36 replies to this topic

[phonz3]

We started 3-1, and the leaders of our division are now 8-6 ,so we just needed to play .500 football the rest of the way to get in.  I knew the Giants would fold with that schedule.  But, I thought we would have a strong 2nd half with a relatively weak schedule - but, that didn't happen with all these back-ups in there.

FYI - If the playoffs started today, 3 of the 4 non-traditional starting QBs in the league would be in the playoffs.  Just saying... teams who can't find that top 5 elite franchise type QB may be better off with good defense, good running game and a dual threat QB...

The QBs are Russel Wilson, RG3 and Colin Kaepernick... Cam would be the only one out.

This isn't a pro Vick thread, but people just need to open their eyes that there are different ways to win in this league.  The league may be evolving.

I hope Foles is the answer at QB because it seems like he is going to be here - if not, I hope we find the answer soon.

[Cochis_Calhoun]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

We started 3-1, and the leaders of our division are now 8-6 ,so we just needed to play .500 football the rest of the way to get in.  I knew the Giants would fold with that schedule.  But, I thought we would have a strong 2nd half with a relatively weak schedule - but, that didn't happen with all these back-ups in there.

FYI - If the playoffs started today, 3 of the 4 non-traditional starting QBs in the league would be in the playoffs.  Just saying... teams who can't find that top 5 elite franchise type QB may be better off with good defense, good running game and a dual threat QB...

The QBs are Russel Wilson, RG3 and Colin Kaepernick... Cam would be the only one out.

This isn't a pro Vick thread, but people just need to open their eyes that there are different ways to win in this league.  The league may be evolving.

I hope Foles is the answer at QB because it seems like he is going to be here - if not, I hope we find the answer soon.

Sure there are different ways to win, but unless I missed something throwing picks and fumbling on the one yard line still aren't one of them. We aren't going to the post season because we aren't good enough.

[phonz3]

Just seems like the coaches, fans and whole team packed it in early this year - why quit when you have a weak schedule and play a bunch of other division games.  The Redskins were about to quit but then decided to keep playing and look what happened - somewhere around week 5 Shanahan was like, "we are going to start evaluating players for next year".   Then, they win the next game... and now look where they are.

[JustAnotherEaglesFan]

When you're qb turns it over 19x in 9 starts and misses 5 games you're not going to win many games. I don't care what style our qb plays as long as he can stay healthy and win games.

[phonz3]

JustAnotherEaglesFan, on 17 December 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

When you're qb turns it over 19x in 9 starts and misses 5 games you're not going to win many games. I don't care what style our qb plays as long as he can stay healthy and win games.

Well we were 3-5 when people started missing games with questionable injuries.

[cmart102]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

The QBs are Russel Wilson, RG3 and Colin Kaepernick... Cam would be the only one out.

You've never watched Russell Wilson play have you?

[skipsharp]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

We started 3-1, and the leaders of our division are now 8-6 ,so we just needed to play .500 football the rest of the way to get in.  I knew the Giants would fold with that schedule.  But, I thought we would have a strong 2nd half with a relatively weak schedule - but, that didn't happen with all these back-ups in there.

FYI - If the playoffs started today, 3 of the 4 non-traditional starting QBs in the league would be in the playoffs.  Just saying... teams who can't find that top 5 elite franchise type QB may be better off with good defense, good running game and a dual threat QB...

The QBs are Russel Wilson, RG3 and Colin Kaepernick... Cam would be the only one out.

This isn't a pro Vick thread, but people just need to open their eyes that there are different ways to win in this league.  The league may be evolving.

I hope Foles is the answer at QB because it seems like he is going to be here - if not, I hope we find the answer soon.

These "non-traditional" QB's listed are not turning the ball over at an alarming rate.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

We started 3-1

We started 3-1 but easily could have, and probably should have started 1-3.

[phonz3]

cmart102, on 17 December 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

You've never watched Russell Wilson play have you?

