Keeping Vick vs Benching Vick

Posted: October 19th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 69 Comments »

For SB Nation Philly, I wrote about Reid’s decision to stick with Vick.

I believe this is the right move…for now.  The coaches will have the bye week to make adjustments.  Vick can flush out his head, rest up, and be ready for action.  Vick then gets to keep his job if he’s able to play better.  If not, you gave him a fair (some would say more than fair) chance.  Then you move on to Nick Foles.

That is such a drastic change that I think you have to err on the side of caution before making it.  Once you bench Vick…you’re going to have a very interesting situation on your hands.  Things could really fall apart.  I think Reid is wise to keep Vick in place…for now.  Can’t stress that enough.  If the turnovers continue, then you have to bench him.

* * * * *

My former friend Jimmy Bama stabbed me and Vick in the back by writing a long piece that called for Vick to be benched.  How could you???

All joking aside, I’m not far behind Jimmy.  Vick has really worn me down.  I just think going to a rookie is so drastic that you have to be eleventy-billion percent sure before making the move.

I certainly can understand all the people who do want Vick benched.

* * * * *

Derek from Iggles Blog did a phenomenal post on the Eagles pass coverages from Sunday’s loss to Detroit.

Must see material.

Lots to digest, but great work by Derek.  Worth the time.

Derek isn’t posting everyday.  I don’t think his schedule allows that.  He is active on Twitter and posts about once or twice a week.  Make sure you check his stuff out.  You’ll come away smarter.  Or more smarterer as Jimmy Bama might say.

* * * * *

FakeWIPCaller still puts us all to shame. We’re all hacks and wannabes, just dreaming of the day when can write like him.

My favorite part of his new column is this:  “- Bill O’Brien referring to Facebook as “Spacebook” is by far the most embarrassing thing any Penn State football coach has ever done.”

Gold.  Pure gold.

* * * * *

Can’t remember if I linked to the last show Jimmy Bama & I did.  Here we talked about Castillo’s firing and possibly benching Vick.

Tonight we’re planning to do a retrospective show.  We’ll talk about past seasons, players, and coaches.  You can let us know if there is a particular topic you’d like covered.  We’ll see what we can work in.  Once a show like this starts, it is very likely to take on a life of its own and go in some odd directions…like stories about Jimmy buying “underpants”.


69 Comments on “Keeping Vick vs Benching Vick”

  1. 1 Randy Jobst said at 5:29 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Can’t bench Vick when we are only 1 game out in the division(who we are 1-0 vs) and could be tied in losses for the final WC spot in NFC. Why panic when you are right in contention?

  2. 2 Mac said at 6:04 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    You sir have hit on the reason why no eagles fan will ever be trusted to sit by the red launch button for a nuke.

  3. 3 A_T_G said at 7:51 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Because Eagles fans are too patient, bordering on paralysis? Yeah, that’s what you always hear about us.

    I think we don’t get to man the nuke button out of fear that we would try to get Santa, injured Irvin and whoever our starting QB of the moment happens to be in a single blast.

  4. 4 TommyLawlor said at 8:36 PM on October 19th, 2012:


  5. 5 Mac said at 8:50 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Oh golly… that was something special right there.

  6. 6 Scott J said at 5:31 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    I would be more in favor of benching Vick if our o-line were playing better, or if the rookie we were putting in were a mobile QB. Foles will be a sitting duck back there. Eventually Vick will get hurt and Foles will be put in, so a benching isn’t necessary.

  7. 7 TommyLawlor said at 5:42 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Some wise reader said that with Vick’s new kevlar vest he has become “an indestructible turnover machine”. Great line.

  8. 8 iskar36 said at 6:14 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    I actually disagree with this. As Tommy pointed out in his previous post, Vick is holding onto the ball 0.5 seconds more than any other QB. That is a huge difference when you are talking about doing that on every single play. Our Oline is playing poorly for sure, but Vick is compounding the problem with his style of play. In terms of his mobility, in my opinion, he has not used his mobility effectively to escape pressure. He has not had good pocket awareness what-so-ever, thus I think his athleticism is negated unless we are talking about him running on plays were he can’t find an open receiver (rather than when he is getting heavily pressured).
    As for Foles, we have no idea how he will do in the NFL, but we do know a few things. With him, we are not looking for him to be a playmaker the way we expect Vick to be, which has led to a lot of his turnovers. We simply want Foles to manage the offense and limit turnovers. That is not to say doing that is a simple task, but it is to point out that we are not comparing what we expect Foles to be capable of as a rookie to Vick’s ability as a playmaker. Also, we know that at least in the preseason, which obviously is not the same as a regular season game, Foles managed to get rid of the ball quickly and into the hands of the other playmakers on offense. Lastly, we know that Foles played well behind a weak offensive line in college, so while there is a major difference between college talent and NFL talent, Foles has learned a few things about playing behind a weak OLine. To me, I just feel that while the team has several flaws that go beyond Mike Vick, Vick has hurt this offense and this team this season far more than he has helped it. Outside of leading comebacks in a few games which more than likely we would not have needed to comeback in had it not been for Vick in the first place, I don’t think he has done very much postive this season.

