So his 13 and 10 last year doesn't count because he was so good in 2013? No QBs have never had one season that was a statistical anomaly in their careers (see Josh Freeman's 25/6)? Foles may be better than he showed last year, but I don't see how someone holds up 2013 as proof of the future.
That's open to debate, considering Foles and the offense SCORED 0 POINTS against the mighty injury riddled San Fran D. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
He also didn't have the opportunity to finish the season due to injury, and I agree, he might not be better then RT17 but he's not all that much worse either, they are neck and neck in my opinion, each guy has area's of their game they need to work on.
And RT17 scored 7 in two games against terrible Bills and Jets teams. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA At least SF was a good team last year. Unlike the Bills and Jets in 2013.
No offense, but in Eagle land you would be highly outnumbered if you truly believe Tannehill and Foles are "neck and neck" for that system. Just my opinion.
OK I see now you mentioned 2013. Well that's well in the past, if your a Foles fan, you might want to hold onto the past, because the future isn't thaaaat bright.
I live in Eagle land, im in the Philly area, people might not be sold on Foles but they also aren't clamoring for RT17 either.... We (me and eagle fans) usually discuss how we wish we had Luck or Russell, neither of us usually talk about how much each of us wish we had each others QB's because fact is, both still have a lot to prove. And if your from DC trying to claim you know "Eagle land" your sadly mistaken, unless those are your initials or other reason, i'm in the heart of Eagle land as I have mentioned on many threads.
Still though, the Bills d has been good for some time now and the jests can be tough too. Foles was wretched in a lot of his play this year like that SF game where he scored NOTHING. People who defend Foles porous play this year are generally desperate Philly homers. Why do you think there's all the Mariotta talk? They don't believe in their QB, we do, regardless of your opinion that's what a lot of media people suspect. And our gm basically said so the other day.
My best friend is an Iggle finatic. There's a lot of Philly fans in D.C btw. And yea, as much of a homer my friend is, he definitely would rather have Tannehill than Foles at this point. He's a fair evaluator, unlike most of eagle nation.
So you have the audacity to say the Bills and Jets were tough in 2013 (when both were horrible) but then go on to talk about SF like they were bad (when they had a legit top 5 NFL HC)? You don't make sense dude. Foles just isn't built for that offense, doesn't mean he is a bad QB, most QB's aren't built for that offense as that offense is an un-traditional NFL offense.
And btw I could kinda tell your from Iggle land. Touchy a** fan base. So sensitive and desperate for success lol
Right cuz that Bills dline came out of nowhere. And Rex can't coach D. Tannehill never played a game like that SF game by Foles, never. And Foles was pretty unspectacular this entire year when he was healthy. You may not like Tannehill, but he would fit your system much better than mud foot Foles.
What do you know? The area your in (Redskins) have been horrible for the past 15 years just like the Phins, so you guys probably sit around and mope together. I've seen what its like to be IN THE CITY during back to back NFCCG and SB's. How can you call Eagle Nation unfair evaluators when you are sitting here basically calling RT17 a GOD when he hasn't even been to the playoffs? At least Eagles fans can back up Foles with a playoff argument. LOL I'm not an Eagles fan by any stretch, but don't diss where I was born. Eagles have been more relevant the past 15 years then the Dolphins and Redskins combined. P.S. I can say DC area fans aren't fair evaluators too, see how that works? We might be touchy *** fans but DC is pathetic *** fans.
Naw it's just the blind Foles supporters like you. You'll learn soon enough. Tannehill is a much better prospect than Foles, and Philly has always been irrelevant, even when you think they aren't.
Let's look at this objectively. Which QB, based on 2014 performance would you want on your team? QB A: 64.1 Completion %, 7.8 Yards Per Attempt, 268.7 Yards Per Game, 88.4 QBR QB B: 59.8 Completion %, 7.0 Yards Per Attempt, 270.4 Yards Per Game, 81.4 QBR Spoiler QB A is Mark Sanchez. QB B is Nick Foles. If anything, it shows that Sanchez was a marginally more efficient QB than Foles last year, and was better down the field, as averaged by more yards per attempt. But by all means don't let something like statistics get in the way of your argument. If the Eagles had a problem last season, it wasn't Sanchez. EDIT: For fun, here is QB C. QB C: 66.4 Completion %, 6.9 Yards Per Attempt, 252.8 Yards Per Game, 92.8 QBR This QB plays a little bit more conservatively, but is statistically better than both of the above QBs in at least 2 of the 4 efficiency categories I outlined. Can you guess who it is? Spoiler Yes ... it's Tannehill.
