Do you even have a clue?Really?Wallace was a rookie in 2009 and started 4 games.And guess what he had more tds in 4 games than in 16 games with tannehill.
Foles is efficient in an efficient scheme, hard to compare these guy's imo. I do think RT will develop the necessary trajectory to hit on more deep throws wich will boost his stats to a near elite level. In 2015 I think I want Ryan, today? Must be Foles. And LOL at Desean Jackson being better than Mike Wallace. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
That one trick is pretty damn destructive if we ever learn to capitalize on it. And I actually feel like our coaches didn't do enough to take advantage of his skill set. Not many crossing, dig or slant routes, only a couple reverses, I don't think I saw a post pattern all year long. Instead it was stop routes and take offs all year long. If they weren't working, so what, they just kept calling them. Same with Miller, outside zone inside zone ad nauseum. Not working? So what, run it some more. Given the OL issues, screens and draws should have been staples but they were virtually non existent. The screens we did run looked terrible, like they were never worked on in practice. Our best runs in the Jets game were draws, had me thinking why we didn't see them earlier. Not to mention traps and counters, didn't see any of those all year either. I'm way off topic now so I'll stop but I don't think it's fair to call guys one dimensional if they're not being allowed to do most of the things they're good at.
I'm primarily a Dolphins fan. Check my post count here The reason why I'm on this board is because I've been here since '08 and have met a lot of great people here. I also live in this area and don't have immediate access to the market. I'm a displaced fan much like yourself. I am a huge Flyers fan, though.
Lots of QBs have break out seasons, especially in new or unconventional offenses. I'll believe Foles is a good QB when he comes back and does it again next year.
Foles has been putting up all-time great numbers this year, third best QB rating in a season. The Eagles while good, and certainty better than the Dolphins, don't have an all-time great offensive team. Remember, the QB that had the starting job and was a supposedly a better fit for the “system” had a QB rating roughly 33 points lower with the same team.
Man. They just strait up pick their guy and bury him. (in hay of course) That's if con means "with" and not "sans". I'm not sure of its use.
I don't recall him ever making an eagles related post on here or on facebook. Some people do have an afc and NFC team but he's definitely a dolphins fan first and foremost if he does
Foles has had Lane Johnson protecting him, the guy we should have drafted. He also has a genius OC while ours is an idiot.
I know that I think he misunderstood me.I meant to say I saw your flyers logo and fiqured you were also an eagles fan.
Lane Johnson was a below average LT based on PFF rankings and among the league leaders in sacks allowed (10) and pressures (39) while in one of the most run heavy offenses in the league. His pass blocking numbers are abominable ranking 65th out of 76 that qualify for the ranking (at least 25% of snaps played). We made the right pick with Jordan, we just have a DC who is too dumb to know how to use him.
Do you know if his numbers had gotten better once Foles was placed in? Just wondering if QB had a factor in it.
All that is is an excuse for a QB to play well. However, Foles didn't just play well, he put up the best numbers in the NFL per attempt in most of the important categories: -yards per attempt -TD per attempt -INT per attempt -Passer rating -20+ yard completions per attempt -40+ yard completions per attempt -(he's also #3 in 1st down percentage) The offensive line isn't responsible for the above or else there wouldn't be such a difference between Foles & Vick. The surrounding talent at WR, TE, RB isn't responsible for the above or else there wouldn't be such a difference between Foles & Vick. Chip Kelly isn't responsible for the above or else there wouldn't be such a difference between Foles & Vick. All of the above does is allow a quarterback to be the best that he himself can be, and in Foles' case it culminated in one of the best statistical seasons per pass attempt in NFL history, if not the best...... and I'm sure as sh-t positive he isn't the first QB in NFL history to have a good Oline, a good offensive system, and a decent surrounding cast [but definitely isn't on the NFL's "All Time Great" list]. What's next, dismissing Joe Montana's HOF career just because he had an outstanding offensive line, an even better surrounding cast, and a HOF HC? Give the f***ing guy some credit b/c any who watched him play this year w/o a pair of some other team's homer glasses on can clearly see Foles was outstanding in and of himself. I wish Tannehill had Foles' feel for the game, deep ball accuracy, and pocket presence exhibited thus far.
Foles statistically had a great year and I think hes going to be good in this league. That doesn't mean I'd take him over Ryan Tannehill. I think both are about the same in terms of talent. Tannehill has the higher upside in my opinion but that wont matter unless these circumstances he is faced with change.
