Nick By The Numbers

77 Comments on “Nick By The Numbers”

1. 
   1 drichwine said at 12:03 PM on November 15th, 2012:

   Is Eli still considered young?
   I have often believed that what a player, especially a QB, does after he’s drafted makes far more of a difference to his overall NFL success than the raw materials he’s drafted for. Though McNabb had a good or great career, he was drafted in the top 5 of the first round, so wouldn’t that be considered more or less expected? Well, ask Tim Couch and Akili Smith. Or Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf. Or Tom Brady what expectations are worth.
   I think Nick may be a good QB, or possibly a great one, but it’s far more up to the stuff inside of him we can’t see than it is in any of his college or pro tape we can analyze.

2. 
   2 TommyLawlor said at 12:08 PM on November 15th, 2012:

   Put Eli in there for fun, since he had a bad day. Should have noted that.

3. 
   3 Ark87 said at 12:11 PM on November 15th, 2012:

   Should have thrown his first career start up there too, if i remember right it was horrific (awesome for us).

4. 
   4 drichwine said at 1:18 PM on November 15th, 2012:

   Mind you, Eli seems pretty young to me…

5. 
   5 Ark87 said at 12:04 PM on November 15th, 2012:

   Kind of fun. I think Foles’ biggest challenge on sunday will be toning down the int’s. He’s been throwing about as many int’s as td’s. It’s part rookie problem, part being in our system. No QB gets the Alex Smith treatment in this offense. Andy and MM are going to give you opportunities to throw.

6. 
   6 scott_mather said at 12:08 PM on November 15th, 2012:

   What’s the over/under on pass attempts for Foles. I’m going to guess he drops back at least 40 times. I seriously hope not, but I’m looking at Kolb’s 51 and McMahon’s 39, plus the fact that Marty & Andy will notice the Skins secondary is crap…

7. 
   7 eagles2zc said at 1:32 PM on November 15th, 2012:

   I would take over 40. Not that I mind, just means more chances to evaluate Foles. W/L is meaningless at this point to me, except when against the Giants 🙂

8. 
   8 TommyLawlor said at 3:22 PM on November 15th, 2012:

   Agreed on 40.

9. 
   9 shah8 said at 3:28 PM on November 15th, 2012:

   What I’ve seen of them is that they play for chances of a stop. If the offense can execute without something going wrong and getting a disfavorable down and distance, then they play for field goals.

   Given the line, and the need for big plays, I think we will see a bunch of long rollouts and attempts for TD plays. It’s more important to be able to run on those guys, actually. A working running game means we have at those crappy safeties.

10. 
    10 Ben Hert said at 1:14 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I think no matter how Foles plays next week is going to be completely obscured by hyperbole, both ways. Its nice to be able to come here and get some logical information and informed opinions on Nick.

    I err on the side of cautionary optimism, just because its such a damn relief to have a QB who can play with his head. Its been awhile since we have had a QB who can see defenses the way he does.

    I really do worry about his arm strength, though. The Mac TD was a good read, but he didn’t seem to have nearly enough power on it. Of course, we were saying the same thing about Kafka a few years ago and the coaches seemed to change some things to give him some more strength. Is this something that would be possible with Foles? I don’t know much about the finer points of throwing mechanics, but could the possibility of improving his throwing style give him the power he needs to be a good QB?

11. 
    11 Cal Setar said at 1:19 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I don’t think arm strength should really be a concern with Foles, especially when you factor in that one of his bigger assets seems to be anticipation throwing. But there’s also the fact that we’ve been watching Mike Vick for the last 2 years. So for comparisons sake just about anyone who come’s after him is going to seem weak in the arm strength department.

12. 
    12 shah8 said at 1:55 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I hate Christian Ponder’s arm, and his successful deep passes are slightly better than that one. I also think that was a matter of technique such that the ball floated too much. The biggest thing wrong with that play, however, was that it took way too long for Foles to recognize how open Maclin was.

    When evaluating useful arm strength ( the kind seen in games, not in shorts on the practice field), you evaluate strong throws into tight coverage. You also evaluate how well balls are thrown to the sidelines with softer coverage. You check how consistent successful plays are. As in, does everything has to go right mechanically to garner a useful outcome? That sort of thing.

13. 
    13 Cal Setar said at 2:16 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Different QB’s survive in different ways. Peyton Manning is the perfect example of a QB who now has functional to good arm strength and still manages to win. Does he need to have “elite” arm strength to be a Super Bowl winning QB in this league? Not if he augments his physical shortcomings with enough anticipation, savvy, and intelligent decision making. Can Nick Foles do that? After one game, I honestly have no clue.

14. 
    14 shah8 said at 3:10 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Honestly, this drives me bananas.

    Again, Peyton Manning had a top end arm coming out of college. Not JaMarcus level, not Favre, or George. But he had a pretty good gun on his shoulders. Much better than Andrew Luck, for example.

    Joe Montana was not a weak arm QB. By the standard of the day, he didn’t even have a mediocre arm.

    By and large, long-term successful starters have very good to excellent arms.

    If you see me hatin’, it’s because of exactly this reaction from fans. The Tim Tebow Mania is only the worst manifestation of a very toxic social reaction among the fanbase. QBs that have no business playing get to play because the fans want it, and their fans tear down anyone and everyone to support the notion that Colt McCoy should never see another non-injury related start. It makes for horrible seasons while that QB fails spectacularly, and the QB’s fans make themselves noxious to everyone who has eyes right when everyone is miserable about how the games are going.

    And of course, it’s usually recognized that QBs has to have a good arm to succeed, but that goes right out the window right when…

15. 
    15 Cal Setar said at 3:43 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Ok, do you really not see the connection between what you just wrote in the second to last paragraph and all the commenting you do in support of Vick, mid 3-6 season?

    And neither my opinion, nor yours, or any other fan’s will ever have any influence on who plays or doesn’t.

    Not to mention that it’s ridiculous to make any definitive statements, positive or negative, about a player after one start.

16. 
    16 shah8 said at 3:56 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    How happy did Elway look in his booth in January of this year? Think about it.

    by the by, Foles hasn’t even had a start. And I’m fine with putting the burden on him to prove that he belongs. And fine with hating on him until he proves me otherwise. There’s just nothing about him that sez he’s a starter, and again, that he’s a rookie, is an understanding. It’s not an excuse such that you put him back on the field to get better. That’s done on the practice field. If a rookie isn’t playing well, well the only ones who should stay are obviously highly talented high first rounders. And really? a bunch of them should sit, like Sanchez in his rookie year, when they get to a rough set. Get the mind straight and be ready to play again, later.

    I don’t see the connections, because, you know, given the circumstances, Vick isn’t actually playing poorly, and yes, every QB has the occasional bad day, and by and large, that was largely the Browns game. He didn’t exactly have much of a chance at Arizona or against Atlanta, given the teamplay, which has limited the offense all year.

17. 
    17 Cal Setar said at 4:31 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Other than the idea of returning young, failing QB’s to the bench, I just fundamentally disagree with so much of this that I’m not sure there’s anything I can really say.

18. 
    18 Neil said at 1:47 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I rewatched that touchdown, and it wasn’t as bad as I thought. Foles’ arm is at least functional right now, and I think he can get better with a little tweaking of his footwork.

19. 
    19 GermanEagle said at 1:17 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Foles – 2nd start
    21-28-325
    4 TD
    0 INT
    QB rating of 158,3
    Led the team to 38 offensive points
    Threw a 80 yards TD pass to Riley Cooper on a fake kneel-down when the score was 28-0.

20. 
    20 P_P_K said at 1:40 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    And RG3 comes over after the game and tells Nick he wishes he was drafted by the Eagles.

21. 
    21 TommyLawlor said at 2:08 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Even better. RG3 asks for Foles autograph.

22. 
    22 Sb2bowl said at 4:46 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Does Foles pat him on his head?

23. 
    23 shah8 said at 5:07 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    ohhh, boy.

24. 
    24 TommyLawlor said at 5:24 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    No. Nick gives him a big hug and says “Tell Kirk Cousins I said hello.”

25. 
    25 Sb2bowl said at 2:03 PM on November 16th, 2012:

    I can see that, good point

26. 
    26 TommyLawlor said at 2:08 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    What a load of crap!!! How does Foles have 7 incompletions?

27. 
    27 Mac said at 2:33 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Maclin pulls up short on 1 pass.

    Shady is looking down field on a screen and doesn’t secure the perfectly thrown strike.
    4 incomplete passes are perfectly timed throw aways to avoid the sack

    The last one happens in garbage time… Foles realizes that DeAngelo Hall’s career is on the line and the game is embarrassingly bad for Washington. So St. Nick decides to throw a pass directly at Hall, who can’t secure the ball therefore no int.