  9. 9 phillyfan1978 said at 6:16 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Yeah, even if Vick is done in Philly, do you really want to risk ruining Foles by putting him behind that line as a rookie?

  10. 10 Brett Smith said at 7:53 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    I would not be in favor of benching Vick.

    I learned my lesson int the “Bobby Hoying Incedent” do not think the grass is greener.

    I remember the days when McNabb always had 5 seconds to throw the football and his inaccurate arse would F it up. Don’t get me wrong I defended DMac to no ends but imaging Vick with 5 seconds to throw the ball.

    In 5 seconds Mr. 22 MPH (DJax) can leave any defender in the the dust and Maclin WILL be open. Safeties would be missing there socks as they tried to keep up with the Eagles speed.

    This whole mess is because our latest version of the OLine is unable to give Vick even 2.5 seconds to throw the ball. Not his strong point. He has never been a quick twitch QB. Heck there are only arguably 2 or 3 in the league that can survive a 2.5 second pocket. __Kurt Warner__ was an anomaly people. Not every QB can take a 1.5 step drop and flick the ball to the open guy.

    The only way I make the switch to Foles is because Vick is hurt. If the OLine gives Vick 4 – 5 seconds good things will happen. (I keep telling myself this so that I will believe it)

  11. 11 Corry Henry said at 6:14 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    I’m not even sure that Vick gets a whole game to show he’s turned it around. If he struggles again in the first half of the Falcons game, who’s to say that Reid won’t bench him coming out of the half. The one problem I have with throwing Foles in there is what I said over at BlogginTheBeast:

    There’s a big difference between Pac12 defenses and NFL Defenses, and I think the argument can be made that there is a big difference between preseason defenses and regular season defenses. The coverages get more elaborate and disguised better. Players are faster. Defenders hit harder. If I knew that throwing him to the wolves would result in a better player and not ending up with David Carr in Eagle Green, I’d say do it, but I just don’t know if I can wager his future for a playoff run this year.

  12. 12 iskar36 said at 6:17 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    I know you have discussed this briefly with Jimmy in the previous podcast, but now that you have had some time to digest things and both you and Jimmy have written about it more recently, I would definitely be interested in hearing you both debate whether or not to bench Vick. It seems you guys disagree on Vick and it would be interesting to hear both of you trying to persuade the other while arguing your own view.

  13. 13 Corry Henry said at 6:22 PM on October 19th, 2012:


    This would make for a great topic of discussion and it would be a great show.

  14. 14 Mark823 said at 6:42 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Maybe I’m wrong on this, but my feeling is that keeping Vick in is more about Foles than it is about Vick. My feeling is if the Eagles had a backup that was proven, and they trusted more Vick would have been benched. Not to beat a dead horse but in my mind Vick has done more to be benched than Castillo did to be fired, and I’m not necessarily on the bench Vick bandwagon. But part of firing Castillo was Bowles being here, I remember Tommy saying if Bowles weren’t here Castillo is probably not fired. So I think it’s working out the same philosophically for Vick, if there was a more trusted backup in place I think Reid would have been announcing a QB change this week. That’s just my feeling.

  15. 15 Daniel said at 6:43 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Did you see a highschooler nailed a 67 yard field goal recently? My first thought was shock it couldn’t have come against the Eagles.

  16. 16 P_P_K said at 10:18 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    The parents of the kids on the other team are probably Eagles fans.

  17. 17 Joe Capotrio said at 6:44 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    the rookie can see over the o line. 3 step drops for 5′ 11″ QBs make no sense.

  18. 18 Ben Hert said at 6:53 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Tommy and Jimmy, love the podcasts. Its a blast to listen to at work…speaking of which, I know you both have busy schedules, but there might be a vat of pudding and a hijacked truck of PBR in it for you if you could get your game previews out on Friday so I can listen to it at work =) No worries otherwise…just a lot more pudding and PBR for me =) Regardless, thanks for all you do, and keep it up!

  19. 19 shah8 said at 7:00 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    I think the case for benching Vick is very poor.

    Here’s my distinction:

    Vick can run a real offense. I’d rather have a QB who can run a robust offense, even with turnovers, rather than someone who cannot. People who cannot, like the Kyle Ortons and Alex Smiths of the world, essentially can only play with leads, and if they’re asked to win games, the high completion % drops and the INT % increases. Then there are those that just don’t give a fig, hell I’m throwing deep. People that play this game, like Mike Shanahan…what do you think ended up happening? Embarrassments at QB for two years, and then selling out a few drafts to get a proper replacement. Every Vikings fan who knows anything has to wait until the inevitable failure of Ponder before they go with “so raw the cow’s still mooing” Webb, who can at least physically do the job, or draft someone new who can play–a lá Browns with McCoy, Wallace, and Weeden last year. Every QB who’s gone down to injury for more than a game has revealed subs who couldn’t really win squat on their own, aside from Webb and to a lesser extent, John Skelton.

    Full stop, Foles for any length of time means that the season is over. There is a reason for Wilson to have been selected in the 3rd round. Foles, more naturally, belonged in the third round. I’ve seen him on occasion @ Arizona. He was a statue with a moderately strong arm, who wasn’t particularly excellent. That he played as well as he did in preseason was a surprise to me. However, I still doubt that any game plan would work in winning with a non-first round rookie. It would almost certainly require that the defense gets the ball back in turnovers. Moreover, everything that would work with Foles, would work a zillion times better with Vick.

    Lastly, let’s not kid anyone here. The players love Vick because he goes above and beyond. Period. He’s bailing out a bad OL pretty much better than any other QB in recent memory. Better than Cutler, certainly better than Brady, who is terrible with bad OLs and who uses shotgun and spread concepts for speedy passing. I think P. Manning in ’10 did a better job, but only just, and the bad OL really took it’s toll on him as that season went on. E. Manning isn’t better–mostly about the same, in the sense that he’ll still deliver a strike right before the hit. The players all see this. They watch it on film. They know what their problems are. Don’t insult their intelligence and competence by pretending that they are so so loyal to him. It’s their paychecks, man. If the season goes down the tubes, their careers take a hit.

    Play that game, and the Eagles will take a reputational hit. You want to know what that looks like? Vikings only could add Jerome Simpson and his 3 game suspension, and John Carlson as significant FA additions. Any safeties? CBs? Or much of anyone of real use? No?

    Benching players for significant amounts of time, for what are bad reasons of showing dominance and punishment…well, that sub had better *fly* in his appearances and reward faith. Turnovers are bad, man, but it’s just not the whole picture.

  20. 20 A_T_G said at 8:52 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    The OL love Vick because he holds the ball longer than anyone, takes more hits than anyone, but gets up and soldiers on? And, somehow, the national media attention that the Eagles have received as unable to protect a QB is HELPING the careers of these olinemen?!

    Come on. There are a lot of cases for sticking with Vick. That he is making his OL look good and improve their career prospects in not one of them.

    Vick has a knack for rescuing blown plays. He doesn’t make his OL look good by doing so. You know what makes an OL look good? Not letting the QB get hit. Brady makes that easier. Manning makes that easier. During preseason, Foles made that easier. Vick makes that next to impossible.

  21. 21 shah8 said at 9:17 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    There isn’t much of any reasoning going on, here. Or probably it’s just reasoning from the fact that Vick is the guy’s who’s in the wrong, and he should be benched, and reasoning backwards.

    Seriously, the OL loves Vick because he holds onto the ball, etc? Just those guys? Not the RB, WR, TEs? Everyone else on the team? But really, how on earth can you contort my post as saying that Vick makes the OL good, rather than keep an offense functioning while it’s bad?

    Look, people have a bad habit of just naming popular QBs, regardless of whether they show that attribute or not. Let me make this clear–no QB can really keep looking good in front of a bad OL. It goes for all of them. Manning, Brady, yada yada yada. When you can see such a stark lowering of Bree’s reliability just because Carl Nicks is gone, that should tell you something. When an OL goes from horrible to better, Tarvaris Jackson goes from zip, to functional QB. You see the Steelers? They’ve got Big Ben doing the same dance–think they are doing much better? Even so, there is the big difference in that there aren’t missed blocks, just bad ones. Ben can roll within or outside of the pocket for more time. There are only so many miracles that a QB, even a good one, can get when an OL whiffs like Herremans on that OT sack.

    I’ve been pretty satisfied with how well Vick has played when the OL does function properly, so I’m just not inclined to think he is the problem that can be positively fixed best. Fix the OL, and the rest will come. That goes for Morningwheg, as well. By and large, I think his playcalls makes sense–in that you really have to ask the OL to function somehow for any kind of effective offense. You can’t even put it in Shady’s hands, at this juncture.

  22. 22 A_T_G said at 8:43 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    I am certainly not looking to contort your words. The part of your post to which I was responding was the paragraph where your logic seemed to be:

    1. Players love Vick.
    2. Vick bails out bad Olines.
    3. Vick does so better than Brady, Manning, Cutler, or anyone in recent memory.
    4. Players all see this.
    5. Players know they have problems.
    6. Players are financially sensible.
    7. Payers want Vick.

    From that, I inferred that you were saying that players want Vick because they are financially sensible, they know they have problems, they know Vick bails them out, and, particularly the Oline, knows he bails them out better than anyone in recent memory. Not contortions were intended.

    As for your new, or apparently originally intended, argument, you seem to be saying that players love Vick because he makes them look better, which increases their value, by keeping a clearly sub par Oline from completely crippling the offense, and instead just handicapping it. That argument seems to rely on an implicit belief that there are owners out there willing to sign players to contracts based only on wins, loses, and perhaps box scores.

    If Vick doesn’t actually make them look good, but instead makes the offense functional despite the obvious weakness of their play, how is he increasing anyone’s value but his own?

    Finally, I took your post at face value. I didn’t attempt to dismiss it with accusation of bias or label it devoid of value. If you choose to respond, I would appreciate you doing so from the same footing.

  23. 23 Steag209 said at 7:20 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    I think I agree with you Tommy, I’m getting tired of Vick but you have to exhaust your options and give Vick every opportunity to succeed before going to a 3rd rd rookie

  24. 24 bdbd20 said at 7:33 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    It will be interesting to see if Edwards is active against Atlanta. If Vick struggles, Reid may go to the veteran to get through the game and then make the move to Foles for the New Orleans game.

  25. 25 the guy said at 11:56 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    Actually it would just be interesting period. If the Eagles start activating Edwards after the bye, that tells me they’re possibly thinking in terms of sitting Vick during a game.

  26. 26 Matthew Verhoog said at 7:58 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    The answer to the whole Vick/Foles thing is easy, Wait for Vick to get injured, then you have a risk free chance to see the rookie. Of course, as soon as you think that Vick is indestructible He does have the new padding, they should really put together an add for that stuff with Vick getting hit fifty thousand times and getting up.

  27. 27 eagles2zc said at 11:53 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    So basically Marty should just keep on calling those long developing plays that rarely works because of our porous Oline

  28. 28 A_T_G said at 1:51 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    Did you see my idea last week? Every time Vick loses a turnover he takes off one pad. When he leads them to a touchdown, he gets one back. Things will take care of themselves from there.

  29. 29 Matt Hoover said at 8:14 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Would like some talk about bobby hoying and 1998 eagles and why that team was so bad after a hot finish in 97. Why Freddie Mitchell never got chance with another NFL team, about Freddie’s strong 2004 playoff games filling in for Owens. Possible candidates the eagles talked to when they were interview for Rhodea replacement. An maybe touch on Joe Banner being hired by the browns and if heckler is staying or going.

  30. 30 Brett Smith said at 9:25 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    Hoying was fine on 97 because no defense had tape on him. The true test of a QB is yr 2 when teams have tape on you and game plan accordingly. Ask Cam how it is going in yr 2.

  31. 31 Anders said at 5:50 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    Hoying also lost his OC Gruden.

  32. 32 austinfan said at 8:20 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Vick’s last three games, 63%, 6.9 YPA 5-2.
    He worked hard to correct his fumbling problem.
    He threw for over 300 yards and if Celek doesn’t f- up, 4 TDs.

    He started the year rusty, but the game against Detroit, he shouldn’t have been able to come out the second half given the beating he took. Instead he dominates the 3rd Q, giving a rested defense a 10 point lead.

    This isn’t McNabb coming off two putrid performances against Cincinnati and Baltimore in 2008, this is McNabb recovering from his bad thumb in 2003 and hitting his stride down the stretch.

    Vick has had a rough start this year, but he’s been working through it. If Bowles can raise the defense up a notch or two, and AR reads MM the riot act and sticks with an offense this OL can execute, Vick can reel off a hot streak, 8-2 or so down the stretch – we’ve seen this before.

