(06-07-2019, 02:24 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Foles is miles better than Blake and still in the average/low end starter tier.
As a backup you don't get too work with the ones in training camp and during the season. Yet when he goes down you take the team to the super bowl and win the game securing the MVP position and you consider him an average/low end starter, come on man! Stats are like whipped cream on sh#t they look good but I don't want to eat it. I know a lot of philly fans did not want to lose this so called average/low end starter.
(06-06-2019, 11:42 PM)Eric1 Wrote: [ -> ]WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too early to make assumptions..
Do you actually think that "Foles > Bortles" is an
assumption??
How is this not stone cold fact to anyone with functioning eyeballs?
As far as "receivers being better than we think" - that's impossible to answer because there are a million different opinions out there on how good or bad these receivers are with any QB.
But having a better QB than last year makes them all more effective. No question. No assumption.
(06-07-2019, 08:25 AM)dennisp3 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 02:24 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Foles is miles better than Blake and still in the average/low end starter tier.
As a backup you don't get too work with the ones in training camp and during the season. Yet when he goes down you take the team to the super bowl and win the game securing the MVP position and you consider him an average/low end starter, come on man! Stats are like whipped cream on sh#t they look good but I don't want to eat it. I know a lot of philly fans did not want to lose this so called average/low end starter.
Of course lots of Philly fans didn't wanna lose him, he won the city a SB as a backup!
Unfortunately there's more to a career than two games, or even 1 season. He's 30 years old with 1.5 good seasons to his name, he's never played more than 13 games in a year, and only played over 10 twice. When he shows me he's not in the that tier ill believe it
(06-07-2019, 09:00 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 08:25 AM)dennisp3 Wrote: [ -> ]As a backup you don't get too work with the ones in training camp and during the season. Yet when he goes down you take the team to the super bowl and win the game securing the MVP position and you consider him an average/low end starter, come on man! Stats are like whipped cream on sh#t they look good but I don't want to eat it. I know a lot of philly fans did not want to lose this so called average/low end starter.
Of course lots of Philly fans didn't wanna lose him, he won the city a SB as a backup!
Unfortunately there's more to a career than two games, or even 1 season. He's 30 years old with 1.5 good seasons to his name, he's never played more than 13 games in a year, and only played over 10 twice. When he shows me he's not in the that tier ill believe it
Well, I'm going to take Tony Dungy's opinion of Foles worth as a starting quarterback over yours, no disrespect intended.
(06-06-2019, 12:26 PM)JagFanFirst Wrote: [ -> ]It is safe to assume that he's obviously better than Bortles? And ALSO that our receivers might better than we think?
Cole's improvement has been amazing. Chark looks fantastic. Conley looks sharp.
Too early make any assumptions?
While the news is encouraging, I take things with a grain of salt because:
1. They are not in pads
2. No Ramsey
3. These guys still have to do it in game situations.
Now Cole has performed in game situations, and I believe Chark can be a productive WR, but until they do it, excitement but skepticism is my motto.
(06-07-2019, 09:00 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 08:25 AM)dennisp3 Wrote: [ -> ]As a backup you don't get too work with the ones in training camp and during the season. Yet when he goes down you take the team to the super bowl and win the game securing the MVP position and you consider him an average/low end starter, come on man! Stats are like whipped cream on sh#t they look good but I don't want to eat it. I know a lot of philly fans did not want to lose this so called average/low end starter.
Of course lots of Philly fans didn't wanna lose him, he won the city a SB as a backup!
Unfortunately there's more to a career than two games, or even 1 season. He's 30 years old with 1.5 good seasons to his name, he's never played more than 13 games in a year, and only played over 10 twice. When he shows me he's not in the that tier ill believe it
How quickly people forget how wrong that season after his 27-2 season went, or even wronger the following season with the Rams went. We have no clue which Foles we're going to get. His baseline is a little below average, but he could be as high as the 10-15 range for QBs or we could be right back with a bottom 5 QB pretty easily.
(06-06-2019, 06:26 PM)FBT Wrote: [ -> ]Back to the OP, yes the offense got instantly better the day Foles was signed. The recievers can't possibly be as bad as what we saw last year, and having a QB who can actually put the ball on target on time will make a huge difference for these guys. If you think about some of the outstanding play we DID see from receivers over the past couple of seasons, imagine how much better it would have been if Bortles wasn''t throwing helicopters at them, and the QB actually threw extremely catchable balls.
I still think the WRs did not show well last year in part due to poor QB play, and in part due to the injuries along the OL.
Cole and Chark excel on deeper routes, routes they were unable to run because the injury riddled OL couldn't provide the protection needed for them to run those routes and the QB to get them the ball accurately.
(06-07-2019, 09:30 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (06-06-2019, 12:26 PM)JagFanFirst Wrote: [ -> ]It is safe to assume that he's obviously better than Bortles? And ALSO that our receivers might better than we think?
Cole's improvement has been amazing. Chark looks fantastic. Conley looks sharp.
Too early make any assumptions?
While the news is encouraging, I take things with a grain of salt because:
1. They are not in pads
2. No Ramsey
3. These guys still have to do it in game situations.
Now Cole has performed in game situations, and I believe Chark can be a productive WR, but until they do it, excitement but skepticism is my motto.
Good news is that the other 31 teams don't have Ramsey either! Heck, most of them don't even have an A.J.
(06-07-2019, 09:36 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 09:30 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]While the news is encouraging, I take things with a grain of salt because:
1. They are not in pads
2. No Ramsey
3. These guys still have to do it in game situations.
Now Cole has performed in game situations, and I believe Chark can be a productive WR, but until they do it, excitement but skepticism is my motto.
Good news is that the other 31 teams don't have Ramsey either! Heck, most of them don't even have an A.J.
Good point.
While the Texans have a formidable pass rush, I think their secondary is particularly vulnerable. If we can get their front blocked (a big if), that secondary can be exploited.
The Chiefs' secondary isn't that great, and I am not sure they will have as strong of a pass rush this year as they did last year. If their offense comes back to earth some, that will help matters against them).
Still not overly sold on the Colts' defense just yet, though as heavily as they've invested on that side the past three years, that could change.
Denver and New Orleans both have good secondaries.
(06-07-2019, 09:22 AM)dennisp3 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 09:00 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Of course lots of Philly fans didn't wanna lose him, he won the city a SB as a backup!
Unfortunately there's more to a career than two games, or even 1 season. He's 30 years old with 1.5 good seasons to his name, he's never played more than 13 games in a year, and only played over 10 twice. When he shows me he's not in the that tier ill believe it
Well, I'm going to take Tony Dungy's opinion of Foles worth as a starting quarterback over yours, no disrespect intended.
Be my guest, with the caveat that using old football coaches takes on current players as gospel wouldn't be a wise strategy.
(06-07-2019, 09:32 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 09:00 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Of course lots of Philly fans didn't wanna lose him, he won the city a SB as a backup!
Unfortunately there's more to a career than two games, or even 1 season. He's 30 years old with 1.5 good seasons to his name, he's never played more than 13 games in a year, and only played over 10 twice. When he shows me he's not in the that tier ill believe it
How quickly people forget how wrong that season after his 27-2 season went, or even wronger the following season with the Rams went. We have no clue which Foles we're going to get. His baseline is a little below average, but he could be as high as the 10-15 range for QBs or we could be right back with a bottom 5 QB pretty easily.
Given how streaky he is we're sure to see several iterations of Nick Foles in the space of a 4 game stretch too. Just when he's bad he'll still be able to throw the ball or at least engineer some decent late game play which Blake was a stone cold certainty not to do.
