WhitewalkerInPhilly

Dude, believe me, there was a time when I desperately wanted Foles to come here. He is, after long observation in my opinion: a journeyman QB who is a high level backup or a low end starter. And you know, what, that's cool. If you surround them with enough talent, and have excellent OC work and keep a steady run game and excellent defense, you can go very far. In fact, he might win a Super Bowl. But yeah, in STL with a poor OC and not a lot of weapons he didn't do well. By every measure, Tyrod did better this year with a poor OC and not a lot of weapons. Scheme. Coaching. Playcalling. The other 10 players on the field. All of these matter. Dropping Foles in here might have won a game or two more (maybe) but we have seen the drop off when he doesn't have elite talent around him.

Aww cute, you can cherry pick stats. Let's go a bit broader. This, Tyrod's worst year with us has him with .933 Touchdowns per game, 186.6 yards per game, completion % of 62.6% and 6.7 YPA In Foles year with the Rams, he was .636 Touchdowns per game,186.5 yards per game, a completion % of 56.4 and 6.1 YPA. And now, to reiterate: I AM NOT TAKING AWAY WHAT FOLES DID ON SUNDAY. It is, by every measure, fantastic. What I am saying to you is that scheme, coaching, playcalling and surrounding talent have contributed a lot to his successes, and when he hasn't had them, he has looked dreadful. The moral of this is NOT "I am standing up for Tyrod" I think we all know we have to move on. It's that, unless you have someone like Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady who seem to single handedly drag squads to the playoffs year after year Outside factors matter. If you are unable to differentiate that, I simply cannot help you.

Dude, you are not listening to us. Believe me, you are whistling a different tune if you have followed his career over the past five or so years like Philly natives have. You have not seen his bad games. His good games make Tyrod look small, but his bad games make Tyrod look like Russel Wilson. The last few years had seen a stretch of really bad play, and he didn't even throw the ball all preseason because he was rehabbing from an injury. Few GMs are going to throw big money at a guy whos last success was five years ago. You are basing this gut reaction based on one really, really good game. Yes, he had a very good run in 2013. It was also, as I have pointed out, with an offensive system that was brand new to the NFL which coordinators had not caught up with yet, along with a Pro Bowl level Desean Jackdon, Shady having his best rushing year ever, and an offensive line that was graded out as the best in the NFL. You are making a call 100% on hindsight, ignoring all the games from the past three years when Foles looked like a bottom feeder instead of an All Pro, and disregarding the fact that, gee, the Eagles are really good this year. Before Wentz was hurt, they were considered an early Superbowl Champ favorite, Wentz lead the league in touchdowns and they had the best third down conversion rating in the league by a large margin. Your logic is what made teams go "Maybe there is something is Matt Cassel, he led the Patriots to an 11-5 season after all one year after the 18-1 year"

He is great to listen to

Both sides had a chance where they had things that they both wanted and need the other side to give. There was a chance to offer a compromise, do more permanent fixes rather than kicking the can down the road. Which they did.

Dude. What 26CB and I are telling you is that we watched him. I watched him through his magic 2013 year, his mediocre until hurt 2014 year, saw him get benched in STL, really suck in the 2017 regular season, play an ok game vs Atlanta and one brilliant game vs. the Vikings. On average, he is a solid backup/mediocre starter. It's a toss up to me between him for Tyrod. He is a better pocket passes overall, but he really hits the skids for longer stretches and has no legs. I have seen him suck more and soar higher. Plop him in during the Roman and Lynn years, he is far worse than Tyrod. But him in with Rico and give both him and Tyrod Sammy, I think Foles wins. But let's not pretend that we have an all-Pro who was lying in the dirt. He's playing decent QB play with arguably the best O-line in the game, a bevy of receivers and a decent run game.

I'll admit, the Patriots deserve to be favorites here. You have a second year head coach leading a backup QB against a veteran Patriots squad. Brady is starting to show signs of slowing down, but he is still a top 5 QB. On paper, the Pats are absolutely the better team. For me, the X-factor is (as 26CB pointed out), is the Eagles D-line. It is legit, and Cox can deliver great interior pressure when he is hitting all cylinders. They try to get plenty of pressure with just 4 and play tight man coverage. It's the best defense for going against Brady. If they bring it, they have a chance.

Well, it lapsed back in November. It either takes true talent of mismanagement to let it slip that long, or about callousness to force it as a political football

I'm happy to see government on its way to open again. It's a pity that each party decided to take their chance to snipe at each other, and not actually fix a bunch of problems when they had the chance to.

Yeah. I remember Philly fans going 12 rounds about Foles: whether he was as good as 27:2, whether they should dump him and chase Mariota, is Bradford better than Foles? But I heard real doom and gloom over the last month. I will concede that he really turned it on last night, but everything I was hearing was about how they would approach Atlanta: don't ignore the run game (like Reid always does), set up play action, take points where you can get them and keep Atlanta off the field and out of the end zone. It was a winning formula.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html So please. inform me how this rejected prompromise differs from the requests outlined Please read earlier quote. $2.705 billion dollars for border security. The requested amount of border patrols for 2017 was met. What WAS NOT met entirely (though still partially funded) was the Wall. I have also previously outlined why that is a foolish proposal that if you presented blindly even libertards would call it wasteful government spending. If you know what is "actually going on" please provide me your information. You mean like how McConnell is preventing soldier from getting paid so he can cry wolf: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4710181/senator-mcconnell-objects-military-pay-protection

I posted this earlier. http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html So please. inform me how this rejected prompromise differs from the requests outlined

Fixed it for you. And oh, yeah, there WAS a bi-partisan offer for increased border security, ending chain migration for parents of DACA kids, and reworking the lottery system. Guess who 'effed it up?

It would make sense that they would agree to the Wall to get something they actually care about. As I joked elsewhere, a massive public works and infrastructure project that will require the seizure of land from private citizens, that will be applied broadly to all states on which it rests (and not up to the states themselves) with an uncertain long term funding that looks to cost taxpayers an untold fortune? Oh, and every expert, including the ones working for the White House say it won't do what it's supposed to. Are you sure this wasn't a liberal idea?

Dude, we know it wasn't binding. I am not so ignorant to think that what gets said by the president in a round table meeting is legally biding in regards to what legislation gets passed. Changes would (and often should!) get made. The problem isn't that, it's that when someone actually delivers on their end of the deal and you change your mind, you don't get to blame them for the deal falling through. Which is what has happened. I am also noting the change of tactics, where you have not refuted my details that a bipartisan group offered what the President said he wanted.

You know what I'm seeing here? Not any actual record of why I am incorrect. No sources to contradict me. Zero. Not even Daily Stormer articles. Just insulting me. Show me something that contradicts the numbers I showed. Tell me how it differs from what the president asked for on 11/9 when he said he would sign a bipartisan compromise: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-hosts-bipartisan-meeting-on-immigration-at-white-house-live-stream/ Or, are you just butt hurt that Donnie has so completely screwed up and gone back on his word?

OK. Show me your specifics on the compromise that was rejected. I know you like to call CNN Fake News, but it is at least fact checkable enough http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/17/politics/dreamers-bill-immigration-graham-durbin-congress/index.html

Really. Here is my source of what was being offered. https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880360/immigration-congress-bill-daca-trump what, specifically, are you disputing?

I would be willing to rake the Dems over the coals for playing hot potato. If they hadn't offered a bi-partison deal that gave Trump and the Republicans: Increased military spending increased border patrol inline with what Trump asked for reworking chain migration so that the parents of DACA kids can't get citizenship a bailout for letting CHIP (a very well liked bipartisan program) A legislative answer to DACA that the president ASKED FOR SOME funding for the Wall. You know, the massive public works and infrastructure project that will require the seizure of land from private citizens, that will be applied broadly to all states on which it rests (and not up to the states themselves) with an uncertain long term funding. Oh, and every expert, including the ones working for the White House say it won't do what it's supposed to. Are you sure this isn't a liberal campaign promise? But no, because poor people from sh*thole countries might be allowed to legally get in, let's shut down the federal government and then block attempts to pay our soldiers. Thanks Republicans!

Normally yes. But my wife (the Eagles fan) has a superstition about watching the games. We've been streaming the radio broadcast, and the Eagles have been winning when we listen that way. Hey, it's only crazy if it doesn't work.

I'm noticing that 26CB and I are the ones most on the "pump the breaks on Nick Foles" train, and I am pretty sure that we have watched more of him than 90% of the people on here. I live in the Philly market. My wife is a die hard Eagles fan. People are looking at the last two games, and are ignoring the rest of his career. Not that I'm going to slag on him. He is what he is: a high level backup/low level bridge starter. I was there to watch him when he stepped in for the last few weeks of the season, and let me tell you, Eagles fans were terrified. Pederson gave him a very vanilla offense in his first few weeks back, and he looked mediocre to terrible. In the meanwhile, they began to gameplan around his strength and weaknesses and unveiled a new Run Pass Option to play to his strengths and give him a bit more time. He also has the benefit of a solid O-line, a solid run game in Blount and Ajayi, and gets to throw to a receiving group that looked at Jordan Matthews and said "ehh, he's expendable" When he has a system he is clicking in, and high level support around him he looks pretty good. He has a few fantastic games, and rarely looks dreadful. When he has less talent and in a system that is not clicking (as in the 2014 Eagles season) he looks mediocre. When he has Jeff Fisher running the offense, he looks dreadful. Now, for the important part: I could replace 2014 Eagles with 2017 Bills with 2017 and Jeff Fisher with Rick Dennison, and TT would absolutely apply.

It would take a player giving Beane a concussion, that's what it would take. Beat me to it!

I'm not even sold with him when he's healthy. His best years were in 2016 and 2017, and even then he hasn't matched 2016 Ryan Fitzpatrick. Let that sink in a moment. Fitz 2016: 3905 yards, 31 TD 15 INT Bradford 2017: 3877 yards, 20 TD 5 INT

...when I remark about the coverage given in the exact article at the start of the thread? And remark on the overall reporting I've seen from that site? And then add my personal experience as to why I disagree with the premise that the article span (that Philly is full of vile fans, while the ones I've met have been perfectly friendly and welcoming). Yeah, absolutely nothing to do with the thread.