    Foles comes in when the season is lost and auditions begin for 2013. There is no way he wins 7 of 10 down the stretch no matter how good the defense – like any rookie QB, he’ll blow a few games with boneheaded mistakes.

  33. 33 GermanEagle said at 3:19 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    You my sir, hit the nail on the head. Again!

    Love reading your reasonable and well thought analysis on here.

  34. 34 the guy said at 12:01 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    I do agree that Vick hasn’t been putting in a terrible performance all the time, but for me, it’s not just a matter of this season. He wasn’t great last year either.

    I do think he’s capable of getting on a hot streak and leading the team to the playoffs, but in a way that’s my problem with him. He plays well in streaks, but the only thing he’s been consistent about in the last 2 seasons is turning the ball over. Maybe he’s the right choice for this season. I’m basically 50/50 on that. I do not, however, think he’s the right choice going forward.

  35. 35 Doctor Claw said at 10:35 AM on October 22nd, 2012:

    as for Celek, let’s not forget the refs who took a TD away. I see Gronk do the exact same move with the Pats… no OPI called.

  36. 36 Jay said at 10:20 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    Vick should remain as the starting QB.

    Reason’s why we would even think about benching Vick:
    Turnovers. He is not very good at playing keep-away this year and just can’t take care of the football.
    Vick is constantly holding onto the ball too long when it’s evident that he needs to get it out quickly.

    Many fans are calling for Foles to get the starting nod.
    Why? The team is 3-3 and only a game behind the Giants, whom the Eagles have already beaten this year.
    Take away many of the turnovers we have had, and we might be 5-1.

    I don’t care about the preseason. We do not know ANYTHING about Nick Foles.
    At the end of the day, you can’t make too much out of preseason results. It’s simplified offenses attacking simplified defensive fronts/schemes.

    – We had 20 sacks in the preseason….I think we’re on pace to finish with less than 20 sacks this regular season. (I think Roob wrote that)
    – Thornton and Hunt looked like rising stars.
    – Damaris Johnson looked good at WR.
    – It seemed like Bryce Brown was constantly getting 15 yard runs.
    – It also seemed like Johnson and Boykin were the solution to our ST returning woes.
    – Nick Foles was awesome and brought FoleSanity/Foles-Mania to Philly.
    – Vick got hurt twice in a span of like 15 snaps. He’s already taken 50 QB hits this year and has yet to leave the game.

    Literally, all the above is completely the opposite thus far in the regular season..Well, except for the Foles experiment. That is to be determined.

    What I’m trying to say is that we can’t buy into the hype when it comes to Foles’ preseason play. I would think the only thing you can take serious at this point, is his college tape.
    We obviously don’t know this for sure, but the only thing he can PROBABLY do better than Vick, is getting the football out quicker. And that’s only because he apparently did that very well at ASU.
    That is 1/2 of the main problems for Vick.

    The other part is the turnovers.
    Can we really expect a rookie QB to NOT turn the ball over? A rookie QB that was not a top QB prospect of his draft class, and a rookie QB that hasn’t had the offseason and training camp as the starter?
    If Foles was the starter, I do think AR/MM would run the ball more and play a lot more small ball. That would most likely limit the chances of turnovers.
    But like Tommy said, why not just play small ball with Mike Vick.

    You could argue that with Foles’ height, he wouldn’t throw as many INTs. At 6’5, he can see the field better, and because of his height, it would be rare that his balls would get tipped.

    The biggest reason I do not want Foles to start over Vick is because of this…With exception of the Cards game, Mike Vick has put us in a position to take the lead in the 4th quarter. Speaking of the Cards game, I don’t think Mike Vick is to blame for that game. I think the poorly designed gameplan was the problem.

    The big question is this.
    Like I said, people are calling for Vick to get benched because of his two main problems…Turnovers and not getting the ball out quicker.
    Let’s say Foles becomes the starter and he significantly reduces the turnovers (if he has any at all), and gets the ball out quicker…..Does he keep us in games? Can he drive down the field using nothing but his right arm when we are down in the 4th?

    Just because a QB can release the ball fast and keep from turning the ball over, doesn’t mean he’s going to be able to get points on the board and run the offense well.

    At the moment, our running game isn’t too good. It seems whenever Shady gets 10+ yards it’s either negated due to a holding penalty or it’s all because of Shady. If McCoy couldn’t cut back and make people miss the way he does, our run game would be completely atrocious.
    With that being said, if we can’t run the ball, can Nick Foles pass for 30 times a game to win a game? Can he pass 30 times as a rookie and not get picked off 3 times in that same game?

