« Evaluating Explosive Plays- Talent or Scheme? | Main | #17- Looking for Mismatches »

04/30/2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dan in Philly

Good analysis, thanks very much. I could quibble and say that some of the longer developing plays where there wasn't a short option was Chip trying to emphasize Jackson's strengths and they were coaching Foles to hold the ball, but I certianly defer to your study overall.

It is not an argument that Foles has a real problem holding the ball too long. Over at Football Outsiders, they show that Foles too 35% of his sacs as coverage sacs, which is 2nd worst in the league. If he got better at getting the ball out of his hands, he could last a long time in this league, but as it stands he'll not be able to last long taking the kind of pounding he's taking.

How much of this is coaching and a deliberate choice by Chip, and how much is a weakness Foles may or may not be able to address? From your quotes it seems that Chip wants guys who can get open fast and maybe in multiple ways. We'll see next week.

AndersJ

Guys like Sproles and Welker and the type of routes they ran is a big part of the fast release times from their QBs.

Look deep, nothing, dump to flat, was a big part of the Broncos and Saints offense

KJ

I think you also have to take into account how many times Foles did throw the ball away and what his throw-away rate was.I remember Foles throwing the ball away a lot. He did take sacks he shouldn't have, but at some point a quarterback is going to get frustrated with constantly throwing the ball away and will start trying to extend plays. A throw away post would be very interesting, which would cover throw-away totals, throw-away rate, throw-away decision making percentage(what percentage of throw-aways occur when a receiver was open or coming open), and by extension, throw-away adjusted completion percentage. Of course, any of this would become more interesting with league average thow-away rates. Apparently QBR does take into account throw-aways somehow, but I think it's just taken into account on a play-by-play basis rather than being incorporated as an independent accumulated total. Most of this data probably isn't readily available, but it should be.

Chipwagoneer

I agree with Anders...and I think it's a big reason the Eagles chose to trade for Sproles.

I am sure Chip would take a Welker or Amendola...but he seems to value versatility in his WRs and have guys who can play all positions. Not sure he would want a static slot WR.

There isn't much difference in the match-up of Welker vs. nickel DB and Sproles vs. LB. In the latter Chip is able to employ more versatility.

KJ, that is a good point. Honestly, going off memory...I don't recall Foles throwing the ball away much more than the average QB, although I haven't looked out for it. Would be interesting to know though...Also would impact his completion % if he was on the upper end of throwaways.

Brandon Blatnick

Based on Chip's comments, it sounds like he just wants more size in the WR position. If I remember correctly from his Oregon days, the WRs had pretty good height. It was the RBs that tended to be the small speed guys (LaMichael James, DeAnthony Thomas, etc).

I would also point out that I think a big reason for cutting DeSean was his 10m salary. That is elite WR salary range. And like Chip says that means you have the speed AND the size. If he was making say 6m or 7m he might still be an Eagle. I guess we'll never know.

Boney Curtis

It looks like we are quickly evolving into a hard nosed football TEAM . Chip wants guys who are all about "the cause" . Guys who are willing to fight for that extra inch.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment