Real QB Talk

Posted: October 8th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Philadelphia Eagles | 95 Comments »

There is a lot to discuss in the wake of yesterday’s loss, but QB is the hot topic so let’s cover that right here.

What do we make of Michael Vick?  His critics say that he’s a turnover machine that isn’t good enough to lead the team to where it wants to go.  His defenders say that he’s a playmaker that puts his team in position to win.  He does have 3 4th quarter comeback wins this year and even yesterday gave the Eagles the lead late in the game.

So what do I think?

First, let me say this about Vick.  I have no emotional investment with him.  He’s not like McNabb.  Vick came here as a veteran.  McNabb was homegrown.  He was one of us, through and through.  Vick has embraced being an Eagle and has fit in well, but I just don’t have strong feelings for him, one way or the other.  If I never see him play another game for us…that’s okay with me.  If he’s the QB for the next 3 years, that’s okay with me.

Here’s my thing…I want good Michael Vick.  That’s the guy we saw against Baltimore.  That’s the guy we saw on Sunday night vs the Giants.  That guy is a good QB.  He plays like a smart veteran and is capable of winning big games.  The problem is that we don’t always get “good Michael Vick”.

Some fans are ready to bench him right now.  They are sick of the mistakes.  I get that.  However, I think these fans have some unreal expectations with Nick Foles.  I loved watching Nick Foles play this summer and think the Eagles have a really talented QB for the future.  Is he ready for right now?  I doubt it.

While Foles looked great this preseason, you have to keep that in perspective.  Phillip Hunt was unblockable.  Damaris Johnson was a dangerous punt returner.  Contrast that with what you’ve seen in the first 5 games.  Just because Foles was good in August doesn’t mean he’s ready to run the show in the regular season.  Do you honestly think the Eagles could have faced the Ravens, Cardinals, Giants, and Steelers defenses and come out 2-2 in that stretch with Foles?  I sure don’t.

The situation really is tricky.  Andy Reid is coaching for now.  He needs to win this year.  The QB who gives him the best chance to do that is Vick, especially when Good Vick shows up.  My guess is that Reid will stick with Vick as long as he can.  Andy is waiting for Vick to get hot and play at a high level for multiple games.

The argument against sticking with Vick is that right now we’re winning with defense and the running game.  The offense isn’t scoring points.  We’re currently 31st i the NFL in scoring.  We’re behind teams with rookie QBs and crappy QBs.

I know this drives Andy Reid nuts.  He loves scoring points even more than he does eating cheeseburgers.  Watching this offense is like going on a vegan diet to him.  The horror, the horror.

While the offense isn’t scoring enough and the turnovers are killing us, Vick is coming up clutch.  He’s played lights out in the 4th quarter.  Think back to the 2005-2009 era.  How many times did we have a team with great stats, but not enough wins because we weren’t a clutch team?

I’m guessing that Reid sees the situation as this…we’re winning with Vick right now.  Reid knows that Vick can get hot and lead the offense to some huge games.  With Foles, there is no telling what would happen.  He might turn out to be the second coming of Joe Montana or he could play more like Nate Montana.

With Reid’s back against the wall, sticking with the veteran who is winning ugly makes sense.  It will drive some people crazy, but there are some Vick haters who are going to dislike him no matter what the results.

Now…if the offense continues to struggle to score and the turnovers continue to come in bunches, that could change things.  Reid at that point might decide to roll the dice and go with Foles.  I think we’d have to directly lose a game based on turnovers for that to happen.  Say we play Detroit on Sunday and they’re just terrible in the game, but get a couple of defensive TDs and we lose 20-17.  Or if we play a great game against Atlanta, but lose 23-20 with 2 Red Zone turnovers by Vick, one of them coming on the final drive of the game.

Critics will point to yesterday’s fumbles.  Those fumbles definitely hurt the team, but they didn’t directly cost us the game.  The 2 fumbles recovered by PIT did not result in points for them.  The GL fumble cost us either a TD or FG, but again…you can’t just add 3 or 7 points to the score and assume a win.  That was in the 1st quarter.  You have to know that those points would have affected the way both teams played.  There is no question that in a tight defensive game that fumble proved to be a critical mistake.  We definitely needed those 3 points.

Reid won’t bench Vick until he’s convinced that is what’s best for the 2012 season.  That’s not the situation right now.  Vick has been good enough for us to start off 3-2.  Reid has faith in Vick and expects he will get better.  Reid did the same thing with McNabb back in 2003 when he and the offense were really struggling.  That proved to be the right call.  At the time, I wanted McNabb benched in favor of AJ Feeley.  I was wrong then, but did learn a lesson.  You stick with the starter as long as you can and give him a chance to work his way out of the funk. He is the starter for a reason, after all.

I think timing also works in Vick’s favor.  We play Detroit this week and then have the bye.  That will give Reid and the coaches a chance to solve some problems.  He has a great history of getting the team to respond well after the bye.

The flip side of course is that if Vick has a disastrous game against Detroit, the bye week would be the perfect time for Reid to switch to Foles.  Notice I said “disastrous”.  I do think it would take something like that.

For now, I think Vick keeps his job.  Only time will tell if that’s the right move.

* * * * *

I’m not telling you guys that you have to love and embrace Vick.  Criticize him all you want.  I do think that when you frame your argument as “he has to go…”, you are ranting more than anything else.  That’s okay.  We’re all pissed off after a loss.  I was ready to put Vick onto the next vehicle headed to space after the GL fumble yesterday.  I was livid.

I find that trying to understand a situation is more interesting that just ranting and raving.  This post is my version of thinking out loud in regard to the QB position.  Why won’t Reid bench him?  Why should Reid bench him?  What would happen?

Would I rather be 3-2 with Vick as QB or more likely 2-3 or 1-4 with Foles as QB?  I’m taking the winning record.  I’m not a huge fan of Vick’s, but I like winning.  When we start losing with Vick, then I think we start talking about Foles.

Yeah, we lost yesterday.  At Pittsburgh.  Big Ben has one home loss to an NFC team in his career.  You just don’t go in there and win much.  They’re still the Steelers, at least in Pittsburgh.  They’re 0-2 on the road.  A loss against them isn’t the kind of thing that will send me over the edge for a QB change.


95 Comments on “Real QB Talk”

  1. 1 Julescat said at 11:29 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    aren’t we avoiding the 800 lb gorilla in the room – the O line play?

    also, don’t Reid’s teams traditionally play bad the week before the bye?

  2. 2 TommyLawlor said at 11:34 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    I haven’t had a chance to study the OL from yesterday. I do think putting Foles behind that OL would be a questionable move.

    Reid’s teams have lost more than a few pre-bye games. Did beat WAS last year. Lost to TEN in 2010. Don’t know the overall record off hand.

  3. 3 the guy said at 5:05 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I don’t necessarily agree. Foles had a terrible O-line for his college career, and showed in the preseason the kind of QB play you’d want to compensate for it.

    I’m not saying he’d come in and win games. I just think it’s possible he’d actually be better behind this line than Vick.

  4. 4 P_P_K said at 11:51 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    I agree completely. I look forward to Tommy’s review of the tape and drg but they sure looked terrible yesterday. Vick was getting killed and Shady had to bust his butt for just about every yard he gained. They certainly still can’t seem to figure out how to stop the edge blitz.

  5. 5 Osiris said at 12:05 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    There will be plenty of time to talk about the line after the Eagles play the Lions next week. This week is reserved for fumbles (even with both hands on the ball) and the lack of sacks our defensive line have been providing (with a peppering of comments as to how Foles should be making Asomugha money).

    I say that jokingly, but I really do feel like in this week’s edition of the hyper-attention of us affable Eagles’ fans, the offensive line will be cut some slack. I mean, come on, who buys O-line jerseys other than really, really, really fat guys? They only get credit or blame when there’s nothing better (or more exciting) to bring up.

  6. 6 drichwine said at 11:38 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    You make a good point: Of the 5 games Eagles have played, 3 of them had scoring defenses in the top 5 last season. 3!!! The other 2 were the Cards (one of the best Ds so far this year) and Giants with their deadly DL. So, yeah, even though with that consideration the offense is not playing well, it’s not like they are struggling against bad teams.

  7. 7 Osiris said at 11:58 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    Of the NFL teams with a winning record, only Arizona and St. Louis have played a stronger strength of schedule (according to ESPN’s standings) than the Eagles. When you include .500 teams, the Cowboys and Colts’ schedule have been a little more difficult.

    The Eagles are 1-0 in the division, and they’re 2-1 against 2011 playoff teams, and other than the Arizona game, every game has been within 2 points or less.

    I’m very interested to see how the Eagles come out at home against the 1-3 Lions (who are coming off of a bye). This is a game that a good Eagles team would win and a bad (or average) Eagles team would surrender.

  8. 8 RIP Worms said at 11:40 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    I heard Jaws talking about making a QB change a couple weeks ago. He was talking about Sanchez in NY, but he had a great point. He said that benching a QB is not the same as benching a LB or WR. The QB is THE leader of the team (Ray Lewis and Trent Dilfer notwithstanding).

    When the coaches switch QBs they are sending a message to the team: We no longer think we can win with this guy. That’s a bell you can’t un-ring (just ask McNabb RE: the Baltimore game).

    With that in mind, I think Vick has a lot of slack to work with. Outside of injury I can’t imagine a scenario where Vick loses his job with a single disastrous performance.

    The wild card in all of this is injury. If Vick gets hurt and Foles plays well in relief, the slack gets taken up considerably (just ask Kevin Kolb).

  9. 9 TommyLawlor said at 11:57 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    Lots of good points here.

  10. 10 Ty-Philly said at 11:40 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    Vick has played well in even numbered weeks, so I trust we will win the next two games to get to 5-2. That’s all I have.

    I know Foles isn’t the answer (right now), but i just can’t defend Vick anymore.

    This is QB controversy purgatory right now.

  11. 11 Osiris said at 11:41 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    “While Foles looked great this preseason, you have to keep that in perspective. Phillip Hunt was unblockable. Damaris Johnson was a dangerous punt returner. Contrast that with what you’ve seen in the first 5 games. Just because Foles was good in August doesn’t mean he’s ready to run the show in the regular season. Do you honestly think the Eagles could have faced the Ravens, Cardinals, Giants, and Steelers defenses and come out 2-2 in that stretch with Foles? I sure don’t.”

    I think this is the perspective that we need.

    And as for the notion of throwing him to the dogs, based on the performance of other rookie QBs in recent years, it’s also important to remember that in most cases those guys were groomed from before day one of the preseason to be the starter. Even before they were drafted, RGIII and Andrew Luck were going to be starting QBs — and those guys have supreme talent.

    It’d arguably be in Foles’ best interest to save him the confusion on the field, the hits that come with it (especially behind that line), and the boos that could rain down (Casey Matthews, anyone?) and let him continue to be the back-up and learn from the sidelines for the remainder of the season — so long as the Eagles are winning.

    I think that people are also forgetting that Vick, good Vick, has delivered on this Eagles’ team on numerous occasions. Obviously we want more consistency, and we want to be 5-0 and the talk of the NFL, but I do take some comfort in knowing that even with a QB who is no doubt in a funk and with a defense built on defensive line pressure and no recent defensive line pressure, that the Eagles are still a better team than last year.

    There’s chemistry and there’s experience. We want results. I don’t think that it’s time to throw out that chemistry in favor a preseason Pro-Bowler — especially when the performances of our other preseason Pro-Bowlers are considered.

    If the Eagles go into the bye week with a 4-2 record as a united team, hopefully this benching Vick business will go out of the window.

  12. 12 TommyLawlor said at 11:58 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    Good stuff.

  13. 13 Jason_E said at 11:46 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    Vick vs. Foles. I’ll preface this by saying I don’t think Foles is going to lead us on some great run that ends deep in the playoffs or a SB appearance/win. I’ll also preface it by saying that my motivation is based solely on my desire for Reid to remain our head coach.

    The question comes down to, do you think Michael Vick will save Andy Reid’s job? Can he lead us to more than a first round playoff loss? Right now, to me, it looks like we’re headed for 8-8 9-7 range. That probably means Reid will be fired, unless we suddenly have a rash of injuries to our star players.

    As far as Foles, he’s more than likely not going to lead us to anything better than 8-8 or 9-7. The question with him is, can he show enough throughout the season to force Lurie to keep Reid for at least another year to see what he can do with a new young QB? Who knows?

    The problem is, Michael Vick is a leader of this team, and Reid would be risking pissing a lot of guys off if he benches him while Vick is “putting the team into position to win games”. It’s a tough spot to be in. For my money, if Vick has another turnover fest, I’m benching him. This style of winning is unsustainable.

    There is also the aspect that Reid’s teams always (except 2005) finish strong. We could hit the bye week and all of a sudden we have Vick circa. 2010. It’s a really tough decision either way.

    Right now, with his kevlar vest, Michael Vick is an indestructible turnover machine. I can’t believe that Reid is going to allow this to go on for much longer, but he is notoriously loyal to his players.

  14. 14 TommyLawlor said at 11:59 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    “Right now, with his kevlar vest, Michael Vick is an indestructible turnover machine.”

    This made me laugh. Kudos.

  15. 15 OldSoul said at 11:57 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    In regard to McNabb, yet another of the many things taken for granted by Eagles fans…he didn’t turn the ball over. Outside of QB strips, I can’t recall many scenarios where he coughed it up (3rd and short, goal line sneaks, etc.) One was the fumble/TD vs. Saints in 2007.

  16. 16 TommyLawlor said at 12:04 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    McNabb got into a bad habit late in his career of scrambling away from pressure and then setting up outside and waiting for ever and ever, only to be strip-sacked from behind. This happened in 3 or 4 games over a couple of year period. Drove me nuts. In traffic, McNabb had a super-tight grip. He’d get outside and relax. His lack of an internal play clock is what killed me. I think the 14-second play vs Dallas was a bad influence. Got McNabb to fall in love with holding the ball and looking for a huge play instead of just taking what was there.

    Anyway…to your larger point, McNabb was the anti-turnover machine and that helped us win a lot of games.

  17. 17 OldSoul said at 12:32 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Not arguing the late career drop-off in his play, just think it interesting to experience things from the ‘other side’.

    Also still waiting for Eagles to capitalize on Polamalu get hurt…

  18. 18 Osiris said at 12:08 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    He also didn’t turn the ball over to the receivers enough — while they were on the run, that is. His playing it safe game did give the defense time to rest, and I respect that. It also didn’t give the guys he was throwing it to enough opportunities to break it big. He left points on the field (or in the dirt after a short hop).

    McNabb had his virtues, and I think that he did a lot of good for this team. I just wanted to point out the negatives that come with playing it safe and throwing low.

  19. 19 RIP Worms said at 1:12 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Excellent point. Might explain why Donovan never quite got over the hump in the playoffs. Low risk-low reward will win you more games than it loses you, but it’s tough to string together 3 or 4 wins against quality opponents with that approach.

  20. 20 RIP Worms said at 12:15 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    When we as Eagles fans can look back at McNabb with some reasonable level of rationality, I think this element of his game will receive way more appreciation than it ever did while he was still playing. While we bemoaned all the passes into receivers feet over the years (I’m looking at me, Twitter handle), McNabb always erred on the side of INC rather than INT.

    Very strong correlation between TO differential and Win-Loss (that’s turnover differential, not the difference between Owens 2004 and Owens 2005, though I suppose it could work either way).

  21. 21 P_P_K said at 11:58 AM on October 8th, 2012:

    Within the larger context of a season where the team is tryng to go deep into the post season, you’ve got to stick with the veteran who knows the ropes. Game plan to highlight Vick’s stregnths and try to attend to the weaknesses. You owe it to the rest of the team to put your best guys on the field. If you want to take a season or two and experiment with a rookie who you think you can develop, then play Foles.

    Mike has played welll enough at this point to hold his job, considering Nick is untested in real NFL football. I say “well enough” is, at this point, still good enough. If the season starts to slip away, or the turnovers directly result in losses, then it’s time for a change. Having said that, I’m not sure exactly when or how to evaluate the season slipping or determine how turnovers “directly” result in losses.

  22. 22 GayleSaunders said at 12:05 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Good Read Tommy, I totally agree you don’t make a move at QB if your team is 4 and 2 after the bye. (hoping for a win against the lions) We all might think what would Foles do in some of these situations, but makes no sense to gamble the season on Foles if the situation doesn’t warrent it YET. Like ya said go two games with terrible QB play a QB switch makes sense to make a message.

  23. 23 Tom33 said at 12:12 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Ultimately I think Vick is what he has always been – a guy talented enough to make plays and win games but too inconsistent to count on. It’s what he was in Atlanta and what he has been since he got here. I think Andy/Marty read their own press clippings and believed they could make him into something different, but really he is the same guy he’s been since college.
    I don’t understand why they didn’t give Foles a shot in the second half of the Arizona game – it seemed like a win-win. If Vick is truly your guy for the year, you take him out sometime during the 3rd quarter because he was just getting pounded in that game and it was essentially over. You get a chance to see what Foles could do against a real defense in a real game (not ps). If he fails, you protected Vick and you quiet a bunch of the critics. If he succeeds, you have options going forward. On top of that, he was in front of his home crowd, so you could even spin it that way.
    Eli had a year like this in 2010 when he had 30 TO’s – the Giants missed the playoffs that year because of it. If Vick can’t stop turning the ball over, I don’t know how much longer they can continue to go with him.

  24. 24 Austinmax said at 12:18 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Tommy – why is no one taking Bobby April to task – he was brought here with a sole reason of making ST’s one of the best in the league – instead we seem to be the worst ST unit – yeah one of the Henry’s was made a scapegoat and cut but anyone think Mcbriar looks any better……I also question letting go of Akers…

    On another note – Cole and Babin need to stop moaning abt double teams and crap – the DL disappears for stretches in the second half of games…I noticed this in the Giants game and the same with the Steelers…..also Nnamdi is overrated…I will not be surprised at some point this season he gets replaced by another CB

  25. 25 TommyLawlor said at 12:27 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Plenty of people are ripping Bobby April. I wrote a column about STs last weekend. Will post it here in next day or 2. Deserves good discussion.

  26. 26 Tom33 said at 12:33 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Good thing is that the Lions are the worst team in NFL for ST – 4 Returns for TD in 4 games. Makes our kick coverage look stellar.

  27. 27 RIP Worms said at 1:04 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    But the real question is: Will it make our own return units look anything but abysmal when we go up against them next week?

  28. 28 Mac said at 1:31 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Will someone give Boykin a candybar of his choosing if he takes a KO to the house vs Detroit?

  29. 29 A_T_G said at 4:48 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Borrowing from a line by dropscience, I think Vick has some Butterfingers he might be looking to get rid of.

  30. 30 lilmc said at 2:31 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Andy actually mentioned April by name during his presser today. That can’t be a good sign.

  31. 31 Jim Reynolds said at 12:29 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I will dispute the Eagles “let go” of Akers. Akers was done with Philadelphia, whether for Reid’s or fans comments after the 2010 playoff loss is immaterial.

    You can rightly criticize the decision to let Sav Rocca walk, but not Akers.

  32. 32 P_P_K said at 2:09 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    What makes you say Akers was done with the Eagles. I don’t remember his ever implying anything and he even paid for a billboard thanking fans for his time with the Eagles. Maybe I missed something,

  33. 33 Corry Henry said at 12:37 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Mike Vick is a turnover machine. I believe he’s directly responsible for 11 of the 14 turn overs the Eagles have right now and 3 of the red zone turn overs. Those numbers are appalling.

    That said, the team is still 3-2. You can’t make the switch at QB now and not lose the team. We’re winning, but those turn over numbers have got to concern Reid.

  34. 34 Tom33 said at 1:21 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Especially considering they are a dropped int (CLE) and about 5 ft of carry (NYG) from being 1-4 for the second year in a row.

  35. 35 TommyLawlor said at 2:52 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    The Giants were a couple of plays from not making the playoffs last year. Does that make their SB title any less real?

  36. 36 bdbd20 said at 3:11 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Great point. I think we all have to keep thinks in perspective here. We need to be clicking in December and January, not October. The team has done some good things and some bad things. There’s always a few teams that peak too early.

  37. 37 Brett Smith said at 3:17 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Sooner or later the Turnover Disaster has to turn…

    Vick had 2 hands on the ball yesterday and it popped out. That type of football luck ebbs and flows…

    Remember in 2010 when the other defenses dropped all Vicks potential INTs?

    I like the Foles idea but I am not ready to call this the end. Because if Foles goes in without injury to Vick and we don’t make the Championship Game how much longer does Lurie keep this together?

    If you bench Vick and Foles is a disaster Foles will not be our QB next year. Because a new coaching staff is going to want “Their guy” and that might not be Foles. Also I am not sure there are any coaches in the league better at making QBs look great than AR and MM.

    Vick has to play. As long as Vick is not throwing INTs the fumbles should swing back in our favor. The football gods are a fickle bunch.

  38. 38 Tom33 said at 4:55 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Certainly not, but I think if you take a “glass is 20% full” approach that’s just as wrong. Consider in Vick’s last 18 starts (2011-12) the team is 10-8 and has had 44 turnovers in those games. 4 times they turned the ball over 1 time or less (2 DAL, STL last year, NYG this year) they are 4-0 in those games. 42 TO’s in the other 14. This isn’t a “blip” but a real problem with this offense and this QB. Granted, nobody knows if Foles is a better choice at this point (Kafka and VY weren’t last year) , but to expect the turnovers to go away just because is ignoring history. This is a very talented team, but the turnovers make them a .500 team and #7 hasn’t shown that he can avoid them.

  39. 39 Midnight_Greenville said at 5:06 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    If there’s reason to be optimistic, I feel it is the improvement in the number of interceptions. The fumbles killed us yesterday, but even a pessimist can’t expect 20 fumbles on the year. 20 Int’s is a reasonable expectation for a QB who is struggling. Yes, he will continue to fumble because he is who he is at this point. But, the fumbles aren’t so much from bad reads or bad decisions (other than perhaps diving head first rather than sliding sometimes). Int’s are often from late throws or bad reads. I’d rather see the fumbles, all things considered.

    Also, next week is huge. 4-2 going into the bye is about as good a record as I think most people would have predicted, and that is with our offense not playing well (or at least not scoring well) to date. If we win, we are in first in the division, get a bye for our new o-linemen to get more reps, our best ST players to get healthy, our defense to figure out how to get more pressure again, and just generally to rest and get ready for the last 2/3 of the season. In short, a win, and I like our chances. A loss, and I’d be looking at the first 6 games as a missed opportunity but still a reasonable shot to salvage things. After all, we usually play our best football in the last month of the season.

  40. 40 ceteris_paribus1776 said at 12:46 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I have no emotional tie to Vick. I never held a grudge against him for what he did. I could careless if he was or was not the QB of the Eagles. I’m coming from a place that wants the best player on the field. I don’t think Foles is the answer. But that still doesn’t mean Michael Vick is. I’m just stating where I think this team will end up with him a QB. That, unfortunately, is probably our best option right now. Reid made his bed with Vick.

    In terms of costing the team games, no single play can literally cost the team a game unless it is a defensive lapse that leads to the game winning score as time expires. Otherwise, you don’t know what would’ve happened if play X did not occur. With that in mind, plays that keep you from scoring points when the likelihood of a score occurring is high, but for that outcome of that play, are extremely detrimental. It is the second worst type of mistake that can transpire in a game; the first being a play that leads to an opposing teams’ defensive touchdown. Turnovers by the offense result in 3 things: 1) a missed opportunity to score points, and outscoring your opponents is how you win; 2) a potential change of field position. Not as bad as point 1, but not good nonetheless. 3) direct points for the opposing team. Not scoring, as in point 1, just means you don’t gain an advantage on your opponent. Allowing points means you actively lose an advantage. Point 3 is the clearly the worst.

    Anyway, that aside, that point is that, while no play costs you the game, redzone turnovers are, in my opinion, the 2nd worst thing that you can do to reduce your chances of winning in any given game.

    Think about it like this. The Eagles had 8 meaningful possessions yesterday. That’s about average for an NFL game. They were in scoring opportunities 4 times, or half of their possessions. They turn the ball over on 2 of those. If you have 8 or 9 possessions in a game, you probably cannot expect to have more than 5 or 6 scoring drives, on average. A reasonable mix of TDs to FG would put you in the mid- 20s in terms of points. Prolific offenses score tds at a higher rate and score high 20s to low 30s, on average. If close to 1/3 of your drives that are legit scoring chances are ending in turnovers, you are really squandering your odds of defeating your opponent.

    Today’s scoring NFL is more about points per possession than it ever has been, and turning it over in prime scoring situations is the second most costly mistake, I believe, you can make. So no, the fumbles don’t “directly” cost you the game just as almost any other play doesn’t “directly” cost you the game. But turning the ball over in scoring opportunities comes about as close to killing your chances of winning as anything else.

  41. 41 Cafone said at 1:19 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    The QB that gives the Eagles the best chance of winning is the QB that prompts Reid and Morninweg to give Shady more carries. That is most likely Nick Foles.

  42. 42 Zachary Kaplan said at 2:01 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Probably a honest assessment.

    Reid was sucuessful with :

    Koy Detmer
    AJ Feeley
    Jeff Garcia

    Because he changed his game up with them.

  43. 43 TommyLawlor said at 2:34 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Think again with Koy. He won a game in 1999 and in 2002. He struggled when he played in 2005 in a big way.

    Feeley was a game manager and the offense was different.

    Garcia got a different gameplan to a lesser extent, but really ran the offense more efficiently and that made it look different.

  44. 44 Keith Petres said at 1:25 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Great points. Three additions if I may:

    1) We haven’t seen Nick
    Foles in practice. As much as I want Vick benched for Foles, I have no
    idea if the Eagles coaches are watching Foles dominate in practice, or
    play like a chump. That information will inform Reid’s decision.

    This defense has the potential to carry the team – heck, they have
    carried the team to three wins (two against good teams). For the Eagles
    to make the playoffs, the Eagles QB, whoever it is, doesn’t need to be
    lights out – they just need to not screw up. Once in the playoffs, the
    math changes – but that’s after ten more games of experience for Foles.

    As much as Reid loves scoring points, he hates turnovers more. The
    Eagles were winning in 2001-2003 with a great defense and an slightly
    above-average QB that didn’t turn it over. Reid could look back to
    those years as the template for this year.

  45. 45 TommyLawlor said at 2:32 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    All good points.

  46. 46 Harley said at 3:22 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    This season is far too young to make any blanket statements about what this team is good and bad at. Yes, there are too many turnovers. Yes, Vick the main culprit. Yes, the defense has been very good and a nice surprise coming off of last year. BUT, it has only been 5 games. Foles is not the right answer at this point in time.

  47. 47 Neil said at 1:56 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    The point about a turnover needing to be at the end of a game or direct is bogus. If we score a touchdown on the 1, we have a better chance to win than if Vick coughs it up, regardless of how differently the rest of the game might have been played.

    Vick has convinced me mobility is a curse for a quarterback or at least his mobility. I remember one play he dropped back and saw nothing, was pressured and ducked his head down and started pushing forward like he was a runningback without a hole. Seriously, he thinks he’s a running back out there. That’s fine and dandy when he has 4.4 speed, but he doesn’t anymore, and his ability to just take off his whole career meant he didn’t have to make looking down field or finding a man somewhere, anywhere, secondnature like a Ben Roethlissberger. Instead, he books it with something like 4.6 speed and one hand on the ball. I can remember one play against Arizona where he was sacked in our territory and if the defender’s arm had been an inch in a different direction it would have hit the ball Vick was not, is almost never, adequately securing.