    I don’t know.

  37. 37 GermanEagle said at 3:21 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    Great post!

  38. 38 aub32 said at 12:20 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    Thanks. You saved me from having to type this exact same post verbatim.

  39. 39 A_T_G said at 2:00 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    I want Foles to be the answer. Partly because I’m tired of Vick making the same mistakes over and over. Partly because I don’t like having no idea what to expect each week. Partly because I watch other teams play on-time, smooth football and do more with less talent and I want that for us.

    The rational side of me agrees with you, however. Vick gives us the best chance right now, if he can clean up his game. I understand that and I grudgingly support that.

    I am just getting tired of waiting for right now to happen the way it should.

  40. 40 Jay said at 10:54 PM on October 19th, 2012:

    A couple of people have recently commented saying that they, and a lot of people are just ‘tired’ of the same ‘ole, same ‘ole, under Andy Reid.

    Completely understood. It’s very frustrating at times.

    There’s one thing I just can’t understand. Some of you say that there aren’t many players on the team that you’re excited about/to see play?

    That is something I just can’ t agree on.

    Vick, McCoy, DJax, Maclin, Cole, Babin, Cox, Graham, Curry, Ryans, Kendricks, DRC, Nnamdi, Boykin, Allen, and Henery.

    All of those players are exciting players, or are players that you can be excited for. I know a lot of those players haven’t played real well thus far this season but I still consider them exciting…
    My reason? I can go into a game and believe/know that these players all have a good chance/have the ability to make big plays, take over a game, or make impressive plays. Most of these players are still young and can still improve. As for the rookies, you may not be excited for them at the moment, but how can you not be excited for the future?

  41. 41 GermanEagle said at 3:23 AM on October 20th, 2012:


    I’ve asked this before, but will do so again:

    When the game is on the line, who would you rather have on the field in their last series: our O or our D?! A more detailed answer would be appreciated.

    OT: Taken 2 is awesome. I just love Liam Neeson.

  42. 42 A_T_G said at 7:40 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    I think you need to handicap it. Is it our D with a one point lead vs. our O trailing by 2? Is it up by 4 vs. down by 6?

  43. 43 GermanEagle said at 7:58 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    Let’s keep it simple: the O trailing by 2, while the D is up by 2, i.e. the offense needs to kick a FG and the defense must not give up a FG, respectively.

  44. 44 A_T_G said at 9:05 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    For me, if a field goal is the difference, it is close. I think I am going with the defense on the field, despite the bad taste from last week. If the difference were a touchdown, I’m taking the defense without hesitation.

    I would love to see some stats on how many times offenses are successful in your scenario. It feels like they are 50/50 or better, but I bet they aren’t that good by a wide margin. We are less likely to remember the games where things stayed the same at the end.

  45. 45 aub32 said at 12:26 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    The offense has never failed this season making a final when trailing by a single score in the 4th qtr. The defense just blew two late 4th qtr leads. Therefore, I’m going offense trailing by two.

  46. 46 P_P_K said at 10:26 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    There are so many quality posts here that I’ll skip going into details. I just want to add that this whole situation stinks of Philly over-reaction. Nick Foles has no resume as an NFL qb. Don’t blow up a .500 start and only one game behind the Division lead.

  47. 47 TheRogerPodacter said at 11:30 AM on October 20th, 2012:

    i agree.
    however, i am not so much in the “Start Foles” group as i am in the “Start Vick’s backup” group.
    i’d prefer the backup to NOT be a rookie, but he’s what we have so lets go with it. i would expect this level of turnovers for a rookie, not for Vick

  48. 48 GermanEagle said at 1:05 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    The average for thrown interceptions of all 32 starting QB’s is 5.6.

    While Vick’s numbers is certainly high and below the league average, there are a couple of well known veteran QB’s who have even thrown more INTs this season:
    Philip Rivers
    Tony Romo
    Matt Cassel

    Ryan Fitzpatrick has thrown 8 Ints too while Matt Ryan – whose Falcons are the only unbeaten team in the NFL – has 6 Ints already….

  49. 49 A_T_G said at 2:09 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    True, but Vick is a dual threat to turn the ball over. He is fumbling at a rate almost matching is pick productivity.

  50. 50 GermanEagle said at 2:20 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    I didn’t wanna defend Vick’s turnovers, don’t get me wrong. However I don’t think Vick’s gonna keep the same pace neither for his fumbles nor his interceptions.

    If MM calls more ‘Vick friendly’ plays, I am pretty sure we’re gonna see the Vick from the Giants game.

    Nevertheless the total of INTs in this year’s NFL still seems high for all QB’s. Does anyone know if that’s an exception or is this season in line with previous ones?!

  51. 51 A_T_G said at 2:58 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    I wondered the same. It seems like every week there are a few 4 pick games from household names.

  52. 52 GermanEagle said at 3:12 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    Here’s hoping there will be RG3 ints against the Eagles…

  53. 53 ACViking said at 3:36 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    Hey, T-Law:

    If you’ve not done your podcast yet . . . how ’bout using about 7-8 minutes to talk about Buddy Ryan’s drafts. His hits and misses. (I’d ask you to go further back, but I don’t think you were old enough, or even alive, when those drafts occurred.)

    LB Alonzo Johnson. OT Matt Darwin (who ended up at center).

    1st round pick traded to the Colts for Ron Solt.

    And in 1986, Buddy struck gold in Rds 8 and 9 with Clyde Simmons and Seth Joyner.

    Then do a quick comparison to Reid/Heckert/Roseman.

  54. 54 ultramattman said at 6:20 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    Retrospective show? Cool. I’d love to know what you thought, at the time, of the following Reid-era draft picks:

    Shawn Andrews

    Todd Pinkston
    Quinton Caver
    Brian Westbrook
    Jerome McDougle
    Trent Cole

    Chris Gocong
    Tony Hunt
    Donovan McNabb

  55. 55 austinfan said at 11:23 AM on October 21st, 2012:

    Shawn Andrews – uber talent, bad luck, first the ankle then the back, people blame the head but I think it was the injuries that lead to depression, if healthy was as talented as Peters (his teammate at Arkansas).

    Todd Pinkston – good deep threat, not much else, picked a bit high.

    Quinton Caver – all the measureables, none of the brains, bust. Actually, too straight line even if he had a clue, picked way too high.

    Brian Westbrook – greatest 3rd down back in NFL history, but not really a starter, just didn’t have the body to hold up, great pick

    Jerome McDougle – bad luck story, but also a product of a deep Miami DL which got a lot of people drafted but only Wilfork was more than fool’s gold, should have been a late 2nd rd pick at best – no special quality as a DE, though if healthy would have been serviceable at LDE, VA had more upside, too bad he couldn’t stay healthy.

    Trent Cole – a flyer, got lucky because he weighed too little for most to project to DE and wasn’t athletic enough for 3-4 OLB, an example where character raises talent (hard work made him a great player).

    Chris Gocong – misused, not that different from Spencer on Dallas, would have been a great SLB before they changed the rules, needs to play on the LOS to be effective, solid value in the 3rd rd. Eagles never used him as a pass rusher to maximize his production.

    Tony Hunt – example why the Senior Bowl doesn’t matter and measurables do, just wasn’t athletic enough for the pros despite being a great college player, and wasn’t willing to do the dirty work to stick on a roster.

    Donovan McNabb – a great athlete, but lacked the killer instinct and love for the game to take it to the next level, never fixed his mechanics, never mastered the fine points of being a QB, once his legs went, his career followed. Still a top 10 pick, until his 2005-2006 injuries was a dominating player who could win games single handly (GB playoff game has to be one ot the ten greatest performances in NFL history).

  56. 56 Insler said at 4:10 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    Totally agree about Gocong, never understood why he wasn’t used more to pressure the QBs we faced. After the NE in 2007 when we almost pulled an upset and where he had such a good role in that Joker position, never could figure why he wasn’t used more. Maybe Tommy can shed some light on the subject.

  57. 57 ultramattman said at 7:04 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    I was always of the belief that the reason the Eagles never used Gocong as a pass rusher is because he wasn’t actually a very good pass rusher at the NFL level. He was best as a run stuffer, which is how he was used in his best season as an Eagle, and continued to be used by the Browns. Always thought Gocong was a solid 3rd round pick, but many Eagles fans label him a bust because they were hoping he’d become a pass rushing terror.

    But these are thoughts about these players NOW. I’m interested in Tommy’s take on these players *at the time they were drafted*.

  58. 58 A_T_G said at 8:36 PM on October 20th, 2012:

    For the podcast: you are GM overseeing an unusual supplemental draft. Do you go after DT the incredible Hulk, HB Cheetara, or long snapper Megan Fox? What picks are you going to offer?

  59. 59 GermanEagle said at 11:10 AM on October 21st, 2012:

    It hurts to write this: go skins!