I watch the Eagles every week, but I saw him yesterday.  Looked pretty good ran for 3 TDs threw for another.  Almost 300 yards of total offense.  His stats look really good the last month or better.

[phonz3]

skipsharp, on 17 December 2012 - 05:03 PM, said:

These "non-traditional" QB's listed are not turning the ball over at an alarming rate.

This isn't about Vick but since you brought it up - Matt Ryan and Drew Brees had 5 INTs in single games this year.  You have to take chances to succeed in this league.  Checking it down all the time isn't going to win you any games.

[phonz3]

VaBeach_Eagle, on 17 December 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

We started 3-1 but easily could have, and probably should have started 1-3.

Which one did we deserve to win?

[cmart102]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

I watch the Eagles every week, but I saw him yesterday.  Looked pretty good ran for 3 TDs threw for another.  Almost 300 yards of total offense.  His stats look really good the last month or better.

My point is that's the most rushing he's done all year. He's a pretty traditional QB and a good one at that, not some gimmick. He only ends up rushing b/c the crap he has at WR don't get open

[phonz3]

cmart102, on 17 December 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

My point is that's the most rushing he's done all year. He's a pretty traditional QB and a good one at that, not some gimmick. He only ends up rushing b/c the crap he has at WR don't get open

I guess they started using him differently yesterday, because it was a lot of read options...  that play seems to be working for RG3, Cam and Kaepernick as well.

[cmart102]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I guess they started using him differently yesterday, because it was a lot of read options...  that play seems to be working for RG3, Cam and Kaepernick as well.

Yeah the read option is a new thing in Seattle. He played completely traditional QB in college at Wisconsin in a prostyle offense under center, didn't run the read option once there

[VaBeach_Eagle]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

Which one did we deserve to win?

We won them all, well three of them, so we 'deserved' to win all three, we could have easily lost the first two though. All three for that matter.

[phonz3]

Just watching that game last night got me thinking.  I see Alex Smith sitting on the sidelines the guy had a 70 pct completion percentage and a great QB rating.

Why did they bench him for this kid?  Is this a gimmick or is this something defenses are going to struggle with?

[JustAnotherEaglesFan]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

Just watching that game last night got me thinking.  I see Alex Smith sitting on the sidelines the guy had a 70 pct completion percentage and a great QB rating.

Why did they bench him for this kid?  Is this a gimmick or is this something defenses are going to struggle with?

He was benched because Kaepernick was Harbaughs "guy" to begin with. And after he looked good filling in for Alex there was no turning back.

[kmass88]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

Just watching that game last night got me thinking.  I see Alex Smith sitting on the sidelines the guy had a 70 pct completion percentage and a great QB rating.

Why did they bench him for this kid?  Is this a gimmick or is this something defenses are going to struggle with?

All the talk about "mobile" qbs not being able to win is hogwash. Rodgers is mobile. It's scramble first guys that can't win becaue they play hero ball. And most of the guys in the league now are not scramble first guys. Tebow is and he rides the pine behind horrible Sanchez.

Most qbs in todays NFL are mobile and starting to have success because defenses are quicker and coming at you. it's not enough to just slide the pocket. Look at Brady whenever he has to play NYG the literally eat dude alive and he's one of the best, if not the BEST pocket passers of our generation.  But the Giants face an RG3, Newton, Vick, Rodgers (even though they got him in the post season), etc. and those guys can go off on them.

Bottom line in this league is you definitely need strong, consistent quarterback play.But that's not the end all be all in so much as balance and other factors coming into the equation.

A lot of it boils down to coaching to your teams strengths. Something we don't do around here.

[L.E.]

And watch them all fall early in the playoffs.

[NCTANK]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

We started 3-1, and the leaders of our division are now 8-6 ,so we just needed to play .500 football the rest of the way to get in.  I knew the Giants would fold with that schedule.  But, I thought we would have a strong 2nd half with a relatively weak schedule - but, that didn't happen with all these back-ups in there.