28. 
    28 TommyLawlor said at 3:06 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Thanks for clearing that up. I trust GermanEagle, but 7 incompletions from Foles just seemed to much.

29. 
    29 GermanEagle said at 3:16 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Thank you, your honour.

30. 
    30 ACViking said at 1:35 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Here’s some Hall of Fame QBs — first appearance / first start — in no particular order:

    1. Dan Marino: 11-17 90 yds 2 TDs 0 Ints / 19-29 322 3 TDs 2 Ints

    2. Troy Aikman: 17-35 180 yds 0-2 (1st start in 1st game)

    3. Joe Montana: 1-1 8 yds 0-0 / 5-12 36 yds 0-0.

    4. John Elway: 1-8 14 yds 0-1 (1st start in first game)

    5. Bob Griese: 12-19 193 2-2 (1st start in first game)

    6. Terry Bradshaw: 4-16 70 yds 0-1 (1st start in first game)

    7. Fran Tarkenton: 17-23 250 yds 4 TDs 0 Ints / 6-11 48 yds 0-0.

    Marino was lights-out from the start. No QB like him.

    Look at Bradshaw, Elway, and Montanta. The *Blake Gabberts* of their eras. If they put up those numbers now, they’d all be run out on a rail.

    How the game has changed.

31. 
    31 TommyLawlor said at 2:10 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    It really is amazing how much the game has changed. Kids now have thrown so many passes by the time they get to the NFL that they are worlds beyond where even guys like McNabb and Vick were coming into the league. Or look at Peyton vs Luck, even. Crazy.

32. 
    32 bdbd20 said at 1:36 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    David Archer still gets no love.

33. 
    33 TommyLawlor said at 2:11 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I’ll include him the next time we break in a rookie QB. Hopefully…2024.

34. 
    34 austinfan said at 1:39 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Meaningless stats.
    1) when did the first start occur, 1st game or halfway through the season, big big difference.
    2) what was the strength of opponent, Dallas has an average to above pass defense. Washington is awful.
    3) what was the game situation, when Foles started it was a close game, the 4th Q was out of reach.

35. 
    35 TommyLawlor said at 2:12 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I didn’t try to make any conclusions because comparing the situations would have taken hours upon hours of research and thousands of words to explain. There are enough guys listed that you can get some basic info from the stats.

36. 
    36 shah8 said at 1:47 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I could give a fig for “anticipates throws”, “makes full reads”, “ball comes out quick”. The main reason I do so is because people have been talking up undertalented QB like this since forever. Saw it with Kolb and Kafka, saw it with Flynn, saw it with horrible guys like Gradkowski or Luke McCown. It’s usually bull. And young QBs truly like that don’t have a long shelf life. Think Marc Bulger as a really good positive example of that kind of young player. Or Jake Delhomme. Bulger wasn’t very good without weapons, and age took whatever minimal physical skills he had in only a few year. Jake Delhomme got figured out (and honestly so, not fan declamations so), and he didn’t really have much else other than how he plays. Incidentally, read up on the 2004 C. Panthers season. Shaun Hill faced the same issues as Christian Ponder–didn’t have the arm to beat over the top, and it was hard for him to beat defensively sound teams.

    Now, what do I want to see out of Nick Foles, assuming I take him seriously at all? I did not like either his accuracy or judgement when he came into the game. I want to see more balls that are routinely catchable and not circus catches. I want to see fewer dangerous plays for the recievers. Maclin, Jackson, and McCoy all had at least one throw that left them in serious jeopardy. I am not interested, however, in seeing any sort of attempt at a rhythm-passing game. We don’t have the OL for that, and I seriously doubt there won’t be consistent pressure from the Deadskin DL (if the Saints can do it, so even can those guys). There should be lots of holes short in zone coverage, and I want Foles to be able to spot those and zing the ball there in time, rather than throw to a more preset route all the time. I would hope that the OL plays well enough to allow a screen game. Minn gashed this team pretty badly on their lack of ability to shed blocks and tackle. Just wasn’t able to punch it in early in the game. I have no preconceptions about movement in the pocket, beyond that I hope that Foles is conservative and sees/takes sacks so as to protect the ball. I think it’s silly to think he would be an improvement somehow on Vick. The real problem has been missed assignments. If those things happen again, we are losing this game, no matter how well Foles play.