Its an interesting discussion. Tannehill, obviously, plays on a worse overall offense. Foles has the best RB in the league this year, a coach with a very innovative offense that gameplans and adjusts with the best of them. Us? Not so much.....our running game has been historically bad and downright embarrassing. Our passing game has been solid despite the worst Oline in the league. Its hard to judge these guys because the talent around Foles is so much better overall than Miami's and the coaching is obviously better and more modern. I'd like to think Tannehill would be better than Foles on Philly but really, Foles has played about as good as you can play if you aren't Manning, Marino, Brees, etc. Foles has been amazing this year, in a year where Manning isn't shattering records, and if he played all year, Foles would easily be a candidate for MVP, easily. His play has been that good. You have to tip your hat to Foles. Yeah he has the help of a running game, oline, etc. but he's getting it done. Its not like he's a Fiedleresque player just managing the game, he's making big plays and putting up big numbers, he's been great this year. Tannehill has been good and I do understand how much he's been under attack and just how bad our running game and Oline is so you have to cut Ryan some slack.
He played in 16 games in 2009.... Sorry. So you saying this year was his worst is not true. Try again.
Lets see Jackson since 2008, 356 catches, 6117 yards, 17.2 average, 32 TDs (not counting his rushing and kick and punt returns) (He had 7, 3 rushing, 4 returns)) for a total of 39 TD's Wallace since 2009, 308 catches, 4972 yards, 16.1 average, 37 TDs ( 0 rushing, 0 returns)
..... and BTW, no, Tannehill would not have done the same thing in Kelly's system, behind that Oline, and with that surrounding cast, because a significant portion of Foles' success was due to his downfield accuracy. He led the NFL in percentage of throws over 15 yards..... and he completed 50% of his passes over 30 yards [compared to Tannehill's 24%] and hit on a TD every 2.5 of those attempts [compared to Tannehill's 1 per 14.5] for a total of 8 TDs [compared to Tannehill's 2]. Tannehill wasn't in the same ballpark as a downfield passer. He wasn't even in the same zip code. If Tannehill came close to Foles in converting those opportunities where Mike Wallace was college-open throughout the year we'd currently be in the playoffs just like Philly.
One improved his teams players, one didn't. One made the playoffs, one didn't. One QB won a win or go home game, one didn't. I think it's clear.
Statistically, Nick Foles is playing like an all-time great right now. I don't think Nick Foles is an all-time great, but it's silly to argue that he's not playing better than Ryan Tannehill right now. Chip Kelly is coach of the year, in my eyes.
Once again I said he only STARTED 4 games his rookie season.Holmes and ward were the starters that year. 39 receptions for 730 yds and 6 tds are great numbers when u r the third option.
One got a win against the top division rival to get in the playoffs and one didn't win against the bottom team in the division. Like the recent article, Tannehill failed his final exam. I just hope it's not a tendency for him to choke in big games.
It's so funny how people scream "two different systems, can't compare the two!". I mean honestly people will go to no end to defend their beloved guy.
One knock on tannehill come out of texas am was lack of touch on the long ball.Two years later he has the same issue.Maybe he needs a better qb coach or maybe he never develops the touch.If he doesn't he will never be a franchise qb.Mike wallace the best deep threat in the league and ryan tannehill at the moment is like mixing oil and water.
I don't see it as close. Foles gets the benefit of superior play-calling and schemes. If you evaluate the actual QB performance you see that Foles has much larger windows to throw into. Foles doesn't have to fit passes into tight windows. He doesn't have to make as many progression reads. If you switched QBs/schemes I believe that RT would have outperformed Foles stats and that Philly would have won the division going away.
Tough to say. Foles has a great line and arguably the best RB in the NFL, along with arguably the best offensive system in the league. If Foles was on the Dolphins this year, I think he would have had similar numbers to Tannehill.
You understand there's a difference between playing in 16 games and starting 16 games, right? Wallace caught 1 more TD in half as many targets in 2009 than this year. HALF. Plus he was just a rookie still learning the game. He posted 1 TD every 12 targets in 2009 compared to 1 TD every 28 with Tannehill. That's because Tannehill couldn't hit him when he was COLLEGE-OPEN. Just 1 TD on throws over 30 yards [even though Tannehill attempted 29 of them]. All total, Wallace had 6 TDs on throws over 20 yards in 2009.... compared to just 1 TD from Tannehill. Wallace worked hard on improving the short to intermediate aspect of his game, which is supported by becoming statistically closer to Brian Hartline [a known, reliable, short to intermediate route-runner] than anyone previously gave Wallace credit for. Passes thrown from 0-20 yards: Wallace: 67 catches on 107 targets [62.6%], 6.3 avg, 4 TD, 40 1st downs [39%]. Hartline: 74 catches on 123 targets [60.2%], 7.5 avg, 3 TD, 51 1st downs [43%]. If Tannehill were capable of connecting on an acceptable NFL level of those downfield throws, Wallace would easily have 1100+ yards and 10+ TDs. EASILY.
One has a very good offensive line, the other has a turnstile line. One has the NFL leading RB, the other has 2 "average" RB's. One has Chip Kelly, one has Joe Philbin. Foles receivers have really helped him on his deep ball completion. While I was a skeptic of CK coaching in the NFL, watching his approach to the game is refreshing. It wouldn't surprise me to see them make the SB this year.
The big difference between the two is the downfield passing of Foles, he's great throwing deep while Tannehill is awful at it.