FYI - If the playoffs started today, 3 of the 4 non-traditional starting QBs in the league would be in the playoffs.  Just saying... teams who can't find that top 5 elite franchise type QB may be better off with good defense, good running game and a dual threat QB...

The QBs are Russel Wilson, RG3 and Colin Kaepernick... Cam would be the only one out.

This isn't a pro Vick thread, but people just need to open their eyes that there are different ways to win in this league.  The league may be evolving.

I hope Foles is the answer at QB because it seems like he is going to be here - if not, I hope we find the answer soon.

evolution is one thing.

good solid football, in all three phases of the game, is  something you cannot discount. we could have any of those QB's under center, but if we cant block, cant tackle, cant cover anybody, and turn the ball over like we're friggin' Santa Claus, we'd still be 4-10.

this entire organization needs to go ALL the way back to square one, and get it right from the basics on up to the intricacies of NFL football.

[phonz3]

NCTANK, on 17 December 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

evolution is one thing.

good solid football, in all three phases of the game, is  something you cannot discount. we could have any of those QB's under center, but if we cant block, cant tackle, cant cover anybody, and turn the ball over like we're friggin' Santa Claus, we'd still be 4-10.

this entire organization needs to go ALL the way back to square one, and get it right from the basics on up to the intricacies of NFL football.

Awesome post.  I agree.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

I'm also not convinced that the NFC East is "weak", if it was "weak" then you'd have one team that was head and shoulders above the rest, like 2004 with the other three sucking wind... like 2004.

[phonz3]

VaBeach_Eagle, on 17 December 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

I'm also not convinced that the NFC East is "weak", if it was "weak" then you'd have one team that was head and shoulders above the rest, like 2004 with the other three sucking wind... like 2004.

9-7 may win the division.  That ain't too good.

The Giants have a superbowl hangover - they stink.  They got shut out yesterday and Eli has looked like crap for the last 2 months.  The Cowboys invent new ways to lose games and now the last 2 weeks they have won at the very end.  The Redskins are missing 2 of their best defensive players and have a rookie QB.  We aren't the NFC West of a few years ago but we aren't much better.

[VaBeach_Eagle]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

9-7 may win the division.  That ain't too good.

9-7 won the Super Bowl last year.

You can look it it two ways. A closely contested division is a bad division or a closely contested division is a good division. Having a 13-3 team and then all sub .500 teams below you is a "weak division". Having to fight and claw your way to a division championship and into the playoffs isn't.

The Broncos, Patriots and Falcons are in weak divisions. They have no competition going against them for the title. In the East, it could be any one of three teams that take it. So which is weak and which is strong? The division with competition for the title or the division with one powerhouse and 3 lapdogs?

[EagleVA]

phonz3, on 17 December 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

FYI - If the playoffs started today, 3 of the 4 non-traditional starting QBs in the league would be in the playoffs.

FYI, you're gonna see "non-traditional" QB's all over the league, QB's that can beat you out of the pocket as well as in the pocket, that's why Joe Montana and Steve Young were so great, those guys could beat you with their mobility as well as their arms.

Payton Manning has one SB ring, if he were a mobile QB he'd have 2-4 rings, the two SB's that Brady lost he would have won had he been a mobile QB and Dan Marino never won a SB because of his mobility, I could go on and on with examples.

This is my issue with going with Foles, without Brady and Manning pass protection, you're looking at another Sam Bradford or Joe (Green Wave) Flacco.

[NCTANK]

to whom it may concern......

please dont let Dallas make the playoffs.


that is all

[LacesOut]

The only 'weak' aspect of the NFC East is the e-girls.

[JustAnotherEaglesFan]

LacesOut, on 17 December 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

The only 'weak' aspect of the NFC East is the e-girls.

Oh how the times have changed

[AceofSpades]

VaBeach_Eagle, on 17 December 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

We started 3-1 but easily could have, and probably should have started 1-3.

Really 0-4. Things really would've gone downhill if the Eagles would've lost after Reid tried to ice the kicker.

[Eaglesfanforlife]

Its a real shame.