Why I Don't Favor 'Exfolesiating' the Eagles
I've gotten a few emails protesting that the furor over the Eagles bringing back Michael Vick for a year is overblown, that behind a horrible offensive line in 2012, Vick really wasn't all that terrible.
Why I Don't Favor 'Exfolesiating' the Eagles
Les Bowen, Daily News Staff Writer
I've gotten a few emails protesting that the furor over the Eagles bringing back Michael Vick for a year is overblown, that behind a horrible offensive line in 2012, Vick really wasn't all that terrible.
True, sure, as far as it goes. There are two reasons for the widespread dismay: Vick's concussion-marred, turnover-plagued 2012 followed a very similar 2011, behind a much better offensive line (the excuse then was the lockout), so most of us figured we had seen pretty much all we needed to see of the soon-to-be-33-year-old QB, and, maybe more significant, bringing back Vick means Chip Kelly can't be all that enthused about giving Nick Foles a year to see what he can do.
It's easy to say, "well, Foles doesn't move well, so he can't run Kelly's offense," and consign Foles to the dustbin. It sure looks like that is what is happening, although offensive coordinator Pat Shurmur talked Monday about an approach flexible enough to encompass the talents of both Vick and Foles.
A few weeks ago, Reuben Frank of CSNPhilly.com crunched some numbers on Foles' rookie season. Roob found that Foles' 60.8 percent completion percentage is fifth in NFL history among rookie QBs, behind some pretty notable figures -- Ben Roethlisberger, Robert Griffin III, Russell Wilson and Matt Ryan. Foles' average of 243 yards passing a game ranks third all-time, behind Andrew Luck and Cam Newton, neither of whom completed 60 percent of their passes as a rookie. Thus, Foles is the only NFL rookie, ever, to average more than 240 yards while completing at least 60 percent of his passes. (You could argue that Marc Bulger did this with the Rams in 2002, but he was not technically a rookie, having been on the roster behind Kurt Warner for two years, not playing.)
Foles threw an interception once every 53 attempts. In NFL history, only one rookie QB has had a better ratio, RGIII last season, one every 78.6 atempts.
So, since last time I looked, no quarterback ever won the Super Bowl with his feet, I was kinda looking forward to seeing what Foles could do this season. Am I certain he is a franchise QB? No. That's where the "this season" part comes in. I don't think the Eagles are winning the Super Bowl this year, whether Foles, Vick, Norm Van Brocklin or Peyton Manning is the QB. If Vick somehow manages to play, say, 14 games (you know he isn't playing 16), maybe they can go 8-8, if lots of other stuff falls into place.
Big whoop. Say you go 8-8, then what? Are you positioned to draft a franchise QB in 2014? Almost certainly not. Have you built anything for the future with Vick at the helm? Absolutely not.
I don't know Kelly well, obviously, but many of the "competitions" for a starting positiion I've seen that involved a guy making at least $7.5 million a year and a guy making $500,000 have been suspiciously weighted in one direction. The Eagles aren't paying Vick a $3.5 million signing bonus this April to trade him, or even to have him watch Foles from the sideline.
But if the Eagles don't trade Foles, and don't draft a franchise QB, maybe all Foles has to do is wait for Vick to eventually get hurt to get the chance Foles should be getting, right from the get-go, to show he is the guy.
Trading Foles at this point could be a huge mistake, unless you were getting back, say, a high second-round pick. I would guess there will be teams asking; plenty of people in the NFL understand that Super Bowls tend to be won with a quarterback's arm and head, not with his feet.
To me it is obvious that if Kelly is planning on using Vick, it is only for the purpose of preparing "the rest of the team" for the future. Kelly wants his offense to play a certain way and Vick is better suited to play that way.
Maybe it's me but I think the Eagles offense used to work pretty well. That's why I would have gone with Gus Bradley as my coach and built up the offensive line. With Bradley, the defense would have improved and with a strong line the Eagles could have passed and ran their way toward success. Foles showed enough to convince me that he had as much potential as any other rookie playing with an atrocious offensive line.— LasVegasScott- Chip doesn't want him, so Howie will trade him to KC for their 5th rd pick! Howie will then turn that pick into two 6th and two 7th rounders. Let's hope Rosebud has learned his lesson regarding "Quantity over Quality"!— cooperhawk
the O line needs depth, talent YES. keep Foles, he seemed OK. at least he seemed smart and made pretty quick decisions. Vick is better at running, but patience for pass routes suffers. but again, have to agree about protection break downs. THAT WAS REID's fault... AND Marty, imo. call a better game to alleviate that. it just continued, got worse... coaches had no answers, no consistency. and that's been going pn more than last year. i think reid's personal problems and wearing too many hats caught up to him. wish him the best in kc, but glad there was a change.— tfcino1- Just as no one knew who was actually doing the drafting, the Vick re-signing smells alot like Lurie and baby howie wanting national media attention than Kelly wanting a QB.
§
— Quixote II - TRULY only one choice this year for QB and that is FOles.....Kelly should have cut him and see what he has this year with Nick. Good point that if in fact Vick somehow lasts 16 games and goes at best 8-8 so what do you do next year.....go with a 35 year old vick....makes ZERO sense.
— RealizticFan - It never ceases to amaze me how some fans, and coaches can be so enamored of the "athletic" "running" quarterbacks given their history for not being winners. A previous post listed the Super Bowl winning QB's from the last 10 years. Beyond that, look at the QBs who are thought of as the most successful, i.e. the ones who have won the most Super Bowls: Bradshaw, Montana, Aikman, Brady, et. al. Beyond that look at other successful QBs who didn't win as many Super Bowls: Elway, Marino, etc... All pocket passers. Look at the history of Eagles QBs, all "athletic" runners: Cunningham, McNabb (when he was younger), Vick. You can go all the way back to the original scrambler, Fran Tarkenton. Not a Super Bowl among them. That is why I am disappointed to see Vick coming back and not seeing what Foles can do. Foles fits the mold of the winning quarterbacks.— StevenDavid
- I must be taking crazy pills. Foles will NEVER be the guy in a Chip Kelly offense! The Eagles FO would never have hired Kelly if they had any vision of Foles leading this team. Why are we talking about Foles as though he is relevant to the ongoing fortunes of this team in anything other than a "if disaster strikes" situation? If we had hired a Bill Cowher, a Mike McCoy, then perhaps. If we could get a third round pick for Foles (no chance) than we should absolutely take it. Vick has one year to show he can conduct this particular orchestra, and they absolutely made the right decision to give him that based on their options. Speaking of Vick, any other guy would at least be appreciated for his consistently tenacious effort on the field and his willingness to restructure for the team. Remember -- Marty and Reid are now the problems of other extraordinarily unfortunate franchises. Look for Kelly to engineer a fairly dynamic offense with Vick in the short-term and find his Kaepernick, Wilson, RG3 in the next couple years for the longer haul.— auntesther
- again....yes the o-line was better in 2011 but they tried to make Vick stay in the pockets and he was not able to play his style...... Vick is not a pocket passer. Hes not the greatest but hwe will be much better in the Kelly scheme more to the form he was prior to eagles awarding him the big contract when they changed his play— kidrocco
- Thank you Les Bowen for providing a common sense reality check to the Vick resigning. The 2013 will be a complete and utter waste with Vick at the helm. I won't watch one game if he's announced as the starter.— bdd5014
- Great point Quixote, I was thinking same thing, maybe Lurie like the Vick attraction aspect. As seen on this sight and espn comment boards, there is a legion of foolish fans who idolize Vick for reason unkown since his track record flat out stinks, yet they continually want him to get another shot. Well, its always everything else surrounding Vick thats the problem, not Vicks actual QB skills. "Their Cleveland Browns defense should help with that too." best line in a long time, had me laughing Bartleby.— peteike
- THERE IS NO ONE ON THIS TEAM THAT IS NOT TRADEABLE OR CUTABLE.......If they were any dam good, we would not have been so stinking bad.....and if foles is so dam good that AR would make him the QB of the future...then trade him to KC for a 5th or 6th round pick.....with what we have, a 5th, 6th or 7th round college pick has more upside than the drek on this squad.....— nuggett
- Hiring Chip Kelly was a mistake. We could have Gus Bradley as our coach, and Nick Foles as our QB. Our defense would have been more solid, and we wouldn't be scratching our heads how to make this gimmick offense work with a fragile and aging turnover machine QB.
Finding an efficient run-option QB is very rare for the NFL, but this is what is necessary for Kelly's offense to work. When this experiment blows up in Jeffrie and Howie's faces, get ready for a ton of excuses.— EmanuelP - From the records Les brought up in the article to the history of super bowl winning quarterbacks, it's pretty obvious that Foles should be the starter moving forward.
That's exactly why he has no chance with the Eagles. They are WAY TO SMART to ever make the obvious decision. And that's been working so well for them.— atb124 - Vick wins the (heavily stacked) competition for the starting job, goes down for the season with an injury in game 1 or 2. We will see a lot of Foles next year, and I think he will do very well.— Dickie34
- If the 2012 draft had a do over, I would pick Foles around #25, one slot behind where Aaron Rodgers went (who would go number one in a do-over of his year). It's way too early to say anything more than that. Based on his rookie season, he is the best quarterback available in the NFL or draft, the most likely guy to become an Eli Manning or Joe Flacco. We'll know more in a couple years, if the Eagles are smart enough to start him for 16 games this year.
There is no benefit to starting Mike Vick -- it won't even get more wins.
Foles had his pretty good rookie year behind one of the worst offensive lines I've ever seen.— armchairGM