    I do think there will be some creative plays called that might work. I want those to work, and Foles to be careful with the ball otherwise and play smurfball. This way, I think we can hold the Deadskins to very few points and eek out a win. RG3 is much less agile than Romo or Vick, so while he’s a dangerous runner, he should be pretty sackable. The boys up front better not overpursue!

    Of course, the never not-useful phrase: Run the ball, Andy.

37. 
    37 RIP Worms said at 2:19 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    By creative plays you mean things like running out of the I-formation? I agree. That’s crazy enough it just might work.

38. 
    38 shah8 said at 3:16 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    We literally do not have the OL to run that, actually–well, for plays up the middle and not stretch runs. Thinking about that, that’s really messed up. I remember Havili doing a nice job @ Baltimore with plays out of i formations.

39. 
    39 TommyLawlor said at 3:22 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    We ran all over the Giants from the I-formation.

40. 
    40 shah8 said at 3:23 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    ok, I was thinking about that, but I couldn’t remember good plays out of the i formation. I remember Havili because there were replays of his play.

41. 
    41 xeynon said at 10:04 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Disagree with you completely that making reads, getting the ball out quickly, and anticipating routes are irrelevant traits. Those abilities are what separate the elite QBs like Brady, Brees, and Manning from physically talented but less effective players. Not saying Foles will be nearly as good as those guys (in fact it’s more likely he turns out to be a Skelton/Kolb type), but I want a quarterback who can do those things.

42. 
    42 eagles2zc said at 2:17 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    OT Tommy, but you mentioned the 5-2 look last post that perked my interest. It seemed to have some success. I was surprised that Bowles decided to use 3 DTs instead of 3 DEs because we have DEs coming out of our ears. The way the DEs lined up, it almost seemed like a variation of the 3-4. Is that something you want to see more of, or is it just a gimmick IMO?

43. 
    43 TheRogerPodacter said at 4:40 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    i am curious about this as well.
    could this formation be used more often to combat OL that go heavy on the protection side of things?
    5 rushers on the line would make for a lot more 1 on 1 battles, which would be great for most of the guys on this DL.

44. 
    44 RIP Worms said at 2:27 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Forgot a line:

    led OTHER team to 14 defensive points

    And it could have been 21 if not for a defensive holding call away from the play.

45. 
    45 TommyLawlor said at 3:08 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    The INT was clearly his fault, but the strip sack…not sure that most QBs avoid that disaster.

46. 
    46 RIP Worms said at 9:25 AM on November 16th, 2012:

    Like most fans, my first reaction is to think the “grass is greener.” I’m trying to temper my expectations a bit for Foles. You wouldn’t know it from my comment above, but I actually thought there was more to like than dislike of his play Sunday.

    As for the strip sack, that came in full-on desperation mode. You’d have to be completely unreasonable to hold anything that happened on that drive against any QB, let alone a rookie in his first action.

    I’m eager to see what he does with a week of prep against Washington.

47. 
    47 RIP Worms said at 2:32 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Just to be clear, I’m not knocking Nick Foles. Less than 1 game is simply too small a sample size. Heck, as Vick showed us in 2010, less than one season can also be too small a sample size.

    I am looking forward to this week’s game more with Foles at QB than I would have with Vick. I’m having more and more trouble imagining a scenario where Vick is here in 2013. More snaps for Foles means more opportunity to see whether he can be the guy for the next few years.

    My initial sense is that Gruden’s comparison of Nick Foles and Brad Johnson is a good one. He could develop into a capable starter, but I’d be shocked if we ever talk about Foles as elite.

48. 
    48 TommyLawlor said at 3:21 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Foles is a mystery. I joke around about Folesmania, but few non-1st Rd QBs become stars. For every Brady or Warner, there are plenty of guys who bust big time. It isn’t likely that Foles will be a top shelf QB. He can be a solid starter, maybe even flat out good.

    It is possible that he could develop into a special player. Judging stuff like that is hard. Some guys get a lot better as they play in the NFL and they take to pro coaching. I just want to see Foles start his first game so we have an idea of where he is right now. Can he be the guy for 2013? Long term?

49. 
    49 ChaosOnion said at 2:34 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Frankly Tommy, I am a bit disappointed. How could you compile a list like this and neglect both Detmers?

50. 
    50 TommyLawlor said at 3:07 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I really should have included Koy, but I didn’t want to make Foles look bad.

51. 
    51 GermanEagle said at 4:41 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    And future hall of gamer Bobby Hoying!