He can be a totally acceptable QB here, its just that may change week to week, and without a strong supporting cast may not be the case at all
(06-07-2019, 10:09 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 09:22 AM)dennisp3 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I'm going to take Tony Dungy's opinion of Foles worth as a starting quarterback over yours, no disrespect intended.
Be my guest, with the caveat that using old football coaches takes on current players as gospel wouldn't be a wise strategy.
This isn't your old 6th grade Pop Warner coach chiming in here, nor is it the 90 year old guy in the nursing home.
Dungy has seen his fair share of great QBs, from Bradshaw in his playing days, to Peyton Manning in his coaching career, to plenty others as an analyst.
(06-07-2019, 10:20 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 10:09 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Be my guest, with the caveat that using old football coaches takes on current players as gospel wouldn't be a wise strategy.
This isn't your old 6th grade Pop Warner coach chiming in here, nor is it the 90 year old guy in the nursing home.
Dungy has seen his fair share of great QBs, from Bradshaw in his playing days, to Peyton Manning in his coaching career, to plenty others as an analyst.
and Bill Polian was a HOF GM who has some of the dumbest takes known to man regarding the NFL these days.
My point is there are numerous examples of v qualified football minds saying very dumb stuff about players in the media. Taking them as gospel because of who they are wouldn't be wise.
(06-07-2019, 10:28 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 10:20 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]This isn't your old 6th grade Pop Warner coach chiming in here, nor is it the 90 year old guy in the nursing home.
Dungy has seen his fair share of great QBs, from Bradshaw in his playing days, to Peyton Manning in his coaching career, to plenty others as an analyst.
and Bill Polian was a HOF GM who has some of the dumbest takes known to man regarding the NFL these days.
My point is there are numerous examples of v qualified football minds saying very dumb stuff about players in the media. Taking them as gospel because of who they are wouldn't be wise.
So for the record, where do you put Dungy along the spectrum of astute football minds on the one end to well off his rocker on the Polian end?
Is that overall, or does his take on Foles lower his grade in your eyes?
(06-07-2019, 10:31 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 10:28 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]and Bill Polian was a HOF GM who has some of the dumbest takes known to man regarding the NFL these days.
My point is there are numerous examples of v qualified football minds saying very dumb stuff about players in the media. Taking them as gospel because of who they are wouldn't be wise.
So for the record, where do you put Dungy along the spectrum of astute football minds on the one end to well off his rocker on the Polian end?
Is that overall, or does his take on Foles lower his grade in your eyes?
Its not even specifically about Dungy and his Foles take, just the notion that because Dungy is a former NFL coach what he says must be accurate.
(06-07-2019, 10:37 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 10:31 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]So for the record, where do you put Dungy along the spectrum of astute football minds on the one end to well off his rocker on the Polian end?
Is that overall, or does his take on Foles lower his grade in your eyes?
Its not even specifically about Dungy and his Foles take, just the notion that because Dungy is a former NFL coach what he says must be accurate.
Understood...but where does Dungy fit? Does he give reliable analysis overall or is he not to be trusted?
(06-07-2019, 10:37 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 10:31 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]So for the record, where do you put Dungy along the spectrum of astute football minds on the one end to well off his rocker on the Polian end?
Is that overall, or does his take on Foles lower his grade in your eyes?
Its not even specifically about Dungy and his Foles take, just the notion that because Dungy is a former NFL coach what he says must be accurate.
Dungy's takes tend to fall a bit higher on the spectrum of credilbility for many fans than random former coaches.
Myself included.
ie: Del Rio's takes on Derek Carr compared to Dungy's on Foles.
Which would you weigh more?
(06-07-2019, 10:39 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2019, 10:37 AM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Its not even specifically about Dungy and his Foles take, just the notion that because Dungy is a former NFL coach what he says must be accurate.
Understood...but where does Dungy fit? Does he give reliable analysis overall or is he not to be trusted?
I haven't listened to him much other than very general analysis. Don't agree with his Foles take, his takes on the Pats, or a lot of his outside of football takes.