    Sure, it’s possible Vick can get hot and deliver something approaching 2010 for an indeterminate stretch, but it’s about as likely as Foles playing well to me at this point. And Foles would be nice because he’s just a quarterback; we have such an amazing defense and offense at every position except oline which is just OK that all we need is a guy who can basically fill the role of Alex Smith last year for the 49ers. Run the ball (with those 4 talented backs), safe passes with downfield shots interspersed. Foles might throw the same amount of picks as Vick, but he sure wouldn’t fumble at even close to the same rate.

  48. 48 TommyLawlor said at 2:32 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    No one says that scoring the TD doesn’t increase our chances of winning. Of course it does. A lot. The point is that you cannot say that it guarantees a win. Brandon Weeden’s INT ended the CLE game and guaranteed us a win. Maclin’s fumble at the end of the SF game last year guaranteed us a loss. Vick’s 1st Qtr fumble didn’t guarantee anything.

    As for mobile QBs…can’t make a blanket statement. Rodgers is a mobile QB and is great. Vick’s flaws exist for a variety of reasons. Not just his running ability.

  49. 49 Neil said at 3:06 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I’m not saying a TD guarantees anything either so we’re in agreement. However, why a play like Maclin’s fumble vs SF is a deathknell is not (quite) that it came at the end of the game but that it came after us playing the kind of game that a fumble on the final drive is the nail in the coffin. Put another way, turnovers at the end of close games are killer only because of what we did in the game before that point, so you can’t say a turnover at the end of the game is more costly than one at the beginning. Do you get what I’m saying?

    Also, don’t be silly Tommy; you can make a blanket statement. I just did.

  50. 50 aub32 said at 3:28 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Turnovers at the beginning of games are definitely less costly, because you have time to make up for them. If this were not true, why do we value players who are clutch. Eli isn’t criticized for throwing 3 picks against TB. He is celebrated for scoring 25 points in the 4th. This year we have overcome early turnovers twice and nearly a third time. Last year we saw how costly late turnovers could be in SF, BUF, SEA, etc.

  51. 51 Neil said at 3:33 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Not to be offensive man, but I think you valuing late turnovers as more costly is just a perceptual bias. Sure, you have time to make up for early turnovers, but are you going to? What it comes down to is, if you’re going to have 1 turnovers or whatever, are you going to be good enough the rest of the time to overcome that? The precise order for how it all happens is irrelevant except insofar as it affects playcalling and coaches’ decisions, which I agree can have an effect, but in my opinion not a significant one. You still win by being the team that was good enough that day to score more points.

  52. 52 phillychuck said at 5:56 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Roethlisberger is also a mobile QB. And a really tough one to eat late in a game, partially because of that mobility.

  53. 53 Harley said at 3:21 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I saw Tom Brady do the exact same thing yesterday against Denver (duck under no one, step up into the pocket and run right into a DT) and no one is complaining when he does it. It happens to them all.

  54. 54 Neil said at 3:36 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    This is a good point, and between this and what Tommy said I wouldn’t mind rewriting my thoughts on Vick with better examples. While I’ m not ready to change my opinion, I’ll admit I see it as very possible I’m committing a fallacy by building up a narrative for why Vick can’t play QB successfully anymore. I mean, all the facts I see really fit that narrative to me, but who knows if it’s really reality or just my perceptual biases.

  55. 55 Harley said at 3:42 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I’m not saying that I’m positive that Vick can play QB well enough for us to win a SB this year (is it possible – of course, but likely?). What I do know is that living in NY or as most of you live close to NY, it is becoming hard to ignore the Eli-type QB and want that for our own.

  56. 56 Zachary Kaplan said at 1:58 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I’m sure this puts me in the minority, but…

    I’ll take the 1-4 or 2-3 from the rookie over the 3-2 from Vick.

    I might have been alone all off season. I thought around the draft we needed to worry about the offense (offensive teams were winning, great WR’s, great QB’s). We have none of that.

    We’ve basically returned the medicore 2011 Eagles with a shiny new coat and called it a new team. This was a medicore team last year, with the addition of DeMeco Ryans, Fletcher Cox, and the subtraction of Asante Samuel and Jason Peters. We returned a under achieving team and anticipated different results….

    This brings me back to my point. 3-2 is basically 8-8 in my mind. We’re middle of hte pack. Sure we might make the playoffs, but does anyone anticipate us winning a game? Let alone 3 or 4? Can you picture Michael Vick winning 3 playoff games…in a row? This is a guy who has 2.2 Turnovers per game – and could have had another 4 or 5 in that strech, you can picture that guy winning the Super Bowl?

    So if it were my call. Give me the unknown who may suck, probably will suck, over the known who is going to be medicore. It was my point with Kolb over McNabb at the end. Kolb’s unkown out weighed McNabb’s medicore. I think we’ve reached that point with Vick versus Foles.

    Also if Jeff is looking at this as Reid’s last year (or Reid’s on a short leash), to me – from a owners perspective, I’d rather see the kid – who showed some promise against 1’s/2’s and 3’s in the pre seasn to figure out when my next coaching staff has at the QB position.

    Finally to finish my post – the best benefit of all – at 1-4 or 2-3 – we’d be that much closer to having a good team. Only way to win in the NFL when it matters is to have a QB who can put together consistent performances, and a losing record would give us a better shot at whomever the “best” QB in 2013 draft is supposed to be.

  57. 57 Zachary Kaplan said at 2:17 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    “Yeah, we lost yesterday. At Pittsburgh. Big Ben has one home loss to an NFC team in his career. You just don’t go in there and win much. They’re still the Steelers, at least in Pittsburgh. They’re 0-2 on the road. A loss against them isn’t the kind of thing that will send me over the edge for a QB change.”

    No offense Tommy – but this is the type of BS that drives me nuts (I said as much yesterday in my angry post after the game). The Steelers didn’t beat us because they are tough to beat at home for NFC teams, they beat us because they scored more points than us. They beat us because Mike Vick can’t hold the ball, and they beat us because they defense couldn’t get off the field when it mattered. They beat us because we have terrible clock management and throw away timeouts in close games. They beat us because despite their insane number of penalties and penalty yards (thank you refs) they played the better and smarter game.

  58. 58 Mac said at 9:45 AM on October 9th, 2012:

    I do think you need to tip the hat to Timmons on their D and Mendenhall on their O… those guys had really good games against us. (in other words it wasn’t “just” bad Eagles football it was also some good Steeler football)

  59. 59 Yuri said at 2:20 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I don’t think “We’ve basically returned the medicore 2011 Eagles with a shiny new coat and called it a new team” is a fair assessment, for 2 reasons.
    1) Pretty much every 2012 draft pick who was playing has worked out so far. Cox, Kendricks, Boykin, Foles, even Havili are upgrades. They built a better team this year. Sadly, subtraction via free agency is not same as subtraction by injuries, and Peters + Kelce are huge losses.
    2) We all agree that the 2011 team underachieved. I think in a hypothetical Monte Carlo simulation of the 2011 season, very few % of times would we be 8-8 or worse. At least 9-7 had to be the mean with that team. And we have a chance to eclipse hat.

    Finally, (now that Kolb is playing relatively well in AZ) sticking with Vick in 2012 allows us a bountiful offseason trade…

  60. 60 Zachary Kaplan said at 2:36 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Boykin’s is playing but I’m not sure he’s a ugprade in the slot over Hanson and his kick returning? Might as well put Lewis back there.

    Kendricks has been a nice suprise, I’ll give you that.

    Havili was drafted last year, but fine call him a upgrade, he’s a upgrade for the 8-10snaps a game he gets.

    I don’t see this as a much better team or a better team even than the 8-8 2011 Philadelphia Eagles.

    2012 -2011
    QB – Vick – Vick (only position that really matters)
    WR – Jackson – Jackson
    WR – Maclin – Maclin
    WR – Avant – Avant
    LT – Bell/Dunlap – Peters (sure injuries happen)
    LG – Mathis – Mathis
    C – Reynolds – Klece (same note)
    RG – Watkins – Watkins (awful draft pick)
    RT – Herremans – Herremans
    RB – McCoy – McCoy
    FB – Havili – Schmitt
    TE – Celek – Celek
    DE – Cole – Cole
    DT – Jenkins – Jenkins
    DT – Landri – Patterson (Landri was on the team)
    DE – Babin – Babin
    LB – Jordan – Rolle (Jordan was on the team)
    LB – Ryans – Chaney/Matthews
    LB – Kendricks – Jordan/Matthews
    CB – DRC – Samuels
    CB – Asomugha – Asomugha
    CB – DRC – Boykins
    CB – Hanson – Hughes

    I’m really not sure how one could look at this team and think we’re much different than 2011 (the 8-8 team). I’ll understand the arguments that this was the 8-6 team and Vince Young lost us 2 games or whatever it was exactly, but it’s medicore.

    Upgraded Positions:
    *DL (I don’t personally agree, but I can understand the argument)

    Downgraded positions:
    *Age – Herremans, Mathis, Watkins, Vick, Celek, Avant, Cole, Babin, Jenkins, Patterson, Landri, Asomugha, Ryans these are not young players just entering their prime, a downswing could be coming…and soon.

  61. 61 Harley said at 3:18 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Zach – the main issue I have with your post is calling the 2011 team mediocre. while the end result was 8-8 and “mediocre”, 1 nfl season is a very small sample. they could have returned the same exact team this year and gone 10-6 or 4-12, etc. then from there, to get the upgrades we did and improvement from young players, i see no reason this team can’t be a good one come playoff time.

  62. 62 Mac said at 3:30 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I agree with most of that except…

    Boykin > Hanson
    Cox > any other DT

    Just my opinion from what I’ve seen so far.

  63. 63 Kristopher Collins said at 5:15 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    props to monte carlo discussion on igglesblitz

  64. 64 TommyLawlor said at 2:50 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Zach, you really hurt your argument with some simplistic statements.

    3-2 is not 8-8. That projects to 9-6…which could go 9-7 or 10-6. Both records have won the NFC East in recent years.

    We’re not middle of the pack. We’re tied for 1st in the division. We’re clearly not some juggernaut team that is 5-0 and rolling, but you can’t ignore the fact we are in first place, even while we are flawed.

    Can Michael Vick win 3 or 4 playoff games? He got the Falcons to the NFC title game in 2004. He has had some postseason success. Can he win a SB? You never know that until you see it. How many of us thought Eli would win 2 SBs? That’s more than Randall, Marino, McNabb, Fouts, and Tarkenton combined and those guys are some of the best QBs of all time.

    “We’ve basically returned the medicore 2011 Eagles with a shiny new coat and called it a new team.” Yes, we did return the core of the 2011 team. We made changes to it. Some were improvements, others we don’t yet know about. We never said this was a rebuilt football team. The 2011 group didn’t need to be rebuilt. If you think so, then you have an opinion that is just out there and isn’t dealing with logic.

  65. 65 BobSmith77 said at 5:27 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    That’s the biggest dig on Vick. I have ZERO faith he can get this team as constituted to a Super Bowl by winning 2 or 3 games. I have my doubts on even winning a playoff game but that depends on the matchup.

  66. 66 LeQuan Glover said at 7:02 AM on October 9th, 2012:

    The 2011 Eagles team was 4-8, before playing the Jets, Redskins, Dolphins of the NFL. So, no, it wasn’t just a mediocre team. It was a bad team, and if we stay the course, soon enough there won’t be any little kittens for us to beat on. But teams that have as much talent as we do, who execute a whole lot better than us.

  67. 67 MichaelFloyd84 said at 2:31 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Tommy, I love you to death, but its crazy that you need 2 pages of Reid-speak analysis just to maintain the status quo. You’re too much like Reid in that you seem to not be open to change until it is WAY to late and past the point of being blatantly obvious to everyone. Why would Vick improve and protect the ball when he’s been steadily declining for 3 years now? We don’t need Foles to be Tom Brady, we just need him to not be completely terrible and lose us games like our current QB is. We know what we have in Vick and it’s time for a change.

    One more thing, if Reid can directly point to Akers two missed field goals in the green bay playoff game as the reason we lost, why can’t you admit that Vick fumbling away AT THE VERY LEAST 3 points in a game we lost by two is obviously as the reason we lost.

  68. 68 TommyLawlor said at 2:40 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Reid never said that the FGs were the reason we lost. He said they were “a reason” or part of the problem. And Vick’s fumbles were part of the reason we lost yesterday. No one disputes that.

    Why does everything have to be black or white? Football is a complex game played over 60 minutes by 2 46-man teams. Trying to pin an entire game on one play or one player seems incredibly short-sighted.

    No one wants the status quo. That’s why I said I want “Good Vick”. We saw him just last week. It isn’t like I’m asking for a player that doesn’t exist. Good Vick has been there for 2 of the last 4 games. Bad Vick showed up for the other 2.

    I do not think it is the least bit unreasonable to wait a few more weeks and see if Vick goes one way or the other. If he’s going to struggle, then I’m fine with making the change. But what if Good Vick shows up 2 or 3 weeks in a row and the offense gets on a roll? Isn’t that truly our best chance to have the season we want? Why not give that a chance?

  69. 69 Mac said at 3:24 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Personally, I’m blaming Riley Cooper’s collar bone.

  70. 70 TommyLawlor said at 4:02 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Now this I can get with. Riley isn’t getting enough blame.

  71. 71 MichaelFloyd84 said at 6:31 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    An in fairness, if we are playing half the season, one WR down, waiting for him to get healthy shouldn’t he be a difference maker? I had such high hopes for sunshine but he hasn’t lived up to squat. We DESPERATELY need a talented big wr but he doesn’t seem to be it. I’m done wait for guys that have proven to not be what we need.

  72. 72 MichaelFloyd84 said at 6:28 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Lets look at the Live win Probability graph I’m linking below.

    It’s mighty clear exactly when Vicks fumbles came. Those TWO PLAYS took the eagles from having a 70+% chance of winning to having a below 40% chance of winning. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to make the logical point that those two plays, both on Vick, BY FAR were the main culprit to us losing.

  73. 73 iskar36 said at 2:37 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    “While the offense isn’t scoring enough and the turnovers are killing us,
    Vick is coming up clutch. He’s played lights out in the 4th quarter.”

