it done there either. But it's worth mentioning that Foles had better talent around him. Eagles let a lot of guys go. But you're right, Bradford is playing mediocre football too. I'd take him over Foles...but he's not much better right now.

 

[dieterbrock]

Statistically, that's true. And let's be frank, Bradford isn't getting it done there either. But it's worth mentioning that Foles had better talent around him. Eagles let a lot of guys go. But you're right, Bradford is playing mediocre football too. I'd take him over Foles...but he's not much better right now.

Agree. I just cant recall ever seeing such a fall from grace that Foles has gone thru
After the Seattle opening game, I just cant fathom how things unravelled like this

 

[fancents86]

And I get shyt for liking Tebow...

 

[shaunpinney]

I still think Tebow would have been good as a back up here - he could win games...

 

[Big Willie]

Then Foles needs to find a new sport.

Most QBs that take big shots repeatedly get a little gun shy....that's what I meant.

 

[Memphis Ram]

What is 34, 30, 37, 21, 28, 27, 20?

The points the Eagles scored with Nick Foles last season. This season, the Rams have won every game they have scored 20 or more.

What is 5-2?

Foles record on the Eagles last season. They went 5-4 after he was benched. I would pay for season tickets to watch that decline.

Foles won with the Eagles. I'm not defending Foles. I'm saying he fit better there. They covered his weaknesses and the Rams can't.

I won't argue his fit there vs. the Rams. My point was that he was on the decline before he came to St. Louis.

About 50 or so of those points listed came from sack fumbles & INT returns, punt blocks scores and kickoff returns? That's not even including the short field scores where he merely handed the ball off after turnovers. Points needed to make up for his declining play.

The Rams would win more games, if they got those, too.

 

[12intheBox]

I'll still take Manziel - with 2 full years plus an optional 3rd on that rookie contract.

And aren't we rooting for him this weekend, as well?

 

[RamzFanz]

I won't argue his fit there vs. the Rams. My point was that he was on the decline before he came to St. Louis.

About 50 or so of those points listed came from sack fumbles & INT returns, punt blocks scores and kickoff returns? That's not even including the short field scores where he merely handed the ball off after turnovers. Points needed to make up for his declining play.

The Rams would win more games, if they got those, too.

Yes, the Rams would.

 

[LesBaker]

TLDR, but yes, that is what I was saying.

Hey, we know you are irrationally and venomously anti-Foles in any discussion, you don't have to prove it every time.

It's boring, especially since you claim he failed in a season where he won 5-2 and was benched just on a coach's opinion where they went on to have a 5-4 season after. Just stop.

Here is my point, Foles is a better fit for the 2014 Eagles. There is nothing you could possibly say that counters that. Nothing. He was a winner there. A big winner. Period. He is not here. No dispute, he's not.

You: Mr. Person, was he a winner there even after they were gutted?

Mr. Person: Yes.

You: Is he a winner here?

Mr. Person: No.

Case closed

It's the OL that's making Gurley look pedestrian, and giving Foles the yips. It's just beggining to round out and they got Havs back and that helps for sure. Robinson is coming along a bit to lately.

When the OL is fine he is fine, and Gurley as well.

@dieterbrock see above, that's what happened to Foles.

I also think he has a nagging injury that nobody outside of the locker room knows about and I think it started with that dirty hit from Mathews (IMO a dirty player) that wasn't even flagged.

 

[RamzFanz]

It's the OL that's making Gurley look pedestrian, and giving Foles the yips. It's just beggining to round out and they got Havs back and that helps for sure. Robinson is coming along a bit to lately.

When the OL is fine he is fine, and Gurley as well.

@dieterbrock see above, that's what happened to Foles.

I also think he has a nagging injury that nobody outside of the locker room knows about and I think it started with that dirty hit from Mathews (IMO a dirty player) that wasn't even flagged.

I agree. I think Foles was hurt and I think he's scared. I also think he can't play for shit behind a weak line other than avoiding the sack. I'm not saying he sucks, but the point that many thought Keenum would produce simply because he has the skills to deliver a fast strike better behind a weak line is playing out.

Will Keenum beat Seattle? Man, I doubt it. If the D doesn't create like 3 TOs and one score, he's going to get eaten alive. Rams are too hurt to play top teams in their house even if Keenum is a better answer.

Gurley has produced every game Havenstein has been in though, I think, except not so much this game though. Dude is not a hard 2 yards guy it seems. I would bet my last dollar that Cunningham behind Harkey would get that 2 yard TD 9 times out of 10 with 3 tries. Where is Harkey?

 

[dieterbrock]

@dieterbrock see above, that's what happened to Foles.

Not understanding? Above where?

 

[dieterbrock]

I get why people dont like Manziel, he's pretty much the Justin Bieber of the NFL
But in reality, Pettine should be fired because of his insistence to NOT play the kid
Last 2 games he's been pretty darned good, 640+ yards passing, couple TD. Only QB with decent record on team
Kid can play, let him play.

 

[jrry32]

I get why people dont like Manziel, he's pretty much the Justin Bieber of the NFL
But in reality, Pettine should be fired because of his insistence to NOT play the kid
Last 2 games he's been pretty darned good, 640+ yards passing, couple TD. Only QB with decent record on team
Kid can play, let him play.

I don't agree.

And if we're being frank, Manziel's numbers are worse than McCown and the team hasn't been any better at scoring with him at the helm. Their 2 wins with Manziel at QB came against SF and Tennessee...two other bad teams.

But...we'll see what he does over the final 3 weeks. I totally understand Pettine's issues with Manziel, though. Not hard to understand his frustration after what Manziel put him through.

 

[jrry32]

Most QBs that take big shots repeatedly get a little gun shy....that's what I meant.

Yea...QBs that take repeated shots for years. It doesn't happen over a few weeks.

It's the OL that's making Gurley look pedestrian, and giving Foles the yips. It's just beggining to round out and they got Havs back and that helps for sure. Robinson is coming along a bit to lately.

When the OL is fine he is fine, and Gurley as well.

@dieterbrock see above, that's what happened to Foles.

I also think he has a nagging injury that nobody outside of the locker room knows about and I think it started with that dirty hit from Mathews (IMO a dirty player) that wasn't even flagged.

I think you're living in fantasy land.

Foles is hardly the only QB in the NFL that has to deal with a troublesome OL. Cutler dealt with it for years in Chicago. Russell Wilson has been dealing with it the past few years. Philip Rivers has been dealing with it the past couple years. Matt Stafford is currently dealing with it. Ryan Tannehill has consistently dealt with it.

Yes, guys like Wilson and Rivers are top 10 QBs. But Tannehill, Cutler, and Stafford aren't. They're average to above average QBs at best.

Yet, you don't see all of them look like complete trash behind bad OLs. They all manage to actually look competent.

Foles will never be fine. He's a bad starting QB.

 

[LesBaker]

Not understanding? Above where?

Above the @......in the same post I was talking about the OL.

 

[Orchid]

Yes, guys like Wilson and Rivers are top 10 QBs. But Tannehill, Cutler, and Stafford aren't. They're average to above average QBs at best.

Yet, you don't see all of them look like complete trash behind bad OLs. They all manage to actually look competent.

Yet Bradford looked mediocre to average at worst behind a piss poor Ol in St louis and is looking better than that with a Philly OL that is piss poor compared when Foles was there.

 

[jrry32]

Yet Bradford looked mediocre to average at worst behind a pee pee poor Ol in St louis and is looking better than that with a Philly OL that is pee pee poor compared when Foles was there.

Yea because supporting cast matters.

But as you said, Bradford looked mediocre to average. Foles hasn't even approached that. That's the problem.

You can have a bad QB with a bad supporting cast...Nick Foles is a good example of that.