  60. 60 P_P_K said at 1:46 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    Changing the subject, I wonder if Bowles, with his background playing and coaching defensive backfield, might have had some ideas about making things work with Nnamdi, DRG, and Asante. We’ll never know, of course, just gives me something to ponder while hoping the Giants lose.

  61. 61 GermanEagle said at 3:37 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    I thought Vick is not playing today or who’s the guy wearing #10 for the Redskins?!

  62. 62 ACViking said at 3:57 PM on October 21st, 2012:


    COLTS v. BROWNS . . . don’t know if you’re watching any of the game.

    But I wanted to see a couple of things. The Colts’ O-line. And Browns’ rookie WR Josh Gordon.

    First, how the Colts O-line did — w/ Justice and McGlynn on the right sides and Anthony Costanzo at LT. (Note: Costanzo was drafted 1 spot ahead of Watkins . . . so if he’s someone Eagles wanted, they could have jumped up a couple of picks.)

    Right now, I’d take Costanzo over Watkins. No question.

    And while not great, the Eagle X’s are doing okay. (The Browns made some great half-time adjustments. Increased pressure and more blitzing.)

    Browns’ WR Josh Gordon — the kid from Baylor taken in the Rd 2 of the 2012 supplemental draft.

    He’s about 6’3″, 225 lbs.

    My recollection is you weren’t particularly interested — for a few reasons.

    He’s looked good when given a chance . . . seems to do nothing but catch long touchdown passes.

    So many teams have big, fast WRs. I’d like to see the Eagles get one.

    Gordon would have been a pretty good one. Looks like the kind of player who could — repeat, could — transcend the scheme.

    For example, while D-Jax can get deep, he’s not the kind of player who can go up and battle for the ball. (Can Maclin?)

    Gordon not only has the speed to get deep. But he has the size to out-muscle defenders.

    Just a thought.

    Which leads to a topic that seems to be hot this year: Slot Receivers.

    Avant has great hands. Runs good routes.

    But he’s not fast, and not quick.

    The slot may be another position the Eagles need to address.

  63. 63 Anders said at 6:27 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    Remember Justice was traded before we lost Peters and Herremans had just received a huge pay raise, no real need for him and McGlynn couldnt beat out Kelce at center or the terrible guard I cant remember the name off.
    Also in regards to the the 2011 draft, we had Peters and Justice looked up

  64. 64 ACViking said at 7:26 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    Yes, I remember.

    I was just curious to see how they were doing.

  65. 65 ACViking said at 4:27 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    Re: A Big WR

    Just to beat a dead horse . . . although the Bucs lost to the Saints, Vincent Jackson and Michael Williams showed why a big WR in the Red Zone can be vital to an offense that doesn’t have a Top-5/10 QB.

    (Yes, the Pats don’t really have one. Nor the Giants. But they have great QBs . . . which seems to compensate for the size issue.)

  66. 66 Corry Henry said at 4:37 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    They don’t have a “big” wide receiver, but what they do have is players who are physical. While Hakeem Nicks isn’t in the prototype of Jackson, he does know how to be physical and to use his body to shield defenders from the ball. He’s also probably got the best hands in the league.

    Tom Brady has Gronk and that’s all he really needs in the red zone.

  67. 67 ACViking said at 7:25 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    Good point. G-men have physical WRs.

    As for NE’s Gronk, he’s a TE.

    And I agree that having a huge, nimble, dominant TE helps.

    I was only talking about WRs.

  68. 68 ceteris_paribus1776 said at 10:46 PM on October 21st, 2012:

    If we see more of the same out of Vick then I’d pull the plug on the experiment after about 10 games. At that point we’ll know one way or another where he’s trending.

    I’m assuming that he’s not going to just throw up a few more stinkers without something decent in between. That’s why I’d give it a bit more time. If he comes out of the bye with 2 Vick specials, then I’d have no problem benching him. If he continues to be play up and down then it should be clear that he’s just not the QB you want leading your team into the playoffs, at which point I’d like to see what the kid can do.

    I think we are all just tired of the typical course of an Eagles season. They are often sloppy, unbalanced and losing to teams that they “should” beat. I say they should beat only because people seem to think this team is something worth paying attention to, when in fact, they are a team that often loses to poor quality opponents and a team that plays very poorly for stretches of the season. Everyone loves to come up with reasons for why this and that they lose; if only they’d run the ball more they’d get it turned around, only to come back the next season with the exact same critique. It’s a tired act at this stage of Andy Reid’s tenure. That’s the real issue, imo.

  69. 69 read said at 8:26 PM on October 30th, 2012: