What will Arizona give us for Foles?
#1
Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:08 AM
#2
Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:15 AM
#5
Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:28 AM
#6
Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:30 AM
#7
Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:34 AM
Akrobatik, on 17 January 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:
You don't GET IT!!! Kelly is not Andy Reid. The more I learn about him the more I like him because he ADAPTS. Foles is a Brady/Flacco/Big Ben type of QB. Chip Kelly respected Nick Foles destroying his Oregon defense. If the Patriots can adapt Kelly's philosophy with Tom Brady, why not Nick Foles???? Kelly thinks "outside of the box", unlike the previous Eagles coach who needed instruction from a Green Bay Mike Holmgren notebook!!
#8
Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:43 AM
Iggles, on 17 January 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:
Unfortunately he never overcommitted to the run when people thought he was going to pass.
#9
Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:45 AM
PhillyGreenMachine, on 17 January 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:
Unfortunately he never overcommitted to the run when people thought he was going to pass.
Touche' Reid outsmarted himself many times. Chip Kelly has no family, and he's dedicated to football. I have to admit if Chip Kelly can out think the coach of the SF49ers, playing for the NFC Championship this Sunday, he deserves a shot in the NFL!
#11
Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:12 AM
Iggles, on 17 January 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:
You don't GET IT!!! Kelly is not Andy Reid. The more I learn about him the more I like him because he ADAPTS. Foles is a Brady/Flacco/Big Ben type of QB. Chip Kelly respected Nick Foles destroying his Oregon defense. If the Patriots can adapt Kelly's philosophy with Tom Brady, why not Nick Foles???? Kelly thinks "outside of the box", unlike the previous Eagles coach who needed instruction from a Green Bay Mike Holmgren notebook!!
#12
Posted 17 January 2013 - 03:18 AM
#13
Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:13 AM
dacaptn4u, on 17 January 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:
I'm now sorry I mentioned his name. Stoic ****POCKET PASSING QB'S**** was my idea. I didn't think some "psycho" years later would turn 2004 into a Ben Roethlisberger Johnny Cash song. Nick Foles is capable QB. There's no point in cutting him. Very simple.
#14
Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:17 AM
Akrobatik, on 17 January 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:
Kelly actually said he was happy to be rid of Nick Foles. Foles destroyed his Oregon defense. I think Nick Foles has a job with the Eagles despite the NFL Network/ESPN Bulll****!
#15
Posted 17 January 2013 - 05:26 AM
Iggles, on 17 January 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:
#16
Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:26 AM
Iggles, on 17 January 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:
Why do people say this? Fact of the matter is he could just be a tall guy with no mobility. Let's HOPE he can adapt and implement an offense that Foles can work well in...but remember you have to consider the other personel. Like terrible oline and speedy outside WR's. Nothing like what Brady has in NE.
And you're giving Chip Kelly way too much credit for NE's offense. I think if they fired Josh McDaniels Brady might even put up BETTER numbers. He's that good. So lay off the comparisons between him and Foles. They don't stick.
#17
Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:40 AM
My guess is derisive laughter.
#18
Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:19 AM
If Chip is an innovator, as he is being touted as, he will make the best of what he has and not fit square pegs in round holes, which we have had for 14 years...wasn't that the point of Lurie's comments about not having a fixed system philosophy? And this is ultimately what cost Andy in the long run...being too rigid, inflexible, and stubborn.
The best coaches (Bellichik etc...) adapt their offenses to their players....Bill B. changs his offense without Gronk in the lineup, or without Welker in the lineup. Whereas Reid would have Damaris Johnson or our #3 WR run the same routes/patterns as Desean, and then we'd wonder why it didn't work.
The most important thing now is that Chip picks the right OC/DC..especially DC, because we are not THAT far off on Offense, a tweak here and there, the defense , of course, needs a complete overhaul.
#19
Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:17 AM
Akrobatik, on 17 January 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:
Does any of those characteristics discribe Vick to you? It sure don't to me. yes, he likes his QB's to have mobility ( Foles demonstrated he does ...he just isn't as fleet footed as Vick) but prefers that they use their smarts more than their lower extremities (legs). Vick is NOT the QB needed , no matter how much you, his fan club and the media hype machine try to sell him to others.
#20
Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:28 AM
forevereagles, on 17 January 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:
Does any of those characteristics discribe Vick to you? It sure don't to me. yes, he likes his QB's to have mobility ( Foles demonstrated he does ...he just isn't as fleet footed as Vick) but prefers that they use their smarts more than their lower extremities (legs). Vick is NOT the QB needed , no matter how much you try to sell him to others that he is.
couldn't agree more. the truth is if kelly is this great "innovative" upcoming offensive guru like he is proclaimed to be yet he can't build an offense around a pocket passer then that would be a direct contradiction. One interesting fact though is that vick and foles last year had the exact same amount of rushing td's and foles was from a much further distance. While he is certainly not swift he is certainly able to run for a first down in space which he has already demonstrated he has the ability to do. More importantly he has shown that he can ellude pressure, keep his eyes downfield,and throw accurately while on the move. That is a much much much bigger deal than being able to run. All that running got rgIII a nice 9 month rehab trip didn't it? You guys really want to continue in the direction of having your starter constantly injured again?
#22
Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:32 AM
#23
Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:33 AM
Iggles, on 17 January 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:
Yes Yes...The Patriots owe's it all to Chip.
#24
Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:34 AM
#27
Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:39 AM
Iggles, on 17 January 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:
The Patriots just wanted the principles of the hurry up/no huddle offense. It's not like New England took the entire Oregon offense and I think that's where people miss the point.
#28
Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:57 AM
#29
Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:08 AM
TATErs are losing their minds. This kid is going to be somwhere between a servicable starter and a pro bowler, and I think on the higher end. The worst thing that can happen is trade him and watch him do it for some other team.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users