52. 
    52 TommyLawlor said at 5:25 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I don’t think Bobby even has a shot at the Ohio State HOF. Maybe his high school.

53. 
    53 ACViking said at 3:19 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Re: Draft-Day Do-over

    T-Law:

    A couple of quick questions going back to draft day.

    Now, having seen Russell Wilson in action, do you think Reid/Roseman regret not moving up to get him? Rumors persist that he was Reid’s Rd 3 guy. I know managment’s talked up Foles, but they’re obliged to do so as a 3rd round pick.

    Also, now that you’ve seen Foles in preseason and 2.5 Qs of the regular season, any regret that the Eagles didn’t just wait — after missing on Russell Wilson — and go with San Diego State’s Ryan Lindley (he of the accuracy problems during his senior season after losing his top two receivers from his junior year)?

    I remember in the draft-day comments that you and I both were a bit disappointed that the Eagles went with Foles over Lindley. (I know RL’s shown little as a 6th round pick by Arizona. But behind the Cards’ O-line, which — if it’s possible — could be worse than the Eagles’ group, I don’t know that Lindley could do much more than Skelton or KK.)

    Lindley has NFL size and a big arm — the kind that would produce a frozen-rope on that 44 yard TD to J-Mac against Dallas.

54. 
    54 TommyLawlor said at 3:45 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Reid did want Wilson. No question about it. I think the reason they didn’t move up for him is that they did like Foles as much as they did.

    I think some of my bias against Foles had to do with his size. I’m not a big fan of huge QBs. I prefer guys to be 6-3, 220. The bigger they are, the less mobile they are and the bigger a target they are.

    Back in 1995, huge QBs were okay. Guys now must be mobile. Foles has proven to be more mobile than I ever expected.

    I’m happy Foles has shown what he has. Looks good so far. I’ll be very happy to be completely wrong on him.

55. 
    55 Anders said at 5:33 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I just looked at the offical heights and weights of top NFL QBs right now, Nick Foles is listed as higher and heavier than Big Ben. Only Joe Flacco is same height and size.

56. 
    56 Pitmanite said at 3:26 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I’m excited for Nick Foles, but his stats are a bit misleading being that he threw a comically bad pick-6 to the DE that was called back because of holding, and Orlando Scandrick dropped a pass that Foles threw right to him that was also a pick-6. Obviously in every game there are plays that would’ve been INTs, but those 2 were complete gifts for Foles.

    My biggest issue was Andy not helping out the rookie by running the ball. In a close game he put Nick in there and started firing away with the passing game–in just over 2 quarters, Nick threw the ball 32 times–instead of helping Nick settle. As you can see w/rookies, when things go bad they go bad quick. If I’m not mistaken the DE pick-6 and the Scandrick dropped INT were on the first two series. Meanwhile Shady averaged 5.1 ypc for the game. Oh and Dallas’ passing defense is better than their run defense. Oh, and we have a leaky o-line. Andy’s stubbornness on this issue has pushed me to my breaking point, and I will be so thankful when he is gone. Bring in Jay Gruden!

57. 
    57 TommyLawlor said at 3:28 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    The pick-6 to the LB wasn’t as bad as you think. He started to rush, then dropped off on the RB. Foles has to get used to life in the NFL where rushers and cover guys give you false looks pre-snap and sometimes even after the snap.

58. 
    58 Anders said at 3:34 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I mean even Peyton Manning get confused from time to time. The Falcons had great success with that against him earlier this year.

59. 
    59 Pitmanite said at 3:42 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Unless it’s to compare mullets, please let’s not bring up Peyton and Nick Foles in the same sentence. Just watched the pick to the LB again and you’re right about the LB. Still he got a gift from the hold and the Scandrick easy drop, otherwise those numbers look far worse.

    I guess my main frustration was that Nick was showing some good things out there, but he was also showing signs of being confused, which is common for a rookie. Big Red made no attempt to help the kid out. I’ve had enough of the big guy. I wish him success elsewhere, but I’m really hoping this is it for him.

60. 
    60 Anders said at 4:26 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    My point was that even HOF QBs can get confused by NFL defenses, so seen a rookie making that mistake isnt a big deal unless he repeats em.

61. 
    61 Pitmanite said at 4:32 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    No, I agree with you. Sorry, just frustrated fan here. Maybe one day that Lombardi Trophy will be ours. Until then, I can take solace in knowing we’ve got the best damn cheerleader website in the NFL!