    You are absolutely right the Vick has been clutch in the 4th quarter, but I think the glaring issue is that Vick is also the one that put us in those positions where we needed to be clutch. Without 4 INTs in the first game, chances are we dominate the Browns. Without two fumbles against the Cards, chances are the game is at least slightly more competitive (I still think we lose, but like you said about this game, it certainly could have changed the complexion of the game). Without the two fumbles against Pittsburgh, more likely than not, that benefits us more than it benefits them at the end of the game (your argument that it happened early so didn’t cost us the game directly is valid, but a redzone fumble is a redzone fumble and that completely changes the momentum of the game, so lets not get carried away at minimizing the fumble). Finally, even in the game against the Ravens where Vick played ok (keep in mind, he still had 3 turnovers), without the turnovers, we could have had a more comfortable lead in that game.

    Vick is certainly not the only person who has struggled on this team, and the oline also has made it more difficult for him. That being said, in 5 games, Vick has 6 INTs, 8 fumbles (not counting the time he lost possession of the ball but got lucky for kicking a Steeler), and 5 lost fumbles. That is 11 turnovers in 5 games, or 2.2 turnovers per game. It is extremely hard to win in the NFL with that kind of ball security, and while you say Vick has played good enough to get this time to 3-2, I think it can be more accurately stated that this team is 3-2 in spite of Vick’s play.

    Now your other point about Foles being able to come in and be successful as a rookie is a valuable one. I agree that it is very unlikely that he steps in and is successful over a full season. Having said that though, I don’t think you are necessarily asking Foles to light it up. One of the things I liked from the preseason about Foles was his ability to get the ball out quickly. Even on plays where he progressed through his reads, he still was throwing the ball within 3 seconds. He wasn’t regularly trying to make huge plays, but instead trying get the ball out of his hands and to the weapons on the team. I think with the way the defense is playing and the weapons we have on offense, Foles can have success by continuing to do that (albeit team success, not necessarily individual success).

    More importantly though, I do think if you can get Vick to play as “good Vick”, you want him in there, so I am not saying bench Vick in favor of Foles by any means. What I do think should happen though, at this point, having been a TO machine all season, if Vick fumbles 3 times or throws multiple picks in a game again this season, you bench him to send him a message that he needs to change his approach. I’m ok with bringing him back in the following week as the starter, but at least you have jolted Vick in a different way than we have so far this season (because I am 100% certain the coaches have tried to find ways to eliminate the turnovers and it is not like they are ignoring it in practice).

  74. 74 TommyLawlor said at 3:06 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Vick killed us in the CLE game. That was a terrible showing.

    Shady and Bryce had crucial fumbles vs BAL. Vick’s INT didn’t have a huge effect since we got the ball right back and did score.

    But your overall point is correct. Vick is digging the hole and then getting us out of it. Would be nice if he would quit digging. 🙂

  75. 75 Neil said at 3:17 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Vick digging the hole is the crucial point that I’m glad Iskar pointed out. Question for anybody: if you switched Vick’s 1st and 4th quarters in all these games, how would you feel about his performance then? We would still have all of our wins, but it would be like last year when we would get nice leads, except this year we would barely avoid blowing them instead of actually blowing them.

  76. 76 Mac said at 3:23 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I think Tommy already addressed this point in a way… You can’t actually swap 1st and 4th quarters because that changes the dynamic of how the other team plays on defense and offense the rest of the game…

    I have traditionally hated the “clutch” term, but over the past few years of watching football I am becoming more convinced that it is valid.

    Had the defense held up during the Steeler’s final drive and got the stop, we win the game in spite of the warts.

    NOW, what I think is valid… is that our Defense is proving to be “clutch” most of the time. They have finished out games for us this year. Thank you Mr. Castillo.

  77. 77 Neil said at 3:27 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but I meant that question just as a thought experiment. Hypothetically, if Vick had 1 or 2 good TD drives in the first and had 1 or 2 turnovers in the 4th that nearly cost us the game, how would people feel about him?

  78. 78 Mac said at 9:42 AM on October 9th, 2012:

    Ok, I see how that is a different point… I think people would have a similar feeling about it. Frustrated, but happy with the win. Although he wouldn’t be labeled as “clutch” by anyone in that case.

  79. 79 Arby1 said at 9:28 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Even though I’m utterly frustrated with Vick, I agree that it’s too early to bench him. But I am wondering if teams have found a real weakness in Vick’s game and are exploiting it by tackling him around the arms causing the strips. Then there are the self-caused fumbles by his head first dives. I’m sure the coaches have preached a more conventional slide to him but to no avail.

    Vick made one other mistake that was a near interception when he tossed the ball high in the air after a huge rush. DeSean came back to break up a sure interception. Was he trying to throw it away? Hit DeSean? If you’re throwing it away, make sure you get it to the sidelines.

    This is the worst Vick has played since he came here and yet, the most clutch. Bottom line, the fumbles and interceptions are tolerable while we’re winning; when we lose, they’re intolerable. I’d say he’d only need one or two more games like yesterday to start warming the bench. I don’t have any illusions about Foles being a savior, but it’s worthwhile getting the new era underway if the current era isn’t working out.

  80. 80 aub32 said at 2:43 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    I don’t get why people don’t bring up the fact that with the exception of the Browns, the Eagles have gone against 4 of the top defenses. You can argue the Giants aren’t a top D, but their greatest strength is our biggest weakness. I believe the offense will pick up as we start to play the Carolinas, Bucs. and teams that fall into this category. We are 3-2, in the lead of the NFCE. We have played against the 2 toughest AFC opponents we will face this year and split them. That’s not terrible. Add to that Vick was able to move the ball effectively in both games. I am upset about the loss as well but think it’s way too early to start the Foles talk. Vick can win this division. NYG still has to play ATL, GB, SF, BAL, DAL, NO, PIT, WAS (which they lost to twice last year) and us again. I don’t see them running away with anything in the coming weeks. Dallas has looked really bad the last two outing and will now play Baltimore. And I don’t view WAS as a threat. We had a tough assignment to start the season and saw Vick play really well in the clutch in 4/5 games. Lastly, at least he hasn’t thrown a pick in the last 3 games.

  81. 81 TommyLawlor said at 3:00 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    A note to everyone…different opinions are a good thing. The world is really boring if we all think alike.

    You will help your opinion if you don’t make certain assumptions that are really opinions. I hate Jerry Jones with every fiber of my being, but I can write up a post either praising or bashing him. There are facts out there to support either conclusion. You must take facts and build an opinion around them. Giving us a conclusion based on an opinion only works if we agree with you.

  82. 82 ACViking said at 3:14 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    It’s been said somewhere: “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but lawyers must have facts for their opinion.”

    They don’t call him “T-Law” for nothing.

  83. 83 Brett Smith said at 3:25 PM on October 8th, 2012:


    And because I can’t miss a chance to kick evil JJ.

    I like the “Hate Jerry Jones” part… but it is hard to hate the guy who single-handedly keeps the cowboys in mediocrity.

  84. 84 TommyLawlor said at 4:03 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Great point, Brett. I should know a wise Eagles fan would point something like that out.

  85. 85 austinfan said at 3:04 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    While the turnovers are frustrating, as a QB Vick has improved substantially from the first game, despite a subpar offensive line. People talk about him leaving the pocket, but geez, you have to have a pocket to leave, when Reynolds and Watkins are still letting Timmons free runs through the “A” gap, when McCoy can’t block anyone bigger than he is (a good reason to replace him with Havili on obvious passing downs or go two back and just have him go out to the flat), Vick’s options become limited.

    What I liked against the Steelers was his accuracy, quick release and quick decision making. On the long routes, when he was given a viable check down he used it a few times. He threw the ball away a couple times instead of taking a sack. The fumbles were bad, but I think part of the progression, he’s trying to avoid the big hit, but just isn’t comfortable going down, he’s still trying to figure out that part of his game now that he’s become mortal.

    If Vick is progressing mentally, Reid can’t give up on him, because guys with his arm strength, quick release and accuracy don’t come along very often. The key is to keep MM under control, the ball control short passing game may not be exciting, but it’ll protect the OL until it jells, and keep Vick vertical. And if it doesn’t work out with Vick, Foles can step right into that system without making a lot of changes.

    One problem is it does require MM to rethink a lot of his offense, Childress could run this to perfection, Gruden would trade DeSean for a 6’3 220 lb WR who excretes glue from his palms but only runs 4.6, however, with the current personnel, unless Cooper steps in and plays a major role, I’d be watching lots of film of the Patriots.

  86. 86 TommyLawlor said at 4:05 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Vick is frustrating because he has shown some progress. He has played smarter in some ways. That gives you hope, but then he has the critical fumble and it makes you want to pull your hair out.

  87. 87 Elk Run said at 4:10 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Duh, I meant Clark on the tackle.

  88. 88 Davy Weale said at 4:30 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    The eagles are offensively complex. Andy and Marty think they can win chess matches with the opposing coaches. They have a thick playbook and they throw a lot of different looks. I think execution up till now has been a little lackluster, f$%#@in anemic by our standards, but Vick has looked really good at times, I’m actually quite impressed with his accuracy this year, anyway, the eagles have a tendency to get hot late, I don’t think this is coincidental, I think its going to take this offense a minute to get hot and consistent, due to these complex schemes. And when they do they will be dangerous. SOOOOOO much depends on the chemistry and ability of the O-line. Its no suprise the offense has been inconsistent, the line has been extremely inconsistent. What can we do to remedy the line? I don’t know, just hope they come together. Again, back to marty and andy, they like to run plays that take time to develop. . . . and, turnovers make me wretch.

  89. 89 BobSmith77 said at 5:37 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Seems like they have really simplified the playback the last few weeks and scrapped most of the stretch and screen plays because they realize this o-line just can’t execute on them.

  90. 90 Davy Weale said at 8:39 AM on October 9th, 2012:

    yeah, screens have been 5 yard kind of deals at best. With B west we were the best screen team in the league. No trickery, no reverses to desean, the inside shovel pass is gone probably because its very dangerous with a weak line, I think your right, with a solid line we’d be seeing more. But we are getting the extra shady touches which nobody is going to complain about.

  91. 91 miked718 said at 5:28 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Although I am concerned that with the continued TOs, Reid may have no choice but to bench him, he really is our best shot to win. Foles looked great, way better than Kafka on his best day and I hope is our next homegrown franchise QB (my love for McNabb has grown now that I don’t have to watch the shell of him play). That said the two biggest reasons for Vicks troubles IMO are both named Jason. Put Foles behind that line and he will get killed. Vick’s problem is that he’s trying to do too much once the play breaks down and it breaks down in record time with this OL. This also seems to be the reason why we can’t get our running game going against all these rested Defenses until the second half thereby forcing Reid and MM to call pass after pass to start the game. Oh how I long for the days of Peters tossing DEs and LBs on the same play. And Kelce’s beard was like a 6th lineman. I’m confident that over the next few weeks Andy and Co will figure out a way to be more aggressive with this OL.

  92. 92 BobSmith77 said at 5:36 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Posted in the last thread but Vick has been a TO machine and this is going back to the middle of ’10 (24 games). Vick simply isn’t going to be the kind of QB he doesn’t rack up his share of turnovers. Going to put tons of pressure on the defense in several capabilities including keeping the other team off the board, playing with short fields, and on the field longer.

    To his credit, Vick hasn’t forced many throws the past 2 weeks. That’s a plus. Given the issues with fumbles though, it kind of offsets it. Defenders are going to be tomahawking the ball too to try it knock it out from this point forward. One thing I haven’t seen brought up is much that new Kevlar flak jacket is interfering with Vick’s ability to feel the ball against his body and his overall speed a bit. Just doesn’t like he has quit the same escapability and raw speed in the open field.

    He deserves to be the starter yet but if he continues to be a turnover machine who average 1.5-2 turnovers a game over the next month plus while the offense scuffles then Reid needs to think about making a change.

  93. 93 BobSmith77 said at 5:56 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    This offensive line is really bad too. 2 guys who would start on most teams and Herremans ideally would be at a G position (Mathis and Herremans). Normally an offensive line can do at least one or two things well as a unit. I don’t see what the strength of this unit though is. Not a good running blocking team or a passing block team. Not terribly athletic or good situational awareness either.

    Just a bad overall group that isn’t going to improve much either with Kelce and Peters out the rest of the year. Best-case scenario is that Mathis and Herremans start playing a bit more consistently, Bell plays like he did during the Giants game (passable), and Reynolds/Watkins aren’t terrible.

    Last time the Eagles o-line looked this bad though was after Jackson got hurt at the end of the ’09 season the Eagles had to put Cole at C and Jean-Gillies at RG with Justice at RT & the Cowboys dominated the Eagles’ OL in the playoffs.

  94. 94 The_Reddgie said at 6:05 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Tommy, the 4th quarter drives are nice. You know what would be nicer? If he played that way the entire fucking game. I know you like to be a glass-half-full guy, but those fumbles are costly in more ways then just not putting points on the board. How do you think the defense feels when they get a 3 and out negated because Vick, er I mean God made Vick fumble as the team was going into the endzone to take an early lead? I bet they felt pretty fucking deflated.

    PS – Way to be accountable Vick. It’s in God’s hands? Fuck off with that bullshit. I would have more respect for him if he just came out and said “that is how I play, fumbles be damned, deal with it.” At least then he would be owning up to it, not pushing it off on God. What a joke.

  95. 95 MichaelFloyd84 said at 6:19 PM on October 8th, 2012:

    Chuck Klosterman quote from Grantland which seems appropriate here.

    “What’s happening with rookie NFL quarterbacks is the same thing that’s
    happened with freshman point guards in college basketball: The structure
    of the game has evolved in a way that instantly rewards the things they
    do well while de-emphasizing all the weaknesses inherent to
    inexperience. If a kid can physically make the throws, he’s more than
    halfway home; if he can’t intermittently compete right away, he’ll
    probably never be able to compete at all.”