Quote:I am an Eagles fan. I will be open about that.
That being said, Mad Dog must need glasses. I don't recall Nick Foles being the one out there letting the Saints run all over the league's shittiest d-line. He gave the team the lead and the defense let the Saints run the ball all over them.
Also, you bust Foles' balls for taking sacks instead of "taking a chance of throwing an INT". Maybe he should be Brandon Weeden and launch the ball up even if it s a horrible idea? If Foles had given the ball over to the Saints, the game would not have come down to a field goal. The Saints would have put the game away due to Foles making poor decisions. But since Foles isn't a helmethead like TMD, he made the smart moves. They look ugly to people who don't know their [BAD WORD REMOVED] from a doorknob. But he put his team in position to win.
LOL, I've already made the point about the Saints beating the Eagles at the LOS, so your take is nothing groundbreaking. Bottom line is Foles could not make enough plays to win the football game. He's not a playmaker. It was proven Saturday night and will be proven almost every time he goes up against a quality opponent especially come playoff time. All you Eagle fans that are drinking the Foles kook aid will be the same people bashing him next season when you start to eventually realize that he really aint all that and that Chip Kelly's offense is a QB production inflator.
Quote:LOL, I've already made the point about the Saints beating the Eagles at the LOS, so your take is nothing groundbreaking. Bottom line is Foles could not make enough plays to win the football game. He's not a playmaker. It was proven Saturday night and will be proven almost every time he goes up against a quality opponent especially come playoff time. All you Eagle fans that are drinking the Foles kook aid will be the same people bashing him next season when you start to eventually realize that he really aint all that and that Chip Kelly's offense is a QB production inflator.
Back to your inability to believe that something can be good but not great. Just like things can be bad without being the worst ever. Just because someone thinks he is doing his job does not mean they think he is Joe Montana or "drinking Kool-Aid". Do you have undiagnosed Aspbergers? I am asking because you are seriously a concrete thinker. Struggle in social situations? Maybe have an uncomfortable attachment to personal belongings?
Quote:Back to your inability to believe that something can be good but not great. Just like things can be bad without being the worst ever. Just because someone thinks he is doing his job does not mean they think he is Joe Montana or "drinking Kool-Aid". Do you have undiagnosed Aspbergers? I am asking because you are seriously a concrete thinker. Struggle in social situations? Maybe have an uncomfortable attachment to personal belongings?
No, but stay classy. Typical Eagle fan trash. No wonder your fan base is most hated amongst the entire league.
Quote:No, but stay classy. Typical Eagle fan trash. No wonder your fan base is most hated amongst the entire league.
"Foles is the worst. Definitely. Definitely."
![[Image: pic_1204809619_9.jpg]](http://www.testedich.de/quiz25/picture/pic_1204809619_9.jpg)
(09-27-2013, 07:28 PM)SuperJville Wrote: [ -> ]I would actively pursue a guy like Foles or Cousins. Giving up even a 2nd round pick (about the same value as the Alex Smith trade) seems reasonable. They appear to be pretty good potential players.
Before everyone goes crazy about calling our draft picks the most important - yes they are the most important, but they are also not guaranteed to work. In fact, given our recent track record, they are more likely NOT to pan out.
Giving a shot to some guys who have at least played sparingly in the NFL, and have done well, appears almost safer than gambling on a rookie.
5 years later and the discussion remains the same