62. 
    62 ACViking said at 3:28 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Re: Running the ball

    QBs are the NFL’s bread and butter. WRs are next, because QBs need receivers. The NFL’s taken great steps to protect both positions.

    Concussions, however, continue.

    What’s the solution? As Mike Golic complains on ESPN almost daily, the NFL’s approach is killing defenses even on clean hits because officials are directed to over-protect the QBs and WRs.

    SOLUTION: More running. Yes, it’s not how points are put up. But if your QB or WRs gets a couple of concussions, they become more susceptible to more serious concussions — even on lighter hits.

    At some point, unless the NFL become a flag-football league, I could see teams again turning to more running plays strictly to decrease the number of times theiir QBs and WRs are exposed to potential knock-out blows.

    And, as conventional wisdom has it, RBs are a dime a dozen.

63. 
    63 shah8 said at 3:32 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    I do think Vick’s concussion was a second or third one over the last 5 weeks, which was why it was so severe despite the not particularly unusual hits.

    I think the best fix is to be able to pay OL as a unit, or otherwise sequester a separate pay cap for linemen. Much of the problem is way too much turnover during the course of the season. And I think QBs, like Vick or Big Ben is getting hit hard, and dwindling tolerances for more hits as the season wears on. A strong OL at the start of the season will work to give a lasting QB impact. Just look at the Saints.

64. 
    64 Pitmanite said at 4:02 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Tommy, I actually skimmed your list of QBs when you put this together. Do you happen to have the numbers for Shane Falco’s first start to compare to Foles? I’m assuming it’s nowhere close to Falco’s, but I’m just curious.

65. 
    65 TommyLawlor said at 4:07 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Get out of here with that nonsense. Falco is a bum.

    Now Johnny Utah…that was a QB.

66. 
    66 Pitmanite said at 4:13 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    He was great, but that damn knee injury kept him from a shot at the NFL. 🙁

67. 
    67 sonofdman said at 5:04 AM on November 16th, 2012:

    Typical scout attitude. You put too much weight into one bad game by Falco in the Sugar Bowl.

68. 
    68 Jeffrey Stover said at 4:06 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    My goodness, the game and obviously our playcalling has changed over time! How in the world did McNabb have a passer rating of 46.3 and YET lead the team to 28 points!?! Sounds like a team that was flexing a running game or dealing with really short fields….oh the memories of McNabb and the defense of yesteryear!

69. 
    69 TheRogerPodacter said at 4:36 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    he only ATTEMPTED 21 passes! my god….
    thats pretty much unheard of nowadays.

    can you imagine?
    AR/MM throwing the ball only 21 times in a *whole game*!? i can’t even wrap my head around that.

70. 
    70 Mac said at 4:18 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Just realized that if the Vick concussion experiment continues into the next game it will be the first time in years I’d be excited to watch Nick at Nite.

71. 
    71 Michael Winter Cho said at 10:47 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Going for the Gen-X demographic?

72. 
    72 goeagles55 said at 4:42 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    The comparison to Brandon Weeden isn’t fair since Weeden faced a team that was in the beginning stages of a dynasty.

73. 
    73 TommyLawlor said at 5:20 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Brilliant. Kudos for that.

74. 
    74 TheRogerPodacter said at 4:43 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    AR had no business making mike mcmahon throw 39 passes in a game, let alone his first start? ouch

75. 
    75 TommyLawlor said at 5:20 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    First start as an Eagle. Had played for Detroit for a couple of years.

76. 
    76 TheRogerPodacter said at 5:39 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    ah thats right. oh god how i wish i could forget those days!

77. 
    77 Eric Dein said at 6:12 PM on November 15th, 2012:

    Hey Tommy,
    Random question (apologize for my anxiousness to look past the disaster of last week to next week). I look forward to your post on scouting RGIII. I wanted to know about the Eagles success (or lack thereof) against running QBs. Since beating Vick in the NFC championship game, I feel like mobile quarterbacks have destroyed this team. This is mostly based on my cloudy anecdotal memories (see: Tuesday Wuss-gate). Even the 3rd down conversion last week seems to be a microcosm of those problems- and I wouldn’t call Romo an elite runner… I’m not as concerned of RGIII’s potential in the Redskins system as my fear that these are the games we give away. Have you written on this in the past or know of a good article? Discipline and proper tackling jumps to mind but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.