#1
Posted 10 December 2012 - 01:57 PM
There was no mention of Vick, just that the Eagles could, all of a sudden, make full use of a variety of offensive sets.
Am I reading too much into this, or does that sound like the Eagles couldn't use their entire offensive package because Vick couldn't handle it?
#2
Posted 10 December 2012 - 01:59 PM
#3
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:03 PM
I am not the most objective person to make this call, so I thought I'd see if others noticed the comment as well.
#4
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:03 PM
#5
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:04 PM
#6
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:10 PM
exesandohs, on 10 December 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:
There was no mention of Vick, just that the Eagles could, all of a sudden, make full use of a variety of offensive sets.
Am I reading too much into this, or does that sound like the Eagles couldn't use their entire offensive package because Vick couldn't handle it?
I don't recall hearing the conversation you're referring to, but the bolded line does not really seem to match your description in the first couple of lines of your post. It sounds to me like the point they were making was that the Foles is able to handle the entire play book and they don't have to limit things while he gets up to speed on everything like they would have to do with most rookies. It sounds to me like the conversation had absolutely nothing to do with Vick in any way and you're just looking to start ish, either consciously or sub-consciously.
#7
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:10 PM
#8
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:13 PM
exesandohs, on 10 December 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:
There was no mention of Vick, just that the Eagles could, all of a sudden, make full use of a variety of offensive sets.
Am I reading too much into this, or does that sound like the Eagles couldn't use their entire offensive package because Vick couldn't handle it?
Mike Vick and Nick Foles are different players so the offense would be ran differently depending on who is starting. There are plays the Eagles wont run with Foles that they would with Vick. The Announcers are wrong about the Eagles not simplifying the offense as well. Since Foles has been in the Eagles have used several of the same plays numerous time in a game and sometimes on the same drive. They have also made a concerted effort to try and run the football. The offense has been dummied down a little for Foles. That's okay, because sometimes less is more.
#9
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:15 PM
exesandohs, on 10 December 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:
I am not the most objective person to make this call, so I thought I'd see if others noticed the comment as well.
#10
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:17 PM
imp81318, on 10 December 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:
How does it not match? Because "the Eagles (like the Colts and the Redskins and the Seahawks) did not have to simplify things," they "could, all of a sudden, make full use of a variety of offensive sets." The point was that there are several rookie qb's in the league right now who are playing with a pretty wide variety of offensive options. The comment by the announcers seemed to imply that this "offensive variety" was a new thing for the Eagles--hence, my question about Vick.
It follows logically, yes?
#11
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:22 PM
exesandohs, on 10 December 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:
It follows logically, yes?
If the announcers made the comment about the Eagles 'all of a sudden' being able to use the full offensive playbook, then yes. The way that I read your post, however, I took it as though the first paragraph was what the announcers said (comparing Foles to RG3, Luck, etc) and the second line about 'all of a sudden' being your take and extrapolation on what they said about Foles as it would apply to Vick.
#12
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:26 PM
#13
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:28 PM
Good luck as a backup with another team Mike. No hard feelings.
#14
Posted 10 December 2012 - 02:41 PM
#15
Posted 12 December 2012 - 11:16 AM
scott time, on 10 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:
Sadly this is his undoing. He could have been a great Qb had he just spent the time to learn the position.
RG3 is way ahead of where Vick ever was. He can play formnthe pocket and read defenses etc.
#16
Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:02 PM
knapp_nick, on 10 December 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:
I think it's at 113 Vick Sucks/Hatred threads now. He is closing in the McNabb sucks/Hate threads for the record. All you have to say is the sky is dreary today, and someone will say something like Michael Vick is probaly turning the ball over somewhere. This is amazing how some people hate McNabb and Michael Vick so much.
#17
Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:05 PM
I praise Vicks effort, but he is what he is.. short and running back with a strong arm... and a ton of heart/efort to win... Those are the positives... LOL It is just not enough to win a championship
#18
Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:06 PM
vic92353, on 12 December 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:
and as long as he is still on the roster, there will be more Vick suks threads...... You cant hide from the TRUTH
#19
Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:18 PM
exesandohs, on 10 December 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:
There was no mention of Vick, just that the Eagles could, all of a sudden, make full use of a variety of offensive sets.
Am I reading too much into this, or does that sound like the Eagles couldn't use their entire offensive package because Vick couldn't handle it?
No you are not reading too much into it. Jim Mora stated in the past that, while in Atlanta, he dumbed down the offense for Vick. Vick was too lazy to learn much during his Atlanta days. There were statements made that Vick was still learning to play QB while with the Eagles. Apparently he is a very slow learner.
#20
Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:41 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users