Answer me this question and just answer the question, I dont want anything more then answer. Which QB is the one time Pro Bowler with a playoff start with less games as a starter? (The other guy has never been a Pro Bowler nor made the playoffs and has more NFL starts) Tannehill or Foles?
Foles, but considering the Bellicheat, f*** the past, all that matters is what you can do for me now and in the future mentality. I personally prefer Tannehill in that regard. But you're correct, Foles has nice statistics from 2013, very nice, big deal.
Basing whether or not someone is a good QB because they went to the Pro Bowl doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We have seen over the years that the Pro Bowl is nothing but a glorified popularity contest. We have also seen that going to the playoffs, more often than not, is based on a team effort, not on the efforts of the QB. To prove this, we can look at a QB like Andy Dalton. Dalton was "selected" to the Pro Bowl this year. Dalton has played (and lost) in 4 Playoff games. Using your (limited) criteria, this means that Dalton is a better QB than either Nick Foles (more Playoff games) or Ryan Tannehill (more Pro Bowls and more Playoff games). It just seems to me you are cherry picking your criteria. I prefer to look at individual statistics (such as yards per game, completion percentage, yards per attempt, and rating) to help paint a more complete picture when I'm performing player evaluations.
I did check the numbers, and Foles did have many more passes over 20+ yds (in the air) than Sanchez did this past year. So although I agree Sanchez was more efficient, the 15 yd box comment may be closer to accurate than not.
There's other factors there outside of statistics that we would have to examine. I'm guessing that Chip Kelly retooled his offense to make use of Sanchez's strengths, which may be why his numbers were as good and arguably better than Foles for last year. He did the same thing when he switched from Vick to Foles. I think if anything this speaks to how creative and varied that offense can be.
Really, in your mind, the pro bowl is the determining factor? That says all most of us need to know about your position in this argument.
This thread never had a chance, it was obviously going to turn in to a Tanny bash/love fest. If you don't think we should trade Ryan, why not just ignore the thread instead of not directly responding to OP's suggestion but instead using it as a platform to mold the same tired argument. Are there not enough Ryan is awesome Ryan sucks debates going on in 15 other threads?
Sanchez did them no favors though, his schedule was soft outside of DAL and SEA. Maclin was a dangerous weapon with Foles, Sanchez ruined what was going to be a career year for Maclin because Sanchez played in a 15 yard box. ****, most of Sanchez passes were -2 yard screen passes.
You obviously dont read either. I said RT17 was better now for the third time in this same thread, I'm saying RT17 isnt much better like DC claims. Please Read.
Oh, I read it, unfortunately. Then... why does it matter who made the pro bowl? Who cares. It's irrelevant.
Eli Manning, Russell Wilson and Joe Flacco have won super bowls within the past decade. Peyton Manning, arguably the greatest QB ever, has only won once. Don't tell me you're positive Tannehill can't win a super bowl. That's naive.
No it doesnt really. It supports the fact that fans voted Foles to the pro bowl because of one good season, which he followed up with half of a pretty average one. The pro bowl is meaningless. I get what you're trying to say, but it's just not relevant IMO.
First..obviously those that know me, know Im a big fan of Ryan Tannehill, so of course I admit my opinions arent balanced. But, Ill take the OP at face value and look at the post. Hey any player, no matter who it is on the team is trade able, but you have to have a partner, and the trade has to be equitable. The problem with the original idea, is you haven't offered any realistic way this can happen. You haven't given us any way to improve at the QB position. You stated yourself, your a defensive minded person, and would rather pay that money to Suh. Well, then you have pretty much just accepted that youd rather pay the big money on the defensive side of the ball. In doing so, you realize you cant spend that money on a high end QB. So, your ok with an average QB since you wont have the money to sign a better one. Then whats your problem with Tannehill? Hes exactly the kind of QB you want. He wont be paid elite money, in your mind hes average, and since your focused on defense anyways...thats ok. You contradict yourself.
